The strange case of the Pseudo-Dionysius (mothermeatloaf's I didn't know that W/O)
Aug 28 '04
The Bottom Line An introduction to the mysterious philosopher/theologian of the 6th century known as the Pseudo-Dionysius.
Pseudo-Dionysius is a name you don't forget. I first became aware of this mysterious figure a few years ago, in an introductory course on Medieval thought. I was instantly intrigued and wanted to know more about him. His link to Neoplatonism made him all the more interesting to me and I immersed myself in his works soon after. When mothermeatloaf invited me to "expose and elaborate upon something or someone obscure" for his first W/O, I soon opted to write about the Pseudo-Dionysius.
Who is the Pseudo-Dionysius?
He presented himself as Dionysius the Areopagite, who was converted by Paul in Acts 17:34. Under that name, he authored four treatises (The Divine Names, The Mystical Theology, The Celestial Hierarchy and The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy) and ten Epistles. Commonly referred to as the Corpus Areopagiticum, his writings had the status of apostolic authority from the 6th to the 19th century, durably influencing medieval thinkers.
During that time, some did question the authenticity of the treatises. In 533, Hypatios had already shelled doubt on the identity of their author by mentioning a simple but crucial fact: the Corpus was not quoted at all in the first five centuries. The first Church Fathers were completely silent about these works.
The most critical studies on that topic were published in 1895. H. Koch and J. Stiglmayr underlined striking similarities between passages of the Corpus and passages of the late Neoplatonist Proclus (412-485): similarities that were both formal (general presentation, transitions, how to quote authorities, etc.) and doctrinal (on the Good, on Beauty, on the knowledge of God, Providence, hierarchy, etc.). Much like the late Neoplatonists, the author of the Corpus uses words drawn from mystery cults; he was also influenced by Gnosticism.
According to Stiglmayr, the author's consideration of Christ is in line with the emperor Zeno's speculations (482). For these reasons and others, Koch and Stiglmayr suggested that the Corpus could not have been composed before the end of the 5th century. Dionysius thus became the Pseudo-Dionysius, and he has carried this burden ever since.
This is a crucial discovery because it reverses the historical appraisal of his work. Up until the 19th century, most scholars did perceive the Neoplatonic bent of the Corpus, but they assumed that he had influenced the Neoplatonists – after all, he lived in the 1st century (or so they thought), while the Neoplatonists were active from the 3rd to the early 6th century. But as we have seen, the Pseudo-Dionysius actually came after the Neoplatonists, and it is he who has been influenced! Most 20th century scholars have agreed with that assessment. One of the exceptions? E. Elorduy (in 1944), who argued that the author was in fact Ammonius Saccas... the teacher of the Neoplatonist Plotinus (205-270)! This conjecture was to be rejected.
Over the years, many scholars have searched for the true identity of the author, often attributing the treatises to well-known thinkers. Research on this topic has not progressed significantly in the last few decades, and definitive solution has been reached. The time period (circa early 6th century) and the place (Syrian milieus) are clear enough, but the question 'Who is the Pseudo-Dionysius?' might never be answered.
An introduction to his thought
The Pseudo-Dionysius' language is distinctly Neoplatonic, and thus fairly difficult to understand without a background in ancient philosophy and theology. His style, much like Proclus', features long sentences, digressions and many fervent passages. Here are some pointers that should help newcomers get into his works.
1) The central concern of the Pseudo-Dionysius is the knowledge of God and mystical union with this first principle. Such knowledge, for him, can mainly be obtained through negative theology. Influenced by the Neoplatonists, he contends that the best way to reach/know God is through negations, because affirmations are inappropriate. Strictly speaking, none of the words he uses while writing about the divine – 'God', 'Cause', 'First principle', 'Good', etc. – should be considered adequate.
2) He emphasizes that union with God is only possible through ignorance: intelligence can only deal with defined concepts, and thus cannot reach what is beyond all concepts. This does not mean that the Intellect (nous, in Greek) is worthless, but only that it is unable to know the first principle.
3) Furthermore, this emphasis on negative theology and ignorance does not result in complete renunciation. Some affirmations – God as the Good (this is very Platonic), as Beauty itself, etc. – are less inappropriate than others. It is also possible to read material symbols in such a way that we somehow get closer to the divine through them: rituals and allegorical interpretation of sacred texts are two examples of this. In many ways, this is the Christian equivalent of the Neoplatonists' theurgy.
4) Negative theology has major ethical consequences. To illustrate this, the Pseudo-Dionysius lifts an image of Plotinus: a statue becomes purer and more beautiful when the sculptor peels away its unnecessary layers (a similar image can be found in the Tao Te King), and not through additions.
5) Like all Platonists, he holds that reality is made up of various hierarchical degrees. Some beings are sensible, some are intelligible (to be apprehended by the Intellect only), and One is beyond both realms. The hierarchical degrees are not cut off from one another but 'flow' continuously, because extremes are always bridged by mediating terms. Even though hierarchy is a crucial theme in Neoplatonism, it is worth noting that the actual word was invented by the Pseudo-Dionysius himself. It comes from the Greek words hieros and arkhein, which mean 'sacred' and 'to command', respectively.
A quote from the Pseudo-Dionysius
"For the higher we soar in contemplation the more limited become our expressions of that which is purely intelligible; even as now, when plunging into the Darkness that is above the intellect, we pass not merely into brevity of speech, but even into absolute silence of thoughts and of words. Thus, in the former discourse, our contemplations descended from the highest to the lowest, embracing an ever-widening number of conceptions, which increased at each stage of the descent; but in the present discourse we mount upwards from below to that which is the highest, and, according to the degree of transcendence, so our speech is restrained until, the entire ascent being accomplished, we become wholly voiceless, inasmuch as we are absorbed in it that is totally ineffable..." (The Mystical Theology, 1033 B-C)
Concluding remarks
For centuries, the Pseudo-Dionysius has unjustly overshadowed his Neoplatonic predecessors, especially Proclus. But nowadays he is almost underrated. The continuous discussions around his identity have not always been positive, because many felt that the name forgery somehow disqualified his works.
I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I'm a student of the Neoplatonist Proclus and I'm saddened when I notice how often he has been plagiarized – in addition to the Corpus, let's not forget the Liber de Causis, a book attributed to Aristotle that was extremely popular in the Middle Ages; studies have shown that it was adapted from Proclus' Elements of Theology. On the other hand, the writings of the Pseudo-Dionysius are filled with beautiful, fervent and remarkably evocative passages, and the images he uses are often as memorable as those of Plotinus and Proclus. His insights on symbolism and negative theology are especially enlightening, and he should be read – and reread – by those who have an interest in Neoplatonism and/or the mystical experience.
Timeline
Plato (428-348)
Plotinus (205-270)
Porphyry (234-305)
Iamblichus (250-325)
Augustine (354-430)
Proclus (412-485)
Pseudo-Dionysius (early 6th century)
Related reviews
Here are some of my book reviews for readers who wish to learn more about Neoplatonism: Plotinus or the Simplicity of Vision, Plotinus: An introduction to the Enneads, Theurgy and the Soul: the Neoplatonism of Iamblichus and Proclus: Neoplatonic Philosophy and Science.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
platonism
|
|
Reviews written: 61
Trusted by: 45 members
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.