DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE. —
I. THE WORKS
The corpus of Areopagitic writings contains the following treatises (as attested by the very ancient Syriac version of Sergius of Reshaina [d. 536] and by the oldest surviving commentary of St. Maximus the Confessor [d. 662], a large part of which, according to H. Urs von Balthasar, *Das Scholienwerk des Johannes von Scythopolis*, in *Scholastik*, 15 [1940], pp. 16ff., would derive from the commentary of John of Scythopolis, who lived a hundred years earlier):1. *De coelesti hierarchia* (CH). The word “hierarchy,” introduced into ecclesiastical language by D. (J. Stiglmayr, *Über die Termini Hierarch und Hierarchie*, in *Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie*, 22 [1898], pp. 180ff.), here signifies the order of angels determined by the degree of assimilation to God, or deification (θέωσις), union (ἔνωσις) with God, through the gift of divine light which they receive and transmit to the lower ranks (μετοχή, μετάδοσις).
The names of the angelic ranks are taken from Holy Scripture; as for the system of triads, D. claims to have derived it from his master, but it is undoubtedly of Neoplatonic origin (especially from Proclus; cf. H. Koch, *Pseudo-Dionysius*, Mainz 1900, p. 178): a) Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones; b) Dominations, Virtues, Powers; c) Principalities, Archangels, Angels. Through these ranks the gift of divine light ascends and descends.
2. *De ecclesiastica hierarchia* (EH). The treatise begins with a reference to the preceding work. The sacred order of the Church corresponds to the celestial order. The ranks of the EH are also ranks of approach to God, of deification. But since in human nature the spirit is bound to the body, our hierarchy requires sensible symbols that lead us to hierarchies of immense definition (PG 3, 373 A). A triad of priests is then described and mystically interpreted: Baptism (ἐνσυγχάσῃ), the Holy Eucharist (σύγχυσῃ), and Confirmation (ὁ πιστόστου μύρου τελετή, the consecration of the holy oil). This is followed by the tripartite order of the clergy: a) *Ordo hierarchicus* (D. uses the word *hierarchos* instead of *episkopos*), who is the head of the EH as Christ is of the entire hierarchy. b) *Ordo sacerdotalis* (D. says *hiereis* and not *presbyteroi*). c) *Ordo diaconorum* (i.e., deacons) with a brief description and interpretation of the rite of ordination for these three ranks. In the triad of the subjects, called *telumenoi*, the author begins with the lowest: a) catechumens, energumens, penitents; b) the holy people, Christians who may attend the Eucharist; c) monks, whom D. usually calls *hierarpeutai*. The final chapter of the treatise is an appendix; funeral rites are also mystically explained with orthodox eschatological doctrine (cf. J. Stiglmayr, *Die Eschatologie des Ps.-Dionysius*, in *Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie*, 23 [1899], pp. 1ff.).
3. *De divinis nominibus* (DN). The principal work, whose title and method are of Neoplatonic origin (cf. H. Koch, *op. cit.*, pp. 9ff., 224ff.). It is a doctrine of the triune and one God based on the explanation of His names in Holy Scripture. Such a positive and manifold science seems impossible because God is above all sense (ὑπερώνυμος). It does not touch the superessential unity (ὑπερουσία) of God but only the distinctions (not those of the Trinity; διαχρίσεις) and powers (δυνάμεις) in the Godhead that are προνοίας ἐκφαντάσματα and θεία θελήματα, creative powers that give being and perfection to every creature. The cause of all things can and must be known from the things caused. The names that thus reveal God in a positive manner are: ch. 4: τὸ ἀγαθόν; ch. 5: τὸ ὄν; ch. 6: ὡς; ch. 7: σοφία. The first is of Neoplatonic origin; the following triad corresponds to a triad of Proclus: οὐσία — ζωή — νοῦς. Ch. 8 follows: δυνάμεις; ch. 9 contains a series of opposing notions that, according to E. Ivanka (*Aufbau der Schrift = De divinis nominibus* des Ps.-Dionysius*, in *Scholastik*, 15 [1940], p. 392), are taken from Plato’s *Parmenides*. This influence would also explain how the next chapter treats: ἀγαθόν, χρόνος; ch. 10: ἐπέκεινα; ch. 11: σακτόν; ch. 13: τὸ τέλειον καλόν. This final predication again shows the insufficiency of all previous ones, even the first (bonum). Therefore, the theologians (according to D., the inspired authors of Holy Scripture) would have preferred the negative method (ἀποφαντική: PG 3, 981 A/B) to the positive method (καταφαντική).
4. *De mystica theologia* (MTh). In this brief treatise, the negative method is joined with mystical experience (ἐκστάσις: ecstasy, abandonment of self). The negative method is the complement of the positive in order to attain the total transcendence of God (PG 3, 1000 B). The most divine and lofty objects of the visible and intelligible world are only the foundation, the place for the word of the invisible and unknowable God. From here one enters into νόμος τῆς ἀγνωσίας... ἐξομολογεῖν τὸ παντελῶς ἄγνωστον... καὶ τῷ μηδὲν γνῶναι ὑπὲρ νοῦν γνῶναι (cf. V. Lossky, *La théologie négative dans la doctrine de Denys l’Aréopagite*, in *Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques*, 28 [1939], pp. 214ff.). The positive method, with its θέσεις, descends from God to the lowest creatures; the negative method begins from these and ascends through its ἀφαίρεσις, stripping away all to attain the vision of the invisible God, who is hidden by the light of existing things (PG 3, 1025 B).
5. Ten epistles. These are brief additions to the themes of the preceding works. Only the 7th and 8th (cf. J. Stiglmayr, *Ein interessanter Brief aus dem kirchlichen Alterthum*, in *Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie*, 24 [1900], pp. 657ff.) and also the 6th and 10th have a more personal character.
D. cites in these works, preserved among his own, others by his master Hierotheus; but this is probably a literary fiction.
II. THE AUTHOR
From the works themselves it would follow that the author’s name is Dionysius (Ep. 7, 3). His master would be a certain Hierotheus, and before him the Apostle Paul, who for Hierotheus and Dionysius would have been ἐπὶ τὴν θείαν φωτοδόσιαν χειραγωγός (DN, 2, 11; 3, 2; 7, 1). As this expression already indicates, D. would have converted from paganism, and the sophist Apollophanes reproaches him for being πατρόθεν ὡς τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἐπὶ τοὺς Ἕλληνας οὐχ ὁσίως χρώμενος (Ep. 7, 2). According to Ep. 7, D. and Apollophanes would have witnessed the eclipse of the sun on the day of the Crucifixion, and according to DN 3, 2, D. would have attended the *dormitio* of the Blessed Virgin. From all this, it has been believed that the author is the Dionysius the Areopagite of Acts 17:34. Under this name his writings are first cited by the Monophysite patriarch Severus of Antioch (512–518) and then by Monophysites in a dispute with the Orthodox in Constantinople under Justinian I (533). But the spokesman for the Catholics, Hypatius, bishop of Ephesus, observed that if such writings had been by D., they would not have been ignored by St. Cyril or St. Athanasius (E. Schwartz, *Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum*, IV, II, p. 173). This argument still holds today. The absence of any citation for four or five centuries, the style altogether different from that of the apostolic writers, and the developed doctrine of the Trinity, Christology, and ecclesiology make it evident that the author was not the Areopagite. This is now generally admitted.For the Middle Ages, the fact that St. Maximus the Confessor had defended the authenticity and orthodoxy of the Areopagitic writings was decisive. The immense influence of the Pseudo-Dionysius on the theology and mysticism of the Western Church from John Scotus Eriugena to Denis the Carthusian is well known. Hugh of Saint-Victor, Albert the Great, and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote commentaries (cf. M. Grabmann, *Geschichte der scholastischen Methode*, I, Freiburg 1909, pp. 88-92, which argues against an overestimation of the influence in the case of St. Thomas). The medieval Latin form of the works of Pseudo-Dionysius is found in the *editiones solennes* (2 vols., 1937 ff.): «Dionysia, Recueil donnant l'ensemble des traductions latines... et synopse marquant la valeur de citations... remises dans leur contexte au moyen d'une nomenclature».
Criticism revived during Humanism with Lorenzo Valla, and later with the Oratorian G. Morino. In the past century, Catholic scholars such as Fr. Hüpler sought to defend against the charge of forgery by attempting to prove that the references to apostolic events and figures should be interpreted as referring to figures and events of the 4th century, or by supposing that these passages were added by a later Monophysite forger. However, they were refuted by H. Koch (*Der Pseudopigraphische Charakter der Dionysiusschriften*, in *Theolog. Quartalschr.*, 77 [1895], pp. 362-71; id., *Proklus als Quelle des Ps. D. in der Lehre vom Bösen*, in *Philologus*, 54 [1895], pp. 438 ff.) and J. Stiglmayr (*Der Neuplatoniker Proklus als Vorlage des sog. Dionysius Areop. in der Lehre vom Übel*, in *Hist. Jahrb.*, 16 [1895], pp. 253 ff., 721 ff.), who conclusively demonstrated that in *De divinis nominibus*, 4, 18-34, Pseudo-Dionysius followed the treatise of the Neoplatonist Proclus (d. 485): *De malorum subsistentia*. Moreover, Stiglmayr, recognizing in the σύμβολον τῆς βρησκείας of *De ecclesiastica hierarchia* 3, 7 the Creed, was able to establish the *terminus a quo* as 476, when the Creed was introduced into the liturgy by the Monophysite patriarch Peter the Fuller (*Das Aufkommen der ps. - Dionisch. Schriften*, Feldkirch 1895); and from the liturgy he concluded that the homeland of Pseudo-Dionysius must be sought in Syria (*Eine syrische Liturgie als Vorlage des Ps. Aeropagites*, in *Zeitschrift. f. kath. Theol.*, 33 [1909], pp. 383 ff.; cf. also I. M. Hanssens, *De patria Ps. Dion. Ar.*, in *Ephemerides liturgicae*, 38 [1924], pp. 283-92). However, against his further attempt to prove that the Pseudo-Areopagite is the patriarch Severus of Antioch (*Der sog. Dionys. Areop. und Severus von Antiochia*, in *Scholastik*, 3 [1928], pp. 1-161), J. Lebon wrote (*Le ps. Ar. et Sévère d'Antioche*, in *Revue d'hist. eccl.*, 26 [1930], p. 881 ff.), demonstrating the inadequacy of many historical arguments and ultimately expressing doubts even about the Monophysitism of Pseudo-Dionysius. H. Koch had overemphasized the general dependence of Pseudo-Dionysius on Neoplatonic philosophy. Stiglmayr, in his translations and minor commentaries on the works of Pseudo-Dionysius (articles cited in *Zeitschrift. f. kath. Theol.*, 1898, 1899, 1900) and in *Bibl. d. Kirchenväter* (Munich 1911 and 1933), was able to gather many brief references and parallel passages in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa.
More recently, attempts have been made to go further: thus Ceslao Pera (*Denis le mystique et la sequaxia*, in *Revue des sciences phil. et théol.*, 25 [1936], pp. 5-73) claimed to show in Pseudo-Dionysius a disciple of St. Basil; but his argumentation is entirely insufficient. Much more cautious is E. von Ivanka in his article *Der Aufbau der Schrift De divinis nominibus* (in *Scholastik*, 15 [1940], p. 386 ff.), although he discovered a striking analogy between the attributes of God in *De divinis nominibus* and the names of Christ in *De perfecta Christiani forma* of Gregory of Nyssa; he admits that if this case remains isolated, it cannot shake the foundations laid by Stiglmayr and Koch. Nevertheless, such works are of great importance for the still entirely fluctuating assessment of the author and his work. Thus, for K. Richstätter (*Der Vater der christlichen Mystik und sein verhängnisvoller Einfluss*, in *Stimmen der Zeit*, 114 [1928], p. 241 ff.), the unsuccessful synthesis of Pseudo-Dionysius between Neoplatonism and Christianity is responsible for the panesthetic and quietistic currents in medieval mysticism. According to him and the dogmatist J. Pohl, modern Catholic theology and mysticism should renounce the authority of Pseudo-Dionysius. Instead, H. Ball (*Byzantinisches Christentum*, Munich 1931, pp. 62-249) sees in Pseudo-Dionysius one of the greatest theologians of the Eastern Church; he fully accepts the conclusions of modern criticism but explains the forgery as an essential moment of hieratic style. In a more indirect and scholarly manner, Vlodd. Lossky defends the cause of Pseudo-Dionysius (cf. article cited, in *Rev. des sciences phil. et théol.*, 28 [1939], p. 210, note 1).
PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS IN THE LATIN WEST. — The first entry of Pseudo-Dionysius into the Latin West dates to around 758, as evidenced by a letter of Pope Paul I to Pepin the Short, in which the pope reminds the king of the dispatch of a shipment of books that included Aristotle and Pseudo-Dionysius. However, this first dispatch seems to have had no effect. In the year 827, the ambassadors of the Byzantine emperor Michael the Stammerer presented to Louis the Pious, among other things, a manuscript containing the entire *Corpus Dionysiacum*. Documents from the time show that Abbot Hilduin immediately undertook a Latin translation, which was completed between the years 828-30 and 835; this first version, hitherto unknown, has been discovered and edited by Fr. G. Théry (*Etudes dionysiennes. Hilduin traducteur de Denis*, II, Paris 1937).
The version that instead gained currency in the Middle Ages was that of John Scotus Eriugena in the year 858 under Charles the Bald: Fr. G. Théry has established that Scotus Eriugena knew Hilduin’s version and improved it, i.e., revised it, and that the new version may be described as “optical” in contrast to the other, which must be called “phonetic.” Later, toward the middle of the 13th century, John Sarracen made a revision of Scotus Eriugena’s translation, purging it of Graecisms (G. Théry, *Jean Sarrazin, “traducteur” de Scot Erigène*, in *Studia mediaevalia, Miscellanea R. J. Martin O. P.*, Bruges [1948], pp. 358-81), which was used by Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, and later scholastics. Other versions were produced by Robert Grosseteste in the 13th century, by Ambrogio Traversari (who was used by Nicholas of Cusa), and by Marsilio Ficino himself during Humanism, all dissatisfied with the barbarous Latin of the earlier translations. However, the defects of these versions are not always to be attributed to the translators, since the Greek manuscript (Paris, Bibl. Nat. gr. 437) on which they were based contains numerous errors. Nevertheless, their great merit lies in having created a doctrinal contact between the Greek and Latin worlds that has no equal except in the introduction of the systematic works of Aristotle. It is worth noting that the news of Scotus Eriugena’s version provoked a reaction from Rome: Pope Nicholas I, writing to Charles the Bald (c. 861-62), complains that a copy had not been sent to Rome for approval, “especially since the same John is said to be a man of great learning, but it is widely rumored that he does not know how to use it properly” (PL 122, 1025-26).
There is still no comprehensive study that thoroughly examines the influence of Pseudo-Dionysius on Scholastic speculation and Western spirituality; however, this influence has been considerable and, at crucial points in the development of Christian theology and mysticism, decisive and superior to that of St. Augustine. This is not merely due to the cover of the pseudonym but stems from the speculative depth of his doctrines, his methodical approach, and his challenging yet sublime style, marked by a careful synthesis of biblical and Neoplatonic terminology. Indeed, while Pseudo-Dionysius borrows frameworks and terms from Neoplatonism, his entire thought constitutes a refutation of its fundamental principles. For instance, when discussing divine emanations or processions, he asserts that all are united in God (DN, V, 2), and later (XI, 6) directly refutes the Neoplatonic principle of "participation" (participle), opposing it with the Christian conception. God becomes the sole, absolute cause immediately present in all reality: the doctrine of intermediaries, emanative and diffuse, is fully absorbed into Christian creation, and these intermediaries thus lose the ontological sphere that Neoplatonism had assigned them as the last bastion of polytheism. St. Thomas Aquinas clearly recognized this transformation, which underpins the entire medieval assimilation of Pseudo-Dionysius (cf. *Comm. in L. De divinis nominibus*, cap. 3, lect. 1; ed. Parm., XV, 347b; *Comm. in L. De causis*, lect. 3; ed. Parm., XXI, 722a).
In every phenomenon of spiritual irradiation, the definitive judgment of its value does not depend solely on the objective reality and consistency of what provoked it but also on the intrinsic reality of the phenomenon itself—namely, the way in which Scholastics appropriated its terms and developed their reflections. In this regard, a history of Latin Dionysianism will clarify how what is most profound and enduring in medieval thought for subsequent centuries, transcending the disputes of schools and the limits of systems, owes itself to the presence of Pseudo-Dionysius: the essence of this influence is not so much to be found in a body of well-defined doctrines but in a typically speculative orientation and a complex of suggestions it offers, in a particular mentality created by the works of this distinguished unknown. Fr. Théry (*Études Carnéliatiques*, 23 [1938, 11], pp. 70ff.) distinguishes four periods of this influence: a) in the 9th century, with Hilduin and John Scotus Eriugena, with echoes in Paschasius Radbertus and Hincmar of Reims; b) the 12th–13th centuries, with Hugh Etherius, John of Salisbury, G. Sarracenus, Hugh and Thomas of Saint-Victor (the latter known as Thomas Gallus, who was the master of St. Anthony of Padua at Vercelli), and even St. Bernard, albeit only through the *Ambigua* of St. Maximus the Confessor (cf. E. Gilson, *La théologie de st Bernard*, Paris 1947, pp. 38ff.); c) the second half of the 13th century, with St. Albert the Great and his disciples St. Thomas Aquinas and Ulrich of Strasbourg; d) the 14th century, often in anonymous expansion, particularly among the Rhineland mystics, as evidenced by the abundance of manuscripts in Austrian libraries compared to French ones (cf. G. Théry, *Catalogue des manuscrits dionysiens des bibliothèques d'Autriche*, in *Arch. doctr. et litt. du Moyen Age*, 10 [1935–36], pp. 163–264 and 11 [1937–38], pp. 87–130: a total of some 50 manuscripts). In this period, mention should be made of the Dominicans Dietrich of Freiburg and Eckhart, Tauler, and the same Bl. Henry Suso, and, at the end of the century, Jean Gerson, studied by Combes (*Jean Gerson commentateur dionysien*, Paris 1940). A fifth period may be added, from the 15th century onward, with Denis the Carthusian and Cistercian spirituality, Nicholas of Cusa, continued by Lefèvre d'Étaples in France, Marsilio Ficino, and Florentine Humanism. The anonymous English writer of the 14th century in *The Cloud of Unknowing* (*Nube dell'inconoscibile*) carries the mystical theology of Pseudo-Dionysius to its ultimate conclusions.
It is significant that Pseudo-Dionysius enjoyed greater success in speculative circles, such as the Dominican school (St. Albert commented on his entire corpus; his commentary on *De divinis nominibus* is still extant), while his influence appears scarcer in the Franciscan school. Of St. Thomas, who cites him approximately 2,000 times, Durantel (*St Thomas et le Pseudo-Denis*, Paris 1919, p. 63) argued that the Angelic Doctor turned to Pseudo-Dionysius more than to any other author at crucial moments in his thought—a claim supported by a meticulous comparison of all Thomistic citations. A similar study had already been undertaken in the 16th century by the Jesuit Balthasar Cordier, a distinguished translator, editor, and commentator of the entire *Corpus Dionysiacum* (*Prolegomena*: PG 3, 96). It should be noted that St. Thomas recognized the Neoplatonic character of Pseudo-Dionysius (*plerumque utitur stilo et modo loquendi quo utebantur platonici, qui apud modernos est inconsuetus*: Prologus in *Comm. sup. I. De Divinis Nominibus*, ed. Parm., XV, p. 259, col. b) and warned against misinterpretations (perversus intellectus) made by some regarding certain expressions of Dionysian thought, as in the case of Amaury of Bène, who slipped into formal pantheism (cf. *Contra Gentiles*, I, 26: *Quod Deus non est esse formale omnium*, and *Comm. sup. I. De Divinis Nominibus*, c. I, 1, 2; ed. cit., p. 266, col. a).
The influence of Pseudo-Dionysius on Nicholas of Cusa was filtered through a more direct fidelity to Neoplatonic principles, particularly those of Proclus, whom Cusanus considered a disciple of Dionysius (*De venatione sapientiae*, cap. 22; ed. Paris 1514, t. I, fol. ccivv.). Baur, who noted the citations of Pseudo-Dionysius in Cusanus, affirmed that the so-called "negative theology" does not stand alone but functions dialectically with the preceding positive, or investigative, theology of divine attributes. At the same time, Chancellor Gerson called him the founder of speculative mysticism: *"Magnus Dionysius edoctus a Paulo primus videtur theologiae speculative tradidisse"* (cf. A. Combes, *Études Gersoniennes*, in *Arch. doctr. et litt. du Moyen Age*, 12 [1939], p. 291).
Recently, in response to the thesis advanced by J. Baruzi regarding St. John of the Cross as inclined toward mystical negativism and Quietism (*Saint Jean de la Croix et le problème de l'expérience mystique*, II, Paris 1931), Puech countered that it is rather in Origen that we find the dramatic and affective character proper to the "spiritual marriage" and the "dark night" of the great Spanish mystic. This judgment may pertain to the objective content of the doctrines but not to their historical derivation, for it is beyond doubt that the mysticism of Pseudo-Dionysius reached St. John of the Cross through the Scholastic and Thomistic tradition in which he was formed, as evidenced by the very Dionysian terminology he retained (cf. *Ascent of Mount Carmel*, II, cap. 7, 5). The psychological-anthropological character of this new mysticism, in its origins, traces back to the Aristotelian psychology of cognitive and appetitive faculties, of which St. John demonstrates a profound understanding (e.g., in *The Dark Night*).
Thus, without the stimulus and approach of Pseudo-Dionysius, Western thought might well have remained confined to Augustinian psychologism and would have been incapable of achieving, particularly through the work of St. Thomas, the synthesis of Platonism and Aristotelianism that Neoplatonism had vainly attempted. It would also have been unable to confront, on a theoretical level, the threat of Averroism.
V. tav. XCIN.