Abstract
The article explores the problem of the symbol in the Corpus Dionysiacum. The author establishes that, on the one hand, for Dionysius the Areopagite, the symbol is a way of understanding God, an anagogic path, a "gate" to the mystical knowledge of God, and on the other hand, the symbol is included in the hierarchical structure of the universe, representing the lowest stage of being, which, in its own way, reflects the "higher" spheres and ultimately God. The author reconstructs the Dionysian understanding of the symbol, taking into account the Neoplatonic influence, but also emphasizing the independence of the author of the Corpus from Neoplatonic philosophy, since for Dionysius, in contrast to Neoplatonists, the symbol is inextricably linked with Holy Scripture and has a Christocentric orientation, because the prototype of all symbols is the incarnate Logos. The author comes to the conclusion that the symbol in the Corpus Dionysiacum is included in the general system of hierarchical symbolism; it is an image, a “likeness” of the invisible world that has an anagogic nature. At the same time, the author of the Corpus, following the Neoplatonic tradition develops the doctrine of the dissimilarity of symbols (wherein the dissimilarity of symbols is even more capable of expressing the divine essence), which also has a Christological justification, since the incarnate Logos himself, having united the divine and human natures, united the similar and the dissimilar in himself.
Keywords
Dionysius the Areopagite, Corpus Dionysiacum, symbol, analogy, anagoge, Neoplatonism, Christocentricism, dissimilarity
Full Text
The article explores the problem of the symbol in the Corpus Dionysiacum. The author establishes that, on the one hand, for Dionysius the Areopagite, the symbol is a way of understanding God, an anagogic path, a "gate" to the mystical knowledge of God, and on the other hand, the symbol is included in the hierarchical structure of the universe, representing the lowest stage of being, which, in its own way, reflects the "higher" spheres and ultimately God. The author reconstructs the Dionysian understanding of the symbol, taking into account the Neoplatonic influence, but also emphasizing the independence of the author of the Corpus from Neoplatonic philosophy, since for Dionysius, in contrast to Neoplatonists, the symbol is inextricably linked with Holy Scripture and has a Christocentric orientation, because the prototype of all symbols is the incarnate Logos. The author comes to the conclusion that the symbol in the Corpus Dionysiacum is included in the general system of hierarchical symbolism; it is an image, a “likeness” of the invisible world that has an anagogic nature. At the same time, the author of the Corpus, following the Neoplatonic tradition develops the doctrine of the dissimilarity of symbols (wherein the dissimilarity of symbols is even more capable of expressing the divine essence), which also has a Christological justification, since the incarnate Logos himself, having united the divine and human natures, united the similar and the dissimilar in himself.