DAVID
645
DAVID
I i^ht treatises and ascribed them to David: (1) " Die
-1' hen Vorregeln der Tugend";-(2) "Der Spiegel der
lugend"; (3) "Christi Leben unser Vorbild" (to this
treatise Pfeiffer found later a continuation five times
larger than the part published); (4) "Die \ner Fit-
tiche geistlicher Betrachtung " ; (5) "Von der An-
schauung Gottes"; (6) "Von der Erkenntnis der
Wahrheit; (7) "Von der unergriindliehen Fulle
ftottes; (8) " Betrachtungen und Gebete". Preger
raised doubts as to the correctness of ascribing these
tractates, with exception of the first three, to David,
liut his attack proved a failure and Pfeiffer's views
liave been successfully defended by Hecker and Tel-
linegg. It must, however, be acknowledged that the
iii;hth contains much that was common property in
till' Middle Ages. David's German treatises are fine ex-
ninples of German prose and assure him a permanent
I'hire in the history of German literature. Like the
n.diance of a gently burning flame they attract the
hi irt and spirit of the reader to the beautiful and the
1 >i\ ine. They turn the mind from vice and error with
- nnst convincing eloquence and kindle in it the love of
i'"ii. In these writings, as in the treatises for nov- H .s, David is at all times the circumspect mystic,
- ' vi'rse to fantastic ecstasy and exaggeration. A sober
iZ'iix\ sense pervades his profound yet animated ex- positions, which have nothing in common with the \ lijaries of the German mystics of the fourteenth cen- t iry. although David's influence on the latter is not to 1 1 denied. His writings exerted some influence also ii the " Schwabenspiegel " (Swabian Mirror), the v\ U-known compilation of civil law used in Southern t n rmany, which appeared about 1268. Personally I i:ivid belonged to the earlier school of mystics.
i'FKiFFER, Deutsche MysUkcr dcs X IV. Jahrhiinderts (Leipzig,
1 M.')-57), 1; Ide.m in H.\cPT, Zeilschrift fur tkutsches Altertum
i ripzig, 1853), IX, 1 sqq.; Preger, Gcifch. der deutschen
M iilik im M. A. (Leipzig, 1874-93). I, 268 sqq.; Denifle in
i J i torxfich-poUtische Blatter, LXXV. 679 sqq.; Lempp in Zeit-
-r ), -,fr fur Kirrhrnirxch. (1898). XIX, 345 sqq.; D.\-nD OF .\tlGS-
n' i^;, !>■ ■ yf' -;."/; rt inierioris hominis compositione libri III
t,>u:ir:i' . ill, Is'.i'.i , Ititroduct.. 4 sqq.; Ger. tr. by Thomas ViLLA-
' \ \,\\ <!:/•' I :■ r :ur Christ. Vollkommenheit von D. von .1 ., with
lipiiR-iilar.v matter; Preger. Drr Trorfn? A- D '■ n \ liher
Wnldeivirr in Abhandlungcn der k. .\}:i- ' Wi-^a.
inicK. 1878), cl. III. vol. XIV. Pt. II, 1- ; ^ ' pub-
I'i separately; Riedeh. I>as Lebrn /?rrrA ' 'nrg
I i.ihurg. lUOl). 10-16; Mich.vee. ',■- rf ' ' H-.s
I ">i XIII. Jahrhundert bis zum .47/ , irg
Mil Br.. 1897-). II. III. passim; Teli.i- .,,.
d. ain deiil.iche Schriften auf ihre Eililh i ;iul,
l"ii!. 1905). not completed; Heckkh. l\,ii,s,ti, /,,,,,„,„ .:„ D.
■ 'i .4. Personlichkeit und Schriften (Hamburg, 19Uu).
Michael Bihl.
David of Dinant, a pantheistic philosopher who
liv'd in the first decades of the thirteenth century.
\ (TV little is known about his life. It is not certain
V. Iwther he was born at Dinant in Belgium, or at
1 iin.in in Brittany. He is believed to have lived for
no time at the Roman Court under Innocent III.
was a magister, or teacher, perhaps at Paris; at
.• rate, it was at Paris that his work, entitled "Qua-
' inuli" (little note-books), was condemned by a pro-
■> iirial council in 1210, a condemnation which was
'iifirmedin 121.5 by a letter of Cardinal Robert Cour-
.11, pajml legate. From a work ascribed to Albert
tlir Great, "Compilatio de Novo Spiritu", in the
MMiiich Library (MS. lat. .311, fol. 92 b), we learn fur-
' r th.it in con.sequence of the condemnation, Da\ad
i from France, and so escajied punishment. A\Tien
1 where he died is unknown; all we are warranted
lying is that he died after the year 121.5. Besides
"Quateniuli". condemned in the council of 121,5,
1 ordered to be burned " before Chri-stmas", another
.iirk entitled " De Tomis, sen Divisionibus" is men-
Imiicd. It is not improbable, however, that this was
iir.n'ly another title for the "(jnatiTniili". The effect
"f tlie order i.ssued by the council was to cau.se all the
writing of David to disappear. Whatever is known,
thirefore, about his doctrines is derived from the
assertions of his contemporaries and opponents, chiefly
Albert the Great and St. Thomas. From these sources
we learn that David was a Pantheist. He identified
God with the material substrattmi of all things, ma-
teria prima (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., I, Q. iii, a. 8).
He reduced all reality to three categories, namely
bodies, minds, and eternal separate substances. The
indivisible substrate or constituent of bodies is matter
(yle) ; of minds, or souls, intellect (tjous) ; and of eter-
nal separate substances, God (Dcus). These three,
matter, intellect, and God, are one and the same.
Consequently all things, material, intellectual, and
spiritual, have one and the same essence — God (St.
Thomas, In II Sent., dist. xvii, Q. i; Albert the
Great, Sum. Theol., II, Tract, xii, Q. Ixxii, a. 2).
The phraseology, which must be David's own, as well as the title above mentioned, "De Tomis", .sug- gests at once the influence of John Scotus Eriugena, an influence which cannot be denied. Eriugena's work must have been widely known and read in the first decades of the thirteenth century, ;us is evident from many imdeniable facts. Whether David was influ- enced also by Amalric of Chartres (see Amalrician.s) is a matter of debate. Albert, who was a conterapo- rarj" of David, says that David merely renewed the her- esy of Alexander, " who taught that God and intellect and matter are one substance". It is impossible to determine whom Albert here means by Alexander, " a disciple of Xenophanes ' ' ; probably the reference is to some Arabian work that went under the name of a Greek philosopher. There were several works of that kind current in the early part of the thirteenth cen- tury. Some critics, however, put forward the sur- mise that David's immediate source was Avicebron's "Fons Vitce", or the work "De LTnitate", written by Archdeacon Gundisalvi of Segovia, who was well versed in Arabian philosophical literature. What- ever the source, the doctrines were, as all our authori- ties concur in describing them, the expression of the most thoroughgoing pantheism. This of itself would justify the drastic measures to which the Council of Paris had recourse. There were, moreover, circum- stances which rendered summary condemnation neces- sary. On the one hand the University of Paris was being made the scene of an organized attempt to foist the Arabian pantheistic interpretation of Greek philos- ophy on the schools of Latin Christendom. Texts, translations, and commentaries were introduced every- day from Spain, in which doctrines incompatible with Christian dogma were openly taught. On the other hand, there was the popular movement in the South of France which found its principal expression in the Albigensian heresy, while in learned and ascetic com- munities in the North, the anti-hierarchical mysti- cism of the Calabrian Joachim of Floris was being combined with the more speculative pantheistic mysticism of John Scotus Eriugena. In view of these conditions the condemnation of the errors of David of Dinant, the complete extirpation of the sect of Amalricians to which he apparently belonged, and the unwonted harshness of St. Thomtis's reference to him cannot be judged untimely or intemperate.
St. Thomas and Albert the Great, loo. cit. ; Charlulnr. Univ. Paris., ed. Dexifle, I, 70. 71; Baroenhewer, Die pseiirloari.itolrli.irJtr Schrifl fiber das reine Gtile (Freiburg, 1882), 214 sqq.; Ueberweg-Heinze. CctcA, der Phil. Mtb ed.. II, 226; Baumker. .Inhrh. f. Phit. u. spek. Theol. (1893); Haubeau, Hist, de la phil. sent. (Paris. 1880). II, i. 73 sqq.; de WtJLr. Hi.tt. de la phil. medier'ale, 225 sqq.; Turner. Ilistor}/ of PhiioS' ophy (Boston. 1903), 307 sqq.
William Turner.
David Scotus, a medieval Irish chronicler, date of
birth imknown; d. ll.'?9. Early in the twelfth cen-
tury there was at Wiirzburg an ecelesiastic and
teacher known as David. His surname Scotus shows
that he very probably came from Ireland: perhaps
from Wales, if he is identical with the homonymou.s
