1. The collection of works with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite is one of the most mysterious monuments of Christian antiquity. There is no doubt about its pseudepigraphic character, and it is impossible to see in its author that Dionysius the Areopagite, who was converted by the preaching of the Apostle Paul (Acts 17:34) and was, according to ancient tradition, the first bishop of Athens (see Eusebius, IV. 23, 4). This is evidenced not only by the complete absence of any mention of the works of Dionysius up to the beginning of the sixth century, but also by the very nature of the monument, which is too remote both in language and in structure of thought from the artless simplicity of the early Christian era. This was self-evident even as long as not only the ideological, but also the direct literary dependence of the Areopagitica on the last Neoplatonic teacher, Proclus (411-485), was established with indisputable certainty. At the same time, the unknown author apparently wanted to give the impression of a man of the apostolic era, a disciple of the Apostle Paul, an eyewitness to the eclipse on the day of the Savior's death, an eyewitness to the Dormition of the Most Holy Virgin, a friend and co-worker of the holy apostles. The claim to the authority of antiquity is quite obvious, and the question arises of deliberate "forgery". Up to the Renaissance, however, there were no doubts about the antiquity and authenticity of the Areopagitica, either in the East or in the West, except, perhaps, for Patriarch Photius... The "works of the great Dionysius" enjoyed indisputable authority and exerted an exceptionally strong influence on the development of theological thought in the late patristic era, in the Byzantine era, and in the West throughout the Middle Ages. It can hardly be assumed that the obvious anachronisms of the monument went unnoticed. It is hardly plausible that in the sixth century they did not hesitate to attribute the entire developed liturgical rite, including tonsure into monasticism, to the apostolic age—historical memory at that time could not have weakened so much. In any case, it is impossible to explain the high appreciation of a monument in antiquity only by the conviction that it belonged to an authoritative writer of the apostolic age. Rather from its high dignity it was concluded to antiquity than vice versa. Perhaps it is possible to compare the collection of the Areopagitica with the collection of the so-called "Apostolic Constitutions", which in its final composition belongs to a rather late time. But this circumstance was noted at the same time and his authority was rejected, on account of later and unlawful insertions. Such reservations have never been made about the Areopagitics. It was only with the beginning of the new philological criticism in the sixteenth century that the question of the Areopagitics was first raised, first by George of Trebizond, Theodore of Gaza, in the West by Lorenzo Valloi and Erasmus, then by Sirmond, Petavius and Tillemont. However, not everyone immediately agreed with this conclusion; and even in the most recent years there are belated defenders of the "authenticity" and apostolic antiquity of the Areopagiticus. In any case, the origin of the monument remains mysterious and unclear to this day; Nothing indisputable has yet been said about its real author, about the place of its compilation, about the purpose of this "forgery". Attempts to identify the imaginary Dionysius with any of the figures and writers of the fourth and fifth centuries known to us, or with some other historical figure (in particular, with the famous Monophysite Patriarch Severus of Antioch) must be recognized as decidedly unsuccessful and arbitrary. 2. The significance of the Areopagitica is determined primarily by their historical influence. At the beginning of the VI century, they were already in circulation. They are referred to by the famous Severus of Antioch, at the Council of 513 in Tyre, St. Andrew of Caesarea, in his commentary on the Apocalypse, written around 515-520. Sergius of Richen, who died in 536, translated the Areopagitica into Syriac, and this translation became widespread, especially in Monophysite circles, although Sergius himself, originally a Monophysite presbyter and at the same time a physician, took a somewhat ambiguous position in dogmatic disputes, and was even close to the Nestorians. He studied in Alexandria, and was an Aristotelian by philosophical sympathies. In any case, he translated Porphyry's Introduction, Aristotle's Categories, and also compiled a number of independent books on logic. Especially characteristic is his translation of the pseudo-Aristotelian book "On the World", in which he was able to achieve great accuracy and rigor. At the same time, Sergius was a mystic, as is evident from his preface to the translation of the Areopagitica. The name of Sergius is very characteristic as an indirect indication of the environment in which the Areopagitists first of all turned. At the well-known conversation between the Orthodox and the Severians in Constantinople in 531 or 533, the question of their worthiness arose — the Severians referred to them, and the leader of the Orthodox, Hypatius of Ephesus, rejected this exile and declared the Areopagitica an apocrypha, which none of the ancients knew or named... But very soon the Orthodox begin to use them as well. The first interpreter of the Areopagiticus was John of Scythopolis (about 530-540). Apparently, it is his scholia that are known under the name of Maximus the Confessor. Later scribes brought together the scholia of different interpreters, and the diacritics disappeared in the course of time. The code of scholia known under the name of the Most Holy Maximus is a fairly homogeneous whole. And very few scholia resemble the style of St. Maximus. The scholia of John of Scythopolis were translated into Syriac as early as the eighth century by Phocas bar Sergius of Edessa. Even earlier, in the VII century, the Areopagiticus Joseph Gadzai ("the contemplative"), better known as Ebed-Jezu, was engaged in interpretation. From the official Syriac text of the Areopagiticus, an Arabic translation was made very early, also receiving ecclesiastical approval, and an Armenian one, in the 8th century. It is also necessary to note the remains of the Coptic translation. All this testifies to the wide distribution and authority of the monument. Of the Orthodox theologians, Leontius of Byzantium, later Anastasius of Sinaite and Sophronius of Jerusalem used the Areopagitics. They exerted a strong influence on the Monk Maximus the Confessor, who was engaged in explaining the "difficult passages" of the imaginary Dionysius and Gregory the Theologian. For St. John of Damascus, the "great Dionysius" is already an indisputable authority. The Orthodox defenders of the veneration of icons rely on the Areopagitics, as a reliable foundation, already at the Seventh Ecumenical Council and later, especially St. Theodore the Studite. The whole metaphysics of icons is connected with the teaching of Dionysius, and he sings the depth of his theology. St. Cyril, the first teacher of the Slovenes, a disciple of Photius, speaks of them with respect. At the direction of Anastasius the Librarian, Saint Cyril quoted the "great Dionysius" by heart. In later times in Byzantium, very many people were engaged in the interpretation of the Areopagiticum, and the Corpus Aerial Giticum became a kind of reference book for Byzantine theologians. These interpretations have not yet been collected and studied. It is necessary to note especially the interpretations of the famous Michael Psellos (1018-1079) and George Pachymeros (1242-1310) — the paraphrases of the latter, as well as the scholia attributed to the Monk Maximus, in the manuscripts seem to grow to the text itself. The popularity of the Areopagitica in the fourteenth century, in the era of a new mystical revival in Byzantium, in the age of St. Gregory Palamas, is evidenced by a Slavonic (Bulgarian) translation made by the Athonite monk Isaiah in 1371, on behalf of Theodosius, Metropolitan of Serres (in southern Macedonia). From Euthymian Bulgaria it was transferred to Russia (probably by Metropolitan Cyprian, for a copy of his hand has been preserved), along with other monuments of ascetic and mystical literature. 3. The Areopagitics were transferred to the West very early. They were first referred to here by Pope Gregory the Great, then by Pope Martin at the Lateran Council of 649. Pope Agathon refers to the Areopagitics in a letter read at the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Anastasius the Librarian translates the scholia of John of Scythopolis and St. Maximus. The Areopagitics in particular have gained great respect in France, thanks to the (erroneous) identification of the alleged Dionysius with Dionysius of Paris. In 757, a list of Dionysius' works was sent by Pope Paul I, among other books, to Pepin the Short. In 827, the Byzantine Emperor Michael I presented a beautiful copy to King Louis the Pious. In France at that time, few people knew Greek. In the monastery of Saint-Denis, the abbot Gilduin (d. 840) translated the Areopagitica into Latin, but his translation was not distributed. It was overshadowed by the translation of the famous Scotus Eriugena. Eriugena, by his own admission, used in translation the works of the Monk Maximus, which he also translated. Eriugena did not know the Greek language flawlessly, and there were not a few gross misunderstandings in his translations. But on the own system of Eriugena, one of the most remarkable thinkers of the early Middle Ages, the influence of Dionysius and St. Maximus was extremely strong. Throughout the Middle Ages, the Areopagitics enjoyed great influence in the West. This can already be seen in Anselm. Hugh of St. Victor is engaged in the interpretation of the book "On the Celestial Hierarchy" - the mystical theories of the Victorinians in general are very closely connected with the mysticism of the imaginary Dionysius. Peter Lombard looked upon the Areopagitica as an indisputable authority. John of Saracen in the twelfth century, Thomas of Vercella, and Robert Grosseteste in the thirteenth century are engaged in the translation and commentary of the Areopagitic. Albertus Magnus comments on all the books of the imaginary Dionysius. Aquinas also treats them with great respect. In the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, there are 1,700 quotations from the Areopagitica, the Areopagitica and Damascene being his main source on Eastern patristics. Aquinas also wrote a special commentary on the book "On the Divine Names". Bonaventure was also strongly influenced by the Areopagiticus, who composed a special commentary on the book "On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy"... In general, in the Middle Ages, Dionysius was the strongest and most respected authority for representatives of all schools and all ages. Dionysius is traced back to in discussions of the existence and attributes of God, and in the teaching on the knowledge of God and contemplation, and in questions of asceticism, and in the interpretation of divine services, and through liturgical literature the influence of the Areopagitics is also felt in the monuments of medieval art. The results of medieval literature are summed up in his extensive commentaries by the famous Dionysius of Carthusianus, doctor extâticus. The influence of the Areopagitica is very strongly felt in the German and Flemish mystics of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, in Eckegaard, in Ruisbruck, in the unknown author of the famous book On the Imitation of Christ. In a new mystical and speculative experience, the legends of the mysterious contemplator of ancient times come to life again. Nicholas of Cusa is associated with the Areopagitics in his philosophical constructions. The famous Florentine Platonist, Marsilius Ficino, worked on the translation of the Areopagiticus... Luther sharply raised the question of the imaginary Dionysius: he considered the Areopagitica to be apocryphal, and saw in the author a dangerous dreamer. At the same time, Erasmus (following L. Valloy) came forward with proof of the late origin of the monument... But the influence of the Areopagitica did not weaken... Catholic theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries continued to prove the authenticity of the monument (L. Lessius, card. Baronius, V. Corderius, the famous publisher Areopagiticus), mystics continued to be inspired by it – the Angel of Silesia, partly the Quietists... It would not be an exaggeration to say that the entire history of medieval mysticism and philosophy will remain incomprehensible outside the influence of the Areopagiticus. The Areopagitics were the living and main (but not the only) source of "Platonism", i.e. Neoplatonism in the Middle Ages. 4. The author of the Areopagiticus has to be judged only by his works. The Corpus Aerial Agiticum has the following composition: "On the Celestial Hierarchy," a description of the heavenly heavenly world; "On the Church Hierarchy" — a description and interpretation of church services; "On the Names of God," a treatise on the attributes of God; "Mystical Theology" is a discourse on the ineffability and incomprehensibility of the essence of God; A collection of 10 letters to various persons, mainly on dogmatic topics. The text contains references to a number of other works by the same author; However, most likely, this is a simple literary fiction. The letters with the name of the Areopagite, which have survived only in the Latin translation, as well as the letters discovered in the Syriac and Armenian translations, belong to other authors. The Areopagitics bear the stamp of late Neoplatonism, primarily on language. The author has a special, peculiar and very sophisticated theological terminology. But the Neoplatonic influence does not absorb or suppress it at all. In philosophical and Hellenistic formulas, it contains a new Christian content, a new mystical experience. The author is not so much a thinker as a contemplative, and speculative daring is inwardly curbed in him by the pathos of ineffability and a living liturgical feeling. Speculation occupies only a preliminary stage. In the author, with some justification, one can see a monk — in any case, he is a great zealot of monastic mental activity, and at the same time a defender of hierarchical authority. His homeland is to be sought in the East, in Syria rather than in Egypt. The author lives in an era of intense Christological disputes, but he does not dwell on Christological topics in detail, as if he avoids these topics. This explains the popularity of the Areopagiticus among the Sevirians. The author of the Areopagiticus is not so much a theologian as a contemplative and liturgist. To the divine services, to the sacraments, he shifts the center of gravity in the Christian life. And the influence of the Areopagitica was strongest in the later mystical-symbolic explanation of worship and liturgical actions in both Byzantine and Western medieval liturgical writing. However, this interpretation does not begin with Dionysius, but he continues and systematizes the already established tradition. It must be admitted that his terminology resembles the use of the Greek mysteries. However, this language was openly and consciously adopted in the Church from the very beginning, at least this language was already spoken by the Alexandrians of the second century, and after them by the theologians of the fourth... The author Areopagiticus is very well-read, both in Hellenistic philosophical literature and in ecclesiastical writing, he knew well the works of the Cappadocians, apparently of Clement of Alexandria, and not only of Proclus. These patristic connections of the imaginary Dionysius deserve special attention: in his Neoplatonism he is not at all an innovator, he adheres to the already established Christian tradition. And first of all, he sums up it, with a genuine systematic scope and with great dialectical force and acuteness.

II. The Paths of the Knowledge of God

1. The collection of works with the name of Dionysius the Areopagite is one of the most mysterious monuments of Christian antiquity. There is no doubt about its pseudepigraphic character, and it is impossible to see in its author that Dionysius the Areopagite, who was converted by the preaching of the Apostle Paul (Acts 17:34) and was, according to ancient tradition, the first bishop of Athens (see Eusebius, IV. 23, 4). This is evidenced not only by the complete absence of any mention of the works of Dionysius up to the beginning of the sixth century, but also by the very nature of the monument, which is too remote both in language and in structure of thought from the artless simplicity of the early Christian era. This was self-evident even as long as not only the ideological, but also the direct literary dependence of the Areopagitica on the last Neoplatonic teacher, Proclus (411-485), was established with indisputable certainty. At the same time, the unknown author apparently wanted to give the impression of a man of the apostolic era, a disciple of the Apostle Paul, an eyewitness to the eclipse on the day of the Savior's death, an eyewitness to the Dormition of the Most Holy Virgin, a friend and co-worker of the holy apostles. The claim to the authority of antiquity is quite obvious, and the question arises of deliberate "forgery". Up to the Renaissance, however, there were no doubts about the antiquity and authenticity of the Areopagitica, either in the East or in the West, except, perhaps, for Patriarch Photius... The "works of the great Dionysius" enjoyed indisputable authority and exerted an exceptionally strong influence on the development of theological thought in the late patristic era, in the Byzantine era, and in the West throughout the Middle Ages. It can hardly be assumed that the obvious anachronisms of the monument went unnoticed. It is hardly plausible that in the sixth century they did not hesitate to attribute the entire developed liturgical rite, including tonsure into monasticism, to the apostolic age—historical memory at that time could not have weakened so much. In any case, it is impossible to explain the high appreciation of a monument in antiquity only by the conviction that it belonged to an authoritative writer of the apostolic age. Rather from its high dignity it was concluded to antiquity than vice versa. Perhaps it is possible to compare the collection of the Areopagitica with the collection of the so-called "Apostolic Constitutions", which in its final composition belongs to a rather late time. But this circumstance was noted at the same time and his authority was rejected, on account of later and unlawful insertions. Such reservations have never been made about the Areopagitics. It was only with the beginning of the new philological criticism in the sixteenth century that the question of the Areopagitics was first raised, first by George of Trebizond, Theodore of Gaza, in the West by Lorenzo Valloi and Erasmus, then by Sirmond, Petavius and Tillemont. However, not everyone immediately agreed with this conclusion; and even in the most recent years there are belated defenders of the "authenticity" and apostolic antiquity of the Areopagiticus. In any case, the origin of the monument remains mysterious and unclear to this day; Nothing indisputable has yet been said about its real author, about the place of its compilation, about the purpose of this "forgery". Attempts to identify the imaginary Dionysius with any of the figures and writers of the fourth and fifth centuries known to us, or with some other historical figure (in particular, with the famous Monophysite Patriarch Severus of Antioch) must be recognized as decidedly unsuccessful and arbitrary. 2. The significance of the Areopagitica is determined primarily by their historical influence. At the beginning of the VI century, they were already in circulation. They are referred to by the famous Severus of Antioch, at the Council of 513 in Tyre, St. Andrew of Caesarea, in his commentary on the Apocalypse, written around 515-520. Sergius of Richen, who died in 536, translated the Areopagitica into Syriac, and this translation became widespread, especially in Monophysite circles, although Sergius himself, originally a Monophysite presbyter and at the same time a physician, took a somewhat ambiguous position in dogmatic disputes, and was even close to the Nestorians. He studied in Alexandria, and was an Aristotelian by philosophical sympathies. In any case, he translated Porphyry's Introduction, Aristotle's Categories, and also compiled a number of independent books on logic. Especially characteristic is his translation of the pseudo-Aristotelian book "On the World", in which he was able to achieve great accuracy and rigor. At the same time, Sergius was a mystic, as is evident from his preface to the translation of the Areopagitica. The name of Sergius is very characteristic as an indirect indication of the environment in which the Areopagitists first of all turned. At the well-known conversation between the Orthodox and the Severians in Constantinople in 531 or 533, the question of their worthiness arose — the Severians referred to them, and the leader of the Orthodox, Hypatius of Ephesus, rejected this exile and declared the Areopagitica an apocrypha, which none of the ancients knew or named... But very soon the Orthodox begin to use them as well. The first interpreter of the Areopagiticus was John of Scythopolis (about 530-540). Apparently, it is his scholia that are known under the name of Maximus the Confessor. Later scribes brought together the scholia of different interpreters, and the diacritics disappeared in the course of time. The code of scholia known under the name of the Most Holy Maximus is a fairly homogeneous whole. And very few scholia resemble the style of St. Maximus. The scholia of John of Scythopolis were translated into Syriac as early as the eighth century by Phocas bar Sergius of Edessa. Even earlier, in the VII century, the Areopagiticus Joseph Gadzai ("the contemplative"), better known as Ebed-Jezu, was engaged in interpretation. From the official Syriac text of the Areopagiticus, an Arabic translation was made very early, also receiving ecclesiastical approval, and an Armenian one, in the 8th century. It is also necessary to note the remains of the Coptic translation. All this testifies to the wide distribution and authority of the monument. Of the Orthodox theologians, Leontius of Byzantium, later Anastasius of Sinaite and Sophronius of Jerusalem used the Areopagitics. They exerted a strong influence on the Monk Maximus the Confessor, who was engaged in explaining the "difficult passages" of the imaginary Dionysius and Gregory the Theologian. For St. John of Damascus, the "great Dionysius" is already an indisputable authority. The Orthodox defenders of the veneration of icons rely on the Areopagitics, as a reliable foundation, already at the Seventh Ecumenical Council and later, especially St. Theodore the Studite. The whole metaphysics of icons is connected with the teaching of Dionysius, and he sings the depth of his theology. St. Cyril, the first teacher of the Slovenes, a disciple of Photius, speaks of them with respect. At the direction of Anastasius the Librarian, Saint Cyril quoted the "great Dionysius" by heart. In later times in Byzantium, very many people were engaged in the interpretation of the Areopagiticum, and the Corpus Aerial Giticum became a kind of reference book for Byzantine theologians. These interpretations have not yet been collected and studied. It is necessary to note especially the interpretations of the famous Michael Psellos (1018-1079) and George Pachymeros (1242-1310) — the paraphrases of the latter, as well as the scholia attributed to the Monk Maximus, in the manuscripts seem to grow to the text itself. The popularity of the Areopagitica in the fourteenth century, in the era of a new mystical revival in Byzantium, in the age of St. Gregory Palamas, is evidenced by a Slavonic (Bulgarian) translation made by the Athonite monk Isaiah in 1371, on behalf of Theodosius, Metropolitan of Serres (in southern Macedonia). From Euthymian Bulgaria it was transferred to Russia (probably by Metropolitan Cyprian, for a copy of his hand has been preserved), along with other monuments of ascetic and mystical literature. 3. The Areopagitics were transferred to the West very early. They were first referred to here by Pope Gregory the Great, then by Pope Martin at the Lateran Council of 649. Pope Agathon refers to the Areopagitics in a letter read at the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Anastasius the Librarian translates the scholia of John of Scythopolis and St. Maximus. The Areopagitics in particular have gained great respect in France, thanks to the (erroneous) identification of the alleged Dionysius with Dionysius of Paris. In 757, a list of Dionysius' works was sent by Pope Paul I, among other books, to Pepin the Short. In 827, the Byzantine Emperor Michael I presented a beautiful copy to King Louis the Pious. In France at that time, few people knew Greek. In the monastery of Saint-Denis, the abbot Gilduin (d. 840) translated the Areopagitica into Latin, but his translation was not distributed. It was overshadowed by the translation of the famous Scotus Eriugena. Eriugena, by his own admission, used in translation the works of the Monk Maximus, which he also translated. Eriugena did not know the Greek language flawlessly, and there were not a few gross misunderstandings in his translations. But on the own system of Eriugena, one of the most remarkable thinkers of the early Middle Ages, the influence of Dionysius and St. Maximus was extremely strong. Throughout the Middle Ages, the Areopagitics enjoyed great influence in the West. This can already be seen in Anselm. Hugh of St. Victor is engaged in the interpretation of the book "On the Celestial Hierarchy" - the mystical theories of the Victorinians in general are very closely connected with the mysticism of the imaginary Dionysius. Peter Lombard looked upon the Areopagitica as an indisputable authority. John of Saracen in the twelfth century, Thomas of Vercella, and Robert Grosseteste in the thirteenth century are engaged in the translation and commentary of the Areopagitic. Albertus Magnus comments on all the books of the imaginary Dionysius. Aquinas also treats them with great respect. In the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, there are 1,700 quotations from the Areopagitica, the Areopagitica and Damascene being his main source on Eastern patristics. Aquinas also wrote a special commentary on the book "On the Divine Names". Bonaventure was also strongly influenced by the Areopagiticus, who composed a special commentary on the book "On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy"... In general, in the Middle Ages, Dionysius was the strongest and most respected authority for representatives of all schools and all ages. Dionysius is traced back to in discussions of the existence and attributes of God, and in the teaching on the knowledge of God and contemplation, and in questions of asceticism, and in the interpretation of divine services, and through liturgical literature the influence of the Areopagitics is also felt in the monuments of medieval art. The results of medieval literature are summed up in his extensive commentaries by the famous Dionysius of Carthusianus, doctor extâticus. The influence of the Areopagitica is very strongly felt in the German and Flemish mystics of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, in Eckegaard, in Ruisbruck, in the unknown author of the famous book On the Imitation of Christ. In a new mystical and speculative experience, the legends of the mysterious contemplator of ancient times come to life again. Nicholas of Cusa is associated with the Areopagitics in his philosophical constructions. The famous Florentine Platonist, Marsilius Ficino, worked on the translation of the Areopagiticus... Luther sharply raised the question of the imaginary Dionysius: he considered the Areopagitica to be apocryphal, and saw in the author a dangerous dreamer. At the same time, Erasmus (following L. Valloy) came forward with proof of the late origin of the monument... But the influence of the Areopagitica did not weaken... Catholic theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries continued to prove the authenticity of the monument (L. Lessius, card. Baronius, V. Corderius, the famous publisher Areopagiticus), mystics continued to be inspired by it – the Angel of Silesia, partly the Quietists... It would not be an exaggeration to say that the entire history of medieval mysticism and philosophy will remain incomprehensible outside the influence of the Areopagiticus. The Areopagitics were the living and main (but not the only) source of "Platonism", i.e. Neoplatonism in the Middle Ages. 4. The author of the Areopagiticus has to be judged only by his works. The Corpus Aerial Agiticum has the following composition: "On the Celestial Hierarchy," a description of the heavenly heavenly world; "On the Church Hierarchy" — a description and interpretation of church services; "On the Names of God," a treatise on the attributes of God; "Mystical Theology" is a discourse on the ineffability and incomprehensibility of the essence of God; A collection of 10 letters to various persons, mainly on dogmatic topics. The text contains references to a number of other works by the same author; However, most likely, this is a simple literary fiction. The letters with the name of the Areopagite, which have survived only in the Latin translation, as well as the letters discovered in the Syriac and Armenian translations, belong to other authors. The Areopagitics bear the stamp of late Neoplatonism, primarily on language. The author has a special, peculiar and very sophisticated theological terminology. But the Neoplatonic influence does not absorb or suppress it at all. In philosophical and Hellenistic formulas, it contains a new Christian content, a new mystical experience. The author is not so much a thinker as a contemplative, and speculative daring is inwardly curbed in him by the pathos of ineffability and a living liturgical feeling. Speculation occupies only a preliminary stage. In the author, with some justification, one can see a monk — in any case, he is a great zealot of monastic mental activity, and at the same time a defender of hierarchical authority. His homeland is to be sought in the East, in Syria rather than in Egypt. The author lives in an era of intense Christological disputes, but he does not dwell on Christological topics in detail, as if he avoids these topics. This explains the popularity of the Areopagiticus among the Sevirians. The author of the Areopagiticus is not so much a theologian as a contemplative and liturgist. To the divine services, to the sacraments, he shifts the center of gravity in the Christian life. And the influence of the Areopagitica was strongest in the later mystical-symbolic explanation of worship and liturgical actions in both Byzantine and Western medieval liturgical writing. However, this interpretation does not begin with Dionysius, but he continues and systematizes the already established tradition. It must be admitted that his terminology resembles the use of the Greek mysteries. However, this language was openly and consciously adopted in the Church from the very beginning, at least this language was already spoken by the Alexandrians of the second century, and after them by the theologians of the fourth... The author Areopagiticus is very well-read, both in Hellenistic philosophical literature and in ecclesiastical writing, he knew well the works of the Cappadocians, apparently of Clement of Alexandria, and not only of Proclus. These patristic connections of the imaginary Dionysius deserve special attention: in his Neoplatonism he is not at all an innovator, he adheres to the already established Christian tradition. And first of all, he sums up it, with a genuine systematic scope and with great dialectical force and acuteness.

Part 1

1. In the doctrine of the knowledge of God, the author of the Areopagiticus follows the Cappadocians, first of all after Gregory of Nyssa. In His pre-existent being, "by His own principle or attribute," God is unknowable and incomprehensible. He is above every concept and name, above all definitions, "above the mind, and the essence, and knowledge." It cannot but be touched, imagined, understood, named, or comprehended... The inner life of God is completely hidden from created eyes, exceeding any measure that is perceptible and accessible to the created mind. But this does not mean that God is far from the world or that He hides Himself from rational spirits. God essentially reveals himself, and acts, and is present in creatures—the creature exists, and abides, and lives by the power of this Divine omnipresence... God is present in the world not as His being, which always remains unattainable, unknowable, and ineffable, but in His "providences" and blessings, which emanate from the incommunicable God in an abundant current, and with which the existent partakes, He dwells in the world in His "essential processions" and "beneficent providences," in His powers and energies. In this self-revelation of His to the world, God is cognizable and comprehensible. This means that God is comprehensible only from revelation. "In general," warns Dionysius, "one should neither think nor say anything about the pre-existent and hidden Divinity except that which is divinely revealed to us in the Word of God"... There is, however, another revelation. This is the world itself. For in a certain sense the whole world is a kind of image of God, all permeated by Divine powers. And in God there is an "existential prototype" of the world, through participation in which the world has existence. God is known and comprehensible in that His countenance which is revealed and revealed to the world; in other words, God is known and comprehended in his relations to the world or to creation. It is in these relationships, and only in them. Knowledge never penetrates into the hidden and ineffable depths of the Divine life... God is comprehensible and can be described in two ways. Or through a sharp and decisive opposition to the world, i.e. through the denial of all sayings and definitions about Him, proper and proper to creation, and precisely all, each and everyone. Or through the exaltation of all the definitions applied to creation, and again each and every one. Thus two paths of knowledge of God and theology are opened: the path of positive or cataphatic theology, and the path of negative or apophatic theology. And the path of apophatic theology is the highest, and only it leads into that Divine darkness which is the unapproachable Light for creation. 2. The way of contrasting God with the world requires negations. Nothing can be said affirmatively about God, for every statement is partial, and therefore a limitation, and in every affirmation the other is tacitly excluded, a certain limit is posited. In this sense, it can and should be said of God that He is Nothing, άυτό δέ μη όν — For He is not any special or limited thing... He is above every particular and definite thing, above every limitation, above every definition and affirmation, and therefore above all negation. The apophatic "not" should not be reinterpreted and fixed cataphatically, the apophatic "not" is equivalent to "above" (or "outside", "except") – it does not mean limitation or exclusion, but exaltation and superiority – "not" not in the system of created names, but in opposition to this whole system of created names and even to the very categories of cosmic knowledge. This is a completely peculiar "not", a symbolic "not" – the "not" of incommensurability, and not of limitation... Not only is the divinity not subject to sensual and spatial definitions, it has neither outline, nor form, nor quality, nor quantity, nor volume... The Divinity is above all speculative names and definitions. God is neither soul, nor reason, nor imagination, nor opinion, nor thought, nor life, He is neither word nor thought, and therefore is not perceived either by word or thought, in this sense God is not an "object" of knowledge, He is above knowledge... It is neither number, nor order, nor magnitude, nor smallness, nor equality or likeness, nor inequality or dislikeness. He is neither power, nor color, nor life, nor time, nor age, nor knowledge, nor truth, nor kingdom, nor wisdom, nor unity... In this sense, God is the Nameless God, Θεός άνώνυμς He is above all, "nothing of non-existence and nothing of existence," "in everything there is everything, and in nothing there is nothing"... Therefore, the path of knowledge is the path of abstraction and negation, the path of simplification and silence, in order to know God "as withdrawn from all things"... This is the ascetic path. It begins with "purification," κάθαρσις. The imaginary Dionysius describes kafarzis ontologically, not psychologically. This is liberation from all various admixtures, i.e. the "simplification" of the soul... Or in other words, "gathering of the soul," "uniform gathering" or concentration, "entering into oneself," abstraction from all knowledge, from all images, sensual and mental... At the same time, this is a kind of calming of the soul—we come to know God only in the peace of the spirit, in the peace of ignorance. And this apophatic ignorance is rather superknowledge, not the absence of knowledge, but perfect knowledge, therefore incommensurable with all partial knowledge. This ignorance is contemplation, and something more than mere contemplation... God is known not from afar, not through contemplation of Him, but through an incomprehensible union with Him, ένωσις. This is possible only through ecstasy, through going beyond all limits, through ecstasy. And this means entering into a kind of sacred darkness, into the "darkness of ignorance", into the "darkness of silence"... This "procession" is true knowledge; but knowledge is without words and concepts, and therefore incommunicable knowledge, accessible only to him who has attained it and has it, and even for himself is not fully accessible: for no one can describe it to himself... The highest knowledge is revealed "in the darkness of ignorance" into which the soul enters on the heights — "the highest knowledge of God is that which is attained through ignorance, by means of a union that transcends reason, when the mind, having separated itself from all that exists and then leaving itself, unites itself with the rays shining on the mountain, from whence and where it is enlightened in the incomprehensible abyss of Wisdom"... It is not the mind, the word, wisdom, because it is the cause of the mind, the word, wisdom... This is the realm of mysterious silence and silence... The realm in which contemplation is inactive, and the soul touches God, touches the Divine... He is drawn to him in love, — and prays, sings — ύμνεΐ. It is necessary to rise higher and higher, to pass through all the sacred peaks, to abandon all heavenly sounds, and lights, and words, and to enter into the "mysterious darkness of ignorance," where truly dwells the One Who is above and beyond all things—such was the path of the Divine Moses... The imaginary Dionysius gives the same exemplary example of ecstasy as Gregory of Nyssa (following Philo)... In such mystical contemplation, Dionysius sees the source and goal of all genuine knowledge of God. On the heights the mind must be silent, and it will never be able to retell the ineffable verbs heard there. This does not mean that logical reflective cognition is impossible or unrighteous... It is not the ultimate knowledge, and the highest measure for it is that its dynamic approximation should be discovered and recognized. All human concepts or definitions of the Godhead are rather a striving to think... However, they are not empty and not in vain... God is comprehended through ecstasy, through coming out and leaving the world, but this "from" does not have a spatial character... Therefore, the knowledge of God outside the world does not exclude the knowledge of God in the world and through the world... The divine hiddenness and inaccessibility of the Divinity does not mean hiddenness or concealment. On the contrary, God reveals Himself. "Mysterious" and apophatic theology ("mystical theology") does not exclude revelation. This "ascent" is possible because God "descends," is revealed, appears. And it is possible to define the main theme of theology of the Areopagitica as the theme of God and Revelation, as the theme of "theophany", of theophany... Hence the transition to cataphatic theology. 3. Cataphatic theology according to Dionysius is possible because the whole world, everything that exists, is a certain image or image of God. "We know God not from His nature, which is unknowable and transcends all thought and reason, but from the order of all things established by Him, which contains certain images and likenesses of the Divine prototypes (παραδείγματα) — ascending to That which is above all, in a special way and order, through abstraction from everything and elevation above all." This is not an inference from effect to cause, it is not a judgment about God in the world, but contemplation in images of the prototype depicted in images, contemplation of God in the world. For everything that creation possesses, it has through its "participation" in Divine actions and forces descending and pouring out into the world, and only to the extent of this participation does everything that exists exist. In the cataphatic knowledge of God we ascend to God as the Cause of all things. But for the imaginary Dionysius, the Cause is revealed or appears in the created. The creative or causative action of God is the Manifestation of God, theophany. Every revelation of God is a theophany, a presence, a manifestation. Therefore, there is something immediate, intuitive in the very cataphatic knowledge of God... Cataphatic definitions and judgments never reach the most pre-existent being of God. They speak of God in the world, of God's relation to the world, of God in Revelation. This does not weaken their cognitive realism. The basic concept of cataphatic theology is providence, πρόνоια. In the understanding of Dionysius, "providence" is a certain movement or "descent" of God into the world, προόδς — descent into the world, abiding in it, and return to oneself (Divine έπιστρоφή) — a kind of cycle of Divine love... Providence is a kind of absolutely real omnipresence of God — by His providence God is present in everything and as it were becomes everything in everything for the sake of universal salvation and good — God seems to proceed from Himself, — unchangeably and unceasingly goes out into the world, and yet in this unceasing action He remains motionless and unchanging, remains with Himself in the perfect identity and simplicity of His own being. — the same and different. In Divine providence, the coincidence of abiding and mobility, standing and movement, is mysterious — στάσις and κίνησις. This is expressed by the Neoplatonic symbol of the circle, in the center of which all the rays converge, the "image of the mind" according to Proclus... God eternally departs, and remains, and returns... This presence and movement of God in the world for Dionysius does not mean any merging or dissolution. It means, Dionysius explains, not any kind of "change" or "change" or "transformation", but only that God creates everything, brings it into being and contains it, mysteriously embracing everything, and as it were embraces it with His various providence... In its descent to its communicants, God's primordial goodness does not emerge from its essential immobility... The Deity is super-essentially separated, "withdrawn" from the world—here there is the final and final facet, the last gap, hiаtus or trans (the imperishable ύπέρ). The divine powers are multiple and diverse, and Dionysius calls them distinctions, διακρίσεις. But the multiplicity of Divine gifts and actions does not violate the unity and identity of the Divine being. In His actions God has many names, but in the immutable and unchangeable simplicity of His own being He is above every word and name. And as one draws closer to God Himself, the tongue becomes pale and lacking in words.

Part 2

4. Among the names of God, Dionysius names goodness in the first place, τό άγαθόν. Because of His goodness, God creates, and builds, and gives life, and does all things. It is characteristic of good to do good. Thus from the source of light its life-giving rays spread everywhere, so the Supreme Good, with its unchanging radiance, illumines all that exists, and everywhere exudes its superessential and life-giving rays, "the rays of total goodness." The Sun is only a visible and distant image of the Divine and spiritual Light. Light is the image of the Good. Everything that exists strives and gravitates towards this radiant light. And it is only through communion with these radiant illuminations, to the extent of its capacity, that everything that exists exists and lives, inasmuch as it is as if permeated by the rays of spiritual and intellectual light. At the same time, these luminiferous rays can be called "rays of Divine darkness," for they blind by the power of their incomprehensible light—the "unapproachable light" of the Divinity is darkness, incomprehensible from the excessiveness of the illumination exuded... Here Dionysius is even verbally close to Proclus, reproducing the Neoplatonic metaphysics of light. However, this metaphysics and the language associated with it were assimilated by church theology much earlier; even Gregory the Theologian said: "As God is in the intellectual world, so is the sun in the sensual world"... And all Christian symbolism is permeated by this metaphysics of light, the roots and beginnings of which are much deeper than Neoplatonism... Good, as an intelligent and all-pervading light, is the beginning of unity, Ignorance is the beginning of division. And the spiritual light, which dispels the darkness of foolishness, gathers everything together, brings crushing doubts to a single knowledge, true, pure and simple. Light is unity and gives birth to unity, the unanimous rays... God is unity, or rather, superunity, unity, all that is one-making, all that unites and reunites... The unity of God signifies, first of all, the perfect simplicity and indivisibility of the Divine being. God is called "One" because in His indivisible simplicity He is above all multiplicity, although He is the Creator of many. It is higher not only than multiplicity, but also singularity, but also above any number in general. And at the same time it is the beginning, and the cause, and the measure of all numbering. For every number presupposes unity, and multiplicity can exist only within the limits of the highest unity. The world exists through the perfect unity of Divine providence. All of existence gravitates towards a single center, from which the Divine forces containing it radiate, and this is the basis of its stability. This is not an external dependence or an involuntary attraction, but the attraction of love. Everything aspires to God as to its cause and goal, for everything proceeds from Him and everything returns to Him, through Him and in Him it exists. Everything aspires to Him, for everything proceeds from His love, for He is Good and Beauty, and Good and Beauty should be the object of attraction and love... Divine love, like a kind of frenzy, embraces lovers, εστί δέ καί έκστατικός ό θεϊоς έρως... This love is inflamed by God Himself, with a gentle breath of His goodness. In love flows good. Good attracts in itself, revealing itself as an object of love. And this love is the beginning of order and harmony, a simple and self-moving force that draws everything to unity, to "a kind of one-created dissolution"... God, as Good, is Love, and therefore He is also Beauty. For in the universal cause of all existence, good and beauty coincide. The seal of Divine beauty lies on all creation. From the Father of lights, a one-creating force pours down upon us, leading us to simplicity and union with God, and never does the Divine light lose its unity in its very fragmentation, "in order to be dissolved with mortals by the union that elevates their sorrow and unites them with God." And being simple and one, in His motionless and solitary identity, He also creates those who are illumined, although He shines under manifold sacred and mysterious veils... God is perfect Beauty, super-beauty and all-beauty, without beginning or end, without any flaw — the source and prototype of all beauty and all beauties. As the Good, God is the beginning of everything; as Beauty, is the end of everything. For everything exists for its sake and from it receives its beauty, i.e. harmony and measure. According to Plato (and Proclus), Dionysius derives κάλλς from καλоύν, to invoke, and repeats the Platonic idea of beauty as an object of attraction. It is beauty that ignites love. Dionysius describes divine, self-existent beauty in almost the same words that Plato puts into the mouth of Socrates in the Banquet. It is self-existent beauty and eternal beauty, "something that always exists, is not born and does not perish, does not increase or decrease, is not beautiful or ugly" — which, "as being in itself, is always one with itself and eternally is"... In this supreme beauty is the beginning of all existence and order, for it is the one beauty that attracts to itself, and unites and harmonizes all things with each other. Hence all the connections, all the affinity, all the agreement in being. Hence measure and movement, variety and simplicity. Being above all division and multitude, God brings everything to Himself as the highest desired beauty and goodness. Such a close connection between beauty and love in Dionysius is again a Platonic and Neoplatonic motif, assimilated by all Christian asceticism, especially later asceticism. At the same time, the metaphysical "eroticism" of Hellenism merges with the biblical, as it is expressed in the book "Song of Songs", in this symbolic epithalam of religious love. Here Dionysius continues Gregory of Nyssa, who in turn repeats Origen. This is an old and already traditional idea. In Dionysius, it is reinforced by a teaching, also typically Hellenistic, about the cosmic power of love and the cosmic significance of beauty. 5. Love is the power of bond and unity; and, like love and beauty, God is the Provider, and the Creator, and the Prototype of the World. God is everything, not being nothing of everything. For in God everything is contained in its "essential foundations" and "types." God is "the highest Principle of all that exists, the realizing (or existing) Cause, the sustaining Power and the ultimate limit of all." Аρχή and τέλоς, i.e. A and Ω. In God, the creative and determinative foundations of everything (ύπоθέτικоι λόγоι) inseparably pre-exist, according to which the Super-Existent predetermines and produces everything. These "predestinations" are "types," παραδειγματα, — And at the same time, they are Divine and all-good wills or "predestinations": Aελματα πρooρισμоί. According to the Scholiast, these are "the self-perfect and eternal thoughts of the eternal God." According to Damascene's explanation, this is "the eternal counsel of God." This is the image of the world in God; and at the same time, God's will for the world. It is a kind of world of ideas, but not self-existent and self-sufficient, but existing in God and revealing Him to the world. It is like the face of God facing the world. And it radiates goodness and beauty, and these "rays or 'powers' enter the world itself, penetrate it, create it and preserve it, give it life. These "types" are the living and life-giving providence of God, the "essential outcomes" of God... Not somewhere in the inaccessible distance is the dreamily contemplated intellectual world, but the world of forces, a living, omnipotent force. This is the essential difference between Dionysius and Plato. On the other hand, these "types" are not the things themselves, but precisely the prototypes of things or paradigms. In a sense, things belong to them and are similar to them, but as something higher and different (μέθεξις, μίμησις). this is the difference between Dionysius and Neoplatonic emanatism. And besides, in a certain sense, the Divine "determinations" of things are tasks, not only "types" but also "goals"—and therefore movement in the world, an attraction, an aspiration, is both possible and necessary. The world not only reflects or reflects the Divine "type", it must reflect it... The prototype is not only "paradigm", but also "telos" – ώς τελικόν αίτιоν. And realization or "fulfillment" (τελείωσις) presupposes co-participation, "imitation" — Θεоϋ συνεργόν γενέσθαι.The beginning does not quite coincide with the end, there is a dynamic distance between them... "Reflection" and "imitation" do not coincide... For Dionysius, the main thing is that all the definitions and qualities of existence go back to God, otherwise where would they be? And in relation to them, God is not only an external cause, but also a kind of prototype, so that everything is to a certain extent ("analogous") his "image"; therefore it is possible and necessary to transfer the ontological definitions of existence to the Super-Being, as to the limit. The world exists and is because God is being—the very being of the world is in it the image of God. The world lives because God is Life, and the life of the world is a kind of partaker of Divine life. Existence from God is a gift of God, and the first of the gifts. And all qualities are gifts of God. All of them, in a sense, reflect God in themselves. "For otherwise it would not exist, if it did not partake of the essence and principle of all that exists"... "The being of everything consists in the being of the Divine"... And to a certain extent, everything participates in the Divine. Therefore, everything can be affirmed about God, for He is the beginning and the end of everything, the limit and infinite foundation of all. But nothing, neither temporal nor unchanging, fully reflects God. God is above all. And therefore all the names taken from His "providence" are, as it were, only metaphorically appropriate to Him. God is essence and Being; but it would be better to say, the Super-Being... God is life, for the source of life; but it is the Super-Life, for it is self-life, and from it flows all life. God is Wisdom, Reason, Mind, Truth... God is the Power and source of all power and might, the power that preserves everything, and affirms, and therefore saves... By virtue of His providential presence in all things, God is the salvation of all things. And at the same time, God is the Truth, the Truth of everything and about everything, because to Him ascends all order and order, and God relates to everything according to its dignity... Everything participates in the Divinity, but in different degrees and in different ways. Inanimate things partake insofar as they are, to the extent of their being. Alive — to the extent of its life. Intelligent beings are partakers of God's all-perfect wisdom. All these plural names, taken from God's providence, are insufficient in view of their very multiplicity, for God is essentially one. All things speak of God, and none say enough. All bear witness to Him, and none reveals Him. And all the cataphatic names speak of His "powers" and "providences", but not of His essence... In the multiplicity of His "processions" God remains unchanged, and the multiplicity of God's names denotes the multiplicity of His works, without violating the essential simplicity and super-multiplicity of His Being. And here cataphatic theology passes back into apophatic theology. And everything that can be said about God can and should be denied about Him, because nothing is commensurate with Him, and He is above all. But it is above not only affirmations, but also negations, for it is the fullness of everything... And being all-named, God is nameless... And being all in all, He is nothing in nothing... 6. Dionysius distinguishes between the general names of God, which refer to the entire Most Holy Trinity, and the hypostatic names. All definitions of apophatic and cataphatic theology are common names. All providential names denote the inseparable action of the Most Substantial Trinity. All these names speak of the Unity of the Godhead. And from these general names Dionysius distinguishes, first, the names of the Trinitarian Hypostases, denoting the special properties of the Divine Persons; secondly, all the names associated with the Incarnation. Dionysius speaks briefly and briefly about the Trinitarian dogma. But it is not difficult to see that the sharp emphasis on the commonality of all the Divine names is a hidden confession of perfect consubstantiality. The Persons of the Holy Trinity are different from each other, and the Father alone is the essential source of the Godhead. The personal names of the Divine hypostases are apophatic, because the Divine Fatherland and Sonship are incomparably higher than the birth that we know and understand, and the Holy Spirit, the source of all deification of spirits, is higher than every created spirit. The Son and the Spirit are, as it were, two miraculous fruits of the Father's productivity, but all this is above speech and thought. It should be added that Dionysius emphasizes that the Trinity and unity of God has a supernumerical character, for God is beyond measure and number...

III. World Order

1. Cataphatic theology, as the doctrine of Divine Providence, is at the same time cosmology. The image of the world in Dionysius is determined, first of all, by the idea of order and harmony, or "well-being" (εύταξία), the idea of the Divine world... The foundation of this world is in the ineffable peace of the Divine life, which is also revealed in the world order and order. God is the God of peace. Everything in the world is harmonious and consonant, everything is built and harmonized with each other; and nothing loses its originality, but is formed into a living harmony. This world is the Divine seal in the world. It is manifested, first of all, in the hierarchy, in the hierarchy of the world. Hierarchy, according to the definition of Dionysius, is "a sacred order, knowledge and activity, which is as similar as possible to the Divine beauty and, with the illumination communicated to it from above, is directed towards the possible imitation of God." The goal of hierarchy is "possible assimilation to God and union with Him"... "It imprints in itself the image of God and creates its partakers with divine likenesses, the clearest and purest mirrors, so that they also begin to reflect and communicate to their lower selves the Divine radiance acceptable to them." This is the Divine institution. Divine Beauty is above all, it is above all that is sacred, it is the cause of every sacred order. Everything is directed to it to the best of their ability, in order to become co-workers with God, "and as far as possible to discover in themselves the Divine activity" — by imitation of God. The order of hierarchy requires that some should enlighten and perfect, others should be enlightened and perfected. The higher must communicate their illumination and purity to the lower. The beginning of the hierarchy is the Holy Trinity, the source of life and unity. Hierarchy is a step-by-step system of the world. There are stages in the world determined by the degree of closeness to God. God is all in all. But it doesn't matter in everything... By nature, not everything is still close to God. But between these centers, as it were, retreating, there is a living and uninterrupted connection, and all exist for others, so that only the fullness of everything fulfills the purpose of the world. Everything strives towards God, but it strives through the intermediary, through the environment of closer concentrations. Except with the assistance of the higher, the lower cannot ascend to God. Dionysius adheres to this flattering principle very strictly. Thus, order turns out to be a way and an action. The goal of the hierarchy is love for God and communion with Him. 2. Everything was created by God for Himself, i.e. for good and bliss, for peace and beauty, so that everything would aspire to Him and, uniting with Him, partaking of Him, would be inwardly united with each other. Throughout the world, right up to non-existence, one can observe this reciprocity, this attraction, moved and moved by love and beauty. This is reflected both in the external world and in the inner life of the soul. Everything gravitates towards a single focus, all lines converge like reverse radiants into a single center. However, does this not result in a false harmony, does not the existence of evil be seen? Dionysius answers this question, perhaps too briefly... God cannot be the cause of evil. The good always gives rise to only the good. Therefore, evil "is not any being." It has a completely depriving meaning, it is a belittlement, a deficiency, a falling away. Evil does not exist in itself, but in another, and is something accidental for being, surplus, not included in its essential determinations... Evil only destroys, and therefore presupposes existence and good, evil does not create anything and is not the true beginning of origin... Therefore, there can be no pure, unalloyed evil, there can be no "self-evil"... Evil always presupposes good as its foundation and support. The demons themselves are not evil by nature, like the creatures of God; there is something positive in them – being, movement, life... Evil cannot be an independent principle, for then it would have to be unchanging. But immutability and self-identity are peculiar only to good. Evil is corruption and is like darkness; But light always remains light, and shines even in darkness, without turning into darkness. Nothing that exists is evil as such—it is neither evil nor matter. Evil is discord, disorder, άταξία; But pure discord is impossible, the complete absence of species and order is tantamount to non-existence. Matter is not complete chaos — it partakes of order and forms. It has the power of birth and preservation. It is not matter as such, but the attraction to the lower that is the cause of evil in the soul; — and matter in itself does not prevent souls from striving for good. The beginning and the end of evil things are in good; In other words, evil does not so much exist as it "exists", "is present", exists in the other and on the other... Evil is diminishment, its cause is impotence (άσθένεια) — in all evil deeds and phenomena we see first of all weakness. Evil is a certain protrusion from the measures of nature and being, a "deviation from true goodness", an unjust and improper action, a kind of "mixture of the unlike"... In this discourse on the essence and causes of evil, the alleged Dionysius follows almost literally the words of Proclus, whose treatise on evil has come down to us only in a Latin translation, de malorum subsistentià, made by the Dominican William Merbeke, who at the end of the thirteenth century was the Latin archbishop of Corinth. However, it should not be forgotten that the Neoplatonic view of evil was already familiar to theological thought—suffice it to recall Gregory of Nyssa. And the definitions of the imaginary Dionysius, taken from Proclus, coincide in meaning with the definitions of Gregory... In Dionysius, it remains unclear what the final fate of evil is... Will the once malignant impotence be leveled out, will the harmonious fullness of being, disturbed by evil as deprivation, be fulfilled? Or is it evil, even if it is a false face, or a semi-phantom accident, existing by the force of good and for the sake of good, paradoxically enters into the very harmony and order? Dionysius does not finish here. But it is very characteristic that he speaks of evil only in passing, as if in parentheses. 3. At the top of the created ladder stand the heavenly ranks of angels, "an innumerably blessed host of worldly minds"... Their perfection is determined by the high and predominant degree of communion with God accessible and inherent in them. In the pure spirituality of their nature, they are closest to God, and therefore they are intermediaries in His revelation to the world, messengers of His will and His mysteries. This ministry expresses the name of "angels," which is applicable to the entire heavenly world; in the strict sense, it is the name of only one of the heavenly ranks, and the lowest one at that. By their very nature, not only by perfection, angels are higher than man; it is through them that God's revelation is accomplished, and only through them. "The activity of every hierarchy is divided into the sacred acceptance by themselves and the communication to others of true purification, divine light, and perfecting knowledge." The angels were the leaders of the Old Testament righteous, the law was given to Moses through the angels, the Archangel Gabriel brought the mysterious gospel to Zechariah and Mary, the angels preached the gospel to Joseph and the shepherds of Bethlehem... The heavenly world itself has a hierarchical structure, and not all the angelic ranks are equally proficient in divine enlightenment; and here the lower receive from the higher. In the view of Dionysius, the angelic world is a single whole and at the same time a ladder. Knowledge and perfection "in their passage to the lower ones gradually weakens," he notes. All angels to a certain extent participate in the Godhead and the light communicated from him. But at the same time, the higher are the mediators and leaders of the lower, constantly participate in the providential power, and themselves have the light and powers of the lower; but the lower ranks do not have what belongs to the higher... The mysteries of the most heavenly minds are not accessible to us, except to the extent "to the extent that God has revealed to us through them as knowing themselves," i.e. to the extent of the angelic apparitions "that were to the holy theologians." We learn about angels in certain foreshadowing symbols, from which we must ascend to the signified, from sensual images to spiritual simplicity. Images do not resemble the signified—they are coarse; and this sets off the height of the signified. The images seem to hide the sacred with a kind of sacred veil from carnal minds. Our life is not bound by necessity, and the Divine rays of heavenly enlightenment are not darkened by the free will of beings governed by Providence; but the inequality of the spiritual gaze leads to the fact that the degrees of enlightenment are different, and even the communion of abundant enlightenment ceases altogether. However, "the source ray is one and simple, always the same and always abundant." Dionysius systematizes the already established church teaching about the nine ranks of angels, dividing them into three threefold groups. The first and highest triad is the Cherubim, Seraphim, and Thrones, standing "as if in the vestibule of the Godhead," at the very Trinitarian sanctuary, "around God," in the closest, closest proximity to Him. They have access to the direct and unmediated knowledge of the Divine mysteries. They live and seem to be permeated with an ineffable light, contemplating God in a bright light. These are the flaming or burning seraphim, and the cherubim abounding in knowledge and wisdom; these names are the names of their God-like properties. The fiery nature of the seraphim signifies the fiery nature of their love—they are ruled by God Himself. They transmit Divine knowledge to the lower ranks and "are the rivers of wisdom." This first hierarchy, one, one-packed, which is more God-like, which is closest to the first illumination from the Original Divine light, surpasses all visible and invisible created power. This is "God's home and in all things similar to Him." Their love for God is completely unchangeable; and they "keep the foundation of their God-like nature always unshaken and immovable." They possess "a completely simple knowledge of the highest light", "have close communion with the divine and human qualities of Jesus"... They are sanctified directly from God, "illumined by simple and immediate illuminations," and from the Good itself they learn the all-wise causes of His Divine works. And from them the lower learn. They participate in the initial knowledge and knowledge of the "most radiant mysteries," and through this they are pure, illuminated, and perfect. These are the "God-like hierarchy," the "Divine places of God's rest." They have "a more intimate and clearer illumination", simple, singular, primordial, primordial, more integral... The second hierarchy is Dominions, Powers, Powers. Only secondary illumination is available to them, indirectly through the ranks of the first hierarchy... Still lower is the third hierarchy, the Principalities, the Archangels, and the Angels. The order of angels encloses the ladder of heavenly minds. They are closest to the earth, they are like "angels of peace." Angels are assigned to each people, they lead the earthly hierarchy... Here the heavenly and earthly worlds seem to close. And it turns out to be a descending ladder of insights and revelations... It is as if God belittles His insights and makes unknown some of His mysteries, in relation to the diminishing capacity of beings... In the understanding of Dionysius, this is an immutable order. "Each order is an interpreter and messenger of the highest itself, and the highest is the interpreter of God." In essence, the angelic world seems to overshadow God for man. There is no straight path; and this reveals a kind of ambiguity in the Christological ideas of Dionysius. He speaks comparatively seldom of Christ. True, in the Incarnation of the Word he recognizes the fullness and fulfillment of the Manifestations of God, but he overemphasizes the ineffability and mystery of this phenomenon. The Divinity remains hidden after this phenomenon and even in the phenomenon itself. The image of the God-Man was not for Dionysius the focus of his spiritual experience... Dionysius continues the old Alexandrian tradition, clearly expressed in Clement and especially in Origen, sharply colored by the late Judaic and Hellenistic motif of the mediation. Perhaps there is even a certain echo of Gnostic "genealogies" here. In any case, the idea of hierarchy acquires too harsh features in Dionysius. In the name of principle, he corrects even the Holy Scriptures. Thus, he does not agree to see in the seraphim who appeared to the prophet Isaiah a real seraphim. (Isaiah 6:6). Either it was an angel called a seraphim for the sake of his fiery service, or through the intermediary of an angel a seraphim acted, to whom the angel assimilates his action, as the first performer of the Divine mysteries... Dionysius concludes his sketch of the "heavenly hierarchy" with a fairly detailed analysis of the symbolic images under which the angels are described and appear in Scripture. He emphasizes the mystery of the angelic world and its inaccessibility to human understanding. 4. The purpose of life is in communion with God, in deification... For this purpose, a hierarchy has been established. Deification is assimilation and union with God. Assimilation, but not merging, the immutable facet of Divine inaccessibility always remains unbroken. This assimilation extends to the whole world, not only to rational and verbal beings, but to each type of creature to the appropriate extent... Only the highest heavenly ranks have access to the "first and predominant deification"... The concept of deification in Dionysius is sometimes almost dissolved in the concept of peace and harmony, consonance and unity, almost merges with the concept of the natural God-likeness of everything that exists.

IV. Worship

1. The mysticism of Dionysius is liturgical or sacramental mysticism. The path to God leads through the Church and through the sacraments. Divine services are the path of deification and sanctification. For the imaginary Dionysius, the Church is, first of all, the world of the sacraments; it is in the sacraments and through the sacraments that communion with God is realized. Jesus, the divine and super-existent Mind, calls us to the perfect unity of the divine life and elevates us to the priesthood. Jesus is the beginning of every hierarchy, both heavenly, earthly, and ecclesiastical. In the church hierarchy, we are elevated to the angelic world. It can be said that the church hierarchy or priesthood is the highest level in the sensual world, directly adjacent to the heavenly world of pure spirits. In this sense, the earthly Church is an "image" of the heavenly Church – such a comparison was made by Clement of Alexandria... The essence of the earthly hierarchy is in revelation, in the "God-given words." This tradition is not exhausted by Scripture, but also includes oral, secret tradition from the Apostles — here Dionysius resembles the Alexandrians... The hierarch preserves and transmits this tradition, conveys it in sensual symbols, as if concealing the Divine mysteries from the uninitiated. Dionysius emphasizes the motif of mystery. This is required not only by the secrecy of the Divinity itself, and not only by reverence for the sacred—"pure only for the pure"—but also by the benefit of the uninitiated, the unprepared, and the novices themselves. In addition, the beginning of hierarchy requires that at different levels knowledge be revealed to different degrees. The outermost symbols (disciplina arсani) should not be accessible to the outer ones. And then knowledge and enlightenment grow in stages. In the Church, Dionysius distinguishes two triple circles. The first is the sacred ranks, "hierurgi". The second is "the ranks of those who are performed"... The dribbling is passed from top to bottom. The highest rank is episcopal. Dionysius calls it simply: "the order of hierarchs." This is the perfect and final rite, the summit of the hierarchy, the source of power and sacrament. The priests are responsible for education. Deacons or "liturgies" serve as "purification." It is they who deal with the still unenlightened, they prepare them for baptism, they guide those who are baptized, as if grafting them into a new life. They stand on the verge of the sacred rank and the worldly. The presbyters have further guidance, they explain symbols and rites to the enlightened. The bishop alone has the right to perform a sacramental service, in which he is served by presbyters... In the secular circle, Dionysius again distinguishes three ranks, corresponding to the three degrees of priesthood. The lowest order is still in need of purification: catechumens, penitents, possessed. The second order, "contemplative," is the "sacred people," ίερоς λάоς. They contemplate "sacred symbols and their hidden meaning"... The highest category is monks or "therapeuts". They are led by the bishop himself, but they are ordained by the presbyters. According to the interpretation of Dionysius, the name of a monk shows the integral and indivisible, "uniform" or monadic life that they should lead. They must direct their spirit to the "God-like monad," they must overcome all dispersion, they must gather and unite their spirit, so that the Divine monad may be imprinted in it. Dionysius calls the initiation or "performance" of monks a sacrament, and later in Byzantium monastic tonsure was usually considered a sacrament. However, Dionysius sharply emphasizes that monasticism is not a degree of priesthood, and monks are ordained for personal practice, and not for the guidance of others. They are to obey the priestly offices, particularly the elders. Therefore, monks are ordained not through the laying on of hands, and without kneeling before the altar. The priest reads a prayer ("epiclesis"), the initiate pronounces the renunciation of vices and "imagination" (from "fantasy"), — the priest signs him crosswise, with the invocation of the Trinitarian name, tonsures his hair, dresses him in new clothes, and gives him a kiss. Such was the ancient rite of initiation, in which the main place is occupied by the vow... 2. Dionysius speaks of three "sacred rites" – Baptism, Eucharist and Chrismation... Baptism opens the entrance to the Church. Dionysius calls it "enlightenment," "God's birth," or "regeneration." Baptism is performed by the bishop, but together with all the presbytery, and among the holy people, who by their consent ("Amen") seal the sacred rite. Baptismal education gives, first of all, self-knowledge. And for each person who is baptized, as one who enters into communion with God, an integral and collected life, a striving for immutability, is obligatory... Baptism is compensated by the Anointing, which is also performed by the bishop. Dionysius connects the "mystery of the world" with the idea of Divine beauty, which is signified by the fragrance of the world. Dionysius interprets in detail the symbolic actions of the sacraments, his interpretations often resemble Cyril of Jerusalem. It can be thought that it conveys a generally accepted interpretation, but at the same time strives for symmetry and parallelism, hence the sometimes violent comparisons. Attention is drawn to the constant use of expressions taken from the use of the mysteries, often instead of names and words sanctified by church custom. It is hardly accidental, but rather with intention, in order to contrast with particular clarity the true "mysteries" of the Church with the imaginary pagan "sacraments." The focus of sacramental life is the Eucharist, "the sacrament of assembly or communion," as Dionysius calls it. This is primarily the sacrament of union with the One, the completion or fulfillment of every accomplishment, the "completion of union"... An outward sign of unity is communion from one cup and one bread — those who partake of one food must be uniform... In all the symbolism of the Eucharistic service, Dionysius sees and emphasizes precisely this motif. 3. The last chapter of the book "On the Church Hierarchy" is devoted to the description and symbolic explanation of funeral rites. Dionysius speaks first of the fate of the faithful after death — "unfading life," eternal youth, full of light, radiance, bliss... This joy is a reward for podvig and loyalty, and therefore not equal blessedness is prepared for everyone. The path of death is the path of sacred rebirth, the path of "palingenesis." For the resurrection is prepared for all. And in the fulfillment of the terms, the body will also be called to a blessed life. This hope determines the joyful character of the funeral rite. It is curious that catechumens, as they are still external, are not allowed to be present at the final prayers of the burial, at the reading of the prayer of absolution, although penitents and possessed people are allowed. This is because burial is an intra-church and church-wide prayer, a brotherly prayer and action. Prayer for the departed, and especially the prayer of absolution, is a movement of mysterious love. And it is exalted by the bishop, the supreme hierarch of the community, "the messenger of Divine justifications." The last kiss is a symbol of brotherly bond and love. And, finally, the buried person is anointed with oil, as he was anointed at the beginning of his Christian path, at baptism...

Writers of the VI and VII centuries

1. The mysticism of Dionysius is liturgical or sacramental mysticism. The path to God leads through the Church and through the sacraments. Divine services are the path of deification and sanctification. For the imaginary Dionysius, the Church is, first of all, the world of the sacraments; it is in the sacraments and through the sacraments that communion with God is realized. Jesus, the divine and super-existent Mind, calls us to the perfect unity of the divine life and elevates us to the priesthood. Jesus is the beginning of every hierarchy, both heavenly, earthly, and ecclesiastical. In the church hierarchy, we are elevated to the angelic world. It can be said that the church hierarchy or priesthood is the highest level in the sensual world, directly adjacent to the heavenly world of pure spirits. In this sense, the earthly Church is an "image" of the heavenly Church – such a comparison was made by Clement of Alexandria... The essence of the earthly hierarchy is in revelation, in the "God-given words." This tradition is not exhausted by Scripture, but also includes oral, secret tradition from the Apostles — here Dionysius resembles the Alexandrians... The hierarch preserves and transmits this tradition, conveys it in sensual symbols, as if concealing the Divine mysteries from the uninitiated. Dionysius emphasizes the motif of mystery. This is required not only by the secrecy of the Divinity itself, and not only by reverence for the sacred—"pure only for the pure"—but also by the benefit of the uninitiated, the unprepared, and the novices themselves. In addition, the beginning of hierarchy requires that at different levels knowledge be revealed to different degrees. The outermost symbols (disciplina arсani) should not be accessible to the outer ones. And then knowledge and enlightenment grow in stages. In the Church, Dionysius distinguishes two triple circles. The first is the sacred ranks, "hierurgi". The second is "the ranks of those who are performed"... The dribbling is passed from top to bottom. The highest rank is episcopal. Dionysius calls it simply: "the order of hierarchs." This is the perfect and final rite, the summit of the hierarchy, the source of power and sacrament. The priests are responsible for education. Deacons or "liturgies" serve as "purification." It is they who deal with the still unenlightened, they prepare them for baptism, they guide those who are baptized, as if grafting them into a new life. They stand on the verge of the sacred rank and the worldly. The presbyters have further guidance, they explain symbols and rites to the enlightened. The bishop alone has the right to perform a sacramental service, in which he is served by presbyters... In the secular circle, Dionysius again distinguishes three ranks, corresponding to the three degrees of priesthood. The lowest order is still in need of purification: catechumens, penitents, possessed. The second order, "contemplative," is the "sacred people," ίερоς λάоς. They contemplate "sacred symbols and their hidden meaning"... The highest category is monks or "therapeuts". They are led by the bishop himself, but they are ordained by the presbyters. According to the interpretation of Dionysius, the name of a monk shows the integral and indivisible, "uniform" or monadic life that they should lead. They must direct their spirit to the "God-like monad," they must overcome all dispersion, they must gather and unite their spirit, so that the Divine monad may be imprinted in it. Dionysius calls the initiation or "performance" of monks a sacrament, and later in Byzantium monastic tonsure was usually considered a sacrament. However, Dionysius sharply emphasizes that monasticism is not a degree of priesthood, and monks are ordained for personal practice, and not for the guidance of others. They are to obey the priestly offices, particularly the elders. Therefore, monks are ordained not through the laying on of hands, and without kneeling before the altar. The priest reads a prayer ("epiclesis"), the initiate pronounces the renunciation of vices and "imagination" (from "fantasy"), — the priest signs him crosswise, with the invocation of the Trinitarian name, tonsures his hair, dresses him in new clothes, and gives him a kiss. Such was the ancient rite of initiation, in which the main place is occupied by the vow... 2. Dionysius speaks of three "sacred rites" – Baptism, Eucharist and Chrismation... Baptism opens the entrance to the Church. Dionysius calls it "enlightenment," "God's birth," or "regeneration." Baptism is performed by the bishop, but together with all the presbytery, and among the holy people, who by their consent ("Amen") seal the sacred rite. Baptismal education gives, first of all, self-knowledge. And for each person who is baptized, as one who enters into communion with God, an integral and collected life, a striving for immutability, is obligatory... Baptism is compensated by the Anointing, which is also performed by the bishop. Dionysius connects the "mystery of the world" with the idea of Divine beauty, which is signified by the fragrance of the world. Dionysius interprets in detail the symbolic actions of the sacraments, his interpretations often resemble Cyril of Jerusalem. It can be thought that it conveys a generally accepted interpretation, but at the same time strives for symmetry and parallelism, hence the sometimes violent comparisons. Attention is drawn to the constant use of expressions taken from the use of the mysteries, often instead of names and words sanctified by church custom. It is hardly accidental, but rather with intention, in order to contrast with particular clarity the true "mysteries" of the Church with the imaginary pagan "sacraments." The focus of sacramental life is the Eucharist, "the sacrament of assembly or communion," as Dionysius calls it. This is primarily the sacrament of union with the One, the completion or fulfillment of every accomplishment, the "completion of union"... An outward sign of unity is communion from one cup and one bread — those who partake of one food must be uniform... In all the symbolism of the Eucharistic service, Dionysius sees and emphasizes precisely this motif. 3. The last chapter of the book "On the Church Hierarchy" is devoted to the description and symbolic explanation of funeral rites. Dionysius speaks first of the fate of the faithful after death — "unfading life," eternal youth, full of light, radiance, bliss... This joy is a reward for podvig and loyalty, and therefore not equal blessedness is prepared for everyone. The path of death is the path of sacred rebirth, the path of "palingenesis." For the resurrection is prepared for all. And in the fulfillment of the terms, the body will also be called to a blessed life. This hope determines the joyful character of the funeral rite. It is curious that catechumens, as they are still external, are not allowed to be present at the final prayers of the burial, at the reading of the prayer of absolution, although penitents and possessed people are allowed. This is because burial is an intra-church and church-wide prayer, a brotherly prayer and action. Prayer for the departed, and especially the prayer of absolution, is a movement of mysterious love. And it is exalted by the bishop, the supreme hierarch of the community, "the messenger of Divine justifications." The last kiss is a symbol of brotherly bond and love. And, finally, the buried person is anointed with oil, as he was anointed at the beginning of his Christian path, at baptism...

I. Leontius of Byzantium