Corpus of works with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite in Old Russian literature

(Problems and objectives of study) 1. In 1371, in the Balkans, the monk Isaiah completed his translation from Greek into Slavic of the corpus of works attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite (disciple of the Apostle Paul, the first bishop of Athens), with comments on them by Maximus the Confessor, undertaken by him under the “coercion” of Metropolitan Theodosius of Serbia. In his wonderful preface 1, Isaiah writes: “I am afraid that I have changed Saint Dionysius,” speaks of the “heaviness of translating” from the Greek “into our language,” recalls the good times, “when the divine churches and the Holy Mountain of Heaven were like flowers, as if we were watering a certain garden with springs,” - when he began his translation, and talks about the onset of “the most evil of all evil times” - we are talking about the conquest of Serbia by the Turks - when he finished the “translation”. Problem one: why exactly in the third quarter of the 14th century. Is there a need for such endless and extremely difficult work as this translation? Why not earlier and not later? 2. Back in the 14th century. or at the very beginning of the 15th century. The monk's translation of Isaiah became famous in Rus'. The oldest surviving Russian list of it is: GBL, MDA fund. (f. 173), No. 144, 429 paper. l. - made by the hand of Metropolitan Cyprian (therefore, before 1406, the year of his death). The writing here is much more careless than in the Ladder of 1387 (GBL, MDA fund., No. 152), where Cyprian clearly imitates the dapper Greek calligraphy, but more neatly than in the Psalter with invocations written by him (GBL, MDA fund., No. 142). There is no preface by Isaiah in the Cyprian List, but the translation of Isaiah is here. The text of Dionysius the Areopagite, highlighted by a column of “commas” in the margin and the word “Lying” (translation of the Greek κείμενον), is interspersed with the comments of Maximus the Confessor, marked by the word “Interpretation”; Digital marking helps to find the corresponding places in the text and commentary. Cyprian's list often contains marginalia of various kinds and nature. Many of them belong to the number of interpretations of Maximus the Confessor: when they are not very large, Cyprian places them in the margins next to the place being interpreted. In the comments there are also drawings that illustrate the idea: for the most part these are lines descending from one point (an inverted fan), explaining the division of the genus into species, for example, the division of “beings” into “non-animals” and “living”; living - on “the dumb and above (i.e., below, - G.P.) us” (animals), verbal “in the body” (people) and “incorporeal and more (i.e., above, - G.P.) us” (angels) (fol. 26 of the manuscript). Many of the marginalia can be mistaken for belonging to the metropolitan scribe; Thus, Leonid, the author of the description of the manuscripts of the Moscow Theological Academy, writes about the Cyprian list of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite: “. . .there are many notes in the margins by Metropolitan. Cyprian, in which either the meaning of speech or the meaning of words is explained." 2 On the top margin l. 65 vol., for example, we read: “skutavati - reksha cover”; on the bottom field l. 155: “In this interpretation it shows that a thing (matter is called a thing in the broadest sense - G.P.) was not pre-existing, then from it God created species, but together - the thing and the species. Precisely the wise and with one word will foresee one thing”; on l. 422 vol.: “The Cyclades say the Surrounding Islands.” Many such examples could be given. 3. The GPB preserves another, even earlier than Cyprian, list of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite - Gilf., No. 46, 1°, 368 f. This is a Serbian manuscript of the 14th century, originating, as records show, 1579, 1711. and 19th century on sheets pasted on the inside of the binding covers, from the Monastery of the Archangels Michael and Gabriel in Kolasin (Grcegovina). The list is remarkable primarily for the dating of the watermark (“snake”) of his paper – 1370–1371. 3: the translation itself, as we remember, was completed by Isaiah in 1371. Apparently, this is one of the closest copies in time to the translator’s original, to the copy of Isaiah himself (after all, there must have been one!). This manuscript is also remarkable in another respect - the placement of the text of Dionysius the Areopagite and the text of the commentaries: the first is written large, in a column, covering two-thirds of the working space of the page, the second is placed on the remaining third at the outer edge of the sheet, written in the same handwriting, but much smaller. Therefore, here, unlike even the list of Metropolitan Cyprian, not to mention later copies, it is impossible to confuse the commentary and the commented on and it is very easy to find what refers to what. The corresponding places here and there are usually located side by side and neatly marked with alphabetic numbers. Sometimes the commentary continues on the bottom margin of the page (see, for example, l. 15 vol., 165 vol., 231 vol.), sometimes - especially at the end of chapters or at the end of works - it extends across the entire width of the working part of the page, following the commented text (see, for example, l. 19 vol. - 20, 20 vol. - 21, 21 vol. - 22, 30 vol. - 31 vol.). But due to the fact that in these cases (i.e. always) the commentary is written much smaller than the text itself, it is impossible not to distinguish them. One of the main, most pressing tasks associated with the corpus of works inscribed with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite in ancient Russian literature, more precisely, in Slavic literature, is the publication of the Isaiah translation. The current edition of it, as part of the Great Menaia Chetii of Metropolitan Macarius 4, was made according to copies that were late for this translation (16th century) and is extremely difficult to understand, first of all, because the comments of Maximus the Confessor are printed as they were written in the manuscripts on which the publication is based, interspersed with the text of Dionysius, often breaking it off in the middle of a sentence. It should be printed in two columns, using a narrower column and a smaller font for interpretations of Maximus the Confessor, as was done in the GPB manuscript, Gilf., No. 46. In the “basement”, in the notes, when necessary for understanding, one should give the expression of the original Greek and give its translation into modern Russian. 4. In the list of GPB, Gilf., No. 46, in the margins there are, as a rule, small and finely written notes in the same hand as the entire book. Comparing them with the marginalia of the Cyprian list, we are convinced of their identity. This means that they do not belong to Cyprian, but go back either to the translator Isaiah, or even further - to the Greeks. A few examples of such notes: “Collection (meaning συλλογισμός - “syllogism” - G.P.) understand here the hedgehog from the wise man is verb" (MDA, No. 144, l. 66 vol.; Gilf., No. 46, l. 52); “He creates in a thing, in a tree a rex, a bed or a table: the tree is a thing, the view is a table and a bed” (MDA, No. 144, l. 108 vol.; Gilf., No. 46, l. 89); “The church is for the sake of the veil, but the veil of the church is not removed” (MDA, No. 144, l. 145; Gilf., No. 46, l. 121); “Goods, reksha, clothes, churches and other many different good things” (MDA, No. 144, l. 168; Gilf., No. 46, l. 139 vol.). There are a lot of such notes in general, some of them are extremely brief (“brekhatelno” - MDA, No. 144, l. 175; Gilf., No. 46, l. 144 vol.), others are very lengthy (for example: “If someone blames someone, saying: there is something from the real lies, it will be dark and dark, but there will be nothing. Even if someone talks about being a goat, even if it seems like something happened, it is truly a lie. The lie, having appeared, was destroyed, and with the prophetic, it was a goat's hed: neither is there a goat's heel, nor was it; and by action and feeling there is a lie,” - MDA, No. 144, l. 174; Gilf., No. 46, l. 143 vol.). In the edition, all these marginalia (by the way, in the Gilf. list, No. 46, there are more of them than in the Cyprian list - MDA, No. 144) should also be reproduced in the margins, that is, without combining them with the commentary, since many of them are a commentary on Maximov’s commentary. Several leaves at the beginning of the manuscript Gilf., No. 46, have been lost; the text begins immediately with the second chapter of the essay “On the Heavenly Hierarchy.” Therefore, it is impossible to say whether this list was opened with a preface by the translator. 5. According to a brief review of the collection of manuscripts of the Kharkov Scientific Library. V. G. Korolenko (KhGNB), there is now a manuscript of the translator of Isaiah himself - “a collection of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite of 1371, which belonged to the Serbian monk Isaiah” - KhGNB, No. 819168. 5 The conclusion that the manuscript belonged to the monk Isaiah was made, however, only on the basis of the presence of the translator in it preface, – Η. P. Zhinkin took it as a postscript, therefore, as the autograph of the translator. In fact, the manuscript is dated by the watermark of the paper (“head of a bull”, according to the album of N. P. Likhachev, No. 1173, 1174–1492, No. 3516–1473, No. 3517–1481; according to the Briquet album, type No. 14802–1476), the last quarter of the 15th century. 6. Isaiah's translation of Dionysius the Areopagite with interpretations of Maximus the Confessor became more widespread in Rus' than one might expect, given the extreme complexity and sometimes obscurity - especially in the literal Slavic translation - of the meaning of these texts. It is also very curious that over time, interest in the works of the Areopagite did not decrease in Rus', but increased, and quite sharply. The collections of manuscripts of the GBL, State Historical Museum and BAN number 4 lists of the 15th century, 6 11 lists of the 16th century, 7 23 (!) lists of the 17th century, 8 6 lists of the 18th century. 9 and three lists of the 19th century. 10 To this it should be added that in 1675, the corpus of works of Dionysius the Areopagite was translated again and prepared for printing by the monk of the Chudov Monastery Euthymius, but for some reason was never published (it is stored in the Synodal Collection of Manuscripts). More than a hundred years later, the monk Moses made and published in Moscow a new translation of the books “On the Heavenly Hierarchy” and “On the Church Hierarchy” (in 1787). In 1825, the essay “On Mysterious Theology” was published in the journal “Christian Reading” (No. XX). In the 19th century these works were reprinted several times; Only the treatise “On the Names of God,” the largest and most difficult, remained unpublished in Russian. 7. The body of works of Dionysius the Areopagite consists of the books “On the Heavenly Hierarchy” (or “The Hierarchy”), “On the Divine Names” (or “On the Names of God”), “On the Church Hierarchy” (in the Slavic translation: “On the Church Hierarchy”), “On Mysterious Theology” and 10 epistles to various persons. In the text of these existing works there are references to other, unknown to us, works of the same author: “On angelic properties and ranks”, “On the soul”, “On righteous and divine justification”, “On divine hymns” (in the Slavic translation - “songs”), “On the intelligent and sensual”, “On theological images” (“On theological sub-images”), “On figurative theology” and “On the symbolic (or “significant”) theology." The books “On the Heavenly Hierarchy” and “On the Church Hierarchy” can be considered as one group, and the books “On the Divine Names” and “On Mysterious Theology” as another; before the essay “On the Divine Names” there should have been an essay “On theological sub-images”, and after it, as is clear from its ending, there should have been an essay “On symbolic theology”, which we also know from the Epistle to Titus the Hierarch (§ 1). 8. Those works with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite that have come down to us became known in 532 in Constantinople at a private council: the Severians (moderate Monophysites) made reference to them as the works of a highly authoritative author. The Ephesian Bishop Hypatius, who presided over this council, doubted their authenticity. 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 (XVII, 34) - has been a persistent companion to these works. 9 . 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 Dionysius the Areopagite (as I will continue to call this author): he often speaks of a certain Hierotheus as a highly respected and widely known teacher and sometimes quotes him; He also mentions certain Justus and Bartholomew; nowhere else these faces are unknown. Timothy, disciple and companion of St. Paul, the author calls παίς - “child”, 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, Dionysius the Areopagite knows the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John, written when he, i.e. the real Dionysius the Areopagite must have been a very old man (the exact time of his death is unknown: around 95, under the Emperor Domitian, or around 120, under the Emperor Hadrian); He also found a quotation from the Epistle of Ignatius the God-Bearer to the Romans (“my love was crucified”), written no earlier than 107–115. Fourthly, in the book “On the Church Hierarchy” the author talks about ancient teachers and ancient traditions, while if he is really Dionysius the Areopagite, then he is a contemporary of the first Christians. Fifthly, in what the author says about the structure of churches, about worship, rituals, clergy and monks (he often calls them, like Philo of Alexandria, “therapists”), many features of a later time are seen. Sixth, the completeness and elaboration of the theological and philosophical system of the Areopagite seems just as anachronistic, possible only at a much later time than the 1st-beginning of the 2nd century; They believe that “there was no one to write such works as the Areopagite ones in the first and early second centuries.” 11 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 that became common in the 3rd-4th centuries is suspicious. And, finally, in the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, not only ideological, but also textual coincidences with the “Fundamentals of Theology” of the pagan Neoplatonist of the 5th century are seen. Prokla. All this prompted us to call the author we are interested in Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and consider him a writer of the second half of the 5th century who tried to combine Neoplatonism with Christianity. The author’s orthodoxy, however, is beyond doubt: “As for the religious system of the Areopagite writings, in it all obviously false and contrary to Christian 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 St. is revealed correctly, albeit briefly. Trinity, about the incarnation of the Son of God and so on. 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 teaching bears obvious traces of its influence. 12 But, apart from the peculiarities of “the presentation of some particular subjects of Christian doctrine,” it makes no difference whether the author of the Areopagite works lived in the 1st-2nd centuries. or in the 5th century - these works are works of a transitional era; they have such a general quality that arouses special interest in them precisely in transitional eras. Their influence on such thinkers as John Scott Erigena, Nicholas of Cusa, Marsilio Ficino, Pico della Mirapdola is known. It is no coincidence, of course, that the sharp increase in interest in Dionysius the Areopagite in Orthodox countries in the 14th century, during the era of hesychast disputes: Barlaam of Calabria, an opponent of the hesychast mystics, and Gregory Palamas, their defender, were both constantly referred to the “divine Donisius”, quoted him, looked for support in him for their directly opposite statements. The crisis era of “Byzantine humanism”, “Christian humanism”, “pre-renaissance” and at the same time “Orthodox revival” is colored by the strong influence of the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite; and it is precisely at this time that the need arises to translate them into the Slavic language and they gain access to a huge new readership. The next “peak” of interest in them - already in Russia - falls, as the review of Russian lists of them given above shows, in the next transitional, ideological-crisis era - the 17th century. Works with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite are a special and significant phenomenon in pan-European culture, and therefore historians of ancient Russian culture should not continue to ignore and discuss the very fact of their appearance and presence in ancient Russian literature. This is perhaps the most important task of Slavic medievalists related to the Areopagite. 10. Although doubts about the authorship of Dionysius the Areopagite arose, as I have already said, simultaneously with the discovery of the works attributed to him in the 6th century, it prevailed and dominated until the 15th century. view of them as his authentic works. I will tell you the reason for this below. The author was identified not only with the first bishop of Athens, but also with the enlightener of Gaul, Dionysius (Saint-Denis) of Paris. As a result, there was great interest in Areopagite works at the University of Paris. They had a serious influence, in particular - especially with their teaching about evil as the deprivation of good, about something dependent - on Thomas Aquinas. In the 16th century again and louder voices of doubt about the authorship of Dionysius are heard (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. scientists from Protestant countries. Repeated attempts have been made to indicate the “real” author of the book and letters that make up the corpus that occupies us. But they all remain at the level of assumptions. 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). The most coherent, practical and impressive of the “positive” pictures is still the picture created by these works themselves with the commentary on them by Maximus the Confessor. And therefore, there will probably always exist “deniers of deniers,” who believe that they will be less mistaken by believing in the authenticity of the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite. It was the comments of Maximus the Confessor (died in 662) that overcame the doubts of skeptics in their time and allowed Areopagite writings to become an important part of European medieval culture - both Byzantine-Slavic and Western European, and then the culture of the Renaissance. 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? 11. As we know from the Acts of the Apostles (XVII, 13–33), Paul, during his second missionary journey, around 50, fleeing from angry Jews, leaving his companions Silas and Timothy, left Berea for Athens. There he decided to wait for them in order to follow them to Corinth, the administrative center of the Roman province of Achaia. Seeing many altars and statues in Athens, Paul was “troubled in spirit” and began preaching in the synagogue there and in the square. “Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to argue with him” (XVII, 18). Interested in his teaching, they invited Paul to the Areopagus and asked him to speak out in more detail, for “all the Athenians and the foreigners living among them did not spend their time doing anything better than talking or listening to something new” (XVII, 21). But Paul tried to connect the topic of his speech with the teachings they knew: “Men of Athens! . . .passing and examining your shrines, I found an altar on which is written: “To the unknown God” (τω άγνώστω θεω). This, whom you, not knowing, honor, I preach to you" (XVII, 22-23). Paul further spoke about the act of creation, about the fact that everything lives and exists insofar as it “participates” in God (“In Him we live, and move, and have our being,” XVII, 28), about the need for knowledge of God and repentance, about the resurrection of the dead and righteous judgment. “When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed, while others said: We will listen to you about this at another time” (XVII, 32). Some nevertheless believed in his words and continued to meet with him - “among them was Dionysius the Areopagite” (XVII, 34). Such is the information concerning Dionysius the Areopagite from the Acts of the Apostles. Reading the Areopagite writings with their assertion of the complete unknowability of God, one can recall the words about the “unknown God” with which 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 by Dionysius the Areopagite. And this seems natural precisely for Dionysius the Areopagite mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. In the commentaries and commentaries on the commentaries we find explanations of 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, and what was the position of Athens under the rule of the Romans. 13 Dionysius was a member of this supreme court. Having been converted to Christianity by Paul, Dionysius “cultivated as a teacher from Erotheus the Great, as if he himself would speak,” 14 “according to Paul, he was taught by Saint Hierotheus,” 15 Paul was their “common mentor and leader,” for “and Saint Hierotheus was taught by Saint Paul.” 16 Dionysius could communicate with Paul even after he left Athens - during Paul’s one and a half year stay in Corinth (see: Acts of the Apostles, XVIII, 11). From the seventh book of the “apostolic commandments” it is known that Dionysius “from Paul who believed in Christ” was made a bishop 17. Timothy, one of Paul's companions, later became the bishop of Ephesus. Coming from the provinces (see: Acts of the Apostles, XVI, 1), he had a difficult time in debates with the Greek philosophers there: Ephesus was one of the largest centers of Greek philosophical thought, and “Ionian philosophy was established there.” 18 And Timothy turned for help to the Athenian Dionysius. “Even in Ephesus, the love of wisdom asked St. Timothy about certain things, and especially about external wisdom. Saint Timothy suffered from them, asking Saint Dionysius about them - as he is skillful in wisdom. And as much as you asked him, you strive to write the divine words to him.” 19 This explains why all 4 books of Dionysius the Areopagite that have come down to us are addressed by him to the “priest Timothy”: “The greatest number of letters to write to the blessed Timothy, disciple of the holy Apostle Paul, bishop of Ephesus.” 20 One of the reasons for writing the essay “On the Divine Names” was Timothy’s sending to Dionysius “copies” of St. Hierotheus with a request to explain them - “to say and share what was suppressed by Saint Hierotheus.” 21 There is also an explanation in the comments of why Dionysius, having become a Christian bishop, continued to be called the Areopagite: “It is fitting that knowledge (this is a mistake, it should be: “nicknaming” - G.P.), even in name, was still existing, these saints and after turning to Christ, the devil was attributed to themselves. Behold, and eat the “Areopagite" for yourself. And the divine Justin in the same “To the Hellenes” word “Justin, - attribution, - Philosopher." 22 The first 4 of the 10 messages of Dionysius the Areopagite are addressed to “Gaius the servant,” in Greek “therapist” (θεραπευτή), i.e., a monk. Maximus the Confessor believes that this is the same Gaius to whom “the third epistle was written by the divine evangelist John.” 23 In the seventh letter, “To Polycarp the Saint,” Bishop of Smyrna, Dionysius the Areopagite recalls how he and the philosopher Apollophanius observed in “Solnchigrad,” Egyptian Heliopolis, an unnatural eclipse of the sun “returning” and then the moon returning to its normal course across the sky, which happened on Good Friday. Commenting on the last, tenth, letter of Dionysius to John the Theologian on Fr. Patmos, Maximus the Confessor also recalls the letter to Polycarp in order to calculate the chronology of the last works and the life of the author: “It is understood from this letter and from the hedgehog to Saint Polycarp, the seventh being, that the great Dionysius was, when this was written, in the summer of a certain nine-tenth. In the hedgehog to Saint Palikarp (epistle - G.P.) he says, while staying in Egypt in Solnchigrad, to see through nature the former impoverishment of the sun into the saved crucifixion of the Lord, which happened in the 18th year of the reign of Tiberius. . . Saint John was imprisoned on the island of Patmo, which is one of the Cyclades, in the final year of the Domentian kingdom. Tsarstova is 15 years and 5 months. It is collected from 18 years of Tiberius, when there was impoverishment quickly, even until the death of Domentian, 64 years old and nowhere in the month 7. Let us put the divine Dionysius, even in the crucifixion of the Lord (eclipse - G.P.) in the form of 25 in the summer, for the hedgehog. . as if everyone would be only nine-ten-six years old.” 24 The essay “On Divine Names” reveals the author’s familiarity with the Apocalypse of John the Theologian, written, as is known, during his exile to Fr. Patmos. The commentator on this occasion notes: “To be worthy of the sign (that is, worthy of attention - G.P.), as if to accept the Revelation, like this holy Dionysius in the saints of John the Evangelist, there is a saying ce. And as if there was a divine evangelist in Patma, he saw the revelation, led by Saint Dionysius. And you learned this from the tenth epistle, his ambassador to the Theologian of Scripture.” 25 From this it follows that Dionysius must have written his theological books, at least the essay “On the Divine Names,” to “his fellow priest Timothy” at the age of about a hundred years. 12. Maximus the Confessor, as I have already said, played a decisive role in recognizing the reality of the authorship of Dionysius the Areopagite. He answered a number of questions that raised doubts. Why didn’t Eusebius and Origen know Dionysius? “To her, they say, but there is no such thing as Eusebius Pamfilov and even Origen wrote. It is worthy of speaking to them, for Eusebius left much, much that did not fall into his hands. . . We don’t know Origen, and I barely remembered all of them (other authors - G.P.).” 26 Regarding the similarities between the Areopagite writings and the works of the Neoplatonist Proclus, Maximus the Confessor notes: “It must be said that the sage, and even more so Proclus, from outside, should accept the works of the many blessed Dionysius in the words of the writings and with the very same speeches,” i.e. he asserts that the author of the works that occupy us borrowed from Proclus and other “external wise men,” and they said to him: “For the thief is the devil and ours to speak words to his prophets. . . .not only now, but even before the coming of Christ, there is usually a sense of the external wisdom of our beings. Elma Necia says not to be a holy (Dionysius the Areopagite - G.P.) copying, but of something like the last of those who were, needlessly and renounced, of no one and without a place to believe that, lying to himself, as if to cohabit with the apostle and send (epistles - G.P.), with them it was not when, when byahu, no send. And to conceive a prophecy to the Apostle John, while in captivity, that he would return to take packs to the land of Asia and the usual teaching to have - behold, a strange miracle is glorious for the man and I prophesy the glory of the frantically catching one. And to speak to him at that very time of the saved passions in Solnchigrad, together with the existence of the Apolophany, to see and philosophize about solar impoverishment, as if not according to food, nor according to the custom that existed then, to speak to him with the apostles to be in the wear of the holy relics of Holy Mary the Mother of God, and to pronounce the words of Hierotheus, his teacher, from the likes of the funeral words about her, to conceive both epistles and words as proclaimed to the disciples of the apostles, - there is so much lack of place in this and for the sake of being received by a person, and not just a husband who was only brought up and according to custom and reason - and to surpass all feelings and to the intelligent to unite with kindnesses and for those sake, as powerful, oh my God! 27 That is, a falsifier could not, says Maxim the Confessor, write so brilliantly. “Genius and villainy are two incompatible things.” “What a child (πόας) is called the divine Timothy the great Dionysius, worthy of being sought. Or, as I think, - argues Maxim the Confessor, - for having surpassed the years, this is the verb and the wisdom of wisdom, as if it were a question of how to show this in the hands of writing off. Even though Saint Timothy had faith before the holy and divine Dionysius, as the Apostle revealed the Acts of the Saints, the great Dionysius was more pleased with external punishment.” 28 Regarding the quotation in the book “On Divine Names” from the letter of Ignatius the God-Bearer to the Romans, Maximus the Confessor notes: “And from this it is impossible to slander the present writing as if the divine Dionysius did not exist, since Ignatius said that he was the last to be: how can anyone remember the last? What they imagine is also false. Saint Paul, the enlightener of Dionysius, the last summer of Saint Peter; According to him, Ignatius became Bishop of Antioch, and he converted himself to Peter in Rome. Saint Paul will live for a long time, enlightening Dionysius, and Dionysius will live for a little while. The Evangelist John was imprisoned in Patmo under Dometian, and Dionysius was attributed to him. Ignatius was tormented quickly before Dometian. Sero for the sake of the most ancient Dionysius.” 29 Maximus the Confessor not only defended the belief that the corpus of Areopagite writings belonged to Dionysius the Areopagite, but also authoritatively testified to the impeccable Orthodoxy of their author. One of his notes of this kind: “Celebrate the immaculate Orthodoxy of the great Orthodox Dionysius” 30. Historians of ancient Russian culture and literature do not need or have the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the argumentation of Maximus the Confessor at the present time. What is important for us is that it was effective in the time we studied. As an integral part of the corpus of works of Dionysius the Areopagite, including his Slavic translation, it itself deserves our attention. 13. It is impossible to become well acquainted with the content of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite in the translation of the monk Isaiah without resorting to their Greek original: it is first necessary to become familiar with the philosophical terminology used in it. It is still difficult to say to what extent it was invented by Isaiah himself in the process of translation (I think, in a small way, although he tries to translate every word, which we would not do now, and Dionysius not only widely uses philosophical terms, but often invents them himself). This should be shown by studying other translations of the same and previous times. I will give examples of transposition of philosophical terms. ή ϋλη, matter – “thing” (see, for example, column 503). τά παραδείγματα, prototypes - “commands” (see, for example, column 552). ή αναλογία, analogy, proportion – “measure” (st. 553). παντελής, absolute, complete, unlimited - “unusual” (st. 596). παντελώς, completely - “svesma” (st. 562). άπολότως, regardless, absolutely - “released” (st. 586). ή όλότης, integrity, integrity - “finitude” (st. 596). ό Ιρως, love, eros - “thrift” (st. 562). ολως, completely, in general, completely - “from here” (st. 401). ό χόσμος, order - “utensils” (st. 605). ή αόγή, radiance, shine – “dawn” (occurs very often). ή ανυπαρξία, non-existence, absence - “non-existence” (st. 640). ή αυγχεψαλαίωαις, summing up - “sglaviznstvo” (st. 651). τά θεάματα, species - “disgrace” (st. 666). άαχημάτνατον, devoid of image, unformed - “indecent” (st. 699). χαταψ ατιχώς, affirmative - “nanglagolatelne” (st. 740). ή έξις, stable state, property – “property” (st. 279, 316, 401, 443,493). This dictionary can be continued. It must be said that when you read the translation of the monk Isaiah (at the beginning it is very difficult without the help of the Greek original), you gradually begin to get used to the terminology used in it. This is greatly facilitated by the definitions found in the commentaries, such as: “Property is an abiding quality” (st. 279, 316, 443, 493, cf. st. 401), “It was released from saying, not through the rejection and torture of names or signs, but from all beings and understandings by cessation and release collected” (st. 719). Much becomes clear from the context. Reading Dionysius the Areopagite, even in the Slavic translation, gradually captivates - captivates with the sharpness of speculation, the stunningly bold scope of antitheses, and dizzying flights of thought. Special work should be devoted to the place of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite in the “noosphere”, the mental culture of Ancient Rus', namely the study of their content as a kind of speculative whole in relation to the content of other major phenomena of Russian medieval culture, first of all, of course, the phenomena of literature (including translation), but not only. It seems advisable to also involve the phenomena of fine art. In particular, frescoes and icons on the theme of Sophia the Wisdom cannot be analyzed without taking into account the content of the Ninth Epistle of Dionysius the Areopagite to Titus the Hierarch. Without a careful study of the Areopagite writings, such questions as the ideas of Ancient Rus' about man and the world cannot be sufficiently studied. These are the problems and tasks of studying the Slavic translation of the corpus of works of Dionysius the Areopagite that seem to me the most important and urgent. I may be wrong about the details. One thing is certain: replenishing our historical and cultural information with knowledge of the Slavic Dionysius the Areopagite is, in any case, a rewarding work. 31 See: Monuments of Slavic-Russian writing, published by the Archaeographic Commission. I. Great Menaion of Chetia, October 1–3. St. Petersburg, 1870, stlb. 263–266. Leonid, archim. Information about Slavic manuscripts received from the book depository of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra to the library of the Trinity Theological Seminary in 1747 (now located in the library of the Moscow Theological Academy), vol. 2. M., 1887, p. 33. V. A. Moshin. On the dating of manuscripts from the collection of A.F. Hilferding in the State Public Library. – TODRL, vol. XV. M.-L., 1958. p. 414. VMC, October 1–3, stlb. 266–787. See: Η. P. Zhinkin. Manuscript collection of the Kharkov Scientific Library named after. V. G. Korolenko. – TODRL, vol. XIII. M.-L., 1957, p. 577; news N. P. Zhinkina repeats the “Preliminary list of Slavic-Russian manuscripts of the 11th-14th centuries stored in the USSR” - see: Archaeographic Yearbook for 1965. M., 1966, p. 218. State Historical Museum, Voskr., No. 75,76; Uvar., No. 264 (162); GBL, f. 256, No. 93 (1491). State Historical Museum, Bars., No. 211; Muz., No. 3457,3465; Uvar., No. 263 (163.47), 520 (165); State Historical Museum, Ed., No. 4 (1637); Uvar., No. 368 (164, 49), 50 (166); Bars., No. 212, 213; Synod., No. 54, 55; Usp., No. 10, 11; Chud., No. 204; Khlud., No. 51; GBL, Opt., No. '478; Muz., No. 479, 480, 4437, 9190, 1345, 9069, 4842; BAN, Arkhang., No. 435; Ustyuzhsk., No. 8; Arch.-S., No. 126. State Historical Museum, Sim., No. 5; Eparch., No. 236; GBL, f. 178, No. 1345; Shiban., No. 7; BAN, 13/45/14; Arkhang., No. 436. GIM, Sim., No. 6 (1828–1829), No. 1 (1831); GBL, Opt., No. 479. I. S m p r n o v. Russian literature about works with the name of St. Dionysius the Areopagite. – Orthodox oboreniya. M., 1872, p. 855. See: VMC, October 1–3, column. 267–269. The works of Georgian scholars on the ancient Georgian translation of the 11th century can serve as an example for the completeness of the issues being studied for Slavists. works of Dionysius the Areopagite. See: S. Ya. Enukashvili. Works of Peter Ivar (Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite). Abstract for the degree of Doctor of Philology. Tbilisi, 1963.