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.

nestling inside <strong>the</strong> soul, but ra<strong>the</strong>r is <strong>the</strong> soul itself (“do der mensch stuond in der ewigen<br />

art gottes, do lebte in im nicht ein anders, was da lebte, daz was er selb”). 283 This<br />

ignorance <strong>of</strong> God is not a defect (a failure to be in possession <strong>of</strong> inform<strong>at</strong>ion about God,<br />

so to speak), but ra<strong>the</strong>r, possessing inform<strong>at</strong>ion about God is by definition an<br />

impossibility.<br />

In describing <strong>the</strong> third element <strong>of</strong> spiritual poverty—having nothing—Eckhart<br />

continues to develop this tension between distinction and unity. Although he had once<br />

taught th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> soul should free itself from all things and all works so th<strong>at</strong> it might hollow<br />

out an empty place (“also das er mag sein eine eigene Stadt Gottes”) in which God might<br />

work (“do Gott innen wircket”), 284 Eckhart proclaims th<strong>at</strong> he has not taken spiritual<br />

poverty far enough: a person pursuing spiritual poverty must relinquish even a self in<br />

which God can work. Instead, <strong>the</strong> truly poor spirit allows God Himself to be <strong>the</strong> place in<br />

which God works (“wolle Gott wircken inn der Seele, das er selber je die Stadt sey,<br />

darinn er wircken will”). 285 God, concludes Eckhart, must be active in God’s own self<br />

ra<strong>the</strong>r than in a person’s individual self, “ein Wircker inn ihm selber,” because to<br />

preserve a separ<strong>at</strong>ion between self and God is to hold on to distinctions (“da der Mensch<br />

Stadt behalttet, da beheldt er Unterscheidt”), which are entirely alien to God’s unity and<br />

perfection. 286 As I described above, Eckhart argues th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> intellect is <strong>the</strong><br />

anthropological basis for <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> such an intim<strong>at</strong>e union with God, and here is<br />

simply called a “something in <strong>the</strong> soul” (“ein Ding ist inn der Seele, von welchen fleußet<br />

283 BT, CCCVIIrb. Weigel does not copy this particular line. Bruce Milem, "Suffering God: Meister<br />

Eckhart's Sermon 52," Mystics Quarterly 22, no. 2 (June 1996): 76.<br />

284 Weigel, Zwene nützliche Tract<strong>at</strong>, 65-66.<br />

285 Ibid, 66; BT, CCCVIIvb.<br />

286 Ibid; BT, CCCVIIvb. Denys Turner calls this Eckhart’s “apoph<strong>at</strong>ic anthropology”. Turner, Darkness,<br />

168-185.<br />

107

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!