DIONYSIUS THE CARTHUSIAN. – Theologian, ascetic and mystic, b. at Ryckel (Belgian Limburg) in 1402, d. at Roermond on 12 March 1471. His life, absorbed in contemplation and theological work, was simple and uniform. As a boy he was a restless shepherd; he entered the Benedictine school at St-Trond, then passed to that at Zwolle, then directed by the celebrated John Cele. He studied at the University of Cologne while its cathedral was being built; at the age of 21 (1423) he entered the Carthusian monastery at Roermond, where he lived for 48 years.
He lived retired in his cell, intent upon making an inventory of doctrinal tradition and composing works that would answer the needs of his time. To this programme of seclusion he made only three exceptions: when he discharged the duties of procurator of his monastery or of rector of the new Carthusian house at Bois-le-Duc, and when, in 1451–52, he collaborated in the legation of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa in Germany. The fruit of such exemplary assiduity is a vast theological encyclopaedia of incalculable importance.
Taking up one of the most fruitful intuitions of the chancellor Gerson (d. 1429), D. taught that the purpose of contemplation is to govern the whole of intellectual life. For him, “exegesis and theology, the science of Scripture and of dogma, attain their full development and logical consummation only in the act par excellence of human life” (which is man’s end, both on earth and in heaven) called contemplation (A. Mougel, p. 34). This thesis is developed in the prologue to *De natura aeterni et veri Dei* (Opera omnia, XXXIV, p. 11), where the Gospel, theology (St Augustine), mystical attire (Ruysbroeck) and philosophy (Aristotle, Plato) are harmonized and fused. D. felt himself called to make a methodical and critical inventory of Scripture and of the entire tradition, in order to nourish a thought ceaselessly directed toward contemplation. Unlike Gerson, the accomplishment of this design was not interrupted for D. by any misfortune; and from this continuity there resulted a considerable and characteristic body of work.
As we know it from the recent edition prepared by the Carthusians of Montreuil-sur-Mer (1896–1913), D.’s work fills 42 volumes in quarto; the first contains (pp. XLIX–LXX) a complete catalogue of treatises, commentaries, sermons, opuscula, in 187 numbers. A document (vol. XLI, p. 629) enumerates lost works: 20 treatises properly so called, not counting many poems, letters, sermons or various consultations. The preserved work includes commentaries on all the biblical books, treatises of the Pseudo-Dionysius, of Cassian, of St John Climacus, of Boethius (*De Consolatione philosophiae*), and of the four Books of Sentences; treatises or opuscula of theology or philosophy; sermons.
Breaking down the various elements of this corpus, one arrives at a total of 880 numbers. If we set aside the 75 biblical commentaries, then the 690 sermons (346 *de tempore*, of which 183 to seculars and 163 to religious, and 344 *de sanctis*, of which 195 to seculars and 149 to religious), there remain 115 works or opuscula of dogmatic, moral and spiritual theology, which sometimes rise to the level of philosophy.
Since the *Opera omnia* have not been critically edited, a lengthy treatment would be required to attempt to establish the chronology. It may be noted only that the initial work seems to have been a *De ente et essentia* (lost), composed immediately after his master’s degree (cf. I, p. XXIX); in 1434 D. began to write on the Psalms (I, loc. cit., p. L, n. 2); in 1457 he finished his biblical commentaries; in 1466 he was still working on *De divinis nominibus* (loc. cit., p. LV, n. 1); the entire series of sermons to seculars (*de tempore* and *de sanctis*) preceded the series to religious (vol. XXIX, p. 5); his last book, a collection of meditations, is from 1469. A capital fact is that his commentary on the four Books of Sentences (vols. XIX–XXV) does not stand at the beginning but, at least in part, toward the end of his career, as is clear from the declaration in III Sent., d. 36, q. 1 (vol. XXIII, p. 588, where D. states that from the writings of Ruysbroeck, whose influence he had felt from the outset, he introduced many elements into the treatise composed thirty-four years earlier *De donis Spiritus Sancti*). It is in this commentary, therefore, that one must seek D.’s definitive thought.
It is not possible to analyse in brief compass so vast and complex a corpus. It will suffice to define his method, to determine his sources, and to outline the characteristic features of the whole.
In his biblical commentaries, D. follows the sacred text chapter by chapter. When he sees nothing to explain, he contents himself with a *narratio capituli*; otherwise, he proceeds to *expositio*, *declaratio*, *explanatio* or *elucidatio*, according to the literal sense or the various spiritual senses. At the beginning he often resorts to scholastic authors, and in so doing he returns to the fountainhead of scholasticism. The further he advances, however, the more he interprets Scripture by Scripture. In the Gospels, he adheres to a very strict literal commentary, scarcely citing any Fathers.
His most original contribution consists in the treatise *De causa diversitatis eventuum humanorum*, inspired by Job and composed at the request of Cardinal Cusa (vol. V, pp. 45–80), in the collection *Epitome sive nobiliores sententiae totius Bibliae* (vol. XIV, pp. 543–707), and above all in the *Monopanton, seu redactio omnium epistolarum beati Pauli in unam*, also requested by the same cardinal, which in 73 chapters logically grouped together all that St Paul wrote on each virtue (e.g., ch. 7 *De Caritate* is composed from Rom 5:5; 8:28, 35–39; 13:8–10; 12:9–11; 1 Cor 6:17; 8:3, 11; 10:24; 12:31; 13:1–8, 13, 14; 16:14, 20, 22, 24; 2 Cor 6:11–13; 8:24; 11:2; Gal 5:13–14; Eph 5:1; Col 3:14; 1 Thess 4:9–10; 1 Tim 1:5–6; Heb 10:24–25; Phil 2:4).
In theology, struck by the extreme diversity of opinions propounded before his time, D. laid down the principle of the equal legitimacy of soundly probable opinions, “provided they are not defended with incautious and rash assertion” (*Enarratio in Ex.*, art. 40: vol. II, p. 1 A). He therefore proposed to cite many authors and to choose freely, not without elaborating mediating theses that would gather all the advantages of the authors consulted: “for from a single practitioner-teacher, the truth of the question cannot become clear” (*I Sent.*, d. 2, q. 2: vol. XX, p. 171). This is a rationalism not in the sense of conformity to pure reason, but in the search for the maximum approximation to the supra-rational revelation.
In his *Protestatio* to his superiors (vol. I, pp. LXXI sqq.) D. enumerates his principal sources, which reflect the entire theological and philosophical tradition. D. gives prominence to Denis the Areopagite, “my most choice teacher.” Elsewhere he presents “the illustrious John Cassian” as “our supreme philosopher” (*Sermo I de comm. conf. non pont.*: vol. XXXII, p. 648). He often cites Boethius, but mentions William of Ockham only three times. He sharply rebukes Durand of St-Pourçain (cf. *I Sent.*, d. 36, q. 1: vol. XX, p. 402). He has great respect for Alexander of Hales, “who, on account of the eminence of his learning, was deservedly called by the University of Paris ‘Irrefragable Doctor.’ Therefore his authority is not to be lightly esteemed” (*I Sent.*, d. 2, q. 2: vol. XIX, p. 172). He strongly rejects Scotist formalism (ibid.: “the opinion… seems more irrational than the others, and contrary both to philosophical and to doctrinal teachings”). His fidelity to St Thomas suffered crises, since D. finally rejected the real distinction between essence and existence (*I Sent.*, d. 8, q. 7, cited by A. Mougel, p. 15), and parted company with the Master over the relationship between Christian religion and certain cosmological theses (*Enarr. in I. Ecclesiastae*, art. 1: vol. VII, p. 215).
One of his most constant sources, the deep axis of his thought, appears in the Neoplatonic notion of procession-conversion and in the thesis explicitly attributed to Proclus: “Every effect both remains in its cause and proceeds from it, and turns back to it” (*De lumine christianae theoriae*, lib. II: vol. XXXIII, p. 235).
The essential themes were systematically condensed by DENYS himself in his two fundamental treatises: *Elementatio Philosophica* (104 propositions with commentary, in two parts: vol. XXXIII, pp. 21-104) and *Elementatio theologica* (159 propositions, in 16 parts: vol. XXXIII, pp. 105-231).
But here is a passage that succinctly expresses the entire system of metaphysical and theological optimism from which DENYS’ doctrine proceeds:
> “For since, according to Dionysius (*De caelesti hierarchia* 13, *De divinis nominibus* 4), the divine light, which by its immensity extends beyond every aspect of nature, is pure goodness whose most proper act is to have mercy, to pour itself forth, to communicate its goodness, and to rule by grace; when it finds a soul capable of grace and illumination, worthy of the divine ray, as one free from passions and pure, zealous and eager for wisdom, it immediately diffuses its goodness, infuses the light of grace, and bestows wisdom. And just as Christ promised, when that Spirit of truth comes, He will teach us all truth” (*Sermo I de commendatione confessionis non pontificalis*: vol. XXXIII, p. 648).
All of DENYS’ work proceeds from this central conviction. Characteristic of his design and resources are his synthetic works: *Summa fidei orthodoxae, id est medulla operum s. Thomae* II. IV. A similar synthesis, with apologetic insights (ch. 6: “De Antichristo et fallacis eius”; ch. 7: “De probatione fidei Christianae ex Lege et Prophetis, et de Iudaeorum erroribus”), is the *Dialogus de fide*: a disputation between a theologian and a philosopher, in which the theologian proposes and defends what pertains to faith, while the philosopher upholds what natural reason dictates (vol. XVIII), and the *De dignitate et laudibus B. V. Mariae* II. IV (vol. XXXVI, pp. 17-174).
DENYS’ authority is chiefly affirmed in spiritual theology. Having deepened the concrete conditions of Christian life in all its states and the normal development of deiform grace, thoroughly conversant both with the practical lessons of Cassian and with the classifications of the Climacus and the theories of the Pseudo-Dionysius, in the treatises *Speculum amatorum mundi*, *Liber de fonte lucis et semitis vitae*, *De oratione*, and *De Contemplatione* II. tres, DENYS elaborated a doctrine rich in traditional substance and perfectly balanced. Adopting the tripartite division of spiritual progress, he guides the soul from the purgative way (dominated by meditation) to the illuminative way (marked by affirmative contemplation), and thence to the unitive way, where love and negative contemplation reign.
This supreme reign of love does not prevent DENYS from remaining formally an intellectualist. For DENYS, mystical theology is identical with wisdom, which resides in the intellect (St. Axters, p. 72), so that what unfolds “at the summit of the will” occurs merely as a pure complement (“quod complementum”). For DENYS, divine wisdom is possession in the mode of knowledge (*Summa fidei orthodoxae*, I: vol. XVII, p. 23).
Of this entirely supernatural and infused wisdom, the two great masters, in DENYS’ view, are the Pseudo-Areopagite and the contemplative Jan van Ruysbroeck. To the influence of the latter, no one surrendered with such trust and fervor as DENYS (*De distantia perfectionis divinae et humanae*, art. 10: vol. XXXIV, p. 268).
It is therefore not an exaggeration to cite the famous judgment of Alvarez de Paz: “Dionysius Rikelius, doctor utriusque scholae, mysticae et scholasticae, clarissimus.” Not only do we hear the entire “school” in DENYS’ countless pages, but their methodical study is an essential requirement for the history of Christian thought at the threshold between the Middle Ages and modern times.