Divine Activity in Dionysus the Areopagite – Rebecca Ann Pead Coughlin

8/19/2019 Divine Activity in Dionysus the Areopagite – Rebecca Ann Pead Coughlin

1/112

ΘΕΟΥΡΓΙΑ AND ΘΕΩΡΙΑ:DIVINE ACTIVITY IN

DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE

by

Rebecca Ann Pead Coughlin

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirementsfor the degree of Master of Arts

at

Dalhousie UniversityHalifax, Nova Scotia

August 2006

© Copyright by Rebecca Ann Pead Coughlin, 2006


2/112

DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS

The undersigned hereby certify that they have read and recommended to the Faculty

of Graduate Studies for acceptance a thesis entitled: “ΘΕΟΥΡΓΙΑ AND ΘΕΩΡΙΑ:DIVINE ACTIVITY IN DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE” by Rebecca Ann PeadCoughlin in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.

Dated: August 22, 2006

Supervisor: _________________________________

Readers: _________________________________

_________________________________

_________________________________

ii


3/112

DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY

DATE: August 22, 2006

AUTHOR: Rebecca Ann Pead Coughlin

TITLE: ΘΕΟΥΡΓΙΑ AND ΘΕΩΡΙΑ: DIVINE ACTIVITY IN DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE

DEPARTMENT OR SCHOOL: Department of Classics

DEGREE: MA CONVOCATION: October YEAR: 2006

Permission is herewith granted to Dalhousie University to circulate and to havecopied for non-commercial purposes, at its discretion, the above title upon the request ofindividuals or institutions.

Signature of Author

The author reserves other publication rights, and neither the thesis nor extensiveextracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author’s writtenpermission.

The author attests that permission has been obtained for the use of any copyrightedmaterial appearing in the thesis (other than the brief excerpts requiring only properacknowledgement in scholarly writing), and that all such use is clearly acknowledged.

iii


4/112

For my grandparents:

Catherine Pead

and James Martin Pead

iv


5/112

Table of Contents

Abstract ...............................................................................................................................vi

Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................vii

Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................1

Chapter 2: Theurgy .........................................................................................6Section I Dionysius’ Pagan Predecessors.....................................................6Section II Dionysius’ Christian Sources.......................................................22Section III Theurgy in the Dionysian Corpus..............................................28

Chapter 3: The Ascent of the Soul................................................................36Section I The Place of Man in the Cosmos...............................................36

Section II The Nature of the Soul ................................................................47Section III Theurgy and the Divine Names .....................................................59

Chapter 4: Doctrinal Questions....................................................................75Section I Dionysius’ Doctrine of God .......................................................75Section II Creation...........................................................................................84Section III The Incarnation .............................................................................88

Chapter 11: Conclusion .................................................................................98

Bibliography..................................................................................................................... 101

v


6/112

Abstract

In this thesis I demonstrate the relationship between ritual action and philosophical

contemplation in the work of the sixth century Christian philosopher, theologian, and

mystic, Dionysius the Areopagite. The exact nature of this relationship in his work has been

generally unrecognized by modern commentators and critics. In order to re-evaluate it, I

propose to examine Dionysius’ use of the terms of θεωρία (contemplation) and θεουργία

(ritual action) in light of his vision of divine union as the goal of all religious and

philosophical life.

This investigation traces the sources of Dionysius’ vision of sacred ritual and

contemplation in both Christian and pagan circles in order to reveal that for his predecessors

these ideas were viewed as fundamentally one human and divine activity. Dionysius takes up

this tradition and creates a vision of the world, of humanity, and of God which reveals the

unity of all facets of existence.

vi


7/112

Acknowledgements

The task of completing a post-graduate degree and writing a thesis, no matter how big orsmall, how grand or humble the scope is an all-consuming endevour. Given this, it is atask which inevitably draws upon the kindness and generosity of those whom you comeupon along the way. I would like to thank the Department of Classics and the DalhousieUniversity Faculty of Graduate Studies for their generous financial support, withoutwhich the completion of this degree would have been near to impossible. My supervisor,Dr. Wayne Hankey deserves my utmost appreciation, gratitude and admiration. His perseverance in the past two years has led me through a truly cathartic process andallowed me to begin a course of thinking about religion, philosophy and mysticism whichI know will carry me though the rest of my life. I must also thank Drs. O’Brien, House,Cohen, and McGonagill for their insights in class, their leadership in teaching, and theirhospitality; the knowledge I have gleaned from each of them has taken form in the pagesof this composition. I also wish to thank Dr. Torrance Kirby at McGill University, forsharing his love of Neoplatonism with me, introducing me to the illuminating writings ofDionysius, and entrusting me the tutelage of his colleagues at Dalhousie. I would beremiss if I did not also offer my most humble thanks to Donna Edwards and Lynn Lantzfor all of their help and support during my time in the department.

My classmates, past and present, indeed, deserve my sincere thanks for their support overthe past two year: James Flemming for his friendship, support, and linguistic acumen;Matt Wood for stepping up and telling me how things are from the moment I arrived (andfor leaving me all the comforts of Room 14); Stephen Russell for his gentleencouragement and grounded understanding of the academic endevour; Tyler Young forhis enthusiasm and fervour for all things ancient and philosophical; Martin Sastri for bothhis quite reflections and his entertaining and enlivened rants; Adam Labecki for our

philosophical and existential discussions; and of course, Colin Webster my mostwonderful office-mate, Ben Frenken, Ross Gower, and Dan and Michelle Wilband; thankyou all for making my time at Dal so enriching and memorable.

My parents, grandparents and brother deserve my absolute gratitude for their constantlove and encouragement. For all that you have taught me, nurtured in me and guided me:Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.

Finally, I wish to thank Terrance: for your time and energy, your strength and confidencein me, your patience, kindness, lightheartedness, joy, and above all your love. Our sharedunderstanding of the unity of thinking/acting/making and your vision and passion have

and continue to inspire me.

vii


8/112

- 1 -

Chapter 1: Introduction

Praise the world to the Angel, not what’s unsayable.

You can’t impress him with lofty emotions; in the cosmos

that shapes his feelings, you’re a mere novice. Therefore show him

some simple object, formed from generation to generation

until it’s truly our own, dwelling near our hands and in our eyes.

Tell him of things. He’ll stand more amazed; as you stood

beside the ropemaker in Rome or by the potter along the Nile.

The Ninth Elegy, Rilke.

The nature of the relationship between the soul and the body, or the mind and the

body, is of central concern for nearly all religious traditions. In many ways the definition

of this relationship within a tradition informs the way in which that tradition treats the

areas of philosophy, theology, mysticism, and ritual practice.

In the post-Enlightenment modern world we have tended to divide these areas.

We see philosophy as aligned with human rationality over and against religion which has

as its concern theology and ritual, whereas mystical experience has become something

reserved for the select few who individually achieve a feeling or state which is seen as

outside of the realm of either philosophy or religion. Such positions are no more than the

result of the imposition of an arbitrary division between thinking and acting; and this very

division is often reiterated as the division of body and soul.

This division has forced those who have studied ancient religious and

philosophical traditions, during the last two hundred years, to work under the assumption

that such a dichotomy existed among ancient thinkers in a similar way. The modern faith

in human reason coupled with the distrust – or even condemnation – of anything even

vaguely suggestive of cultic practices or of the supernatural meant that any such work

was de facto excluded from the accepted canon of Western philosophy. This separation


9/112

- 2 -

between thought and action has led to a deep misunderstanding of ancient religious and

philosophical authors. Dionysius the Areopagite is among these misinterpreted authors.

Much work has been done in the last fifteen to twenty years to re-read the Corpus

Dionysiacum (CD) in a way that attempts to overcome modern assumptions which

inevitably cloud the interpretation of any ancient text. Considering that there is still much

work to be done to correct these artificial divisions, the following treatment of the CD

will endeavour to respond to recent work and to address further implications of its

findings.

The Question of Pseudonimity

When first approaching any text, it is necessary to situate its historical and

cultural context and this inevitably involves a discussion of its author. The historical

identity of our author, however, is clouded in mystery. The collection of writings now

attributed to Pseudo-Dionysius or Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite1 first appeared in the

very early sixth century.2 Even at his earliest appearance in the textual tradition,

Dionysius caused a stir as defenders of the Council of Chalcedon’s definitive statement

on the question of the Incarnation questioned his authenticity at a colloquy in 532. 3

However, in the following centuries, Dionysius’ apostolic identity was generally

accepted, with only a few murmurings, until the end of the nineteenth century.

The name of our author is first found within the Christian tradition in the Acts of

the Apostles (17:34). Here it is the name given to the first of the Greeks whom Paul

converted when he preached at the altar to the unknown god in Athens. Although, within

1 I will simply be referring to him as Dionysius throughout this paper.2 A. Louth, Denys 1.3 J Pelikan, “The Odyssey of Dionysian Spirituality” 13.


10/112

- 3 -

the hagiographical tradition, many other identities have been attached to Dionysius, 4 it is

this Biblical reference which established his authority within the Western tradition.

The identification of our author with the Greek convert in Acts was found to be

false, in 1895, when two independent examinations of the texts revealed their author’s

reliance on and kinship with the Neoplatonic philosophy of the late Athenian school,

particularly that found in the writings of Proclus.5

At this point it is important to note that authorship in the ancient world was not, as

we understand it now, a matter of innovation or originality. Rather, almost all ancient

writers laid claim to a long standing tradition, the truth of which lay with the founderwhose work they were elaborating or explicating. Given this milieu, our author’s choice

of pen-name is actually quite telling. Through it we know that he saw himself as standing

in both the Greek and Christian intellectual traditions. Dionysius tells us he saw St. Paul

as his first and principle teacher,6 followed closely by the hierarch Hierotheus, whose

work Dionysius tells us he is analyzing and expanding.7 The identity of the holy

Hierotheus is also veiled; whether he was a historical person or a character created and

used by Dionysius in order to ground his own work more strongly in the Christian

Neoplatonic tradition, remains unclear. What is clear is that Dionysius does not take

credit for creating something new in his works, rather, he insists on his reliance on the

sacred tradition, which for him did not distinguish between Christian and Pagan. This

4 These associations include Denys as the first bishop of Athens, missionary to the Gauls, bishop of Paris,martyr, and patron of the Abbey of St. Denys. See A. Louth, Denys 1.5 See H. Koch, “Proklus als Quelle des Ps-Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre von Bösen.” 438-54; and J.Stiglmayr, “Der Neuplatoniker Proclus als Vorlage des sog. Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Übel.”253-273, 721-748. In A. Louth, Denys 15 note 1.6 DN III.2.7 DN III.2.


11/112

- 4 -

reliance will help throughout our investigation to clarify some points of contention within

the CD.8

Although there is a lack of general consensus on Dionysius’ exact historical

identity, there are a few points upon which most scholars agree. The first is that

Dionysius was probably writing in the late fifth or early sixth century. The second is that

he was most likely of Syrian descent, given the similarity between his descriptions of

certain rites and those known to have been practiced in Syria at that time.9 Finally, that

he was connected with and possibly trained in the Athenian School. 10

The Corpus

The CD itself is a modest collection of four treatises and ten letters. Although the

correct ordering of the corpus has also been a source of contention, I have chosen to list

them here as: The Celestial Hierarchy (CH ), The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ( EH ), On The

Divine Names ( DN ) and The Mystical Theology ( MT ), followed by The Letters. For many

scholars these treatises have divided evenly and neatly into the two ecclesial, or religious,

treatises (CH and EH ), and the two philosophical treatises ( DN and MT ). However, this

artificial division is yet again another example of the division of religion and philosophy

mentioned earlier. In light of this, I believe that the only way to give a full account of any

one of these works is to understand that at every point each text must be considered in

relation to the whole corpus.

8 For connections between Dionysius and the Neoplatonic Academy at Athens see H. D. Saffrey, “NewObjective Links” 64-74.9 A. Louth, Denys 14, 60.10 See: H.D. Saffrey, “New Objective Links” 64-74. Here Saffrey asserts several philological and

philosophical points of contact which connect Dionysius with Proclus and the Athenian school; also I.Perczel, “Pseudo-Dionysius and the Platonic Theology” Perczel asserts that “… Dionysius paraphrased, inorder, a long text, consisting at least of six continuous chapters from the Platonic Theology.” 526.


12/112

- 5 -

The Process

The following examination of the Dionysian Corpus proposes to explore the place

of ritual action, more specifically theurgy, within The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy in

particular and within the corpus as a whole. This will begin with a study of Dionysius’

Neoplatonic and Christian sources, specifically in relation to their conceptions of theurgy.

Following this I will establish Dionysius’ use of the term theurgy in the corpus and

suggest a way of reading his discussion of the Christian sacraments which avoids the

problematic division of thinking and acting or contemplation and ritual action. This

reading will provide a better understanding of the relationship between Dionysius’

“religious” and “philosophical” work by exploring the place of On the Divine Names

within a theurgic context. Finally, I will discuss the implications of this understanding on

Dionysius’ conception of God, of Creation, and of Christology.


13/112

- 6 -

Chapter 2: Theurgy

«ἐπειδὴ δι ’ ἔργων οἰκειοῦται τοῖς θεοῖς» since it make us like unto the gods through acts 11

Section I Dionysius’ Pagan Predecessors

The Chaldaean Oracles

Before addressing Dionysius’ discussion of religious ritual, it is necessary to

discuss the term theurgy (θεουργία) – a term used by Dionysius frequently in the

context of his discussion of ritual activity. Hans Lewy, in his extensive text on the

Chaldaean Oracles and theurgy provides the meaning and history of the term. He says,

“Θεουργός is a neologism of the Chaldaeans, which recurs in the extant fragments of

the Chaldaean Oracles only once, but it seems that θεουργικά was the title of a treatise

composed by the second of the two Julians.”12 Lewy suggests that θεουργός was formed

from the contraction of οἱ τὰ θεῖα ἐργαζόμενοι ostensibly on the pattern of θεολόγος.

Thus, just as θεολόγος are οἱ τὰ θεῖα λέγοντες (those saying divine things), so

θεουργός (οἱ τὰ θεῖα ἐργαζόμενοι ) are those doing divine things.13

The authorship of the Chaldaean Oracles themselves is attributed to two men: a

father and son, both named Julian. The first Julian is “the Chaldaean,” his son is called

“the Theurgist.” The elder Julian was “a contemporary of Trajan, Hadrian and the

Antonines.”

14

The younger was “born at the time of Trajan and lived in Rome in the

11 DM V.26 (240:1). My translation.12 H. Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy 461.13 Ibid.14 Ibid. 5.


14/112

- 7 -

second half of the 2nd century.”15 The tradition generally attributes the works to a

collaboration of the two men.16 The Chaldaean Oracles are preserved exclusively within

the Neoplatonic tradition.17 Lewy goes on to explain,

These Chaldaean Oracles claim to contain the doctrines which the godsdisclosed to the two Julians. They are revelations which the theurgists havewritten down. Accordingly, the Neoplatonists who believed in the legitimatecharacter of the inspiration frequently quoted the Chaldaean Oracles asutterances of the gods themselves and did not mention quite so often theirChaldaean hypophets who, in their opinion, had only played a secondary part.18

Two familiar gods are central to the Oracles: Apollo and Psyche (the Cosmic Soul,

Hecate), although prophesies are also on occasion attributed to “the god” or “a certaingod.”19 Porphyry was the first Neoplatonist to have recourse to the Chaldaean Oracles

and he does so in several of his works.20 Following Porphyry, Iamblichus and Proclus

also employ the Oracles in many of their works.

The term “theurgy” itself is complex, and as we shall see, the ambivalence of the

term is cause for much of the debate surrounding Dionysius’ understanding of the liturgy.

Hans Lewy notes that Iamblichus, at times, shares the definition of theurgy as developed

in the Chaldaean Oracles, but that it was later somewhat modified by Proclus.

15 Ibid. 4.16 Ibid. 5.17 Ibid. 7.18 Ibid. 6.19 Ibid. 7.20 Ibid. 8. Lewy notes that Porphyry indicates that he referenced the Oracles in his treatise, On the Return ofthe Soul , of which we have only quotes from a Latin translation by Augustine. He also argues that Porphyryrelied on the divine sayings in his On the Philosophy of the Oracles although Porphyry does not seem tomake this entirely clear from what we have of the text.


15/112

- 8 -

Plotinus

The term theurgy itself is not found anywhere in Plotinus’ Enneads.21 Further,

E.R. Dodds assumes that Plotinus did not know of the Oracles for “had he known about

them he would presumably have subjected them to the same critical treatment” which is

found with respect to the Gnostics at Ennead 2.9.22 However, as Zeke Mazur has pointed

out, Plotinus’ critique of the Gnostics here was based on two points which do not

necessarily apply to the Oracles directly. Plotinus believed (1) that the Gnostics were

attempting to manipulate the celestial world; and (2) that the Gnostics were suggesting

that incorporeal deities were affected by material rituals.23

Mazur concludes that,

“Plotinus criticizes the Gnostics not for their use of ritual per se, but for what he sees as

their arrogant, impious, and entirely futile attempts to manipulate their superiors.”24

Plotinus’ assessment of Gnostic ritual does not extend to his Neoplatonic successors for

whom theurgy was clearly not an attempt to manipulate the gods. This reading of

Plotinus’ critique of the Gnostics opens the possibility that Plotinus was not simply

rejecting all ritual practice. However, this has not been the dominant reading.

Mazur has noted that Plotinus has generally been characterized as rejecting “ritual

in favour of a solely ‘contemplative’ union with the One.”25 Mazur argues that such a

distinction between theory and praxis, between contemplation and theurgy, is not

satisfactory, either in the Plotinian world view or in many of his predecessors. Theoria

and theurgia are, as he points out, ambiguous categories that admit of some overlap.

Theoria, or contemplation, cannot be understood as simple intellection, just as theurgia

21 E.R. Dodds, Greeks and Irrational 285.22 E.R. Dodds, Greeks and Irrational 285.23 Z. Mazur, Unio Magica II 37.24 Ibid. 38.25 Ibid. 38.


16/112

- 9 -

does not merely designate external or material ritual practices. Mazur maintains that

“Plotinus’ curious notion of productive contemplation dissolves the apparent dichotomy

between thought and action, and thus blurs the distinction between philosophical and

ritual praxis.”26 He argues that Plotinus’ mysticism can be understood as comprising a

kind of “inner ritual.” This category, he suggests, “would thus occupy a liminal position

between the cognitive process employed in discursive philosophy and the physical

actions which comprise religious ritual.”27 This inner ritual is not anything other than

contemplation in Plotinus’ definition of the term. Following Gregory Shaw, Mazur

indicates that Plotinus’ highest level of contemplation is “structurally homologous” toand, in fact, derived from “certain theurgical rituals.”28 Thus Plotinus is advocating a

form of ritual praxis as a path to mystical union that is interior and based in

contemplation. Through such interiorization, ritual actions are understood as

contemplative, though they do not admit of the discursive nature associated with

intellection.

Iamblichus

The philosopher, theologian and theurgist Iamblichus was a follower of Plotinus

and a student of Porphyry. It is reported that he was born in Chalcis, Syria and external

sources suggest a date of no later than 240 for his birth.29 His De Mysteriis “was

composed sometime between 280 and 305.”30 It was composed under the pseudonym

Abamon in response to a letter penned by Porphyry to Anebo. Iamblichus’ pseudonym

was that of an Egyptian priest, which Proclus saw as suitable to the task of responding to

26 Ibid. 42.27 Ibid. 44.28 Ibid. 45.29 E.Clark, J.Dillon, and J. Hershbell, “Introduction” xviii-xix.30 Ibid. xxvii.


17/112

- 10 -

Porphyry’s concerns about the practice of theurgy especially as it relates to magic. 31

Although Porphyry’s initial letter has been lost, his arguments can be re-constructed from

Iamblichus’ responses. However, our main concern here is the way Iamblichus defends

theurgy against Porphyry’s attacks through careful theological, philosophical, and

theurgical argumentation.

In Book I, Chapter 11, Iamblichus defends theurgy against the view that it is an

attempt to manipulate the gods. Iamblichus is clear that theurgy, unlike magic or sorcery

which relies on sympathies within the material world, is only dependent on the divine

will of the gods. The gods are not moved by the ritual, as though through the passions, forthey are not subject to such alterations. Through theurgy a certain affinity with the gods is

established. However, it is not the case that Iamblichus is suggesting that somehow the

gods are affected by theurgical activity as if subject to passions, for the incorporeal and

eternal gods cannot be affected by the material.32 This is the same argument that Plotinus

used against the Gnostics. Rather than affecting the gods, theurgy for Iamblichus serves

to raise the human soul, to align the soul to the gods. 33 The rituals themselves are

directed at our souls and function to elevate that part of us towards the divine in which it

has a part. For example the divine invocations do not affect the gods, but rather they

affect the soul within the person and this illumination is the light given by the gods which

calls the soul, still embodied, to turn from externals and focus on the divine principle

within.34 This, Iamblichus says, is the method of the salvation of the soul; it is effected

31 Ibid. 3 note 1.32 Iamblichus, De Mysteriis (DM) I.11 (37: 13-16). All translations are by E.Clark, J.Dillon, and J.Hershbell (unless otherwise noted), the Des Places text page and line numbers are given in brackets afterthe book and chapter numbers for convenience.33 DM I.11 (38: 8-10).34 DM I.12 (41-42).


18/112

- 11 -

because of the divine love which holds all things together. The rites, given by the gods,

dispose the human mind to participation in the gods and bring “it into accord with them

through harmonious persuasion.”35

These rites also include prayer in similar way. Thus, prayer functions to elevate

the divine element in the human being and when this element is aroused it “strives

primarily towards what is like to itself, and joins itself to essential perfection.”36 Prayer,

as established by the gods, unites humans to the gods through an internal connection. In

the case of the divinely established prayers “the divine is literally united with itself, and it

is not in the way of one person addressing another that it participates in the thoughtexpressed by the prayers.”37 Thus, as supplicants through prayer, we are made like to the

divine “by virtue of our constant consorting with it, and, starting from our own

imperfection, we gradually take on the perfection of the divine.” 38

Although Iamblichus discusses theurgy in one way or another throughout his

treatise, the final goal of theurgy is most clearly defined in Book II, Chapter 11. Here

Iamblichus states that he will provide a theurgical account of the notion that knowledge

of being is directed towards the gods whereas ignorance descends to non-being. He

clearly suggests that the only way for the soul to accomplish its return to divine union is

through theurgy. He insists that it is not pure thought that unites the theurgists to the gods

and that “theoretical philosophers” cannot hope to enjoy such union. It is not thought but

rather,

35 DM I.12 (42:11): «… καὶ δὶα πειθοῦς ἐμμελοῦς συναρμόζουσαι .» 36 DM 1.15 (46:11-12): «… ἐγειρόμενον δὲ ἐφίεται τοῦ ὁμοίου διαφερόντως καὶ συνάπτεταιπρὸς αὐτοτελειότητα.» 37 DM 1.15 (47:7-9): «… ἀτεχνῶς γὰρ τηνικαῦτα αὐτὸ τὸ θεῖον πρὸς ἑαυτὸ σύνεστι , καὶ οὐδ’ ὡςἕτερον πρὸς ἕτερον κοινωνεῖ τῶν ἐν ταῖς εὐχαῖς νοήσεων.» 38 DM 1.15(48:1-3): «… καὶ τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸ ὁμοιότητα ἀπὸ τοῦ συνεχῶς αὐτῷ προσομιλεῖνκτώμεθα , τελειότητά τε θείαν ἠμέρα προσλαμβάνομεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀτελοῦς.»


19/112

- 12 -

the accomplishment of acts not to be divulged and beyond all conception,and the power of the unutterable symbols, understood solely by the gods,which establishes theurgic union. Hence, we do not bring about thesethings by intellection alone; for thus their efficacy would be intellectual,and dependent on us. But neither assumption is true. For even when we

are not engaged in intellection, the symbols themselves, by themselves, perform their appropriate work, and the ineffable power of the gods, towhom these symbols relate, itself recognizes the proper images of itself,not through being aroused by our thought….Effective union certainlynever tak es place without knowledge, but nevertheless it is not identicalwith it.39

Thus, the knowledge of divine things, as attained through philosophical reasoning, is not

unimportant or useless; however, it is not that through which divine union takes place.

Divine union is achieved only through the practice of the divine rites provided by thegods for the salvation of the soul.

Knowledge cannot be to sole means of the soul’s salvation for Iamblichus because

the human soul is fully descended and therefore the intellect alone is not capable of

raising the human to the gods. Shaw explains that “the agent of the soul’s descent [is]

prohairesis, its ‘free will,’ ‘choice,’ or ‘disposition.’”40 This disposition is what must be

altered in order for the salvation of the soul to be accomplished.

This is why Iamblichus says that theurgy [does] not act through theintellect but through one’s entire character to allow the soul to exchangeone life for another, to sacrifice its mortal life for the life of a god.Theurgy transform[s] the soul’s prohairesis by conforming it to the divine

39 DM II.11 (96:14- 97:7; 98:6-7): «… ἀλλ’ ἡ τῶν ἔργων τῶν ἀρρήτων καὶ ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν νόησιν

θεοπρεπῶς ἐνεργουμένον τελεσιουργία ἥ τε τῶν νοουμένων τοῖς θεοῖς μόνον συμβόλωνἀφθέγκτων δύναμις ἐντίθησι τὴν θεουργικὴν ἕνωσιν. Διόπερ οὐδὲ τῷ νοεῖν αὐτὰ

ἐνεργοῦμεν∙ ἔσται γάρ οὕτω νοερὰ αὐτῶν ἡ ἐνέργεια καὶ ἀφ’ ἡμῶν ἐνδιδομένη∙ τὸ δ’

οὐδέτερόν ἐστιν ἀληθές. Καὶ γὰρ μὴ νοούντων ἡμῶν αὐτὰ τὰ συνθήματα ἀφ’ ἑαυτῶν δρᾳ τὸ

οἰκεῖον ἔργον , καὶ ἡ τῶν θεῶν , πρὸς οὓς ἀνήκει ταῦτα , ἄρρητος δύναμις αυτὴ ἀφ’ ἑαυτῆς

ἐπιγιγνώσκει τὰς οἰκείας εἰκόνας , ἀλλ’ οὐ τῷ διεγείρεσθαι ὑπὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας νοήσεως.…

Ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἄνευ μὲν τοῦ γνῶναι παραγίγνεταί ποτε ἡ δραστικὴ ἕνωσις , οὐ μὴν ἔχει γε πρὸς

αὐτὴν ταὐτότητα.» 40 G. Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul 69.


20/112

- 13 -

actions communicated in theurgic symbols: the sacred stones, plants,animals, prayers, and names that ‘preserve the will of the gods.’” 41

Thus, although knowledge plays a significant role in the soul’s movement toward the

gods, it is not that by which the soul is deified. The soul attains divine union only throughtheurgic activity which brings about the transformation of the whole person, allowing

him to attain theurgic union.

The final element in the Iamblichean system to consider is his account of

sacrifice. As mentioned above, Iamblichus does not see the efficacy of sacrifice in its

power to affect the universe through some kind of manipulation of latent cosmic

sympathy. Rather he understands the efficacy of sacrifices to stem from a relationship of

“friendship and affinity, and in the relation that binds together creators with creations and

generators with their offspring.”42 This bond encompasses the “totality of beings through

an ineffable process of communion.”43 Here Iamblichus notes that all beings are brought

to completion by their causes: hence, soul by intellect and nature by soul. With respect to

the human soul this process of affinity liberates her from the bonds of generation, makes

her “like to the gods and renders [her] worthy to enjoy their friendship, and turns round

[her] material nature towards the immaterial.”44 Thus, for Iamblichus, the soul, through

theurgic acts, invocations and sacrifices, is brought into participation with the divine

activity and made god-like because of the divine love which permeates the whole of the

universe.

41 Ibid.42 DM V.9 (209:9-10): «Βέλιτον οὖν φιλίαν καὶ οἱκείωσιν αἰτιᾶσθαι , σχέσιν τε ουνδετικὴν τῶνδημιουργούντων πρὸς τὰ δημιουργούμενα καὶ τῶν γεννώντων πρὸς τὰ ἀπογεννώμενα.» 43 DM V.10 (211:13-15): «… τῆς τὰ πάντα συνεχούσης , τὸν σύνδεσμον τοῦτον διά τινοςἀρρήτου κοινωνίας ἀπεργαζομένης.» 44 DM V.12 (216:4-6): «… ἀφομοιοῖ τοῖς θεοῖς , πρός τε τὴν φιλίαν αὐτῶν ἐπιτηδείουςἐργάζεται , καὶ περιάγει τὴν ἔνυλον ἡμῖν φύσιν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄυλον.»


21/112

- 14 -

These theurgic acts are not, however, necessarily material. In his article “Eros and

Arithmos: Pythagorean Theurgy in Iamblichus and Plotinus,” Gregory Shaw has pointed

out that for Iamblichus there were different types of theurgies associated with different

levels of the soul’s coordination with the All.45 This coordination was effected first by

material theurgies, then by intermediate theurgies which contained both material and

immaterial elements and finally by immaterial theurgies that “employ mathematical

images, not as conceptual abstractions but as noetic signatures of the gods, Pythagorean

hieroglyphs of intelligible reality.”46 Finally, Shaw suggests that for both Plotinus and

Iamblichus “the experience [of this immaterial theurgy] is a kind of not-knowing inwhich noetic realities do the work, not the soul.”47

Proclus

In the 5th century Proclus (410-485), the accomplished student of Syrianus,

became the Platonic Successor at Athens.48 Proclus takes up the Iamblichean tradition

insofar as he adopts the Platonic dialogues and the Chaldaean Oracles as the basis for his

theology. He also follows Iamblichus in maintaining that the human soul is fully

descended, that no part of it remains at the level of Nous. As we saw above, it was this

assertion that led Iamblichus to insist on theurgy as the path to divine union. Similarly,

Proclus seems to suggest at several points that theurgy is necessary in order to attain

divine union. In Book I, Chapter 25, of his Platonic Theology, Proclus concludes that

there are three characteristics which fill all divine beings and extend throughout all the

levels of divinity, these are goodness, wisdom, and beauty. Further, he says that there are

45 G. Shaw, “Eros and Arithmos” 134.46 Ibid.47 Ibid.138.48 Α.Η. Armstrong, Introduction 199.


22/112

- 15 -

three characteristics that join all of these together, which are below these, and yet extend

across all the divine worlds; these are: belief, truth, and love. Love binds all things

together; truth illuminates all those in the process of intellection, and the highest truth

unites the intellect with its object. Finally, belief is that which indescribably unites all

levels of divinity, all daemons, and all blessed souls with the Good. The Good is not

attainable by intellection. Rather, Proclus explains, it is necessary to abandon oneself to

the divine light and by closing the eyes “to be established in the unknowing and secret

henad of being.”49

The assertion that it is not possible to attain divine union solely throughintellection, but that there is something else necessary, a faculty beyond discursive

knowledge which allows for such union, prompts Proclus in the following section to

insist on the priority of theurgy:

Through these [belief, truth, and love] all is saved and is joined togetherwith the primary causes, that is through erotic madness, divine philosophy,and theurgic power, this last is more powerful than all human wisdom andknowledge, having gathered together the good of the prophetic and the purifying powers of the perfection of the rites, and equally all activities ofdivine possession.50

For Proclus, theurgic activity consists in all aspects of human connection with the divine.

It encompasses prophecy, purification, ritual, and all things derived from contact with the

divine.

49 Pl.Th. 1 25 (110): «… ἐνιδρύεσθαι τῇ ἀγνώστῳ καὶ κρυφίῳ τῶν ὄντων ἑνάδι .…» (Alltranslations from the Platonic Theology are my own).50 Pl.Th. I 25 (113): «Σῳζεται δὲ πάντα διὰ τούτων καὶ συνάπτεται ταῖς πρωτουργοῖς αἰτίαις , τὰ μὲν διὰ τῆς ἐρωτικῆς μανίας , τὰ δὲ διὰ τῆς θείας φιλοσοφίας , τὰ δὲ διὰ τῆς θεουργικῆς

δυνάμεως , ἣ κρεὶττων ἐστὶν ἁπάσης ἀνθρωπίνης σωφροσύνης καὶ ἑπιστήμης , συλλαβοῦσα

τά τε τῆς μαντικῆς ἀγαθὰ καὶ τὰς τῆς τελεσιουργικῆς καθαρτικὰς δυνάμεις καὶ πάντα

ἁπλῶς τὰ τῆς ἐνθέου κατακωχῆς ἐνεργήματα.»


23/112

- 16 -

Even in his early discussion of the task and modes of theology, Proclus is clear

that the task of theology is to reveal the existence of the gods, to contemplate their

existence, and to proclaim the goodness of their activity. Yet, there are different modes of

theology. He tells us: “For it appears that [Plato] does not present the teachings

concerning the gods always in the same way, but at times he describes the truth

concerning them from divine inspiration, at time dialectically; other times he makes their

ineffable natures known symbolically, and sometimes by images he rises up to them and

discovers in them the original causes of the world.” 51 Further on Proclus says that “he

who is revealing the same truth of the gods according to itself by divine inspiration ismost clearly among the highest of the theurgists.”52 Thus, for Proclus the practice of

revealing the gods by divine inspiration, namely through theurgy, is considered, not only

among the modes of doing theology, but one of the highest. Moreover, he seems to be

suggesting that Plato himself should be considered among the highest practitioners of the

telestic art .

Proclus clearly recognizes that Plato stands within a long tradition of theology,

philosophy and religious practice. These are clearly not multiple traditions, but rather one

single tradition which includes many aspects. Thus Proclus explains that among all of the

Platonic dialogues which treat theology “it is necessary to show that each of the doctrines

accords with the Platonic principles and with the secret traditions of the theologians; for

51

Pl.Th. I 4 (17): «Φαίνεται γὰρ οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν πανταχοῦ τρόπον μετιὼν τὴν περὶ τῶν θείωνδιδασκαλίαν , ἀλλ’ ὁτὲ μὲν ἐνθεαστικῶς ὁτὲ δὲ διαλεκτικῶς ἀνελίττων τὴν περὶ αὐτῶνἀλήθειαν , καὶ ποτὲ συμβολικῶς ἐξαγγέλλων τὰς ἀρρήτους αὐτῶν ἰδιότητας , ποτὲ δὲ ἀπὸ

τῶν εἰκόνων ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἀνατρέχων καὶ τὰς πρωτουργοὺς ἐν αὐτοῖς αἰτίας τῶν ὃλων

ἀνευρίσκων.» 52 Pl.Th. I 4 (20) « Ὁ δὲ ἐνθεαστικῶς μὲν αὐτὴν καθ’ ἑαυτὴν ἐκφαίνων τὴν περὶ θεῶνἀλήθειαν παρὰ τοῖς ἀκροτάτοις τῶν τελεστῶν μάλιστα καταφανής.» Hans Lewy describes thatin InTim. III, 6, 8 Proclus says that the title: τοῖς ἀκροτάτοις τῶν τελεστῶν refers to those who“consecrate, vivify, and ‘move’ the statues of the gods.” H. Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles 495-496.


24/112

- 17 -

all Greek theology is born from the Orphic mystagogy. First Pythagoras had learned from

Aglaophamos about the rites of the gods, second Plato had received the perfect

knowledge from both the Pythagorean and Orphic writings.” 53 The continuity of the

philosophical, the theological, and the religious for Proclus suggests that he does not

admit strict divisions between these, nor does he privilege, necessarily, one form of the

tradition over the other.

The final passage from the Platonic Theology which I would like to consider

occurs at the end of Book I. Here, Proclus is concluding his discussion of the divine

names. He describes that just as the demiurgic mind brings into existence images of the primary forms in matter, images of eternal realities in time, and images that exist as

shadows from those things that truly are, so:

… in the same way, I believe, our knowledge, modeled on the intellectiveactivity creates according to this logic the likeness of all other things andespecially of the gods themselves, among them it represents the un-compounded according to the compounded, the single according to thediverse, and the unified according to the many. And thus forming thenames of the gods it shows the uttermost icons; for each it brings fortheach name just as a statue of the gods; and as theurgy according to somesymbols calls forth the generous goodness of the gods in the illuminationof the created statues, and certainly in the same way the intellectualknowledge of the gods by the compositions and divisions of echoesdiscloses the hidden being of the gods.54

53 Pl.Th. I 5 (25): «Δεῖ δὲ ἕκαστα τῶν δογμάτων ταῖς Πλατωνικαῖς ἀρχαῖς ἀποφαίνεινσύμφονα καὶ ταῖς τῶν θεολόγων μυστικαῖς παραδόσεσιν∙ ἅπασα γὰρ ἡ παρ’ Ἕλλησι

θεολογία τῆς Ὀρφικῆς ἐστὶ μυσταγωγίας ἔκγονος , πρώτου μὲν Πυθαγόρου παρὰ

Ἀγλαοφήμου τὰ περὶ θεῶν ὄργια διδαχθέντος , δευτέρου δὲ Πλάτωνος ὑποδεξαμένου τὴνπαντελῆ περὶ τούτων ἐπιστήμην ἕκ τε τῶν Πυθαγορείων καὶ τῶν Ὀρφικῶν γραμμάτων.» 54 Pl.Th. I 29 (124): «… κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν , οἶμαι , τρόπον καὶ ἡ παρ’ ἡμῖν ἐπιστήμη τὴν νοερὰνἀποτυπουμένη ποίησιν διὰ λόγου δημιουργεῖ τῶν τε ἄλλων πραγμάτων ὁμοιώματα καὶ δὴ

καὶ αὐτῶν τῶν θεῶν , τὸ μὲν ἀσύνθετον αὐτῶν δὶα συνθέσεως τὸ δὲ ἁπλοῦν διὰ ποικιλίας τὸ

δὲ ἡνωμένον διὰ πλήθους ἀπεικάζουσα. Καὶ οὔτω δὴ τὰ ὀνόματα πλάττουσα τῶν θείων

εἰκόνας ἐσχάτως ἐπιδείκνυσιν∙ ἕκαστον γὰρ ὄνομα καθάπερ ἄγαλμα τῶν θεῶν ἀπογεννᾷ∙

καὶ ὣσπερ ἡ θεουργία διὰ δή τινων συμβόλων εἰς τὴν τῶν τεχνητῶν ἀγαλμάτων ἔλλαμψιν

προκαλεῖται τὴν τῶν θεῶν ἄφθονον ἀγαθότητα , κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ δὴ καὶ ἡ νοερὰ τῶν θείων


25/112

- 18 -

In this passage Proclus is connecting the illumination of divine statues through symbols

in theurgic rites with the effects of conceptualizing divine names: both activities, in the

same way, make present the divine which is hidden. Proclus is quite clear on thisimportant point: theurgic activity is not defined by its materiality, but rather by its

effects—its ability to make present the divine to the soul of the practitioner.

Jean Trouillard has written extensively on Proclus and his work provides

invaluable insight into Proclus’ attitude towards theurgy. At the conclusion of his

discussion of Proclus’ philosophy in L’Un et L’Âme Selon Proclos Trouillard turns his

attention to theurgy and its place in the Proclean system. Trouillard insists that for the

Neoplatonists the final lesson of the Parmenides is the limit of the mind. Yet, because of

the power of love which drives dialectic for Plato, the limit of formal reason is not the

limit of thought or of action; love expresses itself most fully in myth. 55 Trouillard tells us

regarding myth: “Ne croyons pas que le mythe soit réservé aux enfants ou aux hommes

incultes. Car il y a un usage pédagogique du mythe et un usage initiatique.”56 Trouillard

asserts that for Proclus myth is related to theurgy insofar as “le rite est un mythe en acte.”

Ritual, he says, is the primary expression of and communication with the divine. Reason

can justify it but it cannot rival it. 57 Trouillard describes that: “La théurgie est avant tout

chez Proclos un procédé de diéfication. Elle couronne la contemplation, comme l’activité

prénoétique domine la vie noétique et la dépasse en efficacité.”58 In this sense theurgy is

prior to contemplation as the source of all contemplation. Theurgy is not so much thought

ἐπιστήμη συνθέσεσι καὶ διαιρέσεσι τῶν ἤχων ἐκφαίνει τὴν ἀποκεκρυμμένην οὐσίαν τῶν

θεῶν.» 55 J. Trouillard, L’Un et L’Âme 171.56 Ibid. 172.57 Ibid.58 Ibid. 174.


26/112

- 19 -

in action as contemplation is action in thought. Finally, he insists that: La théurgie “n’est

pas la liturgie des imparfaits, mais des parfaits. Elle est appeleé par la théologie négative

et se place entre la contemplation et l’union mystique, afin de réveiller celle-ci.” 59 Thus,

theurgy is the vehicle of mystical union which surpasses contemplation by bringing the

initiate into the life of the divine which is beyond contemplation.

Conclusion

Trouillard’s description of Proclean theurgy avoids the many difficulties

encountered by modern commentators. These difficulties stem, fundamentally, from

many contemporary commentators’ inability to abandon the strict privileging of

contemplation over and against ritual activity. Moreover, it represents their consistent

desire to distinguish contemplation from action completely. This is seen clearly in the

more recent work of authors such as Andrew Smith and Anne Sheppard. Both of these

scholars, in their discussions of Neoplatonic theurgy, attempt to distinguish between what

they call “high theurgy” and “low theurgy.” Although both chose different points at

which to make these distinctions, neither is able to avoid the imposition of a false

distinction between first, material and immaterial ritual, and second, internal and external

theurgy.

In the second part of his Porphyry’s Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition Andrew

Smith discusses the question of theurgy as it relates to Iamblichus, Proclus and the

Neoplatonic tradition in general. Smith’s approach does provide a valuable corrective to

earlier divisions which tended to divide theurgy based on if, and to what extent, certain

theurgic activities involved material rites. In his examination of theurgy in the De

59 Ibid. 177.


27/112

- 20 -

Mysteriis, Smith does maintain a division between high and low theurgy, however he

bases his division on the idea that lower theurgy is “restricted to the arena of

συμπάθεια , the material world of humans and daemons. It is essentially a horizontal

relationship. Higher theurgy involves the linking of man with his superiors, the gods, not

through συμπάθεια , but through φιλία.”60 He goes on to attribute these different

types of theurgy to the intention of the practitioner, i.e. “If we wish to reach god we use

one type or level of theurgy; if we want to attain only a lower level we can use an inferior

type of theurgy.”61 Contrary to many others, however, the author does not attempt to

divide theurgy based on the materiality of the rites involved. On the contrary, he

maintains that the “exact role of ritual at the higher level remains obscure.” 62 Thus, he

does not fully deny the place of ritual within the higher theurgy. Although he admits that

the evidence is not quite as clear for Proclus, Smith maintains that Proclus can be best

understood when the same division of higher and lower theurgy is applied. 63

In her article, “Proclus’ Attitude to Theurgy,” Anne Sheppard offers several

corrections to Smith’s position, particularly with respect to Proclus. Sheppard is

concerned because she believes that “the distinction which Smith draws between higher

and lower theurgy applies better to Iamblichus than it does to Proclus, and in dealing with

the latter he is rather too ready to assume that his view will be essentially the same as

Iamblichus.’”64 Instead Sheppard suggests a system which further divides Proclean

theurgy into three kinds. She bases this on a discussion between Proclus and Syrianus

related by Hermias. These three levels are as follows: “first, a theurgy which concerns

60 A. Smith, Porphyry’s Place 90.61 Ibid. 91.62 Ibid. 98.63 Ibid. 114.64 A. Sheppard, “Proclus’ Attitude to Theurgy” 214.


28/112

- 21 -

itself with ‘the affairs of human life’; secondly, a theurgy which makes the soul

intellectually active; and finally, a theurgy which involves all the other mania as well,

which really does bring about mystical union.”65 This last level of theurgy, Sheppard

argues, is what Proclus is referring to when he praises theurgy above all human activities,

and significantly, this theurgy has “no obvious place for rituals in it.”66 Sheppard insists

that what Proclus calls theurgy, when he means that highest level, is not at all “ritual

theurgy,” rather “Proclus still thinks of the final union as a ‘Plotinian’ mystical

experience, not as some magically induced trance.”67 Again, this argument betrays the

author’s overarching bias against material ritual, which forces her to impose on herancient sources a set of arbitrary divisions which are not necessary for a clear reading of

the texts themselves.

In his treatment of this question with respect to Iamblichus, Gregory Shaw

maintains that both Smith and Sheppard (though Smith to a lesser degree) reduce

Neoplatonic theurgy “to a mysticism imagined as progressive mental abstraction, denying

materiality and corporeality to advanced degrees of spiritual union.”68 He insists that,

Smith’s treatment of the ‘inner disposition’ of the practitioner is “a critical criterion of

theurgy, but it is one which distinguishes theurgy from non-theurgy rather than high

theurgy from low.”69 Finally, on this note I think it necessary to take up Shaw’s

suggestion that, “in order to understand [Neoplatonic theurgy] properly, we should, like

Trouillard, follow the principles of the Neoplatonists themselves as guides for studying

65 Ibid. 217.66 Ibid.67 Ibid. 224 note 42: Sheppard notes that by “‘Plotinian’ mystical experience” she “means an experience ofthe First Hypostasis achieved by philosophical contemplation.”68 G. Shaw, “Theurgy” 10.69 Ibid. 25.


29/112

- 22 -

their work. This demands that we learn to share their sacramental world-view, not in

opposition to the intellectual rigors of Platonism (or of scholarship), but as the matrix

which, they believed, nourished their intellectual tradition.”70

As we shall see below, Dionysius clearly draws from this Neoplatonic tradition in

order to develop his particular vision of theurgy. Thus, by attempting to understand his

predecessors according to their own principles we are given a better opportunity to

understand Dionysius’ appropriation and adaptation of their principles.

Section II Dionysius’ Christian Sources

Throughout its history the Corpus Dionysiacum (CD) has been appropriated by

many groups with seemingly disparate agendas. First, it was taken up by the

Monophysites, then by the proponents of Chalcedon. Its ideas were later taken up by the

scholastics in the west and by Orthodox mystics in the east. However, Dionysius has also

been condemned as the bearer of late Neoplatonic ideas masquerading as Christianity, an

ingenuous mystic, and a heretic. Such accusations and appropriations are not only ancient

or medieval, they are also quite modern and continue to be played out in contemporary

scholarship on the texts.

This is especially clear with respect to Dionysius’ notion of the sacraments as

theurgic. That Dionysius takes up both the language and theoretical framework

concerning the function of ritual activity from his pagan Neoplatonic predecessors has

been well established by many scholars.71

However, such an assertion need not limit

Dionysius’ sources to those predecessors, nor reject the place of the CD within the

Christian tradition.

70 Ibid. 10.71 See: P. Rorem, A. Louth, A. Golitzin, H.D. Saffrey, G. Shaw, and S. Gersh.


30/112

- 23 -

Paul Rorem has suggested, in many of his works on the CD, that Dionysius is an

anomaly within the early Christian tradition. In his, Biblical and Liturgical Symbols

within the Pseudo-Dionysian Synthesis Rorem argues in a section on Iamblichus and

what he calls “anagogical theurgy” that with respect to theurgic activity and the

interpretation of the sacraments Dionysius is drawing only on later Neoplatonists—

especially Iamblichus— and effectively stepping outside of his Christian framework. He

argues that Dionysius’ interpretation of liturgy is unique and has “no patristic

precedent.”72 Here Rorem relies on W. Volker’s work which he says emphasized

Dionysius’ connection with the Alexandrian school in all aspects except the liturgical.Here, Volker suggests Dionysius follows Cyril of Jerusalem and Theodore of

Mopsuestia. Rorem, however, provides the following caveat to Volker’s schema by

suggesting that Volker “largely omits a crucial difference.” 73 Rorem claims that whereas

Dionysius’ Christian predecessors tended to point to typological relations between the

symbols of the sacraments and the events in the life of Jesus, the Areopagite’s

“interpretation is timelessly allegorical , relating the activities of the synaxis not primarily

to past events but to eternal truths.”74 The example he gives is the censing procession of

EH 3 and 4. For Dionysius, Rorem argues, the activity of the hierarch is given a timeless

interpretation as the eternal procession and yet remaining of the divine presence.”75 In

rejecting Dionysius’ place within a Christian tradition with respect to liturgy, he is able to

turn his attention completely to the Neoplatonic sources for the Dionysian corpus.

72 P. Rorem, Biblical and Liturgical Symbols 108.73 Ibid.74 Ibid. (italics added).75 Ibid. 108 (italics added).


31/112

- 24 -

However, in his recent work, Hieromonk Alexander Golitzin has done a

remarkable job of establishing a line of continuity from the Desert Fathers and the

monastic traditions of Syria-Palestine, and from the Cappadocians to Dionysius.

Golitzin’s main thesis is that the only way to account for the relatively quick and easy

reception of the CD in the Christian East is to argue that the texts do not, as Rorem would

have us believe, represent a break in the tradition, but rather that they are clearly a

continuation of an existing and widely accepted tradition.

Through a series of well founded textual insights and by relying on the overall

themes garnered from his distinctly Orthodox Christian reading of the CD, Golitzin places Dionysius squarely within the vibrant and living Christian traditions which come

together in 6th century Syria. The first step for Golitzin is to establish Dionysius in the

New Testament tradition. He does this by pointing to places where the Dionysian texts

and the New Testament converge. These points of contact form, for Golitzin, the basis of

his exploration of the rest of Dionysius’ predecessors.76 In each subsequent section the

author presents representatives from different Christian communities in order to draw the

connection between these communities and Dionysius’ works.. He begins by pointing to

Ignatius of Antioch whom Dionysius himself quotes in DN IV.12: “Indeed some of our

sacred authors believed the name eros to be more divine than agape. And so the divine

76 A. Golitzin, Et Introibo 241. The seven points are for Golitzin: 1) the transcendence and unknowabilityof God in se; 2) that God becomes participable by his own will; 3) that the fallen world’s share in the divineis possible only through Jesus; 4) the resurrection body of Jesus Christ embraces all created existence; 5)that the ‘new, theandric’ reality is the Church which is hidden yet realized by the baptized faithful; 6) thatthis realization comes specifically through the Eucharist; 7) the light and glory of Christ reside also on thealtar of the individual soul- this is discovered through the contemplation and participation in thesacraments.


32/112

- 25 -

Ignatius has written: “my eros has been crucified.”77 In this reference Dionysius may

betray his pseudonym—Ignatius of Antioch died in A.D. 107. However, Golitzin suggests

that Dionysius “intends his readers to pick up on themes present in Ignatius that he feels

are basic to his own concerns.”78 Given that this is the only direct reference to a Church

Father in the CD, it seems entirely more plausible to assume that it is an intentional move

on the part of our author to point to his own sources in the Early Church. In similar ways

Golitzin is able to draw lines of influence from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Irenaeus

directly to the concerns he sees present in the CD.

Secondly, Golitzin traces Dionysius’ obvious Neoplatonic leanings as they mayhave derived from the Alexandrine school, from Philo to Clement and finally to Origen.

Here, once again Golitzin provides a convincing account of Dionysius’ dependence on a

previous Christian tradition. In Philo and Clement Golitzin sees the groundwork for the

Dionysian corpus.79 Both authors at once stress the transcendence and immanence of

God; God as unknowable and known. Moreover, he sees in Clement’s “Christian

Gnostic” a clear precursor to the Dionysian hierarch.80 In Origen we see the notions of

hierarchy, providence, uplifting (ἀναγωγή), and the roles given by each to Christ and

the Church.81 There are of course divergences between the thought of Origen and

Dionysius; for the source of these Golitzin points to the Cappadocian Fathers.

Golitzin sees a further foundation for the CD in the Church Fathers in corrections

to the Origenist position made by the Cappadocians. Moreover, in relation to the mystical

77 DN IV.12 709B (157:9-11): «Καίτοι ἔδοξέ τισι τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἱερολόγον καὶ ὁ θειότερον εἷναιτὸ τοῦ ἔρωτος ὄνομα τοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης. Γράφει δὲ καὶ ὁ θεῖος Ἰγνάτιος∙ «Ὁ ἐμὸς ἔρως

ἐσταύρωται .» Greek from Schula text, translation altered from A. Golitzin, Et Introibo 242. 78 A. Golitzin, Et Introibo 242.79 Ibid. 269.80 Ibid.81 Ibid. 282.


33/112

- 26 -

ascent Dionysius is clearly indebted to the Gregory of Nyssa’s account of the life of

Moses. Golitzin also sees in Gregory of Nyssa the roots of Dionysius’ use of ἒρως , his

focus on eschatology and specifically on Christ as the locus of the return to God. 82

Finally Golitzin turns to several sources who he feels have been far too neglected

in Dionysian scholarship. The first is Evagrius, an anchorite of the fourth century. In

Evagrius he sees both elements of Dionysian thought and strong points of disagreement.

However, each of these points places Dionysius within a Christian framework, albeit one

that did not always, or even regularly, agree within itself. In Evagrius, Golitzin is able to

connect Dionysius to his Christian predecessors through his relation to Origen. Thus,

Golitzin claims that Evagrius’ “elaboration and sharpening of Origen’s general vision of

the creation as providential, as a τάξις bearing the γνῶσις of Christ, as centered on

Christ, and finally as the divinely-willed image of humanity (= νοῦς) intended to instruct

us and bring us back to ourselves, to Christ, and thus to God, are of significance to the

creation of the CD.”

83

Moreover, parallels can be seen between Evagrius’ and Dionysius’definitions of the hierarchies.84

Dionysius and Evagrius do differ in their vision of the mode of the soul’s ascent,

insofar as Evagrius focuses on the “solitary’s ascetic effort” that is self mastery and

contemplation, while Dionysius sees the locus of ascent within the community of the

Church, the ecclesiastical structure.85 More fully, Golitzin points out that Dionysius

places “the Church and its organized worship in the place of Evagrius’ providential

82 Ibid. 316.83 Ibid. 345.84 Ibid.85 Ibid. 346.


34/112

- 27 -

cosmos.”86 Dionysius is clearly situated within a Christian tradition in many important

respects, however, it is in this final un-explored foundation that Golitzin finally finds the

source of what Rorem argues to be Dionysius’ novel contribution to liturgical

commentary, i.e. its universal and allegorical interpretation.

This source is the tradition of ancient Syria. The first group he points to is the

mystagogues. He suggests that the during the fourth century the church developed the

notion of mystagogy (“initiation into a mystery,” and “the accomplishment of sacred

action and the oral or written explanation of the mystery hidden in the Scripture and

celebrated in the Liturgy”

87

) in order to “in part, … meet the demands of its new imperialrole.”88 The second group is the Messalians, among whom Golitzin sees the heart of the

conflict, in fourth century, between the ecclesiastical structure of the Church: the

authority of bishops, priests and presbyters; and, monastic, ascetic, charismatic, and

inspired leaders, and the source of Dionysius’ systematic approach to his interpretation of

the sacraments. First, the conflict between the ecclesiastical and monastic is evident in

Dionysius’ description of the monk in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, a description which

finds it predecessor in the Syrian “holy man,” save “the Areopagite’s insistence on the

role of the ordained clergy, in particular of the hierarchs, as the ascetics’ guides and

directors.”89 The Syrian locus of this conflict was among the Messalians.90 Particularly,

Golitzin points to Ephrem Syrus (d. 373), the Liber Graduum, and Macarius as

Dionysius’ possible fourth century Syrian sources. In Ephrem he sees the source of much

of Dionysius’ sacramental thought: the listing of three sacraments (baptism, eucharist and

86 Ibid.87 Ibid. 350, quoting Bornet, Les Commentaires Byzantins 29.88 Ibid.89 Ibid. 356.90 See. Ibid 354-359.


35/112

- 28 -

anointing with oil), the vision of the Church as between the types of the Old Testament

and the Kingdom to come, and the notion of hierarchy.91 In addition Golitzin sees in the

Syrian tradition, particularly in Macarius, the source of Dionysius’ vision of the soul as a

microcosm of the Church: “Macarius’ development of the soul as throne of God and little

church is the foundation upon which Dionysius would build his synthesis….” 92

Thus, Golitzin, clearly establishes that Dionysius is to be understood within a

Christian continuum (although necessarily without denying his obvious debts to late

Neoplatonism). These points will prove useful to keep in mind as we consider Dionysius’

discussions of the sacraments in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and further, the broaderimplications of his understanding of theurgy for the CD in general.

Section III Theurgy in the Dionysian Corpus

The term θεουργία ,93 and its cognates, appear some 48 times in the Dionysian

Corpus, 31 of those are in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.94 Various attempts have been

made to separate Dionysius’ use of the term from his pagan predecessors’ by charging

them with using theurgy in an attempt to manipulate the gods. 95 Porphyry attacked

Iamblichean theurgy with a similar charge which Iamblichus responded to in Book 1 of

his De Mysteriis. In his response Iamblichus explains that the work of theurgy is not to

affect the gods in any way, but rather to effect the salvation of the soul by aligning the

91 Ibid. 364-371.92 Ibid. 385.93 The following section is taken from a paper which was presented to International Society for NeoplatonicStudies on June 27th 2006 in Quebec City, Canada.94 M. Nasta and CETEDOC, Thesaurus Pseudo-Dionysii Areopagitae Textus Cum Translationibus Latinis 53.95 See A. Louth, Denys.


36/112

- 29 -

soul to the divine so that the human “having abandoned its own life, … has gained in

exchange the most blessed activity of the gods.” 96

Dionysius predominantly reserves the word theurgy itself for his descriptions of

the work of God in human salvation. That Dionysius apparently does not use the word

theurgy to refer directly to ritual actions performed by the members of the ecclesiastical,

or “our,” hierarchy as Dionysius calls it, has led some to rigidly limit Dionysius’

understanding of theurgy to a description of “the divine acts” especially “the [historical]

divine acts or works that Jesus performed as incarnate.”97 However, this account does not

take into consideration the larger range of meanings that theurgy denotes both in theDionysian corpus and in the Neoplatonic tradition more generally. For example,

Dionysius frequently refers to the divine illumination as “theurgic lights,” 98 “theurgic

knowledge,”99 “theurgic understanding;”100 he also uses the phrases “theurgic

96 DM VIII.7: «… καὶ ἀφίσταται τῶν χειρόνων , ζωήν ἑτέραν ἀνθ’ ἑτέρας ἀλλάττεται , καὶδίδωσιν ἑαυτὴν εἰς ἄλλην διακόσμησιν τὴν προτέραν ἀφεῖσα παντελῶς.» Translation, G. Shaw,“Eros and Arithmos” 323.97A. Louth, Denys 74 and A. Louth, “Pagan Theurgy” 435.98 DN I.4 592B (113:12): «θεουργικὰ φῶτα;» CH VII.2 208C (29:12): «τῶν θεουργικῶν αὐτοῦφώτων» (my translation).Greek text from: B. R. Suchla, (ed.), Corpus Dionysiacum I. Pseudo-Dionysius

Areopagita, De divinis nominibus and G. Heil, und A. M. Ritter (eds.), Corpus Dionysiacum II. Pseudo- Dionysius Areopagita, De coelesti hirearchia, De ecclesiastic hierarchia, De mystica theologia, Epistulae.The citation refers to (1) chapter, section and paragraph number, (2) Patrologiae Series Graeca, ed. J.P.Minge column number, (3) the page and line numbers in brackets refer to the Schula or Heil and Ritter

edition. All translations are from C. Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, unless otherwisenoted.99 CH VII.2 209Α (30:3): «τὰς θεουργικὰς ἐπιστήμας;» EH I.1 369A (63:4): «θεουργικῆςἐπιστήμης» (my translation).100 CH VII.2 209C (30:15): «τῆς θεουργκιῆς γνώσεως» (my translation).


37/112

- 30 -

communion,”101 “theurgic participation,”102 “theurgic likeness,”103 “theurgic virtues,”104

and “the most theurgic myron.”105

Dionysius tells his reader that God has resolved to ensure the salvation of all

rational beings, both human and angelic. He explains that this salvation “is the ability of

the saved to become nothing other than divine. And theosis [divinization] is being made

similar to God and in union with God as far as possible.” 106 But what does it mean to be

like God for Dionysius?

In the first section of the Celestial Hierarchy he discusses the role of hierarchy in

general. Here he says: “I believe that hierarchy is sacred order, knowledge, and activity

becoming as much as possible like the divine form.”107 Thus hierarchy itself is the means

by which each rational being is given the possibility of being as like as possible to God.

For each member “perfection consists in this, that it is uplifted to imitate God as

far as possible and, more wonderful still, that it becomes what scripture calls a ‘fellow

workman of God’ (θεοῦ συνεργόν) and a reflection of the workings of God.”108 So,

being like God, or being divinized, consists in imitating God, specifically imitating God’s

101 EH II.2.8 404D (78:18-19): «θεουργοῦ κοινωνίας» (my translation).102 CH ΧΙΙΙ.4 305C (48:18): «τὰς θεουργικὰς μετουσιάς» (my translation).103 CH VII.2 209C (29:11): «τὴν θεουργικὴν ὁμοίωσιν» (my translation). 104 CH VII.2 208C (29:14): «ταῖς θεουργικαῖς … ἀρεταῖς» (my translation).105 EH II.2.7396D (73:5): «τῷ θεουργικωτάτῳ μύρῳ» (my translation). Myron refers to the oil which isconsecrated in the third sacrament discussed in the EH and which is used to bless the water for baptism andto consecrate the altar for the celebration of the eucharist. Dionysius suggests that it is the most theurgic

because its presence is require for each of the other sacraments to be effective. It is only the hierarch who

can consecrate the oil and use the oil to consecrate.106 EH I.3 373D-376A (66:11-13): « ἡ δὲ οὐχ ἑτέρως γενέσθαι δύναται μὴ θεουμένων τῶνσωζομένων∙ ἡ δὲ θέωσίς ἐστιν ἡ πρὸς θεὸν ὡς ἐφικτὸν ἀφομοίωςίς τε καὶ ἕνωσις» (amendedtranslation). 107 CH III.1 164D (17:3): «Ἔστι μὲν ἰεραρχία κατ’ ἐμὲ τάξις ἰερὰ καὶ ἐπιστήμη καὶ ἐνέργειαπρὸς τὸ θεοειδὲς ὡς ἐφικτὸν ἀφομοιουμένη…» (amended translation). 108 CH III.2 165B (18:14-17): «… ἡ τελείωσις τὸ κατ’ οἰκείαν ἀναλογίαν ἐπὶ τὸ θεομίμητονἀναχθῆναι καὶ τὸ δὴ πάντων θειότερον ὡσ τὰ λόγιά φησι «Θεοῦ συνεργὸν» γενέσθαι καὶ

δεῖξαι τὴν θείαν ἐνέργιαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἀναφαινομένην.»


38/112

- 31 -

activity. Thus, as each level of the hierarchy takes on the roles of purified and purifying,

illuminated and illuminating and perfected and perfecting, “each will actually imitate

God in the way suitable to whatever role it has.” 109 Dionysius reiterates this at the

beginning of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: he says that having imitated our angelic

superiors as much as possible “we shall then be able to be consecrated and consecrators

of this mysterious understanding. Formed of light, initiates in god’s work [the actual

word used here is theurgic (θεουργικοί )], we shall be perfected and bring about

perfection.”110 In this way theosis for Dionysius is each member’s proportionately full

participation in the divine activity.

Our hierarchy is a reflection of the more perfect and more immaterial angelic

hierarchy. In his discussion of the first angelic order, that which is most perfectly

assimilated to the divine activity, Dionysius describes the seraphim, cherubim and

thrones as representing purification, illumination or contemplation, and perfection.

However, it is clear that he does not intend for these activities to be rigidly associated,

one-to-one with each of the three orders. Thus, while the seraphim are associated with the

activity of perfection; the cherubim with illumination or contemplation; and the thrones

with purification, they are all pure, all contemplative and all perfect. Yet, it is also clear

that the divisions among the members of this order are not insignificant.

In order to illuminate this dynamic for us it is helpful to look at Proposition 103

of Proclus’ Elements of Theology. Here he states:

109 CH III.2 165BC (19:2-3): «… ἑκάστῳ τὸ θεομίμητον ἁρμόσει κατὰ τόνδε τὸν τρόπον. »110 EH I.1 372B (64:11-14): «… τῆς τῶν θεαμάτων γνώσεως ἐλλαμφθέτες τὴν μυστικὴνἐπιστήμην ἀφιερώμενοι καὶ ἀφιερωταὶ φωτοειδεῖς καὶ θεουργικοὶ τετελεσμένοι καὶ

τελεσιουργοὶ γενέσθαι δυνησόμεθα. »


39/112

- 32 -

All things are in all things, but in each according to its proper nature: forin Being there is life and intelligence; in Life, being and intelligence; in Intelligence, being and life; but each of these exists upon one levelintellectually, upon another vitally, and on the third existentially.111

Proclus is not suggesting that these three moments are confused; rather he explains thateach term is “characterized by its substantial predicate.” Thus, with respect to Being, he

states:

Life and Intelligence are present there after the mode of Being, asexistential life and existential intelligence; and in Life are present being by participation and Intelligence in its cause, but each of these vitally, Life being the substantial character of the term; and in Intelligence both Lifeand Being by participation, and each of them intellectually, for the being

of Intelligence is cognitive and its life is cognition.

112

Although I do not necessarily want to equate the first order of Dionysius’ celestial

hierarchy with the Proclean triad of Being, Life and Intelligence, I do think that by

analogy this description can illuminate our own question of the relationship of the first

hierarchy to the divine activity.

Thus, each member of the first order of angels is pure, contemplative and perfect,

but according to its substantial mode: thus the thrones are perfect and contemplative in

purity; the cherubim are pure and perfect contemplatively; and the seraphim are pure and

contemplative perfectly. These properties, as reflections of, or participations in, the

divine activity, are not separate and distinct moments, yet neither are they confused. To

be a seraph is not the same as to be a cherub or a throne, yet they all share in the same

111 El.Th. 103 (Translation E.R. Dodds 93): «Πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν , οἰκείως δὲ ἐν ἑκάστῳ∙ καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῷὄντι καὶ ἡ ζωὴ καὶ ὁ νοῦς , καὶ ἐν τ ῇ ζωῇ τὸ εἶναι καὶ τὸ νοεῖν , καὶ ἐν τῷ νῷ τὸ εἶναι καὶ τὸ ζῆν ,

ἀλλ’ ὅπου μὲν νοερῶς , ὅπου δὲ ζωτικῶς , ὅπου δὲ ὄντως ὄντα πάντα.» 112 El.Th. 103 (Translation E.R. Dodds 93): «… ὄντως ἐστὶν ἐκεῖ καὶ τὸ ζῆν καὶ τὸ νοεῖν , ζωὴοὐσιώδης καὶ νοῦς οὐσιώδης∙ καὶ ἐν τῇ ζωῇ κατὰ μέθεξιν μὲν τὸ εἶναι , κατ’ αἰτίαν δὲ τὸ νοεῖν

ἀλλὰ ζωτικῶς ἑκάτερον (κατὰ τοῦτο γὰρ ἡ ὕπαρξις)∙ καὶ ἐν τῷ νῷ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ καὶ ἡ οὐσία

κατὰ μέθεξιν , καὶ νοερῶς ἑκάτερον (καὶ γὰρ τὸ εἶναι τοῦ νοῦ γνωστικὸν καὶ ἡ ζωὴ γνῶσις).»


40/112

- 33 -

activity, that is the divine activity and each participates that activity as perfectly as

possible, according its mode of participation.

Our hierarchy, for Dionysius, is a reflection of the angelic hierarchy and as such it

participates in the same divine activity in so far as possible. Thus, the three activities that

we just mentioned are also found at work in this mediating hierarchy. Similarly,

Dionysius is careful not to equate these three activities in a simple one-to-one analogy

with each of the sacraments. Thus, he states that these same powers are in all the

sacraments- that is the power to purify, illuminate, and perfect. 113 He explains that the

sacrament of the divine birth is a purification and an illumination, and that the sacramentsof synaxis and of myron both “provide a perfecting knowledge and understanding of the

divine workings.”114 Thus, each of the “the holy sacraments bring about purification,

illumination and perfection.”115

The other two orders in our hierarchy are the clergy and the laity. Both of these

orders are divided according to their activity in the hierarchy. Thus, the hierarch perfects,

the priests illuminate, and the deacons purify. Of the lay order the monks are those who

are perfected, the sacred people are the contemplative order, and the lowest order are

those being purified. However, it should not be assumed that because the levels of

hierarch and monk are called the perfect order they are the only levels which participate

in the divine activity to the extent that they are divinized. Rather, all the members of each

order are capable of theosis or divinization insofar as they are assimilated as much as is

possible, or proportionately, to the divine activity, that is insofar as they are perfect

113 See EH 5.3114 EH 5.3 504C (106:19-20): «… τῆς συνάξεως δὲ καὶ τῆς τοῦ μύρου τελετῆς τελειωτικῆς τῶνθεουργιῶν γνώσεως καὶ ἐπιστήμης.…» 115 EH 6.5 536D (119:8-9): «… ὡς αἱ μὲν ἀγίαι τελεταὶ κάθαρσίς εἰσι καὶ φωτισμὸς καὶτελείωσις.…»


41/112

- 34 -

according to their position. Were this not the case the perfection of the cosmos would

amount to the collapse of all hierarchy, and the eradication of the means of theosis. Louth

points this out very clearly when he says that the hierarchies are not “static” for

Dionysius. That is one does not climb the hierarchy like a ladder to reach theosis. The

hierarchy itself mediates deification by its very existence as a manifestation of the

divine.116

In so far as each member of the hierarchies is called to deification, they are

participating in the divine activity, thus becoming theurgic. At each level union with God

is possible, in that theosis consists in becoming God-like a

Divine Activity in Dionysus the Areopagite – Rebecca Ann Pead Coughlin

Documents

Transcript of Divine Activity in Dionysus the Areopagite – Rebecca Ann Pead Coughlin