Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

A Borrowed Name, an Ordered Heaven

The nine orders of angels, and the word "hierarchy" itself, come from an anonymous Syrian of c. 500 writing under a borrowed apostolic name — challenged as a forgery on the spot in 532, and not disproved until 1895, when his doctrine of evil was traced to Proclus.

Nine ranks of angels ordered heaven for a millennium — written by an anonymous Syrian, under a borrowed name.


Four Greek treatises and ten letters appeared in the early sixth century signed by Dionysius the Areopagite, whom Paul converted at Athens (Acts 17:34). They were quoted at the Constantinople colloquy of 532, where Hypatius of Ephesus objected on the spot that no Father or council had ever cited them. It did not stick: John of Scythopolis's scholia defended the corpus within a decade, and every surviving Greek manuscript descends from a copy carrying them. Valla doubted the attribution by 1457, Erasmus from 1504; in 1895 Hugo Koch and Josef Stiglmayr traced On the Divine Names to Proclus, who died in 485. The Celestial Hierarchy ranks the angels in three triads of three — the scheme Aquinas systematised, Dante versified and Agrippa tabulated in 1533. All nine names are scriptural; the ranking, and the word hierarchy, are his.

Light

The Mystical Theology gave the Latin West its vocabulary for what cannot be said of God — the brilliant darkness, unknowing, a God beyond every assertion and beyond every denial. The fourteenth-century Cloud of Unknowing names its debt outright.

Shadow

Its ecclesiastical twin made rank itself a channel of grace: each order is lit only through the one above it, never directly. Luther, in 1520, doubted the man's identity and wrote that he platonises more than he christianises.

Sources and verification11 sources · 7 links

Primary source

  • Martin Luther, De captivitate Babylonica ecclesiae praeludium, 1520, WA 6:562Luther's judgement that Dionysius platonises more than he christianises, and his open doubt about who the author was.
  • Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, trans. "J.F.", Three Books of Occult Philosophy, 1651, Book III, ch. 10 ('Of Divine emanations, which the Hebrews call Numerations, others attributes; The gentiles gods and Deities; and of the ten Sephiroths')That Renaissance occult philosophy set one angelic order beside each of the ten sephiroth, taking the nine ranks in the Dionysian order and adding a tenth of blessed souls - the route by which the scheme entered later English-language occultism.
  • Pseudo-Dionysius, The Complete Works, 1987, trans. Colm Luibheid with Paul Rorem, Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1987); The Celestial Hierarchy chs 6-9; Letter 7 (to Polycarp); The Mystical Theology chs 1 and 5The contents of the corpus and its pseudonymous signature; the arrangement of the nine angelic orders into three triads at Celestial Hierarchy chs 6-9, with each of the nine names taken from scripture; the author's claim in Letter 7 to have observed at Heliopolis the eclipse at the Crucifixion; and the apophatic vocabulary of The Mystical Theology, which ends by denying the denials as well as the affirmations.
  • Anonymous (ed. Patrick J. Gallacher), The Cloud of Unknowing, TEAMS Middle English Texts, 1997, Rochester: Medieval Institute PublicationsThat the fourteenth-century English apophatic tradition names its debt to Dionysius explicitly, so the Mystical Theology's vocabulary is demonstrably in use in vernacular devotion.

Scholarship

  • Josef Stiglmayr, Der Neuplatoniker Proklus als Vorlage des sogenannten Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Uebel, Historisches Jahrbuch 16, 1895, pp. 253-73 and 721-48That the doctrine of evil in On the Divine Names depends on Proclus's De malorum subsistentia, which places the author after Proclus's death in 485 and makes the apostolic attribution untenable.
  • Hugo Koch, Proklus als Quelle des Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Boesen, Philologus 54, 1895, pp. 442-58 (Philologus 54, issue 1-4; DOI 10.1524/phil.1895.54.14.442 - the frequently repeated 438-54 is an error)The same demonstration of Proclan dependence, reached independently of Stiglmayr in the same year.
  • Bernard McGinn, The Foundations of Mysticism (The Presence of God, vol. 1), 1991, New York: CrossroadThe place of the Dionysian corpus in the formation of Western Christian mysticism and the standard account of its transmission.
  • Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, ed. Vittoria Perrone Compagni, De occulta philosophia libri tres, 1992, Leiden: Brill; Book III, ch. 10That the sephirothic correspondence chapter belongs to the 1533 Cologne print rather than to the 1510 draft, so the tabulation is dated to 1533 on the critical edition rather than on the 1651 English translation.
  • Andrew Louth, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition: From Plato to Denys, 2nd ed., 2007, Oxford: Oxford University PressThe line of dependence running from Platonism through Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and Evagrius to Dionysius, and the limits of the claim that the corpus is simply Neoplatonism in Christian dress.
  • Mark Edwards, Dimitrios Pallis and Georgios Steiris (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Dionysius the Areopagite, 2022, Oxford: Oxford University Press; ISBN 9780198810797The current scholarly consensus that the corpus was written about 500 CE by an author who was not the Areopagite of Acts 17:34; the state of the question on its genesis and its Syriac reception; and the editing of the Greek by John of Scythopolis, whose scholia accompany the surviving manuscript tradition.

The tradition itself

  • Pseudo-Dionysius, The Mystical Theology and The Celestial Hierarchy, c. 500The esoteric reading given on this entry

Linked entries

  • Set againstThe Corpus HermeticumAttested

    Two late-antique Greek corpora that Europe read as far older than they are, and both undone by philology rather than by theology - Casaubon redated the Hermetica in 1614, Koch and Stiglmayr the Dionysian corpus in 1895.

  • Set againstThe KybalionAttested

    The same manoeuvre in 1908, a modern text issued under an ancient authority; the difference is that Dionysius was challenged the first time he was read aloud in public, in 532, and believed anyway until Koch and Stiglmayr traced his doctrine of evil to Proclus in 1895.

  • Often confused withTree of LifeA modern connection

    Agrippa's De occulta philosophia (III.10, Cologne 1533; Englished in 1651 as Three Books of Occult Philosophy) sets an angelic order beside each of the ten sephiroth, using the Dionysian nine and adding a tenth rank of blessed souls - a Renaissance Christian-Kabbalist fusion of two schemes with separate origins.

  • Set againstThe KojikiAttested

    Two texts whose authority came from outside themselves — the Dionysian corpus from an apostolic name it did not own, the Kojiki from Motoori Norinaga's commentary and the school that read it after him, eleven centuries downstream.

  • Set againstThe GāthāsDisputed

    Two opposite attribution problems. The Dionysian corpus is a demonstrably later text circulating under a borrowed ancient name; the Gāthās are demonstrably ancient, and it is the named author who is doubted — Kellens and Skjærvø read them as a community's ritual poetry rather than one prophet's, while Humbach and Hintze keep the traditional attribution.

  • Received fromTheurgyAttested

    The word reaches Christianity about 500, in a Syrian author reading Proclus — but Paul Rorem reads Dionysian theourgia as God's own acts, the Incarnation recalled in the liturgy, rather than as anything the ritualist does. Orthodox scholars contest that reading.

  • Gave rise toMeister EckhartAttested

    Eckhart drew extensively on Pseudo-Dionysius for his theology of the divine darkness and divine names.