Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite 1

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

"Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite"

Other names "Pseudo-Dionysius", "Pseudo-Denys", mistakenly identified as "Dionysius the Areopagite"

Born unknown, 5th to 6th century AD

Died unknown, 5th to 6th century AD

Era Ancient philosophy, Medieval philosophy

Region Western philosophy

School Neoplatonism, Christian theology

Part of a series on

Neoplatonism

Philosophy portal

•• v•• t• e [1]

Part of a series on

Christianmysticism

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite 2

•• v•• t• e [2]

Part of a series on

EasternChristianity

•• Eastern Christianityportal

•• v•• t• e [3]

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (Greek: Διονύσιος ὁ Ἀρεοπαγίτης), also known as Pseudo-Denys, was aChristian theologian and philosopher of the late 5th to early 6th century (writing before 532), probably Syrian, theauthor of the set of works commonly referred to as the Corpus Areopagiticum or Corpus Dionysiacum. The authorpseudonymously identifies himself in the corpus as "Dionysios", portraying himself as the figure of Dionysius theAreopagite, the Athenian convert of St. Paul mentioned in Acts 17:34 [4].[5] This false attribution resulted in thework being given great authority in subsequent theological writing in both East and West, with its influence onlydecreasing in the West with the fifteenth century demonstration of its later dating.In recent decades, interest has increased again in the Corpus Areopagiticum for three main reasons: in part becauseof a recovery of the huge impact of Dionysian thought in later Christian thought, in part because of an increasingrepudiation of older criticisms that Dionysius's thought represented a fundamentally Neoplatonic and thereforenon-Christian approach to theology, and finally because of interest in parallels between aspects of modern linguistictheory and Dionysius's reflections on language and negative theology.

DatingIn attempts to identify a date after which the corpus must have been composed, a number of features have beenidentified in Dionysius' writing, though the latter two are subject to scholarly debate.• Firstly, and fairly certainly, it is clear that Dionysius adopted many of his ideas - including at times passages

almost word for word - from Proclus, who died in 485 - thus providing at the least a late fifth century early limitto the dating of Dionysius.[6]

• In the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Dionysius twice seems to allude to the recitation of the Creed in the course of theliturgy (EH 3.2 and 3.III.7). It is often asserted that Peter the Fuller first mandated the inclusion of the NiceneCreed in the liturgy in 476, thus providing an earliest date for the composition of the Corpus. However, BernardCapelle argues that it is far more likely that Timothy, patriarch of Constantinople, was responsible for thisliturgical innovation, around 515 - thus suggesting a later date for the Corpus.[7]

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite 3

• It is often suggested that because Dionysius seems to eschew divisive Christological language, he was probablywriting after the Henoticon of Zeno was in effect, sometime after 482. However, it is also possible that Dionysiuseschewed traditional Christological formulae in order to preserve an overall apostolic ambience for his works,rather than because of the influence of the Henoticon. Also, given that the Henoticon was rescinded in 518, ifDionysius was writing after this date, he may have been untroubled by this policy.[8]

In terms of the latest date for the composition of the Corpus, the earliest datable reference to Dionysius' writingcomes in 528, the year in which the treatise of Severus of Antioch entitled Adversus apologiam Juliani wastranslated into Syriac - though it is possible the treatise may originally have been composed up to nine yearsearlier.[9]

Another widely cited latest date for Dionysius' writing comes in 532, when, in a report on a colloquy held betweentwo groups (orthodox and monophysite) debating the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, Severus of Antioch andhis monophysite supporters cited the Fourth Letter in defence of their view.[10] It is possible that pseudo-Dionysiuswas himself a member of this group, though debate continues over whether his writings do in fact reveal amonophysite understanding of Christ.[11] It seems likely that the writer was located in a Syriac, as revealed, forexample, by the accounts of the sacramental rites he gives in The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which seem only to bearresemblance to Syriac rites.[12]

ThoughtThe Corpus is today composed of Divine Names (Περὶ θείων ὀνομάτων), Mystical Theology (Περὶ μυστικῆςθεολογίας), Celestial Hierarchy (Περὶ τῆς οὐρανίου ἱεραρχίας), Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (Περὶ τῆςἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἱεραρχίας), and ten epistles.[13] Seven other works, namely Theological Outlines (Θεολογικαὶὑποτυπώσεις), Symbolic Theology (Συμβολικὴ θεολογία), On Angelic Properties and Orders (Περὶ ἀγγελικῶνἰδιοτήτων καὶ τάξεων), On the Just and Divine Judgement (Περὶ δικαίου καὶ θείου δικαστηρίου), On the Soul(Περὶ ψυχῆς), On Intelligible and Sensible Beings,[14] and On the Divine Hymns,[15] are mentioned repeatedly bypseudo-Dionysius in his surviving works, and are presumed either to be lost[16] or to be fictional works mentioned bythe Areopagite as a literary device to give the impression to his sixth century readers of engaging with the survivingfragments of a much larger first century corpus of writings.[17]

His works are mystical and show strong Neoplatonic influence. For example he uses Plotinus' well-known analogyof a sculptor cutting away that which does not enhance the desired image, and shows familiarity with Proclus. Healso shows influence from Clement of Alexandria, the Cappadocian Fathers, Origen of Alexandria, and others.There is a distinct difference between pagan Neoplatonism and that of Eastern Christianity. In the former all lifereturns to the source to be stripped of individual identity, a process called henosis,[18] while in orthodox Christianitythe Likeness of God in man is restored by grace (by being united to God the Holy Trinity through participation inHis divine energies), a process called theosis.[19]

Eastern adoptionHis thought was initially used by monophysites to back up parts of their arguments but his writings were eventuallyadopted by other church theologians, primarily due to the work of John of Scythopolis and Maximus the Confessorin producing an orthodox interpretation.[20] Writing a single generation at most after Dionysius, perhaps between 537and 543,[21] John of Scythopolis composed an extensive set (around 600)[22] of scholia (that is, marginalannotations) to the works of Dionysius; these were in turn prefaced by a long prologue in which John set out hisreasons for commenting on the corpus. All Greek manuscripts of the Corpus Areopagiticum surviving today stemfrom an early sixth-century manuscript containing John's Scholia and Prologue - so John of Scythopolis had anenormous influence on how Dionysius was read in the Greek-speaking world.[23]

Theologians such as John of Damascus and Germanus of Constantinople also made ample use of Dionysius' writing.

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite 4

The Dionysian writings and their mystical teaching were universally accepted throughout the East, amongst bothChalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians. St. Gregory Palamas, for example, in referring to these writings, calls theauthor, "an unerring beholder of divine things".

Western medieval Dionysian traditionThe first notice of Dionysius in the West comes from Gregory the Great, who probably brought a codex of theCorpus Areopagitum back with him on his return from his mission as papal legate to the Emperor in Constantinoplein around 585. Gregory refers occasionally in his writings to Dionysius, although Gregory's Greek was probably notgood enough to fully engage with Dionysius's work.[24] In the seventh and eighth centuries, Dionysius was notwidely known in the West, aside from a few scattered references.The real influence of Dionysius in the West, however, began with the gift in 827 of a Greek copy of his works by theByzantine Emperor Michael II to the Carolingian King Louis the Pious, who in turn gave the manuscript to themonastery of St Denys near Paris.[25] About 838, Dionysius' works were translated into Latin for the first time byHilduin, abbot of the monastery of St Denys near Paris. It may well have been Hilduin himself who promoted hiswork (and his abbey) by developing the legend (which would be widely accepted during subsequent centuries), thatSaint Denis of Paris was the same person as Saint Dionysius the Areopagite of Acts 17.34, and that Saint Dionysiusthe Areopagite had traveled to Rome and then was commissioned by the Pope to preach in Gaul (France), where hewas martyred.[26] Hilduin's translation, however, is almost unintelligible.[27]

About twenty years later, a subsequent Carolingian Emperor, Charles the Bald, requested the Irishman John ScottusEriugena to make a fresh translation; he finished this in 862. However, this translation itself did not widely circulatein subsequent centuries. Moreover, although Eriugena’s own works, such as the Homily on the Prologue of St John,show the influence of Dionysian ideas, these works were not widely copied or read in subsequent centuries. TheBenedictine monasticism that formed the standard monasticism of the eighth to eleventh centuries, therefore, ingeneral paid little attention to Dionysius.In the twelfth century, greater use gradually began to be made of Dionysius among various traditions of thought:• Among Benedictines (especially at the Abbey of Saint-Denis), greater interest began to be shown in Dionysius.

For example, one of the monks of Saint Denys, John Sarrazin, wrote a commentary on The Celestial Hierarchy in1140, and then in 1165 made a translation of the work. Also, Suger, abbot of Saint-Denis from 1122 to 1151,drew on Dionysian themes to explain how the architecture of his new 'Gothic' abbey church helped raise the soulto God.[28]

• In the Canons Regular. Hugh of St Victor edited two commentaries on The Celestial Hierarchy between 1125 and1137, later revising and combining them as one. Richard of St Victor was familiar with Dionysius through Hugh.Through Hugh, others became exposed to Dionysian thought, including Thomas Gallus and Gilbert of Poitiers.

• Among the Cistercian tradition, it seems that early writers such as Bernard of Clairvaux, William of St Thierryand Aelred of Rievaulx were not influenced by Dionysian thought. Among second-generation Cistercians,however, Isaac of Stella clearly shows the influence of Dionysian ideas.

• It is in the Schools, though, that the twelfth-century growth in influence of Dionysius was truly significant. Thereare few references to Dionysius in scholastic theology during the tenth and eleventh centuries. At the beginning ofthe twelfth century, though, the masters of the Cathedral school at Laon, especially Anselm of Laon, introducedextracts from Eriugena’s Commentary on St John into the Sentences and the Glossa Ordinaria. In this manner,Dionysian concepts found their way into the writing of Peter Lombard and others.

During the thirteenth century, the Franciscan Robert Grosseteste made an important contribution by bringing out between 1240 and 1243 a translation, with commentary, of the Dionysian corpus. Soon after, the Dominican Albert the Great did likewise. The thirteenth-century Parisian corpus provided an important reference point by combining the "Old Translation" of Eriugena with the "New Translation of John Sarrazin, along with glosses and scholia by Maximus the Confessor, John of Scythopolis and others, as well as the "Extracts" by Thomas Gallus, and several

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite 5

commentaries such as John the Scot, John Sarrazin and Hugh of St Victor on The Celestial Hierarchy.[29] It quicklybecame common to make reference to Dionysius. Thomas Aquinas wrote an explanation for several works, and citeshim over 1700 times.[30] Bonaventure called him the “prince of mystics”.It was subsequently in the area of mysticism that Dionysius, especially his portrayal of the "via negativa" , wasparticularly influential. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries his fundamental themes were hugely influential onthinkers such as Marguerite Porete, Meister Eckhart, John Tauler, Jan van Ruusbroec, the author of The Cloud ofUnknowing (who made an expanded Middle English translation of Dionysius' Mystical Theology), Jean Gerson,Nicholas of Cusa, Denys the Carthusian, Julian of Norwich and Harphius Herp. His influence can also be traced inthe Spanish Carmelite thought of the sixteenth century among Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross.

Astronomical frescoIn a letter addressed to Polycarp, pseudo-Dionysius asks "What have you to say about the solar eclipse whichoccurred when the Savior was put on the cross? At the time the two of us were in Heliopolis and we both witnessedthe extraordinary phenomenon of the moon hiding the sun at the time that was out of season for their comingtogether.... We saw the moon begin to hide the sun from the east, travel across to the other side of the sun, and returnon its path so that the hiding and the restoration of the light did not take place in the same direction but rather indiametrically opposite directions...."[31]

In reality, an eclipse (of the sun by the moon) could not have happened at the time of Christ's crucifixion sincePassover (when the gospels state the crucifixion took place) is a full moon event, and solar eclipses always happen atnew moon. It seems probable that pseudo-Dionysius had read the Alexandrinus variant of Gospel of Luke (Luke23:44-45 [32]) where the darkness said to have accompanied the crucifixion is attributed to an eclipse,[33] and thatthis influenced his writing.The passage gave rise to a medieval legend about an eclipse taking place at the crucifixion. This is illustrated in anastronomical fresco in the main gallery of the Escorial Library, near Madrid, Spain, built in 1567-84, which showsDionysius the Areopagite observing an eclipse at the time of Christ's crucifixion.[34]

Only in the late medieval period did the scientific incoherence of the legend become widely acknowledged: in 1457,for instance, the Italian humanist Lorenzo Valla wrote: "...the claim of 'Dionysius'... that he observed the eclipse ofthe sun at the hour of the Saviour's death... is as blatant a fiction as the epistolary form of the report." [35]

AuthorshipThe authorship of the Dionysian Corpus was initially disputed; Severus and his party affirmed its apostolic dating,largely because it seemed to agree with their Christology. However, this dating was disputed by Hypatius ofEphesus, who met the monophysite party during the 532 meeting with Emperor Justinian I; Hypatius denied itsauthenticity on the grounds that none of the Fathers or Councils ever cited or referred to it. Hypatius condemned italong with the Apollinarian texts, distributed during the Nestorian controversy under the names of Pope Julius andAthanasius, which the monophysites entered as evidence supporting their position.[36]

The first defense of its authenticity is undertaken by John of Scythopolis, whose commentary, the Scholia (ca. 540),on the Dionysian Corpus constitutes the first defense of its apostolic dating, wherein he specifically argues that thework is neither Apollinarian nor a forgery, probably in response both to monophysites and Hypatius—although evenhe, given his unattributed citations of Plotinus in interpreting Dionysius, might have known better.[37] Dionysius'authenticity is criticized later in the century, and defended by Theodore of Raithu; and by the 7th century, it is takenas demonstrated, affirmed by both Maximus the Confessor and the 649 Lateran Council. From that point until theRenaissance, the authorship was less questioned, though Thomas Aquinas,[38] Peter Abelard and Nicholas of Cusaexpressed suspicions about its authenticity; their concerns, however, were generally ignored.[39]

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite 6

The Florentine humanist Lorenzo Valla (d. 1457), in his 1457 commentaries on the New Testament, did much toestablish that the author of the Corpus Areopagiticum could not have been St. Paul's convert, though he was unableto identify the actual historical author. William Grocyn pursued Valla's lines of text criticism, and Valla's criticalviewpoint of the authorship of the highly influential Corpus was accepted and publicized by Erasmus from 1504onward, for which he was criticized by Catholic theologians. In the Leipzig disputation with Martin Luther, 1519,Johann Eck used the Corpus, specifically the Angelic Hierarchy, as argument for the apostolic origin of papalsupremacy, pressing the Platonist analogy, "as above, so below".During the 19th century modernist Catholics too came generally to accept that the author must have lived after thetime of Proclus. The author became known as 'Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite' only after the philological work ofJ Stiglmayr and H Koch, whose papers, published independently in 1895, demonstrated the thoroughgoingdependence of the Corpus upon Proclus. Both showed that Dionysius had used, in his treatise on evil in Chapter 4 ofThe Divine Names, the De malorum subsistentia of Proclus.Dionysius' identity is still disputed. The compilers of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy findpseudo-Dionysius to be most probably "a pupil of Proclus, perhaps of Syrian origin, who knew enough of Platonismand the Christian tradition to transform them both. Since Proclus died in 485, and since the first clear citation ofDionysius' works is by Severus of Antioch between 518 and 528, then we can place Dionysius' authorship between485 and 518-28." Ronald Hathaway provides a table listing most of the major identifications of Dionysius: e.g.,Ammonius Saccas, Dionysius the Great, Peter the Fuller, Dionysius the Scholastic, Severus of Antioch, Sergius ofReshaina, unnamed Christian followers of everyone from Origen of Alexandria to Basil of Caesarea, Eutyches toProclus.[40] In the past half century, Alexander Golitzin, Georgian academician Shalva Nutsubidze and Belgianprofessor Ernest Honigmann have all proposed identified pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite with Peter the Iberian.[41]

A more recent identification is with Damascius, the last scholarch of the School of Athens.[42] There is therefore nocurrent scholarly consensus on the question of Pseudo-Dionysius' identification.There was no concept of intellectual property in the ancient world, and plagiarism was widely seen as a homage tothe original author. The Stanford Encyclopedia claims "It must also be recognized that 'forgery' is a modern notion.Like Plotinus and the Cappadocian Fathers before him, Dionysius does not claim to be an innovator, but rather acommunicator of a tradition." []

References[1] http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ w/ index. php?title=Template:Neoplatonism& action=edit[2] http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ w/ index. php?title=Template:Christian_mysticism& action=edit[3] http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ w/ index. php?title=Template:Eastern_Christianity& action=edit[4] http:/ / tools. wmflabs. org/ bibleversefinder/ ?book=Acts& verse=17:34& src=NIV[5] Acts 17:34 “A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman

named Damaris, and a number of others.” The Areopagus of Athens was an open-air law court, a site for public declamations.

Various legends existed in the early surrounding the figure of Dionysius, who became emblematic of the spread ofthe gospel to the Greek world. A tradition quickly arose that he became the first bishop of Cyprus or of Milan, or thathe was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; according to Eusebius, he was also said to be the first bishop ofAthens. It is therefore not surprising that that author of these works would have chosen to adopt the name of thisotherwise briefly mentioned figure. (See Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, (1987), p22.)[6][6] This was, in particular, due to the research of Stiglmayr and Koch in the late nineteenth century.[7] Paul Rorem and John C Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, (Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1998), p9. The point was first proposed by Stiglmayr.[8] Paul Rorem and John C Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, (Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1998), p9. The point was first proposed by Stiglmayr.[9] Hathaway, Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 4, supports the dating of 519 for this treatise.[10] Andrew Louth, Dionysius, (1987), p14.[11] See Louth, Dionysius the Areopagite, (1987), p14, who suggests that, although ambiguous, Dionysius is not monophysite (he also points out

that Severus and his supporters misquote Dionysius's Fourth Epistle to back up their view).

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite 7

Paul Rorem and John C Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating theAreopagite, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), esp p11, make an extensive study of the early evidence, arguing that(1) Hypatius's apparent rejection in 532 of the works of Dionysite as monophysite is not as straightforward as oftensuggested, and that (2) Dionysius's writing was appealed to by just about all parties in the sixth-century Christianeast, and at no point was it considered the exclusive preserve of the Monophysites.[12] Dionysius' description in the Ecclesastical Hierarchy corresponds well with what is known of Syriac worship from other sources, for

example: (1) his account of baptism and the Eucharist is similar to the Homilies on Baptism and the Eucharist of Theodore of Mopsuetsia,which depict worship in the Church of West Syria at the beginning of the fifth century. See Louth, Dionysius the Areopagite, (1987), p55; (2)Dionysius' account of the sacrament of oil in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy is not found in most other patristic sources, except for those in theSyrian tradition. See Louth, Dionysius the Areopagite, (1987), p64; (3) his understanding of monasticism. See Louth, Dionysius theAreopagite, (1987), p70.

[13] Pseudo Dionysius: The Complete Works, 1987, Paulist Press, ISBN 0-8091-2838-1[14] Also known as The Intelligible and the Sensible. This is only referred to in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.[15] This is only referred to in the Celestial Hierarchy.[16] Andrew Louth, "The Reception of Dionysius up to Maximus the Confessor", in: Sarah Coakley, Charles M. Stang (eds), Re-thinking

Dionysius the Areopagite, John Wiley & Sons, 2011, p. 49.[17] In support of this view, there is no trace at all of these 'lost' treatises: despite the interest in Dionysius from as early as the sixth century, no

mention of them is to be found. See Louth, Dionysius the Areopagite, (1987), p20.[18] see Iamblichus[19] Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, SVS Press, 1997. (ISBN 0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991.

(ISBN 0-227-67919-9)[20] Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 14[21] Paul Rorem and John C Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, (Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1998), p39[22] Paul Rorem and John C Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, (Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1998), p38[23] Paul Rorem and John C Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, (Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1998), pp1-3. Rorem and Lamoreaux produce a translation of about two-thirds of John's Prologue and Scholia on pp144-263.[24] Louth, Dionysius the Areopagite, (1987), p120[25] Jean LeClercq, 'Influence and noninfluence of Dionysius in the Western Middle Ages', in Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, trans.

Colm Luibheid, (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), pp25-33.[26] The great Abbey of Saint-Denis just north of Paris claimed to have the relics of Dionysius. Around 1121, Pierre Abélard, a Benedictine

monk at Saint Denis Basilica, turned his attention to the story of their patron saint, and disentangled the three different Dionysiuses. Themonks were offended at the apparent demotion of Saint Denis, and Abélard did not remain long at Saint Denis. The elimination of thisconfusion, of course, did not remove the more fundamental confusion concerning the identification of pseudo-Dionysius.

[27] Jean LeClercq, 'Influence and noninfluence of Dionysius in the Western Middle Ages', in Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, trans.Colm Luibheid, (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), pp25-33

[28] Louth, Dionysius the Areopagite, (1987), p122[29] Karlfried Froehlich, 'Pseudo-Dionysius and the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century', in Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, trans.

Colm Luibheid, (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), pp33-46[30] Doherty, K.F. “St. Thomas and the Pseudo-Dionysian Symbol of Light”. In: The New. Scholasticism, 34(1960), pp. 170-189.[31] Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, tr. Colm Luibheid (Paulist Press: New York) 1987, p. 268.[32] http:/ / tools. wmflabs. org/ bibleversefinder/ ?book=Luke& verse=23:44-45& src=KJV[33][33] Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 268f[34] See Owen Gingerich, The Book Nobody Read, pp190-1[35][35] Pseudo-Dionysius, Introduction by Karlfried Froehlich, p. 38.[36] Hathaway, Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 13[37][37] Rorem, "John of Scythopolis on Apollinarian Christology," p. 482. John of Scythopolis was also proficient identifier of Apollinarian

forgeries, giving his defense that much more credibility.[38] Jean-Yves Lacoste, Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, 3 vols, vol 1, p439.[39] W Franke, ed, On What Cannot Be Said, (2007), vol 1, p158.[40] Hathaway, Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 31[41] Sh. Nutsubidze. "Mystery of Pseudo-Dionys Areopagit (a monograph), Tbilisi, 1942; E. Honigmann, Pierre l'Iberian et les ecrits du

Pseudo-Denys l'Areopagita. Bruxelles, 1952; Golitzin, Alexander. Et Introibo Ad Altare Dei: The Mystagogy of Dionysius Areopagita, withSpecial Reference to Its Predecessors in the Eastern Christian Tradition. (Thessalonika: Patriarchikon Idruma Paterikôn Meletôn, 1994), p419

[42] Carlo Maria Mazzucchi, Damascio, Autore del Corpus Dionysiacum, e il dialogo Περι Πολιτικης Επιστημης, Aevum: Rassegna di scienzestoriche linguistiche e filologiche, ISSN 0001-9593, Anno 80, Nº 2, 2006, pp 299-334. Mazzucchi's arguments have been dismissed byEmiliano Fiori in his review of the article, in Adamantius 14 (2009), 670-673.

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite 8

Further reading

Greek editions• Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca III, (Paris, 1857) [Greek text]• Beate Regina Suchla (ed.), Corpus Dionysiacum, 2 vols (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990–1) [the modern critical

edition]• La Hiérarchie Céleste, ed. Roques R, Heil G and Gandillac M, Sources Chrétiennes 58 (Paris: Les Éditions de

Cerf, 1958) [Critical edition of the Celestial Hierarchy with French translation]• Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De Coelesti Hierarchia, London, 2012. limovia.net, ISBN 978-1-78336-010-9

Modern translations• Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, trans. Colm Luibheid (New York: Paulist Press, 1987) [The only

complete modern English translation (and the only modern English translation of The Celestial Hierarchy), basedalmost entirely on the text in Migne]

• Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, trans. Thomas L. Campbell, (Lanham, MD:University Press of America, 1981)

• Hathaway, Ronald F, Hierarchy and the definition of order in the letters of Pseudo-Dionysius. A study in the formand meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian writings, (The Hague, Nijhoff, 1969), [Includes a translation of the Letterson pp130-160]

• Jones, John D, The Divine Names and Mystical Theology, (Milwaukee, 1980)• Rolt, CE, The Divine Names and the Mystical Theology, (London: SPCK, 1920) [reprinted as Clarence Edwin

Rolt, Dionysius the Areopagite on the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology, 2004, IBIS PRESS, ISBN0-89254-095-8]

Secondary sources• Coakley, Sarah and Charles M Stang, eds, Re-Thinking Dionysius the Areopagite, (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell,

2008) [also published as Modern Theology 24:4, (2008)]• Frend, W. H. C.. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1972).• Fiori, E., "The topic of mixture as philosophical key to the understanding of the Divine Names: Dionysius and the

Origenist monk Stephen bar Sudaili", in L. Karfikova, M. Havrda (eds.), Nomina Divina, (Fribourg: AcademicPress, 2011), 71-88.

• Fiori, E., "Mystique et liturgie entre Denys l’Aréopagite et le Livre de Hiérothée : aux origines de la mystagogiesyro-occidentale", in A. Desreumaux (ed.) Les mystiques syriaques, (Paris: Geuthner 2011), 27-44.

• Golitzin, Alexander. Et Introibo Ad Altare Dei: The Mystagogy of Dionysius Areopagita, with Special Referenceto Its Predecessors in the Eastern Christian Tradition, (Thessalonika: Patriarchikon Idruma Paterikôn Meletôn,1994)

• Griffith, R., "Neo-Platonism and Christianity: Pseudo-Dionysius and Damascius", in E. A. Livingstone, ed, Studiapatristica XXIX. Papers presented at the Twelfth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford1995, (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 238-243.

• Hathaway, Ronald F. Hierarchy and the definition of order in the letters of Pseudo-Dionysius: A study in the formand meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian writings, (The Hague, Nijhoff, 1969).

• Hunt, P. "The Wisdom Iconography of Light: The Genesis, Meaning and Iconographic Realization of a Symbol,"Byzantinoslavica, LXVII,1-2 (2009), 55-118.

• Ivanovic, Filip, Symbol and Icon: Dionysius the Areopagite and the Iconoclastic Crisis (Eugene: Pickwick, 2010).ISBN 978-1-60899-335-2

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite 9

• LeClercq, Jean, 'Influence and noninfluence of Dionysius in the Western Middle Ages', in Pseudo-Dionysius: TheComplete Works, trans. Colm Luibheid, (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), pp25–33

• Louth, Andrew, Dionysius the Areopagite, (London : Geoffrey Chapman, 1989)• Perl, Eric D. Theophany: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite, (Albany: SUNY Press, 2007).

ISBN 978-0-7914-7111-1.• Rorem, Paul. Pseudo-Dionysius: A commentary on the texts and an introduction to their influence (New York:

Oxford University Press, 1993).• Rorem, Paul and John C. Lamoreaux, "John of Scythopolis on Apollinarian Christology and the

Pseudo-Areopagite's True Identity." Church History, 62, 4 (1993), 469–482.• Rorem, Paul and John C Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite,

(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998)• Stock, Wiebke-Marie, Theurgisches Denken. Zur "Kirchlichen Hierarchie" des Dionysius Areopagita (Berlin: de

Gruyter, 2008) (Transformationen der Antike, 4).

External links• Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (http:/ / plato. stanford. edu/ entries/ pseudo-dionysius-areopagite) entry by

Kevin Corrigan and Michael Harrington in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy• Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (http:/ / www. iep. utm. edu/ pseudodi) entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of

Philosophy• " Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite (http:/ / www. newadvent. org/ cathen/ 05013a. htm)" in the Catholic

Encyclopedia• Commentary by Clarence Rolt (http:/ / www. ccel. org/ ccel/ rolt/ dionysius. html) (1920) on pseudo-Dionysius's

works (available in pdf, html, and plain text formats) accessed September 1, 2006• Works about Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite (http:/ / www. ccel. org/ ccel/ dionysius?show=worksAbout)

Christian Classics Ethereal Library• The Identity of Dionysius Areopagite. A Philosophical Approach. (http:/ / kud-logos. si/ 2011/ 04/ 18/

the-identity-of-dionysius-areopagite-a-philosophical-approach/ ) Logos 1-2007.• Pope Benedict XVI on Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (http:/ / www. zenit. org/ article-22588?l=english) May

14, 2008, Zenit.orgExternal links to bibliography• "Celestial Hierarchy" (http:/ / www. esoteric. msu. edu/ VolumeII/ CelestialHierarchy. html). 2006-09-01.• Mystical Theology (http:/ / www. esoteric. msu. edu/ VolumeII/ MysticalTheology. html) (Theologica Mystica)

accessed September 1, 2006• Works (http:/ / www. ccel. org/ ccel/ dionysius/ works. html) (Corpus Areopagiticum) of pseudo-Dionysius

including The Divine Names, Mystical Theology, Celestial Hierarchy, Ecclesiatial Hierarchy, and Letters(available in pdf, HTML, and text formats) accessed September 1, 2006 Christian Classics Ethereal Library

• De caelesti hierarchia (http:/ / image. ox. ac. uk/ show?collection=magdalen& manuscript=msgr2) 14th centuryGreek manuscript found at Constantinople, page images at Oxford Digital Library (http:/ / image. ox. ac. uk/ )from Oxford University's Magdalen College

• Theologia vivificans, cibus solidus ; Dionysii Opera omnia ([Reprod.]) / translatio per Ambrosium Traversarium ;Jacobus Faber Stapulensis edidit - per Johannem Higmanum et Wolfgangum Hopylium (Parisius), 1498. http:/ /gallica. bnf. fr/ ark:/ 12148/ bpt6k543103. r=. langEN accessed September 7, 2010.

• S. Dionysii Areopagitae martyris inclyti, athenarum episcopi, et galliarum apostoli opera ([Reprod.]) / translationova Ambrosii Florentini,... - A. Wechelum (Paris), 1555. http:/ / gallica. bnf. fr/ ark:/ 12148/ bpt6k52472f. r=.langEN accessed September 7, 2010.

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite 10

• S. Dionysii Areopagitae Opera omnia, Georgii Pachymerae paraphrasi continenter illustrata / opera et studioBalthasaris Corderii,... ; Patrologiae Graecae, Latine Tantum Editae, Tomus II. J. P. Migne (Petit-Montrouge),1856. http:/ / gallica. bnf. fr/ ark:/ 12148/ bpt6k411615d. r=. langEN accessed September 7, 2010.

Article Sources and Contributors 11

Article Sources and ContributorsPseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=595846436  Contributors: Abou Ben Adhem, Adam Bishop, Aethralis, Afil, Alec.brady, Anclation, Andwe drown, Andre Engels, Andrew c, Aristophanes68, Atechi, Aubreybardo, Bab dz, Balmgren, BevRowe, Blainster, Bmorton3, Boccobrock, Cacycle, Catalographer, Charles Matthews, Cicdc,Claraevallensis, Conversion script, Csernica, DBaba, DMG413, Dampinograaf, DanielCD, Dbachmann, Deipnosophista, Delirium, Djnjwd, E. Underwood, Edonovan, Eep², Eequor, Eisnel,Ekabhishek, Esperant, FocalPoint, Frmaximos, Fullstop, Garzo, Geremia, Giraffedata, Goethean, Hansonfan, Harryjamespotter1980, Henniepenny, Heptazane, Hmains, Hégésippe Cormier,Igorwindsor, Imnotminkus, JLaTondre, JmA, John Carter, Joshua Jonathan, Julien1978, Kagredon, Kiore, Lambiam, Levzur, Lightmouse, Llywrch, LoveMonkey, Lyonski, Lyricmac,Magioladitis, Mais2, Mannanan51, Marudubshinki, Maximosconf, MichaelTinkler, Minesweeper, MishaPan, Mitrius, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, Niceguyedc, Nixdorf, Nobody60, Norwikian,Omnipaedista, Ontoraul, Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy), Pezanos, Pigman, Priscilla hunt, Qwertyus, RL0919, Radicalsubversiv, Redheylin, Rich Farmbrough, Rje, Rlandmann, Schinleber, Selket,Serinde, Simbagraphix, Simon J Kissane, Spaceflower, StAnselm, Stbalbach, Steinsky, Stevertigo, Student7, Tallorno, Tedickey, Thelongview, TheoClarke, Theol11111, Tom harrison, Vanisheduser ewfisn2348tui2f8n2fio2utjfeoi210r39jf, Waacstats, Wesley, Wetman, Woohookitty, Ynhockey, ДП, 97 anonymous edits

Image Sources, Licenses and ContributorsFile:Plotinos.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Plotinos.jpg  License: anonymous work  Contributors: DenghiùComm, G.dallorto, Pasicles, Reame, WstFile:Socrates.png  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Socrates.png  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Original uploader was Magnus Manske at en.wikipedia Laterversions were uploaded by Optimager at en.wikipedia.File:Hildegard von Bingen Liber Divinorum Operum.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Hildegard_von_Bingen_Liber_Divinorum_Operum.jpg  License: PublicDomain  Contributors: Bukk, Dsmdgold, GDK, Leinad-Z, Mattes, Mladifilozof, Tetraktys, Tsui, Vol de nuitFile:00058 christ pantocrator mosaic hagia sophia 656x800.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:00058_christ_pantocrator_mosaic_hagia_sophia_656x800.jpg  License:Public Domain  Contributors: Denniss, Gryffindor, Jembob, Louis le Grand, Wst, 2 anonymous edits

LicenseCreative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/