Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and the Pseudo-Dormition of the Holy Virgin*

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.

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 interpretation about the Council of Chalcedon. Finally, the fourth study will present 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 5656 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 following 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 introduced 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 terminus 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 replying 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 miaphysite 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 assumption 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. 10. According to Rorem and Lamoreaux, these works might have been written between 518 and 528 AD; see Ibidem, p. 13.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 5757 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 58 I. PERCZEL

Pertinent doubts concerning the validity of the ‘triple time barrier’ have been expressed by Paul Rorem and Charles Lamoreaux10. Accord- ing to them, 1) the date 476 cannot be maintained for the introduction of the Creed into the liturgy. Rather, this was an innovation by Timothy of Constantinople toward 51511. To this, one should add that the ‘universal hymnody’ mentioned by Pseudo-Dionysius is apparently not the Creed but part of the anaphora. Also 2) Rorem and Lamoreaux have convinc- ingly demonstrated that Severus, while using Pseudo-Dionysius’ testimonies, was only replying to an earlier, Chalcedonian utilisation of the Pseudo-Areopagite12. Moreover, as I will explain below, Pseudo-Diony- sius’ Christology does not correspond to the Henotikon. Finally, 3) there is nothing that would prevent the Corpus from having been written during the lifetime of Proclus, the dating of whose works cannot be established – all that we can say is that Pseudo-Dionysius must have written at a time when, already, most of Proclus’ main works had been written. According to Marinus, Proclus’ biographer, Proclus lost his corporeal strength in the last five years of his life and was not able to compose any important work but only hymns and some minor writings13. If this is so and if we suppose that Proclus’ creative energy was gradually declining, then, his most important and monumental works, such as the Platonic Theology, fully known to and used by Pseudo-Dionysius14, could be written earlier than even the year 470. My proposal for an early dating (between 470 and 485) is based on internal evidence. I consider the Dionysian Corpus an encoded writing that, in a cryptic language, is referring to events from the author’s lifetime and, under pseudonyms, to contemporary and earlier historical

10 Ibidem, p. 9-10. However, Rorem and Lamoreaux are in favour of a late, early sixth- century dating. 11 ROREM – LAMOREAUX, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus, p. 9. The authors are referring to Bernard Capelle’s studies: L’introduction du symbole à la messe, in Mélanges Joseph de Ghellinck, vol II, Gemboux, 1951 and Alcuin et l’histoire du symbole de la messe, in Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale, 6 (1934), p. 258- 259. 12 ROREM – LAMOREAUX, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus, p. 11-15. Particularly important is a note by Theodosius I of Alexandria, according to which ‘Severus of blessed memory no less than they [scil. the Chalcedonians] and no less dili- gently read the works of St Dionysius’ (Oratio theologica, 52) – Ibidem, p. 12. 13 Marinus, Life of Proclus, or On Happiness, see Marinus, Proclus ou Sur le bonheur, texte établi, traduit et annoté par H.D. SAFFREY et A.Ph. SEGONDS, Paris, 2001, 21, 29-46, p. 31 (= Marinus, Proclus ou Sur le bonheur, ed. SAFFREY – SEGONDS). 14 See I. PERCZEL, Pseudo-Dionysius and the Platonic Theology, in A. SEGONDS – C. STEEL (ed.), Proclus et la théologie platonicienne. Actes du colloque international de Louvain (13-16 mai 1998) en l’honneur de H.D. Saffrey et L.G. Westerink, Leuven – Paris, 2000, p. 491-532 (= PERCZEL, Pseudo-Dionysius and the Platonic Theology).

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 5858 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 59

figures. Once the language is deciphered, these events and persons can be identified. Some decoding of this type pointing to events in the second half of the fifth century will be suggested in what follows. As to Proclus, he seems to be cited and addressed under the name Apollophanes, ‘Revealer of Apollo’, as a living person in Letter VII15. So Pseudo-Dionysius could have written his work between 470 and 48516. Finally, there is an obvious and well established phenomenon related to the Corpus’ text transmission, namely that the Greek text we have in the entire direct tradition, apparently as it appears in the sixth century and is being commented upon by John of Scythopolis, shows signs of grave deterioration that triggered an editio variorum with alternative readings in the hyparchetype of all the presently known Greek manuscripts. Beate R. Suchla attributes this edition to the circles of John of Scythopolis17. For this to happen, there must have elapsed a certain amount of time between the composition of the Cor- pus and its first circulation in wider circles. My hypothesis is that the Corpus was first circulating within limited circles before being published for the wider public. Although the original language of the Cor- pus is Greek, its first Syriac reception seems to antedate its first Greek reception as it is known to us18. In fact, John was bishop of Scythopo- lis between an unknown date after 536 and ca. 548, when he must have died19, while the terminus ante quem for the first Syriac translation of the Corpus is the death of the translator, Sergius of Rish cAyno, who

15 Ep. 7.2-3, 1080A-1081C, p. 166-170 [Ritter]. On this identification see PERCZEL, Pseudo-Dionysius and the Platonic Theology, p. 527-530. 16 This coincides with Ben Schomakers’ opinion (expressed orally and forthcoming). The argument taken from Marinus’ Life of Proclus was suggested by Dr. Schomakers. 17 See Beate Regina Suchla’s Introduction to her critical edition of the Divine Names: Corpus Dionysiacum: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita De divinis nominibus, ed. B.R. SUCHLA (Patristische Texte und Studien, 33), Berlin, 1990, p. 54-57 and 65-66. See also S. LILLA, Osservazioni sul testo del De divinis nominibus dello Ps. Dionigi l’Areopagita, in ASNSP, Serie III, 10 (1980), p. 196 and IDEM, Zur neuen kritischen Ausgabe der Schrift Über die Göttlichen Namen von Ps. Dionysius Areopagita, in Augustinianum, 31/2 (1991), p. 438. 18 On the degree of corruption of the Greek text and the chronological priority of the Syriac indirect tradition over against the Greek direct tradition see I. PERCZEL, Sergius of Reshaina’s Syriac Translation of the Dionysian Corpus: Some Preliminary Remarks, in C. BAFFIONI (ed.), La diffusione dell’eredità classica nell’età tardo-antica e medievale. Filologia, storia, dottrina, Alessandria, 2000, p. 79-94 and IDEM, The Earliest Syriac Reception of Dionysius, in S. COAKLEY – Ch. STANG, Re-thinking Dionysius, Oxford, 2009, p. 27-42. 19 See B. FLUSIN, Miracle et histoire dans l’œuvre de Cyrille de Scythopolis, Paris, 1983, p. 20-21. John’s episcopacy can be dated between that of Theodosius who, in 536, still signed the acts of a council in Constantinople and of Theodore, former abbot of the New Lavra, consecrated around 548.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 5959 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 60 I. PERCZEL

died in 53620. It is impossible to establish beyond reasonable doubt whether the editio variorum was prepared during John’s episcopacy, or earlier, just as we do not know in which period of his life Sergius translated the Dionysian Corpus. There remain the facts 1) that Sergius is an older contemporary of John, who died before the latter became bishop, so that his translating activity probably antedated John’s work on the Corpus and, 2) that Sergius’ version is our only witness to a state of the original Greek text which is anterior not only to the creation of the editio variorum, but also to the ‘image’ of the Dionysian Corpus of apostolic authority, created by the learned bishop of Scythopolis.

The Corpus was produced, as the author himself says, for a community. The repeated warnings about the secrecy of the teachings involved indicate a closed community21. Historically, the Corpus appears first in our records as being used by Anti-Chalcedonian circles. The first to mention it, and to mention it pos- itively, is Severus of Antioch in his Third Letter to John the Hegumen22 and in his works against Julian of Halicarnassus23. This means that the Dionysian doctrinal formulations were acceptable and usable for the Miaphysites. From this fact many modern scholars, beginning with Joseph Stiglmayr24, have come to the conclusion that the author himself must have been a Miaphysite25. It is surprising to see how this has

20 We owe all our information on Sergius to Pseudo-Zachariah’s Ecclesiastical His- tory: Historia ecclesiastica Zachariae Rhetori vulgo adscripta, ed. by E.W. BROOKS, 4 vols (CSCO, 84), Louvain, 1919, 19532 (text); (CSCO, 88), Louvain 1924, 19652 (trans.), II, p. IX, 19, p. 136-138 (text), p. 94-96 (trans.). 21 DN III.2, 681A-C, p. 139-140 [Suchla]. Here Pseudo-Dionysius writes that his works are only a commentary on the ‘Elements of Theology’ written by ‘Hierotheus’, for explaining the latter’s ‘brief definitions’ (sunoptikoùv ºrouv) for the ‘newly initiated souls’ (t¬n neotel¬n cux¬n). See Ibidem, 681B, p. 140, l. 6-10. 22 Partially preserved in the Doctrina patrum 41, 24-25, ed. DIEKAMP, p. 309-310. Although the year 510 was earlier suggested as a possible date of the letter, it should be considered practically undatable. See ROREM – LAMOREAUX, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus, p. 14. 23 Contra additiones Juliani (CSCO, 296), p. 133 and Adversus apologiam Juliani (CSCO, 302), p. 266-267. 24 See J. STIGLMAYR, Der sogennante Dionysius Areopagita und Severus von Antiochien, in Scholastik, 3 (1928), p. 1-27, 161-189. Stiglmayr wanted to identify the author with Severus of Antioch. This proposal was refuted by J. LEBON, Le pseudo-Denys l’Aréopagite et Sévère d’Antioche, in Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 26 (1930), p. 880-915. 25 This is implied, among others, in the Nutsubidze-Honigmann-van Esbroeck-Lourié hypothesis of identifying Pseudo-Dionysius with Peter the Iberian, miaphysite bishop of Maiouma. See the latest exposition of this thesis by B. LOURIÉ, Peter the Iberian and Dionysius the Areopagite: Honigmann-van Esbroeck’s Thesis Revisited, in Scrinium,

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 6060 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 61

become the majority view in modern scholarly literature even though, already by 1666, Jean Daillé, in his erudite and sharp critical study on the Dionysian Corpus, established that Pseudo-Dionysius’ terminology reminds us of the Chalcedonian definition26. Similarly, some decades after the creation of the Corpus, John of Scythopolis, who elaborated upon the author’s pseudonymity and literary fiction, thus creating the ‘Dionysian myth’ as it was to function during the Middle Ages and even in our days, explained some of Pseudo-Dionysius’ expressions as refut- ing, avant la lettre, both the Eutychians and the Nestorians, which means that John maintained that Pseudo-Dionysius was a Chalcedonian before Chalcedon27. However, Leontius of Byzantium, who must have died around 543 or 544, repeatedly criticizes some people whom he calls Nestorians and to whom he attributes views that can be found in the Dionysian Corpus. So he refutes Dionysius’ views as being Nestorian or, rather, as being an authority used by his contemporary Nestorians. This fact was first observed by David Beecher Evans in a study published over thirty years ago28, but the scholarly public literally ignored this important observation. I pursued the path opened by Evans in a study published over ten years ago29; so far as I know, nobody else has ever

6 (2010), p. 143-212 (= LOURIÉ, Peter the Iberian and Dionysius the Areopagite). How- ever, while Ernest Honigmann placed the emphasis on Peter the Iberian’s miaphysite conviction, Michel van Esbroeck and Basile Lourié emphasize that Peter accepted the Henoticon. Even Irénée Hausherr, in his refutation of Honigmann’s hypothesis, wrote the following: ‘Unless new proofs were to be found, Pseudo-Dionysius is not Peter the Ibe- rian. However, Pseudo-Dionysius is hiding in the milieu where Mr Honigmann is looking for him.’ A miaphysite affiliation is also proposed by S. KLITENIC WEAR – J.M. DILLON, Dionysius the Areopagite and the Neoplatonist Tradition: Despoiling the Hellenes, Alder- shot, 2007, p. 2-6. Also, a miaphysite affiliation is argued by R.A. ARTHUR’s recent thesis, in Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist, according to which the author of the Corpus is to be looked for in the same circle as the one to which Sergius of Reshaina and Stephen Bar Sudhaili’ belonged, he was influenced by the Book of the Holy Hierotheus and is probably to be identified with Sergius of Rish cAyno. 26 Jean Daillé (Dallaeus), De scriptis quæ sub Dionysii Areopagitæ et S. Ignatii Antio- cheni nominibus circumferentur, Geneva, 1666. Having no access to Daillé’s original work, I have read its relevant part in Johann Georg Veit Engelhardt’s German translation (see above, n. 7). For the pertinent remarks on Pseudo-Dionysius’ Chalcedonian language see ENGELHARDT, Die angeblichen Schriften des Areopagiten Dionysius, p. 11. 27 See P. ROREM, The Doctrinal Concerns of the First Dionysian Scholiast, John of Scythopolis, in Y. de ANDIA (ed.), La postérité de Denys l’Aréopagite en Orient et en Occident. Actes du colloque international de Paris, 29 Septembre-3 Octobre 1994, Paris, 1997, p. 187-200 and, in more detail, ROREM –LAMOREAUX, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus. According to Rorem and Lamoreaux, Severus of Antioch most probably only reacted to an earlier Chalcedonian usage of the Corpus. See ibidem, p. 11-15. 28 D.B. EVANS, Leontius of Byzantium and Dionysius the Areopagite, in Byzantine Studies, 7 (1980), p. 1-34. 29 I. PERCZEL, Once again on Dionysius the Areopagite and Leontius of Byzantium, in

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 6161 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 62 I. PERCZEL

since dealt with this question30. So, from the first half of the sixth century we have at least three testimonies, one seeing in Dionysius an apostolic authority for the miaphysite tenets, one claiming his conformity with Chalcedon and one insinuating that his views are Nestorian and that he is not the apostolic authority people believe him to be. To this, one can add the view, repeatedly proposed by modern scholars, according to which the Dionysian Corpus is Christology-neutral and, as such, is close to the spirit of Zeno’s Henotikon, pleading for a middle way between Chalcedonianism and Anti-Chalcedonianism31. There remains the fact that, from the sixth century onward, the Corpus was used by all the exist- ing confessions, that is, by the Miaphysites, the Chalcedonians and also the Nestorian Church of Persia32. Finally, it has also been argued several times that Pseudo-Dionysian Christology is unique, based on purely philosophical principles and does not depend on Christological confessions current in his times33. For all this to happen and all these views to coex- ist, the Christological formulations contained in the Corpus must have been sufficiently ambiguous.

2. Pseudo-Dionysius and the Holy Virgin

In principle it should be possible to understand the Christological convictions of a theologian writing in the late fifth/early sixth century. Christological confessions normally have some catch-words and basic

T. BOIADJIEV – G. KAPRIEV – A. SPEER, Die Dionysius-Rezeption im Mittelalter, Turnhout, 2000, p. 41-85. 30 Th. HAINTHALER, Bemerkungen zur Christologie des Ps.-Dionys und ihrer Nach- wirkung im 6. Jahrhundert, in Y. DE ANDIA (ed.), La postérité de Denys l’Aréopagite, p. 269-292, here p. 287-288, mentions Leontius’ reference to Pseudo-Dionysius without treating the content of the reference (= HAINTHALER, Bemerkungen zur Christologie). 31 See recently A. GRILLMEIER – Th. HAINTHALER, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche 2/3: Die Kirchen von Jerusalem und Antiochien nach 451 bis 600, Freiburg – Basel – Wien, 2002, p. 353, and SUCHLA, Dionysius Areopagita: Leben – Werk – Wirkung, p. 29-31, who place Pseudo-Dionysius in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. 32 For a reception history of the Pseudo-Dionysian texts in sixth-century Greek literature see HAINTHALER, Bemerkungen zur Christologie, p. 284-292. 33 R. ROQUES, art. Denys l’Aréopagite (le pseudo-), in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, 3 (1954), p. 244-286, here p. 282-284, W. BEIERWALTES, Denken des Einen: Studien zur neuplatonischen Philosophie und ihre Wirkungsgeschichte, Frankfurt a. M., 1985, p. 154 (references in HAINTHALER, Bemerkungen zur Christologie, p. 283). However, in a later publication, Beierwaltes proved to be open to my suggestion that an investigation con- ducted into the ways that Pseudo-Dionysius used Nestorius and Theodoret as his sources, which have never been explored before, may provide new answers to the question of Dionysian Christology. See W. BEIERWALTES, Platonismus im Christentum, Frankfurt a. M., 1998, p. 23. The present study intends to pay off a debt owed, among others, toward Werner Beierwaltes.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 6262 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 63

doctrines that should be distinguishable. So, concerning the Dionysian Corpus, it seems to me that even at first sight, without a deeper analysis of its Christological texts, one could exclude not only the supposition that its author would be a Miaphysite but also that he would follow the theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria in any manner. First and foremost, the term Theotokos, the alarm-word of all the Cyrillian party, does not occur in the Corpus. Moreover, the name of Mary, to whom the Mia- physites and the Byzantine Chalcedonians dedicated so much veneration, occurs only once in the Corpus, in a sentence explaining that God first communicated the news about the birth of Jesus to the angels, who transmitted them to the humans: So the most divine Gabriel initiated Zachariah the high priest [to the truth] that the child who was to be born from him against hope through divine grace would be a prophet of the manly-divine-activity of Jesus, which was going to be manifested to the world, befitting goodness and in a salvatory manner; [Gabriel] also [initiated] Mary [to the truth] that the deifying mystery of the ineffable divine shaping would take place in her (CH IV.4, p. 22, l. 25-23, l. 5)34.

It is worth observing that in this artfully constructed sentence the Incarnation is described in so many complicated and reverential periphrastic expressions. Gabriel receives the attribute ‘most divine’, even Zachariah’s rank, ‘high priest’, is indicated, but the name of Mary is cast there bare, without any one of her usual attributes, even ‘virgin’ or ‘holy’. She is one of the human beings who learn about ‘the divine mystery of Jesus’ man-lovingness’ from the archangel Gabriel. As Zachariah learns that his son would be the prophet of the new dispensation, so also Mary learns that she would become the place of the shaping of Jesus’ body. This, in fact, is much closer to Nestorius’ misogynistic expressions than to Cyril’s reverential way of speaking about ‘the holy and God-bearing Virgin’, or ‘holy and God-bearing Mary.’ Add to this two interconnected passages, one in the Divine Names and one in the Fourth Letter: 1. We have learned from mystical tradition that he [Jesus] became substance as man, but we do not know how he was shaped from virgin blood by an order contrary to nature... (DN II. 9, p. 133, l. 7-9).

34 Translations from the Dionysian Corpus are always mine. I am not using the translation of C. Luibheid (Pseudo-Dionysius, The Complete Works, trans. by C. LUIBHEID, with the collaboration of P. ROREM, London, 1987 [= Pseudo-Dionysius, The Complete Works]), because this translation, whose incomparable merit is that it renders the Dionysian Corpus an enjoyable and comprehensible read, is often paraphrastic and imprecise.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 6363 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 64 I. PERCZEL

2. [Jesus] became substance above substance and operated the human things above man. This is testified by the Virgin supernaturally giving birth... (Ep. IV, p. 160, l. 11-12).

With these three meagre references to the Holy Virgin Mary, one indicating her as the place of the incarnation and the other two mentioning Jesus’ virgin birth in quite technical terms, we have exhausted all that is being said about her in the Corpus; this, indeed, is not very encouraging if we want to identify Pseudo-Dionysius as a miaphysite venerator of the Theotokos. Together with this poor representation of the Holy Virgin in the Dionysian Corpus one should also consider Pseudo-Dionysius’ marked opposition to Cyril’s Trinitarian theology, according to which the persons of the Trinity can be numerically counted and should not be considered a henad, while not only is it the very foundation of Pseudo- Dionysius’ Trinitarian theology that the Trinity is numerically one and constitutes a henad and a monad 35 but, clearly enough, he is concretely criticizing the Cyrillian terminology, calling it a ‘blasphemy’ and an ‘illegitimate’ move36.

3. The Pseudo-Dormition of the Virgin and its text tradition

The above considerations seem to indicate that we should assign a place to Pseudo-Dionysius on the Antiochian side rather than on the Cyrillian side of the Christological debates. However, there remains the famous scene, in Chapter III of the Divine Names, of the so-called Dor- mition of the Holy Virgin, at which Dionysius would have been present. The tradition interpreting this text as referring to the Dormition begins with John of Scythopolis, who, in a scholion, tentatively suggests that the ‘life-giving and God-receiving body’ mentioned in this text is perhaps (táxa) ‘that of the holy Mother of God’37. A later, perhaps sixth-century,

35 The most important passage on this is DN I.4, 589 D, p. 112, l. 10-14. 36 Pseudo-Dionysius polemicizes St. Cyril of Alexandria, referring to his teaching but keeping him anonymous, in DN II.1-2, 636C-640B, p. 122-125 [Suchla]. The texts tar- geted are to be found in Cyril’s Commentary on Saint John’s Gospel. See Sancti patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis evangelium, ed. by P.E. PUSEY, Oxford, 1872, reprinted 1965, vol. I. p. 26-28 and 53-54 and also Thesaurus de sancta consubstantiali Trinitate, PG 75, 141. I have treated this concealed polemic in detail in PERCZEL, Le pseudo-Denys, lecteur d’Origène, in W.A. BIENERT – U. KÜHNEWEG, Orige- niana Septima. Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts, Leuven, 1999, p. 673-710, here: p. 702-709. 37 Scholion of John of Scythopolis, PG 4, 236 B15-C4: Dionisiî Areopagit, O boçestvennxh imenah, O mistiweskom bogoslovii, ed. G.M. PROKHOROV, Sankt

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 6464 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 65

reader of the Corpus, whose apparent aim was to defend the authenticity of the Corpus, further elaborated on this ‘perhaps’, thus confirming the conviction that the story refers to the Dormition38. From these few meagre elements an entire pious tradition, still strongly held by the scholarly community, has grown. When dealing with the Dionysian Corpus, a perplexing fact, overlooked almost without exception by modern interpreters of the Corpus, needs to be remembered, namely that the Greek text tradition often provides a perturbed text, containing incoherent elements, perceptible lacunae and, sometimes, meaningless sentences. In general, the Greek text tradition seems to show a deterioration of the text even before it began to circulate in its presently known form. One of the rare scholars to have recognized the corrupt state of the Greek text and to have tried to go beyond the editio variorum, Salvatore Lilla, proposed in a number of studies to emend the text in order to make it more comprehensible and clearer39. His methodology has not been followed by the Göttingen team

Peterburg, 1995, p. 82: ‘Perhaps he calls the life-giving and God-receiving body that of the holy Mother of God, who had just passed away. Note also the expression “James the brother of God” and that this divine man was present there, together with the apostles Peter and James.’ Ironically, it is from this short note and the text it comments upon that some of the hymns of the Byzantine Orthodox service of the Dormition of the Mother of God (August 15) have been composed. See Mjna⁄on toÕ Aûgoústou periéxon †pasan t®n ânßkousan aût¬ç âkolouqían metà t±v prosqßkjv toÕ TupikoÕ, Athens, 19601, w.d.2, p. 143-159. 38 PG 4, 21A12-C6, Dionisiî Areopagit, O boçestvennxh imenah, O mistiweskom bogoslovii, p. 8. In the PG text this part of the Prologue is transmitted under the name of St Maximus the Confessor and so is it also published by G.M. Prokhorov. In a preliminary critical edition of the Greek Prologues, Beate Regina Suchla has distinguished John of Scythopolis’ Prologue from the notes of this anonymous commentator and has restored this part to the latter’s text. See B.R. SUCHLA, Verteidigung eines platonischen Denkmodells einer christlichen Welt. Die philosophie- und theologiegeschichtliche Bedeu- tung des Scholienwerks des Johannes von Skythopolis zu den areopagitischen Traktaten, Göttingen, 1995, p. 19-22, here p. 20. According to Vladika Basile Lourié, there is a text that interprets DN III.2-3 as a Dormition scene even before John of Scythopolis, the His- toria Euthymiaca, a pseudepigraphon usually dated between the sixth and the eighth century, which Vladika Basile dates to the end of the fifth, beginning of the sixth century, in which Juvenal, at the Council of Chalcedon refers to Dionysius the Areopagite as speaking about the Dormition (see B. LOURIÉ, L’Histoire Euthymiaque : l’œuvre du patriarche Euthymios/Euphemios de Constantinople [490–496, † 515], in Warszawskie Studia Teologiczne, 20/2 [2007], p. 189-221 and IDEM, Peter the Iberian and Dionysius the Areo- pagite, p. 163-164). However, as long as this hypothesis is not proven, I would consider the dating of this work as dubious and would think that it is derived from John’s interpretation. 39 S. LILLA, Ricerche sulla tradizione manoscritta del De divinis nominibus dello Pseudo Dionigi l’Areopagita, in ASNSP, Serie II, 34 (1965); IDEM, Osservazioni sul testo del De divinis nominibus dello Ps. Dionigi l’Areopagita. See also IDEM, Zur neuen kritischen Ausgabe der Schrift Über die Göttlichen Namen von Ps. Dionysius Areopagita, p. 424-426.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 6565 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 66 I. PERCZEL

that is preparing the critical edition of the Corpus40. In a number of studies I have proposed another methodology: a complex approach through the indirect tradition using, first of all, the only witness to a state of the text antedating the editio variorum: the first Syriac translation of the Corpus made by Sergius of Rish cAyno41. The Dormition scene particularly invites such an approach, because this is a rather clear case of significant differences between the extant Greek text and Sergius’ translation that, here, manifestly and beyond any reasonable doubt, depends on a different redaction.

3.1. The Greek text as it is known to us Here is a translation of this famous Dionysian text as it is transmitted in the direct, Greek text tradition. I have attempted a close translation, so as not to hide the many inconsistencies in the text: However, we have very conveniently observed not to venture at all to repeat in the explanation of a given saying [logion] of our divine teacher himself anything that he had defined in a clear formulation, for even among our high priests seized by God, when – as you well know – we and himself 42 and many of our holy brethren had come together for the contemplation of the body that is the principle of life and a receptacle of God (toÕ hwarxikoÕ kaì qeodóxou sÉmatov) [...] There were also present the brother-of-God James and Peter, the highest and most venerable summit of the theologians (Pétrov, ™ korufaía kaì presbutátj t¬n qeológwn âkrótjv). After that it seemed good that, after the contemplation, all the high priests sing hymns, as each of them was capable of doing, about the infinitely powerful goodness of the divine weakness […] he, as you know, proved to be superior, after the theologians, to all the other priestly initiates, in complete ecstasy, in a complete rapture from himself, experiencing the communion with those sung, and being judged by all who heard and saw and knew or did not know him, a man seized by God and a divine hymnodist. But why should I speak to you on the theologies exposed there? In fact, if my memory has not completely failed me, I remember you repeating parts

40 The critical edition is incomplete. We are awaiting Beate Regina Suchla’s edition of the scholia of John of Scythopolis. 41 The most important of these are: I. PERCZEL, Sergius of Reshaina’s Syriac Transla- tion of the Dionysian Corpus: Some Preliminary Remarks, in C BAFFIONI (ed.), La diffusione dell’eredità classica nell’età tardo-antica e medievale. Filologia, storia, dottrina, Alessandria, 2000, p. 79-94 and IDEM, The Christology of Pseudo-Dionysius, p. 409-446, also IDEM, The earliest Syriac reception of Dionysius. Sergius’ translation is extant in only one manuscript, originally of Mount Sinai, now contained in Mount Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, MS Syr. 52, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Syr. 381, fols. 42-54, and Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, MS A 296 inf., fol. 86. Recently the missing beginning of the manuscript was found in Saint Catherine’s Monastery: Mount Sinai, Saint Catherine’s Monastery, MS NF 81. 42 Variant reading: ‘‘themselves.’

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 6666 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 67

of those inspired hymns. So you have got diligence not to pursue the divine things at random [...] I would remain silent on the secret things said there, as being unspeakable to the multitude and known to you, but when it was necessary to communicate to the multitude and draw as many as possible to our holy knowledge [...] how he surpassed most of the holy teachers by the time spent, the purity of the mind, the precision of the argument and the rest pertaining to the holy discourses, so that we would never endeavour to look into such a great sun43. In the above text the [...] signs do not mean omissions on my part but rather more or less obvious lacunae. I have given here the Pseudo- Dormition text in its context that, already in itself, reveals why it cannot be interpreted as speaking about even an imaginary Dormition of the Mother of God. In fact the whole reminiscence of the event, presented here in encoded terms, is introduced to explain Pseudo-Diony- sius’ writing technique. The entire Chapter III of the Divine Names is dedicated to the memory of Pseudo-Dionysius’ teacher ‘Hierotheus’ and to a mysterious work by him, entitled the ‘Elements of Theology’. Pseudo-Dionysius says that this work was composed in a very concise form (he calls it ‘sayings’ [lógia] and ‘concise definitions’ [sunop- tikoì ºroi]), so that it needs a commentary that, in fact, is nothing else than the treatise on the Divine Names. However, in our text he asserts that he would not venture to repeat the sayings themselves, but would be content with publishing only their commentary. For this procedure he gives several reasons. The first is that, at the event that he describes as the meeting whose aim was to contemplate the ‘body that is a receptacle of God’, even among the ‘high priests seized by God’ something happened, but what precisely happened does not become clear because the predicate of the sentence is missing. So if we are to interpret the presently transmitted text as it is, it is only after a long set of rounda- bout adverbial subordinate clauses that we encounter the first predicate in ‘proved to be more powerful’. However, the adverbial clauses ‘even among our high priests seized by God, when etc.’ can hardly depend on this predicate, mainly because they are introduced by means of the causal particle êpeì kaí (‘for even’), in order to explain why Pseudo- Dionysius does not want to repeat Hierotheus’ sentences. Furthermore, something also seems to be missing between ‘weakness’ and ‘he, as you know [...]’

43 DN III.2-3, 681C-684B, p. 141, l. 4-142, l. 6 [Suchla]. The paragraph structure and the punctuation of the text are mine and differ from Suchla’s critical edition. See also the Greek text and my critical notes in the Appendix.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 6767 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 68 I. PERCZEL

The second reason, contained in the second paragraph, on why Pseudo- Dionysius does not want to cite the very words of Hierotheus, is that he is writing to a person bearing the pseudonym ‘Timothy’, who himself well knows the work that Pseudo-Dionysius is interpreting in the Divine Names and whom ‘Dionysius’ several times had heard repeating those sayings/hymnody. Then comes a short sentence that rather looks like the first clause from a mutilated sentence: ‘So you have got diligence not to pursue the divine things at random […],’ which is difficult to relate to what precedes it and impossible to relate to what follows it, so that it is virtually meaningless.44 The third and fourth reasons are invoked in the third paragraph. The third is that not only are those sayings well known to Timothy, but they are, strictly speaking, incommunicable to the multitude of the Christians. They have a strong esoteric character. Moreover, and this is the fourth reason, Pseudo-Dionysius is ashamed to place his interpretative words next to Hierotheus’ original sentences, illustrating his incapacity by the metaphor of the eyes being incapable of looking straight at the sun. It is to be noted that the text of the third paragraph is particularly confused and lacks a predicate. There is also an interesting variant reading in the first paragraph, most probably originating from the editio variorum. One group of the manuscripts, whose variant is accepted by Suchla, reads ‘when – as you well know – we and himself (aûtóv) and many of our holy brethren [...]45,’ while the other group gives, instead of aûtóv, the reading aûtoí, which, in this form, is meaningless, but might be another remnant from something omitted.

3.2. The Syriac text Here is a translation of Sergius’ Syriac text. I have put in italics those elements that, according to my hypothesis, testify to the differences in the two redactions, namely the one issuing from John of Scythopolis’ circles and the one constituting the basis for Sergius’ translation. However, we have very justly observed not to venture and try at all to repeat, in the explanation of each divine saying revealed by the one who was our divine teacher, anything that has been expressed in a clear definition by him, for even among the high priests moved by God, when we – as

44 Here Luibheid has chosen to give an interpretative translation: ‘For, of course, you are zealous enough not to pursue the divine things from a secondary work’ (Pseudo- Dionysius, The Complete Works, p. 70). 45 See Luibheid’s translation: ‘As you know, we and he and many of our holy brothers met together [...]’ (Ibidem, p. 70).

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 6868 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 69

you know – and yourself and many of our holy brethren had come together for the spectacle of the body that is the principle of life and a receptacle of the godhead, he was considered great. There was also the brother-of-God James and Peter, the highest and most venerable principle of those who speak about God [the theologians]. Also, it seemed good to them, after they had contemplated it [that is, the body that is the receptacle of the godhead], that all the high priests, every- body according to his capacity, should glorify the incomprehensible goodness of the weakness of the manifestation among us of the Principle-of- divinity; and, as you know, more than all the other holy initiates, after that blessed choir of those who speak about God [the theologians], he was counted and was seen to all as one who, in his hymnody, had entirely departed together with these, left all the visible things and became entirely in communion with those glorified by him; and he was singled out and recognized by all those who heard about him, and all those who saw him and knew him, and who did not know him, as a holy hymnodist and one who is moved by God. And what should I tell you about those things that were divinely said [the- ologized] there, given that, if I have not forgotten myself, I remember having heard from you so many times many of those spiritual hymnodies? For you have got such a diligence not to pursue the divine things at random and to pass under silence those mysteries that have been said by us as being hidden from and above the multitude, while manifest and known to us. But when it was necessary to communicate to the multitude and to bring as many as possible to the divine knowledge, you know in what height he was in comparison to most of the holy teachers by the time spent on practice, by the lucidity of the mind, by the precision of the arguments and the rest, pertaining to spiritual discourse. Therefore, we have never ventured to look into that sun that surpassed us so much46.

This text is a good example of Sergius’ translating technique. He closely follows the model that he is translating, in particular its structure that, at many places, is radically different from that of our Greek text. Sometimes he encounters difficulties of vocabulary and tries to circum- vent these. So he uses periphrastic expressions, translating one word with an interpretative expression and he loves hendiadyoin translations, that is, to translate one word by a couple of synonymous words, a well known practice in ancient translation lore, also used by Rufinus. For the rest, he is a highly reliable translator. The Syriac text of the Pseudo-Dormition and its textual environment clearly follows the structure outlined above, in Sub-chapter 3.1. It is free from almost all the inconsistencies and contradictions observed in the Greek text. Also it fills the lacunae and contains meaningful variants. Let us consider them one by one.

46 MS Sin. syr. 52, fols. 10 r/b-11 r/a. See the Syriac text in the Appendix, p. 95-97.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 6969 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 70 I. PERCZEL

The first significant divergence from the received Greek text is the use of the plural second person personal pronoun ‘yourselves’ (), indicating the origin of the aûtóv/aûtoí variants. This seems to indicate an original aûtoì üme⁄v, the remnant of which is the variant aûtoí in some Greek manuscripts. This indicates that, in the original, Pseudo- Dionysius was speaking about an event in which not only ‘Hierotheus’ and himself, but also Pseudo-Timothy participated. Next, Sergius translates the adjective qeodóxon s¬ma by ‘the body that is a receptacle of the godhead’, thus showing that he did not understand this description as one of a Dormition scene but took the expression in its logical sense of Christ’s body receiving the godhead of the Word. The Syriac also gives the predicate of the first sentence, which was missing from the Greek: Hierotheus was considered as somebody great (or, alternatively, he looked great) even in the assembly of the high priests that had gathered for the contemplation of the ‘body that is a receptacle of the godhead’ – this is one of the reasons why Pseudo-Dionysius does not want to repeat them. Only this restoration of the predicate, missing in the direct Greek text tradition, makes the emphasis of the next sentence, translated as a separate paragraph in Sergius’ version, comprehensible: not only was Hierotheus considered a great man in an authoritative assembly of Christian bishops, but this was an assembly where the highest authorities – indicated here by the apostolic pseudonyms James and Peter – were also present. In the third paragraph, the object of the glorification of the theologians is also expressed differently: the Syriac version speaks about ‘the incomprehensible goodness of the weakness of the manifestation among us of the Principle-of-divinity,’ which I would retrovert to Greek, on the basis of the equivalences between the Greek and the Syriac terms of Sergius' translation, as t®n âkatáljpton âgaqótjta t±v âsqeneíav t±v kaq’ ™m¢v qearxik±v êkfánsewv. This formulation clearly indicates that the hymnody was about the Incarnation and that, consequently, the qeodóxon s¬ma is to be understood as the body of Christ. It is to be noted that, his attempt at interpreting this narrative as a Dormition scene notwithstand- ing, John of Scythopolis, in his scholion ad locum, gives precisely the same interpretation of the text containing ‘the infinitely powerful goodness of the divine weakness’. He also cites the source of his version: II Corinthians 13. 4 – ‘even if he was crucified in weakness, he lives in power’47. While the version of the Syriac also refers to the first half of

47 See John of Scythopolis’ long scholion ad locum, PG 4, 236 C6-237 B9 and Dion- isiî Areopagit, O boçestvennxh imenah, O mistiweskom bogoslovii, p. 82-84.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 7070 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 71

the same Pauline verse (êstaurÉqj êz âsqeneíav), it links the expression more manifestly to Pseudo-Dionysius’ doctrine of the Incarnation, namely to the one exposed in Letter III: ‘by taking a human substance the Supersubstantial proceeded from his hiding place to the manifestation according to us’48. In the same paragraph, Sergius’ text has, instead of simply ‘the theologians’ found in the Greek text, ‘that blessed choir of the theologians’ (presumably metà tòn makárion xoròn êke⁄non t¬n qeológwn) corresponding to Pseudo-Dionysius’ vocabulary used elsewhere49. Unlike in the extant Greek, in this formulation the preposition metá ( in the Syriac) seems to indicate a chronological sequence: after all the theologians have sung their praises to the Incarnation, Hierotheus was judged as one whose teaching was particularly inspired. The second half of the fourth paragraph is entirely different from that transmitted in the Greek tradition and contains another version of a part of what is already the next paragraph in the Greek. It gives the clear and most important reasons why Pseudo-Dionysius does not cite Hierotheus’ texts on which he is commenting in the Divine Names: on the one hand, these texts are well known to the initiates, such as ‘Timothy’ and ‘Dionysius’. On the other hand, they are to be hidden from the multitude that would be incapable of understanding them. The incomprehensible sentence in the Greek: ‘So you have got diligence not to pursue the divine things at random [...]’ proves indeed to be the first clause of a mutilated sentence and receives here its logical continuation: the diligence, for which ‘Timothy’ is being praised, consists in the very fact of keeping the arcane knowledge of his and Pseudo-Dionysius’ community secret from the multitude. Finally, in the fifth paragraph, the only important difference is that the Syriac gives the missing predicate, which must have been ‘you know’ (o˝sqa). With just this addition the manifestly corrupt Greek sentence receives a sound grammatical structure. To sum up, the Greek text tradition of the Pseudo-Dormition text gives a fragmentary, incoherent and contradictory text, whose grammar is not good and in which there are obvious lacunae. On the contrary, the Syriac is coherent and logical. While the Greek, with some good will and with the help of John of Scythopolis’ explications, can be understood as a

48 Ep. 3, 1069A, p. 159, l. 5-6 [Ritter]: tò êk toÕ krufíou tòn üperoúsion eîv t®n kaq’ ™m¢v êmfáneian ânqrwpik¬v oûsiwqénta proeljluqénai. 49 See DN VI.2, 857A, p. 192, l. 9 [Suchla]; EH V. Qewría. 5, 513A, p. 113, l. 2 [Heil]; EH VII. Mustßrion, 556C, p. 122, l. 23 [Heil]. At all these loci the translation of xoróv is .

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 7171 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 72 I. PERCZEL

Dormition scene, the Syriac clearly speaks about Pseudo-Dionysius’ writing technique, explains that his work is a commentary on a text which is not being cited in order to keep its content secret from the multitude of the Christian faithful, and gives the reasons for this secrecy, invoking an event that sounds like a gathering of bishops mentioned under pseudonyms, when Christological issues were discussed and in which, according to Pseudo-Dionysius, his teacher (the Pseudo-) Hierotheus played a prominent role. While we might be tempted to explain such differences as conscious alterations on the part of the translator, it seems to me that, at least in the present case, the differences cannot be explained in this way. Rather, we must postulate a Greek model, different from our corrupt text, which served as the basis for Sergius’ translating activities and of which the text commented on by John of Scythopolis is an altered ver- sion50. Before going into an analysis of the question how this alteration occurred, I propose first to analyse separately the Greek text as it is and the Syriac, in order to understand more about the Pseudo-Dormition event, about Pseudo-Dionysius’ Christology and about the identity of Pseudo-Hierotheus and Pseudo-Dionysius.

4. An attempt at interpreting the Pseudo-Dormition scene

4.1. The testimony of the Greek text tradition First I will analyse the Greek text, leaving out of consideration the testimony of the Syriac and of its putative Greek original. First of all, there occurs an important problem of translation: Should we translate qeodóxon s¬ma, being the central concept of the Pseudo-Dormition scene, as ‘the receptacle of God’, that is to say, the only one, or as ‘a receptacle of God’, that is, one among many51? In fact the translation

50 Here I cannot go into the technicalities of this thesis, which will be explained in the introduction to the forthcoming edition of the Syriac text of the Hierarchies, while Emili- ano Fiori is preparing the edition of the Divine Names, the Mystical Theology and the Letters (CSCO). 51 Luibheid translates the expression êpì t®n qéan toÕ hwarxikoÕ kaì qeodóxou sÉma- tov suneljlúqamen, by ‘we … met together for a vision of that mortal body, that source of life, which bore God’. In fact, this paraphrastic translation implies an identification of the meanings of the terms Thetokos –Bearer of God’ – and Theodochos – ‘Receptacle of God’ – which, in the light of what I will explain below, is misleading. Another liberty Luibheid’s translation takes is to translate s¬ma as ‘mortal body.’ As should be clear from the analysis below of the direct literary source of this passage, a text from Gregory of Nyssa’s Great Catechetical Oration, we are dealing here with an ‘immortal body’, the immortality of the body being the precondition for its functioning as a giver of life. For Luibheid’s translation see Pseudo-Dionysius, The Complete Works, p. 70.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 7272 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 73

should definitely be ‘a receptacle’ indicating one among many, given that for Pseudo-Dionysius ‘the capability to receive God’ (™ qeodóxov dúnamiv/êpitjdeiótjv)52 is a general capability, characterising all the pure creatures. It is primarily the attribute of the highest angelic ranks, the Seraphim, the Cherubim and the Thrones53, who transmit it to the lower ranks at a lesser degree54. So it is this same capability, which, apparently at the lower edge of the light-emanation, characterizes the ‘body that has become a receptacle of God’, that is, which has become able to participate, at the lowest, corporeal, level of existence, in the God-receiving capability that primarily characterizes the Seraphim, the Cherubim and the Thrones as well as, secondarily, the lower angelic ranks. Now, in a mental experiment, let us suppose without conceding that Pseudo-Dionysius was speaking here about the Dormition. That indeed would be very disadvantageous for any attempt to interpret the author’s stance as miaphysite. First of all, if the ‘body that was a receptacle of God’ were that of Mary, she would participate in this attribute to a much lesser degree than the angelic ranks, not to say the Seraphim and the Cherubim. Such a view would be far removed from that of the later Byzantine attitude, nurtured on Cyrillian Christology, which celebrated the God-bearing Virgin as ‘more venerable than the Cherubim and incomparably more glorious than the Seraphim’55 One also has to consider the fact that, at a place where he most safely could have inserted the Cyrillian alarm-word Theotokos – Bearer of God – Pseudo-Dionysius chose instead to use Theodochos – Receptacle of God. And, in fact, the only person who, before Pseudo-Dionysius, applied this word to the Virgin Mary, was Nestorius who, in 428, in one of his famous discourses pronounced in Constantinople against Theopaschism and against the term Theotokos, said the following: We are venerating the assumption of that lordly humanity, we are pronouncing the form that is the receptacle of God (t®n qeodóxon morfßn) co-divine with God the Word, but are not pronouncing the Virgin who is a receptacle of God (t®n qeodóxon parqénon) co-divine with God. I say Theodochos, not Theotokos, using the letters delta , not kappa. For the Father alone, in order that I use their manner of expression, is the one who has the composite name Theotokos, that is, Begetter of God.

52 See Pseudo-Dionysius, CH XIII.3, p. 46, l. 16 [Heil], Ep. 8.2, p. 180, l. 15-16 [Ritter]. 53 See Pseudo-Dionysius, CH VII.4, p. 32, l. 6 [Heil]. 54 See Pseudo-Dionysius, CH XIII.3, p. 46, l. 11-19 [Heil], Ep. 8.2, p. 180, l. 15-16 [Ritter]. 55 Verses of the Axion esti hymn, traditionally attributed to Cosmas of Maiouma (eighth century).

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 7373 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 74 I. PERCZEL

Therefore, let us consider the visible form joined to the invisible as divine together with God, let us venerate the nature that is being worn together with the one who is wearing it – so to say – as a ray of the divinity56.

So, if our passage in Chapter III of the Divine Names were a Dormi- tion scene, it would, once again, lead us to Nestorius. However, the pre- cise expression used here, namely qeodóxon s¬ma, that is, ‘the body that is a receptacle of God’, had not been used by anybody before Dionysius for the body of the Virgin Mary, but it was used for the body of Christ. Most relevantly, it was Gregory of Nyssa who used the term in this sense. This connection is, in fact, the very key for understanding the Pseudo-Dionysian Pseudo-Dormition. As is generally the case with Dio- nysian passages, the deciphering of this text depends on identifying its literary source, or background text. Normally, it is that source that contains all the information that is missing from the Dionysian text itself 57. In this case the source is the Great Catechetical Oration of St Gregory of Nyssa, where Gregory treats questions of Christology and the Eucha- rist in terms of the ‘man who was the receptacle of the godhead’ (ö qeodóxov ãnqrwpov) and the ‘body that is the receptacle of the godhead’ (tò qeodóxon s¬ma). Additionally it appears that Gregory was also the direct source of Nestorius for his speculations about the ‘God-receiving form’ (qeodóxov morfß). However, it was Nestorius’ innovation to transfer this concept to the one from whom Christ got his ‘God-receiving’ body, that is, to the Holy Virgin. Here is, then, the relevant passage from Gregory: For as by the admixture of a poisonous liquid with a wholesome one the whole drought is deprived of its deadly effect, so too the immortal Body, by being within that which receives it changes the whole to its own nature. Yet in no other way can anything enter within the body but by being transfused through the vitals by eating and drinking. It is, therefore, incumbent on the body to admit this life-producing power (t®n hwopoiòn dúnamin t¬ç sÉmati dézasqai) in the one way that its constitution makes possible. And since that Body only, which was the receptacle of the Deity, received this grace of immortality (mónou dè toÕ qeodóxou sÉmatov êkeínou taútjn dezamé- nou t®n xárin), and since it has been shown that in no other way was it possible for our body to become immortal, but by participating in incorrup- tion through its fellowship with that immortal Body, it will be necessary to

56 F. LOOFS, Nestoriana. Die Fragmente des Nestorius, Halle, 1905, p. 276, l. 1-11. 57 I have several times outlined this principle for the decoding of Dionysian texts. See, for example, I. PERCZEL, «Théologiens» et «magiciens» dans le Corpus Dionysien, in Adamantius, 7 (2001), p. 54-75; IDEM, God as Monad and Henad: Dionysius the Areopagite and the Peri Archon, in L. PERRONE et al. (ed.), Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition, Leuven, 2003, p. 1193-1209. Here and for the present I am just stating this hermeneutic principle without entering into details.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 7474 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 75

consider how it was possible that one Body, being for ever portioned to so many myriads of the faithful throughout the whole world, enters through that portion, whole into each individual and yet remains whole in itself 58.

From this passage we may understand what Pseudo-Dionysius means, in the Pseudo-Dormition scene, by the ‘body that is the principle of life and a receptacle of God/the godhead’ – apparently, this is the body of Christ identified with the Eucharist, for the ‘contemplation’ (qéa) of which himself, Pseudo-‘James, the brother of God’, Pseudo-‘Peter, the head and most venerable majesty of the theologians’, his teacher, the Pseudo-Hierotheus, as well as other high priests and clerics – including Pseudo-Timothy according to the Syriac version – had gathered59. Accord- ing to this story, the hierarchs first contemplated the ‘life-giving and God- receiving body’, a contemplation followed by a ‘hymnody’ whose subject was ‘the infinitely powerful goodness of the divine weakness’. In this hymnody, Pseudo-Hierotheus also participated and proved to be a hymnodist more inspired than any other hierarch, with the exception of the ‘theologians’, that is, ‘James’ and ‘Peter’, experiencing a true ‘communion’ with the celebrated mysteries, after which he was acclaimed by all those present as ‘a man seized by God and a divine hymnodist’. Pseudo- Dionysius makes it explicit that he would not cite here anything from Hierotheus’ hymnody for the double reason that ‘Timothy’ knows it very well and that it constitutes a secret teaching, which is not to be revealed to the multitude. However, it should be clear – so says Pseudo-Dionysius – that Hierotheus was also incomparable when ‘he had to transmit the communion [of divine knowledge] to the multitude and to bring as many as possible from among the latter to the sacred (or priestly) knowledge’ of Pseudo-Dionysius’ party (ºte to⁄v pollo⁄v ∂dei koinwn±sai kaì ºsouv dunatòn êpì t®n kaq’ ™m¢v ïerognwsían prosagage⁄n). Thus we get the triad ‘contemplation-hymnody-communion’ (qéa-ümnología- koinwnía), where communion has two modules: partaking in knowledge and communicating it to others – these are the tasks of a true high priest. The vocabulary used here is precisely the one that Pseudo-Dionysius uses for describing the Eucharistic service in Chapter III of the Ecclesi-

58 Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechetical Oration, 37, 23-38, trans. by W. MOORE and H.A. WILSON in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, Buffalo, N.Y., 1893. 59 I have proposed this interpretation, without the supporting material presented here, in The earliest Syriac Reception of Dionysius, p. 28-29. Vladika Basile Lourié agrees with me that the ‘Apostles’ of the text should be understood as holders of Apostolic sees. However, he does not accept the argument that the ‘life-giving and God-receiving body’ means Christ’s body (LOURIÉ, Peter the Iberian and Dionysius the Areopagite, p. 165- 166). I hope that the demonstration given here adequately supplies for the argument missing in that earlier publication.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 7575 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 76 I. PERCZEL

astical Hierarchy. Particularly, the triad ‘hymnody-contemplation-communion’ (ümnología-qéa-koinwnía), in this order, different from the one used in the Pseudo-Dormition story, covers the content of the entire Eucharistic service60. Apparently, Pseudo-Dionysius is transferring his own Eucharistic vocabulary to describe ‘Hierotheus’ as a true hierarch, elevated to the contemplation of and the communion with the inner meaning of the Eucharistic mystery, namely of ‘the body that is a receptacle of God/the godhead’, that is, Christ’s body, and of ‘the infinitely powerful goodness of the divine weakness’, that is, the Incarnation. He also uses this vocabulary to describe a gathering of bishops, apparently during his lifetime, obviously a council in which the bishops were deciding about Christological definitions and in which the role of the theologian whom he calls by the speaking name ‘Hierotheus’, that is, ‘Divine Priest’ or ‘God’s Priest’, was, according to him, paramount61. The original ‘vision’ of the ‘God-receiving body’ can mean the Eucharist, but can also simply mean the inner contemplation of the Christological mystery62. As Pseudo-Dionysius calls the most important bishops Peter and James, a plausible deciphering of these pseudonyms is to suppose that he thinks of bishops occupying the sees of Peter and James. Peter may sig-

60 The clearest example is EH III. 425D-428A, p. 81, l. 5-13. Relevant is also EH III.7, 433 C, p. 86, l. 5-6: from those possessed by evil spirits ‘the contemplation and the par- ticipation in the most holy things is being withdrawn’ (pròv aûtoùv ™ t¬n paniérwn qéa kaì koinwnía sustélletai). 61 The prefix hiero- in compounds usually, and in the Pseudo-Dionysian Corpus particularly, means ‘priest’. As it can either stand for hieros (sacred, consecrated, Latin sacer) and hiereus (consecrated person, or consecrator, priest, Latin sacerdos), there is a slight ambiguity, which, however, in the last analysis does not matter much, because to be priest means to be associated with the holy and sacred things and to be consecrated and to consecrate. The most important utilisations of the prefix hiero- outside the Dionysian Corpus and used in the entire Greek ecclesiastic tradition, are hieromartys and hieromonakhos. A hieromartys is a priest-martyr, at whose feast special services are sung, different from the services of simple martyrs, who were not consecrated priests. Hieromartys is especially a bishop-martyr as also, in the entire ecclesiastic tradition, hiereus often stands for bishop. Hieromonakhos is a priest-monk, that is, a monk consecrated for the priesthood. Pseudo-Dionysius has coined many compound words with the prefix hiero-. The most important compounds are hierarkhes and hierarkhia. We usually translate hierarkhes as ‘high priest’, while we usually leave hierarkhia untranslated, because hierarchy, this Pseudo-Dionysian invention, has become part of our modern languages and means any kind of social organisation structured according to different ranks and levels. However, originally hierarkhia is formed from hierarkhes and means ‘high priesthood’. Sergius of Rish cAyno translates these words accordingly as rish kumro and rishut kumruto or, alternatively, rish kohno and rishut kohnuto, both variants meaning ‘high priest’ and ‘high priesthood’. 62 In ‘The Earliest Syriac Reception’ I laid the emphasis on the putative Eucharistic concelebration more explicitly. However, this is neither sure nor necessary for the interpretation of this scene, given that the Eucharistic vocabulary is used here to denote the inner contemplation of the Incarnation.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 7676 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 77

nify either the holder of the see of Antioch, or that of Rome, while James should mean the Patriarch of Jerusalem. So the meeting seems to mean either a Christological council where the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jeru- salem were present, or one where the sees of Rome and Jerusalem were represented63. However, it seems to me that in the entire period that may come into consideration, there is only one Christological council that perfectly fits the data of the Pseudo-Dormition scene, namely the Coun- cil of Chalcedon. So I would suppose that ‘Peter, the head and most venerable majesty of the theologians’ would stand for Leo, who was present through his legates and his Tome and about whom the conciliar Fathers exclaimed that it was Peter who spoke through Leo64, while James would stand for Juvenal. So I would interpret this scene as an encoded report on Chalcedon by an ecclesiastic of strong dyophysite Antiochian convictions, who was present there in the company of his bishop, the Pseudo-Hierotheus.

In order to give an apostolic context to his narrative, Pseudo-Diony- sius mentions Peter and James, alluding to the following verses of Saint Paul: Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother (Galatians 1. 18-19). Now, if ‘Peter’ in the Pseudo-Dionysian text indicates the holder of the see of Peter – that is, the Pope of Rome – and James, God’s brother (see ‘the Lord’s brother’ in Paul’s text), indicates the holder of the see of James – that is, the Patriarch of Jerusalem – it is conspicuous that the name of the third out of the three chief Apostles, namely John, is missing. Had Dionysius wanted to include him, instead of Galatians 1. 18-19, he could have alluded to Galatians 2. 9: And when James, Peter65, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.

63 Vladika Basile Lourié prefers to think that ‘Peter’ would rather mean a patriarch of Antioch. In itself this would be perfectly possible, Antioch being the chronologically first Petrine see, but the argument adduced by V.B. Lourié, according to which Pseudo-Diony- sius could not consider Rome as important because the period concerned coincides with the Acacian schism between Rome and Constantinople (according to Lourié ‘the whole East’ – LOURIÉ, Peter the Iberian and Dionysius the Areopagite, p. 165), is based on the assumption of a supposed Cyrillianism of Pseudo-Dionysius, the opposite of which I believe to be able to prove in the present paper. 64 ACO II, 1, 2, p. 81, 26: Pétrov dià Léontov taÕta êzefÉnjsen. 65 The KJV translates here ‘James, Cephas, and John.’ The Greek manuscripts are divided between the readings ‘Cephas’ and ‘Peter.’

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 7777 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 78 I. PERCZEL

This omission I would explain by the fact that Pseudo-Dionysius approved of the activity of ‘Peter’ – in my interpretation Leo the Great – and of ‘James, God’s brother’ – in my interpretation Juvenal who had abandoned his earlier Cyrillianism and approved of the dyophysite formulae and of Theodoret’s rehabilitation – but felt some reticence toward ‘John’ who, according to the decoding formula proposed here, should mean the archbishop of Constantinople, having inherited the Apostolic reputation of the see of Ephesus, whose diocese had been added or, rather, transferred by canon 28 adopted at Chalcedon, to the emerging Constantinopolitan patriarchate. At the time of Chalcedon, the Archbishop of Constantinople was Ana- tolius, a staunch Cyrillian, former apocrisiarius of Dioscorus of Alexan- dria in Constantinople, who had been consecrated by Dioscorus to the capital’s episcopal throne in 449, after Flavian’s deposition. According to Theodore Lector, Eutyches was also concelebrating at the laying of hands upon Anatolius66. Earlier, Anatolius was present at the second Council of Ephesus, siding with Dioscorus. Although after his consecra- tion as Archbishop of Constantinople Anatolius subscribed to the condemnation of Eutyches and presided over the Council of Chalcedon, even at Chalcedon he directed a special committee that put together a new creed, of predominantly Cyrillian colour, containing the formula ‘from two natures’ (êk dúo fúsewn) – used not only by Cyril of Alex- andria to explain his signing of the Formula of Union, in his Letter to Succensus, but also by Dioscorus67 – instead of Pope Leo’s formula ‘in two natures’ (ên dúo fúsesin), which was going to be finally adopted by the Council. However, the work of this committee was rejected by the imperial commissioners68. So it is quite comprehensible that zealous

66 Theodore Lector, Ecclesiastical History, PG 86/1, 217. On this issue see H. CHAD- WICK, The Exile and Death of Flavian of Constantinople: A Prologue to the Council of Chalcedon, in JTS, NS 6 (1955), p. 17-34. Chadwick even speculates that Anatolius could have had a part in Flavian’s removal; A. GRILLMEIER, Christ in Christian Tradition I: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon, trans. J.S. BOWDEN, New York, 1965, p. 463-464 (= GRILLMEIER, Christ in Christian Tradition I); Gennadios of Helioupolis and Theira, ¨Istoría toÕ OîkoumenikoÕ Patriarxeíou, vol. I, Athens, 1953, p. 145 (= Gennadios, ¨Istoría toÕ OîkoumenikoÕ Patriarxeíou, I). 67 See ACO II, 1, 2, 124: ‘The most magnificent and glorious officers said: » Dios- corus said the following: “I deposed Flavian, because he said [that Christ has] two natures.” However, the definition [of the committee] has “from two natures” (êk dúo fúsewn) «. Anatolius, the most pious archbishop of Constantinople, replied: » Dioscorus was not deposed because of his faith, but because he refused to be in communion with the Lord Leo the archbishop and because even after three convocations he had not come. This is why he was deposed. «’ 68 ACO II, I, 2, 123f. See also P. GALTIER, Saint Cyrille et saint Léon à Chalcédoine, in A. GRILLMEIER – H. BACHT (ed.), Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegen-

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 7878 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 79

Antiochians, such as Pseudo-Dionysius seems to have been, were reluc- tant to acknowledge Anatolius as a rightful holder of the Apostolic throne of Saint John the Evangelist.

4.2. Letter X and the story of Saint John the Evangelist exiled to Patmos The Dionysian Corpus also contains a letter addressed to ‘John the Theologian, Apostle and Evangelist, exiled to the island of Patmos’69. This letter addresses Saint John or, rather, Pseudo-John, as the ‘beloved of Christ’ and ‘the Sun of the Gospel’, being a victim of the persecutions of the ‘unjust’ who are ‘expelling the disciples from the cities’. Pseudo- Dionysius expresses his conviction that ‘John’ does not really suffer in the persecutions, because he is being turned toward the corporeal pas- sions only to make judgements on them, otherwise being totally free from them, in complete passionlessness (apatheia). Those who try to harm ‘John’ are only harming themselves, separating themselves in this way from God. Pseudo-Dionysius prays that these people may abandon their ill deeds perpetrated against themselves, may attract ‘John’ to themselves and, finally, may participate in the Light. There is no reference here to pagans persecuting Christians. Rather one feels that the persecu- tors are some misguided Christians who should convert to ‘John’s’ ‘true theology’. As to Pseudo-Dionysius’ party, in the present conditions ‘they are remembering and reciting’ ‘John’s’ ‘true theology’, but Pseudo- Dionysius would assert that, ‘even if this sounds daring’, they would become united once again with ‘John’. Pseudo-Dionysius ends his letter with the following words: Certainly, I am trustworthy, having learned from God and letting you know what has been foreseen for you, namely that you would be released from your custody in Patmos and would return to the land of Asia, so that, there, you may perform and transmit to your companions deeds that are imitating the good God.70 If, now, we are to apply the double principle proposed above for decoding the Dionysian Corpus, namely that all the events referred to in this work as situated in the apostolic age are encoded contemporary events and that the Apostles Peter, James and John are pseudonyms for the holders of the apostolic thrones of Rome, Jerusalem and Constantino- ple, then, logically, the pseudonym ‘John the Evangelist’ should mean an Archbishop of Constantinople, and John’s exile to Patmos a banishment

wart, Würzburg, 1954, p. 345-387, here p. 358-361; GRILLMEIER, Christ in Christian Tradition I, p. 480. 69 Pseudo-Dionysius, Ep. 10, p. 208-210 [Ritter]. 70 Pseudo-Dionysius, Ep. 10, p. 210, l. 1-4 [Ritter].

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 7979 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 80 I. PERCZEL

that this archbishop has suffered. In the long list of Constantinopolitan archbishops that might come into consideration, given the chronological limits of the creation of the Corpus, there are three who were condemned to exile. The first was Nestorius, who was sent to the Great Oasis in 435, the second was Euphemius, Patriarch of Constantinople between 490 and 496, whom, because of his adherence to Chalcedon, emperor Anastasius banished to Euchaita in the Pontus in 496 and who died in Ancyra in 51571. The third was Macedonius II, whom the same emperor Anastasius deposed and exiled in 511 to the same Euchaita equally because of his adherence to Chalcedon72. It is remarkable that only dyophysite patriarchs of Constantinople suffered exile in the entire period. However, considered more closely, this is not strange at all. Marcian and Leo I and II were the only unambiguously dyophysite emperors between 431 and 518 and they only reigned twenty-four years between them, remaining largely unsuccessful in repressing anti-Chalcedonianism, their failure to do so triggering Zeno’s Henoticon in 47673. Even during Justin’s reign, that is, between 518 and 527, the last period before 528 being the strict terminus ante quem of the Corpus, Miaphysites were strong and had little reason to hide74. This is a factor that tends to be overlooked, given the final dyophysite victory in Byzantium75. Thus, during this long period, adhering to a miaphysite Christology would not have prompted anybody to use pseudonyms because of fear of persecution. This type of fear remained reserved to the strict Dyophysites. This is one more good reason to look for Pseudo-Dionysius’ identity in dyophysite circles. It seems to me that Euphemius and Macedonius are not good candi- dates for being the ‘St. John’ of Pseudo-Dionysius’ Letter X, since they were exiled precisely to the ‘land of Asia,’ nor were they important theologians. The image of ‘John’ exiled to Patmos, while his partisans are

71 See Malalas, Chronicle, Book 15.11, 400; Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History, III.23, 121, III.32, 130; Theodore Lector PG 86/1, 188-189. See also Gennadios, ¨Istoría toÕ OîkoumenikoÕ Patriarxeíou, I, p. 200-201. 72 See Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. DE BOOR, p. 237; Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History, III.31-32, 129-130 and 44, 146; Theodore Lector, PG 86/1, 197. See also Gen- nadios, ¨Istoría toÕ OîkoumenikoÕ Patriarxeíou, I, p. 202-204. 73 For the history of the period between 451 and 518 see P.T. GRAY, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East (451-553), (Studies in the history of Christian thought, 20), Leyden, 1979, p. 17-44 (= GRAY, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East). 74 While miaphysite sources speak about severe persecutions of the anti-Chalcedoni- ans, it was during this period that the miaphysite Jacob of Sarug and John of Tella were consecrated as bishops. So also Soterichos of Caesaria and Timothy of Alexandria could retain their sees. See A.A. VASILIEV, Justin the First: An Introduction to the Epoch of Justinian the Great, Cambridge, Mass., 1950, p. 221-248, and GRAY, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East, p. 44-48. 75 I owe and thank all these remarks to Roger Scott.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 8080 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 81

secretly ‘remembering and reciting’ his true theology, befits Nestorius’ exile to the Great Oasis. Additionally, the assertion that ‘John’ is above all suffering and that all the aggressive deeds of his enemies fall back on the latter, the only evil being that these are separating them from God, seems to echo Nestorius’ own interpretation of his sufferings: ‘For he [that is, God] is fighting those whom I am fighting and those who are fighting against me are fighting against him’76 but also these words: ‘I have born the sufferings of my life and all that has befallen me in this world as the sufferings of a single day; and I have not changed all these years77.’ The prophecy according to which ‘John’ would return to ‘the land of Asia’ may reflect the expectations, before Chalcedon, that Nesto- rius would be released by Marcian78 but, much more probably, may also be an allegorical interpretation of Chalcedon, as seen by a partisan of Nestorius, as the victory, in an Asian outskirts of Constantinople, of the dyophysite theology.

4.3. The contribution of the Syriac version If now, after this analysis of the extant Greek text and a detour to explain Pseudo-Dionysius’ Letter X, we return to the Syriac version, we will find that it does not provide a substantially different picture. The main contribution of the Syriac text is its clarity, including the fact that it preserves the correct syntactical and logical order of the original text. As a result, what was quite hidden in the Greek version due to many factors, is explicit in the Syriac, although the latter also maintains the pseudonymity of the protagonists. Even so, the Syriac would not permit a ‘Dormition’-interpretation and strongly suggests, even without the intricate hermeneutics exposed above, that the event described is a council treating the Incarnation. The Syriac also contributes the information

76 From Nestorius’ Second Apology - The Book of Heraclides of Damascus. Syriac ˟ ˟ text in P. BEDJAN, : " #$% &'(. Nestorius: Le livre d’Héraclide de Damas, Leipzig, 1910, reprint Piscataway N.J., 2007, p. 508 (= BEDJAN, The Book of Heraclides). The translation is mine. See also the English translation of J.R. DRIVER – L. HODGSON, The Bazaar of Hera- cleides, Oxford, 1925, p. 370 (= DRIVER – HODGSON, The Bazaar of Heracleides) and the French translation of F. NAU, Liber Heraclidis: Le livre d’Héraclide de Damas, Paris, 1910, repr. Farnborough, Engl., 1969, p. 323 (= NAU, Liber Heraclidis.) 77 BEDJAN, The Book of Heraclides, p. 520; DRIVER – HODGSON, The Bazaar of Hera- cleides, p. 380; NAU, Liber Heraclidis, p. 331. The translation is from F. LOOFS, Nestorius and His Place in the History of Christian Doctrine, Cambridge, 1914, p. 17. 78 Miaphysite and Nestorian sources agree that Nestorius was invited to participate in the Council of Chalcedon, but died in Akhmin, after receiving the invitation, so that he was prevented from reaching the ‘land of Asia’. See NAU, Liber Heraclidis, ‘Introduc- tion’, p. ix-xi.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 8181 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 82 I. PERCZEL

that another participant in the council described was the addressee of the Dionysian Corpus, ‘Timothy’ who, according to the key used here, should be a bishop of Ephesus, most probably during the time of the redaction of the Dionysian Corpus, that is, according to my reconstruction, in the 470s-480s79. Another important contribution is the way the Syriac or, rather, the Greek original that it translates, describes the gathering of the bishops and the role of Hierotheus therein. In its first paragraph it affirms that the gathering of the bishops has judged Hierotheus as ‘somebody great’. It continues by adding in the second paragraph that James and Peter – in my interpretation the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Rome – were also present, thus adding weight to the importance of this judgement. In the third paragraph this positive judgement is reinforced. Using Eucharistic vocabulary, Pseudo-Diony- sius describes Hierotheus as a true high priest, whose hymnody, that is, theology, was judged by all the participants of the council as being of superior quality, while Hierotheus himself has been deemed a ‘holy hymnodist’, that is, an orthodox and inspired theologian. Apparently, this justification of Hierotheus by the entire council and, particularly, by the bishops of Rome and Jerusalem, is of great interest for Pseudo- Dionysius. The fourth paragraph asserts that Hierotheus’ internal teaching in general, and at that council in particular, is not to be revealed to the multitude, although it constitutes the confession of both Pseudo-Dionysius and Pseudo-Timothy. Finally the fifth paragraph celebrates Hierotheus as also being an able author having composed vulgarizing theological treatises destined for the multitude of the faithful. Now, if we carry through the hypothesis of interpreting the Pseudo- Dormition scene as a narrative about Chalcedon from the pen of a staunch Dyophysite, and take seriously that the author speaks about the most important theologian of his party as about one who has greatly contributed to the Christological definitions of the council, and was judged80 a true high priest by all the participants, first of all, by the papal legates and Juvenal, and also as about an author of general theological treatises destined to the greater multitude of the Christian faithful, this image perfectly fits Theodoret of Cyrrhus, the most important theologian

79 According to Eusebius, Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus: Eusebius, Eccle- siastic History, III. iv.5. Basile Lourié also thinks that ‘Timothy’ should be a bishop of Ephesus (LOURIÉ, Peter the Iberian and Dionysius the Areopagite, p. 165). 80 Krinómenov in the Greek, translated by the hendiadyoin term ‘singled out and recognized’: ˕*$ +, .

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 8282 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 83

of the dyophysite party, while the events described fit those of the eighth/ ninth session of the Council81, when Theodoret was rehabilitated and restored to the see of Cyrrhus. The judgment of all the participants, according to which Hierotheus was ‘a holy hymnodist and one who was moved/inspired by God’ seems to correspond to the subsequent acclamations made by the bishops, including the papal legates and Juvenal, at the end of the eighth/ninth session, according to which Theodoret is ‘worthy of his see’, a true ‘shepherd’ and ‘an orthodox teacher’82. Apparently this legitimation of Hierotheus/Theodoret’s activity is very important for the author of the Corpus. Finally, the Syriac, or its original, lays tremendous emphasis on the secrecy concerning the Christological doctrines behind the formulations of the Dionysian Corpus, doctrines that it attributes to Hierotheus/Theo- doret. This secrecy also explains why it is so difficult to discover Pseudo- Dionysius’ true Christological position. The analysis of a brief passage, such as the Pseudo-Dormition scene and its immediate context, does not permit any definitive far-reaching general conclusions regarding the relationship between the putative original of Sergius’ version and the extant Greek text. A comprehensive interpretation should await the publication of the entire Syriac translation of Sergius. A careful parallel reading of the two versions does, however, show that there is frequently an almost perfect coincidence between the two, Sergius translating each and every word of the original, while on other occasions, such as in the case of the text analyzed above, there are significant differences. Such a relationship cannot be explained either by a conscious rewriting of the text by Sergius, or by a deficiency of his translating skills, or by a spontaneous deterioration of the original so as to produce the extant Greek text and this within only two or three decades. Rather, the text analyzed here shows the signs of purposeful intervention in the extant Greek, which has obscured the text’s original meaning and permitted imaginative interpretations, such as the Dormi- tion theory proposed by John of Scythopolis, an interpretation that is strictly excluded by the putative original text mirrored in the Syriac translation. If there occurred a conscious corruption of the originally

81 The session is counted as eighth according to the Latin Acts and ninth according to the Greek. For the details of this story, see P.B. CLAYTON, The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus: Antiochene Christology from the Council of Ephesus (431) to the Council of Chalcedon (451), Oxford, 2007, p. 29. 82 Cf. ACO II, 1, 3, p. 9, 31-11, 6. For an English translation of the Acts of Chalcedon see R. PRICE – M. GADDIS, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated Texts for Historians, 45), Liverpool, 2005. The documents of the eighth session are translated and commented upon in vol. II, p. 250-257, the acclamations of Theodoret are on p. 254-257.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 8383 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 84 I. PERCZEL

integral text, such methods as truncating the phrases, removing predi- cates, changing the sentence structures and so on, have greatly contributed to the creation of an ‘under-determined’ text, offering itself for imaginative interpretations, such as the one by John of Scythopolis.

4.4. Pseudo-Dionysius’ technique of creating pseudonyms and a possible deciphering of his identity If Hierotheus is indeed Theodoret, it is interesting to see how this pseudonym was invented. Usually, the Pseudo-Dionysian pseudonyms are all ‘meaningful names’, which can be deciphered. More often than not it is through a hidden quote that Pseudo-Dionysius identifies his pseudo-heroes, or pseudo-foes. So in the Mystical Theology the ‘divine Bartholomew’ denotes Origen, who is identified through a brief summary of a long argument by Origen in his Commentary on St John’s Gospel.83 How- ever, in this case, I cannot explain why the name Bartholomew was chosen to denote Origen. In the Seventh Letter the pseudonym of ‘the sophist Apollophanes’, meaning Proclus, is identified by an ad hominem argument against Proclus’ thesis on the eternity of the world, using an entire florilegium of Proclian allusions84. Apparently, Proclus is the ‘Revealer of Apollo' because, according to his biographer Marinus, he was under the protection of this god, the protector of the city of his childhood Xanthus, as ‘it was befitting that the one who was going to be a leader in every science receives food and education under the god who is the leader of the Muses’85, and also because he reveals the secret doctrine of the One (ˆApóllwn = â-poll¬n [i.e. not from many]86). Hidden allusions also reveal that the pseudonym Simon the Magician in

83 MT I.3, p. 143. 8-10. The allusion is to Origen’s introduction to the fifth book of his Commentary on St John’s Gospel, see: Origène, Commentaire sur saint Jean I (Livres I-V), ed. C. BLANC (Sources Chrétiennes, 120), Paris, 1966, p. 372-390. See PERCZEL, Pseudo-Dionysius and the Platonic Theology, p. 516-519. 84 See my preliminary arguments for this identification in PERCZEL, Pseudo-Dionysius and the Platonic Theology, p. 527-530. I intend to treat this passage, the identification of Apollophanes as Proclus, Dionysius’ argument and its Proclian sources in a forthcoming study treating the Seventh Letter in its entirety. 85 Marinus, Life of Proclus, see: Marinus, Proclus ou Sur le bonheur, ed. SAFFREY – SEGONDS, 6, 18-20, p. 8, see also ibidem note 17 ad locum on p. 80. Cf. also Proclus, Théologie Platonicienne, livre I; texte établi et traduit par H.D. SAFFREY et L.G. WEST- ERINK, Paris, 1968, « Introduction », p. cxci-cxcii. 86 This allegorical interpretation was proposed by Plotinus in V.5,6,27-28. However, for Proclus, Apollo is a henadic god, who is presiding over the “solar series” and makes it return to its original union (see, for example: Hymn I [to the Sun], 18-19 and In Crat. 174); he is the god conferring upon the world all its harmony (In Tim. II, 208, 10-11).

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 8484 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 85

chapter VI of the Divine Names indicates St Jerome, while Elymas the Magician in Chapter VIII of the Divine Names is Theophilus of Alexan- dria. Here, too, the names are meaningful: these two Magicians resisted the Apostles, while Jerome and Theophilus initiated a fight against the Origenist monks of Egypt and Palestine, whose side Pseudo-Dionysius is apparently taking87. Above, I presented my arguments to interpret the pseudo-Apostles Peter and James as holders, contemporary to Pseudo- Dionysius, of the apostolic sees of Rome and Jerusalem, that is, according to the interpretation proposed here, Pope St Leo and Juvenal. I also have indicated my reasons why I consider the addressee of Letter X, Pseudo-St John in exile at Pseudo-Patmos, as a code for Nestorius in exile in the Great Oasis, Nestorius being the erstwhile holder of the see of St John, that is, Constantinople, heir to the apostolic see of Ephesus. In the ‘philosopher Clement’, that is, the ‘pious philosopher’, mentioned in Chapter IX of the Divine Names88, one may recognize Porphyry, the erstwhile head of the Neoplatonist school of Rome, because at this place Dionysius refers to and refutes the doctrine of “relative models” (próv ti paradeígmata), which was one of Porphyry’s main arguments for the eternity of the world (according to this doctrine the ideal model is a relative term that cannot exist without the image of which it is the model; so, if the ideal model of the corporeal world is eternal, then, the world, being the image of the eternal model, must also be eternal)89. The pseudonym of ‘the philosopher Clement’ is also a meaningful name: through Clement, bishop of Rome90, it may refer to Rome where Por- phyry headed his philosophical school and, through the meaning of the Latin word clemens, also refer to Porphyry’s well known piety toward the pagan gods. However, the two most important pseudonyms of the Corpus, namely that of the ‘holy Hierotheus’, Pseudo-Dionysius’ teacher, and of ‘Dionysius the Areopagite’ himself, seem to have been constructed as anagrams. This technique of working with anagrams is characteristic of Pseudo-Dionysius’ methodology. In fact, a technique similar to

87 See PERCZEL, «Théologiens» et «magiciens» dans le Corpus Dionysien, p. 62-74. 88 DN 5.9, p. 188, l. 11-17. 89 Porphyry’s treatise on the eternity of the world has been lost. Its summary is preserved in Proclus’ Commentary on the Timaeus. Porphyry’s work consisted in four chapters. First chapter: In Tim. I, 391, 7-393, 13; second chapter: 393, 14-31; third chapter: 393, 31-395, 10; fourth chapter: 395, 10-396, 26. The doctrine of the ‘relative models’ was treated in the first chapter, see Proclus, In Tim. I, 393, 9-13. 90 That this ‘Clement’ would be Clement of Rome is John of Scythopolis’ interpretation in his scholium ad locum (MPG 4, 329B).

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 8585 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 86 I. PERCZEL

anagram-making was one of the principal encoding methods this author was using for processing and rearranging the texts of Proclus91. As for the pseudonym Hierotheus, on the one hand, ¨Ieróqeov means a true ‘priest of God’92 while, on the other hand, taken together with the declined forms of the definite article, with which it always stands in the Corpus, it is an almost perfect anagram of the name Theodoretos/Theo- doritos. In the genitive, indicating authorship, the formation of the anagram looks like this, with some iotacism common in late antique times, the change of delta to epsilon being the next letter in the alphabet, and a redundant ypsilon:

5423 → 10 A[tou] i e *r o* (q e o) {u}

123 ← 45 B (q e o) d *o r* j[tou]93

Thus, Hierotheus’ identity with Theodoret can be established in more than one way. First, the historical setting and the decoding of the pseudo- Dormition scene indicate this, as I tried to outline in this study; second, we have got the anagram as elaborated above; finally we have, throughout the Corpus, the citations from Theodoret, often placed under the name of Hierotheus94. If, apparently, the technique of anagram-making is characteristic of Dionysius in his handling of his sources and, also, in the creation of at least one of the pseudonyms used in his work, it is worth seeing whether the most important pseudonym of the Corpus, namely the author’s name, Dionúsiov ˆAreopagítjv could also be the anagram of a historical person, living in the time our author must have lived, which, according to the thesis expounded in this study, should be the period following Chal- cedon: the second half of the fifth century. Now, if we consider dio- nysiou areopagitou as an anagram denoting authorship according to the model of tou ierotheou/theodoritou, it can be decoded in the following way:

91 On Pseudo-Dionysius’ method of paraphrasing, cutting, pasting and rearranging Proclian texts see PERCZEL, Pseudo-Dionysius and the Platonic Theology, especially p. 525-227. 92 See above, note 61. 93 Here and in what follows characters italicized indicate a change during the anagram- making, while characters underlined indicate the effect of iotacism. 94 This should be the subject of another entire study, the fourth one among those mentioned above, in the Introduction to the present essay (p. 56).

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 8686 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 87

56 A u s i o u /

14→ 23 a*r{e} o* (p a g) [i t o u]

12← 3 B a (g a p) [i t o u]

45 6 *r o* /nj s i o u/ Apparently, our attempt at seeing the pseudonym Dionysios Areopa- gites as an anagram possibly hiding the real name of the author gives us quite an interesting result. If Hierotheos as an author’s name, with the declined form of the definite article and taking into consideration the inevitable iotacism separating pronunciation from orthography, worked quite well at hiding Theodoretos, now, Dionysios Areopagites seems to be the anagram, better than which one could not easily imagine, of the name Agapitos Rhodion Nesiou, that is, of a putative Agapetus, bishop of the island of Rhodes. So far so good, but this deciphering raises a number of questions: 1) Was there a bishop of Rhodes called Agapetus in our period, that is, sometime between 451 and 485 AD? 2) If there was one, does his Christological position correspond to the one outlined in the present study, that is, was he a dyophysite Chalcedonian? 3) If so, could we find this Agapetus in the circle of Theodoret? 4) If there was such a person identifiable to one of Theodoret’s disciples, then, do we have other data or allusions from contemporary sources to the person hiding behind the pseudonym Dionysius and could we harmonize these with our identification? 5) Do we find other parallels outside the Dionysian Corpus for such a technique of hiding/revealing one’s own name in one’s writing? Also, we could reverse these naturally emerging questions and use them to formulate a methodology for the verification (or falsification) of our hypothesis: if, after this tentative decoding of the name Dionysius the Areopagite as an anagram, we were to find out that 1) the bishop of Rhodes in our period was called Agapetus (a rather rare name, indeed), that 2) he was a Chalcedonian, that 3) we can, without too much hermeneutical bravery, identify this Agapetus with a person in Theodoret’s circle, that 4) other data about the person hiding behind the Dionysian pseudonym, which hitherto have defied any interpretative attempt, can be easily brought in harmony with this hypothesis and that 5) we have some external parallels to the ways Pseudo-Diony-

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 8787 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 88 I. PERCZEL

sius is constructing his pseudonym, then, we could consider this hypothesis as having quite a high probability. On the contrary, if this cannot be done – for example if, in our period, there did not exist any Agapetus bishop of Rhodes, then, we could reject the hypothesis as having little probability or no probability at all. Now I will try to answer these questions.

1) According to Giorgio Fedalto95 we have quite deficient knowledge on the placeholders, in our period, of the bishopric of Rhodes. Neverthe- less, we know the names of three from among them. The first is John, who signed the Acts of Chalcedon. We know that he was bishop of Rhodes in 449 and 451 but we do not know the beginning and the end of his episcopacy. The second is indeed Agapetus, who was one of those bishops whose answers to Emperor Leo’s encyclical letter concerning Chalcedon and Timothy Aelurus were included in the Codex encyclius and, so, he must have been bishop sometime during the period 457- 45996. We know that he was still bishop in 474 but we do not know when his episcopacy ended, that is, when he died. The next bishop whose name is known is Isaiah who reigned between 513-528. So we find out that, precisely in the period that our study indicates as the lifetime of Pseudo-Dionysius, the bishop of Rhodes was called Agapetus, who must have held this position for approximately twenty years, or even more. 2) This Agapetus was indeed a Chalcedonian, since in his answer to Emperor Leo he approves of Chalcedon and of the deposition of the miaphysite Patriarch of Alexandria, Timothy Aelurus. 3) Indeed we find a monk called Agapetus in Theodoret’s circle. This Agapetus, originally from Hierapolis in Syria Euphratensis, was a con- fidential of Theodoret. Apparently, since he was a kind of chaplain of the legions in Thrace, Theodoret used him as the carrier of his letters when he was returning from Cyrrhus to Thrace. Still a young deacon, he carried Theodoret’s Letter II (dated after 440 AD) of the Collection of Patmos, addressed to Eusebius of Ancyra. It is in this letter that Theodoret mentions Agapetus’ birthplace and his service in the Thracian legions97. The same Agapetus, already consecrated a priest but still stationed in Thrace, also carried Theodoret’s Letter XLVII (between

95 G. FEDALTO, Hierarchia ecclesiastica orientalis, Padova, 1988, vol. 1. Patriarcha- tus Constantinopolitanus, 21, 1-2, p. 203. 96 See Codex encyclius: CPG 9089 (28), ACO II, 5, p. 365. 97 Théodoret de Cyr, Correspondance, I, introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par Y. AZÉMA (Sources Chrétiennes, 40), Paris, 1955, p. 75.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 8888 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 89

440 and 448 AD) to the tribune Eurycianus98. So this Agapetus was of Syrian origin, as is generally supposed about Pseudo-Dionysius but, as a chaplain serving in the Thracian legions, he must have known, besides Greek, also good Latin. In fact, although this fact is generally overlooked in the literature, the Dionysian Corpus displays quite a good knowledge of Latin sources99. Later this Agapetus might have been consecrated bishop of Rhodes, although the identity of the priest Agapetus and the bishop Agapetus cannot be proven. However, Agapetus is quite a rare name, the next historical Agapeti we hear about being a Roman patrician under Theodoric the Great who held consulship in 517100, a sophist from Alexandria of the early sixth century101, the deacon Agapetus, author of an Advice to emperor Justinian, containing 72 chapters, usually dated to Justinian’s early reign102, and Pope St Agapetus of Rome (535-36)103. 4) This decoding of the pseudonym Dionysios Areopagites and the tentative identification of the bishop Agapetus of Rhodes, whose name seems to be hidden in the pseudonym, with the priest – earlier deacon – Agapetus of the Thracian legions little before, might explain a para- doxical sixth-century reference to Pseudo-Dionysius’ identity, which has defied all the interpretative efforts to the present day or, rather, has been largely ignored. The reference is to be found in an odd writing that tries to emulate the Dionysian Corpus while it is manifestly hostile to the Dionysian ideas, namely the Questions and Answers (Erotapokriseis) of Pseudo-Caesarius (hereafter abbreviated as QA)104. In QA 111,

98 Ibidem, p. 116. 99 For Pseudo-Dionysius’ usage of St Jerome’s Letters see PERCZEL, «Théologiens» et «magiciens» dans le Corpus Dionysien, p. 62-74. Other, hitherto ignored, Latin sources of the Dionysian Corpus include Marius Victorinus and Augustine as well as, surprisingly for a Greek author but naturally for a chaplain of the Thracian legions, the Latin text of the Vulgate. 100 s.v. Flavius Agapetus (7) in A. PAULY – G. WISSOWA (ed.), Real-Enzyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1894, col. 734. 101 s.v. Agapetus (4) in Ibidem. 102 Critical edition with German translation: R. RIEDINGER, Der Fürstenspiegel für Kaiser Iustinianos, Athens, 1995. See also R. FROHNE, Agapetus Diaconus: Untersuchun- gen zu den Quellen und zur Wirkungsgeschichte des ersten byzantinischen Fürstenspiegels, diss. Tübingen, 1985. English translation with study: P.N. BELL, Three Political Voices from the Age of Justinian: Agapetus, Advice to the Emperor; Dialogue on Political Science; Paul the Silentiary, Description of Hagia Sophia (Translated Texts for Historians, 52), Liverpool, 2009; study on Agapetus: p. 27-48; translation of the text: p. 99-122. 103 See E. CASPAR, Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft, II. Band: Das Papsttum unter Byzantinischer Herrschaft, Tübingen, 1933, p. 199-228 and W. ENSSLIN, Papst Agapet I und Kaiser Iustinian I, in Historisches Jahr- buch, 77 (1958), p. 459-466. 104 Pseudo-Kaisarios, Die Erotapokriseis, hrsg. von R. RIEDINGER (Die griechischen

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 8989 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 90 I. PERCZEL

plagiarising the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, Pseudo-Caesarius mocks the pagan pantheon, listing the pagan gods venerated at diverse places of the world. When he reaches the god Ares, he adds, quite unex- pectedly, the following sentence: In Thrace, Ares [is venerated], who is named after the curse (ara), from where, as if from the wretched Esau, there has risen to us Dionysius the Areopagite, who has become a pupil of the divine Apostles105.

While I do not claim to understand all the allusions contained in this enigmatic sentence, it is interesting to observe that here Dionysius does not get any one of his standard epithets: he is neither ‘divine’ (qe⁄ov), nor ‘holy’ (†giov), nor even ‘great’ (mégav). However, he came, ‘as if from the wretched Esau’, either from Thrace, or from the curse, perhaps from both. From all this, one thing becomes clear: Pseudo-Caesarius has not got too much sympathy for (Pseudo-)Dionysius, whom he hardly consid- ers the real disciple of Saint Paul. Rather, one gets the impression that he adds here the whole mockery on the pagan gods in order to insert this meaningful sentence and convey some concealed information on the author of the Dionysian Corpus, whose real identity he must have known106. What interests me here is that Pseudo-Caesarius tells us in very clear terms that (Pseudo-)Dionysius came from Thrace, which fact confirms the solution proposed here: apparently, the pseudonym ‘Dionysios Areopagites' hides the anagram of the name of Agapetus of Rhodes who, before ‘becoming [understand: before making himself] a

christlichen Schriftsteller), Berlin, 1989. Pseudo-Caesarius has invented an artificial, otherwise nonexistent, language upon the pattern of Pseudo-Dionysius’ idiosyncratic language. Just like Pseudo-Dionysius, he is a compiler and plagiarist - on his sources and paraphrasing technique see R. RIEDINGER, Pseudo-Kaisarios, Überlieferungsgeschichte und Verfasserfrage (Byzantinisches Archiv, 12), München, 1969. Because of such simi- larities, Utto Riedinger suggested that the Dionysian Corpus and the Questions and Answers had been produced in the same milieu, namely the monastery of the Sleepless (Akoimetai) in Constantinople: U. RIEDINGER, Pseudo-Dionysios Areopagites, Pseudo- Kaisarios und die Akoimeten, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 52 (1959), p. 276-296. How- ever, Pseudo-Caesarius conducts a subtle polemics against Pseudo-Dionysius, the most obvious element of which is that he founds all his system on the number seven, as over against the role of the number nine in the Pseudo-Dionysian system. While there are nine angelic orders in Pseudo-Dionysius, there are seven in Pseudo-Caesarius: QA 44, p. 43. Also, he establishes the seventy times sevenfold structure of the time of the world, leading to the complete forgiveness of all the sins (probably to the Apocatastasis) in QA 214, p. 193-197. 105 QA 111, p. 91, ll. 29-31: ên dè QrákjÇ ‰Arjn, tòn t±v âr¢v êpÉnumon [prosku- noÕsin], êz ¯v ™m⁄n Üv êk dustßnou ˆJsaÕ Dionúsiov ö ˆAreopagítjv ânéteilen, t¬n qeíwn âpostólwn genómenov foitjtßv. 106 For the idea that throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages there were some persons who seriously doubted the authenticity of the Dionysian writings, see I. HAUSHERR, Doutes au sujet du divin Denys, in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 2 (1936), p. 484-490. However, Hausherr does not mention Pseudo-Caesarius.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 9090 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 91

pupil of the divine Apostles’, served as a chaplain at the Thracian legions. In fact, as I have proposed in a recent essay, the pseudonym Caesarius seems to hide Theodore Ascidas, archbishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia, famous Origenist leader of the sixth century, chief ecclesiastic advisor of Justinian and also the chief arbiter of both the Neochalcedonian Christol- ogy and the condemnation of the Three Chapters, that is, of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the anti-Cyrillian writings of Theodoret and Ibas of Edessa107. If both identifications are correct, one understands why Pseudo- Caesarius/Theodore Ascidas considered the pseudonymous activity of a disciple of Theodoret as something coming not only from Thrace, but also ‘from the curse’, ‘as if from the wretched Esau’.

5) Finally, although I cannot cite any other example from the same period for the method of hiding one’s own name or other pseudonyms in anagrams, this technique can be put in parallel with the method of hiding one’s name, or the addressee’s name, or any other hidden message, in the acrostics of either a poem, or a prose work. Thus the aforementioned Agapetus the Deacon has hidden his name and the dedication of his work in the acrostics of his 72 chapters: ‘To our most divine and pious Emperor Justinian Agapetus the most humble deacon' (T¬ç qeiotátwç kaì eûseÛestátwç basile⁄ ™m¬n ˆIoustinian¬ç ˆAgápjtov ö êláxis- tov diákonov) and this is how we can know for certain that the author of the work was indeed called Agapetus and that it was indeed written for Justinian. So also Romanus Melodus used to mark his authorship in the acrostics of his hymns108.

It seems to me that the methodological verification/falsification proposed here has proven heuristically fertile109. Certainly it avoids the vicious circle of the standard attempts at identifying Pseudo-Dionysius: first to construct a phantom image of the author and, then, to look for one or another famous author of Late Antique history who could be made to

107 Cf. I. PERCZEL, Finding a Place for the Erotapokriseis of Pseudo-Caesarius: A New Document of Sixth-century Palestinian Origenism, in Palestinian Christianity: Pilgrim- ages and Shrines, ARAM Periodical, 18–19 (2006–2007), p. 49-83. 108 Such as the first three hymns on the Old Testament: “This is a hymn by the humble Romanus” (toÕ tapeinoÕ ¨RwmanoÕ ö Àmnov), “This is also a praise by Romanus” (a˝nov kaì oœtov ¨RwmanoÕ), “On Abraham, a hymn by Romanus (eîv tòn ˆAÛraàm ¨RwmanoÕ Àmnov), etc. See Romanos le Mélode, Hymnes, vol. 1, Ancien Testament, éd. et trad. par J. GROSDIDIER DE MATONS (Sources Chrétiennes, 99), Paris, 1964, p. 70, 102, 138, 172, etc. 109 Let me note here that the verification/falsification process described here corre- sponds to the actual mental process I have gone through. First I found the anagram, second I checked whether the person thus found existed at all, then, thirdly, I was looking for him in Theodoret’s circles before, fourthly, finding out that the enigmatic reference in Pseudo-Caesarius could refer to the person thus discovered.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 9191 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 92 I. PERCZEL

correspond to this phantom image110. Instead we have found a person whose identity is indicated only by the internal evidence of the Corpus, from whom nothing, except for a letter, is transmitted to us under his real name and who had not acquired fame in any notable manner. It also seems to me that the first piece of the Dionysian Corpus, on which all the rest is based, is the very pseudonym ‘Dionysius the Areopagite'. At a certain moment the author (in my reconstruction: Agapetus of Rhodes) must have recognized that his real name could be hidden in the anagram ‘Dionysius the Areopagite’ and, then, he must have conceived of the Dionysian Corpus, centred on the idea of the unknown God, as well as on that of clothing in philosophical ideas Christian theological views – just like Saint Paul acted at the Areos Pagos (Acts 17). This Agapetus must have possessed a very playful mind and, at the same time, must have been somebody who had quite a lot to hide.

5. Conclusions: Theodoret, Nestorius and Pseudo-Dionysius’ Christology

The touch-stone of the validity of the interpretative hypothesis outlined in this study would be the answer to the question about the sources of Pseudo-Dionysius’ Christological formulae. More precisely: do we indeed find, if not explicit then at least hidden, references to the teachings of Theodoret, and even Nestorius? The answer to this question must be entirely affirmative, although I cannot go into much detail here. A careful analysis, which should be the subject of the fourth study in the planned series mentioned in the introduction, will show that Pseudo- Dionysius’ text is everywhere saturated with reminiscences of Theodoret and that the Dionysian Christology is that of the radical Dyophysites. So, in a forthcoming essay, I intend to show that the main tenets of the Third and Fourth (Christological) Letters of Dionysius, as well as those of the Christological text ascribed to Hierotheus in Divine Names II.10. (namely a negative Christology asserting that Jesus, being the composite of the two natures, is neither God, nor man, the doctrine that the non-manifest [that is, divine] nature is hiding in the manifest [that is, human] nature, as well as the ‘new God-manly operation’, a passage that, according to Rorem and Lamoreaux, Severus was forced to reinterpret in the miaphysite sense111) come directly and almost word for word from Theodoret and Nestorius, more precisely from their anti-Cyrillian writings.

110 Henri Dominique Saffrey has justly criticized this technique for attempting to solve the Dionysian mystery in H.D. SAFFREY, Un lien objectif entre le pseudo-Denys et Pro- clus, in Studia Patristica, 9 (1966), p. 98-105, here 98. 111 ROREM - LAMOREAUX, John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus, p. 12.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 9292 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 93

To set the above philological investigations in a historical context, one also has to understand that the production of the kind of encoded writing, whose example the Pseudo-Dionysian Corpus proves to be, is insepara- ble from the practice of Christian Roman legislation, coming down ever harder on those whom it condemned as heretics. Particularly, the composition of the Pseudo-Dionysian Corpus is closely connected to Theodo- sius II’s anti-Nestorian law dated August 435. While the law was intended to extirpate the Antiochian dyophysite teaching and thought completely and to eliminate all its representatives, in reality, through the logic of the events, it gradually forced them underground, until this movement produced the fascinating underground writing that was to become perhaps the most successful fraud of Christian history. The description of this process is the subject of the, recently published, third study mentioned in the introduction112. This kind of legislation inaugu- rated a new era in the history of Christian thought and practice. Also, it has introduced a larger than ever cleavage in the Christian common- wealth between the private and communal spheres of religion on the one hand, and the institutional and political spheres of religion, on the other. It also triggered the birth of new artful writing techniques, among which the Dionysian Corpus is only one of the oddest and most fascinating examples113. So this law, together with the larger religious policies of the Roman emperors of the fifth to seventh centuries, provoked the creation of a new type of artfully composed literature, the understanding of which demands an artful reading in-between the lines, rather than taking the expressions of these literary works at their face value114.

Central European University Budapest István PERCZEL Department of Medieval Studies Nádor u. 9. 1051 Budapest, Hungary [email protected]

112 www.giottoslibrary.com. See above, note 3. 113 Another, typical, example is Pseudo-Caesarius’ Questions and Answers. The clas- sical study proposing the theory that persecution triggers such an answer from the intel- lectuals, but uniquely for the philosophical genre of writing, is L. STRAUSS, Persecution and the Art of Writing, Chicago, 1988. However, following the communis opinio, Strauss thought that hidden philosophico-theological writing techniques existed in Judaism and Islam but not in Christianity (Ibidem, p. 18-21). 114 On the sixth-century blossoming of this type of literature see, now, R. SCOTT, The Literature of Sixth-Century Byzantium, in D. SAKEL (ed.), Byzantine Days of Istanbul (forthcoming).

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 9393 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 94 I. PERCZEL

Abstract — This essay examines the role of the Holy Virgin in the Pseudo- Dionysian Corpus and concludes that this role is negligible. It also examines the only evidence that seems to contradict this conclusion, namely a text traditionally regarded as referring to the Dormition of the Mother of God and shows that it is instead a cryptic report on a Christological council, probably Chalcedon, seen through the eyes of a participant of Antiochian theological convictions. The essay concludes with the hypothesis that the author of the Corpus should be sought in the circles of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and muses about how, in a time of intellectual persecution, artful writing techniques, such as that displayed in the Dionysian Corpus, are invented.

APPENDIX THE GREEK AND THE EARLY SYRIAC VERSION OF THE PSEUDO-DORMITION OF THE VIRGIN MARY FROM THE DIVINE NAMES

1. DN III. 2-3, 681C-684B, p. 141, l. 4-142, l. 6 [Suchla] – Greek text according to the critical edition, with the indication of the obvious lacunae due to an early corruption of the text. Kaítoi kaì toÕto ™m⁄n êpitetßrjtai lían êmmel¬v ¿ste to⁄v aût¬ç t¬ç qeíwç kaqjgemóni katà ∂kfansin saf± dijukrinoménoiv mjd’ ºlwv êgkexeir- jkénai pote pròv taûtologían eîv t®n aût®n toÕ proteqéntov aût¬ç logíou diasáfjsin· êpeì115 kaì par’ aûto⁄v to⁄v qeolßptoiv ™m¬n ïerárxaiv, ™níka kaì ™me⁄v, Üv o˝sqa, kaì aûtòv116 kaì polloì t¬n ïer¬n ™m¬n âdelf¬n êpì t®n qéan toÕ hwarxikoÕ kaì qeodóxou sÉmatov suneljlúqamen [...]117 par±n dè kaì ö âdelfóqeov ˆIákwbov kaì Pétrov, ™ korufaía kaì presbutátj t¬n qeológwn âkrótjv, e˝ta êdókei metà t®n qéan ümn±sai toùv ïerárxav †pantav, Üv ∏kastov ¥n ïkanóv, t®n âpei- rodúnamon âgaqótjta t±v qearxik±v âsqeneíav, […] pántwn êkrátei metà toùv qeológouv, Üv o˝sqa, t¬n ãllwn ïeromust¬n ºlov êkdjm¬n, ºlov êzistámenov ëautoÕ kaì t®n pròv tà ümnoúmena koinwnían pásxwn kaì pròv pántwn, ˜n ©koúeto kaì ëwr¢to kaì êgignÉsketo kaì oûk êgi- gnÉsketo, qeóljptov e˝nai kaì qe⁄ov ümnológov krinómenov. Kaì tí ãn soi perì t¬n êke⁄ qeologjqéntwn légoimi; Kaì gàr, eî m® kaì êmautoÕ êpiléljsmai, pollákiv o˝da parà soÕ kaì mérj tinà t¬n ênqeastik¬n êkeínwn ümnwçdi¬n épakoúsav. OÀtw soi spoud® m® êk parérgou tà qe⁄a metadiÉkein [...]

115 Here I have slightly changed Suchla’s punctuation. In fact êpeí is a causal or explicative particle referring back to what precedes it and links the clause or sentence that it introduces to the previous clause or sentence. Suchla: diasáfjsin. ˆEpeì kaí... 116 Variant reading: kaì aûtoí PaPbVvVb according to Suchla’s sigla. 117 Suchla: suneljlúqamen, par±n dé... However, there is an obvious lacuna between suneljlúqamen and par±n dé.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 9494 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 95

Kaì ÷na tà êke⁄ mustikà kaì Üv to⁄v pollo⁄v ãÄÅjta kaì Üv êgnwsména soi paraleícwmen, ºte to⁄v pollo⁄v êxr±n koinwn±sai kaì ºsouv dunatòn êpì t®n kaq’ ™m¢v ïerognwsían prosagage⁄n […] ºpwv üpere⁄xe toùv polloùv t¬n ïer¬n didaskálwn kaì xrónou trib±Ç kaì noÕ kaqarótjti kaì âpodeízewn âkribeíaç kaì ta⁄v loipa⁄v ïerologíaiv, ¿ste oûk ãn pote pròv oÀtw mégan Ølion ântwpe⁄n ênexeirßsamen.

2. Syriac translation by Sergius of Rish cAyno, MS Sin. syr. 52, fols. 10 r/b-11 r/a, with a tentative reconstruction of Sergius’ Greek model. Naturally, this retroversion of the Syriac to the Greek does not claim to have faithfully restored the original text. It has an indicative character only.

Sigla

[…] part of the text transmitted in the Greek but having no correspondent in the Syriac <...> reconstruction of the Greek original of an expression in the Syriac, which has no correspondent in the Greek, either replacing, or supplementing what we find in the Greek text tradition

kaítoi kaì toÕto ™m⁄n êpitetßr- $-ˏ /0 12 ˖ 4( jtai lían êmmel¬v ¿ste to⁄v 56 (7( ˦ ( % aût¬ç t¬ç qeíwç kaqjgemóni katà ˂$7( 6 7 118| ∂kfansin saf± dijukrinoménoiv $ '0( 4( mjd’ ºlwv êgkexeirjkénai pote 5, -4'( ˏ pròv taûtologían eîv t®n aût®n toÕ proteqéntov aût¬ç logíou $7( 4 diasáfjsin· êpeì kaì par’ aûto⁄v ˖ % 7 , to⁄v qeolßptoiv ™m¬n ïerárxaiv, /$ˏ 7" /$ ™níka kaì ™me⁄v, Üv o˝sqa, kaì $ ˖ " :7(- kaì polloì t¬n : ïer¬n ™m¬n âdelf¬n êpì t®n :$ -0 qéan toÕ hwarxikoÕ kaì qeodóxou sÉmatov suneljlúqamen, . 5 $ & 7(

par±n dè kaì ö âdelfóqeov ˖ $ &$ ˆIákw bov kaì Pétrov, ™ korufaía %, 5$ 7( & kaì presbutátj t¬n qeológwn $ âkró tjv. 7( /'

118 Here begins the column 10 v/a.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 9595 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 96 I. PERCZEL

e˝ta êdókei metà t®n qéan $ 7( $ ümn±sai toùv ïerárxav †pantav, 7" & Üv ∏kastov ¥n ïkanóv, t®n <âka- $ " 7" /$ táljpton> âgaqótjta t±v 4( 2 âsqeneíav ( $ pántwn êkrátei metà , Üv o˝sqa, t¬n ãllwn $ ïeromust¬n, ºlov ˏ / $ êkdjm¬n, ºlov êzistámenov kaì t®n pròv tà ümnoú- & 1 7( mena koinwnían pásxwn , kaì pròv pántwn, ˜n ©koúeto kaì ëwr¢to kaì êgignÉs- $7" keto kaì oûk êgignÉsketo, 119| " $ qeóljptov e˝nai kaì qe⁄ov , 7" ümnológov krinómenov. ·7 4 7" ˕*$ +, :7 7( ' $ &$ 7" &$ 4( &$ $ &$ 7(- $ˏ

kaì tí ãn soi perì t¬n êke⁄ ( -4'( /( $ qeologjqéntwn légoimi; kaì gàr, ' $7( ( % eî m® kaì êmautoÕ êpiléljsmai, $ pollákiv o˝da parà soÕ kaì mérj /6 120 2 4( tinà t¬n ênqeastik¬n êkeínwn 4'" ' ümnwçdi¬n épakoúsav. oÀtw soi spoud® m® êk parérgou tà -0 ˏ qe⁄a metadiÉkein kaì [÷na] tà " ( mustikà ( ˂6" kaì Üv to⁄v pollo⁄v ãÄÅjta kaì ˖ $ $ Üv êgnwsména <™m⁄n parale⁄- ˏ $7( cai>. " $ ( -0 $$

119 10 v/b. 120 2 is an emendation suggested by Sebastian Brock. MS: /2.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 9696 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25 PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS AND THE PSEUDO-DORMITION 97

<âll’> ºte to⁄v pollo⁄v êxr±n ,'( ˏ &7 4( koinwn±sai kaì ºsouv dunatòn 4'" 5'( :-0( êpì t®n [kaq’ ™m¢v] ïerognwsían ˂$7( ( $ prosagage⁄n, ºpwv &$ $- üpere⁄xe toùv polloùv t¬n ïer¬n 6 -0 ( didaskálwn kaì xrónou trib±Ç kaì noÕ kaqarótjti kaì âpodeízewn ˂$ ˦ $ âkribeíaç kaì ta⁄v loipa⁄v 4( ˂ˏ ïerologíaiv, ¿ste oûk ãn pote 121|˦ $ $ pròv oÀtw mégan Ølion ântwpe⁄n 4' " ênexeirßsamen. $ 4( $ 7" ' (

121 11r/a.

995317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd5317_Mus2012_1-2_03_Perczel.indd 9797 99/07/12/07/12 008:258:25