Opera Omnia; cum Scholiis S. Maximi et Paraphrasi Pachymerae

I furthermore compared the Greek text with four manuscripts and a copy of the Junta edition of the year 1516. I saw what anyone could easily have understood: that the version of the most learned Perionius far surpasses all others in brilliance and elegance, and I therefore deemed it more suitable for the high-sounding and magnificent style of our Theologian, and thus more fitting to be included in this edition. How much labor and industry we spent in preparing it and adapting it most accurately to the Greek, my Notes will indicate, and the fair reader will recognize without difficulty, if only he will turn his eyes to this edition. For many things have been supplied which, though expressed in the Greek, were missing in the Latin; and those things that had been said more obscurely, or not sufficiently according to the Author's mind, have been illuminated by a slight change or addition—concerning which matter I thought nothing should be indicated in the notes, since it was permitted to give warning here once. Nor, however, would I wish blame to be cast on Perionius for that reason; his mind and purpose were not to weigh every minute detail, but to accomplish with fine words that we might understand what this messenger of the divine mind was saying. He also lacked the Scholia of St. Maximus and the paraphrase of Pachymeres, who, being born in Greece and separated by a smaller distance from the very source and head, were able to draw more clearly the force and sound of Dionysian speech. Perhaps he did not consult the ancient and cruder interpreters, who explained these monuments of the divine man in trite and everyday words; from whom, however, a pure and genuine image of the truth can sometimes be extracted, like pearls from rags, gems from coals, or gold from mud. I certainly would be most conceited if I denied that I was greatly helped by them.

As for my Notes, my sole purpose in forging and elaborating them was that, from the great variety of Interpreters for whom Dionysius's sublimity had often fixed a cross, I might express the genuine and most proper opinion of that θεολογωτάτου man, and as far as possible, illuminate those deep recesses, as it were, of his speech with an easy and pure exposition. This one thing, I say, I was pleased to do for now; for the full Commentaries on Dionysius, which I have in progress on my bookshelves and for the most part written out in order and method, I shall, if the Deity wills, bring to light shortly. In these I wander and travel with our Areopagite through the midst of wisdom, and am carried up with him into the golden temples of heaven and the dwelling of the blessed—not on my own wings, but on those of the most learned Fathers, who were, so to speak, the sacred observers of these oracles which the most holy Dionysius pours forth with a great voice. In these same commentaries, I show how great he was in Philosophy, in which he had few peers, and how great in Theology, in which he surpassed almost everyone, having sought out on all sides testimonies—Greek, Latin, sacred, and profane—which ought to serve that Mystagogue and deservedly act as handmaidens. Different men take delight in different writers; they devote themselves entirely to them, and in explaining them all their cares and industries are wakeful: this one carries Tacitus in his bosom, so often depicted, so often polished; to others Seneca is pleasing, grand in his buskin and bombastic, and with favorable