77 CE) are sufficiently difficult, his expositions (…) is perhaps even harder to analyse. Due to a limited knowledge of Greek, Eriugena did not always seem to understand what Dionysius was saying. Nevertheless, he insisted on providing his own translations of Dionysius, as well as of Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus Confessor. He thereby became an important bridge between the theological culture of East and West. (…) Rorem’s present work is located at the crossroads of Dionysian and Eriugenian scholarship. (…) Rorem highlights (…) Eurigena’s own creative interpretation - and intellectual transformation - of Dionysus. To this end he makes repeated excursions into Eriugena’s other works. As a result we now get a much more complete, although not necessarily any less complex, view of the dissemination of the Eastern tradition in the West. (…) Chapters 5-7 summarized various doctrinal aspects of Eriugena’s thought (…), pointing out Dionysian influence in the Irishman’s elaboration of them. These chapters are among the most rewarding, as they bring an added subtlety to the analysis of key Eriugenian themes (creation, apophasis, and theophany), enriching our insight into Eriugena’s own thought through a deeper understanding of the Dionysian heritage. The fact that Eriugena applies ‘Nihil’ as a name to god in the Periphyseon (…) takes Dionysian practice a crucial step further, thereby preparing the way for Eckhart and other mystics. (…) for Rorem, Eriugena generally sticks to the Eastern theological pattern whereby it is held that God became human so that humanity could become divine, but here the Dionysian heritage may not say all there is to say.’ (WILLEMIEN OTTEN in The Journal of Religion, 2006, pp.474-75).