Christian Neoplatonism: The Areopagite

In the late 5th and early 6th centuries, within the Eastern Roman Empire, which would later become the Byzantine Empire, four theological treatises enjoyed considerable circulation: On the Divine Names, On the Mystical Theology, On the Celestial Hierarchy, and On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. In 532 CE, the Council of Constantinople attributed these works to Dionysius the Areopagite, an Athenian bishop of the 1st century CE, who, according to the Acts of the Apostles, was converted to Christianity by the Apostle Paul. However, during the Renaissance, doubts arose regarding the authorship of Dionysius the Areopagite, as a connection was found between these treatises and the works of the Neoplatonist Proclus, who lived in the 5th century CE. This led to the conclusion that the works attributed to Dionysius could not have been composed before the 5th century. Consequently, the issue of authorship arose, and the author of the Areopagitica was referred to as "Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite."

One of the most serious hypotheses about the true author of the Areopagitica is that they were written by Peter the Iberian (6th century), whose epithet suggests his Georgian origin (Iberia being an ancient name for Georgia). He was a Georgian prince who was taken hostage by the Byzantine court and educated there. His tutor was John Lydus, a contemporary of Proclus, one of the foremost Neoplatonists of late antiquity. Peter later embraced monasticism in Syria and became a bishop there. This hypothesis was first proposed by the Soviet Georgian philosopher and historian of philosophy Sh. I. Nutsubidze in 1941. In 1952, the Belgian scholar E. Honigmann published a study supporting the view that the Areopagitica were authored by Peter the Iberian.

The sources of the Areopagitica reveal that their author extensively utilized Neoplatonic views to construct and philosophically frame a Christian worldview. In this regard, I. Meyendorff notes that Pseudo-Dionysius interpreted Sacred Scripture in terms familiar and accessible to his contemporaries.

Thus, the entire philosophy of the Areopagitica, both ontologically and epistemologically, is based on the Neoplatonic principle of the transcendence (or beyondness) of God as the foundation of being and knowledge. God, the highest principle, is characterized, like the One in Neoplatonism, as an essence surpassing all being: "He is the Cause of all that exists, although He is Himself entirely unrelated to existence, surpassing all that is and is beyond being." However, the Divine also encompasses "all that exists"; it simultaneously pervades the universe, transcends the universe, and stands above it; it is the sun, the star, the fire, the water, and so forth. In this sense, it is again very Neoplatonic to state that no multiplicity exists without some participation in unity.

Thus, according to Dionysius, God, on one hand, transcends all existence; on the other hand, He is all that exists. He is "both as All-being and as Nothing of all Being." Because God is transcendent with respect to being and surpasses it, traditional names and definitions applied to reality cannot be ascribed to Him. Furthermore, He can only be described by negating any attributes of the world of things. Therefore, in the Areopagitica, it is stated that God is not corporeal, as He lacks form, quality, or quantity; He is neither soul nor intellect; He neither rests nor moves; ultimately, He does not even possess being in the usual sense. If He is "none of what exists," if He is the pre-cause and super-being, He is fittingly nameless. This doctrine of God is referred to as apophatic theology (or negative theology, from the Greek "apophatikos" — to deny). The advantages of apophatic theology in the Areopagitica are explained thus: "In praising the Supernatural, negative statements are preferable to positive ones, for by affirming anything about Him, we descend from the highest attributes to the lowest, whereas by negating, we ascend from the lowest to the most primordial knowledge." These words of Dionysius resonate with the Neoplatonic view of contemplation from lower to higher being and ascent from lower to higher.

When God appears as "all in all," "simply and boundlessly uniting in Himself all that exists before its manifestation in being," He is appropriately named with all that exists. Therefore, to the nameless God, various names can indeed be applied; He becomes "many-named." Some of His names include Being, Life, Light, Truth, Wisdom, Intellect, Word, Sun, Star, Fire, Water, and Wind. Among these many names, Dionysius highlights the name "One" as the most significant: "He is called One because, uniquely, He is all and is, without departing from the One, the Cause of everything." The ontological significance of this name is further explained: "There is nothing in being that is not part of the One... The One is the Foundation of all. Without the One, there would be neither whole nor part, nor anything else of the existing."

Although the creator of the Areopagitica acknowledges that the names of God are far from precise and that His name is "above all names," and that the names we use refer not to God Himself but to the energies descending from Him, the act of naming God means that He combines negative theology with positive, or affirmative (kataphatic) theology. Dionysius writes, "Theologians praise Him [the Divine Principle] as nameless, and also as worthy of every name."

However, not all is so straightforward in the Areopagitica regarding the combination of apophatic and kataphatic theology. It seems that there is a predominant inclination towards negative theology. This is reflected in the so-called "general names" of God, which Dionysius explains as follows: "Among the general names of the Divine Principle are primarily those that express negation through superiority—such as the Super-good, Super-divinity, Super-essence, Super-life, Super-wisdom, and so forth." What do these general names express in terms of negation? General names, or attributes of God in the superlative degree, function as negations of His names (or attributes) in the "positive degree," becoming their opposites and thereby demonstrating God's superiority over all that exists. An example of this is the well-known definition of the Divinity of Jesus: "It is perfection in imperfection—as the beginning of perfection, and imperfection in perfection—as preceding and surpassing any perfection; it is formative form in shapelessness—as the beginning of form, and shapelessness in formedness—as surpassing every form." Furthermore, general names also include those denoting causality, such as Being and Wisdom. These names describe God as a transcendent principle (cause) of being, surpassing it, as seen from Dionysius' reasoning: "The name 'Being' indicates that His emanations, transcending all that exists, extend... to all existence... the name 'Life' shows that His emanations, transcending all that is living, extend to all that is living... the name 'Wisdom' means that His emanations, transcending all spiritual, rational, and sensory beings, extend to them as well."

The examination of general names brings us back to negative theology, as the superiority of God and His attributes (energies or emanations) over the existing, equivalent to their transcendence, is understood as a negation (opposition) of finite existence. In applying negation in defining God, Sh. I. Nutsubidze sees not only the construction of negative theology but also the creation of negative dialectics, which he believes served as the basis for negative theology. The essence of negative dialectics, according to Nutsubidze, "was to find a way out of the contradiction between positive and negative to a negative that contained within itself the positive without the possibility of repeating the contradiction." This is achieved by using notation to obtain a super-positive unity of opposites, to which nothing further can be opposed. For example, God should be seen as non-being and super-being, with the path lying through the negation of being or nothingness. Generally, Nutsubidze considers the negative dialectic of the Areopagite to be the culmination of Proclus' dialectical triad and a precursor to Hegel's dialectic.

This view can be explained as follows: The triadic movement of elements of being in Proclus' system represented a simple circular process: the state of the produced in the producing (many in the One); the departure of the produced from the producing (many from the One); and the return of the produced to the producing (many to the One). This movement does not transcend the pair of opposites (the One - the many) to their higher unity, and therefore is not truly triadic. The Areopagite resolved this issue by introducing a genuinely third stage into this movement, labeled in the "superlative degree": for example, non-being - being - super-being. In this triad, super-being is the negation of being and, as such, unites non-being (as the negation of being) and being (the negation of non-being). Hegel followed a similar path with his triadic scheme: thesis (the positive), its negation (the negative), and the negation of this negation (the synthesis), which reconciles the opposites. For example, Hegel's first triad of categories in The Science of Logic: being, nothing, becoming— the unity of being and nothing.

We now conclude our discussion of the names of God and turn to the issue of His knowledge. God is transcendent, as noted, not only in being but also in knowing. In this sense, He appears as the Divine Bright Darkness, the inaccessible Light, invisible due to His extraordinarily bright supernatural brilliance. Dionysius writes, "God... is even beyond words, as He transcends all that exists and exists outside of words and thought." Due to God's transcendence with respect to His knowledge, the Areopagitica present paradoxical mystical conclusions about the ways of knowing God. God is known through unknowing, seen through unseen vision, and grasped through super-rational understanding. To achieve this, it is necessary to "detach oneself from all that exists": from activity, sensation, reason, and anything else that obscures the divine countenance and obstructs supernatural union with Him. Only by "removing everything and freeing oneself from everything, can you ascend to the supernatural radiance of the Divine Darkness." Knowledge of God, achieved through unknowing, occurs "by means of a union that transcends the intellect, when the mind, withdrawing from all existence, then leaving even itself, unites with the bright rays... and is illuminated by the inaccessible depth of Wisdom." Thus, the Areopagite understands the knowledge of God.

To achieve the knowledge of God through the union of the mind with the divine light, Dionysius devised a special “mechanism.” The path to such union is hierarchy—both heavenly and ecclesiastical—as outlined in his writings. Some hold the view that the doctrine of hierarchy stemmed from Peter the Iberian's upbringing at the Byzantine court.

Let us first outline Dionysius’s general considerations regarding hierarchy. Hierarchy is a sacred organization, a realm of knowledge and activity that aspires to divine illumination granted by God. The aim of hierarchy is to become like God and to unite with Him. Hierarchy represents a certain order, functioning through ranks and sacred knowledge. Dionysius writes, “The superessential Hierarchy [God] has established a law that in every hierarchy there should be first, middle, and last ranks and powers, and that the more Divine should lead the lesser ones in their ascent to the Divine.” The actions of the hierarchy involve purification, illumination, and perfection. This latter aspect is particularly important as it represents three stages of ascent to God: purification, illumination, and perfection. Furthermore, it embodies a "twofold," or rather cyclical, movement through these stages: descent and ascent, with the latter being akin to becoming like the higher (attaining perfection). Indeed, from the higher ranks of the hierarchy to the lower ones, purification, illumination, and perfection occur, whereby the lower ranks are elevated and ascend to God.

Thus, the “streams” of purification, illumination, and perfection flow from the ranks of the higher heavenly hierarchy, which exist in the light of the God-originated Father. They are designated as the “ranks of the heavenly Intelligences” (similar to Neoplatonists, where the Intellect is an emanation of the First Principle), the “blessed ranks of the Angels,” the “supreme heavenly Ranks,” and the “non-material Ranks.” There are nine heavenly entities, divided into three triads. Closest to God are the Thrones, Cherubim, and Seraphim; then follow the Principalities, Dominions, and Powers; and finally, the Angels, Archangels, and Principalities. The higher ranks are the messengers of God Himself. The foremost beings around God transmit knowledge to the lower ranks. Dionysius writes, “The first of them are illuminated by the rays of the divine light, while the lower ones, through them, are illuminated, though also from God.”

The most crucial aspect of the heavenly hierarchy is the incorporeality, the spirituality of its ranks and their actions. Dionysius states, “The higher beings and ranks are incorporeal, and their sacred leadership is intellectual and supreme.” The hierarchies of the heavenly beings possess incorporeal understanding of God and divine things and a godlike state of divine imitation. Dionysius observes that the incorporeal mode of teaching from mind to mind is more suitable to the mode of instruction of the heavenly hierarchy.

Following the heavenly hierarchy is the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which should be understood as the Christian church that arose with the New Testament teaching of Christ. Dionysius refers to the ecclesiastical hierarchy as “our hierarchy” and “legal hierarchy” in contrast to the “subordinate hierarchy,” led by Moses, that is, the Old Testament (Jewish) priesthood. Thus, Dionysius presents a triad of hierarchies, or a general triadic hierarchy, as he himself states: “[Our hierarchy] is a network of hierarchy that encompasses both the heavenly and the legal, situated between the extremes: between one (heavenly), partaking in spiritual contemplation, and the other (subordinate), which is not alien to the diversity of symbols through which it ascends to divine things.”

In this statement, the criterion for distinguishing the three hierarchies is crucial, as it reveals their ontognoseological essence. This criterion is the nature of knowledge and the mode of instruction of the ranks within the hierarchy. In the heavenly hierarchy, it is spiritual contemplation and incorporeal teaching. In the subordinate hierarchy, it is knowledge given in “vague images of truth,” in representations distant from the archetypes, in divinations and symbols containing “inexpressible hidden meanings,” and thus has a sensory expression. In the legal (ecclesiastical) hierarchy, both spiritual contemplation and sensory symbols are combined. Spiritual (mystical) contemplation can be explained by Dionysius’s assertion that “our leaders” were taught “by sacred men” (apostles?) in a “more incorporeal mode of teaching” “from mind to mind” through oral word, though corporeal, but “more incorporeal” than written. Since “not all minds,” Divine hierarchs transmitted their knowledge “not in explicit concepts, but in sacred symbols.” Our sacred leadership, according to Dionysius, like ourselves, is filled with sensory symbols through which we ascend to God. In conclusion, Dionysius remarks: “Our hierarchy is, in some sense, symbolic, needing sensory things for the divine elevation from them to spiritual things.” It is also a commonly accepted view that, in a metaphysical (ontological) sense, the ecclesiastical hierarchy serves as an intermediary between the heavenly and earthly realms.

Now, let us examine Dionysius’s views on the structure of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. It is composed of three parts: the sacramental rites, the divine-like ministers, and the people they elevate to sanctity. Each of these three components is further divided into three degrees of power (actions), corresponding to the three actions (powers) of the heavenly ranks: purification, illumination, and perfection. The triad of clergy ranks—hierarchs, priests, and deacons—corresponds to these three powers. Dionysius writes, “The rank of hierarchs is perfection and perfective; the rank of priests is enlightening and illuminating; and the rank of deacons is purifying.” The sacramental rites and clergy ranks are active forces, meaning they purify, enlighten, and perfect people (laypersons), who are subsequently arranged in a hierarchical triad. People experience their influence and are purified (the first degree), enlightened (the middle degree), and “illuminated by the perfect [complete] knowledge of the sacred mysteries” (the final, highest degree). Dionysius explains, “The highest degree among those being perfected is the rank of monks.”

In conclusion, let us summarize Dionysius’s teachings on hierarchy and his overall doctrine. In Dionysius’s view, hierarchy does not possess significant ontological value to describe the structure of being, as is often presented in literature, particularly in academic settings. It has a religious-moral purpose, illustrating the stages and degrees of knowing God and approaching Him. Nevertheless, the ideas of the triadic hierarchy, originating from the “Areopagitica,” were significantly utilized in the Middle Ages, even in an ontological sense, to depict the structure of nature and social life. Numerous examples of this are collected in P. M. Bizzell’s “Elements of Medieval Culture.” One such example is the views of Egidius Colonna, a prominent ecclesiastical figure and philosopher of the 13th century, on properly organized state administration: “If a king wishes to govern a kingdom, he will have, firstly, those who always surround the king, divided into three classes: the beloved or friends of the king, wise counselors, and those who proclaim and publicize the king’s judgments and decrees.” It is not difficult to notice that this entourage of the king closely resembles the three primary ranks of the heavenly hierarchy surrounding God. The significant influence of the author of the “Areopagitica” on medieval European philosophical-theological thought is evidenced by his receiving the title doctor hierarchicus (teacher of the hierarchy) according to the customs of the time.

Regarding Dionysius’s religious-philosophical teachings as a whole, it seems that the central, or core, theme of the “Areopagitica” is the naming of God and His knowledge, and most importantly, achieving a certain participation in Him—addressing issues of epistemology and ethics within religious philosophy.