Allegorese and symbolism in the Areopagitica

The article provides an overview of the symbolism and allegorical imagery of the Areopagite Corpus. The author clarifies the grounds for the use of symbolism and allegoresis in the “Areopagitica”, the elements underlying symbolism and allegoresis, examines symbolic-allegorical terminology, particular types of use of symbolism and imagery, explores the ontological and anthropological grounds for the use of allegoresis, reconstructs the hierarchy of allegorico-symbolic images and touches on the issue of the procedure for interpreting images. Rationale for the use of symbolism and allegory in the Areopagitica “Areopagitica” is an example of a deep and versatile symbolic-allegorical work 1. The theme of imagery, the “symbolic dialectic” of the signifier and the signified are manifested in Dionysius’ system at various levels and, in a narrow sense, are, on the one hand, methodologically dominant in some particular spheres of Dionysian creativity (for example, in symbolic theology), and in a broader sense they are an invariant of this entire grandiose system. It can be said that in the “Areopagitica” allegoresis and symbolism are inherent in all elements of the theological system presented in them (with the exception, perhaps, only of the consideration of God in His unknowable Essence) 3. The place of allegory and symbol is the world and created being in general, but not taken in its autonomy (which the Areopagitists precisely deny), but placed in the essential relation of interaction between created and uncreated 4 . Therefore, the symbol (in its broad sense) and the world itself are the meeting place of the creature and the Creator. The Areopagite calls the reason for this the goodness of the Creator and the desire for the entities He created to be involved in Him, especially rational entities (νοεροὶ), so that they would know Him to the best of their ability, become like Him, approaching Him and becoming deified. Elements underlying the symbolism and allegory of the Areopagitik Since the “Areopagitica” is a very meaningful work in terms of thematic and methodology of imagery, containing, as will be shown later, a symbolic system, it is obvious that its initial, lower level should consist of some elements, atomic units that enter into complex interactions and correspondences within the framework of this system. Among the many such “atomic” categories and technical terms, the first place (besides the “anagoge” we have already mentioned) is the symbol. The symbol is, along with “anagoge,” a fundamental concept of Dionysian theological and philosophical language and goes far beyond the scope of exegesis of Scripture 5 . The concept of symbol in Dionysius is used in the broadest context and provides space for the broadest and most universal interpretation. Symbols themselves are images, forms (σχήματα, μορφώσεις 6), subject to our senses in order to be interpreted and understood 7. The symbol is dual and its purpose is dual. The essence of the symbol is that “through sacred veils (διὰ τῶν ἱερῶν παραπετασμάτων) 8 envelops the mental with the sensory (αἰσθητοῖς τὰ νοητὰ), super-essential essential (τοῖς οὗσι τὰ ὑπερούσια περικαλυπτούση), formless and formless (μορφὰς) καὶ τύπους τοῖς ἀμορφώτοις τε καὶ ἀτυπώτοις), supernatural, imageless simplicity, multiplying and depicting with various private symbols” (τὴν ὑπερφυῆ καὶ ἀσχημάτιστον ἁπλότητα τῇ ποικιλίᾳ τῶν μεριστῶν συμβόλων πληθυούσης τε καὶ διαπλαττούσης) 9 . The symbol is not a product of human invention, but a Divine institution 10. The symbol is designed to connect two realities - the single, intelligible and Divine with the sensory, material, and multiple, representing the first in the second. In its broad sense, a symbol in Dionysius is a certain “veil” 11, on the one hand, concealing in itself, on the other hand, representing 12 at a given level, ontologically an element of the intelligible world, epistemologically - a certain knowledge about this intelligible world. Not all symbols, so widely interpreted within the framework of the Dionysian system, have a clearly expressed ontological element (therefore, it is more convenient to designate such symbols as images (or allegories) pointing to something from the intelligible reality, but actually, ontologically, in themselves, unlike a real symbol 13, they do not contain it) 14. On the other hand, the symbol also performs a “protective” – “esoteric” – function of hiding the mysterious teaching of the Church from the eyes of the uninitiated. However, most importantly, this investment in imagery akin to (οἰκείως) human feelings is also “elevating” (ἀναγωγικῶς) 15, that is, it is intended not only to hide, but also to reveal the Divine and raise the mind of the contemplator to the knowledge of God. So, symbols in the “Corpus” are called both symbols in general, in connection with the justification of symbolism and allegory, and more specifically – material and figurative-allegorical (in Scripture) images of the intelligible and the Divine, material elements of the Church Sacraments, and even the Sacraments themselves 16 . However, a broader interpretation of the symbol in Dionysius is also possible. The symbol is fundamentally addressed to human perception, and it can be assumed that if we remove man from the Dionysian universe (and do not take into account that very broad understanding of the symbol, from the point of view of which the whole world is an image or symbol of Divine goodness), then the symbol in its narrow and most direct sense will lose all the necessity of its existence. So, the symbol is intended for man and turns out to be the main means of communication with God and knowledge of God for him. And therefore, the proper, adequate perception of a symbol on the part of a person is a search for God, an attitude towards the symbol itself only as a sign, a signifier (or an allegory in this sense) and there is a desire to perceive the Divine signified, the content, the meaning that this symbol carries. Symbolic-allegorical terminology “Areopagitik” The symbolic-allegorical terminology of Areopagitik is presented very richly and variedly. The list of terms and concepts related to this area that we provide is not entirely complete, but, we hope, the most common and important. – the most elementary (visual and sensory) level of symbolic objects is represented by such concepts as: 1). intended for sensory perception 18); τὰ ἐκφαντορικὰ σύμβολα – revealing symbols” 19 – this expression indicates the role of symbolic images revealing the inner spiritual content; τὰ τυπωτικά σύμβολα - pictorial symbols (including verbal designations), while carrying important distinguishing information about their object, but this application is exegetical and does not have ontological content 20, τὰ διαιρετὰ σύμβολα – separate symbols (an expression indicating the plurality and diversity of symbolism denoting a single and simple spiritual reality), τὰ θεῖα σύμβολα – Divine symbols (Holy Gifts) 21, σεβάσμια σύμβολα - revered symbols (Holy Gifts) 22, ἁγιότατα σύμβολα - most sacred symbols (Holy Gifts), κοινονικὰ σύμβολα - symbols of communication (St. Gifts) 23, νομικὰ σύμβολα - legal symbols (in the sense of the Old Testament ritual symbolism, as well as various symbolic - anthropomorphic and zoomorphic - images of God and the angelic world in the Old Testament and the Revelation of John the Theologian). This term is used in such phrases as: συμβολικὴ παράδοσις - symbolic tradition, συμβολικὴ διδασκαλία - symbolic teaching (the internal mysterious and doctrinal meaning of the sacred rites of the Church) 24. (“conclusion” of the spiritual meaning in the sensual matter of a symbol is a special spiritual and creative Divine-human act of creating a symbol - the revelation of Divine reality and its design in the form of images - verbal and visual, for human perception). 2) ἡ εἰκών (εἰκόνες) – images, images. Used with such definitions as ἐμφανεῖς εἰκόνες – explicit images (ἐμφανεῖς εἰκόνες εἰσὶ τὰ ὀρατὰ τῶν ἀοράτων – “obvious images are the visible [image] of the invisible”), αἰσθηταὶ εἰκόνες – sensory images, ὅμοιαι εἰκόνες – similar images. In contrast to the symbol, “eikon” as an image rather emphasizes the pictorial function of the image and its sensory representation without connection with the ontological content, as is the case with the symbol. So, for example, the Holy Gifts, often called “symbols” in the Areopagitica, are never called “icons”. 3) ἡ ἀνάπλασις – visible representation of invisible realities 25. 4) τὸ σύνθημα (plural τὰ συνθήματα) – a conventional sign, that is, an image that performs the practical function of a simple designation and image 26 and does not carry any ontological content. In Epistle 9, 1, visible conventional signs (τὰ φαινόμενα συνθήματα) “cover knowledge that is ineffable and unknown to many” (ἡ ἐπιστήμη), i.e. They also perform the esoteric function of hiding higher knowledge (as spiritual science) from the uninitiated. 5) ὁ χαρακτὴρ (plural οἱ χαρακτῆρες) – lit. track. The image as a trace in this case places the main emphasis not on its man-made or sensory side, but on its signified and on the incommensurability of the signified and the signifier in the sense of the ontological superiority of the former as a body over the trace. 6) ὁ τύπος, τύποι – image 27 as an internal mental image or idea that is the result of the interpretation of a symbol, formed in the mind and free from the “sensory-figurative” element of perception of the symbol. In “On the Church Hierarchy” 5, 2 there are Old Testament images in which one can discern (albeit often with difficulty) the spiritual light of the Gospel truth. In this sense, it is traditionally understood as an object of typological interpretation of Holy Scripture. Here the Areopagite says about Moses that the Lord showed him at Sinai an “icon of the image” (ἡ εἰκών τύπου), which can be understood as a God-given image of the tabernacle, shown in a vision by God to Moses. The “double” imagery that the author mentions means a large ontological distance between the image (τύπος) shown to Moses (see Ex. 25:40), the material implementation of the tabernacle, and the fact that the tabernacle itself and the sacrifices that were performed in it also, in turn, turned out to be just a prototype of the Sacrifice of Christ (see Heb. 8: 2–5, 9:2–24). Also ἀρχέτυπος, ἀρχέτυποι – prototype, i.e. that which represents an image (τύπος, εἰκών). Archetype – spiritual reality in its unity, plural. including archetypes - Divine energies and logoi-ideas of the world; ίεροτύποι – “sacred prototypes” 28. 7) τὰ ἐκτυπώματα – imprints 29 of the intelligible. 8) τὰ ἀποτυπώματα – lit. prints 30, images of the spiritual world in the material world. Used as a synonym for χαρακτὴρ 31. 9) ἡ παραβολή - a parable, used, as a rule, in relation to the Gospel parables of the Lord Jesus Christ, who also clothed His teaching about the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven in the form of images and allegories 32. 10) τὰ ἀγάλματα - images, τὰ ἁπλᾶ καὶ ἐνδότατα ἀγάλματα 33 - simple and deepest spectacles (refers to intelligible images of supersensible reality). 11) τὸ σημεῖον – sign, designation. 12) τὰ σχήματα – images, types. 13) οἱ σχηματισμοὶ – images that depict spiritual and Divine reality. In “On the Heavenly Hierarchy” 2, 2 - sublime and “similar” images (ἀσώματοί καὶ συγγενεῖς σχηματισμοὶ). 14) ἡ μόρφωσις – image as a material-sensory image (προσύλαι μορφώσεις) 34. 15) τὰ μορφώματα – mappings 35. 16) αἱ μορφοποιίαι – images, images. In “On the Heavenly Hierarchy” 2, 3 – ἀνομοίοι μορφοποιΐαι – “unlike”, i.e. images unlike the prototype. 17) αἱ σωματοποιΐαι – bodily images. 18) τὰ ἀπεικονίσματα 36 – displays, images, removed from their prototypes and only vaguely reminiscent of them. Refers to what is called the Legal hierarchy, i.e. to the symbolism of Old Testament rituals. 19) τὸ αἴνιγμα, τὰ αἰνίγματα – the image as a “fortune telling”, indicates a certain depth, ambiguity, ambiguity and mystery of the image, especially the Old Testament 37. 20). forms. 21) ἡ ἀναγωγικὴ ἱερογραφία 39 – constructive scripture. 22) τὰ ἔσοπτρα – fortune telling (see 1 Cor. 12:13) 40 as vague images of the perceiving mind, i.e. images of epistemological nature. (II.) Characteristics of the image General definitions: τὰ αἰσθητά (sensibly perceived), τὰ φαινόμενα (revealed), τὰ ὁρατὰ (visible). The outer side of the symbol in its aspect of “hiding” the spiritual meaning is τὰ παραπετάσματα, προκαλύμματα (veils). 1). The images mysteriously “hint” (αἰνίττεσθαι) to the prototypes, through them the spiritual meaning is indicated (σημαίνεται). In ontological and anthropological applications, they have the meaning of likeness to God and are closely related to the concept of deification. 2) ἡἀφομοίωσις – assimilation as a characteristic of the similarity of an image to a prototype. For example, likeness to God in deification 41. 4) ἀπεοικὸς καὶ ἀπεμφαῖνον – dissimilarity and otherness 42 as characteristics of any image, since it is different from its prototype. 5) ἡ ἀτοπία – “inappropriateness”, absurdity as a characteristic of “unlike” symbols. 1) τὰ νοητὰ – intelligible (as opposed to sensible). 2) τὰ νοητὰ θεάματα - intelligible spectacles 43, the inner side of the sacred rites of the Church, revealed to the spiritual gaze, looking through the sensory veils of symbols, i.e. spiritual reality given in spiritual vision (which does not imply the fullness of its manifestation). 3) τὰ ἀπόρρητα καὶ θεία αἰνίγματα – ineffable and Divine mysteries. 4) ἡ ἀλήθεια – truth, as opposed to just the image of this truth. 5) αἱ ἀδίδακτοι μυσταγωγίαι – “incomprehensible through the teaching of arcane knowledge.” 6) ἀμόρφωτον, ἀτύπωτον καὶ ἄμορφον – unimaginable, ugly. 7) τὰ ἀόρατα καὶ [τὰ] νοητὰ θεωρήματα – invisible and intelligible contemplations. 8) τὰ παραδείγματα - prototypes, thoughts of the Divine Mind about the creature, about its purpose 44. In created things themselves, their reflections are οἱ λόγοι (logoi) (ἑνοειδεῖς λόγοι - uniform logoi that make up the ideal “core” of a given thing, its internal meaning). 9) ἡ ἐπιστήμη - knowledge as secret spiritual knowledge, which is hidden behind the external appearance of symbols and is open to initiates. 1) ἡ θεωρία – contemplation of the intelligible and spiritual content of symbols. 2) ἡ ἀναγωγὴ – “elevation”, ascent in interpretation from the sensory reality of the symbol to its spiritual content and prototype. 3) ἡ ἐκφαντορία – manifestation of the spiritual content of symbols through their interpretation. 4). (for example, sleep, drunkenness, anger, rage, etc.). This principle is used to interpret “unlike” symbols and sensory images. 5) ἡ κάθαρσις, ἀποκάθαρσις, ἀνακάθαρσις – purification of the intelligible content of symbols from their “external appearance” and sensibility in interpretation. 6) ἀποκρύπτεσθαι – opening, “removing the covers.” 7) ἡ ἀνάπτυξις – interpretation. Particular uses of symbolism and imagery in the Areopagitica It is necessary to list all the areas of the Dionysian system where the theme of imagery and symbolism finds its application. As noted above, the Divinity in His concealment appears as the very last, highest signified, in relation to Which all other elements of the Dionysian universe can appear in the form of symbols, images and allegories, that is, a signifier. The entire created world, in all the diversity of its levels, is an image, a symbol of the Divine; the whole world, even at its lowest levels (for example, inanimate matter 45 created by God), bears the imprint of Divine Wisdom and participation in the Divine energies that penetrate and support the entire world. And therefore, not only the whole world as a whole, but also each of its individual components act as such images. And just as the whole world, due to its unity, as a whole is a kind of single image or symbol, so due to the diversity of its 46 components it acts as a system of images and symbols. And the higher these or other created beings are located on the levels of the hierarchical structure of this world, the more similar, one can say, using the language of the Areopagitica itself, these images turn out to be with the Prototype. In our opinion, it would be appropriate to say that the world, within the framework of Areopagite thought, is an image, reflection or symbol of God (although the author himself does not say so, but this fully fits within the framework of his thought) due to the fact that at the ontological level this connection and the similarity of the created world to God is ensured by the creation of beings on certain ideal grounds - eternal Divine ideas, or “patterns” (παραδείγματα). “In the Areopagitica we encounter, apparently, the most striking manifestation of Platonic realism in Eastern patristic theology” 47. “We call prototypes (παραδείγματα) those pre-existing in God (ἐν θεῷ) in unity creating the essence of the logoi of beings (τῶν ὅντων οὐσιοποιοὺς καὶ ἑνιαίως προϋφεστῶτας λόγους), which theology calls destinies and Divine and good wills (προορισμοὺς καλεῖ καὶ θεῖα καὶ ἀγαθὰ θελήματα), dividing and creating existing things, according to which the Superessential both predetermined and realized all things (ὁ ὑπερούσιος τὰ ὅντα πάντα καὶ προώρισε καὶ παρήγαγεν" 48 . Thus, all kinds of existence, all created essences have their own Divine foundations, making this or that essence as it is (or better yet, also as it should be) in the Mind of God (ὸ θεῖος νοῦς) 49 . The Areopagite calls these thoughts of God “prototypes,” since they serve as intelligible models for the corresponding created entities, which, in turn, are their reflections 50 . It would be worth noting the significant difference between the various kinds of existence (inanimate nature, plants and animals, on the one hand (whose prototypes are a kind of static given of the Divine Mind), and rational beings (Angels and people), where the correspondence of the image to the Prototype, although initially given at creation, is revealed in the endless perspective of rational movement towards God, “elevation”, likeness to God, knowledge of God and deification, which are the functions fulfill hierarchies and which the lower genera of existence are deprived of. The top of the universe, according to Dionysius, consists of two main hierarchies - the Heavenly and the Church, which are also reflections of the Divine 51 both in their original nature and in the dynamic perspective of God-likeness 52. Although Dionysius does not directly call these hierarchies images or symbols as a whole, we are allowed to believe that within the framework of his thought they have the right to be so designated, we are also allowed by the fact that Angels are often called by Dionysius “mirrors”, reflecting the light of lights from above, 53 and people are created in the image of God, and also both the first and the second are called to God-likeness, that is, to become perfect images of God. The difference between them is in their fundamental ontological structure, but the goal of the hierarchy as such remains the same for both hierarchies - “likeness to God and unity with Him” 54 . The heavenly hierarchy is located in the Dionysian universe closest to God due to its incorporeal and spiritual mental nature, and thus most reflecting God among other creations, in the dynamic aspect being a “mirror”, reflecting and transmitting down the hierarchical ladder the Divine Light of “illuminations” from above, and itself strives for even greater likeness to God. However, the main field of application of the image and symbol, especially in its most proper sense, is the Church hierarchy - the sphere of divine-human synergy in this grandiose hierarchical universe. And here it is clear that due to the complex, or more precisely, the dual structure of man (having feelings and mind as two main epistemological abilities, a material body and an immaterial soul as two ontological “halves” that make up a person), a person simultaneously resides, as it were, in two worlds 55 . Dionysius denies for man in the state of this earthly life (with the rare exception of the church hierarch 56 and the individual ascetic-seer in the preliminary stages of mystical theology) the ability to directly contemplate the spiritual world (Angels, logoi of creation and the Divine Light transmitted from above from the Heavenly hierarchy). Therefore, he often talks about the need for a symbol, an image in its broadest sense. For “it is impossible for our mind to rise to this semblance of the heavenly hierarchies and their contemplation if it does not take advantage of the material guidance corresponding to it, understanding that beautiful phenomena are reflections of invisible splendor... and everything else is given to heavenly beings supramundanely, and to us symbolically (συμβολικῶς)” 58 - one of the key phrases that can serve as an epigraph to this section. Reasons for the use of allegoresis in the Areopagitica In the broadest sense, such a basis is the presence in the universe of Dionysius of the double structure of its structure, which consists in the presence of two groups of possible, predominantly contrarian 59, predicates 60: The entire Dionysian universe is, to one degree or another, permeated by this general structure of the signifier - the signified 61. Such a signified is the “Thearchy” (i.e., the Holy Trinity) as the top of any hierarchy, as well as Its Divine energies operating in the world, and Divine ideas as “samples” and “logoi” of created essences. This category, in relation to the Church hierarchy as a signifier, sometimes also includes the Heavenly hierarchy of Angelic ranks. All created beings in general, and especially rational ones, i.e., can act as a signifier in a broad sense. components of the Heavenly and Church hierarchies; material symbolism of church art, liturgical symbolism (rites, words, gestures and movements), symbols and images of Scripture. And if the whole world, both sensory and intelligible, serves as a reflection of the Thearchy, the Godhead as the Prototype, then it is not surprising that the dichotomous definitions we indicated above are present at all created levels of the universe, since already in the Thearchy itself there is also a certain duality in the form of the dialectic “essence - energy” (as “hidden - revealed” and “knowable - unknowable"). It can be noted that this dialectic of “signifier - signified”, figuratively speaking, “descends from above” in the system of Dionysius, i.e. is present at its highest level as in the Prototype of all other images. And then “downwards” all the elements of the Dionysian universe turn out to be in one form or another images, reflections of the Divine world and its properties due to their participation in the eternal intelligible patterns (παραδείγματα) and energies of the Divine. The ultimate basis for the use of material symbols (which can be understood in a narrow sense as hand-made works of church art, and in a broad sense as any element of the material world created by God) is that, firstly, matter itself bears, albeit weakly, but still the imprint of the Divine Wisdom that created it 62 . Secondly, every sensible thing is an image of intelligible reality 63 . Man, as a dual being - mental-sensual, cannot, with the rare above-mentioned exceptions, perceive intelligible reality and thereby enter into communication with it for the sake of salvation through deification, except through various symbols and images perceived by the senses. Symbols and images (especially in this case, church art) through contemplation and interpretation can be “cleaned” from various material and sensory impurities and raise the mind of the person perceiving them first to the dogmas of church teaching hidden from profane gaze and knowledge, and then to pure contemplation of 64 intelligible and Divine things (free from sensuality and imagery), and to deification. Symbols and images play another significant role - protective, since they hide the verbalized knowledge of initiates from the gaze of the uninitiated or those who have not yet been sufficiently purified, who may either not understand or misinterpret the true meaning of these images. Moreover, it is worth noting that this protective function manifests itself not only in relation to knowledge as such, but also in relation to these unprepared categories of people, so that they cannot be internally damaged due to their unpreparedness and lack of purification from the perception of this higher knowledge and the Divine Light. Hierarchy of allegorical-symbolic images In this regard, Dionysius builds a certain hierarchy of images - theoretical and aesthetic, denoting Divine and intelligible realities. Its threefold structure is obviously hierarchical (in the modern sense of the word, i.e. distributed vertically as it increases) and, in our opinion, corresponds to three types of theology - symbolic, cataphatic and apophatic. 1) At the first and lowest level there are “material” images (προσύλαι μορφώσεις) 65. It is obvious that by them Dionysius understands all kinds of anthropo- and zoomorphisms of Scripture (eyes, hands, face, legs, etc.). These are the essence of images that, due to their inconsistency with the non-material reality they denote, require a spiritual or symbolic interpretation appropriate to them 66 and therefore belong to the level of symbolic theology. 2) At the second level - cataphatic - there are so-called “similar” images (ὅμοια) - purified from materiality and sensuality, more abstract and revealing more precisely intelligible information (Word, Mind, Light) 67. 3) At the third level - apophatic - there are expressions and images “unlike” (ἀνόμοια), denying the similarity of intelligible and Divine objects to all, even the most sublime and beautiful phenomena and categories of the created world. The procedure for interpreting images Despite the multiplicity of terms used by the author of the “Corpus” to denote the procedure for interpreting symbols, the “generic” term in this case remains “anagoge”. This concept - ἀναγωγὴ - is one of the most important both for this understanding of allegory and symbolism, and for the understanding of the entire Dionysian Corpus as a whole. Coming from the verb ἀνάγω (“to ascend”, “to raise”), it denotes the ascent of the mind, the soul from a reality of a lower order to a reality of a higher order. Based on the TLG data, it is clear that in the Areopagitica this concept, fundamental to the topic of the thesis, occurs frequently (26 times, together with cognate words - 53 times), as well as in Iamblichus and Proclus, on the one hand, and Origen, on the other hand, and has two different, although closely related, meanings. 1) Most often in the Areopagitics it means the ascent of the mind and soul through contemplation (θεωρία) through sensually comprehended reality as an allegory and symbol to the meaning and prototype - intelligible and Divine reality 68. This meaning of ἀναγωγὴ occurs most often. “Anagoge” is a “proper and innate ability” of the mind 69, inherent not only in people, but also in Angels 70 (who, however, make this “ascent” bypassing the medium of the material), and turns out to be closely connected with the hierarchical structure of existence, since it occurs in proportion to the rank (τάξις) 71. It is used in conjunction with the concept of “deification” (ϑέωσις) 72 as a precursor to its action. In the anthropological aspect, “anagoge” means the transition of “purified [through asceticism] life into a contemplative and illuminating state” 73 to deification and improvement 74, which is facilitated by the help of “Divine energies” 75. Therefore, the first meaning of this concept in the Areopagitics is characterized by ontology and a broad understanding of the symbol as a designator (all sensory reality). 2) A narrower meaning of this concept - an allegorical interpretation of Scripture - is rarely found in the Corpus 76 in contrast to Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor, and, moreover, not as the spiritual meaning of Scripture, as they do, but rather as an exegetical procedure, which, however, turns out to be closely related to “anagoge” in the first meaning and is similar to it as an “ascent” from the sensual imagery and plurality of the literal meaning of Scripture to its single, spiritual meaning. In general, in the Christian tradition, this concept is closely connected with exegesis and is synonymous with such concepts as ϑεωρία, πνευματική, μυστική, which related to the spiritual, allegorical meaning of Scripture (Origen, St. Methodius of Olympus, Epiphanius of Cyprus etc.) 77. What is also important for us here is an indication of the universality and breadth of application of this concept not only in exegetical, but in parallel also in ontological aspects, which has far-reaching implications for this study. True, the Areopagite nowhere calls the spiritual meaning of the Bible πνευματικός; like Origen, Dionysius uses this term only twice, preferring the terms νοητός and νοερός 78. It is interesting that in the Corpus the term “allegory” and its cognates are completely absent, as well as in the surviving Greek texts of Iamblichus and Proclus, about whose influence on the author of the Corpus many scholars agree; however, this term appears at least once in the scholia on the Areopagitica. The interpretation of these “material” images is twofold: according to R. Rock, the first step, more negative (κάθαρσις, ἀνακάϑαρσις, ἀνάπτυξις 79), consists in purifying sensory images from any low, vulgar and naturalistic meaning that can obscure or distort the Divine teaching embedded in it, in purifying them from gross materiality and created imagery and concreteness; the second step is positive and consists of a “smart” interpretation (ἀναγωγὴ), elevating the mind to the richness of spiritual meaning 80 . Based on “On the Heavenly Hierarchy” 2, 4, we can come to the conclusion that these “material” images also turn out to be “unlike”, in the terminology of Dionysius 81, while they become “similar” only after undergoing an appropriate interpretation (ἀνακάθαρσις + ἀναγωγὴ). For example, Dionysius calls for interpreting zoomorphisms as follows: when applied to rational, incorporeal and intelligible beings, “the fury of the dumb” as “courageous rationality and unmitigated fidelity to godlike and immutable foundations”; “lust” of animals - as “Divine love for the Immateriality that surpasses word and reason and the unwavering and unrelenting desire for super-essentially pure and dispassionate contemplation and truly eternal mental participation in this pure highest radiance and invisible beauty-creating Splendor” 82. Thus, it is clear that “material” images are interpreted in a spirit appropriate for intelligible beings and their properties, to which interpretation the images and expressions “similar” correspond to the next level - cataphatic. But the exegetical procedure in relation to these images does not stop there. “Similar” images, although they turn out to be more sublime and elevating those who turn to them 83 (after the “unlike” images of the first level), however, the author of “Arepagitik” makes repeated and even more emphasized warnings against their incorrect (literal) interpretation than even to the “unlike” images of the first level. “For in the more valued sacred images one can be deceived into believing that there really exist certain golden-shaped heavenly beings and light-like, sparkling beautiful men, dressed in light clothes, shining with harmless fire, and other similar beauties with the help of which theology has depicted heavenly minds” 84. Therefore, Dionysius calls for moving on to the next type of images - “unlike”. They are precisely the ones most suitable for depicting the incorporeal intelligible reality of the Divine and the spiritual world. The essence of “dissimilar” images lies in their “complete dissimilarity and otherness” 85 in relation to the prototype. They are called upon by their very dissimilarity to orient the mind of the person who perceives them to the perception of a more sublime reality, surpassing any sensory or mental image. “We do not know It (i.e. the Truth. - P.D.) super-essential, inaccessible to thought and inexpressible uncertainty. Thus, if denials in relation to the Divine are true, and affirmations are not consistent with the hiddenness of the inexpressible, then for the invisible it is much more suitable to reveal through unlike images” 86 . “Dissimilar images elevate our minds better than similar ones” 87. The essence of such images lies in their absurdity, in the inconsistency of such a low image with such sublime objects. The effectiveness of such images lies in their powerful “anagogical” potential, 88 elevating the mind of the contemplator from the most beautiful sensual imagery to a mental reality that exceeds any image, “not allowing our mundaneness to calm down, dwelling on inappropriate images, prompting to action that which is elevating that is in the soul, and hurting it with the ugliness of these compositions, so that even overly mundane people would find it unacceptable and incredible that the super-heavenly divine visions were similar to such a low one” 89. So, we can see that the main function and purpose of any image in the structure of the Dionysian universe is 1) to represent the highest reality at the lowest level; 2) to raise the mind of the contemplator to images and meanings that are increasingly “purified” of materiality, sensuality (and even “imagery”), expressing these intelligible realities 90, and 3) in the end, to raise from images to the Prototype, i.e. to God, which is the main task of ἀγαγωή. Corpus Dionysiacum ii: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De coelesti hierarchia, De Ecclesiastica hierarchia, De mystica theologia, Epistulae // Patristische Texte und Studien 36. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1991. Dionysius the Areopagite. Essays. Maxim the Confessor. Interpretations. St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2003. Dionysius (Shlenov), priest. Areopagitica // PE. T. 3. M.: TsNTs PE, 2001. P. 193–213. Dobrotsvetov P.K. Allegoresis and symbolism as a theological and philosophical method “Areopagitik”: Thesis. Sergiev Posad: MDS, 2008. Dobrotsvetov P.K. Allegoresis as a philosophical method of late patristics (“Areopagitiki”, St. Maximus the Confessor): Dis. ...cand. Philosopher Sci. M.: MSU, 2006. Golitsin Alexander, Hieromonk. Et Introibo Ad Altare Dei. The mystagogy Of Dionysius Areopagita, With Special Reference To Its Predecessors In The Eastern Christian Tradition. 1994. Lampe G.W.H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. Louth A. Denys the Areopagite. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1989. Parsons S.C. The “Hierarch” in the Pseudo-Dionysius and its place in the history of Christian Pristhood // Studia Patristica 18, 1 / Ed. E.A. Livingstone (Kalamazoo, 1989). P. 187–190. Roques R. Introduction. Denys L’Areopagite Hierarchie Celeste // SC. 58. Paris: Cerf, 1958. P. 4–87. Allegoresis and symbolism in the Areopagitica (Part II) As it became clear in the previous part of our publication, in connection with the division of allegoresis and symbolism in the “Areopagitica” into various types, any symbolism of this work can, in principle, be designated as theological, as having as its subject God (and the world of Angels - spiritual and incorporeal beings). For, despite the strict hierarchy, the entire Dionysian universe is “fastened” together both by the unity of the Divine plan and Providence for the world, and by the penetration of the Divine presence in the form of the Divine Light and the logos structure of the world at all its levels. What is designated in our article under the name “theological symbolism” does not inherently represent any single phenomenon, but is brought together thanks to its object - God. It contains a rather motley list of phenomena and techniques of the Areopagite Corpus. It testifies to God: 1) The providential structure of the world and its “logos” structure; 2) the creation of man in the image and likeness of God; 3) symbols of the church hierarchy; 4) physical analogies, borrowed from the Platonic tradition to express the Divine reality, which is not fully accessible to expression by conceptual means and requires an image as its illustration. These analogies are associated primarily with the images of light and the sun, and their source can be seen in Platonism (in Plato’s “Republic”), and in New Testament writing (the famous prologue to the Gospel of John), as well as in patristic writing (St. Justin, Basil the Great, Athanasius the Great); 5) images and symbols of Holy Scripture, traditionally interpreted allegorically, as allegories; 6) “similar” names and images of cataphatic theology; 7) “unlike” names and images of apophatic theology. In his book “On the Divine Names,” the author of the “Areopagitik” declares direct knowledge of God to be the destiny of the future (that is, after separation from the body) life: “then we will be filled with visible theophany in pure visions” 91, like the heavenly angelic ranks. The current destiny of people is the knowledge of God through various symbolic veils, and primarily within the framework of the so-called symbolic theology: “nowadays, as far as possible, we use, when speaking about the Divine, the symbols available to us” 92. But the purpose of this “use of symbols” is beyond the symbols themselves; they are only a means, according to Dionysius: “And from them, to the best of our ability, we strive again to the simple and united truth of mental contemplations” 93. Here Dionysius obviously has in mind cataphatic theology with its meaningful, interpreted and cleared of “materiality” images and names. And finally, “after all the visions of God that are characteristic of us, we cease mental activity and reach, as far as possible, the super-essential light... which cannot be conceived, described, or in any way considered, since it is beyond everything, super-unknowable and super-essentially contains within itself, before the realization, the boundaries of all realized minds and powers and everything in general, a power incomprehensible to everything that is above the super-heavenly minds” 94 . This fragment briefly outlines the entire theoretical program of knowledge of God “Areopagitik” with all its corresponding stages - symbolic, cataphatic and apophatic. It is assumed that the entire path of knowledge of God “Areopagitik” is based on the dialectical method of transcendence through the negation of previous steps, as well as on imagery and symbolism. – Imagery and symbolism are present at almost all levels of this scheme of Dionysius and are subject to this negative dialectical procedure along with concepts (with the exception of the symbolism of church Sacraments) 95. – The content of each previous stage in this scheme turns out to be consistently dialectically “removed” as just images (rather, in the sense of allegories in the modern sense of the word) on the path of apophatic-mystical ascent in the knowledge of God. All the types of allegory and symbolism we have cited fit in one way or another, in our opinion, into the following Dionysian scheme: 1) Anthropo- and zoomorphisms of Holy Scripture, as well as elements of church worship and material symbols of church art that stand somewhat aside (in their specificity) turn out to belong to the level of symbolic theology. 2) The above-mentioned physical analogies, “similar” names and images, as well as the sublime meaning of the interpreted worship and Scripture, revealed only to the initiated, but verbalized (at least in part), occupy the level of cataphatic theology. 3) At the level of apophatic theology there are: a) at its actually apophatic sublevel, negative names and definitions, as well as “unlike” images; b) at its mystical sublevel, the highest, all language and all imagery are silent, and the human mind enters into communication with the Inexpressible and all-essential Divinity. Now we need to determine what kind of knowledge about God on this threefold symbolic-dialectical path each of its steps provides. The basis for this level can be a fragment from the book “On the Church Hierarchy” 96, which contains a quote from the unpreserved work “On Mentally and Sensibly Comprehensible”: “What exists sensually is a sacred reflection (ἀπεικοίσματα) of the intelligible, a guide and the path to it, and the intelligible is the beginning (ἀρχὴ) and knowledge (ἐπιστήμη) subject to sensory perception corresponding to the hierarchy.” This quote, profound in its meaning, opens up a wide space for the interpretation of any material and figurative (i.e., symbolic) reality as, on the one hand, an indication of a higher, spiritual reality, and on the other hand, serving as a means of interpretation and achievement, i.e. “guidance and path” 97 to the knowledge of the spiritual, invisible world, which can give such knowledge. The level of symbolic theology turns out to be heterogeneous and, most importantly, self-sufficient in its own way. Its self-sufficiency is manifested in the very nature of some symbols of the church hierarchy (namely, the church Sacraments, which Dionysius also calls symbols), allowing the faithful to perform ἀναγωγή and communion with the deifying energies and luminaries of the Divine “directly,” i.e., bypassing all other stages of cataphatic-apophatic theology, both theoretical and individual mystical 98 . “For the general sacred rite, this was conveyed by the inspired hierarchs not in undisguised thoughts, but in sacred symbols” 99. This “common sacred act” acts on its participants - members of the church hierarchy, although not without intellectual comprehension, but primarily through faith, sanctification, imitation and likeness to God in the course of the liturgical action. Thus, symbolic theology in its liturgical aspect turns out to be closely related to mystical theology as the highest level of knowledge of God 100. The symbol of symbolic theology is present not only in the church hierarchy, but also in the lower one - the so-called legal hierarchy (i.e., the Old Testament Church) 101: “The Godhead (,,,) gave the infants a legal hierarchy - in vague images of the true and in the most distant reflections from archetypes, in fortune-telling that is difficult to interpret, in forms that do not provide an easy opportunity to contemplate the corresponding light enveloped by them, shining harmlessly for weak eyes” 102. The author of the Areopagitik calls the goal of this legal hierarchy “elevation to spiritual service” 103. It is understood that the realization of this goal is fully realized only in the church hierarchy as following the legitimate “component” of symbolic theology 104. Thus, the hierarchical stepwise structure 105 is characterized ontologically by an increase in the degree of materiality or sensuality of images, and epistemologically by a decrease in the strength of the contemplative ability of members of the hierarchy. 2. Cataphatic theology Full-fledged positive, discursive and rational knowledge of God, in the proper sense of theology, turns out to be possible only at the level of cataphatic - affirmative - theology, the main subject of which is the multiple manifestations or energies of the Deity in the world (signified) and sublime and “similar” names borrowed from Holy Scripture and “similar” images and sublime physical analogies given by the Areopagite himself (signifier). Dionysius believes that the main, almost exclusive source of knowledge of God at this level is the statements of Holy Scripture. All other elements of this level are rather the fruits of human intellectual activity to comprehend and express in an adequate form the Divine presence in the world and are, rather, of an illustrative and explanatory nature (“similar” images of church art and sublime physical analogies). Dionysius, in his book On the Divine Names, analyzes and interprets at least thirty-eight "names of God" (mostly taken from Scripture) or expressions which he tends to regard as such. According to the interesting and correct remark of Rev. Alexander Golitsyn, these Divine names are nothing more than “conceptual images” of God (or “icons” - notional ikons) 106. The basis for the “similar” naming of God in Dionysius is that every name is suitable for God as the Only Cause of all created being in its diversity, and as the super-essentially exceeding all that exists - complete namelessness 107 . “It (i.e. the Cause. - P.D.) is called (,,,) everything that exists and nothing that exists" 108. “So, God, as Industry, in His energies supports both the whole world as a whole and every element of creation. As Providence, God also gives Revelation in Holy Scripture. Finally, in the Person of Jesus Christ, God gives us the highest Symbol of Himself, the worship of the Church, directing us to the contemplation of His Glory” 109. And each of the sublime names can act as an image of God, but, as the priest notes. A. Golitsyn, based on the texts of the treatise “On the Heavenly Hierarchy” 110, each of the sublime images remains inadequate to its Prototype in the sense of similarity 111, due to the transcendence of this Prototype to any essence and every image. A. Golitsyn points out one important point that distinguishes Dionysius from Proclus in the matter of the status of multiple names of the Divine and their corresponding Divine energies in the world (and thereby an important theological problem): “Intelligible names are not things and do not relate to objectively and independently existing entities, but are, rather, windows that open into the meaning and reality of the Divine Presence in forces and energies” 112 in the world. Also, E. Lauth, noting, on the one hand, the common theme of Divine naming among the Neoplatonists and Dionysius, points out the same fundamental difference between them: “For the Neoplatonists, divine names were the names of gods, and the gods to whom these divine names were attributed with the help of allegory were the gods of Greek mythology” 113. Among the Neoplatonists, these gods, within the framework of the polytheistic system, transferred being to the lower levels of existence, that is, they created independently. Dionysius, according to Laut, radically changes these points of Neoplatonic teaching: firstly, he corrects the concept of emanation, insisting that being (at all levels - P.D.) stems only from one God, and secondly, he turns the doctrine of the names of gods into the doctrine of Divine attributes (i.e., the attributes of the One God). He reinterprets the ideas of hierarchies and the dependence of members of lower levels on higher ones, borrowed from the Neoplatonists, exclusively from the point of view of the communication by the higher to the lower of enlightenment stemming from God, and not being, the only source of which is God Himself 114. Thus, the Divine energies, designated by Divine names, do not have independent existence as separate entities and have their hypostatic existence in the Holy Trinity. But “the communion they give is real, since God is truly present in His Origins, although at the same time they cannot lead us into the depths of His Being” 115. And therefore, although God is really present in His energies in the world, the names of cataphatic theology turn out to be just images, images, in an absolute perspective, inadequate to their Prototype, but inadequate from the point of view of the subsequent - higher level of knowledge of God - apophatic theology. The Divine names themselves, according to the interesting observation of Sheldon-Williams, summing up this teaching of Dionysius, relating to Divine Goodness, which in itself is inexpressible, make it cognizable at the level of the mind as Being, Life and Mind; at the soul level as Wisdom, Strength and Peace; in the physical world - as the Holy of Holies, Lord of lords, King of kings and God of gods 116. All these names are affirmative, cataphatic, “similar” names. Dionysius, as an illustrative means for depicting the actions of God in the world and in general for describing the role of God in the destinies of the world (Creator, Provider and Purpose), as well as in an attempt to clearly depict the mystery of the Trinity of the Divine, resorts to images not borrowed from Holy Scripture. 2.2.1. Sun analogy 117 Here Dionysius considers “sunlight in itself,” that is, as a created essence. For Dionysius, as for the Platonists, Neoplatonists and many Church Fathers, the image of the sun often served as an excellent illustration of the action in the world of the Supreme Principle (God, the One) 118. “This great all-illuminating, ever-bright sun illuminates everything that can be involved in it and has excess light, spreading the radiance of its rays throughout the entire visible cosmos in all directions (,,,) and there is nothing visible that it - with an excessive amount of its radiance - does not achieve. It also contributes to the birth of sensual bodies, moves them to life, nourishes them, grows, perfects, purifies and renews the light, collects and turns to itself everything that sees, moves, is illuminated, warmed, everything that is contained under its radiance and everything sensual needs it, striving either to see, or to move, or to be illuminated and warmed, and in general, to be in the light”29. This lengthy fragment describes the properties of the sun and its light as a created essence, but one of the most sublime, powerful and mysterious phenomena of nature 119. Dionysius recognizes the greatness of the sun, but immediately makes it clear that he is interested in it in this case only as an “image”, “image of Goodness” (εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος), i.e. God. The Sun turns out to be an image for the archetype - the Goodness of the Creator, in which image He manifests himself as the original in the image (ὡς ἐν εἰκόνι τὸ ἀρχέτυπον ἐκϕαινόμενον). What similarity does Dionysius discover between this image and his Prototype? Like the sensual sun, “The Goodness of the Divinity transcendental to all (ἡ τῆς πάντων ἐπέκεινα θεότητος ἀγαθότης) reaches from the highest and oldest beings to the lowest, and Moreover, it remains above all, so that neither the highest can achieve Her superiority, nor the lowest can escape from the sphere of what is achievable by Her, and also enlightens everything that has power, and creates and revives, and holds, and perfects, and remains both the cause and the goal” 120. Knowledge about God, manifested through this solar image, can be as follows: God is the Creator and Provider of the world, His energies, like sunlight, reach all parts of the world (but not only the sensory, as in the case of the sun, but first of all the intelligible) and give life and support the existence of beings, and He is the only and true cause and purpose of the existence of creatures. At the same time, despite the universal participation of all things in this Good, It Itself does not dissolve in the created world, but remains transcendental to the world. Therefore, the image of the sun used by Dionysius clearly and clearly depicts an important point of Eastern Christian theological teaching - about the distinction between essence and energies in God, as well as about Providence in relation to the created world. As in any image, there is here both a moment of similarity 121 (without which the image would not be an image) to the prototype, and a moment of dissimilarity, without which the image could merge in identity with its prototype. And Dionysius clearly emphasizes this point of non-similarity. The sun itself, this highest and most powerful element of the visible cosmos, for Dionysius remains just an image of the Thearchy (epistemologically - as an elegant and all-encompassing created illustration of Her, and ontologically - as every part of existence that participates in Her and acts as an image of Her goodness). Dionysius emphasizes this ontological aspect of imagery and the infinite existential distance of this created image from the Prototype-Creator, calling the sensual sun “an insignificant echo of the Good” 122 (κατὰ πολλοστὸν ἀπήχημα τἀγαθοῦ) 123. The next sublime physical analogy that we encounter in Dionysius is the analogy of three lamps and a single light 124, which is clearly depicted through “an example from the sensual and close to us sphere” (ἵνα αἰσθητοῖς καὶ οἰκείοις χρήσωμαι παραδείγμασιν) the mystery of the indivisible unity and unfused trinity of the Holy Trinity. The last such analogy that Dionysius uses is the analogy of prayer - a ship, the essence of which is that, being on the ship and pulling the rope towards ourselves, we move not the rock, but the ship along with us; Thus, prayer, the thoughts of the author of the Areopagitik, does not bring God down from heaven, but, elevating us ourselves, makes us closer to Him. Physical analogies play, perhaps not a decisive role, like the more important elements of the Dionysian system, such as cataphatic and apophatic theology, but still a significant auxiliary role. Detailed statements containing exposition and reflections on these images are organically included in the structure of the Corpus’s thoughts. They are illustrations borrowed from sensory reality, although taken from the most “honored” phenomena of the sensory world, which clearly demonstrates their belonging to the cataphatic level. At the same time, Dionysius, on the one hand, emphasizes the non-illusory nature of these images as phenomena, showing that they have ontological rooting in reality as involved in Divine energies, and on the other hand, their only ontological imagery as being far removed in their likeness from the transcendental Model. 3. Apophatic theology This level in the Areopagitica is divided, in our opinion, at least logically, into two other particular levels due to its certain complexity: 1) apophatic theology itself, which performs a negative, “purifying” function in relation to cataphatic definitions and “similar” images; 2) mystical theology, at which all theology in the sense of positive and negative logical reasoning about God ends. In this section, we are interested in negative definitions and “unlike” images of apophatic theology, their essence, structure, role and functions in the general process of knowledge of God, set out in the Areopagitics, as well as the knowledge about God that they are called upon to carry. The apophatic approach in philosophy and theology is not Dionysius’s own invention, but has been used since Plato 125. Apophatic theology, both in general in Dionysius and generally on its specific “negative” sublevel, is the last, highest stage of the knowledge of God, but still has at least a formal relation to the symbolic and cataphatic methods of theology, associated not with pure mental contact with the Divine reality “in itself,” but mediated by various veils and images. But Dionysius at this level conceptually deliberately “thinns out” this imagery, makes it self-contradictory, even absurd, and thus reveals all its illusoryness as just imagery and instrumentality in relation to that Reality, to which there is to be an approach and unity and in relation to which, at the next, highest level of knowledge of God and unity with the Absolute, every word and every word falls silent, becoming inadequate to its Designated image The essence of the definitions of apophatic theology is the denial in relation to God of all the most beautiful and sublime epithets and meanings acquired at the previous level - cataphatic theology. True, here a significant reservation is made in the sense of demonstrating the “dialectical syntheticism” of the use of this entire conceptual and logical arsenal, when the negated cataphatic statements, to which the prefix “not” (ἀ-) is added for possibly pious purposes (to avoid misinterpretations), are brought to the third type of definitions, accompanied by the prefix “over” (ὑπέρ-), showing superiority over definitions as cataphatics, as well as apophatic denials taken in isolation from the general context. But all this looks like just a correction in Dionysius, since in the parallel discursive “row” of the imagery of church art 126 and the imagery of Scripture, the transition from images of “similar” (i.e., sublime and beautiful) of the cataphatic level to images of “unlike” (i.e., low and absurd) of the apophatic level is not accompanied by the same reconciling synthesis as in the conceptual “row.” For if the words of the language withstand the dialectical “rearrangement of prefixes” as at least an attempt to point in the direction of the Beyond, then it is impossible to imagine any dialectical synthesis in the sphere of imagery between images “similar” and “dissimilar”. Such a “figurative” synthesis can best serve as the “epoch” of the Divine Darkness of Ignorance, into which, like Moses on Mount Sinai, the one who has reached this level of so-called mystical theology enters. The main function of “unlike” images and negative definitions of apophatics turns out to be twofold: 1) on the one hand, to show all the relativity and inadequacy of the imagery of the cataphatic level in relation to their ability to express something essential about the Inexpressible and above all essence; 2) on the other hand, by contradiction and absurdity (i.e., “unlikeness” of images and expressions) to deprive the mind of the last inherent “supports” (in the form of words and sensory images), so that it can take this step into the Darkness of the Divine 127 (like Moses on Mount Sinai) and ineffably unite with God in an act of faith and love. The essence of “unlike” images lies in their absurd, shocking, contradictory, “low”, and not at all majestic character, which does not allow the mind to linger on them, but encourages the mind to move further and further along the path of ascension 128 . The purpose of “unlike” images is to make the human mind understand the inadequacy of all images and words as mere means at this highest stage of knowledge of God, or rather, unity with the Absolute. But still, at this penultimate “sublevel” - apophatic, these negative-dissimilar predicates nevertheless give the mind a certain verbalized knowledge about God, and knowledge that is very important for Christian teaching. If at the previous - cataphatic level God was revealed in His numerous powers and manifestations as the Creator and Provider of the world, as Beauty and Light 129, then here the concept of the transcendence of the Divine is acquired. Therefore, at this penultimate stage - the level of apophatic theology, God is revealed not only as a plurality of “divisions”, i.e. His energies in the world, but also as a Single Essence, only here the foundations of Christian monotheism are already given, not taken from Revelation and speculative, but experimental. Here God Himself allows Himself to be revealed as the One personal and hypostatic 130 Source of all “divisions” and “forces” that are impersonal and non-hypostatic. Thus, only here does God reveal himself to the human mind as a true unity and as truly One (in three Persons). And only at this level does the theological mind become aware of the difference between the essence transcendent to the world and the energies of the Divine that reside in the world. The next important, and final, theological point revealed here is the unknowability of God in His essence. This does not mean that Revelation is false and the “forces” and energies are illusory; rather, we can talk about the infinitely superior intensity of the Divine essential properties in comparison with their manifestations in the world, because the world might not be able to withstand contact with God due to its createdness. We can also talk about the inability of the created mind to cognize the essence of the Divine due to its limitations. Thus, the “super-essential Essence” is the ultimate discursive concept that a rational theologian can receive at this level, after which he will have to either stop at this last stage of discursive knowledge, or continue further ascent through the epistemological apophatic “epoch”, as well as ecstasy and love in mystical theology 131. And it is worth noting once again that this stage dialectically “removes” any figurative-conceptual content of the apophatic level, removes it as a contradictory and unlike image, as an inadequate allegory, as an instrument of cognition and expression that has become unnecessary. Allegory here ceases 132, and the mind enters the realm of the pure Signified. Cosmological symbolism This short paragraph examines the problems of imagery, allegory and symbolism in Dionysius in its relation to the structure of the “world of beings”, i.e. the created world. Just as the whole world in all its diversity at different levels is a single image of the Goodness of the Creator, a theophany - a manifestation of God and His Love outside, so in accordance with the complex and hierarchical structure of the world it can be recognized as a system of images, a system of theophanies of the Absolute. The whole world is an image of the Creator due to the fact that it is created according to eternal ideas - “patterns” (παραείγματα) 133 of the Divine Mind, which constitute the “logos” (λόγος) (i.e., the ideal principle of activity and structure) and form the essence of every creature. The hierarchy of such created images is built according to the degree of increasing and more and more adequate reflection of the Absolute in itself, according to the degree of increasing similarity of these images to their Prototype. Therefore, the most “similar” is the hierarchy of heavenly minds - Angels, reflecting in themselves without any mediation and transmitting further the Divine Light, enlightening and deifying. It turns out to be the most “similar” due to its proximity to the Thearchy and immateriality 134. Another, not only spiritual, but also material image of the Thearchy, and primarily through the heavenly hierarchy, and not “directly,” is the church hierarchy, which contains in itself, in the fullness of the Truth, the teaching and means leading to salvation or deification. The so-called “legal” (i.e., Old Testament) hierarchy serves, in turn, as its less perfect, less similar and even more “material” image, having only images of the Truth, news about the events of the Incarnation and the Sacraments of the church hierarchy. But in comparison with inanimate and irrational beings, who constitute “below” humanity the entire rest of the spectrum of the universe, although created according to Divine models, rational beings - members of the church and heavenly hierarchies, are called to even greater likeness of themselves as images to their Prototype, i.e. deification. And this dynamism is their characteristic feature, distinguishing rational entities from unreasonable ones in the universe of Dionysius. This movement towards greater similarity is carried out within the hierarchies through the passage of three stages 135: 1) purification (κάθαρσις); 2) enlightenment (φωτισμὸς); 3) perfection (τελείωσις) 136. A special case of cosmological symbolism (according to the classification of this study) is anthropological symbolism due to the “embeddedness” of man in the created universe as being on a level between the irrational world and the Angels. Dionysius (Shlenov), priest. Areopagitica // PE. T. 3. M.: TsNTs PE, 2001. P. 193–213. Dobrotsvetov P.K. Allegorese and symbolism in the Areopagitica. Part I // Diacrisis. 2019. No. 4 (4). pp. 84–108. Dobrotsvetov P.K. Allegoresis as a philosophical method of late patristics (“Areopagitiki”, St. Maximus the Confessor): Dis. ...cand. Philosopher Sci. M.: MSU, 2006. Roques R. Introduction. Denys L'Areopagite. Hiérarchie Céleste // SC. No. 58. Paris: Cerf, 1958. P. 4–87. The article was written based on the materials of the candidate's dissertation of Moscow State University: Dobrotsvetov P.K. Allegoresis as a philosophical method of late patristics (“Areopagitiki”, St. Maximus the Confessor) (2006) and MDS thesis: Dobrotsvetov P.K. Allegorese and symbolism as a theological and philosophical method “Areopagitik” (2008). According to the apt remark of R. Rock. See: Roques R. Introduction Denys L’Areopagite Hierarchie Celeste // SC. 58. Paris, 1958. P. 10. This is the sphere of mystical theology according to the Dionysian classification, extra-rational and non-discursive, exceeding not only sensuality, but also rationality, which excludes all imagery, all symbolism. Therefore, we can safely say that in the Areopagitica all allegoresis and symbolism are theological in essence. This term appears in the Corpus 91 times (together with cognates) and just as often in Iamblichus, Proclus, Origen, Evagrius and St. Maximus the Confessor. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy, 2. See: Roques R. Introduction Denys L’Areopagite Hierarchie Celeste // SC. 58. Paris, 1958. P. 21. “In Pseudo-Dionysius, the symbol (σύμβολον) acts as the most general philosophical and theological category, including image, sign, image, beauty, a number of other concepts... the texts of Scripture, various images are symbolic, the Sacred Tradition the symbol is understood by Pseudo-Dionysius in several aspects. First of all, it is a carrier of information that may be contained in it” (Bychkov V.V. Small history of Byzantine aesthetics. Kiev, 1991. pp. 84–85). Greek παραπετάσμα in patristic writing could simply mean the veil (in the Church), and the symbolism of language, and the body in relation to the soul, and the human nature of Christ in relation to His Divinity (see: Lampe G.W.H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford, 1978. R. 1023), which confirms the polysemantic and universal interpretation of this word in "Corpus". This word is often found in Proclus of Athens. Dionysius the Areopagite. About Divine names 1, 4. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 1, 3. “By image, first of all, we should not understand something purely representative or mimetic. Nor should we understand it in the popular sense of a symbol (a term the author often uses) as an empty concept that exists to remind of something essentially irrelevant. In the Dionysian system, the image has ontological value. He does not mysteriously imitate the ideal, but rather discovers it. He is the “real presence”” (Alexander (Golitzin), hieromonk. Et Introibo Ad Altare Dei. The Mystagogy of Dionysius Areopagita, With Special Reference to Its Predecessors in the Eastern Christian Tradition. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1994. R. 127). “Symbols and conventional signs arose, according to Pseudo-Dionysius, not for their own sake, but with a specific and, moreover, contradictory purpose: to simultaneously reveal and hide the truth. On the one hand, the symbol serves to designate, depict and thereby reveal the incomprehensible, ugly and infinite in the finite. On the other hand, it is a shell, cover and reliable protection of the unspoken truth from the eyes and ears of the “first person you come across”, unworthy of knowing the truth” (Bychkov V.V. Small history of Byzantine aesthetics. Kyiv, 1991. pp. 84–85). “As Koutras showed well, the symbol means “taken together” - συμβολὴ from different orders of being, i.e. from matter and Divine or intelligible light" (Alexander (Golitzin), hieromonk. Et Introibo Ad Altare Dei. The Mystagogy of Dionysius Areopagita, with Special Reference to Its Predecessors in the Eastern Christian Tradition. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1994. R. 130). Hieromon. A. Golitsyn points out the most important aspect of symbolism in the system of Dionysius - its ontological status, however, not all symbols and images in Dionysius, from our point of view, have such an existential status (as, first of all, the symbols of the Church hierarchy, the hierarchy themselves, the world) in addition to the epistemological one. Most of them are still only representative (images from Scripture, symbolic expressions of cataphatic and apophatic theology) and, although they point to a certain reality, they nevertheless do not really contain it. E. Lauth also, classifying the symbolism of Dionysius, divides his symbols into the symbolism of liturgical actions and gestures, the symbolism of material elements and the symbolism of the language of Scripture. See: Louth A. Denis The Areopagite. London, 1989. P. 27. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About Divine names 1, 4; About the heavenly hierarchy 1, 2. See: Lampe G.W.H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford, 1978, pp. 1281–1282. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy, 2. However, the scholiast interprets “sensory symbols” in the sense of designating church Sacraments. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 2, 1. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. Message 9, 1. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the church hierarchy. Preface. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the church hierarchy 5, 5. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the church hierarchy 2, 7. See: Lampe G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford, 1978. P. 116. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. Message 9, 2, 4. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 2, 3 See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 1, 3. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. Message 9, 4. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. Message 9, 2. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 2, 3. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the church hierarchy 5, 2. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 2, 2. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the church hierarchy 2, i, 1. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the church hierarchy 1, 4. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the church hierarchy, 4. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About Divine names 5, 8. Which turns out to be an important point in justifying the ontological legitimacy of the use and consistency of material symbols (sacramental symbolism in our terminology) for the communication of intelligible and Divine Light and knowledge for members of the Church hierarchy. For such a unifying factor is God Himself. Dionysius (Shlenov), priest. Areopagitica // PE. T. 3. P. 203. Dionysius the Areopagite. About Divine names 5, 8. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the Divine Names 7, 2. By the way, it is interesting to note that calling these prototypes also “predestination” and “Divine and good wills” once again highlights the idea of the author of the corpus that God, planning the world and carrying out this plan, did not create any evil in His world and did not condemn any entity to an evil way of being. “Hierarchies are a bright manifestation of the Divine Glory, a beautiful theophany, and in response to this theophany we are assimilated to God and deified” (Louth A. Denis The Areopagite. London, 1989. P. 106). Hierarchy as ἡ τάξις or εἴκων means the totality of creation at a given level capable of reflecting Divine Providence as a “mirror”. It is therefore not surprising that the term θεοειδὴς (“god-like”) is used so often in direct reference to hierarchy. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About Divine names 4, 2; About the heavenly hierarchy 3, 2; 4, 2. Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 4, 2, 9. Although this point is present, it is not very clearly emphasized in Dionysius, while in St. The Maxim of the Confessor will be strongly developed as a dynamic factor in the deification of man, who must overcome the differences between the sensory and intelligible worlds. See more: Parsons S.C. The “Hierarch” in the Pseudo-Dionysius and its place in the history of Christian Pristhood // Studia Patristica 18, 1 (Kalamazoo, 1989). P. 187–190. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 1, 3; 2, 2; About the church hierarchy 1, 5. Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 1, 3. With the exception of the pair “object of ascension – means of ascension”, which does not give a relation of opposition. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the church hierarchy 1, 5. In the table we have highlighted in italics the predicates relating to a narrower sphere, namely the sensory, material world; the pair signified - signifier are the most expressive, final definitions from the point of view of our research. I would also like to draw attention to one curious linguistic detail that was revealed. If in this our (“human”) scheme, what looks active from the point of view of language is what it means, i.e. a symbol, an image, and what is meant (spiritual realities, Angels, God) turns out to be “passive”, then from the ontological point of view, the language of the “Areopagitik” itself depicts the opposite - the Divine perspective, when the active, naturally, is the spiritual reality, and the passive is the material-symbolic. This is illustrated by the expression of Dionysius: “let us ascend from what is caused to the causes of what happens” (εἰσέλθωμεν ἀπὸ τῶν αἰτιατῶν εἰς τὰ αἴτια) (Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Church hierarchy 3, 2), i.e. from images to prototypes. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About Divine Names 4, 28. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 2, 1, 2. Dionysius also uses the term ϑεωρία - “contemplation”. The use of this term in Christian thought appears to parallel exegetical practice. This term often denoted the hidden meaning of Scripture (in the Antiochian school - St. John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and also St. Gregory of Nyssa). Dionysius transfers it from the sphere of biblical exegesis to the sphere of interpretation of the symbolism of the Church Sacraments. Dionysius says that the truth at this stage is hidden under various “veils” of symbols and unclear imagery due to the weak ability of mental contemplation of the members of this hierarchy and the need to protect their spiritual eyes from bright spiritual light. Thus, the hierarchical degree is also characterized by the degree of ability for mental contemplation, which is most manifested at the level of the Heavenly hierarchy and weakest at the level of the Lawful hierarchy. See: Louth A. Denis The Areopagite. London, 1989. P. 57. Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 2, 3. We leave aside the question of the Church Sacraments and liturgical rites, which have a special status in the system of Dionysius, as well as sacred images that not only allegorically indicate, but actually represent the elements of the intelligible world. This topic rather falls within the realm of liturgical theology and the aesthetics of religious art. This kind of names, which has its source in sensual imagery, prot. E. Lauth is also rightly inclined to relate it to the sphere of symbolic theology. See: Louth A. Denis The Areopagite. London, 1989. P. 81. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 4, 3; 9, 4. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 8, 1; 10, 2. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 1, 5. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the church hierarchy 6, 4. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 6, 5. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the church hierarchy 7, 10 See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the church hierarchy 15, 9. See: Lampe G.W.H. Greek Patristic Lexicon. P. 100. See: Roques R. Introduction. Denys L’Areopagite Hierarchie Celeste // SC. 58. Paris, 1958. P. 12. Roques R. Introduction. Denys L’Areopagite Hierarchie Celeste // SC. 58. P. 21. About the difference between the “dissimilarity” of this very first level and the level of apophatic theology, the following should be noted: while the “dissimilar” images of the first level, i.e. symbolic theology, being firmly woven into the fabric of the biblical narrative, perform an important artistic and religious function there, addressed in general to the religious worldview (and the Old Testament in the first place, and above all in its sensory-figurative form), then the images of apophatic theology, being also “unlike,” perform a different, highly specific, mystical-philosophical function of a psychological and epistemological “springboard” before the ecstatic knowledge of the Absolute carried out in mystical theology Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 2, 4. It is necessary to take into account that “anagoge” implies not only an “objective” component - the construction of a step-by-step system of images (ontology), but also a “subjective” one - the gradual internal “ascent” of the soul to a more elevated and spiritual state through a consistent renunciation of sensory “materiality” and imagery in this synergistic process of knowledge of God and communication with God. Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 2, 3. Such images are dangerous for us because our mind risks “getting bogged down” in them, being satisfied with the state of a materialist, an esthete or an idolater. See: Roques R. Introduction. Denys L’Areopagite Hierarchie Celeste // SC. 58. P. 22. Dissimilar symbols - ugly and base - make the success of anagogy almost inevitable, since these symbols will never attract our mind to their appearance. See: Roques R. Introduction. Denys L’Areopagite Hierarchie Celeste // SC. 58. P. 10. True, with regard to the last level - “unlike” images - it should be noted that they no longer lead to images or verbal interpretations, but to the Divine reality Itself in Its super-essential hiddenness. “The underlying tension applies to symbolic theology too, positive and negative, and constantly dialectical, both affirmations and negations, which Dionysius applies to every name or symbol discussed in the corpus. To each symbol, with the exception, most significantly, of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Here dialectics ceases to come into conflict with church liturgy” (Golitzin, p. 73). See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the church hierarchy 2, 1, 2. This clearly demonstrates the churchliness of the author of the Areopagitik, who does not see salvation and deification outside the Church. It also contains an indication of the special nature of the knowledge contained under the shell of the symbol - non-verbalized knowledge obtained in the contemplation and experience of the symbol and image, and not only in its intellectual analytical comprehension. In addition, comparing the liturgy and Scripture, Dionysius speaks of the method of transmitting the secret tradition of the performance of the Sacraments as “a more immaterial leadership, close in some way to the heavenly hierarchy, from mind to mind, through the word... bypassing Scripture” (Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Church Hierarchy 1, 4). This gives grounds for Prot. E. Louth, following some other researchers (for example, Paul Rorem, who evaluates liturgical action as a way of expressing the eternal through actions unfolding in time, while for Platonists, as is clear from Plato’s dialogue “Timaeus,” time is more important than space, and closer to the Divine) talk about the superiority of liturgy over Scripture (see: Louth A. Denis The Areopagite. London, 1989. P. 30). This indirectly confirms our assumption about the self-sufficiency of symbolic theology as having not only an epistemological - informative - function, but also an ontological basis - in the Divine, on the one hand, and in the material, on the other, and as a result, capable of leading those participating in it (i.e. in liturgical life) to deification - the highest goal of man according to Dionysius Dionysius the Areopagite. About the church hierarchy 1, 4. And this moment turns out to be not at all surprising in the general context of Christian thought, the center of which is God’s “condescension” to the human race, i.e. His Incarnation and Death on the Cross, and not just a call, as in most ancient and Hellenistic philosophical schools, to ascend to the heights of the spirit, which is accessible only to a few. This also reveals a certain “democracy” of the Christian faith, where not just a few, but all people are called to salvation. Here the Areopagite is within the framework of the Christian - both patristic and New Testament - tradition, which considers the content of the Old Testament as images and symbols denoting the New Testament reality (typology), which prevents him from being defined as a pure Platonist. Dionysius the Areopagite. About the church hierarchy 5, 2. The hierarchical degree is also characterized by the degree of ability for mental contemplation, which is most strongly manifested at the level of the Heavenly hierarchy and weakest at the level of the legal hierarchy (see: Louth A. P. 53). Although chronologically the Old Testament legal hierarchy precedes the church hierarchy, it is more dependent on sensory images, and the church hierarchy turns out to be superior to it, since it is better introduced into spiritual exegesis (see: Roques R. Introduction. Denys L’Areopagite. Hiérarchie Céleste // SC. No. 58. Paris, 1958. P. 20). Viewed from top to bottom. See: Hieromonk Alexander (Golitzin). Et Introibo Ad Altare Dei. The Mystagogy Of Dionysius Areopagita, With Special Reference To Its Predecessors In The Eastern Christian Tradition. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1994. P. 71. In relation to the Divine names, Dionysius uses the term τὸ ἄγαλμα (plural - τὰ ἀγάλματα) - statue, image (Cf. pagan worship rejected by Christians, statue of Christ, metaphorical - images of bodies, the body of Christ in contrast to pagan images, the image of the soul, mental and spiritual images, images with the help of which Divine things are presented to man, the image of God in man (=εἰκὼν) (see: Lampe. P. 6). εἰκὼν, σύμβολον, τύπος, etc. In “On the Heavenly Hierarchy” (2, 5) he attributes ἀγάλματα to Scripture, there in 3, 2 members of the hierarchy - ἀγάλματα of the Divine Light, in treatise “On the Church Hierarchy” (2, 3, 3) ἀγάλματα relate to the movements of the bishop, and in 4, 3, 1 the Sacrament of Peace - ἄγαλμα of Divine beauty (see: Golitzin. P. 74). See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About Divine names 1, 7. Dionysius the Areopagite. About Divine names 1, 6. Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 2, 1–5. Louth A. Denis The Areopagite. London, 1989. P. 84. See: Louth A. Denis The Areopagite. P. 85. See: Sheldon-Williams I.P. The Pseudo-Dionysius and the Holy Hierotheus // Studia Patristica. No. 8. 1966. P. 114. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About Divine names 4, 4. The analogy of the sun is remarkably used in Plato’s “Republic”, where Socrates uses it to depict the idea of ​​the Supreme Good, which bestows existence and knowledge on the world, as well as in Proklov’s “Plato’s Theology”. And although Dionysius does not say that the sun gives existence to the sensory world, he still loves this analogy very much. See: Louth A. Denis The Areopagite. London, 1989, pp. 85–86 Dionysius stipulates that, in his opinion, of course, the sun is not a god, but a creature. Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names 4, 4. Every image bears some similarity with its prototype, and this analogy also shows a certain similarity, which is found primarily in the similarity of actions. This will be especially evident in St. Maximus the Confessor in his Mystagogy. Or imitation - “mimesis”. This is a clear difference between the Areopagite as a Christian, for example, and the pagan Julian, who composed hymns to the Sun (Helios) as a god, and a supreme one at that. Dionysius the Areopagite. About Divine names 2, 4. In Plato's Parmenides, Symposium and VII letter; in the Chaldean Oracles; in Numenius, Iamblichus, Proclus (for more details, see: Des Places É. La théologie negative du Pseudo-Denys, ses antécédents platoniciens et son influence // Studia Patristica. XVII, 1. 1982). In Christian thought, the apophatic tendency in theology was especially evident in the Alexandrian school (Clement, Origen), as well as among the Cappadocians (especially Gregory of Nyssa), in the Areopagitica and St. Maximus the Confessor. Although not implemented in practice, it is stated and justified theoretically. For more details, see: Louth A. Denis The Areopagite. London, 1989. R. 100–101; Lossky V.N. Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church. M., 1991. S. 20–36; Minin P. Mysticism and its nature. Kyiv, 2003. P. 86–87; Rorem P. Moses as The Paradigm for the Liturgical Spirituality of PseudoDionysius // Studia Patristica. XVIII. 2. 1989. And one might think that at this level all, except for Platonism and Neoplatonism, the pagan systems of thought that preceded Christianity stopped, logically proclaiming pantheism and polytheism, the first - due to the inability to rise above the beauty and greatness of the visible world, the second - due to the obvious plurality and irreducibility to each other of the “forces” manifested in the world, logically taken for gods (in patristic writing, these ideas were clearly expressed in the “Tale of The Incarnation of God the Word” by St. Athanasius the Great. Therefore, the author of “Areopagitik” calls not to dwell on the cataphatic level, as it can, outside the context of the next level – the apophatic one, lead to idolatry (in the broad sense) and to the two above-mentioned errors. And even more precisely, in three Persons, or three Hypostases, of the Holy Trinity. Dionysius contrasts the difference outlined by Plato (λόγος - μῦθος) and noted by Aristotle regarding the Eleusinian Mysteries (De philosophia, fr. 15) between two ways of communicating the truth: the first method - in terms of philosophy with the help of reason (λόγος) - “teaching” (μαθεῖν) and the second is mystical experience, or “endure” (παθεῖν) (see: Louth A. Denis The Areopagite. London, 1989. P. 25). Apparently, during the transition to the stage of μυστική θεολογία in Dionysius, the first method gives way to the second. “The transcendence of symbols and concepts is interpreted by Dionysius (On Mystical Theology, 1) as an act of love in which we leave the signs of God’s love - the symbols and concepts that reveal Him and His love to us - and move towards belonging to God Himself, so that the path of denials of apophatic theology becomes the path of ecstatic love responding to the ecstatic love of God for His creatures” (Louth A. R. 106). As E. Lauth notes, “paradigms” play a double role: first, they are Divine attributes perceived in their relation to the creature, and as such reveal aspects of the Divine; secondly, they are archetypes for created reality (see: Louth A.R. 94). Dionysius does not place strong emphasis on the fact that the heavenly hierarchy is an image of the Thearchy. But from the very idea of ​​imitation of the next hierarchy in order of descent - the church or “ours” (as the author of the Areopagitik most often calls it) in relation to the heavenly hierarchy and thereby to God, one can draw a reasonable conclusion that the heavenly hierarchy itself is an image of the Thearchy. Dionysius the Areopagite. About the heavenly hierarchy 3, 2. For more details, see: Vanneste J.S.J. La doctrine des 3 voies dans la Théologie Myststique du Ps.-Denys l’Areopagite // Studia Patristica VIII. 1963, pp. 462–467.