Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (orDionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite) was aGreek[1] author,Christian theologian andNeoplatonicphilosopher of the late 5th to early 6th century, who wrote a set of works known as theCorpus Areopagiticum orCorpus Dionysiacum. Through his writing inMystical Theology, he has been identified as the "progenitor of apophatic ornegative theology."[2]
In the early sixth century, a series of writings of amystical nature, employingNeoplatonic language to elucidate Christian theological and mystical ideas, was ascribed to the Areopagite.[5] They have long been recognized aspseudepigrapha,[citation needed] and their author is now called "Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite".
Mystical Theology (Περὶ μυστικῆς θεολογίας), "a brief but powerful work that deals with negative or apophatic theology and in which theology becomes explicitly 'mystical' for the first time in history";[7]
Seven other works are mentioned repeatedly by pseudo-Dionysius in his surviving works, and are presumed either to be lost[8] 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.[9] These seven other works are:
Theological Outlines (Θεολογικαὶ ὑποτυπώσεις),
Symbolic Theology (Συμβολικὴ θεολογία),
On Angelic Properties and Orders (Περὶ ἀγγελικῶν ἰδιοτήτων καὶ τάξεων),
On the Just and Divine Judgement (Περὶ δικαίου καὶ θείου δικαστηρίου),
In theEcclesiastical Hierarchy Dionysius twice seems to allude to the recitation of the Creed in the course of the liturgy (EH 3.2 and 3.III.7). It is often asserted thatPeter the Fuller first mandated the inclusion of theNicene Creed in the liturgy in 476, thus providing an earliest date for the composition of the Corpus. Bernard Capelle argues that it is far more likely thatTimothy, patriarch of Constantinople, was responsible for this liturgical innovation, around 515—thus suggesting a later date for the Corpus.[10]
It is often suggested that because Dionysius seems to eschew divisiveChristological language, he was probably writing after theHenoticon ofZeno was in effect, sometime after 482. It is also possible that Dionysius eschewed traditional Christological formulae in order to preserve an overall apostolic ambience for his works, rather than because of the influence of theHenoticon. Also, given that theHenoticon was rescinded in 518, if Dionysius was writing after this date, he may have been untroubled by this policy.[10]
In terms of the latest date for the composition of theCorpus, the earliest datable reference to Dionysius' writing comes in 528, the year in which the treatise ofSeverus of Antioch entitledAdversus apologiam Juliani was translated intoSyriac—though it is possible the treatise may originally have been composed up to nine years earlier.[11]
Another widely cited latest date for Dionysius' writing comes in 532, when, in a report on a colloquy held between two groups (dyophysite andmiaphysite) debating the decrees of theCouncil of Chalcedon,Severus of Antioch and his miaphysite supporters cited Dionysius' Fourth Letter in defence of their view.[12] 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 miaphysite understanding of Christ.[13] It seems likely that the writer was located in Syria, as revealed, for example, by the accounts of the sacramental rites he gives inThe Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which seem only to bear resemblance to Syriac rites.[14]
The author pseudonymously identifies himself in the corpus as "Dionysios", portraying himself as the figure ofDionysius the Areopagite, the Athenian convert ofPaul the Apostle mentioned in Acts 17:34.[15][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.[16]
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. This dating was disputed byHypatius of Ephesus, who met the monophysite party during the 532 meeting with EmperorJustinian 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.[17]
The Florentine humanistLorenzo Valla (d. 1457), in his 1457 commentaries on theNew Testament, did much to establish that the author of theCorpus 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 influentialCorpus was accepted and publicized byErasmus from 1504 onward, for which he was criticized by Catholic theologians. In theLeipzig disputation withMartin Luther, in 1519,Johann Eck used theCorpus, specifically theAngelic Hierarchy, as argument for the apostolic origin ofpapal supremacy, pressing the Platonist analogy, "as above, so below".
During the 19th century Catholic historians too came generally to accept that the author must have lived after the time ofProclus. 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 theCorpus upon Proclus.[20] Both showed that Dionysius had used, in his treatise on evil in Chapter 4 ofThe Divine Names, theDe malorum subsistentia of Proclus.
Dionysius' identity is still disputed. Corrigan and Harrington find pseudo-Dionysius to be most probably...
... a pupil of Proclus, perhaps ofSyrian 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 bySeverus of Antioch between 518 and 528, then we can place Dionysius' authorship between 485 and 518-28.[note 4]
In the past half-century, Alexander Golitzin,Georgian academicianShalva Nutsubidze andBelgian professor Ernest Honigmann have all proposed identifying pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite withPeter the Iberian.[22] A more recent identification is withDamascius, the last scholarch of theNeoplatonic Academy of Athens.[23] There is therefore no current scholarly consensus on the question of pseudo-Dionysius' identification.
It must also be recognized that "forgery" is a modern notion. LikePlotinus and theCappadocian Fathers before him, Dionysius does not claim to be an innovator, but rather a communicator of a tradition.[note 4]
Other scholars such asBart D. Ehrman disagree, see for exampleForged. While 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.[25]
Some modern scholars, including recent contributorEvangelos Nikitopoulos,[26][27] Romanian professorDumitru Stăniloae,[28][29] and English translatorJohn Parker,[30] argue in favor of a traditional composition date in the late first to early second century. Their case draws upon harmonizations with alleged anachronisms,[31] contemporary lexical parallels and idiosyncrasies,[32] and internal literary and historical consistency.[33][34] Most significant are the pre-Proclean references to the corpus by figures such asJohn Chrysostom andJuvenal of Jerusalem, and especially by members of theAlexandrian tradition—Pantaenus,Origen,Gregory Nazianzus, andJerome—who demonstrate familiarity with theCorpus Dionysiacum.[35] EvenProclus himself, who admitted to "summariz[ing] the observations rightly made... by some of our predecessors"[36] such as Origen,[37] appears to cite an external source for theeuphemism "flowers and supersubstantial lights"[38]—a phrase explicitly found only in Dionysius.[39] Linguistic analyses further suggest that nearly two-thirds of Dionysius' terminology lacks precedent in any known pre-sixth-century Christian or Neoplatonic text, while another quarter can be traced to ante-Nicene philosophical sources such as Platonic dialogues.[40][41][42][43] Nikitopoulos argues that this primitive theological vocabulary aligns with the intellectual profile reconstructed for another second-century Eastern convert with a pagan Greek education:Justin Martyr.[44]
According to pseudo-Dionysius, God is better characterized and approached bynegations than byaffirmations.[7] All names and theological representations must be negated. According to pseudo-Dionysius, when all names are negated, "divine silence, darkness, and unknowing" will follow.[7]
His thought was initially used byMiaphysites to back up parts of their arguments but his writings were eventually adopted by other church theologians, primarily due to the work ofJohn of Scythopolis andMaximus the Confessor in producing an orthodox interpretation.[48] Writing a single generation at most after Dionysius, perhaps between 537 and 543,[49] John of Scythopolis composed an extensive set (c. 600)[50] ofscholia (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 theCorpus Areopagiticumsurviving today stem from an early sixth-century manuscript containing John'sScholiaandPrologue — so John of Scythopolis had an enormous influence on how Dionysius was read in the Greek-speaking world.[51]
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 aterminus ante quem for the dating of the original Greek.
The real influence of Dionysius in the West began with the gift in 827 of a Greek copy of his works by theByzantine emperorMichael II to theCarolingian emperorLouis the Pious. King Louis in turn gave the manuscript to theAbbey of St. Denis near Paris[53] where, in about 838, Dionysius' works were translated into Latin for the first time byHilduin, 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), thatDenis was the same person as Dionysius the Areopagite ofActs 17.34, and that he had traveled to Rome and then was commissioned by the Pope to preach inGaul, where he was martyred.[54] Hilduin's translation is almost unintelligible.[53]
About twenty years later, a subsequent Carolingian Emperor,Charles the Bald, requested the IrishmanJohn Scotus Eriugena to make a fresh translation. He finished this in 862.[53] This translation itself did not widely circulate in subsequent centuries. Moreover, although Eriugena's own works, such as theHomily on the Prologue of St John, show the influence of Dionysian ideas, these works were not widely copied or read in subsequent centuries.[53] 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:
Among Benedictines (especially at the Abbey of Saint-Denis), greater interest began to be shown in Dionysius. For example, one of the monks of Saint Denys,John Sarrazin, wrote a commentary onThe Celestial Hierarchy in 1140, and then in 1165 made a translation of the work.[53] Also,Suger, abbot of Saint-Denis from 1122 to 1151, drew on Dionysian themes to explain how the architecture of his new 'Gothic' abbey church helped raise the soul to God.[55]
It is in the Schools, though, that the twelfth-century growth in influence of Dionysius was truly significant. There are few references to Dionysius in scholastic theology during the tenth and eleventh centuries. At the beginning of the twelfth century, though, the masters of the Cathedral school atLaon, especiallyAnselm of Laon, introduced extracts from John Scotus Eriugena'sCommentary on St John into theSentences and theGlossa Ordinaria. In this manner, Dionysian concepts found their way into the writing ofPeter Lombard and others.[53]
Bonaventure uses images and even direct quotations from Dionysius'Mystical Theology in the last chapter of his famous workItinerarium Mentis in Deum (The Soul's Journey into God).[56]
During the thirteenth century, the FranciscanRobert Grosseteste made an important contribution by bringing out between 1240 and 1243 a translation, with commentary, of the Dionysian corpus.[53] Soon after, the DominicanAlbertus 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" ofJohn Sarrazin, along with glosses and scholia byMaximus the Confessor,John of Scythopolis and others, as well as the "Extracts" byThomas Gallus, and several commentaries such as John Scotus Eriugena, John Sarrazin and Hugh of Saint Victor onThe Celestial Hierarchy.[57] It quickly became common to make reference to Dionysius.Thomas Aquinas wrote an explanation for several works, and cites him over 1700 times.[58]Bonaventure called him the "prince of mystics".[citation needed]
Martin Luther's ambiguous stance toward Dionysius was notable. The reformer at times seemed to reject him entirely, at other times to appreciate him, and the passage from "On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church" (1520) is well known, in which he says:
"I completely disapprove of giving so much credence to this Dionysius, whoever he was, since there is practically no solid learning to be found in him. Take, for instance, the fabrications about the angels in his Celestial Hierarchy (a book much sweated over by people of a curious or superstitious temperament). By what authority or reason, I ask, does he prove any of this? If you read and evaluate this honestly, are not all these things his own dreamlike musings? On the other hand, in his Mystical Theology (so highly praised by some of the most ignorant theologians), he is most dangerous, speaking more like a Platonist than a Christian".
Notwithstanding, in other works, he did not hesitate to cite Dionysius as a reference, such as in his commentary on Psalm 18 contained in the lectures "Dictata super Psalterium" (1513–1515), in which he states:
“Therefore, blessed Dionysius teaches that one must enter into anagogical darkness and ascend by way of denials. For thus God is hidden and beyond understanding."[59]
Thus, Luther did not reject Dionysian thought; on the contrary, being someone who so often citedBernand of Clairvaux,Bonaventure andJohannes Tauler, he was strongly influenced by dionysianism through theGerman medieval mystics, as shown by Johannes Zachhuber.[59] This influence is evident in the fact that the reformer published the mystical writing “Theologia Germanica”, which is clearly inspired by Dionysian thought, and it is also visible in a key concept of Luther's theology: theDeus absconditus (hidden God), an essential doctrine of negative theology, as this method is distinctly endorsed by the reformer, who, like Dionysius and the other mystics, believed in the insufficiency of human reason (philosophy and positive theology) to reach God. His criticisms, therefore, are not aimed at Dionysius’s doctrine itself, but at its “abuse” (from Luther’s perspective) by his opponents, such asJohann Eck, aRoman Catholic apologist who cited Dionysius’s writings to justify thepapacy and the view thatordination is asacrament, against whom the reformerdebated between 1519 and 1520, as well theAnabaptists, his adversaries in later disputes.
In recent decades, interest has increased again in theCorpus 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 fundamentallyNeoplatonic approach to theology, and finally because of interest in parallels between aspects of modernlinguistic theory and Dionysius's reflections on language andnegative 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.[60]
^abActs 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."
^Also known asThe Intelligible and the Sensible; this is only referred to in theEcclesiastical Hierarchy.
^This is only referred to in theCelestial Hierarchy.
^ab"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 asdeclamatio), 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, isdialectically 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.[24]
^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.
^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), p. 20.
^abPaul Rorem and John C. Lamoreaux,John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), p. 9. The point was first proposed by Stiglmayr.
^Hathaway,Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 4, supports the dating of 519 for this treatise.
^Andrew Louth,Dionysius the Areopagite (1987), reissued by Continuum Press, London & New York, 2001, under the titleDenys the Areopagite.
^See Louth,Dionysius the Areopagite (1987), p. 14, who suggests that, although ambiguous, Dionysius is not miaphysite (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. p. 11, make an extensive study of the early evidence, arguing that (1) Hypatius's apparent rejection in 532 of the works of Dionysite as miaphysite 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 Miaphysites.
^Dionysius' description in theEcclesiastical 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 theHomilies 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), p. 55; (2) Dionysius' account of the sacrament of oil in theEcclesiastical Hierarchy is not found in most other patristic sources, except for those in the Syrian tradition. See Louth,Dionysius the Areopagite (1987), p. 64; (3) his understanding of monasticism. See Louth,Dionysius the Areopagite (1987), p. 70. Louth is certain that Dionysius/Denys was writing in Syria. See p.14 and passim.
^Hathaway,Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 13
^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.
^Jean-Yves Lacoste,Encyclopedia of Christian Theology, 3 vols., vol. 1, p. 439.
^Hathaway,Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 31
^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), p. 419.
^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, inAdamantius 14 (2009), pp. 670-673.
^"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. 63–64. London: Ashgate.
^Nikitopoulos, E., & Truglia, P. C. (2024). In defense of the authenticity of the Dionysian corpus (I). Revista Teologică, 105(1), 5–21.
^Nikitopoulos, E., & Truglia, P. C. (2024). In defense of the authenticity of the Dionysian corpus (II). Revista Teologică, 106(2), 5–33.
^Stăniloae, D. (1996). Sfântul Dionisie Areopagitul: Opere complete și școlile Sfântului Maxim Mărturisitorul (pp. 7–13). Bucharest: Paideia.
^Divine institution of threefold mono-episcopal structure [Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 1.2, 2.2.6, 3.2] is taken for granted in the Ignatius Corpus; pre-Nicene use ofhypóstasis for person instead of nature [Divine Names 1.4, 2.4–5, 2.11] is prevalent in Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Philo; clerical tonsures [Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 6.2] are evidenced in both Old Testament (Num 6:18) and New Testament (Acts 18:18) religious vows
^The uncommon wordtherapeút, which shifted in meaning after post-Nicene desert ascetic traditions, is only specifically used to link monastic life with the divine monad inPhilo of Alexandria and Dionysius;leitourgói (from Heb 1:14) is strangely used for the third order of the clergy, as if the standard designationdiákonos was not yet custom; incarnational theology rarely employs the standard Nicene termenanthrṓpēsis, instead opting for odd phrases includingandrikēn zōēn ("manly life"),anthrōpikē theourgia ("human divine-work"), and evenanthrōpikōs ousiōthenta ("taking substance humanly").
^Attic form of Athenian dialect; second sophistic rhetoric (only prevalent from the mid-first century to the early-third century); interest in apathetic theology; highly stylized prose.
^Intimate acquaintance with and strong opposition to Simon Magus's doctrine; interaction with the author and contents of the Clementine Homilies; writes only to early Christians living near Athens (Apostle John; Timothy; Polycarp).
^Anthony Pavoni and Evangelos Nikitopoulos, The Life of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite. Scriptorium Press: Montreal, 2023, 14–180.
^Procli Commentarii in Parmenidem Platonis, Book VI.16 – "as one has said".
^Divine Names 2.7. In one of the Proclean manuscripts, a later scribe has even added a marginal note at this point: "Mark you: it is from the Great Dionysius".
^Sassi, N. (2017). Le fonti del lessico teologico del De Mystica Theologia dello Pseudo-Dionigi Areopagita. Textual Cultures, 11(1–2), 130–171.
^Sassi, N. (2018). Le fonti del lessico teologico delle Epistole dello Pseudo-Dionigi Areopagita. Lexicon Philosophicum, 6, 69–115.
^Jahn, A. (1889). Dionysiaca: sprachliche und sachliche Platonische Blüthenlese aus Dionysius, dem sogenannten Areopagiten. Altona/Leipzig: Verlag Von A.C. Reher.
^Corsini, E. (1962). Il trattato De Divinis Nominibus dello Pseudo-Dionigi. [Publication city and publisher not specified].
^Nikitopoulos, E., & Truglia, P. C. (2024). In defense of the authenticity of the Dionysian corpus (II). Revista Teologică, 106(2), 7.
^Inge, William Ralph. Christian Mysticism, The Brampton Lectures, London: Methuen, 1899. p 102.
^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).
^Frothingham, Arthur Lincoln. Stephen bar Sudaili, The Syrian Mystic and The Book of Hierotheos. Leiden: Brill, 1886 (Reprinted Eugene, OR: Wipf And Stock, 2010).
^Paul Rorem and John C. Lamoreaux,John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), p. 39.
^Paul Rorem and John C. Lamoreaux,John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), p. 38.
^Paul Rorem and John C. Lamoreaux,John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp. 1-3. Rorem and Lamoreaux produce a translation of about two-thirds of John'sPrologue andScholia on pp. 144-263.
^abcdefghijJean LeClercq, 'Influence and Noninfluence of Dionysius in the Western Middle Ages', inPseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, trans. Colm Luibheid, (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), pp. 25-33.
^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]).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
^Louth,Dionysius the Areopagite (1987), p. 122, citing E. Panofsky (Edited, translated and annotated)Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St-Denis and its Art Treasures (Princetown, NJ,) 2nd ed. 1979.
^Karlfried Froehlich, 'Pseudo-Dionysius and the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century', inPseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, trans. Colm Luibheid, (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), pp. 33-46.
^Doherty, K.F. "St. Thomas and the Pseudo-Dionysian Symbol of Light". In: The New. Scholasticism, 34 (1960), pp. 170-189.
Elena Ene D-Vasilescu, "Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Byzantine Art",Journal of Early Christian History, Taylor & Francis, Volume 11, Issue 2, 2021, pp. 50–75; DOI: 10.1080/2222582X.2020.1743955
Elena Ene D-Vasilescu, "If you wish to contemplate God': Pseudo-Dionysius on the notion of will", Studia Patristica, vol. C (100), 2020: 247-257
Migne,Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series GraecaIII, (Paris, 1857) [Greek text]
Beate Regina Suchla (ed.),Corpus Dionysiacum, 2 vols (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990–1) [the modern critical edition]
La Hiérarchie Céleste, ed. Roques R, Heil G and Gandillac M, Sources Chrétiennes 58 (Paris: Les Éditions de Cerf, 1958) [Critical edition of the Celestial Hierarchy with French translation]
Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, trans. Colm Luibheid (New York: Paulist Press, 1987) [The only complete modern English translation (and the only modern English translation ofThe Celestial Hierarchy), based almost entirely on the text in Migne]
Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, trans. Thomas L. Campbell, (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1981)
Hathaway, Ronald F,Hierarchy and the definition of order in the letters of Pseudo-Dionysius. A study in the form and meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian writings, (The Hague, Nijhoff, 1969), [Includes a translation of the Letters on pp130–160]
Jones, John D,The Divine Names and Mystical Theology, (Milwaukee, 1980)
Rolt, CE,The Divine Names and the Mystical Theology, (London: SPCK, 1920) [reprinted asClarence Edwin Rolt,Dionysius the Areopagite on the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology, 2004, IBIS PRESS,ISBN0-89254-095-8]
Bucur, Bogdan, ed., (Collegeville, MN: Cistercian Publications, 2014), a revised edition ofEt 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)
Coakley, Sarah and Charles M Stang, eds.,Re-Thinking Dionysius the Areopagite, (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2008) [also published asModern Theology 24:4, (2008)]
Frend, W. H. C.,The Rise of the Monophysite Movement (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1972).
Golitzin, Alexander,Mystagogy: A Monastic Reading of Dionysius Areopagita. Cistercian Studies 250.
Griffith, R., "Neo-Platonism and Christianity: Pseudo-Dionysius and Damascius", in E. A. Livingstone, ed.,Studia patristica XXIX. Papers presented at the Twelfth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1995 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), pp. 238–243
Hathaway, Ronald F.,Hierarchy and the definition of order in the letters of Pseudo-Dionysius: A study in the form and meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian writings (The Hague, Nijhoff, 1969)
Ivanovic, Filip,Symbol and Icon: Dionysius the Areopagite and the Iconoclastic Crisis (Eugene: Pickwick, 2010).ISBN978-1-60899-335-2
LeClercq, Jean, 'Influence and noninfluence of Dionysius in the Western Middle Ages', inPseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, trans. Colm Luibheid (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), pp. 25–33
Louth, Andrew,Dionysius the Areopagite (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1989). Reissued by Continuum Press (London & New York) 2001 under the titleDenys the Areopagite.
Perl, Eric D.,Theophany: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite (Albany: SUNY Press, 2007).ISBN978-0-7914-7111-1.
Rorem, Paul,Pseudo-Dionysius: A commentary on the texts and an introduction to their influence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993)
Rorem, Paul, and John C Lamoreaux,John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998)
Scouteris, Constantine,"Malum privatio est": St. Gregory of Nyssa and Psedo-Dionysius on the Existence of Evil (Some further Comments), paper presented at the Ninth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1983, Studia Patristica, 18 (1990), pp. 539–550
Stock, Wiebke-Marie,Theurgisches Denken. Zur "Kirchlichen Hierarchie" des Dionysius Areopagita (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008) (Transformationen der Antike, 4)
Elena Ene D-Vasilescu, "'If you wish to contemplate God': Pseudo-Dionysius on the notion of will", Studia Patristica, vol. C (100), 2020: 247–257
Works (Corpus Areopagiticum) of pseudo-Dionysius includingThe Divine Names,Mystical Theology,Celestial Hierarchy,Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and Letters (available in PDF, HTML, and text formats) accessed September 1, 2006Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Theologia vivificans, cibus solidus;Dionysii Opera omnia ([reprod.]) /translatio per Ambrosium Traversarium;Jacobus Faber Stapulensis edidit –per Johannem Higmanum et Wolfgangum Hopylium (Parisius), 1498.http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k543103.r=.langEN accessed September 7, 2010.
S. Dionysii Areopagitae martyris inclyti, athenarum episcopi, et galliarum apostoli opera ([reprod.]) /translatio nova Ambrosii Florentini,... – A. Wechelum (Paris), 1555.http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k52472f.r=.langEN accessed September 7, 2010.
Philosophy portal
Works by or aboutPseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite atWikisource
Quotations related toPseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite at Wikiquote
