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 ...
© Copyright by Alana Jane King, 2014. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT This dissertation investigates the writings of the 16 th century Protestant theologian Valentin Weigel, focusing on the relationship of this early modern writer to his premodern sources, Dionysius the Areopagite and Meister Eckhart. The prevailing reception history for these two authors claims that, though they were influential in Europe throughout the Middle Ages, they fell out of favour in the early modern era. Instead, I find that, although these two are pushed out of the mainstream of Western theology, they continue to be read outside the centre. That is, I argue against a periodization that posits a clean break between medieval and modern thought. Asserting that Weigel did draw substantively on Eckhart and Dionysius corrects an imbalance in modern scholarship on Weigel that does not credit the crucial role that Weigel’s pre-modern sources play in his oeuvre. Weigel was keenly interested in what these texts had to say about what I term indifference, manifested in Eckhart’s work as Gelassenheit, and in Dionysius’ as apophasis. Indifference is the key element of Weigel’s response to the theological and ecclesiological challenges of his time. In the sixteenth century, Luther’s reform movement transformed not only doctrine but also the configuration of religious leadership and secular government (i.e. confessionalization), leading to a lack of consensus about fundamental issues of church governance: how should decisions about religious life be made, on what basis, and by whom? In observing how confessionalization reshaped the Lutheran Church in Saxony for the worse, Weigel concluded that fighting against it was fruitless, and that the most principled response was to cultivate an attitude of indifference. His explicitly stated conviction is that true faith resides solely in the heart, and that this true faith need not find expression in a material religious practice. Weigel argued that he would not achieve meaningful institutional reform by taking action and defending his beliefs to the death as a martyr, but instead advocated radical inaction, choosing to keep silent about his true beliefs even while holding an office in the Lutheran church whose theology he disagreed with and whose methods of generating consensus he found oppressive. iii
- Page 1: MYSTICISM & CONFESSIONAL CONFLICT I
- 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 and 22: with fragments of Eckhart and Taule
- Page 23 and 24: Dionysius and Eckhart (for differen
- 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
ABSTRACT<br />
This dissert<strong>at</strong>ion investig<strong>at</strong>es <strong>the</strong> writings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 16 th century Protestant <strong>the</strong>ologian<br />
Valentin Weigel, focusing on <strong>the</strong> rel<strong>at</strong>ionship <strong>of</strong> this early modern writer to his premodern<br />
sources, Dionysius <strong>the</strong> Areopagite and Meister Eckhart. The prevailing reception<br />
history for <strong>the</strong>se two authors claims th<strong>at</strong>, though <strong>the</strong>y were influential in Europe<br />
throughout <strong>the</strong> Middle Ages, <strong>the</strong>y fell out <strong>of</strong> favour in <strong>the</strong> early modern era. Instead, I<br />
find th<strong>at</strong>, although <strong>the</strong>se two are pushed out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mainstream <strong>of</strong> Western <strong>the</strong>ology, <strong>the</strong>y<br />
continue to be read outside <strong>the</strong> centre. Th<strong>at</strong> is, I argue against a periodiz<strong>at</strong>ion th<strong>at</strong> posits a<br />
clean break between medieval and modern thought.<br />
Asserting th<strong>at</strong> Weigel did draw substantively on Eckhart and Dionysius corrects<br />
an imbalance in modern scholarship on Weigel th<strong>at</strong> does not credit <strong>the</strong> crucial role th<strong>at</strong><br />
Weigel’s pre-modern sources play in his oeuvre. Weigel was keenly interested in wh<strong>at</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>se texts had to say about wh<strong>at</strong> I term indifference, manifested in Eckhart’s work as<br />
Gelassenheit, and in Dionysius’ as apophasis. Indifference is <strong>the</strong> key element <strong>of</strong> Weigel’s<br />
response to <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ological and ecclesiological challenges <strong>of</strong> his time. In <strong>the</strong> sixteenth<br />
century, Lu<strong>the</strong>r’s reform movement transformed not only doctrine but also <strong>the</strong><br />
configur<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>of</strong> religious leadership and secular government (i.e. confessionaliz<strong>at</strong>ion),<br />
leading to a lack <strong>of</strong> consensus about fundamental issues <strong>of</strong> church governance: how<br />
should decisions about religious life be made, on wh<strong>at</strong> basis, and by whom?<br />
In observing how confessionaliz<strong>at</strong>ion reshaped <strong>the</strong> Lu<strong>the</strong>ran Church in Saxony for<br />
<strong>the</strong> worse, Weigel concluded th<strong>at</strong> fighting against it was fruitless, and th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> most<br />
principled response was to cultiv<strong>at</strong>e an <strong>at</strong>titude <strong>of</strong> indifference. His explicitly st<strong>at</strong>ed<br />
conviction is th<strong>at</strong> true faith resides solely in <strong>the</strong> heart, and th<strong>at</strong> this true faith need not find<br />
expression in a m<strong>at</strong>erial religious practice. Weigel argued th<strong>at</strong> he would not achieve<br />
meaningful institutional reform by taking action and defending his beliefs to <strong>the</strong> de<strong>at</strong>h as<br />
a martyr, but instead advoc<strong>at</strong>ed radical inaction, choosing to keep silent about his true<br />
beliefs even while holding an <strong>of</strong>fice in <strong>the</strong> Lu<strong>the</strong>ran church whose <strong>the</strong>ology he disagreed<br />
with and whose methods <strong>of</strong> gener<strong>at</strong>ing consensus he found oppressive.<br />
iii