The long controverted question concerning the locality of Eckhart's
origin has been settled by Denifle, who states that he was born at
Hochheim, a village 8 miles north of Gotha. The year of his birth was
probably 1260, and he joined the Dominicans at Erfurt. The lighter
studies he no doubt followed at Cologne. Later he was prior at Erfurt
and provincial of Thuringia. In 1300 he was sent to Paris to lecture
and take the academical degrees, and remained there till 1303. In the
latter year he returned to Erfurt, and was made provincial for Saxony,
a province which reached at that time from the Netherlands to Livonia.
Complaints made against him and the provincial of Teutonia at the
general chapter held in Paris in 1306 concerning irregularities among
the ternaries, must have been trivial, because the general, Aymeric,
appointed him in the following year his vicar-general for Bohemia with
full power to set the demoralized monasteries there in order. In 1311
Eckhart was appointed by the general chapter of Naples as teacher at
Paris. Then follows a long period of which it is known only that he
spent part of the time at Strasburg (cf. Urkundenbuch der Stadt
Strassburg, iii. 236). A passage in a chronicle of the year 1320,
extant in manuscript (cf. Preger, i. 352-399), speaks of a prior
Eckhart at Frankfort who was suspected of heresy, and some have
referred this to Meister Eckhart; but it is highly improbable that a
man under suspicion of heresy would have been appointed teacher in one
of the most famous schools of the order.
Eckhart next appears as teacher at Cologne, and the archbishop,
Hermann von Virneburg, accused him of heresy before the pope. But
Nicholas of Strasburg , to whom the pope had given the temporary
charge of the Dominican monasteries in Germany, exonerated him. The
archbishop, however, pressed his charges against Eckhart and against
Nicholas before his own court. The former now denied the competency of
the archiepiscopal inquisition and demanded litterce dimissorix
(apostoli) for an appeal to the pope (cf. the document in Preger, i.
471; more accurately in ALKG, ii. 627 sqq.). On Feb. 13, 1327, he
stated in his protest, which was read publicly, that he had always
detested everything wrong, and should anything of the kind be found in
his writings, he now retracts. Of the further progress of the case
there is no information, except that John XXII. issued a bull (In agro
dominico), Mar. 27, 1329, in which a series of statements from Eckhart
is characterized as heretical; another as suspected of heresy (the
bull is given complete in ALKG, ii. 636-640). At the close it is
stated that Eckhart recanted before his death everything which he had
falsely taught, by subjecting himself and his writing to the decision
of the apostolic see. By this is no doubt meant the statement of Feb.
13, 1327; and it may be inferred that Eckhart's death, concerning
which no information exists, took place shortly after that event. In
1328 the general chapter of the order at Toulouse decided to proceed
against preachers who "endeavor to preach subtle things which not only
do (not) advance morals, but easily lead the people into error."
Eckhart's disciples were admonished to be more cautious, but
nevertheless they cherished the memory of their master.
2. Works
For centuries none of Eckhart's writings were known except a number of
sermons, found in the old editions of Tauler's sermons, published by
Kachelouen (Leipzig, 1498) and by Adam Petri (Basel, 1521 and 1522).
In 1857 Franz Pfeiffer in the second volume of his Deutsche Mystiker
(Stuttgart), which is wholly devoted to Eckhart, added considerable
manuscript material. Pfeiffer was followed by others, especially Franz
Jostes, Meister Eckhart und seine Junger, ungedruckte Texte zur
Geschichte der deutschen Mystik (Collectanea Friburgensia, iv.,
Freiburg, 1895). But some pieces are of doubtful genuineness, and the
tradition concerning others is very unsatisfactory. It was a great
surprise when in 1880 and 1886 H. Denifle discovered at Erfurt and
Cues two manuscripts with Latin works of Eckhart, the existence of
which Nicholas of Cusa and Trittenheim had indeed mentioned, but which
had since then been considered lost. There can be no doubt as to their
genuineness, but thus far only the (comparatively extensive) specimens
which Denifle had published (in ALKG, ii.) are known. The extant
writings appear to be only parts of a very large work, the Opus
tripartitum, which, to judge from the prologue in the first part
treated of more than 1,000 propositions, in the second part debated a
number of special questions, and in the third part, first expounded
Biblical texts (opus sermonum) and afterward explained the books of
the Bible in their order with special reference to the important
passages. Entirely unknown at present are the contents of the more
important manuscript of Cues, especially the exposition of the Gospel
of John, which may contain information on many things.
3. View of God
As has already been stated it is impossible to give at present a final
decision on Eckhart's world of ideas. Nevertheless an attempt may be
made to delineate his fundamental thoughts, based upon the material at
hand. The great need of man is that his soul be united with God; for
this a knowledge of God and his relation to the world, a knowledge of
the soul and the way which it must go, are necessary. Eckhart does not
doubt that such knowledge is given in the traditional faith of the
Church, but it is not sufficient for one who is longing for salvation.
He must attain to it with his own understanding. Eckhart accordingly
does not move and live in ecclesiastical tradition after the manner of
Bernard of Clairvaux or Hugo of St. Victor; in his thinking on the
highest questions he is independent and in this way he arrives at
views which do not harmonize with the teaching of the Church, without,
however, as far as can be seen, being conscious of any opposition. The
last and highest object of thinking is the Deity, i.e. the divine
entity as distinguished from the persons, yet Eckhart often uses "God"
in the sense of "Deity," where his thought does not call for accurate
definitions (but cf., on the other hand, 180, 14; 181, 7). The Deity
is absolute being without distinction of place or manner (ALKG, ii.
439-440). No predicate derived from finite being is applicable to the
Deity; but this is therefore not mere negation or emptiness. Rather is
finite being, as such, negation; and the Deity, as the negation of
finite being, is the negation of negation, i.e. the absolute fulness
of being (322, 131 539, 10-27). Dionysius wrongly states: God is not,
he is rather a nonentity. When in other passages (82, 26; 182, 31;
500, 27) Eckhart himself designates God as non-existent, he only means
that he has none of the characteristics of finite existence. The same
apparent contradiction is found, where Eckhart on the one hand calls
God absolute being, and on the other denies that he is a being (319,
4; 659, 1); but he reconciles the two views (268-269). The same is the
case with occasional seemingly paradoxical expressions, e.g. that God
is not good, etc. (269, 18; 318, 35-319, 3). The essential elements of
finite things are present in God, but in an exalted degree and in a
manner that can not be comprehended by man (322, 20; 540, 2-7).
4. Trinitarian Process
The absolute, unqualified being of the Deity Eckhart also calls
unnatured nature. This unnatured nature, however, manifests itself in
the natured nature, the three persons. The Trinity is the
self-revelation of the Deity (540, 31; 390,12-22). In it God comprises
himself. Accordingly, Eckhart attributes to the Father a sort of
genesis; only the Deity is absolutely without any progression and
reposes everlastingly in itself. The Father was made through himself
(534, 17). This self-revelation of God Eckhart designates as a
cognition, a speaking, or a demeanor. The Father perceives the whole
fulness of the Deity (6,S); or, what is the same, he speaks a single
word, which comprises everything (70, 25). He procreates the Son (284,
12); for the Father is father only through the Son. The Son, however,
is in everything like the Father, only that he procreates not,(337,
3). The essence of the Father is also that of the Son, and the essence
in both is no other than that of the Deity. From the pleasure and love
which both have for each other springs the Holy Ghost (497, 26).
Eckhart leaves no doubt that the entire trinitarian process must not
be conceived of as a temporal one, but as a process extending
throughout eternity (254, 10). Preger thought that Eckhart's
distinction between Deity and God should be interpreted as a
distinction between potentiality and actuality. To this interpretation
Denifle (ALKG, ii. 453 sqq.) has strongly objected and cited Eckhart's
Latin writings, in which he, with Thomas Aquinas and others,
designates God as actus purus, thus excluding all potentiality.
Denifle is right, in that Eckhart does not consciously and
deliberately make any such distinction; but it can not be denied that
his conception leads to it. Especially significant is Eckhart's
explanation in 175, 7 sqq. where he tries to illustrate the relation
between the fatherhood as it is determined in the Deity and the
paternity of the person of the Father by the relation between the
maternity peculiar to the Virgin as such, and the maternity which she
acquires by bearing. But this is exactly the relation of potentiality
and actuality (cf. also the peculiar passage 193, 33). It must be
admitted that Eckhart here expresses two views which can not be
harmonized with one another, though the second is not fully developed.
Eckhart had a wealth of ingenious ideas, but he was unable to
systematize them.
5. God in Creation
The self-manifestation of God in the Trinity is followed by his
manifestation in his creatures. Everything in them that is truly real
is God's eternal being; but God's being does not manifest itself thus
in its entire fulness (101, 34; 173, 26; 503, 26). In this antithesis
may be expressed the relation of Eckhart's philosophy to pantheism,
both as regards similarities and differences. According to Eckhart
God's creatures have not, as Thomas Aquinas held, merely ideal
preexistence in God, i.e. their conceptual essence (essential
quidditas) coming from the divine intelligence, but their existence
(esse) being foreign to the divine being. Rather is the true being of
the creatures immanent in the divine being. On the other hand, every
peculiarity distinguishing, creatures from each other is something
negative; and in this sense it is said that the creatures are a mere
nothing. Should God withdraw from his creatures his being, they would
disappear as the shadow on the wall disappears when the wall is
removed (31, 2). This perishable being is the creature confined within
the limits of space and time (87, 49). On the other hand, every
creature, considered according to its true entity, is eternal. It is
obvious that this necessarily involves a modification of the idea of
creation. Even Augustine and the Schoolmen felt this difficulty. While
they did not, like Eckhart connect the existence of the world with the
being of God they did consider it unallowable to attribute to God any
temporary activity. Albert the Great tried to avoid the difficulty
with the sentence, "God created all things from eternity, but things
were not created from eternity"; but this is more easily said than
conceived. According to the bull of 1329 (p. 2), Eckhart asserted that
"it may be conceded that the world was from eternity." It is
impossible here to investigate this view further; but reference must
be made to the close relation into which Eckhart brings the process of
the Trinity and the genesis, or progress, of the world, both of the
real and the ideal world (76, 52; 254, 16; 284, 12; cf. Com. in
Genes., ALKG, ii. 553, 13-17).
6. Relation of the Soul to God
The unqualified Deity, the Trinity (birth of the Son or of the Eternal
117ord), and the creation of the world are to him three immediate
moments, which follow each other in conceptual, not temporal sequence.
All creatures have part in the divine essence; but this is true of the
soul in a higher degree. In the irrational creature there is something
of God; but in the soul God is divine (230, 26; 2,31, 4). Though God
speaks his word in all creatures, only rational creatures can preserve
it (479, 19). In other words, in the soul, where he has his
resting-place, God is subjective, while in the rest of creation he is
merely objective. The soul is an image of God, in so far as its chief
powers, memory, reason, and will, answer to the divine persons (319,
1). This accords with the view of Augustine. Just as there is the
absolute Deity, which is superior to the persons of the Godhead, so in
the soul there is something that is superior to its own powers. This
is the innermost background of the soul, which Eckhart frequently
calls a "spark," or "little spark." In its real nature this basis of
the soul is one with the Deity (66, 2). When Eckhart sometimes speaks
of it as uncreated (286, 16; 311, 6), and then again as created, this
does not involve a contradiction. While, on the one hand, it rests
eternally in the Deity, on the other it entered into the temporal
existence of the soul, i.e. was made or created through grace. But it
is not in this original unity with God that the soul finds its
perfection and bliss. As it has a subjective being, it must turn to
God, in order that the essential principle implanted in it may be
truly realized. It is not enough that it was made by God; God must
come and be in it. But this has taken place without hindrance only in
the human soul of Christ (67, 12). For all other souls sin is an
obstacle.
7. Sin and Redemption
But wherein does sin consist? Not in the finiteness, which is never
removed from the soul (3S7, 3; 500, 1 1), but in the direction of the
will toward the finite and its pleasure therein (476, 19; 674, 17).
The possibility of sin, however, is based in finiteness, taken
together with the free will of the creature. If it is the destiny of
the soul to be the resting-place of God, then the direction of the
will toward the finite makes this impossible; and it is this that
constitutes sin. Redemption, therefore, can tale place only when the
creature makes room in his soul for the work of God; and the condition
for that is the turning away from the finite. For God is ever ready to
work in the soul, provided he is not hindered and the soul is
susceptible to his influence (27, 25; 283, 23; 33, 29; 479, 31). The
inner separation from everything casual, sensual, earthly and the
yielding to the work of God in the heart,-that is the seclusion or
tranquillity of which Eckhart speaks again and again. For him this is
the basis of all piety. But what is it that God accomplishes in the
soul? This can be stated in a word: the birth of the son. As the soul
is an image of the Deity, if it is to fulfil its destiny, then that
process by which the deity develops into the three persons must take
place in it. The father procreates in the soul the son (44, 28; 175,
15-20; 479, 10; 13, 12). This takes place during the life of the soul
in time; and, too, not merely at a particular moment, but rather
continuously and repeatedly. This is not merely a copy or analogon of
that inner divine process, but is in truth that very process itself,
by which it becomes, through grace, what the Son of God is by nature
(433, 32; 382, 7; 377, 17). From this view of Eckhart's follow a
number of the most strikino, statements in which the soul is made to
share in the attributes and works of God, including the creation (119,
28-40; 267, 4; 283, 37-284, 7). However, according to Eckhart, a
complete fusion of the soul with the Deity never takes place (387, 3).
He also opposes the doctrine of Apocatastasis (65, 20; 402, 34; 470,
22).
8. Place of Christ
According to Eckhart sin is not the real cause of the incarnation
(591, 34). God wished rather to receive the nature of things through
grace in time just as he had them by nature in eternity in himself
(574, 34). Just as a man occupies a central position in the world,
since he leads all creatures back to God, so Christ stands in the
center of humanity (180, 7; 390, 37.) The same thought is found in
Maximus the Confessor and Erigena, but whence did Eckhart get it? Even
at the creation of the first man Christ was already the end in view
(250, 23); and now after the fact of sin, Christ stands likewise in
the center of redemption. After the fall all creatures worked together
to produce a man who should restore the harmony (497, 11). This took
place when Mary resigned herself so completely to the divine word that
the eternal word could assume human nature in her. However, this
temporal birth of the son is again included in his eternal birth as a
moment of the same (391, 20). And now God is to be born in us. In his
human life Jesus becomes a pattern for man; and in all tl-iat he did
and experienced, above all in his passion and death there is an
overwhelming power that draws man to God (218-219) and brings about in
us that which first took place in Christ, who alone is the way to the
father (241, 17).
9. Ethics
Whatever one may think of Eckhart's philosophical and dogmatic
speculations, his ethical view, at any rate, is of rare purity and
sublimity. The inner position of man, the disposition of the heart, is
for him the main thing (56, 39; 297, 11; 444, S; 560, 43) and with him
this is not a result of reflection. One feels that it comes from the
core of his personality; and no doubt this was the principal reason
for the deep impression his sermons made. He speaks little of church
ceremonies. For him outward penances have only a limited value. That
man inwardly turn to God and be led by him,-that is the main purpose
of Eckhart's exhortations. Let no one think because this or that great
saint has done and suffered many things, that he should imitate him.
God gives to each his task, and leaves every one on his way (560 sqq.
177, 26-35). No one can express the fact more definitely than does
Eckhart, that it is not works that justify man, but that man must
first be righteous in order to do righteous works. Nor does he
recommend that one flee from the world, but flee from oneself, from
selfishness, and self-will. Otherwise one finds as little peace in the
cell as outside of it. Though he sees in suffering the most effective
and most valuable means of inner purification, still lie does not mean
that one should seek sufferings of his own choosing, but only bear
patiently whatever God imposes. He recognizes that it is natural for
one to be affected either pleasantly or unpleasantly by the various
sense-impressions; but in the innermost depths of the soul one must
hold fast to God and allow himself to be moved by nothing (52, 1; 427,
22). It need hardly be added that he regards highly works of charity.
Even supreme rapture should not prevent one from rendering a service
to the poor. It is noteworthy that, in the ninth sermon, he puts
Alartha, higher than Mary, though by a strange misinterpretation of
the text. While Mary enjoyed only the sweetness of the Lord, being yet
a learner, Martha had passed this stage. She stood firm in the
substance, and no work hindered her, but every work helped her to
blessedness. Future investigations will presumably make possible a
more accurate estimate of the importance of Eckhart; but it is hardly
possible that they will overthrow the verdict of Suso and Tauler
concerning him.
No comments:
Post a Comment