No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Ecclesiastical Hierarchy in the Thought of Pseudo-Dionysius*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
Extract
The works of that late fifth- or early sixth-century writer whom we know as Pseudo-Dionysius are among the most difficult and yet also the most influential and compelling of all patristic writings. The whole Dionysian corpus and the many important historical and theological questions which it raises have been the subject of many studies, and it would certainly be untrue to suggest that the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, the subject of this communication, has been wholly neglected; but the work has only recently been made accessible in English, and only one or two recent studies have given serious attention to the central place which the liturgy and its symbolism (the main subject of the work) occupy in Dionysius’s dieology as a whole. A short study of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy may therefore serve a useful purpose, perhaps at least that of encouraging the reading–now that an English translation is available–of what is probably the most accessible and immediately attractive of works which have been described (but who can tell whether such a description is ever accurate?) as ‘famous but seldom-read’.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1989
Footnotes
*
I would like to thank the Revd Professor Stuart Hall for his comments during discussion of this communication.
References
1 See Rorem, Paul, Biblical and Liturgical Symbols Within the Pseudo-Dionysian Synthesis, Studies and Texts 71 (Toronto, 1984 Google Scholar) for a recent bibliography.
2 Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, translated by Colm Luibheid, introductions by Rorem, Paul, René Roques and others (London, 1987), pp. 195–259 Google Scholar. For the text of EH sec PG 3, cols 369D-565D. All translations in this communication are my own.
3 See Rorem, , Biblical and Liturgical Symbols, esp. pp. 27–46 Google Scholar. Many discussions of Dionysius’s mystical theology make little use of EH: see for instance Louth, Andrew, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition from Plato to Denys (Oxford, 1981), pp. 159–78 Google Scholar; Bernard, C. A., ‘La Doctrine mystique de Denys L‘Areopagite’, Cregorianum 68 (1987), pp. 523–66 Google Scholar. For commentary on EH see Rutledge, Denys, Cosmic Theology: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Pseudo-Denys, an Introduction (London, 1064 Google Scholar), and for a critical review of this work and further discussion of Dionysius’s philosophical background, Sheldon-Williams, I. P., ‘The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius’, DRcv 82 (1964), pp. 293–302, and 83 (1965), pp. 20–31 Google Scholar.
4 Rorem, in Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, p. 1 Google Scholar.
5 As Rorem, , Biblical and Liturgical Symbols, p. 28 Google Scholar, points out, ‘our hierarchy’ is Dionysius’s usual designation of his subject; the term ‘ecclesiastical hierarchy’ does not occur outside the title and the heading to chapter one.
6 EH I.1 (369D).
7 I.3 (373C).
8 I.2 (373A).
9 Ibid. (373B).
10 PC 3, cols 120A-340B. EH 1.2 (372C) refers explicitly to the previous treatise.
11 Rorem, , Biblical and Liturgical Symbols, p. 29 Google Scholar.
12 In EH V.1.i-ii (501 A, cited by Rorem), Dionysius says that all hierarchies possess sacraments, and applies this even to the celestial hierarchy; see also VI.3.vi (537A-C), where the applicability of the concept of purification (essential in the earthly hierarchy) to celestial beings is discussed.
13 I.3 (376A).
14 Ibid.
15 I.4 (376B).
16 I.2 (372C-D).
17 I.3 (373C).
18 II.1 (392A).
19 II.1 (392B).
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
22 III.1 (424C-425A).
23 IV.3.xi (484C). Jesus’ baptism is alluded to.
24 Ibid., xii(484C-85A).
25 See also ibid., x (484A), where the use of μύϱoν in the ‘perfection of every sacred thing’ shows that ‘the sanctified Sanctifier’ remains the same ‘while performing every act of divine goodness’. Also ibid., xii (485A), where the term τελετή is held to designate both ‘being sanctified humanly for our sake’, and ‘perfecting and santifying everything with divine activity’, when applied to the μύϱoν as a symbol (as the context shows) of Jesus.
26 IV.2 (473A); IV.3.iii (476C-D).
27 Ibid.
28 V.1.i (500D). ‘Perfections’ (τελειɷσεις) in this context refers to the rite of ordination which Dionysius describes in V.2 (509A-C).
29 See above, n. 12.
30 V.1.ii(501C).
31 Ibid.(501C-D).
32 V.1.i (501A).
33 Ibid., ii (501D): ‘There is a threefold division of the hierarchy into the most holy sacred works of the sacraments, the Godlike ministers of the sacred things, and those led by them, in proportion to their capacity, to sacred things.’
34 Ibid., iii (504A-B).
35 Ibid. Of the powers of the sacraments, purification and illumination are associated with baptism, perfection with the σύναξις and the μύϱoν (504B–C). Sec Rorem, Biblical and Liturgical Symbols, pp. 43–4.
36 V.3, iv-v (504D-505B).
37 II.2.Viii (397A), II.3.iii (400B), III.3.iii (429B), V.3.Vii (513C-D). See Parsons, S. C., ‘The “Hierarch” in the Pseudo-Dionysius and its Place in the History of Christian Priesthood’, Studia Patristica, 18, part 1 Google Scholar, ed. Livingstone, E. A. (Kalamazoo, 1985), pp. 187–90 Google Scholar.
38 V.1.v (505B-C).
38 Ibid., vi (505C-D).
40 Ibid. (505D).
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid. (505D-508A).
43
As these quotations show, Dionysius associates contemplation with the second ‘power’ of the hierarchy. See also the descriptions of the three δυνάμεις of the laity in V.1.iii (504B), of which the second is ‘enlightened contemplation of certain sacred things’, and the third, ‘the illumination of the sacred enlightenments, of which they have become contemplators, with perfect understanding’. Although he uses ‘intellectual contemplation’ to designate what the earthly and celestial hierarchies have in common, Dionysius’s recognition of the importance of material symbols prevents him from defining contemplation exclusively as an inward disposition of the νo
ς: something which may be called ‘contemplation’ is associated with simple participation in the sacraments; perfect understanding comes later. Dionysius in fact strikes a balance between the sacramental, symbolic and objective, and the purely inward aspects of the spiritual life, by allowing θεωϱια a wider range of meaning than it held for, say, Evagrius of Pontus, for whom it is the product of a rigourous purification of the mind and quest for ἀπάθεια, and is not related to the sacraments in the same close way as Dionysius’s whole scheme of purification, contemplation and understanding.
44 V.1. vi(508A-B).
45 Ibid. See also III.2 (425B–C) for role of the deacons at the synaxis.
46 Since it is an important principle that the hierarch’s activity extends throughout the hierarchy, his role naturally encompasses the purifying and illuminating powers of the lower orders: V.1.vii(508C-D).
47 V.3.ii (509D), iv (512A-B).
48 Ibid., vii-viii (513C-516A).
49 See above, n. 43, and also the descriptions of the second order of the laity in VI.1.ii (532B-C) and the summary in VI.3.V (536D).
50 VI.1.i (532A-B).
51 Rorem, , Biblical and Liturgical Symbols, pp. 122–5 Google Scholar.
52 IV.3.iii(476D-477A).
53 VI.1.iii (532D). Here even ‘intellectual contemplation” denotes the full understanding of the sacraments communicated by the hierarch, not something acquired by a purely inward process. This is confirmed by III.3.ii (428C), where θεωϱια νoητɷν (‘contemplation of intelligible reality’) refers to the understanding of spiritual truths symbolized by the liturgy, and by ibid., xii (441C-D), where νoητὴ θεωϱια refers to spiritual contemplation of the actions of Jesus recalled in the Anaphora.
54 Ibid. (533A).
55 VI.3.i (533C).
56 In Syria, Dionysius’s probable place of origin, monks may have played a significant part in the initial conversion of rural areas to Christianity. See Sozomen, , HE (ed. Bidez, J., GCS 50), VI. 34 Google Scholar, and Licbeschuetz, W., ‘Problems Arising from the Conversion of Syria’, SCH 16, pp. 17–24 Google Scholar.
57 Letter, 8 (PG 3, cols 1084A-1100D; see especially 1088B-1089B). Dionysius envisages that monks will take part in the same services as other laity (exclusively monastic churches are not discussed); what he objects to is any interference by the monks in the services they attend.
58 EH VI.3.ii (533D-536A).
59 EH VI.3.ii (533D). See also VI.1.iii (533A): a monk’s life should be ᾀμέϱιστoς–undistracted or undivided–and ἑνιαἱoς–dedicated, single-minded, or unified.
60 A monk’s dedication to ‘unification’ does not mean, however, that he possesses a type of perfection qualitatively different from that available to the ordinary layman. He attains intellectual contemplation and perfect holiness not simply dirough being a monk but through the ministry of the hierarch, and the whole thrust of Dionysius’s teaching is that the same perfection is also available, from the same source, to the ordinary (that is, contemplative) communicant.
61 See also the attitude to the involvement of monks in political affairs expressed in canon 4 of the council of Chalcedon (HL 1, pt. ii, p. 779).
62 For Dionysius’s attitude to polemic see Letter 7 (1077B-1081C).