Journal of Early Christian Studies

The question of the authorship of the Corpus Dionysiacum (CD) is a longstanding, important topic of Dionysian scholarship. Many have tried to identify the author after J. Stiglmayr and H. Koch delivered the proof that the author depended on Proclus and could not have been Paul’s disciple Dionysius the Areopagite (Stiglmayr, “Der Neuplatoniker Proclus als Vorlage des sogenannten Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Übel,” Historisches Jahrbuch 16 [München: Görres-Gesellschaft, 1895]: 253–73; Koch, “Proklus als Quelle des Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita in der Lehre vom Bösen,” Philologus: Zeitschrift für das classische Altertum 54 [1895]: 438–54). This investigation has been tinged by considerations beyond the scholarly; at times a moralizing fervor has been leveled against the “forger” who managed to delude centuries of readers. Kharlamov rightly criticizes such an approach and follows a group of scholars (including Stephen Gersh, Charles Stang, and Christian Schäfer) who reflect on the philosophical or theological meaning of the pseudonym. His thesis is that the CD is not the result of “forgery” but a “clever literary ploy” (title). The consequence of this discovery, he hopes, should be to shake ourselves free from the quest for attributions and open our eyes to the CD so as finally to see Dionysius as both Christian and Neoplatonic. I address these two issues later, but begin with the actual hypothesis and its development.

The first chapters have an introductory character; they discuss the “[a]ttempts to justify pseudonymous affiliation” (10–19) and “[k]nown and conventionally accepted facets of the CD in relation to its authorship” (20–46). Chapters 3–5 present Kharlamov’s thesis. He wants to establish that Dionysius was not very [End Page 667] serious about the historical context of the first century (47–53, and 54–67). Kharlamov claims that the choice of Dionysius of the Areopagus as the author “is quite a risky plan if the actual author wanted to present the corpus as an original production,” that it “could be easily established as forgery,” and that the choice of an author who did not leave a written work would have been “more disadvantageous” (48). It is not quite clear what the proof for this claim is, especially since the first-century authorship was accepted rather quickly in the early sixth century. And is it not convenient for a pseudonymous writer not to have writings whose style or ideas have to be imitated (cf. W.-M. Stock, Theurgisches Denken: Zur Kirchlichen Hierarchie des Dionysius Areopagita [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008], 6–7)? In Chapter Four Kharlamov addresses what he calls “Dionysian society,” i.e., the addressees of the letters and treatises and other names mentioned in the CD. Had the author been serious about the historical setting, so Kharlamov, he would have done a better job in creating a first-century atmosphere than the actual author (cf. 54, 59). Kharlamov concludes that “we are dealing with a clever literary stratagem that did not intend to be a forgery” (63; cf. pass.), but to create “metaphorical symbolism of the attribution” (title of chapter 5; 68–77).

Let us come to some conclusions:

1. 1. Kharlamov claims repeatedly that his approach would finally make scholars realize that they should not consider Pseudo-Dionysius a forger, but should appreciate his work in itself (for instance 63–64, 78, 81) and that they should also accept that he is both Christian and Neoplatonic and not read him in a biased way (for instance 21, 28, 34, 37, 69, 83). This is certainly a productive approach to the CD, but most scholars have addressed the work in itself or the work alongside the question of the author. Some scholars may promote the Neoplatonic side at the expense of the Christian side or vice versa, but the picture is much more complex (cf. Stock, Theurgisches Denken, 18–23). This is evident in some of the works Kharlamov quotes, but...