DIONIGI L'AREOPAGITA. –
I. THE WORKS
The corpus of the Areopagitic writings contains the following treatises (as attested by the very ancient Syriac version of Sergio di Resaina [d. in 536] and by the oldest commentary preserved for us, that of s. Massimo Confessore [d. in 662], a large part of which, according to H. Urs V. BALDASSARRE, Das Scholienswerk des Johannes V. Scythopolis, in Scholastik, 15 [1940], pp. 16 ff., derives from the commentary of Giovanni di Scythopolis, who lived a hundred years earlier):1. De coelesti hierarchia (CH). The word «hierarchia», introduced by D. into ecclesiastical language (J. Stiglmayr, Über die Termini Hierarch und Hierarchia, in Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol., 22 [1898], pp. 180 ff.), here means the order of the angels determined by the degree of assimilation to God, or of deification (θεωσις), union (εωσις) with God, through the gift of divine light which they receive and transmit to the lower rank (μετοχή, μετάδοσις).
The names of the ranks of the angels are taken from Sacred Scripture; as for the system of triads, D. claims to have received it from his teacher, but it is undoubtedly of Neoplatonic origin (especially from Proclus, cf. H. Koch, Pseudo-Dionysius, Mainz 1900, p. 178): a) Seraphim, Cherubim, Throni; b) Domintiones, Virtutes, Potestates; c) Principatus, Archangeli, Angeli. Through these ranks the gift of divine light descends and ascends.
2. De ecclesiastica hierarchia (EH). The treatise begins with an allusion to the preceding work. The sacred order of the Church corresponds to the celestial order. The ranks of the EH too are degrees of approach to God, of deification. But since in human nature the spirit is bound to the body, our hierarchia needs sensible symbols which lead us «hierarchiche ad uniformem deificationem» (PG 3, 373 A). A triad of sacraments is therefore described and mystically interpreted: Baptism (θεογενεσία); the Holy Eucharist (σύνδεξι) and Confirmation (or rather μύρῳ τελετή, the consecration of the holy oil). This is followed by the order conferred upon the clergy: a) Ordo hierarchicus (D. uses the word hierarchos instead of episkopos), which is the head of the EH as Christ is of the entire hierarchia. b) Ordo sacerdotalis (D. says hiereis and not presbyteroi). c) Ordo diaconorum (leiturgodiaconi), with a brief description and interpretation of the rite of ordination to these three ranks. In the triad of subjects who are called telumenoi, the author begins with the lowest: a) catechumens, the possessed, penitents; b) populus sanctus, the Christians who may attend the Holy Eucharist; c) monks, whom D. usually calls therapeutai. The final chapter of the treatise is an appendix; the funeral rites too are explained mystically, with orthodox eschatological doctrine (cf. J. Stiglmayr, Die Eschatologie des Ps-Dionysius, in Zeitsch. f. kath. Theol., 23 [1899], pp. 1 ff.).
3. De divinis nominibus (DN). The principal work, whose title and method are of Neoplatonic origin (cf. H. Koch, op. cit., pp. 9 ff., 224 ff.). It is a doctrine of the triune and one God based on the explanation of his names in Sacred Scripture. Such a positive and multifaceted science would seem impossible because God is above every essence (ὑπερνόμος) and above every name (ὑπερνόμος). It does not in fact touch upon the superessential unity (ἔνωσις) of God, but only upon the distinctions (not the Trinitarian ones; διχρίσεις) and powers (δυνάμεις) in the divinity which are πρόνοια ἐκφαντορικαί and θεία θελήματα, creative powers that grant being and perfection to every creature. The cause of all things can and must be enunciated from the things caused. The names which thus reveal God to us in a positive manner are: chap. 4: τὸ ἀγαθόν; chap. 5: τὸ ὄντως ὄν; chap. 6: ζωή; chap. 7: σοφία. The first is of Neoplatonic origin; the following triad likewise corresponds to a triad of Proclus: οὐσία – ζωή – νόος. This is followed in chap. 8 by: δυνάμεις; chap. 9 contains a series of opposed notions which, according to E. Ivanka (Aufbau der Schrift « De divinis nominibus » des Ps-Dionysius, in Scholastik, 15 [1940], p. 392), are taken from Plato’s Parmenidis. This influence would also explain why the following chapter deals with: αἰών, χρόνος; chap. 10: εἰρήνη; chap. 11: sanctus sanctorum and similar biblical expressions; chap. 13: τὸ τέλειον καὶ ἕν. This last predication once again shows the insufficiency of all the preceding ones, including the first (bonum). Therefore the theologians (according to D., the inspired authors of Sacred Scripture) would have preferred the negative method (ἀποφανική) to the positive method (καταφαντική: PG 3, 981 A/B).
4. De mystica theologia (MTh). In this brief treatise the negative method is joined to mystical experience (ἔκατασις: negation, abandonment of self). The negative method is the complement of the positive method for attaining the total transcendence of God (PG 3, 1000 B). The most divine and exalted objects of the visible and intelligible world are merely the foundation, the place for the parousia of the invisible and unknowable God. From here one enters into the γνῶρος τῆς ἀγνωσίας... ἐνοῦμενος τῷ παντελῷς ἀγνώστῳ... καὶ τῷ μηδὲν γινώσκειν ὑπὲρ νῦν γινώσκων (Cf. Vl. Lossky, La théologie négative dans la doctrine de Denys l'Ar., in Rev. des sciences phil. et théol., 28 [1939], pp. 214 ff.). The positive method, with its θέσεις, descends from God to the last creatures; the negative method begins from these and ascends through its ἀφαρέσεις, arriving, by removing everything, at 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 the 8th (cf. J. Stiglmayr, Ein interessanter Brief aus dem kirchlichen Alterthum, in Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol., 24 [1900], p. 657 f.) and also the 6th and the 10th have a more personal character.
In these preserved works D. also cites other works of his own and of his teacher Hierotheos; but these probably constitute a literary fiction.
II. L'AUTORE
Dalle opere stesse seguirebbe che l'autore si chiama Dionysios (ep. 7, 3). Il suo maestro sarebbe quel tale Hierotheos e prima di lui l'apostolo Paolo, il quale per Hierotheos e Dionysios sarebbe stato ἐπὶ τὴν θείαν φωτοδοσίαν χειραγωγός (DN, 2, 11; 3, 2; 7, 1). Come già indica questa espressione, D. si sarebbe convertito dal paganesimo e il sofista Apollophanes gli rimprovera di essere πατρόνιας ὡς τοῖς Ἠλλήνων ἐπὶ τοὺς Ἠλλήνων οὐχ ὁσίως χρώμενος (ep. 7, 2). Secondo l'ep. 7, D. e Apollophanes avrebbero visto l'eclissi del sole nel giorno della crocifissione e secondo DN 3, 2. D. avrebbe assistito alla dormitio della S. ma Vergine. Da tutto ciò si è creduto che l'autore sia il Dionysius Areopagita di Act. 17, 34. Sotto questo nome vengono citati i suoi scritti la prima volta, dal patriarca monofisita Severo di Antiochia (512-18) e poi dai monofisiti in una disputa con gli ortodossi a Costantinopoli sotto Giustiniano I (533). Ma il portavoce dei cattolici, Hypatios, vescovo di Efeso, osservò che se tali scritti fossero stati di D., non sarebbero stati ignorati né da s. Cirillo, né da s. Assnasio (E. Schwartz, Acta conc. oec., IV, II, p. 173). Tale argomentazione vale ancor oggi. L'assenza di ogni citazione per quattro o cinque secoli, lo stile del tutto differente dagli scrittori apostolici, la sviluppata dottrina della Trinità, cristologia ed ecclesiologia rendono evidente che l'autore non è stato l'Areopagita. Questo oggi è generalmente ammesso.Ma per il medioevo il fatto che s. Massimo Confessore aveva difeso l'autenticità e l'ortodossia degli scritti areopagitici è stato decisivo. È noto il grandissimo influsso dell'Areopagita sulla teologia e mistica della Chiesa occidentale da Scoto Eriugena fino a Dionigi il Certonimo. Ugo di San Vittore, Alberto Magno e s. Tommaso scrissero commentari (cf. M. Grabmann, Geschichte der scholastischen Methode, I, Friburgo 1909, pp. 88-92, che è contro una sopravvalutazione dell'influsso in quanto a s. Tommaso). La forma latina medievale delle opere di D. si ha nella edizione solesmense (2 voll., 1937 sg.): «Dionysiaca, Recueil donnant l'ensemble des traductions latines... et synopse marquant la valeur de citations... remises dans leur contexte au moyen d'une nomenclature». La critica si risvegliò nei tempi dell'Umanesimo con L. Valla poi con l'oratoriano G. Morino. Nel secolo passato scienziati cattolici, come Fr. Hipler, per salvare l'accusa di falso cercarono di provare che gli accenni ad avvenimenti e personaggi apostolici si debbono interpretare con fatti e uomini del sec. IV o vollero supporre che questi passi sarebbero stati aggiunti da un falsificatore posteriore monofisita; ma furono confutati da H. Koch (Der Pseudo-epigraphische Charakter der Dionysiusschriften, in Theolog. Quartalschr., 77 [1895], pp. 362-71; id., Proklus als Quelle des Ps. D. in der Lehre vom Böhen, in Philologas, 54 [1895], p. 438 sgg.) e J. Stiglmayr (Der Neuplatoniker Proklus als Vorlage des sog. Dionysius Areop. in der Lehre vom Übel, in Hist. Jahrb., 16 [1895], pp. 353 sgg., 721 sgg.), i quali provarono positivamente che D. nel De divinis nominibus, 4, 18-34 segui il trattato del neoplatonico Proclo (m. nel 485): De malorum subsistentia. Inoltre lo Stiglmayr vedendo nel σύμβολον τῆς θρησκέως di De ecclesiastica hierarchia 3, 7 il Credo poté stabilire come terminus a que l'a.
476, quando il Credo fu introdotto nella liturgia dal patriarca monofisita Pietro Fullone (Das Aufkommen der ps. - Dionisch. Schriften, Feldkirch 1895); e concluse dalla liturgia che la patria di D. deve cercarsi in Siria (Eine syrische Liturgie als Vorlage des Ps. Aeropagites, in Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol., 33 [1909], p. 383 sgg.; cf. anche I. M. Hanssens, De patria Ps. Dion. Ar., in Ephemerides liturgicae, 38 [1924], pp. 283-92). Ma contro il suo ulteriore tentativo di provare che lo pseudo Areopagita sia il patriarca Severo di Antiochia (Der sog. Dionys. Areop. und Severus von Antiochia, in Scholastik, 3 [1928], pp. 1-161) scrisse J. Lebon (Le ps. Arèop. et Sévère d'Antioche, in Revue d'hist. eccl., 26 [1930], p. 881 sgg.) mostrando l'insufficienza di molti argomenti storici e pronunciando infine anche dei dubbi circa il monofisismo di D. H. Koch aveva troppo insistito sulla generale dipendenza del D. dalla filosofia neoplatonica. Lo Stiglmayr nelle sue versioni e piccoli commentari alle opere di D. (artt. citt. in Zeitschr. f. kath. Theol., 1898, 1899, 1900) e in Bibl. d. Kirchenväter (Monaco 1911 e 1933) ha potuto raccogliere molti brevi accenni e passi paralleli in Clemente Alessandrino, Origene, Cirillo di Gerusalemme, s. Basilio e Gregorio di Nissa. Ultimamente si è voluto andare più innanzi: così Ceslao Pera (Denis le mistique et la ἀνεφάγια, in Revue des sciences phil. et théol., 25 [1936], pp. 5-75) pretese far vedere in D. un discepolo di s. Basilio; ma la sua argomentazione è del tutto insufficiente. Molto più cauto è E. von Ivanka nel suo articolo Der Aufbau der Schrift De divinis nominibus (in Scholastik, 15 [1940], p. 386 sgg.) sebbene abbia scoperto una sorprendente analogia tra gli attributi di Dio in De divinis nominibus e i nomi di Cristo in De perfecta Christiani forma di Gregorio di Nissa; ammette che se questo caso rimane isolato non può scuotere le fondamenta poste da Stiglmayr e Koch. Non di meno tali lavori sono di grande importanza per la valutazione ancora del tutto fluttuante dell'autore e della sua opera. Così per K. Richstätter (Der Vater der christlichen Mystik und sein verhängnisvoller Einfluss, in Stimmen der Zeit, 114 [1928], p. 241 sgg.) la sintesi mal riuscita di D. fra neoplatonismo e cristianesimo è responsabile delle correnti panteistiche e quietistiche nella mistica dal medioevo in poi. Secondo lui e il dogmatista J. Pohl la teologia e mistica cattolica moderna dovrebbero rinunciare all'autorità di D. Invece H. Ball (Byzantinisches Christentum, Monaco 1931, pp. 62-249) vede in D. uno dei più grandi teologi della Chiesa orientale; accetta in pieno le conclusioni della critica moderna ma spiega la falsificazione come un momento essenziale dello stile ieratico. In una maniera più indiretta e scientifica combatte per la causa di D. Vlod. Lossky (cf. art. citt., in Rev. des sciences phil. et théol., 28 [1930], p. 210, nota 1).
D. IN THE LATIN WEST. — D.’s first entry into the West dates to around 758, as appears from a letter of Pope Paul I to Pepin the Short, which recalls to the king the dispatch of a consignment of books, among which Aristotle and D. are listed; but this first dispatch seems to have had no effect. In 827 the ambassadors of the Greek emperor Michael the Stammerer offered, among other things, to Louis the Pious the manuscript containing the entire Corpus Dionysiacum. From documents of the period it is known that Abbot Hilduin immediately undertook the Latin version, which was completed between 828–30 and 835; this first version, hitherto unknown, has been discovered and published by Fr. G. Théry (Études dionyssiens. Hilduin traducteur de Denis, II, Paris 1937).
The version that circulated in the Middle Ages, however, was that of Scotus Eriugena, produced in 858 under Charles the Bald: Fr. G. Théry established that Scotus knew Hilduin’s version and improved it, that is, revised it, and that the new version may be called “optical,” in contrast to the other, which should be called “phonic.” Later, around the middle of the thirteenth century, a certain John Saracen made a revision of Scotus’s translation, purging it of its Greekisms (G. Théry, Jaen Sarrazin, traducteur de Scot Eriégne, in Studia mediaevalia, Miscellanea R. J. Martin O. P., Bruges [1948], pp. 358–81); this version was used by St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas, and the later scholastics. Other versions are due to Robert Grosseteste in the thirteenth century, to Ambrose Traversari (whose work Nicholas of Cusa would use), and to Marsilio Ficino himself during the Renaissance, all dissatisfied with the barbarous Latin of the earliest versions. Yet their defects are not always attributable to the translators, because the Greek codex itself (Paris, Bibl. Naz. gr. 437) on which they are based contains quite a few errors. Nevertheless, their great merit remains that they created a doctrinal contact between the Greek and Latin worlds, equaled only by the introduction of Aristotle’s systematic works. It should be noted that news of Scotus’s version provoked a reaction in Rome: Pope Nicholas I, in fact, writing to Charles the Bald (ca. 861–62), complains that a copy was not sent to Rome for approval, “praesentum cum idem Ioannes multae scientiae esse praedicetur olim, sed non sane sapere in quibusdam frequenti rumore dicatur” (PL 122, 1025–26).
There is still no comprehensive study treating in depth D.’s influence on scholastic speculation and Western spirituality. That influence, however, was considerable, and at not a few crucial points in the nascent Christian theology and mysticism it must be called decisive and superior to that of St. Augustine—not only because of the protection afforded by the pseudonym, but also because of the speculative profundity of the doctrines, the methodical procedure, and the arduous and sublime style in a careful synthesis of biblical and Neoplatonic terms. For although D. takes forms and terms from Neoplatonism, his entire thought is an indictment of the fundamental Neoplatonic principles. Thus, speaking of the divine emanations or processions, he affirms that they are all found united in God (DN, V, 2), and farther on (XI, 6) directly refutes the chief principle of Neoplatonism, that of “participations” (participated realities), to which he opposes the Christian conception. God becomes the sole, absolute cause immediately present to every reality; the doctrine of intermediaries, emanationist and dispersive, is completely absorbed into Christian creation, and these intermediaries consequently lose that distinct ontological sphere which Neoplatonism had assigned to them as the final bulwark of polytheism. St. Thomas clearly understood this transformation, on which the entire medieval assimilation of D. rests (cf. Comm. in l. De divinis nominibus, cap. 5, lez. 1; ed. Parm., XV, 347 b.; Comm. in l. De causis, lez. 3; ed. Parm., XXI, 722 a).
In every phenomenon of spiritual irradiation, the definitive judgment of its value depends not only on the objective reality and substance of what caused it, but also on the intrinsic reality of the phenomenon itself—that is, on the manner in which the scholastics appropriated its terms and developed their own reflections. From this perspective, a history of Latin Dionysianism will make clear that whatever the medieval mind elaborated that was deepest and most enduring for the following centuries, transcending the quarrels of the schools and the limits of systems, is owed to D.’s presence. The essence of this influence is not so much to be sought in a body of well-defined doctrines as in the typically speculative orientation and the complex of suggestions it offers, in a particular mentality created by the books of this illustrious unknown. Fr. Théry (Études Carmélitaines, 23 [1938], II, p. 70 ff.) distinguishes the periods of this influence: a) in the ninth century, with Hilduin and Scotus Eriugena, with echoes in Paschasius Radbertus and Incenaro of Reims; b) in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, with Hugh Etherianus, John of Salisbury, G. Saracen, Hugh and Thomas of St. Victor, called Thomas
Gallus, who was the teacher of St. Anthony of Padua at Vercelli; and St. Bernard himself, although only through the Ambigua of St. Maximus the Confessor (cf. E. Gilson, La théologie de st Bernard, Paris 1947, p. 38 ff.); c) in the thirteenth century (second half), with St. Albert the Great and his disciples St. Thomas and Ulrich of Strasbourg; d) in the fourteenth century, when the influence often spread anonymously, especially among the Roman mystics, as attested by the wealth of Dionysian manuscripts in Austrian libraries, in contrast 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; there are as many as 50 manuscripts). This period includes the Dominicans Theodoric of Freiberg and Erckardt, Tauler, and B. Suso himself, and, at the end of the century, G. Gerson, studied by Combes (Jean Gerson commentateur dionysien, Paris 1940). It is possible, and probable, to add a fifth period from the fifteenth century onward, with Dionysius the Carthusian and Cistercian spirituality, Nicholas of Cusa continued in France by Lefèvre d’Étaples, Marsilio Ficino, and Florentine Humanism. The anonymous Englishman of the fourteenth century carries D.’s mystical theology to its ultimate consequences in the work Cloud of Unknowing (Nube dell'inconscibile).
It is symptomatic that D. achieved greater success in speculative circles, such as the Dominican school (St. Albert comments on him in full; his commentary on De divinis nominibus is still unpublished), and seems to have had less influence in the Franciscan school. Regarding St. Thomas, who cites him approximately 2,000 times, Durantel (St Thomas et le Pseudo-Denis, Paris 1919, p. 63) maintained that the Angelic Doctor turned to D. more than to anyone else at the crucial moments of his thought: Durantel sought to prove this by conducting a detailed comparison of all the Thomistic citations. A similar work had already been undertaken in the sixteenth century by the Jesuit Baldassarre Cordier, a distinguished translator, editor, and commentator of the entire Corpus Dionysiacum (Prolegomena: PG 3, 96). It should be noted that St. Thomas had identified D.’s Neoplatonic character (“plerumque utitur stilo et modo loquerodi quo uebantur platonici, qui apud modernos est inconsuetus”: Prologus in Comm. sup. I. De Divinis Nom., ed. Parm., XV, p. 259, col. b) and had warned against the misunderstanding (perversus intellectus) by which certain people misconstrued some Dionysian expressions, as Amalric of Bena, who slipped into formal pantheism (cf. C. Gent., I, 26: “Quod Deus non est esse formale omnium,” and Comm. sup. I. De Divinis Nom., c. I, l. 2; ed. cit., p. 266, col. a).
L'influsso di D. su Nicolò di Cusa è stato filtrato in una più diretta fedeltà di principi neoplatonici, specialmente di Proclo, che il Cusano reputa discepolo di D. (De venatione sapientiae, cap. 22; ed. Parigi 1514, t. I, fol. ccixv.); il Baur che ha rilevato le citazioni di D. nel Cusano afferma che la cosiddetta «teologia negativa» non si pone per sé ma in funzione dialettica con la precedente teologia positiva cioè investigativa dei divini attribuiti. In quello stesso tempo il cancelliere Gersone lo chiama il fondatore della mistica speculativa: «Magnus Dionysius eductus a Paulo primus videtur hanc theologiam speculative tradidisse» (cf. A. Combes, Etudes Gersoniennes, in Arch. doctr. et litt. du Moyen Age, 12 [1939], p. 291).
Recentemente a proposito della tesi sostenuta da J. Baruzzi su s. Giovanni della Croce come propendente al negativismo mistico e al quietismo (Saint Jean de la Croix et le problème de l'expérience mystique, II, Parigi 1931) per l'influsso di D., ha risposto il Puech che è piuttosto in Origene che noi troviamo il carattere drammatico e affettivo propri del «matrimonio spirituale» e della «notte oscura» del grande mistico spagnolo: giudizio che può interessare il contenuto oggettivo delle dottrine, non la loro filiazione storica perché è fuor di dubbio che la mistica di D. era arrivata a s. Giovanni della Croce attraverso la tradizione scolastica e tomistica in cui era stato formato e di cui la terminologia stessa dionisiana da lui conservata è l'evidente argomento (cf. Salita al Monte Carmelo, II, cap. 7, 5). Il carattere psicologico-antropologico della nuova mistica risale, come
alla sua prima origine, alla stessa psicologia aristotelica della facoltà apprensive e appetitive di cui s. Giovanni mostra (p. es., nella Notte oscura) di conoscere al fondo la natura e le funzioni.
Così senza l'apporto e lo stimolo di D. al pensiero occidentale, questo si sarebbe probabilmente chiuso nello psicologismo agostiniano e sarebbe stato incapace di operare, soprattutto per merito di s. Tommaso, la sintesi di platonismo e aristotelismo a cui si era applicato invano il neoplatonismo, e non avrebbe potuto fronteggiare sul piano teorico la minaccia dell'averroismo. - Vedi tav. XCIX.