THE NOTION OF INFINITUDE IN Ps.

-DIONYSIUS AREOPAGITA
Author(s): Salvatore R. C. Lilla
Source: The Journal of Theological Studies, NEW SERIES, Vol. 31, No. 1 (APRIL 1980), pp. 93-103
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23959150
Accessed: 15-01-2016 15:27 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23959150?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Theological
Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 95.77.230.26 on Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:27:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AND

NOTES

STUDIES

93

while
he is making
imitates
the spiritual
He
beings
by his words
to cry 1Holy'.
The utterance
and holily he teaches the people
supplication;
of sanctification
of the heavenly
he recites to men, that they may be
beings
Lord'.1
crying:
'Holy,
Holy,
Holy,
There

is good
of the

parts

reason

for the

the

mentioned;

anaphora

and

epiklesis

the

reason

Sanctus

to be

the

is hinted

at by

Edmund

only

Bishop in the Appendix to Connolly's translation. Bishop carefully

noted

that

silently

after

the

Sursum

for three

except

corda

the canon
the

things:

seems

to have
words

concluding

been

recited

of the

Preface

which led into the Sanctus; at the signing of the mysteries when the
people said 'Amen'; and after the epiklesis, when 'the priest makes his
voice heard to all the people, and signs with his hand over the mysteries,
as

but

before',

now

'to

. . . that

teach

are

they

Since

accomplished'.2

Narsai was concerned to describe the priest's theological function in the

Eucharist, he would naturally mention the epiklesiseven though it
appears to have been recited silentlysince he regarded this as the
moment
But

of consecration.

Narsai

what

for

puzzling

might
the

This

of the

no

back

some

canon,

namely

the

be given

for this

curious

role

in the

obvious

theological

of

explanation

most

been

function.

of the priest's

to give
the

have

silent

could

explanation
plays

at the centre

to turn
must

congregation

Sanctus

was

expected

interruptions

Sanctus.Sanctus.
What
for the

be

and

significant

of the

recitation

interruption,
consecration?

What obvious significance could Narsai give for the Sanctus? Simply
that the priest

raises

his voice

to give

the congregation

the cue

for reciting

it; that is, 'he teaches men to cry "Holy" with the spiritual beings. The
answer

people
revealed
The
here

after

the

Power,

Holy

some

to the

consistency

revolutions

as that

suggested

Eucharistic

material

from

all and

XXXII

in

the

at

Edessa

and

Nisibis

during

the

but

liturgical

latter

Bryan

NOTION

offered

by Ratcliff,

it also avoids the unlikely conclusion of drastic

fifth century.

THE

hidden

in Homily

anaphora

as fascinating

not

homilies of Narsai;
liturgical

Holy,

of the so-called

explanation
is, admittedly,

it gives

his words:

to all.'

OF

INFINITUDE

IN

D.

part

of

Spinks

Ps.-DIONYSIUS

AREOPAGITA
The problem of the relationship between the concept of infinitude and
the

first metaphysical
1
2

Ibid.,

p. 57

Ibid.,

pp.

125-6;

principle

does

the references

not

play

in Narsai

a secondary

are pp.

role

in the

12, 13, and 22.

This content downloaded from 95.77.230.26 on Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:27:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES

94
of Greek

history
nism,
and

it never
even

to draw

Greek

In Ps.-Dionysius'
some

and

STUDIES
the

Presocratics1

the attention
Latin

to late

of philosophical
authors

patristic

Neoplato

speculation,2
to it.3

attention

paid

theology, too, the concept of (or ) has

and

relevance,

from

philosophy:

ceased

some

AND

it may

therefore

be worth

while

to try to investigate

it. In his longest treatise, the De divinis Nominibus, Dionysius represents

God

sometimes

sometimes
uses

the

attach

as being

as
terms

at least

above

with

different

it;
in

three

and

identical

being

meanings

in

moreover,
different

as its source,
the

latter

contexts

to them.

This

and
short

and
he

case,
seems

paper

to
sets

itself the task of establishing (a) the philosophical sources on which

Dionysius depends when he places God above ; (b) the
three

different

meanings

which

the concept

of

assumes

when it is applied directly to God, as well as their philosophical and

patristic sources; (c) the real reason why Dionysius sometimes dis
tinguishes God from ,and sometimes identifies him
with it.
(a) The passages in which Ps.-Dionysius
above

and

and

considers

places his first principle

it as their

cause

are

the

following:
I.I. De

div.

Notn.

IV,

X, 705

...

. . .

2. De div. Nom. IX, , 909 c .

* I wish
Patristicum

to thank

here

Augustinianum,

Father
Rome,

P.

rector
Grech,
O.S.A.,
for revising my English.

of the

Institutum

1 To the evidence
collected
about Anaximander
by H. Diels, Die Fragm. der
I (Berlin,
to add Clement
of Alex.,
Vorsokr.Vorsokr.
1951), pp. 81-90, it is possible
Protr.Protr.
66, I (I 50, 1416) ! , . .

the imme
quotes
6 (Diels
of Clement
as fragment 11 of Archelaus,
diately following lines of this passage

the philosopher
to whom the identification
op. cit. II 47, 15). On Anaximander,
of with God ultimately
W. Jaeger, Die
goes back, see, for instance,
TheologieTheologie
derfriihen griechischen Denker (Stuttgart,
1964), pp. 35-49 and 229-42,
and G. S. Kirk-J. E. Raven,
The Presocratic
Philosophers
(Cambridge,
1957),

pp. 99-142
1 Three
can
on the significance
of this concept in Greek philosophy
inquiries
be found in R. Mondolfo,
L'infinite nel pensiero dei Greci (Firenze,
1934), in
C. J. De Vogel, 'La thiorie de 1' chez Platon et la tradition platonicienne',
Revue philos. de la France
and in the
et de I'etranger,
149 (1959),
pp. 21-39,
Gottes bei Gregor von
book by E. Muhlenberg,
Die
Unendlichkeit
important
16, Gottingen,
NyssaNyssa
(Forsch. zur Kirchen und Dogmengesch.
1966).
3 Besides
op. cit., draws attention to Irenaeus
Gregory of Nyssa, Muhlenberg,
of Poitiers
and the
Minucius
Felix,
(p. 69), Tertullian,
Hilary
(pp. 70-2),
Alexandrine
viz. Clement
and Origen (pp. 73-82).
theologians,

This content downloaded from 95.77.230.26 on Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:27:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STUDIES

AND

NOTES

95

3De div. Norn. XIII,

I, 977 .

4 De div. Nom. XIII,

III, 980 C , . . .
.

view

The

which

to

according

and

though

being the two constitutive principles of all things, are nevertheless

subordinated to the first, divine principle, goes ultimately back to
Presocratic philosophy, and is adopted and developed especially by
and

Neopythagoreanism

Clement

As

Neoplatonism.

of

Alexandria,

Protr.Protr.
66, 1 (I 50, 16-17 = Archelaus, fr. 11 Diels, II 47, 15) tells us,
both Anaxagoras and his pupil Archelaus placed divine intelligence
above infinitude, .
In

the

Philebus

Platonic

after

Socrates,

that

maintaining

all things

are

composed of limit and infinitude (16 c), makes it clear that there is a
cause

above

these

,,

two

principles

(30

'

. . .

. . .

, cf. 23 D . . . ). According to
In Metaphys.

Syrianus,

adumbrated

probably

considered

4-5)1

Brotinus,
and

2, Philolaus

35-166,

mentioned
as the

whose

(under

just

philosopher,

Neopythagorean

and

of Archaenetus

case

165,
a

a few
two

lines

supreme

name
as

in

is
the

below,

p. 166,

realities

deriv

ing directly from the first principle,

. Plotinus, Enn. II, IV, 15 (II 69,
19-20 Brehier), regards infinitude as being produced by the one,

for him

(which

in the one)

(i.e.
with

connection

it into

is one

the

and

inexhaustible

the same

,2

power
with

thing

of

and

intelligible

brings
being

the , the first product

of the one):3 (i.e. the intelligible) act

,
,,

. . . Enn.

VI,

V, II

(VI1

211,

23-5);

. . .

1 . R. Dodds
1933), p. 247,
also, Proclus, The Elements of Theology (Oxford,
tradition.
regards this passage of Syrianus as reflecting Neopythagorean
2 To this
attention has been drawn by E. R. Dodds,
of Plotinus
op.
passage
cit. 245 n. 3, and by L. Sweeney,
Gregorianum,
38 (1957),
p. 718 n. 85. The
eV rijs eVos del,
words immediately
preceding,
power of the 'one', which, in
point to the doctrine of the infinite generative
the only possible
of the infinitude
interpretation
represents
opinion,
see p. 100 below. For further details on the doctrine of infinitude
of the 'one':
in Plotinus see Dodds,
op. cit. 245 and 246-7, C. J. De Vogel, art. cit. 33-4, and
L. Sweeney,
'Infinity in Plotinus',
Gregorianum,
38 (1957).
515
especially
35 and 713-32
Cf. for instance Enn. V, III, 5 (V 54, 26-7) lv
Plotinus'

.
8822C78

This content downloaded from 95.77.230.26 on Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:27:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES

96

211,

5~9)

In
assumes

the

a very

the view

up

of

doctrine

of his

an,
and

connotation

precise

STUDIES

takes

Porphyry

Proclus

AND

VI,

12

V,

(VI1

teacher.1
that

with

together

of

a fundamental

becomes

,
element

of his strongly hierarchical system. In keeping with Neopythagoreism,

he

maintains

that,

to the

according

view

forth

set

in the

Socrates

by

the first principle begets both and :

Philebus,Philebus,
iviv ,
Theol.Theol.
Plat. Ill, 8 (III 30, 19-20 Saffrey-Westerink); the
and

the

to

only

More

whereas

exactly,

'one'

which

the

the two

'one'

Theol.
must

and

'one',

of beings,

principles
p.

90-2,

82

the

infinite

between

being

represents

is situated

Dodds).

as the second

be regarded

second

supreme

{El.

the

being,

of this

power

first

the

originates

generative
and

are for him

subordinated

first 'one':

the

31, 18-20) ' (i.e.

Theol.Theol.
Plat. Ill, 8 (III
the

second

the

'one',

Plat. Ill, 8 (III 32, 2-5)

Theol.Theol.

(i.e. the first 'one')
,,
,.
El.El.Theol. 92 (82, 34) (
, ) ( ,
' ), .
the generative

Although
of the

power

Platonica

Theologia

in the passages

is represented,

{)

as belonging

above,

quoted

to the

and

as originating after it ( ), it goes nevertheless

ultimately back, in Proclus' thought, to the first 'one': in El. Theol. 56
(54,

Proclus

8-11)

clearly

of the inferior

teristic

that

the

from

the beings

maintains
derives

beings

generative

. . .

charac

power

of the upper

rank,

. In identifying with the

infinite generative power belonging to the second 'one' and originating

the

from
the

first

Plotinian

quoted

does

Proclus

not

it appears

as

seem
in the

to

be

far

passages

removed
of the

from
Enneads

above.

Damascius,
1 The

'one',

conception,
in Dub.

first part

apparatus

fontium

(Leipzig,

1975),

et Sol.

of Sent.
in E.

40

45

(I

depends

Lamberz,

91,

1 Ruelle),

places

the

first 'one'

on Plotinus,
Enn. VI, v, 12: see the
sententiae ad intellegibilia
ducentes

Porphyrii

p. 47.

This content downloaded from 95.77.230.26 on Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:27:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AND

NOTES
above

limit

in

commentary

his

and

view

same

infinitude,

referring

the

on

STUDIES

(62,

3 Westerink)

Philebus

to Proclus,

97

Se

he
,

; and
the

repeats

(i.e.

Proclus).1
doctrine

Dionysius'
its

from

origin

previous
with

of the

him

Neopythagorean

Proclus

and

of

subordination
therefore

shows

and

Damascius:

a complete
1 must

be

and

God

and

tradition,

Neoplatonic
passage

to

of
the

with

agreement

particularly
with

compared

Syri

anus, In Metaphys. 165, 35-166, 2, with Plotinus, Enn. II, iv, 15 (II
69, 19-20), and with Proclus, Theol. Plat. Ill, 8 (III 30, 19-20);
God's

2, stressing

passage

with

transcendence

respect

to ,

must

be understood in the light of El. Theol. 92 (82, 31-4); passage 3, in

which God is represented in the act of imparting a limit upon ,
finds also its counterpart in El. Theol. 92, ,
; and passage 4, in which the first'one' is repre

sented as being prior to any limit and infinitude, agrees almost verbatim
with Damascius, Dub. et Sol. 45 (I 91, 1).
(b) It could not escape Dionysius that Parmenides, in the firsthypo
of the homonymous

thesis
the

of

theology

Platonic

dialogue
calls

Neoplatonism,2

the

which
'one'

so much
also

influenced

(Parm.

137 d); and that, in the second hypothesis, he brings the 'one' into close
connection with the infinite multitude of beings {Parm. 144 a-b). And
since

Dionysius,

adapting

the

Neoplatonic

interpretation

of the Parme

nidesnides
to his own theology, identifies his firstprinciple with the 'one' of
the

first

himself

two

hypotheses

and

of this

dialogue,3

he

is

inclined

to call

God

.4

1 Another
of the commentary
on the Philebus (98, 1-6) is also worth
passage
rives al ; . . .
noticing:
. . .
2 On the
of the Parmenides in Neopythagoreism
and
interpretation
theological
see particularly
E. R. Dodds,
'The Parmenides
of Plato and the
Neoplatonism
Class.
22 (1928),
"One"',
Quarterly,
pp. 129-42;
Origin of the Neoplatonic
e i commenti
Corsini, II trattato De divinis nominibus dello pseudo-Dionigi
H. D. Saffrey-L.
al Parmenide
G.
(Torino,
1962),
pp. 115-20;
neoplatonicineoplatonici
i (Paris, 1968), pp. lxxxv-lxxxix.
Westerink,
Proclus, Theologie platonicienne,
3 This
has been rightly seen by E. von Ivanka,
'Der Aufbau
der Schrift
E.

"De

des Ps. Dionysios',

nominibus"
Scholastik,
15 (1940),
pp. 392-3
and by E. Corsini, op. cit.,
Christianus,
Einsiedeln,
1964, pp. 234-5)
of the De divinis nominibus on the
and 120-1.
On the dependence

divinis

Plato
Plato(=
(=

pp. 43
Parmenides

see particularly
book, II De divinis nominibus
chapter III of Corsini's
ee il Parmenide,
pp. 77-111.
4 It
of Alexandria
also calls his God
may be worth noticing that Clement
he is no doubt under the influence
in Strom. V 81, 5-82, (II 380,20-5)
-,,
on the first hypothesis
of the Parmenides .
of a Neopythagorean
speculation
( . . . ,

This content downloaded from 95.77.230.26 on Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:27:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES

98

AND

STUDIES

The identification of God with and gives origin, in

Dionysius' thought, to three different ideas. God is infinitude or infi
nite since (1) he comprehends all things in himself; (2) he is endowed
with a generative power which knows no end; (3) he is completely in
to the human

comprehensible

mind.

Infinitude

thus

becomes

practically

identical (1) with God's property of enclosing everything in himself;

(2) with his infinite generative power; (3) with his total unknowability.
(1) That for Dionysius God is infinitude because he comprehends
everything in himself is clearly shown by the following evidence:
5. De div. Norn. Ill, I 680
.
6. De div. Notn. V, , 825
.

De div. Nom. V, X, 825

..
< > [] ... . . .

.1
8. De

div.

N0ttl.

IX,

III,

912

. . .

. . .

It is one

of the main
to

Neoplatonism
means

of a process

so far as they
one

them

forth.2

This

all

of the theology

already
the

is the

'one',

as

beings
the

of emanation:

pre-exist

anotherin

from

features

consider

is the source

in some

wayi.e.

which

contains

underlying

the

of a passage

'one'

being

of them

of
by

of all beings

without
all

and

of Dionysius
from

proceeding

'one'

idea

both

in

distinct

and

brings

of Plotinus,

Enn.

, Sc , oil ,
, . All these concepts
On this passage
see also
of the Parmenides.
go back to the first hypothesis
I very much regret not to have drawn atten
Muhlenberg,
op. cit., pp. 75-6;

tion to this important point in my book on Clement (see particularly

p. 219).
1
I also thought it proper to cut out the
is my own restoration;
Proclus. The Elements of Theology,
follows. E. R. Dodds,
which immediately
without making
p. 248, in quoting this passage, puts after in,
a restoration,
since it occurs neither in the
it clear that the word represents

edition nor in the manuscripts.

I, however,
prefer to write ,
Migne
on .
which I regard as dependent
* It must be remembered
as well as in
that in passages
58 of Dionysius,
the 'one' comprehends
of Plotinus,
Proclus, and Damascius,
passages
analogous
i.e. before bringing them forth by means of its
all things in itself potentially,
to
This concept must not be confused with the other idea according
emanation.
thanks to its power, embraces
which the divine principle,
() and holds

This idea, which goes ultimately

universe.
together () the whole sensible
of the world-soul,
occurs in Plato's
back to Presocratic
conception
philosophy,
in the Porch, and is inherited by Philo, Clement of Alex.,
fundamental
becomes
and Dionysius
himself:
Middle
of Nyssa,
Platonism,
Neoplatonism,
Gregory

This content downloaded from 95.77.230.26 on Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:27:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AND

NOTES
V, III,

15 (V 70, 29-3

having

close

with

connection

In

Farm.

in mind,

VI

everything
el

...

Cousin)

of possessing

Proclus,

prob
into

of the first 'one'

the infinitude

brings

its property
11-12

(73,

. . . '

on the Parmenides

In his commentary

Aristotle

99

!) 7

.
ably

STUDIES

in advance:
,

.1

(7316-17
)
.

In Parm. VI
Damascius

also

maintains

that

the

'one'

everything:

comprehends

Dub.Dub.
et Sol. I (I 3, 1-2) ' .
et Sol. 2 (I 5, 2-3)
Dub.Dub.
. . . ' . . . .
et Sol. 25 (I 42, 27) .
Dub.Dub.
Ps.-Dionysius'
therefore
by Proclus
pared

with

on

dependence
evident:

the

and

Damascius;

of passages

and

the expression

the

in

even

Neoplatonism

5 and

of passage

which

occurs

is

terminology

used

8 is already
7 must

be

in Plotinus,

com
Enn.

V, III, 15 (V 70, 29-30).

(2) God's infinitude is also connected with his generative power,
which

is

number
following

infinite
of powers

in

so

and

far

as

never

it never
runs

ceases

short.

This

to

produce

idea

occurs

an

infinite

in the

two

passages:

9. De div. Nom. VIII,

157j57,

11, 889 D . . .

Anaximenes
2 (Diels
see, for instance,
I, 95) and W. Jaeger's
important
remarks on the use of the term on the part of some Presocratic
philo
I 530, II 439,
Plato, Tim. 36 e; SVF
sophers, op. cit. 42 and n. 39, pp. 232-3;

447; Philo, De Fuga et Inv. 112, De Conf. Ling. 137, De Post. C. 7,

Abr. 182, De Sobr. 63, De Somn. I 63 and 185; Clement
of Alex.
Strom.Strom.
II, 5, 4, II, 6, 2, V, 73, 3, V, 81, 3; Gregory of Nyssa, De Profess. Christ.
De An. Procr. in Tim. 1023 a; Atticus,
fr. VIII
139, 3-4 Jaeger; Plutarch,

440, 441,
DeDe Migr.

Did. 170, 3-5 (on the right spelling of the name of the author
Alcinous,
Baudry;
of the Didaskalikos,
who must be distinguished
the pupil of
from Albinus,
Gaius, see now J. Whittaker, Phoenix, 28 (1974), pp. 450-6);
Plotinus, Enn. IV,
De div. Nom. IV,
3, 9 (IV 76, 36-7) and V, 1, 2 (V 17, 29-30);
Ps.-Dionysius,
iv 697 c, 700 a-b, VIII,
11 892 a, XI, 949 a, XI, 11 949 c.
1 Proclus'
words eVo's may have been influenced
by Aristotle's
definition of , ot 8e !17780 , Phys. Ill 207a8-9As to the idea according
to which infinitude comprehends
everything in itself, cf. Aristotle, Phys. Ill
207a1821, ye 1, nepicgfiv
1, ' .
2 The
see for instance
El. Theol.
expression
? is Procline:
(2, 10-11),
Theol. Plat. II, 1 (II 4, 22-3), In Parm. VI (75, 16 and 19).

This content downloaded from 95.77.230.26 on Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:27:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

100

NOTES

10.

De

div.

Norn.

VIII,

11, 889

AND

in'

STUDIES
A

D-892

Plotinus also had interpreted the infinitude of the 'one' in this way:
the 'one' is unlimited (Enn. IV ill, 8, pp. 74, 38 6
cf. Enn. V, V, II,
,,

p.

V, 4>

and

Enn.

VI,

103,

"'

34
202,

13-14

, ),but its infinitude must be under

stood as referring not to its physical dimensions (from this point of
view

the

18-20
but

'one'

'
only

is neither

limited

to its inexhaustible

nor

Enn.

unlimited,
. . . '

'

V,

v,

10,

p.

103,

power:1

Enn.Enn.Enn.
II, 4, 15 (II 69, 19)
Enn.Enn.
IV, III, 8 (IV 74> 3^~7)
..
Enn.Enn.
V, V,

(V

103,

212)

V TV ,

'

..
Enn.Enn.
VI,

Enn.Enn.
VI,

V, \ (VI1

202,

6 (VI2

"

11210
,(>)

22

1314)

'

.3

1 This

has been rightly pointed

out by Dodds,
Proclus ...
p. 245 (cf. also
and E. Muhlenberg,
Sweeney,
Gregorianum
38 (1957),
pp. 718-20
op. cit.,
p. 130). Proclus
{El. Theol. 84 and 86) applies this Plotinian view to intelligible
beings. On the inexhaustible
'one', which overflows for
power of the Plotinian
L.

ever without suffering any change or diminution,

see Dodds's
pertinent remarks,
of Roman Studies, 50 (i960),
p. 3.
Journ.Journ.
2 The same
term, in a very similar context, is used by Clement of Alexandria,
V 81, 6 (II 380, 223) 8c aneipov,
Strom.Strom.
.
rot.
/At
3 On this Plotinian
passage cf. also Muhlenberg,
op. cit. 131, who is, however,
nicht zuganglich'.
It rather
wrong in interpreting
as ,dem Denken
means 'lack of limit'. Brehier, p. 179, rightly translates 'absence
de bornes 6 sa
It may be interesting to remember,
in this connection,
that Origen
puissance'.
the

Christian
seems to have held the opposite
view: unlike Plotinus,
in De
Princ.Princ.
he maintains
that the creative power of
II, 9, 97 (164, 3-6 Koetschau)
God is limited (7rc7repaopvrp> eivai ) and is
cf. the references
severely condemned
by Justinian for this reason:
produced
in the apparatus
of this
by P. Koetschau
fontium, p. 164. For a discussion

passage

cf. Muhlenberg,

op. cit., pp. 78-82,

This content downloaded from 95.77.230.26 on Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:27:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES

AND

STUDIES

101

The same view is shared by Damacius, who in Dub. et Sol. 178 (II 55,
uses

22)

the

term

which

Dionysius:

occurs

in

passage

of

Ps.

.1

(3) In two passages Dionysius brings into close connection

with the total unknowability of the first principle. God is and,
is therefore

too

to the

superior

limited

of the

faculties

human

mind,

which is not capable of comprehending him:

II.II. De

div.

Norn.

I,

588

12.

De

div.

Nom.

. . .

I, 11, 588

. . .

.3

The doctrine of the absolute unknowability of the first principle is

fundamental
from

the

of Plato's

as

in Neoplatonism:

E.

interpretation

theological

And

Parmenides.4

R.

Dodds

of the

since

has

'one'

Parmenides

calls

it derives

shown,

of the

first hypothesis

this

'one'

(Parm.(Parm.
137 d) and comes to the conclusion that it cannot be the object
of any speech, scientific knowledge, or opinion (Parm. 142 a), it must
not

have

been

for

difficult

to

Dionysius

bring

these

two

negative

properties of the first 'one' (that of being infinite and that of being
completely

his

consequently
the

human
But

God's
'one'

God

did

unknowability
of the

in no way

with

connection

as an

which

each
lies

other

and

far beyond

to

the

define

reach

of

mind.

Dionysius

completely

into

unknown)

not find this

in the

first hypothesis
unknown

of being

not
(Parm.

close

Parmenides
of the

because
141

connection
itself

Parmenides
it is ,

between

or in Neoplatonism:
is represented
but

because

and
the

as

being

it partakes
),

and

1 In the Elements
applies the term ! not to
of Theology Proclus
the first principle, but to the intelligible
beings deriving from and :
see El. Theol. 84 (78, 5), 86 (80, 12), 89 (82, 2), 92 (82, 31). In the Commentary
on the Timaeus also (see Diehl, Index, vol. iii, 397) the term is not

en' in
The expression
to the first principle.
should be compared
with Damascius,
10 of Dionysius
Dub. et Sol. 178
(II 55, 18) en' .
22In
my opinion, the varia lectio , which occurs in some manuscripts,
in the Migne edition.
is better than , accepted
3 The term
which occurs in De cael. Hier. II, iii, 140 D is also con
nected with God's

incomprehensibility:
applied

passage

..
4 Cf. Class.
Quarterly, 22 (1928).
unknown
God
in Neoplatonism',
(Oxford

1933),

133i and especially

in his Proclus,
The

the Appendix
I, 'The
Elements
of Theology

310-13.

This content downloaded from 95.77.230.26 on Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:27:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

102

AND

NOTES

in spite of the strong emphasis

of the first 'one',
Neoplatonism

laid

STUDIES
on the doctrine

does

not

seem

of the unknowability

to regard

this

unknow

ability as a result of . As we have seen (pp. 95-7 above), for

Plotinus,

and

Proclus,

Damascius

is

the

product

of

the

first

,one', but not identical with it; and when they call this 'one' infinite,
they think either of its property of containing all beings in itself
or of its generative

potentially,

of God's

ception

to Dionysius

unknowability

not from

of Nyssa,

Gregoiy

a direct

as

but

Neoplatonism

and

goes

knows

which

power

from

back

ultimately

result

end.1

The

con

of

no

has

come

a Patristic

source,

to the Aristotelian

namely
doctrine

of 71/)>.
.

Muhlenberg
in

both

Gregory

has
of

a detailed

devoted

and

Nyssa

in

to the notion

inquiry

previous

Greek

of

thought,2

and

has

also hinted at the way in which Dionysius interprets this doctrine of the
some

That
as

for our

Gregory
the

main

shall

of Gregory

passages

importance
and

We

father.3

Cappadocian
to

limit

and

of Aristotle

ourselves

to drawing
which

may

attention
be

of some

point.

of Nyssa
cause

following evidence:

here

regards
of his

unknowability

as a negative
appears

attribute
clearly

of God
from

the

Contra Eunom. II (I 246, 16-22 Jaeger) (i.e. )

. . . . . .
,'
' .*
,,
Contra Eunom. Ill (II 58, 268 Jaeger)
,
55

Quod non sint tres dii (52, 1520 Miiller)

,
. ,
.6
1 As

to the interpretation
of the passage
of Enn.
given by E. Muhlenberg
IX, 6 quoted above (p. 100) see the footnote p. 100 n. 3 above.
2 Cf.
p. 94 n. 2 above.

'. . . dad er [Gregor of Nyssa]

nicht einfach sagt, das MaB
Op. cit. 142-3:
So haben die mystischen
Gottes sei seine Unbegreiflichkeit.
Theologen,
ange
fangen bei Dionysius
Areopagita,
Gregor von Nyssa verstanden.'
4 This
is discussed
at some length by Muhlenberg,
passage
op. cit., p. 142.
5 The same verb
in passage
2 quoted
above
SioJ is used by Dionysius

VI,

(P- 94)

6 Another

Res.

(P.G.

of Gregory of Nyssa about divine infinitude,

De An. et
passage
46. 97 a 3-8), is also worth noticing, although there is no mention in

This content downloaded from 95.77.230.26 on Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:27:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AND

NOTES
The

last

of this

sentence

STUDIES
traces

which

passage,

103
the

of

unknowability

divine nature back to the impossibility of giving any definition of

on

is based
pov,pov,

doctrine

the Aristotelian

to which

according

is

unknown:

completely

I 187b 7 el fj .
Phys.Phys.Phys.
Ill 207" 25-6 fj
Phys.Phys.
.
Rhet.Rhet.
Ill I048b 27-8
It is now

(c)

out

to point

necessary

that

is no

there

real

contradiction

between Dionysius' view which places the firstprinciple above

and

considers

the

of the former

as a product

latter

and

to

his tendency

identify with God himself. If we take into account a funda

mental
the

law

two

of Dionysius'

distinct

sophical
coherence
For

Ps.-Dionysius
of his

really

we

,
and

of the philo

aware
are

to under

able
the

to appreciate

intimate

thought.
there

Dionysius

about
meant

and

of

are

existenceand

views

of both

background
what

stand

the law

systemnamely
of God's

stages

can

be

no confusion

the

between

which

is produced by God and is inferior to him and the which is

identical with him: whereas the former is the expression of divine
emanation
ciples
both
pp.

(pp.

and

of God's
becomes
97

which

and

first two

existence
then
101

hypotheses

with

it were

suggested

God;

must

in which

one

of his main

above),

it was

of Plato's
and

to him

as an
be

negative

by Neoplatonism

cause

not

ways
and

viz.

yet come

attributes.

that

prin

and

which

of the first ,one'

to God's

Neoplatonic

different

constitutive

first

emanation

he has

the

two

the

referred

Parmenides

the three

of the

under

places

regard

latter

one

is only

Plato

Proclus
the

above),

95-6

and

beings

Plotinus

stage
and

or

of

out
As

of himself,

we

have

to identify

Dionysius

in which
by Gregory
Salvatore

seen
of the

interpretation
led

(cf.

to that

he interpreted
of Nyssa.
R.

C.

Lilla

it of God's unknowability:
' . . . )
- ,
.

1 On the notion of
in Aristotle see also Muhlenberg,
op. cit., pp. 43 if.
does not draw enough
attention to the unknowability
of the
who, however,
of Clement
of Alexandria,
Strom. V 81, 6
. In the passage
quoted above (footnote 4, p. 97 above) there also seems to be a closer connection
. . .
between the infinitude of the 'one' and its unknowability:
.
Aristotelian

This content downloaded from 95.77.230.26 on Fri, 15 Jan 2016 15:27:31 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions