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 ...
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