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 ...
“interrogating the category of tradition itself,” as she puts it), allowing her to look at both the variance and stability in the manuscript tradition. 51 Finally, discussing the influence of Eckhart and Dionysius in particular calls for some ground-clearing, since these figures occupied a much different cultural space in the sixteenth century than they do in the twenty-first: that is, Weigel was certainly interested in Dionysius and Eckhart, but not necessarily for the reasons a modern scholar might imagine, making it also necessary to discuss the reasons why Weigel was not interested in Eckhart and Dionysius. First, Weigel was not interested in Eckhart and Dionysius because they were considered great heretics by his contemporaries. Rather, in the sixteenth century, Eckhart’s name was not nearly so well known as his twentieth century reputation might suggest. Though some writers who mention his name also seem to have known that he had once been suspected of heresy, they do not seem to be much bothered by it or even to know his ideas enough to know why he was investigated by the inquisition. The story of Dionysius’ fate around 1500 is rather different, in that he had been read intensively throughout, but his authority was increasingly called into question in the early sixteenth century, when Desiderius Erasmus first voiced his serious doubts that the author was not, in fact, the Dionysius whom the Apostle Paul converted in the Areopagus as he claimed, but rather a Greek or possibly Syrian Christian, later hypothesized to be a disciple of Proclus writing around the turn of the sixth century, for whom Dionysius was simply a literary persona. 52 Because the weight of Dionysius’ authority resulted from his proximity to the Apostle, the role he played in mainstream theological discourse was impaired when it was suggested he was not. In short, both 51 Poor, Mechthild, 15. 52 Karlfried Froehlich, "Pseudo-Dionysius and the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century," in Pseudo- Dionysius: The Complete Works (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1987), 38-39. 18
Dionysius and Eckhart (for different reasons) had been pushed out of the theological mainstream by the late sixteenth century when Weigel was writing, either as great heretics or as great authorities. 53 Secondly, Weigel did not value Dionysius’ and Eckhart’ writings because they were voices from the past. Although in this case the argument can only be based on negative evidence, Weigel does not mention the age of his sources, either positively or negatively. That Weigel does not profess an interest in the “medievalness” 54 or “antiquity” of his sources is curious, because historiography was a particularly pressing problem for the Protestant movement, which struggled to position itself as a departure from the (corrupt) theology of the Roman Church but without suggesting that it was thereby a novelty—and settled therefore on the self-description as a return to the purity of the early Church. Caught between calling itself both old and new, the Lutheran movement’s attitude towards the intervening centuries is often at odds with itself. On the one hand, Luther was by no means shy about expressing his dislike of (medieval) scholasticism or anything he considered “speculation,” but he was more ambivalent about mystical texts written in the Middle Ages. Again, this might sounds strange to modern ears because mysticism is, more often than not, prefaced with the attribute “medieval,” and therefore Luther ought to have thrown it out along with other the medieval ideas he rejected. 53 Etymologically, orthodoxy means right or correct thought, but now also refers to ideas that have become rigid, inflexible and confining. The OED records this extended use of the word, listing synonyms for orthodox as “conservative” and “conventional”. "orthodoxy, n.". OED Online. June 2013. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/132809?redirectedFrom=orthodoxy (accessed July 18, 2013). Moreover, it seems to be a peculiarity of post-Enlightenment culture to love the heretic precisely for being a heretic, rather than in spite of it. Highly praised are original thinkers who overturn stale certainties, whose vibrant new ideas shake up stagnant thought patterns. 54 Although Dionysius, properly speaking, belongs to the 5 th century, his writings only became visible in western Christianity in the 13 th century, such that the height of the influence of both Eckhart and Dionysius on the tradition that Weigel belonged to, dates back to the Middle Ages. In other words, Dionysius only “came alive” as a theologian in Europe in the Middle Ages. 19
- Page 1 and 2: MYSTICISM & CONFESSIONAL CONFLICT I
- Page 3 and 4: ABSTRACT This dissertation investig
- Page 5 and 6: INTRODUCTION • ES IST DIR NICHT B
- Page 7 and 8: mostly undisturbed by his Lutheran
- Page 9 and 10: yet have signalled his assent with
- Page 11 and 12: in a context where action is expect
- Page 13 and 14: Protestant Mysticism: Not a Contrad
- Page 15 and 16: interest, 31 and praised the Theolo
- Page 17 and 18: one can observe the texture of the
- Page 19 and 20: discourse and reasoned debate, or t
- Page 21: with fragments of Eckhart and Taule
- Page 25 and 26: movement, but also profound shifts
- Page 27 and 28: schools, as well as universities wh
- Page 29 and 30: allowed them to cooperate effective
- Page 31 and 32: made clear, would result in dismiss
- Page 33 and 34: and in these external dealings, the
- Page 35 and 36: same laws of physics, but while the
- Page 37 and 38: Tertullian’s De Fuga in Persecuti
- Page 39 and 40: as a martyr. Moreover, Holy Scriptu
- Page 41 and 42: Alternatively, the so-called four-f
- Page 43 and 44: tzeyger und unterrichter ist ynn di
- Page 45 and 46: fellow Lutherans in studying books
- Page 47 and 48: provoked into action unnecessarily,
- Page 49 and 50: masses for the dead (for instance)
- Page 51 and 52: traditional proof texts about the o
- Page 53 and 54: positive understandings of indiffer
- Page 55 and 56: insofar as their imperfection is ra
- Page 57 and 58: Of these forms of indifference, I f
- Page 59 and 60: to Dionysius’ authority. Two grou
- Page 61 and 62: PART I • VALENTIN WEIGEL AND MEIS
- Page 63 and 64: investigating his early modern read
- Page 65 and 66: was a devilish heretic to others (
- Page 67 and 68: his neglect of Eckhart. 158 For ins
- Page 69 and 70: “unheilvolle Kompliziertheit”).
- Page 71 and 72: and Jerome (wearing what looks like
“interrog<strong>at</strong>ing <strong>the</strong> c<strong>at</strong>egory <strong>of</strong> tradition itself,” as she puts it), allowing her to look <strong>at</strong> both<br />
<strong>the</strong> variance and stability in <strong>the</strong> manuscript tradition. 51<br />
Finally, discussing <strong>the</strong> influence <strong>of</strong> Eckhart and Dionysius in particular calls for<br />
some ground-clearing, since <strong>the</strong>se figures occupied a much different cultural space in <strong>the</strong><br />
sixteenth century than <strong>the</strong>y do in <strong>the</strong> twenty-first: th<strong>at</strong> is, Weigel was certainly interested<br />
in Dionysius and Eckhart, but not necessarily for <strong>the</strong> reasons a modern scholar might<br />
imagine, making it also necessary to discuss <strong>the</strong> reasons why Weigel was not interested<br />
in Eckhart and Dionysius. First, Weigel was not interested in Eckhart and Dionysius<br />
because <strong>the</strong>y were considered gre<strong>at</strong> heretics by his contemporaries. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, in <strong>the</strong><br />
sixteenth century, Eckhart’s name was not nearly so well known as his twentieth century<br />
reput<strong>at</strong>ion might suggest. Though some writers who mention his name also seem to have<br />
known th<strong>at</strong> he had once been suspected <strong>of</strong> heresy, <strong>the</strong>y do not seem to be much bo<strong>the</strong>red<br />
by it or even to know his ideas enough to know why he was investig<strong>at</strong>ed by <strong>the</strong><br />
inquisition. The story <strong>of</strong> Dionysius’ f<strong>at</strong>e around 1500 is ra<strong>the</strong>r different, in th<strong>at</strong> he had<br />
been read intensively throughout, but his authority was increasingly called into question<br />
in <strong>the</strong> early sixteenth century, when Desiderius Erasmus first voiced his serious doubts<br />
th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> author was not, in fact, <strong>the</strong> Dionysius whom <strong>the</strong> Apostle Paul converted in <strong>the</strong><br />
Areopagus as he claimed, but ra<strong>the</strong>r a Greek or possibly Syrian Christian, l<strong>at</strong>er<br />
hypo<strong>the</strong>sized to be a disciple <strong>of</strong> Proclus writing around <strong>the</strong> turn <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sixth century, for<br />
whom Dionysius was simply a literary persona. 52 Because <strong>the</strong> weight <strong>of</strong> Dionysius’<br />
authority resulted from his proximity to <strong>the</strong> Apostle, <strong>the</strong> role he played in mainstream<br />
<strong>the</strong>ological discourse was impaired when it was suggested he was not. In short, both<br />
51 Poor, Mechthild, 15.<br />
52 Karlfried Froehlich, "Pseudo-Dionysius and <strong>the</strong> Reform<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sixteenth Century," in Pseudo-<br />
Dionysius: The Complete Works (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1987), 38-39.<br />
18