THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
given in A.\F. Bibliography, pp. 66-68. Sources are: Jerome, De vir. ill., chap. Ixix.; Athanasius, De sententiis Dionysii: Eusebius, Hist, eccl., vi. 40 sqq. (cf. <s)k-cially \P\F, 2d series, i. 281, iiotiO. Consult: F. Diltrich, Dionysius der (irosse, Freiburn, 1807; T. Forstcr, De doclrina el sententiis Dionysii, Berlin, IS65; Kriiger, History, pp. 205-215; Harnack, Lilteratiir, i. 409-427, II. ii. 57-66 et passim; Neander, Christian Church, vols, i.-ii. passim; Scliaff. Christian Church, ii. 800-803; DCB, i. 850-852; KL, iii. 1780-89.
DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE.
Writings Ascribed to Diony.sius (§1).
Proofs of Late Origin (§ 2).
Doctrine of the Soul (§ 3).
Doctrine of First Person of Trinity (§ 4).
Doctrine of the Universe (§ 5).
Doctrine of the Son (§ 6).
Doctrine of the Church (§ 7).
Dionysius the Areopagite was converted to Christianity by the sermon of Paul at Athens (.Acts xvii. 34). According to Eusebius (Hist, eccl., iii. 4, iv. 23) and the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46), he was the first bishop of Athens; a later tradition affirms that he suffered martyrdom there. His importance in church history depends upon the ascription to him of a series of remarkable writings in Greek, probably belonging to the fifth or sixth
century, entitled " On the Heavenly I. Writings Hierarchy," "On the Ecclesiastical Ascribed to Hierarchy," " On the Names of God," Dionysius. and " On Mystical Theology," and
ten letters, all evidently belonging to the same author. At the conference held in Constantinople (533), at the instance of Justinian, between the orthodox and the Severians, the latter quoted, among other ecclesiastical authorities, Dionysius the Areopagite against the Council of Chalcedon; and when the orthodox objected that Athanasius and Cyril certainly would have used such an authority against Nestorius, if he had existed and been known to them, the Severians asserted that Cyril had actually quoted the works of Dionysius in his books against Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, as might be seen from the copies of those books in the libraries of Alexandria. This is the first certain citation of the works supposed to be written by Dionysius, but after that time they are frequently mentioned. Severiis himself, Monophysite patriarch of Antioch 512-518, often quotes them, as does Ephraem, orthodox patriarch of Antioch 527-545. Commentaries upon them were written by John of Scythopolis about 530, Sergius of Resaina (d. 536) translated them into Syriac, and Leontius of Byzantium cited Dionysius. In the Western Church Gregory the Great is the first who refers to these writings {Horn., xxxiv.); but when the Byzantine emperor Michael the Stammerer sent a copy of them to Louis the Pious in S27 they soon became bettor known; and after the invention of Abbot Hilduin, combining Dionysius the Areopagite and St. Denis, the patron saint of the Franks, in one person (see Denis, Saint), they btioame quite celebrated. Johannes Scotus Erigena translated them into Latin at the instance of Charles the Bald, and was himself deeply influenced by them. In the Western Church, among the schoolmoii, the Areopagite became a guide to mysticism
and mystical theology. Hugo of St. Victor, Albertus Magnus, Dionysius the Carthusian, and others drew their inspiration from him. Corderius has shown how much, for instance, Thomas Aquinas owes to the Areopagite. The Platonists of the Italian Renaissance also appreciated him highly, as did other humanists, like John Colet.
The development, however, of literary criticisrr (under Laurentius Valla, Erasmus, and others' inevitably destroyed, first, the invention of Hilduir (the identification of Dionysius and St. Denis) and, second, the assumption of authorship in apostolic times. The internal evidences of a later date besides the total absence of mention or quotatior till the conference of Constantinople (533), wen conclusive. The most decisive inter
2. Proofs of nal evidences are: the difference be-
Late tween the pompous and inflated stylt Origin. of the writings and the simplicity o the apostolic age; the use of theologica terms which were not formed until the fourth cen tury; references to an elaborately developed churcl ritual and church government; allusions to late persons and events, as, for instance, to the martyr dom of Ignatius and to " Clement the Philoso pher " (Clement of Alexandria); and appeals t( " ancient traditions." The defense of Romai Catholic theologians and the attempted vindicatioi of the authorship of Dionysius the Areopagite wen demolished by Daill6 and Le Nourry.
The question then arose, By whom and at wha time were these works written? A number o hypotheses were proffered, differing as widely a, that of Baumgarten-Crusius, placing the author a Alexandria in the third century, and that of West cott, placing him at Edessa at the beginning of thi sixth century. The general outcome of critica inquiry is that the philosophical, and more espe cially the mystical, ideas expounded in these book; presuppose the later development of Neoplatonisn which was due to Proclus; and, as Proclus diet 485, the date of the books seems to coincide nearb with the date of their first notice.
Dionysius distinguishes between a cataphatii (affirmative or positive) theology, in which trutl is presented under the garb of a symbol of history or of the traditionary teaching of the Church, am an apophatic (negative) theology, which dispense with such media, in which also the initiated rise by contemplation or in the ecstati'
3. Doctrine state to an immediate view of thing of the Soul, divine. He distinguishes a direc
movement of the soul, when its knowl edge is conditioned by the various things outside o it; a spiral movement, when it aspires to penetrat( divine knowledge by discursive thinking; and ; circular movement, when it guides its united powe to the Deity (" Names of God," iv. 9). Under th. influence of deity it surrenders its own thinking am arrives at a condition of Ecstasy (q.v.) and the mys tic view of God. There is here a strong rescmblanci to the teachings of Philo and the Neoplatonists.
Dionysius believes in the dogma of the Trinity but his chief interest centers in the Father. Thi Father is for him the sole source of transcenden divinity; Jesus and the Holy Spirit are the off
RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Dionysius the Areopagite
spring, bloom, and transcendent light (" Names of God," ii. 5, 7). The l>eing of God per se, his real essence, can not be expressed, since it transcends all qualities. The Deity includes every perfection; it is the cause and essence of all being,
4. Doctrine and yet it is above all being; it is of First without quality, yet transcends the
Person of highest conception of goodness; with- Trinity. out a name, yet including every name.
The highest principle is neither sensuous nor spiritual, has or is neither representation nor understanding nor reason, is neither One, deity, nor goodness, and yet is neither without essence nor without life, understanding or reason, since the negations also have to be denied. Just as apophatic theology, proceeding from the broad variety of things, by negation ascends to the highest cause and to mystic unity with the unspeakable, so cataphatic theology proceeds from above and descends to the variety of creatures. Accordingly God becomes sun, star, fire, water, and all being; as the all-comprehensive cause he is all in all because the cause has anticipated everything in itself. He is all in all, and yet not anything in any one thing. But not everything may be affirmed or denied of him in an equal degree. He is life and goodness in a more pregnant sense than light or star, and such affections as intoxication (Ps. Ixxviii. 65, LXX.) or fits of anger are to be denied of him in a higher degree than the statements that he can be expressed or cognized.
But all being has proceeded from the nature of God. All emanation of being has its original exemplar in the development of the divine first cause into the hypostases of the Trinity; all fatherhood and sonship of godlike spirits and even of human beings proceeds from the original fatherhood and original sonship. The participation of all things in being is at the same time a partici-
5. Doctrine pation in the good and the beautiful of the which is one with true being; the
Universe, transcendent good and beautiful is the cause of all goodness and beauty and of all participation in the good and the beautiful ("Names of God," iv. 1 sqq.); but between cause and effect there is not the relation of entire equality. Here Dionysius shares Proclus's view concerning evil according to which all existing things have no real being, but are only privation, want, diminution of the good, since all being as such is good. If therefore the universe appears on the one hand as the product of the good, it is on the other hand also the product of the differentiating negation which penetrates the unity of the absolute. But this negation does not exist for God because in him all differences are done away with. God knows evil as good, and before him the causes of evil are powers working for the good ("' Names of God," iv. 20). Correspondingly, the universe is placed under the view-point of existence in God as first cause; and also, as being finite and separate, under the viewpoint of striving toward God as the basis and aim of all creatures (" Names of God," i. 5, cf. " Heavenly Hierarchy," iv. 1). These two points of view find their expression especially in the doctrine concerning the hierarchy of being. Dionysius assumes
descending derivation of the chain of beings, and a mediation for the ascension of all creatures toward unity with God. The highest spiritual beings, the angels, are in the antechamber, so to speak, of the transcendent Trinity, and have from it and in it their existence and likeness to God (" Names of God," v. 8). They are good and communicate their goodness to those below them (iv. 1). The hierarchy of angels contains three divisions: (1) seraphim, cherubim, thrones; (2) dominions, powers, forces; (3) principalities, archangels, angels.
The system of the heavenly hierarchy is followed by that of the earthly or rather ecclesiastical hierarchy. Here Dionysius has interwoven with his doctrine concerninc: the hierarchies the idea of redemption as a historical fact. God is salvation and redemption in so far as he not only guards the existing things from falling into nothingness, but also in so far as he redeems that which has departed from the right and suffered a diminution of goodness by an abuse of freedom of the will (ib. iv. 18). Dionysius looks upon the institutions of the Church as mysteries, " Jesus " is the cause of everything; he is the transcendent cause of the superheavenly beings (" Heavenly Hierarchy," iv. 4); in regard to his activity in the world, he is the transcendent One, the Logos, the principle of all hierarchy and theurgy. But the influence of Jesus upon the lower spheres is not like that of the angels. He
6. Doctrine became man; he subsisted among us of the Son. perfect and without change (" Names
of God," ii. 3). By stepping into earthly reality, the transcendent was not abolished or subjected to any change. The nature of Jesus became really and truly human, and he participated in all human conditions; but in physical conditions he was superphysical and under the conditions of being he was above being by possessing all human qualities, yet in a transcendent manner. Thus Dionysius depicts him as walking upon the sea because he was not subject to the laws of gravity. It is evident from the above that the incarnation of Jesus was not reduced to a mere semblance; but the divine in Christ assumes such a human reality that the human is elevated above itself and deified.
The Gospel is the announcement that God according to his goodness has descended to us and makes us like himself by uniting us with himself. Men had departed from true life and surrendered to evilminded demons. According to secret (oral) tradition, Christ has broken the power of the demons over us, not by an act of might, but by a forensic negotiation with the devil, the head of the demons. But every effect of salvation is conditioned for each one by submitting to the sanctions of ecclesiastical hierarchy which, like the heavenly hierarchy, proceeds from the divine Nous as the principle of all hierarchy and divine efficacy, whose aim is love to God and to the divine, knowl-