Page 196 [196]
MIKLÓS VASSÁNYI
within the Good, and into the Good" (described in Chapters 15-17 with the
Neo-Platonic terminology of Hierotheos) once again contradicts the eternal
immutability of a Platonic idea."
5. CONCLUSION: A PLATONIC ONTOLOGY WITH
A CHRISTIAN SUMMIT THEOLOGY
In light of the above, we are entitled to talk about the presence of a creative
contradiction within the Dionysian One. This is a tension that builds up
between the fundament and the periphery in God, as the Areopagite gradually
unfolds his doctrine of divine Love. Starting from the Good as the predominant
aspect of God, and adding Beauty and the One to the list of the aspects together
constituting God, Denys is actually constructing a doctrine ofthe transcendentals
(unum, bonum, ens, pulchrum) by putting together piecemeal an idea of God
that is difficult to see as a (perfect) unity. The difficulty rises to a paradox when
he insists that the Good—despite its supra-essential, ideal character and place in
an eminent order of existence (or even beyond existence)—displays providence
toward creation under the aspect of divine Love.
This consideration raises the old question of what the relationship is
ultimately between Platonic ontology and Christian theology in Denys’ secret
and original combination of doctrines. It does appear to me that the most
“vivid” or “live” aspect of the God described in Part 4 of De divinis nominibus
is divine Love. This is the passage where our author is most intuitive and
inspired, and also, where he is the most creative and paradoxical. So I think it
is right to say that while his concept of God is essentially based on a Platonic
idea, still, by virtue of his theses on divine agapé and erős, he applies a Christian
“summit theology” onto the Platonic fundament. The topping off of a (Neo-)
Platonic metaphysical substrate with a characteristically more Christian
theology of Love does seem to me to indicate a preference, a ranking or
a judgment of value, a kind of a conscious choice on Denys’ part. At this point,
we may also remind ourselves that (erotic) Love for Plato in the Symposium is
no more than a daimön, while for Denys it is God Himself. This is, to my mind
at least, an important dogmatic difference, which points to a preference for
an ultimately Christian concept of God. Though in a metaphysical context,
it may be argued that even the general idea of originating the Many from the
One is Platonic in origin (see the Parmenides and the Philebus), still Denys’
15 "Ev @ kal TO dteAevTHTOV Eavtod Kal dvapxov 6 Belog Epwg eEvdeikvutat Stapepovtws womTEp
tic didtog KUKAOG S14 TayABOv, Ex TayABOD Kai Ev TAYAD® Kal eis TAyadov Ev anrkavei ovveilfen
TEPLTOPEVOMEVOS Kai Ev TAVTO Kai KATA TO AÚTÓ kal Tpolwv ási kal HÉVWV Kal ÁTOKABIOTÁHEVOG.
(Suchla [ed.], Corpus Dionysiacum I, 160 = PG 3, 712 C 15-713 A 2.) From 4, 18 on, Denys
goes on to discuss the problem of evil, which is beyond our scope of interest here.
+ 194 +
Daréczi-Sepsi-Vassänyi_Initiation_155x240.indb 194 6 2020.06.15. 11:04:20