AND: DIVINE ACTIVITY IN DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE

by

Rebecca Ann Pead Coughlin

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

at

Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia August 2006

Copyright by Rebecca Ann Pead Coughlin, 2006

DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF CLASSICS

The undersigned hereby certify that they have read and recommended to the Faculty of Graduate Studies for acceptance a thesis entitled: AND : DIVINE ACTIVITY IN DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE by Rebecca Ann Pead Coughlin in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts.

Dated: Supervisor: Readers:

August 22, 2006

_________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________

ii

DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY DATE: AUTHOR: TITLE: Rebecca Ann Pead Coughlin AND: DIVINE ACTIVITY IN DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE Department of Classics October YEAR: 2006 August 22, 2006

DEPARTMENT OR SCHOOL: DEGREE: MA

CONVOCATION:

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

Signature of Author The author reserves other publication rights, and neither the thesis nor extensive extracts from it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the authors written permission. The author attests that permission has been obtained for the use of any copyrighted material appearing in the thesis (other than the brief excerpts requiring only proper acknowledgement in scholarly writing), and that all such use is clearly acknowledged.

iii

For my grandparents: Catherine Pead and James Martin Pead

iv

Table of ContentsAbstract ...............................................................................................................................vi Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................vii Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................1 Chapter 2: Theurgy .........................................................................................6 Section I Dionysius Pagan Predecessors.....................................................6 Section II Dionysius Christian Sources.......................................................22 Section III Theurgy in the Dionysian Corpus..............................................28 Chapter 3: The Ascent of the Soul................................................................36 Section I The Place of Man in the Cosmos...............................................36 Section II The Nature of the Soul ................................................................47 Section III Theurgy and the Divine Names.....................................................59 Chapter 4: Doctrinal Questions....................................................................75 Section I Dionysius Doctrine of God .......................................................75 Section II Creation...........................................................................................84 Section III The Incarnation .............................................................................88 Chapter 11: Conclusion .................................................................................98 Bibliography..................................................................................................................... 101

v

AbstractIn this thesis I demonstrate the relationship between ritual action and philosophical contemplation in the work of the sixth century Christian philosopher, theologian, and mystic, Dionysius the Areopagite. The exact nature of this relationship in his work has been generally unrecognized by modern commentators and critics. In order to re-evaluate it, I propose to examine Dionysius use of the terms of (contemplation) and (ritual action) in light of his vision of divine union as the goal of all religious and philosophical life. This investigation traces the sources of Dionysius vision of sacred ritual and contemplation in both Christian and pagan circles in order to reveal that for his predecessors these ideas were viewed as fundamentally one human and divine activity. Dionysius takes up this tradition and creates a vision of the world, of humanity, and of God which reveals the unity of all facets of existence.

vi

AcknowledgementsThe task of completing a post-graduate degree and writing a thesis, no matter how big or small, how grand or humble the scope is an all-consuming endevour. Given this, it is a task which inevitably draws upon the kindness and generosity of those whom you come upon along the way. I would like to thank the Department of Classics and the Dalhousie University Faculty of Graduate Studies for their generous financial support, without which the completion of this degree would have been near to impossible. My supervisor, Dr. Wayne Hankey deserves my utmost appreciation, gratitude and admiration. His perseverance in the past two years has led me through a truly cathartic process and allowed me to begin a course of thinking about religion, philosophy and mysticism which I know will carry me though the rest of my life. I must also thank Drs. OBrien, House, Cohen, and McGonagill for their insights in class, their leadership in teaching, and their hospitality; the knowledge I have gleaned from each of them has taken form in the pages of this composition. I also wish to thank Dr. Torrance Kirby at McGill University, for sharing his love of Neoplatonism with me, introducing me to the illuminating writings of Dionysius, and entrusting me the tutelage of his colleagues at Dalhousie. I would be remiss if I did not also offer my most humble thanks to Donna Edwards and Lynn Lantz for all of their help and support during my time in the department. My classmates, past and present, indeed, deserve my sincere thanks for their support over the past two year: James Flemming for his friendship, support, and linguistic acumen; Matt Wood for stepping up and telling me how things are from the moment I arrived (and for leaving me all the comforts of Room 14); Stephen Russell for his gentle encouragement and grounded understanding of the academic endevour; Tyler Young for his enthusiasm and fervour for all things ancient and philosophical; Martin Sastri for both his quite reflections and his entertaining and enlivened rants; Adam Labecki for our philosophical and existential discussions; and of course, Colin Webster my most wonderful office-mate, Ben Frenken, Ross Gower, and Dan and Michelle Wilband; thank you all for making my time at Dal so enriching and memorable. My parents, grandparents and brother deserve my absolute gratitude for their constant love and encouragement. For all that you have taught me, nurtured in me and guided me: Thank you, from the bottom of my heart. Finally, I wish to thank Terrance: for your time and energy, your strength and confidence in me, your patience, kindness, lightheartedness, joy, and above all your love. Our shared understanding of the unity of thinking/acting/making and your vision and passion have and continue to inspire me.

vii

-1Chapter 1: Introduction PraisetheworldtotheAngel,notwhatsunsayable. Youcantimpresshimwithloftyemotions;inthecosmos thatshapeshisfeelings,youreamerenovice.Thereforeshowhim somesimpleobject,formedfromgenerationtogeneration untilitstrulyourown,dwellingnearourhandsandinoureyes. Tellhimofthings.Hellstandmoreamazed;asyoustood besidetheropemakerinRomeorbythepotteralongtheNile. TheNinthElegy,Rilke. The nature of the relationship between the soul and the body, or the mind and the body, is of central concern for nearly all religious traditions. In many ways the definition of this relationship within a tradition informs the way in which that tradition treats the areas of philosophy, theology, mysticism, and ritual practice. In the post-Enlightenment modern world we have tended to divide these areas. We see philosophy as aligned with human rationality over and against religion which has as its concern theology and ritual, whereas mystical experience has become something reserved for the select few who individually achieve a feeling or state which is seen as outside of the realm of either philosophy or religion. Such positions are no more than the result of the imposition of an arbitrary division between thinking and acting; and this very division is often reiterated as the division of body and soul. This division has forced those who have studied ancient religious and philosophical traditions, during the last two hundred years, to work under the assumption that such a dichotomy existed among ancient thinkers in a similar way. The modern faith in human reason coupled with the distrust or even condemnation of anything even vaguely suggestive of cultic practices or of the supernatural meant that any such work was de facto excluded from the accepted canon of Western philosophy. This separation

-2between thought and action has led to a deep misunderstanding of ancient religious and philosophical authors. Dionysius the Areopagite is among these misinterpreted authors. Much work has been done in the last fifteen to twenty years to re-read the Corpus Dionysiacum (CD) in a way that attempts to overcome modern assumptions which inevitably cloud the interpretation of any ancient text. Considering that there is still much work to be done to correct these artificial divisions, the following treatment of the CD will endeavour to respond to recent work and to address further implications of its findings. The Question of Pseudonimity When first approaching any text, it is necessary to situate its historical and cultural context and this inevitably involves a discussion of its author. The historical identity of our author, however, is clouded in mystery. The collection of writings now attributed to Pseudo-Dionysius or Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite 1 first appeared in the very early sixth century. 2 Even at his earliest appearance in the textual tradition, Dionysius caused a stir as defenders of the Council of Chalcedons definitive statement on the question of the Incarnation questioned his authenticity at a colloquy in 532. 3 However, in the following centuries, Dionysius apostolic identity was generally accepted, with only a few murmurings, until the end of the nineteenth century. The name of our author is first found within the Christian tradition in the Acts of the Apostles (17:34). Here it is the name given to the first of the Greeks whom Paul converted when he preached at the altar to the unknown god in Athens. Although, within

1 2

I will simply be referring to him as Dionysius throughout this paper. A. Louth, Denys 1. 3 J Pelikan, The Odyssey of Dionysian Spirituality 13.

-3the hagiographical tradition, many other identities have been attached to Dionysius, 4 it is this Biblical reference which established his authority within the Western tradition. The identification of our author with the Greek convert in Acts was found to be false, in 1895, when two independent examinations of the texts revealed their authors reliance on and kinship with the Neoplatonic philosophy of the late Athenian school, particularly that found in the writings of Proclus. 5 At this point it is important to note that authorship in the ancient world was not, as we understand it now, a matter of innovation or originality. Rather, almost all ancient writers laid claim to a long standing tradition, the truth of which lay with the founder whose work they were elaborating or explicating. Given this milieu, our authors choice of pen-name is actually quite telling. Through it we know that he saw himself as standing in both the Greek and Christian intellectual traditions. Dionysius tells us he saw St. Paul as his first and principle teacher, 6 followed closely by the hierarch Hierotheus, whose work Dionysius tells us he is analyzing and expanding. 7 The identity of the holy

Hierotheus is also veiled; whether he was a historical person or a character created and used by Dionysius in order to ground his own work more strongly in the Christian Neoplatonic tradition, remains unclear. What is clear is that Dionysius does not take credit for creating something new in his works, rather, he insists on his reliance on the sacred tradition, which for him did not distinguish between Christian and Pagan. This

4

These associations include Denys as the first bishop of Athens, missionary to the Gauls, bishop of Paris, martyr, and patron of the Abbey of St. Denys. See A. Louth, Denys 1. 5 See H. Koch, Proklus als Quelle des Ps-Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre von Bsen. 438-54; and J. Stiglmayr, Der Neuplatoniker Proclus als Vorlage des sog. Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom bel. 253-273, 721-748. In A. Louth, Denys 15 note 1. 6 DN III.2. 7 DN III.2.

-4reliance will help throughout our investigation to clarify some points of contention within the CD. 8 Although there is a lack of general consensus on Dionysius exact historical identity, there are a few points upon which most scholars agree. The first is that Dionysius was probably writing in the late fifth or early sixth century. The second is that he was most likely of Syrian descent, given the similarity between his descriptions of certain rites and those known to have been practiced in Syria at that time. 9 Finally, that he was connected with and possibly trained in the Athenian School. 10 The Corpus The CD itself is a modest collection of four treatises and ten letters. Although the correct ordering of the corpus has also been a source of contention, I have chosen to list them here as: The Celestial Hierarchy (CH), The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (EH), On The Divine Names (DN) and The Mystical Theology (MT), followed by The Letters. For many scholars these treatises have divided evenly and neatly into the two ecclesial, or religious, treatises (CH and EH), and the two philosophical treatises (DN and MT). However, this artificial division is yet again another example of the division of religion and philosophy mentioned earlier. In light of this, I believe that the only way to give a full account of any one of these works is to understand that at every point each text must be considered in relation to the whole corpus.

For connections between Dionysius and the Neoplatonic Academy at Athens see H. D. Saffrey, New Objective Links 64-74. 9 A. Louth, Denys 14, 60. 10 See: H.D. Saffrey, New Objective Links 64-74. Here Saffrey asserts several philological and philosophical points of contact which connect Dionysius with Proclus and the Athenian school; also I. Perczel, Pseudo-Dionysius and the Platonic Theology Perczel asserts that Dionysius paraphrased, in order, a long text, consisting at least of six continuous chapters from the Platonic Theology. 526.

8

-5The Process The following examination of the Dionysian Corpus proposes to explore the place of ritual action, more specifically theurgy, within The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy in particular and within the corpus as a whole. This will begin with a study of Dionysius Neoplatonic and Christian sources, specifically in relation to their conceptions of theurgy. Following this I will establish Dionysius use of the term theurgy in the corpus and suggest a way of reading his discussion of the Christian sacraments which avoids the problematic division of thinking and acting or contemplation and ritual action. This reading will provide a better understanding of the relationship between Dionysius religious and philosophical work by exploring the place of On the Divine Names within a theurgic context. Finally, I will discuss the implications of this understanding on Dionysius conception of God, of Creation, and of Christology.

-6Chapter 2: Theurgy since it make us like unto the gods through acts 11 Section I Dionysius Pagan Predecessors

The Chaldaean Oracles Before addressing Dionysius discussion of religious ritual, it is necessary to discuss the term theurgy () a term used by Dionysius frequently in the context of his discussion of ritual activity. Hans Lewy, in his extensive text on the Chaldaean Oracles and theurgy provides the meaning and history of the term. He says, is a neologism of the Chaldaeans, which recurs in the extant fragments of the Chaldaean Oracles only once, but it seems that was the title of a treatise composed by the second of the two Julians. 12 Lewy suggests that was formed from the contraction of ostensibly on the pattern of . Thus, just as are (those saying divine things), so ()arethose doing divine things. 13 The authorship of the Chaldaean Oracles themselves is attributed to two men: a father and son, both named Julian. The first Julian is the Chaldaean, his son is called the Theurgist. The elder Julian was a contemporary of Trajan, Hadrian and the Antonines. 14 The younger was born at the time of Trajan and lived in Rome in the

11 12

DM V.26 (240:1). My translation. H. Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy 461. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 5.

-7second half of the 2nd century. 15 The tradition generally attributes the works to a collaboration of the two men. 16 The Chaldaean Oracles are preserved exclusively within the Neoplatonic tradition. 17 Lewy goes on to explain, These Chaldaean Oracles claim to contain the doctrines which the gods disclosed to the two Julians. They are revelations which the theurgists have written down. Accordingly, the Neoplatonists who believed in the legitimate character of the inspiration frequently quoted the Chaldaean Oracles as utterances of the gods themselves and did not mention quite so often their Chaldaean hypophets who, in their opinion, had only played a secondary part. 18 Two familiar gods are central to the Oracles: Apollo and Psyche (the Cosmic Soul, Hecate), although prophesies are also on occasion attributed to the god or a certain god. 19 Porphyry was the first Neoplatonist to have recourse to the Chaldaean Oracles and he does so in several of his works. 20 Following Porphyry, Iamblichus and Proclus also employ the Oracles in many of their works. The term theurgy itself is complex, and as we shall see, the ambivalence of the term is cause for much of the debate surrounding Dionysius understanding of the liturgy. Hans Lewy notes that Iamblichus, at times, shares the definition of theurgy as developed in the Chaldaean Oracles, but that it was later somewhat modified by Proclus.

15 16

Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. 17 Ibid. 7. 18 Ibid. 6. 19 Ibid. 7. 20 Ibid. 8. Lewy notes that Porphyry indicates that he referenced the Oracles in his treatise, On the Return of the Soul, of which we have only quotes from a Latin translation by Augustine. He also argues that Porphyry relied on the divine sayings in his On the Philosophy of the Oracles although Porphyry does not seem to make this entirely clear from what we have of the text.

-8Plotinus The term theurgy itself is not found anywhere in Plotinus Enneads. 21 Further, E.R. Dodds assumes that Plotinus did not know of the Oracles for had he known about them he would presumably have subjected them to the same critical treatment which is found with respect to the Gnostics at Ennead 2.9. 22 However, as Zeke Mazur has pointed out, Plotinus critique of the Gnostics here was based on two points which do not necessarily apply to the Oracles directly. Plotinus believed (1) that the Gnostics were attempting to manipulate the celestial world; and (2) that the Gnostics were suggesting that incorporeal deities were affected by material rituals. 23 Mazur concludes that, Plotinus criticizes the Gnostics not for their use of ritual per se, but for what he sees as their arrogant, impious, and entirely futile attempts to manipulate their superiors. 24 Plotinus assessment of Gnostic ritual does not extend to his Neoplatonic successors for whom theurgy was clearly not an attempt to manipulate the gods. This reading of Plotinus critique of the Gnostics opens the possibility that Plotinus was not simply rejecting all ritual practice. However, this has not been the dominant reading. Mazur has noted that Plotinus has generally been characterized as rejecting ritual in favour of a solely contemplative union with the One. 25 Mazur argues that such a distinction between theory and praxis, between contemplation and theurgy, is not satisfactory, either in the Plotinian world view or in many of his predecessors. Theoria and theurgia are, as he points out, ambiguous categories that admit of some overlap. Theoria, or contemplation, cannot be understood as simple intellection, just as theurgia21 22

E.R. Dodds, Greeks and Irrational 285. E.R. Dodds, Greeks and Irrational 285. 23 Z. Mazur, Unio Magica II 37. 24 Ibid. 38. 25 Ibid. 38.

-9does not merely designate external or material ritual practices. Mazur maintains that Plotinus curious notion of productive contemplation dissolves the apparent dichotomy between thought and action, and thus blurs the distinction between philosophical and ritual praxis. 26 He argues that Plotinus mysticism can be understood as comprising a kind of inner ritual. This category, he suggests, would thus occupy a liminal position between the cognitive process employed in discursive philosophy and the physical actions which comprise religious ritual. 27 This inner ritual is not anything other than contemplation in Plotinus definition of the term. Following Gregory Shaw, Mazur indicates that Plotinus highest level of contemplation is structurally homologous to and, in fact, derived from certain theurgical rituals. 28 Thus Plotinus is advocating a form of ritual praxis as a path to mystical union that is interior and based in contemplation. Through such interiorization, ritual actions are understood as contemplative, though they do not admit of the discursive nature associated with intellection. Iamblichus The philosopher, theologian and theurgist Iamblichus was a follower of Plotinus and a student of Porphyry. It is reported that he was born in Chalcis, Syria and external sources suggest a date of no later than 240 for his birth. 29 His De Mysteriis was composed sometime between 280 and 305. 30 It was composed under the pseudonym Abamon in response to a letter penned by Porphyry to Anebo. Iamblichus pseudonym was that of an Egyptian priest, which Proclus saw as suitable to the task of responding to26 27

Ibid. 42. Ibid. 44. 28 Ibid. 45. 29 E.Clark, J.Dillon, and J. Hershbell, Introduction xviii-xix. 30 Ibid. xxvii.

- 10 Porphyrys concerns about the practice of theurgy especially as it relates to magic. 31 Although Porphyrys initial letter has been lost, his arguments can be re-constructed from Iamblichus responses. However, our main concern here is the way Iamblichus defends theurgy against Porphyrys attacks through careful theological, philosophical, and theurgical argumentation. In Book I, Chapter 11, Iamblichus defends theurgy against the view that it is an attempt to manipulate the gods. Iamblichus is clear that theurgy, unlike magic or sorcery which relies on sympathies within the material world, is only dependent on the divine will of the gods. The gods are not moved by the ritual, as though through the passions, for they are not subject to such alterations. Through theurgy a certain affinity with the gods is established. However, it is not the case that Iamblichus is suggesting that somehow the gods are affected by theurgical activity as if subject to passions, for the incorporeal and eternal gods cannot be affected by the material. 32 This is the same argument that Plotinus used against the Gnostics. Rather than affecting the gods, theurgy for Iamblichus serves to raise the human soul, to align the soul to the gods. 33 The rituals themselves are directed at our souls and function to elevate that part of us towards the divine in which it has a part. For example the divine invocations do not affect the gods, but rather they affect the soul within the person and this illumination is the light given by the gods which calls the soul, still embodied, to turn from externals and focus on the divine principle within. 34 This, Iamblichus says, is the method of the salvation of the soul; it is effected

Ibid. 3 note 1. Iamblichus, De Mysteriis (DM) I.11 (37: 13-16). All translations are by E.Clark, J.Dillon, and J. Hershbell (unless otherwise noted), the Des Places text page and line numbers are given in brackets after the book and chapter numbers for convenience. 33 DM I.11 (38: 8-10). 34 DM I.12 (41-42).32

31

- 11 because of the divine love which holds all things together. The rites, given by the gods, dispose the human mind to participation in the gods and bring it into accord with them through harmonious persuasion. 35 These rites also include prayer in similar way. Thus, prayer functions to elevate the divine element in the human being and when this element is aroused it strives primarily towards what is like to itself, and joins itself to essential perfection. 36 Prayer, as established by the gods, unites humans to the gods through an internal connection. In the case of the divinely established prayers the divine is literally united with itself, and it is not in the way of one person addressing another that it participates in the thought expressed by the prayers. 37 Thus, as supplicants through prayer, we are made like to the divine by virtue of our constant consorting with it, and, starting from our own imperfection, we gradually take on the perfection of the divine. 38 Although Iamblichus discusses theurgy in one way or another throughout his treatise, the final goal of theurgy is most clearly defined in Book II, Chapter 11. Here Iamblichus states that he will provide a theurgical account of the notion that knowledge of being is directed towards the gods whereas ignorance descends to non-being. He clearly suggests that the only way for the soul to accomplish its return to divine union is through theurgy. He insists that it is not pure thought that unites the theurgists to the gods and that theoretical philosophers cannot hope to enjoy such union. It is not thought but rather,DM I.12 (42:11): . DM 1.15 (46:11-12): . 37 DM 1.15 (47:7-9): , . 38 DM 1.15(48:1-3): ,.36 35

- 12 the accomplishment of acts not to be divulged and beyond all conception, and the power of the unutterable symbols, understood solely by the gods, which establishes theurgic union. Hence, we do not bring about these things by intellection alone; for thus their efficacy would be intellectual, and dependent on us. But neither assumption is true. For even when we are not engaged in intellection, the symbols themselves, by themselves, perform their appropriate work, and the ineffable power of the gods, to whom these symbols relate, itself recognizes the proper images of itself, not through being aroused by our thought.Effective union certainly never takes place without knowledge, but nevertheless it is not identical with it. 39 Thus, the knowledge of divine things, as attained through philosophical reasoning, is not unimportant or useless; however, it is not that through which divine union takes place. Divine union is achieved only through the practice of the divine rites provided by the gods for the salvation of the soul. Knowledge cannot be to sole means of the souls salvation for Iamblichus because the human soul is fully descended and therefore the intellect alone is not capable of raising the human to the gods. Shaw explains that the agent of the souls descent [is] prohairesis, its free will, choice, or disposition. 40 This disposition is what must be altered in order for the salvation of the soul to be accomplished. This is why Iamblichus says that theurgy [does] not act through the intellect but through ones entire character to allow the soul to exchange one life for another, to sacrifice its mortal life for the life of a god. Theurgy transform[s] the souls prohairesis by conforming it to the divine

DM II.11 (96:14- 97:7; 98:6-7): . . ,,, ,. , . 40 G. Shaw, Theurgy and the Soul 69.

39

- 13 actions communicated in theurgic symbols: the sacred stones, plants, animals, prayers, and names that preserve the will of the gods. 41 Thus, although knowledge plays a significant role in the souls movement toward the gods, it is not that by which the soul is deified. The soul attains divine union only through theurgic activity which brings about the transformation of the whole person, allowing him to attain theurgic union. The final element in the Iamblichean system to consider is his account of sacrifice. As mentioned above, Iamblichus does not see the efficacy of sacrifice in its power to affect the universe through some kind of manipulation of latent cosmic sympathy. Rather he understands the efficacy of sacrifices to stem from a relationship of friendship and affinity, and in the relation that binds together creators with creations and generators with their offspring. 42 This bond encompasses the totality of beings through an ineffable process of communion. 43 Here Iamblichus notes that all beings are brought to completion by their causes: hence, soul by intellect and nature by soul. With respect to the human soul this process of affinity liberates her from the bonds of generation, makes her like to the gods and renders [her] worthy to enjoy their friendship, and turns round [her] material nature towards the immaterial. 44 Thus, for Iamblichus, the soul, through theurgic acts, invocations and sacrifices, is brought into participation with the divine activity and made god-like because of the divine love which permeates the whole of the universe.

41 42

Ibid. DM V.9 (209:9-10): , . 43 DM V.10 (211:13-15): , . 44 DM V.12 (216:4-6): , ,.

- 14 These theurgic acts are not, however, necessarily material. In his article Eros and Arithmos: Pythagorean Theurgy in Iamblichus and Plotinus, Gregory Shaw has pointed out that for Iamblichus there were different types of theurgies associated with different levels of the souls coordination with the All. 45 This coordination was effected first by material theurgies, then by intermediate theurgies which contained both material and immaterial elements and finally by immaterial theurgies that employ mathematical images, not as conceptual abstractions but as noetic signatures of the gods, Pythagorean hieroglyphs of intelligible reality. 46 Finally, Shaw suggests that for both Plotinus and Iamblichus the experience [of this immaterial theurgy] is a kind of not-knowing in which noetic realities do the work, not the soul. 47 Proclus In the 5th century Proclus (410-485), the accomplished student of Syrianus, became the Platonic Successor at Athens. 48 Proclus takes up the Iamblichean tradition insofar as he adopts the Platonic dialogues and the Chaldaean Oracles as the basis for his theology. He also follows Iamblichus in maintaining that the human soul is fully descended, that no part of it remains at the level of Nous. As we saw above, it was this assertion that led Iamblichus to insist on theurgy as the path to divine union. Similarly, Proclus seems to suggest at several points that theurgy is necessary in order to attain divine union. In Book I, Chapter 25, of his Platonic Theology, Proclus concludes that there are three characteristics which fill all divine beings and extend throughout all the levels of divinity, these are goodness, wisdom, and beauty. Further, he says that there are

45 46

G. Shaw, Eros and Arithmos 134. Ibid. 47 Ibid.138. 48 .. Armstrong, Introduction 199.

- 15 three characteristics that join all of these together, which are below these, and yet extend across all the divine worlds; these are: belief, truth, and love. Love binds all things together; truth illuminates all those in the process of intellection, and the highest truth unites the intellect with its object. Finally, belief is that which indescribably unites all levels of divinity, all daemons, and all blessed souls with the Good. The Good is not attainable by intellection. Rather, Proclus explains, it is necessary to abandon oneself to the divine light and by closing the eyes to be established in the unknowing and secret henad of being. 49 The assertion that it is not possible to attain divine union solely through intellection, but that there is something else necessary, a faculty beyond discursive knowledge which allows for such union, prompts Proclus in the following section to insist on the priority of theurgy: Through these [belief, truth, and love] all is saved and is joined together with the primary causes, that is through erotic madness, divine philosophy, and theurgic power, this last is more powerful than all human wisdom and knowledge, having gathered together the good of the prophetic and the purifying powers of the perfection of the rites, and equally all activities of divine possession. 50 For Proclus, theurgic activity consists in all aspects of human connection with the divine. It encompasses prophecy, purification, ritual, and all things derived from contact with the divine.

Pl.Th. 1 25 (110): .(All translations from the Platonic Theology are my own). 50 Pl.Th. I 25 (113): , ,, ,, .

49

- 16 Even in his early discussion of the task and modes of theology, Proclus is clear that the task of theology is to reveal the existence of the gods, to contemplate their existence, and to proclaim the goodness of their activity. Yet, there are different modes of theology. He tells us: For it appears that [Plato] does not present the teachings concerning the gods always in the same way, but at times he describes the truth concerning them from divine inspiration, at time dialectically; other times he makes their ineffable natures known symbolically, and sometimes by images he rises up to them and discovers in them the original causes of the world.51

Further on Proclus says that he

who is revealing the same truth of the gods according to itself by divine inspiration is most clearly among the highest of the theurgists. 52 Thus, for Proclus the practice of revealing the gods by divine inspiration, namely through theurgy, is considered, not only among the modes of doing theology, but one of the highest. Moreover, he seems to be suggesting that Plato himself should be considered among the highest practitioners of the telestic art. Proclus clearly recognizes that Plato stands within a long tradition of theology, philosophy and religious practice. These are clearly not multiple traditions, but rather one single tradition which includes many aspects. Thus Proclus explains that among all of the Platonic dialogues which treat theology it is necessary to show that each of the doctrines accords with the Platonic principles and with the secret traditions of the theologians; forPl.Th. I 4 (17): , ,, . 52 Pl.Th. I 4 (20) .Hans Lewy describes that in InTim. III, 6, 8 Proclus says that the title: refers to those who consecrate, vivify, and move the statues of the gods. H. Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles 495-496.51

- 17 all Greek theology is born from the Orphic mystagogy. First Pythagoras had learned from Aglaophamos about the rites of the gods, second Plato had received the perfect knowledge from both the Pythagorean and Orphic writings.53

The continuity of the

philosophical, the theological, and the religious for Proclus suggests that he does not admit strict divisions between these, nor does he privilege, necessarily, one form of the tradition over the other. The final passage from the Platonic Theology which I would like to consider occurs at the end of Book I. Here, Proclus is concluding his discussion of the divine names. He describes that just as the demiurgic mind brings into existence images of the primary forms in matter, images of eternal realities in time, and images that exist as shadows from those things that truly are, so: in the same way, I believe, our knowledge, modeled on the intellective activity creates according to this logic the likeness of all other things and especially of the gods themselves, among them it represents the uncompounded according to the compounded, the single according to the diverse, and the unified according to the many. And thus forming the names of the gods it shows the uttermost icons; for each it brings forth each name just as a statue of the gods; and as theurgy according to some symbols calls forth the generous goodness of the gods in the illumination of the created statues, and certainly in the same way the intellectual knowledge of the gods by the compositions and divisions of echoes discloses the hidden being of the gods. 54

53

Pl.Th. I 5 (25): , , . 54 Pl.Th. I 29 (124): ,, , . ,

- 18 -

In this passage Proclus is connecting the illumination of divine statues through symbols in theurgic rites with the effects of conceptualizing divine names: both activities, in the same way, make present the divine which is hidden. Proclus is quite clear on this important point: theurgic activity is not defined by its materiality, but rather by its effectsits ability to make present the divine to the soul of the practitioner. Jean Trouillard has written extensively on Proclus and his work provides invaluable insight into Proclus attitude towards theurgy. At the conclusion of his discussion of Proclus philosophy in LUn et Lme Selon Proclos Trouillard turns his attention to theurgy and its place in the Proclean system. Trouillard insists that for the Neoplatonists the final lesson of the Parmenides is the limit of the mind. Yet, because of the power of love which drives dialectic for Plato, the limit of formal reason is not the limit of thought or of action; love expresses itself most fully in myth. 55 Trouillard tells us regarding myth: Ne croyons pas que le mythe soit rserv aux enfants ou aux hommes incultes. Car il y a un usage pdagogique du mythe et un usage initiatique. 56 Trouillard asserts that for Proclus myth is related to theurgy insofar as le rite est un mythe en acte. Ritual, he says, is the primary expression of and communication with the divine. Reason can justify it but it cannot rival it. 57 Trouillard describes that: La thurgie est avant tout chez Proclos un procd de dification. Elle couronne la contemplation, comme lactivit prnotique domine la vie notique et la dpasse en efficacit. 58 In this sense theurgy is prior to contemplation as the source of all contemplation. Theurgy is not so much thought . 55 J. Trouillard, LUn et Lme 171. 56 Ibid. 172. 57 Ibid. 58 Ibid. 174.

- 19 in action as contemplation is action in thought. Finally, he insists that: La thurgie nest pas la liturgie des imparfaits, mais des parfaits. Elle est appele par la thologie ngative et se place entre la contemplation et lunion mystique, afin de rveiller celle-ci. 59 Thus, theurgy is the vehicle of mystical union which surpasses contemplation by bringing the initiate into the life of the divine which is beyond contemplation. Conclusion Trouillards description of Proclean theurgy avoids the many difficulties encountered by modern commentators. These difficulties stem, fundamentally, from many contemporary commentators inability to abandon the strict privileging of contemplation over and against ritual activity. Moreover, it represents their consistent desire to distinguish contemplation from action completely. This is seen clearly in the more recent work of authors such as Andrew Smith and Anne Sheppard. Both of these scholars, in their discussions of Neoplatonic theurgy, attempt to distinguish between what they call high theurgy and low theurgy. Although both chose different points at which to make these distinctions, neither is able to avoid the imposition of a false distinction between first, material and immaterial ritual, and second, internal and external theurgy. In the second part of his Porphyrys Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition Andrew Smith discusses the question of theurgy as it relates to Iamblichus, Proclus and the Neoplatonic tradition in general. Smiths approach does provide a valuable corrective to earlier divisions which tended to divide theurgy based on if, and to what extent, certain theurgic activities involved material rites. In his examination of theurgy in the De

59

Ibid. 177.

- 20 Mysteriis, Smith does maintain a division between high and low theurgy, however he bases his division on the idea that lower theurgy is restricted to the arena of , the material world of humans and daemons. It is essentially a horizontal relationship. Higher theurgy involves the linking of man with his superiors, the gods, not through , but through . 60 He goes on to attribute these different types of theurgy to the intention of the practitioner, i.e. If we wish to reach god we use one type or level of theurgy; if we want to attain only a lower level we can use an inferior type of theurgy. 61 Contrary to many others, however, the author does not attempt to divide theurgy based on the materiality of the rites involved. On the contrary, he maintains that the exact role of ritual at the higher level remains obscure. 62 Thus, he does not fully deny the place of ritual within the higher theurgy. Although he admits that the evidence is not quite as clear for Proclus, Smith maintains that Proclus can be best understood when the same division of higher and lower theurgy is applied. 63 In her article, Proclus Attitude to Theurgy, Anne Sheppard offers several corrections to Smiths position, particularly with respect to Proclus. Sheppard is concerned because she believes that the distinction which Smith draws between higher and lower theurgy applies better to Iamblichus than it does to Proclus, and in dealing with the latter he is rather too ready to assume that his view will be essentially the same as Iamblichus. 64 Instead Sheppard suggests a system which further divides Proclean theurgy into three kinds. She bases this on a discussion between Proclus and Syrianus related by Hermias. These three levels are as follows: first, a theurgy which concerns60 61

A. Smith, Porphyrys Place 90. Ibid. 91. 62 Ibid. 98. 63 Ibid. 114. 64 A. Sheppard, Proclus Attitude to Theurgy 214.

- 21 itself with the affairs of human life; secondly, a theurgy which makes the soul intellectually active; and finally, a theurgy which involves all the other mania as well, which really does bring about mystical union. 65 This last level of theurgy, Sheppard argues, is what Proclus is referring to when he praises theurgy above all human activities, and significantly, this theurgy has no obvious place for rituals in it. 66 Sheppard insists that what Proclus calls theurgy, when he means that highest level, is not at all ritual theurgy, rather Proclus still thinks of the final union as a Plotinian mystical experience, not as some magically induced trance. 67 Again, this argument betrays the authors overarching bias against material ritual, which forces her to impose on her ancient sources a set of arbitrary divisions which are not necessary for a clear reading of the texts themselves. In his treatment of this question with respect to Iamblichus, Gregory Shaw maintains that both Smith and Sheppard (though Smith to a lesser degree) reduce Neoplatonic theurgy to a mysticism imagined as progressive mental abstraction, denying materiality and corporeality to advanced degrees of spiritual union. 68 He insists that, Smiths treatment of the inner disposition of the practitioner is a critical criterion of theurgy, but it is one which distinguishes theurgy from non-theurgy rather than high theurgy from low. 69 Finally, on this note I think it necessary to take up Shaws suggestion that, in order to understand [Neoplatonic theurgy] properly, we should, like Trouillard, follow the principles of the Neoplatonists themselves as guides for studying

Ibid. 217. Ibid. 67 Ibid. 224 note 42: Sheppard notes that by Plotinian mystical experience she means an experience of the First Hypostasis achieved by philosophical contemplation. 68 G. Shaw, Theurgy 10. 69 Ibid. 25.66

65

- 22 their work. This demands that we learn to share their sacramental world-view, not in opposition to the intellectual rigors of Platonism (or of scholarship), but as the matrix which, they believed, nourished their intellectual tradition. 70 As we shall see below, Dionysius clearly draws from this Neoplatonic tradition in order to develop his particular vision of theurgy. Thus, by attempting to understand his predecessors according to their own principles we are given a better opportunity to understand Dionysius appropriation and adaptation of their principles. Section II Dionysius Christian Sources

Throughout its history the Corpus Dionysiacum (CD) has been appropriated by many groups with seemingly disparate agendas. First, it was taken up by the Monophysites, then by the proponents of Chalcedon. Its ideas were later taken up by the scholastics in the west and by Orthodox mystics in the east. However, Dionysius has also been condemned as the bearer of late Neoplatonic ideas masquerading as Christianity, an ingenuous mystic, and a heretic. Such accusations and appropriations are not only ancient or medieval, they are also quite modern and continue to be played out in contemporary scholarship on the texts. This is especially clear with respect to Dionysius notion of the sacraments as theurgic. That Dionysius takes up both the language and theoretical framework concerning the function of ritual activity from his pagan Neoplatonic predecessors has been well established by many scholars. 71 However, such an assertion need not limit Dionysius sources to those predecessors, nor reject the place of the CD within the Christian tradition.70 71

Ibid. 10. See: P. Rorem, A. Louth, A. Golitzin, H.D. Saffrey, G. Shaw, and S. Gersh.

- 23 Paul Rorem has suggested, in many of his works on the CD, that Dionysius is an anomaly within the early Christian tradition. In his, Biblical and Liturgical Symbols within the Pseudo-Dionysian Synthesis Rorem argues in a section on Iamblichus and what he calls anagogical theurgy that with respect to theurgic activity and the interpretation of the sacraments Dionysius is drawing only on later Neoplatonists especially Iamblichus and effectively stepping outside of his Christian framework. He argues that Dionysius interpretation of liturgy is unique and has no patristic precedent. 72 Here Rorem relies on W. Volkers work which he says emphasized Dionysius connection with the Alexandrian school in all aspects except the liturgical. Here, Volker suggests Dionysius follows Cyril of Jerusalem and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Rorem, however, provides the following caveat to Volkers schema by suggesting that Volker largely omits a crucial difference. 73 Rorem claims that whereas Dionysius Christian predecessors tended to point to typological relations between the symbols of the sacraments and the events in the life of Jesus, the Areopagites interpretation is timelessly allegorical, relating the activities of the synaxis not primarily to past events but to eternal truths. 74 The example he gives is the censing procession of EH 3 and 4. For Dionysius, Rorem argues, the activity of the hierarch is given a timeless interpretation as the eternal procession and yet remaining of the divine presence. 75 In rejecting Dionysius place within a Christian tradition with respect to liturgy, he is able to turn his attention completely to the Neoplatonic sources for the Dionysian corpus.

72 73

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

- 24 However, in his recent work, Hieromonk Alexander Golitzin has done a remarkable job of establishing a line of continuity from the Desert Fathers and the monastic traditions of Syria-Palestine, and from the Cappadocians to Dionysius. Golitzins main thesis is that the only way to account for the relatively quick and easy reception of the CD in the Christian East is to argue that the texts do not, as Rorem would have us believe, represent a break in the tradition, but rather that they are clearly a continuation of an existing and widely accepted tradition. Through a series of well founded textual insights and by relying on the overall themes garnered from his distinctly Orthodox Christian reading of the CD, Golitzin places Dionysius squarely within the vibrant and living Christian traditions which come together in 6th century Syria. The first step for Golitzin is to establish Dionysius in the New Testament tradition. He does this by pointing to places where the Dionysian texts and the New Testament converge. These points of contact form, for Golitzin, the basis of his exploration of the rest of Dionysius predecessors. 76 In each subsequent section the author presents representatives from different Christian communities in order to draw the connection between these communities and Dionysius works.. He begins by pointing to Ignatius of Antioch whom Dionysius himself quotes in DN IV.12: Indeed some of our sacred authors believed the name eros to be more divine than agape. And so the divine

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

76

- 25 Ignatius has written: my eros has been crucified. 77 In this reference Dionysius may betray his pseudonymIgnatius of Antioch died in A.D. 107. However, Golitzin suggests that Dionysius intends his readers to pick up on themes present in Ignatius that he feels are basic to his own concerns. 78 Given that this is the only direct reference to a Church Father in the CD, it seems entirely more plausible to assume that it is an intentional move on the part of our author to point to his own sources in the Early Church. In similar ways Golitzin is able to draw lines of influence from Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Irenaeus directly to the concerns he sees present in the CD. Secondly, Golitzin traces Dionysius obvious Neoplatonic leanings as they may have derived from the Alexandrine school, from Philo to Clement and finally to Origen. Here, once again Golitzin provides a convincing account of Dionysius dependence on a previous Christian tradition. In Philo and Clement Golitzin sees the groundwork for the Dionysian corpus. 79 Both authors at once stress the transcendence and immanence of God; God as unknowable and known. Moreover, he sees in Clements Christian Gnostic a clear precursor to the Dionysian hierarch.80 In Origen we see the notions of hierarchy, providence, uplifting (), and the roles given by each to Christ and the Church. 81 There are of course divergences between the thought of Origen and Dionysius; for the source of these Golitzin points to the Cappadocian Fathers. Golitzin sees a further foundation for the CD in the Church Fathers in corrections to the Origenist position made by the Cappadocians. Moreover, in relation to the mysticalDN IV.12 709B (157:9-11): . .Greek from Schula text, translation altered from A. Golitzin, Et Introibo 242. 78 A. Golitzin, Et Introibo 242. 79 Ibid. 269. 80 Ibid. 81 Ibid. 282.77

- 26 ascent Dionysius is clearly indebted to the Gregory of Nyssas account of the life of Moses. Golitzin also sees in Gregory of Nyssa the roots of Dionysius use of , his focus on eschatology and specifically on Christ as the locus of the return to God. 82 Finally Golitzin turns to several sources who he feels have been far too neglected in Dionysian scholarship. The first is Evagrius, an anchorite of the fourth century. In Evagrius he sees both elements of Dionysian thought and strong points of disagreement. However, each of these points places Dionysius within a Christian framework, albeit one that did not always, or even regularly, agree within itself. In Evagrius, Golitzin is able to connect Dionysius to his Christian predecessors through his relation to Origen. Thus, Golitzin claims that Evagrius elaboration and sharpening of Origens general vision of the creation as providential, as a bearing the of Christ, as centered on Christ, and finally as the divinely-willed image of humanity (=) intended to instruct us and bring us back to ourselves, to Christ, and thus to God, are of significance to the creation of the CD. 83 Moreover, parallels can be seen between Evagrius and Dionysius definitions of the hierarchies. 84 Dionysius and Evagrius do differ in their vision of the mode of the souls ascent, insofar as Evagrius focuses on the solitarys ascetic effort that is self mastery and contemplation, while Dionysius sees the locus of ascent within the community of the Church, the ecclesiastical structure. 85 More fully, Golitzin points out that Dionysius places the Church and its organized worship in the place of Evagrius providential

82 83

Ibid. 316. Ibid. 345. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid. 346.

- 27 cosmos. 86 Dionysius is clearly situated within a Christian tradition in many important respects, however, it is in this final un-explored foundation that Golitzin finally finds the source of what Rorem argues to be Dionysius novel contribution to liturgical commentary, i.e. its universal and allegorical interpretation. This source is the tradition of ancient Syria. The first group he points to is the mystagogues. He suggests that the during the fourth century the church developed the notion of mystagogy (initiation into a mystery, and the accomplishment of sacred action and the oral or written explanation of the mystery hidden in the Scripture and celebrated in the Liturgy 87 ) in order to in part, meet the demands of its new imperial role. 88 The second group is the Messalians, among whom Golitzin sees the heart of the conflict, in fourth century, between the ecclesiastical structure of the Church: the authority of bishops, priests and presbyters; and, monastic, ascetic, charismatic, and inspired leaders, and the source of Dionysius systematic approach to his interpretation of the sacraments. First, the conflict between the ecclesiastical and monastic is evident in Dionysius description of the monk in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, a description which finds it predecessor in the Syrian holy man, save the Areopagites insistence on the role of the ordained clergy, in particular of the hierarchs, as the ascetics guides and directors. 89 The Syrian locus of this conflict was among the Messalians. 90 Particularly, Golitzin points to Ephrem Syrus (d. 373), the Liber Graduum, and Macarius as Dionysius possible fourth century Syrian sources. In Ephrem he sees the source of much of Dionysius sacramental thought: the listing of three sacraments (baptism, eucharist and86 87

Ibid. Ibid. 350, quoting Bornet, Les Commentaires Byzantins 29. 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid. 356. 90 See. Ibid 354-359.

- 28 anointing with oil), the vision of the Church as between the types of the Old Testament and the Kingdom to come, and the notion of hierarchy. 91 In addition Golitzin sees in the Syrian tradition, particularly in Macarius, the source of Dionysius vision of the soul as a microcosm of the Church: Macarius development of the soul as throne of God and little church is the foundation upon which Dionysius would build his synthesis. 92 Thus, Golitzin, clearly establishes that Dionysius is to be understood within a Christian continuum (although necessarily without denying his obvious debts to late Neoplatonism). These points will prove useful to keep in mind as we consider Dionysius discussions of the sacraments in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and further, the broader implications of his understanding of theurgy for the CD in general. Section III Theurgy in the Dionysian Corpus

The term , 93 and its cognates, appear some 48 times in the Dionysian Corpus, 31 of those are in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. 94 Various attempts have been made to separate Dionysius use of the term from his pagan predecessors by charging them with using theurgy in an attempt to manipulate the gods. 95 Porphyry attacked Iamblichean theurgy with a similar charge which Iamblichus responded to in Book 1 of his De Mysteriis. In his response Iamblichus explains that the work of theurgy is not to affect the gods in any way, but rather to effect the salvation of the soul by aligning the

Ibid. 364-371. Ibid. 385. 93 The following section is taken from a paper which was presented to International Society for Neoplatonic Studies on June 27th 2006 in Quebec City, Canada. 94 M. Nasta and CETEDOC, Thesaurus Pseudo-Dionysii Areopagitae Textus Cum Translationibus Latinis 53. 95 See A. Louth, Denys.92

91

- 29 soul to the divine so that the human having abandoned its own life, has gained in exchange the most blessed activity of the gods. 96 Dionysius predominantly reserves the word theurgy itself for his descriptions of the work of God in human salvation. That Dionysius apparently does not use the word theurgy to refer directly to ritual actions performed by the members of the ecclesiastical, or our, hierarchy as Dionysius calls it, has led some to rigidly limit Dionysius understanding of theurgy to a description of the divine acts especially the [historical] divine acts or works that Jesus performed as incarnate. 97 However, this account does not take into consideration the larger range of meanings that theurgy denotes both in the Dionysian corpus and in the Neoplatonic tradition more generally. For example, Dionysius frequently refers to the divine illumination as theurgic lights, 98 theurgic knowledge, 99 theurgic understanding; 100 he also uses the phrases theurgic

DM VIII.7: ,, .Translation, G. Shaw, Eros and Arithmos 323. 97 A. Louth, Denys 74 and A. Louth, Pagan Theurgy 435. 98 DN I.4 592B (113:12): ; CH VII.2 208C (29:12): (my translation).Greek text from:B. R. Suchla, (ed.), Corpus Dionysiacum I. Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De divinis nominibus and G. Heil, und A. M. Ritter (eds.), Corpus Dionysiacum II. PseudoDionysius Areopagita, De coelesti hirearchia, De ecclesiastic hierarchia, De mystica theologia, Epistulae. The citation refers to (1) chapter, section and paragraph number, (2) Patrologiae Series Graeca, ed. J.P. Minge column number, (3) the page and line numbers in brackets refer to the Schula or Heil and Ritter edition. All translations are from C. Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, unless otherwise noted. 99 CH VII.2 209 (30:3):; EH I.1 369A (63:4): (my translation). 100 CH VII.2 209C (30:15):(my translation).

96

- 30 communion, 101 theurgic participation, 102 theurgic likeness, 103 theurgic virtues,104 and the most theurgic myron. 105 Dionysius tells his reader that God has resolved to ensure the salvation of all rational beings, both human and angelic. He explains that this salvation is the ability of the saved to become nothing other than divine. And theosis [divinization] is being made similar to God and in union with God as far as possible. 106 But what does it mean to be like God for Dionysius? In the first section of the Celestial Hierarchy he discusses the role of hierarchy in general. Here he says: I believe that hierarchy is sacred order, knowledge, and activity becoming as much as possible like the divine form. 107 Thus hierarchy itself is the means by which each rational being is given the possibility of being as like as possible to God. For each member perfection consists in this, that it is uplifted to imitate God as far as possible and, more wonderful still, that it becomes what scripture calls a fellow workman of God ( ) and a reflection of the workings of God. 108 So, being like God, or being divinized, consists in imitating God, specifically imitating Gods101 102

EH II.2.8 404D (78:18-19): (my translation). CH .4 305C (48:18): (my translation). 103 CH VII.2 209C (29:11): (my translation). 104 CH VII.2 208C (29:14): (my translation). 105 EH II.2.7396D (73:5): (my translation). Myron refers to the oil which is consecrated in the third sacrament discussed in the EH and which is used to bless the water for baptism and to consecrate the altar for the celebration of the eucharist. Dionysius suggests that it is the most theurgic because its presence is require for each of the other sacraments to be effective. It is only the hierarch who can consecrate the oil and use the oil to consecrate. 106 EH I.3 373D-376A (66:11-13): (amended translation). 107 CH III.1 164D (17:3): (amended translation). 108 CH III.2 165B (18:14-17): .

- 31 activity. Thus, as each level of the hierarchy takes on the roles of purified and purifying, illuminated and illuminating and perfected and perfecting, each will actually imitate God in the way suitable to whatever role it has. 109 Dionysius reiterates this at the beginning of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: he says that having imitated our angelic superiors as much as possible we shall then be able to be consecrated and consecrators of this mysterious understanding. Formed of light, initiates in gods work [the actual word used here is theurgic ()], we shall be perfected and bring about perfection. 110 In this way theosis for Dionysius is each members proportionately full participation in the divine activity. Our hierarchy is a reflection of the more perfect and more immaterial angelic hierarchy. In his discussion of the first angelic order, that which is most perfectly assimilated to the divine activity, Dionysius describes the seraphim, cherubim and thrones as representing purification, illumination or contemplation, and perfection. However, it is clear that he does not intend for these activities to be rigidly associated, one-to-one with each of the three orders. Thus, while the seraphim are associated with the activity of perfection; the cherubim with illumination or contemplation; and the thrones with purification, they are all pure, all contemplative and all perfect. Yet, it is also clear that the divisions among the members of this order are not insignificant. In order to illuminate this dynamic for us it is helpful to look at Proposition 103 of Proclus Elements of Theology. Here he states:

109 110

CH III.2 165BC (19:2-3): . EH I.1 372B (64:11-14): .

- 32 All things are in all things, but in each according to its proper nature: for in Being there is life and intelligence; in Life, being and intelligence; in Intelligence, being and life; but each of these exists upon one level intellectually, upon another vitally, and on the third existentially.111 Proclus is not suggesting that these three moments are confused; rather he explains that each term is characterized by its substantial predicate. Thus, with respect to Being, he states: Life and Intelligence are present there after the mode of Being, as existential life and existential intelligence; and in Life are present being by participation and Intelligence in its cause, but each of these vitally, Life being the substantial character of the term; and in Intelligence both Life and Being by participation, and each of them intellectually, for the being of Intelligence is cognitive and its life is cognition. 112 Although I do not necessarily want to equate the first order of Dionysius celestial hierarchy with the Proclean triad of Being, Life and Intelligence, I do think that by analogy this description can illuminate our own question of the relationship of the first hierarchy to the divine activity. Thus, each member of the first order of angels is pure, contemplative and perfect, but according to its substantial mode: thus the thrones are perfect and contemplative in purity; the cherubim are pure and perfect contemplatively; and the seraphim are pure and contemplative perfectly. These properties, as reflections of, or participations in, the divine activity, are not separate and distinct moments, yet neither are they confused. To be a seraph is not the same as to be a cherub or a throne, yet they all share in the same

111

El.Th. 103 (Translation E.R. Dodds 93): , ,,, ,,. 112 El.Th. 103 (Translation E.R. Dodds 93): , , () ,().

- 33 activity, that is the divine activity and each participates that activity as perfectly as possible, according its mode of participation. Our hierarchy, for Dionysius, is a reflection of the angelic hierarchy and as such it participates in the same divine activity in so far as possible. Thus, the three activities that we just mentioned are also found at work in this mediating hierarchy. Similarly, Dionysius is careful not to equate these three activities in a simple one-to-one analogy with each of the sacraments. Thus, he states that these same powers are in all the sacraments- that is the power to purify, illuminate, and perfect.113

He explains that the

sacrament of the divine birth is a purification and an illumination, and that the sacraments of synaxis and of myron both provide a perfecting knowledge and understanding of the divine workings. 114 Thus, each of the the holy sacraments bring about purification, illumination and perfection. 115 The other two orders in our hierarchy are the clergy and the laity. Both of these orders are divided according to their activity in the hierarchy. Thus, the hierarch perfects, the priests illuminate, and the deacons purify. Of the lay order the monks are those who are perfected, the sacred people are the contemplative order, and the lowest order are those being purified. However, it should not be assumed that because the levels of hierarch and monk are called the perfect order they are the only levels which participate in the divine activity to the extent that they are divinized. Rather, all the members of each order are capable of theosis or divinization insofar as they are assimilated as much as is possible, or proportionately, to the divine activity, that is insofar as they are perfect113 114

See EH 5.3 EH 5.3 504C (106:19-20): . 115 EH 6.5 536D (119:8-9): .

- 34 according to their position. Were this not the case the perfection of the cosmos would amount to the collapse of all hierarchy, and the eradication of the means of theosis. Louth points this out very clearly when he says that the hierarchies are not static for Dionysius. That is one does not climb the hierarchy like a ladder to reach theosis. The hierarchy itself mediates deification by its very existence as a manifestation of the divine. 116 In so far as each member of the hierarchies is called to deification, they are participating in the divine activity, thus becoming theurgic. At each level union with God is possible, in that theosis consists in becoming God-like as much as possible. Just as the highest angelic hierarchy has a share in each moment of the divine activity according to its own mode, so each member of the human hierarchy also shares in each activity, but always according to their proper mode and ability. On this understanding it seems that the question, for Dionysius, is not one of material or immaterial theurgy, intellectual or productive contemplation; rather the question is, given that theurgical and contemplative participation in the divine activity are both possible, and given that as occupying a mean position our hierarchy as a whole participates in the full range of such activities, what is the theurgical and contemplative praxis that is most appropriate for each member to attain divine union? By suggesting that the theurgic rituals which mediate our participation in the divine are only effective through our interpretation of them, Rorem reduces ritual action to the occasion for a form of discursive knowledge based on intelligible symbols. This move denies the goal of all hierarchy which is our participation in the divine activity, not our understanding of the material symbols. In response to this position Louth insists on116

A. Louth, Denys 105-106.

- 35 the notion of sacramental efficacy by insisting that the sacraments have a divided nature: they function intellectually for the soul and materially for the body. This position denies a fundamental inter-relation between the body and the soul, suggesting that the two move simultaneously yet separately towards union. The notions brought out by Shaw and Mazur of noetic theurgy and productive contemplation in the thought of early Neoplatonists suggest it is necessary to refrain from imposing a separation of contemplative versus ritual theurgy onto the tradition. For the interpretation of Dionysius use of the notions of theurgy and contemplation, it seems that this point opens the possibility that theurgy in the Dionysian conception is at once the divine activity itself and each members participation in that same activity according to their own nature. Theurgy is for the whole hierarchy at once an activity in contemplation and a contemplation in activity.

- 36 Chapter 3: The Ascent of The Soul we must praise the infinite names 117 Section I The Place of Man in the Cosmos

We have already seen that for Dionysius the end or goal for all humanity is theosis. Theosis, or divinization, is to become as much as possible like and in union with, God. This means to imitate, hierarchically, Gods activity and by so doing to share in the life of the divine. Yet, through Jesus Christ and the Incarnation the whole of creation is taken up into the life of the divine and saved. Given this, what then is the place and role of humanity within the entire cosmos? Dionysius establishes that there are three hierarchies which form the cosmos: the Legal, the Ecclesiastical, and the Celestial. In Chapter Five of the EH Dionysius provides an explanation of the Legal Hierarchy. He suggests that following the heavenly hierarchy God extends his most divine gifts to us. In order to reveal these gifts, God gave us the Legal Hierarchy, which is composed of symbols and dull images. The hierarchy is led by Moses and those he initiated. It consists of the laws, which Dionysius suggests are images of what was revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai, and the sacrament which was an uplifting according to a spiritual worship. 118 Our hierarchy [the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy], Dionysius tells us, is a more perfect initiation, recalling that one [the Legal], as a fulfillment and completion of it. 119 Our hierarchy thus occupies a middle position between the two hierarchies.117 118

DN XII.1 969A (224:1-2). EH V.1.2 501C (105:9-10): . 119 EH V.1.2 501C (105:17-18): .

- 37 Dionysius also explains that each hierarchy is further divided into three. These three divisions correspond to the stages of purification (first), illumination (middle), and perfection (last). Further, each hierarchy is ordered so as to provide the sacred proportion and the orderliness of all things for the harmonious order and binding communion. 120 The arrangement of the orders, both among the three hierarchies and within each one, is securely established as the means of salvation. The order itself is what allows for communion. In this way the hierarchical arrangement of the whole cosmos is not merely a means of salvation which is overcome in the final perfection. Rather, the arrangement itself is a reflection of the perfected or ideal cosmic order. The order which exists between the three hierarchies: the Legal, the Ecclesiastical and the Angelic, is arranged as a representation or imitation of God. Similarly, such an ordering exists within each hierarchy. For example, we saw in the previous section that the angels are arranged within the Angelic hierarchy according to their degree of perfection. The Ecclesiastical hierarchy is similarly ordered within itself, and this order is providentially ordained so that it should reflect the divine as perfectly as possible. As a reflection of God, the order of the hierarchies is also the manifestation of Gods activity, and Gods activity is directed towards the divinization, or perfection, of all creation. On account of this purpose, the structure of all hierarchy, but specifically of our (the Ecclesiastical) hierarchy, reveals the nature of the human soul towards whose perfection it is directed. Dionysius insistence on the place of sacraments within the hierarchies is clear. He goes so far as to suggest, at one point, that each hierarchy consists

120

EH V.1.2 504A (106:2-3): .

- 38 first in sacraments. 121 This is the only place where the author describes hierarchy as consisting of sacraments, initiators and initiated. 122 The sacraments of the Ecclesiastical hierarchy are thus reflections of the activity which exists in the angelic and the legal hierarchies, and so in the divine activity itself. However, the sacraments of our hierarchy are different, they are at once material and immaterial. In his discussion of the sacrament of illumination, Dionysius explains that the rites are made up of images. These images, he says are sacred perceptible imitations of intelligible realities. 123 Images or sacred perceptible imitations are not, however, means to a merely intellectual understanding of God. They are precisely the means of participation in the divine activity, as the material elements are themselves theurgic. It is through the perfection of the sacraments, including the actions as performed by the hierarch and participated by the people and the elements that one is perfected. Specifically, Dionysius describes how the hierarch and the priest must become like the sacrament: They must themselves virtually match the purity of the rites they perform and in this way they will be illuminated by ever more divine visions, for those transcendent rays prefer to give off the fullness of their splendor more purely and more luminously in mirrors made in their image. 124 As mirrors, made in the image of the divine rays, those who perform the divine sacrament of the eucharist, which he our author refers to also as the synaxis, are called to become like the rituals themselves in order that they should become more God-like. The human person is not called out of the material world so as to achieve a godlike imitation. Rather, humans are called to become God-like both materially and121 122

EH V.1.1 501A (104:14): . See C. Luibheid, The Complete Works 233 note 142. 123 EH II.2.2 397C (74:9): . 124 EH III.2.10 440 (90:1-3): .

- 39 immaterially, as is their proper proportion in imitation of the complexity of the sacraments. Just as it is human nature to be both physical and spiritual, so it is the nature of the divine rites to comprise both intellectual and material elements. Together these elements are to be comprehended and imitated, and in so far as one achieves that imitation, one participates in the divine activity and is divinized. The activity of the sacraments allows for such participation precisely because it is beyond intellectual activity. This is especially clear in Dionysius reflection on the sacrament of myron, the consecration of the sacred oil: These divine beauties are concealed. Their fragrance is something beyond any effort of the understanding and they effectively keep clear of all profanation. They reveal themselves solely to minds capable of grasping them. They shine within our souls only by way of appropriate images, images which, like themselves, have the virtue of being incorruptible. Hence virtuous conformity to God can only appear as an authentic image of its object when it rivets its attention on that conceptual and fragrant beauty. On this conditioncan the soul impress upon itself and reproduce within itself an imitation of loveliness. 125 The soul, capable of entering into the divine mysteries through the sacraments, itself becomes an image of God. This passage indicates that God is hidden from our understanding, like the oil which is covered during its consecration, but also that the virtuous soul, which is an image of God, conceals that image within itself; in effect the divine person is the hidden image of God in the same way that the sacrament is a sacred image of the divine. The nature of this image is in the case of both the human and the sacrament that it consists of both the material and the immaterial. The immaterial image is at once concealed within the material and revealed though it. Dionysius uses of this125

EH IV.2.1 473B (95:23-96:5): . .

- 40 interplay between revealing and concealing suggests that he does not see the image as something outside of or higher than its manifestation in the material. This suggests that the source of the image is not itself solely immaterial but also material. The notion of the divine as the source of the union of the material and immaterial is more fully examined with respect to Dionysius understanding of the Incarnation in Chapter Three. At this point it is important to note that in the course of his discussion of evil in the Divine Names Dionysius makes it clear that neither our bodies, nor the material world in general are to be seen as the source of evil: And there is no evil in our bodies, for ugliness and disease are a defect in form and a lack of due order. What is here is not pure evil but a lesser beauty. If beauty, form, and order could be destroyed completely the body itself would disappear. It is also obvious that the body is not the cause of evil in the soul. Evil does not require a body to be nearby, as is clear in the case of demons. Evil in minds, in souls, and in bodies is a weakness and a defect in the condition of their natural virtues. 126 The body, in this way is subject to the same ordering as the soul, thus it is, together with the soul, called to achieve its own proper order in relation to the Good which is its source. Further, Dionysius affirms that the perfection of the human person within the cosmos does not require an escape from the body, but rather Life, he says, has promised us that it will transform what we areI mean our souls and the bodies yoked to themand will bring us to perfect life and immortality. 127 Moreover, Dionysius strongly rejects any notion that matter in and of itself can be understood as evil. He says: There is no truth in126

DN IV.27 728D (173:17-174:3): . .,. ,. , . . 127 DN VI.2 865D (192:1-3): , ,.

- 41 the common assertion that evil is inherent in matter qua matter, since matter too has a share in the cosmos, in beauty and form. 128 That matter itself has a share in the divine is what allows Dionysius to preserve his notion of the bodys perfection and the capacity for the material sacraments to be themselves both the highest participation in the divine activity in the Ecclesiastical hierarchy, and also the means through which the human person, body and soul, imitates God and therefore fulfills its place in the cosmos. To imitate God, or to be an image of God, is participation in the divine activity, and as such it is theurgic participation. Theurgic participation is theosis for Dionysius. Thus, our participation in the rites of the hierarchy is at once the means of achieving divinization and is itself that divinization. Our participation in theurgic activity is the way we fulfill our role in the cosmos. The fulfillment of that role, or the perfection of that role, does not indicate either an end to activity or an escape from hierarchic participation. As mentioned Dionysius uses the term to describe the capacity of the creature to enter into union with the divine. He explains that God directly enlightens the first ranks of the angels, and through them he enlightens the secondary ranks in proportion to their capacity. 129 Dionysius relies on this idea of proportion, or analogy, in many places. In Chapter One we saw that the idea of the persons proportionate participation in the divine is central to Dionysius conception of theosis. This participation, according to proportion, also reflects the nature of the soul itself. Hieromonk Golitzin has suggested that from Dionysius use of the term two things can be determined: the first that at this point Dionysius

128

DN VI.28 729A, (174:4-5): ,, .. 129 EH VI.2.6 537C (120:11):

- 42 differentiates himself from the Neoplatonists, especially Proclus, second that necessarily suggests the continuous movement of the creature towards God. Golitzin claims that in his understanding of Dionysius rejects the Proclean claim that the creatures return is something which is already present: Unlike the latters , Dionysius does not denote what is in fact something already accomplished. 130 The question of the souls return as already fully present for Proclus is also dealt with at length by Jean Trouillard. In LUn et Lme Selon Proclos, Trouillard describes this idea as manence. Manence is the very presence of the divine throughout and beyond the created order. Trouillard clearly sets out his understanding of the divine presence within Neoplatonism: La prsence divine que fonde la procession noplatonicienne nest ni la simple prsence dimmensit, ni la presence cratrice et providente (commune aux choses visible et invisibles), ni la prsence ajoute et amovible de grce. 131 Trouillard also contests what he calls the Judeo-Christian understanding of creation, which is not to be equated with procession: Ltre et lun ne sont pas interchangables. La cration ne se confond pas avec la procession. La crature est autre chose quun driv et le principe nagit pas comme un artisan sublim. 132 That creation is not procession for Trouillard requires an understanding of procession that does not limit the divine principle to a realm above creation; it also requires a radical understanding of the divine immanence. The creature is not derived from the Ones procession outside of itself, it is rather based within the relation of the One to itself.

130 131

A. Golitzin, Et Introibo 87. J. Trouillard, LUn et Lme 5-6. 132 Ibid. 4.

- 43 The relation of the soul to the One, for Trouillard, is specifically grounded in his assessment of the Neoplatonic notion of procession and return. In The Elements of Theology, Proclus explains that every effect remains in its cause, proceeds from it, and reverts upon it. 133 That every effect remains in its cause is the source of Trouillards concept of manence: the necessarily prior condition of any procession and return. Si la procession exige la manence du principe en lui-mme, elle requiert logiquement une manence du driv dans le principe. 134 Moreover, La est la prsence inamissable de lorigine, partir de quoi le driv se fait la fois autre et identique. Elle est la racine nourricire de lexpansion processive et la communication fondamentale qui permet de convertir lcart en assimilation. 135 This conception grounds all possibility of mystical union for Trouillard because it highlights the pre-existing union which is the source of the return. This is clearly the Proclean notion from which Golitzin wishes to distinguish Dionysius. The second element which Golitzin suggests comes out of this idea is the creatures activity or movement. He claims that: Our likeness to God, our , is not now fully achieved. Rather, in as much as means the capacity or potential of each for God, that in us which is capable of and open to the answering of Gods word to us our personal capax Dei it necessarily opens onto movement. It denotes not so much what the creature has or is at any one time, but rather what it is willed to become, the level of contemplation and thus of both activity and being that it is called upon to realize. 136

133

El.Th. 35 (Translation by E.R. Dodds 39): . 134 J. Trouillard, LUn et Lme 98. 135 Ibid. 98. 136 A. Golitzin, Et Introibo 87.

- 44 The distinction, suggested by Golitzin, between Proclean and Dionysian is difficult to maintain for two important reasons. First, with respect to the question of the omnipresence of the return, Trouillards reading of Proclus is necessary within the Neoplatonic structure of remaining, procession, and return. Trouillard points out that for there to be a return at all there must first be the moment of remaining. However, Trouillard is careful to note that for Proclus this does not deny the creature its creatureliness, nor does it deny the fact of the return. Dionysius relies on this concept of a pre-existent return when he discusses the sacrament of divine illumination. This is the beginning of the return for Dionysius, the point at which the creature begins the ascent, and yet, even at this point there is already the coincidence of God and the soul. The starting point he says is to dispose our souls to hear the sacred words as receptively as possible, to be open to the divine workings of God, to clear an uplifting path toward that inheritance which awaits us in heaven, and to accept our most divine and sacred regeneration. 137 Further, he says, in the realm of intellect it is love of God which first of all moves us toward the divine; indeed the very first procession of this love toward the sacred enactment of the divine command brings about in unspeakable fashion our divine existence. No one could understand, let alone put into practice, the truths received from God if he did not have a divine beginning. 138 The possibility of the creatures return, in this situation, is dependent upon

137

EH II.1 392B (68:22-69:3): , ;. 138 EH II.1 392AB (69:3-7): , , .

- 45 its initial longing for God. Similarly, in Proposition 32 of the Elements of Theology Proclus writes: All reversion is accomplished through a likeness of the reverting terms to the goal of reversion. For that which reverts endeavours to be conjoined in every part with every part of its cause, and desires to have communion in it and be bound to it. But all things are bound together by likeness, as by unlikeness they are distinguished and severed. If, then, reversion is a communion and conjunction, and all communion and conjunction is through likeness, it follows that all reversion must be accomplished through likeness. 139 Thus, for Proclus the creatures return is directed by its likeness to that towards which it reverts, so for Dionysius there can be no actual differentiation between the moment of the first procession of love i.e., the moment of return, and the beginning of the divine existence. In other words in order for there to be a first procession at all there must already be a divine existence. This suggests that Dionysius has not somehow deviated from the Proclean system with respect to . 140 Further, as Stephen Gersh points out, in the Divine Names Dionysius speaks of the Godhead as that by which, from which, through which, in which, and to which all things exist, are arranged, remain, are contained, are fulfilled, and revert. In this passage, the remaining is clearly that of an effect, and so it would seem to represent the first stage in the usual triple schema. 141

139

El.Th. 32 (Translation by E.R. Dodds 37): . ., . ,, . 140 See S. Gersh. Iamblichus to Eriugena 217-229 for a discussion of the Christian transformation of the Neoplatonic triad of remaining-procession-reversion, where, with respect to the remaining the emphasis shifts from the remaining of the effects in the cause prior to the procession to their remaining or coming to rest in the cause as the final goal of the return. He notes that, with respect to this point and to those relating to the procession and reversion, while hints of a transformation can be seen in Dionysius, Dionysius does fundamentally adhere to the traditional pagan understanding. 141 Ibid. 218-219.

- 46 Dionysius does not therefore seem to be altering the Neoplatonic notion of remaining; in fact, his conception of the return itself as a likeness to God is dependent on it. Secondly, Golitzin suggests that whereas the Proclean system denies transformation and movement to the creature, Dionysius system opens onto movement. For two reasons this distinction between the Proclean and Dionysian return does not hold. First, Golitzins denial of movement in the pagan system relies primarily on the notion of the effects remaining in its cause which he believes eliminates the possibility of any true reversion (read progression) towards God. Second, he connects the motion of the souls return with an eternal progression into God which inevitably denies the logic of both Dionysius notion of hierarchy and . Although these are two separate points, the first has already been addressed in the above paragraphs, and here it is specifically the question of progression to which I would like to respond. He claims that, though the creature fulfils its through discovering its place in a well-articulated cosmos, yet that place itself remains always an activity and a progress into God. 142 That the creatures place within the cosmos requires activity, because it is an imitation of God insofar as it is able, has been discussed at