id="Page_30" class="x-ebookmaker-pageno" title="[30]"/> of the case do not call for a style of interpretation which would bring out either a correspondence or a disagreement with Origen’s methods, except so far as it is marked by the frank and free exercise of critical judgment. The commentary on the Beginning of Ecclesiastes, if it is, as seems likely, in part the work of Dionysius, is not inconsistent in style of treatment with a general acceptance of his master’s position. Procopius of Gaza, however, ranks him among the opponents of the allegorical school of interpreters, stating that it was in this very work that Dionysius attacked his master, and a short extract which has been assigned to it by Pitra (Spic. Solesm., i, 17) is distinctly less allegorical in treatment than the rest: it runs as follows—

“On Eccles. iv. 9, 10: ‘Two are better than one,’ etc. As we understand this literally, we do not admit those who accept the interpretation of the statements as referring to the soul and the body; for it is by no means justified, seeing that the soul has the entire control over the ruling and governing both of itself and of the body, whereas the body is the bondman of the soul, subservient and enthralled to it in all its decisions. If, then, the soul be inclined to what is mean and evil, and become careless of better thoughts and considerations, the body is unable to restore it and lead it back to higher things: for that is not natural to it.”

There is also another short extract (on Gen. ii. 8, 9^[9]) attributed to our author, which is non-allegorical in its treatment. The evidence therefore is inconclusive on this point: for though Jerome also mentions Dionysius as a commentator on the Bible three times in his letters, he throws no further light on the question.^[10]

On the subject of Inspiration we have no ground for thinking that Dionysius took up an independent position.^[11] He introduces his Biblical quotation with the phrases current amongst early Christian writers.

The general impression therefore left upon the reader is that Dionysius reverted to the more sober methods of interpreting Scripture that prevailed throughout the Church of his day as a whole, though he approached his master’s theories in his usual sympathetic spirit and availed himself of much that was valuable in them.

His Place in the Church Kalendar

24. We hear of a Church dedicated to S. Denys in Alexandria at the beginning of the fourth century, which was destroyed by fire in a tumult in the time of Athanasius. October 3 and November 17 are the two most usual dates for his Commemoration in the Kalendar, the former date more especially in the East, where he is honoured as “a holy martyr.”^[12]

Concluding Remarks

25. The foregoing sketch is sufficient to show that, as a man of action and a ruler of the Church, Dionysius’s personality is no less striking than as a student, a writer and a thinker. He was clearly a strong yet conciliatory administrator of his province as Bishop of Alexandria, just as he had been a competent and successful teacher and director of sacred studies as head of the Catechetical Schools—one who in each capacity carried on and maintained the great traditions which he inherited from S. Mark and his successors, from Pantænus, Clement and Origen. And not only at home and within his own jurisdiction, as we have seen, did he worthily “magnify his office” and “make full proof of his ministry”; for he made his influence for good felt throughout Christendom. Bishops and clergy from all parts naturally turned to him in their difficulties for advice and guidance; and it is impossible not to feel that his wonderful breadth of judgment and his love of conciliation were of the greatest value to the Church of the third century, and will remain a model for imitation to each succeeding age. Men will always be tempted, as they were in that century, to speak strongly and to act vehemently where their spiritual beliefs are involved, and we may pray that God will never fail to raise up amongst the rulers of His Church men of the type of S. Denys the Great of Alexandria.

Bibliography

26. The first attempt at making a full collection of our author’s remains was undertaken by Simon de Magistris, whose edition was published at Rome in 1796. Routh (Reliquiæ Sacræ, tom. iii. and iv.; Oxford, 1846) and Migne (Patr. Græc. tom. x.) published considerable portions with Latin notes, while Gallandius (Bibliotheca vett. patrum, app. to vol. xiv.), Pitra, Mai and (more recently) Holl in vol. v. of Texte und Untersuchungen (neue Folge) have printed a number of fragments from various sources and of very varying degrees of probable authenticity.

The earliest list of Dionysius’s literary productions, except the scattered references to be found in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, is that of Jerome (de viris illustribus, 69), which more or less tallies with what we gather from Eusebius. The student will, however, find a complete modern list of them, together with other valuable matter, in Harnack, Altchrist. Lit., vol. i. pp. 409-27, and in Bardenhewer, Altkirch. Lit., vol. ii. pp. 167-91: the account in Krüger, Early Christian Literature (Eng. Trans.) is much shorter. Several compositions mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome are only known to us by name, unless some of the short extracts attributed to Dionysius come from one or other of them, and the contents of them are almost wholly matter for conjecture. The most important of these is perhaps the ἐπιστολή διακονικὴ διὰ Ἱππολύτου (Eus., H. E. vi. 45), because of the various theories which have been put forward about it. Dom Morin (Revue Bénédictine, xvii., 1900), for instance, suggested that Rufinus’s translation of the doubtful epithet (διακονική) being de ministeriis, it was none other than the Canons of Hippolytus, and that the Canons were afterwards attributed to the church-writer, Hippolytus, through a mistaken identification of the unknown bearer of Dionysius’s missive with the well-known author; but the theory has not met with much acceptance since, and the discussion has of late died down, quite different views being now held about the Canons of Hippolytus.

It may also be mentioned that several fragments in Syriac and in Armenian are attributed to Dionysius, but only three of these, in the former language, appear to be genuine: one is a translation of the letter to Novatian (p. 50), and the two others are, whether rightly or wrongly, thought to be part of the Letter to Stephanus on Baptism, and will be