THE FAME OF FAKE, DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE: FABRICATION, FALSIFICATION AND THE ‘CLOUD OF UNKNOWING’

Bram Kempers

Introduction

Few texts enjoyed such a varied, volatile, contradictory and long afterlife as those that were ascribed to the enigmatic author, known as Dionysius the Areopagite. An enormous variety of meanings have been attached to a relatively small group of texts of limited length. In the later stages of their reception more and more focus has been given to the identity of the au- thor. The in the end successful falsification of the author as the Athenian pupil of the apostle Paul became the primary focus of scholarly attention. In this essay I will argue that the question about the author’s identity is part of a more complicated Rezeptionsgeschichte during a very long pe- riod, which started in the early sixth century and lasts until the present day. The convincing conclusion that the texts cannot have been written by Paul’s Greek companion somehow became a handicap in understanding the wider context of the huge attention that the texts happened to attract, not least because they suggested Dionysius the Areopagite to be their au- thor. On the whole the vast secondary literature on Pseudo-Dionysius tends to emphasize the sudden and effective falsification of the purported author rather than acknowledging the complicated continuity in the re- ception as a crucial source of wisdom. Step by step the Dionysian texts, originally written in Greek, acquired almost unprecedented authority in the Latin West. After the Bible itself, these texts were considered to be of prime importance since the twelfth century, even more so than either the Greek philosophers or the Church fathers. The surprisingly positive reception of Dionysius in the fifteenth cen- tury hardly became an issue in the extensive secondary literature, which tends to focus far too much on the favourable reception of Valla’s falsifica- tion. In fact, ever more meaning was attached to the Dionysian texts. They were marginalized only at a much later stage. 302 bram kempers

Precisely because Pseudo-Dionysius became a niche within specialized scholarly discourse, mainly within the modern disciplines of theology and to a lesser extent philosophy, it became increasingly difficult to establish his extensive cultural impact in the long run. Relying on modern editions and translations, using the secondary literature, and reading many primary texts again or for the first time with this theme in mind, I will try to re- consider Dionysius’ role in our cultural history.

Invention and renovation of traditions from Greek into Latin

An intriguing group of Greek texts suddenly made its appearance in the early sixth century: four treatises and ten letters. The longest text bears the title Divine Names, a short one is called Mystical Theology. According to the titles the two other treatises deal with the Celestial Hierarchy and the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Ten letters are addressed to various persons, Titus and John the apostle and evangelist among them. Timothy is frequently mentioned in the texts. In some of the manuscripts Timothy appears as the addressee of the treatises. Few persons are mentioned by name in the texts: Jesus Christ and the apostles Paul, Peter, Jacob and Bartholomew. All these names suggest a specific context: the early Christian Church. Ac- cording to the New Testament both Titus and Timothy received letters by Saint Paul; they participated in the early historiography of the church. The author mentions Paul himself as his main teacher, together with the enig- matic Hierotheus. In this way the author suggested that he knew the apos- tles personally and that he was directly inspired by them. This suggestion proved to be a successful literary strategy. In fact, it was a widespread lit- erary strategy, well known from the Bible itself and many other texts cir- culating in Antiquity. A little earlier fourteen letters appeared, presented as a correspondence between Seneca and Saint Paul. Immediately this group of four treatises and ten letters was ascribed to a single author: Dionysius the Areopagite. In Acts 17, describing Paul’s discussion with the philosophers in Athens, his first convert there was re- ferred to by the name of Dionysius, a member of the Council called the Areopagus. Only a few years after its first appearance, this alleged author- ship was doubted at the synod of Constantinople in 533. It was claimed that the newly discovered texts could not belong to the era of Saint Paul and his first converts, thereby denying their ancient authority. An apostol- ic pedigree, implied by the names of Timothy and Dionysius the Areopag- ite, met with critique in the Byzantine context of the sixth century. In the Greek world the reception of the texts, ascribed to Dionysius the Areo-