Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf

7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf

1/145


2/145

D E N Y S T H E A R E O P A G I TE


3/145

OUTST NDINGCHRISTI NTHINKERS

S eries E ditor: B r ia n D a v i e s O P ,Professor of Ph i l o so p h y a t Fordham

Un iversi ty, N ew Yo r k .

Cappadocians

A n t h o n y

M e r e d i t hS J

ugustine

M a r y T .

C l a r k R S C J

Catherineof Siena

G i u l i a n a C a v a l l i n i

O P

Kierkegaard

J u l i a Watkin

HansUrs von

Balthasar

J o h n O 'D o n ne ll S J

Teresa ofAvila

A r c h b is h o p R o w an

W i l l i a m s

Bultmann

D avid Fergusson

KarlBarth

John Webster

Lonergan

Frederick

R ow e

S J

quinas

B r ia n D a v ie s OP

ReinholdNeibuhr

K e n n e t h D u r k i n

Venerable

Bede

Benedicta WardSLG

postolic Fathers

S i m o n T u g we l l

OP

Denys the reopagite

A n d r e w L o u t h

Paul

Tillich

Jo h n H e ywo o d T h o m a s

Karl

Rahner

W ill ia m V .

D y ch

S J

nselm

G. R. E v a n s


4/145

D E N Y S

T H E

A R E O P A G I T E

A n d r e w Louth

ontinuum

L O N D O N N E W Y O R K


5/145

Continuum

T he

T o w e r

B u i l d i n g , 1 1Y ork R oad,

L o n d o n

S E 1 7 N X

3 7 0 L e x i n g t o n A v e n u e , N ew Yor k, N Y , 1 0 0 1 7 - 6 5 0 3

www.continuumbooks.com

A ndr e w Louth 1989

A ll

r ights

reserved. N o

par t

of

t h i s p u b l i c a t i o n

may be

reproduced or t r a n s m i t t e d in any form or by any m e a n s ,

electronic or

mechanical including

photocopying,

recording

or any i n f o r m a t i o n

storage

or r e t r ie val s ys te m.

with out prior permission in wri t ing from the publishers.

First

published

1989

R e- issued

20 0 1

B r i t ish l ibr ar y Cata logu ing-in -P ubl ica t ion D ata

A ca ta logue record fo r this book is av ai lable f r om T he Brit ish Library

I S B N 0

8264

5772 X

Typeset

b y Y H T

Ltd, London

Printed

a n d

Bound

in

G r ea t

Bri tainby

B i d d i e s

Ltd, G uildford

a n d K in g ' s Lynn
http://www.continuumbooks.com/http://www.continuumbooks.com/


6/145

Contents

Editorial

foreword

vii

Bibliography viii

A bbrevia tions

x

1

In troduct ion:

the

intellectual world

o f the

late fifth

century

1

2 A

liturgical theology

1 7

3 The

angelic choirs

33

4 T h e earthlyliturgy 52

5 T h e

nameless

G o d o f

m a n y n a m e s

7 8

6 Visions an d

darkness

9 9

7 A f ter l i fe 1 1 1

8 Conclusion 1 3 0

V


7/145

his page intentionally left blank


8/145

Editorial Foreword

S t

A n s e l m

of

C a n terbu ry (1 0 3 3 1 1 0 9 ) o n ce d escr ibed h imself

as

someone with faith seeking understanding. In wordsaddressed to G o d

he

says

'I

l o n g

to

un d ers tan d

in

some degree

thy

t ru th, w h i c h

m y

heart

believes and loves. For I do not seek tou n d ers tan d th at I may believe,

but

believe

in

order

to

understand. '

T h i s isw h at C h ris t ian s h av e a lwa y sinevitablysaid, either explicitly

or

im plicitly . Christian ity rests

on faith, but it

also

has

content.

I t teaches

an d

proclaims

a

distinctive

an d

challenging view

of

reality.

I t n a t u r a l l y encourages reflection.

It is

something

to think

about;

something about which

on e

might even havesecond thoughts.

B ut wh at h av e

the

greatest Christian thinkers said?

A nd is it

w orth

saying?

Does

it engage with modern problems?

Does

it provide us

with

a

vision

to

live

by?

Does

it

make sense?

Can it be

preached?

Is it

believable?

T he

O utstanding Christian

Thinkers

series

is

offered

to

readers

with

qu estions like these

in

min d .

I t

aims

to

provide clear, authoritative

an d

critical accoun ts of outstan ding Christian writers from N ew T estament

times

to the

present.

I t

ranges across

th e

full spectrum

of

Christian

thought

to include Catholica n d Protestant thinkers, thinkers from E a s t

and West, thinkers ancient, mediaeval

and

m odern.

T he

series draws

on the

best scholarship currently available,

so it

will interest

all

with

a

professional concern

for the

history

of

Christian

ideas.

B ut con tributors alsowrite fo rgeneral

readers

w hohave little or

n o

previous knowledge of the subjects to be dealt with. I ts volumes

should therefore prove helpful

at a

popular

as

well

as an

academic

level. For the most part they are devoted to a single thinker, bu t

occasionally th e subject is a movement or school of thought.

BrianDavies OP

vii


9/145

Bibliography

D E N Y S S W O R K S

T he

w o r k s

of

D e n y s

th e

A reopagite

are

printed

in :

Patrologia

Graeca3 , ed.J.-P.M igne (P aris , 1857), from the edition by B altha-

sar Corderius (2

vols,

A n tw erp, 1634). A new critical edition is still

awaited fromGottingen.

T he translation in the

Classics

of

W estern Spirituality

series, by

Colm L ui bhe id a n d P a ul R ore m (L on don / M a hwa h, N J , 1987)takes

account of the G ottingen edition.

In this

book,

colum n references to Migne are

frequently

added(or

usedalone):theseareprintedin them arginof theLuibheid-Rorem

translation.

Englishtran slation s

are

usua lly

m y

ow n, thou gh sometimes

I

have

used

th e

Luibheid-R orem translation. E ven when

I

have

n ot

used

their translation,

I

have foun d

it

most helpfu l.

O T H E R B O O K S F R E Q U E N T L Y C I T E D

See p. x for the abbreviated forms of

references

used.

Pseudo-Dionysius,

The Complete Works, trans. C olm Lu ibheid

and

P a u l R o r e m (Classics of Western Spirituality, London:

SPCK/Mahwah,

NJ:

Paulist Press,

1987).

H.Koch,Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita inseinen Beziehungen zum

Neoplatonismus und

M ysterienwesen

(Mainz, 1900).

viii


10/145

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

J . -P . Migne (ed.),Patrologia Graeca (Paris,1857-66).

R . Roques,

L 'Univers

dionysien.

Structure hierarchiquedu

monde

selon lePseudo-Denys (Paris, 1954).

R .

Roques,Structures

theologiques

de la

gnose

a

Richard

de

Saint-

Victor (Paris,

1962).

P a u l

Rorem,

Biblical

and

Liturgical Symbols within

the

Pseudo-

Dionysian Synthesis (Toronto, 1984).

For further

bibliography, seeR oques,

L'Univers dionysien . . .

pp. 7-28,

an d

Rorem,

Biblical and Liturgical Symbols . . .

pp.

151-6.

ix


11/145

Abbreviations

CA Corpus Areopagiticum

CH Celestial Hierarchy

D N Divine Name s

E H Ecc lesiastical Hierarchy

E p. Epistle

M T

M ystical Theology

P G J.-P . Migne (ed.) ,Patrologia Graeca

Works =

Pseudo-Dionysius, The Com plete W orks, tran s. Colm Luibheid and

P a u l R o re m

Koch,Ps-Dionysius =

H . K oc h,Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita inseinen Beziehungen zum

Neoplatonismus und Mysterienwesen

R o q u e s ,L'U nivers =

R .

R o q u e s ,

L Universdionysien. Structurehierarchiquedu

monde

selon

le

Pseudo-Denys

R o q u e s , Structures =

R . R o q u e s ,Structures theologiques

de la

gnose

a

R ichard

de

Saint-

Victor

R o r e m ,

Symb ols

=

P a u l R o r e m , Biblical and Liturgical Symbols within the Pseudo-

Dionysian Synthesis

X


12/145

Introduction:

the

intellectual

w o r l d o f t h e late f i f t h c e n t u r y

A H I D D E N A UT H O R

A t

th e

beginning

of the

six th cen tury

the

Christian community began

to become aware of a collection of writings, th e

Corpus

Areopagiticum

or the

A reopagitical C orpus,

that

has

exercised

a

profound

influenceonChristian theology fro mthatda y tothis.For

centuries it was

thought

that they werethe worksofthat D ionysius

(or D enys, as he became kn ow n in the vernacular) who is mentioned

as

having been con verted b y S t

Paul's

defence beforethe Areopagus

in

A thens (A cts

17:34).

T he

w ritings

themselves

locate

their w riter in

first-century Christianity: he

speaks

of

P a ul

as his

mentor, addresses

letters

toT imothyand

T itus,

an devento the apostle John inexileon

Patmos;

he

tells

of

experiencing

the

da rkn ess that covered

th e

earth

at the time of the crucifixion (whenhe w as in Egypt, still a

pagan),

and (perhaps) presents

himself

a s prese nt, w ith some of the apostles,

at the

death

of the Blessed Virgin. Eusebius in his

Church History

( I I I .4.6)states that D enys the A reopagite became the

first

B ishop of

A t he n s ,

basing this info rm ation on the testimon y of another D enys,

who was Bishop of Corinth at the end of the second century. Later

tra dition , in the West an d especially in France, ma de D enys the

A reopagite not only Bishop of Athens, but

also

th eapostle to the

G a u l sand first Bishopof Paris who wasma rtyred for the Christian

faith

on

wha t

is now

Montmartre .

G r a dua l l y , however, this whole tradition w as dismantled. Peter

A belard added

to his

troubles

by

questioning

the

theory that

the

martyr-bishop

of

Paris (and patron

of the

A bbe y

of

S aint-D enis)

1


13/145

D E N Y S T H E A R E O P A G I T E

wasth e

author

o f theCorpusAreopag iticum.

Scholars from

the

time

of the Renaissance onwards revived ancient doubts about the

authenticity

of these writings, and more recent research

1

has proved

beyond any reasonable doubt that, far

from

being works from the

first

century, these writings

belong

to the end of the fifth or

the beginn ing of the sixth

century.

2

D enys the A reopagite became the

Pseudo-Denys or P seudo-D ionysius, and interest in him declined,

apart from attempts to solve the fascinating problem as to who

exactly

he was. B ut interest in D enys could n ot lapse for long, fo r,

whoeverhe

was,

his

writin gs exercised

an

enormous influence

on the

so-called mystical tradition

of the

m ediaeval

West. A s

interest

in

that

tradition increasesa s thetwen tieth centu ry wearson, socu riosity,at

least, about D enys

and his

writings

has

grown.

D enys veiled himself in the folds of a lightly-w orn pseudon ymity.

The curiosity of modern scholarship has stripped off from him the

veilhechosetowear,but hasha rdly come m uc h closerto discovering

his

ow n tru e iden tity. A lmost everyone in the period has been sug-

gested, but few of the suggestions have convinced anyone other than

their authors

and

none

has

gained general acceptance.

3

Even what

virtually

everyone

acceptsthat

th e author of the Corpus

Areopagiticum

belongs

to the end of the

fifth

or

beginning

of the

sixth

centuryreveals

very little: it simply locates him in a period of

the Church's history, little known and mu ch misunderstood. S o, as

we

cannot begin this study with an account of our author's life,

perhap s w e ma y begin

with

a sketch of the period of ch ur ch history in

the

shadows

of

which

he

still hides himself.

But it is

indeed

an

obscure

periodthe

ideal hiding-place

for one

such

as our

a u t h o r a n d in our

attempt

to

make something clear

of it

some

of

the way will

seem rather hard going. But, though obscure,

it was a

crucially

im porta nt period in the

life

of theChurch,an d it isessential

to come to terms w ith it, if we are ever to u nd erstan d D enys.

CONFLICT O V E R T H E P E R S O N O F C H R I S T

For

most students

of

theology,

the

Council

of

Chalcedon, held

in

A D

451, represents

the en d of

'early

Christian

do ctrine' :

after

the

coun-

cil a

darkness descends which only begins

to

clear

in the

Middle

A g es ,

or at the

R e f o r m a t i o n ,

or

sometimes even later still.

T he

Council of Chalcedon is seen as settling the great Christological

controversy of thep atristic period

which

had begun almost tw ocen-

turiesearlierwith

th e

condemn ation

of

P a ul

of

Samosata

at

A n t ioc h

(268)

and

then

the

condemn ation

of

A riu s

at

Nicaea

(325) both for

2


14/145

THE INTELLECTUAL

W O R L D

O F T H E

LATE FIFTH CENTURY

having

questioned in

different

waysthe full divinityof Chris tand

continued through

th e

heresy

of

A pollinaris (c.310-c. 390),

w ho

compromised Christ's

full

humanity by denying him a human soul

and was

condemned

at

Constantinople (381),

to

culminate

in the

great Christological con troversy between A lexan dria

an d

Antioch.

This final stage

of the

c ontroversy

w as

concerned with

the

question

of

reconciling

full

divinity

and

full humanity

in

Christ.

T he

A lex andrian tradition, which

can be

traced back

to

A thanasius (P atriarch

328-373)

and found its

fullest

expression in

Cyril (Patriarch412-446), started from

the

confession

of the

full

divinity

of the Word of God who,in theinca rna tion, un ited himself

completely with humanity,

so

that

the

Incarnate Word

of God was

truly

G od

among

us, his

mother

w as

truly called Theotokos (God-

bearer, or Mother of God), and by such divine contact with th e

hu m an c ondition, the wretched, fallenstate of mankind was healed.

This emphasis on uncompromised divinity and unqualified unity

was summed

up in the

phrase, dear

to

Cyril,

'one

incarna te na ture

of

God the

W o r d '.

T he opposing

A ntiochene

tradition can be traced back to

D iodore, B ishop

of

Tarsus

(d.

c. 390),

if not to

Eustathius, Bishop

of A ntioch (Bishop from

c.

324 to 326), and found its most deve-

loped form in Theodore (c.

350-428),

Bishop of Mopsuestia;

though

whenthestorm bro kein 428,T heodore w asdead and hisdis-

ciple N estorius

(d. c.451),the

new ly elected Bishop

(or

P atriarch)

of

Constantinople, bore

th e

b r u n t

of the

con flict.

For the

Antiochenes,

what

w as

importan t

was to

hold firmly

to

both

th e

full

divinity

an d

th e

full

humanityof Christ. Christ's workof redemption w as some-

thing worked out in our humanity: the sacrifice Christ offered he

offered as man, and our redemption depends on his priestly role,

which

issomethingheexercisesinhis humanity. Certainly Christ is

fully divine, too:

G od

takes

th e

initiative

in ourredem ptionand the

hu m an , priestly wo rkofChristis inresponsetothat divine initiative.

Christ

is

seen

as so

utterly responsive

to the

divine

that

God can be

said

to

dwell

in him in a wa y

qu itedifferent from

the way he

dw ells

in

even

th e

most saintly

o f

h u m a nbeings.

B uthow

full divinity

and full

h u m a n i t y

form a un ity in Christ, the A ntiochenes could not say: they

had

variou s theories

an d

analogies,

bu t

the ir concern

wa s to

empha-

size the distinctness and integrity of the two natures of Christ,as it

w as

important for them that th e hum a n i t yof Christ still fun ctione d

with

full

human integrity, since on that our redemption depended.

T he

first stage

of

this final Christological conflict

was

fought

out

between

Cyril and N estoriu s, and culm inated in the Council of

Ephesus (431)

at

w hich N estorius

was

condemned, deposed

as

3


15/145

D E N Y S T H E A R E O P A G I T E

patriarch ofCon stan tinople,andexiled by theE mperor to theG reat

Oasis

on the

edge

of the

Libya n desert. N estorianism

(as the

heresy

of the A ntiochenes w as called) was condem ned for dissolving the

unity

of Christ, as, in

effect,

preaching

' two

Sons ' (a charge

N estorius always denied).

It was the

second stage

of the

con flict

that

resulted

in the

Council

of Chalcedon. N estorius

w as

still

in

exile,

his

successor Proclus

was

dead

and had

been succeeded

by

Flavian;

in

A lex andria, C yril

had

died and his successor w as D ioscorus. In Constantinople an aged

m o n k

of

great sanctity,

and

considerable influence

at the

imperial

court,

an

archimandrite

(head of a

mon astery) called E utych es,

began

to

insist tha t

the

true teaching abou t Christ,

the

teaching

of the

great Cyril, mu st

b e

expressed

by

saying'onenature

after th eu n i o n ';

and further,

that this

one

nature

of

Christ

w as not 'of one

substance

withus'. Christ

was God in

human form, that

was the

important

thing.

Flavian censured Eutyches; Eutyches appealed

to

D ioscorus,

w ho

with

some of his bishops set sail for Ephesus to support Eutyches

against this

'new

N estorius ' . A t a synod held in Ephesus in 449,

Eutychesw asupheldand Flavian condemned (andso ill-treated that

hesoon died).Flavian had

appealed

toR ome, toPopeLeo, who had

given

him his

support

in a

letter,

th e

famous ' T o m e

of

Leo',w hich

condemned Eutyches and set out Leo's teaching on Christology.

More important

for the

immediate course

of

events,

th e

Emperor

Theodosius

I I

died

and was

succeeded

by

M arcian,

w ho

ma rried

th e

widowed Empress Pulcheria,

w ho

became

the

real

power behind

the

throne. Pulcheria 's sympathies were with Flavian an d Leo, and a

new

council was called, which eventually met at Chalcedon in 451.

T he

Coun cil deposed D ioscorus

for his

part

in the

S ynod

of

E phe sus

(called by Leo the

L atrocinium,

the 'Robber Synod') , rehabilitated

Flavian (posthum ously: he was nowdead and hadbeen succeeded by

A natolius), an d proceeded to draw up a definition of Faith.

T he Chalcedonian D efinition begins by

reaffirming

the creed of

the

Council

of

Nicaea

and the

creed

of the

Council

of

Con-

stantinople,and then endorsingtheteachingofCyril,a sexpressedin

various

of his

letters,

and the

teaching

of

Leo,

as put

forth

in his

'Tome'.T hen followsthe Christological defin ition of fa ith. It is cun -

ningly

constructed: based on the Formulary of Reunion in which

Cyril and Jo hn , B ishop of A ntioch from 42 9 to 441, had sun k their

differences in 433after the

condemn ation

of

N estorius,

it

safeguards

the

A ntiochene insistence

on the

in tegrity

and

distinctness

of the two

natures of Christ interms draw n from th e writings of Cyril (thoug h

4


16/145

T H E IN T E LL E C T U A L W O R L D O F T H E L A T E

FIFTH

C E N T U R Y

taken out of context), and sets the whole in the context of an

Alexandrineemphasis on the u n ity of Christ. H ad that been all, the

D efinition

might have secured more acceptance than it did, but it

was necessary, too,

to

secure

the

unequivocal approval

of the

West:

the

new E astern emperor, M arcian, needed the approval of the

Western emperor, Valentinian III. That meant not just general

app roval of Leo's

Tome

b ut the inco rporation into the D efinition of

its insistence that Christ exists and is kn ow n

'in

tw on atures '.S o the

crucial phrase of the D efinition came to read: 'One and the Same

Christ, S on, Lord, O nly-Begotten, kn ow n

in two

natures, uncon-

fusedly,

unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably

. . .'.

Far from Chalcedon settling the

Christological

con troversy in the

Ea st ,

it

satisfied hardly anyone.

T he

course

of the

next hundred

years

saw a

series

of

attempts

to

fashion some sort

of

un ity

out of the

divided

state of Eastern Christendom. For many Christians,

Chalcedon seemed

to

represent

a

betraya l

of

Cyril

and the

Council

of

Ephesus.

H ad they known, they would not have been surprised to

learn tha t theagedN estorius,inexileat theOasis,hadwelcomed the

news of Leo's support fo r Flavian in his

Tome

as a vindicationo f

himself. Leo's insistence on the separateness of the two natures in

their

activities'the

property

of

each nature

is

preserved

as

they

unite

in one

person',

'each form performs what is proper to it in

communion with

th e

other.

. . one of

them flashes for th

in miracles,

the other succumbs to

injuries'seemed

to open th e door to

N estorianism.

N ot

thatEutyches found much support

for his

idea

of

a Christ, onena ture formed out of two,and that onenaturenot of

one substance with us. For most of those w ho rejected Chalcedon

rejectedE utych es, too, and insisted tha t while Christ form ed a single

nature,he wasboth'of onesubstance w iththe

Father'

(as the Coun-

cil of N icaea had maintained) and 'of one substance withus' (a s

Cyril had maintainedand so had theFormulary of Reunion and,

indeed, Chalcedon itself).

I t

was the memory of Cyril, and the

fear

that he had been

betrayed,

that

fed

resistance

to

Chalcedon

in the

East. Juvenal,

Patriarch

of

Jerusalem,

who had

su pported D ioscorus

at

Ephesus

and

had

been censured

at

Chalcedon (though reinstated

on his

sup-

port

for the

D efinition) returned

to

find riots

in

Jerusalem. Things

were

m u c hthe same in Syria . But it was in Egypt that th e depth of

resentment

again st Chalcedonand Leo

was

mostapparent .D ioscorus

had

been ex iled to G an gra, a nd P roterius, w ho had been close to

D ioscorus,w as appointed Patriarchin hisstead. T here were riotsin

Alexandria: the

troops

were called in, but were driven back

5


17/145

D E N Y S

T H E

A R E O P A G I T E

and

took refuge

in the

S erapeum,

a

former pagan temple, w here they

werebu rn t alive.A n un easy calm w aseventua lly restored. B utwhen

th eE mperor M arcian died in457, T imothy A elurus (The Weasel',

so

called because

of his

spare physique)

was

elected Patriarch

(D ioscorus ha vin g died in exile some time earlier) and w ithin days

Proterius had been torn to pieces by the A lexan drian mob. T he

Church

in E gypt has never come to accept the Coun cil of Chalcedon .

T his Cyrilline reaction a gainst Chalcedon called 'Mon ophysite'

(from

the G reek for 'one, single,

nature ' )

by the supporters of

Chalcedon, because

of its

rejection

of the

Council's phrase

' k no w n

in tw o natures 'commanded the hearts and minds of the

E a s t .

The great names of the seventy or eighty years after

Chalcedon T imothy A elurus, P eter Mongus

('the

H oarse ') , Peter

the Fuller, P hilox enus of Ma bbog, S everus of A ntioch, Jacob of

Serughall rejected Chalcedon in the nam e of Cyril; everyw here

they could call on popular support. It can, indeed, be claimed

that

Chalcedon only gained final acceptance

by

large concessions being

made to theCyrilline tradition , sothat theChalcedonian D efinition

came to be read in the light of the theology of the great A lexa ndrian .

B ut

a

divided empire,

and

still w orse,

an

em pire professing

a

stan-

dard of orthodoxy repu gn an t to m a n y of its citizens, was politically

intolerable. S o various attempts w ere ma de to un ite those who sup-

ported Chalcedon and those w ho rejected it. In 475 Basiliscus

usurped th e imperialthrone. In hisbrief reignheissuedth eE ncycli-

cal

which

set

aside

Leo's Tome and the

Council

of

Chalcedon

and

reasserted the a uth ority of the Coun cil of N icaea (su pplemented by

the decisions of the Councils of Constantinople and Ephesus). But

Basiliscus did not last long. Zeno, who reasserted his authority as

Emperor in 476 and reigned until 491, a ttempted to achieve u n ity

among Christians

with

the so-called

Henoticon

(482). This again

sought to retu rn to the autho rity of N icaea (supplemented again by

Constantinople

an d

Ephesus),

and has a

brief Christological state-

ment

which

lays emphasis

on the

unity

of

Christ, avoids

any

lan-

guage at all of

'na t u re '

(either one or two), and further asserts that

the O ne who became inca rnate was 'one of the T rinity, G od and

W o r d ' .I t

thereby

m et the

A lexan drian fear that N estorianism intro-

duced a fou rth mem ber into the T rinity, but (more significan tly)

broughtinto mu tua l relationshipth edoctrinesof theT rini tyan d the

incarnation in a way that foreshadowed the theological develop-

ments of the next cen tury.

T heHe noticon did, in fact, securealarge mea sureof uni ty in the

E as t . I t wasprom ulga ted (and composed) byA cacius, P atriarch of

6


18/145

T H E I N T E L L E C T U A LWORLDO F T H E LATE FIFTH C E N T U R Y

Constantinople, who secured the support of Peter Mongus, Pat-

riarch of

Alexandria,

an d

Peter

th e

Fuller, Patriarch

of

Antioch

(bothopponents of Chalcedon, as wehave seen), as well asmany

other

bishops.

ButRome, naturally,had noinclination todisavow

the

'Tomeof

Leo',

and excommunicated Acacius and those who

supported

him in

484.

The

resulting schism between

East and

Westthe

so-called Acacian

schismwas

only healed when, with

th e accession of Justin I asEmperor in 518 in the time of Pope

Hormisdas,

theHenoticon

w asabandoned as aninstrumentofunity

and the way

paved

for the

acceptance

of

Chalcedon.

B A C K T O T H E PAST

O u r

concern, however,

is not

with

the

details

of

church history,

bu t

rathertogiveasketchof thetheologicalandintellectual worldof the

late

fifth

century, which was the background of Denys th e

Areopagite. What

is

interesting

about

theHenoticon

and

to a

lesser

extent Basiliscus'sEncyclical)is not thecomplicatedstoryof rela-

tions betweenthe imperial house, thepatriarchs and the bishops,

and themonksandpeople whose confidence they needed, but the

kind of

unity that seemed attractive

an d

attainable

in the

late fifth

century.Both the Encyclical andtheffenoticonlay enormous stress

on theCouncil ofNicaea.Onemight wonder why:it is notorious

thattheCouncilofNicaea itself settled nothingbutmerely heralded

decades

of

arguments

and

councils, hardly

any of

which conceded

N ic a ea a n yparamount authority;on thecontrary, th esuccessionof

councilsconstantly revisingthedefinitionof the faith of theChurch

onlyweakenedthenotionofconciliar authority. B utfromabout3 60

onwards, when Athanasius and later the Cappadocian Fathers)

managed

to

unite

the

Church against

the

extremes

of

Arianism, they

did

thisin the nameof the

'faith

of

Nicaea'.

By the timeof their

t r i u m p h

atConstantinople in

3 81 ,

Nicaeahadbecome asymbolof

orthodoxy.T heCouncilsofConstantinople, ofEphesusa n dindeed

of

Chalcedon

saw

themselves

as

reaffirming

th e

faithproclaimed

at

N ic aea:

W e

in no wise sufferany tounsettlethe faith . . .definedby

ou r holyFathers assembled sometimea tNicaea.N orassuredly

do we

sufferourselves

or

others either

to

alter

a

phrase

o f

what

is

contained therein,

or to go

beyond

a

single

syllable.

4

T he Fathers

5

had n oreal notion ofdevelopmentofdoctrine, an d

7


19/145

DENYS

THE

AREO P AG ITE

little enough of any idea of history. T he very newness of the

Christian

gospel

had

been

an

embarrassment

in the

early days,

an

emba rrassment they

h ad

overcome

by

seeing Christ

a s the fulfilment

of

ancientprophecy,

so

that

the

newlypreached C hristian gospel

w as

simplya rediscovery of what was in tru th of enormous an tiquity. A s

the Chu rch grew

and

developed,

th e

m atu re state

of the

Church

w as

read ba ck in to the very beginn ings. S t Basil the G reat, in the fou rth

century, regarded the liturgical customs of his own day as

apostolic

in

origin,

6

something com mon ly insinu ated

by

ascribing accounts

of

liturgical

customs

to the

apostles: witnessthe

Apostolic Tradition

(early

third century, ascribed

to

H ippolytus),

and theCanons

of

the

Apostles,

the Apostolic Constitutions (both fourth century). O f

course, the fourth century did see a change in the

affairs

of the

Ch urc h: from being a persecuted m inority, it became

with

the con-

version of the E mp eror C onstan tine in 31 2 the favou red religion of

th e

Em pi r e ,

and

eventually

th e

official state religion. This

is

pre-

sented inE usebius 'Church

History

,par excellence,a s arediscovery

of the true state of things, which had been lost at the

fall

of A da m .

Eusebius repeats, throu gho ut book

I ,

that Christianity

is not

'recent

an d outlandish' (1.2.1) or

'new

and strange'

(1.4.1),

but

'primitive,

un i que

and

true' (1.4.11). W ha t

w as

lost

as a

result

of

man's

sin is

restored

in

Christ

w ho

appeared 'in

th e

early years

of the

R o m a n

Empire '

(1.2.23).

A sthe pax Romano heralded the coming of the

Prince

ofP eace,so the

con fession

of

Christ

by the

R om a n E m peror

restores everythin gto itsoriginal harmon y:as theW ordo f G o drules

th e

u niverse,

so the

E m pe ror,

in

imitation

of the

D ivine W ord, rules

th e

Empire,

th eoikoumene .

1

T he

Council

of

N icaea, whatever

its

immediate success,

was a

c elebration

of

this restored state

of

affairs:

th e Christian bishops assembled at the command of the Christian

emperor proclaimingthefaithof theChristian C hu rch.T heenthusi-

asm for N icaea in the

Henoticon

is enthu siasm for such a state of

affairs.

T he

Peace

of the

Church

also

led to

rapid liturgical development

(disguised, as we

have seen,

by

being ascribed

to the

apostles).

T he

liturgy became more splendid, ceremonial took over

th e

customs

of

theceremon ialof theimperial cou rt, aconsciouseffort w asmade to

provide in the liturgy a moving, symbolic, dramatic

performance.

8

T he whole celebration of the liturgyw assurrounded by a senseof

awe

and mystery: only baptized Christians in good standing were

allowed at the sacram ental liturg y, all others (catechu men s receiving

instruction, Christians guilty of serious sin enrolled as penitents)

were

excluded from

th e

Church

after th e

biblical readings

and the

8


20/145

T H E

I N T E L L E C T U A L W O R L D

O F T H E

L A T E

F I F T H

C E N T U R Y

sermon. T he liturgy became the focus for the encounter between

God and man in Christ that is the heart of the Christian faith.

Christological differences were expressed in different understand-

ings of the

l i turgy.

For the

A ntiochenes

th e

liturgical action

impressed onC hristian sthepa ttern ofChrist 'slifeofobedience and

incorporated them into his humanity, his body;

while

for the

A lexan drines, in the E ucha rist the W ord of G od who came to be

with

us

in the incarnation is 'again in the

flesh'in

communion

Christians are united

with

G od, they are 'deified'.

Peter

the Fuller, from 47 1

Patriarch

of A ntioch (though with

several

periods

of

ba nishmen t), carried

th e

enthusiasm

for

doctrinal

purityunderstoodas enthusiasm for the old teaching of N icaea as

reaffirmed by Cyril, free from th e corruptions introduced by

Chalcedon into the

liturgical sphere.

By the use of

creeds

as

stan-

dardsof orthodox y, N icaea (and Constantinople) hadexpressedthe

faith

in a way that could be given liturgical expression, fo r creeds

werethe

summary

o f

faith affirmed

at

baptism

and the

creeds

of the

councils

were adopted in the ba ptisma l liturg y (later wholesale, ear-

lierb y theincorporationof distinctive language suchas'of onesub-

stance

with

theFa ther') .

9

P eter the Fuller carried this a step further:

during his second period as Patriarch(475-477) he introduced the

Creed into

th e

Eucharistic l i turgy,

in

m u ch

th e

same place

as it

occupies n ow ada ys, between the litu rgy of the w ord a nd the liturgy

ofthe sacra me nt. It un derlines the claim to orthodox y on the part of

those, likeP eter

th e

Fuller,

w ho

rejected Cha lcedon,

and

ex pressed

this orthodoxy in the words of the creed with which th e

Fathers

at

Constantinople had

reaffirmed

th e

faith

of N icaea, the so-called

N iceno-C onsta ntinop olitan Creed (still, perhaps significan tly,

called the 'N icene

Creed'

in the A nglican

Book

of

Common

Prayer).

10

Peter's other liturgicalinn ovation relatedto apartof the

liturgy

tha t w as still a rela tive n ove lty: the so-calledTrishagion, that

is , the chant 'H oly G od, H oly S trong, H oly Im mortal, have mercy

upon

us'.

First recorded

in

Constantinople

in the

time

of the

Patri-

arch Proclus (Patriarch434-446/7), this chant had had from early

days

tw o

interpretations

(as had the

older Sanctus, derived from

Isaiah

6, found in the

Eucharistic Prayer

in

most liturgies):

a

tri-

nitarian and a Christological.

1 1

T he

trinitarian interpretation

regarded the chan t as addressed to the

T r ini ty,

a s the threefold

'holy'

suggests.

T he

Christological interpretation regarded

th e

chant

as

addressed to the second P erson of the T rinity, the S on of G od. T his

latter interpretation

w as

prevalent

in

Syria ,

and the one

k n o w n

to

Peter.T oemphasize

that

it wa sindeed G odhimself,the S on of Go d ,

9


21/145

D E N Y S T H E A R E O P A G I TE

w ho

became inca rnate

a nd suffered for us something

that Cy ril

felt

had been obscured b y N estorianism, and his sup porters by the Coun -

cilof Chalcedon P eter added to the chant 'who w ascruc ified for

u s ' ,

so

that

it now

r a n :

'H o ly

God, Holy Strong, Holy Immortal ,

who w as crucified for us,

have mercy upon

us ' .

This shocked

the

Byzantine Greeks,

w ho

understood

th e

chant

as

addressed

to the

Trinity and thus saw the addition as

qualifying

the impassibility of

G od: they accused P eter of 'theopaschitism', the doctrine that G od

can suffer. For

Peter

an d

those

w ho

thought like him,

it

simply

underlined

th e

belief that

th e

Incarnate

O ne was one of the

Trinity,

G od himself: something, incidentally,

affirmed

in the

Henoticon.

(I n the endP eter w asvindicated: not that th e text of the

Trishagion

was changed,

1 2

but the

Theopaschite formula,

' O n e of the

Trinity

suffered

(or,

w as

crucified)

in the

flesh',

was

accepted

as

orthodox

and given conciliar authority at the Second Council of Con-

stantinople, the

Fifth

Ecumenical, in 553.)

T H E P A S T A N D D E N Y S

T he

tendency

to

telescope

th epast, so

that

th e

t ruth

now is the

t ruth

affirmed

at

N icaea, itself

th e

t r ut h

of

wha t

had

been believed

and

suffered for during the centuries when the Church had been perse-

cuted,

w as

something that awa kened

an

echo

in the

w hole Byzan tine

world in a far

more precise

way

than

it

would

today.

1 3

A nd it is

this

conviction that underlies

the

pseudon ymity adopted

by our

author.

H e w a s

concerned w ith

the

t r ut h ,

not

w ith changeable opinion,

an d

the truth was ancient, it was there in the

very

beginning. So it was

un de r

the

name

of one

con verted

b y S t

P aul himself that

he

wrote.

1 4

O urauthor never steps aside fromhispseudonymtogiveus achance

to see why he adopted it: but the pseudonym of 'D ionysius the

A reopagite '

is

very suggestive. D ionysius

was the first ofP a u l 's

con-

verts

in A thens, an d A thens means philosophy, and m ore precisely,

Plato. P l a t o

had commonly (if not quite always) been respected by

Christians: the

first

to defend Christianity in the context of

H ellenistic

culture, the apologists of the second century (especially

Justin Martyr), had greatly revered him, ifdissenting from someof

his

doctrines;

even

th e

great A thanasius,

the

champion

of

orthodox y

during th eA rian crisis, spokeof P latoas

' that

great oneamong th e

Greeks ' .

1 5

T he

voice

of

P lato

in

A t h e n s

was not

dead:

th e

A c a de m y

he

founded

wa s still there (or so D enys wou ld have thou ght: it is, how-

1


22/145

T H E


O F T H E

L A T E FIFTH C E N T U R Y

ever, most unlikelythat it had had a continuous existence since the

time of Plato) an d w as to remain there un til the E mperor Justinian

closed

it in 529. For m u ch of the

fifth

centurythe head of the A c a -

demy,

th e

diadochus (the

successorof

Plato),

had

been

th e

great

philosopher (and redoubtable pagan) Proclus.

T he

most com pelling

reason for dating D enys the A reopagite to the tu rn of the fifth and

sixthcen turies is the deep sym pa thy that we shall see exists between

the vision of D e n y s and the philosophy of P roclus. D enys the

A reopagite, theA thenian convert, stands at thepoint where Christ

and

Plato

meet. T he pseudonym expressed theauthor'sbelief

that

the

truths

that

Plato

grasped belong

to

Christ,

and are not

aban-

doned

by

embracing faith

in

Christ. Both D enys

and

Proclus

were

men of their

time:

just as Denys saw no anachronism in speaking

with the voice of a first-cen tury Christian , so P roclus saw n o

anachronism in counting his elaborate speculations no more than

elucidations

of Plato.

What appears

to us a

strange mongrel,

th e

produ ct of late G reek philosophy an d a highly developed form of

Christianity,

appeared to D e n y sapu re-bred pedigree, or rather th e

original specimen of the species.

T he

great Church historian, A dolf

von

H arn ac k, dismissed

the

Chalcedonian D efinition

in

these words:

T he

four bald negative terms (unconfusedly, unchangeably,

indivisibly,

inseparably) which are supposed to express the

whole t ru th ,

are in the

view

of the

classical theologians

amon gst the G reeks profo un dly irreligious. T hey a re wanting

in warm ,

concrete substance; of thebridge whichhisfaithis to

th e

believer,

th e

bridge from ea rth

to

heaven, they make

a

line

which

is

finer than

the

hair upon which

the

a dherents

of

Islam

one day

hope

to

enter

Paradise.

1 6

There

w as

m u ch

in the

Chalcedonian D efinition that caused

distress,

but it was hardly that. The four adverbs were drawn from Cyril of

A lexandria

and

used

by him to

ex press

the

closeness

of the

union

and

th e reality

of the

natures thus united.

In

using these terms, Cyril,

though

no

professional philosopher himself,

w as

drawing

on the

developingphilosophical terminology

of the

late Platonists, such

as

Proclus who was fond of adding such adverbsa s ' inseparably and

indivisibly'

when saying that tw o identical things

were

n evertheless

distinct,

an d 'uncon fusedly an d

unchan geably 'wh en saying that dis-

t inguishable things

are

ultimately

identical. Such philosophical

terminology

helped Cyrilto affirm themysterious un ityof G od and

m a n

that effected h u m a n

salvation.

1 7

11


23/145

DENYS

THE

AREOPAGITE

Denysw asfond of such language, too, but hisenthusiasm fo r late

Platonism (or N eoplatonism) went well beyond use of logical

terminology: much in the

deeper

concerns of such philosophy

attracted him. N eoplatonism is generally held to begin with th e

thoughtof the third-century philosopher Plotinus, though neitherhe

nor his successors would have regarded themselves as innovators:

they were simply Platonists. In his reflections, put together in vari-

ous treatises (called th e Enneads or the 'N i nes', since they were

edited by his pu pil P orphy ry into six books, each of nine treatises),

Plotinus drewtogether ideasfromPlato

and

other later thinkersinto

a

suggestive vision.

For Plotinus, as for many of his contemporaries (and many

others), multiplicity cried

out for

explanation

and

found such

explanationif itcould be traced backto some primordial unity.T h at

primordial un ity P lotinus called theO ne: everything derived fromit,

all

beings owed the ir existence to adeclension from original un ity,or

put a nother wa y were an

effect

of the outflow from the potent reality

of

th e

ultimacy

of theO n e.

Closest

to the O ne was the

realm

of

Intel-

lect, which corresponds to Plato's realm of the Forms or

Ideas,

where there is true kn owledge of differen tiated reality. B eyond that

is

the realm of

Soul,

whichis still further from theun ityof the O n e ,

whereknow ledgeisonlythe resultof searching, and S oul itselfisdis-

tracted by its lack of unity. Beyond the soul is the material order

whichreceives w ha t coherence

it has

from

th e

realm

of

Soul. Beyond

that there is nothing, for such disintegration has itself no hold on

being.

This outward movement of progressively diminishing radiation

from th e

O ne, called 'procession'

or

'emanation' ,

is met by a

move-

ment of yearning on the part of all beings fo r uni ty, orwhich

comes

to the

same thingfor return

to the

One. Such return

is a

spiritual

movement towards deeper inwardness, a movement of

recollection, fostered by and expressed in contemplation.

Such

a w ay of

understanding reality answers

tw o

problems:

on the

one hand, it suggests a way of looking at the interrelatedness of

everything;

on the

other,

it

answers

the

spiritual problem

of how to

cope

with our

sense

of

being disorientated,

at

odds with ourselves

an d

other

people,out of

touch with

the

roots

of ourbeing.

P lotinus's

insights

were developed

in

various ways

by his

successors:

all

that

really concerns us is the form they took in the late A thenian N eo-

platonism that Denys found

so

congenial.

For us

that means

Proclus, aslittle elsehas survived, though it isverylikely that D enys

knew

much that is now lost to us.

12


24/145

T H E

I N T E L LE C T U A L W O R L D

O FTHE LA T E

FIFTH C E N T U R Y

O ne

theme

in

Plotinus

is

particularly important

to

Proclus,

an d

that

is the

theme

of

mediation. Fundamental

to

P lotinus

is his

desire

to

relate

the O ne and the m any : the

deepest problems

in

Plotinus's

philosophy

are due to the

fact

that any movement

from

th e One

takes oneimmediately to the

m an y. N evertheless P lotinus seeks

to

disguise

the

abruptness

of

this move

by

various mediating devices,

especiallyperhaps that of distingu ishing between the O ne as the First

N u m b e r , a nd the O ne a s the source of everything else, including

number.

For Proclus this very problem of mediation is thehingeof

hisphilosophy:

and

because

to

relate

tw o

things

is to

invoke

a

third

that mediates, his philosophy comes to abound in

triads.

These

triads link everything

together.

R eality itself

has a

threefold struc-

ture:

th e

O ne, I ntellect,

and

Soul,

of

Plotinus.

A ny

level

o f

reality,

once it admits of differentiation, lays bare a threefold structure:

being, life and intelligence. These triads are not a static classifica-

tion,

but

express

a

movement that pulsates through everything,

a

movement expressed in the

triad:

rest, procession and

return.

Real-

ity,

arranged in levels that mediate an d relate one to another, takes

th e

form

of

'hierarchies'

(the term is D eny s's, bu t the concept is there

in P roclus).

These hierarchies express the

graded

levelsof reality, all

of

which

link up with one another through a cosmic sympathy that

embraces the whole.

For Plotinus all this was on the one hand a logical and meta-

physical analysis of reality, and on the other an elucidation of the

wayinwhichthe soul can re tu rn to Intellect and then ce to the O ne by

a

movement

of

contemplation

and

purification culminating

in

ecsta-

tic union. But such a movement of return by contemplation is open

only to very few: Plotinus's successors sought some other way by

which this movement of return could be made accessible to a less

restricted group. Increasingly they put their trust in an attempt to

release

the

power

of

higher divine beings

by the

ceremonies

of

ancient

paganismsacrifice, divination

and

such-likeso that

divine

assistance could make

up for the

frailty

of

ordinary human

effort. Such tapping of divine power was called

'theurgy'

(a word

coined, itwo uld seem,in the late second centuryA D ).

18

lam blichus's

work

On the

Mysteries

of

Egypt, from th e

first half

of the

fourth century, is a full-scale treatise on theurgy, and

Proclus

himself

says that

theurgy

is 'better than any human wisdom or

knowledge'.

1 9

This is the world of D e n ys the A reopagite: bo th the Christian

world

of thelatefifth

century,

markedbyopposition or

indifference

to Chalcedon, butdeeply convinced of thedivine presence inChrist,

13


25/145

D E N Y S

T H E

A R E O P A G 1 T E

and the pagan world of late A thenian N eoplatonism. Like Proclus ,

D eny s's vision

of

reality abounds

in triads:

from

th e

Trinity

itself,

throu gh the

r a n ks

of the

an gels, arranged three

by

three, dow n

to the

threefold

ministry

of bishops, priests and deacons that ministers to

the Chris tian comm un ity,itselfarranged inthrees.H ismetaphysical

analysis of realityis also markedby Procline triads,as is hisu n d e r -

stan ding of m a n 's ascent to the divin e. H e is also fon d of the voca-

bulary

of

late N eoplatonism:

his use of the

word 'theurg y'

in

relation

to the Christian sacraments is but one example. We shall see, how-

ever, that though his language and categories are inconceivable

except against the ba ckgro un d of P rocline N eoplatonism, his

thou ght is distinctive; and often pagan N eoplatonic themes are

turned on theirhead.T hisist rueof hisdoctrine of creation and the

oneness of G o d , which he sets over against a doctrine of procession

and

wha t

he

regards

as a

related polytheism;

and

also

of his

under-

standing

of the

sacraments.

B ut D enys belongs equa lly, in a somewh at elusive w ay, to the

Christian

world

of the

latefifth

century.

Scholars

are

still divided

as

to w heth er his Ch ristology is 'Mo no phy site': it seems most likely

that

his

language

has

something

of the

deliberate ambiguity

of the

Henoticon.B ut hisidea thatin the incarnation whatisbeyond being

(namely G od) takes

on

being

in the

person

of

Jesus, seems

to

express

in his own peculiar language a Cyrilline way of speaking of the

incarnation.

2 0

H is

stress

on

deification (Christian,

not

pagan, lan-

guage) likewisefits such

a

context.

So it is not

surprising that

he is

first

mentioned

in

Christian

history when,

at a

colloquy held

between

supporters

of

Chalcedon

and

supporters

of

Severus

of

A ntioch in 532 , a passage from the fou rth E pistle is (mis-)quoted in

support of the Severian, Monophysite, position. O ne particular

detail seems to place him firmly in this w orld, an d tha t occu rs in his

account of theliturgyin

the

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Thereh eseems

to

envisage

th e

singing

of the

Creed

in the

middle

of the

liturgy,

something w hich , as we have seen, was only introduced by P eter the

Fuller

at A ntioch, probably in476.

2 1

T his confirms that D enys was

writing

at the

turn

of the fifth an d

sixth centuries,

and in

Syria,

which

fits w ith everythin g else

w e

know about him .

14


26/145

T H E


O F T H E

L A T E FI FT H C E N T U R Y

Notes

1

S ee

esp. Koch, Ps-Dionysius; idem, 'Proklus als Quelle

des Ps-

D i ony s ius

A reopagita

in der

Lehre

von Bosen' ,Philologus54/1

( N e ue

Folge,

8/1; 1895), pp.

438-54;

J. Stiglmayr, 'Der N euplatoniker

Proclus

als

Vorlage

des

sog. D ionysius A reopagita

in der

Lehre

vom

Obel',H istorisches

Jahrbuch

1 6(1895), pp. 253-73,

721-48.

O n th e

earlierhistory of doubts about the authen ticity of CA , see I . H au sherr ,

'D o u te s

au

sujet

du

Divin Denys

',

Orientalia

Christiana Periodica

2

(1936), pp.484-90.

2

For perhaps the

last attempt

to defendthe traditional legend, see

J.

P a r k e r , The Celestialand Ecclesiastical Hierarchiesof Dionysius the

Areopagite

(London,

1894),pp.

1-14.

3

See

R oques, Structures,

pp.74-115.

4 Cyril,

Ep. 39

(108C-D).

5 T he word

'Fathers'

is, infact ,an exampleofthis kindo f reverencefor

th epast. T he term, applied to past orthodox teachers of the Christian

faith, isfirst used in the third c en tu ry. It later comes to m ean (and is still

used to mean) the orthodox teachers of the formative years of the

Christian

tradition:a

flexible

period,

usua lly spanning

the

first seven

or

eightcen turies, sometimes stretching

as far as the

twelfth

(S t

B ernard

in

theW est)or thefourteenth(StG regoryPalamasin the

East).

The

pass-

age from the Council of Ephesus, just quoted, invokes the 'Holy

Fathers', and the

Chalcedonian D efinition begins w ith

the

expression,

'Following

therefore

the

H oly Fathers

. . .'. See the

articles

by G.

Florovsky,reprinted a s chs 6 and 7in Bible, Church and Tradition: an

Eastern Orthodox

View

(Belmont,MA, 1972),pp.

93-120.

6

Basil,On the Holy Spirit X X V I I . 6 6 .

7 E u s e b i u s ,O ration

on the

Tricennalia

of

Constantine 2.1-5.

8 S e e E . J .

Y a r n ol d,

The Awe-Inspiring

Rites

of

Initiation (Slough,

1972).

9

O n

this

see

J. N. D.

Kelly,

Early C hristian C reeds

(3rd ed., London,

1972),

pp.323-5,344-8.

10

Ibid. ,

pp. 348-51.

11

O n this wh ole qu estion,se eS ebastian B rock,'Thethrice-holy hym nin

the liturgy', Sobornost /Eastern

Christian R eview

1:2 (1985),

pp.24-34.

12 S eeJ o h n D a m a sc en e ,Expositio Fidei I I I .1 0(54) (ed. B .Ko tter, B erlin

and New Y ork, 1973,pp.

129-31).

13 S ee N orma n Baynes's lecture T he H ellenistic civilization and E ast

Rome',

repr.

in

Byzantine Studies

and

Other Essays (London, 1955),

pp. 1-23.

15


27/145

D E N Y S

T H E

A R E O P A G I T E

14 O n the question of

D enys's

pseudonym , see H ans U rs von Ba lthasar,

The Glory of the Lord, v o l . 2

( E n g .

t rans. , . E d i n b u rg h ,

1984),

pp.

148-51.

15

A t ha n a s i u s ,On theIncarnation 2.

16 A . von H a r n a c k ,H istory of Dogma I V( E n g. trans. , London, 1898),

pp. 222f .

17

S eeR u thM . Siddals,

'Logic

and Christology in Cyrilof A l ex a n d ri a ',

Journal of Theo logical Studies

38 (1987), pp. 341-67.

18

O n

theurgy,

see H .

Lewy,Chaldaean O raclesandPaganTheurgy (rev.

ed. by M.

Tardieu, Paris, 1978), esp. excursus

iv, pp.

461-6;

E . R .

Dodds, 'Theurgy' , Appendix

ii in The

Greeks

and the

Irrational

(Berkeley,

CA , 1951),pp.283-311.

19 Platonic Theo logy

1.25

(ed.

H.

D . Saffrey and L. G . W esterink,

Paris, 1968:

p.

113).

20 S ee E p. 4.

21 EH Hl.ii: 42 5 D ;

II I . i i i .7:

436C-D.

16


28/145

A

liturgical theology

T H E WORKS O F D E N Y S

T he

wor ks

of the

A reopagitical Co rpus consist

of

four treatises

and

tenletters (though thedistinction issomew hat artificial inthatall the

worksa readdressed tospecificpeople, an d two of the

lettersEpp.

V I I I

and I X a re

each longer

thanon e of the

treatises,the

M ystical

Theology).The

fou r treatises (all addressed

to

T imothy,

a

bishop,

doubtless to be un derstood as the correspondent of S t

Paul)

are the

Celestial

Hierarchy,theEcc lesiastical

Hierarchy

, theDivineNames,

and

the

M ystical

Theology.

T he first

four letters

are addressed to a

monk called Gaius; Ep. V to a deacon, D orotheus; Ep. VI to a

priest, Sosipater; Ep. V I I to a bishop, Polycarp (doubtless the

B ishop of S m yrn a: the accoun t of his m ar tyrd om is the earliest such

account

to survive;

1

he was

reputed

to be a

disciple

of the

apostle

John and a friend of Ign atius, Bishop of

A nt io ch,

w ho was ma rtyred

at the beginning of the second

century

2

and whom D enys once

quotes

3

);

E p.

V I I I

to a

mon k, D emophilus;

Ep. IX to a

bishop,

T itus (presum ab ly the other recipient of S t P au l's p astoral epistles);

and E p. X to the apostle John. Wherehiscorrespondents areidenti-

fiable, their names serve to establish D eny s's pseud ony m: they sug-

gest that he was writing at the end of the first or beginning of the

second cen tury . T his

isfurther

borne

out by his

m entioning,

as

con-

temporaries, other

people

known from the N ew

T estament,

or the

early

history

of the

Church:

for

example, Elymas

th e

magician

( D N

V I I I . 6 ; cf. Acts 13:8) and Carpus (Ep. VIII ; cf. 2 Tim 4:13). B ut

they

d o

mo re tha n establish D eny s's pseu don ym ity, they also present

17

2


29/145

D E N Y S T H E

A R E O P A G I T E

him aspart of a

society.

D enys does not present himselfto theworld

simply

as the

author

of

various treatises:

he

presents himself

as a

member

of asociety, bound and defined by relationships.T his con-

sciousness of belonging to an ordered society is further underlined

by the order of the

letters: addressed

to

holders

of the

office

of

monk, deacon, priest, bishop, an d

apostle,

in that

order,

with the

exceptionof

E p.

V I I I whic hisaddressed to a mon k,thou gh between

letters written

to bishopsbut that

break

in

hierarchical sequence

has its own

significan ce, since

it is

concerned

to

rebuke

a

m on k

w ho

usurped th e role of a priest. A society, an ordered ecclesiastical

society, within which

one

member turns

to

another

for

advice

and

counsel,

in

which there

are

teachers

and

disciples, venerated holy

men, propounders of false teaching and raisers of objections, in

which

there is a regular cycle of prayer and worship: that is the

society D enys reflects

in his

writings,

and of

which

he

seems very

fo n d . A n d w e

should admit straight away that

it is a

somewhat

limited

conception

of

society. There

is no

mention

of the

everyday

world of work and play, nor is there any mention of political

authority. It is an ecclesiastical, even a monastic society. But it is

nonetheless asociety: th e D ionysian writingsare not acollection of

academic treatises concerned simply with ideas and concepts.

T h a tis an importan t point tograsp, since,to ooften,in thehistory

of C hristia n th ou gh t (especially in the West) they have been tak en to

be just that . In the Western Middle Ages, th e Divine Names w as

regarded as atreatise discussing wha t propertiesm ay besaid to per-

tain

to

G od ,

and

theMystical Theology

w as

taken

to

concern

the

rare

case of m ystical ex perience of G od; the w ork s on the hierarchies fell

into

th e

background, though

th eCe lestial Hierarchy was

valued

for

the information it gave on the structure of the realm of the angels

and theEcclesiastical Hierarchy for its

useful hints

on

sacramental

causality. This

way of

treating Denys

has

continued

to the

present

day, so that D enys is thought of primarily as a philosopher or a

mystic. It may be that th e real core of what Denysistryingto sayis

philosophical,

but

that

is not how he

presents

his

w ritings. T hey

are

intended to serve the needs of a Christian community, and the

immediateobjectof hisconcernis the u se of theC hristian S criptures

within tha t c om m u n ity. O ne of his treatises, the

Divine

Names, is

concerned

with the m e a n i n g of various scriptural terms for G od;

another , th e CelestialHierarchy, is concerned w ithth e meaning of

imagery dr a wn

from

the realm of the senses an d applied, by the

Scriptures, to the imm aterial realm (ofthea ngels) w hereth erevela-

tion

of the

Supreme Godhead

is

first manifest;

the

Ecclesiastical

Hierarchy is concerned to expound and interpret the ceremonies of

18


30/145

A L I T U R G I C A L T H E O L O G Y

the

Chur c h.

O f the

letters, four

of

them elucidate specific scriptu ral

usages, a nd on e, E p. IX , is virtu ally a short treatise on the

interpretation of the Scriptures.

T HE L OST WORKS

I f, then,

we are

going

to

take D enys

at his own

word,

at

least

to

begin

with, w e should recognize that his immediate concern is with th e

meaning

of the

Scriptures; not,

again, as an

abstract academic

matter of theological hermeneutics, but quite concretely, with the

meaning of the Scriptures as they are used in the Christian com-

m u n i t y ,

especially

in its

w orship.

If

we are going to tak e D enys seriously, there is, however, an other

point w emu st note. T hefo ur treatisesand tenlettersare not theonly

writings

to

which D enys lays claim.

I n

theDivineNames,

he

refers

to

five other works: th e Theological Outlines, On theProperties and

Ranks

of the

Angels,

O n the

Soul,

O n

R ighteous

and

Divine Judge-

ment, and the Symbolic Theology. T he Mystical Theology in its

summaryof theological method (in ch.Ill)presents th eTheological

Outlines, DivineNames, andSymbolic Theology as

three successive

treatises.

T he

Ce lestial Hierarchy

refers

back

to

theSymbolic Theol-

ogy and

mentions

a

workO n the

Divine

Hymns.

T heEcclesiastical

Hierarchy

refers back to the

Celestial Hierarchy

and mentions

another work, TheIntelligibleand theSensible. E p . I Xagain refers

back

to the

Symbolic

Theology. On the one

hand, this suggests that

the order of com position of the treatises that w e have is D N , MT ,

C H ,

an d E H , wh ich is the order in which they are printed in the new

tran slation b y Luibh eid an d R orem (and in the older French transla-

tionbyMauricedeGandillac).

4

In them anuscriptso f the

A reopagitical Corpus

the

order

is C H , E H , D N , M T ,

E pp.:

w e

shall

come back

to

this point later.

O n th e other hand, all this presents us with a problem: what has

happened

to the

seven treatises D enys men tions

that

have

n ot

sur-

vived?

A nd h o w important are they for an understanding of

D ionysian theology? O pinions a bout this vary amon g scholars.

H an s Urs von B althasar ta kes D enys qu ite seriously here and sup-

poses tha t the m issing treatises were w ritte n (or sketched ou t, a t least

in his

mind);

h ew o r k sou t thes t ructu reofD ionysian theology takin g

account, inprinciple,of a ll thew orks mentioned.

5

H owever, thereis

no

trace

at all of

these

'lost '

treatises: despite

th e

interest

in

D en ys

from

as early as the sixth cen tury , no men tion of them is to be fo u n d.

Added

tothat,

there

is no

trace

of two

other works Denys refers

to

19


31/145

D E N Y S

T H E

A R E O P A G I T E

and quotes from: th e

Hymns

ofLove and theElements

of Theology

of the one he regarded as hismen tor, H ierotheus. S ucha silencein

the tradition ma kes

one

won der whether

th e

missing treatises

are not

fictitious,

conjured

up to

give

the

impression, perhaps, that

the

works

w ehave wereallthat su rvivedto the e nd of the

fifth

centuryof

a mu ch larger corpus of w riting s w ritten at the end of the first.

6

Mystical

Theology

II I gives a brief accou nt of theological method

and speaks of a theology tha t traces themovement down from G od

through

the

successive m an ifestations

of

himself

to the

material

and

sensible orde r,

a

movementthat

is

followed

in the

threetreatises:

th e

Theological

Outlines,

w hich treats

of the

doctrines

o f the

T rinity

a nd

th e incarnation; th e

DivineNames,

which discusses howgoodness,

being,life, wisdom

and

power

a re

ascribed

to

G od ;

and the Symbolic

Theology,

w hich considers

the use of

images drawn from

th e

material world when applied

to

God. These

D e n ys

calls

cataphatic

theologies (that

is,

concerned w ith affirma tion),

and

contrasts them

with

apophatic

theologies (that is, concerned with negation), which

he does

not

name

and

which seem

to

trace

th e

corresponding move-

men t of re tu rn , or ascent from the material to the divine. If we look

from this to the work which is called theDivineNames, we see that

D N

I-IIcorrespond to the

Theological

O utlines,and areperhapsa

summaryof it,whiletherestof D N

corresponds

towhat

theM ystical

Theology

says it

contains.

E p. IX says that it is a sum ma ry ofpartof

th e

Symbolic

Theology, and the

Celestial Hierarchy

(especially

ch. X V )

covers

th e

same kind

of

ground

asthatwor k.

This suggests

that the

'loss'

of the

'missing'

treatises is not as serious as it

first

seems, since

herethe

oneplace w here D enys makesanyattempt to

explain the relationship between his writings, even though only one

out of three of the treatises mentioned

surviveswe

can reasonably

well

m ake out

from

w hat w e do ha ve wh at his systemcontains.

7

A C H R I S T I A N A N D A N E O P LA T O N IS T

The chapter in the

Mystical Theology

we have

briefly

looked at

brings ou t another point: that thou gh D enys's intentionm ay be to

expound

the

Christian S criptures, un derlying

his

theological m etho d

are

assumptions

of a

rather

different

provenance.

For the

movement

of

theology tha t D enys envisages clearly presupposes the N eo-

platonic idea of correspondin g m ove m en ts of procession (or eman a-

tion)a n d

re tu rn:

cataph atic theology seemstotraceth emovementof

procession, a movement from oneness to multiplicity; apophatic

20


32/145

LITURGICAL THEOLOGY

theology traces

th e

corresponding movement

of

return, moving

from

multiplicity closer andcloser to

oneness,

until onepassesinto

'the darkness beyond understanding' and is reduced to

'complete

speechlessness and failure of

understanding'.

T his raises one of the fun dam enta l questions about D enys the

A reopagite: the relationship between Christianity and Neo -

platonism

in his thou gh t. O ne thin g, however seems qu ite clear.

D e n y s 'writings

are

explicitly

Christian. It is the Christian Scriptures

that heseekstointerpret in hisw ritings,n ot thew orksofPlatoor the

Chaldaean Oracles

(a

source

of

supposedly

'revealed'

wisdom much

beloved

of

later

N eoplatonists,

such

a s

Proclus). When

he

quotes,

he

quotes

from th e

Scriptures.

H e

never ascribes

any

authority

to

(pagan) G reek philosophical sources.

O n the other ha n d, it is un deniable that m an y of his concepts are

derived

from N eoplatonism. W e have just seen an example of the

way he understands theological method against the background of

th e N eoplatonic doctrine of procession and return. Elsewhere he

echoes much that is at homein themetaphysics of

P roclus:

w emen-

tioned several of the more obvious points at the end of the last

chapterthree levels

of

reality corresponding

to the

O ne, Intellect

and

Soul ,

his use of

Proclus's analysis

of

reality into

th e

triad,

being-life-intell igence (the last

lightly

'Christianized'as wisdom).

B ut D enys's sympa thy

with

N eoplatonism goes mu ch

further, and

much deeper. If he

never

quotes from

Plato

and the N eoplatonists,

he

frequently

alludesto them. I nD N I I .7on love of the bea utifu l, he

reproduces wordfo rword partof

D iotima 's

speechto Socrates from

theSymposium (211A-B).It is not aqu otationonly because hedoes

not say w here it comesfrom. H is allusion s to theTimaeusare parti-

cularly frequent. H e i s

very

fond of

words

from

Platonic dialogues

or

the C haldaean O racles tha t one w ould never expect to find in a

Christ ian, but would regard as commonplace in a pagan phil-

osopher. A ll this has been de mo nstrated by scholars an d is

undeniable.

8

A

particular example will bring

out

points that

are

typical.

In

E p.

VIII , Denys concludes

his

exhortation

to the

erring monk,

D emophilus,

by giving a moving account of a vision that a monk,

Ca r pus , had

once had.

T he

vision

was a

reb u k e

to

Carpus

w ho had

allowed his

feeling

of

righteous anger

to

lead

him to

pray

for the

destruction

of a

couple

of

sinners.

In the

vision Ca rpu s sees

on

high,

'in

th e

vault

of

heaven' , Jesus surrounded

by the

angels;

but

below

he seesthe two sinn ers tremblingon the edge of a chasm that opens

on to the

depths

of

hell whence serpents

and

evil

men

seek

to

force

21


33/145

D E N Y S

T H E

AREOPAGITE

and entice the men to tumble down among them. Carpus finds the

plight

of the men fascinating and isonly sorry tha t they do not

fall

into the pit more quickly. Then he looks up and sees Jesus again,

going

down to the men to stop them

from

falling. Jesus turns to

Carpus andsays, ' Y o uw ere goingtostrike them. S trikem einstead. I

would

gladly

suffer

again

for men if by

doing

so I

could stop other

m enfromsinning. 'I t is a telling illustration of the gentle en du ran ce

that

D enys sees as characteristic of the love of G od. T here is a very

similar

accountofsuchavision gran tedto amo n k called Ca rpus pre-

servedin G reek mona stic literature under the na me of Ni lus,dating

from

th e

fifth

century.

9

It is

conceivably

th e

source

of

D enys's

account.

T he

contrasts

are

in structive: N ilus does

not

make

out

that

Carpus was his con temporary, whereas D enys does; and N ilus's

account is

inn ocent

of thePlatonic

allusions

that we

find

in

Denys.

D enys's account is redolent of the my th of E r from the

Republic,

book

X; the 'many-coloured

flames'

are

from

there, th e 'vault of

heaven'

from thePhaedrus (247C). Carpus's vision occurs at mid-

night,

the

holy hour when

men see

visions,

by

D enys's

account.

H e

has both made

the

account subserve

his

pseudonymity,

and

also

givenit a m uc h more distinctively P latonic colouring.

1 0

Even his

attitude

to the

Scriptures

is

given

a

'p ag an 'colouring.

H e

hardly

ever uses

th e

Ch ristian w ord(graphe),

but

prefers

to

refer

to

them

as 'oracles' (logid), using the word pagans u sed. H e also, in

E p. IX , presents a picture of the absu rdity of the literal meaning of

the Scriptures that it would be hard to find in any other Christian

Fa ther: it soun ds mu ch more like a pagan G reek apologizing for the

absurdities

of the

Greek myths:

Viewed from outside they seem full of soma ny incredibleand

fictitious fairy-tales. So, for example, in the case of the com-

ing-to-be of G od [the theogon y] tha t is beyond b eing, they

imagine the w om b of G od bodily giving birth to G od, or the

Word poured forth into

the air from a

human heart which

sends

it out, or

they

describe the Spirit as breath breathed out

of

a

mouth,

or the

theogonic bosom embra cing

th e

S on:

all

this

we

celebrate in forms befitting bodily things, and wedepict

these things w ith images dra w n fro m n atu re, suggestingacer-

tain tree, and plants, and flowers, and roots, or fountains

gushing forth water, or sources of light radiating beams of

light, or certain other sacred forms used by the Scripturesto

ex p o u nd

divi

Documents

Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf