Understanding Pseudo-Dionysius’ Pseudo–Epigraphic Strategy
In order to understand correctly the main concepts that define Pseudo-Dionysius’ visual thought—that is sýmbolon (‘symbol’), eikṓn (‘image, icon’), eikonographía (‘iconography’), hierographía (‘sacred description’), ágalma (‘image, statue’), and so on—a threefold approach should be taken. Firstly, it is important to frame their significance within the ‘Dionysian system’. Secondly, it is necessary to focus on the possible original objectives of the author of the Corpus Dionysiacum. Finally, a comprehensive look at the sources of the Corpus and at the historical context in which it emerged is required.
One of the fundamental characteristics of Pseudo-Dionysius’ strategy is to talk about issues debated in his own time, that is, the early sixth century, through references capable of disguising anachronism, since he pretends to be writing during the first century, and presents himself as the disciple of St Paul, who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (17, 34). Not only did the author of the Corpus avoid the use of terminology that had not yet appeared at the time when the real Dionysius the Areopagite lived. He also purposefully allocated the treatment of problems debated in his own time (but anachronistic for apostolic times) to discussions, allusions, and references scattered throughout his writings, in order to express his point of view while masking the anachronism that put into the mouth of a Father of the apostolic age issues that were debated in the fifth and sixth centuries.
In the next pages, we shall discuss themes that constitute Pseudo-Dionysius’ doctrinal objectives through a network of references within the text of the Corpus that we shall call ‘synchronic structures’. By this expression I refer to the choice made by Pseudo-Dionysius of elaborating specific topics through arguments scattered in several textual places of the Corpus. The main recognisable ‘synchronic structures’ behind the Corpus are Christology, the theory of hierarchy (i.e. the rationale for the order of angels and men in hierarchies), the theme of koinonía (that is ‘communion’), anti-pagan polemics, and the theory of symbols, which is closely connected to the question of the exegetical method.1 Dionysius probably developed the theory of symbols, in a phase of elaboration of the Corpus when he also developed the themes of hierarchy, koinonía, and liturgy, that is, the ‘cosmological’ and ecclesiological aspects of his system, and, at the same time, took into consideration the main themes of the theological debate of his own time. In the earlier phase of his work, he focused instead on the problem of the unions and distinctions in God, on apophaticism, and on the processions that are indicated by the divine names . In dealing with these aspects, Pseudo-Dionysius adopted a lexicon that appears to be indebted to the Neoplatonic roots of his formation.2
I shall begin by summarising the methodology that undergirds the composition of the Corpus and by looking at the time in which this took shape.3 Then I will seek to discover whether the discussion of the image theory can be connected to any debate or controversy that took place in the early sixth century, when the Corpus emerged. In other words, I shall try to retrace the historical and doctrinal background to Pseudo-Dionysius’ treatment of symbolic, iconic, and exegetical theology together with his exegesis of the Scriptures. In particular, I shall address the following question: Does Dionysius’ symbolic method aim merely at providing a sort of handbook for interpreting scriptural and liturgical symbols inherent to the celestial and the ecclesiastical hierarchies , or does it also have the purpose of contributing to the intellectual debate of his own time?
Evidence of Eikonic Thinking in the Early Sixth Century
We know very little about the cult of sacred images in the Christian East during the centuries preceding Byzantine iconoclasm, especially with regards to a theology of holy images, as already noted by Ernst Kitzinger in his important study of 1954.4 However, we should consider the fact that the Church Fathers who dealt with aesthetic issues approached them from an eminently philosophical point of view, at an abstract level, never or rarely referring to actual works of art or to their use for liturgical or devotional purposes.5 Pseudo-Dionysius is no exception.
We must take into account the traces of Pseudo-Dionysian teaching on the anagogical function of the image that appear in a series of questions addressed by the metropolitan bishop Hypatius of Ephesus to his suffragan bishop Julian of Adramitum. We can frame this correspondence as a sort of debate on the legitimacy of sacred images avant la lettre. It is no coincidence that this correspondence has been transmitted in florilegia collated in the context of the iconoclastic dispute.6 Since Hypatius wrote in the years immediately following the appearance of the Corpus, the issues to which he refers may reflect an ongoing debate—a debate which Pseudo-Dionysius could have also taken into account in his own reflection on the theoretical status of symbols and images.7
I begin my analysis by advancing the hypothesis that the Corpus was produced within the theological circles gravitating around Justinian. I have elsewhere illustrated the hypothesis that the Corpus may reflect the political–theological programme that Justinian outlined in the early years of his government while he was counselor to his uncle the emperor Justin (518–527), before becoming himself basileus.8 A contemporary painted icon can help us to broaden our understanding of how figural arts functioned in the cultural context from which the Pseudo-Dionysian Corpus originated. The icon is the famous painting of Christ in encaustic on wood, preserved at the monastery of St Catherine at the foot of Mount Sinai. It was probably painted either in Constantinople or in loco by an artist from the capital city and probably arrived at Sinai when Justinian built the monastery.9 Fr Maximos Constas posits that the asymmetry of Christ’s facial features refers to the historico–eschatological polarity between his first and his second coming. This polarity does not show the union of natures in Christ according to the diphysite theology, as has often been supposed. Instead, its function is to reveal the salvific divine action effected by Christ’s personal intervention in this world, which operates in two distinct ways according to his two comings. This icon was painted in a period and within geographical coordinates that were affected by the expansion of Origenism, i.e. the heterodox doctrines based on Origen’s and Evagrius’ teaching concerning the last things, particularly, their dismissing of the role of the physical body after the Last Judgment. Justinian and the Church of Constantinople took a firm stance against Origenism, culminating in its official condemnation by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553). In this regard, Constas advanced the hypothesis that the Sinai icon was a visual refutation of the Origenist eschatology that denied the severity of the Final Judgment.10
Another significant case of theological–apologetic use of an image, dating back to same years and linked to Justinian’s circle, is the invention of the acheiropoíetos icon of Edessa in c.544, which should be contextualised against the background of the local Christological conflict between Monophysites and pro-Chalcedonians, and therefore seen as a pro-Chalcedonian propaganda tool.11
The three aforementioned cases, that is the...