Abstract
Medieval study of the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius was puzzlingly patchy. He was accessible in Latin in the translation of John Scotus Eriugena (made c.862), yet there were only occasional attempts at commentary. The present editor notes the important commentary of Hugh of St Victor and provides a reference to the work done so far on the reception of Pseudo-Dionysius up to the thirteenth century. Then there was an active revival of interest. Robert Grosseteste attempted a new translation and made commentaries on the corpus. Albert the Great also commented on Pseudo-Dionysius and Thomas Aquinas commented on The Divine Names. Thomas Gallus (c.1200–46) and his commentaries belong in this cluster of renewed interest. The lemmata he selects for comment by no means cover the entire text. The editor here includes the lemmata for clarity’s sake. There is the remaining difficulty that, although Gallus mainly uses John...
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
