Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

Last updated
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite
Denis Areopagite.jpg
(5th–6th century AD)
(5th–6th century AD)
Other names
  • "Dionysius"
  • "Denys"
  • "(Saint) Dionysius the Areopagite" (mistaken identification)
Notable work
De Coelesti Hierarchia
Era Ancient philosophy
Medieval philosophy
Region Western philosophy
School Neoplatonism
Christian philosophy
Main interests
Apophatic theology
Christian angelology
Christian mysticism
Notable ideas
Seven Archangels
Hierarchy of angels

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (Greek : Διονύσιος ὁ Ἀρεοπαγίτης), also known as Pseudo-Denys, was a Christian theologian and philosopher of the late 5th to early 6th century, who wrote a set of works known as the Corpus Areopagiticum or Corpus Dionysiacum.

The author pseudonymously identifies himself in the corpus as "Dionysios", portraying himself as Dionysius the Areopagite, the Athenian convert of Paul the Apostle mentioned in Acts 17:34. [note 1] This false attribution to the earliest decades of Christianity resulted in the work being given great authority in subsequent theological writing in both East and West.

The Dionysian writings and their mystical teaching were universally accepted throughout the East, amongst both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians, and also had a strong impact in later medieval western mysticism, most notably Meister Eckhart. Its influence decreased in the West with the fifteenth-century demonstration of its later dating, but in recent decades, interest has increased again in the Corpus Areopagiticum.

Historic confusions

In the early sixth century, a series of writings of a mystical nature, employing Neoplatonic language to elucidate Christian theological and mystical ideas, was ascribed to the Areopagite. [1] They have long been recognized as pseudepigrapha, and their author is now called "Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite".

However, this disambiguation is now being questioned. Hugo Koch and Josef Stiglmayer claimed to have identified Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite as the real Dionysius. This was done by stating that a fifth century author copied some of the corpus of Proclus. This is now refuted by M. J. Carroll, who states that, in academic terms, it is impossible to come to this definitive conclusion, because Proclus could have copied the original first century works of Dionysius. In academic terms it is impossible to make the conclusions which Koch and Stiglmayer claim, and in fact such a claim has hindered further research into the first century writers.



The Corpus is today composed of: [2]

Seven other works are mentioned repeatedly by pseudo-Dionysius in his surviving works, and are presumed either to be lost [4] or to be fictional works mentioned by the Areopagite as a literary device to give the impression to his sixth-century readers of engaging with the surviving fragments of a much larger first-century corpus of writings. [5] These seven other works are:


In attempts to identify a date after which the corpus must have been composed, a number of features have been identified in Dionysius' writing, though the latter two are subject to scholarly debate.

In terms of the latest date for the composition of the Corpus, the earliest datable reference to Dionysius' writing comes in 528, the year in which the treatise of Severus of Antioch entitled Adversus apologiam Juliani was translated into Syriac — though it is possible the treatise may originally have been composed up to nine years earlier. [8]

Another widely cited latest date for Dionysius' writing comes in 532, when, in a report on a colloquy held between two groups (orthodox and monophysite) debating the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, Severus of Antioch and his monophysite supporters cited Dionysius' Fourth Letter in defence of their view. [9] It is possible that pseudo-Dionysius was himself a member of this group, though debate continues over whether his writings do in fact reveal a monophysite understanding of Christ. [10] It seems likely that the writer was located in Syria, as revealed, for example, by the accounts of the sacramental rites he gives in The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which seem only to bear resemblance to Syriac rites. [11]


The author pseudonymously identifies himself in the corpus as "Dionysios", portraying himself as the figure of Dionysius the Areopagite, the Athenian convert of Paul the Apostle mentioned in Acts 17:34. [note 1]

Various legends existed surrounding the figure of Dionysius, who became emblematic of the spread of the gospel to the Greek world. A tradition quickly arose that he became the first bishop of Cyprus or of Milan, or that he was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; according to Eusebius, he was also said to be the first bishop of Athens. It is therefore not surprising that that author of these works would have chosen to adopt the name of this otherwise briefly mentioned figure. [12]

The authorship of the Dionysian Corpus was initially disputed; Severus and his party affirmed its apostolic dating, largely because it seemed to agree with their Christology. However, this dating was disputed by Hypatius of Ephesus, who met the monophysite party during the 532 meeting with Emperor Justinian I; Hypatius denied its authenticity on the ground that none of the Fathers or Councils ever cited or referred to it. Hypatius condemned it along with the Apollinarian texts, distributed during the Nestorian controversy under the names of Pope Julius and Athanasius, which the monophysites entered as evidence supporting their position. [13]

The first defense of its authenticity is undertaken by John of Scythopolis, whose commentary, the Scholia (ca. 540), on the Dionysian Corpus constitutes the first defense of its apostolic dating, wherein he specifically argues that the work is neither Apollinarian nor a forgery, probably in response both to monophysites and Hypatius—although even he, given his unattributed citations of Plotinus in interpreting Dionysius, might have known better. [14] Dionysius' authenticity is criticized later in the century, and defended by Theodore of Raithu; and by the 7th century, it is taken as demonstrated, affirmed by both Maximus the Confessor and the Lateran Council of 649. From that point until the Renaissance, the authorship was less questioned, though Thomas Aquinas, [15] Peter Abelard and Nicholas of Cusa expressed suspicions about its authenticity; their concerns, however, were generally ignored. [16]

The Florentine humanist Lorenzo Valla (d. 1457), in his 1457 commentaries on the New Testament, did much to establish that the author of the Corpus Areopagiticum could not have been St. Paul's convert, though he was unable to identify the actual historical author. William Grocyn pursued Valla's lines of textual criticism, and Valla's critical viewpoint of the authorship of the highly influential Corpus was accepted and publicized by Erasmus from 1504 onward, for which he was criticized by Catholic theologians. In the Leipzig disputation with Martin Luther, in 1519, Johann Eck used the Corpus, specifically the Angelic Hierarchy, as argument for the apostolic origin of papal supremacy, pressing the Platonist analogy, "as above, so below".

During the 19th century modernist Catholics too came generally to accept that the author must have lived after the time of Proclus. The author became known as 'Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite' only after the philological work of J Stiglmayr and H Koch, whose papers, published independently in 1895, demonstrated the thoroughgoing dependence of the Corpus upon Proclus. [16] Both showed that Dionysius had used, in his treatise on evil in Chapter 4 of The Divine Names, the De malorum subsistentia of Proclus.

Dionysius' identity is still disputed. Corrigan and Harrington find Pseudo-Dionysius to be most probably

a pupil of Proclus, perhaps of Syrian origin, who knew enough of Platonism and the Christian tradition to transform them both. Since Proclus died in 485, and since the first clear citation of Dionysius' works is by Severus of Antioch between 518 and 528, then we can place Dionysius' authorship between 485 and 518-28. [note 4]

Ronald Hathaway provides a table listing most of the major identifications of Dionysius: e.g., Ammonius Saccas, Pope Dionysius of Alexandria, Peter the Fuller, Dionysius the Scholastic, Severus of Antioch, Sergius of Reshaina, unnamed Christian followers of everyone from Origen to Basil of Caesarea, Eutyches to Proclus. [17]

In the past half-century, Alexander Golitzin, Georgian academician Shalva Nutsubidze and Belgian professor Ernest Honigmann have all proposed identifying pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite with Peter the Iberian. [18] A more recent identification is with Damascius, the last scholarch of the Neoplatonic Academy of Athens. [19] There is therefore no current scholarly consensus on the question of Pseudo-Dionysius' identification.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy claims:

It must also be recognized that 'forgery' is a modern notion. Like Plotinus and the Cappadocian Fathers before him, Dionysius does not claim to be an innovator, but rather a communicator of a tradition." [note 4]

Others scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman disagree, see for example Forged. However, while the Pseudo Dionysius can be seen as a communicator of tradition, he can also be seen as a polemicist, who tried to alter Neo-Platonic tradition in a novel way for the Christian world that would make notions of complicated Divine Hierarchies more of an emphasis than notions of direct relationship with the figure of Christ as Mediator. [21]


Dionysius attributed his inspiration to pseudo-Hierotheus, professing that he was writing to popularize the teachings of his master. [22] Pseudo-Hierotheus was the author of “The book of Hierotheus on the hidden mysteries of the house of God.” Pseudo-Hierotheus is believed to be the fifth century Syrian monk Stephen Bar Sudhaile. [23] [24]

The works of Dionysisus are mystical, and show strong Neoplatonic influence. For example, he uses Plotinus' well-known analogy of a sculptor cutting away that which does not enhance the desired image, and shows familiarity with Proclus. He also shows influence from Clement of Alexandria, the Cappadocian Fathers, Origen, and others.

Mystical Theology

According to pseudo-Dionysius, God is better characterized and approached by negations than by affirmations. [3] All names and theological representations must be negated. According to pseudo-Dionysius, when all names are negated, "divine silence, darkness, and unknowing" will follow. [3]


Eastern Christianity

His thought was initially used by Miaphysites to back up parts of their arguments but his writings were eventually adopted by other church theologians, primarily due to the work of John of Scythopolis and Maximus the Confessor in producing an orthodox interpretation. [25] Writing a single generation at most after Dionysius, perhaps between 537 and 543, [26] John of Scythopolis composed an extensive set (around 600) [27] of scholia (that is, marginal annotations) to the works of Dionysius.

These were in turn prefaced by a long prologue in which John set out his reasons for commenting on the corpus. All Greek manuscripts of the Corpus Areopagiticum surviving today stem from an early sixth-century manuscript containing John's Scholia and Prologue — so John of Scythopolis had an enormous influence on how Dionysius was read in the Greek-speaking world. [28]

Theologians such as John of Damascus and Germanus I of Constantinople also made ample use of Dionysius' writing.

The Dionysian writings and their mystical teaching were universally accepted throughout the East, amongst both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians. Gregory Palamas, for example, in referring to these writings, calls the author, "an unerring beholder of divine things".

The Corpus is also present in Syriac and Armenian versions, the former of which, by Sergius of Reshaina in the early sixth century, serves as a terminus ante quem for the dating of the original Greek.

There is a distinct difference between Neoplatonism and that of Eastern Christianity. In the former, all life returns to the source to be stripped of individual identity, a process called henosis, [29] while in orthodox Christianity the Likeness of God in man is restored by grace (by being united to God through participation in His divine energies), a process called theosis. [30]

Latin Christianity

The first notice of Dionysius in the West comes from Pope Gregory I, who probably brought a codex of the Corpus Areopagitum back with him on his return from his mission as papal legate to the Emperor in Constantinople in around 585. Gregory refers occasionally in his writings to Dionysius, although Gregory's Greek was probably not adequate to fully engage with Dionysius's work. [31] In the seventh and eighth centuries, Dionysius was not widely known in the West, aside from a few scattered references.

The real influence of Dionysius in the West began with the gift in 827 of a Greek copy of his works by the Byzantine emperor Michael II to the Carolingian emperor Louis the Pious. King Louis in turn gave the manuscript to the monastery of St Denys near Paris [32] where, in about 838, Dionysius' works were translated into Latin for the first time by Hilduin, abbot of the monastery. It may well have been Hilduin himself who promoted his work (and his abbey) by developing the legend (which would be widely accepted during subsequent centuries), that Denis was the same person as Dionysius the Areopagite of Acts 17.34, and that he had traveled to Rome and then was commissioned by the Pope to preach in Gaul, where he was martyred. [33] Hilduin's translation, however, is almost unintelligible. [34]

About twenty years later, a subsequent Carolingian Emperor, Charles the Bald, requested the Irishman John Scotus Eriugena to make a fresh translation. He finished this in 862. [34] However, this translation itself did not widely circulate in subsequent centuries. Moreover, although Eriugena’s own works, such as the Homily on the Prologue of St John, show the influence of Dionysian ideas, these works were not widely copied or read in subsequent centuries. [34] The Benedictine monasticism that formed the standard monasticism of the eighth to eleventh centuries, therefore, in general paid little attention to Dionysius.

In the twelfth century, greater use gradually began to be made of Dionysius among various traditions of thought:

During the thirteenth century, the Franciscan Robert Grosseteste made an important contribution by bringing out between 1240 and 1243 a translation, with commentary, of the Dionysian corpus. [34] Soon after, the Dominican Albertus Magnus did likewise. The thirteenth-century Parisian corpus provided an important reference point by combining the "Old Translation" of John Scotus Eriugena with the "New Translation" of John Sarrazin, along with glosses and scholia by Maximus the Confessor, John of Scythopolis and others, as well as the "Extracts" by Thomas Gallus, and several commentaries such as John Scotus Eriugena, John Sarrazin and Hugh of Saint Victor on The Celestial Hierarchy. [37] It quickly became common to make reference to Dionysius. Thomas Aquinas wrote an explanation for several works, and cites him over 1700 times. [38] Bonaventure called him the “prince of mystics”.

It was subsequently in the area of mysticism that Dionysius, especially his portrayal of the via negativa, was particularly influential. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries his fundamental themes were hugely influential on thinkers such as Marguerite Porete, Meister Eckhart, Johannes Tauler, John of Ruusbroec, the author of The Cloud of Unknowing (who made an expanded Middle English translation of Dionysius' Mystical Theology), Jean Gerson, Nicholas of Cusa, Denis the Carthusian, Julian of Norwich, Harphius Herp and Catherine of Genoa [“The Mystical Element of Religion as Studied in Saint Catherine of Genoa and Her Friends (1908)]. His influence can also be traced in the Spanish Carmelite thought of the sixteenth century among Teresa of Ávila and John of the Cross. [34]

Modern appraisal

In recent decades, interest has increased again in the Corpus Areopagiticum, for three main reasons: because of a recovery of the huge impact of Dionysian thought in later Christian thought, because of an increasing repudiation of older criticisms that Dionysius's thought represented a fundamentally Neoplatonic approach to theology, and finally because of interest in parallels between aspects of modern linguistic theory and Dionysius's reflections on language and negative theology.

Andrew Louth offers the following modern appraisal of the Areopagite;

Dionysius/Denys' vision is remarkable because, on the one hand, his understanding of hierarchy makes possible a rich symbolic system in terms of which we can understand God and the cosmos and our place within it, and, on the other, he finds room within this strictly hierarchical society for an escape from it, beyond it, by transcending symbols and realizing directly one's relationship with God as his creature, the creature of his love. There is space within the Dionysian universe for a multitude of ways of responding to God's love. That spaciousness is worth exploring: and therein, perhaps, lies the enduring value of the vision of Dionysius/Denys the Areopagite. [39]

See also


  1. 1 2 Acts 17:34: "A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others."
  2. Also known as The Intelligible and the Sensible; this is only referred to in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.
  3. This is only referred to in the Celestial Hierarchy.
  4. 1 2 "It must also be recognized that “forgery” is a modern notion. Like Plotinus and the Cappadocians before him, Dionysius does not claim to be an innovator, but rather a communicator of a tradition. Adopting the persona of an ancient figure was a long established rhetorical device (known as declamatio), and others in Dionysius' circle also adopted pseudonymous names from the New Testament. Dionysius' works, therefore, are much less a forgery in the modern sense than an acknowledgement of reception and transmission, namely, a kind of coded recognition that the resonances of any sacred undertaking are intertextual, bringing the diachronic structures of time and space together in a synchronic way, and that this theological teaching, at least, is dialectically received from another. Dionysius represents his own teaching as coming from a certain Hierotheus and as being addressed to a certain Timotheus. He seems to conceive of himself, therefore, as an in-between figure, very like a Dionysius the Areopagite, in fact. [20]

Related Research Articles

Ambrose Traversari Italian monk and theologian

Ambrogio Traversari, also referred to as Ambrose of Camaldoli, was an Italian monk and theologian who was a prime supporter of the papal cause in the 15th century. He is honored as a saint by the Camaldolese Order.

Proclus Lycaeus, called the Successor, was a Greek Neoplatonist philosopher, one of the last major classical philosophers. He set forth one of the most elaborate and fully developed systems of Neoplatonism. He stands near the end of the classical development of philosophy and influenced Western medieval philosophy.

Apophatic theology Way of describing the divine by explaining what God is not

Apophatic theology, also known as negative theology, is a form of theological thinking and religious practice which attempts to approach God, the Divine, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God. It forms a pair together with cataphatic theology, which approaches God or the Divine by affirmations or positive statements about what God is.

Damascius, known as "the last of the Neoplatonists," was the last scholarch of the School of Athens. He was one of the pagan philosophers persecuted by Emperor Justinian I in the early 6th century AD, and was forced for a time to seek refuge in the Persian court, before being allowed back into the Empire. His surviving works consist of three commentaries on the works of Plato, and a metaphysical text entitled Difficulties and Solutions of First Principles.

Christian angelology study of angels in Christianity

In Christianity, angels are agents of God, based on angels in Judaism. The most influential Christian angelic hierarchy was that put forward by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite in the 4th or 5th century in his book De Coelesti Hierarchia.

Dionysius the Areopagite bishop and saint

Dionysius the Areopagite was a judge at the Areopagus Court in Athens, who lived in the first century.

John Scotus Eriugena Irish theologian

John Scotus Eriugena or Johannes Scotus Erigena was an Irish theologian, neoplatonist philosopher, and poet. He succeeded Alcuin of York (735–804) as head of the Palace School at Aachen.

Hugh of Saint Victor German-French canon regular and theologian

Hugh of Saint Victor, was a Saxon canon regular and a leading theologian and writer on mystical theology.

Stephen Bar Sudhaile was a Syrian mystical writer who flourished about the end of the 5th century AD.

Mystical theology branch of theology that explains mystical practices and states

Mystical theology is the branch of theology that explains mystical practices and states, as induced by contemplative practices such as contemplative prayer.

Thomas Gallus French theologian

Thomas Gallus of Vercelli, sometimes in early twentieth century texts called Thomas of St Victor, Thomas of Vercelli or Thomas Vercellensis, was a French theologian, a member of the School of St Victor. He is known for his commentaries on Pseudo-Dionysius and his ideas on affective theology. His elaborate mystical schemata influenced Bonaventure and The Cloud of Unknowing.

Athanasius II Baldoyo, also known as Athanasius of Balad and Athanasius of Nisibis, was the Patriarch of Antioch, and head of the Syriac Orthodox Church from 683 until his death in 686.

Hierarchy of angels The belief that angels are ordered according to rank

A hierarchy of angels is a belief or tradition found in the angelology of different religions, which holds that there are different levels or ranks of angels. Higher ranks may be asserted to have greater power or authority over lower ranks, and with different ranks having differences in appearance, such as varying numbers of wings or faces.

<i>De Coelesti Hierarchia</i> work by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

De Coelesti Hierarchia is a Pseudo-Dionysian work on angelology, written in Greek and dated to ca. the 5th century CE; it exerted great influence on scholasticism and treats at great length the hierarchies of angels.

Emanation is a belief, found in Neoplatonism, that the cause of certain beings or states of being consists of an overflow from the essence of God or other higher spiritual beings, as opposed to a special act of creation. This overflow is usually conceived in a non-temporal way as a permanent relationship of causation rather than as an event causing an entity to come into existence at a given point in time. The word "emanation" can refer either to the process of emanation or to the thing emanated.

Neoplatonism and Christianity

Neoplatonism was a major influence on Christian theology throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages in the West. This was due to St. Augustine of Hippo, who was influenced by the early Neoplatonists Plotinus and Porphyry, as well as the works of the Christian writer Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, who was influenced by later Neoplatonists, such as Proclus and Damascius.

Pietro Balbi (1399–1479), of Pisa, was an Italian humanist, a longtime member of the familia of Cardinal Bessarion who moved in the same circle as Nicolas Cusanus, whom he served with his expertise in Greek. During Pius II's pontificate, Balbi was the most prolific translator of Greek patristics in Rome, probably using the Greek manuscripts in Bessarion's own library. One of the quattrocento defenders of Plato, he translated for Cusanus the epitome of Platonic Philosophy, Disciplinarium Platonis epitome, of the 2nd-century philosopher Albinus and the immense Theologica Platonica of Proclus in 1462, and circulated it in manuscript. Giovanni Andrea Bussi printed his translation of Alcinous, and Cusanus cast Balbi and Bussi as interlocutors in his dialogue De lì non aliud in the winter of 1462.

History of Eastern Orthodox theology in the 20th century

20th century Eastern Orthodox theology has been dominated by neo-Palamism, the revival of St. Palamas and hesychasm. John Behr characterizes Orthodox theology as having been "reborn in the twentieth century." Norman Russell describes Orthodox theology as having been dominated by an "arid scholasticism" for several centuries after the fall of Constantinople. Russell describes the postwar re-engagement of modern Greek theologians with the Greek Fathers, which occurred with the help of diaspora theologians and Western patristic scholars. A significant component of this re-engagement with the Greek Fathers has been a rediscovery of Palamas by Greek theologians; Palamas had previously been given less attention than the other Fathers.

John Sarrazin, also known as Johannes Sarracenus, John the Sarracen or John Sarrazen, was a twelfth-century scholar. He is known only from his translation of the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius from Greek into Latin.

Julian, sometimes numbered Julian I, was the patriarch of Antioch for about five years from 471 until 475 or 476. He was a Chalcedonian and a "fairly well-known person". His election as patriarch at a synod in Antioch was arranged by the Emperor Leo I on the advice of Patriarch Gennadius of Constantinople to replace the Miaphysite patriarch Peter the Fuller, who was exiled by Leo on 1 June 471.


  1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the confusion between Dionysius and Pseudo-Dionysius
  2. Pseudo Dionysius: The Complete Works, 1987, Paulist Press, ISBN   0-8091-2838-1
  3. 1 2 3 Corrigan & Harrington 2014.
  4. Andrew Louth, "The Reception of Dionysius up to Maximus the Confessor", in: Sarah Coakley, Charles M. Stang (eds), Re-thinking Dionysius the Areopagite, John Wiley & Sons, 2011, p. 49.
  5. In support of this view, there is no trace at all of these 'lost' treatises: despite the interest in Dionysius from as early as the sixth century, no mention of them is to be found. See Louth, Dionysius the Areopagite, (1987), p20.
  6. This was, in particular, due to the research of Stiglmayr and Koch in the late nineteenth century.
  7. 1 2 Paul Rorem and John C Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), p9. The point was first proposed by Stiglmayr.
  8. Hathaway, Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 4, supports the dating of 519 for this treatise.
  9. Andrew Louth, Dionysius the Areopagite (1987), reissued by Continuum Press, London & New York, 2001, under the title Denys the Areopagite.
  10. See Louth, Dionysius the Areopagite (1987), p14, who suggests that, although ambiguous, Dionysius is not monophysite (he also points out that Severus and his supporters misquote Dionysius's Fourth Epistle to back up their view). Paul Rorem and John C Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), esp p11, make an extensive study of the early evidence, arguing that (1) Hypatius's apparent rejection in 532 of the works of Dionysite as monophysite is not as straightforward as often suggested, and that (2) Dionysius's writing was appealed to by just about all parties in the sixth-century Christian east, and at no point was it considered the exclusive preserve of the Monophysites.
  11. Dionysius' description in the Ecclesastical Hierarchy corresponds well with what is known of Syriac worship from other sources, for example: (1) his account of baptism and the Eucharist is similar to the Homilies on Baptism and the Eucharist of Theodore of Mopsuetsia, which depict worship in the Church of West Syria at the beginning of the fifth century. See Louth, Dionysius the Areopagite (1987), p55; (2) Dionysius' account of the sacrament of oil in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy is not found in most other patristic sources, except for those in the Syrian tradition. See Louth, Dionysius the Areopagite (1987), p64; (3) his understanding of monasticism. See Louth, Dionysius the Areopagite (1987), p70. Louth is certain that Dionysius/Denys was writing in Syria. See p.14 and passim.
  12. Luibheid, Pseudo-Dionysius, (1987), p22.)
  13. Hathaway, Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 13
  14. Rorem, "John of Scythopolis on Apollinarian Christology," p. 482. John of Scythopolis was also proficient identifier of Apollinarian forgeries, giving his defense that much more credibility.
  15. Jean-Yves Lacoste, Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, 3 vols, vol 1, p439.
  16. 1 2 W Franke, ed, On What Cannot Be Said, (2007), vol 1, p158.
  17. Hathaway, Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 31
  18. Sh. Nutsubidze. "Mystery of Pseudo-Dionys Areopagit (a monograph), Tbilisi, 1942; E. Honigmann, Pierre l'Iberian et les ecrits du Pseudo-Denys l'Areopagita. Bruxelles, 1952; Golitzin, Alexander. Et Introibo Ad Altare Dei: The Mystagogy of Dionysius Areopagita, with Special Reference to Its Predecessors in the Eastern Christian Tradition. (Thessalonika: Patriarchikon Idruma Paterikôn Meletôn, 1994), p419
  19. Carlo Maria Mazzucchi, Damascio, Autore del Corpus Dionysiacum, e il dialogo Περι Πολιτικης Επιστημης, Aevum: Rassegna di scienze storiche linguistiche e filologiche, ISSN 0001-9593, Anno 80, Nº 2, 2006, pp 299-334. Mazzucchi's arguments have been dismissed by Emiliano Fiori in his review of the article, in Adamantius 14 (2009), 670-673.
  20. Pseudo-Dionysius in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  21. “One might ask why it is necessary [in the Pseudo-Dionysian Corpus] to have an ordered hierarchy of angels at all in the Christian tradition, considering that the Bible has no concept of celestial hierarchy. ... That it was found necessary to invent a system of this nature [in the Pseudo-Dionysisn Corpus] after 500 years is tantamount to denying the efficacy of Christ as mediator altogether.” Rosemarie A. Arthur. (2011) The Pseudo Dionysius as Polemicist: The Development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria, pp. 6364. London: Ashgate.
  22. Inge, William Ralph. Christian Mysticism, The Brampton Lectures, London: Methuen, 1899. p 102
  23. Marsh, Fred Shipley, ed & trans. Stephanus Bar Sudhaile. The Book which is called The Book of the Holy Hierotheos, with extracts from the prolegomena and commentary of Theodosius of Antioch and from the Book of Excerpts and other works of Gregory Bar-Hebraeus. APA-Philo Press, 1927 (reprint)
  24. Frothingham, Arthur Lincoln. Stephen bar Sudaili, The Syrian Mystic and The Book of Hierotheos. Leiden: Brill, 1886(Reprinted Eugene, OR: Wipf And Stock, 2010)
  25. Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 14
  26. Paul Rorem and John C Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), p39
  27. Paul Rorem and John C Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), p38
  28. Paul Rorem and John C Lamoreaux, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp1-3. Rorem and Lamoreaux produce a translation of about two-thirds of John's Prologue and Scholia on pp144-263.
  29. see Iamblichus
  30. Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, SVS Press, 1997. ( ISBN   0-913836-31-1) James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1991. ( ISBN   0-227-67919-9)
  31. Louth, Dionysius the Areopagite, (1987), p120
  32. Jean LeClercq, 'Influence and noninfluence of Dionysius in the Western Middle Ages', in Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, trans. Colm Luibheid, (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), pp25-33.
  33. Roman Martyrology. Lutétiæ Parisiórum natális sanctórum Mártyrum Dionysii Areopagítæ Epíscopi, Rústici Presbyteri, et Eleuthérii Diáconi. Ex his Dionysius, ab Apóstolo Paulo baptizátus, primus Atheniénsium Epíscopus ordinátus est; deínde Romam venit, atque inde a beáto Cleménte, Románo Pontífice, in Gállias prædicándi grátia diréctus est. [October 9 (Séptimo Idus Octóbris]).CS1 maint: location (link)
  34. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Jean LeClercq, 'Influence and noninfluence of Dionysius in the Western Middle Ages', in Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, trans. Colm Luibheid, (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), pp25-33
  35. Louth, Dionysius the Areopagite (1987), p122, citing E.Panofsky (ed.,translated & annotated) Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St-Denis and its Art Treasures (Princetown, NJ,) 2nd ed. 1979
  36. "Journey of the Mind into God by St Bonaventure of Bagnoregio" (PDF).
  37. Karlfried Froehlich, 'Pseudo-Dionysius and the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century', in Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, trans. Colm Luibheid, (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), pp33-46
  38. Doherty, K.F. “St. Thomas and the Pseudo-Dionysian Symbol of Light”. In: The New. Scholasticism, 34 (1960), pp. 170-189.
  39. Andrew Louth Dionysius the Areopagite1987, reissued 2001 under the title Denys the Areopagite


Further reading

Greek editions

Modern translations

Secondary sources

External links to bibliography