The Life of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite 9798877337213

Citation preview

©2024 by

Scriptorium Press 2nd edition

ISBN 979-8-877337-21-3

Sunt enim nonnulli qui putant esse laudabile, si quid contra antiquos sapiant et

aliquid novi, unde periti videantur, inveniant.

There are many who think it praiseworthy to hold opinions contrary to those of the

ancients or to discover some new thing by which they may appear learned. CASSIODORUS

—Institutes LI 1

THE LIFE OF SAINT DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE

Anthony Pavoni

Evangelos Nikitopoulos

CONTENTS Introduction

1- The Areopagitic Corpus and the Controversy Over Its Authorship 2- Response to Objections

i. Valla’s Original Objections ii. Anachronistic Rites

iii. Anachronistic Reference to the Creed iv. Monasticism

v. Precise Theology

vi· Borrowings from Proclus 3- Positive Proofs

i. Universal Attribution to Saint Dionysius ii. Sublimity of Doctrine

iii. Level of Detail of the Works iv. The Trad i firm of Athenian Christian Literature

v. Witnesses to the Dionysian Corpus Prior to the Sixth Century vi· References Specific to the Early Centuries

vii. Themes Consistent with Early Christian Theology viii. Angelology ix. Language

4- Conclusion

5- Saint Dionysius1 Mission to Gaul i. The Cult of Saint Denis of Paris ii. The Vita of Saint Denis of Paris

jui. The Identity of Saint Denis iv. Arguments in Favour of the Identity of the two Denises A Note on the Author

Encomium of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite

The Passion of Saints Dionysius, Rusticus, and Eleutherius

Appendix I: Parallels between Dionysius and Proclus Appendix II: Manuscript Variants in Saint John Chrysostom’s Sermon Against False Prophets

INTRODUCTION

1- THE AREOPAGITIC CORPUS AND THE

CONTROVERSY OVER ITS AUTHORSHIP Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, the disciple of Saint Paul, is mentioned in the book of Acts as a Gentile convert to the faith.UJ According to tradition, after an illustrious career as the first Bishop of Athens,

he left the East in his old age to go preach the Gospel in Gaul, where he was martyred.Ul Dionysius' writings, filled with profound apostolic wisdom, have earned him a place among the greatest doctors

of the Church. The Areopagitic corpus, as it is called, comprises four books: the Divine Names, which

explains the various designations of God; the Celestial Hierarchy, which illuminates the nature of the angelic orders; the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which discusses the various sacraments and orders in the

Church; and the Mystic Theology, a short treatise on how to unite oneself to the divine. In addition, ten

letters of Saint Dionysius survive.lX These also touch on theology, but equally deal with more day-today problems. They are addressed to a variety of individuals, including known figures such as Saint

Polycarp of Smyrna, Bishop Titus, and Saint John the Evangelist, and unknown figures like Gaius and

Demophilus.&l From all these works we learn that in addition to the Apostle Paul, Dionysius was in­ structed in the faith by a certain theologian named Hierotheos; that he personally witnessed the Cruci­ fixion darkness, and that he was present at the burial of the Virgin Mary together with Saint Peter and

Saint James of Jerusalem. From antiquity until the sixteenth century, the works of Saint Dionysius were widely accepted as gen­

uine and held in reverence by the entire Christian world and its most learned representatives. Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find an author who has known greater or more universal acclaim. Saint

Maximus the Confessor (d. 662) admired the Areopagitic works so much that he wrote commentaries on the entire corpus.hl The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681) cite Saint Dionysius as an authority.!^ Saint John of Damascus (d. 749), the glory of the Church, refers to him as “that most holy, and sacred, and gifted theologian,” the “divinely-inspired disciple” of Saint Paul "who had so deep

a knowledge of things divine.”td The Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787) cite Saint Diony­

sius in support of the theology of icons.isi Hilduin of Paris (d. 855), one of the leading churchmen of the Carolingian Empire and a renowned scholar, praises him as a “river of mystic eloquence” and an “oracle

of the Holy Spirit" whose writings “destroy the knots of pagan syllogisms and nullify the cult of idols” with their “magnificent perfection.”!^ The erudite Patriarch of Constantinople Saint Photius the Great

(d. 891) calls Dionysius “rich in words but even richer in wisdom, the student of Paul, martyr of Christ, and Bishop of the Athenians.”!!^ The Suidas lexicon (10th century) refers to him as “a man of the high­

est repute.”!^1- The eleventh-century mystic Niketas Stethatos (d. 1090), the disciple of Saint Symeon

the New Theologian, calls him “well-versed in the divine.”!W Hugh of Saint Victor (d. 1141), one of the most respected ecclesiastical writers of the West, compares Dionysius’ refutation of pagan wisdom to

David striking down Goliath.lW The Areopagite is also one of the most frequently-cited authorities in

the works of Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) and Saint Gregory Palamas (d. 1359).

There were a few anonymous individuals in the early centuries who challenged the ascription of the Areopagitic writings to Saint Dionysius of Athens. Saint Maximus refers to these critics in the Prologue to his commentary!^ (from which we will quote below), and Saint Photius similarly mentions a debate

over the authorship in his Bibliotheca.^ However, the opinion of these critics never proved anything

more than a passing cloud in the clear sky of Dionysius' reputation. The first person in modern times to challenge the corpus outright was the Italian humanist Lorenzo Valla (c. 1406-1457), followed by the German Erasmus (1469-1536).-1£- The critique of Dionysius

was then taken up by Martin Luther (1483-1546), who found Dionysius’ mystical style and the early references to bishops, sacraments, monks, and prayers for the dead antithetical to his own religious opinions.!^ Beginning in the early seventeenth century, a great scholarly debate raged in Europe, with writers of a generally more Protestant bent attacking the corpus and Roman Catholics defending it. Each new generation added its own arguments as to why it thought the works were spuriously or gen­

uine. Finally, by the late nineteenth century, the prevailing academic opinion was that the works had been written by an anonymous Neoplatonist sometime in the late fifth or early sixth-century, probably

in Syria. In the pages that follow, we will challenge this received opinion. Having studied the entire debate, we have distilled the best arguments put forward over the course of the past four centuries in

favour of the works' authenticity, mixed in with some humble observations of our own.

2- RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS

I. VALLA’S ORIGINAL OBJECTIONS Valla's original objections to the genuineness of the works (which, for the most part, were subsequently adopted by Erasmus) can be summarized as follows:^! (1) The Areopagites were civil magistrates, not philosophers; therefore, Saint Dionysius could not have been a philosopher as people claim he was; (2) Dionysius says that he witnessed the Crucifixion darkness in Athens. However, we know from Scrip­

ture that the darkness was local to Judaea. Furthermore, if such a darkness had been universal, pagan authors would have recorded it. Hence, the works are spurious. (3) The earliest author to refer to Saint Dionysius’ works is Pope Gregory the Great (54O-6O4).£o] if these writings were ancient, earlier writers

like Saint Jerome would have surely mentioned them. (4) The writings were suspected to be the work of the heretic Apollinarius.

The first argument is so trivial as barely to merit a response. Certainly, the Areopagites were mag­ istrates, but does being a political official automatically prevent one from simultaneously being a philosopher? Marcus Aurelius (d. 180), though an emperor, was also reputed to be a philosopher. Most

prominent Athenians, from whom the Areopagites were chosen, studied some philosophy as part of

their education. Wise men in antiquity were often granted the title of “philosopher” or “sophist.” And the early Christians even referred to monastics as those who embraced the “philosophical life.”

As for the second argument, if Valla and Erasmus had paid closer attention to the text, they would have noticed that Dionysius does not say that he was in Athens when he witnessed the Crucifixion darkness, but in the city of Heliopolis in Egypt.^ Moreover, the Gospel is clear that the darkness covered "all the earth,not just Judaea. This was also the opinion of the Church in ancient times. As Saint John

Chrysostom writes: And not in this respect only was the wonder, but because from heaven also was that done which they had sought, and it was over all the world, which had never before

happened... And observe when it took place. At midday, that all that dwell on the earth may know it, when it was day all over the world.L231

In addition, the Crucifixion darkness was mentioned by Gentile authors: Phlegon of Tralles, a Greek author who flourished under the reign of Hadrian (117-138), records in his Chronicle that in the fourth

year of the 202nd Olympiad (A.D. 3 3) there occurred "the greatest eclipse of the sun” in the sixth hour of

the day.124] An even earlier historian named Thallus (c. 50) refers to the same event.I2H Thus, Valla and

Erasmus’ second argument holds absolutely no water. We turn next to the third argument. It is simply false to say that Pope Gregory was the first to cite the Areopagitic works. As we will show below,1251 Saint Jerome does in fact quote the Areopagite in one

of his letters. There are also distinct lexical parallels to Dionysius’ writings that go back as far as the

second century. But even if we set all this aside, Valla’s basic argument—that an absence of early tes­

timonies necessarily implies spuriousness—is false. Nowhere in their writings do Jerome or Eusebius mention either Athenagoras of Athens (d. 190) or Theognostus of Alexandria (d. 270), even though

both of these men were ancient and venerable theologians of the Church. The Third Epistle of Saint John, although accepted as canonical scripture today, was first cited only in the third century, and even

then with reservations. There are also a number of reasons that might explain why the writings of Dionysius had a limited circulation in the early centuries.

One reason is that, contrary to some other writings of the period, which were predominantly of a public or apologetic character, the Areopagitic works are highly esotericl^zi and mystical. In the opening

chapter of the Divine Names, Dionysius even tells Timothy, to whom the work is dedicated, to "make the

things Divine neither spoken nor known to the uninitiated.”Us] In another passage, Dionysius writes that the mysteries he is discussing are suitable only for the eyes of priests: “Trusting in thy sacred promises (for it is a pious duty to recall them to thy recollection) that., .thou wilt not communicate

to any other but those Godlike initiators of the same rank with thyself, and wilt persuade them to promise, according to hierarchical regulation, to touch pure things purely, and to communicate the

mysteries of God to the godly alone. ..I have entrusted this Divine gift to thee, in addition to many other hierarchical gifts.”U21

Another reason for the silence of the ancients might simply be the physical rarity of the manuscripts. A good case in point are the epistles of Saint Clement of Rome (d. 99) and the writings of Justin Martyr (d. 165), both of which have come down to us in a single manuscript.1221 Moreover, scholars are constantly discovering authentic works thought to have been lost for centuries. For instance, the Apology of

Aristides of Athens, a writer of the second century, was only rediscovered in 1889 at Saint Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai; in 1959, Saint John Chrysostom’s lost commentary on Proverbs and Eccle­ siastes was discovered on the island of Patmos; and in 2001, the missing portion of his treatise Against the Judaizers was published after being found at the Leimonos Monastery on Lesbos. If such discoveries

can still be made in the twenty-first century, in an age of instantaneous communication and impecca­ ble catalogues, it is no surprise if a small volume containing difficult theological writings lay forgotten in some private library for a few centuries in antiquity. What about the argument involving Apollinarius? Some historical context is necessary in order to understand what this claim is based on. In A.D. 5 3 2, Emperor Justinian organized a conference in Con­

stantinople between the Orthodox under Patriarch Hypatius and the Severians, a sect that was closely related to the Apollinarians.Uij Justinian hoped that dialogue might be able to win over the Severians

to the Church. The Orthodox at the conference asked the Severians why they rejected the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon.Ul. The latter responded that they did not accept the doctrine that Christ had

"two natures” because it disagreed (so they said) with the testimonies of Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Saint Athanasius, Pope Felix of Rome, Gregory the Miracle-Worker, and Dionysius the Areopagite. Given that

the Apollinarians were known to have forged letters in antiquity and circulated them under the names of Saints Athanasius and Gregory,1221 and since Dionysius was mentioned here besides these other writ­ ings, the Orthodox suspected that the testimonies the Severians were attributing to Dionysius, insofar as they seemed to support their heretical doctrine, must also be false. Let us quote the full exchange

from the conference:

Orthodox: These letters and testimonies you allege are false, for Cyril did not mention one of these in his letters to Nestorius. Severians: What, then, do you suspect that we falsified them?

Orthodox: We do not suspect you, but the old Apollinarian heretics who attacked him over the letter he wrote to the Easterners (A.D. 433) on the two natures to achieve

union and peace... Severians: We are prepared to show you that Saint Cyril used these testimonies in the

treatises he wrote against Diodorus and Theodore...

Orthodox: If Cyril had cited these testimonies against people who had died, he would

with greater reason have cited them against Nestorius and those who attacked his Chapters. It seems, then, that the heretics falsified them and added them to his books. Severians: If we show you that both old manuscripts and the archives of Alexandria

contain these testimonies, what will you say?

Orthodox: If you can produce manuscripts from the time of Saint Proterius (r. 451-457) or Timothy called Salophakiolos (r. 460-475,477-481), then they will be

beyond doubt. But since many years have elapsed since these old manuscripts have

been in the hands of those who oppose the orthodox confession of the two natures, you will forgive us if we are wary of receiving our adversaries as witnesses. For it has

been clearly shown that the famous letter of Pope Julius to Dionysius [of Alexandria] was written by Apollinarius.. .But those testimonies you say are by Dionysius the

Areopagite: whence can you show that they are authentic, as you believe? For if they

were, they could not have been unknown to Saint Cyril. But why do we speak only of Cyril? For if Saint Athanasius knew for certain that they were his, he would surely

have produced them at the Council of Nicaea to defend the doctrine of the consub-

stantial Trinity against the blasphemies of Arius who said there was a diversity of substances. But if not one of the ancients mentions these testimonies, we do not know how you can now demonstrate that they are from him.1241 This passage has frequently been misunderstood and misused by critics. First of all, what are these

“testimonies" of the Areopagite that the Severians alleged justified their doctrine? The main passage they relied on was a line from the Divine Names in which Dionysius says that “the simple Jesus became composite" (ό απλούς ’Ιησούς συνετέθη).ΰ^τ1ιί5 seemed to justify the Monophysites’ belief that Christ

had a single mixed nature, although this same expression was explained in an orthodox fashion by

Saint Ephrem of Antioch (r. 527-545) and Saint MaximusJMl in any case, what are we to make of the Orthodox rejection of Saint Dionysius' testimony at the conference? Does it prove that the Areopagitic

works are a heretical forgery, as Valla and his followers suggest?

The text proves nothing of the sort. Nowhere do we read that the Orthodox doubted the authenticity of all the writings of the Fathers whom the Severians cited: they simply said that they did not trust

that the particular testimonies they were providing were authentic. Given the great religious upheavals of the time and the fact that the Orthodox bishops were simply given isolated excerpts of the Fathers’

works, we certainly cannot fault them for being excessively cautious. The idea that the Areopagitic works were originally suspected of heresy and only gradually gained acceptance in the Orthodox world is completely baseless.UTl For at the same time that this conference was taking place at the capital, Saint Ephrem, the Patriarch of Antioch, was perfectly content to quote Saint Dionysius in defense of orthodox doctrine.usj in the following century, the Areopagitic writings

were twice cited as an authority at the Lateran Council.^ Truly, an Apollinarian could never have spo­ ken like Dionysius does on the two natures of Christ:

He Who is superessentially exalted above every rank throughout all nature was born within our nature, whilst retaining the unchangeable and unconfused steadfast­ ness of His own properties...Through love towards man, He has come even to nature,

and really became substantial, and the Super-God lived as Man...not only in so far as

He communicated with us without alteration and without confusion. ..but also, be­ cause the newest of all new things, He was in our physical condition: super-physical in things substantial; super-substantial, excelling all the things of us, from us, above

us...But the boundless loving-kindness of the supremely Divine goodness towards man did not, in Its benevolence, withdraw from us Its spontaneous forethought, but

having truly participated sinlessly in all things belonging to us, and having been

made one with our lowliness in connection with the unconfused and flawless pos­ session of Its own properties in full perfection, It bequeathed to us, as henceforth

members of the same family, the communion with Itself.HSJ

Probably realizing this blatant contradiction, Erasmus was forced to abandon this particular argument of Valla’s.HJJ As for the argument that Saint Athanasius would surely have quoted the testimony of Saint Dionysius

against the Arians had he known of it, this also is not necessarily true. We know, in fact, that the early Fathers preferred to rely on Scripture alone when refuting heretics because the text of the Bible

was less liable to corruption and was universally respected as an authority. For example, the Spanish bishop Idacius Clarus, in the refutation of Arianism he composed in the late fourth century, says in his introduction that he wishes to confute his adversaries "not with bare words, as is often done, but with

legal documents," that is, with testimonies from the canonical Scriptures.^ Saint Athanasius himself writes: “If then they have confidence in their opinions and statements, let them broach their heresy nakedly, and show from it if they think they have any religious argument -whetherfrom Scripture, or

from human reason, in their defense. But if they have nothing of the kind, let them hold their peace.’’l42J In sum, all we can really conclude from the comments of the Orthodox bishops at the Severian confer­ ence is that they were overly suspicious that some heretics might have falsified some ancient writings. Having now dispensed with all of Valla’s objections, let us take a look at the other arguments that have been put forward since the sixteenth century to disparage the authenticity of Saint Dionysius’ works.

IL ANACHRONISTIC RITES It is claimed that Dionysius refers to Christian rites and institutions in his writings that did not exist in the first century to the extent he describes them. The anonymous critics mentioned by Saint Photius were the first to bring forward this objection, which was later reprised in the sixteenth century by

Erasmus.L441 However, neither the ancient critics nor Erasmus specified which particular rites or insti­

tutions they considered anachronistic. Therefore, to give our critics the benefit of the doubt, we have

drawn up a list of all the ceremonies and institutions that Dionysius mentions in his corpus, and we propose to examine each of them individually to determine how accurately they fit within the context

of the first century. We have adopted the following methodology for this section: as much as possible, we have based our

evidence on first-century witnesses such as the New Testament writings, the early catechism known as the Didache of the Apostles, and the Apostolic Fathers. When references to specific rites were lacking

in these texts, we turned to quotes from second or third-century witnesses, such as Theophilus of An­ tioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian of Carthage, and Origen. We have also admitted some

fourth-century witnesses (Eusebius, Basil, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom, Augustine) when they cor­ roborate allusions found in earlier texts. While it is true that the fact that a rite is mentioned in a later author does not conclusively prove that it existed in the first century, we should recognize that rites—

especially the central rites of a religion—do not come into being overnight: in many cases, later authors are simply attesting to existing traditions that were handed down from the Apostles. Finally, where appropriate, we have also included evidence from the Old Testament which offers precedents to some

of the practices mentioned by Dionysius. Given that first-century Christianity essentially grew out of Temple Judaism, we believe that it is reasonable to assume that if a certain practice is attested in the

Old Testament and in later Christian centuries, it also existed in the first century as well.L1^ a) Worship in temples, altars, incense

In the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Dionysius speaks of worship conducted in temples, the presence of al­

tars, and the use of incense. For example, when describing the rite of Holy Unction, he writes: In the same way as in the Synaxis, the orders of the imperfect are dismissed, that is, after the hierarchical procession has made the whole circuit of the temple (ιερόν),

attended with fragrant incense (εύοσμος); and the chanting of the Psalms, and the reading of the most Divine Oracles. Then the Hierarch takes the Unction and places it,

veiled under twelve sacred wings, upon the Divine Altar (θειον θυσιαστήριον), whilst

all cry aloud, with most devout voice, the sacred melody of the inspiration of the Godrapt Prophets.lMI

References to early Christian temples are found in the writings of the fourth-century Church histo­ rian Eusebius. The latter relates that before the persecution of Diocletian (which began in 303), the Christians had become so numerous that they had to construct new churches to replace "the ancient

buildings" (τά παλαιά οικοδομήματα)^ that they had used in the past. If these structures were already

“ancient” in the early fourth century, some of them could very well have dated back to Apostolic times.

Indeed, it would be a mistake to think that the early Christians worshipped exclusively in catacombs. In

fact, the book of Acts and the Epistles of Saint Paul record that the first Christians gathered in homes.i^l

Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) and Tertullian (d. 220) referto physical buildings used for worship in their own time.Hll And the oldest surviving Christian church, the house of Dura-Europos in Syria, has

been dated to A.D. 233. It contained a small baptistry and rich iconographic murals. As for the "altar” (θυσιαστήριον), references to it occur in Saint PauW (d. 64) and in Saint Ignatius

of Antioch^ (d. 110). Elsewhere in his writings, Dionysius calls the altar “the holy of holies” and de­

scribes it as being separated from the main body of the church by “gates."U21 This architecture recalls

that of the ancient Temple in Jerusalem, which had a Holy of Holies separated from the sanctuary by a curtain.^il physical remnants of an altar were discovered at Dura-Europos.

The use of incense likewise goes back to Jewish worship: in the book of Psalms, David says, “Let my prayer be set forth in Thy sight as incense, and let the lifting up of my hands be an evening sacrifice.”^

The Gospel of Luke records that the priests of the Temple would burn incense/5-^ and the Revelation of Saint John speaks of angels offering up incense to God in golden censers.Ml Therefore, there is noth­

ing in Dionysius’ physical description of Christian worship which is incongruous with a first-century

setting.

b) Baptism Dionysius also discusses the rite of baptism in some detail. He speaks of the candidate for baptism confessing his sins before the ceremony,Ml the priest blessing the water of the font with the sign of the

cross,Ml the presence of sponsors (godparents),Ml the renunciation of Satan,Ml triple immersion,Ml and the baptism of children.Ml Confession is attested as of the first century:

Saint James of Jerusalem (1st century): Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous

man availeth much.MJ Didache of the Apostles (1st century): But every Lord's Day gather yourselves together,

and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.Ml Epistle of Barnabas (c. 70-13 2): Thou shalt confess thy sins. Thou shalt not betake

thyself to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light.Ml

Tertullian refers to the sign of the Cross in his writings,Ml and Saint Basil (330-379) says it was an unwritten tradition handed down from the Apostles.Ml The presence of sponsors and the renuncia­

tion of Satan is found in the early third-century Apostolic Tradition,^ and Saint Augustine confirms

that exorcism before baptism antedated the heresy of the Manichaeans (c. 2 50).MJ Triple immersion is alluded to in the first-century Didache of the Apostles.Ml Saint Cyprian (d. 258) openly speaks of the importance of baptizing children,Ml and Origen (c. 185-25 3) says that the practice was an apostolic

tradition:

The Church has received the tradition from the Apostles to give baptism even to

little children. For they to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries were committed

were aware that in everyone was sin's innate defilement, which needed to be washed away through water and the Spirit.Ml As such, all the elements of Christian baptism described by Dionysius can easily be traced back to the

earliest centuries of Christianity.

c) Holy Unction

The ceremony of Holy Unction is described in detail in the fourth chapter of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Its precedents actually go back to the Old Testament. The book of Exodus says that the Lord instructed Moses to anoint his priests with "a holy anointing oil”£ll made of various fragrant substances, a prac­ tice that was to be preserved "throughout [the] generations."!^ in the Book of Kings, it is recorded that after the prophet Samuel anointed David with oil, "the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that

day forward.”M. In the Christian era, the earliest reference to holy unction outside of Dionysius comes

from his contemporary Saint Ignatius of Antioch: in his Epistle to the Ephesians, the latter says that

Christ allowed Himself to be anointed with oil "that He might breathe immortality into His Church.”^ Saint Theophilus of Antioch (d. 185) explains that Christians derive their name from being "chrismated with the oil of God.”££ Unction is also referred to by Tertullian,M Saint Hippolytus of Rome,£21 and Saint Cyprian of Carthage.Ml The latter even specifies that the oil was "sanctified on the altar,"Ml

precisely as Dionysius describes. d) Eucharist

The word "Eucharist” occurs twelve times within the Dionysian corpus. Ml Dionysius speaks of it as the “most divine Eucharist”£Xand the “head of the things done in each [initiation], ministering the collect­

ing of the person initiated to the One, and completing his communion with God, by the Divinely trans­

mitted gift of the perfecting mysteries."Ml This rite is abundantly attested in the early centuries: Saint Paul (1st century): The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?...Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the

Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord...For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.^H Saint Ignatius (d. 110): Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox

in regard to the grace of God which has come to us...They abstain from the Eucharist

and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His

graciousness, raised from the dead.IW

Saint Justin Martyr (c. 100-165): Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices

which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, that is, in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Chris­

tians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him.... For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in

like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the

food which is blessed by the prayer of his word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made

fleshy Saint Irenaeus (c. 130-202): For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist,

consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they re­ ceive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.^!

e) Clerical and Lay Orders Dionysius speaks of the orders of hierarchs (ίεράρχαι), priests (ιερείς), and attendants (λειτουργοί). The hierarchs represent the highest grade in the church, imparting grace to all the lower orders through

teaching and the laying of hands; the priests are responsible for the administration of the sacraments; and the attendants perform various ancillary functions like reading from Scripture, guarding the

doors of the temple, and preparing candidates for baptism.1221 All three of these orders can be found in

Apostolic witnesses. Although the names used in these sources are sometimes different, the functions

assigned to them are substantially the same as we find in Dionysius. The first class, that of hierarchs, appears in the Book of Acts and in the Pauline Epistles where they are variously called "overseers,"isfil "elders,”1211 and “bishops,”1221 and are described as having the power of

ordination.1211 Saint Ignatius of Antioch writes: “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the mul­ titude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without

the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is

also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."l241 The second-century moralizing text known as the Shepherd of Hermas speaks of bishops as the foundation-stones of the Church.l2L As for the laying of hands, it is a well-attested ancient practice referred to in the Old Testa­ ment,!^ the Book of Acts,!221 and the Epistles of Saint Paul.lssi

The word priest (ίερεύς) occurs many times in the New Testament with reference to those who perform

the Temple sacrifices. Saint Paul calls Christ "a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek"!221 and

speaks of himself as “ministering the Gospel of God as a priest” (ίερουργοΰντα).!ΐ£21 Saint Peter calls believers "a royal priesthood’’!^ and the early third-century text Refutation of All Heresies refers to the

Apostles as “high priests.”U£21 In addition, the New Testament employs the term “presbyters” to des­ ignate a special class of men who administer the sacraments. For instance, Saint James writes: "Is any sick among you? Let him call for the presbyters of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing

him with oil in the name of the Lord.”LLHl All these features correspond quite closely with the descrip­

tion of priests one encounters in the Dionysian writings.

A third order that appears in the New Testament, mirroring Dionysius’ rank of "attendants,” is that of

deacons (διάκονοι). In the Book of Acts, the Apostles ordain "seven men of honest report” to minister (διακονεϊν) to the material needs of the congregation.!!^ In his First Epistle to Timothy, Saint Paul says,

"Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy

lucre; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.’’!!^ Saint Justin Martyr (c. 100-165) relates that

deacons were responsible for distributing holy bread and wine to the faithful who were absent from the liturgy.!!^] This ministry is similar to the kinds of tasks that the attendants perform in the Are­

opagitic corpus, namely assisting the priests during the various services.

In addition to the clerical orders, Dionysius mentions certain distinct groups among the laity, namely catechumens, energumens, and penitents. The first are those who live as Christians but are not yet

baptized; the second are individuals possessed by unclean spirits; and the third are baptized Christians who are excluded from the mysteries for having committed various sins.Uozj These three groups also

appear in ancient sources: the verb "to catechize” occurs in Saint Paul;U°21 Saint Justin Martyr describes a special class of people being prepared for baptism by prayer and fasting;U°21 and the Apostolic Tradi­

tion describes the order of catechumens at length-H-lQl As for the energumens, the Book of Acts records that the faithful would bring their possessed before the Apostles to be cured of unclean spirits;UiL the Apostolic Tradition states that such individuals were excluded from hearing the Gospel;UJ21 and the seventeenth canon of the Council of Ancyra (A.D. 314) allots them a special space for prayer.UUJ Finally,

the exclusion of penitents from communion is mentioned by Tertullian,liMl Eusebius,and Saint Basil.Uii]

f) Tonsure When describing the rite of monastic consecration, Dionysius says that the priest

"tonsures” (άποκείρει) the one who wishes to become a monk.UiZl Ritual tonsure occurs in the Old Tes­

tament (where it forms part of the "Nazirite vow")Uni and also in the Book of Acts: “And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head (κειράμενος) in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.”11121

Therefore, there is nothing anachronistic in this reference.

g) Commemoration of the dead

In the final chapter of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Dionysius describes the funeral rites of the faithful. He explains how the prayers of the living can benefit the souls of the deadUio] and says that the names

of the dead are commemorated during the liturgy.UW The surviving evidence indicates that commem­

oration of the dead is a very ancient practice. The Book of Maccabees records that Judas Maccabeus (2nd century B.C.) made a “sin offering” on behalf of his fallen soldiers.Uml jn the Gospel of Luke, Christ

explains that God is called “the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” to show

that the dead are all alive for God.Umi Prayers for the dead during the liturgy are explicitly recorded by Tertullianus (c. 155-220), Saint CyprianUm (c 210-258), and ArnobiusUm (255-330) while Saint

EpiphaniusU^Zl (c. 310-403), Saint John ChrysostomU^J (c. 347-407) and Saint Augustineh^J (354-430) all refer to it as an apostolic tradition. Another interesting element of Dionysius' description of the funeral rites is his reference to the place

where the bodies of the faithful are deposited. “When all have saluted/’ he writes, “the Hierarch pours the oil upon the fallen asleep, and when he has offered the holy prayer for all, he places the body in a worthy chamber with other holy bodies of the same rank.”U-22J This “worthy chamber with other holy bodies” makes us think of the catacombs which were a characteristic feature of Christian burial in the

early centuries. In sum, there is not one ritual or institution found in the Dionysian corpus which does not have an ancient Christian precedent.

III. ANACHRONISTIC REFERENCE TO THE CREED In the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Dionysius provides a description of the liturgy in which he seems to mention the Creed. However, the Creed was only adopted by the Council of Nicaea in 325 and was orig­ inally used as a confession of faith made by catechumens on Holy Friday before being baptized.

Its

recitation during every liturgy was only introduced into the Church rubrics in later centuries, probably for the purpose of combatting heresy. The alleged reference to the Creed by Dionysius would therefore

constitute a blatant anachronism. Since this argument is frequently cited as conclusive “proof” of the spuriousness of the Areopagitic corpus,U12. we shall reproduce the entire relevant passage in order to

examine it more closely: The Hierarch, having completed a reverent prayer near the Divine Altar, starts with

the incensing, and proceeds to every part of the enclosure of the sacred place; he then

returns to the Divine Altar, and begins the sacred chanting of the Psalms, the whole ecclesiastical assembly chanting, with him, the sacred language of the Psalter. Next

follows the reading of the Holy Scriptures by the Attendants. After these readings the Catechumens quit the sacred enclosure, as well as the Possessed, and the Penitents. But those who are deemed worthy of the sight and participation of the Divine Myster­

ies remain.

Of the Attendants, some stand near the closed gates of the sanctuary, whilst others perform some other duty of their own rank. But chosen members of the ministering

Order with the Priests lay the holy Bread and the Cup of Blessing upon the Divine Altar after the universal Hymn of Praise (ύμνολογία) has been professed before­ hand by the whole body of the Church. Added to these, the Divine Hierarch makes

a sacred prayer, and proclaims the holy Peace to all. When all have kissed each other,

the mystical proclamation of the holy tablets is performed.

When the Hierarch and the Priests have washed their hands in water, the Hierarch stands in the midst of the Divine Altar, and the chosen Attendants alone, with the

Priests, stand around. The Hierarch, when he has sung the sacred works of God, min­

isters things most divine, and brings to view the things sung, through the symbols reverently exposed, and when he has shewn the gifts of the works of God, he first proceeds to the sacred participation of the same, and turns and exhorts the others.

When he has received and distributed the supremely Divine Communion, he termi­ nates with a holy thanksgiving.^^ Dionysius then adds some additional details:

When [the Catechumens] have been excluded from the divine temple and the service which is too high for them, the all-holy ministers and loving contemplators of things

all-holy, gazing reverently upon the most pure rite, sing in a universal Hymn of Praise the Author and Giver of all good, from Whom the saving mystic Rites were exhibited to us, which divinely work the sacred deification of those being initiated. Now this Hymn (ύμνον) some indeed call a confession, others, the symbol of worship, but oth­

ers, as I think, more divinely, a Hierarchical Thanksgiving, as giving a summary of

the holy gifts which come to us from God. For it seems to me the record of all the works of God related to have been done for us in song, which, after it had benevolently fixed our being and life, and moulded the Divine likeness in ourselves to beautiful archetypes, and placed us in participation

of a more Divine condition and elevation; but when it beheld the lack of Divine gifts,

which came upon us by our heedlessness, is declared to have called us back to our first condition, by goods restored, and by the complete assumption of what was ours, to have made good the most perfect impartation of His own, and thus to have given to

us a participation in God and Divine things.-^ As anyone can see, nowhere does Dionysius ever mention the Creed. He refers only to a hymn which he

calls the "hymn of praise” (ύμνολογία) and the "hierarchical thanksgiving” (ιεραρχική εύχαριστία).τΐΣ1 Moreover, although in the first passage Dionysius says that this hymn is professed by the “whole body

(πλήρωμα) of the Church,” in the second passage he specifies that it is sung only by "the all-holy min­ isters (ιερουργοί).” As a matter of fact, the word πλήρωμα in ecclesiastical Greek, although it usually

means “congregation,” can also be used to refer exclusively to the clergy.Li^l This is consistent with

Dionysius’ description of it as "hierarchical,” a word he reserves for bishops.

Far from referring to the Creed, Dionysius’ description of this hymn closely corresponds to the "prayer of thanksgiving" found in the various eastern liturgies. In the liturgy included in the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions,U2Z1 which is the earliest complete liturgy we have in existence, this prayer oc­

curs after the dismissal of the catechumens and immediately precedes the holy oblation. It recounts in detail how God created the universe and praises Him for all the blessings He has visited upon His cho­

sen people: It is very meet and right before all things to hymn You, who art the true God, who art

before all beings, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named...And when You made [man], You gave him a law implanted within him; and when You had

brought him into the paradise of pleasure, You allowed him the privilege of enjoying all things, only forbidding the tasting of one tree, in hopes of greater blessings; that in case he would keep that command, he might receive the reward of it, which was

immortality. But when he neglected that command, and tasted of the forbidden fruit,

by the seduction of the serpent and the counsel of his wife, You justly cast him out

of paradise. Yet of Your goodness You did not overlook him, nor allow him to perish utterly, for he was Your creature; but You subjected the whole creation to him, and

granted him liberty to procure himself food by his own sweat and labours, while You caused all the fruits of the earth to spring up, to grow, and to ripen. But when You had laid him asleep for a while, You with an oath called him to a restoration again, loosed

the bond of death, and promise him life after the resurrection.... But after the law of nature, after the exhortations in the positive law, after the

prophetical reproofs and the government of the angels, [Christ] was pleased by Your good will to become man, who was man’s Creator; to be under the laws, who was the Legislator; to be a sacrifice, who was a High Priest; to be a sheep, who was the Shep­

herd. And He appeased You, His God and Father, and reconciled You to the world, and

freed all men from the wrath to come...Being mindful, therefore, of His passion, and

death, and resurrection from the dead, and return into the heavens, and His future second appearing, wherein He is to come with glory and power to judge the quick and the dead, and to recompense to every one according to his works, we offer to You, our

King and our God, according to His constitution, this bread and this cup, giving You thanks, through Him, that You have thought us worthy to stand before You, and to

sacrifice to You.

And we beseech You that You will mercifully look down upon these gifts which are

here set before You...and accept them, to the honour of Your Christ, and send down

upon this sacrifice Your Holy Spirit, the Witness of the Lord Jesus' sufferings, that He may show this bread to be the body of Your Christ, and the cup to be the blood of Your

Christ, that those who are partakers thereof may be strengthened for piety, may ob­ tain the remission of their sins, may be delivered from the devil and his deceit, may be

filled with the Holy Ghost, may be made worthy of Your Christ, and may obtain eter­ nal life upon Your reconciliation to them, O Lord Almighty.UM A similar prayer occurs in the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, a version of the ancient rite followed

in Syria. The prayer occurs in the following context: when the liturgy of the catechumens has ended,

the choir chants, "the mercy of peace, the sacrifice of praise.” Next, the priest exclaims, “let us give thanks to the Lord,” after which he says the following:

It is meet and just to hymn Thee, to bless Thee, to praise Thee, to give thanks to Thee, to worship Thee in every place of Thy dominion. For Thou art God ineffable, and pass­ ing all knowledge, invisible, incomprehensible, ever-living, self-existing; Thou, and

Thine Only-begotten Son, and Thy Holy Spirit. Thou, from nothing, hast brought us forth into being, and when fallen, Thou hast raised us up again, and hast not ceased from doing all that could lead us to heaven, and hast bestowed on us Thy kingdom

which is to come. For all these things we give thanks unto Thee, and to Thine Only-

begotten Son, and Thy Holy Ghost...

Yet offer we unto Thee this reasonable and unbloody worship, and call upon Thee, and beseech, and supplicate Thee; send down Thy Holy Ghost upon us, and upon

these gifts lying before Thee... And make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ, changing them by Thy

Holy Spirit, so that they may be, to those who receive them, for the cleansing of their

soul, for remission of sins, for communion of Thy Holy Spirit, for the fulness of the kingdom of heaven, for confidence in Thee, not for judgment or for condemnation.

The "prayer of thanksgiving” in both liturgies perfectly matches what Dionysius says of his "hierarchi­ cal thanksgiving ”: it speaks of the creation of man, the Fall, the Redemption, and ends with a reference to the Holy Gifts.

IV. MONASTICISM Dionysius refers to the order of monks. However, organized monasticism only appeared in the fourth

century after the time of Saint Anthony the Great. Therefore, the argument goes, the Areopagitic works

must be spurious. Now, if by “organized monasticism,” one means the cenobitic and eremitic life-

stylesU!21 and the elaborate rules of Saint Basil and Saint Benedict, it is absolutely true that these things

developed after the time of Saint Anthony. However, this is not how Dionysius speaks of monasticism in his treatises. For Dionysius, monks (also called ‘Therapeuts' by him, meaning “healers” or “worship­

pers”) are simply laymen who desired to live above the common life, occupying the rank above the cat­ echumens and the faithful, but below that of the deacons:

We affirm then that the multitudes, of whom we have already made mention, who are dismissed from the ministrations and consecrations, are ranks under purifica­

tion.. .And a middle rank is the contemplative, which participates in certain Divine Offices in all purity, according to its capacity, which is assigned to the Priests for its enlightenment...Now the rank, higher than all the initiated, is the sacred Order of the Monks, which, by reason of an entirely purified purification, through com­

plete power and perfect chastity of its own operations, has attained to intellectual contemplation and communion in every ministration which it is lawful for it to contemplate, and is conducted by the most perfecting powers of the Hierarchs, and

taught by their inspired illuminations and hierarchical traditions the ministrations of the Mystic Rites... And do not the Divine Symbols proclaim this, for is not the Holy

of Holies altogether simply separated from all, and the order of the consecrators is in closer proximity to it than the rank of the priests, and following these, that of the Attendants. But the gates of the sanctuary are bounded by the appointed Therapeuts,

within which they are both ordained, and around which they stand, not to guard

them, but for order, and teaching of themselves that they are nearer the people than the priesthood.1Π2]

This picture of monastics living alongside laymen is also what we find in the Life of Saint Anthony:

[Anthony] entrusted his sister to known and faithful virgins, placing her in a convent

to be raised by the virgins. Then he devoted himself to the ascetic life near his home,

taking heed to himself and training himself with patience. For there were not yet many monasteries in Egypt, and no monk knew anything of the distant desert; but

all who wished to give heed to themselves practised asceticism in solitude near their own village. -LW

The events described in this passage occurred during Anthony’s youth, when he was around twenty

years old. Saint Anthony was born in A.D. 251, placing the beginning of his monastic career in the last quarter of the third century. Thus, far from constituting an “anachronism,” Dionysius’ particular de­ scription of the monastic order suggests that his writings must have been written—at the very least—

before the fourth century, at a time when monasticism was still practised alongside laymen and not in the "distant desert.” An even earlier reference to monasticism occurs in the works of the first-century Jewish writer Philo of

Alexandria. In his treatise entitled On the Contemplative Life, Philo refers to a group which, like Diony­ sius, he calls the “Therapeuts.” As described by Philo, the Therapeuts were men and women found

across Egypt and Greece who renounced their possessions and left their families to go serve God in

solitude, taking their abode “outside of walls, or gardens, or solitary lands.” In addition to practicing abstinence, fasting, and prayer, the Therapeuts would retire to individual cells called “monaster­

ies” (μοναστήρια) to engage in solitary contemplation. Every seventh day, both the men and women gathered together in "sacred assemblies” to sing hymns to God and to read the books of Moses and

the prophets which they interpreted allegorically. After this service, they shared a communal meal at

which they ate an "all-holy food” (παναγέστατον σιτίον) consisting of leavened bread and salt. Those among them who were wise in divine things were called “elders” and were honoured above the rest.

They also held all-night vigils and practiced antiphonal chanting.h^l Eusebius believed that Philo’s Therapeuts were none other than the earliest Christian monks.U^l Mod­

ern scholarship disagrees and sees them more as an idiosyncratic Jewish sect similar to the Essenes. Regardless of whether the Therapeuts were Jews or proto-Christians, Philo’s account proves at the very

least that monastic practices existed in the first century.Li^sj Moreover, the word "Therapeut” is a very

rare term.dA^l In fact, the only other author who uses it in the same way as Philo is Saint Dionysius, for whom it is equivalent to the word monks: “Our Divine leaders have deemed them worthy of sacred

appellations, some, indeed, calling them 'Therapeuts,' and others ‘Monks,’ from the pure service and fervid devotion to the true God, and from the undivided and single life, as it were unifying them, in the

sacred enfoldings of things divided into a God-like Monad and God-loving perfection.”!!!?! This agree­ ment between the two authors is actually a strong indication that Saint Dionysius' works were written in the first century.UMl

V. PRECISE THEOLOGY One of the criticisms often levelled by opponents of the Areopagitic works is that the theological vocabulary used by Dionysius is very precise, suggesting that the corpus was written after the time

of the great religious controversies of the fourth century, when much of the theological vocabulary of Christianity was refined. The main example that is cited is Dionysius' use of the term "hypostasis" to

refer to the Persons of the Holy Trinity which, critics argue, only acquired that meaning after the Arian controversy of the early fourth century.U^l Throughout the corpus, Dionysius uses the word "hyposta­

sis” seven times and the word "tri-hypostatic” twice.U^O- [S this indeed an anachronism? As a matter of fact, the word "hypostasis” in the sense of “person” is of ancient date. Origen (d. 253),

in his Commentary on the Gospel ofJohn, writes the following: “We consider, therefore, that there are

three persons (hypostases), the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe

nothing to be uncreated but the Father.”HW clement of Alexandria (d. 215), in a passage explaining why catechumens are only admitted into the Church on the fourth year, offers the following allegori­

cal explanation: “In the fourth year, since there is need of time to him that is being solidly catechized,

the four virtues are consecrated to God, the third alone being already joined to the fourth, the person (hypostasis) of the Lord/’ltiH Philo of Alexandria (d. 50), a contemporary of Saint Dionysius, also uses

"hypostasis" to mean an individual substance.-tsi But what need is there to quote Origen, Clement, and Philo when Saint Paul himself uses the word in exactly the same way as Dionysius to refer to the divine

person of the Father: “Who [Christ] being the brightness of [the Father's] glory, and the express image

of His person (hypostasis), and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."U^

VI. BORROWINGS FROM PROCLUS This is by far the most popular objection to the authenticity of the works of Saint Dionysius. This

particular argument dates back to 1895. In that year, the German Jesuit Joseph Stiglmayr and the classicist Hugo Koch published two articles pointing out similarities between certain passages of Saint

Dionysius' Divine Names and the treatise entitled On the Existence of Evils written by the Neoplatonic philosopher Proclus (412-485).U-^ll They concluded that the author of the Divine Names must have

drawn from Proclus and, therefore, could not have lived in the first century. The table below displays

the main similarities between the two works (additional parallels between Dionysius and Proclus can

be found in Appendix I). The two numbers listed after the passages in Proclus' column refer respec­ tively to the pagination of the 1864 editio princeps-^ of Proclus’ treatiseU-^J and to the page numbers of

its 2003 English translation.^^ Dionysius

Proclus

Long before the difference between the just

In general, the manifest oppositions between

man and his opposite is made manifest

good and evil men exist long before in a

externally, in the very soul itself the vices

hidden way within the souls themselves...

stand altogether apart from the virtues, and

Now, if vices are contrary to virtues, as we

the passions rebel against the reason; and

have said, and evil is in every respect con­

from this we must grant some evil contrary

trary to good—for the nature of the good

to the Good. For the Good is not contrary to

itself is not so constituted as to be in discord

Itself, but as the product from one Source

with itself, but being an offspring of one

and one Cause, It rejoices in fellowship and

cause and one henad.ltl^l it maintains a

unity and friendship. Nor yet is the lesser

relation of likeness, unity, and friendship

good opposed to the greater, for neither is

with itself.. .it is absolutely necessary that

the less heat or cold opposed to the greater.

the vices be...really evil and not just some­

(Divine Names 4.19)

thing less good. For the lesser good is not

contrary to the greater good, just as the less

hot is not contrary to the more hot nor the less cold to the more cold. (201/60)

For we also say, that the air around us be­

For the sun nothing is dark, for even to

comes dark by failure and absence of light,

darkness it imparts a weak clarity; for the air,

and yet the light itself is always light, that

however, darkness is a privation of the light

which enlightens even the darkness. (4.24)

that exists in it. (208/65)

Whilst privation of good is partial, it is not,

For the presence of privation does not yet

as yet, an evil; and when it has become an

entail that there is evil, whereas total priva­

accomplished fact, the nature of the evil has

tion implies that the evil nature has disap­

departed also. (4.29)

peared. (239/86)

The Good will be beginning and end of all,

Evils, then, do not have a principal cause for

even things evil, for, for the sake of the Good

their generation, a so-called efficient cause...

are all things, both those that are good, and

nor do evils attain the final goal, for the sake

those that are contrary...Wherefore the Evil

of which everything that comes about ex­

has not a subsistence, but a parasitical sub­

ists. Therefore it is appropriate to call such

sistence (parhypostasis), coming into being

generation a parhypostasis. (254/95)

for the sake of the Good, and not of itself.

(4.31) Not all things are evil to all, nor the same

There are three things in which evil exists,

things evil in every respect. To a demon, evil

namely the particular soul, the image of the

is to be contrary to the good-like mind; to a

soul, and the body of individual beings.. .Evil

soul, to be contrary to reason; to a body, to be

for the first is being contrary to intellect; for

contrary to nature. (4.32)

the second it is being contrary to reason... and for the third it is being contrary to na­ ture. (259/99)

Clearly, one text drew from the other. The question is, which one? Stiglmayr and Koch contended that Proclus had to be the original for three reasons:U6o] (1) the discussion of evil in Dionysius reflects the

doctrinal controversies on the nature of evil within the Platonic tradition, in particular the teaching of Proclus’ master Syrianus; (2) the use of the term parhypostasis to describe evil’s dependence on the

Good is specific to Proclus; (3) Dionysius’ text looks like a summary of Proclus’ arguments: where Pro­

clus offers elaborate reasoning and discussion, Dionysius merely states conclusions. We will address each of these arguments in detail. First of all, the alleged “Platonism" of Dionysius has been greatly overstated. In fact, all of the central

philosophical claims that Dionysius makes about evil in the Divine Names can be found, without excep­ tion, in Christian writings of the first four centuries.

Claim 1: Evil cannot come from the Good Dionysius believes that Good is metaphysically incapable of producing evil: “The Evil is not from the

Good, and if it is from the Good, it is not the Evil. For it is not the nature of fire to make cold, nor of Good to bring into being things not good/’U^U This principle is stated quite plainly in the Gospel:

"Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree can­ not bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.Athenagoras of Athens

writes that "virtue is opposed by its very nature to vice and...contraries war against one another by a divine law,"LUU while Clement of Alexandria even employs the same metaphor involving heat that Dionysius does: “As the nature of the beneficent is to do good, as it is of the fire to warm, and the light to

give light, and a good man will not do evil, or light produce darkness, or fire cold; so, again, vice cannot do anything virtuous."UMI Finally, Origen states: "If a bad nature cannot do good, neither can a good

nature do evil.”Ufi5J

Claim 2: Evil is not an end in itself One of the arguments that Dionysius uses to prove that evil cannot have an independent existence is

the fact that no one does evil for evil's sake. As he says, “if the things existing desire the Beautiful and Good, and whatever they do, they do for the sake of that which seems good...how shall the Evil be in things existing? "UM] Although the idea that evil is involuntary was expressed in Plato's Meno, one

finds it in ancient Christian literature as well. For example, Clement of Alexandria writes that "no one

prefers evil as evil, but induced by the pleasure that is in it, and imagining it good, considers it desir-

able.”:167· Origen claimed that “whoever sins entertains wrong beliefs,"UMI and Gregory of Nyssa (d.

395) writes: “Since all humans have a natural inclination towards the Good and every choice is directed towards It as the aim of all of Efe's endeavours, the inability to evaluate what is truly good is usually

the cause of most errors; for if what is truly good was manifest to all, we would not fail to attain it on account of its nature being Goodness; and we would not voluntarily experience evil unless things were

not coloured with a false appearance of the Good.”UMI Claim 3: Evil is a privation of the Good

Dionysius claims that evil things are simply a privation or perversion of what is good: “The Evil, insofar as it is evil, makes no single essence or birth, but only, as far as it can, pollutes and destroys the subsis­

tence of things existing.”U2SJ This idea was also expressed by Christian authors many centuries before Proclus:

Origen (c. 185-253): To depart from good is nothing else than to be made bad. For it is certain that to lack goodness is to be evil...Now some have held that since evil is

not based in the constitution of things (for it did not exist at the beginning and at the end it will have ceased), the evils of which we spoke are the Nothing...All, then,

who have part in Him who is (and the saints have part in Him), may properly be called beings; but those who have given up their part in the Being, by depriving themselves of Being, have become not-beings.UZU

Novatian (c. 200-258): If "every thing was very good" [Genesis 1:31], consequently, and reasonably, both those things which were ordained have proved that He that or­

dained them is good, and those things which are the work of a good Ordainer cannot be other than good; wherefore every evil is a departure from God.U72j Saint Methodius of Olympus (died c. 311): Murder is not a substance, nor is any other

evil; but the substance receives a cognate name from putting it into practice. For a man is not murder, but by committing it he receives the derived name of murderer,

without being himself murder; and, to speak concisely, no other evil is a substance; but by practising any evil, it can be called evil...There is nothing evil by nature, but

it is by use that evil things become such...And man after his creation receives a com­ mandment from God; and from this at once rises evil, for he does not obey the divine

command; and this alone is evil, namely disobedience, which had a beginning. LZ21 Adamantius (c. 300): 1 hold that Good exists as essential Being, and that evil is an accident... Evil does not arise as part of the nature, essence, or substance of being, but

by means of free will.LlZU Saint Basil (330-379): Do not consider God the cause of the existence of evil, nor imagine that evil has its own hypostasis...For evil is a privation of the Good...It

does not have its own existence...nor indeed was it created...nor was it made along­ side what is good.LLZH Saint Gregory of Nyssa (c. 3 3 5 -39 5): Evil is opposed to the Good as Non-Being is distinguished from Being. We avoid the Good by our free will just like persons see

darkness who are not in the light. Then evil’s insubstantial nature lays hold of those who deviate from the Good and continues to have existence as long as they remain outside the Good. If our free will once again dissociates itself from insubstantiality

and is united to Being, it no longer exists in me. For evil cannot exist apart from the free

Saint Augustine (354-430): For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good?...Therefore, so long as a being is in process of corruption, there is in it some

good of which it is being deprived; But if it should be thoroughly and completely con­ sumed by corruption, there will then be no good left, because there will be no being. Wherefore corruption can consume the good only by consuming the being.iizzi

Saint Prosper of Aquitaine (c. 390-455): Since the good God made all things good, and evil has no nature of its own at all, it is from free wills that a willful transgression

arose; yet it was good that these wills were created free.d^si

Claim 4: Matter is not evil

Dionysius objects particularly strongly to the pagan idea that matter is evil. The first argument he makes in this regard is that matter is “impassive"!^ and so is unable to produce anything by itself.

One encounters this idea in the writings of Theophilus of Antioch (d. 185), Saint Irenaeus of Lyons (c.

130-202), and even in the Stoic Marcus Aurelius (121-180): Theophilus: For if chaos existed in the beginning, and matter of some sort, being

uncreated, was previously existing, who was it that effected the change on its condi­ tion, and gave it a different order and shape? Did matter itself alter its own form and arrange itself into a world...or was there some ruling power which made it; I mean,

of course, God, who also fashioned it into a world?U£21

Irenaeus: But what sort of talk also is this concerning their seed... shapeless, without form, and imperfect...How can it be regarded as other than ridiculous to affirm

that...[the] seed in this same matter grows and acquires form?...For the body is not possessed of greater power than the soul, since indeed the former is inspired, and viv­

ified, and increased, and held together by the latter; but the soul possesses and rules over the body...For the body may be compared to an instrument, but the soul is pos­

sessed of the reason of an artist.U^U Marcus Aurelius: The matter itself, of which the universe consists, is of itself very tractable and pliable. That rational essence that governs it has in itself no cause to do

evil. It has no evil in itself; neither can it do anything that is evil: neither can anything

be hurt by it.hs^l Next, Dionysius employs a reductio ad absurdum)·^ to prove that matter cannot be evil. For if matter

were evil, it would have to originate either from a good principle or an evil one. The first option is im­

possible (since good cannot produce evil), so evil matter would have to originate from an evil principle. But if there is such a thing as an evil principle, and evil cannot come from the Good, then this evil prin­ ciple would have to be coeternal with the Good, which is absurd.U£41 Therefore, matter cannot be evil. This exact argument is found in the writings of Tertullian and Saint Basil:

Tertullian (c. 155-220): Now if both [good and evil] should prove to belong to God,

God evidently will be the author of evil; but God, as being good, cannot be the Author of evil.. .But if both one and the other should be thought to belong to both

together, then in this case also Matter will be comparable with God; and both will be

equal, being on equal terms allied to evil as well as to good. Matter, however, ought

not to be compared with God, in order that it may not make two gods.U^J

Saint Basil (330-379): Thus, the “deep" is not a multitude of hostile powers, as has

been imagined; nor "darkness” an evil sovereign force in enmity with good. In reality two rival principles of equal power, if engaged without ceasing in a war of mutual

attacks, will end in self destruction.. .It is equally impious to say that evil has its origin from God; because the contrary cannot proceed from its contrary. Life does

not engender death; darkness is not the origin of light; sickness is not the maker of

health.

Finally, Dionysius argues that matter in itself is not the cause of evil because many souls have the power to aspire towards the Good despite their earthly inclinations; therefore, the power to do evil

must lie in the soul and not in matter.Usz] a very similar point is made by Clement of Alexandria:

But should any one suppose the cause of evils to be the weakness of matter, and the involuntary impulses of ignorance, and (in his stupidity) irrational necessities; he who has become a Gnostic has through instruction superiority over these, as if

they were wild beasts; and in imitation of the divine plan, he does good to such as are willing, as far as he can.UMl Claim 5: Evil is due to weakness of will

Dionysius defines evil as “lack of strength and lack of power, and defect, either of the knowledge, or the

never to be forgotten knowledge, or of the faith, or of the aspiration, or of the energy of the Good.”UMl Nevertheless, he believes that this weakness is not pardonable, since all men are granted the power by God to perform the Good.T221 Once again, this idea has a long Christian pedigree:

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165): We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be

true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered accord­ ing to the merit of each man’s actions.. .for neither would [man] be worthy of reward

or praise did he not of himself choose the Good, but were created for this end; nor, if

he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.U^L Theophilus of Antioch (d. 185): But as when a law has commanded abstinence from

anything, and some one has not obeyed, it is obviously not the law which causes punishment, but the disobedience and transgression; for a father sometimes en­

joins on his own child abstinence from certain things, and when he does not obey the

paternal order, he is flogged and punished on account of the disobedience; and in this

case the actions themselves are not the cause of stripes, but the disobedience procures punishment for him who disobeys. So also for the first man, disobedience procured

his expulsion from Paradise. Not, therefore, as if there were any evil in the tree of knowledge; but from his disobedience did man draw, as from a fountain, labour, pain,

grief, and at last fall a prey to death.irazi Athenagoras of Athens (c. 133-190): Just as with men, who have freedom of choice as

to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honour the good or punish the bad, unless vice and virtue were in their own power; and some are diligent in the mat­

ters entrusted to them by you, and others faithless), so is it among the angels.hail

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202): In man as well as in angels, [God] has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded

obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by

themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the Good and shall receive appropriate punishment: for God

did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-emi­ nent goodness.Li24i

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215): So in no respect is God the author of evil. But since free choice and inclination originate sins, and a mistaken judgment sometimes

prevails, from which, since it is ignorance and stupidity, we do not take pains to re­

cede, punishments are rightly inflicted. For to take fever is involuntary; but when one takes fever through his own fault, from excess, we blame him.U2il

Tertullian (c. 155-220): For a law would not be imposed upon one who had it not in his power to render that obedience which is due to law; nor again, would the penalty

of death be threatened against sin if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in

the liberty of his will. So in the Creator’s subsequent laws also you will find, when He sets before man Good and Evil, Life and Death, that the entire course of discipline is

arranged in precepts by God's calling men from sin, and threatening and exhorting

them; and this on no other ground than that man is free, with a will either for obe­ dience or resistance.· Ι2ή!

The parallels speak for themselves. If we were to follow the logic of our critics, we would have to

conclude that Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Marcus Aurelius, Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, Methodius, Adamantius, Basil, Gregory, Augustine, Prosper, and the Bible itself all derived their notion of evil from ProclusiU-^zj

Contrary to the Christians, the Platonists typically conceived of evil not as a privation, but as a sub­

stance in its own right. Plutarch (c. 46-119) believed that there were “two natures” in the world, one which he termed “reason,” which was “perfected and complete;” and another, identified with matter, which he called the “destructive force” and held responsible for all the evils and calamities in the

world.h^U Numenius (2nd century) claimed there were "two world souls, one thoroughly benevolent,

the other, i.e. matter, evil.”11221 The influential teacher Atticus (fl. c. 175) said that “unordered matter"

possessed a "maleficent soul.”l^oi Finally, the greatest Neoplatonist of all, Plotinus (c. 204-270), de­ fended the position that evil was not a privation of the Good, but a kind of substantial "Non-Being":

"Evil is not in any and every lack; it is in absolute lack. What falls in some degree short of the Good is not Evil; considered in its own kind it might even be perfect, but where there is utter lack, there we

have Essential Evil, void of all share in Good; this is the case with Matter. Matter has not even existence

whereby to have some part in Good: Being is attributed to it by an accident of words: the truth would be

that it has Non-Being "lifill Thus, it is not Saint Dionysius who can be accused of adopting a Platonic doctrine, but rather Proclus

who broke with his native tradition and followed a Christian one. In fact, if we set aside Syrianus, to whom we shall turn our attention presently, the only Platonist other than Proclus who believed that evil was

a privation was Porphyry (c. 234-3O5).!2£21 interestingly, Porphyry also modified some other important tenets of Platonism: he rejected the reincarnation of human souls into animals;U211 he believed that

human beings could free themselves from the cycle of reincarnation;!^ and he claimed that matter was generated, not ungenerated like God.L2SU These differences prompted the astute Augustine to suspect that he had been influenced by Christianity: “Porphyry, Platonist though he was, abjured the

opinion of his school, that in these cycles souls are ceaselessly passing away and returning, either being struck with the extravagance of the idea, or sobered by his knowledge of Christianity"!2££l Porphyry’s debates with Christians are well attested, so it is not unreasonable to suppose that he was influenced by

the Christian metaphysical system.

Let us turn now to the doctrine of evil found in Syrianus (died c. 437), which is preserved in a fragment

within Proclus' own commentary on the Timaeus. When commenting on the Platonic verse "For God desired that, so far as possible, all things should be good and nothing evil,"1^21 Proclus refers to the

opinion of his "Master." The heart of the passage is as follows: The relation of the whole towards the parts is different from the parts towards each

other. For God, there is no evil, not even of the things that are said to be evil; for as

to these things, God puts them to a good use. For the particular beings, which are of such a nature as to suffer from it, there is such a thing, as the same thing may be evil for a part, but for the whole and in wholes, it is not evil, but good. For in so far as it is a being and participates in a certain order, it is good. For this thing said to be evil, if you

assume it is void of all good, you conceive it as beyond even absolute not-being.-2°8j We can condense this passage into four distinct claims: (i) there is no evil in nature as a whole; (ii) God uses particular evils to achieve good ends; (iii) what is evil for one nature might not be evil for another;

(iv) insofar as anything exists, it is good. In truth, Syrianus’ views are really not that revolutionary.

They can even be reconciled with Plotinus without much difficulty. For Plotinus held that matter as matter is pure evil. However, pure matter does not exist in the cosmos. Accordingly, everything that ex­

ists to some extent participates in the Good, just like Syrianus says. We need not assume that Syrianus went so far as to say that evil itself was a privation of the Good like Proclus did.U^l jn any case, here are

the parallel passages in Dionysius and Proclus where the four points appear: Dionysius

Proclus

(i) But neither is the Evil in nature through­

(i) For nature as a whole nothing is contrary

out, for if all the methods of nature are from

to nature, since all reasons derive from it.

universal nature, there is nothing contrary

(226/77)

to it. {Divine Names 4.26)

(ii) Providence, as befits Its goodness, uses

(ii) Now all such things have in many ways

even evils which happen for the benefit, ei­

good effects. For they happen for the pun­

ther individual or general, of themselves or

ishment of other beings, and the action per­

others, and suitably provides for each being.

forms what is deserved. (262/101)

(4.33) (iii) But in each individual nature one thing

(iii) But for particularized nature, one thing

will be according to nature, and another

will be in accordance and another not in

not according to nature. For one thing is

accordance with nature. Indeed, for each par­

contrary to nature in one, and another in an­

ticular nature something else will be contrary

other, and that which is according to nature

to its nature. (226/77)

to one, is to the other, contrary to nature.

(4.26) (iv) All things which are, in so far as they are,

(iv) It is impossible, however, for a privation

both are good, and from the Good; but, in so

to exist in its own right, nor can privation

far as they are deprived of the Good, are nei­

ever be totally detached from the nature of

ther good, nor do they exist. (4.20)

which it is privation. (205/63)

For Stiglmayr and Koch’s thesis to hold, one would have to demonstrate that all four claims are specific to Syrianus. But this is impossible. Claims (i) and (ii) can be found across many writers in antiquity

going back to the first century (namely Philo of Alexandria, Marcus Aurelius, and Clement of Alexan­ dria), and claims (iii) and (iv) are present in an identical form in one of Syrianus’ Christian contempo­ raries, Saint Augustine:

Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 B.C. to A.D. 50): God causes the violent storms of wind and

rain which we see, not for the injury of those who traverse the sea, as you fancied, or of those who till the earth, but for the general benefit of the whole of the human

race, for with his water he cleanses the earth, and with his breezes he purifies all the

regions beneath the moon, and by the united influence of both he nourishes and promotes the growth and brings to perfection both animals and plants. And if at times these things do injure those who put to sea or who till the land at unseasonable

moments, it is not to be wondered at, for these men are but a small portion of the human race, and the care of God is exerted for the benefit of all mankindJ2i£l

Marcus Aurelius (121-180): Nothing that is according to nature can be evil... As we

say commonly, “The physician has prescribed unto this man, riding; unto another,

cold baths; unto a third, to go barefoot;” so it is alike to say, “The nature of the uni­

verse has prescribed unto this man sickness, or blindness, or some loss, or damage or some such thing”...Accept then, and be pleased with whatsoever happens, though

otherwise harsh and un-pleasing, as tending to that end, to the health and welfare of the universe, and to Jove’s happiness and prosperity. For this whatsoever it be,

should not have been produced, had it not conduced to the good of the universe.UW

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215): And, on the other hand, He is in no respect what­ ever the cause of evil. For all things are arranged with a view to the salvation of the Universe by the Lord of the universe, both generally and particularly... Consequently,

therefore, though disease, and accident, and what is most terrible of all, death, come

upon the Gnostic, he remains inflexible in soul, knowing that all such things are a necessity of creation, and that, also by the power of God, they become the medicine

of salvation, benefiting by discipline those who are difficult to reform; allotted ac­ cording to desert, by Providence, which is truly good.Ui2j

Augustine (354-430): We find that all bodies have their particular wants, according to which food is either agreeable or offensive...In human beings we find that one de­

sires food which another dislikes, from a difference in constitution or habit or state of health. Still more, animals of quite different make can find pleasure in food which is

disagreeable to us. Why else should the goats feed so eagerly on the wild olives? This food is sweet to them, as in some sicknesses honey tastes bitter to us... So if a hawk eat

the bread which is our daily food, it dies; and we die if we eat hellebore, which cattle

often feed on, and which may itself in a certain form be used as medicine...For if... poison were evil in itself, the scorpion itself would suffer first and most. In fact, if the poison were quite taken from the animal, it would die. So for its body it is evil to lose what is evil for our body to receive.. .All such things, as far as they exist, must have

their existence from the most high God, for as far as they exist they are good.l2JLU Consequently, to maintain that Dionysius’ formulation of the problem of evil is specifically indebted to Syrianus via Proclus is patently false. The truth is that any writer who believes in the Providence of God

is bound to accept some variation of the four claims listed above. Accordingly, Stiglmayr and Koch’s

first argument as to why Dionysius must have copied from Proclus is completely unconvincing. If any­

thing, the intellectual dependence seems to be in the other direction. Next, Stiglmayr and Koch contend that the doctrine of evil as a parhypostasis is specific to Proclus. And yet, Saint Gregory of Nyssa and his brother Saint Basil, several decades before Proclus was even born,

employ this very term:

Because darkness has no substance while light does...this example shows that Evil

does not exist by itself but is (paryphistatai) a deprivation of the Good, while the Good always remains fully itself and is not preceded by deprivation. However, anything contrary to the Good lacks substance; it cannot exist by itself nor be complete because Evil is a deprivation, not a substance.Ui4j

And in this way is brought about the genesis of Evil, arising (paryphistamene)

through the withdrawal of that which is Beautiful and Good.Uisi

Thus, according to [the heretics'] view, before the Son came into being, neither had truth come into being, nor the intelligible Light, nor the fount of life, nor, generally,

the nature of anything that is excellent and good. Now, concurrently with the exclu­ sion of each of these, there is found to subsist (paryphistatai) the opposite concep­

tion: and if light was not, it cannot be denied that darkness was; and so with the rest —in place of each of these more excellent conceptions it is clearly impossible that its

opposite did not exist in place of that which was lacking.-^] But whatever evil has come to subsist (parypeste) outside the Good by the very

withdrawal of the latter, flows together with this vain life like lees and dregs, and by it

is humanity contaminated, being prevented by such darkness from beholding the di­ vine light of truth.l^W Among those who have imagined that the world co-existed with God from all eter­

nity, many have denied that it was created by God, but say that it exists (parypostenai) spontaneously, as the shadow of this power.l^W

Three things are, indeed, needed to form a shadow: light, a body, a dark place. The shadow of heaven constitutes (parypeste) the darkness of the world.UW The Italian philologist Eugenio Corsini also acknowledges the weakness of Stiglmayr and Koch's parhypostasis argument, citing the fact that "both the term and the concept" occur in earlier patristic literature.!^!

Let us move on to the third argument, which is that Dionysius’ text reads like a paraphrase of Proclus. Once again, the claim is simply untrue. In several instances, Proclus’ treatment of certain topics is

drastically shorter than Dionysius’. For example, we may cite the following passage in which Dionysius explains how vices are simply a perversion of the Good:

Dionysius

Proclus

Now, this is the exceeding greatness of the

Privation derives its power from [the] nature

power of the Good, that It empowers, both

[of which it is a privation] through its being

things deprived, and the deprivation of It­

interwoven with it, and only thus can it

self, with a view to the entire participation

establish itself as something contrary to

of itself. And, if one must make bold to speak

the good...Indeed, there is no form of life so

the truth, even the things fighting against It,

bad that the power of reason is completely

both are, and are able to fight, by Its power...

extinguished. Some reason remains inside,

For example, the licentious man, even if he

expressing itself feebly; though surrounded

have been deprived of the Good, as regards

by all kinds of passions, understanding never

his irrational lust, in this respect he neither

leaves the upper part of the soul. (205/63)

is, nor desires realities, but nevertheless he

participates in the Good, in his very obscure echo of union and friendship. And, even Anger participates in the Good, by the very

movement and desire to direct and turn the seeming evils to the seeming good. And the very man who desires the very worst life, as

wholly desirous of life and that which seems best to him, by the very fact of desiring,

and desiring life, and looking to a best life,

participates in the Good. And, if you should

entirely take away the Good, there will be

neither essence, nor life, nor yearning, nor movement, nor anything else. (4.20) Dionysius begins by saying that the Good empowers contrary things “with a view to the participation

of Itself." This echoes similar sentiments he makes in his other treatises about the nature of hierarchy,

whose purpose is "the assimilation and union, as far as attainable, with God”U2ii and the “elevat[ion of]

the inferior towards things in advance."Uzzi This idea that God strives to draw inferior things towards

Himself is conspicuously absent from Proclus' text. Next, Dionysius gives various examples of how vice is simply a debased form of virtue: lust is a perversion of friendship, anger a perversion of righteous

zeal, and profligacy a perversion of desire. Origen makes a very similar point in his Commentary on the Song of Songs, where he says that vice is a perversion of the divine love of God away from its proper ob­ ject: when this love is turned towards money it becomes avarice; when it is turned towards glory it be­

comes vainglory; when it is turned towards the flesh it becomes lewdness, and so forth.l^ Once again, this whole discussion is absent from Proclus, who simply says that the soul retains some goodness even when "surrounded by all kinds of passions.” The verve and insight of Dionysius’ text is completely

drained, and the connection with the initial statement is obscured.

A similar pattern is evident in Proclus’ account of demons. We have numbered the various arguments

with Roman numerals to make the comparison between both texts easier: Dionysius

Proclus

(i) But, neither are the demons evil by

(i) The demons that you hold to be evil, are

nature; for, if they are evil by nature, neither

they evil in themselves, or are they not evil

are they from the Good, nor amongst things

in themselves but only (iii) for others? For

existing; nor, in fact, did they change from

if they were evil in themselves, a dilemma

good, being by nature, and always, evil, (ii)

would arise: either they remain in evil per­

Then, are they evil to themselves or (iii) to

petually, or they are susceptible to change.

others? If to themselves, they also destroy

(v) And if they are always evil, how can that

themselves; but if to others, how destroying,

which receives its existence from the gods

or what destroying? Essence, or power, or en­

be always evil? For not to be at all is better

ergy? (iv) If indeed Essence, in the first place,

than always to be evil, (vi) On the other

it is not contrary to nature; for they do not

hand, if they change, they do not belong

destroy things indestructible by nature, but

to the beings that are demons in essence,

things receptive of destruction. Then, neither

but to beings that are such by relation: for

is this an evil for every one, and in every case;

the latter may be both better or worse, and

but, not even any existing thing is destroyed,

that is another kind of life. Demons, how­

in so far as it is essence and nature, but by

ever, without exception, always fulfil the

the defect of nature's order, the principle of

function of demons, and every single one

harmony and proportion lacks the power to

of them always remains in its own rank.

remain as it was. But the lack of strength is

(214-215/69-70)

not complete, for the complete lack of power takes away even the disease and the subject;

and such a disease will be even a destruction

of itself; so that, such a thing is not an evil, but a defective good, for that which has no part of the Good will not be amongst things

which exist. And with regard to the destruc­

tion of power and energy the principle is the same.

Then, how are the demons, seeing they come into being from God, evil? For the Good

brings forth and sustains good things. Yet they are called evil, some one may say. But

not as they are (for they are from the Good, and obtained a good being), but, as they are

not, by not having had strength, as the Ora­

cles affirm, "to keep their first estate." (Jude 1:6) For in what, tell me, do we affirm that the demons become evil, except in the ceasing

in the habit and energy for good things Di­ vine? (v) Otherwise, if the demons are evil by

nature, they are always evil; yet evil is unsta-

ble. Therefore, if they are always in the same

condition, they are not evil; for to be ever the

same is a characteristic of the Good, (vi) But, if they are not always evil, they are not evil

by nature, but by wavering from the angelic

good qualities. (4.23) As anyone can see, Dionysius’ argumentation is much more elaborate and complete than Proclus'.

Dionysius begins by asking: (i) whether demons are evil by nature. He then follows this up with an­

other series of questions: provided that demons are not evil by nature, (ii) are they evil to themselves or (iii) are they evil to others? Point (iii) is then broken down into yet another distinction: (iv) either demons destroy the essence of a thing, or they destroy its energy. Points (ii) and (iv) are entirely omit­

ted by Proclus. Dionysius then offers a dilemma: either (v) demons are always evil or (vi) they are not always evil. Dionysius rules out claim (v) and therefore concludes that proposition (vi) must be correct. But if

demons are not always evil, there must have been a time when they were good, which precisely proves

his argument that evil is a privation. Proclus also rejects proposition (v). In this he sides with Diony­

sius against the Platonic tradition.12241 But it is impossible for him to accept proposition (vi), since that would entail admitting that the demons that are part of his cosmology are in fact evil, albeit acciden­ tally. Consequently, he reformulates the proposition: instead of saying that demons "are not always

evil," he says that demons are subject to "change.” By so doing, however, Proclus destroys the original

parallelism that was present in Dionysius' text. Proclus concludes by rejecting his newly-formulated premise (vi), claiming that demons would not be demons if they changed; therefore, they must always

be good. Overall, Proclus’ account strikes the reader as an abbreviation and adaptation of Dionysius' text. In particular, Proclus appears to go out of his way in the last sentence to explicitly contradict Dionysius: his claim that "every single [demon] always remains in its own rank" seems to be a direct re­

sponse to the Scriptural verse which Dionysius’ cites: "they kept not their own estate." In another passage, this time in his commentary on Plato’s First Alcibiades, Proclus quotes Dionysius almost word-for word when discussing whether the gods are capable of feeling love:

Dionysius

Proclus

By all things, then, the Beautiful and

Therefore, the gods also love the gods: the

Good is desired and beloved and cher­

senior love the inferior, but considerately

ished; and, by reason of It, and for the

(προνοητικώς); and the inferior love the se­

sake of It, the less love the greater sup-

nior, but suppliantly (έπιστρεπτικώς). (On

pliantly (έπιστρεπτικώς); and those of

First Alcibiades, 11.15 3)

the same rank, their fellows brotherly; and the greater, the less considerately (προνοητικώς). (4.10)

Dionysius envisions a three-fold hierarchy of love comprising lower, middle, and higher ranks of beings

(whether angels or men), in line with the other three-fold structures that appear across his treatises. But Proclus simplifies this relationship to just two parties: the senior and the inferior. As we will see below,12251 the idea of the three movements of Love is also found in Origen's Commentary on the Song of

Songs, so one cannot claim that it is a Proclean notion. Rather, it looks very much like Proclus simply ab­

breviated the passage found in Dionysius. To be sure, there are other passages in Dionysius that exist in a longer form in Proclus, but even in these

cases the additions usually consist in quotes from Plato and are not strictly necessary to the flow of

the argument. To illustrate this, let us take a look at the chapter on matter, which is said to contain the heaviest traces of Neoplatonism. Additions in Proclus' text appear in square brackets in the order they occur, while arguments unique to each text are put in italics.

Dionysius (4.28)

Proclus

(i) But neither (a thing which they say over

(i) It is by no means possible that evil belongs to

and over again) is the evil in matter, so far

matter as an accident, because, by itself, mat­

as it is matter. For even it participates in or­

ter is without quality and formless; matter is

nament and beauty and form. But if matter,

a substrate. (229/79)

being without these, by itself is without

quality and without form, how does matter

produce anything—matter, which, by itself,

[Description of the features of matter: unlim­

is impassive?

ited, unmeasured, indeterminate]

(ii) Besides how is matter an evil? For, if it

(ii) But if matter is evil... we must choose

does not exist in any way whatever, it is nei­

between two alternatives: either to make the

ther good nor evil; but if it is any how existing,

Good the cause of evil, or to posit two prin­

and all things existing are from the Good,

ciples of being. ..But that is impossible. For

even it would be from the Good; and either

there cannot be two firsts...If, on the other

the Good is productive of the Evil, or the Evil,

hand, it is a general rule that what is gener­

as being from the Good, is good; or the Evil

ated likes to assimilate itself to its generating

is capable of producing the Good; or even the

principle, even evil itself will be good, having

Good, as from the Evil, is evil; or further,

been made good by participating in its cause.

there are two first principles, and these sus­

Hence the Good, as the cause of evil, would be

pended from another one head.

evil, and evil, as being produced by the good,

would be good. (230-231/80-81) (iii) And, if they say that matter is necessary,

(iii) If, however, matter is necessary to the

for a completion of the whole Cosmos, how

universe, and the world, this absolutely great

is matter an evil? For the Evil is one thing,

and ‘blessed god,’ would not exist in the ab­

and the necessary is another.

sence of matter, how can one still refer the nature of evil to matter? For evil is one thing,

but the necessary is something else. (231/81)

[Quotes about matter from Plato’s Timaeus]

(iv)But, how does He, Who is Good, bring

(iv) How can that which is in need of the good

anything to birth from the Evil? or, how is

still be evil? For evil flies from the nature of

that, which needs the Good, evil? For the

the good, as in general every contrary flies the

Evil shuns the nature of the Good. And how

contrary disposition. If then, matter desires

does matter, being evil, generate and nour­

and conceives generation, and, as Plato says,

ish nature? For the Evil, as evil, neither gen-

nourishes it, no evil will come from it, since

erates, nor nourishes, nor solely produces,

matter is the mother of the beings that pro­

nor preserves anything.

ceed from her, or rather, the beings that are born in her. (232/81) [Quotes about the soul from the Phaedrus]

(v) But, if they should say, that it does not

(v) If souls are drawn by themselves, evil for

make baseness in souls, but that they are

them will consist in an impulse towards the

dragged to it, how will this be true? For

inferior and the desire for it, and not in mat­

many of them look towards the good; and

ter... If, on the other hand, souls are drawn by

yet how did this take place, when matter

matter... where is their self-motion and ability

was dragging them entirely to the Evil? So

to choose? Or how can one explain why among

that the Evil in souls is notfrom matter, but

the souls that are generated in matter, some

from a disordered and discordant movement.

gaze at intellect and good, whereas others gaze at generation and matter, if matter draws all of them alike to itself, troubling

them and doing violence to them even when they are in the upper regions? (233/82) [Lengthy quotes from the Timaeus, Republic,

and Philebus]

(vi) But, if they say this further, that they in­

(vi) If then matter exists for the sake of gen­

variably follow matter, and unstable matter

eration...then we must say...that it is not evil

is necessary for those things that are unable

and.. .that it is necessary for the forms that

to be established by themselves, how is the

are incapable of being established in them­

Evil necessary, or the necessary an evil?

selves. (237-238/84) [Further philosophical discussion demon­ strating that evil cannot exist on its own]

Proclus’ arguments work just as well without the lengthy digressions. In fact, as we saw in the quo­

tations provided at the very beginning of this section, many of the individual arguments about mat­

ter that Proclus makes are found in other ancient writers: argument (i) is present in Marcus Aurelius;

argument (ii) is found in Tertullian and Saint Basil; and argument (v) is in Clement of Alexandria. If

these arguments can so easily be detached from the Proclean context, surely this means that they are not dependent on the latter, as Stiglmayr and Koch pretend. Moreover, even in the parallel passages

themselves, each text contains elements that are absent in the other. So we can just as easily say that Proclus interpolated^^ Dionysius as much as we can argue that Dionysius abbreviated Proclus. Yet one

may still be tempted to ask: how likely is it that Proclus would have interpolated a text in this fashion?

Is it not easier to cut away than to add? We have evidence that Proclus was no stranger to this kind of expansive exegesis.UW Let us take a

look at his commentary on a relatively simple passage from the Timaeus: "But when all the gods, both as many as visibly circle around and as many as only appear to the extent that they are willing, had

come to be, the one who had engendered this universe spoke to them as follows.”U^l Here is Proclus’

commentary:

Taking together all the orders of encosmic gods, both those in heaven and those in charge of generation, and producing them from the demiurgic monad, some singly, some in sevens, and some according to the number nine, Plato causes them to re­

vert again upon their creative cause and assembles them around their one Father...

At present it is abundantly clear that he is referring to the heavenly gods as visibly

circling around; for their vehicles are of a sun-like kind and they imitate the flash of intellectual illumination. But as for appearing to the extent that they are willing, for

what reason does he refer to those beneath the moon?... But if he is saying that they

appear to the extent that they are willing, it is surely necessary that he means either

the shining of the incorporeal powers in them or that of bodies that have been put at their disposal in every way...

Regarding all those gods who direct generation, let us state that they neither have their substance mixed with matter...arranging things mixed without being subject

to admixture, maintaining generated things without being subject to generation and

divided things without being subject to division, the causers of life, the providers of intelligence, the fulfillers of power, the givers of soul, and the initiators of all good

things, taking the lead in order, providence, and best management and positioning

the superior living creatures around themselves, leading angels, ruling demons, positioned before heroes in rank and through this three-natured army directing the

whole of generation...There are among them powers from the hypercosmic gods, whether descending from the twelve leaders or from certain others, and from the

heavenly choruses there proceeds ‘an arrangement engaging in duplication’, as the di­ vine Iamblichus puts it; for he says that from the twenty-one leaders there arise fortytwo leading-roles of generation-working gods for each allocation of an element, and

from the thirty-six decadarchs have processed seventy-two, and other gods likewise, double the number of the heavenly gods, but inferior to them in power.Uiaj Traditionally, the “visible” and "invisible” gods mentioned by Plato were interpreted as the Planets and the Olympians, the former being always visible in the heavens while the latter appeared to mortals only at their pleasure.UaoJ BUt Proclus reinterprets this whole scheme: for him, the “invisible” gods

are the sublunary gods in charge of generation. The "twelve leaders” and "thirty-six decadarchs” he

mentions refer to the various lords of the zodiac segments in Chaldean astrology. In Proclus’ mind, the One emanates Its influence through the hypercosmic gods, who transmit it to the stars and planets,

who then send it to the sublunary realm of the inferior gods governing the world, who themselves act through angels, demons, and heroes. The distinction between "hypercosmic’’ gods (those above the

world) and “encosmic” gods (those within the world) and the inclusion of "angels” and "heroes” is yet another innovation not present in Plato's original cosmology.12311 if Proclus could so wildly interpolate his own theories into Plato’s text, how surprising is it if he did the same to Dionysius?

In addition to the points mentioned above, there are four compelling reasons to suggest that Proclus copied Dionysius and not vice versa.

Firstly, there is the utter incompatibility of Proclus’ thought with Dionysius’ theology: Dionysius be­

lieved that the essence of God is completely transcendent and unparticipated by any created being,U22] whereas Proclus believed that the essence of God is a continuum in which all things participatejUsH

Proclus embraced the pagan doctrine of reincarnation, while Dionysius upheld the Biblical doctrine of the FaH;122£l Proclus believed that demons were good, Dionysius that they were evil. Furthermore,

Dionysius expressly says in his treatise that he rejects any authority that is opposed to Scripture: "If there is anyone who has placed himself entirely in opposition to the Oracles, he will be also entirely apart from our philosophy; and if he has no care for the divine Wisdom of the Oracles, how shall we

care for his guidance in theological science?”l235j How can Dionysius categorically reject pagan philos­

ophy in one chapter and then, only a few chapters later, import whole passages from a pagan thinker? This scenario is all the more unlikely considering the exceptionally poor reputation that Proclus enjoyed among Christians. In the generation immediately following Proclus' death, the Christian

philosopher John Philoponus composed a monumental refutation of Proclus’ arguments in favour of the eternity of the world. In this treatise, Philoponus calls Proclus “blasphemous and exceedingly

impious.”l2Ml Around the same time, Emperor Justinian closed the Academy in Athens on the grounds

that it was promoting the pagan theurgic practices of Iamblichus and Proclus. In the seventh century, George Pisides composed the Hexaemeron, one of the classic works of Byzantine poetry, in direct oppo­ sition to Proclus' cosmology. In the opening verses of the poem, Pisides depicts Proclus as a vain babbler and braggart who foolishly sought to penetrate the mysteries of Creation. The main body of the poem

begins with the following memorable phrase: "Let Proclus be silent and let the farmers speak."U^zj The tenth-century Suidas lexicon writes that Proclus "was the second after Porphyry to wag his unclean and disgraceful tongue against the Christians."Uisj jn the twelfth century, Bishop Nicholas of Methone

undertook to write a long refutation of Proclus' Elements of Theology, a work he likened to the tower of Babel for its impiety.Uaal we ask: how can such an infamous figure, universally loathed among Chris­

tians, be the source of the inspired reflections of the Divine Names? A second reason to suppose that Dionysius' text is the original is that the chapters on evil in the Divine Names are closely integrated within the wider treatise, making it unlikely that they were adapted from an external source.U^Ql Dionysius is in the process of describing the various designations of God.

When he reaches the name of "Love," he quotes his master Hierotheos who defines Love as "a certain

unifying and combining power, moving the superior to forethought for the inferior, and the equals to a mutual fellowship, and lastly, the inferior to respect towards the higher and superior."UAH But this definition prompts a question: if love is a unifying power, how is it that the demons fell away from

God? It is within this very specific context that Dionysius begins his digression on the nature of evil. In fact, the first third of the discussion deals primarily with the fall of demons. Only afterwards does

Dionysius consider whether evil might lie in any other part of creation, such as matter. Throughout all

these chapters, Dionysius quotes from Scripture twiceU^H and even alludes to the doctrine of the divine

hierarchy which he elaborates in his other works.£411 The book ends with Dionysius saying that trans­ gressors of God’s law merit punishment, and he refers the reader to another treatise he has written on this topic.LZMl Taken as a whole, Dionysius’ discussion of evil bears a distinct Christian coloration and

follows the internal logic of his treatise. By contrast, Proclus’ treatise is pretty much a self-standing scholastic exercise.£4i where Dionysius begins by asking how the demons fell away from the Good, Proclus frames the question in abstract philosophical terms: "First we must examine whether evil exists or not; and if it does, whether or not it

exists in intelligible things; and if it exists in the sensible realm, whether it exists through a principal

cause or not; and if not, whether we should attribute any substantial being to it or whether we should

posit its being as completely insubstantial.’’ It would have been far easier for Proclus to simply extract

some points from Dionysius than for Dionysius to integrate Proclus' discussion within his own. A third piece of evidence that indicates that Proclus adapted Dionysius’ text is his use of Christian imagery. We already noted above how Proclus’ phrase "every single [demon] always remains in its own

rank” seems to be a direct echo of Saint Jude’s "they kept not their own estate." We will now offer two more examples. In his chapter on the gods, Proclus writes: "The gods...exist in accordance with the good itself and the

measure of all things; they are nothing else but the henads of beings, their measure and goodness,

their summits, if you like, and as it were the flowers and supersubstantial lights, and everything like that.”£4£l The phrase, "and everything like that” suggests that Proclus is quoting someone. And indeed,

the exact expression "flowers and supersubstantial lights" occurs in Saint Dionysius’ treatise, only with

reference to the Holy Trinity: “That the Father is fontal Deity, but the Lord Jesus and the Spirit are, if one may so speak, God-planted shoots, and as it were Flowers and supersubstantial Lights of the God­

bearing Deity, we have received from the holy Oracles; but how these things are, it is neither possible to

say, nor to conceive.ӣ4Zl

Opsomer and Steel (2003) contend that Proclus is actually citing a lost verse from the Chaldean Oracles

here.1^8] Now, the word “flower" does indeed occur in the Chaldean Oracles,U421 but the adjective “supersubstantial" and its derivatives is entirely absent. By contrast, it appears a startling 117 times in

Dionysius. Moreover, the image of the Son and Holy Spirit as "plants” and "lights” is an ancient Chris­ tian metaphor, attested in writers like Tertullian, Gregory the Theologian, and Synesius of Cyrene (c.

373-414): Tertullian: I should not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the root, and the river of the fountain, and the ray of the sun; because every original

source is a parent, and everything which issues from the origin is an offspring. Much more is this true of the Word of God, who has actually received as His own peculiar

designation the name of Son.i^l Gregory: Should we hear some things said of the Son or the Good Spirit

In the holy Oracles and the God-bearing men,

That they come second after God the Father,

Thus do I wish you to understand the words of profound wisdom:

They refer to the root without beginning and do not cleave The Godhead, that you might have one Power to honour, not many.

From Unity is the Trinity, and from Trinity is there Unity in turn... In Three Lights has One Nature been established.UsU

Synesius:

One fount, one root, A thrice-resplendent form has shone,

For wherever the Paternal depth is, There is also the glorious Son, A child born of His heart.

Wisdom, the architect of the World,

The unifying splendour

Of the Holy Breath has shone forth.

One fount, one root Offered up a wealth of blessings, And a supersubstantial shoot,

Teeming with fruitful movements, Sends forth the wonderful lights Of the blessed Existences.!^

For Proclus, the expression “flowers and supersubstantial lights” seems to serve no real function other

than as a literary embellishment. Dionysius, on the other hand, uses it to make a theological point: fol­ lowing his discussion of the distinctions within God, he employs the imagery of "flowers” to convey the notion that the Persons of the Holy Trinity spring from the same nature. Nor is this the only passage in

which this language occurs. In the Mystical Theology, Dionysius writes:

We celebrated the principal affirmative expressions respecting God: how the Divine and good Nature is spoken of as One, how as Threefold...how from the immaterial and indivisible Good the Lights dwelling in the heart of Goodness sprang forth and remained, in their branching forth (άναβλαστήσει), without departing from the co­

eternal abiding in Himself and in Themselves and in each other.l^iH

Proclus' usage completely lacks the doctrinal context—the Sitz im Lebeni^i—that it has in Dionysius'

text. Accordingly, it is far more likely that he borrowed this particular formula from Dionysius than to posit the reverse. Another example of Christian imagery comes from Proclus’ discussion of demons. Proclus writes: To say [demons] are good in themselves but evil for others in that they lead them to

something worse would be just as if one called some schoolmasters and pedagogues mischievous because, having been appointed to chastise wrongdoings, they do not allow those who make mistakes to have a better position than they deserve. Or it

would be as if one called evil those who stand in front of temples and stop every de­ filed person outside the precinct because they will not allow them to participate in

the rites taking place inside. For it would not be evil that those who deserve it remain outside, but rather to deserve such a place and such prohibitions.Uls] This quote corresponds to the following passage in the Divine Names:

The Evil, then, is not even in Angels. But by punishing sinners are they evil? By this

rule, then, the punishers of transgressors are evil, and those of the priests who shut out the profane from the Divine Mysteries. And yet, the being punished is not an

evil, but the becoming worthy of punishment; nor the being deservedly expelled from Holy things, but the becoming accursed of God, and unholy and unfit for things

undefiled. Although it is true that the pagans had a conception of ritual pollution (usually involving childbirth, death, and sexual relations) which prevented those who were impure from participating in sacri­ fices,

this exclusion was difficult to enforce in practice. Often, the presence of the impure was sim­

ply accepted as a fait accompli, and additional sacrifices were made in expiation. A marble stele from

the second century B.C. discovered in Thessaly which records the rituals surrounding a local sanctuary

provides some details:

An uninitiated person shall not go into the temple of the goddess. If any goes in, purify with a hen and sacrifice in accompaniment another full-grown fowl on the altar of Moira, and the priestess or the temple warden or one of those who lift the

sacred objects shall do the purification, and the offender shall bring two measures

of loaves, four pints of wine for the mixing-bowl. If any of the uninitiated enters the vestibule, purify with a cock or hen, sacrifice in accompaniment a leg of whatever he

pleases, except of pork, and bring three Attic measures of meal cakes and three pints

of wine... A woman shall enter from childbirth on the thirtieth day, she who aborts on the fortieth day, from a man after washing from the head down, from the processes of nature on the seventh day. If anyone enters without having observed purity from the

things aforementioned, let him purify the altars with a chicken, and let him sacrifice

in accompaniment on the altar of Phylake a hen or a roasting fish, and ten pounds of whatever meat he wishes except pork, and bring a measure of meal cake and into the mixing-bowl two pints of wine. The temple warden shall perform this purification

and any of the female purification officials who is present.

In contrast to this rather lax attitude, the early Christians were very strict about ensuring that all but

the baptized participated in the Divine Liturgy. In fact, Tertullian says that the exclusion of the cate­ chumens was the distinguishing feature of orthodox worship which set it apart from that of heretics:

I must not omit an account of the conduct also of the heretics—how frivolous it is,

how worldly, how merely human, without seriousness, without authority, without

discipline, as suits their creed. To begin with, it is doubtful who is a catechumen, and who a believer; they have all access alike, they hear alike, they pray alike—even

heathens, if any such happen to come among them.1^21 It is very interesting that of all the examples Proclus could have given, he chose the one example which was the most salient characteristic of Christian worship, one on which Dionysius comments at length in his treatise on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.iz&Ql Once again, it is more reasonable to assume that Pro­

clus borrowed the particular metaphor of excluding the profane from the holy mysteries from Diony­

sius than it is to believe that Dionysius found such a perfect example ready-made in Proclus’ pagan text. The fourth and final reason to suppose that Dionysius served as Proclus’ source is the pattern of the

borrowings between the two writers: all of the material that Dionysius shares with Proclus is confined

to the Divine Names, whereas Proclus has parallel passages scattered across five different treatises. If we assume that the material flowed from Proclus to Dionysius, we are forced to believe that Dionysius lifted independent passages from different works and interwove them into a coherent argument,

sometimes only sentences apart. Below are two such examples. The first example has already been ex­

amined above, but we present it here in its full context:

Dionysius

Proclus

By all things, then, the Beautiful and Good is

desired and beloved and cherished; and, by reason of It, and for the sake of It, the less

Therefore, the gods also love the gods: the

love the greater suppliantly; and those of

senior love the inferior, but considerately;

the same rank, their fellows brotherly; and

and the inferior love the senior, but suppli­

the greater, the less considerately; and these

antly. (On First Alcibiades, II. 153)

severally love the things of themselves con­

tinuously; and all things by aspiring to the Beautiful and Good, do and wish all things

whatever they do and wish. Further, it may be boldly said with truth, that even the very

Author of all things, by reason of overflowing Goodness, loves all, makes all, perfects all, sustains all, attracts all; and even the Divine

Love is Good of Good, by reason of the Good. For Love itself, the benefactor of things that be, pre-existing superabundantly in the Good,

did not permit itself to remain unproductive in itself, but moved itself to creation, as befits

the abundance which is generative of all. (Di­ vine Names 4.10)

This power does not want to remain in itself, but as it were, brings forth that which

the gods are allowed to engender, that is to say, all beings. (On the Existence of Evils

209/65) For, not as learning existing things from existing things, does the Divine Mind know...

not approaching each several thing according

to its kind, but knowing and containing all things, within one grasp of the Cause; just

as the light, as cause, presupposes in itself the notion of darkness, not knowing the

The gods know evil, since they possess a unitary knowledge of everything, an

undivided knowledge of divisibles, a good

darkness otherwise than from the light. The

knowledge of evils, a unitary knowledge of

Divine Wisdom then, by knowing Itself, will

plurality. (On the Existence of Evils 267/104)

know all things; things material, immateri­ ally, and things divisible, indivisibly, and

things many, uniformly; both knowing and

producing all things by Itself, the One. (7.2)

Every god knows partible natures impartibly, temporal natures without

time, things which are not necessary nec­ essarily, mutable natures immutably; and,

summarily, all things in a manner more ex­ cellent than the order of things known. (Ele­ ments of Theology, Proposition 124) Both passages on Dionysius’ side form coherent wholes. The first speaks of God’s love as the sustaining cause of the universe and then transitions to an explanation of how God created the world out of the

abundance of this very love (an idea elaborated in almost identical terms in one of Saint Gregory the

Theologian’s orations, as we will see below). In the second passage, Dionysius is discussing the manner in which God apprehends creation. Not only does the latter half of the passage follow logically from the former, but the very argument that Dionysius is making here was also expressed by the early Christian

theologian Pantaenus of Alexandria, whom we will have occasion to examine in greater detail in a later section.·^1 Are we really to suppose that Dionysius found these disparate sentences in two different

works of Proclus and expertly merged them into cogent philosophical arguments, not only once, but twice? And that these arguments just happened to conform perfectly with those made by other Chris­

tian authors centuries before Proclus? Assuming that we have by now sufficiently persuaded the reader that Proclus was inspired by Diony­ sius, two final questions remain: why would Proclus quote a Christian author, and where would Proclus

have read Dionysius’ book? In order to answer these valid questions, we need to engage in a short his­

torical digression. Pagan philosophy and early Christian theology are often thought of as two hermetically sealed entities

which, to the extent that they interacted, were completely hostile to each other. This picture is severely

flawed. Particularly in Alexandria, where Proclus studied for several years, Greek philosophy and Chris­ tianity coexisted and were even taught together at the Catechetical School.!?^ clement of Alexandria

openly encouraged the study of Hellenic philosophy, calling it an “auxiliary to virtue”US21 and said that the Christian takes “from each branch of study its contribution to the truth.”U^4] A contemporary of Clement, the Platonic philosopher Numenius, composed allegorical commentaries on the books of Moses, the Hebrew prophets, and a passage from the Gospel.!?^] indeed, he is said to have famously re­

marked: "What is Plato but Moses speaking in Attic Greek?”U^ One of the leading philosophers of the first half of the third century was Ammonius Saccas, a Christian.

He counted as his students none other than the Christian Origen and the Neoplatonist Plotinus.Usz]

Ammonius claimed that there were elements of truth in all philosophical systems, and desired to har­

monize the doctrines of Plato with those of Aristotle.L2W He also composed a treatise showing the har­ mony of the Old Testament with the New.Usil Origen, in turn, claimed that “there could be no genuine

piety towards the Lord of all in the man who despised this gift of philosophy”-^! and encouraged his

disciples to study Greek philosophy,UW in particular the teachings of Plato.UZL As Eusebius relates: A great many heretics, and not a few of the most distinguished philosophers, studied

under [Origen] diligently, receiving instruction from him not only in divine things, but also in secular philosophy.. .The Greek philosophers of his age are witnesses to

his proficiency in these subjects. We find frequent mention of him in their writings.

Sometimes they dedicated their own works to him; again, they submitted their labors to him as a teacher for his judgment.!??!] Origen used his position as a respected teacher to expose pagans to Christianity indirectly. As he writes in his Commentary on Jeremiah:

Sometimes we preface our words to those from the pagan nations when we want to introduce them to the Faith, and if we see that they have set themselves at variance

with Christianity and abhor the name and hate to hear that this is the doctrine of

the Christians, we pretend to say that it is a useful doctrine not of the Christians. But when that doctrine is prepared by us according to our power, and we seem to cap­

tivate the hearer who has not heard, as it happens, what was actually said, then we

admit that this praiseworthy doctrine was the doctrine of Christians and we accom­ plish something similar to the one who no longer said, Thus says the Lord, but, “Hear the words of me, Jeremiah.”U241

Proclus himself quotes Origen several times in his commentaries and refers to him as the “partaker of

the same erudition (παιδεία) with Plotinus."!^] According to his biographer Marinus, Proclus would often say that a philosopher “should watch over the salvation of not only a city, nor over the national

customs of a few people, but that he should be the hierophant of the whole world in common"l21& Given the intimate interaction between Greek and Christian thought and Proclus’ attested penchant for eclec­

ticism, it is not at all difficult to believe that Proclus read Dionysius' Divine Names (possibly during his stay in Alexandria) and was inspired to adopt some of its arguments and expressions. As a matter of fact, Proclus all but admits this is what he is doing at the very beginning of his treatise on evil:

What is the nature of evil and where does it originate? These questions have already been examined by some of our predecessors (eorum qui ante nos)...It is, however,

not a bad thing that we too, especially because we have the time for it, summarize (scribere breviter) the observations rightly made by each of them.UZZ]

The evidence has been before our very eyes all along. Proclus plainly says that his work is a summary of what his "predecessors” have said. Who is to say that he did not view Dionysius as one of these prede­

cessors, just like he did Origen? A remark by Proclus in his commentary on the Parmenides, we believe,

all but settles the question:

So much, then, may be said about the hypostasis of the first henads and their respec­ tive communions with each other and their distinctions, the first of which we are

wont to call particularity, and the second, union, distinguishing them even by name

from the identity and difference found in substances. For these henads are supersubstantial and, as one has said, flowers and summits.

The reader will recall that Proclus used a nearly identical expression, "flowers and supersubstantial lights," in his treatise on evil. In our foregoing discussion, we argued that he in fact borrowed this

expression from Dionysius. This suspicion has now been fully vindicated, for here is Proclus openly admitting that the formula is not his own. That he is not citing the Chaldean Oracles is also clear, for

when he does so, he invariably prefaces the quote with “as the theologians say” or “according to the or­

acle," not “as one has said.” The only logical conclusion is that Proclus is citing Dionysius.1^21 Having answered all the negative claims about the Areopagitic works, we will now provide some posi­

tive proofs for their authenticity.

3-POSITIVE PROOFS

I. UNIVERSAL ATTRIBUTION

TO SAINT DIONYSIUS From the very beginning, the writings of Saint Dionysius were ascribed to the Areopagite. As we saw above, even the Monophysites accepted him as an authority. If the Areopagitic corpus was composed in

the late fifth or early sixth century, as the critics claim, it is highly unusual for it to have achieved such universal recognition in such a short time. Moreover, when people resort to forgeries, it is usually to

lend weight to their personal opinions—often of a controversial or self-serving nature—by concealing

them under a respectable name. But in the case of Dionysius, all of his writings are of the strictest or­ thodoxy. There is absolutely no reason why a late author writing these works would not have used his own name.

We actually have a perfect case study to illustrate this last point: in the late fifth or early sixth century,

a Syrian writer named Stephen Bar Sudaili composed a work known as The Book of the Holy Hierotheos,

which purports to be written by a disciple of Saint Paul. This work describes the ascent of the soul towards God in a manner reminiscent of Platonic philosophy and gives a highly unorthodox descrip­

tion of the Last Judgment. According to the Book of Hierotheos, all of fallen nature will eventually be redeemed and become God. Even the Holy Trinity will relinquish its names, and the Son will become one with the Father.i2M The Areopagitic corpus and the Book of Hierotheos could not be more unlike:

the style of the former is conceptually rich and contains unique neologismsU^U and complex syntax, while the latter is facile and repetitive; the one is sober and grounded in Holy Scripture, while the other

is filled with startling visions and apocryphal·^ references that have more in common with Jewish Hekhaloti^U literature than with Christianity^^

The Book of Hierotheos was immediately identified as a work of Stephen by his contemporaries Jacob of Sarug (d. 5 21) and Philoxenus of Mabbug (d. 523), both of whom wrote letters condemning it.i^esj The ninth-century writer John of Dara, who wrote commentaries on the Dionysian corpus, had this to say:

"The work called the Book of Hierotheos.. .is in reality not by him but was skillfully written by another in his name, that is, by Stephen Bar Sudaili."US^ The thirteenth-century author Gregory Bar Hebraeus

says: "Stephen Bar Sudaili... affirmed that there will be an end to the torments of hell, and that the

wicked will not suffer forever, but will be purified by fire. Thus will mercy be shewn even to demons, and everything will return into the Divine nature, as Paul says, 'God will be all in all.’ He also wrote a

book in support of this opinion, and called it by the name of Hierotheos, the master of the holy Diony­ sius, as if it were by the holy Hierotheos himself; which many also think.”U82_ Why is it that Bar Sudaili

was so quickly unmasked by his contemporaries, whereas to this day no one has ever been able to iden­

tify who the infamous "Pseudo-Dionysius” wasPUssj Critics who claim that the Areopagitic corpus is a fifth-century Neoplatonic forgery from Syria need look no further than the Book of Hierotheos to see what such a forgery actually looks like. The fact that

the writings of Dionysius are nothing like the Book of Hierotheos only adds weight to their authenticity.

IL SUBLIMITY OF DOCTRINE Contrary to other works that have been misattributed over the centuries (the authorship of which

often hangs on a single title) the Dionysian writings contain biographical details embedded through­ out the text: the author claims to have been a disciple of Saint Paul;UM he is called a "parricide” UM by the Greek sophist Apollophanes, suggesting that he was a convert from paganism; he refers to bishop

Timothy as a “fellow presbyter,”UM thus indicating that he himself was a bishop; he speaks of the per­ secutions of the Christians as being current in his own day;UM and he claims to have personally met

with the Apostles.UM The Dionysian letters, in which many biographical details are found, are written

in the same complex, flowery prose as the main corpus and reflect the same theological themes present

throughout the longer treatises. In fact, some of the greatest insights and the most concise expressions are to be found in the letters. It is therefore impossible to separate the “man" from the "work."

Thus, when critics talk about the Areopagitic writings being "misattributed," what they are really implying is that the author, whoever he was, was a barefaced liar.UM Yet, at the same time, everyone agrees that these works constitute some of the greatest theological monuments the Church has ever produced. Saint Maximus the Confessor eloquently summarizes this dilemma:

Since there are some who say that these writings are not by the Saint, but by a later

author, they are forced to make of him someone entirely deprived of honour and sense, who lied about himself so much that he pretended to have been with the Apos­

tles and addressed letters to them, whom he never met nor sent letters to. But to forge a prophecy in regard to the Apostle John while he was in exile, claiming that he will

return to the Asiatic coast and resume his accustomed teaching, this is the work of a marvel-monger and one who madly seeks to be reputed a prophet. To say also that he was with Apollophanes in Heliopolis at the time of the Passion of

the Saviour beholding and discussing the eclipse of the sun which occurred contrary

to nature and custom; to say that he was present with the Apostles at the burial of the

sacred body of holy Mary the Mother of God; to quote the oracles of his own teacher

Hierotheos taken from the funeral oration delivered in her honour; and to forge letters and writings addressed to the disciples of the Apostles, how absurd and repre­

hensible this would be for any man to do, let alone for one so elevated in morals and knowledge that he was able to transcend all sensible things and join himself to the intellectual beauties and, as much as possible, to reach God through them!£251

The Areopagitic corpus stands or falls as a whole. There is no middle option. To admire Dionysius' the­ ology for being "true” and yet to accuse the author of these very truths of lying about his own identity

so brazenly is to posit a schizophrenic personality. But if we simply accept that Dionysius is precisely who he says he is, all of these difficulties vanish.

III. LEVEL OF DETAIL OF THE WORKS When one reads the Areopagitic corpus, one gets the impression that the writings are but a small

piece of a larger whole. Contrary to the Book ofHierotheos, which is essentially self-contained, the Areopagitic corpus abounds in external references. For instance, in many places, the writer alludes to

a number of other books he has written (such as the Theological Outlines and the Symbolic Theology)

which are no longer extant;^2Si he quotes from the works of his master Hierotheos (otherwise un­ known to us);122Zl he refers to lost sayings of the Apostles Justus^ and Bartholomewiz^si and cites the

opinion of an anonymous interpreter of a passage from Isaiah;l2fi21 in the Divine Names, he alludes to a prior correspondence with Timothy;!^!! and in his epistles to Polycarp and Demophilus, he quotes from their previous letters to him.DQZl Are all these touches of realism the product of an overwrought imagination, or do they rather point to the works’ authenticity? In order to determine this more pre­

cisely, let us take a look at two of the most famous passages in Dionysius’ writings: the description of the Crucifixion darkness and the Dormition of the Virgin. In Letter 7 (to Saint Polycarp), Dionysius writes:

But you say that the Sophist Apollophanes rails at me, and calls me parricide, as

using, not piously, the writings of Greeks against the Greeks. Yet in reply to him, it were more true for us to say that Greeks use, not piously, things divine against

things divine, attempting through the wisdom of Almighty God to eject the Divine

Worship...Apollophanes, being a wise man, ought to recognize that nothing could otherwise be removed from its heavenly course and movement, if it had not the Sustainer and Cause of its being moving it thereto... How then does he not worship

Him. ..when sun and moon, together with the universe, by a power and stability most supernatural, were fixed by them to entire immobility...and when a certain other day was almost tripled in duration, even in twenty whole hours, either the universe retraced contrary routes for so long a time, and was turned back by the most

supernatural backward revolutions; or the sun, in its own course, having contracted its five-fold motion in ten hours, retrogressively again retraced it in the other ten

hours, by traversing a sort of new route. This thing indeed naturally astounded even the Babylonians, and, without battle, brought them into subjection to Hezekiah as though he were a somebody equal to God and superior to ordinary men... But Apollophanes is ever saying that these things are not true. At any rate then, this is reported by the Persian sacerdotal legends, and to this day, Magi celebrate the memo­

rials of the threefold Mithrus...Say to him, however, "What do you affirm concerning

the eclipse which took place at the time of the saving Cross?” For both of us at that time, at Heliopolis, being present and standing together, saw the moon approaching

the sun, to our surprise (for it was not appointed time for conjunction); and again, from the ninth hour to the evening, supernaturally placed back again into a line oppo­

site the sun. And remind him also of something further. For he knows that we saw, to

our surprise, the contact itself beginning from the east, and going towards the edge of the sun’s disc, then receding back, and again, both the contact and the re-clearing, not

taking place from the same point but from that diametrically opposite.l^eil

There are many things to be said about this rich passage. Firstly, it should be noted that the reference to the Crucifixion darkness is not brought up as a mere curiosity with the sole purpose of thrilling the audience (as one often encounters in apocryphal literature); rather, it is a component in a broader argu­ ment against paganism. Dionysius argues that the heavenly bodies obey a sustaining power and cause;

consequently, we should not worship the heavens but the God who made them. As evidence of God’s power over creation, Dionysius cites two biblical miracles: the sun standing still at the time of Joshua

the son of Nun,t3°41 and the miracle that occurred during the reign of Hezekiah, which is recorded in the book of Kings.12^1 According to the latter account, the Lord made the shadow of the sun "return ten de­

grees backwards.” If we take each "degree” to be equivalent to one hour on a solar dial, the text is saying that God returned

the sun to the position it had occupied in the day ten hours earlier. Adding the ten hours needed for this retrogression to occur to the other ten hours needed for the sun to return to where it had been when

the prodigy began, we get the total of “twenty hours” mentioned by Saint Dionysius. Furthermore, if we

conceive of the day as lasting twelve hours, from dawn till dusk (like the ancient Hebrews did), adding twenty hours to the day effectively triples its duration, just as the letter indicates. Dionysius then

offers two physical explanations as to how this miracle might have unfolded: either the universe itself

advanced and then retrograded while the sun stood still; or the sun itself moved backwards and then forwards while the universe stood still. Both of these explanations are geometrically equivalent. As for

the "five-fold motion” of the sun, this seems to be a reference to the five motions the sun experiences throughout the year: the two equinoxes, the two solstices, and the axial precession. Finally, Dionysius

suggests that this miracle is indirectly attested by the cult of Mithras, the Persian god of the sun. Based on external witnesses, both literary and epigraphical, we know that the Persians did indeed worship a threefold deity associated with the sun, so this reference is accurate.!^!

It is only at this point in the narrative that the description of the Crucifixion darkness is provided as corroboration of the authenticity of the previous two miracles. Dionysius says that this eclipse was

noteworthy for three reasons: (1) it did not occur at an appointed time of conjunction with the moon; (2) the shadow covered the sun from east to west, rather than from west to east as is usual; (3) after it had obscured the sun, the shadow withdrew back eastward, which was also contrary to nature. Once

again, all of this information is astronomically accurate.

It is hard to believe that an unscrupulous forger would be able to concoct such a letter, combining skill­ ful philosophical argumentation, careful scriptural exegesis, creative thinking, and scientific detail. It betrays an author who was not only learned in astronomy, but intimately versed in Scripture and fa­

miliar with pagan religion as well. Next, let us examine what is arguably the most famous passage in the whole Dionysian corpus: the

Dormition passage. In the third chapter of the Divine Names, while explaining how one’s knowledge of God is commensurate to the purity and sanctity of one’s life, Dionysius engages in the following digres­

sion about his teacher Hierotheos:

For, amongst our inspired hierarchs (when both we, as you know, and yourself, and many of our holy brethren, were gathered together for the contemplation of the Life-springing and God-receptive body, and when there were present also James,

the brother of God, and Peter, the foremost and most honoured pinnacle of the The­

ologians, when it was determined after the contemplation, that every one of the hierarchs should celebrate, as each was capable, the Omnipotent Goodness of the

supremely Divine Weakness), he, after the Theologians, surpassed, as you know, all the other divine instructors, being wholly entranced, wholly raised from himself, and so moved by fellowship with the things celebrated, that he was regarded as an inspired and divine Psalmist by all, by whom he was heard and seen and known, and

not known. But why should I say anything to thee concerning the things there di­ vinely spoken? For if I do not forget myself, many a time do I remember to have heard from thee certain portions of those inspired songs of praise; such was thy zeal, not

cursorily, to pursue things Divine.l22Zl

To begin with, we must establish what this passage is referring to. According to the traditional inter­ pretation followed by Saint Maximus and the Church Fathers, the “Life-springing and God-receptive

body” refers to the body of the Virgin Mary, and the event that drew so many holy brethren together was her funeral. Recent scholars have instead suggested that the “body” in question refers to the Eu­

charist. However, this second interpretation lacks any textual support. Firstly, Dionysius is clearly speaking about an extraordinary gathering, not a simple liturgy: the fact

that Saint James of Jerusalem was present suggests that this event took place in the Holy Land, and

it would have taken a very special occasion for the Apostles who were spread across the face of the Roman Empire to gather there. Secondly, if the “body” in question were the Eucharist, we would expect

to hear some reference to a liturgical context. Yet nowhere does the text mention anything of the sort. Dionysius speaks only of the “contemplation" of the body and the singing of hymns. Thirdly, and most importantly, the expression “God-receptive body” is a highly inappropriate term to use to describe the

Eucharist. Christ’s human body was not a simple vessel which “received” divinity (this was actually the heresy taught by Nestorius); instead, Christ’s divinity fully “took substance as a man,” as Dionysius

himself writes elsewhere.Ues] At the same time, the “God-receptive body” would be a very suitable ex­ pression to refer to the Virgin Mary, who indeed received God within her. Given that Christ is known as the "Life,”U221 the expression “Life-springing" in reference to the Virgin is also very fitting. Therefore, the traditional interpretation has the most merits.

Now, assuming that this passage was written by a forger who wanted people to think that he attended

the Dormition, he certainly did a very poor job of it. By their very nature, apocryphal texts are written for an "audience,” and so they tend to be distinguished by an abundance of narrative details. For ex­

ample, the apocryphal accounts of the Dormition by Pseudo-John and Pseudo-Melitol11^ which date from the fifth century record the exchanges that the Virgin had with the angels and the Apostles; they

describe the dazzling light that shone forth from her body and relate the various events that transpired at her funeral procession and tomb.^JJJ But what we find in Dionysius is the complete opposite of this. Dionysius is not writing for a public, but is reminiscing with a friend about a shared experience. He

assumes that Timothy knows precisely what he is talking about, and so refrains from spelling it out. In

fact, not only does he fail to mention the Virgin Mary by name, but the whole episode is only tangential to his praise of Hierotheos. The naturalness of expression leads us to suspect that this passage is au­

thentic.

IV. THE TRADITION OF ATHENIAN

CHRISTIAN LITERATURE It would not be unusual for an educated Greek convert like Saint Dionysius to have composed theolog­

ical works. In fact, we know of three early Christian writers from Athens who did precisely this. Saint

Quadratus, one of Athens’ early bishops and a near-contemporary of Saint Dionysius, composed a lost Apology on behalf of the Christians addressed to Emperor Hadrian which Saint Jerome called "indis­

pensable, full of sound argument and faith and worthy of the apostolic teaching."13121

this treatise,

Quadratus mentioned that many of those who were healed by Christ were alive in his own day,13111 not unlike Dionysius who claims to have directly spoken with the Apostles.

Aristides of Athens, a contemporary of Quadratus, composed another work at this time which attacks paganism and argues for the superiority of the Christian faith. He employs the same teleological-3111 argument involving the heavenly bodies which we just saw in Dionysius’ letter to Polycarp, and his description of the complete transcendence of God recalls similar passages in the Divine Names. As Aris­

tides writes: When I had considered the heaven and the earth and the seas, and had surveyed the

sun and the rest of creation, I marvelled at the beauty of the world. And I perceived

that the world and all that is therein are moved by the power of another; and I un­

derstood that he who moves them is God, who is hidden in them, and veiled by them. And it is manifest that that which causes motion is more powerful than that which is moved. But that I should make search concerning this same mover of all, as to what

is His nature (for it seems to me, He is indeed unsearchable in His nature), and that I should argue as to the constancy of His government, so as to grasp it fully—this is a vain effort for me; for it is not possible that a man should fully comprehend it.. .1 say,

then, that God is not born, not made, an ever-abiding nature without beginning and

without end, immortal, perfect, and incomprehensible...He has no name, for every­ thing which has a name is kindred to things created. Form He has none, nor yet any

union of members; for whatsoever possesses these is kindred to things fashioned.Uisi

Another famous Athenian Christian was Athenagoras the philosopher, who lived in the generation immediately following Quadratus and Aristides. Athenagoras composed a third Apology for the Christians as well as a philosophical treatise on the Resurrection; he also served as the first head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria, which gave rise to many renowned Church writers such as Clement

and Origen.tii^J Athenagoras believed that pagan philosophers cannot reach the truth because their

starting point is their own intellect, which is limited, whereas Christians base their knowledge on the

prophets, who knew God directly through the Holy SpiritJ^iZl The very same sentiment is expressed in the opening lines of the Divine Names: But, let the rule of the Oracles be here also prescribed for us, that we shall establish

the truth of the things spoken concerning God, not in the persuasive words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit-moved power of the Theologians, by

aid of which we are brought into contact with things unutterable and unknown, in a manner unutterable and unknown, in proportion to the superior union of the reason­

ing and intuitive faculty and operation within us. By no means then is it permitted to speak—or even to think—anything, concerning the superessential and hidden Deity, beyond those things divinely revealed to us in the sacred Oracles. 13JL£1

Thus, the writings of Dionysius fit perfectly within the genre of religious literature that flourished in Athens in the first two centuries.

V. WITNESSES TO THE DIONYSIAN CORPUS

PRIOR TO THE SIXTH CENTURY It is often claimed that the writings of Dionysius were completely unknown prior to the sixth century. In this section, we will attempt finally to put this misleading claim to rest. As we will show, there are many pre-sixth-century authors who quote Dionysius or display a clear dependence on him.2121

a) Pantaenus (died c. 200) Pantaenus lived in the mid-to-late second century. He was the second head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria and was the teacher of the more well-known Clement. He composed commentaries on Holy

Scripture that were extant at the time of Saint Jerome.!^ Although Pantaenus’ works are now lost to

us, Saint Maximus has preserved a fragment of his teachings in his book Ambigua to Thomas, in which

he elucidates difficult passages from the Holy Fathers to a friend. As Maximus recounts, one day, the disciples of Pantaenus were approached by some educated pagans who asked them how Christians be­ lieve that God has knowledge of the world. Their response was as follows: Neither does He know things sensible sensibly (μήτε αίσθητώς τά αισθητά), nor

things intelligible intellectually. For it is not possible that He Who is above all things

should comprehend existing things after existing things (κατά τά δντα), but we affirm that He knows existing things as His own volitions (’ίδια θελήματα)...since by

willing, He made all things being.12211 We may compare this to what Saint Dionysius himself has to say on the knowledge of God in the Divine Names:

For, not as learning existing things from existing things (έκ των δντων), does the Divine Mind know, but from Itself, and in Itself, as Cause, it pre-holds and pre­

comprehends the notion and knowledge, and essence of all things...For the Oracles

affirm, that the angels also know things on the earth, not as knowing them by sensible perceptions (ού κατ’ αισθήσεις), although objects of sensible perception,

but by a proper power and nature of the Godlike Mind...We affirm that the exemplars are the methods in God, giving essence to things that be, and pre-existing uniformly, which theology calls predeterminations, and Divine and good volitions (θεία και αγαθά θελήματα), which define and produce things existing; according to which

(predeterminations) the Superessential both predetermined and brought into exis­ tence everything that exists.^22j

The teaching in both cases is identical, and the two authors even employ the same language. What makes this parallel even more important is that the doctrine that is taught is a purely Christian one which could not have been derived from any pagan source. For all pagan philosophy, from the Stoics to

the Platonists, believed that creation was an act of necessity, not of will. Only Christianity taught that God made the world ex nihilol^ out of His own Goodness, compelled by no necessity. This striking similarity, then, between Dionysius’ doctrine and a fragment recovered from one of the earliest Chris­

tian theologians adds weight to the claim that the Divine Names was composed in the early centuries of Christianity. b) Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215)

We encounter even more parallels to the writings of Saint Dionysius in the works of Clement of Alexandria, who succeeded his master Pantaenus as head of the Catechetical School in the late second

century. Two passages that have often been compared to each other for their glaring similarity are the

following:

Clement: As, then, those, who at sea are held by an anchor, pull at the anchor, but do not drag it to them, but drag themselves to the anchor; so those who, according to

the gnostic life, draw God towards them, imperceptibly bring themselves to God.-1241 Dionysius: Let us then elevate our very selves by our prayers to the higher ascent of

the Divine and good rays...as if, after we have embarked on a ship, and are holding on

to the cables reaching from some rock, such as are given out, as it were, for us to seize, we do not draw the rock to us, but ourselves, in fact, and the ship, to the rock.

Clement and Dionysius’ understanding of the orders in the Church mirroring the heavenly orders of the angels is also very similar:

Clement: Of the service bestowed on men, one kind is that whose aim is improve­ ment, the other ministerial...Similarly, also, in the Church, the elders attend to the department which has improvement for its object; and the deacons to the ministe­ rial. In both these ministries the angels serve God, in the management of earthly

affairs; and the Gnostic himself ministers to God, and exhibits to men the scheme of

improvement, in the way in which he has been appointed to discipline men for their amendment.^

Dionysius: It is necessary to say this, that both this (the angelic) and every Hierarchy extolled now by us, has one and the same power, throughout the whole

Hierarchical transaction; and that the Hierarch himself, according to his essence, and

analogy, and rank, is initiated in Divine things, and is deified and imparts to the sub­

ordinates, according to the meetness of each for the sacred deification which comes to him from God; also that the subordinates follow the superior, and elevate the infe­ rior towards things in advance.

In another passage of his Stromata, Clement argues that since God transcends all created things, the

only source of our knowledge of Him must come from revelation: The discourse respecting God is most difficult to handle...For on account of His great­

ness He is ranked as the All, and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of Him. For the One is indivisible; wherefore it is infinite, not considered

with reference to inscrutability but with reference to its being without dimensions, and not having a limit. And therefore it is without form and name. And if we name

it, we do not do so properly, terming it either the One, or the Good, or Mind, or Ab­ solute Being, or Father, or God, or Creator, or Lord...It remains that we understand,

then, the Unknown, by divine grace, and by the word alone that proceeds from

In the opening chapter of the Divine Names, Saint Dionysius writes: As things intelligible cannot be comprehended and contemplated by things of sense,

and things uncompounded and unformed by things compounded and formed; and

the intangible and unshaped formlessness of things without body, by those formed

according to the shapes of bodies; in accordance with the self-same analogy of the truth, the superessential Illimitability is placed above things essential, and the Unity

above mind above the minds; and the One above conception is inconceivable to all

conceptions; and the Good above word is unutterable by word—Unit making one every unit, and superessential Essence and Mind inconceivable, and Word unutter­

able, Speechlessness and Inconception, and Namelessness—being after the manner of no existing being, and Cause of being to all, but Itself not being, as beyond every essence, and as It may manifest Itself properly and scientifically concerning Itself.

Concerning this then. ..it is not permitted to speak or even think beyond the things divinely revealed to us in the sacred OraclesJ2221

Here again the parallels are unmistakable. Saint Dionysius is making the exact same point as Clement,

and the two even use the same words to describe God: the One, the Good, Mind, without parts/un-

compounded, without form/unformed, not having limit/Illimitability, without name/Namelessness, Father of the universe/Cause of Being to All. Are we to believe that an anonymous forger from the fifth century scoured the writings of the ancients to lift these profound theological remarks—even the

same elaborate metaphors—and seamlessly interwove them into his own work? Or are the similarities between Clement and Dionysius due to the fact that Clement knew Dionysius’ writings or, at the very least, that both were drawing on the same primitive apostolic tradition?

c) Origen (c. 185-253) Moving on to the third century, we find yet more echoes of Saint Dionysius’ writings, once again from

Alexandria. One of the recurrent themes of early Christian apologetics was defending the doctrine of

the resurrection of the body, which was denied by both pagans and the various Gnostic sects. Let us see how Origen, the great third-century apologist and commentator, speaks on this subject:

For how does it not seem absurd that this body which has endured scars for Christ, and, equally with the soul (pariter cum anima), has borne the savage torments of persecutions, and has also endured the suffering of chains, and rods, and has been tortured with fire, cut with the sword, and has further suffered the cruel teeth of wild

beasts, the gallows of the cross, and divers kinds of punishments, that this should be

deprived of the prizes of such great contests (tantorum certaminum)? If forsooth, the soul alone, which not alone contended (non sola certaverit), should receive the

crown, and its vessel the body, which served it with much labour, should attain no recompense for its agony and victory, how does it not seem contrary to all reason,

that the flesh, resisting for Christ its natural vices, and its innate lust, and guarding its virginity with immense labour (which effort is assuredly either greater for the

body, or at least equal for both soul and body) that one, when the time for rewards has

come, should be rejected as unworthy and the other should receive its crown? Such a fact would undoubtedly argue on the part of God, either a lack of justice or a lack of pcwerJ^ai Here is Saint Dionysius on the resurrection of the body:

Now, the pure bodies which are enrolled together as yoke-fellows (ομόζυγα) and companions (όμοπόρευτα) of the holy souls, and have fought together (συναθλήσαντα) within their Divine struggles (θείους ιδρώτας) in the unchanged

steadfastness of their souls throughout the divine life, will jointly receive their own resurrection; for, having been united with the holy souls to which they were united in this present life, by having become members of Christ, they will receive in return the Godlike and imperishable immortality, and blessed repose.

Elsewhere, Origen speaks of the love of God as having a threefold movement: from God, towards God, and towards one’s neighbour:

We must recognize, therefore, that the charity of God is always directed towards God,

from Whom also it takes its origin, and looks back towards the neighbour, with

whom it is in kinship as being similarly created in incorruption.li221 As we have already seen, the same doctrine is taught by Dionysius in greater detail:

Of these three motions then in everything perceptible here below, and much more of

the abidings and repose and fixity of each, the Beautiful and Good, which is above all

repose and movement, is Cause and Bond and End...By all things, then, the Beautiful and Good is desired and beloved and cherished; and, by reason of It, and for the sake

of It, the less love the greater suppliantly; and those of the same rank, their fellows

brotherly; and the greater, the less considerately; and these severally love the things of themselves continuously; and all things by aspiring to the Beautiful and Good, do and wish all things whatever they do and wish.LHil

Significantly, when justifying the use of the word "love" (eros) with reference to God, both authors quote the same three scriptural and patristic proofs:

Origen: In these places, therefore, and in many others you will find that Divine Scrip­ ture avoided the word “love” and put “charity” or “affection" instead. Occasionally however, though rarely, it calls love by its own name, and invites and urges souls to it; as when it says in Proverbs about Wisdom: “Love her, and she shall keep thee; secure her, and she shall exalt thee; honour her, that she may embrace thee.” [Proverbs

4:6-9] And in the book that is called the Wisdom of Solomon it is written of Wisdom herself: “I became a lover of her Beauty.” [Wisdom 8:2]...And I do not think one

could be blamed if one called God "Love," just as John calls Him “Charity.” Indeed, I

remember that one of the saints, by name Ignatius, said of Christ: "My Love is cruficied,” [Epistle to the Romans, sec. 7] and I do not consider him worthy of censure on

this account.UUJ Dionysius: But that we may not seem, in speaking thus, to be pushing aside the Divine

Oracles, let those who libel the name of Love hear them. “Love her,” they say, “and she

shall keep thee; secure her, and she shall exalt thee; honour her, that she may em­ brace thee," and whatever else is sung respecting Love, in the Word of God. And yet it

seemed to some of our sacred teachers that the name of Love is more Divine than that

of Charity. But even the Divine Ignatius writes, "my Love is crucified;” and in the in­ troductions to the Oracles you will find a certain One saying of the Divine Wisdom, "I became a lover of her Beauty." So that we, certainly, need not be afraid of this name

of Love, nor let any alarming statement about it terrify us.1225]

The exegesis employed by both authors is also similar. Here is Origen explaining how we are to under­ stand the name “Good” as applied to God: And therefore also the Saviour Himself rightly says in the Gospel, 'There is none good save one only, God the Father,’ that by such an expression it may be understood that

the Son is not of a different goodness, but of that only which exists in the Father, of

whom He is rightly termed the image, because He proceeds from no other source but from that primal goodness, lest there might appear to be in the Son a different

goodness from that which is in the Father. Nor is there any dissimilarity or difference

of goodness in the Son. And therefore it is not to be imagined that there is a kind of blasphemy, as it were, in the words, 'There is none good save one only, God the Fa­

ther/ as if thereby it may be supposed to be denied that either Christ or the Holy Spirit

was good. But, as we have already said, the primal goodness is to be understood as residing in God the Father, from whom both the Son is born and the Holy Spirit pro­ ceeds, retaining within them, without any doubt, the nature of that goodness which is in the source whence they are derived.Uls] And here is Dionysius on the goodness of God:

Let then the self-existent Goodness be sung from the Oracles as defining and manifesting the whole supremely-Divine-Subsistence in its essential nature. For, what else is there to learn from the sacred theology, when it affirms that the Godhead Itself, leading the way, says, "Why dost thou ask me concerning the Good? None is Good except God alone.” Now, this, we have thoroughly demonstrated elsewhere,

that always, all the God-becoming Names of God, are celebrated by the Oracles, not partitively, but as applied to the whole and entire and complete and full Godhead, and

that all of them are referred impartitively, absolutely, unreservedly, entirely, to all the

Entirety of the entirely complete and every Deity. And verily as we have mentioned in

the Theological Outlines, if any one should say that this is not spoken concerning the whole Deity, he blasphemes, and dares, without right, to cleave asunder the super­

unified Unity.H^l Any honest observer is led to ask: were Saint Dionysius’ works known in third-century Alexandria, and

is this what explains their echoes in Origen’s writings?

d) Plotinus (c. 204-270) As a matter of fact, we have proof that the writings of the Areopagite were known in Alexandria at this

time, for we find striking parallels to them in the works of a fellow classmate of Origen, the famous philosopher Plotinus. Like Dionysius, Plotinus believes that God is "beyond existence” and "beyond

number."^] He also employs the same metaphors and language when explaining how we apprehend

the divine:

Plotinus: In order, then, to know what the Divine Mind is, we must observe the soul and especially its most God-like part. You might do this in the following manner: first,

by abstracting (άφέλοις) the man from the body.. .and next, by putting aside that soul which forms it and, very thoroughly, sense-perception and desires and passions and every such futility. What is left is the part of the soul which we have declared to be an image of the Divine Intellect.. .Withdraw into yourself and look... Act as does the

creator of a statue that is to be made beautiful: he cuts away here, he smoothes there,

he makes this line lighter, this other purer, until he has brought out a beautiful face (καλόν πρόσωπον) from his work.. .Thus, the mind has both the power for thought

(δύναμιν εις τό νοεΐν), by which it views what is in itself; and another, by which

it knows what is beyond itself (επέκεινα αύτού) through a certain advance and

reception.12121

Dionysius: For this would be really to see and to know: to praise the Transcendent One

in a transcending way, namely through the abstraction (άφαίρεσις) of all beings. We would be like sculptors who set out to carve a statue. They remove every obstacle to

the pure view of the hidden image, and simply by this act of clearing aside they show up the beauty (κάλλος) which is hidden.. .We ought to know that our mind has both the power for thought (δύναμιν εις τό νοεΐν), through which it views things intel­ lectual, and a union surpassing the nature of the mind, through which it is brought

into contact with things beyond itself (επέκεινα έαυτοΰ).ΰ121 One could argue that Dionysius is the one citing Plotinus, but given the fact that Plotinus operated

within a milieu in which the Areopagitic writings seem to have been well-known, it is not far-fetched to assume that it was in fact Plotinus who is quoting Dionysius. And indeed, the doctrine that Plotinus is expressing here (the transcendent union of the mind with God) is quintessentially Christian. e) Saint Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329-390)

Arguably, the strongest proof that the writings of Saint Dionysius were known before the time of Proclus comes from Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, also known as the “Theologian." In his thirty-eighth

oration, delivered on the occasion of the Nativity in 380 or 381, Saint Gregory, speaking of God, says: For in Himself He comprehends (συλλαβών) and contains all Being, having neither

beginning in the past nor end in the future, like some great Sea of Being, limitless and unbounded (πέλαγος άπειρον και άόριστον).12Α11

This whole passage is repeated in his forty-fifth oration, which Saint Gregory delivered on Easter to­ wards the end of his life.UAiJ Now how does Saint Dionysius speak of God?

For God is not relatively a Being, but simply and unboundedly, having compre­ hended (συνειληφώς) and anticipated all Being in Himself...We also have emerged

to that limitless and bounteous sea of Divine Light (άπειρόν τε και άφθονον πέλαγος), which is readily-expanded for the ready reception of all.12421

But the similarities do not end here. In the paragraph that immediately follows this passage, Saint Gre­

gory continues:

But when I say God, I mean Father, Son, and Holy Spirit...This then is the Holy of Holies, which is concealed (συγκαλύπτεται) even from the Seraphim, and is glorified

with a triple sanctification coming together in one lordship and Godhead, as one of

those who came before us has most beautifully and loftily pointed out. But since Good­ ness was not content to be moved (κινεΐσθαι) solely by the contemplation of itself, but the Good must be poured out and go forth beyond Itself to multiply the objects of

Its beneficence, for this was essential to the highest Goodness (άκρας άγαθότητος),

He first conceived the Heavenly and Angelic Powers.1244] Here is Saint Dionysius:

No one hath seen, nor ever shall see, the “hidden” (κρύφιον) of Almighty God as it is in itself...This, then, according to my science, is the first rank of the Heavenly Beings which encircle and stand immediately around God...For some of its members...cry aloud that frequent and most august hymn of God, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth,

the whole earth is full of His glory "...The first Order, having been illuminated from this the supremely Divine goodness (θεαρχικής άγαθότητος), as permissible, in

theological science, as a Hierarchy reflecting that Goodness transmitted to those next after it, teaching briefly this...that God is Monad and Unit tri-subsistent...For Love itself, the benefactor of things that be, pre-existing superabundantly in the Good, did

not permit itself to remain unproductive in itself, but moved itself (έκίνησε) to cre­

ation, as befits the abundance which is generative of al LULU

The order of ideas and the language used by Saint Gregory in his sermon corresponds perfectly with that used by Saint Dionysius. Most tellingly, the scriptural interpretation which Saint Gregory says he

received from a venerable predecessor is exactly the one we find in the Celestial Hierarchy. Yet some critics, wishing to avoid the obvious, pretend that Saint Gregory is not quoting Saint Dionysius here,

but another more recent Father, possibly Saint Athanasius or Saint Basil. But Basil and Gregory were near contemporaries. Does anyone refer to someone who is still alive, or but recently reposed, as “one of those who came before us?”

This oration is not the only one which employs Dionysian language. In the opening to Oration 20, Saint

Gregory says:

For nothing seems so important to me as for a person...to live above the level of the

visible, and always to bear the divine images (τάς θείας εμφάσεις) within himself in their pure state, free from the stamp of what is inferior and changeable, being and always becoming like a spotless mirror (έ'σοπτρον άκηλίδωτον) of God and divine

things, adding light to light.U^l Here is Saint Dionysius: The purpose, then, of Hierarchy is the assimilation and union, as far as attainable,

with God.. .and copying, as far as possible, and by perfecting its own followers as Divine likenesses (αγάλματα θεία), mirrors most clear and spotless (έσοπτρα

διειδέστατα και άκηλίδωτα), receptive of the primal light and the supremely Divine

ray...For each of those who have been called into the Hierarchy, find their perfection in being carried to the Divine imitation in their own proper degree...and in shewing

the Divine energy in himself manifested as far as possible.!^! Our critics might reply that if Saint Gregory knew of Saint Dionysius, why did he not mention him by name or quote him more often? There are many plausible reasons. It could be that Saint Gregory did

not have access to Dionysius' complete works and was only acquainted with him through a florilegium, that is, a compilation of individual sayings excerpted from the Fathers. Or perhaps Saint Gregory learned of Dionysius’ doctrines over the course of his extensive studies in Alexandria and Athens and

was simply quoting these few passages from memory.12481 Certainly, a later Church Father quoting one

of the early theologians would not be unusual, for we know that Saint Methodius of Olympus, who re­ posed around A.D. 311, quotes Athenagoras of Athens, who died in 190. Whatever the reason, the fact

of the matter is that in the middle of three of Saint Gregory’s orations—the genuineness of which no one contests—one finds the exact lexical expressions used by Saint Dionysius.

f) Saint Jerome (c. 342-420)

We possess independent testimony which corroborates Saint Gregory’s allusions to Dionysius. Saint

Jerome, the great Latin father, studied for a time in Alexandria and later became an avid disciple of Saint Gregory. When he was in Constantinople in the 380s, Jerome composed a letter to Pope Dama-

sus (r. 366-384)1212. in which he offers an explanation of Isaiah 6:2-4 (the same passage that Gregory

was commenting upon in the previous oration), which describes the prophet's vision of the Seraphim around the celestial throne. Jerome writes to the Pope: "And the Seraphim stood round about Him: one had six wings, and the other had six wings.’’A certain Greek (quidam Graecorum), a man exceedingly learned in the scrip­

tures, explained that the Seraphim are certain powers (virtutes) in the heavens,

which praise God as they stand before His tribunal and are sent forth to various

ministries, especially to those who require purification and deserve, to a certain ex­ tent (aliqua ex parte), to expiate their former sins through punishments (suppliciis). “That the lintel was raised,” he says, “and the house was filled with smoke is a sign of

the destruction of the Jewish temple and the burning of all Jerusalem.1221 Jerome's summary of the scriptural commentary of this “Greek" corresponds to no previous author other than Dionysius. Specifically, in Celestial Hierarchy 7.1, Dionysius writes: "Now that we have

defined these things, it is worthy to consider why we are accustomed to call all the Angelic Beings

together Heavenly Powers (δυνάμεις),” perfectly paralleling Jerome’s quotation. Dionysius speaks of the "supremely Divine and much esteemed hymnody” which the angels chant to Godlill and devotes a whole chapter (Celestial Hierarchy 13) to explaining the Seraphim’s role in purification. Dionysius also

comments on a verse from the book of EzekielU22J which shows that the Cherubim (a related class of

angels) are sent forth to the world to punish men, but only the guilty—once again precisely paralleling the account in Jerome’s letter.

The final part of Jerome’s letter refers to an interpretation of Isaiah 6:4, “the lintel was raised at the

sound they uttered and the house was filled with smoke.” Jerome’s Greek authority evidently inter­ preted this passage allegorically to refer to the destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70. Although

there is no passage in the Celestial Hierarchy which contains this particular interpretation, Dionysius does refer the reader to another work he wrote (now lost) entitled On the Divine Hymns, which seems to have dealt with the verse in question: "These most excellent hymnologies of the supercelestial Minds

we have already unfolded to the best of our ability in the Treatise concerning the Divine Hymns, and have spoken sufficiently concerning them in that Treatise.’’^”] jt js very likely, then, that Jerome was echo­

ing this lost treatise of Dionysius, given that there is no other patristic work which provides the specific scriptural interpretation Jerome is giving.UM] it is also unlikely that the "Greek” Jerome is referring to is

Saint Gregory himself, for whenever Jerome refers to his former teacher, he always does so by name and

mentions him with great respect.Uni

Jerome displays a knowledge of Dionysius in his other works, such as in AgainstJovinian (written in

393, after his time in Constantinople), in which he very accurately summarizes the doctrine of the Ce­ lestial Hierarchy: Why do we say that in the kingdom of heaven there are Archangels, Angels, Thrones,

Dominions, Powers, Cherubim and Seraphim, and every name which is named, not

only in this present world, but also that which is to come? A difference of name is meaningless where there is not a difference of rank (diversitas meritorum). An

Archangel is of course an Archangel to other inferior angels, and Powers, and Domin­ ions have other spheres over which they exercise authority. This is what we find in

heaven and in the administration of God.li^l In his Apology Against Rufinus, Jerome lists all the nine orders of angels spoken of by Dionysius: “Cheru­ bim and Seraphim, Thrones, Principalities, Dominions, Virtues, Powers, Archangels and Angels/'l^ia

While other Fathers before Jerome had spoken of nine orders, the canonical number was far from set­ tled.-·^! The fact that Jerome specifically lists nine orders and speaks of "a difference of rank" points strongly to the Celestial Hierarchy as his source.

g) Saint Cyril of Alexandria (c. 3 7 6-444)

References to the Areopagite are also not lacking in the fifth century. As we saw above, the Severians at the conference of Constantinople of 5 32 claimed to possess “old manuscripts” in the archives of

Alexandria in which Saint Cyril quotes the Areopagite. Saint Cyril reposed in A.D. 444, when Proclus was but thirty-two years old. If we believe the Severians, this evidence strongly suggests that the Are-

opagitic works were written before the time of Proclus. If, however, we assume that Cyril’s works were interpolated after his death, a Proclean origin is also unlikely.

For let us assume that one wants to further the Monophysite cause: he forges a short letter under the venerable name of Dionysius which speaks of Christ’s "new theandric energy.” He then interpolates this comment into a treatise by Cyril to lend his forgery greater authority. His job is complete. What need is

there to write a sprawling theological corpus incorporating a complicated treatise on the nature of evil composed by a pagan? Even more importantly, why, then, in the same corpus, would he undo all the work he just did by adding references to Christ's two unconfused natures? The only logical conclusion

one can come to is that the Dionysian corpus was not written by the same person who interpolated Cyril's work. The corpus must have already been in existence for the fifth-century interpolator to draw on. If we accept this, however, Proclus loses any claim to priority. For if Proclus and Dionysius' texts

were both circulating at the same time in the fifth century, who is to say Proclus is not the one who

drew on Dionysius and not vice versa? For what it’s worth, there is one passage in Cyril's extant writings which does seem to be indebted to

Dionysius. In his Commentary on Habakkuk, Cyril writes: Now, just as we interpreted “deep," not in physical terms, which would be very materialistic, but spiritually and intellectually, so, too, in this case we shall not direct

the eye of our mind to the heavenly bodies, namely “sun and moon".. .Day is the name given, in fact, to the time when Christ shone forth, the sun of righteousness, the in­ tellectual morning star, rising in the hearts of the believers.l^J

The expression “sun of righteousness” is a direct quote from the Prophet Malachi,while the image of the “morning star rising in the hearts of believers” comes from Saint Peter's Second Epistle.l^h The

adjective “intellectual,” however, is an exegetical addition made by Cyril. What is interesting is that the only previous author to quote these two Scriptural verses together and to link the “morning star” with

the intellect is Saint Dionysius: We shall find the mystic theologians enfolding these things not only around the il­

lustrations of the heavenly orders, but also, sometimes, around the supremely Divine Revelations Themselves. At one time, indeed, they extol It under exalted imagery as

Sun of Righteousness, as Morning Star rising divinely in the intellect, and as Light

illuming without veil and for contemplation. Independent statistical analysis also indicates that Saint Cyril is one of the authors with the highest level of Dionysian language in his works.so all things considered, it is quite plausible that Cyril was

familiar with Dionysius' writings.

h) Tentative Proofs

There are additional texts which bear witness to the Dionysian corpus before the sixth century, but since their authorship and precise date of composition is contested, we have included them here under the title of "tentative proofs.” The first such proof is a sermon entitled On False Prophets and Heretics at­ tributed to Saint John Chrysostom.!^. The sermon seems to have been quite popular as it is preserved

in seventy manuscripts and was frequently excerpted for use in pastoral settings.l2£ll The sermon warns the Christian flock to be mindful of false teachers and to be prepared for the end times. In the

passage that is of interest to us, the author praises a series of Apostolic Fathers, in the midst of which he

mentions a certain Dionysius: Where is that blessed choir of bishops and teachers who shone forth as beacons in the

world, proffering words of life? What prevents us from speaking of them now, even if we mention but a few from the many? For even commemorating them is a blessing

to the soul. Where is Evodius, the sweet scent of the Church, and the successor and imitator of the holy Apostles? Where is Ignatius, the dwelling-place of God? Where is Dionysius, the bird of the sky? Where is Hippolytus, the most sweet and kindly?!^

The phrase “bird of the sky” seems to be a reference to the lofty theology expressed in Saint Dionysius’ books, just as Saint John the Evangelist was often symbolized in Church iconography by an eagle. Traditionally, editors have dismissed this sermon as spurious on the grounds that the author refers to

Nestorius.D^! who was only condemned in A.D. 431, over two decades after Saint John reposed. How­ ever, there are at least two manuscripts where the reference does not occur: instead, the text in these

versions reads "Eunomius” and "Macedonius,” both of whom lived during Chrysostom's timeJ^sai Fur­ thermore, in Saville’s 1612 edition of Chrysostom, instead of “where are all those who have withstood

the truth,” we find "where are all those who have withstood the Church?”^*] All this variation suggests that we are dealing with a corrupt passage.!^]

The other internal evidence is rather mixed. On the one hand, the text is very repetitive and formulaic, quite unlike the fluid style for which Saint John was famous. The author frequently employs the words στηλιτεύω (denounce) and θριαμβεύω (triumph over) together, an expression that does not occur in

Chrysostom's extant corpus, but is present in a pseudo-Chrysostomian work on the Prodigal Son.UTU On the other hand, the author of On False Prophets twice uses a distinct phrase ("setting/casting aside

all earthly cares’’)!^- which is attested in one of Chrysostom’s authentic works.ilTll Moreover, in the beginning of the sermon, the author praises Holy Scripture highly, saying that if Christians only knew

Scripture better, heretics and false-teachers would be non-existent,UT4J an idea found across Chrysos­

tom's commentaries.!^! Thus, if the work is not by Chrysostom, it looks to be from someone of his school who sought to imitate his style to a certain degree. In terms of dating, the text provides two clues which point to the fourth century: (1) of all the orthodox doctors of the Church that the author of this sermon praises, the latest one to be named chronologically

is Saint Ephrem the Syrian (d. 3 73).U^1 Surely, if the text was composed after the time of Nestorius, no orthodox author would have failed to mention Saint Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444). (2) At one point of the sermon, the author complains about various sins he witnesses Christians committing. One of the

things he mentions is eating food that has been sacrificed to idols.l^zj Now, we know that pagan temple sacrifice was outlawed by Emperor Theodosius in 391. Therefore, it is not something that a writer from later centuries (such as Anastasius of Sinai) would have referred to. A second tentative witness to the Areopagitic corpus appears in a sermon by Saint John of Damascus:

in his Second Homily on the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, the great Father says that at the time of the

Fourth Ecumenical Council (A.D. 451), Empress Pulcheria asked Patriarch Juvenal of Jerusalem to send

her the relics of the Virgin Mary, which the Empress wished to house in a new basilica dedicated in her honour in Constantinople. The saintly Patriarch responded that he had no relics to give the Empress other than the sash of the Mother of God, for her body was assumed into heaven on the third day after

her repose. Saint John says that he obtained this information from the third book of the fragmentary Euthymiac History.12^ The response of Patriarch Juvenal to Pulcheria, as preserved, runs as follows:

The holy and God-inspired Scriptures do not mention anything concerning the end

of holy Mary the Mother of God. But we have received from an ancient and most true tradition that at the time of her glorious Dormition, all the holy Apostles, who were

spread across the whole world for the salvation of the Gentiles, at the time of her

death were raised aloft and gathered in Jerusalem. And when they came unto her,

they perceived an angelic vision and there was heard a divine hymnody by the most sublime Powers. And thus, with divine and heavenly glory, she gave up her holy soul into the hands of God in a mystical manner.

Accompanied by angelic and apostolic hymns, her God-receptive body was carried

and laid to rest, being deposited in a tomb in Gethsemane, in which place the an­ gelic choir and hymns continued unceasingly. After the third day, when the angelic

hymnody had ceased, and all the Apostles were present, they opened the tomb, for one of them, Thomas, had been absent and came after the third day, and wished to venerate the God-receptive body. But proving unable to find her much-celebrated

body, and finding only her burial garments, and being filled with an ineffable scent of sweetness that came from them, they sealed the tomb.

Being struck by the mystery of the miracle, they could only come to one conclusion, namely that He who had been well-pleased to be incarnated and made man of her in

His own person, and to be born God, Word, and Lord of Glory in the flesh, preserving her virginity incorrupt after birth, the same had been well-pleased to honour her spotless and undefiled body with incorruption after her departure from this life, transporting it before the general resurrection. At that time, present together with

the Apostles was the most worthy Timothy the Apostle and first bishop of the Eph­ esians, and Dionysius the Areopagite, as the great Dionysius himself attests in his remarks to the Apostle Timothy, saying that blessed Hierotheos was also present at

the time. [There follows a quote from Divine Names 3.2pZ21 Not only does Juvenal quote Dionysius’ text, but he even incorporates some of his vocabulary into his

own account of the Dormition, such as the words “vision” and "God-receptive.”

As mentioned above, the Council of Chalcedon took place in 451. Proclus was born around 412. Are we

to believe that in this short time frame (less than forty years), Proclus not only had time to compose his treatise on evils, but that a forger (whoever he was) read it and subsequently wrote the Divine Names;

that this work achieved enough notoriety and circulation in these few years to fall into the hands of

Patriarch Juvenal; and that the forgery was convincing enough to be immediately accepted by him as being in accordance with the “ancient and most true tradition" of his church? This is truly an unbeliev­ able sequence of events. On the other hand, if, as we have argued, Proclus drew from Saint Dionysius,

we would simply have a case of two contemporaries (Proclus and Juvenal) quoting from the same work. If we add the testimony of Saint Cyril, this would give us a total of three contemporary witnesses. Thus,

rather than undermining Juvenal’s testimony, Proclus actually corroborates it.

To summarize all the preceding: contrary to what the critics would have us believe, the works of Saint Dionysius have an unbroken chain of testimonies dating back to the second century. Interestingly, with the exception of Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Juvenal, all of the witnesses of Saint Dionysius —Pantaenus, Clement, Origen, Plotinus, Gregory, Jerome, Cyril, Proclus—either lived or studied in

Alexandria. The natural conclusion that an unbiased scholar might draw based on the existing evi­ dence is that the Areopagitic corpus was preserved for all these centuries in Alexandria. Perhaps it was

Athenagoras of Athens, Dionysius' compatriot and the first director of the Catechetical School, who brought over the first copy of Dionysius’ writings in the second century. We cannot know for sure. But this is certainly a far more reasonable hypothesis than to assume that some anonymous figure in the

late fifth century produced—for no apparent reason—a remarkable pastiche of the ancient Fathers and

the Neoplatonists and that Saints Gregory and Jerome are citing a now-lost work that is inexplicably

similar to the Celestial Hierarchy. The preponderance of evidence, corroborated by these independent

sources, points to the authenticity of the Areopagitic corpus.!^ As promised, we have provided external testimonies in favour of the genuineness of Saint Dionysius'

writings. We shall now turn to internal proofs. In the following and final sections, we will demonstrate that the content of these remarkable writings is perfectly consistent with a first-century origin.

VI. REFERENCES SPECIFIC TO THE EARLY CENTURIES In our response to one of the preceding objections, we mentioned Dionysius’ use of the rare term

"Therapeut," which is elsewhere attested only in the works of Philo the Jew in the first century. We also discussed how Dionysius’ description of the order of monks corresponds closely to the state of monas­ ticism as it existed before the fourth century. We will now provide two additional examples of early

Christian references in the Dionysian corpus: Simon Magus and Clement the philosopher. Simon Magus, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles,!^' was the earliest heretic of the Church. From what we can glean from ancient authors, he propounded a dualistic system that denied the resurrec­

tion of the body and mixed paganism with Holy Scripture. According to the early third-century work

Refutation of All Heresies—attributed by some to Saint Hippolytus of Rome, or to a certain presbyter Gaius by others—Simon believed that there existed a duality in nature: there was an external reality

associated with sense perception which he called “the manifest’’ (τό φανερόν) and a secret internal

reality associated with the spirit which he called "the hidden’’ (τό κρυπτόν).ΰ421 what is noteworthy for us is that the only heretic who is ever mentioned by name in the entire Dionysian corpus is Simon.

When discussing the resurrection of the body, Saint Dionysius says:

So that the contradictory statements of Simon’s folly on this matter, let them be far repelled from a Divine assembly, and from thy reverent soul. For this escaped him, as I

imagine, whilst thinking to be wise, that the right-thinking man ought not to use the manifest reason (τώ προφανεΐ λόγω) of the sensible perception as an ally against

the invisible Cause (αφανούς αιτίας) of all.l3£il

The final sentence of this passage is very revealing, for it betrays an intimate acquaintance with

Simon's dualistic doctrine. Simon rejected sensible matter in favour of the hidden realm of the spirit.

Consequently, he denied the resurrection of the flesh. Dionysius takes this premise and flips it on its head: if we truly believe that the invisible spirit is superior to visible matter, then we should not be led

astray by the material world as it appears to us, but we should trust that the invisible God who made matter will resurrect it and make it incorrupt.

It is certainly remarkable that a late forger could have had such accurate knowledge of the intellectual currents that existed so many centuries before him and, what’s more, that he was able to incorporate

allusions to these matters in such a natural and unforced manner, almost as an afterthought. Origen, writing before A. D. 2 5 0, tells us that by his time, the sect of the Simonians was completely extinct.U^l

Assuming that Pseudo-Dionysius was active in the fifth century, why would he have spent so much energy refuting a heresy that had not existed for over two hundred years, especially considering that

there were many more pressing theological controversies raging? Is it not more reasonable to suppose

that the Divine Names was written at a time when Simon's heresy was alive and well-known and posed a threat to the Church?

In another part of the Divine Names, Dionysius refers to a certain "philosopher Clement." The identity of this person has long been shrouded in mystery, even leading some to claim that Dionysius simply invented himA^l But a closer examination of the passage in question not only proves that this figure

did indeed exist, but it also corroborates our early dating of the Areopagitic corpus. Dionysius writes:

Now if the philosopher Clement thinks good that the more important things among beings be called “exemplars” (παραδείγματα), his discourse does not proceed accord­

ing to the proper, perfect, and simple naming. But if we concede even this to be cor­

rectly said, we must remember the Scripture which saith: “I did not show these things unto thee that thou mightest follow after them,” but that through such proportional

knowledge of these, we may be led up, so far as is possible, to the Universal Cause.U^l It has been suggested that this “Clement” is Pope Clement of Rome (d. 99), who composed two Epistles

to the Corinthians, or, alternatively, Clement of Alexandria (c. 215). But the identification with either of these authors is problematic: firstly, if Dionysius was really referring to Pope Clement, he would have

surely called him “divine” or “holy Clement,” as he invariably does when he cites other Christian teach­ ers or clergymen like Paul, Hierotheos, Justus, Bartholomew, Ignatius, Sopatros, and Carpus; instead,

he refers to him only as "the philosopher” and appears to be quite critical of his doctrine. Secondly,

nowhere in the extant writings of either Clement of Rome or Clement of Alexandria do we find any pas­ sage that matches the specific doctrine cited by Dionysius.

A far more plausible candidate for Dionysius’ "Clement” is the author of the corpus of ancient writings known as the Clementine Homilies. These Homilies purport to be a record of the oral teachings of Saint

Peter composed by one Clement, a citizen of Rome who spent his youth studying under the pagan philosophers in a desire to learn of the fate of man after death; but after hearing of the miracles per­

formed by Jesus Christ, he travelled to the Holy Land and became a disciple of the Apostle.Uszi The text is organized as a series of dialogues that refute paganism and expound the correct nature of God, the

origin of evil, and the future kingdom.

The text of the Homilies as we have it today has been dated to the early fourth century on the basis of certain Arian interpolations, but it is widely believed that the core of the material goes back much earlier and originated within a circle of Judaizing Christians.^sj Now, it is precisely this Judaizing ten­ dency that Dionysius seems to be reacting to in the Divine Names. Dionysius disagrees with the use of

the term “exemplar” with reference to created things. For according to his strictly transcendent view of God, no created thing, however exalted, possesses a likeness to God. By contrast, Clement teaches in the Homilies that God has a body and that man and the universe are patterned after it:

For [God] has shape, and He has every limb primarily and solely for beauty’s sake and

not for use. For He has not eyes that He may see with them; for He sees on every side, since He is incomparably more brilliant in His body than the visual spirit which is

in us, and He is more splendid than everything, so that in comparison with Him the

light of the sun may be reckoned as darkness. Nor has He ears that He may hear; for He hears, perceives, moves, energizes, acts on every side. But He has the most beauti­ ful shape on account of man, that the pure in heart may be able to see Him, that they

may rejoice for what they endured. For He moulded man in His own shape as in the grandest seal, in order that he may be the ruler and lord of all, and that all may be sub­

ject to him. Wherefore, judging that He is the universe (τό πάν), and that man is His image (for He is Himself invisible, but His image man is visible), the man who wishes

to worship Him honours His visible image, which is man.U^l

For Clement, the universe is to be understood as nothing else but the extension into physical space of the essence or power of GodJ2221 The six days of Creation represent the six directions of space that God created, with God existing in a special “seventh" dimension, identified with eternity:

And the extensions taking their rise with Him, possess the nature of six infinites; of which the one taking its rise with Him penetrates into the height above, another into

the depth below, another to the right hand, another to the left, another in front, and another behind; to which He Himself, looking as to a number that is equal on every

side, completes the world in six temporal intervals, Himself being the rest, and hav­ ing the infinite age to come as His image, being the beginning and the end. For in

Him the six infinites end, and from Him they receive their extension to infinity. This is the mystery of the hebdomad.12211

The unorthodox belief that God possesses a “body" was actually held by some early Christians like Melito of Sardisl^l (d. 180) and Tertullian,12221 as well as by currents in first and second-century Ju-

daism.12241 Moreover, the notions that God created the world in “six directions” and that the number

seven serves as a "likeness" of God are attested in the mystical Jewish text known as the Sefer Yetzirah (dated to the second century A.D.) and in Philo of Alexandria (first century A.D.), respectively.^ All of these coincidences reinforce the suspicion that this part of the Clementine Homilies goes back to an

ancient Judaizing original. Dionysius’ response to the argument of the Homilies can be seen in the sub­ tle ways that he adapts the text’s language:

Clementine Homilies

Dionysius

Even if [space] were something, there are

[God] possesses all figure and form

many exemplars (παραδείγματα) which I

(πάνσχημος, πανείδεος), and yet is shape­

have at hand, but I shall content myself with

less and beautyless (άμορφος, άκαλλής),

one only, to show that that which encloses is

containing beforehand incomprehensibly

not unquestionably superior to that which

and transcendently the beginning, mid­

is enclosed. The sun is a circular figure, and

dle, and end of all things, and shedding

is entirely enclosed by air, yet it lightens up

upon them a pure radiance of that one and

the air, warms it, divides it (τέμνει); and if

undifferenced causality whence all their

the sun be away from it, it is enveloped in

fairness comes. For, if our sun, at the same

darkness; and from whatsoever part of it

time that it is one and sheds a uniform light,

the sun is removed, it becomes cold as if it

renews the essences and qualities of sensible

were dead; but again, it is illuminated by

creatures, although they are many and vari­

its rising, and when it has been warmed up

ous, and nourishes and guards, and perfects

by it (περιθάλπηται), it is adorned with still

and distinguishes (διακρίνει), and unites,

greater beauty. And it does this by giving a

and fosters (άναθάλπει), and makes to be

share of itself, though it has its substance

productive, and increases, and transforms,

limited. What, then, is there to prevent God,

and establishes, and makes to grow, and

as being the Framer and Lord of this and

awakens, and gives life to all; and each part of

everything else, Who indeed possesses

the whole, in a manner appropriate to itself,

figure and shape and beauty (έν σχήματι

participates (μετέχει) in the same and one

και μορφή καί κάλλει), from having His

sun...much more with regard to the Cause

communication (μετουσίαν) extended infinitely?L2261

of it and of all things, ought we to concede

that It first presides over all the exemplars (παραδείγματα) of things existing, as be­

seems One superessential Oneness.UiZ]

Clement describes God as having a figure (έν σχήματι) whereas Dionysius says that He transcends all figures (πάνσχημος). Clement says that God has shape and beauty (μορφή καί κάλλος) whereas Diony­

sius explicitly says that God is shapeless and beautyless (άμορφος καί άκαλλής). Clement provides the exemplar (παράδειγμα) of the sun as an illustration of how God communicates Himself to all Creation;

Dionysius cites the same image, but makes it clear that ultimately, God cannot be compared to any cre­ ated exemplars.

Dionysius’ disapproval for overly-materialistic understandings of God can be seen throughout his treatises. In fact, one of his lost works, the Symbolic Theology, was dedicated exclusively to providing allegorical interpretations of certain material objects and anthropomorphisms in the Bible. The fact

that Dionysius felt such a need to refute these particular ideas strongly suggests that his writings were

composed in the early centuries, when debates over anthropomorphism were current in the Church and Christians sought to divest themselves of their Jewish intellectual heritage. Indeed, the struggle

against Judaizing tendencies figures prominently in the writings of Saint Paul (notably in his Epistle to

the Galatians), as well as in Saint Ignatius, who counselled the Philadelphians to flee those who preach circumcision and to consider them as “sepulchres of the dead."122£l The third-century Didascalia Apos­

tolorum also devoted an entire chapter to refuting those who keep the Mosaic Law.l^W

VIL THEMES CONSISTENT WITH

EARLY CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY Two of the chief themes that run through Saint Dionysius’ writings are the ideas of hierarchy and the

unknowability of God. Both of these themes occupied a central place in early Christian theology. For

instance, Saint Irenaeus, in his final book of Against Heresies, refers to a doctrine transmitted from the time of the Apostles which holds that there is a gradation in the saints’ participation of the divine: As the presbyters say, then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall

go there, others shall enjoy the delights of paradise, and others shall possess the

splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour shall be seen according as they who see Him shall be worthy (digni). They say, moreover, that there is this distinction

between the habitation of those who produce a hundred-fold, and that of those who

produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold: for the first will be

taken up into the heavens, the second will dwell in paradise, the last will inhabit the

city; and that was on this account the Lord declared, "In My Father’s house are many mansions”.. .The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, affirm that this is the gra­ dation (ordinationem) and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they ad­ vance through steps (gradus) of this nature.

We may compare these words with what Dionysius teaches about hierarchy:

Hierarchy is, in my judgment, a sacred order (τάζις) and science and operation, assimilated, as far as attainable, to the likeness of God, and conducted to the illumi­

nations granted to it from God, according to capacity (ώς εφικτόν), with a view to

the Divine imitation...For each of those who have been called into the Hierarchy, find

their perfection in being carried to the Divine imitation in their own proper degree (κατ’ οίκείαν αναλογίαν)...! might add this not inappropriately, that each heavenly

and human mind has within itself its own special first, and middle, and last ranks, and powers, manifested severally in due degree...according to which, each one partic­

ipates, so far as is lawful and attainable to him, in the most spotless purification, the most copious light, the pre-eminent perfection....The superior Orders possess abun­

dantly the sacred characteristics of the inferior, but the lowest do not possess the superior completeness of the more reverend, since the first-manifested illuminations are revealed to them, through the first Order, in proportion to their capacity...For

each rank of those about God, is more Godlike than that which stands further away.

And those which are somewhat nearer to the true light, are at once more luminous, and more illuminating.l^QU

The apostolic fragment and Dionysius share two fundamental ideas: that the inferior can ascend to the superior, and that holiness depends on the receptivity of the individual soul. Where Irenaeus speaks

of “steps” and “gradation," Dionysius uses the words "degree” and "order.” Irenaeus speaks of “worthi­ ness,” Dionysius of “capacity.”!^] what's more, both authors conceive of this heavenly hierarchy as having three principal levels. For Dionysius, there are “first, middle, and last ranks” (also referred to as the stages of perfection, illumination, and purification), while Irenaeus distinguishes three types

of souls: the holiest, who attain heaven; the intermediate, who enjoy paradise; and the lowest, who possess the city. The first group represents the individuals who produce a hundred-fold crop in Christ’s

parable of the sower;HQU the second are those who produce sixty-fold, and the last are the ones who

produce thirty-fold. Dionysius’ description of the complete unknowability of God is also reminiscent of first and secondcentury theologians:

Philo (died c. 50): Do you not see that to the prophet who is really desirous of making

an honest inquiry after the truth, and who asks what answer he is to give to those

who question him as to the name of Him Who has sent him, He says, “I am that I Am,”

which is equivalent to saying, “It is my nature to be, not to be described by name”... Therefore the appellations already mentioned reveal the powers existing in the living God; for one title is that of Lord, according to which he governs; and the other is God,

according to which he is beneficent.I42H

Saint Justin Martyr (c. 100-165): For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God;

and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness...

For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who gives Him the

name. But these words Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions.1425] Tertullian (c. 155-220): It will therefore follow, that by Him who is invisible we must understand the Father in the fullness of His majesty, while we recognize the Son as

visible by reason of the dispensation of His derived existence; even as it is not per­ mitted us to contemplate the sun in the full amount of its substance which is in the

heavens, but we can only endure with our eyes a ray, by reason of the tempered condi­

tion of this portion which is projected from it to the earth.i^Qfil Dionysius: The “Nameless” befits the cause of all, which is also above all...For all the Divine properties, even those revealed to us, are known by the participations alone;

and themselves, such as they are in their own source and abode, are above mind and

all essence and knowledge. For instance, if we have named the superessential Hid­

denness, God, or Life, or Essence, or Light, or Word, we have no other thought than that the powers brought to us from It are deifying, or essentiating, or life-bearing,

or wisdom-imparting...The Divine gloom is the unapproachable light in which God

is said to dwell. And in this gloom, invisible indeed, on account of the surpassing brightness, and unapproachable on account of the excess of the superessential

stream of light, enters every one deemed worthy to know and to see God, by the very

fact of neither seeing nor knowing, really entering in Him, Who is above vision and

knowledge.!^!

Like Philo and Justin Martyr, Dionysius does not believe that God can be named: all the names that we give to God do not convey what He is in His nature (for that is unattainable and inconceivable) but are

merely descriptions of His various powers or properties (such as goodness, wisdom, and lordship). Like

Tertullian, Dionysius compares God to the sun, which is so bright that one cannot look at it directly.

Accordingly, God is “invisible,” but not on account of His obscurity, but because of His superabundance

of light. In short, someone who wished to encapsulate the theological climate of the first two centuries of Christianity could scarcely have done any better than the author of the Areopagitic corpus.

VIII. ANGELOLOGY Another area in which the corpus closely matches details of Hellenistic Judaism and first-century Christianity is in its description of the angelic hierarchies. The Book of Tobit (3rd-2nd c. B.C.) speaks of

"the seven holy angels which present the prayers of the saints and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One."H2Sj Saint Paul speaks of having gone to the “third heaven,implying the existence of a hierarchy of some sort. He refers to "the Law given through angels,”1^1 an expression also used by

Saint Stephen in the Acts of the Apostles when addressing the Jews, presuming a certain knowledge of these matters on the part of his audience.This notion that angels serve as "intermediaries” of reve­

lation is actually the entire philosophical foundation of Saint Dionysius’ treatise: Does not the tradition of the Oracles describe the holy legislation of the Law, given

to Moses, as coming straight from God, in order that it may teach us this truth, that it is an outline of a Divine and holy legislation? But the Word of God, in its Wisdom,

teaches this also: that it came to us through Angels, as though the Divine regulation were laying down this rule, that, through the first, the second are brought to the Di­

vine Being. For not only with regard to the superior and inferior minds, but even for those of the same rank, this Law has been established by the superessential supreme ordinance, that, within each Hierarchy, there are first, and middle, and last ranks and

powers, and that the more divine are instructors and conductors of the less, to the Divine access, and illumination, and participation.^^!

The doctrine of the celestial hierarchy is found in a very developed form in a late first-century B.C.

Jewish text known as the "Angelic Liturgy of Qumran.’Hm The text, a series of prayers meant to be recited over the first thirteen sabbaths of the year, refers to seven angelic orders abiding in "seven lofty

holy places.”!^! Each order possesses a “chief prince”^! and a “deputy prince."Hiej Like Dionysius

(and Saint Paul for that matter), who believe that the earthly worship of men is but a reflection of the angelic worship in heaven,the Qumranic liturgy speaks of a heavenly “Holy of Holies"!^! fitted

with “pillars,"HW “embroidered works,"Haoj “crafted furnishings"H2±l and "likenesses of divine beings., carved on the walls of the vestibules by which the King enters.”l421l The mediating role of the angels is repeatedly stressed: the angelic orders are described as a "sevenfold priesthood"H221 and “ministers of

the Presence in [God's] glorious innermost chamber.”H^l Each order takes turns praising the Lord,Hill the lower orders recapitulating and echoing the praises of those above it Saint Ignatius, a contemporary of Dionysius, also alludes to an esoteric doctrine of the angels but does

not elaborate on it, citing the spiritual immaturity of his audience and his own weakness: Am I not able to write to you of heavenly things? But I fear to do so, lest I should inflict

injury on you who are but babes...For even I, though I am bound, yet am not on that

account able to understand heavenly things, and the ranks (τοποθεσίας) of the an­ gels, and the array of principalities (τάς συστάσεις τάς αρχοντικός), things visible

and invisible. Without reference to such abstruse subjects, I am still but a learner; for

many things are wanting to us, that we come not short of God.t^zi Now, if this doctrine was unsuitable to the masses, then logically, there would have had to be some

small circle of people to whom it was suitable. And who would be a more worthy recipient of this doc­

trine than Bishop Timothy, to whom Dionysius dedicated his treatises? Another contemporary text, the Ascension of Isaiah,^! describes the ascent of the prophet Isaiah

through the seven heavens, with each heaven being incomparably more luminous than the one before it.11221 This is comparable to Dionysius, who writes that “each rank of those about God is more godlike

than that which stands further away.”l^oi it should also be noted than when Dionysius speaks of the angelic hierarchy, he does not engage in abstract speculation but appeals directly to scriptural verses which show the angels executing orders with hierarchical discipline or transmitting the knowledge of

God to other angels and men.HUl

Thus, far from being a product of Neoplatonic speculation, Dionysius’ Celestial Hierarchy is firmly grounded on Scripture and fits seamlessly within the religious currents of the first century.

IX. LANGUAGE In addition to their thematic content, the very language of the Areopagitic writings points to a firstcentury origin.

The corpus is characterized by several features: the heavy use of superlatives, an abundance of com­ pounds, frequent enumeration, limitative formulas, and long rhetorical periods.!^! The following ex­ cerpt provides a good sample of Dionysius' style: The first Hierarchy, then, of the Heavenly Minds is purified, and enlightened, and

perfected, by being ministered from the very Author of initiation, through its eleva­

tion to It immediately, being filled, according to its degree, with the altogether most holy purification of the unapproachable Light of the preliminary source of initiation,

unstained indeed by any remissness, and full of primal Light, and perfected by its participation in first-given knowledge and science.L42X1

The cumulative effect of all these elements is that the text feels less like a scholarly treatise and more like a sacred prayer initiating the reader into its mysteries.

In addition, the Areopagitic works exhibit a strong presence of learned vocabulary. One encounters terms like άραρότωςΙ^ΜΙ (immovably), άποδέωΐ^ϋΐ (to lack), άρρενωπόςί^ΜΙ (manly), άνωκισμένοςΐ^ (removed), άρρεπώςί^Μ (unwavering), άγαμαιί^ΐϋ (to wonder), χαμαίζηλοςΐ^ (lowly), λήξιςΐ^ (inheritance), άμάλθακτοςΙΑ^ (unyielding), άτέλεστοςί^ϋΐ (uninitiated), νεοτελής^Ι (newly-initi­

ated), άνόνητοςΙΜ^Ι (detrimental), μαιεύομαι/μαίευσιςΙ^ΜΙ (to give birth/birth), άτενήςΗΐζΐ (intent),

πτοίαΜΒ) (fear), άγιστείαί^ΐ (sanctification), συλλήπτωρΗΜ (assistant), καταδήσασθαιί^-ϋ (to es­ tablish securely), άμυδρόςΜϋ (dim), καθαρεύωΗΐΣ! (to purify), άδρόςί^ΗΙ (bold), εύθυμοσυνηί^Ι

(order), προπηλακίζω^-^ (to insult), άποτετολμημένοςΙ^ΣΖΙ (daring), and even poeticI^Ml words like

άπαναίνομαιΗ^ι (to reject), οίμος^οΐ (path), άνιώνταί^δΐΐ (grievous things), αρωγός^ (helper),

άπήμωνί^ιΐ (without cares), and γανύμενοςί^ΐ (glad).

Dionysius tends to favour peculiarly Attic forms: πληθυς instead of πλήθοςΙ^Ι (multitude), τέλεος for

τέλειοςί^όΐ (perfect), ίέτω for ϊτωΙ^ΖΙ (go), άττα for άτιναΗ££1 (certain things), σμικρός for μικρόςΙ^ΙΙ (small), ξύν for σύνΗΖ21 (with), and the third-person reflexive pronouns σφώνΗΖΐΙ and σφέτεροςί^ζζΐ

(their own). He employs the learned expressionq εΐεν

(be it so), μάλα γεΗΖ41 (indeed), οΐός τεί^ζιΐ

(able), κατά κόρρης διδόναι^ζβι (to smite on the cheek), as well as rare grammatical forms like the dual number (άμφω, άμφοΐν, άμφοτέρω, άνδροΐν, ποδοΐν, πόδε),Η2Ζ1 the perfect imperative ηυχθωΗζει (pray),

the passive aorists έσέφθηΐ^ζζΐ (he worshipped) and σεφθείημενί^βοί (may we reverence), and the verbal

adjective ίτέονΗ&ΐ! (one must go). In his Tenth Letter (to Saint John the Evangelist), Dionysius writes:

"As for you then, I would never be so mad as to imagine that you feel any suffering; but I am persuaded that you underwent the bodily sufferings merely to appraise them." The phrase “I would never be so

mad” (ούκ αν ποτέ οϋτω μανείην) is a rhetorical expression unique to Attic prose.H^zi Dionysius has a predilection for uncommon words and neologisms: άνατατικός14£21 (elevating),

κρυφιόμυστοςί^ϋ (initiated into the arcane), είρηνόχυτοςΙ^ζ (peace-flowing), θεόφυτοςί^ΜΙ (God-

planted), άνακάθαρσις^^ζΐ (explanation), άπαράφθαρτοςΜ^ΐ (unchanging), παγκτησία^Μΐ (complete

possession), and έναπομόργνυμιΐ^οΐ (to impart), to name but a few. Curiously, however, the word "incarnation” (ένανθρώπησις) occurs but rarelyj^zi- instead, Dionysius prefers to talk of Christ’s "man­

nish life” (ανδρικήν ζωήν)1^2]0Γ his "human divine-work” (άνθρωπική θεουργία)1^ζΐ1 and speaks of God "becoming man” (άνδρωθέντος)Η2ή1 and "taking substance humanly” (άνθρωπικώς ούσιωθέντα).Η2ϋ The presence of this unusual Christological terminology is hard to explain if Dionysius was writing in the fifth century, but it makes perfect sense if we assume a first-century origin, as the conventional vo­ cabulary of Christian theology was not yet fixed at that time.

Platonic words also occupy a large place in Dionysius' treatises. In fact, many of the “Proclean” terms that Koch claimed to have identified are just regular words found within the old Platonic

dialogues. Some of the most salient examples are άτρεμήςΐ^ (unflinching), άναφήςΗίΖΙ (impal­

pable), άσχημάτιστοςΙΜδΐ (formless), ϊδρυσις/ίδρυταιΗΖΖ! (fixity/to establish), άνάντηςί^θθΐ (high),

διαπορθμεύω/διαπορθμευτικόςί5£ΐΙ (to transport/transportative), πρωτουργόςΐ^ (primary), τελεσιουργώ/τελεσιουργόςί^θΐ! (to perfect/perfecting), άγαθοειδής/άγαθοειδώςί^θΐΐ (beneficent/beneficently), έστίασιςί^Ι (banquet), πολυθεάμωνί^θέ] (having seen much), άναπτερούμενοςΐ^2- (flying up­ wards), έκμαγεΐονί^θδ] (model), ύπερκρυένΙ^Ζ) (lacking), and λελωβημέναΐ^ΐ (stains).

We also find Platonic phrases and functional clauses: άγε δή/φέρε δή^ϋΐ (come now), δεύρο δήΐ^ΐ (here then), δπη τω Θεω φίλονί^] (as is pleasing to God), εΐ θέμις είπεΐνί^ (if it be lawful to say), τολμητέον

είπεΐνΙ^Ι (one might make bold to say), ταύτά καί ώσαύτωςί^Ι (remaining one and the same). In

some instances, Dionysius even quotes Plato directly: the etymology of ήλιος (sun) from άολλής (all-

together) in the fourth book of the Divine Names is taken from the Cratylus;^- his description of the three motions of the soul (circular, rectilinear, and spiral)UW owes something to the related account in

the Timaeus·,-^- and several of the expressions used to describe God are adapted from the Parmenides and the Symposium:

Plato

Dionysius

That which is never in the same is neither

On the other hand, while ascending, we say

motionless nor at rest...It will not be like

that It is neither soul, nor mind, nor has

or unlike anything.. .neither equal nor

imagination, or opinion, or reason, or con­

unequal to itself or another...It will partake

ception; neither is expressed, nor conceived;

neither of one measure, nor of many...nor

neither is number, nor order, nor greatness,

will it be greater or less than itself or an­

nor littleness; nor equality, nor inequality;

other. (Parmenides 139B-140D)

nor similarity, nor dissimilarity; neither is

standing, nor moving; nor at rest. (Mystical

Theology 5) If the One has no participation in time

That which is wholly deprived of the Good in

whatsoever, neither has it become in the

no way whatsoever was, or is, or will be. (Di­

past...nor is it becoming...nor will it be­

vine Names 4.20)

come in the future. (Parmenides 141E)

It has no being even so as to be one, for if

He is One, as it were, superessentially, being

it were one, it would be and would partake

neither a part of the multitude, nor whole

of being; but apparently the One is neither

from parts; and thus is neither one, nor par­

one, nor is. (Parmenides 14IE)

takes of one, nor has the one. (Divine Names

2.11)

If one exists, number must also exist... All

The whole and one Deity...is uniquely Cause

number partakes of essence. (Parmenides

of all, individually and collectively, and at the

144 A)

same time before all, and above all, and above the One existing Itself...since the One existing —that in things being—is numbered, and number partakes of essence. (Divine Names 13.3)

Essence, then, is distributed over all things,

And all things participate in Him, and from

which are many, and is not wanting in

no existing thing is He found wanting. (Di­

any existing thing from the greatest to the

vine Names 5.5)

smallest. (Parmenides 144B) There would be knowledge and opinion

Of It there is neither perception, nor imagina­

and perception of it. (Parmenides 15 5 D)

tion, nor opinion, nor name, nor expression,

nor contact, nor knowledge. (Divine Names 1-5)

But tell me, what would happen if one of

From It, individually and collectively, were

you had the fortune to look upon essential

born and distributed every unmixed distinct­

beauty unmixed, unalloyed, pure? (Sympo­

ness of every unalloyed purity, the whole

sium 211D-E)

arrangement and regulation of things exist­

ing. (Divine Names 12.3)

Yet we should not be deceived by these superficial similarities to think that Dionysius was some kind of Platonist. Dionysius expressed himself in the only way he knew, in the vernacular of his age, but

his message was thoroughly Christian. As the French theologian Louis Bouyer has said, “we can say

that these writings form a world apart which, despite using materials very liberally, are not clearly be­ holden to anything.”!^ And to quote the well-known patrologist Fulbert Cayre: “Dionysius.. .kept the

same terms, but often gave them a completely different meaning which makes it impossible to confuse the two doctrines [viz. Platonism and Christianity] "Hill In fact, at every step, Dionysius takes care to

ground his discussions on the text of the Bible. Moreover, the central ideas of the Areopagitic corpus —the imparticipability of the divine essence, the divine gloom, and the love of God—are distinctly

Christian.U22]

Recently, the uniqueness of Dionysius' language has even been demonstrated statistically. In 2017 and 2018, the Italian scholar Nicolo Sassi undertook a linguistic analysis of Dionysius’ two shorter works:

the Mystical Theology and the Letters.^- The choice of materials was very apt, for the Mystical Theology is essentially a concise summary of Dionysius’ entire philosophy, and the Letters are the closest record

we have of the author's natural speech patterns. Sassi isolated distinctive theological collocationsl^l in the two works and then compared them to the extant corpus of Greek literature in the Thesaurus

Linguae Graecae. In the case of the Mystical Theology, he found that 5 7 per cent of the language was original; 33 per cent was Platonic or consisted in technical vocabulary used by the various philosoph­

ical schools; and the remaining 10 per cent was Biblical or Christian. In the case of the Letters, 62.5 per cent of the language was original; 25 per cent was Platonic or philosophical; and 12.5 per cent was Biblical or Christian. Of Christian authors, those with the highest parallels to Dionysius were Cyril of

Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. That a forger could contrive such a uniquely

varied yet consistent authorial voice is very hard to believe.

Dionysius’ writings display all the features that one would expect from an educated first-century Athenian: highly stylized prose, Attic forms, impeccable grammar, and the use of contemporary philo­ sophical vocabulary. The idiosyncratic terminology points to an author writing at the beginning of a tradition, still trying to adapt the Greek language to the new faith. One could perhaps imitate one or

two of these features; but to imitate all of them, and with such success, we believe is beyond the ability of any forger.!^!

4- CONCLUSION In the preceding pages, we have shown that all the objections to the genuineness of Saint Dionysius’ works are based either on exaggerations, inaccuracies, or outright fallacies; we have demonstrated that there are compelling reasons to accept the traditional ascription to Dionysius: there is the universal

opinion of all centuries of Christianity; the lofty theology of the works; their realism; the striking lit­ erary parallels with theologians of the second and third centuries; the explicit quotes by Saint Gregory the Theologian and Saint Jerome; their unique Attic style; and above all, their contents, which reflect the doctrinal concerns of the first centuries and accord perfectly with the spirit of the early Christian apologists.15261 As we saw above, the modern rejection of the Areopagitic authorship was grounded on Valla’s ex­

tremely flimsy musings (only a paragraph in length). Unfortunately for us, Valla wrote at a time when

many of the monuments of Christian antiquity were poorly studied, and literary flair often made up for what lacked in scientific rigour. Even worse, opinions that would not have stood up to the scrutiny of a

more critical age became entrenched through sectarian prejudice, lending them a credibility that they should by all rights never have enjoyed. One of the tragedies of the great mystification begun by Valla, Erasmus, and Luther is that it has

created a completely warped view of history and diverted valid scholarship into fruitless avenues:

dissertation after dissertation is written on the Neoplatonism of “Pseudo-Dionysius"; we are told ad nauseam how much Christianity “borrowed” from pagan philosophy; and when any writer earlier than

the sixth century dares to mention the Areopagite, we are told a priori that the work must be spurious

or of later provenance since "we know for a fact” that the Areopagite only wrote after the time of Pro­ clus. Thus has a giant web of falsehood been woven, distorting the light of historical truth. We thought

it was high time finally to cut through this Gordian knot. Let us conclude with a quote from the great

John Parker, the first to translate the works of Saint Dionysius into English:

Eccentric critics, on account of the precise theology, cannot believe that the works were written by a learned Greek, Chief of the Areopagus—who forsook all to follow

Christ—the convert and disciple of St. Paul, the familiar friend of St. John and other

Apostles, to whom our Saviour revealed the mysteries of the Father; but those critics can believe that an unknown man, whose century no one can fix, and possibly a Syr­ ian, may have gleaned from writers of the first four centuries these theological pearls expressed in Greek in a style unique and always like itself. They can believe that the

Author of these Divine writings would incorporate fictitious allusions to persons and

events of the apostolic age to add lustre to incomparable works, and to impute them to another. They can believe that writings, so composed, were foisted upon a credu­ lous Christendom, so that...Maximus, St. John Damascene, and the Council of Nicaea,

accepted them as the genuine works of Dionysius. I do not belong to that school. Only

unbelief could believe anything so incredible.U^J

5- SAINT DIONYSIUS' MISSION TO GAUL According to tradition, seven bishops evangelized Gaul. These were: Saint Saturninus of Toulouse, Saint Trophimus or Arles, Saint Martial of Limoges, Saint Paul of Narbonne, Saint Stremonius of Au­

vergne, Saint Catianus (Gatian) of Tours, and Saint Dionysius of Paris, also known as Saint Denis.l^si It is to the latter that our discussion now turns. It has been the received opinion of the Church that Saint Denis of Paris and Saint Dionysius of Athens are in fact one and the same person. However, in

the seventeenth century, parallel to the attack on the authenticity of the Areopagitic corpus, some scholars also began to call this identification into question. The chief proponent of this theory was a

French historian named Jean Launoy (1603-1678), nicknamed the "expeller of saints" (le denicheur des saints). Since this debate is relevant to our life of Saint Dionysius, we will provide a brief summary of the matter.

I. THE CULT OF SAINT DENIS OF PARIS The earliest reference to the cult of Saint Denis of Paris occurs in the fifth century in the Life of Saint Genevieve (c. 419-502). We are told that Saint Genevieve built a church honouring “Saint Dionysius the

bishop" and his fellow martyrs Rusticus and Eleutherius on the spot where they had been buried to the north of Paris.l^aj This basilica soon became the site of many pilgrimages and miracles. In 5 74, when the army of King Sigebert was attacking Paris, one of his retainers entered the basilica and stole the rich

silk shroud that lay on the tomb of Saint Denis. When escaping by boat, however, the former’s servant fell overboard and was drowned. Terrified by this portent, the thief returned the pall to the basilica, but he too expired soon thereafter.l^ifil

Another miracle occurred during the reign of King Dagobert (r. 629-639). One day, when the king was out hunting a deer, the animal took refuge in Saint Denis’ church. But even though the doors lay

open and no custodian hindered the way, the hounds that had been pursuing the deer did not enter the church, being prevented by the holiness of the place, and remained barking outside. The king was

much struck by this occurrence. Sometime later, when Dagobert found himself amidst political diffi­ culties and was being pursued by his enemies, he fled to the basilica and prostrated himself, praying to

the blessed martyrs for assistance. As he did so, three bright figures appeared to him in a vision. They

told him that they were the martyrs Dionysius, Rusticus, and Eleutherius and promised to intercede before God on his behalf if he renovated their church.i^ij Dagobert fulfilled this request and was later

buried there, inaugurating a long tradition with the French monarchy.

A royal charter from the year 625 which still survives in the archives of Paris registers a gift of land to the basilica of “the holy lord Dionysius, martyr,” who is called “our personal patron.”l^j The same charter mentions an “Abbot Audoin,” suggesting that the basilica had grown to encompass a monastic community. Another charter from 654 reads: "The Almighty Father, who commanded the light to

shine out of the darkness through the mystery of the Incarnation of his Only-born Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit, illuminated the hearts of the Christian saints, for the

love and desire of Whom, amongst others, the glorious triumphs of the blessed martyrs Dionysius,

Eleutherius and Rusticus merited them to take up the palm of victory and glorious crown; and for a

long time in their basilica, in which they are seen to rest, Christ has been seen to work through them not a few miracles.”^!! The Life of Saint Eloi (d. 660) records that vigils were held every year on the feast day of Saint Denis at this time.1^41 We also have evidence that Saint Denis’ cult extended beyond

the confines of Paris. In fact, we are told that a shrine in Denis' honour existed on the outskirts of Bor­ deaux at the time of bishop Aemelius (c. 508-520) and that a small basilica dedicated to him was later constructed in that city and renovated by his successor Leontius (r. 520-542).!^

II. THE VITAI536] OF SAINT DENIS OF PARIS The earliest biographical information about Saint Denis comes from two poems^zi written by Venantius Fortunatus, who flourished in the second half of the sixth century. Venantius mentions that Saint Denis was sent to Paris by "Pope Clement from Rome/’LS^ai that he was willingly beheaded for

the faith,1^21 but that this wound "brought him no death."12421 Additional biographical details are to be found in the two Latin passionsl^HJ of Saint Denis, both anonymous.!^ The author of the first passion, which we have translated in full below, says that he based his account on the oral tradition of the faith­

ful. Like Fortunatus, he records that Saint Denis was sent to Gaul as a missionary by Saint Clement. He then recounts how Denis preached the Gospel to the inhabitants of Paris, converting many. When a persecution was declared against the Christians, he and his two companions, Rusticus the priest and

Eleutherius the deacon, were brought to account before the magistrates, confessed Christ, and were ex­ ecuted. Yet even after being beheaded, “it is thought that their quivering tongues continued confessing

the Lord.’’l24ii The pagans desired to dispose of their holy bodies in the river, but a pious noblewoman succeeded in stealing them away and burying them in a secret location, which later became the site of Saint Denis' basilica.L541i

This first Vita seems to have been quite popular as it was quoted by many later livesL2±51 and served as the basis for the hymnology of Saint Denis’ feast day.12451 The date of its composition is subject to some uncertainty, but the text furnishes us with a few clues. When describing the theft of Saint Denis’ relics,

the author refers to it as a "praiseworthy theft" (furtum laudabile), a singular expression which is first attested in the Commentary on the Gospel of Mark attributed to the Irish Abbot Cummian Fota in the

early seventh century.12421 in addition, the Life of Saint Stremonius, which is said to have been written

by Saint Prix of Clermont,12451 quotes extensive passages from the Vita of Saint Denis.12421 As Saint Prix

reposed in 676, this supplies us with the terminus ante quem'^^ for the composition of the Vita. Ac­

cordingly, the first Vita of Saint Denis can conservatively be dated to around the year 650, which would

fit within the period of the royal charters and the growth of the basilica.l2W

The second Vita is essentially a redaction of the first, adding details not previously mentioned. It was

composed between the late eighth and early ninth centuries!^ and was subsequently translated into Greek, probably in Rome.U521 This text served as the basis for yet another version, composed by Saint

Methodius of Constantinople,both of which were some of the main sources used by Michael Syncellus for his panegyric of Saint Dionysius included in this volume.!^!

In 827, Emperor Michael II of Constantinople sent a copy of the complete Areopagitic corpus to King Louis the Pious of France as a gift. As far as we know, this was the first time that these writings made

their way to the West. The book was received with much reverence in Paris.U^l King Louis then com­ missioned the learned Abbot Hilduin to translate the text into Latin and to compose a new life of the

abbey's patron saint.l^Zl Hilduin's account closely follows the previous two passions, but is much more embellished and encomiastic in tone.-JM Hilduin is also the first source to mention the actual location of Saint Denis’ martyrdom: he says that Denis and his companions were executed on the "Mount of

Mars,” which thereafter came to be known as the “Mount of Martyrs,” or Montmartre. The discovery of an ancient crypt at this location appears to bear out Hilduin's account. Besides these literary sources, Saint Dionysius’ apostolic mission also comes up in official documents of

the period. On March 1st 724, King Theuderic IV issued a charter which says explicitly that Dionysius, Rusticus, and Eleutherius came to Gaul “by the order of blessed Clement, the successor to the Apostle

Peter

Similarly, in 825, when all the bishops of France assembled in council in Paris to discuss

the question of the veneration of icons, they concluded by declaring that the painting of icons should

not be prohibited, for this custom had prevailed from the time of their “ancient fathers," namely “the blessed Dionysius, who was sent to Gaul to preach by Saint Clement, the first successor of blessed Peter the Apostle."UMJ

III. THE IDENTITY OF SAINT DENIS The earliest extant source that identifies Saint Denis of Paris with Saint Dionysius the Areopagite is the second Vita. Launoy's main argument to challenge this identification was a passage from the Life of

Saint Saturninus quoted by Saint Gregory of Tours which says that Saturninus preached the Gospel in Toulouse "under the consulship^! of Decius and Gratus,” that is, in the year 250.1^1! Since Saint Gre­ gory implies that Saturninus, Denis, and the other five bishops who evangelized Gaul were all contem­

poraries, Launoy argued that Denis of Paris could not possibly have been the same person as Dionysius of Athens, who lived much earlier. All subsequent writers who have reprised this thesis essentially rest their entire case on the passage quoted by Launoy. There are several problems with this theory,

however.

Firstly, there are a number of older sources which plainly contradict Saint Gregory's late chronology.

For instance, in 417, Pope Zosimus wrote a letter to the bishops of Gaul to help resolve jurisdictional disputes. He asserted that they ought to submit themselves to the Metropolitan in Arles out of rever­

ence for Saint Trophimus, the first bishop of that city, "from which fount they received rivers of faith in all of Gaul.”b64J u js very possible that this Trophimus is the same figure mentioned in Acts 20:4.

In 450, all the bishops of the province of Arles wrote a synodal letter to Pope Leo the Great to defend their episcopal rights against encroachment from Rome. To bolster their argument, they reminded the

Pope that Arles was the first city in Gaul to receive the Christian faith, having as its first bishop Saint Trophimus, "who was sent there by blessed Peter the Apostle.Saint Caesarius of Arles (d. 542) also

calls Trophimus a “disciple of the Apostles."UMI Secondly, we have a letter from Saint Cyprian of Carthage from around A.D. 254 in which the latter

says that the bishop of Arles at this time was a schismatic named Marcianus, who had “for a long time boast[ed] that [he] adher[ed] to Novatian.”U^l if Trophimus first preached the faith in 250, as Gregory says, how could a schismatic have occupied the see of Arles for a "long time” in 254? Moreover, how can

there have already been several other bishops "established in the same province,” as Cyprian’s letter

goes on to add? There is nothing incredible about a first-century origin of Christianity in Gaul. Saint Irenaeus, who was the bishop of Lyons in the late second century—that is, a good fifty to seventy-five years before Saturn­

inus—writes that in his time, Christian communities existed across Gaul and Germany.t5££l According to Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403), Crescens, one of the Seventy Apostles whom Paul mentions in his

Second Epistle to Timothy,1^21 served as a bishop in Gaul and suffered martyrdom there under the reign of Trajan.L^ffl Granted, then, that Saint Gregory’s chronology is unreliable, what positive evidence to we have to date Dionysius to the first century? There is, as we saw above, the poem by Venantius Fortunatus, the

learned bishop of Poitiers and Gregory’s own contemporary, who says that Dionysius came to Paris under the pontificate of Clement. We also have the unbroken tradition of the Church of Paris, as re­ flected in the various Lives, royal charters and councils. A third piece of evidence which supports an

early dating is Saint Dionysius’ name, as well as that of one of his companions, the deacon Eleutherius: in fact, in contrast to the names of all the other missionaries on Gregory’s list, which are Latin, these

two stand out for being Greek.LSiL This detail is quite consistent with a first or second-century mission,

when other Greeks were active in Gaul.l^l

IV. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE IDENTITY OF THE TWO DENISES There is no conclusive proof that the two Denises are the same person. However, there are several strong arguments supporting the traditional identification. First of all, there is the historical timing. As we just saw, all the lives of Saint Denis of Paris agree that the saint preached under the pontificate

of Clement, a claim reinforced by his Greek name. Now, Saint Dionysius the Areopagite wrote a letter

to Saint John the Evangelist while the latter was imprisoned on the island of Patmos; at the end of this letter, Dionysius says that he is certain that John will “return to the Asiatic coast” and that the two will

be reunited.!^ Saint John was exiled on Patmos towards the end of Domitian’s reign (c. 9 6)^1 and was released upon the accession of Trajan (in 9 8).U^- Hence, we can deduce from Dionysius’ comments that

during the last years of the first century he was still in the East, possibly even in Ephesus. If Dionysius

did indeed go West, his departure must have occurred sometime after 96. At the time, the Pope of Rome

was Saint Clement, precisely as the western lives state.t^l Secondly, such a mission would not have been without precedent. For as we have already mentioned, Crescens, a fellow disciple of Saint Paul, was martyred in Gaul precisely at the time that Dionysius was purportedly there. Furthermore, only a few decades later, Irenaeus, the disciple of Dionysius’ friend

and correspondent Polycarp, settled in Lyons with many other companions. Even Saint Paul himself is

said to have preached as far as Spain,Uzzj a journey that would have entailed him travelling along the

ancient Roman road passing through Nice, Arles and Narbonne (or the equivalent route by sea).U^l

Given how tightly-knit the early Apostolic community was, it would therefore not be surprising for Dionysius to have followed a similar course as his comrades and teacher. A final argument rests essentially on tradition: during the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which convened

in 680—that is, only a few decades after the composition of the first Vita—the Holy Fathers refer to Saint Dionysius in their eighth session as “the bishop of Athens and martyr.”Uzs. There are two possi­

bilities to explain this statement: either (1) there were two independent cults involving a first-century martyr named Dionysius, one in Paris and one in Athens, or (2) subsequent to the renewed interest

in the Areopagite's writings in the sixth and seventh centuries, the Easterners learned of the story of Saint Denis of Paris (most likely in Rome), concluded that the Areopagite had suffered martyrdom in

the West, and adopted his feast day in the liturgical calendar.l^£21 Now, either theory would be just as plausible were it not for the coincidence of dates: Saint Denis of Paris is commemorated by the Western

Church on October 9th, while Saint Dionysius of Athens is commemorated on October 3rd by the Greeks. The close proximity of these feast days overwhelmingly suggests that they derive from a common

source.

Furthermore, if the Areopagite had indeed been martyred in the East, how is it that the Greeks so easily forgot this tradition and adopted the story of his death in Gaul? One does not often see a nation volun­ tarily relinquishing its claim over a renowned personage in favour of a distant and foreign people. By

all appearances, then, the bishops of the Sixth Ecumenical Council called Dionysius a martyr because they believed that he had been martyred in Gaul. It is impossible for us today, so many centuries re­ moved from the events in question, to analyze the reasons that led them to accept this tradition, but

we can only assume that an assembly of such learned men had good reasons for it. Thus, although we

cannot prove this matter with scientific exactitude, we can say definitively that Saint Dionysius' mis­

sion to Gaul is both historically plausible and supported by venerable witnesses of great antiquity.

Fig. 1 The Discovery of the Crypt of Saint Denis in 1611 (Engraving by Jaspar Isaac, Courtesy of Gallica)

A NOTE ON THE AUTHOR 581] Michael Syncellus (c. 761-846) was a monk of the ancient monastery of Saint Sabbas in Palestine. Having been dedicated by his parents to the Church at a young age, he exhibited great wisdom and

asceticism, inducing Patriarch Thomas to appoint him his syncellus, or chief advisor. In 814, the Pa­

triarch made provisions to send him to Rome accompanied by the brothers Theodore and Theophanes the Branded (the future hymnographer and martyr). The purpose of their journey was twofold: to dis­ cuss the newly-arisen question of thefilioque with the Pope, and to solicit financial assistance to pay

the heavy taxes that had been imposed on the churches of the Holy Land by the Arabs. However, the company never made it to their destination, for while they were still en route, they were imprisoned

in Constantinople by Emperor Leo the Armenian (r. 813-820) for their stance in defence of the holy

icons.Michael remained in prison for close to seven years, after which he was exiled to a monastery in Prusa in Bithynia. During this exile, which lasted twelve years, he continued writing letters encour­ aging the faithful to venerate the icons. This elicited the ire of Emperor Theophilus, and so, in 833, he

was again thrown in jail. He was released only upon the latter's death in 842, at which point the icons were also permanently restored. In recognition of his heroic struggles for the faith, Empress Theodora

and her son Michael IIIM2J offered Syncellus the throne of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but he

declined it out of modesty in favour of his friend Methodius and retired to the monastery of Chora. He died peacefully in 846 surrounded by his disciples.

Over the course of his life, Michael composed many encomia to the saints, liturgical hymns, and a grammatical treatise on Greek syntax which proved very popular in the later Middle Ages. His pane­ gyric of Saint Dionysius was delivered on the occasion of the saint’s feast day (October 3rd according

to the Eastern tradition). Since the concluding paragraph of the oration alludes to the iconoclastic per­

secution as still ongoing, its most likely date of composition is between 821 and 833, when Syncellus was in exile. The text showcases the author’s prodigious rhetorical skills and learning: not only is it characterized by intricate syntax and rich vocabulary, but it even incorporates many of the rare terms found within the Areopagitic corpus itself.

ENCOMIUM OF SAINT DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE By Michael Syncellus Truly, one would need a heavenly and divine tongue, similar to those God-sent and fiery tonguesMi]

which were apportioned to the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,U^ and an angelic voice, if one wished to laud Dionysius the revealer of God, the extoller of the all-beholding Deity which encircles

and contains all things in perfect goodness and is worshipped and adored in the supersubstantial and superdivine and exceedingly good Trinity—Dionysius, the most superb theological interpreter of the

appellations of God and inexpressible divine mysteries; the expounder of the heavenly hierarchy and

praiser and adorner of the heavenly intelligible hosts; the initiate and initiator and exhibitor of the

hierarchical office and holy rites and ceremonies and of the entire sacred wisdom and splendour of the

Christians, who because of the purity of his life and perfection in all the virtues was entrusted by holy Paul with the revelation of the visions and sounds he saw and heard when he was caught up to the

third heavenUsej—Dionysius, the comrade and associate of the Apostolic choir and their equal in holy struggles, the most holy among hierarchs, the brightest among martyrs, the most divinely-wise among theologians, and the most illuminating among teachers.

On which account, O divine priesthood,isazi and holy people, and God-chosen assembly, I feared that in attempting to sing the praises of such a great luminary, I would incur the crime of arrogance. For even

if the eloquence of all the orators who have ever lived was gathered together—much less my own feeble

powers of speech—one would still fall short of the sublimity of praise that the celebrated theologian deserves. Nevertheless, yielding to your insistent love and faith, I will offer what I am able to God, and to the Saint, and to you. Even if I fail in the task of composing praises suitable to the virtues, excellen­

cies, and feats of the one being praised, I rejoice greatly in my failure, since it is no loss to the one receiv­

ing acclaim if the one acclaiming him prove incapable of finding sufficient expressions to praise him.

Where, then, shall I begin my tribute? Shall I employ the usual laws of rhetoric in my encomium, taking as my subject what is earthly, perishable, ever-changing, and destructible, that is, the family and coun­ try, the wealth and worldly glory, not to mention the reputation of one who is so much more elevated than all these things and superior to the mutable glory and vaunt of man? Or rather, shall I speak of those incorruptible and truly blessed and eternal trophies which he acquired through his most excel­

lent conversion from the religion of the idols to Christ the True God, and by his angelic instruction and

strenuous labours? For how will recounting the genealogy of his earth-bound parents who wallowed in the mire and, what’s more, were captives to superstition, redound to the true honour of him who

was deemed worthy of the adoption of God, the King of All; who was numbered among the heavenly

orders of the angels and vested with the same hierarchical and apostolic radiance as Peter and Paul the preachers of God; who became a member of that blessed generation, and was likewise crowned with

the crown of martyrdom?

Or what distinction will a homeland fit for horses and rich in flocks, surrounded by fields and mountains and glens and gullies, thickly covered by meadows and groves and all manner of trees and plants, encompassed by sea-harbours, flowing abundantly with rivers and fountains and lakes, graced

with spaciousness, and displaying the tombs of its builders as a marvel to the passerbyU^l—what will all this add to one who possessed the heavenly city of Jerusalem, whose walls are painted by God and where one finds the habitation of the joyful,the song of those who feast,and the voice of rejoicing?l59U

Though we have spoken of all these things by way of introduction, judging the most blessed one to be

above the mundane and far-removed from the earthly, the truth is that he did not hail from an obscure lineage, nor was his homeland an insignificant one, nor indeed was he the citizen of some common

town. For what part of the world has not heard of the glory of Greece? Or who is ignorant of Athens, the jewel of Greece, the famed and all-celebrated city, the dwelling place of the philosophers and the training ground and school of the most eminent orators? This is where the famous Dionysius origi­

nated and where he was a renowned magistrate, serving as one of the chief and preeminent judges of the Areopagus, whose illustrious and most glorious ancestry is treated at length by the writers of the Atthides, Androtion and Philochorus.15221 Hence, one is able to infer that his ancestors were men of au­

thority, rank and fame, for the high-minded Athenians would never have promoted a man to such an

elevated estate were he not distinguished by his wisdom, good sense, temperance, justice, courage, and the great reputation of his family.

The surpassing nobility, and virtue, and knowledge, and wisdom, and breadth of eloquence of that intellectual beacon is also clearly demonstrated by the sacred and all-wise narrative of the Apostolic

Acts composed by the most truth-loving and wise Luke, when he describes those in Athens who be­ lieved on account of the teaching and speech that the God-inspired and blessed Paul delivered upon the

Areopagus: for he singles him out with a particular expression, saying, Among whom was Dionysius the Areopagite.1^21 He did not say, "Among whom was a man by the name of Dionysius,” but Among whom was Dionysius the Areopagite, hinting thereby that his name was on every man’s lips and that he was

well-known to all. And may no one doubt that these few words enclose such a lofty meaning, for even

though the words are few, their power in showcasing the renown of the admirable man is great. Indeed,

Moses the God-seer employed a similarly short expression in his account of the Creation when he made

mention of Melchizedek, who was the foreshadowing of our spiritual priesthood, naming neither the parents who bore him nor whence he came;hMlyet he left his memory as an immortal monument to

be forever celebrated by future generations. Come then, most blessed Luke, O evangelist of universal salvation and joy, mighty herald of the ineffable incarnation of God the Word and most accurate orator

of His divine signs and wonders, come and tell us who and what sort of man this Dionysius is, and ex­

pand upon those exceedingly brief and holy words by which you introduced the sacred doctor! Here, he says, is the most glorious of the leading men and nobles of Greece, the crown of the Areopagus,

whose fame rests less on his rank than his rank is ennobled by his virtue. Here is one who excelled in all manner of dialectical learning, the most learned among Stoics and Epicureans and other philosophers,

the most Attic and articulate among Atticists and grammarians, the most rhetorical among rhetori­

cians, the most perceptive among those who busy themselves with astronomy, the most precise in the other liberal disciplines, but also the most perfect in the tetrad of the virtues. He is the one who held

the unwavering scales of justice, who was the most equitable of the magistrates of Athens; and he was all these things while still being bound to the Gentile religion, while still steeped in the abominations of Zeus and given to the idolatrous rites of Pallas Athena; while he still embraced the fanciful theology of Orpheus (who attracts all things with his musical melodies),U2H anj happily accepted Hesiod's

Theogony, which is truly fit for old wives.hie]

But when the salvific grace which shone upon all men had dispersed the mist of Greek folly and drunk­

enness and had chased away every idolatrous delusion, and the disciples of our God and Saviour Christ, flying and running through the entire world like eagles with spread wings, had illumined the world

with the light of divine knowledge, Paul, the mightiest theologian and most divine Apostle to the Gen­

tiles, the trumpet that echoed unto the heavens and the chosen vessel,1^21 visited Athens, trumpeting

the world-saving and life-bearing proclamation and announcing the divine name of the Lord. Having seen that the city surpassed all the other cities of Greece in its devotion to the idols, he was enflamed by a divine zeal and fervently marched into it and conversed with everyone he encountered, Jew and

Greek, wise and unlearned. As he preached to them the resurrection of the dead and Jesus Who had redeemed mankind from the tyranny of the deceiver, murderer, and dragon, and from death and cor­ ruption, he astonished both the philosophers of Epicurus and those of the Painted Porchl^E with his

ineffable and otherworldly wisdom. Then, after being taken to the judgement-seat of the Areopagus, he

convinced those who surpassed all others in philosophy; and forthwith, Dionysius departed from the foul mire of idolatry and clave unto Paul, who breathed a heavenly fragrance. He tore himself from the teachers of deceit and bound himself to the preacher of truth. He was brought up from the depths of perdition and flew up to the heights of salvation. He deserted the gloom of impi­ ety and came to the light of divine knowledge. He withdrew from true vanity and drew near to true

blessedness. He renounced Belial, the author of death, and joined himself to Christ, the Source and Be-

stower of life. He despised the impurity of the demons and welcomed the purity of the angels. He shook off the foul matter of the world and embraced the immaterial life. Having become a mirror reflecting

the flashing beam of Paul, who vied in brightness with the Cherubic Throne (inasmuch as Christ, Who is carried upon the Cherubim, resounded in his ears), and being filled with the gift of light, he was made radiant; and with his entire self—soul, mind, and heart—he adhered to the master. O hail the ease with which that most excellent man admitted the enlightening apostolic exhortation!

Praise that pliant and clear soul, which so readily received the impressions of the original seals of evan­ gelical teaching! Hail that heart, which so easily and unflinchingly broke off all carnal attachments,

threw off all material influence, and so swiftly believed the salvific preaching, attaching itself to Paul,

the treader of the heavens and guide to the heavenly mansions'll Hail that fertile and rich intellectual

soil which so eagerly received the life-giving seed and yielded such a plentiful and fruitful crop! The weight of rulership and the glory of magistracy did not detain him; the longing for the company of

friends and comrades did not draw him back; the tyrannical love of parents and relatives and hearth­ fellows did not command him; the mad lust for vast wealth and possessions did not shackle him; bod­ ily pleasures did not soften him; the desire for delicate living and luxury did not effeminate him: when he heard the divinely-speaking voice of the preacher, he endeavoured at once to cling to him like an iron

to a magnet, ignoring all those things that are wont to delight mortals. Now, we admire the obedience of Abraham, who was commanded by God to depart from his family and homeland and to travel to a foreign land he did not know,1^1 and most rightly so. We celebrate

Elisha, who abandoned his yoke of oxen and gladly left his paternal hearth to follow the call of the inspired zealot Elijah without delay,and this most justly. We also elevate Philip with praises, who

unhesitatingly and speedily hurried to Jesus, the Author of salvation,1^11 and readily followed Him

when he was called,ΙέθΧΙ and this is indeed most proper. With how many and great praises, then, and laudatory words, ought we to crown this man who had not been instructed by the Mosaic Law, who was not educated by the prophetic utterances, who was unaccustomed to hearing historical narrations

of divine prodigies and had not beheld miraculous signs? Nevertheless, he most readily accepted the simple words of Paul, an unlearned man, a pauper, and a foreigner lacking rhetorical skill, who did not

embellish his speech with sophistical phrases. He received his teaching like a seed that is newly cast

upon the earth and admitted it without doubting into the depths of his heart; and straightway, he bore the vivifying fruits of the holy faith, joining his song to that of Isaiah, the most far-seeing prophet, who cried: We have conceived, O Lord, because of Thy fear, and have been in pain, and have broughtforth the

breath of Thy salvation upon the earthen These things, assuredly, have been related to us by the great herald Luke, who is present with us in spirit and concelebrates the sacred memory of the hieromartyr, presiding over this assembly that hon­

ours and acclaims him, and offering the first praises. Whatever we have received from either unwritten or written tradition will be woven into the fabric of our encomium like ornamental flowers and will be served up to you, our eager listeners and spiritual dinner-guests, as sweet spices upon the spiritual table.

This, then, is the account that has reached us from times past, being transmitted from father to son: the great Dionysius, at the time of the salvific Passion, when the earth was being shaken and the sun was hiding its rays in the middle of the day,L^U unable to bear the sight of the Creator of All being fixed

to the gallows and tasting death—He, that is, Who is passionless and indestructible in His GodheadLSM —was exceedingly amazed at the prodigy and understood the event with a knowledge surpassing

human ability: “The unknown God,” he said, "suffers in the flesh, on Whose account the whole universe

is darkened and quakes.” And immediately, he marked the moment that this universal marvel had

taken place and kept it close to himself, waiting expectantly to learn what it would signify. He himself makes mention of this most astounding solar eclipse in his letter to Polycarp. But as he excels everyone

in the gift of divine speech and eloquence, it is best to adorn this account with his own graceful words,

just as one decorates a royal diadem with the brightest of precious stones. At one time, a certain philosopher and devotee of the Greek religion named Apollophanes was

reproaching and insulting that thrice-blest, magnanimous, and admirable man on the grounds that,

although the latter claimed to be his dear friend and compatriot, he loathed their paternal devotions and preferred to follow and embrace the faith of the Christians, which he vigorously defended by em­

ploying the writings of the Greeks against the Greeks. Therefore, advising him to refute these insults and reproaches, Dionysius wrote the following to Polycarp, who abounded in many fruits of piety and

virtue and to whom the sophist had been expressing his disapproval: "But you say that the Sophist Apollophanes rails at me and calls me parricide, as using, not piously, the

writings of Greeks against the Greeks. Yet in reply to him, it were more true for us to say that Greeks

use, not piously, things divine against things divine, attempting through the wisdom of Almighty God to eject the divine worship. And I am not speaking of the opinion of the multitude, who cling tena­

ciously and passionately to the writings of the poets; but even Apollophanes himself uses not piously things divine against things divine; for by the knowledge of things created, well called philosophy by him, and by the divine Paul named wisdom of God,IfiQZl the true philosophers ought to have been

elevated to the Cause of things created and to the knowledge of them. And in order that he may not im­ properly impute to me the opinion of others or that of himself, Apollophanes, being a wise man, ought

to recognize that nothing could otherwise be removed from its heavenly course and movement, if it

had not the Sustainer and Cause of its being moving it thereto, Who forms all things and transforms them, according to the sacred text.-^2S_ How then does he not worship Him, known to us even from

this, and verily being God of the whole, admiring Him for His all-causative and super-inexpressible

power, when sun and moon, together with the universe, by a power and stability most supernatural,

were fixed by Him to entire immobility, and for a measure of a whole day remained in their respective signs?'’!^32J And a bit further: "Say to him, however, 'What do you affirm concerning the eclipse which took place at the time of the saving Cross?’ For both of us at that time, at Heliopolis, being present and standing

together, saw the moon approaching the sun to our surprise (for it was not appointed time for con­ junction); and again, from the ninth hour to the evening, supernaturally placed back again into a line

opposite the sun. And remind him also of something further: for he knows that we saw, to our surprise,

the contact itself beginning from the east, and going towards the edge of the sun's disc, then receding back, and again, both the contact and the re-clearing, not taking place from the same point but from

that diametrically opposite. So great are the supernatural things of that appointed time, and possible

to Christ alone, the Cause of all, Who worketh great things and marvellous, of which there is not number.1^1 These things say if occasion serves, and if possible, O Apollophanes, refute them, and to me,

who was then both present with thee, and saw and judged and wondered with thee at them all

Accordingly, when Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and boldly declared, Ye men of Athens, I per­ ceive that in all things ye are too superstitious;for as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, ‘To the Unknown God;’ Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto and delivered the rest of that divine speech, immediately that most marvellous man accepted

the report as if it had been sent to him from heaven, and he became Paul’s inseparable follower. He ut­ terly renounced the mysteries and rites of the Greeks and held all demonic delusion in abomination. He

pursued the heavenly science and received preliminary instruction in the true dogmas and evangelical

teachings. He was taught the immaculate faith and drew near the regenerative font of life-bestowing baptism, stripping off the corrupt old man and putting on Christ Himself, the Author of life.^iil He was

formed anew, and instead of being a corrupt servant and son of corruptible flesh, he became the son of the Uncreated, Incorrupt, Consubstantial and Sovereign Trinity, the Cause and Creator of all things,

becoming himself incorruptible and obtaining the remission of his debts. He was clothed with the most luminous symbols of freedom, adoption, and lordship and was deemed worthy of perfection. He

was armed with the weapons of light^H! and was instructed in the most perfect mysteries of the higher wisdom. Thereupon, he proceeded quickly to the cultivation of the vineyard. He engaged himself in the

fulfilment of the commandments of the Gospel and followed the angelic way of life. Studying under

Hierotheos the inspired master (whom he mentions with high praise in his theological treatises), he was instructed in the ways of God.

He exercised himself further with feats of continence and asceticism, taking all possible care to safeguard the gift he had been given. He also strove to offer the generous Giver of good things fruits

worthy of His benevolent Goodness as he struggled against the adversary of our life and salvation. For he had been taught how the Source and Provider of all things, the Only-Begotten Son and Word of God, Co-beginningless, Co-eternal, and Consubstantial with the One Who begot Him, the express image of

the Father’s person and the brightness of His glory,though He Himself required no cleansing and was already purified, granted us the purification of our mortal nature by the submersion of Adam's

sin in the currents of the Jordan. He it was Who had formerly fashioned man after His own image and

likeness; but the latter, through the deceit of the hostile dragon (the source of evil) and the incitement of his wife, laid aside the Lord’s commandment. Yet He did not despise man though he had been defiled by sin and had fallen into corruption, but through the good-will of the Father and the cooperation of

the Holy Spirit, He came down in an ineffable expression of benevolence from the Fatherly bosom, from which He was never truly separated, filling all things but being circumscribed by no thing. Indeed, let us not understand the divine descent as a movement from one place to another (banish the thought!)

but in a way befitting God. For how can He Who has no body, and is limitless and all-knowing, change place?

Therefore, He was for a short time providentially emptied of His divine glory so that we might be filled

with His divinity and become gods by grace. Entering into the virginal womb of the unwedded, allpure, and ever-virgin daughter of David like a seed, He raised up flesh from her blood, ensouled it with

a rational and intelligible soul, and united it to Himself. He was thus born of her an incarnate God, two­ fold though simple, having become like us in all things save sin,l^J in two perfect natural wills and

operations, free from any change or confusion and remaining one and the same Son and one Person after the Incarnation. He Who is beyond temporal motion and is the Creator of all the ages assumed

a beginning in time; He Who was all-perfect and beyond all perfection accepted to grow bodily and to come to manhood. And after being baptized, He emerged from the waters and immediately waged battle against the homicidal apostate and destroyed the three-headed prong of his terrible assaults.!^

He overthrew the arrogant and boastful tyrant and nullified the multifarious swarm of his attacks, ren­

dering him easy to subdue. For He showed us the example through His own fierce struggle against him

and provided us the resources for victory.!^ And so, modelling and directing his life according to that salvific example, that noble soul emerged from the fountain of life-springing illumination armed with grace; and being anointed with the divine

oil, just as the wrestlers of gymnasia are when facing their hostile opponents, he quickly set upon the

most insidious enemy and bitter waylayer of the heavenly paths. He laid aside earthly caresM^l and be­ came a complete lover of the struggle for God, spending his days and nights in intense prayer, enduring sleepless vigils, taming the flesh with fasts and subjecting the inferior part to the superior, the clay to

the mind, and thinning out the earthly denseness with his thoughts just as a gloomy mist is dispersed

by the rays of the sun. He ascended to the heights of contemplation, and his mind lingered fondly in

reflections of God. He removed the divine image of his soul far away from all material contemplation and, turning its noetic eye towards the splendour that shone from above, his whole being took flight as he delighted first-hand in the teachings of the Apostles and treated every divine saying, both new and old, as his breath and food.

His excellence in the practical and theoretical virtues did not escape the most perceptive eyes of blessed Paul, who deemed him worthy of receiving the hierarchical rank and selected him as the first bishop of Athens. He thus became the father of his own fatherland, having the first-fruits of the spiritism committed into his hands and being entrusted with those who had believed there. For it was only right

that the city that had borne, nourished, and educated him be first illumined by her own child, nursling, and pupil, the first to have been spiritually born to Christ (the Cause of salvation), who so evidently

surpassed everyone in his manner of life and speech, and be directed by the pastoral supervision of her most excellent son, who guided her steps towards God, led her to salvific pastures, and set up her camp

in the green country of tender and unadulterated teaching, nourishing her with the water of repose, the truly blessed inheritance.^^!

O how great is the divinely-ordained good fortune of the Metropolis of Athens! How thrice-blest and fortunate she is to have brought forth such a pastor and lit upon such a guide and teacher, just as the

Israelite people of old had Moses! For he indeed proved to be a new Moses. Instead of the ten plagues of Egypt, he pierced the polytheistic delusion of the idols with the countless deadly flaming arrows of his

holy dogmas and teachings, and he drowned the intellectual Pharaoh together with his ruinous forces

(namely the heretical prattle which sprouted up as tares through the deception of the wicked demon) in the most subtle depths of his all-wise divine knowledge and eloquence. He liberated the chosen peo­ ple of Christ from the tyranny of Belial and the superstitious religion, and he crossed over the raging

sea of enemies who rose up from all sides, being guided by the shining grace that shone within him like

a pillarl^ and by the cloudL^l of the All-Holy Spirit which kept him under Its protection and brought

him to the calm harbour of the immaculate faith. He transcended all that was lowly and planted his beautiful feet, which bore glad tidings of peace,

upon the highest peak of the mountain of the virtues. And after entering into the divine gloom and conversing with God, he received the tablets of the Law.l^u Raising his hands in the form of a cross, he

put to flight God's enemy Amalek;!^ and those who had been tripped up and wrongfully taken captive through the bites of serpents^?! and the demons’ ambushes and arrows he cured with the spirit of the Word Who had hung upon the tree and suffered death in the flesh, Who had destroyed the hostile

powers, and was piously adored, worshipped, and preached by him. Like a new Joshua, he separated the Jordanis and led the peculiar people across as they walked with dry feet and carried aloft the allvenerable, all-holy, and God-receptive intellectual Ark that budded from him.^221 He cast down the

strongholds·^ of the detestable Jerichoites, that is, the arguments of the noetic foreigners and hereti­ cal company, through his much-circling and much-turning feats of piety, battering them down and de­

stroying them with God-sounding trumpets.^!!

He used the sun-like and radiant intelligence and the luminous^! good government that had been

conferred on him from heaven to drive away the ravening wolves, those teachers of impiety decimating the rational herds, and he obtained for the saved the eternal inheritance in the heavenly Jerusalem. For standing as firm as the sun and moon to assist the surviving people of God,1^1 he hastened to expel the enemies from the Promised Land and to distribute the possession that had come into his hands. Just

like David, who aimed his sling at the wicked onel^M! who boasted against the divine army and mocked its Helper, smiting him with a stone and achieving a most glorious victory against his enemies and

being celebrated with countless triumphal songs,he youthfully took up courage and fortified him­

self with faith, hope, and trust in Christ and cast down the terrible destroyer who acted through the

persecuting tyrants with a bravery that was harder than stone; and bearing back the crown of victory, he is ceaselessly praised with infinitely-diverse hymns and odes. Like a new Ezekiel, that witness and

interpreter of the most mystical divine visions,

he described the multitude of divine manifestations

and symbolic forms, leading up our minds from sensible likenesses towards the contemplation of the

immaterial and intellectual with the most subtle sacred explanations.

But what need have I to depict such an admirable holy preacher using men who were but foreshad­

owings of the light? It is more proper to compare him to those deemed worthy by the Light Himself to have lived in his company and conversed with him. Indeed, he should be likened rather to the great and foremost pinnacle Peter, to whom the Unoriginate and Unbegotten Father manifested the birth of

the Co-Beginningless and Co-eternal Son, which was before all ages and beyond time and is completely incomprehensible and unfathomable to mind or reason; upon whom like a rock, as being the unshaken foundation of the faith, Christ built His own Church—He Who is the true rock of life and makes and

sustains all things;l£izi whom He appointed as the key-holder and inheritor of the habitation and allot­ ment of heaven and gave the power to bind and loose the cords of sin;^W who illumined the royal seat of Rome with flashing miracles that emanated most blessedly from Christ and transformed the west­

ern darkness into the clearest light. Or let us compare him to the Son of Thunder,1^221 he who thundered

to the world the divine and sublime things, inaccessible to all human hearing and understanding and

inapproachable even to the supercosmic essences, inasmuch as he rested upon the breast of true and subsistent wisdoml^ and drew forth the purest waters of theology from the all-blest and ever-flowing storehouses of His secret divine knowledge.

Or perhaps it might be more fitting to liken him to Paul, his own luminous guide and sacred initiator, who passed beyond the vault of heaven and beheld things unseen by mortals and heard what it is not proper to hear and was initiated into words most mystical;l^J-l who walked in paradise, our ancient

homeland, and described the blessedness that is there, from which our ancestors were exiled on ac­

count of their own rashness and the transgression of the Master’s decree; who traversed the whole world like a bird and took the harsh Gentiles captive, turning them from disbelief to faith. For by imi­ tating these men’s burning zeal for God, their sincere love and fair judgment, their compassion towards their neighbour and remarkable modesty, as well as their outstanding courage and outspokenness, and

by modelling his conduct on what was Godlike in the life of each, he worthily acquired from the Lord both apostolic grace and the power to perform miracles, not to mention prophetic splendour and an

abundance of theology.

He appointed all the wisdom he had gathered from his Greek education to be the handmaid of his

celestial learning, consecrating the fairest ornaments of his profane knowledge to the pursuit of the divine and heavenly like a wise honeybee. Therefore, being filled with inspiration from the supremely divine outpouring of light, he spoke and theologized and composed those things that so astonish the

intellect. For taking flight in his mind from the contemplation of visible things to the consideration of the invisible, he observed the threefold congregations of the supermundane and incredibly radiant

orders, and he very finely described their respective triple divisions of most holy angels as if he himself

were a supercosmic and heavenly angel, a colleague of the bodiless powers.And after recounting their excellent arrangement and heavenly hierarchy, he reverently lifted up the luminous part of his

soul to the very throne of the surpassingly divine Divinity.

With lips purified by the divine and purest coal,Ml] he theologized the Uncreated Godhead, One and

Indivisible in Trinity, positing One Sovereignty of the Creator of All, Providential and Sustaining, One Substance, One Authority, One Kingdom, One Power, One Will and Energy, and Three Consubstantial and Co-eternal and Co-beginningless Persons in Unity, divided in number and in their immutable and immovable Properties, but united in Divinity; not intermingled but abiding unconfusedly One in

Another, Each considered after Its Own Particularity; not separated by place or boundary or any cir­ cumscription whatsoever (far be it!—for They are bodiless and uncircumscribable), but distinguished in thought alone, as much as one can comprehend Their Triadic Enumeration without mixture and

intermingling, and being worshipped and venerated with one worship and veneration; One God and Lord to revere Who is worshipped and venerated in Three Persons, the Son and Spirit referring back to a Single Source and Cause: the Son Begotten before all ages Alone of the Father, that is, of His Essence, singly and bodilessly and impassionately; and the Spirit also originating from the Father alone and

flowing forth through the Son, and showing Itself forth to men, teaching them of a Single Principle; but

not such as describes a single Person (for to suppose one Person dissenting against Himself is to sup­

pose much), but such as an Equality of Nature recommends, and a Concordance of Will, and an Identity of Movement, and the Agreement of the One with Itself. But in attempting to convey the most sublime theology of this great theologian with the paltry words

of our lowliness, we seem to be imitating the man who sought to measure out the abyss with a cup.

For that divinely-shining book which emits rays of heavenly words brighter than the light of the sun both drives away the soul-destroying blindness of the knowledge falsely so calledMH and sets forth and

expounds the truth of the correct and divine dogmas. Indeed, not only did he tear up from their very roots the heretical fictions and babblings sown by the sower of tares in Apostolic times, but he also de­

stroyed the foundations of the godless blasphemies and impieties which sprung up afterwards against the Holy, Consubstantial, and Sovereign Trinity, against the Incarnation of our Saviour Christ, the Word of God, and later against the Christian flock and the setting up and veneration of the sacred and

venerable icons in the all-holy churches and apostolic sees across the world. That is to say, it was God Who, beholding these things far in advance, made use of Dionysius' tongue, which is more trenchant

than any two-edged sword, to pluck up and cut down preemptively the poisonous and destructive growth of all the seeds of heresy and to establish and confirm the truth of the evangelical and apostoli­

cal proclamations and traditions. Let us, therefore, cite directly the gold-gleaming divine words of his God-illumined and God-inspired speech regarding the Tri-Personal Divinity and the manifestation of

the Trinity's One and Only-Begotten Son to men through His birth from the Virgin.

In his treatise the Divine Names, he says the following: "Hence, we see in almost every theological

treatise the Godhead religiously celebrated both as Monad and Unity on account of the simplicity and

oneness of Its supernatural indivisibility, from which, as a unifying power, we are unified, and through the supernal conjunction of our diverse and separate qualities we are collected into a Godlike unit and

divinely-imitated union; but also as Triad, on account of the tri-personal manifestation of the super­ essential productiveness, from which all paternity in heaven and on earth is and is named; also, as Cause of things existing, since all things were brought into being on account of Its creative goodness; and both Wise and Fair, because all things, whilst preserving the properties of their own nature unim­

paired, are filled with every inspired harmony and holy comeliness; but especially, it is called a Lover of Man, because It truly and wholly shared, in one of Its Persons, in things belonging to us, recalling to Itself and uplifting the low estate of man, out of which, in a manner unutterable, the simplex Jesus was

composed, and the Everlasting took a temporal duration, and He Who is superessentially exalted above

every rank throughout all nature was born within our nature, whilst retaining the unchangeable and unconfused steadfastness of His own properties.”!^] Agreeing with this are the comments he makes to Gaius concerning the Incarnation of the Lord: “How, you ask, is Jesus, Who is beyond all, ranked essentially with all men? For not as Author of men is He

here called man, but as being in essence wholly and truly man. But we do not define the Lord Jesus hu­ manly, for He is not man only, nor superessential man only, but He is truly man Who is pre-eminently

a lover of man, the Super-essential taking substance above men and after men from the substance of men. Yet the one Who is always superessential remains more-than-full of superessentiality, and be­

cause of the abundance of the latter, even when he came truly into substance, he took substance above

substance and performed human deeds above man. This is shown by a virgin supernaturally conceiv­ ing, and unstable water holding up the weight of material and earthly feet and not giving way but, by a

supernatural power, standing together so as not to be divided. Why should anyone go through the rest, which are very many? Through which he who looks in a divine manner will know beyond intellect that

the things affirmed respecting Jesus' love towards man possess a force of superlative negation. For to speak summarily, He was not man, not as not being man, but as being from men He was beyond men, and was above man having truly been born man; and for the rest, not having done things divine as God,

nor things human as man, but exercising for us a certain new God-incarnate energy of God having be­ come man.”i^l And in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, he says the following when elaborating on the contemplation of the

ceremony of the Holy Unction: “Thus the most divine order of supercelestial beings did not fail to rec­ ognize the most supremely divine Jesus when He descended for the purpose of being sanctified; but it recognizes, reverently, Him lowering Himself in our nature through divine and inexpressible goodness; and when viewing Him sanctified, in a manner befitting man, by the Father and Himself and the Holy Spirit, it recognized its own supreme head as being essentially unchanged in whatever He may do as

supreme God. Hence the tradition of the sacred symbols places the Seraphim near the Divine Unction

when it is being consecrated, recognizing and describing Christ as unchanged in very truth in the ma­

terial incarnation of our nature."MH

O, how blessed are the lips that uttered such things! Truly, they have been filled with the graces of the Paraclete,^48. who grants gifts to those who are divinely cleansed in soul and body and who counted this most sacred hierophant among their ranks. How skilled is that holy elucidative tongue in service

to the explication of the divine, and how luminously it expounded these hiddenly-revealed mysteries! Verily, it proved the pen of a quick writer, as the oracle says.I^l How bright is that mind which was illu­ mined with such thoughts surpassing all understanding and expression! For what keen and divinely-

seeing intellect can ignore how even the briefest portions of these divine words have the power to cast down and lay low the hostile hordes of heretics, wounding them grievously with their attack and leaving them covered with blood in the dust? This, then, is but a very small sampling of the flowers

we have collected from the surpassingly beautiful meadows of his teachings, just enough to adorn

the fame of his most sublime theology and his incomparable and most brilliant orthodoxy in the true and incomprehensible faith. As for his wisdom in governing and the pastoral knowledge with which

he administered the flock that had been entrusted to him, what praises might I devise to praise them suitably?

For sitting as a pilot upon the stern and commanding the rudder, he vigilantly scanned the horizon on all sides for the advance of the winds; and when he often saw a storm approaching from far or near, he took care to safeguard the sailors and to furl the sails upon the forestays, slackening them in advance

of the onslaught of the squall. But when the winds were fair, he raised the sails and unfurled them

anew, ably directing the vessel and gaily pursuing his voyage as the keel cut through the waves and a

favourable tail wind blew from behind. If ever a violent whirlwind arose, that was when he used all his wisdom and skill to keep the vessel above the waves and to save it from shipwreck. And if stillness and

calm weather prevailed over the swell, he did not rest and lie idle, but he commanded the rowers to drive the ship forward with the oars, exhorting them always to be vigilant, that they might escape dan­

ger and safely bring the ship to harbour with its passengers and wares.

And indeed, just like a goatherd, he warded off the attacks of deadly beasts with his spear and sling and staff, frightening them away with torches and flaming javelins if they dared to come by night. He guarded his sheep by patrolling them on all sides, leading them away from harmful and poisonous

pastures and guiding them towards favourable and pleasant ones. If an animal was strong and healthy,

he kept it unharmed; but if it had stumbled, or taken ill, or broken a leg or been injured, he lifted it up, bound it tightly, rubbed it with ointment, and healed it. Many times he snatched it from the very claws

and maws of ravening predators still alive and palpitating, reviving it and seeming to bring it back from death itself.

Thus did that wisest captain seek to direct the course of the newly-formed Church like a vessel in the

midst of a storm-tossed sea; and being entrusted with the supervision of the newly-born flock while the madness of idolatry reigned supreme and the beasts—that is, the tyrant and the vainly wise of this world and the orators—furiously raged against those who had been converted to the pure faith of Christ from the shadowy law-worship of the Jews or the ungodliness of the Greeks, he proved to be a

most glorious defender and most genuine pastor of Christ, worthy of the apostolic throne. For he cared

for the God-chosen people with a watchful, sleepless, and courageous eye, and with ardent and exceed­

ingly pure and bold prayers and assiduous entreaties with his hands outstretched to God,1^1 Who has the power to crush His enemies, he succeeded in repelling the madness of the leading enemies of the

faith and rivals of the holy Gospel. As for those who made a pretense of friendship but in reality were no better-disposed than the fiercest

of adversaries, being clothed on the outside with sheepskins though scheming internally with the

mind and cunning of wolves,he exposed their mischief and deceit in the sight of all. But with re­

gard to the sophists and orators who discoursed against the salvific doctrine using dialectical methods and sophistical and rhetorical arguments, he esteemed their propositions and objections and counter­

propositions to be as easy to dispense with and to crush as a spider’s web, and he most swiftly tore to pieces and destroyed the empty chicaneries and problems advanced by each. He remained watchful

against the opponents of the path of salvation, and with the Almighty Power of our God and King Christ, he cut down their insolence and refuted the knowledge falsely so called. He also took great pains

to blot out the old scars and marks that had been unjustly left on the souls of his students by impiety and abomination, and to impress upon them instead the teachings of godly piety and the supermun­

dane wisdom.

Nor should one think that he was neglectful in demanding fruits from those he educated and in­ structed. By no means! For he maintained that to be initiated into the divine oracles without producing

good works is to be like a tree that is adorned with a wealth of foliage but suffers from barrenness. He

also taught that faith without works is deadfall establishing that the faithful ought first of all to adorn themselves with the keeping of the commandments and that nothing constitutes a more manifest sign

of one’s true and certain faith and love for Christ than this. He admonished them always to fear the ter­ rible future Judgement at which each person will be called to answer for all his actions and deeds, and he who has kept the correct faith, lived a Christian life, and pleased the Just Judge with his works will receive eternal enjoyment of the truly blessed goods; but he who has befouled his faith with wicked­ ness, failing to join it to an excellent life and good deeds, will receive a judgment equal to his own folly

and will be tormented ceaselessly and without end.

He guided and taught everyone to walk according to the evangelical path and to live according to the apostolic tradition, dispensing the portions of his judgments in due season.1^1 Those who were still

babes and newly-formed he nourished with milk, that is to say, with the simplest and most elementary teachings;!^ but those who were perfect in stature^iil and capable of receiving manly food, having

been properly purified in body and soul, he taught more by the habits he exhibited in himself as an excellent model to his flock than by his words. For inasmuch as the common body of the Church was

made up of many nations, customs, manners, and laws, he himself proved to be both a simple and man­ ifold and diverse guardian: he was simple in correctness and truth and free of any deceitfulness and dissembling, but he was manifold in his skill in good administration and superintendence, offering to

each the treatment and regimen that was best suited to him. Indeed, to some who suffered spiritually,

he assigned one type of medication to allay their grief and to others, another. He urged forward those

who were running well so that those left in the rear might catch up to those ahead, and he exhorted those who were sluggish and slow to imitate the good runners.^! If a sheep ever leapt out of the pen and wandered far away, he tracked it in the wilds and sought it out diligently and called it with his pipe and pastoral songs, doing and enduring all things until that which was lost had been recovered.!^7- To

those who were slipping from the right way he lent a hand, and those who lay on the ground he lifted

up.

That you might understand what manner of just rebukes he meted out to the unjust and to the insolent and to those fleeing proper discipline, or how he vindicated those who had been wronged by their neighbour and had been taken advantage of, or how much benevolence he displayed to those who had

sinned, throwing wide open the doors of repentance to all and, like an imitator of Christ, warmly and

cheerfully admitting those who repented—for he had, from the very beginning of his divine preaching, banished the inhumanity and arrogance of Novatian from the sacred precinct^!—let us provide the

following account concerning Demophilus. Though it will touch upon the latter’s presumptuous deeds only briefly, the reading of it will nonetheless allow you to be more fully instructed by the very words of the admirable pastor. Now, this Demophilus was one of the Therapeuts from the province of Athens

serving under the great and sacred ordainer Dionysius, having been appointed a Therapeut by the sacred initiation and all-holy imposition of his hands. This order they call that of monks, for they were especially known by this appellation at that time and were entrusted with guarding the gates of the

sanctuary.

But having ill-treated his own priest and having rushed into the sanctuary where it was not lawful for him to enter, Demophilus drove him out from the altar and expelled him from the place appointed

for the clergy with dishonour and insults. For he was jealous and angry that the Christ-like priest had received a certain person who had repented of his sins but whom he considered impious and sinful.

Therefore, he spurned the penitent after the latter confessed with shame that he had come for the healing of his wrongdoings and in search of mercy. And having altogether repelled him, it seemed to

Demophilus that he had done a great deed, which is why he also reported what had occurred to the greatest pastor. But in response, the exceedingly divine man composed that most edifying and wise

letter, instructive of every virtue and discipline, through which he proves the inexpressible clemency and godly compassion that our man-loving Lord Jesus Christ has towards men, especially when they

repent, by recounting a truly awesome story, which I will now relate to you, who most fervently love to listen to the greatest feats of the praiseworthy Father. "With your permission," he says, "I will mention a divine vision of a certain holy man, and do not

laugh, for I am speaking true. When I was once in Crete, the holy Carpus entertained me, a man, of all others, most fitted on account of the great purity of his mind for Divine Vision. Now, he never un­ dertook the holy celebrations of the Mysteries unless a propitious vision were first manifested to him

during his preparatory devout prayers. He said then, when some one of the unbelievers had at one time grieved him—and his grief was that he had led astray to ungodliness a certain member of the Church,

whilst the days of rejoicing were still being celebrated for himL^J—that he ought compassionately to have prayed on behalf of both, and taking God the Saviour as his fellow-helper, to convert the one and

to overcome the other by goodness, and not to have ceased warning them so long as he lived until this day; and thus to lead them to the knowledge of God so that even the things disputed by them might be

clearly determined, and those who were irrationally bold might be compelled to be wiser by a judgment according to law.

Now, as he had never before experienced this, I do not know how he went to sleep in this evil condition, being consumed with ill-will and bitterness, for it was evening; and at midnight (for he was accus­

tomed at that appointed hour to rise, of his own accord, for the Divine melodies) he arose, not having

enjoyed his slumbers undisturbed, which were many and continually broken; and when he stood collected for the Divine Converse, he was guiltily vexed and displeased, saying that it was not just that

godless men who pervert the straight ways of the Lord should live. And whilst saying this, he besought Almighty God by some stroke of lightning, suddenly and without mercy, to cut short the lives of them both. But, whilst saying this, he declared that he seemed to see suddenly the house in which he stood,

first shaken and from the roof divided into two in the midst, and a sort of gleaming fire before his eyes

(for the place seemed now under the open sky) borne down from the heavenly region close to him; and, the heaven itself giving way, and upon the back of the heaven, Jesus, with innumerable angels in the form of men standing around Him.

This, indeed, he saw above and himself marvelled; but below, when Carpus had bent down, he affirmed that he saw the very foundation ripped in two to a sort of yawning and dark chasm, and those very men upon whom he had invoked a curse standing before his eyes, within the mouth of the chasm, trembling, pitiful, only just not yet carried down by the mere slipping of their feet; and from below the chasm, serpents creeping up and gliding from underneath around their feet, now contriving to drag

them away as they coiled themselves around them and weighed them down and pulled at them, and again inflaming or irritating them with their teeth or tails, and all the time endeavouring to cast them

down into the yawning gulf; and that certain men also were in the midst, co-operating with the ser­ pents against these men, at once tearing and pushing and beating them down. And they seemed to be

on the point of falling, partly against their will, partly by their will; almost overcome by the calamity,

and at the same time resigned. And Carpus said that he himself was glad whilst looking below, and that he was forgetful of the things

above; further, that he was vexed and made light of it, because they had not already fallen, and that he often attempted to accomplish the fact, and that, when he did not succeed, he was both irritated and

cursed. And having barely looked up, he saw the heaven again as he saw it before, and Jesus, moved with pity at what was taking place, standing up from His super-celestial throne, and descending to them, and stretching a helping hand, and the angels, co-operating with Him, taking hold of the two men, one from one place and another from another; and the Lord Jesus said to Carpus, whilst His hand

was yet extended, 'Strike against Me in future, for I am ready, even again, to suffer for the salvation of

men; and this is pleasing to Me, provided that other men do not commit sin. But see whether it is well

for thee to exchange the dwelling in the chasm and with serpents for that with God and the good and philanthropic angels.’ These are the things which I heard myself and believe to be true.”l^l

Hearing of this awe-inspiring divine vision, you will undoubtedly admire the compassion that the di­ vinely-worthy hierarch displayed towards his fellow man, which was not inferior to the goodness that

the good and supremely divine Hierarch Christ has towards us; yet you will wonder even more if you

hear of the apostolic struggles and journeys and spiritual gifts which adorned him and how he shone

forth across the whole earth. For he was not only the pastor and teacher of the Athenians, but a teacher

of teachers, and a pastor of pastors, and a judge and law-giver. His path was not limited to Greece but reached Illyricum like his leader and sacred initiator Paul.^JJ Indeed, having received apostolic grace

and the power to perform signs, he traversed all places apostolically like a bird, everywhere preaching

the Gospel of true life; and with apostolic nets and all-catching meshes, he captured and drew up from the depths of ignorance unto the light of truth those who had been held in the darkness of error. Like a teacher and second chief Apostle, he committed deposits of instruction^^ and mystical teachings to

those who had been entrusted with positions of authority and teaching in the churches across diverse lands and islands, this being clearly shown by the doctrines and mystical precepts and ordinances he conveyed to the all-holy presidents of the Ephesians and the Smyrnaeans and the Cretans, that is, to Timothy, Polycarp, and Titus, who had been previously ordained by the foundations of the most sacred

Church, the Apostles themselves.

Likewise, he followed an apostolic course and was glorified from heaven with incredible miracles. This is proved by many and diverse occurrences, as the following account of the martyric feats which he most patiently endured will show. But it is especially evident in the instance of that cloud from the East

which lifted him up and raised him on high and led him, together with the Apostles—the pre-eminent

God-seers and theologians, who were taken up suddenly from the ends of the earth, one from one place and one from another—to the most august city of Jerusalem, the common mother of all Christians.

Thus was he united to the disciples of Christ in Zion, the citadel of divine mysteries and mother of the churches, at the burial of the all-pure body of the Mother of God, which had been honoured with the de­ scent and embrace of the Word of God when He was ineffably incarnated and born of her. Escorted by

the celestial angelic orders, her heavenly temple was borne from Zion by the all-pure and divine heads and hands of the Apostles to Gethsemane and was hymned and glorified with spirit-moved, fire-like, and most theological tongues. Then, after being deposited in the tomb, she who surpasses all the heav­

enly powers and rules over all Creation was assumed whole into heaven. But it is better to hear the very words of the divine interpreter, for one cannot find a more trustworthy witness to the angelic and cloud-borne gathering of that heavenly choir: "We have, however, insisted

upon this with the utmost care, that, as regards the things that have been thoroughly investigated by our divine leader with an accurate elucidation, we have never in any wise ventured thereon, for fear of

repetition, nor given the same explanation of a passage whereof he treated. For amongst our inspired hierarchs (when both we, as you know, and yourself, and many of our holy brethren, were gathered

together for the contemplation of the Life-springing and God-receptive body, and when there were present also James, the brother of God, and Peter, the foremost and most honoured pinnacle of the The­ ologians, when it was determined after the contemplation that every one of the hierarchs should cele­ brate, as each was capable, the Omnipotent Goodness of the supremely Divine Weakness), he, after the

Theologians, surpassed, as you know, all the other divine instructors, being wholly entranced, wholly raised from himself, and so moved by fellowship with the things celebrated, that he was regarded as an inspired and divine Psalmist by all, by whom he was heard and seen and known, and not known. But

why should I say anything to thee concerning the things there divinely spoken? For if I do not forget

myself, many a time do I remember to have heard from thee certain portions of those inspired songs of praise.”Mi!

Therefore, beloved, may no one disbelieve this account, recalling what happened with the household of Cornelius,Ml for those who accompanied Peter and John and James were equally filled with the fire­

like grace of the All-Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues, and received the power to work marvels. How, then,

were those who were scattered abroad and occupied in spreading the Gospel and governing various

communities, one in one place and one in another—how were they all at once and in so short a time

gathered together, unless each was deemed worthy of being carried upon a divine chariot of clouds? And indeed, at the beginning of the salvific preaching, all those who came to the true faith and were illumined by the divine light itself were granted the gift of speaking in many tongues and perform­

ing healings and working miracles by the Spirit, the rich Bestower of heavenly bounties and Fount of goodness; yet none to the degree of the great and apostolic Dionysius. But now the sacred trumpet of his heroic martyrdom has finally sounded, and it urges us to enter into the consideration of his divine struggles, turning the narration to a celebration of his most glorious exploits.

Nevertheless, before we start upon the path of his martyric trials, this eager audience ought first to know that having based ourselves on the divinely-inspired writings of the celebrated herald of God and hieromartyr, we have determined that his blessed contest occurred in the latter years of the reign of

Trajan. For when, in the fourth book of the Divine Names, he praises the name of Love, saying, “and yet it seemed to some of our sacred teachers that the name of Love is more divine than that of Charity; but even the divine Ignatius writes, ‘my Love is crucified,'"MH this saying was written by the God-bearer

Ignatius and sent to the Romans while Ignatius was waiting to suffer martyrdom in Rome and to be cast as food to the lions by the order of the tyrant Trajan, around the ninth year of his tyranny,dur_

ing the persecution he had launched against the most pious Christians. From this we indirectly ascer­ tain that the sacred expounder Dionysius was martyred towards the end of the persecutor’s tyranny, as

we have already said.

Moreover, when he wrote to the thrice-blest John, the Son of Thunder, who thundered and theologized the most sublime things, surpassing everything on earth and in heaven, while he was imprisoned on

Patmos by the decision of Domitian, who governed after his brother Titus (for both were children of Vespasian)^!—this occurred around the last year of his reign when he was raging against the faithful —Dionysius made a prophetic prediction (for he also possessed the gift of prophecy), saying: "But for

ourselves, we shall not readily be deprived of the all-luminous ray of John, who are even now about to read the record and the renewal of this, thy true theology; but shortly after (for I will say it, even

though it be rash), about to be united to you yourself. For I am altogether trustworthy, having learned from God what has been ordained and repeating it, that you will both be liberated from your imprison­

ment in Patmos, and will return to the Asiatic coast, and will perform there imitations of the good God, and will transmit them to those after you."te^ Accordingly, not long after the death of Domitian, Nerva assumed the throne and recalled those who had been exiled, just like the holy Father who abounded in apostolic and prophetic grace had said. At that time, the great Evangelist also returned to the city of

Ephesus and what had been forespoken was brought to fulfilment.

When Nerva departed this life after having held the reins of Roman authority for one year, the empire

passed to the tyrant Trajan, who was so puffed up by his victories over the Scythians and Thracians and over many and diverse peoples^^i that it seemed to him that his authority would be incomplete

unless he also subdued the most pious assembly of the Christians to the worship and adoration of the abominable statues of the demons.i^zei And so, he fanned the flames of a most savage persecution and

sated his entire dominion with the blood of martyrs, everywhere sending the crudest of persecutors to force all of these same Christians to sacrifice to the idols and to slay them with every manner of

torments should they not comply. Therefore, the thrice and much-blest Dionysius, having experienced countless calumnies, combats, and dangers at the hands of his compatriots, his former co-religionists, and his learned (or should I say, foolish) companions, and having stood against so many frenzied mul­

titudes of barbarian and Greek idolaters, not to mention the most ferocious diaspora of the lawless and

hostile Jews, undertook, in his seventieth year of age,iszh a journey double that which Paul, the most accomplished champion and treader of the heavens, traversed—at least in terms of duration—as he

caught numberless peoples in the nets of the Christian faith through the signs and wonders that he

worked by the power of the All-Holy Spirit Itself. And after enduring the long and difficult trials of the first persecution, which the most abominable

Nero—the first persecutor and most evil ruler to have ever lived—stirred up against the Christian flock, killing the leading disciples of Christ, he courageously weathered the subsequent storms which the

madness of Domitian brought upon the faithful; and proving himself eminently in all things, he won

great glory. On which account, his winged fame, fluttering in every direction, carried his celebrated

name to the cruelest ears of Trajan. It thunderously proclaimed the swift apostolic course which he was everywhere pursuing and his great labours, efforts, and might in both deed and word,1^221 by which the most divine and salvific faith that was preached was being confirmed and expanded through the signs and wonders that he marvellously performed and by which the superstition and idolatrous religion of

the pagans was being wholly denigrated and destroyed. Greatly dismayed by these reports, the rabid

tyrant sent certain men to the West who surpassed both Phalaris and Echetus in savageness (who are famed for their barbarity, mercilessness, and cruelty)lS22l to track down and pursue the preacher of

God: if they were to find him amenable to the royal decrees and ready to worship and sacrifice to the

demons, they were to shower him with honours and escort him back to him; but if he were not per­

suaded, they were to punish him on the spot with the sword. Therefore, urged by these tyrannical and most godless commands, the servants of the devil sped

towards the land of Gaul like spurred horses or starved beasts ready to set upon their prey. There they at once solicited certain commoners and vulgar folk and inquired about the most celebrated revealer

of God. As soon as they had been informed that he could be found in a small town called Paris,L6Z4J they hastened there swiftly and found him in the process of driving away the error and gloom of the

idolatrous madness through the preaching of the truth, the splendour of the divine teaching, and the working of wonders. For at the invocation of the Almighty Saviour, sight was being restored to the blind, the ears of the deaf were being opened, the tongues of the dumb were being loosed, the legs of

the lame were becoming strong, and the sick were being freed of a multitude of ailments, all through the miracles worked by His most admirable servant who was calling those sitting in the darkness of

ignorancel£2£ unto the light of knowledge and salvation. Because of this, the crowd of believers was in­

creasing, churches were being erected to God across Gaul and the great province of Germany while the

number of the superstitious was diminishing, the shrines of the idols were being cast down, and the might and deceit of hostile Belial was being trampled and scorned. And so, unable to bear the sight of his strength being dissolved, the wretched one&^l drove his subjects

and ministers into a frenzy and set them upon the saint who was destroying his power and making

a show of his disgrace. Filled with madness, they seized him alongside Rusticus and Eleutherius, his

most holy disciples and spiritual sons (the first of whom he had ordained a sacred minister and the

second an attendant, for both had laboured and run together with their leader and illuminator just like Silas and Timothy had followed Paul, the luminary of the world); and sitting upon the tyrannical tri­ bunal, they looked down on him with a dragon-like gaze and roared like lions, interrogating him thus: "O miserable old man, are you the one who forbids the adoration of our gods and persuades men with

magical arts and beguiling words and charms to forbear worshipping them, resisting our unconquered

emperors and rejecting the force of their edicts? Whom do you serve and what religion do you hold?

What god do you preach?” Not in the least intimidated by their most arrogant folly, he responded with much boldness: "I am the

destroyer of your godlessness, the ruiner of idolatrous foulness, the exposer of all pagan delusion, being appointed by the power of Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, to Whom I have dedicated

myself and worship in my spirit, Who before all the ages was born of the Father impassionately and intemporally but at the end of the ages was incarnated and born without seed and corruption of the

Virgin Mary.l^l He participated in our mortal nature in all things save sin and abolished the power of the devil through His Cross and death, mortifying death and descending all the way to dismal Hades, dissolving the darkness that reigned there and shining as a light in the world on His Resurrection on

the third day and gushing forth life and incorruption. He taught that we ought to worship One God in Three separate and unconfused Persons, to wit, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, He Himself being One of the Uncreated Trinity, Co-eternal, Co-beginningless, and Consubstantial with the Father and the

Holy Spirit. This is the true God Whom we preach. This is the pure and blameless faith of the Christians which we proclaim. For this we are most ready to suffer all things, not fearing flame or sword or the

fierceness of wild beasts nor the sight of any other torments you might devise.”

Struck by the fortitude of the most courageous and sagacious elder, the tyrants again said to him and to his students who were his companions in struggles, spouting forth threats and raging furiously: "In truth, then, you disdain the orders and decrees of our emperors and rulers and despise the honour

and authority of our invincible gods?” But the divine hierarch, leading that martyric battle-line in both word and deed, responded even more boldly in turn: "Perish every impious decree of the emperors and

rulers which opposes God, as well as the gods who did not make the heaven and the eartM£t& May they

perish, as your gods are truly impotent and useless and abominable, and not worthy to be spoken of! For they are demons and figments fashioned by the counsel of the evil devil and the works of men's hands. Therefore, those who make them are like them, and may all who trust in them become deaf and

blind and insensible.l^zaj But we recognize Christ, Who is truly the God and Creator and Guardian of all things, the Provider of life. We honour and preach Him and place all our hopes in Him alone, and we are most eager to die for Him, counting ourselves as holy sacrifices and offerings. And hastening towards

this slaughter, we rejoice greatly, since we firmly believe that we will rise again and come to a better, and more blessed, and eternal inheritance, and that we shall be crowned with unfading crowns. But as

for you who do not believe in Him, rejecting His Divinity and His true and everlasting and unending

Kingdom, and slaying His servants, we perceive that you shall be given over to eternal fire and implaca­

ble and endless torments.”

Disturbed by these words, the most wicked and impious persecutors were filled with wrath and anger. And gnashing their teeth, and drawing their swords, they proceeded to cut off the divine and all-holy

head of the thrice-blest preacher of God as he eagerly stretched out his neck to them. They also cut off

the heads of his two followers and companions and fellow strugglers, who had proven to be no less vigorous in preaching. Indeed, the one hastened to overtake the other in the martyric race of behead­

ing, happily offering his worthy halse and exposing it to the blow of the blade. They could not bear to be wholly deprived of their educator and sacred initiator in the midst of this

perishable and thorn-filled life, but desired to depart quickly to the Judge of the contest in the same

manner as their teacher and guide and to receive like crowns and prizes after having endured the same

labours. For how could those men, whose proper instruction, arduous exertion in various laborious feats, and divine love for Christ Himself had prepared them to spare neither body nor soul but to de­

light only in Him Who was manifestly and truly the Tree of Life—how could they fail to imitate the zeal and martyric prowess of their trainer and instructor? For just as a mighty commander is the first

to engage the enemy army as he fights along the front line and urges on his fellow combatants, sound­ ing the battle cry, so was that elder, most experienced in divine contests, advanced in age and full of

years, the first to leap towards the most blessed slaughter for Christ, the first to garner the crowns of

victory, and the first to enter into a most happy death, inviting his sweetest sons to follow him and to gladly elect a similar end.

Who, then, can render fitting honour to him who at seventy years of age had walked upon the apostolic path and preached the Saviour Christ after scattering the noble and unadulterated seed over many rational fields and after reaping plentiful stalks and gathering exceedingly faithful and valuable fruits

into the sacred storehouses? Who can sufficiently praise him who excelled for so long a time in the way of the Gospel and proved to be victorious amidst Christ-fighting tyrants and a people more savage than

hostile lions and wolves? What tongue is able to relate his virtues and accomplishments and feats? The

deeds that astonished the tribes of the earth were magnified by the heavenly ranks, and he who had been victorious and had struggled was received and crowned by Christ the King of All and Distributor of prizes with triumphal odes and the reward of surpassingly bright crowns. O praise that holy and divine head, which was cut for the true love of Christ! Praise that most sacred pate, which admitted the greatest and loftiest divine and ineffable doctrines, which the world could

not contain, and suffered countless long labours in the service of the divine preaching! O praise that

mind which conversed with the supercelestial orders and understood and spoke what surpassed all speech and intellect! Praise that most divine soul which flew up to the heavenly heights surrounded by angels! For as he ascended with glory towards Jesus, the Lord of Glory and Bestower of crowns, and

prepared to receive the recompense of his illustrious deeds, he was praised by each of the supercelestial hosts who lauded his struggles and rewarded him with angel-befitting songs that had been divinely and harmoniously composed by their common Choirmaster. The heavenly Jerusalem, opening her

gates, received him within her bosom. The church of the first-born, whose names are written in the

heavens,l^sc: welcomed him. The spirits and souls of the holy righteous and humble in heart embraced him who had led a life of justice, sanctity, and equitable and divine kindness, professing the faith unto bloodML and fighting for it. The assembled choir of the Apostles rightly gloried in him. The congre­

gation of the Prophets rejoiced in him. And the assembly of heroic Martyrs, draped and adorned with royal purple woven from their labours and dyed in their own blood, celebrates and exults with him.

Blessed be that city wherein repose your divinely-crowned and most reverent head and holy remains, as well as those of your fellow disciples whom you offered up as an all-pure sacrifice and most sweet­

smelling incense £821 to God, O most excellent preacher and hierarch and martyr! Being soaked in your sacred blood, she continually pours forth medicinal fountains to those who flee to her in faith and seek

the healing of their grievous illnesses. Blessed indeed is Paris: for even though she happens to be one of the smallest cities of Gaul in size, by possessing you, the greatest of teachers and a treasure more pre­ cious than all sensible wealth, and by having you as her patron and guardian, she has become the most radiant. Indeed, you were granted to her as a blessing from God to sanctify the Christ-loving crowd of

her inhabitants and foreigners and to be a spiritual fortune providing enjoyment—but not the kind

that fattens the body or briefly delights the throat and quickly decays and fades (which both earth and sea produce, and a sacred bay,l£SU and a fish-filled and deep-flowing river which winds about the land

and waters it, vying with the sea-bound streams of the Nile.)I££41

You stand as a most secure wall, not fitted and constructed with quarried and polished stones of choice and reinforced with ramparts, towers, and battlements like an iron barrier, but one that is founded on

your sanctity and on that of your fellow athletes and is built up with your fair petitions to God which bring down fire from heaven,!£££! consuming the godless captains of fifties and hundreds and thou­

sands!^ together with their barbaric hosts. You are a salutary harbour, receiving those who seek to set anchor from the storm of life and warding off all dangerous circumstances. In Paris, your most holy

temple has sprung up, a noetic meadow not unlike the Paradise of Eden, offering guidance to the souls

of all the faithful through its in-dwelling grace, serving up a table brimming with all manner of spiri­

tual victuals, satiating souls, causing them to thrive, and imparting incorruptible life.

Therefore, most divine high priest and illustrious martyr, as you stand before the divine and heavenly and noetic altarl^^l alongside your fellow crown-bearers, just as in Paris, entreating sweet Jesus on be­

half of the whole world—the True God and Hierarch and Awarder of crowns, the Author and Provider

of all goodness, Whom you loved and preached and from Whom you worthily received a crown for

your beheading—may you look down upon and embrace and bless those who are now gathered at your venerable and holy feast, who festively honour your most loving memory and who sing and reverence

your praiseworthy passion. Beseech and intercede with the merciful God to remove the grievous vio­

lence that surrounds us, to put an end to the tyranny against us, to scatter the clouds of sadness, and to grant tranquility, profound calm, and a state of peace to the churches, so that once this peace has

been achieved and a single harmony and concord of divine dogma prevails, the true Chief Shepherd and Prince of Peace,Christ, may be glorified by all with one accord, to Whom is due all Glory and Hon­

our and Power, together with His Beginningless and Consubstantial Father and His All-Holy and Good

and Life-giving Spirit, now and forever, and unto the unending ages of ages. Amen.

THE PASSION OF SAINTS DIONYSIUS,

RUSTICUS, AND ELEUTHERIUS Although the glorious passions of the martyrs and their precious struggles in the sight of the Lord^ai

deserve to be recounted due to the eminence of their miracles, it is impossible to undertake such a task

without fearful trepidation. For as we are proposing to speak of great deeds, it is not unreasonable for the magnitude of the task we have ventured upon to overwhelm us, since a meagre discourse is unable to express everything that the truth of the passion requires us to say. Nevertheless, even if the under­ taking of so great an endeavour seems to have a difficult beginning, at least the mind vexed by fear can take consolation in this, that the worker always informs his work with divine instruction and com­

mends the beginning of his imperfect skill to its protection. Therefore, taking great courage from this consideration, we shall disclose those things, obscured by the

long silence of time, which we have received with God’s help. And as a true witness says, more things are to be ascertained from the relation of the faithful than can be demonstrated to us by a written

account.^] Accordingly, we can infer with certain estimation that the peoples who had but recently come to the faith, being terrified of the cruelty of the pagans, feared to write down the feats of the ser­ vants of God in which they rejoiced, though we must not doubt that writings corresponding to the oral

tradition of the faithful have indeed been produced.Mfi

This, therefore, is what should be believed about these things. And once the cloud of doubt has been dissipated, we should confess with all our might that those who were worthy of suffering martyrdom for the confession of our Lord and God were able to tolerate even greater torments than the accounts

transmitted by peoples over successive centuries seem to recollect. And if this devoted author has

unwittingly overlooked any of their achievements, may common supplication obtain forgiveness for him.-^1 For even if we have not fulfilled all of our obligations, everyone ought to believe that the ser­

vant of God presently discerns greater things than the account of his passion relates. But as for how

this happy place was deemed worthy of receiving the worshipper of the Lord and his protection, or if

we might know by any means whether he had other saints as his companions (as we have learned from

the relation of the faithful), let us explain these things with the assistance of those very martyrs, who

grant us as much knowledge of themselves as they wish. After the salvific Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, after the unique and singular miracle of the Res­ urrection, and after His Ascension, by which He manifested to men that He was never absent from the place to which He returned, there followed the preaching of the Apostles to the benefit of all the nations. When they perceived that their own passions were drawing near, which they had learned

from the Lord Jesus Christ, and being filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles preached to such an extent that, as the faith spread, there were many who merited becoming confessors whom the

Church later boasted as her martyrs. And since the violence of the persecutors proved unable to daunt the latter’s courage and the trial of flames only revealed them to be as precious as gold,1^22 the counsel of the Apostles deemed them worthy to receive the commission of the Lord and to be entrusted with

the sowing of the evangelical seeds among the nations. And with the providential disposition of God,

these chosen men were granted the dignity of the episcopacy, so that those won over by their preaching

might be promoted more easily to the ministry of the sacred altar. From the multitude of these confessors, the city of Toulouse was honoured to have Saint Saturninus of venerable merit as its first bishop. He is the one whom the wickedness of a sinful people bound with

many knotted ropes to the hindquarters of a bull and left to be dashed upon the steps of the capitol,

where the injury of repeated blows broke the skull of that sacred head and scattered his brain. Yet after such a descent, there followed an ascent to the Lord in a better manner. Blessed is a person of such

worth and virtue, who was allowed to be a teacher first, and then a martyr, and who fulfilled with striking examples what he had taught with his words! With like grace did the most blessed Paul, the

bishop and confessor, win over the province of Narbonne with his salvific speech. For he so exerted himself with personal labours and struggles that he was confirmed to be a true servant of the Lord. But

we render thanks to You, Lord Jesus Christ, for allowing the darts of the hostile enemyl^ill to be tests for Your faithful rather than wounds, and for providing such rewards for their labours that the enemy is

unable to boast that he has found any of Your servants unready for battle. But it is now time to fulfil our

promise and enter into the feats of our personal patron.liiii We shall not, however, relate fully all that is

known of the servant of God; let it suffice that we were not forgetful of him, for in these great matters it

is right for the faithful to believe more than what human accounts can show. Now, Saint Dionysius, who at the behest of Clement, the successor to the Apostle Peter, had undertaken to plant the seeds of the divine word amidst the nations, fearlessly desired to go where he saw that the

error of paganism was raging most strongly. And so, inflamed by the heat of his faith, he arrived in Paris with the guidance of God. He did not fear to seek out the fierceness of an unbelieving people, since

the remembrance of his previous torments strengthened his courage; and he who had deserved to be a confessor did not hesitate to approach these ferocious nations as a preacher. At that time, the afore­ mentioned city was flourishing on account of its relations with the Germans!^] and its excellence, for it possessed a healthy climate, a pleasant river, fertile lands, abundant trees, rich vines, a multitude of

people, and overflowing trade. What’s more, the island itself,which provided a dwelling-place for the growing crowds of inhabitants amidst the waters of the river, came to be more occupied than the city. For the populace, driven together by the agreeableness of the place, had settled there to such an

extent that they could barely fit within the surrounding walls. This, then, was the place that the ser­

vant of God elected to seek out.

After he had first drawn near undaunted, armed with faith and the constancy of confession, he built a

church there, a thing which never before existed in those parts and which was unknown to those peoples.U2£J He also established the liturgical offices of the clerics in the customary manner and elevated

proved persons to the honour of the lower ordination. Therefore, girt with faith and already strength­ ened by the construction of the basilica, he did not fail to introduce to the Gentiles the God Whom he knew; and setting before them all His justice and mercy, he gradually joined to God those whom he was taking away from the devil. Furthermore, such were the wonders that God deigned to perform through

him that he won over the hearts of the rebellious Gentiles with miracles no less than sermons. And in a marvellous manner, that armed populace was not able to resist an unarmed man.l^l Germanic obstinacy eagerly subjected itself to him and, moved by heartfelt contrition, asked to assume the sweet

yoke of Christ upon itself.-^θΐ The pagans themselves destroyed the idols that they had fashioned at

their own expense and effort, and having found the harbour of salvation, they rejoiced to have the ship­

wrecks of the idols perish. The vanquished portion of the devil mourned as the victorious legion of the Church triumphed over it.

Then the ancient enemy, seeing that the constant conversion of peoples was clearly increasing the Lord's flock at his expense, applied all the contrivances of his art to wage war against what had been

built. He armed the agents of his party, who were mourning the destruction of their gods, for the evil of a sudden persecution, ordering them to punish swiftly and with various torments those who had taught to worship and fear the One True God, so that no one might remain who could take what he

himself was losing. Therefore, when the edict of persecution was published, the rejoicing multitude of the wicked went forth and conspired to do battle with the Lord’s people, not hesitating to attack with the sword those whom the Lord had shown to be His with His seal. Accordingly, as they were traversing the western part of the world in their search for Christians, they discovered Saint Dionysius contend­ ing against the unbelievers in Paris, and the fury of persecution found him together with Rusticus the priest and Eleutherius the archdeacon, for these holy men never suffered to be absent from blessed

Dionysius’ presence. And so, the inquisition of the executioner found them together, but it proved un­ able to separate any of them from the company of the martyr.

Upon interrogation, they confessed the One and True God in Trinity, and after being terrorized and

afflicted with many injuries and subjected to many torments, they testified that they were Christians.

Finally, when they perceived the stroke of the executioner, they loudly confessed to be the servants of our Lord and God. And so, persisting determinedly in their faith, they returned their bodies to the

earth and bore their blessed souls to heaven. So great was the profession that merited their departure to the Lord that it is thought that their quivering tongues continued confessing the Lord even after their heads had been cut off.l^oil Exceedingly blessed and most pleasing to the Lord is that company, among

whom there was neither first nor third; and confessing the Trinity, they could not but adorn that ven­

erable place with a triple martyrdom! Then the murderers, fearing that the most faithful and proved devotion of the converted peoples would bury the bodies of the saints as a means of securing their protection, decided to commit the bodies of the martyrs to perdition in the gloomy and deep waters of the Seine. Placing them in boats, they ordered them to be consigned to the appointed depths. At that time, a certain matron who was still

entwined in the error of paganism yet demonstrated by her thoughts and actions that she desired to be

converted, thought to do something that would please the Lord: employing a subtle plan, she invited the murderers to come to dinner; and while she was extending to them an abundance of hospitality,

she drove away from their minds the memory of the task that they had undertaken. Meanwhile, she

enjoined her faithful servants with a secret order to steal away the bodies and to take pains to conceal

them with diligent foresight. Upon receiving their mistress’ order, they hastened to accomplish what

they had been instructed to do and hid the praiseworthy theft at the sixth milestone from the city in a ploughed field that hard work had prepared for the sowing of seeds. When the planting was later done

as usual, the crop did not withhold its yield; indeed, having been so richly fertilized, its fruitfulness poured out such a bounty that the farmer reaped a hundred-fold fruit but the land also obtained sal­

vation. And while the crop was ripening, that which would bring such benefit to the people of Paris re­

mained long hidden. When the aforementioned matriarch, not forgetting these secrets, perceived that the fervour of the

persecution was abating, she sought out with due care the place that guarded the bones of so many martyrs, and having found it, she marked the location with the construction of an eminent tomb.

Afterwards, the Christians built a basilica over the bodies of the martyrs at great expense and with ex­

ceptional devotion where, through the agency of our Lord Jesus Christ, their merits are demonstrated daily by the frequency of miracles, and the infirm come to learn how fitting it is to honour the servants

of God. There, blindness receives sight, lameness the ability to walk, and the closed passages of the ears merit the reception of hearing. Nor should we pass this over in silence: when those tormented by

the attack of an unclean spirit are led to that place to be purged with divine power, they are compelled by the command of those very saints to point out by name the location where each of them is buried.

The Lord wished us to celebrate their passions on the seventh day before the Ides of October,U°2J Who promised that the reward of martyrs would be one hundred-foldl^Qll and to Whom is honour and glory,

strength and power, authority and might unto ages of ages. Amen.

APPENDIX I: PARALLELS BETWEEN

DIONYSIUS AND PROCLUS Dionysius

Proclus

And by Its being, [the Deity] is the production

Every being returns alone either essentially,

and sustenance of the whole, and all things

or vitally, or by means of knowledge. (Ele­

aspire to It: the intellectual and rational,

ments of Theology, proposition 39)

by means of knowledge; things inferior to

these, through the senses; and other things

by vital movement, or substantial and habit­ ual aptitude. (Divine Names 1.5)

For there is no strict likeness between the

For by the impartance of its own power [the

caused and the causes. The caused indeed

separate cause] is everywhere.. .But by an

possess the accepted likenesses of the causes,

essence unmingled with things in place,

but the causes themselves are elevated and

and by its elevated purity, it is nowhere. For

established above the caused, according to

if it is separate, it is established above all

the ratio of their proper origin. (2.8)

things. (Elements of Theology, proposition

98)

From this Beautiful all things possess their

For through [divine beauty] the gods are

existence, each kind being beautiful in its

united to and rejoice in each other, admire

own manner, and by reason of the Beautiful

and are delighted in communing with each

are the harmonies and sympathies and inter­

other. (Platonic Theology 1.24)

communions of all things, and by the Beauti­

ful are all things united together. (4.7)

If the Evil is not, virtue and vice are the same,

If we admit that each of these [vices] is good,

both universally and particularly. (4.19)

we must necessarily affirm one of the two

following: either virtue is not contrary to vice—that is, virtue on the whole is not con­

trary to vice on the whole, and particular virtues are not contrary to the correspond­

ing vices—or that which opposes the good is not in every respect evil. (On the Existence of Evils, 200/59)

If [Evil] is the destruction of things existing,

Insofar as there is a single rational principle

this does not expel the Evil from existence;

in the thing that changes, it is unnatural...

but it will be, both itself existing, and gener­

However, when it concerns a portion of

ator of things existing. Does not frequently

a whole, it is in accordance with nature,

the destruction of one become birth of an­

because for the whole it is produced from

other? (4.19)

another thing that is destroyed, and its de­ struction again leads to the generation of

another thing. (266/103)

And some things, indeed, participate in the

Nor must exist only those beings that are

Good entirely, whilst others are deprived of

uninterruptedly dominated by the im­

It, in a more or less degree, but others possess

pressions of the forms, unless the inferior

a more obscure participation in the Good;

things, too, were generated which enjoy only

and to the rest, the Good is present as a most

an intermittent participation. For otherwise

distant echo. For if the Good were not present

all good things would be the lowest of be­

according to the capacity of each, the most

ings, and eternal beings would exist at the

Divine and honoured would occupy the

level of matter. (204/62)

rank of the lowest. (4.20)

That which partially is, but partially is not,

And non-being itself...is twofold: on the one

in so far as it has fallen from the ever-Being,

hand, that which absolutely does not exist—

is not; but so far as it has participated in the

it is beyond the lowest nature, whose being

Being, so far it is, both its whole being, and its

is accidental—as it is unable to exist either

non-being, is sustained and preserved. (4.20)

in itself or accidentally.. .On the other hand,

there is non-being that is together with being, whether you call it privation of being

or ‘otherness.’ (206/64)

But neither is the Evil in Angels; for if the

In each order, that which is first must bear

good-like angel proclaims the goodness of

the image of the prime cause, since every­

God, being by participation in a secondary

where first natures are analogous to this

degree that which the Announced is in the

first cause, and they are all preserved by par­

first degree as Cause, the Angel is a likeness

ticipation in it. (213/68)

of Almighty God. (4.22)

What is evil in demons? An irrational anger,

Insofar as something is in accordance with

a senseless desire, a headlong fancy. But

nature, it is not really evil...Hence also for all

these, even if they are in demons, are not

heroes that are led by rash imagination, pas­

altogether, nor in every respect, nor in them­

sions such as rage, irascibility, impetuosity,

selves alone, evils. (4.23)

and obstinacy are not unnatural. (216/71)

But neither is the Evil in irrational creatures,

And as for virtue, it does not exist in the

for if you should take away anger and lust,

same way in all beings; in one case it is by

and the other things which we speak of, and

possessing the virtue of a horse that one has

which are not absolutely evil in their own

the good corresponding to one's nature, in

nature, the lion having lost his boldness

another case by possessing the virtue of a

and fierceness will not be a lion; and the dog,

lion, or that of another animal.. .But if an an­

when he has become gentle to everybody,

imal becomes a fox instead of a lion, slack­

will not be a dog...So the fact that nature is

ening its virile and haughty nature, or if

not destroyed is not an evil, but a destruc­

it becomes cowardly instead of bellicose...

tion of nature, weakness, and failure of the

they give evidence that in these beings too

natural habitudes and energies and powers.

there is evil...In general everything that

And, if all things through generation in time

progresses though generation is born in an

have their perfection, the imperfect is not al­

imperfect state and accomplishes perfec­

together contrary to universal nature. (4.25)

tion in time. (224-225/76)

For deformity and disease are a defect of

Corporeal foulness arises from the rational

form, and a deprivation of order. (4.27)

form being subdued, and disease of the

body from order being dissolved. (227/78)

But neither (a thing which they say over and

Then matter adorns and as it were illumi­

over again) is the evil in matter, so far as it is

nates its own darkness and deformity, and

matter. For even it participates in ornament

invests itself with a foreign ornament.

and beauty and form. (4.28)

(227/77)

Neither are things evil unmoved, and always

We call 'eternal' that which has a progres­

in the same condition, but endless and un­

sion towards being according to nature, but

defined, and borne along in different things,

not what comes to be in any way whatever.

and those endless. (4.31)

Hence this 'revolving about' must apply to

evils. (247/91) The Evil then is privation and failure, and

The efficient causes of evils are not reasons

want of strength, and want of proportion,

and powers, but lack of power, weakness,

and want of attainment, and want of

and a discordant communion and mixture

purpose; and without beauty, and without

of dissimilar things. Nor are they some im­

life, and without mind, and without reason,

mobile paradigms that always remain the

and without completeness, and without sta­

same, but rather such as are unlimited and

bility, and without cause, and without limit,

indeterminate and are borne along in other

and without production; and inactive, and

things. (251/93-94)

without result, and disordered, and dissimi­ lar, and limitless, and dark, and unessential, and being itself nothing in any manner of

way whatever. (4.32)

The Evil, as evil, is not, neither as an actual

Let us first consider this evil in souls in

thing nor as in things existing. And no single

itself: if it were unmixed with its contrary

thing is without a Providence. For neither is

and totally deprived of it, if it were utter

the Evil an actual thing existing unmixed

darkness and nothing but darkness, then

with the Good. And, if no single thing is

perhaps it would be an obstruction to the

without participation in the Good, but the

works of providence... But if, as we have

lack of the Good is an evil, and no existing

already stated, this evil is also good...then

thing is deprived absolutely of the Good, the

we must not, because of its participation in

Divine Providence is in all existing things,

the Good, deny that it exists, nor because of

and no single thing is without Providence.

the wickedness that resides in it, deny that

(4.33)

all things, including this evil itself, are good and become good. (261/101)

For [the divine light] never loses its own

For the unit is many things covertly, both

unique inwardness, but increasing and

whole and parts, and comprehends various

proceeding forth, as becomes its goodness,

shapes, and is present both in itself and

for an elevating and unifying blending of the

in another, as it is present to all the things

objects of its care, remains firmly and soli­

that follow from it, and is at rest and in mo­

tarily centered within itself in its unmoved

tion, simultaneously both remaining in its

sameness. (Celestial Hierarchy 1.2)

state and proceeding forth, and yet in the process of its self-multiplication, never departing from itself. (On the Parmenides,

VI. 56)-™!

APPENDIX II: MANUSCRIPT VARIANTS

IN SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM'S SERMON AGAINST FALSE PROPHETS

I reflor, Montanus ? Ubi Marcion ? Ubi Valentinus? Ubi Manes? Ubi Bafilides ? Ubi jam Nero ? Ubi Va­ lens ? Ubi alii Reges > atque potentes * Ubi Julianus tranigreilor? Ubi porro Arius? Ubi Eunomius, & re­ liqui hireiiarchz? Ubi eundi, qui reftiterunt verita­ ti? Nonne omnes perierunt?Diipexfi quippe funr proFig. 2 Facsimile of Fronton Du Duc’s 1687 edition of the works of Chrysostom (Divi Joannis Chrysostomi Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Opera, Volume 6, p. 324).

Latin translation based on a yet-unidentified Greek manuscript. The text reads: “Ubi porro Arius? Ubi Enomius, et reliqui haeresiarchae? Ubi cuncti, qui resisterunt veri­ tati?” (Where then is Arius? Where is Eunomius, and the other heresiarchs? Where

are all those who have withstood the truth?)

~ -/re v

7 K ,U,F '

Z ’,J; ° v ® v

-

'

-

-

'

'

'

’

«r · *xer® v

μ 4-^ ujp· -H-o v । ·ν/^*«·ρ/ο or · Tre v *€{··” » _____ . ·___ e . / -ΤΓΓΟ V -αημ/ 't-λ»- o( -j-j i tw ---------------------

F

1

z

>

'

Fin.......

J Hebrews 5:6, 6:20, 7:17, quoting Psalm 109:4. Melchizedek was the priest-king in the Old Testament who offered

Abraham bread and wine, foreshadowing the sacrament of the Eucharist that Christ told his disciples to perform "in remem­ brance of [him].” (Luke 22:19)

11221 Romans 15:16 152511 Peter 2:9

1521! Refutation of All Heresies, Book I, Prologue.

15211 James 5:14 11251 Acts 6:2-6 112111 Timothy 3:8-10

15251 first Apology, ch. 6 5 11211 Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 33.6-7 11211 Galatians 6:6: “Let him that is catechized in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.” 11251 First Apology, ch. 61: "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able

to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.”

1'10 Apostolic Tradition, Chapters 17-20

LUU Acts 5:16 U-U. Apostolic Tradition, 15:8: "If there is someone who has a demon, such a one shall not hear the word of the teacher until

purified.” LUU Council of Ancyra, Canon 17: "Defilers of themselves with beasts.. .the holy Synod commands to pray among the suffer­

ers." The ancient scholiast to this canon identifies the "sufferers” with the possessed. LU£1 on Modesty, ch. 18: Communion is indeed denied to sinners, very especially such as had been polluted by the flesh,

but only for the present; to be restored, to wit, as the result of penitential suing." 11

Ecclesiastical History 6.34: "Gordianus had been Roman emperor for six years when Philip [the Arab), with his son Philip

[the Younger], succeeded him (r. 244-249). It is reported that he, being a Christian, desired, on the day of the last Paschal vigil, to share with the multitude in the prayers of the Church, but that he was not permitted to enter, by him who then presided, until he had made confession and had numbered himself among those who were reckoned as transgressors and who occupied the place of penance."

LU*. Canon 56, from Letter 217 (To Amphilochius): “He who has committed voluntary murder and afterwards has repented shall not partake of the sacraments for twenty years. And the twenty years shall be divided thus in his case. For four years he

ought to weep as a penitent of the first degree, standing outside the door of the house of prayer and asking the faithful who enter to pray for him, confessing his transgression."

■

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 62

LUU Numbers 6:18 LUU Acts 18:18 LUU Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 7.3.6-7 LU11 Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 3.3.8 I ■ ■ 2 Maccabees 12:38-45 Uli! Luke 20: 3 7-38

112' On Monogamy, ch. 10: "Indeed, [a wife] prays for (her husband’s] soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship in the first resurrection; and she makes an offering on the anniversaries of his falling asleep." 111 Epistle 65: "The bishops our predecessors religiously considering this, and wholesomely providing for it, decided that

no brother departing should name a cleric for executor or guardian; and if any one should do this, no offering should be made for him, nor any sacrifice be celebrated for his repose."

1 —-Against the Heathen, Book IV. 3 6: "Why, indeed, have our writings deserved to be given to the flames? Our meetings to be cruelly broken up, in which prayer is made to the Supreme God, peace and pardon are asked for all in authority, for soldiers,

kings, friends, enemies, for those still in life, and those freed from the bondage of the flesh?”

- Panarion, Book III, Heresy 75: “As to naming the dead, what could be more helpful? What could be more opportune or wonderful than that the living believe that the departed are alive and have not ceased to be but exist, and live with the Lord,

and that the most sacred doctrine should declare that there is hope for those who pray for their brethren as though they were off on a journey? And even though the prayer we offer for them cannot root out all their faults. ..it is still useful as an

indication of something more perfect. For we commemorate both righteous and sinners.. .The Church is bound to keep this custom because she has received a tradition from the Fathers.” (Trans. Frank Williams)

HomfZy 3 on Philippians: “Not in vain did the Apostles order that remembrance should be made of the dead in the

dreadful Mysteries. They know that great gain results to them, great benefit; for when the whole people stands with up­ lifted hands, a priestly assembly, and that awful Sacrifice lies displayed, how shall we not prevail with God by our entreaties for them?” Sermon 172.2: “The whole Church...observes this tradition received from the Fathers, that prayers should be offered

for those who have died in the communion of the body and blood of Christ, whenever their names are mentioned at the

sacrifice in the usual place, and that it should be announced that the sacrifice is offered for them.” (Trans. Augustinian Her­ itage Institute) Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 7.2

LL3-L: See Theodorus Lector, Ecclesiastical History, Book 11.32 (Patrologia graeca 86, col. 201 A) and Philip Schaff, The Creeds of

Christendom, With a History and Critical Notes, Vol. 2 (New York: 1896), p. 29 ■ · - -· Paul Rorem and John C. Lamoreaux, op. cit., p. 9

Idlll Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 3.2 Ι-ΙΑήΙ Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 3.3.7 1--1In Greek, the Creed is referred to as “the symbol of the faith,” a term absent from Dionysius' text. See, e.g. Saint Basil, Letter 69 (Patrologia graeca 32, col. 429B): “Now, from the sacred ranks of your clergy (τού ιερού

πληρώματος), you have sent forth the venerable brother Peter, whom I have welcomed with great joy.” Ibid., Letter 240

(Patrologia graeca 32, col. 897B): “I have written thus...to prevent anyone from being prematurely received into commu­ nion, or after receiving the laying on of hands of our enemies, when peace is made, later on, trying to force me to enroll

them in the ranks of the sacred ministry (τω ίερατικώ πληρώματι).” Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 3 on Philippians

(Patrologia graeca 62, col. 204, section 217F): “For when the whole people stands with uplifted hands, a priestly assembly (πλήρωμα ιερατικόν), and that awful Sacrifice lies displayed, how shall we not prevail with God by our entreaties for them?”

Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical History, Book X. 1 (Leipzig: 1913, p. 126): The presbyters, however, of the same city, Asterius and

Crispinus, and the rest of the clergy (to άλλο πλήρωμα), convened a council, at which some of the neighbouring bishops were present, and sent to Eunomius and his party, demanding to be admitted into communion by them."

L12Z1 The Apostolic Constitutions were compiled by an anonymous redactor in the second half of the fourth century on the basis of earlier materials, some of which go back to the first century.

LL1?: Apostolic Constitutions 8.12. The prayer is very similar to the Anaphora of Saint Basil. LL121 Cenobitic refers to monasticism practiced within a community of brothers; eremitic refers to the solitary life of hermits.

^^EcclesiasticalHierarchy 6.1-3; Letter 8.1 of Anthony, section 3 (Patrologia graeca 26, col. 844)

LH?- The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, Trans. C.D. Yonge. LL^ Ecclesiastical History 2.17

I±±*I See e.g. Frederick C. Conybeare, Philo about the Contemplative Life, Or the Fourth Book of the Treatise Concerning Virtues

(Clarendon: 1895) L^-s Recent research has established that the Greek word for monk, μοναχός (literally 'solitary one'), is actually a translation

of the first-century Aramaic term yekhidi or yekhida’e (of the same meaning). Jewish and Christian texts of the first two

centuries frequently speak of holy individuals as being "alone," indicating that an advanced understanding of monasticism existed at the time that the Areopagitic works claim to have been written. See Ivan Miroshnikov, The Gospel of Thomas and

Plato: A Study of the Impact of Platonism on the “Fifth Gospel" (Brill: 2018), pp. 91-129.

I ' ‘ Although the word does occur in earlier authors like Plato, it does not have the specific monastic associations assigned to it by Philo, but is simply used to designate the worshippers of the gods.

LHZ1 Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 6.3.1

Li^-e · Of course, it is possible that a later writer could have simply borrowed this word from Philo or Eusebius to add an air of historical authenticity to his works. But in this we see the utter inconsistency of our critics' arguments: we are told to believe that "Pseudo-Dionysius" was clumsy enough to leave an anachronistic reference to the Creed in his treatise, yet historically

adept enough to lift a rare word from writers who lived many centuries before his time.

LH-9· See e.g. Thomas L. Campbell: "Dionysius uses Trinitarian formulae that were not elaborated and in common use till some centuries after the time of the Apostles. The use of the word ‘hypostasis' would be anachronistic in the time of the

Areopagite of St. Paul.” Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (University Press of America: 19 81), p. 8.

The Arians were heretics who denied the divinity of Christ.

Ll^’· Divine Names 1.4, 2.4-5,2.11; Celestial Hierarchy 7 A; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 2.2.7,6.2 Ll^-U Commentary on John 2.6

Strom a ta, Book 11,18

"[Light] has no character (hypostasis) of its own, but is generated from flame, and when this is wholly and completely extinguished in all its parts, it follows of necessity that the light also must be extinguished.” On the Eternity of the World, sec. 92 Hebrews 1:3. Ilaria Ramelli has argued that Origen’s terminology was influenced by the Pauline use of the word in this

passage. See "Origen, Greek Philosophy, and the Birth of the Trinitarian Meaning of‘Hypostasis,’” The Harvard Theological Re­

view 105.3 (2012), pp. 302-350. LHH Josef Stiglmayr, “Der Neuplatoniker Proklus als Vorlage des sogenannten Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom libel,"

Historischesjahrbuch 16 (1895), pp. 253-273 and 721-748; Hugo Koch, "Proklus als Quelle des Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Bosen,” Philologus 54 (1895), pp. 438-454. Koch later devoted a full monograph to proving the alleged relation­

ship between Dionysius and Neoplatonism: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita in seinen Beziehungen zum Neuplatonismus und

Mysterienwesen (Mainz: 1900). For a summary of the main arguments in English, see the 1909 article written by Stiglmayr for the Catholic Encyclopedia entitled "Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite," available on newadvent.org. An editio princeps refers to the first published edition of a work.

111?· Prodi philosophi Platonici opera inedita, Victor Cousin, ed., (Paris: 1864), col. 196-267

11^1 On the Existence of Evils. Trans. Jan Opsomer and Carlos Steel (New York: 2003), pp. 57-104 IHU Henad is a philosophical term meaning “monad” or "unit.” Arguments summarized in: Christian Schafer, “Hugo Koch and Josef Stiglmayr on Dionysius and Proclus,’’ Oxford Hand­

book of Dionysius the Areopagite (2022), pp. 571-572 LLSJJ. Divine Names 4,19

11^21 Matthew 7:17-18. Dionysius actually cites this verse at Divine Names 4.21. I * - Apology, section 3

Stromata, Book VI. 17 11^- On First Principles 2.5.2

Divine Names 4,19

UAZ1 stromata, Book 1.17 LU-8· Homily on Ezekiel 9.1 LLU- On the Dead, Patrologia graeca 46, col. 497B-500A

1115- Divine Names 4.20

LU! ■ On First Principles 2.9.2; Commentary on John 2.7 H7·2- On the Trinity, ch. 4

1ΑΖΣΙ Concerning Free Will, Patrologia graeca 18, col. 256, 264. Dialogue on the True Faith in God, sections 3.9,4.9. Trans. Robert A. Pretty.

11™. Saint Basil, Homily: That God is not the Source of Evils, Patrologia graeca 31, col. 341B-C Homily VII on Ecclesiastes, Patrologia graeca 44, col. 725B. Trans. Richard McCambly

11^1 Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love, ch. 11 -12 H™. The Call of Nations, Book 2.34 (trans. P. De Letter).

ΗΠ1 "μηδέ to πάσχειν δύνασθαι καθ ' έαυτήν έχουσα.” Divine Names 4.28

11^1 Το Autolycus, Book Π.6 Against Heresies 2.19.1, 4; 2.33.4 Meditations 6.1 A form of argument that shows that a claim cannot be true because it leads to absurd conclusions.

LIU Divine Names 4.28 LLiLl·. Against Hermogenes, ch. 16 L1S&1 Hexaemeron 2.4 11^. Divine Names 4.28

Stromata, Book VII.3 11- - Divine Names 4,35

11^1 Ibid. Uli First Apology, ch. 4 3

1111! To Autolycus, Book 11.25 Hili Apology, section 24

lilll Against Heresies 4.37.1 Hill Stromata, Book 1.17 HUI AgainstMarcion, Book Π.5

HU· These same critics make it seem like the entirety of the Dionysian corpus is the product of Neoplatonic inspiration. In

reality, the passages that Dionysius shares with Proclus amount to no more than five percent of the Divine Names and are

limited almost exclusively to the second half of Book 4. Koch (1900) cites Dionysius’ use of words like άβατον (beyond reach), κρύφιον (secret), and έπιστροφή (return), as well as his allegorical interpretation of the anthropomorphisms in the Bible to prove that Dionysius was a Platonist. Yet there is nothing inherently Platonist about the ideas of divine transcendence, mys­ tery, and communion with God. Saint Paul writes that God "dwells in unapproachable light, Whom no man hath seen, nor

can see” (1 Timothy 6:16) and describes the Incarnation as the "mystery hidden from the ages" (Ephesians 3:9). The word

έπιστροφή also has Christian precedents: the book of Acts uses it to refer to the conversion of the Gentiles (Acts 15:3). Classi­ cal scholar Ilaria Ramelli (2022) has suggested that the Neoplatonic concept of a “return to the One” was actually influenced

by the Christian doctrine of apokatastasis. Finally, the allegorical method was used universally by all the Church Fathers. 11221 On the Failure of Oracles, sec. 34 (428B); Isis and Osiris, sec. 54-56 (373A-F) 1122- Fragment 52, George Boys-Stones, ed., Platonist Philosophy 80 BCtoAD 250 (Cambridge UP: 2017), pp. 124, 12 7.

122P. Fragment 23, George Boys-Stones, op. cit., p. 121.

12211 £nneads 1.8.15

1221' See Porphyry, Sentences, section 43 (matter is a privation of form) and Porphyry apud John Philoponus, De Aeternitate

Mundi contra Proclum (Leipzig: 1899), pp. 164-165 (matter comes from God). A comment by Simplicius (In Categorias 418.3-6) suggests that Iamblichus also believed that evil was a privation. But as this doctrine is not attested in Iamblichus'

surviving writings, it is impossible to comment further. In any case, if Iamblichus did believe this, he probably inherited the idea from his master Porphyry. Some have also attributed this doctrine to the first-century philosopher Moderatus of Gades.

However, the latter was a Pythagorean, not a Platonist, and as his works are likewise fragmentary, there is much scholarly debate over their correct interpretation. 122.5 Andrew Smith, "Did Porphyry Reject the Transmigration of Human Souls into Animals?” Rheinisches Museumfur Philologie 127.3 (1984), pp. 276-284

1221. According to the testimony of Saint Augustine, City of God, Book X.30 1222. Porphyry apud Proclus, Commentary on the Timaeus, Book II 300.1-8. See also the summary of Porphyry's doctrine given by Aeneas of Gaza in his Theophrastus (Maria Minniti-Colonna, ed., [Naples: 1958], p. 45).

12261 City of God, Book XII. 20 12221 Timaeus 3OA.1-3 12221 commentary on the Timaeus, Book 11.374. Trans. Sarah K. Wear

12221 Anne Sheppard seems to share this reserve: "(Proclus’] discussions of how evil can exist in a world ordered by divine providence develop the idea that evil has only a dependent, parasitic existence which he calls parhypostasis; this suggestion may go back to Syrianus but is not found earlier.” The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 14 (Late Antiquity: Empire and Suc­ cessors, AD 425-600), p. 840, emphasis added.

12121 Philo, On Providence 11.43-44 12111 Meditations 2.15; 5.8 12121 Stromata, Book VII.2, 11 I

Against Faustus, Book Χ.ΧΙΛ3; Morals of the Manichaeans, sections 11, 14

12111 Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Homily V on Ecclesiastes, Patrologia graeca 44, col. 681

1^-5- Ibid., On the Making of Man, Patrologia graeca 44, col. 164 Ibid., Against Eunomius, Book IX, Patrologia 45, col. 824

Homily IV on the Lord’s Prayer, Patrologia graeca 44, col. 1168 —— Saint Basil, Hexaemeron 1.7 1^- Ibid., Hexaemeron 2.5 Eugenio Corsini, Il tratatto De Divinis Nominibus dello Pseudo-Dionigi e i commenti neoplatonici al Parmenide (Turin:

1962), p. 32: “Does, then, the definition of evil as παρυπόστασις provide sufficient grounds for a presumption of priority in favour of Proclus? Koch and Stiglmayr seem to base their proof primarily on this point. And yet it should be noted that while

it is true that the doctrine of evil as παρυπόστασις is proper to Proclus, it is not as certain that it is an original elaboration by

this author. The manner in which [Proclus] presents this doctrine suggests that he has borrowed not only the concept but even the term itself. And in fact, both the term and the concept are found in patristic texts predating Dionysius.” By "predat­

ing Dionysius,” Corsini means before the fifth century. Celestial Hierarchy 3.2

1222. Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 1.2 “Everyone who has reached the age that they call puberty loves something, either less rightly when he loves what he should not, or rightly and with profit when he loves what he should love. But some people pervert this faculty of love,

which is implanted in the human soul by the Creator’s kindness. Either it becomes with them a passion for money and the

pursuit of avaricious ends; or they go after glory and become desirous of vainglory; or they chase after harlots and are found the prisoners of wantonness and lewdness; or else they squander the strength of this great good on other things like these.” Commentary on the Song of Songs, Patrologia graeca 13, col. 71, Trans. R.P. Lawson

In fact, the Chaldean Oracles, Porphyry, and Iamblichus all taught that some demons were evil by nature. See Ruth

Majercik, ed.. The Chaldean Oracles (Brill: 1989), Fragments 88.1, 90.4, 91.1,149.1,157.3, 215.2; Porphyry, On Abstinence,

Book 11.38-40; Iamblichus, On the Mysteries 2.7, 3.31,4.13. The Chaldean Oracles were a series of poems composed in the sec­ ond century by a certain Julian the Theurgist. They were held to be of divine inspiration in some pagan circles. Proof V: Witnesses Prior to the Sixth Century

' An interpolation refers to an addition made to an existing text.

J - Exegesis refers to an analytical explanation of a text.

1^- Timaeus 41A.3-6 ^2221 Commentary on the Timaeus, Book V. 194-197. Trans. Harold Tarrant

1Z2P- Milette Gaifman, Aniconism in Creek Antiquity (Oxford UP: 2012), Chapter 3

1-'

The notion of "angels" was first introduced into Platonic cosmology by Porphyry, who adopted it from the Chaldean

Oracles, which most likely took it directly from the Bible.

1-

"But superior to these is the impartibility of the Deity—Cause of all—from the fact that there is no contact with it. Nor

has it any commingled communion with the things participating.” Divine Names 2.5 I· ' '■· "Beings, then, proceed from the gods, some beings remaining in the gods, other beings falling away from the unity of the gods into a secondary or yet lower nature, according to the principle of degradation.” On the Existence of Evils, 209/66

1 / ’U Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 3.3.10 Divine Names 2.2

"βλάσφημος και διαφερόντως ασεβής.” De Aeternitate Mundi contra Proclum (Leipzig: 1899), p. 84.8 "Σιγώσι Πρόκλοι και λαλοΰσιν άγρόται.” Hexaemeron, line 80. Patrologia graeca 92, col. 1435A

“ό δεύτερος μετά Πορφύριον κατά Χριστιανών την μιαράν καί έφύβριστον αυτού γλώσσαν κινήσας.” Suidae Lexicon (Cambridge: 1705), Volume 3,p. 186

I

- Joshua M. Robinson, "Nicholas of Methone's Refutation of Proclus: Theology and Neoplatonism in 12th-Century Byzan­

tium,” University of Indiana: PhD Dissertation (2014), p. 165

Ι^άθΐ Stiglmayr and Koch themselves conceded as much. As Christian Schafer writes, “Koch and Stiglmayr deemed it enough, it seems, to point to the logically befitting treatment of evil in the treatise, insisting (and rightly so) that it was an integral part of the overall development of the chapter and a necessary complement of its discussion of the good. This justified the conclusion that DN IV/2 [the latter half of the fourth book of the Divine Names] was not an alien insertion." (op. cit., p. 5 73)

1

- Divine Names 4.15

L?A21 Matthew 7:18, Divine Names 4.21; Jude 1:6, Divine Names 4.23 1

’ - Divine Names 4.20, as discussed above.

12411 Divine Names 4.35

■

Scholastic in this context refers to the teaching methods used in schools.

12141 On the Existence of Evils, 209/66 1212- Divine Names 2.7

12121 For the Chaldean Oracles, see footnote 224 above. 12121 Several verses in the Chaldean Oracles speak of the Ideas as the “flower" of God's mind (Frag. 1.3; 35.5; 37.15), but these Ideas are not directly identified with the gods; rather, the gods are depicted as the mediators between God’s Ideas and cre­ ation. Cf. Frag. 49: “For [Eternity] alone, copiously plucking the flower of mind from the strength of the Father, has the power

to perceive the Paternal Intellect and to impart Intellect to all Sources and Principles...” and Frag. 3 7: "But the Ideas were

divided by the Intelligible Fire and allotted to other Intelligibles.. .which pluck in abundance the flower of fire from the acme of sleepless Time." £^- Against Praxeas, ch. 8

12Σ·1 Dogmatic Poem on the Holy Spirit. Patrologia graeca 3 7, col. 412 A-413 A £^Hymn 2, lines 25-38 (Patrologia graeca 66, col. 1592). The linguistic similarities with Dionysius are so strong that it is

even possible that Synesius was directly drawing from the Areopagite.

Mystical Theology 3.1

£^1 A German expression meaning "setting in life.” It is used in Biblical criticism to refer to the historical context in which a text was written and its function at that time.

! 1 On the Existence of Evils, 215/70

£^D/vine Names 4.22 £^See e.g. Robert Parker, Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Clarendon: 1983) and Jack J. Lennon, Pollution and Religion in Ancient Rome (Cambridge UP: 2013)

£^1 Robert Parker and Scott Scullion, "The Mysteries of the Goddess of Marmarini,” Kernos 29 (2016). Translation slightly modified.

s 5 5 Tertullian, On the Prescription of Heretics, ch. 41

^^EcclesiasticalHierarchy 3.3.6-7

£$-' · Proof V: Witnesses Prior to the Sixth Century The Catechetical School of Alexandria was a school for Christian theologians founded in the first or second century A.D.

Even before its creation, Philo the Jew made use of the writings of Plato and the Stoics in his commentaries on the Bible. £631 Stromata, Book VII.2 £6£1 stromata, Book VI. 10

£^'· See Origen, Contra Celsum 4.51 £^ ■ Quoted in Stromata, Book 1.22. Numenius' home town of Apamea in Syria had a large Jewish community in Antiquity,

providing him plenty of opportunity to study the Hebrew religion. £^L Some scholars believe that the Origen who studied under Ammonius was a different Origen than the Christian commentator. However, a comparison of the writings of the Christian Origen with the surviving fragments of Ammonius

and the works of Plotinus reveals that the three are closely related. For more details, see the studies by Langerbeck (1957), Ramelli (2009, 2017) and Digeser (2012) listed in the Bibliography.

£^S1 See Photius, Bibliotheca, no. 214, 2 51

Saint Jerome, On Illustrious Men

12 01 Origen apud Gregory Thaumaturgus, Panegyric of Origen, section 6 122X1 Ibid, section 11

For Origen’s preference for Plato, see Ramelli (2017) 12' 1 Ecclesiastical History 6.13-19

12221 Homily 20 onjeremiah. Trans. John C. Smith 127-X Platonic Theology, Book II.4. Proclus quotes Origen’s allegorical interpretation of the myth of Atlantis in his Commentary

on the Timaeus, Book 1.77. He also refers to Origen’s opinions in Book 1.31 and 63 of the same treatise. Ramelli (2022) claims to have identified Origenist influence in Proclus’ philosophy.

1220 Marinus, Life of Proclus, ch. 19

12221 On the Existence of Evils, 196/57

12251 "'Υπερούσιοι γάρ al ένάδες αυται, καί, ώς φησί τις, άνθη και ακρότητες.” Procli Commentarii in Parmenidem Platonis, Book VI.16.

12221 in fact, in one of the manuscripts that contains Proclus’ Commentary on the Parmenides, a later scribe has even added a marginal note at this point: "Mark you: it is from the Great Dionysius.”

12521 The Book of the Holy Hiero theos. Trans. Fred S. Marsh (London: 1927), pp. 118-119

A neologism is a unique term not found in earlier texts. 12521 An apocryphal text is a story of doubtful authenticity or orthodoxy, often circulated under someone else's name.

12521 Hekhalot literature was a body of Jewish mystical texts composed in the first two centuries of the Christian era which described mystical visions of heaven and God.

12551 We might add that the Book of Hierotheos was written in Syriac, while the Dionysian corpus is in highly-stylized Attic

Greek. 1251· Arthur L. Frothingham, Stephen Bar Sudaili, the Syrian Mystic, and the Book of Hierotheos (Leiden: 1886), pp. 10-48 12551 ibid. p. 66 125Z1 ibid. pp. 63-64

125X Stiglmayr at one time maintained that the Dionysian Corpus was written by Severus of Antioch, but research by later scholars showed that this theory was untenable. Many similar attempts to identify the elusive Areopagite have been made over the decades, but all have proved fruitless.

12521 Divine Names 3.2 12221 Letter 7.2 12/Divine Names 1.1, Celestial Hierarchy 1.1, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 1.1

12221 Divine Names 7.4

1222: Divine Names 3.2

Some have suggested that Pseudo-Dionysius is engaging in some sort of literary "game,” inventing fictitious dialogues

!

somewhat like Plato did in his writings. But there is an immense difference between creating an imaginary frame to express one's ideas and making up letters and biographical details out of whole cloth and attributing them to a real historical figure.

J 5 Saint Maximus, Prologue to the Works of Saint Dionysius, Patrologia graeca 4, col. 21 12221Divine Names 1.1,1.5,1.8, 2.1,2.3,2.7,9.5,11.5,13.4; Celestial Hierarchy 15.6; Mystical Theology 3; Letter 9.1,9.6. Extant

refers to a document that is still in existence. 122Z1 Divine Names 4.15-16

12221 Divine Names 7.4

12221 Mystical Theology 1.3

1222 Celestial Hierarchy 13.3-4 122A1 Divine Names 11.6

^£21 Letter 7 and 8 12221 Letter 7 12221 Joshua 10:12-14 12221 4 KingS (2 Kings) 20:8-9; Cf. Isaiah 28:21

1222. R.C. Zaehner, "Postscript to 'Zurvan,”' Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 17.2 (1955), pp. 243-249. Cf. Julian the Apostate, Oration IV (Hymn to the Sun).

12221 Divine Names 3.2 12221 Letter 3 12221 John 11:25; 14:6

1222: since the authors of apocryphal texts are usually unknown, scholars refer to them by adding the prefix "pseudo" to the name of the author to whom they are ascribed.

12211 See Stephen J. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption (Oxford: 2002). - · Saint Jerome, On Illustrious Men

1212. Quadratus apud Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4.3 12121 a teleological argument is an argument for the existence of God on the basis of the order or purpose evident in the

Universe.

I-

Apology ofAristides, section 1

I

Some scholars have called into question the historicity of Athenagoras’ directorship of the Catechetical School as well as

his authorship of On the Resurrection, but both points have been convincingly defended by Bernard Prouderon in D'Athenes ά Alexandrie: Etudes sur Athenagore et les Origines de la Philosophic Chretienne (Quebec/Paris: 1997)

Apology ofAthenagoras, section 7. Justin Martyr makes the same point in his Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 7 Divine Names 1.1

I-’- - Many of the quotations that follow have been known to scholars for many centuries, but are routinely ignored in mod­ ern discussions of Saint Dionysius.

Saint Jerome, On Illustrious Men 1' - Pantaenus, Fragment 2. In: Reliquiae Sacrae (Oxford: 1846), Routh, ed., Volume 1, p. 379. Source: Ambiguum 7 to Thomas,

Oehler (1857), op. cit. Volume 1, pp. 60,62. 1^- Divine Names 7.2; 5.8 '' ' A Latin expression meaning "from nothing”

1 ----- Stromata, Book IV.23

Divine Names 3.1 Stromata, Book VII. 1

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 1.2 Stromata, Book V. 12

1

Divine Names 1.1-2

;Origen, On the Resurrection, Book I. Fragment apud Pamphilius, Apologyfor Origen, section 128 (Patrologia graeca 11, col. 92-94). Athenagoras of Athens makes a similar argument: "For if good deeds are rewarded, the body will clearly be

wronged, inasmuch as it has shared with the soul in the toils connected with well-doing, but does not share in the reward of the good deeds." (On the Resurrection of the Body, sec. 21)

£211 Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 7.1.1

Commentary on Song of Songs, Preface, Patrologia graeca 13, col. 70

Lbii. Divine Names 4.10 Patrologia graeca 13, col. 68C, 70D

I ’ ’ ' Divine Names 4.11-12. Some writers like Saint Maximus (Patrologia graeca 4, col. 264-265) have suggested that the

quote from Ignatius might be a later interpolation into Dionysius’ text, since it interrupts the thread of scriptural proofs. If this is true, then this interpolation must have occurred quite early, before the time of Origen. On the other hand, if we assume that the quote is authentic, there is no real chronological difficulty. For Ignatius was martyred during the reign of

Trajan (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.36) and Dionysius lived into the reign of Trajan (as suggested by his Tenth Letter, see below). I22L Origen, On First Principles, Book 1.2.13

Divine Names 2.1 See Enneads 6.7.38/Divine Names l.l;Enneads 5.5.4/Divine Names 13.3

Enneads 1.6.9, 6.7.35 'Mystical Theology 2; Divine Names 7.1 L·—- Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 38, section 7 (Patrologia graeca 36, col. 317)

—-— Oration 45, section 3 (Patrologia graeca 36, col. 625) 1212. Divine Names 5.4; Celestial Hierarchy 9.3

Oration 38.8-9, Patrologiagraeca 36, col. 320 1212- Celestial Hierarchy 4.3,6.4; Divine Names 4.10 121L Oration 20, section 1. Patrologia graeca 35, col. 1065

Celestial Hierarchy 3.2 12— Saint Gregory spent two or three years studying in Palestine and Alexandria and another ten in Athens. See Roxanne

Mountford, "Gregory of Nazianzus,” Classical Rhetorics and Rhetoricians: Critical Studies and Sources (Praeger: 2005), pp. 176-177

>' - In his later Commentary on Isaiah (Book III, Patrologia latina 24, col. 91-92), Jerome says that he first wrote a com­ mentary on this passage when studying under Bishop Gregory in Constantinople, evidently a reference to this Epistle to Damasus. 1222. Saint Jerome, Epistle 18A.9

Celestial Hierarchy 13.4 1222. Celestial Hierarchy 8.2; Ezekiel 9:5-6: "And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and

smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which

were before the house."

Celestial Hierarchy 7.4 —- Theodore Zahn (1892) suggested that Jerome was citing Severian of Gabala (c. 355-425), since there is a fragment of Severian preserved in a scriptural catena on Isaiah which offers an allegorical reading of this passage (See Angelo Mai, ed., Novae Patrum Bibliothecae, Vol. 6 [1852], p. 239). But upon closer inspection, it is clear that the interpretations do not match:

Severian interpreted the “smoke” as the destruction of the synagogue and the "sound” as the preaching of the Apostles,

whereas Jerome’s source interpreted the “smoke" as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans and omitted a reference

to the "sound." The Nazoreans, an early Judaizing sect, offered another interpretation: for them, the “raising of the lintel”

represented the damage that the Temple suffered during the Crucifixion, when the curtain was ripped in two (see A.F.J. Klijn, "Jerome, Isale 6 et 1’Evangile des Nazoreens,” Vigiliae Christianae 40 [1986], pp. 245-250). L2JL1. For example, in his Commentary on Ephesians, he calls him "Gregory of Nazianzus, a very eloquent man exceedingly learned in the scriptures" (Patrologia latina 26, col. 535D) and in his Apology Against Rufinus (Book 1.13), he calls him “that

most eloquent man Gregory; who among the Latins is his equal?” However, even supposing that Jerome is citing Gregory

anonymously, it seems that he is doing little more than repeating Gregory’s own paraphrase of Dionysius. L22L.AgainstJovinian 2.28

Apology Against Rufinus, 2.12. Cf. Celestial Hierarchy 7-9. 122^ Saint Irenaeus (Against Heresies 2.30.3) and Origen (On First Principles 1.5.1, 3) refer to five orders, echoing the Pauline account (Ephesians 1:21; Colossians 1:16). Saint John Chrysostom mentions six (Fourth Homily Against the Anomoeans,

Patrologia graeca 48, col. 729). Saint Basil refers to seven (Hexaemeron 1.5; On the Holy Spirit, ch. 16). Saint Gregory of

Nazianzus speaks of eight, including “Splendours, Ascents, Intelligent Powers or Intelligencies” (Oration 28.31). The number nine appears in Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lecture 23.6) and John Chrysostom (Homily 4 on Genesis'). The Apostolic Constitutions (Book 8.12) provides two lists, one of nine, and another often (including “Aeons”).

1-— Commentary on Habakkuk, Patrologia graeca 71, col. 925, 928. Translation adapted from Robert C. Hill.

12«' Malachi 4:2 126112 Peter 1:19

Celestial Hierarchy 2.5. For discussion, see J. Gregory Given, "Anchoring the Areopagite: An Intertextual Approach to Pseudo-Dionysius," Studia Patristica 68 (2013), pp. 164-165

1212- See Proof VIII below. To cite an example, Cyril employs the rare word διαπορθμεύω (to transport), found in Diony­

sius. See Patrologia graeca 68, col. 717C; 70, col. 16 A, 624A. It should be noted that Koch argued that Dionysius' use of

διαπορθμεύω provided linguistic proof of his dependence on Proclus. See Koch (1900), p. 235. Patrologia graeca 59, col. 553-568.

I--- Sixty-nine of the seventy manuscripts which preserve it (including all of the earliest ones) attribute it to Saint John. The one manuscript which does not is the Marcianusgraecus 575 located in Venice, an inferior codex from the fifteenth century

which attributes it to Saint Anastasius of Sinai. We also have a very ancient testimony confirming the Chrysostomian au­

thorship: in June of 8 76, Anastasius Bibliothecarius sent a letter to King Charles the Bald of France in which he refers to this very work as Chrysostom’s "final sermon” (Patrologia latina 129, col. 73 8C). For the excerpts of the work, see Gilberte Astruc

Morize, "Rapport sur une mission en Grece: Patmos-Athenes (Aout-Octobre 1964)," Bulletin d'information de I'lnstitut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes 14 (1966), pp. 41-42. Patrologia graeca 59, col. 560

1^1 Ibid. See facsimiles in Appendix II

£$21 Henry Saville (ed.), Τοΰ έν άγίοις πατρός ήμών Ίωάννου Αρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τού Χρυσοστόμου τών

εύρισκομένων, (Eton: 1612), Volume 7, p. 217

13?"- A corrupt passage refers to a passage that includes mistakes or modifications made in the process of transcription from one manuscript to another. Now, even though the manuscripts that say “Nestorius” are chronologically earlier than the

other variants, it is widely recognized that later manuscripts can often preserve superior readings that existed in older but now lost copies. Furthermore, the fact that all the variation seems to be localized in this one short passage should caution one against saying that "Nestorius" must be the original reading.

· Patrologia graeca 5 9, col. 519

12221 “άποθέμενος/άπορρίψατε πάσαν βιωτικήν μέριμναν." Patrologia graeca 59, col. 556, 561 "πάσαν άποδύσασθαι μέριμναν βιωτικήν/μέριμναν έκβαλλομένην βιωτικήν." Homily 55 on Matthew, sec. 7 (Patrologia

graeca 58, col. 546)

l^7-4* Patrologia graeca 59,col.555-557 I2Z11 See, for example, his Second Homily on Hebrews, where he mentions Arius and Marcion by name.

Iir7'·Patrologia graeca 59, coL. 560 Patrologia graeca 59, col. 561

L2Z2 The author of this text is unknown. The most recent study on the question suggests it was composed by Patriarch Euphemius of Constantinople in the first decade of the sixth century (see Basile Lourie, “L’histoire Euthymiaque: L’oeu-

vre du Patriarche Euthymios/Euphemios de Constantinople (490-496, + 515)," Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne 20.2

[2007]: 189-221.) However, this dating is based primarily on the fact that the text quotes the Dionysian corpus, and Lourie

assumes that the latter was only composed c. A.D. 500. If we dispense with this assumption, there is nothing preventing an earlier date. In fact, Lourie himself acknowledges that the Dormition passage contained in the Euthymiac History recalls

the earliest Dormition traditions (pre-A.D. 451) and is paralleled by an independent historical source which indicates that Patriarch Juvenal intervened at the tomb of the Virgin Mary in Gethsemane in 453 (see ibid., pp. 200,203-204). Of course, if

the author is indeed Euphemius, there was nothing preventing him from citing an authentic early letter by Juvenal, similar to how another sixth-century historian, Evagrius Scholasticus, refers to events which transpired in the fifth century.

^221 patrologia graeca 9 6, col. 748-752

i-" - - One might add that other ancient writings have been accepted as genuine on the basis of far less evidence.

I^Acts 8:9-24 1

Refutation of All Heresies, Book VI.4. Critical edition by Miroslav Marcovich (De Gruyter: 1986), pp. 214-215

11

L Divine Names 6.3

Origen, Against Celsus 6.11: “Now Simonians are found nowhere throughout the world.”

L^-Colm Luibheid, trans., Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works (Paulist Press: 1987), p. 101, nl86 Ι2θβ] Divine Names 5.9

12·ι1 Clementine Homily 1 - F. Stanley Jones, An AncientJewish Christian Source on the History of Christianity: Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27-71

(Atlanta: 2001), p. 159. The Homilies are thought to be a recension of an earlier text known as the "Preaching of Peter," dated

to A.D. 80-140 or 100-120 (see Donald H. Carlson, Jewish-Christian Interpretation of the Pentateuch in the Pseudo-Clemen­ tine Homilies [Minneapolis: 2013], pp. 2-3; for the dating of the "Preaching of Peter,” see Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed., New Testament Apocrypha, Volume 2: Writings Relating to the Apostles [Louisville: 1992], p. 34). This work is quoted by Clement

of Alexandria (Stromata, Book VI. 5), Origen (On First Principles, Preface, sec. 8), Aristides of Athens (Apology, sec. 1,14; for

analysis, see Reinhold Seeberg, "Die Apologie des Aristides," Forschungen zurgeschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen literatur, Volume 5 [1893], pp. 216-218), and Saint Ignatius of Antioch (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, sec. 3),

although the latter two do not mention it by name. The precise relation of the "Preaching of Peter” to the Homilies is subject

to debate. Saint Epiphanius believed that the Homilies came from an authentic ancient source but had been interpolated by the Ebionites, an early Judaizing sect (Panarion, Book I, Heresy 30). Whatever the case, it seems likely that there was some

such text circulating under the name of Clement as early as the year 100, and that this is what Dionysius was reacting to.

I3SST Homily 17.7 --- Homily 17.9: “One, then, is the God who truly exists.. .being the heart of that which is above and that which is below

twice, which sends forth from Him as from a centre the life-giving and incorporeal power. The whole universe with the

stars and regions of the heaven, the air, the fire, and anything else which exists, is proved to be a substance infinite in height, boundless in depth, immeasurable in breadth, extending the life-giving and wise nature from Him over three infinites [i.e. the three dimensions of space].”

1221 Homily 17.9-10 — Apud Origen, Selections on Genesis, Patrologia graeca 12, col. 93: “We must first discuss what the image of God in man

consists of, whether it be in the body or in the soul. Let us first examine the opinions of those who hold to the first interpreta­ tion, to which party Melito belongs, who left writings arguing that God has a body.”

L--"How could He who is empty have made things which are solid, and He who is void have made things which are full, and

He who is incorporeal have made things which have body?...For who will deny that God is a body, although God is a spirit? For spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form. Now, even if invisible things, whatsoever they be, have

both their substance and their form in God, whereby they are visible to God alone, how much more shall that which has been sent forth from His substance not be without substance!" Against Praxeas, ch. 7

1-

Seethe Shi'ur Qpma attributed to Rabbi Ishmael (fl. 2nd century A.D.) Sefer Yetzirah, Book 1.11: “He selected three letters from the simple ones, and sealed them as forming his great Name, I

Η V, and He sealed the universe in six directions.” Philo, On the Creation, section 100: “Seven alone, as I said before, neither produces nor is produced, on which account other philosophers liken this number to Victory, who had no mother, and to the virgin goddess, whom the fable asserts to have sprung from the head of Jupiter: and the Pythagoreans compare it to the

Ruler of all things. For that which neither produces, nor is produced, remains immovable. For generation consists in motion,

since that which is generated, cannot be so without motion, both to cause production, and to be produced. And the only thing which neither moves nor is moved is the Elder, Ruler, and Lord of the universe, of Whom the number seven may rea­ sonably be called a likeness.” The idea that the material universe is a reflection or "emanation” of God’s essence ultimately

evolved into the mystical Jewish system known as Kabbalah. 122*1 Homily 17.8 I 1'1' - Divine Names 5.8 I ’' ” - Saint Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians, sec. 6

12221 Didascalia Apostolorum, ch. 26. Trans. Alistair Steward-Sykes (Brepols: 2009).

Against Heresies, Book V.36 Celestial Hierarchy 3.1-2, 7.3,10.3,11.2; Letter 8.2 I■

The notion that grace is imparted to man according to his fitness or capacity for it was widespread in ancient writers.

Commenting upon Jacob's wrestling of the angel in Genesis 32:22-23, Philo says that the angel "develops in [Jacob] an irre­

sistible strength" after “being satisfied of his fitness" (On Dreams 1.129). For Philo, the story of Jacob serves as a metaphor for how the "ascetic soul" (ασκητική ψυχή) is rewarded by God with divine vision after its struggles (On the Change of Names sec.

81-82). Origen offers a similar exegesis of Jeremiah 13:12 (“Every skin shall be filled with wine"). In Origen's interpretation, the "skins" represent human beings and the “wine” God's wrath or blessings. The wine is poured forth by God into the skins

"according to [their] fitness" and "in proportion to their works.” Homily on Jeremiah 12.2 (Patrologia graeca 11, col. 381A-B).

12221 Matthew 13:1-9 12221 on the change of Names, sec. 11; Concerning Noah's Work as a Planter, sec. 86. In On the Posterity of Cain, sec. 14, Philo invokes the same metaphor as Dionysius to explain God's transcendence: the “divine gloom" of Exodus 20:21.

Ε2Σ Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 61; Second Apology, ch. 6 Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ch. 14

Divine Names 1.7,2.7; Letter 5

1^8] Tobit 12:15 1^21 2 Corinthians 12:2 Galatians 3:19 I^-Acts 7:53

Celestial Hierarchy 4.3

Text in: Carol Ann Newsom, "4Q Serek Sirot 'Olat Hassabbat (The Qumran Angelic Liturgy): Edition, Translation, And Commentary," PhD Dissertation (Harvard University: 1982). For an accessible English translation, see Michael Owen Wise, Martin G. Abegg, and Edward M. Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation (San Francisco: 2005), pp. 462-475.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 470 li^-Ibid. p. 468 Ibid. p. 471

Celestial Hierarchy 1.3; Hebrews 8:5, 9:24. Cf. Hebrews 12:22 The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 465 I^Ibid.,p. 470

IlZSl Ibid., p. 472

1^211 Ibid., p. 470 Ibid., p. 472 i±^Ibid.,p. 471 Ibid., p. 464

Ibid., p. 467-469

Ibid.,p; 471 Epistle to the Trallians, section 5

14^5- Composed sometime between A.D. 70-120 (see Jonathan Knight, "The Ascension of Isaiah: A New(er) Interpretation,” in The Ascension of Isaiah, eds. Jan N. Bremmer, Thomas R. Karmann, and Tobias Nicklas [Leuven: 2016], p. 46). The text was

likely written within the Church but contains the heretical claim that Christ transformed Himself into an angel, which is part of the reason it was ultimately rejected.

Ascension 8:21. Letter 8.2.

1^311 Particularly, Ezekiel 9:2-5; Zechariah 1:12-15; Isaiah 6:3, 63:1-2. IThe most frequent adjectives used in the superlative are άγιος (holy). Ιερός (sacred), θειος (divine), άκρος (high),

μακάριος (blessed), τέλειος (perfect), and θεοειδής (Godly). We also frequently encounter ύψηλότερος (higher), παντελώς (totally), καθόλου (completely), and όλικώς (wholly) and words prefixed with ύπερ- (super), παν- (all), άρχ- (first), δλο-

(complete), πρώτο- (primary), άει- (ever), αύτο- (self), and πολύ- (much). The privative prefix ά- is very common: αθέατος (unseen), αόρατος (invisible), άθικτος (untouched), αλώβητος (unstained), αβλεψία (sightlessness), etc., as are the limitative formulas ώς εφικτόν (according to capacity), κατά δύναμιν (as much as possible), and their cognates. For more detailed anal­ ysis, see Piero Scazzoso, Ricerche sulla struttura del linguaggio dello Pseudo-Dionigi Areopagita (Milan: 1967), pp. 34-71.

HW Celestial Hierarchy 7.3 Celestial Hierarchy 1.2; Letter 9.3 Celestial Hierarchy 2.3,13.3 Celestial Hierarchy 2.4; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 2.3.5

--- - Divine Names 4.1; Celestial Hierarchy 7.1; Letter 9.5 Divine Names 6.2, 8.4, 8.9, 9.4; Celestial Hierarchy 7.1-2, 8.1,15.1 1^321 Celestial Hierarchy 7.3; Letter 7.3 Divine Names 4.12; Celestial Hierarchy 2.2,15.3

Celestial Hierarchy 15.4; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 7.3.5, 7.3.9; Letter 8.5

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 2.3.5 1^31 Celestial Hierarchy 2.5; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 3.3.6-7,4.3.3, 5.1.3, 5.1.6

1^*1 Divine Names 3.2 idlll Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 3.3.1 ^^EcclesiasticalHierarchy 3.3.6,4.3.3, 5.1.6, 6.1.1 1“ ‘ - Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 4.3.1

1^31 Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 4.3.3 1*121 Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 4.3.12, 7.3.9

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 7.3.6; Letter 8.6 ~ ‘ Divine Names 1.1; Letter 9.1

11321 Divine Names 4.1,4.20, 5.7; Celestial Hierarchy 8.2,9.3,13.3; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 5.1.2 11311 Divine Names 7.2; Celestial Hierarchy 15.3

11311 Divine Names 4.25 11331 Divine Names 8.5

Letter 8.1

1^- Letter 9.1 l':

In Ancient Greek, "poetic words" refer to archaic vocabulary that was only used in poetry and not in common speech,

similar to how one might call an expression in Modern English “Shakespearean.”

id5 Divine Names 2.3, 5.9; Celestial Hierarchy 2.5; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 2.3.5, 3.3.11

1^21 Celestial Hierarchy 15.9 IddJ Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 3.3.4

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 3.3.11 Id^ll Divine Names 4.21 L— Divine Names 11.3

Ι^ΑΣΙ Divine Names 4.18; Celestial Hierarchy 2.5; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 2.3.2, 3.3.7,11,4.3.2,6.1.1,6.3.6; Letter 8.1

Divine Names 4.20; Celestial Hierarchy 7.3, 8.2; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 2.3.4-5, 3.3.7,4.3.3, 5.1.2, 6.1.1, 6.1.3. 6.2, 6.3.2, 6.3.4, 6.3.6, 7.3.9, 7.3.11; Letter 7.3

LdAZJ Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 2.1 Ι·'—- Divine Names 1.8 LdA21 Divine Names 4.10, 9.3; Celestial Hierarchy 13.3; Mystical Theology 5

IdZii. Letters 8.5 and 10

IdZU Divine Names 4.2,4.5 Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 7.3.9 idZli Divine Names 4.1

idlU Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 3.3.7

idZ^l Divine Names 2.2, 3.2,4.22, 5.9; Celestial Hierarchy 1.2, 3.4, 6.1; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 1.2, 5.1.7; Letter 9.1

HZ^l Letter 8.5

Divine Names 4.30, 9.6,9.9,10.2; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 2.2.3, 5.2, 5.3.1, 5.3.7, 6.2, 6.3.1; Letter 7.2, 8.6 idZil Mystical Theology 1.1

1AZ2J Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 2.2.3

Letter 9.1 I^illbid.

1

Plato: "Why do you suppose, I said, that I am so mad (οϋτω μανήναι) as to try to beard a lion and slander Thrasy­

machus?" (Republic 34 IC); Xenophon: “Since this is so, who is so mad (οϋτω μαίνεται) as not to desire to be your friend?” (Anabasis 2.5.12); Demosthenes: “I would never call you the friend either of Philip or Alexander, I am not so mad

(ούχ οΰτω μαίνομαι).” (On the Crown, section 51); “Those who pay do not pay the sum, be it large or small, for nothing; they are not such madmen (ού γάρ οΰτω μαίνονται)." (On the Chersonese, section 25); Chariton: “'May I not be so mad (οΰτω

μαινοίμην),’ she said, ‘as to convince myself that I am worthy of the great king.’" (Callirhoe 6.5.9); Lucian: “May I never be so mad (μή ουτω μανείην) as to give my lips to that soft Phrygian.” (Dialogues of the Gods 8.3); “May I never be so mad (μή οΰτω μανείην) as to utter an injurious or rude word!” (The Fisher, section 3 7); “May I never be so mad (μή οΰτω μανείην) as to suffer you, in the pride of your youth, to be yoked to this unfortunate girl!” (Toxaris, section 25); Maximus of Tyre: “But if no one is so insane as to assert this (ούχ οΰτω μέμηνεν).. .1 have injured no one.” (Dissertation 16 [6].3). It was a favorite

expression of Chrysostom’s (who studied rhetoric under Libanius). It also appears once in Saint Cyril (Patrologia graeca 75, col. 3 36D) and once in Leontius of Byzantium, in the context of an archaizing philosophical dialogue (Against Nestorius and Eutyches, Book 2, Patrologia graeca 86.1, col. 1345C).

Divine Names 1.3; Celestial Hierarchy 1.1, 2.3, 9.4,15.8 Mystical Theology 1.1 ULLL Divine Names 11.5 —■■■-- Divine Names 2.7

Li- - Celestial Hierarchy 15.1-2, 6-9; Letter 7.2

Divine Names 1.4; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 4.3.1,4.3.4 Divine Names 12.2-3 H2°] Letter 9.1

- -- -- The word ένανθρώπησις appears three times, in Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 3.2.12, 13, and 4.3.10; the word σάρκωσιςϊβ

entirely absent.

1^21 Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 5.3.4 Divine Names 2.6 ί--··— Letter 4

- Letter 3 H2&. Celestial Hierarchy 1.2; Letter 9.4; Phaedrus 25OC I -' - Divine Names 1.1-2, 9.5; Mystical Theology 1.1; Phaedrus 247C

Divine Names 1.1,1.4,4.4,9.5; Celestial Hierarchy 2.1-2; Phaedrus 247C 11221 Divine Names 1.2-6, 8, 2.4-5, 8,10, 4.1, 4, 7,10-11, 13,19, 28, 32, 5.2, 7-8, 7.1-2, 8.5, 8.8, 9.4, 9.8,10.1,11.2, 5,12.4;

Celestial Hierarchy 2.4, 6.2, 7.1-2,4, 9.4,12.3,13.2,4; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 3.3.3, 3.3.7-8,4.3.3,4.3.5, 5.1.4, 6.1.2, 7.1.1;Let-

ter l,Letter9.1, 3; Theaetetus 176A,Laws 775E, Plato’s Letter 3 (315C)

Divine Names 1.1; Celestial Hierarchy 4.2, 7.1, 15.1, 3,15.6; Mystical Theology 3; Letter 8.1; Republic 515E, Laws 73 2C, Phaedrus 247B

1-Σθ_>_ Divine Names 4.1,4.11; Celestial Hierarchy 4.2, 7.1, 8.1,11.2,13.3,15.6,15.8-9; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 5.1.2, 7.3.7; Sym­ posium 202E

1‘

Celestial Hierarchy 6.2, 7.1-2, 13.3; Laws 89 7A Divine Names 4.2,4.4; Celestial Hierarchy 3.2-3, 7.3, 8.1,10.1; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 1.1,3.1, 2.3.5-6, 4.1-2, 4.3.10.

4.3.12 ,5.1.3-7, 5.3.5-7, 6.1.1; Letter 9.2,4; Phaedrus 270A Ι^ήΐ Divine Names 3.3,4.1,4.22,4.3 l;Celestial Hierarchy 7.4, 8.1,9.2,13.3,15.3,15,9; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 2.2.2,2.3.3,

3.3.3, 3.3.7, 3.3.9, 5.1.2, 7.3.7; Letter 8.1; Republic 5O9A

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 1.3, 4.3.3; Phaedrus 247D

Celestial Hierarchy 13.4; Phaedrus 251A Divine Names 1.2; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 6.1.2; Phaedrus 249D Divine Names 2.6; Theaetetus 194D-5, Laws 800B, 801D 15^1Divine Names 8.9; Symposium 203E

1-— Divine Names 8.9; Gorgias 511 A, Republic 611B Divine Names 4.17, 7.1,11.1; Celestial Hierarchy 13.1, 15.1; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 4.3.2; Phaedo 86E, Philebus 39E, Ion 53OB, Cratylus 385B, Phaedo 63B, Theaetetus 15 IE

ULLiL Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 3.3.1; Republic 4 7 7D

Divine Names 13.4; Apology 19A, Phaedrus 246D Is--Divine Names 8.2; Celestial Hierarchy 2.5, 12.3, 15.2; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 4.3.1; Sophist 2 5 8D

1^4. Divine Names 1.1-2,4.13; Phaedrus 247C Divine Names 4.7,7.4,9.4,9.8; Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 2.3.3; Letter 9.3; Phaedo 78D, Sophist 248D

1^-14- Divine Names 4.4; Cratylus 409A

1H-11-- Divine Names 4.9 14

Timaeus 47C

152P1 “On peut dire que ces ecrits forment un monde a part qui, en depit des materiaux qu’il utilise tres librement, ne se rat-

tache a rien avec evidence.” Louis Bouyer, La spiritualite du Nouveau Testament et des Peres (Paris: 1960), p. 437 1^-1- “Il en a garde les termes memes, mais en leur dormant souvent une signification tout autre, qui ne permet pas de confon-

dre les deux doctrines.” Fulbert Cayre, Patrologie et histoire de la theologie (Paris: 1945), Volume 2, p. 92, emphasis in original.

As Scazzoso also acknowledges: “One notices positions clearly antithetical with Neoplatonism, which have already been studied by scholars: [...] The emanationist doctrine of Neoplatonism is cancelled by the Christian doctrine of Creation

with radically opposite implications: God is a synthesis of immanence and transcendence, of essence and energy, Being transcends the Good. One can already see the germs of a Christian theology. The presence and authority of the Bible over­ rules and in many cases trumps Neoplatonic positions. The luminous darkness, within which the contemplative comes to a

knowledge of God's presence, is not a Neoplatonic idea since, as we have said above, it belongs to a long-established Christian tradition and serves as a prelude to the concept of infused contemplation. Man's turn towards God is preceded by God’s love towards man. Who always takes the first step.” (op. cit., pp. 174-175) Nicolo Sassi, “Le fonti del lessico teologico del De Mystica Theologia dello Pseudo-Dionigi Areopagita,” Textual Cultures

11.1-2 (2017), pp. 130-171; "Le fonti del lessico teologico delle Epistole dello Pseudo-Dionigi Areopagita,” Lexicon Philosoph­ icum 6 (2018), pp. 69-115

----- A collocation is a group of words that tend to be found together.

Assuming for the sake of argument that some master stylist from the fifth century was indeed able to compose the Dionysian writings out of thin air, how is it possible that such a man left no other traces of himself in the written record? It is

as if, upon discovering an artwork signed "DaVinci” which has all the hallmarks of the master's style and age, one prefers in­ stead to believe it is the product of a modern “genius” whom no one has ever seen or heard about.

A proper evaluation of the corpus can only be made by weighing all of these factors together, not by focusing on a set of narrow features (e.g. superficial similarities to Platonism), as is often done. When this comprehensive method is employed, the conclusion of authenticity seems inescapable.

1^- John Parker, "Dionysius the Areopagite and the Alexandrine School.” The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, Vol. 2 (Lon­ don: 1899), pp. xviii-xix

I528l

iist first appears in Gregory of Tours'//istory of the Franks 1.30

^---Vita S. Genovefae Virginis, sec. 16. Acta Sanctorum (ed. Bollandus), January 3 (Volume 1), p. 139.

Gregory of Tours, Glory of the Martyrs, ch. 72, Patrologia latina 71, col. 768-769

Gesta Dagoberti, ch. 4, 9. Patrologia latina 96, col. 1396, 1398. T. Kolzer, Die Urkunden der Merowinger, Vol. 1. (Hannover: 2001), p. 77. Trans. Benjamin Savill ibid. p. 218

Patrologia latina 87, col. 499 1^-- Venantius Fortunatus, Patrologia latina 88, col. 73. For the dating of Aemilius and Leontius, see Honore Fisquet, La

France pontificale: Histoire chronologique et biographique des Archeveques et Eveques de tous les dioceses de France (Paris: 1864),

pp. 37-38 I5 36J in the context of hagiography, a "vita” refers to the written account of a saint’s life.

1- ■— The first is to be found in Carmina, Book 1.11 (Patrologia latina 88, col. 72-73) and the second in Patrologia latina 88, col. 98-99. Venantius' authorship of the latter has been contested by some as it is only attested in some old hymnals and is absent from Venantius’ canonical collection. However, the poem’s most recent editor (Lapidge, 2017) has defended its au­

thenticity, citing, among other things, its careful handling of metre, which matches Venantius' style and age. i'-- "Clemente Roma praesule/ ab Urbe missus adfuit.” Patrologia latina 88, col. 98B

' Patrologia latina 88, col. 73A and col. 99A

1-^51 “ut moritura caro donum immortale pareret/ vulnera dilexit, sed caritura nece.” Patrologia latina 88, col. 73B ■

■ A passion refers to a narrative that describes the martyrdom of a saint. It has been suggested that the author of the first passion might be Saint Ceraunus (Ceran), who served as bishop of Paris

in the first two decades of the seventh century and was known to have collected many saints’ lives. See Francois Arbellot, "Origines Chretiennes de la Gaule,” Bulletin de la Societe Archeologique et Historique du Limousin, Volume 27 (1879), pp.

248-250. LE :_.L see the translation below. The location at which Saint Denis' relics were buried was known as "Catullaco” or the “Catullian quarter” (Cateuil in

Modern French). The etymology of this name is unknown, but the second Vita suggests that it was derived from the name of the woman who buried the relics there. Another theory is that it derives from the name of the owner of the field or from an ancient tribe that had settled there.

- Namely, the Lives of Saints Lezin of Angers (composed c. 650), Stremonius of Auvergne (see reference below), Gauden­

tius of Novara (composed c. 700), Gengulphus of Burgundy, and Paul of Narbonne. The last two quote a particular expression also found in the liturgy of Saint Denis: “tela (or jacula) infestantis inimici," i.e. "the darts of the hostile enemy.” The Life

of Saint Eloi written by Audoin of Rouen (d. 684) also employs a rare word found in the Life of Saint Denis: "cervicositas,”

meaning “stiff-neckedness” or "obstinacy" (Patrologia latina 87, col. 580A). For more details, see the translation below.

Lapidge, op. cit., pp. 802-803. Passage in Patrologia latina 30, col. 596 and Michael Cahill, The First Commentary on Mark: An Annotated Translation,

(Oxford UP: 1998), p. 38. For the dating of Fota's Commentary, see Cahill, pp. 4-7.

"nec non et Sancti Astremonii martyris gesta...eo tempore digno sermone aptavit.” Vita Sancti Prejecti (Bruno Krusch, ed.), Neues Archiv der Gesellschaftfiir AltereDeutsche Geschichtskunde, Vol. 18 (1893), p. 644 See analysis in: “La plus ancienne Vie de S. Austremoine,"Analecta Bollandiana, Vol. 13 (1894), pp. 33-46

A Latin term meaning "the limit before which." It refers to the latest possible date a text could have been written.

Lapidge’s dating of it to the mid eighth century is far too late. Lapidge’s main argument for this dating is that the

Vita refers to the three saints as "Dionysius, Rusticus and Eleutherius," whereas the earliest charters of 625 and 654 place

Eleutherius’ name before that of Rusticus. From this, Lapidge concludes that the first Vita must have been written after 724, the date of another charter (by King Theuderic) which is the first to give the order found in the Vita. Yet it is just as possible

that Theuderic’s charter copied the Vita rather than the other way around. Indeed, the other philological considerations we

have set forth above strongly favour this option.

- 1 - The second Vita must have been in existence by the early ninth century because Anastasius Bibliothecarius (c. 810-8 78)

says that he heard a version of it as a boy (Patrologia latina 129, col. 737). The second Vita also refers to Toulouse as lying in “the regions of Aquitaine;" since the kingdom of Aquitaine was only created by Charlemagne in 778, it must have been writ­ ten after this date (Lapidge, op. cit., pp. 663-664).

1 '' Text in Patrologia graeca 4, col. 669-684.

Incipit Ό λόγος τών χαρίτων στέφανοί. Text in Johannes C. Westerbrink (ed.), Passio S. Dionysii Areopagitae, Rustici et Eleutherii (Leiden: 1937), pp. 44-63. Itis known that Methodius lived in Rome between 815 and 821.

1^-'-- See Raymond Loenertz, “Le panegyrique de S. Denys I'Areopagite par S. Michel le syncelle," Analecta Bollandiana 68.1 (1950), pp. 99-101. A close comparison of the three texts reveals that Syncellusdid not only rely on the anonymous passion,

as has been previously believed, but utilized Methodius’ text as well. Methodius and Syncellus were close friends, so Syncellus most likely obtained these documents directly from him. - ---- It is said that nineteen miracles occurred on the night the Greek manuscript was brought to the monastery (Lapidge, op.

cit., p. 207).

Lapidge, op. cit., p. 196

Hilduin also relied on two documents to compose his new Vita (the Letter ofAristarchus and the Rescript ofVisbius)

which appear to be apocryphal. - — The crypt was discovered in 1611 during excavations in the basement of Saint Denis' chapel on Montmartre. Workers

discovered thirty-seven steps leading down to an underground gallery where they found a primitive stone altar and Chris­ tian inscriptions which appeared to date back to the fourth century, if not earlier. See Edmond Frederic Le Blant, Inscriptions chretiennes de la Gaule anterieures au Ville siecle, Volume 1 (Paris: 1856), no. 201, pp. 270-277. A contemporary etching of the discovery has been reproduced in the pages below. Unfortunately, all remnants of the crypt were destroyed in the French Revolution.

“pro cuius amore et disiderium inter citerus gloriosus triunfus martyrum beatus Dyonisius cum sociis suis. Rustico et Eleotherio, qui primi post apostholorum sub urdinacione beati Climenti, Petri apostholi successoris, in hanc Galliarum

provincia advenirunt ibique...meruerunt palmam marthyriae et coronas perciperi gloriosas." Julien Havet, Questions

merovingiennes, Part 5 (1890), pp. 59-60. This document, together with the first Vita and the poem of Fortunatus, conclu­

sively refutes the claim that Hilduin was the first to ascribe an apostolic origin to the Church of Paris.

Is--1 ■ "Nec vobis taedium fiat...dummodo linea veritatis, quae ab antiquis patribus nostris usque ad nos inflexibiliter ducta est, beato Dionysio scilicet, qui a sancto Clemente beati Petri apostoli in apostolatu primus ejus successor exstitit, in Gallias...

praedicator directus." Patrologia latina 98, col. 1340B - The Romans had a custom of dating years according to who the consuls in office at the time were. The consuls were two men appointed for a one-year term to serve as the presidents of the Senate and commanders of the army. In the Imperial pe­ riod, the consulship was often assumed by the Emperor.

"ante annos satis plurimos, id est sub Decio et Grato consulibus, sicut fideli relatione retinetur, primum et summum

Christi Tolosana civitas sanctum Saturninum habere coeperat sacerdotem." Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks 1.30;

"Opusculum de passione ac translatione sancti Saturnini, episcopi Tolosanae civitatis et martyris," Patrice Cabau (ed.), in: Memoires de la Societe Archeologique duMidi de la France, Vol. 61 (2001), p. 66 "Trophimus summus antistes, ex cujus fonte totae Galliae fidei rivulos acceperunt." Patrologia latina 20, col. 645A.

“Omnibus etenim regionibus Gallicanis notum est, sed nec sacrosanctae Ecclesiae Romanae habetur incognitum, quod prima in Gallias Arelatensis civitas missum a beatissimo Petro apostolo sanctum Trophimum habere meruit sacerdotem...” Patrologia latina 54, col. 880B.

“In Galliis etiam civitas Arelatensis discipulum apostolorum sanctum Trophinum habuit fundatorem, Narbonensis sanctum Paulum, Tolosana sanctum Saturninum, Vasensis sanctum Daphnum. Per istos enim quattuor apostolorum discip­

ulos in universa Gallia ita sunt ecclesiae constitutae.” G. Morin, “Le traite de S. Cesaire d'Arles De mysterio Sanctae Trinitatis," Revue Benedictine 46.1 (1934), p. 203. - Saint Cyprian, Letter 66. Novatian was a third-century challenger to the Pope of Rome. For more on him, see footnote

658 below. Against Heresies 1.10.2: "For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything

different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world." The reference to Germany is interesting, for it would indicate that Christianity in France was not restricted to the southern coast, but had reached the northern territories as

well (so-called Gallia Belgica). Tertullian, a contemporary of Irenaeus, seems to confirms this: “For upon whom else have the universal nations believed, but upon the Christ who is already come? For whom have the nations believed...as, for instance,

by this time, the varied races of the Gaetulians, and manifold confines of the Moors, all the limits of the Spains, and the diverse nations of the Gauls, and the haunts of the Britons—inaccessible to the Romans, but subjugated to Christ, and of the

Sarmatians, and Dacians, and Germans, and Scythians, and of many remote nations, and of provinces and islands many, to

us unknown, and which we can scarce enumerate?" (Against the Jews, ch. 7)

1^212 Timothy 4:10

- “Crescens, whom the Apostle Paul mentions in his Second Epistle to Timothy, who was also the bishop of Chalcedon in

Gaul, preached the Gospel of Christ there. Under the reign of Trajan, he was both martyred and buried there.” Index Apos­

tolorum Discipulorumque, ed. Theodor Schermann (Leipzig: 1907), p. 120. Cf. Epiphanius, Panarion, Book II, Heresy 51 and Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.4. We do not have any record of a city called “Chalcedon" in Gaul, but there was an ancient

metropolitan see at "New Carchedon” (Cartagena) further down the coast in Southern Spain. Epiphanius may have simply confused the names. Ado, the ninth-century bishop of Vienne (d. 874), claims that this Crescens was in fact the first bishop

of Vienne (Louis Duchesne, Pastes episcopaux de I'ancienne Gaule, Vol. 3: Les Provinces du Nord et de I’Est [1915], p. 148). The name “Strymonius” occurs in Vergil (Aeneid X.414). "Catianus” probably derives from the gens Catia, a Roman

family known to have held several consulships in the third century A.D. (the form "Catius” is attested in Horace, Sermons,

Book II.4). The names Saturninus, Martial, and Paul require no comment. By way of illustration, the first four bishops of Lyons all had Greek names: Pothinus, Irenaeus, Zacharias, and Helius; but

by the time we reach the fifth bishop of Lyons in A.D. 254, the name we find—Faustinus—is Latin. See Louis Duchesne, Pastes

episcopaux de I'ancienne Gaule, Vol. 2: L'Aquitaine et les Lyonnaises (1899), pp. 157-162. I ? - Dionysius, Letter 10

■

: - Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.18

1^1 Ecclesiastical History 3.23 Even assuming that Dionysius came to the West after Pope Clement’s repose (say, during the pontificate of Evaristus),

it would not have been difficult for his name to come to be associated with that of Clement, as the latter was a well-known

Apostolic Father, and the two were close contemporaries. What is significant for our purposes is that the general chronology preserved in the Latin Vita (which was written at a time when the Areopagitic works were presumably still unknown in the

West) aligns very closely with the chronology found in Saint Dionysius’ extant letters.

The tradition is reported by Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 75 on Matthew; Saint Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah, Book 4, chapter 11; and Saint Epiphanius, Panarion, Book II, Heresy 51. Saint Paul alludes to this journey at the end of his

Epistle to the Romans: "When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit, I will come by you into Spain.” (15:28)

- ' ■ - Francois Arbellot, Dissertation sur l'apostolat de saint Martial etsur l’antiquite des eglises de France (Paris/Limoges: 1855),

p.29. - Sixth Ecumenical Council, Session 8. Acta Conciliorum (Hardouin), Volume 3, p. 1100A

There is nothing unrealistic about this scenario. We have seen that pilgrims flocked from far and wide to Saint Denis’ tomb in Paris and that his Vita served as a literary model for many others across France. We also know for certain that by the

early ninth century, a copy of his Vita was circulating in Rome since Anastasius Bibliothecarius says that he heard it as a boy.

We should also note that for over two hundred years, from 536 to 752, the vast majority of the Popes of Rome were Greeks, which would have greatly facilitated contacts between the East and West (not to mention that there were many Greek

monks in Italy at the time who had fled persecution in the East from Islam and the Monothelite heresy).

Sources: Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, q.v. "Michael Synkellos;” Mary B. Cunningham, The Life of Michael the Synkellos: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Belfast: 1991); Raymond Loenertz, "Le panegyrique de S. Denys lAreopagite par S. Michel

le syncelle,” Analecta Bollandiana 68.1 (1950), pp. 96-97.

Leo V (“the Armenian”) ushered in the second Iconoclast period in the East, during which religious icons were banned and those who supported their veneration were persecuted.

Given that Michael III, Theophilus’ successor, was still a young boy in 842, he began his reign under the regency of his

mother. Acts 2:3

Luke 1:2 L^- 2 Corinthians 12:2-4

L^Cf. 1 Peter 2:9 The Athenian quarter of Ceramicus, northwest of the Acropolis, was the site of a large cemetery with numerous funer­

ary sculptures. It formed part of the Sacred Way leading from Athens to Eleusis. - Psalm 86:7, Vulgate numbering Psalm41:5 Psalm 46:2

Ancient historians of Athenian history who lived in the fourth and third centuries B.C., respectively. In a fragment

of their works preserved by Saint Maximus, they state that the Areopagus was a high tribunal that originally consisted of nine men, but was later expanded to include fifty-one of the most illustrious citizens of the city who were distinguished by

their noble birth, wealth, and good character (Patrologia graeca 4, col. 16-17). The adjective "Atthid" was commonly used by learned writers as a synonym for “Attic" or "Athenian” (Atthis being the name of the legendary princess of Athens from whom the land of Attica took its name).

Acts 17:34 Genesis 14:18-20. For Melchizedek’s symbolism of the Christian priesthood, see Hebrews 7. Orpheus was a mythical Thracian enchanter who was said to have the power to entrance animals with his tunes. In the

sixth century B.C. a mystical cult known as Orphism appeared in Greece. It was dualistic in nature, involved secret rituals, and founded its theology on an apocryphal corpus of poems attributed to Orpheus.

The Theogony was a fantastical poem written by the poet Hesiod (c. 8th century B.C.) relating the genealogies of the var­

ious gods and monsters.

Acts 9:15

I

LilLi Le. the Stoics, who took their name from one of the porticos (stoa in Greek) of the marketplace of Athens where they were accustomed to gather for their lessons and which was decorated with images of famous battle-scenes.

1^1 John 14:2 1^01 Genesis 12:1 1^3 Kings (I Kings) 19:19-21 See Hebrews 2:10 for this designation.

John 1:43-50

Isaiah 26:18 Matthew 27:45-53 ■'

An ancient heresy known as Patripassianism held that God suffered death in His divinity, hence Syncellus’ qualifica­

tion.

1^-'- 1 Corinthians 1:21 1^51 Amos 5:8

-- This prodigy is recorded in Joshua 10:12-14.

1^51 Job 5:9 Dionysius, Letter 7

1^1 Acts 17:22-23 Ephesians 4:22; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 3:10 Cf. Ephesians 6:14

Hebrews 1:3

1^- Hebrews 4:15 I .e., the three temptations in the desert (Matthew 4:1-11). The rare word τρικάρανος also recalls the three-headed dog Cerberus, the guardian of the underworld in Greek mythology. According to the philosopher Porphyry, the three heads of

the dog represent the three elements from which the world is constituted: earth, water, and air (Porphyry apud Eusebius,

Praeparatio Evangelica, Book IV.2 3). Perhaps what Syncellus is suggesting is that after the coming of Christ, no corner of

Creation was left to the devil’s subjection. See similar language in the longer recension of the Conversion of Saint Cyprian of

Antioch, section 6: "For out of the air, [the devil] has filled the mind with understanding, from the earth, he has filled the

tongue with cunning, from the subterranean parts, he has filled desire with wicked deeds, and thus has he wholly occupied this world to revolt against nature and God and His piety."

lA1-. Cf. 1 Peter 2:21: “For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps.” Cf. the Cherubic hymn: “We who mystically represent the Cherubim, and who sing to the Life-Giving Trinity the thriceholy hymn, let us now lay aside all earthly cares that we may receive the King of all, escorted invisibly by the angelic orders.”

Romans 8:23 l^-1- Psalm 22:2

- Exodus 13:21. Moses and the Israelites were guided in the desert by a miraculous cloud by day and by a pillar of fire by

night. i^ljbid.

-

Nahum 2:1 LXX (1:15 according to the Masoretic numbering)

Exodus 24:18

1^1 Exodus 17:11-13 Numbers 21:8-9

15*51 Joshua 3:14-17 Cf. Numbers 17:8. Aaron’s rod budded miraculously as a sign that he and his family were to serve as Israel’s priests. The Greek οχύρωμα can mean both "stronghold” and "argument.” Saint Paul uses the word in the latter sense in

2 Corinthians 10:4.

L^l- The Israelites made the walls of Jericho collapse by circling the city with the Ark of the Covenant for six days and blow­ ing into their horns (Joshua 6:2-5).

1^'- The Greek σελασφοροΰσα can mean both "luminous" and “moon-like." 1$^· Cf. Joshua 10: 12, as referred to above. I^I.e. Goliath

1^1 1 Kings (1 Samuel) 17-18

1^1 Ezekiel 1:4-28 Matthew 16:17-18

1^1 Matthew 18:18-20 Saint John the Evangelist. For the expression, see Mark 3:17. i^ljohn 13:23

2 Corinthians 12:2-4

*:

- In his treatise the Celestial Hierarchy, Saint Dionysius groups the angelic orders into three sets of threes, a common

theme across all his writings: nearest God are the Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones; next comes the middle hierarchy of Lordships, Authorities, and Powers; and finally, the Principalities, Archangels, and Angels.

Cf. Isaiah 6:6-7: "And there was sent to me one of the Seraphs, and he had in his hand a coal, which he had taken off the

altar with the tongs: and he touched my mouth, and said, Behold, this has touched thy lips, and will take away thine iniqui­

ties, and will purge off thy sins." ' ‘'A reference to the heresy of Gnosticism, which denied the resurrection of the flesh. The expression occurs in Saint Paul’s epistle to Timothy (1 Timothy 6:20).

I'-■'·-·· Divine Names 1.4

1 ' ‘ ■ Dionysius, Letter 4 Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 4.3.10 [64s|cf

john 14:26 and 1 Corinthians 12:4

Psalm 44:2

i^Cf. Psalm 140:2 Cf. Matthew 7:15

-James 2:26

1^531 cf. Luke 12:42 1^11 Corinthians 3:2 Ephesians 4:13

Cf. Galatians 5:7

1^1 Ezekiel 34:16; Luke 15:3-5 1^' Antipope of Rome between 251 and 258. He followed a strict rigorism and refused to admit back into communion those Christians who had lapsed during the pagan persecutions. Conflict over this question eventually resulted in outright schism,

and a rivalling "Novatian” episcopate was set up across the Empire. The movement finally disappeared at the end of the sev­ enth century.

1^- That is, he had recently been baptized.

1^51 Dionysius, Letter 8.5-6 Romans 15:19

Cf. 1 Timothy 6:20

Divine Names 3.2

1^-z. The household of Cornelius was the first group of Gentiles to be received into the faith. After being baptized by Saint Peter, they began speaking in tongues (see Acts 10).

1^- Divine Names 4.12

I^A.D. 108 1^- Emperors Vespasian (r. 69-79), Titus (r. 79-81), and Domitian (r. 81-96)

I 1 ' Dionysius, Letter 10

-

Trajan led a series of successful campaigns against the barbarian tribes of Dacia (present-day Romania), ultimately

annexing the whole province in 106. He later went on to conquer Mesopotamia and Armenia.

1^- - Syncellus borrowed this idea from Methodius’ Passion, who, however, places the persecution under the reign of Domitian: "And while the word of God was spreading far and wide every day, the saint was called to account by Domitian the impious emperor, who believed it to be a small thing to rule over all the nations if he did not possess Dionysius as well." (J.C.

Westerbrink, ed., Passio S. Dionysii Aeropagitae, Rustici et Eleutherii, sec. 9, p. 5 2)

Dionysius’ age at this time is subject to conjecture. Saint Maximus suggests that Dionysius was twenty-five years old at the time of the famous eclipse (Patrologia graeca 4, col. 5 73C). This would put him in his early forties when he was converted

by Saint Paul (a reasonable age for a respected judge), and around ninety when he set out to the West (Hilduin of Paris also favours this chronology). That Dionysius set out on a distant journey at this advanced age should not seem so incredible to us, for Polycarp of Smyrna was eighty-six (or possibly older) when he came to Rome to debate the date of Easter with

Pope Anicetus in 15 5. Likewise, Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus was around ninety when he sailed to Constantinople to combat Origenism in the fourth century. And in the thirteenth century, Burkhard of Serkem, the bishop of Lubeck in Northern Ger­

many, set out for Rome at the ripe old age of ninety-six to defend the rights of his diocese before the Pope. After staying in the

city for four years successfully pleading his case, he returned home and lived for two more decades (see Thomas H. King, The Study-Book of Mediaeval Architecture and Art, Volume 4, [Edinburgh: 1893], Lubeck, p. 2).

1^21 Cf. Luke 24:19

Phalaris was the tyrant of Agrigentum in Sicily famed for roasting his enemies in a brazen bull. Echetus was a mythical

king of Epirus who blinded his daughter with needles for sleeping with her lover Aechmodicus and locked her in a chamber, promising to restore her sight if she ground iron seeds into flour.

- In Dionysius' age, the population of Paris (ancient Lutetia) together with its suburbs is estimated to have been around ten thousand (Levy Claude, "La population de Lutece avant 275 apres J.-C.,” Population 17.2 [1962], p. 328).

1^-Isaiah 9:2; Matthew 4:16 1^- That is, the devil. Another passage the formulation of which Syncellus owes to Methodius.

1^-Jeremiah 10:11 Psalm 134:16-18

1^1 Hebrews 12:23 Hebrews 12:4

1^- Cf. Ephesians 5:2 Or perhaps, a "rich bay” (reading κόλπος πίειρος for κόλπος ίέρειος).

— Syncellus seems to be referring to the Seine.

1^4 Kings (2 Kings) 1:10-14; Luke 9:54 1^6] Exodus 18:21 ■ A liturgical expression.

Isaiah 9:6 psalm 115:6 Cf. Saint Gregory of Tours, Glory of the Confessors, ch. 108: "And since we have read nothing of the life of this saint [sc. Paulinus of Nola], when we wished to speak of his almsgiving, we recount what we have learned from the relation of the faithful.”

... - The precise meaning of this sentence is obscure. This sentence is quoted in the Life of Saint Lezin of Angers (Acta Sanctorum, February 13, Volume 5, p. 678, sec. 3). The author of this text says that he obtained his information on the saint from one of the latter's disciples named Daniel (ibid. p.

678, sec. 2). Since Saint Lezin lived in the second half of the sixth century, this Life was likely composed around the mid-sev­ enth century (Lapidge, op. cit. p. 641, nl04). [693]

psalm 11:7; Wisdom of Solomon 3:6; Ecclesiasticus 2:5; 1 Peter 1:7

1- ' - As stated in the introduction, this expression also occurs in the Life of Saint Gengulphus of Burgundy (Monumenta

Germaniae Historica, Vol. 7, p. 171), the Lifeof Saint Paul of Narbonne (Acta Sanctorum, March 22, Volume 9,p. 372), as well

as in the office for Saint Denis’ feastday. '

As we saw in the Introduction, this same expression appears in the royal charter of 625. - The first-century historian Tacitus reports that the Romans frequently traded with the Germans along the northern

frontier. Indeed, archaeologists have uncovered a wealth of Roman artefacts dating to the first two centuries across Ger­ many and Denmark (see e.g. Olwen Brogan, "Trade Between the Roman Empire and the Free Germans,” TheJournal of Roman

Studies 26.2 [1936], pp. 195-222). Paris’ unique geographical location made it a natural crossroads for these northern trade routes.

The famed Tie de la Cite. In the first century B.C., Caesar referred to a Gaulish town located on "an island of the river Seine” (De Bello Gallico 7.57). Later, the Romans established a colony known as Lutetia on the left bank of the Seine, on the present-day site of Paris’ sixth and fifth arrondissements.

This sentence, as well as elements of the preceding paragraph, were borrowed by Saint Prix for the opening of his Life of

Saint Stremonius (ActaSanctorum, November 1, Volume 63, p. 49, sec. 1-2). This passage was quoted with slight variation in the Life of Saint Gaudentius of Novara (Acta Sanctorum, Vol. 3, January

22, p. 32, sec. 5). The author of this Life says that he composed it at the behest of bishop Leo of Novara (ibid., p. 34, sec. 21), whose episcopacy can be dated to sometime between 681 and 729 (See Fedele Savio, Gli antichi vescovi d’Italia dale origini al 1300 descrittiper regioni: 11 Piedmonte [Torino: 1898], p. 253).

1Z001 Matthew 11:29-30

Another tradition, popularized in later iconographic representations, held that Saint Dionysius actually walked a cer­ tain distance with his head in his hands, preaching to the multitudes. This phenomenon, known as “cephalophory” (head­ bearing), seems to have been particular to Northern France. The earliest written record of it comes from the Life of the child­ martyr Justus of Beauvais, who was martyred to the north of Paris at the end of the third century (Maurice Coens, “Aux orig­

ines de la cephalophorie: Un fragment retrouve d'une ancienne Passion de S. Just, martyr de Beauvais," Analecta Bollandiana 74.1-2 [1956], pp. 86-114). However, unlike the later stories of the Cephalophors, the text does not say that Justus walked, but only that he sat up with his head in his lap and prayed to God. A similar miracle is found in the life of Bishop Nicasius

of Reims in the fifth century. It is said that the latter was standing in the doorway of his church reciting the one-hundredand-eighteenth Psalm (My soul cleaveth to the dust) when the barbarian Vandals erupted inside and cut off his head; yet after

being beheaded, he proceeded to complete the verse: Ogive me life, according to Thy word (Flodoard, History of the Church of Reims, Book 1.6, Patrologia latina 135, col. 39C-D; Psalm 118:25).

October 9th £Z°31 Matthew 10:29-30

i''1 - Translation by Glenn R. Morrow and John M. Dillon