Aesthetics

Aesthetics and Theurgy in Byzantium

Byzantinisches ArchivBegrndet von Karl Krumbacher

Als Ergnzung zur Byzantinischen Zeitschrift herausgegeben von

Albrecht Berger

Band 25

De Gruyter

Aesthetics and Theurgy inByzantium

Edited bySergei Mariev and Wiebke-Marie Stock

De Gruyter

ISBN 978-1-61451-327-8e-ISBN 978-1-61451-261-5

ISSN 1864-9785

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

2013 Walter de Gruyter Inc., Boston/Berlin

Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH und Co. KG, Gttingen Printed on acid-free paper

Printed in Germany

www.degruyter.com

Acknowledgments

The present volume assembles the papers presented at the round table Aestheticsand Theurgy in Byzantium at the 22nd Congress of Byzantine Studies, which tookplace in Sofia, Bulgaria, in August 2011.

In the first place, I would like to express my gratitude to the Association In-ternationale des tudes Byzantines (AIEB) and the organizers of the congress forincluding this round table in the program. I would also like to thank the DeutscheArbeitsgemeinschaft zur Frderung Byzantinischer Studien (DAFBS), the Instituteof Byzantine Studies at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich and theMnchner Universittsgesellschaft (Verein der Freunde und Frderer der Univer-sitt Mnchen e.V.) for both academic and financial support they provided. Myspecial thanks are due to all the participants of the round table and the contributorsto the present volume.

I owe a debt of gratitude to Prof. Dr. Albrecht Berger both in his capacity asthe President of the Deutsche Arbeitsgemeinschaft zur Frderung ByzantinischerStudien (DAFBS), for all the guidance and support he provided in the process oforganizing this round table, and as the Director of the series Byzantinisches Archiv,for accepting the volume into this series. Special thanks are due to Dr. SabineVogt, Michiel Klein-Swormink, Florian Ruppenstein, Emily Hough and all theother staff members of the publishing house De Gruyter who have accompaniedthis book through the publication process with so much dedication and skill. Iam especially grateful to Dr. Philip Rance for his scholarly expertise but also for hisexactness and patience in correcting several contributions in the present volume.

Last but not least, I would like to mention Dr. Wiebke-Marie Stock, who gra-ciously accepted my invitation not only to co-organize this round table in Sofia, butalso to undertake the arduous task of co-editing the proceedings after the congress.It was through her participation in the work of the round table that the originaltopic of Aesthetics in Byzantium was enhanced by a theurgic perspective, as itwas thanks to her effort as a co-editor that the volume has acquired some valuablecontributions on this subject.

Munich, June 2013 Sergei Mariev

Contents

Introduction: Byzantine Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Sergei Mariev

Theurgy and Aesthetics in Dionysios the Areopagite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Wiebke-Marie Stock

Nikephoros Chumnos Treatise On Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Monica Marchetto

Proklos and Plethon on Beauty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Sergei Mariev

Toward a self-determined and emotional gaze: Agathias and the icon of the Archangel Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Aglae Pizzone

Book and Image in Byzantine Christianity: Polemics or Communication? . . . 105 Barbara Crostini

Transcendent Exemplarism and Immanent Realism in the Philosophical Work of John of Damaskos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Alberto del Campo Echevarra

Fire Walk With Me: an attempt at an interpretation of Theurgy and its Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Lutz Bergemann

Contribution of Church Slavonic Translations to Understanding of Byzantine Anti-Iconoclast Polemics (The Case of the Letter of the Three Patriarchs to Theophilos) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Dmitry Afinogenov

Historical Memory of Byzantine Iconoclasm in the 14th c .: the Case of Nikephoros Gregoras and Philotheos Kokkinos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Lev Lukhovitskij

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Introduction

Byzantine Aesthetics

Sergei Mariev

The first comprehensive work dedicated to the history of aesthetics during theMiddle Ages was Bs tudes desthtique mdivale.1 Even though this monu-mental work was preceded by a large number of minor studies dedicated to certainspecific issues, it is generally acknowledged that Bs study established thesubject as a legitimate field of inquiry and launched a wave of research that contin-ues to this day.2

Some of the most important contributions to the study of medieval aestheticsin the years following this publication were made by A,3 T4

and E.5 This list of major contributions to the subject would be incompletewithout B.6

1 E. de B. tudes desthtique mdivale. Vol. 13. Brgge, 1946. This book is also availablein several translations: E. de B. The Esthetics of the Middle Ages, translated by Eileen B.Hennessy. New York, 1969 and E. de B. Estudios de estetica medieval. Biblioteca hispanicade filosofia. Madrid, 1958.

2 M. C. Aesthetics. In: Handbook of medieval studies: terms - methods - trends. Ed. by A.C. 2010, 14211429, 1429.

3 R. A. Die Theorie des Schnen im Mittelalter. Kln, 1982 and R. A. La criticadarte nel pensiero medioevale. Milano, 1961.

4 W. T. Historia estetyki. Wrocaw, 19601967. This work is available in a varietyof translations: W. T. History of aesthetics. The Hague, 19701974, W. T-. Geschichte der sthetik. Basel, 19791986. Cf. also his W. T. Dziejeszesciu pojec: sztuka, piekno, forma, twrczosc, odtwrczosc, przezycie estetyczne. Warszawa, 1975,translated into, among other languages, English: W. T. A history of six ideas: anessay in aesthetics. The Hague, 1980, German: W. T. Geschichte der sechs Begriffe:Kunst, Schnheit, Form, Kreativitt, Mimesis, sthetisches Erlebnis. Frankfurt am Main, 2003,and Italian: W. T. Storia di sei idee: larte il bello la forma la creativit limitazionelesperienza estetica. 5th ed. Palermo, 2004. Cf. also W. T. The Great Theory ofBeauty and Its Decline. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 31.2 (1972), 165180.

5 Cf. U. E. Sviluppo dellestetica medievale. In: Momenti e problemi di storia dellestetica.Milano, 1959, 116229, translated into English as U. E. Art and beauty in the Middle Ages.New Haven, 1986, cf. also the German translation U. E. Kunst und Schnheit im Mittelalter.Darmstadt, 2002. Some of his other publications dedicated to the subject include his early workU. E. Il problema estetico in Tommaso dAquino. Milano, 1970.

6 H. U. von B. Herrlichkeit: eine theologische sthetik. Einsiedeln, 19611969.

Introduction

Most of these works are dedicated to the history of aesthetics in the Latin Westand pay very little, if any, attention to Byzantium.7 The only two scholars thathave devoted an entire monograph to the subject are M8 and B.9

Taking into consideration that the adjective aesthetic was introduced in the18th century by Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten, who used it in reference to aspecific kind of knowledge (cognitio sensitiva), which he identified as knowledgeof the beautiful, and named aesthetics the branch of philosophy which concernedwith this sphere, it must be admitted that most of the works mentioned abovespeak of aesthetics in an extended sense of the word.

In an attempt to recapitulate a general sense in which the term aesthetics hasbeen frequently applied to the Middle Ages, or, more broadly, to any period pre-ceding the 18th century, H remarked that the word aesthetics in these worksmeans the theoretical consideration of the phaenomenon beauty, with or with-out the consideration of the fine arts, including poetry as well as their explicit orimplicit self-understanding.10 This remark not only identifies two main areas ofinterest on which research in the history of aesthetics has focused in the 20th cen-tury (i.e. on the one hand, metaphysical theory, most frequently the Neoplatonictheory of beauty in the broad sense of the word and its various transformations in a

7 Only T, History of aesthetics, see n. 4, vol. 2, 145 dedicates an entire chapter of hiswork to the Byzantine East. The other works limit themselves to mentioning a few prominentByzantine names, such as Ps.-Dionysios the Areopagite or Maximos Homologetes.

8 G. M. Byzantine Aesthetics. London, 1963.9 Only a few of Bs books are available in translation, cf. V. V. B. LEstetica

bizantina: problemi teorici. [Galatina], 1983. The most important publications in Russianare: V. V. B. . , 1991 and V. V. B. . , 1977.

10 Cf. W. H. Gab es eine mittelalterliche sthetik aus platonischer Tradition? In: Neuplaton-ismus und sthetik: zur Transformationsgeschichte des Schnen. Ed. by V. O L.Berlin, 2007, 1942, 19:Wenn man trotzdem von sthetik im Mittelalter sprechen will undauch immer wieder gesprochen hat, muss man einen erweiterten Begriff verwenden und untersthetik allgemein die theoretische Beschftigung mit dem Phnomen des Schnen verstehen,unter Vernachlssigung wie unter Einbeziehung der schnen Knste, einschlielich der Dich-tung, sowie deren explizitem und implizitem Selbstverstndnis. His remarks explicitly refer toB, tudes desthtique mdivale, see n. 1, A, Die Theorie des Schnen im Mittelalter,see n. 3 and T, History of aesthetics, see n. 4, vol. II: Medieval Aesthetics, but areequally true of the approach chosen by M, Byzantine Aesthetics, see n. 8, which is in factan attempt to write a history of Byzantine art while making at the same time references to avariety of theoretical discourses of the time (the Neoplatonic theory of the beautiful, but alsomathematics, colour symbolism etc.). The aesthetics of B operate with a different concept.In the preface, B, , see n. 9 defines the sphereof the aesthetical as the summa of the non-utilitarian ( ) relations betweenman and the world which lead to spiritual enjoyment ( ). Obviouslysuch a broad definition of the aesthetical leads B to write a cultural history of Byzantinecivilization with a strong emphasis on Byzantine spirituality.


Christian context, from Ps.-Dionysios the Areopagite to Scholasticism and, on theother hand, art and literature), but also, and more importantly, questions onceagain the validity of a straightforward connection between these two areas, which isoften implicitly or explicitly assumed by students of medieval aesthetics. It is in factthese overly hasty and indiscriminating attempts at blending together or superim-posing contemporary theoretical discourses over the actual artistic objects, while atthe same time failing to do justice to either, that most frequently trigger the nega-tive criticism that is so detrimental to the image of medieval aesthetics. Well knownis the negative judgement of B, who pointed out significant deficienciesin Gs interpretation of Plotinos and questioned at the same time the connec-tion between Neoplatonic philosophy and Early Byzantine art which this scholarhad postulated.11 In a different context C once even wrote that Scholas-ticism produced no poetics and no theory of art. Hence an attempt to extract anaesthetics of literature and the fine arts from it is senseless and profitless, no matterhow often it may be made by historians of art and literature.12 It is not surprising,though, that looking for simple replicas of post-18th-century aesthetic theories inthe Middle Ages, especially at the intersection of Neoplatonic or Christian theoriesof beauty and works of art or literary texts lead to insignificant or negligible results,because such attempts not only try to force some preeminently modern concernsupon material from a different epoch but also quite frequently fail to grasp prop-erly the specificity of both the theoretical discourse under consideration and theparticular conditions that determined production and reception of art and literarytexts in the Middle Ages.

This does not mean that the Middle Ages had no aesthetics. On the contrary,the philosophy, theology, literature and art of the Middle Ages not only revealprofound sensitivity to genuinely aesthetic issues, but also develop questions that judging even by the post-18th-century standards can be characterized as aesthetictheories. These theories, however, do not constitute a single definite discipline

11 Cf. W. B. Denken des Einen: Studien zur neuplatonischen Philosophie und ihrerWirkungsgeschichte. Frankfurt am Main, 1985, 93, note 56: [. . . ] ein Versuch, der in derErrterung von Plotins Theoremen drftig ist und der zudem fr deren reale Verbindung zurbyzantinischen Kunst einen Beweis schuldig bleibt. The criticism targets A. G. Plotin etles origines de lesthtique mdivale. Cahiers Archologiques 1 (1946), 1534.

12 In a footnote he elaborated further: When Scholasticism speaks of beauty, the word is used toindicate an attribute of God. The metaphysics of beauty (e.g. Plotinus) and theories of art havenothing whatever to do with each other. Modern man immeasurably overvalues art because hehas lost the sense of intelligible beauty that Neo-Platonism and the Middle Ages possessed. [. . . ]Here a beauty is meant of which aesthetics knows nothing.E. R. C. European literatureand the Latin Middle Ages (translated from the German by Willard R. Trask). Princeton, N.J.,1973, 224 and note 20. The original title: E. R. C. Europische Literatur und lateinischesMittelalter. Bern, 1948, 229 and note 1.

Introduction

or field of inquiry but develop in a number of different philosophical, theological,literary and artistic contexts.

Neoplatonic philosophy is one important context in this regard: the metaphys-ical theory which was developed by the Neoplatonic philosophers of Late Antiquityand the Early Byzantine period provided important theoretical foundations for thedevelopment of a number of different theories that are of crucial importance forthe history of aesthetics. The theory of beauty was one of these developments. Itsfoundations had already been laid in the Platonic dialogues, especially in the Sym-posion, but it was not until Plotinos and especially Proklos that the beautiful wasprecisely distinguished from the good.13 However, Plotinos and Proklos also laidtheoretical foundations for what can be properly called the Neoplatonic aestheticsof art and literature.

Well known and much studied is the Plotinian transformation of the Platonictheory of mimesis and in particular its interest for art.14 In the famous examplewhich is found in the introductory sections of Ennead V.8 the general scopeof this Ennead is an introduction to the intelligible beauty, i.e. to the beauty ofform insofar as it is not some property of form, but is form itself as the unity ofdivine intellect and its object15 Plotinos questions the provenance of the beautyof the statue of Zeus by Phidias and concludes that it does not derive from any

13 On the distinction between the beautiful and the good in Proklos, cf. the article by S. Marievin the present volume, esp. p. 62.

14 Some of the most recent studies include: C. V. La dimensione estetica nel pensiero diPlotino: proposte per una nuova lettura dei trattati Sul bello e Sul bello intelligibile. Napoli, 2009S. B. Antike sthetik: eine Einfhrung in die Prinzipien des Schnen. Mnchen, 2006,chap. Die sthetik Plotins, p. 177192; F. G B. Plotino y la fenomenologa de labelleza. Anales del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofia 22 (2005), 728; M. F. Beaut etmtaphysique chez Plotin: le rle du Logos venu des dieux. In: Logos et langage chez Plotin etavant Plotin. Ed. by M. F. 2003, 301313; W. B. Das wahre Selbst: Studien zuPlotins Begriff des Geistes und des Einen. Frankfurt am Main, 2001, chap 3.1 Geist ist Schnheit: , p. 5370; S. S-G. Le Principe Du Beau Chez Plotin: Rflexionssur Enneas VI.7.32 et 33. Phronesis 45.1 (2000), 3863; M. R. M. Plotinus on body andbeauty: society, philosophy and religion in third-century Rome. Oxford, 1999; J.-M. N.Action, contemplation et intriorit dans la pense du beau chez Plotin. Dioti 4 (1998), 6374;R. P. M. La teoria del arte en Plotino. Helmantica: Revista de filologia clsica y hebrea47.142143 (1996), 2757; D. S. Plotino: Sul Bello, Enneade I, 6. Intr., trad. ecommento. Universit degli Studi di Padova, Dipartimento di Scienze dellAntichit. Padova,1995; D. J. OM. Plotinus: an introduction to the Enneads. Oxford, 1993, chap. 9Beauty, p. 8899; C. G. Verit ed arte nel trattato "Sul bello intelligibile" di Plotino.Rivista di estetica 37 (1991), 1338; P. M. Plotin: du Beau; Ennades I 6 et V 8. Prface,traduction et commentaires. Paris, 1991; A. A. The Notion of Beauty in Plotinusand Hegel. 2122 (199192), 341348; G. M. G. Plotinus and ByzantineAesthetics. The Modern Schoolman 66 (1989), 275284.

15 Cf. OM, see n. 14, 96.


model perceived by the senses but reveals what Zeus would look like if he wantedto make himself visible,16 thus stating that the artist is not a mere imitator ofnature and thus three steps away from the truth, but is capable of having his owndirect access to the intelligible realm. This view positively reevaluates the role ofthe artist and of the art in their capacity to conduct one to an understanding oftruth, which Plato had vehemently denied, and at the same time demonstratesthat Neoplatonic metaphysics was able to formulate theories that explicitly addressquestions of artistic production.

With regard to literature, as the research by C and S, for in-stance, has demonstrated, Proklos is intent on demonstrating that both Homerand Plato may be revealed to us as contemplating the divine world with under-standing and knowledge, to be teaching, both of them, the same doctrines aboutidentical matters, to have proceeded from one God and to be participating in thesame chain of being, both of them expounders of the same truth concerning real-ity.17 In support of this thesis Proklos and a number of later Neoplatonic philoso-phers develop a literary theory which operates with the notion of symbolic mimesisand allows the consideration of fictional literary texts as important aids to philoso-phy.18

The development of a specific theory of art and literature in the Neoplatoniccontext is paralleled by yet another development, namely the theurgic practices.Theurgy is based on the theory of the universal sympatheia of the sensible andintelligible realms. Consequently, that which is accessible to sense perception be-comes an effective symbol (, ) of the intelligible and thus opensanother way of ascent towards the intelligible, which is very similar to the wayprovided by the objects created by an artist or by a fictional literary text. It isnot thought () that links the theurgists with the gods [. . . ] Without intel-lectual effort on our part the tokens () by their own virtue accomplishtheir proper work, wrote Iamblichos in De mysteriis, an apologia of the theurgy.19

The parallelism of the theurgic practices and the theory of literature and art in theNeoplatonic context brings theurgy within the scope of interest of the history of

16 Cf. P, Enn. VI 8, 1, 3240.17 P, In Rem publ. I, 71, 217, translation from J. A. C, ed. The literary microcosm:

theories of interpretation of the later Neoplatonists. Leiden, 1976, 113. Cf. also A. D. R.S. Studies on the 5th and 6th essays of Proclus Commentary on the Republic. Gttingen,1980.

18 Cf. H, see n. 10, 22, B, Denken des Einen: Studien zur neuplatonischen Philosophieund ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte, see n. 11, chap. Suche und Denken des Einen als Prinzip derLiteratur, p. 296309.

19 Cf. I, De mysteriis 96, 12, English translation from E. C. C. Iamblichus: Demysteriis. Leiden, 2004, 115.

Introduction

aesthetics, even though the position of theurgic thought with respect to aestheticsis an issue which is still open to debate.

The reception of Neoplatonic philosophy in the Middle Ages with particularattention to the aspects that have been described above (theories of art and liter-ature, theurgy) constitutes one of the important fields of research for the historyof the medieval aesthetics. At this point, the fundamental differences between thereception of Neoplatonic philosophy in the Latin West and in the Byzantine Eastbecome constitutive for the history of specifically Byzantine aesthetics. While in theLatin West the texts of Plato and the Neoplatonic philosophers were virtually un-available of course this statement does not mean to deny or diminish the indirectinfluence of Plato and the Neoplatonic philosophers on the Latin West (Calcidiustranslation of the Timaios, Plotinos influence through the writings of Augustineand Proklos through those of Ps.-Dionysios the Areopagite, for instance) Byzan-tine civilization, in contrast, not only had direct access to the Neoplatonic sources,but also witnessed several peaks of interest in Neoplatonic philosophy, most im-portantly in the 11th century (Michael Psellos and John Italos ) and in the 15thcentury (Georgios Gemistos, alias Plethon). It is in this context of intensified in-terest in Neoplatonic philosophy that the evidence for the direct reception of theaesthetic theories of the Neoplatonic philosophers can be found. For example,Michael Psellos not only was interested in but also commented on the notion ofintelligible beauty in Plotinos.20 Plethon provides an outline of a theory of beautywhich contains traces of the Neoplatonic approach to the problem, but cannot beentirely traced back to either Plotinos or Proklos.21 The name of Plethon is alsoconnected with the apparent revival of ritual practices at his school in Mistra thatresemble theurgic rites.22

The transformation of Neoplatonic aesthetic theories in the process of con-frontation with Christian thought opens a new chapter in the history of medievaland especially Byzantine aesthetics. With regard to Neoplatonic theories of thebeautiful, it would not be an exaggeration to say that one particular occurrenceor even a fortuitous mistake immensely stimulated Christian interest in the sub-ject. This important impulse was given by the Greek text of the Septuaginta, whichapplied a semantically ambiguous adjective (whose meaning in Greek con-

20 Cf. M P, Op. 34 pi (J. M. D, ed. Michaelis PselliPhilosophica minora. Stutgardiae, 19921989, ii, 115117).

21 For the discussion of Plethons aesthetic views cf. S. M. Der Begriff des Schnen in derPhilosophie Plethons. Byzantion 81 (2011), 267287. For an analysis of the Plethonian theoryof beauty against Proklean background, cf. the contribution by S. Mariev in the present volume,p. 57ff.

22 Cf. especially M. V. A. Plethos Calendar and Liturgy. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 4 (1948),183305. On the Plethonian philosophy in general, cf. B. T-K. Plthon, leretour de Platon. Paris, 2007.


stantly oscillates between beautiful and good) to the created world.23 The factthat the Creation was termed in the Bible did not escape the notice of Chris-tian interpreters.24 The various meanings of the word in the account of thebook of Genesis were frequently discussed in the hexaemeral literature25 and in re-lated texts.26 Even though the exegesis of the phrase And God saw (thatit was good / beautiful) in the hexaemeral texts mainly aims at imparting spiritualguidance rather than developing a new consistent theory of the beautiful, the textsby the Church Fathers contain theoretical elements that are traceable back to Aris-totelian,27 Stoic28 and Neoplatonic theories of beauty and thus demonstrate on

23 Cf. Gen. 1 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31. On the original meaning of these passages in Hebrew,which were devoid of aesthetic connotations, see for instance W. G. . In:Theologisches Wrterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Ed. by G. K. Vol. 3. 1938, 539553.

24 For the views of the Church Fathers on beauty cf. I. R. Good / Beauty. In: The Brilldictionary of Gregory of Nyssa. Ed. by L. F. M-S and G. M. Leiden, 2010,356363; D. I. Il paradosso della bellezza divina. Gregorio di Nissa, In Cant. VI, p.191, 7-9 ed. Langerbeck. Orpheus (Catania) 28 n.s. (2007), 100115; J. V. Gregori deNissa: La virginitat. Barcelona, 2006, El fi de la virginitat s lliurar-se a la bellesa suprema,S. 3335; D. A. : .Athena, 2004; D. B. H. The beauty of the infinite: the aesthetics of Christian truth. GrandRapids, Mich., 2003; A. C. Schnheit Gottes und des Menschen: theologische Unter-suchung des Werkes In canticum canticorum von Gregor von Nyssa aus der Perspektive des Schnenund des Guten. Frankfurt am Main, 2000; P. S. Spirit and beauty: an introduction totheological aesthetics. Oxford, 1992; A. M. The Good and the Beautiful in Gregoryof Nyssa. In: Hermeneumata: Festschrift fr Hadwig Hrner zum sechzigsten Geburtstag. Ed. byH. E. Heidelberg, 1990, 133145; E. V. B. sthetik des Frhchristen-tums. Theologische Quartalschrift 156.4 (1976), 259276; G. M. The aesthetic theoriesof Gregory of Nyssa. In: Studies in memory of David Talbot Rice. Ed. by G. R. 1975,217222; R. M. Lestetica nel pensiero cristiano. In: Grande antologia filosofica. Ed. byU. A. P. Vol. 5 Il pensiero cristiano. Milano, 1966, 151310; Q. C. Es-tetica cristiana. In: Momenti e problemi di storia dellestetica: parte prima dallantichit classicaal barocco. Vol. 1. Milano, 1959, 81114; E. de B. Esthtique paenne, esthtique chr-tienne: a propos de quelques textes patristiques. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 9 (1955),130144; Y. C. Saint Basile et lhellnisme: tude sur la rencontre de la pense chrtienneavec la sagesse antique dans lHexamron de Basile Le Grand. Paris, 1934, Kap. XI La beaut dela cration, p. 131136.

25 On the term hexaemeral literature cf. F. E. R. The hexaemeral literature: a study of theGreek and Latin commentaries on Genesis. Chicago, Ill., 1912, who treats this particular groupof exegetical texts as a whole.

26 Cf. e.g. John Philoponos essay on the beautiful in De opificio mundi, 7, 6 (ed. Reichardt293294).

27 On the Aristotelian theory of beauty cf. L. B. Il bello in Aristotele: fisica, matematica,filosofia prima. PhD thesis. Universit degli Studi di Padova, 2008.

28 The Stoic concept of beauty was recapitulated by Plotinos in Enn. I 6, 1, 2024. On Plotinosand the Stoics, and in particular on the criticism of the Stoic theory of beauty, cf. J. P. A.Plotinus Refutation of Beauty as Symmetry. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 23.2(1964), 233237, A. G. Plotinus and the stoics: a preliminary study. Leiden, 1972 und

Introduction

the part of Christian exegetes an awareness of and interest in specifically aestheticquestions. The commentaries on the Six days of Creation constitute an integralpart of Byzantine literature. This tradition, once established by the Church Fa-thers, was continued by diverse Byzantine authors such as George of Pisidia, Johnof Damaskos, Anastasios of Sinai, Niketas Stethatos, Michael Psellos, NeophytosEnkleistos and others. Although not all of the commentaries on the Six days ofCreation were interested in theses aesthetical aspects, this tradition was one of thepaths along which the reception of aesthetic theories can be traced in subsequentcenturies.

A more intense considered from a theoretical point of view debate againstNeoplatonic theories of the beautiful took place in another closely related context.The Early Byzantine period witnessed an acute controversy over cosmological is-sues, which was grounded in the incompatibility of the Neoplatonic theories of thegeneration of the universe with the Christian idea of Creation.29 These debatesinvolved the subject of beauty insofar as the beauty in Neoplatonic philosophy isconnected with form. And so in the course of these debates the ideas which werefundamental to Neoplatonic aesthetics (beauty of form and ugliness of matter) un-derwent a thorough revision and refutation on the part of the Christian interpreterswho demonstrated the impossibility from a Christian standpoint of thinkingthat God is a creator of ugly matter, and, in more general terms, refuted an ideaof form which is separate from matter, as e.g. Nikephoros Chumnos would pointout in the 14th century, looking back on the long philosophical and theologicaltradition.30 What has emerged out of these debates is the typically Christian viewof the beauty of the created universe surely a commonplace in Byzantium at alltimes thereafter which only superficially resembles the Neoplatonic theories ofthe beauty of the kosmos, as it rests on completely different theoretical foundationsand draws additional support from the authority of the Greek text of the Book ofGenesis.

Even though the writings of Ps.-Dionysios the Areopagite belong to the samegeneral context of the transformation of Neoplatonic philosophy by Christian think-

H.-J. H. Stoische Symmetrie und Theorie des Schnen in der Kaiserzeit. Aufstieg undNiedergang der rmischen Welt ii 36.3 (1989), 14551471. The source for the Stoic theory ofbeauty as symmetry is Panaitios, cf. Fr. 107 ed. S, which is extracted from Ciceros DeOffic. I, 27, 9328.

29 On the subject in general cf. C. K. Christliche Kosmologie und kaiserzeitliche Philosophie:die Auslegung des Schpfungsberichtes bei Origenes, Basilius und Gregor von Nyssa vor dem Hinter-grund kaiserzeitlicher Timaeus-Interpretationen. Tbingen, 2009, R. S. Matter, space andmotion: theories in antiquity and their sequel. Ithaca, NY, 1988 and M. B. Die Weltentste-hung des Platonischen Timaios nach den antiken Interpreten. Leiden, 19761978.

30 Cf. the short treatise by Nikephoros Chumnos on matter edited by K. P. C. . Thessalonike, 2002, 4257.


ers, their importance for medieval aesthetics, both in the Latin West and in theByzantine East, clearly sets them apart and calls for special consideration. In fact,almost no general work on the subject fails to stress their contribution to medievalaesthetics.31 In his History of Aesthetics, for instance, T considers thewritings of Ps.-Dionysios as a further stage in the history of Christian aesthetics,which brought patristic aesthetics to a close, insofar as it collected into a sys-tem the aesthetic ideas scattered among the Fathers.32 Although Tclearly recognizes the breadth of the aesthetic interests of Ps.-Dionysios, his accountactually concentrates on the theory of the beautiful which is found in chap. IV, sec-tion 7 of the Divine Names. In his view, the achievement of Ps.-Dionysios consistsin introducing into Christian aesthetics an abstract concept of beauty;33 how-ever, he failed, believes T, to distinguish the beautiful from the good:Plotinus [. . . ] had nonetheless distinguished them from one another, regardingbeauty as an outward appearance of goodness, but the Pseudo-Dionysius made nodistinction between them, he identified and fused them in all-embracing unity.34

A much broader approach to the aesthetics of Ps.-Dionysios is suggested inthe monumental work on theological aesthetics by B. He sees in Ps.-Dionysios an evident and realized synthesis between truth and beauty, betweentheology and aesthetics.35 The main emphasis of his account is placed not onthe Divine Names, but rather on the treatises on the Ecclesiastical and Celestial Hi-erarchy. Bs analysis of Ps.-Dionysian aesthetics is provided in a chapterwhich bears the title sthetik und Liturgik, as he believes that hardly any othertheology is so profoundly shaped by the aesthetic categories as the liturgical theol-

31 Cf. the literature mentioned on p. 1f.32 T, History of aesthetics, see n. 4, vol. ii, p. 27f.33 T, History of aesthetics, see n. 4, vol. ii, p. 27f.34 T, History of aesthetics, see n. 4, vol. ii, p. 29. The question of whether Ps.-

Dionysios actually distinguished the beautiful from the good must remain one of the centralissues of research into Dionysian aesthetics that is still open to debate. Well known is theposition of S, who insisted on the distinction between the two: Der grundlegendeUnterschied zwischen dem Gottesnamen des Guten und dem des Schnen scheint jedoch einanderer zu sein. [. . . ] Er [d.h. Dionysios] lt Gott [. . . ] als den Terminus a quo des Ausgangesder geschaffenen Wesen, weil er das Gute ist; als den Terminus ad quem des Emporstrebensder Geschpfe, da er als das Schne sie wieder zu sich zurckruft. (O. S. Dasausstrahlende und emporziehende Licht: die Theologie des Pseudo-Dionysius Aeropagita insystematischer Darstellung. PhD thesis. Bonn, 1947, 57.) Strangely enough, P notonly fails to provide an answer to this question in her PhD thesis, which is exclusively dedicatedto the subject of beauty in Dionysios, but seems to avoid posing the question altogether, cf.C. C. P. Beauty in the Pseudo-Denis. Washington, D.C., 1960. This question shouldbe investigated not by contrasting Ps.-Dionysios with Plotinos, as T does, but withProklos, to whom Ps.-Dionysios owns a much greater debt in this and in other regards.

35 Cf. B, see n. 6, ii, 151: [. . . ] evidente, verwirklichte Synthese von Wahrheit undSchnheit, von Theologie und sthetik.

Introduction

ogy of Dionysios.36 It is not the theory of the beautiful in the narrow sense of theword that emerges from his analysis as the main aspect of Ps.-Dionysian aesthetics,but rather the material and spiritual structure of the universe which for Dionysiosis an immediate theophany. [. . . ] he [i.e. Ps.-Dionysios] contemplates God notby taking things as a mere point of departure, but in the things: colours, forms,essences, qualities are for him immediate theophany.37 In this way, Bformulates his central thesis about Ps.-Dionysian aesthetics, which is understoodby him in terms of the in-worldly aesthetic transcendence (innerweltliche sthetis-che Transzendenz)38 and the proportion between the sensuality and spirit (Pro-portion zwischen der Sinnlichkeit und Geist).39 Understandably, B doesnot use the Neoplatonic term theurgy in his account and instead prefers to speakof Ps.-Dionysian aesthetics,40 but the close parallel between, on the one hand, theimmediate theophany in the things which B identifies as the central as-pect of Ps.-Dionysian aesthetics and, on the other hand, the Neoplatonic theurgicpractices, which considered sensible objects as tokens of intelligible reality, revealsonce again the need to look at both theurgy and aesthetics in the pagan and inthe Christian context as closely related to each other.

Even a brief overview of the most important literary, philosophical and theo-logical contexts that provided impulses for the development of aesthetic theoriesin the Middle Ages, and in particular in Byzantium, would be patently incompletewithout a consideration of another context which stimulated the development ofseveral theories which can without doubt be characterized as the most importantspecifically Byzantine contribution to medieval aesthetics, i.e. the theories of the re-ligious image which were formulated and developed in the course of the iconoclastcontroversy.

The Iconoclast Era in Byzantium is the period which extends from approxi-mately AD 680 to AD 850 , even though the first iconoclast struggle began duringthe reign of Leo III (the traditional date for the outbreak of iconoclasm is 726)and officially ended in 843.41 This period witnessed changes that embraced almost

36 Cf. B, see n. 6, ii, 157: [. . . ] kaum eine Theologie ist von sthetischen Kategorien sodurchherrscht gewesen wie des Areopagiten liturgische Theologie.

37 Cf. B, see n. 6, ii, 183: [. . . ] er schaut Gott nicht anllich der Dinge, sondern inden Dingen: Farben, Formen, Wesen, Eigenschaften sind fr ihn unmittelbare Theophanie.

38 B, see n. 6, ii, 171.39 B, see n. 6, ii, 168.40 B stresses that zwischen Erscheinung und Erscheinendem nirgends ein Band

naturhafter Notwendigkeit besteht. (B, see n. 6, ii, 172). In the theurgic contextin the proper sense of this word, the relationship between the symbol and that which it revealsis, on the contrary, dictated by the law of the universal sympatheia and is, therefore, necessary.

41 This broader chronology is adopted by B and H as it allows them to take intoconsideration a wider range of factors which preceded the actual outbreak of the struggle. For


every aspect of life in Byzantium and has been intensively studied from a large va-riety of perspectives. A salient point on this broader horizon of an all-embracingtransformation of the Byzantine state and society of this period was an acute andpersistent concern for orthodoxy, which found particular expression in the theo-logical and political struggle over the veneration of religious images. For a periodof almost two hundred years the question of the veneration of icons dominated theattention not only of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities of the Byzantine statebut also of the general population. Decisions in favour of or against the venera-tion of icons were taken and frequently revoked at the highest level of Byzantinesociety, not seldom by the ruling emperor or empress in person, and subsequentlyapproved with or without resistance at the highest level of the ecclesiastical hier-archy, i.e. at the oecumenical synods, and then even enforced in everyday religiouspractices. Given the importance of this question in Byzantium, it is not surprisingthat the efforts of Byzantine theologians of the period were almost entirely directedat this issue as well. However, it is equally erroneous to consider the theologiansas the protagonists in this struggle, just as it is erroneous to suppose that the the-ology of the time merely formulated theoretical underpinnings for the decisionsthat were taken elsewhere. It would be more correct to consider their activity as aresponse to a general demand which was felt across Byzantine society. The effortsof the iconophile (most importantly: John of Damaskos, Patriarch Nikephoros,Theodoros Studites) and iconoclast theologians (e.g. the emperor Constantine V)were mostly directed towards proving or disproving the orthodoxy of the vener-ation of images in a sense similar to that of a legal expert who is engaged in theexamination of the legitimacy (i.e. of conformity with established legal standards)of a certain practice. The theory of the religious image, which is of interest to thehistory of aesthetics, was formulated insofar as it contributed to this more gen-eral objective. The reconstruction of this particular aspect of the theology of iconsis not an easy task, as it requires taking into consideration developments whichtook place within Byzantine philosophy and theology of the preceding centuries,as the theory of image proposed by the Byzantine iconophile theologians rests onthe theoretical foundations that had been formulated during that time. Just as inthe cosmological debates with the Neoplatonists, so in formulating the theory ofimage the Byzantine philosophy and theology demonstrated once again the needand the ability to transcend the Neoplatonic metaphysics of form, as the Byzantinetheory of icons rests on the notion of the hypostasis, which is not form, nature orsubstance.

historical details with regard to the iconoclast controversy, cf. L. B and J. F. H.Byzantium in the iconoclast era c. 680 - 850: a history. Cambridge, 2011, the most up-to-dateand comprehensive historical monograph on the subject.

Introduction

***

The theories that are of interest to the history of aesthetics develop in a varietyof different contexts; a full understanding of these theories calls for contributionsfrom across a number of historical, philological and philosophical disciplines. Thepresent volume aims to present a variety of approaches and topics within the grow-ing field of research on Byzantine aesthetics. In particular, theurgy in Neoplatonicand Christian contexts is represented by the contributions of Wiebke-Marie Stockand Lutz Bergemann; theories of beauty are at the centre of interest of the papersby Sergei Mariev and Monica Marchetto. Aglae Pizzone approaches Byzantine aes-thetics by looking for aesthetic experience in the literary texts, while the remainingcontributions explore issues related to the iconoclast controversy: An importantmoment in the development of Byzantine philosophy on the eve of iconoclasm isthe primary interest of Alberto del Campo Echevarra, who looks at the questionof universals in John of Damaskos. The relationship between the image and textin Byzantine illustrated manuscripts occupies the attention of Barbara Crostini.Dmitry Afinogenov explores from a philological perspective the fate of importanticonophile terminology in Old Bulgarian, while Lev Lukhovitskij reconstructs fromhistorical and philological perspectives the historical memory of the iconoclast con-troversy during the Late Byzantine Period.

Theurgy and Aesthetics in Dionysios the Areopagite

Wiebke-Marie Stock

Introduction

In his writings the Christian Neoplatonist Dionysios the Areopagite gives the im-pression of being the disciple of Saint Paul mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, butthe truth is that he wrote his texts around 500 AD and there is evidence that hewas influenced by later Neoplatonism, especially the writings of Proklos. His in-fluence on Western and Eastern philosophy and theology cannot be undervalued.In the rich history of the reception of his works, the writing On EcclesiasticalHierarchy is the only treatise that has not been given much serious philosophicalattention. In this treatise, Dionysios deals with the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the or-der of the sacraments of Baptism, Eucharist, the sanctification of the myron (theoil), the rites of burial and the whole system of the church. This text is consideredhelpful in gaining information about the period and context of Dionysios writings,but is not generally taken to be interesting or important from a philosophical pointof view. It is my view, however, that it is only possible to understand Dionysiosphilosophical value if one also considers his conception of liturgy. Though thesetopics might, upon first reading, appear purely ecclesiastical and only related to theliturgy, this treatise is at least as philosophical as Dionysios other works.1 In it, cen-tral concepts from the Neoplatonic tradition are further developed in a creative wayas Dionysios combines them with Christian ideas. This Christian transformationof these Neoplatonic views involves concepts in the areas of political philosophy,ethics, metaphysics, philosophy of religion, aesthetics, anthropology, epistemology,and philosophy of language.2

1 Cf. W.-M. S. Theurgisches Denken. Zur Kirchlichen Hierarchie des Dionysius Areopagita.Berlin, New York, 2008. Apart from the authors I quote in this book, the same position thatundervalues this treatise, cf. E. D. P. Theophany. The neoplatonic philosophy of Dionysius theAreopagite. Albany, 2007, 2; D. C. Formes thologiques et symbolisme sacr chez (Pseudo-)Denys lAropagite. Bruxelles, 2010; J. D and S. K. W. Dionysius the Areopagite and theNeoplatonic Tradition: Despoiling the Hellenes. Aldershot, 2007.

2 In this article, I will concentrate on the concept of theurgy, i.e. topics also discussed in thechapters theurgia, cheiraggia and anaggia in my book (S, Theurgisches Denken. ZurKirchlichen Hierarchie des Dionysius Areopagita, see n. 1); for other aspects cf. W.-M. S.Stilo obscuro? Zur Sprache des Dionysius Areopagita. In: Nicht(s) sagen. Sprache und Sprachab-wendung im 20. Jahrhundert. Ed. by E. A and A. L. Bielefeld, 2008, 135158; W.-M.S. Polypathie. Die Theorie der Seele nach Dionysius Areopagita. In: Passiones animae. DieLeidenschaften der Seele in der mittelalterlichen Theologie und Philosophie. Ed. by C. Sand M. T. Berlin, forthcoming 2013 and W.-M. S. Eikonographia. La pense delimage selon Denys lAropagite. In: Licne dans la pense et dans lart. Ed. by A. V andK. M. Turnhout, forthcoming 2013.

Wiebke-Marie Stock

This text is unquestionably an important source on the topics of theurgy andaesthetics since Dionysios here deals explicitly with religious practice. I will, there-fore, focus in what follows on some important points related to these topics, in par-ticular the concept of theourgia and the aesthetic value of the liturgy. It is clear thatDionysios is well acquainted with Christian tradition and ritual (probably a Syr-ian liturgy); however, his way of talking about these matters is deeply influencedby philosophers of the later Neoplatonist tradition like Iamblichos and Proklos.Dionysios uses both the Christian and the Neoplatonic traditions to create a newconcept of theourgia in which the aesthetic value of the ritual plays an importantphilosophical role.

Theurgy and Hierourgy

Theurgy has been, and continues to be, a topic of much debate.

As vulgar magic is commonly the last resort of the personally desper-ate, of those whom man and God have alike failed, so theurgy becamethe refuge of a despairing intelligentsia which already felt la fascinationde labme.3

For a long time scholars like D have presented the practice of theurgy as a signof the decline of ancient philosophy in late Antiquity a decline in philosophicalthinking after Plotinos. Theurgic rites have been considered to be a contaminationof philosophy through magic.4 Iamblichos main book is characterized by Das follows: The de mysteriis is a manifesto of irrationalism, an assertion that theroad to salvation is found not in reason but in ritual.5 In recent years there hasbeen a change, as some authors have begun to explore the philosophical value oftheurgy.6 However, it is still a hotly debated topic; the reproach of having aban-doned pure philosophy and supplanted it with ritual is still virulent.

3 E. R. D. Theurgy and its Relationship to Neoplatonism. The Journal of Roman Studies 37(1947), 5569, 59; E. R. D. The Greeks and the Irrational. Boston, 1957, 288.

4 C. Z. Die Wertung von Mystik und Magie in der neuplatonischen Philosophie. In:Die Philosophie des Neuplatonismus. Ed. by C. Z. Darmstadt, 1977, 391426, 408f.,426; H. K. Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita in seinen Beziehungen zum Neuplatonismus undMysterienwesen. Eine litterarhistorische Untersuchung. Mainz, 1900, 214; R. R. Luniversdionysien. Structure hirarchique du monde selon le Pseudo-Denys. Paris, 1983, 71.

5 D, Theurgy and its Relationship to Neoplatonism, see n. 3, 59.6 Cf. J. B. Philosophy, Theology, and Magic: Gods and Forms in Iamblichus. In: Meta-

physik und Religion. Zur Signatur des sptantiken Denkens. Akten des Internationalen Kongressesvom 13.-17. Mrz 2001 in Wrzburg. Ed. by T. K and M. E. Mnchen, Leipzig,2002, 3961, 39, 43; A. S. Proclus Attitude to Theurgy. Classical Quarterly 32 (1982),212224, 212; T. S. Die Stellung der Theurgie in der Lehre Jamblichs. Frankfurt am Main,1995, 2125.


Theurgy first became important in later Neoplatonism, especially in Iambli-chos and Proklos.

The word theurgy was used by them [i.e. the theurgists] to denoteall manners of rites, including purification, hymns, prayers, the ani-mation of statues, possessions, the conjuration of spirits, and mysticalcontemplation.7

The main difference between the philosopher and the theurgist is to be found inthe way in which he conceives of the union with the divine. While the philosopherachieves it through his own intellectual effort by virtues, spiritual exercises andthought , the theurgist uses ritual, i.e. rites that have been revealed by the gods.8

According to Plotinos, the soul does not descend completely, and as a result it doesnot lose the capacity to ascend; it must, however, achieve the ascent through itsown effort, and primarily through the activity of thought.9 His disciple Porphyriosis not interested in theurgy; Porphyrios claims that while this activity has a positiveeffect on the lower soul and the common people, the higher soul and the philo-sophical elite do not need it, since they can achieve the ascent through the activityof thought.10 According to the later Neoplatonists, however, the soul descendscompletely and cannot ascend without external help.11 Furthermore, these later

7 D. B. Proclus and the Theurgic Liturgy of Pseudo-Dionysius. Dionysius 22 (2004), 111132, 11f.

8 Cf. L. G. W, ed. Damascius: The Greek Commentaries on Platos Phaedo. Amsterdam,Oxford, and New York, 1977, I, 172, 13: To some philosophy is primary, as to Porphyryand Plotinus and a great many other philosophers; to others hieratic practice, as to Iamblichus,Syrianus, Proclus, and the hieratic school generally. Cf. also P. H. Thologie, exgse,rvlation, criture, dans la philosophie grecque. In: Les rgles de linterprtation. Ed. by M.T. Paris, 1987, 1334, 29; R. M. The Chaldean Oracles. Text, translation, andcommentary. Leiden et al., 1989, 30f.

9 P, Enn. IV 8 [6] 8, 16; II 4 [15], 3, 2227; V 1 [10] 3, 13 (Plotins Schriften Neubear-beitung mit griechischem Lesetext und Anmerkungen, bersetzt von R. H, fortgefhrtvon R. B und W. T, 6 vol. Hamburg, 19561971; Plotini Opera, ed. P. H etH.-R. S. 3 vol. Oxford 19641982; Plotinus: Enneads, with an english translation byA. H. A in seven volumes. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966ff.).

10 Cf. S, Die Stellung der Theurgie in der Lehre Jamblichs, see n. 6, 118, and n. 438441.Cf. B. N. Theurgie und Philosophie in Jamblichs De mysteriis. Stuttgart, 1991, 199;M, see n. 8, 32; H. D. S. La thurgie comme phnomne culturel chez lesnoplatoniciens (IVe-Ve sicles). In: Recherches sur le noplatonisme aprs Plotin. Paris, 1990,5161, 69; A. S. Porphyrys Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition. A study in Post-PlotinianNeoplatonism. The Hague, 1974, 125141.

11 Cf. P, ET 211 (E. R. D, ed. Proclus: The Elements of Theology. 2nd ed. Oxford,1992, 184); P, In Parm. 948, 1820 (V. C, ed. Procli philosophi opera inedita, parstertia, continens Procli commentaria in Platonis Parmenidem. Hildesheim, 1961; translation in G.

Wiebke-Marie Stock

Neoplatonists underscore the transcendence of the One.12 On this view, therefore,union with the One does not seem to be achievable independent of divine interven-tion; the activity of the divine, that is theurgy, is, therefore, a necessary conditionof union. Iamblichos (ca. 245325 AD) is the author who introduces the concepttheurgy into Neoplatonism; his book De mysteriis, in which he is answering Por-phyrys Letter to Anebo in the guise of the purported Egyptian prophet Abamon,is an apologia of theurgy.13

[. . . ] for it is not pure thought that unites the theurgists with the gods.Indeed what, then, would hinder those who are theoretical philoso-phers from enjoying a theurgic union with the gods? But the situa-tion is not so: it is the accomplishment of acts not to be divulged andbeyond all conception, and the power of the unutterable symbols, un-derstood solely by the gods, which establishes theurgic union. Hence,we do not bring about these things by intellection alone; for thus theefficacy would be intellectual, and dependent upon us. But neitherassumption is true. For even when we are not engaged in intellec-tion, the symbols () themselves, by themselves, performtheir appropriate work, and the ineffable power of the gods, to whomthese symbols relate, itself recognizes the proper images of itself, notthrough being aroused by our thought.14

While for Porphyrios theurgy was strictly limited, Iamblichos downgrades the im-portance of philosophy; philosophy alone cannot lead to union with the One,

R. M and J. M. D. Proclus Commentary on Platos Parmenides. Princeton, 1987).Cf. D. J. OM. Platonopolis. Platonic political philosophy in late antiquity. 2nd ed. Oxford,2005, 3739, 124f., p. 39 and n. 28; S, Die Stellung der Theurgie in der Lehre Jamblichs,see n. 6, 95, 113; P. H. Lexpression de lindicible dans le noplatonisme grec dePlotin Damascius. In: Dire lvidence (Philosophie et rhtorique antiques). Ed. by C. L andL. P. Paris, 1997, 335390, 373, 376; G. S. Neoplatonic Theurgy and DionysiusAreopagite. Journal of Early Christian Studies 7.4 (1999), 673599, 579 and n. 25; S,see n. 10, 5456, and n. 15; W. B. Denken des Einen. Studien zur neuplatonischenPhilosophie und ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte. Frankfurt a. M., 1985, 174178; M, see n. 8,31; OM, see n. 11, 124f.

12 Cf. OM, see n. 11, 38; N, see n. 10, 18, 197 and p. 18, n. 11.13 E. C. C, J. M. D, and J. P. H, eds. Iamblichus: De mysteriis. Leiden and

Boston, 2004, XXIX. Cf. N, see n. 10; S, Die Stellung der Theurgie in der LehreJamblichs, see n. 6; A. S. Further thoughts on Iamblichus as the first philosopher of religion.In: Metaphysik und Religion. Zur Signatur des sptantiken Denkens. Akten des InternationalenKongresses vom 13.-17. Mrz in Wrzburg. Ed. by T. K and M. E. Mnchen,Leipzig, 2002, 297308, 299.

14 I, De mysteriis 96, 1397, 9 (E. D P, ed. Jamblique: Les mystre dgypte.Paris, 1966; translation in C, D, and H, see n. 13).


theurgy, on this view, is indispensable.15 For Proklos (412485 AD) theurgy isalso of a vital importance, though his position is more ambiguous than that ofIamblichos since he is also a man of the logos, a great commentator upon Platosdialogues.16 Proklos defines theurgic power as higher than human wisdom andknowledge, embracing the goodness of divination, the purifying powers of initia-tion, and in a word all the operations of divine possession.17

The original meaning of the notion theourgia is not clear; it was probably putforward as a contrast to theologia; thus signifying a working on the gods opposedto a speaking about the gods. However, the Neoplatonic concept of theurgy isclearly distinct from magic: the gods are not forced into doing anything by theurgicritual. The meaning of theourgia in the Neoplatonic context is either makingdivine that is the goal of the rites or divine action that is the origin ofthe activity.18 It is, so to speak, a cooperation between man and the divine. Butthe activity of theourgia itself is ultimately divine.19 The goal of theurgy is theunion with the divine that cannot be achieved through thought alone; ineffableacts are necessary, and symbols have important meaning. Theurgy has its basis inthe Chaldean Oracles which are read by the Neoplatonists as a revelation.20

15 S, Die Stellung der Theurgie in der Lehre Jamblichs, see n. 6, 119.16 Cf. W. B. Proklos. Grundzge seiner Metaphysik. 2nd ed. Frankfurt/Main, 1979,

328, n. 69: Wenn das Ziel des Denkens abstruser, irrationaler Mystizismus wre oder dasDenken durch Theurgie beliebig ersetzbar wre, warum hat dann Proklos den Parmenides- oderEuklid-Kommentar und bestimmte Partien der Theologia sec. Platonem geschrieben, die derAnstrengung des rationalen Begreifens mitnichten ausweichen? R. M. V D B. ProclusHymns. Essays, translations, commentary. Leiden, Boston, and Kln, 2001, chapter IV The The-ory behind Theurgy, 6685; T. S. Theurgie. In: Historisches Wrterbuch fr Philosophie.Vol. 10. 1998, 11801183, 1180ff. Cf. A. J. F. Contemplation philosophique et artthurgique chez Proclus. In: tudes de philosophie grecque. Paris, 1971, 585596; S, seen. 6; N, see n. 10, 19.

17 P, Theol. Plat. I 25, 113, 510 (H. S and L. W, eds. Thologie pla-tonicienne. Paris, 19681987). English translation, slightly modified D, Theurgy and itsRelationship to Neoplatonism, see n. 3, 61. Cf. S, see n. 6, 219.

18 Cf. V D B, see n. 16, 67; M, see n. 8, 22; OM, see n. 11, 129; S,Die Stellung der Theurgie in der Lehre Jamblichs, see n. 6, 116 and n. 426; B, see n. 7,111f. E. R. D. Die Griechen und das Irrationale. Darmstadt, 1970, 159; H. P. E.Untersuchungen zu Gebet und Gottesverehrung der Neuplatoniker. Kln, 1967, 51f. A. L.Pagan theurgy and christian sacramentalism in Denys the Areopagite. The Journal of TheologicalStudies 37.2 (1986), 432438, 434; S, Die Stellung der Theurgie in der Lehre Jamblichs,see n. 6, 198206; S, Theurgie, see n. 16, 1180ff. M, see n. 8, 26f.

19 Cf. I, dM I 12, 41, 411 (D P, Jamblique: Les mystre dgypte, see n. 14;C, D, and H, see n. 13). Cf. L, Pagan theurgy and christian sacra-mentalism in Denys the Areopagite, see n. 18, 433; S, Die Stellung der Theurgie in derLehre Jamblichs, see n. 6, 97; J. T. LUn et lme selon Proclus. Paris, 1972, 175.

20 Cf. P, In Tim. I 408, 12f.: pi ; In Tim. I 318, 22 (E. D,ed. Proclus: In Platonis Timaeum commentaria. Vol. IIII. Leipzig, 19031906). Cf. H,

Wiebke-Marie Stock

In the treatise On ecclesiastical hierarchy, Dionysios also uses the notions oftheourgia, theourgikos and theourgos, but he never speaks of a theurgic art (theurgiktechn) or a theurgist (theurgos).21 The hierarchy, that is the whole order of thechurch, is part of theurgic activity:

Our hierarchy consists of an inspired, divine, and divinely workedunderstanding, activity and perfection. ( pi ).22

Though Dionysios is, in some ways, close to the pagan Neoplatonists, in his texttheourgia never designates the ritual as it does in pagan theurgy. The liturgy inDionysios texts is referred to as hierourgia, a holy action.23 According to Dionysios,theourgia is the divine activity, but not, as in pagan Neoplatonism, in the sense ofan activity of the divine or of one god, but rather in the sense of the work of God,the work of a personal God.24

Though theurgy never designates the liturgy, the link between theurgy andliturgy is very close. Dionysios writes in his reflection on the Eucharist:

Thologie, exgse, rvlation, criture, dans la philosophie grecque, see n. 8, 30 and n. 76.Cf. V D B, see n. 16, 67; M. H. Sprachphilosophie und Namenmagie imNeuplatonismus. Mit einem Exkurs zu Demokrit B 142. Meisenheim am Glan, 1979, 12f.H, Thologie, exgse, rvlation, criture, dans la philosophie grecque, see n. 8, 2628;E. D P. Notice. In: Oracles Chaldaques, avec un choix de commentaires anciens. Ed. byE. D P. Paris, 1971, 757; M, see n. 8.

21 There has been a discussion concerning Dionysios relation to pagan theurgy, cf. P. R.Iamblichus and the Anagogical Method in Pseudo-Dionysian Liturgical Theology. Studia Pa-tristica 17.1 (1982), 453460, 456; P. R. Biblical and liturgical symbols within the Pseudo-Dionysian Synthesis. Toronto, 1984; L, Pagan theurgy and christian sacramentalism inDenys the Areopagite, see n. 18; S, see n. 11; B, see n. 7. I have already discussed thesearticles in S, Theurgisches Denken. Zur Kirchlichen Hierarchie des Dionysius Areopagita,see n. 1, 152171, Chapter theourgia. Another author who underlines the close connectionbetween Iamblichos and Dionysios is P. S. Pagan and Christian Theurgies: Iamblichus,Pseudo-Dionysius, Religion and Magic in Late Antiquity. The Ancient World 32.1 (2001), 2538.

22 EH 63, 3f. (369A; translation in L, R, and R); Dionysios works are quotedwith the following abbreviations: Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (EH); Celestial Hierarchy (CH); Di-vine Names (DN); translations either by L, R, and R or by myself ); B. R.S, ed. Corpus Dionysiacum I: De Divinis Nominibus. Patristische Texte und Studien 33.Berlin, New York, 1990; G. H and A. M. R, eds. Corpus Dionysiacum II: De coelestishierarchia, De ecclesiastica hierarchie, De mystica theologia, Epistulae. Patristische Texte und Stu-dien 36. Berlin, New York, 1991; C. L, P. R, and R. R. Pseudo-Dionysius:The Complete Works. New York, 1987.

23 G. L. A patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford, 1961, 671. Cf. D and W, see n. 1, 100f.24 Cf. DN 130, 5.7.10 (644C); CH 23, 3 (181B); EH 83, 20 (429C); EH 92, 6 (441C).


In this way the hierarch is at one with the divine reality, and havingsung the praises of Gods sacred works ( ) he sa-credly performs the most divine acts ( ) and liftsthe praised things into view. ( pi ).25

These works of God for us, those works of God directed to us ( )26 are the works of God in the history of salvation.27 The theourgiareaches into the celebration of liturgy that is based on it. Therefore, in these hi-erourgiai that is in these images of divine power28 the divine action is con-tinued.29 The celebration of liturgy is a remembrance of the divine actions, and itrenews them:

This imitation of God, how else are we to achieve it if not by re-membrance of Gods sacred works that are renewed in the hierarchicalholy words and holy works? ( pi )30

In the hierourgia, theourgia is not only remembered, praised and celebrated31,theurgy propagates itself in it. Hierourgia is the continuation of theourgia towardsmen, an extension that works theurgically; hierourgia is the ritual engagementwith and reproduction of theourgia.32

Both Christian liturgy and pagan theurgy are based on symbols. Symbols arethe essential ingredient in the theurgical ritual; the theurgist has to perform in-effable acts; he has to use symbols or signs synthmata images of the gods thatcan produce the union when handled correctly; some of these symbols are naturalthings, animals, plants, stones; but images, names, music, numbers can also serveas symbols.33 And these signs are said to have been sown into the cosmos by the

25 EH 90, 9f. (440B) (L, R, and R). Cf. EH 81, 6f. (425D).26 EH 90, 11 (440C) (translation is mine, Stock).27 Cf. EH 90, 1192, 1 (440C441B). Cf. L, Pagan theurgy and christian sacramentalism

in Denys the Areopagite, see n. 18, 435.28 EH 107, 2123 (505B) (Stock).29 Cf. EH 103, 21ff. (485B). Cf. Y. D A. Symbole et mystre selon Denys lAropagite.

Studia Patristica 37 (2001), 421451, 423.30 EH 92, 24 (441C) (translation is mine, Stock).31 Cf. EH 113, 2024 (513C).32 D and W, see n. 1, 100.33 V D B, see n. 16, 79 and 74. Concerning symbolon and synthma, cf. S, Die

Stellung der Theurgie in der Lehre Jamblichs, see n. 6, 128138; W. M. . Wort-

Wiebke-Marie Stock

gods. The basis for this idea can be found in the Chaldean Oracles, where it is said:The Intellect of the father has sown symbola into the cosmos.34 The symbols aredivine, and represent the seeds of the gods; they, therefore, have a link sympatheiaor philia to the divine. Entities on a lower level are described as or of the corresponding items on a higher level. Thus they can also beused in forming and animating statues as well as in achieving union.35

Dionysios speaks of images and symbols (especially eikn, symbolon, but alsoagalma and synthma) in his treatises; but while in his other texts, he is interestedin biblical symbols (names of God, of the angels), in the Ecclesiastical hierarchythe symbols are material: bread, wine, oil, gestures etc. The divine shows itselfin matter like in pagan theurgy, and the symbols allow man to participate in thedivine.36 But there is an important difference between the theurgy discussed inDionysios writings and pagan theurgy. In pagan Neoplatonism, the symbols aredivine since they represent the seeds of the gods; they have a link sympatheiaor philia to the divine. In Dionysios, however, the symbols are not holy inthemselves, but only in and through the liturgy.37 There is an inbreaking38 ofthe divine; bread and wine become a symbol in a specific moment of liturgy, theyare not holy in themselves. This idea breaks the laws of the sympatheia.39 Thecentral theurgia, the incarnation, is a break in the order of the cosmos, not thefulfilling of its hidden laws.

und sachgeschichtliche Studie. In: Griechische Studien. Ausgewhlte Wort- und sachgeschichtlicheForschungen zur Antike. Basel, 1976, 144, esp. 3134 and 3744; S. M-O. Symbol.I. Antike, Mittelalter, Neuzeit. In: Historisches Wrterbuch fr Philosophie. Vol. 10. 1998, 710723.

34 Chaldean Oracles, fr. 108: pi pi (ed. M).Cf. T, see n. 19, 179.

35 S, see n. 6, 220. Cf. B, see n. 7, 116. S. R. Reading Neoplatonism. Non-discursive Thinking in the Texts of Plotinus, Proclus, and Damascius. Cambridge, 2000, 12.Concerning philia and sympatheia cf. Iamblichos, dM III 16, 137, 15138, 5; I 12, 42, 6(D P, Jamblique: Les mystre dgypte, see n. 14; C, D, and H, seen. 13). Cf. N, see n. 10, 105121. While Iamblichos distinguishes between - (within the cosmos) and (a link to the divine), Proklos uses both terms for the linkto the divine. Cf. N, see n. 10, 123f. V D B, see n. 16, 73; S, see n. 21,28.

36 Cf. J. H. Plotin und der Neuplatonismus. Mnchen, 2004, 150.37 Cf. A. L. The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition. From Plato to Denys. Oxford,

1981, 164; S, see n. 11, 584, 597; B, see n. 7, 127.38 M, see n. 8, 24.39 F. G. Bild und Gtterstatuen im Neuplatonismus. In: Handbuch der Bildtheologie. Bd.

I: Bild-Konflikte. Ed. by R. H. Paderborn, 2007, 81119, 109; cf. T, see n. 19,179.


Body and soul

The relation of the soul to the body is a central problem in the Platonic tradition.Materiality and corporeality hinder the soul on its way to intellection and unionwith the One; and the true being of man is the soul.40 In late Neoplatonism, theseparation of the soul from the body is still the ultimate goal, but man is nowconsidered to be a of body and soul, the body does not only hinderthe soul, but it can be a tool for the soul.41

For Iamblichus, however, the descent of soul into body usually re-sulted in an embodied condition that was of profound significancefor the soul. If certain souls can remain pure in their descent into thebody souls such as that of Pythagoras retaining thus their relationto transcendent divine being, many others lose this relation: they de-scend entirely and their embodied state becomes constitutive of theiridentity. This means for them that materiality is of much greater sig-nificance in the question of the divinization or salvation of the soul.42

Despite the fact that the material world and the body are not construed as evil, butrather as a tool for the soul, the separation of the soul from the body still is the finalgoal.

Dionysios reflections upon body and soul are different. Since he belongs tothe Christian tradition in which the resurrection of the body is a central tenet, itsseparation of the soul cannot be the final aim.43 In the last chapter of On Ecclesi-astical Hierarchy, Dionysios presents the rites of burial and discusses conceptionsof man and life after death. According to some philosophers, upon death the souljust dies along with the body, according to others it becomes separated from body,and some maintain that the soul is reincarnated. Views of this sort, says Dionysios,are unjust towards the body as it has fought alongside the soul and thus deserve tobe rewarded at the end of this race.44

40 Cf. (Ps.-)P, Alc. I 129a130c (G. E, ed. Platon: Werke in acht Bnden, griechischund deutsch. Darmstadt, 1990); P, Vita Plotini 1, 1f. (ed. H, B, andT). Cf. N, see n. 10, 210; P. H. Neoplatonist Spirituality I. Plotinusand Porphyr. In: Classical Mediterranean Spirituality. Egyptian, Greek, Roman. Ed. by A. H.A. New York, 1989, 230249, 231.

41 Cf. N, see n. 10, 212; OM, see n. 11, 125; N, see n. 10, 213.42 OM, see n. 11, 124f.43 Cf. S. L. Introduzione. In: Pseudo-Dionigi lAreopagita: La Gerarchia ecclesiastica. Roma,

2002, 540, 37.44 EH 121, 1017 (553BC). Cf. R, Lunivers dionysien. Structure hirarchique du monde

selon le Pseudo-Denys, see n. 4, 191f. G. H. Anmerkungen zu ber die kirchliche Hierarchie.In: Dionysius Areopagita: ber die himmlische Hierarchie. ber die kirchliche Hierarchie. Ed. byG. H. Stuttgart, 1986, 179, n. 46.

Wiebke-Marie Stock

If the deceased lived, body and soul, a life pleasing to God, his bodywill deserve to have a share of the honors bestowed on the soul whichwas its companion in the sacred struggle. That is why divine justicelinks the body with the soul when final judgment is rendered to thesoul, for the body also took part in the same journey along the roadof holiness or impiety.45

The body fought with the soul and it walked along the same road, therefore it mustbe rewarded. On this view, body and soul together receive a life in perfection andimmortality, an idea that seems to be inconceivable for the pagan authors.46

Hence the blessed ordinance grant divine communion to both theone and the other [i.e. body and soul]. They do so for the soul byway of pure contemplation, together with the understanding of sacredrites. And they do so for the body by way of the imagery of the mostdivine ointment and through the most sacred symbol of the divinecommunion.47

In every sacrament soul and body are treated, and the sacramental efficacy is basedon this corporeal participation, contemplation alone could not guarantee this ef-fect. Contemplation and understanding are important, even vital, but the reflec-tion on the baptism of children shows that in this marginal case it is not necessaryfor the participant to understand the meaning of the rites. Though the reflectionson the baptism of children might appear as an appendix, the problem Dionysiostreats here is of vital importance for the whole conception of liturgy. When he

45 EH 129, 2428 (565B) (L, R, and R): , . pi .

46 Cf. DN 191, 15192, 5 (856D); EH 121, 1721 (553C). Cf. R, Lunivers dionysien.Structure hirarchique du monde selon le Pseudo-Denys, see n. 4, 192. Surprisingly W thinksthat the body is excluded from salvation (K. P. W. Christological doctrine and liturgicalinterpretation in Pseudo-Dionysius. St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 33 (1989), 5373, 72;K. P. W. Appendix. A Reply to Hieromonk Alexanders Reply. St Vladimirs TheologicalQuarterly 34 (1990), 324327, 327).

47 EH 129, 29130, 5 (565BC) (L, R, and R): , pi , , pi .


discusses the rites of burial and the baptism of children he develops the basis forthe conception of sacramental efficacy.48

Images and symbols

If man is considered to be a unity of soul and body he is not capable of a di-rect intelligence of god, he needs the mediation of the sensible and of the body.49

Dionysios speaks of a cheiraggia, of a hand tended towards man in order to guidehim upwards.50 This cheiraggia consists above all in symbols and images used inthe Scriptures (names of God and the angels) and in the ecclesiastical hierarchy;the whole ceremony and all of its parts are images. He says: our own hierarchy isitself symbolical and adapted to what we are.51

In the treatise On divine names Dionysios speaks of sacred veils and a cov-ering of the truth, of clothing that hides in things with shape and form thingswhich have neither.52 Symbolic tradition represents an adaptation that allowsthese concepts to be conveyed to men who do not possess the capacity to under-stand what is beyond form and being. The understanding has to be led to thesetruths gradually; symbols and images are veils that present the divine light in manycolours, which have been adapted to human eyes. If it were not done in this way,

48 Cf. S, Theurgisches Denken. Zur Kirchlichen Hierarchie des Dionysius Areopagita, see n. 1,chapter Vollzug und Verstndnis, 202210. Cf. E. D. P. Symbol, Sacrament, and Hi-erarchy in Saint Dionysios the Areopagite. The Greek orthodox theological review 39 (1994),311356, 340f. L, Pagan theurgy and christian sacramentalism in Denys the Areopagite,see n. 18, 438. Therefore, I see no reason to think like D and W and B that thispassage is just an addition (B. B. Sekundre Textpartien im Corpus Pseudo-Dionysiacum?Literarkritische Beobachtungen zu ausgewhlten Textstellen. Gttingen, 1975, 102110, esp. p.103, n. 4; D and W, see n. 1, 8 and n. 34). R criticises D and W (T.R. Eros as Hierarchical Principle: A Re-evaluation of Dionysius Neoplatonism. Dionysius27 (2009), 7196, 76f.), and so does D (F. D. Methexis, Rationalitt und Mystik inder Kirchlichen Hierarchie des Dionysius Areopagita. Berlin, 2011, 325, n. 724).

49 Cf. D A, see n. 29, 450; C.-A. B. Les formes de la Thologie chez DenyslAropagite. Gregorianum 59 (1978), 3969, 63; C.-A. B. La triple forme du dis-cours thologique dionysien au moyen ge. In: Denys lAropagite et sa postriorit en Orient eten Occident. Actes du Colloque International, Paris, 2124 septembre 1994. Ed. by Y. D A.Paris, 1997, 503515; R. R. Introduction. In: Denys lAropagite: La hirarchie cleste.Ed. by M. de G. SC 58. Paris, 1958, VXLVIII, XXI; R, Lunivers dionysien.Structure hirarchique du monde selon le Pseudo-Denys, see n. 4, 174.

50 Cf. O. S. Das ausstrahlende und emporziehende Licht. Die Theologie des Pseudo-Dionysius in systematischer Darstellung. Dissertation. Bonn, 1947, 230.

51 EH 68, 24 (377A) (L, R, and R). Cf. S, Theurgisches Denken. ZurKirchlichen Hierarchie des Dionysius Areopagita, see n. 1, 178186.

52 DN 114, 17 (592B) (L, R, and R).

Wiebke-Marie Stock

one would be blinded as if one had stared into a bright light. Hereby, the eyes aresupposed to get used to the light slowly in order to reach higher understanding.53

And so, using images derived from the senses they [i.e. the first leadersof our hierarchy] spoke of the transcendent. They passed on some-thing united in a variegation and plurality. Of necessity they madehuman what was divine. They put material on what was immaterial.In their written and unwritten initiations, they brought the transcen-dent down to our level.54

All the images and symbols are means by which we are guided upwards:

For it is quite impossible that we humans should, in any immaterialway, rise up to imitate and to contemplate the heavenly hierarchieswithout the aid of those material means capable of guiding us as ournature requires. Hence, any thinking person realizes that the appear-ances of beauty are signs of an invisible loveliness.55

The aim of the use of symbols is anagogy, the uplifting of the soul. Since Diony-sios speaks of different images and symbols (eikones, symbola) in his treatises, therehas arisen a debate about whether their manner of uplifting is the same in all thecontexts. There are images that are names of God or of the angels, names thatcan be similar and dissimilar similar or high names like sun and light, middlenames like fire and water, and lower, dissimilar names like stone, oil, worm etc.56

In his treatise On celestial Hierarchy Dionysios says that the advantage of dis-similar images is that they are shocking images that make us understand easily thatGod is beyond them while similar images might encourage us to think that Godis as they describe him. Dissimilar images work against the tendency towards thematerial (proshylon); they work anagogically like negative theology. The imagesand symbols Dionysios speaks of in the treatise On Ecclesiastical Hierarchy are,on the contrary, said to be precise, adequate, appropriate and beautiful.57 They are

53 Cf. CH 8, 1013 (121BC); CH 11, 1116 (140A); EH 73, 1115 (397A).54 EH 67, 2023 (376D377A) (L, R, and R). Cf. EH 67, 1214 (376C).55 CH 8, 199, 1 (121CD) (L, R, and R): pi

pi , pipi pi . Eriugena translated the notion - with materialis manuductio. Cf. EH 88, 24f. (437B).

56 Cf. CH 15, 1021 (144C145A). S, Theurgisches Denken. Zur Kirchlichen Hierarchie desDionysius Areopagita, see n. 1, 197202

57 Cf. EH 77, 9f. (401C); EH 77, 24f. (404B). Cf. R, Lunivers dionysien. Structurehirarchique du monde selon le Pseudo-Denys, see n. 4, 206, n. 2; R, Introduction, seen. 49, XXIIf. R. R. Structures thologiques de la gnose Saint-Victor. Paris, 1962, 195.


not incongruous like those used in the Bible. There is no shocking dissimilaritythat opposes mans tendency towards the material, but neither is there the seducingdanger of material beauty. According to the logic of high, middle and low im-ages of On celestial hierarchy,58 the myron/the holy oil and its fragrance should beshockingly dissimilar, but it is not; it is, on the contrary, adequate and beautiful.59

The myron is the image of knowledge; it is even a symbol of Christ. Many imagesin the liturgy are not so-called high images, they are fragrances, water, unctions,bread and wine, gestures etc. these are addressed to the lower senses. Apparently,the categories similar and dissimilar are not valid in the liturgy. An adequate orprecise image in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy is not the same thing as a similar imagein the Celestial Hierarchy. In the context of liturgy, it is not the conventional orderof things, but the actual effect that counts the beauty of a fragrance, for instance.

Though the liturgical images are different from the dissimilar and similar im-ages of the Bible R suggest in his book Biblical and liturgical symbols that thereis no methodological difference between biblical and liturgical images. Though theliturgical images in the hierarchy are said to be precise and adequate, he thinksthat they are based on the same principle as the biblical images.60 Therefore, heconcludes that the anagogical function depends on interpretation only: Pseudo-Dionysius invariably linked the uplifting movement to the spiritual process ofunderstanding the rituals and never to the rites by themselves.61 According toR, this is an important difference between Dionysios and Iamblichos. Whilethe pagan author sees the anagocial value in the ritual itself,62 according to Diony-sios the uplifting does not occur by virtue of the rites or symbols by themselvesbut rather in their spiritual interpretation.63

58 Cf. CH 15, 1016 (144CD).59 Cf. R, Lunivers dionysien. Structure hirarchique du monde selon le Pseudo-Denys, see n. 4,

276.60 Cf. R, Biblical and liturgical symbols within the Pseudo-Dionysian Synthesis, see n. 21,

4965, 95f. Cf. P. R. The Place of The Mystical Theology in the Pseudo-DionysianCorpus. Dionysius 4 (1980), 8797, 94; P. R. The Uplifting Spirituality of Pseudo-Dionysius. In: Christian Spirituality. Origins to the Twelfth Century. Ed. by B. M andJ. M. London, 1986, 132151, 137.

61 R, Biblical and liturgical symbols within the Pseudo-Dionysian Synthesis, see n. 21, 109.62 Cf. R, Biblical and liturgical symbols within the Pseudo-Dionysian Synthesis, see n. 21, 109;

R, Iamblichus and the Anagogical Method in Pseudo-Dionysian Liturgical Theology, seen. 21, 455.

63 R, Biblical and liturgical symbols within the Pseudo-Dionysian Synthesis, see n. 21, 116; Cf.R, Iamblichus and the Anagogical Method in Pseudo-Dionysian Liturgical Theology, seen. 21, 454456; R, Biblical and liturgical symbols within the Pseudo-Dionysian Synthesis, seen. 21, 104, 110, 121, 129; R, The Uplifting Spirituality of Pseudo-Dionysius, see n. 60,137f.

Wiebke-Marie Stock

But the difference between Iamblichos and Dionysios is much more compli-cated; Iamblichos is also interested in interpretation and Dionysios in the practiceof liturgy. It is true that interpretation and purification of liturgical images areimportant for Dionysios. In the part of the chapter called theria he reflects onthe sense of images and symbols. He explains them in terms of purification64 andthe desire to reach the truth of its divine original.65 But, if it were the case thatthe uplifting took place only through interpretation, there would then be no roomfor sacramental efficacy; it would even be surprising why one had to perform theliturgy at all.66 Yet such performance is necessary. According to Dionysios, there-fore, the practice of the liturgy and the understanding of the symbolic value are ofequal importance, and are crucially linked.

Sacramental efficacy is based on this corporeal participation; pure contempla-tion is not sufficient.67 The anagogical power is based on the practice of the rites.Yet, what is central for Iamblichos the correct performance of unintelligible rites is just a marginal case for Dionysios. In the case of the baptism of children, theyare too young to understand the rites, therefore they only participate in it withoutunderstanding; for other members of the hierarchy, such unconscious participationis impossible. For them, understanding is of vital importance. The hierarchy is asystem of mediation of knowledge, leading the members to higher understanding.

Beauty

Dionysios is faithful to the Platonic and Neoplatonic traditions in linking good-ness and beauty. One has to consider, he writes,

that the appearances of beauty are signs of an invisible loveliness. Thebeautiful odors which strike the senses are representations of a con-ceptual diffusion. Material lights are images of the outpouring of an

64 Cf. EH 82, 13f. (428D): pi pi.65 EH 81, 15f. (428A) (L, R, and R): pi

pi .66 Cf. R, Lunivers dionysien. Structure hirarchique du monde selon le Pseudo-Denys, see

n. 4, 267: Faut-il dire que tout est symbolique, au sens actuel et restreint de ce terme, dans lesacrement de lunion? Et, par suite, faut-il dnier ce sacrement toute ralit et toute efficacit?

67 Cf. S, Theurgisches Denken. Zur Kirchlichen Hierarchie des Dionysius Areopagita, see n. 1,chapter Vollzug und Verstndnis, 202210; L, Pagan theurgy and christian sacramen-talism in Denys the Areopagite, see n. 18, 436; cf. the theological debate between W andG (W, Christological doctrine and liturgical interpretation in Pseudo-Dionysius,see n. 46; A. G. On the other hand [A Response to Fr Paul Wesches Recent Articleon Dionysius in St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 1]. St Vladimirs TheologicalQuarterly 34 (1990), 305323; W, Appendix. A Reply to Hieromonk Alexanders Reply,see n. 46).


immaterial gift or light. The thoroughness of sacred discipleship in-dicates the immense contemplative capacity of the mind. Order andrank here below are signs of the harmonious ordering toward the di-vine realm. The reception of the most divine Eucharist is a symbol ofparticipation in Jesus.68

The sensible beauty is an image of divine beauty that is, of course, a Platonic idea but in Dionysios this includes also the rites of the hierarchy:69

Having looked on the fine exterior appearance of this splendid andsacred ceremony, let us now gaze into its more divine beauty. Let ussee it for what it is, stripped of its veils, shiningly available in its blessedsplendor, filling us abundantly with that fragrance which is apparentonly to people of intelligence.70

Dionysios distinguishes the outer beauty from the more divine beauty that is like abeauty hidden behind veils in the innermost part of the temple:

But let us leave behind as adequate for those uninitiated regardingcontemplation these signs which, as I have said, are splendidly de-picted on the entrances to the inner sanctuary. We, however, whenwe think of the sacred synaxis [i.e. the Eucharist] must move in fromeffects to causes and in the light which Jesus will give us, we will beable to glimpse the contemplation of the conceptual things clearly re-flecting a blessed original beauty. And you, O most divine and sacredsacrament: Lift up the symbolic garments of enigmas which surroundyou. Show yourself clearly to our gaze. Fill the eyes of our mind witha unifying and unveiled light.71

68 CH 8, 219, 6 (121D124A) (L, R, and R).69 This aspect is often left aside when scholars concentrate on On Divine Names, cf. D. N.

K. Le beau chez Denys. Diotima 23 (1995), 99105; W. H. Gab es eine mittelalter-liche sthetik aus platonischer Tradition? In: Neuplatonismus und sthetik. Zur Transformation-sgeschichte des Schnen. Ed. by V. O. L and C. O. Berlin, New York, 2007, 1942, 24;J. H. Schnheit und Bild im Neuplatonismus. In: Neuplatonismus und sthetik. ZurTransformationsgeschichte des Schnen. Ed. by V. O. L and C. O. Berlin, New York,2007, 4357, 4547.

70 EH 97, 48 (476B) (L, R, and R). pi pi pipi , pi, pi pipi, pi pipi pipi .

71 EH 82, 512 (428BC) (L, R, and R).

Wiebke-Marie Stock

The image of the sanctuary is a Plotinian image.72 The sensible beauty movesand touches as it shows the trace of the familiar,73 yet, as it is only image andshadow one has to flee away from it into the sanctuary in order to reach the realand noetic beauty.74 Dionysios transforms this image into liturgy; here it is not,like in Plotinos, the movement away from sensible beauty, rather, one has to finda higher beauty in the beauty of liturgy. In performing the rites, one does not stopseeing the exterior beauty, but one is able to see more in it than the uninitiated.Therefore, the exterior is, on the one hand, an introduction for those who are stillon a basic level,75 but it is, on the other hand, not merely introductory, as higherorders are able to see in it deeper truths than laity.

Beauty has a power of mediation.76 This is, of course, a Platonic topos,77

which Dionysios also employs in On divine names where he links (kallos,beauty) and (kalein, to call).78 It is often said that the reflections on beautyin On divine names present beauty as a category of metaphysics everythingis beautiful because it partakes in beauty and that aesthetics does not enter thepicture. If, however, on takes into account the treatise On ecclesiastical hierarchyin which Dionysios mentions the beauty of rites, it is clear that beauty is more thatjust a category of metaphysics, and is linked to aesthetics as well. But it is never amatter of the splendor of liturgy, for Dionysios never mentions the architecture, thedecoration of the church, the garments etc.79 The liturgy construed as hierourgia,as a holy action, as continuation of theourgia, is a thing of beauty. Unlike in thecase of the dissimilar images, in the case of the liturgy, there is no gap betweenthe outward appearance and the judgment of the intellect. The beauty of liturgicalimages is not seductive, but it works anagogically in itself and uplifts the perceiver

72 Cf. P, Enn. I 6 [1] 8, 13; VI 9 [9] 11, 1619 (ed. H and S; ed. and tr.A). Cf. D A, see n. 29, 435, n. 52; A. L. St Denys the Areopagite andthe Iconoclastic Controversy. In: Denys lAropagite et sa postriorit en Orient et en Occident.Actes du Colloque International, Paris, 2124 septembre 1994. Ed. by Y. D A. Paris, 1997,329339, 329.

73 P, Enn. I 6 [1] 2, 9f. (ed. H and S; ed. and tr. A).74 P, Enn. I 6 [1] 8, 68 (ed. H and S; ed. and tr. A).75 Cf. EH 73, 1921 (397B).76 Cf. EH 64, 46 (372B).77 Cf. P, Symp. 202a212c (E, see n. 40).78 Cf. DN 151, 510 (701CD): pi [. . . ] pi

pi , . Cf. W. B. Dionysios Areopagites -ein christlicher Proklos? In: Platonismus im Christentum. 2nd ed. Frankfurt am Main, 2001,4484, 6972; W. B. The Love of Beauty and the Love of God. In: ClassicalMediterranean Spirituality. Egyptian, Greek, Roman. Ed. by A. H. A. New York,1989, 293313, 307.

79 Cf. R, The Uplifting Spirituality of Pseudo-Dionysius, see n. 60, 138, 148. Cf. alsoS, Theurgisches Denken. Zur Kirchlichen Hierarchie des Dionysius Areopagita, see n. 1,210215.


to the more divine beauty. This beauty of liturgy is accessible to the senses evento the lower senses and to the intellect; therefore a reflected participation is, notonly possible, but required. Those who are at a lower level only see the exteriorbeauty, which already helps them in their ascent. Those who are deeply initiatedare able to see a more divine beauty in the exterior beauty while they are performingthe ritual.

Conclusion

There clearly is an involvement of aesthetic components in pagan theurgy. Therituals have an aesthetic value: they are performed; symbols, tokens and statues areused; hymns are sung.80 There are revelations, especially connected to light: thenhe [i.e. Proclus] held converse [. . . ] with the luminous apparitions of Hecate,which he saw with his own

Documents

Aesthetics