Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius pp 3–36Cite as

The Historical Significance of the Letters

  • Chapter

  • 84 Accesses

Abstract

Throughout later antiquity both the “middle” Platonists and the Neoplatonists drew upon and regarded as genuine the thirteen Platonic Letters, which provided a loose basis for the Neoplatonist tripartite metaphysics (One, Mind, Soul), Proclus’ threefold division of predicates and other triadic divisions of reality.1 In a brief note, E. R. Dodds drew attention to the fact that Proclus’ tripartition occurs in the Ninth Letter of Pseudo-Dionysius.2 This curious fact becomes more interesting when the historical significance of the Ps.-Dionysian Letters is examined. It is now generally accepted that the author of the Ps.-Dionysian writings was steeped in Proclus and lived in the late fifth or early sixth centuries.3 Thus far no separate study has ever been devoted to the ten Letters which form a striking and significant part of these writings. If their particular use of Proclus is in itself interesting, as will be asserted below (IV, infra), it is also of importance to note the general fact that they are the only extant body of Neoplatonizing Letters. The fact that they are obviously intended to be read along with the treatises in the Ps.-Dionysian Corpus suggests that the author intended to reproduce a kind of Platonic Corpus-“Platonic” as understood by the later Neoplatonists. The Letters would then be intended to supplement the treatises on hierarchy, on divine names, and mystical theology. A glance at their early citation and use in the “biographical” tradition hints at this importance of the Letters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Plotinus (205-269/70) regarded them as genuine: I. 8. 2, p. 123, 28-32 ed. P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer (Paris-Brussels, 1951); III. 9. 7, p. 416, 7, 1-5; V. 1.8, Vol. II, p. 280, 1-4. He was not the first to assume the Second Letter. For its use by Numenius, cf. E. R. Dodds and H.-Ch. Puech, Les sources de Plotin, Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique V (Vandoeuvres-Genève, 1957), PP. 13, 50, 36. Proclus uses the Second in contexts implying his tripartition of predicates (in Tim. I 356, 10 ff.; 393, 19ff.). Cf. El. Theol., Prop. 65 (p. 62) with Dodds’ commentary, pp. 235-236. The use of the Platonic Letters by the other Neoplatonists is well known. An anonymous sixth century philosopher says in a curious passage that Proclus “rejected” (έκβάλλει) them because of their “simplicity of style.” Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy, Introduction, Text, Translation and Indices by L. G. Westerink (Amsterdam, 1962) 26, 8 (p. 47); cf. p. XXXVII. Morrow rejects the passage as garbled: Plato’s Epistles (New York, 1962), Critical Essays, p. 6. Proclus clearly says that “by examining [the dialogues] with regard to certain types we shall be able to distinguish the genuine and the spurious,” and then accepts the Letters, especially the Second: Plat. Theol. I, 5 (11-12). It is hard to agree with Westerink that έκβάλλει, can mean anything but “reject”; Proclus’ commentary on the Republic is evidence that he did not place it “outside” the curriculum. Photius seems to criticize the Platonic Letters on stylistic grounds: “Letter to Amphilochus,” in Epistolographi Graeci, ed. R. Hercher (Paris, 1873), p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dodds. p, 236.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cf. Table A, infra, pp. 59-60. For a general resumé, cf. J. Stiglmayr, “Das Aufkommen der Pseudo-Dionysischen Schriften und ihr Eindringen in die christlichen Literatur bis zum Lateranconcil 649,” IV Jahresbericht des öffentlichen Privatgymnasiums an der Stella Matutina zu Feldkirch (1895); H. Koch, “Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita in seinen Beziehungen zum Neuplatonismus und Mysterienwesen,” Forschungen zur Christlichen Literatur-und Dogmengeschichte I, Hefte 2-3 (1900), pp. 1-275; R. Roques, “Denys l’Aréopagite,” Dictionnaire de spiritualité, ascétique et mystique (Paris, 1957), III cols. 244-296.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Adversus apologiam Juliani (cf. Roques, col. 249), unless the Letter to John Higumenus is as early as 510. In any event, Severus already speaks as if he can assume a knowledge of the “great Dionysius.” Cf. infra, pp. 9-10.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ep. 3 to John Higumenus (Mai, Script, vertt. nov. coll. VII, i, p. 71). Cf. Roques, col. 249. The monophysites Themistius of Alexandria and Peter Callinicus assume the Letter as do Leontius of Jerusalem (PG 862, col. 1856D) and John of Scytholopis in his scholia (on the dissociation of these from those belonging to Maximus Confessor cf. U. von Balthasar, “Das scholienwerk des Johannes von Skythopolis,” Scholastik 15 (1940), 16–39.

    Google Scholar 

  6. A fragment of the apologia in ps.-Zachary does cite a passage from DN (592A). Historia ecclesiastica (Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium, VI Versio E. W. Brooks [Lovanii, 1924]), xv, p. 82, 16-27. For the citation in 532 cf. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, ed. E. Schwartz (Librarii Argent., 1914), III. 2, pp. 172-5-173, 21. Cf. infra, C.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ambiguorum liber sive de variis difficilibus locis SS. Dionysii Areopagitae et Gregorii Theologi, PG 91, 1045–1060. Anastasius Sinaita also uses the Fourth Letter, PG 89, Viae Dux, 172C, 213D-216A, 216C.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Doctrina Patrum, Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wende des siebenten und achten Jahrhunderts zum ersten Male vollständig herausgegeben und untersucht von F. Diekamp (Münster in West., 1907), pp. 97, 127, 132, 309 (Severus’ Letter to John Higumenus).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Joannis Philoponi de opificio mundi libri vii, rec. G. Reichardt (Leipzig, 1897), PP. 100, 25-101, 2; 129, 22-23; 148, 15-19 It is significant that John’s complete change of heart with regard to the value of astronomical problems seems to be traceable to the influence of Ps.-D. on him. Cf. S. Sambursky, The Physical World of Late Antiquity (London, 1962), p. 151, “The work … shows on the whole the deteriorating effect that a conformist attitude to the Church had.” On the implications of the Ninth Letter, however, cf. infra, Chapter IV.

    Google Scholar 

  10. M. A. Kugener, “Un traité astronomique syriaque attribué à Denys L’Aréopagite, edité, traduit et annoté par …,” Actes du XIV e Congrès International des Orientalistes (Alger, 1905) II (1907), 292–348. Letter to Apollophanes (XI), PG III, 1119-1122. On the latter cf. O. Neugebauer, “Regula Philippi Arrhidaei,”. Isis 50 (1959), 477-478; P. Peeters, “La vision de Denys l’Aréopagite a Héliopolis,” Analecta Bollandiana 29 (1910), 302-322.

    Google Scholar 

  11. These Lives and encomia are collected in PG IV, 589A-668D.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Vita 5. Dionysii Areopagitae. PG IV, 656Dff. Cf. infra, Chapter III. Michael’s reference to the Ignatius quotation (DN 709B) calls to mind the argument against the authenticity of the Corpus from the anachronism involved, mentioned by Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  13. J. Stiglmayr, “Die Eschatologie des Pseudo-Dionysius,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 23 (1899), pp. 1–21. Abbas Nilus, Epistulae, PG 79, 297D-300A. It is interesting that the Letter of Nilus, the only contemporary document excepting Proclus’ and Damascius’ writings which can be said (with a high degree of probability) to have been used by Ps.-D., contains a lacuna at the precise place from which Ps.-D. borrowed material for his Eighth Letter; moreover, it is the only lacuna in the thousand or so Letters in the collection.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cf. DN 680A-864D; Chapter III infra. On the general problem, H. Koch, “Der pseudepigraphische Charakter der dionysischen Schriften,” Theologische Quartalschrift 77 (1895), pp. 353–420.

    Google Scholar 

  15. R. Roques, “Dionysios Areopagita,” Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart, 1957), III, col. 1078, “Die vier Abhandlungen und die zehn Briefe die das CD bilden, zeigen einen so einheitlichen Stil und dabei auch so viele charakteristische Besonderheiten, dass es ausserordentlich schwierig erscheint, sie nicht einem einzigen Verfasser zuzuweisen.”

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cf. G. Karlsson, “Idéologie et cérémonial dans l’épistographie byzantines, Textes du Xe siècle analysés et commentés,” Revue de l’antiquité classique XXIX (1960); N. B. Tomadakis, Byzantine Epistolography, Introduction, Editions, Catalogue of Authors of Letters (in Greek: Athens, 1955).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Corpus Hermeticum, texte établi par A.D. Nock et traduit par A.-J. Festugière, 2 vols. (Paris, 1945); (Ps.-) Iamblichus, De mysteriis, ed. Parthey (Berlin, 1875) — itself an answer to Porphyry’s interesting Letter to Anebo, which poses rather than answers an aporia (a cura di A. R. Sodano Napoli, 1958). On Christian aporetic literature, cf. G. Heinrici, “Zur patristischen Aporienliteratur,” Abhandlungen der phil.-hist. Klasse der königlichen sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften XXVII, 24 (1910), pp. 843–860. For the relation between the Ps.-Dionysian Letters and Neoplatonist stylistic devices, cf. Koch, “Pseudo-Dionysius …,” pp. 13-18.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Epistolai, ed. J. N. Baletta (London, 1864), A. Eρωτήματα δέκα συν ίσαις ταΐς άποκρίσεσιν.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ibid., Ep. 7 to Sergius, p. 249.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cf. K. Krumbacher, Gesch. Byz. Litt., 2e Auflage (München, 1897) 1. 452 453.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Epistulae, πώς meaning “why”: I. 193 (a question based on a text from Scripture), I: 308 (rhetorical), II. 44 (rhetorical), II. 265 (rhetorical), III. 16 (rhetorical). The last consists of a single sentence, “Why do you not show us that Diogenes, Pythagoras, and Plato, who prostrate themselves before the cult of idols, are wise and strong ?” The very question illustrates the difference between Nilus and Ps.-Dionysius. πώς meaning “how”: I. 211. πώς meaning “for what reason”: I. 19, II. 180. The former of these two letters (PG 79, 89A) raises a question which approaches in generality the questions raised in the First and Second Letters (PG 3, 1065A-1069A), “For what reason does God not coexist and comprehend (συνέχοντος) all things if He subsists and is copresent with the All itself?”

    Google Scholar 

  22. Epistulae Aeneae Sophistae, in Epistolographi Graeci,ed. R. Hercher (Paris, 1873), PP. 24-32. Though nominally Christian, Aeneas never refers to Christianity except obliquely, but refers often to his city, to Athens, pagan mysteries, the fine arts and liberal education, things never openly mentioned by the more cautious and obscure Ps.-D. Cf. also Procopius, Epistulae, pp. 533-598 Hercher.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Demetrius, Libro de elocutione, pp. 13-14 Hercher; (Ps.-) Proclus, De forma epistolari, pp. 6-13 Hercher. Unless we include Ps.-D’s style under what Ps.-Proclus calls “The enigmatic” (αινιγματική), which he defines simply as “That by means of which someone says one thing, but thinks another.” (p. 12).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Cf. Roques, “Denys l’Aréopagite,” col. 252; Severus, The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus, Patriarch of Antioch, in the Syriac Version of Athana-sius of Nisibis, ed. and translated by E. W. Brooks, Text and Translation Society, 2 vols., (London, 1902-04).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cf. Des heiligen Dionysius Areopagita angebliche Schriften über ‘Göttlichen Namen,’ angeblicher Brief an den Mönch Demophilus, aus dem griechischen übers, von J. Stiglmayr, Bibliothek der Kirchenväter II, 2 (München, 1933), p. 169ff. J. Lebon, “Le Pseudo-Denys et Sévère d’Antioche,” Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique 26 (1930), pp. 880-915.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cf. infra, Chapter IV.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cf. Roques’ résumé, “Dionysios Areopagita,” col. 1080.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cf. Ph. Chevallier, “Index complet de la langue grecque du Pseudo-Aréopagite,” in Dionysiaca, Recueil donnant l’ensemble des traductions latines des ouvrages attribués au Denys de l’Aréopage, et synopse marquant la valeur des citations presque innombrables allant seules depuis trop longtemps, remises enfin dans leur contexte au moyen d’une nomenclature rendue d’un usage très facile, ed. Ph. Chevallier et al., 2 vols. (Paris, 1937 and 1950), II, pp. 1585–1660; P. Scazzoso, “La Terminologia misterica nel Corpus Pseudo-Areopagitico,” Aevum 37 (1963), 410; Table C., infra, p. 47.

    Google Scholar 

  29. A. Guillaumont has drawn attention to Evagrius’ interesting statements (Les ‘Kephalaia Gnosticá’ d’Évagre le Pontique et l’histoire de l’origénisme chez les grecs et chez les syriens, Patristica Sorbonense [Paris, 1962]), which I take the liberty of repeating here. PG 4, 1221C: “We have given an exposition of that which concerns the life of moral purity and the life of wisdom … dissimulating certain things, covering others with darkness. … But these things are clear to those who will progress in the same steps” (p. 32 Guillaumont). PG 40. 1285B: Justice is giving to each his due (Ps.-D., Letter 8, 1092CD), saying certain things obscurely, expressing others in enigmas and formulating others clearly for the use of the simple (p. 32). Gnostic Centuries 139 (Syriac: p. 32, fn. 53): “The sublime discourse on judgment must be concealed from children and young men.… They do not understand, in a word, the sufferings of a rational soul condemned to ignorance (πόνον ψυχής λογικής καταδικασθείσης την άγνοιαν).” The “mysticism” of Evagrius and Ps.-Dionysius is fundamentally similar, but the Neoplatonism of Ps.-D. makes his thought or “system” completely different (cf. p. 327 Guillaumont).

    Google Scholar 

  30. If the Theodore Presbyter mentioned by Photius (supra, fn. 12) as having defended the authenticity of the Corpus is Theodore of Raithu, as conjectured by John Pearson, Vindiciae Epistolarum S. Ignatii (Oxonii, 1852), I, p. 84. His exact date is vague, ca. 530-600 (580-620 Diekamp). Cf. I. Hausherr, “Doutes au sujet du ‘divine Denys’,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica II (1963), p. 485. On doubts of authenticity, cf. infra. In his extant Praeparatio, Theodore of Raithu does not cite Dionysius (ed. F. Diekanp, Analecta Patristica 1938); but if Theodore is the author of the ps.-Leontius De sectis, as Junglas thought (Diekamp disagreeing, ibid., p. 178), then he did have Ps.-Dionysius. De sectis (PG 861 1213 A) gives a list of “Fathers” who flourished from the birth of Christ to the reign of Constantine which includes “Dionysius the Areopagite.”

    Google Scholar 

  31. For a sketch of the status quaestionis, cf. V. Grumel, “Autour de la question pseudo-Dionysienne,” Revue des études Byzantines XIII (1955), PP 21ff.; Roques, “Denys l’Aréopagite,” col. 248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Contra impium grammaticum, ed. J. Lebon, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 93/94, 101/102, 111/112 (Neudruck, 1952); for the Letter to John, cf. fn. 5 supra.

    Google Scholar 

  33. J. P. Junglas, “Leontius von Byzanz, Studien zu seinen Schriften, Quellen, und Anschauungen,” Forschungen zur christlichen Literatur-und Dogmengeschichte 7, Heft 3, (1908), p. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pseudo-Zachary, p. 82, 16ff.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Innocentais of Maronia, pp. 172, 3-173, 18.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ibid., p. 173, 18.

    Google Scholar 

  37. In the sketch of the argument given by Photius, these were (1) None of the later Fathers cite or quote any passages from Dionysius the Areopagite (2) he is not mentioned in Eusebius’ catalogue of Patristic writings, (3) the writings describe in detail rites and customs which were established in the Church only over a long period of time, but Dionysius was contemporary with the Apostles, (4) the writings quote from a Letter of Ignatius, who lived after the time of the Apostles. Similar doubts were still alive in the seventh century. Cf. Maximus, Prologue, PG4, 20A, 20C.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 5. Maximi Scholia in eos beati Dionysii libros qui exstant, PG 4, 85C (on CH 260D-261A.) Attributed to John by Balthasar, p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Writings of ps.-Origen, ps.-Athanasius, ps.-Hippolytus, ps.-Chrysostom. Cf. J. Stiglmayr, The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1909), Vol. 5, p. 15. It is known that George of Scythopolis, John’s successor, wrote the Ps.-Dionysius of Alexandria, Letter to Pope Sixtus II, in defense of the Corpus’ authenticity. Cf. P. Sherwood, “Denys l’Aréopagite (Histoire),” Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, op. cit., col. 287.

    Google Scholar 

  40. De fide orthodoxa (PG 94, 789A-1228A), 9.2, 12.1, 50.2, 59.21, 63.1, 63.4. The latter three passages cite the Fourth Letter. Anastasius Sinaita earlier calls Dionysius “apostolic,” PG 89, 113C, 213D, 305D.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Euthymus Zigabenus, according to Hausherr, p. 487.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Summa Theologiae 3, q. 44, a. 2, ad 2.

    Google Scholar 

  43. De opificio mundi, p. 149, 2-3 Reichartd.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Opuscula monophysitica, ed. et latine interpretatus A. Sanda (Beirut, 1930), pp. 172-180 (Latin). On the significance of the date (529) for Philoponus, cf. E. Evrard, “Les convictions religieuses de Jean Philopon et le date de son commentaires aux Météorologiques,” Bulletin de l’Académie royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres, VI (1953), p. 357.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Suidae Lexicon, ed. A. Adler (Leipzig, 1931), II, p. 108, 24-26; Georgius Pachymeres, Paraphrasis in opera S. Dionysii Areopagitae, Proemium (PG 3-116A), “One must know thar certain philosophers outside [the Faith], especially Proclus, often used the general theorems (θεωρήματα) of the blessed Dionysius, and even his very expressions. One can suppose from this that the more ancient philosophers in Athens concealed the fact that they were appropriating his writings, with the result that the Fathers alone (αυτοί) discerned his divine treatises.” (!) This statement indicates that the true state of affairs was totally obscured by the time of Pachymeres (1242-1310).

    Google Scholar 

  46. The thesis that the Corpus reflects the official policies of Constantine was offered by E. von Ivánka, “Die Aufbau der Schrift ‘De divinis nominibus’ des Pseudo-Dionysios,” Scholastik 15 (1940), pp. 286–481. Recent descriptions of the Corpus as “a gigantic Henoticon” can be construed to mean that it served the policy of Zeno (Corsini, p. 16), although I doubt that this is what is intended.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Grumel, p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Corsini, passim. If the Corpus transcends “ogni possibilitá di discussione” intentionally, it should be impossible to date it precisely from the history of dogma.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Marius, Vita Prodi, ed. J. F. Boissonade (Leipzig, 1814), XIII, p. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cf. E. R. Dodds, Proclus: The Elements of Theology, Introduction (Oxford, 1963), pp. xvi–xvii. Dodds calls the work “relatively early,” but maintains several reservations, with which I agree.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Praechter proved that the cross-references go both ways, which indicates that Proclus made later additions. On the problem of chronology, cf. RE, art. “Proklos” (R. Beutler), cols. 190-191.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Das Leben des Philosophen Isidoros von Damaskios aus Damaskos, wiederhergestellt, übersetzt … von R. Asmus, Philosophische Bibliothek 125 (Leipzig, 1911). Cf. also Asmus’ detailed reconstruction, “Zur Rekonstruktion von Damaskios’ Leben des Isidorus,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift XVIII (1909), pp. 424-480; and infra.

    Google Scholar 

  53. It was conclusively proved that he uses the De malorum subsistentia, one of the short tseatises, in J. Stiglmayr, “Der Neuplatoniker Proclus als Vorlage des sogen. Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Uebel,” Historisches Jahrbuch 16 (1895), PP. 253–273, 721-748; and H. Koch, “Proklus als Quelle des Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Bösen,” Philologus 54 (1895), pp. 438-454. Cf. also the apparatus with H. Boese’s edition, Tria Opuscula (De Providentia, Libertate, Malo ), Latine Guilelmo de Moerbeka vertente et Graeco ex Isaacii Sebastrocratoris aliorumque scriptis collecta (Berlin, 1960), pp. 172-265.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Cf. Dodds’ Commentary, op. cit., pp. 187-310.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Cf. H. Koch, Pseudo-Dionysius …, passim; Chapters II, IV, infra.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Dodds. p, 187; DN 648A, 681A.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ibid., p. xiii.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Anonymous Prolegomena 26, 13-34 (PP. 47-49); Westerink, pp. XXXVII-XXXVIII; Proclus, Plat. Theol. 1.5 (12); E. R. Dodds, Les sources de Plotin, p. 94; F. Schemmel, “Die Hochschule von Athen im IV. und V. Jahrhundert p. Ch. n., ” Neue Jahrbücher für Pädagogik XXII (1908), pp. 507–511. Cf. L. de Julleville, L’École d’Athènes au quatrième Siècle après Jésus-Christ (Paris, 1868), p. 125; Westerink, pp. XI-XII, on the balance of the Platonic and Aristotelian curriculums at Athens and Alexandria; E. Evrard, “Origines du néoplatonisme athénien: le maître de Plutarque d’Athènes,” L’Antiquité Classique XXIX (1960), pp. 108-133.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Anon. Prol. 26, 35-36, p. 49 Westerink.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Westerink, p. XXXVIII, writes that Olympiodorus “seems to have adhered strictly to the regular programme.” Cf. XI-XII.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Aeneas wrote a dialogue entitled Theophrastus (no relation to the Peripatetic), in which a Christian character successfully refutes Theophrastus, who is intended to represent Aeneas’ Neoplatonist teacher, Ammonius (ed. M. E. Colonna [Napoli, 1958)]. The work is a tissue of Platonic excerpts. Cf. S. Sikorski, “De Aenea Gazaeo,” Breslauer Philologische Abhandlungen 9, Heft 5 (1909), pp. 1–57. Zacharias of Mitylene (brother of Procopius of Gaza) also wrote a dialogue, the Ammonius (sive de mundi opificio contra philosophos disputatio), in which he imitates Aeneas’ use of Plato, down to the closing phrase ‘Iχανώς ήμΐν ηΰκται’ Aλλ’ ιώμεν (Phaedrus 279b) [PG 85, cols. 1011-1144]. Aeneas, like Procopius, was trained as a rhetorician; his precise debts to Hierocles are difficult to determine but he had reason to be cautious since Hierocles had aroused the wrath of the Christians at Constantinople (Damascius, p. 34 Asmus). Aeneas is openly pagan in his Letters. Despite the differences with Ps.-D., there may be a fundamental similarity in the problem which they faced.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Protagoras once (361b), Lysis twice (22d, 216c), Laws twice (810e, 863c). Cf. Sikorski.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Cf. Corsini, p. 40ff. This thesis had been recently repeated often, but the textual support is oblique, difficult to interpret, and susceptible to opposite interpretations in any event.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Proclus, in Tim. I 7, 15; II 165, 8. Aeneas, p. 6, 3-4 Colonna. For Ps.-D.’s imitation of Proclus’ language in this respect, cf. Koch, “Pseudo-Dionysius …,” pp. 49-62.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Cf. L. H. Grondijs, “Sur la terminologie dionysienne,” Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé (1959), pp. 438–47. Grondijs attempts to treat the development from Proclus to Damascius to Ps.-Dionysius as continuous, with Damascius representing the crucial step for Ps.-D. Cf. Roques, L’Univers, p. 74, fn. i(the similarity of terms in Damascius and Ps.-D.); but p. 73, fn. 4 (the relatively dialectical treatment of the hierarchy of terms in Damascius, as against the separation of orders in Proclus and Ps.-D.).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Damascius, De princ. I 52, 7sqq.; II 1,7 sqq.; I 210, 28-30 Ruelle.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Damascius, De pvinc. I 3,7-8 Ruelle; DN XIII 2 (977C), XIII 3 (980B), XIII 3 (981Z). Cf. below, Table D.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Referring to Ruelle’s index, I count sixteen such terms.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Dubitationes et solutiones de primis principiis in Platonis Parmenidem … ed. C. A. Ruelle (Paris, 1889) I, 1-6 (pp. 1-10); Letters 1-2, 1065A-1069A. Notable are the more marked emphases in Damascius on the fact that the transcendent is “unknown” (άγνωστος), that it is so in a “higher” and a “lower” sense; his first aporia, “Whether the so-called unique principle of all is beyond all [things], or a certain one out of all, e.g., the highest point of the class of things proceeding from it” (p. 1, 1-2), is implied in Letter 1 (1065A, n.8ff.). The phrase έπέκεινα των πάντων, which opens Letters 2 and 4 occurs often in Damascius (pp. 1,1; 4, 7; 4, 8-9; 5, 3; 6, 16; etc.). In defining the transcendent both Damascius and Ps.-D. assert that not even the alpha-privative expresses its nature. “Nor do we say that it is only unknown, with the result that the unknown possesses some other actual nature, but that it is neither being nor one nor all, neither the principle of all nor beyond all, nor do we think it right to predicate anything absolute ly of it” (p. 10, 21-25). There is also an interesting similarity between Damascius’ doctrine of predication (p. 3, 7ff.) and DN II, 636Cff. On style, cf. Ruelle’s remarks on interrogative form, elliptical constructions, and anacoluthen in Damascius, p. xiv. On general similarity. Grondijs, pp. 443 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  70. This does not imply servility among the later scholarchs to Proclus. Isidore refused to be entranced by Proclus’ hieratic interests (p. 50 Asmus); Marinus was sceptical of his interpretation of the Parvnenides as a “theology” (p. 89 Asmus). Cf. Proclus, in Parm. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Das Leben des Philosophen Isidoros, pp. 51, 11; 59, 33; 61, 32a; 68, 36 Asmus.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Ibid., p. 80, 25. Theosebius prays to “the God of the Hebrews” (35).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Ibid., p. 87, 28.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Ibid., p. 126, 27-30. In my opinion this statement does not necessarily imply that Hegias became Head of the School (cf. RE, art. “Hegias” [K. Praechter], col. 2615), but only that “with Hegias” (έπĩ ‘Hγίου), being the son of the archon, true philosophy fell into disrepute or suspicion (cf. Photius, Bib. 349a 21-24 Bekker). Marinus had aroused the ire of Theagenes by his outspoken Hellenism, (p. 93, 24ff.); afterwards, perforce, Hegias, whose interests were hieratic and eclectic, had to be considered. But Isidore was chosen instead, perhaps because of the intervention of the wife of Theagenes (p. 96, 9-11). Isidore’s firm conservative stand against the hieraticism of Hegias (p. 130, 21ff.-349a 38sqq. Bekker) bears out Damascius’ other remarks about him (cf. p. 23, 13-25). The extract in the Suda is unclear, but it seems to imply that Hegias was so eclectic that he got into trouble both with the philosophers (τους δε μεγάλων χρημάτων όρεγομένους) and the Christians (Suid. Lex. ‘γίας). The phrase ών κύριος ήν perhaps does imply that Hegias was Head of the school, if it is the philosophers who are meant in the preceding clause.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Ibid., p. 71, 18ff.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Damascius associates the following with Alexandria: Agapius, Aidesia, Aion, Antonius, Asclepiodotus, Epiphanes, Euprepius, Gregorius, Hermeias, Hesychius Hieron, Hierocles, Hypatia, Jacob, Isidore, Olympius, Salustius, Sarapion, Severianus, Severus, Syrianus, Zeno (also a Jew “converted” to Hellenism, p. 88).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Ibid., pp. 57, 26; 93, 11; 69, 28; 14, 18; 63, 23; 105, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Vita Procli, XXXVIII, p. 93.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Leben des Philosophen Isidoros, p. 105, 6-7.

    Google Scholar 

  80. H. A. Wolfson, Phil, of Church Fath. (Harvard, 1956), 374ff., 409-415; I. P. Sheldon-Williams, “The Greek Platonist Tradition …,” 489-490. Cf. F. Schem-mel, “Die Hochschule von Athen im IV und V Jahrhundert,” Neues Jahrb. Pädagogik XXII (1908), 509.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Damascius, Das Leben des Philosophen Isidoros, pp. 26, 34, 107 (the last attempts to revive Hellenism); Marinus, XV, p. 35 Boissonade (Proclus compelled to leave Athens for his safety.) Cf. infra, fn. 85; T. Whittaker, The Neo-Platonists: a Study in the History of Hellenism (Cambridge, 1918), pp. 132, 144, 157-158, 181.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Cf. Westerink’s very interesting citations of Olympiodorus’ remarks, VI-XIX.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Damascius, Leben des Philosophen Isidoros, p. 110, 19-23; H.-D. Saffrey, “Le Chrétien Jean Philopon et la survivance de l’École d’Alexandrie au vie siècle,” Rev. Ét. Grecs 67-68 (1954–1955), 396–410; Westerink, op cit., XI-XII. Saffrey believes the arrangement or “agreement” (ομολογία) involved admission of Christian students to lectures and restriction of lectures to Aristotle; Westerink disagrees about the latter point, and adds that it probably involved the conversion of Ammonius to Christianity, arguing that Zachary of Mitylene could “scarcely have ended his dialogue Ammonius with Ammonius’ conversion unless there had been some foundation in fact for it” (XII). One might ask what compels the writer of a dialogue to conform to fact. Apart from this ‚since Damascius describes Ammonius as “greedy” (αισχροκερδής), the fact that is indisputably reported is that the “agreement” involved money or property. It may have been a settlement of the conflict with the officials in Constantinople over Ammonius’ association with Pamprepius and Illus (p. 64, 11-13 [cf. Asmus, 168]), which may well have involved the threat of seizure of the School’s property.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Fragments of his Eighteen Arguments on the Eternity of the World against the Christians are contained in John Philoponus, De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum, ed. H. Rabe (Leipzig, 1899). Cf. The Fragments that remain of the lost Writings of Proclus … by Thomas Taylor (London, 1825), pp. 35-92.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Marinus, XV, p. 42, Boissonade.

    Google Scholar 

  86. U. Riedinger, “Der Verfasser der pseudo-dionysischen Schriften,” Zeitschr. Kirchengesch. 75 (1964), 148.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Westerink, Anon. Proleg., XVI.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Leben des Philosophen Isidoros, p. 26, 3-8.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Cf. H. Norden, Agnostos Theos (Stuttgart, 1956), 78–80, 58-62. The meaning of Acts 17 could not have escaped the polyhistor, John Lydus, an associate of Damascius.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Cf. H. Koch, “Der pseudepigraphische Character der dionysischen Schriften,” Theol. Quart. 77 (1895), 335–420.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Sergius’ writings are unedited. For the few known details of his life, cf. A. Baumstark, Lucubrationes Syrograecae, Diss. Inaug. (Leipzig, 1894), corrected in idem, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn, 1922), pp. 167-169. W. Wright. A short History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894), pp. 88-93; R. Duval, La Littérature syriaque, in Anciennes Littératures Chrétiennes II (Paris, 1907), pp. 247-249, 368ff. For a list of his works cf. Khalil Georr, Les catégories d’Aristote dans leurs versions syro-arabes (Beyrouth, 1948), pp. 20ff.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Also unedited. Sergius’ introductory treatise to the translation has been edited and translated by P. Sherwood, “Mimro de Serge de Resayna sur la vie spirituelle,” L’Orient Syrien 5 (1960), pp. 423–457, (1961), 96-115, 122-156. Cf. Sherwood, “Sergius of Reshaina and the Syriac versions of the Pseudo-Denis,” Sacris Erudiri 4 (1952), pp. 174-184.

    Google Scholar 

  93. I. Hausherr, “Doutes au sujet du ‘divine Denys,’” Orientalia Christiana Periodica II (1936), p. 488.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Georr, p. 2of., lists one work of Platonic provenance, the ps.-Platonic Erostrophos. For Ammonius’ pact, cf. Damascius, Life of the Philosopher Isidore, p. 110, 22 Asmus. Were it not for the silence of the philosophers, the pact and the intrusion of the Corpus might be related; the scanty evidence for the Platonic curriculum at Alexandria and the appearance of the Corpus (from Athens?) are intriguing facts.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Mimro, 122, pp. 150-151 Sherwood.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Ibid., 111-113, pp. 144-147 Sherwood. Sergius’ praise of astronomy fits with what we know of his interests, his commentary on the De caelo (a standard work in the School at Athens Schemmel, p. 508). His reference (p. 145) to a “work (book?) of the spheres” may be to this work. It is interesting that the same phrase appears also in the Treatise on Astronomy (Syriac) ascribed to “Dionysius,” although the style of this treatise is different, Cf. supra, fn. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Ibid., 116, p. 149 Sherwood.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Supra, p. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Cf. DN 644A, 952B; 690D; MT 997A. Grondijs, p. 443.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Cf. supra, p. 18, fn. 69. Photius, Bibliotheca 181, pp. 125b 30-127a 14 Bekker.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Simplicius, In Aristotelis physicorum (Commentaria in Aristotelum Graeca [Berlin, 1895] Vol IX, ed. H. Diels), 624, 38.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Cf Photius, Bib. 130, pp. 96b 36-97a 7 Bekker. There are numerous examples of this side-interest of Damascius in the life of Isidore, the “wonders” reported by Asclepiades (p. 61, 3oaff.), the “dreams of” Isidore, Heraiscus, and Eusebius, the earthquakes, the powers of Maximus (who was convented to Christianity) over demons (p. 123, 5-18), the vision of Asclepiades (p. 63, 32-64, 2). In view of Damascius’ sceptical comments about the hieratic enthusiasm of Hegias and Heraiscus and his praise of the sober Asclepiodotus, whose scientific studies clearly placed the fiery falling stones (βαιτύλοι) seen in Syria in their proper astronomical context, not a few of these stories are ironical. In general style, there is a parallel between the “dream” of Eusebius (p. 121, 26-122, 5 = 348a 31sqq. Bekker) and Ps.-Dionysius’ Eighth Letter, the “dream” of Carpus, notable also for its numerous Neoplatonic excerpts. Some merely verbal parallels are: Let. 8 (1097D-1100A) περί δε μέσας νύκτας … δόξαι ίδεΐν … τίνα πυραν πολύφωτον έπίπροσθεν αύτοΰ … ταǰτα μεν άνωθεν όράσθαι, και αυτόν θαυμάζειν — 384 33 εν νυκτί μεσούση … σφαΐραν δε πυρός ύψόθεν καταθοροΰσαν εξαίφνης ίδεΐν. There seems to be a connection between Damascius’ long study of “rhetoric” and this side-interest of his in wundersagen: he notes that many people criticized Iamblichus for his ability to dazzle with words (μεγαληγορία λόγων το πλέον P. 23, 27-36), an obvious example being Iamblichus’ De mysteriis Aegyptorum, but Damascius defends Iamblichus by saying, ρητορικής και ποιητικής πολυμαθίας μίκρα ήψατο. Had the miracle-story become part of the art of the Alexandrian rhetoricians in the sixth century ? It is interesting that Damascius adds ποιητική.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Simplicius, 795, 15-17.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Damascius, Leben des Philosophen Isidoros, p. 105, 16 Asmus.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Koch, “Pseudo-Dionysius …,” pp. 38ff.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Damascius, Lectures on the Philebus, Wrongly attributed to Olympiodorus, Text, Translation, Notes, and Indices by L. G. Westerink (Amsterdam, 1959), cf. pp. xv, 2.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Cf. Corsini, “Il Trattato”, 77ff. Cf. DN (636Csqq.), (909Bsqq.) with Damascius, De princ. 299, 302, 207f., 338f.

    Google Scholar 

  108. DN 704D, 705A, 712D; Let. 9, 1109B. Damascius, Lectures, 11, 1 Westerink. The emphasis on συμμετρία, αναλογία, αρμονία, and το καλόν in Ps.-Dionysius is based on the monads of the Neoplatonist Philebus. Damascius, Lectures, 238-246. The controversial ordering of έρως over αγάπη at DN 709A-B is explicit in Damascius. Lectures, 16, 20-24 Westerink.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Leben des Philosophen Isidoros, p. 61, 1ff. Damascius’ account implies that Asclepiades was interested solely in what is now termed “astrology.”

    Google Scholar 

  110. Let. 7 infra (1080A-1081B).

    Google Scholar 

  111. Leben des Philosophen Isidoros, p. 61, 11-13

    Google Scholar 

  112. Leben des Philosophen Isidoros, p. 67, 31-37.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Ibid., p. 65, 23-26: λέγεται δε και ό Πρόκλος έαυτοΰ άμείνω τον Ήραΐσκον ομόλογειν ά μεν γαρ αυτός ηδει, και εκείνον είδέναι, α δε Ήραΐσκος, ούκετι Πρόκλον.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Ibid., p. 110, 4-10.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Ibid., p. 115, 36-37.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Cf. A. D. Nock, Conversion (Oxford, 1933). Another interpretation of Damascus’ words is that Heraiscus, despite his powers of thought, was called to falsehood, by which Damascius could mean his dreams and visions (cf. 63, 11ff). But why the “Eumoiria”?

    Google Scholar 

  117. Open doubts seem to have continued into the seventh century, if the remark of Maximus implies contemporaneity: “Some people dare to revile the divine Dionysius as a heretic,” saying that “neither Eusebius nor Origen comment about his works,” Prol. in opera, 20A, 20C.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Elorduy (Table A, no. 3) in a roundabout way sees the connection, but believes that the Corpus was written by Ammonius Saccas in the second century, to be published only at the moment of greatest peril in the sixth!

    Google Scholar 

  119. Vanneste, Le mystère, 21: “Il est fermement résolu a capter cette vie [chrétienne] dans le schème néoplatonicien!”

    Google Scholar 

  120. I should like to thank M. Kojève for reporting to me his view that Damascius himself is the author (Letter of 11 December 1964); the details of his view cannot be repeated in this place, although it is more in the nature of a powerful conviction, according to Kojève, than a demonstration.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Santa Barbara, USA

    Ronald F. Hathaway

Authors
  1. Ronald F. Hathaway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1969 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hathaway, R.F. (1969). The Historical Significance of the Letters . In: Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9183-8_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9183-8_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8468-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9183-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation