7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
1/145
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
2/145
D E N Y S T H E A R E O P A G I TE
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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/7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
7/145
his page intentionally left blank
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
22/145
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 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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
26/145
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 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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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
7/24/2019 Andrew Louth Denys the Areopagite Outstanding Christian Thinkers 2002.pdf
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