Dionysius the Areopagite is an overlooked figure in the contemporary Maronite tradition, yet we have an Anaphora of Dionysius the Areopagite in our patriarchal collection of Syriac anaphoras. It is found as number 11 in the list of 70 anaphoras by A. Raes in the Anaphorae Syriacae, vol. 1,1 (xi-xiv). It might be noted that an Anaphora of Dionysius bar Salibi is sometimes wrongly said to be an Anaphora of Dionysius the Areopagite. A Latin translation of the true Anaphora of Dionysius the Areopagite, with notes, is found in vol. 2 of Eusebe Renaudot’s Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio (1847), 202-213.
I shall explore all this in future posts, but for now, I am delighted to treat of the contents of Emiliano Fiori’s Dionigi Areopagitica: Nomi Divini, Teologica Mistica, Epistole, [Dionysius the Areopagite: Divine Names, Mystical Theology, and Letters]. Its subtitle, translated into English, is The Syriac Version of Sergius of Reshaina (6th century). The edited text of these documents is volume 252 of the Syriac Series in Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (where it is vol. 656); and then the translation is in volumes 253 and 657 respectively. They were published by Peeters, Louvain, 2014.
Sergius died in 536, and the Greek text he used is older than the one presently used in all available translations. I would recommend using John Parker’s 1897 translation of the Greek as a check on the less reliable effort of Luibheid and Rorem. Both are available on the internet, gratis. My own view is that if one departs from the text, whatever the reason, then one should also supply the more accurate translation in a note.
I could say a good deal more about these matters, but I received my copy of Fiori’s books only yesterday, and I wish to share with you my work on the Syriac of the magnificent prayer which opens the Mystical Theology. I have of course consulted the translations of Parker, Luibheid & Rorem, and Fiori, but have in the end relied on my own imperfect understanding of the Syriac. I shall not publish my Syriac notes here.
Translation
Parker, 130, reads the Greek as follows:
TRIAD supernal, both super-God and super-good, Guardian of the Theosophy of Christian men, direct us aright to the super-unknown and super-brilliant and highest summit of the mystic Oracles, where the simple and absolute and changeless mysteries of theology lie hidden within the super-luminous gloom of the silence, revealing hidden things, which in its deepest darkness shines above the most super-brilliant, and in the altogether impalpable and invisible, fills to overflowing the eyeless minds with glories of surpassing beauty.
I read the Syriac as saying, with words supplied for better English in square brackets, and alternative translations in round brackets:
Trinity [which is] above nature, and above being; above goodness; who of its being is the substance of the divine wisdom of Christians: direct us towards the beginning – lofty and exalted – which is above all arisings (met. “manifestations”) and above all signs.
The word [is] hidden and secret (or symbolic or mystical), [it is] where all mysteries, simple, true, and unchangeable of the divine doctrines, are covered in darkness filled [with] light; (and) [covered with] silence [filled with] secret and hidden mysteries; shining from them in abundant darkness, a sparkling (splendour), higher than any arisings; in which (is) the unseen and intangible (lit. the utterly beyond touch;) and [those] intellects exalted above the highest eyes and vision; word loftier than [all] graces ([all] the beautiful).
Notes
First, the Syriac translation is certainly simpler than Parker’s. L&R are less formal, but I not better, in my opinion.
Second, there are certain questions it may be impossible to resolve now, because the nuance of the Syriac words may have changed. For example, the word I have rendered as “arisings” is from the root d-n-H the basic meaning of which is the rising of the stars and the sun. The Epiphany is the feast of the denHo in Syriac. Then, there is a root y-d-3 which as a verb means “know” but here the form is substantive, and is usually understood to mean “sign.” After all, we obtain knowledge from signs, so the connection is real. But to translate as “signs” respects the parallelism with “arisings.” However, am I reading too much into this? Could “manifestations” and “knowledge” be better translations? As I become better acquainted with Sergius, I may well amend my translation, but it will still remain subject to improvement by someone with a better knowledge of Syriac and English.
Third, there is a change of person in the Syriac. It begins in the third person (Trinity which is) and moves to the second person (direct us), then becomes impersonal. This is not unusual in Semitic literature: it is even found in the Anaphora of Dionysius the Areopagite. I prefer to retain it.
Fourth, the word which Parker gives as “summit,” I translate as “beginning.” I think beginning is a more accurate translation, but besides, were there any doubt, the context seems to me to demand the meaning “beginning, source, origin.” That, after all, relates better what I have set out as the second paragraph.
Fifth, the “word” appears at the opening and the closing of my second paragraph. It is in Syriac, fetgomo. This is a Persian loan word, still in use in our liturgy in relation to the Gospel reading. However, its appearance at both ends shows that the entire paragraph is about the word, or perhaps better, the Word. In a footnote, Fiori suggests that it is equivalent to the Greek, “oracles,” however, here and elsewhere I take the plain meaning of the Syriac and neither Sokoloff nor Payne Smith gives “oracles” for fetgomo. Besides, the translation “word” seems to me to make more sense in the context.
Sixth, “graces” or “[all] the beautiful” is a plural substantive. It could mean “graces” or refer to all beautiful creations.
Interpretation
The symmetry of the prayer is masterly. It begins with an appeal to the Blessed Trinity to direct us to where minds cannot go unaided. Then it turns to the sacred Word, which is hidden. Enfolded within it are the mysteries and the doctrine. “Mysteries” here may refer to the sacraments but also, I think, to the archetypes by which the world is formed. However, the point is that both the mysteries and the teachings are within the word: distinctions between Scripture, theology and liturgical practice are ultimately manifestations of the one ineffable divine reality: the Word (fetgomo).
The doctrines and mysteries are covered in both darkness and silence. The darkness is filled with light, and the silence with the mysteries which radiate forth. The description of the mysteries here is part of the reason I think that this polyvalent word roze here means both sacraments and archetypes. In other words, from the darkness of the Word comes our light, and from its silence comes our world and our sacraments.
There seem to me to be two levels of the ineffable and unreachable: immediately above this world, the Word; and above that, the Trinity.
to be continued
