Contents:
This is a publication of huge distinction and will be an indispensable tool for every student of the later Church Fathers. Heythrop College R. Albany, New York. Golizin conjectured was a Syrian monk-bishop who might better be designated Deutero-Dionysius. Ignoring D. Analogous participation in God is, therefore, one with the relationality of all things, each unifying in distinct modes being, life, and wisdom pp. The degree to which Dionysian themes successfully encoded Western Christendom remains contested. Congar insisted that introduction of the Dionysian corpus in the Carolingian era was often used to support a staicised vision of the church, sacralisation, and the temporal by those seeking strict transference from Dionysian symbolizations to actual ontological participation in grace, the church, and the temporal, a judgment that could have been assented to by Luther or Erasmus.
This depiction is supported indirectly by D. Yet more attention might be given, as J. Marler noted over a decade ago, to whether Dionysius was indebted to Philoxenus of Mabbugh Manbidj or Hierapolis , the celebrated doctor of the Jacobite Church, or as S.
Theophany: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Ar and millions of other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works (Classics of Western Spirituality. Eric D. Perl is Professor of Philosophy at Loyola Marymount University. Editorial Reviews. Review. “ [a] stimulating book Perl's advocacy of Dionysian philosophy Theophany: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite (SUNY series in Ancient Greek Philosophy) - Kindle edition by Eric D. Perl.
Lilla and R. Arthur have argued, to the Chaldaean Oracles in developing his notion of hierarchy. Steel and L. Nonetheless, these two studies on the coherence of Dionysian philosophical principles are profoundly insightful. Edited by Michael Maas. The age of Justinian can be looked at in various ways.
The texts of Dionysius were often considered more Neoplatonic than would allow even the most mystical Christianity. Parmenides fragment thus brings to light the obvious but vital point that to think being, that which is, at all, is already to presuppose its intelligibility. We must use these [temporal] words because we are compelled to want to signify our meaning. The precise ontological status of the Good in relation to the forms and to intellect remains ambiguous, since Plato also calls it an da and an object of intellection; but Plato at least recognizes here that being, as the multiplicity of the forms, cannot be ultimate, that it depends for its existence and intelligibility on a principle that transcends it, and identifies this principle as the Good. All the proposals for matching the author with a Byzantine writer Severus of Antioch, Patriarch remain hypotheses, more or less plausible.
However it is understood, this volume provides an invaluable introduction. John Haldon has a clear chapter on how the Empire worked at the level of the economy and administration.
Related Papers. The fourth theological work, the Mystical Theology , reverses the sequence and restores the reader to the divine unity:. In this article we shall adopt a variant of this last order both because Dionysius himself seems to have favored it and because it clarifies the systematic structure of the theological works. It seems to have devoted itself to names for the three persons within the godhead and their attributes.
They describe two forms of differentiation within the godhead: the distinction into persons, and into attributes of the persons. Some of these names describe more than a person within the godhead. We seem to apply such names literally to animals and only metaphorically to persons within the godhead.
In other words, the internal causality exercised within the godhead is the source of all other causality. Strictly speaking, all of the theological works except for the Theological Representations devote themselves to divine names or names for the godhead. But Dionysius devotes his second theological treatise, entitled On the Divine Names only to a particular kind of divine name.
This kind of name describes a third distinction within the godhead in addition to the distinction of persons and of personal attributes : the distinction into the multiple attributes of the godhead as a whole.
Though the names apply to the godhead as a whole, and so refer to it as a unity, each name is different and so, taken together, they differentiate the godhead. The implicit distinction between the unity of the godhead and the multiplicity of the names is reflected in the very structure of the names themselves.
But each name is different, indicating the self-multiplication of the godhead. On the other hand, when the names are used only of God as cause, the prefixes may be left off, since the causality of God is already a procession into the differentiation properly signified by each of the different names. Instead, the most proper object of the names is the highest creature. The intelligible names could form the ground of a theology independent of any specific religious tradition or sacred text.
Many of them are central to Platonic sources outside the context of Christianity, and appear only incidentally and obscurely in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. They also describe the intelligible structure of the cosmos, a structure that is accessible to all human inquiry, whether assisted by scriptural texts or not.
But Dionysius explicitly denies that the names may be acquired from any source other than the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Since the cause of that structure is beyond the grasp of human inquiry, we cannot rely on our own powers for our description. We depend instead on the revelation of the scriptures as our source for the intelligible names. Few human beings have the ability to contemplate the intelligible names in their purity. Most of us require the names to be incarnated in visible things before we can understand them. Such a person can then become the means by which we contemplate the intelligible.
But Hierotheus may do more than incarnate the names. As he describes it, the name unfolds itself into a form that is more multiple, because of the many words used in his description. It thus approaches the multiple character of our ordinary human way of knowing, and becomes more easily understood. Other names directly refer to visible things, whose multiplicity and accessibility to sensation make them easy for us to understand. Their literal signification is restricted to the realm of the sensuous, and so they must be turned into metaphors if they are to become useful for theology.
Though the work itself is not extant, we find him undertaking the same project in each of his extant works. If we are to apply such terms to God, they must be attached to a foreign, intelligible content that will be able to lead the interpreter of the symbolic name to the contemplation of an intelligible name. The very materiality and ignobility of the dissimilar similarities cry out that the names do not literally describe the godhead, and compel the reader to seek the intelligible truth behind the name.
Dionysius repeatedly affirms their necessity, not because of the character of their content, but because of the nature of the human soul. The soul may be divided into two parts: one passionate and the other passionless. Passionate here means set in motion by things exterior to the soul.
The senses, for example, are passionate because they can only function when an outside object gives them something to sense. Dionysius follows a longstanding Neoplatonic tradition when he says that most of us are unable to engage our passionless part directly. Instead, our passionless part comes into play only indirectly, through the activity of the passionate part. By sensing the world around us, we are led to contemplate its intelligible structures through the sensations we receive. Even those few human beings who can engage their passionless part directly find it helpful to shore up their contemplation with examples drawn from the senses.
Such examples do not require the presence of a revealed scripture. Skilled teachers in any subject are characterized by their ability to come up with helpful examples drawn from ordinary experience when explaining a difficult intelligible truth. The scriptural symbol goes further, attempting to reveal the God who is before and beyond even the intelligible truth.
The highest human intellect has little ability to attain this truth directly, and so we cannot rely on intellectual teachers as guides to that truth. We require the gift of symbols, which tie our ordinary comprehension to the godhead beyond being. And so Dionysius does not describe the symbolic names as pedagogical tools developed by theologians. The names appear instead in the ecstatic visions of the prophets. Though Dionysius explicitly asserts our dependence on the Hebrew and Christian scriptures as the source of these symbols, he has no qualms about embellishing the list of names with symbols drawn from other traditions.
The Mystical Theology has this last, most arcane form of theology as its subject. Negations are properly applied not only to the names of the symbolic theology. Any and all of the divine names must be negated, beginning with those of the symbolic theology, continuing with the intelligible names and concluding with the theological representations. A privation is simply the absence of a given predicate that could just as easily be present. For this reason, Dionysius says that our affirmations of the godhead are not opposed to our negations, but that both must be transcended: even the negations must be negated.
The most controversial and arcane passages of the Mystical Theology revolve around the mystical as taken in itself and not as the act of negating the other forms of theology. Dionysius says that after all speaking, reading, and comprehending of the names ceases, there follows a divine silence, darkness, and unknowing. All three of these characteristics seem privative, as though they were simply being the absence of speech, sight, and knowledge respectively. But Dionysius does not treat them as privative.