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 ...

dataspace.princeton.edu
from dataspace.princeton.edu More from this publisher
12.11.2014 Views

poverty. 270 Eckhart begins by setting aside what he calls outer poverty (“ein ûzwendigiu armuot” 271 ), the giving up of earthly possessions. Though he does concede that it is praiseworthy to live as Jesus lived on Earth, Eckhart is more interested in an inner poverty (“ein inwendigiu armuot”), the spiritual poverty that Christ praises in the Sermon on the Mount, and, crucially, the spiritual poverty that constitutes their claim to the kingdom of Heaven. Eckhart’s definition of spiritual poverty proves to be far more complex than the simple formula by which he introduces it: spiritual poverty is wanting nothing, knowing nothing, and having nothing (“Waare Armut des Geistes ist, do der Mensch nichts will, nichts weiß und nichts hat”). 272 In the first of these three things—willing nothing—Eckhart demanded a greater sacrifice than other theologians might. It is not enough simply to desire only what God desires (to align one’s own will with God’s will), since this still implies the presence of will—the will to do God’s will is still a will. 273 Nor is it enough to cease desiring frivolous earthly things and begin desiring lofty things such as eternity or even God himself (“etwas Begehrung hat der Ewigkeit und Gottes”). 274 Eckhart calls for the soul to 270 The pericope for the sermon is the opening to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:3): “Selig sind, die da geistlich arm sind, Denn das Himelreich ist ir.” Discussing this work in this chapter is in danger of becoming unwieldy because of the many different versions of Eckhart’s work in play: the Baseler Taulerdruck version (Weigel’s source), Weigel’s relatively faithful transcription of the Baseler Taulerdruck, as well as the modern critical edition of Eckhart’s work. Although the rest of this dissertation uses the critical edition of Eckhart’s works, in my discussion of Weigel’s text in this section, I will quote directly from Weigel’s own text, noting any significant divergences from the Baseler Taulerdruck if they are relevant or if Weigel does not copy that particular phrase, and will provide a reference to the modern critical edition. 271 BT, CCCVIvb. V1, 550:11. 272 Weigel, Zwene nützliche Tractat, 62; BT, CCCVIvb. 273 Ibid; BT, CCCVIIra. “Dann also lang der Mensch das hat, das inn seinen Willen ist und das sein Wille ist, das er will erfullen den liebsten Willen Gottes, dieser Mensch hat nicht Armut, von welchen wir alhier reden, denn dieser Mensch hat einen Willen, mit welchen er genüge will sein den Willen Gottes, und das ist nicht recht.” 274 Weigel, Zwene nützliche Tractat, 63; BT, CCCVIIra. 104

e as free of willing and desiring as it was “when it was not,” as Eckhart puts it (“so mus er seines geschaffenen Willens also ledig sein, als er wahr, da er noch nichts wahr”). 275 Breaking through to an uncreated or pre-created state is important to Eckhart because he conceives of creation as a separation from God—a separation that somehow diminishes both God and creature. Echoing Yahweh speaking to Moses from the burning bush, Eckhart says that before creation flowed out from Him, God was simply what God was (“er was das er was”), but God is now God-in-creatures (“sunder in den creaturen was er got”). 276 After creation, God is no longer the perfectly fulfilling end of creation (“nun das mag mich nicht seelig machen, denn hie erkenn ich mich Creatur”) no matter how great the God-in-creatures may still be. 277 God-in-creatures contains one distinction (God vs. God’s creation) that the soul must strive to break through into union, because, as described above, for Eckhart, God is perfectly and entirely One, and thus cannot have any distinction within him that would mar this unity. 278 The second element of spiritual poverty—knowing nothing (“zum andern ist der arm, der nichts weiß”)—calls for the creature to return to the state of spiritual ignorance it 275 Weigel, Zwene nützliche Tractat, 62; BT, CCCVIIra. Kurt Flasch points out that Eckhart is playing with time designations here (“spielt...mit den Zeitbestimmungen”), since, strictly speaking, time is created as well, and thus there is no time before creation. Giving up ideas of before and after, past and future also belongs to spiritual poverty. Kurt Flasch, "Preidgt Nr. 52," in Lectura Eckhardi: Predigten Meister Eckharts von Fachgelehrten gelesen und gedeutet, (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1998), 188. 276 BT, CCCVII. Michael Sells points out that modern editions of this sermon explain away some of the sermon’s radical charge by making some kind of editorial intervention to distinguish God from God-increatures (by adding quotation marks around one ‘God”, for example) Those listening to Eckhart deliver the the sermon (or reading a pre-modern edition or manuscript) would have been left to sort out the difference between got and “got” on their own. What this means is that the sermon, as it was heard rather than read, would have sounded far more radical, but at the same time would have better captured Eckhart’s dialectical thinking. Michael A. Sells, Mystical Languages of Unsaying, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 1. Weigel does not quote these two particular lines here, but he does cite similar ones that are repeated at the end of the sermon (Weigel, Zwene Tractat, 67-68); for clarity’s sake, I discuss them here as they occur in Eckhart’s line of reasoning, rather than in Weigel’s text. 277 Weigel, Zwene nützliche Tractat, 67-68. 278 Flasch, 186; Turner, Darkness, 162-167. 105

poverty. 270 Eckhart begins by setting aside wh<strong>at</strong> he calls outer poverty (“ein ûzwendigiu<br />

armuot” 271 ), <strong>the</strong> giving up <strong>of</strong> earthly possessions. Though he does concede th<strong>at</strong> it is<br />

praiseworthy to live as Jesus lived on Earth, Eckhart is more interested in an inner<br />

poverty (“ein inwendigiu armuot”), <strong>the</strong> spiritual poverty th<strong>at</strong> Christ praises in <strong>the</strong> Sermon<br />

on <strong>the</strong> Mount, and, crucially, <strong>the</strong> spiritual poverty th<strong>at</strong> constitutes <strong>the</strong>ir claim to <strong>the</strong><br />

kingdom <strong>of</strong> Heaven. Eckhart’s definition <strong>of</strong> spiritual poverty proves to be far more<br />

complex than <strong>the</strong> simple formula by which he introduces it: spiritual poverty is wanting<br />

nothing, knowing nothing, and having nothing (“Waare Armut des Geistes ist, do der<br />

Mensch nichts will, nichts weiß und nichts h<strong>at</strong>”). 272<br />

In <strong>the</strong> first <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se three things—willing nothing—Eckhart demanded a gre<strong>at</strong>er<br />

sacrifice than o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>ologians might. It is not enough simply to desire only wh<strong>at</strong> God<br />

desires (to align one’s own will with God’s will), since this still implies <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong><br />

will—<strong>the</strong> will to do God’s will is still a will. 273 Nor is it enough to cease desiring<br />

frivolous earthly things and begin desiring l<strong>of</strong>ty things such as eternity or even God<br />

himself (“etwas Begehrung h<strong>at</strong> der Ewigkeit und Gottes”). 274 Eckhart calls for <strong>the</strong> soul to<br />

270 The pericope for <strong>the</strong> sermon is <strong>the</strong> opening to Jesus’ Sermon on <strong>the</strong> Mount (M<strong>at</strong><strong>the</strong>w 5:3): “Selig sind,<br />

die da geistlich arm sind, Denn das Himelreich ist ir.” Discussing this work in this chapter is in danger <strong>of</strong><br />

becoming unwieldy because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> many different versions <strong>of</strong> Eckhart’s work in play: <strong>the</strong> Baseler<br />

Taulerdruck version (Weigel’s source), Weigel’s rel<strong>at</strong>ively faithful transcription <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Baseler<br />

Taulerdruck, as well as <strong>the</strong> modern critical edition <strong>of</strong> Eckhart’s work. Although <strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> this dissert<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

uses <strong>the</strong> critical edition <strong>of</strong> Eckhart’s works, in my discussion <strong>of</strong> Weigel’s text in this section, I will quote<br />

directly from Weigel’s own text, noting any significant divergences from <strong>the</strong> Baseler Taulerdruck if <strong>the</strong>y<br />

are relevant or if Weigel does not copy th<strong>at</strong> particular phrase, and will provide a reference to <strong>the</strong> modern<br />

critical edition.<br />

271 BT, CCCVIvb. V1, 550:11.<br />

272 Weigel, Zwene nützliche Tract<strong>at</strong>, 62; BT, CCCVIvb.<br />

273 Ibid; BT, CCCVIIra. “Dann also lang der Mensch das h<strong>at</strong>, das inn seinen Willen ist und das sein Wille<br />

ist, das er will erfullen den liebsten Willen Gottes, dieser Mensch h<strong>at</strong> nicht Armut, von welchen wir alhier<br />

reden, denn dieser Mensch h<strong>at</strong> einen Willen, mit welchen er genüge will sein den Willen Gottes, und das ist<br />

nicht recht.”<br />

274 Weigel, Zwene nützliche Tract<strong>at</strong>, 63; BT, CCCVIIra.<br />

104

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!