PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION OF THE HOLY VIRGIN* Introduction The present article is the third piece among four in a series of studies examining the Christology of the Pseudo-Dionysian Corpus and showing that the Corpus conceals a radical dyophysite interpretation of the Chal- cedonian dogma, close to that of Theodoret of Cyrrhus. The first study in this series examines the direct and indirect text traditions of the Fourth, eminently Christological, Letter of Pseudo-Dionysius, in order to restore its original text and some of its variations throughout the ages and to better understand the Letter’s meaning, which was revealed to contain a particular Platonist/Evagrian interpretation of dyophysite Christology1. The second study examines the different strategies the chief Antiochian theologians adopted in the wake of the anti-Nestorian edict of Theodo- sius I, issued in August 4352, and shows that, as a result of the rude repression inflicted by the edict upon Antiochian theology, some of its representatives, headed by Theodoret of Cyrrhus, chose to adopt a kind of doublespeak, using the official Cyrillian formulations but maintaining * It would be very difficult to express my gratitude to all those who have contributed to this study. My feeling is that I could never have completed it elsewhere than in Jerusa- lem, in the inspiring and fascinating atmosphere of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, where I had the privilege, in 2009/10, to be a member of a research group entitled ‘Personal versus Established Religion: Eastern Christian Thought and Practice from the Fifth to the Eighth Century’. Discussions with members of our research group, Brouria Ashkelony, Joëlle Beaucamp, Lorenzo Perrone, Roger Scott, Aryeh Kofsky, Hillel Newman, Oded Irshai, Derek Krueger, but also with members of the parallel Ancient Arabia research group, particularly Joseph Patrich, are lurking behind every meaningful thought of this study. This study owes enormously much to many years of communication with the late David B. Evans, Patrick Gray, Basile Markesinis, Paul Rorem, Ben Schomakers and Carlos Steel. I most warmly thank Father Justin, the librar- ian of the Monastery of Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai for providing me with a high- resolution digital copy of MS Sin. syr. 52, used in this study, where the entire text can be read without any difficulty, as well as Sebastian Brock, who has checked the edition and translation of the Syriac text of the Pseudo-Dionysian Pseudo-Dormition and suggested necessary corrections and emendations. Finally, my warmest gratitude is due to Roger Scott, who not only corrected the English of this study but also made a number of most valuable suggestions for its structure. 1 I. PERCZEL, The Christology of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite: The Fourth Letter in its Indirect and Direct Text Traditions, in Le Muséon, 117 (2004), p. 409-446 (= PERCZEL, The Christology of Pseudo-Dionysius). 2 Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. II, ed. by P. KRÜGER, Berlin, 1954 (11th ed.), I. 5. 6, p. 51. Le Muséon 125 (1-2), 55-97. doi: 10.2143/MUS.125.1.2162440 - Tous droits réservés. © Le Muséon, 2012. 995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 5555 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 56 I. PERCZEL their original theological convictions, which coincided with those of Nestorius. The situation outlined in that study provides the necessary historical background for the phenomena observed in the essay at hand3. The present study conducts its investigation into Pseudo-Dionysius’s conception of the Virgin Mary and shows that she plays a negligible role in Pseudo-Dionysian theology, given that the passage that both Church tradition and modern scholarship usually interprets as the ‘Dormition of the Mother of God’ speaks in fact about something else – in my interpre- tation about the Council of Chalcedon. Finally, the fourth study will pre- sent a source analysis of some of the main Christological texts of the Dionysian Corpus, namely Divine Names II. 10 and the Third and Fourth Letters, and will show that these texts have been composed upon the model of and by using texts of Theodoret and Nestorius. All this research seems to indicate that we should look for the identity of Pseudo-Diony- sius in the circles of Theodoret of Cyrrhus. 1. Some general considerations on the Dionysian Corpus The Dionysian Corpus is normally dated between a terminus post quem constituted by a ‘triple time barrier’4 and a terminus ante quem. According to the received wisdom the terminus post quem is defined by 1) the introduction of the Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed to the Syrian-Antiochian liturgy by Peter the Fuller, Anti-Chalcedonian Patri- arch of Antioch, in 4765; 2) the promulgation of the Henoticon edict of emperor Zeno in 4826; 3) the death of Proclus in 4857; so the Corpus 3 This study is now available in electronic format, as a multilayered e-book with much explanatory material at AthanorBooks (www.giottoslibrary.com). 4 This ‘triple time barrier’ was suggested by J. STIGLMAYR, Das Aufkommen der Pseudo-Dionysischen Schriften und ihr Eindringen in die christliche Literatur bis zum Lateranconcil 649. Ein zweiter Beitrag zur Dionysiusfrage (Jahresbericht des öffentlichen Privatgymnasiums an der Stella Matutina zu Feldkirch, 4/5), Feldkirch, 1894 (= STIGL- MAYR, Das Aufkommen der Pseudo-Dionysischen Schriften). The same idea was recently invoked by B.R. SUCHLA, Dionysius Areopagita: Leben – Werk – Wirkung, Freiburg – Basel – Wien, 2008, p. 21 (= SUCHLA, Dionysius Areopagita: Leben – Werk – Wirkung). Suchla does not take into consideration the criticism of the triple time barrier by P. ROREM – J.C. LAMOREAUX, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite, Oxford, 1998, p. 9-10 (= ROREM – LAMOREAUX, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus). 5 STIGLMAYR, Das Aufkommen der Pseudo-Dionysischen Schriften, p. 34-39. 6 Ibidem, p. 39-45. 7 Pseudo-Dionysius’s dependence on Proclus was first methodologically established by Joseph Stiglmayr and Hugo Koch, independently, in 1895: J. STIGLMAYR, Der neupla- toniker Proclus als Vorlage des sogenannten Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Übel, in Historisches Jahrbuch, 16 (1895), p. 253-273, 721-748; H. KOCH, Proklus als 995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 5566 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 57 should have been written after 485. This speculation is based on the fol- lowing assumptions: 1) in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Pseudo-Diony- sius mentions a ‘universal hymnody’ sung during the liturgy8, which scholars tend to identify with the Creed, believed to have been first intro- duced into the liturgy by Peter the Fuller, while the sacrament of the Holy Myron treated in chapter VII of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy is also considered as an innovation introduced by Peter; 2) allegedly, the Dio- nysian Corpus displays an ‘eirenic’ attitude, a middle way between Chal- cedonians and Anti-Chalcedonians, corresponding to the spirit of the Henoticon that had forbidden debates concerning Chalcedon; 3) almost the entire work of Proclus seems to be known to Pseudo-Dionysius; so it is supposed that he was writing after the philosopher’s death. The ter- minus ante quem is defined by the first mention of the Corpus in the works of Severus of Antioch, datable to the 510s or the 520s. Some scholars consider a Constantinopolitan Colloquium between Chalcedoni- ans and Miaphysites in 532 to be the terminus ante quem, when Severus’ followers were referring to Pseudo-Dionysius’ Fourth Letter and Hypa- tius of Edessa expressed his doubts concerning the authenticity of the Corpus9. Quelle des Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Bösen, in Philologus, 54 (1895), p. 438-444; IDEM, Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita in seinen Beziehungen zum Neu- platonismus und Mysterienwesen, Mainz, 1900. However, at least Pseudo-Dionysius’s dependence on the Neoplatonist school was already suggested by J.G.V. ENGELHARDT, Die angeblichen Schriften des Areopagiten Dionysius übersetzt und mit Abhandlungen begleitet, Sulzbach, 1823, p. xi-xii (= ENGELHARDT, Die angeblichen Schriften des Areo- pagiten Dionysius). Engelhardt has not treated the Proclean elements in Pseudo-Dionysius. 8 EH III.7, 436C, p. 87, l. 24-88, l. 1 [Heil]. 9 Hypatius’ criticism is reported in a letter by the Chalcedonian Innocentius of Maro- nia (ACO IV/2 [ed. E. SCHWARTZ], p. 169-184, here p. 173, l. 12-18). Hypatius was reply- ing to a letter sent by the miaphysite bishops to Justinian, where a Dionysian locus (DN I.4, 592 AB, p. 113, l. 6-12 [Suchla]) was also cited as Patristic witness to the mia- physite doctrine. The letter’s text is translated into Syriac in Pseudo-Zachariah of Mytilene’s Chronicle. The Syriac text of the citation can be found in J.P.N. LAND, Anecdota Syriaca, vol. III, Leiden, 1870, p. 276, l. 5-18, its English translation in The Syriac Chronicle Known as that of Zachariah of Mitylene, trans. F.J. HAMILTON and E.W. BROOKS, London, 1899, p. 250. According to the argument of Rosemary A. Arthur, the fact that most early sixth-century miaphysite authors do not refer to the Pseudo- Dionysian Corpus indicates a very late appearance of the latter. She gives as terminus post quem (!) the year 527. She is inclined to suppose that the references found in Severus’s works may be later interpolations. See R.A. ARTHUR, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist: The Development and Purpose of the Angelic Hierarchy in Sixth Century Syria, Alder- shot, 2008, p. 105 ff. (= ARTHUR, Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist). However, this assump- tion seems to be gratuitous. A firm terminus ante quem is furnished by the fact that Severus’ works, including the three that contain references to the Dionysian Corpus, were translated into Syriac in the year 528 AD. See ROREM – LAMOREAUX, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus, p.