Startseite

Dionysios Areopagita: Opera omniaAbbildungenDeskriptionPseudo-DionysiusKurt RuhMystical TheologyHerzsutraJohannes Scottus Eriugena

Dionysios Areopagita, Johannes Scottus Eriugena & Prajñāpāramitā

Διονύσιος ὁ Ἀϱεοπαγίτης, Dionysios Areopagita:

D. DIONYSII | AREOPA-|GITÆ OPERA | OMNIA QUAE EXTANT. | EIVSDEM VITA. | SCHOLIA INCERTI AVTHO-|RIS IN LIBRVM DE ECCLE-|siastica Hierarchia. | QUAE OMNIA NVNC PRIMVM | à Ioachimo Perionio Benedictino Cormœ-|riaceno, Henrici Gallorum Regis interpre-|te, conuerſa ſunt. | HISCE ACCESSERE SANCTISS. | vetuſtiſsimorumq; patrum D. Ignatij atq; | Polycarpi epiſtolæ, vera pieta-|te, ſolidáque doctrina | refertæ. || COLONIÆ. | Apud hæredes Arnoldi Birckmanni. | M. D. LVII.

Köln: Birckmanns Erben, 1557.

Octavo. 152 × 95 mm. [14] Bll.; 271 Bll., [1] Bl.; [1] w. Bl. (Bl. 271 falsch: 071) – Lagenkollation: A-Z8, Aa-Nn8.

Blindgeprägtes Schweinsleder der Zeit auf drei Doppelbünden mit zwei Schließen; die Kapitale in Natur/Grün handgestochen. Die Rollen bei Haebler angeführt: Vorderdeckel „Salvator/Petrus/Paulus/Johannes“ I,448, n° 4; Hinterdeckel „Salvator/David/Paulus/(Johannes)“ I,448, n° 2. Diese sind nicht eindeutig einem Augsburger Buchbinder namens Simon Thumm zuzuschreiben, da sie später von anderen übernommen wurden und sich in den achtziger Jahren des 16. Jh. z. B. im Besitz eines Buchbinders G. E. wiederfinden lassen.

Unter diesem Pseudonym (zu den möglichen Autoren cf. John J. O’Meara: Eriugena. Oxford: Clarendon, 1988. p. 58.), das auf Apostelgeschichte XVII,34 zurückgeht, wurden zwischen 476 und 528 diese bis in die Neuzeit einflußreichen mystischen Traktate und Schriften verfaßt. Zweifel an der Identität des Autors wurden wohl schon von Hypatius (520-540) und Photius (820-891) gehegt, dann von Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457) geäußert und von Erasmus wie den Reformatoren aufgegriffen. Auch die neuere Forschung konnte den Verfasser nicht ermitteln. Seine Sprache, ein umständliches Griechisch, und das literarisch-philosophische Umfeld, Neoplatonismus und Πϱόϰλος ὁ Διάδοχος, Proklos (412-485), verweisen auf den antiochenischen Raum.
¶ Neben den Schriften, die sich mit der Hierarchie der Engel und ähnlichem befassen, steht die Mystische Theologie als knappes Werk, das parallel zu asiatischen, besonders jenen durch die mahāyānistisch-buddhistischen Prajnāpāramitā-Schriften vertretenen Religionsformen denkt.
¶ Zur Textüberlieferung: Kaiser Michael II. ließ 827 einen Kodex der unter den Namen Areopagitica überlieferten vier Schriften Πεϱὶ ϑείων ὀνομάτων, „Die göttlichen Namen“, Πεϱὶ μυστιϰῆς ϑεολογίας, „Die mystische Theologie“, Πεϱὶ τῆς Οὐϱανίας Ἱεϱαϱχίας, „Die himmlische Hierarchie“ und Πεϱὶ τῆς ἐϰϰλησιαστιϰῆς ἱεϱαϱχίας, „Die kirchliche Hierarchie“ in Compiègne überreichen. Damit begann die Wirkung der Schriften im Abendland. Als erster ließ Abt Hilduin von St. Denis eine lateinische Übersetzung erstellen. Größere Wirkung erzielte jedoch die des berühmten Johannes Scottus mit dem Beinamen Eriugena um 860-2, der seit 845 in Gallien lebte, s. u. Es folgten noch im Mittelalter die Übertragungen von Johannes Sarracenus (gedruckt Strassburg: Husner, 1502-3), Anastasius Bibliothecarius (um 800 bis 879) und von Robert Grosseteste (um 1175 bis 1253); in der Renaissance schlossen sich Ambrosio Traversari (gedruckt Brügge: C. Mansion, ca. 1480) und Marsilio Ficino (gedruckt Florenz: Alopa, 1496) an. Die lateinische Editio princeps ist demnach die Ausgabe bei Colard Mansion um 1480.
¶ Die hier vorliegende seltene Übertragung in ciceronianisches Latein stammt von Joachim Périon (1499-1559), geboren und gestorben zu Cormery in der Touraine, gehörte seit 1517 dem OSB an; er kam 1527 nach Paris, wo er 1542 Doktor der Theologie wurde. Er übersetzte Justinos, Johannes von Damaskus, Aristoteles und viele andere Autoren. Profane Werke sind: „De fabularum, ludorum theatrorum antiqua consuetudine“ und „De origine linguae gallicae“. Cf. Jöcher III,1391-2 auch für eine Liste der Schriften.
¶ Provenienz: 1. Eintrag auf Titel: „15D64. | Γνώϑι ϰαὶ ποίει | Sum M. Joannis Gosswinj Gamundiani“ - 2. Auf Spiegel vorn oben: „Ex Libris M. Joannis Hirningerj.“ - 3. Kartause Buxheim mit Vermerk und Stempel auf dem Titel.
Dieses Motto „Γνώϑι ϰαὶ ποίει“ verwandte ich auf Lesezeichen.

Einband mit gut sichtbarer, tiefer Prägung im qualitätvollen, meist glatten Leder; an den Ecken leicht berieben, wenige kleine Wurmlöcher in den Deckeln, ein Wurmgang im Falz des vorderen Vorsatzes, der nur das Papier angreift. Innen frisch; der Druck sauber, mit schönen, bisweilen expressionistisch anmutenden Initialholzschnitten; wenige Anstreichungen. Blattweiser an den jeweiligen Textanfängen. Das Lederband der unteren Schließe unauffällig hinterlegt.

VD16 D 1851 mit Variante: Köln: Apud Maternum Cholinum, 1557 — Nicht bei Adams, Brunet, Ebert, Graesse, Hoffmann, Machiels, Moranti, BM STC germ. — Die obige Titelabbildung stammt von einem anderen Exemplar, die des Einbandes und der Initialen von diesem.

 

Kevin Corrigan and L. Michael Harrington: Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

Dionysius, or Pseudo-Dionysius, as he has come to be known in the contemporary world, was a Christian Neoplatonist who wrote in the late fifth or early sixth century CE and who transposed in a thoroughly original way the whole of Pagan Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Proclus, but especially that of Proclus and the Platonic Academy in Athens, into a distinctively new Christian context. (...)

All of this looks so alien to the spirit of modern philosophy that we may well ask if there is anything really philosophical in Dionysius’ practice? The answer has to be affirmative, for there is a perfectly reasonable pattern to the whole of Dionysius’ works. In addition, Dionysius regards his own task as a kind of demonstration (apodeixis) or showing (deixai). In the Divine Names, such demonstration is given a Pauline resonance when Dionysius states that we should hold to the scriptural revelation of divine names “not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the power granted by the Spirit” (DN 585b; cf. Paul 1 Cor 2–4). In other words, Dionysius here sees scripture as providing the basis for a deeper understanding of attribution or predication that will lead us beyond our own merely human capacities. That such a demonstration involves the unpacking of the symbolic, contemplative, and mystical significances of ordinary things by the aid of scriptural testimony is clear in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which again starts from Dionysius’ purpose of demonstrating what the hierarchy comprises; and that this includes arguments, reasons, the possibility of debate and even improvement upon Dionysius’ demonstrations by his interlocutor becomes clear too at the end of the work, when the literary humility that is characteristic of his writing (cf. EH 568a ff.; DN 981c–984a; CH 340b) shows itself to be philosophically justified by Dionysius’ ability to set out both sides of the case for and against infant baptism in the understanding that he may not fully be in possession of the most complete view of the situation and that his interlocutor should “use” what he has said “as steps (epanabathmois) to a higher ray of light” (EH 568d–569a). This is a thought couched in terms very reminiscent of Socrates’ wish in the Republic to subvert or destroy hypotheses and use them as stepping stones to something better, and it is also a thought not unworthy of Wittgenstein’s similar view at the end of the Tractatus. The words immediately following make clear the connection between charity of interpretation, open-endedness and demonstration: “Be generous with me then, my dear friend,… and show (deixon) to my eyes that more beautiful and unified beauty which you may be able to see”. Demonstration in this sense, then, includes much of what we might consider to be properly philosophical, but at root it is also a form of “divine reading” (lectio divina, or meditative, prayerful reading) of nature and word, a receptive recognition as a kind of method or making one’s way “to hear the sacred words as receptively as possible, to be open to the divine workings of God, to clear an uplifting path (hodopoiesis) toward that inheritance that awaits us in heaven, and to accept our most divine and sacred regeneration” (EH 392a).
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

 

Kurt Ruh: Die mystische Gotteslehre des Dionysius Areopagita

Das „überlichthafte Dunkel“ kann von da aus weiter bestimmt werden. Es ist natürlich nicht falsch, es als „paradox“ zu bezeichnen, nur fuhrt der rhetorische Terminus technicus hier keineswegs zur Sache, sondern deckt sie eher zu59. Entscheidend ist, daß das ,, Überlicht“ der apophatischen Theologie mit der Dunkelheit der Henosis zusammenfällt. N icht als coincidentia oppositorum, weil es die Gegensätze Licht-Dunkelheit bei Dionysius weder auf der ontologischen noch der gnoseologischen Ebene gibt, sondern als eine schon immer vorhandene Koinzidenz. Das „überlichthafte Dunkel“ ist bis zu Meister Eckhart der äußerste Versuch, Gottes absolute Transzendenz anzudeuten, und diesem Versuch gilt überhaupt die Aufgipfelung der dionysischen Theologie in der ,Mystica theologia“. Mit Recht hat sie in der abendländischen Rezeption allergrößte Beachtung gefunden.
— München: Verlag Der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1987. p. 42.

 

Πεϱὶ μυστιϰῆς ϑεολογίας — Mystical Theology

Τϱιὰς ὑπεϱούσιε ϰαὶ ὑπέϱϑεε ϰαὶ ὑπεϱάγαϑε, τῆς Χϱιστιανῶν ἔφοϱε ϑεοσοφίας, ἴϑυνον ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν μυστιϰῶν λογίων ὑπεϱάγνωστον ϰαὶ ὑπεϱφαῆ ϰαὶ ἀϰϱοτάτην ϰοϱυφήν· ἔνϑα τὰ ἁπλᾶ ϰαὶ ἀπόλυτα ϰαὶ ἄτϱεπτα τῆς ϑεολογίας μυστήϱια ϰατὰ τὸν ὑπέϱφωτον ἐγϰεϰάλυπται τῆς ϰϱυφιομύστου σιγῆς γνόφον, ἐν τῶι σϰοτεινοτάτωι τὸ ὑπεϱφανέστα τον ὑπεϱλάμποντα ϰαὶ ἐν τῶι πάμπαν ἀναφεῖ ϰαὶ ἀοϱάτωι τῶν ὑπεϱϰάλων ἀγλαϊῶν ὑπεϱπληϱοῦντα τοὺς ἀνομμάτους νόας.

Ἐμοὶ μὲν οὖν ταῦτα ηὔχϑω· σὺ δέ, ὦ φίλε Τιμόϑεε, τῆι πεϱὶ τὰ μυστιϰὰ ϑεάματα συντόνωι διατϱιβῆι ϰαὶ τὰς αἰσϑήσεις ἀπόλειπε ϰαὶ τὰς νοεϱὰς ἐνεϱγείας ϰαὶ πάντα αἰσϑητὰ ϰαὶ νοητὰ ϰαὶ πάντα οὐϰ ὄντα ϰαὶ ὄντα ϰαὶ πϱὸς τὴν ἕνωσιν, ὡς ἐφιϰτόν, ἀγνώστως ἀνατάϑητι τοῦ ὑπὲϱ πᾶσαν οὐσίαν ϰαὶ γνῶσιν· τῆι γὰϱ ἑαυτοῦ ϰαὶ πάντων ἀσχέτωι ϰαὶ ἀπολύτωι ϰαϑαϱῶς ἐϰστάσει πϱὸς τὸν ὑπεϱούσιον τοῦ ϑείου σϰότους ἀϰτῖνα, πάντα ἀφελὼν ϰαὶ ἐϰ πάντων ἀπολυϑείς, ἀναχϑήσηι.

Τούτων δὲ ὅϱα, ὅπως μηδεὶς τῶν ἀμυήτων ἐπαϰούσηι· τούτους δέ φημι τοὺς ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐνισχημένους ϰαὶ οὐδὲν ὑπὲϱ τὰ ὄντα ὑπεϱουσίως εἶναι φανταζομένους, ἀλλ' οἰομένους εἰδέναι τῆι ϰαϑ' αὑτοὺς γνώσει τὸν ϑέμενον »σϰότος ἀποϰϱυφὴν αὐτοῦ». Eἰ δὲ ὑπὲϱ τούτους εἰσὶν αἱ ϑεῖαι μυσταγωγίαι, τί ἄν τις φαίη πεϱὶ τῶν μᾶλλον ἀμύστων, ὅσοι τὴν πάντων ὑπεϱϰειμένην αἰτίαν ϰαὶ ἐϰ τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐσχάτων χαϱαϰτηϱίζουσιν ϰαὶ οὐδὲν αὐτὴν ὑπεϱέχειν φασὶ τῶν πλαττομένων αὐτοῖς ἀϑέων ϰαὶ πολυειδῶν μοϱφωμάτων; Δέον ἐπ' αὐτῆι ϰαὶ πάσας τὰς τῶν ὄντων τιϑέναι ϰαὶ ϰαταφάσϰειν ϑέσεις, ὡς πάντων αἰτίαι, ϰαὶ πάσας αὐτὰς ϰυϱιώτεϱον ἀποφάσϰειν, ὡς ὑπὲϱ πάντα ὑπεϱούσηι, ϰαὶ μὴ οἴεσϑαι τὰς ἀποφάσεις ἀντιϰειμένας εἶναι ταῖς ϰαταφάσεσιν, ἀλλὰ πολὺ πϱότεϱον αὐτὴν ὑπὲϱ τὰς στεϱήσεις εἶναι τὴν ὑπὲϱ πᾶσαν ϰαὶ ἀφαίϱεσιν ϰαὶ ϑέσιν.

Οὕτω γοῦν ὁ ϑεῖος Βαϱϑολομαῖός φησι ϰαὶ πολλὴν τὴν ϑεολογίαν εἶναι ϰαὶ ἐλαχίστην ϰαὶ τὸ Eὐαγγέλιον πλατὺ ϰαὶ μέγα ϰαὶ αὖϑις συντετμημένον, ἐμοὶ δοϰεῖν ἐϰεῖνο ὑπεϱφυῶς ἐννοήσας, ὅτι ϰαὶ πολύλογός ἐστιν ἡ ἀγαϑὴ πάντων αἰτία ϰαὶ βϱαχύλεϰτος ἅμα ϰαὶ ἄλογος, ὡς οὔτε λόγον οὔτε νόησιν ἔχουσα, διὰ τὸ πάντων αὐτὴν ὑπεϱουσίως ὑπεϱϰειμένην εἶναι ϰαὶ μόνοις ἀπεϱιϰαλύπτως ϰαὶ ἀληϑῶς ἐϰφαινομένην τοῖς ϰαὶ τὰ ἐναγῆ πάντα ϰαὶ τὰ ϰαϑαϱὰ διαβαίνουσι ϰαὶ πᾶσαν πασῶν ἁγίων ἀϰϱοτήτων ἀνάβασιν ὑπεϱβαίνουσι ϰαὶ πάντα τὰ ϑεῖα φῶτα ϰαὶ ἤχους ϰαὶ λόγους οὐϱανίους ἀπολιμπάνουσι ϰαὶ »εἰς τὸν γνόφον» εἰσδυομένοις, »οὗ» ὄντως ἐστίν, ὡς τὰ λόγιά φησιν, ὁ πάντων ἐπέϰεινα. Καὶ γὰϱ οὐχ ἁπλῶς ὁ ϑεῖος Μωϋσῆς ἀποϰαϑαϱϑῆναι πϱῶτον αὐτὸς ϰελεύεται ϰαὶ αὖϑις τῶν μὴ τοιούτων ἀφοϱισϑῆναι ϰαὶ μετὰ πᾶσαν ἀποϰάϑαϱσιν ἀϰούει τῶν πολυφώνων σαλπίγγων ϰαὶ ὁϱᾶι φῶτα πολλὰ ϰαϑαϱὰς ἀπαστϱάπτοντα ϰαὶ πολυχύτους ἀϰτῖνας· εἶτα τῶν πολλῶν ἀφοϱίζεται ϰαὶ μετὰ τῶν ἐϰϰϱίτων ἱεϱέων ἐπὶ τὴν ἀϰϱότητα τῶν ϑείων ἀναβάσεων φϑάνει. Κἀν τούτοις αὐτῶι μὲν οὐ συγγίνεται τῶι ϑεῶι, ϑεωϱεῖ δὲ οὐϰ αὐτόν (ἀϑέατος γάϱ), ἀλλὰ τὸν τόπον, οὗ ἔστη. (Τοῦτο δὲ οἶμαι σημαίνειν τὸ τὰ ϑειότατα ϰαὶ ἀϰϱότατα τῶν ὁϱωμένων ϰαὶ νοουμένων ὑποϑετιϰούς τινας εἶναι λόγους τῶν ὑποβεβλημένων τῶι πάντα ὑπεϱέχοντι, δι' ὧν ἡ ὑπὲϱ πᾶσαν ἐπίνοιαν αὐτοῦ παϱουσία δείϰνυται ταῖς νοηταῖς ἀϰϱότησι τῶν ἁγιωτάτων αὐτοῦ τόπων ἐπιβατεύουσα). Καὶ τότε ϰαὶ αὐτῶν ἀπολύεται τῶν ὁϱωμένων ϰαὶ τῶν ὁϱώντων ϰαὶ εἰς τὸν γνόφον τῆς ἀγνωσίας εἰσδύνει τὸν ὄντως μυστιϰόν, ϰαϑ' ὃν ἀπομύει πάσας τὰς γνωστιϰὰς ἀντιλήψεις, ϰαὶ ἐν τῶι πάμπαν ἀναφεῖ ϰαὶ ἀοϱάτωι γίγνεται, πᾶς ὢν τοῦ πάντων ἐπέϰεινα ϰαὶ οὐδενός, οὔτε ἑαυτοῦ οὔτε ἑτέϱου, τῶι παντελῶς δὲ ἀγνώστωι τῆι πάσης γνώσεως ἀνενεϱγησίαι ϰατὰ τὸ ϰϱεῖττον ἑνούμενος ϰαὶ τῶι μηδὲν γινώσϰειν ὑπὲϱ νοῦν γινώσϰων.

Triad supernal, both super-God and super-good, Guardian of the Theosophy of Christian men, direct us aright to the super-unknown and super-brilliant and highest summit of the mystic Oracles, where the simple and absolute and changeless mysteries of theology lie hidden within the super-luminous gloom of the silence, revealing hidden things, which in its deepest darkness shines above the most super-brilliant, and in the altogether impalpable and invisible, fills to overflowing the eyeless minds with glories of surpassing beauty.

This then be my prayer; but thou, O dear Timothy, by thy persistent commerce with the mystic visions, leave behind both sensible perceptions and intellectual efforts, and all objects of sense and intelligence, and all things not being and being, and be raised aloft unknowingly to the union, as far as attainable, with Him Who is above every essence and knowledge. For by the resistless and absolute ecstasy in all purity, from thyself and all, thou wilt be carried on high, to the superessential ray of the Divine darkness, when thou hast cast away all, and become free from all.

But see that none of the uninitiated listen to these things — those I mean who are entangled in things being, and fancy there is nothing superessentially above things being, but imagine that they know, by their own knowledge, Him, Who has placed darkness as His hiding-place. But, if the Divine initiations are above such, what would any one say respecting those still more uninitiated, such as both portray the Cause exalted above all, from the lowest of things created, and say that It in no wise excels the no-gods fashioned by themselves and of manifold shapes, it being our duty both to attribute and affirm all the attributes of things existing to It, as Cause of all, and more properly to deny them all to It, as being above all, and not to consider the negations to be in opposition to the affirmations, but far rather that It, which is above every abstraction and definition, is above the privations.

Thus, then, the divine Bartholomew says that Theology is much and least, and the Gospel broad and great, and on the other hand concise. He seems to me to have comprehended this supernaturally, that the good Cause of all is both of much utterance, and at the same time of briefest utterance and without utterance; as having neither utterance nor conception, because It is superessentially exalted above all, and manifested without veil and in truth, to those alone who pass through both all things consecrated and pure, and ascend above every ascent of all holy summits, and leave behind all divine lights and sounds, and heavenly words, and enter into the gloom, where really is, as the Oracles say, He Who is beyond all. For even the divine Moses is himself strictly bidden to be first purified, and then to be separated from those who are not so, and after entire cleansing hears the many-voiced trumpets, and sees many lights, shedding pure and streaming rays; then he is separated from the multitude, and with the chosen priests goes first to the summit of the divine ascents, although even then he does not meet with Almighty God Himself, but views not Him (for He is viewless) but the place where He is. Now this I think signifies that the most Divine and Highest of the things seen and contemplated are a sort of suggestive expression, of the things subject to Him Who is above all, through which His wholly inconceivable Presence is shown, reaching to the highest spiritual summits of His most holy places; and then he (Moses) is freed from them who are both seen and seeing, and enters into the gloom of the Agnosia; a gloom veritably mystic, within which he closes all perceptions of knowledge and enters into the altogether impalpable and unseen, being wholly of Him Who is beyond all, and of none, neither himself nor other; and by inactivity of all knowledge, united in his better part to. the altogether Unknown, and by knowing nothing, knowing above mind.

 

Κατὰ τοῦτον ἡμεῖς γενέσϑαι τὸν ὑπέϱφωτον εὐχόμεϑα γνόφον ϰαὶ δι' ἀβλεψίας ϰαὶ ἀγνωσίας ἰδεῖν ϰαὶ γνῶναι τὸν ὑπὲϱ ϑέαν ϰαὶ γνῶσιν αὐτῶι τῶι μὴ ἰδεῖν μηδὲ γνῶναι - τοῦτο γάϱ ἐστι τὸ ὄντως ἰδεῖν ϰαὶ γνῶναι - ϰαὶ τὸν ὑπεϱούσιον ὑπεϱουσίως ὑμνῆσαι διὰ τῆς πάντων τῶν ὄντων ἀφαιϱέσεως, ὥσπεϱ οἱ αὐτοφυὲς ἄγαλμα ποιοῦντες ἐξαιϱοῦντες πάντα τὰ ἐπιπϱοσϑοῦντα τῆι ϰαϑαϱᾶι τοῦ ϰϱυφίου ϑέαι ϰωλύματα ϰαὶ αὐτὸ ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ τῆι ἀφαιϱέσει μόνηι τὸ ἀποϰεϰϱυμμένον ἀναφαίνοντες ϰάλλος. Χϱὴ δέ, ὡς οἶμαι, τὰς ἀφαιϱέσεις ἐναντίως ταῖς ϑέσεσιν ὑμνῆσαι· ϰαὶ γὰϱ ἐϰείνας μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν πϱωτίστων ἀϱχόμενοι ϰαὶ διὰ μέσων ἐπὶ τὰ ἔσχατα ϰατιόντες ἐτίϑεμεν· ἐνταῦϑα δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐσχάτων ἐπὶ τὰ ἀϱχιϰώτατα τὰς γνῶμεν ἐϰείνην τὴν ἀγνωσίαν τὴν ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν γνωστῶν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσι πεϱιϰεϰαλυμμένην ϰαὶ τὸν ὑπεϱούσιον ἐϰεῖνον ἴδωμεν γνόφον τὸν ὑπὸ παντὸς τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὖσι φωτὸς ἀποϰϱυπτόμενον.

We pray to enter within the super-bright gloom, and through not seeing and not knowing, to see and to know that the not to see nor to know is itself the above sight and knowledge. For this is veritably to see and to know and to celebrate super-essentially the Superessential, through the abstraction of all existing things, just as those who make a lifelike statue, by extracting all the encumbrances which have been placed upon the clear view of the concealed, and by bringing to light, by the mere cutting away, the genuine beauty concealed in it. And, it is necessary, as I think, to celebrate the abstractions in an opposite way to the definitions. For, we used to place these latter by beginning from the foremost and descending through the middle to the lowest, but, in this case, by making the ascents from the lowest to the highest, we abstract everything, in order that, without veil, we may know that Agnosia, which is enshrouded under all the known, in all things that be, and may see that superessential gloom, which is hidden by all the light in existing things.

 

Ἐν μὲν οὖν ταῖς Θεολογιϰαῖς Ὑποτυπώσεσι τὰ ϰυϱιώτατα τῆς ϰαταφατιϰῆς ϑεολογίας ὑμνήσαμεν, πῶς ἡ ϑεία ϰαὶ ἀγαϑὴ φύσις ἑνιϰὴ λέγεται, πῶς τϱιαδιϰή· τίς ἡ ϰατ' αὐτὴν λεγομένη πατϱότης τε ϰαὶ υἱότης· τί βούλεται δηλοῦν ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος ϑεολογία· πῶς ἐϰ τοῦ ἀΰλου ϰαὶ ἀμεϱοῦς ἀγαϑοῦ τὰ ἐγϰάϱδια τῆς ἀγαϑότητος ἐξέφυ φῶτα ϰαὶ τῆς ἐν αὐτῶι ϰαὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ϰαὶ ἐν ἀλλήλοις συναϊδίου τῆι ἀναβλαστήσει μονῆς ἀπομεμένηϰεν ἀνεϰφοίτητα· πῶς ὁ ὑπεϱούσιος Ἰησοῦς ἀνϑϱωποφυϊϰαῖς ἀληϑείαις οὐσίωται ϰαὶ ὅσα ἄλλα πϱὸς τῶν λογίων ἐϰπεφασμένα ϰατὰ τὰς Θεολογιϰὰς Ὑποτυπώσεις ὕμνηται. Ἐν δὲ τῶι Πεϱὶ Θείων Ὀνομάτων, πῶς ἀγαϑὸς ὀνομάζεται, πῶς ὤν, πῶς ζωὴ ϰαὶ σοφία ϰαὶ δύναμις ϰαὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τῆς νοητῆς ἐστι ϑεωνυμίας. Ἐν δὲ τῆι Συμβολιϰῆι Θεολογίαι, τίνες αἱ ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσϑητῶν ἐπὶ τὰ ϑεῖα μετωνυμίαι, τίνες αἱ ϑεῖαι μοϱφαί, τίνα τὰ ϑεῖα σχήματα ϰαὶ μέϱη ϰαὶ ὄϱγανα, τίνες οἱ ϑεῖοι τόποι ϰαὶ ϰόσμοι, τίνες οἱ ϑυμοί, τίνες αἱ λῦπαι ϰαὶ αἱ μήνιδες, τίνες αἱ μέϑαι ϰαὶ αἱ ϰϱαιπάλαι, τίνες οἱ ὅϱϰοι ϰαὶ τίνες αἱ ἀϱαί, τίνες οἱ ὕπνοι ϰαὶ τίνες αἱ ἐγϱηγόϱσεις ϰαὶ ὅσαι ἄλλαι τῆς συμβολιϰῆς εἰσι ϑεοτυπίας ἱεϱόπλαστοι μοϱφώσεις.

Καί σε οἴομαι συνεωϱαϰέναι, πῶς πολυλογώτεϱα μᾶλλόν ἐστι τὰ ἔσχατα τῶν πϱώτων· ϰαὶ γὰϱ ἐχϱῆν τὰς Θεολογιϰὰς Ὑποτυπώσεις ϰαὶ τὴν τῶν Θείων Ὀνομάτων ἀνάπτυξιν βϱαχυλογώτεϱα εἶναι τῆς Συμβολιϰῆς Θεολογίας. Ἐπείπεϱ ὅσωι πϱὸς τὸ ἄναντες ἀνανεύομεν, τοσοῦτον οἱ λόγοι ταῖς συνόψεσι τῶν νοητῶν πεϱιστέλλονται· ϰαϑάπεϱ ϰαὶ νῦν εἰς τὸν ὑπὲϱ νοῦν εἰσδύνοντες γνόφον οὐ βϱαχυλογίαν, ἀλλ' ἀλογίαν παντελῆ ϰαὶ ἀνοησίαν εὑϱήσομεν. Κἀϰεῖ μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἄνω πϱὸς τὰ ἔσχατα ϰατιὼν ὁ λόγος ϰατὰ τὸ ποσὸν τῆς ϰαϑόδου πϱὸς ἀνάλογον πλῆϑος ηὐϱύνετο· νῦν δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ϰάτω πϱὸς τὸ ὑπεϱϰείμενον ἀνιὼν ϰατὰ τὸ μέτϱον τῆς ἀνόδου συστέλλεται ϰαὶ μετὰ πᾶσαν ἄνοδον ὅλως ἄφωνος ἔσται ϰαὶ ὅλως ἑνωϑήσεται τῶι ἀφϑέγϰτωι. Διὰ τί δὲ ὅλως, φήις, ἀπὸ τοῦ πϱωτίστου ϑέμενοι τὰς ϑείας ϑέσεις ἀπὸ τῶν ἐσχάτων ἀϱχόμεϑα τῆς ϑείας ἀφαιϱέσεως; Ὅτι τὸ ὑπὲϱ πᾶσαν τιϑέντας ϑέσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ μᾶλλον αὐτῶι συγγενεστέϱου τὴν ὑποϑετιϰὴν ϰατάφασιν ἐχϱῆν τιϑέναι· τὸ δὲ ὑπὲϱ πᾶσαν ἀφαίϱεσιν ἀφαιϱοῦντας ἀπὸ τῶν μᾶλλον αὐτοῦ διεστηϰότων ἀφαιϱεῖν. Ἢ οὐχὶ μᾶλλόν ἐστι ζωὴ ϰαὶ ἀγαϑότης ἢ ἀὴϱ ϰαὶ λίϑος; Καὶ μᾶλλον οὐ ϰϱαιπαλᾶι ϰαὶ οὐ μηνιᾶι ἢ οὐ λέγεται οὐδὲ νοεῖται;

In the Theological Outlines, then, we celebrated the principal affirmative expressions respecting God — how the Divine and good Nature is spoken of as One — how as Threefold — what is that within it which is spoken of as Paternity and Sonship — what the Divine name of “the Spirit “is meant to signify, — how from the immaterial and indivisible Good the Lights dwelling in the heart of Goodness sprang forth, and remained, in their branching forth, without departing from the coeternal abiding in Himself and in Themselves and in each other, — how the super-essential Jesus takes substance in veritable human nature — and whatever other things, made known by the Oracles, are celebrated throughout the Theological Outlines; and in the treatise concerning Divine Names, how He is named Good — how Being — how Life and Wisdom and Power — and whatever else belongs to the nomenclature of God. Further, in the Symbolical Theology, what are the Names transferred from objects of sense to things Divine? — what are the Divine forms? — what the Divine appearances, and parts and organs? — what the Divine places and ornaments? — what the angers? — what the griefs? — and the Divine wrath? — what the carousals, and the ensuing sicknesses? — what the oaths, — and what the curses? — what the sleepings, and what the awakings? — and all the other Divinely formed representations, which belong to the description of God, through symbols.

And I imagine that you have comprehended, how the lowest are expressed in somewhat more words than the first. For, it was necessary that the Theological Outlines, and the unfolding of the Divine Names should be expressed in fewer words than the Symbolic Theology; since, in proportion as we ascend to the higher, in such a degree the expressions are circumscribed by the contemplations of the things intelligible. As even now, when entering into the gloom which is above mind, we shall find, not a little speaking, but a complete absence of speech, and absence of conception. In the other case, the discourse, in descending from the above to the lowest, is widened according to the descent, to a proportionate extent; but now, in ascending from below to that which is above, in proportion to the ascent, it is contracted, and after a complete ascent, it will become wholly voiceless, and will be wholly united to the unutterable. But, for what reason in short, you say, having attributed the Divine attributes from the foremost, do we begin the Divine abstraction from things lowest? Because it is necessary that they who place attributes on that which is above every attribute, should place the attributive affirmation from that which is more cognate to it; but that they who abstract, with regard to that which is above every abstraction, should make the abstraction from things which are further removed from it. Are not life and goodness more (cognate) than air and stone? and He is not given to debauch and to wrath, more (removed) than He is not expressed nor conceived.

 

Λέγομεν οὖν, ὡς ἡ πάντων αἰτία ϰαὶ ὑπὲϱ πάντα οὖσα οὔτε ἀνούσιός ἐστιν οὔτε ἄζωος, οὔτε ἄλογος οὔτε ἄνους· οὐδὲ σῶμά ἐστιν οὔτε σχῆμα, οὔτε εἶδος οὔτε ποιότητα ἢ ποσότητα ἢ ὄγϰον ἔχει· οὐδὲ ἐν τόπωι ἐστὶν οὔτε ὁϱᾶται οὔτε ἐπαφὴν αἰσϑητὴν ἔχει· οὐδὲ αἰσϑάνεται οὔτε αἰσϑητή ἐστιν· οὐδὲ ἀταξίαν ἔχει ϰαὶ ταϱαχήν, ὑπὸ παϑῶν ὑλιϰῶν ἐνοχλουμένη, οὔτε ἀδύναμός ἐστιν, αἰσϑητοῖς ὑποϰειμένη συμπτώμασιν, οὔτε ἐν ἐνδείαι ἐστὶ φωτός· οὐδὲ ἀλλοίωσιν ἢ φϑοϱὰν ἢ μεϱισμὸν ἢ στέϱησιν ἢ ·εῦσιν οὔτε ἄλλο τι τῶν αἰσϑητῶν οὔτε ἐστὶν οὔτε ἔχει.

We say then, that the Cause of all, which is above all, is neither without being, nor without life — nor without reason, nor without mind, nor is a body — nor has shape — nor form — nor quality, or quantity, or bulk — nor is in a place — nor is seen — nor has sensible contact — nor perceives, nor is perceived, by the senses — nor has disorder and confusion, as being vexed by earthly passions, — nor is powerless, as being subject to casualties of sense, — nor is in need of light; — neither is It, nor has It, change, or decay, or division, or deprivation, or flux, — or any other of the objects of sense.

 

Αὖϑις δὲ ἀνιόντες λέγομεν, ὡς οὔτε ψυχή ἐστιν οὔτε νοῦς, οὔτε φαντασίαν ἢ δόξαν ἢ λόγον ἢ νόησιν ἔχει· οὐδὲ λόγος ἐστὶν οὔτε νόησις, οὔτε λέγεται οὔτε νοεῖται· οὔτε ἀϱιϑμός ἐστιν οὔτε τάξις, οὔτε μέγεϑος οὔτε σμιϰϱότης, οὔτε ἰσότης οὔτε ἀνισότης, οὔτε ὁμοιότης ἢ ἀνομοιότης· οὔτε ἕστηϰεν οὔτε ϰινεῖται οὔτε ἡσυχίαν ἄγει· οὐδὲ ἔχει δύναμιν οὔτε δύναμίς ἐστιν οὔτε φῶς· οὔτε ζῆι οὔτε ζωή ἐστιν· οὔτε οὐσία ἐστὶν οὔτε αἰὼν οὔτε χϱόνος· οὐδὲ ἐπαφή ἐστιν αὐτῆς νοητὴ οὔτε ἐπιστήμη, οὔτε ἀλήϑειά ἐστιν οὔτε βασιλεία οὔτε σοφία, οὔτε ἓν οὔτε ἑνότης, οὔτε ϑεότης ἢ ἀγαϑότης· οὐδὲ πνεῦμά ἐστιν, ὡς ἡμᾶς εἰδέναι, οὔτε υἱότης οὔτε πατϱότης οὔτε ἄλλο τι τῶν ἡμῖν ἢ ἄλλωι τινὶ τῶν ὄντων συνεγνωσμένων· οὐδέ τι τῶν οὐϰ ὄντων, οὐδέ τι τῶν ὄντων ἐστίν, οὔτε τὰ ὄντα αὐτὴν γινώσϰει, ἧι αὐτή ἐστιν, οὔτε αὐτὴ γινώσϰει τὰ ὄντα, ἧι ὄντα ἐστίν· οὔτε λόγος αὐτῆς ἐστιν οὔτε ὄνομα οὔτε γνῶσις· οὔτε σϰότος ἐστὶν οὔτε φῶς, οὔτε πλάνη οὔτε ἀλήϑεια· οὔτε ἐστὶν αὐτῆς ϰαϑόλου ϑέσις οὔτε ἀφαίϱεσις, ἀλλὰ τῶν μετ' αὐτὴν τὰς ϑέσεις ϰαὶ ἀφαιϱέσεις ποιοῦντες αὐτὴν οὔτε τίϑεμεν οὔτε ἀφαιϱοῦμεν, ἐπεὶ ϰαὶ ὑπὲϱ πᾶσαν ϑέσιν ἐστὶν ἡ παντελὴς ϰαὶ ἑνιαία τῶν πάντων αἰτία ϰαὶ ὑπὲϱ πᾶσαν ἀφαίϱεσιν ἡ ὑπεϱοχὴ τοῦ πάντων ἁπλῶς ἀπολελυμένου ϰαὶ ἐπέϰεινα τῶν ὅλων.
— Jacques Paul Migne: Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca, III. Paris, 1857.

On the other hand, ascending, we say, that It is neither soul, nor mind, nor has imagination, or opinion, or reason, or conception; neither is expressed, nor conceived; neither is number, nor order, nor greatness, nor littleness; nor equality, nor inequality; nor similarity, nor dissimilarity; neither is standing, nor moving; nor at rest; neither has power, nor is power, nor light; neither lives, nor is life; neither is essence nor eternity, nor time; neither is Its touch intelligible, neither is It science, nor truth; nor kingdom, nor wisdom; neither one, nor oneness; neither Deity, nor Goodness; nor is It Spirit according to our understanding; nor Sonship, nor Paternity; nor any other thing of those known to us, or to any other existing being; neither is It any of non-existing nor of existing things, nor do things existing know It, as It is; nor does It know existing things, qua existing; neither is there expression of It, nor name, nor knowledge; neither is It darkness, nor light; nor error, nor truth; neither is there any definition at all of It, nor any abstraction. But when making the predications and abstractions of things after It, we neither predicate, nor abstract from It; since the all-perfect and uniform Cause of all is both above every definition and the pre-eminence of Him, Who is absolutely freed from all, and beyond the whole, is also above every abstraction.
Mystical Theology. Translated by Rev. John Parker. In: The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, now first translated into English, from the original Greek, Vol. I. London: James Parker and Co, 1897. pp. 129-137.

 

प्रज्ञापारमिताहृदय — Buddhistisches Herzsutra

Verehrung der vollkommenen Weisheit, der gesegneten, der edlen.

Avalokiteshvara (अवलोकितेश्वर) der Bodhisattva, der edle, bewegte sich auf dem tiefen Pfad überschreitender vollkommener Weisheit; niederblickend erschaute er die fünf Skandhas (स्कन्ध) und nahm sie wahr als aus sich leer.

Hier, o Shāriputra (शारिपुत्र) ist Form Leere, und ist Leere Form, Form ist nicht verschieden von Leere, Leere ist nicht verschieden von Form, wasimmer Form ist, ist Leere, wasimmer Leere ist, ist Form. Dasselbe gilt für Gefühl, Wahrnehmung, Gestaltungsimpuls wie Bewußtsein.

Hier, o Shāriputra, ist allen Dharmas Leere eigen; weder sind sie entstanden noch erloschen, weder sind sie rein noch unrein, weder sind sie mangelhaft noch vollkommen.

Daher, o Shāriputra, ist in Leere weder Form noch Gefühl, noch Wahrnehmung, noch Gestaltungsimpuls, noch Bewußtsein; weder Auge, Ohr, Nase, Zunge, Haut noch Geist; weder Formen, Töne, Gerüche, Geschmäcke, Berührbares, noch Geistobjekte; weder ein Element des Gesichtsinnes, bis zu: noch ein Element des Geistsinnes. Es ist weder Unwissenheit noch Auslöschen von Unwissenheit, bis zu: weder Alter-Tod noch Auslöschen von Alter-Tod. Es ist weder Leiden, Entstehen, Vergehen noch Weg; weder Erkenntnis noch Erreichen, noch Nichterreichen.

Daher, o Shāriputra, wegen seines Nichterreichens, verweilt ein Bodhisattva, indem er sich auf die vollkommene Weisheit gestützt hat, ohne Geisthindernisse. In Abwesenheit von Geisthindernissen ist er ohne Furcht, er hat die Irrtümer überwunden und wird durch Nirvāna getragen.

Alle, die als Buddhas in den drei Zeiten erscheinen, erlangen die rechte, höchste, vollkommene Erleuchtung, da sie sich auf die vollkommene Weisheit gestützt haben.

Daher wisse die vollkommene Weisheit als das große mystische Mantra, das Mantra großen Erkennens, das höchste Mantra, das unvergleichliche Mantra, das von allem Leiden befreit; wahrlich, was könnte falsch sein. Durch die vollkommene Weisheit wird dieses Mantra überliefert, es lautet:

gate gate pāragate pārasamgate bodhi svāhā (गते गते पारगते पारसंगते बोधि स्वाहा ).

 

Dermot Moran and Adrian Guiu: John Scottus Eriugena

Eriugena’s thought is best understood as a sustained attempt to create a consistent, systematic, Christian Neoplatonism from diverse but primarily Christian sources. Eriugena had a unique gift for identifying the underlying intellectual framework, broadly Neoplatonic but also deeply Christian, assumed by the writers of the Christian East. Drawing especially on Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus Confessor, as well as on the more familiar authorities (auctores) of the Latin West (e.g., Cicero, Augustine, Macrobius, Martianus Capella, Boethius), he developed a highly original cosmology, where the highest principle, “the immovable self-identical one” (unum et idipsum immobile, Periphyseon, Patrologia Latina 122: 476b), engenders all things and retrieves them back into itself. Contrary to what some earlier commentators supposed, it is most unlikely that Eriugena had direct knowledge of the original texts of Plotinus, Porphyry, Proclus, or other pagan Neoplatonists, but he did have some direct knowledge of Plato (a portion of Timaeus in the translation of Calcidius) as well as familiarity with the pseudo-Augustinian Categoriae decem.

Overall, Eriugena develops a Neoplatonic cosmology according to which the infinite, transcendent, and “unknown” God, who is beyond being and non-being, through a process of self-articulation, procession, or “self-creation”, proceeds from his divine “darkness” or “non-being” into the light of being, speaking the Word who is understood as Christ, and at the same timeless moment bringing forth the Primary Causes of all creation. These causes in turn proceed into their Created Effects and as such are creatures entirely dependent on, and will ultimately return to, their sources, which are the Causes or Ideas in God. These Causes, considered as diverse and infinite in themselves, are actually one single principle in the divine One. The whole of reality or nature, is involved in a dynamic process of outgoing (exitus) from and return (reditus) to the One. God is the One or the Good or the highest principle, which transcends all, and which therefore may be said to be “the non-being that transcends being”. In an original departure from traditional Neoplatonism, in his dialogue Periphyseon, this first and highest cosmic principle is called “nature” (natura) and is said to include both God and creation.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
 

Johannes Scottus Eriugena:
Periphyseon (De Diuisione Naturae). Liber Primus. Edited by I. P. Sheldon Williams with the Collaboration of Ludwig Bieler.
Dublin: Institute for Advanced Studies, 1978. Reprint of the edition 1968.
Large Octavo. Frontispiece, x, 269 pp.
Original green cloth, spine gilt with title. No dust-jacket, as issued.

Critical edition of the Latin text, and the only English translation of this work available, includes scholarly apparatus and notes. The magnum opus of John (Johannes) Scottus (or Scotus) Eriugena (c. 810-c. 877), an Irish Christian Neoplatonist and translator of the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite (Ps. Dionysius), has been of enormous influence. The Periphyseon is a synthesis and systematisation of his Latin and Greek Christian Neoplatonist predecessors: Augustine, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianen, and Pseudo-Dionysius. The work divides Nature (“all that is and all that is not”) into four aspects: 1. that which is not created but creates i. e. God; 2. that which creates and is created i. e. the world of primordial causes or Platonic Ideas; 3. that which is created and does not create i. e. the physical world; and 4. that which does not create and is not created i. e. God, to whom all things in the end will return. Eriugena’s influence on Christian mysticism and philosophy has been immense. — Small stamp on title, some marginal annotations, otherwise good. — “Scriptores Latini Hiberniae Volume VII”.

Drei weitere Bände folgten bis 1995 in gleicher Ausstattung: Scriptores Latini Hiberniae Volume IX, XI, XIII.

Einige der zahlreichen Bände Sekundärliteratur:

Johann Gottfried Gruber & Ernst Mylius:
Scotus Erigena particula I. Quid Scotus Erigena de malo docuerit.
Halle: Heynemann für Ch. Graeger, 1843.
Octavo. 213 × 129 mm. 27, [1] Seiten.
Geheft mit neuem Kleisterpapierumschlag.

Der Lexikograph Johann Gottfried Gruber (1774 – 1851) wurde 1793 nach polyhistorischen Studien an der Universität zu Leipzig Magister, habilitierte 1803 und ging zwei Jahre später nach Weimar, wo er sich Wieland anschloß, zu dessen Herausgeber, Interpret und Biograph er wurde. Während der Napoleonischen Kriege arbeitete er für die ‚Allgemeine Literaturzeitung‘; 1811 wurde er Professor der historischen Hilfswissenschaften in Wittenberg. Als Unterhändler der preußischen Regierung wirkte er mit bei den Verhandlungen zur Zusammenlegung der Universitäten Wittenberg und Halle. Ab 1815 lehrte er an der Universität Halle/Saale, deren Rektorat er von 1817 bis 1821 innehatte. Gruber war seit 1812 lexikographischer Mitarbeiter an Brockhaus’ Konversationslexikon; ab 1818 war er neben Johann Samuel Ersch Mitherausgeber, für die Bände 28-54 sogar alleiniger Herausgeber der ‚Allgemeinen Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste‘. Sein Vorliebe galt universalhistorischen Studien, nebenbei schrieb er auch Romane, cf. Kosch: Literatur-Lexikon VI,912-913. Vorliegende Dissertation basiert auf den Arbeiten von P. Hjort und F. A. Raudenmayer, die einige Jahre zuvor erschienen, und untersucht Begriff, Ursprung, Existenz, Beschaffenheit und Bestrafung des Bösen anhand der Schriften Eriugenas ‚De divina praedestinatione‘ und ‚De divisione naturae‘. Titel etwas angestaubt und minimal gebräunt, oben etwas eselsohrig. Sehr selten. Erste Ausgabe.

Johannes Huber:
Johannes Scotus Erigena. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie im Mittelalter.
Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1970. Nachdruck der Ausgabe: München: Lentner, 1861.
Octavo. XVI, 442, [1], [1 weiße] Seiten.
Original-Leinwandband mit schwarzgeprägtem Titel auf Rücken und Vorderdeckel.

Enthält: Die Anfänge der Wissenschaft im Mittelalter; Leben und Schriften des Johannes Scotus Erigena; Die formalen Voraussetzungen des Systems; Die Entwicklung des Systems: Natura creans et non creata, Natura creata et creans; Natura creata et non creans; Natura nec creata nec creans. Der Hauptteil des vorliegenden Werkes beschäftigt sich also mit Eriugenas „Periphyseon“. Kleine, unauffälliger Rasur auf Titel, sonst sehr gut. Zweiter, unveränderter Nachdruck. Cf. Ziegenfuß/Jung I,558.

Werner Beierwaltes:
Eriugena Redivivus. Zur Wirkungsgeschichte seines Denkens im Mittelalter und im Übergang zur Neuzeit. Vorträge des V. Internationalen Eriugena-Colloquiums Werner-Reimers-Stiftung Bad Homburg, 26.-30. August 1985.
Heidelberg: Winter, 1987.
Octavo. 356 Seiten. Mit insgesamt 17 s/w Abbildungen.
Blaue Original-Leinwand mit goldgeprägtem Titel auf Rücken und Vorderdeckel.

Die Texte in Englisch, Deutsch, Französisch und Italienisch. Kleiner Stempel auf Titel, sonst wohlerhalten. Erste Ausgabe. „Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Klasse. Jahrgang 1987. 1. Abhandlung.“

John J. O’Meara & Ludwig Bieler:
The Mind of Eriugena. Papers of a Colloquium Dublin, 14-18 July 1970.
Dublin: Irish University Press for The Royal Irish Academy, 1973.
Octavo. xiii, [1 blank], 199, [1] pp.
Original blue cloth, spine gilt with title.

Erste Ausgabe. Die Texte in Englisch, Deutsch und Französisch.