(4.) Ibid. Also, Ep. ad. Dorotheum, De Myst. Theol. iii. pp. 714, 721.
[35]. See Meier, ‘Dionysii Areop. et Mysticorum sæculi xiv. doctrinæ inter se comparantur.’ He remarks justly ‘causæ ad Causatum relationem cum relatione generis ad speciem confudit’, p. 13.
[36]. The hyper and the a privative are in constant requisition with Dionysius. He cannot suffer any ordinary epithet to go alone, and many of his adjectives march pompously, attended by a hyper on one side, and a superlative termination on the other.
[37]. The later Greek theology modified the most objectionable parts of the Dionysian doctrine, while continuing to reverence him as a Father. See Ullmann’s Nicholas von Methone.
[38]. Aristot. Eth. Nic. lib. x. c. 8.—See Note, Page [123].
[41]. Vita, ii. cap. v.
[42]. See the account of his diet, and of the feebleness and sickness consequent on his austerities, by the same biographer (Alanus), Vita, ii. cap. x., in the Paris reprint of 1839, from the Benedictine edition of Bernard, tom. ii. p. 2426. John Eremita describes the devil’s visit to Bernard, ‘ut ungeret sandalia sua secundum consuetudinem,’ and relates the rebuke of the proud monk who would not wash the scutellæ in the kitchen.—Vita, iv. p. 2508.
[43]. Vita, ii. cap. x. 32.