{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029798422436459245, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0052585451358457495, 'mean_word_length': 5.30939226519337, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Hierarchical Center in the Thought of St. Bonaventure

The relationship between Bonaventure and Dionysius in scholarship is a little peculiar. Bonaventure’s use of hierarchy or other Dionysian tropes and concepts, together with his knowledge of Dionysius, is taken for granted but he is rarely analysed as a reader of Dionysius. Their ideas are compared while their texts, generally, are not. Since so many different Dionysii have been proffered in the last hundred years, from a duplicitous pagan holdout to a cryptic Constantinopolitan scholar to a liturgically-oriented Syrian monk, against just which one Bonaventure might be compared is practically a matter of taste. The profusion of Dionysii makes it all more necessary to crack open the Corpus Dionysiacum (hereon, CD) to measure Bonaventure’s dependence upon, recasting of, and divergence from the Areopagite. As a mid-thirteenth century, Paris-educated theologian, the CD Bonaventure knew was an assemblage of multiple translations, annotations, and commentaries, that is, Corpus Dionysiacum Parisiense (hereon, CDP) represented in the ms. BnF Lat. 17341.1 Besides that weighty