Dmitrij Biriukov

Hierarchies of Beings in the Patristic Thought. Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Areopagite

Dmitrij Biriukov - Academic Adviser of Scientific and Educational Centre of Problems of Religion, Philosophy and Culture at the State University of Aerospace Instrumentation; Associate Professor of National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow, Russia), dbirjuk@gmail.com

The article compares the hierarchy of beings in Gregory and Dionysius. Gregory's strategy in making the hierarchy follows the order of links in the tree of Porphyry; however Gregory departs from it for the sake of harmonization of links of the hierarchy with the cosmogonical order of natural being described in the Bible. Fundamental dissimilarity in the structure of the hierarchies in the doctrines of Dionysius and Gregory is pointed out. This difference is connected with the shift in the meaning of the philosophical concept of "participation". Dionysius's doctrine of the hierarchy of participating beings is analyzed. The connection of the principles with the Neo-platonic tetrad Goodness, Being, Life, Mind is showed. Dionysius's hierarchy of participating beings is compared with corresponding Proclus's hierarchy as well as with the hierarchy in Gregory. It is concluded that Gregory's hierarchy influenced Dionysius's one in that regard, in which Gregory's doctrine of hierarchy is based on the biblical-cosmogonical order of natural being.

This article uses the materials of a study carried out with the support of the Russian Humanitarian Science Foundation; project N 13 - 33 - 01299, "Horizons of Natural Science of the Eastern Christian Middle Ages".

page 302
Keywords: Gregogy of Nyssa, Dionisius the Areopagite, hierarchy of natural being, the tree of Porphyry, patristic philosophy, participation, universale, cosmogony, patristic philosophy, Platonism.

THE purpose of this article is to trace the formation and development of the topic of hierarchy of natural beings in patristics. This article consists of two parts. In this first part, I will begin with the doctrine of the hierarchy of natural beings by Gregory of Nyssa, and then turn to the doctrine of Dionysius the Areopagite and point out the essential difference between the concept of hierarchy in the Areopagite and the hierarchy in Gregory, drawing attention to the common elements in the hierarchies of these authors.1
Strategies for building hierarchies by Gregory of Nyssa

In his writings, Gregory of Nyssa developed the doctrine of the fundamental division of everything that exists into classes. In his earlier works, On the Constitution of Man, 8, and On the Soul and Resurrection (PG 46, 60AB), Gregory expounds the doctrine of the order of things in accordance with the ascending ladder of vital forces, in connection with which he speaks of the division according to which things (existing) are divided into the intelligent and the spiritual. Gregory reserves the bodily division of the intelligent for another case, and in these treatises deals only with the division of the corporeal.

He points out that corporeal beings are divided into those who participate in life and those who are deprived of life; living corporeal beings

According to Gregory, this division of natural beings is not accidental, but corresponds to the order of creation described in the book of Genesis.

Then, in his treatise Against Eunomius, Gregory makes a distinction also within the intellectual sphere and speaks of division

1. In the second part of this work, I will examine the development of the Dionysian line in Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, and in Palamitic literature.

2. In his direct description of the hierarchy, Gregory mentions the sentient, but also talks about the animate; from the "Constitution of Man", 8 (PG 44, 145.18-23 and 148.17 - 18), it follows that the animate is after the living, before the rational, and is the same as the sentient.

page 303
It is divided into three natures: first, the intelligent uncreated nature (the nature of the Deity); second, the intelligent created nature (angels and human souls), which partakes of the former in accordance with the goodness of the will of the individuals of this nature; and third, the sentient created nature.3
Unlike D. Balas, who, speaking about the hierarchy of divisions in Gregory of Nyssa, presents as its top being 4, I believe that it is necessary to distinguish between two strategies for building a hierarchy in Gregory. According to one of them, which is based on the principle of gens - specific divisions, 5 at the top of the hierarchy of divisions - or at its base (depending on the direction of the gaze)-lies being, including the intelligent, uncreated and created; according to another strategy, implemented by Gregory in parallel with the first in the treatise "Against Eunomius" 6, at the top of the hierarchy is the uncreated intelligent being, the supreme nature (the Divine nature common to the hypostases of the Trinity 8), which gives being to the created being 9 and to which the intelligent created being aspires as a source of good, and participates in it according to the goodness of its will 10.

It seems that in the framework of the first strategy, in the relation in which the existing-existing 11 is divided into smart and tech -

3. Gregory of Nyssa. V. Eunomius 1.1.270-277. 1.1.295 (Jaeger). In another passage of the same treatise, Gregory speaks of the division of beings into uncreated and created, and of created beings into supramundane and sensuous: Ibid., 4.100-101 (Jaeger).

4. Balas, D. (1966) Man's Participation in God's Perfections according to St. Gregory of Nyssa, p. 34. Rome.

5. That is, in accordance with the principle that the lowest level of the hierarchy refers to the highest as a species to a genus or an individual to a species.

6. Actually, both of these strategies are implemented simultaneously by Gregory of Nyssa in "Against Eunomius", 1.1.270-277. The strategy involving the division of the existing, which acts as the top of the hierarchy, is also discussed by Gregory in: On the Dispensation of man, 8 (PG 44, 145-10ff.); Big Catechumenical word, 6: 9ff. (Srawley).

7. Against Eunomius 1.1.274.3-4 (Jaeger).

8. Cf.: V. Eunomius, 1.1.274. -1275.1 and 1.1.277.8-13 (Jaeger).

9. Against Eunomius, 1.1.271.7-1.272.1 (Jaeger); cf. On the soul and resurrection, PG 46, 72D-73A.

10. V. Eunomius, 1.1.274.2-245.1 (Jaeger).

11. That is, the existent, understood in the sense of " all that exists." In this respect, Gregory shows the influence of stoic philosophy, where also at the top - or at the bottom - of the hierarchy of gens-specific divisions lies the being-existent (see SVF II 182), and it also does not claim any primacy in the ontological sense. The connection of being understood in this way by Gregory of Nyssa with the context of stoic philosophy is also confirmed by the nature of the upr-

page 304
forest, and smart is divided into uncreated and created, we should speak only about the epistemological nature of the gens-specific hierarchy in Gregory (i.e., the previous links of the hierarchy in no sense, except only for the mind, are not higher than the subsequent 12). Gregory's development of this strategy of gens-specific divisions, starting with the corporeal one, is such that it presupposes the ontological, and not only epistemological, character of the hierarchy described by gens-specific divisions. The second strategy assumes a hierarchy that does not correspond to gens-specific divisions (i.e., the lowest level of the hierarchy does not relate to the highest as a species to a genus or an individual to a species), and this hierarchy is understood by Gregory in the ontological sense, with the top in the form of a beginning (uncreated nature), which gives being to other types of hierarchies in descending order in relation to the degree of proximity to it and the ability to participate in it (intelligent created and sensual created natures).

Thus, we can speak of two versions of the hierarchy in Gregory of Nyssa. In one case, at the top of the hierarchy is the uncreated intelligent (Divine) nature, which gives being to the underlying intelligent and sentient created natures; in the other case, at the base of the hierarchy is being, which is divided into intelligent and corporeal. In turn, the corporeal entity is divided into the living and the inanimate, the living is divided into the sentient and the non-sentient, the sentient-into the unintelligent and the rational, which is the top-in the ontological sense-of this branch of hierarchy. The first option assumes the direction of increasing the hierarchy, understood in the ontological sense, from the sentient created being to the Divine nature. The second option assumes the direction of increasing the hierarchy from being-existing to reasonable; the criterion of orientation here is a measure of complexity and ontological superiority (the latter refers to the steps after the corporeal, since

use of this concept in Gregory and the Stoics: in both cases it is a question (see the Stoics: SVF II 182; in Gregory: On the Dispensation of Man, 8, PG 44, 145; Against Eunomius, 1.1.270.1, 1.1.295.1 (Jaeger); Big Catechetical word, 6.10 (Srawley)), which is understood as in the sense of "from all that exists", and in both cases this existing is divided into corporeal and disembodied (for the Stoics-although the character of this disembodied, of course, is understood by Gregory quite differently, not as it was understood by the Stoic philosophers.

12. This follows from the general principles of Christian theology, according to which nothing can be higher than the uncreated.

page 305
here, as I mentioned, the antecedence of the stages of the existent and the intelligent with respect to the subsequent ones cannot claim an ontological status).

As I show in another article 13, the strategy of Gregory of Nyssa, which posits being-existing as the base (top) of the hierarchy, goes back to the so-called Porphyry tree, combining elements of stoic, Platonic and Aristotelian philosophical lines. Let me remind you that the Porphyry tree follows the order of steps of the Porphyry tree, but it also makes certain deviations from it. In particular, in Gregory and Porphyry, the two levels of hierarchy, namely, the animate and the animate, occupy opposite places: in the former, the animate precedes the animate, while in the latter, on the contrary, the animate precedes the living. If we keep in mind the context of "On the Dispensation of Man", 8, where Gregory tries to achieve a synthesis between the biblical-cosmogonic, anthropological, logical and natural philosophical discourses, then we can point out the reason for this change in the order of the gens-specific hierarchy by Gregory in comparison with the Porphyry tree. The reason is the desire to coordinate the logical and philosophical scheme of the division of beings that was common for his time (presented in the tree of Porphyry) with the way the order of creation of natural beings is described in the Bible, and with the supposed-

13. Biryukov D. S. Ascent of nature from small to perfect: Synthesis of the Biblical and ancient logical-philosophical descriptions of the order of natural beings in the 8th chapter On the dispensation of man by Gregory of Nyssa / / Intellectual traditions in the past and present. Issue 2. IVI RAS: Aquilon, 2014. pp. 221-250. At the same time, I analyze such works concerning the subject of hierarchy in "On the Organization of Man", 8, in Gregory, as: Balas, Behr, J. (1999) " Rational Animal: A Re-Reading of Gregory of Nyssa's De hominis opificio", Journal of Early Christian Studies 7 (2); Drobner, H. "Gregory Nyssa as Philosopher: De anima et resurrectione and De hominis opificio", Dionysius 18; Ladner, G. (1958) "The Philosophical Anthropology of Saint Gregory of Nyssa", Dumbarton Oaks Papers 12; Reinhardt, K. (1953) "Poseidonios", Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertumstuissenschaft. T. XLIII.

14. Wed. Isagoga 10: 3 - 9, 14 - 18.

15. Ibid. 4: 15 - 27.

page 306
my logic is of this order. Indeed, the Biblical text says that the plant world was produced before the animal, 16 which determines the indicated order of steps in the division of things in Gregory, in which the living precedes the animate, in which Gregory differs from Porphyry.17
The difference in the structures of hierarchies in Dionysius the Areopagite and Gregory of Nyssa and philosophical paradigms of belonging to the essence in patristics

Turning to the description of the paradigm of understanding the hierarchy of beings, given by Dionysius the Areopagite, it can be noted that this paradigm is fundamentally different from the paradigm of understanding the hierarchy of Gregory of Nyssa. The hierarchy built up by Gregory does not presuppose transcendental principles corresponding to its links, to which these links belong; Dionysius, relying on the philosophy of Proclus, develops a doctrine of hierarchy that presupposes such principles.

This can be correlated with the rethinking of the concept of participation in essence in patristics and, in particular, participation in the Divine Essence, due to a change in the basic philosophical understanding of the concept of participation itself. Below I will make a small excursion into this topic 18.

I will call the platonic paradigm of participation an understanding according to which the partaker is inherently different from the partaker; in this case, "by participation" is said in terms of opposition to what is "by being" or" by nature " (possession of nature): for example, an entity that is different from the One is involved in it, and therefore is not it's on its own 19. In the most general sense, participation in this paradigm indicates that an entity has a certain property to a lesser extent than one that is the embodiment of this property. The Aristotelian paradigm of participation, which is the opposite of the Platonic one, is what I call Aristotle's software development.-

16. Compare Gen 1: 11 and 1: 20.

17. For more information, see: Biryukov D. S. The ascent of nature from small to perfect.

18. For more information, see our article: Biryukov D. S. The theme of communion with God in the Patristic tradition and in Nikifor Grigora / / George Fakrasis. Dispute between Gregory Palamas and Gregory the Philosopher. Filosofskie i bogoslovskie osnovaniya palamitskikh sporov [Philosophical and theological foundations of Palamite Disputes]. Transl. from drevnegrech. by D. A. Pospelova; ed. by D. S. Biryukov, Moscow, 2009, pp. 113-173.

19. Compare Plato. Parmenides 158a.

page 307
a concept of participation that expresses a logical relation between generic predicates of varying degrees of generality: the less general is involved in the more general, while the latter is not involved in the former (the individual is involved in the species and the genus, the species is involved in the genus, but not vice versa)20; thus, "by participation", according to this Aristotelian paradigm, means the same as" by being "or" by nature " (since within this paradigm, an individual by nature is what kind and genus he belongs to). Moreover, in contrast to the Platonic paradigm of participation, in which when it comes to participation, it is said about a greater or lesser degree of participation, in the framework of the Aristotelian paradigm, it is impossible to talk about a different degree of participation.

In the patriotic literature, early Christian authors were encouraged to actively use the platonic paradigm of participation by a well-known passage from the Second Epistle of Peter (2 Pet 1: 3-4), where it is said that Christians will become partakers of the Divine nature Based on this, we are talking about participation in the Divine essence (nature), as opposed to perfect possession of it.,- with more or less philosophical connotations and, usually, with an allusion to 2 Pet 1:3 - 4 - took place in the early Byzantine literature by Athanasius of Alexandria, 22 Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Macarius the Great, 23 and others, and in the Middle Byzantine literature - by John of Damascus, who has all the possible meanings of the Bible. his three paradigms of participation are platonic, Aristotelian, and Neoplatonic 24, as well as

20. Aristotle. Topics 121a10-15, 122B20-22.

21. On the opposition by participation-by nature in Athanasius of Alexandria and the Cappadocian fathers, see: Balas, p. 11-12, 60-62; cf. Biryukov D. Theme of participation in God. pp. 119-134

22. For example: Epistle 1 to Serapion: PG 26, 585B - S.

23 The last two authors use this topic very frequently; each has dozens of relevant passages.

24. In general, John of Damascus uses in his writings all possible paradigms of participation in the application of essence (nature) for his time - platonic, Aristotelian and Neoplatonic. The Platonic paradigm is found, for example, in the "Three Defensive Words", 3-33, as well as in the "Exact Exposition" 4 XIII (86): 2-14 (Kotter); the Aristotelian paradigm is shown in "On the properties of two Natures in one Christ", 7; the Neoplatonic paradigm is used in the following places: "On the Properties of Two Natures in One Christ", 11: 9-10 (Kotter), "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith", 7 (51). By virtue of Damaskin's use of all three paradigms of involvement in entities that we have identified-

page 308
Simeon the New Theologian 25. Within this line, patriotic literature has argued that it is the holy people who are involved in the Divine nature (they are involved in the Divine Essence, but do not possess it, like the hypostases of the Trinity), while the created world as a whole, according to Gregory of Nyssa26, cannot be considered involved in it.

In the context of Byzantine patristic literature, this paradigm of participation has taken a back seat to the new philosophical language introduced in the Areopagite Corpus. What was previously expressed in Greek patristics through the opposition " by being (by nature)" - "by participation", in line with the Areopagite philosophical and theological line, began to be transmitted through the conceptual triad developed by Proclus and picked up by the author of the Areopagitics non-participial - participial27 (the Neoplatonic paradigm of participation). This paradigm of participation includes elements of the Platonic and Aristotelian paradigms: the Aristotelian paradigm is present in terms of pushing away from it, necessary to introduce the aspect of the non-participle, while the Platonic paradigm is manifested in speech about the participle and the participle.

Transferring this triad to Christian theological thought, the Areopagite distinguishes in the Deity between - Divine emanations and powers, and what is not partaken of - the super-essential Divinity of the Deity. 28 The author of the scholia to the Areopagite Corpus details this as follows: whereas the Deity is partaken of according to its emanations and energies, God is not partaken of according to essence, 29 moreover, as is assumed within this paradigm, we are completely non-existent, i.e., for all created beings, including holy people. In the writings of Maxim the Confessor (he may also have been the author of these scholias

However, it is possible to note even some inconsistency. Namely, in the treatise "Three Defensive Words", 3.33, it is said about the participation of saints in the Divine essence, while in the work "On the properties of two natures in one Christ", I: 9-10 (Kotter), it is said about the non-participation of the essence of the Deity.

25. Moral words 3.82-86; Hymn 7.30 - 36; 50.153 - 154. 200 - 202 etc.

26. Against Eunomius 3.3.7.1-8.6 (Jaeger).

27. This triad was introduced into the philosophical lexicon by Iamblichus; see the testimony of Proclus in his Commentary on Timaeus II, 105.16 - 28; 313 - 19 - 24.

28. On the Divine Names 2.5; 11.6.

29. PG 4, 221C, 404A -B, 404D.

page 309
to the Areopagite corpus 30), this theme - the perfect non-participation of God in essence (nature) and participation in energies-is being finalized 31. Thus, there is a partial borrowing of the Aristotelian paradigm: the understanding becomes relevant, according to which to be involved in the essence means to have the essence or to be something in essence. For this reason, the discourse of the participation of saints (as well as any created beings in general) in the Divine Essence, which took place in the previous patristic literature, and in particular in Gregory of Nyssa, is forbidden (since within the framework of this new paradigm, the participation of saints in the Divine Essence would mean that they become God in essence).

After Maximus, the line of the neo-Platonic paradigm of communion, which presupposes the complete non-participation of God in essence, disappears for a while and is again in the field of view of Orthodox theologians after the rediscovery of Maxim's legacy by the end of the life of Nicetas Stiphates, i.e. in the last quarter of the XI century. In the course of the Palamite controversy, the idea of the possibility of participation in the Divine Essence is rejected in the tomos of the Council of the Church of Constantinople of 1351,32 and anathematized in a special supplement to the Synod of Orthodoxy.33
In fact, Gregory of Nyssa used both the Platonic and Aristotelian paradigms of participation in his writings. Gregory uses the latter, for example, in his treatise "Against Eunomius", when he says that all people are equally involved in human nature 34. The platonic paradigm is used by Gregory within the framework of the hierarchy he builds, which assumes as participation in its highest level the participation of intelligent created beings, to the extent of the goodness of their will, in the intelligent world. to the uncreated being-the Divine essence. In the teaching of Dionysius the Areopagite, who borrowed the Neoplatonic triad of participation (as well as later

30. See the table of scholia authorship in: Rorem, P., Lamoreaux, J. (1998) John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: annotating the Areopagite, pp. 264-277. Oxford.

31. Maxim the Confessor. Questions and Perplexities 173.1-7 (Declerck); Various Theological and house-building chapters (PG 90, 1180C-1181A).

32. 396 - 397

33. Synod of Orthodoxy, 85.628-633 (Gouillard).

34. Against Eunomius, 1.1.173 - 2-1.1.175 - 1 (Jaeger).

page 310
according to Maxim the Confessor and Gregory Palamas), such a platonic paradigm of participation in its application to the Divine Essence is impossible, since according to the philosophical paradigm of participation shared by these authors, participation in the Divine Essence would imply the assimilation of the essence of the Deity, which is forbidden in the framework of general patristic theological intuitions (in fact, this idea of the assimilation of the Divine essence by"it is blocked" by introducing the concept of the non-communicable into the theological discourse).

Therefore, for authors who accepted the neo-Platonic triad of participation in its application to theological discourse and whose theological system assumed an element of perfect non-participation in the Deity (non-participation of the Divine essence), it was natural to develop the doctrine of hierarchy, which presupposes the participation of created beings not in the Divine Essence, but in the higher principles-transcendentals - "appearances" of the Deity, His properties or energies, as is the case, respectively, with Dionysius the Areopagist, Maximus the Confessor, and Gregory Palamas.

Natural and individual participation in the Deity in Dionysius the Areopagite

The teaching about the hierarchy of beings in the texts of the Areopagite corpus is connected with the theme of participation in the Deity. In general, Dionysius speaks of a twofold involvement with God. On the one hand, everything that exists participates in the Deity naturally-by virtue of having being and in accordance with the nature of each being (more on this below). Such involvement is static, and within the framework of this paradigm there is no entity that is not involved in the Root Cause. On the other hand, the Areopagite speaks of an individual (for a rational being) mode of participation in the Deity. He speaks of the ability of an individual being to participate in the Divine Good, which can either be realized or not realized. In the latter case, within the framework of this paradigm, beings are referred to as not participating in the Good 35. Thus, one of the participation paradigms used by the Areopagite, which corresponds to the natural environment, is-

35. On the Divine Names, IV, 4: 147 - 15 - 148 - 2 (Suchla). Below I will omit the spelling of the title of the treatise "On Divine Names", indicating immediately the place in this treatise.

page 311
In particular, it implies the participation of created beings in God as a given, and within its framework there can be no question of non-participation of beings in the Deity in any relation, while another paradigm corresponding to the individual method of participation implies participation as a given, which may or may not become a given, and in the context of In this paradigm, we can talk about both the participation and non - participation of a (reasonable) individual being in God-if he chooses a state of closeness to the Divine gifts. In both cases, according to the Areopagite, the existent partakes of Divinity in its entirety (II, 5: 1294_6 [Suchla]); that is, God, on His part, gives Himself entirely, while the created existent partakes of Divinity to the extent of its capacity for this gift: both in terms of the ability to contain, determined by its nature, and in terms of individual openness to participation in the Divine gifts (for intelligent beings).

Later, a similar twofold paradigm of the participation of created beings in the Deity will be used by Maxim the Confessor and Gregory Palamas.

Partaking and partaking of Dionysius the Areopagite

Thus, speaking about the natural participation of created beings in the Deity, the author of the Areopagite Corpus develops his teaching about the "appearances" and "principles" shared by created beings. In V, 1, Dionysius refers to the names of the Deity Good, Being, Life, and Wisdom as the order of divine appearances extending to the corresponding realities in created beings and exceeding them. 36 Namely, the Benefit is distributed

36.Let us point out that in the theological language of Dionysius, the Divine Names are spoken in such a way that, on the one hand, they explain the Divine utterances, and on the other, they are identified with these utterances. The latter follows from V, 1: 181.1 - 6 (Suchla): "For the divine name 'Good', which is all the manifestations of the universal Cause, extends to things that are and things that are not, and above things that are and things that are not. And [the name] "Being" extends to all things and above things. And "Life" extends to all living things and beyond living things. And "Wisdom" extends to everything that thinks, is rational, and is perceived by the senses, and above all this." It follows that the names Good, Existent, and Life do not simply extend to non-existent, existent, and living, but also transcend them. Obviously, the reference to the fact that the Divine Names corresponding to the speeches exceed the corresponding realities of created beings indicates that Dionysius here identifies the Divine Name and the speech itself.

page 312
on existing and non-existing; Existing - on existing; Life - on living; Wisdom - on intelligent (angelic forces), rational and sensitive. These good performances do not represent many causes, but all belong to the One God; moreover, according to Dionysius, what these performances extend to and what participates in them is a hierarchy: the living - above the existing sentient -above the living; the intelligent -above the sentient; the thinking (minds; - above the intelligent. Dionysius notes that intelligent beings, as possessing the greatest number of natural perfections, are closest to God (V, 3: 182.3-4 [Suchla]). This very principle of the hierarchy of the communicant is connected in Dionysius with the concept of analogous, or proportionality, of the outpouring of Divine gifts on the participating entity (see I, 2-3; IV, 1, 33), both in its natural and individual aspects.

Dionysius speaks of the Good, the Existent, Life and Wisdom, using not only the terminology of "appearances". Also, in connection with these names, he talks about two types of specific realities - self-superior and self-inherited principles. As a rule, modern researchers pay attention to the teaching of Dionysius about the Good, Being, Life and Wisdom as appearances of the Deity, without focusing on the teaching about the mentioned principles in the text of the Areopagitica. Let us try to understand what Dionysius means when he mentions these principles.

In V, 2, the Areopagite deals with the self-superior essential Divinity of the self-superior essential Goodness, Essence, Life, and Wisdom, which transcend all goodness, essence, life, and wisdom. This type of reality seems to be identified with those mentioned by Dionysius in XI, 6 of the super-essential Beginning and the super-divine Life. However, for the purposes of

37. " However, can anyone say: why does Existence extend beyond Life, and Life extends beyond Wisdom, while those who live are higher than beings, those who feel are higher than living, those who are intelligent are higher than sentient beings, and those who are most close to God are higher than rational minds? After all, those who partake of God's great gifts should both be the best and surpass others. If intelligent beings can be accepted as having neither being nor life, then the reasoning is valid. If the divine minds are superior to the rest of existence, their way of life is higher than the rest of the living, they think and know above feeling and reason, and above all beings strive and participate in the Beautiful and Good, then they are closer to the Good to which they most participate, having received the greatest number of great gifts from It. he surpasses those who feel with the gift of reason, others with the presence of sense, and others with life " (V, 3: 182.1-16 (Suchla)). II, 7: 131.7-13; GU, 4: 148: 12-18 (Suchla).

page 313
to unify the terminology, we will further refer to this type of principles as self-superessential principles.

These realities are different from other higher realities established by God and are, like all things, a gift and outpouring of self-superior essential Good (V, 6), namely the principles prefixed with Self- Self-Being, Self-Life, Self-Wisdom, Self-Likeness of the Deity, Self-Unity, Self-Order (V, 5; cf. XI, 6), Self-Goodness (II, 1; XI, 6), Self-Eternity (V, 9), Self-Equality (IX, 10; XI, 6), Self-Peace (XI, 2; XI, 6), Self- Divinity (XI, 6), Self-Beauty (XI, 6), Self-Holiness (XII, 1) 38. Dionysius points out that everything that exists, including the beginnings with the prefix Self-, comes from a self-superior essential Good. At the same time, he gives two examples: an example of the ratio of one to other numbers (all numbers are united in one, and the more distant the number is from one, the more divided it is) and an example of a set of lines passing through the center of one circle (the further away from the center, the greater their divergence) (V, 6).

Dionysius speaks of the principles with the prefix Self - as realities, which, being the gift and outpouring of the non-communicable Deity, are partaken of by beings, so that beings are and are called beings, living, deified, etc. (XI, 6).

Among the principles with the prefix Self-Self-Being is the oldest and it is shared by the other principles with the prefix Self -, which are called self-shared by Dionysius, These principles are immediately shared and shared: they are involved in Self-Being, and they are shared by entities with properties corresponding to the names of these principles (despite the fact that some entity can be simultaneously involved in V, 5: 184.11-12 [Suchla]). Those who participate in the self-existent principles also participate in Self-Being (V, 5).

Although the Areopagite calls the self-created higher realities principles (V, 5), he rejects the possibility of understanding them as creative entities or causesof things (XI, 6) 39, since the Cause of things, as well as its beginning, is-

38. Speaking of these principles, Dionysius also mentions that Self-Life is derived from the Divine Life (VI, 1), and that God as a Power is above Self-Power (VIII, 2) and is the Basis of Self-Similarity (IX, 6), Self-Equality (IX, 10) and the Self-World (XI, 2).

39. Here, probably, Dionysius is arguing with the Proklovian teaching about genads, understood in the sense of hypostatic principles.

page 314
There is only a super-divine Deity in the modes of self-superessence (self-superessential Good, Essence, Life, Wisdom) (V, 6; XI, 6). While Dionysius mentions different such modes, the Deity within these modes is one Cause of existence, and not many,i.e. it would be wrong to understand self-superessential Good, Essence, Life, Wisdom). Essence, Life, and Wisdom as separate causes of beings (V, 2). We can say that, according to Dionysius, the realities of the self - superessential represent one Cause and Beginning, while the beginnings of beings with the prefix Self-(Self-Being, Self-Life, Self-Wisdom, etc.) - many (cf. V, 5-6).

Dionysius explains that God can be called both the Basis, for example, of Self-Life or Self-Power, and the actual Self-Life or Self-Power. In the first case, It is spoken of as superessentially exceeding all things and originally existing (obviously, by original being here we mean the principles with the prefix Self -), in the second, It is called by the names of things and originally existing, as their Cause (XI, 6: 221.13-222.2 (Suchla)).

The relationship between Divine performances, on the one hand, and self-super-essential realities and beginnings with the prefix Self -, on the other hand, is not fully understood, but, as it seems to us, we can say that both self-super-essential realities and beginnings with the prefix Self -, despite the fact that they are different from each other (the first two elements are different from each other). they are the cause and source of being of the second) and are not identical with Divine performances, but represent various aspects of these performances 41.

40. The use of this very discourse, that is, the discourse that presupposes a speech about the super-existent on the basis of the name of the "existent", in my opinion, explains the words of Dionysius in XI, 6: 222.13 ff. (Suchla) that Self-Being, Self-Life, and Self-Divinity speak of a divine, supernal, and super-essential Beginning and Cause, while a little earlier (XI, 6: 222.6 ff. [Suchla]) the Areopagite rejected that Self-Being is the divine Cause of all that exists, and that the Areopagite rejected that Self-Being is the divine Cause of all that exists. Self-Life is the cause of the living, and he said that it is the super-divine Life that is the cause of both Self-Life and all living things.

41. It may be noted here that Eric Perl, without making a reservation, actually identifies the Divine speeches of the Areopagite precisely with the beginnings with the prefix Self -, without asking about the complexity and non-triviality of the Dionysian doctrine of Divine names and their denotations. And this, in my opinion, somewhat distorts the teaching of Dionysius in the presentation of Pearl. Specifically, Perl (Perl, E. (2007) Theophany: the Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite, pp. 66-67. New-York), beginning to talk about the tetrad of speeches Good, Being, Life, Wisdom from V, 1 and developing his idea, goes to XI, 6, and, based on this passage, points out that the Divine speeches, according to Dionysius, are not intermediaries-

page 315
Divine names in Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonic Tetrad

Among all the Divine names mentioned by the Areopagite, there are four primary ones: Good-Being -Life-Wisdom. Dionysius refers these names to Divine appearances, to self-exalted essential realities, and to the beginnings of existence with the prefix Self -. This sequence of names is borrowed by Dionysius from the Neo-Platonic tradition, which developed the doctrine of the triad of Being-Life-Mind.42 Using this neo-Platonic triad, Dionysius replaced the Mind with Wisdom, seeking, as researchers note 43, to bring this discourse closer to the biblical one.

In the Platonic tradition, the triad of Being-Life-Mind goes back at least to Plotinus, who taught about the One as the source of Existing Life and Mind.44 The later neo-Platonists Proclus and Sirian also placed Being, Life, and Mind under the One, linking this triad to the noetic domain.

creative entities and hypostases. However, in XI, 6, Dionysius refers specifically to the principles with the prefix Self -, and not to Divine appearances in general, and his purpose here, among other things, is to state that these principles are not the creative causes of things, while the super-essential principle and super-divine Life are the Cause and Beginning of things and the Divine Life. life (XI, 6: 222.3 - 223.3 (Suchla); the distinction seems also to be relevant here, as I think Dionysius foresaw, between the concept of "cause" referring only to self-superessential (or divine) realities, but not to those with the prefix Self -, and the concept of "beginning"referring simultaneously to both self-and divine realities. to one, and to the other; see above). From this it follows, in my opinion, that it is incorrect to put Dionysian Divine exoduses in the same row, on the one hand, and beginnings with the prefix Samo -, on the other, without specifying details and context, as Perl actually does, since not everything that Dionysius refers to the beginnings with the prefix Samo-is attributed to him to Divine performances in general.

42. However, Paul Rorem points out that there is also a biblical background to these Divine Names: Rorem, P. (1993) Pseudodionysius. A Commentary on the Texts and an Introduction to Their Influence, pp. 153 - 155. Oxford. Ср.: Rorem, P. (1989) "The Biblical Allusions and Overlooked Quotations in the Pseudo-Dionysian Corpus", Studia Patristica 23: 64.

43. Ср.: Klitenic Wear, S. and Dillon, J. (2007) Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonist Tradition: Despoiling the Hellenes, p. 24, n. 31; 26. Aldershot; Burlington (VT): Ashgate (Ashgate Studies in Philosophy & Theology in Late Antiquity); Perl, E. Theophany: the Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagit, p. 129.

44. Dams. Эннеады I 8, 2. См.: Schafer, Ch. (2006) The Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite. An Introduction to the Structure and the Content of the Treatise On the Divine Names, p. 86. Leiden, Boston: Brill. Klitenic Wear, S. and Dillon, J. Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonist Tradition: Despoiling the Hellenes, p. 24) erroneously refer to the Ennead I 6, 7 in this regard.

page 316
According to Kleitenitz-Ware and Dillon, only Porphyry of the Neo-Platonists placed this triad on the level of the One, and here there is an intersection of the positions of Porphyry and Dionysius, in whom this triad also corresponds to the highest reality. 45
However, it is unlikely that Dionysius, when speaking about the Divine names Good, Being, Life, Mind, came from the texts of Porphyry; the most obvious source for him in this regard is Proclus. As Polycarp Sherwood [46] noted, Dionysius relied here on the 101st and 102nd theorems of Proclus ' Principles of Theology, which deal with the triad of Being-Life-Mind. At the same time, in the 8th theorem of this work and further on, Proclus also speaks of the Good as the highest principle. The dependence of the Areopagite on Proclus in this case also follows from the philosophical background of the Dionysian doctrine of the tetrad Good-Being-Life-Wisdom in V, 1-2, analyzed, in particular, by E. Perl 47.

The hierarchy of Beings in Dionysius the Areopagite

From what has been said above, it follows that we can confidently speak of a hierarchy of created beings - or a hierarchy of participators - in the teaching of Dionysius. This is the next hierarchy (increasing in the ontological sense, as well as in terms of the measure of complexity): being-living-feeling-intelligent-intelligent (V, 3: 182.1-16 (Suchla); see quote in note 38). This hierarchy corresponds to the order of degrees of extension of the Deity's appearances, which are included in the Being-Life - Wisdom triad borrowed from the Neo-Platonists, while Wisdom corresponds to three links in the hierarchy of participating beings at once: intelligent, intelligent, and sentient. The structure of this hierarchy of participators is such that the more complex an entity is, the more transcendental it is involved in. This assumes that each subsequent link in the hierarchy includes the previous ones. That is, the possession of each subsequent perfection, or natural ability, implies the possession of the previous ones, as well as their corresponding participations (although it remains

45. Klitenic Wear, S. and Dillon, J. Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonist Tradition: Despoiling the Hellenes, pp. 25 - 26.

46. Sherwood, P. (1955) "Introduction", in St. Maximus the Confessor: The Ascetic Life. The Four Centuries on Charity, Trans, and annot. by P.Sherwood, O.S. B., S.T. D., pp. 40 - 41. Paulist Press. (Ancient Christian Writers).

47. Perl, E. Theophany: the Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite, p. 68 - 69.

page 317
it is not entirely clear how this works in the case of the angelic forces corresponding to the highest level of the Dionysian hierarchy (umny), the nature of which obviously does not include the previous perfections within the hierarchy (48).

Although Dionysius borrowed the order of the Divine names-performances that are partaken of from Proclus, the links in the Dionysian hierarchy of the communicant do not correspond to the links in the hierarchy of the communicant in Proclus, i.e., the following hierarchy: animate-vegetable - inanimate corporeal-material49. Thus, Dionysius does not follow Proclus in his teaching about what is involved in these proclamations, relying on Proclus ' teaching about the Divine names that participate in the Good-Being-Life-Wisdom speeches.

It should be noted that Dionysius does not have a clear correspondence between the stages of Divine performances and the links in the hierarchy of the communicant. As mentioned above, there are as many as three links in the hierarchy of the participant in the Wisdom performance: the intelligent, the intelligent, and the feeling that suddenly appeared here.

However, is there a correspondence between the participant and the participant in relation to the principle of hierarchy itself? Does the hierarchy of participants correspond to a similar hierarchy in terms of participating Divine Performances? In my opinion, the answer to this question should be rather negative.

The partaking appearances described by Dionysius in V, 1 - 2 - the names Good, Being, Life, Wisdom, in which hierarchically organized created beings participate-do not themselves form a hierarchy, but rather, in the words of Eric Perl, "are more or less universal manifestations of the same Divine presence" 50, representing These are the various limits to which the Deity extends. That is, as it follows from V, 3, Wisdom includes Life, Being and Good;

48. It should be noted that, unlike Dionysius, in Gregory of Nyssa, the perfection corresponding to the angelic powers (as well as the highest ability of a human being), the intelligent created, is placed outside the hierarchy of natural beings (see above), and therefore there is no such confusion about Gregory's teaching about hierarchies.

49. Platonic Theology III, 6; for a general outline, see Dodds, E. R. (1963)" Commentary", in Proclus. The Elements of Theology. A revised text with transl., introd. and comm. by E. R. Dodds, pp. 232 - 233. Oxford.

50. Perl, E.Theophany: the Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite, p.70.

page 318
Life is Essential and Good, etc. 51. Christian Schaefer calls this principle the "Russian-doll-principle"52. Obviously, the same matryoshka principle applies to those who participate in these performances (as opposed to performances that form a hierarchy among themselves): intelligent beings contain the perfections of the intelligent, sentient, living, and existent; intelligent beings contain the perfections of the sentient, living, and existent, etc.

We can speak of an element that refers to hierarchy in relation to the principles with the prefix Self-, which Dionysius also refers to as partaking (see above). As something that belongs to these principles, Dionysius directly mentions the deified, living, unified, similar, ordered (V, 5: 184.8-16 [Suchla]; XI, 6: 222.17-223.1 [Suchla]), but it is assumed that beings with properties corresponding to the names of these principles belong to each of them . This is why these principles (with the exception of Self-Being) are called self-participating, that is, simultaneously participating (in Self-Being and through it to the self-superior Good) and participating (corresponding types of participating beings). The element of hierarchy in relation to these principles is that they belong to Self-Being as the oldest principle among them (V, 5: 184.8-16 [Suchla]). However, Dionysius seems to give no reason to think that in his system the self-related principles form any hierarchy among themselves (apart from the fact that each of them is involved in Self-Being).

So, if you pay attention to the examples that Dionysius gives when talking about the origin of all things, including the beginnings with the prefix Self -, from the self-superior Good, namely, the example of a set of lines passing through the center of one circle, and the example of the ratio of one to other numbers, which are more and more separated as they move away from it (V, 6; see above),

51. Cf.: Perl, E. Theophany: the Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite, p. 69-70. Note that Kleitenitz-Ware and Dillon erroneously assert that within the Dionysian triad, Being is above Life and Wisdom, and that Life and Wisdom are part of Being: "Regarding Being, Dionysius places this name above Life and Wisdom so that Life and Wisdom participate in Being" (Klitenic Wear, S. and Dillon, J. Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonist Tradition: Despoiling the Hellenes, p. 26). However, the authors do not point to the original source in the text of Dionysius for this statement. However, this statement is valid only for initials with the prefix Self- (V, 5; see above), but not for statements as such.

52. Schafer, Ch. The Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite, p. 87.

page 319
then the first example does not indicate any hierarchy, while the second example may imply it. However, this vague example of numbers is not enough to draw a conclusion about hierarchy in the framework of the principles with the prefix Self - in Dionysius, especially since the principle of hierarchy is not confirmed by the first example, and also by the fact that, in addition to Self-Being, Self-Life and Self-Wisdom, these principles are such as, for example, Self-Similarity, Self-Unity, Self-Order, etc., the possible principle of hierarchy between which, unlike the former, is not clear 53.

Hierarchies of Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Areopagite: conclusions

So, speaking about participation in the system of Dionysius, we should distinguish four elements. These elements are defined by the neo-Platonic paradigm, which presupposes such aspects of participation as non-participating, participating and participating. Namely, these are the following four elements: first, the non - partaking-the super-essential Divinity of the Deity; second, the partaking-Divine appearances and self-super-essential principles; third, the partaking - partaking-principles with the prefix Self -; and fourth, the partaking - created being in its individual and individual form. in the natural aspect, in particular, the hierarchy of beings.

Unlike Gregory of Nyssa, Dionysius does not use either the Aristotelian paradigm of participation in essence (when in the language of participation it is said that an individual belongs to a certain species or a species belongs to a genus), nor the platonic paradigm of participation, which presupposes the opposition "by participation "(which corresponds to the possession of a certain property) and " by being"(which corresponds to what this property embodies). Instead of these paradigms, Dionysius uses a combined neo-Platonic paradigm of participation, which implies a distinction in the Deity between the non-communicable and the partaker, which defines the general concept of the hierarchy of beings in Dionysius - in the sense that this is the hierarchy of the partaker.

53. It may be added that even the "matryoshka principle", which presupposes the inclusion of more extended beginnings by less extended ones, clearly refers in Dionysius only to the Divine performances proper (which are discussed in V, 1-2), but not to the beginnings with the prefix Samo -, which cannot be said that in Dionysius they are subject to this principle

page 320
both of them. Thus, Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Areopagite differ in their understanding of the very structure of the hierarchy of beings, since in Gregory this hierarchy does not imply any transcendent participating principles corresponding to the types of created beings participating in them, whereas in Dionysius the hierarchy presupposes such principles, certain universals-before-things. For Dionysius, this role can be claimed by the triad of Divine performances Being-Life-Wisdom, which, although it is a single Cause of being, is a sequence of links that differ in terms of the degree of distribution of the Deity. In addition, this role can also be claimed (as it seems, representing some aspect of the Divine occurrences) by the principles with the prefix Self-: Self-Being, Self-Life, and Self-Wisdom, which in the system of Dionysius are also partakers; and, as far as Dionysius can understand, these principles are in his own mind. they are distinct realities, since Dionysius speaks of a multitude of such principles (V, 5).

You can also point out common elements in the hierarchies of beings in Gregory and Dionysius. Namely, there is a certain similarity in the sequence of links in these hierarchies, and with this similarity in mind, we can assume the dependence of Dionysius on Gregory in a certain respect.

For Gregory, the hierarchy that is based on things is a gens-specific hierarchy. In Dionysius, the hierarchy of the participator (as well as the relationship between divine performances) is also similar in structure to that of the gens-species54. This follows from his idea that each subsequent link in the hierarchy contains the previous links, i.e., from the "matryoshka principle".-

54. The only difference from the gens-specific scheme proper in this case is that the hierarchical discourse of Dionysius does not imply links that are privative elements that are symmetrical with respect to the main links of the hierarchy (non-intelligent, non-intelligent, non-sentient, etc.), which is the case within the hierarchical discourse of Dionysius. Grigory.

page 321
In contrast to Gregory, Dionysius lacks the physical55; Gregory lacks the intellectual56. At the same time, there is a similarity in the hierarchy of Gregory and Dionysius with respect to the sequence of links being - living-feeling-reasonable.

It is interesting that Dionysius has a sentient element in the hierarchy of natural communicants, whose presence, as I mentioned, is quite unexpected, since it does not correspond in its nature to the appearance of the Deity that extends to it - Wisdom, and in general falls out of the Dionysian order of Divine appearances (Being, Life, Wisdom), which are partaken of by the links of the hierarchy. This link is also missing from the Proklov hierarchy of participants. At the same time, it should be noted that in the Dionysian hierarchy, the link of the sentient is located in the same place as it is in the hierarchy of beings in Gregory of Nyssa - between the living and the rational. Therefore, taking into account the general similarity in terms of the sequence of links of hierarchies in Gregory and Dionysius, it can be assumed that the appearance of the link of feeling in the hierarchy of Dionysius is due to the fact that when developing his teaching about the hierarchy of natural participants, he had in mind the hierarchy of beings represented by Gregory of Nyssa, and borrowed from his hierarchy link by placing it in the appropriate place in your hierarchy. In turn, as mentioned above, the presence of a linkfeeling in the place where it is located in the hierarchy of Gregory of Nyssa, i.e. between the living and the rational, is connected with the fact that Gregory, when building his hierarchy, had in mind the biblical-cosmogonic order of natural beings (which is mentioned in Genesis 1: 11 and 20) and it was based on this that he changed the order This is a very high number of steps compared to the tree of Porphyry, which he generally followed.

Thus, the biblical line in terms of the order of natural beings penetrates through Gregory of Nyssa into the Dionysian discourse, and through him it will also penetrate into the corresponding teachings of subsequent authors, which I will consider in the second part of this study.

55. This link, by the way, is present in the hierarchy of the partisan Proclus, who in many ways, as we have seen, influenced the teaching of Dionysius.

56. Wed. approx. 50 and the text attached to it.

page 322
Bibliography/References

Biryukov D. S. Ascent of nature from small to perfect: Synthesis of the Biblical and ancient Logical-philosophical descriptions of the order of natural beings in the 8th Chapter On the dispensation of man by Gregory of Nyssa / / Intellectual Traditions in the past and present, Issue 2. Moscow: IVI RAS, Aquilon, 2014. pp. 221-250.

Biryukov D. S. The theme of communion with God in the Patristic tradition and in the Works of Nikifor Grigora. Dispute between Gregory Palamas and Gregory the Philosopher. Philosophical and theological foundations of Palamite disputes / Translated from drevnegrech. D. A. Pospelova; ed. by D. S. Biryukov. Moscow, 2009.

Balas, D. (1966) Man's Participation in God's Perfections according to St. Gregory of Nyssa. Rome.

Behr, J. (1999) "Rational Animal: A Re-Reading of Gregory of Nyssa's De hominis opificio", Journal of Early Christian Studies 7 (2).

Biriukov, D. S. (2014) "Voskhozhdenie prirody ot malogo k sovershennomu: Sintez bibleiskogo і antichnogo logiko-filosofskogo opisanii poriadka prirodnogo sushchego v 8-і gl. Ob ustroenii cheloveka Grigoriia Nisskogo", Intellektual'nye traditsii v proshlom і nastoiashchem, pp. 221 - 250. T. 2. ["Ascent of Nature from the Lower to the Perfect": Synthesis of Biblical and Logical-Philosophical Descriptions of the Order of Natural Beings in De opificio hominis, 8 by Gregory of Nyssa", in Intellectual traditions in the past and the present. T. 2] IVI RAN: Akvilon.

Biriukov, D. S. (2009) "Tema prichastnosti Bogu v sviatootecheskoi traditsii і u Nikifora Grigory", in Georgii Fakrasis. Disput Grigoriia Palamy s Grigoroi Filosofom. Filosofskie і bogoslovskie osnovaniia palamitskikh sporov, Per. s drevnegrech. D.A. Pospelova; otv. red. D. S. Biriukov. ["The Issue of Participation in God in Patristic Tradition and Nikephoros Gregoras", in Disputation of St Gregory Palamas with Gregoras, a Philosopher. Philosophical and Theological Aspects of the Pa-lamite Controversy] Moscow.

Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos (1969 - 1988), Hrsg. B.Kotter. 5 Bande. Berlin. (Mafigebliche kritische Gesamtausgabe).

Dodds, E. R. (1963) "Commentary" in Proclus. The Elements of Theology. A revised text with transl., introd. and comm. by E. R. Dodds. Oxford.

Drobner, H. "Gregory Nyssa as Philosopher: De anima et resurrectione and De hominis opificio", Dionysius 18.

Gouillard, J. (1967) "Le Synodikon de l'Orthodoxie. Edition et commentaire", Travaux et Memoires 2: 1 - 316.

Gregorii Nysseni opera (1960 - 1990), ed. W.Jaeger. Vol. 1 - 10. Leiden: Contra Eunomium Libri: I et II, vol. 1, 1960; III, vol. 2, 1960.

Gregory of Nyssa (1903). The Catechetical Oration, Ed. J. Srawley Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Klitenic Wear, S. and Dillon, J. (2007) Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonist tradition: Despoiling the Hellenes. Aldershot; Burlington (VT): Ashgate. (Ashgate Studies in Philosophy & Theology in Late Antiquity).

Ladner, G. (1958) "The Philosophical Anthropology of Saint Gregory of Nyssa", Dumbarton Oaks Papers 12.

page 323
Maximi Confessoris Quaestiones et Dubia (1982), ed. J. H.Declerck. Brepols - Turnhout. (Corpus Christianorum, series Graeca, 10).

Perl, E. (2007) Theophany: the Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite. New-York.

Patrologia Graeca, Ed. J. P. Migne. T. 4; 26; 44; 90.

Porphyrii isagoge et in Aristotelis categorias commentarium (1887), ed. A. Busse. Berlin. (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, 4.1).

Procli Diadochi in Platonis Timaeum commentaria, ed. E. Diehl. 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, T. 1: 1903; T. 2: 1904; T. 3: 1906.

Proclus (1963). The Elements of Theology, a revised text with transl., introd. and comm. by E. R. Dodds. Oxford.

Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita (1990). De divinis nominibus, ed. B.R. Suchla. Berlin: De Gruyter. (Patristische Texte und Studien 33).

Reinhardt, K. (1953) "Poseidonios", Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertumstuissenschaft. T.XLIII.

Rorem, P. (1993) Pseudo-Dionysius. A Commentary on the Texts and an Introduction to Their Influence. Oxford.

Rorem, P. "The Biblical Allusions and Overlooked Quotations in the Pseudo-Dionysian Corpus", Studia Patristica 23.

Rorem P., Lamoreaux J. (1998) John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: annotating the Areopagite. Oxford.

Schafer, Ch. (2006) The Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopagite. An Introduction to the Structure and the Content of the Treatise On the Divine Names. Leiden, Boston: Brill.

Sherwood, P. (1955) "Introduction", in St. Maximus the Confessor: The Ascetic Life. The Four Centuries on Charity, Trans, and annot. by P. Sherwood, O. S. В., S.T D. Paulist Press. (Ancient Christian Writers).

Stoicorum veterum fragmenta (1903), ed. J. von Arnim. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Teubner.

page 324

Permanent link to this publication: