Western Medieval Reception

While our primary focus remains on Orthodox interpretation, it is essential to understand how Western Christianity received Dionysian theology, both for historical completeness and to clarify where Western and Orthodox interpretations diverged. This examination reveals how the profound mystical theology of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite was transmitted to the Latin West, often through imperfect translations and interpretations that departed from the Orthodox understanding.

Orthodox View: The Western reception, while influential, often emphasized rational systematization over the experiential and liturgical context that characterizes authentic Orthodox interpretation of Saint Dionysius.
  1. Introduction
  2. Early Latin Reception
  3. Scholastic Development
  4. Mystical Tradition
  5. Orthodox Perspective on Western Developments

The transmission of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite's theology to the Latin West began in the ninth century and profoundly influenced medieval Western Christianity. However, this reception occurred through translations and interpretative frameworks that often obscured the original Orthodox context and meaning. These writings, whose author is often referred to as Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, became of decisive importance for the theology and spirituality of Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Catholicism.

Key Historical Context: Throughout the Middle Ages, the corpus remained deeply influential in both East and West, with figures such as John of Damascus, Hilduin of Paris, Photius of Constantinople, and Hugh of Saint Victor regularly appealing to Dionysius as a source of theological and mystical insight.

First Western Interpreter: Hilduin, abbot of a monastery near Paris, produced the first Latin translation around 832, though with significant problems:

Translation Issues:

  • The first translation, made around 838 by Hilduin, abbot of a monastery near Paris (who identified Dionysius not only as St. Dionysius the Areopagite but also as the first bishop of Paris), was so unintelligible that Charles II asked the great Irish philosopher, John Scottus Eriugena, to make a new translation
  • Confused identification of Saint Dionysius with Denis of Paris
  • Significant linguistic and theological inaccuracies

Historical Significance:

  • At some point in the centuries before Eriugena a legend had developed that Saint Denis, the first Bishop of Paris and patron saint of the important Abbey of Saint-Denis, was the same person as both the Dionysius the Areopagite mentioned in Acts 17.34, and Saint Dionysius the Areopagite
  • This confusion influenced Carolingian court reception
  • Established pattern of Western misidentification

Major Systematic Reception: Eriugena provided the foundational Latin interpretation that shaped all subsequent Western understanding:

Translation Achievement: John Scottus Eriugena's translation that he completed in 862 and that was subsequently revised with clarifications in 875. This constitutes the first major Latin reception of the Areopagite.

Philosophical Integration: Eriugena's work is largely based upon Origen, St. Augustine of Hippo, Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Maximus the Confessor, and the Cappadocian Fathers. Eriugena's overall view of reality, both human and divine, was strongly influenced by Neoplatonism.

Scholarly Achievement:

  • Remarkable knowledge of Greek for a Western scholar
  • Access to Greek Christian theological tradition previously unknown in Latin West
  • His originality is largely due to the manner in which he assimilated (often translating) the Neoplatonic thought of Eastern Christian writers such as the Cappadocians, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus, as well as Saint Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximus Confessor

Systematic Framework:

  • Eriugena's thought is best understood as a sustained attempt to create a consistent, systematic, Christian Neoplatonism from diverse but primarily Christian sources

Problematic Elements:

  • Taking for granted the authenticity of the works ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, he considered that the doctrines he discovered in them were not only philosophically true, but also theologically acceptable, since they carried with them the authority of the distinguished Athenian convert of St. Paul. He did not for a moment suspect that in those writings he had to deal with a loosely articulated system of thought in which Christian teachings were mingled with the tenets of a subtle but profoundly anti-Christian pantheism.

Ecclesiastical Concerns:

  • Pope Nicholas I was offended that the work had not been submitted for approval before being given to the world, and ordered Charles to send Eriugena to Rome, or at least to dismiss him from his court
  • His freedom he reconciled with his respect for the teaching authority of the Church as he understood it. However, in the actual exercise of the freedom of speculation which he allowed himself, he fell into many errors which are incompatible with orthodox Christianity

Victorine Mystical Development: Hugh provided the bridge between early reception and later scholastic interpretation:

Commentary Achievement: After Eriugena's translation of Dionysius in the ninth century, there is almost no interest shown in Dionysius until Hugh's commentary. Hugh's commentary, however, became a major part of the twelfth and thirteenth-century surge in interest in Dionysius.

Influential Misinterpretation: The Victorine, whose own Augustinian inclinations were largely untouched by his encounter with the Areopagite, nevertheless exerted a distinctive influence by (falsely) attributing to Dionysius the view that in our pursuit of God, "love surpasses knowledge."

Legacy: His and Eriugena's commentaries were often attached to the Dionysian corpus in manuscripts, such that his thought had great influence on later interpretation of Dionysius by Richard of St Victor, Thomas Gallus, Hugh of Balma, Bonaventure and others.

Systematic Integration: Aquinas represented the height of scholastic reception, though with significant departures from Orthodox understanding:

Extensive Use: Throughout the Summa, Aquinas cites patristic, scholastic, Islamic, Jewish, and pre-Christian Greek and Roman sources, including, but not limited to: The Bible, Aristotle, Augustine of Hippo, Avicenna, Averroes, Al-Ghazali, Boethius, John of Damascus, Paul the Apostle, Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, Maimonides, Anselm of Canterbury, Plato, Cicero, and John Scotus Eriugena.

Authority Recognition: Aquinas refers to the works of Dionysius, whom scholars of the time thought to be the person mentioned in Acts 17:34 (a disciple of St. Paul). Estimates in assessing the role of Dionysius in Aquinas's thought vary considerably... Dionysius is cited by Aquinas "more than any other single auctoritas."

Rational Emphasis:

  • Integration with Aristotelian philosophy
  • The abiding-procession-return triad may be said to form the essential structure of Aquinas' unfinished masterpiece, the Summa Theologica
  • Synthesis with natural theology
  • Systematic rather than experiential approach

Hierarchical Understanding:

  • Besides being an avid student of the Greek fathers, Thomas was motivated by accusations that his religious order, the clerical mendicant Order of Preachers founded in 1216 by Dominic de Guzman, had violated hierarchical order
  • Aquinas's response, based on the Celestial Hierarchy and Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of Dionysius as well as Epistle 8, shows his appreciation for the Saint Dionysius the Areopagite's threefold liturgical concept of hierarchy

Positive Elements:

  • Serious engagement with patristic tradition
  • Recognition of divine transcendence
  • Incorporation of hierarchical principles
  • Aquinas's frequent recourse to the theandric operation, in particular, demonstrates his keen appreciation for Dionysius and the wider Greek tradition

Concerns from Orthodox Perspective:

  • Overemphasis on rational demonstration
  • Integration with Aristotelian categories foreign to original context
  • Diminished emphasis on mystical experience
  • Separation from liturgical and ecclesiastical context

Early Scholastic Pioneer: Albert the Great provided foundational scholastic interpretation:

Systematic Approach: Both Albert and Aquinas wrote commentaries on Saint Dionysius, establishing the Dominican tradition of interpretation.

Influence on Students: Albert's approach significantly shaped Thomas Aquinas's later systematic integration of Dionysian theology.

Franciscan Alternative: Bonaventure offered a more affective approach to Dionysian mysticism:

Direct Usage: Bonaventure uses images and even direct quotations from Dionysius' Mystical Theology in the last chapter of his famous work Itinerarium Mentis in Deum (The Soul's Journey into God).

Recognition: Bonaventure called him the "prince of mystics."

Integration with Franciscan Spirituality: Denys Turner aptly observes of Bonaventure's theology that the Seraphic Doctor masterfully, with the care of an architect, integrates the mystical theological heritage of Augustine, Saint Dionysius the Areopagite and the Saint-Victorians, here especially Hugo, Richard and Thomas Gallus.

Key Achievement: He consciously incorporates into his mystical theology the apophatic theology of Dionysius Areopagite, together with the idea of mystical union and mental excess, ecstasy. This link to the Dionysian tradition is, however, mediated by Thomas Gallus.

Meister Eckhart (1260-1328): The influence of Dionysius' ideas pervades not only the Italian and English Renaissance, but also the Rhineland mystical writers, such as Meister Eckhart (d. 1327), Tauler (d. 1361), Ruysbroeck (d. 1381), Gerson (d. 1429).

Johannes Tauler (1300-1361): Dominican mysticism that popularized Dionysian themes through vernacular preaching.

The Cloud of Unknowing (14th century): In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries his fundamental themes were hugely influential on thinkers such as Marguerite Porete, Meister Eckhart, Johannes Tauler, John of Ruusbroec, the author of The Cloud of Unknowing (who made an expanded Middle English translation of Dionysius' Mystical Theology).

Jean Gerson (1363-1429): Academic mystical theology that attempted to systematize contemplative experience within university framework.

Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464): Whose work On Learned Ignorance owes a debt to Dionysius' agnosia or unknowingness, as does also the anonymous author of the Cloud of Unknowing.

From an Orthodox standpoint, several significant departures characterize Western reception:

Scholastic Method:

  • Greater integration with Aristotelian philosophy than appropriate for mystical theology
  • Emphasis on systematic demonstration rather than experiential knowledge
  • Separation of theological speculation from liturgical and ascetical context
  • Tendency to treat Dionysian theology as academic subject rather than spiritual path

Ecclesiastical Context:

  • Western emphasis on individual mystical experience
  • Diminished role of ecclesiastical hierarchy and sacramental life
  • Separation from liturgical worship as primary theological context
  • Focus on private contemplation rather than communal theosis

Systematic Approach:

  • More systematic than experiential methodology
  • Integration with Latin theological categories
  • Emphasis on definition and demonstration
  • Less emphasis on apophatic approach and divine mystery

Despite these differences, East and West agreed on fundamental principles:

Recognition of God's absolute transcendence beyond all categories and concepts, maintaining the essential apophatic approach.

Acceptance of cosmic and ecclesiastical hierarchy as divine ordering principle, though with different emphases on authority.

Validity of mystical union and contemplative prayer, though understood within different theological frameworks.

Traditional Orthodox concerns about Western interpretation include:

Theological Methodology: The Western tendency toward rational systematization, while valuable for theological education, risks obscuring the essentially mystical and experiential character of Dionysian theology.

Ecclesiastical Context: Orthodox tradition maintains that Dionysian theology is inseparable from liturgical worship and sacramental life, whereas Western reception often treated it as independent contemplative system.

Deification vs. Union: Orthodox emphasis on theosis (deification) through divine energies differs from Western concepts of mystical union that may not adequately preserve the distinction between Creator and creature.

Living Tradition: Orthodox understanding sees Dionysian theology as part of living tradition transmitted through spiritual fathers and liturgical practice, not merely academic study.

Modern Orthodox theologians recognize both the value and limitations of Western reception:

Positive Contributions:

  • Preservation and transmission of texts during difficult periods
  • Scholarly analysis and systematic presentation
  • Development of mystical theology as distinct discipline
  • Influence on broader Christian spirituality

Ongoing Concerns:

  • Need to recover original Orthodox context and meaning
  • Importance of liturgical and sacramental framework
  • Integration with hesychast tradition and spiritual practice
  • Recognition of Dionysian theology as path to theosis rather than academic subject

The Western medieval reception of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite represents both a remarkable achievement in preserving and transmitting ancient Christian wisdom and a cautionary example of how theological translation across cultural and linguistic boundaries can alter fundamental meaning.

Historical Achievement: Together, despite their stark differences, they bequeathed a lively Dionysian tradition to the high medieval authors, scholastics and mystics alike.

Orthodox Evaluation: From an Orthodox perspective, while grateful for Western preservation of these texts, it remains essential to understand Dionysian theology within its proper Orthodox context—as mystical theology inseparable from liturgical worship, sacramental life, and the path to theosis through divine grace.

Contemporary Relevance: The influence of Dionysius is profound in Eriugena's own thought as it would be later in the Franciscan tradition (especially Grosseteste and Bonaventure) and also to a lesser extent in the Dominican (both Albert and Aquinas wrote commentaries).

Understanding this Western reception helps clarify the distinctive Orthodox approach to Dionysian theology while recognizing the broader Christian tradition's engagement with these profound mystical insights. The Orthodox Church continues to maintain that authentic interpretation requires the full context of liturgical worship, sacramental life, and the pursuit of theosis under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the communion of saints.

Primary Sources:

  • Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947.
  • Bonaventure. Itinerarium Mentis in Deum. In Opera Omnia. Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1882-1902.
  • Eriugena, John Scotus. Expositiones in Ierarchiam coelestem. Edited by J. Barbet. CCCM 31. Turnhout: Brepols, 1975.
  • Hugh of Saint Victor. Commentariorum in Hierarchiam coelestem Sancti Dionysii Areopagitae. In Patrologia Latina 175. Paris: Migne, 1854.

Secondary Sources:

  • Harrington, L. Michael. A Thirteenth-Century Textbook of Mystical Theology at the University of Paris. Paris: Peeters, 2004.
  • Louth, Andrew. Denys the Areopagite. London: Chapman, 1989.
  • Rorem, Paul. "The Early Latin Dionysius: Eriugena and Hugh of St Victor." Modern Theology 24:4 (2008): 601-614.
  • Turner, Denys. The Darkness of God: Negativity in Christian Mysticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Digital Resources:

All content in this article is based on scholarly sources documenting the historical reception of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite in Western medieval Christianity, examined from an Orthodox perspective that maintains the apostolic authorship and authentic spiritual authority of the Dionysian corpus within the living tradition of the Orthodox Church.