acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

8/11/2019 acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

1/16

Hierarchy and

Participation

in

ionysius

the

reopagite

and Greek Neoplatonism

by Eric Perl

One of the

most controversial,

and

to some objectionable,

aspects of

the thought

of Pseudo-Dionysius

is his

doctrine

of cosmic and ecclesias-

tical hierarchy. The prevailing interpretation seems to be that for

Dionysius al l things

are

immediately

created by and hence in

commun

ionwith God with respect to their being, but that

their

illumination

and

perfeetion is

transmitted

through

the

hierarchies. On

this

reading, God

is the

sole

and

direct source of

being

to all creatures,

but it

is

their

created

superiors which

give

them

other

perfeetions.

The

doctrine

of

direct creation is often presented as a

fundamental

break from

pagan

Neoplatonism, while the theory of

hierarchy

is sometimes seen as an

unacceptable adoption of Neoplatonic principles.

1

Both views depend

1 Andrew Louth,

in

Denys theAreopagite (London, 1989), expresses the common

interpretation most clearly. Under

the

heading of Denys s Corrective

to

Neoplatonism,

he says,

Emanation,

in a

Neoplatonic sense, is

a

doctrine about

the

derivation of being being derives from the One, but in a

stream

of emanated

beings, each being

receives

from the one

above

it--creation

is

not

restricted to

the One, the whole of being that flows from the One is creative. Denys rejects

any

idea

that being is as it were)

passed

down the scale ofbeing: all beings

are

created

immediately by

God.

The scale of being

and

the sense of dependence

only has significance in

the matter

of

illumination light

and

knowledge

flow

from God down through the scale of being Thus Dionysius

has

an

understanding

of emanation simply in

terms of

illumination and not

communication

of being

84-85). Endre

von

Ivanka,

Inwieweit ist

Pseudo-Dionysius

Neuplatoniker? in

Plato Christianus Einsiedeln,

1964),

draws a similar distinction: Umsonst

behauptet

man dann noch, das Sein teil

Gott allen Wesen zugleich und allen auf gleiche Weise mit,

nur

die Erleuchtung

sei

an

hierarchische Mitteilung und an das Nacheinander

der

Stufenordnung

gebunden

(271).

Even

Hans

Urs

von

Balthasar,

The Glory

ofthe

Lord

vol. 2,

tr . A. Louth et al. San Francisco

and

New York, 1984),

by

far the most

perceptive modern

interpreter

of Dionysius, follows Ivanka

on

this point:

the system of mediation

found

in

Neo-Platonism

is undermined in a

Christian

sense

by Denys with his

assertion

of the immediate relationship of

Copyright 1994, meric n

Catholic Philosophical Quarterly

Vol. LXVIII, No. 1

8/11/2019 acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

2/16

16

AMERICAN CATHOLIC PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY

on

the assumption

that there

is an

opposition between

direct

and

hierarchical participation, so that

whatever

perfeetion

is

received

through

a mediating hierarchy

is

not received directly from God,

and

whatever

perfeetion is received directly from God is

not

transmitted

through a created hierarchy.

This

assumption, however,

reveals an

insufficiently subtle

grasp

of

both Dionysius

and pagan

Neoplatonism.

For

both, every

being is wholly and immediately

caused

to

be by

God,

or the ne, and

every perfeetion

it has is an immediate participation,

not merely

in a superior

created

being,

but

in God himself.

Asound

philosophical understanding

shows

that not only in Dionysius, but also

in

Plotinus and Proclus,

there

is no opposition between direct and

hierarchieal

participation, butrather

that hierarchical

structure is

itself

the

very

means

and

revelation

of

God s

immediate creative

omnipres

ence.

In

Dionysius

ontology, God is

the Creator

in

that

he is

present to

and

in every being as

the

determination which makes each

thing

to be w t

it

is and thus to exist. In this he adopts the understanding of the

source

ofform as cause ofbeing which lies at the

heart

ofNeoplatonism.

2

The

fulfilling cause of all things is the Godhead of

the

Son

. . . as . . . form

making

form

in

the

formless

as

source

of form,

formless in forms as

beyond

form, substance to whole substances, immaculately standing

above and transcending

all

substance in a manner

beyond

being, deter-

creatures to a personal God of love (192). All

these

scholars are favorable

to Dionysius and approve of his supposed break with

Neoplatonism.

Rene

Roques, on the

other

hand, whose L univers dionysien (Aubier, 1954)

has

been

a major

source

for later work

on

Dionysius, sees a difficulty here. Because of

the

hierarchies, 1e Christ n est pas immediatement present a la conscience

de

tous les chretiens; while the mystical union, corresponding to

the

direct

presence ofGod, is only a

special

case: [ ]

doit etre

extremement

rare

et bref.

n est accessible qu a une

categorie de

chretiens privilegiee

et

particulierement

sainte. Pour

le

grand nombre,

Dieu restera

lointain

et cache. (328-29).

Pursuing this

interpretation,

John

Meyendorff,

hrist

in

Eastern hristian

Thought (Washington and Cleveland, 1969), argues that for Dionysius there

are two distinct modes of union

with

God: on

the one

hand, theology,

mystical,

individual,

and direct; and, on

the

other hand, theurgy, which is

the activity of

the

hierarchy and of i ts numerous intermediaries (82). He sees this as a

fundamental theological weakness, since it implies that

direct

communion

is

individualistic and extra-ecclesial, while the hierarchically mediated

participationmakes sacramentallife either

magieal or merely symbolic. All

these

writers, favorable

and

unfavorable alike, take for

granted

the distinction

between

direct and media ted

communion. Once this false distinction

is

overcome, both the supposed correction of

Neoplatonism

and the theological

difficulty disappear,

as

we come to see that it is precisely

the

direct presence of

God,

creative

and

mystically

unitive,

that

is

at

work

throughout

the

hierarchie

al

mediation in

the

cosmos and the Church.

2 For

this

doctrine in

Plotinus, operative at al l levels (the

One

producing

Intellect, Intellect

producing

Soul, and Soul producing the sensible, each by

giving form to it s product), see 5.1.3; 5.1.5; 5.1.7; 6.7.2; 6.7.17; 3.8.3; 3.8.7.

8/11/2019 acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

3/16

HIERARCHY

N

PARTICIPATION

17

mining the

whole

principles

and

orders

and

established

above

all prin

ciple and order.

And

it is the measure of all things

3

Himselfwithout

form

and

hence beyond intelligibility

and

being God

creates each

thing

by

entering

into it

as

its formative

principle. Thus

Dionysius explains

that under the name of

Beauty

God is the principle of all things as

making cause poietikon aition and

limit

of

all

and beloved as final

cause

telikon aition , for

on account

of

the Beautiful

all

things

come to

be, and

paradigmatic

[caus;1 paradeigmatikon ,

because

all

things

are

determined

according to it .

Hence

creation is the self-multiplication of God, the unfolding of the

perfections

which

are one monoeidrrs 5 in

him into

the

constitutive

differentiating formative principles

of

creatures.

[The

Thearchy]

is given

to

al l beings

and

overflowing with

the participations of all goods, is distinguished unitedly and

is

multiplied

singly and becomes

multiform without

going

out ofthe One; as since God is in a manner beyond being but

gives

being

to

beings

and

produces

the whole substances that

One

is

said to

become

multiform by the production

of

many

beings from him while that remains

no

less and one in the

multiplication

by

the

undiminished

flow of his

unlessened

impartations.

6

In

this

creative

self-impartation the divine processions or powers that

is, God as participated by and present in creatures fan out by the

progressive

addition

of

determination

from the most generic

to

the

most

specific,

indeed individual

forms: from Being

participated by

all beings

to

Life, shared

by ailliving beings to

Wisdom

common to

all cognitive

living beings

and

so on.

Thus

al l the more specific perfections

ofbeings

are

contained

in

the most

generic Being

as its modes and specifica

tions.

8

This

creative self-differentiation of God

culminates

in the logoi,

the

constitutive individual

differences

of creatures in virtue

of

which

each

one is

itself

and

thus

iso

In

the

cause

of all

things

the

paradigms

of

all beings pre-exist in one embracing union beyond

being and

then

3

Corpus Dionysiacum De Divinibus Nominibus, ed. Beate Regina Suehla

Berlin, 1990),2.10.134 PG 3, 648C). Heneeforward abbreviated DN.

4

4.7.152 704AB).

5

5.8.188 824A).

6

DN2.11.135-36

649BC).

7 5.1.180-81 816B).

8 5.5.183-84 820A-C); 5.9.188-89 824D-825A). Aetually, Being

in turn

is

eontained

in the

still more generie perfeetion of Goodness, whieh aeeording to

Dionysius extends

not

only to beings hut even to non-beings, 5.1.181 816B).

But

sinee we are

here

eoneerned only

with the

relation of beings to God, we ean

without distortion leave this aside and foeus on Being as

the

most generie

perfection common to all heings as such.

8/11/2019 acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

4/16

18


it produces substance

by

the

going out from substance.

Paradigms,

we

say,

are the

being-making

ousiopoious logoi of

all beings, which pre

exist uniformly

in

God, which theology calls pre-determinations . . .

determinative and creative

aphoristika kai poietika

of beings, accord

ing to which the Beyond Being

both

predetermined

and

produced all

beings. ,g

Consequently, as Dionysius says, The being

of

all

things is

the

divinity beyond being.,,10 Himself formless

and

beyond being,

God

causes

all

things to be as

the

being in

which

they

participate

and

by

which they

are beings. God

neither was,

nor will

be,

nor came to be,

nor comes to be,

nor

will come to be; rather,

he

is not;

but he

is

being

beings

to einai tois ousi . God can

be present

all

things

in

a

differentiated

manner

as

the

being

of each, precisely

because

he

is

not

any

one

of them. God is not a

being,

the first

link

in

the

great

chain,

standing at the summit of the cosmic

hierarchy. If

he were, he would

be

a

determinate being,

a

member

of

the

cosmos,

one existing thing

among other existing things.

Rather,

as the determinative being

of

all

things, himself beyond

being,

God is at once transcendent and imma

nent,

beyond the entire hierarchy

of creatures

and

permeating the

whole

from

top

to bottom. since the goodness of the

Godhead which

is

beyond all things extends from the highest and most venerable

sub

stances to the last, and is

still

above

all, the

higher

do

not

outstrip its

excellence

nor

do

the

lower

go

beyond

its

containment.

2 This

doctrine

of

creation is

the

basis

of

the

dialectic of

the

divine

names.

As

formless

Nothing,

God is

without

name,

but as causal perfections

of

all things,

he is truly named from

all

creatures, as being in beings, life in

the

living,

stone

in

stone, all things in all things and nothing

in

any.,,13 Every

perfection

of

each creature

is God

in that creature.

In

such

an

ontology, it is impossible to draw any distinction between

creation

and

illumination.

God s

creative

downward

movement,

his

self-revelation to the world, is at once, identically, his illuminative

upward drawing

of

the world into communion with

himself.

~ v r y

procession of

the

light-revelation

coming to

us

in

a good-giving

way,

fills us again in

an upward-drawing

way, as a

one-making

power, and

returns [us] toward the unity

of

the

Father

who gathers

4 This

illumination

which

God

sends

down upon creatures and

which

draws

creatures to himself is not merely an added perfection

given

to an

already

existing

creature,

but

rather is nothing other than the act

of

9

5.8.188 (824C).

10

De Coelesti Hierarchia,

in

Corpus Dionysiacum

ed. Gnter Heil and Adolf

Martin Ritter

(Berlin, 1991), 5.1.20 (177D). Henceforward abbreviated

CH.

ll

5.4.183 (817D).

DN 4.4.147 (697C).

3DN 7.3.198 (872A).

4CH 1.1, (120B-121A).

8/11/2019 acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

5/16

HIERARCHY ANDPARTICIPATION

19

creation itself. T he r ay s of himself, of uncreated light

which illumine

all things are r ays ofBeing. God as the

Creator

is named

Light because

of

the

fundamental

principle

that

what makes

the

creature

to be is

the

determination

in

virtue of which it is intelligible.

The

Good is

hymned

under the name of Light. .

For th us th e Goodness of the Godhead

which is beyond all extends

from the highest

and

most venerable

substances to the last and it illumines those that are able, and

creates

demiourgei , and

vivifies,

and

holds together

and

perfects;

and it

is

the

measure of beinis and number and order and containment and

cause,

and

end. l Creation is

illumination;

illumination is

creation.

All

the

divine activities, of purification, illumination perfection,

and

so on,

are nothing

but

God s

m ak in g t hi ng s

fully to

be

by

granting

them

intelligible

determination.

Creatures

do

not

first exist

and

then

receive

divine illumination b ut r at he r come to

be by

being illumined, that is,

by receiving God

a s t he ir

perfections,

all

of

which are

contained

i n t he ir

being. Thus when we

r ead the Hierarchies in

the light of the ontological

principles

laid o u t i n t h e DivineNames, it is clear there can be

no twofold

communion

with God, one direct

and

creative,

the

other mediated

and

illuminating.

Rather

all

things exist by participating

in

God s

creative

illumination which is

a t

once direct and

hierarchically

ordered.

16

Therefore the hierarchical structure ofthe cosmos, far from separat

ing the

lower

orders

of r e t i ~ n from God,

is

itself

the very

ground of

the

direct participation

of

all

things in

him.

As

the

being of

all

things

God

dweIls wholly and immediately

in every

creature but

in the

differenti

ated

way

which

is

proper

to and constitutive

of each one.

Thus

each

creature participates directly

in

God precisely by occupying

and insofar

as it

occupies

its

own

proper

position in the cosmic

hierarchy.

A stone

participates i n h im

by being a stone, to

the

extent that

it is

a good stone,

that is, succeeds

in

being a stone. The seraphim participate

in

him by

being

seraphim

to the extent that t he y a re good seraphim or succeed

in being seraphim. It

is not

hierarchical structure

but on the contrary

a false levelling or egalitarianism blurring

the

differences

and

ranks of

creatures

that

violates

the

direct

communion of

al l

things with

God:

The divine righteousness orders

al l

things and sets

their

bounds

and

preserves all unmixed and unconfused with all,

and gives to all beings what is appropriate to each. . . . An d

. . . those who r ai l a ga in st the divine righteousness do not

I5DN

4.4.146-47 (697BC).

16

Cf. Otto Semmelroth, DieTheologia symbolike des Ps.-DionysiusAreopagita,

Scholastik 27 (1952), 2-3: Gott als

agathon

gibt

de n

Dingen

ihr

Dasein

au s

sich

heraus in de r

photadosia

an d

4: [D]er Areopagit

mit

Vorliebe die

schpfung Gottes als

Ausstrahlung

des gttlichen Lichtes

schildert Von

hier

aus wird die

g a nz e S c h p fu n gs th eo lo gi e

des Ps.-Areopagiten

Lichttheologie.

8/11/2019 acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

6/16

20

AMERICAN CATHOLIC PHlLOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY

realize that they are condemned

for

their manifest un

righteousness

for they say

that immortality ought to be in

mortal

things

and what

is complete

in

the

incomplete

and

identity

in differing things and

perfeet power

in the weak

. . . and

altogether

they att ribute to

one

what belongs

to

another

ta alln allois apodidoasin . u t

the divine

righteousness

in this is really

true righteousness

because

it

assigns to all things what is proper to each according to the

status of each being andfreserves the nature of each in its

proper order

and power.

This

hierarchie participation in God may be illustrated

by

the tradi

tional image

of

created

beings

as

aseries

of vessels

of

differing sizes al l

of

which

are

equally

and completely filled

with

divine being but are

equally

full

precisely by containing unequal amounts.

When

Dionysius

says

that the higher ranks of creation are closer

to God

than the

lower,

therefore

this

must

not

be taken to

mean

that

they stand between God and the lower

orders.

It

means

rather that

the higher orders participate in God in more and greater ways. All

creatures

participate

in God as

their

being; living things participate in

God

as

being and life;

intelligent things as

being life, and wisdom.

Thus Dionysius responds

to

a

hypothetical

questioner who suggests that

since

the

divine procession Being is

prior

to

Life

and

Life

is

prior

to

Wisdom

it should follow that inanimate objects

are higher

than living

things and ir ra tiona l animals higher

than intelligent

beings. This

follows only,

says Dionysius

if

one supposes intellectual beings

are

not

beings

and

living

things.

But

since the divine minds [Le., the angels] also are [in a way]

above other beings and live [in a way]

above

other living

things and are intelligent and

know

[in a way]

above

sense

and reason they are

nearer

to the Good,

participating

in

it in an

eminentmanner

and

receive from

it

more

and greater

gifts; likewise rational beings excel

sensitive

ones

having

more

by

the eminence

of reason and

the latter

[excel

other

living

things] by sense-perception and

[living

things

excel

mere beings] by life. And

the things

which participate

more

in

the one and

infinitelY-fiving God

are

closer

to him

and

more divine than the rest.

Life is the more specific and intense mode of

being

proper to plants in

relation to stones; intelligence is the more specific and intense

mode

of

DN

8.7.204 896AB).

8DN

5.3.182 817AB).

8/11/2019 acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

7/16

HIERARCHY AND PARTICIPATION

being and life proper

angels

in relation to aillesser creatures . I f the

angels

are closer

to

God than

men,

this is

not because

men do not

directly

participate

in

him,

but

because

the

angels, who by possessing

intelligence necessarily also possess

the

lesser perfections of life and

being which intelligence presupposes, participate in

him

in a

multiplic

ity

of ways.

,,19

Higher creatures, then, possess

the

perfections of lower ones in

an

eminent way,

while

the lower orders possess the superior perfections in

a lesser way. Dionysius explains, for example, that although the

angels

are not

sensitive beings

like men and lower

animals,

this does notmean

that we have some knowledge that they lack. Rather, the Scriptures

say that the angels

know things

on earth, knowing

them

not by

sense

perception

(although

they are

sensible things),

but

by

the

proper

power

and nature of the deiform intellect.n And conversely, s e n s e p e r e ~ t i o n

itself

is

but

a weaker

mode

of intellection,

an

echo of Wisdom.

1 If

intellect

is a

more intense mode

of

sense,

life, and being,

then

the

sense-perception of animals, the life of plants, and even the mere

being

of stones may be seen as the

attenuated

modes

of

intellection

and life

proper

to such creatures.

All

things desire [the

Good]:

the intellectual

and

rational

beings,

by

way ofknowledge;

the

sensitive, by way of sense;

those

without

a share in

sense-perception, by

the

implanted motion

of

vital

desire; those

which

are no t living but only

are, by

their fitness for

only

essential

participation.

n

Every hierarchy

is

governed by

this

principle

of

inclusion and manifestation.

The higher

levels

are not

exempt

from,

but rather include in an

eminent way,

the

perfections of

the lower

in

their

own,

and the lower

do

not lack but rather manifest

in

a lesser way the perfections

of

the higher. Hence

as

we survey

the

hierarchy from top to bottom, at

no

point do we

find

any

new or different

activities which are

not

present

in

the appropriate way at every

other

level.

Rather, it

is

one

and same

activity which

is present throughout

the

entire hierarchy in different modes and degrees. For all the perfee

tions

of

creatures are their proper participations

in

the one

all-embrac

ing creative

divine Goodness.

Dionysius

expressly

applies this principle

in

both the Celestial and

the

Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Among the angels, just as the first have

in

an

eminent way the holy properties of the lower,

so

the late r have

those of the earlier, not in

the

same way but in a

lesser

way.,,23 Likewise

he

explains that

in

the

Church,

the

sacramental activity of a priest

or

deacon is not

other than

or

additional to that

of the bishop,

but

is wholly

contained

in it: Therefore the divine order

of

the hierarchs [Le., the

9CH

4.1.20 177D).

2 7.2.197 869C).

7.2.195 868BC).

N

4.4.148 700B).

3CH

12.2.42-43 292C-93A).

8/11/2019 acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

8/16

22


hishops]

is the

first

ofthe orders

whieh

see

God,

hut i t is

also

the highest

and

last,

for

in

it are perfected and

fulfilled

all

the ordering

of

our

hierarehy.

. . .

The

power

of

the

hierarchie

order

pervades

all

the

saered

totalities,

and through

all

the

saered

order

effeets

the mysteries of its

own

hierarehy. 24 This

is why

a

priest, having no

sacramental power of

his own but only that of

the

bishop,

needs to be ordained

and

to receive

antimens

and ehrism

from the bishop in

order to

eelebrate the myster

ies.

No

activity

of

the

Chureh stands outside of

the

bishop: [The

angelic] and every

hierarehy, and

that whieh

is now

hymned

by us

[Le.,

the eeelesiastieal hierarchy] has one

and

the same

powerthrough

all the

hierarchie

work:

the hierareh himself 6 Hence, when

a

lower

level

in a hierarchy

reeeives

any

perfection through

an

intermediary,

it is in

aetual

fact also reeeiving

it

direetly from

the

highest

level.

Thus,

for

example, the

priest does not

stand

between and separate

the

layman

from the bishop. On the eontrary, the activity of the intermediary is

eontained

in,

indeed manifests and is that of the higher order, so

that

the lat ter is directly

present

throughout the

entire hierarchy. Or again,

the

sacramental

activity

of a

priest, whieh is hierarehieally reeeived

from

the

bishop,

is itself the

immediate power and presenee of God

directly at work in the priest.

This

emerges

most elearly in Dionysius

aeeount

of why

the

prophet

Isaiah

is

said to have been purified by

a seraph,

when properly speaking

only

the

lowest

ranks

of

angels should

be

direct eontaet

with

men.

He

explains that

it

was no t actually

a

seraph

that

came to Isaiah, hut

that

preeisely because the perfeetions of the lower orders

are nothing

other

than

those

of

the

higher,

the

purifying

aetivity

truly belongs to the

higher rank.

As

Dionysius

says,

it

has been suggested

that

the angel

ascribed his own p u r y n ~ saered work to God and after God to his

prior-working

hierarchy.,,2 He proceeds to explain that it is one

and

the

same l ight

that

is at work throughout the hierarehy,

so

that the lower

angels

have

no activity

whieh is

not

already

contained

in that of

the

seraphim. Thus

whatever

they do for a

lower

heing

is

truly heing

done

hy

their

superiors,

and

is

nothing

but

the

presenee

and

manifestation

of the

latter s

aetivity. But further,

since

all the perfeetions and activi

ties of

all

creatures

pre-exist in God and are

the

presence ofGod in them,

this light

is

God s own

activity whieh is directly

present

throughout the

whole. Thus

Dionysius continues, The

person

who

said this

meant

that

the thearehic power comes to

all

things

and

penetrates and extends

irresistibly through all

and again is

unmanifest to

all, not only as

superessentially transcending

al l things,

but also as hiddenly spreading

De

Ecclesiastica Hierarchia

in

Corpus Dionysiacum

5.1.5.107 (505AB).

Henceforward

abbreviated EH

6EH 5.1.5.107-08 (505BC).

6EH

1.1.2.64-65 (372CD).

7CH 13.7.44 (300CD).

8/11/2019 acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

9/16


its providential

activities

to all.

But it is

also

manifested

proportion

ately28

to all

the

intellectual beings, reaching

out

its

own gift

of light to

the

senior substances,

through

them, as

first,

imparting

it

in

good

order

to the subordinates, according to the

God-seeingmeasure symmetrian)

of

each rank.

,,29

Hence the activity

of

the lowest angel, itself apresen

tation

of

that

of

the

seraphim,

is nothing other than the illuminating

activity of God himself: the highest

beings ungrudgingly

impart to

[the

lower] the radiance which comes to them, and these again to their

subordinates, and in each the first imparts to the one after it

the

spreading

divine

lightwhich is

given proportionately even to

all.n30 The

entire

passage clearly shows that

there is no opposition

between

direct

and mediated

participation in God.

It

is

one and the same light, that

is God

himself,

which

is directly

present in the

appropriate

way

at

every

level.

The essence

of

hierarchy,

therefore,

is the sacramental

principle

of

co-operation,

or synergy.

This

means not merely that the creature and

God work together as though

the

creature were another being, addi

tional

to

God,

or that the creature s operation

is

merely by

courtesy

attributed to

God, but

that the activity ofthe creature, by participation,

truly is that

of God. Thus

when abishop or pries t celebrates

a

sacra

ment,

it is God himself

who is

at work: Perfection for

each

of those

appointed in hierarchy

is

to

be led up according to

i ts proper

analogy to

the

imitation

of God,

and

to become

a

co-operator

synergon)

of God,

and

to

show

the divine activity revealed

in itself. . . . As,

since

the order

of

hierarchy is that

some

are purified and others purify, some are

illumined and

other

illumine, some are perfected

and

others

perfect,

the

imitation

of

God is adapted to each

in a certain mode.,,31

In

virtue of

inclusion and synergy,

the mediating

activity

of

creatures

is

the direct

activity of God pervading the entire

hierarchy. And so

Dionysius

con

cludes his account of

Isaiah

and the angel: God is by

nature

and truly

and

properly the source

of

illumination to all those who

are

illumined,

as the essence

of light and

cause

of

being

i tself. .

But by placement

and

in

a

God-imitating

way

[Le.,

by

participation]

that

which is

higher

[is

the

source] to each thing

after,

in that the divine lights are

derived

to the lat te r

through it. .

Wherefore

they

refer

every

sacred

and

28

AnalogOs). Dionysius

uses

this

term

to

mean

in

the manner

appropriate

to

a given being s place in

the

hierarchy. For

the

meaning of analogy in

Dionysius, see Vladimi r Lossky, La notion des analogies chez Denys le

Pseudo-Areopagite,

Archives d histoire doctrinale et litteraire

moyen age

5

(1930), 279-309.

29GB 13.3.44 (301A).

3 GB 13.3.45-46 (301eD).

3 GB 3.2.18 (165B).

8/11/2019 acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

10/16

24


God-imitating activity

God, as cause, but

the

first

deiform

minds

as the first

effectors

and teachers of divine things.

3

Dionysius

adopts

the

Neoplatonic

image

of all

creation

as

an

array

of mirrors,

all

reflecting and passing on the divine

ray

of being, while

the

light

itself,

remaining

one

and

the

same

no

matter

how

many times

it is passed

on, permeates

the entire structure.

The

purpose of hierar

chy, then,

is likeness

and union with God as

far

as possible

making

its members

divine images,

clear and spotless

mirrors,

receptive

of the

original

light and thearchic ray.n33 The Church and

the

world are

hierarchical precisely in order

that

the fulness of

God s

glory may be

manifested by the

direct communion

of all things with hirn.

The

hier

archy

of creation, from stones to animals to

men and

angels, and of the

Church,

from

laity

to

priests

bishops, reflects

and

manifests

the

hierarchical

arrangement of

the creative

divine

activities themselves.

Since

the

hieratic orders

are images of the divine activities, revealing

in themselves the ordered illuminations

ofthe

well-adorned

and

uncon

fused

order

of the divine activities

they are ordered

in hierarchical

distinctions.

. . . The

hierarchy

of

the divine

images

divides itself into

distinct orders

and powers, visibly revealing the

thearchic activities. 34

Dionysius

is often

said

to

correct

Proclus by his insistence that

the

divine processions are

not distinct

substances or hypostases

in

their

own

right,

mediating

~ t w n

the One and

lesser

beings, but

are

simply

the

differentiated presence

ofthe

one God

in

his

creatures.35

Dionysius

ofcourse rejects

the

late

Neoplatonic

practice of identifying such causal

substanceswith

the

pagan gods and worshipping them as

such.

But

the

metaphysical

content of his doctrine that

the lower

level

is

included

in

the

higher, so that there

is

no conflict between direct and mediated

causation and

al l things are

produced

directly

by God or

the One, is

already present

in pagan

Neoplatonism. Indeed, the

notion

that

for

the

latter

each ontological level

is

caused to

be

by its

immediate superior

and

therefore not

directly

by

the

One

represents

a

serious

misunder

standing

of the meaning of

emanation

or

procession.

Plotinus,

as

is

weIl

known,

consistently

teaches

not

only

that

each

level participates

in the

one above

it but

also

that

all

things,

at every

level, participate

directly

in

the One

and that the

One is immediately

present to us and

to all

things.

36

This

is

because throughout the

process

of

emanation, each level

is

not

outside

of,

but is rather contained in, its

cause: The la st and lowest things

are

in the last

of

those before

them,

and

these are in those prior

to

them, and

one

thing

is

in another

up to the

First,

which is the

Principle.,,37

This

follows

from the very

CH 13,3.46 (301D).

CH 3.2.17-18 (165A).

34H 5.7.109-10 (508C-509A).

6DN 2.7.131 (645A);

N

5.2, 181 (816C-817A);

N

11.6.222 (953CD).

See e.g. 3.8.9; 5.1.11; 6.9.4; 6.9.7; 6.9.8; 6.9.9.

8/11/2019 acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

11/16


25

meaning

of cause ofbeing in Neoplatonism.

The

cause ofbeing

to each

thing

is

its formative principle, the

source

of the determination

which

makes it to

be

by making it to

be

what

it

iso The causal relat ion

is

not

efficient causality

as

usually

understood, like

that

of

a

craftsman to his

artifact or

a father

to his

son,

but rather

that

of

a Form.

to

a

particular.

Such causation is not

the

production

of

new

beings

additional to the

cause,

but ra ther

the

manifestation in differentiated

multiplicity

of

what is

already present in

undifferentiated

unity

in the cause.

How is

that One the principle of all things? By possessing them beforehand

But it

has

them

in such a

way

as not to

be distinguished; they

are

distinguished on the

second

level .n Le., as Intellect.

38

Likewise

Plotinus

says

of

the

procession from Intellect to Soul and the

sensible

world

that

all

things

[in Intellect]

already

were

and

always

were

and

were

in such a

way

that

one

could

later

say this

after that ;

for

being

extended

and

as it were unfolded it can manifest

this

after that, being

together

it

is

all

this. ,39

Consequently there

is

no introduction of

new content

in the

move

ment from Intellect

to the sensible

world. Rather,

as Plotinus repeat

edly insists,

Intellect,

as

produced by the

One, is already all things.,,40

Throughout

the

hierarchy of

emanation,

each level

is

its

product

in

greater unity or

concentration,

and each

level

is its cause in greater

differentiation or

dispersion.

All

the

reality there is,

is the content of

Being

or

Intellect,

the

trace of

the

One,

and

it

is

that

same content

which

subsists

less perfectly as the world

of

sensible particulars.

If

someone

admires this sensible

world

observing

it s

size

and beauty

and order

and

all animals and

plants,

let him ascend

to

its

archetypal

and truer reality and there see them all intelligible and

eternal in

it 42

Plotinus expresses

this most

clearly in

his great treatise

on the

Forms

and

the

Good: Does

the world

There, then, have al l the things that are

here?

Yes,

as

many

as

are

made

by

logos and

according to f o r m . ~ 3 which

is to say everything, even matter

itself.

Consequently,

the

sky

too

must

be

a

living

thing

There,

and

a

sky

not empty

of

stars , as

they

are

called here, and

this is

what i t is to be

for

37

5.5.9.

38

5.3.15; cf 6.8.18.

9

6.7.1.

This idea

is perhaps

most

clearly expressed by Nicholas ofCusa in his

doctrine of emanation as complicatio explicatio enfolding-unfolding,

but

it is

already

present in

Plotinus

and is

fundamental

to all Neoplatonism. On this

see Thomas

McTighe, llfhe

Doctrine

of Complicatio-Explicatio in the

Neo-Platonic Tradition (unpublished article).

45.4.2.

4

5.5.5.

4

5.1.4.

43

6.7.11.

44The

matter

of the sense-world exists archetypally

in

the intelligible: 2.4.4.

8/11/2019 acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

12/16


sky. And

clearly

there

is

also

earth There,

not empty,

but

much more filled

with

life, and living things are all together

in

it

and plants

and

sea

is

There,

and

all

water

.

There is, as it

were,

a flow of [all

things]

from one spring .

as if there were one

quali ty having and

maintaining all

qualities

in

itself, sweetness with

fragrance,

and at once the

quality of wine and

the

powers of

all juices

and

the

visions

of

colors

and

all

that

touches recognize;

and

there

are

all

that

hearings hear,

al l

tunes and

every

rhythm.

Clearly, as

we

ascend from sense to

Intellect, we leave nothing

behind,

but

rather encounter the same content more richly, as true reality,

what

it

really

iso

Thus

Intellect

is

the

cause

of

being

to

Soul,

and

Soul

to

the

sensible

world,

not in

the

sense

that

each

produces

another

being

additional to itself, but on the contrary,

in

the

sense that the

effect

has

no being

whatsoever

outside of or apart from

its

superior.

The

lower

levels otherness from Intellect

is

not

an addition but rathe r a loss of

intelligibility and being.

Each

level is the

re-presentation

ofits superior

in

a more differentiated,

and

hence less intensely real, form.

The

intelligible

and

the sensible,

therefore, do

not constitute

two separate

worlds,46 but are

rather the

same world,

the same

intelligible content,

cognized perfectly or imperfectly.

For Plotinus

there is only one world:

that

which

is,

Being

or

Intellect, of

which

the

so-called

sensible world

is

only an imperfect apprehension. Sense-perceptions here are dirn

intel

lections, but

the intellections

there are clear

sense-perceptions.

n

Thus

Plotinus insists that

bodies themselves exist intelligibly)

in

Intellect.

8

Since for al l Neoplatonists

to be

is

to be

intelligible, the dimming

of

intelligibility as

we move from the

unity of a

form

grasped by

intellection

to the

multiplicity

of

particulars

taken

in by sense-perception is a loss

of being. Sensible objects are

imperfectly

existing intelligibles; intelli

gibles are perfectly existing sensibles.

Because of this identity of content throughout the hierarchy, the

containment

of

the

lower

in the

higher,

the

intelligible world

does

not

stand between us and the One. Since

sensibles truly

exist only insofar

as

they are

contained in, indeed, are Intellect, in causing Intellect the

One immediately causes all

things,

and all things, insofar as

they

are

at all, participate

directly

in

the One.

For there is

something

of [the

One] in us

as

weIl;

indeed, there is nowhere

where

it is not, in the

things

46

6.7.12.

46

6.2.1.

7

6.7.7.

8

6.7.6 and 7; 6.2.21. For a good exposition of how

the

so-called sensible world

is the intelligible world insofar as it is at all, see

John

N. Deck, Nature

ontemplation n the One Toronto, 1967; 2nd ed., Burdett, NY, 1991), eh. 8,

Is Nature Real for Plotinus?

8/11/2019 acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

13/16


27

which

can

participate in it. ,9 Indeed, Plotinus is the source for the

image

of the cosmic

hierarchy

as aseries ofmirrors, in

which

the same

reality

is

reflected

at every point,

differentiated

according to the

mode

ofthe recipient.

50

Thus he stresses the

continuity

ofthe

One s presence

throughout al l the levels: All things

are

the One

and

are not

the

One:

they

are he because they

come

from him; they are not

he,

because it

is

by abiding by

himself that he gives

them.

It is then like a long life

stretehed out at length; each part

is

other than that which

comes

next

in order, but the whole i s continuous with itself, differentiated by

difference,

the

earlier not

perishing

in

the later.

n51

Even more often than

Plotinus,

perhaps, Proclus is

misinterpreted

as

holding

that each term

in his cosmic

hierarchy participates

in and is

directly produced

by,

not

the

One,

but

only

its immediate prior. But

in

fact, for Proclus, as for Plotinus and Dionysius,.

the production

or

causation

of

being

is

the self-multiplication

of

the

cause:

That which

engenders is established without change or diminution,

multiplying

itself through its generative power

and

providing secondary beings from

itself. s2 This

understanding

of

causation underlies Proclus

weIl

known

doctrine

of

remaining,

procession,

and reversion: Every effect remains

in

its cause and proceeds from it

and

revertS to it 53 The

moment of

remaining represents

the

effect s

containment

in i ts cause so that,

just

as in

Plotinus, procession is

not addition

but differentiation

from

the

more

universal to

the

more particular.

Indeed,

the

entire

cycle

of

remaining, procession, and reversion describes the

differentiation

of the

cause

into

its

effects and and the

unification

of effects in

the cause,

that

is, the participation of particulars in the forms in

virtue

of

which

they

exist.

Hence the production

of the

first

effect from

the F irst Cause

already includes all

that will follow from it, so that

the

entire

hierarchy

proceeds immediately from the One.

As in Plotinus, then,

each level

in

the hierarchy

is

the manifestation

or unfolding

of what

is already

present in a more

unified

and

therefore

more

real way

in its superior.

Where one thing receives

bestowal

from

another

in

virtue

of

that

other s

pre-existence,

the

giver possesses

primally

that

which it

gives, while the

other is

secondarily what the

giver Just as in Dionysius, the

being

and

all perfections

of

the

lower level are those of the higher

by participation.

For

either

the

product is seen in

the

producer,

pre-existing

in

its

cause, for

every

cause

comprehends its

effect before

its emergence, being primally

wha t the

9

3.8.9; cf n. 36.

6

6.4.10-11.

5.2.2.

62Proclus, TheElements ofTheology ed. E. R Dodds, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1963; repr.

Oxford, 1992), prop. 27.32. Henceforward referred to

as

ET

6 ET

prop. 35.38.

64ET prop. 18.20.

8/11/2019 acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

14/16

8


latter

is secondarily; or

the producer

is

seen in the product

for the

latter

participating

in its

producer

reveals in itself

secondarily

what the

producer is primally. fi5 This leads to the weIl known Neoplatonic

doctrine adopted by Dionysius,56 that all things are in al l things

but

in

the manner

appropriate to e a c h ~ 7 Thus

as

we saw

in

Dionysius all

the perfections

of

all beings at every

level, are

modulations

of

one and

the same power

that

of

the One

itself,

whose differentiated

presence

to

each

thing

causes

each

to be by establishing it in its

own proper mode

of

participation.

Proclus even more

explicitly

than Plotinus applies

this

doctrine to

the

theory

of

procession

to

show that

the

One

directly

produces

and

illuminates all

things. Indeed to stress a point that is

often overlooked

he

argues

that

a

thing

is produced

and

receives

its

perfections

more

from

i ts higher

source than

from its immediate prior. His explanation

is

so

clear that

it

is worth giving in extenso:

All

that

is

produced

by secondary

beings

is

more produced

from those prior

and

more

causal

principles from which the

secondary

were themselves derived.

For

if the secondary has

its whole

existence

from its

prior

thence

also it receives its power of further

production But

if

it

owes to

the

superior

cause its

power ofproduction to

that

superior it

owes its character as a cause in

so

far as it is a

cause a character meted

out

to it from

thence

in proprtion to

its constitutive capacity. If so,

the

things

which

proceed from

it are

caused

in virtue

of

its

prior.

.

If

so,

the

effect owes

to

the

superior its

character

as

an

effect.

Again it

is

evident that the

effect is

more from the

superior.

For

if the latte r has given to the secondary

the

causality

which enabled it to produce itmust itselfhave possessed this

causality

primally

and

it

is

in

virtue

of

this

that

the

secon-

dary

being generates having derived from i ts prior the

capac-

ity

of secondary generat ion. But if the secondary

is

productive by

participation and

the prior

by impartation and

primally

the

latter

is more

cause

in that it has

communi-

cated

to another

the power

of generating

consequents.

58

From

this

it follows that the One is the to tal o r absolute cause of al l

perfections

of all

things since all power

is

derived

from the

One

and

ET prop.

65.62.

DN

4.7.152 704C).

7ET prop.

103.92.

8 T prop.

56.54.

8/11/2019 acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

15/16


9

none can

be

added 10

it.

Since the

causal

activity

of each

being

is,

by

participation, that of its own superior, so that

all activity

is ultimately

that

ofthe

One, there is no conflict between direct

production by the

One

and

mediated production by

a

lesser cause.

All

things proceed and

receive

their perfections

at once

immediately

from

the One

and from

their

own priors .

59

Thus

Proclus

already articulates the

doctrine

of

synergy which we found

in Dionysius: The

higher cause, being more

efficacious,

operates

earlier

upon the participant

for

the lat te r is

af

fected first

by

the

more

powerful);

and when the secondary cause

operates,

the higher co-operates

synergei ,

because all

that

the

secon

dary

makes,

the higher cause

co-generates

with it. oo As

Proclus

repeat

edly insists, the

gods Le.,

the

henads, which are

themselves

nothing

other

than

the

participated

presence

of

the

One

in.beings) have

filled

all things

with

themselves. e The divine

fills

al l things from itselfwith

the

goods

which are

in

it,

n6 thereby

causing

all things 10 be, and hence

the

divine powers extend themselves

from above even

to the

uttermost

things. s

For all these philosophers, then, God is

the

sole

causal power

throughout

the

entire

hierarchy,

and

creatures serves

as

intermediar

ies

only to the extent

that they

co-operatewith him, making his activity

their

own. Thus

there is no need

for

Dionysius 10

modify or

bypass the

Neoplatonic

hierarchy

by

falsely

distinguishing between being

and

illumination,

or

between

mystical

and

sacramental

union,

in

order

to

affirm the direct

creation

ofall things by

God and

their direct commun

ion with him. The hierarchy of

being,

far from

separating

us from

God,

is

itself the very

basis for

the immanence

ofGod in all things. Hierarchy

is indeed

the very principle

of

being

itself,

in

virtue of which

all

things

are

what

they

are and thus exist,

and

of the constitution of the Church

as the Body

of

Christ,

the

fulness of him who

fills

al l in

all.

This

Neoplatonic

and Dionysian

doctrine

has important bearings on

recent trends in

religious thought.

Theologies of

divine immanence

are

the fashion

of the

day, stressing

that God

is

not

simply

apart

from

creation

but

that

all

things

are

contained

in and

filled

with

God.

But in

ourtime

these

theories

are usually associated

with an

intense

opposition

to

all forms of hierarchy.

The assumption

seems

to be that

since

God

is equally

in all

things,

all

things

are equal.

By rejecting hierarchy

on

the

ground

that if

the world

or the Church were hierarchically struc

tured

some

creatures

would be

closer God than others, such theories

69

Cf.

J ean Trouillard,

IIProcession neoplatonicienne

et

creation

judeo-chretienne,

in Neoplatonisme: Melanges offerts

a

Jean Trouillard

(Fontenay

aux

Roses,

1981), 19.

6

ET, prop. 70.66.

6 ET

prop. 121.106.

62ET prop. 131.116.

63ET prop. 140.124; see also prop. 142.124-26; prop. 145.128.

8/11/2019 acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

16/16

AMERICAN CATHOLIC PHlLOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY

reveal that they remain trapped in the

ontotheological

view of God as

the supreme

being, the first in

aseries rather than beyond being

all

things

in al l

things and nothing

in

any.

In such egalitarian

theologies

the hierarchical differences

of

rank

between man

and

other

animals

male

and

female clergy

and

laity

are blurred or denied.

But

as a result

the very constitutive differences in virtue ofwhich

God

is

present to all

things are obliterated.

Dionysius

and the Neoplatonists however pro-

vide avision

of

creation

as theophany of

divine

immanence

together

with transcendence of the organic

unity

and sacramentality of the

cosmos,

inseparable from

the

traditional metaphysical and institutional

hierarchies. Hierarchy rather than

separating

us from one another and

promoting exploitation and

envy,

is

the very ground ofthe

communion

the

sympathy

the

interrelatedness

and mutual

responsibility

of

all

things. The higher are to

provide

for the lower and the lower to adhere

to and follow

the

higher. Love knows nothing

of

equality but leads

every

being

fulfil its

proper place in the order of creation.

The hierarchical

structure

of

the world and the

Church

is the very manifestation of the

love

of all

things for

each other which

is

itself their participation in the

love of God which fills all things.

By all

things . . .

the

Beautiful

and

the

Good

is desired and

beloved

and

cherished; and on account

of it and

for its

sake

the

lower

love

the

higher

revertively

and

those

of

equal order

their

equal

communally

and the higher

the lower providen-

tially

and each thing itself

preservingly

and all

things

by

desiring

the

Beautiful and the

Good do and will whatever

they do and will. . [God as Love is] a

unifying

and

preserving

power

binding those of equal

order in commu

nal

mutuality moving the first in providence

for

the

lower,

and establishing

the lower

in return to the higher.

64

University allas

Irving Texas

DN 4.10-12.155-58 708A-709D).

acpq_1994_0068_0001_0015_0030

Documents