With Denys we come to the end of the development of Patristic mystical theology. For with Denys are completed all the main lines of the mystical theology of the Fathers: the Origenist tradition has achieved its classical expression in the realm of mystical theology in Evagrius, the Augustinian vision has been articulated in the West, and in Denys the tradition of apophatic theology, which has its roots in Philo and Gregory of Nyssa, is summed up in the tiny, but immensely inXuential, Mystical Theology.
There is in God (some say) A deep, but dazzling darkness; As men here Say it is late and dusky, because they
See not all clear O for that night! where I in him Might live invisible and dim.
So Henry Vaughan in his poem The Night. His ‘some say’ refers to those who have been inXuenced — directly or indirectly — by Denys (or Dionysius) the Areopagite. For Denys is the most well-known exponent of the Negative or Apophatic Way, where the soul Xees from everything created and is united with the Unknowable God in darkness. His Mystical Theology is a brief and pregnant exposition of this theme, and has been enormously inXuential. It was translated into English in the fourteenth century by the author of the Cloud of Unknowing — with the title Hid Divinity — and fertilized that remarkable period of English mysticism. But he is not just an exponent of the Negative Way. In the Middle Ages he was equally well-known for his work on the nature and ranks of the angels, the Celestial Hierarchy. Though its inXuence was late and gradual (as late
as St. Bernard we Wnd the angelology of St. Gregory the Great, rather than that of Denys), by the period of High Scholasticism its ascend-ancy was unquestioned. So Dante says, in his Paradiso:
And Dionysius with so much desire Set about contemplating all these orders That he named them distinctly, as I have done.
But Gregory departed a little from him;
So that, as soon as his eyes were opened In this heaven, he smiled at himself.1
Denys’ work, the Divine Names, on what we can say about God, was much valued by Aquinas (if not completely understood). His Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, about the rites of the Church and the ranks of the clergy and laity, was much less inXuential in the West, presumably because it presupposed the liturgical practices of the Byzantine East.
But it is for his mystical theology that Denys is best known, and it is that which concerns us here. And yet we cannot neglect his other writings. If in earlier chapters we have seen that the mystical theology of a particular writer makes more sense if we grasp its context — as we saw when we discussed Evagrius’ praktike or Augustine’s use of the doctrine of the Trinity to gain a greater understanding of the soul, to give two very diVerent examples — with Denys it is only as we begin to understand the context of his mystical theology that we perceive its real signiWcance. For his mystical theology forms a piece — the crowning piece — with the other ways of pursuing theology that he discusses.2
During the Middle Ages, Denys was revered as the Athenian who had been converted by St. Paul’s speech on the Areopagus (Acts 17:34).
In fact we Wrst hear of him when in 533 some Severan Monophysites quoted (inaccurately) from his third letter in order to claim virtual apostolic authority for their position against the Orthodox. Not sur-prisingly the Orthodox rejected the authority of this new companion of the apostles. They pointed out that neither Athanasius, nor Cyril, nor any other of the Fathers seemed aware of this Wgure. None the less Denys’ writings were rapidly adopted by Monophysite and
1 Paradiso XXVIII, 130–5. C. H. Sisson’s translation of The Divine Comedy (Carcanet New Press, 1980).
2 This is something H. U. von Balthasar stresses in his important discussion of Denys in Herrlichkeit: eine theologische A¨ sthetik (Einsiedeln, 1962), II/1, 147–214.
Denys the Areopagite 155
Orthodox alike as genuine, and the doubts about their authenticity were short-lived. A collection of comments (scholia) was written on the Areopagitical corpus. This collection was begun by John of Scythopolis and later added to by Maximus the Confessor, and it is to the latter that the whole collection has been traditionally ascribed.3 With his august approval — but also as modiWed by him — the Dionysian tradition entered and fertilized Byzantine theology.
If we want to try and Wx a date for Denys, a terminus ante quem is clearly his citation by the Monophysites in 533. A terminus post quem can be derived from his account of the Christian liturgy in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, because it seems to include the singing of a creed. The singing of the creed (originally a baptismal creed) in the eucharistic liturgy is an innovation of the late Wfth century, intro-duced among the Monophysites by Peter the Fuller in 476 or there-abouts. Denys, then, would seem to be late Wfth century and appears to have come from a Syrian and Monophysite background — though his own writings are not unequivocally Monophysite in theology.
None of that would be incongruous.
Before we go further it would be as well to say a little about Denys’
philosophical background. We have seen that Augustine stands in the tradition of neo-Platonism which comes through Porphyry and Victorinus. Denys stands in the other tradition of neo-Platonism, that which passed through Iamblichus and at the end of the fourth century successfully took over the Academy at Athens. The most famous representative of this school is Proclus (410–85), who was diadochus — the successor of Plato — in the Academy from 437 or thereabouts. Denys has been called the Christian Proclus, and the general similarity between Proclus and Denys is very striking. There are even close verbal parallels — between Divine Names IV and Proclus’ treatise De Malorum Subsistentia, for example.
What is this Procline neo-Platonism?4 In essence it is a system-atization of Plotinus’ teaching and, compared with Plotinus, much
3 See von Balthasar, ‘Das Scholienwerk des Johannes von Scythopolis’, Scholastik 15 (1940), 16–38.
4 Convenient accounts in English are by A. C. Lloyd, in A. H. Armstrong (ed.), Cambridge History of later Greek and early Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge, 1970), 302–25; and R. T. Wallis, Neoplatonism (London, 1972), 138–59. Fundamental is E. R. Dodds’ edition of Proclus’ The Elements of Theology, with important introduc-tion and commentary (Oxford, 1933, 2nd edn., 1963).
156 Denys the Areopagite
more sympathetic to the practices of pagan religion. Plotinus’ three hypostases, that is, the One, Intelligence, and Soul, seen as a hier-archy, are drawn out: the hierarchy is developed and exaggerated.
Proclus, one might say, produces a pattern out of the basic Plotinian vision: richer, in some ways, but less suggestive; at once dizzying and cramped. The themes of the pattern are various triads. There are three hypostases. There is a triad found in the process of emanation and return: a Wrst term, rest — mone — is provided, and we have mone, proodos, epistrophe — rest, emanation, return. Another triad is found in his analysis of the modes of existence: Being, Life, Intelli-gence — to on, zoe, nous.
Much is made of the fact — which Plotinus had noted, and which Denys was to note also — that the hierarchy of existence is simple at both ends, top and bottom, and more complex in the middle. The One and Pure Matter — both simple — are respectively above and below Being, Life, and Intelligence. This observation provides the rational justiWcation for theurgy — magic — which was important to Iamblichus and his successors (in marked contrast to Plotinus, who disapproved of magic). Since lower beings are simpler than intelligent beings, and therefore participate in higher hypostases, it might be argued that magical practices, using plants and potions, for example, are more likely to inXuence higher beings than the merely rational exercises of humans. So, whereas for Plotinus the only activity by which man draws nearer to the One is contemplation, theoria, for Iamblichus and Proclus theurgy, theourgia, magical operations with plants and animals (inspecting entrails and the use of magic potions, for example), is more likely to be eVective. Proclus says of theurgical power that it is ‘better than any human wisdom or knowledge’.5 And Iamblichus’ longest work, De Mysteriis, is about little else.
That gives some idea of the ingredients of Proclus’ systematization of neo-Platonism; and the ingredients are easier to grasp than the resulting mixture, which is complicated to a degree. Proclus starts from Plotinus’ three hypostases, the One, Intelligence, and Soul.
From each of these issue replicas: from the One, henads or gods;
5 Platonic Theology I.25: in H. D. SaVrey and L. G. Westerink’s edition (Paris, 1968), 113.
Denys the Areopagite 157
from Intelligence, intelligences, or daemons, or angels; from Soul, souls — of humans, for example. Then by bringing into play the various triads a complicated set of interrelations is constructed and we have a sort of cosmic minuet, proceeding from rest, out through procession, and back again by reversion. The whole of reality is structured and everything has the right degree of being consistent with its own level of reality: ‘all things are in all things, but in each according to its proper nature’ (El. Theol. prop. 103).
If we turn to Denys we Wnd many parallels with this. Proclus’ three levels of reality — henads, intelligences, and souls — are paralleled in Denys’ three hierarchies: the Thearchy, the celestial hierarchy, and the ecclesiastical hierarchy, that is, the Trinity, angels, and men. Denys makes use of Proclus’ triads, and to them adds his own. All the hierarchies are triadic. The Thearchy is the Trinity. There are three ranks of the angelic beings and each rank contains three sorts. The ecclesiastical hierarchy is similarly divided into sets of three. There is, moreover, the triad — with antecedents, as we have seen, in the Christian tradition, and destined to have vast inXuence — of puriW-cation, illumination, and perfection or union (katharsis, photismos, teleiosis, or henosis). Denys also makes use of the distinction between theoria (contemplation) and theourgia (theurgy). The ecclesiastical hierarchy fulWls its functions by ‘intellectual contemplations and by diverse sensible symbols, and through these it is raised in a sacred manner to the divine’ (EH V.i.2:501 C).6 These sensible symbols — the sacraments (in a broad sense) — are sometimes referred to by the word theourgia and its derivatives. The oil of conWrmation is called theourgikotatos — literally, ‘most theurgical’. The use of the word is interesting, for it indicates that Denys thinks of the sacraments as Christian theurgy — Christian magic, if you like — or, using less loaded words, a Christian use of material things to eVect man’s relationship with the divine. Here we see the ‘Christian Proclus’, using neo-Platonic language to express his understanding of the Christian sacraments.
But, though he uses similar language, his meaning is basically diVerent.
6 References to the divisions of the individual works as given in Migne (PG III), followed by column number. DN¼ Divine Names, CH ¼ Celestial Hierarchy, EH ¼ Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, MT¼ Mystical Theology, Ep. ¼ Letter. The translations are my own.
158 Denys the Areopagite
For a neo-Platonist, theurgy — magic — worked because of some occult sympathy between the material elements used and the constitu-tion of the divine. Theurgy, to a neo-Platonist, is natural — even if rather odd. The use of material elements in the sacraments, however, is a matter of institution, not of occult Wtness: they are vehicles of grace not because of what they are materially, but because of their use in a certain symbolic context.
But what is this all about? In a word, it is about theology: theologia, in its proper sense, as the Fathers used it, not so much knowledge about God, but knowledge of God through communion with Him and contemplation of Him. Denys talks about various sorts of the-ology: symbolic, cataphatic, and apophatic — another triad. How-ever, we must beware of being mesmerized by these triads, and of playing games with them, like Proclus, in an attempt to relate them all one to another. This is not Denys’ way. He makes use of his triads, but he is not trapped in fascination by them. Consequently it is diYcult to reduce Denys’ thought to anything systematic, and the temptation has to be resisted.
In Chapter III of the Mystical Theology, Denys discusses ‘what are the cataphatic (aYrmative) theologies and what the apophatic (negative)’:
In the Theological Outlines we have celebrated that which is most proper to cataphatic theology, how the divine and good Nature is said to be single and how threefold; what is called in itself Fatherhood and what Sonship, and what the theology of the Spirit is intended to express; how from the heart of the immaterial and indivisible Good Itself there proceed the rays of that Goodness which are preserved inseparable by an eternally continuing regeneration, inseparable from Itself, in themselves and in one another;
how Jesus, who is beyond being, becomes being in truly human form; and other such matters drawn from Scripture are celebrated in the Theological Outlines. In the book on the Divine Names we have celebrated how he is called Good, Being, Life, Wisdom and Power, and other such things relating to the spiritual naming of God. In the Symbolic Theology we have celebrated what conversions of names are necessary in changing their use from the realm of the senses to the service of the divine; what are the divine forms, the divine Wgures and parts and organs; what are the divine places and divine worlds, what the passions, what the griefs and wraths, what the inebriations and hangovers, what are the oaths and what are the curses, what the dreams and the awakenings and other likenesses belonging to the symbolic
Denys the Areopagite 159
depiction of God that are sanctioned in the divine oracles. And I think you will see how much longer are the latter writings than the earlier. For it was necessary that the Theological Outlines and the Divine Names should be much briefer than the Symbolic Theology, seeing that the higher we ascend the more our words are straitened by the fact that what we understand is seen more and more altogether in a unifying and simplifying way; just as now on our entry into the darkness that is beyond understanding, we Wnd not mere brevity of words, but complete wordlessness and failure of the understanding. And there as our reason descended from the most exalted to the lowest, the lower it descended, proportionately the more our under-standing was broadened to encompass a multitude of notions, so now as our reason ascends from the lower to the transcendent, the more it ascends the more it is contracted, and when it has completely ascended it will become completely speechless, and be totally united with the Inexpressible.
(MT III: 1032 D–1033 C) This passage introduces us to Denys’ understanding of cataphatic theology and symbolic theology, and their relationship to apophatic theology. Cataphatic and symbolic theology are concerned with what we aYrm about God: apophatic theology is concerned with our understanding of God, when, in the presence of God, speech and thought fail us and we are reduced to silence. Not all the works that Denys refers to in this passage have survived.7 None the less we can develop what Denys suggests in this passage, since what the otherwise unknown Theological Outlines is said to contain corresponds pretty well with the Wrst two chapters of the Divine Names, and the subject of the otherwise unknown Symbolic Theology is discussed in Letter IX, and also in the books on the hierarchies.
The Wrst thing to notice about these various theologies is that in them we learn how we can celebrate (hymnein). These theologies are not about how we can predicate qualities of God, but about how we can praise him. For Denys’ theology is not concerned primarily with
7 In this passage from the Mystical Theology and in several other places, Denys writes as if the writings we have of his (see n. 6) are only part of his complete works (supposedly written in the Wrst century by St. Paul’s Athenian convert). Whether the
‘missing treatises’ are really missing, or whether they are part of an attempt on Denys’
part to create the impression that what we have is all that has survived from the Wrst century, is a subject of dispute. Balthasar takes Denys’ references to ‘missing’ treatises seriously (Herrlichkeit II/1, 157–67; cf. 151–4). For a contrary view, see R. Roques’s article on Denys in Dictionnaire de spiritualite´ III, cols. 259–62.
160 Denys the Areopagite
intellectual, academic matters (though his Divine Names was used as a textbook on analogical predication of God in the medieval West);
rather it is concerned with the creature’s response of praise and worship to the Love of God.
The whole of creation has been brought into being by God to manifest His glory, and each creature, as it fulWls the role that God has assigned to it, manifests His glory and praises Him. The Divine Names explores this theme by discussing the manifestation of God in His creation. The Wrst two chapters (which correspond in content to the lost Theological Outlines) discuss God’s manifestation of Himself in the hidden life of the Trinity. Denys distinguishes between ‘unions’
(henoseis) and ‘distinctions’ (diakriseis) in God. The ‘unions’ are ultimately incomprehensible to us, for we can only know things by making ‘distinctions’. Nevertheless, behind the distinctions lies the union or unity (henosis) which the distinctions unfold. The primary signiWcance of the ‘distinctions’ is the Persons of the Trinity. These are distinctions in the ultimate and unknowable unity, which yet remain in that unity and do not serve to distinguish God from all else. If this is cataphatic theology, in that it aYrms something about God, it is clearly no less apophatic, in that our aYrmations are taking us beyond what we can grasp: the doctrine of the Trinity reveals God as unknowable, not so much beyond our powers of compre-hension as unknowable in Himself. As Vladimir Lossky has said:
This is why the revelation of the Holy Trinity, which is the summit of cataphatic theology, belongs also to apophatic theology, for ‘if we learn from the Scriptures that the Father is the source of divinity, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the divine progeny, the divine seeds, so to say, and Xowers and lights that transcend being, we can neither say nor understand what
that is.’ (DN II. 7)8
But there is a further ‘distinction’, by which God is distinguished from all else, and this is the distinction in virtue of which God manifests Himself outside of Himself. This is the procession (proodos) of the divine union which is multiplied and diversiWed by the divine goodness. This going out of Himself in will and power is
8 In his article, ‘La notion des ‘‘analogies’’ chez le Pseudo-Denys l’Are´opagite’,
8 In his article, ‘La notion des ‘‘analogies’’ chez le Pseudo-Denys l’Are´opagite’,