CHANGING PARADIGMS IN HISTORICAL

AND SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

General Editors
Sarah Coakley Richard Cross

This series sets out to reconsider the modern distinction between “historical”
and “systematic” theology. The scholarship represented in the series is
marked by attention to the way in which historiographic and theological
presumptions (“paradigms”) necessarily inform the work of historians of
Christian thought, and thus affect their application to contemporary
concerns. At certain key junctures such paradigms are recast, causing a
reconsideration of the methods, hermeneutics, geographical boundaries, or
chronological caesuras which have previously guided the theological
narrative. The beginning of the twenty-first century marks a period of such
notable reassessment of the Christian doctrinal heritage, and involves a
questioning of the paradigms that have sustained the classic “history-of-
ideas” textbook accounts of the modern era. Each of the volumes in this
series brings such contemporary methodological and historiographical
concerns to conscious consideration. Each tackles a period or key figure
whose significance is ripe for reconsideration, and each analyzes the implicit
historiography that has sustained existing scholarship on the topic. A variety
of fresh methodological concerns are considered, without reducing the
theological to other categories. The emphasis is on an awareness of the
history of “reception”: the possibilities for contemporary theology are
bound up with a careful rewriting of the historical narrative. In this sense,
“historical” and “systematic” theology are necessarily conjoined, yet also
closely connected to a discerning interdisciplinary engagement.

This monograph series accompanies the project of The Oxford Handbook of

the Reception of Christian Theology (Oxford University Press, in progress),
also edited by Sarah Coakley and Richard Cross.
 CHANGING PARADIGMS I N H ISTORICAL
A ND SY STEMA TIC T HEOLOGY
General Editors: Sarah Coakley (Norris-Hulse Professor of Divinity, University
of Cambridge) and Richard Cross (John A. O’Brien Professor of Philosophy,
University of Notre Dame)

RECENT SERIES TITLES

Calvin, Participation, and the Gift

The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ
J. Todd Billings
Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers
Shaping Doctrine in Nineteenth-Century England
Benjamin J. King
Orthodox Readings of Aquinas
Marcus Plested
Kant and the Creation of Freedom
A Theological Problem
Christopher J. Insole
Blaise Pascal on Duplicity, Sin, and the Fall
The Secret Instinct
William Wood
Theology as Science in Nineteenth-Century Germany
From F. C. Baur to Ernst Troeltsch
Johannes Zachhuber
Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance
Paul L. Gavrilyuk
Knowledge, Love, and Ecstasy
in the Theology of
Thomas Gallus

BOYD TAYLOR COOLMAN

1
 3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Boyd Taylor Coolman 2017
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2017
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016946817
ISBN 978–0–19–960176–9
Printed in Great Britain by
Clays Ltd, St Ives plc
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
“Hitherto you have experienced truth only with the abstract
intellect. I will bring you where you can taste it like honey and
be embraced by it as by a bridegroom.”
C. S. Lewis, The Great Divorce
 Acknowledgments

This book began with an email I received from Sarah Coakley at

Harvard Divinity School (whom I did not yet know personally) in the
fall of 2006, only a year after I arrived at Boston College. Since I was
the only person she could identify who seemed to know something
about Thomas Gallus, she said, would I write a chapter on him for her
book project, Re-Thinking Dionysius, on the Western traditions of
reception and interpretation of the Areopagite? Suppressing the
impulse to correct her misperception, I agreed immediately, deciding
to embrace what seemed like providential “manna” from Cambridge.
At that moment, in fact, I knew only that Gallus was the oft-styled
“last of the great medieval Victorines” (after Hugh and Richard) and
wrote in difficult, recondite Latin. Nevertheless, I began to study him
in earnest, and so entered the lush, but often impenetrably dense
thickets of the Gallusian wilds.
A year later, Sarah began gathering several of us from the Boston
area, including Garth Green, Mark McInroy, Paul Kolbet, and Paul
Gavrilyuk (on sabbatical at Harvard Divinity School), monthly in her
Cambridge dining room for tea and conversation around yet another
of her interests, namely, the spiritual senses tradition. During these
rich stimulating exchanges, as I began increasingly to insert Thomas
Gallus into the conversation, Sarah seemed intrigued, and soon came
another invitation: Would I consider authoring a book on Gallus for
the New Paradigms series with Oxford? I was in the middle of a book
on Hugh of St. Victor at the time, but again found myself nodding in
acceptance, sensing that I was crossing some sort of Rubicon. In
retrospect, I was.
Inevitably, I suppose, this book took longer to write than expected,
but would have taken far longer were it not for numerous expediencies.
Over the next several years, I taught four different doctoral seminars
(2007, 2009, 2012, and 2015) on the affective tradition of Dionysius
reception in the Middle Ages. A veritable host of graduate students, too
numerous to be named here, pitched in with the labors of pouring over
translations of, and wresting coherent interpretations from, Gallus’
corpus. Members of the most recent seminar offered critical feedback
on early chapter drafts. Along the way, two dissertations emerged from
viii Acknowledgments
these seminars, James Arinello’s Boston College (2012) dissertation on
the theme of simplification in Gallus, and Craig Tichelkamp’s current
Harvard Divinity School dissertation on Gallus, both of which have
been quite stimulating for my own thinking. I wish also to thank my
undergraduate research fellows, Scott Maloney and Jack Marriott, for
their labors with notes and bibliography.
This book would also not have been possible without Declan
Lawell’s remarkable, prodigious labors on critical editions of several
of Gallus’ works, especially of the Explanatio in libri Dionysii, Gallus’
massive final commentary on the Dionysian Corpus, which runs to
nearly one thousand pages in Brepols’ Corpus Christianorum Con-
tinuatio Medievalis edition (2011).
Several individuals offered insightful critiques on earlier manu-
script drafts, including Richard Cross, Fr. Robert Imbelli, Declan
Lawell, Robert Lawrence, Chad Raith, Warren Smith, and Craigh
Tichelkamp, and the anonymous Oxford reviewer.
No doubt, with a project extending over a long period of time,
I have overlooked others who merit mention. Apologies to those
I have missed!
Finally, as always, I owe an incalculable debt to my wife, Holly
Taylor Coolman, for her constant support and seemingly limitless
patience, as well as her faithful companionship, in discipleship, in
scholarship, and in life.
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/11/2016, SPi

Contents

List of Abbreviations xi
Note to the Reader xiii

Introduction: The Medieval Affective Interpretation

of Dionysius 1

Part I Foundations and Structures

1. Pleromatic and Ecstatic Trinity 31
2. Plethoric Diffusion in Creation 56
3. Receptive and Ecstatic Human Nature 74

Part II Ascending
4. “Lingering in the Dominions” 107
5. “Becoming a Throne for God” 126
6. “Every Kind of Knowledge” 138
7. “The Wisdom of Christians” 159

Part III Descending

8. “As Oil Poured Forth” 199

Part IV Remaining
9. “Remaining in Blessed Intoxication” 215
Conclusion: Eternally Spiraling into God 232

Glossary 259
Bibliography 261
Index 269
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/11/2016, SPi
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/11/2016, SPi

List of Abbreviations

ABBREVIATIONS OF THE WORKS

OF THOMAS GALLUS

Cmm2-CC Second Commentary on the Canticle of Canticles

(1237/38)
Cmm3-CC Third Commentary on the Canticle of Canticles (1243)
The two works above are cited as follows: [abbreviation]
[chapter][section letter].[page]; e.g. in “Cmm2-CC 1A.222,” “1”
is the chapter number, “A” is the section letter, and “222” is the
page number of the cited passage. Unfortunately, the critical
editions of these two works do not contain line numbers.
Glss-AH Glose super Angelica Ierarchia (1224)
Expl-MT Explanatio in librum De mystica theologia (c.1241)
Expl-DN Explanatio in librum De divinis nominibus (1242)
Expl-AH Explanatio in librum De angelica ierarchia (1243)
Expl-EH Explanatio in librum De ecclesiastica ierarchia (1244)
The five works above are cited as follows: [abbreviation]
[chapter].[page].[line]; e.g. in “Expl-MT 1.222.33–33,” “1” is
the chapter number, “222” is the page number, and “33–33” are
the line numbers of the cited passage.
Spec-cont. Spectacula contemplationis (1244–6)
This work is cited as follows: [abbreviation] [section]
[paragraph].[page].[line]; e.g. in “Spec-cont 1.2.333.44–44,” “1”
is the section number, “2” is the paragraph number, “333” is the
page number, and “44–44” are the line numbers of the cited
passage.

ABBREVIATIONS OF THE
WORKS OF DIONYSIUS

CH The Celestial Hierarchy

DN The Divine Names
EH The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy
MT The Mystical Theology
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/11/2016, SPi

xii List of Abbreviations

OTHER ABBREVIATIONS

CD Corpus Dionysiacum. See Corpus Dionysiacum, 2 vols., ed. Beate

Schula, Gunter Heil, and A. M. Ritter. Patristische Texte und
Studien, vols. 33 and 36 (Berlin and New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 1990–1).
Vg Vulgate version of the Christian Bible. See Biblia Sacra iuxta
Vulgatem Versionem, ed. Robert Weber et al. (Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983).
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/11/2016, SPi

Note to the Reader

Note on Gallus’ Works

In this volume, the texts of the Dionysian Corpus found in Gallus’
commentaries are all printed in SMALL CAPS letters, following the prece-
dent of Lawell’s criticial editions, in order more clearly to set them
apart from Gallus’ own glossings and comments.
All the translations of the works of Thomas Gallus are mine, unless
otherwise noted. Apart from a few excerpts, there are no English
translations of any of the works of Thomas Gallus.

Note on Translations
For the works of pseudo-Dionysius, two translations were used:
(1) Dionysius the Areopagite, Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete
Works, tr. Colm Luibheid and Paul Rorem (New York and
Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1987).
(2) Dionysius the Areopagite, The Works of Dionysius the
Areopagite, tr. John Parker (London: Parker, 1897).
Though the former is the most recent and oft-cited translation of the
Dionysian Corpus, the latter is often more literal and provides a closer
rendering of the text on which Gallus himself is commenting.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/11/2016, SPi
 Introduction: The Medieval Affective
Interpretation of Dionysius

Christian theology has long pondered the relationship between the

knowledge and love of God. From its Jewish roots, it knew the ideal
human relationship with God to be an act of love that involved the
whole person—Deut. 6:5: you shall love the LORD, your God, with
your whole heart, and with your whole being, and with your whole
strength—implicating all human capacities and acts. Jesus summed
up the “Law and the Prophets” by reference to this text, and his
version, found in all three synoptic gospels, includes explicit reference
to the mind, as well as heart, soul, and strength (cf. Matt. 22:37, Mark
12:30, Luke 10:27). The New Testament writings, generally, attest an
intimate interplay between knowing and loving, which is especially
present within the Johannine literature: He who does not love does not
know God (1 John 4:8) and if anyone says he knows God and does not
love, he is a liar (1 John 4:20). At the same time, the New Testament
also conveys a preeminence of love in relation to knowledge. Perhaps
the Letter to the Ephesians best captures the complex relationship
between knowing and loving God found there, as well as the ultimate
preeminence placed on love: To know also the love of Christ, which
surpasses all knowledge: that you may be filled unto all the fullness of
God (Eph. 3:19).1 Here, apparently and perhaps paradoxically,
through love, an act of knowing somehow exceeds all knowing.
Love is not only the condition for and correlative to knowledge; it
somehow goes further, surpasses what humans can know, exceeds

1
Eph. 3:19 (Vg): “scire etiam supereminentem scientiae caritatem Christi ut
impleamini in omnem plenitudinem Dei.”
2 Introduction
what they can understand (like the peace which surpasses all under-
standing, Phil. 4:7), and precisely in so doing constitutes human
fulfillment in relation to God.
Early on, though, as Christian thinkers began more robustly to
engage and appropriate Greek philosophical traditions, the New
Testament insistence on the preeminence of love confronted another
worldview. It had to come to terms with an “affirmation that human
beings are defined specifically by logos, called ratio in Latin, and
accordingly by ‘reason’ and ‘rationality’,”2 or with a conception of
the human as, in the well-known words of Aristotle, “by nature
desiring to know.”3 Not only that, but this anthropology corres-
ponded to a fundamental assumption about reality itself. Here, all
that is real, “the ensemble of the knowable: physis, in Latin, natura,” is
“grasped through the logos,” is “given to thought and is given for us to
think it.”4 That is, a dominant tradition within classical Greek phil-
osophy insisted on the strict coextension of being and knowing: All
that exists is knowable and all that is knowable exists.5
Yet in the tradition stemming from Plato’s Symposium and devel-
oped by Plotinus and others, Neoplatonism complicated this account
by stressing not only the radical transcendence of the One (beyond
being), but also the role of desire or even love, construed erotically
(ἔρως, amor), as a yearning to possess the inaccessible One in its
beauty, in the soul’s quest for union therewith.6 So in his own way
Plotinus could affirm something similar to the author of the Letter to
the Ephesians: “For each is what it is by itself; but it becomes desirable

2
Jean-Yves Lacoste, “On Knowing God through Loving Him: Beyond ‘Faith and
Reason’,” in Jeffrey Bloechel (ed.), Christianity and Secular Reason: Classical Themes
and Modern Developments (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2012),
127–51, at 127.
3
Aristotle, Metaphysics, vol. VIII, Bk. 1,1, trans. W. D. Ross (Oxford, Clarendon
Press, 1924).
4
Lacoste, “On Knowing God,” 127–8.
5
Perl, Theophany, 13. “[W]e must recognize that for Dionysius, as for Plotinus,
God is simply not anything, not ‘there’ at all. If our thought cannot attain to God, this
is not because of our weakness, but because there is no ‘there’ there, no being, no thing
that is God. Nor can God be ‘infinite being’ since on Neoplatonic terms, that is a
contradiction of the principle that to be is to be intelligible and therefore to be finite.”
6
Plotinus, Enneads VI.7 [38] 22 (tr. A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge, MA: Loeb
Classical Library, 1966)): “It is as if it was in the presence of a face which is certainly
beautiful, but cannot catch the eye because it has no grace playing upon its beauty.
So here below also beauty is what illuminates good proportions rather than the good
proportions themselves, and this is what is lovable.”
 Introduction 3
when the Good colours it, giving a kind of grace to them and
passionate love to the desirers. Then the soul, receiving into itself
an outflow from thence, is moved and dances wildly and is all stung
with longing and becomes love [ἔρως γίνεται] . . . ”7 When the move-
ment of highest contemplation occurs, “if it is to be something like a
touch, has nothing intelligible about it.”8 Here too is a “knowing”
beyond all typical knowledge, a knowledge ecstatic with inebriating
love: “Intellect in love, when it goes out of its mind ‘drunk with
nectar’.”9
At the fertile nexus of these Hellenistic and Christian traditions,
two new, interrelated issues were raised, more or less explicitly: On
the one hand “that of an act of understanding in which we exceed our
definition as ‘rational animal’,” and, on the other hand, as a corollary
of the first, “that of an object of understanding that exceeds the field
of physis.”10 Put otherwise, a central, double-sided assumption of the
Christian intellectual tradition emerged, namely, that of a God who
transcends the real and who is only accessible in fullness above or
beyond reason. Linking the two is the classically Christian notion of
excess—of a God whose nature exceeds the natural and of a creature
capable of exceeding its nature in relation to that God.11 Thus was
born the Christian category of “supernature,”12 though the term did
not emerge immediately, and the subsequent history of theology was
burdened with the task of negotiating the boundary between the natural
and the supernatural and the attendant “gap” between a created cosmos
accessible to reason and a transcendent Creator exceeding the human
logos. And even though Christians insist that God has bridged the
divide by sending his own logos to reveal himself, to make the invisible
God visible and knowable, divine self-revelation does not simply make

7 8
Plotinus, Enneads VI.7 [38] 22. Plotinus, Enneads VI.7 [38] 39.
9
Plotinus, Enneads VI.7 [38] 35.
10
Lacoste, “On Knowing God,” 128.
11
This is not to overlook the fact that non-Christian thinkers like Plotinus
(d. 270) also developed similar conceptions of radical divine transcendence, as well
as a concomitant postulate that humans must transcend “knowing” in order to
experience the One.
12
Lacoste, “On Knowing God,” 128: “In the meantime, certainly prepared for a
long time, there appears in the work of Scheeben an entity such as the ‘supernature’
(French surnature, German Übernatur). For the unity of the Greek cosmos there will
thus have been substituted a theory of two worlds—the world of reason and the world
of faith—a frontier will have been traced.”
4 Introduction
new “data” available to a new supernatural mode of knowing called
faith.13 As indicated above, in both Christian and Neoplatonic tradi-
tions, the encounter with a truly transcendent God necessarily and
intimately implicates the role of love. Properly speaking, therefore, a
central problematic of the Christian intellectual tradition is not simply
that of “faith and reason,” but of reason and faith-love, or of faith acting
through and perfected by love (Gal. 5:6). The question—Is knowing or
loving the more fundamental and essential human capacity that enacts
the ideal relationship with God?—thus became perennial for Christian
thought. St. Augustine may have summed it up best: Surely, the
unknown cannot be loved; but can the unloved truly be known?14 If
not, then how precisely are knowledge and love related? What, more-
over, does love know?15 The early and medieval periods in particular
are littered with paradigms, both explicit and implicit, for navigating
and narrating the intricate interplay between knowing and loving God.
One such paradigm, virtually unknown outside a small group of
scholars, is found in the corpus of the thirteenth-century theologian,
Thomas Gallus (d. 1246). An idiosyncratic thinker and enigmatic writer,
Gallus’ paradigm is, if nothing else, highly original. The assumption
animating the argument that follows, however, is that his view is not
merely unique; rather, it harbors a profound intuition about knowledge
and love, couched within a highly integrated Neoplatonic worldview,
including a metaphysic and an anthropology, which may well offer
inspiration, even insight for contemporary reflection on the matter.
Reduced to barest essentials, Gallus’ paradigm ultimately priori-
tizes the soul’s capacity for love (he prefers the term affectus) over
merely intellectual knowledge (intellectus). His mystical theology is
thus rightly classified as affective rather than intellective. But while for
Gallus love exceeds knowledge, his unique theological anthropology
allows him to avoid pitting the two starkly against one another and
enables him in fact to posit a reciprocal (rather than rival) relation-
ship between them, one that is both complex and dynamic, wherein
love both builds upon and subsumes knowledge, as well as fosters and

13
Cf., Vatican I, Dei Filius 4.4: “For the divine mysteries, by their very nature, so
far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and
accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and shrouded, as
it were, in darkness, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord . . . ”
14
Cf., Augustine, Confessions I.1.1.
15
Cf., Augustine, Confessions VII.10.16: “love knows it” (caritas novit eam).
 Introduction 5
fecundates it. Not only that, but in the end Gallus offers a distinctive
account of the nature of love itself, what he calls a “cognitio affectiva,”
an “affective knowledge,” whereby human persons encounter “Him
who is truly known by love alone.”16

* * * * *
In the ancient northern Italian town of Vercelli, in the Piedmont region,
stands the Gothic Basilica di Sant’Andrea, constructed with remarkable
speed between 1219 and 122717—the former being the very year in
which a university master and regular canon of the famous Abbey of St.
Victor in Paris arrived there.18 Known then variously as Thomas of
Paris (Thomas Parisiensis) or Thomas of St. Victor, but more commonly
today as Thomas Gallus, he would spend nearly the rest of his life in
Vercelli, itself already a millennium old and lying in the shadow of the
snow-capped Italian Alps. Today,19 in a transept chapel of the basilica,
to the right of the main altar, a large funerary monument depicts Gallus
teaching an assembled group of students, marking his death by recalling
his life as a revered scholar and teacher of the religious community that
he shepherded as abbot until his death in 1246.20 Both basilica and
monument bear stately witness to an important but little-known chap-
ter in the history of medieval theology and mysticism.21

16
Thomas Gallus, Cmm2-CC 3A.85: “ . . . eum qui sola dilectione veraciter cog-
noscitur, iuxta illud: qui diligit me, usque illud: manifestabo ei me ipsum, Io. 14, et 1 Io.:
si quis dicit se nosse Deum et non diligit, mendax est.”
17
See Martina Schilling, “Celebrating the Scholar and the Teacher: The Tomb of
Thomas Gallus at Sant’ Andrea in Vercelli (mid-14th century),” in A Wider Trecento:
Studies in 13th- and 14th-century European Art presented to Julian Gardner, in Louise
Bourdua and Julian Gardner (eds), Visualizing the Middle Ages, vol. 5 (Leiden: Brill,
2011), 117–41.
18
As Schilling notes (“Celebrating the Scholar,” 115, n. 10), the exact date of
Gallus’ arrival is debated, though it must have been before 1224, when he was
named “prior” of the abbey. In 1225, he was named “abbot.”
19
My gratitude to Boston College for a research grant that allowed me to visit
Vercelli in 2012.
20
Produced in the mid-fourteenth century, the monument “is lavishly decorated
with sculpture and fresco painting and presents us with an elaborative figure
programme, thus combining high artistic quality with a conspicuous invitation to
remember the man and reflect upon the early history of the abbey” (Schilling,
“Celebrating the Scholar,” 117).
21
See Bernard McGinn, “Thomas Gallus and the New Dionysianism,” in The
Flowering of Mysticism: Men and Women in the New Mysticism (1200–1350), vol. 3:
The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism (New York: Cross-
roads, 1998), 78–87.
6 Introduction
Born in the late twelfth century, perhaps in France (as his surname,
the “Frenchman,” suggests), Gallus was teaching at St. Victor22 in
Paris and active on the university scene there in the first two decades
of the thirteenth century.23 Beginning with Hugh of St. Victor
(d. 1141), and continuing with Achard (d. 1172), and especially with
Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173), the distinctive theological tradition of
the “school of St. Victor” had flourished throughout the twelfth
century. Often styled the last of the great medieval Victorines, Gallus
seems to have become a master of theology between 1210 and 1218,
during which time he likely lectured to the Abbey’s students, who
ministered in local parishes and priories, especially to the student
population.24 Around 1218–19, at the request of the papal legate to
England and France, Cardinal Guala Bicchieri,25 he (with two other
canons) went to Vercelli to found an abbey and hospital dedicated to
Saint Andrew.26 Apparently chosen for his typically Victorine com-
bination of scholarly rigor and spiritual ardor, he became prior of the
abbey in 1224, and abbot before 1226, a role which came to define him
in the manuscript traditions of his writings as the “Abbot of Vercelli”
(Thomas Abbas Vercellensis). After two decades as abbot, interrupted
only by a year in England in 1238 and a brief period of exile in 1243,27

22
The abbey of St. Victor was founded in Paris by William of Champeaux in 1108
and housed an Augustinian order of regular canons.
23
See Marshall E. Crossnoe, “Education and the Care of Souls: Pope Gregory IX,
the Order of St. Victor and the University of Paris in 1237,” Mediaeval Studies 61
(1999): 137–72, at 165, n. 98.
24
Crossnoe, “Education and the Care of Souls,” 169.
25
See M. Schilling, “Victorine Liturgy and its Architectural Setting at the Church
of Sant’Andrea in Vercelli,” Gesta 42:2 (2003): 115–30, at 115. Himself a native of
Vercelli, Bicchieri established both a monastery and hospital in his home town. He
seems to have been attracted by the sanctity and erudition of the Parisian Victorines
and thus sought their presence and leadership in this new foundation.
26
See M. Capellino, Tommaso il Primo Abate di S. Andrea (Vercelli: 1982), 9–13.
27
As abbot, Gallus was on good terms with both the emperor, Frederick II and the
popes. Such a precarious situation could not be expected to last, however, in view of
the tensions between Church and empire at the time, especially when war broke out
between the Guelphs of Vercelli and the Ghibellines of Ivrea, a neighboring town.
Unable to maintain neutrality (the Bicchieri family itself was involved with the
Ghibelline faction in Ivrea), Gallus was forced to flee Vercelli and take refuge in
Ivrea after many serious accusations were lodged against him by the papal supporters.
It seems however he did manage to return to Vercelli before his death (see G. Théry,
“Thomas Gallus: Aperçu biographique,” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du
moyen âge 12 (1939): 141–208, at 208).
 Introduction 7
Thomas Gallus died and was buried in the Basilica of Sant’Andrea at
Vercelli in 1246.28
The artistic features of the eight-hundred-year-old basilica, “one of
the earliest examples of Gothic style in Italy,”29 evoke the larger story to
be told. In the early twelfth century, as Gothic architecture first emerged
in medieval Paris, it did so under the influence, at least in part, of a
mysterious corpus of texts of late-antique origin, attributed today to
“pseudo-Dionysius.”30 So-called because its sixth-century Greek-
speaking Syrian Christian author cloaked himself in the pseudonym
of a first-century “Dionysius the Areopagite,” he is described in Acts 17
as a Greek convert to Christianity, under the influence of the apostle
Paul’s preaching at the Areopagus in Athens. The Corpus Dionysiacum
(CD), with its metaphysical vision of divine light flowing down into and
refracted through the “veils” of material realities, provided a theological
rationale and inspiration for the aesthetic impulses animating such
early sponsors of Gothic architecture as Suger of St. Denis, and the
Gothic cathedral Suger produced, bearing the French version of
the name of this inspiration (Denis=Dionysius).31 This Dionysian
influence on early Gothic architecture is all the more significant
because it was likely mediated to Suger by the writings and teachings
of Hugh of St. Victor,32 who produced one of the first medieval
commentaries on the Dionysian text, The Celestial Hierarchy.33 The
fact that modern art historians assume that the Gothic style of

28
For other surveys of Gallus’ life and works, see Declan Lawell, “Affective Excess:
Ontology and Knowledge in the Thought of Thomas Gallus,” Dionysius 26 (2008):
139–74; J. Barbet, “Thomas Gallus,” Dictionnaire de spiritualité ascétique et mystique,
ed. M. Viller and C. Baumgartner (Paris: Beauchesne, 1991), vol. 15, cc. 800–16;
K. Ruh, Die Mystik des deutschen Predigerordens und ihre Grundlegung durch die
Hochscholastik, vol. 3: Geschichte der abendländischen Mystik (Munich: Beck, 1996),
59–81.
29
Schilling, “Celebrating the Scholar,” 117.
30
See Paul Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius: A Commentary on the Texts and an Intro-
duction to Their Influence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 16.
31
See Patrice Sicard, “L’urbanisme de la Cité de Dieu: constructions et architec-
tures dans la pensée théologique du XIIe siècle,” in L’abbé Suger: le manifeste gothique
de Saint-Denis et la pensée victorine (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001) 109–40.
32
See Grover A. Zinn, Jr., “Suger, Theology, and the Pseudo-Dionysian Tradition,”
in Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: A Symposium, ed. Paula Lieber Gerson (New York,
1986), 33–40.
33
In the ninth century, John Scotus Eriugena also wrote a commentary on The
Celestial Hierarchy. See Paul Rorem, Eriugena’s Commentary on the Celestial Hier-
archy (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2005).
8 Introduction
Sant’Andrea was a result of the presence of Gallus and his associates
from St. Victor links the basilica directly to this twelfth-century
Victorine-Dionysian convergence.34
But what the basilica subtly intimates, the funerary monument
vividly illustrates. At the base of the monument, Gallus is seen kneel-
ing before the Virgin, who holds an infant Jesus on her lap. On the
opposite side, two unidentified figures stand attentively: The first
seems to be St. Catherine of Alexandria, patroness of philosophers;
the second is clearly a bishop, and is very likely St. Dionysius.35 While
the former is commonly seen in medieval art, the latter is found rather
infrequently and his presence at Gallus’ tomb is quite significant, for
it illustrates his life-long obsession with the CD on which he wrote
commentaries at least twice,36 over the course of twenty years (“with
such vigilance! with such labor!”37 as he himself put it), including his
mature magnum opus, the Explanatio (1242–5), his final commentary
on each of the treatises in the Dionysian Corpus.38 He also wrote at
least two commentaries on the Song of Songs,39 which are profoundly
Dionysian in character. Gallus was thus in the vanguard of the early
thirteenth-century revival of interest in the CD, often described as
the “second wave”40 of medieval Dionysius reception, especially

34
See Schilling, “Victorine Liturgy,” 118f.
35
Schilling, “Celebrating the Scholar,” 123. Saint Dionysius was bishop of Paris
during mid-third century and seems to have been martyred during the Decian
persecution, shortly after AD 250.
36
An inscription once visible on the funery monument, but now effaced, referred
to Gallus as “summeque peritus / Cunctis in artibus liberalis, atque magister / In
hierarchia” (see Schilling, “Celebrating the Scholar,” 121). The reference to Gallus as
“master in hierarchy” clearly reflects his medieval fame as commentator on Dionysius.
37
Cited in Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius, 218f.
38
Thomas Gallus, Explanatio in Libros Dionysii, ed. Declan Anthony Lawell
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 223.
39
See Jeanne Barbet, Un Commentaire du Cantique attribué à Thomas Gallus
(Paris-Louvain: Béatrice-Nauwelaerts, 1972). The two authentic commentaries have
been edited by Barbet (Gallus, Commentaires du Cantique des Cantiques, pp. 65–104
and 105–232). There is a partial English translation of the first authentic commentary
in Denys Turner, Eros and Allegory: Medieval Exegesis of the Song of Songs (Kalamazoo,
MI: Cistercian Publications, 1995), 317–39.
40
The first wave occurred in the ninth century through the work of Eriugena. In
addition to Thomas Gallus, Robert Grosseteste and Albert the Great were both part of
this second wave (James McEvoy, “Thomas Gallus, (Abbas Vercellensis) and the
Commentary on the De Mystica Theologia ascribed to Iohannes Scottus Eriugena.
With a Concluding Note on the Second Latin Reception of the Pseudo-Dionysius
(1230–1250),” Traditions of Platonism: Essays in Honour of John Dillon, ed. J. J. Cleary
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999), 389–405, at 403–4).
 Introduction 9
evident at the University of Paris. His lasting impact on medieval
theology is a result of roughly a quarter century of engagement with,
and assimilation of, Dionysian thought.

A HISTORIOGRAPHICAL LACUNA

Gallus’ reception of the CD might have died with him in his Vercellian
obscurity (far from the intellectual centers of Europe) had he not
enjoyed a close relationship with the nascent Franciscan order there.
Around 1228, the Franciscans transferred a studium from Padua to
Vercelli, and Gallus seems to have had personal acquaintance with
St. Anthony of Padua,41 as well as Robert Grosseteste, the latter of
whom he may have met in 1238 when visiting England.42 Gallus and
Grosseteste seem to have exchanged some writings through the
agency of Grosseteste’s associate, the Franciscan Adam Marsh. Did
the Franciscans at their new Vercelli studium avail themselves of this
local Parisian master in town?43 It seems likely, since some of Gallus’
most fundamental and distinctive ideas seem to have made their way
into the intellectual bloodstream of the medieval Franciscans, espe-
cially, as noted below, in the thought of St. Bonaventure.
Whatever the case, neither Thomas Gallus himself, nor his era has
received sufficient attention. His career spans a period of remarkable
intellectual innovation, institutional consolidation, and spiritual fer-
ment in medieval Europe, which set the stage for the better-known

41
The Franciscan John Peckham (1230–92), thirteenth-century archbishop of
Canterbury, suggests that Gallus had a supernatural encounter with the soul of the
recently deceased Anthony. See his Legendae Sanctii Antonii presbyteri et confessoris
benignitas nuncupatae fragmina quae supersunt in Vita del “Dialogus” e “Benignitas”:
introduzione, testo critico, versione italiana e note a cura di Vergilio Gamboso
(Padova: Edizioni Messagero, 1986), 552–6.
42
See Daniel Callus, “The Date of Grosseteste‘s Commentaries on the Pseudo-
Dionysius and the Nichomachean Ethics,” Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et
Médiévale 45 (1947): 194–5; James Walsh, Sapientia Christianorum: The Doctrine of
Thomas Gallus Abbot of Vercelli on Contemplation (Rome, 1957), 19–29.
43
See Schilling, “Celebrating the Scholar,” 125. Here again, the funerary monu-
ment is intriguingly suggestive. Though not easily seen by the casual observer, close
inspection of the image in which Gallus is seen teaching his Victorine students
(dressed like him), reveals that on the side panels of the arched frame a figure
appearing to be a Franciscan (another appears to be a Cistercian) is shown attending
to Gallus’ teaching.
10 Introduction
accomplishments of later generations. Bound and punctuated by four
crusades: The Fourth (1198), Fifth (1217), Sixth (1228), and Seventh
(1248), this is the period of Innocent III and the pinnacle of medieval
papal power (plenitudo potestatis); of the Fourth Lateran Council
(1215); of the emergence of St. Dominic de Guzmán (d. 1221) and
St. Francis of Assisi (d. 1226) and their mendicant orders; of the
formal organization of the universities, especially Paris and Oxford;
of the installment of Peter Lombard’s Sentences as the cornerstone
of university theology, with such university masters as William of
Auxerre, William of Auvergne, Philip the Chancellor, Robert Gros-
seteste, Alexander of Hales, John of La Rochelle, Odo Rigaud, and
Roger Bacon all active during this period. By the time of Gallus’ death,
the young Bonaventure and Thomas had begun their studies at Paris.
This era also witnessed the emergence of other intellectual currents
destined to have a profound impact on the later Middle Ages, namely,
the beginning of the encounter with and deeper assimilation of the
full Aristotelian corpus. Not only Aristotle, but also his Arabic com-
mentators like Avicenna and Averroes exercised the minds of uni-
versity theologians during this time, as did new Greek patristic
sources in Latin translation, such as John of Damascus and (as
noted) pseudo-Dionysius, injecting a distinct form of Neoplatonic,
mystical consciousness into the intellectual milieu to form a complex
“mélange” of Neoplatonic and Aristotelian thought forms. At the
same time, new forms of piety spawned what Bernard McGinn has
called “vernacular/mystical” forms of theology, championed in large
part by women writers, such as Hadewijch of Brabant and Beatrice of
Nazareth, ushering in the great age of “women’s theology.”
Within this crucial, but neglected epoch, Thomas Gallus remains
an elusive, shadowy figure, his corpus largely unstudied,44 his the-
ology essentially unknown.45 When referred to at all, he is typically

44
In addition to the critical editions already cited, Declan Lawell has also published
editions of other works by Gallus: “Qualiter vita prelatorum conformari debet vite
angelice: A Sermon (1244–1246?) Attributed to Thomas Gallus,” Recherches de Théo-
logie et Philosophie Médiévales 75:2 (2008), 303–36; and “Spectacula contemplationis.
A Treatise (1244–1246) by Thomas Gallus,” Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie
Médiévales, 76:2 (2009), 249–85.
45
On Gallus’ theology, see Mario Capellino, Tommaso di San Vittore: Abate
Vercellese (Vercelli: Biblioteca della Società Storica Vercellese, 1978); Robert Javelet,
“Thomas Gallus ou les Écritures dans une dialectique mystique.” In L’homme devant
Dieu: mélanges offerts au Père Henri de Lubac (Paris: Aubier, 1963), 99–119; Kurt
 Introduction 11
noted as the last of the great medieval Victorines, standing in the
theological tradition of Hugh (d. 1141) and Richard (d. 1173) of
St. Victor. His role in the revival of interest in the Dionysian Corpus
among early thirteenth-century scholastics is also noted. The prepon-
derance of the limited Gallus scholarship has tended to stress this last
point, depicting him as the primary architect of, and the fundamental
inspiration for a medieval trajectory of anti-intellectual “affective
Dionysianism.” Yet, his thought as a whole and in its own right has
not been studied. He produced a substantial body of written work,
which constitutes a highly original, comprehensive theological vision,
which may perhaps be fruitfully pondered even today.

THE CORPUS DIONYSIACUM

A relatively small body of texts (four extant treatises and a collection

of ten letters), the CD has exercised an influence in both eastern and
western mystical theology (and in other spheres, such as angelology
and political theory) inversely proportional to its size.46 Successfully
passing itself off as the secret teaching of one of the Apostle Paul’s
closest associates (until its first-century authorship was seriously
questioned in the Renaissance and its fifth-/sixth-century provenance
definitely established only in the nineteenth), it was granted an
authority second only to Scripture itself. But this would not have
occurred apart from the compelling sublimity and power of the
theological world that it projects,47 which still attracts critics and

Ruh, Frauenmystik und franziskanische Mystik der Frühzeit, vol. 2, Geschichte der
abendländischen Mystik (Munich: Beck, 1990); James Walsh, “Thomas Gallus
et l’effort contemplatif,” Revue d’histoire de la spiritualité 51 (1975): 17–42. For recent
English-language surveys of Gallus’ theology, see James McEvoy, Mystical Theology:
The Glosses by Thomas Gallus and the Commentary of Robert Grosseteste on De
mystica theologia (Paris: Peeters, 2003), 3–54; McGinn, “Thomas Gallus and Dionys-
ian Mysticism,” Studies in Spirituality 8 (Louvain: Peeters, 1998): 81–96, which is a
slightly expanded version of his discussion of Gallus in The Flowering of Mysticism;
and Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius, 218–19; Declan Lawell, “Ne De Ineffabili Penitus
Taceamus: Aspects of the Specialized Vocabulary of the Writings of Thomas Gallus,”
Viator 40:1 (2009): 151–84.
46
See Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius, 3–4.
47
Hans Urs von Balthasar speaks for many when he notes that “such power, such
radiance of holiness streams forth from this unity of person and work . . . that he can
in no case be regarded as a ‘forger’ . . . ” and that the author’s work was “an original
12 Introduction
admirers alike, scholarly and popular, despite the sober historical
facts regarding its authorship.48
Arguably, the most compelling feature of the Dionysian universe is
its profound synthesis of Christian theology, scriptural exegesis, and
ecclesial liturgy on the one hand, and the late antique Neoplatonism
of Plotinus and especially Proclus, on the other. Much modern debate
has revolved around the question of which is more fundamental: The
Christianity or the Neoplatonism. For present purposes it suffices to
refuse the dilemma, as Bernard Blankenhorn has recently done, and
to acknowledge simply that the Areopagite is “at once deeply Chris-
tian and Neoplatonic.”49
Severely simplified, the central issue in the CD emerges between
two apparently incompatible assumptions, namely, that an infinite
“distance,” at once ontological and epistemological (on the Neopla-
tonic assumption that being (ousia) and intellection (noesis) are two
sides of the real50) separates the transcendent Source of all from the
all of which it is the Source; and that rational creatures (humans
and angels) are destined for union with that Source, a union that
transcends all being and intellection, yet a union in which God is
somehow “known (ginoskon) beyond the mind (nous).”51 The short-
est, but arguably most influential of the Dionysian treatises, The
Mystical Theology, which tersely encapsulates the teaching of the
entire CD, attributes this enigmatic experience to Moses in his ascent
of Mt. Sinai. As he proceeds, Moses leaves behind all sense-perception
and intellection, and at the apex of this ascent, plunges into the “cloud

whole of such character and impact that none of the great theological thinkers of the
following ages could avoid him” (Studies in Theological Style: Clerical Styles, vol. 2,
The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, tr. Erasmo Leiva-Merikakis (San
Francisco: Ignatius, 1984), 147).
48
See, for example, Re-thinking Dionysius the Areopagite, eds. Sarah Coakley and
Charles M. Stang (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009) and the 2008 issue of the American Catholic
Philosophical Quarterly devoted entirely to the significance of the CD.
49
Bernhard Blankenhorn, OP, The Mystery of Union with God: Dionysian Mysti-
cism in Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas (Washington, DC: Catholic University
of America, 2015), xv.
50
DN 1.4 (Luibheid, 53): “If all knowledge is of that which is and is limited to the
realm of the existent, then whatever transcends being must also transcend
knowledge.”
51
MT 1.3 (Luibheid, 137): It may be that the CD intends a consistent distinction
between “intellection” (noesis) and “knowing” (gnosis), such that while there is no
intellection (noesis) of God, there is the possibility of gnosis of God beyond intellect
(nous).
 Introduction 13
of unknowing,” united to God through an absolute negating and utter
transcending of all intellectual capacities. The problematic, on one
hand, is properly theological: How is a God, who radically transcends
all being and intellection, accessible? In what sense is God “available”
for union? On the other hand, it is anthropological: What in the
rational creature is capable of such a union with such a God? The
CD’s resolution to these questions is subtle and complex, and so
the CD has remained remarkably provocative, often alluring, and
frequently controversial over the centuries.52
While both issues are interrelated, much medieval interpretation
and reception of the CD focused on the anthropological–
epistemological side. As will be seen, Gallus’ unique contribution is
his inauguration of a novel interpretation of the CD on just this issue.

THOMAS GALLUS AND THE MEDIEVAL

RECEPTION OF THE CD

Gallus’ distinctive interpretation of the CD may be introduced help-

fully by tracing its medieval influence in reverse chronological order.53
One of the most popular works from the later Middle Ages, the
fourteenth-century, Middle English Cloud of Unknowing,54 articulates
an account of mystical experience that is strongly influenced by the
Dionysian insistence on divine unknowability. In the face of this claim,

52
Cf. two recent summaries of the CD: Eric D. Perl: “The dominant motif running
through the thought of Dionysius is the dialectical unity of hiddenness and manifest-
ation” (556), such that “No one could insist more radically on the absolute unknow-
ability, indeed the more-than-unknowability, of God. . . . And no one could affirm
more audaciously that all things are nothing but the manifestation and presence of the
more-than-unknowable God” (557) in “Announcing the Divine Silence,” American
Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 82:4 (2008): 555–60, at 556–7; and Bernard McGinn:
“The theological center of Dionysius’ concern is the exploration of how the utterly
unknowable God manifests himself in creation in order that all things may attain
union with the unmanifest Source” (The Foundations of Mysticism, vol. 1, The
Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism (New York: Crossroad
(1991)), 161).
53
I am indebted to Paul Rorem for this particular strategy of introducing Gallus’
influence.
54
The Cloud of Unknowing, trans. James Walsh, S. J. (New York: Paulist Press,
1981). Hereafter, Cloud, followed by chapter and page number.
14 Introduction
the anonymous author consistently assumes a rigid dichotomy
between knowledge and love as the soul moves toward God, with a
pronounced predilection for the latter. Every soul has two powers, “a
knowing power” and a “loving power,” and “God is always incompre-
hensible to the first, the knowing power.”55 But, “our soul . . . is wholly
enabled to comprehend by love the whole of him who is incompre-
hensible to every created knowing power.”56 “Therefore,” the author
declares, “it is my wish to leave everything that I can think of, and to
choose for my love the thing that I cannot think. Because [God] can
certainly be loved, but not thought.”57 When the Cloud author pens a
Middle English paraphrase of the Dionysian treatise, The Mystical
Theology,58 entitled Denis’s Hidden Theology, he goes even further,
interpolating (with no basis in either the original Greek or in the later
Latin translation59) the following: “For since all these things are beyond
the reach of mind,” they can only be reached “with affection above
mind.”60 So, “you shall be carried up in your affection, and above your
understanding to the substance beyond all substances, the radiance of
the divine darkness” (emphasis added).61
While the Cloud of Unknowing is a well-known medieval classic, less
well known is the fact that it follows a novel interpretation of the CD
that had emerged only in the preceding century. What is the source
of this interpretation of Dionysius, and of the particular conception of
mystical experience entailed in it? Two earlier authors, who also inter-
preted the Dionysian text in this way, and whose writings may have
influenced the Cloud author, are the Carthusian, Hugh of Balma
(d. c.1300), and the well-known Franciscan, St. Bonaventure (d. 1274).

55 56
Cloud IV, 123. Cloud IV, 122–3.
57
Cloud VI, 130. While the Middle Ages are often thought of in terms of the
relation between faith and reason, the love–knowledge question, on display here, is
arguably as important, both for the medievals themselves and for moderns after them.
Such are often unwittingly influenced by a voluntarist, anti-intellectual conception of
the relation between intellect and affect that emerged at the end of the Middle Ages, as
exemplified in the Cloud author. See Denys Turner, “How to Read the Pseudo-Denys
Today?” International Journal of Systematic Theology 7:4 (2005), 428–40.
58
“Denis’s Hidden Theology,” in The Pursuit of Wisdom and Other Works by the
Author of the “Cloud of Unknowing,” trans. James Walsh, S. J. (New York: Paulist
Press, 1988).
59
Paul Rorem argues that “the Areopagite’s ascent to union with God through
knowing and unknowing dominates The Mystical Theology so completely that there is
no reference whatsoever to the role of love in the ascent” (Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius,
215–16).
60
“Denis’s Hidden Theology,” ch. 1.75.
61
“Denis’s Hidden Theology,” ch. 1.75.
 Introduction 15
In his The Roads to Zion Mourn,62 Hugh devotes a scholastic “quaestio”
to the “very difficult question” of the love–knowledge relationship in the
highest reaches of the ascent. In the end, he too sides with affection
above understanding, though not without some careful nuance.63
Before him, Bonaventure insisted in one of his earliest works that “the
most excellent knowledge which Dionysius teaches . . . consists in
ecstatic love, and it transcends the knowledge of faith.”64 At the end
of The Soul’s Journey into God,65 the Franciscan describes the soul’s final
“passing over” (transitus) out of itself and into God as an affective
ecstasy of love over knowledge: “In this passing over, if it is to be perfect,
all intellectual activities must be left behind, and the height of our
affection (apex affectus totus) must be transferred and transformed
into God.”66 This statement is then followed by an extended quotation
from the first chapter of Dionysius’ The Mystical Theology, which
describes the required abandonment of all sense perception and intel-
lectual activity in the approach to the one “who is above all essence and
science (essentiam et scientiam).”67
While the texts of these two authors are certainly precedents for the
interpretation of the CD found in the Cloud of Unknowing, the Cloud
author himself greatly assists the quest to identify the primary influence
on his text. In the Prologue to his “Denis’s Hidden Theology,” noted
above, he explicitly cites his source: “In translating [The Mystical The-
ology], I have given not just the literal meaning of the text, but in order
to clarify its difficulties, I have followed to a great extent the renderings
of the Abbot of St. Victor, a noted and erudite commentator on this
same book.”68 This “abbot of St. Victor” is none other than Thomas
Gallus, the first to interpret the Dionysian Mystical Theology thus.69

62
Hugh of Balma, The Roads to Zion Mourn, trans. Dennis Martin (New York:
Paulist Press, 1996).
63
Hugh of Balma, Roads to Zion Mourn, 155–70.
64
In III Sent d. 24, a. 3, q. 2, dub. 4, Commentaria in quator libros Sententiarum, in
Opera Omnia (Quarrachi 1–4).
65
Bonaventure, The Soul’s Journey into God, in Bonaventure: The Soul’s Journey
into God, The Tree of Life, The Life of St. Francis, tr. Ewert H. Cousins (New York:
Paulist Press, 1978).
66
Bonaventure, The Soul’s Journey, 7.4.
67
Bonaventure, The Soul’s Journey, 7.5.
68
“Denis’s Hidden Theology,” Prol.1.74.
69
The same affective interpretation of Dionysius is also found in the first dateable
Latin commentary on The Mystical Theology (see McEvoy, “Thomas Gallus,” 404),
called the Exposicio (1233) or “Gloss,” which has been attributed to Gallus. There the
author offered several glossings to this Dionysian text, which in both its original Greek
16 Introduction
Around 1238, Gallus penned a “simplifying paraphrase”70 of The Mys-
tical Theology, called the Extractio,71 in which he explicitly interpolates
an affective interpretation directly into this of the Dionysian text. There,
Gallus wrote that Moses is “united to the intellectually unknown God
through a union of love (dilectionis), which is effective of true cogni-
tion (vera cognitio), a much better cognition than intellectual cogni-
tion.”72 Here, for the first time, the very text of The Mystical Theology
acquired an affective dimension, which it had lacked heretofore.73
Scholars have dubbed this the “affective tradition” of medieval
Dionysius reception, inasmuch as what distinguishes it from other
medieval strands of Dionysian interpretation is its insistence that in
the mind’s ascent to God the problem of divine unknowability is in
some fashion negotiated by love. While the text of The Mystical
Theology of Dionysius contains no references to charity, love, delight

version and subsequent Latin translation is consistently concerned with the intellec-
tual acts of affirmation and negation, saying nothing specifically of affection or love.
Commenting on chapter one, for example, he argues that the “peak of the divine
secrets . . . is called beyond height, because the intelligence (intelligencia) fails at it in
virtue of the transcendent uniting of the affection (affeccionis unicionem)” (Exposicio
I.1, 20/21). He exhorts: “rise up . . . in knowing ignorance . . . by means of the principal
affection (principalem affectionem)” to God, who is “incomprehensibly above all
knowing” (Exposicio I.2, 22/23). Recently, however, Declan Lawell has argued con-
vincingly that Gallus did not author the Exposicio. (See Lawell, “Thomas Gallus’s
Method as Dionysian Commentator: A Study of the Glose super Angelica Ierarchia
(1224), Including Some Considerations on the Authorship of the Expositio librorum
beati Dionysii,” Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 76 (2009),
89–117).
70
McEvoy, Mystical Theology, 4.
71
The Extractio is edited in Denys the Areopagite, Dionysiaca: Recueil donnant
l’ensemble des traditions latines des ouvrages attribués au Denys l’Aréopage, ed.
Philippe Chevalier, 2 vols. (Paris: Desclée, 1937–50). Rorem notes that Gallus’ Extra-
ctio “was immediately and immensely popular as an alternative and easier way to
extract the Areopagite’s meaning.” The semi-official corpus that circulated in the
thirteenth century, which Rorem has felicitously dubbed the “annotated Aereopagite,”
consisted of the translations by Eriugena and Sarracenus, the Scholia, the commen-
taries by Eriugena and Hugh, and the Extractio by Gallus (Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius,
218–19). McEvoy adds that it was “in constant use from a few years after his death
down to the times of Jean Gerson and Vincent of Aggsbach” (McEvoy, “Thomas
Gallus,” 404).
72
Extractio on The Mystical Theology 1 in Dionysiaca, ed. Chevalier, 710.578.
73
In both of these texts, Gallus has extended Hugh of St. Victor’s basic intuition—
that Dionysius himself had taught the superiority of love over knowledge in the
divine–human encounter—by doing what Hugh (nor apparently anyone else) had
never done: interpolating love into the very text of The Mystical Theology.
 Introduction 17
or to the affections generally,74 in this affective tributary of Dionysius
reception inaugurated by Gallus,75 when Moses (as the paradigmatic
mystic) finally abandons all intellectual activity, he is united to the
unknown God through love.76

THE WISDOM OF CHRISTIANS

In the broadest sense, Gallus presents this distinctive teaching on the

nature of love and its relation to knowledge in terms of wisdom. The
depiction in Sant’Andrea of Gallus kneeling before the Virgin,
attended by Sts Catherine and Dionysius, artfully captures this
over-arching theme of his entire theological project. Catherine was
the patroness of philosophers; Dionysius was a Greek philosopher
converted to the foolishness of the cross, a foolishness, however, that
was the truest form of wisdom (cf. 1 Cor. 1:25). Gallus may thus be
seen as bringing non-Christian wisdom into right relationship to the
wisdom of Christ, represented by the Mother of God, through the
writings of this apparently first pagan philosopher turned Christian
theologian and confidant of the apostle Paul. Explaining and extolling
the “wisdom of Christians” was Gallus’ life-long pursuit.77

74
The role of love in the CD as a whole is debated among specialists. For his part,
Paul Rorem argues that “the Areopagite’s ascent to union with God through knowing
and unknowing dominates The Mystical Theology so completely that there is no
reference whatsoever to the role of love in the ascent” (Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius,
215–16). Others like Blankenhorn, Golitzin, Louth, etc. see a more prominent role for
love, on the basis of other texts in the CD.
75
Though Gallus inaugurates this tradition, he likely drew inspiration from Hugh
of St. Victor who argued that “love surpasses knowledge and is greater than intelli-
gence” (Super Ierarchiam Dionysii (ed. Poirel, 560; PL 175.1038D)). See Paul Rorem,
“The Early Latin Dionysius: Eriugena and Hugh of St. Victor,” in Coakley and Stang,
Re-thinking Dionysius, 71–84.
76
Arguably, this medieval interpolation of love over knowledge is produced by the
convergence of two theological traditions flowing through the western Middle Ages:
an Augustinian assumption that God is fully known and loved in a beatific visio Dei,
which is the goal of human existence, and the Dionysian insistence that God is
radically and transcendently unknowable. The affective reading of Dionysius is one
of several medieval strategies for resolving this contradiction. See Simon Tugwell, O.P.,
“Introduction,” Albert and Thomas: Selected Writings (New York: Paulist Press,
1988), 70–3.
77
Hugh of St. Victor too prefaced his Commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy
(Super Ierarchiam Dionysii, ed. Dominique Poirel, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio
Mediaevalis 228 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015)) with a discussion regarding the difference
18 Introduction
In his final commentary on The Mystical Theology, his Explanatio
in librum De mystica theologia (c.1241), Gallus offers a programmatic
formulation on this theme, by distinguishing two forms of wisdom, in
terms of two types of knowing, or more precisely, of cognition: “We
arrive at cognition of God,” he says, “in two ways.”78 Both modes of
cognitio Dei are forms of wisdom, but they are distinct.79
The first mode is “intellectual,” which Gallus intends in the broad-
est sense of any and all activities of reason or intellect engaged with
all that falls under the category of being. It is “practiced chiefly by
natural reason” (ratio) or the “by the intellect (intellectus).” It involves
the investigation of visible or sensible things, along with their “invis-
ible natures, reasons, causes, etc.” as well as of “invisible natures,” and
their “properties, virtues, powers, dispositions, etc.” [e.g. angels].
Both of which “we both experience in our minds and comprehend
through common understanding (intelligentiam).” From these it
even ascends “up into divine and eternal visions,” to consider intelli-
gible aspects of the divine nature, insofar as they are “consonant
with human reason.” It employs, moreover, “human teaching and
proper study,” and to it “pertain all the liberal doctrines [arts], not
only of the pagan philosophers, but also of the catholic doctors
and the holy fathers, which either through intellectual study or teach-
ing are able to be compared by mortals and can be led back into
the faculty of the common intelligence.” Gallus calls this the “first
and common mode of cognizing God,” by which he seems to mean
something accessible to Christian and non-Christian thinkers alike.

between the philosophical wisdom of the world and the true wisdom of Christians,
found in the Incarnate Christ and his sacraments. That the above-noted author of the
Cloud of Unknowing also named one of his treatises “The Pursuit of Wisdom,”
wherein he adopts a similar approach to wisdom, reflects Gallus’ influence.
78
Expl-MT 1.3.3–4.
79
It may be that Gallus’ distinction corresponds to another, oft-noted Dio-
nysian distinction between two types of theology, described in Letter IX. But,
since Gallus does not explicitly comment on this letter, it is impossible to be
certain: “Besides, we must also consider this, that the teaching, handed down by
the Theologians is two-fold—one, secret and mystical—the other, open and better
known—one, symbolical and initiative—the other, philosophic and demonstra-
tive;—and the unspoken is intertwined with the spoken. The one persuades, and
desiderates the truth of the things expressed, the other acts and implants in
Almighty God, by instructions in mysteries not learnt by teaching” (Letter 9,
Parker, 170–1).
 Introduction 19
Under “catholic doctors and holy fathers,” he unsurprisingly singles
out “all the books of blessed Dionysius that are extant, namely, On the
Celestial Hierarchy, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, On the Divine
Names.” Under “pagan philosophers,” who “made no little progress”
in this domain, he points to Aristotle, “who taught through his
theoretical works (the Physics, the book On the Soul, and the Meta-
physics) to ascend as if by steps from the visible things of the world to
the invisible things of God.”80
From this list of Dionysian texts associated with intellectual
wisdom Gallus has excluded the one on which he is about to com-
ment in his Explanatio, “which we now have in our hands,” namely,
The Mystical Theology. On his reading of this work, “Dionysius
hands down another and incomparably more profound mode of
cognizing God, namely, a mode beyond understanding and beyond
being.” Behind this lies the Dionysian assumption, embraced by
Gallus (and anticipating some post-modern thinkers81) that God is
above, beyond, and “without being”: “How can [God] be called
‘He Who Is’ or ‘Being’,” asks Gallus, “who come[s] before all being
and [is] in excess above all being?”82 This assumption about the
apparently unbridgeable chasm yawning between God and creation
leads Gallus to deny that the divine essence can ultimately be
understood by any created intellect. But at the same time, he posits
the existence of another mode of cognition that is capable of
traversing that chasm, namely, an affective mode. Its “faculty” is
not the intellect (intellectum), still less, reason (ratio); rather it is
“the principal affection” (principalis affectio), also called the “the
spark of the soul” (scintilla synderesis), and this alone is capable of

80
Expl-MT 1.3.4–9. Cf. Hugh of St. Victor’s theology, to which Aristotle seems to
be assimilated here. The only mention of “theologia” in the Didascalicon is as an
Aristotelian sub-discipline of philosophy.
81
See, for example, Jean-Luc Marion, God Without Being: Hors-Texte (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2012); Don Cupitt, After God: The Future of Religion
(New York: Basic Books, 1997); or Richard Kearney, Anatheism: Returning to God
After God (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).
82
Expl-DN 1.48.37–8: “Aut quomodo ‘Qui Est’ vel ‘Ens’ diceris, qui omne ens
prevenis et superexcedis?” As Lawell notes (“Affective Excess,” Dionysius 26 (2008):
139–74, at 140): “Gallus here is tentatively wondering about the validity of a name (the
tetragammaton YHWH) used by God of himself in Exodus 3, 14. This scriptural and
theological authority was given its most well-known metaphysical foundation by
Thomas Aquinas . . . ”
20 Introduction
union with God. Strikingly, Gallus calls this a “cognitive power” (vis
cognitiva), which “exceeds the intellect no less than the intellect
exceeds reason (ratio), and reason [exceeds] imagination.” This
stress on what might be called “affective excess,”83 a going beyond
the normal, intellectual modes of cognition, is significant. Those
who attain this “go beyond (excedunt) in contemplation of mind”;
rather “they go beyond the mind [itself],” citing Psalms: But I said
in the excess of my mind (Ps. 30) and I said in my excess (Ps. 115:2).
In a striking image, Gallus speaks of “a great, passionate boiling over
of love (aestu dilectionis) into God and a strong reaching out (forti
extensione) of the soul” Godward. This affective act, accordingly, is
literally “ec-static,” an exceeding of the mind itself. Gallus reminds
his readers that Dionysius characterizes “love” (dilectio) as “ecstasy-
causing” and that “the great Paul” was so filled with its “ecstasy-
causing power” that he exclaimed: I live, yet not I but Christ lives in
me (Gal. 2), while the Song of Songs says this ecstatic love is as
strong as death (ch. 8), “separating and alienating” the soul from its
normal modes of knowing. The apparent implication is that not
only does this ecstatic affectivity exceed the other inferior powers,
but it also requires the cessation of their proper activities: It “sus-
pends the activity of the senses, of imagination, of reason, of
intellect, both practical and theoretical, and excludes every under-
standing (intellectum) and every intelligible (intelligibile), and tran-
scends being and one (ens et unum).” This is the elaborated basis for
the medieval trajectory of affective Dionysian reception, noted
above in relation to the author of the Cloud of Unknowing, where
knowledge and love are pitted against one another: In its ascend-
ancy, the activity of love appears not only to surpass, but also to
suppress the activity of intellect.84

83
See Lawell’s “Affective Excess,” 139.
84
Gallus’ affective cognitio Dei may correspond in some way to a Dionysian
distinction between “learning” (mathein) and “undergoing” (experiencing or
suffering) (pathein) something, found in Letter 9, and also in DN 2.9’s depic-
tion of Hierotheus “suffering (pathōn) divine things,” which itself seems to go
back to Plato and Aristotle: “It recalls even more vividly what Aristotle said
about the Eleusinian mysteries, that there the initiates do not learn (mathein)
anything, rather they experience (pathein, or suffer) something” (Andrew
Louth, Denys the Areopagite (Wilton, CT: Morehouse-Barlow, 1989), 25).
 Introduction 21
Gallus celebrates this affective cognition as the “wisdom of
Christians,”85 and he often styles it “the best portion of Mary” (Luke
10), far excelling the intellectual wisdom of Martha86 (trading on a

85
According to Torrell (Saint Thomas Aquinas, vol. 2: Spiritual Master (Washington,
DC: Catholic University of America Press (2003)), 90–9), Thomas Aquinas also seems
to make a similar distinction between two kinds of wisdom, as Torrell observes:
“[Aquinas] clarifies that there are two types of wisdom: one, theological wisdom,
which is obtained through study (per studium); the other, the effect of the gift of
wisdom of the Holy Spirit, which is obtained by infusion (per infusionem).” While the
terminology differs, a distinction similar to Gallus’ seems implied. The first kind of
wisdom involves an intellectual act that judges even divine matters “in a human way;
one is more or less wise to the degree that one is more or less learned about divine
things.” Again: “one can judge of divine things from the point of view of the inquiries of
reason, and this derives from wisdom as intellectual virtue.” By contrast, the second
kind of wisdom “is the fruit of a freely-granted divine gift, and the judgment which it
procures derives from a knowledge by connaturality.” That is to say, “the one enlight-
ened by the gift of wisdom possesses an intimate familiarity with divine things,” which
familiarity Aquinas finds exemplified in the Dionysian figure of Hierotheus, who
“became wise not only by studying, but by experiencing the divine (non solum discens,
sed patiens divina)” (ST I, q. 1, a. 6 and ad 3). Again, the perception of these things “by
connaturality” belongs to that wisdom which is a gift of the Holy Spirit, as in the case of
Hierotheus who had perfect knowledge of divine things because he had learned them
by lived experience: “This ‘compassion’ or connaturality with divine things is the work
of charity which properly unites us to God: ‘he who unites himself to God is one spirit
with Him’ (1 Cor. 6:17).” Torrell suggests that in this regard “Thomas is most clearly
distinguished from his contemporaries, for whom theological wisdom was in itself a
delightful knowledge [connaissance].” This would not seem to be the case, however, in
relation to Gallus. Intriguingly, Aquinas also invokes the same scriptural passage used
by Gallus to make the distinction. “According to Thomas, it is this wisdom to which
St. Paul refers when he affirms that ‘the spiritual man judges all things’ (1 Cor. 2:15);
and St. John, in asserting that the ‘anointing [of the Holy Spirit] will teach you all
things’ (1 John 2:27).” In his Scriptum on the Lombard’s Sentences, Aquinas “charac-
terizes the knowledge obtained through the gift ‘as an intuitive grasp’ (cognitio simplex)
of the realities of the faith which are at the origin of all Christian wisdom [hence
knowledge through the supreme cause]. The gift of wisdom thus culminates in a
deiform and in a certain sense explicit contemplation (deiformem contemplationem)
of the realities which faith holds implicitly in a human manner (Sentences III, d. 35, q. 2,
a. 1, qc. 1, ad 1).” Torrell suggests “theological contemplation” in contrast to “mystical
contemplation”: the former “remains available to human initiative”; the latter, “with-
out separating itself from faith, is primarily directed by the gift and depends entirely on
divine generosity.” Torrell cites one last text to clarify the difference: “[Besides specu-
lative knowledge], there is also an affective or experiential knowledge of the divine
goodness or the divine will; one experiences in oneself the taste of the sweetness of God
and the lovability of the divine will, according to what Denys says of Hierotheus who
learned divine things from having experienced them in himself. We are thus invited
to experience the will of God and to taste His sweetness” (ST II-II, q. 97, a. 2, ad 2). See
also ST II-II.45.2, ad 2). See the discussion in Longergan’s Verbum, CWL 2, 99–104.
86
Expl-DN 1.54.112–19: “[Adverting to 1 Cor. 2:4, ‘not in the persuasive words of
human wisdom, but in showing of the Spirit and power,’ Gallus says] Celestial wisdom
22 Introduction
venerable typology that prefers the contemplative nature of Mary of
Bethany over the active disposition of her sister, Martha). Affective
wisdom, in contrast to the intellectual kind, “does not know [God] in a
mirror or enigmatically (speculum et enigma) (cf. 1 Cor. 13), through
the veil of created things. Hence “it will not be taken away” (Luke 10).
Rather, it brings about the direct, unmediated “union” (coniunctio)
with God that is “often sighed for (suspirita) and sometimes obtained
in the Song of Songs,” which book is for Gallus principally concerned
with the experience of this form of wisdom. On Gallus’ reading, this is
also the central teaching of The Mystical Theology, wherein Dionysius
offers a “super-intellectual theology,” teaching that “God is not to be
cognized (cogitare) as some speakable or thinkable being, such as life,
power, either divinity or goodness, etc., but as inestimably separate
and placed beyond comparison (supercollocatum) with everything
existing and intelligible.” For God is “only cognized by the discern-
ment of those who are spiritual (spirituali examinatione) (1 Cor.
2:14),” who, through their loving union with the Spirit of God, can
“sense (sentit) those things which are of God; who because they are
according to the Spirit, can sense (sentiunt) the things that are of the
Spirit (Rom. 8:5); who have the mind of Christ (sensum Christi) (1 Cor.
2:16); who are taught by the Spirit (John 16); who have the Spirit of
truth (John 14:17) dwelling within.”87

THE ARGUMENT

At first blush, this would seem to be Gallus’ consistent teaching.88 As is

already evident in the summary above, however, there are good

is called power which is obtained immutably in union with omnipotence. Hence it is

immortal . . . . For philosophical wisdom, which is cognition from pre-existing and
sensible things, is fragile and tottering and the infinitely inferior portion of Martha.”
87
Expl-MT 1.5.48–6.67.
88
A similar distinction seems to be at work in Bonaventure’s Commentary on the
Sentences (In 3 Sent., 38.un.2 [III, 776].): “There is a science, which consists in a purely
speculative understanding founded on the principles of human reason, acquired from
a knowledge of creatures. But there is another, which consists in an understanding
inclined by the affections . . . not acquired in any way from creatures; this is the
science of Sacred Scripture, which no one can have unless faith is infused within.”
Cf. Bonaventure, De donis, 4.2–13 (vol. V, Opuscula varia theological, Edited by the
 Introduction 23
reasons to argue that this straightforward account of the relationship
between knowledge and love is not only over-simplified, but in fact
risks grave distortion if not contextualized within the whole of Gallus’
theological worldview, as it emerges from his entire corpus, including
his commentaries on the Song of Songs. When interpreted thus, the
following features come into view.
First, Gallus’ conception of affective cognition and its relation to its
intellectual counterpart is enabled by a unique and creative anthropo-
logical appropriation of the Dionysian notion of hierarchia, wherein
the soul itself, its powers and their respective acts, is understood to be
“hierarchized” and to operate hierarchically. Essentially, a Dionysian
hierarchy is a dynamic structure or order (taxis), involving both
knowledge (gnosis) and activity (energia), which reflects and imitates
God and also conducts and unites to God.89 The purpose of any
hierarchy “is assimilation and union, as far as attainable, with God.”90
The dynamism of a Dionysian hierarchy, moreover, is “animated” by
the Neoplatonic metaphysics of procession (exitus/proodos), return
(reditus/epistrophe), and remaining (residuus/mane). Every hierarchy
thus has an ascending, descending, and remaining dimension or
“valence” (as in a “vector” or “scalarity”), which simultaneously (not
sequentially) constitutes it in a kind of dynamic equilibrium or stasis;
or perhaps better: The dynamic simultaneity of procession and return
establish an equipoise described as remaining. Two crucial features
of the ascending and descending dimensions are noteworthy here:
(1) in the ascent, the lower is always subsumed by the higher according
to the capacity or nature of the higher; (2) in the descent, the higher
communicates with the lower according to the capacity or nature of the
lower. When Gallus conceives of the soul hierarchically in a Dionysian
fashion, accordingly, the intellect–affect relationship will be funda-
mentally governed by these principles.91

Fathers of the Collegium of St. Bonaventure. Ad claras Aquas (Quaracchi): Ex

typographia Colegii S. Bonaventurae, 1882–1902, 474–6).
89
CH 3.1 (Parker, 14): “Hierarchy is . . . a sacred order and science and operation,
assimilated, as far as attainable, to the likeness of God, and conducted to the
illuminations granted to it from God, according to capacity, with a view to the Divine
imitation.”
90
CH 3.2 (Parker, 15).
91
Despite the negative connotations typically associated with this term today,
hierarchia provides Gallus with a surprisingly nimble, dynamic, and ultimately
24 Introduction
A crucial implication of this hierarchical anthropology, second of
all, is that, because a hierarchy both imitates the utter simplicity of
God and conducts the soul to union with that Simplicity, the soul
itself is increasingly “simplified” as it is united to God. This anthropo-
logical “simplification” (simplificatio)92 entails the increasing integra-
tion, even synthesis, at a higher level, of what is differentiated and
discrete at lower levels. More precisely, when Gallus posits a higher,
affective cognitio above an intellective cognitio at the apex of the
ascending movement, this affective form both builds upon and sub-
sumes the intellective form. Increasingly, intellectus is “affectivized” as
it approaches union, just as the affectus, though ultimately transcend-
ing the intellectus, subsumes and retains a mode of understanding.
Conversely, as a function of the descending movement, the experience
of the higher, affective cognition redounds, that is, “flows down,” to
and is participated by, the lower, intellective cognition in a manner
consistent with its intellective modality.
Third, this affective cognition then is indeed a “mode of knowing,”
even as it differs from the properly intellective mode. This is already
terminologically evident in the fact that he consistently styles both
forms as “cognitions” of God (cognitiones Dei).93 Gallusian cognitio
(left un-translated or simply transliterated below, since it cannot be
well-captured in a single English term) encompasses a wide range of
apprehensional and experiential modes. Gallus will evoke the essential
modalities of these two forms of cognition by deploying the traditional
notion of the “spiritual senses” of the soul.94 Intellectual cognition
relates to its divine Object in the modality of spiritual hearing and
seeing, while affective cognition operates in the modality of spiritual
smell, taste, and touch, a distinction which trades on a precise account
of how the physical senses are affected by their proper objects:95

integrative anthropological framework for understanding the soul’s multi-modal

relation to God.
92
For a comprehensive analysis of the theme of “simplification” in Gallus’ theology,
see James Arinello’s dissertation, “Simplified by the Highest Simplicity: Mystical Ascent
According to Thomas Gallus” (Boston College, 2012).
93
Gallus’ use of cognitio here may well run parallel to the CD’s use of gnosis.
94
Cf. Coolman, “Thomas Gallus,” in The Spiritual Senses: Perceiving God in
Western Christianity, ed. Paul Gavrilyuk and Sarah Coakley (Cambridge and New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 140–58.
95
The analogy with physical sensation lends itself nicely to McGinn’s notion of
mystical consciousness: the different sense modalities can be seen as diverse forms of
 Introduction 25
“Seeing and hearing do not necessarily affect their subject, whereas it is
impossible for the subject to apprehend with the other senses [taste,
smell, touch] without being intimately affected.”96 “This analogy,” as
Fr. James Walsh has noted, is “essential to all that [Gallus] has to say
on the knowledge which is unitive contemplation.”97 Affectivity, in the
end, is not for Gallus anti-intellectual at all. It is rather the mode of
cognition in and by which the soul is most affected by what it knows—
the most intimate form of cognition. This may explain why Gallus
reaches for the erotic, interpersonal, spousal, or nuptial intimacy of the
Song of Songs in order to express this intuition.
Fourth, within the context of this hierarchical anthropology,
Gallus introduces a Christo-pneumatic “solution” to the problem of
Dionysian apophaticism, wherein a mystical union with the crucified
Christ (not I but Christ [Gal. 2]), through the power of the Holy Spirit
(taught by the Spirit [John 16]), facilitates affective cognition of God.
Gallus thus offers a distinct form of Dionysian “Christ-mysticism,”
wherein the “Lord Jesus himself, our principal hierarch,”98 is “the fontal
cause and producer of every hierarchy,”99 in particular “of the hierarchic
movements of emanating from God and returning to God.”100 Strik-
ingly, Gallus identifies this hierarchical Christ with the amorous Bride-
groom of the Song of Songs, who comes leaping over the mountains,
bounding over the hills (S. of S. 2:8) of divine transcendence and
“unknowability,” to meet his soul-bride, thus introducing a very non-
Dionysian, inter-personal dimension to the nature of affective cognition.
Fifth, an implication of this Dionysian anthropology is that the
soul always exists hierarchically or as a hierarchy. That is, hierarchy is
not a ladder which one ascends to God and then leaves behind; rather,
a hierarchy is simply what one is. Ascent and descent are not discrete
processes, not sequential steps that cease to occur once completed. All
dimensions of the hierarchized soul are always “in play,” always
functioning in their proper modality; the soul is always executing its
proper acts at each hierarchical “register,” like the angels ascending
and descending Jacob’s Ladder. There is thus a dynamic, mutual, and

consciousness or awareness of the presence of God (cf. Bernard McGinn, Foundations

of Mysticism, xvii).
96
James Walsh, S. J., Sapientia Christianorum, 93, n. 2.
97
James Walsh, S. J., Sapientia Christianorum, 93, n. 2.
98 99
Expl-EH 1.742.70–1. Expl-EH 1.742.55.
100
Expl-EH 1.742.57–8.
26 Introduction
reciprocal relation between intellectual and affective cognition (between
knowledge and love), which undermines the starkly binary, oppos-
itional, and ultimately anti-intellectual account often associated
with Gallus. He does indeed distinguish, but ultimately integrates
(in a uniquely Dionysian way) these two “intentional modalities” in
human consciousness:101 The intellective and the affective.102 His is a
far more complex paradigm than either his later medieval readers or
modern-day scholars have appreciated.
Sixth, Dionysian hierarchia lends Gallus’ conception of the soul a
uniquely “elastic” quality, a distinctively expandable capaciousness.
At the upper reaches of the ascending movement, the soul is drawn
“out of itself” in cognizing its divine Spouse, even as in some sense it
paradoxically remains within itself. Or put otherwise: Gallus seems to
build the capacity for self-exceeding, for ecstasy (ecstasis), paradox-
ically, into the very nature of the human being itself (enstasis). In fact,
it is precisely this capacity for self-transcendence that constitutes
the Gallusian self as a self. That is, only in so far as the human
exceeds itself, does it return to itself and thus remain itself, within
itself (ecstasis results in enstasis); yet, to remain itself within itself,
it must (again; continually) exceed itself (enstasis results in ecstasis).
One might say that here the ecstatic simply is the enstatic: The
self-transcending is precisely the self-constituting. In this sense, the
Gallusian soul is continually and in some sense infinitely “extended”
(extensio) and “dilated” (dilatatio) Godward. As an expandable hier-
archy, the soul is actually “stretched” Godward, propelled by the
internal reciprocation of knowledge and love. Ultimately, this is a
dynamic circulation of intellectus and affectus, which will continue in
the next life, and indeed, eternally—an eternal (epecstatic) spiraling
into God.
Finally, all this is most fully intelligible within the context of
Gallus’ Neoplatonic Christianity, which begins with an affirmation

101
I employ this rather vague, Lonerganian terminology of intentionality, which
Lonergan used to avoid the reified conceptuality of faculty psychology (e.g. faculties of
intellect and will), in order more accurately to capture the orientation of Gallus’
thought in this regard.
102
As Richard Cross has observed in private correspondence, an intriguing and
apparently unnoticed fact is that many high- and late-medieval scholastics, especially
those influenced by the CD (e.g. Bonaventure, Albert the Great, Giles of Rome, Adam
Wodeham) are inclined to allow for some form of “affective cognition,” a fact that
further blurs the stereotypical contrast between scholastics and mystics.
 Introduction 27
of self-diffusive divine goodness, and then proffers, accordingly, an
account of the Trinitarian divine nature, a metaphysics of procession
and return, and a doctrine of creation from that perspective. Despite
the fact that Gallus’ massive corpus consists entirely of commentaries
on authoritative texts of the Christian tradition, his mystical theology
is articulated within a remarkably coherent and well-integrated theo-
logical system and is best appreciated in that light.
In relation to medieval theology generally, to medieval mystical
traditions more narrowly, and to medieval appropriations of Dionys-
ius in particular, Thomas Gallus thus offers a new paradigm. He also
spurs contemporary efforts to think anew, not only about “affective
cognition” and the relation between love and knowledge (intellect
and affect, “head and heart,” theology and spirituality), but also about
the nature of the human person and the relationship between nature
and grace. At stake in this theological venture is not merely an
affective interpretation of Dionysius, but also a conviction regarding
how human beings are most basically constituted and how they relate
most fundamentally to God.
 Part I

Foundations and Structures

 1

Pleromatic and Ecstatic Trinity

“DIVINE LOVE IS REVEALED to be WITHOUT END IN ITSELF . . . as in a

circle there is found neither beginning nor end.”
Expl-DN 4.247.1679–82

INTRODUCTION

For Thomas Gallus, divine self-revelation in Scripture is the source

and foundation of Catholic doctrine (doctrina).1 What Scripture
reveals and the church teaches about God, moreover, is principally
that God is Trinity,2 a transcendent tri-unity, simultaneously a dif-
ferentiated unity and manifold simplicity: “nothing more proper is
attributed affirmatively to God than that supernatural distinction and
origin of persons with unity of essence.”3 The doctrine of the Trinity
is the center of Gallus’ theology, around which all else orbits: “the
highest doctrine (summa doctrina) of humans and angels: HOLY, HOLY,

1
Expl-DN 2.131.332–51: “ . . . to guard so reverently the teaching concerning God,
which is had from the Scriptures . . . that we do not presume to super-add to it or to
subtract from it. . . . For they understand to have the authority of Scripture either what
the apostles taught viva voce without writing, or what apostolic men sanctioned as
being consonant with sacred Scripture. . . . Concerning the teaching of the masters
which is not manifestly expressed in Scripture, it is left to scholastic disputation.”
2
Expl-AH 10.640.340–7: “But the philosophical intellect can neither demonstrate
nor discover the Trinity of unity, as the Church holds it, but rather it has learned [it].”
(“Sed Trinitatem unitatis prout eam tenet ecclesia intellectus philosophicus demon-
strare aut inuenire non potuit, sed magis didicit.”)
3
Expl-MT 3.35.14–17.
32 Foundations and Structures
HOLY, to express a trinity of persons, LORD GOD SABBAOTH to express a
unity of essence.”4
Typically medieval, Gallus’ theology is profoundly theo-centric;
typically Victorine, his conception of God finds a point of departure
in Richard of St. Victor’s speculative meditations on God as the fullness
of perfect goodness and love; atypical, at least prior to the thirteenth
century, is the Dionysian inflection of Gallus’ view of God, which
synchronizes Richard’s emphasis on the fullness of goodness with
the Dionysian “first principle” that the good is self-diffusive (bonum
diffusivum sui est).5 In fact, Gallus’ view of divinity emerges at a
fruitful nexus of Ricardian and Dionysian currents in a way that runs
parallel to similar developments among early Parisian Franciscans,
especially Alexander of Hales, and anticipates (perhaps “precipitates”)
the synthesis of Bonaventure. Gallus’ unique contribution to medieval
Trinitarian theology, in both scholastic and non-scholastic traditions,
is his insight that God, both in se and extra se (the former causing the
latter), is a fullness of goodness conceived of in the Dionysian sense of
dynamic self-diffusion. While he expresses this intuition variously
(reflecting both its centrality and complexity), the recurring term
“plenitudo” best captures it: God “is omni-modal fullness (omnimoda
plenitudo),”6 “the fount of omni-modal abundance (fontem omnimode
plenitudinis).”7 “No word . . . more sublimely attains the meaning of

4
Expl-AH 1.601.557–60.
5
The notion is not wholly original to Dionysius, as McGinn (“The Dynamism of
the Trinity in Bonaventure and Eckhart,” Franciscan Studies 65 (2007), 142) notes:
“Plato had held that the Demiurge formed the universe out of the formless receptacle
because he was good, not jealous like the Olympian gods (Timaeus 29E). Plotinus had
taken this a step further when he affirmed that the First Principle, that is, the One,
freely establishes all things through its generosity: ‘How then could the most perfect,
the first Good, remain in itself as if it grudged to give itself or was impotent, when it is
the productive power of all things’ (Plotinus, Enneads V.4.1; see also Enneads V.5.12
and II.9.3). From these Platonic roots the axiom ‘bonum est diffusivum sui’ entered
into Christian theology, most notably in the CD (DN 1.4 [592A], DN 4.1–6 [especially
693B, 696B, 697A, 697CD, 700AB, and 701AB], CH 4.1 [177CD], and Letter 8
[1085D]).” On the history of the axiom, see Julien Peghaire, “L’axiome ‘Bonum est
diffusivum est’ dans le néoplatonisme et le thomisme,” Revue de l’Université d’Ottawa
2 (1932), pp. 5*–30* and Klaus Kremer, “Das ‘Warum’ der Schöpfung: ‘quia bonus’
vel/et ‘quia voluit’? Ein Beitrag zum Verhältnis von Neuplatonismus und Christentum
an Hand des Prinzips ‘bonum est diffusivum sui’,” in Parusia. Studien zur Philosophie
Platons und zur Problemgeschichte des Platonismus. Festgabe für Johannes Hirschberger,
ed. Kurt Flasch (Frankfurt: Minverva, 1965), 241–64.
6 7
Glss-AI 7.65.442. Glss-AI 4.37.52.
 Pleromatic and Ecstatic Trinity 33
the super-unknown divine infinity than the name ‘fullness’.”8 In an alien
yet apt idiom, God for Gallus is pleromatic.9 To be sure, “pleroma” has
strong associations with Gnosticism, but its presence in the Greek New
Testament, along with the Latin equivalents, is worth recalling, as in: Col.
1:19: “Because in him, it has well pleased the Father that all fullness
should dwell” (pan to pleroma/omnem plenitudinem); Col. 2:9–10: “For
in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead (pan to pleroma tes
theotetos/omnis plenitudo divinitatis)”; and Eph. 3:19: “To know also
the charity of Christ . . . that you may be filled unto all the fullness of
God” (pan to pleroma tou theou/omnem plenitudinem Dei).10 This God,
furthermore, is an excessive or superabundant, and thus ecstatic
plenitude; that is, an over-flowing and thus self-exceeding, fullness
and abundance.
For Gallus, moreover, to speak of God as ecstatically pleromatic is
simply to affirm with both Richard of St. Victor and the author of
the Johannine corpus of the New Testament that God is love—but with
a Dionysian twist. More precisely, this is to say with Dionysius and
with the tradition of Neoplatonic Christianity which the CD receives
and transmits, that God is both agape and eros, both caritas and amor.
For Gallus, as for Richard, this is also simply to explain in some way
what the doctrine of the Trinity affirms and to offer a genuine, though
of course inadequate, understanding of that mysterium fidei. For, as
argued below, Gallus develops this Dionysian intuition into a full-scale
elaboration of Trinitarian theology, in which God is triune precisely as
an eternal, ecstatic rhythm of full self-giving and self-receiving love,
of complete and utter self-diffusing goodness within the divine life.
Following Dionysius (and again anticipating Bonaventure), the image
of a circle aptly captures this notion for Gallus: “DIVINE LOVE IS REVEALED
to be WITHOUT END IN ITSELF, that is, the interminability and eternity of its

8
Expl-EH 4.894.875: “Nullum autem vocabulum, ut mihi videtur, sublimius
ascendit in divine superignote infinitatis significationem quam nomen plenitudinis.”
9
The terms are from E. Wyschogrod, Saints and Postmodernism: Revisioning Moral
Philosophy (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1990), cited in Lawell, Thomas Gallus,
Jean-Luc Marion and the Reception of Dionysian Neoplatonism (dissertation, Queen’s
University of Belfast, 2008), 237: “At the top of this trio (Gallus, Marion and Derrida) of
thinkers stands Gallus with his ‘pleromatic’ and ‘exstatic’ approach to the other.”
10
See also John 1:14: “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we saw
his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and
truth” (plenum gratiae et veritatis); John 1:16: “of his fullness we all have received”
(de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus).
34 Foundations and Structures
divinity, DIFFERING from every other love, NOT HAVING A BEGINNING . . . just
as in a circle there is found neither beginning nor end.”11

GALLUS ON THE TRINITY IN

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The Trinitarian theology articulated in the medieval schools, especially

at Paris between 1250 and 1300, has received significant scholarly
attention in recent decades;12 the preceding developments, however,
between Lombard’s Sentences of the mid-twelfth century and 1250,
remain understudied.13 Broadly speaking, scholarship continues to
distinguish two major approaches to the Trinity in the high-scholastic
era, both of which draw deeply from the Trinitarian theology of
Augustine, yet in different ways and with distinct emphases, in part as
a function of other non-Augustinian sources that are incorporated
into them: one associated primarily with Aquinas and the Dominican
tradition; the other linked to Bonaventure and the early Franciscan
tradition.14 This is not to overlook the rich body of twelfth-century
Trinitarian thought stemming from Anselm, Abelard, Gilbert of

11
Expl-DN 4.247.1679–82: “OSTENDITVR DIVINVS AMOR esse INTERMINABILE SVI IPSIVS, id
est interminabilitas et eternitas ipsius diuinitatis, DIFFERENTER ab omni alio amore, NON
HABENS PRINCIPIVM propter dictam reuolutionem, sicut in circulo non est inuenire
finem aut principium.”
12
See John Slotemaker, “Pierre D’Ailly and the Development of the Late Medieval
Trinitarian Theology” [Boston College dissertation, 2012], who notes that the litera-
ture on high medieval Trinitarian theology, “is dominated more by the work of
Michael Schmaus than the broader narratives of Adolph von Harnack and Théodore
de Régnon. Michael Schmaus’s Der Liber propugnatorius des Thomas Anglicus und
die Lehrunterschiede zwischen Thomas von Aquin und Duns Scotus is the starting
point for studies on the development of thirteenth-century Trinitarian theology,
including most importantly that of Russell Friedman, especially, R. L. Friedman, In
Principio Erat Verbum; and Medieval Trinitarian Thought from Aquinas to Ockham
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). The most succinct summary of his
thesis can be found in his ‘Divergent Traditions in Later-Medieval Trinitarian The-
ology: Relations, Emanations, and the Use of Philosophical Psychology, 1250–1325,’
Studia Theologica 53 (1999), 13–25.”
13
Slotemaker (“Pierre D’Ailly,” 49) observes that the period “between Boethius
and the end of the twelfth century” needs further study and “begs for a substantial re-
narration that frees it historiographically from the constraints of either a falsely
Augustinian or an overly Augustinianized interpretation.”
14
See Friedman, Medieval Trinitarian Thought, 5–49.
 Pleromatic and Ecstatic Trinity 35
Poitiers, and especially, Richard of St. Victor (see below). But for the
purpose of contextualizing Gallus, it is these two “mendicant” tra-
jectories that are most relevant, particularly the one that finds a
certain terminus in Bonaventure.
For some time now, scholars have identified Gallus’ confrere,
Richard of St. Victor as the instigating source of the early Franciscan
tradition in Trinitarian theology, at least that reaching to Bonaven-
ture. Though certainly influenced by Augustine (as well as by Gregory
the Great and Boethius), Richard is perhaps best seen as taking the
“psychological intuition” of Augustine in a new and original direc-
tion, toward “the interpersonal and moral,”15 wherein “the primary
orientation seems to be not through the analysis of human cogni-
tional experience, but through an analysis of the nature of [interper-
sonal] love.”16 As Elizabeth Gössman argued long ago, where
Augustine’s focus is on the psychological experience of an individual,
Richard seeks trinitarian analogies in the psychological experience of
interpersonal love.17 Richard thereby “chose an element which
was marginal in Augustine and placed it in the center of his own
thought.”18
Since the work of de Regnon in the late nineteenth century and
until relatively recently, scholarship had seen this trajectory of medi-
eval trinitarian theology as originating in Richard's appropriation of
the CD, and running from Richard into the early Franciscan school of
Alexander of Hales (along with his contemporaries, the Williams
Auvergne and Auxerre), terminating in the grand synthesis of
Bonaventure. In contrast to the dominant medieval tradition, which
he labeled Dominican and as stemming from Augustine, and as
operating with a static Aristotelian metaphysic of being (esse), de
Regnon saw this Victorine-Franciscan trajectory as animated by a
dynamic, Dionysian Neoplatonism of the good (bonum). In this
account, Richard of St. Victor was “a deserter from the camp of
Augustine who drank deeply from Greek streams and thus developed

15
Zachary Hayes, “Introduction,” Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity
(Works of Saint Bonaventure) 3 (Saint Bonaventure, 2000), 17.
16
Hayes, “Introduction,” Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity, 15.
17
Elizabeth Gössman, “Die Methode der Trinitätslehre in der Summa Halensis,”
Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 6 (1955), 256; cited in Hayes, “Introduction,” 15, n. 6.
18
Hayes, “Introduction,” Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity, 15.
36 Foundations and Structures
a style that was truly competitive to the Augustinian tradition.” As
Hayes points out, this narrative profoundly shaped historiography for
nearly a century, including the work of Stohr, Schmaus, Imle-Kaup,
Villalmonte, and Szabo,19 “even influencing the Quaracchi-editors of
the Summa fratris Alexandri.”20
More recently, however, the work of Olegario Gonzalez and
Dumeige drastically revised this narrative,21 arguing that Richard is
not in fact significantly influenced by the Dionysian Corpus, and
that his predilection for the notion of the good is less central than
previously assumed, being subsumed into the more dominating idea
of love or charity, analyzed psychologically and experientially, and
that whatever the role of the good, its presence is sufficiently
explained in relation to his Latin sources, Augustine and Anselm.
But this consensus has generated new questions, not least of which
is: whence comes the undeniable presence of Dionysian thought in the
Trinitarian theology of Bonaventure? For his part, Hayes has sug-
gested Bonaventure’s teacher, Alexander of Hales, as the source, a
suggestion which certainly has merit, since both his undisputed works
and the Summa Halensis cite Dionysius (and Richard) with some
frequency. Many of the Dionysian notions that will figure centrally
in Bonaventure, moreover, including fontality, fecundity, the good as
self-diffusive (bonum diffusivum sui) and divine love as an eternal
circle, are found in these texts. At the same time, though, Hayes also
notes that none of these “Halensian” works develops these ideas
to any great extent in the way that Bonaventure will eventually develop
them. Hayes concludes by surmising Bonaventure’s dependence on

19
Albert Stohr, Die Trinitätslehre des hl. Bonaventura: Eine systematische Dar-
stellung und historische Würdigung. I Teil, Die wissenschaftliche Trinitätslehre
(Munster, 1923); Michael Schmaus, Der Liber Propugnatorius des Thomas Anglicus
und die Lehrunterschiede zwischen Thomas von Aquin and Duns Scotus. II Teil, Die
Trinitarischen Lehrdifferenzen (Munster, 1930); Fanny Imle and Julien Kaup, Die
Theologie des hl. Bonaventura. Darstellung seiner dogmatischen Lehren (Werl,
1931); Alejandro de Villalmonte, “Influjo de los Padres griegos en la doctrina
trinitaria de San Buenaventura,” in XIII Semana Española de Teología, 14–19
September 1953 (Madrid: 1954), 553–7; Titus Szabo, De ss.Trinitate in Creaturis
Refulgente Doctrina S. Bonaventurae (Rome, 1959).
20
Hayes, “Introduction,” Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity, 18–19.
21
Olegario Gonzalez, Misterio Trinitario y existencia humana: estudio histórico
teológico en torno a san Buenaventura (Madrid, 1966); Gervais Dumeige, “Denys
l’Aréopagite: en Occident,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualité ascétique et mystique, doctrine
et histoire (Paris, 1932), col. 327.
 Pleromatic and Ecstatic Trinity 37
Alexander, while also noting that these Dionysian and Victorine
sources “will be exploited in a distinctively personal way” by Bona-
venture, and that the latter’s Trinitarian theology “transcends that of
the Summa [Halensis] in unity and coherence of thought,” and “bears
the mark of a single, keen mind that has appropriated the tradition in a
personal way.”22
In short, a certain transformation of the Victorine theology, in the
light of the Dionysian metaphysics of the good, has clearly occurred in
the transition from Richard to Bonaventure, a transformation that is
apparent in Bonaventure’s Trinitarian theology, even as early as his
Commentary on the Sentences, where the Victorine terminology takes
on a new meaning as it is animated and conditioned by the Dionysian
dynamics of fecundity.23 The scholarly consensus, then, is as follows:
In the early thirteenth century a distinctive style of Trinitarian the-
ology emerged, whose primary author was Bonaventure, who created
a “highly personal synthesis”24 out of a variety of elements, including
the theology of St. Augustine, the religious experience of St. Francis,
and the philosophy of Aristotle, but especially the Victorine and
Dionysian traditions, all assembled and transmitted by Alexander of
Hales. Whether this is a fully adequate explanation for the develop-
ment in Trinitarian theology that occurred between Richard and
Bonaventure is difficult to say with certainty. It is highly plausible,
however, that this account is incomplete and perhaps incorrect if the
Trinitarian theology of Thomas Gallus is omitted.25

22
Hayes, “Introduction,” Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity, 21–3.
23
Hayes, “Introduction,” Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity, 23–4,
esp., n. 44, which mentions Gallus by name, though with no elaboration. On the
dynamic nature of this approach to the Trinity, see Bernard McGinn, “Dynamism of
the Trinity.”
24
Hayes, “Introduction,” Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity, 24.
25
Zachary Hayes (“Bonaventure’s Trinitarian Theology,” in Jay M. Hammond,
Wayne Hellmann, and Jared Goff (eds.), A Companion to Bonaventure, Brill’s Com-
panions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 189–246, at 196) puts the
question with incisive clarity: “This shift in Victorine studies unavoidably raises many
new questions about Bonaventure, for it has long been assumed that he was deeply
influenced by Richard, and that he imbibed a Dionysian inspiration from the great
Victorine. If such an inspiration is lacking in Richard, it is—nonetheless—present in
Bonaventure. But from what sources is it derived? And what is the precise nature of
the tie between Richard and Bonaventure, if the latter is fundamentally Dionysian
while the former is not? These questions raise the further question of Alexander of
Hales in relation both to Richard and Dionysius on the one hand, and to Bonaventure
on the other.”
38 Foundations and Structures
TRANSCENDENT PLENITUDE

Gallus is keenly aware that the CD consistently presents God as wholly

and utterly “super-omnium,” above and beyond all, even being itself:
God “exists” “ALL-EXCEEDINGLY ABOVE EXISTENCE” (SUPERSUBSTANTIATLIER
SUPER EXISTENTIA). “Dionysius . . . teaches that God is . . . inestimably
26

separate and placed beyond comparison with everything existing

and intelligible (supercollocatum omni existenti et intelligibili) . . . ”27
Following the Areopagite, Gallus stresses that God is thus radically
transcendent: “Beyond both one and unity, both being and being-ness”
(super unum et unitatem et ens et entitatem);28 “super-eminent over
all being” (omni enti supereminet);29 neither a “being” (ens) nor “being-
ness” (entitas).30 Gallus’ logic is as simple as it is rigorous: If it is
affirmed that God is the cause of all being, then God must be other
than being: “AND God is THE CAUSE OF ALL BEING. And therefore HE
HIMSELF is NOT EXISTING, otherwise he would be the cause of himself”
(alioquin esset causa sui).31
Such ontological transcendence entails, as much for Gallus as for
Dionysius, what could be called a similarly severe epistemic tran-
scendence. Since “all cognitions concern being or beings (ente vel
entibus), whatever then is causally above every being (ens) is surpass-
ingly separated from all cognition, according to Job 36:26: “Behold,
God is great, exceeding our knowledge.”32 Because God transcends
being itself, is “ALL-EXCEEDING” (SUPERSUBSTANTIALIS),33 and because all

26 27
Expl-MT 1.19.383. Expl-MT 1.5.58–62.
28 29
Expl-MT 1.26.538. Expl-DN 1.59.228.
30
Expl-DN 1.110.1524–7: “I AM WHO I AM: Exod. 3:14. He first gives an example
from the term ‘being’ which is the most common and contains every name or
nameable thing. For being is the first thing in the intellect. But existence is before
and above intellect, whence it descends to particular names. . . . ” (Primo exemplificat
de nomine entis quod communissimum est et omne nomen uel nominabile continet.
Ens enim est primum in intellectu. Entitas autem est ante et supra intellectum, deinde
descendit ad nomina specialia.)
31
Expl-DN 1.63.338–40. Gallus here explicitly rejects the early modern notion of
God as causa sui.
32
Expl-DN 1.101.1316–102.1321: “cognitiones omnes sunt de ente uel entibus. Ens
autem terminatum est. Quod ergo causaliter est super omne ens, ab omni cognitione
segregatur superando, iuxta illud Iob 36f: Ecce Deus magnus uincens scientiam
nostram, 28f: Abscondita est ab oculis omnium uiuentium, uolucres quoque celi
latet, id est animos celestes.”
33
Expl-DN 1.59.226–7.
 Pleromatic and Ecstatic Trinity 39
knowing has being as its object34 and limit,35 God transcends all
knowing as much as all being: God is “altogether and incomparably
above being (ens) and understanding (intellectus)” and is thus
“ineffable and unnamable.”36
Yet, when Gallus places God “outside” this all-embracing co-
extension of being-knowing, this does not mean that God is not; nor
does this demand absolute mental darkness, conceptual vacuity, and
verbal silence regarding “God” (as perhaps it does for Dionysius, and
almost certainly does for Plotinus and Proclus).37 For the “ineffable
and unnamable” God “has named himself,”38 revealed himself as
“existing,” and has thus bridged the infinite distance between God
and being. Gallus unabashedly embraces, accordingly, the paradoxical
claim that God’s radical transcendence of reality does not mean
that God “does not exist,” but that God “more than exists.”39 Divinity

34
Expl-DN 1.59.230–1: “being itself which is first in the intellect and highest”
(ipsum ens quod primum est in intellectu et summum et extra quod nihil querit ut
inuestigat philosophia intellectualis et mundana).
35
Expl-DN 1.102.1333–5: “because, ALL COGNITIONS ARE OF EXISTING THINGS, that is,
concerning those things which fall under [the category] of being (ente), THEY HAVE
THEIR END, that is, they are terminated or terminatable and are contained under [the
category] of being (sub ente)” (quia, OMNES COGNITIONS SUNT EXISTENTIUM, id est de hiis
que cadunt sub ente, FINEM HABENT, id est terminate uel terminabilia sunt et sub ente
contenta).
36
Expl-MT 1.20.387. Cf. Expl-DN 2.170.166–7: “[God is] beyond and above all
being and one and understanding” (extra et super omne ens et unum et intellectum);
Expl-MT 1.27.562–3: “[God] exceeds every understanding” (omnem superat intellec-
tum); Expl-MT 1.14.257–8: “[God is] untouchable, invisible, incomprehensible, as
much to reason as to intellect”; Expl-MT 1.25.529–30: “[having] super-intellectual
incomprehensibility”; Expl-MT 2.33.66–8: “For existing things are speakable (vocibi-
lia) and namable (nominabilia) and cogitizable (cogitabilia), [but] God is beyond
every word, and name, and cogitation”; and Expl-MT 5.44.8–9: “[God is] untouched
intelligibly according to its essence”; Expl-AH 1.602.599: “[for] our intellect does not
exceed being” (intellectus noster non excedit ens).
37
Cf. Eric Perl, Theophany: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the Areopa-
gite (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007), 5–16.
38
Expl-MT 1.19.387–8: “Sed ineffabilis et innominabilis pro mortalium infirmitate
se nominauit.”
39
Expl-DN 4.270.2293: “GOD IS SEGREGATED FROM SUBSTANCE through an incompar-
able and infinite excess (excessum); AND yet GOD is SUPER-SUBSTANTIAL SIMPLICITER, that is,
generally . . . , since at the very least the deity subsists eternally without any accidental
or substantial habit, but not without goodness. Yet we say that God wholly is and
subsists, and yet it must not be understood that a certain essence or substance,
cognizable or intelligible to us, is attributed to him, but we say this lest concerning
that which is ineffable we remain totally silent.” (ET DEUS SEGREGATUR A SUBSTANTIA per
incomparabilem et infinitum excessum; ET tamen est SUPERSUBSTANTIALIS SIMPLICITER,
id est generaliter, IN UNIVERSIS ALIIS preter bonum; HABITU ABEUNTE, quantum ad
40 Foundations and Structures
transcends “every EXISTING THING AND every NON-EXISTING THING, through
excess of being (per excessum essentie). . . . For non-existence is under-
stood as an excess of being (per excessum essentie) . . . ”40 Divine “non-
existence” is not therefore a claim about absolute absence, but about
metaphysical excess.41 “God is non-existing, not from a defect of essence
but from an excessus,”42 just as “God is not unknown from a lack
of light, but from his inaccessible excellence and incomprehensible
and un-contemplatable abundance (habundantia).”43 “God . . . incom-
parably exceeds every existing and cognizable thing and is removed
from all things through excess” (Deus omnia existentia et cognoscibilia
incomparabiliter excedit et per excessum ab omnibus remouetur).44

accidentalia separabilia, ET NON INGENITO, quantum ad substantialia et inseparabilia

accidentalia, OMNINO EXISTENTIA SUNT ET POSSUNT SUBSISTERE, quia ad minus deitas sine
omni habitu accidentali et substantiali eternaliter subsistit, sed non sine bonitate.
Verumtamen omnino Deum dicimus esse uel subsistere, nec tamen est intelligendum
aliquam essentiam uel substantiam nobis cognoscibilem aut intelligibilem ei attribui,
sed hoc dicimus ne de ineffabili penitus taceamus).
40
Expl-DN 4.259.2009–13. Cf. Expl-DN 4.191.285–6: Divinity infinitely exceeds
being, for in it “THE EXCESS OF REALITY and beyond-beingness (supersubstantialitas) is
NON-EXISTING, since it is above all being (ens).”
41
Lawell, “Affective Excess,” 79: “Gallus’s chief goal was to protect the divine as
supernatural plenitude and fullness and thus needing no cause for his being and
conservation in being.” Lawell elaborates in note 81: “In this regard, note Gallus’
explanation (Explanatio DN, fol. 140ra) of Dionysius’s statement that God does not
have being: ‘IPSE NON HABET [sc. ESSE], id est, non participat esse sed continet totum esse
et superhabundat’ (italics added).”
42
Expl-DN 1.63.340.
43
Expl-MT 1.9.164–6. Cf. Expl-DN 2.137.522: “WHOLLY INVISIBLE, that is, a plenitude
of invisibility . . . ”; Expl-MT 1.12.224–5: “incomprehensible because its splendor
inaccessibly exceeds . . . ”; Expl-MT 1.13.252–3: “whose beauty exceeds all estimation
(estimatio)”; Expl-MT 1.22.444–5: “neither affirmation or negation attain to that cause
of all things, but he incomparably exceeds both”; Expl-MT 1.24.490–1: “The Word of
God . . . incomparably exceeds every created thing and being”; Expl-MT 5.46.54–5:
“the EXCESSUS OF GOD IS REMOVED FROM ALL THINGS and above all existing things.”
44
Expl-DN 2.133.385. Cf. Expl-DN 2.133.389–94, where Gallus discusses how the
Greek word for “being” “ho on” is found in some translations but not translated into
Latin: “And in fact I have heard from a certain Greek philosopher that the Greek ‘ho
on’ is not rightly translated (transfertur) as ‘ens’ or ‘existens’ or any word that he had
found in the Latin language, and its meaning is nearer to ‘entitas’ than to ‘enti’.” On
this point, moreover, Gallus criticizes certain un-named thinkers, who “think that
being (ens), which is called the subject of metaphysics, contains the created as much as
the uncreated” (Expl-MT 1.19.384–20.385), “who think being (ens) is the first and
highest in cognition” (Expl-DN 4.193.323–4), beyond which “worldly and intellectual
philosophy seeks or investigates nothing” (Expl-DN 1.59.231–2).
 Pleromatic and Ecstatic Trinity 41
In sum, excessus, in the sense of transcendent abundance or pleromatic
transcendence, is crucial to Gallus’ conception of divinity.45
In affirming a pleromatic Trinity, Gallus would seem to falling to
one side of a contemporary debate in the interpretation of Dionysius.
From the opposing perspective, Dionysius would have found Gallus’
claim that God is a transcendent plenitudo, beyond all being, puz-
zling, if not absurd. For in the words of Eric Perl,
we must recognize that for Dionysius, as for Plotinus, God is simply not
anything, not “there” at all. If our thought cannot attain to God, this is
not because of our weakness, but because there is no “there” there, no
being, no thing that is God. Nor can God be “infinite being” since on
Neoplatonic terms, that is a contradiction of the principle that to be is to
be intelligible and therefore to be finite.46
Gallus, on the other hand, lines up with a view aptly expressed by
Hans urs von Balthasar, which interprets Dionysian transcendence
thus:
The application of negative names (such as unreason, lack of feeling) to
God is possible kath’ hyperochēn, and implies therefore an objective con-
tent, viz., the “transcendence of God over everything visible” (DN IV.10,
705C). His lordship is not only “superiority” (hyperochē) over what is
subordinated, but simply total possession (DN XII.2, 969B) . . . [hyperochē]
means here nothing else than the objective superabundance of God
(emphasis added).47
For Gallus, on a point where all agree about Dionysius, God is certainly
the transcendent metaphysical Source of all finite being. Aligned with
Balthasar against Perl, however, Gallus interprets God’s hyperochē as
God’s “preeminent possession” rather than God’s “lack of possession,”
as “preeminent-having” rather than “beyond-having.”48
But in affirming the transcendent fullness of God, Gallus is not
domesticating divine unknowability. He seeks neither to resolve this

45
See Dionysius, Letter 4: “the ever Superessential, super-full of super-essentiality,
disregards the excess (τῇ ταύτης περιουσίᾳ) of this” (Dionysius the Areopagite, The
Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, tr. John Parker (London: Parker, 1897) [hereafter
Parker], 143). Also, Dionysius, Letter 5: “unapproachable on account of the excess of
the superessential stream of light” (Parker, 144).
46
Perl, Theophany, 13.
47
Balthasar, Clerical Styles, 206, n. 202.
48
See Timothy D. Knepper, Negating Negation: Against the Apophatic Abandonment
of the Dionysian Corpus (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2014), 54.
42 Foundations and Structures
paradox philosophically, nor to retreat from it theologically.49 In the
end, he speaks of the unspeakable because of the exigencies of divine
self-revelation, “lest we remain silent about the ineffable.”50 And what
has been revealed is that God is Triune. This is strikingly visible in
Gallus’ comments on The Mystical Theology. Dionysius begins that
treatise with a laconic invocation of the “super-substantial Trinity,”
about which nothing more is said (since nothing can nor should be,
since the supreme Cause is “neither one nor oneness, divinity nor
goodness . . . is not sonship or fatherhood . . . and there is no speaking
of it” [MT 5, 1048AB]). Gallus’ Explanatio on that passage, though, is
unblushingly prolix, boldly explaining how the subsequent Dionysian
superlatives actually refer to the different divine Persons and to their
respective appropriations:
ALL-EXCEEDING TRINITY of divine persons, that is, incomparably more-
than-exceeding all existence and being (superexcedens substantiam et
ens), and this can be especially referred to the Person of the Father, to
whom is attributed being and power (esse et posse); MORE-THAN-DIVINE,
that is, incomparably exceeding every cognition and science or wisdom
(superexcedens cognitionem et scientiam sive sapientiam), which is espe-
cially attributed to the Son; AND MORE-THAN-GOOD, that is, incomparably
exceeding every existing goodness (excedens existentem bonitatem),
which is especially attributed to the Holy Spirit.51
This passage captures well the basic stance and underlying intuition
of Gallus’ entire theological endeavor. He insists that God is radically
transcendent, more than exceeding—the recurring prefix “super”
accentuating the point—all being and knowing; yet God has revealed
himself and on that basis is known to be a Trinity of Persons!52 In
short, God is an excessive trinitarian plenitude of super-substantial

49
Gallus’ doctrine of divine excessus is clearly not a species of an analogy of being,
at least in the later Thomistic senses of the word. It is not that God is being per se or
esse ipsum, a fullness of being in relation to which other forms of existence are
subsidiary and derivative analogates.
50 51
Expl-DN 1.63.326. Expl-MT 1.8.129–36.
52
In all this Gallus is more explicitly and extensively Trinitarian than Dionysius.
Cf. Letter 9’s fairly standard way of describing God, in which Trinity is essentially
absent: “a fountain of Life flowing into Itself—viewing It even standing by Itself, and
as a kind of single power, simple, self-moved, and self-worked, not abandoning Itself,
but a knowledge surpassing every kind of knowledge, and always contemplating Itself,
through Itself” (Parker, 168).
 Pleromatic and Ecstatic Trinity 43
“beingness” (entitas), an excess of being (ens).53 That is to say,
however Dionysian transcendence should be understood, Gallus
“transcends” him with his Victorine insistence that, as will be
shown below, divine love is a three-personed pleroma, a plenitude
of divine goodness, eternally given and received.

“PLEROMATIC TRINITY”

In light of the foregoing, Gallus’ turn to the notion of the good is readily
intelligible. Emboldened by Scripture, inspired by Dionysius and
Richard of St. Victor, and anticipating Bonaventure, Gallus meditates
speculatively on the divine nature from the perspective of goodness.54
In Divine Names 4, Dionysius famously designated “good” as the most
apt and proper name of God. He then added “beauty” as essentially
synonymous with “good,” and to these he wedded a third, “love.” Gallus
takes up this Dionysian constellation, but with a Victorine accent.
Following Richard, Gallus stresses the plenitude of divine goodness,
beauty and love.55 When Dionysius writes of THE HIDDEN GOODNESS, the
Victorine Gallus adds: “in its plenitude.”56 This Dionysian-Victorine
synthesis funds Gallus’ account of the divine nature.
Following the Areopagite, to name God “good” (bonum) or “good-
ness” (bonitas) is for Gallus to name what is most “principal,” what is

53
Lawell, “Affective Excess,” 80: “Situating his thought within the domain of being
or within the horizon of goodness is an interesting endeavor that can clearly help
understand, for example, postmodern debates in this area, but this must be done
without forcing a Thomist interpretation on to Gallus. The name plenitude is suffi-
ciently neutral to employ when considering this chief goal in Gallus’s thought.”
54
Expl-DN 2.120.56–121.67: “ABSOLUTE (PER SE) GOODNESS, that is, the eternal and
principal and divine goodness which is not from another source, but true and full
goodness is its proper nature, IS PRAISED BY THE sacred ELOQUENCE AS DEFINING AND
REVEALING THE WHOLE THEARCHIC ESSENCE WHATEVER IT IS, that is, as specially and properly
appropriate to the individuals of the divine persons and declaring the nature of each
individual one, which is clear from testimonies of sacred scripture. . . . (Luke 18:19)
‘Why do you ask me about what is good? No one is good but God alone’. Here Scripture
shows that only the divine essence is truly and fully good, and consequently, each of
the divine persons is truly and fully good . . . ”
55
See Richard of St. Victor, De Trinitate, ed. J. Ribaillier, Textes Philosophiques
du Moyen Age (Paris: J. Vrin, 1958), Book III.
56
Expl-DN 4.188.221–2.
44 Foundations and Structures
most “prior” even to “being” (esse) in God,57 God’s “proper nature
and essence” (naturam propriam et substantiam),58 the least
improper name to give to God in order not to lapse into silence.
Though “nothing is attributed to [God] properly, lest we remain
silent about it, we name it by the most worthy name of the good.”59
For God is “ABSOLUTE (per se) GOODNESS,” namely, “the eternal and
principal and divine goodness, which is not from another, but whose
proper nature is true and full goodness (vera et plena bonitas).”60
Following Richard, though, this fullness of goodness (plenitudo boni-
tatis) entails by its very nature the “[fullness] of charity (caritatis),”61
which entailment is all the more evident when Gallus calls it “the
good amor,” namely, “the all-exceeding fullness of charity (plenitudo
caritatis)”—deliberately fusing, as did both Dionysius62 and Richard
before him, divine eros and agape, amor and caritas.63

57
Expl-DN 4.181.35–8: “the divine principal. For ‘to be’ in God does not come
before ‘to be good’, but goodness in God is either simultaneous with or, as it were,
prior to being . . . ” (diuinam principalem, ESSENTIAM. Esse enim in Deo non preiacet
bonum esse, sed bonitas aut simul aut quasi prius est in eo quam esse tamquam
profundior theoria). Cf., by contrast, Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles
3.20.5: “though anything is good in so far as it is a being . . . being is a term used
absolutely, while good also includes a relation . . . provided it be ordered to the end, it
may be called good because of this relation . . . It is apparent in this conclusion that
good is, in a way, of wider scope than being. For this reason, Dionysius says, in the
fourth chapter of On the Divine Names: ‘the good extends to existent beings and also
to non-existent ones.’ ”
58
Expl-DN 4.181.43.
59
Expl-DN 4.181.38–40: “Nihil tamen ei proprie attribuitur, sed ne de ipso silea-
mus dignissimo nomine boni eum nominamus.”
60
Expl-DN 2.120.56–7. Though not as central as the notion of goodness, the theme of
beauty is also present in Gallus’ reflections. Cf. Expl-DN 4.208.690: “For divine beauty
(pulcritudo divina) is found through fullness in the divinity alone . . . the fullness of beauty
(pulcritudinis plenitudinem)”; Expl-DN 4.209.725: “[God is] the fullness of divine beauty”
(plenitudo divine pulcritudinis); Expl-DN 4.210.760–211.773: “in itself and from itself is the
most beautiful of all,” “the highest beauty,” “the total most beautiful (totum pulcerri-
mum),” “the simplex and universal fullness of beauty” (quia totum secundum se totum
pulcerrimum; . . . sed respectu omnium et super omnia incomparabiliter pulcerrimum; . . .
sed ubique eque et plene pulcrum. Predicte quidem differentie cadunt in particularia pulcra,
sed non in simplicem et uniuersalem pulcritudinis plenitudinem).
61
Expl-DN 4.230.1247.
62
See Dionysius, DN 4.11–14. Cf. Charles M. Stang, “Dionysius, Paul, and the
Significance of a Pseudonym,” in Coakley and Stang, Rethinking Dionysius, 11–26, at
18, and J. S. Kupperman, “Eros and Agape in Dionysius the Areopagite,” Journal of the
Western Mystery Tradition, 25:3 (2013): <http://www.jwmt.org/v3n25/kupperman.
html>, no page numbers).
63
On the Christian fusion of eros and agape, beginning with Origen of Alexan-
dria, see Bernard McGinn, Foundations of Mysticism: Origins to the Fifth Century
 Pleromatic and Ecstatic Trinity 45
THE PATERNAL PLENITUDE

But how precisely the divine nature is plenitudo of goodness and love
is as important as the claim itself. It can appear that Gallus begins
with divine goodness generically, as it were, for he can say that “the
super-substantial deity fecundates the plurality of the persons and
their properties”64 and refer to “the trine unity or the Trinity of
eternal persons, any one of which is true God and true and highest
good, and their simplex essence is God and is the good.”65 In fact,
though,66 his starting point is the divine persons themselves and the
relational correlativity that exist between them, beginning with the
person of the Father.67
When, in The Mystical Theology, Dionysius rather vaguely refers to
LIGHTS OF GOODNESS that HAVE SPRUNG OUT OF THE SIMPLE AND IMMATERIAL
GOOD, which lights are yet REMAINING IN THE HEART, Gallus interprets
this in terms of the Trinitarian persons, beginning with the Father.
The word “lights” refers to “the fullness of the divine nature” (pleni-
tudinem divine nature), which lights, while REMAINING IN THE HEART “of
the Father” (my emphasis), HAVE SPRUNG (pullulaverunt) “through the
origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit” from the GOOD, “that is, the
person of the Father” (my emphasis), who is “the ‘Father of lights’”
(Jas. 1:17).68

(New York: Crossroad, 1991), 118–26; see also Bernard McGinn, “The Language of
Love in Jewish and Christian Mysticism,” in Mysticism and Language, ed. Steven
T. Katz (New York and Oxford, 1992), 202–35.
64
Expl-DN 2.143.691: “ . . . persone quarum pluralite fecunda est supersubstantialis
deitas et earum proprietates . . . ”
65
Expl-DN 1.104.1369–72.
66
So too, Bonaventure, as McGinn (“Dynamism of the Trinity,” 144) notes:
“Instead of following the Augustinian model of the intramental analogy of the
trinitarian processions, Bonaventure begins once again from the ‘agathological’ prin-
ciple of the good as primal and fecund. The Franciscan does not understand the Good
in an abstract way, but rather as personal and ecstatic love . . . ”
67
A long-standing, though recently criticized, commonplace among historians of
Trinitarian theology holds that, broadly speaking, Trinitarian theology in the Latin
West has tended to privilege the single divine essence as its starting point for reflection
on the three divine persons, while in the Greek East, reflection on the divine persons,
especially the Father, grounded subsequent understanding of the unity of the divine
essence. Gallus’ Trinitarian theology demonstrates just how difficult it is to make this
commonplace stick.
68
Expl-MT 3.36.35–7.
46 Foundations and Structures
This stress on the Father’s primordial plenitude of goodness is
crucial, for it governs Gallus’ understanding of the very person of
the Father, who is the abundant “fount, author and origin (fons, auctor,
et origo)” of the Son and Spirit;69 the “root” and “shoot” (pullulatio)
from whose “paternal plenitude” (paterna plenitudine) they come forth
like flowers;70 the primordial “beginning” (principio),71 who possesses
absolute “fecundity” (fecunditas), which can thus be called the copious
“largess,” (largitio),72 which makes him the “lavish author” (auctor
largiens),73 and causes “largess” (largitio) to be a “property of the
[divine] nature.”74 God is “the fount of all fullness (fontem omnimode
plenitudinis),” because “that fullness is given by the Father to the Son,
by the Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit, in order that the highest
liberality (liberalitas) might be fulfilled (impleretur).”75 The first Person
is thus the “paternal author” (paterna auctoritas)76 as well as “the heart”
(cor), for “just as from our heart come forth (procedit) our word and
breath, so out of the Father (ex Patre) come the Son and the Holy

69
Expl-DN 2.151.906–7. “THAT THE FATHER IS THE DEITY FOUNTAIN (deitas fontana),
that is, the Father is God or divinity, and is the fount, author and source (fons, auctor,
et origo) as much of the Son as of the Holy Spirit.”
70
Expl-DN 2.151.913–15: “JUST LIKE . . . FLOWERS as if rising from the root of the
Father, AND SUPER-SUBSTANTIAL LIGHTS, radiating from the paternal plenitude (paterna
plenitudine) . . . ”
71
Expl-DN 2.150.898–9: “the Son and the Holy Spirit, so to speak, shoot forth
(pullulent) from the principle of the Father (ex Patre principio).”
72
Expl-MT 3.36.43–4: “ . . . that largess (largitio) is not from a gift of grace, but
from the property of the nature.”
73
Expl-DN 2.143–4.697–700: “ . . . by generating the Son himself and by spirating
the Holy Spirit with the Son and by possessing or receiving absolutely nothing from
another, the Father is by nature (naturaliter) the lavish author (auctor largiens) for all
things.”; Expl-DN 2.150.897–8: “the Father is the auctor of the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
74
Expl-MT 3.36.44–5.
75
Glss-AH 3.37.60–2.
76
Expl-DN 1.85.861–86.873: “ . . . The theologian arranges and praises the the-
archy as A TRINITY ON ACCOUNT OF THE MANIFESTATIONS OF THE SUPER-SUBSTANTIAL FECUND-
ITY (fecunditatis) OF THE THREE PERSONS, that is, he points out in the divinity a plurality,
sometimes twofold, sometimes threefold, and this for the purpose of declaring the
Trinity of divine persons, through which are fecundated (fecundantur) the most
glorious speaking forth of the Son eternally begotten (geniti) from the Father, and
the common spiration of the Holy Spirit; . . . Therefore this fecundity can be called the
paternal source, in as much as the Father is the auctor of the Son and the Holy Spirit
and eternally gives to each of them, such that each is what it is and has whatever it has,
and can do whatever it can, and for both to be co-equal and con-substantial with the
Father, and all of this not a gift of grace but from a natural property.” Cf. Expl-DN
2.127.243–4: “in whom there is auctoritas with respect to the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
 Pleromatic and Ecstatic Trinity 47
Spirit.”77 The person of the Father, then, is the “God-begetting-divinity
(deigenam divinitatem),”78 or more precisely, since “this abstract name
‘divinity’ stands here for the person,” the Father is the “God-generating-
God” (Deus Deum generans).79 All this is captured in the two so-called
personal notiones of the Father:80 unbegottenness (innascibilitas) and
paternity (paternitas)81 or father-principle (patri-archia82): Since
“the Father subsists in his own auctoritas, and alone supplies origin
(originem) to the Son, and the Father with the Son supplies origin
(originem) to the Holy Spirit. Hence to the Father alone is attributed
as much innascibilitas as paternitas or active-generation.”83 Like
Bonaventure, Gallus seems to see these two notions as mutually
entailing one another. “For the Father alone in the Trinity gives and
does not receive”;84 “by possessing or receiving absolutely nothing
from another, the Father is [Father] by nature (naturaliter).”85 To
the extent that the Father is non-receiving, to that extent is the
Father fecund. Though he does not say so explicitly (as Bonaventure
will), the Father’s generativity for Gallus seems to be a function of
“first-ness” (primitas).

77
Expl-MT 3.36.47–37.49. It is perhaps worth noting that Gallus, like Alexander of
Alexandria before him, stresses the mysterious ineffability of this the Father–Son
relation: Expl-DN 2.150.899–900: “yet how this is so [that the Father is source and
principle of the Son and Spirit], we [the faithful] can neither understand or cogitate.”
78
Expl-DN 2.123.126–7.
79
Expl-DN 2.151.909. Slotemaker (“Pierre D’Ailly,” 108) notes: “In the patristic
period it was Augustine and Hilary of Poitiers who explicitly engaged the question of
whether or not one can claim that ‘Deus generat Deum’ (God begets God) or ‘essentia
generat essentiam’ (the divine essence generates the divine essence). Through sub-
stantive engagement with Augustine of Hippo and Hilary of Poitiers, twelfth-century
theologians, Peter Lombard (c.1095/1100–1160), Richard of St. Victor (d.1173), and
Joachim of Fiore (c.1135–1202) intensely debated the relationship between the divine
essence and the Father in the emanations of the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
80
On the notiones, see Expl-MT 3.35.20–36.22: “as received by the intellect, there
are in the divinity personal distinctions and properties, paternity, filiation and the
other notions (notiones)”; Expl-DN 2.143.680–5: “BUT IT IS ETC. Here he shows that in
the divine persons not only is there a differentiated and unconfused Trinity of persons
in unity of essence . . . , but the same persons are so distinguished from one another by
their individual properties such that no [personal property] can be predicated of the
others, even though the divine essentials are predicated indifferently of each of the
individual persons.”
81
Expl-DN 2.144.706–7: “to the Father is attributed properly paternity and
unbegottenness (paternitas et innascibilitas).”
82
Expl-DN 2.151.923: “ . . . FROM THE PATRIARCHY, that is, from the eternal paternity
of the Father, which is the principal source of all paternity . . . ”
83 84
Expl-DN 2.135.464–7. Expl-DN 2.144.700.
85
Expl-DN 2.144.699–700.
48 Foundations and Structures
In sum, despite radical divine transcendence and its attendant
ineffability, Gallus espies a primordial and fontal fecundity, largess,
and generativity in the person of the Father,86 a self-diffusive, pater-
nal plenitude at the heart of the Triune God, which fully expresses its
abundance immanently by originating the Son and the Spirit, thus
grounding the unity of the Godhead and thus of the divine nature
itself. Accordingly, it is because the Father is fecund font, from whose
paternal goodness the Son and the Spirit come forth, that the entire
Trinity is the fullness of goodness: “[Dionysius] understands the good
to be God, who is the fullness of goodness (plenitudo bonitatis), of
which Mt. 19:17: ‘There is one that is good, God’.”87

THE PROPR IA OF THE PERSONS

This particular understanding of the person of the Father informs,

moreover, Gallus’ view of the personal distinctions or properties of
the Son and the Spirit. Both are distinguished from the Father in as
much as they are constituted personally by their reception of the
Father’s fontal fullness:
For the Son eternally receives the fullness of the divine nature from the
Father, by eternally being born (nascendo) from the Father; and the
Holy Spirit eternally receives that same fullness from both, that is, from
the Father and the Son, by eternally proceeding (procedendo) from
both.88
For Gallus, both the Son’s “generation” and Spirit’s “proceeding” are
first and foremost diverse modes of receptivity of the paternal pleni-
tude. The western doctrine of the filioque, though, introduces a
distinction that diversifies the Son and the Spirit as follows: “The
proprium of the Spirit is eternally to receive existence from another
and not to receive existence from Itself.”89 The proper trait (pro-
prium) of the Spirit is its pure receptivity, which plays opposite the
pure generativity of the Father, noted above, whose paternal proprium

86
Gallus approaches the Bonaventurian term “fontality” (fontalitas): “TO THE GOOD,
that is, to its fontal goodness (fontalem bonitatem)” and Expl-DN 4.247.1678: “the
desiring of his fontal fullness (fontalis plenitudinis).”
87 88
Expl-DN 1.67.433–5. Expl-MT 3.36.40–3.
89
Spec-cont. 6.7.281.353.
 Pleromatic and Ecstatic Trinity 49
is “not receiving existence from another and having existence from
Himself.”90 Straddling these polar opposites, as it were, and thus
occupying a middle or central role is the Son, whose proprium is
both “receiving existence from another and another receiving exist-
ence from Him.”91 Following his Victorine mentor, Gallus also puts
this in terms of Richard of St. Victor’s signature emphasis, namely,
interpersonal love. From the vantage point of “the fullest love”
(emphasis added), the Father is characterized by “gratuitous love,”
which is freely “giving and not receiving”; to the Spirit, conversely,
belongs “owed love,” which is “received from both [of the other]
persons [and not given]”; combing both modes, and thus exhausting
all other possibilities, is the love of the Son,92 which is both “freely
received and freely given.”93 In sum, the divine goodness and love is
fully given and fully received amongst the three persons: the same
plenitude shared equally by each, shared simultaneously by all, and
yet each sharing in a distinct mode, proper to Itself, thus eternally
constituting three eternal persons.
From these three modes of personal existence, Gallus derives, in
scholastic parlance, the five so-called Trinitarian “notions” (notiones),
that is, five distinct characteristics associated with each of the three
persons: To the Father belong (1) innascibilitas or unbegotteneness,
(2) fatherhood (paternitas) or active generation [of the Son], and (3)
active-spiration [of the Spirit]. To the Son belong both (3) active
spiration [of the Spirit], shared with the Father, and (4) sonship
(filiatio) or passive generation (i.e. being generated by or begotten
of the Father). To the Spirit, lastly, belongs (5) procession (processio)
or passive spiration (i.e. being spirated from the Father and the Son).
The following passage succinctly summarizes Gallus’ conception of
trinitarian persons, and the five corresponding “notions,” in terms
of the Ricardian distinction of the persons (i.e. modes of giving and
receiving), all the while respecting the ultimately ineffable divine
mystery:
so that we may say something concerning the ineffable we use personal
and notional terms to distinguish the divine persons . . . in that, namely,
the Father has his being and universal plenitude from no other person

90 91
Spec-cont. 6.7.281.352. Spec-cont. 6.7.281.354.
92
Spec-cont. 6.6.281.350: “There is no fourth member found in this distinction of
love, and therefore there is no fourth person in the Trinity.”
93
Spec-cont. 6.6.281.347–9.
50 Foundations and Structures
than his own, hence innascibilitas is attributed to him. Likewise he
eternally and naturally generates a Son, giving being and all plenitude
to him . . . by the property of his own nature, whence paternitas or
generatio-activa is attributed to him. Again, the Father, simultaneously
with the Son, eternally spirates the Holy Spirit, giving him all plenitude
in the way mentioned; hence to both the Father and the Son is attrib-
uted spiratio-activa, by which they are the principle of the Holy Spirit.
But the Son is generated by the Father and has [from him] whatever he
is or has, hence filiatio or generatio-passio is attributed to him. But to
the Holy Spirit is attributed spiratio-passio or processio.94
Evident in all of this is Gallus’ own signature emphasis on divine
plenitude, funded by the principle that the fullness of goodness is fully
self-diffusive within the Godhead itself, given and received utterly,
without remainder. “For no word, as it seems to me, more sublimely
attains the meaning of the super-unknown divine infinity than the
name ‘fullness’.”95

EXCURSUS: DISTI NCTION BY ORIGIN

It is worth noting that Gallus stands as an early witness to an

emerging, increasingly self-conscious, thirteenth-century tradition
of Trinitarian theology that privileges an account of emanations or
origination, over an account of relations, as the primary basis for the
distinction of persons in God.96 Rehearsing the five “notions” noted
above, Gallus stresses the fact that eternal distinctions of the divine
persons arise from differences “in origin” (ex origine):97 the Father
has innascibilitas, active-generation, [and] active-spiration because
He “neither receives nor has origin, and gives origin both to the Son
and to the Holy Spirit.” Likewise, the Son has passive-generation or
filiation, because He “receives origin solely and immediately from the
Father,” and active-spiration, because together with the Father “he
gives origin to the Holy Spirit,” who has passive-spiration or procession

94
Expl-AH 1.488.214.
95
Expl-DN 4.894.875: “Nullum autem vocabulum, ut mihi videtur, sublimius
ascendit in divine superignote infinitatis significationem quam nomen plenitudinis.”
96
See Friedman, Medieval Trinitarian Thought, 5–49.
97
See also Gallus, Spec-cont. 6.4.280.330: “The fourth attends to the fact that origin
alone distinguishes the divine persons . . . ”
 Pleromatic and Ecstatic Trinity 51
because He “receives origin from the Father and the Son.”98 For Gallus,
this distinction of origin is neither incompatible with divine simplicity
and unity, nor does it compromise the absolute eternity and equality of
all the persons within the Godhead, introducing neither temporal
sequence nor ontological gradation: “Therefore origin alone befits
(congruit) the distinction of the eternal persons to whom is added
neither priority and posterity, nor majority and minority.”99 Accord-
ingly, if also paradoxically, in contrast to all hierarchical relationships
among created things, God for Gallus is a “divine hierarchy” in which
“there is neither superiority nor inferiority,” nor strictly speaking is
there “order” in the Trinity, at least in the sense that pertains to created
realities. Gallus insists, for example, that “the Son and his eternal
generation exceed all order.”100 Insisting on radical divine transcend-
ence, Gallus allows only that in the Trinity “there is a super-substantial
beginning and exemplar”101 of created order and hierarchy.102 For
“that super-natural and notional distinction in the Holy Trinity,
which consists solely in the origin of persons, super-excels all ordering
in [created things].”103

98
Expl-DN 1.88.926–34; cf. Expl-DN 1.88.935–42: “Likewise, what is common to
the Father and the Son, to have procession eternally from themselves, is from the fact
that they eternally give origin to the Holy Spirit. Likewise, what is common to the Son
and to the Holy Spirit, for a different reason, is from the fact that they both receive
origin from the Father. Likewise, what is common to the Father and to the Holy Spirit,
not to have both [activity and passivity], is from the fact that the Father, for one
reason, is not, and the Spirit, for another reason, does not, that is, the fact that the
Spirit does not give origin, [and] the Father does not receive it.”
99
Expl-DN 1.88.943–89.945.
100
Expl-DN 1.89.949–50.
101
Expl-DN 1.88.917–18.
102
In the Breviloquium, the Dionysian influence seems to prompt Bonaventure to
call the Trinity a hierarchy, but leaves the claim vague and undeveloped. Brevilo-
quium, Prol. 3.1–2 (Monti, 11–12): “Sacred Scripture . . . also possesses a height, which
consists of the description of the hierarchies in their ordered ranks. These hierarchies
are the ecclesiastical, the angelic, and the divine—or in other words, the sub-celestial,
the celestial, and the super-celestial. The first is described clearly, the second some-
what more indirectly, and the third more obscurely . . . All this is done through that
one Hierarch, Jesus Christ, who by reason of the human nature he assumed, is
Hierarch in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, but also in the angelic hierarchy, and is the
middle person of that supercelestial hierarchy of the Blessed Trinity.”
103
Expl-DN 1.88.921–3. Cf. Expl-DN 1.88.918–21: “from the auctoritas which is
in the Father, with respect to the Son and the Holy Spirit, and in the Father and the
Son with respect to the Holy Spirit; and a sub-auctoritas which is in the Son and the
Holy Spirit with respect to the Father; and likewise in the Holy Spirit with respect to
the Son.”
52 Foundations and Structures
DYNAMIC CIRCULARITY OF ECSTATIC GIVING
AND TOTAL RECEIVING OF LOVE

The foregoing sets the stage for a more comprehensive account of the
divine nature according to Gallus. Assuming now the centrality of
pleromatic goodness in Gallus’ conception of the divine nature, what
are its crucial implications?
First, “fullness of goodness” (plenitudo bonitatis) entails an essen-
tial and eternal dynamism. Out of the fecundity of the Father, the Son
is “eternally being born (nascendo)” and from them both the Spirit
is “eternally proceeding (procedendo).”104 The paternal generativity
originating the Son and the Holy Spirit is “from (ab) eternity and into
(in) eternity.”105 Gallus accentuates the ongoing originating activity
that constitutes the persons in their relations, rather than on the
relations, say of paternity-filiation, conceived of statically, as it were.
Second, this dynamism is necessarily two-dimensional since it entails
an eternal activity of self-giving and self-receiving—“the divine fullness
is equally eternally in receiving as in giving”106—which enacts the
fullness of goodness: “the highest and absolutely perfect benevolence
(benevolentia) requires that the eternal receives eternal plenitude
eternally (ut eternam plenitutinem eternus eternaliter accipiat), namely,
the Son from the Father, the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son,
perpetual things perpetually . . . ”107
Third, these essential and eternal Trinitarian acts are well-
characterized as, on the one hand, self-exceeding and thus as ecstatic
self-giving (e.g. the Father’s eternal act of generation of the Son and
the Father and Son’s eternal act of spiration of the Holy Spirit) and,
on the other, as self-receiving and thus as enstatic self-reception (e.g.
the Son’s total reception of his person from the Father, and the Spirit’s
total reception of his person from the Father and the Son together).
Precisely in this consists divine plenitude: “Though given to the Son
and the Spirit, that plenitude (plenitudo) is nevertheless not with-
drawn from the Father”;108 “nothing is lost to the Father which the
Son or the Holy Spirit receives from him.”109
Fourth, this eternal dynamic of giving and receiving establishes a
kind of perichoretic and mutual indwelling of the Persons. Adopting

104 105
Expl-MT 3.36.40–3. Expl-MT 3.37.49–50.
106 107
Expl-MT 3.37.51–2. Expl-DN 4.230.1255.
108 109
Expl-MT 3.36.45–7. Expl-MT 3.37.53–4.
 Pleromatic and Ecstatic Trinity 53
a term from the Latin Dionysius, Gallus refers to the “INDWELLING”
(mansio) of the Son and the Holy Spirit in the Father, and by
implication of the “indwelling (mansio) of the Father and the Son
and the Spirit IN THEMSELVES (in se ipsis)”; that is: “each one of them
remains immutably and eternally in its state,” “dwelling WITHIN ONE
110
ANOTHER (in se invicem).” Elsewhere he speaks of the divine persons
being “within themselves mutually (in se mutuo), as the Father is in
the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Son in the Father and the Holy Spirit,
the Holy Spirit in the Father and the Son.”111 It is because “each of the
divine persons remains eternally in the others”112 that a unity of
essence exists in God, a unity that is simultaneously “most simple
(simplicissimam) and most full (plenissimam).”113 Thus:
even though in the divine nature there is a true Trinity of persons
eternally co-indwelling one another mutually (in se mutuo eternaliter
commanentium), there is yet a true unity of substance in those same
persons incomparably and universally super-exceeding every created
unity or simplicity, in which those very persons are gathered together
immutably, eternally, and consubstantially without any confusion of
those persons.114
The Son’s and Spirit’s co-equal, co-eternal sharing in the Father’s
plenitude of goodness thus constitutes the co-indwelling or co-
inherence of the Trinitarian persons, a mutual perichoresis, and thus
also the unity of the divine essence.
Fifth, as noted at the outset of this chapter, this intra-trinitarian,
pleromatic dynamism is also a synthetic expansion—fusing both
Dionysius and Richard—on the New Testament claim that God is
love. Commenting on the famous passage of Divine Names, Chapter 4,
where Dionysius argues for the essential identity in God of both eros
and agape, or in the Latin translation, of amor and caritas, Gallus
glosses the Dionysian claim as an intra-trinitarian act of the Father’s
pleromatic generation of the Son: “And so, the good amor, namely, the
all-exceeding fullness of charity (plenitudo caritatis) existing eternally

110 111
Expl-MT 3.37.56–9. Expl-DN 2.137.527–8.
112
Gallus then cinches his point with a battery of scriptural texts: “Hence Jn. 14:11:
‘Believe you not that I am in the Father and the Father in me?’ and Jn. 1:1: ‘In the
beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.’ And Jn.
17:21: ‘as you, Father, in me, and I in you’ and Jn. 10:38: ‘that you may know and
believe that the Father is in me and I in the Father.’ ”
113 114
Expl-MT 3.37.60–1. Expl-DN 2.138.532–7.
54 Foundations and Structures
in the good Father, DID NOT ALLOW IT TO REMAIN WITHOUT GERMINATION
(germine), that is, of the Son.”115 In nearly the same breath, Gallus can
also put the same claim in Richard of St. Victor’s terms:
since it is necessary that amor tend toward another such that caritas
may be able to exist, and the highest and ordered charity could not be
had unless [tending] toward that which is to be most highly loved and
consequently to the highest good, it is necessary that the consortium
(consortio) of the highest good, and consequently of the eternal and
divine persons, not lack a certain divine person, namely the Father,
who receives something from no one, but subsists in his own auctor-
itas, [and] namely, the Son, who receives from the Father whatever he
has or is.116
Whether in Dionysian or Ricardian terms, the Gallusian insight/
intuition regarding the pleromatic Trinity is the same: As “the most
universal fullness of true goodness,”117 the Trinity is a dynamic rhythm
of self-giving and self-receiving love.
Sixth, and last, Gallus’ preferred image of pleromatic divine love,
following Dionysius, is that of a circle: “DIVINE LOVE IS REVEALED to be
WITHOUT END IN ITSELF, that is, an interminability and eternity of its
divinity, DIFFERING from every other love, NOT HAVING A BEGINNING . . .
just as in a circle there is found neither beginning nor end.”118
But, departing from (or, more charitably, going beyond) the Areo-
pagite, Gallus posits an explicitly Trinitarian circle. Again, glossing
Divine Names (Chapter 4) and commenting on the Dionysian
phrase THE INDIVISIBILITY OF THE ALL-CREATIVE DEITY, Gallus observes:
“For all the lines of a circle terminate in the most simple and

115
Expl-DN 4.230.1255.
116
Expl-DN 4.230.1246: “Item cum in prima causa sit plenitudo bonitatis et per
consequens caritatis, et necesse sit ut amor in alterum tendat ut caritas esse queat, nec
summa et ordinata caritas nisi erga summe diligendum et per consequens summe
bonum haberi possit, oportet diuinam aliquam personam, Patris scilicet, qui a nullo
aliquid accipit sed propria auctoritate subsistit, summe bone et per consequens eterne
et diuine persone consortionon carere, scilicet Filli, qui a Patre accipit quicquid habet
uel existit.”
117
Expl-DN 4.245.1637: “the theologians CALL HIM, God, LOVABLE AND DESIRABLE, AS
THE GOOD AND BEAUTIFUL, that is, in as much as he himself is the most universal fullness
of true goodness and true beauty (vere bonitatis et vere pulcritudinis uinversalissima
plenitudo) . . . ”
118
Expl-DN 4.247.1679–82: “OSTENDITUR DIVINUS AMOR esse INTERMINABLE SUI IPSIUS,
id est interminabilitas et eternitas ipsius diuinitatis, DIFFERENTER ab omni alio amore,
NON HABENS PRINCIPIUM propter dictam reuolutionem, sicut in circulo non est inuenire
finem aut principium.”
 Pleromatic and Ecstatic Trinity 55
indivisible center. . . . As if (emphasis added) [Dionysius] had said:
I have given an example of the indivisible participation of the divine
persons in the center of the circle (emphasis added).”119 In the several
prologues to his commentaries on the Song of Songs, Gallus gives a
similar interpretation to the famous passage in Divine Names
(Chapter 4), where Dionysius refers to divine Love as “a sort of
everlasting circle whirling round in unerring combination, by reason
of the Good, from the Good, and in the Good, and to the Good, and
ever proceeding, and remaining, and returning in the same and
throughout the same.”120 To Gallus, it is simply self-evident that
Dionysius speaks of the “whirling around (convolutione) of the holy
and singular Trinity (emphasis added).”121

CONCLUSION

In the light of the foregoing, it seems quite likely that Gallus’

pleromatic Trinity is a crucial moment in the development of the
thirteenth-century Franciscan tradition of Trinitarian theology, a
vital chapter in the narrative running from Richard of St. Victor to
Bonaventure. Regardless of how precisely Gallus figures in that
narrative, though, his Trinitarian theology introduces and adum-
brates what might best be called a “principle of plenitude” animating
his entire corpus, namely, a deep and abiding intuition that God is
an aboriginal Abundance, an eternal Fontality, which accounts for
the Trinitarian God and, as will be seen in subsequent chapters,
everything else. Since the pleromatic Trinity is ultimately an ecstatic
plenitudo of self-donation and self-reception, of ecstatic self-exceeding
and enstatic self-receiving, all created reality, including the human
soul, insofar as reflects its Source, will be characterized similarly.

119
Expl-DN 4.145.755–146.770: “Omnes enim linee circuli in simplicissimo et
indiuisibili centro terminantur. . . . EXCEDIT AUTEM etc., quasi dicat: exemplificaui de
diuinarum personarum indiuisibili participatione in centro circuli.”
120
DN 4.14.
121
Cmm2-CC Prol.67: “ . . . in divinam monadem, a qua convolutione sancte et
unice Trinitatis in seipsam prodierunt, idem: ‘sicut quidam eternus circulus, etc.
usque restitutus.’ ”
 2

Plethoric Diffusion in Creation

INTRODUCTION

For Thomas Gallus, ecstatic plenitudo does not merely constitute

what the triune God is in se; it also explains why there is anything
other than the Trinity and why all that is not-God has the mode of
being it has; finally, it explains and governs the relation between God
and all that is not God. That is to say: the pleromatic God is not only
ecstatic and utterly self-diffusing in se, but for that very reason is also
the Source and Goal of all that is not-God, which comes forth from
and, as will be explained below, returns to God.

PLETHORIC TRINITY

For Gallus, it is because God is the plenitude of goodness and love

(see Chapter 1) that there is anything other than God. The notion of
intra-divine ecstasis finds a corollary in, or extension to, the God–world
relation. “Love is of so great a power,” he says, paraphrasing The
Mystical Theology, that “if one is permitted to speak thus, it draws
God out of himself ” toward creation, bridging the ontological chasm
dividing them.1 The notion is distinctly Dionysian, and Gallus quotes
the Areopagite at length:

1
Expl-MT 1.6.83: “Tante autem uirtutis est dilectio ut non tantum hominem extra
se ad Deum sed, si fas est dicere, quasi Deum extra se trahit ad hominem ut in
infinitum distantes uniat.”
 Plethoric Diffusion in Creation 57
it must be said that God, the cause of all things, by the beautiful and
good love of all things, through the abundance of his loving goodness,
comes to be outside of himself in providence for all existing things and
is drawn out of himself by goodness, and by affection, and by love, and
he is displaced from being that which is above all things and separated
from all things, to being that which is in all things, on account of his [7]
ecstasy-causing, super-substantial power, yet not departing from itself.2
Because of his goodness, God is self-exceeding—literally “stands” or
“goes” outside of himself—in relating to all that is not God. As Gallus
puts it elsewhere: “such is the power of the true love of the good
and beautiful that it . . . causes God to go beyond his own nature, as it
were, in order to condescend to creatures by proceeding below his
nature.”3 For “his goodness alone is the cause of all creation.”4
Glossing the Dionysian phrase that notes how God is “drawn out
from himself (extrahitur) to creation BY GOODNESS AND DILECTION AND
LOVE,” Gallus offers a Ricardian interpretation of this triad, explaining
that this “infinity of his goodness . . . naturally wills to communicate
itself ” (que vult naturaliter se communicare) and that this is “the
DILECTION AND LOVE of [God’s] inmost natural charity (sue intime
naturalis caritatis dilectionem et amorem),”5 and that this drawing of
God out of Himself “is the temporal effect of God’s eternal dilection.”6
Following Dionysius, the general framework with which Gallus
conceives of the God–world relationship is the classical Neoplatonic
triad of “remaining” (manens), “procession” (exitus), and “return”
(reditus).7 Never ceasing to be radically transcendent, wholly other

2
Expl-MT 1.6.85–1.7.92: “Vnde Dionysius post predicta subiungit: “Audendum
autem et hoc pro ueritate dicere quod et ipse,” scilicet Deus, “omnium causa, pulcro et
bono omnium amore, per habundantiam amatiue bonitatis extra se ipsum fit ad
omnia existentia prouidentiis et sicut bonitate et dilectione et amore trahitur, et ex
eo quod est super omnia et ab omnibus segregatum ad id quod est in omnibus
disponitur secundum extasim facientem supersubstantialem uirtutem, a se ipso
inegressibilem.”
3
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.D.119: “tanta est virtus veri amoris boni et pulchri quod non
facit homines et angelos excedere naturam propriam ut in Deum ascendant, sed etiam
Deum quasi natauram propriam egredi ut ad creaturas quasi infra naturam suam
procedendo condescendat.”
4 5
Expl-DN 1.83.805–6. See Richard of St. Victor, De Trinitate, 3.16.
6
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.D.120.
7
For this theme in Dionysius, see Ysabel de Andia, Henosis: L’union à Dieu chez
Denys l’Aréopagite (Leiden and New York: E. J. Brill, 1996), 378, 387–8; W. Beierwaltes,
Denken des Einen: Studien zur neuplatonischen Philosophie und ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte
(Klosterman: Frankfurt, 1985), 150.
58 Foundations and Structures
fullness of goodness, God yet processes “out of” himself into all that is
not God and returns “back” to himself:8
divine amor, remaining eternally and immobily in the fullness of its
goodness, on account of the requirements of its goodness . . . processes
from the very font of its goodness (ex ipso bonitatis fonte) into existing
things, which are all good on account of the communication of that
goodness; and from those very existing things it is turned back (reflec-
titur) . . . into that very font of goodness (fontem bonitatem).9
While this dynamic, triadic metaphysic precedes Dionysius, stem-
ming from Plotinus and especially Proclus,10 the Areopagite gave it
an original (and pregnant) formulation in terms of the good—ON
ACCOUNT OF THE GOOD, FROM THE GOOD, IN THE GOOD, TO THE GOOD—
which Gallus glosses in this way:
ON ACCOUNT OF THE GOOD: for there is no other cause of this procession
except the divine goodness; FROM THE GOOD: that is, from the font of
divine goodness; IN THE GOOD: that is, in the whole totality of things,
which is totally good through the communication of this font; TO THE
11
GOOD: that is, to its fontal goodness (emphasis added).

As the emphases above indicate, Gallus consistently appropriates

and elaborates the Dionysian intuition in terms of divine “fontality.”12
In his earliest engagement with the CD, he calls God “the font of all

8
Expl-DN 4.248.1701–4: “AND ALWAYS PROCESSING into things, AND REMAINING
unmoved, AND RETURNING (restitutus), that is, through the desires of things which it
moves, turning them back (reflexus) into itself; IN THE SAME, that is, in its super-simple
goodness (in ipsa sua supersimplici bonitate), AND ACCORDING TO THE SAME, that is,
according to the same goodness.”
9
Expl-DN 4.247.1686–92: “amor diuinus, in plenitudine sue bonitatis eternaliter
et immobiliter persistens, id exigente sua bonitate cui proprium est uocare existentia
ad sui ipsius communionem, sicut dicitur AI 4a, procedit ex ipso bonitatis fonte in
existentia que omnia ipsa bonitatis communicatione sunt bona; et de ipsis existentibus
reflectitur, et ea reflectit per appetitum in ipsum fontem bonitatis.”
10
Note that “procession and return” is Plotinian in origin, while the threefold
dynamic, with the addition of “remaining,” is Proclean (see Perl, Theophany, 35).
11
Expl-DN 4.248.1697–1701.
12
Perhaps this theme is inspired by the Dionysian image of liquid in Letter 9, 3
(Parker, 175): “liquid is suggestive of the stream, at once flowing through and to all;
eager to advance, and further conducting those who are properly nourished as to
goodness, through things variegated and many and divided, to the simple and
invariable knowledge of God. Wherefore the divine and spiritually perceived Oracles
are likened to dew, and water, and to milk, and wine, and honey; on account of their
life-producing power, as in water; and growth-giving, as in milk; and reviving, as in
wine; and both purifying and preserving, as in honey. For these things, the Divine
 Plethoric Diffusion in Creation 59
fullness (fontem omnimode plenitudinis),” who “liberally communi-
cates to others those goods which he possesses,” who is thus “the
highest liberality (summa liberalitas)” and “generosity (largitas),” to
which is proper “to give whatever great things, whatever good things
that can be given and received.”13 This terminology is even more
pronounced in his last writings: Because he creates “through an excess
of goodness (per bonitatis excessum),”14 God is the “fontal divine
goodness” (fontali divina bonitate),15 “the fontal deity” (in fontali
deitate),16 the “fullness and font (plenitudinem et fontem) of lights,”17
the “first font of lights” (primo fonte luminum),18 the “fullness of the
font of wisdom” (plenitudine fontis sapientie),19 the “fullness and
causality of being (plenitudo et causalitas essentie),”20 the “most causal
fontality and the most fontal causality (causalissime fontalitatis et
fontalis causalitatis).”21 In short, for Gallus, if God in se (“internally”
and “within”) is well-characterized as “pleromatic” (cf. Chapter 1), then
extra se (“externally” and “without”) God is well-styled as “plethoric”—
superabundant, overflowing, excessive.
In short, the divine ontology of fontal goodness that constitutes
the Trinitarian God in se also accounts, not simply for the very
existence of creation, but also for its particular ontological charac-
teristics: Because God is goodness, what is not God comes to be and
comes to be precisely as self-communicated divine goodness; because
God is goodness, what is not God is good, though not absolutely, but
only in so far as it exists; and because God is goodness, what exists by
virtue of divine self-communication “desires” to return to the fontal
Source from which it came. Created reality is thus “suffused” with
the dynamism of procession and return, exitus-reditus, common to
Neoplatonic metaphysical schemes from Plotinus to Bonaventure22
and Aquinas.23

Wisdom gives to those approaching it, and furnishes and fills to overflowing, a stream
of ungrudging and unfailing good cheer.”
13 14 15
Glss-AH 3.37.51–9. Expl-DN 4.180.20. Expl-DN 4.251.1785.
16 17
Expl-DN 2.162.1221. Expl-DN 1.68.445–6.
18 19
Expl-DN 4.187.181. Expl-DN 1.72.545–6.
20 21
Expl-DN 2.144.711. Expl-DN 2.152.952.
22
Bonaventure, Collations on the Six Days, I.17 (trans. José de Vink. Vol. 5 of Works
of Saint Bonaventure (Patterson, NJ: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1970)), 332: “haec est tota
nostra metaphysica: de emanatione, de exemplaritate, de consummatione.”
23
M.-D. Chenu, “Le plan de la Somme théologique de saint Thomas,” Revue
thomiste 47 (1939): 93–107.
60 Foundations and Structures
PROCESSION

Simply put, by “procession” Gallus signifies the divine act of self-

communicating to, or self-sharing with, all that is not God. By proceed-
ing, God exceeds himself, “ecstasicizes,” goes out of God into what is not
God. While ad intra the Trinity is constituted by a sharing of goodness
among the divine Persons, ad extra the Triune God is a single, unified
“first cause,”24 the “donatrix of all divine distributions,”25 the “cause
and distributor of all . . . beautiful things.”26 “Each of the divine persons
is the cause of all things.”27
As noted, procession is a function of divine goodness, which is
naturally self-diffusive of its own plenitude:28 “Divine goodness . . .
from the inmost property of its nature . . . most generously commu-
nicates itself,”29 just like the physical sun, “a type of its most generous
communication” (largissime communicationis).30 For “the plenitude
of divine light . . . is to a certain extent signified by the general com-
munication of the sun’s light to visible things.”31 Divine goodness
shines “the rays of infinity and the incomprehensible splendors of its
beauty, as if offering itself (se quasi deponendo).”32 “Although he is
infinite, hidden, and invisible by nature” (i.e. “remaining”), God yet
“communicates his goodness to every creature.”33 And “through
procession . . . from the eternal fullness of his goodness (de plenitu-
dine eterne sue bonitatis),” God is “communicating himself to every
individual EXISTING THING . . . ”34 In relation to all that is not God, Gallus
often styles this self-communicating goodness “divine generosity”
(divina largitas).35

24 25 26
Expl-DN 4.182.54. Expl-DN 2.165.36. Expl-DN 4.209.721–2.
27
Expl-DN 2.128.248: “Quelibet tamen divina persona est causa omnium.”
28
See CH 4.1 and DN 4.1. Cf. Alexander of Hales, Glossa in quatuor libros
sententiarum Petri Lombardi, 4 vols., Bibliotheca Franciscana Scholastica Medii
Aevi 12–15 (Quaracchi, 1951–7), I.1.36: “For good is the reason because of which
things go forth from him. For he is the highest good, which is diffusive of being
without any diminishment.”
29 30
Expl-DN 4.182.52–5. Expl-DN 4.183.83.
31 32
Expl-DN 4.209.733–5. Expl-DN 1.91.1031–3.
33
Expl-DN 1.67.436–7.
34
Expl-DN 4.245.1637. Cf. “the principal goodness and principally distributive of
true goods” (Expl-DN 2.165.32–3); and “that very goodness sends out copiously from
itself” (Expl-DN 1.104.1376).
35
Expl-DN 2.145.731–2.
 Plethoric Diffusion in Creation 61
Seen “from above,” procession describes divine self-communication
to creatures; seen “from below,” procession also describes creaturely
participation in God: “communications or participations of divinity to
creatures . . . ”36 By proceeding, God brings all that is not God into
being; conversely, all creaturely existence is a function of its participa-
tion in that procession. But because only God is fullness (plenitudo),
creaturely participation is always limited, partial, and derivative. As
noted in Chapter 1, “divine plenitude . . . is given by the Father to the
Son, by the Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit, in order that the
highest liberality might be fulfilled (impleretur).” By contrast, “divine
goodness . . . communicates itself to creatures and distributes itself
according to the capacity of each one” (emphasis added).37 As “fullness
of beauty” (pulcritudinis plenitudo), “divine beauty (pulcritudo divina)
is found fully in the divinity alone,” while “in any other things made
beautiful through participation.”38 Shifting the imagery from the sun
to a river, overflowing divine goodness cascades down into various
degrees of creaturely participation. For “since they are not able to
receive that fullness, creatures partake individually of it, like tributaries
and rivulets, according to their own proportion, just like a river,
which passing through various wells (puteos) of diverse quantities,
fills (implet) all and flows down (influit) from itself into individuals
according to their capacity.”39 In this procession, the Trinity grants
diverse gifts in varying degrees: “esse, vivere, scire, intelligere, good
existence (bonum esse) or blessed existence (beatum esse).”40 Again,
“all existing things participate in a manifold variety of ways” in the
“life . . . wisdom, beauty, goodness, etc.,” of the divine essence,41 which
“causally distributes to all creatures participations in its own beauty,
according to the capacity and condition of each individual thing”42 and
“with great variation.”43
Following Dionysius, this varied distribution of divine self-
communication is structured hierarchically. But, as will be seen in
Chapter 3, Gallus does not much emphasize either the general hier-
archy of angelic and human beings in creation, or even the ecclesias-
tical hierarchy of orders and offices within the Church.44 Rather, he

36 37
Expl-DN 1.84.819. Expl-DN 2.136.497–500.
38 39
Expl-DN 4.208.690. Glss-AH IIII.37.63–38.67.
40 41
Expl-DN 2.145.751. Expl-DN 2.159.1125–7.
42 43
Expl-DN 4.209.727–9. Expl-DN 4.245.1637.
44
Cf. Lawell, “Qualiter vita.”
62 Foundations and Structures
boldly and innovatively pursues an interior hierarchy within the
rational creature.
Understood thus, creaturely participation, the basis of all creaturely
existence, is understood as radical ontological receptivity. Put other-
wise, an implication of conceiving of God as pleromatic, as super-
abundant plenitude, is that by definition all that is not God lacks this
fullness and must be conceived as varied, gradated participations in
divine goodness, which are always ontologically indigent, always
dependent, always needing to receive being from that plethoric
Goodness, that “true primordial plenitude, from which not only
everyone, but all things have received.”45 The Neoplatonic notion of
procession, moreover, allows Gallus to emphasize the constant and
continual character of this ontological dependence (creatio continua),
in ways that the model of an efficient causal agent, creating at a
particular delimited point in a single discrete action, to bring crea-
turely existence out of nothing, captures perhaps less well. In short, in
light of his affirmation of pleromatic divinity, of God-ever-overfull,
Gallus’ doctrine of creation entails the inverse notion of creation as
always receiving, semper implenda, “always-having-to-be-filled.”46

REMAINING

“Yet not departing from itself.” Precisely at the “boundary” between God
in se and God extra se the crucial notion of “remaining” emerges. Gallus
affirms simultaneously both that God genuinely proceeds out into what
is not-God, “outside” of Himself and that God is still radically tran-
scendent, utterly separate, and ontologically removed from creation:
“segregated by an infinite excess FROM ALL THOSE THINGS THAT PARTICIPATE
IN [HIM].” Put simply, “remaining” names this paradox.
47

45
Expl-DN 4.210.739–41: “sue proprie et vere primordialis plenitudinis, de qua non
solum omnes sed omnia accipiunt.” Gallus continues: “And everywhere fount (fons) is
understood to be the Word of God, to whom rightly applies what is said here.”
46
See in this regard the suggestive texts of Col. 2:9–10: For in him dwells all the
fullness of the Godhead (inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis) corporeally. And you are
filled in him (estis in illo repleti), who is the head of all principality and power, and of
Eph. 3:19: “To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasses all knowledge: that you
may be filled unto all the fullness of God” (ut impleamini in omnem plenitudinem Dei).
47
Expl-DN 2.140.604–5.
 Plethoric Diffusion in Creation 63
Glossing the claim in The Divine Names that God IS DIFFERENTIATED
IN A UNIFIED WAY, Gallus explains:
remaining in its most simple unity, [GOD] MOVES INTO PLURALITY through
the participation of all existing things, SINGULARLY, that is, by remaining
in its singularity; AND IS MULTIPLIED by communicating such various
things FROM ITS ONE simple, universal font BY-A-NOT-GOING-OUT (inegres-
sibliter); that is, through its procession to all things it never departs from
itself.48
In procession, paradoxically, God acts inegressibiliter, in-a-not-
going-out-manner.49 That is, He does not depart from himself.
Gallus’ concern seems to be to protect, as it were, divine unity and
simplicity, to insist on the transcendent integrity of the divine nature,
which he construes in terms of both undiminished plenitude, amidst
the profusion of self-communication, and of divine simplicity and
unity, which is neither fragmented nor sundered by its manifold self-
distribution:
SINCE GOD EXISTS SUPER-SUBSTANTIALLY, HE GIVES BEING TO EXISTING THINGS
out of his super-substantial fullness (de sua supersubstantiali plenitu-
dine) . . . and he is FULL (plenum), that is, because in his fullness to all,
AMID THE DIFFERENTIATION . . . no division of existing things is able to divide
his simplicity, no participation [by existing things is able] to diminish
his fullness. For as he communicates himself to innumerable things, he
is able to fill (implere) the whole universe and each individual thing by
his distribution without [160] diminution . . . . FOR GOD IS NOT DIMINISHED
by the copiously and manifoldly distributed EFFUSION . . . [and] THAT
DISTRIBUTION CANNOT BE LESSENED, neither in its fontal source nor in its
communicability.50

48
Expl-DN 2.159.1129–33.
49
Cf. Dionysius, CH 1.2 (Parker, 2): “For it never loses its own unique inwardness,
but multiplied and going forth . . . remains firmly and solitarily centered within itself
in its unmoved sameness.”
50
Expl-DN 2.159.1135–160.1154: “SUPERSUBSTANTIALITER EXISTENS, DAT AUTEM de sua
supersubstantiali plenitudine ESSE EXISTENTIBUS . . . . Et est PLENUM, id est cum omni sua
plenitudine, IN DISCRETION, . . . nulla existentium diuisio possit eius simplicitatem diui-
dere, nulla participatio eius plenitudinem diminuere. Dum enim innumerabilibus se
communicat, uniuersa et singula potest suis distributionibus implere sine alterius uel
aliorum diminutione . . . . ET QUOD NON MINORATUR per copiosam et multiplicem
distributionem EFFUSION, id est largitas, DISTRIBUTIONUM IPSIUS NON MINORABILIUM
neque in fonte neque in communicabilitate.”
64 Foundations and Structures
“Remaining” refers to the maintenance of divine simplicity and unity
in the very act of ecstatic self-communication of its own excessive
plenitude. So conceived, “remaining” is ultimately a description of
divine transcendence: God is “in-flowing (influens) being to all things
out of [his] own eternity, yet in no way implicated by their tempor-
ality” (nihil tamen temporalitatis ab eis contrahens);51 God “is with-
out form among those things that are formed, as transcending form
through excess (per excessum).”52
While in general Gallus follows Dionysius in his understanding of
“remaining,”53 he appropriates it uniquely by his use of two seem-
ingly incompatible notions, namely, divine exemplarism and divine
simplicity. According to the first, the “ideas” of all that God has
created (and could have but has not created54) exist eternally in the
divine mind, more precisely, in the Word. Noting this notion’s
venerable pedigree, Gallus calls these the “intelligible, eternal reasons
(intelligibiles rationes eterne) of every creature, which are in the
Word, which Plato called ‘ideas,’ and Dionysius [calls] ‘archetypes’
or ‘exemplaria’ (in On the Divine Names, Chapter 5: ‘the rationes of
existing things’), and likewise ‘images’ (DN 7).”55 “All things,” he
insists, “are written (scripta sunt) eternally, highly, simply in that
highest, simple Word, as in the first art.”56 In the imagery of the
Song of Songs, “The Word of God is a fountain . . . The vineyards of
this fountain are the eternal exemplars of the Word.”57
In the eternal act of generating the Word, the Father thus “speaks”
all that he can and will create in time: “the eternal origin of the Son
is the proper cause of the procession and creation of all existing
things.” So Gallus can say: “[the Father] speaks [the Son], that is,
the Father begets his Word, and all things were made through him.”58
In this way, “that all-exceeding eternal generation [of the Word]” is
“the archetype or idea or exemplar and cause of the generation
and creation and propagation of all the creatures, which are

51 52
Expl-DN 2.156.1060–3. Expl-DN 2.156.1054–60.
53
Cf. DN 5.10.
54
Expl-MT 1.16.306–9: “Existing things [are those things] which came forth
(prodierunt) from the Word into being (esse) through creation; those things are called
non-existing, which only exist in the super-essential Word, and yet can be contem-
plated in that Word.”
55 56
Expl-MT 1.26.564–8. Expl-MT 1.10.187–11.189.
57 58
Cmm2-CC 1F.75. Expl-DN 4.230.1255.
 Plethoric Diffusion in Creation 65
created and generated and propagated.”59 Eternal, intra-divine
generativity is thus the deep, transcendent basis for temporal, extra-
divine creativity. Commenting on Eph. 3:14–15: From whom every
paternity in heaven and on earth is named, Gallus argues that “what-
ever has an origin (originem), either temporally or eternally, receives
that from the Father; and that the Son and the Holy Spirit are able
to provide an origin to creatures, this they have through origin from
the Father, which both eternally receive from the Father.”60 This is
how Gallus interprets John 1:3, “through him all things were made”:
“the Father works all things through the Son”61 through the exem-
plary ideas, grounded in the very act of the Son’s eternal generation.
Strikingly, in a way that seems to anticipate Bonaventure, Gallus
suggests that this divine exemplarism of the Word is fully revealed
in the Incarnation:
The gentile philosophers have investigated this harmony fairly well
(non mediocriter), but it was fulfilled (completa est) in the Incarnation
of the Word [87] where the highest, the middle, and the lowest were
conjoined in one person, who is the fullness of every desirable idea
(plenitudo omnis specie desiderabilis), namely, of essence, life, wisdom,
goodness, beatitude, etc., and this is a testimony (indicium) of the
highest benignity (summe benignitatis).62
By virtue of the eternal exemplars in the divine Word, creation then
has a “virtual” (not actual) existence within God.
Precisely at this point, Gallus stresses the second aspect of remain-
ing, namely, divine simplicity. Because God is utterly simple—indeed
“super-simplex, than which nothing more simple can exist or be
conceived”63—the eternal exemplars are not other than the divine
nature itself: “in the highest being, living, knowing, goodness and
beatitude are all one (unum) and indistinct in that omnipotent
wisdom.”64 Strikingly but consistently, Gallus insists that these eternal
exemplars or reasons “exist” inegressibiliter in the divine nature. That
is, they “do not go out from the hidden divine wisdom to communion

59
Expl-DN 4.230.1261–231.1266: “eterne generationis omnia excedentis, que est
archetypia siue idea siue exemplar et causa generationis et creationis et propagationis
omnium creaturarum que creantur et generantur et propagantur.”
60 61
Expl-DN 1.86.874–8. Expl-DN 2.127.245.
62
Expl-DN 1.86.888–87.893.
63
Expl-DN 4.253.1850: “supersimplex qua nihil potest esse vel cogitari simplicius.”
64
Expl-DN 2.141.616–18.
66 Foundations and Structures
with creatures, but are locked up super-ineffably and super-unknownly
in the most secret simplicity of the divine nature . . . ”65 Present in the
divine nature thus, they are also known and loved, in the very act by
which God knows and loves Godself: “God cognizes created things . . .
by cognizing himself to be the cause of all things,”66 and “loving all
things in himself (se ipso amans omnia), since in himself there is
nothing which is not he himself.”67 Accordingly, the God–World
relationship is already virtually “structured” as it were within the divine
simplicity, before proceeding into real existence. By “uniting artfully in
itself the multiplicity of all things in the highest simplicity of the
Word,” the divine nature “pre-contains all temporal things eternally.”68
In God there is already “that single paternal providence, most highly
simple (summe simplici), which causes all things.”69
In light of his insistence on both divine exemplarity and simpli-
city Gallus’ doctrine of “remaining” entails a third notion, namely,
“stability”—the immobility or motionlessness of God in relation to
what is not God: “Existing fixedly and immobile in his goodness,
super-essentially and eternally, God processes out through the com-
munication of his goodness, without any mutation of himself.”70
Not that God is inert; quite the contrary, as noted, Gallus’ conceives
of the Trinity as essentially dynamic self-communication. But, paired
with the doctrine of divine simplicity,71 divine “movement” is so utterly
self-consistent as to render it absolutely stable and immutable:
For he himself is the most highly stable mover and movement, hence in
Sap. 7:22–23 God is called mobile and stable; and ACTING THROUGH
HIMSELF, that is, by himself and his own power, and prior to every

65
Expl-DN 2.136.493–5: “nec de occulto diuine sapientie ad creature communio-
nem egrediuntur, sed superineffabili et superignota diuine nature simplicitate secre-
tissime concluduntur.”
66 67
Expl-DN 1.63.349–64.350. Expl-DN 4.246.1661–2.
68
Expl-DN 1.114.1609–12: “SIMPLICITER in summe simplici Verbo omnium multi-
plicitates in se arte coadunans; INCIRCUMFINITE, id est eternaliter omnia temporalia
preaccepit.”
69
Expl-DN 1.114.1617–18.
70
Expl-DN 4.247.1674–7: “Deus in sua bonitate superessentialiter et eternaliter
existens fixe et immobiliter, sine ulla sui mutatione ad existentia per sue bonitatis
communicationem procedit.”
71
Expl-DN 4.246.1662–4: “ . . . for that reason the movement is SIMPLEX. For such is
the ineffable simplicity of God that it is impossible to conceive of something simpler
than that omnipotent wisdom.”
 Plethoric Diffusion in Creation 67
procession of goodness, PRE-EXISTING IN GOODNESS, as in his own super-
substantial and super-natural nature.72
Divine movement is entirely self-contained, occurring per se. Pairing
Sap. 7:22-24 (wisdom is both mobilis and stabilis) with Boethius
(“remaining stable, [wisdom] gives movement to all”73), Gallus notes
that “movement (motus) is attributed to God” because “the plenitude
of power (plenitudo virtutis) . . . does not move from its pristine state
but makes it active with great fervor.”74 In short, the Trinity is at perfect
rest, not in the sense of being static, but in the sense of supreme
stability. In relation to all else, its own “interior” pleromatic goodness
is a motionless dynamism that fecundates all created motion, a fertile
simplicity from which issues forth all complexity.75

RETURN

Because all things exist by virtue of their participation in the divine

procession, they are, for Gallus, following Dionysius, also suffused
with a desire to return to their Source. This is the third aspect of this
metaphysical scheme, namely, “return” (reditus) or reversion.
Defining the relevant Dionysian term, RETURNING (restitutus),
Gallus explains that this occurs “through the desires of things which
[the Good] stirs, turning them back (reflexus) into itself.”76 But to put
it thus, as often happens, risks implying that return is chronologically
posterior to procession, in a kind of temporal succession of moments.
This is not the case. Rather, “return” is an ontological posture, stance,
or orientation of all existing things toward their source: “AND AGAIN
through the desire of existing things [for the good] TURNED BACK in

72
Expl-DN 4.246.1664–247.1668: “Ipse est enim motor et motus summe stabilis,
unde Sap. 7, dicitur et mobilis et stabilis; et PER SE OPERANS, id est se ipso et propria
uirtute, et ante omnem bonitatis processum, PREEXISTENTS IN BONO, tamquam in propria
supersubstantiali et supernaturali natura.”
73
Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy III.67.
74
Expl-DN 1.55.138–40.
75
Gallus also applies the same principle to the Incarnation: Expl-DN 2.158.1096–7:
“WITH RESPECT TO HIS SUPER-FULLNESS HE SUFFERING NOTHING, that is, he suffered no
diminution of his super-substantial fullness (supersubstantialis plenitudinis), FROM
THAT INEFFABLE SELF-EMPTYING, that is, from the fact that ineffably he emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave (Phil. 2:7) . . . ”
76
Expl-DN 4.248.1702.
68 Foundations and Structures
those very existing things TOWARD THE GOOD, that is, to that very
super-natural goodness.”77 All created things have a built-in, onto-
logical “backward glance” or “upward inclination” toward the Good.
Crucially, this is not subsequent to procession, but simultaneous with
it, both logically and chronologically.
The nature of the good, which for Gallus explains God’s ecstatic act
of procession because of the good’s natural self-diffusiveness, also
provides the logic of return, but now on the basis of the other classical
attribute of the good, namely, its natural and essential attractiveness
and desirability:78
God himself is the most universal fullness of true goodness and true
beauty (vere bonitatis et vere pulcritudinis uinversalissima plenitudo),
naturally attractive in itself to the appetite of all things, since the
good and beautiful . . . are naturally desirable and draw to themselves
(in se trahit) the appetite and desires of things capable of loving.79
So, all things are “drawn, pulled, dragged” toward the Good, and for
rational creatures, this is experienced as the natural attractiveness or
beauty of the Good:
He shows why the divine light is called “beautiful”: HENCE, IT IS ALSO CALLED
“BECKONING” (kallos), and is called beautiful (pulcrum), BECAUSE IT GATHERS,
etc., that is, it contains and unites in its selfsame simplex fount of all
things, all beautiful things and all the beauties of all beautiful things,
however much they differ and are dispersed among themselves.80
Crucially, the movement of return is fundamentally an erotic, desir-
ous activity on the part of all that is not God. In this Neoplatonic
schema, all things have a “built-in” desire to return to their source.

77
Expl-DN 4.247.1672–4.
78
Cf. Etienne Gilson, The Philosophy of St. Bonaventure (Paterson, NJ: Franciscan
Press), 1965, 163: “God is good; and the good is essentially defined by two properties,
productivity and finality. Good tends naturally of itself to expand itself, to outpour
itself, to diffuse itself: bonum dicitur diffusivum sui; and it is at the same time the end
to which everything else is ordered: bonum est propter quod omnia.”
79
Expl-DN 4.245.1637: “ipse est uere bonitatis et uere pulcritudinis uniuersalis-
sima plenitudo, omnium appetituum naturaliter in se attractiua, quia bonum et
pulcrum, in quantum est tale, naturaliter est amabile et in se trahit appetitus et
desideria amantium.”
80
Expl-DN 4.210.752–60: “Deinde ostendit quare diuinum lumen dicatur pul-
crum: VNDE ET KALLOS DICITUR, et pulcrum dicitur, SICVT CONGREGANS etc., id est omnia
pulcra et omnium pulcrorum omnes pulcritudines, quantumlibet in se ipsis disper-
gantur et differant, in se simplici fonte omnium unit et continet.”
 Plethoric Diffusion in Creation 69
For rational creatures in particular, this erotic impulse takes the form
of self-conscious and intentional love. In effect, this places the entire
rational creature and all its capacities and movements, even that of its
intellective or rational part, under an overarching affective penumbra,
as it were.
It is also crucial to point out here that this ontological posture of
return or reversion is itself, just as is the case for procession, an act of
creaturely participation in the Creator, as Gallus notes in this brief
gloss: “CALLING ALL THINGS TO ITSELF, that is, to participation (emphasis
added) in itself.”81

ECSTATIC CIRCULARITY AD EXTRA: CREATION

FROM, IN, AND BY DIVINE LOVE AS
SOURCE AND GOAL

At one point, glossing a passage in Divine Names (Chapter 4), Gallus

characteristically sums up his reflections on this Dionysian meta-
physic of procession, remaining, and return, in terms of the dynamic
fontality of the good:
THROUGH ITSELF, that is, by its own authorship and power (auctoritate et
virtute) MOVED of itself, as was said above; FROM THE GOOD, that is, from
the fullness of divine goodness, ALL THE WAY TO THE EXTREME OF EXISTING
THINGS, AND AGAIN, conversely, TURNS BACK TO ITSELF FROM ALL THOSE
THINGS, that is, from the extreme of all existing things, IN SEQUENCE,
that is, one by one, THROUGH EVERYTHING in the middle TO THE first fontal
(primum fontem) GOOD . . . 82
Famously, in that same chapter of Divine Names, Dionysius had
expressed this metaphysics of the good in terms of love, insisting on
the deep unity in God of “agapic” and “erotic” love, viewed as two
manifestations or dimensions of a single divine reality. Following the
Areopagite, Gallus adopts this singular divine love to be the fontal

81
Expl-DN 4.210.752–60. It is perhaps noteworthy here that return also entails the
notion of completion or perfection of the creature: the reditus perfects all things: “It is
LEADING THE MULTITUDE to being, AND PERFECTING [IT] through better being (per melius
esse), AND CONTAINING [IT] through conservation in being, since it itself is a simple unity
(simplex unitas)” (Expl-DN 2.160.1168–70).
82
Expl-DN 4.253.1847.
70 Foundations and Structures
center of his account of God’s extra-divine activity: “Then Dionysius
shows how both kinds of amor, gathered together, can be reduced to
the one and simple and fontal divine amor (unum et simplicem et
fontalem divinum amorem) from which all other loves (amores)
originate.”83 Those loves not only originate, but also return to that
singular divine love: “GATHERING THOSE two INTO ONE super-substantial
amor of God” is “the principal amor, to which all other amors are led
back as rivers to their font.”84 This metaphysical rhythm of love’s
procession and reversion is a function of love’s very nature, as Gallus
explains:
the nature of amor is to desire the reciprocation of amor (amoris
reflexionem). For we desire to be loved by those whom we love: Prov.
8:17: I love them that love me. And this is why God is called amor,
because processing out into things, and in processing out according to
the natural demand (requisitionem) of amor, moving all things into the
act of desiring God, turning (reflectens) AS THE UPLIFTING POWER AND GOOD
85
PROCESSION all things reflexively TO HIMSELF.

Again: “the power of divine amor, processing (procedens) to all things

and causing the loves (amores) of all things.”86 And: “a twofold power
of amor, namely, its processive [power] (processivam) toward all
things, and its reflexive [power] (reflexivam) of all things to their
principle.”87
For Gallus, the “agapic” is manifest ad extra as divine benevolence,
an eager willingness to share goodness and to self-communicate it
to another: “the highest and absolutely perfect benevolence (benevo-
lentia) requires that . . . temporal things [receive eternal plenitude]
temporally . . . ”88 The “erotic” on the other hand is the inherent
attractiveness and desirability of the divine goodness and beauty,
turning all things back to itself. These might be called “benevolent
bestowals” and “erotic reversions.” In short, for Gallus, the “circular
dynamic” of the fontal Trinity itself is shared with creation. “There-
fore divine amor is likened to a circle . . . ”89 and “all the lines [146] of
a circle terminate in the most simple and indivisible center.”90 A fine
summary of this notion is found in his Third Commentary on the
Song of Songs, where Gallus says that God is called . . .

83 84
Expl-DN 4.250.1754. Expl-DN 4.253.1847.
85 86
Expl-DN 4.246.1649–57. Expl-DN 4.253.1837.
87 88
Expl-DN 4.252.1830. Expl-DN 4.230.1255.
89 90
Expl-DN 4.247.1685. Expl-DN 2.145.755–146.760.
 Plethoric Diffusion in Creation 71
the good, proceeding simply from the highest love and truly from a
unity, remaining separated from all things, and (also) reaching to all
things; moving in himself, acting in himself, pre-existing substantially
in the good from the good, he emanates to existing things and is
converted back to the good; in which the divine love is shown to be
like an eternal circle having its own interminability (interminabilitatem)
and lacking (carentiam) a beginning point of its circumference on
account of the good, from the good and to the good, through a kind
of unerring circulation.91

CONCLUSION

Famously, St. Bonaventure summed up his entire conception of

reality in terms of the Dionysian triad of procession, remaining, and
return: “this is the sum total of our metaphysics concerned with
emanation, exemplarity, and consummation.”92 The same claim
applies equally to our Victorine. Straddling the boundary between
God and the world, between Creator and creation, between absolute
ontological plenitude and absolute ontological indigence is the
plethoric divine act of self-diffusive goodness ad extra, “outside”
of God into all that is not God—indeed constituting all that is not
God. In this light, the triad of procession, remaining, and return can
be viewed from two vantage points, namely, with respect to God
and with respect to all that is not God.
In terms of the first, “procession” names an ecstatic act of divine
self-communication; “return” acknowledges the fact that divine
goodness not only self-communicates ad extra, but also draws and
attracts all that is ad extra “back” to itself, as the good/beautiful “calls”
unto it to return: “God . . . processes out through the communication
of his goodness, . . . and moves their appetites through the participa-
tion of his goodness to the desiring of his fontal fullness ( fontalis

91
Cmm3-CC 1D.126: “bonus processus summe simpliciter amativus sive vere
unitatis ab omnibus segregate et ad omnia proveniens; per se mobilis, per se operans,
preexistens supersubstantialiter in bono ex bono, ad existentia emanat et rursum ad
bonum convertitur; in quo divinus amor monstratur sicut quidam eternus circulus
habens sui interminabilitatem et principii carentiam circumambulantis propter
bonum, ex bono, et ad bonum per quamdam circulationem non errantem.”
92
Bonaventure, Collations on the Six Days, 1, 13, 17 (V, 331–2).
72 Foundations and Structures
plenitudinis) . . . ”93 Again: “For indeed the ray of the sun is poured
over (superfusus) all things, as if it invited all inferior things to
communion with itself.”94 For its part, “remaining” describes the
maintenance, as it were, of divine transcendence and of a radical
distinction between Creator and creation, even as procession and
return “imbed” the creating Trinity within the very foundation of
creation. Gallus’ doctrine of divine “remaining” is crucial: Precisely as
and by “remaining,” God proceeds. There is only fecundity and
generativity “outside” of God because within the Triune God these
remain.
At the same time, “remaining” is the best vantage point for appre-
ciating Gallus’ teaching on exemplarism (in a way that anticipates
Bonaventure, as noted above). The exemplars are both present with-
out differentiation in the simplicity of the Creator, specifically in the
divine Person of the Word, as well as being present in the diversified
multiplicity of created things. It is the exemplars, then, that establish
a kind of “bridge” between the transcendent Trinity and creation, a
bridge that is fundamentally Christological.
Ultimately, “remaining” is a description of God’s relationship to all
that is not God. It is because God “remains” transcendent, wholly
other, separate, that God can be both fecund Source and Cause as well
as desirable Goal and attracting End of all that is not God. Tran-
scendent, divine “remaining” is key, then, to the entire exitus–reditus
structure and dynamism of the God–World relationship. If, more-
over, “remaining” describes the paradox in which God remains
within himself even as he proceeds out of himself, “procession”
names the paradox by which in communicating himself ad extra,
God does so in such a way that what comes to exist is not in any way
God. Paired with “remaining,” then, “procession” facilitates a con-
ception of divine immanence or presence within creation that avoids
any form of pantheism or panentheism. God is in all things such that
He in no way is any of those things, nor are they him. For “as the
Cause of all things it is necessary to attribute to him every form and
figure and essence and altogether every creature, but to attribute
nothing to him as a subject” (tamquam subiecto).95 In short, divine
“remaining” illumines the God–World relationship from the divine

93 94
Expl-DN 4.247.1674–8. Expl-DN 4.210.752–60.
95
Expl-MT 1.22.436–9.
 Plethoric Diffusion in Creation 73
side by explaining how the world is present in God without in any
way being God:
since [the Trinity] incomprehensibly fills (impleat) all things . . . BUT IT
REMAINS . . . in order to assert that THE TRINITY IS IN ALL EXISTING THINGS
beyond our mode of cognition, which cannot see mentally how it exists
in something until we see how it exists. Yet [the Trinity] is said to be in
existing things FROM AN INFINITY WHICH IS ABOVE ALL THINGS AND COMPRE-
HENDS ALL THINGS, that is, on account of the infinity of its plenitude which
exceeds all things and contains and comprehends all things.96
In terms of the second the procession-remaining-reversion triad illu-
mines the Creator–Creation relationship from the world side, by
explaining both how the creation comes to exist and how God is
present in and to the creation without in any way being the creation.
Here, Gallus is concerned to protect the integrity of creation as wholly
other than God, even as creation comes to exist as a function of divine
self-communication. For its part, “procession” names the relationship
of absolute ontological dependence of the creation upon the Creator,
the fact that at its core the creature is constituted as a perpetual act of
reception of being, that the creature is always and essentially “having
to be filled” (implenda); “return” portrays the intimate relationship
between God and not-God in which the latter is intrinsically and
continually oriented “back” towards its divine Source; and “remain-
ing” captures how, precisely in the twin acts and dynamic parallelism
of procession and return, of participation and attraction, the creature
is “suspended” over the abyss of non-being.
For present purposes, it is the creaturely side of this that now
assumes center stage. In light of the foregoing, it can be said that
creaturely participation in God is both passive and active, both recep-
tive and initiating; more precisely and paradoxically, creatures are
simultaneously both: they are actively passive and passively active;
they constantly receive their dynamic activity. The spatial metaphors
of descent and ascent evoke this: what “flows down into” creatures is
precisely their upward-thrusting dynamism.97

96
Expl-DN 2.167.97–105.
97
The foregoing chapter raises, of course, the question of God’s freedom to create
or not to create, which, unfortunately, Gallus does not seem to address directly or
explicitly.
 3

Receptive and Ecstatic Human Nature

INTRODUCTION

For Thomas Gallus, the metaphysical dynamism that suffuses all of

created reality generally and thus provides the basic framework for
the relationship between God and all that is not God (see Chapter 2),
has a particular manifestation in rational creatures, especially in the
human creature. His theological anthropology, that is to say, is
shaped by and well-integrated within his account of created reality
generally. This chapter treats Gallus’ unique and crucial conception
of human nature.
No explicit theological anthropology comes down from Dionysius.1
By pursuing the matter at all, Gallus fills a lacuna in the Dionysian
system. At the same time, Gallus’ anthropology is distinctly Dionysian—
it is in some sense a conception of the human which Dionysius should
have held. The central claim of this chapter is that Gallus’ theological
anthropology is Dionysian in two ways, though ultimately these coalesce
into one.
First, for Gallus, human existence is constituted by the same three
dimensions of Dionysian metaphysics noted in Chapter 2, namely,
procession, return, and remaining. Seen from the perspective of the
rational creature, “from below” or from within the rational creature
(rather than from “from above” or outside, so to speak), these dimen-
sions acquire a distinct expression. Here, metaphysical procession

1
In the Divine Names, Dionysius claims to have written a treatise called On the
Soul, which presumably would have provided his theological anthropology, but this
treatise is unknown (perhaps never written), outside of this reference. McGinn,
Foundations of Mysticism, 161: “There is little theological anthropology as such in
his surviving writings, though one is surely implied.”
 Receptive and Ecstatic Human Nature 75
(exitus) takes the form of a descending movement within the soul
and a radical receptivity for receiving the divine “inflowing” from
above. For Gallus, the creature is constituted as a creature just in so
far as it receives “from above” and it is radically “upwardly postured”
as it were, opened to receive all that it has, all that it is, ex Deo.
Metaphysical return (reditus) for its part finds its anthropological
expression in an ascending movement, an upward thrusting, ultim-
ately self-transcending or ecstatic movement of the soul ad Deum
and in Deum, that is, toward, to, and into God. Metaphysical remain-
ing (residuus), finally, corresponds to the fact that precisely through
these simultaneously receptive and ecstatic modes of being, or by
these states of receptivity and ecstasy, the rational creature achieves a
state of ontological order, stability and simplicity, which enables it
(following a Victorine intuition going back to Hugh of St. Victor)2 to be
related ideally and as it were maximally to God, by becoming a place of
divine indwelling, a temple for the presence of God.3
Second, Gallus concretely expresses this dynamic, three-
dimensional anthropology by conceiving of the soul quite literally
as a “hierarchy” in the specific Dionysian sense of the term,4 namely,
“a sacred order, a state of understanding, and an activity approximat-
ing as closely as possible to the divine.”5 Crucially, for Dionysius,
hierarchy in the most basic sense (whether angelic or human) medi-
ates the “downward” flow of divine self-communication from God
toward creatures and the “upward,” ultimately deifying, movement of
creatures back toward God. But here Gallus innovates, as he appro-
priates in particular Dionysius’ conception of the celestial or angelic
hierarchy as a model for understanding the basic nature and structure
of the human soul, along with its capacities and activities. Put simply,
Gallus “angelizes” the human soul as he conceives of the entire

2
See Boyd Taylor Coolman, The Theology of Hugh of St. Victor: An Interpretation
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 225–30.
3
This corresponds with McGinn’s overall thesis regarding Christian mysticism
(cf. Foundations of Mysticism, 3–8).
4
In fact, the very term “hierarchia” is of Dionysian coinage and “one of the most
potent neologisms in the history of Christian thought” (McGinn, Foundations of
Mysticism, 164).
5
CH 3.1 (Luibheid, 153–4). Parker’s translation renders the passage thus: “a sacred
order and science and operation, assimilated, as far as attainable, to the likeness of
God, and conducted to the illuminations granted to it from God, according to
capacity, with a view to the Divine imitation” (Parker, 13).
76 Foundations and Structures
angelic hierarchy as the macrocosmic model of the individual micro-
cosm, namely, the soul.
A parallel relationship thus emerges between the exitus–reditus
dynamism of created reality generally (see Chapter 2) and the hier-
archical structure of each individual soul. The same ascending–
descending dynamism is present in both. Or better, the angelic
“hierarchization” of human souls or minds is simply the particular
expression in rational creatures of the exitus–reditus paradigm of all
creation generally. This conception of the soul as a Dionysian hier-
archy is foundational for Gallus’ whole mystical theology.

ANGELIC HUMANITY

In one of his earliest works, his Commentary on Isaiah6 (written in

1218 in Paris at St. Victor, before he went to Vercelli), Gallus indulged
a typically Victorine architectural metaphor for his anthropology,
comparing the soul itself, along with its powers and acts, respectively,
to the foundation, the super-structure built upon it, and finally the
adorning roof or covering of an entire structure. Soon, though, his
attention turned to the Dionysian Corpus and the significance of
angels therein. Angels are an immensely important part of the Dio-
nysian universe, and Dionysius wrote an entire treatise, entitled On the
Celestial Hierarchy, on the topic. As that title suggests, the angelic
world is constituted as a hierarchy, with nine different grades of angelic
beings, divided into three distinct triads, each with its own particular
name, office, and activity. For Dionysius, the entire angelic hierarchy
plays an indispensable role in mediating between God “above” it and
the realm of human creatures “below” it, including The Ecclesiastical
Hierarchy (the title of another Dionysian treatise). While the Dionys-
ian conception of angels and their hierarchical role is foreign enough
to modern readers, Gallus’ use of it is prima facie even more bizarre.
Taking his cue from a comment at the end of the Celestial Hierarchy,7

6
For a modern critical edition, see G. Théry, “Commentaire sur Isaïe de Thomas
de Saint-Victor,” La vie spirituelle 47 (1936): 146–62.
7
Cf. CH 10.3 (Parker, 42): “I might add this not inappropriately, that each
heavenly and human mind has within itself its own special first, and middle, and
last ranks, and powers, manifested severally in due degree, for the aforesaid particular
 Receptive and Ecstatic Human Nature 77
Gallus posits an analogous hierarchical structure within the human
soul itself: a “profound mystery (profundum mysterium) . . . namely,
that the aforesaid distinction of the hierarchies and orders can be
found in every angelic and human mind (mente).”8 Or, as he puts it
at the beginning of his commentaries on the Song of Songs, where this
anthropology figures centrally: “But for the understanding of this
exposition it is necessary to set forth an explanation of this sentence
from the Celestial Hierarchy: ‘I will also add this not unsuitably, that
each celestial and human mind has specific first, middle, and last
orders and added virtues according to each one of the illuminations
of the hierarchies, etc’.”9
This “angelization” of the human mind,10 is as follows: The lowest
triad of the hierarchy (1-Angels, 2-Archangels, 3-Principalities) cor-
responds to the basic nature of the soul and its wholly natural
capacities and activities. The middle triad of the hierarchy (4-Powers,
5-Virtues, 6-Dominions) relates to the soul’s natural capacities and
activities as they are assisted by grace, and involves “effort, which
incomparably exceeds nature.” The highest triad of the hierarchy
(7-Thrones, 8-Cherubim, 9-Seraphim) is the realm of grace above
nature, and involves “ecstasy” in the literal sense of transcending the
mind itself (excessus mentis).11 As he put it elsewhere: “In the first,
nature works alone; in the highest, only grace; in the middle, grace

mystical meanings of the Hierarchical illuminations, according to which, each one

participates, so far as is lawful and attainable to him, in the most spotless purification,
the most copious light, the pre-eminent perfection.” In Letter 8, Dionysius instructs
one Demophilus to “give the appropriate place to desire, to anger, and to reason”
(Luibheid, 276), and in so doing “almost in passing,” he “refers to hierarchical
subdivisions within each being” (see the discussion in Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius, 23).
8
Expl-AH 10.632.90.
9
Cmm2-CC Prol.66: “In order to understand this explanation of the [Song of
Songs], it is necessary to set down first the meaning of the statement in the Celestial
Hierarchy that: ‘each intelligent being, heavenly or human, has its own set of primary,
middle, and lower orders and powers’ . . . ” (Ad huius vero expositionis intelligentiam
necessario premittenda est explanatio illius sententie, AH 10: addam et hoc non
inconvenienter quod secundum seipsam unaqueque et celestis et humana mens
speciales habet et primas et medias et ultimas ordinationes et virtutes . . .). Essentially
the same statement is also found in both prologues to the Third Commentary.
10
Gallus here greatly expands an intuition of his Victorine predecessors, especially
Richard of St. Victor’s use of angelic modes of being in human contemplation. See
Steven Chase, Angelic Wisdom: The Cherubim and the Grace of Contemplation in
Richard of St. Victor (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995).
11
Cmm2-CC Prol.67.
78 Foundations and Structures
and industry work at the same time.”12 According to Gallus himself,
this anthropological insight came to him in Paris at St. Victor, before
we went to Vercelli around 1219, and remained with him throughout
all his works.13

Lowest Triad
Gallus is consistently terse regarding the first triad. Yet, his brief
descriptions afford an understanding of his basic sense of the nature
of the soul. “The first or lowest storey which is the foundation of
the others, has for its pavement the soul’s own nature and ascends
on high by the triple operation of nature, just as in the temple
of Solomon . . . ”14 The three natural operations are “apprehension
(apprehensionem), judgment (dictationem), [and] desire and flight
(appetitum et fugam).”15 By the first, Gallus seems to refer here to
an immediate perception or awareness of extra-mental reality: “The
lowest order of the lowest hierarchy, corresponding to the Dionysian
angels, contains the first and simple natural apprehensions, as much
of intellect as of affect, without any determination of desirability or
undesirability (commodi vel incommodi), which, like the angels, that
is, messengers, simply declare something to the soul.”16 The second
natural operation involves “the judgments or determinations con-
cerning that which has been apprehended,” “whether they are true or
false, desirable or undesirable, which is a more sublime operation of

12
Cmm2-CC Prol.66: “In prima operatur sola natura, in summa sola gratia, in
media simul operantur gratia et industria.” This statement is also found in both
prologues to the Third Commentary.
13
Cmm2-CC Prol.66. “But how these three hierarchies are distributed in individual
hierarchic minds (mentibus hierarchicis) . . . I treated seventeen years ago in the
cloister of Saint Victor in Paris commenting on Is 6: I saw the Lord seated above
the sun, etc. And for the most part I repeated this in commenting on chapter 10 of The
Angelic Hierarchy, at the end. But for the present [commentary on the Song of Songs],
I will briefly repeat what seems necessary . . . ” (Qualiter autem in singulis mentibus
hierarchicis disponantur tres hierarchie . . . ante annos 17 evidenter tractavi in claustro
Sancti Victoris Parisius super illud Isaie 6: vidi Dominum sedentum super solium, etc., et
pro magna parte repetii super 10 capitulum Hierarchie Angelice, in fine. Ad presens
vero, breviter repeto que huic tractatui videntur necessario premittenda . . . ) Essentially
the same statement is also found in both prologues to the Third Commentary.
14
Expl-AH 10.633.126: “Prima siue infima mansio, que aliarum est fundamentum,
habet ipsam anime naturam et in altum assurgit super trinam nature operationem,
iuxta quod in templo Salomonis . . . ”
15 16
Expl-AH 10.633.133. Cmm3-CC Prol.F.108.
 Receptive and Ecstatic Human Nature 79
nature, fuller and greater than announcing,”17 so “the annunciations
made by these are more principal (principalior) than that made by the
first.”18 Thus they correspond to the Dionysian archangels. The third
natural operation involves the inclinations for, or avoidances of what
has been apprehended, according to a judgment of desirability or
undesirability. Avoidance pertains to evil things; appetition pertains
to good things.19 In this way, “it provides leadership for the inferior
orders in divine things and so is signified by the name ‘Principalities’.”20
Noteworthy here is the relation between intellect and affect, whose
mutual interaction in beginning a movement “leading them to the
divine,”21 is already evident. Gallus evokes this idea in the poetry of
the Song (in an example that introduces the consistent style of his
exegesis):
Your two breasts, the two lowest orders of the mind, the archangels and
angels, which are the first and most intimate roots of intellectus and
affectus, from which originally every apprehension of things and all
desire of the good and flight from evil flow abundantly (exuberate) are
like two young roes that are twins, on account of the sharpness (acumen)
of seeing and discerning, which originate from these [two orders] . . . 22
A pattern emerges that Gallus will consistently replicate in the suc-
ceeding triads with increasing nuance: an encounter with an extra-
mental reality, via some kind of perception (an apprehension), pro-
vokes an ordered, twofold response, namely, an intellectual act (judg-
ment), followed by an affective act (desire or appetite).

Middle Triad
Gallus claims that the first triad “is wholly in nature itself below
industry (industriam),”23 signaling thereby that the second or middle
triad involves deliberate, rational activity, which exceeds the more
primitive, even animal-like operations of the first triad. On the

17
Expl-AH 10.636.200: “Secundus dictationes utriusque continet quibus dictat
naturaliter de annuntiatis utrum uera an falsa sint, commoda uel incommoda . . . ”
18
Cmm3-CC Prol.G.108.
19
All this is reminiscent of twelfth-century discussion of aestimatio: a pre-
rational, non-deliberative, “instinctive” perception of good or evil followed by
attraction or aversion.
20 21
Cmm3-CC Prol.H.108. Cmm2-CC Prol.66.
22
Cmm3-CC 4C.179.
23
Expl-AH 10.634.151: “ . . . est tota in ipsa natura, citra industriam.”
80 Foundations and Structures
architectural model of his early Isaiah commentary, the floor or
pavement of the second triad is “the powers of the inferior part of
the soul, which is called ratio,” from which rise three proper activities,
namely, “meditation, i.e. the testing of experience, the sure specifica-
tion of intention (certam sententie diffinitionem), and the free and
imperative execution of a given intention.”24 In his much later Third
Commentary on the Song of Songs, Gallus elaborates on what he
there calls the “second hierarchy of the mind,” whose three orders
correspond (in ascending order) to the Dionysian angelic ranks of
Powers, Virtues, and Dominions.
The order of the Powers, the fourth overall, “contains the voluntary
movements of the intellect and affect, now taken up by free choice
(libero arbitrio), examining with rational deliberation the difference
(distantiam) between good and evil, and ordering the mind . . . by a
definitive judgment (sententiam) to desire and seek the highest good
with the whole strength of the affect and intellect, and to repel
every obstacle.”25 In the Isaiah commentary, he orients intellect and
affect toward their proper divine manifestations, namely, “the clarity
(claritas) of the highest truth and the sweetness (dulcedo) of the
highest good.”26 Here also a certain right structuring and orienting
of the soul is begun, as it begins to be “ordered through a specifying
intention [diffinitivam sententiam] of extending toward God.”27 For
Gallus, the term “Powers” connotes “setting in order” (ordinatio).28
The fifth rank overall, the order of the Virtues, perhaps not sur-
prisingly “contains the strength of the natural and gratuitous virtues
of a robust mind, in order boldly to pursue what was rightly decreed

24
Expl-AH 10.633.136: “Secunda mansio habet pro tabulato siue pauimento uires
inferioris partis anime que dicitur ratio ad distinctionem synderesis. Hec assurgit per
trinam operationem industrie: meditationem scilicet et experientie examen; et certam
sententie diffinitionem.”
25
Cmm3-CC Prol.I.108: “ . . . per definitivam sententiam ad appetendum et quer-
endum totis viribus affectus et intellectus summum bonum et ad repellendum omnia
obstacula.”
26
Expl-AH 10.636.207: “motus uoluntarios affectus et intellectus a libero arbitrio
exceptos, infusum lumen per industriam et uoluntarie totis uiribus contrectantes, et in
ipso claritatem summe ueritatis et dulcedinem summe bonitatis quasi examinantes, et
etiam dissimilitudines. Sed hoc quantum ad intellectum. Affectus enim anime glor-
ificate eas non apprehendit.”
27
Expl-AH 10.636.213: “In hoc ordine proprie incipit anima ordinari per diffini-
tiuam sententiam tendendi ad Deum, et ibidem incipit peruersorum inordinatio.”
28
Expl-AH 10.636.215: “Unde ordo iste recte potestates dicuntur, quo nomine
ordinatio exprimitur.”
 Receptive and Ecstatic Human Nature 81
by the Powers.”29 Through these “vigorous forces of minds [valida
mentium robora]”30 the soul is “made strong for the reception of
the divine lights in its rank [gradu] and for strongly reaching out
[tendendum] to the truly beautiful and good (pulcrum et bonum), and
for repelling every attack and every dissimilitude.”31
In the sixth rank, the highest of the middle triad, the faculty of
free decision (liberum arbitrium) retains its governing role: “The
sixth [rank] contains the commands of free decision (liberi arbitrii),
and it unyieldingly commands [precipit] all the powers [of the soul] to
be extended into that eternal plenitude [eternam plenitudinem].”32
More precisely, here “the apexes of intellect and affect are suspended
[suspenduntur] in their whole power to receive the divine visitations
from above, in as much as it is possible for free will aided by grace.”33
Evident here is the profoundly ad Deum tendency and orientation of
the soul. Here, the whole soul strains and strives Godward. For
Gallus, suspension gives this rank its name: “the sublimity of these
suspendings (suspendii) of both the command and the freedom is
noted by the name ‘Dominions.’”34
To this point, behind the perhaps unwieldy mingling of a Victorine
architectural analogy and the Dionysian angelic hierarchy, a fairly
typical early thirteenth-century, theological anthropology is apparent:
apprehension or perception, judgment, attraction or aversion under
the control of liberum arbitrium and reason, which is divided between
ratio inferior and ratio superior. The consistent inclusion and explicit
pairing of intellect (intellectus) and affect (affectus) in both the lowest
and middle hierarchies/triads, oriented to truth (or beauty) and good,
respectively, should be noted, signaling Gallus’ abiding interest in
their relationship. Under the guidance of the rational, deliberative will
(which Gallus calls both the ratio inferior and the liberum arbitrium),
the soul’s powers of intellect and affect operate naturally or according

29 30
Cmm3-CC Prol.J.108. Expl-AH 10.636.217.
31
Expl-AH 10.636.219: “ad fortiter transeundum in uere pulcrum et bonum, etad
omnem uiolentiam repellendam et omnen dissimilituinem.”
32
Expl-AH 10.636.223: “Sextus continet imperia liberi arbitrii in quibus incessanter
et inflexibiliter precipit in illam eternam plenitudinem totis uiribus tendi.”
33
Cmm2-CC Prol.67: “ . . . apices affectus et intellectus tota virtute suspenduntur
ad suscipiendum divinos superadventus, quantum possibile est libero arbitrio aduito a
gratia . . . ”
34
Cmm3-CC Prol.K.108–9: “ . . . huius suspendii et imperii et libertatis sublimitas
notatur nomine dominationum.”
82 Foundations and Structures
to and within the bounds of nature. At the sixth and high point of the
natural soul, though, the powers of intellect and affect are totally
oriented ad Deum. Overall, a clear synthesis of traditional, monastic,
Augustinian concerns with rightly ordered affections, the ordo car-
itatis, and the Dionysian-inspired angelic ranks and the pronounced
ascent-dynamic of the Dionysian hierarchy is apparent.

Highest Triad
Throughout his corpus, Gallus consistently devotes the bulk of his
anthropological reflection to the final and highest triad. In the archi-
tectural metaphor, the “third and highest storey” has the superior
power of the soul for its “pavement” or “floor,” which he calls the
“synderesis or powers of the superior part [of the soul].”35 Since this
final triad is “stationed above synderesis, above industry, above
nature,” the synderesis, as its basic anthropological faculty or power,
is the “floor” of the third triad. In terms of the celestial hierarchy, the
triadic structure of this part of the soul corresponds to the Thrones,
Cherubim, and Seraphim, each representing a different dimension or
capacity of the soul.
As just noted, the third and highest triad “is altogether above
(supra) nature and industry.”36 This is a crucial point, often neglected
in accounts of Gallus’ “angelized” soul: the entire third triad is,
paradoxically, both a part of the created structure of the soul, part
of what it naturally is, and at the very same time is “above” or
“beyond” the soul’s nature and natural operations. The entire third
triad is rightly characterized as ecstatic. In this way, Gallus has built
self-transcendence into the very structure of the self. This becomes
apparent as he introduces the seventh rank, that of the Thrones,37 as

35
Expl-AH 10.634.142: “Tertia et summa mansio pro tabulatu habet superiorem
uim anime, id est synderesim siue superioris partis uires, quod infra diligentius
tractabitur.” On the term “synderesis” in Gallus, see Lawell, “Ne De Ineffabili Penitus
Taceamus”.
36
Expl-AH 10.634.151: “Tertia tota supra naturam et industriam.”
37
Cf. CH 7.1 (Parker, 25–6): “The appellation of the most exalted and pre-eminent
Thrones denotes their manifest exaltation above every groveling inferiority, and their
supermundane tendency towards higher things; and their unswerving separation
from all remoteness; and their invariable and firmly-fixed settlement around the
veritable Highest, with the whole force of their powers; and their receptivity of the
supremely Divine approach, in the absence of all passion and earthly tendency, and
their bearing God; and the ardent expansion of themselves for the Divine receptions.”
 Receptive and Ecstatic Human Nature 83
follows: “The seventh order is receptive of the divine visitation from
above, through ecstasy of the mind (excessum mentis), and is there-
fore given the name ‘Thrones.’”38
Three aspects of this description are crucial. First, the basic
“posture” of the soul here is that of receptivity. Though in one sense
the entire soul is constituted as an act of reception in its very existence
(cf. Chapter 2), this receptive pose is accentuated here, with respect to
the soul’s ascending return to God. Second, this rank is associated
with a special act of divine self-communication and manifestation,
couched in the language of a divine “visitation” (superadventus). The
result, thirdly, is that the soul is enabled or capacitated to receive the
divine presence; it becomes, in a word, a “throne” for divine indwell-
ing. Gallus thus seems to suggest that what had been an elevating
suspension in the prior sixth rank has now been transformed into a
concavity, evoked by the image of a throne which in some sense
receives the one enthroned upon it.39
In short, at the Throne rank, a transformation of the synderesis,
which had begun at the dominical level, is completed, as the soul
transitions from a natural and active receptivity to a supernatural,
and thus ecstatic and also more passive receptivity.40 Thus, the
transition from the middle to the highest triad, from “Dominions”
to “Thrones,” is a self-transcending movement, a movement from
being “within oneself,” so to speak, to being “outside oneself,” from
enstasis to ecstasis.
At the eighth and penultimate level overall, that of the Cherubim,41
Gallus turns explicitly to his two overriding concerns, namely,
knowledge and love. Dionysius himself had argued that the word

38
Cmm3-CC Prol.L.109: “Septimus ordo per mentis excessum susceptivus est
superadventus divini; unde thronorum nomine censetur . . . ”
39
CH 13.3 (Parker, 49): “the characteristic of Thrones, exhibiting their expansion
for the reception of God.”
40
As Joshua M. Robinson has suggested, “synderesis is a receptivity on the frontier
of the natural and the ecstatic” (“To Be Affected According To What We Apprehend:
Thomas Gallus on the Hierarchic Soul and Its Modes of Knowledge,” presented at the
43rd International Congress on Medieval Studies (Kalamazoo, MI), May 9, 2008, p. 13).
41
CH 7.1 (Parker, 24–5): “ . . . that of Cherubim, a fulness of knowledge or stream
of wisdom . . . . But the appellation of the Cherubim denotes their knowledge and their
vision of God, and their readiness to receive the highest gift of light, and their power of
contemplating the super-Divine comeliness in its first revealed power, and their being
filled anew with the impartation which maketh wise, and their ungrudging commu-
nication to those next to them, by the stream of the given wisdom.”
84 Foundations and Structures
“Cherubim” means “fullness of knowledge” or “carriers of wisdom.”
In his commentary on The Celestial Hierarchy,42 Gallus’ Victorine
predecessor, Hugh of St. Victor, not only noted that the Dionysian
Cherubim was associated with the light of intellectual knowledge,
but also suggested that the cherubic level was the limit of the
soul’s intellectual knowledge of God. Gallus continues these tradi-
tions, but signals his own signature preoccupation with the relation
between knowledge and love by bringing love into the discussion
even here:
The eighth order contains every kind of knowledge (cognitionem) of the
attracted intellectus (intellectus attracti), drawn by the divine worthi-
ness, to which it is not able to ascend, and of the attracted affectus
(affectus attracti), which does not exceed the drawing and the summit of
the attracted intellect (intellectus attracti). For the intellect and the affect
are drawn at the same time, and walk together (coambulant), so to
speak, up to the final failure of the intellect, which has its high point in
the order of the Cherubim. The attracted intellect does not pass this, but
has here the consummation of its knowledge and light. Because of this,
this order is called the “Cherubim.”43
In this alignment of the Cherubim with knowledge, several distinct-
ively Gallusian features should be noted.
First, Gallus’ preferred term here is “cognitio” (rather than scientia
or intellectus, etc.), a polyvalent term in medieval discussions of
intellectual activity, which can encompass a variety of distinguishable
though related acts, ranging across the soul’s capacities for sensation,
perception, experience, and understanding, as well as the results of
those acts. There is no ready English equivalent (it will often be
simply transliterated here) and the English cognate “cognition” con-
notes an overly narrow and restrictive range of meanings.44

42
Hugh of St. Victor, Super Ierarchiam Dionysii, ed. Poirel, 399–717.
43
Cmm3-CC Prol.M.109: “Octavus ordo continet omnimodam cognitionem
intellectus attracti divina dignatione, quo non valet ascendere, et affectus attracti,
attractionem et summitatem intellectus attracti non excedentis. Simul enim attrahun-
tur et quasi coambulant affectus et intellectus usque ad novissimum defectum
intellectus qui est in summitate huius ordinis cherubim, quem intellectus etiam
attractus non excedit, sed ibi habet sue cognitionis et sui luminis consummationem;
unde ordo ille cherubim vocatur.”
44
Cf. Timothy C. Potts, Conscience in Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1980), 75–6.
 Receptive and Ecstatic Human Nature 85
Second, in keeping with his inclination to posit a manifold encoun-
ter between the soul and the plethoric self-manifestations of the essen-
tially simple but pleromatic Trinity, Gallus consistently invokes
multiplicity here: “every kind of cognition” and “cognitions” and
“illuminations,” with apparent emphasis on their plurality; this
rank has not merely knowledge, but a “plenitude of knowledge”
(plentitudo scientie).45
Third, the dominant image or metaphor for what is received at the
cherubic rank is light, hence “rays,” “brilliances,” and “illuminations.”
The primary power or faculty of the soul, moreover, is the intellectus
and the primary sense-modality is sight or vision.
Fourth, while this is the rank of the intellectus, Gallus consistently
coordinates the activity of the intellectus with that of the affectus.
Strikingly, here, they both receive the “plenitude of cognition”; they
both “walk together,” even as they are both drawn (attractus). This
has implications for the nature of the affectus, to be treated moment-
arily. Noteworthy here is that Gallus views them as discrete, parallel
powers with differentiated acts: “Those illuminations, which the
affect and intellect receive at the same time up to the utmost con-
summation of the intellect, complete the order of the Cherubim.”46
Fifth and finally, in its act of receiving illuminations and of possess-
ing cognitions, the intellectus here reaches the terminus of its upward
movement, the “the consummation of its knowledge and light.”
Precisely as a differentiated power with a proper act, the intellect is
consummated here by its defection; it is literally “de-fected,” turned
back: “the final failure of the intellect.” The overall idea here is that of
the intellectus as constantly drawn or pulled Godward, even as it cannot
attain the object of its attraction—at least in its proper modality.
At the ninth and final rank, Gallus again appropriates the
corresponding Victorine tradition regarding the Seraphim.47 Hugh

45
Expl-AH 10.638.255: “Illas ergo cognitiones tam affectus quam intellectus
arbitror ordine Cherubim moraliter contineri, in quantum affectus ibi intellectum
non excedit, qui recte plenitudo scientie non sapientie dicitur, quia in plenitudine
intellectus, secundum quam proprie inest scientia, consummatur.”
46
Expl-AH 10.638.274: “Ille ergo illuminationes quas simul percipiunt affectus et
intellectus usque ad nouissimam intellectus consummationem ordinem Cherubim
complent.”
47
CH 7.1 (Parker, 24–5): “the holy designation of the Seraphim denotes either that
they are kindling or burning . . . . The appellation of Seraphim plainly teaches their
ever moving around things Divine, and constancy, and warmth, and keenness, and the
seething of that persistent, indomitable, and inflexible perpetual motion, and the vigorous
86 Foundations and Structures
of St. Victor had pioneered the way in his commentary on The
Celestial Hierarchy by noting that according to Dionysius “Ser-
aphim” means “fire-makers or carries of warmth,” and connotes
mobility, warmth, sharpness, etc. For Hugh, most likely drawing on
the works of Eriugena and Gregory the Great before him,48 it was
self-evident that Dionysius’ seraphic fire is in fact the fire of love,
though Dionysius had not explicitly said so. By itself, this identifi-
cation of seraphic fire with love was not wholly original to Hugh,
and neither was his next move. In this context, Hugh made his oft-
noted statement that “love surpasses knowledge and is greater than
intelligence,”49 and then elaborated: “[God] is loved more than under-
stood; and love enters and approaches where knowledge stays outside.”
This claim for the superiority of love over knowledge was not innova-
tive. A long-standing monastic tradition had said as much, expressed in
Gregory the Great’s pithy statement: “Love itself is knowledge,”50
implying thereby the possibility of a “loving knowledge” superior to
other kinds of knowing. But, as Paul Rorem has noted, when Hugh
attributed to the apostolic Dionysius the teaching that seraphic love of
God surpasses cherubic knowledge of God, he made a wholly original
claim and so inaugurated a fertile and long-standing trajectory of
affective medieval Dionysian reception, which Gallus inherits, but
also transforms in remarkably creative and profoundly original
ways.51 Against this Hugonian backdrop, Gallus’ description of the
seraphic rank acquires an initial intelligibility, even as its dense com-
plexity resists tidy explanation and its recondite vocabulary requires
subtle parsing.
As noted in the Introduction, Gallus construes his entire theological
enterprise as the pursuit of wisdom,52 the “wisdom of Christians,” as he

assimilation and elevation of the subordinate, as giving new life and rekindling them to the
same heat; and purifying through fire and burnt-offering, and the light-like and light-
shedding characteristic which can never be concealed or consumed, and remains always
the same, which destroys and dispels every kind of obscure darkness.”
48
See Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius, 74–6.
49
Hugh of St. Victor, Super Ierarchiam Dionysii, ed. Poirel, 560.200–17 (PL
175.1038D).
50
Gregory the Great, Homily in Evanglica 27: amor ipse notitia est.
51
It is intriguing to ponder the possibility that subsequent Franciscan interpret-
ation of Francis of Assisi, as “seraphic” on account of his burning love for Christ is
influenced by this Victorine tradition.
52
That the late medieval English author of the Cloud of Unknowing, much
influenced by Thomas Gallus, named one of his treatises “The Pursuit of Wisdom,”
 Receptive and Ecstatic Human Nature 87
calls it, contrasting it with the wisdom of the philosophers and
perhaps even theologians, by which he intimates not a simple binary
between true and false wisdom, but rather a hierarchical distinction
between two kinds or modes of knowing, lower and higher, inferior
and superior. Whatever value those other, lower forms of wisdom
and knowledge may have, they pale in relation to the wisdom that
for Gallus is here received and experienced at the highest dimension
of the soul: “For if ever you compare the intellectual wisdom, which
the philosopher of the world has, with the portion of Mary, it will be
found to be inferior and less good.”53 The cherubic rank is “rightly
called plenitude of knowledge, not of wisdom” (emphasis added),
which is the exclusive seraphic prerogative.
Gallus’ description of the ninth and seraphic rank in the Prologue
to his Third Commentary on the Song of Songs should be quoted
in full:
The ninth [order] contains the principal sighing (suspira) for God, the
super-intellectual stretchings and in-sendings (extensiones et immis-
siones), burning brilliances and brilliant burnings (furvidos fulgores et
fulgidos fervores). The understanding (intellectus) cannot be drawn to
the excessive sublimities and sublime excesses (sublimes excessus et
excedentes sublimitates) of all these, but only the principal affection
(affectio54) can be united to God. In this order the most chaste prayers
are offered by which we are present to God (DN 3). This order
embraces God and is surrounded by the embraces of the bridegroom.
It does not know through a mirror, but gains the portion of Mary
which will not be taken away (Luke 10:42). In this order the bridal-bed
(lectulus) is arranged for the bridegroom and bride. From this [order],
the flood (inundatio) of the divine light flows into the lower orders
one by one.55

wherein that author adopts a similar approach to wisdom, is testimony to the

importance of this theme in Gallus.
53
Expl-MT 1.5.55–8
54
The interpolated Prologue of the Third Commentary reads “affectus” (Cmm3-
CC Prol.B.115).
55
Cmm3-CC Prol.N.109: “Nonus continet principalia in Deum suspiria, super-
intellectuales extensiones et immissiones, fervidos fulgores et fulgidos fervores, ad
quorum omnium sublimes excessus et excedentes sublimitates intelligentia trahi non
potest, sed sola principalis affectio Deo unibilis. In hoc ordine offeruntur orations
castissime quibus Deo assumus, De div. nom. 3a. Iste ordo Deum amplexatur et sponsi
amplexibus amicitur, speculum nescit, Marie portionem percipit que non auferetur,
88 Foundations and Structures
A helpful starting point for explicating this passage is the now
familiar distinction between intellectus and affectus, operative
throughout Gallus’ angelic ordering of the soul. Thus far, they have
“co-ambulated” together, but into this final rank, as adumbrated
above, the affectus alone may enter. Gallus’ apparent severing of the
cherubic intellectus and the seraphic affectus at this stage has long been
noted, even stressed by both later medieval and modern readers.
The “understanding (intellectus) cannot be drawn” to this “super-
intellectual” seraphic height (where the prefix “super” seems to dis-
qualify rather than to intensify). The seraphic affect “suspends the
activity of the senses, of imagination, of reason, of intellect, both
practical and theoretical, and excludes every understanding (intellec-
tum) and every intelligible (intelligibile).”56 For this reason, the quali-
fier “principal,” which Gallus often employs in this context, seems
to indicate that while the affectus had also been operative in the
lower ranks, here it functions maximally and exclusively, preemi-
nent over all the other lower capacities. In his final glossing of The
Mystical Theology, Gallus explicitly identifies this principal affectus
with the scintilla synderesis,57 the “spark of synderesis, often trans-
lated as the “high point” of the soul.58
If Gallus names the affectus or synderesis as the principal power of
the seraphic soul, what precisely does he mean? In the passage above,
he clearly indicates that the affectus is the soul’s capacity for union
with God; it “alone is unitable to God” (sola principalis affectio Deo
unibilis).59 The use of bridal imagery at this stage, moreover, is his

Luc. 10. In hoc ordine sponso et sponse lectulus collocatur. De isto in inferiores
ordines seriatim fluit divini luminis inundatio.”
56 57
Expl-MT 1.5.45–7. Expl-MT 1.4.42.
58
Robert Javelet, “Thomas Gallus et Richard de Saint-Victor mystiques,”
Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale 30 (1963): 95: “La syndérèse n’est
pas chez les spirituels préscholastiques une mémoire des idées morales (syntéreo:
conserver), pas plus qu’elle n’est une synthèse des problèmes moraux (sundiairesis);
c’est un état de conscience transcendant, intentionnel, dynamique” [“Synderesis is not a
memory of moral ideas (syntēreo: to conserve) among the pre-scholastic spirituals,
nor is it a synthesis of moral problems (sundiariresis); it is a transcendent, intentional,
dynamic state of consciousness.”]
59
A distinct psychological faculty in Dionysius at MT 1.3, where he writes that
union occurs “in the better part” (κατὰ τὸ κρεῖττον ἑνούμενος/secundum melius
unitus), which itself rings of the Proclean “flower of the mind.” Medieval translators
of the CD struggled to interpret and translate this phrase. Sarracen chose to translate it
with the very literal: secundum melius unitus. In the ninth century, Eriugena opted for:
secundum id quod melius est intellectus.
 Receptive and Ecstatic Human Nature 89
typical strategy for evoking the nature of seraphic union, forming
the obvious link, as Gallus himself notes in his late Explanation of The
Mystical Theology, to the text of the Song of Songs, on which he
commented multiple times: “[seraphic wisdom] unites the apex of
the principal affection (apicem affectionis principalis), capable of the
divine, with the divine Spirit itself, according to 1 Cor. 6: ‘He who
adheres to God is one spirit.’ This is the union (coniunctio) often
longed for (suspirita) and sometimes obtained in the Song of
Songs.”60 In one sense, seraphic, bridal, Solomonic union is simply
an explication of the meaning of the term “affectus.” Union entails
direct, and in some sense unmediated, contact between the soul and
God. The rejection of an intervening, mediating “mirror” (speculum)—
“does not know in a mirror” (nescit speculum)—invokes the Pauline
distinction in 1 Cor. 13:12 between the obscure, mediated knowledge
of God available in this life (“now we know enigmatically in a mirror”
[per speculum in enigmate]) and the direct, unmediated knowledge
of God in the next life (“but then face to face” [facie ad faciem]).61 For
Gallus, such contact self-evidently affects the soul. By definition, fur-
thermore, there is a clear and crucial receptive and literally passive
dimension to this, as is more evident in the use of the passive participle,
“affectus,” in contrast to the noun “affectio.” To be affected is to be acted
upon, to receive an impact, to undergo, to suffer contact, to be touched.
In an important way, the affectus is simply the capacity of the soul to be
thus affected by God.62
Finally, as already intimated, the seraphic affectus is the “site” or
“point” of union between the soul and God: “In that [seraphic order]
indeed the hierarchic intention, is completed . . . that is, assimilation
and union with God, and (Col. 3:14): above all things, however, have
charity, which is the bond of perfection.”63

60
Expl-MT 1.5.51.
61
In Expl-MT 1.5.48, he says: “it does not know (nescit) a mirror or an enigma
(speculum et enigma), hence, it will not be taken away (Luke 10).”
62
Cf. Letter 5 (Parker; adapted): “And into this darkness, invisible indeed, on
account of the surpassing brightness, and unapproachable on account of the excess of
the superessential stream of light, every one deemed worthy to know and to see God
enters, by the very fact of neither seeing nor knowing, really entering into Him, Who
is above vision and knowledge.”
63
Expl-AH 10.638.281: “In isto siquidem completur intentio ierarchica, de qua
supra 3b, scilicet ‘assimilatio et unitio ad Deum,’ et Col. 3d: Super omnia autem hec
caritatem habete, quod est uinculum perfectionis.”
90 Foundations and Structures
This completes the overview of Gallus’ angelized soul, wherein he
anthropologically appropriates and applies the Dionysian celestial
hierarchy to individual human souls or minds, aligning each of the
angelic ranks with a specific aspect, power, capacity, faculty, or
activity of the soul. Gallus was dearly attached to this celestial anthro-
pology, affirming it consistently throughout his writing career, and
commending to his readers “a frequent and attentive consideration of
these [nine angelic] orders,” as being “altogether useful.”64
To modern readers (perhaps medieval ones too), however, the
entire scheme may well seem artificial, contrived, and even bizarre.
But it is important—indeed, necessary—to grasp the anthropological
forest despite the distracting trees. Toward that end, a few interpretive
suggestions are in order.
First, as noted above, Gallus found explicit warrant for this move
in the Dionysian texts themselves. Second, it should be noted that
this may well be a typically medieval exegetical exercise of creatively
interpreting and applying an authoritative text (like Scripture) to
some extra-textual reality, such as the Trinity, salvation history, or
in this case, the soul. While it can appear that Gallus is finding or
discovering this anthropology in the Dionysian text (or in the Song
of Songs, as will be seen below) or that the Dionysian text is
instructing Gallus regarding the soul, it is in fact the other way
around. For Gallus the very nature of an authoritative text entails an
invitation to perform a creative, endlessly variable and “riffable”
exegetical act of synthesizing or correlating his pre-conceived
anthropology (derived elsewhere) with the authoritative text itself.
Underneath this exegetical tour de force is a sophisticated concep-
tion of the soul, which can be detached or extracted from the textual
conceit through which it is expressed.
Third, Gallus’ angelic anthropology should be seen as another
instance of the Victorine theological style, a symbolic style of
thought, which theologizes in and through scriptural symbols.
Whereas Hugh chooses Noah’s ark, Richard the ark of Moses’
tabernacle, and Achard the “interior cathedral,” Gallus deploys the
(nearly) scriptural celestial hierarchy from the (presumedly) apostolic
Dionysius.

64
Cmm2-CC Prol.67: “Est autem omnino utilis frequens istorum ordinum et
perspicax consideratio . . . ”
 Receptive and Ecstatic Human Nature 91
At the same time, fourthly, there is a perhaps surprising utility to
Gallus’ scheme, if for no other reason than that it provides a vocabu-
lary (not only terms, but images and symbols too), vivid and mem-
orable, nimble and nuanced, for referring to and describing the
various powers, acts, objects and experiences of the soul, which are
in fact remarkably complex, importantly diverse, yet intricately inter-
related. The more typical medieval Augustinian schemes of “intellect
and will,” or “memory, understanding, and will,” often labor to
accommodate the complex nature of, and activity implicated in, the
soul’s mystical encounter with God.
For all these reasons, the modern reader of Gallus is permitted to
de-emphasize, to hold lightly the celestial trappings of Gallus’
Dionysian anthropology, and conversely is invited to peer beneath
them to appreciate what lies below the surface. By far the most
important and fundamental aspect of Gallus’ angelic anthropology
is the fact that it is hierarchical. For when he conceives of the soul
as a hierarchy, many of the aspects of Neoplatonic metaphysics,
which are embedded and expressed in the Dionysian notion of a
hierarchy, come to characterize the nature of the soul as well. This
is crucial. Typically, medieval hierarchies (Dionysian or otherwise)
are conceived of as fixed, static “ladders” to be ascended or
sequences of stages to be traversed, step-wise and uni-directionally,
so to speak, from lowest to highest until one reaches the top, where
the goal is reached and the movement ceases. Central to the inter-
pretation of Gallus pursued here is the claim that such is a pro-
foundly inadequate conception of Dionysian hierarchy and yields,
by consequence, a profoundly deficient understanding of Gallus’
hierarchical anthropology, and indeed of his mystical theology as a
whole. In Dionysius’ angelology and ecclesiology, by contrast, a
hierarchy is a dynamic, ordered, multi-dimensional state of being,
constituted by the simultaneity of metaphysical procession and
return; so too, in Gallus’ anthropology, is the angelized soul or
mens hierarchica.65

65
Cmm2-CC Prol.66: “ . . . mentibus hierarchicis . . . ”
92 Foundations and Structures
HIERARCHY IN DIONYSIUS

In Dionysius’ theological universe, as oft-noted, the notion of hier-

archia (a term he coins66) is as central67 as it was influential;68 it is
also complex and easily misunderstood. A brief elaboration of the
meaning and function of hierarchia in Dionysius will facilitate a fuller
appreciation of Gallus’ anthropological appropriation of it.
As noted above, Dionysius defines hierarchia thus: “Hierarchy
is . . . a sacred order and science and operation, assimilated, as far as
attainable, to the likeness of God, and conducted to the illuminations
granted to it from God, according to capacity, with a view to the
Divine imitation.”69 The purpose of any hierarchy, moreover, “is the
assimilation and union, as far as attainable, with God.”70 So, hier-
archia is a structure (taxis), involving knowledge (gnosis) and move-
ment (energia), resulting in union with God.

66
Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius, 21: “The word consists of hieros (sacred) and arche
(source). The latter term is often used to form compound words in the Dionysian
vocabulary. The thearchy, to take the example introduced above with regard to Letter
2, is literally the ‘source of divinity.’ The word hier-arch meant the source of the
sacred, humanly speaking. While extremely rare in Christian writings, the word was at
least known and could be applied to clergy. By creating the abstract noun hierarchy
from the cultic title hierarch, Dionysius invented a word for a structure or system for
‘sourcing’ or channeling the sacred, and linked it all inextricably to the single leader.
Dionysius claimed that the hierarch is named after the hierarchy, but the opposite is in
fact the case: hierarchy was derived from hierarch. He used the existing term for a
cultic leader to create the new word hierarchy and to imply that this person (the
hierarch) completely dominates the system or arrangement (the hierarchy).”
67
See Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius, 20: “The entire pattern of triads, including the triple
triad of the nine ranks of angels, is entirely characteristic of the author. It probably
derives not from any trinitarian model but from the Neoplatonic fascination for the way
an intermediary, or mean (or middle) term between extremes, creates a triad. For
example, the Platonic ideals form a mean term between the One and the many, and
thus attempt to provide some linkage between them. Dionysius borrowed this idea of
middle terms to form triads and thus to create a continuum or a hierarchy.”
68
See Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius, 19: “The Dionysian writings profoundly shaped
the idea of hierarchy in the Christian tradition, whether a churchly hierarchy of
clerical officers or a heavenly hierarchy of angelic beings. They also influenced the
overall picture of reality, as it was transmitted down through a vertical structure, as
‘the order which God himself has established’ (1088C, 272), a concept gladly
embraced by Christian monarchs of all kinds. Not only did Dionysius influence the
evolution of this concept, but he also created the word hierarchy itself, which, with its
cognates (like hierarchical) simply did not exist until the anonymous author invented
it to express and to crystallize such thoughts about order.”
69 70
CH 3.1 (Parker, 14). CH 3.2 (Parker, 15).
 Receptive and Ecstatic Human Nature 93
A hierarchy, moreover, differentiates and arranges disparate
entities into specific relationships and at the same time unites them
in a unified totality: “every hierarchy is the complete expression of the
sacred elements comprised within it. It is the perfect total of all its
sacred constituents.”71 To be sure, there is here higher and lower,
superior and inferior; but what distinguishes these is their relative
capacity for God: “Now, we affirm that throughout every sacred
ordinance the superior ranks possess the illuminations and powers
of their subordinates, but the lowest have not the same powers as
those who are above them”;72 again, “the last possess those of the
superior, not indeed in the same degree, but subordinately.”73 Thus,
capacity increases with rank or elevation; whatever the lower can do,
the higher can do with greater capacity and intensity.74 But the
individual ranks within the hierarchy do not simply have their appor-
tioned capacity individually or in isolation from the others; rather,
they relate directly with those above and below them, in what could
be called the threefold signature activity of each member of any
hierarchy. Each is “receptive of the primal light . . . and devoutly filled
with the entrusted radiance, and again, spreading this radiance
ungrudgingly to those after it” (emphasis added).75 Thus “every
hierarchical function is set apart for the sacred reception and distri-
bution of . . . Divine Light, and perfecting science.”76 So: reception,
possession, distribution. In this way, as Rorem notes, a hierarchy is
“above all a system of intermediaries that connects all levels of
reality”:77 “if you talk of ‘hierarchy’ you are referring in effect to the
arrangement of all the sacred realities.”78
It is noteworthy that this produces a situation wherein each
hierarchical level is characterized, paradoxically, by simultaneous
indigence and abundance: Each level is utterly dependent on its
superior for all that it is and has; hence indigence.79 Yet, each level

71 72
EH 1.3 (Luibheid, 197). CH 5.1 (Parker, 22).
73
CH 12.2 (Parker, 45).
74
CH 11.2 (Parker, 44): “the superior Orders possess abundantly the sacred
characteristics of the inferior, but the lowest do not possess the superior completeness
of the more reverend, since the first-manifested illuminations are revealed to them,
through the first Order, in proportion to their capacity.”
75 76
CH 3.2 (Parker, 15). CH 7.2 (Parker, 26).
77 78
Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius, 22. EH 1.3 (Luibheid, 197).
79
CH 3.3 (Parker, 15): “It is necessary then, as I think, that those who are being
purified should be entirely perfected, without stain, and be freed from all dissimilar
confusion; that those who are being illuminated should be filled with the Divine
94 Foundations and Structures
is the abundant source for its inferiors; hence, abundance.80 These
moreover are simultaneous, not sequential acts. All members of a
Dionysian hierarchy are constituted as so many acts of reception
and distribution.
Herein is also found the imitation of God, which Dionysius
construes as a form of cooperation with God in these very activ-
ities: “Thus each rank of the hierarchical order is led, in its own
degree, to the divine co-operation, by performing, through grace
and God-given power, those things which are naturally and super-
naturally in the Godhead, and accomplished by It superessentially,
and manifested hierarchically, for the attainable imitation of the
God-loving minds.”81 Thereby, all hierarchical members “find
their perfection in being carried to the divine imitation in their
own proper degree,” and each becomes a “[15] fellow-worker with
God . . . showing the divine energy in himself manifested as far as
possible.”82 This is so, even though the Deity is not in any way
indigent.83
It is crucial here to point out the importance of the highest
member of a Dionysian hierarchy, namely, the hierarch himself.
For Dionysius, the hierarch is the source of all that flows down to
those within the hierarchy. As such, he possesses within himself, in
a preeminent fashion, all that those below him possess from him but in
a manner appropriate to their station, as it were: “Talk of ‘hierarch’ and

Light, conducted to the habit and faculty of contemplation in all purity of mind;
that those who are being initiated should be separated from the imperfect, and
become recipients of that perfecting science of the sacred things contemplated.”
80
CH 3.3 (Parker, 15–16): “Further, that those who purify should impart, from
their own abundance of purity, their own proper holiness; that those who illuminate,
as being more luminous intelligences, whose function it is to receive and to impart
light, and who are joyfully filled with holy gladness, that these should overflow, in
proportion to their own overflowing light, towards those who are worthy of enlight-
enment; and that those who make perfect, as being skilled in the impartation of
perfection, should perfect those being perfected, through the holy instruction, in the
science of the holy things contemplated.”
81 82
CH 3.3 (Parker, 16). CH 3.2 (Parker, 14–15).
83
CH 3.2 (Parker, 15): “The Divine blessedness, to speak after the manner of men,
is indeed unstained by any dissimilarity, and is full of invisible light—perfect, and
needing no perfection; cleansing, illuminating, and perfecting, yea, rather a holy
purification, and illumination, and perfection—above purification, above light, pre-
eminently perfect, self-perfect source and cause of every Hierarchy, and elevated
preeminently above every holy thing.”
 Receptive and Ecstatic Human Nature 95
one is referring to a holy and inspired man, someone who understands
all sacred knowledge, someone in whom an entire hierarchy is com-
pletely perfected and known.”84
Finally, as he introduces the notion of hierarchy at the outset of
On the Celestial Hierarchy, Dionysius invokes his Neoplatonic meta-
physics of the good: “ . . . every procession of illuminating light, pro-
ceeding from the Father, whilst visiting us as a gift of goodness,
restores us again gradually as an unifying power, and turns us to
the oneness of our conducting Father, and to a deifying simplicity.
For all things are from Him, and to Him . . . ”85 For Dionysius,
hierarchia gives concrete expression to the Neoplatonic metaphysics
of procession and return,86 and metaphysical procession and return
occur via hierarchy: “hierarchy denotes a certain altogether holy
order, an image of the supremely divine freshness, ministering
[i.e. procession] the mysteries of its own illumination in hierarchical
ranks, and sciences, and assimilated [i.e. return] to its own proper
Head as far as lawful.”87 Hierarchia expresses and instantiates this
bivalent metaphysic of exitus–reditus.
In sum, for Dionysius, hierarchia is a unified, dynamic totality,
within which individual entities find their proper place and function
in relation to those above and below them, and which totality is
suffused and energized by—pulsates with—the metaphysical energia
or “motions” of procession and return, of “downward” distributions
and “upward” elevations of knowledge of God, the net effect of which
is to assimilate and indeed unite the totality to God, all the while
maintaining the specific individuality and character of each hier-
archic member.88

84
EH 1.3 (Luibheid, 197).
85
CH 1.1 (Parker, 1).
86
The Celestial Hierarchy begins with a discussion of metaphysical remaining,
procession, and return.
87
CH 3.2 (Parker, 14–15).
88
CH 3.2 (Parker, 14–15): “The purpose, then, of Hierarchy is the assimilation
and union, as far as attainable, with God, having Him Leader of all religious science
and operation, by looking unflinchingly to His most Divine comeliness, and copy-
ing, as far as possible, and by perfecting its own followers as Divine images, mirrors
most luminous and without flaw, receptive of the primal light and the supremely
Divine ray, and devoutly filled with the entrusted radiance, and again, spreading this
radiance ungrudgingly to those after it, in accordance with the supremely Divine
regulations.”
96 Foundations and Structures
GALLUS ’ DIONYSIAN RATIONAL CREATURE:
HIERARCHIC, DYNAMIC, ENSTATIC –ECSTATIC

When Gallus executes this anthropological appropriation of the

Dionysian celestial hierarchy, accordingly, these fundamental attri-
butes of hierarchia are brought into the very nature of the human
person, along with the symbolic descriptions of the soul’s faculties
and activities. Put otherwise, in Gallus’ Dionysian anthropology, it is
far more significant that the soul is a vir hierarchicus (as Bonaventure
will later style it, in relation to St. Francis) than a vir angelicus; that is, it
is far more significant that the soul is “hierarchized” than “angelized.”
The most crucial implication of Gallus’ hierarchical anthropology
is the fact that as a hierarchy, the soul is constituted precisely by the
three metaphysical moments of Dionysian Neoplatonic metaphysics
(cf. Chapter 2), namely, procession, reversion, and remaining. Com-
menting on Dionysius’ view of created reality, Eric Perl notes that
“the very being of each thing, then, is its possessing, receiving,
reverting to God according to its proper mode.”89 Gallus’ hierarchical
anthropology is his attempt to explicate this. Each of these moments
merits a brief remark at this point.

Anthropological Procession
Anthropologically speaking, the moment of procession or exitus
refers to the way in which the soul is both receptive to the “inflowing”
of divine self-communication “from above” and to the way in which
this divine self-communication is passed “down,” distributed, as it
were, stepwise, from the highest to the lowest parts or faculties of the
soul. For Gallus, the creature is constituted both generally as a
creature, and mystically as a deified creature just in so far as it receives
“from above” and it is radically “upwardly postured” as it were,
opened to receive all that it has, all that it is, ex Deo. It may be helpful
to note that this is the anthropological inverse of Gallus’ conception
of the Trinity as pleromatic abundance. Whereas God is ever hyper-
fullness, the creature is hyper-indigence, radically receptive; if the
expression be permitted, the creature is semper implenda—“always-
having-to-be-filled.” As the writer of the Letter to Colossians put it:

89
Perl, Theophany, 41.
 Receptive and Ecstatic Human Nature 97
“For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead (inhabitat omnis
plenitudo divinitatis) corporeally. And you are filled in him (estis in
illo repleti), who is the head of all . . . ” (Col. 2:9–10).

Anthropological Reversion
Conversely, the moment of reversion or reditus refers to the upward
thrusting, ultimately self-transcending and thus ecstatic movement,
stepwise, from the lowest to the highest parts or faculties of the soul,
terminating ultimately in ecstatic union with God. Creatures are
constantly reaching Godward for more fullness and asymptotically
approaching but never reaching the hyper-full divine fullness.90

Remaining: A Stable Temple of Divine Indwelling

Commenting on Dionysius’ metaphysics of created reality, Eric Perl
notes that:
The proper activity that constitutes each thing as what it is, which is that
thing’s distinctive mode of being, is its way of reverting to God. . . . In
short each thing simply in being what it is, i.e. in being in its proper way,
is desiring or tending toward God, the Good, in its proper way, actively
receiving him as its determination. Thus to revert to God is to proceed
from him and to proceed from him is to revert to him.91
What Perl notes here about Dionysius’ conception of created reality
generally, applies also to Gallus’ Dionysian-inspired anthropology in
particular: the soul itself is constituted by the simultaneous motions
of procession and return, motions that characterize its particular
mode of being and its particular way of relating to its Trinitarian
source and goal. As Perl goes on to suggest, the characteristic act or
signature or mode of such a being can be described as “active recep-
tivity”: “As in Plotinus and Proclus, [so for Dionysius] the [created]
product has an actively receptive role in its production . . . ”92 So too,
Gallus conceives of the soul as a stable dynamism of proceeding and
reverting, of “downwardly” receiving and “upwardly” exceeding. It
passively receives “from above” the active dynamism of returning
“from below” to union with the Trinity. These, moreover, should

90
“The reversion of effects to their cause, in turn, forms the basis for Dionysius’
account of the ontological love or desire of all things for God” (Perl, Theophany, 41).
91 92
Perl, Theophany, 42. Perl, Theophany, 42.
98 Foundations and Structures
not be thought of, metaphysically at any rate, as sequential moments
or stages, though perhaps they are experienced psychologically as
such (inevitably for time-bound humans). Rather, for the hierarch-
ized soul ecstatic reception and receptive ecstasy are simultaneous
sides of a single act of existing. Precisely this dynamic equilibrium of
internal procession and return accounts for the third moment or
aspect of Gallus’ anthropology, namely, that of remaining.
For both Dionysius and Gallus, but with different emphases, the
procession–reversion (enstatic/ecstatic) “motion” is what enables a
finite being to exist and also to be related to God. Hierarchy is a kind
of ontological “water-treading” by which a being remains or is main-
tained in being. For Gallus, the crucial significance of this appropri-
ation is not the nine angelic ranks within the soul, but rather the
ontological dynamism and capacitation which the Dionysian hier-
archy entails. Significantly, in Dionysius, this metaphysical state can
be characterized as the “love” of created things for God: “All things
come to be, they are, only in at once and identically proceeding from
and reverting to, and in that sense loving, God.”93 It is perhaps not
surprising, then, and may be utterly fitting, that when Gallus trans-
forms this Dionysian metaphysics into a theological anthropology
and even a religious psychology, the culminating climax of the crea-
ture as a whole is seraphic union with God through ecstatic love.
Expressed in the typically medieval penchant to think symbol-
ically, and in the particularly Victorine tendency to use architec-
tural symbols, Gallus ultimately characterizes the soul’s stability,
derived from its dynamic equilibrium of procession and return,
as a temple or cathedral in which the divine presence comes to
dwell:94
Morally the temple of God is the holy soul, maximally glorified, which
nevertheless is not a mobile tabernacle, but is a stable temple. Of this
temple there are three storeys: the highest, the middle, and the lowest,
which we understand in the words of Dionysius,95 where he says:
“ACCORDING TO ITSELF EACH AND EVERY CELESTIAL AND HUMAN MIND HAS
SPECIAL FIRST, MIDDLE AND LAST ORDERS AND POWERS ACCORDING TO EACH

93
Perl, Theophany, 41 (emphasis added).
94
Dionysius himself had suggested the theme of divine indwelling: CH 7.4 (Parker,
30–1): “the God-receptive minds . . . are . . . the Divine places of the supremely Divine
repose.”
95
CH 10.3.
 Receptive and Ecstatic Human Nature 99
AND EVERY UPWARD ACTION OF THE AFORESAID HIERARCHIC ILLUMINATIONS
96
MANIFEST ACCORDING TO PROPORTION.”

Gallus suggests here that conceived on the model of the Dionysian

celestial hierarchy, the soul comes to be, not a physically mobile
tabernacle for the divine presence, which the Israelites carried with
them in their wilderness wanderings, but rather a spiritually perman-
ent place of dynamic stability, a spiritual temple of Jerusalem, in which
God may dwell. For, “since the holy Trinity . . . is never absent . . . let us
extend ourselves into the Trinity . . . as throwing ourselves toward One
who is ever present . . . ”97

CONCLUSION: SPIRALING

As is evident, the most distinctive feature of Gallus’ appropriation

of the Dionysian Corpus is his hierarchic “angelization” of the human
mind, modeled on Dionysius’ description of the nine angelic orders,
subdivided into three triads, each with its own particular name, office,
and activity. The interpretation of Gallus’ theological anthropology
offered here, however, differs from this standard account. It argues
that Gallus has appropriated first and foremost the Dionysian con-
ception of hierarchy in general—namely, a dynamic ascending—
descending structure of interrelated entities that mediates revelation
from higher to lower and elevates the lower into the higher. Accord-
ingly, Gallus’ angelized mind is most fundamentally and ultimately a
dynamic, multivalent, highly structured state of being, in which love
and knowledge are related in reciprocal and mutually reinforcing
ways. By “internalizing” the Dionysian celestial hierarchy within the
soul, Gallus integrates the central aspect of Neoplatonic metaphysics

96
Expl-AH 10.633.118: “Moraliter templum Dei est anima sancta, maxime autem
glorificata que iam non est tabernaculum mobile, sed templum stabile. Huius templi tres
sunt mansiones: summa, media, infima, quod intelligimus in uerbis Dionysii 10b, ubi
dicit: “QUOD SECUNDUM SE IPSAM UNAQUEQUE ET CELESTIS ET HUMANA MENS SPECIALES HABET ET
PRIMAS ET MEDIAS ET ULTIMAS ORDINATIONES ET UIRTUTES ADDICTAS ET SECUNDUM UNUMQUEM-
QUE IERARCHICARUM ILLUMINATIONUM SURSUMACTIONES IUXTA PROPORTIONEM MANIFESTATAS.”
97
Expl-DN 2.168.106: “cum sancta Trinitas a nobis inuocanda nusquam absit,
omnia contineat, nec longe sit ab unoquoque nostrum (Act. 17f), eo modo nos
extendamus nos in ipsam spiritualibus orationibus, desideriis et suspiriis, tamquam
ad ipsam ubique presentem nos immittentes.”
100 Foundations and Structures
within his theological anthropology, as three crucial “moments” or
valences: ascending, descending, and, bringing these together,
remaining. With respect to rational creatures, the two metaphysical
moments of exitus-descent and reditus-ascent acquire a particular
expression and manifestation: receptivity and ecstasy.
A final observation is necessary for all that follows: In Dionysius,
the seraphic order, atop the celestial hierarchy, has a signature kind of
movement in relation to God: “This, then . . . is the first rank of the
Heavenly Beings which encircle and stand immediately around God;
and without symbol, and without interruption, dances round His
eternal knowledge in the most exalted ever-moving stability as in
Angels.”98 Just as for Dionysius, the seraphim are incessantly circling,
dancing around the unknowable divine essence in an ever-moving
stability, so too Gallus’ Dionysian soul, marked throughout by its own
seraphic apex, is ever spiraling toward and around the Triune God,
who Itself is also an eternal circle of love (cf. Chapter 1). Gallus relates
these two stable dynamisms thus:
it must be understood concerning the hierarchic mind (mente ierarchica)
that the nine-fold [hierarchy] (novenarius), proceeding first from the
eternal ternary (ternarius), which in itself whirls around in an eternal
circle (in se eterno circulo convoluto), is returned [reflectatur], not only
into the ternary but also into the monad.99
In short, for Gallus, the soul, precisely through the hierarchic simul-
taneity of ecstatic reception is eternally spiraling into the eternal
Spiral that is the pleromatic Trinity.

98
CH 7.4 (Parker, 163).
99
Expl-AH 10.632.87: “quod intelligendum est de mente ierarchica, ut ita noue-
narius ex eterno ternario, in se eterno circulo conuoluto, primo egrediens, non solum
in ternarium sed et in monadem reflectatur.”
 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/11/2016, SPi

Preface to Parts II–IV

As noted in the Introduction, Gallus’ entire theological project is aptly

characterized as the pursuit of wisdom, in particular, the “wisdom of Chris-
tians,” as he himself puts it repeatedly. This sapientia Christianorum assumes
an understanding of the Trinity, a theology of creation, and an anthropology,
all of which were treated in Part I. Indeed, his mystical theology emerges at
the intersection of a metaphysics of abundance and overflowing plentitude
(both uncreated and created, cf. Chapters 1–2), and a dynamic anthropology,
presuming ontological indigence, structured as a Dionysian hierarchy of
simultaneously receptive and ecstatic postures, modes, and acts. Situated
within this created dynamism of Neoplatonic procession and return, the
rational creature mirrors and traces the ontological simultaneity of its
ascending and descending valences (cf. Chapter 3).
For Gallus, this “wisdom of Christians” is that to which the apostle Paul
refers in 1 Cor. 1:26, speaking of “wisdom among the mature” and it is the
wisdom about which Paul’s intimate associate (and convert to his preaching),
Dionysius the Areopagite, wrote in his little treatise, The Mystical The-
ology.100 Just as patently for Gallus (though not perhaps for the modern
reader!), this wisdom is also the true subject matter of Solomon’s Song of
Songs. For our Victorine, Solomon and Dionysius complement and supple-
ment one another: the Areopagite provides a theoretical account of this
mystical wisdom (scribit theoricam huius . . . sapientie); Solomon illustrates
its practice: “in this book, namely the Song of Songs, Solomon hands on the
practice of that same mystical theology (tradit practicam eiusdem mystice
theologie).”101 A full appreciation of Gallus’ understanding of Christian

100
Cmm3-CC Prol.107: “The Apostle spoke of this among the perfect in 1 Cor. 2:6.
And, from the teaching of the Apostle, the great Dionysius the Areopagite wrote a
theoretical (theoricam) treatment of this super-intellectual wisdom, in so far as it is
possible that this be written, in his little book on the Mystical Theology, which
I carefully commented upon (exposui) over ten years ago.”
101
Cmm3-CC Prol.107.
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 26/11/2016, SPi

102 Preface to Parts II–IV

wisdom, accordingly, requires attention to his commentarial treatment of
both texts. In fact, an operative assumption of the present work is that Gallus’
fullest account of mystical theology lies especially in his multiple commen-
taries on the Song of Songs (which have not figured sufficiently into either
medieval or modern interpretations of his theology).
This fact, however, presents a manifold challenge to any interpreter of
Gallus’ theology, for his exegetical approach to the Song is both unsystematic
and idiosyncratic. The former because he comments on the Song text in a
sequential way, yet he frequently finds the same underlying meaning in
different parts of the text as he comes to them, which means his discussion
of any particular theme is dispersed and diffused throughout the commen-
tary and must be culled out and gathered together to be considered fully and
adequately. The latter because Gallus’ entire exegetical strategy consists, not
only in a typical medieval allegorizing of the Song as a depiction of the
mystical relation between God and the soul, but also in a wholly novel
strategy of interpreting the soul-bride’s encounter with her divine Bride-
groom through the Dionysian-inspired hierarchical anthropology of the
“angelized soul” (the vir hierarchicus or vir angelicus).
Gallus’ hierarchical anthropology is so fundamental to his account of
mystical wisdom that it provides the overall interpretive framework for all
that follows here. And, because the most crucial feature of his Dionysian
anthropology is hierarchy—that is, a dynamic, hierarchical structure consti-
tuted by the three metaphysical “moments” or “valences” of procession,
remaining, and return—these three organize the following interpretive
exposition. But, since for Gallus, as noted in Chapter 2, the anthropological
manifestation of Dionysian metaphysics consists in the valences of ascending
and descending, and in their simultaneity, with the resulting integrated
“mobile stability” of the soul, what follows treats first “ascending,” then
“descending,” and finally “remaining.”
 Part II

Ascending
 Preface to Part II

Put most generally, the ascending valence is the means by which the soul is
dynamically oriented toward God; it describes the ways in which it knows
and loves God, explains why and how the soul is united to God, and in what
that union consists.
In the Prologue to his Third Commentary on the Song of Songs, Gallus
helpfully orients his presumed medieval reader (and his modern interpreter!)
in relation to this upward dynamism:
And so, the contemplative mind, having progressed through five steps of con-
templation step-by-step, fixing its eye on the height of the sixth in the rank of the
Dominions of the mind, reaches out toward theoric ecstasies (excessus theoricos),
desiring to be taken up (assumi) into the rank of the Thrones, so as thus to be
present in that place to the Deity who is near to all, according to the teaching of
Dionysius in On the Divine Names 3.1

This text offers several crucial clues regarding Gallus’ conception of the
mystical ascent. It functions well as a point of departure for Part II.
First, importantly though not surprisingly, he correlates the ascent with
the soul’s angelic structure. So, the ascending valence in the soul presumes a
certain conception of the soul itself, its nature and faculties (cf. Chapter 3).
Second, he situates the contemplative mind at a crucial juncture in its
ascent: the boundary between the sixth angelic rank, the Dominions, the
highest point of the middle triad, and the seventh angelic rank, the Thrones,
the lowest rank of the highest triad. As noted above, this is also the boundary
between the soul’s natural and super-natural capacities and activities;
between the sphere of “nature assisted by grace,” the domain of “activity”
and the sphere where grace renders the soul more passive (though not
completely so). The ascending valence thus traverses the middle and highest
triads of the soul. It involves capacities and activities that are both proper and
natural to the soul’s created nature and those that are super-natural. Gallus

1
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.C.117.
106 Preface to Part II
characterizes the former as “sober,” by which he means activity proper and
natural to the soul, while the latter are “ecstatic,” where the soul is drawn
outside of itself, above its nature. This distinction between what is well
termed enstatic and ecstatic, between within the mind (in mente) and
above the mind (excessus mentis), between “sober” and “inebriated,” is
fundamental to Gallus’ understanding of the ascending valence.
 4

“Lingering in the Dominions”

INTRODUCTION

While Gallus is especially interested in what occurs in the highest

triad, his conception of the middle triad is in fact integrally related to
what occurs in highest triad, in particular to the relationship between
knowledge and love. Thus we begin with the sixth rank, the topmost
level of the middle hierarchy.

VIRTUE ASSUMED

While he does not dwell on the moral dimension of the mystical life, it
should be noted briefly that at various points, especially in his Song
commentaries, Gallus indicates that the possession of virtue, especially
the cardinal virtues, and the right ordering of charity, are prerequis-
ites, taken for granted in his mystical theory. These pertain to the
natural activity and condition of the soul. So, in the middle triad he
speaks of the “activity of the virtues in the middle hierarchy,”2 where
are found “the strength of the natural and gratuitous virtues of a
robust mind.”3 Gallus likens the cardinal virtues to the “beams of
cedar,” which are “immortal and exclude the rottenness of vices”4
These virtues protect the contemplative mind from the assaults of vice
and temptation by “repelling every attack and every dissimilitude.”5

2
Cmm2-CC 1C.72: “ . . . virtutum opera in media hierarchia.”
3
Cmm3-CC Prol.J.108: “valida mentis robora virtutum naturalium et gratuitarum.”
4
Cmm2-CC 1G.76: “CEDRINA, quia harum virtutum frucuts sunt immortales et
vitiorum putredinem excludunt.”
5
Expl-AH 10.636.221.
108 Ascending
Allegorizing the word “apples,” Gallus speaks of “the sweet refresh-
ments of the virtues” and then notes that “lest something tempt the
bride to the most base things of temporal curiosity, she is surrounded
by apples when the bridal-bed of Solomon, that is, the contemplative
soul, is encircled by the strong men of Israel and protected by the
aromatic protections of the cardinal virtues when approached by all
the carnal vices.”6 So “the infantry of the cardinal virtues walks under
the bed of Solomon”7 and the “four cardinal virtues circle the bed of
Solomon, that is, the tranquil mind of the bride, guarding it . . . ”8
At this stage of the ascent, though, Gallus’ primary concern is the
acquisition of knowledge of God. Given the historiographical narrative
of Gallus as an anti-intellectual, this fact is of paramount importance. In
the broadest terms, the ascending valence entails the pursuit of cognitio
Dei. But for Gallus such cognitio is multi-form. Here, it is necessary to
recall the fundamental distinction that he consistently draws between
the two forms of wisdom or two forms of cognitio Dei. Commenting at
the beginning of his third Song commentary on Jer. 9:24: Let him who
boasts boast in this: that he knows and understands me, Gallus noted:
“Here a twofold knowledge of God is designated,” the first of which is
“intellectual (intellectualis).”9 Similarly, the programmatic claim of his
Explanation of the Mystical Theology is that “we arrive at cognition of
God in two ways. One is intellectual (intellectualis) . . . .”10 What is this
intellectual cognitio Dei and how is it acquired?

ENSTATIC KNOWLEDGE OF GOD

Simply put, this cognitio is knowledge of the Creator mediated by

created effects. It is “acquired through the consideration of creatures”
and is “gathered from the prior knowledge of sensible things.”

6
Cmm2-CC 2B.79: “ . . . malorum vero nomine suaves virtutum refectiones desig-
nantur . . . et ne quis sponsam ad ima revocet temporalis curiositatis, ecce stipatur
malis, quando fortissimis ex Israel lectulus Salmonis, id est anima contemplativa,
ambitur et aromaticis virtutum cardinalium custodiis omnium vitiorum carnalium
custodiis onium vitiorum carnalium accessus arcetur.”
7
Cmm2-CC 1E.74: “ . . . pedester cardinalium qui inferius ambiunt lectum
Salomonis . . . ” For the “bed of Solomon,” see Ws 8:7.
8
Cmm2-CC 3E.88: “ . . . quatuor cardinales virtutes, AMBIUNT custodiendo lectulum
Sa[lomonis], id est tranquillem sponse mentem . . . ”
9 10
Cmm3-CC A.112. Expl-MT 1.3.2.
 “Lingering in the Dominions” 109
It “ascends from the sensible to the intellectual.” Often invoking Rom.
1:19–20, Gallus refers to it by the phrase “mirror of creatures” or
simply “per speculum.”11
In an apparently straightforward way, on the one hand, it is
knowledge of God derived from philosophical speculation based on
natural reason. Indeed, Gallus explicitly praises Aristotle as the pre-
eminent practitioner thereof: “In this [way], the philosophers of the
world made no little progress, especially Aristotle, who taught
through his theoretical works (the Physics, the book On the Soul,
and the Metaphysics) to ascend as if by steps from the visible things of
the world to the invisible things of God.”12 Strikingly, on the other
hand, the notion of ascending per visibilia ad invisiblia, here attrib-
uted to the Stagirite, is a Victorine principle going back to Hugh of
St. Victor, and Gallus explicitly credits him in describing this know-
ledge: “provided through consideration of creatures in Ecclesiastes
according to the exposition of the venerable doctor master Hugh,
formerly of our regular church of Saint Victor in Paris.” And behind
Hugh is Dionysius,13 who in his Epistle to Titus,14 as Gallus notes,
affirms: “The activity of everything appearing in the world is the
evidence of the invisible things of God.”15 It becomes clear, then,
that this intellectual cognitio Dei is the proper object and possession,
not only of philosophers, but also of theologians as well:
Whatever science or wisdom, therefore, obtained in this [intellectual]
mode, either arises from the cognition of preexisting visible things or is
apprehended by intellect, [and] pertains to the first and common mode
of cognizing God; and to this pertain all the liberal doctrines, not only of
the pagan philosophers, but also of the catholic doctors and the holy
fathers, which either through intellectual study or teaching are able to

11 12
Expl-MT 1.27.570. Expl-MT 1.3.6.
13
Expl-MT 1.4.29ff. “To this [mode] pertain, not indeed in every individual
sentence but the principle matter and intention, all the books of blessed Dionysius
which are extant, namely, On the Celestial Hierarchy, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy,
On the Divine Names, and the two books which are not found, namely, On the Divine
Characters/ypotyposibus, and On the Symbolic Theology, with the exception alone of
the book which we now have in our hands [The Mystical Theology] and a few letters.”
14
In Philippe Chevalier (ed.), Extractio ex Libris Dionysii: Dionysiaca: Recueil
donnant l’ensemble des traductions latines des ouvrages attribués au Denys de
l’Aréopage, 2 vols. (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer & Cie, 1937–50), 642.
15
Cmm2-CC Prol.65: “ . . . apparentis omnis mundi operatio est invisibilium Dei
propositio . . . ”
110 Ascending
be understood by mortals and can be assimilated into the faculty of the
common understanding.16
More precisely, then, intellectual cognitio Dei is whatever can be
understood or grasped by the natural, “common” intellectual powers
and acts.

THE SIX STEPS OF CONTEMPLATION

It is also at this point that Gallus invokes his favorite Victorine

master, Richard of St. Victor, and Richard’s “mapping” of contem-
plative knowledge into six steps of contemplation, in his treatise
Benjamin Major.17 In a short, late treatise (1244–6), the Spectacula
contemplationis, Gallus explicitly adopted (and adapted) Richard’s
framework of “the six steps of ascent in Beniamin Maior.” In the
passage quoted at the outset of this chapter, mention of six steps of
contemplation (“ . . . having progressed through five steps of contem-
plation step-by-step, fixing its eye on the height of the sixth”) refers,
not to the six angelic ranks of the first and middle triads of the
hierarchized soul, as it might appear, but rather to Richard’s steps
of contemplation. Gallus thus here incorporates those contemplative
stages within his overall account of the mystical ascent, correlating
them with the sober activity of the soul in its middle triad. As Gallus
puts it in the Spectacula contemplationis, they pertain to “intellectual
contemplation prior to ecstasy of mind.”18 In his Explanation of the
Mystical Theology, Gallus gives the following summary of these steps:
As prior Richard [of St. Victor] taught in the distinction of the grades of
contemplation, the first, second, and third [steps] are turned toward the

16
Expl-MT 1.4.22–9: “Quecumque ergo scientia uel sapientia predictis modis
obtinetur et preexistente uisibilium cognitione ingignitur aut intellectu apprehenditur,
ad primum modum et communem cognoscendi Deum pertinet; et ad istum pertinent
omnes doctrine liberales non solum gentilium philosophorum sed doctorum catho-
licorum et etiam sanctorum patrum que uel studio intellectuali uel doctrina possunt a
mortalibus comparari et in facultatem communis intelligentie reduci.”
17
Richard of St. Victor, Benjamin Major, ed. Marc-Aeilko Aris, vol. 6, Contem-
platio: Philosophische Studien zum Traktat Benjamin Maior des Richard von
St. Victor (Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1996); PL 196.63–202B.
18
Spec-cont. Prol.270.7–8: “Hec est descriptio contemplationis intellectualis citra
mentis excessum.”
 “Lingering in the Dominions” 111
sensible and invisible properties, and the invisible natures, reasons,
causes, etc., of visible things. And those three are mixed up with the
imagination; and they do not attain pure understanding (intelligentiam).
The fourth step, with the office of the imagination removed, reaches out
only to those things that the imagination does not attain, that is, to the
invisible natures, the properties, virtues, powers, dispositions, etc., of
invisible things, qualities that we both experience in our minds and
comprehend through common understanding (intelligentiam). And
this step is practiced chiefly by natural reason. The fifth [step] rises up
into divine and eternal spectacula only apprehensible by the intellect
and consonant with human reason. Worldly philosophy does not know
the sixth step.19
Both Gallus’ overall appropriation of Richard’s schema and his par-
ticular interpretation of it, as reflected in this passage, afford insight
into his conception of intellectual cognitio Dei. First, the overall thrust
of Richard’s schema is a sapiential mediation on creation, “wondering
at the wisdom of the Creator,” which ascends from visible things to
their invisible and eventually divine and indeed Trinitarian causes.
The first three steps, as Gallus notes above, are all oriented toward
the external world,20 where “the wonderful incomprehensibility of
providential wisdom appears and is present in all these things.”21 The
fourth step is a “hinge,” transitioning from a focus on sensibilia to a
focus on those things that are purely conceptual or intellectual,
lacking material expression or imagable manifestation, and thus at

19
Expl-MT 1.3.10–4.21: “Vt enim docet prior Richardus in distinctione graduum
contemplationis, primus et secundus et tertius uersantur circa uisibilium sensibiles et
inuisibiles proprietates et inuisibiles naturas, rationes, causas etc., et illi tres imagina-
tioni immiscentur nec puram intelligentiam contingunt. Quartus gradus semoto
imaginationis officio illis solis intendit que imaginatio non attingit, id est inuisibilibus
inuisibilium naturis, proprietatibus, uirtutibus, uiribus, dispositionibus etc., qualia et
in mentibus nostris experimur et per communem intelligentiam comprehendimus,
et iste gradus exercetur potissime in natura rationali. Quintus assurgit in diuina et eterna
spectacula tantum intellectu apprehensibilia et humane rationi consona. Sextum
philosophia mundana ignorat.”
20
The first step “consists in the imagination and according to the imagination
when the pure understanding (intelligentia) turns the eyes to the consideration of any
sensible forms . . . ” (Spec-cont. 1.270.16–18). The second step “attends to the invisible
causes, reasons (rationes), and orderly arrangements (dispositiones) of visible things,
and therefore it consists in imagination according to reason” (Spec-cont. 2.271.50–2).
The third step “consists in reason according to imagination, in which by the comparison
(collationem) of sensibilia one is raised to the knowledge of the invisibilia of ourselves, of
the angels, and of God” (Spec-cont. 3.273.88–90).
21
Spec-cont. 2.4.272.70–1.
112 Ascending
this stage “the use of sense and imagination [is] utterly suspended,”
and reason operates without them, “reason according to reason,” so
to speak. In the Spectacula contemplationis, Gallus indicates more
explicitly that at this step, freed from sense images, the mind begins to
reflect upon itself: “the purified mind . . . turns its gaze back onto
itself.”22 Up to this point, the primary active faculty has been reason
(ratio).
At the fifth step, though, the intellectus takes over, turning upward
from the interiority of the soul itself and its nature to the superior
nature of the Creator above it, in order to contemplate the divine
invisibilia, the invisible attributes of the divine essence. Here, Gallus
organizes this speculation according to a venerable Victorine triad of
divine power, wisdom, and goodness,23 while also noting divine
“eternity, immensity, infinity, incomprehensibility, most causal caus-
ality, and simple unity.”24 Finally, he concludes with his signature
divine attribute: plenitude (see Chapter 1). Contemplating “the super-
desirable fullness of the divine whole [divinity],” Gallus subtly intro-
duces the Dionysian metaphysics of procession and return. For the
divine plenitude is always “drawing all desires unto itself by its infinite
and most universal desirability,25 nevertheless inestimably satisfying
and super-overflowing all things fully existing in it in the form of a
flood.”26 All of this pertains to “to the divine essence,” which despite this
abundant deluge “is simple in itself to the highest degree, to such a
degree that nothing can be thought simpler.”27 Importantly, this purely
intellectual activity of the fifth step is executed “according to reason”
and “in so far as it is possible through a mirror,” indicating that this is
essentially an exercise in philosophical speculation on what the divine
essence must be like in light of the “mirror” of created things contem-
plated in the prior steps, even though created things are no longer in
view and have been transcended.
The sixth step marks a transition beyond philosophical speculation
derived from meditation on created beings and governed by natural
reason: “worldly philosophy does not know the sixth step.” Here,
contemplation occurs “in the intellect above reason” and is focused
on “the personal and notional divine invisibilia, that is, on the Trinity
itself. Gallus now rehearses the specifically Ricardian theology of the

22 23
Spec-cont. 4.275.144–5. Spec-cont. 5.1–4.279.257–86.
24 25
Spec-cont. 5.6.280.296–8. DN 4.
26 27
DN 8; Pss. 28:10, 45:5; Luke 6:38. Spec-cont. 5.1.279.258–9.
 “Lingering in the Dominions” 113
Trinity (noted in Chapter 1), with its signature focus on divine
plenitude (ad intra) (the fullness of goodness, of happiness, of love),
as well as the distinction of the Trinitarian persons according to mode
of origin, rather than relation.28 Though he does not say so explicitly,
this Trinitarian speculation is derived from revelation not reason,
and is not available, accordingly, to purely philosophical speculation,
but only to the “the catholic doctors and the holy fathers” (see
above, n. 15). Nevertheless, though supernaturally revealed, revela-
tion makes these Trinitarian notions and attributes available to
the human conceptual apparatus, so to speak, and to be noetically
graspable.
Whether rationally discovered in the fifth step, or divinely revealed
in the sixth, this intellectual speculation nonetheless falls within the
purview of the intellect. For, as Gallus puts it in the text cited above,
whatever is obtained “through intellectual study [i.e. philosophical
metaphysics] or [divine] teaching” [i.e. revealed theology] can be
brought into the faculty of the common intelligence.29
These six steps of contemplation, even the last—involving specu-
lation of the Trinity on the basis of divine revelation—are all exe-
cuted within the sober mind, within the middle triad of the angelic
soul. All of them yield what Gallus calls an intellectual cognitio Dei, a
knowledge of God “in a mirror” or per speculum.

INTELLECTUAL COGNITIO DEI

So, summing up, how might Gallus’ intellectual cognitio Dei best be
characterized ultimately?
First, the faculties or powers of the soul implicated in this cognition
are the normal array of human senses and faculties, including the five
physical senses, the imaginatio, ratio, and intellectus. Recall (from
Chapter 3) that the middle triad involves deliberate, rational activity,

28
Spec-cont 6.7.281.352–55: “The seventh [consideration] attends to the propria of
each Person according to which the proprium of the Father is not being from another
and having existence from Himself. The proprium of the Spirit is to have being from
another and not eternally having existence from Itself. The proprium of the Son is
having being from another and another having existence from Him.”
29
Expl-MT 1.4.22: “que uel studio intellectuali uel doctrina possunt a mortalibus
comparari et in facultatem communis intelligentie reduci.”
114 Ascending
involving “meditation,” “judgment,” and voluntary “intentionality.”30
Under the rule of free choice (libero arbitrio), the “voluntary move-
ments of the intellectus and affectus” determine the genuinely highest
good and pursue it “with all the powers of the affect and intellect.”31
Intellectus is oriented to the “the clarity (claritas) of the highest truth,”
while the affectus is aligned toward “the sweetness (dulcedo) of the
highest good.”32
Second, the primary and immediate object of this cognitio is
created things (entes); it is obtained “through the gathering together
and contemplation of creatures” (per collationem et contemplationem
creaturarum).33
Third, accordingly, the method through which the soul arrives at this
knowledge is primarily through active and studious engagement with
created visibilia, which the mind actively grasps and from which it
extracts essential knowledge, which knowledge in turn functions as a
kind of mirror (per speculum) through which the nature of God can be
deduced and inferred. In this way, the mind begins “downward-facing,”
toward creatures, from which the mind “pulls” or “extracts” know-
ledge—“through human teaching and proper study” (per doctrinam
humanam et studium proprium)34—by which the mind can mount
upward toward knowledge of God. It is “wine” extracted from grapes.35

30
Expl-AH 10.633.136: “Secunda mansio habet pro tabulato siue pauimento uires
inferioris partis anime que dicitur ratio ad distinctionem synderesis. Hec assurgit per
trinam operationem industrie: meditationem scilicet et experientie examen; et certam
sententie diffinitionem; et liberam et imperiosam date sententie executionem.”
31
Cmm3-CC Prol.I.108: “ . . . per definitivam sententiam ad appetendum et quer-
endum totis viribus affectus et intellectus summum bonum et ad repellendum omnia
obstacula.”
32
Expl-AH 10.633.207: “ . . . motus uoluntarios affectus et intellectus a libero
arbitrio exceptos, infusum lumen per industriam et uoluntarie totis uiribus contrec-
tantes, et in ipso claritatem summe ueritatis et dulcedinem summe bonitatis quasi
examinantes, et etiam dissimilitudines. Sed hoc quantum ad intellectum. Affectus
enim anime glorificate eas non apprehendit.”
33 34
Expl-MT 1.3.4. Expl-MT 1.3.5.
35
Cmm2-CC 1A.68: “BECAUSE YOUR BREASTS ARE BETTER THAN WINE. Wine is collected
from an estate (possessione); the fruitfulness of the breasts (ubertas uberum) flows
from the bosom. Therefore, intellectual knowledge about God is understood by the
word wine, which is gathered from the assemblage of created things unto the
knowledge of the universal cause, according to Rom. 1:20: For the invisible things of
God . . . .” ( . . . QUIA MELIORA SUNT UBERA TUA VINA. Vinum de possessione collilgitur,
ubertas uberum de pectore fluit. Nomine ergo vini intelligitur scientia de Deo intellectua-
lis que colligitur ex collectione creaturarum ad universalis cause cognitionem, iuxta illud
Rom. 1: invisibilia Dei, etc.).
 “Lingering in the Dominions” 115
For this reason, as did Hugh before him,36 Gallus enlists “all the liberal
arts” in its service.
Fourth, in its noetic act it is limited to created being (ens): “all
cognitions concern being or beings (de ente vel entibus).”37 Again: “all
the exercise of our reason and understanding is oriented within the
limits of being” (intra terminus entis).38 Whatever is actually known
or apprehended by the intellect is being or beings.
Fifth, it arrives at knowledge of God indirectly, via inference,39
from what is known of creation: “being (ens), which can be referred
back to he who is (Exod. 3:14), signifies the first cause in act (oper-
antem), according to which mode it is cognizable.”40 This intellectual
cognitio is thus primarily a form of philosophical speculation on the
existence of a first cause on the basis of its visible effects.
This speculative knowledge of God is . . . both learned and taught com-
monly (communiter), as much by meditating as by hearing and reading.
The Gentile philosophers learned to achieve only this. Therefore, the
Apostle in the Epistle to the Romans wrote: what is known of God is
manifest to them (Rom. 1:19). Accordingly, what is known [of God in
this way] can be acquired from knowledge (cognitio) already possessed
of sensible things.41
And beyond this point, philosophy has neither inclination nor cap-
acity to go: “being itself, which is first in the intellect and highest, and
beyond which worldly and intellectual philosophy seeks or investi-
gates nothing.”42

36
See Hugh of St. Victor, Didascalicon, tr. Jerome Taylor (New York: Columbia
University, 1961), Books 1–3.
37 38
Expl-DN 1.101.1317. Expl-DN 7.371.173.
39
Expl-DN 1.56.155–7: “For our intellect, as long as we are viators, is only
speculative, not comprehensive of eternal things, and it sees them through a mirror
(per speculum), not by direct sight (speciem).”
40
Expl-DN 4.290.2816.
41
Cmm2-CC Prol.65: “Hec Dei cognitio speculativa est . . . communiter et dicitur
et docetur, tam meditando quam audiendo, quam legendo. Hanc solam gentiles
philosophi attigisse comperiuntur. Unde Apostolus ad Rom. 1 d: quod notum est
Dei manifestum est illis. Notum siquidem est quod ex preexistente sensibilium
cognitione colligi potest.”
42
Expl-DN 1.59.230–2: “ipsum ens quod primum est in intellectu et summum et
extra quod nihil querit aut inuestigat philosophia intellectualis et mundana.” See also
Expl-DN 4.192.317–193.324: “But whatever is super-substantial is removed from all
existing things. And it is not hidden from us that, to many who are called wise, such
things would seem to be absurd, concerning such ones Dionysius said (MT 1) that
[193] [they assume that nothing exists super-substantially], where he intends chiefly
116 Ascending
But, in the sixth place, as noted, Gallus also includes here a
knowledge of God derived from revelation: “Understanding, gathering
through the service (obsequio) of imagination and reason innumerable
signs and testimonies of invisible, celestial and divine things from the
whole of the Scriptures and from creatures.”43
Seventh, finally, for all these reasons, such speculative knowledge of
God is “enigmatic” (enigmaticus),44 mediated through the mirror of
created things.
In short, it is knowledge that is connatural to the created intellect
and is apprehensible by human concepts. It is the realm of what can
be thought, which for Gallus is coterminous with what is or exists or
with what has being.45 It is whatever can be brought into the “com-
mon understanding.” Gallus speaks of “the theoric intellectus”—the
speculating intellect—“with which the sober mind is chiefly exercised
for the cognition of angelic and divine things, and also of our own
invisible things [i.e. the nature of the soul] . . . For our intellect and
physical senses are exercised within the limits of creatures, nor does
our intellect exceed being or a mirror. I Cor. 13: now we see in a
mirror, etc.”46 So, from the consideration of visible things, the
“mirror” of creatures, the middle hierarchy is “led back” and “up”
to an intellectual understanding of God as the Artisan and Creator
of all things. Admittedly, this characterization is complicated by the
fact that Gallus clearly allows some knowledge of the Trinity at this
stage. This is, nonetheless, still apparently mediated by concepts, as
Gallus describes here:
The eternal exemplars of all the things that fall under being (sub ente
cadunt) are by nature in the Eternal Word, and existing things are
causally cognized and comprehended by glorified minds, both angelic
and human, in those exemplars. But the images of those same exem-
plars are naturally present in any mind. Hence contemplative wayfarers,

the pagan philosophers and their followers, who think being (ens) to be (esse) the first
and highest in cognition.”
43
Cmm2-CC 4A.92: “Intelligentia ex obsequio imaginationis et rationis colligens
de universitate scripturarum et creaturarum innumerabilia . . . ”
44
Expl-MT 1.3.4.
45
Behind this lies a central principle of Neoplatonic metaphysics and epistemology
that Gallus has clearly appropriated, namely, the coextension of knowing and being.
Whatever exists is knowable and whatever is knowable must lie within the realm of
being. See Perl, Theophany, 5–17.
46
Expl-DN 7.370.128.
 “Lingering in the Dominions” 117
by turning back the sharp point of the mind (acie mentis) within
themselves in the fourth grade of contemplation and above, speculate
those exemplars of the Word as the truths of their ideas in those mental
images. For those who are in the body are therefore journeying, walking
by faith not by sight: 1 Cor. 5:3–5 and 1 Cor. 13:12: ‘Now we see etc.’
And the mind is reformed to the extent that it is purified by such
speculation in the intelligence and it is conformed to what it contem-
platively speculates, hence, 2 Cor. 3:18: ‘We all with unveiled faces etc.’47
But the Trinity, as noted in Chapter 1, is certainly not a being among
beings, nor simply the first cause of beings; nor is the divine Plenitude
to be identified with Being itself. Radically transcending both beings
and being itself, the Trinity “is called true beingness (entitas)” or
better, in a Dionysian idiom, “super-essentialness (superessentialitas)
. . . returning back within itself (in se reflexum), not processing out to
things” (non ad res procedens).48 For this reason, God in Godself, so to
speak, remains for Gallus “above every cognition.”49 For whatever is
“causally above every being (causaliter est super omne ens) is surpass-
ingly separated from all cognition, according to Job 36:26: “Behold,
God is great, exceeding our knowledge.”50 Accordingly, we cannot
“arrive at the most causal cause unless we transcend everything that
is caused.”51 For this, moreover, an entirely different modality of
cognitio is required, because “in himself God is not cognized intellec-
tively but unitively (intellective sed unitive).”52 The best explanation
for this seems to be that the Trinitarian God is neither comprehended
nor exhausted by the conceptual “purchase” on divine threeness that is
possible at this stage.

47
Expl-DN 4.185.125–42: “in Verbo eterno per naturam sunt eterna exemplaria
omnium que sub ente cadunt, et in illis exemplaribus causaliter cognoscuntur et
comprehenduntur existentia a mentibus glorificatis angelicis uel humanis. Eorumdem
autem uerorum exemplarium imagines per naturam sunt in qualibet mente. Vnde
contemplatiui uiatores reflexa in se mentis acie in quarto gradu contemplationis et
supra, illa Verbi exemplaria tamquam suarum idearum ueritates in ipsis mentalibus
imaginibus speculantur. Qui enim in hoc corpore sunt, peregrinantur adeo per fidem
ambulantes et non per speciem: I Cor. 5b et I Cor. 13g: Videmus nunc etc. Et ex tali
speculatione purificate intelligentie utcumque reformatur mens et contemplatiue
speculatis conformatur, unde II Cor. 3g: Nos autem omnes etc.”
48 49
Expl-DN 4.290.2816. Expl-DN 4.290.2816.
50
Expl-DN 1.101.1318–102.1312.
51
Expl-DN 7.371.175: “nec in causam causalissimam peruenimus nisi omnes
causatum transeamus.”
52
Expl-DN 4.290.2816.
118 Ascending
“ LINGERING IN THE DOMINIONS ”

In relation to Gallus’ angelic anthropology, as noted, all of the above

occurs in the middle triad of the soul, that of the Virtues, Powers, and
Dominions. His emphasis within this dimension is on grace-assisted
“industry” or activities—“a multiplicity of meditations, affections,
intentions, discernments (discretionum), speculations . . . ,”53 the cul-
tivation of virtue and especially the pursuit of intellectual knowledge
of God. As also noted, Gallus construes this activity hierarchically, as
part of the ascending valence, a movement Godward through the
three ranks of this triad. Consequently, this stage of the ascending
valence terminates “in the Dominions,” about which Gallus observes:
The order of Dominions, which is the highest in the middle hierarchy,
contains the commands of free will (imperia liberi arbitrii), by whose
authority all the powers of understanding (intelligentie vires) are com-
manded to be stretched [extendi] unto the speculations of beautifying
beauty (in speculationes pulcrifice pulcritudinis) and all the affectual
powers unto the desire and union of the highest good (omnes affec-
tuales in desiderium et unitionem bonifice bonitatis), and it suspends
(suspendit) all the possible aforementioned powers up to the last and
highest [boundaries] of aided and illuminated nature.54
Having climbed the six steps of contemplation, Gallus’ hierarchized
soul arrives at a terminus, a boundary beyond which it seems unable
to go. It has acquired a certain kind of cognitio Dei, which is a genuine
knowledge, a knowledge of the attributes of the divine essence,
derived through philosophical speculation, and even a knowledge of
certain Trinitarian notions or concepts, divinely revealed in Scripture
and in the Church, which can be grasped by the “common under-
standing.” This is “the order of the dominions into which is ordained
sober and pure speculations of the invisible things of God.”55
Yet the dynamic ascending impulse ad Deum of its hierarchical
nature does not allow the mind to rest here. Having extracted this
knowledge of God from the mirror of creatures “below” it, and turned
above itself Godward, here at the boundary of both its own natural
capacities and at the limiting nexus of being and knowing, it

53
Cmm2-CC 1D.72: “ . . . multiplicitas meditationum, affectionum, intentionum,
discretionum et speculationem . . . ”
54 55
Spec-cont. 4.6.277.219–25. Cmm3-CC 4A.176.
 “Lingering in the Dominions” 119
continues to reach, to strive, to yearn for more. Yet, it cannot: “it is
not by its power [able] to ascend all the way to the transcendently-
located majesty in infinity,” nor can it “acquire the plenitude of
that light.”56
To characterize this posture, Gallus consistently deploys the
language of “stretching” and “extending”: “The sixth [rank] contains
the commands of free decision (liberi arbitrii), and it unyieldingly
commands all the powers [of the soul] to be extended into that eternal
plenitude [eternam plenitudinem].”57 Again: “the still-sober-mind is
stretched and is exercised toward the ray above, up to the highest
limits of its nature.”58 Alongside this language of reaching Godward,
Gallus also frequently uses the language of “suspension”: “the high
points (apices) of the affect and intellect are suspended (suspenduntur)
in all their power for the reception of the divine visitations from
above (superadventus), in as much as this is possible for free choice
assisted by grace.”59 Indeed, “suspension” gives this rank its name:
“the sublimity of these ‘suspendings’ (suspendii) . . . is noted by the
name ‘Dominions.’”60 Crucially, suspension here has a double meaning.
On the one hand it is nearly a synonym for stretching and reaching;
to suspend is to lift up: “Suspension is the stretching of the mind into
the super-resplendent theoriae up into the high point of the order of
the Dominions of the mind.”61 Importantly, Gallus often characterizes
this in the passive voice: “to be raised up (suspendium) is the exten-
sion of the mind into the super-bright (extentio mentis in uperful-
gentes) theoriae up to the summit of the order of the Dominions of
the mind.”62 At the same time, “suspension” has the familiar conna-
tion of stoppage, of arrested movement, of cessation. At this stage,
the soul’s powers reach their natural limit, and thus their proper
activity is now suspended. The “net effect” of this language is to
evoke the paradoxical image of simultaneous activity and inactivity,

56
Expl-AH 10.636.226: “Verumtamen non est sue potestatis ad illam in infinitum
supercollocatam maiestatem aliquatenus ascendere aut luminis illius plenitudi-
nem acquirere.”
57
Expl-AH 10.636.223: “Sextus continet imperia liberi arbitrii in quibus incessanter
et inflexibiliter precipit in illam eternam plenitudinem totis uiribus tendi.”
58 59
Cmm3-CC Prol.K.108–9. Cmm3-CC Prol.K.109.
60
Cmm3-CC Prol.K.109.
61
Cmm2-CC 1B.71: “Suspendium est extensio mentis in superfulgentes theorias
usque in summitatem ordinis dominationum mentis . . . ”
62
Cmm3-CC Prol.V.110.
120 Ascending
both of straining, striving, and stretching and of restraint, cessation:
“suspension is the extension of the mind into the summit of the order
of Dominions of the mind, into the super-shining theoriae, . . . that
is, by unmoved intension and by much exertion of the mind, . . .
assiduously and . . . continuously” (immobili intentione et multo mentis
conatu, . . . assidue . . . continue . . . ).63
In his commentaries on the Song of Songs, Gallus frequently
evokes this stage in the ascending valance using the bridal imagery
of the Song text, filtered through the framework of his angelic
anthropology. The soul is like a bride waiting, longing, reaching
hierarchically for an absent Bridegroom. In fact, as noted, it is here
that Gallus situates the bride-soul at the opening of the Song of Songs,
where she famously says: Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth.
Gallus explains: “Sighing for this deifying union, the bride, suspended
in the order of the Dominions of the mind and as yet still speculating
in a mirror (in speculo constituta), says what follows, as if she were
speaking about someone absent: Let him kiss me . . . ”64 Gallus advises:
“understand that the bride, as much as she can, always chooses
suspension (Job 7:15) for herself, and here, namely in the Dominions,
she holds herself (recipit se), . . . neither resigning herself in negligence
to the lower orders, nor presuming in pride permission to the higher
orders.”65 It as though “the mind (mens), after it surveyed all things,
Eccles. 7:26, desiring to be separated from the sum of all existing
things and to be united happily to the super-substantial bridegroom,
. . . asks for a kiss, that is, the joining or union above the mind.”66
Aptly, Gallus captures the soul-bride’s posture with the language of
“lingering”: “Lingering in the Dominions, therefore, contemplating
the beauty of the divine as much as she can in a mirror, as in 2 Cor.
3:18: but we all with an open face, she desires to be united to the first
beauty above.”67 Since she is “unwilling to rest, the bride suspends

63 64
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.D.118. Cmm3-CC Prol.Z.111.
65
Cmm2-CC 1A.68: “OSCULETUR ME OSCULO, etc. Ita intellige quod sponsa semper,
qunatum in se est, eligit suspendium sibi, ut Iob 7, et ibi se recipit quo per industriam
superius ascendat, scilicet in dominationibus, nec per egligentiam ad inferiora se
deponens, nec per superbiam supra concessum presumens, De div. nom. 1.”
66
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.D.118: “Mens itaque, postquam lustravit universa, Eccle. 7,
cupiens ab existentium universitate separari et supersubstantiali sponso uniri
feliciter . . . . Petit osculum, id est unitionem super mentem . . . ”
67
Cmm2-CC 1A.68: “In dominationibus ergo consistens et, quantum in speculo
sufficit, pulchritudinem divine claritatis contemplans, ut 2 Cor. 3: nos autem omnes
revelata facie, superpulchro uniri desiderat primo, et inchoatio unitionis generatur.”
 “Lingering in the Dominions” 121
herself in the order of the Dominions, calling for a way by which she
may reach him and linger with him . . . according to her desire,”68 and
“begs to be drawn, for no one comes whom the Father does not draw
(John 6:24).”69 “Lingering in the Dominions”70 thus captures the
paradoxical poise of striving to be drawn, of “actively waiting,” of
“arrestedly striving” for the presence of the Bridegroom.
The language of desire, longing, yearning in these passages is
significant, not surprisingly, since for Gallus affection and intellection
are “mingled together (miscentur) in every order, except in the
Seraphim.”71 While he accentuates intellectual activity at this stage,
a crucial affective “moment” emerges here, since for him knowledge
begets or generates love: “the sobriety of industry . . . generates affec-
tion,” and “knowledge precedes and gives birth to love, although in
the end is exceeded by love.”72 This pattern will be repeated in the
highest triad as well, but the centrality of the intellect–affect relation-
ship is worth noting here: clearly distinct, yet running parallel to one
another, so to speak, each reaches its respective natural high point
(apex) here in the sixth rank, in the middle triad.

THE LIMITS OF ITS NATURE

The soul thus poised in striving and stretching Godward, of intellec-

tual reaching and affective longing for a fuller cognitio Dei, has
reached its natural limit. The sixth rank is rightly characterized as
liminal, on the border of the soul’s created nature. Still contained
within itself (enstatic) and “sober” (sobria), it yet desires that which
exceeds its capacities and, indeed, even its nature: “In this order of
the mind, moreover, the still sober (sobria) mind is extended and

68
Cmm2-CC 1D.72: “ . . . nec quantum voluit quiescere potuisse, suspendit se in
ordine dominationum, modum expostulans quo eum inveniat et cum eo iuxta
desiderium.”
69
Cmm2-CC 1B.70: “Sponsa siquidem cum dominationibus suspensa, nec ultra
valens conscendere, trahi petit; nemo enim venit quem Pater non traxerit, Io.”
70
Cmm2-CC 1A.68: “ . . . suspendit se in ordine dominationum . . . ”
71
Cmm2-CC 3C.87: “ . . . miscentur in omni ordine, preterquam in solo seraphim . . . ”
72
Cmm2-CC 1C.72: “ . . . sicut cognitio precedit et gignit amorem, quamvis tandem
excedatur ab amore.”
122 Ascending
exercised (extenditur et exercetur) toward the superior rays all the way
to the highest limits (summos terminos) of nature.”73 That is, “the
contemplative mind, having hastened step-by-step up the six con-
templative steps,” and “fixing its gaze (aciem) at the height of the sixth
in the order of the Dominions of the mind, strives for theoric
ecstasies, desiring to be assumed into the order of Thrones of the
mind,74 therefore so to be near the deity in the same place, who is
near to all.”75 This transition coincides with the movement from
enstasis to ecstasis; the soul here is on the threshold of ecstasy: “the
order of Dominions from which immediately the excessus mentis is
procreated.”76 It entails the overcoming of the absence of Bride and
Bridegroom, for now “the beginning of union is begotten.”77
There is a pivotal aspect to this dominical level of the soul: it is the
apex of the soul’s nature and natural modes of operation, even it as
begins to be drawn and “pulled” beyond these: “the order of the
Dominions has the most perfect mental operations; indeed beyond
them, the mind is lead and does not lead.”78 In the Isaiah commen-
tary, Gallus says that even though nature is assisted by grace in the
second triad, the soul nonetheless remains “wholly in industry, within
the bounds of nature”79—but barely and not for long. In terms of
the soul and its powers, it could be said that the synderesis (in some
sense, perhaps, understood as the highest operation or activity of the
liberum arbitrium and the ratio inferior) is the “ceiling of the middle
hierarchy” even as the transition from proper activity to active pas-
sivity is preparing it to be the “floor” of the highest triad of the
hierarchized soul.80

73
Cmm2-CC Prol.67.
74
The order of the Thrones, treated below, is the first rank of the highest triad,
which is above nature.
75
Cmm2-CC 1B.70: “ . . . aciem figens in ordine dominationm mentis, nititur in
theoricos excessus, cupiens in ordinem thronorum mentis assumi, ut ergo ibidem
adsit deitati que omnibus adest, DN 3.”
76
Cmm2-CC 3C.87: “ . . . ordinem dominationum de qua immediate procreatur
mentis excessus.”
77
Cmm2-CC 1A.68: “ . . . inchoatio unitionis generator.”
78
Cmm3-CC 6C.209: “Ordo vero dominationum habet perfectissimas mentis
operationis; ultra enim illum, mens agitur et non agit.”
79
Expl-AH 10.634.151: “ . . . tota in industria, intra nature metam.”
80
I wish to thank Joshua Robinson, a participant in my Boston College doctoral
seminar in 2012, for this formulation (Robinson, “To Be Affected According To What
We Apprehend,” 8).
 “Lingering in the Dominions” 123
CONCLUSION: THE VALUE OF
INTELLECTUAL COGNITION

Before leaving this chapter, the positive value that Gallus ascribes to
the soul’s natural intellectual activity at this point should be noted.
Even though it cannot on its own attain that for which it strives,
Gallus nonetheless urges the intellect to constant “exercise”: “by
striving (nitenti), that is, by exercising (exercenti) the soul TO A HIGHER
RAY of the eternal light, which is to extend the mind frequently, rather,
constantly upward intellectually and super-intellectually into the
courses of the divine ray . . . Therefore, the best type of study with
regard to divine things is to be exercised (exercitari) up to this ray.”81
Even though the wisdom of Christians “incomparably exceeds all the
wisdom” of philosophy, yet “what is known of God, became known to
a certain extent to certain philosophers of the world” and it “lays the
foundation of the wisdom of Christians, incomparably above the
wisdom of Gentiles,” who “perceived the lunar ray, not the solar
[ray],” in as much as they “stretched into the ray of brightness
(radium claritatis), not into the boiling heat of goodness (fervorem
bonitatis).”82 For at the “peak of the Dominions . . . understanding
(intelligentia), through the service (obsequio) of imagination and
reason, gathering innumerable signs and testimonies of invisible,
celestial, and divine things from the whole of the Scripture and
from creatures, offers and represents [them] to the Thrones, who
“are said to ascend from that mountain Galaad, that is, from this
accumulation of witnesses [in the Dominions], and that same
[dominical order] is the ‘highest begetter’ (summa genitrix).”83 Gallus
in fact pursues this maternal language with respect to enstatic cogni-
tion in the middle triad: “understand the ‘mother,’ therefore, of the
superior hierarchy to be the order of powers that primordially con-
ceives and gives birth to the consideration of all things, [both their]
visible and their invisible [aspects] (primordialiter concipit et parit
omnium visibilium et suorum invisibilium considerationem), in the
first grades of contemplation, for birthing the upward activity of
contemplative ascents (ad propagandum contemplativarum ascensio-
num sursumactionem), in relation to active cognition (in cognitione

81 82
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.C.117. Cmm2-CC 1A.69–70.
83
Cmm2-CC 4A.92.
124 Ascending
industriali) . . . namely, the order of Dominions.”84 For “the contem-
plative mind is called the only one of her mother (S. of S. 6:9) because
the mind brings forth into the highest hierarchy that whole multitude
which the order of powers conceives in sensible things or in the
invisible things of sensible things [sensibilium invisibilibus], in nature,
in reasons, in causes, etc. . . . ”85 Perhaps clearest of all:
She calls the middle hierarchy her mother (matrem), since into her the
theoriae are intellectually drawn and prepared, from whose unitive
contemplation the highest hierarchy is fed (pascitur) and sustained
(fovetur). She is said to have a house, since by her amplitude, as if by
a wide palace, she receives the multitude of the universe. For the lower
hierarchy is said to be a kind of mother (genitrix), since she gives birth
to (gignit) the fundamental movements of the superior orders; her
chamber, is the most secret cavity (sinus) of nature. But the divine
light flows into the whole [hierarchies], both industry and nature.86
Making the same point again with a different metaphor, Gallus
interprets “your teeth,” as “the dominions of the mind, which by
offering up most zealously the spoken speculations of the invisible
things of God, as if by chewing (masticando) the unitive and solid
food of the perfect, to be distributed in the highest hierarchy, like flocks
of sheep, as above, that are shorn, through the purgation from every
exteriority of imagination and phantasy on account of the purity of
the intelligence . . . .”87
Thus, far from rejecting the value of this intellectual cognition of
God (as the Cloud author will later do, presuming to imitate Gallus),
our Victorine simply relativizes it, granting it a genuine place in the
ascent, where it renders real but humble service to its superiors, even
in a sense giving birth to what comes after it. He could hardly be
clearer about this than here:

84
Cmm3-CC 6D.210–11.
85
Cmm3-CC 6D.211: “Dicitur ergo mens contemplativa, etiam in inferiori hier-
archia, UNICA MATRI SUE, quia omnem multitudinem illam quam ordo potestatum in
rebus sensibilibus aut sensibilium invisibilibus, naturis, rationibus, causis, etc. concipit
in considerationem ducendo, parit mens in summa hierarchia et per contemplatio-
nem et unitionem ad primam simplicem causam unificat.”
86
Cmm3-CC 3B.168–9.
87
Cmm3-CC 4B.177: “DENTES TUI, id est dominationes mentis, qui offerendo dictas
invisibilium Dei speculationes studiosius, quasi masticando contrectas, unitivum et
solidum perfectorum cibum preparant a summa hierarchia dirigendum (with alter-
native reading of ms. VL), SICUT GREGES, . . . TONSARUM per purgationem ab omni
exterioritate imaginationis et phantasie propter puritatem intelligentie . . . ”
 “Lingering in the Dominions” 125
The foundation of all our wisdom (sapientia) and knowledge (scientia)
is that rational nature (ipsa natura rationalis) and from the cognition of
pre-existing natural things (ex preexistenti cognitione naturali), it draws
the origin of all teaching (doctrina), even though celestial grace brings
about the growth (incrementum) and consummation (consummatio),
just as plants and trees receive the power and origin of their shoots, as
well as their flower and fruit all from the roots, although without the
benefit of heavenly heat and humors they are not strong enough to come
to consummation. Therefore, all knowledge (scientia) and the edifice of
virtue are established (constituuntur) upon the foundation of this nature,
yet they are not consummated (consummantur) without the benefit of
divine light and heat (sine divini luminis et caloris beneficio) . . . .88
In the face of these poetic images, of maternity, of mastication, of
germination, all of which suggest that the lower modes of knowing,
intellectual cognition, are “upwardly” assimilated by and accumu-
lated in the higher parts of the soul, the disjunctive, anti-intellectualist
reading of Gallus is difficult to maintain.

88
Cmm3-CC 4C.178.
 5

“Becoming a Throne for God”

INTRODUCTION

Upon the soul-bride thus “lingering” (suspended—stretching, strain-

ing, striving, yearning, waiting at the highest point of her nature)
comes a divine visitation from the Bridegroom, who, “loving more
than loved, and most eagerly hearing from afar [her] spiritual and
fervent desires, as if intervening by hand, that is, by the operation of
his grace alone, elevates her up into the order of thrones.”1 This is the
longed-for kiss of which the bride speaks in the Song of Songs: “taken
up into the order of Thrones, to the kiss of the Bridegroom . . . ”2
Throughout his corpus, Gallus consistently introduces the rank of the
“Thrones” as follows:
The seventh order is receptive of the divine visitation from above,
through ecstasy of the mind (excessum mentis), and is therefore given
the name “Thrones.” And there are as many thrones of that super-
substantial ray, super-simple in essence and multiple in efficacy, as there
are interior cavities (sinus) or capacities (capacitates) of the mind.3
Five inter-related themes are central to Gallus’ discussion of this crucial
nexus in the ascending valence: ecstasy-causing grace, mystical death
of the intellect, intellectual and affective cognitio, Christ, and ecstatic
receptivity.

1
Cmm2-CC 1A.68: “Sponsus vero magis amans quam amatus et spiritualia et
ferventia desideria promptissime exaudiens, quasi intermissa manu, id est operatione
solius gratie sue, Ez. 8 a, elevat eam usque in ordines thronorum.”
2
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.D.118: “ . . . mens in ordinem thronorum ad osculum sponsi
assumitur.”
3
Cmm3-CC Prol.L.109: “Septimus ordo per mentis excessum susceptivus est
superadventus divini; unde thronorum nomine censetur, et quot sunt mentis sinus,
vel capacitates illius supersubstantialis radii supersimplicis in essentia et multipicis in
efficacia, tot sunt throni.”
 “Becoming a Throne for God” 127
ECSTASY-CAUSING GRACE

Because the soul is at the limit of its nature, the transition from the
middle triad to the highest triad—from the “Dominions” to the
“Thrones”—is wholly a function of divine initiative. Indeed, as
noted, Gallus often distinguishes the three triads of his angelic
anthropology as follows: the lowest is nature alone; the middle is
nature assisted by grace, the sphere where nature is active and
“industrious”; the highest is grace alone, where nature is seemingly
rendered utterly passive, where the soul-bride says “I am acted upon
and I do not act.”4 While in fact his view is actually more nuanced
and complex than this, he nonetheless consistently stresses the pri-
ority of grace, indeed what Augustine and his medieval heirs called
“operative” grace, from this point forward.
One of the striking features of Gallus’ theological synthesis of
both Dionysian and Augustinian traditions, filtered through his
angelic hierarchic anthropology applied to the Song of Songs, is
the versatility it affords for conceiving of the grace–nature relation-
ship, allowing him to play on both the nuptial reading of the Song
of Songs (already traditional in medieval monastic contexts) as well
as the Dionysian metaphysics of procession and return (Gallus’
important innovation). This emerges, on the one hand, in the psy-
chological drama of the interpersonal interaction between the Bride
and Bridegroom, wherein, as here, the Bride awaits and then receives
the gratuitous initiative of the Groom, experienced as a momentary
visitation and thus a discrete act of grace. On the other hand, Gallus
articulates the work of grace in metaphysico-hierarchical terms as
a “drawing” and “attracting” force that “pulls” the soul Godward
by the hierarchical motion of metaphysical “return” (reditus).5 This
Gallusian fusion of the personal and the metaphysical is strikingly
apparent here:
To that inaccessible light no one comes unless the father draws him
(John 6:44); and the one whom the father draws, the bridegroom draws
also, and this signifies what is said in Exod. 8:3: and the like hand has
been sent, etc., Dan. 14:35; Hos. 11:11; I shall draw Adam into those ones

4
Cmm2-CC 1B.71: “ . . . agor et non ago . . . ”
5
Cf. Chapters 2 and 3 in this volume. Recall that metaphysical return (reditus) for
its part finds its anthropological expression in an ascending movement, an upward
thrusting, ultimately self-transcending or ecstatic movement of the soul ad Deum and
in Deum, that is, toward, to, and into God.
128 Ascending
with ropes, that is, in the uniting attraction of the Father, or of paternal
delight (in unitivis attractionibus patrie, vel paterne dilectionis).6
In the end, these are not so much two actually different notions of
grace as rather complementary ways of describing the effects of a
singular grace. By combining them, Gallus can alternate between
psychological/interpersonal and metaphysical/hierarchical registers
in his descriptions of the soul’s relationship to God.
In the description above, Gallus suggests that the soul receives
grace through ecstasy, per mentis excessum, and so becomes a
“Throne.” So, to be taken from Dominions to the Thrones is to be
taken outside or beyond oneself: “dismissing itself by ecstasy, taken
up into the Thrones of the spiritual soul.”7 As noted above, Gallus is
quite explicit that the third and highest triad is “above nature,”
beyond, as seen below, the soul’s natural capacities and normal
modes of acting.8 Just like “hair, which springs forth from our highest
point and above it,” so is “the order of Thrones, which rises above
every peak of sober understanding and grows on high.”9

THE DEATH OF ENSTATIC

KNOWLEDGE AND LOVE

Precisely at this point come Gallus’ oft-noted statements regarding

the limits of intellectual knowledge, and the apparently concomitant
rejection and negation of such knowledge of God in favor of an
exclusively affective experience of God through love. Here, he seems
to be drawing a distinction between the two types of cognitio Dei,
between the intellectual wisdom of the philosophers and “another
knowledge of God which incomparably exceeds” (incomparabiliter
excedit)10 the first. The latter is the wisdom of Christians, which is

6
Cmm3-CC 1D.125.
7
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.A.113: “dimittens se ipsam per excessum, assumpta in
thronos anime spiritualis.”
8
Cf. Chapter 3.
9
Cmm2-CC 4A.91: “ . . . capilli ergo, qui de summo nostro et super summum
pullulant, ordinem thronorum significant, qui super omne cacumen sobrie intelligen-
tie eminent et sursum pullulant.”
10
Cmm3-CC Prol.B.107.
 “Becoming a Throne for God” 129
descending from above, from the Father of lights (Jas. 1:17).”11 Citing
DN 7, Gallus designates this wisdom as THE MOST DIVINE KNOWLEDGE OF
GOD, which is THROUGH IGNORANCE. It, Gallus clarifies “is experienced
through ignorance, by suspending (suspendendo) every operation and
rational or intellectual cognition, according to a union above the
mind through the exceeding of one’s own mind.”12 As seen in the
discussion of the Dominions, the transition from the soul’s normal
and natural capacities in the middle triad, the enstatic sphere, to the
ecstatic mode of receptivity in the highest triad entails a “suspension”
or cessation of their proper activity: “the consummation (consumma-
tio) of every work either of nature or of industry . . . ”13 But in fact,
attention to his various statements about this transition reveals that
this suspension of natural activity in the soul applies to both the
natural intellect and the natural affect: “when the mind is taken up
into the order of Thrones, to the kiss of the bridegroom, every power
and operation of the intellect and affect cease.”14 He often construes
this as a kind of mystical “death,” citing Job 7:5: my soul chooses
hanging, my bones [choose] death. Gallus explains: “Bones are the
most robust powers of the mind, namely, the theoric intellectus
(intellectus theoricus) and principal affectus (principalis affectus), in
which the mind has nothing stronger in divine things. Two things are
noted in death, namely, cessation (defectus) and separation (separa-
tio). These last and highest bones have their exercise (exercitia) in
the Dominions of the mind.”15 At the Throne rank, therefore, the
natural and proper activity of both intellect and affect dies. Gallus’
claim then is that all normal and natural cognitive activities (where
cognitive encompasses both kinds of cognition) undergo some kind
of mystical death as the soul transitions from the enstatic to the
ecstatic register.

11
Cmm3-CC Prol.B.107.
12
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.A.113: “quam experimur per ignorantium, suspendendo
omnem operationem et cognitionem rationalem et intellectualem, secundum unitio-
nem super mentem per excessum mentis proprie.”
13
Expl-AH 10.634.144: “ . . . non tam per operationem quam per susceptionem et
operum omnium, sive nature sive industrie . . . ”
14
Cmm3-CC Prol.X.110: “Cum autem mens in ordinem thronorum ad osculum
sponsi assumimtur, omnis efficacia et operatio intellectus et affectus deficit.”
15
Cmm2-CC 1B.71: “Ossa sunt robustissime vires mentis, scilicet intellectus the-
oricus et principalis affectus, quibus nihil fortius in divina. In morte duo notantur:
defectus . . . et separatio . . . ”
130 Ascending
I LIVE, YET NOT I, BUT CHRIST

This notion of mystical death for the natural intellect and affect sets
the stage for Gallus’ Christological solution to knowing the unknow-
able God. Here, he first appropriates the Dionysian notion of ecstasy
(from Divine Names 7) as the alienation or separation of the mind
from itself, interpreting it as the separation of intellect and affect from
the mind itself in ecstasy, which is their above-noted death:16 “In the
Thrones, [intellect and affect] are separated from the mind itself
by ecstasy.” Yet, the mention of ecstasy in DN 7 prompts Gallus to
invoke Dionysius’ discussion of ecstasy in DN 4, wherein ecstasy,
significantly, is linked to love—DIVINE LOVE (divinus amor) IS ECSTASY
CAUSING, NOT PERMITTING ANY TO BE LOVERS OF THEMSELVES (DN 4). Gallus
hones in on how this is true for human love of God (elsewhere he
also appropriates the Dionysian application of this principle to
divine love of humans too): “that by which God is loved, namely,
to be super-intellectually united to the super-desirable divine
rays.”17 DN 4 then offers the apostle Paul as the model, in a passage
that Gallus quotes in full, with minimal gloss: “THE GREAT PAUL, MADE
INCONTINENT BY THE DIVINE LOVE, AND PARTICIPATING IN THE POWER OF
THAT ECSTASY-CAUSING DIVINE LOVE, SAID ‘I live, and yet not I, but
Christ lives in me,’ LIKE A TRUE LOVER AND SUFFERING ECSTASY, AS HE
HIMSELF SAID, AND NOT LIVING HIS OWN LIFE, BUT BY THE LIFE OF THE
18
BELOVED, namely, Christ, WHO IS GREATLY LOVABLE.” DN 4 says
nothing further of Christ or of Galatians 2, but for Gallus Paul’s
“I, not I, but Christ” provides now a Grund-princip for the mystical
life at the highest, ecstatic dimension of the ascending valence:
For he is eternal life and wholly desirable. I live, by natural life, yet not I,
because of the ecstatic change (mutationem excessivam) to the immens-
ity of eternity, as if absorbed and suspended from its duty, I am guided,
moved, taught, and ruled by the super-substantial life to which I am
united, by which I am filled, and this is: but Christ lives in me, that is,
just as the sober soul naturally rules me and disposes me to every

16
DN 7: WHEN THE MIND HAVING STOOD APART FROM ALL EXISTING THINGS, THEN HAVING
DISMISSED EVEN ITSELF, which is said as if a kind of DEATH OCCURS IN US, NOT THE WASTING
OF SUBSTANCE, ACCORDING TO WHICH IT WOULD SEEM TO OTHERS, BUT A SEPARATION OF THINGS
UNITED.
17
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.D.119: “ . . . quo Deus amatur . . . id est superintellectualiter
uniri divinis radiis superdesiderabilibus . . . ”
18
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.D.119.
 “Becoming a Throne for God” 131
interior and exterior act, so the power of Christ, to which I am united by
grace, vivifies me and disposes me toward all things.19
Here, now, reception of the mystical kiss of the Solomonic Bride-
groom and the ecstasy which it effects now becomes a mystical
sharing in the death and resurrection of Christ. The natural power
of the sober soul, operative in the middle triad, which enabled the
proper enstatic activity of intellectus and affectus is now dead and
crucified (I have been crucified with Christ . . . ). In its place, though,
the supernatural power of the resurrected Christ, now operative in the
highest triad, gives life and activation to those same powers (but
Christ lives in me), becoming the principle of the soul’s supernatural
activity.20 So, the ecstatic soul can truly say: I live, yet not I, but
Christ . . . . As Gallus puts it later: “Love (dilectio) is as strong as
death. But by this death the life of Christ is induced (vita Christi
inducitur), Gal. 2: I live, now I am not, etc., according to which what
Dionysius says in DN 4: THE GREAT PAUL . . . etc. is explained. There-
fore Job desires this death (Job 7:2).”21
Having united the ecstatic soul to Christ, in the very next breath,
Gallus brings in the Holy Spirit:
It is called “ecstasy” when the mind is alienated, not by fear, but is taken
up by the inspiration of revelation; those who go beyond in the mind are
said to undergo ecstasy, because they are acted upon, rather than acting.
Rom. 8:14: those who are led (agi) by the Spirit of God, etc.22

19
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.D.119: “Ipse enim est vita eterna et totus desiderabilis.
Vivo ego, vita naturali, iam non ego, propter immutationem excessivam ad eterni-
tatis immensitatem quasi absorpta et suo officio suspensa, dirigor, moveor, doceor,
regor vita supersubstantiali cui unior, qua repleor, et host est: vivit autem in me
Christus, id est sicut anima sobria me regit naturaliter et disponit ad omnem
interiorem et exteriorem actum, sic virtus Christi cui unior gratuito me vivificat
et ad omnia disponit.”
20
In his second commentary on the Song of Songs, in the same context, Gallus
speaks of the soul being taken up into, even absorbed by, the life of Christ. See Cmm2-
CC 1B.71: “For then the mind receives Him, or better, is received and absorbed by
Him, who properly contains and is not contained. Hence the Lord said to Augustine
in Confessions: ‘you will be changed into me,’ not I into you. . . . ” (Dum enim mens
ipsum suscipit ab ipso potius suscipitur et absorbetur, qui proprie continet nec con-
tinetur. Unde Augustinus in Confessionibus: ‘tu in me mutaberis,’ dicit Dominus ad
eum, non ego in te, unde dum comedor comedo.)
21
Cmm3-CC 1N.140.
22
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.D.119: “Extasis dicitur cum mens non a pavore alienator sed
inspiratione revelationis assumitur; qui mente excedunt extasim pati dicuntur, quia
aguntur, non agunt. Rom. 8:14: qui Spiritu Dei aguntur etc.”
132 Ascending
The “passivity” of the highest triad is, therefore, neither absolute
inactivity nor quietism, nor the complete cessation of all intellect-
ive and affective acts, but rather a new modality of life in Christ, of
life in the Spirit: “the soul chooses this grace for itself before others,
since it is entirely more sublime not to be able to lead (agere) but
only to be led (agi) by the Spirit (Rom. 8:14).23 Again: “The vital
spirit is in the heart and it signifies the life of the bridegroom (Gal.
2:20: I live . . . ; DN 4) . . . it is the vital spirit which vivifies me only
if I am mortified.”24 So, to be mortified, to be dead (suspended,
hanging) is not inactivity, but a supernatural mode of existence in
Christ; to be passive is to be led, to undergo, to suffer the leading
of the Spirit: “in the superior hierarchy where the bride is now
constituted, she is led and does not lead, according to Rom. 8:14:
whoever is led by the Spirit of God, etc., she asks to be drawn above
herself.”25 So, the gratuitous visitation of the Bridegroom, the
divine kiss, brings about a pneumatically-activated participation
in the living reality of Christ—I live, yet not I, but Christ—which
is a crucifixion of the natural soul’s powers, leading to their super-
natural, ecstatic elevation into a new modality of the power of
Christ.

THE SINUS MENTIS: “ ECSTATI C RECEPTIVITY”

This for Gallus is the literal meaning of ecstasis: not only to go beyond
the mind, to self-exceed, but also to be taken up into life of Christ
in the Spirit. But he does not leave the matter there, vaguely. Rather,
he specifies a particular anthropological modification of the soul
as a result. The soul thus “ecstasized” is “expanded” or “dilated”
for reception of the Bridegroom, is made “receptive of the divine

23
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.D.118: “quia sublimius omnino agere non potest sed tantum
agi a Spiritu, Rom. 8.”
24
Cmm3-CC 5C.193: “In corde est spiritus vitalis et significat vitam sponsi, Gal. 2:
vivo ego; DN 4: Paulus magnus . . . cor meum, id est spiritus vitalis, qui me vivificat
modo mortificatam.”
25
Cmm3-CC 1C.125: “Sed quia in superiori hiearchia ubi nunc sponsa constituitur
agi et non agere, secundum illud Rom. 8: qui Spiritu Dei aguntur, etc., trahi se sursum
rogat . . . ”
 “Becoming a Throne for God” 133
coming-down-from-above” (superadventus divini) and “open to divine
receptions.”26 This is what Gallus describes when he speaks, in a
striking image, of the sinuses of the soul (sinus mentis, or less com-
monly, the sinus synderesis), manifold “cavities” or “hollows” in the
soul.27 In his Commentary on Isaiah,28 he seems to suggest that this
dilation or expansion begins in the rank of the Dominions, that is,
within the realm of the soul’s natural activity: “Those therefore who
are so situated in the meantime sigh daily for heaven and with
assiduous strivings (conatibus), grace co-operating, expand in all
their powers (totis viribus) the cavity of the synderesis (sinum synder-
esis) for the hungry and thirsty reception of that ray . . . ”29 The soul
“extends upward (sursumextendit) every capacity of the mind (omnes
mentis sinus) for receiving the divine light.”30 Yet, as he goes on to say:
“By the divine ray received in the highest extension and dilation of the
affectus and intellectus to which the free will is able to extend the
synderesis, I think the mind to be dilated in an inestimably greater way
by the ray received—or actually in the receiving—in the cognition of
that plenitude, than it can [be] when the same [ray] co-operates
through the free will.”31 That is to say: this ecstatic “capacitation” of
the soul for God requires the Christological “kiss” if it is to succeed,
even though it begins in the natural activity of the soul. Though the

26
Expl-AH 10.637.243: “ . . . multiformis simul et simplicis diuini radii suscep-
tiones in ordine infimo . . . DIUINI SUPERADUENTUS ACCEPTIUUM ET IN DIUINAS SUSCEPTIONES
FAMILIARITER APERTUM.”
27
The plurality of such sinuses clearly reflects Gallus’ assumption regarding what
has been termed above the plethoric character of the Trinity’s pleromatic abundance,
which, while remaining essentially simple and full within itself, yet processes out into
manifold variety and is encountered accordingly by rational creatures. See the prior
note.
28
Though Gallus wrote his Commentary on Isaiah early in his career (1218), he
reproduced its discussion of the angelized soul nearly verbatim in Chapter 10 of his
mature Explanatio on the Celestial Hierarchy. Here and below, accordingly, we will
cite Lawell’s critical edition of the latter work.
29
Expl-AH 10.637.230: “Qui ergo in terra positi celum cotidie suspirant, assiduis
que conatibus cooperante gratia ad illius radii susceptionem famelicum et sitibundum
sinum synderesis totis uiribus expandunt . . . ”
30
Cmm3-CC 5.C.194.
31
Expl-AH 10.637.251: “Suscepto autem diuino radio in summa extensione et
dilatatione affectus et intellectus, qua possit liberum arbitrium extendere synder-
esim, puto mentem inestimabiliter latius in suscepto uel etiam in suscipiente radio
dilatari in illius plenitudinis cognitione quam posset eodem cooperante per liberum
arbitrium.”
134 Ascending
dominical soul has in some sense been capacitated (expanded,
stretched, suspended) in preparation for it, its completion nonetheless
exceeds its strictly natural capacity and thus remains gratuitous, more
a function of divine operation than human cooperation:
that the bride is said to run (S. of S. 1:4) into the highest hierarchy of the
mind is not contrary to that which is said above, that the mind does not
lead there, but is led. For here running is none other than to throw
oneself into the ray by some violent fervor of desire, by desiring to be
suspended, elevated by grace, into which one cannot ascend naturally
(per naturam) by any strength of one’s own.32
Though the soul by nature has these sinus mentis, they remain inert,
un-activated, in-capacious apart from the ecstasizing dilation of
grace. This upward-opening dilation is a function of the grace of
divine visitation, of the kiss.33 The soul-bride is expanded by the ray
of divine self-revelation itself: the revelatory kiss “expands and
suspends the synderesis in all its power for the reception of it.”34
Both intellect and affect are “malleable”; their suspension entails
not only “exercising” but also “stretching.”35 In some sense, then,
the soul is by nature, super-naturally capacitated to be activated by
grace; or is naturally structured for graced, super-natural, self-
exceeding.

32
Cmm3-CC 1D.126: “Quod autem sponsa dicitur currere in summa mentis
hiearchia non est contrarium ei quod dictum est supra, quia ibi non agit mens, sed
agitur. Hoc enim currere non est aliud quam violento quodam fervor desiderii se in
radium ingerere, appetendo per gratiam suspendi quo nulla sui virtute valet ascendere
per naturam.”
33
The metaphor of blooming or flowering appears regularly in the commentaries
on the Song of Songs: Cmm2-CC 2B.79: “The word ‘flowers’ designates the spiritual
brilliances of knowledge, and . . . Therefore, the bride is supported by flowers when
the soul is filled with splendors” (Isa. 58:11). Cf. Cmm3-CC 7E.220: “Your stature is like
to a palm tree,” commenting on which, Gallus compares the hierarchies of the soul to
a tree: the roots are the lowest triad; the trunk the middle triad, and the leaves and
flowers the highest triad, which “is stretched generously into the more ample recep-
tions of the divine coming-down-from-above (superadventus) through excess of
mind.” (“per mentis excessum in ampliores divini superadventus susceptiones largiter
extent”).
34
Expl-AH 10.636.223: “unde etiam ipsam synderesim tota uirtute ad eius suscep-
tionem expandit et suspendit.”
35
Cmm2-CC 3G.90: “The stretchings and operations of the inferior orders uni-
formly strive to this, that, as much as sublimely possible, the bridegroom is received in
the bosom (gremio) of intellect and affect on the day of his espousals.”
 “Becoming a Throne for God” 135
A THRONE FOR GOD

It is the resulting “concavity” in the soul that warrants the designation

“thrones”: “the order of Thrones is understood . . . according to its
ability for containing (continendo).”36 Gallus evokes this with similar
images in his commentaries on the Song of Songs: “King Solomon, that
is, the bridegroom, by his own operation MADE A LITTER FOR HIMSELF,
concerning her, taking her up into the Thrones.”37 Like a rounded bowl
(crater tornatilis) or “navel,” “the interior hierarchies are stretched out
(porriguntur) to receive the nourishment of divine knowledge (scientie),
cognition (cognitionis) and devotion . . . because of their most ample
capacity (amplissimam capacitatem).”38 The “soul is called a small
upper room, on account of its own [power of] choice (arbitrium pro-
prium), but in the passion [narrative] it is called a large upper room
through the love of the indwelling Majesty. In Confessions Augustine
says: “The house of my soul is small; let it take hold of you and be
enlarged by you” (I.5); similarly 1 Kgs 8:27 says: heaven does not hold
you, and: he gave to him the breadth of the heart. Behold both, because
within herself [she] is small, but from a gift of God she receives breadth
(latitudinem).”39 In his Explanatio of The Celestial Hierarchy, Gallus
summarizes the “throne-like” soul by noting “the six qualities of this
rank, symbolized by the six qualities of the material throne, namely:
(1) elevation (sublimitatem), like that royal throne that is placed in a
lofty place; (2) embracing God, just as the throne is placed around
(circumplecitur) the king; (3) stability, just as the throne of the king is
firmly set; (4) receptivity for God, just as the throne receives the one
sitting upon it (suscipit); (5) God-bearing, just as the throne bears the
king; (6) continuous undertaking [and] opening toward God (conti-
nuam apertionem ad Dei susceptionem), just as the throne is open on
high.”40 In these ways, the soul has now become a throne for God.

36
Cmm2-CC 3G.90: “ . . . cuius nomine ordo thronorum intelligitur . . . secundum
suam possibilitatem continendo . . . ”
37
Cmm2-CC 3E.90: “ . . . FECIT SIBI FERCULUM, de ipsa, assumens eam in thronis . . . ”
38
Cmm3-CC 7B.216.
39
Cmm2-CC 1E.73: “de cenaculo parvo, propter arbitrium proprium, et magnum
cenaculum in Passione dicitur per dilectionem inhabitantis maiestatis. . . . ecce utrumque,
quia intra se parvus, sed ex Dei munere accipit latitudinem.”
40
Expl-AH 7.587.191–588.199: “Nota ergo sex proprietates ordinis istius que per
sex proprietates throni materialis designantur, scilicet: sublimitatem, iuxta quod
thronus regis in loco sublimi collocatur; item circumdationem Dei, sicut thronus
circumplectitur regem; item stabilem collocationem, sicut thronus regis firmiter
136 Ascending
CONCLUSION

It must be stressed here, by way of conclusion, that this ecstatic

drawing up into the highest triad implicates both the affectus and
the intellectus;41 both are drawn up out of themselves at this point
into the ecstatic mode of Christo-pneumatic existence. “Your cheeks
are beautiful,” says the Bridegroom to the soul, and Gallus explains:
“The beauty of cheeks is based on the harmonious combination of
redness and radiance and so, she is drawn into the order of Thrones
equally by the radiance of understanding and the redness of fervent
affection.”42
In this light, as Gallus proceeds to narrate the next steps of the
ascent, the cherubic and the seraphic, it now becomes apparent that
both intellectus and affectus have an ecstatic mode of existence. With
respect to the intellect, this fact has particular significance. In his
actual practice, Gallus distinguishes two forms of intellectual cognitio
Dei, rather than just one. The first kind is the “sober” and enstatic
intellectual cognitio, described in Chapter 4. But there is also an
“ecstatic” form of intellectual cognitio, which emerges in the order
of the Cherubim. With respect to the affect, of course, ecstatic,
affective cognitio, which is super-intellectual, a “loving and uniting
knowledge” (affectualis cognitio et unitiva),43 the milk that flows
down from the bosom of wisdom itself,44 emerges in the order of
the Seraphim.
In turning now to these, it bears remarking that in narrating the
divine–human relation in the third triad, Gallus shifts markedly
toward the nuptial and bridal metaphor from the Song of Songs,
with its attendant direct and immediate and interpersonal character-
istics, and away from the more impersonal, strictly hierarchical,
graduated language of the celestial anthropology and of the

collocatur; item susceptionem Dei, sicut thronus super uenientem ad sedendum

suscipit; item Dei gestationem, sicut thronus regem gestat; item continuam apertio-
nem ad Dei susceptionem, sicut thronus est sursum patulus.”
41
Cmm2-CC 4B.92: “ALL the movements of that order [either Thrones or Cher-
ubim] are WITH TWIN OFFSPRING, that is, they have twin offspring, because of the union
of affect and intellect working together in it, and it is the building from the strength of
the demonstration of essence (ex vi demonstrationis essentie), AND THERE IS NONE BARREN
AMONG THEM. For by their exercises all the movements of that order obtain clearer
cognition and more intimate fervor.”
42 43 44
Cmm2-CC 1F.74. Cmm2-CC Prol.65–6. Cmm2-CC 1A.68.
 “Becoming a Throne for God” 137
predominately impersonal, mediated, indirect conception of human
cognitio Dei of the middle triad and its quest for knowledge of God.
The transition from the middle to the highest hierarchy, from the
Dominions to the Thrones, is thus a crucial “hinge” in the ascent.
Having reached the limits of its natural capacities, even as aided by
grace, the soul must now be raised “above” and “outside” itself
(ecstasis). There is also a change in the soul’s posture: it now turns
from the active derivation of cognitio Dei from created things, to a
more responsive reception of the supra-intellectual wisdom Christo-
logical and pneumatically mediated: in short, the soul becomes ecstat-
ically receptive, in the manner of a Throne.
 6

“Every Kind of Knowledge”

INTRODUCTION

Situated now in the highest triad of the mind, already ecstatically

drawn beyond and outside its strictly natural capacities and activities,
living now in Christ through the Spirit (I live, yet not I, but Christ),
opened upward and receptively Godward, “concavely” (via the sinus
mentis), the soul is now positioned to receive the divine plenitude, the
“wisdom of Christians,” descending from the Father of lights (Jas. 1:17),
in the final two ranks of the hierarchized soul, namely, in the Cherubim
and the Seraphim, respectively.
Describing the rank of the Cherubim in Chapter 7 of his Explan-
ation of the Celestial Hierarchy, Gallus begins with the Dionysian
description which associated the Cherubim with vision and intellec-
tual contemplation of the divine light: “The name ‘Cherubim’ signi-
fies a cognitive (cognitiuam) and ‘peering into’ (inspectiuam) power,
receptive (susceptiuam) of light and contemplative (contemplatiuam)
of divine beauty.”1 Gallus observes that this name signifies the power
by which they “clearly know and profoundly look upon (inspiciunt)
God as they have cognition [of God] through the deep abundance
of wisdom,” and they “receive the first in-flowings of the divine lights
(second to the Seraphim)” and they “contemplate the fullness of the
divine beauty.”2 Gallus associates this order with “the clear cognition
of truth” which “perfects the intellectus” (in contrast to “fiery love
of true goodness” (fervido amore vere bonitatis),3 associated with
the Seraphim, which “perfects the affectus”4). It is correlated with “the
beautiful (pulchro) and the claritas, and is delighted by these and is

1 2
Expl-AH 7.581.9–14. Expl-AH 7.587.167–74.
3 4
Expl-AH 7.583.62. Expl-AH 7.583.65.
 “Every Kind of Knowledge” 139
naturally inquisitive (inquisitivus) of the truth.”5 To the Cherubim,
moreover, pertains both the theological virtue of faith (just as “charity
[pertains] to the Seraphim, and hope to the Thrones”) and “the gift
of understanding (donum intellectus),6 which “perfects faith in the
intellectual power (vi intectuali),”7 though he does not develop these
points, as later scholastics will. In his commentaries on the Song of
Songs, Gallus offers further specification:
The eighth order contains every kind of knowledge (cognitionem) of the
attracted intellectus (intellectus attracti), drawn by the divine worthi-
ness, to which it is not able to ascend, and of the attracted affectus
(affectus attracti), not exceeding the drawing and the summit of the
attracted intellect (intellectus attracti). For the intellect and the affect are
drawn at the same time, and walk together (coambulant), so to speak,
up to the final failure of the intellect, which has its high point in the
order of the Cherubim. The attracted intellect does not pass this, but has
here the consummation of its knowledge and light. Because of this, this
order is called the “Cherubim.”8
The cherubic rank thus contains “every kind of cognition,” both of “the
intellectus, which is drawn up by the divine worthiness, though not able
to reach it,” and “of the affectus, similarly drawn up, without exceeding
the heights of the drawn up intellectus.” Here, the “upwardly pulled
affect” (affectus attractus) and “upwardly pulled intellect” (intellectus
attractus) “walk hand in hand” (coambulant)9 up to the point where at
“the consummation of its cognition and light” the intellect fails (defec-
tus intellectus).10
At first blush, that Gallus should posit at this rank the presence of
intellectual knowledge, of vision and contemplation of God, is puzzling.

5
Expl-AH 10.635.180: “Primus autem modus precipue consistit in pulcro et claro
et hiis delectatur, et naturaliter inquisitiuus est ueritatis.”
6 7
Expl-AH 10.641.354. Expl-DN 2.155.1035.
8
Cmm3-CC Prol.M.109: “Octavus ordo continet omnimodum cognitionem
intellectus attracti divina dignatione, quo non vale ascendere, et affectus attracti,
attractionem et summitatem intellectus attracti non excedentis. Simul enim attrahun-
tur et quasi coambulant affectus et intellectus usque ad novissimum defectum
intellectus qui est in summitate huius ordinis cherubim, quem intellectus etiam
attractus non excedit, sed ibi habet sue cognitionis et sui luminis consummationem;
unde ordo ille cherubim vocatur.”
9
This felicitous rendering of Gallus’ Latin is Turner’s (Eros and Allegory, 322).
10
The verbatim description of the cherubic order is found in the Second Com-
mentary on the Song of Songs (Cmm2-CC Prol.67) and in the Interpolated Prologue
of the Third Commentary (Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.B.115).
140 Ascending
As noted in Chapter 5, he seems to cut off the activity of intellectual
knowledge at the transition from Dominions to Thrones, from the
enstatic to ecstatic modality. At that transition, intellectual activity
ceases and dies. As noted in the Introduction, furthermore, a standard
interpretation of Gallus’ two kinds of cognitio Dei sees a simple binary
between intellectual and affective cognitio Dei, between an intellectual
cognitio (“in a mirror,” drawn from creatures, “sober,” etc.) and a super-
intellectual, affective encounter with the unknown, transcendent God.
What then is this cherubic cognitio and how is it related both to the
cognitio proper to the rank of the Dominions in the middle triad “below
it,” and to the subsequent seraphic experience “above it”?
The answer to these questions is found in Gallus’ hierarchical
anthropology. Cherubic cognition is a higher mode of intellectual
knowledge of God, proper to the ecstatic dimension of the hierarch-
ized soul. It is an “ecstatic intellectual cognitio” that both builds upon
and subsumes the “sober intellectual cognitio” of the enstatic soul
“below it.” More precisely, this higher mode of intellectual knowledge
builds upon the ecstatic receptivity established in the Thrones, and
intensifies the Christo-pneumatic modality begun there by heighten-
ing the nuptial and inter-personal ethos of the Song of Song, while
also, as will be seen, inaugurating a process of “simplification” that
will ultimately affectivize and hierarchically subsume it into an even
higher, seraphic cognitio.

CHERUBIC COGNITIO DEI

Gallus hints at this distinction between enstatic and ecstatic modes

of intellectual cognitio in his introduction of his Commentary on the
Song of Songs in an allegorical interpretation of Exod. 5:3: The God of
the Hebrews has called us to on a three-day journey. For him, “the first
day” pertains to “the forms of sensible things in the imagination,” the
second, to “intellectual speculations,” but the third to the “internal
theoriae,” to which Gallus appends the Psalm, blessed is the man
whose help is from you (Ps. 83:6).”11 The first two days here clearly
correspond to the “sober” knowledge of God proper to the enstatic

11
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.A.112.
 “Every Kind of Knowledge” 141
soul. The third day, though, corresponding to the “internal theoriae”
(see the next section, THE DIVINE THEORIAE) and special divine
assistance, suggest a different modality. A more extensive treatment
of this distinction, in his Explanation on the Divine Names, offers
further insight:
The [intellectus] ascends from the earth, between the earth and the
heaven, for though we cannot comprehensively comprehend eternal
things as the angels can, we ought not to be content with the cognition
of eternal things which worldly philosophy gathers together from the
cognition of pre-existing sensible things, but we should be extended
(extenta) in union above mind, to receive the super-expanded solar rays
in our intellects (intellectibus) from the Father of lights.12
He then allegorizes Ps. 103:13, You water the hills from your superior
places: the earth shall be filled with the fruit of your works, to further
stress his point:
A “hill” is land elevated above the land, namely, a contemplative man
elevated above himself (Jer. 3:28). “Superior places” are the rays of
wisdom “which descend from above” (Jas. 3:17) and the “drops of rain”
(Jer. 3:3) from the river of fire (Dan. 7:10). “Earth” [stands for] the
animal man investigating invisible things from visible things alone, who
is satiated with the fruit of the works of God, because he does not seek after
a cognition of eternal things higher or fuller (superiorem aut pleniorem)
than what is gathered from the visible world.13
In these passages, Gallus locates the intellect “below the heaven” of
angelic comprehension of God,14 but also “above the earth” of worldly
philosophy, which gathers knowledge of God from visible things and
from the works of God. Suspended thus, the intellect reaches and seeks

12
Expl-DN 1.78.699–79.705: “Et ascendunt de terra, inter celum et terram, quia
necdum possumus eterna secundum modum celestium animorum comprehensiue
cognoscere, nec ea debemus esse contenti cognitione eternorum quam mundi philoso-
phi colligunt ex preexistente sensibilium cognitione, sed unitione super mentem extenta,
tamquam solares radios excipere a Patre luminum intellectibus superexpansos.”
13
Expl-DN 1.79.707–13: “ ‘Mons’ est terra super terram eleuata, scilicet uir con-
templatiuus eleuans se super se (Thren. 3d). ‘Superiora’ sunt radii sapientie que
desursum est (Iac. 3g) et stille pluuiarum (Ier. 3a) de fluuio igneo (Dan. 7c). ‘Terra’:
homo animalis solis uisibilibus inuisibilia inuestigans, qui de fructu operum Dei
satiatur, quia superiorem aut pleniorem eternorum cognitionem non requirit quam
que ex uisibilibus mundi (que Dei sunt opera) colligitur.”
14
Elsewhere he speaks of the “pure intelligence, drawn into the Cherubim of the
mind . . . without any consideration and collation of material things” (Expl-DN 7.374.240).
142 Ascending
for a “higher and fuller” cognitio Dei than that mediated through
creatures. An even more striking and telling depiction of this distinc-
tion is found in the Second Commentary on the Song of Songs.
YOUR BREASTS (ubera) ARE MORE BEAUTIFUL THAN WINE, that is, more splendid
than wine, namely, than every cognition acquired by the agent or active
intellect (per intellectum adquisita sive agentem sive actum). Clearly he
calls the breasts beautiful, since he rightly called them better . . . ; and
he says this because of the splendor which flows into the Cherubim,
which latch on [to the breast] by the mouth of the Seraphim and not by
their own mouth.15
This evocative passage clearly distinguishes the “wine” of an inferior
form of cognition, derived or acquired by the activity of the agent
intellect, from another, superior kind, received from above, flowing
down into the cherubic order as “milk” from a breast.16 Nor is it
insignificant that this higher form of cognition, this “splendor” (which
in Gallus’ lexicon is associated with knowledge) is mediated from above
by the seraphic order (see Chapter 7 below). Unequivocally, then, Gallus
attributes a distinct form of cognitio Dei to the cherubic order: “the
highest and greatest of intellectual knowledge (precipuum et summum
habet intellectualis scientie) . . . and . . . splendors are especially attributed
to it, on account of the possession of understanding (intelligentie con-
servationem).”17 Elsewhere he is quite explicit, distinguishing the
“ecstatic intellective cognition (intellectiva cognitio extatica) of the
“first hierarchy” from the “sober intellective cognition” (intellectiva
cognitio sobria) of the lower ones.18

THE DIVINE THEORIAE

This claim is further bolstered and clarified in light of Gallus’ unique

teaching regarding what he calls the divine theoriae, when he

15
Cmm2-CC 4D.95: “pulchriora sunt ubera tua vino, id est splendidiora vino, id est
omni cognitione per intellectum adquisita sive agentem sive actum, et signanter dicit
ubera pulchra, cum melius diceret meliora, ut videtur, sed hoc dicit propter splendorem
quem influit in cherubim qui capit per os seraphim et non per os proprium.”
16
Without the exact terminology, Gallus here approximates the scholastic distinc-
tion between acquired and infused knowledge of God.
17 18
Cmm3-CC 6F.213. Cmm2-CC 5A.101.
 “Every Kind of Knowledge” 143
associated the third day of the wilderness journey with the “internal
theoriae.” Gallus applies this term to the divine ideas or exemplars,
which exist preeminently and in simplicity, without differentiation,
in the eternal Word and which are also present in diversified multi-
plicity in all created things, causing each one to be the kind of thing
that it is: “the exemplars of the eternal Word, which are eternal
theoriae and are called the invisible things of God in the plural,
even though in the highest Word they are one.”19 As in all exemplar-
ist metaphysics, furthermore, for Gallus it is these exemplars that are
apprehended by the knowing subject in order to know anything as
such.20 In the distinction between enstatic (“sober”) and ecstatic
intellectual cognition, the theoriae provide a common type of object
and thus the continuity that secures their status as modes of intellec-
tual cognition. In fact, Gallus will characterize the intellect as “theoric”
in just this way: “the business of the theoric mind or intellect (mentis
seu intellectus theorici) is to intend and to speculate with fixed and
quiet sharp point (fixa et quieta acie), either whatever the grace of
heaven reveals [i.e. ecstatically, from above] or what reason has found
and presented [i.e. enstatically, from below].”21 Either way, the pri-
mary faculty of intellectual cognition remains the intellectus, which
speculates either what reason presents to it “from below” (enstatic
cognition) or what grace offers it “from above.” The intellectus thus
appears “hinge-like,” able to turn enstatically to things below or
ecstatically to things above.22 What, therefore, distinguishes the two
types of intellectual cognition is their source and mode of acquisition.
In “sober” intellectual cognition these theoriae are “extracted” from
created things “below” the mind (see Chapter 4).23 In ecstatic

19
Cmm3-CC 1E.127: “exemplaria Verbi eterni que sunt eterne theorie et dicuntur
invisibilia Dei pluraliter, licet in ipso Verbo summe unum sint.”
20
Theoriae might be Gallus’ synonym for the Boethian intellectibilia: Boethius, In
Isagoge Porphyrii I, c.3 (CSEL 48, 8–9): “Noeta, inquam, quoniam Latino sermone
numquam dictum repperi, intellectibilia egomet mea verbi compositione vocavi.” See
also Richard of St. Victor, in Benjamin Major I, VII, 14.26–31: “Intellectibilia hoc loco
dico invisibilia, et humana rationi incomprehensibilia.”
21
Expl-DN 1.70.503: “Mentis autem seu intellectus theorici negotium est intendere
et speculari fixa et quieta acie, siue que gratia celestis manifestauerit, siue que ratio
inuenerit et presentauerit.”
22
This distinction seems to correspond to the two “faces” of reason in other
thirteenth-century thinkers, the ratio inferior, oriented toward things below, and the
ratio superior, oriented toward divine things above.
23
Expl-MT 1.16.306: “Existing things [are those things] which came forth (pro-
dierunt) from the Word into being (esse) through creation; those things are called
144 Ascending
intellectual cognition, by contrast, the theoriae flow down into the
ecstatic intellect from the breast of the Word.

CHRIST THE BRIDEGROOM

Here, a crucial feature of the distinct modality of ecstatic intellectual

cognition emerges. As noted in Chapter 5, the ecstatic modality of the
entire highest triad (Thrones, Cherubim, Seraphim) involves a
pneumatically-activated union with Christ, construed nuptially as
the union of the soul-bride with her divine Spouse. It is precisely
from this union that the ecstatic intellectus receives the divine theo-
riae, interiorly: The Beloved’s “bundle of myrrh” represent the “many
theoriae, sweet smelling above the mind” (multarum theoriarum
super mentem bene olentem) flowing from the simple unity of the
Word (in simplicis Verbi unitate), in whom all treasures of wisdom
and knowledge are hidden (Col. 2).”24 Commenting on the opening
line of the Song, your breasts are better than wine, Gallus likens
“wine” to “intellectual wisdom, cognized from all existing things”
(sapientiam intellectualitem ex omnium existentium cognitione).25
“Breasts,” by contrast, stand for “the most fertile and super-abundant
fullness of divine wisdom (uberrimam et superplenam divine sapientie
plenitudinem)—the word of God on high is the fountain of wisdom
(Eccles. 1.5)—wisdom that flows from . . . the abundance of the heart
of the Bridegroom (ubertatibus pectoris sponsi).”26 Again, “in the
highest hierarchy of the mind” the soul-bride “is led into (introduci-
tur) these ‘cellars,’ that is, into the exemplars of the eternal Word
(exemplaria Verbi eterni), high and deep, by the unitive contempla-
tion (alte et profunde per unitivam contemplationem), just as into the
interior of the desert (Exod. 3:1), by the ways of eternity (Hab. 3:6) and
by the eternal road (Ps. 138:24).”27 This occurs “through the pure
extension of the mind into . . . the eternal exemplars of the Word

non-existing which only exist in the super-essential Word, and yet can be contem-
plated in that Word” (Existentia que de Verbo in esse per creationem prodierunt, non
existentia dicuntur que in solo Verbo superessentiali consistunt et tamen in ipso Verbo
contemplabilia sunt).
24 25
Cmm3-CC 1M.139. Cmm3-CC 1A.121.
26 27
Cmm3-CC 1A.121–2. Cmm3-CC 1E.127–8.
 “Every Kind of Knowledge” 145
(eternis exemplaris Verbi) . . . ”28 In enstatic, intellectual cognition,
“the bride drinks the wine of meditation and speculation,” while in
ecstasy she “asks for the breasts from the bosom of the Word (petit
ubera de pectore Verbi).”29 This mystical encounter with the Word,
moreover, is mediated by the Holy Spirit, who is “the anointing
(unctio) that teaches all things (John 14.26).”30
Though both enstatic and ecstatic intellectual cognition have the
theoriae as their object, Gallus clearly suggests that the soul-bride,
united to her Spouse, receives and experiences new and different
theoriae: “The bride . . . is taken up (sursumagitur) for the receiving
of new interior theoriae and enters in (ingreditur) by searching out the
deep things of God (1 Cor. 2:10).”31 The unguents are mentioned in
the plural, “on account of the multiple theoriae” (propter multiplices
theorias),32 which are “incomparably more worthy, more profound,
[and] more true (incomparabiliter dignior profundior veracior) . . .
than the intellectual wisdom of the philosophers, and incomparably
more sweet and more fruitful (incomparabiliter dulcior et fructuosior)
is the practice of the former than the latter.”33
In short, cherubic knowledge is an ecstatic, intellectual cognitio Dei,
a cognition of divine attributes (theoriae) flowing into the principal
and theoric intellect of the soul-bride from her intimate union with
Christ in the Spirit, a pneumatic anointing with the sweet-smelling
unguents of the Bridegroom.

AFFECTIVIZATION OF THE INTELLECT?

Though Gallus’ focus in the cherubic rank is on the intellectus, he

frequently alludes to the coordinated activity of the affectus at this
rank as well, as their above-noted “co-ambulation” intimates. Drawn
together, they also walk together. Reading in the Gospel that the
shepherds said: “let us go up to Bethlehem” (Luke 2:15), Gallus hears
“intellect and affect” saying let us ascend “into the first and principal
fullness of refreshment (primam et principalem plenitudinem refec-
tionis), . . . so that we might see, that is, . . . contemplate the Word

28 29 30
Expl-DN 4.184.14. Cmm3-CC 1A.122. Cmm3-CC 1B.123.
31 32 33
Cmm3-CC 4E.182. Cmm3-CC 1B.123. Cmm3-CC 1A.122.
146 Ascending
itself.”34 Allegorizing the “goats” of the Song, which “see acutely and
ascend steep places,” Gallus suggests that here “sight refers to the
intellectus, more acutely and clearly illuminated from attraction,”
while “ascent refers to the affectus made effectively upwardly-active
(sursumactivam) from the same attraction.”35 Again: “in fiery love
of true goodness and in clear cognition of truth” (in fervido amore
vere bonitatis et perspicua cognitione veritatis) there is found the
“joy and glory of the elect, whence it was said of John the Baptist
(John 5:35) “he was a burning and a shining light,” for “love perfects
the affect (affectum) and the truth [perfects] the intellect.”36 An
extended passage from the Explanation of the Divine Names puts
the matter clearly:
For when the contemplative soul, by suspending the corporeal senses,
the imagination and reason, extends the synderesis into the eternal
spectacula, the apex of the understanding and the principal affection
or union (apex intelligentie et principals affectio sive unio) are lifted
upward equally, mutually propelling one another into the divine things
and equally ascending (mutuo se promoventes in divina et partier
ascendentes), the former by speculating, the latter by desiring, the
intelligence hastening toward, but not entering into the depths of
God, since seeing through a mirror it does not arrive at the [divine]
substance.37
While the limits of cherubic cognition will be addressed below, the
mutually reinforcing relationship between intellect and affect is
patent. Indulging a typos going back at least as far as Eriugena,38
Gallus invokes apostolic examples of these: “In John [the Evangelist]
is noted the keenness (acumen) of the intelligence, in Peter [the

34
Cmm2-CC 2A.78: “ . . . intellectus et affectio . . . scilicet primam et principalem
plentitudinem refectionis . . . ut videamus, id est contemplemur . . . ipsum Verbum . . . ”
35
Cmm2-CC 4A.91–2: “CAPRARUM. Que acute videt et ardua ascendit; visus refertur
ad intelligentiam ex attractione acutius et clarius illuminatam, ascensus, ad affectio-
nem ex eadem attractione efficacius sursumactivam . . . ”
36
Expl-AH 7.583.62.
37
Expl-DN 1.94.1075–81: “Quando animus contemplatiuus sensibus corporeis,
imaginatione et ratione suspensis, synderesim in spectacula eterna extendit, apex
intelligentie et principalis affectio siue unitio pariter sursum feruntur, mutuo se
promouentes in diuina et pariter ascendentes, illa speculando, ista desiderando,
percurrente intelligentia nec ingrediente profunda Dei, quia uidens per speculum
non peruenit in substantiam.”
38
See Giulio d’Onofrio, History of Theology: The Middle Ages (Collegeville, MN:
Liturgical Press, 2008), 1.
 “Every Kind of Knowledge” 147
Apostle], the fervor of the affections.”39 Again, the soul-bride is
united to the Groom by “the embraces of [her] principal affect and
intellect (emphasis added), through which alone [she is] intoxicated
by the abundance of the house of God” (amplexibus mei principalis
affectus et intellectus, quibuss solis inebrior ab ubertate domus Dei).40
The “principal affect” pertains especially to the Seraphic rank (see
Chapter 7), while the “principal intellect” pertains to the Cherubic
rank. That these are both, each in their own way, operating here at the
cherubic rank is both clear and important. This is apparent elsewhere,
where Gallus links their coordinated activity to their union with
Christ: “the principal affection and theoric intellect (affectio princi-
palis et intellectus theoricus) are fecundated by the bull that rules the
flock, as the ninety-nine sheep in the desert (Matt. 18:12–13).” The
bull is Christ, “who is also the leader of every hierarchy (see CH 3),
toward whose most divine beauty every hierarchy indeclinably tends
and looks.” He “inflames the affection so that it loves goodness and
illumines the understanding so that it cognizes the truth.”41
In other places, though, the relation between them becomes more
integrated. As intellect and affect walk together, they begin to merge:
“intellect and affect join each other” and “are simplified in my contem-
plation.”42 As noted above, “wine” is the intellectual cognition extracted

39
Expl-DN 1.94.1085: “In Iohanne notatur acumen intelligentie, in Petro feruor
affectionis.” On this, see Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of John, 2487:
“Or, another interpretation, in the mystical sense. These two disciples stand for two
kinds of people: John represents those who are devoted to the contemplation of truth,
and Peter stands for those whose main interest is to carry out the commandments. In
fact, ‘Simon’ means ‘obedient.’ Now it very often happens that contemplatives,
because they are docile, are the first to become acquainted with a knowledge of the
mysteries of Christ, but they do not enter, for sometimes there is knowledge, but little
or no love follows. While those in the active life, because of their continuing fervor
and earnestness, even though they are slower to understand, enter into them more
quickly, so that those who are later to arrive, are the first to penetrate the divine
mysteries: So the last will be first, and the first last (Matt. 20:16).”
40
Cmm3-CC 1M.139.
41
Expl-DN 1.71.522–30: “Vacce: affectio principalis et intellectus theoricus fecun-
dati a tauro qui regit gregem tam XCIX ouium in deserto (Matth.) quam ecclesie
militantis (de quibus Ioh. 10a). De quo tauro primogenito Deut. 33d, qui et dux
dicitur omnis ierarchie (AI 3b), ad cuius diuinissimum decorem omnis ierarchia
indeclinabiliter intendit et uidet. Bethsames: ‘domus solis’. Christus est sol iustitie
(Mal. 3f), sol intelligentie (Sap. 5b). Ipse enim affectionem inflammat ad amorem
bonitatis et intellectum illuminat ad cognitionem ueritatis.”
42
Cmm2-CC 4A.91: “Unde OCULI TUI, ubi se associant intellectus et affectus, in
meam contemplationem simplificantur, quod notatur per COLUMBAM et in hoc quod est
148 Ascending
from creatures, but “milk” is the intellectual cognition received from
the bosom of the Bridegroom, milk, which is both white and sweet:
“white” because “of the experience of splendors in the summit of
understanding,” “sweet” because “of the boiling heat of the accompany-
ing affection at the highest peak of understanding.”43 Solomon’s seat
of gold (S. of S. 3:10) is the “order of Cherubim,” gold, “because of the
redness of fervent affection (affectionis) and the brightness of luminous
understanding (intelligentiae).”44 When the Song refers to Solomon’s
litter (S. of S. 3:10), the going up of which is purple (ascensum purpur-
eum), Gallus again sees an allegory for the Cherubim in the color itself:
“Purple has various colors; one is white, another red, another black; but
these colors are fitting to the order of the Cherubim of the mind. White,
on account of the height of the splendor of attracted understanding
(intelligentie); red, on account of the flame of charity; black signifies the
super-luminous darkness, as above.”45 When the Bridegroom says of the
soul: “Your cheeks are beautiful,” He speaks of “the Cherubim in which
brightness from the divine light that takes possession of the attracted
intellect is blended with the fervor of affection, like a red fire,” which is
“the most beautiful mixing, like the cheeks of the turtledove.”46 Com-
menting on The Lord buildeth up Jerusalem: he will gather together the
dispersed of Israel (Ps. 146:2) and the children of Judah, and the children
of Israel, shall be gathered together (Hos. 1:11), Gallus clarifies: “namely,
the movements of the affectus and the intellectus.”47 Despite the exeget-
ical liberties, these poetic images suggest a drawing together, even mixing
of intellect and affect in the cherubic rank: “Therefore those illumin-
ations, which the affectus and intellectus perceive (percipiunt) at the same

avis lasciva, fervor amoris; in eo quod simplicem habet intuitum, intellige summam
simplicitatem, id est in cherubim . . . ”
43
Cmm2-CC 1B.71: “ . . . id est propter experientiam splendorum in vertice intel-
ligentie que sunt cando lactis et fervor collateralis affectionis vertici intelligentie, et
hoc est dulcedo lactis . . . ”
44
Cmm2-CC 3F.90: “ . . . id est ordinem cherubim, aureum propter ruborem
fervide affectionis et fulgorem luminose intelligentie.”
45
Cmm3-CC 4E.174: “Purpura varios habet colores; alia est alba, alia rubea, alia
nigra; hii autem colores congruent ordini cherubim mentis. Albedo propter summita-
tem splendoris attracte intelligentie . . . Rubor propter flammam caritatis . . . Nigredo
significat superlucentem caliginem, ut supra.”
46
Cmm3-CC 1K.136: “Gene tue, id est cherubim in quibus precipuus candor quem
ex lumine divino percipit intellectus attractus miscetur fervor affectionis, quasi igneo
rubore, sunt pulchre, hac ipsa venustissima permixtione, sicut gene turturis.”
47
Expl-DN 1.78.695–9.
 “Every Kind of Knowledge” 149
time . . . constitute the order of the Cherubim,”48 where “the intellectus is
mingled (immiscetur) with the affectus,”49 where “the contemplative
movements [of intellect and affect] unite and simplify in ascending
into the spectacles of divine simplicity” (motus contemplativi coadunan-
tur et simplificantur, ascendendo in spectacula divine simplicitatis).50
Increasingly, intellectus seems to become affective, to acquire an
affective penumbra, an experiential, joyful, sensuous character: “I,
simple indeed in essence and manifold in the hierarchies of the
mind and in the hierarchic orders and movements, increase in
spiritual and super-intellectual joy, from the twofold cognition of
affect and intellect beyond and above the [natural] power of free
choice . . . ”51 Returning to the opening lines of the Song, where the
bride refers to the Bridegroom smelling sweet of the best ointments
(S. of S. 1:1), Gallus notes: “The best ointments (unguents) are the
super-intellectual theoriae which sooth the minds united to them
and they restore and are rich in abundance for all with a kind of
sweetness, beauty, clarity, suavity, and every kind of desirable out-
pouring (effusione), as from the breast (ubertate) of the Word.”52 As
is apparent, there is increasingly sensuous, experiential, affective
character to this knowledge.
This mystical, bridal union, moreover, accounts for the new
“posture” and orientation of ecstatic intellectual cognition. Rather
than “pulling” knowledge from existing things, the intellectus is
here “attracted,” drawn ever deeper to union with and thus know-
ledge of her divine Spouse. A subtle but significant relation between
activity and passivity now emerges. Gallus stresses, on the one hand,
the priority of divine action, by which the intellectus is “drawn” or
“attracted” Godward, “upwardly acted upon” by the divine self-
manifestation.53 In this sense, in that the soul is here led (agi) by the

48 49
Expl-AH 10.638.255. Expl-AH 1.640.336.
50
Cmm2-CC 4A.91.
51
Cmm3-CC 1E.128: “Ego, simplex quidem in essential et multiplex in hierarchiis
mentis et hierarchicis ordinibus et motibus, ex duplici cognitione affectus et intellec-
tus extra et supra vires liberi arbitrii . . . ”
52
Cmm3-CC 1B.122: “Unguenta optima sunt superintellectuales theorie que uni-
tas sibi mentes deliniunt et universali quamdam dulcedinis, pulchritudinis, claritatis,
suavitatis et omnimode specie desiderabilis effusione pollent et reficiunt, tanquam ex
ubertate Verbi.”
53
The characterization of both intellectus and affectus as “attracted” in the Com-
mentary on the Song of Songs has no exact parallel in the Isaiah commentary.
150 Ascending
Spirit and lives in the mode of not I, but Christ, the soul is passive—
acted upon, but not acting. Elsewhere, in this regard, he invokes a
strikingly apt phrase from Ezekiel: And the likeness of a hand was put
forth and took me by a lock of my head: and the spirit lifted me up
between the earth and the heaven (Ezek. 8:3).54 This reflects the
predominately, though not exclusively passive modality of the entire
third triad, as noted above. Yet, in the very next breath, Gallus
describes the intellectus as walking (coambulant), indeed, walking
together with the affectus, even as they are being drawn. So, passivity
is best rendered as docility to the Spirit, not absolute inactivity or
quietism. Commenting on the Dionysian phrase THOSE BEING
UPLIFTED Gallus first observes that divine action is “not only illumin-
ating the intellectus, but also provoking the affectus to rise up,” and
then approvingly quotes three biblical texts that exhort humans to
act in response: “Isa. 60:1: ‘rise up etc.’, Isa. 52:1: ‘Arise’; and Gen.
35:1: ‘Rise up and ascend etc.’,” concluding that “those rising up thus
are led by an un-wearying hand.”55 While intellect and affect are
primarily passive (drawn, attracted, pulled upward), they are sec-
ondarily and responsively active, genuinely responding to the “trac-
tor” effect of divine revelation.

SIMPLIFICATION

One of the striking and unique features of Gallus’ hierarchic anthro-

pology is that at the upper reaches of the ascending valence the
powers of the soul are simplified, as they are drawn to the simple,
indeed, super-simple Spouse: “the subtle movements of the mind,
extending toward supernal things, [are] simplified in the contempla-
tion of the super-simple Word.”56 The Word is said “to simplify
(simplificare) by assimilating to itself minds reaching out to its own

54
Expl-DN 1.78.690.
55
Expl-DN 1.79.713: “ ‘Suscitatiua’: non solum intellectum illuminans, sed affectio-
nem prouocans ad ignote consurgendum (MT 1b) ‘ad eius unitionem qui est super
omnem substantiam et cognitionem’; Is. 60a: Surge etc., et 52c: Consurge; Gen. 35a: Surge
et ascende etc.”
56
Expl-DN 1.78.693: “subtiles mentis motus in superna tendentes, in contempla-
tione supersimplicis Verbi simplificatos.”
 “Every Kind of Knowledge” 151
super-simplicity.”57 At present, this nuptial “drawing” has a simplifying
effect on the intellectus: “Drawn into the Cherubim of the mind,” the
intellect approaches “the super-simple Word, in whom every multitude
and contrariety is united and simplified.”58 Again: “your intelligence
(intelligentia), attracted and simplified in the order of the Cherubim . . .
is taken up into the contemplation of beauty.”59 And: “the bride, in
relation to pure understanding, after broad dispersion, is simplified
(secundum intelligentiam puram, post latam dispersionem, simplifica-
tur)—the Lord builds up Jerusalem, he gathers together the dispersed of
Israel (Ps. 146:2)—and this simplification is finally completed in the
order of the Cherubim” (hec simplificatio finaliter completur in ordine
cherubim).60 What does Gallus mean by “simplification”?
To begin, it should be noted that it is coterminous with ecstasy:
“This is that which lifted up Ezekiel by a lock of hair (Ezek. 8:3), that
is, he was taken up in excess of mind (in mentis excessum rapitur) to
unity and simplification in the movements of the mind (mentis
motibus).”61 In the most basic sense, not surprisingly, it is a move-
ment away from composition. More precisely, it is a “narrowing” of
the objects known: “eyes that are simplified, carried off in contem-
plation of the simple bridegroom, are simplified from the multitude
of existing things.”62 It is also a “contraction” of the capacities of the
knower, in the sense of a narrowing and intensifying focus: “it befits the
mind rising to this cognition to unite all its multiple capacities and BE
CONVERTED TO THE DEIFYING SIMPLICITY.”
63
The result is an “intellectus
contractus” and an “intellectual vision (visus) most greatly simplified”
64

(visus intellectualis maxime simplificatur).65 The “movements . . . of the

affect and intellect” are “simplified (simplificantur),” contracted or
drawn together.66

57
Expl-DN 4.207.661: “extentas in se supersimplicem mentes sibi assimilando
simplificare.”
58
Expl-DN 7.374.244: “in Verbo supersimplici, in quo omnis multitudo et contra-
rietas unitur et simplificatur.”
59
Cmm3-CC 4E.182: “intelligentia tua attracta et simplificata in ordine cherubim
que assumitur in contemplatione pulchritudinis.”
60 61
Cmm3-CC 5D.210. Expl-MT 1.12.213.
62
Cmm3-CC 1O.141–2: “ . . . oculi a multitudine existentium subtracti in contem-
platione supersimplicis sponsi simplificantur.”
63
Cmm3-CC 1M.139: “ . . . oportet omnes suas capacitatem multiplicates adunare
et CONVERTI AD DEIFICAM SIMPLICITATEM, AI 1).”
64
Cmm2-CC 4A.91: “ . . . non pervenit intellectus, nec etiam contractus . . . ”
65 66
Cmm3-CC 5H.201. Cmm2-CC 4A.91.
152 Ascending
At least part of what Gallus understands by intellectual simplifica-
tion is a transition in the intellectual subject from discursive reason-
ing to a more direct and immediate intellectual “intuition” or
“gazing” into the higher theoriae. For “reason palpates (ratio palpat),
as it were, what it manually considers (contrectat) by breaking down
(discutiendo) and by examining (examinando),” while “the intellect
(intellectus) considers and sees by contemplating directly (contem-
plando).”67 It has a “simple gaze (intuitum).”68 Corresponding to this
is a transition in the objects known, which are here experienced more
directly and more simplified in the Spouse: “whatever doctrine we
teach clearly (clare) through words, or through writings, or through
creatures is composed (composita est); but it is simplified in the
simple Word” (in simplici Verbo simplificatur).69 The “simple gaze”
of the dove “signifies the pure understanding, as it is essentially
simplified by the contemplation of the divine unity, after the broad
circuit of the innumerable multitude of creatures.”70
At points, Gallus goes further to suggest that the simplified intel-
lectus is capable, not only of seeing directly what ratio analyzes
discursively, but also of seeing more deeply the deeper things of
God: “simplification of the subtle movements in contemplation of
the sublime and simple theoriae.”71 They are, moreover, “simplified
in order to be extended (ad extendum) into the super-simple ray.”72
Putting both together, Gallus observes: “This drawing together [con-
striction] is a compacted [coarctata] simplification of the mind,
when, the whole multitude of sensible and intelligible things having
been excluded, . . . it penetrates sharply into the superior and more
subtle theoriae.”73 In his later commentary on the Song, Gallus evokes
this intellectual simplification with the Bridegroom’s praise of the
soul-bride’s eyes:

67
Expl-MT 1.13.254.
68
Cmm2-CC 4A.91: “ . . . simplicem habet intuitem . . . ”
69
Expl-MT 1.11.209–12.212.
70
Cmm3-CC 5D.210. “Columba, que simplicem habet intuitum, significat puram
intelligentiam, ut divine unitatis contemplatione simplificatum essentiam post innu-
merabilis multitudinis creaturarum latum circuitum.”
71
Cmm2-CC 4E.95: “ . . . simplificatio in contemplationem sublimium et simpli-
cium theoriarum . . . ”
72
Cmm3-CC 4A.177.
73
Cmm3-CC 4H.188: “Ista constrictio est coarctata mentis simplificatio, quando,
exclusa omni multitudine sensibilium et intelligibilium et non existentium . . . acute
penetrat in superiors et subtiliores theorias.”
 “Every Kind of Knowledge” 153
Your eyes, i.e. the Cherubim, are doves’ eyes. In the dove is noted the
highest simplicity . . . In this order is the highest simplification of the
intellect, except for what is hid within, which cannot be written or said,
since it is the participation of that name, that is, of the divine
knowledge (notitie divine), which no one knows except the one who
has received it (Rev. 2).74
So simplified, the attracted intellectus gazes up at the high things of
God as far as possible.
Gallus also correlates the intellectus contractus with the simplicity
and unity of its divine object: “These eyes of the bride are called of
doves, because, just as a dove has a simple stare, so these eyes are
simplified, carried off in contemplation of the simple bridegroom
[and] are simplified from the multitude of existing things.” As
noted in Chapter 2, he privileges the notion of plenitude to charac-
terize the divine essence. Strikingly, for Gallus this divine plenitude
coincides with divine simplicity: “the most simple (simplicissimam)
and most full (plenissimam) unity of essence.”75 Precisely as most
simple, the divine essence is most pleromatic (anticipating Bonaven-
ture’s insight about the fecundity of primacy). As a kind of anthropo-
logical inverse of this, for Gallus, simplification coincides with an
intellectual expansion or capacitation: the soul “is dilated in or
expanded by simplicity (simplicitate dilatatur),” after saying which, he
cites 2 Cor. 3:18: “But we all with unveiled faces . . . ”; EH 1), suggesting
clearly that divine glory “in the face of Christ” (as the Corinthian text
claims) is revealed to the simplified intellect.76 Paradoxically, anthropo-
logical narrowing coincides with epistemological expansion. Simply
put, the more simplified, the more capacious. Gallus makes the point
in the language of the Song commentary:
The spouse calls the inmost [space] of her mind a bed, where the
bridegroom desires to recline with her. Whence she adds: our, com-
mon to you and to me, not a [large] bed, but a small bed, on account
of the excellent simplification of the inmost concavity (sinus) and the
incomparable immensity of the bridegroom, as though she said

74
Cmm3-CC 4A.176: “Oculi tui, id est cherubim, sicut oculi columbarum. In columba
notatur precipua simplicitas . . . . In ipso autem ordine est summa intelligentie simplifi-
catio absque eo quod intrinsecus latet, quod dici vel scribi non potest, quia participatio est
illius nominis, id est notitie divine, quod nemo scit nisi qui accipit (Rev. 2).”
75 76
Expl-MT 3.37.56. Expl-MT 1.12.212.
154 Ascending
[paraphrasing Augustine]: the house of my soul is small; let it take
hold of you and be expanded by you.77
This nicely captures the seemingly paradoxically notion that the soul
becomes small, so as to be large; is constrictively simplified in order to
become receptively capacious.
The goal of simplification, finally, is assimilation to and union
with the divine Simplicity: “drawn together (recollecti) by his grace
to that highest [point], the more we inhere in him more closely
(vicinius), the more narrowly we are simplified, until he unites us to
himself in the highest simplicity . . . ”78 So, “by this excluding of other
things, the mind, extending into the simplex ray, may be simplified
intellectually and super-intellectually by the same [ray] and assimi-
lated to it, according to 2 Cor. 3:18: But we all, beholding the glory of
the Lord with open face, are transformed into the same image from
glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord”; thus “conforming us to the
simple God.”79

THE FINAL FAILURE OF THE INTELLECT

For all that, though, cherubic cognition remains intellectual cogni-

tion, and thus in some sense bound and limited by finitude, by the
limits of created reality: “For all the exercise of our reason and
understanding is oriented within the limits of being, nor can we
arrive at the most causal cause unless we transcend everything that
is caused: Song 3:4: When I had a little passed by them, [I found him

77
Cmm3-CC 1P.142: “Intima sue mentis sponsa lectulum vocat, ubi sponsum
secum cubare desiderat. Unde addit: noster, tibi et mihi communis, nec latum, sed
lectulum diminutive, propter excellentem intimi sinus simplificationem et incompar-
abilem sponsi immensitatem, quasi dicat: parva est domus anime mee, ut capiat te,
dilatetur a te.”
78
Expl-DN 1.85.840: “Ad ipsum uero summe per gratiam ipsius recollecti, quanto
ei uicinius inheremus, tanto constrictius simplificamur, dum nos sibi summe simplici
unit.”
79
Expl-DN 1.85.853–59: “illis exclusis mens intellectualiter et superintellectualiter
in simplicem radium extenta ab eadem simplificetur et illi assimiletur, iuxta illud II
Cor. 3g: Nos uero omnes reuelata facie gloriam speculantes, in eamdem imaginem
transformamur a claritate in claritatem; CONGREGAMVR, mente simplificamur,
AD MONADEM DEIFORMEM, id est unitatem nos Deo simplici conformantem.”
 “Every Kind of Knowledge” 155
whom my soul loves.]”80 Intellectual cognition, mediated by the divine
theoriae (spectacula/species/rationes), thus remains in some way con-
ceptual or tied to concepts: “WE ARE EXTENDED mentally TO the con-
templation of THE TRUTH OF THE INTELLIGIBLE MARVELS, that is, to the
intelligible spectacula of wisdom and reasons of the Word . . . ”81
The hidden depths of the pleromatic Trinity remain, accordingly,
not fully accessible to it. Commenting on Moses’ ascent into Saini’s
dark cloud of unknowing, as Dionysius depicts it, where God remains
hidden, Gallus observes:
HIDDEN, I say, BY THE CLOUD, that is, incomprehensible, not deficient in
light, but SUPER-SPLENDENT, that is, incomprehensible for this reason:
because its splendor inaccessibly exceeds, WITH SILENT WORDS, that is,
by the eternal Word, which the Father eternally speaks (Job 33:14: “God
spoke once” etc.). But our intellect, which is the ear and eye of the mind,
only sees and hears [that Word], as one who goes beyond/exceeds
(cum quis excedit) (hence Job 33:16: “then,” that is, in dreaming excess,
“he opens the ears of men,” etc.; Job 42:5: “With the hearing of the ear,
[I have heard you, but now my eye sees you”].82
As the “eyes and ears” of the soul, with respect to God in Godself, that is,
to the divine essence, the intellect, even as drawn above itself ecstatically
and simplified and contracted, remains outside and on the surface,
with respect to God: “it does not arrive at the [divine] substance”
(non pervenit in substantiam).83 For “the summit of the attracted
understanding is, in a sense, exterior . . . ” (exterior est in summitate
intelligentie tracte quoad affectionem);84 “the intellective eye is more
externally circumspective and does not penetrate as taste does . . . , but
only sees exterior color” (oculus intellectivus exterius circumspectivus est
et non penetrat ut gustus, sed tantum videt exteriorem colorem);85

80
Expl-DN 7.371.154: “Omnis enim exercitatio nostre rationis uel intelligentie
intra terminos entis uersatur, nec in causam causalissimam peruenimus nisi omne
causatum transeamus: Cant. 3b: Paululum cum pertransissem etc.”
81
Expl-DN 1.93.1046: “EXTENDIMUR mente AD contemplandam VERITATEM MIRACU-
LORUM INTELLIGIBILIUM, id est intelligibilia sapientie spectacula et Verbi rationes.”
82
Expl-MT 1.12.222: “COOPERTA, dico, SECUNDUM CALIGINEM, id est incomprehensi-
bilem, non deficientem lumine, sed SUPERSPLENDENTEM, id est per hoc incomprehensi-
bilem quod splendor eius inaccessibiliter excedit (Ad Gaium I; Dorotheo a: ‘oculum
intellectualem etc.’), SILENTII DICTI, id est Verbi eterni quod Pater eternaliter loquitur
(Iob 34c: Semel loquitur Deus etc.). Sed ipsum noster intellectus, qui auris et oculus est
mentis, non uidet nec audit nisi cum quis excedit (unde Iob 33d: tunc, id est in sompno
excessus, aperit aures etc.; 42a: Auditu auris etc.).”
83 84 85
Expl-DN 1.94.1081. Cmm2-CC 1B.71. Cmm2-CC 1D.72.
156 Ascending
“however much at this rank intelligence and affection are united, still
. . . understanding is more exterior and weaker than affection” (exterior
et tenuior est intelligentia quam affectio).86 In the imagery of the Song,
Gallus puts it thus:
Like a necklace (S. of S. 4:9): A necklace properly encircles the neck
cavity of the bride and in this order there is so great a constriction that
the high point of the understanding cannot be drawn further. And note
that a hand can reach up to the necklace, but cannot pass beyond into
the neck cavity. So understanding, which knows the worker by the
works, reaches up into the [Cherubim], but cannot pass into the secret
bosom of the Seraphim.87
At this point, accordingly, it comes to its final end, its consummation:
“in this order of the Cherubim . . . every splendor of even the attracted
intelligence is consummated” (ibi consummatur omnis splendor in-
telligentie etiam attracte).88 For “that super-essential and super-
intellectual goodness . . . draws [the affection] into itself more deeply
than the intelligence is able to be led. Hence it is necessary from that
point for intellectual activities to be, as it were, cut short as they are
not capable of progressing further.”89 This is its death: “Hence Exod.
33:20 says: man shall not see me, and live. . . . since God is totally
desirable but not totally intelligible (totus desiderabilis et totus non
intelligibilis).”90 In this way, the Gallusian account of the visio Dei is
relativized to a penultimate experience of seeing the divine “surface,”
but not penetrating to its depths.
All this sets the stage for seraphic union. For, “by contemplating
[the Bridegroom] on the day of his espousals . . . the bride, in the
order of Cherubim” makes “as it were, a final preparation so that she
is lead to the inmost bed of the bridegroom” (ut ad intimum sponsi

86
Cmm2-CC 1F.74.
87
Cmm2-CC 1F.74: “Sicut monilia. Monile proprie ardat sinum sponse et in isto
ordine tanta est coarctatio ut ipsum cacumen intelligentie ulterius trahi non possit. Et
nota quod usque ad monile potest mitti manus, sed ultra in sinum non transire; sic
intelligentia, que per opera cognoscit opificem, usque in hunc ordinem pervenit, sed
in secretum sinum seraphim transire non potest.”
88
Cmm3-CC 6E.212.
89
Expl-DN 1.94.1086: “Superessentialis uero et superintellectualis bonitas unitam
sibi ineffabiliter affectionem et superferuide ipsam desiderantem et se sursum im-
pingentem hilariter excipit, et in se profundius trahit quo intelligentia induci non
ualet. Vnde necesse est ex tunc quasi resecari operationes eius tamquam progredi non
ualentes.”
90
Expl-DN 2.155.1020.
 “Every Kind of Knowledge” 157
lectum deducatur).91 In this way, for Gallus, cherubic, intellectual
cognition leads to seraphic affection: “first we are to be illumined by
those splendors, which pertains to the perfection of the intelligence,
then [we are to be] formed, which pertains to the perfection of the
principal affection, according to Heb. 1:3, where [Christ] is first called
splendor of glory, then form of the substance of the Father, because
knowing (nosse) is naturally prior to praising (laudare), admiring,
desiring (desiderare), [and] loving (diligere).”92

CONCLUSION

At the penultimate rank of the ascending valence, the soul relates to

her Spouse through a mode of intellectual cognition, above and beyond
the “sober,” enstatic, intellectual cognition of which she is naturally
capable. Gallus associates this with the eyes of the Cherubim: “‘Eye-
ishness’ is rightly attributed to this order, on account of the highest
perspicacity of the attracted intellect.”93
The two forms of intellectual cognition share a common object,
namely, the divine theoriae, which accounts for a continuity between
them.94 But these theoriae come to the soul in different ways, the first
from extraction from created things from below, the second from an
interior reception of graced revelation from above, from the Bride-
groom, who here is especially the Word in whom are present all the
eternal exemplars, all the theoriae. In the latter mode, the intellect is
divinely drawn or pulled up to the Word and receives knowledge of
God in a higher mode, more directly, interiorly, nuptually, through
the union of the soul with Christ in the Spirit. Thus, this higher form
of intellectual cognitio Dei is an ecstatic knowledge, occurring here in
the highest triad, the whole of which is outside and beyond the soul’s

91 92
Cmm2-CC 3G.91. Expl-DN 1.76.647.
93
Cmm3-CC 4A.176: “Recte autem huic ordini attribuitur oculositas, propter
precipuam attracte perspicacitatem.” Cf. Expl-AH 6.579.58: “quantum ad ordinem
Cherubim cui attribuitur oculositas, quia interpretatur Cherubim multitudo cogni-
tionis, ut infra 7a. Et specialiter illi ordini attribuitur uirtus cognitiua et inspectiua et
contemplatiua . . . ”
94
Because the theoriae reside in the divine Word, the continuity between the two
modes of intellectual cognition has a Christological dimension to it.
158 Ascending
natural enstatic state. That is, Gallus posits a form of intellectual
transcendence, not just an affective one.95
Gallus is clearly concerned to correlate knowledge and love,
intellectus and affectus here. The cherubic is not an exclusively intel-
lectual moment, though he emphasizes the intellectual at this stage.
Yet, this intellectual cognitio is also increasingly mixed together with
affection; it is affectivized cognition. That is to say, the process of
simplification, a signature feature of Gallus’ mystical theology, inten-
sifies at his rank. Thus, finally, cherubic cognition is preparatory for
seraphic affection.
Gallus’ account of cherubic cognitio must be understood according
to the hierarchic principle of ascending appropriation: the higher
always subsumes and contains the lower, but in a higher modality.
Again, as one ascends, the lower is always both exceeded and thus
transcended, but also appropriated, “rolled up” into the higher rank
in a new modality, proper to that rank. The natural, enstatic, “sober”
cognitio Dei is neither inimical nor merely irrelevant to the higher,
ecstatic kind; nor is the former abandoned by the latter. Rather, the
lower is assimilated by the higher.

95
Denys Turner’s claim that “there is no excessus of intellect in Gallus, as there is
in Pseudo-Denys” (Eros and Allegory, 337, n. 24) is somewhat misleading, since at this
level the intellectus has already been ecstatically drawn out of itself, albeit along with
the affectus and as ultimately outstripped by the affectus at the highest point of ecstatic
union.
 7

“The Wisdom of Christians”

“Contemplatives truly feel more than they know.”

Bonaventure, Commentary on John 1.43 (VI, 256)

INTRODUCTION

The entire theology of Thomas Gallus is well-characterized as the

pursuit of a particular form of knowledge of God, which he calls
the “wisdom of Christians” (cf. the Introduction):
But there is another knowledge (cognitio) of God which incomparably
exceeds [intellectual cognition], which the great Dionysius describes
thus in On the Divine Names: “IT IS THE MOST DIVINE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD
WHICH IS THROUGH IGNORANCE, KNOWN ACCORDING TO A UNION ABOVE THE
MIND, WHEN THE MIND, RECEDING FROM OTHER THINGS, AND AFTER DISMISSING
EVEN ITSELF, IS THEN UNITED TO THE SUPER-SPLENDANT RAYS AND IS THERE
ILLUMINATED BY THE INSCRUTABLE DEPTHS OF WISDOM.” As St. James says,
This is the wisdom of Christians which is from above (3:15), descending
from the Father of lights (3:17) . . . . The Apostle spoke of this among
the perfect in 1 Cor. 2:6. And, from the teaching of the Apostle, the
great Dionysius the Areopagite wrote a theoretical treatment of this
super-intellectual wisdom, in so far as it is possible that this be
written, in his little book On the Mystical Theology.1

1
Cmm3-CC Prol.B.107: “Alia autem est Dei cognitio qu istam incomparabiliter
excedit quam sic describit magnus Dionsysius, DN 7: est divinissima Dei cognitio que
est per ignorantiam cognita secundum unitionem super mentem, quando mens ab
aliis omnibus recedens, postea et seipsam dimittens, unita est supersplendentibus
radiis, inde et ibi inscrutabili profundo sapientie illuminata; hec est sapientia chris-
tianorum que desursum est, Iac. 3: descendens a Patre luminum, Iac 1 . . . . Hanc
160 Ascending
For our Victorine, this wisdom, to which Paul referred (“among the
mature”) and which Dionysius explained, is “super-intellectual,” in
contrast to the intellectual forms of cognitio (cf. Chapter 6): “for that
knowledge is experienced through ignorance, by suspending (suspen-
dendo) every operation and rational or intellectual cognition, accord-
ing to a union above the mind by the ecstasy of one’s own mind.”2
That is to say: this is an affective wisdom, an ecstatic, experiential,
“loving and unitive cognition” (affectualis cognitio et unitiva),3 which
descends from the Father of lights (Jas. 3:17)4 into the soul.
In Gallus’ angelic anthropology, this affective wisdom is seraphic,
received at the apex of the soul’s hierarchical structure and, more
precisely, at the zenith of its ascending valence. Gallus’ description of
the ninth and seraphic rank in the Prologue to his Third Commentary
on the Song of Songs merits quotation in full:
The ninth [order] contains the principal sighings (suspira) for God, the
super-intellectual stretchings and in-sendings (extensiones et immis-
siones), burning brilliances and brilliant burnings (furvidos fulgores et
fulgidos fervores). The understanding (intellectus) cannot be drawn to
the excessive sublimities and sublime excesses (sublimes excessus et
excedentes sublimitates) of all these, but only the principal affection
(affectio)5 can be united to God. In this order the most chaste prayers are
offered by which we are present to God.6 This order embraces God and

loquebatur Apostolus inter perfectos, I Cor. 2. Et, ex doctrina Apostoli, magnus

Dionysius Areopagita theoricam huius superintellectualis scribit, sicut possibile est
eam scribi, in libello suo De Mystica theologica.”
2
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.A.113: “[cognitio] enim quam experimur per ignorantiam,
suspendendo omnem operationem et cognitionem rationalem et intellectualem,
secundum unitionem super mentem per excessum mentis proprie.”
3 4
Cmm2-CC 1A.68. Cmm2-CC Prol.65–6.
5
The interpolated Prologue of the Third Commentary reads “affectus” (Cmm3-CC
Int-Prol.B.115).
6
DN 3, 123. In the Introduction to his later commentary on the Song, Gallus
alludes to three different forms of prayer, correlated to increasing degrees of spiritual
chastity: “Chaste prayer asks only that temporal things be obtained and unsuitable
things be removed. More chaste prayer is for spiritual things, as in Ps. 50:11–12: take
away my iniquity, create a pure heart in me, o God. Most chaste is that which no
longer asks for the gifts of the bridegroom, but the bridegroom himself. Such prayers
are in this book the most frequently, such as: let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth,
and: draw me after you, and: he will abide between my breasts, and: my beloved to me,
who shall give you to me for my brother, and return, my beloved, and many others of
this sort” (Cmm3-CC Int-Prol). For Gallus, the soul-bride’s desire, not simply for the
gifts but for the generous Bridegroom himself, comes to full and final fruition here
at the Seraphic rank. On prayer in Gallus, see James Arinello, “Simplified by the
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 161
is surrounded by the embraces of the bridegroom. It does not know
through a mirror, but receives the portion of Mary which will not be
taken away.7 In this order the bridal-bed (lectulus) is arranged for the
bridegroom and bride.8
So, to the ninth and seraphic rank, only the “principal affection”
(principalis affectio) is able to proceed, which alone is able to be
united to God.9 Here, finally, are the “embraces of the Bridegroom”
(sponsi amplexibus) and “Mary’s portion” (Marie portionem), which
“will not be taken away” (que non auferetur, Lk. 10:42).10 Only now
does Gallus separate intellectus and affectus, barring the former from
proceeding further into the final darkness of union with the Word:
“here is the cutting off of knowledge,” after which only the “scintilla
synderesis,” the “spark of the soul,” remains.11 This is Gallus’ unique
and influential teaching regarding the “high point of affection” (apex
affectionis), which alone is capable of the fullest and deepest ecstatic,
loving union.12 This is the climax of the entire ascent: the merging
of the love-sick night of Solomon’s bride and the apophatic darkness
of Dionysius’ Moses.13 At the seraphic rank, the soul-bride is united
to the divine-Spouse in loving embrace, and “cognizes God above
every intellection and cognition of existing things.”14
As noted in the Introduction, the above descriptions suggest a
relatively straightforward distinction between intellect and affect, in
which the latter proceeds to union, while the former is barred at the
door, thus inaugurating the medieval tradition of affective Dionysius
interpretation and reception, for which Gallus is most known. In fact,

Highest Simplicity: Mystical Account According to Thomas Gallus,” unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, Boston College, MA, 2012.
7
Luke 10: 42
8
Cmm3-CC Prol.N. “Nonus continet principalia in Deum suspiria, superintellec-
tuales extensiones et immissiones, fervidos fulgores et fulgidos fervores, ad quorum
omnium sublimes excessus et excedentes sublimitates intelligentia trahi non potest,
sed sola principalis affectio Deo unibilis. In hoc ordine offeruntur orationes castissime
quibus Deo assumus, De div. nom. 3a. Iste ordo Deum amplexatur et sponsi amplex-
ibus amicitur, speculum nescit, Marie portionem percipit que non auferetur, Luc. 10.”
9 10
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.B.115. Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.B.115–16.
11
Cmm3-CC 7D.219.
12
McGinn notes that Gallus was the first to use this term in the mystical sense and
that his role in its subsequent medieval deployment is insufficiently investigated (See
McGinn, “Thomas Gallus,” 88–9, n. 26).
13
Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius, 218.
14
Cmm3-CC 1O.141: “cognoscit eum super omnem existentem intellectum et
cognitionem.”
162 Ascending
however, “Christian wisdom” is more complex and profound than
might be suspected at first glance.
For Gallus, affective, seraphic cognitio Dei is the highest of the
several hierarchical modes by which the human person relates to
God. It presumes a unique power or capacity in the soul for this
relationship that is most intimate, most personal, and ultimately most
“capable” of God, namely, the affectus, whose proper act, so to speak,
is ecstatic love, which unites the soul to God. Fundamentally, the
affectus for Gallus is a capacity for a mode of cognitio Dei in which the
soul is most intimately affected by and thus most profoundly experi-
ences the triune Pleroma. As a hierarchical mode of cognition,
though, it bears a complex relationship with the lower cognitional
modes. As higher, it ecstatically transcends them; as hierarchical it
ecstatically subsumes them into its own proper modality. More pre-
cisely, seraphic cognitio is the mode by which the soul experiences in a
super-intellectual, meta-conceptual mode that which it also under-
stands and conceptualizes in its lower modalities. This modality is the
fulfillment of Christological and pneumatic union.

Affectus
Some preliminary observations regarding the affectus will set the
stage for what follows. As is clear from the passages above, the affectus
is a distinct power of the soul for Gallus: “our mind has another
power [in addition to the theoric intellectus].”15 In his Explanation of
The Mystical Theology, he criticizes “the pagan philosopher” (appar-
ently Aristotle) for assuming that “the highest cognitive power (vis
cognitiva) is the intellect (intellectum),” and for failing to notice that
“there is another [cognitive power] which exceeds the intellect no less
than the intellect exceeds reason (ratio), and reason [exceeds] imagin-
ation, namely, the principal affection (principalis affectio)” or “spark
of synderesis” (scintilla synderesis).”16 Other variations on these terms
appear as well: “the apex of the affection” (apicem affectionis)17 or
“the apex of the principal affection” (apicem affectionis principalis),18
or “the spark of the affectual apex” (scintilla apices affectualis).19

15 16
Expl-DN 7.370.129. Expl-MT 1.4.35–44.
17 18
Expl-DN 2.155.1015. Expl-MT 1.5.49.
19
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.D.120.
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 163
As a discrete power, the affectio or affectus has its own proper act,
namely, to love, along with its proper objects. Gallus correlates it with
“the sweet (dulci) and the pleasant (suavi),” and it “generates a desire
for goodness (bonitas).” It is this power of the soul, moreover, “which
charity properly perfects.”20 In turn, “the gift of wisdom (donum
sapientie) perfects charity.”21
This affectus/affectio, moreover, is: “capable of the divine”;22 the
“principal and pure participation of the divine goodness”;23 the soul’s
“capacity for union”;24 that “by which we are joined (coniungimur) to
God, according to I Cor. 6:17: ‘whoever adheres to God’ etc.”25 At
times, he simply calls it “union.”26
Of upmost significance at present, though, is that for Gallus the
affectus is a cognitive power distinct from the intellectus. He believes
he has a Dionysian warrant in Divine Names 7 for his claim:
But note which power of the soul it is by which the super-intellectual
wisdom is perceived (percipiatur) from these words in Divine Names 7:
IT IS NECESSARY TO SEE THAT OUR MIND HAS INDEED A POWER FOR UNDERSTAND-
ING THROUGH WHICH IT SEES (INSPICIT) INTELLIGIBLE THINGS (INTELLIGIBILIA),
BUT [ALSO A POWER FOR] UNION EXCEEDING THE NATURE OF THE MIND THROUGH
WHICH IT IS JOINED TO THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE ABOVE ITSELF. ACCORDING TO
THIS MODE, IT IS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND (intelligere), that is, to cognize
(cognoscere) DIVINE THINGS.27
For our Victorine, it is patent that Dionysius here refers to a power
of the soul distinct from the intellectual power (which sees intelli-
gible things). This is the affectus or “principal affection” (affectio), a
“cognitive power” or “faculty” (vis cognitiva) of the soul, by which
superintellectual wisdom is perceived and by which the soul is
genuinely able to cognize divine realities, as his gloss of intelligere

20 21
Expl-DN 7.371.165. Expl-DN 2.155.1036.
22 23
Expl-MT 1.5.49. Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.D.120.
24
Expl-MT 1.4.39: “scintilla sinderesis que sola unibilis est spiritui diuino.”
25 26
Expl-DN 2.126.229. Expl-DN 7.370.135.
27
Expl-DN 2.126.208–17: “Secundum uero quam uim anime ista superintellectua-
lis sapientia percipiatur, collige ex ipsius uerbis, eodem capitulo 7b: ‘Oportet autem
uidere mentem nostram habere quidem uirtutem ad intelligendum per quam intelli-
gibilia inspicit, unitionem uero excedentem mentis naturam per quam coniungitur ad
ea que sunt supra ipsam. Secundum hanc ergo oportet diuina intelligere,’ id est
cognoscere.” Here is another instance where Gallus gives an affective interpretation
to the Areopagite, who in fact says nothing about love or affection in this passage.
164 Ascending
as cognoscere suggests. Not only Dionysius,28 though, but Scripture
too, for Gallus, warrants this claim about love: Eccles. 1:14: The love
of God is honorable wisdom; Eccl. 2:10: You that fear the Lord, love
him, and your hearts shall be enlightened; John 14:21: he that loves
me shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest
myself to him; Eph. 3:19: To know the knowledge-surpassing love of
Christ; Col. 3:14: above all things have charity, which is the bond of
perfection.29 For “the word ‘love’ designates him who is truly
known by love alone, according to which Jesus says in John
14:21: And he who loves me, shall be loved of my Father: and
I will love him, and will manifest myself to him and 1 John 4:20:
If anyone says he knows God and does not love, he is a liar.”30 On
the basis of all this, lastly, like the Apostle Paul, Gallus grants a
perduring preeminence to love above all: “For union does not
know a mirror (nescit speculum), and therefore charity never ceases
(1 Cor. 13:8) and the portion of Mary will not be taken away from
her (Luke 10:42) . . . ”31

THE ECSTATIC POWER OF LOVE

Following Dionysius, love is by definition ecstasy-causing, both in

God (cf. Chapters 1 and 2) and, by extension, in human persons,
which Gallus compares (following Hugh of St. Victor) to a kind of
“boiling over” of the soul Godward: “But that [affective] wisdom is
obtained by a great, passionate boiling over of love (estu dilectionis)

28
Note the possible Dionysian warrant for this as well: CH 2.4 (Parker, 151): “But
when we attribute ‘lust’ to spiritual beings . . . we must think that it is a Divine love of
the immaterial, above expression and thought (emphasis added) and the inflexible and
determined longing for the supernally pure and passionless contemplation, and for
the really perpetual and intelligible fellowship in that pure and most exalted splen-
dour, and in the abiding and beautifying comeliness. And ‘incontinence’ we may take
for the persistent and inflexible, which nothing can repulse, on account of the pure
and changeless love for the Divine beauty, and the whole tendency towards the really
desired.”
29
See Expl-DN 2.126.218–127.226.
30
Cmm2-CC 3A.85: “Nomine dilectionis designat eum qui sola dilectione veraciter
cognoscitur, iuxta illud: qui diligit me, usque illud: manifestabo ei me ipsum, Io. 14, et 1
Io.: si quis dicit se nosse Deum et non diligit, mendax est.”
31
Expl-DN 2.156.1039.
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 165
into God and a strong extension (forti extensione) of the soul into the
eternal spectacula of wisdom.”32 Glossing the Dionysian claim that
love is an ECSTASY-CAUSING POWER, Gallus says: “that is, by the oper-
ation of the excess of the mind, just as the abundant boiling fervor of a
pot pushes water upward, contrary to and above, as it were, the nature
of water.”33 Gallus also follows Dionysius in seeing both the mysteri-
ous Hierotheus and the apostle Paul as paradigmatic, ecstatic lovers.
With respect to the former, Gallus explains Dionysius’ characteriza-
tion, UNDERGOING ECSTASY OUTSIDE OF HIMSELF, as by “excessus mentis,
wholly beyond and above himself through a union exceeding the
natural constitution of the mind.”34 Regarding the latter, Dionysius
had said: FOR THIS REASON ALSO THAT THE GREAT PAUL, MADE TO BE A
CONTAINER OF DIVINE LOVE AND PARTICIPATING IN ITS ECSTASY-CAUSING
POWER . . . Gallus explains that “[Paul] said this AS A TRUE LOVER,”
35

for “true amor is one that super-intellectually extends (tendit) to that

sole highest and truly loveable and to [that which is] desirable
immediately and for-its-own-sake,” and “those who are united to
God by this amor are true lovers.”36 He then elaborates at length:
On account of the power of that ecstasy-inducing amor, PAUL the apostle,
WAS MADE GREAT, that is, greatly exalted in excess of mind . . . [and]
adhered to God singularly and sublimely through ecstatic love, united
according to what he himself said in 2 Cor. 6:17: Whoever adheres to God
is one spirit; . . . AND HE was made great BY POWER, that is, by the strong
and abundant fervor (habundanti fervore) of that very divine amor.37

32
Expl-MT 1.6.70.
33
Expl-DN 4 239.1488. See Cmm3-CC 1F.128: “minds (mentes), which desire to
love (diligere) God and to be united (uniri) to God, are raised up on high (sursumer-
igantur) vertically and perpendicularly (recte et perpendiculariter),” such that the
“love (dilectio) of God is a bond of fulfillment (perfectionis) (Col. 3:14), since it
perfects the soul by uniting it to the fullness (uniendo plenitudini perficit).”
34
Expl-DN 2.174.297–175.312.
35
Expl-MT 1.6.77: “Propter quod et Paulus magnus, in continentia factus diuini
amoris et uirtute ipsius extasim faciente participans.”
36
Expl-DN 4.240.1517: “Hoc autem dicit SICUT VERUS AMATOR. Verus amor est
qui in solum summe et uere diligibile et desiderabile immediate et propter ipsum
solum superintellectualiter tendit . . . . Vnde qui hoc amore Deo uniuntur, ueri
amatores sunt.”
37
Expl-DN 4 239.1488–240.1497: “PROPTER QUOD etc., id est propter uirtutem istius
amoris extasim facientis, PAULUS apostolus FACTUS MAGNUS, id est magnifice exaltatus in
mentis excessu, . . . Deo per amorem extaticum sublimiter et singulariter inhesit uni-
tus, iuxta quod ipse dicit I Cor. 6f: Qui adheret Deo unus spiritus est . . . ; ET mag-
nus factus VIRTUTE, id est forti et habundanti feruore, IPSIUS diuini amoris.”
166 Ascending
In these descriptions, Gallus brings the preeminence of love to
bear on his interpretation of Dionysian ecstasy, as exemplified in
Hierotheus and Paul. For, “through this love (emphasis added), the
perfect go beyond themselves (perfecti excedunt) and are said to be
taken up in excess of mind (rapi in excessum mentis).”38

AFFECTIVE SUSPENSION AND

MORTIFICATION OF THE INTELLECT

The ecstatic nature of love causes affective, seraphic cognitio Dei to

transcend its lower, intellective, cherubic counterpart:
ECSTASY, etc., as if he said: Even though all the righteous love (diligant)
God, there is yet a spiritual and preeminent amor of God in spiritual
and perfect ones, which by its excellence exceeds reason and under-
standing (rationem et intelligentiam excedit): Eph. 3:19: To know the
knowledge-surpassing love of Christ.39 Hence, this love is called ecstatic
(extaticus) or ecstasy-inducing (extasim faciens), since it elevates the
apex of the affection above all intellectual cognition (apicem affectionis
super omnem intellectualem cognitionem).40
As noted in Chapter 6, the transition from the cherubic to the ser-
aphic rank is a barrier that the intellectus, properly speaking, cannot
breach: it “excludes every intellectual operation” (omnem excludit
intellectualem opertionem).41 That is, it “suspends the activity of the
senses, of imagination, of reason, of intellect, both practical and
theoretical, and excludes every understanding (intellectum) and
every intelligible (intelligibile), and transcends being and one (ens et
unum).”42 The “eye-ishness” (oculositas) of the cherubic rank is

38
Expl-DN 4.238.1458. Here, Gallus finds biblical warrant in the following texts:
2 Cor. 5:13: For whether we be transported in mind, it is to God (sive mente excedimus
Deo); Ps. 30:23: But I said in the excess of my mind (in excess mentis), and Ps. 115:2:
I said in my excess (in excessu meo): Every man is a liar; Acts 22:17: And it came to
pass, when I was come again to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, that I was in a
trance (fieri me in stupore mentis).
39
The verse continues: that you may be filled with the all-plenitude of God (scire
etiam supereminentem scientiae caritatem Christi ut impleamini in omnem plenitudi-
nem Dei.)
40 41 42
Expl-DN 4.238.1458. Expl-DN 7.371.156. Expl-MT 1.5.45–8.
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 167
blinded in the amorous darkness of seraphic union, where the soul
lacks “mental eyes” (oculos mentes), namely, “reason and intellect”
(carentes ratione et intellectu).43 For “in the Seraphim there is no
understanding (intelligentia), but [only] growing desire” and so one
must be like Daniel, “a man of desires (Dan 10:11; a verse that will be
important for Bonaventure).”44 Again: “that super-essential and
super-intellectual goodness . . . draws [the affection] into itself more
deeply than the intelligence is able to be led (intelligentia induci non
valet). So it is necessary from that point for intellectual activities to be,
as it were, cut short (resecari) as they are not capable of progressing
further.”45
This ecstatic transcending of the intellect, moreover, is a kind of
death:46 The soul is called forth “to ecstasy, as if to spiritual death.”47
Citing both the Song of Songs, love is as strong as death (8:6), and the
Ecclesiastical Hierarchy (2q): “DEATH IS NOT THE WASTING AWAY OF
SUBSTANCE, BUT THE SEPARATION (discretio) OF WHAT HAD BEEN UNITED,”
Gallus notes: “ecstatic love (extatica dilectio) not only separates the
soul from carnal concupiscence, but also [separates] the high point of
the affection (affectionis apicem) from the theoric intellect (intellectu
theorico).48 The bride, says Gallus, “languishes with love . . . until she
is dead . . . , until she is separated from everything and from herself in
order to be united more tightly to the bridegroom, as it says later: love
is as strong as death (S. of S. 8:7)”49 For “languor leads all the way to

43
Cmm2-CC 1A.68: “ . . . non habentes oculos mentes, id est cecatos, carentes
ratione et intellectu . . . ”
44
Cmm2-CC 3A.85: “ . . . qui proprie est seraphim; ibi enim non est intelligentia,
sed desiderium crescens . . . ut Dan. 10 . . . vir desideriorum . . . ”
45
Expl-DN 1.94.1086.
46
The transition from Cherubim to Seraphim is a kind of “second ecstasy,”
another “going beyond” or act of transcending, like the move from the enstatic to
the ecstatic dimensions of the soul, this time from the correlated and integrated
activities of the attracted intellect and attracted affect to the strictly affective experi-
ence of seraphic love.
47
Cmm2-CC 1C.72: “ . . . ad excessum, quasi ad mortem spiritualem . . . ”
48
Expl-DN 4.239.1488.
49
Cmm2-CC 2B.79: “ . . . amore igitur languet sponsa que ab hac intentione
non cessat donec omnibus et sibi moriatur et ab omnibus et a seipsa separetur, ut
sponso constrictius uniatur, infra, 8: fortis ut mors dilectio . . . ” Cf. Cmm2-CC 1B.71:
“In death two things are noted: weakness, and so Dan. 10:16 says: O Lord, at the sight
of you my joints are loosened, and no strength has remained in me, and separation:
“WHEN THE MIND RECEDING FROM OTHER THINGS, AND AFTER DISMISSING EVEN ITSELF (DN 7).”
(“In morte duo notantur: defectus, unde Dan. 10: Domine in visione . . . , et separatio,
De div. nom. 7: quando mens, etc . . . ”)
168 Ascending
death . . . and signifies the full separation of the principle affection
through the excessum mentis and of all things and union to God.”50
The bride “sleeps [i.e. dies] when she undergoes actual and affective
ecstasy.”51
This is the oft-noted place where Gallus’ supposed anti-
intellectualism seems to appear. It is the place of the Dionysian
“unknowing,” of knowing “through ignorance,” of “not knowing”
the “unknowable” God. This suspension, separation, and mortifica-
tion of intellectual activity, even in its cherubic and simplified form,
is a real and genuine moment of noetic ascesis. Gallus respects, in
one sense, the Neoplatonic principle that being and knowing are
coextensive. Since God transcends being, God is ultimately unreach-
able by intellectual knowing or cognition.52 At one point, Gallus
puts this in terms of both extension and intension: “by no cognition,
human or angelic, is God contained or penetrated.”53 It is worth
noting, however, that Gallus nowhere repudiates intellectual activity
at the lower ranks or registers of the soul. What he calls intellectual
cognition has a genuine and significant place, as noted above; but
it does reach a limit—it can neither comprehend nor plumb the
divine depths.

50
Cmm3-CC 5H.199
51
Cmm2-CC 3A.85: “Dormit quando actualem et affectualem extasim patitur . . . ”
52
Expl-DN 1.101.1316–102.1328: “He proves that the divine loftiness (celsitudo)
exceeds all human and angelic cognition thus: all cognitions concern being or
beings (ente vel entibus). Therefore, whatever is causally above every being (ens) is
surpassingly separated from all cognition, according to Job 36:26: ‘Behold, God is
great, exceeding our knowledge’; Job 28:21: ‘It is hid from the eyes of all living, and
the fowls of the air know it not, that is, celestial souls.’ Nevertheless both angelic and
human souls that have received the first stole (primam stolam) contemplate God in
his proper species and comprehend [God] face to face, but only omnipotent
wisdom penetrates the infinity of the divine depths and heights, just as we see
the corporeal sun in its proper species, but are not sufficient to penetrate [it],
though the vision of that [corporeal sun] is not worthy to be compared to that
[vision of God].”
53
Expl-DN 1.102.1333–7: “IF, rather since, ALL COGNITIONS ARE OF EXIST-
ING THINGS, that is, concerning those things which fall under [the category] of
being (ente), THEY HAVE THEIR END, that is, they are terminated or terminatable
and are contained under [the category] of being (sub ente), God, WHO IS ABOVE
EVERY SUBSTANCE, consequently, IS ALSO SEGREGATED FROM ALL COG-
NITION, such that by no cognition, human or angelic, is God contained or
penetrated.”
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 169

I live, not I, but Christ the Bridegroom—

through the Holy Spirit
Significantly, though, this moment of mystical death via ecstatic
love is also the moment of union with Christ the Bridegroom, who
now “appears,”54 and “embraces”55 the soul-bride,56 who in turn
receives Him in a nuptial embrace, between her breasts,57 like a
litter.58 This union is of course an affective union, a union of loves.
The Bridegroom is summoned forth, as it were, by the soul-bride’s
ardor: “That most chaste love [of the bride] is of such strength that it

54
Cmm2-CC 3B.86: “But, sometimes the bridegroom himself appears, as in John
20:15, where the gardener appears to Mary, who signifies the contemplative soul.”
(Quandoque vero ipse sponsus per se ingerit seipsum, ut Io. 20 de hortolano apparente
Marie, scilicet anime contemplative.)
55
Cmm2-CC 1C.71: “Grasped by the embraces of the bridegroom and entering the
super-resplendent darkness . . . ” (Adstricta sponsi amplexibus et ingrediens super-
splendentem caliginem . . . ). Cmm2-CC 3G.91: “in the super-intellectual light of the
Seraphim, where pure and special joy is enjoyed in the inmost place of the heart in the
embraces of the Bridegroom, forever inseparable” ( . . . id est superintellectuali lumine
seraphim, ubi pura et precipua fruitur intima cordis letitia in sponsi amplexibus in
futuro inseparabilis). Cmm2-CC 2E.82: “She is embraced most chastely by the bride-
groom and pours out to him most chaste prayers, and more than all the other powers
of the mind, she imitates angelic love” (Ista castissime sponsum amplexatur et fundit ei
castissimas orationes, DN 3, et pre cunctis mentis viribus amorem angelicum imitatur,
de quo AH. 2).
56
Cmm2-CC 2D.80: “BEHOLD, HE STANDS BEHIND OUR WALL. The wall is the division
which the first sin established between our mind and the divine face, excluding us
from clear and pure contemplation of it. As 1 Cor. 14:12 states: We see now through a
mirror in a dark manner, that is, enigmatically and obscurely. It is as if the beloved
stands behind this wall when, in so far as this division permits, he approaches us
courteously (dignanter), because to contemplative minds, he grants certain openings,
bearers of his internal light, mentally dispensed through the middle of that obscure
wall.” (EN IPSE STAT POST PARIETEM NOSTRUM. Paries est divisio quam primum peccatum
statuit inter mentem nostram et faciem divnam, excludens nos a clara et pura eius
contemplatione, Isa. 59; Exod. 33; 1 Cor. 14: per speculum; Num. 24: videbo eum sed
non proprie; Iob 36: intuetur procul, scilicet enigmatice et obscure. Post istum parietem
quasi stat dilectu quando, prout permittit divisio ista, ad nos dignanter accedit, quia
mentibus contemplativis, quasi per medium istius parietis obscuri . . . ).
57
Cmm2-CC 1F.75: “And therefore, he shall abide between my breasts, that is, as it
were united breast-to-breast, that is, with the word to the Word, myself to himself, he
will rest more lingeringly with me as much as the stumbling blocks of separation are
more effectively mortified.” ( . . . et ideo INTER UBERA MEA COMMORABITUR, id est quasi
pectore ad pectus coniunctus, id est verbo ad verbum, se ad me, tanto morosius mecum
requiescat quanto separationis offendicula efficacius mortificantur).
58
Cmm2-CC 3E.90: “HE MADE A LITTER, as if to say: after the bride diligently trains
herself in industry by cooperating with the bridegroom.” ( . . . FERCULUM FECIT quasi
dicerent: postquam sponsa diligenter se exercuit in industria, cooperante sponso . . . ).
170 Ascending
calls forth God to ecstatic love.”59 Yet more profound is the role of
divine love for the soul. Commenting on the bride’s words, My
beloved is a bundle of Myrrh to me, Gallus says: “that is, a certain
abundance of mortifications, in order that by his most fervent love for
me . . . I might die, so that also I live, now not I (Gal. 2:20), NOT THE LIFE
60
OF MY LOVING BUT OF BEING LOVED (DN 4).” This marks a crucial
“moment” in Gallus’ appropriation of Dionysius, namely, his synthe-
sis of Dionysius with the Song of Songs, precisely at this point of
ecstatic, mystical union. In DN 4, Dionysius had already associated
ecstatic union with the Apostle Paul’s claim in Gal. 2:20: I live, yet not
I, but Christ lives in me, but Gallus goes further, consistently assimi-
lating Dionysius’ ecstatic Paul with Solomon’s ecstatic bride:
Therefore the bride is said to languish in love, because she so burningly
and fixedly rises up into the embrace of the bridegroom that she in no
way ceases in this intension until she is united to the Bridegroom by
exceeding herself and all things. On the Divine Names 4: ‘THE GREAT
PAUL, WHEN POSSESSED BY DIVINE LOVE AND PARTICIPATING IN ITS ECSTASY-
CAUSING POWER, WITH A DIVINE MOUTH: I live, he says, yet not I but Christ
lives in me (Gal. 2:20) . . . True languor is the exercise of ecstatic love to
the divine rays persevering all the way up to this death.61
In his mature explanation of the Mystical Theology, Gallus forges the
same link: “Dionysius spoke of this love (dilectionis) in On the Divine
Names 4: “THE GREAT PAUL, WHEN POSSESSED BY DIVINE LOVE AND PARTICI-
PATING IN ITS ECSTASY-CAUSING POWER, WITH A DIVINE MOUTH SAID: I live,
yet not I but Christ lives in me (Gal. 2:20); Song of Songs 8: [love] is as
strong as death, separating and alienating.”62 But a most illuminating

59
Cmm2-CC 2E.82: “Iste castissimus amor tante virtutis est quod Deum provocat
ad amorem extaticum . . . ”
60
Cmm2-CC 1F.75: “ . . . id est quedam copia mortificationum, adeo ut ferventis-
simo amore suo me ipsam mihi et omnibus morticer ut et vivam ego, iam non ego, non
vita mei amantis sed amati, De div. nom. 4 . . . ”
61
Cmm3-CC 5G.199: “Ait ergo sponsa se languere ex amore, quia tam ferventer et
fixe in sponsi insurgit amplexus, ut abe hac intentione nullatenus cesset donec per
excessum sui et omnium sponso unitatur. De div. nom. 4: PAULUS MAGNUS IN CON-
TINENTIA FACTUS DIVINI AMORIS ET VIRTUTE IPSIUS EXTASIM FACIENTE PARTICIPANS, DIVINO ORE:
vivo ego, dicit, iam non ego vivit autem in me, Christus, Gal. 2. Vel mors est separatio a
speculo ad speciem, Iob 3: separantur. Languor vero est exercitatio extactici amoris ad
divinum radium usque ad hanc mortem perseverans.”
62
Expl-MT 1.6.74–81: “De ista dilectione Dionysius in libro De diuinis nominibus,
cap. 4p: ‘EST AUTEM EXTASIM FACIENS DIUINUS AMOR, NON DIMITTENS SUI IPSORUM ESSE
AMATORES, SED AMANDORUM’; et paulo post: ‘PROPTER QUOD ET PAULUS MAGNUS, IN
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 171
instance comes from his mature comment on this very passage from
Divine Names 4:
PAUL SAID (Gal. 2:20) WITH A DIVINE MOUTH, that is, by the movement of
the divine Spirit (Matt. 10:20: ‘for it is not you etc.’): I live, yet not I etc.,
that is, with the natural life, as it were, absorbed and its own office
suspended through ecstatic union (per unitionem excessivam) with the
immensity of eternity, I am directed, moved, taught, ruled by the super-
substantial life to which I am united, by which I am filled up (repleor).
And this: but Christ lives in me, that is, just as the sober soul naturally
governs me and disposes [me] to every exterior and interior act, so the
eternal power of Christ, to which I have been united by grace, vivifies
and disposes me toward all things.63
Here, Gallus adopts and adapts the Dionysian version of Paul’s
mystical ecstasy in the direction of nuptial union, resulting in a new
and distinct mode of hierarchical existence and operation: “in
Christ”—I live, not I, but Christ lives . . . .64 Where Dionysius wrote
of Paul that HE WAS NOT LIVING THE LIFE OF HIMSELF, BUT THE LIFE OF THE
BELOVED, Gallus adds: “that is, of Christ.”65 As bride, the soul is now
“animated” by Christ, in the same way that she had formerly existed
through her natural soul; she is made alive—in a sense resurrected—
and capable of new a relationship, of new objects. Above, Gallus cited
Eph. 3:19—To know the knowledge-surpassing love of Christ—in his
description of affective ecstasy, further confirming the intimate link
between affective ecstasy and bridal union with Christ. Thus, the
ecstatic mode of existence in Christ, begun in the Thrones and
intensified in the Cherubim (as noted in Chapters 5 and 6), here
reaches its seraphic fullness.

CONTINENTIA FACTUS DIUINI AMORIS ET UIRTUTE IPSIUS EXTASIMFACIENTE PARTICIPANS, DIUINO

ORE: (Gal. 2e) Viuo ego, dicit, non iam ego, uiuit autem in me Christus etc.’; Cant. 8d:
fortis est ut mors, separans et alienans.”
63
Expl-DN 4.240.1506–14: “DICIT (Gal. 2g) DIVINO ORE, id est ex motu diuini
spiritus (Matt. 10d: non enim uos estis etc.): VIVO EGO, IAM NON EGO etc., id est
uita naturali per unitionem excessiuam ad eternitatis immensitatem quasi absorta et
suo officio suspensa,dirigor, moueor, doceor, regor uita supersubstantiali cui unior,
qua repleor.”
64
Gallus’ distinctive move is to wed the Dionysian metaphysics of cosmic eros with
the interpersonal love of the Song of Songs. This merging of the Song’s spousal imagery
with the Dionysian ascent allows the Victorine to introduce a Christological dimension
precisely where it seems absent in the Mystical Theology (MT 1.3)—at the very highest
point of the ascent, where the soul is united to God.
65
Expl-DN 4.239.1488.
172 Ascending
At the same time, Gallus does not neglect the role of the Holy Spirit
in this new Christological mode of affective existence.66 In the same
comment on DN 4, Gallus observes that “those who exceed in mind
are said to suffer ecstasy because they are acted upon rather than
acting,” citing a litany of scriptural texts as proof, including Rom.
8:14: For whoever is led by the Spirit etc. and Matt. 10:20: For it is not
you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaks in you.”67 This
new mode of ecstatic existence is thus “life in the Spirit,” because
“it unites the apex of the principal affection (apicem affectionis
principalis), capable of the divine, with the divine Spirit itself (ipsi
diuino spiritui), according to 1 Cor. 6: He who adheres to God is one
spirit.”68 It is this union with the Holy Spirit that now grants
affective access to the otherwise unfathomable divine depths:
“union, which does not know in a mirror, is united to the Spirit
(unitur Spiritui) ‘who searches the deep things of God’ (1 Cor. 2:10)
[and] it is thrust (immittitur) into that wholly desirable (S. of S. 5:16:
‘he is all desirable: such is my beloved’) (totus desiderabilis talis est
dilectus meus), but wholly not intelligible (totum desiderabile et
totum non intelligibilem).”69
Again, Gallus goes out of his way to link this to the ecstasy of
the Solomonic bride: “This is the union (coniunctio) often longed
for (suspirita) and sometimes obtained in the Song of Songs. For they
obtain this, who go beyond (excedunt) in contemplation of mind,
rather, [who go beyond] the mind (mentem excedunt), as Ps. 30: But
I said in the excess of my mind, and Ps. 115:2: I said in my excess
[and] 2 Cor. 5:13: For whether we be transported in mind (mente
excedimus), etc.”70 Elsewhere, he brings the Christological and pneu-
matic together with a portentous gesture at what kind of experience
this mode of existence will enable:
for [Christ] is only cognized by the investigation of those who are
spiritual (spirituali examinatione), concerning which I Cor. 2:14

66
Gallus’ integration of the roles of Christ and the Spirit in mystical union would
seem to address the concern recently raised by Bernard Blankenhorn, OP. Cf.
Blankenhorn, Mystery of Union, 74: “By implication Gallus’s notion of union occur-
ring without the intellect’s proper act or in utter noetic passivity may leave behind the
Son’s mission and center exclusively on the Spirit’s mission.
67 68
Expl-DN 4.241.1524f. Expl-MT 1.5.45.
69 70
Expl-DN 1.94.1081–4. Expl-MT 1.5.51–5.
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 173
[speaks], namely, when our spirit, united with the divine Spirit, senses
(sentit) those things which are of God. Hence Rom. 8:5: but they that
are according to the Spirit sense (sentiunt) the things that are of the
Spirit; I Cor. 2:10: but we have the mind of Christ, etc.; John 16: When
the Spirit of truth comes, he will teach you [6] all truth, and John 14:17:
The Spirit of truth which the world cannot receive: but you will know
(cognoscetis) him because he will be in you.71
United to Christ in the Spirit, the soul-bride has now “the mind of
Christ” (sensus Christi), by which she can now perceive divine things.
Elsewhere Gallus observes that “the Bridegroom himself, giver of the
Spirit and spiritual gifts (dator Spiritus et spiritualium charismatum),
pours all the theoriae (omnes theorias) into our hierarchy.”72 Affect-
ive, seraphic union with the Bridegroom enables a pneumatically
actualized encounter with the divine theoriae, in which the Spirit
teaches the bride.

DIVINE SELF-REVELATION IN THE

SERAPH: THEORIAE

The foregoing establishes the “condition for the possibility” of

seraphic, affective cognitio Dei. This new mode of existence enables
the soul to receive a new mode of divine disclosure, which Gallus
often expresses in the poetry of the Song: “With the aforementioned
preparation of mortification, the same BELOVED produces a cluster of
cypress for me. For as a cluster of cypress yields the strongest, sweetest,
and greatly alienating (alienatum) wine, so in this reclining He
inflows the most boiling hot and sweetest love into me, alienating
me from all other things.”73 What this flowing wine is, Gallus

71
Expl-MT 1.5.62–6.69: “quoniam non cognoscitur nisi spirituali examinatione, de
qua I Cor. 2g, quando scilicet spiritus noster spiritui diuino unitus sentit que sunt eius.
Vnde Rom. 8a: qui secundum spiritum sunt, que sunt spiritus sentiunt; I Cor. 2e:
Spiritus omnia scrutatur etc., et g: nos autem sensum Christi habemus etc.; Ioh. 16c:
Cum uenerit Spiritus ille ueritatis, docebit uos omnem ueritatem, et 14f: Spiritum
ueritatis quem mundus non potest accipere: uos autem cognoscetis eum quia apud uos
erit etc.”
72
Cmm3-CC 5H.201–2.
73
Cmm2-CC 1G.75: “Premissa mortificationis preparatione. DILECTUS efficitur mihi
botrus cypri. Sicut enim botrus cypri effundit fortissimum et dulcissimum vinum et
174 Ascending
explains: “lest that wine be thought [to be] her own possession,
therefore she adds: from the vineyards of Engaddi.” These “vineyards
are the heavenly theoriae, which by pleasant sweetness and by every
desirable thing of the highest kind, effectively withdraw souls united
to the spouse away from everything else, and alienate [them], and
draw [those souls] into themselves, and sprinkle [them] with the
sweetest, super-intellectual fragrances, such that they are rightly
described as by wine.”74 Or again, speaking of the beams of the
house, Gallus allegorizes: “The house: in my Father’s house there are
many mansions (John 14:2), for there are as many theoriae as there
are houses, like eternity and immensity, power, wisdom, goodness,
and any other invisible things of God, and in each of these the
Bridegroom reclines with the bride when she pleasantly abides united
to him in theoriae of this kind.”75
Here with the seraph, as above in relation to the cherubic cognitio
Dei, Gallus has recourse to his original teaching on what he calls the
divine theoriae. As noted earlier, though the term theoria is a crucial
part of the Christian mystical vocabulary nearly from the beginning,76
and is often a synonym for contemplation itself, Gallus gives the term
an apparently distinct meaning, unique in the Christian mystical
tradition.77 These divine “ideas” or “exemplars,” which exist eternally
in the divine Word (cf. Chapters 2 and 5), flow “down” into the seraphic

maxime alienatum, sic ipse in hob accubitu ferventissimum et dulcissimum in me ab

omnibus aliis maxime alienantem influit amorem.”
74
Cmm2-CC 1G.76: “ . . . et sunt vinee iste superne theorie que suavi dulcedine et
omnimoda specie summe desiderabili mentes sponso unitas efficaciter a cunctis abstrahunt,
et alientant, et in se trahunt, et suavissime superintellectualibus fragrantiis respergunt,
ut merito tam balsamo quam vino designentur.”
75
Cmm2-CC 1G.76: “Domus; sunt multe mansiones in domo Patris mei; quot enim
theorie, tot domus, sicut eternitas et immensitas, potentia, sapientia, bonitas et
quelibet alia Dei invisibilia, in quibus singulis sponsus cum sponsa cubat, quando ei
unita in huiusmodi theoriis iocunde commoratur.”
76
On theoria in its classical Greek context, see A. Wilson Nightingale, Spectacles of
Truth in Classical Greek Philosophy: Theoria in its Cultural Context (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2004).
77
Gallus’ notion of theoriae might be derived from certain Dionysian descriptions
of divine revelation, e.g. CH 7.1 (Parker, 24–5): “Naturally, then, the first (order) of the
Heavenly Hierarchies is ministered by the most exalted Beings, holding, as it does, a
rank which is higher than all, from the fact, that it is established immediately around
God, and that the first-wrought Divine manifestations and perfections pass earlier to it
[25], as being nearest” (emphasis added). And here: CH 7.4 (Parker, 29–30): “viewing
purely many and blessed contemplations, and illuminated with simple [30] and
immediate splendours, and filled with Divine nourishment,—many indeed by the
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 175
mind as so many manifestations of the divine nature.78 While these are
also the objects of the lower forms of intellectual cognitio Dei, they also
strikingly figure into Gallus’ account of affective cognitio as well.
In this respect, Gallus seems to distinguish between “cherubic
theoriae” on the one hand, and more profound, more intimate ser-
aphic theoriae, on the other, as here, where the latter flow into the
soul-bride from the bosom of her divine Spouse:
Affectual and unitive knowledge is understood by the word breasts
(uberum), flowing down (exuberans) from the fountain itself and, as it
were, from the chest of wisdom . . . Regarding the difference between
these types of knowledge (cognitionum), Ps. 103:13 says: watering the
mountains from your high places, the earth shall be filled with the fruit of
your work. For a mountain is from the earth, and exceeds the earth, and
signifies the mind which, exceeding its own nature, depends on the
divine theoriae . . . . God waters this from the higher theoriae of eternal
wisdom, which, of course, do not ascend into the heart of man (as does
that intellectual knowledge that begins from the senses), but descends
from the Father of lights (Jas. 1:17) unto the human heart.79

first-given profusion, but one by the unvariegated and unifying oneness of the
supremely Divine banquet . . . ”
78
Expl-DN 1.101.1297–1315: “AND IT IS ESTABLISHED stably excelling in incommu-
nicable eternity . . . ABOVE ALL CELESTIAL MINDS etc.: . . . For such is the excellence of his
majesty and of all his invisibilia, namely, essence, power, wisdom, goodness, beauty,
sweetness, etc., [that they are] above the essence and cognition of even the celestial
souls. For even if omnipotent wisdom had created the best and most wise intelligences
that it was able to create, as numerous as the fish of the sea and the birds of the air,
nevertheless the cognition of all those intelligences would fall incomparably more
short of the full comprehension of whichever one of those [invisibilia] than the
smallest particle or most minute speck of dust, in relation to and equality with the
whole sensible world, in as much as all the invisibilia of God are of the highest unity
and of his omnipotent wisdom it is not possible to cognize or investigate anything
more profound, higher or greater.”
79
Cmm2-CC 1A.68–9: “Nomine uberum est affectualis cognitio et unitiva, exuber-
ans de ipso fonte et quasi de pectore sapientie, de qua DN: EST RURSUM DIVINISSIMA DEI
COGNITIO PER IGNORANTIAM COGNITA SECUNDUM UNITIONEM SUPER MENTEM, etc. De differ-
entia istarum cognitionum, Ps. 103: rigans montes de superioribus tuis, de fructu
operum tuorum satiabitur terra. Mons enim terra est et terram excedit et significat
mentem que, naturam propriam excedens, theoriis divinis innititur, iuxta illud DN., id
est: MENS AB OMNIBUS RECEDENS ET TANDEM SEIPSAM DIMITTENS UNITUR SUPERSPLENDENTIBUS
RADIIS; MT 1: excessu enim sui ipsius, etc.; 2 Cor. 5: sive mente excedimus Deo; Thren. 3:
levavit se, etc. Istam rigat Deus de superioribus theoriis eterne sapientie, scilicet que
non ascendit in cor hominis, ut intellectualis que incipit a sensu, sed descendit a Patre
luminum in cor hominis, Iac. 1: MT 1: SUPERPULCHRIS CLARITATIBUS SUPERINSPLENDENTEM
non habentes oculos mentes, id est cecatos, carentes ratione et intellectu, ut sol radios
iacit super montes et oculos excecat, Eccli. 43.” The same distinction is here, in more
176 Ascending
Here, the “higher theoriae” flow down into the seraphic affectus
from the Bridegroom. The same distinction seems present when
Gallus allegorizes the difference between windows and lattices in
the Song verse: Gazing at me through the windows, looking through
the lattices (2:9). By windows, Gallus understands “the manifest-
ations (apparitiones) of the divine lights, cognizable by my many
mortal minds,” while lattices “indicate more secretly the more
subtle things, which are [cognizable] by the few, wiser ones,
through profound, incessant, and unitive contemplations, and not
by those which are able to be brought into the common sense
(communem sensum), but they are known (noscunt) only by those
who experience (experiuntur) them.”80 Similarly, the Song verse,
smelling sweet of the best ointments (1:3), prompts Gallus to note:
“The best ointments are the super-intellectual theoriae which sooth
the minds united to them and they restore and are rich in abun-
dance for all with a kind of sweetness, beauty, clarity, suavity, and
every kind of desirable outpouring, as from the breast of the
Word.”81 Consistently, then, Gallus describes the bride’s affective,
seraphic encounter with the Groom as mediated by these theoriae.
United in love with the Groom, the soul-bride now receives the in-

poetic language: Cmm2-CC 2D.80: “Looking, that is, radiating from his high place
unto me, THROUGH THE WINDOWS, that is, the more universal (communiores), therefore
the more simple in him, contemplations, and SEEING FAR OFF, that is, from a more
remote profundity through the lattices, as if having received both more subtle and
privileged rays through deeper openings. The distinction between this more univer-
sal inflowing, which is through the windows, and the more subtle, which is through
the lattices, is noted in the distinction between rain and dew (Deut. 32:2; Job 38:28;
Dan. 3:64: bless the rain and dew; 1 Kgs. 17:1 neither the dew nor rain). For not only
the dew but also the more common rain is denied to sinful land. Dew is mystical
theology.” (Respiciens, id est de sua altitudine in me radians per fenestras, id est
communiores, eo ergo simpliciores, contemplationes, et prospiciens, id est a profun-
ditate remotiori per cancellos tamquam per altiora foramina et subtiliores et privi-
legiatos radios excipientia. Distinctio istius communioris influitionis, [que] per
fenestras, et subtilioris, que per cancellos, notatur in distinctione pluvie et roris,
Deut. 32: Iob 38: pluvie; Dan. 3: benedicite imber et ros; contraria via: nec ros nec
pluvia; 3 Reg. 17. Negatur enim terre peccatrici non solum ros sed et pluvia que
communior est. Ros est mystica theologia).
80
Cmm3-CC 2F.153.
81
Cmm3-CC 1B.122: “Unguenta optima sunt superintellectuales theorie que uni-
tas sibi mentes deliniunt et universali quadam dulcedinis, pulchritudinis, claritatis,
suavitatis et omnimode speciei desiderabilis effusione pollent et reficiunt, tanquam ex
ubertate Verbi.”
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 177
flowings of these theoriae. She says to her Spouse: “you shall teach
me, namely, by the constant inflow of new theoriae . . . ”82

AFFECTIVE COGNITIO

All the foregoing provides the foundation for the central claim of
this chapter, namely, that the seraphic affectus enjoys a genuine
form of cognition of God (cognitio Dei), albeit a super-intellectual
one. This is already strongly implied by the remarkably telling fact
that Gallus orients the ecstatic affectus toward the theoriae, afford-
ing a warrant for the claim that the affectus in some way cognizes
and apprehends God. At one point, he is quite explicit about this
seraphic cognition:
Your eyes: Even though eyes seem to be excluded from the seraphic
order . . . nevertheless the Groom . . . attributes the eyes of the inferior
order [i.e. the Cherubim] to [the seraphic order]. Now, from one
consideration this [seraphic] order is said to be blinded or lack eyes,
since the intelligence is not able to reach up into this order nor is it
drawn [there] on account of this order’s lofty eminence . . . But for
another reason the Groom does attribute eyes to this order, since the
eyes have an incomparably fuller cognition than all the other senses,
and hence the other senses are sometimes designated by the name of
vision, as when it is said: “see that it smells and tastes”; thus this
[seraphic] order exceeds the other orders inestimably by the excellence
of a cognition of divine things.83

82
Cmm3-CC 8A.224.
83
Cmm3-CC 7C.217: “Oculi tui, cum videantur ab ordine seraphim oculi prorsus
exclusi, MT 1: NON HABENTES OCULOS MENTES; Eccli 43: obcecat oculos, nihilminus,
sponsus qui in omnibus his prioribus locutus est, commendationi ordinis seraphim
diligenter insistens, tanquam fontali nutritivo ordinum inferiorum oculos ei attribuit.
Alia vero consideratione dicitur ordo iste oculis cecari ac privari, quia scilicet intelli-
gentia usque in illum non pervenit nec trahitur propter eminentem celestitudinem,
Eph 3: supereminentem scientie caritatem Christi. Alia vero ratione attribuit eidem
oculos quia, sicut oculos pre ceteris sensibus ampliorem incomparabiliter habet
cognitionem, adeo ut visus nomine ceteri sensus designentur, ut cum dicitur: vide
quid oleat et sapiat, ita ordo iste ceteros ordines inestimabili quadam cognitionis
excellentia divinorum excedit. Pluraliter dicit oculi, propter multiplicitatem et capa-
citatem influitionum.”
178 Ascending
Though Gallus here clearly excludes an intellectual mode of cognition
from the seraphic experience, he just as clearly allows an affective
mode of cognition. A similar warrant is found in other comments:
“it is necessary, therefore, to understand (intelligere) divine things
through this [affective] power of the soul,”84 or when the soul-bride
says of the Groom: “whom I cognize (cognosco) only by the most
intimate experience of love (dilectionis).”85 Remarkably, Gallus
seems to indicate here that the affectus is able “to understand”
(intelligere) divine things in this way. Clearly, this affective cognitio,
which “apprehends” the divine theoriae—ideational in their very
nature—cannot be utterly devoid of cognitive content. As the just-
noted text suggests, it seems also to consummate the lower form of
intellectual cognition, which is further intimated, when Gallus says
that “union . . . draws the intellect in further than it could go before
by its own efforts.”86 A remarkable text nicely captures Gallus’
resolution of the problem of Dionysian “knowing by unknowing”
through this mystic-nuptial Christology. When the bride says that
“My beloved is white and ruddy, Gallus says that white refers to the
beauty of eternal wisdom . . . , while ruddy [refers] to burning love of
eternal goodness . . . ,” such that the Bridegroom “is a fount of
goodness and beauty, in relation to proper PARTICIPATIONS which the
bride receives from Him, BY WHICH ALONE ARE DIVINE THINGS COGNIZED
(cognoscuntur) (DN 2); thus “the bridegroom holds entirely the
fullness (plenitudo) from which angels and humans receive . . . ”87
For Gallus, Dionysius’ unknown God is cognized affectively (uniting
wisdom and goodness) through the fullness of the Bridegroom. The
bride says: Show me, which reflects a desire to learn “by a
most intimate and special revelation, where, in which theoriae of
revelation or in what kind of contemplation, you feed, [that is,

84
Expl-DN 2.26.208: “Ecce duplicem assignat Dei cognitionem, unam ex collatione
creaturarum que est intellectiva, aliam . . . experientia radiorum eterne sapientie que
est super intellectum et omne ens. Secundum vero quam vim anime ista super-
intellectualis sapientia percipiatur, collige ex ipsius [sc. Dionysii] verbis, eodem
capitulo 7h: OPORTET AUTEM VIDERE MENTEM NOSTRAM HABERE QUIDEM VIRTUTEM AD
INTELLIGENDUM PER QUAM INTELLIGIBILIA INSPICIT, UNITIONEM VERO EXCEDENTEM MENTIS
NATURAM PER QUAM CONIUNGITUR AD EA QUE SUNT SUPRA IPSAM. Secundum hanc vim
ergo oportet divina intelligere. Unitionem autem intelligimus principalem affectum
anime quo Deo coniungimur . . . .”
85
Cmm3-CC 1H.132: “quem sola intime dilectionis experientia cognosco . . . ”
86 87
Expl-DN 1.94.1086. Cmm3-CC 5G.200.
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 179
where] you restore minds by the sweetness of a more gracious
cognition.”88

Totus Desiderabilis et Totus non Intelligibilis

Gallus thus consistently insists that affective cognitio is super-
intellectual in the sense of super-conceptual, i.e. beyond physical
sensation, imagination, reason, and even understanding, in so far as
all these involve knowing as “grasping,” abstracting, and compre-
hending, and as such inexorably bound up with created things and
intellectual concepts. He is just as insistent, though, that affective
cognitio is a genuine perception that is received and experienced: “But
no one knows that true and excellent wisdom of Christians except the
one who receives it (Rev. 2:17). . . . For no one is able to understand
(intelligere), that is, to cognize it intellectually (per intellectuum cog-
noscere), nonetheless, “it is spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14: spiritua-
liter examinatur),” that is, “discerned above mind (super mentem
examinat).”89 What the affect cognizes “can neither be spoken, nor
thought, but lies hidden in super-splendent darkness,”90 yet it is
known “experientially” (experientialiter);91 it “cannot be expressed
worthily in writing, in speech, or in cogitation,”92 and is thus “super-
intellectual and only cognizable by experience” (super-intellectualis et
sola experientia cognoscibilis).93 It is “neither [physically] perceived
(sentitur), nor understood (intelligitur), or cogitated (cogitatur), but is
most rightly impressed upon the highest apex of the principle affec-
tion (summo apici affectionis principalis rectissime imprimitur) . . .
The light of thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us (Ps. 4:7),
which no one knows except the one who receives it (Rev. 2.17).94 This
is what Hierotheus “suffered” through “manifold, direct encounters
and experiences” (confricationis et experientie) . . . though “it cannot
be said how the mind experiences such things which no one knows

88
Cmm3-CC 1H.132: “Indica mihi, intima et speciali revelatio, ubi, in cuius theorie
revelatio, vel in quo contemplandi genere, pascas, a tue cognitionis dulcedine gratius
mentes reficias.”
89
Expl-DN 2.25.183–5.
90
Cmm2-CC 4A.91: “ . . . nec dici, nec cogitari potest, sed in supersplendenti caligine
latet.”
91 92
Cmm2-CC 1C.71. Expl-DN 4.239.1488.
93 94
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.D.120 Cmm3-CC 1B.123.
180 Ascending
except the one who receives it (Rev. 2:17).”95 Again, Hierotheus,
“experiencing super-intellectual COMMUNION WITH DIVINE THINGS . . .
participated most copiously in the divine rays,” and thus “cognized
more fully (plenius).”96 Meanwhile, in “the desired bedchamber of the
bridegroom, the bride speaks experientially, saying: while the king was
in my highest and inmost place . . . I was filled with sweetness from
union with him.”97 In short, in affective union, there is a knowledge
of God that “only experience teaches (sola docet experientia), which
more sublimely exceeds the theoric intellect than the intellect
[exceeds] the imagination and senses,” uniting the soul “to the divine
substance so sublimely that neither a mental nor a bodily word
suffices to speak that union. Nevertheless the experiencing mind
knows (mens experiens novit) . . . ”98
So, the soul-bride genuinely cognizes and experiences the Beloved
as present to her through union, but nonetheless as unnamable:
“the bride . . . designates the Bridegroom as unnamable,” as only
“the one whom my soul loves (S. of S. 1.6),” since “by no words can
that ineffable and incommunicable name be expressed more intim-
ately (familiarius),” than by this “most profound name, which is
above all names (Philem. 2); and incommunicable (Sap. 14), and
which is cognized by love alone.”99 For “He is unnameable, but also
wholly desirable (totus desiderabilis), thus in my present state I can
describe Him only in his desirability” (sola desiderabilitate).100 Vari-
ants on this latter phrase litter Gallus’ corpus, suggesting a preferred
way of indicating the nature of affective cognitio Dei: “God is wholly
desirable but wholly not intelligible” (totus desiderabilis et totus non

95
Expl-DN 2.155.1023: “EX huiusmodi COMPASSIONE multiplicis confricationis
et experientie . . . cum edici non possit qualia mens talis experitur que nemo scit nisi
qui accipit (Apoc. 2e).”
96
Expl-DN 2.174.297–175.312.
97
Cmm2-CC 1F.75: “ . . . deducta ad optatum sponsi cubiculum, intrat cubiculum,
ut 4 Reg., experientialiter loquitur; CUM ESSET REX IN summo et intimo meo . . . id est
amor fervidus suavissime fragrans . . . ”
98
Expl-DN 7.370.128.
99
Cmm3-CC 1B.123. See Cmm2-CC 1D.72: “[the bride] says: show me, whom my
soul desires, that is, who is unnamable and is named above every name, either in
heaven, or on the earth, but is known to me by love alone.” (unde dicit: indica mihi
quem diligit anima mea, id est qui innominabilis est et super omne nomen quod
nominatur, sive in celo, sive in terra, sed sola dilectione mihi cognitus est.)
100
Cmm2-CC 2A.78: “ . . . innominabilis enim est, sed et totus desiderabilis, ideo
sola desiderabilitate possum eum designare in statu meo presenti.”
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 181
intelligibilis);101 the affectus is “embracing (capiente) the divine, higher
than the mind, since it unites the soul to that wholly desirable and by no
proportion intelligible plenitude” (plenitudini toti desiderabili et nulla
proportione intelligibili);102 “the inmost desire incomparably tran-
scends the intellect, ascending to and drawn (tractus) by God, who is
wholly desirable (totus desiderabilis), but wholly not intelligible” (totus
non intelligibilis);103 “he is unnameable, but also wholly desirable”
(totus desiderabilis);104 “the Bridegroom is wholly not intelligible
(totus intelligibilis), but is wholly desirable” (totus desiderabilis);105
“he himself is eternal life and he himself is wholly desirable” (totus
desiderabilis) (Cant. 5:16);106 “[Christ] is eternal life and wholly desir-
able (totus desiderabilis) . . . .”107 In sum, God is indeed unknowable,
that is, “not thought (cogitare) as some sayable or thinkable being”
(sicut aliquid ens aut dicible aut cogitabile),108 but is knowable through
love, for the affectus has a capacity for God that exceeds that of the
intellectus.
All this raises the question of just how radical and thoroughgoing
the apparent disjunction between cherubic intellection and seraphic
affection is for Thomas Gallus. It suggests something more complex
in affective, seraphic cognitio than absolute unknowing, in utter
passivity by the bride’s affective ecstasy “above mind.” The poetic
and sensory language above suggests some form of genuine cognitio,
where cognitio means not “knowing that one does not know” (as it
seems to mean for Dionysius),109 but rather a form of knowing
distinct from the intellectual kind. For Gallus, the intellectually
unavailable and unknowable God is here, somehow, available to the
soul through “another and incomparably more profound mode of

101 102
Expl-DN 2.155.1021. Expl-DN 1.92.1023.
103
Expl-DN 1.109.1498.
104
Cmm2-CC 2A.78: “ . . . innominabilis enim est, sed et totus desiderabilis . . . ”
105
Cmm2-CC 4B.92: “ . . . eo quod sponsus totus sit non intelligibilis, sed totus
desiderabilis.”
106 107
Expl-DN 4.239.1488. Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.D.119.
108
Expl-MT 1.5.59.
109
Letter 1(Parker, 141): “But He Himself, highly established above mind, and
above essence, by the very fact of His being wholly unknown, and not being, both is
super-essentially, and is known above mind. And the all-perfect Agnosia, in its
superior sense, is a knowledge of Him, Who is above all known things.” (Dionysius
the Areopagite, Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, tr. Colm Luibheid (New
York: Paulist, 1987), 1065AB, 263: “He is completely unknown and nonexistent. He
exists beyond being and is known beyond the mind. And this quite positively
complete unknowing is knowledge of him who is above everything that is known.”)
182 Ascending
cognizing God (modum cognoscendi Deum),”110 a most sublime
mode of knowing (innotescere) the divine plenitude.111 The distinc-
tion here between forms of cognition hinges less on content than on
source. Precisely what this “cognitio” entails remains to be clarified,112
though clearly the term has a far wider connotation for him than the
modern English cognate “cognition.”

SERAPHIC SENSATION

It is at this juncture that Gallus has recourse to a particular doctrine

of the spiritual senses of the soul in order to explain and characterize
the nature of affective cognitio Dei. Calling the theoriae “exemplars of
the eternal Word,” Gallus describes them as “sweet-smelling above the
mind”113 and “agreeable, sweet, and of every variety” and “most
pleasing” (gratissimam) after the manner of myrrh.”114 He frequently
mingles the language of tasting and smelling to evoke this affective
experience. Like mandrakes, these theoriae “give a smell.”115 Like a
cup of spiced wine, they yield the “most pleasing theoric tastings”
(suavissimas theoricas degustationes).116 Texts such as these and
others to be considered below reflect the importance of sensory
language for Gallus’ mystical theology. Beyond a general analogy—
“the exterior senses are images (idolas) of the interior and mental
senses”117—however, he does not offer a clear anthropology of the spir-
itual senses, as some of his contemporaries, such as William of Auxerre118

110
Expl-MT 1.4.35–7.
111
Expl-AH 10.638.276: “ordinem Seraphim constituunt, nec se possunt angelici
ordines ultra istum extendere quia non potest diuina plenitudo aliquo sublimiori
modo hominibus uel angelis innotescere.”
112
Perhaps Bertrand Russell’s notion of “knowledge by acquaintance” is relevant
here. See his “Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description,” Proceed-
ings of the Aristotelian Society (New Series), Vol. XI, (1910–11), pp. 108–28, <http://
jraissati.com/PHIL223/Russell_1910_KnowledgeByDescription.pdf>.
113 114
Cmm3-CC 4G.186. Cmm3-CC 1M.139.
115 116
Cmm3-CC 7F.222. Cmm3-CC 2L.160.
117
Cmm2-CC 1A.69: “ . . . quod sensus exteriores idola sunt interiorum et
mentalium . . . ”
118
See Boyd Taylor Coolman, Knowing God by Experience: The Spiritual Senses in
the Theology of William of Auxerre (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America
Press, 2004).
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 183
or Bonaventure119 did. It remains unclear whether they are powers, gifts,
habits, etc., whether they are present naturally or given by grace, or
precisely how the spiritual senses relate to the powers of the soul, as well
as the virtues and gifts of the Spirit. Yet, the “spiritual sensorium” is the
key to Gallus’ conception of affective cognitio Dei, as Fr. Walsh noted
more than half a century ago.120 What this language suggests is that super-
intellectual, affective cognitio is best understood as a form of spiritual sense
perception. In Gallus’ words: “this union is sensed (sentitur) by the
experience of the principal affection above the intellect.”121
In his latter commentary on the Song, Gallus offers a fitting
description with which to begin. The bride’s address to the Bride-
groom, your name is oil poured forth (S. of S. 1:3), prompts Gallus to
note that, among other things, oil connotes “sweet refreshment” and
then to say:
There is nothing that offers so agreeable refreshment to minds as the
substantial bread (Matt. 7:9); the invisible food (Tobit 12:19); the bread
of angels (Ps. 77:25); the bread of heaven, having every delight and every
flavor of sweetness (Sap. 16:20); the DIVINE NUTRITION AND VIVIFYING UNITY
OF THEARCHIC FEASTING (CH 7). This refreshment does not occur through
a mirror, but through the experience of divine sweetness, because taste
and touch do not occur through a mirror . . . , but vision does, now we
see through a mirror (Cor. 13:12). Therefore No one ever sees God (Job
1:18) and man will not see me and live (Exod. 33:20). But it does not say,
“he will not taste or we will not taste.” And Scripture frequently invites
us to taste God. In this participation of God, the portion of Mary is
poured out, which is not taken away from her.”122

119
Among many others, see Gregory LaNave, “Bonaventure,” in The Spiritual
Senses: Perceiving God in Western Christianity, ed. Paul Gavrilyuk and Sarah Coakley
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 159–73.
120
Walsh, Sapientia Christianorum, p. 93, n. 2.
121
Expl-DN 1.85.844: “Hec autem unitio experientia principalis affectionis super
intellectum sentitur.”
122
Cmm3-CC 1C.124: “Nihil est quod ita gratam mentibus prestet refectionem
sicut panis substantialis, Matth. 7; hic est cibus invisibilis, Tob. 12; panis angelorum,
Ps. 77; panis de celo habens omne delectamentum et omnem saporem suavitatis,
Sap. 16; divinum nutrimentum et vivifica thearchice epulationis unitas, CH 7. Hec
refectio non fit per speculum, sed per divine dulcedinis experientiam, iuxta quod
gustus et tactus non exercetur per speculum, sed visus, Cor. 13: videmus nunc per
speculum. Ideo Io. 1: Deum nemo vidit, et non dicit: non gustabit, vel non gustabimus.
Frequenter autem in Scripturis invitamur ad gustum Dei. In hac Dei participatione
fundatur portio Marie que non abe ea aufertur.”
184 Ascending
Here, Thomas uses the language of spiritual sensation to suggest two
related points. First, the difference between intellectual and affectual
cognition is correlated to a distinction between sight (and hearing),
on the one hand, and taste, touch (and smell), on the other. Second,
affective cognition is analogous to the experience of physical taste,
touch, and smell.
That Gallus distinguishes between intellective and affective cognitio
Dei in terms of two modes of sense perception is apparent in many
places, in addition to the one quoted above: “But the soul’s taste,
touch, smell correspond to this [union], just as hearing and sight
correspond to the intellect.”123 That he consistently characterizes
affective cognition as analogous to the former triad of senses is also
widely apparent. Elsewhere, he expands this “seraphic sensorium” to
include an olfactory dimension: “the taste, touch, and smell of the
soul.”124 The “sweetest, super-intellectual fragrance” is “scattered”125
in the soul through the experience of nuptial union. The odor of
spikenard describes the soul’s experience of the “affectual in-
flowings” from the divine Spouse which are redolent and warming
to the affect.126 The Canticle’s “cup of spiced wine” prompts the
observation that “wine” pertains to spiritual taste, while “spiced”
refers to the “confection of spiritual aromas.”127

123
Expl-DN 7.370.128.
124
Expl-DN 7.370.150: “anime gustus, tactus, olfactus . . . ” Cf. Expl-DN
2.154.1002: “PATIENS DIVINA per apicem affectionis, scilicet unitionem experientem
diuinam dulcedinem, suauitatem, flammam per gustum, olfactum et tactum, de
quibus AI 15d.”; Expl-AH 1.486.186: “Mens autem rationalis in intellectu habet
oculum, aurem et uerbum siue linguam ad loquendum, in affectu tactum, gustum
et olfactum, per quos experientialiter examinat profunda Dei (I Cor. 2e, g; DN 7i) sicut
gustus et olfactus examinant corporum interioritates”; Expl-EH 4.882.555: “Hanc
etiam suauitatem non percipit nisi qui sanum et bene dispositum habet mentis
olfactum.”
125
Cmm2-CC 1G.76: “ . . . et suavissime superintellectualibus fragrantiis
respergunt . . . ”
126
Cmm2-CC 4G.99: “Nardus redolens et calens significat puras et affectuales
influitiones que ex affectuali virtute proprie calent et redolent.”
127
Cmm3-CC 8.A.224: “It is the same thing to give the bride a cup of spiced wine,
as when the bride was said to suck the breast of the groom; this then is the meaning:
liquefied and made fit for union with me by devotion, I am made to taste (sapidam
factam), which is noted by ‘wine,’ as from the confection of spiritual aromas, what is
noted in ‘spiced,’ you will incorporate me into you by absorbing [me], and lead me to
the more interior things and, taken up more interiorly anew, ‘I will give to you the new
wine of my pomegranates,’ that is, having drawn you to me more intimately, liquefied
by new fervors, I will manifest [to you]; by ‘new wine,’ understand new things
(novitas), by ‘pomegranates,’ [understand] fervor.”
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 185
Before proceeding further, this activity of the spiritual senses must
be seen within the nuptial relationship between the soul-bride and
Christ, her Spouse, already noted above. In the text just quoted, it is
the spiritual “bread” that is Christ (perhaps even the Eucharistic
Christ) that is sensed. When the Song refers to the powders of the
perfumer, this “perfumer is the Bridegroom who is the author, lover,
maker, and bountiful giver of every spiritual aroma. The multitude of
his sweetness is called powder . . . ”128 When the Song says: the king
led me into the wine cellar, Gallus’ bride says: “He led me into the
plenitude of sweetness (plenitudinem dulcedinis), and greatest alien-
ating (alienantis), because wine is sweet and alienating, and it is called
the wine cellar in the singular . . . because of the special taste of divine
sweetness.”129 Again, the bride resting in the embraces of the Groom,
“speaks experientially, [saying], like the apple tree, that is, a tree
bearing sweetly refreshing and fragrant apples, so is my beloved, the
fullness of sweetness and refreshment (plenitudo suavitas et refectio-
nis).”130 Commenting on the Song verse: My beloved put [his hand]
through the key-hole, and my bowels are moved by his touch,” Gallus
says that bowels here signify “the fervent affection that loves most
tenderly.” When “moved by the touch of the [Spouse’s] hand,” this
tender affection is “stirred” (consternatur) to rise up in ignorance
(ignote) to experience and receive the overshadowing Beloved (super-
adventus divini) intimately within her, just as the blessed Virgin was
troubled (turbata) by the angelic visitation.131 Consistently, Christ is
the general object of the spiritual senses, whose embrace enables such
a sensuous experience.
Gallus’ claim that affective cognitio involves the experience of
Christological theoriae in the manner of taste, touch, and smell entails
the following: it is direct, immediate, participatory, and thus “affect-
ing”; it is supra-conceptual; and finally, more penetrating and intimate.

128
Cmm2-CC 3D.88: “Pigmentarius est sponsus qui omnium spiritualium aroma-
tum est auctor, amor, confector et largitor. Pulvis eius dicitur multitudo
dulcedinis . . . ”
129
Cmm2-CC 2B.78: “Introduxit in plenitudinem dulcedinis, De div. nom. 4 et
maxime alienantis, quia vinum dulce est et alienans, et dicitur singulariter cellam
vinariam . . . propter speciale[m] divine dulcedinis gustum . . . ”
130
Cmm2-CC 2A.77: “ . . . experientialiter loquitur: sicut malus, id est arbor ferens
poma dulciter reficiencia et fragrantia, inter ligna silvarum infructuosa, sic dilectus
meus, plenitudo suavitatis et refectionis . . . ”
131
Cmm2-CC 5C.103.
186 Ascending
First, as is true in physical sensation, the smell–taste–touch triad
entails a more direct contact with its object than the sight-hearing
dyad: “it is necessary for us to cognize divine things not by seeing or
hearing intellectually. For those three senses [i.e. smell, taste, and
touch] . . . are not exercised through a mirror (per speculum), but
directly (per speciem).132 In the Isaiah commentary, Gallus differen-
tiates the mediated distance of the dyad from the immediate contact
of the triad thus: “One can see and hear torment without [feeling]
torment or see and hear delight without [feeling] delight; indeed, one
can see and hear torment with delight and [see and hear] delight with
torment.” By contrast, one cannot smell, taste, or touch without being
“affected by that which we apprehend” (afficimur secundum id quod
apprehendimus).133 For Gallus, the former is the proper modality of
the intellectus; the latter, that of the affectus. “For that Seraphic
order . . . learns immediately of God, as in Ps. 50:8: the uncertain
and hidden things of your wisdom are manifested to me (see also 1
Cor. 2:10, the spirit searches the depths, and Job 12:22).”134 Clearly
then, the “distance” between subject and object is a crucial factor
distinguishing these apprehensional modes. The affectus apprehends
in some sense through direct contact, through participation in what is
cognized, which is why Gallus ultimately identifies this power with
union itself. The bride experiences the Bridegroom “according to the
participation which the bride receives from him, for divine things ARE
135
KNOWN ONLY BY PARTICIPATION.”

FOR EVERYTHING DIVINE AND WHATEVER THINGS ARE REVEALED TO US by

sublime and unitive cognition, ARE COGNIZED ONLY BY THOSE WHO ARE
PARTICIPATING, just as someone who tastes the sweetness of a sip of wine
from a full vase cognizes from tasting, not what is tasted. Similarly, one
touching fire from the touch of a particle cognizes the residue, and one
smelling a flower or anything aromatic cognizes connatural things from

132
Expl-AH 1.483.105: “Isti enim tres sensus siue in corpore siue in mente non
exercentur per speculum, sed per speciem, et quantum Deum sic gustamus, tangimus
uel amplexamur, et olfacimus, tantum ipsum cognoscimus participando ineffabiliter
ipsius dulcedinem et suauitatem.”
133
Expl-AH 10.634.168.
134
Cmm2-CC 1A.69: “Ille enim ordo quod ignotum est Dei per experientiam discit
immediate, iuxta illud Ps.: incerta et occulta sapientie tue manifestasti mihi et 1 Cor. 2:
spiritus scrutatur profunda; Iob. 12 . . . ”
135
Cmm2-CC 2D.80: “ . . . secundum participationem quam a sponso percipit,
ipsum sponsum describit; divina enim solis participationibus cognoscuntur, DN 2 . . . ”
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 187
smelling, not the things smelled. But it is otherwise with sight or
hearing.136
Recalling that for Gallus, both the dyad and the triad have the
theoriae as their objects, it seems arguable that Gallus is gesturing at
a distinct mode of knowing, not at an absolute non-knowing. It is a
mode of knowing that profoundly affects the knower; it is “affecting”
in that more literal and basic sense of the term.
Second, with his deployment of the affective sense-triad, Gallus
seems to gesture at a notion of “cognition” that is broader than
conceptual, ideational, or “quidditive” knowing. For Gallus, that
affective cognition is “super-intellectual,” does not imply that it is
beyond all experience or description, that it is absolutely “content-
less,” or ineffable. A gustatory example, namely, the taste of honey,
affords an analogy: “the word of the mind (verbum mentis) is not able
to express in writing or in words those super-intellectual experiences
(experientias illas superintellectuales), nor to be spoken of within
themselves, just as the taste of honey or the odor of aroma cannot
be perceived by sight or by hearing, nor does anyone know those
things, except the one who receives it (Rev. 2:17).”137 Again, though
this experience “cannot be spoken by any mental word, much less a
corporeal word . . . those experienced in such matters (experti) can
instruct and inflame those who are experiencing (experientes) (1 Cor.
2:13: ‘comparing spiritual things with spiritual etc . . . .’), just as some-
one who has tasted many sweet things can infer concerning a sweet-
ness or a sweet thing in comparison with something else that he tasted
similarly. But with [mere] words he cannot teach someone, who has
never tasted sweetness, about sweetness.”138 Gallus’ point seems to be
that, to put it in a scholastic idiom, there is no abstractable essence or
quiddity that corresponds to sweetness. What does it means to know

136
Expl-DN 2.149.866–72: “sicut aliquis gustans dulcedinem modici uini de pleno
uase, ex gustato cognoscit non gustatum. Similiter tanges ignem ex tactu particule,
cognoscit residuum, et olfaciens unum florem vel aliud aromaticum, ex olfactu
cognoscit connaturalia non olfacta. Aliter enim est de uisu et auditu.”
137
Expl-DN 4.234.1337.
138
Expl-DN 2.155.1027–34: “Unde nec verbo mentis multo minus verbo corporis
dici potest. Experti tamen experientes possunt instruere et inflammare (I Cor. 2f:
spiritualibus spiritualia comparantes etc.; EI 7x: ‘CONFIDO ENIM QUOD PER DICTA etc.’),
sicut qui multa dulcia gustauit potest conferre de dulcedine uel dulci cum alio qui
similiter gustauit. Eum uero, qui numquam gustauit dulce, non potest uerbis instruere
de dulcedine.”
188 Ascending
honey? To know how it tastes? In the end, there is no word or concept
that suffices to capture or grasp it. The only way to answer it is to give
the questioner a taste of honey. Only then does one really know
honey. One might then be able compare it to something else, similarly
experienced. But it remains in some sense beyond conceptual
comprehension.139
Third, in a way reminiscent of Hugh of St. Victor’s account of love
going further than knowledge, affective cognitio, by virtue of its greater
immediacy and intimacy, goes further than its intellectual counterpart;
it penetrates beyond the surface, into the depths of the Beloved: “love
penetrates . . . by touching, smelling, and tasting.”140 It is “affective
knowledge (cognitio) that alone wounds and penetrates . . . ”141 Com-
menting on the best ointments of the Groom, Gallus says that these “are
the inestimable and innumerable charms of the divine sweetness in
the highest simple substance,142 from which [the Spouse] sends forth
every taste” (a poetic reference to the divine theoriae already noted).
He then observes: “Note here that the intellect sees and hears and
perceives what is more outward,” while “the affect penetrates those
sorts of things by touching, smelling, and tasting” . . . and because “it
is the simplest, affection alone smells the sweetness of these oils.”143
In an extended allegory of the “rock” and a “wall” in the Song, Gallus
puts it thus:
By the words OF THE steep and difficult ROCK are understood the pene-
trable theoriae, which are penetrated only by the most acute, strength-
ened minds and by much exercise, as by a hard and sharp iron tool
(cf. Sir. 48:19: he dug out a rock with iron). The clefts are thus the

139
Worth pondering is the notion that in Neoplatonic philosophy, sensibles,
physical sensation, lies somewhere “in-between knowledge, whose proper and sole
object is being, on the one hand, and absolute non-being on the other, which cannot
in any way be thought or known (i.e. is absolutely unintelligible)” (see Perl,
Theophany, p. 7). Sensation then is in some sense a knowing of that which is not
perfectly knowable, but which is neither absolute ignorance of the absolutely
non-existent. In this light, perhaps there is something intuitively right in Gallus
resorting to spiritual sensation to describe a kind of knowing that is beyond what is
perfectly intelligible, namely, beyond being. Hence, the shift to spiritual sensation:
meta-conceptual, supra-intellectual cognition.
140
Cmm2-CC 1A.69: “ . . . affectus qui penetrat tangendo, olfaciendo, gustando.”
141
Cmm2-CC 1D.72: “ . . . affectiva cognitio que sola vulnerat et penetrat . . . ”
142
See Wisd. 16:21.
143
Cmm2-CC 1A.69: “ . . . affectus qui penetrat tangendo, olfaciendo, gustando . . .
sit summe simplex, istorum unguentorum suavitatem sola olfacit affectio.”
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 189
contemplative penetrations of these theoriae . . . . The apex of affection
(affectionis apex) alone ascends into those. OF THE WALL, that is, the
previous wall. Therefore, the sharpened point digs out the rock and
carves the wall. By rock, understand the secret profundity of theoriae
impenetrable by rational investigations and intellectual contemplations;
by wall, [understand] the contemplation of theoriae.”144
Still oriented toward the divine theoriae, the unique power of love
penetrates further into these than reason or intellect can, like a sharp
carving utensil.145
Incontestably, then, Gallus deploys a doctrine of the spiritual
senses to navigate the soul’s experience of affective union with God.
He invokes a “spiritually sensuous” experience, couched in the lan-
guage of smell, taste, and touch, in contrast to intellectual or rational
knowing analogous to physical sight and hearing, which fosters a
form of experiential perception: “The affectus tastes, touches, and
smells spiritually, [while] the intellectus sees and hears.”146 By “sens-
ing, tasting and smelling,” the “principal affection ascends into divine
things infinitely above the intellect.”147 In this way, for Gallus, affect-
ive union is a genuine form of cognitio: “in so far as we thus taste,
touch and embrace, and smell God, so, to that extent do we cognize
him, by unspeakably participating in his sweetness and suavity (dul-
cedinem et suavitatem).”148 In the end, it is this spiritually sensuous
experience that Gallus deploys to negotiate the unknowable God
of Exodus and Saini, as he observes in relation to Hierotheus, a

144
Cmm2-CC 2F.83: “Nomine PETRE ardue et difficile penetrabiles theorie intelli-
guntur et a solis acutissimis et multa exercitatione roboratis mentibus penetratur,
tanquam ferramento robusto et acuto; Eccli. 48: fodit ferro rupem. Foramina ergo sunt
dictarum theoriarum contemplative penetrationes . . . Solius affectionis apex in ista
conscendit. MACERIE, quod prius paries. Acumen ergo, quod petram forat et maceriam
cavat. Per petram accipe secretam profunditatem theoriarum rationabilibus investi-
gationibus et intellectualibus contemplationibus impenetrabilium, Myst. theol. 1, per
maceriam, contemplationem theoria[ru]m.”
145
Cmm2-CC 3A.85: “because the wholly desirable always and everywhere pene-
trates desire.” ( . . . quia enim totus desiderabilis semper et ubique penetrat desiderium.)
146
Expl-EH 4.869.227: “Affectio siquidem gustat, tangit et olfacit spiritualiter,
intellectus videt et audit.”
147
Glss-AH 3.34.264: “ . . . per aliam experiendo, sentiendo, gustando et olfaciendo
summa vi anime que est principalis affectio ascendens in divina in infinitum super
intellectum . . . .”
148
Expl-AH 1.483.105: “quantum Deum sic gustamus, tangimus uel amplexa-
mur, et olfacimus, tantum ipsum cognoscimus participando ineffabiliter ipsius dulce-
dinem et suauitatem.”
190 Ascending
text already quoted above: “ . . . BY SUFFERING DIVINE THINGS,” Hierotheus
was “experiencing divine sweetness, suavity, and flame, through [the
senses of] taste, smell and touch . . . Hence Exod. 33:20 says: man shall
not see me, and live. It does not say ‘he shall not taste,’ ‘he shall not
smell,’ ‘he shall not touch,’ . . . ”149 For “the Bridegroom is called
LEAPING UPON THE MOUNTAINS, SKIPPING OVER THE HILLS because . . .
through unitive conjoining and experiential cognition (experimentalem
cognitionem), he impresses vestiges [of himself], as it were, upon those
who are suffering divine things.”150 As noted, a distinction between
conceptual understanding and cognitional experience seems to be
operative here. Perhaps the most compelling confirmation of this
claim, the feature which most mitigates against an anti-intellectual
reading, is that he consistently orients these spiritual senses toward
the divine theoriae (as Bonaventure will do151): “so the divine sub-
stance is only penetrated by . . . human or angelic minds . . . to the
extent that divine mercy, by drawing the desire of minds (mentium
desidera attrahendo), admits them to the more secret experiences of the
theoriae (ad secretiores theoriarum experientias), through super-
intellectual union, as above, he brought me in . . . .”152

SERAPHIC SIMPLIFICATION

In the text quoted above, Gallus refers to the affectus as the “simplest,”
(see n. 144) reflecting a final feature, quite crucial, of Gallus’ mystical
theology, namely, the notion of simplification (already introduced in

149
Expl-DN 2.154.1002: “PATIENS DIVINA per apicem affectionis, scilicet unitionem
experientem diuinam dulcedinem, suauitatem, flammam per gustum, olfactum et
tactum . . . .Unde dictum est Ex. 33: non videbit me homo et vivet. Non dicit ‘non
gustabit,’ ‘non olfacet,’ ‘non tanget,’ . . . ”
150
Cmm3-CC 3E.150.
151
Bonaventure, Collations on the Six Days XVII.3: “It should be noted that as a
fruit delights both sight and taste, it delights the sense of taste mostly by its beauty and
decorum, but the sense of taste, by its sweetness and suavity. Likewise, these theoria
sustain the intellect by their beauty, and the affective dispositions by their suavity”
(Notandum, quod sicut fructus oblectat visum et gustum, tamen principalius visum
oblectat sua pulchritudine et decore, gustum vero dulcore et suavitate; sic et istae
theoriae reficiunt intellectum suo decore et affectum sua suavitate.)
152
Cmm3-CC 3A.167.
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 191
Chapter 6). It is here, moreover, that Gallus’ hierarchical anthropology
comes to the fore. Already, the transition from the enstatic to the
ecstatic dimension of the soul, from the Dominions to the Thrones,
entails the beginning of a process of simplification.153 At the cherubic
rank, that simplification began, not only to “contract” the intellectus into
a higher form of intellectual cognition,154 but also to draw the intellectus
together with the affectus, as they “coambulated” or walked together
there, so that in some way the intellectus began to be “affectivized.”
Here, at the seraphic rank, this process comes to its completion, with the
complete simplification of the soul and all its powers: “When [seraphic]
affection alone pushes to the inner parts of the desert (Exod. 3:1), then
there is one flock singularly, for Moses, taken up in the darkness, leads a
single flock, that is, the simple and uniform movements of affection.”155
Again: the Bridegroom says to the bride “your lips are like scarlet lace,
that is, red with the fervor of special love (amor), for just as lace
binds the head and hair lest they flow down, so that most chaste love
encircles the mind, and contracts and narrows all its movements into the
desire of the one simple highest Good.”156 After noting how the lower
orders have pairs of everything, signifying the duality of affect and
intellect at those levels, Gallus observes: “But there is only one palate of
the affectus; a single intellectus, going out to exterior things; also a single
affectus sensing and uniting to the whole in the manner of touch.”157 The
single “mouth” of the bride (S. of S. 4:3) is “the seraph of our mind,” which
alone tastes, as in O taste, and see that the Lord is sweet (Ps. 33:9).158

153
See Cmm3-CC 2G.153: In the ascent through the middle hierarchy (Powers,
Virtues, Dominions), Gallus says that “the eyes of the mind,” namely, the “movements
and extensions of the affect and intellect” (motus et extensiones affectus et intellectus)
are “made simple” (simplificantur) in order to ascend further into the highest
hierarchy (Thrones, Cherubim, Seraphim).
154
Cmm3-CC 5H.201: “In the order of the cherubim,” the “intellectual vision
(visus intellectualis) is most greatly simplified” (maxime simplificatur)—not simply
blinded or truncated.
155
Cmm2-CC 4A.91: “ . . . quando affectio sola minat ad interiora deserti, tunc est grex
singulariter. Moyses enim, assumptus in caligine, ducit solum gregem, id est simplices et
uniformes motus affectionis . . . ”
156
Cmm2-CC 4B.92: . . . LABIA TUA sunt SICUT VITTA COCCINEA, id est rubea per
precipui amoris fervorem, quia sicut vitta constringit capit et capillos ne defluant,
sic amor iste castissimus mentem circumcingit, et omnes motus eius constringit et
coarctat in unius summe simplicis boni desiderium . . .
157
Expl-AH 10.635.193–5: “Sed unicum est affectus palatum, unicus exitus ad
exterior, intellectus; unicus etiam affectus, totum, quasi ad modum tactus, sensificans
et unificans.”
158
Expl-DN 4.203.571.
192 Ascending
A particularly arresting image of this simplifying process is Gallus’
frequent reference to the soul’s “liquefaction”:159 “Those unsuited for
union are hard, [but those] suited [for union] are softened and liquefied,
and thus those minds are suitably united to God, which are softened
(emolliuntur) through a special mildness (precipuam mansuetudinem)
and liquefied through a special devotion (precipuam devotionem).”160
Again, “at the utterance of the Bridegroom, the solid mind . . . liquefies
and is readied for union.”161 And “aptitude for union, moreover, is
obtained by overflowing (affluentem) devotion and looseness (resolutio-
nem) of the mind, because fluids are easily united, as the bride says my
soul is liquefied (S. of S. 5:6).”162
Elsewhere, Gallus intimates that the soul’s simplification is a func-
tion of its increasing intimacy with its utterly simple Spouse: “he
collects like a fountain the multitude of those theoriae and brings
them together in himself in the simple Word, just as if infinite lines
flowed from a simple point around the center.”163 It is, moreover,
correlated with an increasingly simplified experience of its spiritually
sensed objects. At one point Gallus gestures at this drawing together
toward simplicity with the language of spiritual smell: “Spikenard is a
spicosa plant . . . and is especially odiferous,” signifying the “new
super-infused plenitude, sweet-smelling above the mind.”164 This
“spicositas of spikenard,” he continues, indicates that “the multiple
cognitions of invisible divine things are contained under that simpli-
city of participation,” which “is perceived in inmost contemplation of
sublime theoriae.”165 Again: “This drawing together [constriction] is a
compacted [coarctata] simplification of the mind, when, the whole
multitude of sensible and intelligible things having been excluded . . . ,
it penetrates acutely into the superior and more subtle theoriae.”166

159
The deep background for Gallus’ thinking here regarding “simplification”
may well be Hugh of St. Victor’s reflections on the “liquefying” power of soul’s love,
which he develops in his Super Ierarchiam Dionysii, ed. Dominique Poirel, Corpus
Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 228 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), VI.1
(555–62) (PL 175.1036A–1040C).
160
Expl-DN 3.166.82–5.
161
Cmm2-CC 3D.89: “ . . . mens solidata . . . que ad loquelam sponsi liquescit et
aptatur unitioni . . . ”
162 163
Cmm3-CC Prol.T.110. Cmm3-CC 5H.202.
164
Cmm3-CC 1M.138.
165
Cmm3-CC 1M.138: “ . . . significat multiplicem divinorum invisibilium cogni-
tionem sub illius participationis simplicitate contineri . . . . Quod in sublimium theo-
riarum intima contemplatione percipitur.”
166
Cmm3-CC 4H.188.
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 193
In a striking description of this seraphic experience of the these
theoriae, appearing both in his early Commentary on Isaiah (1218)
and in his late Third Commentary on the Song of Songs (1243), Gallus
refers to “brilliant burnings or burning brilliances” (fervores fulgidi
seu fulgores fervidi),167 as well as “the excessive sublimities and
sublime excesses” (sublimes excessus et excedentes sublimitates),168
which “the principal affect” experiences. This rhetorical strategy of
alternating and reciprocally blending the signature metaphors of
brilliant cherubic light and burning seraphic fire subtly signals the
kind of simplifying integration the soul’s cognitional modes in ser-
aphic ecstasy. As Joshua Robinson puts it: “Brilliant burnings or
burning brilliances suggests the transcendent resolution of the two
modes of knowledge, hitherto represented by intellectus and affec-
tus.”169 By suggesting that the experience of burning seraphic affect-
ivity retains a dimension of brilliance, of the illumination associated
with intellectual knowledge, Gallus implies that in some way cherubic
cognition has been hierarchically assimilated into seraphic cognition,
resulting in the highest form of cognition, namely, an affective cog-
nition, since love or affection is the proper modality of the seraphic
apex. The alternating pairing suggests the simplified integration of
knowledge and love, in which it is no longer possible to clearly
distinguish what at lower mode of operation were heretofore parallel
powers and acts. Burning touch and brilliant vision are now united in
love’s bond of perfection. Elsewhere similar blendings seem to make
the same point. When the Bridegroom says to the bride: your voice is
sweet and your face comely, Gallus suggests that “the voice pertains to
the word of the mind, and the face to affection. The voice, then, is
sweet because of the admixture of affectual sweetness, the face comely
on account of the admixture of the clarity of wisdom.”170 Similarly,
when the bride says to the Groom: your speech is sweet to me, Gallus
calls this “an affective word (sermo),” which “is not called clear
(clarus) like an intellectual word . . . but sweet (dulcis) (S. of S. 2:14:
your sweet voice), and it is called not only a word, but eloquence
(eloquium), because the more fervent the affection, the more eloquent

167
Expl-AH 10.638.276: “Illi uero feruores fulgidi seu fulgores feruidi, quos
experitur affectus, nec potest comprehendere uel estimare intellectus.”
168
Cmm3-CC Prol.N.109.
169
Robinson, “To Be Affected According To What We Apprehend,” 15.
170
Cmm2-CC 2F.83: “Vel pertinet vox ad verbum mentis, facies ad affectionem;
vox igitur dulcis propter admixtionem affectualis dulcedinis, facies decora, propter
admixtionem claritatis sapientie.”
194 Ascending
with God.”171 This seems to account for Gallus’ willingness to speak
of both cognition and love in the highest point of affective union: “the
order of the Seraphim, in which is the reward of wayfarers, cognition
of truth and love of the good.”172 Again: “FOR THE UPLIFTING OF THOSE
with respect to cognition AND THE TAKING UP with respect to the
elevation of the affection, since through those two one arrives at the
experiential cognition of true amore (ad experimentalem cognitionem
veri amoris).”173
The overall impact of these passages suggests some form of con-
traction of the soul’s diverse powers, intellectus and affectus, active in
discreet modes at the lower parts of the soul, but increasingly simpli-
fied into a single affective modality, in which the power of affectus
comes to dominate, in some sense sublimating and absorbing the
power of intellectus. As noted, all this occurs “hierarchically,” which is
to say that it occurs in an “upwardly transumptive” fashion, the lower
subsumed into the higher, the intellectus taken up into the affectus,
intellectual cognitio transformed into affective cognitio, the two
powers contracted or simplified into a single cognitive modality.174
In all this Gallus does not abandon, indeed, he quite explicitly retains

171
Cmm2-CC 4B.92: “Nota affectualem sermonem qui non dicitur clarus, sicut
sermo intellectualis . . . sed dulcis, ut supra 2: vox tua dulcis, et dicitur non tantum
sermo, sed eloquium, quia quanto affectio ferventior tanto apud Deum eloquentior.”
172
Cmm2-CC 4C.93: “ . . . ordinem serapim in quo est precipua viatorum et
veritatis cognitio et bonitatis amor.”
173
Expl-DN 237.1421. See also perhaps: Cmm2-CC 1D.72: “And note that she says
‘you feed’ and not ‘you are fed’ ” in midday, that is, in the plenitude of splendor and
fervor, regarding the knowledge of truth and the fervor of the love of goodness under
the ray of the sun of understanding (Wisd. 5:6), and the sun of righteousness (Mal. 4:2).
The first refers to the splendor of understanding and the latter to the fervor of
righteousness, or to the love of goodness, and these are the fiery rays in the midday
and in the furnace of fire (Sir. 43:3), and the heat (fervor) of the day in which Abraham
sat (Gen. 18:1).”
174
See DN I.1.588B. In this light, it is of no little interest that such a view emerges
in another commentary emanating from Gallus’ community at Vercelli, Deiformis
anime gemitus, once attributed to Gallus himself (See J. Barbet and F. Ruello, Un
commentaire Vercellien du Cantique des Cantiques: “Deiformis anime gemitus.” Étude
d’authenticité par Jeanne Barbet et Francis Ruello. Édition critique par Jeanne Barbet.
Traduction française par Francis Ruello. Sous la Règle de Saint Augustin, vol. 10
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2005). As Endro von Ivánka argued, for this anonymous Vercel-
lensis, the highest mystical experience is “noch motus intelligentiae deiformis, die Seele
egreditur ad latitudinem intellectualis regionis . . . ” (Plato Christianus: La réception
critique du platonisme chez les Pères de l’Eglise (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France,
1990), 341) and that “intelligentia” is equated (gleichbedeutend) with the “affectio
principalis” and the “scintilla synderesis” (Plato Christianus, 355).
 “The Wisdom of Christians” 195
the framework and idiom of the spiritual senses: the audio-visual
modality of the intellective dyad is taken up into the affective triad of
smell, taste, and touch.

CONCLUSION: AFFECTIVE WISDOM

What then is the “wisdom of Christians,” this seraphic, affective

cognitio Dei? Put simply, it is an experience of divine self-disclosure
(in Christ, through the Spirit), wherein the soul is affected by what
it experiences, in a way analogous to how certain kinds of physical
sense experiences affect the one sensing. It is super-intellectual in
the sense that it is beyond concept, meta-conceptual; but it is not
super-cognitional, where cognition is understood as a mode of per-
ception or experience. It is cognition in an affective mode, in the sense
that one “undergoes” or “suffers” it in the way that one suffers the
experience of taste, smell, or touch. For Gallus, such cognition is
higher and superior, because it penetrates the furthest, is the most
intimate and direct. It is less a difference in what is known than how it
is known. As such, it requires a simplification by the knower, an
integration of its diverse capacities for knowing, such that ultimately,
the lower modes of knowing are assimilated to this highest mode. In
this way, the intellectual cognitio Dei is subsumed into the seraphic
modality where it emerges again as “spiritual sensation.” In the end, it
is aptly described as “wisdom” (sapientia), whose Latin etymology for
medieval authors generally contained this notion of a “tasted know-
ledge”175 born of love. “Therefore, true affectual wisdom breathes
such super-intellectual and super-substantial fragrances into the con-
templative mind. As Sir. 1:14 states: The love of God is honorable
wisdom. Behold the love of God that is wisdom.”176

175
Cmm2-CC 1A.69: “ . . . unde certum est quod veram sapientiam non
gustaverunt . . . ”
176
Cmm2-CC 1A.69: “Tales ergo superintellectuales et supersubstantiales fragran-
tias spirat in mentem contemplativam vera sapientia affectualis, Eccli. 1: dilectio Dei
honorabilis sapientia; ecce quod dilectio Dei sapientia.”
 Part III

Descending
 8

“As Oil Poured Forth”

“Flow into us, therefore, O sweet and pleasant charity. Enlarge

our heart, expand our desire, unfold the inmost part of our
mind, amplify the dwelling place of our heart so that it can
receive God as its guest and inhabitant.”
Hugh St. Victor, De laude caritatis, 16.167

INTRODUCTION

Most medieval mystical itineraries terminate at the apexes of their

ascents, at the point of union; and, if union cannot be maintained, due
to human limitations or shortcomings, the resulting “fall” away from
union is understood precisely as that, as a kind of failing, understand-
able, even expected perhaps, but certainly not ideal and eventually, in
the next life at least, to be overcome. For this reason, it is often
assumed that in a straightforward manner this affective seraphic
union above intellective cherubic knowledge is the stopping point of
Gallus’ mystical theology. In fact, however, it is not. In the Prologue
to his Song commentary, after narrating the soul’s ascent to seraphic
union, he observes: “It is from this order [the Seraphim] that the
torrent of divine light pours down in stages to the lower orders.”1
Elsewhere, the “sweet-smelling participations of the light beyond the
mind” flow “into [the] second and lowest hierarchy.” Again, there is
an “inflowing of his light from the first order all the way to the last.”
From seraphic union, the sweet odors waft down “into the middle and

1
Cmm2-CC Prol.67.
200 Descending
lowest hierarchy,” which are “moistened” by the highest one. “The words
‘honey flowing from the honeycomb’ are understood as the ‘affectual
inflowings’ (affectuales influitiones) emanating from the first hierarchy
into the lower ones.”2
This introduces a conspicuous feature of Gallus’ mystical theology,
which is consistently present in his writings, namely, the theme of
descent. As part of its very nature as a Dionysian hierarchy, Gallus’
anthropology entails a descending valence, a downward movement,
in which what is received and experienced at the highest, seraphic
point of the soul, flows down into the lower orders and is received by
them in the manner appropriate to the diverse ranks, and in this way,
each individual order is nourished by the soul’s affective union with
her divine Spouse.
For present concerns, this aspect of Gallus’ mystical theology has
particular implications for the “lower” intellectual forms of cognition
previously examined, and indeed for the very nature of the theological
enterprise, in so far as its intellectual dimensions are concerned. For
Gallus, the condition for the possibility of success in the pursuit of a
deeper and fuller intellectus fidei is super-intellectual, affective cogni-
tion, which for him fecundates the intellectual and theological life. In
this respect, Gallus looks back to various biblical and non-biblical
exemplars of this: Moses, John the Baptist, Hierotheus, and especially
his own medieval confrere, Richard of St. Victor.3 On Gallus’ reading
all these arrived at profound intellectual insight as a result of their
affective union with God. Such is made possible by Gallus’ hierarch-
ical anthropology.

2
Cmm2-CC 4G.100.
3
The impulse to valorize a moment of descent from contemplation of and union
with the Trinity is deeply Victorine. Gallus may well have taken inspiration from
Hugh of St. Victor’s Hugonis de Sancto Victore: De tribus diebus, ed. Dominique
Poirel, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 227 (Turnhout: Brepols,
2002): Having glimpsed God in that “interior, secret place of divine contemplation”
in which we learned of Father, Son, and Love, we must ask: “what good is it to us if we
know in God the height of his majesty, but glean from it nothing useful to us?”
Instead, as we descend from the heights of our personal encounter with the Trinity, “it
is fitting and necessary that if we come from the region of light, we carry with us light
to put to flight our darkness” (ibid.). Hugh details what we bring back from the
Trinity, viewed as it were “in itself,” which is important for our salvation: “If we saw
power there, let us bring back the light of the fear of God. If we saw wisdom there, let
us bring back the light of truth. If we saw kindness there, let us bring the light of love”
(ibid. 3.26.1). These three things—the fear of power, the light of wisdom, the warmth
of love—constitute the “three days” after which the book itself is named.
 “As Oil Poured Forth” 201
FECUNDITY OF SIMPLICITY: METAPHYSICAL
PROCESSION (EXITUS ) AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL
DESCENDING

This descending valence must be briefly situated in the larger frame-

work of Gallus’ theology as a whole. As noted in previous chapters,
Gallus adopts the Dionysian Neoplatonic metaphysics of procession,
return, remaining, in order to describe, not only the divine nature
itself, but also to explain why and how created reality exists. Here, in
particular, the moment of divine procession is significant, wherein
God “ecstatically” goes out of Godself to create and to constitute all
that is not God (see Chapter 2). This descent is not only metaphysical;
it is also theophanic, manifesting, expressing, revealing God in what
is not God. As noted in Chapter 3, Gallus’ anthropology is “keyed” to
this Dionysian hierarchical metaphysics, such that within the soul
itself, there are ascending and descending “valences,” coordinated
with the metaphysical moments of procession and return: the ascend-
ing valence corresponds to metaphysical return (reditus), traced in
the preceding chapters; the descending valence corresponds to the
metaphysical procession (exitus), to be treated here.
The descending valence reflects the “principle of plenitude” that is
a kind of first-principle of Gallus’ entire theology (see Chapters 1–2).
The super-abundance of the pleromatic and plethoric Trinity is a
function of both the self-diffusive dynamism of the Good, as well as
the utter simplicity of the divine nature. In this, Gallus subscribes to
an intuition, which Bonaventure will also affirm,4 namely, that the
more simple a reality is the more fecund it is. Divine simplicity is a
fecund fullness, and as such it is most abundant, overflowing, spilling
over and down. Citing Ps. 30:20, how great is the multitude of your
sweetness, Gallus says:
That sweetness, although supremely simple in essence and indivisible
in that omnipotent wisdom, is nevertheless called his multitude and
so great, that is, inestimably great, because it fills and refreshes with
his innumerable communications every concavity (sinus) of every
celestial and mortal mind extended into it. I am inflamed with desire

4
For the Franciscan, it is primitas, “firstness,” that is most fecund, by virtue of its
“firstness” and simplicity.
202 Descending
from the multiplicity of that simplicity and from the taste of divine
sweetness.5
Thus while the ascent valence moves from multiplicity to simplicity—
indeed, simplifies as it approaches its utterly Simple object—the
descent valence follows the fecund and abundant flow of multiplicity
out of and down from simplicity.

CHRIST THE FONTAL SOURCE

The descending valence finds its point of departure in the seraphic

union of love between the soul and her divine Spouse. Thus, though
with Dionysius Gallus affirms that divine revelation comes down from
the Father of lights (Jas. 1:17) and that “God waters this mind from the
higher theoriae of eternal wisdom,”6 yet he insists on and accentuates
the mediation of Christ: “every true refreshment of the mind (refectio
mentis) is transmitted unto the lower orders from the Bridegroom,
Christ the Head”7 and “all spiritual nutriments are received from
God through the Head, which ‘contains all the senses (omnes sensus),’
and are administered to the lower orders.”8 In a now familiar text,
he claims that “the principal affection and theoric intellect (affectio
principalis et intellectus theoricus) are fecundated (fecundati) by the
bull that rules the flock (Matt. 18:12–13),” namely, “Christ.”9 Perhaps
the clearest affirmation is this: “But the wisdom of Christians . . .
which is from above (Jas. 3:17), irradiates from the fullness of the
fount of wisdom (de plenitudine fontis sapientie), about which: the
word of God is the fount of wisdom (Eccles. 1:5) and . . . . [In whom are
hid] all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2:3).”10
In Dionysius, of course, procession, as both metaphysical and epis-
temological, is understood cosmologically and ecclesially-liturgically;
all of reality is a kind of cosmic liturgy. Anthropologically appropriated
by Gallus, the descending valence is reconceived psychologically and
interpersonally. Where for Dionysius, God “appears” in the cosmos,
revealing himself impersonally in all that exists, for Gallus the Spouse

5 6 7
Cmm2-CC 2A.78. Cmm2-CC 1A.68. Cmm2-CC 2A.78.
8 9
Cmm3-CC 7D.218–19. Expl-DN 1.71.522–30.
10
Expl-DN 1.72.544–9.
 “As Oil Poured Forth” 203
“appears” to the soul-bride, revealing himself personally in her loving
embrace. In short, the descending valence finds its fontal source in the
person of Christ, who moreover freely and graciously (not by an
“indifferent” metaphysical necessity) reveals the divine Plenitude to
his bride, and it is this personal self-disclosure that then “flows down,”
hierarchically, to the lower parts of the soul, and is received by them in
their proper modalities: “HIS STOREROOMS, by which is understood the
plenitude of divine invisible graces from which we receive all things
and all things are received, just as from a storeroom supplies are
administered for all other services, for the refectory and the like.”11

“ UPON HER WHOLE SOUL”

Not only is the divine Spouse a divine Plenitude, but the soul united to
Him receives of his abundance, is filled, and overflows downward into
every part of the soul: from affective union, as from breasts (ubera), come
“inflowings (influitiones) . . . into the inferior orders.”12 The seraphic
bride says: “I distributed to my inferior orders from my plenitude . . . ”13
Gallus returns to this theme frequently and evocatively, reflecting its vital
place and function in his mystical theology. Several features of this
descending valence should be noted immediately.
There is a clear sense of hierarchical “cascading,” first of all, in
which the seraphic abundance flows downward into each successive
rank, one by one: “the order of the seraphim first flows into (influat)
the [orders of] the cherubim and thrones, and then into the inferior
orders.”14 Again: “I am so filled with sweetness from the union of
him,” says the bride, “that from my very abundance, my spikenard,
that is, fervent love sweetly emitting a fragrance, gave, that is, distrib-
uted to my lower orders.”15 Each succeeding rank, moreover, receives
it “in the mode of the receiver” so to speak, in its own proper way or

11 12 13
Cmm2-CC 1B.71. Cmm2-CC 4E.95. Cmm2-CC 1F.75.
14
Cmm2-CC 3C.87.
15
Cmm2-CC 1F.75. Again: Having received the King in her inmost part, where He
now feeds and reclines, the bride says that she “was so filled with suavity from that
union,” that her “spikenard, that is, the fervent love most suavely fragrant, gave off, that
is, distributed to my inferior orders, the odor of its suavity, or the odor of itself, that is,
the participations of its perceived suavities according to the capacity of the individual
orders” (Cmm2-CC 1F.75.)
204 Descending
modality:16 “Out of the abundance of such a drink (abundantia
haustus), the Bridegroom . . . distributed one-by-one into each of my
inferior orders, according to the capacity of each.”17 This diversity of
modes of reception is not only quantitative but also qualitative: “in
diverse modes, namely, more by the [higher orders], less by the lower
orders.”18 Third, this grace born of affective union is a manifold
refection, nourishing the soul: “just as all nourishment, both food
and drink, is carried into the lower body by the neck, so all intellec-
tual, spiritual, or affective nourishment, by which the contemplative
mind is nourished, is transmitted from the head of the hierarchy, that
is, the Seraphim, through the Cherubim, to the lower orders.”19 For
the Seraphim is like the bride’s “palate, through which all refreshment
moves from the head into the body.”20 From seraphic union, “every
true refreshment of the mind (vera mentis refectio) is transmitted into
the inferior orders,”21 and as a nourishing “light rain,” this influx “re-
fills (replete) and refreshes (reficit) every capacity (sinus)” of the mind
that has been extended to receive it.22 Thus “the highest of the
orders . . . feeds [the lower] with celestial food.”23 Fourth, it is also a
remedy for the effects of sin:24 “the oil of loving union—your name is
oil poured out—is now poured out upon her whole soul, “purging,
illuminating, and healing” her “whole hierarchy.”25 Not surprisingly,
this brings about a state of ordered love: “This is to order charity in
me, that is, to distribute one-by-one into my orders,”26 such that “a
great abundance of ordered charity and clear understanding inflow
from the order of Seraphim into [the order of the Cherubim], by

16
See Cmm2-CC 1F.75: “spikenard . . . the most sweetly fragrant fervent love (amor
fervidus suavissime fragrans), is distributed to the lower orders, according to their
capacities”; Cmm2-CC 1A: “For [order of the Seraphim] drinks and inflows into and
pours out to the lower orders step-by-step according to the capacity of each”; Cmm2-
CC 2C.86: “And what I drink from the same fountain, I pour more copiously into my
lower orders . . . according to the capacity of each order.”
17
Cmm2-CC 2B.78. Again, Cmm3-CC 6A.206: When the Groom descends into the
garden of the bride, “that is, into the order of my seraphim,” He strews “her inferior
orders with sweetness (suavitate), like the smell of a plentiful field (Gen. 27:27).”
18 19 20
Cmm3-CC 4C.179. Cmm2-CC 4B.93. Cmm2-CC 2A.78.
21 22 23
Cmm2-CC 2.A.78. Cmm2-CC 2.A.78. Cmm2-CC 1E.73.
24
Cmm3-CC 1C.124: “This is the principle refreshment of our nature for the
reparation of ancient ruin, when in the first Adam we were stripped of grace and
wounded in natural things; he, who heals your every infirmity (Ps. 102:3).”
25
Cmm2-CC 1A.69. cf. Dionysius, CH 7.3 (Parker, 29): “the reception of the
supremely Divine Science is both purification, and enlightenment, and perfecting . . . ”
26
Cmm2-CC 2B.78–9.
 “As Oil Poured Forth” 205
which it powerfully builds these in the lower orders.”27 Again: “he set
in order charity in me (S. of S. 2:4), namely, [charity] surpassing
knowledge (scientiae) (Eph. 3:19), that is: he arranged my love (dilec-
tionem), by which I inhere to God as a bond of perfection, in
the seraphic order of the hierarchy of my mind . . . , for through the
seraphic order, every inferior order participates in the divine light and
is arranged in the hierarchy.” This descending inflow of ordering love
fecundates all the virtues, both natural and theological: “The young
maidens are called the new movements of natural virtues, purified and
made fecund, having been excited by the taste of divine sweetness”;28
and “spiritually [understood], those sixty men are called strong in
the contemplative man because by the inflowing of contemplative
and theological virtues they are constantly strengthened.”29 In short,
this descending valence is integral to the spiritual health of the entire
soul. In all of this, lastly, the generous bestowals flowing from the
Trinity to the soul, reverberate within the soul as well: “by plentiful
inflowings to inferiors, superiors imitate the plenitude of divine lar-
gesse (largitatis).”30

INFLOWING LOVE AND KNOWLEDGE

By far, the most significant aspect of this descending valence is its

implication for intellectual cognition. Although seraphic union is
preeminently affective, the grace of that union nonetheless flows
down and fecundates both the affectus and especially the intellectus
at the lower ranks of the soul. Characteristically, Gallus multiplies
poetic images for this: “lingering on that bridal-bed and inflowing the
more fertile fervors and splendors of lights, the Bridegroom expands
(dilatat) that very bed, . . . as if he said ‘I, expanding you copiously
from myself with a capacity for my magnitude, . . . fill you again with
the manifold fragrance of sweetness,’ . . . splendor and odor . . . on

27
Cmm2-CC 4B.93; see Cmm2-CC 3F.90.
28
Cmm3-CC 1C.124: “virtutum naturalium motus novi, mundi et fecundi, gustu
divine dulcedinis excitati.”
29
Cmm2-CC 3D.88: “spiritualiter, in viro contemplativo fortes dicuntur, quia
influitione contemplativarum et theologicarum virtutum assidue roborantur.”
30
Cmm3-CC 4F.183.
206 Descending
account of the filling of intellect and affect.”31 Seraphic union is like a
“higher garden,” that is “made into a fountain by the water flowing
down from above, from its abundance, and it pours affectual and
intellectual abundance (copias affectuales et intellectuals) into the
lower orders.”32 “Like the burning sun,” it “opens the seeds (poros)
of the soil for germination . . . and causes [the soil] to open itself wide
(hiare) from the abundance of its fervor (Ps. 142:6: ‘my soul is like the
earth,’ and Ps. 80:11: ‘Open your mouth and I will fill it’).”33 Leaving
the garden for the nursery, both “clarity” (claritatem) and “sweetness”
(dulcedinem) flow down from the chest (pectore) of the Groom into
the breasts (ubera) of the bride, and from the seraphim of the bride
into the lower orders.34 Gallus’ typical alignment of terms makes
manifest his concern with both the affectual and intellectual aspects
of this descending valence: Fervors and splendors, sweetness and
clarity, odor and splendor—these pairs correspond, respectively, to
the inflowing of affectual and intellectual abundance (copias affec-
tuales et intellectuals).
Already apparent in the references to the Bridegroom above, this
downflowing is Christologically sourced and mediated. For Gallus,
the affective darkness of seraphic union is downwardly rent by the ray
of Christological self-revelation. Speaking of Christ, “who is the way
(John 14:6; Job 38:24: ‘through which way is the light spread?’),” Gallus
likens Him to the sun, which “with its own rays opens the way of
seeing itself and it heats the same, ‘breathing out fiery vapors’ (Eccles.
43:4) warming and illuminating.”35 Into the sublime movements of
[seraphic] contemplation, Christ “is received and carried, and from
[whom flows] an abundance of this light and radiance.”36
Gallus is especially attentive to the descending relationship that
emerges between the seraphic and cherubic orders, with their respect-
ive association with love and knowledge. It is the order of the
Seraphim, “which by an inmost anointing . . . drinks a great abun-
dance of the love of true goodness and knowledge of eternal truth
from her union with the Bridegroom in the principal hierarchy, from

31
Cmm2-CC 2A.77: “Sponsus vero in eodem lectulo quietius commmorans et
uberiores luminum fervores et splendores influens, ipsum lectum dilatat quasi in
campum et ipso effectu loquitur: Ego sum flos campi, id est ego te capacitate mee
magnitudinis dilatans copiose ex me, flore personaliter singulari, multiplici odore
suavitatis te repleo.”
32 33
Cmm2-CC 4F.98 (emphasis added). Expl-DN 4.203.571.
34 35 36
Cmm2-CC 4E.95. Expl-DN 1.71.536–9. Cmm2-CC 3E.90.
 “As Oil Poured Forth” 207
which abundance it copiously pours affectual fervors into the
Cherubim.”37 Even though the cherubic rank is associated with
intellectual cognition—“the name ‘CHERUBIM’ signifies the MULTITUDE
OF COGNITIONS that it receives” —it is worth noting that it receives
38

both intellectual and affective inflowings. For “the order of Cherubim

is constantly filled from this double abundance . . . : he will satisfy your
soul with splendors (Isa. 58:11).”39 Yet Gallus hones in on the specif-
ically intellective aspect. He explicitly affirms that, precisely in its
proper intellectual modality and activity, the intellectus benefits intel-
lectually from the grace of affective union: “the Groom commends this
fountain from the principal inflowing, namely, the affectual inflowing
(affectual influitio), which is like a fountain of intellectual things
(intellectualium; emphasis added), by which there is an inflowing
from the higher watering.”40 So the bride receives “the special, experi-
enced inflowings of the Groom,” “incorporating [them] intimately
within herself as the inflowings of understanding (intelligentie influi-
tiones).”41 For “enclosed (conclusi) in this [seraphic] darkness, our eyes,
are said to be opened when the superior ray . . . illumines our intelli-
gences (intelligentias) for speculation, by rending the veil of that dark-
ness (according to 2 Cor. 3:18: We all with unveiled faces etc. . . . ).”42 In
his descriptions of this, Gallus makes striking use of sense language to
narrate the descent from affective cognition (associated with smell,
touch, and especially taste) to cherubic cognition (associated with
hearing and especially sight). “After the long-lasting embrace of the
bridegroom, the bride is illuminated by means of the aforementioned
taste, with a special privilege of more ample knowledge (amplior cog-
nitionis).”43 Commenting on the Dionysian phrase, AFTERWARDS, TO
THOSE WHO HAVE TASTED, Gallus says “the taste of it is prior to intellectual
cognition . . . for our Seraph flows down into (influit) our Cherub,
hence Ps. 33:9: O taste, and see etc. . . . ” 44 Remarkably then, even
paradoxically, from the darkness of affective union (where the Groom
can only be tasted, smelled, and touched) comes a torrent of intellectual
understandings, which Gallus consistently evokes in the language of

37 38
Cmm2-CC 4C.93. Expl-AH 7.582.59–583.60.
39 40
Cmm3-CC 7B.216. Cmm2-CC 4F.98 (emphasis added).
41 42
Cmm3-CC 7F.221. Expl-DN 4.203.571.
43
Cmm2-CC 2B.78. Cmm3-CC 7F.221: “Your throat, the top of which, that is, the
palate, tasting my sweetness, is like the best wine, it draws (haurit) the chief sweetness
of contemplation, from the fullness of which the inferior orders are saturated.”
44
Expl-DN 4.203.588.
208 Descending
illumination. He thus speaks of the “abundance of inflowings of lights
(ex abundantia influitionis luminis) descending from the Father,”45 as
“light emptied from a super-luminous heat (MT 2), first poured [from]
the Seraphim, one by one, into the inferior orders,”46 and as a
“flood (inundatio) of the divine light flows into the lower orders one
by one.”47
But Gallus does not neglect the lower parts of the soul with respect
to the reception and generation of intellectual cognition from above.
So, in the imagery of the Song, the cherubic order is called “teeth
because teeth, like pincers, tear off a selected portion from the whole
of seraphic light, as if apportioning it, by biting and coming together
like teeth, in order to incorporate [that light] into her, for the
nourishment and growth of her inferior orders.”48 Indeed, for Gallus
another meaning of the word “CHERUBIM” is THE OUTPOURING OF
49
WISDOM that is distributed to the inferior orders.” For their part,
the order of the Thrones is likened to “pieces of pomegranate
because that order, so to speak, breaks open, divides, and multiplies
to the lower and more manifest orders from the abundance of the
fervors of affection, with which it is filled.”50 With regard to the
order of the Dominions, Gallus interprets the Song phrase, cypress
[sprinkled] with spikenard, to mean that the “sober understanding,
sprinkled with affectual sweetness, is excellently exercised.”51 So in
the Song’s language of milk and honey, Gallus describes a cascading
descent: honey refers to “the affectual inflowings (affectuales
influitiones) pouring down from the first hierarchy [i.e. Seraphim,
Cherubim, Thrones] into the lower ones,” while the milk that “flows
out from the breasts” is the “sober intellectual cognition (intellectiva
cognitio sobria) flowing down from the breast of the first hierarchy

45 46
Cmm2-CC 1C.71. Cmm3-CC 1C.124.
47
Cmm3-CC Prol.N.109: “De isto in inferiores ordines seriatim fluit divini luminis
inundatio.” See Cmm2-CC 3E.90, where Gallus interprets the wood of Lebanon (S. of
S. 3:9) as “brightness,” because Libanus is a mountain, signifying the contemplative
mind flooded copiously with the radiance of eternal light (Wisd. 7:26).”
48 49
Cmm2-CC 4B.92. Expl-AH 7.582.49–583.181.
50
Cmm2-CC 4B.92–3. Note Gallus’ frequent references to ubera as exuberans.
51
Cmm2-CC 4G. See also Cmm2-CC 3F.90. “HE MADE THE PILLARS THEREOF, that is,
her Dominions which are immediately underneath the Thrones, FROM SILVER, which is
splendid and sonorous, through teaching, which is to pour forth (transfundere) the
splendor of learning. For, out of the abundance of the heart (note the splendor), the
mouth speaks (note the eloquence and sonority).”
 “As Oil Poured Forth” 209
[i.e. Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones] into the second [i.e. Dominions,
Virtues, Powers].”52
In Gallus’ mystical theology, therefore, there is an intimate rela-
tionship between affective and intellective cognition, wherein the
former not only transcends and exceeds the latter, but also redounds
upon and fecundates it.

AFFECTIVE THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE

Gallus interprets significant figures from the biblical and post-biblical

past in light of this conviction that seraphic affectivity is intellectually
generative. Claiming that God named himself doubly to Moses in his
encounter with the burning bush, Gallus says:
This united name is only cognized by those who are united. Whence
[God] said to Moses, united to him, who was asking his name: I am who
I am; that is, existence turned back on itself (esse in se reflexum), or
being (entitas), which name Moses did not perceive, except by the apex
of principle affection which is united for eternity (ab apice principalis
affectionis que unitur eternitati). But to the people of Israel was
entrusted the intelligible name, namely, he who is, or being (ens),
which is the first emanation of existence from the most causal cause
(emanatio prima existentie causa causalissima). In this manner are
drawn the names of the book The Divine Names, which are goodness,
light, beauty, existence, life, wisdom, etc.53
For Gallus, Moses received the name I am who I am through affective
union; what flowed down to the people, i.e. to the intellect, was “he
who is.” The same emerges in relation to John the Baptist: “yet . . . the
affectus brought to union, engenders incomparably brighter lights in
the intellect, as the order of the Seraphim is related to the order of the
Cherubim . . . Whence, John the Baptist, wonderfully uniting these
[two], is first called burning, but after his baptism, shining (John
5:35),”54 the first pertaining to love, the second to knowledge. So too,

52 53
Cmm2-CC 5A.101. Cmm3-CC 1B.123.
54
Expl-DN 1.76.652–7: “affectio ad unitionem perducta incomparabiliter clariores
fulgores ingignat intellectui, tamquam ordo Seraphim ordini Cherubim, sicut ante
XVI annos diligenter tractaui in expositione sublimis uisionis Is. 6a. Vnde Iohannes
Baptista magnifice unitus dicitur primo ardens, post baptismam lucens (Ioh. 5f).”
210 Descending
Hierotheus, though he was perfected by an unspeakable union . . .
above mind . . . was yet able to “instruct and inflame” (instruere et
inflammare) others regarding his experience.55 More than these,
though, it appears that for Gallus it was his own Victorine predeces-
sor, Richard of St. Victor, who exemplified this principle, as Gallus
explains in a remarkably explicit passage. Commenting on the
Seraphic thrice-holy exclamation from Isa. 6:3, Gallus interprets this
as an act of teaching. He then notes: “In the Seraphim’s act of teaching
understand the highest order; in the act of listening [understand] the
next order after it [i.e. the Cherubim], in which the intellectus is
mingled (immiscetur) with the affectus . . . which [cherubic] order is
rightly said to be taught (discere) and not to discover (invenire) the
mystery of the Trinity . . . ”56 Here the cherubic order is taught intel-
lectually concerning the mystery of the Trinity from the affective
encounter of the seraphic order, since “the philosophical intellect is
not able to demonstrate or discover (demonstrare aut invenire) the
Trinity of unity, as the church understands it; rather more does [the
intellect] learn it [from the affectus].”57 Gallus then adduces Richard
as his prime witness: “But recently someone was found, namely, prior
Richard, who in his book which is called ‘Iustus meus’ [On the
Trinity], faithfully multiplying the talent of his intellectus, established
a new art upon the experience of the affectus, and with sufficient
necessary reasons cried, HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, through the seraph of his
own mind.”58 Here, Gallus depicts Richard as arriving at profound
intellectual insight into the mystery of the Trinity on the basis of his
own affective, seraphic experience of Christ:
Often by the experience of burning charity (experientia estuantis car-
itatis) the mind is illuminated and strengthened in no small way as to
how the apprehended articles of the Trinity, already held by faith, are

55
Expl-DN 2.155.1029.
56
Expl-AH 10.640.337–641.341: “Per Seraphim docentem intellige summum
ordinem; per audientem, proximum post eum, in quo intellectus immiscetur affectui
(uel superior clamat Seraph inferiori), qui ordo merito dicitur discere et non inuenire
mysterium Trinitatis . . . ”
57
Expl-AH 10.641.341: “Sed Trinitatem unitatis prout eam tenet ecclesia intellectus
philosophicus demonstrare aut inuenire non potuit, sed magis didicit.”
58
Expl-AH 10.641.347–51: “Tandem uero inuentus est aliquis qui talentum
intellectus fideliter multiplicans nouam artem super experimentum affectus fundauit
et necessariis satis rationibus, SANCTVS, SANCTVS, SANCTVS per Seraph suum
clamauit, scilicet prior Richardus in libro suo qui dicitur Iustus meus.”
 “As Oil Poured Forth” 211
understood to be thus and ought not nor cannot be otherwise, though
[it does not understand them] fully.59
Thus, for Gallus, his Victorine confrere is the paradigmatic practi-
tioner of a new form of theological science, founded upon the intel-
lectually fecund experience of love.
Gallus is not advocating a sort of quasi-Gnostic form of secret
revelation, some new knowledge that departs from or adds to Scrip-
ture and ecclesial tradition. Rather, he affirms two things: a more
personal relationship to the truths of revelation and the possibility of
deeper insight into their intelligibility. It is this dimension that is
mediated and fecundated by the soul’s super-intellectual cognitio Dei,
as its necessary pre-condition. For Gallus, affectivity is intellectually
fruitful; mirroring the Trinity’s relationship with creation, the ser-
aphic plenitude is diffusively plethoric, producing an abundance of
speculative insight within the soul.

CONCLUSION

In sum, Gallus posits within the hierarchized soul, not only an ascent
through knowledge to love, but also a descent from love to know-
ledge. Seraphic, affective union flows “back down” into and fecund-
ates the lower orders according to their capacities—“made fecund,
stirred up by the taste of divine sweetness.”60 This reflects in his
consistent application of the principles of Dionysian hierarchy to
the nature of the soul. Two such principles are apparent here: First,
the descending valence is just as significant and integral to the nature
and activity of the soul as the ascending one. It could be said that, just

59
Expl-AH 1.641.355–8: “Sepe experientia estuantis caritatis non mediocriter
illuminatur et roboratur mens quatinus articuli Trinitatis prius tenui fide apprehensi
intelligantur ita esse et aliter esse non debere uel posse, licet non plene.” Gallus may be
indicating something similar here, Cmm3-CC 3A.167: “In the streets and the broad
ways I will seek him whom my soul loves. By broad ways we understand all theoriae,
whether the divine invisible things, which can be apprehended by anyone through the
investigation of reason or through intellectual speculations, or the [divine] essentialia,
personalia, or notionalia which Richard of St. Victor brought into consideration and
common understanding. But the streets we call the super-intellectual unitive experi-
ences, which no one knows except the one who has received it (Rev. 2:17).”
60
Cmm3-CC 1C.124: “ . . . fecundi, gustu divine dulcedinis excitati.”
212 Descending
as the ascending valence is ultimately ecstatic, propelling the soul
beyond itself toward union with its Spouse, so, conversely, the
descending valence is enstatic, flowing into the soul and enabling
the soul to be itself more fully at its various levels or dimensions,
whether intellectual or moral. It nourishes the intellect, heals desire,
orders love, fecundates the virtues—in short, it flourishes the soul.
Second, what flows down is received “in the mode of the receiver,”
that is, in the manner and mode and to the capacity of whatever
rank receives it. Each receives the “fullness . . . through the outpour-
ing OF THE WISDOM GIVEN to them TO THOSE BELOW, that is, to their
inferiors . . . ABUNDANTLY, to the extent that the lower ones are able to
grasp (quantumcumque inferiores sufficiunt capere).”61 The intellec-
tual dimensions of the soul in particular receive the affective grace
of union as intellectualium, as intellectual things. What the affectus
experiences can in some way be passed down to and received by the
intellectus in its proper modality. In terms of the spiritual senses, the
affective cognitio received by seraphic gustation is received as intel-
lectual cognitio through cherubic illumination.

61
Expl-AH 7.587.167–588.201.
 Part IV

Remaining
 9

“Remaining in Blessed Intoxication”

“Longing always ought to grow in us on account of knowledge

and also knowledge on account of longing; and by mutual
increases they ought to minister for mutual increases, and by
mutual enlargement they are able to grow with mutual
enlargement.”
Richard, De arca IV.10 (PL 196.145C-D; Zinn: 274)

INTRODUCTION

A fundamental assumption undergirding this interpretation of the

theology of Thomas Gallus, structuring the entire work, is that Gallus
understands the soul to be an instance or expression of a Dionysian
hierarchy. A related assumption is that Dionysian hierarchy expresses
the three constitutive elements of Dionysian metaphysics, namely,
procession, return, and remaining, which Gallus adapts in his under-
standing of how the plethoric Trinity relates to creation generally (see
Chapter 2). The Gallusian soul in particular is hierarchically consti-
tuted by three corresponding dimensions (see Chapter 3), the first
two of which, the descending and ascending “valences,” correspond-
ing respectively to procession and return, were treated in the previous
chapters (5–8). The final dimension, “remaining,” will be considered
here.
As noted in the foundational chapters above, in articulating his
Dionysian inspired conceptions of the Trinity and of creation, Gallus
adopted the Dionysian symbol of a circle in order to evoke the
cumulative effect of these three moments. After introducing the
hierarchies of the soul in the Prologue to his Song commentaries,
216 Remaining
he observed that through them the soul is led back up (reducitur) into
God, who (citing DN 4) is an ETERNAL CIRCLE, MOVING THROUGH THE
GOOD, FROM THE GOOD, IN THE GOOD, AND TO THE GOOD, in (now adding
his own emphasis) “the holy and unified convolution of the Trinity”
(convolutione sancta et unice Trinitatis).”1 Later in the Third Com-
mentary on the Song, referring to the bride’s plea to the Groom, draw
me after you (S. of S. 1:4), Gallus simply quoted at length the above-
quoted passage from DN 4, in order to interpret the bride’s words:
THE THEOLOGIANS CALL HIM . . . A MOVEMENT, SIMPLEX, SELF-MOVED,
LOVING
SELF-OPERATING, PRE-EXISTING IN THE GOOD, AND FROM THE GOOD BUBBLING
FORTH TO THINGS EXISTING, AND AGAIN RETURNING TO THE GOOD, IN WHICH
ALSO THE DIVINE LOVE INDICATES DISTINCTLY ITS OWN UNENDING AND UN-
BEGINNING, AS IT WERE A SORT OF EVERLASTING CIRCLE WHIRLING ROUND IN
UNERRING COMBINATION, BY REASON OF THE GOOD, FROM THE GOOD, AND IN
THE GOOD, AND TO THE GOOD,
AND EVER ADVANCING AND REMAINING AND
2
RETURNING IN THE SAME AND THROUGH THE SAME.

Here, procession, remaining, and return describe an eternal, divine

“circulation” of love and goodness, which Gallus appropriates in
order to describe both the trinitarian Pleroma itself, ad intra
(Chapter 1), as well as its plethoric self-communication in creation,
ad extra (Chapter 2). It is this very circulation that draws the soul
Godward, and as it does so, it generates an analogous circulation in
the soul as well: “The divine light descends through the higher orders
step by step all the way to the lowest, and . . . filling and reviving both
the lowest and all the other orders one by one, it leads them back up
(reducit) into the divine.”3 Gallus’ conception of the soul’s relation-
ship to God thus mirrors the Trinity itself as well as the overarching
metaphysical framework of procession, remaining, and return.

REMAINING AS SERAPHIC POSTURE/ACT

Simply put, anthropological “remaining” is a seraphic act and pos-

ture. That is to say, super-intellectual, affective union with her divine
Spouse is, for Gallus, an ongoing, continual state of the soul (ideally

1 2 3
Cmm2-CC Prol.67. DN 4.9. Cmm2-CC 3C.87.
 “Remaining in Blessed Intoxication” 217
speaking4). The bride is to be like Abraham who “remains within the
entrance of his tent” (Gen. 18:1),5 namely, at the place where she
encounters the triune visitation.
“Suspended (suspense) in the order of the holy seraphim . . . perse-
vering in that suspending” (perseverante illo suspendio),6 she “now
perseveres by being expanded to the divine ray in the Seraphim and
does not descend” (modo perseverat expansa ad radium divvinum in
seraphim et non descendit),7 striving always to be there “where it is
permissible to remain in blessed intoxication” (ubi licet perseverare in
beata ebrietate).8 In this posture, where “the apex of the affection
alone is exercised super-intellectually toward union” (solus affectionis
apex ad unitionem superintellectualiter exercetur) the soul-bride says:
I sleep and the heart remains awake, that is, my inmost and highest
self remains awake” (intimum meum et summum vigilat).9 This state
of seraphic remaining generates the descending and ascending
valences in the soul, even as it maintains its place, undiminished.

SERAPHIC REMAINING GENERATES

DESCENDING VALENCE

First, the descending valence: “I distribute to my inferior orders from

my plenitude, but nonetheless I firmly cling to the bridegroom to
drink more copiously.”10 Gallus multiplies images to repeat this
point: So the bride says to her Spouse: “I will take hold of you, that
is, by adhering avidly and firmly and remaining with you, and bring
you, that is, I will transmit your in-flowings (influitiones tuas), your
cognition (tuam cognitionem) and praise, into my mother’s house:
that is, into all the inferior orders.”11 Again: “The light of wisdom
itself, which you inflow wholly to inferiors through your superior
order, remains (manet) more interior and profound as it flows than

4
Cmm2-CC 5B.102: “The bride, drawn up to the high peak of wisdom, desires
to remain with the bridegroom on that peak and always to be drawn to the interior,
but lest he exalts her by the greatness of the revelations, she is released and sent
back to sobriety, in as much as he prevents her from standing at the highest points
for very long.”
5 6 7
Cmm3-CC 1H.132. Cmm3-CC 1F.129. Cmm2-CC 1C.71.
8 9 10
Cmm3-CC 1E.128. Cmm2-CC 5B.103. Cmm2-CC 1F.75.
11
Cmm3-CC 8A.224.
218 Remaining
that which is distributed to inferiors.”12 “You will be made a fountain
of inferior gardens, by your union irrigating the [lower] orders and
making enclosed and fruitful gardens, and nonetheless you remain
(permanes) a deep well,”13 and “retaining (retinendo) a well for
itself—Eccles. 48:19: made a well for water—she becomes a fount
(fons) for others, communicating (communicando), inflowing (influ-
endo), irrigating (irrigando), Eccles. 24:42: I will water my garden.”14
“That which is called a breast (mamma) can refer to the plenitude
which the order of Seraphim retains in itself; that which is called
breasts (ubera) can refer to the inflowing of the same unto the lower
orders.”15 The seraphic rank, “without detriment to its contemplation
and its progress, persevering in sublime things, nonetheless teaches
the inferior orders, and governs and disposes their exterior acts.”16
Perhaps the most elaborate expression of this idea is here:
The bride, filled with copious lights, and flowing into the lower orders in
abundance from her plenitude . . . speaks effectively and experientially:
my hands, the hierarchical operations, dripped, they flowed into the
lower orders through the divisions of graces, myrrh, . . . and still my
fingers, that is, the seraphic motions, by which I distribute this myrrh to
others, were full with this choicest myrrh; for it is more perfect in the
higher orders than in the lower, and in the highest it is most perfect, and
it loses nothing by inflowing to the others . . . 17
Unsurprisingly, but not insignificantly, Gallus notes the correspond-
ing act of remaining on the part of the divine Spouse, who, the bride
observes, “always remains (commoraretur) with me through the bond
of charity that is the bond of perfection (Col. 3:14).”18 Again, “He shall
abide, by feeding and by resting . . . by remaining with me . . . between
my breasts, i.e. the embraces of my principal affect and intellect, by
which alone I am intoxicated with the richness [ubertate] of the house
of God . . . from which the mind is copiously enflamed and inebriated
in the inferior orders.”19 What Gallus accentuates in all these texts
is the simultaneity of seraphic “remaining” in loving union with her

12 13 14
Cmm3-CC 4F.183. Cmm3-CC 4H.187. Cmm3-CC 4H.187.
15 16
Cmm2-CC 4E.95. Cmm3-CC 8D.228.
17
Cmm3-CC 5E.197: “Sponsa ergo, copiosis luminibus repleta, et de sua plenitu-
dine largiter influens inferioribus ordinibus, . . . effective loquitur et experientialiter:
manus mee, operationes hierarchice, distillaverunt, per divisiones gratiarum influxer-
unt ordinibus inferioribus, myrrham . . . ”
18 19
Cmm3-CC 2E.150. Cmm3-CC 1M.139.
 “Remaining in Blessed Intoxication” 219
Spouse, with its undiminished fullness on the one hand, with, on the
other hand, the abundant outpouring and generous inflowing that
this remaining enables and generates in the lower parts of the soul.

SERAPHIC REMAINING GENERATES

ASCENDING VALENCE

Remaining, then, in seraphic union, the descending valence flows

down into the soul, each order receiving the inflow from “above”
and pouring it down further to those “below.” But each successive
rank is, as it were, nourished, stimulated, and fecundated by what it
receives and thus is renewed in its proper activity, which is to
participate anew in the ascending valence in its proper way. The
down-flow engenders a resurgence: The “ascent of the mind, is
produced . . . from the inflowing (inundatione) of super-substantial
wisdom.”20 The bride “rouses and urges (suscitat et sursumagit) the
inferior orders on high, inflowing copiously to them from either of
her breasts” (copiose inluenseisdem de utraque sua ubertate).21
Again: “Young women [i.e. the lower orders] . . . weakly, but aptly,
according to fecundity . . . have loved you very much, having tasted
the inflowing, sighing with constant suspension (suspendio) for a
fuller drink.”22 What this means is that “by the communication of
these highest and manifold graces, poured forth through the seraph
of the mind into the inferior orders, the natural affectus and
intellectus are powerfully incited to rise up and stretch out con-
stantly toward the perceptions of the good and the participations in
the beautiful.”23 The “bridegroom . . . is a lily by the constant growth
of the splendors of the understanding (per assiduum incrementum
splendorum intelligentie), which is signified by the shining leaves

20 21
Cmm3-CC 3C.170. Cmm3-CC 7B.217.
22
Cmm2-CC 1A.69: “ . . . motus dominationum, infirme, sed ad fecunditatem apte . . .
DILEXERUNT TE nimis, gustata influitione, assiduo suspendio ad pleniorem hautum
supsirantes.”
23
Cmm3-CC 1C.124: “Ex huius igitur precipue et multiplicis gracie communica-
tione, per seraphim mentis in ordines inferiores transfuse, fortiter incitantur affectus
et intellectus naturales, in perceptas boni et pulchri participationes semper assurgere
et extendi.”
220 Remaining
of the lily whenever it blooms . . . again in the order of the Cherubim
in the highest ascent.”24 Elsewhere Gallus resorts to hydro-physics:
“the divine light, descending one-by-one through those orders unto
the lowest order, by its power, filling and rousing the lowest and
all the others one-by-one, leads [them] back to the divine.25 For the
water of saving wisdom spouting unto eternal life can ascend in as
much as it descends, just as material water descends as much as it
can ascend through spouts.”26 He also deploys the language of the
spiritual sensorium: Having tasted of the divine, the soul mounts up
again for more; having caught the scent of the divine Groom, the
soul longs for new, richer, more intense experiences and thus surges
back upward with greater intensity: “The experienced bride,” says
Gallus, “always desires the sweetness and uplifting activity (sursu-
mactionem) of the new in-flowings and always to make progress in
the taste of sweetness and in being uplifted (sursumactionem).”27
Tellingly, Gallus observes that “the order of the Seraphim ends its
return (reductionem) in the chamber of the Cherubim and not in
itself, because the order of the Seraphim itself does not lead itself back
to God, but rather the Bridegroom himself [does].”28 The implication
is that seraphic remaining functions within the soul in a manner
analogous to metaphysical remaining: in both, “remaining” is the
necessary condition for, as well as the counterpoint to, the hierarch-
ical valences of descending and ascending and of the metaphysical
movements of procession and return. That is, anthropological
remaining in the seraphim of the mind corresponds strikingly to
the metaphysical remaining of the Trinitarian plenitude. For, as
noted in Chapter 2, even as there is procession and return ad extra,
God remains within himself: “granted that it proceeds out to existing
things, yet it remains wholly within itself, fixed immovably”;29 and
the divine love “proceeding in the same and according to the same,
remains in itself and is reinstated to itself.”30

24 25 26
Cmm2-CC 2A.77. See CH 1.1. Cmm2-CC 3C.87.
27 28
Cmm3-CC 7F.221. Cmm2-CC 3C.87.
29
Expl-DN 4.242.1560: “Licet ad existentia procedat, tota in se manet immobiliter
fixa.”
30
Expl-DN 4.248.1699: “ET SEMPER PROCEDENS in res, ET MANENS immotus, ET RES-
TITVTVS,id est per rerum appetitus quos mouet, in se ipsum reflexus; IN EODEM, id est in
ipsa sua supersimplici bonitate, ET SECVNDVM IDEM, id est secundum eamdem
bonitatem.”
 “Remaining in Blessed Intoxication” 221
HIERARCHICAL EXERCISE

With anthropological “remaining” now in view, along with the des-

cending and ascending valences, a more complete account of the
Gallusian soul is now possible. What emerges with greater intelligi-
bility at this point is a leitmotif running throughout Gallus’ theology,
namely, the theme of constant hierarchical activity or, better, exercise.
In the preceding chapters, the ascending and descending valences
were treated discretely and separately, for the sake of clarity of
exposition. Now, however, it becomes clear that in Gallus’ hierarch-
ical anthropology, these are simultaneous dimensions of the soul, co-
present and coterminous with each other and with “remaining.” This
hierarchical simultaneity appears clearly in the passage which con-
cludes his extended Prologue to the Third Commentary on the Song,
and thus frames his interpretation of the entire book:
I will follow the course of the theoriae (occursus theoriarum), which
constantly flow into intellects, extending the soul to the superior
rays . . . that is, by exercising (exercenti) the soul toward the superior
rays of the eternal lights, which is to stretch (extendere) the mind
intellectually and super-intellectually upward, frequently, or rather,
constantly, into the course of the divine rays, which are continuously
super-extended31 to every intellect, just as the sun cheerfully (hilariter)
falls upon our gaze and on each mind piously seeking it, and shows itself
to, rather it preoccupies (preoccupat), its lovers. . . . Thus the best type of
study in divine things is to be exercised toward this ray.32
Here Gallus describes what is rightly characterized as the proper
exercise of the hierarchized soul: namely, simultaneously to receive
and to extend; that is, simultaneous “downward” reception and
“upward” extension. Just as there is continual inflowing from above,
so the soul is continually receiving and constantly extending. This is
the proper hierarchical exercise and the best form of “study” in

31
Reading superextenditur with L, rather than superexpanditur.
32
Cmm3-CC Int-Prol.C.116: “ . . . sequor . . . theoriarum occursus que intellectibus
semper fulgent, animum extendens ad radium superiorem; . . . id est animum exer-
centi ad superiorem radium eterni luminis quod est frequenter, immo assidue, men-
tem intellectualiter et superintellectualiter sursum extendere in occursum divini radii
qui continue superexpanditur omnibus intelligentiis, sicut sol iste nostris obtutibus, et
singulis mentibus se pie querentibus hilariter occurrit et se ostendit, immo amatores
suos preoccupat . . . . Optimum ergo studii genus in divinus est ad hunc radium
exercitari.”
222 Remaining
relation to God. Such is the “one who contemplates through
hierarchical exercise (exercitia hierarchia).”33 This simultaneity of
descending and ascending, of inflowing and upsurging within the
soul is apparent when Gallus refers to “minds (mentes) constantly
extended upward super-intellectually (superintellectualiter sursumex-
tensas), whence fiery rays pour forth, which the sun of understanding
(Wisd. 5:6) and of justice (Mal. 4:2)34 insufflates into them mightily
and abundantly (fortiter et copiose in eas insufflat) (Eccles. 43:4).”35
For “although that inflowing is designated in many ways, such as by
rays, eatings and drinkings, yet it is nothing other than the drawing
(attractio) of the bride into the intimate place of the Bridegroom (in
intima sponsi), and by the very touching (attrectationem), there
occurs an inflowing (influitio) . . . ”36 Lastly: “the lilies signify the
orders of the highest hierarchy of the mind, which, drenched in the
brightness of eternal light, pour forth (transfundunt) those splendors
to the inferior orders, and through its own highest seraphic fervor, as
much as is possible for each one, the lower orders are lifted upwards
(sursumextenduntur) into the divine.”37
All this, moreover, reflects and indeed “enacts” the hierarchical
nature of the soul, which (as noted in Chapter 3) has two simultan-
eous “postures” or modes, namely, of upward-facing receptivity and
downward-facing generativity; incessant receiving and giving; con-
stant infusion and profusion, now “anchored in,” as it were, and
enabled by the ongoing activity of affective seraphic remaining. In
this hierarchic dynamism, remaining, descending, and ascending are
best seen not as sequential acts or movements, one following the
other chronologically, as it were, but rather as constantly occurring,
each always presuming the presence of the other, as in some sense
prior to itself, while simultaneously functioning as the prior move-
ment for the other. All are always “in play.” Just as in Dionysian
metaphysics, “to revert to God is to proceed from him and to proceed
from him is to revert to him,”38 so in Gallusian anthropology, to
ascend is to descend and vice versa. In this way, ultimately, Gallus
conceives of the soul as a stable dynamism of descending and ascend-
ing, of “downwardly” receiving and “upwardly” exceeding. The same
point can be made in terms of the ecstatic and enstatic dialectic: The

33 34
Cmm3-CC 2A.145. A Christological allusion for Gallus.
35 36 37
Cmm3-CC 1G.129. Cmm2-CC 5A.101. Cmm3-CC 2O.164.
38
Perl, Theophany, 42.
 “Remaining in Blessed Intoxication” 223
Gallusian soul is constantly exceeding itself, ascending ecstatically
and super-naturally to seraphic union above mind; it is also con-
stantly returning to itself, descending from seraphic remaining to its
enstatic, sober, and natural self. Precisely in and by these simultan-
eous movements, it remains itself, or perhaps better, is itself. This is
what it means for the soul to be a Dionysian hierarchy.

CONTINUAL CIRCULATION

What emerges ultimately, especially from Gallus’ Song commentar-

ies, is the sense of continual “circulation” within the soul, inspired by
Dionysius,39 but distinctly appropriated by Gallus. The bride says that
she will not cease to go after him—I will seek his face always (Ps.
104)—by rising up in unknowing in imitation of God to circle around
the city (S. of S. 3:2).”40 The city, Gallus explains, is:
the super-infinite fullness of the deity, around which [human and
angelic minds] are said to circle (circuire) . . . by contemplating the
invisible divine things with the highest loving, yet not penetrating
intimately the divine depths; therefore, [such minds] are said to circle
God (circuire Deum) or to be in the circle of God.41
For “however much any angelic or human mind is taken up into the
interior experience and contemplation of the theoriae, yet that one is
always circling those intimate things.”42 The bride pursues “excessive
contemplation of the eternal Trinity, as if circling: LIKE A KIND OF
ETERNAL CIRCLING (DN 4),” and she “goes forth to see King Solomon,
43

that is, to new and excessive contemplation of her reigning and

pacifying Groom, in the diadem, that is, in circling (circuitiva) and
enfolding (amplexativa) contemplation.”44 And: “By the word, mur-
enulas,45 is thus understood the inmost contemplations of the true,

39 40
See DN 4 and CH 7. Cmm2-CC 3A.85.
41
Cmm3-CC 3A.166: “Civitas intelligitur superinfinita plenitudo deitatis quam cir-
cuire dicuntur . . . contemplando, non tamen divine profunditatis intima penetrantes.”
42
Cmm3-CC 3A.167.
43
Cmm3-CC 1K.135: “ . . . excessiva contemplatione Trinitatis eterne et quasi
circularis; DN 4: SICUT QUIDAM CIRCULUS ETERNUS.”
44
Cmm3-CC 3F.175.
45
Gallus is commenting on the Song verse: we will make you chains of gold, noting
that “the murena is a kind of fish . . . having on each side single circles like eyes . . . ”
224 Remaining
the good, and the beautiful, and as it were circular turnings round the
true, the good, and the beautiful, because a circle is free from begin-
ning and end.”46 Fittingly, the Victorine compares this circulation to
the angels descending and ascending Jacob’s ladder: There is an
“inflowing (influitio) of his light from the first order all the way to
the last and a flowing back (refluitio) all the way back to the highest,
according to that verse where Jacob saw the angels ascending and
descending (Gen. 28:12).”47 In sum, for Gallus, “circular motions”
(motus circulares)48 are the signature activity of hierarchized souls.

NOVELTIES

Because, however, the divine Plenitude has infinite depths, the circ-
ling soul is ever experiencing new things. Gallus puts the point well, in
an extended comment on: The vines in flower yield their sweet smell
(S. of S. 2:12):
Vines are the superior theoriae, which carry and pour the wine of the
aforesaid wine cellar (S. of S. 2:3) into contemplative minds. They are
said to flower, when into the same mind new and as yet unexperienced
suavities flow, and this is: Flourishing vines produce perfume, and they
are always flowering because novelties (nova) are always flowing in; for
nature always longs [appetit] for novelties, because it draws the natural
appetites to the desire for the highest good, in which they are always
novelties. Through constant (assiduous) ascensions of contemplation
[assiduos ascensus contemplationum] of the lights novelties are con-
stantly (assidue) succeeding themselves unto infinity, though those
lights are ancient and eternal. Whence Augustine [said] in the Confessions:
‘O beauty, so old and yet so new, late have I known you, late have
I loved you.’49

46
Cmm3-CC 1L.137: “Nomine ergo murenularum, intime contemplationes veri,
boni, et pulchri et quasi circulares convultiones circa verum, bonum, et pulchrum
intelliguntur, quia circulus caret principio et fine.”
47
Cmm2-CC 5A.101. See Cmm3-CC 7F.220.
48
Cmm3-CC 1L.137.
49
Cmm2-CC 2E.82: “Vinee sunt theorie superiores que menti contemplative
ingerunt et influent vinum celle vinarie predicte supra eodem. Iste florere dicuntur
quando eidem menti novas et nondum expertas influent suavitates, et hoc est: vinee
florentes oderem dederunt, et semper florent quia semper nova influent; semper enim
natura appetite nova, quia appetitus naturalis trahit ad appetitum summi boni, in quo
 “Remaining in Blessed Intoxication” 225
Here, new things are constantly flowing down into the soul from
above, because of the constant contemplative ascents upward into the
Good; the vines are always sprouting new flowers because they are
always being watered from above—“flowers, namely, the celestial
splendors of wisdom sprouting new splendors and scents.”50 Elsewhere,
Gallus says that the bride “experiences incessant innovations” (assiduas
innovationes) and, speaking “experientially” (experimentaliter) she says:
“he brought me to the interior theoriae, more profound (profundiores)
than the previous ones.”51 The bride says to her Spouse: “And there,
persevering with you, you shall teach me, that is, by the constant inflow
of new theoriae (novas influes theorias),”52 and, “taken up more inter-
iorly anew, I will give you the new wine of my pomegranates, that is,
drawing me more intimately to yourself, liquefied by new fervors (novis
fervoribus), I will produce [new wine]; by new wine, understand
new things (novitas).”53 Or again: “The attendants therefore continue,
[saying]: O daughters of Jerusalem, strengthened with the inflowings of
this charity through new theoric ecstasies (istius caritatis influitionibus
confortate per novos excessus theoricos), go forth, extend yourself
with every effort for going forth . . . For to go forth is to receive new
in-flowings daily (est quotiens novas recipiunt influtiones), and they go
forth to an ampler draught from that inflowing” (ad ampliorem haus-
tum ex influitione ipsa).54 And “behold he, the Bridegroom, . . . he comes
to me as if anew (quasi de novo), through a new (novam) and more
profound than usual revelation and manifestation of himself . . . ”55 The
soul turns ever anew to receive more fully from her Spouse: “Having
accomplished this distribution in the lower orders, the bride soon turns
again to the drinking of superior theoriae, saying: O my beloved, turn
back to new and superior in-flowings of theoriae, and be like . . . a roe or
a young stag, assimilating me to yourself in this way, upon the moun-
tains of Bethel, that is, in the high theoriae, which are as yet intangibly
above me” (inattingibiliter supereminent).56 “And then she adds: BEHOLD
HE COMES, as if [to say]: although he is conjoined to me unitively and is

semper sunt novitates; per assiduous ascensus contemplationum ex parte luminum

novitates assidue sibi succedunt in infinitum, quamvis ipsa lumina sint antiquissima
et eterna. Unde Augustinus in Confessionibus: “o pulchritudo tam antiqua, tam nova,
sero te cognovi, sero te amavi.”
50 51 52
Cmm2-CC 2D.81. Cmm3-CC 2C.147. Cmm3-CC 8A.224.
53 54 55
Cmm3-CC 8A.224. Cmm2-CC 3G.90. Cmm3-CC 2E.150.
56
Cmm2-CC 2G.84.
226 Remaining
present by unitive conjoining, nevertheless drawing me to what is
higher by new theoriae, it is as if he comes to me anew.”57

CONTINUAL PROGRESS

Not surprisingly, the notion of incessant novelties implies a notion of

continual progress, “as Jer. 3:19 says: you will not cease to walk after me.”58
The Groom says to the bride: “COME to the higher places, because you
have not yet reached them.”59 “The whole course of love consists in
the constant and continual [divine] invitation of this kind.”60 For “as
long as she perseveres with the Bridegroom, she always ascends,”61
and “the more the bride is fed by the new theoriae, the more she
extends herself always to further theoriae, as if the earlier theoriae
were forgotten.”62 When the Groom says to the bride, arise (S. of
S. 2:11), it means “make me RISE BY UNKNOWING higher than before by
fervent affection,” which means that “she approaches constantly by
those ascents to [his] more familiar presence . . . .” and when He says
“I COME always unto the anterior things,” it means that “however far
you come you still will not reach the end.”63 The very last scene of
Gallus’ final commentary on the Song ends with the bride petitioning
the Groom that she be made like the roe and the young hart upon the
mountains of aromatical spices. Gallus observes:
The aromatical mountains are the more sublime theoriae, as yet
inaccessible to the bride, having multiple and infinitely suave fra-
grances, upon which she asks of the groom to be made like a roe and
a hart running with agility, so that the groom, remaining in the above-
mentioned theoriae and quickly running to the bride and drawing her
to himself as from his sublimity, pours forth (infundat) through his rays
as much perspicacity of contemplation as agility of desires made more
effective. And with this word, the bride completes the course of her
petitions in which she perseveres perpetually.64

57 58 59
Cmm2-CC 2C.79-80. Cmm3-CC 2C.147. Cmm2-CC 2F.82.
60 61 62
Cmm3-CC 5A.190. Cmm2-CC 2D.80. Cmm3-CC 8A.223.
63
Cmm2-CC 2D.81.
64
Cmm3-CC 8G.232: “Montes aromatum sunt theorie sublimiores sponse adhuc
inaccessibiles, multiplici et infinita suavitate fragrantes, super quas petit sponsum
assimilari capree et hinnulo cervorum currendi agilitate, ut videlicet sponsus in dictis
theoriis consistens et sponsam illinc ad se trahens tanquam de sublimitate sua ei
 “Remaining in Blessed Intoxication” 227
This well captures the hierarchical posture and exercise of the con-
templative soul in the mystical theology of Thomas Gallus, wherein
the bride is continually running, effectively (not “in vain”) into the
infinite, and thus ever-new suavities of her Beloved. In this, she
“perseveres perpetually” (perpetuo perseverat), for these ever-new
theoriae are “of such sweetness that they never generate fullness,
but are always desired: whoever eats me . . . [will yet hunger] . . .
(Eccles. 24:29).”65

SPIRALING KNOWLEDGE AND LOVE

As may well be anticipated, the foregoing has particular implications

for the relationship between knowledge and love, for continual hier-
archic exercise makes progress in both: “LET US EXTEND with many and
inmost strivings OURSELVES by constant, most chaste PRAYERS TO THE
MORE LOFTY SIGHT OF THE RAYS OF DIVINE GOODNESS than we had previ-
ously experienced, so that by this exercise we might always make
progress toward more sublime knowledge and love of God (notitiam
et amorem Dei).”66 In this continual circulation affectus and intellectus
are always interrelated.
So, once again, “through its sober industry, intellection (intelligen-
tia) gives birth to affection (generat affectionem), in the same way that
cognitio precedes and begets love (precedit et gignit amorem),
although the former is excelled (excedatur) by the latter.”67 Accord-
ingly, the above-noted “circling (circuitiva) and embracing (amplex-
ativa) contemplation” of the Groom in the highest hierarchy of the
bride “produces (ingignit) cognition and love in the inferior orders,

velociter occurens, et per radium suum tam contemplationis perspicacitatem quam

desideriorum agilitatem solito efficaciorem infundat. Et in hoc verbo petitionum
suarum cursum sponsa consummat, in qua perpetuo perseverat.”
65
Cmm3-CC 2B.147.
66
Expl-DN 3.168.112: “EXTENDAMUS multo et intimo conatu NOS IPSOS ORATIONIBUS
castissimis assidue AD ALTIOREM RESPECTUM DIVINORUM BONORUM RADIORUM quam prius
percepimus, ut hoc exercitio semper ad sublimiorem Dei notitiam et amorem
proficiamus.”
67
Cmm2-CC 1C.72.
228 Remaining
that is, it circles around him anew (de novo circuivit eam).”68 Gallus
puts it thus:
For this light is wholly and highly desirable to such a universal extent, that
neither its taste nor its most copious draught generates that surfeited
disgust (fastidium), which occurs in bodily things, but rather [generates]
an incessant (assiduum) appetite: Eccles. 24:29: ‘They that eat me, shall yet
hunger: and they that drink me, shall yet thirst’; . . . But just as it is more
fully received the more fervently it is desired, so the more it is desired, the
more abundantly it is quaffed (habundantius hauritur).69
This is the dynamic recurrence of descent and ascent. The experience
of loving union flows down to fecundate the lower orders of the mind
with new love and knowledge, which only intensifies the movement
of ascent again to loving union. For “as much as spiritual light is
acquired in the intellect, to that extent the affection is more frequently
and more fervently exercised thus.”70

STABLE TEMPLE OF DIVINE INDWELLING

As noted in Chapter 3, Gallus conceives of the soul as a stable dyna-

mism of hierarchical proceeding and reverting, of “downwardly”
receiving and “upwardly” exceeding—a “stable mind made solid by
contemplation.”71 In typical Victorine architectural symbolism, Gallus
evokes this state as a cathedral in which the divine presence comes to
dwell: “ . . . the temple of God is the holy soul, maximally glorified,
which nevertheless is not a mobile tabernacle, but a stable temple.”72

68
Cmm3-CC 3F.175.
69
Expl-DN 4.204.595: “Hoc enim lumen adeo uniuersaliter est totum et summe
desiderabile ut nec gustus eius nec copiosissimus haustus ullum generet fastidium,
sicut accidit in corporalibus, sed assiduum appetitum: Eccli. 24e: Qui edunt me etc.;
Sap. 16c: panem de celo etc. usque conuertebatur. Sicut autem quanto amplius
percipitur tanto feruentius appetitur, ita quanto magis desideratur tanto habundan-
tius hauritur.”
70
Expl-DN 1.94.1091: “Tanto tamen plus intellectui spiritualis luminis acquiritur
quanto affectio frequentius et feruentius sic exercetur.” Again, Expl-DN 1.72.544–9:
“the wisdom of Christians . . . precedes knowledge and understanding engenders it
(eam intelligentia ingignit).”
71
Cmm2-CC 2D.81.
72
Expl-AH 10.633.118: “Moraliter, templum Dei est sancta anima, maxime
glorificata: que tamen non est tabernaculum mobile, set templum stabile.”
 “Remaining in Blessed Intoxication” 229
For Gallus, inspired by, but going beyond Dionysius, this would seem to
be a result of the soul’s hierarchical nature, for “a hierarchia is a
structure (taxis), involving knowledge (gnosis) and movement (energia),
resulting in union with God,” and the purpose of any hierarchy “is the
assimilation and union, as far as attainable, with God.”73
With respect to the three anthropological dimensions of the soul,
this would seem to leave the last word, fittingly, with remaining.
Gallus put this point in terms of the soul’s rest. For “to rest is to be
moved unto eternal stability, and the more swiftly and fervently one is
moved into it, the more fixedly and stably one rests, and so in Wisd.
7:23 the spirit is called both mobile and stable.”74 Or, as “the bride
says, experientially: I sat, that is, heeding the exhortation of the
beckoning Bridegroom that I should not be moved, I rest lingeringly
(morose) under the shade, that is, in his incomprehensibility, which
I desire.”75 Gallusian rest, however, is by no means utter passivity or
mystical quietism, as the deliberate pairing of mobility and stability
indicates.
Rather, the stable dynamism of her hierarchical exercise means
that rest involves the most powerful activity of which the Gallusian
soul is capable, namely, perpetually ascending and penetrating pas-
sionate love:
With the Bridegroom providing for the tranquil and long-lasting repose
of the bride—seeking rest in all things, like Naomi said to Ruth: I will
provide rest for you, . . . 76—the bride, exercising her tranquility most
actively (otium suum negotiosissime exercens), is wholly set on fire, like
burning frankincense (Sir. 50:9) and she blazes with fragrant desires
just as pure incense burns, and she is made entirely a sacrifice full of
marrow (Ps. 65:15). And in these desires, just as in burning and
sharpened arrows (Ps. 119:4) that penetrate very violently, she strongly,
acutely, and marvelously (fortiter et acute et mirabiliter) ascends into

73
CH 3.2 (Parker, 15).
74
Cmm2-CC 2E.81: “Quies siquidem est in eternam moveri stabilitatem et quod
velocius in ipsam moveture et ferventius, ipsum quiescit fixius et stabilius. Unde Sap. 7:
spiritus dicitur et mobilis et stabilis.”
75
Cmm2-CC 2A.78. See Cmm2-CC 1D.72: “WHERE YOU FEED IN MIDDAY, that is,
direct me to yourself by that way which I can be nourished by the sweetness of your
refreshment, and into the same undisturbed places to rest more lingeringly and more
intimately, and this is: where you feed.”
76
Ruth 3:1; see also Isa. 66:12: I will bring upon her, and: sabbath after sabbath;
John 14:27 my peace I give to you; Philem. 4:7: peace which surpasses every sense.
230 Remaining
the sublime theoriae and carries force and violence into the kingdom of
heaven (et regno celorum vim et violentiam ingerit) (Matt. 11:12).77
Here, the bride’s “seeking rest” and “exercising tranquility” is expressed,
paradoxically perhaps, in desire’s fiery, violent assault on the kingdom
of heaven.

CONCLUSION

For Gallus, as argued in this chapter, anthropological “remaining”

anchors and sources the soul’s ascending and descending valences.
Yet, from another, ultimately complementary perspective, “remain-
ing” emerges as the “net effect” of the simultaneous descending and
ascending; or better, precisely as ascending and descending simultan-
eously, the soul comes to be and remains at rest, is a stable temple of
divine indwelling.
As argued above, all this has no little significance for the ultimate
relationship between knowledge and love. For in Gallus’ hierarchized
soul, the intellect–affect relationship is fundamentally governed by
these hierarchic principles. That is, when Gallus posits a higher,
affective cognitio above an intellective cognitio at the highest point
in the ascending valence, this affective form both builds upon and
subsumes the intellective form. This means then that affectivity is
indeed a form of cognition, even as it differs from intellective cogni-
tion, and that the quality (i.e. intensity and profundity) of this higher,
affective cognition is, to some extent, a function of the character
of the lower, intellective cognition. Conversely, the quality of the
higher, affective cognition redounds to, that is, “flows down” to and
is participated by, the lower, intellective cognition in a manner
consistent with its intellective modality. That is, the soul’s capacity
for intellection is increased by the intensity of affection.

77
Cmm2-CC 3D.87: “Providente sponso tranquillam requiem et diuturnam sponse
in omnibus requiem querenti, ut Noemi ad Ruth: providebo tibi requiem, . . . sponsa,
otium suum negotiosissime exercens, tota incenditur, sicut Eccl. 50: thus ardens, et
flagrat desideriis odoriferis, thymiama purum incendit et tota fit holocaustum medulla-
tum, Ps. 65:15, et in his desideriis tanquam sagitiis ardentibus et acutis, Ps. 119:4, que
multum violentius penetrant. Que in sublimes theorias fortiter et acute et mirabiliter
conscendit et regno celorum vim et violentiam ingerit, Matth. 11 . . . ”
 “Remaining in Blessed Intoxication” 231
Ultimately, for Gallus, eternal rest is an act of perpetually spiraling
into God, since the continual circulation of knowledge and love is
a “spiraling” movement around God, a never-ending, constantly
renewed circulation around God—“circular turnings” (circulares con-
volutiones) lacking “beginning and end.”78 And though the spiral
image suggests a “distance” between the soul and God, the corres-
ponding temple image suggests that precisely in this fully hierarch-
ized way, and throughout all the levels of the soul, the soul is
maximally related to, indeed, indwelt by God. In Dionysian terms,
hierarchy enables assimilation and union as much as possible. The
soul knows and loves God hierarchically, in this dynamic spiraling of
love and knowledge.79

78
Cmm3-CC 1L.137.
79
“The love of the Redeemer . . . can activate also in us that wonderful circle in
which love and knowledge reciprocally nourish one another” (Pope Benedict XVI,
“How Can We Remain Indifferent to Such Love,” address given to the Pontifical
Theological Faculty, Teresianum, on May 19, 2011).
 Conclusion: Eternally Spiraling into God

“For the love of God is broader than the measure of our mind . . . ”
Frederick William Faber, “There’s a Wideness
in God’s Mercy,” The United Methodist Hymnal, 121

“To know the love of Christ that surpasses all knowledge, so that
you may be filled with the all-fullness of God.”
Eph. 3:19

INTRODUCTION

Reviewing the preceding account, three principal intuitions or fun-

damental principles emerge prominently in the theology of Thomas
Gallus: metaphysical plenitude, hierarchic anthropology, and the
finality of love. Each merits a concluding discussion.

PLENITUDE

Recently, Khaled Anatolios has argued that the achievement of Nicene

theology was a Christologically driven “reconfiguration of divine
Transcendence.” It affirmed that the perfection of the Trinitarian
God consisted not in the wholly negative characteristic of unbegotten-
ness,1 but rather in the eternal activity of intra-divine generativity, in

1
Arian thinkers tended to locate divine perfection exclusively in the Father’s
unbegottenness. See Khaled Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and
Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 115.
 Conclusion 233
the eternal fullness and plenitude of three-personed goodness, intern-
ally fecund in the begetting of the Son and the processing of the Spirit.
For Athanasius, for example, “divine perfection is dynamic simplicity,
a source that communicates itself perfectly, such that its ‘product’ is
equal to it, priority and posterity in perfect eternal simultaneity . . . ,”
whereas “the monad god” of his Arian opponents “is a dry and barren
fountain without outpouring, a light without radiance . . . ” And so, “as
a consequence of this christological reconception of divine perfection,
Athanasius presents fecundity and generativity as integral to the
perfection of divine being.”2
Roughly nine hundred years later, a similar view is typically asso-
ciated with the Trinitarian theology of St. Bonaventure. For him, in
the words of Zachary Hayes, “God is the infinitely rich and fecund
mystery whose eternal being is a dynamic ecstasy of goodness and
love,” which “produces a plurality without multiplying the nature.”3 It
is typically assumed that the Franciscan’s stress on ecstatic divine
goodness is a function of his highly original and groundbreaking
appropriation of Neoplatonic metaphysics for conceiving of the
inner life of the Trinitarian God: “The Franciscan doctor’s teaching
on the Trinity, and therefore his entire theology, can be seen as an
original adaptation of the Neoplatonic paradigm of emanatio and
reductio, both on the intra-divine and the extra-divine levels.”4 With-
out denying the “true genius” of Bonaventure’s “use of the rich veins
of tradition,”5 we must respectfully demur regarding the claim of
utter originality and insist on the presence of a prior synthesis of these
same traditions in the theology of Thomas Gallus, while also raising
the question of his quite plausible influence on the Seraphic Doctor.
As shown above, Gallus’ strategy in this regard is, like Bonaventure’s,
to capitalize on the Dionysian notion of self-diffusive goodness. He
combines this with a Ricardian emphasis on the divine plenitude of
love, in order to develop a fully-orbed Trinitarian theology, beginning
with the Father’s fontal fullness, which issues forth ad intra in the
Persons of the Son and Spirit.6 This original synthesis of Dionysius and

2
Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, 41–78.
3
Hayes, Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity, 26.
4
McGinn, “Dynamism of the Trinity,” 142.
5
McGinn, “Dynamism of the Trinity,” 154.
6
A move that St. Bonaventure will follow. See Breviloquium (Works of
St. Bonaventure, Vol. 9), trans. Dominic Monti, OFM, (St. Bonaventure University:
Franciscan Institute Publications, 2005), 1.3.7 (Monti, 35), and note 21.
234 Conclusion
Richard emerges as Gallus gives a Dionysian dynamism to the Ricard-
ian definitions of the Persons as diverse modes of giving and receiving:
the Father as the One who gives but does not receive; the Spirit as the
One who receives but does not give; the Son as the One who both
receives and gives. For Gallus, this is what Dionysius meant in speaking
of the divine life as an eternal circulation of the Good and of Love. It
seems then that it is with Gallus that the three-part Neoplatonic
metaphysic of remaining, procession, and return is first enfolded
“back” into the eternal rhythm of the divine life itself.7 Gallus thus
re-deploys the Dionysian notion of divine ecstasy, which for the
Areopagite explains why there is something other than God,8 as the
explanatory principle of the Trinitarian divine nature itself. His deep
intuition is that the Trinity is best conceived of as “super-abundant
abundance,” as fontal fullness, as plenitude itself, as an eternal Circle of
ecstatic self-giving and enstatic self-receiving. Strikingly, finally, Gallus
links fullness with simplicity. Anticipating Bonaventure’s doctrine of
primitas, Gallus sees this divine abundance as not only compatible with
divine simplicity, but also as directly correlative with it. That is,
simplicity and fecundity run together metaphysically: the more simple,
the more fertile.9

7
See McGinn, “Dynamism of the Trinity,” 137: “The master paradigm of exitus
and reditus, the procession out and return to God, is perhaps natural to the religious
mind as it reflects upon the nature of the universe. In Western thought the evolution
of this dynamic paradigm was shaped by the way in which Neoplatonic thinkers, both
pagan and Christian, sought to express how the First Principle overflows into the
universe while at the same time drawing all things back to Itself. What was unique to
Christian theologians was how they brought this dynamic process into God’s very self
as a way for expressing the Church’s faith in God as Trinity. From this perspective, the
extra-divine dynamism of creation is rooted in the intra-divine flow of life found in
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Again: “Christian Neoplatonists, however, brought a
transcendental form of proodos and epistrophê into the monê taken in itself, that is,
into the depths of the divine mystery, not just God conceived of as the source of the
universe” (139).
8
McGinn, “Dynamism of the Trinity,” 143: “But Dionysius restricted his ‘Agathol-
ogy’ to the relation between God and the production of the universe—self-diffusive
Goodness is the primary name of God as the efficient cause of creation.”
9
See Bonaventure, Doctoris seraphici S. Bonaventurae opera omnia. Vols. I–IV,
Commentaria in quatuor libros sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi [In I Sent.] d. 2,
a. un., q. 2 (Opera 1:54): “The more prior a thing is, the more fecund it is and the
principle of other things [see Liber de causis, props. I and XVII]. Therefore, just as the
divine essence because it is first is the principle of other essences, so too the person of
the Father, because he is first in being from no other person, is the principle and
possesses fecundity in relation to the other persons” (see also In I Sent. d. 27, p.1, a.
un., q. 2 (Opera 1:468–74).
 Conclusion 235
The notion of plenitude also informs Gallus’ conception of divine
activity ad extra, in that creation comes to exist as the result of self-
diffusive goodness “outside” of the Trinitarian pleroma. Here, the
Dionysian notion of divine ecstasy functions as it does in the CD,
as the explanatory principle for the very existence of creation; that
is, it accounts for what we have called the plethoric character of
“economic” divine activity. Gallus stresses the extravagant overflow
and lavish exuberance, the “flowing” and “fluid” character of Trini-
tarian action vis-à-vis creation. The divine Fullness expresses itself
ad extra in a manifold and multi-modal differentiation of its essen-
tial simplicity. The various divine attributes—especially goodness,
truth, beauty, wisdom, power, etc.—are undifferentiated in the
simplicity of the divine nature but are distinguishable ad extra in
the outpouring manifestation of the divine nature in the diverse
theoriae, the exemplary “ideas” through which God creates all
things. Here, again anticipating Bonaventure, Gallus deploys a doc-
trine of exemplarity to narrate the relationship between the creating
Trinity and creation.
Thus, what has been called a “dynamic view of God as Trinity,”10
funded by an appropriation of Neoplatonic metaphysics (inaugurated
by such thinkers as Marius Victorinus and John Scotus Eriugena),
emerges clearly in the pleromatic Trinitarian theology of Thomas
Gallus, a generation earlier than has heretofore been assumed by
scholars who credit Bonaventure with this achievement.11
Perhaps the most distinctive utilization of plenitude in Gallus’
thought, though, is the work it does anthropologically and mystically.
For Gallus, the soul is constituted as a creature by its constant
reception of the divine fullness; it is always-having-to-be-filled. Its
creaturely telos, moreover, is to be filled with the all-fullness of God
(Eph. 3), to receive the “inflowing” of the Trinity. This conception of
the self establishes the framework for Gallus’ mystical theology, the
goal of which is the fullest possible reception of and participation
in the triune Plenitude. Thus we turn to Gallus’ theological
anthropology.

10
McGinn, “Dynamism of the Trinity,” 138.
11
McGinn, “Dynamism of the Trinity,” 142: “The Franciscan doctor’s teaching on
the Trinity, and therefore his entire theology, can be seen as an original adaptation of
the Neoplatonic paradigm of emanatio and reductio, both on the intra-divine and the
extra-divine levels.”
236 Conclusion
HIERARCHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

A second foundational principle in Gallus’ thought is his distinctive

theological anthropology, more precisely, his view of the human soul
as hierarchical in its very nature. As argued above, when Gallus
anthropologically appropriates the Dionysian celestial hierarchy,12
the hierarchical aspect is far more significant than the celestial.13
Most generally stated, a Dionysian hierarchy is a dynamic, multi-
dimensional state of unified being; that is, it is a set of relationships
between aspects of, or elements within, a single, unified reality in
which movement is structured and arranged (ordered, orchestrated,
coordinated) into an harmonious equilibrium. It is a stable dyna-
mism. It is also conceptualized and schematized spatially on a vertical
axis, so to speak, such that its dynamism is movement upward and
downward, ascending and descending. A Dionysian hierarchy, more-
over, is constituted as the dynamic movement of its elements. The
elements do not exist prior to and independently of their hierarchical
relationships; rather, they exist only as hierarchical movement and
relatedness. Hierarchy simply is vertically ordered activity and coord-
inated movement of the constituent elements of a single entity.
For Dionysius, hierarchy is the means by which created reality
encounters and receives divine self-revelation, which comes from
without, and which finds its proximate source in a sacred source, a
“hier-arche,” “above” the hierarchy itself. This revelation is received at
each hierarchic level in the mode proper to that level and is passed
down into the succeeding level in a manner accommodated to that
lower level. Conversely, ascending up the hierarchy, each succeeding
level executes the same act of receiving the divine light as the previous
level, but in a higher, more intense, more capacious manner. The
ascending–descending dynamic of interrelated elements thus medi-
ates the light of divine revelation from the higher, “downward,” to the
lower, and elevates the lower, “upward,” toward assimilation to and
eventual union with the divine. That is, in the ascending valence, the
lower is subsumed by and into the higher; in the descending valence,

12
Perhaps a typically Victorine move, reminiscent of Hugh’s use of Noah’s Ark
and Richard’s use of the Ark of Moses.
13
This commitment to hierarchy does not, however, manifest itself in relation to
ecclesiology. Despite Gallus’ deep involvement with various ecclesiastical affairs and
controversies, his writings are remarkably unaffected by these matters.
 Conclusion 237
the higher communicates with the lower according to the capacity or
nature of the lower. These ascending and descending valances, more-
over, are simultaneous, not sequential; perpetual rather than puncti-
liar; parallel rather than alternating. Precisely speaking, ascent does
not precede descent or vice versa; both are contemporaneous. Like a
circle, there is no absolute starting or ending point: ascent always
presupposes descent, and vice versa—hence, the predilection of
Dionysius and Gallus for metaphors of circularity and circulation.
When Gallus adopts Dionysian hierarchy,14 accordingly, the
resulting soul is a dynamic, vertically stratified, multi-dimensional,
and highly-integrated structure of perpetual activity and movement
by which it is related to the divine Plenitude “above” it. The result is
also an anthropology that fits seamlessly into the framework of
Neoplatonic metaphysics, for this vertical dynamism is keyed to,
and thus participates in, and instantiates, the metaphysics of proces-
sion, return, and remaining. Hierarchized human nature is a micro-
cosmic expression of created reality as a whole, a “micro-climate” of
its cosmic rhythm: ascending, descending, and circling. More pre-
cisely, its descending valence, corresponding to procession, reflects its
radical ontological indigence and thus its “posture” of utter receptiv-
ity, its “always-having-to-be-filled” stance in relation to God. Its
ascending valence, corresponding to metaphysical return, reflects
the fact that plenitude, whether possessed essentially (by God) or
gratuitously (by the soul), always tends toward self-diffusion and thus
toward ecstatic overflowing. In Gallus’ anthropology, this takes the
form of a self-exceeding, self-transcending movement Godward. In
their metaphysical simultaneity, lastly, ascending and descending
remain. The soul simply is a perpetual cycle of receptive descension
and ecstatic ascension. For Gallus, then, the soul is not “hierarchized”
by saving grace (as Bonaventure will later insist, perhaps in reaction
to Gallus);15 grace does not “overlay” a hierarchic structure upon a

14
For a discussion of the emerging importance of Dionysian hierarchy in the
twelfth century, see M.-D. Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century,
ed. and trans. Jerome Taylor and L. K. Little (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1968), 81ff.
15
Bonaventure, Collations on the Six Days, 22.24, 353: “The Abbot of Vercelles
indicated three levels, those of nature, of diligence, and of grace. But it does not seem
that the soul could be hierarchized by nature in any way. Therefore we should attribute
[the three levels] to industry/diligence combined with nature, diligence/industry
combined with grace, and grace superior to both nature and diligence/industry.” See
238 Conclusion
naturally un-hierarchized soul. Rather, the soul itself is created as a
hierarchy.
With the single stroke of this “interiorized” Dionysian hierarchy,
Gallus has executed a remarkable integration of his Dionysian and
Augustinian patrimony, solving a perennial problem plaguing each.
By internalizing the Dionysian celestial hierarchy, on the one hand,
he has removed Dionysius’ created angelic intermediaries of divine
revelation. Through its hierarchical structure, the soul as a whole
relates directly to God, even as the different elements within it
experience that revelation in an internally mediated and diversified
way. By internalizing the Dionysian celestial hierarchy, on the other
hand, Gallus has given the soul’s Augustinian interiority an objective,
vertically structured dynamism by which to relate to God, or inversely
has given the “objective” Dionysian structure a kind of Augustinian
interiority and subjectivity. In a sense, Gallus executes an Augustinian
“inward turn” to find a Dionysian hierarchy awaiting him. In this
way, hierarchy provides a fundamentally mystical anthropology.
This anthropology also has a Trinitarian correlate that could be seen
as analogous to the Augustinian imago Trinitatis, though Gallus does
not explicitly say so: the descending valence, as an act of creaturely
reception, is a pneumatic dimension, for the Spirit’s proprium is utter
receptivity. It is also enstatic, constituting one aspect of the creaturely act
of existence. The ascending valence, as an act of creaturely self-giving
and active self-extending, is a paternal dimension, for the Father’s
proprium is utter generativity. It is also ecstatic, self-exceeding, consti-
tuting a second aspect of creaturely existence. The remaining dimen-
sion, as in some sense the simultaneity and resulting stability of ascent
and descent, is a filial dimension, for the Son’s proprium is simultaneous
receiving and giving the third aspect or dimension, which leads to the
centrality of Christ; literally, Christ in the center place.
Gallus’ hierarchic anthropology also facilitates a uniquely dynamic
notion of the soul and its activities. This occurs through the dialectical
rhythm of ecstatic and enstatic, of ascending and descending, move-
ments. There is, on one hand, the affective moment of ecstasis: the
soul is drawn out of itself. But this “rebounds” or “redounds” back
into the soul enstatically. Like the angels in Jacob’s dream, the

also Itinerarium Mentis in Deum, rev. edn., WSB 2 (St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan
Institute, 2002) [Itin.] 4.4, where Bonaventure explicitly mentions the “hierarchized
soul,” but without allusion to Gallus.
 Conclusion 239
Gallusian soul is always ascending and descending. The soul relates to
God hierarchically, that is, always in and through its hierarchical
structure, and each “level”—dimension or aspect—of the soul relates
to God in its own proper modality. The different levels of the hier-
archically stratified soul are best understood as diverse modes of
activity and capacity, different ways of relating to the divine Pleni-
tude. For this reason, the lower parts of the soul are always “in play.”
Admittedly, some of Gallus’ locutions, perhaps unavoidably, render
the hierarchic dynamism in schematic and sequential ways—first
ascent, then descent; ascent to mystical union, including the cessation
of lower activities, then the fecundating inflow to the lower orders.
But ultimately, to be consistent with the simultaneity of Dionysian
hierarchy—even if Gallus himself does not consistently or fully
exploit it—all of these activities should be conceived of as cotermin-
ous. Though Gallus does not pursue the matter, moreover, this
anthropology allows for a rich integration of the moral and the
mystical, the active and the contemplative, of the venerable
Martha–Mary typology. In the dynamic simultaneity of the hierarch-
ized soul, the activities of the lower orders are not ultimately aban-
doned or arrested in their proper acts. While he sometimes seems to
suggest precisely this with language like the “cutting off” and “death”
of the intellect in affective union, Gallus’ consistent attention to the
“downflow” of union into the lower dimensions of the soul, for
example, to the activities of the cardinal virtues, of natural knowledge
of God, and to the ordering of all the soul’s affections, reveals at the
very least a potentially profound connection between the mystical
and the moral. The hierarchized soul is thus a stable dynamism, a
steady enstatic–ecstatic equilibrium, in which the various dimensions
of human nature are retained, not abandoned, wherein even at its
lowest levels, the whole soul is implicated in its relation to God.
Gallus’ conception of hierarchic ecstasy deserves elaboration here, for
it is a crucial aspect of his anthropology. As noted above, he deploys the
Dionysian notion of divine ecstasy in his conception of the Trinity’s
inner life and of its self-diffusing relation to creation. For both Dionys-
ius and for Gallus, there is also a corresponding notion of creaturely
ecstasy as well:16 “Love is of so great a power that . . . it draws men out of

16
Cf. von Balthasar, Clerical Styles, 205. “Certainly it is true that according to
Denys the essence of each being is itself ecstatic towards God (something that so little
threatens its individuality that this movement itself determines it as its deepest level);
240 Conclusion
themselves Godward.”17 But Gallus appropriates this notion anthropo-
logically in a unique manner. Even though the soul’s created nature is
hierarchic, the highest register of its hierarchy—Thrones, Cherubim,
Seraphim (as described in previous chapters)—is “above nature,” is the
domain of “grace alone.” This highest triad is literally ecstatic—above
and beyond the natural capacities and acts of the soul. Nonetheless,
crucially if also paradoxically, this highest triad is still in some sense part
of the soul, in some way an aspect of the soul’s very nature. The highest
triad is thus the part of the soul that exceeds the soul; the super-natural
part of its nature: “Therefore the desires of holy men for tasting God and
of those enflamed by divine grace are nevertheless said to be natural or
according to nature (naturalia vel secundum naturam), since that
nature for desiring the highest good is prior to [natural] effort and
new grace, and it aids them in as much as it is able, and extends itself and
desires beyond its ability (supra posse).”18 The highest triad, accordingly,
is a kind of hierarchic potentia, a naturally latent potential for an ecstatic
mode of activity enabled and elicited by grace. It might also be called an
“immanent transcendence,” a transcendence that paradoxically occurs
in some sense “within” the dynamic hierarchy of the soul. In this way, it
mirrors the “immanent transcendence” that Gallus posits within God,
who is constituted as Trinity by an eternal act of immanent ecstasy.
In this ecstatic register, “above nature,” grace exercises a clear
priority and predominance over nature and natural acts, and the
soul is absolutely responsive (though not inactive), utterly controlled
by grace (though not uncooperative), wholly elicited in its acts (but
not “quietistically” passive); here it is “attracted (attractus) upward,”
even as, and so that it may also “walk”; where it is “passively active,”
so to speak. A characteristically subtle interplay of activity and pas-
sivity thus emerges here. In Gallus’ careful use of language, he refers
to the soul as “exercised,” which might best be characterized as “acted
upon, so as to act at a higher level” or “affected in order to be super-
naturally and ecstatically effective.” Altogether, the highest triad is
especially characterized by the paradoxical posture of “active passiv-
ity” or “eager receptivity.” What emerges in his commentaries is a

indeed, that this ecstasy of creaturely eros is itself an imitation of the ecstatic divine
eros which out of love goes out of itself into the multiplicity of the world; that
therefore mystical experience represents a philosophical and theological realization
of that which is . . . ”
17 18
Expl-MT 1.6.82. Expl-DN 2.178.391.
 Conclusion 241
mode of human activity that is more profoundly responsive and
receptive, more elicited than initiated, indeed, more literally “affect-
ive” as the soul moves through the ranks of the final triad, in that the
soul is increasingly acted upon or more profoundly affected by the
divine presence, not so that she becomes inactive or quiet, but so that
the character of her activity changes: “if you shall draw my desire . . .
we will run, that is, we will be fervently carried off, into the aroma,
that is, by sweet exhalation, of your ointments . . . ”19 Natural, autono-
mous, self-moving modes of activity cease here, but the posture of
receptivity is nonetheless actively adopted and intentionally main-
tained, even cultivated.20
But as noted in prior chapters, what the soul is drawn to is greater
and greater participation, through the Spirit, in Christ. For Dionysius,
the incarnate Jesus is the Hierarch, the sacred Source and Head of all
hierarchies; for Gallus, accordingly, ecstatic participation in the hier-
archy is mystical participation in Christ, including the cross. This is
why Gallus so consistently links the transition from enstatic to
ecstatic modes to the Pauline “no longer I but Christ” and also to
the Job text: my soul chooses hanging and my bones death—a clear
reference to the cross. The grace of ecstasy is nothing other than
hierarchic participation in the very life of Jesus—“the participation
which the bride receives from Him, for divine things ARE KNOWN ONLY
21
BY PARTICIPATION (DN 2).” Hierarchic anthropology allows for a
more profound and intimate sense of participation in Christ.22
Under the total sway of grace, Gallusian ecstasy entails
cumulative simplification toward an affective singularity, which
is simultaneously a Godward expansion, stretching, and dilation.

19
Cmm2-CC 1B.70.
20
It is thus imprecise and ultimately incorrect to assume that Gallus conceives of
the soul as utterly passive and inactive in the highest triad, despite his sometimes stark
rhetorical contrasts.
21
Cmm2-CC 2D.80: “ . . . secundum participationem quam a sponso percipit,
ipsum sponsum describit; divina enim solis participationibus cognoscuntur, De div.
nom. 2 . . . ”
22
Contrast the Cloud author’s distancing of the divine and the human, with all its
shooting sparks and fiery darts of love that attempt to bridge the ontological chasm
separating them, with Gallus’ “enstatic ecstasis” wherein ecstatic union with God
remains in some sense “within” the soul. For the Cloud author, any sense of participa-
tion is gone; by contrast, Gallus’ framework is participatory throughout. Cf. Catherine
Pickstock, “Duns Scotus: His Historical and Contemporary Significance,” Modern
Theology 21 (2005): 543–74, at 546: “For Scotus, being and other transcendental
categories now imply no freight of perfective elevation.”
242 Conclusion
Counter-intuitively, simplification coincides with dilation. Prima
facie, Gallus’ images can seem contradictory in this regard; e.g. the
ascending soul is both simplified and contracted while also dilated
and expanded, but in fact this is the same intuition that Gallus had
applied to God, now applied to rational creatures in relation to
God. Just as the divine simplicity and fecundity are correlative, so
also the soul’s capacity for God increases as it is simplified in its
approach to the utterly simple God. Simplicity and capacity are
directly correlated, even though Gallus’ images and poetry, neces-
sary for expressing this principle, often seem to move in opposite
directions. Ecstatic ascent coincides with simplification. The
anthropological correlate to the fecundity of divine simplicity is
the capaciousness of human simplification as it is drawn to and
united with God. A fundamental principle of Gallus’ hierarchic
anthropology: the more simplified, the more capacious.
It can thus be argued that Gallus’ anthropology of active receptivity
and of ecstatic reception both assumes certain natural structures,
capacities, and proper activities of the soul in and through which it
receives the in-flowing of divine grace, and at the same time views
these as integrally malleable and alterable in the very act of reception.
They are made precisely so that they can be expansively simplified by
grace. So, for Gallus, whatever is received is not simply received in the
mode of the receiver, though that is true; but the receiver is also
“elevatingly conformed” to what is received. So Gallus affirms the
principle that “grace perfects nature,” where “perfect” has the sense of
elevation (as does Aquinas), but in the Gallusian sense and texture of
that notion, namely, of expansion, stretching, and perhaps most
importantly, simplification:23 “this . . . does not destroy human nature
but perfects (perficit) and exceeds (superat) [it] and, by filling (re-
plendo) [it], assimilates and ineffably unites it to God himself.”24
Here, in a way that perhaps is least Dionysian and least stereotypically
“hierarchical,” is the plasticity or malleability of the Gallusian soul.
Precisely as a hierarchy, it is “stretchable” so as to accommodate its
super-substantial, super-abundant Spouse. In a sense, this is a

23
On paradoxical human nature (by nature capax of what exceeds its nature) in
Aquinas, see ST I-II.113.a10 ad2: “And thus the justification of the ungodly is not
miraculous, because the soul is naturally capable of grace; since from its having been
made to the likeness of God, it is fit to receive God by grace, as Augustine says, in the
above quotation.”
24
Expl-DN 1.80.737.
 Conclusion 243
Gallusian version of Augustine’s restless heart, made “for God” (ad
Deum), except that on Gallus’ terms, to be ad Deum entails the
capacity for hierarchic self-transcendence. Super-nature is a latent
potential within hierarchical nature; an obediential potentia. Gallu-
sian ecstasy is thus transformative of the self; the soul is enstatically
changed as it is capaciously simplified.
Hierarchic anthropology thus allows for an original and nuanced
relation between nature and grace and an alternative to the Aristotelian
hylomorphic paradigm that relates grace to nature as form to matter. It
allows Gallus to integrate an ecstatic dimension to human nature
within the soul’s very nature, since even though the highest triad of
the soul is “above nature,” as Gallus repeatedly states, and yet is also
clearly, if also paradoxically, part of human nature. Here, then, grace
does not add something extrinsic, a super-added forma or habitus, to
the soul; it is not “tacked on,” not added from without, not extrinsically
infused; rather, the soul hierarchically participates in the Christological
arche, who is the Source and Font and Head of her hierarchical
existence and life. The grace of her Spouse activates the hierarchic
soul by affecting it in that very part of its hierarchic nature which was
created precisely for this. Gallus can affirm that “grace elevates nature”
but in a distinctive way. “Elevation” is not the addition of an extrinsic
form, habitus, etc., but the pneumatic activation of the hierarchic
potentia for ecstatic union with Christ. Gallus’ anthropology offers a
model for how nature might, in its very structures, be oriented toward
super-nature. It is made for grace, only fulfilled by grace, even as grace
remains freely given and the soul without it remains unfulfilled, even
though at its enstatic level it can function naturally.
In the end, Gallus’ appropriation of the Dionysian angelic hierarchy
thus offers a paradigm for conceiving of human nature as characterized
by what might be termed “dynamic essentialism.”25 As a hierarchy, on
the one hand, the soul has a specific, given nature, an anthropological
structure—an essence. But that very hierarchic nature, on the other
hand, makes it dynamically expandable, simplifiable, ecstatically
self-exceeding, self-transcending for ultimate relatedness to God.

25
This notion finds a modern expression in the work of Bernard Lonergan.
According to Nicholas DiSalvatore, for Lonergan “what static essentialism and closed
conceptualism have in common is an oversight, not of the hierarchic universe as such,
but of the possibility that lower grades of being can participate in higher grades of
being” (“The Notion of Faith in the Early Latin Theology of Bernard Lonergan,” Ph.D.
dissertation, Boston College, 2016, p. 47).
244 Conclusion
Human nature is naturally capable of being graciously drawn beyond
itself,26 where grace has both the sense of gratuity and of elegant
continuity and even self-possession; elevated such that the change is
perfectly congruent with, though exceeding, its nature. The super-
natural activity of the highest triad most fully expresses and actualizes
the hierarchic nature. In a phrase, the Gallusian soul is “ecstatically
enstatic,” meaning that precisely in this ecstatic activity, the soul’s
nature is fully constituted and most fully realized.27
The Gallusian soul is not a simple static vessel that receives and
is thus filled with and so “contains” the divine Plenitude. Rather it
is a dynamic, multi-valent structure that joins with all of created
reality in pulsating with the metaphysical rhythm of procession and
return, anthropologically manifest in the ascending and descending
valences within the soul itself. In the simultaneity of ascent and
descent, the soul is always participating ecstatically in affective
union with its Bridegroom, even as the union born of ecstatic ascent
is always “overflowing” and descending into the receptive soul.
Thus does Gallus’ hierarchic anthropology negotiate grace and
nature, transcendence and immanence, higher and lower, mystical
and moral.
As noted in the Introduction, our overarching argument is that by
construing the soul as a Dionysian hierarchy Gallus offers an original
paradigm for conceiving of the divine–human relationship. More
precisely, it affords him a sophisticated model for conceptualizing
an intimate, interdependent, and reciprocal relationship between
knowledge and love, between intellectus and affectus, in the soul’s
relationship to God, enabling the soul ultimately to possess the
“wisdom of Christians.” To that we now turn.

26
See Hans Boersma, Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental
Tapestry (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011), 50.
27
See Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones
for a Fundamental Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), 189f: “This means
that man does not find salvation in a reflective finding of himself but in the being-
taken-out-of-himself that goes beyond reflection—not in continuing to be himself but
in going out from himself.” Ratzinger suggests that the concept of ecstasy is “the basic
spiritual form of Christian existence” (171, n. 134), and that “[w]e must, therefore,
look for a difference expression, a better formula . . . we should look in the direction of
a spirituality of conversion, of ec-stasy [Ek-stase], of self-transcendence, which is also
one of Rahner’s basic concepts, although, for the most part, he loses sight of its
concrete meaning in his synthesis” (168–9).
 Conclusion 245
THE FINALITY OF LOVE

The foregoing lays the groundwork for the third and final overarching
theme of Gallus’ theology, namely, the ultimate supremacy of love.
No attentive reading of Gallus’ theology can deny it; indeed, it is often
seen as the signature feature of his thought, as well as its most
influential, as most famously manifest in the later medieval Cloud of
Unknowing. Nor is there any reason to downplay the superior role
that Gallus ascribes to love and its corresponding faculty or power,
the affectus. Love is after all, as the apostle Paul (the exemplar mystic
for both Dionysius and Gallus) put it, the greatest (1 Cor. 13); the sine
qua non of the Christian life, without which everything else, including
and especially all knowledge, is vacuous and merely noisy. On Gallus’
reading of Dionysius, the highest calling and privilege of the human,
moreover, is to encounter affectively the wholly not intelligible, but
yet totally loveable Trinity (totus non intelligibilis, sed totus amabilis),
which, as Hierotheus exemplifies, is to suffer divine things in and by
the affectus; it is, quite literally, to be affected by God.
But what exactly is the nature of this affectivity that reigns supreme
for Gallus? Obviously (but no less importantly) first of all, the affectus
is the summit of the ascending valence within the soul; it is the goal
and terminus of the soul’s movement Godward, of the “cordial
ascent.”28 Anthropologically speaking, the affectus or synderesis is
the highest capacity or faculty of the soul, the apex mentis, through
which it is most capax Dei. Second, as already signaled by his very
choice of terminology, the affective experience has a crucial and
irreducibly receptive, and in that sense, passive modality. Unlike the
lower forms of rational inquiry and intellectual activity, wherein the
knowing subject actively “extracts” its intellectual content, which it
then grasps and comprehends, affective experience is gratuitously
received from the intimate self-disclosure of the divine Spouse, who
“offers itself to minds through a sensible and rapid fervour . . . in the
affectus, that is, not in the intellectus.”29 Such is not subject to
the initiative or control of the knower;30 rather, citing a biblical text

28
Adriaan T. Peperzak, “How Rational is the Heart? How Natural is Reason? How
Universal is Faith?” in Jeffrey Bloechel, ed., Christianity and Secular Reason: Classical
Themes and Modern Developments (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame,
2012), 17–32, at 17.
29
Expl-AH 10.637.238: “ . . . raro tamen et momentanee in affectu, scilicet non
intellectu supple, se offert mentibus per sensibilem et rapidum fervorem.”
30
It cultivates “intentionalities other than the objectifying ones” (Adriaan Peperzak,
“Affective Theology, Theological Affectivity,” in Religious Experience and the End of
246 Conclusion
oft-cited by Bonaventure,31 Gallus insists that it is “only experienced
by the one who has received it (Rev. 2:17).”32 In short, “as It wills, and
to whom, and when It wills, [the divine Light] offers Itself to minds
through Itself.”33
Love for Gallus, furthermore, is also essentially ecstatic, or better,
“ecstasizing,” that is, “ecstasy causing,” both for God (as it was for
Dionysius) and for humans as well (an underdeveloped Dionysian
intuition upon which Gallus capitalizes). The above-noted anthropo-
logical capacity for self-exceeding transcendence is actualized, activated,
and “driven” by the ecstatic power of love. It could be said, adopting
more recent voices, that the affective in Gallus’ theology transcends “the
rational theatre of egological self-knowledge”34 and is, in a sense,
“the openness of man that compels him to transcend again and again
the limits of the merely knowable . . . ”35 This produces an account
of the human as thus inherently, naturally, essentially (if also paradox-
ically) defined and constituted by an act of self-transcending love, an act
that does not, however, destroy or abandon human nature but fulfills
and consummates it. This, as noted above, is a dynamic and ecstatic
account of the human.
Following a Victorine intuition first articulated by Hugh of
St. Victor, moreover, love transcends and thus exceeds knowledge;
it “enters in” where intellectual knowledge remains on the outside.
This intuition is the basis of love’s supremacy. By it, our Victorine
negotiates the severe transcendence of Dionysius’ God. With its
power to go farther than knowledge, love overcomes the otherwise
unbridgeable distance between the soul and the unknowable God.
Through love, in the felicitous phrase of Paul Rorem, Sinai’s dark
cloud of unknowing becomes Solomon’s lovesick night of amorous
experience.36 For Gallus, love is the means by which, and the place

Metaphysics, ed. Jeffrey Bloechl (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2003),
94–105, at 96).
31 32
Cf. Bonaventure, Itin., ch. 7. Expl-DN 4.234.1337.
33
Expl-AH 10.637.236: “Sed quod non potest cooperari gratia pro nostra infirmi-
tate, potest eidem per se ipsam operari omnifica uirtute, et cum uult et quibus
et quando uult se offert mentibus per se ipsam. Et licet eas assidue inhabitet per
iustitiam, raro tamen et momentanee in affectu, scilicet non intellectu (supple: se
offert mentibus), per sensibilem et rapidum feruorem tamquam guttam illius fluuii
ignei quem uidit Dan. 7c egredientem a facie maiestatis.”
34
Peperzak, “How Rational is the Heart?,” 28.
35
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (San Francisco, CA:
Ignatius Press, 1987), 360.
36
Rorem, Pseudo-Dionysius, 218.
 Conclusion 247
wherein, the soul is most fully united to God. Indeed, sometimes
Gallus simply equates or identifies the affectus with union.
Yet, a central goal of this study has been to complicate the appar-
ently stark opposition, even incompatibility, between knowledge and
love in Gallus’ theology. The claim of this study can be seen as an
answer to a question well-posed by Declan Lawell: “Why does the
soul need to even bother with intellect in the first place? If God is
accessible [233] ultimately by love alone, then no matter how faith-
fully Gallus insists on the role of mind (and any accurate interpret-
ation must take notice of the intellectual dimension of Gallus’s
works), it will always be open to thinkers to by-pass the intellectual
labour and find the Other in some unmediated access (of love, for
example).”37 The question can be put simply thus: Is there a genu-
inely important, even integral relationship between knowledge and
love, between, in his terms, intellectual and affective cognitio Dei in
Gallus’ theology?
Seven observations constitute an answer to this important ques-
tion, all of which depend in large measure upon Gallus’ above-noted
hierarchic anthropology.
For Gallus, first of all, intellectual knowledge leads to love, as Lawell
himself rightly notes: “Gallus constantly argues that love grows out of
intellect. In the early stages of the soul’s ascent, affect and mind work
in tandem until finally love alone takes over in the passage to the
Other.”38 As noted in earlier chapters, Gallus goes to great lengths to
show the preparatory value of rational inquiry and intellectual cog-
nition, which has both an “instigational” and “dilational” impact
upon the mind in its hierarchical ascent to God; that is, it expands
and opens it upwardly, increasing its God-oriented concavity, and it
fuels love’s desire for the divine Spouse.
Second, that the affectus receives a genuine form of cognition is also
strongly suggested by the fact that Gallus consistently orients the
affectus toward the divine theoriae (as Bonaventure will do), just as
he had the intellectus: “so the divine substance is only penetrated
by . . . human or angelic minds . . . to the extent that divine mercy,
by drawing the desire of minds, admits them to the more secret

37
Declan A. Lawell, Thomas Gallus, Jean-Luc Marion and the Reception of
Dionysian Neoplatonism (Ph.D. dissertation, Queen's University of Belfast, 2008),
232–3.
38
Lawell, Thomas Gallus, Jean-Luc Marion and the Reception of Dionysian Neo-
platonism, 232–3.
248 Conclusion
experiences of the theoriae, through super-intellectual union, as above,
he brought me in.”39 As noted in earlier chapters, the theoriae, seem-
ingly corresponding to the Boethian intellectibilia, are essentially the
differentiated manifestations of the divine nature, its various attributes
or qualities, viz. truth, goodness, mercy, justice, beauty, etc. They are
identical with God’s simple nature but expressed ad extra as distinct
definable characteristics of God’s very being, flowing down from the
Father of lights. It is these that loving minds experience, when they are
taught neither “by reason nor by authority that which they thus
experience more swiftly, that is, to be able to touch (attingere) and
receive (accipere) that [divine] ray, by no efforts of their own and with
the cooperation of grace.”40 Just as in intellectual cognitio, the object
here is the divine theoriae; it is the mode of encounter that differs.
Third, as the culmination of a hierarchical movement Godward,
the affectus is the upwardly assimilative apex of all the lower aspects
of the soul, including the properly intellectual. That is, though love
transcends the soul’s lower intellectual modalities, it transcends them
in their proper and lower modes. But it also contains within it in a
higher modality, as every hierarchical grade or rank does in relation
to its inferiors, whatever the lower ranks contain and enact. What is
excluded is proper or normal rational and intellectual activity. This is
where Gallus’ teaching on hierarchical simplification comes into play.
At the affective summit, all the soul’s powers are cumulatively sim-
plified into the single affective modality of seraphic love, such that
what is discrete and distinct at lower levels is also synthesized and
integrated into an affective singularity. This hierarchical continuity
allows him, perhaps surprisingly but nonetheless consistently, to
describe this affective encounter with God as a form of cognitio, as a
cognitive act and experience: an affective cognitio Dei.
Crucial in this process of affective simplification, fourthly, is the role
of Christ and the Spirit. Gallus interposes at this point a kind of mystical
theologia crucis, especially in relation to the intellectus, as it undergoes
the death of its proper modality and activity. Gallus frequently cites a
text from Job here: my soul chooses hanging; my bones death. The
operative verse, though, is Gal. 2: no longer I, but Christ lives in me, by

39
Cmm3-CC 3A.166–7.
40
Expl-AH 10.637.231: “nec ratione nec auctoritate egent edoceri quod sic certius
experiuntur, scilicet nullis suis conatibus etiam cooperante gratia posse se radium
illum attingere aut accipere.”
 Conclusion 249
which Gallus intimates not the utter annihilation or cessation of the
intellectus, but its affective assimilation to a higher mode of operation in
the risen Christ, and as Gallus insists, through the Spirit. There is here
an apophatic “death” to the intellect that yet springs forth into the new
life of a mode of cataphatic affectivity (as will be seen below). Given the
rather understated role of the incarnate Christ, especially the cross, in
the CD, Gallus’ interpolation of this notion here thus suggests that his is
not only an affective reception of Dionysius generally, but also a
Christological and even cruciform one too.41
Fifth, Gallus adopts a teaching on the spiritual senses of the soul in
order to explain love’s super-intellectual cognitio Dei. More precisely,
he uses a particular interpretation of the five-fold sensorium to dis-
tinguish the lower, intellectual kind of cognitio Dei from the higher,
affective kind: intellectual cognition corresponds to sight and hearing,
while affective cognition corresponds to smell, taste, and touch. As
noted in Chapter 7, intellectual knowledge of God reflects the distance
between knower and known apparently entailed in physical seeing and
hearing. By contrast, that the affectus cognizes God through spiritual
smell, taste, and touch implies that affective cognition entails the
immediate “affecting” quality found in these three senses; they “are
not exercised through a mirror (per speculum),” as are hearing and
especially sight, but “directly (per speciem).”42 For Gallus, we cannot
smell, taste, or touch without being “affected by that which we appre-
hend” (afficimur secundum id quod apprehendimus), as he put it.43
Affective cognition entails a form of direct contact with, actual par-
ticipation in, what is sensed: “in so far as we thus taste, touch and
embrace, and smell God, so, to that extent do we cognize him, by

41
This seems to find a parallel to the cross-oriented “Christ-mysticism” of St.
Francis, though the Poverello’s approach is much more literal. It’s tempting to see
Bonaventure’s cross-mysticism as a synthesis. See, for example, Itin. 7.6, where
Bonaventure uses the same text from Job to describe his cross-mysticism.
42
Expl-AH 1.483.105: “Isti enim tres sensus siue in corpore siue in mente non
exercentur per speculum, sed per speciem, et quantum Deum sic gustamus, tangimus
uel amplexamur, et olfacimus, tantum ipsum cognoscimus participando ineffabiliter
ipsius dulcedinem et suauitatem.”
43
Expl-AH 10.634.168: “In aliis uero tribus sensibus afficimur secundum id quod
apprehendimus.” Cf. Bonaventure, “For what is the point of knowing many things but
tasting nothing?” (“multa enim scire et nil gustare quid valet?”), cited in Gilson,
Philosophy of St. Bonaventure, 76. In a phrase, “affective cognition” is a form of
cognition that affects its practioner profoundly and intimately, in the manner of
physical smell, taste, and touch.
250 Conclusion
ineffably participating in his sweetness and suavity (dulcedinem et
suavitatem).”44 With this sense-triad, Gallus gestures at a mode of
cognition distinct from conceptual, noetic, or abstract “quidditative”
knowing, which he likens to physical seeing. Just as no one can see a
sweet-smelling aroma or hear a delicious taste, so, similarly, love’s
super-intellectual experiences (experientias illas superintellectuales) of
God exceed all concepts and every “mental word” (verbum mentis);
much less can they be expressed in physical words or in writing: “with
[mere] words one cannot teach someone, who has never tasted
sweetness, about sweetness.”45 Yet, these experiences are not strictly
speaking indescribable. A physical smell or taste is often characterized
as undefinable, though one can still meaningfully invoke the experi-
ence thereof for someone who has experienced something similar,
from which a comparison might be drawn. So, among those who
have had a similar experience thereof, the affective encounter with
God can be meaningfully evoked: “those experienced in such
matters (experti) can instruct and inflame those who have already
experienced (experientes) them (1 Cor. 2:13: comparing spiritual
things with spiritual etc. . . . ), just as one who has tasted many
sweet things can infer concerning a sweetness or a sweet thing in
comparison with something else that he tasted similarly.”46 In short,
Gallus deploys a doctrine of the spiritual senses to characterize
affective cognitio Dei: “The affectus tastes, touches, and smells spiritu-
ally, [while] the intellectus sees and hears.”47 By “sensing, tasting and
smelling,” the “principal affection ascends into divine things infinitely
above the intellect.”48 He thus gestures at a “spiritually sensuous”
experience, an experiential perception, couched in the language of

44
Expl-AH 1.483.105: “quantum Deum sic gustamus, tangimus uel amplexa-
mur, et olfacimus, tantum ipsum cognoscimus participando ineffabiliter ipsius dulcedi-
nem et suauitatem.”
45
Expl-DN 4.234.1342: “Vnde experientias illas superintellectuales non ualet uer-
bum mentis scripto uel uerbo exprimere nec intra se loqui, sicut mellis sapor uel
aromatum odor uisu uel auditu discerni non potest nec aliquis eas nouit nisi
qui accipit (Apoc. 2c).”
46
Expl-DN 2.155.1028: “Experti tamen experientes possunt instruere et inflam-
mare (1 Cor. 2f: spiritualibus spiritualia comparantes etc. . . . , sicut qui multa dulcia
gustauit potest conferre de dulcedine uel dulci cum alio qui similiter gustauit.”
47
Expl-EH 4.869.227: “Affectio siquidem gustat, tangit et olfacit spiritualiter,
intellectus videt et audit.”
48
Glss-AH 3.34.264: “ . . . per aliam experiendo, sentiendo, gustando et olfaciendo
summa vi anime que est principalis affectio ascendens in divina in infinitum super
intellectum . . . .”
 Conclusion 251
smell, taste, and touch, in contrast to intellectual or rational knowing
analogous to physical sight and hearing. Recalling that the objects of
the spiritual senses are the theoriae, what affective cognition thus
involves is a cognition of the same divine theoriae that the intellectus
cognizes in its own way, but in a different modality, through which the
cognizer is intimately affected by its encounter therewith.
With this teaching on the spiritual senses as the primary mode of
affective cognition, Gallus negotiates the problem of divine unknow-
ability, which in his time had become especially acute. Increasingly,
thinkers were pushed to harmonize an Augustinian claim, patently
cataphatic, regarding an eschatological visio Dei, with a Dionysian
insistence, uncompromisingly apophatic, on divine transcendence of
all human knowing. Gallus charts a middle way. As spiritually sen-
suous, love’s cognitio is a genuine perceptio: certain, immediate,
meaningful, and qualitative. But it is also, so to speak, non-
quidditative: though truly perceived and experienced, the divine
essence remains un-comprehended, un-grasped by the intellect, and
in that way unknown.49 Gallus styles Dionysius’ mysterious teacher,
Hierotheus, and his SUFFERING DIVINE THINGS, as an example. He was
“experiencing divine sweetness, suavity, and flame, through [the
senses of] taste, smell and touch . . . . Hence, Exod. 33:20 says: man
shall not see me, and live. It does not say ‘he shall not taste,’ ‘he shall
not smell,’ ‘he shall not touch’ . . . ”50 A sweet-smelling aroma may be
known immediately, certainly, meaningfully, unmistakably, in a way
that affects its perceiver powerfully, while what it is that smells thus
remains mysteriously unknown. It is genuine cognition of an incom-
prehensible God. Gallus thus offers a distinctively western strategy for
navigating the unknowable God, a distinctively western form of
apophasis, and an anthropological correlate to the essence–energies
distinction of the East: God remains “quidditatively” unknown,51

49
C. S. Lewis, The Great Divorce (London: G. Bles., 1946), 40: “hitherto you have
experienced truth only with the abstract intellect. I will bring you where you can taste
it like honey and be embraced by it as by a bridegroom.”
50
Expl-DN 2.154.1002: “PATIENS DIVINA per apicem affectionis, scilicet unitionem
experientem diuinam dulcedinem, suauitatem, flammam per gustum, olfactum et
tactum. . . . Unde dictum est Exod. 33: non videbit me homo et vivet. Non dicit ‘non
gustabit,’ ‘non olfacet,’ ‘non tanget,’ . . . ”
51
Cf. Dei Filius, 4.4: “For the divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass
the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted
by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and shrouded, as it were, in
darkness . . . ”
252 Conclusion
even as qualitatively experienced and encountered—totus non intelli-
gibilis, sed totus amabilis, “the Desirable par excellence.”52 In short,
Gallus offers a paradigm for an “apophatic affectivity,” in which
“super-intellectual” does not mean ineffably beyond all experience
or description; rather, for him there exists “a darkness beyond [the
intellect] capable of being experienced, though not thought.” Affect-
ivity is not a flight from all cognitive content.53
Sixth, affective cognition is not merely the goal and summit; it is
also the perpetually fecund source of the ongoing activities of the
lower orders in their proper and normal modalities, including and
especially the intellectual. That is, when he posits a higher, affective
cognitio above an intellective cognitio at the highest point in the
ascending valence, this affective form not only builds upon and
subsumes the intellective form, but also redounds to—is shared
with and participated by—the lower, intellective cognition in accord-
ance with its intellective modality. This is the descending valence in
the soul, and it thus allows Gallus to valorize further the importance
of intellectual knowledge, in its proper place, as well as to illustrate the
attendant utility of his hierarchical anthropology. That is, the intel-
lect’s capacity for understanding is increased by the intensity of
affection. The fact, it should be stressed, that affective union fecund-
ates intellectual activity and theological speculation is not merely a
by-product or accidental feature of his anthropology, but rather an
integral aspect of it, which Gallus consistently addresses in his

52
Peperzak, “Affective Theology,” 100.
53
Arguably, Gallus’ notion of affective cognitio Dei via the spiritual senses seems
proto-eschatological or proleptically beatific. The underlying intuition is that beatifying
human “knowledge of God” must have the directness, immediacy, pleasure, and
assimilation between knower and known that is found in physical smell, taste, and
touch. Accordingly, his doctrine of the spiritual senses is not an unhappy intrusion of a
platonic mind–body, spirit–matter dualism. Rather, it reflects the implicit awareness
that in the present post-lapsarian condition neither physical sensation nor rational
(conceptual, ideational, notional) knowledge, by themselves, are adequate analogues
for beatifying apprehension of God. But also that such apprehensio Dei must eventually,
eschatologically entail something resembling each. That is, eternal blessedness must be
an encounter of created, embodied spirit with Uncreated Spirit that is marked by the
direct, immediacy of physical sensing, as well being a genuine act of spiritual intelli-
gence; again, both physical sensation and noetic conceptualization in the present state
are partial, discrete, anticipatory analogues of an eschatological experience that sur-
passes, but somehow subsumes both. At present, there is only a vague, meager intuition
of beatific apprehension. We have no way of conceiving how it is an act of spiritual
intelligence characterized by the directness of physical sensation—apart from an admit-
tedly awkward doctrine of the spiritual senses.
 Conclusion 253
commentaries. It fills out, moreover, the paradigm he wants to put
forward for theological labor, so to speak, and which, to his mind, is
paradigmatically illustrated in his Victorine mentor, Richard of St.
Victor, in whom affective cognitio Dei generated profound intellectual
cognitio of the mysteries of the faith. Adopting (again) the words of a
modern theorist, it can well be said that for Gallus “to be affected,”
that is, affective experience, “differentiates into attraction, inspir-
ation, enlightenment . . . ”54 in the lower registers of the soul and
that, accordingly, “the affective dimension founds, permeates, and
stylizes all other dimensions”55 of the soul. Perhaps as much as any
other aspect of his theology, this especially mitigates against the
charge of anti-intellectualism.56 For Gallus, affectivity is intellec-
tually fruitful.57 Or, to return to the above-noted mystical theologia
crucis, affective union springs forth and flows down into intellectual
fecundity in the same way that the Cross in medieval spirituality
and art becomes a tree of life, abundant and plethoric. For Gallus,
in short, love is both the super-intellectual goal and source of all
intellectual knowledge.
Finally, Gallus’ understanding of affective cognition contains one
last dimension, which emerges most clearly in his commentaries on
the Song of Songs. His interpretation of this text is as an instance of
the medieval penchant for synthesizing and harmonizing authorita-
tive sources (despite their often heterogeneous character). Nowhere is
this more apparent than in the way that he offers a Dionysian
interpretation of the Song of Songs, reading it in light of his Dionys-
ian anthropology, such that the different verses of the Song represent
the bride speaking or acting at different hierarchical registers
(e.g. “Here, the bride is speaking in the Dominions . . . , here in
the Thrones . . . , etc.”). But if Gallus can be accused of imposing
Neoplatonic hierarchy on an ancient Near Eastern love poem (and

54
Peperzak, “Affective Theology,” 100.
55
Peperzak, “How Rational is the Heart?,” 20–1.
56
G. Théry, “Thomas Gallus et Égide d’Assisi: le traité De septem gradibus
contemplationis,” Revue néoscolastique de philosophie 36 (1934): 180–90, at 185: “Le
de septem gradibus temoigne de la memem tendance nettement anti-intellectualiste
que nous avons signalee maintes reprises dans les escrits de Thomas Gallus.”
57
Pope Benedict XVI, third encyclical letter, 2009, Caritas in Veritate, 30: “Under-
standing and love are not in separate compartments: love is rich in understanding and
understanding is full of love.”
254 Conclusion
he can), he should also be seen as transposing Neoplatonic hierarchy
into the interpersonal dynamic of erotic love. By interiorizing the
Dionysian hierarchy, Gallus can integrate the totality of its stratified
structure into the inter-subjective drama of the Song. The result is that
the upwardly assimilative nature of the ascending valence moves not
only progressively, but “accumulatively” from intellectual cognition
(the divine attributes conceptualized abstractly, theoretically, medi-
ately, graspingly), to affective cognition (the same attributes now
perceived concretely, sensuously, immediately, suffering through the
spiritual senses), to culminate in what could be called the soul-bride’s
interpersonal and dramatic encounter with her divine Spouse. That is,
by construing it hierarchically, the Gallusian soul can vertically assimi-
late lower forms of cognition into higher ones, climaxing in subjective
relation with an Other: abstract concepts about God, assimilated to
concrete percepts of God, assimilated to interpersonal relationship with
God. Lovers encounter each other interpersonally, yet always as per-
sons with qualities, traits, and attributes, which remain susceptible to
abstract conceptualization, even as they are concretely perceived
and remain both conceptualizable and perceivable, even as they are
experienced precisely as the beloved’s characteristics. But once known
interpersonally, those characteristics are no longer conceptualized and
perceived generically, as it were, but always as taken up into, colored
by, the relational ambiance and ethos. Similarly, in Gallus’ mystical
theology the divine Beloved’s goodness, for example, is not merely
goodness abstractly conceived; nor is it merely goodness concretely
tasted; rather, it is both, but only and ultimately as His goodness and in
relation to Him.58 One might say that the “vertical finality” of the
hierarchized soul is interpersonal relation and finally union.59 Gallus’

58
Cf. Aquinas, ST II-II, q. 97, a. 2, ad 2: “There is a twofold knowledge of God's good-
ness or will. One is speculative and as to this it is not lawful to doubt or to prove
whether God’s will be good, or whether God is sweet. There is also an affective or
experiential knowledge of the divine goodness or the divine will; one experiences in
oneself the taste of the sweetness of God and the lovability of the divine will, according
to what Denys says of Hierotheus who learned divine things from having experienced
them in himself. We are thus invited to experience the will of God and to taste His
sweetness.” As Torrell observes, these little-known texts on a delightful knowledge
through experience connect with an authentically Thomistic theme (see Torrell, Spirit-
ual Master, 90–9).
59
The notion of “vertical finality” is Lonerganian and is strikingly apt for
capturing this feature of Gallus’ theology. For Lonergan, all of reality has “a vertical
dynamism and tendency, an upthrust from lower to higher levels of appetition and
 Conclusion 255
above-noted Christ-mysticism, moreover, is best appreciated from
this perspective. With this interpersonal transsumption of Dionysian
hierarchy, the Dionysian Christ as true Hierarch, Source of all exter-
nal hierarchical mediation, emerges as Jesus, the intimate Lover and
Spouse of the hierarchized soul. Remarkably, Gallus thus reconfigures
the metaphysical and objective participation in Christ of the Dionys-
ian hierarchy into the inter-personal love of nuptial union. Ultim-
ately, Gallus thus seems to conceive of human nature in all its
dimensions (intellective and affective) as not as foundationally given
for, but as finally constituted by relationship and consummated by
interpersonal love.
Such are the basic features of Gallusian affectivity and the role of
love in his theology.

THE SPIRAL

At pivotal points, finally, throughout the foregoing presentation of

Thomas Gallus’ mystical theology, the Dionysian image of a circle has
been evoked in order to capture the particular kind of dynamism that
attends to Gallus’ account of God and of the relationship between
God and all that is not God, including the soul. It is fitting at the
conclusion to return to this image one last time.
As noted at the end of Chapter 9, in the simultaneity of the
ascending and descending valences in the soul—knowledge

process” (Bernard J. F. Lonergan, Finality, Love, Marriage, in Collection, ed. Fred-

erick E. Crowe and Robert M. Doran, Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan
(Toronto: University of Toronto, 1988, 17–52), 18 in volume 4). Accordingly, “[v]
ertical finality is of the very idea of our hierarchic universe, of the ordination of
things devised and exploited by the divine Artisan. For the cosmos is not an
aggregate of isolated objects hierarchically arranged on isolated levels, but a
dynamic whole in which instrumentally, dispositively, materially, obedientially,
one level of being or activity subserves another. The interconnections are endless
and manifest” (Finality, Love, Marriage, 22 in volume 4 of the Collected Works). In
this vertical “upthrust” the higher levels of being and activity “are relatively super-
natural to the lower level activities in question.” Accordingly, the lower always has a
kind of “obediential potency” in relation to the higher: “the potency to receive acts of
this kind is obediential” (Lonergan, De Ente Supernaturali, in Early Latin Theology,
trans. Michael Shields, eds. Robert M. Doran and H. Daniel Monsour, Collected
Works of Bernard Lonergan (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011), 137, 139
in volume 19).
256 Conclusion
ascending to love, love descending to knowledge—the overarching
impression of continual circulation of love and knowledge emerges
clearly. But this is not a simple circle, not a mere returning to the
original point of departure, in order merely to set out on the same
course once again.60 Rather, precisely as a function of Gallus’
insistence on both the pleromatic divine nature and its attendant
unknowability—in a phrase, its unfathomable super-abundance—
this dynamic movement in Deum is better characterized as a spiral.
As noted above, “new things” (nova) are continually flowing down
into the hierarchized soul from her super-abundant Spouse, which
in turn fecundates yet another affective return. There is here an
epecstatic dimension to hierarchic human nature, a sense of con-
tinual and eternal progress.61 There is no static resting in God, no
absolute cessation of the soul’s movements. In relation to the
pleromatic Trinity, the affectus is always pursuing, stretching,
expanding, always plenius, capable of more; it can always be further
affected by its divine Lover.62 Never fulfilled, in the sense of filled
full, it is always spiraling.
A final, perhaps surprising, implication is that Gallus’ mystical
theology is not rightly seen as an ascent paradigm, nor even as a
mystical itinerary. It is not about leaving the lower for the higher, nor
abandoning the natural for the supernatural, nor “kicking away the
ladder” of lower, created things, including the self, as one passes over
and out of this world. It is not a linear, unidirectional journey of the
soul’s ascent to union with God. Gallus’ mystical Moses, as it were,
does not (as he does for Dionysius) shed and abandon “everything
else including himself” in his mystical union with God in Sinai’s dark

60
Indeed, a challenge for Christian Neoplatonism has always been the need to
explain why and how the end differs from the beginning.
61
“In the life of the finite human spirit, gift is experienced as both a reception
already given and an expectation that cannot be fulfilled by a simple return to its
indigent self” (Foreword by Kenneth L. Schmitz in Antonio Lopez, F.S.C.B., Spirit’s
Gift: The Metaphysical Insight of Claude Bruaire (Washington, DC: Catholic Univer-
sity of America Press, 2006), viii–ix.
62
This means that the distinction between Creator and creature, for Gallus, is best
conceived of not, precisely speaking, as infinite to finite or as unlimited to limited
(though these are of course true), but rather as the difference between fullness and
having-to-be-filled, between the Creator’s ontological opulence and the creature’s
essential indigence, between always-more-than-having and always-having-to-receive.
 Conclusion 257
cloud. Uniquely expressing a Victorine intuition going back to Hugh
of St. Victor, Gallus’ mystical spiral ultimately enables the soul to be
an eternally dynamic abode of the Trinitarian presence, continually
filled with the all-fullness of God.63

63
In this light, the opening lines of St. Bonaventure’s Breviloquium (vol. 9 of the
Works of St. Bonaventure (The Franciscan Institute, 2005), acquire a certain interest.
Bonaventure begins by citing the Epistle to the Ephesians, 3: 14–19: For this reason
I bow my knees before the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom every family in
heaven and on earth takes its name, that he would grant you, according to the riches of
his glory, to be strengthened through his Spirit with power in your inner being, and that
Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that being rooted and grounded in love
may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and
height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses all knowledge, so that
you may be filled with all the fullness of God. For the Franciscan, in this passage the
Apostle Paul (who figures so centrally in the mystical theologies of both Dionysius
and Gallus) “intimates that Scripture takes its origin from an inflowing (influentia) of
the most blessed Trinity” (emphasis added). He notes that Paul himself was “filled
with the Holy Spirit as a chosen and sanctified instrument” (emphasis added), so as to
know the love of Christ that surpasses all knowledge, and thus be filled with the all-
fullness of God. In this passage, Paul prays that his readers will receive the same
experience (Prol.1). Second, it is Scripture itself that facilitates this experience, because
Scripture too “does not take its starting point in human inquiry, rather it flows (fluit)
from divine revelation, coming down from the Father of lights . . . ” [fusing Eph. 3:14
and Jas. 1:17]. Not only Scripture, though, flows thus from the Father, but also from
Him, “through his Son, Jesus Christ,” the “Holy Spirit flows (manat) also into us,”
producing faith, “and it is through faith that Christ dwells in our hearts.” This, he
explains, is “the knowledge of Jesus Christ, from which source the authority and
understanding of all Sacred Scripture flow (manat).” “No one,” accordingly, “can
begin to comprehend [Scripture], unless that person has first been infused (infusam)
with faith in Christ,” for “by means of faith” the “knowledge of sacred Scripture is
given to us according to the measure of the inflowing (influentiam) of the Blessed
Trinity” (Prol.2). In these opening lines, Bonaventure emphasizes the inflowing of the
Trinity into (1) the author of Scripture (Paul), (2) Scripture itself, and finally (3) the
reader of Scripture. The last, though, stands out here. Like Gallus, Bonaventure
stresses the importance of this direct, inner experience of the Trinity within the soul
as key to reading Scripture so as to arrive at knowledge of God.
 Glossary

affectus: The soul’s capacity or power or faculty for union with God. It is
associated with love, with feeling, with directness and immediacy, compared
to physical smell, taste, and touch, and with receptivity, i.e. the capacity to be
affected by God. Gallus also identifies it with the scintilla synderesis, the
“spark of synderesis” (see below).
ecstatic: Means literally a movement “outside of,” a “going out of,” “above,”
or “beyond” the existing state or structure of the self; it is essentially self-
exceeding.
enstatic: Denotes a movement toward, or a state of being within, the self; it is
essentially self-establishing or constituting.
influentia: Often rendered “inflow” rather than “influence,” for Gallus it is a
general term to describe the continual relationship between God and the
soul, especially the effects of grace. The term has a particular association with
hierarchy, for the effects of divine grace “flow down” or “inflow” the soul
through the hierarchical structure of the soul.
sinus mentis: An anthropological term, literally renderable as “fold” or “con-
cavity” or “hollowed out space” of the mind or soul. For Gallus, it seems less a
particular faculty or power and more simply a general capacity of the soul under
the influence of grace.
super (as prefix): Almost always means “beyond,” rather than, as in com-
mon English usage, “intensely” or “in great degree,” whatever term to which
is prefixed. So, for example, “super-essential” means “beyond essences.” Even
in common English usage, though, compare “super-human” (which means
“more than human”) to “super-talented” (which means “highly talented”).
synderesis: Often translated as the “high point” of the soul, for Gallus (and
other non-scholastic theologians), this is not the soul’s memory of moral
ideas (syntēreo: to conserve), nor is it a synthesis of moral problems (sun-
diariresis); it is not a synonym for “conscience”; rather it could be called a
transcendent, intentional, dynamic state of consciousness in relation to God.
theoriae: The attributes of the divine essence, e.g. goodness, beauty, justice,
sweetness, which, though indistinct within the simplicity of the divine
essence, are nonetheless conceptually distinguishable and able to be both
contemplated by the human intellectus and experienced by the human
affectus.
 Bibliography

Editions of the Cited Works of Thomas Gallus

Commentaires du Cantique des Cantiques, ed. Jeanne Barbet (Paris: J. Vrin,
1967).
Commentary on Isaiah, ed. Gabriel Théry. “Commentaire sur Isaïe de Thomas
de Saint-Victor,” La vie spirituelle, Supplement 47 (1936): 146–62.
Explanatio in Libros Dionysii, ed. Declan Anthony Lawell, Corpus Christia-
norum Continuatio Mediaevalis 223 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011).
Extractio ex Libris Dionysii, ed. Philippe Chevalier, Dionysiaca: Recueil don-
nant l’ensemble des traditions latines des ouvrages attribués au Denys l’Ar-
éopage, 2 vols. (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer & Cie, 1937–50).
Glose Super Angelica Ierarchia, ed. Declan Lawell, Corpus Christianorum
Continuatio Mediaevalis 223A (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011).
Qualiter vita prelatorum conformari debet vite angelice, ed. Declan Lawell,
“Qualiter vita prelatorum conformari debet vite angelice: A Sermon
(1244–6?) Attributed to Thomas Gallus,” Recherches de Théologie et
Philosophie Médiévales 75.2 (2008), 303–36.
Spectacula contemplationis, ed. Declan Lawell. “Spectacula contemplationis:
A Treatise (1244–6) by Thomas Gallus,” Recherches de Théologie et
Philosophie Médiévales 76:2 (2009): 249–85, at 279–85.

Editions and Translations of Other Primary Works

Anon., The Cloud of Unknowing, tr. James Walsh, S. J. (New York: Paulist
Press, 1981).
Anon., “Denis’s Hidden Theology,” in The Pursuit of Wisdom and Other
Works by the Author of the “Cloud of Unknowing,” tr. James Walsh, S. J.
(New York, Paulist Press, 1988).
Aristotle, Metaphysics, vol, VIII, tr. W. D. Ross (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924).
Barbet, Jeanne and Francis Ruello, Un commentaire Vercellien du Cantique
des Cantiques: “Deiformis Anime Gemitus.” Étude d’authenticité
par Jeanne Barbet et Francis Ruello. Édition critique par Jeanne Barbet.
Traduction française Francis Ruello. Sous la Règle de Saint Augustin. Vol. 10.
(Turnhout: Brepols, 2005).
Bonaventure, Opera omnia. Vols. I–IV, Commentaria in quatuor libros
sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi; vol. V, Opuscula varia theological;
vol. VI, Comentarii in Sacram Scripturam; vol. VII, Comentarius in
Evangelium S. Lucae; vol. VIII, Opuscula varia ad theologiam mysticam
262 Bibliography
et res Ordinis Fratrum minorum spectantia; vol. IX, Sermones de tempore,
de sanctis, de B. Virgine Maria, et de diversis; vol. X, Operum omnium
complementum. Edited by the Fathers of the Collegium of St. Bonaventure
(Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1882–1902). (Referred to by the
volume and page numbers in parentheses).
Bonaventure, Collations on the Six Days, Works of Bonaventure vol. 5,
tr. José de Vinck (Paterson, NJ: Saint Anthony Guild, 1970).
Bonaventure, The Soul’s Journey into God, The Tree of Life, The Life of
St. Francis, tr. Ewert H. Cousins (New York: Paulist Press, 1978).
Bonaventure, Itinerarium Mentis in Deum, rev. edn., WSB 2 (St. Bonaventure,
NY: Franciscan Institute, 2002).
Bonaventure, Breviloquium (Works of St. Bonaventure, vol. 9), tr. Dominic
Monti, OFM, (St. Bonaventure University: Franciscan Institute Publications,
2005).
Denys the Areopagite, Dionysiaca: Recueil donnant l’ensemble des traditions
latines des ouvrages attribués au Denys l’Aréopage, ed. Philippe Chevalier,
2 vols. (Paris: Desclée, 1937–50).
Dionysius the Areopagite, The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, tr. John
Parker (London: Parker, 1897).
Dionysius the Areopagite, Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, tr. Colm
Luibheid and Paul Rorem (New York and Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1987).
Hugh of Balma, The Roads to Zion Mourn, tr. Dennis Martin (New York:
Paulist Press, 1996).
Hugh of St. Victor, In hierarchiam caelestem S. Dionysii, ed. J.-P. Migne. PL,
vol. 175 (Paris: Vivès, 1854): 923–1145C.
Hugh of St. Victor, Didascalicon, tr. Jerome Taylor (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1961).
Hugh of St. Victor, Hugonis de Sancto Victore: De tribus diebus, ed. Dominique
Poirel, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 227 (Turnhout:
Brepols, 2002).
Hugh of St. Victor, Super Ierarchiam Dionysii, ed. Dominique Poirel,
Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 228 (Turnhout: Brepols,
2015).
Hugh of St. Victor, De laude caritatis, ed. and tr. P. Sicard, L’oeuvre de
Hugues de Saint-Victor, 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1997): 182–207.
Richard of St. Victor, De Trinitate, ed. J. Ribaillier, Textes Philosophiques
du Moyen Age, vol. 6 (Paris: J. Vrin, 1958).
Richard of St. Victor, Richard of St. Victor: The Twelve Patricarchs, The
Mystical Ark, Book Three of the Trinity, tr. Grover Zinn (New York: Paulist
Press, 1979).
Richard of St. Victor, De arca Moysi, ed. Marc-Aeilko Aris, Contemplatio:
Philosophische Studien zum Traktat Benjamin Maior des Richard von
St. Victor, vol. 6 (Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1996).
 Bibliography 263
Richard of St. Victor, Benjamin Major, ed. Marc-Aeilko Aris, Contemplatio:
Philosophische Studien zum Traktat Benjamin Maior des Richard von
St. Victor, vol. 6 (Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1996); PL 196.63–202B.

Secondary Sources
Balthasar, Hans Urs von, Studies in Theological Style: Clerical Styles, vol. 2,
The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, tr. Erasmo Leiva-
Merikakis (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1984).
Barbet, Jeanne, Un Commentaire du Cantique attribué à Thomas Gallus
(Paris-Louvain: Béatrice-Nauwelaerts, 1972).
Barbet, Jeanne, “Thomas Gallus,” Dictionnaire de spiritualité: ascétique et
mystique, doctrine et histoire, vol. 15, ed. M. Viller and C. Baumgartner
(Paris: Beauchesne, 1991): 800–16.
Blankenhorn, Bernhard, OP, The Mystery of Union with God: Dionysian
Mysticism in Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas (Washington, DC:
Catholic University of America, 2015).
Callus, Daniel, “The Date of Grosseteste’s Commentaries on the Pseudo-
Dionysius and the Nichomachean Ethics,” Recherches de Théologie Ancienne
et Médiévale 45 (1947): 194–5.
Capellino, Mario, Tommaso di San Vittore: Abate Vercellese (Vercelli: Biblioteca
della Società Storica Vercellese, 1978).
Capellino, Mario, Tommaso il Primo Abate di S. Andrea (Vercelli: Biblioteca
della Società Storica Vercellese, 1982).
Capellino, Mario, The Abbey of Sant’Andrea in Vercelli (Turnhout: Brepols,
2006).
Chase, Steven, Angelic Wisdom: The Cherubim and the Grace of Contempla-
tion in Richard of St. Victor (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
1995).
Chenu, Marie-Dominique, “Le plan de la Somme théologique de saint
Thomas,” Revue thomiste 47 (1939): 93–107.
Chenu, Marie-Dominique, Nature, Man and Society in the Twelfth Century,
ed. and tr. Jerome Taylor and L. K. Little (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1968).
Coakley, S. and Charles M. Stang (eds.), Re-thinking Dionysius the Areopagite
(Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).
Coolman, Boyd Taylor, Knowing God by Experience: The Spiritual Senses in
the Theology of William of Auxerre (Washington, DC: Catholic University
of America Press, 2004).
Coolman, Boyd Taylor, “The Medieval Affective Dionysian Tradition,”
Modern Theology 24 (2008): 615–32.
Coolman, Boyd Taylor, The Theology of Hugh of St. Victor: An Interpretation
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
264 Bibliography
Coolman, Boyd Taylor, “Thomas Gallus,” in The Spiritual Senses: Perceiving
God in Western Christianity, ed. Paul Gavrilyuk and Sarah Coakley
(Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 140–58.
Coolman, Boyd Taylor, “Victorine Mysticism,” The Wiley-Blackwell Com-
panion to Christian Mysticism, ed. Julia A. Lamm (Hoboken: J. Wiley,
2013), 251–66.
Crossnoe, Marshall E., “Education and the Care of Souls: Pope Gregory IX,
the Order of St. Victor and the University of Paris in 1237,” Mediaeval
Studies 61 (1999): 137–72.
De Andia, Ysabel, Henosis: L’union à Dieu chez Denys l’Aréopagite (Leiden
and New York: E. J. Brill, 1996).
Dumeige, Gervais, “Denys l’Aréopagite: en Occident.” Dictionnaire de
spiritualité ascétique et mystique, doctrine et histoire (Paris, 1932).
Hathaway, Ronald F., Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the Letters of
Pseudo-Dionysius (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1969).
Hayes, Zachary, Disputed Questions on the Mystery of the Trinity (Works of
Saint Bonaventure) 3 (Saint Bonaventure, 2000).
Hayes, Zachary, “Bonaventure’s Trinitarian Theology,” in Jay M. Hammond,
Wayne Hellmann, and Jared Goff (eds.), A Companion to Bonaventure, Brill’s
Companions to the Christian Tradition (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 189–246.
Ivánka, Endrovon, Plato Christianus: La réception critique du platonisme
chez les Pères de l’Eglise (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1990).
Javelet, Robert, “Thomas Gallus et Richard de Saint-Victor et mystiques,”
Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale 29 (1962): 205–33 and 30
(1963): 88–121.
Javelet, Robert, “Thomas Gallus ou les Écritures dans une dialectique
mystique,” in L’homme devant Dieu: mélanges offerts au Père Henri de
Lubac (Paris: Aubier, 1963), 99–119.
Jean-Yves Lacoste, “On Knowing God through Loving Him: Beyond ‘Faith
and Reason’,” in Jeffrey Bloechl (ed.), Christianity and Secular Reason:
Classical Themes and Modern Developments (Notre Dame, IN: University
of Notre Dame, 2012).
Kearney, Richard, The God Who May Be: A Hermeneutics of Religion
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001).
Kremer, Klaus, “Das ‘Warum’ der Schöpfung: ‘quia bonus’ vel/et ‘quia
voluit’? Ein Beitrag zum Verhältnis von Neuplatonismus und Christentum
an Hand des Prinzips ‘bonum est diffusivum sui’,” in Parusia. Studien
zur Philosophie Platons und zur Problemgeschichte des Platonismus.
Festgabe für Johannes Hirschberger, ed. Kurt Flasch (Frankfurt: Minverva,
1965), 241–64.
Kupperman, J. S., “Eros and Agape in Dionysius the Areopagite,” Journal of
the Western Mystery Tradition, 25:3 (2013) (http://www.jwmt.org/v3n25/
kupperman.html).
 Bibliography 265
LaNave, Gregory, “Bonaventure,” in The Spiritual Senses: Perceiving God in
Western Christianity, ed. Paul Gavrilyuk and Sarah Coakley (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2011), 159–73.
Lawell, Declan, “Affective Excess: Ontology and Knowledge in the Thought
of Thomas Gallus,” Dionysius 26 (2008): 139–74.
Lawell, Declan, “Qualiter vita prelatorum conformari debet vite angelice.
A Sermon (1244–6?) Attributed to Thomas Gallus,” Recherches de Théologie
et Philosophie Médiévales 75:2 (2008): 303–36.
Lawell, Declan, Thomas Gallus, Jean-Luc Marion and the Reception of Dio-
nysian Neoplatonism (dissertation, Queen’s University of Belfast, 2008).
Lawell, Declan, “Ne De Ineffabili Penitus Taceamus: Aspects of the Specialized
Vocabulary of the Writings of Thomas Gallus,” Viator 40:1 (2009): 151–84.
Lawell, Declan, “Spectacula contemplationis (1244–6): A Treatise by Thomas
Gallus,” Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie Médiévales 76:2 (2009):
249–85.
Lawell, Declan, “Thomas Gallus’s Method as Dionysian Commentator:
A Study of the Glose super Angelica Ierarchia (1224), Including Some
Considerations of the Authorship of the Expositio librorum beati Dionysii,”
Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 76 (2009): 89–117.
Louth, Andrew, Denys the Areopagite (Wilton, CT: Morehouse-Barlow, 1989).
McEvoy, James, “Thomas Gallus (Abbas Vercellensis) and the Commentary
on the De Mystica Theologia ascribed to Iohannes Scottus Eriugena. With
a Concluding Note on the Second Latin Reception of the Pseudo-
Dionysius (1230–50),” Traditions of Platonism: Essays in Honour of John
Dillon, ed. J. J. Cleary (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999), 389–405.
McEvoy, James, Mystical Theology: The Glosses by Thomas Gallus and the
Commentary of Robert Grosseteste on De mystica theologia (Paris: Peeters,
2003), 3–54.
McGinn, Bernard, The Foundations of Mysticism: Origins to the Fifth Century,
vol. 1, The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism
(New York: Crossroad, 1991).
McGinn, Bernard, “The Language of Love in Jewish and Christian Mysticism,”
in Mysticism and Language, ed. Steven T. Katz (New York and Oxford,
1992), 202–35.
McGinn, Bernard, The Growth of Mysticism, vol. 2, The Presence of God:
A History of Western Christian Mysticism (New York: Crossroad, 1994).
McGinn, Bernard, “God as Eros: Metaphysical Foundations of Christian
Mysticism,” New Perspectives on Historical Theology: Essays in Memory
of John Meyendorff, ed. Bradley Nassif (Grand Rapids, MI: William
B. Eerdmans, 1995), 189–209.
McGinn, Bernard, The Flowering of Mysticism: Men and Women in the New
Mysticism (1200–1350), vol. 3, The Presence of God: A History of Western
Christian Mysticism (New York: Crossroad, 1998).
266 Bibliography
McGinn, Bernard, “Thomas Gallus and Dionysian Mysticism,” Studies in
Spirituality 8 (Louvain: Peeters, 1998): 81–96.
McGinn, Bernard, “The Dynamism of the Trinity in Bonaventure and
Eckhart,” Franciscan Studies 65 (2007): 137–55.
Marion, Jean-Luc, God Without Being: Hors-Texte, 2nd edn. (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2012).
Peckham, John, “Legendae Sanctii Antonii presbyteri et confessoris benignitas
nuncupatae fragmina quae supersunt,” in Vita del “Dialogus” e “Benignitas”:
introduzione, testo critico, versione italiana e note a cura di Vergilio Gamboso
(Padova: Edizioni Messagero, 1986), 552–6.
Peghaire, Julien, “L’axiome ‘Bonum est diffusivum est’ dans le néoplatonisme
et le thomisme,” Revue de l’Université d’Ottawa 2 (1932), pp. 5*–30*.
Perl, Eric David, Theophany: The Neoplatonic Philosophy of Dionysius the
Areopagite (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007).
Perl, Eric David, “Announcing the Divine Silence,” American Catholic Philo-
sophical Quarterly 82:4 (2008): 555–60.
Ratzinger, Joseph, The Theology of History in St. Bonaventure, tr. Zachary
Hayes (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1971).
Rorem, Paul, Pseudo-Dionysius: A Commentary on the Texts and an Intro-
duction to Their Influence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Rorem, Paul, Eriugena’s Commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy (Toronto:
Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2005).
Ruh, Kurt, Frauenmystik und franziskanische Mystik der Frühzeit, vol. 2,
Geschichte der abendländischen Mystik (Munich: Beck, 1990), 402–5.
Ruh, Kurt, Die Mystik des deutschen Predigerordens und ihre Grundlegung
durch die Hochscholastik, vol. 3, Geschichte der abendländischen Mystik
(Munich: Beck, 1996), 59–81.
Schilling, M., “Victorine Liturgy and its Architectural Setting at the Church
of Sant’Andrea in Vercelli,” Gesta 42:2 (2003): 115–30.
Schilling, M., “Celebrating the Scholar and Teacher: The Tomb of Thomas
Gallus at Sant’Andrea in Vercelli,” in A Wider Trecento, ed. Louise
Bourdua and Robert Gibbs (Munich: Beck, 1990), 117–43.
Théry, Gabriel, “Saint Antoine de Padoue et Thomas Gallus,” La vie spirituelle,
Supplement 37 (1933): 94–115.
Théry, Gabriel, “Thomas Gallus et Égide d’Assisi: le traité De septem gradibus
contemplationis,” Revue néoscolastique de philosophie 36 (1934): 180–90.
Théry, Gabriel, “Commentaire sur Isaïe de Thomas de Saint-Victor,” La vie
spirituelle 47 (1936): 146–62.
Théry, Gabriel, “Thomas Gallus. Aperçu biographique,” Archives d’histoire
doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 12 (1939): 141–208.
Torrell, Jean-Pierre, Spiritual Master, vol. 2, Saint Thomas Aquinas
(Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003).
 Bibliography 267
Tugwell, Simon, O.P., “Introduction,” Albert and Thomas: Selected Writings
(New York: Paulist Press, 1988), 39–55.
Turner, Denys, Eros and Allegory: Medieval Exegesis of the Song of Songs
(Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1995).
Turner, Denys, “How to Read the Pseudo-Denys Today?” International
Journal of Systematic Theology 7:4 (2005), 428–40.
Walsh, James, S. J., Sapientia Christianorum: The Doctrine of Thomas Gallus
Abbot of Vercelli on Contemplation (dissertation, Pontifical Gregorian
University: Rome, 1957).
Walsh, James, S. J., “Thomas Gallus et l’effort contemplatif,” Revue d’histoire
de la spiritualité 51 (1975): 17–42.
Zinn, Grover A. Jr., “Suger, Theology, and the Pseudo-Dionysian Tradition,”
in Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: A Symposium, ed. Paula Lieber Gerson
(New York, 1986), 33–40.
 Index
abundance 33, 40, 41, 46, 48, 56, 58, 60,
63, 80, 94–5, 97, 101, 112, 133, 138,
144, 147, 149, 165–6, 170, 176, 201–4,
206–8, 211–12, 218–19, 222, 228, 235,
243, 254, 257
affect (noun) 23, 27, 79–83, 85–6, 89,
114, 119, 121, 129–30, 134, 136, 139,
145–51, 162, 167, 179, 184, 188,
190–1, 193, 195, 206, 218, 230, 248,
254, 257
affect (verb) 24–5, 90, 162, 186, 187,
195, 241–2, 246, 250, 252
affecting 185, 187, 244, 250
affection 19, 88–90, 118, 146–8, 150,
155–6, 160–7, 172, 179, 183–4,
189–91, 193–4, 202, 209, 217, 227,
251–2
affection/s 14–17, 19, 22, 58, 83, 88, 90,
118, 121, 136, 146–8, 156–61, 163–8,
172, 179, 181, 183, 185, 188–9, 191,
193–4, 200, 202, 209, 217, 226–8, 230,
240, 251, 254
affective 5, 188
affective 4, 5, 11, 15–17, 19–27, 70, 80,
87, 121, 126, 128, 132, 136, 140, 149,
158, 160, 162, 164–8, 170, 172–3, 175,
177–90, 193–5, 200, 203–12, 216, 222,
230, 239–40, 242, 245–57
affectivity 20, 25, 196, 209, 211, 230, 246,
250, 253–4, 256
affectivize 24, 140, 145, 158, 191
affectual 68, 118, 136, 160, 163, 175, 184,
193, 194–5, 200, 206–8
affectus 4, 15, 24, 26, 80–2, 85–90, 114,
129, 131, 133, 136, 138–9, 145–50,
158, 160, 161–4, 176, 177–8, 181, 184,
186, 188, 189–91, 193–4, 205, 209–12,
219, 227, 245–51, 257, 259
bride 25, 88, 102, 108, 120, 122, 126–7,
132, 134, 144–5, 147, 149, 151–3, 156,
161, 167–78, 180–1, 183–6, 191–3,
203–4, 205–7, 216–20, 222–3, 225–7,
229–30, 242, 255
bridegroom 25, 88, 102, 120–1, 126–7,
129, 131–2, 134–6, 144–5, 148–9,
151–3, 156–7, 161, 167, 169–70,
173–4, 176–8, 180–1, 183, 185–6,
190–3, 202, 204–7, 217, 219–20, 222,
225–6, 229, 245, 252
Christ 1, 17–18, 20, 22, 25, 33, 51, 63, 87,
126, 130–3, 136, 138, 140, 144–5, 147,
150, 153, 157, 164, 166, 169–73, 181,
185, 195, 202–3, 206, 210, 239, 242,
244, 249–50, 256, 258
cognition 18, 35, 38, 42, 74, 85–6, 108,
117, 121, 129, 133, 135, 137, 139, 140,
149, 193, 217, 227
cognition (affective) 5, 16, 19–21, 23–7,
126, 128, 136, 139–40, 142, 158–60,
162–7, 173, 175, 177–90, 192–6, 200,
207, 211–12, 230, 248–55
cognition (intellective) 16, 20, 24, 86,
108–11, 113–16, 118, 123–5, 128–9,
136–49, 151, 154–5, 157–8, 160, 162,
166, 168–9, 174–5, 191, 193, 200, 205,
207–9, 230, 248–50, 253, 255
creation 13, 19, 27, 57–74, 77, 111, 115,
143, 211, 215–16, 235–6, 240
cross 17, 242, 250, 254
delight 16, 128, 138, 183, 186, 190
Dionysius 2, 7–27, 32–3, 35–45, 48, 51,
53–5, 57–9, 62, 64–5, 68, 70–2, 75–85,
87, 89, 91–103, 109, 112, 115, 117, 127,
130–1, 138, 150, 155, 159–66, 168,
170–1, 174, 178, 181, 192, 200–2,
204, 207, 211, 215, 222–3, 229, 231,
234–40, 242–8, 250, 252, 254–6, 258
ecstasy 3, 15, 20, 26, 33, 45, 52, 56–8,
61, 65, 69, 72, 76, 78, 83–4, 98–9,
101–4, 110, 122, 126–34, 136–8,
140, 142–5, 149, 151, 155, 157–8,
160–2, 165–72, 177, 181, 191, 193,
201, 212, 222–3, 225, 234–6, 238–45,
247, 257
270 Index
enstasis 26, 52, 56, 84, 99, 104, 108,
121–3, 128–9, 131, 136, 140, 143, 145,
157–8, 167, 191, 212, 222–3, 235,
239–40, 242, 244–5
font 25, 36, 48, 56, 59–60, 64, 70–2, 203,
234–5, 244
fount 33, 46, 202
fullness 1, 3, 32–3, 40–2, 44–6, 48, 50,
52–4, 59–64, 66, 68–70, 72, 85, 97–8,
112–13, 138, 144–5, 165, 172, 178,
185, 201–2, 207, 212, 219, 223, 227,
233–6, 257–8
hearing 24–5, 115, 126, 155, 184, 186–9,
207, 250–2
hierarchy 8, 23–6, 51, 62–3, 76–9, 81–5,
87–8, 90–103, 107, 110, 116, 118, 120,
122–4, 127–8, 132, 134–8, 140, 142,
144, 147, 149–50, 158, 160, 162, 167,
171, 173, 191, 193–4, 199–201, 203–6,
208, 211, 215, 218, 220–4, 227–31,
233, 237–45, 248–9, 254–7
Holy Spirit 21–2, 25, 42, 45–53, 62, 66,
90, 113, 131–2, 138, 145, 150, 154, 157,
171–3, 179, 183, 195, 234–5, 239, 242,
249–50, 258
Hugh of St.Victor 6–7, 11, 16–17, 19, 76,
85–7, 91, 109, 115, 165, 188, 192,
199–200, 237, 247, 258
intellect 3–4, 9–27, 31, 38–40, 47, 70,
79–83, 85–6, 88–9, 92, 102, 108–19,
121, 123–6, 128–34, 136–64, 166–9,
172, 174–81, 183–5, 186–91, 193–5,
199–200, 202, 204–12, 217–19, 221–2,
227–8, 230, 240, 245–57
knowledge 1, 3–5, 7, 12, 14–17, 20–3,
25–7, 38, 42, 59, 63, 72, 84–8, 90, 93,
96, 100–1, 107–18, 121, 125, 128–9,
134–58, 159–61, 164, 166, 168, 171,
175, 180–2, 188, 193–5, 199, 202,
205–7, 209, 211, 227–32, 233, 240,
245–8, 250, 252–8
love 1–5, 14–17, 20, 23, 26–7, 31–6, 43,
45, 49, 52–5, 57–8, 67, 70–2, 84–5, 87,
98–101, 103, 107, 113, 121, 126, 128,
130–1, 135, 138, 144, 146–7, 155, 158,
161–7, 169–74, 177–81, 185, 188–9,
191–5, 200, 202–6, 209, 211–12, 216,
219–21, 224–32, 233–5, 240–2,
245–52, 254–8
nature (human) 3, 23, 26–7, 51, 75–106,
112, 116, 118–19, 121–2, 124–9, 134,
175, 200, 211, 222, 229, 237–45
plenitude 1, 10, 32–3, 38, 40–6, 48–50,
52–4, 56–7, 59–66, 68–9, 71–4, 82, 86,
88, 90, 112–13, 117, 119, 133, 138,
144–5, 153, 165–6, 181–2, 185, 192,
194, 201, 203, 205, 211, 217–18, 220,
223–4, 233–6, 238, 240, 245
pleroma 31, 33, 41, 43, 52–4, 56–7, 60,
63, 68, 86, 97, 101, 133, 153, 155, 162,
201, 216, 236, 257
plethora 60, 63, 72, 86, 133, 201, 211,
215–16, 236, 254
Richard of St. Victor 6, 11, 32–3, 35–7,
43–4, 47, 49, 53–4, 56, 58, 78, 91,
110–11, 143, 200, 210–11, 215, 235,
237, 254
senses (spiritual) 24–5, 173, 177,
182–90, 195, 202, 212, 250–3
sight 86, 115, 117, 141, 146, 184, 186–7,
189–90, 200, 207, 227, 245, 250, 252
sinus 124, 126, 133–4, 138, 153–4, 201,
204
smell 24–5, 144–5, 149, 176–7, 182,
184–90, 192, 195, 199, 204, 207, 224,
250–3, 259
taste 21, 24–5, 155, 177, 183–91, 195,
202, 205, 207, 211, 219–20, 228,
250–3, 255–6
touch 3, 24–5, 90, 183–6, 188–91, 193,
195, 207, 222, 249–53, 259
Trinity 31–57, 61–2, 67–8, 71, 73–4, 86,
91, 97–8, 100–1, 112–13, 116–17, 133,
155, 200–1, 205, 210–11, 215–16, 223,
234–6, 240–1, 246, 257–8
vision 7, 11, 18, 33, 84, 86, 90, 138–9,
151, 168, 177, 183, 191, 193