¹ See especially Ellis, Roger, ‘A Literary Approach to the Middle English Mystics,’ in The Medieval Mystical Tradition in England: Papers Read at the Exeter Symposium, July 1980, ed. Marion Glasscoe (Exeter 1980) 99–119.Google Scholar

² Lagorio, Valerie, ‘New Avenues of Research on the English Mystics,’ in Exeter Symposium, ed. Glasscoe, 234–49 at 242.Google Scholar

³ Colledge, Edmund, ‘The English Mystics and their Critics,’ Life of the Spirit 15 (1961) 554–59 at 555.Google Scholar

⁴ To this end I am preparing a monograph on the literary theory found in scholastic commentaries on the works of pseudo-Dionysius, particularly De caelesti hierarchia.Google Scholar

⁵ For discussion and bibliography see Minnis, Alastair, ‘Langland's Ymaginatif and Late-Medieval Theories of Imagination,’ Comparative Criticism 3 (1981) 71–103. For a highly speculative treatment of the role of imagination in Piers Plowman, Dame Julian's Showings, and the Cloud, see Schmidt, A. V. C., ‘Langland and the Mystical Tradtion,’ in Exeter Symposium, ed. Glasscoe, 17–38.Google Scholar

⁶ For discussion and bibliography see Minnis, Alastair, ‘Literary Theory in Discussions of Formae Tractandi by Medieval Theologians,’ New Literary History 11 (1979) 133–45; also ‘Chaucer and Comparative Literary Theory,’ in New Perspectives in Chaucer Criticism, ed. Rose, Donald M. (Norman, Oklahoma 1981) 53–69. A fuller treatment is provided in Chapter 4 of my forthcoming book Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages. Google Scholar

⁷ See especially Chenu, M.-D., Toward Understanding St. Thomas , trans. A.-M. Landry and D. Hughes (Chicago 1964) 226–30, 232; Dondaine, H. F., Le Corpus Dionysien de l'Université de Paris au XIII^e siècle (Rome 1953); Bougerol, J. B., ‘Saint Bonaventure et le pseudo-Denys l'Aréopagite,’ Études Franciscaines: Actes du colloque Saint Bonaventure, 9–12 Sept. 1968, Orsay 18, supplément annuel (1968) 33–123. For extensive bibliography and summaries of modern scholarship see Barbara Faes de Mottoni, Il ‘Corpus Dionysianum’ nel Medioevo: Rassegna di studi 1900–1972, Pubblicazioni del Centro di studio per la storia della storio-grafia filosofica 3 (Barbara 1977).Google Scholar

⁸ I have used Phyllis Hodgson's editions of the Cloud group of writings: The Cloud of Unknowing and The Book of Privy Counselling (EETS OS 218, revised reprint; London 1973); Deonise Hid Diuinite and Other Treatises on Contemplative Prayer (EETS os 231, revised reprint; London 1958). All references are to Hodgson's page and line numbers.Google Scholar

⁹ For discussion see Chenu, M.-D., La Théologie comme science au XIII^e siècle (3rd ed.; Bibliothèque Thomiste 33; Paris 1969); U. Köpf, Die Anfänge der theologischen Wissenschafts-theorie im 13. Jahrhundert (Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 49; Tübingen 1974).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Alexandri de Hales Summa theologica (Quaracchi 1974) I 1–13.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. Chapter 4 of my book Medieval Theory of Authorship.Google Scholar

¹² See p. 334.Google Scholar

¹³ On Thomas Gallus’ life and works see the series of articles by Théry, G. in Divus Thomas 11 (1934) 264–77, 365–85, 469–96; Vie spirituelle, supplements to vols. 31 (1932) 147–67, 32 (1932) 22–43, and 33 (1932) 129–54; Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen ǎge 12 (1939) 141–208; also Callus, D. A., ‘An Unknown Commentary on the Pseudo-Dionysian Letters,’ Dominican Studies 1 (1949) 58–67. The most comprehensive study of Gallus’ thought is Walsh, J., ‘Sapientia Christianorum’: The Doctrine of Thomas Gallus Abbot of Vercelli, on Contemplation (unpub. D. Theol. thesis, Pontifica Universitas Gregoriana; Rome 1957); cf. the summary provided by Rosemary A. Lees, The Negative Language of the Dionysian School of Mystical Theology: An Approach to the Cloud of Unknowing (unpub. Ph.D. thesis, University of York 1981) I 203–12. See further the introduction to Thomas Gallus: Commentaires du Cantique des Cantiques, ed. Jeanne Barbet (Textes philosophiques du moyen ǎge 14; Paris 1967).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Here the Cloud author is englishing Latin technical terms. Hugh of St. Victor (writing ca. 1127) advocated the following ‘order of exposition’ in Bible study: one begins with ‘the letter,’ working out the grammatical construction and continuity of a passage, then one proceeds to expand its sensus or most obvious meaning, and finally the sententia or deeper meaning is sought. See Didascalicon 3.8, ed. Buttimer, C. H. (Catholic University of America, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Latin 10; Washington 1939) 58; cf. the application of these same principles to a secular text by William of Conches, in Guillaume de Conches: Glosae super Platonem, ed. Jeauneau, E. (Textes philosophiques du moyen ǎge 13; Paris 1965) 51; also the general statement by Giovanni de’ Balbi, Catholicon, s.v. commentum and glossa (Venice 1495) fols. 101^r, 153^v.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The influence of Gallus on Deonise Hid Diuinite was first pointed out by Justin McCann, The Cloud of Unknowing and Other Treatises (London 1924) xiii–xxx, 249, 252, 276–83. Cf. Deonise Hid Diuinite, ed. Hodgson, xxxix–xli, xlii, 119–29.Google Scholar

¹⁶ This procedure is necessary because of David Knowles’ statement that ‘it is not evident that the abbot of Vercelli inspired what are the peculiar characteristics of the Cloud and its companions’: The English Mystical Tradition (London 1961) 75. In fact, all but one of the ‘peculiar characteristics’ listed by Knowles are paralleled in Gallus. The exception is ‘the abundant and shrewd practical advice of the Cloud.’ This, I would suggest, may be attributed to the Cloud author's wish to adapt the doctrine of Gallus to suit his very different audience: Gallus was writing for schoolmen, whereas the Cloud is addressed to a practising contemplative. Moreover, there are obvious differences of genre: Gallus provided scholastic explication de texte, while the Cloud author produced a manual for advanced mystics. For discussion see my article ‘The Sources of The Cloud of Unknowing: A Reconsideration,’ in The Medieval Mystical Tradition in England: Papers read at Dartington Hall, July 1982, ed. Marion Glasscoe (Exeter 1982) 63–75.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The Glossa is falsely attributed to John the Scot and printed among his works in PL 122.267–28: see Théry in Divus Thomas 37 (1934) 385. For a useful comparison of the Glossa and the Extractio see Völker, Walther, Kontemplation und Ekstase bei Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita (Wiesbaden 1958) 226–28.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See von Ivánka, Endre, ‘Zur Überwindung des neuplatonischen Intellektualismus in der Deutung der Mystik: Intelligentia oder Principalis Affectio,’ in Platonismus in der Philosophie des Mittelalters (Wege der Forschung 197; Darmstadt 1969) 147–60. For a more comprehensive study of Gallus’ debt to Richard see Javelet, Robert, ‘Thomas Gallus et Richard de Saint-Victor mystiques,’ Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 29 (1962) 206–33; contd. in RTAM 30 (1963) 88–121. On Gallus’ ideas concerning union (unicio/unitas) see RTAM 30 (1963) 97–101.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Benjamin major 1.6, PL 196.70b–72c; trans. Zinn, G. A., Richard of St Victor: The Twelve Patriarchs, The Mystical Ark, Book Three of The Trinity (The Classics of Western Spirituality, SPCK; London 1979) 161–63. For explication see J. A. Robilliard, ‘Les Six genres de contemplation chez Richard de Saint-Victor,’ Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 28 (1939) 229–33, and Javelet in RTAM 29 (1962) 207–12.Google Scholar

²⁰ See especially Benjamin major 1.7: PL 196.72c–73c; trans. Zinn 164–65.Google Scholar

²¹ Benjamin major 1.8: PL 196.73c–74b; trans. Zinn 165–66.Google Scholar

²² Benjamin major 5.9: PL 196.178d; trans. Zinn 323.Google Scholar

²³ ‘Quintus [gradus] assurgit in diuina et eterna speculatiua, tamen intellectu apprehensi-bilia et humane rationi consona. Sextum philosophia mundana ignorat’ (London, British Library, MS Royal 8.6.IV fol. 42^v). Cf. Javelet in RTAM 29 (1962) 209; von Ivánka, ‘Intellectus oder Principalis Affectio’ 148.Google Scholar

²⁴ See for example Glossa, PL 122.272b, 274c, 279b, 282a.Google Scholar

²⁵ MS Royal 8.6.IV fols. 42^v–43^r.Google Scholar

²⁶ Cf. Glossa, PL 122.269b: ‘Intentio est commendare veram sapientiam christianorum, et sapientiam philosophorum reprobare.’Google Scholar

²⁷ ‘Patauit enim vim cognitivam esse intellectum, cum sit alia que non minus excedit intellectum quam intellectus racionem vel racio ymaginacionem, scilicet principalis affectio, et ipsa est scintilla synderesis que sola unibilis est spiritui diuino’ (MS Royal 8.6.IV fol. 43^r).Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. the image in the Cloud of the ‘sparcle fro e cole’ (22.8). On synderesis in Gallus’ thought see von Ivánka, ‘Intellectus oder Principalis Affectio’ 149–50; Völker, op. cit. 229 n. 2; Javelet in RTAM 30 (1963) 93–7. More generally see Crowe, M. B., ‘The Term Synderesis and the Scholastics,’ Irish Theological Quarterly 23 (1956) 151–64, 228–45; Timothy C. Potts, Conscience in Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge 1980) 10–11, 79–80, 96–98, 101–8, 116–19, etc., also his article ‘Conscience’ in The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, edd. Kretzmann, N., Kenny, A. and Pinborg, J. (Cambridge 1982) 687–704. For the notion of synderesis in Middle English texts see Wolfgang Riehle, ‘Der Seelengrund in der englischen Mystik des Mittelalters im Vergleich zur deutschen,’ Grossbritannien und Deutsch-land, ed. O. Kuhn (Munich 1974) 461–76; also his book The Middle English Mystics (London and Boston 1981) 152–64.Google Scholar

²⁹ Von Ivánka, ‘Intelligentia oder Principalis Affectio’ 150; also his article ‘ Apex mentis,’ Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 72 (1950) 129–76, esp. 167–69, 171. In fact, in his interpretation of De mystica theologia Gallus does not distinguish clearly between intellectus and intelligentia, in respect of which his thinking resembles that of Richard of St. Victor: see Javelet in RTAM 29 (1962) 212–18; 30 (1963) 88–93 and 117–21. Völker, op. cit. 225–6 n. 11, 231 n. 3, points out that in the Extractio Gallus does not make a contrast between the intellectus and the intelligentia, and that in the Explanatio they are used as synonyms; moreover, at one point in the Explanatio the motus intelligentiae is placed in opposition to the motus affectionum. Google Scholar

³⁰ See Walsh, , ‘Sapientia Christianorum’ 99, 255–58; Lees, The Dionysian School 205, 207–20. Von Ivánka, therefore, was right to stress the cognitive element in the affective union as described by Gallus; cf. Völker, op. cit. 226–27. Indeed, according to Javelet, Gallus follows Richard of St. Victor in believing that the affective and intellectual types of cognition tend to merge in the unitive experience: RTAM 29 (1962) 232; 30 (1963) 88–121. On other twelfth-century precedents see especially von Ivánka, ‘Intelligentia oder Principalis Affectio’ 149–53; Déchanet, J.-L., ‘“Amor ipse intellectus est”: La doctrine de l'Amour–Intellection chez Guillaume de Saint-Thierry,’ Revue du moyen ǎge latin 1 (1945) 349–74.Google Scholar

³¹ PL 122.269b.Google Scholar

³² PL 122.271d–272b; cf. Explanatio, in MS Royal 8.6.IV fol. 44^r–44^v.Google Scholar

³³ For convenience see the text of John the Saracene printed with Gallus’ Glossa in PL 122.274b. I consulted also The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, trans. Parker, John (London 1899) I 130–37, and The Mystical Theology and the Celestial Hierarchies of Dionysius the Areopagite, translated from the Greek by the Editors of the Shrine of Wisdom (Fintry, Surrey, n.d.) 9–16.Google Scholar

³⁴ Cf. Explanatio, in MS Royal 8.6.IV fol. 45^r–45^v.Google Scholar

³⁵ For discussion of this dilemma see especially Evans, Gillian R., ‘The Borrowed Meaning: Grammar, Logic and the Problem of Theological Language in Twelfth-Century Schools,’ The Downside Review 96 (1978) 165–203; M. F. Wakelin, ‘Richard Rolle and the Language of Mystical Experience in the Fourteenth Century,’ The Downside Review 97 (1979) 192–203. For related issues see Ewert Cousins, ‘Myth and Symbol in Bonaventure,’ American Catholic Philosophical Association Proceedings 45 (1971) 86–93.Google Scholar

³⁶ PL 122.278c.Google Scholar

³⁷ See the Sarracenus text printed with Gallus’ Glossa, PL 122.270a–b.Google Scholar

³⁸ PL 122.270c.Google Scholar

³⁹ PL 122.271b; cf. the fuller account in the Explanatio, MS Royal 8.6.IV fols. 43^v–44^r.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Text in PL 122.275a.Google Scholar

⁴¹ ‘After Moses is separated from those who with him saw the place of God, i.e. separated from all intellectual opinions, he is withdrawn from all intelligence and mental vision, and enters into the darkness of unknowing, because he is united with the divine incomprehensibility, which the point of the intelligence does not penetrate. This darkness truly is mystical, i.e. enclosed, because it truly is an enclosure of all cognition, and in itself encloses the most secret. It hides all comprehensive knowledge as it were in the first cause of all, and by this darkness every soul is united with God, i.e. is above everything in the most excellent state, which neither the reason reaches by investigation nor the intellect contemplates by vision…’ (PL 122.275b–c).Google Scholar

⁴² PL 122.276a.Google Scholar

⁴³ S. Alberti Magni opera omnia, ed. Borgnet, A. (Paris 1890–99) XIV 824, 829.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid. 832, 834, 837; cf. Völker, Kontemplation und Ekstase 241–45.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See Weisheipl, James A., Friar Thomas d'Aquino (Oxford 1974) 41–46.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The basic study of this work is by Durantel, J., S. Thomas et le pseudo-Denys (Paris 1919). A basis for examination of the extent to which Aquinas developed Albert's interpretation of De divinis nominibus is provided by Ruello, F., Les ‘Noms Divins’ et leur ‘Raisons’ selon S. Albert le Grand, commentateur du ‘De divinis nominibus’ (Bibliothèque Thomiste 25; Paris 1963); see further Ruello's article ‘La Divinorum nominorum reseratio selon Robert Grosseteste et Albert le Grand,’ Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen ǎge 34 (1959) 99–197.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Cf. Völker, Kontemplation und Ekstase 244–45.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Summa theologiae II–II.175.2, in the Blackfriars edition (London and New York 1964–81) XLV 98–103.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ This is the opinion of Callus, D. A., ‘The Date of Grosseteste's Translations and Commentaries on Pseudo-Dionysius and the Nicomachean Ethics,’ Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 14 (1947) 186–210.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Il Commento di Roberti Grossatesta al ‘De mystica theologia’ del pseudo-Dionigi Areopagita, ed. Gamba, Ulderico (Orbis Romanus 14; Milan 1942) 25–27; cf. the useful paraphrase by Gamba, ‘Roberto Grossatesta traduttore e commentatore del De Mystica theologia dello pseudo-Dionigi Areopagita,’ Aevum 18 (1944) 100–132, esp. 109–10.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Edited by McEvoy, James, ‘Robert Grosseteste's Theory of Human Nature, with the text of his conference Ecclesia Sancta celebrat,’ Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 47 (1980) 131–87.Google Scholar

⁵² Ibid. 153. Professor McEvoy's book is entitled The Philosophy of Robert Grosseteste (Oxford 1982). I am grateful to him for allowing me to read much of his work in typescript.Google Scholar

⁵³ See Ivánka, von, ‘Intellectus oder Principalis Affectio’ 147–48, 150; Völker, Kontemplation und Ekstase 231–37.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ For discussion of the nature and extent of Gallus’ influence on the Cloud see The Cloud, ed. McCann, xxvii–xxx; The Cloud, ed. Hodgson, lxii–iii; Clark, J. P. H., ‘Sources and Theology in The Cloud of Unknowing,’ The Downside Review 98 (1980) 83–109; Minnis, ‘The Sources of the Cloud,’ in Dartington Papers, ed. Glasscoe, 63–75. For the view that Hugh of Balma's elaboration of Gallus’ Dionysian scholarship was a crucial influence see The Cloud of Unknowing, ed. James Walsh (Ramsey, N.J. and London 1981) 19–23, and Lees, The Dionysian School 238–68. However, most if not all of the parallels offered in Walsh's footnotes seem to be reducible to one or another of the following categories: ideas and images of fairly wide currency, with roots in the Fathers and the Victorines; notions expressed with sufficient clarity and amplitude by Gallus himself; logical extensions of Gallus’ thought which (one may imagine) the Cloud author was perfectly capable of, given his interests and tastes. Lees's main argument turns on the belief that Hugh went beyond Gallus by formally disassociating knowledge-in-love from other types of knowledge, on which see von Ivánka, ‘Apex mentis’ 170; cf. the more elaborate and cautious statements by J. Krynen, ‘La Pratique et la théorie de l'amour sans connaissance dans la Viae Syon lugent de Hughes de Balma,’ Revue d'ascétique et de mystique 40 (1964) 161–83, and F. Ruello, ‘Statut et rǒle de l’intellectus et de l'affectus dans la Théologie mystique de Hughes de Balma,’ in Kartäusermystik und -Mystiker 1, Analecta Cartusiana 55 (1981) 1–46. But Gallus’ contrasts between the intellectus and the affectus are quite sufficient to account for all the major contrasts between ‘vnderstondyng’ and ‘loue’ found in the Cloud. It may be argued that the Cloud author shares Gallus’ opinions concerning the function of intellect in the lower stages of contemplation (see especially The Book of Privy Counselling 158.17–25) and the function of superintellect in the highest possible stage (see especially the Cloud 62.14–19; cf. Pistle of Preier 54.5–11). Moreover, it should be noted that the most distinctive feature of Viae Sion lugent, its division of the contemplative way into the purgative, illuminative, and unitive stages, is unparalleled in the Cloud, although it does seem to have influenced two fifteenth-century tracts on the contemplative life which contain extracts from the Cloud (on these see P. S. Jolliffe, ‘Two Middle English Tracts on the Contemplative Life,’ Mediaeval Studies 37 [1975] 85–121, esp. 117–18). Sources must not be multiplied beyond necessity, especially when we know, on the Cloud author's own admission (in Deonise Hid Diuinite), that he knew Gallus’ interpretation of De mystica theologia.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See the text printed among the work of Bonaventure, S. Bonaventurae opera omnia (Venice 1751–55) 348, 353, 354, etc.; cf. the citations in Völker, Kontemplation und Ekstase 232–35. P. Dubourg's critical edition of Viae Sion lugent has yet to be published.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Glossa in PL 122.272a. Cf. the doctrine of the Explanatio, conveniently summarized by Völker, Kontemplation und Ekstase 228–29.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Cf. Gallus’ Extractio on De divinis nominibus, cit. Théry, Vie spirituelle, suppl. to vol. 32, p. 38: ‘It must be understood that our mind has a power for knowing, which we may call the speculative intellect [theoricus intellectus], by which the mind looks into intelligible things. The mind, moreover, has a power of union, which we call the highest point of the affection [summus affectionis apex], which the love of God properly brings to perfection,’ See also the extract from Gallus’ commentary on the Song of Songs cit. von Ivánka, ‘Intellectus oder Principalis Affectio’ 150.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ On Gallus’ belief that the apex intellectus is inferior to the apex affectus see Walsh, ‘Sapientia Christianorum’ 82, cf. Lees, The Dionysian School 204.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ The Cloud, ed. Hodgson, lxxv.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Benjamin minor 3–6, PL 196.3a–6a.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Benjamin minor 73, PL 196.52d.Google Scholar

⁶² See especially Benjamin minor 75–78, 80, PL 196.53d–56a.Google Scholar

⁶³ The Cloud, ed. Hodgson, lxxiii–lxxv; cf. Benjamin major in PL 196.164v–69d.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ The Cloud, ed. Hodgson, lxii; cf. lxx–lxxi.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ ‘We know that every precious thing — gold and silver, and precious stones — is usually placed in an ark. Therefore, if we consider the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, we shall quickly discover what the storehouse of such treasures is. What ark will be suitable for this activity, except the human intelligence?’ (PL 196.65C; trans. Zinn 153, to which I have made one alteration).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Cf. Book of Privy Counselling 152.3–18, 157.27 to 158.16.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Benjamin minor 5, PL 196.5b; trans. Zinn 58.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ PL 196.4d. Later schoolmen emphasized such positive and commendable functions of the imagination in discussing the imaginative or phantastic or cogitative power (these different terms and divisions having been used by different authorities). See Steneck, Nicholas H., The Problem of the Internal Senses in the Fourteenth Century (Ph.D. thesis; University of Wisconsin 1970) 15–16, 52–54, 63–64, 68–73, etc.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Benjamin minor 6, PL 196.5d–6a.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Cf. the excellent discussion by Burrow, John, ‘Fantasy and Language in The Cloud of Unknowing,’ Essays in Criticism 27 (1977) 283–98.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Glossa in PL 122.274d.Google Scholar

⁷² Grossatesta al ‘De Mystica theologia,’ ed. Gamba, 34–36.Google Scholar

⁷³ Cf. Mystical Theology and Celestial Hierarchies, trans. the Editors of the Shrine of Wisdom, 21–28. The ideas found therein were very influential. See for example the prologues to the De proprietatibus rerum of Bartholomaeus Anglicus and Étienne de Bourbon's Tractatus de diversis materiis predicabilibus, cit. Minnis, ‘Langland's Ymaginatif’ 88–90. Typical of the scholastic uses made of the opening chapters of De caelesti hierarchia is Thomas Aquinas’ commentary on the De Trinitate of Boethius, 6.2, ‘Should we entirely abandon the Imagination in Divine Science?’ Sacred Scripture, Aquinas claims, does not present divine things to us under sensible things so that our intellect may stop with them, but in order that it may rise from them to the immaterial world. From Dionysius and other authorities he derives the doctrine that, while we must employ imagery in all our knowledge of the divine (the imagination being necessary to us in this present life), with regard to such matters we must never terminate there. See St. Thomas Aquinas: The Divisions and Methods of the Sciences, 3rd rev. ed. by Armand Maurer (Toronto 1963) 66–72.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ ‘So God's holy ordination, which is the beginning of perfection, condescending to make our most holy hierarchy in a supernatural way an imitator of the angelic hierarchies, designated in the holy Scriptures the actual angelic hierarchies, which are in themselves immaterial, by various material figures and composed forms, that we (according to our individual capacity) should, by the holy significations of forms which are comprehensible to the senses, be upraised to the contemplation of celestial virtues which are simple and without form, and always remain the same.Google Scholar

‘For it is not possible for our mind to be raised up to that immaterial imitation and to the contemplation of the heavenly hierarchies unless our mind itself (as far as its present condition allows) uses the guidance given by material signs; considering, as the result of inner judgment, that kinds of beauty discernible to our senses are images of that beauty which cannot be seen, and that pleasing smells, discernible to our senses, are expressions of diffusion that cannot be so discerned, and that actual visible lights are images of light which is open only to the understanding, and that the cognitive understanding of the holy Scriptures is the image of that all-embracing contemplation which fully satisfies minds…, … and one must draw a similar conclusion about any number of other things, which describe appropriately heavenly substances in a way that is beyond worldly understanding, but are taught to us in the Scriptures under the guise of figures that can be grasped by the senses’ (Dionysiaca: Recueil donnant l'ensemble des traductions latines des ouvrages attribués au Denys l'Aréopagite, ed. P. Chevallier [Paris 1937] II 1043–44, sections 734–37).

⁷⁵ McQuade, J. S., Robert Grosseteste's Commentary on the ‘Celestial Hierarchy’ of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite: An Edition, Translation, and Introduction to his Text and Commentary (unpub. Ph.D. thesis; Queen's University of Belfast 1961) 20. This edition was completed by James McEvoy, Robert Grosseteste on the Celestial Hierarchy of Pseudo-Dionysius: An Edition and Translation of his Commentary, Chapters 10–15 (unpub. M.A. thesis; Queen's University of Belfast 1967).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ ‘For they describe unseen things by the forms of visible things and impress them upon our memories by the beauty of desirable forms. Thus they promise a land flowing with milk and honey; sometimes they name flowers or odours and describe the harmony of celestial joys either by human song or by the harmony of bird-song. Read John's Apocalypse and you will find that the heavenly Jerusalem is often described as being adorned with gold and silver, pearls, and other precious gems. Yet we know that none of these things are in that place from which no good thing is absent… . And we can immediately imagine these things when we like. The imagination can never be more useful to the reason than when she ministers to it in this way’ (Benjamin minor 15, PL 196.10d–11b; trans. Clare Kirchberger, Richard of St. Victor: Selected Writings on Contemplation [London 1957] 92–93).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Glossa in PL 122.276a.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁷⁹ PL 122.276c.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Cf. Deonise Hid Diuinite, ed. Hodgson, 126n.; also her appendix 97–98.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Dionysiaca, ed. Chevallier, II 1038.Google Scholar

⁸² ‘Similarly, these things which we have written about the descriptions of invisible things rendered in terms understood by the senses, do not reveal the invisible things fully, but convey a notion of them to us and elucidate them, lest we hold down our minds in descriptions based on images, seeking nothing beyond or above that. But let us learn by means of the abovementioned to investigate the unseen truth in other figures which can be understood by the senses’ (Dionysiaca, ed. Chevallier, II 1066).Google Scholar

⁸³ Cf. the careful identification of other symbols in chapters 71 and 73 of the Cloud, ed. Hodgson, 126.16 to 127.13; 128.12 to 129.10.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Explanatio, in MS Royal 8.6.IV fol. 44^r: ‘non habentes oculos idest in principali affectionem, quo oculis intellectualis non attingit’; Glossa in PL 122.270d: ‘in isto statu verbi nec ratio investigando palpat, nec intelligentia contemplando considerat, radiis aeternaliter simplicibus et effectualiter multiplicibus superfundit caelestes mentes, quae sibi totae sunt oculus, vel quae non utuntur materialibus sensibus.’ Cf. Deonise Hid Diuinite 2.24–6: ‘… Þoo soules Þat ben not hauyng iƷzen of mynde. And for alle Þees Þinges ben abouen mynde, Þerfore wiþ affeccyon abouen mynde as I may, I desire to purchase hem vnto me… .’ The reference to affection is not found in the Saracene's Latin, as Hodgson points out in her edition, 121 n.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Grossatesta al ‘De mystica theologia,’ ed. Gamba, 25. Hugh and Richard of St. Victor identify three types of eye: the eye of bodily sense, the eye of reason, and the eye of the understanding. See Benjamin major 3.9, PL 196.118d–19d; Hugh of St. Victor: Selected Spiritual Writings, trans. by a religious of C.S.M.V. (London 1962) 176–81, 183–86. This seems to be a development of St. Augustine's classification of three kinds of vision, namely corporeal, spiritual, and intellectual. Peter of Limoges, writing in the 1260s or 1270s under the influence of Alhazel's theory of optics, identified four types of eye: the carnal eye, the inner eye, the mind's eye, and the heart's eye. See Clark, David L., ‘Optics for Preachers: The De oculo morali by Peter of Limoges,’ The Michigan Academician 9 (1977) 329–43. Much work remains to be done on the literary applications and implications of such ideas. For interesting approaches see Hagen, Susan K., The Pilgrimage of the Life of Man: A Medieval Theory of Vision and Remembrance (Ph. d. thesis; University of Virginia 1976); Pamela de Wit, The Visual Experience of Fifteenth-Century English Readers (unpub. D. Phil. thesis; University of Oxford 1977); Peter Dinzelbacher, ‘Die Visionen des Mittelalters: Ein geschichtlicher Umriss,’ Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 30 (1978) 116–28; J. S. Neaman, ‘Sight and Insight: Vision and the Mystics,’ Fourteenth Century English Mystics Newsletter 5.3 (1979) 27–43.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Cf. the similar imagery in A Pistle of Preier 54.5–12.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Glossa in PL 122.279d.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Grossatesta al ‘De mystica theologia,’ ed. Gamba, 24–25; cf. 39–41. Cf. Grosseteste's beautiful explanation of the image of a bright cloud sometimes applied to the angels in Scripture: ‘For a cloud has light within it hidden from us, which it receives from above, from both the sun and the other heavenly bodies. It has also the matter of light hidden from us, from which the gleams of light shine forth. It pours out plentifully these manifestations of light, received for the most part from the heavenly bodies as a whole, on the things below it, though these do not receive the light so fully, rather in proportion to their capacity to receive. Moreover, the cloud is the mother of rain, and, by sending showers on the bosom of the earth, it makes it conceive, bring forth, bud, and give life, growth, and maturity to its products; so that the cloud itself has the same properties, since the cause possesses more fully and more substantially the qualities it gives to the effects. Thus these properties of the clouds symbolise the angels’ properties; their being filled, indeed to overflowing, with the light that is hidden from us, namely God; they receive the first manifestations of this light without display, that is humbly, and bring it down plentifully to those below, giving them the maximum amount they can take. The clouds also signify that the angels conceive intelligible showers, of wisdom, that is, poured out by spiritual instruction, within the ability of the receivers; in order to bring forth, by reflection upon the instruction received, actions worthy of the teaching; to flower, through effort to extend their resolve into practice; to give life, by bringing them into act; to give growth by directing and repeating the actions; to give maturity by bringing them to a high point, and sustaining this; and those who pour out these showers possess these qualities in greater degree and more essentially’ (Grosseteste on the Celestial Hierarchy chs. 10–15, ed. and trans. McEvoy, 199–201).

⁸⁹ Alberti opera, ed. Borgnet, XIV 820.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ For Book 1 of the Scale I have used Wykes, Barbara E., An Edition of Book I of The Scale of Perfection by Walter Hilton (Ph.D. thesis; University of Michigan 1957); for Book 2, Hussey, S. S., An Edition from the Manuscripts of Book II of Walter Hilton's Scale of Perfection (unpub. Ph.D. thesis; University of London 1962). Since neither of these editions is widely available I have included in my text the book and chapter numbers, which will enable the reader to locate the passages in one of the many modernised versions, among which I have consulted those by Gerard Sitwell (London 1953) and Leo Sherley-Price (Harmonds-worth 1957). Dr. Wykes’ page numberings, and Dr. Hussey's page and line numberings, will be provided in footnotes.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Wykes 95.Google Scholar

⁹² Herein a man's soul is taken from ‘alle erly and flescly affeccions, fro vayne ouhtes and ymaginynges of alle bodili creatures, and as hit were mikel y-rauisched out of e bodili wittes …’ (Wykes 95).Google Scholar

⁹³ Hussey 126.1.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ ‘ffor a man schal nou t comen to gostli delit in contemplacion of Cristes godhede bute he come in ymaginacion bi bitternes and be compassion and be stedfast thinkenge of His manhode’ (Wykes 145–46).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ As Russell-Smith, Joy says, ‘Hilton was exceptional among writers of his time in giving close attention to the problems of the contemplative life lived in an active state, and … different features of the second treatise in the Scale illustrate concern with the spiritual progress of all Christians, no matter what their state of life’ (‘Walter Hilton,’ in Pre-Reformation English Spirituality, ed. James Walsh [London and New York 1965] 182–97 at 196). For elements which Hilton has in common with the so-called ‘religious handbook tradition’ see Milosh, Joseph E., The Scale of Perfection and the English Mystical Tradition (Madison 1966) 140–68. Yet these elements should not be emphasized disproportionately, in view of the highly sophisticated and sublime instruction found in the closing chapters of the Scale.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ See Ian Doyle, A., A Survey of the Origins and Circulation of Theological Writings in English in the Fourteenth, Fifteenth and Early Sixteenth Centuries, with Special Reference to the part of the Clergy Therein (unpub. Ph.D. thesis; University of Cambridge 1953) 243–75; cf. Lees, The Dionysian School 352–54.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ See Doyle, , Origins and Circulation of Theological Writings 276–77; Sargent, M. G., ‘The Transmission by the English Carthusians of some Late Medieval Spiritual Writings,’ Journal of Ecclesiastical History 27 (1976) 225–40 at 229–30, 237–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁸ Wykes 107.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Wykes 89–93.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Printed by Carl Horstman in Yorkshire Writers: Richard Rolle of Hampole and his Followers (London and New York 1895) I 264–92; modernized version in Minor Works of Walter Hilton, ed. D. Jones (London 1929) 3–77. On this treatise see Hussey, S. S., ‘Langland, Hilton, and the Three Lives,’ in Interpretations of Piers Plowman, ed. E. Vasta (Notre Dame, Indiana 1968) 232–58; Beale, W. H., ‘Walter Hilton and the Concept of “Medled Lyf,”’ American Benedictine Review 26 (1975) 381–94. A wealth of material relevant for a full assessment of the concept is included in Francis J. Steele, Definitions and Depictions of the Active Life in Middle English Religious Literature in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, including special reference to Piers Plowman (unpub. D. Phil. thesis; University of Oxford 1979).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Wykes 91.Google Scholar

¹⁰² ‘ e secounde partie of contemplacion lith principali in affection withouten li ht of vnderstondynge of goostli ynges’ (Wykes 91).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Wykes 93–94.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Wykes 95.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Hussey 225.7–8.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Hussey 101.19–102.2.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ On the patristic background of Hilton's concept of intellectus see now Clark, J. P. H., ‘Augustine, Anselm, and Walter Hilton,’ in Dartington Papers, ed. Glasscoe, 102–26.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Hussey 146.16.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Hussey 146.17–147.1.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Hussey 153.20–154.2.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Hussey 185.6–17.3.0.CO;2-U>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹² Hussey 136.18.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Hussey 139.5–19.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Hussey 136.4–15.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Hussey 124.6–13. Perhaps it should be emphasized that, although Hilton took over certain technical terms and certain formulations of traditional ideas from Richard of St. Victor, Richard cannot be regarded as being a determining influence on him. The point is rather that Hilton is employing some of Richard's terms and formulations within a framework determined especially by Augustine and Bernard. For example, Hilton's references to imagination are very much bound up with Bernard's doctrine of the carnal and spiritual types of love. I am indebted to J. P. H. Clark for valuable discussion of these facts.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Hussey 125.9–14.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Hussey 125.15–126.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹⁸ Wykes 88–89.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Hussey 128.5–129.5.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ De caelesti hierarchia 1; see the various Latin versions printed in Dionysiaca, ed. Chevallier, II 727–39.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Hussey 126.9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹²² ‘But who does not know how difficult it is — or rather how well-nigh impossible it is — for the carnal mind, as yet unskilled in spiritual pursuits, to rise up to knowledge of invisible things and to fix the eye of contemplation on them? Certainly up until now it knows nothing except corporeal things; nothing else occurs to one thinking except only the visible things he is accustomed to think. He seeks to see invisible things, but nothing occurs except forms of visible things. He longs to see incorporeal things, and he dreams nothing except the images of corporeal things. Therefore, what should he do? Is it not better to think of those things by any mode whatever than to commit them to oblivion and neglect?…… it [the mind] does what it can, and considers them in so far as it is able. It thinks by means of imagination because it does not yet have the power to see by means of purity of the understanding’ (Benjamin minor 14, PL 196.10b; trans. Zinn 66).Google Scholar

¹²³ Hussey 126.12–127.8.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Wykes 132–33.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Wykes 229–30.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Of Angels’ Song, ed. Takamiya, Toshiyuki in Two Minor Works of Walter Hilton (Tokyo 1980) 9–15. References are to Prof. Takamiya's page and line numberings.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ See the Scale 2.30 and 35 in toto; Hussey 122.14 to 132.22, 153.15 to 158.5.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Hussey 131.5–6.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Hussey 153.17–18; 157.19.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Grosseteste's Commentary on the ‘Celestial Hierarchy,’ ed. McQuade, 23. On the method and doctrine of this commentary see now McEvoy, The Philosophy of Robert Grosseteste 69–123.Google Scholar

¹³¹ I have used the text in British Library, MS Royal 11.B.X fols. 178^r–83^v. For discussion see Russell-Smith, Joy, ‘Walter Hilton and a Tract in Defense of the Veneration of Images,’ Dominican Studies 7 (1954) 180–214; Owst, G. R., Literature and Pulpit in Medieval England (Oxford 1966) 137–39. On these disputes see especially James Crompton, Lollard Doctrine with Special Reference to the Controversy over Image Worship and Pilgrimages (unpub. B. Litt. thesis; Oxford 1948), which concentrates on the anti-Wycliffite writings of John Deverose, a contemporary of Hilton's; also the Middle English treatise on images and pilgrimages edited by Anne Hudson, Selections from English Wycliffite Writings (Cambridge 1978) 83–88, 179–81; also Dives et Pauper, Commandment 1.1–11, ed. P. H. Barnum (EETS os 275 [London 1976] 81–104).Google Scholar

¹³² Cf. Gregory, St., Epistola 13, ‘Ad Serenum Massiliensem Episcopum,’ PL 77.1128–30. On the popularity of this dictum see Gougand, L., ‘Muta Praedicatio,’ Revue Bénédictine 42 (1930) 161–71; also de Wit, Visual Experience of Fifteenth-Century English Readers 14–17.Google Scholar

¹³³ On these notions see Ringborn, S., ‘Devotional Images and Imaginative Devotions — Notes on the Place of Art in Late-Medieval Private Piety,’ Gazette des Beaux-Arts ser. 6, 73 (1969) 159–70.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ The Repressor of Over Much Blaming of the Clergy by Reginald Pecock, ed. Babington, Churchill (Rolls Series 19; London 1860) I 212–13.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Ibid. I 269.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Hussey 136.8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³⁷ Wykes 181–83.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ The following discussion is indebted to Clark, J. P. H., ‘The ‘Lightsome Darkness” — Aspects of Walter Hilton's Theological Background,’ The Downside Review 95 (1977) 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³⁹ Hussey 88.9, 90.17, 93.8, 103.2, 109.16.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Cf. Clark, ‘The ‘Lightsome Darkness,”’ 98.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Hussey 88.9–11, 91.10–11.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Hussey 93.2–5.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Hussey 137.3–4, 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Hussey 141.5–8.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Hussey 142.13–21.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Hussey 141.12–13.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Hussey 144.21–145.9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Hussey 207.10–12.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ I am grateful to Professor John Burrow and the Reverend J. P. H. Clark for reading earlier drafts of this article and making valuable comments and suggestions. Thanks are due also to Professor James McEvoy, who stimulated and helped to inform my interest in the ‘Medieval Dionysius,’ to Dr. Brian Scott for invaluable assistance with several Medieval Latin texts, and to Jennifer FitzGerald for kindly helping me through some of the relevant Italian scholarship.Google Scholar