Rosemary Arthur's Pseudo-Dionysius as Polemicist looks at the Corpus Dionysiacum (CD) in its sixth century milieu, with an interest in Dionysius's place in the Monophysite movement. Arthur's book will be appreciated by those interested in the question of the historical Dionysius, particularly the relationship between concerns of the sixth-century Church and Dionysius's theology. There are few full studies in English which discuss the question of the historical Dionysius, while keeping in mind the sociology of the sixth-century Church, in such an accessible, creative manner.

The first three chapters of the book, “The Christian and Non-Christian Sources,” “The Angelic Hierarchy,” and the “Unknowability of God,” provide an overview for sources of Dionysius's CD. Arthur argues in these chapters that Christological problems were the single most important cause of disunity of the Church in the sixth century. She suggests that Dionysius had to look to apostolic authority, hence he took the pseudonym Dionysius in order to be accepted by Chalcedonians and Monophysites. Thus, in order to breed unity, Arthur argues, the author of the CD omitted discussions of the Incarnation, Cross, and Atonement, all of which were divisive topics of the day. Arthur argues that Dionysius tried to unify the Church through the ecclesiastical hierarchy; by showing how the ecclesiastical hierarchy mirrors the angelic hierarchy, she says, Dionysius provided authority for the ecclesiastical hierarchy as something embedded in the universe by God. The angelic hierarchy, Arthur argues, thus functioned to protect the ecclesiastical structure.

In chapter 4, Arthur examines the connection between Dionysius and monophysitism. She gives a very general overview of the careers of ten figures in the Monophysite party at the time of Justinian: Severus of Antioch, John of Tella, Peter of Reshaina, Thomas of Dara, Thomas of Damascus, Antony of Aleppo, Thomas of Himeria, Constantine of Laodicea, Peter of Apamea, and John Bar Aphthonia. Her survey of these figures shows how the Monophysites at this time were interested in issues of authority and leadership, which were most pressing considering that key monks were not persuaded of the authority of bishops, and how persecution contributed to the group's general state of urgency. Arthur uses the former to explain Dionysius's treatises on the angelic and ecclesiastical hierarchies, which together established the primacy of the bishops in the eyes of God and the universe. She uses the latter to suggest the anonymity of Dionysius, who she links with the Origenist, Sergius of Reshaina.

The fifth chapter offers the main argument of the book, which is that the CD, taken as a whole, is a polemic posed by Sergius of Reshaina in the wake of the Monophystism controversy. Arthur suggests that Dionysius's polemic was directed against rebellious monks within the Monophysite party who denied the church, clergy, and sacraments. Arthur extends the focus of the polemic to include those in a position of power, perhaps even Justinian (173).

My greatest complaint about this work is that a few of Arthur's claims seem based on conjecture; for instance, her suggestion that Dionysius's confusing word choices may be due to his inexperience with Greek, as opposed to Syriac (144), and that Sergius “implies” that he did not understand Dionysius because he was anxious of being suspected of being the author of the CD (119). Moreover, some of her arguments seem based on a portrayal of Dionysius as one primarily motivated by the desire to bridge the gap between divided parties in his movement; a sociological description that is interesting but one that this reviewer humbly finds unconvincing. As a final complaint, her occasional comments on how modern Churches can learn from Dionysius are a distraction from her main argument; for example, “An acceptance of Dionysius' premise that the nature of God is unknowable in itself gives just one answer—and that is that we do not know. The churches of today would do well to take heed of this” (193). This kind of comment is fairly provocative and distracts the reader from Arthur's historical discussion. Despite these complaints, there is still much to gain from this book, and it should be read by those interested in Dionysius.