Archimandrite Pavel Stefanov

Eric D. Perl, Theophany. The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite. Albany: SUNY Press, 2007. Pp. 163. ISBN 978-0-7914-7111-1. $60.00.

Reviewed by Christophe F. Erismann, University of Cambridge (ce271@cam.ac.uk)

——————————-
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2008/2008-02-40.html
——————————-

“Dionysius the Areopagite” or, more precisely, the pseudo-Dionysius is undoubtedly one of the most intriguing figures in the history of
Western philosophy. The author of the Corpus Dionysiacum — a set of five treatises: On the Celestial Hierarchy, On Divine Names, On the
Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, On Mystical Theology and some Epistles — was active at the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century,
probably in Syria. Previous scholarship has highlighted Dionysius’ strong debt to Proclus, and through him, to Neoplatonism. Dionysius’
conceptual link to Neoplatonic philosophy is the aspect of his thought which Eric Perl has chosen to consider in his short book, which
deliberately leaves aside both the Christian theological aspect of Dionysius’ work and the delicate problem of authorship. Perl sets out
clearly his aim, which is to give “a reading of the works in purely philosophical terms, simply as a body of thought” (p. 4).

The first six chapters are a discussion of a number of sections of On Divine Names. Perl considers the radical transcendence and
unknowability of God (chapter 1), the immanence and manifestation of God in all things (chapter 2), Dionysius’ account of God as Goodness,
Beauty and Love — Perl emphasizes at this point that God cannot not create or not produce the world — (chapter 3), the problem of Evil
solved with a privation theory (chapter 4), the hierarchical structuring of being and the understanding of reality as a hierarchically ranked sequence, descending from angels, or pure intellects, to inanimate beings (chapter 5) and the modes of cognition (chapter 6). The seventh and last chapter presents Dionysius’ philosophy of symbolism mainly on the basis of the Celestial Hierarchy. This is completed by a good bibliography which judiciously includes the French, Italian and German traditions of study.

Studies on Dionysius’ Neoplatonism have benefited recently from renewed scholarly interest, exemplified by the books of Christian Schaefer and of John Dillon and Sarah Klitenic Wear.[[1]] Perl’s book gives an opinionated reading of Dionysius, in its claim to reconstruct his
understanding of reality in its specifically philosophical dimension. Perl wishes to demonstrate not only that Dionysius appropriates certain
terminological and thematic elements from Plotinus and Proclus but also that he takes up their deep philosophical insights in his own thought.
This aim is completely met. A great quality of Perl’s book is to highlight the importance of a number of (Neo-)Platonic theses in the
architecture of Dionysius’ philosophical thought. The book is founded on the identification of structures of thought which Dionysius has in
common with Plato, Plotinus and Proclus, whose writings are frequently quoted. Perl does not really seek to identify the precise textual
source of this or that passage in Dionysius but rather tries to highlight the important presence of a number of philosophical theses.
The parallels and conceptual isomorphisms presented by Perl cast interesting light on Dionysius’ thought on several occasions.

The central theme of Dionysius’ thought is that of the causal relation of God to the world. God, the source of reality, is, according to the
model of the Neoplatonic One, beyond being. The whole reality is theophany, the manifestation or appearance of God. The important notion
of theophany, which reaches its philosophical acme in the thought of the Latin translator of Dionysius, John Scottus Eriugena, is used to
explain the production of all that is as a manifestation of God. God is manifested as the determination of things. The set of features by which
a thing is what it is is the cause of the being of this thing. The various features, characters and determinations of a thing constitute
the entire intelligible content of that thing and, as a consequence of the thesis according to which being is being intelligible (according to
the Platonic principle which was largely endorsed by Dionysius), they are the whole of the thing itself. A being is nothing but the totality
of intelligible determinations. Since determination is the cause of being to that which it determines, God is the cause of all things in
that he is present to all things as the constitutive determinations by which each is itself and therefore is. A central point of Dionysius’
thought is the understanding of God’s causal presence in things as their intelligible determinations. According to Perl, Dionysius
conceives the relation of God to reality following the model of the relation of Plato’s forms to their instances, or of Plotinus’ One to
all things. He is transcendent in that he is not a being at all. And he is immanent in that he is immediately present in all things as their
constitutive determinations. Dionysius summarises this in the Celestial Hierarchy (I.4, 177D): “the being of all things is the divinity beyond
being”. So God is all things as the cause of all things.

This book raises some questions; however, these do not pertain to the choice of separating, in a way which might seem a little brutal and
contrary to Dionysius’ own project, philosophy from theology. The principles of Perl’s reading are clearly stated; this reading may
appear partial to some, in that it does not take into account the Christian theological component of Dionysius’ thought and seems to
suppose a dichotomy in his intellectual project; but it gives valuable results. This book is a stimulating essay which succeeds in presenting
in a clear and coherent fashion the different elements of Neoplatonic philosophy present in Dionysius’ thought. Nevertheless, an historian of
philosophy may be surprised by two absences: the first concerns the relation of Dionysius to Aristotle and the second pertains to the
historiographical categories of the Neoplatonic Schools of Athens and Alexandria.

In order to qualify Dionysius’ thought, Perl uses the concept of “Neoplatonic philosophy”. This concept is too vague for several reasons. Without entering the question of whether it is possible to speak of a “Neoplatonic philosophy” understood as a systematic and
coherent body of doctrine, which each so-called Neoplatonic author endorsed, let us note that Porphyry’s philosophy is not that of
Iamblichus, Plotinus’ philosophy is not that of Proclus. Late ancient Neoplatonism is a multifarious reality. It would be excessive to see in
it a constraining doctrinal unity, despite fundamental common tendencies, such as the theological interpretation of the Parmenides.

One of the constitutive elements of Neoplatonism is its relation to Aristotle. The harmony of Plato and Aristotle is one of the characteristic doctrines of Neoplatonism. The practice of commenting on Aristotle, which was initiated by Porphyry on the Categories, is an
important feature of Neoplatonism. We owe to Neoplatonic philosophers a number of very important commentaries to Aristotle.[[2]] However, in Dionysius, it is difficult to identify references to Aristotle. If Dionysius were an authentic Neoplatonic philosopher, as held by Perl,
should we not find in his work at least some Aristotelian elements? Dionysius’ Christianity cannot be taken as an answer to this. Several
Christian authors who were contemporaries of Dionysius chose to integrate Aristotelianism into their Christianity — John Philoponus is
an excellent example of this. Independently of the problem of Dionysius’ position towards Aristotelian doctrine, an analysis of his
relation to Aristotle would have given some evidence as to the current of Neoplatonism to which we might attach him. Dionysius was not open to Aristotelianism, but neither did he endorse a militant anti-Aristotelian attitude. Note for example that Gregory of Nyssa, an
important source of Dionysius, knew Aristotelian logic, in particular the Categories. Later, several Christian authors, including Maximus the
Confessor, a recognised exegete of Dionysius, reconcile Christianity, Neoplatonism and Aristotelianism. Dionysius’ attitude towards Aristotle
should probably have been briefly considered in Perl’s book, because this lack of Aristotelianism questions Dionysius’ Neoplatonism.

The other question which may be raised has to do with historiographical terminology. In his fundamental article Richtungen und Schulen im
Neuplatonismus, Karl Praechter suggests a classification of Neoplatonic authors according to currents of thought. His main subdivision is
between the Neoplatonic schools of Athens and Alexandria. This theory is not unanimously accepted and has been frequently criticised in
particular by Ilsetraut Hadot. Perl refers neither to this hypothesis nor the historiographical category of “Athenian Neoplatonism”, without
giving any reason for rejecting this terminology. This is a shame, since it is with the doctrines of the contemporary Neoplatonic School
of Athens that Dionysius was acquainted (note that in their recent book, Dillon and Klitenic Wear frequently use the expression
“Neoplatonic School of Athens”). This remark does not question the essential aspects of Perl’s analyses, of which the quality has been
noted, since Perl gives rightly much attention to an important representative of the School of Athens, Proclus. However, it seems that
using the categories of Athenian and Alexandrian Neoplatonism allows us to situate Dionysius more precisely on the complex map of late ancient philosophy. Moreover, it highlights Dionysius’ particularity. As was stated in Praechter’s interpretative scheme, the Neoplatonic current
which was related to Christianity was that of Alexandria. However, Dionysius was both clearly related to Athenian Neoplatonism, and
clearly a Christian. This makes him unique in the history of late ancient philosophy.

——————

Notes:

1. Christian Schaefer, The Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite: an Introduction to the Structure and the Content of the Treatise On the
Divine Names (Leiden, Brill, 2006); John Dillon and Sarah Klitenic Wear, Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonist Tradition:
Despoiling the Hellenes (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2007).

2. For example, the commentaries on the Categories by Porphyry, Simplicius and Ammonius; on the Metaphysics by Syrianus, on the Physics
by Simplicius.