the mystical theology of valentin weigel - DataSpace at Princeton ...

points out, with a purification, a separation from the impure. 406 This separation is
necessary because Moses (and thus also Dionysius, and his disciple Timothy to whom the
treatise is addressed) must keep his special un-knowledge a secret from the uninitiated. 407
Derrida describes this ascent as “withdraw[ing] with an elite,” commenting that “from the
start this topolitology of the secret obeys an order” (the order to purify and keep a secret),
and that the “allegorical veil becomes a political shield, the solid barrier of a social
division.” 408
Most recently, it has been argued that Dionysius seems radical today because his
ideas are inherently radical; his appropriation for conservative purposes is the result of
misreading, or even deliberate tempering of Dionysius’ original text. As such, those
subsequent Dionysius readers who claim him for heterodoxy would, in this case, be
perceiving the echoes of radicalness Dionysius emits even in his attenuated form.
406 Dionysius the Areopagite, Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, ed. Paul Rorem, trans. Colm
Luibheid (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1987). All further English references to Dionysius in this chapter are
from Luibheid’s translation, and will be referred to by the initials of the treatise. The Mystical Theology
[MT], 1000C-1001A.
407 Dionysius emphasizes in all four treatises of the CD that the knowledge he offers must be kept secret
from the impure and the uninitiated. From the Mystical Theology: “But see to it that none of this comes to
the hearing of the uninformed, that is to say, to those caught up with the things of the world.” MT, 1000A.
From the Divine Names: “This is the kind of divine enlightenment into which we have been initiated by the
hidden tradition of our inspired teachers, a tradition at one with scripture.” (The Divine Names [DN], 592B)
(Dionysius’s meaning is not entirely unambiguous here, and he is perhaps suggesting that Scripture as a
whole belongs to the esoteric rather than the exoteric tradition.) “As the divine tradition so commands us,
let the holy be there only for the holy, and let such things be kept away from the mockery and the laughter
of the uninitiated.” Dionysius then follows this sentence with an admonishment to help those uninitiated,
who seem to stay away from what is holy by inclination and not by nature (i.e. they could be initiated at
any moment if they wanted to): “Or, rather, let us try to rescue such men and turn them from their hostility
to God.” DN, 597C. In the Celestial Hierarchy, Dionysius confirms that Scripture resorts to “dissimilar
names” (calling God a bear or an ointment) so that it remains esoteric, i.e. “the wise men of God, exponents
of hidden inspiration, separate the ‘Holy of Holies’ from defilement by anything in the realm of the
imperfect or the profane.” (The Celestial Hierarchy [CH], 145A). And finally in the Ecclesiastical
Hierarchy: “See to it that you [Timothy the Fellow-Elder] do not betray the holy of holies...Keep these
things of God unshared and undefiled by the uninitiated.” (The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy [EH], 372A)
408 Derrida, "Denials," 23-24. Rubinstein highlights the political critique of Dionysius that Derrida makes:
“If the via negativa knows where it is going and how to get there, is its unknown God truly unknown? By
now, it should be clear that Derrida’s critique of teleology stems neither from intellectual snobbery nor
from a ‘postmodern’ commitment to ‘play’. Rather, it is attuned to the violent and exclusionary politics of
certainty. The moment I know who the Messiah is and when he is coming, I know who is in the kingdom
and who is out—and will behave accordingly.” Rubinstein, 737.
155