12.11.2014 Views

the mystical theology of valentin weigel - DataSpace at Princeton ...

the mystical theology of valentin weigel - DataSpace at Princeton ...

the mystical theology of valentin weigel - DataSpace at Princeton ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

variety <strong>of</strong> things, <strong>the</strong> intellect cannot be m<strong>at</strong>erially transformed by any thing it<br />

perceives 264 —which means, Eckhart concludes, th<strong>at</strong> intellect is nothing <strong>at</strong> all: intellect<br />

only is as it knows, and can know ei<strong>the</strong>r all things or no thing in particular, meaning th<strong>at</strong><br />

it is ei<strong>the</strong>r all things or no thing in particular. 265 As outlined above, <strong>the</strong> only o<strong>the</strong>r<br />

instance <strong>of</strong> being th<strong>at</strong> is nothing <strong>at</strong> all was <strong>the</strong> esse indistinctum, and in this sense, <strong>the</strong><br />

intellect is God—which leads Eckhart to <strong>the</strong> bold conclusion th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> soul, ins<strong>of</strong>ar as it is<br />

intellect, is God. 266 This does not mean th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> intellect does not function in more<br />

mundane ways, as it does when it is oriented towards multiplicity—th<strong>at</strong> is, when it is<br />

ungelassen. However, when oriented toward <strong>the</strong> One in stripping away all distinction, <strong>the</strong><br />

intellect is God. On <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>of</strong> intellect (vernünfticheit), Eckhart writes: “In dem, daz<br />

disiu kraft nihte glîch enist, sô ist si gote glîch,” and conversely “Rechte, als got nihte<br />

glîch enist, als enist ouch disiu kraft nihte glîch.” 267 Of course, Eckhart alludes to <strong>the</strong><br />

intellect by a plethora <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r metaphors as well, chief amongst which are <strong>the</strong> spark <strong>of</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> soul (Seelenfunke, vünkelîn), a little castle (burgelîn), a desert (wüeste), a silence (ein<br />

ieglîichez, daz ez ist, und werdent doch in der würklicheit der angesiht als ein, daz man mac gesprechen in<br />

der wârheit: ougeholz, und daz holz is mîn ouge. Waere aber daz holz âne m<strong>at</strong>erie und ez zemâle geistlich<br />

waere als diu gesiht mines ougen, sô möhte man sprechen in der wârheit, daz in der würklicheit der gesiht<br />

daz holz und mîn ouge bestüenden in einem wesene.” Eckhart, Werke, Vol. 1, 506:5-14.<br />

264 O<strong>the</strong>rwise, if <strong>the</strong> intellect became square m<strong>at</strong>erially when it perceived a square thing, it would no longer<br />

be able to perceive a square thing (and all perception is by contrasts), because it would have to be both<br />

square and non-square, which is impossible. See Turner, 158.<br />

265 This explan<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>of</strong> Eckhart’s definition <strong>of</strong> intellect relies on Turner’s present<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> subject. Turner,<br />

Darkness, 156-159.<br />

266 Eckhart, Werke, Vol. 2, 673. Though <strong>the</strong> intellect can function in <strong>the</strong>se two modes, <strong>the</strong>re are<br />

never<strong>the</strong>less not two intellects, but only one th<strong>at</strong> can be gelassen or ungelassen. As Eckahrt writes: “Dâvon,<br />

als man die krefte [<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> soul, including <strong>the</strong> five sense] nimet in dem wesene, sô sint sie alle ein und glîche<br />

edel; aber dâ man die kreft nimet in irn werken, sô ist einiu [das ungeschaffene Licht] vil edeler und vil<br />

hoeher dan diu ander.” Eckhart, Werke, Vol. 1, 508:2-5. (“If we consider <strong>the</strong> powers <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> soul in <strong>the</strong>ir<br />

being, <strong>the</strong>y are all one and equally noble: but if we take <strong>the</strong>m in <strong>the</strong>ir functions, one is much higher and<br />

nobler than <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r.” Eckhart, Complete Mystical Works, 310.) On <strong>the</strong> unity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> soul, or ra<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> unity<br />

<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> entire man (body and soul), see also Turner, Darkness, 152-156.<br />

267 The passages here are from Sermon 69. Eckhart, Werke, Vol. 2, 46:31 and 48:20-21. (“The very fact th<strong>at</strong><br />

this power is like nothing makes it like God. Just as God is like nothing, so this power is like nothing.”<br />

Eckhart, Teacher and Preacher, 313.Though Eckhart addresses <strong>the</strong> intellect throughout his work, Sermons<br />

5b, 9, 69 and 71, taken toge<strong>the</strong>r, address in more detail wh<strong>at</strong> I have given here in my paraphrase.<br />

102

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!