Eckhart's Apophatictheology: Knowing the Unknowable God 0227179773, 9780227179772

Citation preview

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology Knowing the Unknowable God

Vladimir Lossky Hardback ISBN: 978 0 227 17977 2 Paperback ISBN: 978 0 227 17975 8 PDF ISBN: 978 0 227 17976 5 ePub ISBN: 978 0 227 17978 9

James Clarke & Co. C Click on the link above to see our full catalogue for more excellent titles in Hardback, Paperback, PDF, ePub and Kindle! Would you like to join our Mailing List?

Click here! Enjoyed this book? Review it on Amazon so others can too!

Click here!

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology Knowing the Unknowable God

The Eckhart Society wishes to recognize Jan & Bill Keleher & Sasha & C. Nathaniel Roybal for their generous support to the Society in the completion of this project.

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology Knowing the Unknowable God

Vladimir Lossky The Eckhart Society Translation by Monk Sophrony and Jonathan Sutton

Foreword by Rowan Williams

James Clarke & Co.

James Clarke & Co. P.O. Box 60 Cambridge CB1 2NT United Kingdom www. jamesclarke.co [email protected]

Hardback ISBN: 978 0 227 17977 2 Paperback ISBN: 978 0 227 17975 8 PDF ISBN: 978 0 227 17976 5 ePub ISBN: 978 0 227 17978 9 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A record is available from the British Library First published in French by J.Vrin, 1960 English translation published by James Clarke & Co., 2024

Théologie négative et connaissance de Dieu chez Maître Eckhart © Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, Paris, 1960 English Translation Copyright © The Eckhart Society, 2024

All rights reserved. No part of this edition may be reproduced, stored electronically or in any retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or other-wise, without prior written permission from the Publisher ([email protected]).

Contents

Translators

viii

A Note from the Eckhart Society

ix

Foreword to the English Translation, by Rowan Williams

xi

List of Abbreviations Foreword to the First Edition, by Maurice de Gandillac Preface to the First Edition, by Étienne Gilson

xix xxiii xxv

1.

Nomen Innominabile The Search for the Ineffable The Source of the ‘Nomen Innominabile’ Namelessness and Polynymy Esse Innominabile Eckhart and St Thomas Two Intimate Presences The Wine of Cana Mystic or Dialectician? Ignorance of God and of Self

1 1 6 8 13 18 20 25 31 33

2.

Nomen Omninominabile Nomen Super Omne Nomen Collatio Esse Upper and Lower Waters The Word without Words

35 35 39 42 47

vi

Eckhart's Apophatic Theology Semel Locutus Est Deus, Duo haec Audivi The One – ‘The Name above All Names’ The First Determination of Being Puritas et Plenitudo Essendi Unum et Omnia Oppositio Nihil Mediatione Entis The Unity of the Universe The Way of Unified Eminence

55 61 66 71 76 79 83 92

3.

Ego Sum Qui Sum Revelation of the Unique Being Quidditas et Anitas Divine Sufficiency and Created Indigence Reduplicatio ‘I Live Because I Live’ The Object of Metaphysics The Knowledge of Quiddities Quiddity and ‘Esse Secundum’ The Level of Substantiality Essentia et Esse Two Levels of Essentiality Intelligere et Esse

109 109 111 119 126 131 141 150 162 170 175 189 197

4.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae Created Dissimilitude, the Intellect and Grace Grace, Glory and Divine Dissimilitude Ascensio Intellectus The Apophasis of Opposition The Opposition between ‘Intelligere’ and ‘Esse’ ‘Cognitivum Ens’ and ‘Ens Reale’ Intelligible Species and Exemplary Causes Seminal Reasons and the Divine Word Intellectual ‘Nihilism’ and the ‘Uncreatability’ of Intellection

212 212 222 235 241 256 273 282 290 302

Contents 5.

vii

Splendor in Medio From Assimilation to Unity Opposition and Non-opposition Indistinctio-Distinctio Dissimilitudo-Similtudo Rota in Medio Rotae Analogical Causality God Esse Omnium and the Principle of Analogy Analogical Predication and the Doctrine of Being The Analogy of Attribution ‘Qui Edunt Me Adhuc Esuriunt’ A Deo et in Deo

313 313 317 326 333 346 361 377 389 395 405 422

6.

Imago in Speculo The Divinity-Form and Divine ‘Quo Est’ Formal Causality and Divine Exemplarity Being, Life, Intelligence The Theology of the Image and Deifying Transformation Analogy in the ‘Transformation into the Same Image’ Bibliography

429 429 437 443 453 468 481

Analytical Index

490

Index of Names

498

Translators

Monk Sophrony (David Copan) was born near Seattle, WA and has been an Orthodox Christian monk since 2010. He earned his Bachelor’s in Christian Theology from Seattle Pacific University, followed by a Master’s in Orthodox Theology from the Institut Saint Serge in Paris. He is currently pursuing advanced theological studies, with a specialization in the Syriac Fathers, at KU Leuven in Belgium. Fr. Sophrony has translated multiple works during his time as a monk, including the four volume Orthodox Dogmatics by St. Justin Popović, Elder Sergei of Vanves by Jean-Claude Larchet, The Ancient Liturgy of the Gauls: An Icon of the Heavenly Liturgy by Natalie Depraz, and several books on the history of the Balkans under Ottoman rule. Dr Jonathan Sutton holds B.A. Honours in Russian and Ph.D. degree (1983) from the University of Durham. He taught at the Lycée Français Charles de Gaulle in London, 1981-1985 and qualified as a translator from Russian and French in 1986 (Postgraduate Diploma in Technical & Specialised Translation, Polytechnic of Central London). His doctoral thesis was published under the title The Religious Philosophy of Vladimir Solovyov: Towards a Reassessment (Macmillan Press, 1988; a Russian translation of this work was published in Kyiv in 2008). Dr Sutton is also the author of Traditions in New Freedom: Christianity and Higher Education in Russia and Ukraine Today (Bramcote Press, Nottingham, 1996). He held a Research Fellowship in the Department of Theology & Religious Studies at the University of Leeds from 19931996, and then took up a lectureship in Leeds’s Department of Russian & Slavonic Studies, working there until his retirement in 2014. As part of this position he taught Russian to English translation at Master’s degree level at Leeds’s Centre for Translation Studies, 1996-2014.

A Note from the Eckhart Society

In 2016 the Trustees of the Eckhart Society began work on translating this critical study, the renowned Orthodox theologian Vladimir N. Lossky’s treatment of Meister Eckhart’s understanding of God. We are delighted to finally see the publication of this excellent translation of Théologie Négative et Connaissance de Dieu chez Maître Eckhart, first published by J. Vrin in 1960. This original publication occurred approximately twenty-five years before The Eckhart Society was founded in 1987  in the United Kingdom by respected pioneer in pain relief Ursula Fleming and Dominican Friar Conrad Pepler. The Society’s mission is to promote greater knowledge and scholarly research on the medieval mystic, preacher and theologian Meister Eckhart (c. 1260-1328). Why is this work so important for the English reader? It helps to establish the theological and philosophical acumen of Eckhart, oftentimes dismissed as a poor Thomist, a confused Platonist, or even a heretic. As part of a rethinking of Eckhart’s legacy in the 1980s, the Dominican Order established a commission to examine the false accusations created by the 1329 bull of condemnation In agro dominico, which had questioned some of his statements and condemned some articles. Though the bull declared that Eckhart had revoked the heretical elements and had died professing the Catholic faith, as a Dominican theologian respected by his Order, his orthodoxy still needed to be established. In 1985 Pope John Paul II affirmed Eckhart by quoting him as a spiritual guide, establishing his good standing. The Society’s conferences and publication (Eckhart Review, now Medieval Mystical Theology) continue to foster academic research of this great theologian, balancing his Latin scholastic works and his popular vernacular sermons, whilst always safeguarding his integrity as both teacher and preacher.

x

Eckhart's Apophatic Theology

The Society is delighted to see its efforts in making Lossky’s work available in English come to fruition in the publication of this excellent volume. The translator, Monk Sophrony, generously allowed the primary editor, Dr Jonathan Sutton, an unusual degree of freedom to adjust his work for precision and nuance. As a result, their collaboration allows Lossky’s work, the complex French syntax of which generations of English-speaking graduate students have struggled their way through, to shine in lucid English prose for the first time. Lossky employs a balanced treatment of Eckhart’s thought in relation to the various authorities of his day, such as Augustine, Dionysius, and, especially his Dominican brother Thomas Aquinas. These contributions are meticulously studied, and the Meister’s ability to refashion their ideas to his own understanding of God is inspiring. Both Monk Sophrony and Dr Sutton’s collaboration over time amid challenges such as a global pandemic and political unrest in East Europe produced a most welcome and much needed text. We are also very grateful to Dr Daniel Soars for his insightful editorial suggestions for Chapters  3 and 4. Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology: Knowing the Unknowable God will be a valuable addition to scholars and an inspiration to students of Eckhart. We are extremely grateful for the foreword by the Right Reverend and Right Honourable Rowan Williams, former archbishop of Canterbury, who wrote his 1975 D.Phil. thesis on Vladimir Lossky’s theology. When I was asked by the Trustees to guide this project to its end, the Society was facing post-pandemic challenges and we had just begun the final stages of working with James Clarke and Company. I am personally grateful to the professionalism of Adrian Brink and his patience in the acquisition process, as well as Samuel Fitzgerald, Dorothy Lockhurst, and Sarah Hughes in the various stages of publication. The fi nal details and challenges in the publishing process can be tedious and demanding but their expertise was much appreciated. I am also grateful to my fellow Trustees, Dr Rebecca Stephens and Dr Ian Moore, for their labour in the final proofing and editing of the work. Again, thanks to the collaboration of Monk Sophrony and Dr Jonathan Sutton, for their labours and talents employed in producing this authorized translation for the Eckhart Society. Rev. Dr. Michael, Demkovich, OP Trustee of the Eckhart Society.

Foreword to the English Translation

Vladimir Lossky is widely recognised as one of the half-dozen or so most influential theologians of the Eastern Christian tradition in the twentieth century. Compared to others who might be so acknowledged, his published output in his lifetime was relatively slight – one major, though not very long, book, and a dozen or so substantial articles. However, the force and originality of his work were already evident before his untimely death in 1958 at the age of fift y-five; and the posthumous publication of many more essays and lectures confirmed his intellectual stature, cementing a significant influence throughout the Orthodox world. His book on The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, first published in French in 1944, remains a classic of what has come to be called (not always very helpfully) the ‘neo-patristic’ style of Orthodox theology. This is an exploration of the central themes of Christian doctrine, by way of an imaginative, and in many ways innovative, reading of the early Christian centuries. This book sought to hold together the legacy of Orthodox contemplative practice and mainstream trinitarian and Christological themes, demonstrating creative use of some more recent intellectual categories in European thinking. Three themes are central to Lossky’s theological project. He begins from an insistence on the priority of the ‘apophatic’ in theology, the so-called via negativa. It is impossible to attempt a definition of God as we would define an object within the universe, looking for an ‘essence’ that serves to define God. Instead, Lossky works with and develops the ideas of the anonymous sixth century writer known as Pseudo-Dionysius. For this writer, any language that includes God in any sort of class of beings of a certain kind is inadmissible; this makes the task of the theologian in some important sense ‘iconoclastic’, a

xii

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

struggle against language about God that would effectively reduce God to another being, another ‘thing’. But Lossky’s second theme is no less important. He makes extensive use of the fourteenth century Byzantine theologian, Gregory Palamas, who proposed a clarification of various strands in Greek theology, suggesting a distinction between divine ‘essence’ and divine energeia, ‘agency’ or ‘energy’. If there was no possible discourse that could define divine essence, what we were speaking of theologically must always be divine agency or agencies, the multiple refractions of the divine act in its engagement with finite reality, the plural activations of the single ineffable reality of God. The third governing theme adds a very significant refinement to this. The theology of God as Trinity, and the analysis of the unique union of divine and human in Jesus of Nazareth, began to shape in later patristic thinking a model of the ‘personal’ that was quite novel in the history of philosophy. The agency of God was not a general set of influences and effects in the cosmos, but the life of a unity in plurality of three ‘hypostases’, three subsistent subjects eternally existing in inseparable union. In Christ, there is one ultimate agent determining the human phenomenon of Jesus, which is the second hypostasis of the Trinity. Christ is one ‘person’, whose distinct, unique status as a hypostasis is his distinct and unique relation to Father and Spirit; but he is also active in two ‘natures’, two (we might say) patterns, rhythms or kinds of existence, the human and the divine. The full statement of this mystery in the formulae of the early councils lays the foundation for a systematic distinction between nature, as a system of fi xed patterns of agency, and person, as a unique and free centre of agency; that is, at the same time, unique in and only in virtue of its unique place in a network of relations. ‘Person’ is thus always more than an individual instance of a general pattern of life, a ‘case’ of some natural kind. Behind this elegant and complex scheme lies a deep hinterland of learning in Greek patristics, but a Greek patristics very much as revived and developed by the Roman Catholic theologians, whom Lossky worked alongside for decades in Paris. Exiled from Soviet Russia in 1923, along with many other non-Marxist intellectuals, he had settled in France and pursued a career as an academic mediaevalist. He came to know both the extraordinary generation of scholars who had revived the philosophical heritage of Thomas Aquinas – above all, Etienne Gilson, who supervised his research – but also the slightly younger group of scholars who were reading the Greek Fathers

Foreword to the English Translation

xiii

with new eyes, and finding in them insights that chimed with the concerns of phenomenological and existentialist writers of the day. Lossky read the monographs of scholars like Jean Danielou, Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar, and knew many such scholars personally. During the Second World War, Lossky joined a number of mostly Catholic intellectuals (all of them in various ways involved in resistance to the Nazi occupation) in founding a journal, Dieu Vivant, which set out to encourage dialogue with the broader cultural life of France. This journal was founded on the basis of a theology shaped by engagement with a doctrinal and contemplative tradition which was much broader and deeper than the conventional systems of the seminaries. The lectures that eventually became the book on Mystical Theology were originally delivered to groups of friends and colleagues who shared these concerns. After the war, Lossky continued his academic work formally, as an editorial assistant in the offices of the great Du Cange dictionary of mediaeval Latin, and as a research student preparing a doctoral thesis. He also participated in this work less formally, as an instructor in a small theological institute serving the Russian Orthodox communities in Paris that had remained in communion with the Patriarchate of Moscow. This occurred because Lossky had already made something of a name for himself in the fierce controversies that divided the different groups of Russian Orthodox in France. He also took an increasing interest in ecumenical dialogue outside France and became a regular visitor to the summer conferences of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius in Britain, at that time largely an Anglican-Russian Orthodox network; some important essays of his were delivered as lectures to the Fellowship. His courses on dogmatic theology in the 1950’s – published after his death in much abbreviated form – show a mind constantly growing and maturing, engaging with an impressively wide range of sources and developing his basic theological insights, especially around the person-nature tension, with increasing sophistication. * * * And so, at last, to the work on Eckhart. The writings of this remarkable fourteenth century Dominican are now relatively familiar to readers interested in the contemplative traditions of the Middle Ages, and there are numerous translations and commentaries, both scholarly and popular. Yet in the middle of the last century, scholarly discussion

xiv

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

was not nearly so ample; many studies had concentrated on Eckart’s German sermons, and some had rather prematurely assimilated his thinking to Advaitin (non-dualist) Hindu models. This focus left a substantial corpus of Latin sermons and commentary on Scripture that had not received adequate discussion. Lossky’s thesis set out to discuss Eckhart’s fundamental ideas about the knowability of God, and how exactly he had positioned himself in relation not only to Pseudo-Dionysius and to his own Dominican confrere Aquinas, but also to the wider mediaeval discussion that involved Jewish and Muslim thinkers, Maimonides, Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and others. In other words, Lossky is asking where Eckhart belongs in an ongoing philosophical conversation, rather than treating him as an isolated ‘mystical’ genius cut off from his Western mediaeval contemporaries. Lossky died before submitting the work for examination and publication. His friend and mentor Maurice de Gandillac, along with a younger friend and disciple, Olivier Clement, prepared the manuscript for publication (it is clear that the book was very close to completion), and the result was warmly acclaimed, not least by Gilson, as a masterpiece of interpretative scholarship. It has held its own in the field of Eckhart scholarship up to the present, partly because of its exceptionally close readings of some difficult philosophical discussions in Eckhart’s Latin works. Clement recalled that Lossky hoped to write a further study in which Eckart’s thought could be compared at length with the theology of Gregory Palamas later in the fourteenth century. Lossky touches on this tantalizingly at several points, but very properly remains focused on Eckhart himself. It is not possible to summarize the book in a brief introduction, but a few things may be worth pointing to as an indication of what Lossky is aiming to achieve. He helps us to see that, while Eckhart often uses terminology familiar from Aquinas, he is regularly correcting or challenging the earlier writer, sometimes returning to the language of Dionysius himself where Aquinas has attempted to tone down the more startling aspects of the Greek master. Eckhart is committed to the idea that the esse, the active being of the finite world, is, strictly speaking, continuous with God, not simply an effect of God’s action. To that extent, there is indeed a ‘non-dualism’ in the relation between God and the cosmos. However, the fact of finite plurality means that this is not a simple matter of continuity, as if finite and infinite being were just stages on a spectrum (in the technical language of mediaeval metaphysics, they cannot simply be spoken of ‘univocally’

Foreword to the English Translation

xv

as if the language used for one could just be transferred to the other). The hiddenness of the divine esse in the depths of every thing that is remains the heart of all existence, but it must become the cause of distinct and separate kinds of life: the uncreated intellectual forms in God’s eternity must be ‘exteriorized’ into finite forms. Eckhart interprets the words of Ps.61.12 (in the Vulgate; 62.11 in most English versions), ‘God has spoken once, and I have heard these two things’, as meaning that the first foundation of creation is the eternal speaking of the divine Word, which is then repeated in the multiplicity of creation. ‘Oneness’ is the best term for God (granted that God’s actual essence is beyond all naming), as it affirms the unity of God’s own differentiated (trinitarian) life and the unity that sustains the being of all things. In this way, their plurality is not opposed to the oneness of esse but manifests its richness. Eckhart disagrees with Aquinas in denying any real diversity of attributes in God, but qualifies it by noting that God is intrinsically intellect and so must eternally ‘understand’ the real diversity of how his action will be received. In other words, distinctions between God’s attributes, just like distinctions between things in the world, are not just the work of human minds. Divine oneness, however, remains the sheer fact of not-being-from-anyother, and even Aquinas’s identification of God’s essence with esse, active being, is, in Eckhart’s eyes, still in thrall to the idea that we can somehow reduce the overflowing and limitless act of God (Eckhart loves the imagery of ebullition, ‘boiling over’, for God’s action) to a defining characteristic. God is uniquely a ‘thereness’, an ‘isness’, and so is that by which every thing is at all (quo est). If Aquinas can be read as saying that what God gives to creatures is ‘actuality’, Eckhart wants to go further; he argues that it is simply this ‘isness’, the irremovable movement of the intellectual reality of God’s life into the diversity of the world, in order to make it be there at all in its diverse presence. Our knowledge of God is thus ultimately something that occurs not in the created intellect, as such, but in the absolute letting go of all definitions of esse. This means that that esse itself is all that is in the mind, in such a way that it is in no sense an object of the mind. In this sense, the mind, when encountering God, encounters something totally and unmanageably other to itself, while at the same time being united with what it is in its own ultimate depths. In a way, this is of a piece with Eckhart’s argument that knowing anything is knowing it by a sort of Platonic ‘memory’ of what is already in the mind’s

xvi

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

interior. We implicitly ‘know’ the eternal Logos from which all things come, and so implicitly know the forms that finite life can take (sense experience is a necessary crutch for our fallen and incapacitated minds). But knowing God, while in one way a knowing of what is ‘in’ the self, is also, necessarily, being deprived of all form that the mind can express for itself. Our intellect is ultimately, in one of Eckhart’s difficult verbal coinages, increabile, ‘uncreatable’, not something that exists simply in reaction to a world that already is before it. Eckhart thinks of analogy in talk about God in terms distinct from those preferred by Aquinas, to the extent that he emphasises first and foremost the radical difference between the active and the passive poles of the analogical relationship. The finite reality is there only as the fact of what happens when the infinite idea in the being of God realises some possible form of its reflection or repetition in encounter with a complex of finite causality. There can be no reciprocity in the relation between God and a finite reality, no sense in which the relation is anything but pure dependence on the creaturely side. Once again, Eckhart, while insisting so powerfully on the oneness of esse in God and the world, absolutely denies any ‘univocity’ in speaking of God and creation (which explains some of the hostility expressed towards his work by Franciscan contemporaries). Yet his version of analogical predication is a distinctive one, and we can be misled by some of its Thomist externals. He is not interested in the ‘analogy of proportionality’ that Thomists tend to appeal to (we can use the same terms for God and creature if we recognize that the truth of the ascription is qualified by the ‘proportion’ of one term to the other, that is, by recognizing that a term cannot be true of God and creation in the same sense because of the disproportion of their relation; they are not on the same level, so to speak), concentrating rather on ‘analogy of attribution’. Only God is the true possessor of whatever morally or intellectually significant quality is attributed to a finite subject; finite beings cannot possess these things intrinsically, so we are always talking about qualities that have been bestowed on finite subjects from outside their specific finite existence. Ultimately all this is inseparable from the spiritual practice that Eckhart writes about – a passing beyond both finite life and intellect into the interiority of esse, where the eternal Father utters the eternal Word, not as something to be thought or contemplated but as the plain condition for being as such. It is what the incarnation of the Word makes possible for us (it is a mistake to think that Eckhart is

Foreword to the English Translation

xvii

not interested in Christology). Our blessedness is simply to live in the divine plenitude, where all distinctions have been set aside in a life that is an ‘inhabiting’ of the eternal Word. As the mind settles in this inhabiting, it becomes a true image of the Trinity, of the inseparable movement of the Word’s birth and the Spirit’s bliss as the Father acts. In this sense alone, we can say  – rather boldly  – that we ourselves become ‘analogous’ to God, because the life of the Trinity is what is real and active in us. * * * These are some of the aspects of Eckhart that Lossky draws out, with great clarity and perception. It is not too difficult to see here reflections of his own preoccupations. What can we say about the relation between unity and diversity in God – both the diversity of the trinitarian life and the manifold pattern of God’s active presence in creation? If there is nothing we can truthfully say about God’s ‘essence’, what is it that grounds the truth claims of any theological talk? What is the nature of both human and created individuality, and is the human person uniquely something other than a case of individuality, a mere instance of the human kind? Lossky hints heavily that Eastern theology as he understood it offered some ways out of the impasses he detected in later mediaeval thought. The essence-energy distinction, he believed, cut across the unity and diversity problem: the real plurality of the things that could be said on the basis of God’s ‘energetic’ presence was grounded in what was truly and fully God, God-in-action; there was no need to claim that true speech about God must entail some access to a concept of divine essence (as Lossky believed Aquinas was saying). Eckhart’s distinction of the quod est of creation (what something is) and the quo est (God’s esse) was, according to Lossky, trying to do some of the same work as Palamas’s distinction. This was achieved through feeling its way towards a notion of what Lossky calls ‘energetic presence’ in creation, that was both distinct form and at one with the hidden esse, out of which every divine self-determination comes. The frustratingly brief treatment of this gives some idea of what Lossky might have worked out further had he lived to do so. The quality of the work, nevertheless, guarantees it a lasting place in the scholarly literature of mediaeval theology. In the last couple of decades, discussion of some of the favourite topics of the Middle Ages has become much livelier than it once was. The implications

xviii

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

of what can be said about the continuity and discontinuity of both God’s life and creation’s life have been treated in great depth and explored for their ramifications in our thinking about humanity and the created order, the nature of divine (and human) freedom and even the character of human thinking itself. This translation of a great classic of creative interpretation will have been no small task and every grateful acknowledgment is due to the translators' labours. It will make an invaluable contribution to these discussions, and if this leads many back to Lossky’s own creative theological essays on the integrity of the person and the interrelation of thought and contemplative practice, so much the better. Rowan Williams Cardiff, September 2023

List of Abbreviations

A [?]

[p. 132 fn. 209. Possibly a ref. to Albert the Great’s Opera Omnia?]

Amplon. Fol.

[?]

Archives

Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge, eds Étienne Gilson and Gabriel Théry (Paris: Vrin, 1926-1946)

C/C.

[transcriber/manuscript of Eckhart’s work? OR is this Mss and texts collected by Nicholas of Cusa and held in Cusanus Institut, Trier, which Lossky began by referring to Cod. Cus. (abbreviation also used later in the text footnotes)]

Cod. Cus.

[Mss and texts collected by Nicholas of Cusa and held in Cusanus Institut, Trier]

C. Gent.

[Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles]

Codd. Oxf., Balliol

[Some Ms. stored at Balliol College, Oxford? Work by Berthold of Moosburg?]

CT [?]

[CT version of Exp. in Gen.? Or are these two versions: C and T?]

De coel. hier.

Pseudo-Dionysius, De coelesti hierarchia (PG 3)

De div. nom.

Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus (PG 3)

De myst. theol.

Pseudo-Dionysius, De mystica theologia (PG 3)

xx

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Denzinger

Enchiridion symbolorum et definitionum (‘The Sources of Catholic Dogma’), ed. Heinrich J.D. Denzinger (1854)

DW

Meister Eckhart, Die deutschen Werke, ed. J. Quint and G. Steer, vols I-V (The MHG-German critical edition) (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1936-2007)

E

[transcriber/manuscript of Eckhart’s work the E and CT traditions [p. 125, note 165]]

Ed. Bardenhewer

Bardenhewer, Otto, Die pseudo-aristotelische Schrift über das reine Gute, bekannt unter dem Namen Liber de causis (Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1882)

Ed. Bascour

Meister Eckhart, Prologus generalis in Opus tripartitum, ed. H. Bascour

Ed. Bäumker

C. Bäumker, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters (Münster, 1895)

Ed. Mandonnet

S. Thomae Aquinatis Opuscula Omnia, ed. Pierre Mandonnet (Paris: Lethielleux, 1927)

Ed. MandonnetMoos

St Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum super libros sententiarum Petri Lombardi, ed. Pierre Mandonnet and Fabien Moos (Paris Lethielleux, 1927-1947)

Ed. Perrier

Opuscula philosophica sancti Thomae Aquinatis, ed. J. Perrier (Paris: Lethielleux, 1949)

Ed. Ph. Strauch

Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters XXX, ed. Philipp Strauch (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlungen, 1919)

Ed. RolandGosselin

Le ‘De ente et essentia’ de S. Thomas d’Aquin, ed. M.D. Roland-Gosselin (Paris: Vrin, 1948)

Ed. Steele

Liber de causis, in Robert Steele and Ferdinand M. Delorme (eds),Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi (Oxford: Clarendon, 1935)

Epist.

Pseudo-Dionysius, Epistolae (PG 3)

Exp. in Ex.

Meister Eckhart, Expositio Libri Exodi

Exp. in Io.

Meister Eckhart, Expositio sancti Evangelii secundum Iohannem (LW III)

Exp. in Gen

Meister Eckhart, Expositio Libri Genesis (LW I:185444;LW I/2:61-329)

List of Abbreviations

xxi

In Eccli.

Meister Eckhart, Sermones et Lectiones super Ecclesiastici ch.24:23-31 (LW II:231-300)

In Ioh. evang.

St Augustine, In Iohannis evangelium tractatus (PL 35)

In I Ethic.

Commentary on Ethics by Albert the Great

I/II/III/IV Sent.

St Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum super libros sententiarum Petri Lombardi (Commentary on the Sentences)

Exp. in Sap

Meister Eckhart, Expositio Libri Sapientiae (LW II: 303-644) (Archives, III)

Lib. Parabol. Genes.

Meister Eckhart, Liber Parabolarum Genesis (LW I: 445-702; LW I/2: 331-452)

LW

Meister Eckhart, Die lateinischen Werke, ed. E. Benz, C. Christ, B. Decker, H. Fischer, B. Geyer, J. Koch, E. Seeberg, L. Sturlese, K. Weiss and A. Zimmermann, vols I-V (The Latin-German critical edition) (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1936-2007)

OL.

Works of Eckhart ed. by Antoine Dondaine, OL XIII? or H.Bascour, OL II, which is his edition of Eckhart’s Prol. gener. in Op. tripart.

Op. serm.

Meister Eckhart

Pf.

Abbrev. for Franz Pfeiffer, Die Deutschen Mystiker, vol. 2

PG

Patrologia Graeca

PL

Patrologia Latina

Pr.

Abbrev. for Predigt (f.), the German for ‘sermon’

Prol. gener. in Op. tripart.

Meister Eckhart, Prologus generalis in Opus tripartitum

Prol. in Op. propos.

Meister Eckhart, Prologus in Opus propositionum

Sentent.

Peter Lombard, Libri Quattuor Sententiorum (PL 192)

Serm

Meister Eckhart, [Sermones (LW IV) OR Sermones et lectiones super Ecclesiastici, ch. 24:23-31 (LW II:231-300) which VL usually annotates Exp. in Ex.]

Serm. all.

Meister Eckhart, German sermons

Serm. lat.

Meister Eckhart, Sermones (Latin sermons), LW IV

ST

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

xxii

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Sum. theol.

Albert the Great, Summa theologiae de mirabilis scientia Dei

T

[manuscript (Bibl. mun. 661 – Bibliothèque municipale ref. no.) mentioned on p. 126, n. 129]

Vat. lat.

[ Vatican library OR Work of Berthold of Moosburg]

Foreword to the First Edition

Vladimir Lossky died literally in the course of his work, leaving incomplete the great piece of research which he had been due to submit to the Sorbonne as his doctoral thesis in the humanities. It is impossible to tell whether or not there were important sections yet to be added to the chapter that remained in draft form. Such was the supervisor’s long-standing and very warm relationship to the ‘candidate’, that there can be little doubt as to whether the former would have permitted himself to add a ‘conclusion’ to a script which he was on the point of asking the university to grant ‘approval for publication’. His supervisory role was, in effect, reduced to looking over a manuscript that had been put together with enormous care, along the way completing some missing references and correcting just a handful of unintended infelicities of style, which the candidate would naturally have addressed, when finally reading through his work. Basing his work on an easily legible draft version, Monsieur Clément undertook to transcribe the final pages which Lossky had left behind, and painstakingly to compile the kinds of index that would assist researchers in their work. Some long quotations in Latin, but, above all, those in Middle High German, remained in the draft manuscript, but only provisionally linked to the main body of the French text. We had asked Lossky to translate them for the sake of generally easier access to the text as a whole. When it came to it, we undertook this task ourselves. Madame Lossky did not wish for there to be any posthumous examination of the work. The heirs of the Sorbonne in its original form would far have preferred to confer a doctoral degree to a living author, to honour this particular philosopher and theologian from

xxiv

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

the Eastern tradition who had perfectly familiarised himself with the ways of thinking of a German monk from Thuringia, one who, in his turn, had travelled to a ‘Latin country’ more than six and a half centuries earlier, so as to engage in long theological debates and then duly receive a hood denoting his new status as Magister or Meister. If they didn’t have the joy of actually conferring a degree, representatives of the Sorbonne would at least have known that their official approbation would have made no difference at all to the inherent value of a book which the best of judges, our exalted master Étienne Gilson, deemed to be ‘magisterial’. The sheer number of texts cited by Lossky – including some unpublished ones – the rigour of his interpretation of them, the modesty of the claims that he made, and also his facility in moving, with such authority, among ambiguous and paradoxical formulations of ideas  – all these qualities, which ‘speak’ to the specialist above all, but do not elude the truly attentive reader, render all the more painful, for historians of medieval philosophy and mysticism, the premature loss of a man who himself embodied the bringing together of scholarly awareness and spiritual illumination. Maurice de Gandillac

Preface to the First Edition

Here before me, at last, is this long-awaited book, the original idea for which I was fortunate enough to see first taking shape, and which book I sometimes despaired of seeing in its final and completed form. It was only once or twice a year that its author would come to update me on his progress. Th is was because he, at least, knew exactly where he was going with it, and he never had any doubts about there being a successful end to this research project. There could be little dialogue between us regarding the subject, which point readers will understand once they see this fine, but difficult book, one of the greatest merits of which is precisely its refusal to over-simplify its subject matter. Moreover, Lossky hesitated for a long time before adopting the positions on doctrine and history at which he finally arrived. What he said to me in confidence often revealed brief spells of uncertainty on his part, and there was no advice from any quarter that could effectively help him emerge from that uncertainty. If ever there was a book which owed everything to its author alone, this is surely the one. There is yet another very particular factor which discouraged other people from intervening in this project of his: when listening to Lossky, one was even more aware of his personal presence than of the words he spoke. In his person knowledge was inseparable from a deep spirituality, a spirituality that was contagious and emanated from his very presence rather than from his words, and which people around him experienced as a beneficent presence. A sort of blessed peace emanated from this modest man, this perfectly simple and good soul. Perhaps his secret consisted in embodying, among us, the Christian spirit itself and, what’s more, to do this by virtue of a natural-seeming

xxvi

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

vocation. When listening to him one often tended to think about what he was rather than about what he was saying, and this also made it difficult to help him. Nevertheless, it is to this, for the most part, that we owe this admirable book about Meister Eckhart. There has been no shortage of historians, among them some excellent ones, who have written about this scholar from Thuringia. The difficulty has not been to find one sound interpretation of Meister Eckhart’s theology; rather, it has been a case of trying to choose between so many of them, each coherent in its own way, all resting upon indisputable, established texts and yet different enough, one from another, so as even to seem mutually contradictory. Actually, nothing is easier than to reduce Eckhart to a system resting upon one’s own insights; but the frustrating thing is that once you’ve constructed a synthesis of this kind, you come to see that one could equally well have constructed an entirely different synthesis and, moreover, to do this while relying upon textual sources that are no less authentic than the sources which you had used in the first place. This really is one of those cases where the sheer abundance of good materials is itself damaging. The rarest merit of this lengthy study resides precisely in its refusal to reduce Eckhart’s theology to the systematic development of one core idea. However, neither is this theology conceived of as a form of eclecticism in which each core idea would have its place and would have its own turn to be uppermost. If there is one single notion in Eckhart’s theology which could be said to be foundational, then it would be God or, more exactly, the notion of God as ineffable. The title of this book itself pinpoints the very heart of the doctrine, but Eckhart himself conceived of his work as an eminently positive enquiry into our unknowing of the divinity. Trying out, in succession, all the paths already known, and pushing right to the end the implications of each one, Eckhart induces one to see that all one can rightly affirm with respect to God can, and indeed must, itself ultimately be denied in order to make room for an apparently contradictory affirmation. God is Being, certainly, but isn’t He, rather, the One? Or Intellect? However, to comprehend that He is indeed absolutely and purely each of these perfections, apparently to the exclusion of all others – this is precisely what transcendent unknowing consists of, that very un-knowing which raises God above all affirmations whatsoever.

Preface to the First Edition

xxvii

From that emanates the very plurality of forays in reflection, the conclusions of which appear to contradict one another and the style of expression of which makes clear the sheer ‘staying power’ that this book’s author needed just so as to bring some order into it all and to place each true finding or insight in its rightful position, while not sacrificing or jeopardising any of Eckhart’s other insights. This necessitated years of research and a rare mastery of one’s own judgement in order to avoid giving in to the almost irresistible temptation to end up assigning the whole body of Eckhart’s writings more or less arbitrarily to just one of the several positions which he had occupied in turn. It was only this refusal, on Lossky’s part, to proceed in that way which enabled him to recognise the positive meaning of divine transcendence that was affirmed indirectly by so many negations. Precisely because all that is true in itself is, first of all, true in God, Eckhart sought to explore truth at all levels, and this enormous broadening of his ‘field of research’, so to speak, inevitably led to his encountering the reflection undertaken by certain of his predecessors. These various encounters in turn gave scope for numerous misunderstandings in interpretation: for example, given that Eckhart affirmed the point that God is Being, wouldn’t that make him a Thomist? However, when he went on to affirm that God is the pure One rather than pure Being, how could one, then, avoid thinking that he was following in the footsteps of Dionysius the Areopagite? It took Vladimir Lossky an enormous amount of time to fi nd his own way in this whole labyrinth and to guide his reader through it. Eckhart speaks the language of St Thomas without himself becoming a Thomist and, likewise, he speaks the language of Dionysius without adhering to a strict theology of the One. Nothing is less surprising. Coming on the scene comparatively late, at that point when scholastic theology had already yielded its very best fruits, Eckhart could not embark on any path without meeting there at least some of his predecessors, and he made no effort to avoid drawing on their reflection. On the contrary, he put their teachings ‘to the test’: he submitted their principles to a kind of examination of the extent of their applicability and soundness, taking each in turn, applying the same test and rejecting that teaching or principle in favour of another when the former one revealed its inadequacy in establishing what God is. Thus, Eckhart does indeed speak several ‘languages’, but always with a view to expressing his own thought.

xxviii

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

The historian of ideas, who attributes to Eckhart just one of these languages to the exclusion of all others, has every chance of writing a book that may be lucid and satisfying to the mind, but which fails to address the heart of the matter. This idea is, moreover, what the book’s title itself captures so well and straight-forwardly. The negative method in theology did not originate with Eckhart. He inherited it from Dionysius and practised it assiduously, but it was similarly practised by the masters of that stream of Greek theology to which Lossky always felt such a close affinity, and he had his own very personal reasons for feeling that affinity. Moreover, the Middle Ages’ Latin stream of theology did not neglect this negative method either. On the contrary, it occupies pride of place in the theology of such figures as St Bernard and St Thomas Aquinas. Nevertheless, it is not quite the same place. That which, in Thomism, represents Thomas’ final word and also the crowning summation of his teaching, becomes, in Eckhart’s case, the active mainspring for his exploration and, at heart, also the very substance of that truth of which the theologian strove to persuade us. We would do well to remember this when reading the book, because we would really misjudge it, were we to confuse Lossky’s goal with that of a study devoted to the theology of any other theologian in the scholastic tradition. Vladimir Lossky wished to highlight that refusal which contrasts Eckhart’s approach with all attempts to include the divinity within a conception that would remain or seem adequate for the purpose of defining it. Lossky, then, expects of us, the reader, the same degree of modesty which he himself so naturally put into practice, that is to say, demonstrating an acceptance of a final not-knowing which, here, amounts to true knowledge. In short, he expects from our side more by way of renunciation than he promises to provide in terms of satisfaction at the level of teaching. For us, just as for him, this active asceticism of intellect which exerts discipline in the full awareness of the reason for it, is joined as one with faithfulness to the goal of this study. Without any doubt, this is where the best in Lossky’s soul finds expression, when he naturally offers a response to the same in Eckhart. A secret affinity led Lossky to this master theologian from Thuringia. To be sure, he did not unfailingly endorse all that Eckhart wrote; but, at least he put at Eckhart’s service his own feeling of spiritual empathy, through which, alone, the Meister’s teachings would eventually yield their secrets. If there was to be any human consolation for the untimely loss of our friend, it would

Preface to the First Edition

xxix

doubtless be here that we would be most sure to find it, right in this book, the book into which he put so much of himself and so much of what was most intimate to him. Thanks to this work of his, the beneficial effect of his personal presence is not, and cannot be, lost to us forever. Étienne Gilson Member of the Académie Française

1

Nomen Innominabile

The Search for the Ineffable The refusal to find the name to properly designate a God who cannot be known without a margin of ignorance intervening in the knowledge itself is common to all theognoses that accept apophaticism, whether to immediately overcome it [i.e., ‘apophaticism’] in a theological epistemology or to make it the path to a “beyond all knowledge”. However, while an ‘ineffable’ God would seem to exist as a common ground between those who have, to varying degrees, reserved a space for the ‘way of negations’ in their religious thought, one could also say that there are, in fact, as many ‘ineffabilities’ as there are negative theologies. Truly, Plotinus’ ineffable is not the same as Pseudo-Dionysius’, which, in its own right, is quite different from the ineffable of St Augustine. Here again, of course, we must distinguish St Augustine’s ineffable from that of St Thomas Aquinas. Rather, it would seem that it is the concept that a theologian creates out of the ineffability of God that determines the role which the apophatic moment will play in his thinking. It is for this reason that we wished to begin our study of the idea of God in the works of Meister Eckhart, and, in particular, of his negative theology, with the topic of the search for the ineffable. This search involves a region which entails negation. What then, is a negative path, if not a search in which one is obliged successively to reject all that can be found and named, finally even requiring the denial of the search itself, since the entire concept of searching implies an idea of that which is sought after?

2

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

It is not useful for us to stop for too long at the innumerable passages in the German and Latin works of Meister Eckhart in which he insists on divine ineffability, declaring that God is ‘unutterable’ (unsprechlich), that no one can begin to speak of Him, for He is ‘above all names’ (über alle namen), He is without a name (sunder namen, namelôs). We are not capable of finding a name that fits Him, and to desire to assign a name to Him would be to debase God Himself. God is a ‘negation of all names’ (ain logenung aller namen).1 In a German sermon attributed to Eckhart by the manuscript tradition,2 it is stated that the mind (vernünfticheit) will not content itself with a God who permits Himself to be given a name, ‘even if there were a thousand Gods who could have a name, it [the mind] would still break through any such distinctions, for it wishes to enter into the place where He has no name, it desires something more noble, something better than a God who could have a name’. When contemplating God, whatever can still be given a name is not God.3 The concept of the ineffable is to be taken to its most extreme limits. The rejection of any kind of divine name could not be more categorical. However, insofar as one is searching for the ineffable, one is still looking for a name, even if only to designate God by the ineffability which sets Him apart from all that can be named. If God cannot be named, then would it not be absurd to seek a name that would designate that which He is? Cur quaeris nomen meum? These words were spoken to Jacob when he asked God to reveal His name to him (Genesis 32:29). In his commentary on this passage of Genesis, Eckhart substitutes the response that God gave to Jacob with a similar, but more ample, one from the Book of Judges (13:18): Cur quaeris nomen meum, quod est mirabile? Being faithful to the hermeneutical procedures of his time, Eckhart submits the text to various grammatical operations in order to extract from it all possible interpretations.4 Firstly, this text could be read in the following 1. DW I, p.  253. See ibid., notes 2 and 4, the references for the other expressions are cited below. 2. See Serm. 11, p. 59, 16-21. 3. See Serm. 22, p. 92, 24-25. 4. We cite this passage from Exp. in Gen. according to Cod. Cus. 21, f. 23rb, 1. 47va, 1. 15, while checking it against Amplon. Fol. 181|E|, coll. 48-49 (the text is published in LW I, pp. 95-96), nn. 298-300): cur quaeris nomen meum, quod est mirabile? Primo sic: ‘nomen meum est

Nomen Innominabile

3

manner: why do you seek after my name, as it is ‘Wonderful’? Thus, a link is established with the admirabile of Psalm 8:2, 10 and of Isaiah 9:6. Secondly, one could read it as: why do you seek after my wondrous name, ‘which is’, that is to say, ‘that which is’ or ‘He who is’? Thus, Eckhart ties quod est with the passage from Exodus 3:14, Ego sum qui sum. However, without stopping at an interpretation of the ‘wondrous name’ that would infuse it with all the fullness of Being, Eckhart prefers to remain in the realms of a negative exaltation. The third way of reading this auctoritas places a paradox before us: the name being sought after is astonishing (mirabile) because, while still being a name, it is no longer ‘above every name’ (compare with Philippians 2:9). It therefore suggests a name which by its very sublime character is rendered ineffable. It could not be designated by anything but an oxymoron, by a joining together of contradictory terms, an ‘unnameable name’. St Augustine highlights the paradox of the ineffable as an aporia; if the ineffable is that which cannot be spoken of, then it ceases to be ineffable because if something is said about it, then it is also given a mirabile’, Psalmus 8:2: quam admirabile est nomen tuum; Ysa. 9:6: vocabitur admirabilis. Secundo sic: ‘nomen meum admirabile  – quod est’, quasi dicat ‘hoc quod est’ sive ‘qui est’, ipsum est nomen meum mirabile, Exo. 3:14: ego sum qui sum; qui est misit me; hoc nomen meum. Tertio sic: ‘cur quaeris nomen meum, quod est mirabile?’ Mirabile quidem primo, quia nomen et tamen super omne nomen, Philippens. 2:9: donavit illi nomen, quod est super omne nomen. Secundo nomen est mirabile, quia nomen est innominabile, nomen indicibile et nomen ineffabile. Augustinus, primo De doctrina christiana, locutus de Deo, sic ait: ‘diximusne aliquot et sonuimus dignum Deo? Si dixi, non est hoc quod dicere volui. Hoc unde scio, nisi quia Deus ineffabilis est: quod autem a me dictum est, si ineffabile esset, dictum non esset? Et sic nescio que pugna verborum, quoniam si illud est ineffabile, quod dici non potest, non est ineffabile, quod vel ineffabile potest dici. Que pugna verborum silencio cavenda potius quam voce pacanda [C: petenda] est. Quarto: ‘cur quaeris nomen meum? Quod est mirabile’ – scilicet te querere nomen meum, cum sim innominabilis; mirabile certe est querere nomen rei innominabilis. Secundo mirabile querere nomen eius, cuius natura est esse absconditum, Ysa. 45:15: vere tu es Deus absconditus. Tertio mirabile querere foris nomen eius, qui non extra sed intimus est. Augustinus, De vera religione: ‘Noli foras ire, in teipsum redi, in interior homine habitat Deus, veritas, ad quam nulle modo perveniunt qui foris eam [E: eum] querunt.

4

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

name. It is thus better to avoid this ‘verbal battle’ with silence than to try to make peace with it by using words. In quoting this passage from Augustine’s De doctrina christiana,5 Meister Eckhart remains a stranger to its author’s true intention. Actually, the Bishop of Hippo wished to reduce ad absurdum the concept of the ineffability of God, when the term is understood in its absolute sense. In resolutely renouncing this false conception of the word ‘ineffable’, which allows too much room for sterile and wearisome verbiage, St Augustine holds to a relativised meaning of the word: this conventional expression is to remind us that nothing that we can say about God will be able fully to correspond to the excellence of His nature. This is a wise limitation of apophaticism, which leads towards the via eminentiae, where negations, instead of excluding all positive conceptions from divine nature, only serve to drive away from God all the imperfections which arise from our human means of understanding. This way of making use of the ‘way of negations’, which has its most classic expression in the works of St Thomas Aquinas, was not at all considered by Meister Eckhart to be something improper. However, while the Thuringian Dominican approved of this method and made use of it, it would seem that he never wanted to content himself and simply ‘make do’ with this conception of apophaticism because, at the same time, he accepted a totally different type of negative theology in which the ineffability of God is maintained in its absolute sense. Thus, in the text which we are analysing, Eckhart is not at all attempting to narrow the scope of the word ‘ineffable’. This truncated quotation of Augustine6 was made here solely to underline the paradox of ineffability and not in order to renounce the pugna verborum. The aporia that Augustine is pointing out thus does not frighten the German theologian, who elsewhere expresses his taste for paradoxical expressions.7 Rather than avoiding this ‘verbal battle’, he places it in a contradictory definition, namely, that of the nomen innominabile. The fourth way which Meister Eckhart proposes for reading the auctoritas on which he is commenting seems to accentuate the 5. De doctrina christiana, I.6 (PL 34, col. 21). 6. Eckhart drops the phrase, ac per hoc ne ineffabilis quidem dicendus est Deus, quia et hoc cum dicitur, aliquid dicitur. C also leaves out the phrase non est ineffabile, quod vel ineffabile dici potest, but here it would seem to be an omission on the part of the copyist. 7. Prol. gener. in Op. tripart., LW I, p. 152, n. 7.

Nomen Innominabile

5

objective character of the ineffability of God; it is shocking that you seek my name, for I am unnameable. One would not know how to seek the name of a reality which cannot be named, the name of Him cuius natura est esse absconditum. Isaiah put it well, saying, vere tu es Deus absconditus (Isaiah 45:15). The ambiguity of the ‘unnameable name’ appears in a new light and becomes just as puzzling as Eckhart’s formula – nomen eius, cuius natura est esse absconditum. This can be translated in two ways, either according to the verb or to the noun which would be attributed to the word esse. In the first case, it would be read as, ‘the name of Him whose nature is hidden’. The Deus absconditus would be such by His very nature and as such would have to remain utterly unapparent. We are thus still within an apophaticism which rejects all positive expressions concerning that which is absolutely ineffable. However, in the second sense, where esse is to be understood as a noun, the sentence would be translated as, ‘the name of Him whose nature is the hidden Being’. This, without taking away from the paradox of the unnameable name, leads us towards Eckhart’s own teachings, in which it is necessary to seek the foundation of ineffability of this God who is, by His nature, the Esse absconditum. Would it not, then, be necessary to return to the second reading of the text proposed by Eckhart, in which the ‘wondrous name’ is given the sense of quod est, as identified with Ego sum qui sum? This reconciliation with the second reading of the sacred text does not, however, hand over to us the secret of the ‘unnameable name’ but, all the same, it gives us the right to say: if God could be named Esse, it is precisely because in His Being, He is a Deus absconditus, whose true name escapes us. This is exactly what Meister Eckhart says quite clearly elsewhere, Deus sub ratione esse et essentiae est quasi dormiens et latens absconditus in se ipso.8 As He is Esse, God cannot be named. Eckhart’s apophatic  élan does not, however, arrive here at an insurmountable impasse in its greater quest for the nomen innominabile, but this search is henceforth to be guided by the notion of esse  – a condition of divine ineffability. The path towards the unknown God takes on a new direction, then, one which requires the seeker to go within himself, for the God who sub ratione esse is not exterior to the one who seeks His name. It is from this that the 8. Exp. in Io., C., f. 122rb, ll. 51-52. In the same commentary, we notice another very curious passage: ubi et quando Deus non queritur, dicitur Deus dormire (C., f. 118vb, ll. 61-62).

6

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

last phrase given in the fourth reading of the auctoritas comes: it is surprising that a person seeks from without the name of Him who is not to be found on the outside, but in the most intimate depths. Meister Eckhart cites the noli foras ire, in teipsum redi of St Augustine,9 ‘Do not go outside, go back within yourself; God lives within the inner man.[10] The truth cannot be found by those who seek it on the outside.’11 The God of Esse remains ineffable, then, yet this Esse absconditum is not external to the one who seeks Him. Thus, it is not a going-out of oneself, but rather, an entry into oneself, towards the intimacy of the esse, more of an enstasy than an ecstasy, which will lead to the mystery of the unnameable name.

The Source of the ‘Nomen Innominabile’ In the passage of the first commentary on Genesis that we have just analysed, the only theological authority invoked by Eckhart is St Augustine, in two places: the first time, this is done in order to 9. De vera religione, 1.I.39 (n. 72) (PL 34, col. 154). Here we cite in its entirety the passage of St Augustine which Eckhart would use so often. Galvano della Volpe chose it for the epigraph in his book on Meister Eckhart’s speculative mysticism (Il misticismo speculativo di Maestro Eckhart nei suoi rapporti storici [Bologna: LicinioCappelli, 1930]). As they were taken from memory, Eckhart’s quotations themselves give only an approximation of the original text from Augustine: Noli foras ire, in teipsum redi; in interior homine habitat veritas; et si tuam naturam mutabilem inveneris, transcende et teipsim. Sed memento cum te transcendis, ratiocinantem animam te trascendere. Illuc ergo tende, unde ipsum lumen rationis accenditur. Quo enim pervenit omnis bonus ratiocinator, nisi ad veritatem? Cum ad seipsam veritas non utique ratiocinando perveniat, sed quod ratiocinantes appetunt, ipsa sit. Vide ibi convenientiam qua superior esse non possit, et ipse conveni cum ea. Confitere te non esse quod ipsa est: siquidem se ipsa non quaerit; tu autem ad ipsam quarendo venisti, non locorum spatio, sed mentis affectu, ut ipse interior homo cum suo inhabitatore, non infima et carnali, sed summa spirituali voluptate (alias voluntate) conveniat. 10. The word Deus was added by Eckhart. The same particularity exists in Op. serm., C., f. 164va, l. 54; ibid., f. 140va, l. 12: veritas et Deus. 11. The last phrase  – ad quam nullo modo perveniunt qui foris eam quaerunt – does not exist in Augustine’s text. However, it is also to be found in several other places where Eckhart cites the same text. Cf. Exp. in Sap., in Archives, III, p. 409; Exp. in Io., C., f. 123rb, ll. 28-29.

Nomen Innominabile

7

maintain the paradox of the ineffable, even though this is contrary to Augustine’s original intention of finding a path towards positive knowledge of God; the second time, it was to interiorise the apophatic journey towards the Deus absconditus. Here, again, it is necessary to state that Augustine’s intention is quite different from Eckhart’s. In fact, the Father of western theology, in his recommendation to go within oneself, intends to lead human reason towards the immutable God of Truth, the source of intellectual illumination, while Meister Eckhart, in his prohibition on seeking from without the name of Him, qui non extra, sed intimus est, seems then to wish to find God on the plane of being, such as the Esse absconditum, above all that pertains to the previous context. By entering into the depths of the interior man, St Augustine wishes for a person to transcend himself (transcende et teipsum) in order to find the truth ‘from which the light of the mind is lit’, and that, once the truth is arrived at, one knows how to distinguish it from oneself: Confitere te non esse quod ipsa est. Meister Eckhart is confined to noting the interior (intimus) character of the presence of God which the subject cannot find outside himself. Even if he makes use of St Augustine in order to support the necessity of an inward turn into oneself, by interiorising the search for the ‘unnameable name’, the Thuringian mystic does not remain long on this path without any promise of an outcome, always on the lookout for the ineffable, for the absconditum, while the Doctor of Hippo’s quest is more oriented towards a precise end. Thus, it is not St Augustine, quoted by Eckhart, who will give us the key to understanding the problem that preoccupied the Dominican Master when he commented on the text from Genesis, Cur quaeris nomen meum? Another patristic authority, whom Eckhart did not quote, is nonetheless easily recognised behind this passage of his biblical commentary. Eckhart did not invent the oxymoron nomen innominabile by himself; rather, he found it in the first chapter of On the Divine Names, in which Dionysius says the following: τὸ θαυμαστὀν ὄνομα, τὀ ὐπὲρ παν ὄνομα, τὸ ἀνώνυμον.12 John Scotus Eriugena13 and John Sarrazin14 [Johannes Sarracenus] give the same 12. De div. nom., I.6 (PG 3, col. 596). French translation by de Gandillac, p. 74. 13. PL 122, col. 1117. 14. Jean Sarrazin’s translation is published in Dionysii Cartusiani Opera Omnia, vol. 16 (Tournai: Typis Cartusiae S.M. de Pratis, 1902).

8

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

version in Latin, mirabile nomen, quod est super omne nomen, quod est innominabile. Thomas Gallus omits the words ‘unnameable name’ but, like Eckhart, he adds to his transposition of De divinis nominibus the biblical reference, ‘the name above all names’: Vere autem est nomen mirabile quod, sicut dicit Apostolus ad Philippenses, est super omne nomen.15 The arrangement of scriptural references is almost identical in both the works of Dionysius and Meister Eckhart. If the latter, when commenting on a section from Genesis 32:29, replaces it with a text from Judges 13:18, it is because the author of On the Divine Names, when he spoke of the ‘nameless name’, used these exact words addressed to Manoah, rather than the reprimand that God gave to Jacob. The confusion caused by Eckhart is thus explained by the fact that these reflections on the paradox of the nomen innominabile were inspired by a passage from Dionysius. Thus, Eckhart is commenting on a passage from On the Divine Names rather than on the Bible.

Namelessness and Polynymy Dionysius introduces the theme of the ‘unnameable name’ during his discussion of the two different paths of theology. Although the ‘supra-essential thearchy’ is above all that exists, it can, however, be praised based on its effects, for as ‘Subsistent Goodness’ it is the Cause of all being, to which the supra-essential thearchy grants existence by virtue of the fact that it exists:16 Knowing this, the sacred authors exalt Him as not having any name at all, but also as being capable of being praised by all names. They exalt Him as unnameable when, in one of the mystical visions where God symbolically manifests Himself, they show us the Thearchy reprimanding the one who asked, ‘What is Thy Name?’ Indeed, the Thearchy then responds to him as though it wished to cast away from him all notions of God that concern names, ‘Why do you ask My Name? It is wondrous.’ Is it not truly The relevant passage is on page 354. 15. For Thomas Gallus’ paraphrase, see ibid., p. 42. 16. De div. nom., I.§5 (PG 3, col. 593c): Ἐπειδὴ δὲ ὼς ἀγαθότητος ὔπαρξις, αὐτῷ τῷ εἶναι, πάντων ἐστὶ τῶν ὄντων αἰτία, τὴν ἀγαθαρχικὴν πρόνιαν, ἐκ πάντων τῶν αἰτιατῶν ύυνητέον.

Nomen Innominabile

9

wondrous, this ‘name above all names’ (Philippians 2:9), the name without a name, the name that is exalted above ‘every name that could be named in this age or in the age to come’ (Ephesians 1:21)?17 These same theologians (whom Dionysius refers to as ‘the sacred writers’) celebrate God as having multiple names (πολυώνυμον) since, in several places in Holy Scripture, they show Him saying, ‘I am That I am’ (Exodus 3:14), ‘the Life’ (John 11:25, 14:6), ‘the Light’ (John 8:12, 12:46), ‘God’ (Genesis 17:1, Exodus 3:6, Deuteronomy 5:6), ‘the Truth’ (John 14:6). They also ascribe to Him other names, taken from all that which is produced by the Divine Cause and praise God according to His effects as Good, Beautiful, Wise, Beloved, as God of gods, Lord of lords, Holy of holies etc. Dionysius enumerates the various names that the Scriptures bestow upon God, in the end concluding that He can be called ‘all that is and nothing that is’.18 The opposition between πολυώνυμον and ἀνώνυμον corresponds in Dionysius to the two contrary paths of theology – that of propositions and that of negations.19 If the negative path is the most perfect,20 it is because it aims for an ineffable and unknowable nature, ‘unions’ which prevail over ‘distinctions’21 or ‘processions’ which manifest Divinity for its ‘virtues’ (δυνάμεις),22 thanks to which the positive path becomes possible, with its multiplicity of divine names. Thomas Gallus was not wrong when he wished to develop Dionysius’ lapidary phrase – Πάντα τὰ ὄντα, καὶ οὐδὲν τῶν ὄντων – by saying: omnia

17. Idem, I.§6 (col. 596a): Τοῦτο γοῦν εἰδότες οἱ θεολόγοι, καὶ ὡς ἀνώνυμον αὐτὴν ὑμνοῦσι καὶ ἐκ παντὸς ὀνόματος. Ἀνώνυμον μὲν ὡς ὄταν φασι, τὴν θεαρχίαν αὐτὴν ἐν μιᾷ τῶν μυστικῶν τῆς συμωολικῆς θεοφανείας ὁράσεων ἐπιπλὴξαι τῷ φήσαντι «Τί τὸ ὄνομα σου» καὶ ὤσπερ ἀπὸ πάσης αὐτον θεωνυμικῆς γνώσεως ἀπάγουσαν, φάναι τό «Καὶ ἱνατί ἐρωτᾷς τὸ ὄνομα μου; Καὶ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι θαυμαστόν». Ἤ οὺχὶ τοῦτο ὄντως ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου, εἴτε ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, εἴτε ἐν τῷ μελλοντι. 18. Ibid. (col. 596c): Πάντα τὰ ὄντα, καὶ οὐδὲν τῶν ὄντων. 19. Idem, VII (cols 869-72); De myst. theol., I.§2 and §3 (col. 1000) (noting the opposition between πολύλογος and ἄλογος); II (col. 1025). 20. De coel. hier., II.§3 (col. 141). 21. De div. nom., II.4 (col. 640), and II (col. 652). 22. Idem, II.§7 (col. 645a).

10

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

existentia causaliter, nihil existentium per substantiae proprietatem.23 Perhaps he would have been more faithful to the author of On the divine names if, in place of causaliter, he had said virtualiter, since, for Dionysius, especially in the context of ‘polynymy’, causality is necessarily linked to the manifestation of God in his δυνάμεις. God is the Cause since He is Good, Goodness being the principle of all the manifesting processions of His nature which remains, however, inaccessible itself.24 Causality thus remains inseparable from its manifestations, as it necessarily entails a revelatory presence of God in all that He creates. If the God of Goodness is the Cause of all beings by the very fact that He is, then the name ‘Being’ (τὸ ὄν), which stretches out to all that exists, denotes a manifest virtue, a ‘creative procession of the essences of all being’, rather than a ‘supraessential Essence’ in itself. Truly, being the Cause of all beings insofar as He manifests Himself and makes Himself to participate in them, God, who according to His nature is inaccessible, remains outside all that exists. In this sense, one could even say that He ‘is not’,25 or rather, that He is beyond all propositions and negations,26 exalted above the very opposition of being and non-being.27 In order to become aware of this radical transcendence, one must pass beyond all the manifestations of God in all that exists. This place is arrived at by denying all the names which cannot be applied to He who is unknowable and unnameable. Since the name ‘Being’ refers to the Universal Cause in its first manifestation which is participated in by all created beings, then it will be necessary to cast aside being, if one truly wishes, in a supreme ignorance of all knowledge, to reach the concept of the Transcendent, who must remain ‘anonymous’. For Dionysius, in the ‘ontological’ revelation of Exodus, in saying, ‘I am That I am’, God has not given His unnameable name, for there is absolutely no name that could suit Him according to His nature, which is considered beyond all ad extra processions, independently of the causality in which God makes Himself known. The name ‘Being’ is thus a name of the Cause of all that is. This is why, in the passage of his treatise On the Divine Names where he juxtaposes 23. See vol. 16 of Dionysii Cartusiani Opera Omnia. 24. De div. nom., I.§4 (col. 589d); V.§1 (col. 816). 25. Idem, I.§1 (col. 588b). 26. De myst. theol., I.§2 (col. 1000b); V (col. 1048). 27. Epist., I and II (col. 1065, 1068-69).

Nomen Innominabile

11

divine anonymity with polynymy, the Pseudo-Areopagite places the phrase ‘I am That I am’ in the first rank of the multiple names by which the Scriptures honour God in his economy towards creation.28 There is no doubt that Meister Eckhart, in his commentary on the passage of Genesis in which God refuses to reveal His name, did not have in mind the text of De divinis nominibus (1:6) in which Dionysius differentiates between the two manners in which ‘theologians’ exalt the Divinity.29 However, it is only the first way, that of an elevation towards the unspeakable nature, which concerned him here. For the moment, then, Eckhart has left aside the question of multiple names, in order to proclaim, along with Dionysius, that the name which is ‘beyond all names’ cannot be expressed; He is thus ‘unnameable’. This agreement with the writer of the Areopagites is, however, far from being total, as the two theologians do not have the same reasons behind this 28. The word ‘economy’ is hardly encountered in the Dionysian Corpus as it normally is in Patristic Greek thought, which juxtaposes οἱκονομία and θεολογἰα. Dionysius instead replaces the more familiar term with πρόνοια. One could say, however, that despite this difference in vocabulary, the entire theological work of the Pseudo-Areopagite is founded upon this distinction, which is so characteristic of the entire theological tradition of the Greek fathers. On the subject of ΘεολογίαΟἰκονομία, see the excellent article by Fr Georges Florovsky, ‘The Idea of Creation in Christian Philosophy’, Eastern Churches Quarterly 8, no. 3, supplementary issue (1949), especially see pages 64-73. 29. St Albert the Great makes use of this passage from Dionysius, when he considers the question, De translatione partium declinabilium in divinam praedicationem, in Sum. theol., Ia Pars, tr. 14, q. 58, membr. 1, solution (Alberti Magni Opera Omnia, ed. A. Borgnet [Paris, 18901899], vol. 31, p.  583): et hoc est quod dicitur, Iudicum XIII:18: ‘Cur quaeris nomen meum quod est mirabile?’ Quod sic exponit Dionysius in libro De divinis nominibus, quod hoc quod dicitur, ‘Cur quaeris?’, reprehensio est: quia quaesivit nomen eius qui innominabilis est, quod fuit indiscrete quaerere. Hoc autem quod dicit, ‘Quod est mirabile’, innuit quod omne nomen dictum de Deo in admirabili supereminentia ponitur et infinita supra modum quo dicitur et designatur per nomen. Fr  M.-D. Chenu, referring to this passage from St Albert the Great, points out the importance of the biblical text (Judges 13:18), which ‘illustrates perfectly the conclusions of all the treatises that could be produced in a century of theologians to come up with “translations” of the names of God’ (‘Grammaire et théologie aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles’, in Archives, X (1936), p. 26).

12

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

ineffability. Dionysius presents us with a God that does not permit any knowledge of His name to the one who asks (sicut ab omni cognitione ex Dei nominatione ipsum abigentem – John Sarrazin, loc. cit.)30 and then adds, Numquid autem non hoc vere est mirabile nomen, quod est innominabile, quod est collocatum super omne nomen quod nominatur sive in saeculo isto sive in future [ibid.]? For Dionysius, ‘the name that is unnameable’ because it denotes Him who is beyond all that can be named, beyond all being, is equivalent to an absence of names that could be applied to God in the absolute transcendence of His nature.31 The name beyond all names is not a name, as the knowledge which transcends all knowledge is, in fact, ignorance. For Meister Eckhart, the nomen innominabile remains no less of a fascinating paradox that he wishes to underscore, as we have seen, in his rather inept quotation of St Augustine. Its paradoxical character lies in the fact that, while being beyond all names, it nevertheless is a name: Mirabile quidem primo, quia nomen, et tamen super omne nomen. Here, Eckhart’s apophatic thought begins to unveil a character that differs from that of Dionysius. He is surprised that a person would desire to seek a name for something which is unnameable (mirabile certe quaerere nomen rei innominabilis), but at the same time, he ascribes a reason to this ineffability in terms which are quite contrary to those of the author of the Divine Names. In response to the question ‘Why is God ineffable?’, Dionysius would have replied: He is ineffable because, in his ‘supra-essential’ nature, He is transcendent not only to all that 30. Scotus Eriugena translated it as: sicut ab omni eum Dei nominativa scientia reducens (PL 122, col. 1117). 31. The superlative titles using ὕπερ, such as Ὑπεραγαθότης, Ὑπερουσιότης, Ὑπερύπαρξις etc. are nothing more than an apophatic correction of these cataphatic expressions, since they relate to the manifested virtues of God, which are participated in by created beings. Essentially, although they are still distinct, these ‘processions’ remain inseparable from divine nature and thus surpass any kind of potential participation from created beings. With reference to God’s nature itself, these terms using ‘hyper’ refer more to transcendence; that which is ‘beyond’ goodness, essence, substance etc. I do not believe that it is proper to speak of a ‘third way’, which would be a via superlationis or eminentiae, in Dionysius’ works. Usually, such a third way is permitted, but without a doubt this leaves out a part of the wider tradition – especially in the West – which will transform the doctrine of the Dionysian Corpus.

Nomen Innominabile

13

is, but also to Being itself. Eckhart, however, would respond: God is ineffable because His nature is hidden Being – mirabile quaerere nomen eius, cuius natura est esse absconditum. And there is more: as we have seen, it is precisely as Being – sub ratione esse – that God is unknowable. While the apophaticism of Dionysius, seeking to reach God in His anonymous nature, is elevated to the exclusion of being, that of Meister Eckhart seems, on the contrary, to include this in the negative notion of He who escapes all naming, while making the Esse the foundation of divine ineffability.

Esse Innominabile Before inquiring into how the Thuringian Dominican understood the Esse absconditum, we must first point out, besides Dionysius, another source that Eckhart used in his ‘exposition’ on Cur quaeris nomen meum, quod est mirabile. It seems quite obvious to us that, in considering the question of the nomen innominabile in his first commentary on Genesis, Meister Eckhart had in mind not only the text of the Dionysian Corpus, which was so important to the ‘translation’ of the names of God, but also the commentary on this same passage that was written by St Thomas Aquinas. It is quite sufficient simply to compare Eckhart’s text with that of Thomas’ commentary on the De divinis nominibus to see why the German theologian, in commenting on Genesis, replaced the section in chapter 32 that he had been considering with a text from the Book of Judges, quoted by Dionysius as a testimony to divine anonymity. Well before Eckhart, St Thomas had made the same mistake in commenting on this passage of Dionysius’ concerning the ‘unnameable’. After having given the text of Judges 13:9, which is also cited by Dionysius, he cites a false scriptural reference, et habetur hoc Genes., XXXII.32 Eckhart’s reference to Philippians 2 could also have been prompted by St Thomas’ commentary. It certainly could be wondered whether it was not more the Expositio super Dionysium by the Great Doctor of his Order which was more on Eckhart’s mind than the text of Dionysius itself when he was commenting on chapter 32 of Genesis. What should attract our attention in St Thomas' commentary is the conclusion that he draws with regard to the passage from Dionysius 32. Expositio super Dionysium, De divinis nominibus: lectio III, in S. Thomae Aquinatis opuscula omnia, ed. Mandonnet, vol. 2, p. 263.

14

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

on ‘anonymity’ and ‘polynymy’. There we find something which can help us to get closer to the true meaning of Esse absconditum – the cause for God’s ineffability, according to Meister Eckhart. St Thomas says: Et omnia alia existentiae ei attribuuntur sicut causae, et nihil existentium est, inquantum omnia superexcedit. Ita igitur Deo, qui est omnium causa, et tamen super omnia existit, et tamen conveniunt ei omnia nomina existentium, sicut omnium causae.33 All names for existing things can suit the God who is their Cause; however, when considered in Himself, the God who exists beyond all existing things is the unnameable Being. Thus, for St Thomas, an ineffability which is suitable to God, inasmuch as He is segregatus ab omnibus,34 does not exclude being. The noun Esse which the commentator adds to Dionysius’ innominabile, thus transforming the last word into an adjective, is a wise correction to Dionysius’ apophaticism on the part of St Thomas. It would seem quite clear that this is a correction that was quite intentionally introduced, since the text of the supposed disciple of St Paul permits only too easily an interpretation which de-existentialises the concept of God. This is clear to us without a doubt. Indeed, St Thomas seems quite aware of the fact that the ontology presented in the Areopagitian writings leaves room for conclusions that would contradict the doctrine of being that he himself professed.35 Thus, in Summa Theologica, when he wonders if the created mind can understand God in His essence, St Thomas invokes a passage from Dionysius in order to formulate his third objection: The created mind can only understand existing objects (non est cognoscitivus nisi existentium). Truly, being (ens) is the first object which falls under the apprehension of the mind. Now, God is not an existing object (non est existens) but is rather superior to all existing objects (supra existentia),

33. Ibid., pp.  264-65. The author cites Dionysius in John Sarrazin’s translation, sometimes combined with that of John Scotus Eriugena. For the convenience of the reader, we have edited St Thomas’ text. 34. See ibid., p. 263. 35. For the interpretation of Dionysius by St Thomas, see Étienne Gilson, Le Thomisme: Introduction à la philosophie de Saint Thomas d’Aquin, 5th edn (Paris: Vrin, 1947), pp. 196-206.

Nomen Innominabile

15

according to Dionysius. Thus, he is not intelligible, but above all intellect.36 The obvious meaning of the Areopagite’s sentence is clear, quite unambiguous and the response to the third objection is St Thomas’ taking a stand against an ontology and a noetic view which, to him, seem unacceptable: We say that, when one speaks of God as one who is nonexistent, we do not mean that He is thus deprived of existence, but rather, that He is above all existence, as it is His nature to exist (esse). From this, it does not then follow that God is absolutely unknowable, but rather, that he surpasses all knowledge, which is to say, that he remains incomprehensible.37 Dionysius’ apophatic perspectives are, in a way, turned upside down: for St Thomas, it is precisely as Existence, as ipsum esse infinitum, that God surpasses knowledge.38 However, since God transcends all created 36. ST, Ia, q. 12, a. I, ob. 3. 37. Ibid., ad. 3m. 38. Gilson says quite correctly, ‘For Dionysius, God was a superesse, because He was “not yet” the esse that he becomes only in his highest expressions. For St Thomas, God is a superesse because He is the superlative of being, Esse pure and simple, taken in its infinitude and perfection. As though touched by a magic wand, Dionysius’ teaching is transformed. St Thomas preserves it in its wholeness, but its meaning is not preserved’ (Le Thomisme, p. 203). St Thomas wanted to correct Dionysius because he had sensed a Platonic danger: Causa autem prima secundum Platonicos quidem est supra ens, inquantum essentia bonitatis et unitatis, quae est causa prima, excedit etiam ipsum ens separatum … sed secundum rei veritatem causa prima est supra ens inquantum est ipsum esse infinitum: Lib. de causis: lectio VII (ed. Mandonnet, vol. 1, p.  230, cited by  Gilson, Le Thomisme, p.  51, note 3). This criticism could have been alluding to Dionysius. Was St Thomas correct in interpreting Dionysius through Neo-Platonic philosophies that he had to be wary of? He could not do other wise, because the distinction between God in Himself and the manifestations of His energies, as the general theme of ‘theology’ and ‘economy’, was foreign to the Western Middle Ages. In the works of Pseudo-Dionysius, this moment played the role of a Christian antidote to it. This is why, it would seem to us,

16

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

being on the existential plane, the relationship between creature and Creator leaves us the possibility of knowing God, or rather, of turning our intellect towards Him. This can be accomplished by means of analogy, a path which does not give any kind of intellection intelligibility of the Divine Being as such, but makes of the Esse- God the principle of intelligibility in all created beings, with esse being attributed first, and in the manner most proper to God who is by His very existence.39 Thus, Dionysius’ apophatic élan is channelled, in the works of St Thomas, into a path of eminence which causes all knowledge of created being to converge upon the universal Principle of being and knowledge, however incomprehensible it may remain down on the earth, in the absolute simplicity of its Essence. According to St Thomas, a created intellect, be it human or angelic, through its natural faculties, can know esse only as it is determined by an essence. Existential energy, inseparable from, yet in a very real way, distinct from ‘that which is’, that act of existing which actualises the quod quid est res, reaches its limits in this actualisation of essence, or esse also finds its name as a determined existent being. However, the simple act of existing, ‘for which only the essence exists’,40 the puritas essendi, the ipsum esse subsistens, being not distinct from but rather identical to its essence, remains indeterminable and cannot be given a name based on what It is. This is why the name which best fits God is He who is: it names, but does not define, Him who possesses His own existence.41 However, if this name is truly the most proper name, inasmuch as it is imposed upon God based on the esse, which is the most common and the least determined concept, Dionysius’ Corpus was, for the West, a Christian victory over pagan Hellenism, which was considered by the West, beginning with John Scotus Eriugena, as a vehicle of Platonic influences, against which the Christian tradition had to be defended. 39. See Gilson, Le Thomisme, pp. 155-59, 204ff. 40. Ibid., p. 53. 41. Non enim significat formam aliquam, sed ipsum esse. Unde, cum esse Dei sit ipsa eius essentia, et hoc nulli alii conveniat,  … manifestum est quod, inter alia nomina, hoc maxime proprie nominat Deum: unumquodque enim denominator a sua forma. … Quodlibet enim alio nomine determinatur aliquis modus substantiae rei; sed hoc nomen Qui est nullum modum essendi determinat: quia se habet indeterminate ad omnia; et ideo nominat ipsum pelagus substantiae infinitum: ST, Ia, q. 13, a. 11, resp., first and second.

Nomen Innominabile

17

it would nevertheless still be necessary to recognise that it does not properly name that to which it is applied: the very nature of God.42 The name, He who is, is thus an analogical name, for the divine Esse is not equivalent to the esse commune. St Thomas does not wish to fall into the same error as those who make the esse of God the same as the universal esse which constitutes the basis of the formal being of created beings: Hoc enim esse, quod Deus est, huius conditionis est, ut nulla additio sibi fieri possit: unde per ipsam suam puritatem est esse distinctum ab omni esse.43 Separated from all beings whose act of existing is determined by an essence which is to be distinguished therefrom, God thus remains ineffable as He possesses His own existence. This is the reason why St Thomas, in his commentary on De divinis nominibus, transformed Dionysius’ ‘unnameable’ into the Esse innominabile. We have seen that Meister Eckhart, after having made an effort at identifying the ‘wondrous name’ with He who is, then stops at Dionysius’ ‘unnameable name’, being fascinated by the mystery of the absolute ineffability of God, in order finally to discover the reason why God escapes all naming: He is ineffable because His nature is the Esse absconditum. If the Dominican Master has here betrayed Dionysius’ apophaticism which excludes being, in order to make the esse the very reason for divine ineffability, it is because he was faithful to the authority of ‘Brother Thomas’, commentator on the Divine Names. In his Latin sermon on Homo quidam fecit coenam magnam (Luke 14:16), Meister Eckhart says the following, in lending quidam an ‘apophatic’ meaning: Nota primo, quod dicit ‘homo quidam’, sine nomine, quia Deus est nobis innominabilis, propter infinitatem omnis esse in ipso. Omnis autem noster conceptus et nomen aliquid designatum importat.44 These lines could have been written by St Thomas himself or by one of his disciples. The sentence that we quoted above45 – Deus sub ratione esse et essentiae est quasi dormiens et latens absconditus in se ipso – could also be claimed by the same school, even if it has a slightly different tone than the doctrinal statements of Thomism. 42. Ibid., ad. 1. 43. Aquinas, De ente et essentia, ch. V, ed. Roland-Gosselin, p. 38; Opuscula philosophica sancti Thomae Aquinatis ed. Perrier, p. 43. 44. Serm. lat. 8, in LW IV, p. 80. See also the German sermon 20a, DW I, pp. 328ff., 330-31. 45. On page 5.

18

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Eckhart and St Thomas Was Meister Eckhart a Thomist in his philosophy of being? From what we have already seen hitherto, we must, above all, recognise that, generally speaking, he at least conforms to St Thomas’ thought, since he gives a new face to Dionysius’ apophaticism, based on the absolute purity of the divine Esse, which is unknowable because it cannot be determined in its essence. Concerning this matter, we certainly do not lack texts from Meister Eckhart’s German and Latin works from which we can gather and quote passages necessary to demonstrate the Thomist character of Eckhart’s doctrine of being. It is, however, quite proper to wonder whether such a demonstration could satisfy a historian of philosophy. That Meister Eckhart often quotes St Thomas Aquinas, that he refers to him as his authority to defend the orthodoxy of his own doctrine against his Scotist accusers, these are accepted facts. It is equally beyond any doubt that the German Dominican, a student of the schools of Paris, often sought to express his doctrine in the terms of St Thomas, the theological glory of his Order. That Meister Eckhart was sincere when he drew on St Thomas is something that we have no right to deny, for lack of any formal proof to the contrary. As we can gather from the writings and opinions of those who knew him, Eckhart of Hochheim had absolutely nothing in common with certain esoteric ‘adventurers’ who sought to mask their own heresies under the guise of a false orthodoxy that they borrowed from other sources. Thus, every indication would lead us to believe that the Thuringian Dominican never sincerely professed any doctrine of being other than that of St Thomas. In such a context, the critic’s task becomes extremely delicate; it would equally be false to arrive at such a position, based on the strongly Thomist character of Eckhart’s thought, as well as to try to separate Eckhart totally from Thomism. It is far too easy, in comparing the texts of the two theologians, to make Meister Eckhart out to be an orthodox Thomist, as we have seen in the works of Otto Karrer46 and several others. The same method, which consists of judging the thought of one author through the lens of the thought of the other, when applied with more Thomist rigour and with less sympathy for the Thuringian Master, results, in the works of several critics, in the almost total depreciation 46. Otto Karrer, Meister Eckehart: Das System seiner religiösen Lehre und Lebensweisheit (Munich: Josef Müller, 1926).

Nomen Innominabile

19

of Meister Eckhart’s doctrine. Thus, for Heinrich Denifle47 and Fr Théry,48 Meister Eckhart was nothing more than a bad Thomist, who poorly expressed the teaching to which he adhered, without having come to understand it in its true depth. His only so-called original contribution was in the paradoxical expressions through which he presented the Angelic Doctor’s thought on divine and created being; the ‘exaggerations’ of this unfortunate theologian would then have been caused by his poorly disciplined intellectual temperament and his somewhat confused thinking. However, it would seem to us that Meister Eckhart’s ‘Thomist’ texts, however numerous and important they may be, do not give us the right to infer that the German Theologian, in his ontological conceptions, was nothing more than an interpreter – either faithful or blundering – of St Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine. In order to discern the true meaning of a doctrine, the spirit which gives it life, while belonging to or opposing the philosopher who created it from the diverse living centres of human thought, it is not enough to simply examine the doctrinal formulae in which an idea becomes petrified while trying to express it. One philosophical idea can be radically different from another, and yet be expressed in the same terms and formulae, especially ideas concerning being, which are almost always expressed only with great difficulty. One can go off on one’s own path, all the while believing oneself to be faithful to a master with whom one would never want to find oneself in disagreement. To use an example not far removed from the questions that presently occupy us, we give that of Giles of Rome, who believed in a distinction between essence and existence that was fundamentally different from that of St Thomas, all the while considering himself to form a common cause with the Dominican Doctor, and even defending his doctrine of being.49 47. Heinrich Denifle, Meister Eckeharts lateinische Schriften und die Grundanschauung seiner Lehre, in Aus dem Archiv für Litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters, II (Berlin, 1886), pp. 417-652. 48. Gabriel Théry, ‘Contribution à l’histoire du procès d’Eckhart’, La vie spirituelle, suppl. IX, no. 4 and 6 (1924); XII no. 2 (1925), XIII, no. 4, and XIV, no. 3 (1926). See particularly the notes of Théry in his publication on ‘Le Commentaire de Maître Eckhart sur le livre de la Sagesse’, in Archives, III, 321-443; IV, 233-394). 49. On the ‘Thomism’ of Giles of Rome, see Étienne Gilson, La Philosophie au moyen âge, 2nd and 3rd editions (Paris: Payot, 1944-1952), pp. 546-48.

20

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Instead of comparing doctrinal formulae, which can be identical or similar, it is without a doubt much more useful to ask oneself how two philosophers deal with the same issue, what kind of approach they have when confronting the same difficulty that they both must resolve. Thus, their doctrines, which should be considered not as an inert deposit of information but as human thought in process, can reveal to us deep divergences which would be in danger of passing by unnoticed under static, often conventional, formulae, as they are then viewed as a ‘common good’ which everyone can make use of according to his whims. In the context of living thought, however, as soon as a person realises what distinguishes one from the other, these formulae cease to be uniform; a difference in expression that at first, seemed to be of no importance, can actually reveal to us an abyss lying between two doctrines that previously were considered to be identical. Such is the case, it would seem, for Meister Eckhart’s ‘Thomist’ ontology. Before turning him into a disciple of St Thomas, we must observe Eckhart in action, by patiently going through our research on the role of apophaticism in Eckhart’s theological thought.

Two Intimate Presences The passage of Expositio Libri Genesis which introduced us to the problems of knowledge of God in the works of Meister Eckhart depends upon a text from Dionysius on which St Thomas commented. We have already seen that the God who is unnameable insofar as his nature is Esse absconditum is not the same as the Anonymous One of Dionysius’ apophaticism. Rather, it is much closer to Him to whom Aquinas, in his commentary on De divinis nominibus, attributes the Esse innominabile. Eckhart’s negative thought, which recognises in God’s esse the very condition of His ineffability, seems then to be different from any apophaticism which excludes being, the exact point upon which Thomas corrected Dionysius. We can then ask ourselves if the fact of not having rejected the esse of the anonymous concept of God will lead the negative theology of the Thuringian Master towards the path which the Angelic Doctor outlined via the negations of Pseudo-Dionysius. Yet, St Thomas turns Dionysius’ apophaticism into the second step of a path towards the knowledge of God starting from created things, a path which proceeds per causalitatem, per

Nomen Innominabile

21

remotionem, per eminentiam.50 The role of the via remotionis lies in purifying our own conception of things by casting away all that could limit their meaning to the created realities that they symbolize, so that they can instead point towards the Creator. Apophaticism, then, is to be considered as a means towards transforming simple cataphaticism into an affirmation ‘par eminence’.51 This path permits the exaltation of the incomprehensibility of the Being in itself, which surpasses all meaning of all names that are attributed to Him, all the while referring to Him according to something which more properly suits Him, first and foremost, as the Cause of created reality.52 If, after this transformation of Dionysius’ negative method, it is still possible to speak of apophaticism, it is now by no means something which is exclusive of the esse. Essentially, for St Thomas, the path of eminence necessarily presupposes the existential relationship of analogy which connects created beings with the pure Act of existence, which is God. This Thomist transformation of apophaticism, which no longer excludes God’s being, is both existential and analogical; it permits speaking of a God who is eminent Being without circumscribing Him by unequivocal concepts, but also without falling into ambiguity. Before responding to the question of whether Meister Eckhart also transformed Dionysius’ apophaticism in the same way, it is necessary that we examine the negative elements of his thinking in different theological contexts. For the time being, we shall stop at and examine a feature of Eckhart’s apophaticism which the passage from Expositio Libri Genesis points out to us. Eckhart’s text on the ‘unnameable name’ shows us the hesitant approach of the German Dominican’s negative thought before the concept of being. We have pointed out his last modification of the passage: the interiorisation of the apophatic way towards the ineffable. After having chosen to include the esse in the object of his apophatic search, as a result of God’s ineffability, Eckhart invites 50. I Sent., d. III, exp. text, ed. Mandonnet, vol. 1, p.  88. On Dionysius’ formulae (Noms Divins, ch. VII, 3: col. 872) as revised by St Thomas, see J. Durantel, Saint Thomas et le Pseudo-Denis (Paris: Félix Alcan, 1919), p. 188, n. 163. 51. On the technique of this predication which implies the negation of the modus significandi of the conception, which is always improper when the res significata is God, see Aquinas, De potentia, q. 7, a. 5. 52. ST, Ia, q. 13, art. 3 and 5.

22

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

us to seek the unnameable name of ‘Him whose nature is hidden being’ within ourselves, for this is not the name of someone who is outside us. The words of St Augustine, noli foras ire, in teipsum redi, in interiori homine habitat [Deus] Veritas  – cited on this occasion, make one think of other passages in which Augustine speaks of the ‘intimacy’ of the presence of God in the soul: Tu autem eras interior intimo meo et superior summo meo.53 Eckhart often pairs these two texts of Augustine’s when he speaks of a presence of God in abditis intimis et supremis ipsius animae.54 However, as we have already noted, in De vera religione St Augustine seeks the presence of immutable truth beyond the changing soul, while Meister Eckhart, in turning the search for the ‘unnameable name’ towards the most intimate depths of the inner man, seeks to find God within the reason of being. According to Eckhart then, it is the esse which is ‘intimate’ to the inner man, and it is on this plane that he must seek the God who remains Deus absconditus, as long as He is Esse. Through the words of St Augustine which he quotes, one has the impression that one is reading here, in the works of Eckhart, the passage from St Thomas, esse autem est illud quod est magis intimum cuilibet, et quod profundius omnibus inest. … Unde oportet quod Deus sit in omnibus rebus, et intime.55 If Meister Eckhart has transposed Augustine’s text into the realms of Thomism, this concept of the ‘intimacy’ of the act of existing created by God in the structure of all concrete beings, it can then be wondered what degree of fusion between the two ‘intimate presences’ is acceptable for Aquinas’ doctrine of the esse. For St Thomas, the fact that God is intimately present in all things, as the first creative Cause of being, implies a relationship of analogy between the created and the Creator. It is precisely this relationship which permits the 53. Confessions, III.6.11 (Saint Augustin, Confessions: Livres I-VIII [Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1941], vol. 1, p. 54). 54. Exp. in Io., Cod. Cus. 21, f. 123rb. We also read in Op. serm., Cod. Cus. 21, f. 164va, ll. 53-55: Item nota, quod in homine interior, secundum Augustinum, habitat veritas, deus, cuius natura est semper et solum esse intus et in intimis. See ibid., f. 140va, ll. 11-13. 55. ST, Ia, q. 8, a. 1, resp. See I Sent., d. 37, q. 1, a. 1, solutio: Ex quibus omnibus aperte colligitur, quod Deus est unicuique intimus, sicut esse proprium rei est intimum ipsi rei, quae nec incipere nec durari posset, nisi per operationem Dei, per quam sua opera coniungitur ut in eo sit (ed. Mandonnet, vol. 1, p. 858).

Nomen Innominabile

23

transformation of Dionysius’ apophaticism into a path of eminence, to speak of the transcendent Cause based on its effects. However, it would seem strange in Thomist circles for a retreat into oneself to be necessary in order to be elevated from things that are known towards the incomprehensibility of the ipsum esse subsistens; yet, here we have not departed from the limits of natural theology. Rather, this is a Christian metaphysics which discovers Aristotelian substances within the heart of man, comprised of form and matter, of action and power, an actualisation of all forms, the first action of all actions  – the act of existing, which is ‘more intimate to everything that determines its existence’,56 the operation of a Creator who must be conceived of as a pure Act, who is not to be determined, or whose Being has a personal property. If this God, unknowable in His Being in Himself, is the same Being of mystical experience,57 it nevertheless remains outside the visual scope of the speculation which places it, modo eminentiori, based on created existence, as absolute Existence. The professed ignorance of the metaphysician concerning God, which is the keystone of his speculations on being, contains within it nothing mystical; rather, it is nothing more than a humble recognition of the limits of human understanding in via. In this doctrinal perspective, is not the desire to go into oneself in order to find the Esse absconditum in the intimate depths of the soul, as Meister Eckhart did, an attempt at transforming St Thomas’ natural theology into mysticism? Certainly, such a feat would be contrary to the spirit of orthodox Thomism. However, supposing that Eckhart had professed the same doctrine of being as Thomas Aquinas, one could proffer him the following argument: if the act of existing constitutes the metaphysical background of all created being, then man, who is a rational creature, can become aware of the existential root by which he is linked to God and there, he can find, based on his own determined existence as a creature, an outlet towards the Esse which is free of all determination. 56. II Sent., d. 1, q. 1, a. 1, solutio (ed. Mandonnet, vol. 2, p.  25). See ibid., p. 26: Unde operatio Creatoris magis pertingit ad intima rei quam operatio causarum secundarum. 57. ‘Having posited God as supreme Existence, philosophy ends and mysticism begins; let us say quite simply, reason notes that that which it knows is in its deepest roots, in a God which it does not know: cum Deo quasi ignoto coniungimur’: Gilson, Le Thomisme, pp. 516-17.

24

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Th is search for God which is achieved from the outside by interior means, towards that which is superior, is not Thomist. Rather, it is a part of the tradition of Plotinus, which was Christianised by St Augustine. Th is is why Meister Eckhart makes use of Augustine’s authority when he wishes to transfer a given property of Thomist metaphysics (the intimate presence of the existential work of God in all things) from the physical and metaphysical plane in which it belongs to the psychological and spiritual plane which is foreign to it. Like Augustine, Eckhart seeks to attain to a trans-psychic region, the secret withdrawing place of the soul, where God is always present, in abido mentis. However, while inviting us to enter within ourselves, the Bishop of Hippo adds: Illuc ergo tende, unde ipsum lumen rationis accenditur. Quo enim pervenit omnis bonus ratiocinator, nisi ad Veritatem? For St Augustine, this withdrawal into oneself will result in the attainment of the constant remembrance of God, beyond changing thoughts, the certainty that is given by a presence, in the super-consciousness, of the ‘Interior Master’, the Source of mental illumination. ‘The Truth which lives in the interior man’ naturally presupposes a participation in the Word, but Augustinian illumination, as has often been shown, knows nothing of the order of grace; rather, this participation in the Divine Word is a natural condition of all human knowledge. Thus, to have a rational knowledge of God in accordance with His unchangeable truth, and to know God in a raptus mentis, for St Augustine, is not the same thing. The return into oneself as recorded in De vera religione is not yet another path towards mystical knowledge; rather, it is a gaining of mental awareness of the Source of the truth and transcendence in His nature by means of the thoughts which it illumines. Without a doubt, Meister Eckhart was not the first to understand the words, noli foras ire, in teipsum redi, to be a call to mystical encounter with God, who is secretly present in the intimate depths of the soul.58 The fact remains that with St Augustine, Eckhart tends towards the depths of personal consciousness, but what he seeks to fi nd there is not the presence of the immutable Truth that remains 58. Quae enim anima semel a Domino didicit et accepit intrare ad se ipsam, et in intimis suis Dei praesentiam suspirare, et quaerere faciem eius semper: spiritus est enim Deus: this passage by St Bernard (Sermones in Cantica Cantorum, XXXV.1 [PL 183, col. 962c]) is, perhaps, a paraphrase of De vera religion, 1.39.

Nomen Innominabile

25

transcendent of the soul; rather, he seeks the immanence of the ipsum esse. Along with St Thomas, the Dominican Master seems to recognise that God, who is intimately present in all beings, has in this way made them exist, but, instead of making this into a Christian metaphysical principle which would permit us to speak unequivocally of a transcendent God based on His created effects, he subjectivises this existential relationship of creatures with their Creator and instead wishes to fi nd the immanence of the divine ipsum esse, an immanent Deus absconditus, in the intimate depths of personal consciousness. Out of the two ‘intimate presences’ – one of which is a noetic state, the other a Christian metaphysical principle – Meister Eckhart makes a single presence: the presence of the Esse absconditum in the soul. In performing this amalgamation of Augustinian supra-consciousness with the Thomist intimacy of the ipsum esse, Meister Eckhart was trying to envisage as an end that which for Augustine and Thomas was a condition of knowledge or existence. In his search for the God of esse of St Thomas and the abditum mentis of St Augustine, Eckhart betrays both theologians, while reuniting them by his striving to express a mysticism in the terms of a speculative theologian.

The Wine of Cana The search for the ‘unnameable name’ becomes interiorised, then, because God, who is ineffable as He is Esse, is found to be present in the interior man as a secret source of created existence. A passage from Eckhart’s commentary on the Gospel of John should attract our attention, as here we see a replica of the text of Expositio Libri Genesis which confirms what we thought we had inferred in the course of our laborious analysis. Meister Eckhart comments on the miracle at Cana, and examines at great length the words that the master of the banquet spoke to the bridegroom: Omnis homo primum bonum vinum ponit, … tu autem servasti bonum vinum usque adhuc (John 2:10). In Eckhart’s sixth interpretation of this passage, the bridegroom who had kept or ‘hidden’ the good wine symbolises God: the wine is being, which would seem to be good at first glance, when viewed from outside, in distinct created essences, impenetrable one to the

26

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

other, but in real ity, it is only good and pure on the inside, as it is the intimate esse, a property belonging to God, which He has kept hidden:59 Sexto, creatura fortis est, deus autem intimus est et in intimis. Patet hoc in effectu deo proprio, qui est esse intimum (ms. intimus) omnibus, in intimis omnium. Et hoc quod deus solus dicitur illabi anime, ab Augustino.{60] 59. Exp. in Io., Cod. Cus. F. 106rb, ll. 52-62. Nicholas of Cusa wrote in the margin, deus illabitur omnibus, essentia unius non illabitur alteri. 60. The expression illabi animae is not St Augustine’s. It seems to have been introduced into theological parlance by Gennadius of Marseille (second half of the fi ft h century) foremost in order to refer to demonic possession, and only by extension, to deifying union. Gennadius says, in De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, 83 (PL 58, col. 999): Daemones per ἐνέργειαν non credimus substantialiter illabi animae, sed applicatione et oppressione uniri. Illabi autem menti illi soli possibile est qui creavit: qui natura subsitens incorporeus, capabilis est suae facturae. The idea that God alone penetrates the essence of the human spirit, which the demons can only affect from without, seems to be founded upon, according to Gennadius, a pansomatic concept of the created universe. God alone, being completely incorporeal, can enter into all the spiritual essences which remain closed to created spirits, which are necessarily linked to a corporeality, however subtle that may be, as in angels or in demons. The treatise De spiritu et anima, which in the Middle Ages was often attributed to St Augustine, but which is more likely to have been written by Alcher of Clairvaux, expresses the same idea, in chapter  27, even if the expression illabi animae does not appear here (PL 40, col. 799): Animam tamen hominus, id est mentem, nulla creatura iuxta substantiam implere potest, nisi sola Trinitas. Implere autem dicitur satanas mentem alicuius et principale cordis, non ingrediens quidem in eum et in sensum eius. … Non enim participatione naturae seu substantiae, ut quidam putant, quemquam implet diabolus, aut eius habitator efficitur; sed per fraudulentiam, deceptionem atque malitiam in eo habitare dicitur quem implet. Solius enim Trinitatis est intrare et implere naturam sive substantiam quam creavit. Cf. Bede, Super Acta Apostol. expositio, ch. V (PL 92, col. 954d): Ubi notandum quod animam et mentem hominis nulla creatura iuxta substantiam possit implere, sed creatrix sola Trinitas etc. As we can see, the author of this pseudo-Augustinian treatise followed Bede’s passage very closely. Peter Lombard employs the expression illabi animae, with respect to the subject of demonic possession,

Nomen Innominabile

27

Sed et illabitur essentiis omnium, essentia vera nullius create illabitur essentie alterius, sed foris stat et distincta. Et hoc est quod hic dicitur ‘omnis homo primum’ – primo scilicet aspect foris – ponere bonum, sponsus autem, deus, ‘servare bonum’ tamquam latens et absconditum. Ysa. 45:15: ‘vere tu es deus absconditus’, et Exo. 20:21: ‘accesit Moises ad caliginem in qua erat deus’. At the beginning of this succinct and yet rich exposition, Meister Eckhart sees in the esse intimum omnibus one of God’s properties, as did St Thomas. However, a few lines later, this ‘intimate being’ seems to be identified with the very esse of God which He ‘keeps’, tamquam latens et absconditum, in created essences, where He alone can enter, in conferring existence upon created beings. The ‘inner Being’ refers here then to God Himself, latens et absconditus in se ipso, as esse and essence,61 this unknowable God who must be sought, along with Moses, in the dark shadows of Sinai.62 It is quite obvious that Meister Eckhart ascribes to the esse a mystical sense; it denotes the ineffable Being of God residing in the inner depths of the soul, disseminated throughout all that, in receiving the esse, constitutes a distinct being, defined by an essence. This is the term to which the interiorised search for the ineffable must extend, this apophatic search which cannot in the question, Utrum daemones intrent in corpora hominum substantialiter, an illabantur mentibus hominum (Sentent. Liber II, d. 8, q. 5 [PL 192, col. 669]), where he references both Gennadius and Bede. St Bernard calls the descent of the Word into the soul illapsus (Sermones in Cantica Cantorum, LXXIV [PL 183, col. 1141d]). A century later, St Thomas would say: solus Deus illabitur animae, in qua sacramenti effectus existit (ST, IIIa, q. 64, a. 1). Th is expression is also encountered rather frequently in the Latin works of Meister Eckhart. The history of illabi animae – from the Aeneid (III, 89) to Summa Theologica – would warrant its own study. 61. See above, Chapter 1, section headed ‘The Search for the Ineffable’. 62. See Exp. in Io., Cod. Cus. f. 100vb, ll. 6-8, where Meister Eckhart identifies darkness with intimum: Esto in altis, in altissimis, in celis, in medio, in intimis, scilicet in caligine et nebula, quia ‘lux’ Deus ‘in tenebris lucet’. In other places, the darkness of Exodus signifies lucem superexcellentem et intellectum nostrum reverberantem et caligare facientem (Exp. in Ex., Cod. Cus. f. 55vb, ll. 51-53) or abscondita Dei (ibid., f. 42ra, I. 48).

28

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

exclude the esse whose mystery is solved in God; for Esse est Deus, as Meister Eckhart said in the first thesis of his Opus Propositionum.63 In his Latin sermon on Qui cepit in vobis opus bonum, perficiet usque in diem Christi Iesu (Philippians 1:6), Meister Eckhart speaks of divine operation in the profound depths of the soul. The opus bonum begins with a descent of God into us, where he is to be found shrouded in darkness, and the work is brought to an end with an ascent towards the luminosity of Esse, devoid of any accompaniment:64 Nota quomodo secundum Augustinium,[65] aliquid intimum nobis (scilicet anime) est, ubi nichil intrat corporale aut figuram habens corporis, quod soli deo dictatum est. Vide super ‘Cuius est ymago’, Dominica 23.[66] Certe ibi deus 63. Prol. gener. in Op. tripart., LW I, p. 38, n. 12; p. 156, nn. 11-12; Prol. in Op. propos., LW I, p. 41, n. 1. 64. Cod. Cus. f. 159va, ll. 5-19; Eckhart also adds (ll. 19-20): De hiis quasi omnibus in psalmo: ‘sit splendor domini nostri super nos et opera manuum nostrarum’ etc. This verse (17) of Psalm 89 is very similar to Psalm 4:7, which, according to both Meister Eckhart and St Thomas, is normally seen as referring to the light of the active intellect. The secret recess in which God works ‘in the noetic days of eternity’ would thus be located in the created intellect. 65. The pseudo-Augustinian text which Eckhart has in mind here, as in the Latin sermon, Cuius est ymago hec et superscriptio (see following footnote), could be chapter 34 of De spiritu et anima (PL 40, col. 804). 66. The Latin sermon which Meister Eckhart alludes to here completes the sentence of the passage we just quoted. Here follows the unedited text, according to Cod. Cus. f. 160vb, 1. 49-f. 161ra, 1. 2: Cuius est ymago hec et superscriptio? Mat. 22:20. Huic qui|dem| respondet idem apostolus, Colos. 1:15: ymago dei invisibilis, primogenitus omnis creature. Nota duo. Primo, quod ymago, secundum Augustinum, ibique querenda est ubi anima vere lux est, non extinctum ex contagione ad corpus. Item, ubi nichil habens figuram huius mundi admittur. Item, ubi superius in anima, ubi vertex anime nectitur lumini angelico. … Adhuc, circa primum, nota, quod nichil ibi ingreditur ubi ymago est, nisi solus Deus et virtus, secundum aliquos, sola theologica quam operatur deus. Ezech. 44:1: vidi portam in domo domini clausam. ‘Dei invisibilis,’ Io. 1:18: Deum nemo vidit umquam. ‘Nemo’, nullus homo. Exod. 33:20: non videbit me homo et vivit. ‘Umquam’: non enim in tempore, cuius differentia est li umquam. Sequitur: unigenitus quidem in sinu patris, ipse enarravit.

Nomen Innominabile

29

vere opus bonum operatur. Dicitur autem ‘cepit’: nam, prout in nos descendit, obrumbratur quasi in termino; perficitur autem, in quantum reliquendo quasi id quod est ascendit in ipso esse clarificatum in originem omnis esse, ubi iam non est hoc clausum, scilicet natura, sed est esse prius et purgatum ab omni additamento. Et hoc est quod ait ‘opus bonum’, opus scilicet rectum, in nullo obliquatum, opus in singulari non divisum in natura inferiori. ‘Opus quod deus operator in diebus antiquis’ (Psalm 43:2) [Vulgate]. Dies antique sunt dies lucis intellectualis, dies eternitatis. Et hoc est quod sequitur: ‘ipse perficiet in die Christi Ihesu’. The intimate operation of God in the soul, as it descends towards inferior nature, is thus presented as a deviation, as a ‘veering off ’, because it is divided and singularised in the hoc clausum, in the id quod est. It is only by abandoning ‘that which is’, in order to ascend to the origin of all being, that being will appear as it truly is, in its complete perfection, not obscured by anything that is not ipsum esse in its absolute purity. This operation is thus of the esse, which here cannot be distinguished from Divine Being. Essentially, if God has begun this ‘good work’ in created beings, it is only ‘good’ insofar as it remains identical to itself, not misshapen by a nature which is limited. In fact, the existential operation of God has a beginning only in us and for us; thus, it is without beginning, for God works in eternity (in the dies aeternitatis), where He operates and exists. Thus, the intimum nobis where God accomplishes his work, the ‘interior man’ according to Meister Eckhart, is not in time nor in any place, but rather is in eternity.67 Thus, the esse absconditum is twofold: (1) as esse intimum, which is concealed in the hidden recesses of the soul existing in eternity; and (2) as something which, once it has departed from ‘intimacy’, is an existential operation which descends into ‘that which is’ and is then found to be, by virtue of this, shrouded in darkness by the definitions of essence. It would seem, then, that for Meister Eckhart the ineffability of the divine Esse also extends to the 67. Op. serm., Cod. Cus. f. 140va, ll. 15-20: 4° nota, quod homo interior nullo-modo est in tempore aut in loco, sed prorsus in eternitate. Ibi Deus et solus Deus, ibi oritur Deus, quia ibi est. … Hic homo interior spaciossimus est, quia magnus sine magnitude. Cf. ibid., f. 164va, l. 56-f. 164vb, 1. 2.

30

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

existence of created beings, forming an unambiguous region of esse absconditum in the background of created essence. Unknowable in God due to its absolute purity, the esse can no longer be known in created essences, where it has become somewhat evasive, no longer being true existence. In simply desiring to speak of the ipsum esse of God and of that of created essences, we fall into ambiguity. Thus, we find ourselves either confronted with the unambiguity of the esse intimum, being unable to distinguish between created and uncreated, or with the ambiguity of existence that is conferred upon created beings, which is no longer true esse. Creatura foris est, deus autem intimus est et in intimis.68 It becomes clear quite suddenly, then, that Eckhart’s doctrine of being is quite different from that of St Thomas. Even though, up to this point, we have striven to restrain Meister Eckhart’s thought with Thomist concepts by continuing to translate esse as ‘existence’ and by avoiding speaking of the ‘act of existing’ or of the ‘existential operation’ etc., we yet see emerging a different ontology, which could well oblige us to reject Thomist existential vocabulary in our discourse on the Dominican Thuringian’s own doctrine of being. While, along with the Angelic Doctor, Eckhart makes a distinction between essence and existence in created beings, it would seem that Meister Eckhart totally separates the two concepts, such that the concept of a particular act of existence, enabled to actualise a distinct essence so as to make of it a determined being, hoc ens, would thus have an ambiguous meaning – that of an imperfect existence through a wholly singularised being. St Thomas’ existential diversity, with the richness of created being to which it gives rise,69 seems rather outside the spirit of this ontology. Instead, one has the impression that Meister Eckhart envisages an insurmountable wall in between essence and existence inside every created being. The esse, rather than penetrating into substance, constitutes rather a closed realm unto itself, shut up within the intimate recesses of existence, where nothing created may enter. This is indeed the ‘closed door of the House of 68. See p. 17. 69. Sed esse est diversum in diversis. Nec oportet, si dicimus quod Deus est esse tantum, ut in errorem eorum incidamus, qui Deum dixerunt esse illud esse universale, quo quaelibet res est formaliter: De ente et essentia, ch. V (ed. Roland-Gosselin, pp. 37-38; ed. Perrier, p. 43).

Nomen Innominabile

31

God’ of Ezekiel’s vision (Ezekiel 44:1).70 It is to be found, then, either inside, in the totality of the esse absconditum, where it truly exists, or, it is to be found outside the singularity of the id quod est, where it does not have true existence. The esse has either an ambiguous or an unambiguous meaning. When he alludes to St Thomas in speaking of the notion of analogy, Meister Eckhart must have an entirely different conception of analogia entis, as we shall see later. For the moment, we shall only state that Eckhart’s hidden being is not Thomas Aquinas’ unnameable being. St Thomas’ esse innominabile is that of a transcendent God about Whom we can speak per viam eminentiae, both without falling into ambiguity and without remaining in a univocality of being. Meister Eckhart’s esse absconditum is the very cause of God’s ineffability cuius natura est semper et solum esse intus et in intimis.71 It is an immanent and yet hidden esse, which seems to only truly exist in one’s inscrutable, impenetrable depths. Like God, created beings are also ineffable in their true being, since, like Him, they are in intimis: Quod si deus, utique et omnia  – sive angeli, sive quevis alia. In deo enim sunt omnia, nec quicquam extra ipsum penitus.72 For Meister Eckhart, then, is God’s esse absconditum to be considered identical to the secret being of creatures? We are unable to answer this question with a simple affirmation, yet at the same time we cannot claim the contrary, while making a distinction between the purity of divine Being and the hidden being of creatures in their intimate depths. For the moment, we may at least observe the following: for a created being, to exist in the proper sense of the word is to exist in God and, at the same time, in the hidden interior of oneself, in the unambiguously ineffable regions of the esse absconditum.

Mystic or Dialectician? The opus bonum which God works in the interior man is just as much a communication of esse and of creation as it is the consummation of creatures in being, an actualised union with God. The beginning is 70. See the Latin sermon, Cuius est ymago, cited above, p. 28, n. 66. 71. Op. serm., Cod. Cus. f. 140va, ll. 12-13; f. 164va, ll. 54-55. 72. Following the same text: f. 140va, ll. 13-15; f. 164va, ll. 55-56.

32

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

identical to the end in God’s work, in which He creates every thing in Himself,73 in eternity. The interior man, then, does not belong to time but rather, communes with God in eternity. The true esse of created beings for Eckhart, then, is their ‘being in God’.74 Thus, he wishes to consider esse, above all, to exist on a mystical plane, where the natural and the supernatural, being and grace, form but a single divine operation in abdito animae.75 Meister Eckhart’s esse absconditum is a mystical notion of being; it refers at the same time to God but also to true esse which cannot be possessed except in the hidden depths. When Eckhart seeks to develop a doctrine of being in the terms of a speculative theology, and thus must depart from this mystical reality which nevertheless remains ever in his sight, he finds himself obliged to distinguish between divine Being and created being through a juggling of various contradictory positions, with the point of negation at times turning more towards God, and at other times more towards the creature. It seems to us quite natural, then, that, in the person of Meister Eckhart, we find both a mystic and a dialectician. To force a scission between one of the two terms  – either Meister Eckhart the mystic or Meister Eckhart the dialectician  – is to create a false dichotomy.76 Far from being mutually exclusive, mystical intuition 73. Prol. gener. in Op. tripart. (LW 1, pp.  40-41, n. 18 and 19): Creavit ergo omnis in principio, quia in se ipso principio. Et rursus, in se ipso principio creavit, quia preterita et retro hodie quasi in principio et primo creat … 4m et ultimum, scilicet quod creatio et omne opus Dei in ipso principio creationis mox simul est perfectum et terminatum, patet ex dictis. Ubi enim finis et inicium idem, necessario simul fit et factum est, simul incipit et perfectum est. Deus autem, utpote esse, inicium est et principium et finis. 74. See the Latin sermon on Qui manet in caritate (1 John 4:16), 6, 3, in LW IV, pp. 60-64: manore in caritate = manere in Deo = manere in esse. 75. See the Latin sermon (9) of the third Sunday after Pentecost, on Deus omnis gratiae  … ipse perficiet etc. (1 Peter 5:10), in LW IV, pp.  92-97, where Meister Eckhart speaks of grace in the same terms as, in the texts quoted above, he had spoken of the esse intimum. Of par ticular note is the following: Nota, gratia est ad esse, ad intra sive ad intima, ad unum esse et vivere in Deo et cum Deo, cum non sit in potentia, sed in essentia, ubi nulla creatura unquam ingreditur etc. (p. 94, n. 99). 76. This is what Father Théry did when he said the following: ‘Eckhart is not intuitive, as one might be led to believe, but rather abstract and a dialectician’ (Archives, III, p. 345, n. 3).

Nomen Innominabile

33

and dialectical reasoning are not only capable of co-existing, but, in fact, must be indissolubly linked in a spirit of tension leading towards a metalogical reality, towards a place which is ‘beyond the opposition’ between Creator and creature. It is equally due to the fact that his first intuition of being had a mystical character that Meister Eckhart had to express himself as a dialectician, for all other means of conveying this concept of being – at the same time both simple and complex – in an intelligible theological doctrine were found to be inadequate. It could not be other wise for a form of religious thought whose first proposition is: Esse est Deus. Meister Eckhart would resort to dialectics whenever he spoke of the relationship between the Being who is God and created beings. As we shall see, here, apophaticism takes on a completely different character than the apophaticism of the quest for the ‘unnameable name’. However, when the Thuringian Dominican returns to his first intuition in order to discover simultaneously and without distinction the ‘God-Being’ and our ‘being in God’, within the unequivocally ineffable realms of the esse absconditum, he will again take up the way of interiorised apophaticism, oriented towards the intimate hidden recesses of the soul. This via remotionis is not only an intellectual operation that liberates the ‘latent and hidden’ esse of all determination that comes with created nature; above all, this is a path of ‘abstraction’ or of spiritual bareness, the Abgeschiedenheit: a passionless man, no longer seeking anything, renouncing even the search for God, attains to a level of depth inaccessible to created being, where he communes with God in ‘the day of eternity’.

Ignorance of God and of Self Eckhart’s search for the nomen innominabile, which we have followed, by comparing the concise text of Expositio Libri Genesis with other passages of his works, has led us towards the mystery of the esse absconditum, which is hidden within us. This is not, however, a negative concept of an anonymous God transcending being; but, at the same time, it cannot be said, either, that Meister Eckhart’s apophaticism, unlike Dionysius, leads directly to the immanence of divine Being. The level to which this thinking leads surpasses the opposition between transcendent and immanent, between God and creature. This is an apophaticism of non-opposition, of nondistinction, an apophaticism which does not exclude being because it

34

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

seeks to exclude only distinction. However, we must go even further and, in order to neutralise the opposition between the indistinct and the distinct, include in the definition of one the definition of the other. In this way, this dialectic will rise again and will not be able to be silenced except by the suppression of the search itself, by the act of interiorisation, which is itself an entrance into immanent transcendence, into the depth of unknowing of God and of the self. The end of the German sermon, Homo quidam nobilis abiit in regionem longinquam (Luke 19:12), summarises all that we have said up to this point about Meister Eckhart’s apophaticism. It is a reply to the question, Cur quaeris nomen meum?, in which the search for the ineffable is finally done away with. Here we shall cite a beautiful section in its entirety:77 An aim has no other purpose but an end, for in the final end of things, all that was ever endowed with reason comes to rest. The final end of being is nothing other than darkness or the unknowing of a hidden divinity (das vinsterniss oder unbekantniss der verborgenen gothait), in which the light shines and the darkness has not overcome it (John 1:5). This is why Moses says, ‘He who has sent me to you’ (Exodus 3:13). He who is without name, who is the negation of all names, and who never had a name. And this is why the Prophet said, ‘Truly, Thou art the hidden God’ (Isaiah 45:15), in the depths of the soul, the depth of God is the depth of the soul, having but one and the same depth (grund). The more Thou art sought after, the less Thou art found. You must seek Him in such a way, and yet never find Him; if you do not seek Him, you will find Him. May we ever seek Him thus, and remain eternally with Him, with God’s help. Amen.

77. German sermon 15, DW I, pp. 252-53.

2

Nomen Omninominabile

Nomen Super Omne Nomen The search for the ‘unnameable name’ must not induce us to forget or overlook the multitude of names that pertain to God. If it is the case that Dionysius’ negative theology values the anonymity of God in His superessential transcendence, all the same this does not exclude God’s polynymy in the immanence of His manifesting characteristics. God can be either ‘anonymous’ or ‘polynymous’, depending on whether He is being considered in Himself, or as the Universal Cause, in His ad extra operations.1 In his commentary on the text Omnipotens nomen eius from Exodus (15:3) Meister Eckhart will state the same point.2 1. See above, Chapter 1, section headed ‘Namelessness and Polynymy’. 2. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 43vb, ll. 5-13: Sequitur secundo videre quod dicitur omnipotens esse nomen eius. Licet autem de nominibus Dei notaverim in diversis locis, – prius super genesim, capitulo 13°, secundo super illo: Oriens nomen eius, Zacharie (6:12), et Philippens 2°, super illo: donavit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen, – quia tamen Thomas, parte 1a, questione 13a, materiam de nominibus Dei, utrum Deus sit nominabilis, fundat super isto verbo, Omnipotens nomen eius, placet hic notare ad presens quatuor. The ‘exposition’ of this text comprises a treatise on the value of affirmations and negations, in four parts (f. 43vb, l. 5-f. 46vb, l. 24), preceded by several reflections on omnipotence (f. 43ra-f. 43vb, l. 4) and completed by an examination of the divine names according to Moses Maimonides, in the commentary on the text (20:7) Non

36

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

The German Dominican was following the example of St Thomas in choosing this particular passage of Scripture to examine the question of the divine names in Expositio Libri Exodi, and particularly the issue of ‘polynymy’ as it relates to the affirmative path.3 For Meister Eckhart, the name ‘All-Powerful’ must correspond to a principle which would cause the unnameable divinity to radiate out into a multitude of names, exactly like Dionysius’ concept of ‘agathonymy’. Thus, this name could not be just one in a series of many names, but rather, must be placed above and beyond the multitude of names. It is not to Dionysius but rather to the Liber de causis which Eckhart refers in order to make the claim that ‘the name above all names (Philippians 2:9) is not unnameable, but rather contains all names’ – non est innominabile, sed omninominabile.4 It should not surprise us assumas nomen Dei tui in vanum (f. 50rb, 1. 9-f. 52va, l. 51). If one adds to these references the exposition on Ego sum qui sum (f. 42rb, l. 6-f. 43ra, l. 47), one realises that Exp. in Ex. contains the most impor tant working through or development of Meister Eckhart’s own reflections on the divine names. This issue is given a special examination in Opus quaestionum (currently unknown): Notavi de hoc plenius in libro questionum, ubi agitur de nominibus Dei (in Ex., C., f. 43ra, ll. 25-26). 3. ST, Ia, q. 13, a. 1: (Utrum aliquod nomen Deo conveniat): Sed contra est quod dicit Exod., XV (3): Quasi vir pugnator: Omnipotens est nomen eius. 4. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 43vb, ll. 25-40: Quantum ad primum, primo accipiatur quod in De causis dicit 6a propositio: ‘Causa prima superior est omni narratione;’ et ibidem, 22a: ‘causa prima est super omne nomen.’ Rursus, in libro XXIV philosophorum dicitur: ‘Deus est quod solum voces non significant, nec mentes intelligunt propter dissimilitudinem.’ Notandum autem quod in De causis dicitur Deus non innarrabilis, sed superior narratione, secundum illud Psalmi (137:2): Magnificasti super omne nomen sanctum tuum; et Philipp. 2° (9): Donavit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen. Non est innominabile, sed omninominabile. Unde Augustinus, super Io., sermone 13, tractans illud Psalmi (36:10), aput te est fons vite, dicit: ‘Omnia possunt dici de Deo, et nihil digne dicitur de Deo; nichil latius hac inopia: queris nomen congruum, non invenis; quoquo modo dicere, omnia invenis.’ Verba sunt augustini. In  O. Bardenhewer’s work, Die pseudo-aristotelische Schrift über das reine Gute, bekannt unter dem Namen Liber de causis (Freiburg-imBreisgau: Herder, 1882), the two propositions cited by Eckhart can be found under numbers five and 21 (pp. 168 and 183). For Liber de causis, we cite here the most recent edition, published by R. Steele and F.M.

Nomen Omninominabile

37

that here Meister Eckhart uses the same text from St Paul in order to justify polynymy that Dionysius used in order to establish God’s anonymity. The name ‘above all names’ is a point of transition in between the two. As a ‘homonym’, it can guide the apophatic search for the ‘unnameable name’, by directing the human spirit towards divine ineffability. However, at the same time, it can also serve well as a departure point for the opposite movement, that of cataphasis, since the First Cause, being superior to all names, thus contains all of its effects, thus rendering it ‘omni-nameable’. The nomen super omne nomen is, thus, the source of all names which can be attributed to the First Cause based on its effects, precisely because it is a unique name. This name, which designates God according to the very principle of His omnipotence, must then attribute to Him all that He can create and, at the same time, point to the very transcendence of the First Cause beyond its effects. This demarcates the limit between the anonymity of the Deus absconditus, inexpressible as He is in Himself, and God’s polynymy  – an active Principle which makes itself known and named according to its many works. Disconnected from the ‘unnameable name’, in order to be applied to the First Cause, the ‘name above all names’ remains ambiguous: in its uniqueness, it can be applied just as appropriately to the Being without a name, as it is able to express its inaccessible isolation, as it can be applied to the Being of the multiple names which it commands. As the First Cause, God is no longer solely the object of an infinite apophatic search, a Deity who is concealed sub ratione esse et essentiae. Rather, He is to be given all the names which pertain to Him from His effects, even though none of these names can truly properly signify Him. This is why, after having cited the sixteenth proposition of the ‘24 Philosophers’,5 where he took the negative sense of divine ‘dissemblance’, Meister Eckhart refers to the De causis in order to explain that the First Cause, even Delorme (eds), Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi, fasc. XII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1935); propositions six and 22 are to be found on pp. 166 and 178. Liber XXIV philosophorum was published by C. Bäumker, ‘Das pseudo-hermetische “Buch der vierundzwanzig Meister” ’, in Festgabe zum 70. Geburtstag von Georg Freiherrn von Hertling (Freiburgim-Bresgau, 1913). Proposition 16, quoted by Eckhart, is on p.  36. St Augustine, In Ioh. evang., tr. 13, n. 5: PL 35, col. 1495. 5. In Bäumker’s edition (p. 36), the text of this proposition is more complete: Deus est, quem solum voces non significant propter excellentiam, nec mentes intelligunt propter dissimilitudinem.

38

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

though superior to the narratio, is not absolutely incapble of being narrated. Along with the principle of causality which intervenes here, Meister Eckhart’s apophaticism changes in character. It is no longer a ‘mystical’ apophaticism, seeking the inexpressible Being in Himself, apart from all creative action, beyond the universal relationship of all that exists with the unique Cause of the omnia. Of course, the God-Cause of created being is not other than He whose name is ‘unnameable’, but the level on which He is sought in the present theological discourse, comprising a multitude of names, is no longer the same. The via remotionis will serve here to do away with a mode of signification which attaches itself to concepts created in order to express created perfections, with the aim of transferring them to the transcendent Cause by means of a path of eminence, where negations no longer prevail over affirmations.6 The exposition on the divine names, in the Expositio Libri Exodi, does not contain any other kind of apophaticism, despite a long digression on the negative theology of Maimonides, for whom all positive expressions are equivocal.7 6. Towards the end of his exposition on the divine names, Meister Eckhart interprets Dionysius’ negations in this sense, following St Thomas’ example. See further on p.  110. This transformation of Dionysius’ apophaticism is proclaimed in the following terms in Tabula expositionum libri Exodi (C., f. 41ra, ll. 33-41): Habes etiam ibidem plura de nominibus quibus Deus nominatur in scriptura, a phylosophis, a sanctis et doctoribus. Et quomodo affirmaciones sunt proprie in divinis, negaciones autem improprie. Nec obstat verbum Dyonisii dicentis quod negaciones in divinis sunt vere, affirmaciones autem incompacte. 7. C., f. 43vb, l. 56-f. 45ra, l. 51. This passage of Eckhart begins with a quotation from Maimonides (Guide for the Perplexed, ch. 58. Cf. Moïse Maïmonide, Le Guide des égarés, Fr. trans. S. Munk, 3 vols (1856-70), vol. 1, pp. 238-39): Tertio accipiatur sententia Rabymoisis, qui libro 1°, capitulo 57, sic ait: ‘Scias, quod enuntiatio de creatore per verba negativa est vera, in qua non cadit dubitatio, nec est in ea diminutio in veritate creatoris ullo modo. Sed enuntiatio de ipso per verba affirmativa partim est in equivocatione . See further down (f. 44ra, ll. 29-31): etiam essentia non dicitur de deo et de aliis nisi equivoce pure; and (f. 44rb, ll. 49-52): omnia positive dicta de Deo, quamvis sint perfectiones in nobis, in Deo tamen non plus sunt nec perfectiores sunt quam horum opposita. Meister Eckhart returns to the question of apophaticism in Maimonides’ works in the same Exp. in Ex., in his comments on 20:7: Non assumas nomen Dei tui in vanum (ff. 51vb-52va).

Nomen Omninominabile

39

Without expressly rejecting this radical apophaticism of the ‘Hebrew philosophers and sages’  – of which he will make use elsewhere, in order to exalt God in Himself above all perfections which are tied to created being – in the present case, Meister Eckhart gives precedence to the teachings of ‘our Christian doctors’. In effect, the principle of analogy and the distinction between the real and the predicational8 form the basis for the doctrine of translation of the names of God proper to Christian theology. In desiring to speak of the name ‘allpowerful’, of a ‘name above all names’, which are of course proper to God inasmuch as He is the First Cause of all that is, Meister Eckhart places himself in a perspective from which it is then necessary to gather together all the names into one unique name.

Collatio Esse In this new perspective, not only does the kind of apophaticism which is directed towards the ineffability of the Esse absconditum give way to the negation of the modus significandi in the names attributed to God, but also the mystical intuition of a realm that is closed and decisively inaccessible, pertaining to the Being which is beyond all causality, retreats, though without totally disappearing, before a vision of being which is separated from Cause and effects. We have seen, in the previous chapter,9 that the mystical conception of the esse absconditum indistinctly includes the three following moments: (1) the esse which is God; (2) the esse as a divine operation in the intimate depths of the soul; and (3) the perfect esse which creatures have in God. These three moments represent but one single ineffable reality when Eckhart wishes to speak of the esse on the supreme plane, that of mystical experience. Their unity remains unbroken even when being, considered as a ‘work’ that is simultaneously begun and accomplished by God, appears under the dynamic aspect of a circular movement: descent, in which the operation of God becomes obscured by created nature, and ascent towards the ‘clarity’ of being that is ‘pure of all addition’, at the origin of all esse. This new aspect of being in movement by no means contradicts static vision, for the true esse remains no less a closed and hidden realm which includes the GodBeing and being-in-God, from which nothing can depart save for the 8. C., f. 45ra, l. 52-f. 45va, l. 18 (four notanda). 9. See above, Chapter 1, section headed, ‘The Wine of Cana’.

40

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

being that is proper to creatures (opus obliquatum).10 This oblique refraction of divine Esse outside itself signals a rupture in continuity, an ontological exteriority of the creature, which would require the theologian to distinguish between Esse-Cause and Esse-effect. God confers being upon creatures in creating them out of nothingness: creatio est collatio esse post non esse, as Meister Eckhart often repeats along with St Thomas.11 However ‘oblique’ it may be, limited by created nature, in the hoc et illud where it descends and appears divided in singular beings, it is nevertheless a divine operation, in which the created (creature) receives aliunde et ab alio; it remains undivided in itself and always internal, for God is only something exterior and ‘other’ from the defective point of view of created beings. Thus, this ‘elsewhere’ is to be found in the interior of created beings. There is nothing else which is more ‘intimate’ and proper to them, nothing else which is as primordial as the esse received ‘from another’, as an effect or influence of the First Cause.12 It is not always easy to recognise, in Eckhart’s works, if he 10. See the passage on the opus bonum, quoted on p. 28-29. 11. Prol. gener. in Op. tripart., LW 1, p.  160, n. 16: creatio est collatio esse, nec oportet addere ‘ex nihilo’, quia ante esse est nihil. Constat autem quod ab esse et ipso solo, nullo alio, confertur esse rebus, sicut esse album a sola albedine. Igitur Deus et ipse solus, cum sit esse, creat sive creavit. See Exp. in Sap., in Archives, III, p. 338; IV, p. 279. I. Sent., d. 37, q. 1, a. 1: creare autem est dare esse. Konrad Weiss, in his edition of Prol. gener., cites in a footnote (LW I, n. 1) the definition of creation given by Avicenna, Metaphysics, VI.2 (Venice, 1508, f. 92ra): haec est intentio quae apud sapientes vocatur creatio; quod est dare rei esse post non esse absolute. 12. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p.  53, n. 14 (according to manuscript E, which we have checked against C., f. 7ra, ll. 8-23): 4m vero principale, scilicet quod omne citra Deum habet esse ab alio sive aliunde, sic concluditur ex premissis. Dictum est enim quod Deus creavit celum et terram, id est suprema et infima, et per consequens omnia. Creatio autem est collatio esse. Et hoc est quod Proclus dicit propositione XI: ‘omnia entia procedunt ab una causa prima.’ Et Augustinus, I Confessionum, sic ait: ‘nulla vena trahitur aliunde, qua esse currat in nos, preterquam tu facis nos, domine.’ Nec tamen ymaginandum est, tamquam ab extra in nos veniat, eo quod Deus, utpote causa prima, intimius sit [C: intimus fit] entibus et eius effectus sive influencia, utpote primi et supremi, est naturalissima et suavissima et convenientissima, sicut declaravi in Opere propositionum, tractatu De superiori, ratione et exemplo. See

Nomen Omninominabile

41

is speaking of being as divine operation or of being as the first effect of the Creative Cause. However, when he speaks of the being which God ‘confers’ and which the creature ‘receives from outside’, these expressions relate, most frequently, to created effect, to the creature itself, as something exterior to the Cause which produces it from non-being. Thus, after having said Omnis creationis actio est collatio esse, Meister Eckhart adds: et hoc est quod Proclus dicit propositione XI: ‘omnia entia procedunt ab una causa prima’.13 To confer being is to produce created entia, having an external esse, distinct from the interior divine operation which produces them. Here, ‘being’, as a general attribute of all that exists, should be taken to mean ‘the first created reality’. Since prima rerum creatarum est esse, according to the Liber de causis,14 being appears as the very reason for the ‘creatability’ of things. If something created by God is an ens, endowed with life and intelligence, it is only by virtue of its esse that it could be considered a creature. If one could conceive of a living, thinking entity which has no existence apart from ‘life’ and ‘thought’, then such an entity would be ‘uncreatable’. Being is thus added to a thing in order to make it into something created, ‘made’ by divine efficacy. This is something which St John affirmed quite subtly in his Gospel (1:3-4): quod factum est, in eo vita erat. In affirming this, he allows it to be inferred that created things, which is to say, things which God has endowed with esse, exist in themselves by virtue of this fact, but that, at the same time, they were ‘life’ in God and, as life, they are uncreatable like God.15 In the First Cause, things do not exist as such, but rather, in the First Cause, they exist intellectualiter, as the uncreated ‘reasons’ of creatures. They do not begin to exist in themselves until the action of the efficient cause generates them into the exterior, by conferring esse formale upon them.16 Exteriorised by the creative act, the being ibid., p.  49, n. 2 (C., f. 6ra, ll. 40-43). Proclus’ second proposition in Proclus, The Elements of Theology, ed. E.R. Dodds (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933), p. 12. St Augustine, Confessions, I.6.10 (ed. Belles Lettres, vol. 1, p. 9). 13. See previous note. 14. Proposition 4: Prima rerum creatarum est esse, et non est ante ipsum creatum aliud (ed. Steele, p. 164) (ed. Bardenhewer, p. 166). 15. Exp. in Sap., in Archives, III, p. 345. 16. Ibid., pp. 342-43.

42

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

which belongs to creatures is to be distinguished from the Esse which is God and from the indistinct state of all things in God. We are no longer speaking of the Esse absconditum, which constitutes a region closed within itself, nor of the eternal reasons which are merged with the life of the Divine Intellect, but rather we are speaking of an esse that is external to its Cause, dispersed among the multitude of entia, of individual beings created out of nothing by divine efficiency. In interpreting the text of the Book of Wisdom (1:14), Creavit enim Deus, ut essent omnia, in the sense of ut haberent esse extra, in rerum natura,17 Eckhart seems to remain on the plane of natural theology and makes use of the same theological expressions as St Thomas.

Upper and Lower Waters It is necessary to distinguish between the eternal and uncreated reasons of creatures and substances which were generated by the all-powerful efficiency of God. The former ‘are not made’  – and in this sense, they are not, if ‘being’ is taken to mean an existence that has been generated; the latter are ‘made’, meaning ‘created’,18 and, consequently, they are, possessing esse formale extra, beneath their own forms which constitute them as determined beings. On the other hand, in God, substances are not yet such as they will be in themselves (a lion, a man, the sun); instead of being under the heading of ‘such things’, rather they exist according to a different mode, that of divine life and intellection.19 When examined in their eternal causes, in their uncreated intellects, creatures are the object of an immutable science, but in themselves, as far as their formal being is concerned, they are changeable and they cannot yield or give rise to certain knowledge.20 In the Book of Genesis the mutability and fluidity of created beings is allegorically conveyed by the waters, applied to the entirety of 17. Ibid., p. 338 and ff. 18. Here, Meister Eckhart uses the word facere in the sense of ‘to create’, to produce being out of nothingness. In other places (Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29va, ll. 50-54), he will distinguish between facere, factio – the production from an already existing being, and creare, creatio – the production of being from non-being. He never uses the term ‘to create’ in the sense of giving order to already existing things, that is, ‘made’ in the sense used by St Augustine. 19. Exp. in Sap., in Archives, III, p. 352. 20. Ibid., p. 343.

Nomen Omninominabile

43

creation. In this regard, Meister Eckhart recalls that Thales of Miletus, ‘one of the seven sages’, saw the universal principle of things in the waters.21 The separation of the waters which are below the firmament from those above the firmament (Genesis 1:6-8) signifies the double esse of the creature:22 (1) the stable being which it has in its original causes, in the Word of God  – this is ideal being which endows an incorruptible and immutable character to the knowledge of things which are other wise corruptible and changeable in themselves; (2) the being which created things have apart from their ideal ‘reason’, in their individual natures, under the forms which are given to them. Primum est esse virtuale, secundum est esse formale.23 Meister Eckhart associates this double mode of being with the two worlds – that of the intelligible, where truth dwells, and that of the sensible mode, that of verisimilitude – in Plato’s teachings.24 He also mentions Boethius’ exemplarism,25 and, in order to make it clearer what he 21. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p.  63, n. 79 (cf. ibid., n. 82); C., f. 10rb, l. 54-f. 10va, l. 4. 22. Ibid., n. 77 (C., f. 10rb, ll. 11-20), see the following note. See Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 27vb, ll. 39-43, where the double creation, that of the heavens and the earth, must symbolise the ‘double being’ of creatures. 23. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed. (collated text): Nota, quod omnis creatura dupliciter [C: duplex] habet esse: unum in causis suis originalibus, saltem in verbo Dei, et hoc est esse firmum et stabile. Propter quod scientia corruptibilium est incorruptibilis, firma et stabilis; scitur enim res in suis causis. Aliud [add. C: est] esse rerum extra, in rerum natura, quod habent res in forma propria. Primum est esse virtuale, secundum est [add. C: esse] formale, quod plerumque infirmum et variabile. Et fortasse iste sunt aque superiores et inferiores, inter quas dividit firmamentum, quia superiores sunt firme et stabiles, in quo dividuntur, id est distinguntur, ab inferioribus. 24. Ibid., pp.  62-63, n. 78, collated with C., f. 10rb, ll. 33-38: Premissis alludit quod dicit Augustinus, Contra Achademicos, Platonem sensisse duos esse mundos: unum intellectualem, in quo ipsa veritas habitat, alium sensibilem, quem manifestum esse [C: est] nos visu tactuque sentire; illum verum, hunc verisimilem et ad illius ymaginem factum. St Augustine, Contra Academicos, III, c. 17 (PL 32, col. 954). Cf. Timaeus, 28 a. 25. Ibid., p.  63, and C., ll. 39-40: Et hoc est quod Boetius dicit: ‘cuncta superno ducis ab exemplo,’ ut habitum est supra. De consolatione philosophiae, III, metr. 9 (PL 63, col. 758).

44

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

means by esse virtuale, speaks of the virtual existence of forms in Averroes’ natural movement of the sun and the stars.26 This pulling together of concepts, which thus presupposes in Eckhart’s writings a fertile ground for ‘interconnected Platonisms’,27 will serve to help us to discover the truth that the German theologian believed to be found in revelation. Platonic dualism requires us to consider things not just in their changing being, totally apart from the Cause which generated them, but also in their original Cause, beyond the opposition between interior and exterior, between Cause and effect, between active and passive aspects of production. In other words, the duality of the virtual and formal being of substances causes us to search for the first principle of divine production at a level superior to that where God 26. Ibid., pp.  63-64, n. 83, and C., f. 10va, ll. 16-27: 4°, posset etiam dici, quod aque super celos et sub celo dicuntur propter duplex esse rerum, de quo prius dictum est: unum virtute, aliud formale extra. Predictis attestatur quod Conmentator, super XII Metaphysice, dicit omnes formas huius mundi esse virtute in motore celi. Rursus notandum, quod esse virtute sive virtuale est longe nobilius et prestancius quam esse rerum formale. Et hoc notat li ‘super’: ‘super celos sunt’ vel ‘super celo sunt’, quia in motore celi sive orbis primi sunt quantum ad illud esse. Motor autem super celos est ordine essencialis causalitatis et necessitatis [C: nature]. Cf. Averroes, in Arist. Op. omnia (Venice, 1552), VIII, f. 143va, ll. 44-60: Ergo calores generati ex caloribus stellarum, generantes quamlibet speciem specierum animalium, habent mensuras proprias illius caloris ex quantitatibus motuum stellarum et dispositionibus earum adinvicem in propinquitate et remotione. Et ista mensura provenit ab arte divina intellectuali, quae est similis uni formae unius artis principalis, sub qua sunt artes plures. Secundum hoc igitur est intelligendum quod natura facit aliquid perfecte et ordinate, quamvis non intelligat, quasi esset rememorata ex virtutibus agentibus nobilioribus ea, quae dicuntur intelligentiae. Istae autem proportiones et virtutes, quae fiunt in elementis a motibus solis et aliarum stellarum, sunt hae, quas reputat Plato esse formas, et eas intendit: sed longe respiciebat eas, quapropter dicit formas esse. Also see ibid., f. 149vb, ll. 60-66. 27. This expression of Étienne Gilson’s can be used in a very broad sense, which in the works of writers such as Eckhart, would not exclude even Averroes. It is irrelevant that the ‘commentator’ denies Plato’s ideal forms; it is enough that he recognises the abstract and potential being of forms in the soul of the craftsman, in order that he be named alongside Plato and Boethius as testifying to the ‘double being’ of creatures.

Nomen Omninominabile

45

appears as the Cause of the beings which He creates in conferring esse upon them. If the ‘name above all names’ is indeed fitting for the First Cause, then it must name it even at its deepest roots, in its very reason, where it is not yet a cause corresponding to effects. The ‘primary being’ of creatures in their ‘original causes’ is not a type of effect prior to creation, for it is co-essential with the Creative Cause, as the words of creation are the unique Word of God which utters them, making them resound externally. Alongside the image of the upper and lower waters, of the double creation of the heavens and the earth ‘in the beginning’,28 the sacred texts contain yet more expressions in which Meister Eckhart would also see a revelation of the duality proper to the concept of created being. Does Genesis not intend to point to this mode of double being, when it first shows us God saying – fiat firmamentum, and then adds: fecit Deus firmamentum? Here, fiat relates to the first esse, whereas fecit and factum est relate to the esse secundum extra.29 Again he makes use of the quotation from St John, quod factum est, in eo vita erat, and, in order to show how the same thing can exist in itself, which is to say, ‘in exterior manner’, as something made or created, all the while being within the Word according to the first esse, so far as it is ‘life’, Meister Eckhart gives the classic example of the arc30 in 28. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., C., f. 7va, ll. 22-29 (deest in E); Lib. Parabol. Gen., C., f. 27vb, ll. 39-49. 29. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed, LW I, p. 63, n. 78. C., f. 10rb, ll. 40-45. 30. A bit further up (ll. 30-33), we find the equivalent example with a house  – domus in mente artificis, which comes from Aristotle (Metaphysics, 1070 a and b) and is constantly used by St Thomas: ST, 1a, q. 15, a. 1; q. 18, ad 2m; ad 3m etc. Meister Eckhart prefers to quote the example of the archa in mente. Thus, he says, for example, in Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 8, n. 6: Arca enim in mente artificis non est arca, sed est vita et intelligere artificis, ipsius conceptio actualis. Meister Eckhart doubtless borrowed this example from St Augustine (see the passage of In Ioh. Evang., tr. 1, n. 17 [PL 35, col. 1387], mentioned in a note by Eckhart’s editors, LW III). We would also like to point out the example of the arca in the Latin translation of Averroes’ commentary on Book 12 of Metaphysics (Venice, 1552, vol. VIII, f. 149vb, ll. 51-53): Si igitur forma arcae quae est in anima artificis esset esse arcae, non moveretur ad agendam arcam. It is necessary to point out the strange and persistent aberration of certain critics who have transformed Meister Eckhart’s archa in mente (which has no other meaning than that of an example of

46

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

the artisan’s mind and work. The archa in mente artificis is not ‘made’ (or ‘created’, when this term is understood with reference to divine thought); in a way, it is life (vita quaedam sive quoddam vivere), since, for beings endowed with comprehension, ‘to know’ is ‘to live’ in the true and proper sense of the word, just as ‘to live’ is ‘to exist’ for all that is living.31 This presupposes an interlocking of being with life and of life with intellect, where it would seem that the only true mode of existence for a reasoning nature is knowledge.32 The object known or perceived in the spirit (archa in mente) thus receives the mode of existence of the knowing subject: in the subject it is intellectualiter, in a way more noble than it exists in its own nature, in matter.33 If this is how it is for human thought, then it is all the more true when it applies to the Divine Word, where the creature is intellectually present, in virtute causae suae, in a non-formal manner, intellectualiter

intentional being) into a spiritual or even ‘mystical’ reality, identifying it with the aliquid in anima, the abditum mentis, the uncreated depth, the spark etc. We were surprised to discover the source of this error, which has become quite common, in Grabmann’s work (Neuaufgefundene Pariser Quaestionen [Munich, 1927], pp. 85-87). This passage from this eminent historian of medieval thought has given credence to the myth of the ‘uncreated spiritual arch’, which other critics accepted without questioning the true significance of the expression archa in mente in the Latin works of Meister Eckhart. Thus, della Volpe speaks of the ‘increabilità della stessa arca spirituale, del fondo dell’ anima’ and of the ‘eterodossa concezione eckartiana dell’ arca mistica’ (Il misticismo speculativo, pp. 137 and ff.). We shall return to this question later, when we examine Meister Eckhart’s teaching on the human intellect. 31. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p.  63, n. 78 (C., f. 10rb, ll. 46-52): Ipsum enim quod in se est extra, utpote factum sive creatum, in ipso verbo est vita, quantum ad primum esse, sicut archa extra in materia est facta, in mente [add. C: autem artificis] non est facta, sed vita quedam sive quoddam vivere. Cognoscere siquidem proprie et vere vivere est cognoscentibus et vivere esse. 32. This conception of intelligere, vivere, esse depends on Proposition 12 of Liber de causis (ed. Steele, p. 171; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 2, p. 175): Primorum omnium quedam sunt in quibusdam per modum quo licet ut sit unum eorum in alio. 33. See ST, IIa, IIae, q. 23, a. 6, ad 1um: Ea autem quae sunt infra animam, nobiliori modo sunt in anima quam in seipsis: quia unumquodque est in aliquo per modum eius in quo est, ut habetur in Lib. de causis (prop. XII).

Nomen Omninominabile

47

as something ‘uncreatable’, above the nature determined by the forms which created entia have within their own natures.

The Word without Words The ontological duality that is tied up with the very conception of created reality, which is exterior to the Creative Cause but founded virtually in the mind of the Divine Craftsman, cannot, of course, affect the unity of the Word within which the eternal reasons of creatures coincide with the single Reason which presides over their exterior production. Nevertheless, in as much as it involves the relationship with regard to created beings, it would seem that the concept we have of the Word begins to polarise to some extent, yet without entirely being divided from, in its exterior and interior aspects, audible and silent, the very Word of God itself. ‘Observe’,34 says Eckhart, that those waters (those waters above the firmament) most perfectly and most properly bless the Word of God, for in Him they never cease to bless and to praise in silence, without any external word and above all time, blessing the Word which resides in the silence of the Paternal Intellect, the Word without words, or rather  – above all that is a word. The virtual being of all things in the Divine Word maintains its grandeur by virtue of the fact that the Word Himself subsists in the Intellect of the Father, where He rests ‘in silence’, not proceeding out as the Productive Cause of created beings. This silent Word, ‘Word without words’, superior to every external utterance, containing all creative words, the fiat, the eternal reasons or ideas of creatures, thus 34. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p.  62, n. 77 (C., f., 10rb, ll. 23-30): Aque enim ille sunt [add. E: aque] in virtute cause sue non aque formaliter sive in forma propria. Et nota quod ille aque perfectissime et propriissime benedicunt verbum Dei, in quo in silentio, sine verbo exteriori et super tempus, laudant et benedicunt verbum Dei, in quo in silentio, sine verbo exteriori et super tempus, laudant et benedicunt semper verbum quod est in silentio paterni intellectus, verbum sine verbo, aut pocius super omne verbum.

48

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

also reside, if not virtually, at least internally, in the silence of the Paternal Intellect. Even if He proceeds from the Father, the Word by no means remains any less in the Divine Intellect as the ‘reason’ according to which the Father generates Him. With regard to this, Meister Eckhart reminds us that the Greek word λόγος means, in Latin, not only verbum, but also ratio.35 The example of the archa in mente artificis thus could also be applied, in a certain sense, to the Word of God, although the exterior esse secundum, which creatures receive, remains apart from Him insofar as He is not incarnated. In effect, the Son or Word remains one with the Father or Principle, with whom He is essentially identical: He is apud Deum and not sub Deo. By contrast, creatures, who are ‘analogical beings’, once being generated, find themselves endowed with an exterior esse and are no longer co-natural with the Principle: they are inferior to Him, they ‘descend’ from Him who has generated them, so that they are sub principio, non apud ipsum.36 Despite this distinction between the generation, which ‘does not pass into non-being’ (non transit in non esse),37 and creation, which is a descent from primum esse, the procession of the Word and that of the creature from the same Principle, where the two exist as the ‘reason’ of their production, are found to be brought together in the teaching of Meister Eckhart, so much so that he was accused of professing belief in the eternity of creation.38 The interior aspect of the Word – sine verbo or super omne verbum – recalls the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος of the Stoics, of Philo, and several early Christian theologians. Referring to St Augustine,39 Eckhart makes a 35. Exp. in Io., LW III, p.  6, n. 4: Quarto notandum, quod procedens est in producente sicut ratio et similitudo, in qua et ad quam producitur procedens a producente. Et hoc est quod Graecus habet: ‘In principio erat verbum’, id est logos, quod latine est verbum et ratio. Compare Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p. 49, n. 3 (C., f. 6ra, ll. 46-50). 36. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 7, n. 6. 37. Ibid., p. 8, n. 8. 38. See the first three condemned articles (nn. 501-3  in Denzinger, Enchirid. symbol.), but especially the third: Item simul et semel quando Deus fuit, quando Filium sibi coaeternum per omnia aequalem Deum genuit, etiam mundum creavit. See the proceedings of the Cologne trial, published by Théry, Archives, I, p.  174. The third condemned proposition was taken from Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p. 5, n. 7, and C., f. 6va, ll. 3-5. 39. De diversis quaestionibus, LXXXIII, q. 63 (PL 40, col. 54).

Nomen Omninominabile

49

terminological distinction between the Greek Λόγος and the Latin Verbum: the first of these terms, which above all means ‘reason’, refers uniquely to the relationship between the second person of the Trinity and the Father, whereas the second term at the same time refers to the relationship of the Son towards created beings, to all that which the Word creates by an ‘operative power’.40 Does this distinction mean, then, that the Word ‘offered’ by the Father would have in Himself a different mode of being than that which He had in the Divine Intellect as ‘reason’ (= Λόγος)? If it were so, then, like created beings, the Word would have virtual being in the Principle, and, in Himself, something analogous to the esse formale, insofar as he is a constituted Person, generated from the Father or proceeding from the Principle. One could thus be tempted to interpret Eckhart’s statement in the following manner: The Son does not exist in the world and in the Father in the same mode. In the Father, He exists as Reason which is not created. This is why the Son knows the Father; in the world He exists as esse, and this is why ‘the world was made by Him and yet has not known Him at all’.41 If the Λόγος προφορικός of Meister Eckhart is, with relation to the world that He creates, non sub proprietate verbi sive rationis et intellectus cognoscentis, sed sub proprietate esse, then it must be asked what is this being of the Son in the world that differentiates Him from that which He is in the Divine Intellect? The range of authorities commenting on the Gospel of St John is even more explicit on this point, as we see here: filius est in patre ut verbum et ratio, et propter hoc filius novit patrem, Mat. 11:27, in mundo autem non est proprie ut ratio, sed ut esse et factum esse, et propter hoc ‘mundus eum non cognoscit’ (Io. 1:10).42 Would the Word exist virtually in God, as do other creatures, and then, as soon as He is generated by the Father, would He then receive formal being also? Would He be God in the Father and a creature in the world? 40. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 22, n. 28. 41. Ibid., p.  37, n. 45: Sed notandum quod filius in patre est verbum, id est ratio, quae non facta est; sed ipse idem filius in mundo est non iam sub proprietate verbi sive rationis et intellectus cognoscentis, sed sub proprietate esse. Et propter hoc mundus per ipsum factus est, sed ipsum non cognovit. Et hoc est quod hic dicitur: in principio, id est patre, erat verbum; sed infra dicitur: ‘in mundo erat et mundus per ipsum factus est et mundus eum non cognovit’. Et post, septimo: ‘pater iuste, mundus te non cognovit, ego autem te cognovi’. 42. C., f. 85rb, ll. 23-25.

50

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

The difficulty presented by the texts which have just been quoted is explained in Liber parabolarum Genesis, in which Meister Eckhart returns to the primary ‘authority’ of the Bible, in order to examine once again double divine production: Prima productio sive emanatio Filii et Spiritus sancti a Patre aeternaliter; item, productio sive creatio generalis totius universi ab uno Deo temporaliter.43 The characteristic feature which pertains to this second production is something which can be observed in all the actions of natural agents which generate something outside themselves: this production departs or starts out from a ‘certain non-being’ and ends up in a ‘certain being’ (ex non ente aliquo et ad ens aliquod). Thus, a horse is generated from a ‘non-horse’, and ‘white’ comes from something which is not at all. The productive principle is defined here as the cause of a certain being, while that which is produced here bears the sense and the name of something that is ‘made’, of ‘made extra’ or of an ‘effect’. The very definition of the cause, according to Aristotle, points to the otherness of the effect, causa est ad quam sive ex qua sequitur aliud.44 The traits which characterise the efficiency of natural agents are to be found in the effects of the Divine Cause: generated outside the productive Principle, they present themselves as being either ‘created’ or as a ‘creature’. However, the ‘first production’, in divinis, is quite different in that it takes on a negative aspect with respect to the second production in that (1) it is not exterior to the producer, (2) its initial end is not nonbeing or nothingness, (3) its final end is not being. From this it follows that the Productive Principle, in divine emanation, is neither Creator nor Cause; that which It produces is neither ‘made’ nor ‘created’, nor is it an ‘effect’. Rather, it is a ‘procreation’ that is utterly immanent in its own principle, in which that which is produced is not ‘something else’ (aliud) with respect to the producer but, rather, remains one with it.45 Thus, we can already begin to understand what Meister Eckhart 43. Lib. Parabol. Gen., C., f. 26rb, ll. 4-7. 44. This concerns the third type of causes: efficiency or the principle of change. See Physics, II.3.194b, 29-32; Metaphysics, I.3.983a, 30. 45. Lib. Parabol. Gen., C., f. 26rb, ll. 8-28: Sciendum ergo quod in naturalibus, in omni actione sive productione que est ad extra producentem et que est ex non ente aliquo et ad ens aliquod, principium productionis habet rationem cause et ipsum quod producitur habet nomen et rationem facti et extra facti. Primum patet ex philosopho, qui ait: causa est ad quam sive ex qua sequitur aliud. Secundum patet ex ipso nomine, ‘effectus’ enim sonat ‘extra factus’ sive factum extra facientem.

Nomen Omninominabile

51

meant by the term ‘sub ratione esse production’: this is a transitive action which produces being out of non-being. Here, esse refers only to created being produced ex nihilo as a determined or specific ‘such being’ (ens hoc et hoc), which is entirely unlike esse simpliciter, which is common to divine persons, whose production does not involve a passage from non-being to being.46 If the ‘reason’ for God’s operative presence in his effects is esse, this exteriorised being is, then, the ‘first created reality’: creavit enim Deus, ut essent omnia (Wisdom 1:14).47 As for things which are produced in the exterior realm, drawn from non-being, they receive a certain (specific) being and are an imperfect productum, in which the producens is not fully manifested as He [God] is. Yet, all that is produced by a person is his ‘word’, his ‘locution’ or ‘utterance’, by which he proclaims himself, by which he manifests himself. To produce is to express oneself in words.48 Since there exist two different kinds of production, one could also speak of two different ‘words’: interior and Ex quo patet consequenter, quod tale productum habet rationem creati sive creature, tum quia producitur extra producentem, tum quia producitur ex non ente aliquo ad ens aliquod, puta ex non equo equus, album ex non albo. Ex hoc autem primo quod dictum est in naturalibus productionibus patet, quod in divinis productio sive emanacio omnis, cum non sit ad extra producentem, nec sit ex non ente sive ex nichilo, nec etiam tertio sit ad esse, hoc procreatum non habet rationem facti nec creati nec effectus, et producens non habet nomen aut rationem creatoris nec cause, et productum non est extra producentem nec aliud, sed unum cum producente. 46. Ibid., ll. 34-37: Creatio enim est productio ex nichilo. Celum et terra sunt ens hoc et hoc, filius autem et spiritus sanctus, ut dictum est, non sunt hoc et hoc sed esse simpliciter, totum et plenum esse, nec sunt ex nichilo. 47. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’. See Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., C., f. 7rb, ll. 19-25 (deest in E): Rursus 3°, resumendo quod dicitur In principio creavit Deus celum et terram, dicamus quod Deus creavit celum et terram in principio, id est in esse sive ad esse; id est creavit ut essent. Sapientie 7 °: Creavit ut essent omnia. Esse enim primum est et principium omnium intencionum sive perfectionum. De hoc diffuse notavi super Sapientiam, 7. See Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, pp. 338-64. 48. Lib. Parabol. Gen., C., f. 32va, ll. 47-52: productum universaliter est verbum sive locutio sui producentis, ipsum dicens et manifestans; et ipsum producens producendo loquitur suum productum et se manifestat

52

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

exterior. Essentially, a producer’s actions, the ‘speaking’ by which he manifests himself, is always twofold: (1) the expression which belongs to the essentialia interiora producentis is an action which is inseparable from its nature, an action without which the productive principle could not be that which it is; (2) on the other hand, the external action is produced or expressed outside the producer’s essence, unde sine ipso potest natura esse producentis et dicentis.49 This distinction also applies to the divine word which is, on one hand, the interior Word in which the Heavenly Father expresses and speaks His essence, and on the other hand, the created world, a kind of exteriorised word by which the same Father, without expressing perfectly that which He is, clearly makes known something of who He is. The interior Word, like a river which flows and remains within the interior of the ‘Principle’, does not proceed outside the substance of the Father, outside the One who is the First Person, as distinct from the exterior word which, being subject to change outside the One, is not a divine person: extra unum cum Patre est, sub Uno est, creatus est.50 External production, et pandit per productum, in producto et in ipsa productione; et producere est suum dicere. 49. Ibid., C., f. 32va, l. 59-f. 32vb, l. 8: Secundo advertendum, quod principium communiter habet actus duos quos principiat et loquitur sive dicit, et se in ipsis pandit et manifestat. Unum quidem exteriorem, qui foris stat et extra, qui propter quod et exterior dictus est; non enim pertinet ad essencialia interiora producentis, unde sine ipso potest natura esse producentis et dicentis. Alius autem actus est interior, sine quo non stat principium productionis, nec umquam ab illo separatur, sicut nec calor ab igne; propter quod interiorque dicitur, quasi intra essencialia computandus. Meister Eckhart gives an example of an interior action, which is very typical of his spiritual and moral teachings. The poor man’s generosity is not seen in exterior acts of charity but, rather, he says, it is an interior action which ‘nunquam quiescit nec cessat quinymmo sine ipso mortua est virtus’. Faith, which is ‘dead without works’, according to James (2:26), is understood in the same sense: quantum ad interiorem actum, qui est credere (ibid. f. 32vb, ll. 9-16). 50. Ibid., C., f. 32vb, ll. 20-33: Hiis igitur premissis, patet manifeste quod pater celestis id quod est et sui ipsius essentiam pandit manifestat, dicit et loquitur verbo et actu interiori qui est dicere et verbum, quod est fluvius intus manens, in principio, apud patrem, non foris aut extra procedens, extra subtantiam patris, extra unum quod patri appropriatur. … Actu vero exteriori, hoc ipso quod est exterior, est extra essentiam producentis procedens, extra unum cum patre est, sub uno est, creatus est. Et propter

Nomen Omninominabile

53

Meister Eckhart’s proffered word, is thus the created universe, to the extent that it manifests the omnipotence of God. However, divine action itself remains unique and perfect: in His interior Word, God utters all things and speaks to everyone, but ‘those who are not capable of hearing Him will hear Him only in part’, according to St Augustine.51 To ‘hear’ God is to receive created being from Him, even if it be only partial, fragmented and insufficient for manifesting the essential being and the ‘reasons’ which all things possess in the unity of the Paternal Intellect. This imperfect manifestation is, then, an exterior resonance of the ‘silent Word’, which is given voice only insofar as it is perceived by the created faculty of hearing, the sub ratione esse which the creature receives from divine efficiency. This is why the creature has not known the Son, who is present in the world ‘under the property of being’. Meister Eckhart does not make clear if he understands this presence of the Son in the world to be the ‘operative power’ of the Word,52 imperfectly manifested by created being, or the Person of the incarnate Son which the world has not known or recognised in His Divinity. Certainly, Eckhart’s thought ought to reconcile these two meanings, which elsewhere we find merged together in one passage of Expositio sancti Evangelii secundum Iohannem, where he speaks of the recompense of the age to come. Knowledge of the Divinity is spoken of as constituting the praemium essentiale of the blessed, but hoc in ipso et per ipsum pater non dicit id quod est perfecte sed aliquid sui, secundum illud Iob, 36 (25): ‘Omnes vident eum, unusquisque intuetur procul.’ 51. The text from Job (see the previous note) finishes with a reference to Dionysius (I Epist. [PG 3, col. 1065]), which provides a visual metaphor of the imperfect reception of the divine manifestation in the otherness of creation. The metaphor taken from Augustine (a compilation of two texts: Confessions, X.6.10, and X.26.37 [ed. Belles Lettres, vol. 2, pp. 247 and 268]; cf. LW III, p. 68, n. 1) expresses the same idea through the notion of sound, which better fits the context of the Word. Ibid. (following the previously cited passage in note 50 above), ll. 33-37: Et Dyonisius dicit per sententiam quod qui putant se Deum videre, si bene considerent, non ipsum sed aliquid sui vident. Et Augustinus dicit quod omnibus loquitur et omnia, sed non omnes audiunt nec omnia, secundum illud Mat. (II, 15; 13, 9): ‘Qui habet aures audiendi, audiat.’ 52. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’, note 40.

54

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

they shall also receive a praemium accidentale, by coming to know creatures in Jesus Christ, who was sent into the world.53 If the true knowledge of creatures belongs to the realm of promises of eternal life, it is because one can truly know created beings only by linking them to their uncreated ‘reasons’, which coincide with the unique ‘Reason’ or the Word, in the silence of the Paternal Intellect, and appear as diverse and audible only with relation to beings which are externally produced by the Divine Cause. The same Word, while remaining one with the Father, who is the ultimate One, thus receives an aspect of multiplicity, insofar as the ‘reasons’ of creatures shine in all things and render them comprehensible, without being ‘understood’ by the darkness of created being.54 From the dualistic perspective of Divine Cause and created effects, it is also impossible to know creatures in their eternal reasons without knowing Christ in the unity of Homo assumptus and the Word. In conclusion, we can say that, if one wishes to speak of the Λόγος προφορικός in Meister Eckhart’s works, that it is not really to be distinguished from the notion of ‘interior Reason’, other wise, the ‘exterior word’ would refer to the creature which praises the Lord externally,55 thus creating an audible and polynymous response to that which remains silent and unified within itself. Interior praise, as we have seen, is performed in silence, ‘without any external word’, because, within their interior reasons, created beings know only the Verbum sine verbo, aut potius super omne verbum.56 Does this negative 53. Exp. in Io., C., f. 122ra, l. 53-f. 122rb, l. 2: Secundum notandum, quod beatorum distinguitur duplex premium, essentiale et accidentale. Premium essentiale consistit in cognitione divinitatis, accidentale vero in cognitione creaturarum, secundum illud infra, 17° (3): ‘hec est vita eterna, ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum’, quantum ad primum, ‘et quem misisti Ihesum Christum’, quantum ad secundum. Ad quod etiam referri potest illud Mat. 6° (33): ‘primum querite regnum Dei,’ et sequitur: ‘et omnia adicientur vobis,’ quantum ad secundum. 54. It is in this sense that Meister Eckhart understands the text of St John 1:5: et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae non comprehenderunt eam. See Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 11-12, nn. 11 and 12. 55. The word Dominus, as opposed to Deus, presupposes an externalisation and a relationship with created beings. Cf. Lib. Parabol. Gen., C., f. 32va, ll. 43-44: Dominus autem magis proprie dicitur ex tempore, quo enim creatura esse cepit et creator et dominus dicitur Deus. 56. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’.

Nomen Omninominabile

55

expression oblige us, then, to attribute the ‘Name above all names’ to the Word, which would then have to refer to the First Cause in its very principle in divinis? Or, instead, should the unique name which comprises and gathers together all names apply to the first principle of all divine ‘production’, to the common source of the generation of the Son and the creation of the world?

Semel Locutus Est Deus, Duo haec Audivi Notions of causality cannot be applied to trinitarian relations.57 The Word which proceeds from the Father or which is produced by the Father is not an effect (effectus = extra factus);58 it is not ‘taken out’ (educitur) or ‘produced into the exterior’ (extraducitur), as is the case with creatures, whose own being derives from the efficacy of a divine cause. The Son and the Holy Spirit are not produced outside the One to whom they are identical, because they remain in unity with the Father, to whom Meister Eckhart thus attributes the name of the One.59 ‘Every thing that the One produces’, Meister Eckhart says, which is not an effect or an exterior production, is necessarily one; it resides within the One, in no way being realised or made outside. It remains prior to that which is made, preceding it by its very nature; it remains undivided 57. In their polemical debate on the procession of the Holy Spirit, the Latins were constantly admonishing the Greeks for their usage of the term ‘cause’ in trinitarian theology. For example, see St Thomas (Ia, q. 33, a. 1, ad 1um): Dicendum quod Graeci utuntur, in divinis, indifferenter nomine causae, sicut et nomine principii: sed latini Doctores non utuntur nomine causae, sed solum nomine principii. Cf. Contra errores Graecorum, 1. 58. Lib. Parabol. Gen., C., f. 26rb, ll. 15-16. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’, note 45. 59. Ibid., f. 26va, ll. 16-25: Hinc est primo, quod in divinis is qui procedit et producitur, sed non educitur aut extraducitur, extra unum scilicet, – puta filius spiritus sanctus, qui non sunt extra unum sed sunt idipsum quod unum et ipsa una unitas, – non sunt effectus patris cui unitas attribuitur, nec sunt facti nec effecti, quasi extra unum et extra patrem facti. Propter quod in ipsis non cadit divisio, nec extraneitas, nec quippiam implicans quidquam premissorum.

56

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology from the One, always being one with the One, one by virtue of the One, by the One and in the One, because it exists in unity, in entity, in wisdom and in all other similar properties which remain in the interior, being produced but not made, nor being something ‘other’ or created.60

This exaltation of the One, followed by several references to Neo-Platonic sources,61 is included at this point in order to provide a philosophical justification for the Christian dogma of substantiality; however much they may proceed from the One, the Son and the Holy Spirit nevertheless remain within the One, in which there is no kind of number or multiplicity, as Boethius 60. Ibid., ll. 6-13: Omne quod unum producit non ut effectum sive extra factum ipsum necessario est unum, utpote manens in uno, non effectum sive extra factum, sed ante factum, prius natura facto, non divisum ab uno sed unum cum uno, ab uno, per unum et in uno unum, inquantum in unitate, entitate, sapientia et omnibus similibus que intra manet, producta quidem sed non facta, nec aliud nec creata. See, in general, the whole development of the idea of production within the One and outside the One, until the end of the ‘prima expositio’, f. 26rb, l. 1-f. 27rb, l. 39. 61. In order to establish the absolutely indivisible nature of the One, foreign to all that is multiple, Eckhart cites: (1) Boethius, De Trinitate, I.2 (PL 64, col. 1250c); (2) Proclus, The Elements of Theology, 1st proposition (ed. Dodds, p. 2); and (3) Macrobius, Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis, I.1.6, ed. F. Eyssenhardt (Leipzig: Teubner, 1893), pp.  496-97: (1)  … manent in uno, in quo nullus numerus est, ut ait boetius (C., f. 26va, ll. 32-33); (2) … sic enim et unum sive unitas non dividitur in numeris, sed numeros in se unit, secundum illud procli principium: omnis multitudo participat aliqualiter uno. Omnis enim numerus unus numerus est, non minus mille quam octo [C., f. 26va, l. 57-f. 26vb, l. 1]; (3) Macrobius etiam sic ait: Unum, quod unitas dicitur, idem mas et femina, idem par atque impar, non numerus sed fons omnium numerorum. Cumque non sit ipsa numerus nec numerabilis, innumerabiles tamen species numerorum de se creat et intra se continet. Nullum init tamen cum sua unitate divortium. Vult dicere quod unum sive unitas non dividitur, nec numeratur in numeris sive numeratis, sed numeros et numerate in se colligit et unit. Et hoc est quod hic dicitur in singulari Deus (C., f. 26vb, ll. 2-11). See Exp. in Sap., in Archives, IV, 25253, where Meister Eckhart comments on the text: Et cum sit una, omnia potest (7:27).

Nomen Omninominabile

57

stated.62 This means that, while He produces the other two persons of the Trinity, the Father is not their cause,63 since causality presupposes that the product is in some way external to the principle which produced it, thus, bringing about division and number, which are both incompatible with the One. All that proceeds from the One by means of any reason other than unity cannot remain co-essential with the One; thus, every thing which becomes exterior to the One inevitably falls into plurality and, above all, primo casu sive exitu et processu ab Uno, collapses into duality,64 which is the first characteristic of created being, ‘the origin of all division, plurality and number’.65 In the same way, creation, 62. St Thomas makes use of this text from Boethius in his first objection to the question, Utrum in Deo sit aliquis numerus (I Sent., d. 24, q. 1, a. 2). He responds as follows: Ad primum igitur dicendum, quod Boetius loquitur de unitate essentiali; et in essentia nullus numerus cadit, sed tantum in personis, qui etiam non est numerus absolute sed numerus quidam (ed. Mandonnet, vol. 1, pp.  577 and 579). In the preceding article, he distinguishes between ‘unum quod convertitur cum ente’ and ‘unum quod est principium numeri’ (ibid., p.  576). For Meister Eckhart, the same ontological One appears as a principle of numbers, insofar as multiplicity, while being opposed to the One in its passive aspect of exterior production, does not cease to participate in the unicity of each number (see the reference to Proclus in the preceding note). Being attributed to the Father, the One must exclude the notion of numbers not only in essence but just as much in trinitarian relations. We shall return to this question in our examination of Eckhart’s doctrine of the Trinity. 63. Lib. Parabol. Gen., C., f. 26va, ll. 35-38: procedunt ab uno, sed non cedunt nec recedunt ab uno; unde divina non sunt facta nec creata, priora hiis, nec pater est causa istorum. 64. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., C., f. 7va, ll. 40-43 (deest in E): Rursus, omne quod cadit ab uno primo omnium cadit in duo immediate, in alios autem numeros cadit mediate (sic) dualitate – 2a ed., C., f. 26rb, l. 56-f. 26va l. 2: procedens extra rationem unum necessario cadit in plura. Et primo casu sive exitu et processu ab uno cadit in duo et duo tantum. Ratio istorum patet ex supra dicto: enim in uno hoc ipso et hoc solo est unum; ergo cadens ab uno et procedens extra unum, utpote decisum et distinctum ab uno, iam non est unum. 65. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., C., f. 7va, l. 53-f. 7vb, l. 2 (deest in E): Adhuc autem radix omnis divisionis, pluralitatis et numeri est primum par, scilicet duo, sicut indivisionis radix et ratio est impar sive unum.

58

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

from the perspective of God, is a collatio esse, which therefore must involve, from the perspective of created being, a moment of falling,66 a distancing from perfect being. This recessus ab Uno expresses itself through a splitting into two parts: heaven and earth,67 or, to use another scriptural image, the higher and lower waters, separated by the firmament. Eckhart makes the observation that the work of the second day of creation, unlike other created effects, is not described as being viewed as ‘good’. This is because the firmament points to the separation between ideal reasons and the formal being of creatures; it gives rise to a binary reality, which is itself at the root of all division. Division is itself evil, for it is a ‘fall from the One’, and thus a distancing from Being and from Goodness, which are to be seen as equivalent to the One. Thus, it would be incorrect to describe as ‘good’ that which is essentially a fall into ‘evil’.68 66. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 26va, ll. 2-6: Sic ergo, quemadmodum unum omne quod producit in effectu, quasi extra facto, necessario cadit extra unum ex parte producti et cadit in numerum, in divisionem, sic econverso etc. 67. Ibid., f. 26vb, ll. 14-18: Idcirco primus casus et recessus ab uno est in duo et duo tantum. Et hoc est quod hic dicitur: ‘In principio’, id est primo, ‘creavit Deus celum et terram’; ‘Deus’, unus scilicet, ‘creavit celum et terram’, scilicet duo quedam. 68. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, pp.  64-65, n. 88 (C., f. 10rb, ll. 11-23). In the second edition Meister Eckhart wonders why the other days of creation, which are even more distanced or remote from the One, nevertheless receive the divine blessing (C., f. 30ra, ll. 23-42): Dixit quoque Deus: fiat firmamentum. Quinta auctoritas primi capituli. Hoc secundo die factum legitur. Ubi hoc solum querendum nunc occurrerit, quod, cum de opera huius diei non sit dictum quod esset bonum, eo quod binarius recessus est et casus ab uno et per consequens ab ente et a bono, que tria idipsum sunt et convertuntur, quo modo ergo ternarius et quaternarius, quinarius et senarius, cum longius recedant et plus deserant unum, ens et bonum, merentur ut factum in ipsis dicatur bonum? … Ad primum videtur dicendum dupliciter. Primo, quia omnia que dividuntur, ratione duorum sive dualitatis et binarii dividuntur, sicud supra ostensum est, hoc 1° capitulo. Et diffuse de hoc notavi in prima editione. Sic ergo, quia omnis numerus divisionem et recessum sive casum ab uno sortitur a binario, hinc est quod binario proprie competit primo et per se casus ab uno, ab ente et a bono. Secundo posset dici, quod omnis numerus sequens binarium non proprie cadit ab uno, nec per consequens a bono, sed cadit a numero diviso [Ms.: indiviso] ab

Nomen Omninominabile

59

Th is aspect of falling and of a separation from the Esse would cause Meister Eckhart to say that in themselves creatures are ‘pure nothingness’,69 and it accompanies all created effects, all production which is exterior to the One, all that which is ex nihilo. However, duality, which belongs to the passive aspect of creation, in no way affects the Productive Cause in itself, the operation which confers being upon non-being. God creates ex nihilo, but not in nihilo:70 He creates in principio, which is to say, in Himself.71 The principle whereby God created every thing is ‘ideal reason’. In Meister Eckhart’s works, this expression refers equally to the person of the Word, the Son qui est ymago et ratio ydealis,72 as it does to the ideas of created beings, their ‘quiddities’ or exemplary causes.73 In producing the Word, the Father thus simulta neously speaks forth the eternal reasons of things by a single interior action, which remains identical in God and cannot be distinguished except on the exterior, where this singular action appears as the duality of generation and creation, a juxtaposition between In principio erat Verbum (John 1:1) and In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram (Genesis 1:1). By making the creative operation into an interior act of God, Meister Eckhart is trying to liberate the creative act from all that is duality, thus, from any imperfection, recessus ab Uno. Th is obliges him to determine the creative words and the Word, the act by which God uno; cadere autem a divisione, numero et malo non habet rationem mali sed potius boni. Verbi gratia, ternarius non cadit proprie ab uno quod cum bono convertitur, sed cadit immediate a duobus sive a binario, qui infamis est nec nomen boni meretur. 69. Article 26, which was condemned as being ‘suspected of heresy’ (Denzinger, n. 526). See below, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Oppositio Nihil Mediatione Entis’. 70. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 43va, ll. 20-27: Preterea actio, sicut et motus, habet naturam et nomen a termino in quem. Item, omne quod quis agit in nichilo est nichil et fit nichil. Io. I°: ‘sine ipso factum est nichil.’ Aliud est enim facere ex nichilo, aliud est facere in nichilo. Cum enim dico aliquid fleri ex nichilo, aliquid est facere ex nichilo, li ‘nichilo’ est terminus a quo, in esse est terminus ad quem. Econverso autem cum dicitur aliquid fieri in nichilo. 71. Prol. gener. in Op. tripart., Opera Latina II (ed. Bascour), pp.  15-16; Lateinischen Werke I, pp. 39-40, n. 17 (solely according to Ms. E). 72. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p. 50, n. 5; C., f. 6rb, ll. 19-21. 73. Ibid., pp. 49-50, nn. 3 and 4; f. 6ra, l. 43-f. 6rb, l. 19.

60

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

creates in se ipso and the eternal act of generation. It is from this line of argument that the condemned proposition derives: Simul enim et semel quo Deus fuit, quo Filium sibi coaeternum, per omnia aequalem Deum, genuit, etiam mundum creavit.74 One and the same divine utterance proclaims the Word and creates the world. Th is Word is unique, God does not repeat it at all, as is written in the Book of Job (33:14).75 However, even if God only speaks once in the interior, where His Word remains silent (‘The Word without words’, ‘in the silence of the Paternal Intellect’), yet He is heard twice in the exterior realm, as is written in Psalm 61:12: semel locutus est Deus, duo haec audivi. The divine double utterance which is heard outside the One signifies heaven and earth, which is to say, the eternal reasons in God and the formal being of creatures. ‘Or rather’, adds Meister Eckhart, ‘these two things signify the emanation of divine persons and the creation of the world, which God proclaims but once.’76

74. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’, note 38. Meister Eckhart responds to the rebuke that he had thus professed the eternity of the created world by distinguishing between the active aspect and the passive aspect of creation: Creatio siquidem et omnis actio Dei est ipsa essentia Dei. Nec tamen ex hoc sequitur, si Deus creavit mundum ab eterno, quod propter hoc mundus sit ab eterno, ut inperiti putant. Creatio enim passio non est eterna, sicut nec ipsum creatum est eternum. (Archives, I, p. 194). This response makes no distinction in divinis between the procession of persons and the ‘interior’ act of the creation. As far as God is concerned, it is all the same operation which is inherent to the One. 75. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed, LW I, p.  51, n. 7; C., f. 6va, ll. 5-8: Iob, 33 (14): ‘Semel loquitur Deus.’ Loquitur autem filium generando, quia filius est verbum. Loquitur etiam creaturam creando, Psalmus (148:5): ‘dixit et facta sunt, mandavit et creata sunt’. 76. Ibid. (continuation); C., f. 6va, ll. 8-13: Hinc est quod in alio Psalmo [C. add.: sic] dicitur: ‘semel locutus est Deus, duo hec audivi’. Duo inquam, celum et terram, vel potius duo hec, scilicet personarum emanationem et mundi creacionem, que tamen ipse semel loquitur, semel locutus est. Meister Eckhart often uses this ‘authority’ (Psalm 61:21). Thus, for example, he says in Exp. in Io. (LW III, p. 61, n. 73): quia una actione generat filium qui est heres, lux de luce, et creat creaturam quae est tenebra, creata, facta, non filius, nec heres luminis, illuminationis et creationis.

Nomen Omninominabile

61

The One – ‘The Name above All Names’ We have seen above77 that the ‘superior waters’, or creatures in their virtual being in God, bless the Silent Word in silence, sine verbo exteriori, because He alone is ‘Reason’, beyond any ‘word’, in the Paternal Intellect. This means that the Word, inasmuch as He is consubstantial with the Father, identical to the One by His very essence, cannot be named: He remains ineffable since He is the divine essence. Interior praise, in the heart of the One, is silent, for it excludes all divine names, even that of the One, being, as it is, addressed to the anonymous Essence which cannot be even referred to except by the paradox of the nomen innominabile. By contrast, exterior praise, that offered by creatures which exist outside the One, is expressed by a polynymy which must eventually come together in a single name, the ‘name above all names’. This supreme name, says Meister Eckhart, is that of the One.78 Unum is, thus, the nomen omninominabile, superior to all other divine names and gathering them together into a unified excellence, where the omnia can no longer be distinguished from each other and are, instead, identified with the Essence in the One. Eckhart, as we have seen,79 refers to the Liber de causis in order to ascribe to the First Cause this nomen super omne nomen which, far from excluding them, actually then furnishes us generously with the multitude of divine names. Since this name is the One, it refers to the First Cause in its origin, transcending the opposition of cause and effect, in the initial source of divine action, where it is not the Cause but the First Principle of all interior and exterior production. According to Meister Eckhart, the principle of divine polynymy is, thus, superior to the kind of causality, which externalises all that which permits us to name God according to His created effects. Or, to put it differently, before becoming exteriorised as the First Cause, the singular action of God has no other reason but that of the One, which

77. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’. 78. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p.  64, n. 84 (C., f. 10va, ll. 33-39): 4° notandum quod hoc modo omnis creatura ab externo benedicit domino, et benedicit omni nomine, quia nomine quod est super omne nomen, et [add. C: super omne-unum, et] per consequens prehabet omne nomen; prehabet, inquam, omne, utpote unum; prehabet omne nomen, inquantum est super nomen. 79. See p. 36, note 4.

62

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

is the principle of the procession of divine persons, of this interior production which is the ‘preamble to creation’.80 Dionysius’ polynymy was founded upon the notion of divine causality, but for him the principle at the heart of the First Cause is Goodness, which presides over all manifest processions.81 For the author of The Divine Names, the name ‘Good’ (ὰγαθονυμία), the first and foremost of God’s attributes, superior even to the name ‘Being’, extends not only to all that exists, but also to all that does not exist.82 According to Meister Eckhart, the whole variety and range of divine names, all that could be considered as the ‘external praise’ offered by created beings, comes together in the One, the single name which must be superior to all others: et super omne – Unum, et per consequens praehabet omne nomen.83 It is thus the One, and not the Good, which is the first principle of divine productibility. Here, yet again, the German theologian diverges from the position of Dionysius. As the Cause of all that exists, Dionysius’ God exists solely by virtue of His Goodness. The ὰγαθότης, which makes the transcendent ‘Thearchy’ a Creator God, highlights the very gratuity of creation, as well as the personal character of a God who is more than simply ‘the One’. Truly, if the name of a Deity which surpasses all names could even be properly expressed, it would have to bring together both trinity and unity.84 For Dionysius, the ‘anonymous name’ must then apply to the trinitarian God in His absolute transcendence, beyond all affirmations and negations, while in the immanence of manifestations, His supreme name would be that of Good, the principle of all names which reveal the Thearchy in all that the Thearchy is not, according to its inaccessible supra-essence. Pseudo-Dionysius is thus faithful to the tradition of the Greek Fathers, for whom ‘theology’, properly so called, has as its very object the divine ‘Uni-Trinity’. If, in the writings which form the 80. Exp. in Ex., LW I, p.  99, n. 16 (C., f. 42rb, ll. 41-42): …emanatio personarum in divinis ratio est et previa creatonis. 81. De div. nom., I.5 and IV.1 (PG 3, cols 593 and 693-96). 82. Ibid., V.1 (col. 816). 83. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The One  – ‘The Name above All Names”, note 78. 84. De div. nom., XIII.3 (cols 980d-81). Concerning this subject, see the proceedings of our conference at the College of Philosophy in March 1953: Apophaticism and Trinitarian Theology.

Nomen Omninominabile

63

Corpus known by his pseudonym, Dionysius only very rarely speaks of the Trinity,85 it is because the only treatise on ‘theology’ which we have of his is the Mystical Theology, which is clearly a presentation of the negative way; in that work the terms ‘trinity’ and ‘unity’ are presented in terms of their insufficiency, limited by the impossibility of created understanding coming to know God as He is in Himself. However, it is not the impersonal ‘One’ but the ‘superessential, more than divine and more than good’ Trinity which rests at the heart of the path of apophatic ascent.86 To the Trinity, then, belong the appellations: superessential essence, more than divine divinity, more than divine goodness, more than good goodness, supreme identity of properties beyond all properties, unity above the principle of unity, ineffability as well as polyphony, unknowability at the same time as all possible modes of knowledge, every position and yet the abstraction of all, because the Hypostases of the sole principle reside above every position and abstraction, dwelling, as it were, one in the other, totally united and yet without any confusion.87 For Dionysius, the trinitarian mystery is thus to be exalted above and beyond any opposition between anonymity and polynymy: the apophatic term ‘the unnameable name’, from the perspective of supreme ignorance, gives a better understanding of the inaccessibility of God in His essence, while the multiplicity of names makes Him known in His beneficent operations as the Universal Cause. Yet all the while we are still concerned with God as Trinity, ineffable in his ‘superessence’, and yet being conferred with all names in his manifest δυνἀμεις. The name ‘Good’, being first in the polynymic series, the principle of creative causality, while signalling the generosity of the trinitarian ‘Thearchy’, the producer of all beings, radically separates 85. The work, Theological Hypotyposes must have been devoted to trinitarian theology. However, it is possible that this treatise, which has never appeared among the works of the Pseudo-Areopagite, is nothing more than a figment of the imagination of the author of the Corpus. 86. De myst. theol., I.1 (PG 3, col. 997). 87. De div. nom., II.4 (col. 641a). French translation by de Gandillac, p. 81.

64

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

the creation of the world from the procession of the divine persons. Thus, the distinction between the ‘economic’ and ‘theological’ aspects is eventually seen to have its foundations in God Himself. As we have seen, Meister Eckhart takes the opposite approach to that, by drawing together the origin of the divine persons and the creative act into a single interior act of God, denying any kind of distinction in divinis in between the emanation of divine persons and the creation of the world. Being identical in God, in the active aspect of divine production these do not appear as two distinct realities except on the passive plane, that of created beings, who are exterior to the One. Since the nomen omninominabile is Unum, it must then designate the source of the unique action which produces the persons of the Son and the Holy Spirit as well as created effects. If it is truly thus, then it is obvious that Meister Eckhart is connected, and on a point which is really quite important to his teaching, to a tradition which is certainly not that of Pseudo-Dionysius. The latter’s ‘Plotinism’ is not sufficient88 for the German theologian, at least not on this particular point, where the Christian author of the Corpus favours an opposing direction. Instead of finding in the One the first principle of the emanation of divine persons and the production of the world, he distinguishes the ‘superessential’ and transcendent Trinity from the ad extra processions whereby divine Goodness, in which all that exists participates, manifests itself as the Creative Cause in multiple names. For Dionysius, the ‘superessential fecundity’ which gives way to the three Hypostases of the Divinity89 is not limited by Goodness, the supreme principle of all external production. Thus, creative activity does not have a common source with the procession of persons; rather, the latter belongs to that ineffable nature, towards which it is elevated by the negation of all that can be known, while the former makes God known outside His ‘hidden residence’, in the exuberance of that Goodness by which He bursts out from the

88. See the discerning remarks of B.J. Muller-Thym concerning the reasons why Meister Eckhart made such restrained use of Dionysius’ teaching (especially in his Latin works): The Establisment of the University of Being in the Doctrine of Meister Eckhart of Hochheim (London: Published for the Institute of Medieval Studies by Sheed & Ward, 1939), pp. 113-15. 89. De div. nom., I.4 (col. 592a).

Nomen Omninominabile

65

inaccessibility of His nature.90 On this point, the German Dominican is closer to the Neo-Platonic tradition: having identified the One with the first hypostasis of the Christian Trinity, Eckhart has turned it into the common principle shared by both theogony and cosmogony. However, it must not be forgotten that Meister Eckhart’s ineffable God is not exalted beyond Being, as is the One of Plotinus or the uni-trinitarian Thearchy of Dionysius. Without actually being ‘superessential’, this Deity-Being, remains both unknowable and inexpressible, exists precisely ‘as Being and Essence’, as does the One in the first hypothesis according to Parmenides, which is used by Plotinus and his disciples, and it eludes all knowledge and all naming because he was solely the One, entirely identical to himself. This time, here, it is no longer the One. It is the Being who becomes the reason for its own ineffability. For Eckhart, Being is not the proper name for the anonymous Deity, just as Plotinus’ ‘the One’ is not an adequate 90. The formula Bonum est diff usivum sui, which Latin medieval theologians often cited as being from Dionysius, actually does not belong to the author of the Dionysian Corpus. However, this formula does quite felicitously condense a certain aspect of Dionysius’ thought: Good by His very essence, God lavishes the rays of His goodness upon all beings, just as the sun illumines things by virtue of the very fact that it exists, without consideration of any [deliberate] intention or thought – οὐ λογιζόμενος ἤ προαιρούμενος (De div. nom., IV.1 [col. 693b]). This in no way implies an automatism on the part of Creation in Dionysius’ works; if it is natural for this ‘supra-good’ essence to diff use itself in its rays, the creatures which will participate in the communication of divine goodness will be able to come into existence solely by virtue of the ideas or ‘paradigms’, which are the ‘predeterminations’ or ‘divine and good wills determining and creating beings’ (ibid., V.8 [col. 824c]). Dionysius’ exemplarism is extrinsic to the divine essence: in identifying the ‘pre-existent reasons’ with ‘good wills’, the author of The Divine Names emphasises the radical contingency of creation. The gratuitous, free character of the creative act is all the more manifest in that the ideas by which it realises itself cannot be attributed to the divine essence, if this creative act is not something which exists under the aspect of His Goodness, the first attribute which prevails over all the externalisations of God’s inaccessible nature. Even in its uncreated reasons, creation depends, then, on the free decision of the Creator. One finds the same conception of divine exemplarism in St John Damascene, as well as in the tradition preceding Pseudo-Dionysius. See the article by Florovsky, cited above (on p. 11, note 28).

66

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

term for naming the Unsayable, and, yet, both of them offer a different reason as the basis for ineffability. Eckhart’s ‘Being’ is unsayable because it is indistinct, while Plotinus’ ‘the One’ is such because it distinguishes itself from all that is. In placing the One after the unnameable Being, the German theologian gives it a new meaning, which it could not have in a strictly Plotinian tradition. The One has become the first divine name, the singular principle of all names, of all expressions of the Inexpressible.

The First Determination of Being Unlike what we find in Dionysius’ works, with their superessential Uni-Trinity, Meister Eckhart’s notion of divine ineffability in some sense surpasses the trinitarian God, because for him divine ineffability more properly belongs to Being which precedes the One in the order of different aspects or ‘reasons’ by which we can envisage God. If the Esse is the reason for God’s unknowability, then the Unum, on the other hand, represents the aspect under which this Deus absconditus makes Himself known as a Trinity of persons and as the first principle of creation. One could even be tempted to say, making Meister Eckhart’s theological position even firmer (which is never expressed in his Latin works in such absolute terms), that the ‘purity of Being’ forms an indistinct region of ineffability beyond the Trinity, beyond the One who is the principle of all divine production, both interior (the procession of the divine persons) and exterior (creation). In the preceding chapter, in our discussion of the Esse absconditum, we quoted Meister Eckhart as saying: Deus sub ratione esse et essentiae est quasi dormiens et latens absconditus in se ipso.91 We have found the same ineffable region of indeterminate Esse, tamquam latens et absconditum, in the intimate depth of created beings, shrouded in the ‘darkness of Moses’.92 Being concealed both in creatures as well as in God, the Esse thus comprises a hidden region of interiorised Divinity, enclosed within itself, in which God dwells as one ‘sleeping’ and ‘hidden’ in Himself. This divine sleep precedes, as it were, all ‘fecundity’, because sub ratione esse et essentiae, God neither generates nor is generated. It is as the Father – sub ratione Patris et paternitatis – that He again assumes the characteristic qualities of productibility 91. See above, Chapter 1, section headed ‘The Search for the Ineffable’. 92. See above, Chapter 1, section headed ‘The Wine of Cana’.

Nomen Omninominabile

67

and fecundity.93 As we have stated above,94 Meister Eckhart attributes unity to the Father; he equates the One with the first person of the Trinity.95 If indistinction is proper to Esse, it is in the divine, ungenerated and non-generating Essence, that the Unum implies distinction: Being indistinct in itself, the One thus distinguishes itself from others, and for this reason it is personal and belongs 93. See, here, the complete text of the passage from Exp. in Io., of which up until now we have quoted only the beginning (C., f. 122rb, ll. 51-55): Deus sub ratione esse et essentiae est quasi dormiens et latens absconditus in se ipso, nec generans nec genitus, ut supra dictum est. Sub ratione vero patris sive paternitatis primo accipit et induit proprietatem fecunditatis, germinis et productionis. 94. See p.  55, where we refer to a text from Lib. Parabol. Genes., quoted in note 59. Compare Exp. in Io., f. 121ra, ll. 52-54: …accipiendo li patrem pro uno, quod patri appropriatur a sanctis et a doctoribus. Meister Eckhart doubtless has in mind, above all, St Augustine’s famous formula (De doctr. christ., I.5 [PL 34, col. 21]): In Patre est unitas; in Filio aequalitas; in Spiritu Sancto aequalitatis unitatisque concordia. Et tria haec unum omnia propter Patrem, aequalia omnia propter Filium, connexa omnia propter Spiritum Sanctum. This formula, used by Peter Lombard in his Sentent. Liber I, d. 31, cc. 2-4 (ed. Quaracchi, pp. 19598), was commented on by all theologians. Compare with St Thomas, I Sent., d. 31, q. 3, art. 1 and 2 (ed. Mandonnet, vol. 1, pp. 726-30), and Ia, q. 39, a. 8 (Utrum convenienter a sacris Doctoribus sunt essentialia Personis attributa sive appropriata). Alain de Lille turned this trinitarian formula, albeit in a slightly modified form, into his fourth theological rule (Regulae theologicae [PL 210, col. 625]). However, it is above all in the Summa ‘Quoniam homines’ (which, according to Mgr  P. Glorieux, ought to be re-attributed to Alain) that the use of this Augustinian text causes Meister Eckhart to attribute Unity to the Father. We cite here a passage from P. Glorieux, ‘L’auteur de la Somme “Quoniam homines” ’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 17, no. 1-2 (1950), pp. 37-38: Unitas ideo potius dicitur esse in Patre quam in Filio, quia, sicut unitas a nullo est et omnis numerus ab unitate, sic Pater a nullo et omnia a Patre; sicut et unitas de se gignit seipsam, ita Pater de se gignit se alterum, id est Filium. In Filio autem dicitur equalitas, non alteritas, etc. 95. Thus, in St John’s text (14:8), Meister Eckhart substitutes Unum for Patrem and says: Ostende nobis Unum et sufficit nobis (Exp. in Io., C., f. 121rb, ll. 47-48; 54-55 et passim).

68

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology to that suppositum, in relation to which it is fitting to act. This is why the holy doctors attribute the name of the One or the unity in God to the first suppositum, which is to say, to the first person, who is the Father.96

Divine action, which, for Eckhart, can only be a single interior act which simultaneously spreads out or issues forth the trinitarian processions and the entirety of created beings, belongs then to a personal God, and in the first place, to the person of the Father. But, in order to be personal, Meister Eckhart’s unnameable God-Esse must take on the first determination which pertains to being: that is the Unum which is convertible with the Ens. This convertibility opposes any conception of a Being which could be superior to the One, of an Essence which would belong to a divine level different from that of the consubstantial Persons. However, the adaptation of the ‘transcendentals’ with relation to trinitarian notions does not exclude the order in which these convertible ‘reasons’ will come to determine the unnameable Esse. Essence under the aspect of the One, or Divinity in the suppositum of the Father, is revealed as something all-powerful and which gathers together all names into one, single name, an intermediary between anonymity and polynymy. The One  – nomen omninominabile97  – is thus the supreme name, as it

96. Exp. in Io., C., f. 121ra, ll. 23-30: Hinc est quod ipsa essentia sive esse in divinis ingenitum est et non gignens, ipsum vero unum ex sui proprietate distinctionem indicat, est enim unum in se indistinctum distinctum ab aliis. Et propter hoc personale est et ad suppositum pertinet, cuius est agere. Propter quod sancti unum sive unitatem in divinis attribuunt primo supposito sive persone, patri scilicet. On the in creaturis supposita, in relation to which it is fitting to act, see St Thomas, I Sent., d. 5, q. 3, a. 1 (ed. Mandonnet, vol. 1, p. 151); in divinis, in which there is no true distinction between suppositum and essence, only notional acts, by which persons truly distinguish themselves between each other, must then be attributed to the suppositia (Ia, q. 41, a. 1). According to Meister Eckhart, who attributes Unity, the principle of action, to the suppositum of the Father, the creative action that is common to the three persons is declared in the ‘first suppositum’, at the same time as the notional act of generation. 97. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The One  – ‘The Name above All Names’.

Nomen Omninominabile

69

immediately follows the ‘unnameable name’ of the Deity considered as sub ratione esse. Beginning with the One, divine productivity develops according to the strict order by which the transcendental qualifiers of being succeed each other in order to confer upon the divine persons their different ‘reasons’. We shall see, further down, how Meister Eckhart applies these ‘transcendentals’ – esse, unum, verum, bonum – to trinitarian teaching; we shall reflect, then, on how the One, the True and the Good, despite their ontological convertibility which would have to exclude all determination of Being, can give space for hypostatic distinction. For the moment, we shall note that, in Meister Eckhart, this involves a successive determination of Being, which yet remains indeterminate as divine essence considered in and of itself. Here is what Meister Eckhart says on the topic of the One as the first determination of Being: Unum vero, quod inter predicta quatuor immediatius se habet ad esse, et primo et minimo determinat ipsum. Propter hoc, ut primum determinatum, est et esse determinans contra multum, ut patet 10° Metaphysice.[98] Propter hoc ipsi uni competit ex sui ratione et proprietate esse primum productivum et patrem totius divinitatis et creaturarum. Hinc est quod sancti et doctores appropriant in divinis patri unitatem.99 This declaration is of great significance: the One determines the esse least of all, because it relates to it ‘more immediately’ than the other transcendental qualifiers. While making quite clear that unity adds nothing to the Esse, even ‘according to thought’, as it is not a positive attribute, Meister Eckhart turns the One into the initial term of successive determinations which go from the immediate of the Unum  – proximum Deo  – towards the Verum, to arrive at the Bonum – ultimum inter quatuor omnibus communia.100 98. Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1054a. 99. Exp. in Io., C., f. 119ra, ll. 32-39. 100. Ibid., f. 121rb, ll. 2-10: …unitas enim appropriatur patri et immediatius se habet ad esse quam bonitas et quam veritas, secundum illud Sapientie 6° (20): ‘incorruptio prima facit proximum Deo’; corruptio enim semper est casus ab uno; ergo, per oppositum, incorruptio stat et subsistit in uno; unum autem proximum est Deo, utpote nichil addens

70

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

As the first determination of the esse, the unum is the first to distinguish it, by opposing it to the multum.101 When considered as One, sub ratione Unius, Being excludes all that is multiple. This first opposition presupposes a negative way of attributing the One to Being which in itself is indistinct: with respect to multiplicity, Esse is to be defined as non-multiple, as negating multiplicity. This amounts to saying that Being negates the negation of being, while all that all is multiple by nature negates unity. Thus, the negative aspect of the One (Unum negative dictum),102 being attributed to Being, distinguishes the purity of the Esse from all particularised being, of all that is mixed with non-being. In effect, the unity of a particular being positive, etiam secundum rationem, super esse. Esse enim primum est, unum proximum, verum 3am, bonum ultimum inter quatuor omnibus communia. The text of the Book of Wisdom states: ‘Incorruptio facit esse proximum Deo.’ Meister Eckhart, incorrectly reproducing this text in Exp. in Sap., makes esse into a noun, which permits him to say: Proximum autem ipsi esse, utique est esse. Given that it is contrary to generation, corruption, being the path towards non esse, is set against incorruption, then incorruption is revealed as the primary property of being, opposing it the non-being which it negates: utpote negacio non esse, assercio sive affirmacio esse (Archives, III, p. 403). The ‘incorruption of Being’, is thus its affirmation in the One, which determines it in the first place. 101. The reference to Aristotle (see above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The First Determination of Being’, note 98) seems a bit inappropriate here. In effect, for Aristotle, number is a multiple measured by the one. The one is thus opposed to that which is multiple as measure is to what is measurable (Metaphysics, 1056b-57a). Strictly speaking, this is not an opposition. Moreover, inasmuch as one is not a measurement for number for Aristotle, it therefore has no ontological bearing on the conception of multiplicity, for the one is not opposed to multiplicity by virtue of its convertibility with the notion of being. It is obvious that Eckhart’s One, the first transcendental determination of Being which is opposed to the multiple, is not the same as that of Aristotle to which the Dominican Master is referring. On the role in medieval thought of Aristotle’s conception of the One, see the study by F.-M. Sladeczek, SJ, ‘Die spekulative Auffassung vom Wesen der Einheit in ihrer Auswirkung auf Philosophie und Theologie (mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der aristotelischen Auffassung)’, Scholastik 25, no. 3 (1950), pp. 361-88. 102. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 46va, l. 6. See the following note.

Nomen Omninominabile

71

implies its opposition to all that it is not, which is to say, a negation of all other being. Negation, being a limitation of being to merely the ens hoc et hoc, as the root of all multiplicity of created being, cannot be applied to God. The Unum negative dictum, attributed to the absolute Being, thus receives the form of a double negation, that of negatio negationis, which is, as Meister Eckhart says, the pure affirmation of Being: medulla, puritas et geminatio est affirmati esse. The negation of negation thus, under a negative form, joins with the double affirmation provided in Exodus 3:14: Ego sum qui sum.103 In both cases, it is by a ‘complete return upon itself’104 that the Being affirms its absolute identity.

Puritas et Plenitudo Essendi In Meister Eckhart’s works one can distinguish two functions of the One that lend two different, but inseparable, meanings to the ‘marrow of affirmed being’: (1) exclusive identity, which affirms the purity of the Esse by eliminating all that is not absolute Being; (2) inclusive identity, which affirms the plenitude of the Esse by drawing into God all being, insofar as it exists.105 It would seem that the purity of Being 103. Exp. in Io., C., f. 121vb, ll. 3-11: Undecimo sic: omnis cui opponitur unum includit ; unum ipsum est negatio negationis, negationis inquam quantum multitudo. Negatio autem negationis medulla, puritas et geminatio est affirmati esse. Exod. 3°: ‘ego sum qui sum.’ Hoc est ergo quod convenienter dicitur: ‘ostende nobis patrem’ – id est unum  – ‘et sufficit nobis’. Negatio enim semper aliquod esse negat et tollit et sic non placet sed displicet, non sufficit sed deficit et inficit id in quo est. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 46va, ll. 5-7: Nulla ergo negatio, nichil negativum Deo competit, nisi negatio negationis quam significat unum negative dictum: ‘Deus unus est,’ Deuteronom. 6° (4), Galat. 3° (20). Compare Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 175, n. 207: ipsi nulla privatio aut negatio convenit, sed propria est sibi et sibi soli negatio negationis, etc. 104. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 46va, ll. 7-10: Negatio vero negationis purissima et plenissima est affirmatio: ‘ego sum qui sum.’ Super se ipsum redit reditione completa, sibi ipsi innititur, se ipso est, ipsum esse est. Compare Liber de causis, Prop. 15: Omnis sciens qui scit essentiam suam est rediens ad essentiam suam reditione completa (ed. Steele, p. 173; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 14, p. 177). 105. This distinction between the two aspects  – inclusive and exclusive  – of the identity of Being can be found, for example, in the following passage of Exp. in Ex. (C., f. 46rb, ll. 53-59): Ait autem ‘sum qui sum’,

72

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

is best expressed by the negatio negationis, whereas the sum qui sum points, above all, to the plenitude of the Divine Esse. However, the negation of the negation also contains a meaning of inclusive identity, by virtue of the fact that, in directing itself towards creatures, it cancels out the negations of being in the beings which exist as multiples. On the other hand, the ‘reflexive conversion’ of the Esse in the sum qui sum can be understood in the sense of exclusive identity, that of the divine Esse which is enclosed in itself.106 Meister Eckhart points out yet another aspect of double affirmation (or negation) by interpreting the first proposition of the apocryphal ‘hermetic’ text known by the title Liber XXIV philosophorum in the sense of a ‘total turning of Being upon itself’. In ‘reflexive conversion’, he finds a sort of ‘ebullition’ or effervescence of Being which flows within itself, ‘liquefying and bubbling, penetrating into itself, just as light which totally penetrates itself’ – lux in luce et in lucem. Thus does Being ‘return upon itself and completely reflect upon its own totality’.107 This dynamic image of the identity of the Esse should remind us that the One is not a principle of static identity. In determining Being by its relation to multiplicity, by its very reason, the One is both exclusive and inclusive; the Esse is seen as both purity and fullness, because all that is division is cancelled out. The Unum is thus presented as an active principle, as the first source of divine productivity – the Father

tum quia ipse est plenitudo esse et plenum esse, tum quia ipse nichil est aliud nisi purum esse. Concluditur igitur, quod affirmatio consistens in esse et ydemptitate terminorum Deo proprie competit. Quid enim tam idem quam et esse ‘sum qui sum’? Nulla enim propositio propter hoc est verior illa in qua idem predicatur de se ipso esse. 106. Ibid., LW I, p. 99, n. 16 (C., f. 42rb, ll. 25-30): Tertio notandum quod repetitio quod bis ait ‘sum qui sum’ puritatem affirmationis, excluso omni negativo [C: exclusa omni negacione] ab ipso Deo, indicat. Rursus quamdam ipsius [E: ipsam] esse in se ipsum et super se ipsum reflexivam conversionem et in se ipso mansionem sive fixionem. 107. Following the text cited in the previous note (LW, loc. cit.; C., f. 42rb, ll. 30-36): Adhuc etiam quandam bullitionem sive perfusionem [C: parturitionem] sui in se fervens, et in se ipso in se ipsum liquescens et bulliens, lux in luce et in lucem se toto se totum penetrans et se toto super se totum conversum et reflexum undique, secundum illud sapientis: ‘Monas monadem gignit vel genuit, et in seipsum reflexit amorem sive ardorem.’ Compare Liber XXIV philosophorum (ed. Bäumker, p. 31).

Nomen Omninominabile

73

of all divinity and of all creatures.108 The ‘reflexive conversion’ thus responds to a reality in God: the Father generates the Son, and fervour and love are reflected back onto Himself, meaning the Holy Spirit who proceeds from both of them. This is how, following Alain de Lille109 and several other theologians, Meister Eckhart interprets the first proposition of the ‘24 Philosophers’: Deus est monas, monadem gignens, in se suum reflectens ardorem.110 Despite Eckhart’s trinitarian, Christian interpretation, the turning of the Esse upon itself maintains (even in the terms of this interpretation itself) the Neo-Platonic appearance of the ἐπιστροφή πρὸς ἑαυτό111 Here what separates Meister Eckhart from Proclus is the place assigned to the Father. Proclus’ πατρικόν is inferior to the έν.112 A result of that is a certain separation between the terms of triadic developments in Proclus’ ‘henads’: the πρὀοδος is a regression vis-à-vis the μονή, a defect that can be overcome only by the ἐπιστροφή.113 For Meister Eckhart, however, the first person of the Christian Trinity, identified with the One, is in no way inferior to essence. This person is to be immediately joined with the Esse absconditum, to the non-productive Essence, as a reason which is the basis for Being’s productivity. Since the One dynamically manifests the identity of Being, this productive action will thus be intrinsic to 108. Exp. in Io., C., f. 119ra, ll. 37-38 (quoted on page 69). 109. Regulae theologicae, III (PL 210, coll. 624-25): Monas gignit monadem et in se suum reflectit ardorem. Concerning this maxim, Alain de Lille writes in his commentary: ‘Oportuit ergo ut aut nihil gigneretur a simplici, aut simplex a simplici. Unde Augustinus dicit quod Pater totam substantiam transfudit in Filium. …’ And further: ‘Spiritus Sanctus dicitur ardor, amor, osculum et connexio Patris et Filii. …’ – The ‘transfusion’ of substance and of ‘love’, added to ‘ardour’ in the passage cited by Meister Eckhart (note 107 above), reveals his dependence upon Alain de Lille’s commentary. 110. Bäumker, loc. cit. Meister Eckhart’s quotation is a paraphrase of the first proposition of the 24 philosophers. 111. Proclus, The Elements of Theology, ed. Dodds, pp. 202-3. 112. See ibid., p.  279, E.R. Dodds’ commentary, with reference to Proclus, Theologia Platonica, V.16, pp. 276ff. 113. For Meister Eckhart this distancing of triadic terms is possible only in cosmogony, where the passive moment intervenes in order to confer upon created being an aspect of the casus ab uno = casus ab Ente.

74

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

unity; it will appear then, above all, as an interior ‘ebullition’, as a coinciding of the with the Mονή πρόοδος, or as a co-penetration of divine persons, who remain utterly immanent to the One in their very procession. Therefore, procession from the One is also at the same time a conversion, a turning of the Monad upon itself; the generation of the Son implies the reflection of fervour or of Love and would be inconceivable without the spiration of the third person by the Father and the Son.114 The monad which generates is identical to the generated monad, and this identity is expressed in the form of ‘reflected fervour’. Meister Eckhart observes that it is in the nature of all thought to exhale the fire of love. He quotes St John Damascene as saying that the Word is not deprived of the Spirit, and also Augustine, according to whom, a word conceived in thought is knowledge accompanied by love, because knowledge is always something beloved, even when its object is not so.115 Being determined by the One, hypostatic procession, according to Meister Eckhart, is thus an interior action in which the identity of the Esse is manifested by its ‘complete return upon itself’. This reflexive conversion, in the divine reality, is not a recovery of a lost identity, as is the case in the works of Proclus, where the ἐπιστροφή is required to re-establish the unity of the μονή, which had been disrupted by the πρόοδος. For Eckhart, however, the immanence of the principle of production is disrupted only by the ‘outgoing’ of creatures, the fall into duality, where God is known only in an exterior manner, as the First Cause and the Final End of all that is. The notions of efficient or final cause do not enter 114. Exp. in Io., C., f. 114rb, ll. 34-39: Restat autem videre quod Deuteronom. 19° (15) de 3° teste dictum est: ‘In ore duorum vel trium testium stabit omne verbum.’ Quod quidem pro tanto dictum est, quia ubicumque est dare patrem et filium, gignens et genitum, necesse est esse et adesse spiritum, amorem, nexum gignentis et geniti. ‘Et hii [hic ?] tres unum sunt’ (Ia Ioh. 5, 7). 115. Ibid., C., f. 118vb, ll. 42-49: Adhuc autem notandum, quod omnem cogitationem sive meditationem semper consequitur [Ms.: consequatur] amor et ipsa cogitatio sive meditatio spirat ignem amoris, secundum illud psalmi (38, 4): ‘in meditatione mea exardescet ignis.’ Unde et Damascenus dicit quod verbum non expers spiritus, et Augustinus, quod verbum cogitatum notitia cum amore est; semper enim notitia placet, etiam si quod noscitur discpliceat. Amor autem ille semper est homogeneus et substantialis principio ipsum spirante. St John Damascene, De fide orth. I.7 (PG 94, col. 804c). St Augustine, De Trinitate, IX.10 (PL 42, col. 969).

Nomen Omninominabile

75

into the picture in divine interiority; as we have seen, the Father, as the Principle of persons, is not the cause of the Son or the Holy Spirit.116 In the conditions in which the One determines the unspaced moments of triadic ‘reflection’, by closely linking together the ‘procession’ and ‘conversion’, the latter, being appropriated to the Holy Spirit (as ‘reflected Love’), will have no other function in trinitarian life than highlighting the permanent unity of the Father and the Son in the generation of the second person by the first. It is quite clear that, in Meister Eckhart’s theology, the first person of the Trinity acquires exceptional importance. As with the ‘monarchy of the Father’ in Eastern trinitarian theology, the immediate convertibility of the One, the first suppositum, with the Essence-Being must here ensure the essential unity or consubstantiality of the three persons. However, the theological milieu of the Greek Fathers of the fourth century is not the same as that of the Dominican theologian of the Middle Ages. When Gregory Nazianzen tried to express the mystery of hypostatic distinction in the consubstantial Trinity using Plotinian terms, he would speak of a monad that sets itself in motion in order to surpass the dyad and arrive at the triad.117 This image presupposes a certain ambivalence in the monadic element which, at the same time, indicates the common essence of the three hypostases and the single source of the divine processions, with the Father being a personal principle common to the Father and to the Holy Spirit. The ‘surpassing of the dyad’ is not a drawing into itself on the part of the third hypostatic element but, quite the contrary, is rather a perfect spreading out of the monad, its opening up into the personal Tri-Unity. The first maxim of the ‘24 philosophers’ does not at all fit in with the Cappadocian’s shifting monad. It is, however, quite acceptable to the Dominican Master, thanks to the Latin formulation, processio ab utroque: the Holy Spirit, bound to the Father and the Son, neutralises the dyadic opposition that would other wise exist between them and thus identifies their essential unity. The identification of the Father with the One permits Meister Eckhart to assign a cyclical character, quite reminiscent of Proclus’ henades, to the Western trinitarian outlook. Here, Being appears as unity in the suppositum

116. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Semel Locutus Est Deus, Duo haec Audivi’. 117. Origen 23.8 and 29.2 (PG 35, col. 1160c and PG 36, col. 76b).

76

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

of the Father and affirms His identity in the trinitarian process of a ‘complete return upon itself’, or Ego sum qui sum. This same triadic circulation, this expression of the identity of Being, deals with the eternal ‘reasons’ or ‘quiddities’ of all things; they gush forth from the unity of the Paternal Intellect alongside the Word, who is the sole ‘Reason’, and in their interior ‘ebullition’, they return upon themselves, yet remain utterly identical with the Essence. The manifestation of the Essence sub ratione Unius indicates the absolute ‘purity’ of Divine Being that also renders it unknowable and unutterable, and, yet, at the same time, in making Him known as the ‘plenitude’ of all that is, being produced by the One in the unity of Being, remains yet identical to the indistinct Essence.118 Most frequently, Meister Eckhart will make use of two expressions – exclusive and inclusive – with regard to the identity of Being: puritas et plenitude essendi.

Unum et Omnia In certain aspects, the Divine Essence or Deus sub ratione Esse in Meister Eckhart’s works can be reconciled with Plotinus’ ‘One who is not’: for, not only is the Essence unutterable, but also, given its absolutely indeterminate nature, it cannot be contrasted with anything at all, not even with non-being. This contrast becomes possible only sub ratione Unius, where Eckhart’s notion of the Essence, inasmuch as that manifests its fullness, takes on a character which is reminiscent of the Neo-Platonic second hypostasis, of the ‘One who is all’. Eckhart’s One, let us recall, is at the same time the Principle of production and the ‘Paternal Intellect’, which contains the reasons for all things in its single Word, thus reducing all things to a unity. This unity of all in the One, this divine Omni-Unity, can justifiably be called a ‘one-time’ phenomenon, for Meister Eckhart expresses it in the form of the geometric symbol of an ‘infinite intellectual sphere’, whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere. In borrowing the image of the infinite sphere119 from the ‘Book of the 118. Meister Eckhart expresses the same idea in the German sermon 87 (Pfeiffer., p. 282, ll. 29-30): Hier umbe ist got ledic aller dinge und hier umbe ist er alliu dinc. 119. Bäumker, p.  31: Deus est sphaera infinita, cuius centrum est ubique, circumferentia nusquam. When citing this second proposition of the 24 Philosophers, Meister Eckhart sometimes combines it with the

Nomen Omninominabile

77

24 Philosophers’, Eckhart is trying to show the omnipotence of the One-Intellect, in both expanding infinitely in ‘all things’ and also concentrating the infinity of the Omnia in the Unum. If one could speak of an infinite circumference, it would have to match with the central point of the sphere. In this sense, it could equally be said that, in the sphere of the Divine Intellect, the infinity of the Omnia (the ‘reasons’ for all things in fontalitate unitatis)120 then expresses the ‘fullness’ of Being in the One, while the Unum highlights its undivided state or ‘indistinction’. Being identical in God, these two aspects of His infinity can be distinguished only by the creative action in which the One reveals itself as ‘omnipotent’. The name ‘Omnipotence’  – Omnipotens nomen eius (Exodus 15:3)  – identifies the First Cause in its very root, for it relates to the action of the One by which is understood, ‘All’, which is to say, to ‘that which is of the number of all things’. However, this total number (omnia) is contrasted with nothingness (nihil), ‘that which is not the number of all things’.121 Of course, one cannot speak of number in the infinite sphere, where the omnia correspond to the absence of any circumference or periphery. This geometric transposition or analogy of the omnipotence of the One-Being makes the term omnia a bit unclear. In the perspective of divine action, it indicates a transfinite fullness that excludes both number and the realm of the multiple and which eighteenth proposition (ibid., p.  37): Deus est sphaera, cuius tot sunt circumferentiae, quot sunt puncta (In Eccli., Den. 571; C., f. 80ra, ll. 10-14; Exp. in Io., C., f. 124vb, ll. 30-32). He also groups together these two propositions with the third proposition (ibid., p. 31): Deus est totus in quolibet sui (Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p. 79, n. 155; C., f. 14vb, ll. 2-7; Exp. in Ex., C., f. 47va, ll. 30-35). Concerning the symbol of the infinite sphere in ancient, medieval and modern philosophy, see D. Mahnke’s excellent work, Unendliche Sphäre und Allmittelpunkt: Beiträge zur Genealogie der mathematischen Mystik (Halle/Saale: Niemeyer, 1937); concerning the image of the sphere in Meister Eckhart’s works, see pp. 144-58 and passim. 120. Exp. in Sap., in Archives, III, p. 362. 121. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 43va, ll. 4-19: ‘Omnipotens’ duo dicit: ‘omnia’ et ‘potentia.’ ‘Potens omnia,’ ‘potens omnium,’ que ergo sunt de numero omnium ille potest … ergo non potest nichil, tum quia nichil non est de numero omnium, sed est oppositio et exclusio omnium, tum etiam quia nichil posse est non posse, universalis negatio potentie … nihil enim et omnia se totis sibimet mutuo opponuntur.

78

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

presupposes the identity of ‘all things’ with the One. By contrast, from the perspective of creatures (created beings), the Omnia present themselves as different from the Unum, since created being, which is never infinite, is inherently opposed to the One as it is multitude, number, undefined division and all that is casus ab Uno. The paradox of the ‘infinite sphere’ in Meister Eckhart’s works involves joining together the two perspectives into a single vision of omnipotence. However, the same geometric image also allows for the recognition of the action of the One on the plane of created being, in that which is multiple and divisible, action which lends multiplicity an aspect of unity, and gives number a characteristic of internal, indeterminate fullness, and to divisible being it adds the aspect of totality, which belongs to the assembly of all that is, having been produced by the divine Cause. In this sense, the multiple omnia, far from being opposed to the One, as they affirm the One’s simplicity, actually manifest the super-abundant richness of the One. Within the domain of created being, as an exterior effect of the One-Being, it is furthermore an expression of the One within the multitude which forms the ‘all’, the multitude of ‘one’, formed and preserved in being by the One, for, according to Proclus, ‘all multitude participates in the One’.122 Since ‘the monad is not measurable’, Macrobius said that the monad ‘produces of itself and contains within itself innumerable species,123 the species with which it is poured out into the immensity of the universe, without impoverishing its unity.124 The unity of an individual compound, the unity of a species in the multitude of individuals, the unity of genus within species, the unity of created being in the entirety of all that exists – these all represent a series of different totalities existing in degrees of universality, where the parts of one compound, the omnia of a species, of a genus, of being (as something more universal than all the other attributes), in each case have a character of fullness, or, more precisely, of ‘completeness’, which means that no part of a divisible ‘all’ can therein form any kind of defect. Thus, specific unity cannot and could not survive if it did not comprise all the individuals of a species; by the same token, 122. Proclus, The Elements of Theology, ed. Dodds, p. 2. 123. Macrobius, Comment. in Somn. Scip. I.6, see above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Semel Locutus Est Deus, Duo haec Audivi’, note 61. 124. Exp. in Io., C., f. 121va, ll. 54-60. Compare Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, pp. 252-53.

Nomen Omninominabile

79

generic unity must comprise all the species of a genus; and finally, the universe itself would not be a complete being embracing all that is, truly, it would not be a universe, if one of its essential parts – an angelic spirit or even just a stone or a piece of wood – was lacking in its totality.125 This assembly of ‘all that is’, the totality of created being, is the omnia, which is opposed to nihil.

Oppositio Nihil Mediatione Entis If, as we have said, the first opposition, that of being and nothingness,126 concerns the Esse considered in light of the One, as an ‘omni-unity’, then it is also necessary to add that this is not the plenitude of Divine Being, manifested in the One or in the Paternal Intellect, which presents itself as something opposed to nihil. Rather, being cannot oppose nothingness in an immediate sense, because the ‘negation of negation’, a negative expression of the One,127 eliminates any idea of non-being that could be opposed to Divine Being as considered in itself and independently of creative causality. The opposition between God and nothingness arises from the false perspective of dualism in which terms created being wishes to place the One when perceiving Him from the outside. Absolute Being cannot be the counterpart of nothingness. However, it is legitimate to oppose esse, understood as the ‘first created thing’,128 and the absence of all being, ‘all things’, ‘anything at all’; that is to say, omnia and nihil can be viewed as being in opposition to one another. This opposition will extend to the 125. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p.  53, n. 13 (C., f. 7ra, ll. 2-7): Produxit enim immediate non aliquam partem universi, sed ipsum totum universum immediate, quod, inquam, universum non produceret nec esset universum, si quod partium ipsi deesset essentialium. Ex quo autem universum non esset, si lapis vel lignum deeset aut si natura angelici spiritus deesset. 126. In the Opus propositionum, in which Meister Eckhart undertakes a study of fourteen pairs of opposite terms, the fi rst treatise is given over to being and nothingness: Primus tractatus agit de esse et ente et eius opposito quod est nihil. Prol. gener. in Op. tripart., LW I, p. 150, n. 4, OL II (ed. Bascour), p. 5, ll. 11-12. 127. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The First Determination of Being’ and into section headed ‘Essendi’. 128. Lib. de causis, prop. IV. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Collatio Esse’.

80

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

‘Being who is God’ only indirectly, insofar as the One is the principle of totality in created beings, being present in the multiplicity of the omnia. Thus, nothingness is opposed to the full number of ‘all things’, to the reflection of the ‘plenitude’ of Being: Nihil non est de numero omnium, sed est oppositio et exclusio omnium.129 Number, which can pertain only to created being, here receives the positive sense of the totality of the entia; it is the number-unity of all that which, while existing as part of the omnia, nevertheless participates in the One. Since the omnia is opposed to nihil, Meister Eckhart can, along with the ‘24 Philosophers’, affirm that God is opposed to nothingness through the intermediary of created being: Deus est oppositio nihil mediatione entis.130 In developing his ‘hermetic’ fourteenth proposition (which is cited three times in such Latin works of his which we know today), it would seem that Eckhart wishes to establish a sort of proportion or ratio between God, created being, and nothingness. ‘Compared to God’, he writes, ‘the entirety of the universe is presented as nothingness compared to the universe; this is in such a way that the universe, meaning all that is (ens omne), would appear as a middle term in between God and nothingness’.131 ‘God surpasses all created being, just as all created being surpasses nothingness.’132 In reality, this ‘proportion’ is created solely so as to avoid any direct opposition between God and nothingness. Such an opposition could occur only within the perspective of creative efficiency, where the nihil becomes conceivable as a terminus a quo for creation. Thus, Meister Eckhart places in opposition to one another nothingness and created being as two ‘ultimate terms’ of the action of God in the creature: nihil et esse omnium creatorum.133 Nothingness is not the limit of the 129. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Unum et Omnia’, note 121. 130. Sixteenth proposition of the ‘24 Philosophers’. Bäumker, p. 36. 131. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 185, n. 220. 132. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 411. 133. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p.  80, n. 160 (C., f. 15ra, l. 54-f. 15rb, l. 15): … termini actionis Dei in creatura sunt esse et nichil. … Termini autem nullius agentis [secundi – add. C] sunt nichil et esse [C: sunt, nichil adesse], et propter hoc in suis operationibus potest incidere resistentia, motus et tempus. … Ultimi autem termini simpliciter sunt nichil et esse omnium creatorum, quos solus Deus attingit sua operatione immobili immobiliter et, per consequens, fortiter et subito. Sapientia 8 (1): ‘attingit a fine usque ad finem fortiter’: finis ‘a [quo’ – add. C] est nichil, finis ‘ad

Nomen Omninominabile

81

omnipotence of the Being whose action, sub ratione Unius, extends to the omnia, but rather, is alone the initial term of created being. Thus, one could not speak of nihil as being a primordial notion. Rather, it is a derivative term, a notion that is concomitant with that of created being, something so to speak ‘subsequent’ or ‘posterior’ to the creation which, together with the ideas of alterity and duality, implies the very possibility of opposition. Every time that one places in opposition a creature and God as something that is other than Him, the creature will appear in its ontological nullity, which makes impossible any juxtaposition between absolute Being and a created aliquid. In Meister Eckhart’s usage, the word nihil is not an absolute term directly opposed to that ‘Being which is God’;134 rather, it is the nothingness of creatures, a nothingness which makes itself known only in the relationship of created beings towards God, as the dark depth of their initial, original non-being. The proportion or extent to which the relationship of the created universe to God would be equal to the relationship of the nihil to the ens omne thus carries a negative meaning. In the end, it would mean that nothing whatsoever can be opposed to God as ‘another’ term: with relation to God, omnes creaturae sunt unum purum nihil; non dico quod sint quidem modicum vel aliquid, sed quod sint purum nihil, quia nulla creatura habet esse.135 This proposition, which was condemned as being dubious (suspected of heresy), expresses the same idea as the sentence from the 24 Philosophers interpreted by Eckhart: the opposition of being and nothingness is real only insofar as the being which creatures have ab alio is opposed to their own nothingness. However, if one were to contrast the entire assembly of creatures, inasmuch as they are being, to God’s Absolute Being, would not such a comparison be contrasting [quem’  – add. C] est ipsum esse, quos solus Deus attingit, concordat, reconciliat et pacificat, secundum illud Psalmi (147,14): ‘qui ponit fines tuos pacem’. 134. The problem with this indirect opposition must doubtlessly have been foreseen in the thirteenth treatise of the Opus propositionum, proclaimed in the general prologue (LW I, p.  150, n. 4; OL II, p.  6): Decimus tertius agit de ipso Deo summo esse, quod ‘contrarium non habet nisi non esse’, ut ait Augustinus De immortalitate animae et De moribus Manichaeorum (PL 32, cols. 1031 and 1345). 135. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Semel Locutus Est Deus, Duo haec Audivi’, note 69. The proceedings of the Cologne trial, Archives, I, p. 184 (Cf. p. 205).

82

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

a drop of water with the ocean?136 Such a comparison would surely be ‘manifest blasphemy’, if it did not at the same time recognise that the world is nihil in se et ex se?137 Thus, such an opposition, contrasting God with nothingness, is possible only within the context of His creative action, which is to say, by the intermediary of created being: God places in opposition the being of created things to their initial nothingness. The intermediary situation or status of the creature  – quasi medium inter Deum et nihil138 – presupposes a double opposition of the created ens: when opposed to, or contrasted with, God, the creature is nothingness; when opposed to nothingness, it is the being produced ex nihilo by the omnipotent action of God, that is to say, the omnia, which is opposed to nihil. In a Latin sermon139 considering the text of John 4:1, Deus caritas est, Meister Eckhart reconciles charity which ‘excludes nothing’ (nullum excludens)140 with the community proper to God. Being Himself common to all that exists, God is, in some sense, confounded with universal being: omne ens et omne omnium esse ipse est. Would He then be the ens or the esse commune, the universal attribute of all that is? Similar passages, which are frequent in Eckhart, are interpreted in this sense by certain critics.141 However, in the next sentence of the very same sermon, the preacher adds that God is not only ‘all that could be thought of and the best that could be desired, but even more than that’ (et adhuc amplius). Very often repeated in Eckhart’s 136. Ibid., p. 208. 137. Ibid., pp. 206-7. 138. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 185, n. 220. 139. Sermo 6, 1, LW IV, p. 51, n. 53. 140. This could also be stated as ‘which excludes nothingness’. 141. For Denifle, Meister Eckeharts lateinische Schriften, II, 490-91, cf. §19, the problem is actually that of an unintended confusion of terms, due to an [alleged] lack of discipline in Eckhart’s thought. On the other hand, according to della Volpe (Il misticismo speculativo di Maestro Eckhart, p. 156, note), Meister Eckhart would have identified the pure and absolute unity of God with abstract hypostatised being due to a ‘consistent, speculative, and well defined’ need. The Italian commentator is right when, counter to Denifle, he defends the coherence of Eckhart’s speculations. However, on this exact point, Meister Eckhart’s position seems to us to be a bit more nuanced. It is not possible to speak of a pure and simple identification of the ens commune with God, but rather, using Scholastic terminology, of a secundum quid identification.

Nomen Omninominabile

83

writings is Avicenna’s affirmation that being is first and foremost that which is desired by all things.142 In the present context, the omne quod cogitari potest melius of St Augustine and St Anselm,143 must here be understood in the same way: being can be conceived of as supreme in its perfection and it is in this form that it is desired by all things. This God, as He is both conceivable and desirable, must then correspond to a certain level where He appears as the esse omnium. So then, if God is ‘yet more’ than all that can be desired and conceived of a quocumque et ab omnibus, then it is also necessary to believe that God, as esse omnium, is not the Divine Being considered just in Himself; rather, here below He presents Himself under the form in which all that is participates in Him, meaning as the First Cause which acts sub ratione esse. It is the presence of the cause in its effect that permits us to say that the ‘common being’ – omne ens et omne omnium esse – is God. If this is then contrasted to God, the common being ‘desired by all things’ is annihilated before Being in Itself, in the face of the adhuc amplius of the Divine Essence: Sed totum quod potest desiderari ab omnibus, respectu li ‘amplius’, est quoddam nihil. Ubi dic illud: ‘Deus est opposito ad nihil mediatione entis.’ God is the esse omnium as long as He, in His creative action, opposes nothingness by the intermediary of ‘all things’, which are all included under the universal attribute of the ens.

The Unity of the Universe In his commentary on the Book of Wisdom, after having given eight exegeses on the text Creavit enim Deus, ut essent omnia (1:14) secundum communiorem accepcionem, that is to say, with the emphasis being placed on ut essent,144 Meister Eckhart then, finally, gives a new ‘exposition’ of the same text, but this time placing emphasis on the

142. To cite but one example, see Prol. gener. in Op. tripart. (LW I, p. 153, n. 8; OL II, p. 9, ll. 3-5): id quod desiderat omnis res, est esse et perfectio esse, inquantum est esse. Meister Eckhart very often cites this declaration made by Avicenna, which is taken from his Metaphysics, I.8.6 (Venice, 1508, f. 100ra, ll. 1-3). 143. St Augustine, De doctr. christ., I.7 (PL 34, col. 22). St Anselm, Proslogion, ch. 2 (PL 158, col. 227). 144. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, pp. 338-51.

84

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

omnia.145 Being cast in that way, the text from the Book of Wisdom would then mean that the end of creation is totum universum, omne scilicet, quod est omnia.146 Eckhart lends to the omnia a meaning of totality, that is, a certain unity, equality, and lack of distinctness, in which created beings participate, being ‘affected’ by the very unity that is proper to God, as all multitude, the entirety of being, must, according to Proclus, participate in the One.147 If the ‘all’ is made up of a multitude of parts, then, unity is still set up against them, as a primordial aspect which the created totality receives from God. Both the multitude and the inequality of the parts of the universe belong to its secondary aspect, they belong to created being as such, insofar as created being involves ‘descent’, a distancing from the One.148 As first effect of the Divine Cause, being – prima rerum creatorum – is one. However, its unity is that of the ‘all’: it implies the multiplicity of the parts. The first intention of an agent is always the ‘all’; the parts are produced only ‘for all and in all’. Thus, it is that God, the First Agent, first created (per se et primo) the universe to be rich in all things (habens omnia). As for singular beings, which are necessarily presupposed by the omnia, He produced them as parts of the all, with a view towards the entirety and the unity of the universe: Et sic perit quaestio et difficultas, multos gravans usque hodie, quomodo ab uno simplici, quod est Deus, possint esse multa immediate.149 This is Meister Eckhart’s solution to the difficulty caused by the passage from Avicenna, which was condemned in 1277: Quod ab uno primo agente non potest esse multitude effectuum.150 145. Ibid., p.  357: …ut sit sensus: Deus creavit ut essent omnia, id est multa et universa. 146. Ibid., p. 358. 147. Ibid., p.  363. ‘To affect’ created being is to ‘inform’ it by means of unity. See ibid., IV, p. 250: Adhuc autem unum se toto descendit in omnia quae citra sunt, quae multa sunt, quae numerata sunt, in quibus singulis ipsum unum non dividitur, sed manens unum incorruptum profundit omnem numerum, et sua unitate informat. Macrobius is cited a bit further down, in the same context (p. 252). 148. Ibid., III, pp. 360 and 362. 149. Ibid., p. 358. 150. The list of the 219 propositions condemned by Étienne Tempier, bishop of Paris, published by H. Denifle and E. Chatelain in Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis (1889), vol. I, has been re-edited by P. Mandonnet in the Appendices to Siger de Brabant et l’Averroïsme

Nomen Omninominabile

85

This solution to the famous and controversial question, despite the aspects it shares in common with St Thomas’ response,151 could not be any more different as far as its line of reasoning goes. For Aquinas the unity of an ‘all’ can, properly speaking, only be existential: it is the unity which diverse parts of a compound receive by virtue of the fact that they are, thanks to the same act of existing that the esse confers on them. Since the world is not a single compound, but rather an assembly of beings, each one of whom is a particular compound (of matter and of form, of power and act, of essence and of existence), it is thus not possible to attribute a unity of being to the totality of the universe, but only a ‘unity of order’. If, according to St Thomas, the world forms a perfect ‘all’, it is because Divine Wisdom positioned the various parts, endowed with varying degrees of dignity, one in view of the other, and ordered them all proportionally with respect to the perfection of the whole.152 When, towards the end of his final exegesis on Creavit Deus ut essent omnia, Meister Eckhart says, in conclusion – Vel, ut proprius loquamur, ipsa unitas perfecta universi partes huiusmodi principiat153  – this wording then gives a very difau XIIIe siècle, second edn, vol. II (1911). The proposition cited here is found under number 28 on p.  178 (n. 44, p.  546, in Denifle). Also see propositions 27, ibid. (Denifle, n. 34, p.  545), Quod prima causa non potest plures mundos facere; 33, on p. 179 (Denifle, n. 64, p. 547), Quod effectus immediatus a primo debet esse unus tantum et simillimus primo; 68, on p. 181 (Denifle, n. 43, p. 546), Quod primum principium non potest esse causa diversorum factorum hic inferius, nisi mediantibus aliis causis, eo quod nullum transmutans diversimodo transmutat, nisi transmutatum. Compare also, in De erroribus philosophorum, which Mr Josef Koch attributes to Giles of Rome, in ch. 6, dedicated to Avicenna’s errors, proposition 6: Quod a primo principio immediate non possunt progredi plura. See, in Mandonnet’s edition, op. cit., p. 12; in the critical edition of J. Koch (the English translation), Giles of Rome, Errores philosophorum (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1944), p. 36. 151. The commonalities pointed out by Fr Théry, ‘Le Commentaire de Maître Eckhart’ (in his notes on pp.  358-60), comprise several reservations on the subject of Eckhart’s solution: the insistence of the latter on the unity of the world would make one suppose that it is ‘yet somehow equivocal in its spirit’ (p. 360, at the end of n. 2 on the preceding page). 152. Ia, q. 47, art. 2 and 3. 153. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 364.

86

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

ferent tone to what Aquinas could have said regarding the unity of the created world. What follows leaves beyond any doubt that what Eckhart means by the unity of the universe is something quite different from a unity of order.154 Furthermore, the direction of Eckhart’s thinking becomes sufficiently clear when we take into account references to Proclus and Boethius,155 along with the application of the rule formulated in De causis with respect to the unity that the inferior find in the superior and to whose influence they submit.156 It is the One, the first principle of all divine production, who directs the action of the First Cause, the creator of the omnia from nothingness. If the efficient cause, in conferring the esse post non esse, acts sub ratione esse, then it must be specified that, in its omnipotent action whose ultimate term is the esse omnium creatorum, opposed to nihil,157 the First Cause produces every thing sub ratione unius esse. It could not be other wise, since the Divine Esse is not productive except in the suppositum of the Father, where Essence appears as Unity. The production of being will, then, necessarily be marked by the character of the One. Meister Eckhart gives this clarification while commenting on the text of the Book of Wisdom: Aequaliter cura est illi e omnibus (6:8). Singular beings (entia), he says, however much they are unequal among themselves, all receive their esse more or less perfectly sub ratione unius esse, quod per se et primo cadit sub causalitate et aspectu primae causae.158 In the following sentence he 154. Ibid.: Ipse enim partes universaliter cuiuslibet totius non conferunt esse suo toti, sed econverso accipiunt esse a toto, per totum et in toto; inquantum enim huiusmodi, extra totum nullum prorsus esse habent, nisi solo falso nomine, utpote equivoce. The texts of St Thomas which Fr Théry cites here (n. 4), intending for them to reconcile St Thomas’ writings with this passage in Eckhart’s writings, only serve to underline this doctrinal divergence between the two. In effect, they all relate to the existential unity of a compound, that is to say, to an ‘all’, which is very different from the totality of the universe in Thomist teaching. Thus, in this passage of Exp. in Sap., Meister Eckhart is trying to show exactly that the unity of being proper to an ‘all’ belongs in the first place to the universe, which is conceived as a totality of created entia. 155. Ibid., pp. 361, 363-64. 156. Ibid., pp. 362 and 363. 157. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Oppositio Nihil Mediatione Entis’, note 133. 158. Exp. in Sap., in Archives, III, p. 394.

Nomen Omninominabile

87

adds that this one being, a first effect which ‘falls under the efficacy and the consideration of the First Cause’, is the esse totius universi. Properly speaking, the most perfect unity of an ‘all’, according to Eckhart, belongs to the universe as a whole. This is not, then, a unity of order, as in St Thomas, but a unity of being from which derive all secondary totalities, right down to singular compounds, produced and preserved in their entity by the One, participated in on all levels of universal being. If, according to Eckhart, the unity of all is always a unity of being, it is not being which gives unity to the all (as is the case with Aquinas). On the contrary, it is the esse which is conferred sub ratione unius equally as much to the totality of the created world as to each individual being. In this conception of the relationship of all that is with the First Cause, one can recognise the principle of a NeoPlatonic ontology as formulated by Boethius: Omne quod est, idcirco est, quia unum est.159 Meister Eckhart’s notion of divine efficiency, while being an ‘exterior cause’, the source of the esse ab alio in creatures, has its roots in the One, because it is attributed to the Father,160 where it is neither ‘efficiency’ nor ‘cause’; rather, it is ratio causandi et efficiendi.161 The One  – Pater totius divinitatis et creaturarum, the ‘Reason’ under which the Being appears as productive  – determines not only the generation of the ‘monad’, which remains co-essential with Him, but also the production of the ‘external word’, the created effects which are insomuch as they participate in the One. Thus, creative causality depends closely upon the One and, if Avicenna was incorrect in denying God the power immediately to produce a plurality of effects, it nevertheless remains correct that this production of multiple beings by the One is possible only in the unity of the omnia, in the ‘all’ which is differentiated in the many parts which are unequal to each other. Multiplicity and inequality among the omnia pertain to their inherently created character which then involves separation from the One and a directing towards non-being. On the other

159. In Porphyrium Commentaria, I (PL 64, col. 83b). 160. Serm. lat. 2, 2, LW IV, p. 14, n. 12. 161. Serm. lat. 25, 1, ibid., p.  231, n. 252: Causa quidem efficiens foras descendit a ratione sive proprietate patris in deitate, ubi nec causa nec efficiens est, sed ratio causandi et efficiendi. Cf. Serm. lat. 4, 1, ibid., p. 24, n. 21.

88

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

hand, unity and equality are themselves proper to God,162 they can be applied to creatures only sub ratione unius esse, quod est totius universi.163 ‘All that is common, inasmuch as it is common, is God; all that is not common, inasmuch as it is not so, is created’, which is to say, ‘something that is finite, limited, distinct, and individual or particular.’164 The reconciliation of these contradictions is possible only by means of a doctrine of creation in which the production of being is conceived of in terms of dependence of the multiple on the One. Here, ‘being’ means ‘to be one’, namely, ‘to be something’ or ‘to be the “gathering together” of all things’, the unity of all that which is. Between these two extreme degrees of ‘being one’, between the individual substance of Aristotle, which is the unity of form and matter, and the common essentiality of the omnia in the unity of the universe, other levels will come to dwell between them, reuniting the multiple parts of the universe in the communities of species and genus. The esse, the ‘first created reality’, is conceived of by Eckhart in the geometric spirit of the Liber de causis, which seeks to affirm that the most universal effect of the First Cause, even while being ‘the most intensively united’, by participating first and foremost in ‘pure Being and the true One’, nevertheless accommodates multiplicity and distinction.165 It is the ‘being of all things’, unified in the First Cause, at the supreme level of its universality, above genus and species, where, in gradually becoming particular, down to the level of individuals, these omnia together comprise the totality of the universe. It would 162. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 362. 163. Ibid., p. 394. 164. Serm. lat. 6, 1, LW IV, p.  52, n. 53: Secundo nota quod omne commune, in quantum commune, Deus, et omne non commune, in quantum non commune, Deus non est, sed creatum est. Omnis autem creatura finitum quoddam, limitatum, distinctum et proprium est, et sic iam non caritas est; Deus autem se toto communis caritas est. 165. Commentary on Proposition 4 (ed. Steele, p.  164; ed. Bardenhewer, pp.  166-67): …et non est post causam primam latius neque prius causatum ipso (esse). Propter illud ergo factum est superius creatis rebus omnibus et vehementius unitum. Et non est factum ita, nisi propter suam propinquitatem esse puro et uni vero in quo non est multitudo aliquorum modorum. Et esse creatum, quamvis sit unum, tamen multiplicatur, scilicet quia ipsum recipit multiplicitatem. Et ipsum quidem non est factum multa, nisi quia ipsum, quamvis sit simplex et non sit in creatis simplicius ipso, tamen est compositum ex finito et infinito.

Nomen Omninominabile

89

seem then that the first effect of creation, for Meister Eckhart, is not the esse-existence of St Thomas Aquinas, but the ens commune, the peak of Porphyrius’ tree of logic: ipsum ens, effectus Dei, quod non est in genere nec proprium aliqui generi, sed commune omni generi.166 In this conception of created being, there is a certain tension between the common and the particular, between the unity of being in the Cause and its multiplication in effects, between that which is proper to God and that which characterises ‘the created’ as such. It is a tension which must respond to the ambiguity that is inherent in the very condition of creatures, something which Meister Eckhart felt very deeply indeed. It would not be possible to reconcile these contradictions by interpreting Eckhart’s doctrine of creation solely in terms of exterior efficiency. Rather, another moment or factor must be introduced here, that of participation. If created being is an effect of the First Cause, this extra-factum could not exist [solely] in its alterity, as ‘effect’ opposed to ‘cause’, just as a house cannot be produced ex nihilo, but once it is built, it does exist apart from its architect and without any further participation from the mind of the craftsman. As we have seen, every comparison of the creature to God reveals the creature’s nothingness; apart from and outside God, the creature is nothing  – sine ipso factum est nihil (John 1:3). The exteriority of creatures is inconceivable in a pure state except in the ‘purity’ of nothingness. It is thus impossible to oppose it, as [the very] condition of created beings, to divine interiority: the latter will always prevail 166. Exp. in Io., LW III, pp.  88-89, n. 103: Rursus: in propria venit. Notandum quod creatum omne, cum sit hoc aut hoc, distinctum quid, proprium alicui generi, speciei vel singulari. Deus autem non est quid distinctum aut proprium alicui naturae, sed commune omnibus. Est enim extra et super omne genus. Probat hoc ipsum ens, effectus Dei, quod non est in genere nec proprium alicui generi, sed commune omni generi. Deus ergo in hunc mundum veniens, creatum assumens, factus homo, quasi de fastigio communis venit in propria. This text is very explicit: the ens commune transcends all genera, being common to all, but it remains nevertheless created, as it is but an ‘effect of God’. In becoming incarnate, the Word in propria venit (John 1:11), meaning, that he assumed not only ‘common being’, which participates first and foremost in Divine Unity, but also in human nature which belongs to the individual. This passage is in response to certain difficulties pointed out above concerning the two aspects of the Word – in the Father and in the world (see above, Chapter 2, section ‘The Word without Words’).

90

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

over the distinct being of creatures exterior to their Cause, just as the One prevails over duality, the root of all multiplicity, the first step of the recessus ab Uno. If the ens commune is, then, the first effect of God, the duality into which it necessarily falls, being an effect exterior to its cause, is thus the basis of its divisibility, of this multitude of omnia which constitute the truly creaturely aspect of the universe. However, the commonality of being, as a universal attribute, belongs to God (Meister Eckhart even goes so far to say that this commonality is God),167 because the supreme reason of divine productivity is the One: produced sub ratione Unius, the first effect of God must participate in unity, despite all of its divisions and subsequent particularisations. Eckhart’s doctrine of creation, then, embraces not only Aristotle’s efficient causality, but also a Platonic notion of participation, and all of this being intended to offset the extraneous nature of created effects which, according to Eckhart, would amount to their reduction to nothingness. The exteriority of created effects belongs to the passive aspect of creation; in this sense, the Divine Cause is never truly ‘exterior’. If an effect must be exterior to its cause, insofar as all efficient causality necessarily entails duality, then a Cause which has the One as the principle of its action could not remain exterior to its effect. The Cause would then be present in the intimate interiority of all creaturely being, while the interior structure of created beings would deepen further and further, becoming by degrees more and more universal in their participation in the First Cause of all that is: Creatura foris est, Deus autem intimus est et in intimis. Patet hoc in effectu Deo proprio, qui est esse intimum omnibus, in intimis omnium.168 In examining this text in the previous chapter, we were mainly concerned with the secret presence of the Deity, disseminated sub ratione esse et essentiae, in the intimate depths of creatures. It must be noted here that, even while remaining hidden in His inoperative essence, the interiorised God still manifests Himself as the Cause who produces that ‘being which is intimate to all things’. In order to be in intimis omnium, as God is, this ‘effect proper to God’ must, then, participate in the interiority of its Cause. While being multiple 167. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The Unity of the Universe’, note 164. 168. Exp. In Io., C., f. 106rb, ll. 52-55. See above, Chapter  1, section headed ‘The Wine of Cana’.

Nomen Omninominabile

91

and particularised with respect to their exterior aspect as individual substances, creatures become less and less multiple and particularised in the depth of their being, which is where they gradually find themselves to be beyond the species and genus to which they belong, on the level of their ‘interior principles’, and they participate in the first unity of being that is common to all things, and which is the first effect of God produced in the hidden depth of all that is. If, in anticipation of what shall be examined later on, we were to add that within the interior of created things the human intellect discovers the ‘first principles’ of their knowability and of their being, ‘principles’ which are the shining forth of uncreated ‘reasons’ into the dark shadows of creatures, then we would better understand in what sense Divine Unity ‘affects’ external production. The creation of substances by the efficient cause must be accompanied by varying degrees of participation of the effects in the Cause, which are the interiorised degrees of the intellectual presence of the One in what is multiple. Let us recall once again that the One, the initial principle of divine production, is the Paternal Intellect. When clear and utterly emptied of all things, while, at the same time, containing all that is,169 this shows us the two aspects of the Divine Essence, manifested in the One as the ‘purity’ and as ‘fullness’ or ‘plenitude’ of Being. These two aspects of the omnia, exclusive and inclusive, are found in the action of the ‘analogical cause’. If this cause produces creatures on the exterior – sub principio, non apud upsum,170 in their nature which is inferior to the Intellect,171 this exteriority of created effects does not 169. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Unum et Omnia’, note 118. This is a response to the principle devised by Aristotle, concerning the potential intellect, in his De anima, III (429a): in order to receive all forms, the intellect must be free of every form. See the ‘Parisian Question’, Utrum in Deo sit idem esse et intelligere, in LW V, pp. 47-48, n. 12; in OL XIII (ed. A. Dondaine), p. 9, ll. 12-17. See also Exp. In Io., LW III, p. 202, n. 241 etc. 170. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’, note 36. 171. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29ra, ll. 33-38: Illic enim quidditas rei dividitur, dicitur in suppositis et permiscetur alieno, ut iam non sit vera, nec pertineat ad regionem intellectus, sed foris et extra speciem nature sue effecta et extra facta, in materia vel supposito, in natura que est inferior intellectu, ut patet ex De causis. Lib. De causis, Prop. 9, commentary (ed. Steele, p. 169; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 8, p. 172).

92

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

exclude the presence of the One at all levels of universality of being, levels which the human intellect can discover by penetrating into the interior of things, where they participate in the intellectuality of their Essential Cause.

The Way of Unified Eminence In knowing the ens commune, the supreme degree of unity in which the omnia participate, one discovers the first concept of created being, and, at the same time, the first effect of the Creative Cause in the universe. However, we have not yet arrived at knowledge of God, although, and even as, we recognise, at what is the pinnacle of the logical structure of things, being stripped by the active intellect of all that keeps it hidden in the shadows172 of singular suppositia, the most elevated level (or, if you prefer, the most interior level) of participation in the intellectual aspects of the First Cause, which is present in its effects. Even if one had that direct knowledge of the universe which comes into the light of the active intellect and which the first man had before his fall into sin173 and that Moses also received, according to Maimonides, one would still not be able to know God except in His posteriora, namely, from His works.174 Having come to know ‘the essence of the entire world through a true and firm intellection’, Moses did not, however, receive knowledge of the Creator as He is in His substance, that is, he did not see His Face.175 To know the perfection of the universe in its essence, as the ens commune which is differentiated by genus and species in the omnia, is to attain to the 172. Ibid., f. 29va, ll. 23-28: Res autem iam producta extra producentem cadit et descendit foris, extra esse producentis et extra ipsius vivere et intelligere, obumbratum umbra temporis vel saltem factionis et causati, facti scilicet et suppositi, positi scilicet sub et infra producentem. 173. Exp. In Gen., Ia ed., C., f. 17va, ll. 13-15. Cf. St Thomas Aquinas, Ia, q. 94, a. 3. 174. Exp. In Ex., C., f. 57vb, l. 53-f. 58ra, l. 25. 175. Ibid., f. 57vb, ll. 46-53: Fecit enim ipsum scire naturam et vires ipsorum et colligationem partis cum parte et coniunctionem et distinctionem omnium encium. Hoc est dicere, quod ipse intellexit essentiam mundi totius intelligentia vera et firma. De alio vero quod petivit a creatore moises, ut notam faceret ei substantiam suam, respondit ei quod substantia ipsius non potest comprehendi nterior. Et hoc est quod infra sequitur: ‘Non poteris videre faciem meam.’

Nomen Omninominabile

93

knowledge of the created quod est, which is ‘always material’ with respect to the absolute formality of the divine quo est.176 In reality, it is the Divine Form that we seek to know when we desire to see the Face of God.177 As long as we remain in the duality of Creator/creature and Cause/ effect, we place ourselves in a perspective from which the unique Word of the Father is heard twice. The knowledge of God and of creatures that can be had at this level will not satisfy the speculations of a mystic who turned the One into the first principle of divine production. In order to know the First Cause in itself, independently of the external relationship which opposes it to its effects, in order to know all things such as they are in themselves, beyond any opposition between the esse ab alio and the esse non ab alio, it would be necessary to surpass all degrees of participation of the omnia in the Unum and to arrive at the specific identity of the all in the One. This radical unification is impossible as long as one remains outside the centre of the infinite sphere, whose centre is everywhere that God acts in the inaccessible depth of creatures. This depth is that of the interiorised transcendence of the One, where the ‘quiddities’ of all things are but a ‘formal ebullition’ of the Essence in the Paternal Intellect which eternally generates the Word and then returns upon itself, in order dynamically to express the identity of the Being, which is inexpressible in its essential rest. In this absolute interiority, the ‘inner man’  – spaciosissimus, quia magnus sine magnitudine  – passing beyond space and time, finds God, in His initial unity with all that is.178 Outside this hidden Point of divine omni-unity, into which it is not possible to penetrate except in a timeless moment of mystical experience which pierces through duration and disrupts the continuity of creation, the theologian must then content himself with a posteriori knowledge of God. He sees himself as obliged to ascend towards the First Cause from the basis of his effects, being reduced to a knowledge that is always insufficient, despite the multitude of 176. Serm. Lat. 25, 1: LW IV, p. 230, n. 251. 177. Exp. In Ex., C., f. 57va, ll. 40-41: Sapientie 8° (2): ‘Amator factus sum forme illius.’ Forma eius facies eius est. 178. Op. serm., C., f. 140va, ll. 11-15: in homine nterior habitat veritas et Deus, cuius natura est semper et solum esse intus et in intimis. Quod si Deus, utique et omnia, sive angeli sive quevis alia: in Deo enim sunt omnia, nec quicquam extra ipsum penitus. Cf. ibid., f. 164va, ll. 53-56.

94

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

names by which all creatures externally praise the ‘name above all names’.179 As we said at the beginning of this chapter,180 divine polynymy, which presupposes attributing to the First Cause the perfections found in its effects, is dealt with by Meister Eckhart in terms of a path of eminence, where the negative moment serves solely in order to eliminate the ‘way of meaning’, of concepts taken from created reality, because that ‘way’, inevitably, is itself unfitting. It is not surprising that Eckhart, by taking this view of theological knowledge, comes close to St Thomas,181 and, like him, seeks to interpret Dionysius’ negations in a way that minimises the scope of apophaticism: the negations appear only as necessary correctives, a sort of apophatic ‘catharsis’ through which affirmations must pass in order finally to relate back to God – per causalitatem, per negationem, per eminentiam.182 As with St Thomas and all other Christian theologians who attribute to God the perfections known in creatures, for Meister Eckhart, these multiple divine names all relate, in the end, to the common essence of the Trinity. However, since the Essence is not seen to be the source of action except in the suppositum of the Father, it is thus to the Essence manifested in the One, to the Absolute Unity of Being that we must 179. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The One  – The Name above All Names’ , and note 78. 180. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Nomen Super Omne Nomen’. 181. Fr Théry refers to a condemned article in which Meister Eckhart also declares that it would be just as incorrect to say that ‘God is good’ as it would be to call black something that is really white (second act of accusation, art. 54, Archives, I, p. 259) in order to conclude that the German theologian stops at the second stage of the way of eminence and veers towards agnosticism, destroying the ‘beautiful equilibrium that St Thomas had delineated’. (‘Contribution à l’histoire du procès d’Eckhart’, La Vie spirituelle 14, no.  3 [June  1926], pp.  64-65). This judgement of Eckhart is quite unjust: Meister Eckhart did not misunderstand the purifying apophasis of concepts, that of the way of eminence. In the passage that Théry examines (taken from the German sermon, Quasi stella matutina, Pr. 9, DW I, p. 148; p. 161 in AubierMontaigne’s French-language edition), he is speaking of another way of negative theology which could be called an ‘apophaticism of opposition’. We shall examine this further on, in Chapter 4 of the present work. 182. For the principles of the way of eminence, see, above all, De potentia, q. 7, arts. 3 and 5.

Nomen Omninominabile

95

attribute all the names collected from the diverse perfections which can be found in created beings. When considered in itself, being undetermined by the One, the Essence remains ‘unnameable’: it receives polynymy solely in the One, which is opposed to the multiple and yet, at the same time, negates this opposition, by denying the negation of being that is proper to all multitude and distinction. There is, thus, no contradiction when the subject of these attributions sometimes appears as Esse or Essence and sometimes as Unum: it still refers to the Being which is determined by the One. It is in this sense that Meister Eckhart makes the Esse into the first divine name, ‘superior to all names’,183 after having spoken, using the very same terms, but about the Unum, in the same Expositio Libri Exodi.184 It is essential to take into account the primordial role of the One in divine interior and exterior production by examining Eckhart’s doctrine of the ‘translation’ of the multiple names of the First Cause. It is indeed the One, the Omninominabile, who gathers together all the perfections predicated of God, in order to resolve them in the ‘purity’ and indistinct unity and the plenitude of the Essence. In his commentary on Exodus, before entering into the question of relations,185 Meister Eckhart insists upon affirming the simplicity of the essence which escapes any kind of distinctions. He begins with a study of several opinions offered by ‘Greek and Arab philosophers and Hebrew sages’ on the improper character of affirmations when

183. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 51va, ll. 28-58: Quarta ratio ad principale: id quod est super omne nomen nullum nomen excludit, sed omne nomen generaliter includit et qualiter indistincte, nec aliquod illorum per consequens est ipsi proprium preter id quod est super omne nomen, commune omnibus nominibus; sed esse est commune omnibus entibus et nominibus; per consequens esse nomen proprium dei solius. … Et hoc est quod in Psalmo (137,2) dicitur: ‘Magnificasti super omne nomen sanctum tuum.’ Philipp. 2° (9): ‘donavit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen.’ Et in De causis, 22a propositione: ‘causa prima est super omne nomen quod nominatur.’ 184. Ibid., f. 43vb, ll. 25-40 (with the same quotations from Scripture and from the Liber de causis). See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Nomen Super Omne Nomen’, note 4. 185. We shall examine this quaestio nodosa, as Eckhart called it, further down in this text, in our discussion regarding Eckhart’s teaching on the Trinity.

96

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

the subject of God is concerned.186 When relating philosophical texts back to authoritative scriptural and theological passages, Eckhart draws from them arguments in favour of the ‘purity’ of the divine substance which undergoes no kind of ‘addition’ and recognises no kind of ‘disposition’ (= quality).187 Indeed, according to Boethius, a simple form cannot be the subject of accidents: ei enim quod est aliquid accidere potest, ipsi autem esse sive quo est nihil accidit.188 All that is quality falls under the category of a genus of accidents, something which is foreign to divine simplicity and ‘formality’.189 Above all else, here Eckhart invokes the argument of unity. What is truly one will exclude all that is number; so Moses Maimonides was right to state that God is one ‘according to all modes and all reasons’, so that one would not be able to fi nd in Him any kind of multiplicity, either real or derived ‘from thought’.190 In passing on from there to the ‘traditions of our Christian doctors’, Eckhart returns to the argument of the absolute unity of God, and, repeating the above-cited saying of Rabbi Moses [Raby Moises], further reinforced by a reference to Ibn Gebirol, he thus removes from the purity of the Divine Essence any kind of ‘crime’ (reatus) or ‘stain’ (macula) of distinction, which latter amounts to a defect of being and unity.191 All the perfections 186. C., f. 43vb, l. 25-f. 45ra, l. 51. 187. The true reason for the accident of quality is to be a dispositio substantiae, as quantity is a mensura substantiae (Cf. St Thomas, Ia, q. 28, a. 2; I Sent., d. 8, q. 4, a. 3). 188. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 44vb, ll. 16-18. Boethius, De Trinitate, ch. 2 (PL 64, 1250cd). 189. Ibid., ll. 13-15: Omnis dispositio est accidens vel manat de genere accidentis et accidentis sapit naturam. Sed hoc repugnant divine simplicitati et formalitati. 190. Ibid., ll. 26-32: Quinta sic formatur: id in quo cadit dispositio in ipso cadit aliqua multitudo; sed hoc repugnat divine nature unitati: hoc enim vere unum est in quo nullus numerus est, ut ait Boetius. Et Rabymoises dicit quod Deus est unus omnibus modis et secundum omnem rationem, ita ut in ipso non sit invenire aliquam multitudinem in intellectu vel extra intellectum. Boethius, De Trinitate, ch. 2 (PL 64, col. 1250c). Moses Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, I.50 (see Munk, I, pp. 180-81). 191. Ibid., f. 45va, ll. 31-43: Distinctio enim quam importat li ‘omnia’ reatus est utique macula et defectus esse et unitatis. Omne enim quod est aut super omnia est et super numerum, aut inter omnia numeratur [Ms.: numerantur]. Super omnia vero et extra numerum nichil est preter

Nomen Omninominabile

97

that can be observed in creatures distinctly are but one and the same perfection in God. In paraphrasing a passage from St Thomas192 (although, without naming him), Meister Eckhart adds this: if it were possible for someone to see the very essence of God by itself, and not from the basis of creatures, nor by the intermediary of something other than itself, then he would have seen a single perfection and, by it and in it, would have seen all perfections; he would not see this perfection by means of others, for it would not be ‘this one’ or ‘that one’, but quid unum super omnes. If one wished to give a name to this supreme perfection by which and in which he would see all of them, this name would necessarily have to be that of the One. Meister Eckhart confirms this declaration with a text from the Prophet Zacharias, but giving it a new twist: ‘In that day, the Lord will be one and the One shall be His Name’ (14:9).193 Here, then, the God of the

unum. In uno autem nulla prorsus cadit nec cadere potest differentia, sed omnia differentia sub uno est, ut dicitur in Fonte vite, libro 5°.— Ibn Gebirol (Avicebron). Fons vitae (Latin text of Petrus Hispanus and of Gundissalinus), in ed. C. Bäumker, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters (Münster, 1895), vol. I, 4, p. 315. The same references to Boethius and Moses Maimonides follow (see the preceding note), with this conclusion: Qui enim duo vel distinctionem videt, Deum non videt. 192. I Sent., d. 2, q. 1, a. 3 (ed. Mandonnet, vol. 1, p. 70). 193. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 45va, ll. 4-12: Hinc est, quod qui ipsum Deum videret per se ipsum, per essentiam Dei, scilicet non ex aliis nec per alia media, videret unicam perfectionem et per ipsam et in ipsa videret omnes perfectiones, non ipsam per illas. Hec tamen perfectio non esset hec vel illa, sed quod unum super omnes. Et si illi quod videret, per quod et in quo videret, nomen imponeret, ipsum necessario esset unum, secundum illud Zacharie, ultimo: ‘in illa die erit dominus unus et nomen eius unum.’ Compare St Thomas, op. et loc cit. The text from Zacharias is also cited. However, the nomen unum, in this passage from Aquinas which Eckhart closely follows, means simply ‘the only name’, without any kind of illusion to the One: Si autem intellectus noster Deum per se ipsum videret, illi rei posset imponere nomen unum, quod erit in patria; et ideo dicit Zacharia, ultimo: ‘In die illa erit Dominus unus et nomen eius unum.’ Illud autem nomen unum non significaret bonitatem tantum, nec sapientiam tantum, aut aliquid huiusmodi, sed significata omnium istorum includeret.

98

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Bible is given His eschatological name from Neo-Platonic sources.194 However, here we are speaking not of the One who is superior to Being, as in the first hypothesis of Parmenides, but, rather, we are speaking of the One which contains all things in its unity, which is much closer to the Intelligence of Plotinus’ second hypostasis. Here, this name ‘above all names’ is not the ‘unnameable name’ of God, but the ‘sole’ name, the ‘singular’ name, which gathers together all perfections – wisdom, power, and others – which, in creatures, are divided, but in God, they are unum omnia, ‘omni-unity’. Thus unified and truly identical with the Essence, all perfections here are res una, perfectio una.195 In this context, then, Meister Eckhart considers the One-Essence as the Quo est or ‘formality’, as the Divine Cause of created perfections.196 Moreover, the entirety of this passage of the Exposition Libri Exodi is thus a commentary on the text Omnipotens nomen eius (15:3), relating the quality of omnipotence to the Esse which is the ‘first form’ of divine action.197 Thus, the name of the One expresses the relationship of the Omnia to the Essence, which, here, 194. Elsewhere, in the same work, Exp. in Ex. (f. 50va, ll. 7-15), the text from Zacharias is applied to the nomen tetragrammaton, which is not shared with other created beings – non sumptum ab aliquo opere. 195. Ibid., f. 45va, ll. 12-18: Hoc tamen unum non esset nomen sapientie, nec potentie et sic de singulis, sed esset unum omnia, super omnia, in quo omnia, secundum illud phillippens. 2°: ‘Donavit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen.’ Nomen, inquit, in singulo, quia est unum quod est super omne nomen, quia omnium nominum perfectiones, divise in creaturis, in ipso est res una, perfectio una. 196. Ibid., f. 45rb, ll. 59-62: perfectiones autem omnes et omnium generum, cum sint in Deo utpote in causa, entia prima omnium, et in ipso necessario sunt unum simpliciter et res una et Deus unus. Omne autem quod in uno est et in quo unum est, ipsum est unum. 197. Ibid., f. 43ra, l. 57-f. 43rb, 1. 4: Omne agens potest naturaliter et omnia illa et sola illa per se, que continentur sub forma que in ipso est principium actionis. Sed esse est principium omnis actionis divine. Igitur deus potest omnia que sunt et esse possunt. Maior declaratur exemplariter, inducendo in omnibus agentibus artis et nature. … Ibid. ll. 27-32: Minor autem, scilicet quod esse sit principium omnis actionis, sit principium formale, patet, tum quia ipse se totus est esse, tum quia in ipso nichil est aliud quam esse aut preter esse. Concluditur igitur quod volumus, scilicet quod Deus potest [Ms.: preter] omnia que sunt et que esse possunt, simpliciter et absolute omnia.

Nomen Omninominabile

99

is envisaged as a kind of omnipotent monad. If it is possible for all names to be applied to it, names which are distinct in creatures, it is because it reduces them all to a unity. By leaving behind this character of the One, Meister Eckhart wishes to resolve a ‘famous’ and ‘vexed’ question, which is quite close to the problem of relationships and personal properties (which he also refers to as nodosa quaestio). This question concerns the issue of attributes: are they actually distinct in God, or do they only seem so in our understanding?198 It is quite noteworthy that the German Dominican, after having adhered almost literally to St Thomas’ line of argument regarding the real identity of perfections in God, although with a slightly different emphasis,199 now so abruptly diverges from him [when providing] his [own] answer to the question that has been posed.200 St Thomas, not admitting or conceding any plurality of distinct attributes ex parte Dei, neither does he want plurality to be only ex parte intellectus nostri. The only ‘concept’ capable of perfectly representing God is the Uncreated Word. Given that this conceptio is unique, all concepts that we can formulate with relation to God will be insufficient and, as a result, they will necessarily be multiple according to our own understanding. However, these multiple concepts will highlight in God, by means of analogy, something which is unknown and yet which corresponds to something in each of the said concepts.201 Thus, they have a foundation in re, without there being a real plurality of attributes in God. Having at the forefront of his mind this text from St Thomas: Et sic patet …, quod pluralitas istorum nominum non tantum est ex parte intellectus nostri formantis diversas conceptiones de Deo, Meister Eckhart wrote the following: Constat enim, quod distinctio attributorum divinorum, 198. Ibid., f. 45va, ll. 18-21 (follows the passage cited above, see note 195 above): Ex hiis patet evidenter veritas nodose questionis illius et famose, utrum distinctio attributorum sit in Deo vel in sola apprehensione intellectus nostri. 199. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’, note 193. 200. According to St Thomas, it is formulated in the following way: Utrum pluritas rationum, quibus attributa differunt, sit tantum in intellectu, vel etiam in Deo (I Sent., d. 2, q. 1, a. 3). 201. The end of solutio, see ibid. (ed. Mandonnet, p.  71): Et sic patet quartum, etc.

100

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

potentie scilicet, sapientie, bonitatis et huiusmodi, totaliter est ex parte intellectus, accipientis et colligentis cognitionem tatium ex creaturis et per creaturas.202 It could seem, then, that Meister Eckhart’s thought accords with Maimonides’ position, which was criticised by St Thomas,203 and thus moves towards a kind of nominalism in his doctrine of attributes. However, this impression would be false or misleading: if the distinction of attributes belongs ‘wholly’ to the intellect, it is because from the perspective of God, the emphasis is placed on the One, as opposed to the omnia, to all of the perfections which, in creatures, ‘fall’ into number, multitude, and distinction.204 While being ab Uno, they are sub Uno at the level of created being, where our intellect gathers them together in order to raise itself up towards the notion of the One which is super omnia, towards the ‘name above all names’. This difference between Eckhart and St Thomas, the latter of whom sees in the simplicity of essence the reason for the real identity of attributes in God,205 could seem rather subtle and even insignificant. However, simplicity is to be distinguished from unity because it is opposed to composition, whereas unity has its opposite in multiplicity. St Thomas’ created being implies a metaphysical composition of essence and existence which are identical in God. With relation to God, created being is defined, then, as that which is not its own act of existence, or as that which does not exist by its own essence. In order to transfer these created perfections to God, it would be necessary to 202. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 45va, ll. 21-24 (follows the text cited in note 198). 203. I Sent., loc. cit. (p.  68): Et sic, secundum hanc opinionem (Rabbi Moisis), rationes horum attributorum sunt tantum in intellectu, et non in re, quae Deus est; et intellectus eas adinvenit ex consideratione creaturarum vel per negationem, vel per causalitatem, ut dictum est. 204. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 45va, ll. 24-29 (follows the passage which we have just cited): …ubi (in creaturis) necessario, hoc ipso quod ab uno quidem sed sub uno, incidunt in numerum, multitudinem et distinctionem et reatum sive maculam, quo inter omnia numerantur. Quod enim in uno et unum offendit, cadens ab uno, incidit reatum distinctionis et cadit inter omnia. It is in this sense that Meister Eckhart interprets this passage from St James 2:10: ‘Quicumque autem totam legem servaverit, offendat autem in uno, factus est omnium reus.’ It is from here that the expression ‘reatus distinctionis’ comes. 205. Sed divinae essentiae simplicitas est tota causa quare ista attributa in Deo non differunt (I Sent., loc. cit., p. 65).

Nomen Omninominabile

101

identify them each time with the Existential Act by which God is that which He is: He who is, being Wisdom, He who is, being Goodness, etc. Meister Eckhart’s created being is characterised by the casus ab Uno: as having fallen into duality (cause-effect), which is at the origin of division; it is both multiple and divisible, even when it participates in unity, by virtue of the dependence of the omnia with relation to the One. Attributing to God perfections which are diversified in creatures thus presupposes their fusion within the One, a singular perfection, the Unum-omnia, the Nomen omninominabile, in which all the attributes converge so that they are no longer mutually distinguishable. In both cases, that of Aquinas and that of Eckhart, the pairs of opposition which must be transcended by the way of eminence seem to belong to two different doctrines of being. We shall examine this question in the next chapter, asking ourselves whether the distinction between essence and existence in created beings has the same meaning for Meister Eckhart as it does for St Thomas. Meister Eckhart’s polynymy is not the counterpart of divine anonymity; polynymy is opposed to the unique name, to the One who, in absorbing them into His indistinction, transcends all the distinct attributes that the human intellect gathers from created effects. According to St Thomas, the multiplicity of the divine names is meant to remedy the impossibility, here on this earth, of knowing God in His essence; thus, it is opposed to the ineffable name that can be revealed only in the beatific vision. Aquinas’ ‘unique name’ is not that of an attribute, but the very name – something which is unknown – of the Essence which is His Own Existence. Whereas St Thomas speaks of the unique name, unknowable in via because there is no created concept to express the divine essence,206 Meister Eckhart speaks of the name ‘One’ – the supreme name, since it points to the ‘reason’ which causes all attributes to come together in the identity of the unknowable Essence. Thus, while he departs from St Thomas in his declaration that the distinction of divine attributes belongs totally to our intellect, the German theologian in no way comes close to a nominalist conception of predicable perfections. On the contrary, his attitude is that of both extreme realism and intellectual optimism. Not wanting to rest content with establishing ex parte Dei the necessity of the created intellect in forming multiple concepts 206. St Thomas indicates an analogous opinion, attributing it both to Dionysius and Anselm. Cf. I Sent., loc. cit., pp. 68-69.

102

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

on the basis of creatures, Meister Eckhart, at the same time, grants it the possibility of conceiving a supreme and singular perfection. This first attribute, without allowing us to name the Essence, which always remains unutterable, nevertheless constitutes its first determination, and, with respect to all the other ‘divine names’, denotes the reason for their indistinction in divinis. In exalting the One above all the attributes, Meister Eckhart assigns to the intellect which is searching for knowledge of God a path which will be determined by the reciprocity of the One and the omnia. If, here in the created realm, the human intellect can receive the knowledge of distinct attributes, then also it can both come to know and to name the attribute which is distinguished from all others by the very fact that in God it does not admit any kind of distinction among the attributes. Unity is not simply ‘another predicable perfection’, but the unique perfection which gathers together at its superior level, ‘above all names’, every thing that can be affirmed concerning the Divine Essence. Unum is the supreme name of the First Cause, the name which comprises all of the attributes (praehabet omne nomen), permitting all creatures to praise God ‘by all names’.207 This name of the One, which is not inexpressible but rather above all narratives, non innominabile sed omninominabile,208 is the end point for the work of human intellection based on the omnia. However, it also lays out the starting point for divine intellection which produces the ‘reasons’ of all things in the unique Reason or the Logos. The One is thus the ‘Principle without principle’ of the intellectual operation of God, that is to say the Paternal Intellect. Being the ‘Reason’ of indistinction and, at the same time, of action, the One appropriated to the Father is the Divine Intellect – above all under the final aspect, that of productivity. If the perfections which can be attributed to God are multiple and distinct only in exterior production, while being actually and intellectually indistinct in God, their intellectual distinction which belongs to human thought remains no less true. This distinction has its foundation in God, insofar as the

207. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The One - ‘The Name above All Names”, note 78. 208. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Nomen Super Omne Nomen’ and ‘The One - ‘The Name above All Names’'.

Nomen Omninominabile

103

res una is considered by the Intellect under distinct ‘reasons’,209 even though they appear as such only outside the One. Within the Divine Intellect the convergence of the identity and diversity of ‘reasons’, with their indistinction and distinction being unopposed to each other in the interior movement of ‘Life’, can be expressed only with the image of ‘ebullition’.210 These ‘distinct attributions’ respond to ‘something which is true and real in God’, because the distinction ex parte intellectus must be given a very ‘real’ weight in any teaching which affirms an absolute indistinction in re, while still allowing the intellect to have knowledge of the One, the ‘reason’ for essential indistinction. After having insisted upon the fact that the unity of God excludes all form of distinction, by concluding, nulla igitur in ipso deo distinctio esse potest et intelligi, Meister Eckhart adds: Nec tamen propter hoc vane sunt aut false huiusmodi attributiones distincte, eo quod ipsis aliquid vere et reale in deo respondet.211 No attribution is true or false in re, which is substance, but all can be so in the intellect, where things are known not in themselves but in their principles. Now, since the principle by which God knows is none other than His unity, He is ‘totally intellect’212 and, in the order of knowledge, all distinct concepts of the human intellect, being

209. In the Exp. in Io., Meister Eckhart says concerning the divine intellect: Ratio ad intellectum pertinet, cuius est accipere unum sub alia et alia ratione, et distinguere ea, quae unum sunt in natura et in esse, et ordinem accipere quomodolibet, sive quo unum prius est altero, sive quo unus ab alio (LW III, p. 27, n. 33). 210. The dynamic image of the identity of every thing in the Divine Intellect corresponds, according to Meister Eckhart, to that characteristic of Plotinus’ account of Intelligence which de Gandillac calls ‘transparency’, in La Sagesse de Plotin (Paris: Hachette, 1952), p. 136. 211. Exp. In Ex., C., f. 45va, l. 56-f. 45vb, l. 1: Nulla igitur in ipso Deo distinctio esse potest aut intelligi. Adhuc autem 4°: distinctio omnis infinito repugnat ; Deus autem infinitus est. Nec tamen propter hoc vane sunt aut false huiusmodi attributiones distincte, eo quod ipsis aliquid vere et reale in Deo respondet ; et tamen in Deo est res una et, si dici potest, secundum Bernardum, unissima que verissima potentia est, sapientia est, bonitas est et similia. St Bernard, De consideratione, 1.V.7, n. 17 (PL 182, col. 798b). 212. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 27, n. 34.

104

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

inapplicable to the res una, to the Being of God,213 will find their foundation in the One, the Intellect, the principle of action which makes God manifest under intellectually distinct ‘reasons’. In the same way, according to Meister Eckhart, the kind of distinction operating in thought is not a testimony to the weakness of our intellect. Rather, it takes on a meaning that one would like to call ‘real’, if the res is to be considered equivalent to the indistinct essence which could permit another distinction than that which, within the ‘life’ of the Divine Intellect, is prior to the act of distinguishing. Whatever distinct attributes may be totaliter ex parte intellectus nostri, the principle of their distinction is no less completely ex parte Dei, insofar as God is se toto intellectus. After taking a different approach from that of St Thomas in formulating a solution to the ‘vexed question’ of attributes, Meister Eckhart affirms the following, albeit for reasons different from those advanced by St Thomas: Patet etiam, quod huiusmodi nomina non sint sinonima, eo quod diversas rationes seu conceptiones intellectus nostri significant.214 For Eckhart the possibility of attributing multiple names to the First Cause is founded upon the relationship of the omnia to the One, the principle of action which, in the first instance, determines creative causality. As we have already seen,215 in His exterior production, God is opposed to nothingness by the intermediary of all that is. Now, nothing that is outside God, outside the absolute Esse, is fully being, but rather, every thing there is ‘being and non-being’ (ens et non ens), since in the multiplicity of the omnia every particular ens inevitably receives a character of negativity; it is always defined by the negation of ‘some being’ (aliquod esse) that it does not have. Thus, negation relates only to created beings, as it is impossible to deny whatever may be in ‘Being-itself’, just as it is illicit to exclude from one genus that which properly belongs to it (for example, one cannot deny that a lion is part of the genus of animals). ‘Absolutely no negation, nothing which is negative can then pertain to God, if not the negation of the negation, 213. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 44va, ll. 50-53: omnia nomina huiusmodi affirmativa … incompacta et dissona divine nature et ipsi veritati. 214. Ibid., C., f. 45vb, ll. 1-3. Compare St Thomas, I Sent., loc. cit., p.  70; Ia, q. 13, a 4. 215. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Oppositio Nihil Mediatione Entis’.

Nomen Omninominabile

105

as expressed by the One stated negatively.’216 Unlike creatures, which are limited beings, God cannot deny ‘some being’ without denying His very Self; this is why He affirms Himself in all that which is, without rejecting Himself in anything. Since He ‘cannot deny nothing’ (or ‘can deny nothing’),217 God works or operates ‘every thing in all things’ (1 Corinthians 12: 6), being ‘rich by Himself’. Additionally, this definition of the First Cause – Primum est dives per se218 – is, for Eckhart, itself founded upon the principle of the negatio negationis, which is proper to the One. The negation of nothingness under all its various aspects – evil, sin, falsehood, and all that does not pertain to being – shall thus be found in the action of the Cause, which confers being and every perfection upon creatures.219 The ‘completeness’ of genus and species, in which no member may be denied, will 216. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 46va, ll. 1-17 (we have quoted several passages from this text in nn. 103 and 104): Citra Deum, utpote citra esse, est ens et non ens; et negatur sibi aliquod esse, cum sit esse et citra esse. Et ideo ipsi congruit negatio. Ipsi autem esse non negatur aliquod esse, sicut animali non negatur hoc animal, puta leo. Nulla ergo negatio, nichil negativum Deo competit, nisi negatio negationis quam significat unum negative dictum. ‘Deus unus est,’ Deutero. 6 (4), Galat. 3° (20). Negatio vero negationis purissima et plenissima est affirmatio: ‘ego sum qui sum.’ Super se ipsum redit reditione completa, sibi ipsi innititur, se ipso est, ipsum esse est. Nulla ergo negatio Deo congruit, ‘se ipsum negare non potest,’ Thy. 2° (II Timoth. 2, 13). Esse non potest negare esse se ipsum esse, nichil se ipsum desit; propter quod eciam nulli se negare potest, secundum illud: ‘primum dives est per se.’ Iterum etiam, nichil negare potest secundum illud: ‘operatur omnia in omnibus,’ Ia Cor. 12° (6). ‘In omnibus’ inquit, quia nulli negat. ‘Omnia’ ait, quia nichil negat: gratis accipit, gratis dat. 217. The two translations of nihil negare potest can be justified by the context and both accord equally well with Eckhart’s thought. 218. Liber de causis, Prop. 21 (ed. Steele, p.  178; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 20, p.  182): Primum est dives per se ipsum, quo non est dives magis. Commentary: Et significatio eius est unitas eius, non quia unitas eius sit sparsa in ipso, immo est unitas eius pura, quoniam est simplex in fine simplicitatis. 219. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 46va, ll. 30-37: Dat ergo Deus, utpote esse, omnibus esse et omne quod perfectionis, veritatis et bonitatis est. Hec enim ad esse pertinent. Malum vero, peccatum, mendacium et omnia que ad non ens vel ad nichil pertinent et sapiunt nichil, illa negat. Ia [Ms.: Lu] 4° (3):

106

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

correspond then to the ‘fullness’ of the Divine Being which denies non-being in all that He produces. This property of the One, which is manifested in divine causality, lends a certain weight to the notion of affirmation in Meister Eckhart’s doctrine on the ‘divine names’. Relying upon all that he has just said on the identity of the Being and the ‘negation of the negation’,220 Eckhart at last makes a statement on the role of affirmations and negations in theological discourse which attempts to attribute to the First Cause those perfections which are known in its effects: Patet igitur, quod affirmatio, utpote ad esse pertinens, propria est deo et divinorum inquantum divina sunt; negatio autem non est propria sed aliena, scilicet [ms.: sed] a Deo. Ratio est breviter que supra: quia affirmatio esse habet et includit li ‘est’, ‘est’ enim medium est omnium affirmativarum, vel in ipsum resolvuntur; negativa vero omnis et sola non esse includit. Quod autem Dyonisius dicit, 2° capitulo celestis ierarchie, quod negationes de Deo sunt vere affirmationes vero incompacte, non obstat. Hoc enim verum est quantum ad modum significandi in talibus. Intellectus enim noster perfectiones que ad esse pertinent apprehendit ex creaturis, ubi huius (modi) perfectiones imperfecte sunt et diverse, sparsim, et secundum illum modum signant. In hiis enim propositionibus est duo considerare: scilicet ipsas perfectiones signatas – puta veritatem, bonitatem, vitam, intelligere et huiusmodi  – et sic sunt compacte et vere; est etiam considerare in talibus modum signandi, et sic incompacte sunt, quod ait Dyonisius.221 ‘petitis et non accipitis, eo quod male petatis.’ Quia, ut dictum est, ipse nichil negat. Item, talibus negat, quia ad nichil pertinent. 220. Ibid., f. 46rb, l. 33-f. 46va, l. 53. 221. Ibid., f. 46va, 1. 53-f. 46vb, l. 10. Meister Eckhart adds this further argument, which is taken from St Augustine (Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, VI.29 [PL 34, coll. 790-91]), before ending his exposition on negations and affirmations (ibid., ll. 20-24): Potest etiam aliter dici quod affirmationes dicuntur et sunt incompacte et false, quia, sicut dicit augustinus in questionibus super illo Iosue, 24 (23), ‘Auferte Deos alienos’: Quisquis talem cogitat Deum qualis non est Deus, alienum Deum et falsum in cogitatione portat. Quis est autem qui sic cogitat Deum, quemadmodum ille est? Ac per hoc relinquitur quod huius (modi)

Nomen Omninominabile

107

It is important to not let oneself be misled by the ‘Thomist’ appearance of this particular passage. The unsuitable expression modus significandi [which concerns the denial of predicable perfections], by the way of eminence, is not the same for Meister Eckhart as it is for St Thomas. It is not the distinction of essence and existence in created beings. It is their multiplicity and diversity, the distinction or division of the created, having its root in the otherness of the effect, which must, above all, be surpassed in the concepts which are designed to express those perfections which are exterior to the One. This doctrine of the attributes is regulated by the same relationship of the omnia to the One which we were able to observe under its various aspects in the thought of Meister Eckhart: pure and simple indistinction within the Essence; dynamic co-penetration or distinct indistinction in the One, the Paternal Intellect; and, finally, the intellectual distinction which becomes possible at the level of created being, in which human thought forms concepts of the various perfections in order to bring them back to the Cause of all that is. Insofar as they all belong to being, these perfections – truth, goodness, life, intelligence etc. – are true and appropriate (compactae), but their ‘means of expression’, stained by multiplicity and distinction, involve or imply the negation which belongs to all that is not fully being. At the level of created being, our intellect finds only ‘imperfect perfections’ which are by their nature ‘diverse and scattered’. It will be necessary then, when attributing them to God, to deny those negations which they enclose within their own distinct state and then lead them back to the single perfection, to the One, which is superior to all the other divine names. Thus, we shall arrive at the conception of the ‘very pure affirmation’ of the nomen omninominabile, this specific ‘omni-unity’ of the omnipotence which excludes nothing, save for the nothingness that is proper to the omnia in their distinction. The way of eminence, for Meister Eckhart, will then be a reduction to complete unity of all the perfections which are known distinctly by the human intellect. This method recalls Rabbi Moses’ principle of the ‘gathered names’, formed of twelve or 42 letters, in which each letter signifies the divine de Deo incompacta sunt et falsa seu mendosa. Unde dictum est: ‘omnis homo mendax’ (Ps. 115, 11; Rom 3, 4). ‘Videmus enim nunc in enigmate et in parte,’ ut ait apostolus (1 Cor. 13, 12). Hec de nominibus positive Deo attributis in scripturis in communi dicta sufficiant.

108

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

substance under the ‘reason’ of a distinct perfection, but, taken all together, they elevate thought in aliquam eminentiorem perfectionem, bringing us all the closer to the tetragrammaton,222 the ‘unsayable name’. The way of eminence, the unifier of perfections, which Eckhart outlined but did not develop in full, leads the human intellect to knowledge of the One, who determines ‘in the most immediate way’ the anonymous Essence of God.223

222. Ibid., f. 50va, ll. 42-54: Adhuc autem erat quartum nomen Dei, quod erat 42 litterarum, de quo quatuor scribit Rabymoises. Primum, quod ipsum non est unum nomen simplex, quemadmodum dictum est de nomine 12 litterarum, sed sicut illud est nomen unum aggregatum ex pluribus, que omnia simul faciunt litteras 42. Secundum est, quod quodlibet nomen illorum signat aliquam perfectionem et ab eius ratione sumitur, ducens in cognitionem substantie creatoris; simul autem omnia ducunt in aliquam eminenciorem [Ms.: emanenciorem] perfectionem, quam signat ipsum nomen agregatum ex illis, quam nullum illorum divisim significaret. Ibid., f. 50vb, ll. 35-38: Quartum est, quod hoc nomen, sicut et nomen 12 litterarum, est nomen separatum et quasi Deo sacratum et dicatum et plus appropinquans ad puritatem nominis quatuor litterarum. See Moses Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, I.62 (see Munk, op. cit., pp. 247-79.) 223. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The First Determination of Being’.

3

Ego Sum Qui Sum

Revelation of the Unique Being We have seen that in his commentary on Exodus, Meister Eckhart deals at great length with the question of the predicable divine names which are based on created effects, which he does by complementing the negative principles of the ‘Arab and Hebrew sages’ with the positive teachings of the ‘saints and doctors’ of the Church. However, the Book of Exodus itself shows us the Lord saying to Moses, ‘I am who I am’ (3:14). This sacred text obliges the Christian interpreter to delve into and confront the mystery of the name which God attributes to Himself. Here, the initiative for naming no longer belongs to the human intellect, gathering together the various perfections that have been spread out amongst creatures to then attribute them to the omnipotent Monad who reunites them all in its singular perfection. Now, it is the Monad itself who names itself, thus affirming its identity in a ‘complete return’. We have been able to establish that this reflection into Himself, in this double affirmation of Ego sum qui sum, was compared by Eckhart with his obscure maxim on the monad generating the monad and returning its ardour back to itself. The text of Exodus was thus given a trinitarian meaning1 which it could not have had for Rabbi Moses. However, the Dominican Master agrees with the Jewish theologian in seeing in this affirmation which 1. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Puritas et Plenitudo Essendi’.

110

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

reproduces the subject in the predicate a unique name by which God would designate Himself, while revealing Himself as Being. In agreement with Maimonides, Eckhart will see in Moses’ act of veiling his face before the burning bush (3:6) the attitude of the human intellect with respect to divine revelation. He will add, referring to St Paul (2 Corinthians 10:5), that it is necessary to reduce the intellect, or natural reason, to a state of captivity before the hidden depths of God, which are termed ‘supernatural’, if one wishes to see those in the light of grace, that is to say, in the Spirit. These abdita Dei are indicated by the scriptural phrase ‘the darkness on the face of the deep’ (Genesis 1:2), as they surpass created understanding, which is incapable of coming to know them without the inspiration of grace which lifts up nature, in exercising upon the cognitive faculties an action analogous to the influx of virtue that a superior agent communicates to its inferior.2 How can man learn, by his own means, that the name ‘Being’ belongs uniquely to God, when it is precisely ‘under the reason of Being’ that God dwells unmanifested, inactive, concealed within Himself? This name, then, must come from God, as His own revelatory affirmation in His interior action. As we have seen,3 the manifestation of Being which is indeterminable and indistinct in itself, is not possible except in the suppositum of the Father, in the One, in which the emanation of Persons finds both its principle and its end, in demonstrating the identity of the Essence by the return of the Monad upon itself. If the Ego sum qui sum of Exodus is a revelation of Being, the Being which reveals itself here appears as an essential Unity while the modalities of its revelation appear as a Trinity of persons. God reveals Himself as Being in a trinitarian process and, since this interior action has as its principle the One which is attributed to the Father the first name which most properly designates God, the ‘name above all names’, will be equally Being and the One, which distinguishes it by the very fact that it points to its own ‘indistinction’.4 In saying Ego sum qui 2. Exp. in Ex., LW II, pp. 18-19, n. 13. 3. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The First Determination of Being’. 4. Exp. in Io., C., f. 122ra, ll. 25-28: ipsum vero unum ex sui proprietate distinctionem indicat; est enim unum in se indistinctum, distinctum ab aliis. Et propter hoc personale est et ad suppositum pertinet, cuius est agere. See the dialectical development of indistinction and distinction

Ego Sum Qui Sum

111

sum, God manifests Himself as true Being. This revelation renders ambiguous and inappropriate any other understanding of the words esse and ens.5 For Meister Eckhart the revelation offered in Exodus emphasises not only the unity, but also the unicity, of the Being which is God: solus Deus proprie est ens. He will recall, with regard to this issue, that Parmenides and Melissus permitted only one, single Being (ponebant tantum unum ens). Since God alone is, it suffices to respond to the question ‘What is God?’ with the answer: Being.6

Quidditas et Anitas In the proposition ‘I am’, the verb ‘to be’ is a secundum adiacens, the very predicate which attributes real being to the subject. The is, which is not a copula, thus bears a ‘formal and substantive’ meaning:7 it highlights, in the subject, nothing other than ‘pure and naked being’. In the present instance, since it is God who affirms Ego sum, this proposition de secundo adiacente has the additional meaning that the pure formality of being is the subject itself, that is to say, its essence is identical with its esse. This statement could only be made of God alone, whose quiddity, according to Avicenna, is nothing other of the Being-One in the Exp in Sap., in Archives, IV, pp. 253-56); cf. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 48vb, ll. 3-12 and 40-47. 5. Exp. In Ex., LW II, pp. 24-25, n. 18. Here Meister Eckhart is quoting St Bernard, De consideratione, 1.V.6 (PL 182, col. 796): ‘hoc tam singulare, tam summum esse: nonne in comparatione huius, quidquid hoc non est, iudicas potius non esse quam esse? Hoc est ergo quod ait: Ego sum qui sum.’ Further down (ibid., pp. 28-29, n. 22), he gives the continuation of this passage (with an erroneous reference to Boethius in the three manuscripts E, C and T: Boethius, De consolatione, V): ‘Quid est Deus? Sine quo nihil est. Tam nihil est sine ipso quam nec ipse sine se esse potest. Ipse sibi, ipse omnibus est, ac per hoc quodammodo solus ipse est, qui suum ipsius est et omnium esse.’ 6. Prol. in Op. propos., LW I, p. 42, n. 5 (only in Ms. E); OL II, pp. 21-22. Meister Eckhart most likely takes his information on the Eleatics from these two passages from Aristotle (Physics, I.2.184b, and Metaphysics, A.5.986b) but, in this instance, he refers instead to Avicenna on the Eleatics, as he had devoted a chapter of his Physics to their teachings (= Sufficientia, I.4), which was entitled De improbatione eorum que dixerunt Parmenides et Melissus de principiis essendi (Venice, 1508, f. 16ra, l. 36-16va, l. 4). 7. Prol. in Op. propos., ibid., n. 3; OL II, p. 20, ll. 19-22.

112

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

than His ‘anity’. Meister Eckhart will even add, along with the Arab philosopher: nec habet quidditatem praeter solam anitatem quam esse signal.8 Without wondering, for the moment, if the esse which, in God, must be the equivalent of essence, has the same meaning for Eckhart as the act of existing had for Aquinas, let us state that, for Eckhart, the term anitas, equated here with esse, indicates something which is not included in the quiddity or in the essence of a created being, but rather, erupts, as it were, from the exterior, ab alio, in order to constitute an essence within the being. We must take note that for Avicenna, the external source of existence points to its accidentality in relation to essence: being the accessory of essence or quiddity, which by itself is only an intellection of something whose definition involves nothing contradictory, existence is added in order to render real that which, previously, had been only possible. It is from here that we arrive at two metaphysical positions which reciprocally condition each other: ‘all that possesses quiddity is caused’; and ‘the First One has no quiddity’. If He had an essence, Avicenna’s God would have only the possibility of being and would not be the Necessary Being  – Necesse Esse.9 Existing 8. Exp. in Ex., LW II, p. 21, n. 15 (See I, p. 99, according to manuscript E): Secundo notandum quod li ‘sum’ est praedicatum propositionis, cum ait: ‘ego sum.’ Et est secundum adiacens. Quod quotiens fit, purum esse et nudum esse significat in subiecto et de subiecto et ipsum esse subiectum, id est essentiam subiecti, idem scilicet essentiam et esse, quod soli deo convenit, cuius quidditas est sua anitas, ut ait Avicenna, nec habet quidditatem praeter solam anitatem, quam esse significat. Concerning God without quiddity in Avicenna, see the references in the following note. 9. Avicenna, Metaphysics (= De philosophia prima sive scientia divina), especially tr. 8.4: De proprietatibus primi principii quod est necesse esse (Venice, 1508, ff. 98vb-99rb), from which we get these two characteristic passages: Dico enim quod necesse esse non potest habere quidditatem quam comitetur necessitas essendi [f. 99ra, ll. 19-20] … Omne habens quidditatem causatum est; et cetera alia excepto necesse esse habent quidditates, que sunt per se possibiles esse, quibus non accidit ei [sic] esse nisi extrinsecus. Primus igitur non habet quidditatem, sed super habentia quidditates fluit esse ab eo. Igitur ipse est esse expoliatum, conditione negandi privationes et ceteras proprietates ab eo (f. 99rb, ll. 7-12). Compare ch. 5 (f. 99vb, ll. 43-45): Iam igitur manifestum est quod

Ego Sum Qui Sum

113

necessarily, by the very fact that He does not have an essence, this God-Being establishes in actual being, with the same necessity, all conceivable quiddities, that is to say, which are capable of receiving the esse bestowed by a necessary Efficient Cause. Their dependence upon the Efficient Cause, proper to all that is not the necessary Being, is expressed in a definition which summarises Avicenna’s doctrine of caused being or realised essence, a definition which Meister Eckhart reproduced each time that he stated: in omni creato aliud est esse et ab alio, aliud essentia et non ab alio.10 In its lapidary form, this sentence, which claims its support from Avicenna, who is himself somewhat ambiguous in matters concerning the essence non ab alio, will be found to be acceptable to Christian theologians, who all accept that the Creative Cause must be extrinsic and that the conceptual content of a finite essence does not necessarily imply the fact of its actual existence. At the beginning of his career St Thomas himself was not far from Avicenna’s views, when, in his De ente et essentia, he stated:11 primus non habet genus nec quidditatem nec qualitatem.  … Meister Eckhart uses Avicenna’s expression necesse esse while reconciling it with Ego sum qui sum, as Moses Maimonides had done in his Guide for the Perplexed (I.63): Exp. in Ex., LW II, p. 27, n. 21. Compare ibid., pp. 38-39, nn. 32 and 33, in which the non-contradictory conceptual contents are considered as ‘possibilities’ submitted to the omnipotent efficiency of God. 10. This formula is often encountered in Meister Eckhart’s Latin works and figures in the first act of accusation, Archives, I., p. 176, n. 11. See Eckhart’s response, in which he refers to Avicenna and Albert the Great, ibid., p. 195. The sentence aliud est esse et ab alio, aliud essentia et non ab alio is certainly inspired by Avicenna. It summarises very well the passage from Metaphysics, tr. V.1 (f. 87ra, ll. 11-24), in which we read, among other things, the following: Ergo essentia eius est ipsi per se. Ipsum vero esse cum alio a se est quiddam quod accidit ei vel aliquid quod comitatur naturam suam. 11. We here quote this ‘Avicennised’ passage of De ente et essentia in Gilson’s translation (Le Thomisme, p. 57). The original text can be found on p.  34  in Roland-Gosselin’s edition. Guillaume d’Auvergne very closely follows Avicenna’s thought, as can be seen in this passage of his treatise De trinitate, 7: Quoniam autem ens potentiale est, non ens per essentiam, tunc ipsum et eius esse, quod non est ei per essentiam, duo sunt revera et alterum accidit alteri, nec cadit in rationem nec

114

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology All that is not from the concept of the essence then comes to it externally and forms a compound with it. Truly, no essence can be conceived of without that which comprises essence; every essence, or quiddity, can be conceived of without conceiving of anything with respect to its existence. For example, I can conceive of a man or of a phoenix without bearing in mind whether they actually exist in nature. Thus, it is quite obvious that existence (esse) is another thing entirely (aliud) from essence or quiddity.

Similar texts, however much they may demonstrate the very broad influence of Avicenna on Western thought, do not reflect any of the meanings that the distinction between the quidditas and the anitas could assume in the works of various thinkers. The first of these, quidditas, responds to the question ‘quid sit’ with the conceptual definition of a thing, while the second, anitas, has to respond to the question ‘an sit’12 with the affirmation or negation of the actual being quidditatem ipsius. Ens igitur, secundum hunc modum, compositum est et resolubile in suam possibilitatem sive quidditatem et suum esse. Ex quo manifestum est ipsum esse causatum ab educente possibilitatem eius in effectum essendi et a congiungente ipsum esse cum potestate ipsius (Guilielmi Alverni, Opera omnia [Paris, 1674], vol. 2, p. 8). On this subject, see ed. Roland-Gosselin (pp. 160-6) and Gilson’s article, ‘La Notion d’existence chez Guillaume d’Auvergne’, Archives 15 (1946), pp.  55-91. We must also cite the De causis et processu universitatis (1.I.1.8) by Albert the Great, which Meister Eckhart specifically refers to (see previous note): Omne enim quod ex alio est aliud habet esse et hoc quod est … ab alio ergo habet esse, a se autem ipso quod sit hoc quod est (Alberti Magni Opera Omnia, ed. Borgnet, vol. 10, p. 377). 12. Concerning the origin of the Latin term anitas, see M.-Th. d’Alverny, ‘Notes sur les traductions médiévales des oeuvres philosophiques d’Avicenne’, Archives XIX (1952), p. 346: ‘One finds in the translation of both Avicenna’s Metaphysics and Algazel’s Philosophia a quite remarkable neologism: anitas, which has been coined in order to translate and fully express a particularly difficult Arabic term, which at one and the same time conveys an interrogation and an affirmation: “anniya”, the “if it is” which marks the arrival into existence of an individual essence.’ According to Miss  A.-M. Goichon’s Lexique de la langue philosophique d’Ibn Sina (Avicenne) (Paris, 1938), pp.  9-12, ‘ “Anniya”, in Avicenna, would correspond to the “haec-ity”of a thing.’

Ego Sum Qui Sum

115

of a thing. The same must also be said of the distinction between the quod est and the quo est that has been known since Boethius, as well as the double function of the verb ‘to be’, in the propositions de tertio or de secundo adiacente: the usage of these principles, in themselves alone, still teaches us nothing of the value of the term esse in a doctrine of being. Referring to Avicenna at the beginning of his ‘exposition’ on Ego sum qui sum, Meister Eckhart declared that God has no quiddity or essence but only anitas or esse. In his Latin sermon on Gratia Dei sum id quod sum (1 Corinthians 15:10), he maintains, going in the same direction of thought, that God is always the Quo est, always the predicate, and never the quod est or the subject, claiming support from Boethius: forma simplex subiectum esse non potest.13 Before Compare the same author, in her work, La distinction de l’essence et de l’existence d’après Ibn Sina (Paris, 1937), p. 345 and ff. Miss d’Alverny (loc. cit.) points out the presence of the Latin neologism anitas in the Liber de Diffinitionibus by Isaac Israeli, translated by Gerard of Cremona. We shall quote here this curious passage (ed. J.T. Muckle, Archives 11 [1938], p. 300), in which the subject matter comprises four questions on the different aspects of being: quarum una est anitas, sicut si dicas an est hoc et hoc; et secunda est quidditas, ac si dicas quid est hoc et hoc; et tercia est qualitas, sicut si dicas quale est hoc et hoc; et quarta est quaritas, sicut si dicas quare est hoc et hoc. Compare the parallel passage in Ibn Gebirol, in Fons vitae, V.24, (ed. Bäumker, Beiträge, I.2-4, pp.  301-2), in which the same four questions appear without the corresponding abstract terms ending in -itas. If the Arabic word ‘anniya’ in Avicenna has a meaning that the Latin anitas could not fully convey, we nevertheless know what the latter term, invented by the translators, was intended to express in the minds of Gerard of Cremona and Gundissalinus, who collaborated in Toledo. In the Latin text of Avicenna’s Metaphysics, printed in Venice in 1508, anitas has been completely replaced by the term unitas. Thus, for example, in f. 99ra, ll. 18-19, we find: ‘Redibo igitur et dicam, quod primum non habet quidditatem nisi unitatem que sit discreta ab ipsa’, and further down, ibid., ll. 62-63: ‘Item dico quod quicquid habet quidditatem preter unitatem causatum est.’ 13. Serm. lat. 25.1, LW IV, p.  230, n. 251. Compare Exp. in Ex., C., f. 47rb, ll. 4-6: Sed ‘quo est’ Deo est proprium, ‘quod quid est’ proprium creature, ut patet tractatu de ‘quo est’. Boethius’ text, which Eckhart often cites, is found in De trinitate, 2 (PL 64, col. 1250cd).

116

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

comparing these passages to others in Meister Eckhart, in which he affirms quite the contrary,14 it would be important to state that, here, he is speaking of grace or, more precisely, of God as the grace by which the created subject ‘is what it is’. Grace is ‘from God alone’, pari ratione sicut et ipsum esse. As with being and all perfections, above all those which are common and are not determined specifically ad hoc et hoc, grace presupposes an immediateness in the created subject’s relationship to God, comparable to the immediate relationship which the air, as something ‘illuminable’, must have with the sun.15 This example then allows us to place Avicenna’s perspective of a God without quiddity or essence into the complex thought of Meister Eckhart. Every time that he speaks of the immediate relationship of creatures to God, of effects to the First Cause, of the omnia to the Unum, of the entia to the Esse, God is not considered in Himself, as the Essence or the Quod est. In this perspective of causality, He would appear solely as Esse omnium, as a pure Quo est. By making use of our example of the air being illuminated by the sun, we can say that, with respect to luminosity, the sun is only a light, a pure illuminating activity which one conceives of without reference to any kind of idea of a solar disc, since the disc is never participated in by the illuminated sphere surrounding it.16 In the sense in which He is Esse omnium, the principle of the created entia, Meister Eckhart’s God 14. In saying, for example, along with St John Damascene, that the first divine name is Quod est and that, as a result, solus Deus proprie est ens. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Revelation of the Unique Being’, note 5 and note 6. 15. Serm. lat. 25.2, LW IV, pp. 239-40, n. 264: … sicut aer totus se habet immediate ad solem in ratione illuminabilis, quamvis sit ordo partium aeris in situ, sic omnis creatura immediate se habet ad Geum quantum ad esse, quantum ad gratiam et quantum ad omnes perfectiones, maxime communes, indeterminatas ad hoc et hoc. 16. See the analogous usage of this example in St Gregory Palamas, in the Capita physica, theologica, moralia et practica (92 and 94) (PG 150, cols 1185d and 1188cd). The two aspects under which Eckhart considers God, in His own nature and in ad extra relationships, do not give a place in his teachings for an elaborate distinction between the divine Ens in Itself and the Esse omnium as divine action. However, the field of problems which led Byzantine theologians of the fourteenth century to distinguish between οὐσία and ἐνἐργεια is not foreign to Meister Eckhart’s thought.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

117

cannot be envisaged as a quod est or as quiddity, which, in this regard then, comes close to the ‘First’ as conceived by Avicenna. However, we are no longer in the same perspective as provided by the revelation of Exodus, when God Himself takes on the name of Being in order to express His absolute identity. When God-Esse is considered in Himself, apart from any relationship to creatures, the pure activity of this Esse, His impermixtio in external action, would then appear as a ‘reflexive conversion’, which is also a ‘residence’ (mansio), or a ‘fi xedness’ (fixio) in Himself.17 This is the interior ‘ebullition’, the life, the return of the Monad upon itself, with all the trinitarian meanings that these terms carry for Meister Eckhart.18 However, the triadic reversion is manifested only dynamically in the interior action of the One, the essential identity of a Being which is sufficient unto itself. Other concepts of being besides this one could be used to express St Augustine’s Id ipsum,19 as long as they are reduced to a pure state, free of all concrete determination. When Augustine says: Deus non bonus animus aut bonus angelus aut bonum caelum, sed bonum bonum, he is suggesting that the Good in itself, if it could be perceived in terms of a path of abstraction based on all determined good, would be a perception of God: Thus, then, the bonum bonum signifies the Good without any mingling (impermixtum), the supreme Good fi xed in itself, not dependent upon anything else (nulli innitens), coming back into itself in a complete return. In the same way, the sum qui sum denotes the special detachment of Being (impermixtionem esse) and its fullness, as was said above.20 17. Exp. in Ex., LW II, p.  21, n. 16 (see I, p.  99), see above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Puritas et Plenitudo’, note 106. The term fixio surely comes from the Liber de causis. See, for example, Prop. 16, commentary (ed. Steele, p.  174; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 15, p.  177): rebus entibus, habentibus fixionem; Prop. 26 (ed. Steele, p. 181; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 25, p. 186): … fixa, stans per essentiam suam, etc., passim. 18. Ibid., pp, 21-22. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Puritas et Plenitudo Essendi’, n. 107. 19. Confessions, IX.10.24 (ed. Belles Lettres, vol. 2, p.  228)  – an account of the ‘Ecstasy of Ostia’. Compare ibid., XII.7.7, p. 334. 20. Exp. in Ex., loc. cit., n. 17 (see I, p.  99, according to manuscript E): Sic ergo ‘bonum bonum’ significat bonum impermixtum et summum

118

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

These ‘pure affirmations’, while expressing the identity of an essence that is reflected upon itself, must represent a quidditative reality which is manifested and defined as being no different from its ‘anity’. Here the interrogative pronoun quis, although it sometimes relates to accidental circumstances, must, above all, have the same function as quid: it seeks to know the quidditas or the essentia rei, which is indicated by a name and affirmed in ‘reason’ or a definition. Since in all that is created the esse is adventitious (ab alio), whereas the essence is not (non ab alio), this difference between the actual being of a thing and its essence will determine two different questions: an est, inquiring into the anitas or the esse of a thing, and quid est, seeking to know its quiddity or essence. If one were to respond to someone asking what is a man or an angel with an existential proposition, de secundo adiacente, by saying that a man or an angel is, such a response would be misplaced or inadequate, as it would not say anything about either human or angelic quiddity. By contrast, it is very appropriate, when asked, quis aut quid sit Deus, to respond with, ‘God is’, for one has thus made known that the anitas or esse of God is His own quiddity or essence.21 bonum in se ipso fixum, nulli innitens, super se ipsum ‘rediens reditione completa.’ Sic li sum qui sum impermixtionem esse et ius plenitudine mindicat, ut dictum est supra. The editors preferred the rendering in manuscript T to that of E and C. In E, this passage begins with Sicut, which assumes a comma before sic li ‘sum qui sum’. This comma is also assumed in C’s reading, but it is followed by a si. This lends a different sense to the entirety of the passage which we have quoted: while in manuscripts E and T the bonum bonum is simply reconciled with sum qui sum, in C the ‘return upon itself’ of the divine perfections is founded upon the identity of the Being. Konrad Weiss speaks of two versions of Exp. in Ex. (see the introduction in LW I, pp. 21-22): the first, that of manuscript E, is less theologically complex than the second (Mss. C and T), in which Eckhart largely utilised Moses Maimonides who insists upon the substantiality of God in his exegesis of Ego sum qui sum. This leads us to believe that the reading of C, which has been ignored by the editors, should actually be preferred to that of T, as it represents a reworking by Eckhart of the original text of his commentary on Exodus. For St Augustine’s bonum bonum, see De trinitate, VIII.3, nn. 4 and 5 (PL 42, cols. 949-50). 21. Ibid., pp.  23-24, n. 18 (see I, pp.  99-100). Also see this passage from the Exp. in Io., in which Eckhart expresses in terms of truth the same ideas about the identity of essence and being in God (C., f. 130va, ll.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

119

Divine Sufficiency and Created Indigence Moses Maimonides did not follow Avicenna’s teaching, for whom God was Esse alone, without any quiddity. If the name of Yahweh, the hidden nomen tetragrammaton, must designate the Necessarily Existent, this does not mean that the divine essence must be replaced by existence, but simply that it is identical to its existence, existing of itself.22 Concerning this point, Maimonides can be considered as an intermediary between Avicenna and St Thomas.23 Meister Eckhart fully accepts the Jewish theologian’s exegesis of Ego sum qui sum, while still showing a certain hesitation around the tendency to identify the name of the Being-who-is-Being with the unutterable tetragrammaton.24 Eckhart does, however, recognise the ‘separate’ character of this revealed expression, indicated, above all by the ‘descriptive’ pronoun of the first person, thus designating pure substance (meram substantiam).25 It is God Himself who names Himself by affirming Ego sum qui sum. The first sum, according to 38-47): Et notandum quod istud est proprium Deo veritati et hiis que cum veritate convertuntur (puta esse, unum et bonum), quod querenti de ipsis quid sint respondetur quod ipsa sunt id quod sunt. Unde, Exodi 3°, Moisi querenti de Deo quis esset et quod nomen eius respondit: ‘Ego sum qui sum.’ De aliis autem omnibus, creates scilicet, querenti quid esset stulta esset huius (modi) responsio. Verbi gratia, si queratur quid esset angelus et respondeatur quod ‘esset angelus,’ etc., reprehendenda erit responsio. 22. Guide for the Perplexed, I.1.61-63 (Munk, op. cit., I, pp. 267-85). 23. É. Gilson, ‘Maïmonide et la philosophie de l’Exode’, Medieval Studies 13 (1951), pp. 223-25. 24. Exp. in Ex., LW II, p. 25, n. 19: Rursus quinto notandum quod Rabbi Moyses, I. 1, c. 65, hoc verbum tractans: sum qui sum, videtur velle quod ipsum est nomen tetragrammaton, aut proximum illi, ‘quod est’ sanctum et ‘separatum’, ‘quod scribitur et non legitur’, et illum solum ‘significat substantiam creatoris nudam et puram’. De quo notavi infra, super illo: Non assumes nomen Dei tui in vanum, c. 20°. Compare ibid., C., f., 51vb, ll. 51-56: Et fortassis posset videri alicui quod esse esset ipsum nomen quatuor litterarum, ad litteram enim li ‘esse’ habet quatuor litteras, multas proprietates latentes, ipsum etiam non videtur sumptum ab opere nec dictum a participatione. We have noted the same hesitation around Ego sum qui sum in the search for the nomen innominabile: see above, Chapter 1, section headed ‘The Search for the Ineffable’. 25. See the considerations of speculative grammar regarding ‘ego’, ‘qui’ and ‘sum’, ibid., p. 20, nn. 14-15 (see I, pp. 98-99).

120

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Maimonides, designates the subject which is named and must be related to essence, whereas the second, with relation to the subject, is the predicate which names it or its ‘naming’ (agnominatio) which, here, would correspond to esse.26 The singularity of the proposition sum qui sum, by which God has defined Himself as Being by Itself, becomes quite evident if one becomes aware of the fact that, generally, the subject of a proposition presents itself as imperfect by the very fact of its dependence with reference to the attribute. The name subiectum expresses this clearly, as it assimilates that which is referred to as a ‘subject’ into matter, thus opposing it to all that, strictly speaking, exists as a form, and, according to Boethius, would not be able to be the subject of accidents.27 The attribute or the agnominans thus always appears as a form or a perfection of the subject or the agnominatum. Thus, when we say that someone is just or good or wise, we are actually speaking of an essence that does not have these qualities in itself, an essence which is not self-sufficient. These ‘needy’ and ‘mendicant’ essences need something other than themselves in order to receive their perfections. The logical dependence of the subject on its predicate corresponds to the metaphysical condition of created essences: since they do not exist of themselves, they are also not the perfections that they have. Thus, a craftsman’s human nature is not enough, in and of itself, to build a house, since the will to act must intervene, along with his own capability, knowledge, and other properties, all of which are distinct from his essence as such. If, in created beings, substance differs from power and if being is not the same as doing, then these interior divisions point to the radical insufficiency of essences which, in their very being, depend upon an external agent. Egere perficiente, egere alio et non sufficere sibimet – such is the condition of a created essence which is never fully that which it is or should be, just as the logical subject in a proposition generally is not fully identical with the predicate which defines it. Yet, all this is totally foreign to the Divine

26. Ibid., p.  25, n. 19: Vult ergo Rabbi Moyses dicere quod li sum primo dictum significat rei essentiam et est subiectum sive agnominatum. Secundo vero positum sive repetitum significat esse et est praedicatum sive agnominans et agnominatio. 27. See above, Chapter  1, section headed ‘The Search for the Ineffable’, notes 101 and 102.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

121

Essence, since ‘the First One is rich in Himself’.28 From this follows the unique character of the proposition sum qui sum, in which God shows us a subject (the first sum) which is identical with the predicate (the second sum), an agnominatum which is its own agnominans, a quidditas which is anitas, an Essence which is Esse and which is sufficient in itself, being its own Sufficiency. The stability (firmitas) and the perfection of the Divine Essence do not depend on any being (ens) which would be exterior to it and other than itself. On the other hand, this unique independence, which belongs to God alone, is the condition of universal dependence with respect to the Essence which is sufficient ad omnia et in omnibus.29 Truly, if this kind of sufficiency could belong to a creature, if a man, for example, could by essence be his own esse, this would then constitute a necessary being, Avicenna’s Necesse Esse.30 However, the quiddity of creatures, their id quod est, as it exists, is only a mode of the ‘Being itself’ (modus est ipsius esse) upon which creatures depend, to which they are attached, apart from which they are merely nothingness, for ‘our sufficiency is of God’, according to the words of St Paul (2 Corinthians 3:5).31 Talis ergo sufficientia Dei signatur, cum ex persona Dei dicitur: ‘Ego sum qui sum.’32 Following Maimonides’ exegesis, Meister Eckhart thus passes over, along with the Rabbi of Cordoba, Avicenna’s notion of a Necesse Esse, which exists only without an essence. Like St Thomas, he wished to see in the revelation of Exodus a testimony to the unique Being in whom essence does not differ from His existence. 28. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Way of Unified Eminence’, note 218. 29. Exp. in Ex., LW II, pp. 25-26, nn. 19 and 20. 30. Ibid., p. 27, n. 21. 31. Ibid., p.  28: Sicut enim ipse sibi et omnibus est, sic et ipse sibi et omnibus sufficit, ipse sua et omnium sufficientia est, 2 Cor. 3: ‘sufficientia nostra ex Deo est.’ Non ergo Deus eget esse, cum sit ipsum esse. Non eget sapientia, non potentia aut aliquo prorsus addito alio sive alieno, sed e converso: omnis perfectio eget ipso, qui est ipsum esse, tum quia singulum horum in se et ex se, id quod est, modus est ipsius esse, ipsi innititur, ipsi inhaeret, tum quia sine ipso esset nihil et non esset sapientia nec quidquam aliud, sed purum nihil, Ioh. I: ‘sine ipso factum est nihil,’ quasi diceret: etiam ‘quod factum est,’ quod esse habet et accipit, puta sapientia et quodlibet huiusmodi, sine ipso esse utique est nihil. 32. Ibid., p. 26, n. 20.

122

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

For a theologian who avails himself of the Bible, this identification of essence and existence in God will always entail the same thing: ‘He who is’ exists of Himself. However, in each case the manner in which this Being-who-is-Being is conceived will vary, based on what sort of meaning is ascribed to the terms essentia and esse in the context of a doctrine of created being. Thus, Aquinas’ ipsum esse subsistens is an essence that is conceived in existential terms, as a pure Act of existing, which is to be differentiated from all fi nite existence from which it is distinct. God’s essentiality itself, as expressed by the adjective ‘subsistant’, only serves to underline more greatly the pure actuality of Esse, opposing it to all notions of a composed being where essence, being distinct from its existence, is always in a state of potentiality or potency with reference to the actus assendi. All that can be said of Aquinas’ God, at least as far as negative theology is concerned, is that He is not a ‘metaphysical compound’ of essence and existence, as created beings are.33 However, when the eminence of this simplicity is to be expressed positively and within a doctrine of being which sees the supreme perfection of created substances in the act of existing, this, surely, must be done on the plane of existence, thus permitting the Essence to be swallowed, in a certain sense, by the Act of Existence.34 The 33. We cite here the beautiful example of negative theology, as conceived by St Thomas within the bounds of existence, in I Sent., d. 8, q. 1, a. 1, ad. 4um (ed. Mandonnet, pp.  196-97): Ad quartum dicendum, quod alia nomina dicunt esse secundum aliam rationem determinatum; sicut sapiens dicit aliquid esse; sed hoc nomen ‘qui est’ dicit esse absolutum et non determinatum per aliquid additum; et ideo dicit Damascenus, quod non significat quid est Deus, sed significat quoddam pelagus substantiae infinitum, quasi non determinatum. Unde, quando in Deum procedimus per viam remotionis, primo negamus ab eo corporalia; et secundo etiam intellectualia, secundum quod inveniuntur in creaturis, ut bonitas et sapientia; et tunc remanet tantum in intellectu nostro, quia est, et nihil amplius: unde est sicut in quadam confusione. Ad ultimum autem etiam hoc ipsum esse, secundum quod est in creaturis, ab ipso removemus; et tunc remanet in quadam tenebra ignorantiae, secundum quam ignorantiam, quantum ad statum viae pertinent, optime Deo coniungimur, ut dicit Dionysius. Et haec est quaedam caligo, in qua Deus habitare dicitur. 34. While being opposed to interpreting the notion of God in St Thomas in an Avicennian sense, that is to say, as an absolute Esse

Ego Sum Qui Sum

123

terms with which the Thuringian Dominican expresses the same truth, in speaking of the Essence which is its own Sufficiency, belong to another doctrinal perspective entirely, in which that which is distinct in creatures casts in a different light such distinctions as must be identical in God. In Eckhart, the identification of the Esse with the Divine Essence is actually contrary in meaning to the way it is understood and presented by St Thomas. In Eckhart this identification is a reduction of existence to essence. It could be said that this Esse-God is an existence understood in terms of a philosophy of essence, as a Being that is sufficient unto itself, or as an essence in which nothing is lacking. Thus, it is on the spectrum of the ‘sufficiency’ or ‘lack’ of essence, that the Being which exists of itself is found to be opposed to the entia which exist only by receiving esse from an extrinsic Cause (ab alio). Eckhart’s God, who is sua et omnium Sufficientia because His esse or anitas is identical with His identity or quiddity, permits this identity to be discerned under another aspect than that of ontological non-composition which is opposed to the composition of created beings. He appears, then, above all, as independent of every thing apart from Himself, non ab alio in His esse.35 Created beings are to be distinguished from the Being who exists of Himself not as compounds but as being dependent upon an efficient Cause. 36 As we have without quiddity (See A.-D. Sertillanges, Le Christianisme et les philosophies, 2 vols [Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1939], I, p. 268), Gilson nonetheless recognises a certain absorption of the Essence by Existence in the very manner that Aquinas describes their identity in God (Le Thomisme, p. 135, note 4). 35. The five demonstrations of the first proposition, Esse est Deus, are conceived in this sense. See Prol. gener. in Op. tripart., in LW I, pp. 15658., n. 12 (cf. ibid., p. 38); in OL II, pp. 12-13. 36. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed. (deest in E), C., f. 20va, ll. 30-44: Adhuc autem docemur quomodo Deus, et ipse solus, et ab ipso solo, est omnis sufficientia omnium; et econverso: a creatura et omni creato est insufficientia. Ad horum evidentiam et etiam aliorum, a principio huius capituli 17mi, dicendum quod Deus, utpote esse et causa prima omnis esse, sua substantia sibi sufficit ad omnia. Non sic in aliquo creato: omne siquidem creatum, utpote creatum, non sibimet sufficit, nec quantum ad esse, nec quantum ad subsistere et multominus ad operari, sed indiget alio, puta causa sua ad hoc quod sit, quod subsistat, quod operatur. Hinc est quod nomen Dei est Saday, decisum a ‘day,’ quod est ‘sufficientia’

124

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

seen, 37 this dependence, which is conveyed by the duality of Causeeffect or Creator-creature, implies for creatures the abandonment of Unity, of the casus ab Uno, the initial fall into duality, the root of all division and distinction. Having been marked by duality, creatures which have esse ab alio are defined with reference to God as the non-One, being thus opposed to the indistinction of the Being that the One signifies by its very indistinction.38 The identity of essence and existence in God, viewed sub ratione Unius, thus is presented, for Eckhart, in quite a different light than in Aquinas. In negative terms, this identity can be referred to as the Indistinction of the Being or as its purity; in positive terms, it is Sufficiency or fullness. These two expressions, puritas et plenitudo essendi, which are most often presented together, denote the Esse such as it is manifested in the One or in the paternal suppositum: as the unity or indistinction of the Essence and as the ‘return’ of the same Essence in the interior action of the Monad which generates a Monad and returns upon itself. Instead of St Thomas’ subsisting Esse, here in Meister Eckhart we find an Essentia in reflexive action. The two functions of the One with relation to Being, negative and positive, indistinction and first determination, are inseparable in Meister Eckhart’s theology. In effect, it is not possible to speak of the Essence other than in the suppositum, where it is revealed in action. It remains ‘unnameable’ and hidden apart from trinitarian revelation, in which its identity is shown in a dynamic aspect. If Meister Eckhart insists upon reconciling the Ego sum qui sum with the Monad which generates the Monad and is reflected back to itself, such that the Monad achieves a ‘complete return to its own essence’, it is because for Eckhart two propositions, namely, the first proposition of the ‘24 Philosophers’ and the fifteenth of the Liber de causis,39 have sive ‘qui sufficientia’, Cor 3o: Sufficientia vestra ex Deo est. Quod esse est ipsum quod desiderat omnis res, et quod vere desideratur est esse, ut ait Avicenna 4° metaphysice, capitulo VI°. Avicenna, Metaphysics, tr. VIII, ch. 6 (f. 100ra, ll. 1-3). Compare tr. IV, c. 3 (f. 86rb, ll. 14-20). 37. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Semel Locutus Est Deus, Duo haec Audivi’. 38. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Revelation of the Unique Being’, note 4. 39. Exp. in Ex., LW II, p.  22, n. 16, and p.  23, n. 17. For the first proposition of the ‘24 Philosophers’, see above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Puritas et Plenitudo Essendi’. The fifteenth proposition of the

Ego Sum Qui Sum

125

a trinitarian meaning. ‘Pure affirmation’, the sum qui sum, is the Act by which God affirms Himself as the identity of Being, in returning to Himself within the life of the Trinity, in this ‘formal bubbling up’, which is both interior and intellectual, a ‘total transfusion of essence’ which is not subjected to any external cause, either efficient or final. However, just in its very movement this interior act reveals the stability and perfect repose of the Essence which is sufficient in itself,40 as well as the essential Unity of the three Persons which are indistinct in their Being. That which is more mobile than all other moving things can only be immobile, because it is the only mode of being more mobile than itself, and also, because in the One there is no ‘more’ or ‘less’.41 The action proper to the paternal suppositum must, then, coincide with essential inaction, which is that which suits an act of the intellect, which remains resting even while in action. God

Liber de causis (ed. Steele, p.  173; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 14, p.  177) states: Omnis sciens qui scit essentiam suam est rediens ad essentiam suam reditione completa. This is an exact copy of Proclus’ Prop. 83 (The Elements of Theology, ed. Dodds, p. 76): Πᾶν ἑαυτοῦ γνωστικὸν πρὸς ἑαυτὸ πάντη ἐπιστρεπτικὸν ἐστιν. See Prop. 43 (ibid., p. 44): Πᾶν τὸ πρὸς ἐπιστρεπτικὸν αὐθυπόστατον ἐστιν. St Thomas interprets in this latter sense the fifteenth proposition of the De causis, when he says, in his Summa Theologica (Ia, q. 14, a. 2, ad. 1um): redire ad essentiam suam nihil aliud est quam rem subsistere in se ipsa. In his Expositio super Lib. de causis, lect. 15, he lends this first sense, that of an intellectual ‘reflection’, to the same proposition; however, along with Proclus, he does not concede that the human soul has the ability to return into its own essence in an act of reflexive knowledge (ed. Mandonnet, Opuscula omnia, vol. 1, pp. 264-66). See the article by R.P.J. Webert, ‘Reflexio’, a study of reflexive operations in the psychology of St Thomas Aquinas, in P. Mandonnet (ed.), Mélanges Mandonnet (Paris: J. Vrin, 1930), vol. I, pp. 285-325. 40. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed. (deest in E), C., f. 16rb, ll. 41-45: Quod autem dicitur Deus non solum quiescere, sed requiescere, quasi iterum quiescere, … signat … stabilitatem sive plenum quietem, secundum illud: sum qui sum, et cetera similia que geminantur frequenter in scriptura. 41. Exp. in Sap., in Archives IV, p.  238. See the usage of this text with reference to Meister Eckhart’s negative theology, by K. Oltmanns, Die Philosophie des Meister Eckhart (Frankfurt-am-Main: Osterrieth, 1935), p. 182.

126

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

is pure intellect – cuius esse totale est ipsum intelligere.42 This is why absolute Action coincides with essential Rest or Sufficiency, which the Divine Intellect manifests in the proposition Ego sum qui sum.

Reduplicatio The sum qui sum is a principle of pure essentiality which is found in all duplicate affirmations, those in which the subject is identified with the attribute. Meister Eckhart uncovers a trinitarian flavour in those propositions in which the identity of the Being, the identity of its transcendental determinations or other ‘general terms’ and ‘spiritual perfections (such as wisdom, justice etc.) is predicated in a repetition, such as sum qui sum, bonum bonum.43 The same trinitarian meaning attaches to the expression ‘insofar as’ (inquantum), which Meister Eckhart very often uses to bring about the ‘reduplication’ of a term, by saying, for example, iustus, inquantum iustus. By being turned back on itself by the inquantum, a concrete term, such as iustus, is released from the abstract form which defines it (iustitia), becoming free of all other attributions which could determine the subject in the concrete order of existence. Thus, being purified by this reduplication, the concrete term attains to a level of abstraction which not only logically precedes it, but also precedes it in a metaphysical sense as a participated formality.44 Having been reduced, or, rather, exalted, to the level of the abstract, the concrete is shown to be identical to abstract formality: iustus, inquantum iustus, est ipsa iustitia. Thus, it goes without saying that this result of the process of reduplicatio, and, generally, the role of abstraction for Eckhart, cannot be understood or judged apart from the metaphysical and theological context of the entirety of his thought.45 42. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed (deest in E), C., f. 15va, l. 54-f. 15vb, l. 4: Intellectus autem ex sui proprietate non laborat operando sed quiescit. Et hoc est quod in verbis premissis dicit Deum quiescere ab universo opere: nos docere voluit quod Deus sit intellectus purus, cuius esse totale est ipsum intelligere. 43. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Quidditas et Anitas’, note 20. 44. Exp. in Io., LW III, p.  13, n. 14: Iustus praeest in ipsa iustitia, utpote concretum in abstracto et participans in participato. 45. Fr Théry noted quite accurately that the frequent usage of inquantum in Meister Eckhart’s works ‘is revelatory of his intellectual outlook’. However, wanting to judge the German theologian through the lens of orthodox Thomism, he reduced Eckhart’s originality to an

Ego Sum Qui Sum

127

Aware of the difficulties which could be created by his characteristic usage of this form of ‘reduplication’, Meister Eckhart found it necessary to pause at and dwell on this particular issue, before responding point by point to the condemned articles during the trial at Cologne. ‘The inquantum or reduplication’, he said: excludes all that is ‘other’, all that is foreign to the (redoubled) term, if only with concern to thoughts (etiam secundum rationem). Thus, even though being and knowledge are identical in God, we say, however, that God is not evil, even though he may know evil. In the same way, even though essence and paternity are identical in God the Father, however, He does not generate anything as an essence but only as the Father, even though essence is the root of generation. Truly, divine acts, even those which are absolute,[46] proceed from God in conformity with excess of intellectual reach towards abstraction: ‘Eckhart is “an abstract thinker”? Often he sees only one point of view on things, and moreover he exaggerates, and then he distorts things precisely because he does not take into account other viewpoints’ (Archives, III, p. 186, note 1). Yet, it is impor tant to take note that it is precisely the ‘abstract’ that is so rich in meaning in the Thuringian mystic’s works, for it corresponds to the supreme reality in which the concrete reality pre-exists and to which it is converted by ‘reduplication’. The adverb inquantum, the third term which indicates the formal identity of the concrete with the abstract in this intellectual operation, has, for Meister Eckhart, a function analogous to that of the third person in divinis, as we shall presently see. Just as with his dialectic (see above, Chapter 1, section headed ‘The Wine of Cana’), Eckhart’s ‘abstract’ spirit is not the domain of a logician, but of a mystical theologian. 46. An incorrect placement of punctuation in Théry renders the following phrase incomprehensible: Procedunt enim actus divinorum, etiam absoluti, a Deo secundum proprietatem attributorum. (Théry does not put a comma after divinorum nor after absoluti, but mistakenly cuts off the sentence after Deo). The actions of the essence which is common to the three persons are called ‘absolute’ as opposed to the notional acts which presuppose a relationship. Compare St Thomas, I Sent., d. 7, q. 1, a. 2 (ed. Mandonnet, vol. 1, pp. 178-79), where ‘quae absolute dicuntur, sicut bonitas, sapientia et huiusmodi’ is opposed to ‘ad aliquid dicta’ (first objection and ad 1m). In the solutio to the same question, St Thomas uses the ‘rule of theology’ which Eckhart invokes, a rule according to which divine acts would be determined by essential absolute attributes.

128

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology the properties of the attributes, according to a theological maxim. This is why Bernard says, in the fifth book of his treatise, ‘On consideration’, that God loves inasmuch as He is charity, knows inasmuch as He is Truth, presides inasmuch as He is Justice, reigns inasmuch as He is Majesty, works inasmuch as He is Power, reveals inasmuch as He is Light.47

The examples that Meister Eckhart quoted above suggest that there is but one ‘reason’, which, in its abstract expression, is identical with pure essentiality, and which appears in the suppositum working as a form which determines the hidden content of action. The second point is yet even more important, as not only does it express the formal character of the connection suggested by the word inquantum, but it also makes clear that this reduction of the concrete to the abstract does not have the same meaning in trinitarian reality and in the relations of creatures to God: Secundum est, quod bonus et bonitas sunt unum. Bonus enim, inquantum bonus, solam bonitatem significat, sicut album solam qualitatem, albedinem scilicet, significat. Hec tamen, bonus et bonitas, sunt in filio, spiritus sancto et patre unum univoce. In Deo autem et nobis, qui boni sumus, sunt analogice unum.48

However, he extends this principle to personal properties, which are truly identical to essence, as Meister Eckhart will also do, for example, in the Exp. in Io. (C., f. 116rb, ll. 16-24): Universaliter enim quale est principium formale et caput generationis, tale est in omnibus conditionibus et proprietatibus id quod ab ipso genitum est et procedens, tam in Deo quam in creaturis. Unde, si principium formale radicale est increatum, imensum, eternum, omnipotens, Deus, dominus, etc., tale semper est et id quod ab inde gignitur et procedit. Hinc est primo quod, sicut doctores dicunt, in divinis actus procedunt ab essentia secundum proprietatem attributorum; semper enim simile naturaliter procedit a simili. Compare Exp. in Ex., LW II, p.  61, n. 56, in which one finds (note 2) references to St Thomas and Jacques de Metz. The latter limits the ‘rule of theology’ with reference to the procession of absolute acts. 47. The proceedings of the Cologne trial, Archives, I, p. 186. 48. Ibid.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

129

Taking account of the analogical character that ‘formation’ must take on in created subjects, we shall find nevertheless an immediateness in the relation of the concrete participant to the abstract or formal principle in which it participates, an immediateness which will permit the reduction of the one into the other, as is seen in the example of generative Justice and generated justice in de iustificatione impii. Justice generates what is just, but the latter remains yet identical to justice, inasmuch as it is truly just. This inquantum is the reduplication or the ‘replication of both’, expressing their link and reciprocal order. It is the pivot of the bending back upon the self, the ‘bend and the link between the two’. This third term, the adverb which highlights the formal identity of the concrete with the abstract, is full of trinitarian meaning and makes it possible to locate the theological foundation of the reduplicatio mechanism in the mutual relationship between the Father and the Son. The link between the two in the Trinity, the ‘bend’ or ‘fold’ which points to their essential identity, is the Third Person, the Holy Spirit.49 Thus, we shall find the ‘image and expression of the Trinity’50 every time that the concrete is identified with the abstract, the participant with the participated, the formed subject with the form, by means of the inquantum. Thus, in the example of justice and the just, the just are considered as such only insofar as they receive all their being from the single justice: it is its son and generated justice is the father of the just, as the latter is not created in its quality of being just but generated by justice itself. In this relationship between justice and the just, one will necessarily find three moments which correspond to the Three Divine Persons: ungenerated justice, generated justice, and the mutual love or link between the generating and generated, emanating from the two tanquam ab uno, since ungenerated justice and generated justice are identical  – simpliciter 49. Exp. in Io., C., f. 114rb, ll. 51-61: Prostremo, ad evidentiam quasi exemplarem premissorum, notandum quod loquentes quasi de iusto, filio scilicet, et patre eius iustitia quod unum sunt, unum testantur, unum operantur (supra, 5°: Pater meus usque modo operatur et ego operor), dicimus et solemus dicere: ‘iustus, inquantum iustus, est ipsa iustitia’, ‘ facit opera iustitie’, et similia. Li ‘inquantum’ autem reduplicatio est. Reduplicatio vero, sicut ipsum vocabulum testatur, dicit nexum et ordinem duorum. Dicitur enim reduplicatio – duorum replicatio, plica et nexus duorum, patris et filii, et spiritus sanctus – 3a in trinitate persona. 50. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 387.

130

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

unum – by nature.51 These three moments of action on the part of the One are distinguished by the contrasting relationships which are in God the three Persons who are truly distinct; in created subjects, the three terms of the same action do not form three persons, as they are distinguished sola relatione et ratione.52 Thus, the law of trinitarian life is applied wherever the identity of being is manifested under the formal aspect of the productivity of the One. Every time that Meister Eckhart speaks of reflexive conversion, he is not speaking of an exterior causality, either efficient or final, but rather of a formal and interior action which is performed by the One. This is not the production of creatures, in which the One is present in the multiplicity of its effects (Unum in multis), but, instead, it is the uncreated reality of the ‘formal bubbling up’, a pre-creaturely state which excludes all forms of alterity and numerical diversity.53 Here the One is the Principle of the emanation of the Persons, with the Principle presiding over a production in which the Esse only acts to show its identity by producing itself in the One by generation and spiration. Thus, this affirmation of being in a repetition of identical terms is suited to God: ‘Truly, what is there that is as equally identical to itself as being and the being, “I am That which I am”?’ This is why there is 51. Ibid. See this entire passage on the trinitarian character of the relationship between justice and the just, pp.  386-89. The same law, founded upon trinitarian theology, could be illustrated by other examples: ‘sapientia et sapiens’, ‘veritas et verus’, ‘bonitas et bonus’. See articles 1-4 of the first list of condemned passages (Archives I, pp. 15759) and Meister Eckhart’s responses (ibid., pp. 168 and 188). Eckhart further develops the trinitarian aspect of the relationship between Bonitas et bonus in article 4, an extract of the Book of Divine Consolation: see Daz buoch der goetlichen troestunge, in DW V, pp. 9-11. Goodness and the good mutuo se respiciunt or, according to the expression used in the original text, ‘sich einander anesehent’. As we shall see later, the reciprocal gaze of ‘Iustitia et Iustus’ will become a ‘face-to-face vision’ and will take on other expressions: that of a conversation (confabulatio, collocutio), of an encounter (occursus), of a touching (attactus) and of a kiss (osculum), along with references to the Song of Songs (Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f., 35ra-f. 35rb). Compare (ibid., f. 34vb, ll. 1-4): Hec enim confabulatio est inter sanctum et sanctum sanctorum, inter sanctum et sanctitatem, inter bonum et bonitatem, inter iustum et iustitiam. 52. The proceedings of the Cologne trial, Archives, I, p. 187. 53. Exp in Io., passage cited p. 131, see section headed ''I Live Because I Live''.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

131

no truer proposition than this one, in which the subject is also its own predicate.54 All affirmations of essential identity are thus founded upon the sum qui sum of Exodus, from which they receive a hidden richness which irresistibly attracts the spirit of Meister Eckhart. Far from being empty words or tautologies devoid of any meaning, these propositions are full of the mystery of the trinitarian relationship, and they thus permit us to get at least a glimpse of the ‘formal bubbling up’ in which the One affirms the identity of the Being which is God. Thus, Augustine’s bonum bonum as well as other ‘doubled’ expressions, by disengaging from a pure, formal reason, and thus becoming naked of all that would particularise it in the hoc aut illud, make known an aspect of essentiality not only as Being which is ‘unmingled and supreme, fi xed in itself, not depending upon anything else’, but also as Being which ‘goes back upon itself in a complete return’. Truly, the sum qui sum simultaneously reveals both unmingled Being and the fullness of Being:55 the purity of the indistinct, divine Esse and the emanation of persons. The former (puritas, impermixtio) excludes all naming of the Esse absconditum, while the latter (plenitudo) allows for attributing to the Being all names which can be considered under the reason of the One, which is the omnipotent principle of operation. Above all, however, it is the Principle of the reversive procession of the Persons and of their common attributes, namely: Iustitia ingenita, Iustitia genita and the mutual love between the two of them which causes the Son to ‘fold’ into the essential unity of the Father.

‘I Live Because I Live’ According to the Liber de causis,56 the complete return into its own essence is an intellectual action: Omnes sciens essentiam suam est rediens ad essentiam reditione completa. Concerning this affirmation, 54. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 46rb, ll. 56-59: affirmatio consistens in esse et ydemptitate terminorum deo proprie competit. Quod enim tam idem quam esse et esse, sum qui sum? Nulla enim propositio propter hoc est verior illa in qua idem predicatur de se ipso. 55. Ibid., C., f. 46rb, ll. 53-56: Ego ait sum qui sum, tum quia ipse est plenitudo esse et plenum esse, tum quia ipse nichil est aliud nisi purum esse. See ibid., in LW II, pp. 22-23, n. 17 (cited above, on p. 55, note 20). 56. Commentary on the Prop. 15 (see above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Divine Sufficiency and Created Indigence’, note 39): Quod est quia scientia non est nisi actio intelligibilis. Cum ergo scit sciens suam

132

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Meister Eckhart remarks: Ait autem signanter ‘completa’, quia ubicumque sistit reditio ad se, ibi sistit et cognitio, quia ibidem mox subintrat et manet alienum et per consequens incognitum.57 This means that, in an act of total comprehension, intelligence and intelligibility must be completely identical. Aristotle calls this act of existence-in-itself the ultimate ‘Life’ and refers to God by the name of ‘the perfect, eternal Living One’.58 These expressions, developed in an Aristotelian context of ‘Thought which thinks itself’, a theme which is worked out in the Sophist, in which Plato seeks to unite life and intelligence with being (248e-249a), and which was then taken up by Plotinus, was applied to the Νοῦς, which causes the Being to exist by means of thinking, and itself exists by receiving its thought and existence from the Being (Ennead V.1.4). The uni-multiple life of Plotinus’ second hypostasis, ‘which causes all other life to be scorned’ (Ennead VI.7.15),59 which is much richer in meaning than Aristotle’s Prime Mover, is not the true identity of the knower and the known, but a pathway leading to the limit of their identification.60 It could not be other wise for a tradition which so steadfastly safeguards the apophatic pre-eminence of the One, even above Being and Intelligence. Meister Eckhart receives this concept of Life attributed to the Divine Intellect from different sources, finding the same idea in Aristotle and in his commentators, essentiam, tunc redit per operationem suam intelligibilem ad essentiam suam. Et hoc non est ita, nisi quoniam sciens et scitum sunt res una, quoniam scientia scientis essentiam suam est ex eo et ad eam – est ex eo quia est sciens, et ad eam quia est scitum. Quod est quia propterea quod scientia est scientia scientis, et sciens scit essentiam suam, est eius operatio rediens ad essentiam suam, etc. 57. Exp in Io., LW III, p. 186, n. 222. 58. Metaphysics XII.1072b 26-30. Averroes, in Metaphysics, 12 (Venice, 1552), f. 151va, ll. 42-51: Deinde dicit: Et habet vitam, quia actio intellectus est vita. Id est: et dicitur de eo vita. Hoc enim nomine, scilicet ‘vita,’ dicitur de comprehensione. Et cum actio intellectus est comprehensio, ergo actio intellectus est vita. Deinde dicit: et ille est intellectus per se, et habet vitam nobilem, id est et cum intellectus est unus, et cum actio eius est vita, illud igitur, quod intelligens est quia intelligit se, non quia intelligit aliud, illud est vivum, quod habet vitam in fine nobilitatis. Et ideo vita et scientia proprie dicuntur de eo (Commentum 39). See St Thomas, Metaphysics XII, lectio 8; Ia, q. 18, a. 3. 59. Ennead VI.15 (ed. Belles Lettres, vol. 6a, p. 86). 60. De Gandillac, La Sagesse de Plotin, p. 136.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

133

in Averroes and St Thomas, just as much as in Proclus61 and in the Liber de causis.62 Here it would also be important to mention the scriptural passage, Quod factum est in ipso vita erat (John 1:4), and its interpretation by St Augustine, along with the example of the arca in anima artificis.63 Being fused together and thus transformed, these doctrinal elements enter into the concept of vital spontaneity which will come to characterise Eckhart’s entire conception of the interior activity of the One as it manifests the identity of the Being-who-isBeing in the returning of the Divine Intellect upon its own Essence. The ultimate ‘Life which lives’ thus corresponds to the principle of the sum qui sum. Meister Eckhart’s notion of Life serves as an introduction to intratrinitarian reality, which is superior to created being, the latter of which, in itself, is never truly ‘life’: Life signifies a certain type of overflowing (exseritionem) in which a thing ferments and first of all pours out upon itself, spilling forth all that it is in all that it is, before spilling out and dispersing to the exterior. This is why the emanation of the Persons in God is the reason for and the prelude to creation.64 61. Proclus, The Elements of Theology, Prop. 188, commentary (ed. Dobbs, p.  164, ll. 12-13): Ζωὴ γὰρ ἠ γνῶσις, καὶ τὸ γνωστικόν, ῇ τοιοῦτον, ζῆ. In propositions 101 and 102, Proclus dissociates life and intelligence, but establishes, in Prop. 103, the various modes of the reciprocal participation of the three ‘triads: Being, Life, and Intelligence (ed. Dodds, pp. 90-92). 62. Prop. 12 (ed. Steele, pp.  171-72; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 11, p.  175). This is the theory of the presence of the three ‘Primaries’, the one in the other, conforming to the principles laid out in Proclus’ Prop. 103 (see the preceding note). 63. In Ioh. Evang., tr. 1, nn. 16-17 (PL 35, col. 1387). 64. Exp. in Ex., LW II, p. 22, n. 16 (see I, p. 99): In ipso vita erat: Vita enim quandam dicit exseritionem, qua res in se ipsa intumescens se profundit primo in se toto, quodlibet sui in quolibet sui, antequam effundat et ebulliat extra. Hinc est: quod emanatio personarum in divinis ratio est et praevia creationis. Sic enim Ioh. I: In principio erat verbum, et post demum: omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Compare Op. serm., C., f. 161rb, ll. 7-10): Acsi ymagineris rem ex se ipsa intumescere et bullire in se ipsa, necdum cointellecta ebullitione.

134

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

All that has been made or produced in any way at all ‘was life’ in God,65 which is to say, a ‘principle without principle’, because all that lives, in the proper sense of that word, does not receive the principle of its activity from the exterior, as something which is ‘other’.66 That which is living is that which is moved by itself, which has the principle and means of its own movement within itself.67 Strictly speaking, a creature does not live, for it depends upon an anterior and superior efficient cause, and also because it does not contain its final cause within itself, but rather is directed towards an end which remains external to it. Thus, God alone, as the final end and Prime Mover, lives and is the Life.68 Vivere est ab intra, ex nobis, ex nostro. 69 The verb ‘to live’, as opposed to the noun ‘life’, fits better with Meister Eckhart’s thought, which is captivated by the spontaneity of movements which escape determination and all kinds of conceptual constriction. Moreover, just like the Latin esse, so too the German Leben is a verbal noun. Above all, then, it expresses an action and brings together ‘being’ with action, so that living is 65. Following after St Augustine (see note 63 of this chapter), this was a common practice among Latin exegetes of the Middle Ages, to read in this way the prologue to St John (1:4). Exp. in Sap., in Archives III, p. 345: signanter et subtiliter dictum est: Quod factum est in ipso vita erat, Ioh. 1; quasi dicat: ipsum factum a Deo, quod est quidem in se ipso, in Deo vita erat; et est vita, increabile, sicut Deus ipse increabilis. See St Thomas, Ia, q. 19, a. 1, Sed contra. 66. Exp. in Io., LW III, p.  16, n. 19: Quod factum est, sive productum quocumque modo productionis, in ipso vita erat, id est ‘principium sine principio’. Hoc enim proprie vivit quod est sine principio. Nam omne habens principium operationis suae ab alio, ut aliud, non proprie vivit. 67. See St Thomas, III Sent., d. 35, q. 1, a. 1; Ia, q. 18, a. 1; C. Gent. I, qq. 97-98. 68. Exp. in Io., LW III p.  51, n. 62: sciendum quod vivum dicitur sive vivens omne quod ex se ipso vel a principio intra et in ipso movetur. Quod autem non movetur nisi ab aliquo extra, vivum non est nec dicitur. Ex quo patet quod proprie non vivit omne quod habet efficiens ante se et supra se, sive finem extra se et aliud a se. Tale est autem omne creatum. Solus Deus, utpote finis ultimus et movens primum, vivit et vita est. Cf. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p. 281 and ff. 69. Serm. lat., 6, 2, LW IV, p. 58, n. 59.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

135

not determined by a cause or external end. To live is to freely spring forth, without having to have any answer to the question, quare? – ‘why?’:70 For a thousand years, you could ask Life, ‘Why do you live?’ and Life will always respond with, ‘I live to live.’ The reason for this is that Life derives its life from its own depths, thus springing forth from its own being; it is precisely because of this that Life can live without having to ask why, for it lives only within itself.71 This repetition, ‘I live because I live’, joins together several double expressions in order to present ‘the very marrow of affirmed Being’, the return upon the self, in which the Essence is ‘liquified’,72 so to speak, in action, and ‘ bubbles over’ 73 in the interior productivity 70. Ibid.: hoc solum non habet quare sicut nec vivere, sed propter se ipsum, sui gratia, liberum. This passage concerns sanctifying grace which, for Meister Eckhart, unites the concepts of vivere and esse. 71. Serm. all. 5b, DW I, pp.  91-92 (passage taken from AubierMontaignes’s French translation, p. 144). We especially take note of the expressions ‘âne warumbe’ and ‘ich lebe dar umbe daz ich lebe’. Cf. serm. all. 5a, ibid., pp. 80-81. 72. The metaphor of liquefaction (like that of bubbling up, see the next note), for Eckhart, relates to the dynamic manifestation of the identity of the Being in the reflexive action of the Divine Intellect. It is particularly applicable, in the example of iustitia et iustus, to the conversion of concrete to abstract, of participant into participated. Exp. in Ex., LW II, p. 21, n. 16: in se fervens et in se ipso et in se ipsum liquescens et bulliens (see above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Unity of the Universe’, note 107). Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 35rb, ll. 24-29: Iustitia loquendo iustificat, iustus audiendo iustitiam iustificatur, gignitur iustus, fit filius iustitie, amisso omni quod non iustum est in se ipso, et, liquefacto, transformatur in iustitiam et conformatur, Cant. 5°: Anima mea liquefacta est, ut (locutus est) dilectus. If the metaphor of liquefaction comes from the Song of Songs (as does osculum and other expressions which are applied to justice and the just, see Chapter  3, section headed ‘Reduplicatio’, note 51), then we can presume a close link, in Eckhart’s thought, between the identification of the concrete with the abstract and the mystery of deifying union. 73. The image of ‘bubbling up’, which already encountered several times in Eckhart, expresses the interior action of the One, its identity with

136

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

of the One, in the ‘Life’ of the Divine Intellect, free of all causality and of all determining reason. respect to the omnia in the life of the Divine Intellect. Eckhart did not come up with this expression himself; it is also found in the writings of Dietrich of Freiberg to refer to the interior and intellectual activity of separate substances, an activity which cannot properly be called ‘action’, no matter how much, due to causality, it pours itself out into the exterior. We cite, here, this passage of the Tractatus de intellectu et intelligibili, I.8, published by E. Krebs, in his work, Meister Dietrich [Theodoricus Teutonicus de Vriberg], Sein Leben, seine Werke, seine Wissenschaft (Münster: Aschendorff, 1906), pp, 129-30: Similiter se habet in substantiis seperatis, quae sunt intellectus per essentiam semper in actu, et in hoc consistit quaedam ebullitio talis substantiae in aliud extra in causando, sicut supra inductum est de Proclo. … Dico autem actio et active extenso nomine actionis pro quadam ebullitione habente modum actionis, sicut etiam in corporalibus dictum est, scilicet quod in eis est quaedam ebullitio, non tamen actio proprie, inquantum est intra substantiam talis corporis. Compare ibid., ch. 9, the expression ‘interior transfusion’, which Eckhart uses in the same context (see above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Puritas et Plenitudes Essendi’, notes 107 and 110, and below, Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’, note 81). The image of ‘bubbling up’ is also encountered in the writings of Berthold of Moosburg, who, most likely, was Meister Dietrich’s disciple. We also point to a noteworthy passage from the prologue to his voluminous commentary on Proclus’ Elementatio theologica, in which Berthold, unlike Dietrich and Eckhart, applies the image of ‘bubbling up’ to the object of ‘physical’ knowledge, or even to the being of forms in matter, being submitted to a perpetual fluctuation (Codd. Oxf., Balliol 224b, f. 4vb and Vat. lat. 2192, f. 3va): Forme autem in materia existentes continue tremunt, tanquam in eurippo, hoc est in ebullitione, sint. Eurippus enim ebullitio maris est sursum et deorsum vertens. Et ideo de eis nihil certum, nihil stabile concipi potest. Propter quod de eis non potest esse nisi opinion [? – sic] et nihil de eis sciri potest, sicut dixit Eraclitus. We have not been able to find the terms bullitio or ebullitio in the medieval translations of Proclus (who served as the common source of these three German theologians). As long as its original source remains unlocated, we can suppose that this metaphor, and, above all, its application to the intellect, is from Dietrich of Freiberg. Meister Eckhart thus finds in his Teutonic compatriot a new elaboration of the concept, by distinguishing between bullitio (interior action, in the procession of the Persons and the springing forth of the eternal ‘reasons’) and ebullitio (the same intellectual action considered with respect to its ad extra relations, that is to say, in creation).

Ego Sum Qui Sum

137

Deus est principium sine principio, processus sine variatione, finis sine fine. Th is seventh proposition of the ‘24 Philosophers’ 74 corresponds exactly to that which Meister Eckhart referred to as Life or Living: an actualisation of the Being which produces (or, rather, produces itself) without any causal dependence, efficiency, or fi nality, between the product and the principle of production. Th is is an uncreated world, a world of interior creation or of Wisdom prior to creation, a world spontaneously born in divine thought, independent of all exterior causality which cannot have effect except upon the future, upon the fieri and not upon the esse as such.75 An agent which operates externally, either as an efficient cause or as an end, does not operate in the identity of the being, in that vital effervescence which needs no ‘why?’. Instead of producing itself in this identity, it produces only its ‘semblance’ in otherness and in numerical distinction, bestowing upon it form according to its proper genus.76 On the other hand, with interior production, in which there is no principle of production other than the One, who is the ‘Principle without principle’, in which the form which bestows the esse is superior to all kinds or species, being nothing other than esse itself,77 identical with essence, all numerical diversity which attaches to that which is ‘similar’, is excluded. ‘… From this it follows 74. See Bäumker’s edition, Beiträge, XXV, p. 209. 75. Exp. in Io., C., f. 108vb, ll. 14-18: mundus absolutus ab omni quod extra est, puta efficiens et finis. Hec enim sunt cause extrinsece secundum genus suum et non habent causalitatem super esse illud, tantum super fieri proprie. Propter quod producunt non se ipsum sed similem, formam dando secundum genus suum. 76. Here Meister Eckhart is thinking, above all, of created, univocal agents, those which have the same genus as their effects, or which possess a common matter, but this characteristic of otherness is applied particularly to the analogical causality of divine efficiency. Only ‘formal emanation’ does not entail any kind of otherness. Compare ibid., ll 31-34: … in formali emanatione producens et productum sunt unum in substantia, similiter in esse, vivere et intelligere et operari. Secus autem se habet de productione creaturarum sive a Deo, sive inter se ab invicem. 77. Ibid., ll, 10-14: Secundum hoc exponi potest illud Eccli. 54: ab initio et ante secula creata sum, id est ante quam secula crearentur propter carentiam principii efficientis, – usque ad futurum seculum non desinam, propter carentiam finis, sive propter formam que dat esse et ipsa est esse.

138

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

that in the divine Persons emanation is a type of formal bubbling up; this is why the three Persons are simply and absolutely one.’78 Personal distinction is thus alien to number, which would appear only outside the One, in exterior production in which God presents Himself as the Cause of His created effects, which are ‘similar’ to their principle, yet never identical with it. When the One presents itself exclusively as the principle of interior operation, when the Being produces itself sub ratione Unius, then we cannot speak of ‘similarity’, which is incompatible with Unity, for ‘similarity’ only pertains to ‘Image’. This properly trinitarian term in Meister Eckhart is applied above all to the Person of the Son in His relationship with the Father (see Hebrews 1:3).79 An image cannot be juxtaposed (non ponit in numerum) to the one of whose image it is. Essentially, we are not speaking of two distinct substances, but of ‘the One in the Other’, a sort of reciprocal co-penetration in the essential identity of the same substance: et Ego in Patre et Pater in Me (John 14:10). Th is ‘formal dependence’ of the just with justice, of the Son to the Father, is a relationship which excludes all forms of extraneousness and otherness,80 because ‘strictly speaking, the image is a simple and formal emanation, which is transfused by the total essence, pure and naked’. Meister Eckhart clarifies that here he is referring to being as it presents itself in the speculations of 78. Ibid., ll. 18-27: Unum autem per se principiat et dat esse et principium est intra. Et propter hoc proprie non producit simile, sed unum et idem est ipsum. Simile enim aliquam alietatem et diversitatem includit numeralem, in uno autem nulla prorsus cadit diversitas. Hinc est quod in divinis personis emanatio est formalis quedam ebullucio, et propter hoc tres persone sunt simpliciter unum et absolute Creaturarum vero productio est per modum non formalis, sed efficientis et finis, creatio. Propter quod non manet simpliciter unum, sed unum in multis. The manuscript says ebullucio, maybe due to a copyist’s error, where it should say bullucio (see Chapter 3, section headed “I Live Because I Live’, note 73). 79. See the developments in the concept of ‘image’ referred to in Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 19-21, nn. 23-27; Serm. lat., Cuius est imago haec, C., f. 161ra, 1. 29-f. 161rb, l. 41 (cited in the following notes). 80. Op. serm., C., f. 161ra, ll. 44-49: … ymago cum illo cuius est non ponit in numerum, nec sunt due substantie, sed est unum in altero: et ego in patre et pater in me. Rursus, iustus dependet a iustitia formali dependentia, non quasi ab extraneo sive ab alio extra se, alio a se, alieno sibi.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

139

the metaphysician, or, more precisely, in the process of abstraction from exterior, efficient and fi nal causes, under whose realms fall those beings who are the subject matter of physics.81 Since here we are dealing with a fundamental emanation (ab intimis), ‘in silence and to the exclusion of all that is exterior’, it is thus a ‘sort of life’ – vita quaedam, a fullness of active being which, without operating ad extra, works within itself in a ‘bubbling up’ (bullitio) which is prior to the ‘ebullition’ (ebullitio) [a ‘bubbling over, which spills over and outside itself ’].82 Th is vital process, in which the Image, in the proper and primary sense of the word, is the Son, being identical by nature with the Father, is possible only in the ‘intellectual nature’ which permits a complete return upon itself: ‘the Self remains identical to Itself ’.83 Th is is the ‘first degree of production in being’, a production which is a formal outpouring of bare nature, a se ipso et de se ipso et in se ipso, a purely intellectual action, without any involvement of the will, without any end.84 Th is ‘formal’ process or 81. Ibid., f. 161rb, ll. 1-5: Nota quod ymago proprie est emanatio simplex formalis, transfusiva totius essentie pure, nude, qualem considerat metaphysicus, circumscripto efficiente et fine, sub quibus causis cadunt in consideratione nature phisice. 82. According to the same text, ll. 5-10: Est ergo ymago emanatio ab intimis, in silentio et exclusione omnis forinseci, vita quedam. Ac si ymagineris rem ex se ipsa intumescere et bullire in se ipsa, nec dum cointellecta ebullitione. This is one of the passages in which Eckhart makes a clear distinction between bullitio and ebullitio. 83. Ibid., f. 161ra, ll. 50-53: Septimo consequenter oportet quod in sola intellectuali natura sit ymago, ubi redit idem super se reditione completa et pariens cum parto sive prole est unum: idem in se altero et se alterum invenit in se altero. See Alain de Lille, Regulae theologicae, I (in comm.): sic de se gignit alterum se, id est Filium (PL 210, col. 623); III (in comm.):  …vel in se alterum, id est in Filium, suum reflectit ardorem, id est Spiritum sanctum (ibid., col. 625). See ibid. (col. 625) for the expression substantiam transfudit, with reference to Augustine. 84. Ibid., f. 161rb, ll. 10-16: Est enim triplex gradus productionis in esse. Primus, de quo nunc dictum est, quo quid producit a se et de se ipso et in se ipso naturam nudam formaliter profundens, voluntate non cooperante sed potius concomitante: eo siquidem bonum quo sui diff usivum. Preterea, quomodo velle principiaret, fine nondum cointellecto? The second degree of production – a se ipso, but not de se ipso, thus de alio  – corresponds to the fi nal cause, which is the

140

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

action without efficiency or fi nality is the ‘Life’ which is properly suited to the ‘uncreated, intellectual Living One’.85 Several more examples could be given from Meister Eckhart’s texts in which the Vivere, eluding both efficient and fi nal causality, presents itself as the first operation86 of Being manifested in the One, as the ‘uncreated and uncreatable’ state of all that returns upon itself in a formal bubbling up, as a sort of reversible and circular process whose three terms, ungenerated, generated and that which proceeds from the two, correspond to the Three Divine Persons,87 in which the Essence is ‘transfused’ by the One – a se, de se et in se. If the Vivum intellectuale, along with all the traits of trinitarian theology which it implies, represents for Eckhart the aspect under which being constitutes the proper object of metaphysics,88 then it would not be necessary to seek a clear distinction in Eckhart between natural theology and revealed truths. The context in which Eckhart seeks to consider being transforms scriptural texts and the theological texts of the sancti et doctores nostri into metaphysical pronouncements, but this also lends a trinitarian theological character to the speculations of Greek, Arab and Jewish ‘philosophers’. The ‘pagan masters’ thus end up becoming witnesses to the mystery of the Christian faith. Aristotle’s defi nition of metaphysics, which is aimed at making it a science of being as being,89 will, for Meister Eckhart, take on a theological meaning which will attach to the inquantum, thus signifying the ‘return of factio (ibid., ll. 10-16); the third degree – production a se ipso which is neither de se ipso nor de alio, but de nihilo – is the creatio which belongs to the efficient cause (ibid., ll. 16-20). 85. Ibid., ll. 23-25: ymago proprie est tantum in vivo intellectuali increato, utpote circumscripto et non cointellecto efficiente et fine. Nicholas of Cusa noted in the margin, Nota: solus Filius Dei est proprie ymago. 86. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p.  281: vita vero sive vivere est talis operatio, utpote non ab extra, sed ab intus et ab intimis procedens. By contrast, for St Thomas life is not an operation but, rather, a mode of being which belongs to substances which are capable of movement of themselves. See Ia, q. 18, a. 2. 87. Ibid., III, pp. 348-49. 88. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Puritas et Plenitudo Essendi’, notes 81-85. 89. Aristotle, Metaphysics Γ.1.1003a, 21 (vol. III).

Ego Sum Qui Sum

141

being upon itself ’, the sum qui sum, the circular movement of the intellectual monad which generates the monad and ‘reflects’ back onto itself its ardour or love.

The Object of Metaphysics In his commentary on the Book of Wisdom, Meister Eckhart examines at length the theme of ‘being as being’, which is itself the proper object of study for metaphysics. Like a mathematician, the metaphysician, Eckhart says, never refers to efficient or final causes in his definitions of that which is (ens). This is because, in its quiddity (quantum ad sui ‘quod quid est’), a particular thing does not depend upon any kind of exterior causality.90 As Avicenna said, Res illud quod est non habet ex alio.91 Thus, the metaphysician studies the essential aspect of beings, entirely independent of the fact of their existence, due to the efficacy of the cause. Whether or not man exists, the definition homo est animal remains true, since the verb esse here has no function except that of a copula, of linking subject and object. 90. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, pp.  338-39: Secundo notandum est, quod res omnis quantum ad sui ‘quod quid est’ non habet causam efficientem, nec finalem. Argumentum huius, quod metaphysicus considerans ens inquantum ens, similter nec mathematicus, quidquam demonstrat, docet aut diffinit per has causas. Hinc est quod Philosophus dicit, quod in mathematicis non est bonum, eo quod bonum est et finis idem. Compare Aristotle, Metaphysics, B.2.996a, 22-35 (vol. II): Goodness and finality are foreign to mathematics. See the texts from Aristotle and St Thomas as gathered in the notes of Théry (Archives, III, pp.  339 and ff.). The key points concerning metaphysics from the works of Aristotle and the commentaries of St Thomas are a bit harder to find. The only text from Aquinas which Théry cites relates to logic: Logicus enim considerat modum praedicandi, et non existentiam rei, etc. (in Metaphysics VII, lect. XVII, cited ibid., p. 340, note). However, one can also cite Ia, q. 82, a. 3, in which St Thomas refers to Aristotle (Metaphysics VI.4.1027b) in order to demonstrate that truth and falsehood are in the mind, whereas good and evil are in things. Meister Eckhart has the same passage from Aristotle in mind in his ‘Parisian Question’, Utrum in Deo sit idem esse et intelligere, LW V, p. 43, n. 7: bonum et malum sunt in rebus, et verum et falsum in anima. 91. Ibid., p.  340. See Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 27vb, ll. 31-33, with the same reference to Avicenna (see the text cited below, pp. [207208?]). Avicenna, see above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Two Levels of Essentiality’, note 10.

142

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Thus, it shows only the coherence of the terms in question, without predicating the existence of the subject.92 It is, however, quite different when we investigate the existence of things, as their ipsum esse comes from an exterior efficiency and this, at the same time, represents an end, according to the Book of Wisdom, which states: Creavit enim Deus, ut essent omnia (1:7). Despite reducing metaphysics to the study of the quidditative aspect of beings, responding to their formal definitions, it would seem, up to the present, that Meister Eckhart’s thought has remained within the outline traced by St Thomas Aquinas, that is, of seeing a real distinction between essence and existence in created beings. If the Thuringian Dominican wished to lend the Metaphysician a hue more fitting a mathematician or a logician for things concerning being, this could be explained, strictly, as his original way of using the same terms, ‘thus risking avoiding common language’, to use Fr  Théry’s phrasing.93 For Meister Eckhart then, just as for St Thomas, formal causality in itself does not justify a created substance’s own existence, but rather, for this to be the case, an influx of divine efficiency must intervene. ‘Being interiorly superior to substance, in its order proper to that of form’, the form ‘has no formal cause for its existence as a form.’ That which is added to the form such that the created substance would truly exist ‘is thus no longer a being belonging to the formal order, but rather, that of an existential order: habet tamen causam influentem ei esse.’94 If this is indeed the meaning of this Thomist distinction, then it would presuppose a primacy of the existential order over that of essence in created beings. Unde ipsum esse est actualitas omnium rerum, et etiam ipsarum formarum.95 Meister Eckhart often makes use of this Thomist formula.96 However, it is quite reasonable to wonder if ipsum esse means the same thing for Eckhart as it does for Aquinas.97 92. Ibid., pp.  340-41. Compare Tabula prologorum in Op. tripart., LW  1, pp. 131-32, n. 3. 93. Ibid., p. 344, note. 94. Étienne Gilson, L’Être et l’essence (Paris: Vrin, 1948), p. 101. 95. Ia, q. 4, a. 1, ad 3m. 96. For example, in the Prol. gener. in Op. trip., LW I, p.  153, n. 8 (see ibid., p. 37) and OL II, p. 9, ll. 1-2. The proceedings of the Cologne trial (Actes du procès de Cologne), Archives, I, p. 171 and 193. 97. For more on this subject, see Muller-Thym’s very pertinent remarks (The University of Being..., pp. 82-83). The French text is Voir, à ce

Ego Sum Qui Sum

143

As we remarked above,98 in distinguishing between essence and esse in created beings, instead of at the same time showing their existential unity, Meister Eckhart rather prefers to separate them with a sort of impermeable bulwark. Here, it would be necessary to add another observation concerning the nature of the esse ab alio. It would seem that this ‘intimate’ and ‘hidden’ presence of the esse which Eckhart finds in creatures, and, ideally, within the hidden depths of man, does not correspond perfectly with what St Thomas referred to as the ‘act of existing’ of a created essence. Rather, most often he would seem to be speaking of the interior presence of the First Cause or of its operation, a presence which is ‘more intimate’ than any created essence, insofar as the creature as such is always something external in relation to God. The ipsum esse which the creature possesses ab alio thus will present itself as something ‘interior’, something which is latent in the depths which transcend created essence, inasmuch as God will be considered as an exterior cause, transcending the creature. To be ‘more interior’ than essence is a means of remaining external to created being as such. This interiorised transcendence will retain meaning as long as sujet , les remarques très justes de M. Muller- Thym ( The University of Being..., pp. 82-83). We do not believe, however, that the author’s reconciliation of the ideas of Eckhart and Albert the Great is quite accurate. According to Muller-Thym, Meister Eckhart’s God would be not only esse absolutum, but also esse formaliter inhaerens, just as the soul in St Albert’s teachings is a subsistence in itself, and, at the same time, a form with respect to the body which it animates by penetrating it. This parallel which the American critic wishes to draw between Eckhart’s doctrine of being and Albert’s doctrine of the soul would require us, in Eckhart’s conception of the relationship of God to the ipsum esse of creatures, to distinguish between two different functions: the Absolute Being’s act of ‘touching’ and that of formal ‘penetration’. Founded upon a single passage from Eckhart (Prol. in Op. propos., LW I, p. 44, n. 13), this distinction, upon which rests the entirety of MullerThym’s thesis, seems to us to be a bit forced. As we shall see further on in our discussion of analogy, the actuality of Esse and Divine Form, in Meister Eckhart’s teachings, cannot be assimilated to formal causality; the God of the Thuringian mystic is not the formal cause of creatures in the same sense in which the soul is the form of the body for the Doctor of Cologne. Apart from his erroneous starting point, Muller-Thym’s interpretation is worthwhile for the way in which it highlights the nonThomist character of Eckhart’s doctrine of being. 98. See above, Chapter 1, section headed ‘The Wine of Cana’.

144

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

the opposition between exterior and interior, effect and cause, and created potentiality and divine actuality remains possible. It cannot mean anything except in the context of a duality which is proper to creatures, in the reverberation of the casus ab Uno to which Meister Eckhart applies the verse from Psalm 61, Semel locutus est Deus, duo haec audivi.99 This interiorisation of the esse ab alio causes the notions of exteriority and interiority to becomes somewhat obscured, as opposite terms can be conceived of only within the deficient perspective of created beings. Furthermore, this ‘interior extraneity’ of the ipsum esse foresees an absolute interiority, which is no longer even ‘interior’, as it is no longer opposed by any kind of created exteriority: in the ‘infinite intellectual sphere’, the centre of divine action is everywhere, while a created circumference is nowhere to be found.100 This is the divine point of view, a perspective which excludes all duality, and which, in order to be found and become our own, brings us to knowledge of exterior effects in the interiority of the cause, rather than by doing the opposite through seeking knowledge of the exterior cause in its effects. Apart from this, since the effectus (extra-factus) is for Eckhart by definition something ‘exterior’,101 then to penetrate into the interior of a created effect would be to arrive at a level at which it could be neither effect nor created. To know a creature internally is to know it intellectually, in its ‘original or essential cause’, where the effect is the ‘verb’ and the cause is the ‘principle’,102 a ‘pure intellect’ for which the esse is nothing other than intelligere.103 The essential cause or the principle of things is thus this same ‘intellectual Living One’ which we encountered above: vivum aliquod est et vita; since what is in life is just as much ‘life’.104 To the extent that we have not attained this degree of knowledge of being, then we shall only know it as subjected to the actions of exterior causes, that is to say, as it presents itself in the investigations of physicians. The essential cause which gives true knowledge of that which is, the only true interior and ‘formal’ cause, thus remains still unknown. This principium 99. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Semel Locutus Est Deus, Duo haec Audivi’. 100. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Unum et Omnia’, note 119. 101. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’. 102. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 37, n. 45. 103. Ibid., p. 32, n. 38. 104. Ibid., p. 117, n. 139.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

145

essentiale dwells latens et absconditum, inaccessible to all which is foreign to it by nature.105 In these conditions, ‘being as being’, which is knowable only ‘in the silence of all external causes’,106 is difficult to attain solely by the natural methods of metaphysical speculation. If God remains unknown in Himself, as the essential cause, then the true essence or quiddity of things in the ‘life’ of the Divine Intellect must also utterly escape us. When we are reduced to the perspective of duality in our knowledge of God and creature, the First Cause necessarily presents itself as an external efficiency, which confers ipsum esse and the essences of things as their ‘capacity’ to become entia.107 On this plane of the knowledge of being, with which the Thuringian mystic would not content himself, Eckhart meets St Thomas and, like him, exalts the ‘intimacy’ of the ipsum esse, in his first commentary on Genesis: omnia citra Deum habent esse aliunde quidem et ab alio, et tamen nichil tam intimum, nichil tam primum et proprium, quam ipsum esse.108 However, these expressions, borrowed from Thomas Aquinas, do not point to a relative primacy of the esse with regard to the essential order of created beings. There is nothing which precedes the action of the efficient cause in the entia, since, in their receptivity with reference to the esse, their ‘capacity’ which equally comes from God, created things are not yet beings (nondum sunt entia). It is from the esse which their substance receives the name of 105. Ibid., p. 163, n. 195. 106. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, pp.  371-73. The text from St Thomas (III Sent., d. 27, q. 1, a. 1, ad 4m), which Théry cites concerning the subject of the ebullitio has no direct correlation with Meister Eckhart’s conception thereof (see above, Chapter  3, section headed “I Live Because I Live”,note 73). According to St Thomas, the terms ebullire and liquefacere relate to an ecstatic love (ed. Mandonnet-Moos, III, pp. 857-58). However, we note that this aspect of a loving ardour is not foreign to the return of the Monad into itself. 107. Exp. in Io., LW III, p.  199, n. 238 (this text is cited below, note 109). For the references to St Augustine, see De moribus ecclesiae, II.2 (PL 32, col. 1346), and Confessions, XII.17.26 (ed. Belles-Lettres, vol. 2, pp. 346-47). Cf. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 85, n. 99: Nam et ipsa potestas recipiendi eum ab illo est, sicut Augustinus de materia prima dicit quod ipsa sua capacitas a Deo est, Confessionum I.XII. 108. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p.  49, n. 2, and p.  53, n. 14 (cited above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Collatio Esse’, note 12).

146

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

essentia, as Augustine says.109 Thus, it would seem that the primacy of the ipsum esse over essence here signifies the supremacy of the First Cause and its actuality over created effects and their potentiality. It is, thus, above all the citra Deum which is relevant here: the esse received from outside God establishes things in their condition as created beings, in their ‘existence’,110 and at this level (‘existential’, if we may be permitted to call it such) things ‘produced and taken outside (of God) by the efficient cause’,111 have nothing more intimate to themselves than the esse ab alio.112 However, the true nature of the First Cause lies neither in its efficiency nor in its finality, but in its formality or essentiality. This could also equally be said of Meister Eckhart’s concept of the ipsum esse: namely, that, before being the 109. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 199, n. 238: Unde, secundum Augustinum, ipsa rerum substantia nomen ipsum essentiae trahit ab esse, sed ipsa rerum capacitas, qua nondum sunt entia, a Deo est, sicut de prima materia dicit Augustinus Confessionum I.VIII (= XII), secundum illud Rom. 4: ‘vocat ea quae non sunt, tanquam ea quae sunt.’ Et Dionysius De divinis nominibus dicit bonum de se extendere ‘ad existentia et non existentia;’ bonum autem, utpote finis et prima causarum omnium, Deus est, et ipse solus. De div. nom., V.1 (PG 3, col. 816). 110. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29ra, ll. 11-13:  … ut principium foris in natura rerum existentie. Hoc enim ipsum nomen ‘existentia’, quasi ‘extrastantia’, indicat. 111. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 342. 112. This is also what Meister Eckhart says in Exp in Io., LW III, p.  199, n. 238: …nihil tam prope enti, nihil tam intimum quam esse. Deus autem esse est, et ab ipso immediate omne esse. Propter quod ipse solus illabitur rerum essentiis. Omne quod non est ipsum esse, foris stat, alienum est et distinctum ab essentia uniuscuiusque. Adhuc autem esse intimius est unicuique etiam quam ipsa essentia illius. The parallel passage in St Thomas could also be cited here (II Sent., d. 8, q. 1, a. 5, ad 3m): … in ipsam (substantiam) non intrat nisi ille qui dat esse, scilicet Deus creator, qui habet intrinsecam essentiae operationem; aliae autem perfections sunt superadditae ad essentiam. This existential operation is referred to (ibid.), virtus in esse: quia esse est per creationem a Deo. In saying that God is the only one to intervene in essences, Thomas Aquinas places the emphasis above all upon creative action. Meister Eckhart, however, insists upon God’s immediateness with respect to created essences: it is the Ipsum esse which gives substances the very name of essentia (see the passage cited in note 109). The German Dominican’s ipsum esse is thus more ‘essentiality’ than it is ‘existence’.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

147

Creative Cause of all that ‘exists’ in exterior mode, it is the formal and ‘essential’ principle of all that lives, since it is of itself, without any external cause. In absolute interiority, ‘in its essential or original cause, a thing does not have existence’,113 or, rather, it has no esse other than the vivere and intelligere.114 The object of metaphysical speculation must then exist on this plane. Several of Meister Eckhart’s paradoxical statements, especially in his German sermons, primo aspect monstruosa, dubia aut falsa,115 can be explained when one dissociates the Thuringian mystic’s doctrine of ‘being as being’ from Aristotle’s first philosophy and from St Thomas’ natural theology. This dissociation, which requires a critical attitude towards the ‘Philosopher’ and his commentators, was something which Meister Eckhart never did himself, as, driven by his desire to find an expression of the single Truth in all things, he became careless with regard to doctrinal differences in the texts which he used. Thus, he used Aristotelian texts in a manner which often put them at odds with the viewpoint of their author. Because of this, we should not be surprised to see Eckhart referencing the ‘Great Commentator’ to affirm that the quiddity or ‘reason’ of things is their Essential Cause, which is to say, the First Cause in a radical sense which places it beyond all causality, both efficient and final, identifying it with the ‘Principle’ according to which God created the world. The reason of things, as a ‘principle’, not only cannot depend upon any external cause, but also, when considered in itself, it excludes any ad extra actions and is thus concerned only with the interior essence of things (essenciam solam rerum intra respicit).116 Thus, it is the ‘ideal reason’ of creatures which is their essential cause, this ‘quiddity of the sensible thing’ which the ancients, according to Averroes,117 ‘have always longed to know, for, 113. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p.  342: res in sua causa essenciali sive originali non habet esse, similiter nec in arte sua, nec in intellectu. 114. Ibid., p. 345. 115. Prol. gener. in Op. trip., LW I, p. 152, n. 7, and OL II, p. 7, ll. 20-21. 116. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p.  49, n. 4, and C., f. 6rb, ll. 7-10. Meister Eckhart adds (ibid., pp. 49-50, and C., ll. 10-14): Propter quod metaphysicus rerum entitatem considerans nichil demonstrat per causas extra, puta efficientem et finalem. Hoc est igitur [C: autem] principium, ratio scilicet ydealis, in quo Deus [add. C: cuncta] creavit, nichil extra respiciens. 117. Meister Eckhart has in mind a passage from commentary 5 of Metaphysics, 1.VII (of Aristotle, Z.2.1028b, 8-26), in which Averroes

148

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

having once known it, they would have come to know the First Cause of all things’.118 Now, the Commentator does not actually say that this First Cause is God, as is often assumed to be the case by his readers; he refers to the very quiddity of things as the First Cause, their ‘reason’ as indicated by definition.119 A truly ‘first’ Cause is not ‘God’, to be matched with ‘creatures’ insofar as He is their exterior, efficient, and final Cause, but rather, it is the interior principle according to which

states (Venice, 1552, f. 73vb, ll. 13-26): Cum declaravit quod quidditates substantiarum sunt priores aliis entibus, et causa eorum, incoepit quaerere quae sunt quidditates substantiarum sensibilium, et dixit quod Antiqui semper perscrutati sunt de hoc, et quod quoad suum tempus nihil demonstrative fuit dictum in hoc, et dixit: ‘Et etiam illud, quod semper’ etc., id est, et cum declaratum sit quod substantia est prior aliis accidentibus, quaerendum est de substantia illud, quod semper fuit quaesitum usque ad hoc tempus, in quo nullus dixit aliquid demonstrative, et est quid est illud, quod est quidditas huius substantiae. Et augmentavit hanc quaestionem, quoniam, cum fuerit scitum illud, quod est quidditas ipsius substantiae, tunc erit scita prima causa omnium entium. Et, quia ista quaestio semper fuit desyderata ab omnibus naturaliter, et est valde difficilis, incoepit notificare opiniones Antiquorum in ea. 118. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p.  49, n. 3, and C., f. 6ra, l. 48-f. 6rb, 1.1: Uniuscuiusque enim rei universaliter principium et radix est ratio ipsius rei. Hinc est quod Plato ponebat ydeas sive rationes rerum principia omnium tam essendi quam sciendi. Hinc est etiam [C: et tercio] quod commentator 7 Metaphisice dicit: [C: quod] quidditas rei sensibilis semper fuit desiderata ab antiquis sciri [C: sciri ab antiquis], eo quod ipsa scita scirent causam primam [C: sciretur causa prima] omnium. Cf. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29va, ll. 19-23: Quidditas enim rerum, que et ratio est, radix et causa prima est omnium que de re quacumque vel affirmantur vel negantur. Propter quod commentator super 7° metaphysice, dicit quod, scita quidditate rerum sensibilium, scitur causa prima omnium. Ipsa enim est causa prima. Cf. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 26, n. 32. 119. Ibid., LW I, loc. cit., and C., f. 6rb, ll. 1-7: Vocat autem commentator [add. C: primam] causam non ipsum Deum, ut plerique errantes putant, sed ipsam rerum quidditatem, que ratio rerum est, quam diffinitio indicat, causam primam vocat. Hec enim ratio est rei [C: rerum] quod quid est et omnium rerum [C: rei] proprietatum propter quid [add. C: est]. Est enim diffinicio et demonstratio sola ratione [C: posicione] differens, ut ait philosophus. Aristotle, Analytica posteriora, I.8.75b; II.10.94a.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

149

God created the heavens and the earth. Hoc est igitur principium, ratio scilicet ydealis, in quo deus creavit, nichil extra respiciens.120 According to Aristotle and his Arabic commentator,121 quiddity is the First Cause from the perspective of logic, as a definition refers to a substance and responds to the question, quid est?; but also, it is above all the First Cause from a physical perspective, as a form responds to the question, quare? or propter quid?: why is this composition of material elements this or that thing (a house, a man)? In his opposition to Platonic knowledge which denigrates concrete substances, Aristotle wanted to take logical examination away from a focus on a quiddity-idea and towards that of a physical search for a substantial quiddity-form.122 Meister Eckhart, having discovered in Averroes this notion of quiddity as the formal cause of sensible things, then went in the opposite direction. In abandoning the study of concrete forms in individual substances to the ‘physician’, he sought the situation where the ‘metaphysician’ would occupy himself solely with abstract ‘quiddities’ or ideas which exist beyond all causality, both in themselves and, even more so, in the Divine Intelligere, with which they are identical. The formal cause, properly speaking, the only thing that is truly ‘interior’ for Meister Eckhart, is the ‘Life’ in which is eternally accomplished the formation of ‘reason’ or the ‘Word’ in the Intellect: intelligendo formatur, nihil praeter intelligere est.123 Thus, by means of Aristotelian texts, the German theologian, attracted by the mystery of an Absolute Being identical to Itself, returns to a Platonic dialectic, to this ‘most true knowledge’ which has as its object ‘that reality which is true and eternally identical by nature’.124 For this transphysical science, which seeks to attain to being non ab alio in its eternal ‘reasons’, he shall reserve the name of metaphysics. 120. Ibid., p. 50, n. 4. Compare p. 49, n. 3. 121. This is Aristotle’s τὸ τί ῆν εἰναι = quod quid erat esse. See Metaphysics Z.4.1029b-6, and concerning this passage, commentaries 10-21 of Averroes (Venice, 1552, ff. 75vb-81ra). 122. Metaphysics Z.7.1041a-b, and Averroes, commentaries 59-60. For more on this subject, see L. Robin, La Théorie platonicienne des idées et des nombres d’après Aristote (Paris: Félix Alcan, 1908), pp. 50-68. Also see J. Tricot’s notes in the new edition of Aristotle’s Metaphysics (Paris: Vrin 1952), vol. I, pp. 446 and ff. 123. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 33, n. 38. 124. Philebus, 57e-58a.

150

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

The Knowledge of Quiddities Meister Eckhart did not profess an unconditioned ‘ontologism’, however much he wished to see in the reasons or uncreated quiddities of things the proper object of metaphysical knowledge. Let us not forget that ‘essential causes’ remain ‘hidden’, unknowable in themselves.125 Likewise, let us also note that in Eckhart’s Latin works the term ratio is given very different nuances, without, however, ever ceasing to refer, ultimately, to the single ‘Reason’ which is the Divine Logos. Thus, in Expositio sancti Evangelii secundum Iohannem, Meister Eckhart distinguishes between two meanings of the word ratio: (1) those reasons which follow created beings, the concepts which the human intellect receives from things through a process of abstraction; and (2) those ideas which come prior to creatures, their causes and ‘reasons’, which definition highlights and which our intellect receives ‘in the intrinsic principles of things’.126 It is obvious 125. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’ note 105. 126. Exp. in Io., LW III, pp.  22-23, n. 29: Secundo notandum quod ratio dupliciter accipitur: est enim ratio a rebus accepta sive abstracta per intellectum, et haec est rebus posterior a quibus abstrahitur; est et ratio rebus prior, causa rerum et ratio, quam diffinitio indicat et intellectus accipit in ipsis principiis intrinsecis. Et haec est ratio, de qua nunc est sermo. Propter quod dicitur quod logos, ratio scilicet, est in principio: in principio, inquit, erat verbum. In his thesis, Meister Eckeharts Lehre vom göttlichen und geschöpflichen Sein (University of Bonn, Limburg 1937), M.W. Bange, who wishes to see a faithful expression of Thomism in Eckhart, cites this passage on the two meanings of ratio and recognises that, in the first case, it relates to a concept (Begriff ) and, in the second, to a vorbildliche Idee (p.  208). However, he then utilises this correct distinction in order to draw another, erroneous, arbitrary conclusion in his analysis of a passage in the same commentary (LW  III, p.  11, n. 12), where Meister Eckhart proclaims that the ratio rerum is tota intus, tota deforis with relation to singular things. Desiring, here, to distinguish between two meanings of ratio, Bange refers to them by terms which he himself created to this effect: ratio in re and ratio extra rem. He then declares: ‘Die Ideenlehre beschäftigt sich mit letzteren’ (ibid.). Having thus been transformed, Eckhart’s thought no longer presents any difficulty for arriving at a Thomist interpretation of the text. Without being very concerned about the fact that this reduction of the divine idea to its exterior function with respect to created things

Ego Sum Qui Sum

151

that in the second case the ‘reason’ of a created thing designates its eternal quiddity or divine idea. However, this ‘essential cause’ by which a thing exists of itself remains inseparable from the definition; it is in some sense itself the definition of the thing, a middle term of the demonstration or, rather, the demonstration itself, making the thing to be known. This is why, in commenting on the text from St John (1:5), lux in tenebris lucet, Meister Eckhart says: ‘In created things, nothing shines, nothing is known, nothing makes it known, if not their quiddity, definition, or reason.’127 The concept of a created thing corresponds, then, to the manifestation of its essential cause or idea, to the ‘light which shines in the darkness’ and which permits itself to be gathered into the human intellect, which frees it from the phantasms of the senses. Thus, the two meanings of the word ‘reason’, rebus posterior and rebus prior, are linked to the same eternal quiddity, albeit under the forms of different relationships. In our intellect, the ratio-concept responds to the immutable aspect of creatures, which can be known by abstraction based on a changing singularity; in the Divine Intellect, is contradicted by the first text from Eckhart, in which he says that the ratio rebus prior (namely, the idea and not the concept) is received by the intellect ‘in its intrinsic principles’, Bange then states: ‘Mit der Auffasung von der Idee als Erkenntnis und Seinsprinzip folgt Eckehart ganz seinem Meister Thomas’ (p.  214). After having stated that Eckhart did not accept any kind of vision of the divine essence on this earth, the Thomist critic thus concludes, with full certainty: ‘Wenn Eckehart also eine ontologistische Gottesschau ablehnt, so kann er doch die göttlichen Ideen das Licht nennen, durch dass die Dinge leuchtend, erkennbar werden. Denn sie sind der Grund aller formaler Bestimmungen, die in den Dingen sind, und so sind sie für den Verstand, der von den Dingen abhängig ist, Erkenntnisprinzipien’ (p. 217). As we see, interpreting Eckhart in a Thomist manner consists, above all, in avoiding the difficulties therein by circumventing them, rather than seeking resolutions to said difficulties. 127. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 11, n. 11: Adhuc autem melius notandum quod in rebus creatis nihil lucet praeter ipsarum rationes. ‘Ratio enim rei, quam nomen significat, est diffinitio,’ ut ait philosophus. Diffinitio autem est medium demonstrationis, aut potius est tota demonstration faciens scire. Constat ergo quod in rebus creatis nihil quod est lux hominum, ratio scilicet. Et hoc est etiam quod hic dicitur: et lux in tenebris lucet, quasi diceret: in rebus creatis nihil lucet, nihil cognoscitur, nihil facit scire praeter rerum ipsarum quidditatem, diffinitionem sive rationem.

152

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

the ratio is the First Cause of created beings. Nostra scientia causatur a rebus, scientia vero ipsa dei causa est rerum ut sint.128 Since he wishes to see in the text of Genesis 1:3, Dixitque Deus: ‘fiat lux’; et facta est lux, a parable concerning the double production of things, that of uncreated reasons and that of natural being,129 Eckhart will say that things have a similitude in their original causes, and, above all, in the First Cause which is their Ratio and Verbum par excellence. Within analogous cause, namely, with respect to creatures, this ‘similitude’, ‘word’, or ‘reason’ has two functions (ad duo respicit): that of the interior principle of the knowability of things, and, at the same time, that of their ‘existence’ (or, ‘extra-stance’) in created natures.130 Meister Eckhart makes reference, here, to Aristotle, for whom the concepts of being and knowledge were identical, and to Plato, who held that ideas, rerum similitudines et rationes, are equally necessary for both knowledge and the generation of beings. Uniuscuiusque enim rei universaliter principium et radix est ratio ipsius rei.131 Despite having, along with St Thomas, placed the esse above essence, as that which is the most ‘intimate’ in created beings,132 Meister Eckhart nevertheless affirms, in the same commentary on 128. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29va, ll. 12-13. 129. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Upper and Lower Waters’, note 29, exegesis concerning the creation of the firmament. 130. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29ra, ll. 2-16: Secundo notandum quomodo in hiis verbis, dixitque Deus, fiat lux etc., parabolice significatur natura et proprietas rerum creatarum et ipsarum in esse naturali productio. Sciendum ergo, quod similitudo rerum in suis causis originalibus, maxime in prima que et ratio et verbum ipsarum est et dicitur, Io. 1°: In principio erat verbum. Grecus habet ‘logos’, quod sonat ‘ratio’ sive ‘verbum’. Hec inquam similitudo, verbum et ratio, in causa analogiae ad duo respicit, ut principium scilicet cognitionis et scientie, et iterum ut principium foris in natura rerum existentie; hoc enim ipsum nomen ‘existentia’, quasi ‘extra-stantia’, indicat. Et hoc dicit philosophus, quod eadem esse principia essendi et cognoscendi. Plato etiam ydeas, rerum similitudines et rationes, ponebat necessarias tum propter cognitionem, tum propter generationem. Notavi de hoc satis in prima edicione super Genesim. See Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, pp. 49-50, and 2nd ed., ibid., pp. 186-87. 131. See above, Chapter  6, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’, note 118. 132. See above, Chapter  6, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’, note 112.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

153

St John: intimum enim et primum uniuscuiusque ratio est. Verbum autem logos sive ratio est.133 If a contradiction is involved, here, it will thus seem all the more striking that, but a few lines above, Eckhart affirmed that the esse, ‘the first effect of God in the exterior world’, is omnium intimum.134 However, the interiority of the esse, the first effect of God, does not by any means exclude 'the intimate and primary’ inherency of the ‘reason’ or ‘word’ of things, if we consider each of Meister Eckhart’s two affirmations in their proper perspectives. The reference to the De causis135 concerning the ‘effect of God’, is revelatory: being, the first created effect, is that which is superior in the order of creation, an order which presupposes an extrinsic relationship between the creatures and the divine efficient Cause. Apart from the First Cause, there is no effect that is more universal and as primordial as esse. As a creature, on a visual plain limited by the horizon of created being, the thing which receives its existence ab alio has nothing which could be more interior than the ipsum esse. However, if a thing is considered in its quiddity or ‘reason’, in the principle of its being and of its knowability, it ‘is that which it is’, and does not owe itself to any ‘other’, for under this aspect it neither depends upon divine efficiency, nor upon any cause other than itself. We have seen Meister Eckhart making use of Averroes136 in order to be able to affirm that things possess in themselves, in their quiddity or ideal reason, and not in God, the First Cause of that which they are. Causa prima omnis rei ratio est.137 This intrinsic formal causality will become clear in the logical structure of the thing, in the revelation of its quiddity, which is indicated by definition. If the quiddities of things comprise the proper object of metaphysics, which is not concerned with ‘natural’ or ‘physical’ being, 133. Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 28-29, n. 34. 134. Ibid.:  … nota quod Dei et divinorum omnium, in quantum divina sunt, est inesse et intimum esse. Patet hoc in prima propositione De causis, specialiter in commento. Patet etiam in primo effectu Dei foras, qui est esse, omnium intimum, secundum illud Augustini: ‘intus eras et ego foras’. See the references in the text above, section headed 'Two Intimate Presences'. 135. Being, according to the De causis, is the first created reality (Prop. 4). See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Collatio Esse’, note 14. See Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Unity of the Universe’, note 165. 136. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’. 137. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 12, n. 12.

154

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

that of individual substances submitted to exterior causes,138 then this speculating about abstract essences must, by virtue of its very method, draw closer to logic, which analyses the formal principles of truth, independently of the existence of real beings. Galvano della Volpe139 was quite correct in pointing out Meister Eckhart’s exclusively logical conception of truth, contrasting him with St Thomas Aquinas, for whom the logical truth of intelligence must have an ontological foundation in real existing things.140 Since existence belongs to things only insofar as they have been created by God (ab alio), while essence, or rather, quiddity is their intrinsic principle and their own root (non ab alio),141 the metaphysician, then, according to Meister Eckhart, must seek to attain to the true essence of things outside their created existence, that is to say, within the uncreated and ‘uncreatable’. The distinction between the two aspects under which being is considered, by the metaphysician and the mathematician, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, by the natural scientist142 was not a simple departure from common language, but a considered reflective statement, responding to the demands of Eckhart’s thought. Metaphysics, then, is the science of quiddities, of the true being of things in their first causes or ideas, the science which the philosophers of antiquity had always sought after. With his reference

138. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’. 139. Della Volpe, Il misticismo speculativo di Maestro Eckhart, pp.  11617. 140. De veritate, q. 1, a. 1. Cf. Ia, q. 16, a. 1, ad. 3m. 141. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Quidditas et Anitas’ note 10. 142. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Reduplicatio’, note 81, and Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’ passim. These two types of knowledge, epoptica and naturalis, which the NeoPlatonic tradition sought to find in Plato, opposing Parmenides and Timaeus, were characterised as follows in a passage by Calcidius, which particularly interested the Chartres school: Haec quippe naturalis, illa epoptica est. Naturalis quidem, ut imago nutans aliquatenus et in verisimili quadam stabilitate contenta; epoptica vero, quae ex sincerissimae rerum scientiae fonte manat (Johann Wrobel, Platonis Timaeus: Interprete Chalcidio, Cum Eiusdem Commentario (Leipzig: Teubner, 1876), p. 303). See more on this subject in R. Klibansky, ‘Plato’s Parmenides in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance’, Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 1, no. 2 (1943), p. 282 and ff.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

155

to Averroes,143 in a context in which one would expect rather to see quotations from an author belonging to the great family of Platonists, Eckhart wished to show that ‘being as being’, the proper object of metaphysics, belongs to a realm of pure essentiality, transcending exterior causality which sets creatures apart from God. For Ibn Rushd, who refuses to recognise an ex nihilo production as professed by the revealed ‘Th ree Laws’,144 the ‘creation’ of substances is the investing of matter with form; the latter, to the extent that it corresponds to its definition, is the quiddity of the thing, the ‘first cause’ of all that it is. For Meister Eckhart, the production of individual substances is creation in the Christian sense, since forms and matter were produced from nothing by an omnipotent divine efficiency. If, for him, quiddity is the first cause, that which is ‘essential’ or ‘original’, then it is because before having been produced outside, before having received the esse ab alio under their proper forms, these things live in God; there, they exist as eternal reasons, or, rather, as the Sole Reason, the Logos of the Father. Having no other cause behind their life except for life itself, in the sum qui sum of the Divine Intellect returning back upon its own Essence, things do not have to respond to the question of ‘Why?’ (end), nor to the question of ‘By means of what cause?’ (efficiency). To the question of quid?, however, essential causes give a response by showing what things are in their quiddities or distinct reasons. This quidditative ‘demonstration’ is an outpouring of the ‘reasons’ (or of the Logos) outside themselves, for intellectual light does not shine except in the darkness of creatures,145 where the active intellect receives the revelation of the eternal quiddities while liberating them from the ‘shadow of nothingness’. Unknowable in itself,146 the 143. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’ note 118. 144. For more on the doctrines of creation of the Jews, Christians and Muslims, see Averroes’ commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, 1.XII, comm. 18 (Venice, 1552, f. 143va, l. 66-f. 143vb, l. 1): Imaginatio ergo super creationem formarum induxit homines dicere formas esse et datorem esse formarum; et induxit Loquentes trium legum, quae hodie quidem sunt, dicere aliquid fieri ex nihilo. See ibid., f. 143vb, ll. 14-20. 145. Exp. in Io., LW III, pp.  17-18, n. 20. Cf. ibid., p.  11, n. 11 (see above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Knowledge of Quiddities’, note 127). 146. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’, note 105. Compare Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 62, n. 74.

156

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Essential Cause makes known the effects that it contains by means of their ‘principles’, that is to say, in the genera and species which make up the distinct quiddities of things, which is the proper object of the human intellect. Apart from the Essential Cause, quiddity cannot be known; ‘divided and mixed’ in individual substances, it no longer belongs to the ‘region of the intellect’.147 Human intelligence then comes to know the distinct quiddities ‘in between the created and the uncreated’, in the space where the ideal reasons of created things are capable of being expressed by definition, which is ‘the means of demonstration or, rather, the demonstration itself which causes the thing to be known’.148 Insofar as it is a medium demonstrationis, the definition of the subject, the middle term of a syllogism, is an element of logic; but, as tota demonstratio, in making known the essence of a thing, definition or quiddity belongs to metaphysics. Thus, it would seem that for Meister Eckhart, in this case, demonstratio means something that is more than a proof; rather, it is a quidditative manifestation of that which a thing truly is, that is, immutably and eternally. This would appear to be quite clear in the sentence which serves as the conclusion to the passage which we have just quoted, since the ‘demonstration’ of quiddity is described there in metaphorical terms of light in darkness, taken from St John (1:5): Constat ergo, quod in rebus creatis nihil lucet praeter solam rerum ipsarum rationem.149 Th is ratio rerum is utterly inherent to every thing which is singular, all the while remaining completely exterior to the singular: tota intus, tota deforis.150 Meister Eckhart gives two examples of 147. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29ra, ll. 33-38. This passage is also cited below, in note 186. 148. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘The Knowledge opf Quiddities, note 127. Compare in the same Exp. in Io., LW III, p.  26, n.  32. Aristotle, Analytica posteriora, I.8.75b; II.10.94a. 149. See ibid. 150. Exp. in Io., LW III, p.  11, n. 12:  … sciendum quod verbum, logos sive ratio rerum sic est in ipsis et se tota in singulis, quod nihilominus est se tota extra singulum quodlibet ipsorum, tota intus, tota deforis. Nicholas of Cusa wrote in the margin: Nota: ratio rerum tota intus et tota foris. See in Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p. 240, the same expression relating to God: Deus sic totus est in quolibet, quod totus est extra quodlibet. This shows us how much Bange’s interpretation of the text of Exp. in Io., which we just cited, is foreign to Meister Eckhart’s thought (see Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Knowledge of Quiddities’, note 126).

Ego Sum Qui Sum

157

this mode of presence: firstly, the animal genus in each species and species in an individual animal; and, secondly, the eternal reason of a circle in all existing circles, are at the same time ‘totally interior and totally exterior’ to the par ticu lar. ‘Nothing is as eternal as the reason of a circle’, says St Augustine. How could it itself become corrupted or tainted by a corruptible circle, to which it is entirely exterior? However, it is also tota intus, as it manifests its true essence in a material circle. It is thus, in this instance, like ‘the light in the darkness’, non inclusa, non permixta, non comprehensa. St John says the same thing: et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt. The Liber de causis expresses the same truth: causa prima regit res omnes praeter quod commisceatur cum eis. Thus, the First Cause of all things is the ‘reason’, the ‘logos’, the verbum in principio.151 To know the reason of things is to know things in their principles, where they shine and are light;152 it is to know the concrete in the abstract, the participant in the participated, the just in the justice which generates it inasmuch as it is just.153 Such is the knowledge of created effects in their Essential Cause which spreads out into all that is, without mixing itself with creatures, yet interiorly containing them in itself, rather than being contained by them. True knowledge attains to created things not in themselves, in their individual natures which belong to the esse secundum, which is deprived of truth,154 but in the intellectual region where their eternal quiddities and uncreated reasons manifest themselves and cause things to be defi ned. Ratio, id quod est, ad intellectum pertinet et ad veritatem; veritas enim in solo intellectu est, non extra.155 The knowledge of quiddities thus presupposes a certain grasp of the esse primum of creatures, a sort of intellectual intuition which permits the knowing of created things by their ‘uncreated and uncreatable’ reasons, by their ‘original causes’, while fi nding in quidditative defi nitions an immutable science of changing beings, 151. Ibid., pp.  11-12. Lib. de causis, Prop. 20 (ed. Steele, p.  177; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 19, p. 181). St Augustine is not named by Eckhart, the text which he used is found in De immortalitate animae, ch. 4, n. 6 (PL 32, col. 1024). 152. Ibid., p. 17, n. 20: Unumquodque enim lux est et lucet in suis principiis. 153. Ibid., p. 13, n. 14. 154. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Upper and Lower Waters’. 155. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 52ra, ll., 33-35.

158

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

strangers to the truth in their esse secundum, which is ‘creatable and created’.156 Th is presents a series of problems which we shall not be able to resolve until we have examined Eckhart’s doctrine of the human intellect. However, we can, at present, make note of the fact that this knowledge of distinct quiddities, expressible in definitions, however much it may require going beyond a level which is more properly that of a creature and also require an encounter with the uncreated reality of the divine intelligere, does not mean that, for creatures, known in their ideal reasons, are such in the very Essence of God. If it were thus, the ‘reasons’ of things would not be able to be distinguished from one another, nor could they be expressed by defi nitions, since the Essence remains absolutely indistinct. A defi nition can be applied only to something which involves limits; if God remains indefi nable, it is precisely because He is infinite, as Avicenna said.157 In order to be defi nable and mutually distinct, while also belonging to the esse plenum in the ‘ebullient’ life of the Divine Intellect, the ideal reasons of creatures must be known by human knowledge in an immediate relationship between created beings, to the point of their ad extra departure. In a passage of his second commentary on Genesis, in which Meister Eckhart wishes to demonstrate, by means of six arguments, that things ‘were not deprived of being’ before being externally produced in their own natures, the different ‘reasons’ of created beings (such as the species of animals, as in, a lion or a horse) appear to be uncreated, as something which is anterior to creatures. However, each distinct reason ‘conveys something other than the naked Essence of God’ whose ‘simple unity’ excludes all that could involve any kind of alterity or number, even just ‘according to thought’. A rather unexpected example is used to illustrate this virtual presence of a multiplicity in God which is distinct from His 156. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 343. 157. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 48va, ll. 6-10: Deus enim nobiscum est, utpote indistinctus, nos autem secum non sumus, utpote distincti, quia creati et terminati. Propter quod Deo, utpote interminato, diffinitio non competit, ut ait Avicenna. Diffinitio enim ex terminis est. Avicenna, Metaphysica, tr. VIII, ch. 4 (Venice, 1508), f. 99rb, 1128-31: Primus igitur non habet genus, et ideo non habet differentiam. Quia enim non habet genus, non habet differentiam, ideo non habet diffinitionem. Nec fit demonstratio de eo, quia ipse non habet causam. Similiter non queritur de eo quare.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

159

Essence: ‘Evil could not be what it is if it had not existed, in some manner, in the good nature of a created being.’158 In order to grasp the full significance of this comparison, it is necessary to look back at every thing that was said above concerning the relationship of the Unum to the Omnia.159 The One manifests the absolute indistinction of the Esse or Essence, but at the same time, in its opposition to all that is distinct, it determines the Divine Being with respect to the multiple. Being ‘distinct’ from the omnia, divine ‘indistinction’ is the Essence in itself, the puritas essendi; thus, being ‘indistinct’ from all that is, it is the omni-unity and the plenitudo essendi in the One, in the Paternal Intellect, the principle of omnipotent action. The ‘reasons’ of things have the same ‘purity’ and essential ‘plenitude’ in the Divine Intellect: inasmuch as it is ‘pure’, an ideal reason must be exclusively that which it is, namely, distinct from all other reasons.160 However, as esse plenum, it still must remain indistinct from God’s vivere and intelligere.161 This antinomy of ‘indistinct distinction’ is seen in the image of the ‘Life’ or of the ‘formal ebullition’, in which the omnia co-penetrate each other in the One, without allowing for any sort of alterity or number, those being phenomena which will appear only in exterior production, under the substantial forms of particular beings. 158. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29rb, ll. 39-53: Ratio qua producitur in esse leo est alia et distincta e ratione equi. Hec autem ratio non est nichil, nec ipsa producitur, sed est ante rem cuius est ratio et secundum ipsam res producitur. Tota in re producta et tota extra. Propter quod, re mutata vel corrupta, ipsa, scilicet ratio, nec corrumpitur nec mutatur. Hoc ex Augustino. Iterum etiam, ratio ista cum sit distincta, alia huius et alia alterius, oportet concipere quod aliud dicat preter nudam dei essentiam in qua nulla alietas, nullus numerus, nec re nec intellectu, ses simplex unitas. Planum est autem quod talis ratio ante non potest esse ratio sine omni esse, quia nec malum potest esse malum sine omni esse; propter quod nichil est se toto malum, sed semper malum est in bono, in bono creato aliquo. For the reference to St. Augustine, see above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Knowledge of Quiddities’, note 151. 159. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Unum et Omnia’. 160. Compare with Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29ra, ll. 22-26, the example of gold which is purely gold only in its specific reason. See the text cited below, note 183. 161. See Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 352: being distinct in created forms, the reasons of ‘lion’, ‘man’ and ‘sun’ are indistinct in God, in whom they do not at all exist as forms which mutually exclude one other.

160

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

If the human intellect knows things in their distinct eternal reasons, this is but a moment of negativity, which makes definition possible, constituting the inverse of the pure affirmation of a species or genus. This is a reduced mode, confined to a determined finitude, of the undetermined negatio negationis, which is proper to the One which expresses the absolute indistinction of the Essence. Just as evil cannot exist but in a good nature, as negation depends upon affirmation, so too does an ideal reason, while being distinct from all else in the definition which makes it known, have to exist indistinctly in the One as the ‘negation’ included in the negatio negationis and to be absorbed by this ‘most pure affirmation’ of the Absolute Being. If man were capable of knowing the essential causes or quiddities in themselves, he would have known them as a single Quiddity, Reason, or Word in the Divine Intellect. However, it is creatures which one can know in their ‘reasons’, for it is precisely these reasons which make things known by interiorly illuminating the darknesses of their created being, which is obscure and unknowable in its particularity. The increasing universality of species and genera in which human intellection knows and defines the distinct quiddities arrives at the absolute and indistinct universality of the Being, which is beyond species and genus,162 in the hidden depths from which the Single Reason shines and makes radiant all that it produces. As we shall see, Meister Eckhart will make use of the Stoic notion of seminal reasons, having borrowed this concept from St Augustine, in order to justify the knowability of quiddities, to the extent that they distinguish themselves and appear as multiple, without being obliged to separate these ‘words’ or ‘reasons’ of the Logos in the Paternal Intellect, where they are reduced to their original identity. Human knowledge is, so to speak, distended between the uncreated and the created. In order to be true, it must know created things not in themselves, but in their essential reasons or causes which belong to the Divine Intelligence; in order to be a knowledge of distinct quiddities, and therefore definable, it must discover the intelligible light which manifests the Essential Cause in the realm of ‘the created’ where it ‘shines in the darkness’, given that ‘darkness’ is unknowable in itself.163 In between the two kinds of ‘darkness’, that 162. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Unity of the Universe’. 163. Exp. in Ex., LW II, p.  18, n. 13: ‘tenebrae’  – ‘abscondita dei’ ‘super faciem abyssi’ – super rationem omnis creaturae. Cf. Exp. in Io., LW III,

Ego Sum Qui Sum

161

of the indistinction of the Divine Essence and that of the particularity of created substances, lies the ‘region of the intellect’, where things are ‘essentially true’ in their ‘principles’, meaning, in genus and species. The human intellect finds them by stripping creatures of their esse secundum in order to elevate them towards the esse primum of their eternal quiddities.164 Ad hoc facit quod communiter dicitur quod verum est in solo intellectu, cuius obiectum est rerum quidditas, que consistit in generibus et speciebus, que, ut innuit Porphirius, in solis nudisque puris intellectibus consistent.165 In order to become knowable and to receive their proper definitions, created things must, in a sense, be ‘deified’166 by the human intellect which returns them to their esse primum, from whence their uncreated quiddities radiate outwards. With this remark, we shall abandon for now the question of knowledge of created things, which we shall return to later, when we have examined pp. 193f., n. 195. 164. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29ra, ll. 17-22: notandum quod res ex primo et in primo modo habent veritatem et sunt vere id quod sunt essentialiter constitute ex generibus et speciebus, plene esse indiviso et impermixto omni alieno quomodolibet; extra vero non habent esse plenum indivisum et impermixtum. 165. Ibid., ll. 28-33. Porphyry, Isagoge et in Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium, ed. Adolfus Busse, in Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (Berlin: Reimer, 1887), IV, 1: Greek text, p. 1, ll. 10-11; Boethius’ Latin translation, p. 25, ll. 10-11. At the beginning of his introduction, Porphyry declares that he shall treat the question of genus and species strictly as a logician, without asking whether they really exist in themselves or whether they are but simple conceptions of our spirit (ἐν μόναις ψιλαῖς ἐπινοίαις). Boethius translates this passage as: …mox de generibus ac speciebus illud quidem, sive subsistunt, sive in solis nudisque intellectibus posita sunt.  … Meister Eckhart transforms Porphyry’s methodological reservation into a doctrinal position: genus and species belong to the level of ‘naked and pure’ intelligences. It is useless to add that this has nothing to do with the ‘simple thoughts’ of Porphyry’s text. In the sentence immediately following the reference to Porphyry, Eckhart treats with the same liberty a passage of Aristotle’s De anima, by identifying intentional species with logical species: Ipse etiam philosophus dicit quod anima est locus specierum non tota, sed intellectus (Lib. Parabol. Genes., ubi supra). See Aristotle, De anima, III.4.429a, 27. 166. This expression is found in the Rationes Equardi, cited by the Franciscan master, Gonsalve de Balboa, in a Quaestio directed against the theses of Eckhart. See LW V, p. 63, n. 18.

162

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

the nature of human intellection according to Meister Eckhart. What has been said concerning the ‘distension’ of this knowledge between the created being of things in their proper natures, and their uncreated being in the Divine Intellect, will permit us, in our return to Eckhart’s doctrine of being, to see more clearly what Eckhart meant by the distinction between esse ab alio and essentia non ab alio in created beings.

Quiddity and ‘Esse Secundum’ After Denifle,167 many critics’ opinions began to fi nd in Eckhart the ‘Thomist distinction’ between essentia and esse in created 167. Denifle, Meister Eckeharts lateinische Schriften, pp.  417-615. In his study of the real distinction between essence and existence in medieval philosophy, Denifle does not sufficiently differentiate between the teachings of Avicenna, Guillaume of Auvergne, Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas (pp. 486-88) on this matter. Under his own generalised understanding, which is no longer properly Thomist, he finds in Meister Eckhart a distinction in creatures between quiddity or essence and esse or existence, which are identical in God (pp. 439-41, 489-91). This distinction, which is very important in Eckhart’s thought, Denifle says, ‘bildet  … gerade den Ausgangspunkt für seine Grundanschauung’ (p. 488). However, the great Dominican scholar saw quite well that the ‘real distinction in Eckhart is much more pronounced exactly at those points where he departs from the teachings of his predecessors’ (p. 489). Unfortunately, instead of concluding that there exists a radical difference between this and St Thomas’ conception of being, Denifle had no desire to find in Eckhart anything more than a lack of discernment: ‘Eckehart mag wohl nicht im Stande gewesen sein sich eine Antwort zu geben auf die Frage, was das esse im Gegensatz zur essentia eigentlich sei’ (p. 490). The esse, which, according to Denifle, Meister Eckhart did not conceive clearly, while being distinct from the created essences which receive it (as in St Thomas), is not, however, distinguished from the Divine Being which communicates it. Quite correctly, Denifle links Eckhart’s ipsum esse, which is distinct from the concrete id quod est, with Boethius’ abstract esse, citing the following passage from De hebdomadibus (PL 64, col. 1311c): ‘Id quod est habere aliquid praeter quam quod ipsum esse potest; ipsum vero esse nihil aliud praeter se habet admixtum’. However, caught up in Denifle’s desire to examine Eckhart’s doctrine of being in the light of orthodox Thomism, this study, which had at one point seemed to be aiming towards a truly fundamental examination of Eckhart’s ontology, turns out to be nothing more than a diminution of

Ego Sum Qui Sum

163

beings.168  Even among those who seek to contrast Eckhart’s and Aquinas’ works, there are yet several who feel obliged to recognise, the Thuringian Dominican’s thought: ‘… Eckehart … schied zu wenig zwischen esse und esse. … Weil Eckehart die Begriffe nicht scharf aus einander hielt, hatte er nur einen Schritt zur Identifizierung des esse der Creatur mit dem esse dei’ (p. 491). 168. Denifle, who had the honour of discovering a portion of Meister Eckhart’s Latin works, is chief among the ‘Thomist’ critics of Eckhart’s thought. This family has two branches, one of which is represented by those scholars who defend Eckhart as an orthodox Thomist (and who defend orthodoxy as such) against Denifle’s accusations (Karrer and Bange), and the other branch of which is comprised of critics who are much less indulgent, such as Fr Théry, OP, who even outdo some of Denifle’s less flattering statements, treating his Dominican brother as a ‘confused spirit’, as someone incapable of comprehending the lucid teachings of the Angelic Doctor. For both sides, however, the Thomist character of the distinction between essence and existence in Meister Eckhart’s theology remains beyond any doubt. Thus, Karrer contents himself with just a note concerning this subject, in his Meister Eckehart, Anmerkungen, p. 211, note 34. Théry, in his annotation of Exp. in Sap., simply declares this obvious truth in a single sentence (Archives, IV, p.  255, note 4), which elicited a rather severe but accurate criticism from Muller-Thym (p. 12; p. 78, note 33). Bange is more explicit, for, having proclaimed at the beginning of his work (op. cit., p.  30) that Meister Eckhart accepted a real distinction between essence and existence, Bange then devoted an entire chapter section to this problem (the second section of Chapter 1): ‘Der reale Unterschied zwischen Sosein und Dasein’ (pp. 117-40). Having reduced the question of the ipsum esse and created essence in Eckhart to that of quo est and quod est, Bange tries to find in Eckhart a created, existential quo est which would correspond to St Thomas’ ipsum esse, in order to deflect Denifle’s criticism that the esse commune and Esse divinum have been confused with one another. However, the text taken from the proceedings of the Cologne trial (Archives, I, p. 193, 4), upon which Bange wants, above all, to garner support against Denifle, does not permit us to see in the esse formaliter inhaerens a created quo est distinct from the form which the esse hoc vel illud confers upon composite being. However, Bange does not hesitate to give a Thomist meaning to the ‘real distinction’ provided in Eckhart’s writings: ‘Das Sein ist die Aktualität des Soseins; es ist vom Sosein formal mitbedingt, insofern es durch das Sosein auf ein bestimmtes Subjekt determiniert wird’ (pp.  139-40). See Hans Hof’s very accurate critique in Scintilla animae: Eine Studie zu einem

164

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

on this one point, Eckhart’s dependence upon Aquinas.169 However, over the course of our research,170 we have more than once had to ask ourselves if this distinction in Eckhart plays the same role that it could have had in the structure of created being in St Thomas’ writings. If it were thus, if on this one precise point the Thuringian Master were in fact a true Thomist, then what we are dealing with here could not be a simple question of a shared detail between two other wise different ontologies. The real distinction between the act of existing and essence in created beings is a fundamental premise of the entirety of St Thomas’ metaphysics. In either accepting or rejecting this point, one either adheres to or opposes the entirety of his doctrine of being, in which the ‘existential’ moment remains predominant, without excluding or diminishing the role of essences. Now, we have been able to observe the predominance of an ‘essentialist’ character in Meister Eckhart’s metaphysics.171 In fact, by its very defi nition, it excludes from the domain of ‘the science of being as being’ the efficient cause which confers

Grundbegriff in Meister Eckharts Philosophie (Lund: Gleerup; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1952), p. 151. 169. Such is the case for Heinrich Ebeling, for whom Meister Eckhart’s task would have been to transform slightly St Thomas’ doctrine of being in order to render it immune to Scotist critics. For the par ticular question which is of interest to our discussion here, see chapter III, A, ‘Das Verhältnis von göttlichem und kreatürlichem Sein in der Lehre Eckharts’, pp. 35-83 of Ebeling’s book, Meister Eckharts Mystik: Studien zu den Geisteskämpfen um die Wende des 13. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1941). Ebeling notes several places where, according to his own understanding, ‘lehrt Eckhart wörtlich mit Thomas den realen Unterscheid zwischen Sosein und Dasein’ (p. 50, note 67). However, he does not hesistate to point out that even these passages show ‘dass die Lehre des Thomas zum Seinsmonismus umgebogen wird’ (p. 54). Erich Seeberg, ‘Eckhartiana I’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 56 (1937), pp. 87-105, believes that one can find in Eckhart ‘das Sein alz Existenz’ other than the divine Esse and distinct from created essence. He adds: ‘Dem Platoniker Eckhart kommt es wenig auf das Sosein an; aber er vermeidet mit dieser Scheidung den Vorwurf des Pantheismus’ (p. 92). 170. See especially Chapter  1, section headed ‘The Wine of Cana’ and Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’. 171. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Knowledge of Quiddities’.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

165

existence upon creatures.172 Given such conditions, we would just act in vain setting out an increasing number of citations designed to present Eckhart’s texts in which he distinguishes essence from the existence of creatures by repeating Thomist formulae, which proves but one thing: namely, that in distinguishing essence from esse in his doctrine of created being, Meister Eckhart believed that he had found the same ideas in Thomas Aquinas. Thus, the only task which remains for the historian, here, is to discover the meaning which Eckhart lent to the distinction that he wished to make along with the Great Doctor of his Order. One passage in par ticu lar from the Liber Parabolarum Genesis, in which Eckhart wishes to show that the pre-existence of creatures in divine thought is necessary both for their knowability and for their exterior production, introduces us to the heart of the problem which interests us. ‘The reason of things which must be produced’, says Meister Eckhart:173 resides in the Producer, it dwells there intellectually, it is a seed and, as such, it is fitting for it, according to its nature, to be the ‘first’ and the ‘principle’. John says this in his first chapter, ‘The word was in the principle.’ In Greek (logos) means ‘reason’. Thus, it is with relation to this reason, 172. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘I Live Because I Live’ into ‘The Object of Metaphysics’. 173. Liber Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29va, ll. 13-31: Sexto sic: rerum producendarum (ratio) intra producentem est et intellectu est, semen est, et ipsi convenit ex sui natura esse primum et principium, Io. I°: in principio erat verbum. Grecus – ‘ratio.’ Ad ipsam enim, per ipsam et secundum ipsam res producte et cognoscuntur et sunt id quod sunt; et sine ipsa cognitum et factum est nichil. Quidditas enim rerum, que et ratio, est radix et causa prima est omnium que de re quacumque vel affirmantur vel negantur. Propter quod commentator, super 7 ° metaphysice, dicit quod scita quidditate rerum sensibilium scitur causa prima omnium. Res autem iam producta extra producentem cadit et descendit foris, extra esse producentis et extra ipsius vivere et intelligere, obumbratum [sic] umbra temporis [sic, possibly ipsius] vel saltem factionis et creati, facti scilicet et suppositi, positi scilicet sub et infra producentem, extra et sub ratione principii, cadens in ordine[m] et sub ordine[m] princip[i]ati ultimi et finis et, per consequens, in ordinem boni. Propter quod, secundum philosophum, bonum est non in anima sed extra, in rebus.

166

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology by it and according to it, that things which are produced are known and are what they are. Without it, that which is known and that which is made is nothingness. In fact, the quiddity or reason of things is the root and the first cause of all that is affirmed or denied concerning a particular thing. This is why, in commenting on the 7th book of the Metaphysics, Averroes affirms that knowledge of the quiddity of sensible things at the same time causes to be known the First Cause of all that is, quiddity being this very cause itself. However, once being produced outside the Producer, the thing falls and descends to the exterior, outside the being of the One who produces it, outside its Life and Intellection. It thus finds itself darkened by the shadow of time, or at least, by the shadow of creation and of the created, of that which is ‘made’ and of the suppositum, which is to say, that which is ‘placed below’, being inferior to the Producer. Thus, being placed outside and below the reason of its Principle, (the created thing) falls into the order and under the order of the Principle’s last determination (sub ordine principiati ultimi), which is that of the end. As a result, (it falls) into the order of the good. This is why, according to the Philosopher, goodness is by no means within the soul but outside it, in things.

Interior, seminal causality, which Meister Eckhart elsewhere refers to as ‘essential’,174 belongs to the quiddity in the intellect of the ‘Producer’, in which the quidditative contents of things are reducible to a single Reason. Being identical with the Word in the paternal principle, the quiddities (or rather, the single quiddity) of things, the reasons for their knowability and their being, exercise the function of John’s Logos with relation to creatures: sine ipsa (ratione  = quidditate) cognitum et factum est nihil.175 As radix et causa prima omnium, quiddity is anterior to the ad extra production in which the produced thing is rendered ‘inferior’ to the Divine Intellect, when it ‘falls’ or ‘descends’ into the order of the created which is a dark realm of changeability, of the fieri, ‘the shadow of the ipsum 174. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’. 175. See Chapter  3, section headed ‘Quiddity and ‘Esse Secundum”, note 173.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

167

esse’.176 The factum or creatum, produced by the efficient cause in its own nature, outside the intellectual ‘principle’, receives the deficient being of a suppositum which falls under the category of all that is ‘placed beneath’ the Producer.177 The domain or realm of created being is thus characterised by suppositia or individual substances, multiple parts of the entirety of the universe, of the totum which, being exterior to the Intellect, rises to the order of finality, namely, of the Good which is not the object of the intellect but of the will. Th is ‘second being’178 of individual substantiality is ‘created being’ (esse factum), the reason for which a thing produced from without, in its nature, is ‘good’, since the good exists in exterior reality. When the God of Genesis, in contemplating his creatures, says that they are ‘good’, He, at the same time, affi rms that, once produced by His Will and endowed with suppositia, they no longer belong to the Intellect. Thus being ‘good’, a created thing ‘certainly is no longer true’, since it is no longer ‘complete’ but, rather, is divided into suppositia, broken up into matter. ‘For, division and number are proper to suppositia and are in suppositia.’179 The esse factum is thus the existence of natures or individual substances, and, since ‘the

176. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p.  413): Omnis enim mutacio, utpote fieri, umbra est ipsius esse. 177. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’. 178. On the distinction between the primum esse and secundum esse of things, see above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Upper and Lower Waters’. 179. Here, Meister Eckhart is commenting upon the textual ‘authority’ of Genesis 1:34: Dixit quoque Deus: fiat lux. Et facta est lux. Et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona et divisit lucem a tenebris. In the present text, light serves as an example of a reality which, before having been produced ad extra, in its own nature, had to pre-exist in the intellect of the Creator (Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29ra, l. 61-f. 29rb, l. 9): Igitur, lux erat antequam fieret et facta esset. Adhuc autem, quomodo facta esset sine esse quo facta est? Hoc est ergo secundum esse rerum, creaturarum, extra, in natura, per quod esse factum res est bona. Propter quod philosophus ait quod bonum est in rebus. Et hoc, postquam dicitur facta est lux, sequitur: vidit Deus lucem, quod esset bona; certe iam non vera, utpote non plena sed divisa in suppositis vel in materia. Hoc etiam est quod hic sequitur: divisit lucem. Divisio enim et numerus suppositorum et in suppositis est, indivisio et unitas ex forma et specie est.

168

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

first created thing is being’,180 and creatio est collatio esse,181 then, to create is to produce the divisible being of singular natures which make up part of the universe. This goes back then to the idea that the efficient cause, which is God’s creative action, produces par ticu lar existing things, the individual essential contents of substances which are proper to each created being. On the other hand, in their ‘first being’, in which they ‘have the truth and are truly that which they are by essence’ (essentialiter), things are constituted by genus and species and possess the fullness of undivided being, ‘unmixed in any kind of other manner’.182 The example which Eckhart gives is relevant enough for us to make use of here. The word ‘gold’ (li aurum), he says, designates the entire species (plenitudo) and uniquely the species (puritas, impermixtio) of the metal which we call gold, but gold is never found, according to this mode of being, in things produced from the exterior. In the domain of created being, it presents itself only ‘under’ a species, in singular suppositia, in which it is divided and thus loses its fullness, is mixed and, no longer being ‘pure’, ceases to be ‘true’.183 180. Exp. In Sap., Archives, III, p.  345). De causis, Prop. 4: see above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Collatio Esse’, note 14. 181. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Collatio Esse’. 182. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29ra, ll. 17-23: Quantum vero ad presens, notandum quod res ex primo modo habent veritatem et sunt vere id quod sunt essentialiter constitute ex generibus et speciebus, plene esse indiviso et inpermixto omni alieno quomodolibet. Extra vero non habent esse plenum et impermixtum. 183. Ibid., ll. 23-28: Exempli causa, li aurum significat totam speciem et ipsam solam huius metalli quod dicitur aurum. Tale autem non est nec invenitur in rebus extra factis, sub specie; in suppositis singularibus vere semper et dividitur, ut non sit plenum, et permiscetur, ut iam non sit verum. Propter quod in omni creato differt suppositum et natura, ut docet Thomas in secundo quolibet. In Quodlibet II (1269, Noël), St Thomas, after having distinguished essence and existence in angels (3), responds to another question (4): Utrum in angelis sit idem suppositum et natura. This is article 4 of q. 2a in Mandonnet’s edition, Quaestiones quodlibetales (Paris: Lethielleux, 1926), pp. 43-46. Compare P. Glorieux, La Littérature quodlibétique de 1260 à 1320, Bibliothèque Thomiste V (Paris: J. Vrin, 1925), p. 278. St Thomas responds: in angels, immaterial natures, as in all other created beings, the suppositum is different from the nature. Since it refers particularly to Quodlibet II, Meister Eckhart must allow for created, immaterial suppositia. Besides, this article four

Ego Sum Qui Sum

169

The fullness and purity of the esse corresponds here, for Meister Eckhart, to the universality of species, which is to be differentiated from the particular being of a suppositum. In both cases, the esse is conceived of in the spirit of a philosophy of essences: it does not concern existence, but rather, the ‘that which is’ on two different levels of essentiality. The being which is ‘full, undivided, and unmixed’ can only be found in the intellect whose object is quiddity, comprised of genus and species.184 This integrated being is thus the quiddity or ideal reason of things in the divine or human intellect, insomuch as the latter is a locus specierum, being capable of knowing that which is universal. On the level of created (particular) being, as we have seen, the quiddity of a thing is divided, is ‘spoken’ or expressed in suppositia;185 it also loses its purity, by being mixed with that which is foreign to it, and, no longer being ‘true’, no longer belongs to the ‘intellectual region’ but to ‘nature’, which is inferior to the intellect insofar as it is ‘effected’ (effecta et extra facta) outside the species.186 It is obvious that quiddity, whether it remains undivided and pure in the intellect or whether it is divided and ‘mixed’ in exterior of St Thomas’ question, dedicated to the ‘composition’ of angels, must serve two purposes for the Thuringian Dominican, with the question dealt with in the preceding article: Utrum angelus componatur ex essentia et esse. Thus, the esse secundum which establishes things in their ‘own natures’ is the singular being of the suppositia, produced by the creative efficiency of God. 184. Ibid., ll. 28-33 (following on from the text cited in the preceding note). See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘The Knowledge of Quiddities’. 185. See above, Chapter 2, section headed 'The Word without Words', the difference between the interior character of the Word, as ‘silent’ in the intellect of the Father, and its extrinsic aspect, that of the Word, ‘pronounced’ or ‘uttered’ in creation. 186. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29ra, ll. 32-42 (see Chapter 4, section headed 'The Apophasis of Oppositios'): Ipse etiam philosophus dicit quod anima est locus specierum non tota, sed intellectus. Verum est in anima, non extra in rebus: illic enim quidditas rei dividitur, dicitur in suppositis et permiscetur alieno, ut iam non sit vera nec pertineat ad regionem intellectus, sed foris et extra speciem nature sue effecta et extrafacta in materia vel supposito, in natura que est inferior intellectu, ut patet ex De causis, ut sic competit ipsi ratio boni et ratio facti, secundum illud: vidit Deus cuncta que fecerat, et erant valde bona, Genesis primo. Aristotle, De anima, III.4.429a, 27. Lib. de causis, Prop. 9, comm. (ed. Steele, p. 169; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 8, p. 172).

170

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

being, always belongs to the order of essences. The efficient cause which ‘throws’ it into the exterior only modifies its mode of being an essence, by reducing it to that of a particular being, hoc et hoc ens, whose degree of diminished reality approaches nothingness.187

The Level of Substantiality In the texts of the Book of the Parables of Genesis which we have examined, we have not yet encountered any concept of existence which could, in any real sense, be distinguished from that of essence. When Meister Eckhart speaks of the esse, be it complete or divided, pure or mixed, he lends this term the generalised sense of οὐσία or of ‘that which is’. However, unlike Aristotle, for whom the first οὐσία was an individual substance, truly ‘that which is’, while ‘second ousias’ had no other reality but that of something which is ‘predicable’, Eckhart’s first esse refers to quiddities or ideal reasons, in order to bestow upon these terms all the fullness of ‘the real’, thus leaving for the esse secundum of individual substances nothing more than 187. Gilson, in contrasting the doctrines in which ‘to be a being’ means ‘to exist’ with essentialist ontologies, makes the very relevant remark that for the former, ‘between truly existing and not existing at all, there is no middle path’. In the terms with which he describes the essentialist conception of things, traits which are very characteristic of Duns Scotus’ ontology are very clearly seen, which are actually much less present in Eckhart: ‘His doctrine is one in which being is reduced to essentiality. One could, or even, one must distinguish between “degrees of being” in proportion to the purity of essence. This is how Plato can say of the sensible world, that it is, and yet, at the same time, not entirely so, without entering into any kind of contradiction. … In such ontologies, we can recognize that being is presented as a variable value, proportional to the essence upon which it depends’ (L’Être et l’essence, pp. 30-31). Eckhart’s ontology, although it also may recognise different modes of the ipsum esse, as is typical for philosophies of essences, nevertheless will tend to reject these variable degrees of being in ‘non-being’, thus lending to the ‘Being itself’ an absolute sense which excludes any middle state between ‘being’ and ‘not being’. This transposition of a characteristic trait of Thomist ‘existentialism onto the framework of an essentialist ontology will give an original twist to Eckhart’s doctrine of analogy.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

171

a ‘shadow of being itself’. This anti-Aristotelian attitude relates to the perspective which Eckhart adopts, in the passages which we just cited, when he wished to prove the pre-existence of creatures in the Divine Intellect.188 This abridging of created being, when considered in itself, reduces it to the point of sometimes becoming even ‘a pure nothingness’. However, when the Thuringian Dominican, having to deal with other problems, places himself on the level of the formal being of creatures, his entire perspective abruptly changes: without relegating ideal reasons to the semi-darkness of the praedicabilia, he still refuses them esse, which will be replaced instead with vivere and intelligere. In the Liber de causis, he will consider being as prima rerum creatarum and, then, dispensing with this NeoPlatonic definition, will deal with the concrete reality of individual substances in Aristotelian terms, constantly invoking the authority of ‘the Philosopher’. Of course, Meister Eckhart was not the first to try ‘reconciling’ Plato and Aristotle in this way,189 by assigning to each a different level of reality. It must be, rather, that he inherited this perspective from Proclus190 and other sources from the Plotinian tradition,191 without ever himself wondering about the problems that

188. Liber Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29rb, l. 34-f. 30ra, l. 23. This passage, which belongs to the exposition of the text Et dicit Deus: ‘fiat lux’; et facta est lux, begins thus: Postremo quia multi luctabuntur, ut estimo, quod lux et cetera producta in esse non erant absque omni esse antequam foris in natura producerentur, declaretur hoc (quamvis preter hic intentum) primo ratione, secundo ex sacro canone, tertio ex dictis sanctorum. Among the ‘saints’ cited in the third line of proofs, alongside Augustine, Boethius, John Chrysostom and Dionysius, we also see Plato and Averroes. The first series contains six arguments from reason. We have, in part, reproduced the sixth one (see above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Quiddity and ‘Esse Secundum”, note 173). 189. See Endre von Ivanka’s study, ‘Die neuplatonische Synthese: Ihre Bedeutung und ihre Elemente’, Scholastik 24, no. 1 (1949), pp. 30-38. 190. This is founded upon the traditionally Neo-Platonic synthesis of his teacher Syrianus, author of a commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics. See E.R. Dodds, op. cit., p. 28. 191. We must not forget the Plotinian source, ‘The Theology of Aristotle’, which, through Arab philosophers, would indirectly influence Western medieval Christian thought.

172

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

arise when bringing together two opposing philosophies.192 So, it is precisely here, where, at the lower level of the esse secundum, this segment of Aristotelianism has been admitted to the ground floor of an other wise Neo-Platonic edifice, that we must look for just what kind of distinction Meister Eckhart makes between essence and existence, in order to be able to compare this precise point of Eckhart’s doctrine of created being with that of St Thomas Aquinas. As we have already seen, in commenting on the Book of Wisdom (1:14), creavit enim Deus, ut essent omnia, Meister Eckhart sets out eight exegetic ‘lines of argument’ to deal with the scriptural text secundum communiorem accepcionem: ‘God made all things, such that they would exist.’193 This means: ‘so that they would have being on the exterior (esse extra), in their nature’, even though they eternally exist in God as ‘reasons’, as vivere and intelligere. Eckhart adds, in order to clarify in what sense he understands the esse of creatures: Eterna enim facta non sunt; facta vero, creata scilicet per ipsum Deum, sunt, id est habent esse formale extra, in rerum natura, sub formis propriis quibus sunt; sed in ipso nundum sunt, ut sunt, puta: leo, homo, sol, et huiusmodi. Sunt autem in ipso, non sub racione esse talium rerum, sed sub racione vivere et intelligere.194 Wanting still to deal with the level of created being, Meister Eckhart here considers the esse as a ‘reason of creatability’ of things which, in God, ‘are not yet as they are’. Yet, created things ‘are by their own forms’. The ‘being of such things’, that of a lion, a man, the sun etc., depends upon their individual forms which place them

192. See Eckhart’s curious remark in the Exp. in Ex., C., f. 50vb, ll. 29-35: Tercium est, quod significata predictorum nominum [Dei] non sunt accipienda secundum planum sermonis, sed iuxta secretum et abditum eius quod significa[n]t. Verbi gratia, apud alchimistas nomine solis aurum intelligitur, nomine lune argentum, et sic de aliis. Sic etiam planum sermonum Platonis, potius quam sensum, improbat Aristoteles frequenter. The ‘mystical’ sense of Plato’s teachings must have escaped Aristotle, whose critics could not attain to or grasp Platonism except on an external level, that of the ‘letter’. 193. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, pp. 351ff. 194. Ibid., p. 352.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

173

in the order of substantiality,195 and, as a result, in the order of the created, since, as we have seen, for Meister Eckhart to create is to confer being upon particular creatures. Thus, here we find ourselves in an Aristotelian world, one where substantial forms and matter, act and potency, come together in order for there to be individual beings. In the same Liber Parabolarum Genesis which has given us such eloquent texts on the two levels of being, Meister Eckhart deals with the question of the two principles of the universe, that of the active and that of the passive, by temporarily placing a limit upon this question, keeping its scope to that of the relationship between form and matter in substances.196 Along with Aristotle and St Thomas, he will say that form and matter are not two beings (duo entia), but rather, two principles of sensible beings;197 that, in material substances, form cannot exist without matter anymore than matter can exist without form.198 At last, after a long passage in which he elaborates the immediate character of the union between matter and form in a composite, he concludes by saying: ‘Matter and form are two principles of things in such a manner (sic sunt rerum duo principia …) that henceforth they are unum in esse 195. Cf. ibid., p.  349: ‘Creavit’, inquid, ‘ut essent.’ Esse autem per formam substantialem est et generationem. 196. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 27va, l. 14-f. 27vb, l. 26. This is the third ‘exposition’ or exegetical treatment of the text, In principio creavit Deus coelum et terram. Here is a summary from Tabula libri parabolarum Genesis, C., f. 24vb , ll. 13-24: In Tertia Expositione habes proprietates sex forme et materie. Prima, quod non sunt duo entia [Ms.: essentie, corrected according to the text of 27va, l. 27], sed sunt duo entium principia. Secunda, quod materia est propter formam, non econverso. Tercia, quod hoc non obstante forma non plus potest esse sine materia quam materia sine forma. Quarta, quod materia est ipsa sua potentia passiva et forma est ipse suus actus per essenciam. Quinta, quod materia unitur forme, et econverso, sine omni medio et dispositione qualibet, et plura circa hoc. Sexta, quod, licet materia et forma sint duo principia, sunt tamen unum in esse et unum operari et operatio una. 197. Ibid., f. 27va, ll. 16-20: Sciendum ergo primo, quod materia et forma non sunt duo encia, sed sunt duo entium creatorum principia. Et hoc est quod hic dicitur: In principio creavit Deus celum et terram. Id est formam et materiam, que sunt duo rerum principia. 198. Ibid., ll., 24-30: Here Meister Eckhart is referring to Avicenna, Metaphysics, III (= tr. II, ch. 4, f. 77ra, ll. 26-29 of the Venice edition, 1508), and the Scriptural text of 1 Corinthians 2:11: neque vir sine muliere, neque mulier sine viro.

174

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

and their being and operation are one.’199 If it is the form which confers being upon a composite, then it does not exist on its own, apart from the substance of which it is the principle. Thus, being belongs to substance, and here means ‘to be a substance’ or to have the action of the form by which a substance is what it is, namely, this individual being. This Aristotelian doctrine of substantiality, in Meister Eckhart, remains external to the question of existence properly speaking; as for Aristotle himself, for Eckhart, this question involves uniquely that which exists.200 However, Aristotle’s eternal world, which is utterly foreign to the concept of an ex nihilo creation, must be transcended in some way or another in order to respond to the demands of Christian theology. It is in this context that the philosophical question of existence is posed before the Angelic Doctor. In order to discuss, as did St Thomas, the problem of existence, it is necessary to pass beyond Aristotle’s ontology, in which form is the ultimate complement to substance, constituting its actuality. Thus, the quo est that the form represents in a composite will appear as something ‘secondary’ with respect to the ‘first’ quo est, the act of existence, the ipsum esse which is actualitas omnium, et etiam ipsarum formarum.201 Has Meister Eckhart then followed this same path, crossing the limits of Aristotelian substantiality? The quo est as something different from the form, the ‘actuality of forms themselves’, which he had to locate beyond such ‘indigent’ essences, which are but potentialities in relation to the esse,202 is this the completed act of existence which St Thomas distinguished from the essence which is in every created existent thing? 199. Ibid., f. 27vb, ll. 18-26. In this connection Eckhart here cites Genesis 2:29: erunt duo in carne una. He will comment upon this text later (f. 33va, ll. 27-53). 200. It is much the same with Boethius (whom Meister Eckhart refers to in passing, 27vb, ll. 6-7) – despite Boethius’ use of phrasing such as ‘diversum est esse et id quod est’ (De hebdomadibus, PL 64, col. 1311b) or ‘omni composito aliud est esse, aliud ipsum est’ (ibid., 1311c) and despite the distinction between quo est and quod est, this all relates only to the principle of substantial being, or, that is to say, to the form according to which the substance is that which it is. See ed. RolandGosselin, pp. 142-45. 201. Ia, q. 4, a. 1, ad. 3um. See Gilson, Le Thomisme, p. 49. 202. See above, Chapter  3, sections headed ‘Divine Sufficiency and Created Indigence’, on the potentiality of created essences.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

175

Essentia et Esse In the text which immediately follows the passage which we just examined, the question of two principles, active and passive, is dealt with on a level which mostly goes beyond the domain of material substances and which includes the entirety of created beings, as it now endeavours to define the ontological condition of the creature as such. This new exegetical ‘exposition’ on the first verse of Genesis is introduced by the tabulator in terms which could be those of St  Thomas himself: In quarta expositione habes, quomodo in omni creato differt esse et essentia, sive quo res est et quod res est; secus autem in deo.203 Obviously, the answer to the question which interests us is to be sought here. Therefore, we cite this par ticu lar passage in its entirety: Adhuc autem quod dicitur ‘in principio creavit deus celum et terram’, id est creavit duo principia, ‘quo est’ scilicet et ‘quod est’. Omnium encium que creata sunt, hoc ipso quod creata sunt, sunt enim hec duo: duo, non unum in omni creato et in solo creato. Racio est: omne enim quod ab alio est et creatum est habet esse sive quo est ab alio; id autem quod est sive quidditatem non habet ab alio, ut ait Avicenna. Quod enim homo sit animal, non habet ab alio: quocumque enim posito vel non posito, semper verum est quod homo est animal. Quod autem homo sit, habet ab alio. Sic ergo in omni creato et solo creato ‘quo est’ et ‘quod est’ duo sunt et proprietates et principia creatorum sunt. Et hoc est: ‘In principio creavit deus celum et terram.’204 We note first of all this definition of that which is created, which is difficult to translate due to its lapidary form of expression: omne quod ab alio est – ‘all that is (in coming) from another’. This dependence upon the ‘other’, which (then) affects a created being insofar as it exists, resides in the fact that it possesses esse or that by which it is, by receiving esse from God as from an exterior cause. Whether we here translate esse as ‘existence’ or with the more vague term ‘being’, the formula according to which the esse sive quo est comes from 203. Tabula libri parab. Genes., C., f. 24vb, ll. 25-27. 204. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 27vb, ll. 26-38.

176

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

the exterior, unlike the id quod est of a created thing, remains no less of an insurmountable obstacle to us in any of our attempts at interpreting this passage from Eckhart in terms of a strict Thomist distinction between existence and essence. In effect, the ‘metaphysical composition’ of ipsum esse and essence in a created sense presents, in St Thomas, a kind of parallel with the ‘physical composition’ of form and matter in a material substance; in both instances, the quo est and quod est do not exist in active form except in the unity of the concrete being which they constitute. Even if it could be said that the esse is added to essence as a sort of ‘divine influx’205 which actualises the essence, still, the fact of their distinction remains intrinsic to created being.206 In this sense, both are non ab alio, since the act of existing is only conceivable as a determined action insofar as it is something specified by an essence, while essence, in its own turn, in order truly to exist, must be actualised by its esse. However, on the other hand, both are ab alio, if they are considered from the point of view of divine causality; essences are no less effects of the creative cause than the ipsum esse by which they themselves exist.207 In Meister Eckhart, we find more of an opposition than a distinction between the esse and the id quod est: he insists upon the duality of these principles in creatures (duo, non unum in omni creato), after having expressly highlighted the 205. Ia, q. 104, a. 1, ad 1um. 206. The fact that this passage from Lib. Parabol. Genes. which we cited could even be cited (Bange, op. cit., pp. 30ff.; Ebeling, op. cit., p.  50, note 67) as an obvious example of this Thomist distinction in Meister Eckhart makes one think that critics themselves do not always have a clear idea regarding the nature of this distinction in St Thomas’ own works. 207. Th is is what Siger of Brabant says regarding the distinction between essence and existence which Albert the Great makes in his commentary on the De causis (see above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Two Levels of Essentiality’ ), in which existence is considered as one of God’s effects. Siger’s question, Utrum ens vel esse in rebus causatis pertineat ad essentiam causam torum vel sit aliquid additum essentiae illorum, containing the Parisian ‘Averroist’s’ critique of Albert of Cologne, was published by Martin Grabmann, ‘Neuaufgefundene “Quaestionen” Sigers von Brabant zu den Werken des Aristoteles (Clm. 9559)’, in Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle, vol. I (Rome: Biblioteca apostolica Vaticana, 1924), pp.  103-47. The relevant passage is to be found on p. 135.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

177

unity of form and matter, which are the two other entium principia which he would distinguish in material substances.208 It would seem, then, that, unlike the unity of the hylomorphic composite which belongs to actually existing substances, there is no actual unity of esse and essence in a created ens; insofar as it is created, this ontological ‘composite’209 remains divided in two and cannot recover its unity except on a plane which would transcend its being as a creature, in which it is no longer a ‘composite’ but a quiddity existing by itself. It is also noteworthy that the term ‘essence’, however much it may figure in the headings, barely appears at all in this part of the argument. When referring to the id quod est of created beings, Meister Eckhart here opts to use the word ‘quiddity’, which better expresses what he intended to say here. 210 As we have seen, for Eckhart, quidditas is almost always synonymous with ratio, the eternal ‘principle’ of creatures in the Divine Intellect, the ‘fi rst cause’211 or rather, the primordial condition of things which excludes any causal relationship with God. The following example clearly shows that here Eckhart is concerned with this ‘true and immutable being’ of things considered in their ‘principles’. If man is an animal, he owes this solely to the essential truth expressed in the defi nition, without any intervention by a cause which is alien to ‘that which is’, since the proposition homo est animal remains true, independently of man’s existence or non-existence. If this essential truth did not properly belong to man (non habet ab alio), 212 then he could not be ‘man’. On the other hand, the fact that a man exists is due to an exterior cause (habet ab alio). The same example, with the same reference to Avicenna as support for the formula aliud est

208. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘The Level of Substantiality’, note 196 (Sixth property of form and matter). 209. This is if one could speak of ‘composition’ when there is no unity of two distinct principles. 210. It is true that elsewhere (Exp. in Ex., LW II, pp.  23-24, n. 18), in an analogous context concerning quiddity, Meister Eckhart says: … in omni creato aliud est esse et ab alio, aliud essentia et non ab alio. 211. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’. 212. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p.  340:  … quod autem homo sit animal, corpus et substantia, a nullo prorsus habet, nisi a se ipso: aut enim non est homo, aut est animal, si est homo.

178

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

esse et ab alio, aliud essentia et non ab alio, 213 as we already were able to note, recurs quite frequently in Meister Eckhart’s Latin works.214 Thus, here, essence or quiddity refers to the ideal reason which ‘is that which it is’ and owes its existence to nothing other than itself. These two comments are sufficient to establish just in what sense the Thuringian Dominican made a distinction between the essentia and the esse in creatures: unlike the Thomist distinction, which is found in the very structure of the created order, that of Meister Eckhart is founded upon two different levels of being. As with human knowledge,215 created things are ‘distended’ by their double esse:216 they are truly that which they are in their esse primum, wherein they do not exist217 as creatures; in their esse secundum they exist as created beings, without being truly what they are. Since the second being is the esse formale, which is indebted to the substantial form, we remain on the Aristotelian plane of substantiality every time that we speak of things in their ‘own natures’. The quo est refers to the exteriority of the divine cause which produces the created suppositia. However, when one inquires as to what a thing is,218 it is necessary to look for its quod est beyond the level of created being, and, transcending the world of Aristotle, to enter into the sublime regions of Neo-Platonic 213. For the roots of this formula in Avicenna, see above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Quidditas et Anitas’, note 10. Also, one could consult other texts from Avicenna which convey the same idea. For example, in the same edition of the Metaphysics, tr. 1, ch. 6, f. 72va, ll. 32-34. 214. Prol. gener. in op. tripart., LW I, p.  159, n. 13 (see p.  39); Exp in Ex., LW II, p. 24, n. 18; Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 340 etc. 215. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Knowledge of Quiddities’. 216. Exp in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p.  62, n. 77: nota quod omnis creatura dupliciter habet esse: unum in causis suis originalibus, saltem in verbo Dei; et hoc est firmum et stabile. … Aliud esse rerum extra in rerum natura, quod habent res in forma propria. Primum … virtuale, secundum … formale …, infirmum et variabile. Compare ibid., on the superior and inferior waters of the firmament, p. 63, n. 81: aque super celos et sub cello dicuntur propter duplex esse rerum etc. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Upper and Lower Waters’. 217. Let us recall that, for Eckhart, the term existentia refers to extrinsic being, which is proper to creatures. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’, note 110. 218. Which, in Meister Eckhart, corresponds to quidditas, as distinct from anitas. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Quidditas et Anitas’.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

179

cosmologies. St Thomas Aquinas did not betray Aristotle when he had to bypass his ontology by introducing a new distinction, in order to transform the eternal universe governed by the Necessary Being into the world created by the God of Christian theology. One could equally well say that Meister Eckhart did not betray the Plotinian tradition in assigning to Aristotle’s world of concrete substances the infinite degree of essentiality, that of divided quiddity mixed with the suppositia, produced by an efficient cause to which the German theologian wished to lend a contingent character, in order to assimilate it to the will of a God who creates all things ex nihilo.219 If Eckhart has deprived the created world, considered in itself, of truth on the Aristotelian level of individual substances, it is because, like St Augustine, he sought to diminish the autonomy of creatures; wanting to recognise the created entia in their essential causes, he believed it best to link them more closely to the First Essentiality which ‘is sufficient in itself and in all things’.220 At this point, we take note that the distinction between essence and existence in Meister Eckhart, rather than bringing him closer to the Thomist doctrine of being, instead takes him yet further away. Certainly, here we are not dealing with a distinction made within created being, but rather it is the same opposition between two levels of being which we have already encountered: the esse primum and esse secundum of things. This distinction (expressed in allegorical form in the firmament separating the heavenly waters from the earthly

219. Meister Eckhart makes reference to St Hilary of Poitiers (De Synodis, n. 58: PL 10, col. 520c) and to St John Damascene (De fide orth., I.8 [PG 94, col. 813a]), wanting to show the contingent and free character of the action by which God ‘bestowed substances’ upon created things (Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 28rb, ll. 42-52): Omnia quecumque voluit dominus fecit in celo et in terra (Ps. 134:6), quantum ad omnia creata. Unde Hilarius, De Synodis, dicit ‘omnibus creaturis substantiam Dei voluntas attulit, sed naturam filio dedit perfectam nativitas’. Generatio autem est opus nature, ut ait Damascenus. Ex hiis dicamus quod 7 ° dictum est: Spiritus dei ferebatur super aquas, id est creaturas que possunt sic et aliter fieri. Item 8, dicitur Spiritus Dei ferri super aquas, id est creaturas, quia sunt producte amore, non natura sive naturaliter. Spiritus enim Dei, Spiritus sanctus, procedit a patre et filio per modum voluntatis et amoris. 220. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Divine Sufficiency and Created Indigence’.

180

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

waters) can be made indiscriminately both in terms of ‘existing’,221 esse plenum and esse divisum, as well as in terms of essence, quidditas and suppositum, where suppositum is a divided and mixed quiddity. Even when he specifically uses the term existentia,222 in order to refer to the quo est of a thing, Meister Eckhart simply meant by using this word that the origins of a thing were rooted in an external cause.223 The exteriority of creatures transforms their uncreated esse primum into ipsum esse which comes about ab alio, as the divine cause of their ‘existence’; however, when we wish to know their quiddity, the dual perspective which is normally attached to creatures is surpassed: the same esse primum appears as true being, non ab alio, in the Divine Intellect. Let us recall that the eternal ‘similitude’ of things, their ‘word’ or ‘reason’, has two functions in the analogical or creative cause: with respect to creatures, their quiddities (which Meister Eckhart likens to the ‘ideas’ of Plato) are at the same time the principle of knowability and that of existence ‘externally’, ‘in the nature of things’. The very term ‘existence’ here designates this external condition of creatures, their extra-stantia.224 Confronted with the texts from Meister Eckhart where he opposes essence or uncreated quiddity of things with their ‘existence’ or created being, one might well ask oneself whether Eckhart ever accepted created essences, apart from eternal quiddities. When, desiring to demonstrate the necessity of the ideal pre-existence of creatures ex dictis sanctorum et sapientium, after having mentioned Plato’s ‘intelligible world’225 and Avicenna’s ‘quiddity’, true in itself 221. That is, if we translate esse as ‘existing’. 222. Let us recall the old meaning of the word ex-sistere (= ex aliquo esse habere), which was familiar to Richard of St-Victor (De Trinitate, I.IV, ch. 12; ch. 19 [PL. 196, cols 938a and 942]). See A.-M. Ethier, Le ‘De Trinitate’ de Richard de Saint-Victor (Paris: Vrin, 1939), pp. 97-98. Gilson notes that St Thomas avoids the term existere to refer to the act of existing, since at that time, ‘existere did not carry the sense of actual existence which we attribute to it’ (Le Thomisme, p. 44, note). 223. Thus, for example, when he says, referring to Avicenna (Ex. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 341): … nullo homine existente, hec non est minus vera: homo est animal. Secus autem est de rerum existential, sive de ipso esse rerum. Hoc enim respicit causam extra, ut sit. 224. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29ra, ll. 2-16, cited above, p. 194, note 130. 225. According to St Augustine, Contra academicos, III.17, n. 37 (PL 32, col. 954), and Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae, III, metr. 9.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

181

and independent of the existence of any created thing, Eckhart then equally refers to the opinion of ‘one of the celebrated contemporaries’ who believed that the essences of things are eternal.226 However, the reader does not quite get the impression that the Dominican from Thuringia completely accepted this strange teaching, which he mentions only so as to put his own thesis in proper context, that of the ‘first being’ which things have by themselves in the ‘reasons’. Nevertheless, this point of view, which Meister Eckhart attributes to one of his contemporaries, corresponds to the very perspective in which he places himself when, in distinguishing between essence and existence, he places the quod quid est on a higher level, turning the created thing into a ‘shadow of the ipsum esse’. We cannot be sure if this modernus famosus ever truly professed the doctrine of the eternity of essences, but one can be nearly sure that, according to the passage to which we just referred, Meister Eckhart understood Avicenna’s ‘neutrality’ of essences in this sense. If it is truly so, then the ‘famous contemporary’ could be none other than Duns Scotus, whom the Thuringian Dominican viewed from the perspective of his own conception of created being.227 Thus, whatever there is in Avicenna’s or Aquinas’ thought that might be called ‘indifferent’ with regard to singular existence, can only be considered as uncreated and eternal for a theologian who wished to see in creation a production of individual substances.228 In such conditions, it is quite easy to ‘Augustinise’ the Arab philosopher by identifying his concept of essences, which are 226. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29vb, ll. 27-31: Avicenna etiam ponit quod quid est sive quidditatem, que et ratio est, non esse ab alio; hec enim: ‘homo est animal’, vera est, quocumque alio circumscripto. Ad hoc etiam facit quod unus ex famosis modernis essentias rerum ponit eternas. 227. On Duns Scotus’ doctrine of essences, see Étienne Gilson, Jean Duns Scot: Introduction à ses positions fondamentales (Paris: Vrin, 1952), pp. 84-115 (‘The common being’) and passim. Cf. page 185, note 2, this odd passage of Reportatio Parisiensis, Prol., III, quaestiuncula 4: ‘si poneretur, per impossibile, quod Deus non esset, et quod triangulus esset, adhuc habere tres angulos resolveretur ut in naturam trianguli’. Concerning this, Gilson has the following to say: ‘Here was  … a theologian who truly upheld the thesis contested by Descartes … : Si Deus non esset, nihilominus istae veritates essent verae.’ 228. See above, Chapter  3, sections headed ‘Quiddity and ‘Esse Secundum” and ‘The Level of Substantiality’.

182

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

indifferent to the fact of existence, with the ideal reasons of creatures in the Divine Intellect. Without a doubt, this is exactly what the theologian from Thuringia did, every time that he had in front of him a text by Avicenna in which existence is distinguished from essence, like an accident coming to add on ab alio in order to make a possible being seem real. Albert the Great said something similar to this, making use of the same Avicennian formulae in his commentary on the De causis.229 However, it would seem likely that Thomas Aquinas’ teacher, Albert the Great,230 in distinguishing, along with Avicenna, between the essence which things have of themselves and the existence which comes to them from without, had no intention, here, of speaking about created essences; at least, this is what Siger of Brabant understood when reproaching him for this non ab alio. This is not the case with Meister Eckhart in the passage of the Book of the Parables of Genesis which we have analysed. Here, like in so many other places where he speaks of created being at the level of esse primum, Eckhart in his own way transforms Avicenna’s doctrine of the accidentality of existence. With respect to eternal quiddity which is sufficient in its esse plenum, existing of itself, all that is created must be considered as something accidental, something added on and exterior: this is a being coming about ab alio and having the principle of singular existence in the divine efficiency which produced its esse formale, namely, the quo est of an ens created from nothingness.231 Such a distinction between essence and existence, as two separate 229. De causis et processu universitatis, tr. I, ch. 8 (Alberti Magni Opera Omnia, ed. Borgnet, vol. 10, p.  377 a and b): Quod enim animal sit animal vel homo sit homo, quod est pro certo, non habet ex alio: hoc enim aequaliter est hoc existente et non existente secundum actum. … Patet ergo quod omne quod est, id quod est habet a se ipso. These are the Avicennian phrases in Albert the Great which were criticised by Siger of Brabant. See above, Chapter 3, sections headed ‘Quidditas et Anitas’, note 11, and ‘Essentia et Esse’, note 209. 230. See a passage from De ente et essentia, cited on p. [161?]. Cf. Gilson, Le Thomisme, p. 57: ‘At the time of De ente et essentia, these formulae still resounded with a very strong sense of Avicenna’s method of analysing essences.’ 231. There is no doubt that terminological ambiguities in Meister Eckhart’s writings have given rise to some misunderstandings concerning created forms. In a Latin sermon for the Feast of the Trinity, Eckhart protests against the ‘crude and false’ supposition of those who claim that his doctrine of triple divine causality – efficient, formal and

Ego Sum Qui Sum

183

modes of a thing’s being, could hardly be attributed to St Thomas Aquinas, something of which Meister Eckhart must sometimes have been more aware than certain modern commentators are. Thus, it is that, when Meister Eckhart had to defend his condemned statement, Item, in omni creato aliud est esse et ab alio, aliud essentia et non ab alio, at his trial in Cologne, it was not to St Thomas, but, rather, to Avicenna and Albert the Great, that he turned to for support.232 In the texts which we have examined, the quod est, here considered to be the eternal quiddity of a created thing, would not be able to have any kind of quo est other than itself; it would appear, then, as a principle which is superior to the quo est or the formal existence which a thing receives in its own existence as a creature. It is thus natural that in this perspective, that of uncreated quiddity, created essences fade away, and the creature, as the exteriorly produced quod est, assimilates itself to nothingness. As for its quo est, that highlights its dependence upon substantial forms with reference to Being in itself, the only one who truly is. Created substances, which do not exist of themselves, exteriorly add on to the esse primum as a type of accident. In this connection Meister Eckhart cites the compilation of the ‘24 Philosophers’ and its sixth proposition concerning this: Deus est cuius comparatione substantia est accidens et accidens nihil.233 The division of being into primum esse and secundum esse allows for a reversal of perspective, one of those sudden changes of point of view which, as we must recognise, constitute the main difficulty in understanding Meister Eckhart’s thought. When placing oneself on the level of creatures so as to speak of the being which they receive from God, the quod est of a thing becomes the equivalent of its created essence, while the quo est corresponds to the ipsum esse,234 final – would deprive created things of their actions, forms and ends. Sermo 4, 2, LW IV, p. 29, n. 29. 232. The proceedings of the Cologne trial, Archives, I, p.  195:  … dicendum quod hoc verum est; et est verbum Avicenne et Alberti in De causis. 233. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p.  411. See German sermon 9 (Pf. 84), DW I, p. 142 (Pf., p. 268). See Prop. 6 in Bäumker, op. cit., p. 32. 234. This is the proper meaning of the relationship between the quo est and the quod est. The twelft h treatise of the Opus propositionum would have to be devoted to these two reciprocally complementary notions: de quo est et quod est, ei condiviso (Prol. gener. in Op. trip., LW I, p. 150). Meister Eckhart refers to this in Exp in Ex. (C., f. 47rb, ll. 4-6): Sed ‘quo est’ Deo est proprium, ‘quod quid est’ proprium creature, ut patet

184

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

in which Eckhart almost always tries to see the Esse which is God in his relationship to the created entia. Omne quod quid est, id quod est, laudat et praedicat suum quo est, he says, in preaching on the text from St Paul: Gratia Dei sum id quod sum (1 Corinthians 15:10).235 The Dominican Master adds that the quo est, which is never the subject but always the predicate, here refers to God under the three aspects of His causality: ‘Ex ipso’ enim efficienter, ‘per ipsum’ formaliter, ‘in ipso’ finaliter est quod est et quod quid est. On the other hand, the quod est is the created subject, always in a state of potentiality with reference to the divine quo est which actualises it. Thus, it is to be considered as the material cause, with ‘material’ here having a very broad scope of meaning which is linked to the notion of the ὑποκείμενον: the potentiality of created essences with relation to the Esse in which they participate.236 In this new perspective, Avicenna’s formulae, thus having dealt with  the accidentality of the esse, would be displaced. Unlike the existentia or the esse secundum, which would exteriorly double eternal quiddity, the ipsum esse (as well as the transcendentals which are convertible with it) are not added to created essences like a sort of accident: nec advenit nec supervenit alicui, sed praevenit et prius est omnium.237 In order to describe the mediation of the ‘First and Universal Cause of all things’, the Esse omnium, St Thomas’ formulae which lend to the act of existence a primacy over essence in created beings shall replace those of Avicenna. Truly, in referring to God’s absolute actuality, the terms with which Aquinas speaks of the ipsum esse correspond much better to Meister Eckhart’s thought when he wishes to consider Being beginning from the notion of created essences. Thus, in the Prologus generalis in Opus tripartitum, the tractatu de ‘quo est’. Compare ibid., LW II, p. 52, n. 49: Omnis dispositio est accidens vel manat de genere accidentis et accidentis sapit naturam. Sed hoc repugnat divinae simplicitati et formalitati. Et enim ‘quod est’ aliquid accidere potest; ipsi autem esse sive ‘quo est’ nihil accidit ut ait Boethius. Propter quod secundum ipsum ‘ forma simplex subiectum esse non potest’. Boethius, see above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Quidditas et Anitas’, note 13. 235. Serm. lat. 25, I, LW IV, pp. 230-31, nn. 251-252. 236. Ibid. (following the same text): Propter hoc ‘id quod est’ semper materiale est, potentiale est et subiectum est; ipsum vero ‘quo est’ nunquam est materiale, nunquam est subiectum, semper est praedicatum. Cf. above, p. [124?], note 109, on the potentiality of created essences. 237. Prol. gener. in Op. trip., LW I, p. 153, n. 8.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

185

Thuringian Dominican duplicates the exact words of St Thomas: Ipsum enim esse comparatur ad omnia sicut actus et perfectio et est ipsa actualitas omnium, etiam formarum.238 The quo est of a created being is no longer its substantial form working by virtue of the First Cause, but rather it is the ipsum esse which actualises the form itself and makes the substance exist. For, at present, it is ‘existence’ which seems to hold the first place, that of the esse primum, while essence belongs to the created order. It is by placing himself in this perspective that Meister Eckhart affirms the following: esse intimius est unicuique etiam quam ipsa essentia illius.239 By always holding close to the Thomist doctrine of the act of existing, he will, along with St Thomas, assimilate the role of the esse in created beings into the action of light in a transparent space. Unlike heat, light never takes root in the air it illuminates; as a result, along with the disappearance of the source of light, the air which is no longer receiving any light will immediately be plunged into darkness. In the same way, creatures cannot subsist even one moment without the existential influx of the Divine Cause.240 Being constituted by its created essence, a being (ens) is naked with 238. Ibid. In his defence of this proposition, which had been condemned by over-zealous critics (Archives, I, p.  171), Meister Eckhart claims support from St Thomas (ibid., p. 193): Ad tertium, cum dicitur quod esse est ipsa actualitas etiam omnium formarum, et quod esse est quod desiderat omnis res etc., dicendum quod verum est. Primum est verbum santi Thome; secundum est verbum Avicenne, sicut hic in articulo ponitur. Fr Théry is mistaken when he says that ‘this article is not from St Thomas’ (ibid., note 2), after having cited (ibid., note 1) the formula ‘esse est actualitas omnis formae vel naturae’ (Ia, q. 3, a. 4). A formula very close to Eckhart’s can be found, for example, in Ia, q. 4, a. 1, ad. 3um: Dicendum quod ipsum esse est perfectissimum omnium. Comparatur enim ad omnia ut actus: nihil enim habet actualitatem, nisi inquantum est. Unde ipsum esse est actualitas omnium rerum, et etiam ipsarum formarum. 239. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 199, n. 238. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’, note 112. 240. In Eccli., in Denifle, op. cit., pp.  584-85 (according to E)  – C., ff. 81vb-82ra; Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p. 385; Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 15, n. 18; pp.  58-59, n. 70; Daz buoch der goetlichen troestunge, DM V, p. 36, ll. 14-20: the same example of the light which is not confined to the area where it penetrates is also used here, as being equivalent to being. See ibid., note 119 (pp.  85-86), where one finds other texts by Meister Eckhart. This example, quite frequent in St Thomas, is found, for example, in Ia, q. 104, a. 1, ad resp.

186

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

respect to the esse which actualises it; it is no more than a potentia ad esse.241 ‘Without light, meaning, without esse, the essences of created things are but darkness; it is the ipsum esse which forms them, making them luminous and agreeable.’242 Here, it is quite clear that essence does not play the same role as that which Meister Eckhart lent to quiddity when, along with Avicenna, he distinguished the quod quid est of a thing, the object of metaphysics, from the existence which is added to it as a kind of accidental modality which is extrinsic with relation to that which the thing represents (of) itself, independently of the creative act by which it is made ‘to exist’. It is in making this reversal of Avicenna’s perspective that Eckhart seems to come (the) closest to making the Thomist distinction between essence and existence. However, just as in the first case, quiddity or the divine idea was not, according to Meister Eckhart, something possible which becomes necessary (which is how Avicenna understands ‘essence’), nor is it the case, in this other aspect of the Thuringian Dominican’s ontology (which one might be tempted to call ‘Thomist’), that the being which actualises the forms themselves is the act of existence or ipsum esse of Thomas Aquinas. One may be tempted to find a metaphysical composition according to the spirit of St Thomas wherever Meister Eckhart distinguishes, in speaking of a material substance, between a composite of matter and form and the ipsum esse which constitutes it as an ens. Thus, when we read the affirmation according to which totum compositum, puta lapis, habet esse lapidis a forma lapidis, esse vero absolute a solo deo, utpote a prima causa,243 there is no doubt that Meister Eckhart distinguishes the ipsum esse, the first actuality by which the stone is, from the ‘being-stone’ only inasmuch as it holds its ‘essential form’.244 241. In Eccli., in Denifle and in C., loc. cit. 242. Exp in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p.  211, n. 33 (cf. p.  59): Essentiae enim rerum creatarum sine luce, id est sine esse, tenebrae sunt, per ipsum autem esse formantur, lucent et placent. 243. Prol. in Op. propos., LW I, p. 180, n. 23 (cf. p. 47). In C., Nicholas of Cusa wrote in the margin of f. 5vb: nota, in lapide esse absolutum a Deo, esse hoc a forma. 244. See ibid., pp. 174-75, n. 14 (cf. p. 45): Igitur, si forma omnis essentialis totam materiam essentiali penetratione immediate totam se tota investit et informat, potissime hoc verum erit de ipso esse, quod est actualitas formalis omnis formae universaliter et essentiae. Cf. ibid., p. 171, n. 11 (see p. 43): Forma enim ignis non dat igni esse, sed hoc esse. Here the

Ego Sum Qui Sum

187

However, Eckhart’s ipsum esse, despite appearances, does not have the same value as St Thomas’ act of existing. The context of the Prologue, in which the German theologian develops his first proposition, Esse deus est,245 obliges us, here, to give the expression esse absolute a very definite meaning, that of ‘absolute being’, which cannot be distinguished from ‘the Being which is God’. Besides, in defending the condemned articles taken from the ontological exposition of the Prologue,246 Eckhart clearly says: Distinguendum tamen de esse formaliter inherente et de esse absoluto, quod est deus.247 It is God who is the ipsum esse, (the) Being properly so called, and it is under this title that He is the only one to descend into the essences of things, for there is nothing which is exterior to Him: He is the Esse which is more interior than the very essence of creatures.248 The expressions which Meister Eckhart borrows from St Thomas to talk about the esse as a universal actuality do not refer to the act of existing conferred upon an essence by divine efficiency, a completed act by which the essence exists, but rather, the very action of God, the active presence of the First Cause in the hidden depths of created beings.249 The usage of Thomist formulae in the Thuringian Dominican’s doctrine of being should not mislead us. Thus, for example, the metaphor of the light which does not formally adhere to the translucent space receives a very different meaning than it had in St Thomas, when the ipsum esse, instead of being a created act of form is designated by Meister Eckhart as a causa secundaria with relation to the esse, the first cause. 245. Ibid., pp. 166-82 (see pp. 41-47). 246. In the records of the proceedings at Eckhart’s trial in Cologne, edited by Fr Thery, the passages taken from the general Prologue can be found under the heading ‘List of articles from Meister Eckhart’s Commentary on Genesis (Archives, I, pp. 170 and ff.). 247. Ibid., p.  193. See the following article (5): cum dicitur: esse est Deus, dicendum quod hoc verum, est de esse absoluto, non de esse formaliter inherente. See in the text itself of Prol. in Op. propos., the esse absolutum is placed in opposition to the esse huius et huius (LW I, p. 166-67, n. 3; see p. 42). 248. See above, Chapter 3, ‘The Object of Metaphysics’, note 112. 249. Muller-Thym (p.  82, note 31) cites a typical example of a transformed Thomist formula, where the ipsum esse is substituted for Deus sapientia. See Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p. 287: Deus autem sapiencia ipse est actualitas et forma actuum omnium et formarum.

188

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

existing, distinct and yet inseparable from essence, refers to the infinite Esse which returns into its own Essence in the intellectual act by which God affirms Himself as (the) Being, sufficient unto Himself and to all things.250 This example taken from the physical world is not concerned with the non-formal composition of existence and essence in created beings, but, rather, with the impermixtio of absolute and uncreated action, totally present in all that is. Just as the light in the illuminated air, this activity of the Superior effected upon its inferior will remain ‘unmixed’ in the created milieu that it must traverse in actualising it; it will be thus tota intus, tota deforis. That which we call Ipsum Esse, with respect to the ‘indigent’ essences,251 sine luce, id est sine esse,252 which is also given the name quidditas with respect to the suppositia, which are deprived of truth, in both cases the term relates to the uncreated principle of being and of knowability which creatures do not possess in themselves ‘as creatures’. The esse by which they are entia does not enter into the ‘metaphysical composition of creatures’. For Meister Eckhart, there can be no metaphysics of the created as such, since this first philosophy is required to consider created beings in their essential principles, making an abstraction of their external causes which constitute them in their esse secundum as creatures. Thus, one cannot speak of a created ens, except in terms of analogy which is, as we shall see,253 very different from any kind of Thomist analogy, as it is a faithful reproduction of the Thuringian Dominican’s doctrine of being. There is nothing of St Thomas’ act of existence in Meister Eckhart’s ‘existential’ expressions; it is not in the metaphysical structure of the created as such, but rather, it is in the immediate relationship between the uncreated Being and created being that we locate expressions such as ipsum esse, esse omnium intimior, actualitas omnium, etiam formarum etc. In every place where the reader thinks he has found a real distinction between essence and the act of existing, in the end, it is actually the double reality of beings: esse primum and esse secundum, esse virtuale and esse formale, esse absolutum and esse 250. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Divine Sufficiency and Created Indigence’. 251. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Divine Sufficiency and Created Indigence’. 252. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Essentia et Esse’, note 242. 253. See the following chapter.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

189

formaliter inhaerens; interior life or ‘life’ in the First Cause, beyond all causal relationships, and the exterior being of the effects of the analogical cause; the Being who is God and the being which is ‘the first among created things’. Even when the text seems to distinguish between essence and existence as the quod est and the quo est in created beings,254 in reality, Meister Eckhart distinguishes only two modes of being an essence: ‘full’ being in God and ‘divided’ being in created suppositia,255 the latter being ab alio, with an absolute dependence upon the former. In other words, being always means ‘that which is’, whether it exists of itself (esse primum) or by the Cause who produces it from non-being (esse secundum).

Two Levels of Essentiality Within the framework of an ‘essentialist’ ontology, the Esse or divine quo est (when Meister Eckhart considers it from the starting point of the created quod est) could take on the features of the Thomist ipsum esse. However, this term, like the other ‘existentialist’ expressions which Eckhart most often applies to God,256 does not refer to the pure Act of existing, the creator of the completed actions by which created beings exist under the second causality of their forms, but rather, in a more general sense, to the First Cause which produces all that which is, exercising the triple functions of: efficient, formal, and final.257 Ipsum autem ‘quo est’ ad maius et ad minus triplex est, puta efficiens a quo est, forma per quam est, finis ad quem est, secundum

254. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Essentia et Esse’. 255. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Quiddity and ‘Esse Secundum”. 256. Apart from the Quaestiones Parisienses, the instances in which Meister Eckhart applies the term ipsum esse to created being are quite rare. Such examples would include, for examples, this passage from the Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 341: Secus autem est de rerum existencia, sive de ipso esse rerum. Hoc enim respicit causam extra, ut sint [Théry reads it as: ut sic]. In St Thomas, the term ipsum esse, without any other qualifiers, refers to the created act of existing – quoddam commune et indefinitum (Exp. in lib. Boethii De hebdomadibus, ch. 2, ed. Mandonnet, p. 171). In speaking of God, he would say ipsum esse subsistens (Ia, q.4, a. 2; C. Gent. III.19 etc.) or ipsum esse infinitum (in Librum de causis, lectio VII, ed. Mandonnet, Opuscula omnia, vol. 1, p. 236). 257. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Essentia et Esse’.

190

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

illud: ‘ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia’ (Augustinus).258 It must not be forgotten, however, that for Meister Eckhart the notion of cause necessarily implies the extraneity of the effect; this term, then, can refer only to efficiency and finality, in the proper sense, the ‘external’ causes from which metaphysics must make an abstraction when considering the being (ens) in itself, independent of the fact of its ‘existence’ (extra-stantia). As we have seen,259 for Eckhart this abstract (or ‘absolute’) aspect of beings corresponds to their ‘ideal reasons’, the reasons by virtue of which things are immutably that which they are in their ‘quiddity’ or ‘essential cause’. Thus, ‘being in the cause’ is ‘to not be an effect’, produced by the cause; being in its essential cause would thus be to not have a created form which constitutes the essence proper to a man, to a lion, or to the sun,260 but to exist virtually as an intellectual reason of such or such physical form, as the ‘reason’ which has no other principle than itself. This is why Meister Eckhart would say that the First Cause of beings is not God but their ‘quiddity’ or ideal reason, the principle in which God created all things.261 This, then, would amount to affirming that the true being of things in their quiddity excludes any kind of action of the formal cause understood in the Aristotelian, hylomorphic sense of this term. Things are truly what they are where they have no cause, where they are ‘life’, a spontaneous gushing forth, an interior ‘ebullition’ or ‘boiling over’ in the fullness of the Being which returns upon Itself.262 Meister Eckhart’s terminological imprecision makes the expression ‘formal cause’ quite vague, which confronts us with one of the false aporia which Thomist interpreters of Eckhart are pleased to highlight 258. Serm. lat. 25, 1, LW IV, p.  231, n. 252. St Augustine’s formula is in De vera religione, ch. 55, n. 113 (PL 34, col. 172). In the same sense as this, Eckhart uses the formula from Romans 11:36: ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia. See the same sermon, p. 230, n. 251, and in Latin sermon 4, 2 (ibid., p. 29, n. 29); also Exp. in Io. (C., f. 108rb, ll. 61-64): In principio erat verbum. Li in notat causam finale, principium causam efficientem, verbum formalem. Ro. XI°: Ex ipso, per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia, ipsi gloria. See in St. Thomas, Ia, q. 39, a. 8, ad. resp.: Secundum vero quartam considerationem. 259. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘the Knowledge of Quiddities’. 260. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 352. 261. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’, note 120. 262. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

191

in his works: in order to be truly that which it is, a thing must not be that which it is as an effect of its formal cause; the role of this cause, the only cause which is interior, according to Eckhart,263 is precisely to form the quod est of the thing, its created essence. This difficulty disappears when it is recognised that Eckhart’s notion of formal causality, every time that it is attributed to the divine quo est, actually has a paradigmatic character which is foreign to both Aristotle’s and Thomas Aquinas’ notion of interior cause. Being understood that the interiority of the formal cause, in Eckhart, excludes any kind of relationship in which God would appear as the Efficient or Final Cause exterior to creatures, the absolute Formal Cause is found to be beyond the opposition of created and uncreated: it is not a ‘cause’ but an ‘essential principle’ or quiddity. Its role in created things, could only be understood, then, as an action of exterior cause, of that which creates from nothingness, in producing being. The efficient cause thus takes on the character of the formal cause: it takes this on in its ad extra flux, in this action or ‘actuality of all things, even of forms’, which is the divine quo est of created beings. However, one could equally well say that it is the uncreated Formal Cause which fulfils the function of efficiency, in flowing outwards from the One, in this ebullitio by which the interior fermentation (bullitio) is exteriorised in order to produce, beyond the dynamic identity of the Being returning upon itself, the formal being of creatures which determines them in their own natures. It is obvious that the formal principle of quiddity or ideal reason, the essential principle which things do not have ab alio, cannot be manifested nor known without the act of creation, which is a collatio esse post non esse264 by the Ipsum Esse or God.265 Meister Eckhart sometimes speaks of God or of Esse as the ‘first formal act’, 266 and also as the Ipsum Esse ‘which reaches and 263. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, pp. 268-69. 264. Ibid., III, p. 338. 265. Muller-Thym, The Establishment of the University of Being, pp.  79 and ff, speaks of a ‘sort of formal causality exercised by the esse’. 266. In Eccli (Denifle, pp.  586-87; C., f. 82ra, l. 58-f. 82rb, l. 1): Rursus tertio, forme, per quas agunt secunda agentia, illud [C: id] quod sunt forme et actus, a Deo sunt, qui est primus actus formalis. Exp in Sap., Archives, III, p.  401): primus actus formalis [qui est esse. (ibid., IV, p.  309:) ipse (Deus) est primus movens, et primus actus formalis] et finis ultimus in omni opera artis et nature. See the very expressive text,

192

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

penetrates all things while forming them’.267 For the German Dominican this penetration of all that is by ‘being itself ’ does not have the ‘existential’ meaning that it has for the Great Doctor of his Order. St Thomas, having discovered beyond essence the existence of creatures, referred to it with the word ‘act’ because he could fi nd no other term to describe the ‘activity of existing’ which surpasses the action of the form in the substance. Thus, the existential influx, in Aquinas, is distinguished from all that belongs to the causality of the form by the very fact that it has nothing to do with forms, rather, it is a sort of ‘energy’. It is obvious, then, that Meister Eckhart’s ‘first formal act’ expresses another idea entirely and makes use of a totally different conception of esse. What he wishes to show beyond created essences is not their act of existing as distinct from the form, but the action of (the) absolute Being which is the Esse omnium. For, however much this formal action does not pertain to the created entia, the Form directing it, while remaining exterior to the creature, this formal action, which in no way roots itself in anything, nevertheless immediately and totally communicates itself to every singular being, ‘as that which appears in every essential form’, be it in the soul which is present in the totality of the animated body which it informs se tota sine medio, and also in the form of the fire which totally gives itself over to every part of ignited matter.268 Whatever is true concerning the ‘essential penetration’ of the form which, without any other formal, intermediate degrees, ‘re-clothes’ and directly in-forms the matter of a composite (being?), is all the more true when the Ipsum Esse is concerned, the ‘formal actuality’ cited above, note 249: Deus … actualitas et forma actuum omnium et formarum. 267. Prol. in Op. propos., LW I, p.  173, n. 13 (compare p.  44): Quidquid enim rei cuiuslibet ab ipso esse immediate non attingitur nec penetratur et formatur, nihil est. 268. Ibid., pp.  173-74, n. 14: Rursus, quia Deus se toto est simplex et unus sive unum esse, necesse est ut se toto immediate assit toti singulo, quod non est parti post partem, nec parti per partem. … Est autem hoc ipsum videre in omni forma essentiali. Anima enim se tota immediate adest et informat totum corpus animatum, se tota sine medio. Similiter forma ignis totam essentiam simul investit et format penetrando, non partem post partem, sed partes singulas per totum. Propter quod esse totius est et totum unum est.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

193

of every form and essence.269 There is, then, a certain parallel between the mediation of the action of the form in matter and that of God’s formal action in created beings:270 it is always an essential reality which makes itself present, in the first case, by means of information and, in the second, by a participation analogous to that of light. Also, in the example of the rock, which we have already given, 271 the absolute esse which the rock receives from God alone, without intervention from any created form which gives to the composite the specific being of a rock, is not an existential energy specified by an essence, but rather is an essential penetration, like that of the form, by means of the esse plenum which the rock has in God, where it exists intellectualiter and virtualiter and did not exist as a ‘rock’ before having been produced by the efficient cause.272 Th is penetration of the inferior level, that of ‘formal being’, by the superior level, which is the Divine Being, must communicate the esse to the creature’s quod est. However, as the principle of analogy has not been made to intervene, the situation remains a paradox: either the rock possesses an esse which is absolute, and then is not a rock, or, if it is a rock, existing under the form which is proper to it, then it is no longer identical to the Absolute Being, and, as it can be distinguished from such, is thus no more than ‘pure nothingness’. For the rock to able to be ‘something’, that is, to be an ens situated between the ‘nothingness of creatures’ and the esse absolute which things have in God, it must then be at the same time in a relationship of exterior causality and interior participation with the ‘essential principle’ which produces it.

269. Ibid., pp. 174-75 (text cited above, note 244). 270. The difference (noted above, pp. 187-88) consists in that the substantial form belongs to the intrinsic structure of a created ens, whereas the esse, as the divine Form of essentiality, penetrates the entia by its action, without in any way adhering to it, just as light does not entrench itself in the very space which it illuminates. 271. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Essentia et Esse’. 272. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p.  342: Domus enim in mente, domus non est, calor in sole, calor non est. Esse autem domus vel esse caloris formale accipit in quantum extra producitur et educitur a causa et per causam efficientem. Omnia autem sunt in Deo, tamquam in causa prima, intellectualiter, et in mente artificis. Igitur non habent esse suum aliquod formale, nisi causaliter educantur et producantur extra, ut sint.

194

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

If one wished to adhere to the ‘existential’ level of Thomism, ascribing to esse absolute the meaning of the act of existing, then it would be necessary to tell Meister Eckhart that the rock exists by means of God’s very existence. Eckhart’s thought, however, escapes such gross pantheism precisely because it remains strongly ‘essentialist’, even when it seems to us that the German theologian has his own way of distinguishing between created essence and ‘existence’, by placing the latter on a level superior to creatures, that of the Being who is God. In reality, for Eckhart it is a case of two distinct essentialities: on one hand, the Divine Essence which shows itself in the One or the Intellect as being ‘sufficient’ unto itself and unto the omnia; and, on the other hand, the ‘mendicancy’ of created essences which are never, by themselves, that which they are, to the extent that they remain inferior to their quiddity or their ‘essential cause’, being outside the Divine Intellect. The influence exercised by the superior level of being on the inferior level is not an actualisation of the created quod est by Absolute Existence, but rather, an active relationship between the Divine Essence and the omnia which it produces sub ratione unius, without stripping them of their exteriority as creatures; in creating the multiple entia, this unique Essentiality affects them by its own unity in their hidden depths, in permitting them to participate under species and genus, which are knowable in the light of quiddity which illumines the dark spaces of par ticu lar being.273 Thus, properly speaking, there is no distinction between essentia and esse (= existence) in Meister Eckhart. This is merely a Thomist mirage which has been pursued in vain through the Latin texts concerning the quod est and the quo est of creatures. In the case of the created quod est, then, it is a being (ens) which is not fully that which it is, as it depends upon the analogical Cause which causes it to subsist as an ens. As for the quo est of creatures, their Cause or Principle is the Being which is fully being, the Ipsum Ens274 which subsists of itself and causes all things to subsist. The relationship between 273. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Unity of the Universe’. 274. Notice should be taken of this expression which here replaces Ipsum Esse (Prol in op. prop., LW I, p. 175, n. 15; see p. 45), as in other passages, in the same Prologue, where the expressions esse and ens alternate to refer to the ‘Being who is God’: Nihil ergo entitatis universaliter negari potest ipsi enti sive ipsi esse (loc. cit.).

Ego Sum Qui Sum

195

the absolute Ens and the entia is established by the esse which is an abstract definition of the ens, the reason by which it is a ‘being’, just as whiteness is the reason or abstract quality which determines a concrete ‘white being’.275 To be an ens then, means to have the most general reason, that of being something, while participating in essentiality or the esse. * * * If the divine Esse is the Quo est which determines creatures to the extent that they are entia, then created beings do not remain any less distinct, in their quod est, from the absolute Esse in which all that is participates in attaching itself exteriorly.276 However, it must not be forgotten that the Esse which is God, the raison d’etre for any creature and the Quo est which confers the analogical title of entia upon creatures, is not an interior auto-determination by which God, the absolute Ens, would be that which He is. God has no quo est, being Himself His own Esse, His own reason for being. If, in His relationship to created beings, God is nothing other than the Quo est, 277 then, on the other hand, considered in Himself, He is uniquely Quod Est. According to St John Damascene, this is actually His first name. The texts from Scripture, Ego sum qui sum from Exodus 3:14 and Tu qui solus es from Job 14:4, testify that, properly speaking, God is the only Ens. Thus, Parmenides and Melissus were right when they were unwilling to acknowledge more than one Ens in the absolute sense.278 Th is reference to the Eleatics, which Eckhart here 275. The example of albedo et album in the doctrine of being is very frequently used in Eckhart: Prol. gener. in Op. tripart., LW I, p.  157, n. 12 (see p. 38); p. 158, n. 13 (p. 39); p. 160, n. 16 (cf. p. 39); Prol. in Op. propos., ibid., p. 166, n. 2 (cf. pp. 41-42); p. 170-71, n. 9 (cf. p. 43); p. 17980, n. 23 (cf. pp. 46-47); Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 142, n. 172 etc. 276. Exp. in Ex., LW II, p.  28, n. 21:  … singulum horum in se et ex se, id quod est, modus est ipsius esse, ipsi innititur, ipsi inhaeret. See the expression fixio, borrowed from De causis: see above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Quidditas et Anitas’ note 17. 277. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Quidditas et Anitas’. 278. Prol. in Op. propos., LW I, p.  168, n. 5 (cf. p.  42): Primum inter quattuor, scilicet quod solus deus ens proprie est, patet Exodi 3: ‘ego sum qui sum’; ‘qui est misit me’ et Iob ‘tu qui solus es.’ Item Damascenus primum nomen Dei dicit ‘esse quod est’. Ad hoc facit quod Parmenides et Melissus, I Physicorum, ponebant tantum unum ens; ens autem hoc et hoc ponebant

196

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

associated with texts from Scripture and with Patristic citations, does not, of course, presuppose more than a cursory knowledge of an ontology which was quite criticised by the ‘Philosopher’. However, again, 279 despite Aristotle’s critical remarks, the Thuringian mystic approved of a point of view which, he felt, had a certain intellectual kinship with his own view of Being, conceived as an identity of ‘that which is’. Seen ex parte Dei, the immediate penetration of all things by the Ipsum Esse, in Eckhart, takes on an Eleatic character of the indistinction of the omnia in the One. The relationship between the absolute Ens and the entia is the same as between the One and the multiple. After having said: Quidquid enim rei cuiuslibet ab ipso esse immediate non attingitur nec penetratur et formatur, nichil est, Meister Eckhart repeats the same expressions concerning the One: Similiter quidquid ab uno non attingitur nec penetrando formatur seu investitur, unum non est. He said the same thing of the other two transcendentals, the true and the good, which are ‘equivalents’ with being.280 Within the framework of this clearly essentialist ontology, the created entia, as distinct from the absolute Ipsum Esse, cannot be conceived of in their paradoxical condition of existentia = extrastantia, without a doctrine of analogy which would permit the lending of a mode of being to non-being. While this is inevitable for a Christian theologian such as Eckhart, such a solution would no doubt have appeared absurd to Parmenides. However, there is a chance that this transformation of eleatism would have been plura, puta ignem et terram et huiusmodi, sicut testatur Avicenna in libro suo Physicorum, quem Sufficientiam vocat. Ad hoc rursus facit Deut. 6 et Gal. 3: ‘Deus unus est.’ Et sic iam patet veritas propositionis praemissae, qua dicitur: esse est Deus. Propter quod quaerenti de Deo: quid aut quis est? respondetur: esse, Exodi 3: ‘sum qui sum’ et ‘qui est’, ut prius. St John Damascene, De fide orth., I.9: PG 94, col. 836. For the references to Aristotle and Avicenna concerning the Eleatics, see note 6 in Chapter 3, section headed ‘Revelation of the Unique Being’. 279. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’ into ‘The Knowledge of Quiddities’: the orientation of Meister Eckhart’s thought towards Plato’s dialectic, which was criticised by Aristotle. 280. Prol. in Op. propos., LW I, p.  173, n. 13 (cf. p.  44). Eckhart adds: Similiter de vero et bono. Cf. ibid., pp. 175-76, n. 15 (cf. p. 45): Et sicut se habet de ente ad entia, sic se habet de uno ad omne quod unum est quocumque modo sive differentia unius, et de vero ad vera omnia, et de bono ad bona omnia et singula.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

197

acceptable to Parmenides the Dialectician, the one whom Plato imagined in the dialogue bearing the name of the old Eleatic. We have long been involved in a mistaken pursuit of a ‘metaphysical composition’ of essence and existence which are truly distinct, having been misled by Meister Eckhart’s pseudoThomist expressions. Finally, since we must renounce any kind of ‘existentialist’ interpretation of the esse in Eckhart, the notion of created existence will then present itself, above all, as a participation of ‘that which is’ in the unique and universal Being. Despite the analogical and extrinsic character that this participation will be given by the German Dominican, we shall still find ourselves before a ‘Parmenidian’ view of being, conceived in terms of identity. Eckhart’s first ontological intuition then, in its spirit, corresponds to the revelation of Exodus: Ego sum qui sum.

Intelligere et Esse ‘To be’ is to remain absolutely identical with oneself, to subsist exclusively as an essence, without this exclusivity (or ‘purity’) receiving a negative character; truly, that would then limit ‘that which one is’ by opposing it to ‘that which one is not’. A being which distinguishes itself from others in what it is, necessarily will be enclosed within a moment of negativity and of non-identity, which is to say, of nonbeing. Its identity is but relative, this ‘being-oneself’ presupposes a series of negations of identity, a multitude of negative determinations with reference to all that is ‘other’. Such a being has no identity exclusive to itself, for this notion of ‘oneself ’ includes in its positive definition all the negative relationships with that which it is not. To be exclusively oneself, without any dependence upon alterity of any kind at all, it would be necessary for the identity of ‘that which is’ to be capable of being negatively expressed as an exclusion of all negativity. Thus, the Unum negative dictum, the negatio negationis esse, is, as we have seen,281 the most pure affirmation, the absolute positivity of the Being-who-is-Being: Ego sum qui sum. Since being is identity with itself, to say, then, that God is Being, or that He is One, is to express, in two different ways, the same truth that was revealed to Moses. Within these doctrinal parameters, the notion of being is applicable to God alone; it is from here that the 281. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Puritas et Plenitudo Essendi’.

198

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

first proposition of the Tripartite Work comes: Esse est Deus.282 This is not a definition of God (for such a thing cannot exist) but, rather, a definition of being, which is, in fact, the subject of this unusual proposition. If being is God, then one can only be in this absolute sense, by identifying with God. One cannot be identical to oneself while remaining distinct from this Ipsum Esse which is indistinctly Itself and all that which is. The absolute character of the ipsum esse or the Thomist ‘existing’, which would exclude any kind of middle term between existence and non-existence, here attaches to that which is or which is not identical with Being itself. With an Eleatic rigour, Meister Eckhart says: Omne autem ens divisum a Deo, dividitur et distinguitur ab esse, quia Deus est ipsum esse: divisum autem ab esse et distinctum, necessario nichil est.283 However, for Eckhart, the indistinction of the Being which is God is not Parmenides’ homogeneous and finite sphere of the real, nor is it even Melissus’ unity of unlimited being. The ‘that which is’ of the Eleatics, whether limited or not, is identical with itself in the sense which would be the most appropriate for the indistinct matter of things. On the other hand, according to Eckhart, the ‘that which is’, if it is truly identical with itself, is then not at all material; it is a purely intellectual quiddity, indistinct from the Intelligere by which the Being-One returns to its own Essence in affirming the identity of the Being-subject with the Being-predicate: Ego sum qui sum.284 The same quiddity-seed, which is present in the intimate depths of every particular being without being mixed with that which is created (like light, which does not entrench itself in translucent space), is the principle of knowability (‘being true’) and the cause of the exterior ‘existence’ (‘being good’) of creatures. Both versions of ‘intimate presence’, that of St Augustine’s illuminating God-Truth and that of St Thomas’ ipsum esse, are merged285 and constitute the unique inaccessible presence of the essential cause or intellectual principle in which God creates all things.286 Whether it is the Principium

282. Prol. gener. in Op. tripart., LW I, p. 156 (see p. 38). 283. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 412. 284. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Divine Sufficiency and Created Indigence’. 285. See above, Chapter 1, section headed ‘Two Intimate Presences’. 286. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

199

of the Son-Logos,287 concentrating the ideal reasons of creatures in Himself, or the Paternal Intellect,288 which conceives the Son as the single ‘Reason’ of all that He produces, it remains no less true that the ‘quiddity’ or first essentiality of things is to be identified with the divine Intelligere - Ipsum Intelligere et Ipse Intellectus.289 St Thomas’ God of the ‘Act of pure existence’ corresponds, in Meister Eckhart’s theology, to the intellectual act by which the One, the Principle of operation, returns into His own dormant and unknowable Essence, manifesting His absolute identity in Himself and with all that is. The Ipsum Esse is thus the Ipsum Intelligere, the divine actuality in which all things ‘are that which they are’ virtually, according to their esse primum. However, creatures are not identical with God in their ‘existence’ or in their ‘own nature’ as something exterior to the Intelligence. As something created, they are marked by the duality which sets in opposition their uncreated quiddity or essence non ab alio with their created being or esse ab alio, the particular being of individual substances produced by the efficient Cause outside the divine vivere and intelligere. This opposition of the eternal ‘reason’ and the created substantiality of things, of the esse primum and of the esse secundum between which creatures are distended, receives its clearest expression when it is formulated in two different registers: that of intelligere and that of esse. In the perspective of this opposition, which Meister Eckhart will push to its limits in his Parisian Questions, that which, in his theology, corresponds to the distinction between essence and existence in created beings appears clearly in a new light. In the Latin sermon Deus unus est (on the text of Deuteronomy 6:4 and Galatians 3:20),290 the manuscript copy of which is covered with 287. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, pp. 186-89, nn. 3-5 (cf. pp. 49-50). 288. Ibid., p.  189, n. 6. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’. 289. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 33, n. 36. 290. C., f. 150va, l. 9-f. 151ra, l. 22. Grabmann is correct in his approach to this par ticular sermon from the Quaestiones parisienses, demonstrating (in opposition to Karrer) its clearly non-Thomist character. To make his case, it was sufficient evidence for him to provide several extensive excerpts from the original, unedited text of the sermon, and contrast them with the quotations from Karrer. See Grabmann, Neuaufgefundene Pariser Quaestionen Meister Eckharts, pp.  80-82. Della Volpe (op. cit., pp.  145-48) sees in this sermon a

200

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

margin notes made by Nicholas of Cusa, unity means identity. It is reserved exclusively for the Intellect, the latter being applied to the God-One. The esse unum cum Deo, identity with God, will pertain, then, to all created being insofar as it has a part in the intellect or in intellectuality.291 The relationship between the indistinct One and the omnia et singula, which are subject to division and number but preserved in unity by their participation in the One, corresponds here, for Eckhart, to the ontological dependence of creatures upon God. Being identical with itself and with God in the divine Intelligere alone, a created ens is not such by its own nature, given that it exists outside the Intellect.292 Created beings are thus simultaneously unum et non unum, identity and non-identity, because they must be considered at the same time both in God and in themselves. On this point, Eckhart is referring to the final chapter of the Liber de causis, which concerns substances which are shared between eternity and time, pertaining both to being and to becoming; they receive a unitas ex alio, which is ‘acquired’, ‘created’, praeter unum primum verum.293 However, Proclus’ schema is taken up by Meister Eckhart transition between the Parisian Questions, with their denial of being in God, and the positive thesis put forward in the ‘Tripartite work’. 291. C., f. 150vb, l. 58-f. 151va, l. 7: extra intellectum semper invenitur et occurrit diversitas et difformitas [Ms.: deiformitas] et huiusmodi, etc., Psalmus 101:28: Tu autem idem ipse es. Ydemptitas est enim unitas. Ex dictis potest colligi, quis sit modus quo qui adheret deo unus spiritus est (I Cor. 6:17). Intellectus enim proprie Dei est, Deus autem unus. Igitur, quantum habet unumquodque de intellectu sive de intellectuali, tantum habet Dei et tantum de esse unum cum Deo. Deus enim unus est intellectus et intellectus est Deus unus. Unde Deus nunquam et busquam est ut Deus nisi in intellectu. 292. Ibid., f. 150vb, ll. 4-10: Undecimo, quia Deus eo dives profusivus est quia unus, primus enim et supremus est ratione qua unus. Propter quod unum descendit in omnia et singula, manens semper unum et divisa uniens. Propter quod sex non sunt bis tria, sed unum sexies. Audi, ergo, Israel: Deus tuus Deus unus est. Ubi nota quod unitas sive unum videtur proprium et proprietas intellectus solius. Nicholas of Cusa notes in the margin: unitas proprietas intellectus. 293. Lib. de causis, Prop. 32 and comment. (ed. Steele, pp.  186-87; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 31, pp.  19 and ff ): Omnis substantia cadens in quibusdam dispositionibus suis sub eternitate et cadens in quibusdam dispositionibus suis sub tempore est ens et generatio simul. Commentary:  … Et si unum eorum non est simile alteri in omnibus

Ego Sum Qui Sum

201

upon a new foundation, where this unity-identity is attributed to this God-One, who is Intellectus se toto, in whom the intelligere and the esse coincide without distinction. It is thus not difficult to establish, along with Proclus and the De causis, the non-identity which affects sensible beings: since such beings are changing, they are subject to becoming and to time, thus, to quantity, which is foreign to the ‘first and true’ One. The created character of these material natures could be described equally as well simply by referring to the duality of form and matter. A compound being is ‘one and not-one’; it has no true unity or pure identity, which is proper to the Intellect. One would be obliged to proceed quite differently in order to discover the duality with which creatures are marked in their immaterial natures, foreign to time and to becoming, such as in angels, who have an intellectual nature.294 If these simple substances contain nothing of hylomorphic composition, they are still no less deprived of true unity, because their essence is not being, or, rather, because their esse is not intelligere.

dispositionibus suis, tunc procul dubio unum eorum est primum et alterum secundum. Illud ergo in quo est unitas fixa, non dependens ex aliquo, est unum primum verum, sicut ostendimus; et illud in quo est unitas inventa ex alio est preter unum primum verum. Si ergo est ex alio, est ex uno primo adquisita unitas. Provenit ergo inde, ut uni puro vero et reliquis unis sit unitas iterum et non sit unitas nisi propter unum verum, quod est causa unitatis. Iam ergo manifestum est et planum quod omnis unitas post unum verum est adquisita, creata; verumtamen unum verum purum est creans unitates, faciens adquirere, non adquirens, sicut ostendimus. Proposition 32 of the Liber de causis relies closely upon Proclus; it is a paraphrase of Prop. 107 of The Elements of Theology (ed. Dodds, op. cit., p. 94): ‘Every thing that is in one sense eternal while in another sense temporal is at the same time being and becoming.’ 294. It would seem that Meister Eckhart was thinking here both of angels and of men who, being endowed with an intellect, are capable of such union, in which they find their identity with God and with themselves. In the second ‘Parisian Question’, where he intends to deal with angelic intelligere in par ticular, Eckhart hardly says a word about any of this, remaining in the realms of general considerations concerning intellectual action, whose opposition to the esse must characterise the human intelligere as well. Cf. Utrum intelligere angeli, ut dicit actionem, sit suum esse, in LW V, pp. 49-54.

202

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Intellectual beings are thus composed ex esse et essentia, vel ex esse et intelligere.295 As it is expressed here, this distinction between esse and intelligere could be understood in two different ways, since the conjunction vel can just as easily mean assimilation as it can mean the alternative. In the case of the first possible meaning, we must see in an essence which is distinct from being the uncreated quiddity of creatures, their intelligible ‘reason’ which, in God, is nothing other than intelligere itself. In this case, the esse designates ‘the first created thing’, a sensible or intelligible suppositum296 produced from outside the Divine Intellect. However much this may fit well into the greater scope of Eckhart’s teachings,297 this interpretation, however, creates an awkward difficulty inasmuch as it extends to all created beings a mode of non-identity which should characterise the intellectualia in particular. In the second possible interpretation, however, if it relates to the alternative between the two distinctions, the first will then express the duality of esse and essence (ab alio et non ab alio), which is quite sufficient for the purposes of defining all created being, both material and immaterial, while the second more properly relates to the non-identity of intellectual natures, whose ‘existing’ suppositum remains distinct from the intelligere. The intellect or intellection will thus designate here the faculty of detaching from one’s own determined being, a faculty which permits one to join one’s identity with God and with oneself in the ‘region of the intellect’, where there are no distinctions but ‘all is in all’,298 just as in Plotinus’ second hypostasis. Clearly then, it is in the latter of the two senses that we should understand the distinction between intelligere and esse in superior creatures as proposed here by Meister Eckhart. The intelligere is a faculty of unity, a virtue of the esse unum cum Deo which is given 295. Op. serm., C., f. 150vb, ll. 11-17: Entia siquidem materialia constat quod sunt unum et non unum, utpote quanta vel saltem composita ex forma et materia. Entia vero inmaterialia, puta intellectualia, sunt non unum vel quia ipsorum essentia non est esse, vel potius fortassis quia ipsorul esse non est intelligere. Sunt ergo ex esse et essentia, vel ex esse et intelligere. Vide in De causis commentum ultime propositionis. 296. For Eckhart’s view on angelic suppositia, see Chapter  3, section headed ‘Quiddity and ‘Esse Secundum’, note 183. 297. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Essentia et Esse’. 298. See the final passage of the sermon Deus unus est, cited below, note 314.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

203

to beings which are made in the Image of God; on the other hand, the esse, by its very distinction from the intelligere, denotes the division and non-identity which affect even intellectual creatures capable of deifying union. In the same sermon Meister Eckhart again investigates the identity or non-identity of being, beginning with the purity of the intelligere. Above all, he questions if there is an intellect or intellection in such or such being. In the case of beings which are deprived of intellect, it is clear that they were produced by the First Cause who determined them naturally by ordering them towards certain ends. In other words, these are creatures which are inferior to man, being governed only by their substantial forms and deprived of any kind of means of raising themselves towards the identity of being. Moreover, if we investigate an intellectual being capable of determining its own being, then we must ask whether or not it has within itself anything other than (aliquod esse aliud) its intelligere. If it does in fact possesses an esse which is different from its intelligere, if it is not its own act of intellection, this being is not simpliciter unum, like God is, but a kind of compound made up of intelligere and esse, of ‘uncreatable’ and created. It thus follows that, properly speaking, God alone truly is, that He is either Intellect or Intellection, that He is uniquely intelligere, by the pure and simple exclusion of any other esse.299 299. Op. serm., C., f. 150vb, ll. 27-44: Adhuc autem de quocumque quero, utrum in ipso sit intellectus sive intelligere aut non. Si non, constat quod non est Deus sive prima causa omnium sic ordinatorum in fines certos, quod intellectu carent, Si vero in ipso est intellectus, quero, utrum in ipso sit aliquod esse preter intelligere aut non. Si non, iam habeo quod est [Ms.: sit] unum simplex, et item quod est increabile, primum et similia, et est Deus. Si vero habet aliquod esse aliud quam intelligere, iam est compositum, non sympliciter unum. Patet ergo manifeste, quod Deus est proprie solus, et quod ipse est intellectus sive intelligere, et quod solum intelligere, preter esse aliud, simplicter. Iterum, solus Deus per intellectum producit res in esse, quia in ipso solo esse est intelligere, Iterum etiam, quod nichil preter ipsum potest esse purum intelligere, nec aliter esset creatura, sed habent aliquod esse differens ab intelligere, nec aliter esset creatura: tum quia intelligere est increabile, tum quia prima rerum creatarum est esse. Nicholas of Cusa accompanied this passage with four notes in the margin: (a) in Deo non est aliud esse preter intelligere; (b) Deus est proprie solus; (c) per intellectum producit res, quia in ipso solo esse est intelligere; (d) intelligere est increabile.

204

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

In the sermon Deus unus est, as we see, the act of intellection whereby an angelic or human creature can attain the identity of being in God is opposed to the non-identical being of created natures. If intelligere and esse, as understood here, are mutually exclusive and if they signify the lack of true unity in creatures which are endowed with intellect, this still does not mean that the esse must be understood in this sermon alone as a ‘reason of creatability’ and, as a result, as something which cannot be attributed to God, who is pure Intelligere.300 Contrary to what we find in the Parisian Questions, being and intellection, which are distinct in creatures, appear here as identical in God, without leaving space for any opposition between the two which would, in turn, require us to exclude esse from the notion of the First Cause: in Deo ipsum est esse quod intelligere solum.301 This identity, like that of the identity of essence and existence, finds its reason in the One, the ‘Paternal Intellect’, which makes manifest the indistinction of the Being that is ineffable and unknowable in the Divine Essence considered in itself. Using terms which we have already encountered,302 Meister Eckhart says that ‘the One essentially refers to Being itself or Essence’;303 being superior to all other attributes, the One is simpler than the other transcendental properties over which it has primacy by virtue of its immediateness with ‘Being itself and with God’; as its name clearly indicates, it is ‘Being-one’ with the Ipsum Esse.304 No divine property other than unity can be loved for itself; neither power, nor wisdom, nor goodness, nor even being itself, can be loved except by virtue of the union which secures identification. Thus, what is truly

300. At the beginning of the first ‘Parisian Question’, Meister Eckhart allows for both the identity of esse and intelligere in God. 301. Op. serm., C., f. 150vb, l. 53. 302. See above, Chapter  2, sections headed ‘Semel Locutus Est Deus, Duo haec Audivi’, ‘The One – The Name above All Names’, ‘The First Determination of Being’, ‘Puritas et Plenitudo Essendi’, ‘Unum et Omnia’.pp. passim. 303. Op. serm., C., f. 150va, ll. 49-50: Nono nota, quod unum respicit per essentia esse ipsum sive essentiam. 304. Ibid., f. 150va, l. 58-f. 150vb, l. 3: Decimo nota, quod unum altius est, prius est et simplicius est ipso bono et immediatius ipsi esse et Deo, aut potius, iuxta nomen suum, unum esse ipsi esse sive cum ipso esse.

Ego Sum Qui Sum

205

loved is the One, the identity of being.305 Being befits God because He is one; thus, it is necessary that God is His own being, the First Being, the Being of all that which is.306 As esse, this God is the beingidentity as understood by Parmenides, with the one difference that Eckhart’s being-one is reserved for the Intellect alone: unitas sive unum videtur proprium intellectus solius.307 Thus, nothing other than God is truly one, since nothing created is ever ‘pure’, it never is purely ‘that which it is’, its quiddity being always mixed with alterity in a par ticu lar substance. In order to have purity of being, that which is created would, like God, have to be se toto intellectus, a pure act of intellection subsisting by itself, in which the intelligible content is nothing other than the ipsum intelligere. Obviously, in such conditions, the creature would no longer be ‘creatable’.308 Non-intellectual creatures, being inferior to man, are thus clearly split in two within their being, since their true essentiality remains ever divided from the ‘proper nature’ that they have under their substantial forms. It is quite different for intellectual creatures, since in their very natures they are endowed with a dynamic principle of unity, with a faculty of passing over themselves in order to arrive at this identity with God and with themselves which remains transcendent to all other beings. However, this privilege, which makes superior creatures ‘deifiable’, does not in any way presuppose that their nature is composed of two parts, of created and uncreated.309 As we shall see later, the ‘uncreatability’ of the intellect, or, more precisely, of the 305. Ibid., f. 150va, ll. 33-40: Et quarto, quia nec potentia, nec sapentia, nec bonitas ipsa, sed nec esse amaretur, nisi quia nobis unitur et nos illi. Quinto, quia vere amans non potest amare nisi unum. Propter quod, premisso Deus unus est, sequitur: diliges dominum Deum tuum ex toto cordo tuo. Et procul dubio nollet esse nisi unum quod se totum amat. Here there is a note inserted in the margin by Nicholas of Cusa: nollet esse nisi unum quod se toto amat. 306. Ibid., f. 150vb, ll. 22-24: Deus unus est. Nam hoc ipso quod unus ipsi competit esse, id est quod sit suum esse, quod sit primum esse, quod sit omnium esse. 307. See the passage cited in note 292. 308. Op. serm., C., f. 150vb, ll. 24-27: Deus tuus, Deus unus est, quasi nichil aliud est vere unum, quia nec quidquam creatum est purum et se toto intellectus: iam enim non esset creabile. 309. Meister Eckhart vigorously protested against this static interpretation of his doctrine of the human intellect during his trial in

206

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

intelligere, is a rather ambiguous expression that should not be taken too literally in Eckhart’s works. Mgr Grabmann, in his analysis of the sermon Deus unus est, went too far, in our opinion, in his simplifying of this subtle problem: he does not hesitate to ascribe to Eckhart a doctrine affirming that the human intellect possesses a truly uncreated and divine character.310 For the moment, it is enough to note that the ‘uncreatability’ of the intelligere of creatures made in the image of God could, for Eckhart, have a purely negative meaning: it would thus correspond to the abandonment of determined being, to a ‘departure from this world and from oneself’,311 to the ‘Abgeschiendenheit’ without which one cannot attain to ‘being one with God’. If it is to be interpreted in this way, then in reading this Latin sermon one must keep in mind Eckhart’s doctrine of mystical union. In this dynamic perspective, in which the identity and non-identity of intellectual natures are viewed simultaneously, beings which are ‘in the image of God’ could be presented simultaneously, albeit under different forms, as both totally created and totally ‘uncreatable’, free of their condition as creatures. The duality which affects them could thus be understood by the opposition of their aliquid esse, a created suppositum which is determined to be nothing more than ‘this or that’, and their intelligere, the principle of indetermination, the source of freedom with respect to each one’s proper nature. Ascendere igitur ad intellectum, subdi ipsi, est uniri Deo; uniri, unum esse, est unum cum Deo esse: ‘Deus enim unus est.’312 Cologne. See Archives, I, p. 201, no. 6; p. 211, no. 3: si putetur et ponatur quasi aliqua particula anime sit increata et increabilis, error est. 310. Grabmann, op. cit., p. 82. 311. See below, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Intelligere et Esse’, note 314. 312. Op. serm., C., f. 151ra, ll. 9-11. See the continuation of this passage (ll. 11-15): Omne esse preter intellectum, extra intellectum, creatura est, creabile est, aliud est a Deo, Deus non est. In Deo enim non est aliud. Actus scilicet et potentia sunt divisiones esse, entis universaliter creati. Esse aut[em] primus actus est, prima divisio est. In intellectu aut in Deo nulla divisio est. Nicholas of Cusa notes here: omne esse extra intellectum creatura est. Grabmann (op. cit., p. 81), who quoted the beginning of this passage, read it as: In Deo enim non est aliud actus et potentia. Such an interpretation destroys and renders incomprehensible the sentence which follows, which is not repeated anywhere else by the German scholar. The meaning of this passage is clear, if one remembers that the production of being, the creative act, in allowing for the duality of action and passion

Ego Sum Qui Sum

207

More than any other creature, a being endowed with an intellect is unum et non unum: not only does it participate, through genus and species, in the Unity from which it is yet separated in its own nature, as do all the other particular entia which make up the entirety of the universe, but it also possesses, in the very particularity of its intellectual individuality, the ability to detach from itself, to transcend the created universe in order to reach that which is beyond divisible being, unity of being with God. In other words, the duality of the esse primum and the esse secundum, or, rather, this ‘distension’ between the two which characterises all creatures, is present in the very structure of intellectual beings. In this sense superior creatures are the only ones to display a sort of ‘metaphysical composition’, since the intelligere and the esse, while being identical in the divine Ipsum Intelligere, remain distinct, even though reunited in beings created in the image of God. Their condition is all the more paradoxical, given that the two principles which compose these intellectual beings seem to be mutually exclusive; as an esse or an ens, an intellectual nature belongs to the omnia which make up the universe, and thus this intellectual nature comprises a part of this created ‘all’ which per se et primo cadit sub causalitate et aspect primae causae;313 but yet, by its intelligere and its intellectus, the very same individual, not finding a place for itself in the ‘all’, detaches itself therefrom, departs from the universe, no longer being a part of it, insofar as, in its union with God, it then joins the identity of the omnia and the One.314

[I’m surprised  – and a little confused  – that this is ‘passion’ and not ‘potentiality’, but it certainly says ‘passion’ in the French), implies, for the created being, a moment of separation from God, the first division which is at the core of the divisible being of creatures (see above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Unity of the Universe’]. This principle of division, of alterity, here attached to the esse, can be overcome only in the intellect, where the creature non est aliud. 313. Exp in Sap., Archives, III, p.  394. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The Unity of the Universe’. 314. Op. serm., C., f. 151ra, ll. 15-22: Hinc est quod scriptura semper hortatur ad exitum ab hoc mundo, ad exitum a semetipso, oblivisci domus sue et domus generationis sue, exire de terra sua et de cognatione, ut crescat in gentem magnam, ut in ipso benedicantur omnes gentes, quod optime fit in regione intellectus, ubi procul dubio, inquantum huius [modi], nec aliter, sunt omnia in omnibus.

208

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

What, then, is this regio intellectus, in which sunt omnia in omnibus,315 if not the ‘infinite intellectual sphere, whose centre is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere’?316 If an individual being endowed with intellect possesses the ability to attain ‘being one with God’, then it can find a place of coincidence with the omnipresent Centre of the infinite intellectual sphere and thus gather together the omnia in itself in its personal union with the One. Thus, the identity of the omnia with the One, the unity of all things amongst themselves and with God, cannot be discovered apart from the Intellect, in the ‘all’ of the universe which is always greater than its individual parts. Identical being is not accessible to us except in a hidden region, which transcends all that is created, a region where every particular being is in all the others, the greatest being within the smallest, the entirety being within the parts, the fruit being within the flower. ‘Mary has chosen the better part’ (Luke 10:42) because she did not prefer the ‘more’ and the ‘all’ to the ‘lesser’ or the ‘part’, knowing that God is ‘totally in each creature, being equally present in a single one and in all taken together.’317 Viewed ex parte Dei, all points in the finite 315. See the text cited in the previous note. 316. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Unum et Omnia’, note 119. 317. In his sermons on Ecclesiasticus (Denifle, p. 571; C., f. 80ra, ll. 8-21) Meister Eckhart says the following: Rursus tercio, in divinis quodlibet est in quolibet, et maximum in minimo, et sic fructus in flore, Racio: quia Deus, ut ait sapiens, ‘est spera intellectualis infinita, cuius centrum est ubique cum circumferentia’, et ‘cuius tot sunt circumferentie quot puncta’, ut in eodem libro scribitur. In cuius figura Exo. 16° dicitur de manna divino: nec qui minus paraverat reperit minus. Luc. X°: Maria optimam partem elegit; quia optimum et totum est in parte, fructus in flore. Sic Deus totus in qualibet creatura, in una sicut in omnibus. Igitur opus Dei et fivinum, inquantum huius [modi], fructificat in flore et in florem et odoris suavitatem. Cf. Exp. in Io., C., f. 124vb, ll. 29-32: Partem ait et optimam, quia in parte est totum et optimum. Est enim Deus, ut ait sapiens, ‘spera intelligibilis, cuius centrum unique et circumferentia nusquam’, et ‘tot sunt circumferentie quot puncta’. See also Exp. in Ex., C., f. 47va, ll. 13-35: Tercio, quia in Deo non est dare plus aut minus, quinymmo, que in se ipsis habent plus et minus, in ipso, utpote in uno, et per ipsum fiunt et accipiunt esse unum. Et hoc est quod hic signanter dicitur: qui plus colligerat, non habuit amplius, nec qui minus, minus. Quod enim in se videtur amplius aut minus, in Deo fit et est unum, tum quia divisa inferius semper sunt unum superius, tum quia omne quod est in uno et unum in ipso utique unum est. Sic ergo vir iustus,

Ego Sum Qui Sum

209

sphere, that of the created universe, coincide with the centre of the infinite sphere which is God. Thus, it will have as many personal and ‘unique’ centres, uniting in their unity the omnia of the created periphery, as there are beings made in the Image of God, which are disposed to find this point of identity with the Absolute Centre by penetrating the infinite intellectual sphere with their intelligere. This sphere, which has no circumference and no created exterior, is the divine Omni-Unity, the identity of all things with the One in the region of interiorised transcendence, more ‘intimate’ to each being than its own-being, which is creaturely and non-identical. When turned towards the interior, the created intellect has as its object the ‘being-one’ of all things in the One, their uncreated essentiality or quiddity, which is not distinct from the Word in the Paternal Intellect. However, in order to discover and attain the ‘reason’ of all that is in its true interiority, like the silent Logos which does not proceed into the exterior,318 it is necessary for the created intelligence, instead of returning into its own nature, to transcend itself and, in its intelligere, to pass beyond its intellectual ‘being’. In a state of awareness of its own creaturely nothingness, it can then join, in the negativity of an intellection which is detached from all determined being, the Pure Act of the Ipsum Intelligere which returns into its Essence in affirming the absolute identity of ‘He who Is’. amans Deum in omnibus, cum Deus sit se toto totus et tantus in minimo sicut in maximo, fruitur [Ms.: frustra] habens minimum et in ipso totum Deum quem solum amat, et preter ipsum nichil quereret maius sive maxima. Maius enim et minus non cadunt in Deo, nec cadunt in uno, sed sunt citra Deum et extra Deum, utpote citra unum et extra unum. Et sic, per consequens, videns, querens et amans plus et minus non est divinus, inquantum huiusmodi. Et hoc est quod in libro 24or philosophorum dicitur: ‘Deus est [Ms.: in] spera intellectualis infinita, cuius tot sunt circumferentie quot puncta’; et ‘cuius centrum est ubique et circumferentia nusquam’; et ‘qui totus est in sui minimo’. Mahnke, Unendliche Sphäre und Allmittelpunkt, very correctly remarks on p. 150 that Meister Eckhart, in utilising this geometric image taken from the compilation of the ‘24 Philosophers’, did not have in mind, as did the source he was citing, a notion of the ‘parts’ of the Divinity, but rather, the minimum parts of the created world; the entire divine sphere, with its centre and its infinite periphery, is present in every particular being. See Chapter 4, section headed ‘Grace, Glory and Divine Dissimilitude’. 318. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’.

210

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

For Eckhart the sermon Deus unus est must have held an especially important place in the corpus of his Latin writings. Thus, in completing his first commentary on Genesis, when he needed to touch upon the problem of divine unity and created duality, the Dominican Master refers to that very part of his exegetical work which we have just examined.319 This sermon on the One-Intellect reunites the essential elements of Eckhart’s metaphysical speculation with his doctrine on mystical union, and it is here that Eckhart’s ontology and noetic views reach their culminating peak. One can already guess the outline of the ‘return’ by means of the intellect and of grace towards an identity of being in God, from whence all things come by virtue of creation. Inasmuch as he is endowed with intellect, man is created in the Image of God; even if he is not truly one, nevertheless he has the faculty of union. Thus, the intelligere will be the linchpin of his ‘conversion’, of this ἐπιστροφὴ which surpasses the duality of Creator and creature in order to discover, beyond their opposition, the initial identity of all things with themselves and with God. The completion of union coincides with the principle of procession in the hidden depths of interiorised transcendence, where the Monad unceasingly engenders the Monad and returns upon itself, bringing along all that it produces in this threefold operation towards the indistinction of the inoperative, inexpressible, and unknowable Essence. * * * We thus rediscover the Esse innominabile of mystical apophasis, this supreme aspect of Eckhart’s theognosis, which had fallen from our view in the process of our study of the divine names which are

319. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., in LW I, p.  205, n. 26 (deest in E): Ultimo hoc est advertendum quod dicitur Deus crease in principio caelum et terram, duo quaedam, non plura, puta tria, quattuor et sic de aliis, nec etiam dicit creasse unum. Ratio est, quia hoc ipso quod aliquid creatur et creatum est, cadit ab unitate et simplicitate. Deo enim proprium est et eius proprietas est unitas et simplicitas, sicut notavi diffuse super illo: ‘Deus unus est,’ Deut. 6 and Gal. 3. See H. Bascour’s article, ‘La double rédaction du premier commentaire de Maître Eckhart sur la Genèse, Recherches de Théologie ancienne et médiévale 7 (Louvain, 1936), pp.  294-320. Fr Bascour sees in the text which we just cited a reference to the Latin sermon, Deus unus est, which is ‘a sermon of great doctrinal importance’ (p. 297, note).

Ego Sum Qui Sum

211

predicable on the basis of creatures.320 On this inferior level of the knowledge of God, below creative causality, the negative way was but a correction of the concepts formulated by our thoughts, a purification of all that could be affirmed ‘by eminence’ concerning the First Cause. However, as we have seen, the name of the One, ‘above all names’, was gathering together all attributes into the indistinct unity of the Principle of divine action. The negation of all multiplicity, ‘real’ or pertaining to ‘reason’, in the One, which is conceived as negatio negationis esse, directs us towards a ‘Parmenidian’ notion of being-identity, which is revealed in the ‘pure affirmation’ of the Ego sum qui sum. In this new perspective, which is foreign to Thomism, the God-Being appears to us with a characteristic of absolute identity of ‘that which is’, opposed to the ‘nothingness’ of creatures, which are sullied with non-identity or ontological nullity. Having found, finally, the tension between identity and non-identity in superior creatures, in whom the intelligere and the esse are mutually opposed, we have thus glimpsed at the way of return towards ‘being one with God’. Before resolving this tension, along with Meister Eckhart, in a mystical apophasis which transcends the duality of Creator-creature, it is necessary for us to consider the moment of dialectical opposition, which will introduce into the knowledge of the First Cause a negative life which is conceived in a new mode and which will be evident in a particular way in Eckhart’s doctrine of analogy.

320. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Collatio Esse’.

4

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

Created Dissimilitude, the Intellect and Grace When St Augustine, after having read several sections from the Enneads, meditated upon the Divinity ‘made visible to the intellect through creation’, (Romans 1:20), the Being who truly is appeared to him as Immutable Identity. Et inspexi cetera infra te et vidi nec omnino esse nec omnino non esse: quidem, quoniam abs te sunt, non esse autem, quoniam id quod es non sunt.1 The radiance of the Truth which makes itself heard even from afar  – immo vero Ego sum qui sum  – overshadowed Augustine’s impoverished vision, and, aware of his creaturely state, he trembled with both love and terror: ‘And I found myself far away from Thee, in a land of dissimilitude’.2 This expression, taken from his readings of Plotinus,3 came quite naturally to the pen of this Christian theologian, who knew 1. Confessions, VII.11.17 (ed. Belles Lettres, vol. 1, p. 162). 2. Confessions, VII.10.16 (ibid.). 3. See A.E. Taylor’s manual, ‘Regio dissimilitudinis’, Archives, VII, pp.  305-6. The origins of this expression are due to an erroneous reading of the Statesman, where Plato speaks of the ship of the world, which is ready to sink (273d): εἰς τὸν τῆς ἀναμοιότητος ἄπειρον ὄντα πόντον δὑη (ed. Belles Lettres, p. 28). Plotinus would have known this text in a version where πόντον had already been replaced by τόπον. From thence comes the phrase found in the Enneads (I.8.13): … ἐν τῷ τῆς ἀνομοιότητος τοπῷ (ed. Belles Lettres, vol. 1, p. 127).

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

213

that man was created in the image and likeness of God. However, Augustine’s regio dissimilitudinis, in the context of the Confessions, does not correspond just to the state of human nature deprived of this ‘likeness’ after Adam’s sin;4 it would seem that here, dissimilitude would indicate, above all, the ontological inadequacy of creatures with respect to God. For Augustine, then, the distancing from True Being is an attempt at describing beings which truly are not; the tendency towards nothingness, the instability which belongs to all that is not uniquely ‘being’, all this relegates creatures to the domain which is that of the Platonic ‘becoming’. Being affected by an innate dissimilitude, by definition non-identical with God, created beings ‘are and are not’, or, as Meister Eckhart will say, when expressing this same idea albeit in terms of unity, they are ‘one and not-one’.5 The expression regio dissimilitudinis, borrowed from St Augustine, is given a much sharper ontological and noetic meaning in Eckhart’s thought, since it refers to the distance which separates God, who is ‘unnameable’ in his immensity, from his ‘exterior works’, which are the basis upon which He makes Himself known and named. One could have some concept of the discrepancy between created work and God if it is considered in terms of the domain which is more familiar to us: that of an operation’s distancing from the substance of which it is an accident, and also, all that distinguishes, in our actions, exterior work from interior work.6 In order to illustrate the usage of naturalia in the first example, we can recall its most concrete expression, often used by Eckhart in analogous situations: the example of fire and 4. It is the same with St Bernard, in Sermon 42.2 (PL 183, col. 661d), where the expression regio dissimilitudinis, borrowed from St Augustine, attracted Étienne Gilson’s attention. Compare La Théologie mystique de saint Bernard (Paris: J. Vrin, 1934), p. 63, note 1. St Bernard often speaks of the ‘region of dissimilitude’, always in the sense of fallen nature. For example, in De gratia et libero arbitrio (PL 182, col. 1018c), in the Letters (cols 106a, 501cd), and in the Sermons (PL 183, col. 649a etc.) 5. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Intelligere et Esse’, note 295. 6. Serm. lat. 9 (Deus omnis gratiae), LW IV, p. 92, n. 96: Nota primo quod Deus, cum sit innominabilis pro immensitate sui, ex operibus suis solet nobis innotescere. Quae tamen opera exteriora quam sint ‘longe in regione dissimilitudinis’, patet primo ex operatione omnis creaturae, quae distat ut accidens a substantia; et iterum operatio exterior ab interiori distat quam plurimum.

214

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

heat. As an accidental property of fire, heat is the ad extra action of fire which appears in the passion of a heated body; the essence or substantial form of fire is heat, and its operation, while coinciding in time and place, is nevertheless ‘completely dissimilar and enormously distanced from the other by the very natures of each’.7 Meister Eckhart would say the same thing concerning interior and external operations, in moralibus, or, placing the example in a more properly spiritual plane, in the inner and exterior man. Despite their apparent simultaneous occurrence in a specific place, the former is, in fact, further away from the latter than the highest heaven is from the centre of the earth.8 Since, in the created order, there is such a dissimilarity or disjunction between a substantial form and its action, between an interior act and the external operation of the will, there is thus for all the more reason a radical dissimilarity between the uncreated Essential Cause and its created and ‘external’ effects. In the context of a doctrine in which being is conceived of as an identity which is essential to itself, and in which the esse primum of creatures corresponds to their quiddity which is not distinguished from the divine ipsum intelligere,9 what, then, is the status of God’s ‘exterior works’? In their own nature, which is ‘inferior to the intellect’,10 7. Von dem edeln menschen (‘On the Noble Person’), DW V, p. 118: Hitze des viures und wesen des viures sint gar unglich und wunderliche verre von einander in der nature, aleine sie gar nahe sint nach der zit und nach der stat. Compare Pf., Serm. all. 20, p. 85, ll. 14-17: Daz enmachet nicht gelichnüsse, daz mir nahe bi ist als ich bi ime sitze oder in einer state were. Da von sprichet Augustinus: herre, do ich mich verre von dir vant, daz kam nicht von der verri der stat, mer: ez kam von der unglicheit, da ich mich inne vant. 8. Serm. lat. 7 (Homo quidam erat dives), LW IV, p. 79, n. 82: Secundo nota quod interior homo ab homine exteriori, quamvis simul videntur loco, plus tamen distant quam caelum ultimum a centro terrae. Sicut etiam est de calore et forma substantiali ignis. Compare ibid., note 1, other texts of Eckhart concerning inner and exterior man and on the essence of fire and heat. Of note is the wording in Paradisus anime intelligentis, serm. all. 51: flur und hitze ist ein und ist doch verre fon ein (in Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters XXX, ed. Ph. Strauch [Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlungen, 1919], p. 114). 9. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Intelligere et Esse’. 10. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Quiddity and ‘Esse Secundum’, note 186.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

215

they must be defined by excluding all that bears a similitude to them, as this similitude would presuppose a moment of identity. Since it is impossible to be ‘more’ or ‘less’ identical to Being itself, the ontological otherness of created beings will infinitely distance them from Being as such, placing them, by a sort of opposition, in a realm of absolute dissimilarity, that of the nothingness of creatures. Thus, in themselves, creatures carry nothing more than dissimilarity, since similarity, as well as equality, image, relationship, and the other consequences of unity and identity, properly belong to God and cannot then be found outside the intellect.11 Insofar as they remain foreign to the ‘region of the intellect’, created beings – foris stantes et longe, in regione dissimilitudinis – would be incapable of coming to know the truth of a definition (for example, that of justice): ‘in hearing, they neither hear nor understand’ (Matthew 13:13).12 The ‘region of dissimilarity’ is thus to be defined as the non-identical being, as the creature considered simply in itself, in its own nature. This realm, which is bereft of truth, must, as a result, be opposed to that of the intellect, where identity and all that which accompanies it reign, thus making possible the knowledge of created things, not in themselves, but in their principles, on a superior level. However, without grace, the human intellect would be quite incapable of knowing God apart from His created effects. Meister Eckhart’s Latin sermon, in which we have seen God’s ‘exterior works’ pushed ‘far into the realm of dissimilarity’, has as its subject matter the topic of grace and glory. Its ‘authority’ is the following text from the Epistle, 1 Peter 5:10: Deus omnis gratiae, qui vocavit nos in aeternam suam gloriam in Christo Iesu, modicum passos ipse perficiet, confirmabit, solidabitque. ‘The God of all grace’ receives His Name based on an effect: that is, grace. However, grace is the effect of an interior operation of God which remains veiled 11. Serm. lat. 29 (Deus unus est), LW IV, p. 268, n. 302: Iuxta praemissa nota quod omnia consequentia unum sive unitatem, puta aequalitas, similitudo, imago, relatio et huiusmodi, universaliter non sunt proprie nisi in Deo sive in divinis. … Ibid., p. 269, nn. 303, 304: extra intellectum semper invenitur et occurrit diversitas, difformitas et huiusmodi, etc. Psalmus: ‘Tu autem idem ipse es.’ Identitas est enim unitas. … Intellectus enim proprie Dei est, Deus autem unus. 12. Exp. in Io., LW III, p.  39, n. 48. Compare ibid., pp.  37-38, nn. 45-46: Things cannot be known except in their ‘principles’, in the intellect, which is superior to nature.

216

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

or obscure in abdito animae, within essence itself, more ‘intimate’ than all the powers or faculties of the rational soul. Since this hidden operation of God confers upon man ‘oneness of being and life in God and with God’, its effect on the soul, namely, grace or the justification of the sinner, it thus has more value, even, in a single individual human than all the ‘natural’ good could have in the entire universe.13 Here Meister Eckhart is referring to St Thomas, who said that the justification of the sinner, since it is wrought by the eternal goodness of divine participation, is a greater work than even the creation of the heavens and the earth, whose only end is the temporal good of a changing nature. From that consideration Aquinas draws the following conclusion: bonum gratiae unius maius est quam bonum naturae totius universi.14 However, as well as citing Aquinas, Eckhart 13. Serm. lat. 9, LW IV, pp. 92-94, nn. 97-99. 14. ST, Ia IIae, q. 113, a. 9, resp. et ad 2m. St Thomas further develops Augustine’s statement, quoted in sed contra: maius opus est ut ex impio iustus fiat, quam creare caelum et terram (Exp. in Io., tr. 72, n. 3 [PL 35, col. 1823]). Meister Eckhart also refers to this passage from Augustine in Serm. lat., 2, 2 (LW IV, p. 16, n. 10). See (cited ibid., p. 93, note 4) in a parallel passage from Eckhart’s German sermon in Paradisus animae intelligentis: daz minniste werc der gnadin ist hohir dan alle engile in der nature. Sente Augustinus spricht, etc. Here we shall also cite an unedited text from Exp. in Io. (C., f. 124ra, ll. 5-26), where Meister Eckhart comments on the same ‘authority’ (John 14:12) as did St Augustine, quoting the latter: In hoc opere, ut ait Augustinus, ‘ facimus opera Christi, quia et ipsum credere in Christum opus est Christi; hoc operatur in nobis non utique sine nobis. Que opera, nisi ut ex impio iustus fiat, prorsus hoc maius esse dixerim quam est celum et terra et que cernuntur in celo et in terra. In celis sedes, domincaiones, principatus, potestates, archangeli, angeli opera sunt Christi. Numquid his operibus maiora facit, qui operante in se Christo cooperator eternam salutem ac iustificationem maiora facit, qui operante in se Christo cooperator eternam salutem ac iustificationem suam? Non hic audeo precipitare sententiam. Intelligat qui potest, utrum maius est iustos creare quam impios iustificare.’ Verba sunt Augustini. Ex quibus convenienter assumitur quod maius est impium iustificare quam celum et terram creare. In cuius verbi intellectu multi palpitant et laborant. Sed dicendum est breviter quod verbum hoc verum est sicut sonat. Cum enim gratia, secundum illud quod est, sit supernaturalis, hoc ipso quod iustificatio impii est opus gratie maius est omni opere nature in celo sive

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

217

also alludes to Moses Maimonides, for whom an individual human was equivalent to the entirety of sentient nature. Eckhart subjects the Jewish Aristotelian’s opinion to a general rule, formulated in the spirit of a Proclian Neo-Platonism: Universaliter enim unum superioris habet omnia inferioris.15 An individual human, inasmuch as he is endowed with intellect, thus possesses all that belongs to nature, but at a higher level, for nature is inferior to the intellect. The pre-eminence of the work of justification in just a single human over the entire external work of the creation of the sentient universe finds its rationale not so much in the ‘supernatural’ character of grace,16 but rather in the fact that grace is reserved only for the intellectualia, for superior creatures, who are made in the image of God.17 We could ask, however, if grace is actually ‘supernatural’, since it operates in beings which are endowed with an intellect and thus, in this sense, are superior to the ‘nature’ of the cosmos; or, on the other hand, we could ask whether it is grace that bestows upon the human intellect this superiority over God’s external creation? If the latter were true, then we would have to ascribe to Eckhart a doctrine of the inherence of grace in the intellect, a teaching which would then require or entail applying the ‘justification of the sinner’ to all men, insofar as Eckhart would not wish to deny non-Christians an intellect which is superior to nature. During his trial proceedings in Cologne, however, Eckhart was never accused of such a grave error concerning his doctrine of grace. Thus, it would seem that the former proposition conforms better to Eckhart’s thought. If the grace of a single individual with an intellectual nature is more precious than the good of all individual substances of cosmic nature, which is inferior to the intellect, then this is because the essence of the human soul, as well as the grace which is destined for it, are to be placed on a ‘supernatural’ in terra. Alioquin enim gratia non esset nec diceretur supernaturalis Patet hoc manifeste in tractatu nostro de natura superioris. Thomas, Ia parte 2.1 libri, questione 113, articulo 1° [sic, for 9°], de hoc pulchre tractat et plene. 15. Serm. lat. 9, LW IV, p. 93, n. 97. See, ibid., Joseph Koch’s note on the meaning of the expression singulare hominum in Maimonides. 16. As Meister Eckhart says elsewhere, for example in the Exp in Io. (see note 14 on this page). 17. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Intelligere et Esse’.

218

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

level. Here, it is necessary to do away with the special way in which theologians take the word ‘supernatural’, so as to keep, instead, to the more general (and the original) meaning of the term supernaturalis, which is a Latin calque of the Greek ὑπερφής, which is almost a synonym for the Neo-Platonist term ὑπερκόσμιος.18 There can be no doubt, then, that St Albert, in his commentaries on Dionysius and on the Liber de causis,19 intended to use this sense of a soul elevated supra naturam.20 As for Meister Eckhart,21 he had further reason to insist upon the superiority of the intellectual element of the human soul with respect to the nature of the cosmos. As we have seen, unity 18. This is precisely what Fr Thery wanted to avoid doing. Thus, on the subject of Eckhart’s affirmation ‘… est superior natura, et per consequens supernaturale …’, he comments: ‘Here we have a case of [Eckhart’s] verbal imagination in full flow’ (Archives, IV, pp. 362-63, note). 19. See, for example, this text from Proclus in his Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, ed. Ernest Diehl, 3 vols (Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1906), vol. 3, p. 275): Αἱ ψυχαὶ κατ᾽οὐσίαν μὲν εἰσιν ὑπερφυεῖς καὶ ὑπερκόσμιοὶ. Compare ibid.: vol. 2, p. 153: the soul occupies the mid-point between the natural and the supernatural world; and vol. 3, p. 229: ὑπερφυὴς is to be distinguished from ἐγκόσμιος. In the Liber de causis, see Propositions 7 (ed. Steele, p. 167; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 6, p. 170), 9 (ed. Steele, p. 169; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 8, p. 172f.) and 30 (ed. Steele, p. 184; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 29, p. 189). 20. Sum. theol., p.  11, tr. 13, q. 77, membr. 3 (solutio) (Alberti Magni Opera Omnia, ed. Borgnet, vol. 33, p.  94): Ad solutionem autem eorum quae inducunt, praenotandum est, quod anima rationalis sive intellectualis substantia est, quae stat in esse et substantialitate, per causam primam cuius est imago: et ideo elevata est supra materiam, et non immersa sub ipsa sicut forma naturalis. Nec agitur a natura sicut anima vegetabilis et sensibilis, sed potius agit in ipsam naturam sicut substantia elevata super eam, et ordinans et regens et movens eam. Compare ibid., membr. 5 (solutio), p. 105; In I Ethic., tr. 3, c. 8 (vol 7, p. 40). 21. Grace dwells in the intellect because, like the intellect, it is ‘supernatural’: Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, pp.  360-62. Compare Exp. in Io. (unedited), C., f. 118rb, ll. 13-17: Precipue enim, quia gratia est superior tota natura, propter quod gratia gratum faciens est in solo intellectu. Intellectus autem, secundum genus suum, superior est omni natura, ut patet in De causis et in Proclo.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

219

and identity are not of this world;22 along with all that proceeds from them (equality, image, similitude, relationship), they belong to God alone and are not to be found outside the ‘intellectual region’.23 If man were no more than just one part of the universe, that is to say, if he had a nature whose forms are plunged into matter, where the intelligible is hidden by the sensory, he would belong entirely to the ‘region of dissimilitude’, to the multiplicity of particular creatures which is nothing but ‘diversity and deformity’. The ‘supernatural’ or extra-cosmic condition of the intellect cannot be something foreign to the rational soul, without which discursive knowledge – cognitio a posteriori, cognitio in phantasmate et per phantasma,24 – would remain an impossibility for us. The human soul with its cognitive faculties thus arises from two opposing systems: that of identity, in the regio intellectus, and that of non-identical being, in God’s ‘exterior works’, which are the region of dissimilitude. Th is is precisely what we noticed above, 25 that the entia intellectualia, being composed of esse and intelligere, are ontologically distended between their own ‘nature’, which forms a part of the cosmic ensemble, and a sort of intellectual ‘supernature’ in which grace enters to operate in order to lead the man whom it justifies ad unum esse et vivere in Deo et cum Deo.26 22. This is why the mystery of the unity of all things in God is greater, for Meister Eckhart, than that of their diversity in the created world. In a German sermon (Pf., Pr. 88, p. 287), he says that he is regularly surprised that in the entire world he cannot find two leaves with exactly the same veins. It is thus quite correct to see in this diversity a manifestation of the supra-abundant richness of Divine Goodness: ‘However, I say: it would be yet more marvelous if all the veins of the leaves were the same and equal. Just as all the angels form but a singularity in the primal purity [in der ersten luterkeit], so too all the veins of leaves, in their primal purity, are but one, and all things are but one [und aliu dinc sint alein].’ 23.  See above, Chaoter 4, section headed ‘Created Dissimilitude, the Intellect and Grace’, note 11, and in Chapter 3, section headed ‘Intelligere et Esse’, note 291. 24. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 62, n. 74. 25. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Intelligere et Esse’. 26. Serm. lat. 9, LW IV, p.  94, n. 99. In Serm. lat. 29, where the notion of grace does not intervene, the expression esse unum cum deo relates to

220

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

A human intellect which succeeds in transcending the entirety of the universe, insofar as it is able to detach itself therefrom and instead participate in the regio intellectus, nonetheless remains, of itself, incapable of granting us any knowledge of God per speculum et in aenigmate. In order, here below, to have an experience, in via, of the Unique Being who is God, which, at the same time, causes us to realise creaturely nothingness, the light of grace is required. This is a knowledge per speculum et in lumine, which Meister Eckhart describes in the following terms: quando scilicet lux divina per effectum suum aliquem specialem irradiat super potentias cognoscentes et super medium in cognitione, elevans intellectum ipsum ad id quod naturaliter non potest.27 In the context of a sermon for the feast of St Augustine, this elevation of the intellect by the light of grace corresponds to the passage from the Confessions, which is quoted here by the preacher himself: cum Te primo cognovi, Tu assumsisti me, ut viderem esse, quod viderem, et nondum me esse, qui viderem.28 Without any doubt, these words of St Augustine would have stressed, for Meister Eckhart, the ecstatic character of the knowledge which he could have had ‘through the mirror and in the light’. Essentially, St Augustine would have had to have been ‘lifted up’29 by God so that he could see the Being-One as a substantial Identity and then recognise his own miserable creaturely state, being unlike God and even unlike himself, finding himself to be ‘far away, in the region of dissimilarity’.30 Here then, Eckhart is describing a rapture in extasi mentis, a ‘delicious knowledge’ or wisdom (sapientia, quasi sapida scientia) which introduces man to a ‘great affection’, granting him a ‘foretaste of the intellect being envisaged as a faculty of union (see above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Intelligere et Esse’, note 291, note 312). 27. Sermo in die beati Augustini Parisius habitus, in LW V, pp.  93-94, n. 5. Concerning the subject of the two means of knowing God in via, B. Geyer cites (ibid., p. 92, note 2) a passage of the Summa Universae Theologiae by Alexander of Hales (II.1, q. 512): knowledge per speciem et lumen is that of the blessed; here on earth cognitio per speculum et in lumine belongs to the state of innocence, and cognitio per speculum et in aenigmate belongs to the state of fallen nature. 28. Confessions, VII.11.16 (ed. Belles Lettres, vol. 1, 162). 29. Compare Exp. in Io., LW III, p.  13, n. 15: the analogy of the just man who is the only one to recognise justice, having been ‘assumed’ by it, along with Christ – homo assumptus. 30. Sermo in die beati Augustini Parisius habitus, LW V, p. 94, n. 5.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

221

divine sweetness’ (ad divinam dulcedinem praegustandum). The fruit of grace, as it escapes intellectual apprehension in via, is already present in the active intellect, such that the will can be permitted, here on earth, through love, to attain to the as-yet unknown object of eternal blessedness.31 Augustine’s ecstatic experience showed him that this ‘being one with God’, which is bestowed by grace, is man’s supreme vocation and that all wealth which is not God is but poverty.32 Without grace, one could not know how to love God and aspire exclusively to this Unity of being, nor to feel cramped within the radical dissemblance of creatures. Being superior to the entirety of nature which is contained in itself virtually, and being also undivided and unified, grace approaches us through the intellect. Nevertheless, the word of the grace of God which is accomplished in the essence of the soul remains unknowable to a created mind which is reduced to its own natural light. Insofar as he does not actually know what his true blessedness is, a man who has not received grace can simply become used to the regio dissimilutudinis. This is the reason why 31. Ibid., pp.  94-95, n. 6. Meister Eckhart here quotes two passages from the Confessions, X.40.65 and XIII.8.9 (ed. Belles Lettres, vol. 2, pp. 289 and 372). Compare Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 40-41, n. 49: the first text from Augustine is followed by a quotation from Hugh of St-Victor (Soliloquium de arrha animae [PL 176, col. 970]), in which he speaks of an unknown sweetness which ‘abstracts’ and ‘alienates’ the soul from itself, in order to lead it into a region which it does not know: iamque alibi, nescio ubi, me esse video et quasi quiddam amoris amplexibus intus teneo, et nescio quid illud sit. Meister Eckhart responds to the question ‘quid illud sit’ with a text from St John: et Deus erat verbum. Thus, being the word of justice, a just man is none other than justice itself; he is identical to justice (ibid., n. 50). The ‘alienation’ and ‘abstraction’ of the soul in ecstasy correspond to the reduction of that which is concrete to that which is abstract in these passages, which are so frequent in Meister Eckhart, on iustitia et iustus, along with all the trinitarian significance which is normally given to this example. Compare what was said above on the role of the inquantum, pp. 10913. Here, however, this is no longer an example of the relationship between concrete and abstract; the justification of the sinner is the very work of the gratia gratum faciens, a work whose fruit – unity of being with God – is ‘fore-tasted’ in an ecstasy in which man is ‘assumed’ by the Word and cannot see anything other than God. See the words of St Augustine: et nondum me esse, qui viderem (see above, same page). 32. Ibid., p. 95, n. 6.

222

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

unbaptised children who die do not in any way sense the deprivation of beatific glory.33 It would seem that, for Eckhart, outside grace, ‘being’ and ‘knowledge’ remain disjointed and each confined to its own sphere. A person can be ‘supernatural’ in the sense that, through his intellect which transcends dissimilar nature, he can know his own state through his own natural light; he can even come to know God – ablatione, eminentia et causa, as something completely other, as something surpassing all knowable perfections, as the principle of all that is. However, this knowledge per speculum et in aenigmate34 still does not free intellectual creatures from the region of dissimilitude, it does not return them to their ‘homeland’. Without grace, the intellect is not yet the way of return to ‘being one with God’.

Grace, Glory and Divine Dissimilitude There exists more than just a mere parallelism between grace and being in Eckhart’s doctrine. Thus, that which he refers to as the ‘first grace’ or gratia gratis data, bestowed upon all creatures, corresponds to the esse secundum which the Efficient Cause produces ‘freely’ (ex nihilo or pro nihilo), as the ‘first created thing’. This is the ‘grace of creation’, the ‘outflow’ or the ‘outgoing’ of all things from God (effluxus, egressus a deo). If the esse secundum expresses, above all else, the otherness of created being, then the gratia prima must point to the immediateness, immediacy or directness of the First Cause in relation to its effects. As for the ‘second grace’, or gratia gratum faciens, which is reserved for beings which have been endowed with an intellect and who have been created in the image of God, it responds to the esse primum of creatures, to their ‘life’ in the divine Intelligere, beyond all exteriority or duality, and which is attached to creative efficiency. If the first grace, that of creation, proceeds from God sub ratione et proprietate entis sive boni potius, being the very reason which determines external production, then the second grace has its foundations in trinitarian life, since it proceeds sub ratione et proprietate personalis notionis; while the notional aspect belongs to the interior action of God and to the emanation of the divine persons, which is accompanied by this ‘formal ebullition’ which serves as the 33. Serm. lat. 25, 2 (Gratia Dei sum id quod sum), LW IV, pp.  243-44, n. 268. 34. Sermo in die beati Augustini Parisius habitus, LW V, pp. 92-93, n. 4.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

223

exemplary principle for all ‘ebullition ad extra or creative action’.35 The first grace is thus a created exteriorisation – it designates the being and shared perfections which creatures receive immediately from God,36 whereas the second grace is ‘more eminent than nature’ – it is not only ‘being’, but also ‘life’ and ‘its name is the Word’ (Revelation 19:13). Gratia est ebullitio quaedam parturitionis filii, radicem habens in ipso patris pectore intimo.37 While here he mentions an ‘ebullition’, which would seem to imply an exteriorisation, an ‘exiting’, in fact, Meister Eckhart is not at all concerned, here, with the second grace of the creation of the world. On the contrary, he is attempting to relate this gushing forth of grace, as properly understood, just to intra-trinitarian relations, especially to the eternal generation of the Son. If it is still in some way exteriorised, since it is communicated to beings which are made in the image of God, grace nevertheless remains no less immanent to the Paternal Intellect, as the Son-Image which remains, in its personal procession, essentially identical with the Father. Thus, with relation to the recipient of grace, grace is ‘the conforming to, and configuration in, God, or, rather, the soul’s transfiguration in God’.38 The life which it bestows is in fact self-sacrifice itself; it is the taking up of one’s cross and following in the footsteps of God: vivere Deo, non sibi.39 The requisite negative condition for union with God – indeed, it is even a faculty of detachment from all determined being, the possibility of a ‘departure’ from oneself and from the entirety of the cosmos – belongs to all creatures who are endowed with intellect.40 However, it is only divine grace, God working in the essence of 35. Serm. lat. 25, 1, LW IV, pp. 235-36, n. 258. 36. Serm. lat. 25, 2, LW IV, pp.  240-41, n. 264. Here Meister Eckhart is talking about the immediateness of the creature with God quantum ad esse, quantum ad gratiam et quantum ad omnes perfectiones, maxime communes, indeterminatas ad hoc et hoc, making use of the example of air being illumined by the sun. This passage also relates just as well to grace properly speaking (or, here, ‘second grace’) as it also does to the ‘grace of creation’ (being and natural perfections): both have the same character of gratuitousness and immediacy. 37. Ibid., p. 239, n. 263. 38. Ibid., pp. 239-40. 39. Serm. lat. 2, 2 (Gratia domini nostri Iesu Christi), LW IV, p.  17, n. 16. 40. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Intelligere et Esse’.

224

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

the soul, being superior to its faculties, which can give to a created being’s intellectual abandon a positive sense of a conversion towards the Being-One. By enrapturing a man who has been exteriorised by creation, ‘second grace’ renders him a participant in the trinitarian life in his own hidden depths, beyond creation, where the engendered Monad ceaselessly returns to its own identity with the Monad which eternally engenders It. If the ‘first grace’ is a departure from God, an exitus of creatures which necessarily implies dissemblance, ‘disagreement’ and ‘impurity’,41 then the ‘second grace’, gratia gratum faciens, is a re-flowing or return into God (reflexus, regressus in ipsum Deum).42 A defied man brings with him, through his intellection, all ‘dissimilar’ creatures back towards their first identity and purity in the divine Intellect. The ‘most pure fruits’ of grace will take this passage to its limit, where gratia Dei sum id quod sum (1 Corinthians 15:10) coincides with Ego sum qui sum (Exodus 3:14).43 In the context of a fallen world, here below, the ‘second grace’ is presented as a counterpart of the ‘first grace’: it resembles Proclus’ ἐπιστροφἠ, which is opposed to the πρόοδος. In its accomplishing of the beatific work (which corresponds to Proclus’ μονή), the grace of return is no longer opposed to the grace of departure: in the One, the negative moment of dissemblance and the duality which accompanies the creative act no longer have any place. Here, grace, or rather, the glory of the celestial homeland, binds creatures to God’s interior action, which expresses the identity of the Being by the generation of the Son and the shared spiration (breathing) of the Holy Spirit. 41. Serm. lat. 25, 2 (Domus mea domus orationis est), LW IV, p.  225, n. 246: omnis exitus dissimilitudo quaedam et consequenter displicentia quaedam est et impuritas. 42. Serm. Lat. 25, 1 (Gratia Dei sum id quod sum), LW IV, p. 237, n. 259. 43. This quidditative purity in the identity of the First Being is pointed to in a curious passage from Latin sermon 25, 1 (ibid., p. 234, n. 257), in which Meister Eckhart brings together two scriptural texts which, for him, must point to the identity of being of God (Exodus 3:14) and that of deified man (1 Corinthians 15:10). Here, we correct the erroneous punctuation inserted by E. Benz which would render the passage incomprehensible: Tertio attollitur gratia ex fine: ‘sum id quod sum’. Per quod accipitur gratiae fecunditas sive melius fructuositas, Prov. 3: ‘primi et purissimi fructus eius’. ‘Primi’: quid prius esse  – ‘sum’? ‘Purissimi’: quid purius quod quid erat esse – ‘id quod sum’? Exodi 3 de deo scribitur: ‘sum qui sum.’

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

225

Being beyond created exteriority, in the silence of exterior causes, the Unique Word of God is no longer heard ‘twice’44 for the generation of the Word and the creation of the world coincide in the Paternal Intellect. If such is the way in which man finally rejoins God, who is secretly present in the essence of his soul, then it can be understood why, in the region of dissimilitude, the grace of a single individual is infinitely more precious than all the created goods of the universe. For Meister Eckhart, grace is identical to glory; if it is to be distinguished in any sense, it is only due to our imperfection which has not yet been discarded.45 This is why in via, as long as any exteriority exists, God presents Himself in grace as the Final Cause; by enflaming the human will with love,46 grace causes it to seek its assimilation to God. Unde hic assimilamur, in patria vero unimur potius.47 Since unity is the goal of all assimilation, one cannot attain union with God, who is entirely ‘Act’, while one is still on the path of assimilation on which human action, turned towards the Supreme Good, cooperates with the grace of God.48 Final blessedness does not reside in the action of the will, as some claim,49 but in the passion of the intellect. Glory or blessedness is the ‘same indivisible being’ of God and the soul, identical in He who gives and in that which receives: active in Deo, passive in anima.50 God’s pure activity coincides with the pure passivity of the created subject which must receive its beatitude from God alone. The examples Meister Eckhart uses establish an analogy between the esse unum cum deo in glory

44. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Semel Locutus Est Deus, Duo haec Audivi’. 45. Serm. lat. 9, LW IV, p. 95, n. 100. 46. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Created Dissimilitude, the Intellect and Grace’ into ‘Grace, Glory and Divine Dissimilitude’ and note 31. 47. Serm. lat. 11, 2 (Existimo quod non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis), LW IV, p. 111, n. 117. 48. Serm. lat. 25, 1, LW IV, p.  233, n. 255: Gratia dei ratione caelestis est, divina est, a solo Deo et immediate est. ‘Nihil inquinatum incurrit in illam’, quia nihil creatum cooperatur ad illam. See Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 390. 49. Serm. lat. 11, 2, same edition, p. 110. – J. Koch here makes reference (note 3) to Giles of Rome. 50. Serm. lat. 9, LW IV, p. 95, n. 100. See loc. cit. in Serm. lat. 11, 2.

226

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

and the unity of being that matter and form have in substance.51 If Eckhart’s God ultimately reveals Himself as the Formal Cause of created beings, this is true only in the plane of celestial blessedness, in which creatures become ‘deiform’.52 Here on earth, inasmuch as the imperfection of duality exists, divine action necessarily appears under the traits of exterior causality: as efficiency in creation or as the ‘fi rst grace’, as the fi nal end of grace as properly understood or as the ‘second grace’ which puts into effect an assimilative conversion, that is, a ‘return’ to God. This gratia gratum faciens must then be distinguished, in individuals who possess an intellectual nature which they receive in via, from the glory which shall be revealed in. In the realm of dissimilitude, grace still presents itself under a double aspect: created and uncreated, ‘virtual’ and ‘formal’, a duality which corresponds to the two levels of being between which creatures are distended. However, here, in a 51. See the proceedings of the Cologne trial, Archives, I, pp.  26667: 3° dicit articulus quod ‘inter unigenitum filium et animam non est aliqua distinctio’. Dicendum quod verum est. Quomodo enim esset quid album distinctum seu divisum ab albedine? Rursus, materia et forma sunt unum in esse, vivere et operari. Nec propter hoc materia est forma, nec e converso. Sic in proposito, quamvis anima sancta unum sit cum Deo, secundum illud Ioh. 17: ut et ipsi in nobis unum sint, sicut et nos unum sumus, non tamen creatura est creator, nec homo iustus est Deus. 52. Exp. in Io., C., f. 108rb, ll. 23-41: Secundo notandum quod spiritus sanctus nescitur unde veniat aut quo vadat, quia Deus et omne divinum, in quantum huius [modi], nescit principium a quo neque finem ad quem. Si enim in mathematicis non est bonum et finis sed solum causa formalis, ut ait philosophus, quanto magis in metaphysicis [Ms.: mathematicis] et divinis. Et hoc est quod homo divinus prohibetur habere patrem et matrem super terram, Mat. 23°, etiam Christus ‘venit separare hominem adversus patrem suum’, Mat. X°; et ibidem infra, 19°: ‘relinquet homo patrem et matrem et adherebit uxori sue.’ In quibus verbis significatur quod opus divinum, ut sic, non habet, non curat, nec cogitat, nec intuetur principium nec finem sed solum Deum, causam formalem. Sapiente 8°; ‘amator factus [Ms.: facta] sum forme illius.’ Forma enim sola essenciam solam respicit, ipsa dat esse, ipsa est esse, ipsa est quare, finis et principium et quies omnis operis divini; nichil extra respicit, adheret uxori sue, id est forme, Deo scilicet qui est omnis divini, in quantum divinum, forma suo modo, sicut albedo est forma omnis albi; et sunt ‘duo in carne una,’ id est in esse uno.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

227

perspective contrary to that of creative causality, this very distension tends to disappear, as it is concerned with a ‘return’ and not with a ‘going out’. In grace God is not the Efficient Cause, as He is the cause of being, ‘the first created thing’; nevertheless, He is not, either, the Formal Cause of the ‘Being-One’, as He will be in glory. He is the Final Cause, the transcendent term or end of the process of assimilation, of the ‘transformation’ that is wrought a claritate in claritatem, tanquam a Domini Spiritu (2 Corinthians 3:18). In this supernatural process of becoming, grace enables the powers of the soul to surpass not only the ‘first form’ which ties them down to the body and to sensory images, but also all that exists as a form here on earth, by transcending the formal or habitual aspects of grace itself, in order finally to enter into glorious beatitude.53 As long as this dissemblance remains, below the level of ‘being one with God’, the grace which accomplishes the process of assimilation in the individual human is to be distinguished from glory; however, in the hidden region in which grace bestows the esse divinum, meaning, in the soul’s very essence, which is superior to all the soul’s powers, grace does not exercise any kind of operation. There, where only God can enter as Esse or Form, grace is nothing other than blessedness, a union which continues to transcend assimilation, just as the being which a substance receives from its form remains transcendent to becoming, without any continuity with all that prepares the generation of form in matter. Meister Eckhart recalls that the form of fire does not work apart from the intermediary of heat which is then released, ‘like the power which flows out of the soul or from virtue, which is, grace’. Gratia … non operator proprie nec immediate per se miracula vel opera exteriora.54 Grace exteriorises itself only with relation to how much 53. Serm. lat. 49 (Cuius est imago haec et superscriptio?), LW IV, p.  423, n. 508: transformamur dupliciter: primo, quia cedit forma prior; secundo, quia transcendit et est altius omni forma. ‘A claritate in claritatem’, id est a naturali lumine in supernaturale, et a lumine gratie tandem in lumen glorie. Vel sic: quandoque anima accipit illustrationes divinas, sed immissas sub figuris corporalium, ab hac igitur claritate transire desiderat in claritatem in se ipsa stantem, usque quo in illa conscendat in illum ‘qui lucem habitat inaccessibilem’, Thym. 6. Unde sequitur in proposito: ‘tamquam a domini spiritu’. 54. Exp. in Io., C., f. 119va, ll. 14-27: Adhuc autem tertio potest dici quod Iohannes fecit signum nullum significat quod gratia, cum sit in essentia anime, non in potentia, secundum doctores meliores, non

228

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

man cooperates with God in assimilating himself to Him. Strictly speaking, the ‘interior work’ of grace in the soul’s essence is not an operation. As for its action by the intermediary of the virtue which it communicates (an action which we refer to as ‘grace’ here on earth so as to distinguish it from ‘glory’), it is that of the end, since operative grace converts man towards God. In acting as the Final Cause by means of grace, God restores the powers of the soul to their natural order, which order had been destroyed by sin. As the virtue of a magnet, which attracts a needle, communicates itself to an entire row of needles which stick one to the other, so too does grace ‘reorder man to God’, in making his inferior powers stick to powers which are superior.55 The restoration of fallen operatur proprie nec immediate per se miracula vel opera exteriora, sed per se dat esse divinum, secundum illud Cor.: gratia Dei sum id quod sum; et Rom. 6°: gratia Dei vita, vivere autem viventibus est esse. Gratia igitur per se dat esse divinum. ‘Iohannes’ autem sonat ‘in quo est gratia.’ Gratia autem, ut dictum est, signum non facit, cum sit in essentia, non in potentia anime. Essentia enim ad esse respicit, potentia ad opus. Sic enim forma ignis per se non calefacit immediate nisi mediante calore ab ipsa fluente, sicut potentia ab anima, virtus a gratia. Unde apostolus, ut dixisset gratia Dei sum id quod sum, adiecit: gratia eius in me vacua non fuit, sed gratia eius sempre in me manet. ‘The best Doctors’ – see St Thomas, IIIa, q. 62, a. 2; IV Sent., d. 1, a. 4. 55. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 34vb, l. 62-f. 35ra, l. 27: Secundum exemplum est in acubus et magnete. Magnes enim adtactus ab acu transfundit virtutem ipsi acui, adeo ut et isa infimo sui aliam tangens ipsam adducat  – ‘veni’, in illa sui supremo adhereat prime et ceteris, 3a et 4a, quantum sufficit virtus transfuse et imbibita magnete. Hec fuit et est rectitudo hominis, quando sensitivum obedit rationi inferiori et ad ipsam respicit et ordinatur et illa subheret rationi superiori et ipsa Deo, secundum illud: Deus fecit hominem rectum, Ecclesiastici 7; et Ecclesiastici 17: Deus de terra creavit hominem et secundum ymaginem suam fecit illum et iterum convertit illum in ipsam, scilicet ymaginem; et sequitur: et secundum se vestivit illum virtute. Iste fuit et est status nature institute ante peccatum, status innocentie. Soluta autem adhesione et ordine supremi anime a Deo per noxam peccati dividentis, – Isa. (59,2): iniquitates vestre diviserunt inter vos et Deum vestrum,  – consequenter divise sunt omnes vires, tam ratio inferior quam sensitivum ipsius anime, ab adhesione et imperio ipsius rationis superioris, sicut manifeste patet in exemplo iam posito de magnete et acubus. Manente enim adhesione prime, inferiores ipsi subherent;

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

229

man to his original uprightness56 thus results in a new habitus which man receives in the grace of God. Under this created aspect, grace is an effect of the ‘justification of the sinner’ in the individual human: quando per gratiam reordinatur homo in deum.57 Its uncreated aspect (or, rather, its aspect which transcends the opposition of created and uncreated) is glory, the esse unum cum Deo, in which the deified essence of the soul coincides with the Divine Esse, in blessed eternity. It is from there that the individual human receives the assimilating virtue of grace, which makes it seek adhesion to God in its intellect, and, by this intermediary, in all the powers of the soul, according to a natural order of subordination of one to the other. Would this mean then that eschatological blessedness has already been realised in the soul’s essence and, therefore, that it would not present itself as a future reality except in the man who receives here below that grace which comes from a blessed on high? This question would surely seem ‘crude’ to Meister Eckhart. Between eternity and time there is a discontinuity, an absolute ‘dissimilarity’. To speak of eternal blessedness in terms of time, in terms of past or future, is to ignore its true, transcendent character. The reality still remains, soluto vero nexu et vinculo prime cum magnete, secunda et tertia nec prime adherent neque sibi invicem, secundum illud: ‘destructis primis, impossibile est aliquid aliorum remanere.’ Et iste est status hominis sub peccato. Et hoc est quod in psalmo dicitur: Nisi dominus custodierit civitatem, frustra vigilat qui custodit eam. Status autem hominis post peccatum est quando per gratiam reordinatur homo in Deum. The first example (f. 34vb, ll. 45-62), the circular movement from east to west, being immediately communicated by the Prime Mover to the superior heavens, is then communicated by the intermediary of the planetary spheres to the four elements. 56. This state of restored uprightness in the human soul is illustrated by the text of Isaiah 2:6, in the lines which follow, ibid., ll. 27-37: Tunc enim quo magis adhereret supremum anime ipsi Deo tanto magis sibi obedit inferius se, etiam sensitivum. In hoc statu, ex habundantia et perfectione gratie, conceditur viris perfectis ut sensitivum sic obediat rationi inferiori et illa rationi superiori, ut impleatur quod Ysa. XI° scribitur: leo et ovis simul morabuntur et puer parvulus minabit eos. Puer parvulus est rationale superius quod, inherens Deo, minat et pacificat leonem ovi, id est sensitivum rationi inferiori. Notavi super hoc latius super illo: non concupisces, Exodi XX. 57. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Grace, Glory and Divine Dissimilitude’, note 55.

230

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

however, that Meister Eckhart’s ‘eschatology’ is projected onto his doctrine of man, and it is precisely this which renders the Thuringian mystic’s thought so difficult to understand for our crude spirits, and even appears ‘absurd’ to the false sophistication of the ‘ little masters of theology’. Before dealing with this question at greater length (which we shall do towards the end of our study), let us recall that the ‘inner man’, whose life comes from God alone, belongs entirely to eternity; the region of dissimilitude which separates him from the ‘outer man’, who is subject to the limiting parameters of space and time, surpasses the expanse which separates the highest heaven from the centre of the earth. As we have seen,58 in saying iterum operatio exterior ab interiori distat quam plurimum at the beginning of a sermon on grace, Meister Eckhart wanted to show, by means of this example of the duality of human action between ‘exterior’ and ‘interior’, the radical dissimilitude which distances the creature, as an ‘exterior work’, from all that could be called one of God’s ‘interior works’. Thus, it is the eternal generation of the Word which must correspond, in the interior action of the One, to the creation, which the German theologian refers to elsewhere as ‘external word’.59 Since the Word of God, in becoming incarnate, has reunited in Himself ‘interior work’ and ‘exterior work’, the eternal and the temporal, the uncreated and the created, it is in Meister Eckhart’s Christology that we finally find the response to the question of how a human person, who receives grace in via, participates at the same time, in his ‘inner man’, in the eternal glory in patria. For the moment, we shall limit ourselves to several remarks which will help us to understand how the knowledge of God appears in relation to the ‘grace of return’. In two Latin sermons,60 Meister Eckhart contrasts the ‘inner man’ and the ‘outer man” by relating the first to the intelligible world and the second to the sensory world. Since he is attached to matter and subjected to time and place, the ‘man of this world’, egens sacramentis et doctrina ex sensibilibus, cannot come to know the Divine without the help of sensory experience. It is thus a mortal, reasonable animal, 58. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Created Dissimilitude, the Intellect and Grace’. 59. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’. 60. Serm. lat. 7 (Homo quidam erat dives) and 21 (the same auctoritas), LW IV, p. 75, n. 78, and p. 190, n. 206.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

231

an individual with a human nature, comprising a part of the entirety of the universe, of this totum from which the intellect must detach itself in order to know perishable things in their eternal principles. As long as grace attaches to a particular being, to a human suppositum, it will remain shut off and limited. In the individual person, grace does not yet reach the entirety of human nature,61 which is quite unlike what we see in Christ, a Divine Person who, in His incarnation, assumed human nature, and not a human person.62 The term persona in Meister Eckhart’s Latin writings is most often used as a synonym for suppositum and, in his doctrine of man, must indicate,63 above all, an individual who is subject to number, as is every thing which constitutes part of the material world. However, Meister Eckhart does imply that in the coming state of glory, the elect shall not be deprived of their personhood: while sharing every thing in common, they will still in some sense be distinguished one from another, forming a 61. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 35ra, ll. 37-41 (this passage follows that quoted in note 56): Quia tamen gratia ista respicit et datur homini particulari, supposito nature, persone, non autem nature, propter hoc natura manet nuda et derelicta, qualis est in natura destituta neque restituta statui sue institutionis. 62. This doctrinal point, belonging to traditional Christology, often features in Meister Eckhart’s German and Latin works. See, for example, in his Latin sermons (LW IV): pp. 56-57, n. 57; p. 184, n. 199; and p. 239, n. 263. Compare ibid. (p. 57, note 1) for the parallels between Eckhart’s German works and those of Suso. See also, in the proceedings of the Cologne trial (Archives, I), pp. 179-80, 201-2, 231-33. The last passage is Meister Eckhart’s response in which he says, among other things (p.  233): Postremo notandum quod Deus assumpsit prima intentione hominem, naturam scilicet, non personam, docens nos quod, si volumus esse filii Dei, diligamus in proximo quod est homnis, non huius hominis, non huic aut illi aut michi proprium. 63. Meister Eckhart’s anthropology must be studied within the context of his Christological doctrine. Ms  M. Dallmann, in her thesis Die Anthropologie Meister Eckharts, which was defended at the University of Tübingen in 1939, quite adeptly diff used the supposed problem of the ‘bipolarity’ of the human spirit, being in one sense opposed to the human suppositum, and yet in another sense being Absolute Spirit (Geist). However, the theological question of man as a person in his relations to common nature was not touched upon in this very schematic, rather succinct study.

232

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

sort of multitude which all the same transcends number.64 Without imposing upon the Thuringian mystic a distinction of terms of which he himself never made use,65 we can nevertheless affirm that idea of the human person, when purified of all that characterises him as being of a particular species, is not something which is foreign to Meister Eckhart’s thought.66 While it is not developed theologically in Meister Eckhart’s anthropology, the doctrine of the ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ man nevertheless introduces a sort of bipolarity into his conception of man as a person. Since the dignity of an intellectual being (= supernatural) created in the image of God belongs to the ‘inner man’, then it cannot be a person in the same sense as the ‘outer man’ who remains an individual of but common nature.67 The person-image cannot 64. Serm. lat. 4, 1 (LW IV, p.  28, n. 28):  … sicut Deus est in se indistinctissimus secundum naturam ipsius, utpote vere unus et propriisime et ab aliis distinctissimus, sic et homo in Deo indistinctus ab omnibus, quae in Deo sunt  – nam in ipso sunt omnia  – et simul distinctissimus ab omnibus aliis. Serm. lat. 10 (ibid., p.  101, n. 107): Praeterea beati gaudent de omnibus in Deo. In Deo autem in unoquolibet sunt omnia, et propterea in Deo iam non est numerus nec per consequens nonaginta novem (Mat. 18, 12, Luc. 15, 4). Haec in uno et unum in illis. Serm. lat. 11, 1 (ibid., p. 108, n. 114): De beatitudine dicitur regnum caelorum ubique singulariter.  … Habent enim omnes ‘omnia in omnibus’ in uno, tum quia ab uno indiviso – sicut potentiae visivae a visibili – tum quia quemlibet amat quantum se ipsum. Exemplum de partibus ignis. Compare, further down, the passage from the Exp. in Io., on the communion of saints (note 71). 65. Besides this, it must be noted that a clear distinction between the created person and the individual of rational nature is lacking not only in the Latin Scholastics, who are dependent upon Boethius, but also in the Greek Fathers. The classic theological meaning of the term ‘person’ in anthropology, being analogous to the divine ‘hypostases’, remains implied. Above all, then, a created ‘hypostasis’ designates an individual of a par ticular nature. See, for example, St John Damascene’s Dialectics, in which he defines, in chapter 42, the meaning of the term hypostasis (PG 94, col. 612). 66. Thus, in the Serm. lat. 2, 2 (LW IV, p. 11, n. 9), we find a convergence between divine persons, glorified by the Church Triumphant, and ‘inferior persons’ of the Church Militant, who participate in solemnity by receiving the divine gifts. 67. This appears quite clearly in Meister Eckhart’s doctrine of creation ‘in the image’ and ‘in the likeness’ of God, which we shall examine

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

233

be reduced to the closed individuality of the person-suppositum, being as it is an indivisible part of the cosmic ‘all’. This will become clearer when we come to consider the deified state: if the outer man is an individual who finds his proper place among the omnia of his species, then the inner man, being united to God, spaciosissimus, quia magnus sine magnitudine, contains not only all the individuals of the human race, but also the angels and all creatures.68 Thus, the human person, in his deification, resembles the Divine Person of the Son in His incarnation:69 it extends to the entirety of created nature, later on. 68. Serm. lat. 7 (Homo quidam erat dives) and 22 (same text) LW IV, p. 79, n. 83, and p. 193, n. 208. 69. Exp. in Io., C., f. 105va, l. 39-f. 105vb, l. 7: Secundo notandum quod Deus verbum assumpsit naturam, non personam hominis. Circa quod notanda sunt quinque. Primo quidem, quod natura est nobis omnibus equaliter communis cum Christo univoce, ex quo datur fiducia quod, sicut in ipso, sic et in quolibet nostrum. Propter verbum caro factum est et habitare [sic] in nobis, Beda, in homilia, In principio erat verbum, sic ait: ‘non invideo Christo facto Deo, quin et ego, si volo, possum fieri secundum ipsum.’ Quod quidem verbum, si bene intelligatur, utique verum est secundum premissa, quamvis hoc ibidem reprobet quantum ad intellectum hereticorum. Secundo noandum, quod natura humana est cuilibet homini intimior quam ille sibi. In quo docemur quod in intimis cuiuslibet, non foris, celebrantur iste nuptie, Luc. I°: Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te. Augustinus, De vera religione: ‘noli foras ire, in te ipsum redi’ in interiori homine habitat.’ Supra, Io. 1° capitulo: verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis. Tertio docemur, quod volens Filius Dei fieri, verbum caro factum in se habitare, debet diligere proximum tamquam se ipsum, hoc est tantum quantum se ipsum, abnegare personale, abnegare proprium; diligit enim habens caritatem in nullo minus proximum quam se ipsum, diligit siquidem unum Deum in omnibus et in ipso omnia. In uno autem nulla est distinctio, nec iudei etiam nec greci, in uno neque magis neque minus. Quarto, natura ipsa cuiuslibet amat Deum super omnia et plus quam se ipsam. Docemur ergo diligere Deum super omnia et plus quam nos ipsos, quod non faciunt aliud quam Deum sibi finem constituentes. Ubi quinto notandum, quam deliciosa et gaudiosa est vita [eorum] in quibus habitat verbum caro factum. Isti enim amant Deum solum in omnibus et omnia, et propter hoc gaudent in omnibus et de omnibus semper et equaliter. In this homily, which Meister Eckhart quotes, Bede is actually reproducing the opinions of an adoptionist heretic (PL 94, col. 39), Et Deus erat Verbum: Fuere alii qui Deum quidem illum, sed ex

234

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

by grace – or glory – being placed in a region in which the human ‘one’ is superior to the omnia.70 In blessedness, each human person gathers together in himself or herself all the grace and all the merits of all the others, possessing nothing of their own; this is how Meister Eckhart understands the ‘communion of the saints’.71 In this state, grace is no longer a created effect which adheres to an individual person, being necessarily limited by the hoc clausum; neither is it any longer an opus obliquatum, divided into particular suppositia of an inferior nature.72 In the completed union, in which grace is not distinguished from glory, the grace in a single person is a good equal in value to every good of all persons combined, of all the angels of every kind. Just as heat is not heat in the sun, so too formal being – the esse secundum of things – tempore incarnationis factum, non autem aeternum ante saecula natum a Patre putarent. Unde quidam talium dixisse commemoratur: Non invideo Christo facto Deo, quoniam et ego si volo possum fieri secundum ipsum. Et horum nefandam refellit sententiam evangelista, cum ait: Hoc erat in principio apud Deum. 70. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Created Dissimilitude, the Intellect and Grace’. 71. Exp. in Io., C., f. 110vb, ll. 56-59: … homo divinus, in quantum huius [modi], intrat et sibi habet propria, tamquam a se ipso facta, omnia bona, labores, merita et premia aliorum quorumlibet sanctorum, quinymmo etiam bona a malis facta  – per ipsos sed non ab ipsis.  … [f.  111ra, ll.  17-20:] Sic igitur homo per gratiam Dei hodie factus membrum corporis Christi intrat et subintrat omnia que sunt membrorum omnium Christi et ipsius Christi. … [ll. 28-35:] Propter quod ergo omnia bona, que fiunt et facta sunt per sanctos et divinos, fiunt et facta sunt per quemlibet sanctum et divinum; facta sunt, inquam, priusquam aut sanctus fieret, secundum illud Io. 8°: antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum. Deus enim, in quo omnes divini unum sunt, unus est qui operatur omnia in omnibus, Cor. 12°. Propter quod Christus, in quo et per quem unum sumus, orat dicens: [ut] omnes unum sint, sicut tu pater in me et ego in te, Io. 17°. … [ll. 55-58:] Hoc est ergo quod hic dicitur: alii laboraverunt et vos in labores eorum introistis. Et hoc est communio sanctorum de qua in symbolo apostolorum dicitur: ‘Credo sanctam ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem.’ 72. See above, Chapter  1, section headed ‘The Wine of Cana’. The work of God ‘begun in us’ is revealed ‘on the day of Jesus Christ’ in its eternal fulfi lment as an indivisible unity of the being which is bestowed upon creatures, grace, glory and the esse unum cum Deo.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

235

is not formal but virtual in the First Cause and so, also, grace is not grace formaliter, but virtualiter, in the ‘God of all grace’. However, the unity-identity in the esse unum cum Deo is neither something conceivable nor possible to describe adequately in our earthly state, insofar as we remain under the rule of the duality of Creator and creature. Moreover, after having spoken of the regio dissimilitudinis of creatures, at the beginning of his sermon De omnis gratiae, Meister Eckhart suddenly overturns the perspective of dissimilitude and ends the same sermon with a negative declaration: in God there is neither good, nor sweetness, nor being; we have to transcend all of this and elevate ourselves ‘into a region and a kingdom of infinite dissimilitude’.73

Ascensio Intellectus On the path of return towards God one would expect that grace, by tearing us away from all that is ‘dissimilitude’, will show us the end point of this ascension towards ‘being one with God’, in the form of a perfect similitude, founded upon identity. However, Meister Eckhart’s writings tell us the exact opposite: as the End of ‘assimilation’, God distances Himself more and more from all similitude, from all resemblance or commonality which one could attain and which would bring created being closer to Him. Rather, God digs Himself into a ‘region of infinite dissimilitude’, a place in which man cannot attain Him except by elevating himself above all that could be known, even finally surpassing the intellect and its object in exstasi mentis.74 Alluding to St John Damascene, who sought to see prayer as an ‘ascension of the intellect into God’, Meister Eckhart reminds us that the intellect ‘receives God under the guise of Truth’. If, then, the intellect needs to ascend to God, it must surpass itself in order to attain God in Himself, without any dividing veil. Transcendere igitur oportet non solum imaginabilia, sed etiam intelligibilia.75 However, the 73. Serm. lat. 9 (Deus omnis gratiae), LW IV, pp.  96-97, n. 102: Nota, si tantum bonum est gratia unius hominis, quantum bonum omnis hominis, omnium angelorum tot specierum, quantum bonum ibi vivere, immo in ipso Deo omnis gratiae, ubi iam gratia non gratia formaliter, sed virtualiter sicut calor in caelo, ubi iam nec bonum nec suave nec esse, sed supra ‘in regione et regno dissimiltudinis’ infinitae. 74. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Created Dissimilitude, the Intellect and Grace’ and ‘Grace, Glory and Divine Dissimilitude’. 75. Serm. lat. 24, 2 (Domus mea domus orationis est), LW IV, pp.  225-26, n. 247. St. John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa, III.24 (PG 94, col. 1089).

236

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

true object of the intellect is being: before receiving it as ‘true’, it already knows it as ens, even though truth accompanies this knowledge.76 It would thus seem that the intellect’s ascent to God would have to cease here, since God reveals Himself in the bare essence of the soul as a bare Esse, without any veil.77 However, being is still a velum which must disappear in the beatific ‘revelation’: tollitur omne velamen …, sicut etiam velamen boni, sub quo accipit voluntas, velamen veri, cum quo accipit intellectus, et universaliter velamen ipsius esse.78 Despite its pre-eminence in respect of the will, the intellect still remains inadequate in relation to blessedness; if it is more correct to place blessedness within the intellectual act, then it is quite possibly even more correct to situate it in the essence of the soul, above its intellective faculty. This fortassis melius79 shows us clearly that even in the latter case, for Meister Eckhart, it cannot refer to anything but an approximation which, while more or less permissible, is still only a sort of theological convention. Truly, here we are attempting to speak of the esse unum cum Deo that is realised in the essence of the soul which is superior to the intellect, as if, while yet here on earth we could define the nature of celestial beatitude. Scripture (Isaiah 64:4 and 1 Corinthians 2:9) tells us: ‘That which Thou hast prepared for those who love Thee has not ascended to (non ascendit) the heart of man.’ What blessedness is in itself surpasses anything which could be thought of or believed concerning the subject. If we conceive it in 76. Serm. lat. 11, 2, LW IV, p.  114, n. 120: Iuxta quod voluntas accipit rem iam plus velatam bono prius, intellectus autem accipit ens prius vero, sed tamen veritas concomitatur. 77. Serm. lat. 11, 1, LW IV, p.  108, n. 115: Nota: revelatio proprie est apud intellectum vel potius in essentia animae proprie esse respicit. Esse autem Deus esse nudum sine velamine est. Compare Serm. lat. 9, ibid., p. 94, n. 99: Sed nec Deus animae illabitur nisi nudus ab omni addito, etiam cogitatu. 78. Serm. lat. 11, 2, LW IV, p. 114, n. 120. Note the expression cum quo: the veil of truth accompanies that of being, the veil beneath which the intellect finds God in the essence of the soul (compare the text cited in note 76). 79. Ibid., p.  115. Compare St Thomas, on grace in the essence of the soul (IV Sent., d. 1, q. 1, a. 4: ed. Mandonnet-Moos, IV, p. 38): grace perfects the essence of the soul insomuch as it participates quondam similitudinem divini esse (IIIa, q. 62, a. 2). Meister Eckhart, however, is not content with this formula.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

237

terms of being, it is a natural ascent of the intellect, which proceeds by means of successive abstractions and ends up with the concept of the esse. However, God is superior to being, since He is its Cause.80 It would thus be necessary to abandon every notion we may have that seems to be adequate for the object of our own beatitude, so that we might at least transcend our natural faculties of intellection. In knowing what is inferior to it, the human intellect makes the sensory things of this world ‘more noble’ than they are in themselves, for it makes them ‘ascend’ into the light of intellection, in which they have now been conceived. However, when a superior reality is in question, then the opposite will be true:81 oportet nos ipsos fieri sive ferri, ut ipsa accipiamus; dantur enim in spiritu sanctu, ‘quem mundus non potest accipere’ (John 14:17).82 The intellect must then pass beyond its own object, namely, being, in order to attain to God who is beyond the mode of knowledge which is naturally suited to the mind. Yet, the ‘intellect’s true ascent to God’ only begins here. Our faculty of intellection’s ‘supernaturality’ is sufficient only to detach us from all that is, and this in turn permits us to arrive at the most general and most pure concept, that of being. In knowing God as Being, the intellect receives knowledge, surely, at a level of purity which excludes all other names. This is what the ‘best masters’ say: knowledge ‘pierces right through truth and goodness, it leads to pure being (luter wesen), receives God naked, as He is without a name (als er ane namen ist)’.83 80. Serm. lat. 22 (Homo quidam erat dives), LW IV, pp.  196-97, nn. 211212. Compare Serm. lat. 12, 2, ibid., p. 135, n. 144. 81. Ibid., p.  197, n. 212: inferiora intellectu sunt in ipso nobilius quam in se ipsis, et sic ascendunt; superiora intellectu e converso. The editor notes here (note 3) a parallel text in St Thomas Aquinas, commenting on the same scriptural text, 1 Corinthians 2:2: Illa vero quae sunt intellectu superiora, altiori modo sunt in se ipsis quam in intellectu; et ideo, quando ab intellectu capiuntur, quodammodo descendunt. Meister Eckhart, unlike St Thomas, will speak of the intellect’s ascent towards that which surpasses it: quia in his, quae maiora sunt quam credatur, sic ascendit (ibid.). This elevation of the intellect will culminate in the ‘ravishing of, or taking by storm, the third heaven’, where, according to St Paul, the ‘rich man’ has been able to experience heavenly riches (ibid., pp. 197-98, n. 213). 82. Ibid., p. 198, n. 213. 83. German sermon 7 (Populi eius qui in te est misereberis), DW I, p. 122 (French translation by Aubier-Montaigne, pp. 153-54).

238

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

However, the Franciscan Master [Gonsalve of Balboa] objects, remarking that, despite this nudity, in its conception of God as Being, the intellect (vernünfticheit) knows God merely as its object; it still has not attained to God in Himself, as the will is capable of doing, inasmuch as it attains to Him under the guise of the Good, Goodness. Meister Eckhart was ready to make this concession to his opponent:84 While the intelligence can know God in Himself, meaning, as being, it could never conceive of Him ‘in the bottomless ocean of His immensity’ (in dem mer siner gruntlosicheit).85 It is important to recognise that neither knowledge (bekantnisse) nor love (minne) unite us to God.86 However, there is something which surpasses these; it is the highest, purest work which God could ever be able to perform: mercy (barmherzicheit).87 The two highest faculties, the intellect and the will, equally depend upon this ‘much higher’ light, which had been unknown to the ‘pagan masters’. In the supernatural light of divine mercy or of grace, the intellect is more noble than the will, despite what the Franciscan says. The voluntarists’ argument would make sense to anyone unable to admit that the human intellect actually can, in via and by the light of grace, go beyond the means of knowing which are proper to it. Upon this point Eckhart was no longer a faithful disciple of St Thomas.88 In coming to know God per 84. German sermon 9 (Quasi stella matutina), DW I, pp.  152-53 (French translation by Aubier-Montaigne, p. 162). 85. German sermon 7, ibid., p. 123. The expression mer siner gruntlosicheit comes from πέλαγος οὐσίας ἄπειρον καὶ ἀόριστον (compare Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 38, 7) by St John Damascene (De fide orthodoxa, I.9 [PG 94, col. 836]), translated by Burgondion of Pisa: totum enim in se ipso comprehendens habet ipsum esse velut quoddam pelagus substantiae infinitum et indeterminatum. (We quote this passage as according to Martin Grabmann, Philosophia perennis, I, p. 211.) 86. Ibid., p. 122. 87. Ibid., p.  123. This ‘work’ in dem hoehsten und in dem lutersten, daz got gewurken mag is to be reconciled with the opus bonum of the Latin sermon quoted on page 29. See Chapter 4, section headed ‘Grace, Glory and Divine Dissimilitude’, note 72. 88. Despite according a higher value to the knowledge of God which is acquired by grace, St Thomas still did not see it as anything more than a perfection of the natural means of knowing: (1) like an infusing light which reinforces natural light; (2) by new phantasms formed by God in man’s imagination (Ia, q. 12, a. 13). Since the intellect in via in

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

239

speculum et in lumine,89 the human intellect begins an ascent in which it is necessary for it to abandon all concepts, even that of being, such that it would attain to a God who is beyond all that could be an object of knowledge or of love, ‘stripped, even, of Goodness, of Being, and of every name’.90 Meister Eckhart’s response to the Franciscan Master is as follows: ‘But I say that the intellect is more noble than the will. The will grasps God under the cloak of the Good. The intellect grasps God naked, as He is, divested of the good and of being.’91 Just as the will in love when kindled by grace, the intellect is likewise capable of attaining to God in Himself, inasmuch as it transcends itself through a light which it has received from on high. However, it attains to God in a manner which is more noble than that of the will, since grace permits the intellect to transcend its object  – being, in order to know God in complete starkness and anonymity. Item cum intellectus resolvat ad esse, oportet et hoc transire. Esse namque non est causa esse, sicut nec ignis est causa ignis, sed aliquid longe altius, in quod oportet ascendere.  … Nam et ipsum deum sub hoc nomine, immo sub omni nomine, debet transire anima.92 To transcend being, to transcend God, is to seek Him in the ‘bottomless ocean of His infinitude’, in which He is no longer the object of knowledge, but a ‘region of infinite dissimilitude’ with respect to all that is and that could be known. Eckhart returns, unknowingly, to the original source of the expression regio dissimilitudinis, by applying to God what Plato said about the primitive indeterminateness of the world which would appear, in the Statesman, as ‘the bottomless ocean of dissimilitude’.93 no way passes beyond its [natural] limits in coming to know God, it is necessary to recognise a superiority secundum quid of the will over the intelligence: Quando igitur res in qua est bonum est nobilior ipsa anima, in qua est ratio intellecta, per comparationem ad talem rem voluntas est altior intellectu. … Unde melior est amor Dei quam cognitio (Ia, q. 82, a. 3). Meister Eckhart refuses to make this concession to the will: thus, he is more ‘intellectualist’ than St Thomas. 89. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Created Dissimilitude, the Intellect and Grace’. 90. Serm. all. 9, DW I, p.  152 (French translation by Aubier-Montaigne, p. 162). 91. Ibid., p. 153. 92. Serm. lat. 24, 2, LW IV, p. 226, n. 247. 93. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Created Dissimilitude, the Intellect and Grace’, note 3.

240

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Man’s conversion to God, wrought by grace and the intellect, opens up a path of an assimilative ascent which has no end. All ‘similitude’ must then be transcended, God shall be ‘endlessly found’ and ‘sought after’, again and again, since by design this quest for the Unknowable is such that we seek God in a way that we shall never fi nd Him.94 Any man who starts out upon this path must be at the same time a gotsuochender and a gotvindender mensche ‘at all times and in all places, in every man and according to every mode or means’. Thus, he will be capable of always growing, of receiving God without end, indefi nitely  – unde niemer ze ende komen des zuonemens.95 Meister Eckhart’s writings on the ecstatic ascent of the intellect as an unceasing progress in the unknowability of God reminds us of St Gregory of Nyssa’s concept of ‘epectasy’.96 However, according to the Cappadocian Father, the ‘infi nite course’ is a dynamic image which is conceived of in order to express the true character of the beatific union in which God remains ever transcendent, according to His unknowable essence, to the created νοῦς which is continuously expanded in its unending deification. For Eckhart, however, an open-ended progression cannot express eternal beatitude: such a concept would seem more appropriate to expressing the means of knowing God here below, in the Holy Spirit who causes the human intellect to pass from ‘light to light’, while acting as Final Cause upon man’s superior faculties. In order to attain its absolute object in Himself, as Goodness or as the sole End, the will only has to transcend itself by renouncing love; by contrast, the intellect, if it is called to ascend to God in order to attain Him in Himself, cannot accomplish this as long as God remains an object of knowledge under any kind of name, either that of Being or that of God. The intellect thus cannot demonstrate in via its superiority over the will unless it renounces knowledge. As the Final Cause in which beings endowed with intelligence will find

94. Serm. all. 15, DW I, p.  253 (see section headed 'Mystic or Dialectician?', p. 31-33, for previous citation). 95. Meister Eckharts Reden der Unterscheidung (Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen 117), ed. Ernst Diederichs (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1913), p. 39, Pf., p. 573. 96. On St Gregory of Nyssa’s ‘epectasy’, see J. Daniélou, Platonisme et théologie mystique (Paris: Aubier, 1944), pp. 309-26.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

241

their rest, God can only be known in ‘darkness’ and by ‘ignorance’.97 In the perspective of this ascent toward a transcendent end which is ever sought yet never found, Meister Eckhart’s theognosis meets St Gregory of Nyssa’s ecstatic apophasis, which, in the fourteenth century, was unknown to those in the West; but it is Dionysius, upon whom St Gregory is dependent, to whom Eckhart refers each time that ‘infi nite dissimilitude’ requires him to prefer negations to affirmations.98 However, if the intellect’s apophatic ascent in via can only be unlimited, then it is not ‘ignorance’ which will make the intellect find God in eternal beatitude or in the mystical experience of ‘the ravishment of the third heaven’;99 as we shall see, the fi nal imperative of Eckhart’s negative theology will oblige him to abandon the quest for the Unfindable, thus overturning the perspective of the human intellect’s ascent to God.100

The Apophasis of Opposition Meister Eckhart did not misconstrue the secondary and subordinate role which the negative method must be given in natural theology. In his Latin sermon on St Augustine, he admits quite freely that a theologian can know God ablatione, eminentia et causa, without personally undertaking the path of mystical experience. Actually, in knowing God ablatione, we make use of the same process of deprivation which permits us to know primary matter while disregarding it. It is true that the reason for this unknowability is not the same in both cases: God exceeds our intellect’s capacity by the eminence of His being, while matter cannot attain to Him due to its deficiency, being neither esse nor ens, which are the proper object

97. Serm. all. 15, DW I, pp. 252-53. 98. On Meister Eckhart’s use of Dionysius, see de Gandillac, in Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, III, pp. 358-60. 99. In Serm. lat. 22 (LW IV, pp.  202-3, n. 216) Meister Eckhart distinguishes between four different types of ecstasy, very closely following the text of De Veritate (q. 13, a. 2, ad ultimum) by St Thomas. 100. Both perspectives  – a search without discovery (ascensio) and a discovery without search (humilitas)  – are presented together in a lapidiary formula at the end of German sermon 15 (DW I, p. 253): Du solt in suchen, also das du in niena vindest. Suchest du in nit, so vindest du in.

242

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

of the intellect.101 As Boethius said,102 ‘God and matter, unknowable in an integral and perfect concept, cannot be known except by a sort of elimination of all other things.’ Not having a form that would be knowable to us, God must then be known indirectly: per solam alterius formae remotionem; quasi ab aliis eligendo separatur et separando eligitur.103 If, after having cited Boethius, Meister Eckhart equally makes use of Dionysius’ claim regarding the truth of negations and the insufficiency of affirmations with respect to God,104 this does not necessarily mean that he wishes here to exalt mystic unknowability in relation to the positive discourse of the theologian. Along with the way of eminence and that of causality, the via remotionis is simply a means of rational knowledge, a knowledge which one can have of God per speculum et in aenigmate, without any cooperation from a superior light, namely, that of grace.105 Th is knowledge is not in any way ecstatic and does not demand any ‘ascent’ of the intellect.106 Moreover, the three Dionysian paths  – ablatione, eminentia et causa107  – were reconciled in the natural theology of St Thomas, who made of the three elements a single 101. On the negative knowledge of primary matter, see Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, pp. 215-16, nn. 40-41 (compare ibid., nn. 60-61). 102. Liber de persona et duabus naturis (PL 64, col. 1341bc): Deus et materia integro perfectoque intellectu intelligi non possunt, sed aliquo tamen modo caeterarum rerum privatione capiuntur. 103. Sermo in die beati Augustini Parisius habitus, LW V, p. 92, n. 4. 104. Ibid. De coel. hier. II.3 (PG 3, col. 141a). 105. Sermo in die beati Augustini Parisius habitus, LW V, pp. 92-93, n. 4. 106. As the negative way of remotio, according to Gilbert de la Porrée, necessary for the ‘intellectual inspection of the divine form’. (Comment. in lib. Boethii de duabus naturis et una persona Christi, PL 64, coll. 1361c-1362a; critical edition by N.M. Haring, in Archives, XXI, pp. 26263). See A. Hayen, Le Concile de Reims et l’erreur théologique de Gilbert de la Porrée, in Archives, X, pp. 80-82. The same remotio makes possible the intuition of the divine ousia sine subiecta materia, according to Clarembaud d’Arras (Tractatus super librum Boetii De Trinitate, ed. W. Jansen, p. 29). In his sermon on St Augustine, Eckhart depends closely upon Clarembaud (LW V, p. 90, n. 2). See ibid., p. 91, note 1. 107. As does St Thomas; Eckhart finds these three ways in the Divine Names (VII.3 [PG 3, col. 872a]). Eckhart followed the translation by John Scotus Eriguena (PL 122, col. 1155b): omnium ablatione et eminentia, in omnium causa. On St Thomas’ use of Dionysius’ text, see Durantel, Saint Thomas et le pseudo-Denis, p. 188, n. 163.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

243

method for transferring to the Divine Cause perfections which are known in created effects.108 Earlier, in our discussion of Eckhart’s doctrine of the divine names, we saw that this way of interpreting Dionysius, by reducing his negative way to the function of purifying concepts which are applied to God (the negation of the modus significandi), was not foreign to Eckhart.109 Certainly, a professor of sacra pagina could not conceive the apophaticism of De divinis nominibus in any other way, when he had to justify the possibility of theological discourse before those listening to him. However, Meister Eckhart was not only a professor of theology: he always preferred his vocation as a ‘master of life’ to that of a ‘master of doctrine’.110 Indeed, the ‘life’ about which he wanted to preach was that of grace, eternal life, unum esse et vivere in deo et cum Deo.111 Meister Eckhart would thus lay out the rules for predicating the divine names, by submitting apophaticism to cataphaticism, when the exegesis of Scripture placed before him the problem of polynymy, but he would prefer to teach his audiences and his congregations another way of knowing God, in which negation is worth more than affirmation. In knowing God per speculum et in lumine, the theologian engages in a way of intellectual ascent which requires him to abandon creatures

108. See I Sent., d. 3, exp. text. (ed. Mandonnet, vol. 1, p. 88 and following), in which we find the formula per causalitatem, per remotionem, per eminentiam. Compare Clarembaud d’Arras, Boetii de Trinitate, q. 1, a. 2: Dicit Dionysius quod cognoscitur ut omnium causa, ex exessu et ablatione. 109. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Way of Unified Eminence’. There we pointed out a fourth element in Eckhart’s works, which is also borrowed from Pseudo-Dionysius, an element which is not used in St Thomas’ via eminentiae: the unification of all attributable perfections in the supreme name of the One. See Durantel, loc. cit., and p.  179, n. 141. 110. On ‘lesemeister’ and ‘lebemeister’, see M.-A. Lucker, Meister Eckhart und die Devotio Moderna (Leiden: Brill, 1950), p. 9 and passim, in the first chapter, on Eckhart’s ascetical doctrine. 111. Serm. lat. 9, LW IV, p. 94, n. 99. Compare Serm. lat. 2, 2 (ibid., p. 17, n. 16) and 17, 6 (ibid., p. 167, n. 179) where Meister Eckhart identifies grace as ‘life’.

244

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

in order to seek to attain to God in Himself, in His ‘solitude’.112 All names attributable to God based upon created being, even that of Being, must be done away with in the face of the radical otherness of the Cause of all that is, for, on the interminable path of assimilation by grace, God appears as always Other, transcending all similitude. This orientation towards unknowability is a preparation for ecstasy; one could even say that it is already itself a state of ecstasy, since the first mode of ravishment, that of intention, corresponds to what Dionysius calls ‘the ecstasy of love’.113 We could, then, no more remain 112. ‘Solitude’, for Meister Eckhart, is a notion which is very rich in meaning, as one can see based on his use of the following text from Hosea 2:14: et ducam eam in solitudinem et loquar ad cor eius. In both of Eckhart’s German treatises, Daz buoch der goetlichen troestunge (DW V, p. 46, ll. 14-16) and Von dem edeln menschen (ibid., p. 119, ll. 2-8), the solitudo of the biblical text, translated as einoede, ‘desert’ is given the sense of unity, since Eckhart here is speaking of ein, ‘one’. German sermon 12 (DW I, p. 193, l. 3) reconciles einicheit (unity) with wuestunge (another term for solitudo = desert). See, on the value of the term einicheit in this sermon (which, in modern German, covers or embraces both ‘Einigkeit’ [‘unity’] and ‘Einsamkeit’ [‘solitude’]  – within in the one word ‘Einheit’ [‘unity’]) according to Maria Bindschedler’s observation in, Meister Eckhart: Vom mystischen Leben (Basel: Schwabe, 1951), p. 49. 113. Serm. lat. 22, LW IV, pp.  202-3, n. 216: Primus [raptus] intentionis, quando contemptis creaturis soli deo amore coniungitur.  … Primum exstasis amoris, secundum Dionysium. De div. nom. IV.13 (PG 3, col. 712). Compare the passage in Exp. in Io., C., f. 131vb, ll. 5-32, in which Eckhart speaks of the dispositions of the soul which desires to receive Jesus, while commenting on the text, Cum esset sero, die illa una sabbatorum, etc. (John 20:19). The first condition that is necessary to dispose the soul to ecstasy is the renouncing of all knowledge of creatures (ll. 5-21): Notandum igitur quod anima volens Ihesum, salutem scilicet, suscipere qualis esse debeat et etiam quid Ihesus in ipsa operetur, docetur in verbis de quibus hic fit mentio. Ait ergo I°: cum sero esset, id est post occasum solis, rerum temporalium scilicet, in tenebris ignorantie et affectionis rerum mundanarum. Supra 1°: lux in tenebris lucet. Et Augustinus in sermone de sancto Paulo dicit: ‘quando cetera non videbat, deum videbat.’ Unde de Iacob dicitur Genesi quod vidit scalam et dominum innixum scale cum dormiret, post solis occasum. Psalmus: ‘qui ascendit super occasum, dominus est nomen illi’. Ut sit sensus: quicumque ascendit super occasum, altior factus omnium quod occasum et defectum patitur, ipse vero et nominatur dominus, divinus,

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

245

here on the level of concepts which have been purified than could a theologian, relying simply on his own natural faculties, content himself with predicating per eminentiam, when speaking of the First Cause. In saying that God is eminently Being, Goodness, Wisdom etc., we remain still attached to concepts which are found here below; we have not abandoned creatures in order to seek to know their Cause in Itself. It would be necessary then to cut the proverbial thread and renounce the eminence which presupposes the similitude between effects and Cause, and it will be necessary to ‘hate similitude’114 in order to ‘ascend to God’, being attracted by grace towards the total dissimilitude of the First Cause. In this new way of knowing God, only the first element of the Thomist method remains intact: God is still known as the Cause of all that is. However, the second element, the negative moment, which should resolve the problem of any affirmations by eliminating the improper ‘way of signification’, now wins out over the positive moment: as Cause, God is nothing of that which is;115 no concept can therefore designate Him in a positive manner. As for the third element, it is completely changed, with eminence being replaced by opposition: if a creature is being, then God is not that. This path of dissimilitude which must make us come to know the Cause as freed of all positive ties to its effects, consists of denying in relation to God all that could affirm creatures, without resulting, however, in an absolute ignorance due to the relationship between the opposition that is maintained between the two terms. Meister Eckhart does not really renounce his efforts to express the gifts of religious experience in the language and terms of philosophical speculation. In the process of being assimilated to God by grace, a growing dissemblance between the one undergoing assimilation and the transcendent end of that same assimilation is discovered. The naturalia can help in understanding this spiritual law. However, the example of fire assimilating wood by disposing of it through the means of heat as it takes on its new form is not sufficient to show habens divinum, dominatur mundo et passionibus, secundum illud psalmi: ‘Tu dominaris potestati maris, motum autem fluctuum eius tu mitigas.’ Hoc est ergo primum disponens animam ut in ipsam veniat Ihesus. 114. Daz buoch der goetlichen troestunge, DW V, p.  34. See the proceedings of the Cologne trial, Archives, I, p. 163. 115. See above, Chapter 4, section headed ‘Ascensio Intellectus’.

246

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

the dissemblance which occurs in the assimilation of the creature to God, because the fire which generates its form in the wood acts as a univocal, single cause. If we wish to describe the assimilating action of grace using the image of fire without compromising God’s transcendence, then we need to resort to an analogical cause, a cause whose nature has nothing in common with its effects.116 The example of the sky, which is the primary source of fire, but which itself has no heat, and it is this source towards which earthly fire infinitely and constantly reaches, but which it never attains, is much more fitting for giving an idea of the range of infinite dissimilitude which opens up to the soul enflamed by love for God:117 ubi iam gratia non gratia formaliter, sed virtualiter, sicut calor in caelo, ubi iam nec bonum, nec suave, nec esse.118 The excess of love will then correspond to, or be matched by, negation’s predominant role in the knowledge of God, and by the apophatic movement’s excess which must find some kind of order, if not an equilibrium, through the application of the principle of opposition, which is a substitute for eminence. The Dominican mystic’s intellectualism, then, does not permit him to concede that, given the workings of grace, knowledge might yield its dominance to love. Rather, it must accompany it, as Peter, who ran together with John, to the Lord’s tomb.119 On the path of this ascent towards God, the intellect, being attracted by the Holy Spirit towards the Final End, refuses to accept that end in the form of Goodness, which is the object of the will, or as Being – its own true object – or as God – as the efficient cause of creatures. However, while divine unity-identity transcends his experience, the human spirit on the path of return into God still remains subject to duality: being more noble than efficiency, the end is nevertheless an exterior cause. If God is found to be a constantly dissimilitudinous cause, then a theologian would feel obliged to strip God of all His names. In so doing, the theologian would, even so, not depart from theological discourse. Since it is still concerned with the First Cause, mystical apophaticism does not 116. On univocal and analogical causes, see Exp. in Io., LW III, pp.  15052, nn. 182-183. Compare with this several impor tant passages in the Liber Parabol. Genes., which we shall examine in the next chapter. 117. Daz buoch der goetlichen troestunge, DW V, pp. 31-32. 118. See above, Chapter 4, section headed ‘Ascensio Intellectus’, note 73. 119. Exp. in Io., C., f. 131ra, l. 23-131rb, l. 10.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

247

impose silence upon thought; as long as the God-creature duality continues to exist, then the intellect’s ascent into God will be endowed with a new kind of speculation which is governed by opposition. Thus, Dionysius’ anonymous God, who exists in His radical dissimilitude, can thus be opposed to the entirety of created similitude, which step or procedure will permit God to be designated either by negative concepts, or by expressions which will take on a negative sense by virtue of having been placed in opposition to all that could be said of created effects. This apophaticism of opposition provides Meister Eckhart with the possibility of dialectically expressing, in terms of rational speculation, the perspective in which the First Cause appears to the human intellect on the mystic path of return to God by means of grace. This does not prevent Eckhart, especially in his sermons for spiritual edification, from himself adhering to a negativity of mystical unknowing of the Dionysian sort for as long as he deems necessary. When God presents Himself to the superior faculties of the soul as the Final Cause towards which all creatures reach out, knowledge embraces the way of love, which is a ‘way’ (wîse) without any kind of way or method, according to St Bernard. It cannot be other wise, since ‘this End has no method, it surpasses all that could be considered a method and becomes broader than that’.120 Meister Eckhart gives the example of a natural end, which belongs to the reality of this earth, and which could be said to be ‘without modes’, as it is an end. The doctor who wishes to heal a sick man cannot bring him to the health he seeks by just any method: this end, then, has an absolute character, without a particular ‘method’ or ‘approach’ which would limit it. On the other hand, the means of which he will make use in order to restore the patient’s health must be employed according to precise methods determined by the particular illness.121 It must be 120. Serm. all. 9, DW I, p.  144. St Bernard, whom Eckhart quotes here, also speaks of the immensum and the infinitum in relation to the ‘end’ in the love of God: De diligendo Deo, ch. 6, n. 16 (PL 182, coll. 983-4). 121. Ibid., pp.  144-45. Compare Exp. in Io., C., f. 125rb, ll. 2-6:  … bona spiritualia non habent modum nec mensuram. Supra, 3°: non enim ad mensuram dat Deus spiritum. Unde nec medicus modum aut mensuram prefigit sanitati ultra quem non procedit; medicina autem, que in se non est bona, sed infirmitas et indigentia facit eam bonam, illi dat modum et mensuram.

248

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

noted that the example of health, being without condition in a living being and ‘modal’ in terms of medicine or in urine, which are said to be ‘healthy’ in a particular, limited sense, is a commonplace found in all scholastic texts on the notion of analogy;122 for this reason, it will often figure in Meister Eckhart’s Latin works. However, analogy must be given a positive meaning as long as it permits use of the same concepts (being, goodness etc.), even if it uses them in differing ways of attribution, concerning God and creatures. However here, in the German sermon, Quasi stella matutina, the example of health which is âne wîse (as the end or goal of a medical treatment) actually has a negative meaning. Its aim is to teach us that God, the Final Cause who attracts the human will and the intellect, must be loved with an unlimited love and known with an indeterminate knowledge, extending beyond the concepts or ‘modes’ of rational knowledge, towards a mystical ‘unknowing’. Let us recall that it is precisely this sermon which attracted the malevolent attention of the inquisitors of Cologne, who were followed by several modern criticisms concerning the strongest of the apophatic texts which go furthest in the direction of negation.123 Let us examine these condemned passages, in which being and goodness are denied to God: God is neither being nor goodness. Goodness is linked to being and is no greater than being, for, if there were no being, there would be no goodness, and thus being is yet purer than goodness. God is neither good, nor better, nor the best of all things. Whoever describes God as being

122. This example is borrowed from Aristotle, Metaphysics IV.2.1003a 33-b. See St Thomas, Ia, q. 13, a. 5, resp. 123. The proceedings of the Cologne trial, Archives, I, p.  259: Deus non est bonus nec melior nec optimus. Ita male dico quandocumque Deum voco bonum, ac ego album vocarem nigrum. Meister Eckhart responds (ibid., p. 263): dicendum quod Deus utique, cum sit super omne nomen, quo ipsum nominare possumus, excellentior est quam album super nigrum. Nevertheless, this proposition was condemned in the bull, In agro dominico, as being heretical (28): Denzinger, n. 528. Above, in speaking of another theological method in Eckhart’s works, we pointed out the unfair criticism of this condemned article in a study by Théry (see above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Way of Unified Eminence’, note 181).

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

249

good would, in the same moment, be doing an injustice to Him, just as if he had described the sun as being black.124 Goodness which is linked to Being as a transcendental characterisation cannot surpass being in scope; as the Absolute End, God is infinitely expanding;125 His dissimilitude places Him beyond all the modes by which one could conceive Him, even beyond Being, which is itself even ‘purer’ than Goodness, which is the object of the will. Thus, God can be loved without having in Himself any mode of Goodness, yet He cannot be known without any modes, as long as thought still contents itself to conceive of Him as ‘good, better, or the best of all’, by comparing Him, in some sense, with creatures, under the mode of goodness taken to the highest degree of eminence. Just as a negative definition, by means of an opposing conception, cannot adequately fit the sun, which is the most clear, bright thing in the sensible world, so too, a positive teaching which pushes a concept to the highest level of excellence cannot fit the Transcendental Cause of all that is. A person makes an error of judgement in saying that the sun is black, but, it is correct to say that ‘God is not good.’ The same principle shall apply to Being,126 the object of the intellect. As we have already seen, for the intellect which seeks to know God in Himself, Being is still but a mode, a determination which limits His immensity.127 The ‘ little masters’ (bachelors in theology) who speak in school on the division of being into ten ‘modes’ know very well that God is not subject to Aristotelian categories.128 In the same vein, however, being which pertains primarily to substance, the being which makes all substances into an ens, cannot correspond, either, to the Cause of all being. Since the operation of a being is determined by that which it is, no agent can act upon it beyond its formal being; God created being such that it would have no other being. Got 124. Serm. All. 9, DW I, p. 148. 125. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘The Apophasis of Opposition’, note 120. 126. In this sermon, wesen implies a determination, a ‘mode’ (oct); thus, it is contrasted with wîte, the indeterminate scope which constitutes the unwesen in which God moves and freely acts. 127. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Ascensio Intellectus’, and note 85. 128. German sermon 9, DW I, p. 147.

250

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

würket über wesene inder wîte, da er sich geregen mac, er würket in unwesene.129 This freedom of God to operate in ‘non-being’, moving within the immensity of an expanse devoid of all that is, is opposed to the static and fi xed character of the esse commune which is divided among itself and leaves itself to be cut into unequal essences, being then systematically categorised in Porphyry’s tree. We would have to have the pedantic naivety of a professor, a truly ‘rough’ spirit, in order to imagine that the theologians are referring to something which is ‘sensed’ or ‘felt’ when they refer to God as ‘Pure Being’: Crude or unsubtle masters say that God is a Pure Being; He surpasses being as the highest of the angels surpasses a fly. I would be saying something just as inaccurate and unjust as calling the bright sun black if I were to call God an essence. God is neither this nor that. And another master said: Whoever imagines that he has known God and has also known a thing has not known God at all.130 Apophatic unknowing can go no further, since all positivity, all iht131 seems to be excluded by divine dissimilitude. It is true that 129. Ibid., p. 145. 130. Ibid., pp.  145-46. The ‘master’ cited here is probably Dionysius, who expresses this in an analogous sense in his First Epistle (PG 3, col. 1065). St Thomas quotes him, in John Sarrazin’s translation, in Iia Iiae, q. 180, a. 5, ad 1um: si aliquis videns Deum intellexit quod vidit, non ipsum vidit, sed aliquid eorum quae sunt eius. 131. A playful juxtaposition of iht and niht is encountered in the mystical poetry of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Thus Mechthild of Magdeburg will say: Du solt minnen das niht, du solt vliehen das iht … – see Offenbarungen der Schwester Mechthild von Magdeburg: oder das fliessende Licht der Gottheit, ed. P. Gall Morel (Regensburg, 1869), p. 17. Compare G. Lüers, Die Sprache der deutschen Mystik des Mittelalters im Werke der Mechthild von Magdeburg (Munich: E. Reinhardt, 1926), p. 293. We also allude to the German poem from the beginning of the fourteenth century which is known under the title Granum sinapis. Being itself anonymous, just like the long Latin commentary written later, this short poem has been attributed, without any real evidence, to Meister Eckhart. See Maria Bindschedler, Der lateinische Kommentar zum Granum Sinapis (Basel: Schwabe, 1949), from which we take these two passages:

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

251

straightaway Meister Eckhart adds the following: ‘In saying that God is not a being and that He is superior to all being, I have not refused Him being; on the contrary, I have exalted the being which is in God.’ However, the example of copper, which, in an object made of gold, has a mode of being which is more elevated (ist da in einer hoehern wise) than it would be in and by itself,132 shows us clearly that this statement is about the esse primum of creatures, the virtual being of created effects in the First Cause, rather than the Cause itself as Being. As they are known in their Essential Cause, in which they possess the fullness of being, created things, unequal in their own nature, appear as being ontologically equal in divine ideas: ‘The highest angel, the soul, and the gnat all have an equal archetype in God.’133 However, if being is attributed to creatures, then it is necessary to eliminate it from their Cause, by virtue of the principle of opposition which here determines or governs the negative knowledge of God.134 The ‘fullness’ and the ‘purity’ of being, two contradictory and complementary modalities which Meister Eckhart never separates when he is speaking of God in terms of being, are here dissociated in order to oppose them: the first, an ontological positivity encompassing all modes of being, suffices din selbis icht mus werdin nicht; al icht, al nicht trib obir hor … sink al myn icht in gotis nicht sink in di grundelose vlut. 132. German sermon 9, DW I, pp. 146-47. 133. Ibid., p.  148. The translation of the word bild (image) using ‘archetype’ (see the French translation by Aubier-Montaigne, p.  161) is justified by the context, since the subject matter is divine ideas. When Eckhart says, in the relevant passage of German Sermon 9, in gote octorsr dinge bilde glich, aber octors unglicher dinge bilde, he is expressing the same idea that we find in Exp. In Gen., Ia ed. (LW I, p. 79, n. 155): Propter quod octors dicunt quod in Deo rerum inaequalium aequales sunt ideae. (See note 2  in the first edition of the German sermons, loc. Cit.). 134. Josef Quint was correct in citing here (p.  146, note 1) a passage from the ‘Parisian Question’, Utrum in Deo sit idem esse et intelligere. In the German sermon 9, DW I, Quasi stella matutina, Meister Eckhart’s thought moves in the same doctrinal direction.

252

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

for God as He relates to created beings; the second is given a negative sense which must exclude all modes of being from the Absolute Cause, considered in itself. Meister Eckhart directs his negative quest towards the latter aspect, while, in this German sermon, not letting depart from his sight the opposing aspect which allows Being and Goodness to be attributed to God. It is said in the Gospel (Mark 10:18): ‘No one is good except God.’ To be good is to communicate to others that which one has, to communicate oneself (gemeinen sich), to become ‘common’ (gemeine). No creature can communicate itself, since it possesses its being and all of its perfections ‘from another’, not being by itself anything more than a particularisation of that which it receives. God alone is of and by Himself, and, as a result, He communicates Himself in all of His gift s, not being limited by a closed essence, and it is in this way that He enters the essence of all beings.135 Since He is Being, God is thus ‘that which is the most common’ (Got ist daz aller gemeineste)136 and this ‘commonality’, which is simulta neously ‘communicability’, thus draws together Being and Goodness and the Bonum diff usivum sui.137 In the doctrinal perspective of the sermon, Quasi stella matutina, God, who in Himself is superior to Being, offers Himself as being, that is to say, as that which is most common, by permitting all that is to participate in Him, which gives way to Being, meaning, superior to all that is most common, by allowing Himself to participate by means of all that is. Th is is the same sort of idea which Meister Eckhart expresses elsewhere,138 Deo esse est dare esse: God’s being consists in giving being to creatures. Let us also recall some other passages from Eckhart’s Latin works, which we examined above,139 in which God appeared exclusively as the Quo est of creatures, thus approaching Avicenna’s Necesse Esse, not having any quiddity or essence. However, if in the cosmic relations, 135. Serm. Lat. 29, LW IV, p.  264, n. 296: Deus solus illabitur omnibus entibus ipsorum essentiis. Nihil autem aliorum illabitur alteri. This text is mentioned in a note by J. Quint, p. 149. 136. German sermon 9, DW I, p. 149. 137. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The One  – ‘The Name above All Names’ ‘, note 90. 138. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p.  77, n. 146: sicut creatura habet esse suum, et suum esse sive sibi esse est accipere esse, sic Deo esse est dare esse, quia universaliter ipsi agere sive operari est esse. 139. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Quidditas et Anitas’.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

253

God is known as Esse omnium, thought or reflection which raises itself on high, so as to seek to attain God in Himself, will seek God in His independence with respect to all that receives Him as the common Being of the omnia. This negative thought will use a different aspect to oppose the aspect of God’s universal communicability, in which, as superior to Being, God is no longer daz aller gemeineste, but rather, daz aller eigenlîcheste: ‘that which is most particular’.140 Disassociated from being, this identity with oneself, which is something proper to God alone, is given a meta-ontological character and must be expressed exclusively in terms of knowledge. It is no longer Being which is of Itself, but Knowledge which knows itself by Itself and in Itself: Got in sîn selbes bekantnisse bekennet sich selben in im selben.141 Being (wesen) is but the outer courtyard (vorbürge), the forecourt of God where He dwells while communicating Himself to all things, while the Intellect (vernünfticheit) is the temple in which God lives alone in the splendour of His holiness. Niergen wonet Got eigenlîcher dan in sînen tempel, in vernünflicheit.142 How can these two aspects be reconciled, the interior and the exterior, ‘the most par ticu lar’ and ‘the most common’, Intelligence 140. German sermon 9, DW I, pp.  154-55: Daz aller eigenlîcheste, daz man von gote gesprechen mac, daz ist wort und wârcheit. Got nante sich selber ein wort. Sant Iohannes sprach: ‘in dem anevange was daz wort’, und meinet, daz man bî dem worte sî ein bîwort. The four ‘transcendentals’ are here shared between two aspects: the ‘common’ and the ‘par ticular’: Being and Goodness are attributed to exterior action (creation), while Unity and Truth belong to the interior action of the Paternal Intellect (the generation of the Word). Being endowed with an intellect, man is in a par ticular relationship with the Divine Word: he must be the ‘adverb’ (bîwort) and draw in his beatitude from this ‘knowledge which inhabits the inside’ (in dem înswebendem bekantnisse) by which God Himself is blessed. 141. Ibid., p. 150. 142. Ibid. Meister Eckhart repeats here, while also making it explicit, one of the three sentences of the ‘24 Philosophers’ which he had cited at the beginning of his sermon (p. 142): als der ander meister sprach, daz got ist ein vernünfticheit, diu dâ lebet in sîn aleines bekantnisse, in im selber aleine blîbende, dâ in nie niht engeruorte, wan er aleine dâ ist in sîner stilheit. The original text of Proposition 20 simply states: Deus est, qui solus suo intellectu vivit (ed. Bäumker, p. 38).

254

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

and Being? Eckhart does not solve this problem for us in his German sermon, and thus we are left to believe that he is introducing here a certain duality within God: on one side, we have Pure Intelligence or the Intellection of Oneself as Exclusive Identity; and, on the other side, we have Being which includes all that is, containing all creatures in their ‘reasons’ or ideas. However, if the aspect of Being (which is the same as Plotinus’ Intelligence-Being) seems to constitute a second divine level in Eckhart’s thought, a ‘forecourt’ of the ‘temple’, which is the Intellect (which would then correspond to the One-beyond-Being in Plotinus), this gradation actually does not presuppose any kind of real complexity in God. The duality of levels is an error in vision,143 which becomes inevitable on this path which ascends towards negative knowledge. Having once passed beyond being in order to climb even further, instead of radically excluding Being from God on the grounds that it is the 143. The theme of the ‘forecourt’ and the ‘temple’ in this sermon of Eckhart’s could be reconciled with the three degrees of the contemplation of God set out in the Itinerarium mentis in Deum. St Bonaventure refers to these degrees as: atrium ante tabernaculum, sancta and sancta sanctorum. The third of these aspects has yet two more modes or degrees of contemplation, quorum unus versatur circa essentialia Dei and alius vero circa propria personarum. The fi rst, founded upon the revelation in Exodus, Ego sum qui sum, belongs to the Old Testament and manifests the unity of God’s essence; St John Damascene followed Moses in turning the Qui est into the fi rst divine name. The second mode, which clearly belongs to the New Testament which proclaims Nemo bonus nisi solus Deus. Th is second mode is more concerned with the plurality of persons; Dionysius followed Christ Himself in saying that the fi rst divine name is Bonum. However, while being the summe unum, God is ‘of all modes’: et hoc, quia per simplicissimam unitatem, serenissimam veritatem et sincerissimam bonitatem est in eo omnis virtuositas, omnis exemplaritas et omnis communicabilitas (Tria opuscula Seraphici Doctoris S. Bonaventurae: Breviloquium, Itinerarium mentis in Deum, et De reductione artium ad theologiam [Florence: Quaracchi, 1938], ch. 5, pp. 330-38). It is not impossible that, in the sermon, Quasi stella matutina, in which he returns to his debates with the Franciscans, Meister Eckhart had tried to revise Bonaventure’s ‘Itinerary’ by associating the ‘atrium with the communicable aspect of God in order to reserve the ‘tabernacle’, which is superior to Being and to Goodness, for the God-Intellect which lives by knowledge of Himself.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

255

‘fi rst created thing’ (as Eckhart does elsewhere in his writings),144 the theologian believes himself obliged to justify the attribution of Being and Goodness to the First Cause. If he does arrive at this, it is on the basis of opposing God as the Esse omnium, which is rich with all the modes of being, and, on the other hand, the same God considered ‘in Himself ’, without any kind of modality, stripped of all that relates to created real ity. In attributing to this Absolute Indetermination, which is ‘unnameable’ in its solitary freedom, the character of an Intelligence which knows Itself by Itself, Meister Eckhart does not yet do away with the negative moment which opposes the great stripping of Intelligence of all its richness of Being. As the fi nal end, union with God, remains transcendent in relation to the indefi nite path of assimilation, divine dissimilitude gives way to the apophaticism of opposition by which the human intellect must elevate itself towards God by stripping Him of all names. However, by duality and opposition, the intellect of the creature which abandons being in order to ascend higher, glimpses, in the divine dissimilitude which it seeks, the same freedom which distinguishes the entia intellectualia from all other creatures, making them in the ‘image of God’.145 The discovery of similitude in dissimilitude146 will permit the designation of this God in Himself as ‘Intellectuality’, something which thought can no longer seek by the ascendant path of apophaticism and opposition, since the Temple of Vernünfticheit is not an external end for the human intellect.

144. In the Parisian Questions. See below, Chapter  6, section headed ‘The Theology of the Image and Deifying Transformation’. 145. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Intelligere et Esse’ and Chapter  4, section headed ‘Creaetd Dissimilitude, the Intellect and Grace’. 146. In another German sermon (Pf. 74, p.  235, ll. 6-9) Meister Eckhart speaks of the similitude with God which man finds in dissimilitude with himself and all other creatures: Dar umbe muoz der mensche getoetet sîn unde gar tôt sîn und an im selber niht sîn unde gar entglîchet unde niemanne gelîch sîn, sô ist er gote eigenlîche gelîch. Wan daz ist gotes eigenschaft unde sîn natûre, daz er ungelîch sî unde niemanne gelîch sî.

256

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

The Opposition between ‘Intelligere’ and ‘Esse’ This examination of the German sermon, Quasi stella matutina, has shown us how, on the path of the return to God, the intellect’s ascent (or, put differently, prayer)147 translates into an ascending dialectic which leads negative thought towards the pure Intellectuality of the one ‘God in Himself’, conceived by opposition of the Being and Goodness in God who is ‘common’ to all that is. In our examination of the Latin sermon, Deus unus est,148 we have already encountered this dissociation between intellect and being. However, if Meister Eckhart opposed the intelligere and esse in beings endowed with intellect, and if he also declared that God is solum intelligere praeter esse aliud simpliciter,149 he has still not accepted, in this sermon on Divine Unity, either an opposition of Intellect and Being in God, or, even less so, has he accepted a total rejection of being in the realms of the created. Here, the point of departure for his statements was revealed truth: ‘God is one’ (or rather, for Eckhart, ‘God is the One’). Since this revelation was addressed to Israel, and to ‘he who sees’,150 it is the Seeing God who makes Himself known as Unity to those who see: qui scilicet intelligit et solo intellectu capitur, qui est intellectus se toto.151 The perspective which Meister Eckhart adopts, here, is not the same as in his German sermon (9), Quasi stella matutina: that which he was seeking in the latter concerning the negative way of opposition is known in the former from the outset. It is known that the God-One is the Intellect and, since unity is an exclusive characteristic of the intellect, it is quite clear that only intellectual beings will be able to unite themselves to God, unum esse et unum cum Deo esse.152 The Latin sermon (29), Deus unus est, is, above all, a theological study of Unity in itself, meaning, inasmuch as God, in whom the intelligere and esse are identical, and in intellectual creatures, where they can be distinguished as two opposite principles: that of ‘uncreatability’ and that of ‘creatability’. The only opposition 147. See above, Chapter 4, section headed ‘Ascensio Intellectus’. 148. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Intelligere et Esse’. 149. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Intelligere et Esse’, note 299. 150. See St Isidore of Seville’s Etymologies, 1.VII, ch. 7 (PL 82, col. 282a). 151. Serm. lat. 29, LW IV, p. 267, n. 300. 152. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Intelligere et Esse’. In Latin sermon 9 (LW IV, p. 94, n. 99) the same expression, esse unum cum Deo, is applied to grace.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

257

between God and the creature is envisaged here as that of the One and of the not-One, an opposition or distinction which does not exist, properly speaking, except from the perspective of creatures and, in the entia intellectualia, is conveyed by the fact that their intelligere is not their esse. This opposition will be done away with in the ‘being one with God’, in the deifying union which is at the same time an inner unification of creatures in the intellect, where nothing is ‘other’ with respect to God. Omne esse praeter intellectum, extra intellectum creatura est, creabile est, aliud est a Deo, Deus non est. In Deo enim non est aliud.153 Both sermons, German sermon 9 and Latin sermon 29, respond to two different moments or points in the spiritual life. In the first, which relates, still, to the way of ‘assimilation’, Meister Eckhart seeks to direct his listeners’ thought towards divine dissimilitude and to enable them to glimpse, at long last, under the aspect which is ‘proper’ to a God-Intellect in Himself, the principle of unity which transcends assimilation, a unity which is not exterior to the human intellect in its quest for God. The spiritual stage of the second sermon is no longer that of assimilation, required by the end point of the ‘way of return’ to God, but, rather, that of union,154 of a unity with God which is always present in the intellects of beings created in His image. Thus, it is not at all divine dissimilitude, whose point of departure would be the ‘common’ being shared with creatures, which is at present the object of study, but above all it is created dissimilitude, the inherent duality of all being which is not its own intelligere: even intellectual beings, despite the unity which they possess, are not simpliciter unum, and they remain distinct from God. The contrary directions in which Meister Eckhart’s thought goes in these two sermons determine the negations of the one and the integral positivity of the other concerning the subject of God. However, despite the differences which we have just noted, we still find in both of them the same tendency to dissociate being and intellectuality, making the latter into the fundamental characteristic of ‘God in Himself’ and, at the same time, the ‘uncreatable’ foundation of union with God in 153. Serm. lat. 29, LW IV, p. 270, n. 304. 154. Ibid., p.  269, n. 304: Ex dictis potest colligi quis sit modus quo ‘qui adhaeret Deo, unus spiritus est,’ Cor. 6, etc. What follows is a sort of conclusion, a spiritual teaching on union taken from a study on the One in Himself and in creatures.

258

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

creatures who are endowed with an intellect. This will permit us to reconcile the German sermon, Quasi stella matutina, and the Latin sermon, Deus unus est, with the two ‘Parisian Questions’ which are usually reserved a particular place, ‘set apart’ within the entirety of the texts of Meister Eckhart which we know today.155 The first Quaestio has as its object of discussion the identity of Being and Intelligence in God: Utrum in Deo sit idem esse et intelligere? At the beginning of his response, Meister Eckhart is affirmative: Dicendum quod sunt idem re, et forsan re et ratione. In order to prove this thesis, the Thuringian Dominican produces six arguments borrowed from St Thomas.156 To those he adds his own reasoning, observing that he had already formulated it before in order to prove the same position.157 This proof of the identity of the esse and intelligere in God is founded upon the perfection of the Divine Being, the First Act which produces all other acts. As Esse, God is not deprived of any mode of being or operating, because He acts and knows by His own very Being. Et sic in Deo ipsum esse est ipsum (intelligere), quia ipso esse operatur et intelligit. In affirming the real identity of being and intellection in God, Meister Eckhart here accepts, no less than elsewhere, the priority of reason which the esse has over the intelligere. This emerges from the example cited at the beginning of the proof: despite the ‘convertibility’ of the concepts, homo and rationale, man is not that which he is, meaning, a human being, because he is reasonable, but rather, he is reasonable because of that which he is, since rationality belongs to the human being by definition. In the same sense, it would seem that it would be necessary here to separate the convertible reasons of being and intellectuality in God, in order to be able to affirm the following: because He is Ipsum Esse, God is Ipsum Intelligere. This separation of being and thought in the second demonstration must 155. This reconciliation was made by Mgr Grabmann, for the Latin sermon, Deus unus est (Neuaufgefundene Pariser Quaestionen Meister Eckharts, pp.  80-82), and by R. Klibansky, for the German sermon, Quasi stella matutina (Commentariolum de Eckhardi magisterio, in OL XIII, pp. xiii-xvii). 156. LW V, pp. 37-39, nn. 1-2. This ‘Parisian Question’, the first according to its place in the Avignon manuscript and its copies, must have been ‘disputed’ after the question on the intelligere and esse of angels, to which discussion Meister Eckhart seems to refer in speaking of the non-being of the species (R. Klibansky, op. cit., pp. xxiv-xxv). 157. LW V, pp. 39-40, n. 3: Secundo hoc ostendo via quam dixi alias, etc.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

259

be understood, of course, in the sense of a distinction according to human understanding, and, under this form, it would have been acceptable to St Thomas.158 Nevertheless, in the development of the Quaestio it marks a new step in relation to the first declaration, in which Meister Eckhart was ready to see in God an identity of esse and intelligere which would exclude even the distinction ‘of reason’. This shows us that, from the outset, Meister Eckhart’s quest was directed towards the fundamental simplicity159 of the Cause of all that is, a simplicity conceived of as an absolute unity-identity to which all expressible perfections must be indistinctly reduced, in the context of created reality, by the means of distinct concepts.160 Because we have indicated this simplicity by using the term ‘being’ or ‘essence’, we shall be obliged to reduce the intelligere to the esse. Wanting to demonstrate the real identity of these two ‘reasons’ in God, Meister Eckhart distinguishes them in his second demonstration, in order to better unite them, by making the esse the foundation of the intelligere, its quia: since God is, He exercises the act of intellection.161 Once one has accepted an order for the convertibility of truly identical ‘reasons’, they could be switched, and, after having spoken of the absolute simplicity of the First Cause in terms of the ipsum esse, we can then wonder if the language or terminology of the ipsum intelligere does not actually fit better here. Tertio ostendo quod non ita videtur mihi modo, ut quia sit, ideo intelligat, sed quia intelligit, ideo est, ita quod Deus est intellectus et intelligere et est ipsum intelligere fundamentum ipsius esse.162 ‘In God, intellection is the foundation of His being’ – this would become the initial thesis of the third demonstration, a thesis or position which, for Meister Eckhart, was not a final stoppingpoint. In seeking to demonstrate the absolute simplicity of the First Cause, conceived of in terms of Ipsum Intelligere, he would apply the 158. Compare St Thomas, Ia, q. 26, a. 2: In Deo autem non est aliud esse et intelligere secundum rem, sed tantum secundum intelligentiae rationem. 159. LW V, p.  37, n. 1: Primo induco probationes  … et omnes fundantur in hoc quod Deus est primum et simplex; non enim potest aliquid esse primum, si non est simplex. 160. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘The Way of Unified Eminence’. 161. LW V, p. 40, n. 3. 162. Ibid., n. 4.

260

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

apophaticism of opposition in order to be led to the negation of the ipsum esse in God. In the Parisian Questions did Meister Eckhart renounce the opinion which he had previously expressed? In abruptly turning against the thesis which he had defended at the beginning of the Quaestio, with the support of St Thomas as well as his own argumentation, did he reject this idea as erroneous? Is it necessary to see the phrase non ita videtur mihi modo as the proclamation of a new doctrinal position which Eckhart had taken up around 1302-3, during his discussions with Master Gonsalve of Balboa, a position which he would then later abandon? Mgr Grabmann163 wanted to apply precisely this understanding to the declaration by which Eckhart introduced his third demonstration, which is irreconcilable with all that precedes it. In accepting this interpretation, several critics164 supposed that 163. Grabmann, Neuaufgefundene Pariser Quaestionen Meister Eckharts, p. 50, Compare ibid., p. 86. 164. Thus, R. Klibansky, in his excellent Commentariolum, in which we find very accurate observations on the ‘Latin and Germanic aspects of Eckhart’, believes himself obliged to acknowledge a change in Eckhart’s doctrine, so that he, Klibansky, may, in his own interpretation of the Parisian Questions, avoid anachronistically imposing a ‘Hegelian dialectic’ upon a thinker from the Middle Ages. Here Klibansky is relying upon a hypothesis that Eckhart’s doctrine underwent some change in either 1302 or 1303, in order chronologically to reconcile the Questiones with the sermon, Quasi stella matutina, the latter of which would have been written around 1304. Another German Sermon (Pf. 42), which, to a certain extent, is related to the line of argument in the Parisian Questions, would thus be placed a bit later in time (Commentariolum, pp. xix-xx). Galvano della Volpe devoted chapter VII of his work on Meister Eckhart’s speculative mysticism to the examination of two ‘Parisian Questions’. He finds in them the same ‘opposition between immanence and transcendence’ which would also characterise the ‘mature and definitive stage’ of Eckhart’s thought. In the Opus tripartitum, the God-Intellect which is pure of all being is replaced by the absolutised God-Being, which Meister Eckhart now opposes to the ‘pure nothingness’ of creatures. Della Volpe, while recognising two different phases in Eckhart’s doctrinal development, does not accept Grabmann’s hypothesis according to which the influence of Averroes shaped the negative thesis of the Parisian Questions: Deus formaliter non est ens. Due to the exacting nature of Eckhart’s speculative mysticism, this formula from the first

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

261

both Parisian Questions and the Rationes Equardi, as recorded by the Franciscan opponent of the German theologian, must then correspond to a single phase in the development of Meister Eckhart’s thought; in a particular moment in time, he would have professed a doctrine of a God who is solely Intellect, without being. The current state of Eckhartian studies (especially that which concerns the dating of his Latin and German works) does not yet permit us to speak with certainty about Eckhart’s doctrinal evolution. In such conditions, the hypothesis that there was a ‘Parisian phase’ in Eckhart’s conception of God, during his debates with Gonsalve on the primacy of the intellect, cannot have a very solid foundation. If it remains equally difficult, for the same reasons, to completely do away with this hypothesis, then several comparisons of the Parisian Questions with Eckhart’s other texts seem to permit us to interpret the declaration non ita videtur mihi modo in a sense which does not imply any hypothesis regarding a radical change in his doctrine.165 ‘doctrinal phase’ would have to be elaborated more under the NeoPlatonic influence of the propositions of the ‘24 Philosophers’. M. de Gandillac, without upholding the thesis that there was a par ticular ‘doctrinal phase’ from 1302-3 which would then be opposed to that of the Opus tripartitum, instead sees here a difference in vocabulary: from the time of his second stay in Paris, Meister Eckhart corrects his terminology, giving more space to Being, which he seems to assimilate to the One of the Neo-Platonists. See ‘Tradition et développement de la mystique rhénane’, Mélanges de science religieuse 3 (1946), pp. 43-44; 47. Compare the preface in Maître Eckhart, Traités et Sermons (translated by J. Molitor and F. Aubier, 1942), pp. 15-17. See also, in Le Mouvement doctrinal du XIe au XIVe siècle (volume XIII in the Fliche-Martin Histoire de l’Église [Paris, 1951]), pp. 380-81. 165. E. Reffke, through an encounter with the first and second redactions of the commentaries on Genesis and Exodus (the E and CT traditions), and, above all, through an analysis of all the passages in Eckhart’s Latin works in which he refers to his own writings, arrives at several well-founded conclusions regarding a new exegetical method which Eckhart adopted under the influence of Moses Maimonides. See E. Reffke, ‘Studien zum Problem der Entwicklung Meister Eckharts im Opus tripartitum’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 57 (1938), pp. 19-95. Cf. Bascour, ‘La double rédaction du premier commentaire de Maître Eckhart sur la Genèse’. Maimonides’ impor tant role in the formation of Eckhart’s thought had already been identified by Josef Koch in his study, ‘Meister Eckhart und die jüdische Religionsphilosophie des

262

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Mgr Grabmann was right when he reconciled certain points of the Parisian Questions with the Latin sermon, Deus unus est, in which Eckhart did not deny an esse in God. Such a reconciliation is also called for, with even more justification, in the case of the German sermon, Quasi stella matutina, in which being (wesen) is denied to God inasmuch as He is Intelligence (vernünfticheit). It is precisely in this sermon that the Dominican mystic speaks of ‘a master in another school’ who had, against him, supported the primacy of the will over the intellect.166 If this is indeed an allusion to the controversy with Mittelalters’, published in 1928  in 161. Jahresbericht der Schlesischen Gesellschaft für vaterländische Geschichte. By comparing the prologues of the Liber Parabolarum Genesis and the Expositio sancti Evangelii secundum Iohannem with the Introduction to the ‘Guide for the Perplexed’ (Reffke, op. cit., pp.  87-92), we see that the elaboration of Eckhart’s exegesis, characterised by a ‘reduction of biblical and Christian images to par ticular philosophical concepts’ (E. Seeberg, Meister Eckhart [Tübingen: Mohr, 1934], p. 11), in its definitive phase, depends upon a more profound knowledge of Moses Maimonides. This statement which permits us to retrace the order of composition of the Opus tripartitum, between 1314 and 1323 (Reffke, p. 80), remains no less insufficient for the purpose of giving us a general outline of the development of Eckhart’s mystical doctrine. 166. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Ascencio Intellectus’. Max Pahncke (Untersuchungen zu den deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts [Halle: Karras, 1905]) wanted to attribute all the sermons which deal with discussions on ‘bekentnisse  – minne’ to a period after 1304, when Duns Scotus began teaching in Paris as a master of theology. This opinion, which was received by other critics (Meister Eckhart, Paradisus animae intelligentis, ed. Philipp Strauch [1919], p. xi), presupposes, against all the evidence, that Duns Scotus would have been first among the Franciscan theologians to uphold the primacy of love over knowledge. While it may not be likely or probable that, during his first stay in Paris, Meister Eckhart actually disputed with Duns Scotus, who, during the academic year 1302-3, was no more than a bachelor in letters, one can, on the other hand, be almost certain that the young Scottish theologian was present at the discussion between the two magistri regentes, the Dominican Eckhart and the Franciscan Gonsalve. Klibansky (Commentariolum, pp. xxxii-xxxiii) is doubtless correct when hoping to find in the Reportata Parisiensia, I, d. 8, q. 1d. (ed. Luke Wadding, Op. XI, 2 vols [Lyon, 1639], p. 71) some reaction

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

263

Master Gonsalve, as it would be quite natural to suppose,167 then this German sermon can help us to understand Meister Eckhart’s doctrinal attitude during the scholastic dispute which took place in Paris in 1302-3. In accordance with this sermon, in which Eckhart speaks as a lebemeister, being preoccupied, above all, with questions concerning the spiritual order, he would have upheld, against the Franciscan, the greater nobility of the intellect not only in itself, with being as its object, but also in the light of grace, on the way of ascent towards God; here, also, the intellect surpasses the resources of the will, since it becomes capable of knowing God in His ‘nudity’, stripped of Goodness, of Being, and of all names.168 The ‘Parisian Question’ in which Meister Eckhart would exalt knowledge in this way at the expense of love is known to us only through Gonsalve’s response, which cites the Rationes Equardi. However, it is certain that here too, in speaking of the intellect’s role in the ascent towards deifying union, Eckhart would refuse to attribute esse169 to God, as he had done in the last argumentation on the question of esse and intelligere. Eckhart’s arguments, which Gonsalve refers to, permit us a glimpse into another aspect of God which must have been touched upon in against Eckhart’s thesis. This question (Utrum Deus verissime est?), written in 1302-3, seems, in its conclusion (Ideo intelligere non est primum dans esse divinum) to be directed at the first ‘Parisian Question’ by Meister Eckhart. 167. See Klibansky, Commentariolum, pp. xiii-xvii; Quint, DW I, p.  152, note 3, and p. 153a, note 1. 168. German sermon 9, DW I, pp. 152-53. 169. LW V, p.  60, n. 9 (ratio 4). The Rationes Equardi and their critical response do not figure in the Troyes manuscript (Bibl. mun. 661) which doubtless preserved a record of the first redaction of Gonsalve’s question, Utrum laus Dei in patria sit nobilior eius dilectione in via; the more developed text of the Avignon manuscript (Cod. 1071, which also contains both of Eckhart’s Parisian Questions) must then represent a definitive development of the Quaestio, in which Gonsalve would have introduced these elements of his discussion with Eckhart, following the question Utrum laus dei. See the publication of all of Gonsalve’s known questions: Fr. Gonsalvl Hispani, O.F.M., Quaestiones disputatae et de Quodlibet, ed. L. Amorós (Bibl. Franc. Schol. IX) (Florence: Quaracchi, 1935). Compare B. Geyer’s remarks, LW V, pp. 30-33.

264

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

a lost Quaestio. It is the intellect which determines the object of the will, ‘the good, the better, and the end’; this active reason of the will receives the entirety of its value from the intellect, insofar as the object proper to intellection is ‘being and truth’.170 Thus, as He is the object of love, God is the Being desired by all that is. As a result, He cannot be refused Being in an absolute manner; the denial of Being in God is possible only from a perspective which has been determined by a single ‘reason’, that of Intellectuality. Just as in German Sermon 9, in which the controversy with the Franciscan is mentioned, Meister Eckhart probably had to contrast, in his Quaestio of 1302-3 referred to by Gonsalve, two aspects of the First Cause: in its relationship to created effects, it includes all ‘modes’, all ‘reasons’, under the positive reason of Esse omnium; but, in order to consider God in Himself, in His ‘nakedness’, it is necessary to exclude all of them up to the supreme reason of the Esse, and reserve the name of Intelligere for the absolute purity of the dissimilar Cause of all that is. In his second commentary on Genesis,171 Meister Eckhart accepts the possibility of considering God in two different aspects: as esse verum rationale primordiale or as Intellect, sub ratione qua intellectus est. It should be noted that the latter aspect is superior to the former. However, it is clear that this exaltation of reason qua Intellectus over reason qua Esse only refers to the unequal value of the two possible perspectives in knowledge of the First Cause. Meister Eckhart does not hesitate to reunite these two aspects in an affirmation of the perfect identity which is proper to the One, by declaring that, in God, ‘the First, the One and absolutely simple’, Intellect is necessarily identical with Being: ipse intellectus est ipsum esse sive ens reale et realiter.172 170. Rationes Equardi, 1, 10 and 11: LW V, pp. 59, 62-64. 171. Even if the date of this edited copy of the Liber parabolarum Genesis remains unknown to us, we can nevertheless affirm that this new commentary on Genesis, conceived of in the period when Meister Eckhart was modifying the first edition of Exp. in Gen. according to the spirit of Maimonides’ exegesis, surely had to have been done rather late, at almost the same time as the commentary on the Gospel of St John, to which it is closely linked. See Reffke, op. cit., pp. 78-79, and K. Weiss, in LW I, pp. 11-12. 172. Lib Parabol. Genes., C., f. 40rb, ll. 19-33: Notandum primo quod in Deo, principio omnium, est considerare duo, ut sic dicamus: puta, quod ipse est esse verum rationale primordiale; adhuc etiam est ipsum considerare sub ratione qua intellectus est. Et huius rationis proprietas

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

265

This is what Meister Eckhart was affirming in his Latin sermon, Deus unus est, where the question of the deifying union/unification of duplicate creatures in esse and intelligere oriented his thought towards the divine Unity-Identity: in Deo ipsum est esse quod intelligere solum.173 However, this was also the initial thesis of the first ‘Parisian Question’ and, it must be noted, this thesis was not introduced by a videtur quod, nor followed and qualified by a sed contra, in order to be refuted at the end of the Quaestio, after the solution,174 according to scholastic usage. If this thesis concerning the identity of Being and Intelligence in God gave way to another thesis, the development of which would lend the first ‘Parisian Question’ all of its originality, it is because, in order to further bring out the excellence of the intellect, Eckhart wished to place himself in a perspective of the apophaticism of opposition, a perspective in which the dissimilitude of the First Cause required him to consider God solely sub ratione qua Intellectus, as a pure Ipsum Intelligere, freed of all that is esse. This change in perspective is indicated in the declaration Tertio ostendo etc.175 in which Meister Eckhart introduces a new dialectical approach to the First Cause: now, in considering the First Cause ‘as Intellect’, it would be necessary not only to dissociate the ‘reasons’ intelligere and esse, which are really identical in God, but also to contrast them as being ‘uncreatable’ and ‘creatable’.

altior apparet ex hoc quod omne ens reale in natura procedit ad certos fines et per media determinata tamquam rememoratum per causam altiorem, ut ait Themistius. Propter quod etiam opus nature dicitur et est opus intelligentie. Secundo notandum quod in Deo, utpote primo, uno et simplicissimo, necessario ipse intellectus est ipsum esse sive ens reale et realiter. Ex quo patet quod operationes intellectus sive intellectuales in Deo sunt reales processus sive productiones et emanationes et producta sunt quid reale, puta filius et spiritus sanctus. Ipse enim intellectus in Deo res est, similiter et voluntas. 173. LW IV, p. 269, n. 303. 174. Compare the preceding analogy in the question Utrum intelligere angeli, ut dicit actionem, sit suum esse, LW V, p. 49, n. 1: after having given St Thomas’ argument, and thus approving of it (Aliqui autem ad hoc sic ostendunt bene), Meister Eckhart introduces his own argumentation (Sed hoc ostendo aliis viis). 175. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘The Opposition between ‘Intelligere’ and ‘Esse’.

266

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

The Parisian Questions of 1302-3 must not be isolated from the greater corpus of Meister Eckhart’s Latin and German works. Their uniqueness is due to their attempt at expressing, in the form of scholastic argumentation concerning the First Cause, the moment of divine dissimilitude that is encountered upon the ascending path of return to God, when vernünfticheit appears as superior to wesen. Of course, the ‘spiritual’ and ‘mystical’ character of this perspective of knowledge, which belongs to an intellectual ascent governed by grace, is not even mentioned in either of the Quaestiones on the intelligere and the esse which we possess today. What is presented as a ‘given’ in supernatural experience in German Sermon 9 (and, without a doubt, also in the lost Quaestio to which Gonsalve refers) appears, in the first ‘Parisian Question’, as the result of a speculation on God as conceived of in Himself, in His ‘purity’, under the unique reason of the Intelligere, the reason which contrasts the First Cause and the esse of creatures. However, despite all that separates them, we find in the Quaestio, as in the sermon, the same apophaticism of opposition which shapes the negation of being in God considered as Intellect.176 176. Mgr Grabmann (Neuaufgefundene Quaestionen, pp.  63-65), wanting to show that Meister Eckhart’s thought in the Parisian Questions remains foreign to ‘negative theology’, limits the latter to the typical expressions that it could have had in Pseudo-Dionysius and in Arab and Jewish philosophy (Al-Kindi, Avicenna, Moses Maimonides), and in Western theologians since John Scotus Eriguena. ‘Die negative Theologie’, he writes, ‘… sucht die Transzendenz des göttlichen Wesens über alle endlichen Begriffe und Vorstellungen durch Negation geschöpflicher Vollkommenheiten von Gott hervorzuheben und will damit nur die absolute, übergeschöpfliche, ins Unendliche gesteigerte Realität dieser Vollkommenheiten in Gott ins Licht setzen.’ Of course, this definition of apophatic theology does not fit with the negative technique of the Parisian Questions, which were founded upon an opposition or contrast of the two ‘reasons’ under which heading one can conceive of God and creatures. However, in order to show that ‘negative theology’ has its place in Eckhart’s other works, Mgr Grabmann cites a passage from the German sermon, Quasi stella matutina, in which the same procedure (which we have named the ‘apophaticism of opposition’) arrives at a dissociation of Knowledge and Being (see above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘The Apophasis of Opposition’). The texts which the illustrious historian uses in order to establish the dependence of the Parisian Questions on ‘Latin Averroism’ do not seem convincing to us. In fact, they relate more to the thesis on

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

267

This conception, or, rather, this perspective, which can seem so strange and unique in the Questions which Grabmann studied, did not have to be abandoned by Eckhart. It yet remains (at least in principle) a possible means of considering God under a single aspect, that of Pure Intellectuality, as the passage cited above177 from the Liber Parabolarum Genesis clearly shows; but the same passage also teaches us that the dissociation of the aspects of ‘being’ and ‘intellect’ in God is permitted only in one of the imperfect perspectives of human knowledge. However superior it may be to the other perspectives, this point of view still remains subject to duality: in the One which is transcendent in its external relations of Cause to effect, the Intellect is truly identical with Being.178 Thus, we should not see in this the unity of the intellect and could be applied only indirectly to the negation of the Esse in God considered as pure Intelligere. Compare Grabmann, op. cit., pp. 66-68. Mgr Grabmann no longer insists upon his hypothesis concerning the influence of Averroes on Meister Eckhart’s thought in his very rich study on Jacques de Viterbe: ‘Die Lehre des Jakob von Viterbo (1308) von der Wirklichkeit des göttlichen Seins. Beitrag zum Streit über das Sein Gottes zur Zeit Meister Eckharts’, in Philosophia Perennis: Festgabe Joseph Geyser zum 60. Geburtstag, I, pp. 288-308 (Regensburg, 1930). This article was reprinted in 1936 in Mittelalterliches Geistesleben 2, pp.  490-511. Therein we find a more nuanced, subtle assessment of the ‘negative theology’, which Meister Eckhart would have used in cruder form in the first Parisian Quaestio: under the influence of the Neo-Platonic trends which were dominant at the Faculty of Arts since the translation of Proclus’ Elements of Theology in 1268, Meister Eckhart would have transferred negative theology from the methodological plane of the theory of knowledge to the metaphysical domain (pp.  231-32). We cannot accept this interpretation: as we have tried to demonstrate, the specific nature of the Parisian Questions is due to the strict adherence to a methodological principle, if not a terminology: considered under the unique ‘reason’ of the Intelligere, God is not esse. This does not exclude the hypothesis concerning Proclus’ influence. Compare the formula: Unum, nullum ens omnium, causa est omnium (see Klibansky’s discussion on Proclus’ commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, Plato Latinus III [London, 1953], p. 68, l. 10). 177. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘The Opposition between ‘Intelligere’ and ‘Esse’, note 172. 178. Compare the passage in the Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, pp.  327-28), in which Eckhart affirms the convertibility between being and unity, on

268

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

perspective, in which God appears as Knowledge without Being, the expression of a philosophical discovery which would have dominated all of Meister Eckhart’s speculative work, the keystone to his ‘system’. In attempting to interpret Eckhart’s thought – which is complex and simple at the same time – according to one of the perspectives which it accepts, meaning, to take the Parisian Questions as the basis of our interpretation, one could almost certainly turn this Dominican theologian into a medieval precursor of German Idealism.179 The arbitrary nature of such an interpretation would very soon become apparent, encountering difficulties which cannot be overcome without doing great violence to the texts themselves. The thesis which Meister Eckhart defended in his Parisian Questions thus was neither a transitional doctrinal position, merely an outline of a new concept that he sketched out only in 1302-3 and then later rejected, nor was it an ‘idealist’ constant which would reveal the true depths of the German theologian’s thought. In Eckhart’s speculation, the God-Intellect as opposed to the Being must indicate a negative aspect of the Cause of all that is: when the one hand, and between simplicity and intellectuality, on the other; however, these two aspects are reunited in the ‘complete return’ of the Intellect to its proper Essence: Ubi notandum, quod sicut unum et ens convertibiliter se habent, sic simplicitas et intellectualitas. Radix enim prima et natura intellectualitatis est simplicitas. Argumentum huius est: primo, quia simplex et ipsum solum redit se toto super se ipsum totum redicione completa, et propter hoc, ex De causis, est sciens se ipsum et omnia per essenciam. 179. In our own days, the thesis of Eckhart’s ‘idealism’ (treated by J. Bach, in 1864, and A. Lasson, in 1865) has been developed yet again, by the following two authors: Barthold Peters, Gottesbegriff Meister Eckharts (dissertation, Hamburg, 1936); and Ernst von Bracken, Meister Eckhart und Fichte (Würzburg: Konrad Triltsch, 1943). The latter work was analysed and submitted to criticism by Hans Hof in his book, Scintilla animae, pp. 29-47, 124-33. Just one year after Ephrem Longpre and Grabmann’s discovery and publication of Eckhart’s Parisian Questions, E. Hirsch would already offer the following claim: ‘Hier regt sich tatsächlich nichts geringeres als ein Stück deutschen Idealismus’ (Theologische Literaturzeitung 53 [1928], p.  43). In his excellent work Hof clearly demonstrated how superficial judgements like this are.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

269

considered in its ‘purity’, it is infinitely dissimilar with respect to its external effects. Of course, the notion that one could have of the First Cause under the positive aspect of similitude, conceiving of it as Primordial Being, the producer of created beings,180 is less elevated: under His aspect of dissimilitude, the Absolute Cause is directed into itself. However, despite its superiority, this negative notion always depends, as the other, upon an exterior point of view, and, thus, is imperfect. In order to have an adequate conception of the Cause of being, it would be necessary to see it not only as ‘purity’, as something exclusive, but at the same time as ‘plenitude’, as something which is inclusive of all that is. This would not any longer be an ‘aspect’ corresponding to a human point of view, to a certain perspective of knowledge; this would be God considered in Himself, by Himself, beyond His causality, without any kind of opposition to whatever may be ‘other’. This is the ‘divine’ point of view, the omnipresent centre of the infinite sphere, the centre which remains beyond reach as long as one still wishes to set it in opposition to a created circumference: one cannot ‘find’ God by ‘looking for’ Him based on a reality other than Himself. Below the point of union, on the path of the return in God, the divine point of view does not coincide with any of the perspectives of creaturely ascendent knowledge: the ‘God in Himself’ is still perceived as the First Cause and as the only means of perceiving the absolute independence of His nature with respect to all necessary relations with created being. This is to insist upon the dissimilitude of the Cause by conceiving of it as Pure Intellectuality which has nothing in common with the esse which it produces. However, the perspective in which intelligence and being are dissociated and opposed to each other as uncreated and created shows again, in the Dissimilar Cause, being infinitely alienated by the apophaticism of opposition, this absolute level of unity-identity with itself which distinguishes and reconciles at the same time the God-Intellect in itself with intellectual creatures, which are subject to the duality of intelligere and esse.181 However, this will also be the

180. According to the principle omne agens agit sibi simile which, by itself, is insufficient since it is about an analogical cause. 181. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘The Opposition between ‘Intelligere’ and ‘Esse’.

270

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

theme of the Latin sermon, Deus unus est:182 the identity of being and intelligence which is not possible for creatures except in the context of the ‘Being at one with God’. In the Parisian Questions, Meister Eckhart wished to stay on a plane where the problem of union with God could not be raised, since it was a matter of only showing the exclusive aspect of the Divine Intellect. If he could have given a more coherent development to this point of view which is consciously unilateral (in order to add weight to and promote the Dominican thesis of the primacy of the intellect, which he had to defend against the volitionalism of his Franciscan adversary), Meister Eckhart had never wanted to grant this dialectical position, which was artificially isolated in the doctrinal explanation given by the Parisian Questions, a place of preponderance in his thought. Thus, we see the opposition of vernünfticheit to wesen in the German sermon, Quasi stella matutina, in which Eckhart recalls his dispute with Gonsalve de Balboa, since it indicated that there were two irreconcilable aspects in God – the particular and the common. So, this is nothing more than a movement of transition from the God-Esse omnium, by means of the God-Intellect which knows itself beyond all that is, towards the God-One, the Identity of intelligere and esse. When Meister Eckhart speaks of God in terms of Esse, he usually applies a dynamic expression to the Divine Being: it is presented as the intellectual Act of ‘returning to its proper essence’. However, here, the Ipsum Intelligere is no longer distinguished from the Ipsum Esse and the revelation of Exodus – Ego sum qui sum – must express equally the concept of ‘Being by the self’ and ‘Knowledge itself’ of a God who affirms Himself as perfectly identical Being.183 Being ‘as being’184 cannot here have any sense other than of ‘being-God’. ‘Created being’ becomes an ambiguous expression and, without any kind of analogy permitting us to apply to God and creatures the concept of esse despite the ‘region of infinite dissimilitude’, the dialectical opposition retains 182. Serm. lat. 29, LW IV, pp.  263-70. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Intelligere et Esse’ and Chapter  4, section headed ‘The Opposition between ‘Intelligere’ and ‘Esse’. 183. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Divine Sufficiency and Created Indigence’. 184. Let us recall all that has been said concerning ‘reduplication’ and the role of the inquantum: see above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Reduplicatio’.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

271

its full force strength: it will be necessary to say that creatures, when considered in themselves, outside the Divine Intellect, are not, that their created quod est, being distinct from the quiddity or uncreated ‘reason’, is no more than ‘pure nothingness’. The apophaticism of opposition, being reversed in this way, becomes a pure affirmation from God’s side of things, but its negative point, at present being turned towards created being, gives way to this creaturely nihilism whose dialectical character had escaped Meister Eckhart’s accusers. This is the position of a descending dialectic, that of Esse est Deus: thought fi xes itself, in some way, at the level of God and, without doing away with opposition, sees creatures in the shrunken form of their own nothingness. The contrary position, expressed most categorically in the Parisian Questions, belongs to an ascending dialectic, governed by an apophaticism of opposition which is negatively directed towards God and positively towards creatures. However, the negation of esse in God, considered here in His dissimilitude, could not have an absolute meaning: if, in the contrary perspective of the dissimilitude of creatures, their ‘own’ nature, had to reveal itself as unum purum nihil, then it would be impossible for it to result in a perfectly analogous position while still opposing created beings with the ‘dissimilitude’ of the distinct First Cause, in that which is proper to it, of all that is. The doctrinal position of the two ‘Parisian Questions’ is not, strictly speaking, that of a ‘divine nihilism’, since, for Eckhart, God could never be, a ‘pure nothingness’, a deprivation of being, but only a ‘purity’ which subsists in itself and is superior to the being of which it is the cause.185 Thus, it is, rather, a case of ‘intellectual nihilism’ determined by the opposition or contrast between the uncreated intelligere and the esse which is attributed to creatures. This nihilism cannot attain God except in a strictly determined sense: as Intellect, the Cause of being has no being. As the ‘Ipsum Intelligere’, meaning, having been reduced to the purity of a single ‘reason’, of a reason which is considered, here, as ‘properly’ divine, Meister Eckhart’s God excludes the ipsum esse and abandons it to creatures. A certain ambiguity must now be 185. See the end of the first Quaestio (LW V, pp.  47-48, n. 12), in which Meister Eckhart returns abruptly to the classical expressions of ‘negative theology’, referring to St John Damascene; the analogical attribution of being to God becomes possible again, since its negation acquires the meaning of a supra-abundant affirmation.

272

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

linked to the intelligere of creatures, as it attaches itself to created being when Eckhart wants to see in God ‘Being itself’. Being thus currently becomes ‘the first created reality,’186 the ‘reason for the creatability’187 of things, the ‘first division’,188 while the intelligere, whether it be divine, angelic or human, tends to be de-existentialised by its opposition to the esse. Et ideo, cum esse conveniat creaturis, non est in Deo nisi sicut in causa, et ideo in Deo non est esse, sed puritas essendi.189 In the unique perspective of the first ‘Parisian Question’, the revelation provided in Exodus appears in a new perspective: identity with itself, dissociated from being, acquires the negative expression of puritas essendi. The sum qui sum, instead of appropriating from God the name of Being, serves only to express a closed identity that excludes all names which could be held in common with creatures. Put differently, it is a refusal to name Himself. ‘When during the night, you ask someone who wishes to remain hidden and who does not wish to make himself known, “Who are you?”, he will respond, “I am that which I am.” Thus did the Lord do, wanting to show the purity of being which is in Himself.’ Ego sum qui sum thus means here: I am the Absolute Identity with Myself. Eckhart adds: Deo ergo non competit esse, nisi talem puritatem voces esse.190 This concession shows quite well that, despite the appealing doctrinal aspect of the Quaestio disputata of 1302-3, in the end the negation of being in God had no more than simply terminological significance: if identity with itself is intelligere, then it is nothing other than pure intellection. That we refer to Absolute Identity as Esse or Intelligere, in order to contrast it with the ‘nothingness’ or non-identical being of creatures, does not at all modify Meister Eckhart’s doctrinal foundations. Et si tu intelligere velis vocare esse, placet mihi. Dico nihilominus quod, si in Deo est aliquid quod velis vocare esse, sibi competit per intelligere.191 When God appears exclusively as an Absolute Act of intellection, being becomes the ‘first created thing’ and can be found within the Creator only virtually, sub ratione intelligere, as is also the case with 186. Utrum in Deo, LW V, p. 41, n. 4. 187. Ibid. Compare Exp. in Gen., ed. Ia, LW I, p.  71, n. 112; Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 345. 188. Serm. lat. 29, LW IV, p. 270, n. 305. 189. Utrum in Deo, LW V, p. 45, n. 9. 190. Ibid. 191. Ibid., n. 8.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

273

the Universal Cause of all that is.192 In this particular perspective, it could not be other wise when the matter relates to God-Intellect in His relations towards the being which He produces: Deus, qui est creator et non creabilis, est intellectus et intelligere et non ens vel esse.193

‘Cognitivum Ens’ and ‘Ens Reale’ We have already encountered certain texts by Eckhart which are concerned with the ‘first degree of production’ which show the Divine Intellect under the aspect of its ‘fullness’, in a sort of ‘ebullition’ or interior fermentation: the identity of intellection as it relates to the ‘reasons’ of producible (‘creatable’) beings appears here to be a passing into the limit between indistinction and distinction, between unity and diversity. If Eckhart’s God-Intellect is the One, it is not Plotinus’ first hypostasis that he is thinking of here, but rather, the second, the Intelligence which the Neo-Platonists had assimilated into the One-Being of Parmenides. As for the thesis upheld in the Parisian Questions, one needs to agree that this Intellect which, according to Eckhart, is superior to being, cannot be reconciled with the First One, ‘the father of the cause’ in the Enneads (V.1.8). This is rather the Cause, the Intelligence, but stripped of its ‘fullness’, and conceived exclusively under its aspect of its ‘purity’ so that it can be contrasted to the being which it creates without having anything in common with creatures. The notion of the intellect and of all that relates to knowledge should supply Meister Eckhart with several doctrinal elements which permitted him, in the Parisian Questions, to place the intellectus and the intelligere in a dialectical opposition with the ens and the esse. In the same vein, it must first of all be noted that, among the various characteristics of the intellect which we find most frequently in Meister Eckhart’s writings, an element which he borrowed from the passage of De anima (III.4, 429-430a) in which Aristotle refers to Anaxagoras. According to Anaxagoras,194 it is characteristic 192. Ibid., p.  46, n. 10. Note the expression ipsum intelligere which is used here in place of ipsum esse. 193. Ibid., p. 41, n. 4. 194. H. Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (2nd  edition, Berlin, 1906), p. 318, fragm. 12. Cited by Aristotle, De anima, III.4, 429a18 and b23.

274

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

of the intellect to be pure, ‘unmixed’, to have ‘nothing in common with whatever exists’.195 That which, for Aristotle, characterises the intellect’s independence which is possible with relation to physical reality, for Eckhart, indicates the intellect’s sovereign freedom as such with respect to all that is and that could be known. This thesis of impermixtio intellectus can easily be pushed into the realms of a sort of intellectual nihilism, as we see in the Parisian Questions: … intellectus, inquantum intellectus, nihil est eorum quae intelligit, sed oporter quod sit ‘immixtus’, ‘nulli nihil habens commune’, ut omnia intelligat, ut dicitur in III De anima, sicut visum oportet nullum habere colorem, ut omnem colorem videat. Si igitur intellectus, inquantum intellectus, nihil est, et per consequens nec intelligere est aliquod esse.196 The intellect, ‘as intellect’, is not at all that which is; thus, intellection, its action, no longer belongs to the category of ‘that which is’. In the context of a doctrine of being in which esse means ‘to be something’, that which is not aliquod esse has no being. Being thus radically different from all that is, the ipsum intelligere exists in a different condition than the ipsum esse.197 In order to oppose these two conditions in an absolute way, it would be necessary to reduce the intelligere to non-being. Another element, which is quite characteristic of Eckhart’s conception of knowledge as it relates to the real being of things, is taken from Aristotle’s Metaphysics (III B.2, 996a29-35; VI E.4, 1027b25), namely: (1) the final cause and goodness do not intervene in mathematical demonstrations; and (2) truth and falsehood do not exist in things but in the intellect. As we saw above,198 Eckhart used these two passages in order to de-existentialise being as an object of knowledge. When it is not dependent on any kind of exterior cause, 195. Exp. in Io., LW III, p.  32, n. 38: the ‘essential principle’ semper est intellectus purus, in quo non sit aliud esse quam intelligere, nihilo nihil habens commune, ut ait Anaxagoras, III De anima. 196. Utrum intelligere angeli, LW V, p. 50, n. 2. 197. Utrum in Deo, ibid., p. 43, n. 7. 198. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’, note 90.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

275

being considered in itself by the metaphysician is neither ‘good’ by virtue of its finality, nor is it ‘existing’ by virtue of its creative efficiency: it is rather a ‘quiddity’ which exists ‘intellectually’ in God; it is the ‘essential cause’ of beings rather than the esse aliquod formale received from outside the Divine Intellect.199 If ‘being’ means to have esse formale extra, then things considered at the level of their eternal reasons, as divine intelligere, are not or, rather, they exist in God only sub ratione vivere et intelligere.200 This virtual being of creatures in the Divine Intellect could be called their esse primum, if we consider it to be that ‘being as being’ which the Metaphysician sought after,201 but it would be equally possible to deny the name of ‘being’ to the reasons of things which ‘belong to knowledge and the intellect’: rationes rerum … ordinantur et sunt de proprietate non entium extra, sed sunt de proprietate cognitionis et intellectus.202 To know things in their essential causes is to attain their truth, the immutable aspect of their identity with themselves which permits us to define them. The principles used to make the definition of the quod quid est, the genera and species of an essence, are found, according to Porphyry, only in ‘pure and naked intellects’.203 This, for Eckhart, means that truth is not in the nature which belongs to things but is exclusively in the soul of the one who knows things; or, rather, the truth of known things is in the intellect, since it is not the entire soul but the intellect which is the ‘place of species’, according to the Philosopher.204 In this text from Aristotle to which Eckhart frequently alludes, ‘species’ indicates, for the Thuringian Dominican, sometimes the universals which subsist in the ‘region of the intellect’ which is superior to nature to the individual suppositia of things,205 while 199. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’. 200. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 352. Compare ibid., p. 345. 201. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Upper and Lower Waters’. 202. Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 160-61, n. 192. 203. See above, Chapter  3, section entitled ‘The Knowledge of Quiddities’, and note 165, on Eckhart’s interpretation of this passage of the Isagoge. 204. Liber Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29ra, ll. 32-33 (this text immediately follows the reference to Porphyry): Ipse etiam philosophus dicit quod anima est locus specierum non tota, sed intellectus. Verum est in anima, non extra in rebus. 205. As in the passage just cited. Compare the following (ll. 33-38): Illic enim quidditas rei dividitur, dicitur in suppositis et permiscetur alieno,

276

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

sometimes the term indicates the sensible and intelligible species in the soul, the principles of cognitive operation,206 and yet other times it refers to the divine examples or ‘reasons’ of things.207 This third doctrinal element borrowed from Aristotle (De anima, III.4, 429a27) forms, along with the other two, a single unit in Eckhart’s noeticism, a new cluster of concepts which is actually rather detached from its Aristotelian context and which can be opened up more widely to other elements taken from Proclus and the Liber de causis. These aspects of his doctrine of the intellect and of all that relates to knowledge will permit Meister Eckhart to go a long way in opposing knowledge with the real being of things, to the point of supporting, in a way, a sort of intentional ‘non-being’. The distinction between ‘being in the soul’ and ‘being outside the soul’ will serve as the doctrinal base for this dialectical opposition. In the Liber Parabolarum Genesis,208 after having agreed with Aristotle that the same principles preside over being and knowledge,209 ut iam non sit vera nec pertineat ad regionem intellectus, sed foris et extra speciem nature sue effecta et extra facta in materia vel supposito, in natura que est inferior intellectu, ut patet ex De causis. Lib. de causis, Prop. 9 (ed. Steele, p. 169; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 8, pp. 172f.). 206. Utrum intelligere angeli, LW V, pp. 50-51, nn. 4 and 5. 207. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 161, n. 192: Intellectus enim locus est specierum sive rationum, ut dicitur III De anima. Compare In Eccli., LW II, p. 240, n. 10: Quinto, quia substantie ut sic, quam li ego significat, non est capax hic mundus nec dignus, sed solus intellectus; nec hic inquantum natura sive ens nature, sed inquantum altius quid natura. Propter quod philosophus dicit quod ‘anima est locus specierum’, quae sunt rationes rerum, ‘non tota, sed intellectus’. Augustinus etiam ex Platone dicit quod sapientia et veritas non sunt in hoc mundo, sed in mundo altiori, scilicet mundo intellectuali. 208. See the entire passage (C., f. 29ra, ll. 2-16) cited above, see Chpater 3, section headed 'The Knowledge of Quiddities', note 130. 209. This reference to Aristotle was made, without a doubt, following Albert the Great who interpreted the texts of Physics I (A c. 1, 184a 10-21) and of Analytica Posteriora I (A c. 2, 71b 9-25) in this very sense in his commentary on St John, ch. 1, 3. See the note by J. Koch in LW III, p. 21. On the other hand, St Thomas says in Ia, q. 85, a. 3, ad 4m: Non autem est necesse quod omne quod est principium cognoscendi sit principium essendi, ut Plato existimavit. … Unde universale sic acceptum, secundum sententiam Aristotelis, non est principium essendi, neque substantia, ut patet in VII Metaphysicae. This is passage 1038b-1039b.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

277

Eckhart also mentions Plato, according to whom ‘the ideas, similitudes, or reasons of things’ are just as necessary for the knowledge of something as for its generation. The authority of those two philosophers must lend weight to Meister Eckhart’s statement: the ideal being, in the analogical Cause of creatures, is a principle which gives way to two modes of being, that of knowledge and that of the external existence of things in their natures or individual suppositia. Things have no truth, they are not ‘truly’ what they are except in the mode of knowledge in which they present themselves as ‘essentially constituted by genus and species’. This mode of cognitive being, ‘full, undivided and unmixed’ (impermixtum) does not belong to things in themselves in their particular substances.210 In a passage of the Expositio sancti Evangelii secundum Iohannem,211 Meister Eckhart says that these two modes of being, in the soul of the knowing subject and in things, correspond to the first division 210. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29ra, ll. 17-22 (cited in Chapter  3, note 164) and 28-33 (cited on p.160; see above, Chapter  4, section headed “Cognitivum Ens’ and ‘Ens Reale’, notes 203 and 204). 211. C., f. 119ra, l. 52-f. 119rb, l. 16: Restat videre quomodo esse sub ratione sive proprietate unius principium est et ab ipso procedit universitas et integritas totius entis creati. Sciendum quod ens, secundum totum sui ambitum, prima sui divisione dividitur in ens reale extra animam, divisum in X predicamenta, et in ens in anima sive in ens cognitivum, sicut manifete colligitur ex diversis locis Libri de causis et Proclo. Item etiam ex 5° et 6° Metaphysice. Adhuc autem sciendum quod, sicut in 6a dicitur, bonum et malum sunt in rebus extra animam, in natura reali, verum autem et falsum sunt in anima. Ex quo patet quod verum pertinet ad ens cognitivum et ad cognitionem, bonum autem pertinet ad ens reale sive ad ens naturale. Aliter autem loquendum est omnino de rerum rationibus et cognitione ipsarum, aliter de rebus extra in natura; sicut etiam aliter loquendum est de substantia et aliter de accidente. Quod non considerantes frequenter incidunt in errorem. Hiis premissis assumo quod supra dictum est, scilicet quod ab uno, 1° omnium, procedit verum; a vero autem, virtute ipsius unius, descendit ipsum bonum. Sed omne ens creatum, secundum totam sui latitudinem, dividitur prima sui divisione in ens cognitivum sive verum et in ens reale extra cognitionem, in natura quod est bonum, ut nunc dictum est. Ex quo concluditur quod ipsum unum ex sui ratione proprie redundat, germinat, floret et spirat sive diffunditur in omne ens, tam increatum quam creatum, secundum illud: ‘flecto genua mea ad patrem, ex quo omnis paternitas in celis et in terra nominatur’ (Eph. 3,15). Pater autem ipsum unum est, ut supra. For

278

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

of created being. It is necessary to recognise, however, that Eckhart’s rather loose, shifting terminology does not sufficiently distinguish the first mode from the esse primum of creatures or divine ideas: the terms ratio and quidditas can both equally refer to divine exemplars as they can to the concepts of human knowledge, since the latter is not directed towards the particular but towards the universal, thus, towards an aspect which does not belong to the proper nature of created things. The ens reale extra animam or ens naturale is subject to a division into ten categories: this is the concrete substance of Aristotle’s Categories. The ens in anima or ens cognitivum belongs to the intellect which knows things in their specific and generic aspect. It is a mistake to speak of these two modes of being  – that of real substance and that of essence, the object of intellection – on the same plane, just as it is equally incorrect to attribute the same level of being to substances and accidents. The ‘universality and the entirety of all created being’, having proceeded from a single uncreated principle which is the esse sub ratione et proprietate unius, is thus divided into tiered modes of being according to different degrees: ‘cognitive being’ and ‘real being’, with the latter being divided still further into the being of substances and the being of accidents. The necessity of distinguishing between ‘cognitive being in the soul’ and ‘real being in nature’ emerges more clearly with evidence from some passages in Proclus’ writings and from the Liber de causis.212 Besides this, for Meister Eckhart, Aristotle’s Metaphysics more on the attribution of the One to the Father, see above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The First Determination of Being’, note 94. 212. Here Meister Eckhart does not give specific references, but we can make out where they come from, especially with Proclus and the following propositions of The Elements of Theology: Prop. 34, the end of the commentary (the being of the cosmos proceeds from intelligence, ed. Dodds, p. 38); Prop. 103 (modes of being: intellectual, vital and essential, p. 93); Props 172-174 (intellectual causality, pp. 150 and 152); and Props 194-195 (the soul possesses the Intelligence’s ideas by participation and sensible things by the mode of exemplars, pp. 168 and 170). Compare Liber de causis: Prop. 4 (ed. Steele, p. 164; ed. Bardenhewer, pp. 166-67); Prop. 8 (ed. Steele, pp.  168-69; ed. Bardenhewer, pp.  170-71); Prop.  9 (ed. Steele, pp.  169-70; ed. Bardenhewer, pp.  172-73); Prop. 11 (ed. Steele, p.  171; ed. Bardenhewer, p.  174); Prop. 14 (ed. Steele, pp.  17273; ed. Bardenhewer, pp. 176-77); and Prop. 24 (ed. Steele, p. 180; ed. Bardenhewer, pp. 184-85). However, it is especially Prop. 12 (= Proclus’

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

279

is itself sufficiently explicit regarding this point.213 He also alludes to this in order to attribute ‘the true’ to the ens cognitivum and ‘the good’ to the ens reale.214 However, here the opposition between the two modes of being determined by two dissociated transcendentals – verum and bonum – remains confined to the domain of created being, although the primacy in the order of production of being belongs to the ens cognitivum: ‘From the One, from the First, proceeds truth, and from the truth, by the power of the One, descends goodness.’215 Since the Unity in divinis is Fatherhood, the Father-One presides just as much over the trinitarian emanations as over the creation of the universe.216 The production of created being will thus follow the order of procession of the Father and the Holy Spirit, with the difference that here the two modes of being will be unequal in their dignity. The ‘true’, the ens cognitivum which immediately proceeds from the One, holds first place in the created universe, while ‘the good’, the ens extra in rebus naturalibus which descends from the One by the intermediary of ‘the true’, receives the last place. The ens ‘of nature’ is thus subordinated to the ens ‘of knowledge’ upon which it depends in its production of being. Eckhart says that this is clear according to Proclus and in the De causis; this is also true according to Themistius, for whom finality in a nature which is inferior to the

Prop. 103) which is impor tant here: Primorum omnium quaedam sunt in quibusdam per modum quo licet ut sit unum eorum in alio. Also see the commentary (ed. Steele, pp. 171-72; ed. Bardenhewer, p. 175). 213. V (Δ), ch. 7, 1017a 24-30, and VI (E), ch. 2, 1026a 34-b 5 (on the different understandings of the word ‘being’). 214. VI (E), ch. 4, 1027b 25-28; III (B), ch. 2, 996a 29-35. On the attribution of bonum to real being (= suppositia) and its scriptural justification, see above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Quiddity and ‘Esse Secundum’, note 185. 215. This procession of created being, ‘outside the One’, follows the order of trinitarian processions in the ‘interior action of the One’: the Good (= the Holy Spirit) proceeds from the True (= the Son) by the power of the One (= the Father). Concerning the attribution of the ‘transcendentals’ to the persons of the Trinity, see above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The First Determination of Being’. 216. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The One  – The Name above All Names’.

280

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

intellect is a type of ‘remembrance of more elevated causes’.217 Thus, the ens cognitivum, the ens in anima not only has primacy over the ens reale in ‘the entire breadth of created being’, but, furthermore, it is placed between the First Cause and the external being of creatures as an intermediary cause which participates in the creative virtue of the ‘First’.218 Would this be saying, then, that the angelic and human intellects have a role of their own in the creation of the sensible world? In another context, when speaking of the creation of man ‘in the image and likeness of God’, Meister Eckhart says that the intellect is quo est omnia, since it embraces the ‘intellectual age’ of Avicenna and Moses Maimonides, in which and by which God produces all created beings.219 Human intellection is thus in no way the cause of inferior creatures on the intellectual plane, nor is it an instrument in their production as ordered according to genus and species; nevertheless, on the plane of knowledge, the human intellect participates in the Creative Cause and, in this sense, the ‘being in the soul’ has nothing in common with the external being of the created world: knowledge

217. Exp. in Io., C., f. 119rb, ll. 35-53:  … unitas paternitas est, ut supra dictum est. Adhuc autem, omne creatum a patre uno unum est, iuxta quod et nomen unversi accipit, ut dicatur universum [Ms.: universis]. Esse enim sive essentia Dei cum sua proprietate, patris unitate scilicet, descendit in omnia a se quocumque modo procedentia. Quinto habes ordinem processus sive originis a patre procedentium tam in increatis [Ms.: creaturis], ubi filius a solo patre, spiritus sanctus a patre et filio, quam in creatis, ubi primo procedit ens cognitivum et ab ipso descendit ens extra in rebus naturalibus, utpote sub illo et posterius illo. Sic enim, ut dictum est, verum descendit immediate ab uno, bonum autem ab uno mediante vero. Patet hoc manifeste ex ibbro Procli et De causis, scilicet naturam sive ens naturale et sub ente cogniti[v]o et illo mediante produci in esse. Tota enim natura agit tamquam rememorata a causis altioribus, ut Conmentator inducit ex Themistico [sic]. For the references to Proclus and to De causis, see above, Chapter  4, section headed “Cognitivum Ens’ and ‘Ens Reale’, note 212. The passage from Averroes in which he cites Themistius is probably the passage given in In Metaphys., XII.18 (Venice, 1553, f. 143ra). 218. Here we see a certain parallelism with the passage which returns to divine ideas in De divisione naturae by John Scotus Eriguena. 219. Exp. in Gen., CT version (nn. 116-120 which are lacking in Ms. E): C., f. 12rb, l. 48-f. 12vb, l. 51. We shall cite the unedited text later in the present work, when speaking of creation ‘in the image’.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

281

belongs to a domain of intellectual interiority in which effects are made comprehensible in their causes. In the same work, Expositio sancti Evangelii secundum Iohannem, commenting on the text, Vos vocatis me Magister et Domine (13:13),220 Meister Eckhart reserves the name of the Being, in its absolute sense, for the First Cause, the Principle of all things. He paraphrases the revelation of Exodus, saying: Ego sum Ipsum Esse a quo utique est omne esse, omnis modus entis, sive intus in anima – et sic ‘Magister’, sive extra in rebus – et sic ‘Dominus’. The two modes of being which ‘descend and proceed from’ the ‘Being itself’ are the ens reale extra animam, which relates to creation and creatures, and the ens cognitivum in anima sive ab anima which pertains to knowledge, and to the Creator, and is on a plane which is no longer that of creative action. In heaven, the One whom we call Lord is called Father, since He is the unique Principle of knowledge and creation. On earth, we must distinguish between these two modes by calling God ‘Master’ and ‘Lord’. These two names correspond to the two aspects under which we conceive of the First Cause of all that is: God as the Intellect, the Father of the ‘interior’ Word, and the same God as creative efficiency, the Principle of exterior production, the Principle of this word which is ‘offered’ and extended beyond the Paternal Intellect.221 Of course, the division of the ‘entirety of being’ into ens cognitivum and ens reale can only 220. C., f. 120vb, ll. 24-43: Adhuc autem possemus verba ista aliter exponere. Notandum igitur quod, sicut iam prius supra dictum est, tota plenitudo enits dividitur in ens reale extra animam quod pertinet ad factionem et creationem; item in ens in anima sive ab anima quod pertinet ad doctrinam et cognitionem. Causa autem prima et principium esse ipsum. Utique ab ipso descendit et procedit tam ens reale extra animam quod respicit creationem et creaturam, quam ens cognitivum in anima quod respicit creatorem et dominum. Nam, sicut dicunt doctores, Deus dicitur creator et dominus ex tempore quo creavit celum et terram. Quod etiam esse in anima respicit doctrinam et magisterium. Ait ergo: vos vocastis [sic] me magister et domine, quantum ad utrumque modum entis, et bene – sive vere – dicitis, quia ego sum. ‘Ego sum’ – ‘qui est’, ego sum ipsum esse a quo utique est omne esse, omnis modus entis, sive intus in anima – et sic ‘magister’, sive extra in rebus – et sic ‘dominus’. Et hoc est quod Mat. 13° dicitur: Unus est magister vester, unus est pater vester qui in celis est, ubi pater dicitur quod hic dominus dicitur. 221. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’. Compare ibid. (see above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Grace, Glory and

282

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

have an effect on created being: within the context of the passage just mentioned, the divine Ipsum Esse must not be distinguished from the Ipsum Intelligere. However, the exteriority which properly characterises a creature only attaches to the ‘being outside the soul’, meaning, to the individual substances or suppositia of things, whereas the ‘being in the soul’ or, rather, in the human intellect, which is a locus specierum, presupposes an interiority of knowledge, a level which is nobler than that of the created as such. The second passage of the commentary on St John, more than the first, allows for the opposition of the ens cognitivum in anima quod respicit creatorem and the ens reale extra animam quod respicit creationem et creaturam. The three doctrinal elements which we have pointed out above – the impermixtio of the intellect, the ‘truth’, which it possesses in its own right, and the universal principles of ‘species’, which cannot have their seat anywhere except in ‘pure and naked’ intellects – all of these elements which were borrowed from Aristotle and understood in the Neo-Platonic spirit of Plotinus and of the Liber de causis, would permit Meister Eckhart to oppose ‘knowledge’ and ‘being’ in quite a radical way in order to make ambiguous the division of created being in ens cognitivum in the intellect and ens reale in the substances of things. In the second passage of the Expositio sancti Evangelii secundum Iohannem, the division of tota plenitudo entis into two modes of being is actually not very clear: one can wonder if the mode intus in anima belongs to the entirety of created being, as the other text on division attempted to do, which was cited above.222 If it can be distinguished, this ‘being of knowledge’ would be uncreated or else it would not be, properly speaking, an ens.

Intelligible Species and Exemplary Causes The term ens cognitivum, in the texts which we have already cited, has a sufficiently broad meaning to designate all that makes things knowable to human thought; however, this expression must be applied first of all to the species intelligibilis, since Meister Eckhart has it alternating with the term ens in anima, which usually designates Divine Dissimilitude’, note 55), the text from Lib. Parabol. Genes. on the different meanings of the terms ‘Deus’ and ‘Dominus’. 222. See above, Chapter  4, section headed “Cognitivum Ens’ and ‘Ens Reale”, notes 211 and 217.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

283

sensible and intelligible species in the cognitive faculties of the soul. After having analysed, in the two ‘Parisian Questions’, the passages in which Meister Eckhart develops a doctrine of intentional non-being, Mgr Grabmann remarks that, to his knowledge, nothing similar is encountered, in other Scholastics of the end of the thirteenth or the beginning of the fourteenth centuries. Intelligible species could be banished from the domain of knowledge, as Henry the Great did, but nobody except for Meister Eckhart tried to refuse them being after having accepted them as an indispensable principle of human intellection.223 While fully recognising, along with Mgr Grabmann, that great and acclaimed German medievalist, that ‘this conception of Eckhart’s clearly takes him far away from the scope of the psychology of Thomist knowledge’, it is nevertheless necessary to point out a common point of departure in St Thomas and Meister Eckhart, which is the way in which they each raise the issue of intelligible species. Having been rendered ‘intelligible’ by the light of the active intellect, the species of things received in the potential intellect must 223. Grabmann, Neuaufgefundene Quaestionen, p. 72. See all of chapter 6: ‘Eckharts Lehre von der Seinslosigkeit des geistigen Erkenntnisaktes und Erkenntnisbildes’ (pp.  68-75). The critic demonstrates, by citing several unedited texts of Eckhart’s contemporaries who were more or less ‘Thomists’, that the characteristic ‘real’ is only refused to the ens in anima in a very restrained sense. Primarily this concerns the ens ut est obiective in intellectu, to the extent that, being ‘abstracted’ from all individual being outside the conscience, it alone is considered as belonging to the intellect: et hoc modo ens in anima non est res, sed intentio, cui et nihil extra animam respondet nisi pro fudamento [sic  – fundamento?] remoto. Et sic attribuitur esse non enti: dicimus enim quod caecitas est in oculo (p.  73, a passage from Summa totius logicae Aristotelis, written anonymously even though sometimes it is attributed to St Thomas). If, here, ‘reality’ is to be refused to the intentio, it nevertheless still has being, in the sense that this deprivation is in a real subject (an eye). By quoting the same text from pseudo-Thomas on the different understandings of the ens in anima, Mgr Grabmann had no desire to reconcile the latter case (the second meaning of ‘objective presence’) and Eckhart’s conception of ‘intentional nonbeing’. However, this par ticular case, which is indicated in the Summa totius logicae Aristotelis, and which is reinforced and generalised in the Parisian Questions, shows us quite well how Eckhart’s unique doctrine could relate back to certain aspects of the problem of the species intelligibilis which was being debated in his era.

284

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

not, according to St Thomas, be substitutes for real things which one would know in their place: non enim se habent ad intellectum sicut quod intelligitur, sed sicut quo intelligit.224 The intelligible species is not another being, an intermediary between the object and the subject of knowledge, but rather is another mode of being according to which the same form of the thing which is known is made present to the knowing subject and becomes the form of his knowledge, after having been de-individualised by the abstractive operation of the active intellect.225 Meister Eckhart begins from the same problematic area, as he wants the species to be at the same time indistinct and distinct from the thing which it makes known.226 If the species of man is a being (ens), it cannot be either the same ens as the concrete human, nor another ens: in the first case, it would not have any kind of use for the knowledge which it would have to bear concerning the universal aspect of things; in the second case, it could not be the principle which makes a concrete man known.227 Si species quae est in anima haberet rationem entis, per ipsam non cognosceretur res cuius est species; quia si haberet rationem entis, in quantum huiusmodi duceret in cognitionem sui et abduceret a cognitione rei cuius est species.228 In order to distinguish the species of the thing which it 224. St Thomas, De anima, III.8 (ed. Pirotta, no. 718). Compare Ia, q. 85, a. 2. 225. For more on this continuity between the form which gives to a thing its concrete being and the species by which one can know the thing, see Gilson, Le Thomisme, pp. 319-21. This work contains the primary texts of St Thomas, cited in the notes. Here we shall cite another passage, which is impor tant to us, from the Summa contra Gentiles, II.75: Neque tamen oportet quod, si scientiae sunt de universalibus, universalia sint extra animam per se subsistentia, sicut Plato posuit. Quamvis enim ad veritatem cognitionis necesse sit un cognitio rei respondeat, non tamen oportet quod idem sit modus cognitionis et rei … ; licet natura generis et speciei nunquam sit nisi in his individuis, intelligit tamen intellectus naturam speciei et generis, non intelligendo principia individuantia; et hoc est intelligere universalia. Et sic haec duo non repugnant, quod universalia non subsistant extra animam, et quod intellectus, intelligens universalia, intelligat res quae sunt extra animam, etc. 226. Exp. in Io., LW III, p.  162, n. 194:  … si species sive imago, qua res videtur et cognoscitur, esset aliud a re ipsa, nunquam per ipsam nec in ipsa res illa nosceretur. Rursus si species vel imago esset omnino indistincta a re, frustra esset imago ad cognitionem. 227. Utrum intelligere angeli, LW V, p. 52, n. 6. 228. Utrum in Deo, ibid., p. 44, n. 7.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

285

makes known, without turning it into a distinct ens, it is necessary, then, to refuse it being: ergo non est ens.229 This is the best way for a sensible or intelligible species to represent the thing to the intellect which must know it: Melius autem repraesentat, si sit non-ens, quam si esset ens. Immo si esset ens, abduceret a repraesentatione. Quare non est ens, nisi dicas quod sit ens in anima.230This terminological concession clearly shows that Meister Eckhart, like St Thomas, in speaking of real being extra animam and of intentional being in anima, always distinguishes between two modi essendi of the same object. However, in the particular case of the Parisian Questions, in which being properly designates the ‘reason of the creatability’ of things,231 to have another mode of being signifies, for the thing being known, not to have being in the intellect of the knowing subject. As it is abstracted from all that individualises the thing in its own nature, an intelligible species is not a substance: it is even the counterpart of all that reverts to the substantial being, according to Aristotle’s categories. However, on this intellectual level, superior to that of the nature of things, do we have the right to refer to as ens that which is condivisum contra substantiam et accidens?232 Most certainly, we do not, if being properly belongs to the suppositia which are created by divine efficiency. Ergo ens in anima non est ens. Species autem est ens in anima.233 Thus, in the Parisian Questions, the division of being into ens reale and ens cognitivum is replaced by a condivisio which opposes the being of individual substances and the non-being of particular intention, made solely for knowledge. Remaining in the same perspective of opposition which caused him to refuse being to all that belongs to the intellect and to knowledge, Meister Eckhart remarks, in the first ‘Parisian Question’: Esse ergo habet primo rationem creabilis, et ideo dicunt aliqui quod in creatura esse solum respicit Deum sub ratione causae efficientis, essentia autem respicit ipsum sub ratione causae exemplaris.234 229. Utrum intelligere angeli, loc. cit. 230. Ibid. 231. Utrum in Deo, LW V, p. 41, n. 4. Compare Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 345. 232. Utrum intelligere angeli, LW V, p. 51, n. 4. 233. Ibid. 234. Utrum in Deo, LW V, p.  41, n. 4. Bernhard Geyer is without a doubt right in seeing in an opinion approved by Eckhart the thesis of

286

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

This declaration surpasses the limits of the particular thesis of the Questions with their dialectical opposition of the ipsum intelligere and the ipsum esse. This text should remind us of all that was said above concerning the distinction between created ‘existence’ and uncreated ‘essence-quiddity’.235 It is also necessary to reconcile these two aspects  – exterior efficiency and interior exemplarity  – of the division between real being quod respicit creaturam and the being of knowledge quod respicit Creatorem.236 One can know creatures by participating in some sense in the Creative Cause, since the same species by which the thing receives its formal being in its created substance (for example, ‘humanity’ for the individual ‘ human’) must be present in the intellect of the knowing subject so that the thing can be known.237 The ‘species’ of created natures belong, first of all, to the Creative Intelligence (or, more precisely, to the Word in the Intellect of the Father) in which they correspond to ‘similitudes’, to the ‘ideas’ according to which things receive within their natures specific and varied determinations;238 but, they also belong, in the second place, Henry of Gand which was criticised by Godfrey of Fontaines in his Quodlibet VIII, q. 3. The text of the philosopher from Liège which conveys Henry’s opinion is cited by the editor (note 6): constat quod Deus se habet in ratione causae duplicis, scilicet formalis exemplaris et efficientis; primum autem respicit rerum essentias, secundum rerum existentias. Concerning criticism of Henry of Gand’s stance and of Jacques of Viterbe in the Quodlibeta of Godfrey of Fontaines, see J. Paulus, Henri de Gand: Essai sur les tendances de sa métaphysique (Paris: J. Vrin 1938), pp. 123-27. 235. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Essentia et Esse’. The modernus famosus who supported the eternal existence of essences, whom we can discern was Duns Scotus (see above, Chapter 3, section headed 'The Opposition between 'Intelligere' and 'Esse') also could be Henri of Gand; Suarez also wanted to find here a doctrine of eternal essences independent of the Divine Intellect (see J. Paulus, op. cit., pp. 121ff.). 236. See above, Chapter  4, section headed “Cognitivum Ens’ and ‘Ens Reale’. 237. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p. 305: …et sic universaliter unumquodque sicut habet esse per speciem suam solam in natura, puta homo humanitate, sic et cognoscitur unumquodque in sola specie suiipsius in anima cognoscentis; puta, ut prius, homo sola humanitate cognoscitur. 238. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 12rb, ll. 51-54:  … producta sunt ad similitudinem eius quod in Deo est et habent ydeas sibi proprias in

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

287

to the angelic intellects and to humans who know things such as they ‘truly’ are, as they are ‘essentially’, in the undividedness and purity of their genera and species, ‘principles’ of knowledge which cannot be found in rebus extra factis sub specie, in suppositis singularibus.239 ‘Not mixed’ with created being, properly speaking, the ens cognitivum, or ‘true being’, belongs at one and the same time to creative causality, in the Word by which all was made, and to human knowledge, in intelligible species by which one knows things. Thus, it is necessary in human intellection for there to be a certain coincidence between exemplary causes which determine the essences of created things and intelligible species by which they are known. The species intelligibilis represent objects of knowledge for the knowing subject on the intellectual plane, which is accomplished by reducing them to specific and generic ‘principles’; they are intentional ‘similitudes’ of forms which establish things in their real being. If the form of a thing did not have its resemblance or intention in the cognitive faculties of the subject, if it could not be located there according to the intentional mode of being of the species, then it would be impossible to name the object, since it is forms which give created things their species and their names.240 Deo, ad quas perfecte dicuntur secundum determinationem ad species distinctas ab invicem in natura. 239. Ibid., f. 29ra, ll. 17-28. See this text which is cited in notes 182 and 183 of Chapter 3. 240. Exp in Ex., C., f. 49ra, l. 57-f. 49rb, l. 20 (the example used here more properly relates to sensible species, but Eckhart extends its scope to include the realm of the intentional and intelligible, ‘l’intentionnel intelligible’ in Lossky): Secundum, non minus evidens est de colore parietis in se et in sua specie que est in medio, in speculo et in oculo et potissime in intellectu. Nisi enim esset color aliquo modo in sua specie intentionali in oculo, non plus videretur color quam sapor, nec magis intelligeretur homo in specie et similitudine hominis quam intelligatur lapis. Est ergo color, puta albedo, in oculo, nec tamen oculum denominat ut dicamus oculum album. Rursus, nisi esset color in pariete, non diceretur paries et in oculo; sed parietem afficit et in ipso est ut forma, in oculo autem est non ut forma sed ut intentio sive similitudo. Et quia forma est ad esse, intentio sive similitudo non est ad esse nec propter esse sed ad cognoscere et propter cognoscere et videre, propter hoc paries est coloratus et non videt colorem, oculus autem econverso non est coloratus sed videt colorem. Et ideo consequenter paries est similis omni colorato et dissimilis omni non colorato, oculus

288

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

In terms of ‘similitude’, species is, then, unum in duobus, 241 which is particularised under the form which confers real being to a substance, which is universalised in the intellect, ‘the place of species’, which are not found, in their pure and integral state, in any other place. Thus, the two dissimilars – the human intelligere and concrete being  – do have something in common, even if it is according to two different modes. Without this condition, knowledge which requires similitude between the knowing and the known242 would be impossible. However, the same condition of similitude is also necessary for production: omne agens, sive in natura sive in arte, agit sibi simile, et propter hoc semper habet in se ipso id cui assimilat suum effectum. Et illud est principium quo agit agens.243 The forms which give things their species and their names could not be produced by God, if they had not already, in some way or another, pre-existed in Him. Thus, it is necessary for the dissimilar Cause to have something in common with its effects.244 In this sense, the exemplary causes of creatures in the Divine Word autem similis est non colorato omni videnti colorem et dissimilis omni colorato; et quo minus est coloratus eo magis est videns colorem et dissimilior omni colorato; quinymo, si quomodolibet esset coloratus, non videret colorem aliquem, ut ait philosophus. Id ipsum igitur, puta color, est in pariete et in oculo, sed sub alio esse aut potius sub alio modo essendi. Concerning the ‘denomination’ of the object by the form, see ibid., f. 49ra, ll. 19-21: Forme autem rerum que dant rebus speciem et nomen sunt in rebus ipsis formaliter …; ll. 53-54: Unumquodque enim nomen habet a forma. 241. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 163, n. 194. 242. Ibid.: Simile simili cognoscitur. Compare p.  107, n. 123; p.  21, n.  26 (a negative expression of the same principle). Concerning the knowledge of likeness by means of likeness, see A. Schneider’s study, ‘Der Gedanke der Erkenntnis des Gleichen durch Gleiches in antiker und patristischer Zeit’, in Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Supplement II: Festgabe Clemens Bäumker (1923). 243. Ibid., p. 23, n. 30. 244. Exp. in Ex., C., f. 49ra, ll. 37-45: Adhuc autem forme rerum non essent a Deo producte, nisi in ipso essent. Omne enim quod fit, fit a simili. Non enim esset vinum ex vite potius quam ex piro, nisi esset et pre esset in vite, non in piro, secundum illud Mat. 7: numquit colligunt de spinis uvas aut de tribulis ficus. Necesse est igitur ut forme rerum que speciem dant et denominant sint in Deo; et sic creatura omnis est similis Deo.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

289

are also ‘similitudes’. Since ‘the principles of being and of knowing are the same’, 245 it is impossible to produce or to know a thing while remaining totally alien to it. Exemplary similitudes are thus necessary for God’s creative action, just as intentional similitudes are necessary for human knowledge. In Meister Eckhart, the ens cognitivum has a double meaning: it designates the archetypes246 of creatures in God and, at the same time, their intentional ‘images’247 in the human intellect. In both cases, it is a matter of ‘similitudes’; just as all that is based upon the unity-identity, the similitudo does not belong to the created universe248 which is, in itself, a ‘region of dissimilitude’. Thus, it is the intellect, which is ‘supernatural’ because it is detached from the world of concrete substances,249 which finds the ‘similitudes’ of things by transferring the objects which it knows into the ‘intellectual region’, that of ‘true’ being, which is superior to the ‘good’ being which things have in their own nature. Ad hoc facit quod veritas est in intellectu non ut res est aut natura, sed est in ipso ut intellectus, particeps divini intellectus. … Hinc est quod secundum Augustinum et Platonem intellectus, veritas, virtus, scientia sunt de mundo et regione supernaturali.250

Seminal Reasons and the Divine Word As we have seen, nothing which belongs to the order of the ‘similar’ or ‘common’ can come forth from the Efficient Cause, which is the creator of suppositia sub ratione esse.251 The universality of created 245. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 21, n. 26: Eadem autem sunt principia essendi et cognoscendi, nec quodquam per alienum cognoscitur. Compare note 209. 246. Referred to as ‘images’ (bilde) in his German works. See Chapter  6, section headed ‘The Divinity-Form and Divine ‘Quo Est”, note 133. 247. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Intelligible Species and Exemplary Causes’, note 226: species sive imago, qua res videtur et cognoscitur. 248. Serm. lat. 29, LW IV, pp. 268-269, nn. 302-303. See above, Chapter 4, section entitled ‘Created Dissimilitude, the Intellect and Grace’, note 11. 249. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Created Dissimilitude, the Intellect and Grace’. 250. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p. 360. 251. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Quiddity and ‘Esse Secundum’.

290

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

being, which permits the classification of entia according to genus and species, is not an attribute of ‘exterior’ being as such, that of ‘effects’; rather, it belongs to exemplary causality sub ratione unius, a causality which presupposes the participation of an effect in its essential cause, 252 a relationship between the concrete and the abstract, the par ticu lar and the universal, the multiple and the One. Thus, it is an interior relation between that which is ‘shaped by principle’ and its ‘principle’, something beyond efficiency, in a region where created being is not only an effect but also a ‘formal expression’ of its archetype.253 If a nature which is inferior to the intellect acts tamquam rememorata a causis altioribus, as Themistius claims, 254 it is because of the created suppositium’s participation in the exemplary cause, a participation which only beings endowed with an intellect can be aware of, by knowing things in the ‘principles’ which constitute their essences. Additionally, a natural agent will exercise a form of causality which is submitted to universal principles when it generates its ‘likeness’, another individual of its species.255 In order to explain this latent presence of the universal in the par ticu lar in the development of his teaching, Meister Eckhart makes use of the doctrine of ‘seminal reasons’ which he found in De Genesi ad litteram, a doctrine which, in St Augustine, explains how God never ceases to operate, producing new beings, in a universe which He had already completed and ordered once and for all in the six days of creation.256 However, neither the precreation of primordial seeds nor the final conservation of biological species interests Eckhart when he speaks of these ‘original and primordial causes’ which Augustine had called ‘seminal reasons’.257 252. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Unity of the Universe’. 253. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p. 246. 254. See Chapter  4, section headed “Cognitivum Ens’ and ‘Ens Reale’, note 217. 255. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p. 67, n. 98. 256. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, V.7 (PL 34, col. 328); VI.6 and 10 (cols 342-43; 346) and passim. 257. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed, loc. cit. Meister Eckhart would simply say, in summarising this aspect of the doctrine of ‘seminal reasons’: Secundo notandum quod Deus simul creavit celum et terram et omnia que in eis sunt in statu suo et plenitudine sua, in specie perfecta et forma et in eleccione accidentium, sed non simul apparuerunt. Exemplum de agriculo seminante simul diversa genera seminarum in terra. Pars

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

291

For Eckhart, this Stoic notion needs to justify the knowability of creatures, by joining human knowledge, which follows after things, to the divine pre-knowledge which will determine the immutable essences of all that was created ‘in the principle’. According to St Augustine, the ‘secret and invisible reasons’, which were sown from the very beginning in the ‘aqueous element’, are created principles whose function, in vegetable and animal natures, is to maintain their conformity to divine ideas, which are contained in the Word, by Whom all was made at the beginning. Like Plotinus, who was careful to not fall into the trap of determinism, 258 but also for Scriptural reasons, St Augustine limited the seminal reasons’ scope of action in natures which are subject to the law of reproduction.259 Despite a shared name or terminology (rationes), Augustinian seminal reasons, which are the seeds of organic natures that are pre-formed in matter, should not be identified with God’s creative ideas which preside over the production of all created beings without exception. In Meister Eckhart, the hidden presence of seminal virtue must be extended to all created natures, since it is a necessary condition for their knowability: Sciendum ergo quod virtus seminalis rerum universaliter stat in obstrusis abdissimorum principiorum cuiuslibet rei, qualia sunt genus et differentia que speciem sive naturam et essentiam fundant et constituunt.260 By insisting upon the ‘intraneity’ of seminal virtue in created substances, 261 Eckhart makes a distinction between degrees of this

autem oritur post unum diem, alia pars post 2 dies, alia pars post 3 dies; sed omnia semina proiecta fuerunt in una hora (ibid., p. 54, n. 18). Here the editor is alluding to a text by Maimonides. 258. Ennead III.1.7 (ed. Belles Lettres, vol. 3, p. 14). 259. De Genesi ad litteram, VII.24 (PL 34, col. 368): Adam’s rational soul, being perfectly created on the first day, was introduced into an animal body subject to the development of a seed which is pre-formed in the elements. 260. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p. 67, n. 98. 261. Ibid.:  … li ‘in’ in propositio notat intraneitatem. The text in question is Genesis 1:11: faciens fructum iuxta genus suum, cuius semen in semet ipso sit. The natural power of matter with reference to form, its ‘humility’, can also be referred to as semen (Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 39ra, ll. 38-42).

292

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

intimate presence of the universal in the par ticu lar, 262 between degrees of the form’s hidden participation, which is individualised in matter, in the essential cause which establishes each being in its genus and species.263 Since ‘species are found only in naked and pure intellects’, something which Eckhart often repeats with references to Porphyry, 264 this essential aspect of created things, which is unactualised and invisible in their own natures, is revealed, in the human intellect, only in the intelligible species or the intentional ‘similitude’ of form. The intraneitas of seminal reasons in substances thus belongs to the level of the intellect, being conatural to ‘interiority’, which is something proper to knowledge.265 For human intellection, the seeds which must order the second causality of created forms under the ‘principles’ of species and genera, are the seeds of all which can be naturally known. Meister Eckhart refers to the habitus of principles which allows man to 262. Ibid., pp.  67-68, n. 99. Compare pp.  89-90, n. 270, concerning per memet ipsum iuravi. The expression in mement ipso corresponds to the three degrees of ‘intraneity’: (1) accident (in); (2) difference (in memet); and (3) genus (in memet ipso). 263. These three degrees in which the perfecta intraneitas is completed are ‘the length, width and depth or height’ (see Ephesians 3:18) of every object. See loc. cit., and following, p. 69, n. 100. Compare German sermon 2 (DW I, p. 182), in which the three dimensions are reconciled with the three types of knowledge: sensible, rational and intellectual. We detect, here, Meister Eckhart’s dependence upon a passage from De anima (I.2.404b 18-27) in which Aristotle attributes his own usage, in his oral teachings, of the Pythagorian theory of tetractys to Plato. Compare  P. Kucharski, Étude sur la doctrine pythagoricienne de la tétrade (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1954). 264. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Knowledge of Quiddities’, and note 165; see Chapter  4, section entitled “Cognitivum Ens’ and ‘Ens Reale’. 265. See above, Chapter  3, section entitled ‘The Object of Metaphysics’. Compare the passage from Lib. Parabol. Genes. (C., f. 30rb, ll. 56-61), in which Meister Eckhart attempts to demonstrate the superiority of the intellect over volition: Primo, quia accipit [intellectus] ex sui natura rationem rerum, ‘quod quid est’ sive quidditatem nudam, voluntas autem accipit rem iam extra, in materia, obumbratam et permixtam alieno, nec plenam nec perfectam. Secundo, quia accipit intellectus, iuxta nomen suum, intus, in principiis essentialibus et causalibus, ipsam rem.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

293

judge between true and false in his speculative intellection as semen scientiarum. The same light of reason, which is the principle of ‘divine and supreme light’ within us, also permits us, in our practical intellection, to discern the difference between good and evil; thus it is not only a seed of the sciences within the intellect, but also a semen virtutum in rational volition.266 Th is ‘brightness of the face of the Lord imprinted in us’ (Psalm 4:7) forever abides in us and cannot be extinguished by sin.267 In the context of speculation, it is the habitus of first principles which St Thomas also refers to as scientiarum semina. This expression, borrowed from Aquinas, is to be taken in the sense of ‘seminal words’, and it gives scope, in Eckhart’s thought, for a doctrine of the active intellect which sharply differs from that of Thomism. Of course, according to Eckhart, the use of the senses is necessary so that the intellection of material natures is even possible; however, it does not seem that, in this theory of knowledge, intelligible species – based on conscious desires – will join themselves to this lumen intellectuale within us, where St Thomas wished to see ‘a certain shared similarity of the uncreated light which contains the eternal reasons’.268 For Aquinas, 266. This is the synderesis which Meister Eckhart reconciles with the intellectus principiorum, citing Origen, in Lib. Parabol. Genes. (C., f. 38vb, ll. 25-46). Concerning synderesis, see O. Lottin, Psychologie et morale au XIIe et XIIIe siècles (Louvain: Abbaye du Mont César, 1948). 267. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 39ra, ll. 21-34: Semen autem scientiarum habitus est principiorum que naturaliter nota sunt omnibus, per que habet et potest iudicare homo de veritate et falsitate, quantum ad intellectum speculativum, et inter bonum et malum, quantum ad intellectum practicum. Lumen ergo rationis in nobis, quod est principium divini et superni luminis, semen est tam virtutum quam scientiarum, de quo exponi potest illud: Multi dicunt, quis ostendit nobis bona? Signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui, domine. Hoc lumen semper manet et eius actor est Deus. Propter quod obscurari potest per incuriam, deleri per malitiam non potest, ut supra dictum est ex Origene. Above (f. 38ra), Eckhart alludes to Origen (Fourth Homily on Genesis, PG 12, col. 212) on the subject of the indestructibility ‘of the image of the heavenly man’. Compare the same scriptural passage (Psalm 4:7) which is used in the same sense by St Thomas in Ia, q. 84, a. 5 (concerning the active intellect). 268. De veritate, XI.I, resp: praeexistunt in nobis quaedam scientiarum semina.

294

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

the necessity of intelligible species had to justify a knowledge of universals which would not require us to recognise, along with Plato, the universalia extra animam per se subsistentia.269 Moreover, it would not be possible to know things only by participating in their ideas, sicut Platonici posuerunt.270 As we have seen, Meister Eckhart also recognises the role of intelligible species in knowledge. While developing his doctrine of the ‘perfect image’, which is identical with its archetype in its very nature, he will even say that ‘according to Aristotle and contrary to Plato’, a thing is not known by the idea, but by its species.271 However, here, in this context, is species an ‘image’ of the real object or of its ideal archetype? Both possibilities could be equally sound, since both the eternal reasons in the Divine Intellect and the intelligible species of human knowledge are ‘similitudes’ with respect to created things. If Eckhart’s intelligible species are then collected together by the active intellect in the ‘obstructed’ intraneity of sensible things, based on their conscious desires it would be equally correct to say that things are received in the light of the intellect, since it possesses their specific seeds, the intellect being a natural place for species. It will be easily recognised that the seeds of natural knowledge do not have the same significance in Eckhart’s works as they do in those of Aquinas. For the Angelic Doctor, the semina scientiarum or ‘first principles’ are not the genera or species of things but, rather, they are obvious notions (such as ‘being’, ‘unity’ and ‘the whole is greater than the parts’) which become actualised in the light of the active intellect every time that it enters into contact with the facts of sensible experience. The prima intelligibilium principia are not, for St Thomas, innate truths, nor types of categories as in Kant, but rather they are preconceptions whose ‘pre-existence’ in the human intellect is nothing other than its capacity to form them immediately and, as it were, spontaneously when it is a case of knowing a thing by receiving 269. See Chapter  4, section headed ‘Intelligible Species and Exemplary Causes’, note 225. 270. Ia, q. 84, a. 5. 271. Serm. lat. 49, 2 (Cuius est imago haec?) LW IV, p. 424, n. 509: quinto, quod omne alienum sive aliud est extra rationem imaginis, puta lapis, color et omnia huiusmodi. Propter hoc, secundum Aristotelem, contra Platonem, cognoscitur res per sui speciem, non per ideam.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

295

the intelligible species on the basis of the sensible image.272 For Meister Eckhart, however, this is understood differently: in knowledge, the active intellect’s semen scientiarum or habitus principiorum has an analagous function to that of ‘seminal virtue’, which, in the generative causality of forms exercised by natural agents which are inferior to the intellect, ensures a conformity with the exemplary causes of species. In both cases, the second cause works by virtue of a superior causality: the habitus of science in the intellect, like the generation of substantial forms in matter, depends upon ‘seminal reason’ and is carried out in virtute superioris.273 If, for Meister Eckhart, the active intellect actualises the knowledge of all things by elevating the object to the intelligible level of its species, then this is so because the ‘first principles’ of created essences are always present to the active intellect in a sort of Platonic memory of eternal reasons, in abdito mentis. The habitus of first principles and the role of the active intellect in 272. De veritate, XI.1. Compare Gilson, Le Thomisme, pp. 303-4. 273. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 40va, ll. 1-26: Iterum etiam, ratio in Deo (et universaliter in causa) ad duo respicit: ad cognitionem scilicet, que per celum, et ad generationem, que per terram parabolice intelligitur. Ecclesiastis primo: generatio preterit, generatio advenit, terra autem in eternum stat. Et hoc est quod hic dicitur ‘habebat duas filias’, naturam scilicet intellectualem et corporalem vel cognitionem et generationem. Cognitio per Rachel intelligitur, unde dictum est quod Rachel erat decora facie et venusto aspectu; generatio vero per Liam que fecunda erat in generando, ut ibidem dicitur. Ubi adhuc advertendum quod Laban dedit utrique filie ancillam sive servam: generationi siquidem servit alteratio, scientie vero labor et studium sive anxietas. Ecclesiastici I°: qui addit scientiam, addit et dolorem. Nonnulli libri habent ‘laborem’. In fabulis poetarum scribitur quod lecticam fybologie [sic, for Philologieae] portabant duo iuvenes, labor et amor scilicet, et due iuvencule, cura et vigilia scilicet. Istis enim quatuor, utpote servis et ancillis disponentibus, habitus scientie acquiritur, sicut quatuor qualitatibus primis accidentalibus forma substantialis in materia. Iohelis, 2°: Super servos meos et ancillas meas effundam spiritum meum. ‘Servos meos’ ait ‘et ancillas’, quia, sicut qualitates prime non educunt formam substantialem virtute propria sed in virtute agentis superioris, sic labor et studium non inducunt scientias et virtutes nisi in virtute superioris. Ecclesiastici, I°: Omnis sapientia a domino Deo est. Here Meister Eckhart is referring to De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii by Martianus Capella, II, 143-46. See F. Eyssenhardt’s edition (Leipzig: Teubner, 1866), p. 41.

296

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Eckhart’s theory of knowledge have nothing in common with Thomist interpretations of Aristotle. Rather, they belong to a noetic outlook which gives Augustinian illumination a Platonic character, which is also the approach taken by Eckhart’s contemporary and fellow German Dominican, Dietrich of Freiberg. However, to return to the texts themselves, with this passage from the Book of the Parables of Genesis, in which Meister Eckhart appeals to scriptural authority – ‘All wisdom comes from the Lord God’ (Ecclesiasticus 1:1) – in order to affirm the following: In virtute enim primorum principiorum naturaliter anime impressorum a deo est virtualiter et radicaliter omnis scientia, secundum omne sui. Propter quod etiam Plato ponebat scientias anime concreatas, per studium vero et exercitium sensuum ex mentis abdito ad aciem (ms: ariem) intelligentie revocari.274 What the active intellect possesses in the hidden recesses of the soul, what is equally present in all created things in obstrusis abditissimorum principiorum, is the ideal ‘reason’, the true First Cause275 of creatures, true since it is ‘original’ and ‘essential’. This ‘seed in itself’, the seminal reason or word of things, was not precreated in the aquatic element of terrestrial nature, as were seminal reasons according to St Augustine; rather, it belongs to the region of the ‘waters above the firmament’.276 Sensible objects of knowledge, when considered in their causes or essential reasons, are found to be transferred by the human intellect into another ontological order: quia altius esse habet res in ratione sua seminali quam sit esse 274. Ibid., following, ll. 26-31. Compare Prologus in Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 24ra, ll. 40-49: Deus autem, veritas ipsa, auctor scripture, omne quod verum est simul suo intellectu comprehendit, inspirat et intendit. Propter quod, ut ait Augustinus, ipsam scripturam sic secundavit, ut in ipsa sperserit et impressum sigillaverit omne quod intellectus omnium elicere potest. Propter quod etiam Achademici ponebat omnes scientias intellectivas, puta divinas et naturales, et iterum virtutes, quantum ad scientias morales, esse anime concreatas. 275. Compare In Eccli. (C., f. 79rb, ll. 44-51; Denifle, p.  566): Intellectus enim est in figura aquila illa grandis, Ezech. 17, longo membrorum ductu, que venit ad Libanum et tulit medullam cedri, id est principia rei, et summitatem frondium eius avulsit, rationem rerum scilicet in summitate causarum originalium sive primordialum, priusquam in res ipsas procedant [Denifle: prodeant], in solis puris nudis intellectibus latentes apprehendit. 276. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Upper and Lower Waters’.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

297

terrenum, materiale, palpabile, visibile, ad modum aquarum que super celos sunt.277 If the active intellect is capable of abstracting the ‘intelligible species’ from a sensible image, this would be because it finds in itself the ‘seminal reasons’ of all that exists: there could be no other way for it to assimilate creatures to their essential causes, so that it can know and define them. The use of the senses has no role other than to provide the active intellect with an opportunity to produce its foreknowledge of created beings in their eternal reasons, which are always actual and present in abdito mentis.278 It must be added that the necessity of resorting to sensory experience is not, for Eckhart, a normal condition of the human intellect, which is ‘supernatural’ by its very nature.279 Such recourse to the senses becomes indispensable to a denatured intelligence, an intelligence that has been obscured by the original Fall. Before Adam’s sin, ‘exterior things did not prevent the first man from clearly contemplating the intelligible effects, both natural and freely granted, 277. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed., LW I, p. 68, n. 100. 278. The identification of the active intellect with St Augustine’s abditum mentis is not the only point in which Eckhart’s theory of knowledge matches up with that of Dietrich of Freiberg. For more on this specific question, see the following texts written by Dietrich and published by Krebs, op. cit., pp. 70-74 (De tribus difficilibus articulis) and pp. 167-68 (Tractatus de intellectu et intelligibili, ch. 37). 279. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed. (revised version), C., f. 18rb, ll. 35-36: Et erat rectitudo de qua Eccles. 12° dicitur: Deus fecit hominem rectum. Et supra, capitulo primo, dicitur: Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas, id est lux intellectus et ratio; ‘super aquas’, id est super passiones in quibus cadit bonum et malum. Cum autem secutus est desideria sensibilium, incidit in necessitatem commedendi cibos malos et adequatus est iumentis in modis ciborum suorum, secundum illud psalmi: homo, cum in honore esset, non intellexit; comparatus est iumentis insipientibus et similis factus illis. In primo enim statu acceperat vesci delectabilibus intelligibilibus et delectari in quiete et pace, secundum illud supra, 2°: Ex omni ligno paradisi commede, quantum ad intellectibilia, de ligno autem scientie boni et mali ne commedas, quantum ad sensibilia in quibus est bonum et malum. Predictis concordat quod Thomas dicit, quod primus homo vidit deum multo eminentius per intelligibiles effectus quam per sensibiles. A consideratione autem lucida intellectibilium effectuum impeditur homo in statu quo nunc sumus per hoc quod distrahitur a sensibilibus et occupatur circa ipsa. For St Thomas’ quotation, see Ia, q. 94, a. 1.

298

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

issuing in radiating light from the First Truth’.280 Ante peccatum versabatur homo in intellectualibus in quibus est verum proprie, non bonum, nec intendebat sensibus in quibus cadit bonum et malum, ex VIa metaphysice.281 Thus, the earthly paradise was this regio totalis sive intellectualis,282 which is the natural level of a soul endowed with an 280. Ibid., f. 18rb, l. 56-f. 18va, l. 3: Primus autem homo non impediebatur per res exteriores a clara contemplatione intellectibilium effectum que incipiebat ex eradiatione prime veritatis naturali vel gratuita. Compare St Thomas, loc. cit.: …intelligibilium effectuum, quos ex irradiatione primae veritatis percipiebat, sive naturali cognitione, sive gratuita. See the entire passage of the definitive edition of Exp. in Gen., in which Meister Eckhart cites a long quote from Moses Maimonides, which he tries to make agree with St Thomas (C., f. 18ra-f. 18va). However, according to the Jewish Aristotelian’s idea of Adam’s first state (as received by Eckhart, see the following note), ‘non erant in eo porentie per quas intenderet sensibilibus, nec apprehendebat illa’ (f. 18rb, ll. 7-9). 281. Ibid., f. 18rb, ll. 26-30. This conclusion is drawn by Eckhart from Maimonides, Dux neutrorum, Ia, Pars, c. 2 (Paris: Agostini Giustiniani, 1520, ff. Vv-VIr). In citing Maimonides in this revision of the first commentary on Genesis, Meister Eckhart is trying to exalt the intellectual condition of the first man in a Platonic spirit which really cannot fit in with some of Aquinas’ texts, of which he was also making use. In the Lib. Parabol. Genes., the same text by St Thomas which has been previously quoted (see note 280 of this chapter), can again be identifed in a work which has a heavy reliance upon St Augustine (C., f. 35vb, ll. 43-45): In statu enim illo homo speculabatur Deum non per inferiora et exteriora, ut per illa Deum intelligeret, sed econverso illa per Deum, ex irradiatione enim prime veritatis incipiebat eius cognitio, sive naturalis sive gratuita, et cognovit Deum in effectibus interioribus et intellectualibus. Et hoc est quod Augustinus dicit XI° super Genesim, post medium, quod Deus loquebatur homini instituto intrinsecus, scilicet vel effabilibus vel ineffabilibus modis, sicut cum angelis loquitur, ipsa incommutabili veritate illustrans mentes eorum, ubi est intellectus nosse simul quecumque per tempora non fiunt simul. See St Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, I.XI.33.43 (PL 34, col. 447). 282. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 30rb, ll. 51-54: Lignum etiam vite in medio paradisi lignumque scientie boni et mali. Notandum quod in regione totali sive intellectuali sunt due potentie, intellectus et voluntas. Intellectus vero prestantior est …;f. 30va, ll. 8-11: Ex premissis patet primo propter quod lignum vite et lignum scientie boni et mali dicuntur producta in medio paradisi, id est regione intellectuali, duo quedam, intellectus et voluntas.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

299

intellect, and from thence man fell by the exteriorisation of his illicit desire to know the good and evil which belong to the proper natures of things, which are inferior to intelligence. This lost paradise is the saeculum intellectuale, a sort of κόσμος νοητός which is interiorised in the soul, the rational soul’s supreme perfection according to Avicenna: ut fiat seculum intellectuale et describatur in ea forma totius, quousque perficiatur in ea dispositio esse universitatis.283 It is, indeed, also the transphysical level which the metaphysician needs to attain by knowing the essences of beings beyond their external causes, in the pure formality of their quiddities.284 However, we do note that, up until the present, this paradise of ‘true being’, radiating with exemplary ‘similitudes’ of all things, cannot satisfy the man who was created not only ‘in the likeness’, but also in ‘the image of God’: the goal of his perfection is not just that which is similar, but the One itself. Deus autem unus est … ydee vero plures sunt; etiam simile semper plurimum est.285 That ‘similitude’ which is founded upon identity and rooted in the One,286 can be found only in the intellectual region in which human knowledge participates in the intellection of God. In the soul this intelligible world appears as both one and multiple, since the ‘seeds’ or ideal reasons are both equally divine similitudes which determine the different species of creatures. However, since man, 283. Exp. in Gen., Ia ed. (revised CT text), C., f. 12rb, l. 56-f. 12va, l. 4:  … intellectus, ut sic, est quo est omnia fieri, non huius aut hoc decretum ad speciem. Unde, secundum philosophum, est quodammodo omnia et totum ens. Unde Avicenna 9 Metaphysice, capitulo 7°, sic ait; ‘sua perfectio anime rationalis est ut fiat seculum intellectuale et describatur in ea forma totius, quousque perficiatur in ea dispositio esse universitatis et sic transeat intellectum instar esse totius mundi’. This passage from Acivenna’s Metaphysics (Venice, 1508, f. 107ra), quoted here in a truncated form, is mentioned in Eckhart’s Serm. lat. 11, 1 (LW IV, p. 116, n. 112); this is reproduced explicitly – and more correctly – in the Latin sermon, Qui odit animam suam in hoc mundo (LW IV, p. 46061, n. 550). 284. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’. 285. Exp. in Io., C., f. 121rb, ll. 25-27. 286. Serm. lat. 29, LW IV, pp.  268-69, n. 302 and ff. Compare the proceedings of the Cologne trial, Archives, I, p. 209: radix similutudinis est unum ipsum, et propter ipsum placet, sapit et delectat simile, displicet dissimile.

300

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

who is endowed with an intellect, is directed towards the One, having been created in ‘the image of the substance of God’,287 he participates in the unity of the Paternal Intellect, within which all of the ‘seminal reasons’ are but one single ‘Reason’ or ‘Seed’. Thus, Meister Eckhart’s semen scientiarum, the hidden antechamber of the ‘first principles’ of all things which are revealed to the active intellect, must be, lastly, the Divine Word itself: hoc semen est Verbum Dei.288 For Eckhart, what other function could a doctrine of seminal words have, if not to bring together all the ‘seeds’ which sustain the logical structure of created beings in the Divine Word, the First Principle of formal and exemplary causality? In the Paternal Intellect the ‘reasons’ or ‘quiddities’ of creatures are identified with the ‘silent’ Interior Word. This is why, when speaking of the exemplary or ‘essential’ causes whereby creatures ‘are that which they are’ and are made knowable, Meister Eckhart almost always uses the singular form for these things: semen, ratio, quidditas.289 Since the Word ‘pre-exists’ in the Father ‘as a seed in its principle’, 290 before being ‘produced’ by generation and exteriorised in creation, there is another term or concept from which the three presences of ‘seminal reasons’ – in God, in the human intellect and 287. The proceedings of the Cologne trial, loc. cit. Eckhart’s doctrine, as expressed in the new edition of the Exp. in Gen. (C., f. 12va-b) and in the Exp. in Io. (C., f. 121rb), can also be found in Dietrich of Freiberg. Compare Krebs, op. cit., pp. 75-76. 288. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 39ra, ll. 34-38 (following the text on the seeds of the sciences, mentioned in note 267): Hoc semen est verbum Dei, Luc. VIII°. De hoc enim semine Io. 1° dicitur: ‘Erat lux vera que illuminat omnem hominem’, quantum ad intellectum scilicet speculativum in cognitione veri et quantum ad intellectum practicum in operatione boni. 289. These three terms become synonymous in a passage in the Lib. Parabol. Genes., in which Meister Eckhart speaks of ratio or quidditas in his paraphrase of St John 1:3 (C., f. 29va, ll. 13-21): Rerum producendarum intra producentem est et intellectu est, semen est et ipsi convenit ex sui natura esse primum et principium. Io. I° ‘in principio erat verbum.’ Grecus – ‘ratio’. Ad ipsam enim, per ipsam et secundum ipsam res producte et cognoscuntur et sunt id quod sunt. Et sine ipsa cognitum et factum est nichil. Quidditas enim rerum, que est ratio, est radix et causa prima est omnium que de re quacumque vel affirmantur vel negantur. 290. Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 5-6, n. 4.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

301

in the transcendent depths of created things – cannot be separated. That concept is of Stoic origins and Meister Eckhart also made use of it. We have encountered, above, 291 the distinction between logos = ratio, the interior Word in the Intellect of the Father, and the pronounced ‘word’, which is produced outside the Intellect, meaning that it is created. In the German Sermon, Quasi stella matutina (9), Eckhart distinguishes between three modes of the ‘word’: between the term ‘word-creature’ (vürbrûcht wort) and the Word in the Paternal Intellect (unvürbraâht und unbedâcht), he inserts the word which is ‘thought and produced’ (bedâcht und vürbraâht), the latter term being the principle of human knowledge.292 Most likely this is the exemplary presence of the Divine Word. It remains latent and virtual in the exterior ens reale, under the particularised forms of substances which are only ‘created words’; however, it becomes visible in the ens cognitivum which is inherent to the soul. Here, the ‘reasons’ appear as the formal foundations of the essences by illuminating the intellect which is ‘capable of God’, capable of gathering the ‘Light of Wisdom’ which the ens in natura cannot receive.293 However, since in this intellectual region, which is 291. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’. 292. German sermon. 9, DW I, p.  157: Ez ist ein vürbrâht wort, daz ist der engel und der mensche und alle crêaturen. Ez ist ein ander wort, bedâht und vürbraht, dâ bî mac ez komen, daz ich in mich bilde. Noch ist ein ander wort, daz dâ ist unvürbrâht und unbedâht, daz niemer ûzkumet, mêr ez ist êwiclich in dem, der ez sprichet; ez ist iemermê in einem enpfâhenne in dem vater, der ez sprichet, und inneblîbende. Vernünfticheit ist allez înwert würkende. See the observations of the editor (Quint) on the difficulties which the manuscript tradition presents concerning the phrase about the Word in human knowledge. Benno Schmoldt proposes a par ticular reading, based upon a single manuscript, but, for reasons which are relevant to internal criticism, the reading ‘bedaht und unvürbraht’: Die deutsche Begriffssprache Meister Eckharts. Studien zur philosophischen Terminologie des Mittelhochdeutschen (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1954), pp. 112-16. 293. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, pp.  415-16: lumen quidem sapientie, sub racione sapientie, non recipitur in corporibus, sed nec in anima racionali ut natura sive ens est in natura, sed in ipso (intellectu) solo, in quantum intellectus est, superius aliquid est et divinius, secundum quod ‘genus Dei sumus’, Act. XVII (v. 28), secundum quod ad imaginem sumus increati Dei; eo enim imago est, quo Dei capax est, ut ait Augustinus. … Item quod ipse Augustinus docet quod in abdito mentis semper lucet,

302

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

superior to nature, the Word elucidates or makes explicit the generic and specific ‘reasons’ of created beings, it is thus in some sense ‘uttered’ (vürbrâcht), however much it may belong to the interiority of the Intellect (vernünfticheit), to the extent that it is ‘thought of ’ (bedâcht). Th is interiority which is expressible in thought must be distinguished from the absolutely interior mode which belongs to the Word in the Father, to the Logos-Reason which is ‘not thought of ’, because it is indistinct and essentially identical with the Paternal Intellect which conceives of it in His unity, in which there is no place for ‘similitude’. However, similitude has its root in this absolute unity of the Word with its Principle: being founded upon unity, it is situated on another level of intellectual interiority, in which the begotten Word proceeds towards the creative work, without departing from its unity with the Father.294 Here, the angelic and human intelligences participate in the knowledge of the Creator by their knowledge of creatures in their exemplary ‘reasons’ or ‘similitudes’. This is the ‘supernatural’ region of ‘true being’, the place of the universals which are to be found only in ‘pure intellects’ that have not been mingled with the natures of created suppositia. Thus, ‘cognitive being’ in the soul belongs to an intermediary domain which is somewhere in between that of the divine ‘uncreated’ and that of the ‘created’, properly speaking. This intermediary domain participates in both of the others and, according to Eckhart, can be given the ambiguous characterisation ‘uncreatable’, a term which he applies to human intellection.

Intellectual ‘Nihilism’ and the ‘Uncreatability’ of Intellection ‘Similitude’ is to be found in the intellectual region of ‘true being’ in which the human intellect receives the revelation of the essences of creatures as they are preconceived in the Divine Word. However, even though similitude is founded upon unity and belongs to the quamvis lateat, lumen divinum. See ibid. (notes), the references to St Augustine. 294. Meister Eckhart distinguishes between the presence of the Word ‘in Principio’ and ‘apud Patrem’. See, for example, Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 29-31, nn. 35-56; pp. 34-35, n. 41.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

303

intellect, it yet implies a moment of duality: it is unum in duobus.295 Thus, it remains inadequate for making God known, because man must reach God in His absolute unity. All the same, similitude makes the knowledge of created beings possible: they will be known in their uncreated reasons, the principles of creative action which God ‘assimilates’ in His created effects.296 In this sense, the ens cognitivum in anima by which we know the essences of creatures relates more to the Creator than to creation.297 Indeed, we have already seen that his doctrine of seminal reasons permits Eckhart to found our knowledge of creatures upon a natural revelation of the Divine Word. The Divine Word is thus, properly speaking, the Seed or ‘Reason’ which contains in its primordial unity the ‘immutable living reasons’ of all things.298 However, if the Word is the ‘Art dwelling within the Artisan’ as its own Life, it nevertheless ‘proceeds’ to the outside in or through creative work.299 Thus, the revelation of ideal reasons (and also the multiplicity of these uncreated ‘similitudes’) in the intellectual region presupposes an ad extra shining forth of the Word into creation. This is the theme of Lux in tenebris lucet running through Eckhart’s exegesis. The Word reveals itself in creation by manifesting the uncreated life which things have in Him as the ‘light of men’, which is ‘incomprehensible’ for the ‘darkness’ of created alterity (John 1:4-5). Being itself indivisible within the Divine Intellect, this light only shines in external darkness; it is this light which reveals the true being of things to the human intellect.300 In a way, then, our 295. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Intelligible Species and Exemplary Causes’, note 241. See Serm. lat. 29, LW IV, p.  269, n. 303: omnia huiusmodi dicuntur unum in multis quod nusquam est et nunquam nisi in intellectu, nec est, sed intelligitur. 296. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Intelligible Species and Exemplary Causes’. 297. See above, Chapter  4, sections headed “Cognitivum Ens’ and ‘Ens Reale” and ‘Intelligible Species and Exemplary Causes’. 298. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Seminal Reasons and the Divine Word’. Compare Exp. in Io., LW III, p.  12, n. 13: Ipse enim Filius Dei, verbum in principio, ratio est, ‘ars quaedam’, ‘plena omnium rationum viventium incommutabilium, et omnes unum in ea’, ut ait Augustinus De trinitate 1. VI capitulo ultimo. Compare PL 42, col. 931. 299. Ibid., p.  33, n. 40:  … verbum sive ars manet in artifice, quamvis foras procedat in opere. 300. Ibid., p. 62, n. 74.

304

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

knowledge depends upon external, created being: our knowledge is caused by things, as the things themselves were caused by divine knowledge. This double causality, which entails the necessity of the existence of the created world so that things could be known by man in their eternal reasons. This double causality must also, finally, bring back the creation of being as well as the ‘being of knowledge’ to their respective dependence upon the exemplary Cause or the Word in the Intellect of the Father. It could even be said that the world would not have existed if it were not knowable by man, for it did not begin to exist except for the reason that God had known it before it had existed.301 Outside and apart from that ‘similitude’ which is necessary both to creation and knowledge, the world itself could neither be created nor known. Indeed, similitude belongs to knowledge and it cannot be discerned in two ‘similar’ beings outside the intellect.302 Thus, ‘resemblance’ and ‘dissemblance’ set in opposition the human intelligere and the ‘real being’ of created natures, insofar as ‘knowing’ belongs to a realm of interior communion with the Creator, while creation’s ‘being’ presupposes a certain discontinuity between the creative Cause and its effects which have been produced in order to ‘exist’ externally. The truth which was revealed to Moses in the formula, Ego sum qui sum, I am that I am, as well as in the Parmenidian principle of the unity of the real, applies exclusively to God.303 This equating of Unity and Oneness of being cannot be extended to creatures except 301. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29va, ll. 1-13: Quinto sic, in exemplo: domus producta ab artifice aliis et ab aliis non videretur nisi prius esset facta ab aliquo. Ipsa tamen non potest esse facta ab illo, nec extra illum, nisi prius antequam sit facta ab eo aliquo modo habuit esse sive aliquod esse. Alioquin non esset arte sed sorte, nec esset similis a simili. Et hoc est quod communiter dicitur, quod creature se habent ad creatorem sicut artificiata ad artificem. Et Augustinus dicit quod mundus iste, nisi ipse esset nobis notus, non esset. Ipse autem mundus non esset nisi Deo antequam fieret notus fuisset. Ratio est quia nostra scientia causatur a rebus, scientia vero ipsa Dei causa est rerum ut sint. Compare St Thomas, II Sent., d. 18, q. 1, a. 2: Emanatio creaturarum a Deo est sicut artificiatorum ab artifice; unde sicut ab arte artificis effluunt formae artificiales in materia, ita etiam ab ideis in mente divina existentibus fluunt omnes formae et virtutes naturales. 302. Serm. lat. 29, LW IV, p. 269, n. 303. 303. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Quidditas et Anitas’.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

305

on the plane of exemplary causality which is formulated in terms of the participation of the concrete in the abstract304 and is manifested solely through intellection, where created being is no longer ‘real’ but, rather, is ‘cognitive’. In this context, does it remain created, or, by virtue of attributing ‘uncreatability’ to it, is it then divine? In the Parisian Questions, in which Meister Eckhart wishes to consider the First Cause solely under the aspect of its ‘infinite dissimilitude’, the principle of production of that which is similar by that which is similar is done away with. The apophaticism of opposition, if strictly adhered to, would state the following: if that which is created is being, then God, as the Dissimilar Cause of being, is pure intelligere and has nothing in common with all that is ens or esse. Since every thing was made by the Word which belongs completely to the Intellect and, as a result, has no being, we must read the text of St John 1:3, omnia per ipsum facta sunt, placing logical emphasis on the final word, ut ipsis factis ipsum esse post conveniat.305 This opposition of intelligere and esse which causes them mutually to exclude each other, inasmuch as the one is the cause of the other, will reappear, albeit in reverse order, in the context of the knowledge which we have of things: wholly unlike divine intellection, which is the Cause of all that is and which is superior to being, our knowledge, which is caused by beings, ‘falls’ under an ens and ‘descends’ towards non-being. Like the divine intelligere, albeit for a different reason, angelic intellection and human intellection have no esse.306 In the context of the Parisian Questions, in which esse correctly designates the formal being of creatures, their ‘reason of creatability’, this intellectual nihilism, which extends to the cognitive acts of rational creatures, amounts to the recognition of the uncreated character of our intelligere. Indeed, Meister Eckhart supported this very idea in the course of his disputes in Paris, which we see particularly in a Quaestio which we know of only from Gonsalve de Balboa’s quotations, which criticise the Rationes Equardi.307 In his sixth argument in favour of the superiority of the intellect over the will, the Dominican Master 304. According to the principle of in quantum and the relational model of iustus et iustitia. 305. Utrum in Deo, LW V, pp. 40-41, n. 4. 306. Ibid., p. 44, n. 8. Compare Utrum intelligere angeli, p. 54, n. 10. 307. Concerning Gonsalve’s question, Utrum laus Dei in patria sit nobilior eius dilectione in via and the Rationes Equardi, see Chapter 4,

306

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

declared that the intelligere, unlike the diligere, was increabile in quantum huiusmodi.308 Th is assertion concerning the ‘uncreatability’ of the intellectual action exercised by created beings is but a corollary of the dissociation of the intelligere from the esse. In this sense, it does not necessarily imply a pure and simple attribution of a divine character to the intellection which is proper to angelic or human spirits; however, the term increabile is given a very subtle and rather ambiguous meaning of neutrality with respect to all that, being created, possesses formal being. Like divine intelligere, our intellection is not anything of that which is as it has nothing at all in common with anything created, it thus has a character of being impermixtio which makes God’s intellectual action supremely free with respect to all that it produces.309 However, the intelligere of rational beings, though ‘not mixed’ with the exterior effects of the First Cause, is not ‘uncreated’ in the same sense that the Divine Intellect is ‘uncreated’. It is also necessary to note that non-being (and, as a result, ‘uncreatability’) is linked with cognitive operation, both angelic and human, 310 and not with acquired knowledge (scientia), 311 nor is it linked with the intellect as a natural faculty of the soul. Our intellectual faculty is, then, something determined; the intellect is aliquid inasmuch as it belongs to a subject, to a soul which is a created

section headed ‘The Opposition between ‘Intelligere’ and ‘Esse”, note 169. 308. LW V, p.  60, n. 11: (6) Item: est increabile in quantum huiusmodi. Unde arca in mente non est creabilis. Ista autem non conveniunt ipsi diligere. Quare, etc. Concerning the myth of the ‘mystic arch’, which is based on an incorrect interpretation of this passage, see Chapter 2, section headed ‘Upper and Lower Waters’, note 30 and, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Intellectual Nihilism and the ‘Uncreatability’ of Intellection’, note 322. 309. Utrum intelligere angeli, LW V, p. 50, n. 2. 310. This comes from the title of the question concerning angelic intelligence: Utrum intelligere angeli, ut dicit actionem, sit unum esse. Compare LW V, p. 53, n. 8: Quare in intellectu non invenitur ratio entis, et sic intelligere non est esse aliquod, ut nominat actionem. 311. Ibid., p. 52, n. 6.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

307

being.312 Yet it remains nonetheless indeterminate,313 foreign to all that is being, 314 and thus is ‘uncreatable’315 insofar as its operations consist of stripping away that which it knows from spatial and temporal conditions316 and from all other forms of determination of singular being which are subject to Aristotle’s ten categories.317 Since, for Meister Eckhart, individual substances constitute created being, properly speaking, and because the Parisian Questions reserve the terms esse and ens for creatures alone, in this par ticu lar context we are obliged to consider the abstraction effectuated by created intelligences as a sort of reduction to non-being, or, in other words, to the ‘non-created’ state of all that we know. Indeed, this operation which begins from concrete being (ens) and goes towards its own 312. Ibid., p.  53, n. 7: Cum dices: si intellectus est (nec) hic nec nunc nec hoc, ergo penitus nihil est, dico quod intellectus est potentia naturalis animae. Sic est aliquid, quia anima est verum ens, et ut verum ens principiat suas potentias naturales. Two lines earlier, Meister Eckhart says: intellectus, in quantum huiusmodi, non est aliquod ens nec habet aliquod esse. This shows us how carefully the seeker must approach the material if he wishes to discover Eckhart’s true line of thinking: his thought must not be simplified by neglecting the texts which contradict the critic’s pre-existing ideas, or by evading the difficulties involved in interpreting a complex thinker by proclaiming his ideas to be simply contradictory or inconsistent. The intellect ‘such as it is’ in the act which is natural to it, is detached from all that is, and is thus ‘uncreatable’; but, this does not mean that it is an uncreated faculty in an angelic or a human subject. 313. Ibid., n. 9. 314. Ibid., nn. 7 and 8. 315. Ibid., p.  60, n. 11. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Intellectual ‘Nihilism’ and the ‘Uncreatability’ of Intellection’, note 308. 316. Exp. in Io., C., f. 107ra, ll. 57-60: homo ab intellectu et ratione homo est, intellectus autem abstrahit ab hoc et nunc et secundum genus suum nulli nichil habet commune: impermixtus est, separatus est (ex IIIa De anima). The corresponding German expressions are: unvermiscet, abgescheiden (krefte) die mit nihte niht gemeine enhant, in the Book of Divine Consolation, Buoch der goetlichen troestunge, ed. Quint, DW V, p. 11, in which Eckhart particularly insists on the created character of spiritual faculties (ll. 10-13). See the proceedings of the Cologne trial, Archives, I, pp. 159 and 188. 317. Utrum intelligere angeli, LW V, p.  51, n. 4. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Intelligible Species and Exemplary Causes’.

308

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

non-being (non ens) and, unlike Divine Intelligence, transcends the created world from below, stripping the objects of knowledge of the being which represents their ‘reason of creatability’. This abstraction or stripping away of all that determines creatures in their own being is a negative condition for the return to the deiform state which they have in their Cause. It is necessary to abandon the bonum, which is linked to created substances as they are the object of the will, so that the thing which is known can be transferred to the level of verum, as it is an object of the intellect: recedit a bono et vadit ad rationem optimi et ibi induit deiformitatem et ad suam causam accedit.318 In other words (which are not those of the Quaestiones Parisienses), in order to put on its esse primum, which is both intellectual and divine, and in order to be known in the quiddity which is its essential Cause, the object of created knowledge must be stripped of its esse secundum, which is that of concrete substance. In order to place creatures in the light of their eternal reasons, the human intellect must, in a way, ‘de-create’ them, reducing them to intentional ‘non-being’. For Eckhart, the ‘uncreatability’ of intellection and of all that it entails from the human side (sensible and intelligible species) must have this negative meaning of ‘purity’ and of liberty with regard to being conceived of as created substantiality. Eckhart says, intelligere vadit depurando et pertingit usque ad nudam entitatem rei,319 thus transgressing, for but a moment, the terminological rule which he imposed upon himself in a Quaestio in which being is opposed to the intelligere and excludes itself from all that belongs to either the divine intellect or the created intellect. In the same Quaestio, which is directed against the ‘voluntarism’ of the Franciscan theologian, Gonsalve, Meister Eckhart calls the intelligere ‘subsisting’320 (so as to avoid using the term ens, ‘being’) and ‘uncreatable’. Here he adds: Unde arca in mente non est creabilis.321 The ‘uncreatability’ he is speaking of here is the ‘non-being’ of intellection and, in particular, the intentional non-being of the species of a box, 318. Rationes Equardi (10), LW V, p.  63, n. 18. Compare ibid., p.  60, n.  9: (4) Item: ipsum intelligere quaedam deiformitas vel deiformatio, quia ipse Deus est ipsum intelligere et non est esse. 319. Ibid. (3), ibid., n. 8. 320. Ibid., n. 10: (5) Item: intelligere in quantum huiusmodi est subsistens. 321. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Intellectual ‘Nihilism’ and the ‘Uncreatability’ of Intellection’, note 308.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

309

which was given as an example.322 This is a ‘created-non-being’, subsisting in its negativity, something ‘non-created’ which does not have the positive meaning of the divine ‘uncreated’. It is understood that the ambiguity of the term increabilis, which was used only by Eckhart, apparently in order to describe or define the intentional, provoked the following response from the Franciscan: quod dicunt quod intelligere est subsistens et increabile, verum est de divino intelligere et non de intelligere creaturae.323 In the same objection, Gonsalve remarks that, in relying upon St Augustine, ‘intellectual natures’ are not ‘uncreatable’, other wise, the angels would not be ‘producible’ and would not form a part of the created universe.324 Of course, Eckhart never denied the created character of angels and Gonsalve’s argumentation shows clearly that he did not understand the Dominican Master’s subtle position on the ‘uncreatability’ of the intelligere of creatures. When Eckhart calls intellection quaedam deiformitas vel deiformatio,325 he in no way affirms that the intellect of creatures is divine, either in its nature or in its action. If it is ‘deiform’ (‘in the divine image’), the intelligere of rational creatures does not 322. Gonsalve saw the ‘box in the soul’ exactly as what it was supposed to represent: an example of an intentional species or concept. In his response to Eckhart, he says (ibid., p. 66, n. 25): Unde arca in mente, etc. – creabiles. Mgr Grabmann, who wanted to see Eckhart’s arca in mente as an uncreated part of the soul (the intellect?), corrects the exact reading of Avignon Cod. 1071 in his edition (Neuaufgefundene Pariser Quaestionen, p. 110), replacing the words etc. – creabiles, which do not mean anything to him, with est creabilis. His disregard for the worth of the meaning in Eckhart’s expression arca in mente is all the more surprising, given that a text from an anonymous Summa on logic, which Grabmann cites on p. 73, contains the same example of a ‘box within the spirit’, which must illustrate one of three types of ens in anima, especially the ‘effective’ presence: sicut dicimus, quod arca est in mente artificis, antequam fiat. In Meister Eckhart, the same example is applied, rather, to the third mode of the ens in anima, that is to say, to the intentional presence which the author of Summa totius logicae Aristotelis refers to as ‘objective’. Compare with above, note 223. 323. LW V, p. 66, n. 25. 324. Ibid. This is probably in response to Gonsalve’s objection which Meister Eckhart dealt with in the question on the intelligere and the esse of angels. 325. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Intellectual ‘Nihilism’ and the ‘Uncreatability’ of Intellection’, note 318.

310

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

belong to the Divinity: like God, who is the Act of pure intellection, the intelligere of beings created in His image is ‘pure’ of all that is being, meaning, of all that a form determines as being only ‘this or that’. This independence of the intellect with respect to the omnia which comprise the entirety of the created universe is a principle of freedom and of choice,326 which is a principle characteristic of the ‘divine image’ in angelic and human persons. The expression deiformatio is easily explained by context in one Quaestio which is about the role of the intelligere in deifying union. In the Book of Divine Consolation [Daz buoch der goetlichen troestunge], Meister Eckhart speaks of ‘purity’ (lûterkeit) or of ‘detachment’ (abgescheiden von zît und von stat) as a characteristic which is proper to the superior faculties which make man a being ‘in the image of God’.327 The purity (or negative ‘uncreatability’) of man’s intelligere, by detaching him from all that is created, brings him all the closer to God. Through intellection, man subsists in his detachment before the pure and positively uncreated Intellect, like the morning star before the sun. This was the topic of the German sermon, Quasi stella matutina:328 man must join God in His dissimilitude with respect to created being, in ‘what He most properly is’; since the name most befitting and proper to God is ‘Word’ (wort), then man, by his intellect, is an ‘adverb’ (bîwort), which is analogous to the Divine Word of which he is the inseparable companion. If blessedness is knowledge of God alone, in His absolute oneness, the faculty of detachment from all that is not God will make the human intellect the mainspring of the deifying union with, or transformation into, God.329 When Meister Eckhart declares that created things put on a ‘deiform’ aspect by an intellectual operation which lifts them towards their essential Cause,330 he certainly does not mean to attribute a deifying action to human knowledge as such. When taken alone, the intellect’s supernaturality’ is not enough to truly transform created natures. If grace is necessary to confer upon man his ‘being one with God’, it is also by grace that man, united to God, brings along with 326. Ibid., ‘Rationes’ 8 and 9, pp. 61-61, nn. 13-16. 327. DW V, p. 11, ll. 5-10. 328. German sermon 9, DW I, p. 154, l. 7-p. 155, l. 3; p. 156, l. 9-p. 157, l. 2. 329. Daz buoch der goetlichen troestunge, DW V, p. 11, ll. 10-14. 330. See above, Chapter 4, section entitled ‘Intellectual ‘Nihilism’ and the ‘Uncreatability’ of Intellection’.

Regio Dissimilitudinis Infinitae

311

him creatures which are inferior to the intellect, towards their ‘being similar’ in God. Created dissimilitude can be overcome in knowledge, but the regio dissimilitudinis will not be done away with except by the deification of created being in grace. As we have seen, in his Latin sermons, Meister Eckhart spoke of the ‘reflux or to return into God’, which does away with the dissimilitude and impurity of the ‘going out’ in terms of grace (gratia gratum faciens).331 However, the technical language of theology, in speaking of ‘grace’ and of ‘union’ which it ‘operates’, effects or realises, irrevocably distorts the sublime and inexpressible truth which the Thuringian mystic tried to give his listeners a glimpse of when he preached on the return to Unity, on the ‘irruption’ (durchbruch), which is more noble than the ‘going out’ which sets creatures apart from God.332 The term ‘union’ is inadequate, as it still presupposes a duality: a synergy of man and God on this path of assimilation which always remains outside Unity. Is it grace which puts deification into effect? Is the intellect ‘supernatural’? For the intellect which is guided by grace in its ‘ascent into God’, this Unity will always remain a ‘region of infinite dissimilitude’, ‘a strange land, a desert which is too unnameable to be given a name, too unknown to be known’. The eschatological mystery of Unity is not realised by an operation: it is always wrought or eternally realised in this ‘unnameable’ region of non-opposition, in which grace is no longer distinguished from glory, in which the created can no longer be opposed to the uncreated, in which the human is no longer distinguished from the divine. How can this ‘eschaton’ be situated in the future, when it even escapes eternity, as it is opposed to temporal time altogether? ‘If you could annihilate yourself, even for just an instant, or even less than an instant, then all that which resides in this uncreated mystery which is within you would now belong to you as your own.’333 The moment of negative ‘uncreatability’ or of ‘nihilism’ in Eckhart’s teaching on the human intellect corresponds to the strong demands of his spiritual teachings: in order to find oneself in divine Unity, man 331. See above, Chapter  4, section entitled ‘Grace, Glory and Divine Dissimilitude’. 332. Pf., 56, p.  181, ll. 13-14 (Aubier-Montaigne, p.  246); 87, p.  284, ll. 11-12 (Aubier-Montaigne, p. 259). 333. Sermon 17 (Walsh, Complete Mystical Works, 129)  – Pf 81, Q 28, QT 31, Ego elegi vos de mundo.

312

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

must annihilate himself in his ‘creatability’. The uncreated plenitude of the Divinity and annihilation of man, totally detached from all that is created, are the two poles which must coincide in Unity, transcending the opposition between ‘dissimilitude’ and ‘similitude’.

5

Splendor in Medio

From Assimilation to Unity An apophaticism of opposition, which denies God all that could be formally attributed to creatures, accompanies the intellect’s ascent, an ascent which seeks to attain God in His infinite dissimilitude on a path of unending assimilation.1 Since it is determined by its opposition to similitude, dissimilitude will then, due to its negative relation to it, always depend upon the positive term which it must exclude. Additionally, on this path, God, in His radical independence of any positive definition of creatures, will never be defined negatively. His ‘dissimilitude’ could not, then, be absolute, at least, if He is to be conceived of as transcending the opposition between similitude and dissimilitude. This entails God’s dissimilitude which exists in God Himself, which is the dissimilitude of Absolute Unity with reference to the moment of duality implied in similitude: similitudo enim est unum in duobus.2 In conceiving of the First Cause’s dissimilitude, that which is ‘proper’ to God, as the indeterminateness of the intelligere detached from all that is,3 by placing in opposition to each other the pure God-Intellect and the determined existence of creatures, we shall 1. See above, Chapter 4, section headed ‘The Apophasis of Opposition’. 2. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 163, n. 194. See above, Chapter 4, section headed ‘Intelligible Species and Exemplary Causes’. 3. Utrum intelligere angeli, LW V, p. 53, n. 9.

314

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

be obliged to attribute this divine property to creatures endowed with intellect, inasmuch as they are capable of detaching themselves from all determination which confines them to the created universe. Intellectual ‘uncreatability’ is independence with regard to oneself and to all things; it is a faculty of self-annihilating made evident and expressed in the determination to become like unto God by means of dissimilitude in relation to the entirety of creation: ‘to be nothing in oneself, to make oneself completely dissimilar and to no longer be like unto anything at all, this is how man can properly be likened unto God; for God’s true attribute, His very nature itself, is to be completely dissimilar, to resemble nothing’.4 However, if similitude to God by means of dissimilitude with reference to created being requires a total abandonment of oneself as something which is similar to a thing other than God, then it would also be necessary to renounce even the search for God in His dissimilitude and alterity, for, in knowing God as ‘Other’, one has not yet departed from created exteriority. Here, ‘the intellect’s ascent into God’ will be abandoned and the very terms ‘dissimilitude’ and ‘similitude’ which had opposed each other on the path of assimilation will no longer have any meaning, except perhaps to express, in a new dialectic, a passing over towards union or, rather, into Unity: daz wir alsô sîn der einekeit, diu got selbes ist, des helf uns got.5 Thus ends the sermon for Ascension Day, in which the topic of Unity dominates meditation on Christ’s mystical entrance into the divine abode from which He had actually never departed, an abode ‘beyond all light, beyond all comprehension, beyond human thought’. Paraphrasing St Paul (1 Timothy 6:16), Meister Eckhart says: ‘God dwells in a light to which there is no entrance or access, which is in itself a pure Oneness.’6 The inaccessibility of the One signifies God’s 4. Pf., Pr. 74 (Convescens praecepit eis, ab Ierosolymis ne discederent), p. 235, ll. 7-9. French translation by Aubier-Montaigne, p.  237. Concerning the question of authenticity, see Josef Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckeharts (Bonn: Ludwig Röhrscheid, 1932), pp. 645ff. 5. Ibid., ll. 9-10. 6. Ibid., ll. 1-6: Unser herre fuor ze himel über alliu lieht und über alle verstentnisse und über alle begrîfunge der menschen. Der alsô übertragen ist über alliu lieht, der wonet in der einekeit. Dar umbe sprichet sant Paulus ‘got wonet in eime liehte, dâ niht zuoganges ist und in im selber ein luter ein ist’.

Splendor in Medio

315

radical independence with respect to all created similitude to which His dissimilitude could even be compared at all; if God is One, He remains inconceivable from the perspective of all that is not Himself. In as much as the soul perceives any distinction, and as long as there is still an ‘outside’ and an ‘inside’, then the soul is not within this Unity.7 In order for the soul to be within this Unity, all duality, the very root of the opposition between exterior and interior, immanent and transcendent, time and eternity, creature and God, needs to disappear in the Absolute Unity which cannot be opposed or compared to anything. However, that duality which divides and opposes, necessarily determines the perspective that is proper to creatures. As long as this continues on in thoughts, which are subject to the logical obligation to juxtapose ‘similitude’ and ‘dissimilitude’, the One will have an aspect of dissimilitude. It will be necessary to reject both of these notions in order to perceive Unity properly: abici tam simile quam dissimile, quousque simile transeat in unum.8 Since the Unity which is ‘God in Himself’ remains inaccessible to creatures, then transition from a likeness which implies duality to a oneness which does away with duality will be solely the result of divine initiative, without any contribution from creation. Synergy between man and God is possible only on the infinite path of assimilation, in a perspective of endless approximation, that is, a perspective which the human mind cannot surpass by any means other than by overcoming itself, which entails renouncing the point of view which belongs to its creaturely alterity in order to have no perspective but that of God. This amounts to saying that the Unity in which God properly dwells is beyond all perspectives of human understanding. In saying, ‘I was found by those who were not seeking me’ (Isaiah 65:1; Romans 10: 20), God implies that the One in which and by which unification is accomplished is something which escapes all human seeking, thoughts or intentions. God will not be found by seeking Him; rather, it is He who finds us, ‘under the mantle of the One’, and in which He ‘unites Himself with the being in all things’: et sub pallio et proprietate unius res omnis capit Deum ..., non enim est aliquid 7. Ibid., p. 234, ll. 24-26: Die wîle daz diu sêle kein underscheit verstêt, sô ist ir unrecht; die wîle daz dâ iht ûz luoget oder în luoget, sô ist dâ niht ein einekeit. 8. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 146, n. 177.

316

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

aliud prorsus.9 For alterity to disappear, the path of assimilation to God must itself be renounced. Renouncing the infinite quest for a God who is infinitely dissimilar means recognising that infinity, indistinction and indetermination do not bear the value of negative terms which would require us to set up or conceive an opposition between God and the being of creatures which, in a perspective of ascendant apophaticism, is finite, distinct and determined. Thus, we must abandon the negative way of opposition, so that we may know the One as a positive Infinity, a transfinite principle of all which is positive in finite creation, to which God’s alterity can no longer be opposed. In the Parisian Questions, the First Cause, having been artificially reduced to its aspect of exclusive ‘purity’, was conceived of as an Intelligere free of all that is esse. In the sermon, Quasi stella matutina, the aspect of inclusive ‘fullness’ was subordinated to that of the Pure Intellect which ‘dwells in itself’, beyond being. We attributed this duality of levels in God to an error of viewpoint, which would be inevitable on the ascendant path of apophaticism.10 However, at this point, the perspective of knowledge, which is skewed by a creaturely point of view, must be done away with, since it relates to a union which is conditioned by the Unity which eliminates the ‘region of dissimilitude’. Neither the Parisian Questions nor the German sermon which echoed them gave a space for a sub ratione Unius theognosis. However, this is the sole potential ‘reason’ for the foundation of a mystic’s theological speculation. Unity alone eliminates every thing which separates the creature from God, since, of all things, unity excludes alterity. As we have seen,11 unity is the transcendent end point of assimilation and remains inaccessible to creatures as long as they seek it, an end which is ever pulling away in a region of God’s infinite dissimilitude; however, since what is involved, here, is a fullness of being without any possibility of enlargement or diminution, the esse unum cum Deo which God alone bestows upon creatures, beyond assimilation, is not at all asymptotic. The One is not the deformed ἄπειρον of divine immensity but, rather, is the Positive Infinity which escapes the opposition between the finite and the infinite, 9. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 426. 10. See above, Chapter 4, section headed ‘The Apophasis of Opposition’. 11. See above, Chapter 4, section headed ‘Ascensio Intellectus’.

Splendor in Medio

317

the determinate and the indeterminate, the immanent and the transcendent, the one and the multiple. For the One is not opposed to the omnia: it includes them in a ‘plenitude’ of being which creatures have in God. In the Latin sermon, Deus unus est, Meister Eckhart declares: Creatura amat in Deo unum, … quia unum est indistinctum ab omnibus. Igitur in ipso, ratione indistinctionis sive unitatis, sunt omnia et plenitudo esse.12 ‘Being one with God’ is not only the final end which is always transcendent in relation to the striving of the creatures which long for it, desiring that fullness of being which they do not possess; it is, above all, the divine work which is eternally accomplished in a timeless simultaneity of the creative act with the generation of the Word. The In principio creavit Deus from Genesis and the In principio erat Verbum from St John’s Gospel are two distinct ‘principles’ only in the skewed perspective of an exterior point of view, that of creatures subsisting outside union. It is the unique, absolute point of view at the level of God and of divinised man which Eckhart seeks to convey in his perilously risky speculation, assuming with a heroic generosity all the risks of an attempt at a doomed doctrinal expression.

Opposition and Non-opposition The negative expressions ‘indistinction’ and ‘indetermination’, which Meister Eckhart applies to the One, must refer to a positive infinity of Being which, without opposing anything and without denying its fullness, does not, however, let itself be confined within the limits of genus or of beings that are ‘distinct’ and ‘determined’ because they are created. Dicens ergo Deum esse unum, vult dicere Deum esse indistinctum ab omnibus, quod est proprietas summi esse et primi et eius bonitas exuberans.13 If the absolute positivity of the Being-One makes Him unknowable from the basis of created reality, as long as the formal being of creatures is always distinct from or ‘other’ than that of Being itself, it seems that the opposition which was the basis for the negative way must be replaced by a dialectic in which God would be a non-opposable term, eliminating the alterity of the term ‘creature’ in the very opposition which is still maintained from the created side of things. Recalling the words by which St Augustine addressed God – 12. Serm. Lat. 29, LW IV, pp. 264-65, nn. 297-298. 13. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, pp. 246-47.

318

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

mecum eras et tecum non eram,14 Eckhart comments: ‘mecum eras’, quia indistinctus ab omnibus; ‘tecum non eram’, quia ego distinctus, utpote creatum quid.15 Does this mean, then, that distinct and determinate being, which is characteristic of and proper to creatures,16 belongs solely to a distorted perspective of created knowledge? Would created being, then, be nothing more than an illusion which is ultimately destined to disappear? And the ego distinctus, which was not with God, must it, in the end (or primordially), be merged with this God, indistinct from all things, who was always ‘with me’? If this were the case for Eckhart, then we would be obliged to recognise that the German Dominican’s true philosophy was a more or less hidden form of monism, a strongly univocal teaching on being which comes near to being a kind of ‘formal pantheism’, like that of Amalric of Bena, a distant precursor of Spinoza.17 However, do we have the right to focus only on the One’s inclusive aspect, on its ‘indistinction’ or plenitudo esse, so that we can turn it into our point of departure for interpreting Eckhart’s thought, while intentionally putting aside the exclusive aspect, the First Cause’s puritas or impermixtio, envisaged in the first two ‘Parisian Questions’ as ‘Knowledge’ which is free of all that is ‘being’? However much one may wish to choose one or the other of these complementary aspects, at the risk of hopelessly modernising Eckhart’s notion of God, disfiguring Him by turning Him into either Spinoza’s Natura naturans or German Idealism’s transcendent absolute ‘I’, both interpretations would be equally alien to the kind 14. Confessions, X.27.38 (ed. Belles Lettres, vol. 2, p.  268): Et ecce intus eras et ego foris et ibi te quaerebam et in ista formosa, quae fecisti, deformis inruebam. Ea me tenebant longe a te, quae si in te non essent, non essent. 15. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p.  248. We recall a similar expression in the text of Exp in Ex., cited in note 157 of Chapter 3: Deus autem nobiscum est, utpote indistinctus, nos autem secum non sumus, utpote distincti, quia creati e terminati. 16. Ibid., p.  247: De natura vero creati est esse determinatum et limitatum hoc ipso quod creatum est. 17. G.C. Capelle, Autour du décret de 1210: 3. Amaury de Bène (Bibl. Thom. XVI) (Paris: Vrin, 1932), p. 30. Heinrich Ebeling, in his work Meister Eckharts Mystik, seeks to find in Eckhart an ‘univoker SeinsMonismus’ (‘a univocal monism of being’) which would be reminiscent of Spinoza (pp. 79ff., 103 and passim).

Splendor in Medio

319

of thought which seeks antinomic formulae in order to express itself without betraying the truth that it perceives. Bringing together both the inclusion and exclusion of created alterity in the Unity of a God, who is both immanent and transcendent in relation to all that is, inevitably eludes those who wish to play down the antinomy in Eckhart’s thought, if one neglects one of the two contradictory theses. Meister Eckhart’s God is totus intra, totus extra;18 He is also a plenitudo et puritas sui esse.19 He is a ‘Fullness’ because God is indistinct from all that is being; He is ‘Purity’ because indistinct and indeterminate being can only fit an Intellect who ‘lives by itself’. Thus, it will be necessary not only to reunite indistinctly in God all that is, but also to distinguish the Being-One from all that which is ‘other’ and which receives being, but which, by itself, is nothing other than creaturely nothingness. Since God is opposed to nothingness solely by the intermediary of the being which He produces, then the opposition between non-being and being, which are both terms of creative action, will appear only in creatures;20 when considered in Himself, God remains beyond any kind of dyad of opposing terms. However, all-powerful action by which the One produces all beings, opposes the Esse omnium with nihil21 and every particular ens with its own non-ens.22 Thus, created ‘distinction’, while it is opposed to 18. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p.  240. See above, Chapter  3, section entitled ‘The Knowledge of Quiddities’, note 150. 19. Ibid., p.  248. Even in the question, Utrum in Deo, Eckhart does not content himself with just one perspective: after having considered God under the ‘exclusive’ aspect of pure Intelligere, he brings together the two notions, purity and fullness, and ends the first ‘Parisian Question’ with a correction of all that was expressed negatively, with a reference to St John Damascene: with respect to God, negations have the meaning of a ‘super-abundant affirmation’ (LW V, p. 48, n. 12). Indeed, the positive value of negation and ‘that which is uttered by super-abundance’ are properly attributed to the One (Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, pp. 249-50). 20. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Oppositio Nihil Mediatione Entis’. 21. Exp. in Ex., LW II, pp. 36-37. 22. Compare expressions like producitur ex non ente aliquo ad ens aliquod, puta ex non equo equus, album ex non albo in Lib. Parabol. Genes. (cited in note 45 of Chapter 2), which are concerned with all the agents in naturabilis which produce an effect that is exterior to their producer: tale productum habet rationem creati sive creature.

320

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

nothingness, is not a counterpart to the divine ‘indistinction’ which positively determines it as ‘that which is’. The absolute God-Being which cannot be opposed to anything, by producing beings which exist only by their dependence on Him, represents a new relationship in which ‘being’ and ‘non-being’ appear in their opposition, as two extreme ends, and ‘nothingness’ becomes conceivable as the initial limit of creative action, a terminus a quo of creatures. The pure and simple opposition between Creator and creatures is thus unsustainable, since created being receives or acquires a positive sense in the divine action which opposes it to non-being; but, the thesis of the ‘non-opposition’ of the Absolute and the relative can no longer be maintained without counterbalancing it with the moment of opposition of all things to God, this being a moment which is conditioned by a relationship subsisting between the purely active term and its counterpart, which is the pure passivity of the created term, produced from non-being with the being it endlessly receives in order to exist.23 If it is truly so for Meister Eckhart, then divine ‘indistinction’, which cannot be opposed to the created ‘distinction’ that it maintains in being, cannot be understood as a negative term which eliminates the opposing moment in an antithetical game in which opposition, which can be supported only from a creaturely perspective, would be found to be re-absorbed into an indistinct abyss from God’s perspective. This sort of flawed dialectic, which is a poorly camouflaged pantheistic monism, remains utterly foreign to Meister Eckhart’s true thought. In order to speak appropriately of the unity and duality which together constitute the entirety of the relationship between created beings and the God-Being-one, without falling into monist univocity or into the ambiguities of a dualist theism, Meister Eckhart, along with other theologians, had recourse to the ‘truth of referring all things analogically to God’. However, he would also try to express dialectically this relationship between created being ex nihilo and the Infinite Being ‘outside whom nothing is’.24 The principles of this new dialectic, whereby it is possible simultaneously to maintain both the opposition and non-opposition of both terms, God and creature, are dictated by considerations regarding the nature of the One, with the support of several Neo-Platonic sources. Citing Macrobius, who 23. See below, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Analogical Causality’. 24. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p. 248.

Splendor in Medio

321

held that ‘the One or the Monad, meaning Unity, is not a number, but the source and origin of all numbers’, Meister Eckhart adapts the text in such a way that the last sentence of the quotation, which Macrobius related to the Intelligence, must be applied instead to the One or the First Unity: Cumque, utpote una, non sit ipsa numerabilis, innumerabiles tamen species generum de se creat et intra se continet.25 This text by Macrobius, as it has been transformed here, is meant to show the coincidence of two contradictory aspects in the One, or rather, the complementarity of its two functions: the exclusion and inclusion of multiplicity. Meister Eckhart indicates first of all the moment which gives way, in the knowledge of the First Cause, to the apophaticism of opposition: ‘The one, as one, is formally distinguished from number as an opposite of its opposite, that which is the ultimate distinction.’ This is why Boethius said: illud vere est unum in quo nullus numerus est.26 This exclusive aspect of the One is ‘purity’, as clearly shown by the example of pure gold used here by Eckhart: hoc vere est aurum, in quo nichil est eius quod auro alienum et oppositum est.27 The inclusive moment of ‘plenitude’ is taken from the same text by Macrobius and is completed with a reference to Proclus. As the very source of number, the ipsum unum constitutes it in being, since number is a multitude formed of unities (multitudo ex unitatibus aggregata) which will not allow themselves to fall into indefinite 25. Ibid., p.  252. Compare the same text by Macrobius, incorrectly quoted by Eckhart, in Exp. in Io., C., f. 121va, ll. 54-60: Unum monas id est unitas dicitur, ut ait Macrobius; non numerus, sed fons et origo omnium numerorum est, initium finisque omnium, principium et finem nesciens, ad summum refertur Deum. Innumerabiles species et de se creat et intra se continet. Et, cum se immensitati universitatis infundat, nullum init cum sua unitate divorcium. Hucusque verba Macrobii. Here the Soul of the world which is poured out into the immensity of the universe that it must animate is also confused with the One. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Semel Locutus Est Deus, Duo haec Audivi’, note 68 (a quotation from Macrobius in Lib. Parabol. Genes.) and, in the same chapter, see section headed ‘Oppositio Nihil Mediatione Entis’. Also see the complete text of Macrobius, Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis, p. 496, l. 30-p. 497, l. 20. 26. De trinitate, I.1.3 (PL 64, col. 1251). 27. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p.  252. Compare the same example of pure gold in Lib. Parabol. Genes., cited above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Quiddity and ‘Esse Secundum”, see note 183.

322

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

divisibility. The one also maintains in being both number and multitude, insofar as each aggregation of indivisible unities receives the character of an entirety by virtue of its participation in the ipsum unum.28 Thus, on the one hand, it is necessary to point out the major distinction which opposes the one and the multiple but, on the other hand, we must highlight the direct and close link which unites them, with the one being the foundation of the multiple, being inseparable from all that is multitude and number. Meister Eckhart sums it up, making use of these two principles which he looked for in Macrobius: Et hoc est quod Macrobius dicit quod ‘unitas non est ipsa numerabilis’. Ecce opposicio et distinctio. Sequitur: ‘innumerabiles species de se creat et intra se continet’. Ecce indistinctio.29 The principle which obliges one to distinguish between and oppose God and created beings must be dialectically completed by that of their indistinction and nonopposition, if the ‘pagan Masters’, in their speculations on the One and the multiple, were capable of glimpsing the Christian truth of the creation of all things ex nihilo by the one and only God-Being. For Meister Eckhart the dialectic of the ‘opposition and nonopposition’ between being which is at the same time both ‘distinct’ and ‘indistinct’ from God and creatures is, thus, founded upon the relationship between the One and the multiple as it appears in Neo-Platonic speculation, and particularly in Proclus. The first proposition of Elementatio theologica, which Eckhart cites  – omnis multitudo participat aliquatiter uno – and above all his commentary,30 28. In pointing out this double dependency of multitude upon the one (in its indivisible elements and in its totality), Meister Eckhart makes reference to Proclus (the first proposition of the Elements of Theology and his commentary, ed. Dodds, p. 2). 29. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, pp. 252-53. 30. Here is the entire text of the commentary on the first proposition, Latin translation by William of Moerbeke, published by C. Vansteenkiste, ‘Procli Elementatio theologica translata a Guilelmo de Moerbeke’, Tijdschrift voor Philosophie 13, no.  3 (1951), pp.  491531: Si enim nullatenus participaret, neque totum unum esset, neque unumquodque multorum ex quibus multitudo; sed esset ex aliquibus quaelibet multitudo, et hoc in infinitum, et unumquodque horum infinitorum esset iterum multitudo infinita. Neque enim uno nullatenus participans, neque secundum totum seipsum, neque secundum unumquodque eorum quae in ipso, omniquaque infinitum erit et secundum omne. Nam multorum unumquodque, quodcumque

Splendor in Medio

323

summarised in two sentences on production of the multitude and its conservation in being, shows us clearly that the function of a mathematical one, a non-numeric principle of number, cannot be separated, here, from the metaphysical role of the One which is transcendent in relation to all that is.31 Despite their terminological similarity, this one which is a stranger to number is not that of Aristotle, for whom the one relates to the multiple in a way more like that which measures in relation to that which is measurable. Through the text of the Elementatio, Meister Eckhart’s thought arrives at Proclus’ principal source: the fourth hypothesis of the Parmenides, a text by Plato which must have been unknown to Eсkhart.32 In effect, along with Eckhart, we ourselves encounter the same problem, namely that of bringing together quantity and quality, a quantitative ‘less’ and a qualitative ‘more’, which is what enabled Plato to allow for an active presence of Unity-Identity within plurality-alterity.33 This acceperis, aut unum erit aut non unum; et si non unum, aut multa aut nihil. Sed si quidem unumquodque nihil, et quod ex hiis nihil; si autem multa, ex infinities infinitis erit unumquodque. Haec autem impossibilia. Neque enim ex infinities infinitis est aliquid entium. Infinito enim amplius non est, quod autem ex omnibus unoquoque amplius; neque ex nullo componi aliquid possibile est. Omnis ergo multitudo participat aliqualite uno. 31. To reproach Eckhart for having confused metaphysical unity and mathematical unity, as Fr Théry has done (Archives, III, ‘Le Commentaire de Maître Eckhart sur le livre de la Sagesse’, pp.  25859, notes), amounts to wanting to judge from an Aristotelian and Thomist point of view (compare Ia, q. 11, a. 3, ad 2m) a Platonic tradition which has as its point of departure the fourth hypothesis of Parmenides (157b-159a) and its culmination in Proclus (loc. cit.) and Pseudo-Dionysius (De div. nom., XIII.2 [PG 3, cols 977-980]). However, we note that St Thomas himself, in citing the indicated passage of one of St Paul’s presumed disciples, is also, without knowing it, taking support from Proclus’ authority in order to show that ipsa multitude non contineretur sub ente, nisi contineretur aliquo modo sub uno (Ia, q. 11, a. 1, ad 2m). 32. The Latin translation of Proclus’ commentary on Parmenides, written by William of Moerbeke (around 1285), ends after the first hypothesis. See Raymond Klibansky’s introduction to the edition of this text in Plato latinus III (London, 1953). 33. Compare Jean Wahl, Étude sur le Parménide de Platon (4th  edn, Paris: Vrin, 1951), pp.  174-75: ‘Between the one and nothingness,

324

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

is the meaning which the Christian theologian, Eckhart, lends to the text of Wisdom 7:27: et cum sit una, omnia potest. He was to comment on this by referring again to Proclus, by the intermediary of the Liber de causis (Proposition 17):34 omnis virtus unita infinicior est plura et in plura potens; sed Sapientia, que Deus est, est maxime una, utpote prima. Igitur ipsa est simpliciter infinita et omnia potens.35 However, it is important, here, to take account of all that separates Meister Eckhart from his Neo-Platonic sources. Whereas, in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise, the ‘unified virtue’ of the Intelligence was ‘more infinite’ than all ‘multiplied’ virtue, since it related to Plotinus’ second hypostasis, most of all by drawing nearer the ‘true and pure One’, according to Eckhart creative Wisdom is infinite in an absolute sense, without any ‘more’ or ‘less’, since it is conceived of at the level of the transcendent One. As we have seen,36 the Dominican mystic’s Unity is not ‘beyond Being’: convertible with the indistinct and inoperative Essence, it is the divine paternity which, in the personal One, lends to essential ‘indistinction’ the ‘distinct’ sense of a suppositum – a principle of omnipotent operation. A synthesis of the two Neo-Platonic hypostases, Meister Eckhart’s One reunites, in the person of the Father, the supreme distinction between the unique Being, meaning pure identity with itself, and the indistinction of the historic Parmenides text places nothing; the Eleatic master of Socrates reintroduces the idea of “other than the one” – which cannot be anything other than the multiple. Plurality thus enters in between the one and nothingness; the quantitative “more” of the atomists and Pythagoreans is a qualitative “less”, but which nevertheless has a real existence, precisely because it has a certain part of this quantitative less-ness, of this qualitative more-ness which is unity. Refuting Zeno, Parmenides shows that if the one is, then there is the multiple; he even shows that if there is the multiple, then the one is; this multiple, these are the ideas which participate in the one.’ 34. Lib. de caus., Prop. 17 (ed. Steele, p.  175; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 16, p.  179 and ff.): Omnis virtus unita plus est infinita quam virtus multiplicata. Compare Procli Elemenatio theologica, Prop. 95 (ed. Vansteenkiste, p.  300): Omnis potentia unitior existens est infinitior quam plurificata. See the original text in ed. Dodds, p. 84. 35. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p. 261. 36. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The First Determination of Being’.

Splendor in Medio

325

the one Being, an Omni-unity which extends its plenitude to all that is. Since, as Eckhart says, li ‘unum’ idem quod indistinctum,37 one cannot speak of the indistinction of being apart from the Father’s personal property: esse enim sive essentia Dei cum sua proprietate, patris unitate scilicet, descendit in omnia a se quocumque modo procedentia.38 However, the same paternal property which manifests the essence’s indistinction gives way to distinction: est enim unum in se indistinctum, distinctum ab aliis.39 It can be surmised that the dialectic of opposition and non-opposition between God and creatures, founded upon the doctrine of the One, presupposes a dynamic coincidence of identity with alterity in the trinitarian prelude to creation. For the moment it will suffice to note the following: Meister Eckhart’s One indicates the indistinction of Being by ‘determining it against the multiple’; it is the personal property of the Father who ‘indicates distinction’40 both in intra-trinitarian relations and in the relationship between the indistinct Essence and distinct creatures. As in the relationship of the ‘un-numerable’ one to the number for which it serves as a basis or foundation, it is thus necessary, when speaking of God and the creatures which He caused to exist, to maintain simultaneously the transcendence and the immanence of the Esse or indistinct Essentiality in the relationship to the distinct essences of all that is. In two places in his Latin works, Meister Eckhart makes use of the dialectic of opposition and non-opposition so as to express the relationship between God and created beings: in the Expositio Libri Sapientiae, in terms of ‘distinction’ and ‘indistinction’, and in the second edition of Expositio Libri Exodi, in terms of ‘dissimilitude’ and ‘similitude’. These two passages have, with good reason, attracted the attention of several critics.41 Their analysis will permit 37. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p. 246. 38. Exp. in Io., C. f. 119rb, ll. 38-40. 39. Ibid., f. 122ra, ll. 26-27. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The First Determination of Being’, note 96. 40. See above, the same note. 41. On the dialectic passage of Exp. in Sap., see Archives, IV, pp.  25460, Fr Théry’s notes and comments. On that of Exp. in Ex., see Karrer, Meister Eckhehart, pp. 277-80; compare pp. 82, 374-77. Both of these passages were studied by: A. Dempf, Meister Eckhart (Leipzig: Jakob

326

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

us to go on to approach Eckhart’s doctrine of analogy. We shall, then, see whether the dialectic and ‘analectic’ can go together in a philosopher’s thought, as two different methods corresponding to the same doctrinal demand.42

Indistinctio-Distinctio In the commentary on the Book of Wisdom, after having established (on the basis of a text by Macrobius) the principles of opposition and non-opposition of the one and of number,43 Meister Eckhart sets out to show that all that had been previously said about the nature of the one must also be true of God-Wisdom.44 Towards that end, Eckhart would produce two lines of antithetical arguments, one on the distinction between God and creatures and the other on the Hegner, 1934), pp. 204-8; Bange, ‘Meister Eckharts Lehre vom göttlichen und geschöpflichen Sein’, p. 225 and ff.; Hof, Scintilla animae, pp. 10812 and passim. UnlikeDempf, Hof disputes the dialectic character of Eckhart’s thought; he is correct only insofar as he wishes to lend a Hegelian meaning to this expression (pp. 152-58). In her excellent brief book, Maître Eckhart et la mystique rhénane (Paris: Seuil, 1956), in which she sought to make these ideas more widespread and accessible, Ms J. Ancelet-Hustache also noted the importance of both passages. 42. Concerning this subject, see the very edifying study by E. Coreth, ‘Dialektik und Analogie des Seins: Zum Seinsproblem bei Hegel und in der Scholastik’, Scholastik 26, no. 1 (1951), pp. 57-86. Dialectic and analogy must, according to the author, fulfil the same function in a doctrine of being: a logical mediation between identity and alterity. However, they are not interchangeable, since each corresponds to a different conception of being. Fr Coreth’s conclusion is quite correct within the limits of his study dealing with Hegel’s and St.  Thomas’ philosophies, but is it valid with respect to all dialectic and all doctrines of analogy? The case of Meister Eckhart would seem to us to prove the contrary, despite all that Hof has said (op. cit., p. 152: ‘keine dialektische, sondern analektische Philosophie’) in criticising Alois Dempf’s thesis on Meister Eckhart’s ‘dialektisch konzpierte Analogielehre’. However, let us note that the Swedish critic is not entirely wrong: insofar as he refuses to permit in Eckhart a ‘hegel-kierkegaardische Dialektik’, his critical observations are just. 43. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘Opposition and Nonopposition’. 44. Théry, Archives, IV, pp. 253-56.

Splendor in Medio

327

indistinction thereof. However, first it was necessary to demonstrate that in God, as in the one, there is no place for number. Eckhart reminds his readers that number and multitude45 always constitute a fall (casus) and a distancing (recessus) from being; in God no kind of degradation of being can occur, because, as He is Being and the First One, He has an absolute pre-eminence over all things. Thus, it is that number and multiplicity must necessarily be excluded from God and, since unum est in quo numerus non est, it would seem quite clear that God is One. It still remains to be demonstrated that the two contradictory aspects of the one – its transcendence and its immanence with regard to the multiple – together characterise God’s relationship with the creaturely existence which He produces and preserves in being: nichil tam distinctum a numero et numerato sive numerabili, creato scilicet, sicut Deus, et nichil tam indistinctum.46 The three arguments of the first line of reflection are concerned with distinction and opposition: (1) The distinction between the indistinct and the distinct is greater than that which separates two distinct beings from each other. Thus, for example, the difference between uncoloured and coloured surpasses all that distinguishes two surfaces of different colours. Since indistinction (= unity) belongs to God by nature, while distinction is the very reason of a created nature, it is necessary to conclude that God is distinguished to the highest degree from all that is created (Distinctissimus est ab omni et quolibet creato). (2) Nothing is as far removed from any other being as is its opposite; God and creatures are indeed opposed to each other as a non-numerable One and a multiple which is submitted to number; thus, with respect to a created being, there is nothing more distinct than God. (3) Every thing which is distinguished by its own indistinction is just as much distinct as it is indistinct, since indistinction is its distinctive reason. In this 45. See the same, Exp. in Sap., a passage on number and oneness in which are found considerations concerning privation, the root of number in material beings, and negation utpote formalis distinctio, the root of multitude in spiritual creatures (Archives, III, pp. 428-29). 46. Archives, IV, p. 253.

328

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology third argument, absolute distinction coincides with indistinction, since it is concerned with the One who is beyond all opposing terms. With a contrary meaning one could just as well say that extreme distinction is the ultimate point of indistinction. Igitur quanto distinctius, tanto indistinctius, et quanto indistinctius, tanto distinctius. God is the Indistinct One who is distinguished by His indistinction. Following a reference to Summa Theologica (1a, q.7, a.3, ad 3), in which St Thomas insists upon the infinity of the Esse per se subsistens, an attribute which distinguishes it from the esse receptum in alio, Eckhart also cites the enduring authority of St John Damascene: ‘Est enim Deus pelagus infinite substantie’, et per consequens ‘indistincte’.47

The task now is the building or establishing of the antithesis: there is nothing as much one and indistinct as God and creatures. Meister Eckhart established the antithesis by creating three arguments which run parallel those of the first series: ratio est triplex, ut prius in opposito: (1) The absolute dependence of creatures with respect to God’s creative action is comparable to the indissoluble unity of the ens with the esse, of power with action, of matter with form: in Being there is nothing as ‘indistinct’ as these.48 47. De fide orthoxa, I.9 (PG 94, col. 836b). See the Latin text, translated by Burgondion of Pisa (c. 1153-54), ed. E.M. Buytaert (St Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 1955) p.  49: Totum enim in seipso comprehendens habet esse, velut quoddam pelagus substantie infinitum et indeterminatum. 48. It is important not to misuse this passage (as Fr Théry mentions quite rightly, Archives, IV, p.  255 and f., note 5) by forgetting that it is an argument of antithesis, in which Eckhart insists solely upon indistinction and non-opposition. Judging from the perspective of a Thomist doctrine of being, this comparison would lead one to believe that it is a monstrous confusion of God, the Formal Cause, with creatures. Let us recall what was said above (see above, Chapter 3, section headed 'Quiddity and 'Esse Secundum'') about the distinction between essence and esse in Meister Eckhart’s works. If, contrary to what St Thomas

Splendor in Medio

329

(2) There is nothing which is as much one and indistinct as that which is ‘constituted’ and that which ‘constitutes’ – illud ex quo et per quod et in quo constituitur et subsistit. This is precisely the case with number or with numerable multiples which are constituted from unities and which subsist by virtue of the one, as was said above.49 Thus, there is nothing as indistinct as the God-One or Unity and the numerable creation which He produces and preserves in being. (3) There is no greater indistinction than that which is implied by distinction itself. By its own distinction, all that is numerable or created (numerosum sive creatum) is not distinguished from God (sua distinctione indistinguitur a Deo). Thus, there is nothing more indistinct and one than God and creatures. This is what the scriptural text ‘from Him, by Him, and in Him are all things’50 (Romans 11:36) truly means. An analysis of this dialectical passage from the commentary on Wisdom shows us that in both opposite developments, the third argument represents a sort of synthesis or, more precisely, a conclusion which, albeit with a different emphasis for each of the two series of arguments, affirms a coincidence of distinction and indistinction in the relationship between God and creatures. Thus, in the conclusion of the first series, the indistinction which belongs to the Infinite Being becomes the ‘reason’ which distinguishes God from created beings, while the final argument of the opposing series makes distinction, which characterises asserts, in Eckhart there is no ‘metaphysical composition’ of esse and essence in created beings, but, rather, it is a case of a ‘distension’ of entia between divine essentiality and created essence, then this duality and distinction which affect created beings do not any less presuppose in the esse of creatures a unity and indistinction which is received directly from God ‘who enters all essences’. This is why created beings are ‘one and yet not-one’, distinct and indistinct, beings and yet non-beings. The doctrine of analogy permits Meister Eckhart to find another language than that of dialectic in order to speak of the adherence of created beings to the ‘Being which is God’. 49. See above, Chapter  5, section entitled ‘Opposition and Nonopposition’, and note 28. 50. As we shall see later, for Eckhart, this text identifies the threefold causality, efficient, formal and final, which is attributed to the three divine persons: of the Father, by the Son, in the Holy Spirit.

330

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

creatures, the ‘reason’ for their indistinction from God, an Absolute Being upon Whom they are totally dependent. The indistinction which is distinct from God and the distinction which is indistinct from creatures differentiate the Absolute, who is always distinct from that which is relative which is never independent in its distinction, without opposing one and the other, without breaking the unity of being, which is transcendent and at the same time immanent with respect to all that is. Meister Eckhart here tries to express dialectically what he said elsewhere in terms of a doctrine of analogy: a vision of the unity of being which is not that of Pantheist monism, but, rather, of a Christian ‘nondualism’,51 which corresponds to the idea of the creation of the world ex nihilo by the omnipotent God of the Bible – ‘He who is’. Throughout this dialectical development, we can recognise the schema of the relationship between the one and the multiple transposed in the doctrine of being. The Indistinct Being, ‘an ocean of infinite substance’, produces and preserves in being the distinct and finite essences of creatures, as the one which positively establishes multitude and number, while maintaining these in unity. Like a number, which is distinct from all other numbers and does not fade away into an undefined division, but rather remains that which it is by virtue of the one; in the same way, the definite essences of creatures, distinct among themselves, receive the indistinction of being from the divine Esse, since it penetrates all created essences: esse autem ab ente et ab essentia indistinctum est.52 However, like unity in number, so it also is with Essentiality in determined essences and Divinity in creatures: it remains identical to itself, but nonetheless presents itself under a different mode, that of an active presence of the superior within the inferior, of the undetermined in the determined. God’s unity is also necessarily His oneness: the indistinct being which distinguishes Him from creatures is that by which He is this God, yet who is indefinable in His essence.53 By contrast, a creature which is determined by its essence, which makes it ‘this something’, 51. This expression comes from Rudolf Otto, in West-Östliche Mystik: Vergleich und Unterscheidung zur Wesensdeutung (Gotha: Leopold Klotz, 1926), who sought to render Shankara’s term ‘advaita’ in this way. See Jean Gouillard’s French translation, Mystique d’Orient et mystique d’Occident (Paris: Payot, 1951). 52. Exp. in Ex., LW II, p. 107, n. 106. 53. Ibid., p. 104, n. 102.

Splendor in Medio

331

definable hoc aliquid, is never unique: even though it participates in the unity and indistinction of being (outside which it is a ‘pure nothingness’), created essence is distinguished from the ‘Being who is God’, from the esse ab alio, as plurality is distinguished and ‘descends’ from the one upon which it depends and in which it participates.54 In other words, essential distinction and the indistinction of being cannot coincide except in God alone: He is His own Esse, the only Being who is by His very own essence.55 Meister Eckhart does not contradict himself when he claims that the creature ‘is not distinguished from God by its distinction’. He means that the distinction between created essences and the divine Esse upon which they depend does not permit the opposition of the created entia with God who is the Ipsum Esse of all essences. This position regarding the unity of being is the dialectical counterpart of Eckhart’s ‘real distinction’: in as much as they are at all, created essences are not distinguished from ‘Being itself’ which is actively opposed to nonbeing by the middle or intervening term ‘all beings’. Created alterity remains submitted to the demands of the unity of being in this ontology which is conceived within the framework of a philosophy of the One. The being of creatures is not ‘another being’; it is the same being ‘in the other’, which does not exist of itself: another mode of being which does not add anything to that Being which is without modes. In terms of unity, it is the mode of the one in its relationship to the ‘other’ – unum in duobus, the mode which forms the basis for the similitude between cause and effect. The same dialectic of one-being, which is distinct in divine indistinction and indistinct in created distinction, is used by Meister Eckhart in his commentary on Exodus. However, here, in order to support the opposition and non-opposition between God and creatures, Eckhart resorts to the terms ‘dissimilitude’ and ‘similitude’. In completing our analysis of the text of Expositio Libri Sapientiae, we have had to refer to several declarations concerning the indistinctio-distinctio taken from the passage of Expositio Libri Exodi, which precedes and introduces the dialectical theme of similitudo-dissimilitudo. 54. Ibid., p. 103, n. 101. 55. Compare the proof for the existence of God in Prol. gener. in Op. tripart., in which Eckhart, in an original way, connects with St Anselm’s argument (LW I, p. 159, n. 13).

332

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

In one commentary on the text, non habebis deos alienos (Exodus 20:3),56 Meister Eckhart establishes: (1) God’s unicity  – Ipsum Esse, the Cause of all beings, a unicity which excludes polytheistic multiplicity (eight arguments); and (2) divine unity or the immediateness of the Being-one in all that is, an immediateness which renders God ‘non-alien’ to created beings: God is ‘alien’ only to nothingness, but nothingness is alien to creatures inasmuch as they are (six arguments). God’s positive relationship, ‘which is not alien to beings’, is that of similitude: omne simile adicit suo simili. By contrast, nothingness, which is alien to all that is, negatively determines creatures with respect to God, casting them aside into the realm of dissimilitude: alienum, utpote dissimile, abicit. Thus, it would seem that creatures, insofar as they are distinct and aliud ab esse, find themselves alienated from God, as they are ‘alien’ and ‘dissimilar’. It is necessary that they renounce this alienum by rejecting the nothingness which makes them ‘exterior’ (quod foris stat) and ‘contrary’ (adversum) to God.57 Positioned between non-being and Being, creatures must be, simulta neously, both alien and non-alien, both contrary and noncontrary to God, ‘dissimilar’ and ‘similar’. Nevertheless, it seems that we once again find ourselves before another alternative: either creatures are distinguished from God but, in that case, they are nothing but nothingness; or, being themselves indistinct from the unique Being, creatures then identify with Him. Neither the dualism between Absolute Being and Nothingness, its hypostasised opposite, nor a pantheistic monism of God’s indistinct being and of creatures leaves room or any possibility for created beings to distinguish themselves from God without falling into non-being. However, after having formulated this aporia, we realise that this remains quite foreign to Meister Eckhart’s thought, which cannot be closed in by, or limited to, static perspectives. The continuation of the text of Exodus 20:4 (neque omnem similitudinem …) will give any commentator the opportunity to grasp the opposing terms ‘similitude’ and ‘dissimilitude’ in such a way as dialectically to express Eckhart’s dynamic conception of being one and not-one in both God and in creatures.

56. LW II, pp. 103-8, nn. 100-109. 57. Ibid., pp. 107-8, n. 108.

Splendor in Medio

333

Dissimilitudo-Similitudo The dialectical passage from Expositio Libri Exodi begins with a confrontation between contradictory texts which is reminiscent of Abelard’s Sic et non. Meister Eckhart initially cites the biblical texts in which all similitude between creatures and God is categorically denied (the much discussed passage of Exodus, as well as Isaiah 40:18 and Psalm 85:5), and then goes on to cite contrary statements in Genesis (1:26) and 1 John 3:2.58 Thus, it is necessary successively to demonstrate in their extreme expression or form the dissemblance and semblance between the Creator and creatures, in order to then reunite these two opposing truths into a single antinomic formula: Sciendum ergo, quod nichil tam dissimile quam creator et quelibet creatura. Rursus, 2°, nichil tam simile quam creator et creatura quelibet. Adhuc autem 3°, nichil tam dissimile pariter et simile alteri cuiquam quam deus et creatura quelibet sunt et dissimilia et similia pariter.59 These three statements – the thesis, antithesis and their antinomic concurrence  – comprise the object of a triple demonstration. This is made up of three arguments in favour of dissemblance, three in favour of resemblance and, at last, four arguments and two examples which show the truth of the final statement and resolve its antinomy. A. – The demonstration of dissimilitude begins with the argument which opens the first antithetical series in Expositio Libri Sapientiae:60 1) The dissimilitude of that which is distinct and that which is indistinct goes beyond all that which could differentiate two distinct but similar beings. Thus, two men or two coloured objects cannot be distinguished between each other in the same absolute way as a man can be distinguished from a ‘non-man’, or a coloured object from a ‘non-coloured’ one. This radical distinction between the being and non-being of a thing must convey the notion of the total dissimilitude of the Creator with respect to 58. Ibid., pp. 109-10, n. 110-11. 59. Ibid., p. 110, n. 112. 60. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Indistinctio-Distinctio’.

334

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

all creatures whatsoever. God, then, is indistinct from all that is being (ens) in the same sense as ‘being itself’ (ipsum esse) is indistinct from each concrete being, while each creature, by virtue of being created, is distinct from Being (which, here, indicates God).61 2) There is nothing so dissimilar as the infinite and the finite. 3) There is absolutely no greater dissimilarity than that between two terms which have no common genus. God, who is beyond all genera, cannot have any kind of generic communion with anything. These three arguments – of the indistinction of being, of infinity and of the absence of common genus  – lead to the conclusion that the first declaration is true: there is nothing as dissimilar as God and creatures.62 B.  – In his arguments in favour of similitude, Eckhart bases his case upon the total dependence of creatures upon God, as he did in his demonstration of indistinction. However, here, he introduces the moment of exemplary causality which he did not mention in his arguments in Expositio Libri Sapientiae:63 1) A term which wholly depends upon another, a being which receives its being – all that it is – solely in its relationship ad alterum, must bear a great resemblance to this Other, with the Absolute Being from whom it takes all its ‘diluted 61. Compare Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p.  247: Deum esse unum, quod est indistinctum, significat divinam summam perfectionem, quia sine ipso et ab ipso distinctum nichil est aut esse potest; quod clarissimum est, si loco Dei accipiamus esse. Deus enim est esse. Constat autem quod esse est indistinctum ab omni quod est et quod nichil est nec esse potest distinctum et separatum ab esse. Ioh. I: ‘omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nichil’. 62. LW II, pp. 110-11, n. 113-114. 63. Was the commentary on Wisdom [Exp. in Sap.] written before the second edition of Exp. in Ex., in which the dialectic of dissimilitudosimilitudo, as introduced by Eckhart, seems to follow at least in part the dialectic of distinctio-indistinctio? Reffke (‘Studien zum Problem der Entwicklung Meister Eckharts im Opus tripartitum’, p.  80) places the writing of Exp. in Sap. before the reworking of the two first commentaries of the Opus expositionum.

Splendor in Medio

335

and copied’ being (cuius totum esse est ab altero deductum et exemplatum). Boethius’ famous verses on the form of Supreme Goodness, the divine model of the universe, are precisely about the creature’s relationship to God. 2) The assimilation performed in intimis, in that which is most interior, surpasses all exterior similitude that one could have with something other. This is how a creature assimilates to God, by receiving from Him being with its transcendental attributes: truth,64 the good, as well as all spiritual perfections. As for the similitude of created beings with each other, it is limited to external similarities, according to sensory qualities such as warmth, colour, smell, shape etc. In other words, true similitude can be only intelligible and, consequently, it must belong to the intimate relationship which connects created essences to their First Cause. From this it must be concluded that, in the order of similitude, nothing can match the immediateness of the interior relationship of creatures to their Creator. 3) By referring to the scriptural text (Acts 17:28: in Ipso enim vivimus et movemur et sumus)65 and to St Augustine,66 Meister Eckhart affirms that creaturely being consists in being only in God and in nothing other than God; this, in turn, implies the highest degree of resemblance of creatures to the Creator.

64. An error by Karrer (op. cit., p.  377) resulted in the misreading of verum as unum. The word unum is not to be found in manuscripts C or T, which is to be expected in a text which is not about unity but about similitude. 65. Being the result of an error in the defective texts of manuscripts C and T, in which the text reads moritur instead of movetur, Hans Hof was not able to see Eckhart’s allusion to the scriptural text; this, then, accounts for his erroneous interpretation of the passage which he analysed: ‘denn der Schöpfer lebt und stirbt (vivit et moritur) in dem Geschaffenem’ (Scintila animae, p. 104). Compare further down, p. 107, the same error which, fortunately, has not had a great overall effect on this excellent work by the Swedish critic. 66. Soliloquiorum I.1.3 (PL 31, col. 870).

336

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

These three arguments – on the essential dependence with reference to the exemplary principle, on the intimate presence of this principle of assimilation, on the ‘being-in-God’  – demonstrate the truth of the antithesis: there is nothing so similar as God and creatures.67 C. – The task now is to justify the third declaration by demonstrating the reciprocal complementarity of the two contradictory propositions: nothing is at the same time (coniunctim) both as dissimilar and as similar as God and creatures. This proof (which does not confine itself just to four arguments but makes use of three more examples so as to demonstrate that the co-existence of diversity and identity is not inconceivable) corresponds to the final arguments of the two opposed series on ‘distinction’ and ‘indistinction’ in the dialectical passage of Expositio Libri Sapientiae. The same formula, indistinctione distinguitur, will be taken up again in the first argument: 1) There is nothing which is as dissimilar but at the same time as similar with respect to another than something whose dissimilitude is the same as its similitude with another, and its indistinction with it  – its highest distinction. God is distinguished by His indistinction and by His infinitude with respect to all created being, which is distinct and finite. This identification of the Divine Being’s ‘indistinction’ along with His infinity permits Eckhart to use, at this point, a quotation from the Summa Theologica.68 Since He is distinguished by His indistinction and becomes similar by His dissimilitude, God must be all the more similar as He is more dissimilar from all that is created. Thus, as St Augustine has said,69 the more we speak of the ineffable, the less it is ineffable. By the same token, according to Averroes,70 time cannot 67. LW II, pp. 111-12, n. 115-116. 68. Ia, q. 7, a. 1, ad 3um: Dicendum quod, ex hoc ipso quod esse Dei est per se subsistens non receptum in aliquo, prout dicitur infinitum, distinguitur ab omnibus aliis, et alia removentur ab eo. Sicut si esset albedo subsistens, ex hoc ipso quod non esset in alio, discerneretur ab omni albedine existente in subiecto. 69. De doctrina christiana, I.6 (PL 34, col. 21). See above, Chapter  1, section headed ‘The Search for the Ineffable’. 70. Physics IV, comm. 124 (Venice, 1552, f. 91ra).

Splendor in Medio be denied without affirming its reality by virtue of this very negation which itself occurs in time. Because of the reciprocity between similitudo and dissimilitudo, it can be said, along with our cited authoritative Scriptural source, that similitude to the created order cannot be attributed to God: the more one poses creation, the less it is posed, because it shows all the more dissemblance. Following this is a reference to a passage from St Augustine,71 which is about the visible similitude of invisible realities. 2) The more that one assimilates something to God by specifying or underscoring the points of similitude between them, the more their dissimilitude becomes evident by virtue of this very plurality. This maxim, which is attributed to the ‘saints and doctors’, is based upon the Platonic doctrine of the relationship between the one and the multiple: the more something is quantitative, the less it is qualitative.72 3) The equilibrium of dissimilitudo-similitudo, which was in danger of being shattered in the two preceding arguments in favour of a radical dissimilitude between God and creatures, is re-established, and it finds a solid foundation in the doctrine of the Divine Word, the Ratio par excellence, and in the uncreated ‘reasons’ of all things in God. Dissimilitude arises due to the fact that things and their forms are not found in God, but solely their ‘reasons’, in the ‘first being’, in that which is ‘virtual’, which is to be distinguished from the ‘second being’ or ‘formal’ being of creatures. However, while maintaining that there is nothing as dissimilar as the divine ‘reason’ of a thing and the thing in its own nature, it is equally necessary to also recognise that there is nothing which is as similar. An ideal reason cannot, in a definition, be predicated of a concrete thing: it could not be said that a man is a ‘rational animal’ if there were no similitude or, rather, if there were no identity between the two terms of this affirmative

71. De libero arbitrio, I. II.11.32 (PL 32, col. 1258). 72. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Indistinctio-Distinctio’.

337

338

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

proposition.73 Equally it could be said that there is nothing as dissimilar as an eternal, uncreated reason and a temporal, created thing, citing, here, an example borrowed from St Augustine:74 the reason of a corruptible circle is eternal; furthermore, it is neither a ‘circle’ nor is it ‘circular’. The reason for that which is similar thus remains dissimilar: it does not at all resemble the things which it makes similar among themselves. However, on the other hand, there would be nothing similar here on earth if the reason for that which is similar were not present in the intimate depths of every created thing. It is thus necessary for created things and their uncreated reasons to be at the same time (pariter et coniunctim) both similar and dissimilar. 4) In the final argument, Meister Eckhart again takes up and further develops the theme of the ‘dissimilitudesimilitude’ of eternal reasons and perishable things, by introducing to it a new moment, namely the relationship between divine exemplars and created forms. He begins with the example which we already encountered in Expositio Libri Sapientiae:75 the formal causality exercised by colour renders a thing similar to all other coloured things and, simultaneously, dissimilar from all that is not coloured. The advancement of similitude in one sense is accompanied by a growing dissimilitude in another sense. The same principle can be applied to that which formally exists in created things, without having a formal being in God. Such is the case with forms which give to things their species and names. In effect, if the reasons of things and of their forms do exist in God, they do not exist there formally but ‘causably’ and virtually; as they are totally dissimilar from the forms which they produce outside themselves, divine ideas do not introduce within 73. Eckhart refers the reader to what he had already said above (LW II, pp.  75-76, n. 73): veritas affirmativae propositionis universaliter consistit in identitate terminorum, negativae veritas consistit in alietate et distinctione terminorum. 74. De immoralitate animae, 4.6 (PL 32, col. 1024). 75. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Indistinctio-Distinctio’.

Splendor in Medio

339

God the genus or the names by which created things are defined. Thus, the reason of a square is not itself squared: it is different from all that could be called a square. The dissimilitude between God and creatures is thus bilateral, ex parte utruisque termini: God has neither the species nor the name of the form which appears at the created level; a creature does not have the reason of its form, nor the name which could apply to it on the uncreated level of this virtual being in the First Cause. Manet ergo dissimilitudo et deficit fundamentum similitudinis in utroque termino, Deo scilicet et creatura. On the other hand, however, we must not forget that all production presupposes a similitude between the cause and the effect: omne enim quod fit, fit a simili.76 Wine would not come from a vine rather than from a pear tree if it did not have its pre-existence in a grape vine rather than in a pear. ‘Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?’ (Matthew 7:16). The forms of created things could not have been produced if they had not already existed, in some way, in God. Since it is necessary for the forms which give things their species and names to pre-exist in the First Cause, then every creature must be like unto God. The foundation of similitude, which is absent in two dissimilar terms, is provided by a sort of dynamic continuity, a continuity which must exist between the uncreated reasons and individually created forms so that the things would be knowable in the ‘principles’ which determine their essences.77 Thus, it is necessary to admit that the forms of created things both exist and do not exist in the God who produces them; moreover, the same is true in the case of the uncreated reasons of forms: they both exist and do not exist in the created things which they make knowable.78

76. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Intelligible Species and Exemplary Causes’. 77. Concerning this topic, see what was said concerning seminal reasons, Chapter 4, section 'Seminal reasons and the Divine Word'. 78. Exp. in Ex., LW II, pp. 112-15, n. 117-122.

340

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

We notice that in the first two arguments on synthesis, Meister Eckhart wishes to demonstrate the truth of his antinomic declaration on ‘dissimilitude-similitude’ by remaining within the same perspective of efficiency, the producer of being ex nihilo, which would make use of the dialectical framework from Expositio Libri Sapientiae: distinction-indistinction (1) and unity-plurality (2) as the foundations for ‘dissimilitude-similitude’. The perspective changes in the two final arguments, where the relationship between God and creatures is no longer envisaged on the plane of esse ab alio, but on that of essentia non ab alio, meaning, in the perspective of exemplary causality.79 As we have seen,80 this presupposes that the Logos has a double aspect: that of being ‘silent’ and unique in the Paternal Intellect and that of being ‘uttered’ and multiple in the creation which is made by the Word. However, here, this does not have to do with the very production of created effects by the First Cause (efficiency), but with a quidditative manifestation of this Cause in the effects which it produces, since every agent has in itself ‘that to which it assimilates its effects’.81 These are the exemplary causes of creatures, or rather, their essential principles in God; these are also, in the intermediary region of ‘pure intelligences’, the species – the principles for the definition of created things; finally, these are  – in the very natures of created things which are inferior to the intellect  – the forms of individual substances. The continuity which human knowledge can establish, in God’s creative action, between reasons, species and forms is due to a different presence of the same quidditative content in God and in creatures. Put differently, it is a ‘similitude’ in two absolutely dissimilar subjects, unity in duality, an identical aliquid which is found in the radical non-identity of the Creator and creatures: the ‘same’ which has nothing in common in its manner of being attributed to one thing or another. Meister Eckhart makes use of two examples taken from the naturalia to make better understood this similitude 79. This already appeared in the first argument in favour of similitude (B:1) and, less explicitly, in the second argument (B:2). 80. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’ and Chapter 4, section headed ‘Seminal Reasons and the Divine Word’. 81. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Intelligible Species and Exemplary Causes’. See the passage from Lib. Parabol. Genes., cited further down, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Rota in Medio Rotae’. note 112.

Splendor in Medio

341

in the dissimilitude between God and creatures. He also adds a third argument, borrowed from trinitarian theology, in order to show identity in alterity. These three examples permit him to resolve, in the general conclusion of his dialectical study, the antinomy of the third proposition, demonstrating in what sense ‘dissimilar similarity’ should be understood with respect to creatures and God. Example A: Heat cannot be attributed in the same way to fire and to the sun. In fire, in which heat formally exists, heat is an essential quality which ‘affects and denominates’ the nature of all that which, being fire either actively or potentially, could be called ‘hot’. On the other hand, the sun, where heat does not formally exist but rather exists ‘spiritually and virtually’, is in no way affected, since here heat is not a form which could confer ‘the nature or the being of that which is hot’. In referring to the sun as ‘hot’, we speak misleadingly, since this appellation presupposes a formal dependence upon heat.82 Meister Eckhart also makes use of this example of heat in fire and in the sun in Expositio Libri Sapientiae, as well as in other passages of his Latin works where he speaks of original or essential causes.83 These are the only causes which are worthy of this title, since, according to the characteristic of a ‘true cause’, which Eckhart gives, nihil est formaliter in causa et causato, si causa sit vera causa.84 They exercise a universal causality upon every kind of their effects which pre-exist in the ‘essential agent’, nobiliori modo, as their ‘reason’ or ‘logos’.85 As for other causes, both immediate and univocal, for example, fire which engenders fire, they possess the form of their effect but not its ‘reason’:86 these are 82. LW II, pp. 115-16, n. 123. 83. Archives, III, p.  342; IV, p.  238: …nichil est causa sui ipsius; propter quod causa ignis non est ignis, causa, inquam, essentialis super speciem et naturam ignis, sed est aliquid non ignis. Compare Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 27vb, ll. 39-43: Rursus 5°, verbum premissum sic exponitur parabolice, ut per celum intelligatur esse rerum creaturarum quod habent in suis causis originalibus, puta color in luce et calor in sole, per terram vero intelligatur esse rerum quod habent in se ipsis formaliter. 84. Utrum in Deo, LW V, p. 45, n. 8. 85. Exp. in Io., LW III, p.  25, n. 31: Et tale agens, principium scilicet in quo est logos, ratio, est agens essentiale nobiliori modo praehabens suum effectum, et est habens causalitatem super totam speciem sui effectus. See ibid., n. 4, the reference to Avicenna, Metaphysics IX, ch. 4 (Venice 1508, f. 104v). 86. Ibid., p. 24.

342

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

not, then, true causes.87 Despite the dissimilitude which characterises ‘original causes’ (and, above all, the First Cause), we find ‘similitude’ in them, that is to say, the ‘reason’ and the ‘word’ of things – the principle of their knowledge and external production. Meister Eckhart uses the term ‘analogical causes’88 for these original causes which exercise a general action. Here he follows the distinction made by St Thomas between ‘equivocal’, ‘univocal’ and ‘analogous’ agents.89 Example B: The example of a colour’s formal being on the wall which it colours and that of an intentional being, or species, which makes the same colour present in the environment, in a mirror, in the eye which sees it and in the intellect which perceives it, must show the relationship of dissimilitudo-similitudo between ‘real being’ and the ‘being of knowledge’. If it were not, in a certain sense, intentionally in its sensible species which makes it exist in the eye, then, in that case, a colour could not be seen ‘any more than an odour’. It is the same for intelligible species: if a man were not intentionally present in thought in specie et similitudine hominis, then he could not be known ‘any more than could a stone’. However, a colour (for example, whiteness), however much it may exist in the eye, does not ‘denominate’ it in the way that a form does: thus, we do not call the eye ‘white’ by virtue of the intentional presence of whiteness. On the other hand, if colour, as a form, were not in the wall that it makes visible, then this uncoloured wall could not be present in the eye. Both moments are thus necessary: it is necessary for colour to be in the wall as a form which ‘affects’ and ‘denominates’ a real being; it is also necessary that it be in the eye, not as a form but as an intention or ‘similitude’. 87. Utrum intelligere angeli, LW V, p.  54, n. 10: Nullum enim univocum habet vere rationem causae. 88. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29ra, ll. 5-12: Sciendum ergo, quod similitudo rerum in suis causis originalibus, maxime in prima, que et ratio et verbum ipsarum et est et dicitur, …, hec inquam similitudo, verbum et ratio in causa analogica ad duo respicit: ut principium scilicet cognitionis et scientie, et iterum ut principium foris in natura rerum existentie. 89. Ia, q. 13, a. 5, ad 1um. However, for St Thomas, the example of heat which is present in the sun differently than in fire characterises the equivocal cause (Ia, q. 6, a. 2): Similitudo autem effectus in causa quidem univoca invenitur uniformiter; in causa autem aequivoca invenitur excellentius: sicut calor excellentiori modo est in sole quam in igne.

Splendor in Medio

343

If a wall’s real being’s form of whiteness, in some way, continued to exist by its intentional similitude in the eye which sees the white wall, these two presences of the same whiteness are yet completely dissimilar: forma est ad esse, intentio sive similitudo non est ad esse nec propter esse, sed ad cognoscere et propter cognoscere et videre. Since it is this way, the wall which is coloured does not see the colour which illumines it, whereas the eye sees it precisely because it, the eye, remains uncoloured. Thus, there is a relationship of dissimilitude between the subject of a real quality and the organ which perceives it by receiving its ‘similitude’: the wall is like all that which is coloured and dissimilar to all that is not; the eye, on the other hand, being similar to all that is not coloured, will be equally dissimilar to all coloured objects.90 Independence with reference to real being (in the present example, the dissimilarity between the eye and the coloured surface) is an indispensable condition for knowledge: the less an eye is coloured, the more it sees colour, since, according to Aristotle,91 if the eye itself had any kind of colour in it, it would not be able to see any colours. The example of colour permits Meister Eckhart to make the following important observation: id ipsum, igitur, puta color, est in pariete et in oculo, sed sub alio esse, aut potius sub alio modo essendi.92 Example C: The third example must show us the foundation in divinis of all that comprises this double relationship of resemblance and dissemblance in created beings. Here we are concerned with the identity and non-identity of the Father and the Son. Since in God there is only one essence, one being, then filiation must be what (quod est) paternity is; the Father and the Son are identical in essence.93 90. Compare the example of ‘coloured’ and ‘uncoloured’ cited in the first argument in favour of a major distinction between ‘distinct’ and ‘indistinct’. See above, Chapter  5, section entitled ‘IndistinctioDistinctio’ comare section headed ‘Dissimilitudo-Similitudo’. 91. De anima II.7.418 b 27: Aristotle speaks of the ‘receptacle’ of colour (the diaphanous). Compare with this the analogous doctrine on the intellect’s impermixtio, with the references to Anaxagoras and De anima, III, above, Chapter  4, section headed “Cognitivum Ens’ and ‘Ens Reale’. 92. LW II, pp.  116-17, n. 124-125. This passage was also cited in Chapter 4 above, note 240. 93. Compare Serm. Lat. 2, 1, LW IV, p.  8, n. 6: In causis autem primordialibus sive originalibus primo-primis, ubi magis proprie nomen est principii quam causae, pincipium se toto et cum omnibus suis

344

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

However, the Father is not He who is the Son;94 paternity and filiation are reciprocally opposed and do not coincide with each other.95 Being identical in essence but non-identical in personal properties, the Father and the Son are at the same time indistinct and distinct from each other; and it is the same with the relationships of paternity and filiation, inasmuch as they are identical in essence while remaining mutually opposed to each other.96 This theological example permits us to see in this otherness, which is not that of natures but of persons, the divine prototype of all relationships of resemblance within dissemblance. Additionally, the preceding example, borrowed from the sphere of naturalia, was to be taken up by Meister Eckhart in Expositio sancti Evangelii secuncum Iohannem so as to be recast in terms of trinitarian theology: the red colour of an apple ‘generates’ its species in the visual faculty and thereby ‘speaks’ ‘as though by its son’; ‘proceeding and generated, sent by the colour red’, the species which makes it known is not something else in nature than the red which generates it, even though it is different in modo essendi – the species generated in the eye, the form which proprietatibus descendit in principiatum. Audeo dicere quod etiam cum suis propriis, – Ioh. 14: ‘ego in patre et pater in me est’, – ut non solum hoc sit in illo, quodlibet in quolibet, sed hoc sit illud, quodlibet quodlibet Ioh. 10: ‘ego in pater unum sumus’. Pater enim hoc est quod filius. Paternitas ipsa hoc est quod filiatio. Id ipsum est potentia, qua pater generat et filius generatur. Propter quod potentia generandi essentiam in recto significat, sicut dicunt meliores. 94. Lib. parabol. Genes., C., f. 26va, ll. 42-45: …is qui procedit est ‘alius’ ab eo a quo procedit, sed non est ‘aliud’ ab ipso. ‘Aliud’ enim neutraliter ad naturam pertinet sive essentiam, ‘alius’ vero masculine ad personam sive suppositum. This is something common to both the early Fathers and Scholastics. See, in the Latin fathers, St Augustine (or perhaps Vigilius of Thapsus), De unitate trinitatis contra felicianum, PL 42, cols 1165-66. In Peter Lombard, Sent. Lib. III, d. 7, c. 2 (ed. Quaracchi, pp. 584-88). 95. This is the Scholastic doctrine of relationes oppositae, which is founded upon trinitarian distinctions: Ia, q. 30, a. 2. 96. Exp. in Ex., LW II, p.  117, n. 126: Tertium exemplum est in divinis, ubi eadem essentia et idem esse, quod est paternitas, est filiatio, pater est filius; et tamen pater non is qui filius nec paternitas est filiatio, sed magis opponuntur.

Splendor in Medio

345

generates in the apple.97 The two final examples, despite their difference in level of application, are closely linked in Meister Eckhart’s thought. Thus, the philosophy of species, the form’s intentional similitude, as well as the theology of the Son-Image which is co-natural with the Father, have the same principle as their foundation: unum, sed non unus.98 Conclusion: After having provided these three examples of that which is similar in that which is dissimilar, Meister Eckhart finds the solution to the dissimilitudo-similitudo antinomy in a formula or phrasing which concludes his dialectical study of God and creatures. Sic ergo in proposito: creatura est deo similis quia id ipsum est in deo et creaturas; dissimilis tamen, quia sub alia ratione est hinc et inde.99 Thus, the truth of the third declaration – ‘there is nothing which is at the same time both as dissimilar and similar as God and creatures’ – is at least proven, founded upon the exemplary relationship which Meister Eckhart invoked in arguments B (1), C (3) and (4), and fleshed out with three examples of similitude (or identity, in the third 97. Exp. in Io., C., f. 110ra, ll. 34-56: Pomum dulce et rubicundum gignit, mittit et inmittit speciem suam in visu, in quantum rubeum est, et se toto, quidquid sui rubeum est, et illo utpote filio et prole loquitur, prodit et docet omne quod sui est et nichil aliud. Et species illa missa a colorato loquitur verba colorati et hec omnia et nulla alia et nullius alterius, secundum illud infra, 15°: ‘Omnia quecumque audivi a patre meo nota feci vobis’ et infra, 16°, de spiritu sancto: ‘quecumque audiet, loquetur’. Sic ergo species procedens et genita, missa a rubeo ipsi oculo sive visui, docet et in se representat omnia que sunt rubei se parientis et non aliud in natura, in rubeo. Si enim esset aliud in natura a rubeo, non conduceret ad cognitionem rubei, sed potius abduceret ab eius cognitione. Est ergo idem in natura, differens in modo essendi, hinc genita, illinc gignens. Hoc est ergo quod hic dicitur: ‘quem misit deus, verba Dei loquitur, non enim ad mensuram dat Deus spiritum’. Eo scilicet quod dat omnia et illa sola que mittentis et producentis, in quantum producentis, – ait enim: ‘quem misit Deus, verba Dei loquitur’, nullius prorsus alterius scit, vult aut potest loqui, sicut in exemplo supra posito species rubei missa a pomo dulci rubeo nichil docet, nec per ipsam cognoscitur quippiam de dulci, sed nec de alio colore, preter quam solus rubeus color. 98. Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 162-63, n. 194. 99. LW II, p. 117, n. 126.

346

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

example) of the essential content of two dissimilar subjects. It will be noted that the antinomy in the final section of Meister Eckhart’s dialectic was not raised in a synthesis, but, rather, it was resolved by a distinction between two moments in divine causality which, together, provide the basis for the ‘dissimilitude’ and ‘similitude’ of created beings.

Rota in Medio Rotae The two attempts at dialectically expressing the relationship between God and creatures in the commentaries on Wisdom and on Exodus do not have the same doctrinal breadth. The dialectic of distinctioindistinctio, which is founded upon a philosophy of the one, a principle transcending number, operates on the level of creative efficiency which gives way to the alterity of a distinct but totally dependent subject, in the being which it receives – that is, dependent on the non-alterity of the indistinct Being. Into the dialectic of dissimilitudo-similitudo, Eckhart introduces, as we have already pointed out, a new doctrinal element, namely that of exemplary causality which presupposes the presence of an ideal ‘similitude’ of production in the intellect of the producer. Th is veering towards the moment or principle of exemplarity which occurs in the course of Meister Eckhart’s argumentation complicates the problem of the relationship between God and creatures, by transferring it to a level which is no longer uniquely to do with efficiency. Th is transfer or transition is enshrined in the general conclusion of the dialectical passage which we have just analysed. Thus, here Meister Eckhart wishes to establish the similitude between God and creatures upon the identity of an essential content which does not come from without, as creative efficiency does – collatio esse – but which radiates inwardly within created effects, making them knowable and defi nable in the principles which constitute their essences. As for the dissimilitude which sets the Creator and creatures in opposition to one another, it shall be attributed to the alterity of the modes of being (alia ratio) under which ‘the same’, the identical essential, dwells indistinctly in the One or exteriorises itself and becomes distinct in the production of ‘the other’. Thus, while remaining on the plane of exemplary causality, we can still speak of the same quidditative content in the Divine Intellect and in the knowable essences of creatures, which have been ‘devolved’ and ‘copied’ (exemplatae) on

Splendor in Medio

347

the basis of their own essential principle which is, ultimately, the Word who is identical in nature to the Father. However, here we must add that, by referring to efficient causality, this essential ad ipsum is found sub alia ratione in God and in creatures: this will be, on one hand, the uncreated idea which is the virtual being of creatures in its First Cause and, on the other hand, it is the created form which determines the creature, apart from its eternal quiddity, to be only ‘this or that’ in its own nature or individual suppositum. In other words, created essence, inasmuch as it can be known in the intrinsic principles which determine its logical structure, must be non ab alio, so as not to have any other First Cause apart from quiddity itself;100 however, in order to really exist in its own nature as a created ens, the same essence must be produced apart from its ideal reason in God, apart from its universal species as known by angelic and human intelligences, under the individual form of a suppositum in which it receives esse ab alio. Let us recall Meister Eckhart’s Avicenna-like formula, which is characteristic of the manner by means of which he distinguishes between the essence and the esse of created beings: in omni creato aliud est esse et ab alio, aliud essentia et non ab alio.101 Th is alterity of esse and essentia conditions the passivity of ‘mendicant’ essences which do not exist by themselves, conditions their pure potentiality in relation to the God who actualises them or the ipsum esse which they receive in an immediate relationship of patient to agent. Apart from or outside this relationship with the Other, created essences are but pure nothingness and, in this sense as well, one could say that they do not exist ab alio. By the same token, if one ignores created alterity in order to consider creatures in God in their uncreated gushing forth, in which they exist of themselves, without any dependence upon the Creator, one would affi rm that at this level, where the ‘life’ of the Divine Intellect bubbles up in itself before spreading outwards, the principle of essentia non ab alio is completely justified. However, when this bullitio, the

100. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’ and ‘Two Levels of Essentiality’. 101. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Quidditas et Anitas’, note 10; see also Chapter 3, section headed ‘Essentia et Esse’.

348

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

prelude to creation, exteriorises itself in the ebullitio,102 which is an ‘outflow’ of creatures,103 then the independence of the essential content of created beings with reference to exterior causality will be less easy to maintain. Nevertheless, it remains in the domain of ‘transphysical’ knowledge, that of the metaphysician who considers beings in their essential ‘nakedness’, circumscripto efficiente et fine, as though these essences were not yet produced on the outside, necdum cointellecta ebullitione.104 Th is is the ‘cognitive’ mode of being which is distinguished, as we have seen,105 from the ens reale extra animam, in the proper natures of created things: the latter is submitted to creative efficiency working sub ratione esse, whereas the ‘being of knowledge’ belongs to a more elevated level, that of the ‘supernatural’, where angelic and human intelligences discover these ideal ‘similitudes’ which render knowable the created essences sub ratione intellectus et intelligere, in a relationship of exemplarity which transcends the exterior causality of ‘creation’ in the strict sense of the word. Insofar as they can be known and defined, created essences, as individualised in suppositia, must be determined by the specific and generic principles emanating from their uncreated ‘reasons’, even though this participation in the abstract exemplar can be discovered only in the ‘intellectual region’, in which the quiddities of things appear as the ‘fullness and purity’ of their ‘true being’.106 If concrete 102. See above, Chapter 3, section headed “I Live Because I Live’, note 73; see Chapter 4, section headed ‘Grace, Glory and Divine Dissimilitude’. 103. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Grace, Glory and Divine Dissimilitude’. The corresponding German expressions would be uzvliezen and uzbruch, according to Benno Schmoldt, who wishes to reserve Eckhart’s usage of the term uzvluz to refer to the procession of the divine persons and to the shining forth of eternal reasons. See Schmoldt, Die deutsche Begriffssprache Meister Eckharts, pp. 72-74. We do not believe that this terminological distinction between uzvluz and uzvliezen can be sufficiently established. 104. Serm. Lat. 49, 3, LW IV, pp. 425-26, n. 511. 105. See above, Chapter  4, section headed “Cognitivum Ens’ and ‘Ens Reale’. 106. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Intelligible Species and Exemplary Causes’ and Chapter 3, section headed ‘Quiddity and ‘Esse Secundum”, notes 182 and 183.

Splendor in Medio

349

being, under the particular forms of substances, always brings about a division of species in individuals and a mixture of essential content with accidental attributes, which is unavoidable in suppositia, these are nevertheless the substantial forms which confer to a real being its species and its name.107 In order to determine a being possessing this or that essence (say, that of a lion or that of a horse), the forms must participate in the action which the ‘essential causes’ exercise upon all the kinds of their effects. Thus, in the function exercised by substantial forms, which are simultaneously created with matter, receiving esse ab alio together with the entirety of the composite, a moment of investment by the exemplary principle by virtue of which the created essence, determined by the form to be nothing other than merely ‘this or that’, is none the less an essentia ab alio. Also, the hoc et hoc of creatures, although it belongs to the formal being of things, must precede it in a certain ‘outflow and becoming’ in which the specific determinations of different natures communicate themselves to the forms of the created suppositia, without having completely abandoned the uncreated ‘reason’ which governs the knowledge both of things and their creation.108 It would have been desirable to 107. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Dissimilitudo-Similitudo’. 108. This is how we interpret this odd passage from Lib. Parabol. Genes. (C., f. 29va, l. 54-f. 29vb, l. 12): Adhuc autem patet quod dictum est tertio per id quod dicitur Io. 1°: ‘hoc erat in principio aput Deum.’ Ubi tria tangit, scilicet ‘hoc’ et ‘erat’ et item ‘in principio’, in quibus verbis bene inspectis sufficienter ostenditur omne quod hic dictum est de luce et ceteris perfectionibus producendis et productis. Postquam enim dixerat Iohannes de consistentia divine nature, una in se ipsa tri–a vero,  – scilicet: ‘in principio erat verbum et verbum erat aput Deum et Deus erat verbum’,  – dictum de productione rerum extra,  – ‘omnia per ipsum facta sunt,’  – interponit, dicens: ‘hoc erat in principio aput Deum.’ ‘Hoc’ inquit: hoc enim et hoc non est nichil. Rursus, hoc et hoc non est Deus. Augustinus, 8° De trinitate: ‘tolle hoc et hoc, et quod relinquitur Deus est.’ Item, secundo, addit ‘erat’: ‘hoc’ inquit ‘erat’. Li erat dicit preteritum imperfectum. Ratione qua preteritum, et factum respicit et congruit rebus creatis et iam productis extra; ratione vero qua , nondum plene factum, extraductum, sed in quodam fluxu et fieri, prius est productis et factis, sicut motus termino et medium ultimo. Quod autem tertio, addit, ‘in principio’, – ‘hoc’ inquit ‘erat in principio’, – idem ostendit. Non enim potest esse principium quod nichil

350

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

speak of an intellectual μεταξύ between the divine exemplar and the created form if we were concerned, here, solely with the order of knowledge;109 however, it is, above all, the topic of creation which is pertinent here, and, consequently, exemplarity appears in a dynamic guise, ‘in working mode’, like a continual fluxus et fieri, a transition from the ‘virtual being’ of creatures in God to their ‘formal being’ in the external effects of creative efficiency. This dynamism in the relationship between the indistinct reasons of the Divine Intellect, the species which distinguish natures and the forms which determine the distinct essences of individuals does not permit us to separate efficiency and exemplarity in Meister Eckhart’s thought when he writes on the subject of creation. Only the ‘metaphysician’, seeking to know essences independently of the fact of their real existence would need to isolate the exemplary relationship from the context of exterior causes. By means of that separation he would find, in an immobile ‘intellectual world’, the relationship between the exemplar and the exemplatum which allows for the participation of a concrete quod est in an abstract quiddity and acts as a basis for the essentia non ab alio. This exemplary relationship, despite its superiority over the creative work, or rather, by virtue of this superiority, introduces itself into the very heart of the efficient causality which produces essences ex nihilo, in a relationship of potentiality with reference to being which is received ab alio. Even if it is not permissible to separate exemplarity and efficiency, we still must not confuse these two aspects of divine causality which together condition the distinction between essences and being in all that is created.110 Truly, the relationship of exemplarity concerns only created essence and that which could be called the spontaneous auto-determination or ‘life’ of a creature in the Divine Intellect. Thus, it would be unwise to use the texts where Meister est sive nullum esse habet. Iterum etiam, principium ut sic nunquam est principiatum sive factum. Concerning the moment of intentionality in instrumental causes, see A. Hayen, L’Intentionnel selon saint Thomas (2nd edn, Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1954), pp. 94-105. 109. There is a stability in Meister Eckhart’s conception of the ens cognitivum which relates it to the esse primum of things. Compare, in St Thomas, the distinction between intentio quiescens in anima and intentio fluens in instrumento (IV Sent., d. 1, q. 1, a. 4, ed. MandonnetMoos, p. 37, n. 159; see also Hayen, loc. cit.). 110. Hof, op. cit., p. 107.

Splendor in Medio

351

Eckhart speaks of the ebullitio or ‘outflow’ of creatures in order to interpret his doctrine of creation in the sense of some kind of emanationism.111 In these par ticu lar passages, as in many other instances where exemplarity is also concerned, the relationship between two subjects – God and creature, the Ens by itself and the ens in response to the Other – is, so to speak, put in parentheses and hardly plays any kind of role: we are concerned here only with the essential content of creatures under two different modes of being, or to put it another way, the import of the Word-similitude in two extreme terms of divine production. When we wish to speak of exemplarity in the efficient cause, the Word in the action of He who pronounces it, we discover the mysterious coincidence of creative words, in Genesis (1:3: Dixitque Deus etc.), with the ultimate Word, the Divine Word of the Gospel according to St. John (1:1: In principio erat Verbum etc.). Additionally, New Testament revelation is found to be implicitly contained within that of the Old Testament, and the theology of the Logos is contained in the account of the creation of the world, like the wheel which, in Ezekiel’s vision (1:16) ‘seemed to be in the middle of another wheel’: Rota media rotae. For Meister Eckhart, this scriptural image was to signify the generation of the Word as an internal condition necessary for the omnipotent Agent, the Creator of the World. From the starting point of the transcendent Cause of the universe, this condition reverberates here on earth at all levels of agents operating natura vel arte. In order to manifest itself, to ‘express itself’ in its external production, every agent must have within itself a similitude in relation to its effect, a proles or verbum in which there would preexist and shine forth all that comes from the cause, in its essential

111. It would never occur to anyone to reproach St Thomas for having spoken of creation in terms of ‘emanation’, ‘outflow’, ‘flow’, etc., nor to attribute to him a pantheistic emanationism. We cite the following two characteristic texts as examples: (1)  … non solum oportet considerare emanationem alicuius entis particularis ab aliquo particulari agente, sed etiam emanationem totius entis a causa universali, quae est Deus: et bene quidem emanationem designamus nomine creationis (Ia, q. 45, a. 1); and (2)  … emanatio creaturarum a Deo est sicut exitus artificiatorum ab artifice; unde sicut ab arte artificis effluunt formae artificiales in materia, ita etiam ab ideis in mente divina existentibus fluunt omnes formae et virtutes naturales (St Thomas, II Sent., d. 18, q. 1, a. 2).

352

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

identity with said cause.112 Ipsa similitudo ergo verbum est quo se ipsam dicit et manifestat causa, in quantum causa, et omnia que ipsius sunt, secundum illud: ‘Deum nemo vidit umquam; unigenitus qui est in sinu patris, ipse enarravit.’113 Every agent which produces an effect which is similar to itself (agit sibi simile) must therefore also possess its own word  – the principle by which it ‘utters’ itself or ‘speaks itself forth’ and manifests its own nature or art. Thus, heat is the word which manifests fire, while the house conceived by the architect is the word by which a builder (domificator) reveals his art; if heat were not the active quality which accompanies the form of fire and if the form of the house were not in the mind of the architect beforehand, then these univocal agents would not be capable of expressing themselves, of ‘speaking forth’ in the effects of their action. The ‘word’ must be co-natural with the agent for the effect to be like its cause. However, only an ‘essential agent’, one which exercises its causality upon all kinds of its effects, possesses not only the ‘word’, but also the logos, the ‘reason’ by which the effect attains universality and pre-exists this way in its cause nobiliori modo.114 Even if the term agens essentiale or originale, which is borrowed from Avicenna,115 is often applied to secondary causes working by virtue of a superior causality (for example, in heavenly bodies, with the sun depicted as the cause of both generation and corruption), nevertheless, these agents, being inferior to intelligence, are not co-natural with the ‘reason’ which lends a universal scope 112. Lib. parabol. Genes., C., f. 28vb, ll. 4-19: Nunc, 4°, docet modum productionis, dicens: ‘Dixitque Deus’, etc. Ubi hoc primo notandum, quod ipsum quod hic dicitur in verbis iam premissis, – ‘dixitque Deus’ etc., – idem est cum illo quod Io. 1° dicitur: ‘In principio erat verbum’, etc., usque ibi: ‘sine ipso factum est nichil.’ Qui enim dicit utique verbum et verbo dicit, nec quidquam nisi verbum et verbo dicit nec operatur, inquantum dicens est, ut sic sit rota in medio rote, novum testamentum in veteri, secundum visionem Ezechielis, primo capitulo. Notandum ergo, quod universaliter in agente quolibet principaliter preest similitudo sui effectus ad quam et ex qua producit omnia, et sine ipsa nichil. Et hoc est ‘omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nichil.’ Hec autem similitudo proles est et verbum in quo sunt et lucent omnia que cause sunt et quod ipsa causa est, in quantum causa. 113. Ibid., ll. 19-23. 114. Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 23-25, nn. 30-31. 115. Ibid., p. 25, note 4.

Splendor in Medio

353

or significance to their action. According to the conditions which Meister Eckhart seeks to assign to an essential agent, it seems that, for him, this term cannot properly be applied to anything except to God,116 the Pure Intellect, in quo non sit aliud esse quam intelligere … (in quo) ratio intelligendo formatur, nihil praeter intelligere est.117 If we wish to find true exemplarity in efficiency, the ‘reason’ which is simultaneously the ‘word’, the unique principle of knowledge and of the production of likeness by that which is like, then it is necessary to pass beyond created essential agents and ascend towards the First Cause, so that there we may discover that which is most properly New Testament revelation: emanatio et generatio personalis filii a patre.118 This is the co-essentiality of the Ratio with the Intellect or, to use the traditional language of trinitarian theology, the Word’s consubstantiality with the Father: verbum ipsum est unum principium cum dicente et parente omnium generaliter.119 Being both one and indistinct in the common principle of being and operation, the Son must, however, be distinguished from the Father in order to be the ‘Image’ which ‘utters’ and manifests Him. This natural identity and this personal distinction are revealed in the very words of Christ: ‘Ego et pater unum sumus’: ‘unum’ propter naturae identitatem, ‘sumus’ propter imaginis et eius, cuius est imago, distinctionem personalem.120 We have seen that the same essential identity (unum) accompanied by the distinction of the personal mode of being (non unus) is reproduced, to a certain extent, in the created world: the intentional species is non aliud in natura with the real thing which it makes known, but, as procedens et genita, this same species is distinguished from the thing which manifests itself and thereby ‘speaks’ ‘as through his son’ (illa utpote filio et prole loquitur).121 The Unigenitus qui est in sinu Patris (John 1:18), a prototype of intentionality, forms the basis 116. Ibid., p.  24, n. 31: In ipso enim intellectu primo utique est ratio proprie. 117. Ibid., pp.  32-33, n. 38: Here Eckhart is establishing the ‘natural conditions’ which must characterise an ‘essential principle’. 118. Ibid., p. 29, n. 35. 119. Lib. parabol. Genes., C., f. 28vb, ll. 36-37. 120. Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 162-63, n. 194. 121. Ibid. Meister Eckhart concludes: oportet ergo (speciem vel imaginem) et unum esse et non unus esse: unum, ut per ipsam cognoscatur (res), non unus, ne frustra et inutilis ad cognitionem. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Rota in Medio Rotae’.

354

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

for knowledge of the similar by means of that which is similar;122 but it is also the primordial principle, the theological foundation of all similitude between cause and effect in earthly efficiencies, where the ‘word’ which is co-natural with the agent is not identical with ‘reason’. Properly speaking, the original (or essential) cause is thus the First Cause of creatures que et ratio et verbum ipsarum est et dicitur.123 The First Cause of all things is the Reason, the Logos, the Verbum in principio.124 It is this causa prima omnium which is not God, who is exterior to creatures, but rather it is the quiddity or reason of things, being ‘uncreatable’ and not allowing for any kind of exterior dependency.125 Ipsa rerum ratio sic est principium, ut causam extra non habeat nec respiciat, sed solam rerum essentiam intra respicit. … Hinc est quod sancti communiter exponunt Deum creasse caelum et terram in principio, id est in filio, qui est imago et ratio idealis omnium.126 Independently of the meaning which we would like to give, here, to the term imago, that of the ‘Image of the Father’ or of the ‘Exemplar’127 of creatures, this text nevertheless obliges us to identify, in Meister Eckhart’s theology, the ideal reason which ‘looks’128 from the interior of created essences along with the ‘Principle’ or the Son in whom God created all things, without ‘looking at’ anything external. This interior creation, in principio, or, rather, this first degree of the production of all things, this root of created essences in the eternal generation of the Word, recalls the exegesis offered by Clement of Alexandria and of Origen, who were the first to wish to identify the principium of Genesis (1:1) with that of the Gospel of St John (1:1).129 122. Ibid., p. 163. 123. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘Dissimilitudo-Similitudo’, note 88. Compare Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 343. 124. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 12, n. 12. 125. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’, the usage in this same sense of a text by Averroes. 126. Exp. in Gen., LW I, pp. 187-88, nn. 4-5 (Compare ibid., pp. 49-50). 127. See ibid., p. 188, note 3. Compare above, Chapter 4, note 133, on the usage of the word Bild in the sense of ‘archetype’. 128. Here we translate the word respicit as ‘to look at’, instead of simply saying ‘to relate to’ in order to maintain the rich imagery which the term respicere acquires in the German equivalent, ansehen, in Meister Eckhart. For more on this subject, see Chapter 3, note 51. 129. Clement of Alexandria, Stromates, VI.7.58 (ed. O. Stahlin [Berlin, 1905-36], p.  461). Origen, First Homily on Genesis, I.§1 (in Origenes

Splendor in Medio

355

That which follows this discussion, in which Meister Eckhart wishes to see the principium first of all as the natura intellectus, then as the nunc simplex aeternitatis,130 does not in any way contradict the first interpretation: the Word is also a ‘Reason’ which is indistinct from the Act of divine intellection (nihil praeter intelligere est),131 an essential Principle which is co-extensive with the Father, being identical with Him in the unique action of generating the Son and creating the world. However, in the second hypostasis, it is important to distinguish between the abstract aspect, in which the Son remains identical to the Father, and the concrete aspect, which is properly personal, in which He is alius without, however, becoming aliud in nature. In paraphrasing Matthew 11:27 (‘No one knows the Son, but the Father; no one knows the Father, save the Son’), Meister Eckhart says: no one knows the Image but the Exemplar; no one knows the Exemplar save the Image. Here the exemplar corresponds to the abstract principle of essential identity, and the image corresponds to the concrete formation of the Son, who is personally distinct from the Father. The relationship of the image to the exemplar (identity and non-identity) is that of something concrete to ‘its abstract’: of the just to justice, of the good to goodness, of the ens to its esse.132 Let us recall, then, all that has been said about the reduction of the concrete to abstract by means of the in quantum, by the reduplicatio or the folding-in on itself, this ‘complete return upon its own essence’ which is, for Meister Eckhart, a function of the Third Person, the expression of the unity or the non-opposition of two opposites in Werke: Volume 6: Die Homilien zu Genesis, Exodus und Leviticus, ed. W.-A. Baehrens [GCS 29] [1920], p. 1); and Commentarius in Evangelium Ioannis, I.2 (in Origenes Werke: Volume 4: Der Johanneskommentar, ed. E. Preuschen [GCS 10] [1903], p. 58). 130. Exp. in Gen., LW I, pp. 189-90, nn. 6-7 (compare pp. 50-51). 131. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘Rota in Medio Rotae’, note 117. 132. Exp. in Io., LW III, p.  21, n. 26: Adhuc autem nono: imaginem non novit nisi exemplar, nec exemplar quis novit nisi imago, Matth. II: ‘nemo novit filium nisi pater, nec patrem quis novit nisi filius.’ Ratio est, quia unum est esse, nec quidquam alienum utriusque est. Eadem autem sunt principia essendi et cognoscendi, nec quidquam per alienum cognoscitur. Praemissa autem et plura similia manifeste apparent comparando iustum iustitiae, ens suo esse, bonum bonitati, et universaliter concretum suo abstracto.

356

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

the trinitarian life.133 As for the deduction of the concrete based on the abstract, the formation of the image based on the exemplar, the generation of the just by justice, this ‘formal emanation’ corresponds to the personal procession of the Son. Being identical with the essence of the Father in principio, in the abstract and as the ratio, the Son personally distinguishes Himself from the Father as verbum apud Deum in the concrete, as the generated, formed Word, ‘having become Other’ (filius = fit alius),134 not identical with but equal to the Father: li enim ‘apud Deum’ sonat in quandam aequalitatem.135 Between these two poles of exemplarity which belong to the Logos (Ratio = Verbum), especially essential identity with the Progenitor in the abstract exemplar and personal alterity in the concrete image in which there is no equality except on the level of the work which God accomplishes in Himself, by eternally generating the Son, since here conception and birth coincide, and ‘the flower is the fruit’.136 Beyond this ‘first degree of production’,137 in externalised works, in which the creation of the world is distinguished from the generation of the Son, the two moments of exemplarity which pertain to the Image are disconnected from each other and no longer exist on the same level. There can be no ‘image’ since there is no longer any equality: the concrete is deduced from the abstract by a descending path, it is sub principio, non apud ipsum.138 It is no longer a univocal production, in which the productum remains equal to its producer – 133. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Reduplicatio’. 134. Exp. in Io., LW III, p.  14, n. 16: Filius enim est et dicitur eo quod fit alius in persona non aliud in natura. Compare ibid., p. 7, n. 5; p. 132, n. 161. 135. Ibid., p.  7, n. 5. For more on the differentiation between verbum in principio and verbum apud deum, see ibid., p. 6, n. 4. 136. In Eccli., LW II, p.  249, nn. 21-22: Hinc est et gignit, (filius) semper sexto, quod, ubi Deus operatur in se ipso, si opus dici debeat, semper filium genuit natus est, semper nascitur; flos est fructus, flos in fructu, fructus in flore. Hinc est septimo illud Io. 1°: ‘In principio erat verbum.’ Verbum, fructus, erat in principio, id est in flore; fructus igitur in flore et flos est in divinis. Compare ibid., p. 254, n. 26: Ecce quiescit Deus in ipso flore, in ipsa conceptione concipitur et perficitur fructus, nichil extra exspectans. Compare Exp. In Sap., Archives, III, pp. 369-70. 137. See above, Chapter  3, section headed “I Live Because I Live”, and Chapter 3, section headed ‘The Object of Metaphysics’, note 84. 138. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 7, n. 6.

Splendor in Medio

357

eandem naturam non participans, sed totam simpliciter, integraliter et ex eandem naturam non participans, sed totam simpliciter, integraliter et ex aequo a suo principio accipiens, but rather, it is the ‘analogical’ production in which semper productum est inferius, minus, imperfectius et inaequale producenti.139 In analogical production, that which is produced no longer has the same nature as its producer: fit aliud in natura, et sic non ipsum principium. This presupposes an intervention on the part of efficient causality. However, on the other hand, when it is considered as derived from its abstract principle, this concrete, exteriorised effect ut est in illo (principio), non est aliud in natura, sed nec aliud in supposito with respect to the essential agent which produces it.140 This consideration of created beings in their essential, ‘transphysical’ cause, is only natural and fitting for a metaphysician who locates the moment of participation of the concrete in the abstract by doing away with efficiency and finality. This approach permits him univocally to reduce concrete creation to its abstract, uncreated principle by means of the in quantum according to the formula/type: the just, as just, is the very justice which engenders it.141 Thus, we discover in processione et productione omnis entis naturae et artis the mystery of the procession of divine persons.142 However, when considered in itself, the created just person is not the same as the justice in which he participates: iustus sive iustum, in se ipso tenebrosum, non lucet; in ipsa vero iustitia, suo principio, lucet, et ipsa iustitia in iusto lucet, sed iustum ipsam non comprehendit, utpote inferius.143 The essential participation of the concrete in its abstract principle goes hand in hand with the reception of esse ab alio, a condition of creatures which, in their being, always remain subject or submitted to God’s efficiency.144 In this ‘analogical’ production, the relation of exemplarity which gives way to the essentia non ab alio presupposes a creative efficiency; 139. Ibid., n. 5. 140. Ibid., pp. 7-8, n. 6. 141. Ibid., p. 13, n. 14. 142. Ibid., p. 8, n. 6. 143. Ibid., p.  18, n. 22. Compare ibid., p.  75, n. 87: notandum quod generaliter superius ordine essentiali lux est ut sic, inferius autem e converso ut sic semper tenebra est. 144. Ibid., n. 21: principium lux est sui principiati, et superius sui inferioris. E converso principiatum et inferius hoc ipso quod inferius et posterius, utpote habens esse ab alio, in se ipso tenebrae sunt privationis vel negationis.

358

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

thus, exemplarity appears as an interior manifestation of the Cause in its exterior effects. Meister Eckhart applies the same example of the just and justice to this intimate relationship of participation of created concreteness in uncreated abstractness: iustitia se tota est in iusto quolibet. … Quod si tota est in quolibet iusto, est et tota extra quodlibet et quemlibet iustum. Et hoc est quod dicitur: ‘tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt’.145 A little before that he affirmed the following: sciendum quod verbum, logos sive ratio rerum sic est in ipsis et se tota in singulis, quod nihilominus est se tota extra singulum quodlibet ipsorum, tota intus, tota deforis.146 This antinomic expression, which pertains to interior exemplarity within exterior efficiency, must show us, in ‘analogical’ causality, the non-opposition of two opposed moments. Total interiority and exteriority must come together in the analogical relationship between creatures and the First Cause. This is what Meister Eckhart sought to demonstrate in the two dialectical passages of his Latin works: similitude in dissimilitude, indistinction in distinction, and unity within duality. If reason, the first principle of things, were simply tota intus, then creation would be univocal, like the generation of the Son. On the other hand, if exemplary reason were only tota deforis, then there would not be any manifestation of the First Cause in its effects, creation would be equivocal and we would have to recognise, along with Maimonides, that there is no similitude, no possible comparatio between God and creatures.147 However, ‘Rabbi Moses’, the Jewish philosopher, was ignoring the truth of the Gospel which is already present in the Old Testament revelation: the generation of the Word by which God created the world so as to manifest Himself there completely. For a Christian theologian, being aware of the Word’s immanence, the ‘Reason’ of all ideal reasons in the intellect of the Father, the First Cause of all beings will not simply transcend creatures. If, in the creative efficiency which He exercises, God is not a univocal cause, then we cannot say, either, that He is an equivocal cause, since exemplarity presupposes a relationship of participation between concrete beings and their essential principles in the Word ‘by whom all things were made’. 145. Ibid., pp. 18-19, n. 22. 146. Ibid., p. 13, n. 15. 147. Exp. in Ex., LW II, pp. 44-45, n. 39.

Splendor in Medio

359

The ensemble of creatures, as well as all created form, is also a word,148 but one that is spoken ‘impersonally’, and it is something ‘other’ in nature, apart from the One who speaks; this is why its Essential Cause remains unknown to it.149 Only the Word who is born of the Father – quod non est aliud a se in natura impersonaliter, sed est alius personaliter et origine150 – the Word ‘by whom the Father always speaks and who always speaks and operates with the Father’ – knows and actively manifests the nature of Him who speaks. If, here below, the Word is heard ‘twice’,151 this is because the created manifestation (the word ‘spoken impersonally’) is passive; it is thus distinguished from the active and personal Word which manifests the nature of the Creator. In God the opposition between passive and active does not exist: to speak and to be spoken, to generate and to be born, passive and active generation, fatherhood and sonship all coincide in the Divine Being, where the identity of the essence excludes causal relationships. At this level, creation can only be a matter of interior formation, as an architect’s construction of a house would be, if it could be constructed by its substance, without any relationship to the exterior. Such is the ‘first degree of production’ of all things in the ‘life’ of the Divine Intellect, in which creation is not distinguished from the eternal generation of the Word.152 However, exemplarity 148. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’. 149. Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 163-65, n. 195. 150. Ibid., p. 164. 151. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Semel Locutus Est Deus, Duo haec Audivi’. 152. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 28vb, ll. 40-56: Rursus, similitudo hec verbum est quod loquitur impersonaliter et pariter ipsum est quo pater loquitur semper et quod cum patre loquitur semper et operatur omnia, Io. 5°: ‘Pater meus usque modo operatur et ego operor.’ Id ipsum dicenti est dicere active quod est verbo dici passive. Id ipsum generatio activa et passiva, pater – proles, paternitas – filiatio. Sic enim etiam apud nos id ipsum est domificari et domificare: quod est domui edificari, domificatori est edificare; simul sunt aut non sunt, et id ipsum est esse virtusque, in quantum talia sunt. Quod si domificator per substantiam suam, se ipso, nullo addito, domificaret, id ipsum esset ipsi domificare quod esse et, consequenter, id ipsum et unum esset domui esse et domificari. Rursus, consequenter, dicere esset loqui et dicere esset facere, Psalmus: ‘Ipse dixit et facta sunt.’ Et hoc est quod hic dicitur: ‘dixitque Deus: fiat lux, – et facta est lux.’

360

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

is exteriorised by efficiency, the Word manifests itself in creative causality, like the art of a human architect is shown by giving the house form, using material which is foreign to the artisan’s thought. Unlike an architect, however, God operates by Himself, without any kind of external admixture (se ipso, nullo addito), without any preexisting exterior potentiality. Nevertheless, this production ex nihilo remains exterior to the Producer. It is a ‘word spoken impersonally’, aliud in natura, since the essences of all things, being in themselves but ‘shadows’ and ‘pure nothingness’, cannot manifest the Word of the Producer if they do not begin to exist by receiving the esse ab alio.153 Created essences are discovered and they become conceivable in this dynamic relationship with the Other, in which the dark depths of the entia, their original nothingness, the terminus a quo of divine action, becomes something analogous to primary matter: the radical nullity of creatures appears, here, as a ‘mendicant essence’, infused with an insatiable potentiality for being.154 The potentiality of created essences opposes the word which is ‘uttered impersonally’, being formed and divided under the forms of concrete beings, which are always potential in relation to the esse, to the actuality of the Personal Word, undivided, always active, the Word who speaks in creation and manifests the reasons of all things in all that receives being. Without the generation of the Word, God would not manifest Himself in creation; without the creative efficiency which produces being from non-being, the Word of God would remain silent, unspoken and unheard, because the reciprocity of the two principles, active and passive, would appear only in the external work of creation. These two conditions, the Word’s divine exemplarity and God’s creative efficiency, together belong to the analogical Cause of all that is; however, the former must be discovered in the latter as ‘a wheel within a wheel’, like the mystery of the New Testament hidden under the letter of the Old: Effectus enim in sua causa analogica latet, absconditur, tacet, non loquitur nec auditur, nisi dicatur et producatur verbo intus generato et concepto vel extra prolato. Patet 153. Exp. in Gen., LW I, p.  211, n. 33: Essentiae enim rerum creatarum sine luce, id est sine esse, tenebrae sunt, per ipsum enim esse formantur, lucent et placent. 154. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 199, n. 238.

Splendor in Medio

361

ergo quomodo id ipsum est quod hic scribitur ‘Dixitque Deus,’ etc. (Gen. 1:3) et Io. (1:1) ait: ‘In principio erat verbum.’ Rota in medio rote.155

Analogical Causality In the creation of the world, the ‘Principle’ is never univocal in relation to ‘what is governed by principle’; this is what makes it different from the generation of the Son. Since there is no equality between Creator and creature, all that is relates to God as an inferior to its superior, and, based on this fact, the creature which receives being always represents a purely passive principle, by opposition to the Absolute Agent with which it can never have anything in common, being of itself a ‘pure nothingness’. However, this ‘infinite dissimilarity’ between the Divine Cause and its created effects, a dissimilarity which we considered at length in the previous chapter, does not impart any equivocal character to the creative act, since the true First Cause, or rather, the first ‘essential principle’ of creatures remains to be discovered in the Word, the ‘Reason’ of the Paternal Intellect, the foundation of knowledge and of the production of similar by the similar.156 Both clarity and ambiguity [or, univocity and equivocity] must be rejected or be accepted together when an analogical cause is concerned, as it is the creator of all things. Creation ex nihilo gives way to an analogical relationship between all created things and God, the Unique Being, a relationship which Meister Eckhart sought to express antinomically in his dialectic of the distinct and indistinct, of the dissimilar and the similar, counterbalancing duality and opposition by unity and the non-opposition of contrary terms or elements. Since it is necessary simultaneously to allow for distinction and indistinction, dissimilitude and similitude between creatures and God by lending to these terms the extreme meaning of separation and unification, as the two dialectical passages have shown us, the same antinomy will have to be applied to analogical causality also. According to Eckhart, analogy does not operate as the golden mean between ambiguity and clarity but, rather, in some way it reunites these two contradictory modalities: they must together belong to a 155. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 28vb, l. 56-f. 29ra, l. 2. 156. Ibid., f. 29ra, ll. 5-12 (cited above, see Chapter  5, section headed ‘Indistinctio-Distinctio’, note 88).

362

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

dynamic relationship between the Divine Cause and its created effects. There is a moment of ambiguity in Meister Eckhart’s analogical causality insofar as ex nihilo created being, when considered in its distinction, ‘as creature’, is a ‘pure nothingness’ and has nothing in common with its transcendent Cause.157 As for the moment of clarity, it appears above all in a creature’s immanence in the first principle of its knowledge and its production: if one wished to consider the passive subject of divine manifestation, the ‘word uttered impersonally’, in its essential Cause, it will not distinguish itself from the active principle, from the ‘personal Word’ by which God speaks and manifests Himself in creation. As it is ambiguous in its distinction and clear in its indistinction from God, a creature receives the double aspect of exteriority and interiority with respect to its analogical Cause: it is distinguished and ‘exists apart from’ (= extra stat) its Cause, as a purely passive principle, without our being able to oppose it to the absolute Agent on the plane of being.158 In his commentary on the text of Genesis 1:8, terra autem erat inanis et vacua, Meister Eckhart wants to see, along with St Augustine and Moses Maimonides, primary matter in the yet unformed earth. This matter is ‘unnameable in itself, unknowable, and without being, except by means of an analogy with form’: inane enim est ‘quod est’ sine ‘an est’.159 Considered in itself, the created id quod est could be assimilated to primary matter: semper materiale est, potentiale

157. Exp. in Io., C., f. 106va, ll. 33-43: Notandum primo, quod mundus et omnis creatura est sicut nummus cupreus adductus auro vel argento, talis enim quod in se est latens cuprum est, id autem quod ab extra est sive ab alio apparens argentum vel aurum est. Sic omnis creatura id quod in se est ex nichilo est et nichil est; Sapientie 2°: ‘ex nihilo nati sumus’; Io, 1°: ‘omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nichil.’ Sic ergo patet quod mundus iste primo ponit, offert et ostendit vinum bonum, sed quod est intus latens, obductum per esse quod a Deo habet, deterius. 158. This is what the expression concerning creatures means: sua distinctione indistinguitur a Deo. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Indistinctio-Distinctio’. 159. Exp. in Gen. (second version), LWI, pp.  206-7, n. 29. Compare Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 28ra, ll. 44-56, in which we read, inter alia, the following: tenebre erant super faciem eius, quia scilicet materia non est cognoscibilis nisi per analogiam ad formam, ut ait philosophus. Aristotle, Physics, I.7.191, a 7-12.

Splendor in Medio

363

et subiectum est.160 Thus, in relation to the absolute form of divine action, which is Being,161 a creature always represents a purely passive principle, which is exterior to the esse and to all the perfections which it receives. On the other hand, no creature can be known or defined apart from its Essential Cause, which is the principle of its production or the Word. Tota intus, tota deforis, divine causality must be conceived of dynamically, in works, according to the example of action exercised by an analogical principle which we can find in the created universe, which is that of the sky, primum alterans inalterabile with reference to the earth which is always passive, utpote maxime materialis.162 In the Book of the Parables of Genesis, when speaking of the sky and the earth as the two primordial principles of the universe, those of active and passive, Meister Eckhart establishes six properties applicable not only to the causes referred to as analogical in naturalibus, but also to the First Cause of all that is.163 Let us examine these conditions which characterise an analogical cause and also ask ourselves in what sense Meister Eckhart applies them to God. (1) Heaven and earth do not have matter in common and, as a result, they cannot be reunited under a single genus, except for being under the same logical genus. Thus, the unity of a real genus with its passive principle cannot apply to a cause which acts ‘universally’ on

160. Serm. lat. 25, 1, LW IV, p.  230, n. 251 (cited above, section headed 'The Word without Words'). 161. Exp. in Ex., LW II, pp.  32-34, n. 28 (cited above, section headed 'The Way of Unified Eminence'). 162. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 27ra, ll. 49-51:  … duo principia omnium que sunt: activum et passivum. Celum  – activum, primum alterans inalterabile; terra – passivum, utpote maxime materialis. 163. See Tabula Libri Parabolarum Genesis, C., f. 24va, l. 55-f. 24vb, l. 10: Secundo habes sex proprietates activi analogici et sui passivi. Further on, in the text of the commentary, when examining the twelve properties of the univocal causes, Eckhart would say (f. 33ra, ll. 26-32): Notandum quod sicut in verbo iam supra exposito, – ‘In principio creavit Deus celum et terram,’  – nomine celi et terre parabolice figurata est natura activi et passivi communiter et in causis analogicis, sic nunc convenienter nomine Adam et Eve, viri scilicet et mulieris, docetur natura et proprietas activi et passivi ni naturalibus specialiter et in causis univocis. It should be noticed that the examination of the properties of analogical causes is not limited to those in naturalia.

364

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

the entirety of a species.164 Without entering into a union of nature with that which is passive, that which is active and analogical always remains exterior and superior to the real and natural genus of its passive counterpart.165 Here Meister Eckhart alludes, above all, to heaven and earth, which do not have the same physical genus, one being of incorruptible matter and the other of corruptible, even if they both belong to a single logical genus, that of corporeality.166 Of course, if we wanted to apply 164. The example of analogical causality effected by a celestial body is given in the second version of Exp. in Gen., C., f. 17va, ll. 37-47: Primum est quod in quibusdam rebus naturalibus, etiam viventibus, mas, sive virtus activa, et femina id est virtus passiva, sic sunt duo quod non concurrunt in eodem nec numero nec specie nec etiam genere, sed tantum analogice, qualia sunt que generantur sine semine, quorum virtus mascula et activa est corpus celeste, femina vero sive virtus passiva est materia transmutabilis aptata forme quam recipit analogice, in virtute activa celestis corporis. 165. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 27ra, ll. 53-59: Primo, quod celum et terra non communicant in materia et, per consequens, nec in genere conveniunt, nisi logice solum. Sic universaliter activum respectu totius speciei, quod vere et simpliciter est activum, cum suo passo seu passivo nunquam convenit in genere reali et naturaliter loquendo, sed semper est extra et super genus passivi. 166. Compare St Thomas, Ia, q. 66, a. 2, ad 2um. St Thomas distinguishes between two types of non-univocal agents: (1) the agent which has no species in common with its effect (for example, the sun and the living beings which are generated by its powers): here the effects do not receive the form of the agent secundum similitudinem speciei, but only secundum similitudinem generis; and (2) the agent which is not under any kind of genus: Effectus enim adhuc magis remote accedunt ad similitudinem formae agentis, ita quod non participent similitudinem formae agentis secundum eamdam rationem speciei aut generis, sed secundum aliqualem analogiam, sicut ipsum esse est commune omnibus. Et hoc modo illa quae sunt a Deo similantur ei, inquantum sunt entia, ut primo et universali principio totius esse (Ia, q. 4, a. 3). If God and creatures belonged to two different genera, then all comparatio and simulitudo between cause and effect would be impossible; but God is extra omne genus et principium omnium generum, and this is what makes analogy possible (ibid., ob. 2 and ad 2um). See C. Gent., III.24, Bonum autem suum etc.: the heaven which acts ratione generis is here referred to as agens aequivocum; God Who is extra genus gives being to all things ratione similitudinis analogiae principiatorum ad suum

Splendor in Medio

365

this property of analogical causes to God, then we would also have to deny any kind of commonality of logical genus between active and passive. This is what Meister Eckhart says later, when commenting on the verse, Spiritus dei ferebatur super aqua, and where he speaks of the ‘Immobile Unmoved Mover’: Item tercio, quod (Deus) est causa extra genus et super omne genus et, per consequens, omnium generum perfectiones prehabens, ut etiam commentator dicit.167 (2) An analogical agent is in no way affected or ‘touched’ by the subject upon which it exercises its action. Unlike univocal causes whose action is accompanied by an increasingly greater share of passivity which affects the agent,168 an active principle such as the sky ‘operates without itself undergoing any action or effect’. This is why it is never weakened or exhausted, but always remains equally vigorous in its continuous and uniform action.169 This property of analogical causes must be attributed, above all, to the First Cause. Thus, according to the Liber de causis (Proposition 20), Causa prima regit res creatas omnes praeter quod comnisceatur cume eius.170 In his commentary on the book of Wisdom, Meister Eckhart says: God, inasmuch as He is supreme, touches and affects all that is beneath Him, but He is neither touched nor affected by that which is below Him any more than the sky is either touched or affected by the physical element nearest principium. As we have noted above (see section headed 'DissimilitudiSimilitudo'), Meister Eckhart applies the term ‘analogical causes’ to those natural agents which St Thomas refers to as ‘equivocal’. 167. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 28rb, ll. 15-17. For the reference to Averroes, see Chapter 2, note 26. 168. See the first three characteristics of univocal agents in Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 33ra, ll. 33-47:  … permixtum habet, ratione materie sue, aliquid passibilitatis et, per consequens, aliquid diminutionis et oppressionis virtutis active. Et sic soporat eius actio ..., agendo patitur, ... actus naturalis, quamvis in fine intendatur et sit fortior ex parte tamen activi lassatur et remittitur, quia agendo patitur. 169. Ibid., f. 27ra, ll. 59-62: Secundo, activum tale quale est celum agendo non patitur, non tangitur, propter quod nec lassatur, non senescit, sed semper agit et uniformiter agit. 170. See ed. Steele, p.  177; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 19, p.  181. Proposition cited by Meister Eckhart in Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 12, n. 12.

366

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology it. John  1 affirms that ‘The light shines in the darkness’, that is to say: God shines in creatures. And John adds: ‘the darkness’, meaning creatures, has not understood Him, because, being affected by It (the darkness), they have not affected It. By the same token, God is entirely in everything, since He is entirely outside every thing, and it is for this reason that whatever belongs to any particular thing will not be suited to Him, such as changing, aging, or becoming corrupted.171

(3) An analogical agent is recognised according to the mode by which it affects the passive principle: while the effect of a univocal agent lives on after the vanishing of the active principle which had produced it (a fire still burns even after the flame which had created it in combustible material has been extinguished),172 the effect or ‘imprint’ of the analogical agent cannot remain for even a moment in the passive partner in the absence of the active principle. Thus, unlike heat, light does not remain in the space which receives it without the active presence of its cause: the air does not remain illumined after the setting of the sun, even though it retains its heat. The analogical cause’s action does not ‘root’ itself in the passive; it does not attach itself, does not itself adhere to the space which it affects, in such a way that the passive principle must continually receive from outside itself (semper et continue ab extra) a perfection which is rooted within the active principle. With respect to the quality which it receives, the passive will thus be in a state of ceaseless becoming, and becoming is the mode of being for all receptive subjects of analogical perfection. The best example in naturalibus is that of light in a space. Light is an active quality belonging to the sky, being rooted in its very form; the form of the sky is in no way communicable to the matter of the 171. Archives, IV, p.  239-40. We could cite several other texts from Eckhart on the impermixtio of the creative Cause. 172. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 33rb, ll. 15-24: Rursus, septimo, proprium est agentis univoci quod effectus eius manet in specie et nomine sui activi absente suo activo. Secus in analogicis, cuius et rationem supra signavi, ubi dicitur: ‘creavit Deus celum et terram.’ Et hoc est quod hic dicitur: ‘relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem et adherebit uxori sue.’ Adheret enim et heret forma ignis materie ignis generati corrupto igne generante. Que generatio sub metaphora et parabola patris et matris, principiis generationis, intelligitur que relinquit nec ipsis relictis desistit esse ignis.

Splendor in Medio

367

four elements. On the other hand, heat communicates itself to the space which the sun illumines, since it has its root and foundation in the form of fire, a form which could be generated in the matter of the space which heat disposes to its reception. By means of this disposition to the form of fire, heat, its active quality, entrenches itself in the air, thus ‘adhering’ to the space which becomes the ‘heir’ of that form.173 Since nature, never acting ineffectively, does not undertake any work which it will not be able to accomplish, then the air and the other elements never have the slightest disposition towards the incommunicable form of the sky. Light, ‘the formal perfection’ of the sky, thus cannot be present in an illuminable space without a light which communicates it.174 173. Compare Exp. in Io., LW III, p.  60, n. 71:  … medium recipit calorem … per modum haerentis et heredis, filii cuius est hereditas, ut dicatur et sit calefaciens heres actionis calefacientis, quae est calefacere active. 174. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 27ra, l. 62-f. 27rb, l. 28: Tertio, effectus talis activi quod per celum innuitur non manet in passo in absentia activi. Verbi gratia, lumen in medio non manet absente luminari. Secus de calore. Ratio est, quia effectus sive impressio talis activi in passo non habet radicem in ipso passo, nec heret passo nec inheret, sed semper et continue ab extra, ab activo scilicet in quo est radix perfectionis, passum perficientis [sic] accipit. Ita ut semper sit in fieri et fieri est sibi esse. Ratio est ex dictis. Radix enim luminis celum est sive forma celi que nunquam communicabilis est corpori elementali; radix vero caloris et fundamentum est forma ignis, cuius forme capax est materia ipsius medii illuminati. Et propter hoc ipsum medium calore luminosi sive activi disponitur et alteratur ad formam ignis, et sic radicem mittit calor et ignis in medio et heret medio et inheret et fit heres aliqualiter imperfecte forme ignis et caloris ipsum consequentis. Secus de forma celi ad quam nunquam disponitur, nec in minimo. Ratio est, quia natura frustra non agit: nunquam incipit quod perficere non potest. Propter quod nec forma celi nec eius qualitas propria, que lux est, radicem mittit in aere aut alio quolibet elemento. Et sic, per consequens, utpote radicem non habens, lux in medio nequaquam manet absente luminari. Luc 8°: ‘radices non habent,’  – que parabola non solum moraliter intelligitur sed et naturaliter, quantum ad diversitatem formalium perfectionum, sicud [or, more likely, sicut?] ibidem notabo. Notavi de hoc super illo: ‘adherebit uxori sue,’ infra, capitulo 2°. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘Analogical Casuality’, note 172. We do not know of any commentary by Eckhart on the Gospel of St Luke.

368

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

This property of analogical causes, upon which Meister Eckhart pauses at great length, illustrating it by means of the example of light in illuminated air, assumes really enormous importance in the doctrine of being which is conferred on creatures.175 It should be remarked that the example of light and diaphanous space was often used by St Thomas Aquinas in order to show the dependence of the ‘existence’ of created entia with respect to God’s creative action: just as light is maintained in the air by a continuous influx from the sun, so too creatures are preserved by the continuation of God’s creative act, which confers being.176 According to Meister Eckhart, for whom the ipsum esse is God, this dependence is all the more close: omne ens et de numero entium non habet ex se sed ab alio, superiori,[177] esse quod sitit, esurit et appetit; propter 175. Exp. in Io., C., f. 106ra, ll. 41-51: Primum est, quod agentia huius mundi effectibus suis non sunt cause essendi sed tantum fiendi. Nec sunt cause essendi aut etiam fiendi simpliciter, sed fiendi hoc aut tale. Propter quod effectus producti perseverant in esse causis absentibus. Deus autem, cum sit causa esse absolute rerum, causa causarum,  – Sapientie 1°: ‘creavit ut essent omnia,’ – sic ipsa in esse producit, ut sine ipso conservante non possint consistere. Supra, Io. I°: ‘omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nichil.’ Gregorius: ‘omnia in nichilum deciderent, si non ea manus omnipotentis teneret.’ Exemplum ponit Augustinus, 8° Super Genesis, de lumine conservato in aere ex presentia solis. St Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job, XVI.37.45 (PL 75, col. 1143); St.  Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, I.VIII.12.26 (PL 34, col. 383). Compare a passage on conservation which is in the same vein, ibid., I.IV.12.23-23 (PL 34, cols. 304-305). 176. Ia, q. 104, a. 1 resp. et ad 4um. See Gilson’s commentary on this passage in L’Être et l’essence, pp. 93-94. 177. In ‘Eckhartiana I’, in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 56 (1937), E. Seeberg protests quite vehemently against the comma which Denifle wished to place in between the words ‘superiori’ and ‘esse’ (p.  91). Seeberg wanted the phrase Esse superior to be applied to God in this text. Despite the legitimacy of this desire (see the distinction between the esse primum and esse secundum of creatures and the meaning of the distinction between Ipsum Esse and the created essentia according to Meister Eckhart), we do not believe that he can be justified considering the construction of the sentence and the general context of this passage. Thus, the phrase is actually about esse, (a) which is desired by all the entia, (b) which they do not possess of themselves,

Splendor in Medio

369

quod in ipso non figitur, nec heret, nec inchoatur esse, nec permanet absente, etiam per intellectum, ipso superiori. … Exemplum autem manifestum et ratio dictorum est in luce et calore in medio.178 In the Book of Divine Consolation, the example of light, which is not given as property but is only ‘loaned’ to the space which receives it, shows how much creatures depend upon their Lord179 for the things which He confers upon them: der crêatûre engîbet er kein guot, sunder er verlîhet ez ir ze borge.180 In the German sermon, Beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt iustitiam, Meister Eckhart says: God has infused creatures with satisfaction and pleasure, but the root of all satisfaction and the essence of all pleasure, this God has kept within Himself. … The sun lights up the air and penetrates it with its light; but it never casts its root there, since when the sun is no longer present, we no longer have light. Thus has God also done with creatures. …181 (c) but which they receive ab alio; it is this Other which is referred to as ‘Superior’ and even (at the end of the cited passage) as Ipse Superior, without which the esse could not remain in the entia. Not only have we preserved the erudite Dominican’s comma, but, what is more, we have deemed it necessary to add yet another comma (in between the words ab alio and superiori). 178. In Eccli., Denifle, p.  584 and C., f. 81vb, ll. 32-46, LW II, p.  274, nn. 45-46. The example of light and heat is developed extensively here: Denifle, pp. 584-85 and C., f. 81vb, l. 46-f. 82ra, l. 9 (cited further down, see Chapter 5, section headed ‘A Deo et in Deo’, note 333). Compare Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 58-60, nn. 70-72. 179. The word ‘Lord’ here (‘Herr’ in German) is intended in a feudal sense: a fief does not belong to his vassal as property, but, rather, is maintained by his lord. 180. DW V, pp.  36-37. See Exp. in Io., C., f. 129vb, ll. 52-55:  … principiatum vero tenet quasi mutuo acceptum a principio. Exemplum huius est in aqua calefacta subtracto igne, magis et evidentius in aere illuminato absente sole. 181. Pf., Pr. 43, p.  148, ll. 9-26. Compare Josef Quint, Meister Eckhart: Deutsche Predigten und Traktate (Munich: Carl Hanser, 1955), Pr. 40, pp. 373-74.

370

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

(4) In analogical causality, the passive principle is always striving in relation to the agent; it remains ‘ever thirsty for its active principle, even while drinking it in’. In this regard Meister Eckhart cites Ecclesiasticus 24:21: Qui edunt me, adhuc esuriunt; et qui bibunt me, adhuc sitiunt; the reader is then directed back to the doctrinal exposition which had been taken from this same scriptural passage.182 In the Sermons and Lessons on Ecclesiasticus Chapter  24:23-31, Meister Eckhart makes this text the scriptural foundation for his doctrine of the analogical relationship between God and all things: Dicamus quod ad significandam hanc veritatem analogie rerum omnium ad ipsum Deum dictum est optime ‘qui edunt me, adhuc esuriunt’: ‘edunt’, quia sunt: ‘esuriunt’, quia ab alio sunt.183 (5) Within the ensemble of creation, all that is passive portrays or represents ‘the praise, honour, and glory of the essential active principle’. As we have seen,184 the essential agents which act upon the entirety of a species belong to the category of analogical causes. Here Meister Eckhart cites an expression of St Paul’s (1 Corinthians 11:7): ‘Woman is the glory of man’, in the context of a passage preceding it (verse 3): ‘Christ is the head of every man, and man is the head of woman, and God is the head of Christ.’ Referring to a commentary on this text (which commentary we no longer possess today), Eckhart affi rms that he had established four orders of active and passive principles, in which each subordinate thing renders honour and glory to its superior. However, this praise is only truly appropriate to God alone, the First Cause, who is exalted by all creatures. Indeed, in the hierarchy of instrumental causes, a principle which exercises its action upon something inferior nonetheless remains passive in relation to its superior: in manifesting the richness and the mercy of the superior, it proclaims its own indigence. The perfections which it has do not belong to it outright, will never adhere to its nature, but are always begged from the ‘active superior’, and are continually received as a loan, only ‘in passing’, like a passion but not as an enduring passive 182. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 27rb, ll. 28-31: Hinc est quarto, quod passivum semper sitit et bibendo semper sitit activum suum, Eccli. 24: ‘qui bibunt me adhuc sitiunt’, sicut ibidem latius exposui. 183. Denifle, p. 589; C., f. 82va, ll. 12-15, LW II, p. 282, n. 53. 184. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Dissimilitudo-Similitudo’.

Splendor in Medio

371

quality.185 Being conferred on the subordinate, these goods do not belong to the subordinate but are from ‘the other’ (ab altero), to whom is attributed all honour and glory. Thus, a precious livery on the shoulders of a servant does not confer upon him any prestige simply because he wears it, but rather gives honour and glory to the lord whom he accompanies.186 This text sufficiently demonstrates that all ‘praise’ from the passive inferior of its active superior is properly directed towards God, the analogical Cause of all that is. In his first Commentary on Genesis, Meister Eckhart identifies the praise of creatures with the being which they receive from God: 5° notandum quod laus illa est sic dulcissima et mundissima (C: iocundissima), ut ipsa laudet omnis creatura. Danielis 185. Compare with another passage on instrumental analogical causes, in which we find the same expressions (Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 39va, ll. 34-41): Secundo modo effectus est in causa et causa descendit in ipsum secundum omne spirituale non fixum, neque per modum qualitatis passibilis, herendo et inherendo, sed tantum ut passio, in quodam scilicet fluxu, fieri et transitu, puta – in instrumentis artificis, ut forma arce in dolabra. Et iste modus manifeste sapit naturam activorum et passivorum analogicorum in naturalibus. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Rota in Medio Rotae’, notes 108 and 116 (on instrumental causes). 186. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 27rb, ll. 31-53: Hinc rursus est 5°, quod passivum generaliter est laus, honor, gloria sui essentialis activi, Ia Cor. XI: ‘mulier gloria viri est.’ Mulier passivum, vir activum, et ibidem premittitur: ‘viri caput Christus est, caput autem mulieris vir est, caput vero Christi Deus.’ Ubi quatuor ordines notat activorum et passivorum, sicut ibidem plenius notavi. Ad hoc est illud Thym. primo: ‘soli Deo honor et gloria’; Daniel tertio: ‘benedicte omnia opera domini domino, laudate et superexaltate eum.’ Et plena est scriptura de similibus, docens ubique laudem et honorem neminem sibi attribuere sed soli Deo. Passivum enim, ut ex dictis patet, clamat et testatur in omni sui perfectione et bono suimet egestatem et miseriam, activi vero, sui superioris, predicat divitias et misericordiam. Docet enim naturaliter se id quod habet habere non ex se, nec ut inherens in se, sed mendicasse et accepisse mutuo et continue accipere, quasi in transitu, ut passionem, non ut passibilem qualitatem, a suo activo superiori, et sic non esse suum sed esse ab altero, cui est omnis honor et gloria, quia illius est. Verbi gratia, vestis pretiosa quem portat servus super humeros sequens dominum suum non dat honorem servo sed domino, cum non sit servi sed domini.

372

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology 3°: ‘Benedicite omnia opera domini domino.’ Rursus: sic et perfecta, ut equalis sit in minima creatura sicut in maxima; quo contra dicitur (Eccli. 15:9): ‘Non est speciosa laus in ore peccatoris.’ Rursus: sic precellens et delectabilis, quod laudando sic omnis creatura esse suum et esse simpliciter accipiat. Ubi 6° notandum moraliter quod ex hoc patet quod peccator, utpote non laudans Deum, non habet esse, sed est nichil.187

(6) An analogical agent does not receive anything from ‘its passive’ counterpart: it is not formally affected by any quality which could be found in that which is passive. On the contrary, it is the active element which is generous towards the passive and ‘completely’ pours out into it all the passive element that exists within it.188 This final property of analogical causes corresponds to the principle which was established in Proposition 21 of the Book of Causes (Primum est dives per se ipsum) and developed in its commentary: illa res est dives maius quae influit et non fit influxio super ipsam per aliquem modorum. Reliquae autem res intelligibiles aut corporeae sunt non divites per se ipsas, immo indigent uno vero influente super eas bonitates et omnes gratias.189 Meister Eckhart often applies this saying from the De causis to God, also citing along with it some texts from Avicenna on the ‘Existant as Primary’. In the Prologus in Opus propositionum, he makes use of this principle when outlining his doctrine of being: ‘Primum est dives per se’, ut in De causis dicitur, sed nec esset ‘dives per se’, sed nec ‘primum’, si quid aliud daret esse praeter ipsum. Igitur nihil ens hoc vel hoc dat esse, quamvis formae dent esse hoc aut hoc, in quantum hoc 187. LW I, p.  64, nn. 85-86 (collated with C., f. 10va, ll. 39-48). Compare Serm. lat. 25, 1, LW IV, p. 230, n. 251. 188. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 27rb, ll. 54-58: Hinc est 6°, quod activum, de quo sermo est, nichil prorsus accipit a suo passivo, nec afficitur formaliter aliquo quod sit passivi et in passivo, sed econverso omne quod est in passivo ut passivum totum totaliter largitur et superinfundit ipsum activum passivo suo. Compare Prol. gener. in Op. tripart., LW I, pp. 154-55, n. 10; Exp. In Io., LW III, p. 218, n. 264: superiora naturaliter se communicant et transfundunt se totis suis inferioribus. 189. Ed. Steele, p. 178; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 20, p. 182.

Splendor in Medio

373

aut hoc, non autem in quantum esse. … Bonum hoc aut illud et ens hoc et illud totum suum esse habet ab esse et per esse et in esse. Igitur hoc aut illud circulariter non refundit aliquod esse ipsi esse, a quo causaliter recipit esse.190 What characterises the analogical agents here will be taken up by Meister Eckhart in his commentary on St John, in which the Evangelist’s text (1:16), de plenitudine eius omnes accepimus, et gratiam pro gratia, will allow him to articulate the difference between analogical and univocal causes in terms of ‘grace’ and ‘merit’: In analogivis … ipsum passivum totum quod habet de mera gratia superioris habet, utpote consequens ipsam naturam superioris ut proprium.  … In univocis habet, utpote consequens ipsam naturam superioris ut proprium. … In univocus autem … ipsum inferius recipit similitudinem et formam activi de gratia quidem superioris, meretur tamen ex natura sua, eo quod sit eiusdem naturae in specie cum agente. … Sic ergo in univocis inferius recipit a superiori non solum ex gratia, sed etiam ex merito. … In analogicis autem inferius quidquid recipit a superiori, totum est de gratia mera superioris et sine merito inferioris.191 Let us recall the expression gratia prima or gratia data that Meister Eckhart applied, in a sermon on grace, to being and to all natu ral perfections, especially to those which are ‘common, being undetermined by this or that’, which creatures receive immediately from God, as air which receives light from the sun.192 Just as in the case of what is called ‘second grace’, gratum 190. Prol. in Op. propos., LW I, pp.  178-79, nn. 21-23. See ibid., the example of the white shield. Compare Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p.  363:  … superius semper afficit secundum se ipsum omne suum inferius, et ab ipso in nullum vice versa afficitur. … Igitur Deus creator afficit omne creatum sua unitate, sua equalitate et sua indistinctione, etc. In the German sermons, compare Pf., Pr. 19, p. 81, ll. 8-10. 191. LW III, pp. 150-52, nn. 182-183. 192. Serm. Lat. 25, 2 (Gratia Dei sum id quod sum), LW IV, pp.  240-41, n. 264 (see section headed 'The Analogy of Attribution').

374

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

faciens, there is no sort of ‘merit’ or disposition towards the ‘grace of creation’ within the environment which is called to receive it. However, it must be recognised that here, strictly speaking, there is not even a receiving ‘environment’, since the created quod est, in order to be and to have the perfections which are found within it, must begin to exist by receiving esse ab alio.193 The absolute freeness or gratuity of creation ex nihilo limits the extent to which the First Cause of creatures can be reconciled with all other socalled ‘analogical’ causes, since it is an action which produces the very subject upon which it exerts itself. In effect, the opposition between the purely active principle and its ‘passive’ counterpart cannot occur here in any other way except a posteriori, within a relationship in which the quod est is already present in its alterity, like a distinct and determined potential being which receives esse from its Cause. When Meister Eckhart affirms that for creatures esse est accipere esse, whereas Deo esse est dare esse,194 he confronts us with us two principles, active and passive, which are opposed to each other on the plane of being, as ‘given’ by one and ‘received’ by the other. However, this opposition implies, if not a commonality of genus, at least a univocity of being which is attributed to two contraries.195 If a creature is, then passively it has the same being which God possesses actively, quia universaliter ipsi (Deo) agere sive operari est esse.196 However, the absolute analogical Agent not only transcends all genera, both real and logical, which it does 193. Exp. in Io., C., f. 128vb, ll. 32-37: Notandum quod generaliter id quod est ab alio, ut sit quod est et omne quod perfectionis est in ipso, est ipsi ab alio. Et sic ipsum se toto clarificat, honorificat, predicat et laudat, uxta illud quod dicitur (I) Cor. XI°: ‘mulier gloria viri.’ Mulier – passivum, quod ab alio; vir – activum, a quo aliud. 194. See above, an excerpt from Exp. in Gen., cited in Chapter  4, section headed ‘The Apophasis of Opposition’, note 138. 195. When speaking of univocal causes, Meister Eckhart interprets the prescription of Mosaic law that a man take a wife from the same tribe in the following way (Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 33va, ll. 40-44): Quod alique persone sponsalibus coniuncte excipiebantur de tribu una, figuraliter exprimit quod simile non agit in simile in quantum huiusmodi, sed oportet quod agatur in quantum dissimile et contrarium; contraria autem semper in eodem genere, quasi tribu una. 196. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘God Esse Omnium and the Principle of Analogy’, note 194.

Splendor in Medio

375

not share in common with the passive principle, but also the community of being, which is beyond all genera, can no longer suit both the Cause of being and the ‘first created thing’:197 if God is being, then the creature is nothingness; if the creature is being, then God is superior to being and is infinitely dissimilar from all that is. Following the univocity of being of these two contrary principles, we find here a radical equivocity which makes the opposition of active and passive impossible. Taken to an extreme, the equivocity of being must lead to the negation of created being as such; one could state that inasmuch as they are distinct from the Ipsum Esse who is God, creatures are nothingness. At the same time, however, we should note that the concept of being becomes univocal: if ‘to create’ means dare esse ex nihilo, then all that is takes its being from Being itself, which is not aliud a Deo, apart from which the Creator would then be aliud quam Deus.198 Thus it is that we can say: inasmuch as it exists, a creature is indistinct from the Being which is God. These two things in quantum make the concept of esse either extremely equivocal or extremely univocal, and this equivocity and this univocity must be reconciled or reunited in an analogical predication so that we can speak of the respective being of God and of creatures, in the same way that we reconciled distinction and indistinction and dissimilitude and similitude in the dialectical discourse on the two terms as opposed and un-opposed. It is apparent that the framework of analogical causality, inasmuch as it is a relationship between an agent and a patient, becomes too rigid once the question of being is raised. The absolute gratuity of creation, conceived of as a collatio esse post non esse,199 without there being any disposition or ‘merit’ involved that would lend to non-being the feature of a possibility of being, of a ‘subject’ which would receive esse, excludes any kind of duality of opposable terms on the plane of being. This renders the external aspect of creative action ambiguous. Since it is necessary to avoid all ‘false imagination’, which, in the perspective of creaturely duality, tends towards hypostasising nothingness, by 197. Lib. de causis, Prop. 4 (see above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Upper and Lower Waters’, note 14). 198. Prol. gener. in Op. tripart., LW I, p. 157, n. 12. 199. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 338.

376

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

opposing it to God as a sort of infinite emptiness, 200 it is just as incorrect to imagine creative causality ex parte Dei as a relation between Absolute Being and non-being. The theological rule according to which omnis relatio inter creaturam et creatorem est in Deo secundum dici, in creatura autem secundum esse 201 must not be forgotten. This rule which makes the creature the subject of a real relationship with God forms the basis for the passive aspect of creation, the dependence of all that which is upon divine action, all the while excluding any kind of consideration of the Absolute Being as the subject of a real ad extra relationship which would make it depend, in some way, on an exterior object, thus making the act of creation necessary. 202 For Meister Eckhart, this ‘rule of theology’ must furthermore correspond to the demands of a philosophy of the One: how is it possible to admit in the One an exterior relationship to the ‘Other’, without introducing duality there, ‘the root of all division’? If God is One, then He is beyond number  – non ponit cum aliquo in numerum  – and, as a result, cannot be ‘two along with something else’ (duo cum alio quocumque). 203 That duality which is attached to the created condition lends to ‘passive creation’ the aspect which is casus ab uno: the creature, Meister Eckhart says, hoc ipso quod creata est, nec primum ens est, cadens a primo et uno, cadit primo casu in duo. 204 Under the regime of duality, in the perspective which is proper to us, the opposed notions of Creator and creature, of Being and of non-being, of the One and the multiple, of Truth and falsehood, of Goodness and of evil, of Actuality and potentiality, 200. Prol. gener. in Op. tripart., LW I, pp. 161-62, n. 17; Serm. lat. 23, LW IV, pp. 208-9, n. 223. 201. Exp. in Io., C., f. 127va, ll. 39-41. See, in the same passage (ll. 18-24), the following reflection on Justice and the just man: Quomodo enim is qui iustus est ad se vocaret iustitiam, cum secundum se id quod est nichil sit et iniustus sit; quod autem iustus est, ab illa utique preveniente est, Rom. 4°: ‘vocat ea que non sunt.’ Hoc est ergo, quod hic dicitur: ‘non vos me elegistis, sed ego elegi vos.’ ‘Ego’, inquid, filius, Ephes. I°: ‘elegit vos in ipso’, id est filio, ‘ante mundi constitutionem’. 202. Compare St Thomas, Ia, q. 13, a. 7; q. 45, a. 3, ad 1um. 203. Meister Eckhart expresses all of this elliptically in his response to the second accusation, article 43 (Archives, I, p. 248). The condemned passage is found in German sermon 4 (DW I, pp. 69-70). 204. Exp. in Io., C., f. 130vb, ll. 54-55.

Splendor in Medio

377

will ‘run together’, 205 but the coincidence of their course none the less will depend upon the virtue of the One, which subsists apart from all duality and opposition. 206 This transferring of the problem of the analogical Cause, which is creative of all that is, into the realms of a doctrine of unity is perfectly legitimate, since Meister Eckhart’s One is the first characteristic of Being which points to its indistinction. However, it is not possible to envisage analogical causality sub ratione esse unius apart from its passive side, meaning, as an analogical relationship between all that is and the Being-One.

God Esse Omnium and the Principle of Analogy In speaking of God and creatures in terms of being, with particular reference to the text from St John 1:3, omnia per ipsum facta sunt, Meister Eckhart says: Omne autem citra Deum est ens hoc aut hoc, non autem ens aut esse absolute, sed hoc est solius primae causae, quae Deus est.207 Unlike the absolute Ens (or Esse, since the two expressions ‘to be’ and ‘being’ equally refer to God who is His own being), creatures, then, are particular entia and, as a result, they are multiple.208 Since omnia, the distributive universal symbol for substance, designates all that is,209 while nihil must refer to ‘that which is not of the number of all things’210 – evil, sin and, in general, all that is a defect in a created 205. See ibid., f. 130vb, l. 39-f. 131ra, l. 23. Meister Eckhart comments on the text: currebant autem duo simul (20:4). 206. Ibid., f. 130vb, l. 59-f. 131ra, l. 2: Iterum etiam, omne descendens ab alio sapit eius naturam et figitur per virtutem illius, secundum illud Procli: ‘Omnis multitudo participat uno.’ Et hoc est quod hic dicitur: ‘currebant duo simul’, inquit. Nec enim duo essent nec currerent, si non simul ab uno per unum ferrentur. 207. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 43, n. 52. 208. We have seen Meister Eckhart refer to the Eleatics (Parmenides et Melissus  … ponebat tantum unus ens; ens autem hoc et hoc ponebat plura, puta ignem et terram et huiusmodi) in order to prove the proposition esse est Deus (Prol. in Op. propos., LW I, p. 168, n. 5). See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Two levels of Essentiality’, note 278. 209. Exp. in Io., loc. cit., see ibid., note 4 (an explicit reference to Peter of Spain’s Summulae logicales). 210. Exp. in Ex., LW II, pp.  36-37, n. 30. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Unum et Omnia’, note 121.

378

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

being (defectus alicuius esse), rather than being an ‘effect’ (effectus) – not made by God, who is the producer of the omnia. Moreover, since the omnia, despite its positivity, implies division and number, then nothing divine as such (‘neither the Son, nor the Holy Spirit’) can be counted among the ranks of ‘all things’.211 It will also be noted that all particular realities, considered in the limitation of their specific natures which are determined by ‘this or that’ (the species which ‘denominate’, as well as individual forms), in their production or becoming, depend upon secondary causes, and in this sense it could be said that they represent that which is ‘made’ without God (factum … sine ipso). However, we must not forget that not only the omnia in their entirety, but also the singula, which are produced by nature or by ‘art’, have their being ‘immediately from God Himself and from Him alone’. By changing the above prescription from the text under consideration, it will be necessary to read it as follows: omnia facta per ipsum … sunt.212 If the factio (which is never ex nihilo)213 be carried out by the intermediary of instrumental causes, then creation which confers ‘being after non-being’ belongs exclusively to God, the unique Ens. This universal production of being, particularised in the agents and patients which ‘comprise’ or ‘are comprised’ according to ‘this or that’, in filio agentis hoc aut hoc, can belong only to the First Agent, the producer of the entirety of all that is: universum ipsum, caelum et terra, productum est in filio primi agentis, quod nec est hoc aut hoc, sed ens et esse ipsum, quod est Deus.214 Some texts lead us to believe that Meister Eckhart must have confused Boethius’ abstract esse or the Scholastic ens commune with ‘being itself’, which, for him, was God, the Esse omnium. Denifle was ready to level this criticism at Eckhart,215 and we see quite well this great Dominican scholar’s awkwardness when faced with certain passages in Eckhart’s Latin works which he had just discovered. In speaking of God as the ipsum esse or ipsum ens in the Prologus in Opus 211. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 44, n. 52. 212. Ibid., n. 53. Compare Exp. in Ex., LW II, p.  28, n. 21: etiam ‘quod factum est’, quod esse habet et accipit … sine ipso esse utique est nihil. 213. Serm. lat. 49, 3, LW IV, p. 426, n. 511. Compare Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 29va, ll. 52-53: formatio enim et factio non sunt proprie nisi ex ente aliquo, creatio vero proprie ex non ente est. 214. Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 49-50, n. 60. 215. Denifle, Meister Eckharts lateinische Schriften, pp. 490-91.

Splendor in Medio

379

propositionum, Meister Eckhart seems to give these phrases a sense of a universal genus which recalls Porphyry’s οὐσία, the summit of his tree of logic: Impossibile est aliquod esse sive aliquem modum seu differentiam essendi deesse vel abesse ipsi esse. Hoc ipso quod deest vel abest ab esse, non est et nihil est. Deus autem esse est. … Nihil ergo entitatis universaliter negari potest ipsi enti sive ipsi esse. Propter hoc de ipso ente, Deo, nihil negari potest nisi negatio(ne) negationis omnis esse.216 We shall return later to the ‘negation of the negation’ which must express the indistinction and indetermination of Being sub ratione Unius; for now, we shall confine ourselves to noting that the Absolute Ens includes in its indeterminateness all that exists in a determined manner, like the way that a genus includes the differences which are proper to it and which, at the same time, is integrally present in each of its species, in each individual of the species which differentiates it. A ‘certain being’ (aliquod esse) cannot be refused to the Ipsum Esse, just as ‘this animal’, for example, a lion, cannot be excluded from the animal genus.217 Did Meister Eckhart recognise an abstract being, distinct from the concrete being of creatures, which would also belong to the created universe? The example which we have just given would seem to show that the universal concept of ‘that which is’, the ens commune, the fi nal term of the abstraction of the omnia, should be identified with the Absolute and Unique Ens, with the God of Meister Eckhart. Would this not be the error which St Thomas speaks of, that of the Amalricians who wanted to see in God ‘the universal being by which all things formally exist’?218 We have 216. Prol. in Op. propos., LW I, p. 175, n. 15. (see section headed 'Collatio Esse'). 217. Exp. in Ex., LW II, pp.  77-78, n. 74 (This text has been cited in Chapter 2, note 216). 218. De ente et essentia, V.24 (ed. Roland-Gosselin, pp.  37-38; ed. Perrier, I, p. 43): Nec oportet, si dicimus quod Deus est esse tantum, ut in illorum errorem incidamus qui dixerunt quod Deus est illud esse universale quo quaelibet res est formaliter. See above, Chapter 1, section headed ‘Esse Innominabile’.

380

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

already encountered this ambiguity which led certain critics to the same interpretation, despite differences in their respective judgement of Eckhart’s thought: inconsistency and confusion according to Denifle and a doctrine which is very consistent and maybe a bit too logical in Galvano della Volpe’s view.219 To clarify this delicate problem, let us recall what was said above concerning universal being and the Being who is God. (1) After having attributed to God all that is ‘common’ in the omnia, even declaring that He is omne ens et omne omnium esse, Meister Eckhart added in a Latin sermon220 that God exceeds this aspect under which the omnia can conceive of Him and desire Him as that which is best. He exceeds this aspect to such a degree that, with respect to this excess, to the divine li amplius, the being which is desired by all things is ‘a sort of nothingness’ (quoddam nihil). Considered in Himself, God transcends the ens commune, which is attributable to the entirety of creatures, but in creative action, the being of ‘all things’ is loaded with the divine presence: this is the ens by which God opposes non-being,221 the ‘environment’ which receives the action of the Analogical Cause of being,222 the passive aspect of creation. (2) In speaking of the unity of the universe according to Meister Eckhart, we have been able to state that the unequal parts of the universal entirety (which is the first intention and the first effect of divine causality) receive their being mediante ipso uno esse universi.223 This does not contradict the immediateness of the esse in each particular being, which is the immediateness of the Efficient Cause upon which Eckhart so strongly insisted.224 As we have seen,225 creative 219. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Unum et Omnia’, note 141. 220. Serm. lat. 6, 1, LW IV, pp. 51-52, n. 53. 221. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Oppositio Nihil Mediatione Entis’. Compare both aspects in God, daz aller gemeineste and daz aller eigenlicheste, in the German sermon, Quasi stella matutina, analysed above, Chapter 4, section headed ‘The Apophasis of Opposition’. 222. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Analogical Causality’. 223. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p.  394. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The Unity of the Universe’. 224. Prol. gener. in Op. tripart., LW I, pp. 152-53, n. 8; Prol. in Op. propos., ibid., pp. 172-75, nn. 13-15. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘God Esse Omnium and the Principle of Analogy’. 225. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘The Unity of the Universe’.

Splendor in Medio

381

efficiency sub ratione esse unius implies an interior participation of effects in the intelligible aspects of the First Cause. If God ‘affects’ creatures by His unity, the latter participate in the said unity, according to the principle expressed and affirmed by Proclus: omnis multitudo participat aliqualiter uno.226 Thus, unity, which is proper to God alone, is participated in by creatures on all ‘common’ levels, up to the most universal level of this participation in the One, right to the ens commune which is beyond all genera. This is the being of the totality of omnia, the first exterior effect of the God who is esse omnium intimum,227 the ‘first created thing’ of the Liber de causis. It is thus a being-one which allows for multiplicity and permits itself to be divided, since it is not esse absolute, which is indistinct and infinite, but rather is its passive counterpart, if not perhaps the supreme unity of this formal being of creatures by which they are ‘this or that’, meaning, parts of the created ‘whole’. The various parts of the universe, even if they are distinct from each other in perfection and in dignity, remain no less equal and indistinct on the level of their most common attribute: they are all equally entia, precisely because every creature receives esse directly from God. Thus, the mediation of the universal ‘all’, with respect to the parts which receive being a toto per totum et in toto,228 presupposes a unity which is participated in by the omnia, in the intimate depth of their essential structure, in which they are not differentiated by genera, species or individual properties. This is the level of the ens commune, the supreme principle of the structural unity of the universe, the summit (or the root) of created quod est. Since it is impossible to receive esse without becoming an ens, it cannot be received without becoming a part of ‘all that is’. The created totum is an imprint of the divine unum: the parts of the universe, considered in themselves, meaning apart from the entirety, cannot have being nisi solo falso nomine, utpote equivoce,229 because being is conferred sub ratione unius. The example which Eckhart cites of the powers of the soul is quite evocative: being distinct and unequal among themselves, as parts of a differentiated whole, they are not distinguished from each other and are not unequal in uno 226. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘Opposition and Non-opposition’, note 30. 227. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 28, n. 34. 228. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 364. 229. Ibid.

382

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

esse animae; similarly, the organs of an animate body receive beingone directly from the soul, in quo esse uno non cadit inaequalitas. The total being of the human composite is a particular case in the universal structure: sic et de toto universo sciendum est.230 On the basis of this example and of some other similar passages, B.J. MullerThym231 wanted to interpret Meister Eckhart’s doctrine of God as Esse omnium in light of the logical and metaphysical principle of totem potestativum, which was first formulated by Boethius and then elaborated upon by Gilbert de la Porrée, bishop of Poitiers. This principle was utilised by Albert the Great to explain how the human soul, while being a substance in itself, can be the form of the body which it animates. Albert the Great’s theory of the soul as the totum potestativum of the body could have served as a model for Meister Eckhart’s doctrine of the presence of God, who is Ipsum Esse in the created universe. This original interpretation has certain merits: in demonstrating with great finesse the un-Thomist character of Eckhart’s doctrine of being, the American critic orients Eckhartian studies down new paths in which the heritage of Gilbert de la Porrée must be taken into consideration. However, Muller-Thym’s claim does not result in a vision of the whole of Eckhart’s thinking, which is both simple and complex at the same time, since it leaves no room at all for analogy in his doctrine of divine and created being. This remains foreign to an interpretation according to which Eckhart’s God is a totum potestativum, who virtually contains all things in Himself as Esse absolutum and penetrates created compounds as esse formalitur inhaerens which is diff used throughout the universe. Thus, Eckhart’s God-Esse, conceived of as Boethius’ Form or Quo est, if He is an analogical Cause conferring being on the entirety of creatures, cannot in any way formally ‘adhere’ to or ‘root itself’, as a formal principle, in the subject which receives esse;232 it becomes a quod est or the totality of ‘that which is’, under the most universal attribute, that of ens commune. The action of the Absolute Form of esse in creatures is not a formal causality which distinguishes essences. Just as the created totum is not the divine Unum, but its participation which preserves the multiplicity of an indefinite dissipation and which thus establishes the finitude of the omnia, so, similarly, the 230. Ibid., p. 394. See Prol. gener. in Op. tripart., LW I, pp. 155-56, n. 10. 231. Muller-Thym, The Establishment of the University of Being. 232. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Analogical Causality’.

Splendor in Medio

383

being-one of creatures, when considered under the passive aspect of creation, is not God’s indistinct and indeterminate Being, but rather is a participated unity, that of determinable being which is divisible and allows for a plurality of unequal essences which are indistinct in themselves and yet distinct from each other. Perceived in itself, this essential structure of the universe, culminating in the ens commune, is comparable to a diaphanous space devoid of light: this is formal being without Ipsum Esse, factum without God.233 By contrast, ‘the smallest thing which one can know as being in God, even a flower which has its being in God, would be more noble than the entire world’.234 Whether this is a particular creature or the universe in its entirety, all that is created will be distinct from God in the essence which receives esse and is indistinct in this esse itself, which is always received and never possessed by creatures ‘as creatures’, since ‘Being is God’. The ambiguity of ens commune in Eckhart is of the same order: considered in itself, in its static acceptance, this most common attribute belongs to the essential aspect of the created world, but in the dynamic context of divine action, the creator of all that is, it is endowed with the fullness of ‘the Being which is God’. (3) In the preceding chapter, we cited three passages from Expositio sancti Evangelii secundum Iohannem,235 in which Meister Eckhart demonstrated how the universitas et integritas totius entis creati, which is produced by the First Principle (which is the Esse sub ratione Unius, meaning the divine essence in the property of the Father who renders it operative) as an ‘all’, an ‘entirety’, in this very production undergoes the first division of created being into ens cognitive in anima and ens reale or naturale in rebus, extra animam.236 The former concerns the universal, the intelligible ‘principles’ (genus and species) which permit the definition of essences by classifying them according to Porphyry’s tree of logic; the latter refers to individual suppositia, the substance which receives Aristotle’s nine states. As we have seen, the being of knowledge or ‘true being’, the manifestation 233. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘God Esse Omnium and the Principle of Analogy’. 234. Serm. all. 8, DW I, p.  132. Aubier-Montainge’s French translation, pp. 156-57. 235. See Chapter 4, notes 211, 217 and 220. 236. See above, Chapter  4, section headed “Cognitivum Ens’ and ‘Ens Reale”.

384

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

of intellectual exemplarity, must play an intermediary role in the creative efficiency which produces the being of nature, since the Father creates all things by His Word.237 The entirety of created being thus has its principle of unity in the summit of cognitive being, in the universality of the ens commune which divides itself into genera and specific differences and presupposes at its basis, under species, the real being of a multiplicity of individual substances. It is further necessary to distinguish between true being, that of concrete substance, and the unreal being of predicable accidents, which are not entia. This division of the ens secundum totum sui ambitum238 is possible only in participative unity, that of the omnia: this is the finite being of the cosmic ensemble, determined according to the various modes of receiving the ipsum esse and without which the entire universe, in its essentially always passive structure, would be just a pure nothingness. As we know, Meister Eckhart’s ipsum esse is not an act of created existing which actualises essences but, rather, it is God Himself who penetrates the essences without formally adhering to them.239 Since there is only one, single being (which is God), then created essences, inasmuch as they are distinct from the ipsum esse which they receive ab alio, are nothing in themselves. On the other hand, by virtue of the same unicity of being, they can receive no other esse than that of indistinction. Thus it is necessary that creatures, insofar as they exist, must be indistinct from God by reason of the very distinction which characterises them.240 The ipsum esse which they continuously receive without ever possessing it, is the infinite Being, which is not determined by its Essence, and is not included within the limits of genera, species or particular beings; this is the Being-One which excludes all forms of division, is absolutely indistinct, and is 237. See above, Chapter  4, section headed “Cognitivum Ens’ and ‘Ens Reale” and Chapter 5, section headed ‘Rota in Medio Rotae’. 238. See above, Chapter  4, section headed “Cognitivum Ens’ and ‘Ens Reale”, note 211. 239. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Essentia et Esse’. 240. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘Indistinctio-Distinctio’. Compare the formula ‘eo ipso continue, quia non continue’, in Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 15, n. 18. See also Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p. 385: Ex hiis patet quod omnis creatura, quamvis perfectissima, et continue [Théry gives this as continua]  – quia non continue  – et semper actu accipit esse a Deo; et suum esse est in continuo fluxu et fieri. … Semper enim creatum et esse habet et esse accipit, sicut lux in medio a sole.

Splendor in Medio

385

‘distinguished by its indistinction’241. Contrasting with the totality of created being, which is encumbered by the essential limitations or different ‘modes’ of receiving esse, the Ipsum Esse is itself ‘without modes’. However, this positive Infinite is not solely a ‘purity’ of being but also its ‘plenitude’ and, under this heading, it includes all modes of being, doing away with the negative sides which cause the opposition of unity and finite indistinction of ‘this determined being’ and ‘all other being’ to all ‘that is not’. Thus, there is no commonality between God-Esse omnium, Eckhart’s ‘Being itself’, and the totality of created being which is constituted of essences, since ‘that which is distinct does not receive, in the proper sense, the Indistinct’.242 Absolute being, since it transcends all modes of being which are proper to creatures, even while gathering them together in its indistinction, is not itself the ens commune, the summit of cognitive being which presupposes the formal distinction between essences. Neither is it the ens hoc et hoc, nor the real being which is attributable to the multiple substances of the created universe. Neither of these, nor any of the subsequent modes following the first division of the entirety of created being, can be thought of as ‘being’, except in terms of a dynamic relationship with the Ipsum Esse which eliminates the negative moment in distinction and multiplicity. This relationship is the analogy of all that is with God, Being-itself. It is time, now, to recall the role of negatio negationis in the two texts which have been cited above, 243 in which we see Meister Eckhart wanting to include in the indistinction of the Ipsum Esse or Ipsum Ens all the modes of being, all the differentiae essendi which characterise created being as such. Th is inclusion within God of all that exists in one or other manner in the created universe is at the same time an exclusion of the limits which are proper to finite beings, a negation of all that ‘denies a certain being’ in natures which are determined to be only ‘this or that’. Thus, if it is possible to move towards the Ipsum Esse without permitting the negation of aliquod esse of the genus ‘animal’ which cannot be refused to 241. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Indistinctio-Distinctio’. 242. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 85, n. 99: … Dei proprium est esse indistinctum et ipse sola sua indistinctione distinguitur, creaturae vero proprium est esse distinctum. Distinctum autem proprie non recipit indistinctum. 243. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘God Esse Omnium and the Principle of Analogy’, notes 216 and 217.

386

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

‘this animal, for example, the lion’, then this assimilation will have to remain within these limits: it does not necessarily imply a pure and simple identification of abstract being or ens commune with Meister Eckhart’s God, despite the universality of this God who is not quid distinctum aut proprium alicui naturae, sed commune omnibus. However much it may remain beyond genus, species and singular natures, ens commune is no less an ‘effect of God’. Meister Eckhart invokes this title of most universal effect to apply to the ens which is common to all things when he is attempting to demonstrate the ‘commonality’ of the First Cause:244 it ‘imprints and imposes’ its effect on all that it ‘attracts and calls’ to the esse which can be converted with unum, verum and bonum, with this Ipsum Esse which cannot be attained apart from the unique GodBeing.245 The complete being of ‘all things’, as indicated by the ens commune, the fi nal term of abstraction, relates to the structural unity of the universe. No determination of created being can lack this ‘all’ which is finite and divisible, just as no mode of being can lack the full Being, the Ipsum Esse or the infi nite and indistinct Ipsum Ens. However, this ‘commonality’ of the Divine Being, when conceived of as negatio negationis omnis esse, is of an entirely different order. The plenitude of the Being-One is not the ‘completeness’ of the universe. In God, the aliquod esse, which cannot be refused 244. Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 88-89, n. 103. 245. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 30vb, ll. 23-41: Tertia propositio est, quod Deus, utpote primum agens et movens supremum omnium que sunt, precipit et imperat omnibus, Ezechiel 34°: ‘rex unus omnibus imperans’; Apocal. 1°: ‘ipsi gloria et imperium in secula seculorum.’ Unumquodque aliorum, quantum fuerit prius et superius, tanto magis et pluribus precipit et imperat. Adhuc autem Deus, cum sit causa omnium et omnibus et quantum ad omnia, effectus eius quem imprimit et imponit, ad quem trahit, vocat et consulit, necessario est quid commune omnibus. Hoc autem est solum esse et que cum ente convertuntur, puta unum, verum, bonum. Ad que nichil citra Deum attingit sed ipsa presupponit in omni actione sua; propter quod iam non est causa entis, unius, veritatis et bonitatis, sed tantum est causa huius entis, huius unius, huius veri, huius boni. Dando ergo et imprimendo hoc esse, hoc unum, huc verum et huc bonum, per consequens, precipit hoc et hoc ens et bonum, non autem omne quod bonum simpliciter.

Splendor in Medio

387

to the Ipsum Esse, is not limited by any negation: in this context, a flower is of more worth than the entire universe, 246 since it exists of itself, not having any form except for that of Divine Essentiality which coincides with the ideal ‘reasons’ of creatures in the Word. By contrast, within the ‘all’ of the universe, a par ticu lar being, subject to the limitations of genus and species, and being determined by its own form which turns it into an ens hoc aut hoc, belongs to a finite ‘completeness’, to the entirety of ‘that which is’, without possessing the fullness of being; having been eaten away at by negations, by which it is not, a created being is both ens and non ens, 247 it both is and is not, being both indistinct and distinct from the Ipsum Esse which it receives without truly possessing, just as a space which can be illuminated receives the active quality of the sky that both ‘is’ and ‘is not’ light. The created totum, the ‘space’ in which creatures receive esse, remains inconceivable and does not exist outside the omnipotent action which produces the omnia, such that the distinct essence of ‘such or such being’ cannot be known, nor can it receive the common attribute of ens apart from the indistinct Ipsum Esse which is conferred upon it ‘in continuity, since there is no continuity’ between the Being who is God and the creatures who possess esse ab alio.248 The negation which opposes ‘this being’ to the unique Being is repudiated in the indistinction of ‘Being itself ’, of the esse absolute, which a creature receives from God, without ever possessing it in the proper sense. Thus, there is at the same time an opposition and a non-opposition, duality and unity, equivocity and univocity, in this esse ab alio which allows the common attribute of the ens to be applied to creatures. The God who is Esse omnium, ‘common to all that is’, and the ens commune, the universal ‘effect’ of the First Cause, are not simply univocal. Thus the hypothesis of identifying ‘God’s pure and absolute unity’ with the ‘concept of hypostatised being’249 is excluded, as is the interpretation of Eckhart’s doctrine of universal being which 246. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘God Esse Omnium and the Principle of Analogy’. 247. See the text of Exp. in Ex., cited in Chapter 2, note 216. 248. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘God Esse Omnium and the Principle of Analogy’, note 240. 249. Della Volpe, op. cit., p. 156; compare p. 178.

388

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

makes his God-Ipsum Esse into a simple reflection of Albert the Great’s soul-totum potestativum.250 However, if Meister Eckhart’s God is not the Formal Cause of the universe in a univocal sense, since there is no adherence of the absolute Esse-Form to all that is, still it is necessary not to fall into the opposite extreme by speaking of two entirely equivocal notions of being; in distinguishing the being of creatures from the unique Ipsum Esse, we are required to recognise, along with Moses Maimonides, the equivocity of the terms esse, ens and essentia when applied to God and to creatures.251 In order to avoid the error of univocity and the agnosticism which the usage of equivocal concepts implies, the two extreme positions must be reunited in an analogical predication of being and of all the perfections which are ‘common’ to both God and creatures. The dialectic of indistinctio-distinctio and similitudo-dissimilitudo showed us an example of such a reunion of contraries; in this sense, Meister Eckhart professes no more than an antithetical expression of ‘the truth of analogy’. Being unknown to the ‘Greek and Arab philosophers’ as well as to the ‘Jewish sages’ (from whom we get the ‘pure equivocity’ of Rabbi Moses), the theological application of the principle of analogy in the predication of being is the first advantage which Meister Eckhart indicates in the thought and writings of ‘our Christian doctors’.252

250. Muller-Thym, The Establishment of the University of Being (see above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘God Esse Omnium and the Principle of Analogy’). 251. Exp. in Ex., LW II, pp.  44-45, n. 39. In departing from Maimonides, Meister Eckhart finds ‘a more subtle argument’ to demonstrate that nulla comparatio cadit inter Deum et creaturam: all comparison presupposes duality, and thus a distinction between the two terms being compared; in conceiving of a creature as distinct from God, it is necessarily conceived of as distinct from being, meaning, as a non ens or nothingness, which then excludes the possibility of ‘comparing’ it at all (see ibid., pp.  45-46, n. 40). This argument, which is supported by references to St Jerome and St Bernard (see notes, ibid.), agrees very well with Eckhart’s concept of analogy or ‘attribution’, in which we are concerned not with resemblance, but with identity and alterity. 252. Ibid., pp. 58-60, n. 54.

Splendor in Medio

389

Analogical Predication and the Doctrine of Being An appeal to analogy in the predication of being and of the perfections attributed to God and to creatures should have done away with any suspicions regarding pantheism which could have been had about the theologian. However, according to Galvano della Volpe, the Eckhartian analogy, instead of eliminating any trace of ‘immanentism’ in the conception of God, who is the ‘formal and intrinsic Cause’ of creatures, only serves to confirm this observation which the Italian critic made concerning Eckhart’s doctrine of being.253 This is because della Volpe, having identified the ens commune with the Ipsum Esse which, for Eckhart, is God, interprets by means of this poorly founded thesis the role which an analogy of attribution must have in a philosophy which tends towards eliminating divine transcendence. Being thus over-simplified, Meister Eckhart’s thought, according to this interpretation, loses the antinomy or juxtaposition of transcendent and immanent which we saw set out in the dialectical propositions on that which is ‘distinct’ and that which is ‘indistinct’, and on that which is ‘dissimilar’ and ‘similar’. The dialectic of this theologian who is ‘taken’ with the mystery of the ‘Life’ which ‘gushes forth’ from its own depths, ‘bubbling over’ in itself and ‘spreading out’ in the creative action, has no purpose except to show by a series of antitheses the relationship of analogy of creatures to God, a dynamic relationship of dependence in which there is no access to being apart from becoming the Being who exists of Himself. Della Volpe, having eliminated the antinomy of ‘being’ and ‘nonbeing’ in this analogical conception of creative action, 254 transposes Eckhart’s analogy to the framework of a static thought system: either creatures are nothingness, or they are simple ‘modes’ of a God who is immanent in all that exists. Having thus distorted Eckhart’s notion of analogy, and by shutting his eyes to the dynamic relationship which this analogy should describe, this critic can easily accuse Eckhart of a ‘spectacular deception’ (capziosità geniale). In effect, in della Volpe’s interpretation, this moment, which is so central to Eckhart’s entire doctrine of being, becomes a mere appearance of 253. Della Volpe, op. cit., pp. 183-200. 254. See above, on being and nothingness which cannot be opposed to each other except in creation, as two terms of divine action – nihil et esse omnium creatorum: Chapter  2, section headed ‘Oppositio Nihil Mediatione Entis’ (Compare ibid., note 133).

390

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

‘analogy’, a deceptive or flawed procedure by which Eckhart would have sought to mask his purely univocal notion of being as attributed to God and to creatures. The role of attributive analogy in Meister Eckhart’s philosophy and the ‘dynamic’ character which it lends to his doctrine of being have been highlighted by Hans Hof.255 In the broad lines of his study,256 Hof quite clearly shows the marked difference between the German Dominican’s ontology and that of St Thomas, especially concerning the distinction between the ipsum esse and the essence of creatures. However, the Swedish critic can be reproached for not having sufficiently taken into account the essentialist character which pervades Eckhart’s conception of being, which he does without hindering the dynamism of his thought. This general tendency in the mystic’s Neo-Platonist ontology distances him even further from Thomism,257 which itself is characterised by an overwhelming role of the ‘act of existing’. If Meister Eckhart makes indiscriminate use of the terms ipsum esse and ipsum ens when speaking of God,258 if he attributes the ‘transcendentals’ of unum, verum and bonum, convertible with the ‘common being’,259 to His absolute ‘Being itself’, then this language itself indicates that the Divine Being is being 255. Hof, Scintilla animae. No doubt the Swedish author was unaware of della Volpe’s work (which, in any case, is missing from his bibliography), but his very pertinent remarks were directed against Ebeling who sought to see Eckhart’s doctrine as a ‘univocal monism’ or a ‘transzendenter Immanenz-Pantheismus’ (p.  81  in Ebeling, Meister Eckharts Mystik) can also, in its general line of argument, apply to the Italian critic’s false interpretation of Meister Eckhart’s philosophy. 256. Despite some errors in the details. Note, for example, the misinterpretation in the translation of a text by St Thomas (Ia, q. 4, a. 1, ad 3um) on p. 116: it isn’t ‘being in itself’ (das, was in sich Sein ist), but man or a horse which receives ipsum esse). 257. Unlike Thomist interpretations of Eckhart’s philosophy (Karrer, Bange and several others), Hans Hof affirms: ‘kein orthodoxer, sonder reduzierter Thomismus mit neuplatonisch gefärbter Seinsauffassung’. We would say instead, ‘reduzierter Neuplatonismus mit tomistisch gefärbter Seinsauffassung’. 258. Hof remarks upon this particularity (see section headed 'Intellectual 'Nihilism' and the 'Uncreatability' of Intellection'): ‘Thomas kann nicht wie Eckhart “ens sive esse” als Aussage über Gott sagen.’ 259. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The First Determination of Being’.

Splendor in Medio

391

conceived of here in a manner whereby ‘being’ signifies, above all, ‘being something’. Thus, ‘being’ in an absolute sense would be ‘being itself’, a Being which depends upon itself, which exists of itself (sibi ipsi innititur, sibi ipso est).260 It is necessary, here, to view the absolute act of existing equally in terms of ‘that which is’ and as a ‘complete return’ to its own essence, as an affirmation of its identity with itself.261 Of course, the absolute God-Essentiality, who is ‘Sufficiency’ for itself and for all that which is,262 the ‘Ocean of infinite and indeterminate substance’,263 cannot possess any esse which is not its own very essence. However, as we have already noted,264 this identity in God of essence and existence does not actually present the same character in Meister Eckhart and in St Thomas. Conceived of as absolute Existentiality, Aquinas’ God is placed within a point of view according to which ‘being’ primarily entails ‘existing’. In the natural theology of Thomism, the divine essence is presented in terms of the ‘act of existing’, as the Ipsum Esse infinitum.265 In order to attain to the God-Being from created being, the two Dominican theologians’ respective ideas do not follow the same path: St Thomas sought to transcend the mode of signification which attaches itself to a finite act of existence and which is determined by an essence, while Meister Eckhart raises himself towards the same reality, which is signified and yet not known, from the starting point of the universal concept of ‘that which is’, that of the ens which is common to all things. A Christian theologian’s use of analogy necessarily depends upon his own conception of being. It is also not surprising that the character of the analogy and the role which it assumes are not the same for a mystic 260. Exp. in Ex., LW II, pp. 77-78, n. 74. 261. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Revelation of the Unique Being’ to ‘Divine Sufficiency and Created Indigence’, and passim in Chapter 3. 262. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Divine Sufficiency and Created Indigence’. 263. Exp. in Ex., LW II, p.  30, n. 24. For Damascene’s text, see above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘indistinctio-Distinctio’, note 47. Compare Chapter 4, section headed ‘Ascensio Intelluctus’, note 85. 264. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Divine Sufficiency and Created Indigence’. 265. In Lib. de causis: lectio VII: causa prima est supra ens in quantum ipsum esse infinitum: ens autem dicitur id quod finite participat esse et hoc est proportionatum intellectui nostro (ed. Mandonnet, vol. 1, p. 230).

392

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

whose preferred ontology is ‘essentialist’ and for a metaphysician who, in his doctrine of being, attached a great, not to say fundamental, importance, to the ‘existential’ moment. For Thomas Aquinas finite being is a synthesis of ‘quo est’ and ‘quod est’: a created ens ‘exists’ by means of the act of existing which it exercises; it ‘is that which it is’ thanks to the essence which determines the existential act. When applying the terms of this ontology to God, any analogical predication must each time refer to an inconceivable mode of existence which is absolutely different from that of creatures. If one wants to speak of God as an absolute Act of existing, one must conceive of this act as being identical with its essence, and this essence can be nothing other than the act of existing. If the finite existence of created beings could be known, insofar as this existence is circumscribed by a conceptualisable essence, it is still utterly impossible, here on earth, to grasp сonceptually the essence of He who is Existence itself. Surpassing the conceptualisable being of an entity which can be categorised according to the logical divisions of Porphyry’s tree can be accomplished, according to St Thomas, without needing to cross over the bounds of created being, every time that we encounter, beyond essences, the ‘existence’ (ipsum esse) which actualises a particular being. Essence is definable by a concept but the act of existing cannot be expressed except by a judgement in which ‘is’ attaches to a subject in order to refer to the act of existing which it exercises. The metaphysical composition of essence (which can be defined by a concept) along with the act of existing (which is non-conceptualisable) have no place within God, who is His own Existence. Being identical with the Esse, the divine ‘That which is’ evades all conceptual definition and cannot be applied even to a finite act of existing. This doctrine allows us to outline the path of analogical attributions in a discourse which pertains to God: here, Thomist analogy transforms predicamental propositions into judgements of existence, in which ‘is’ was only a copula joined to the predicate when it served to attribute the same conceptual content to a created being. To attribute to God wisdom, goodness or any other perfection of which He is the cause in created beings is to affirm that the concepts which express perfections that are attributable to creatures, far from defining the divine essence in an analogical expression or utterance, merely serves to underscore the identification of all these

Splendor in Medio

393

perfections with the absolute Act of existing. This amounts to saying that Thomist analogies indicate an unknowable mode according to which God is Wisdom, Goodness etc., while being His own Esse.266 It becomes apparent to what extent analogical predication in St Thomas’ thought is linked to the ‘existential’ moment of his ontology and, in particular, to his doctrine of the distinct existence of the essence in created beings. As we have already stated,267 this distinction has an entirely different meaning for Meister Eckhart, despite the Thomist formulations of which he made use. The same doubtlessly goes for analogy: it must have a different character for each of these two Dominican theologians. In his defence of the condemned articles taken from his Book of Divine Consolation, Meister Eckhart invoked the principle of analogy, probably in order to justify his own doctrine of being and of spiritual perfections such as goodness, justice and truth, which man receives in an immediate relationship with God, along with the very being of the ‘good’, ‘just’ and ‘true’ subject.268 This recourse to analogy in Meister Eckhart’s first response (which today is lost) gave way to new attacks from the investigators who extracted from it two points: on the difference between equivocity, univocity and analogy and on the dependency of the created subject upon the analogical qualities which are conferred upon it by the being which is good, just etc.269 Meister Eckhart found these accusations absurd and was content to respond to them with the laconic statement: dicendum quod verum est.270 He also made a comment referring to the ‘ignorance and limited intelligence’ of those accusers who reproached him as a ‘heretic who is clearly demonstrated to be such by St Thomas’, for example, concerning ‘the distinction between, and the nature of, things which are univocal, equivocal and analogous’. This was clear proof that they could not possibly have had any clear evidence for this 266. ‘Whether speaking of his essence, substance, goodness, or wisdom, one does no more than repeat: he is esse’: Gilson, Le Thomisme, p. 155. 267. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Quiddity and ‘Esse Secundum”. 268. Cf. Daz buoch der goetlichen troestunge, DW V, p.  11, ll. 15-19; p. 50, ll. 14-22. 269. The proceedings of the Cologne trial, Archives, I, p.  169, art. 5 and art. 6. 270. Ibid., p. 195.

394

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

before them from the Great Dominican Doctor, who was then but newly canonised.271 However, in their desire to attack the director of the Studium Generale [in Cologne] on this very precise point of his doctrine, Eckhart’s Franciscan adversaries did not show themselves to be solely ruditas et brevitas intellectus. These Cologne-based disciples of Duns Scotus only succeeded in grossly accentuating the general tendency of a school which was hardly favourable to anything which is an ‘analogy of being’, either within Thomist philosophy or in any other doctrinal perspective.272 A Scotist theologian would be prepared to consider St Thomas’ analogy as an equivocal game with the most general concept, that of being, a concept which cannot be ‘disjoined’ in order to receive a different kind of meaning when it is attributed to created beings or to the ‘Infinite First Being’. Arriving at a conceptual stability of the ens commune would lead to a theological agnosticism, to aberrations from the negative path which the Subtle Doctor [Duns Scotus] would have abhorred. By contrast, when transferred to the framework of Thomist thought, the principle of univocity of the ens commune, as affirmed by Duns Scotus, would seem to result in manifest pantheism, despite the ‘disjoined’ role of the concept of infinity which, being added on to that of being, would have to form the composite concept of infinite Being, which could be applied to divine quiddity. Of course, univocity of being, in the Scotist sense of this term, was foreign to Meister Eckhart; in the same vein, he does not admit the possibility of a quidditative definition of the ‘Being who is God’. All the same, his thought remains essentialist, above all, like that of Duns Scotus, since it raises itself towards the unknowability of the indeterminable Ens, starting from the most general concept, that of the ens which can be determined by genus and by specific differences. If this conception of divine and created being were to be judged in the perspective of orthodox Thomism, it would inevitably take on the same pantheist hue which St Thomas’ disciples could have imagined that they detected in Duns Scotus’ teachings. The Dominicans, remaining faithful to the Angelic Doctor’s memory, could perhaps have had more reasons to attack their Thuringian colleague, Eckhart, 271. Ibid., p. 206, point 3. 272. Concerning this subject, see Gilson, Jean Duns Scot, pp.  101-2 (a critique of Thomist analogy), p. 444, note 2 (a critique of the ‘analogy of attribution’); compare p. 91.

Splendor in Medio

395

whom, however, they sought to defend from accusations of heresy which were clumsily formulated by the followers of the Subtle Doctor. Both were misled by the ‘Thomist’ language of a way of reasoning which was itself not actually Thomist. Being foreign to Duns Scotus’ univocal essentialism, the analogical conception of divine and created being is no less distant from St Thomas Aquinas’ ‘existential’ analogy, to which Eckhart wished to remain faithful in his own way.

The Analogy of Attribution Denifle was the first to observe that Meister Eckhart understood the principle of analogy as applying to God and creatures in a different way from his predecessors, especially from St Thomas.273 Despite the objections of Otto Karrer,274 who claimed to be defending the Thomist character of Eckhart’s kind of analogy, we must recognise, as does Grabmann,275 that Meister Eckhart, in speaking of God and of creatures, normally cites the classic example of the analogy known as that of ‘attribution’; according to St Thomas,276 the analogy of attribution – by itself – cannot suffice for the purpose of analogically predicating being. Here a concept’s objective meaning is, in effect, realised only in one term of the analogy: instead of extending to the other terms or elements in a real way (secundum esse), this conceptual content touches on them only in an intentional manner (secundum intentionem), in order to indicate a certain relationship 273. Denifle, op. cit., p. 510. 274. Karrer, op. cit., pp. 273-92. 275. Grabmann, Neuaufgefundene Quaestionen, pp. 59-62. 276. It is impor tant to remember that the terms ‘analogy of attribution’ and ‘analogy of proportionality’ which we use today are due to the classifications offered by Cajetan. In St Thomas’ works, these distinctions are only outlined and the terms which he uses (especially to refer to the analogy which we refer to today as ‘attribution’) vary from work to work. The preference for ‘proportionality’ is seen, for example, in the commentary on Aristotle’s Ethics (In decem libros ethicorum expositio, lectio 7): Ideo hunc tertium modum [‘proportionality’] praefert [Aristotle] quia accipitur secundum bonitatem inhaerentem rebus, primi autem duo [two modes of ‘attribution’: ab uno principio et ad unam finem] secundum bonitatem separatam, a qua non ita proprie aliquid denominatur. See T.-L. Penido’s work, Le Rôle de l’analogie en théologie dogmatique (Paris: Vrin, 1931), especially pp. 31-42.

396

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

of ‘analogised’ things to a reality which remains foreign to them.277 On the other hand, in an analogy with four elements,278 which is known as ‘proportionality’ and in which the analogical relation is established between two different relationships of attribution of the same term, there, in such cases, the analogy is not only intentional but also real (secundum intentionem et secundum esse). Here, a predicated concept’s real meaning is distributed differently among all the members or terms, thus indicating a relationship of resemblance which unites them.279 It is quite understandable why St Thomas preferred to make use of this type of analogy, combining it with the analogy of attribution, in order to relate to God the perfections which can be known in creatures. In order to define a properly and particularly Thomist analogical method,280 it would be necessary to seek it, above all, in 277. For St Thomas, this is an analogy secundum intentionem tantum, et non secundum esse, when una intentio refertur ad plura per prius et posterius, quae tamen non habet esse nisi in uno.  … [the example of health given here is from Aristotle, Metaphysics, IV.1003 a, an example to which Eckhart often refers] Et hoc est quando una intentio refertur ad plura per prius et posterius; non tamen secundum diversum esse, quia esse sanitatis non est nisi in animali (I Sent., d. 19, q. 5, a. 2, ad 1um). In Eckhart’s texts which are known to us, there is nowhere any distinction between different modes of analogy. When he speaks in such terms, it is almost always an example of ‘health’, ‘urine’, ‘diet’ or ‘medicine’ which is used, with a very clear sense of an ‘analogy of attribution’ (see the remarks below). Compare Hof, op. cit., pp.  90-123, on the ‘reinkultivierte analogia attributionis’ in Eckhart. 278. For example, when we correlate the eye which sees sensible objects and the intellect which perceives intelligible things. 279. I Sent., loc. cit.: Vel secundum intentionem et secundum esse; et hoc est quando neque parificatur in intentione communi, neque in esse; sicut ens dicitur de substantia et accidente; et de talibus oportet quod natura communis habeat aliquod esse in unoquoque eorum de quibus dicitur, sed differens secundum rationem maioris vel minoris perfectionis. Et similiter dico quod veritas et bonitas et omnia huiusmodi dicuntur analogice de Deo et creaturis. Unde oportet quod secundum suum esse omnia haec in Deo sint et in creaturis, secundum rationem maioris perfectionis et minoris; ex quo sequitur, cum non possint esse secundum unum esse utrobique, quod sint diversae veritates. 280. Although the notion of analogy was never given a systematic elaboration in St Thomas. See Gilson, Le Thomisme, p. 153.

Splendor in Medio

397

the analogy of proportionality, since it is precisely this which is best suited to the Thomist doctrine of being.281 This kind of analogical predication is located in the existential order, specifically that of judgement; it connects a proposition de tertio adiacente, referring to created reality, with another mode of predication, with a judgement of existence (de secundo adiacente) which requires us to identify with the pure Act of existing all that which, beginning with created being, is attributed to the Divine Essence.282 Thus, concerning the subject of every created perfection, here we find every time the real relationship of all that exists and which can be known with a mode of existing which is unique and unknowable and which is proper to the Divine Essence. In appending itself to the analogy of attribution, the analogy of proportionality reveals not only God’s essential unknowability, but also the existential relationship of created beings, which are composed of essence and finite actus essendi, to the Essence who is none other than an infinite Act of existing. If this analogical method permits us to attribute perfections known in creatures to God, the universal Cause, it does not, however, yield any positive knowledge of the divine nature or knowledge concerning the relationship of the Creator to created beings. Tending to be negative as far as things which concern divine Being, Thomist analogy finds all its positive value in making known the existential relationship between all that is created and knowable with the unknown creative Cause.283 It lends a real meaning to affirmative judgements such as ‘God is Wisdom’, ‘God is Love’, without abolishing that ‘conceptual agnosticism’ which remains absolute insofar as it relates to the divine Essence.284 281. Apart from the well-known work by Penido, see E.L. Mascall’s study, Existence and Analogy: A Sequel to ‘He Who Is’ (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1949). 282. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘Analogical Predication and the Doctrine of Being’. 283. … [N]on enim de Deo capere possumus quid est, sed quod non est, et qualiter alia se habeant ad ipsum (C. Gentiles, I.30). 284. ‘In order to avoid “conceptual agnosticism”, which certain people accept with difficulty when it concerns God, we must not seek refuge in a concept of the divine essence which is more or less imperfect, but rather in the positivity of affirmative judgments which, based on God’s multiple effects, situate the metaphysical space of an essence of which we cannot completely conceive’: Gilson, Le Thomisme, p. 159, note 2. Mascall tries to demonstrate that St Thomas combined the two types

398

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

In the judgement of existence which it attributes to God, the concept of wisdom or love would be encapsulated within the active meaning of ‘is’ – secundum adiacens, in order to refer solely to the incomprehensible mode according to which God is, being Wisdom or Love, without saying anything at all about That which is. Not having any kind of determinative influence on the subject, the predicated concept is here totally subordinated to the judgement. Contrary to the analogy of proportionality which receives all of its meaning from judgement, the analogy of attribution remains closely attached to the order of the concept, even when it presupposes a relationship of causality by virtue of which the same notion must be predicated differently from the cause and from effects. It is always the concept, properly and rightly attributed to one of the members of the analogy, which here determines its attribution that does not belong to the other subjects. The only means of avoiding equivocity in this attribution to ‘analogised’ things would be to deny, beginning with the definition of the concept, the real character of its analogical belonging. Thus, since health is the state of a living being, it can be said that health is not really in ‘healthy’ urine, which is its manifestation, nor in a ‘healthy’ diet’, which is its cause. By the same token, where God and created beings are concerned, this type of conceptual analogy, in attributing real goodness to creatures, would require us to deny the formal character thereof in the divine Cause of goodness, in order to lend a virtual goodness to God. This order of attribution, in which the creature is the principal member and God is that which is ‘analogised’, can easily evolve into an ‘apophasis of opposition’: that which is attributed to creatures will be denied in God. It is precisely in this vein that Meister Eckhart declares: ‘God is neither good, nor the better, nor the best of all; he who says that God is good speaks of Him as inaccurately as if he were to say that the sun is black.’285 On of analogy when speaking of God: ‘Without analogy of proportionality it is very doubtful whether the attributes which we predicate of God can be ascribed to him in more than a merely virtual sense; without analogy of attribution it hardly seems possible to avoid agnosticism’ (op. cit., p. 113). The question discussed up to the present is to find out which of the two forms of analogy would have had priority in Thomist philosophy. 285. Serm. all. 9 (Quasi stella matutina), DW I, p.  148. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘The Apophasis of Opposition’, and, ibid., note 123 (on the condemnation of this passage). Fr Théry, in his

Splendor in Medio

399

the other hand, if the real meaning of the concept of goodness were attributed to God, then it would be necessary, because of the same principle of the analogy of attribution, to deny that the true goodness which is in ‘analogised’ created beings is attributable to the Goodness of the Creator. This is what Meister Eckhart says, citing the Gospel (Luke 18:19): since ‘No one is good except for God’, he who prays to God asking Him for a particular good prays incorrectly and in effect asks for that which is bad, since the bonum hoc et hoc implies the negation of absolute Goodness, thus – the negation of God.286 In these two contrary cases of the attribution of goodness, that is to creatures and to God,287 the analogy cannot be conveyed by affirmative judgements which would indicate an existential relationship between the two terms of a real attribution of the concept of goodness. Here, ‘Contribution à l’histoire du procès d’Eckhart’ (p.  65) is inclined to see, here, the ‘beginning of a deviation from traditional doctrine’ and opposes this manner of ‘preaching transcendence’ while veering ‘towards agnosticism’ regarding the ‘beautiful equilibrium which St Thomas outlined’, an equilibrium which ‘is broken by Eckhart’s paradoxical spirit’ (see Chapter 2, note 181). In reality, there are simply two different types of analogy here: in using analogy of attribution, which necessarily implies a discrepancy between the real and intentional meanings, Eckhart could not establish an equilibrium of ‘proportionality’ between effects and their Cause. Besides, this was not his aim. 286. Exp. in Io., C., f. 125rb, ll. 47-55: Patet ergo quod petens hoc aut hoc malum petit et mala, quia negationem boni et negationem alicuius esse et negationem Dei petit; et ergo non orat nec petit Deum, sed orat et petit sibi negari Deum, negari sibi esse verum et bonum. Et fortassis hoc est quod in fine orationis dominice oramus liberari a malo, id est non petere malum inclusum in omni hoc et hoc: hec enim privant nos et elongant a bono, vero, et uno, que omnia Deus sunt vel est. Ibid., f. 125va, ll. 16-19: Si vero is qui orat petit quid preter Deum qui est ipsum esse prehabens omne esse verum et bonum, utique petit et querit malum et invenit malum. Quod enim aliud est a bono malum est. Compare ibid., f. 125rb, ll. 3-7, the example of good health sine modo and medicine que in se non est bona (cited above, Chapter 4, note 121). 287. See another example of the analogy of attribution in which goodness really belongs to God, qui est et dicitur, Luc 18, ‘solus bonus’; creatures are sicut dieta, medicina et urina: they nichil prorsus habent sanitatis in se formaliter plus quam lapis vel lignum (Exp. in Gen., first edition [E], LW I, p. 74, n. 128).

400

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

analogical thought attaches exclusively to the concept which does or does not properly fit the constituent parts of that analogy. When being becomes a concept which can truly be a predicate only of the sole principal subject, to which the other subjects relate analogically, it is then not a ‘quo est’ but a ‘quod est’. The relationship between the subject of real attribution and that which is ‘analogised’ will thus be conceived of, in the case of an ‘analogy of being’, in terms of essence, as a relationship between that which is and that which is not truly being. Also, the negative element will be the very crux of the analogy of attribution: there is absolutely no health in a diet or in urine; if they are referred to as ‘healthy’, it is because one is the cause and the other is a sign of the health which is in the living being. The absence of the existential moment in the attribution of analogata lends this type of analogy a character of the ‘truth of predication’, which is very different from anything that would be the ‘truth of being’ or things in themselves. However, even more than analogy of proportionality, this way of attributing being and perfections to God and to creatures, could correspond to the requirements of a mystic, since it highlights the radical indigence of created beings which endlessly receive their being on loan, rather than it being something which they truly possess, along with every thing else which God confers upon them de mera gratia.288 In quoting examples of analogy, Meister Eckhart specially insists upon the negative moment of attribution to that which is analogised: It is quite the same health which is in the living being, it is not another kind of health which is in a diet or in urine, in such a way that there is absolutely nothing of this health in them as such, no more than there is in a rock. If urine is called ‘healthy’, this is only because it identifies this health which is numerically identical to that which is in the living being.289 288. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Analogical Causality’. 289. In Eccli., Denifle 588, C., f. 82rb, ll. 38-45, LW II, p.  280, n. 52: Sanitas una eademque que est in animali ipsa est, non alia, in dieta et urina; ita quod sanitas, ut sanitas, nichil prorsus est in dieta et urina, non plus quam in lapide, sed hoc solo dicitur urina sana, quia significat illam sanitatem eandem numero que est in animali, sicut circulus vinum, qui nichil vini in se habet. See a similar passage, taken from

Splendor in Medio

401

The example of a circle, the traditional sign that there is wine in a tavern or barrel,290 further highlights the purely predicamental character of attributive propositions in Meister Eckhart’s works. In his long exposition on the nature of affirmative propositions concerning God,291 Eckhart specially underscores292 the necessity of distinguishing, both in discourse and in thought, between that which concerns ‘beings or things’ in their esse and that which constitutes the predicating of things solely in predication. In order to avoid all sorts of inextricable difficulties, it is necessary to remember that Aristotle’s categories are not the ten first beings (entia) or things (res), but the ten first genera, of which, in the order of being, only one is known: substance. This is being, strictly speaking, which is directly identified (in recto) by the first category. As for the other categories, they comprise the nine predications which are not entia but entis: that which is attributed to being. If we refer to them as ‘beings’, it is only in an indirect sense (in obliquo), by analogy with the single being which is substance. Both examples of the analogy of attribution (urine referred to as healthy and the ‘circle representing wine’), along with all that they entail as a negation of real being, are cited here by Meister Eckhart in order to establish that predicamental truth can only be analogical when it is related to the real order of esse. Being univocal as ten logical genera of predication (in which the first category means ‘second essence’), the categories are no longer univocal when real being is concerned, namely, the real being of a substance to which accidents classified under the nine predicamental genera relate analogically: analogice ad unum ens absolute. The metaphysical rationale which Meister Eckhart invokes is both Aristotelian and Thomist: only substantial form confers being; accidents do not confer esse, but receive being from the subject; they only modify the unique being of the substance in the sense of quality, quantity and other predicamental categories, making them into an ens quale, quantum etc. However, we must recall that in order to distinguish the analogy of proportionality from that of attribution, Meister Eckhart’s first defence, Archives, I, p. 169. Compare Utrum in Deo, LW V, p. 46, n. 11. 290. Hof, op. cit., p.  90, speaks of a ‘straw crown’ (Strohkranz). This example is found frequently in Eckhart. 291. Exp. in Ex., LW II, pp. 40-82, nn. 34-78. 292. Ibid., pp. 58-60, n. 54.

402

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

St Thomas rightly mentions the example of substance and accidents: the term ens is truly suitable for both, albeit in a different way  – secundum rationem maioris vel minoris perfectionis.293 Even if it is an ens entis, the accident truly possesses being, because in the subject it participates in the same act of esse by which the substance exists. It is not a ‘being by or of itself’, since it does not exercise its own act of existing, as does a substantial ens; this is the reason why an accident is an imperfect ens, as it receives existence in another. However, both the accident and the substance in this example of ‘proportionality’, cited by St Thomas, imply a real relationship to the esse which differently confers upon them the title of ens. A different conception of being can be seen in Eckhart, borne out by the very fact that he wishes to apply analogy of attribution in the same case, which leads to a change in the analogical distribution: the accident is expressed as ens or res solely in the order of predication, by its relation to the only real ens which is substance in relation to which the accident is ‘analogised’. Here there is no longer a place for the act of existing thanks to which not only the substance, in its actual being, but also the accident in its inesse, would truly be a being, an ens entis existing by the existence of the substance. Entia alone in the improper sense of an analogy of attribution (like urine and the circle with respect to health and wine) or accidents, for Meister Eckhart, are not, strictly speaking, ‘beings of being’, but only entis,294 with this genitive construction designating modifications of ‘that which is’ really. Thus, the usage of analogy of attribution was here dictated by an ontology in which esse means ‘to be something’. If the accident is expressed as an ens analogically with reference to its subject, it is precisely because an accidental predication, without any affirmation that the accident truly is something, indicates the manner by which a substance is what it is, being a quale in terms of quality, a quantum in terms of quantity etc. It is always a single real ens which is uniquely ‘this something’ by its substantial form. In determining the subject according to different modes, the accidents limit the subject more than they add to or enrich it in what it truly is as being. If accidents do not join themselves to the form by which a created suppositum is an ens, it is because they ‘fall’ into a

293. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘The Analogy of Attribution’, note 279. 294. St Thomas sometimes expresses himself in this manner (compare Ia, q. 45, a. 4), citing Aristotle (Metaphysics, VII.1.1028a).

Splendor in Medio

403

realm which is inferior to that of being.295 In reality, they belong to becoming, to fieri which results in the generation of form in matter, but which is opposed, in its character of change and corruption, to the stability of the esse, to the generated form which confers its essential determination upon the composite, its title of real ens. Meister Eckhart’s essentialist thought can agree here with a certain aspects of Aristotelianism, but it remains foreign to a truly Thomist doctrine of being. The metaphysical reason why being is attributed to accidents by means of analogy with a real and unique ens does not relate to their own mode of ‘existing in’ the subject (in-esse), but is due solely to the manner in which they determine an individual quod est, by remaining apart from all that constitutes it [or them?] as a real ens. As ‘beings’ by analogy, accidents are thus, in some way, exterior to real being which is substance: sunt ergo omnia huius modi entia sive res extra analogice ad unum, quod est ens et res, scilicet substantia.296 The different determinations expressed by predication belong to a particular substance as its modes of being an ens, without at all permitting one to attribute the status of ‘entity’ to accidents: just analogically to be a real being is to be nothing other than a different mode of the same reality. The being which the accident receives in the subject is the same being or unique thing, but considered under a different relationship which is not that of substance. The ens quantum or quale is always to be numerically one, whose quantitative or qualitative accidents are but the modes according to which a being is ‘extended, long or short, black or white’, since the accident, ‘whether it be quantity or quality’, does not bestow being on the substance, nor ‘is it an ens’.297 This doctrine of accidents, according to which they would be deprived of real being ‘inasmuch as they are accidents’,298 295. In Exp. in Io., in contrasting accidents with the substantial form, Meister Eckhart says the following: Accidentia vero, puta qualitates, hoc ipso quod descendunt et cadunt a forma substantiali, non dant esse composito simpliciter et incidunt sive cadunt in naturam contrarii quidem, alterantis et corrumpentis (C., f. 120va, ll. 4-8). The final treatise of Prol. in Opus propos. (14) had to be devoted to the two opposites: substance and accident (LW I, p. 151, n. 4). 296. Exp. in Ex., LW II, p. 59, n. 54. 297. Utrum in Deo, LW V, p. 47, n. 11. 298. Mgr Grabmann, in his commentary on Eckhart’s Parisian Questions, notes the following concerning this subject: ‘Es braucht nicht eigens hervorgehoben zu werden, dass Eckhart, wenn er den Akzidenzien jede Realität abstreitet, sich von der aristotelisch-thomistischen Metaphysik

404

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

represents a particular case of the analogy of attribution which Meister Eckhart applied to problems of being. At the end of the line of argument which he devotes to the real being of things and to the intentional being of their predications, Meister Eckhart gives a definition of ‘the analogous’, with reference to ‘equivocal’ and ‘univocal’:299 equivocal presupposes a distinction between different things (which are improperly designated by the same term); univocal discerns differences at the heart of the one and the same reality. As for ‘the analogous’, it designates neither different things, nor differences within a single reality; rather, the only distinction which it highlights relates to the different modes ‘of one and the same thing, numerically identical, which is the substance once constituted in the nature of things and in being by its form’. Th is defi nition of the analogy of attribution is quite restrictive and narrow: not only can it not be applied to a relationship which transcends the bounds of created being, but, furthermore, this analogy operates solely in relation to the accidental attributes and the formal being of one numerically identical substance. If this principle of analogical relationship were to be extended, as thus formulated, to the level of analogical relationship between created beings and the divine Ens, 300 then we could without any doubts or reservations attribute to Eckhart a pantheism of absolute and unique substance, comparable to that of Spinoza. However, nothing allows for this ‘metabasis in another genus’, which Meister Eckhart himself never created. When Eckhart attaches the true meaning of the ens to the formal being of the created substance, as in the definition of the analogy des Akzidenz entfernt. So sehr Thomas mit Aristoteles die wesenhafte Hinordnung des Akzidenz auf die Substanz betont, so sehr wahrt er aber auch den realen Unterschied zwischen der Substanz und den Akzidenzien, wie schon seine Lehre vom realen Unterschied zwischen Seelensubstanz und Seelenvermögen beweist’ (Neuaufgefundene Quaestionen, p. 62). 299. Exp. in Ex., LW II, p. 60, n. 54: Sciendum ergo quod haec est differentia aequivoci, univoci, et analogi, quod aequivocum distinguitur per res diversas, univocum pre rei eiusdem differentias, analogum autem nec sic nec sic, sed solum per modos unius eiusdem rei numero, constitutae iam in rerum natura et in esse per formam, quae est substantia. Compare St Thomas, Sup. I Sent., d. 22, q. 1, a. 3, ad. 2um. 300. Della Volpe believed he had done this.

Splendor in Medio

405

which we have just cited, God, as superior to substantial forms, will be referred to as ‘analogised’ to (i.e. will be drawn into an analogy with) the formal being of creatures and, under this title, the direct meaning of the ens will be refused to Him, as it must be refused to the other ‘analogised’ member, which is the accident which is inferior to the form.301 Sic etiam dico quod deo non convenit esse nec est ens, sed est aliquid altius esse.302 The mode of being, or rather, of not truly being an ens is not the same for accidents and for God, just as it is not the same for urine (a sign) and diet (a cause) in the example of health. The moment of causality which intervenes here will, as in the example of goodness cited above, 303 allow for the real meaning of the concept of esse or ens to be linked either to the created effect and sometimes to the divine cause, without this reversal in perspective necessarily presupposing a change in the metaphysical doctrine of being. The negation of being in God, as treated in Meister Eckhart’s Parisian Questions, in no way contradicts the first thesis of the Opus propositionum: Esse est Deus. At issue, here, are not two different phases in the development of Eckhart’s thought, as we have already said above,304 but rather it is a case of two dialectically opposed positions or, to put it more precisely, two contrary ways of applying the analogy of attribution to God and creatures.

‘Qui Edunt Me Adhuc Esuriunt’ The commentary on several texts taken from chapter 24 (vv. 23, 27-31) of Ecclesiasticus must have par tic u lar doctrinal importance for Meister Eckhart; this exegetical piece, which comprises 301. Utrum in Deo, LW V, pp. 46-47, n. 11. 302. Ibid., p.  47, n. 12. This sentence, in which being is refused to God, is a conclusion and belongs to the beginning of a passage about accidents which have no formal being: Unde, sicut alias dixi, cum accidentia dicantur in habitudine ad substantiam … sic etiam dico, etc. The principle of the analogy of attribution is clearly formulated here: in his quae dicuntur secundum analogiam, quod est in uno analogatorum formaliter, non est in alio. This is confirmed by the classic example of health, diet and urine. 303. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘The Analogy of Attribution’. 304. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘The Opposition between ‘Intelligere’ and ‘Esse”. Compare the critique of the theory of ‘two doctrinal phases’ by Seeberg, ‘Eckhartiana I’, p. 94.

406

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

sermons and lessons (lectiones) presented at the chapter of brother preachers, 305 really amounted to a series of theological problems which are dealt with before an audience that was competent to understand them. It is here, in the commentary on the text, Qui edunt me adhuc esuriunt (v. 29), that we can find much more precise clarification on the nature of analogy. The text itself, which Eckhart chose in order to deal with the question of the Divine Cause and created effects, is really quite eloquent: to eat without ever reaching satiety and being in a state of ever-increasing hunger  – this metaphor corresponds perfectly to the condition of that which is ‘analogised’ in a causal analogy of attribution: it both has and does not have the real content of a concept which is properly attributed to the cause. Without a doubt, in becoming aware of the par tic u lar character of his own analogical conception (which in itself could already provoke several criticisms), Meister Eckhart, faced with his confreres, insisted, with firm doctrinal assurance, upon the necessity of understanding the analogy of being and of perfections in the sense that he wished to lend it, a sense whose veracity is founded upon the testimony of Scripture. ‘It must be noted’, he says: that certain persons, having poorly understood and, therefore, having disapproved of this characteristic or aspect of analogy, find themselves in error up to the present. As for us, in conceiving of analogy in its true sense, as was shown in the First Book of Propositions,[306] we shall say this: in order to express this truth of the analogy of all  things with God, he said very well: those 305. Doubtlessly a provincial chapter, despite the explicit present in manuscripts E and C: expliciunt sermones facti ad fratres predicatores in capitulo generali. For more on this subject, see Denifle’s remarks, op. cit., p. 564, as well as those of Josef Koch, in LW III, ‘Zur Einführung’, p. xvii and f. Reffke places these ‘lessons on Ecclesiasticus’ between the first editing of Exp. in Gen. and the commentary on Wisdom (op. cit., p. 80, compare also p. 79). [The pages of Eckhart commented on here, were published in the Stuttgart edition, LW II, p. 270 and ff., shortly after V. Lossky’s death.] 306. Undoubtedly, it was the first treatise of Opus propositionum in which Eckhart had to speak de esse et ente et eius opposito quod est nichil (Prol. gener. in Op. tripart., LW I, p. 150, n. 4).

Splendor in Medio

407

who eat me still hunger more. They eat, for they are; they are hungry, since they exist by or due to Another than themselves. 307 In the same passage, a bit earlier, the difference between univocal, equivocal and analogy is expressed in terms very close to the definition which was given in Expositio Libri Exodi. However, here, analogy is given a broader meaning; it is no longer confined to predicable modes of being of an individual substance, which are realised in the nature of created things; the real meaning of the attribution is simply joined to the unique res of which the analogies are but modes.308 In the example which follows this definition, the emphasis is placed, above all, on the identity of the conceptual content (sanitas una eademque … non alia) in the members of the analogy.309 However, if the equivocal is excluded, then the univocity of the concept does not eliminate the analogical character of attribution, insofar as the univocal concept which is attributed to the ‘analogised’ subjects implies the negation of the existential moment (sanitas, ut sanitas, nichil prorsus est in dieta et urina).310 If, for St Thomas, analogy is a means of speaking about God and creatures non secundum puram aequivocationem,311 it would seem that, for Meister Eckhart, it is a means of predicating 307. Denifle, p.  589; C., f. 82va, ll. 8-15; LW II, p.  282, n. 53: Notandum autem, quod hanc naturam analogye quidam male intelligentes et improbantes erravarunt usque hodie. Nos autem, secundum veritatem analogye intelligendo, sicut ex primo libro propositionum declaratur, dicamus quod ad significandam hanc veritatem analogye rerum omnium ad ipsum Deum dictum est optime: ‘qui edunt me, adhuc esuriunt’. ‘Edunt’ quia sunt, ‘esuriunt’ quia ab alio sunt. Nicholas of Cusa made notes in the margins of the first and last sentences of this text. 308. Denifle, p.  588; C., f. 82rb, ll. 31-38; LW II, p.  280, n. 52: Rursus nono, advertendum quod distinguuntur hec tria: univocum, equivocum et analogum. Nam equivoca dividuntur per diversas res significatas, univoca vero per diversas rei differentias, analoga vero non distinguuntur per res, sed nec per rerum differentias, sed per modos unius eiusdemque rei simpliciter. It is roughly this definition of analogy (borrowed from Meister Eckhart’s first response) which appears in the Act of Accusation (Archives, I, p. 169). 309. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Intelligere et Esse’, note 289. 310. See ibid. 311. C. Gentiles, I.33.

408

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

being and perfections which are non omnino univoce based on the First Cause and effects. This mode of ‘not quite univocal’ predication, which is proper to analogy of attribution, maintains its entirely conceptual character: being regulated by the logical laws of identity, of contradiction, and of the excluded alterities, Eckhart’s analogy of being gives way to a dialectic of being and non-being, a dialectic which remains foreign to the analogy of proportionality, which is based upon existential judgement. Now, we can respond to the question which was posed at the beginning of this chapter, namely this:312 under what conditions can ‘analectic’ thought go along with dialectical thought in one and the same doctrine of being? Such an alliance is difficult to imagine in an ontology in which a very pronounced moment of existing requires us to exploit to the full the analogy of proportionality, so that a real relationship of resemblance is revealed, even if one member of the analogy must remain radically dissimilar. On the contrary, the agreement or parallelism of analogical and dialectical expressions will be only very natural in an essentialist ontology, in which the exclusive use of analogy of attribution highlights the negative relationship, the non-identity of the subjects of an attribution, and, at the same time, highlights the identity of the attributed concept.313 312. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘Opposition and Nonopposition’. 313. For more on the relationship between the analogia entis and dialectic thought, see Coreth, mentioned above (note 42). According to [this] author, the negative relationship in the ‘analogy of being’ would be dissemblance, whereas in the dialectic it would be contradiction. Th is is why these two methods can never go together: analogical thought of the Middle Ages and Hegel’s dialectical thought are mutually exclusive. As for Hegelian dialectic, we fully accept Coreth’s conclusion that it cannot be reconciled with medieval ‘analogical thought’. However, the reason invoked by him in order to establish the impossibility of any rapprochement between analogy and dialectics cannot, it seems to us, be accepted except in the case of St Thomas’ analogical thought. Coreth’s considerations are justifiable only insofar as the analogy ‘of proportionality’ accommodates a moment of similitude. In analogy of attribution, which Meister Eckhart uses exclusively when speaking of being, the negative moment is governed by contradiction, which opens the way to a dialectic of divine and created being in Eckhart’s thought. Th is remains true

Splendor in Medio

409

When ‘being’ means ‘to be something’, the conceptual defi nition of that which truly is of the excluded middle the attribution of being in relation to that which is analogised: if the esse is the formal being of a created substance, then God is not being; if being means ‘BeingGod’, then in that case all creatures are a ‘pure nothingness’. In both cases the task of a theologian who wishes to speak analogically concerning divine and created being will be to elucidate the mode according to which the analogate is not, strictly speaking, a being. Th is ‘mode of not being’ constitutes, in Eckhartian analogy, the pole of equivocity which must antinomically counterbalance that of univocity. Since in the text of Ecclesiasticus which we are examining, the being and perfections of creatures are conceived of in an analogical relationship to God, the principal member of attribution, the negative ‘mode’ which belongs to creatures will receive the divine reality without truly possessing it, insofar as the First Cause remains exterior to created beings. Ens autem sive esse et omnis perfectio, maxime generalis, puta esse, unum, verum, bonum, lux, iustitia et huiusmodi, dicuntur de Deo et creaturis analogice. Ex quo sequitur quod bonitas, iustitia et similia bonitatem suam habent totaliter ab extra, ab aliquo ad quod analogantur, Deo scilicet. 314 ‘To be established in an analogical relationship’ to God means, for creatures, to receive from Him a content which, being proper to God in the identity of His perfection, must remain exterior to those who receive it. It would be more faithful to Meister Eckhart’s thought to say that this is the created subject ‘analogised to God’, which remains exterior to the perfection which it receives. In any case, this exteriority, which is the mode according to which the created subject receives being and perfections ‘from the Other’ (ab alio), without acquiring within itself any kind of condition which would when he speaks of dissimilitudo-similitudo, since, for Eckhart, these opposed moments ultimately come down to an opposition between alterity and identity. 314. Denifle, p.  588; C., f. 82rb, ll. 45-50; LW II, p.  281, n. 52. Compare a corresponding passage in the Act of Accusation (taken from Meister Eckhart’s first defence): Et tunc postea addit quod sic per omnia in proposito bonum, sicut et ens, analogice se habent in Deo et in creatura. Ipsa enim bonitas que in Deo est, et que Deus est, ab ipsa sunt boni omnes boni (Archives, I, p. 169).

410

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

guarantee the stability of its created being, and without having any kind of ‘act of existing’ which would be its own, must indicate, for Eckhart, a dependence upon the First Cause which is all the more close, an ontological immediateness which is more manifest in the relationship of creatures to the Creator. In lending to being the absolute sense of summum et summe esse, Meister Eckhart cites St Augustine in order to say that there is no ‘other artery by which to draw being than God’ Himself. 315 Again, he will refer to St Augustine in insisting upon the invariable identity of perfections such as justice, light, life and truth, perfections which creatures cannot possess other wise than in God. 316 By summarising all that has been said into a brief formula, Meister Eckhart defines the nature of the analogical relationship and draws a conclusion concerning the mode according to which creatures participate in being and in the divine perfections: Colligatur et formetur breviter sic ratio: analogata nichil in se habent positive radicatum forme secundum quam analogantur. Sed omne ens creatum analogatur Deo in esse, veritate et bonitate. Igitur omne ens creatum habet a Deo et in Deo, nec in se ipso, ente creato, esse vivere, sapere, 315. Following the quoted text, LW II, p.  281: Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus de ipso esse quidem, primo Confessionum circa medium, quod nulla vena trahitur aliunde a quo esse sit, preterquam a Deo qui est summum et summe esse, ut dictum est supra, in secunda expositione. This quotation, which appears frequently in Eckhart’s writings, is given from a rather free form. St Augustine says (Confessions, I.6.10, ed. Belles Lettres, vol. 1, p. 9): An quisquam se faciendi erit artifex? Aut ulla vena trahitur aliunde, qua esse et vivere currat in nos, praeterquam quod tu facis nos, domine, cui esse et vivere non aliud atque aliud est, quia summe esse atque summe vivere id ipsum est? 316. The text continues thus: De iustitia vero dicit idem Augustinus, libro 3° Confessionum: ‘Iustitia ubique et semper, non alibi alia nec alias aliter, secundum quam iusti sunt omnes laudati ore Dei.’ De luce autem, vita et veritate frequenter idem dicit, ut patet super illo Io. I°: ‘lux vera illuminat omnem hominem’. On justice, Confessions, III.7.13 (ed. Belles Lettres, vol. 1, p.  55); on light and truth, undoubtedly this passage [comes] from St Augustine’s commentary on St John, tr. 2:9 (PL 35, col. 1391): Quare additum est ‘vera’? Quia et homo illuminatus dicitur lux; sed vera illa est quae illuminat.

Splendor in Medio

411

positive et radicaliter. Et sic semper edit, ut productum est et creatum, semper tamen esurit, quia semper ex se non est sed ab alio.317 The analogical relationship of created beings to God, envisaged by Meister Eckhart as an ‘analogy of attribution,’ in which the princeps analogatum is the only one to realise the conceptual content which the analogata minora could not intrinsically possess in themselves, 318 receives here its metaphysical expression. The ‘truth of analogy’ must indicate a dependence of the analogised subjects upon the form by which they ‘analogise’ [or enter into an analogical relationship with] the principal subject of the attribution. Contrary to the function of every form which gives to a substance its determined being of ‘this or that thing’, or some accidental property (for example, whiteness), the form which is indicated by the concept of the analogical attribution does not enter into any kind of compound with the subjects which depend upon it: it does not ‘root itself in’, but remains independent of and detached from the subjects which it penetrates without informing, without ‘formally adhering’ to them. Th is non-formal causality exercised by a form is already known to us, for we have seen Meister Eckhart mention, regarding analogical forms, the example of the ‘form of the sky’: it penetrates illuminable space by its ‘formal perfection’ (light), without ever ‘rooting’ itself in the air which must be illumined semper et continue ab extra.319 Equally, we know that this type of causality, which is proper to analogical agents in naturalibus (and which can be observed especially in a space which is illumined by an entity exuding light), gives a certain idea of God’s creative action.320 However, the selected text from Ecclesiasticus brings us something new, for the notion of this ‘not positively rooted’ form is introduced, here, in the definition of the analogy of attribution. Predication by analogy thus fi nds its foundation in the properties of 317. We quote according to C., f. 82rb, l. 60-f. 82va, l. 8. Denifle, pp. 58889, gives a variant: ut productum est et creatum (text retained, by Koch, LW II, p. 282, n. 53; causatum is a correction by Nicholas of Cusa of the C text, which read ‘tantum’). 318. See Penido, op. cit., p. 37. 319. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Analogical Causality’. 320. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Analogical Causality’.

412

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

the analogical agents, when the real meaning of a concept (= form) is attributed to a subject which acts like a cause with respect to the analogies in which the same concept is not realised. To relate analogically to its cause is to depend upon a form which has its root in a superior agent and which in no way adheres to the ‘analogised’ subjects upon which this agent exercises an analogical causality. Such is the meaning of the defi nition given by Meister Eckhart for a causal analogy of attribution. This definition will serve as the major premise for a syllogism whose conclusion will determine the nature of the analogical relationship of creatures to God. Thus, it will be necessary, in the minor premise, to establish that there is a form according to which created beings are analogous to God. This presents no kind of difficulty whatsoever for a doctrine in which God could be considered as the absolute Form of all that is. We have already encountered those texts of Eckhart in which the divine Esse is equated with the form,321 or, at least, the formal principle of creative action.322 In Sermones et Lectiones super Eccliasiaticus ch. 24:23-31, before delving into the question of analogy, Eckhart says: formae per quas agunt secunda agentia, id quod sunt formae et actus a Deo sunt, qui est primus actus formalis.323 The same expression, in Expositio Libri Sapientiae, seems to attribute formal causality to God-Wisdom which ‘brings out the just’ by conferring justice upon him: quia ipse est primum movens, et primus actus formalis, et finis ultimus in omni opere artis et naturae.324 We could cite plenty of other passages which are in the same vein.325 Since the 321. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p.  287: ipse est actualitas et forma actuum omnium et formarum. Compare Exp. in Ex., quoted in Chapter 2, note 177: face of God = Form = Divine Essence. 322. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The Way of Unified Eminence’, note 197: Esse = ‘Form’ of the ‘all-powerful’ divine action, meaning, ‘extending to all that is or that could be’, see section headed '.Two Levels of Essentiality'. 323. Denifle, pp.  586-87, which corresponds to C., f. 82ra, l. 58-f. 82rb, l. 1. (LW II, p. 278, n. 50). 324. Archives, IV, p.  309. This expression seems ambiguous to Théry (ibid., note 4). Compare op. cit., III, p. 401: principium omnis formalis perfectionis, utpote primus actus formalis qui est esse. 325. For example, all the texts in which the relationship of esse-ens is assimilated to that of albedo-album. See the several references in Chapter 3, note 275. Muller-Thym, p. 80, cites Robert Grosseteste and

Splendor in Medio

413

formal moment can be found in God, the syllogism’s minor element could well agree logically with the major, indicating, in the analogical relationship of creatures to God, that which must correspond to a ‘rooted’ or ‘entrenched’ form in the principal subject (cause), which is ‘not rooted’ or ‘not entrenched’ in the analogies’ minor elements (effects): being and its transcendental attributes.326 This conclusion will permit us to define the nature of the analogy of created beings to God: a created being does not have in itself, but receives ‘from God and in God’ alone, being, life and wisdom,327 for these analogical predicates indicate a dependence with respect to the Form-Esse which exists separately from created ens, ‘inasmuch as it is a created being’. Esse, the common attribute of all that is, the vivere, the being of all that lives, and sapere, life and, consequently, the being of all rational animals, do not have any root at all in created subjects. Being attributed to creatures, they denote, concretely, a participation which is different from the absolute Form of being, but it cannot be found to Albert the Great, for whom God is also the ‘Form’ or Formal Cause, in a sense which is not hylomorphic but exemplary (here we could also cite the Chartres school). According to the American critic, Meister Eckhart cannot possess this ‘saving qualification’, given his insistence upon the ‘immediation’ of esse. Indeed, but, the ‘saving qualification’ according to Eckhart, is in the analogical relationship to absolute Form: herein lies the difference between the relationship of the ens to esse and that of the album to the albedo. 326. See Exp. in Gen. (first redaction), LW I, p.  74, n. 128 (= C., f. 13rb, ll. 40-51): Primo quod bonitas et eius ratio totaliter et se toto [C: et tota] consistit in fine solo et est idem cum fine ipso convertibiliter. Propter quod Deus, utpote finis omnium, est et dicitur, Luce 18, ‘solus bonus’. Ex fine ergo accipit bonitatem omnem quam habet ens quodlibet citra finem, sicut dieta, medicina et urina nichil prorsus habent sanitatis in se formaliter plus quam lapis vel lignum, sed ab ipsa sola sanitate, que in animali est formaliter, dicuntur sana, secundum naturam analogie qua omnia huiusmodi transcendentia se habent ad creaturas, puta ens, unum, verum, bonum. 327. Esse, vivere, sapere, in this par ticular passage from In Eccli., must be reconciled with the numerous passages in which Meister Eckhart establishes, following St Augustine (De libero arbitrio II.3.7 [PL 32, cols 1243-44]) and St Thomas (Ia, q. 4, a. 2, ad 3um), the reducibility of the intelligere to vivere and from vivere to esse on the abstract plane. For further examples, compare Exp in Io., LW III, pp. 51-53, n. 63 (see ibid., the notes with references to Eckhart’s other German and Latin texts).

414

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

be anything which is positively formed by the Esse in the created entia which unceasingly ‘consume’ it, without ever being satiated by it. The exposition on the ‘truth of analogy’ which we have just analysed can be completed by referring to other texts taken from the same lesson on Qui edunt me adhuc esuriunt, because the entirety of this commentary is concerned with the analogical relationship of creatures to God. We have already cited a passage on the nonrootedness of the esse, which is ‘not fi xed, does not adhere to, and does not begin in’ the created entia, but conducts itself with respect to other creatures like the light which affects an illuminable space without adhering to it.328 This detachment from the Form corresponds to the inequality between a principle and all that which is governed by a principle, found every time that a common perfection has several subjects which receive it, or, in the case of being, an attribute common to all things. In order for it to be other wise, that is, for the principle of being to be on a level equal to that which is governed by a principle (or, the ‘principled’), it would have been necessary for one of the beings to be its own ‘root’, ‘artery’ and its own principle, for itself as well as for all others.329 We have seen that agents which exercise a universal causality, the principles which are said to be essential original, are not univocal but analogical,330 being participated in at a lower level by the ‘principled’, which are never equal to their principle.331 This is all the more true where the First Cause is concerned, as it is analogical par excellence, and from it creatures possess the being which is ‘desired by all things’. Nullum autem ex entibus est, nec in ipso est radix esse.332 328. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Analogical Causality’. 329. In Eccli., Denifle, p. 584; C., f. 81vb, ll. 27-31; LW II, p. 273-74, n. 44: Ratio est, quia omne commune multis aut omnibus non potest habere aliquod ex multis aut ex omnibus quod sit radix et vena illorum omnium. Iam enim esset radix et principium sui ipsius, nec esset principium superius principiatis, sed ex equo se haberet cum illis. 330. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘Dissimilitudo-Similitudo’ and ‘Rota in Medio Rotae’. 331. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Rota in Medio Rotae’. 332. In Eccli., Denifle, pp.  583-84; C., f. 81vb, ll. 14-24; LW II, p.  273, n. 44: Secundo notandum, quod illud quod sititur, essuritur, queritur et appetitur ab omnibus est esse, tam in natura quam in arte. Ad hoc enim et propter hoc laborat ars et natura quod effectus sit et esse habeat. Sine esse enim non plus valet totum universum quam musca, nec plus sol quam carbo, nec sapientia plus quam ignorantia. Et hoc est quod dicit

Splendor in Medio

415

Here, again, is the nothingness of creatures which appears, linked to the absolute positivity of the Being-Form towards which tends all that which receives being [starting from a state of non-being]. This tension which is established between potentialised nothingness and the divine form of the Esse is charged with an active presence of the being which is ever desired by all creatures: sitiendo igitur accipit esse, just as the air in which the light, as an active property of the sun, has no rootedness in the solar form other than diaphanous space’s thirst or insatiable appetite.333 A created being is thus ‘always thirsty for the presence of its Superior; it continuously receives being rather than possessing it in a fi xed manner or, at least, as a foretaste of being-itself’.334 As they are deprived of being, creatures are ‘material’ and ‘potential’, since they are ever desiring the power of the absolute Form of the unique Being ‘which exists by itself’: Sic ergo sitit et appetit esse omne ens, utpote in se et ex se nudum, sicut materia formam et turpe bonum. Et hoc est quod est hic dicitur: ‘Qui edunt me’, qui sum esse – Exodi 3°: ‘Ego sum qui sum, qui est misit me,’ – ‘adhuc essuriunt’, utpote in se nuda et potentia ad esse, que potentia appetitus est etsitis ipsius esse.335 Avicenna, 8° Metaphysice, capitulo 6°: ‘id quod desiderat omnis res est esse et perfectio esse, inquantum est esse.’ Nullum autem ex entibus est [E add.: esse], nec in ipso est radix esse. 333. Idem., Denifle, p.  585; C., f. 81vb, l. 53-f. 82ra, l. 4; LW II, p.  275, n. 46: … forma solis et sua qualitas formam consequens, lumen scilicet non mittit radicem, nec aliquo modo inchoatur in ipso medio. Hinc est quod abscedente sole manet calor iam radicatus et utcumque inchoatus in aere; secus de lumine quod subito abscedit et deserit aerem, utpote non habens radicem nec in minimo forme quam consequitur, nisi in sola siti, appetitu scilicet. Sitiendo igitur accipit esse. Propter quod semper edit et esurit quia esuriendo accipit esse quo est et quod edit. 334. Idem, Denifle, p.  584; C., f. 81vb, ll. 36-38; LW II, p.  274, n. 45: Propter hoc semper sitit presentiam [E: potentiam] sui superioris et potius et proprius accipit continue esse quam habeat fixum aut etiam inchoatum ipsum esse. 335. Ibid. (following), LW II. p 274: Sic ergo sitit et appetit esse omne ens, utpote in se et ex se nudum, sicut materia formam et ‘turpe bonum’. Et hoc est quod hic dicitur: ‘Qui edunt me’, qui sum esse, – Exo. 3°: ‘Ego

416

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Being assimilated to matter under a substantial form and even to evil, which exists only by means of dependency upon a good nature, the created entia, thirsting for Esse – the Divine Form – all the same possess their own forms which they receive from second causes or, rather, which are the second causes from which they have the determined being ‘of this or that’.336 It must not be forgotten, however, that God alone confers ‘being itself’, since He is the Cause of ‘being as being’ in creatures; apart from the First Cause, all others are, rather, causes of becoming, because their action ceases once the effects attain their perfection. If the effects ‘eat and drink’ these causes, then they are not truly thirsty or hungry for them. Thus, having once attained its form ‘by eating and drinking’ the art of the architect, a house no longer desires it. It is different with the First Cause, which never ceases to act in the effects which it produces, because creatures depend upon God no less in their being than in their becoming.337 sum qui sum, qui est misit me,’ – ‘adhuc esuriunt’, utpote in se nuda et potentia ad esse, que potentia [E: ratio] appetitus est et sitis ipsius esse. Concerning ‘turpe bonum’, compare Aristotle, Physics, A.9.192a. 336. Idem., Denifle, p.  585; C., f. 82ra, ll. 5-9; LW II, p.  275, n. 46: Secus de omni alio quod non sitit esse ipsum et causam, sed tale esse. Hoc enim sitiendo et appetendo non acciperet esse, sed hoc esse, nec per ipsum tale esset ens, sed ens hoc. Ait ergo: significanter [this word is missing in C] ‘qui edunt me’, solum scilicet qui sum esse et causa esse, ‘adhuc esuriunt’. The example for this kind of causality is not the ‘unrooted’ light, but heat which fi xes and ‘begins’ the form of fire in a space. 337. Idem., Denifle, pp.  585-86; C., f. 82ra, ll. 18-41; LW II, p.  276-77, n. 48: Quinto notandum, quod cause alie preter primam causam, que Deus est, non sunt causa ipsius esse rerum nec entis in quantum est ens, sed potius causa fieri. Propter quod, completo et perfecto ipso effectu suo, amplius non influunt super ipsum effectum suum. Propter quod effectus talium causarum bibunt quidem et edunt causas suas, sed ipsas non sitiunt, non querunt nec appetunt. Exempli causa, domus bibit et edit formam artis domificatoris sibi impressam [E: sive impressionem] ab artifice, sed ipsa adepta amodo non querit nec sitit ipsam artem nec artificem. In natura etiam videmus quod animalia fetus suos nutriunt et fovent materna [Denifle’s conjecture. E: intra, C: mixta] sollicitudine et econverso ipsi fetus matres sitiunt et ad ipsas recurrunt. Sed postquam ad statum perducti fuerint, non plus parentes et proles hinc inde se respiciunt quam alia animalia eiusdem speciei. Causa vero prima, que Deus est, non minus influit effectum conservando in esse quam influat aut influxerit in ipso fieri, et econverso, effectus, quamvis completus, non

Splendor in Medio

417

Can we properly speak of a thirst in the case of second causes? Isn’t it rather the First Cause which is desired in them by the effects which created agents would not be able to produce if they were not moved by God, the Unmoved Mover and First Formal Act? The divine virtue by which intermediary agents work in producing the particular being of this or that thing is present in the effects in a manner which is ‘more immediate, more intimate’ than any kind of formal adherence of second causes: it is the first act and the final end with respect to all that is.338 Propter quod ipsa sititur, esuritur, intenditur et appetitur ab omnibus: bibitur quidem, quia in illis, sititur nichilominus, quia extra illa, utpote non comprehensa ab illis.339 The dynamism of this analogical relationship, in which omne ens edit Deum, utpote esse,340 in endlessly desiring it, does not permit the fi xing by any kind of overly explicit definition of that which distinguishes the being that is ‘consumed’ by creatures, under second causes, from the Ipsum Esse for which they are always hungry. minus dependet a causa prima in suo esse quam in suo fieri. Propter quod ipsam causam primam omnis effectus edit et esurit. Propter quod optime dictum est in persona prime cause: ‘qui edunt me, adhuc esuriunt’. 338. Idem, Denifle, pp. 586-87; C., f. 82ra, 1. 53-f. 82rb, l. 8; LW II, p. 278279, n. 50: Rursus septimo, sciendum quod causa prima, Deus, in hoc differt ab omnibus que sunt post, quod prima causa agit in omnibus aliis et operatur in illis. Adhuc autem eius actio est prior natura actionibus omnium secundorum et, per consequens, ultima; finis enim ultimus semper respondet prime actioni. Rursus tertio, forme per quas agunt secunda agentia, id quod sunt forme et actus, a Deo sunt, qui est primus actus formalis. Adhuc autem, ipse forme quo agunt secunda non possunt moveri ad agendum nisi a Deo, utpote a primo motore, sicut, verbi gratia, forme ignis et caloris non possunt facere calidum [E: calefacere] nisi mote a motore celi. Propter quod effectus agentia secunda bibunt quidem, sed sitiunt proprie causam primam in illis. Virtus enim eius agentis mediati est immediator, intimior, prima et ultima respectu omnium. 339. Idem. (following), Denifle, p.  587; C., f. 82rb, ll. 8-12; LW II, p.  279, n. 50. See Denifle, p. 589; C., f. 82va, ll. 17-23; LW II, p. 282-83, n. 54: Deus est rebus omnibus intimus, utpote esse, et sic ipsum edit omne ens; est et extimus, quia super omnia et sic extra omnia. Ipsum igitur edunt omnia quia intimus, esuriunt quia extimus. Edunt quia intus totus, esuriunt quia extra totus. Sic anima tota in manu et tota extra. Hoc est igitur quod dicitur: ‘qui edunt me, adhuc esuriunt’. 340. Idem., Denifle, p. 585; C., f. 82ra, ll. 15-16; LW II, p. 276, n. 47.

418

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

However, towards the end of his exposition, Meister Eckhart gives us a glimpse of the outlines of such a distinction, in speaking of the two possible interpretations of the text on which he is commenting.341 Insatiable hunger can mean: (1) the desire for something which one cannot have; or, (2) the desire for something which one can possess without ever being disgusted by it. To choose the second meaning, which is accepted by several theologians and is given credence in the Glossa ordinaria,342 is to want to content oneself with an exegesis which diminishes the importance of the text being commented on. In actuality, exclusio fastidii is not enough, in itself, to demonstrate the excellence of God who speaks of Himself, saying: Qui edunt me, adhuc essuriunt. A solely negative quality, the ‘exclusion of distaste’ teaches 341. Idem., Denifle, pp.  591-92; C., f. 82vb, l. 53-f. 83ra, l. 17; LW II, p. 288-90, n. 60-61: Adhuc autem ultimo notandum, quod sitis, esuries vel desiderium sive appetitus dupliciter accipiuntur: uno modo secundum quod important appetitionem rei non habite, alio modo secundum quod important exclusionem fastidii. Cavendum est ergo ne putetur hoc ultimum, scilicet exclusio fastidii, esse principale et per prius. Sic enim multi accipiunt et secundum hoc grosse exponunt quod hic dicitur: ‘qui edunt me, adhuc esuriunt’, – quasi sine fastidio edatur [C = edant]. Hoc enim parum esset dare divine sapientie, deo scilicet, maxime de se ipso loquenti et se ipsum docenti et sui excellentiam commendanti. Patet [C: Preterea]: negatione nichil vere docetur et negatio nichil ponit et in ipsa affirmatione figitur et firmatur, nichil in se ipsa habens perfectionis. Propter quod in ipso Deo nullum prorsus locum habet negatio: est enim qui est, et unus est, quod est negatio negationis. Non ergo accipienda est esuries in divinis prout est exclusio fastidii. Rursus, cum esuries est et dicitur appetitus rei non habite, id quod est esuries sive appetitus non est, videlicet formaliter, id quod est, ex eo quod non est habitum; hoc enim sola negatio est sive privatio et est materiale. Sed id quod est esuries formaliter est appetitus affirmatus, radix et causa quam consequitur exclusio fastidii et, ut sic, est aliquid rei habite [E: habente; Denifle conjectures: (in) habente] et res ipsa aliqualiter [E: equaliter] positive. Exemplum evidens et verum est in privatione que est unum ex principiis tribus rerum naturalium. Compare St Thomas, Ia IIae, q. 33, a. 2: the terms appetitus rei non habitae and exclusio fastidii come from this passage of the Summa Theologica. 342. See Glossa ordinaria, misattributed to Walafrid Strabo (PL 113, col. 1210a), which goes back to Rabanus Maurus’ commentary on Ecclesiasticus, 1.VI.2 (PL 109, col. 940bd).

Splendor in Medio

419

us nothing positive about the perfection of a God who does not allow any kind of negation, being ‘He who is’, the One or the ‘negation of negation’. Thus, we must interpret our text based on the first of the two meanings given above, that of the hunger which creatures must have for God. This is an appetitus rei non habitae, a pure potentiality with respect to Being itself, to the divine Form which is the non habitum, without any roots in the created id quod est, since the latter cannot possess anything which is formal or positive in its relationship to God. In other words, in this perspective, the created essence is only ‘negation’ and ‘privation’, as it is always ‘material’ with respect to the Ipsum Esse. However, we can also speak in a formal sense of the ‘hunger’ which creatures feel: it is the ‘affirmative appetite’ for something which one possesses positively, for an aliquid rei habitae, an appetite which responds to the rootedness of the formal cause. In the example of sensible natures, cited by Eckhart, the positive appetite of the form is privation, one of the three constituent principles of a material substance. If the formal appetite of creatures is accompanied by the exclusio fastidii, it is in consuming its own form as a finite being – the second cause which determines it as an essence or ens tale; a created being does not cease to ‘eat’ God, the Ipsum Esse which is the ‘actuality of all things, even of forms’.343 Being penetrated by ‘Being itself’, like air illuminated by the sun, a created form does not generate satiety in the particular being which it determines, since it remains always in potency with respect to the absolute Form, unceasingly desired and never acquired by anything that is. Also, the exclusio fastidii, which is insufficient for characterising the analogical relationship to the First Cause, a relationship which reveals itself as an appetitus rei non habitae, is in its place when it is the second cause or the created form, because this latter confers esse hoc while being bathed in the vivifying stream of the Ipsum Esse. If we have properly understood this passage from Sermones et Lectiones super Eccliasiaticus ch. 24:23-31, 344 then the negative 343. See above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Essentia et Esse’, on Meister Eckhart’s usage of this formula from St Thomas. 344. Which must be completed by reference to the preceding paragraph, which is also about infinite hunger and the exclusio fastidii (Undecimo notandum). We prefer to reproduce this text almost in its entirety, despite its length, so that we may refer to it later on, without having to

420

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

cite it in the form of various fragments. Denifle, pp. 589-91; C., f. 82va, l. 39-f. 82vb, l. 53; LW II, p. 284-88, nn. 55-59: (after having spoken about natural thirst, Eckhart concludes thus: Sic quidem in corporalibus se habet: In divinis autem et spiritualibus secus agitur. Ratio est ad presens una, quia primus actus universaliter primo facit distare a contrario sive opposito, privatione scilicet. Propter quod forma substantialis est perfectior omni alio formali, et materia prima ipsam solam per sui ipsius materie essentiam appetit et esurit, eo quod ipsa forma sola facit distare a nichilo. Hinc est secundo, quod talem formam recipit sine medio, sine murmure, sine motu et tempore, in instanti, et fit unum simpliciter ex ipsa materia et tali forma. In bibitione igitur corporali in principio maxime sapit bibere, avidius bibitur et dulcius, quia ipse potus primo et in sui principio quo sumitur facit plus distare a siti contraria et molesta. Sequens autem bibitio iam non facit distare a tanta et tota siti, nec a siti simpliciter, sed a minori iam siti et minus contraria et minus gravante, et sic semper deinceps, quousque sitis extinguatur. Et quod ex tunc amplius est, a malo est, malum est et fastidium. In spiritualibus autem et divinis ex utraque parte secus se habet. Primo quidem, quia omnis actus primo facit distare a contrario et amaro. Nichil enim ibi prius aut posterius et propter hoc omnis et quilibet est primus. Processu ergo non recedit a primo, sed accedit ad primum, et sic novissimus est primus [E: et prius]. Ratio est, quia procedendo fini fit vicinius; finis autem in divinis est ipsum principium, Apocal. 1° et ultimo: ‘Ego principium et finis.’ Accessu igitur ad finem semper manet coniunctum cum suo principio, si tamen Deus et divinum pure est quod editur et bibitur; si vero aliud quodcumque, quantumlibet magnum vel modicum, iam secus est, secundum illud Io. 16°: ‘modicum, et iam non videbitis me.’ Sic ergo in corporalibus edere tandem facit fastidere; in divinis autem, ut sic, edere facit esurire, et quanto plus et purius edunt, tanto plus et purius esuriunt, et currunt pari passu edere-esurire. Consequenter autem et per accidens, secundario, tollitur et excluditur omne fastidium, secundum illud: ‘non habet amaritudinem conversatio illius’, Sap. 8°, si tamen ‘nichil inquinatum’, id est non divinum, ‘incurrat’, Sap. 7 °. Porro, si quid aliud preter Deum incurrat et intercurrat, secus est. Iam enim, procul dubio, necesse est ut incidat amaritudo, labor, pena et fastidium, quia ut sic Deus non editur. Cuius enim operis finis est quippiam preter Deum, huius operis Deus non est principium, quia Deus idem finis et principium. Opus autem divinum non est cuius Deus principium non est. In cuius figura et exemplo dicitur, Io. 14°: ‘pater in me manens, ipse facit opera.’ Ex premissis patet quod ‘qui edunt’ Deum ‘adhuc esuriunt’. Patet etiam quod non propter hoc esuriunt quia non fastidiunt ut communiter exponitur, sed e converso: ideo non fastidiunt quia esuriunt et quia esurire est ipsum edere. Qui ergo edit, edendo esurit, quia esuriem edit,

Splendor in Medio

421

appetite of ‘that which one does not have’ is the relationship to God – the Ipsum Esse, whereas the aliquid rei habitae et res ipsa aliqualiter positive must refer to the created essence, the subject which has been placed in an analogy to God and which always exists by virtue of this esse ab alio which confers upon it the analogical dignity of the ens. Th is distinction between the two kinds of esse, divine and created, which here seems to become clearer for a moment, leads us back towards Eckhart’s characteristic manner of distinguishing between Being and essence. However, in this passage on the analogy of attribution as applied to being, the dynamic character of the relationship of all that is to God seems immediately to eliminate the distinction which began to form between the two categories of ‘beings’: being is unique and, if there are two subjects to which it is attributed differently, the created subject exists only by means of relation to the Being which is God. Meister Eckhart did not wish to betray the dynamic nature of the flow of ipsum esse, which the ‘mendicant’ essence barely retains; Eckhart did not try to contain it within or confine it to the essences, nor to really attribute it to the ens hoc et hoc, completing the ‘truth of the analogy’ of all things which ‘consume God’ by means of an analogy of proportionality et quantum edit tantum esurit: nichil in his maius et minus, prius aut posterius. Et hoc est quod hic dicitur: ‘qui edunt me, adhuc esuriunt’. Edendo enim esurit et esuriendo edit et esurire sive esuriem esurit. Thomas tamen aliter exponit et dupliciter et bene I II q. 33 a 2 Bernardus in Epistula de caritate [actually Richard of St-Victor, De quattuor gradibus violentae caritatis 2, PL 196, col. 1200] secundum illud Psalmi ‘concupivit anima mea desiderare’, sic ait: ‘non potuit satiari desiderio, quia non nisi desiderare concupivit; fames enim anime desiderium est. Sic vere amans Deum anima amore non satiatur, quia Deus amor est, quam qui amat amorem amat. Amare autem amorem circulum facit, ut nullus sit finis amoris.’ Et infra ‘in desideriis exardescit. Que, etsi [sic  – error in French original. Like to be ‘esti’] dentur ad plenitudinum, nunquam tamen ad satietatem’. Et hoc est quod hic dicitur: ‘qui edunt me, adhuc esuriunt’. Exemplum posset poni, si dicatur aliquis currere propter currere. Hic enim semper edit cursum, currit enim. Tamen semper esurit cursum, quia currit amat, a currere et cursum amat propter cursum. Et sic idem propter se ipsum, quod primo, magis autem libro 15 capitulo 2, tractat istud psalmi: ‘letetur cor querentium domi ium’, et iterum: ‘querite faciem eius semper’, et ibi exponitur [E: exponit] quod hic dicitur: ‘qui edunt me, adhuc esuriunt’. Compare St Augustine, PL 42, cols. 959-61; 1057-58.

422

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

which could have given an essential stability to the ‘eaten’ being. It is the continuity of this act of eating esse, that is to say, the insatiable hunger for the divine Form, which maintains essences in being, without being able legitimately to consider them ‘in themselves’, within the framework of the created: inasmuch as they are distinct from esse, essences are a pure nothingness. If it is necessary to distinguish a created essence from the divine esse which it receives, this cannot be done except by conceiving of it as the nothingness of ‘this being’ which receives a positive signification in the dynamic context of the creative act.

A Deo et in Deo Created essence is thus ontologically subsequent to the ‘being itself’ which it receives ab alio. It is also so with respect to all the ‘general terms’: the ‘transcendentals’ which are convertible with the esse, the ‘spiritual perfections’ that the created subject does not receive according to the mode of accidental qualities, which point Meister Eckhart clarified in the Prologus generalis in Opus tripartitum.345 Since the esse that the created essence receives ab alio is the ‘Being who is God’, it cannot depend on anything, it is not ab alio in the divine subject with whom it is identical, but all that is depends upon it: every thing is ‘of Him, by Him, and in Him’. Thus, the ipsum esse et quae cum ipso convertibiliter idem sunt346 does not begin in creatures; these are creatures who begin to be by means of the active presence of the First Cause, the presence which is, in some way, anterior to the essence in which the esse ab alio is made present. Here, the dearth of means of theological expression and the insufficiency of our human imagination, which proves to be false or unreliable, are made to be felt more strongly than in other places. An immediate presence of being which ‘anticipates’ the created space in which it is present, is something which should strike us as absurd. We note, however, that the expression creatio ex nihilo, to which we have become quite accustomed, is no less absurd, if ‘nothingness’ suggests the idea of an otherness or extraneity which is prior to creaturely existence. In both cases it is a question of conceptions vs conceptual limits, of those bound aries where 345. LW I, pp. 152-53, n. 8. 346. Ibid.

Splendor in Medio

423

the resources of human thought and language fail. If a Christian theologian cannot actually avoid the pitfalls and dangers of speculation altogether, then he will endeavour, as often as possible, not to confront these treacherous problems directly, head on. Thus, for example, St Thomas Aquinas, without going beyond the limits of created being in his natu ral theology, and after having distinguished between essence and esse in the structure of the entia, leaves the presence of a divine influx to be discovered or discerned in the background of creatures, that is, the presence of a creative energy which produces both essences and created existences from non-being. Can this kind of caution suit the intellectual temperament of a theologian like Eckhart, or the purposes which a mystic tends to pursue? Meister Eckhart’s thought is always at the very borders of that which is conceivable. Instead of avoiding risky situations, the intrepid Eckhart runs forward so as to engage with these intellectual perils, going beyond the limits which Aquinas had wanted to set for human speculation. It should be noted, furthermore, that the limits of speculative safety are quite restrained in Meister Eckhart’s works, 347 since it is God who is ipsum esse for his de-existentialised universe: divinity rises to the surface in created essences, and penetrates them without ‘taking root’ therein, like light illuminating a dark space. We cannot speak of the being of creatures without, at the same time, confronting God’s immediateness in all that is and in the initial nothingness of all things. To deal with these questions, we must have recourse to dialectics or to the analogy of attribution, to that ‘dialecticised’ analogy which we now know to recognise in the texts in which the technical term analogia does not itself actually appear: in the two Latin prologues and in Meister Eckhart’s German works. If Eckhart sought to break through the feeble shell of created beings in order to come to know or ‘grasp’ God,348 this is because creatures are ‘finite analogues that are ever hungry for the divine infinity of 347. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘Analogical Predication and the Doctrine of Being’. 348. Meister Eckharts Reden der Unterscheidung, VI:  … er muoss lernen die ding durchbrechen, und sin got darinne meinen, und den krefteclich in sich künnen verbilden in einer wesenlichen wîse (ed. Diederichs, p. 12, ll. 4-7; revised by J.A. Bizet, in Mystiques allemands du XIVe siècle [Paris: Aubier, 1957], p. 131, ll. 13-15).

424

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

being, truth, and goodness.’349 Creatures become obstacles to the knowledge and love of God insofar as one becomes attached to those, desiring to consider them in themselves, as a good of which one can ‘make use’. For a man who is detached from his own limited being, creatures are always ‘a path towards God’.350 It could equally be said that creatures are a path towards God for someone who knows ‘the truth of analogy’,351 because it teaches us the infinite excellence of the divine attributes and the indigence of creatures, even their ‘nullity’.352 However, this nullity of the constituent parts of the analogy makes it transparent and open to divine plenitude: ‘Every creature is full of God; it is a book’ in which a man detached from the created world can know God, without needing to be instructed by sermons.353 The use of the analogy of proportionality would have distorted this vision of the world: in affirming the reality of being and created perfections – both accidental and habitual, this type of analogy would make creatures opaque and also impermeable to the manifestation of God in the created ‘milieu’, and, what is even more serious, it would permit, to a 349. In Eccli., Denifle, p.  583; C., f. 81va, l. 57-f. 81vb, l. 1; LW II, p.  272, n. 43: Deus autem, cum sit veritas et bonitas infinita et esse infinitum, omnia que sunt, que vera sunt, que bona sunt, ipsum edunt et ipsum esuriunt: edunt quia sunt, quia vera sunt, quia bona sunt: esuriunt quia ipse infinitus est. 350. Pf., Pr. 76, 1, p. 238, ll. 30 and ff. 351. Compare the analogy of attribution understood in this sense in Serm. lat. 44, 2 (Omnia parata. Venite ad nuptias), LW IV, p.  372, n. 446: Rursus notandum quod omnia parata sunt servire Deo, quia res una est in causa et effectu analogis, differens solum modo. Propter quod ipsum nomen hoc indicat analogiae, id est id ipsum utrobique, per prius tamen et posterius. Sicut ergo circulus vino servit ipsum indicando et urina sanitati animalis, nihil in se penitus sanitatis , sic omnis creatura pari modo servit Deo. Hinc apud Augustinum nutus Dei sunt et indicant amandum esse Deum, qui fecit illas. St Augustine, Confessions, X.6.8 and XI.4.6. 352. This is the conclusion of the expositio on Qui edunt me, adhuc esuriunt (Denifle, p.  592; C., f. 83ra, ll. 17-23; LW II, p.  290, n. 61: Melius est igitur verba premissa exponere ut supra exposita sunt. Nam ille expositiones fundantur omnes et singule super aliqua excellentia divinorum, puta Dei infinitate, simplicitate, puritate, prioritate et huiusmodi, et docent creaturarum infirmitatem respectu Dei, aut potius in se ipsis nulleitatem. 353. Serm. all. 9, DW I, p. 156, ll. 7-9.

Splendor in Medio

425

certain extent, the justification of this attachment to the ‘own being’ of creatures which is the very root of sin according to Eckhart the mystic. The analogy of attribution, of which Meister Eckhart makes use, responds well not only to the demands of his ontology and his doctrine of the unique being, but also to the very foundations of his moral teachings, in particular his teaching concerning the spiritual perfections of the ‘just man’ or the ‘wise man’, the son of uncreated Justice or of uncreated Wisdom. Doubtlessly, it was in this latter context that the use of the analogy of attribution in Eckhart’s works attracted the attention of the Cologne inquisitors.354 The condemned passage355 clearly expresses Meister Eckhart’s teaching on the relationship of the analogised subject to the form-predicate which belongs to God alone, or, rather, which is God Himself in His relationship to created subjects. After all that we have learned by analysing the texts from Ecclesiasticus, we understand that here the topic under consideration is immediate divine communications, which are ‘not rooted’ in the subject which receives them: being and its ‘transcendental’ aspects, as well as the spiritual perfections, are properly divine attributes in which creatures participate without containing them within the limits of their own natures. That is to say, they do not possess them as they possess the essential forms which are inherent in the substances or accidents that receive being from their subject. Here the situation is reversed, since it is the subject, the created id quod est which is contained in the predicate or the divine Quo est, in the Esse and in uncreated perfections: it depends entirely upon it, beginning to be, to be one, true, good, wise etc., 356 in these qualifications 354. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘Analogical Predication and the Doctrine of Being’. 355. First Act of the Accusation, art. 6 (Archives, I, p.  169): qualitates elementares univoce accipiunt esse a subiecto, per subiectum et in subiecto. Analogice vero, puta iustitia, veritas et huiusmodi, non sic, sed e converso. Non enim accipiunt esse a subiecto sed subiectum accipit ab ipsis et per ipsas et in ipsis esse iustum, verum, bonum et huiusmodi, que sunt priora suis subiectis et manent corruptis subiectis suis, sicut pulchre docet Augustinus, De Trinitate libro 8°, capitulo 3°. St Augustine, De Trinitate, I.8.5 (PL 42, col. 942). 356. Prol. gener. in Op. tripart., LW I, p.  152, n. 8. Compare the Cologne trial: accusation, 1, 3, articles 3-7 (Archives, I, pp. 171-74) and Meister Eckhart’s response (ibid., pp. 193-94).

426

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

which do not adhere to it, the created subject, but to all of which, on the contrary, it adheres and ‘supports’ itself (innititur). Th is is the mode of analogical being of the creature in relation to the First Cause: in adhering to the absolute Quo est, to the divine form of Esse, the created quod est is only a modus ipsius esse, 357 a manner of participating in it without formally ‘possessing’ it. [These ‘analogical qualities’, in which a creature participates in the form of not ‘beginning’358 their being in the created and corruptible subject, to whom, as uncreated beings, they are ontologically anterior.] This is the subject which ‘begins’ by receiving ‘from them, by them and in them’ being which is just, true, good etc. The passivity of the subject is ‘viewed analogically’ with respect to the activity of the Form-Esse: the world begins with time, creative action remains co-eternal with the generation of the Son. The paraphrase of the scriptural text ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia (Romans 11:36) indicates both the extraneity as well as the intraneity which is in the analogy of creatures to God: the communication of being and of perfections totaliter ab extra, 359 ab alio, means that the subject does not possess them in se ipso, ente creato, 360 and this means that a creature possesses them uniquely in the God which it ‘eats’ without ever becoming sated. A passage from Sermones et Lectiones super Eccliasiaticus ch. 24:23-31 shows us that the analogy of attribution in Meister Eckhart presupposes not only God’s transcendence but also a moment of immanence between created effects and the First Cause, an immanence which establishes this inverted relationship which we have discovered between the created subject and the uncreated attributes which it receives by analogy or, rather, in which it is received. What is involved, here, is a property which distinguishes the First Cause from all other causes:361 357. Exp. in Ex., LW II, p.  28, n. 21:  … singulum horum in se et ex se, id quod est, modus est ipsius esse, ipsi innititur, ipsi inhaeret, … sine ipso esset nihil et non esset. 358. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Analogical Causality’. 359. See above text cited in Chapter 5, section headed “Qui Edunt me Adhuc Esuriant”. 360. See above, text cited in Chapter  5, section headed “Qui Edunt me Adhuc Esuriant”. 361. Denifle, p. 586; C., f, 82ra, ll. 42-50; LW II, p. 277-278, n. 49.

Splendor in Medio

427

omnis causa secundaria producit effectum a se quidem, sed non in se; propter quod effectus talem causam bibit quidem, sed non sitit proprie. Causa vero prima omnem effectum producit ex se et in se. Ratio est, quia extra primam causam nichil est. Quod enim extra causam primam, Deum scilicet, est, extra esse est, quia Deus est esse. Propter [quod] utrumque premissorum, scilicet quod omne creatum est ab ipso et in ipso, ex se et in se, Deo, bene dictum est: ‘Qui edunt me,’ etc. A reference to St Augustine enables us to understand that creation ex nihilo is a permanent act which preserves all things in the being which is God: fecit deus omnia, non fecit atque abiit, sed ex illo in illo sunt.362 If ex illo assumes duality as the extrinsic condition, then the ‘distinction’ of created essences which receive esse ab alio, by contrast in illo, should remind us of the unity of the ipsum esse, its non-alterity or ‘indistinction’, the reason for which being and the spiritual and divine perfections receive and contain the created subject, rather than being received or contained in it, outside God. The text of Ecclesiasticus in which Eckhart sees the ‘truth of analogy’ corresponds to this double condition: (1) being outside the First Cause, meaning ‘to be a pure nothing’ according to its creaturely essence, insofar as efficient causality assumes the effect’s extraneity; (2) to be in the First Cause, meaning, to participate in God in the fullness of being and of spiritual perfections, since ‘being one with God’ is the supreme end towards which all creatures tend – an end which is realised once and for all in divine eternity. The efficiency of the First Cause is thus inconceivable without the finality which, in all that exists, stimulates the insatiable hunger for the Ipsum Esse and opens the path to limitless assimilation to God to beings which are endowed with intellect.363 Efficient causality and final causality in spiritualibus et divinis cannot be separated, where there is no interval between ‘before’ and ‘after’, or where the principle and the 362. Ibid., ll. 52-53. Confessions, IV.11-12.17-18: Sed longe his melior qui fecit omnia, et ipse est Deus noster, et non discedit, quia nec succeditur ei. … Hunc amemus: ipse fecit haec et non est longe. Non enim fecit et abiit, sed ex illo in illo sunt (ed. Belles Lettres, vol. 1, p. 79). 363. Concerning the path of assimilation to God, see the beginning of the previous chapter, especially section headed 'Ascensio Intellectus'.

428

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

end of creation coincide. Tending towards their end, creatures do not distance themselves from the Efficient Cause, but rather adhere all the more to their Principle, ‘if, nonetheless, it is only God and the divine (deus et divinum pure) which they eat and drink’.364 We note, however, that the end, despite its pre-eminence over efficient causality (the ‘return’ of creatures is more perfect than their ‘going out’),365 remains no less of an exterior cause which attracts all things to God, making them adhere to Him in a desire for His fullness which always remains unsated. True interiority, which belongs to the Formal Cause, does not know of any opposition between ‘exterior’ and ‘interior’,366 between ‘going out’ and ‘return’. It is, then, beyond efficiency and finality which, in creatures, denote the action of the Divine Form; it is also beyond the path of the indefinite assimilation of creatures to God, since unity transcends similitude. Is this ‘being one with God’ beyond the analogy between creatures and God? Yes, since analogy presupposes an exterior relationship of the created subject to the First Cause with which it is not co-natural;367 and yet, no, to the extent that the subject ‘begins’ to be endlessly in God, thanks to a non-temporal relationship of the concrete with respect to the abstract, of the just with respect to Justice, of the Son in relation to the Father who generates Him eternally. In order to understand this secret foundation of analogy in Meister Eckhart’s works, it will be necessary to study his theory of triple causality – efficient, formal and final – in the light of trinitarian theology.

364. See above, Chapter  5, section headed “Qui Edunt Me Adhuc Esuriant”, note 344. 365. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Grace, Glory and Divine Dissimilitude’. 366. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Intellectual ‘Nihilism’ and the ‘Uncreatability’ of Intellection’. 367. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Rota in Medio Rotae’.

6

Imago in Speculo

The Divinity-Form and Divine ‘Quo Est’ After having examined the different aspects of negative and positive knowledge of God in Meister Eckhart’s works, it becomes quite clear that his tumultuous [dynamic] thought, which cannot be reduced to the doctrinal stability of a closed system, ultimately remains faithful to itself, despite the changing points of view which it adopts. It is a mode of thought which always remains ‘analogical’ above all else. Analogy in Meister Eckhart’s thought is not a new doctrinal element simply to be added to other elements, as we were able to easily discover in the previous chapter. It is not merely a supplement added on to other features that are more or less essential to the understanding of a philosophy of being. Rather, what is in question, here, is not simply a doctrine concerning the predication of being and the perfections attributed to God and creatures; but, above all, we are dealing with a spiritual attitude before the Divine and the created, a fundamental attitude which underlies or shapes all the doctrinal developments in Eckhart’s mysticism. To say that Meister Eckhart made use of the ‘analogy of attribution’ is to apply to his thought a technical term coined nearly two centuries after his death. This term was devised in order to refer to a specific type of analogical predication, used in the wake of Thomas Aquinas and traced by Thomas Cajetan. However, this linguistic anachronism should be accepted, since, in using the conventional designation of a relationship in which analogues depend upon a subject which is the

430

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

only true possessor of formal contents, we roughly approximate the principle of analogy as Meister Eckhart would have conceived it. Even if the term itself was foreign or unknown to Eckhart,1 the mode of relationship to which it refers corresponds quite well to this veritas analogiae rerum omnium ad ipsum Deum2 to which the German Dominican remained faithful in all his works, without worrying excessively about the ‘analogical’ system of his thought. How many other Christian theologians well before Eckhart ‘made an analogy’ without having been aware of it, without having ever formulated a doctrine concerning this or even mentioning the term ‘analogy’? It would not be incorrect to say that analogy of attribution fits particularly well with mystical speculation.3 If we wish to recognise that the God of such mystics, who is a demanding sovereign, inasmuch as He does not permit within the mind of the one who seeks to attain to Him in Himself any kind of consideration of created beings which is not immediately directed towards the ultimate end of this union, then we shall have to concede that the only ‘analogy’ which can satisfy a mystic (if he is also a philosopher concerned with the problem of being) will be this very ‘analogy of attribution’. Truly, only an analogy which does not allow for any kind of autonomy within the created order can truly suit God’s cause on the path to union, since it shows the nothingness of all that is called the being which belongs to creatures and, at the same time, the unity of being with God, or, rather, the unicity of the Being which is God, participated in by all that is: Ipsum nomen hoc indicat analogiae, id est id ipsum utrobique, per prius tamen et posterius.4 Eckhart’s scheme of analogy (if it can be referred to in such terms) comprises three elements which can be defined, in terms of logic, as being two different subjects and a single predicate. It cannot be claimed that this one predicate is common to the two subjects to which it is attributed since it is attributable in a proper and unconditional sense only to the first term; the second term in 1. It is equally foreign to St Thomas, who called the ‘analogy of attribution’ convenientia proportionis, which he divided into two classes: ab uno principio and ad unum finem (De Veritate, q. 2, a. II; In decem libros ethicorum expositio, lectio 7). See Penido, op. cit., p. 31. 2. See above, Chapter  5, section headed “Qui Edunt me Adhuc Esuriant”, note 307. 3. Penido: the ‘analogy of attribution’ is suited to mystics, op. cit., p. 40. 4. Sermo XLIV/3, n. 446 (LW IV, 372).

Imago in Speculo

431

the analogy receives it conditionally, inasmuch as it depends upon the first term in its very being as the subject of an attribution which can never apply to it in its own right. If we add that the two subjects are concrete, while the predicate adopts an abstract expression, then we shall see that the distinction between id quod est and quo est, as introduced by Boethius, can easily be applied to the two analogous subjects and the predicate – analogon. By abandoning the language of logic, we can, then, define this analogon in terms of metaphysics. It is a form which, on its own, belongs to the principal analogue and acts as a quo est with reference to the minor analogue. In the philosophy of being, this analogon-form will be the ipsum esse, identical with the first subject’s essence, but distinct from the essence of the second which will not begin to be an ens until it receives esse ab alio, just as the air is not illuminated until the light of the sun is present. One can see, then, how much the distinction between creaturely esse and essences is directly linked, in Meister Eckhart’s works, to his conception of the analogical relationship between creatures and God. God alone is Being, strictly speaking, because in Him the subject and the predicate, the quod est and quo est, the essence and the esse, are identical; He is thus the unique Ens as considered by Parmenides and Melissus,5 whereas creatures, multiple entia, being always distinct from the divine Form of esse, are neither beings of themselves, nor even beings in themselves, since the Esse-form, present in all that is, does not formally adhere to anything. ‘Being’ in the proper sense of the word would, then, mean ‘being God’, that is to say, to possess the same formal principle of esse which serves as the predicate in the reflexive affirmation of the divine subject: Ego sum qui sum. If it is thus, then we betray neither the tradition of Boethius nor the thought of Meister Eckhart by identifying the divine form of esse with the Divinity which is common to the three persons. Here, however, a new difficulty awaits us: if the Divinity-Form is the object of insatiable desire experienced by creatures which are ‘analogised’ to God, then it seems that the acquisition of a ‘Godlike’ state6 would have to be eternally refused to creatures, unless union with God is achieved beyond the level of analogy, on a univocal level 5. Serm. lat. 44, 2 (cited above, Chapter 5, note 351). 6. See the expressions deiformis, deiformatio, deiformitas in Exp. in Io. (LW III, p. 104, n. 119; p. 105, n. 120) and in the Rationes Equardi cited by Gonsalve (LW V, p. 60, n. 9; p. 63, n. 18).

432

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

between the subject and the form, between concrete and abstract.7 Wouldn’t a deifying relationship which eliminates any kind of analogical relationship to God necessarily be a suppression of the creature as such? Can this kind of univocity be permitted in formal causality, as exercised by Divine Essentiality, without opening the door to a mystical pantheism in the doctrine of union? Before responding to this question by assigning to the Divinity-Form the role which it will have to play in the final ‘dei-formation’, let us examine the analogical relationship of creatures to God in via, in order to see if the dependency of the created quod est upon the divine Quo est does not, right here, imply a sort of formal causality, despite all that has been said above on the ‘non-rootedness’ of the analogical Cause of being in created entia. With the notion of the absolute form of esse, the divine quo est of created beings, Meister Eckhart connects himself with Boethius’ platonising Aristotelian tradition,8 which was developed by Gilbert de la Porrée and then enriched within the context of the twelft h century by various contributions from Avicenna.9 It is quite fair to wonder whether the Thuringian Dominican tried, as did Gilbert, to distinguish within God the abstract predicate or forma qua est Deus from the concrete subject or divine quod est. Eckhart’s Latin works do not permit us to give a positive response to this question. Rather, we see him referring to Moses Maimonides and resolutely insisting upon the absolute identity of the essence-subject with the esse-predicate or 7. Exp in Io., LW III, p. 104, n. 119, could be interpreted in this sense, if one understood the univocity of the just (among themselves and with the humanity of Christ) in the sense of a univocal relationship to justice. 8. De Trinitate, 2 (PL 64, col. 1250 B):  … sed potius oportebit ipsam inspicere formam, quae vera forma nec imago est, et quae esse ipsum est et ex qua esse est; omne namque esse ex forma est. Compare Meister Eckhart’s work, Exp in Io. (C., f. 108va, ll. 2-8): Esse autem omne est a forma, vel forma est in ipso et per ipsam solam res habet esse. Ipsa principium formaliter essendi, cognoscendi, amandi et operandi. Unde homo divinus, amator forme divine, nescit nec amat ipsum Deum ut efficiens sive creator, nec ut finem, nisi in quantum efficiens et finis sunt in ipso Deo ipsa forma et esse Dei et unum cum illo. 9. P.-H. Vicaire, ‘Les porrétains et l’avicennisme avant 1215’, Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 26 (1937), pp.  449-82. Concerning the text by Boethius which was mentioned in the previous note, the author of this impor tant study recalls that the ‘form’ in question here is that of divinity (p. 454).

Imago in Speculo

433

form in this divine ‘Sufficiency’ which does not allow for any kind of distinction.10 The subject of a proposition, distinct from the predicate, is never perfect: imperfectionem habet enim subiectum iuxta nomen suum imperfectum sicut materia.11 On the other hand, the predicate is always a formal complement – semper se habet ut forma – from which the subject derives its perfection. For Eckhart, in the doctrine of being, the quod est becomes the equivalent of a ‘mendicant’ (mendica, egena) essence which is not capable of truly being but depends upon ‘another’ (eget alio), while the quo est receives meaning from the Divine Form. It is this Esse in the absolute sense which Gilbert de la Porrée wished to distinguish from a creature’s esse aliquid in Boethius’ id quod est, so as not in any way to isolate it from God.12 Meister Eckhart shares the same concern, as he seeks to protect God’s ‘immediation’ and the ipsum esse’s ‘indistinction’ received by creatures. However, Gilbert’s logical schemata are given metaphysical flesh in Eckhart’s work: the esse aliquid becomes the substantial form, the principle of determined hoc esse which created things possess in themselves, in their own natures; the created id quod est of Boethius and Gilbert becomes the concrete subject, the substance to which the name of ‘ens’ fits by analogy, insofar as it participates in the absolute form of Esse, attributed to God who is, strictly speaking, the only Ens.13 By firmly maintaining the coincidence in God of the quo est and the quod est, which is distinguished only in created beings, Meister Eckhart does not seem to have undertaken (at least in his Latin works) the kind of analysis done by Gilbert, which requires a distinction in the divine Being between the concrete Ens and the abstract Esse by which God would be that which He is. If in several German sermons14 10. Exp. in Ex., LW II, pp.  25-26, nn. 19-20. Compare this with what was said above concerning ‘sufficiency’, Chapter 3, notes 22-32. 11. Konrad Weiss, in his edition of Exp. in Ex., proposes another conjecture in order to correct the defective text of this passage in the two manuscripts: [Imperfectum] habet enim subiectum iuxta nomen suum imperfectum sicut materia. 12. Vicaire, op. cit., pp.  461-62. See Gilbert de la Porrée’s commentary on Boethius’ De Hebdomadibus, PL 64, col. 1325 c. 13. … [S]olus dus proprie est ens. Prol. in Op. propos., section  1, pp. 168-69, n. 5. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Two Levels of Essentiality’, note 280. 14. Pf., sermon 56, p.  181, ll. 3-18 (Aubier-Montaigne, p.  246; Quint, Meister Eckhart, pp.  272-73). Pf., sermon 76, p.  241, l. 38-p.  242, l. 5

434

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Eckhart opposes Deity (Gotheit) to God (Got), by exalting the ‘desert of the Deity’ above ‘the Trinity which manifests it’, this distinction, which is every bit as concerning and strange as it seems to appear, has only a distant parentage in Gilbert’s analogous distinction, which was condemned in Reims in 1143. Without entering into a more detailed examination of this point in Meister Eckhart’s mystical theology, we shall confine ourselves for the moment to the following remarks: (1) the distinction between God and Deity concerns two aspects  – exterior and interior – under which creatures in via conceive the same simple reality, by opposing two levels, following an inevitable earthly error in vision;15 (2) the notion of God working, opposed to the passivity of that which is created, corresponds to the exteriority of the First Cause with respect to created effects, whereas the Deity, where it has no action, appears to creatures as the supreme end of union, beyond any kind of relationship of effects to the Cause; (3) the inoperative Deity is not Gilbert’s abstract Essence, the formal principle of a concrete God, but is the interior repose of a ‘God in Himself’, the Deus absconditus (see the Thearchy by Dionysius), unknowable apart from its essential unity; (4) as it is manifested by the Trinity, the same ‘Deity’,16 which remains indistinct from ‘God’ in the interiority of divine life (in which it is never a ‘form’, the quo est of the absolute Ens), appears as the formal reason for the undivided operation of the Trinity in creatures.17 This is the Esse, the ‘principle of all divine action’, the absolute form of an action which extends to all that is or could be.18 Eckhart’s ‘Porretanism’, in his Latin works, is reduced to an exterior function of the Divinity: insofar (Aubier-Montaigne, pp.  241-42). See Pf., sermon 87, p.  281, ll. 20-35 (Aubier-Montaigne, pp. 255-56; Quint, pp. 304-5). 15. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The First Determination of Being’, and Chapter  4, section headed ‘The Opposition between ‘Intelligere’ et ‘Esse”. 16. We use the term ‘Deity’ to refer to gotheit,‘superior’ to God in Eckhart’s German works; we use the term ‘divinity’ to refer to the active form ad extra. 17. Deus autem se toto est esse et operatur in creaturis per ipsum esse et sub ratione esse. Propter quod indivisa sunt opera trinitatis, in creaturis quidem, quia trium personarum est unum esse. Secus in increatis, ubi pater generat, non filius, spiritus sanctus spiratur et non spirat nocionaliter. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 344. 18. Exp. in Ex., Cod. Cus. 21, f. 43ra, l. 56-f. 43rb, l. 2: omne agens potest naturaliter et omnia illa et sola illa que continetur sub forma que in ipso

Imago in Speculo

435

as the analogical relationship of creatures to God presupposes a form secundum quam analogantur,19 the Esse’s form must be distinguished from the absolute Ens or God. This divine Quo est is turned towards the created quod est, towards creaturely ‘mendicant essences’ which ‘eat’ the Esse, inasmuch as they are entia. However, they desire this Esse all the more, because their quod est, insufficient to ‘be in itself’, always remains distinct from the Esse-form, from the divine Quo est which is identical with the Quod est in the uncreated, absolute, and unique Ens. It is quite correct to say that the concept of being in Gilbert de la Porrée, as opposed to Eckhart’s concept of the ten predicaments of created being, remains univocal: it is the essentia quae principium est, the Divinity in which created beings participate extrinsically,20 ‘since Gilbert still has no concept of an analogical participation by creatures in the Divine Being’.21 A certain univocity in Eckhart’s concept of being can also be detected, insofar as being receives an absolute meaning which is exclusively attached to the divine Form. This concept, thus, cannot be simultaneously predicated to God and creatures and has, in both cases, a different real sense. This is the reason why Meister Eckhart used analogy of attribution. The esse ab alio of creatures is always the same esse which, in God, remains identical to the absolute Ens, to Being in itself. If the Esse which is God receives, with respect to creatures, the characteristic of an absolute Form, of a universal Quo est, it is because God’s creative action presupposes an extraneity which could not ‘take place’ in divinis. Meister Eckhart never theologically elaborated a doctrine which would permit the distinction of Esse = Ens and Esse = Form of the divine action ad extra, while at the same time maintaining their identity in the simple Being of God. Nevertheless, this distinction, which could be compared to the distinction between οὐσία and ἐνέργεια in Byzantine theology, is presupposed by Eckhart’s theology taken as a whole: the God (Divinity) who is Quo est, and who is present in creatures, is a real aspect which is distinguished from God-ens est principium actionis. Sed esse est principium omnis actionis divine. Igitur Deus potest omnia que sunt et esse possunt. 19. See above, Chapter  5, section headed “Qui Edunt Me Adhuc Esuriant”, note 317. 20. Boethius, De Trinitate, PL 64, cols 1268 D-1269  A. Cited by Hayen, Le concile de Reims, p. 81. 21. Hayen, ibid.

436

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

in itself, which is unknowable in His Essence which is indistinct from the Esse; however, it is still the same God-Being, identical to Himself. The dynamic character of the Esse, as the Form of action ad extra, represents, in Eckhart’s thought, an element which distinguishes it from the Porretian tradition. The analogical participation of creatures in the ‘Being which is God’ will be conceived of in terms of an energetic presence, ‘according to the example of light in a space’.22 Being beyond the opposition of Quod est and Quo est, of subject and predicate, of matter and form, of power and action, of essence and esse, God, as the First Cause, acts towards his created effects as though He were only a Pure Form, a Being without an essence, nothing but an absolute Quo est. Meister Eckhart primarily made use of Avicenna’s texts in this sense.23 In His relationship to creatures, God is the ipsum quo est (an expression which corresponds here to ipsum esse), never is He id quod est, material and potential, never is He the subject, but always He is the predicate: de ordine praedicatorum est, Eckhart said, playing with words.24 With respect to this divine Predicate, created subjects are always uniquely ‘material’ and ‘potential’, since the infinite Form of esse does not enter into a compound with their finite essences, even though it penetrates them with its own active presence. This is what distinguishes analogical causality: the form of the sky does not become the form of the four elements which it affects, and likewise, the Divine Form is never the form of created beings, since it remains detached from all that is attached to it, being ‘unmixed’ in relation to creatures. Can it be expected then, under these conditions, that Meister Eckhart’s God is the Formal Cause of created beings, ‘informing’ them by the Esse and its transcendental attributes or by ‘spiritual perfections’ which are proper to Him? Does the analogical relationship not exclude formal causality and concern itself solely with exterior, efficient and final causes?

22. [The manuscript has only the following indications: Make a note on this ‘example’. Maybe – See above, a reconciliation with St Gregory Palamas. This is the parallel sketched out a few lines above between Eckhart’s distinction of Esse = Ens and Esse = Form of divine action ad extra, and the Palamite distinction of οὐσία and ἐνέργεια.] 23. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Quidditas et Anitas’. 24. Serm. lat. 25, 1 (Gratia Dei sum id quod sum), LW IV, p. 230, n. 251.

Imago in Speculo

437

Formal Causality and Divine Exemplarity It is sufficient simply to turn to Meister Eckhart’s texts to be able immediately to confirm that our thoughts, which seemed to be the logical result of all that was said in the preceding chapter, cannot hold up when set alongside several very specific passages in which the German Dominican attributes a function to the active presence of the Divinity in creatures which is analogous to that of an essential form which ‘invests and informs’ matter. A single quotation is enough to demonstrate this. In the Prologus in Opus propositionum, Eckhart says: Quidquid enim rei cuiuslibet ab ipso esse immediate non attingitur nec penetratur et formatur, nichil est. Similiter quidquid ab uno non attingitur nec penetrando formatur seu investitur, unum non est. Similiter de vero et bono. … Est autem hoc ipsum videre in omni forma essentiali. Anima enim se tota immediate adest et informat totum corpus animatum se tota sine medio. Similiter forma ignis totam essentiam materiae suae se tota sine medio totam simul investit et format penetrando.  … Igitur si forma omnis essentialis totam materiam essentiali penetratione immediate totam se tota investit et informat, potissime hoc verum erit de ipso esse, quod est actualitas formatis omnis formae universaliter et esentiae.25 Thus, creatures which are analogised with God, without having within themselves, as created beings, the ‘positive rootedness’ of the form of Being, Unity, Truth or Goodness, are no less ‘formed’ by the Esse and its transcendental attributes, like a body which is animated and informed by the soul or by matter which is ignited by the form of fire. Of course, the latter example cannot strictly be applied to the formal causality exercised by God, as the generation of the form of fire in matter is due to the action of a univocal cause. The form of esse and of its ‘convertible’ attributes must not only be independent in its action, without any kind of adherence to ‘matter’ or to the passive subject, as is seen in the analogical causality exercised by a natural agent (the sky), but, more than that, the materiality or potentiality of 25. Prol. in Op. propos., LW I, pp. 173-75, nn. 13-14.

438

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

the subject, and perhaps even its capacity of coming into existence, must be conditioned by the absolute Form to which it adheres in receiving being following non-being.26 Therefore, the example of fire which informs combustible material is concerned with only a single aspect of God’s formal causality: it corresponds to the moment of immediate and total entrance of the divine form of esse into a created quod est, while the singular character of this ‘informing’, which does not engage the Form in the subjects, which it made to exist, is left to the side. The example of an animate soul and body gives a more precise idea of the formal causality which is attributed to God, since the human soul, considered in itself, is a substance which can subsist apart from a compound. Even while informing corporeal matter, it remains no less independent in its being and form. On the other hand, an animate body depends entirely on the soul which gives it being while informing it. This is why, contrary to our usual linguistic habit of saying that the soul is in the body, it is more correct to say that the body is in the soul.27 This should remind us that the relationship between the informed subject and the form is reversed when it is ‘analogical qualities’ which do not receive being in the subject, as do ‘elementary qualities’, which are univocal, but, on the contrary, contain the subject while giving it being, for they are priora suis subiectis et manent corruptis subiectis suis.28 The same example of the soul which contains the body, instead of being contained by it, is mentioned here in order to show how we ‘exist by charity’ (1 John 4:16): if in corporalibus whiteness (an accidental form) is in the body, then in spiritualibus the just man (a concrete subject) is in justice. Therefore, with respect to charity or other spiritual perfections in which it ‘dwells’, the substance of the soul comports itself like an 26. See Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 199, n. 238. 27. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p.  367. See German sermon 11, DW I, p.  161, ll. 5-6; Pf., Pr. 21, p.  90, ll. 8-11: Dar umbe sprechent unser nâtiurlîchem meister, daz der lîchame vil mê sî în der sêle denne diu sêle in dem lîbe. Als daz vaz den wîn mê enthaltet denne der wîn daz vaz, alsô haltet diu sêle den lîp mê in ir denne der lîp die sêle. 28. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘A Deo et in Deo’, note 356. Compare this with a similar passage in Exp. in Sap. concerning the accidentia corporalia and perfectiones spirituales, along with the same example of the body in the soul (Archives, III, pp. 364 and ff.).

Imago in Speculo

439

accident.29 For Meister Eckhart, this means that spiritual perfections such as wisdom, justice and so forth do not adhere to subjects even while informing them: rather, it is more properly subjects which ‘access’ perfections in order to be ‘formed and informed’ by them.30 The scriptural text, In caritate radicati et fundati (Ephesians 3:17), which is cited concerning this topic, gives the impression that the just subject is ‘rooted’ in justice rather than having within itself the rootedness of the form, which gives it the being of the just.31 Meister Eckhart shows the character of this rootedness of the created subject in its Formal Cause, saying: iustus praeest in ipsa iustitia, utpote concretum in abstracto et participans in participato.32 Further on, he clarifies the matter in the following way: iustitia habet in se ipsa exemplar, quod est similitudo sive ratio, in qua et ad quam format et informat sive vestit omnem et omne iustum.33 As we have seen,34 the relationship of the concrete to the abstract, of the productum to the exemplar, is different when it concerns the Divine Word or a creature – which is also a ‘word’, but one which is exterior, spoken ‘impersonally’, in another nature. In the Trinity the person of the Son [as Reason], who is co-natural with the Father, is not distinguished from the Paternal Intellect which generates Him; if this Reason is to be distinguished as the concrete Imago, then the generated person or Formed Image remains no less reducible to the abstract Exemplar which is its principle. On the contrary, in creatures, the word produced by divine efficiency, meaning, the concrete quod est in its suppositium or its own nature, is not co-natural with its exemplary principle; the reduction of the concrete to the abstract thus cannot be achieved here within the order of being, but only within the order of a certain knowing which Eckhart wants to reserve for 29. Serm. lat. 6, 3 (Qui manet in caritate), LW IV, pp. 60-61, n. 62. 30. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p.  396: notandum breviter quod quia perfectiones spirituales, puta sapientia, iustitia et huiusmodi, non accipiunt esse a subiectis, sed habent causam extra, efficiunt et dant esse formaliter ipsis subiectis suis, proprie non accedunt, nec accidunt per consequens subiectis; sed pocius e converso subiecta formantur et informatur accendendo ad perfectiones huiusmodi, secundum illud Psalmi [XXXIII, 6]: ‘accedite ad eum, et illuminamini’. 31. Ibid., p. 366. 32. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 13, n. 14. 33. Ibid., p. 14, n. 15. 34. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘Analogical Causality’, note 155.

440

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

metaphysics. In effect, Eckhart, as ‘metaphysician’, abstracts exterior causes in order to arrive at the level of their interior formation as the uncreated concepts of creatures in the ‘life’ of the divine Intellect, where things exist by themselves, having no other quo est than their own quod est or quiddity. This is interior creation, in principio, in the trinitarian process, at the level of the eternal generation of the WordImage; it is more of a vital ‘ebullition’ or ‘formal emanation’ than it is creation.35 In order for creation in the proper sense of the term to take place, being and essence must be distinguished from each other and be situated on two unequal levels of essentiality;36 it will be necessary that ‘being itself’, unity, truth, goodness, as well as the ‘spiritual perfections’, which are not co-natural with created subjects, be received ab alio by mendicant essences on a plane which is inferior to their virtual and intellectual ‘first being’. Under this exterior regime of efficiency and finality, with one conferring being and perfections and the other causing insatiable desire, could one assign a place to a formal causality which would remove that which is concrete from the abstract in a process which is analogous to the generation of the Word-Image in divinis? That which is created and concrete is always an individual substance that receives from its form the determined being of an ens hoc aut illud, a suppositum, that is ‘placed beneath’ intelligible principles in which a creature can be known and defined. However, if these ‘principles’, qualia sunt genus et differentia quae speciem sive naturam et essentiam fundant et constituunt, cannot be grasped except in the ‘region of the intellect’, still they must not be less participated in, according to the different degrees of interiority, by all that depends [for its production of the ‘seminal virtue’] upon the Divine Word, present in obstrusis abditissimorum principiorum cuiuslibet rei.37 The seminal reasons which ‘establish and constitute’ the essences of creatures as well as the semina scientiarum which Meister Eckhart’s active intellect discovers in abdito mentis are reduced, as we have seen,38 to the ‘Reason’ or unique ‘Seed’ which 35. Serm. lat. 49, 3, LW IV, pp. 425-26, n. 511; Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, pp. 371-72; Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 20, n. 25. 36. See the section on ‘Two Levels of Essentiality’ in Chapter 3 above. 37. Exp. in Gen., LW I, p.  67, n. 98. Compare Cod. Cus. f. 11rb, l. 52-f. 11va, l. 1. 38. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Seminal Reasons and the Divine Word’, note 289.

Imago in Speculo

441

is the Divine Word, the exemplary Principle of the production and the luminous dwelling place of the knowability of all things. The First Cause’s ‘formation’ of created beings must, then, be attributed to the exemplarity which is implied in creative causality: God would only be able to produce anything which is dissimilar to Himself if creatures, having been pre-formed in the Divine Word, were not derived from their exemplary reasons or ‘similitudes’, so that they would participate in the ‘region of dissimilitude’ where concrete subjects are neither identical nor equal with the abstract principles which establish their essences. Nevertheless, this participation permits the establishment of a relationship of similitude between the created and uncreated, a similitude which is based, ultimately, upon the identity of the participant with the participated in which it preexists, like the Word which pre-exists in the principle of its generation. It must not be forgotten that Meister Eckhart had to appeal to the moment of exemplarity in order to be able, in his dialectical study of ‘dissimilitude’ and ‘similitude’ to justify the final antinomy, that is to say: ‘nihil tam dissimile et simile coniunctim alteri … quam deus et creatura’.39 If Meister Eckhart’s God could be considered to be the ‘Formal Cause’ of creatures, it would seem, then, that this expression would be free of all the Aristotelian implications which make it unacceptable within Christian theology. Th is causal relationship is articulated in terms of the participation of the concrete in an ‘abstract’ which is richer than its participants: it is the relationship to an Exemplary Cause conceived of in the spirit of a Christianised Platonism. A passage from Expositio sancti Evangelii secundum Iohannem,40 in which Meister Eckhart distinguishes between the formal cause and the exemplary cause, will help us to understand in what sense he reconciles the two terms in speaking of the ‘formal’ causality which God exercises. By citing Boethius,41 Eckhart wishes to show that the Word, exemplar rerum creatarum, is not an exterior model which God would reproduce in creating the world, as a painter does with a copy, by looking at a figure painted on a wall. Besides, this painter would not be able properly to complete his work, if the model (exemplar extra inspectum) were to remain exterior to him and if 39. Exp. in Ex., LW II, p. 112, n. 117. 40. LW III, pp. 34-35, n. 41. See pp. 30-31, n. 36-37. 41. De consolatione philosophiae, 1. III, m. IX.

442

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

it did not become the very principle of his artistic production. That which was exterior – ‘apud’, ‘extra’, ‘supra’ – must be interiorised, become ‘in’, and receive the character of an ‘inherent form’ that ‘informs’ the artist in the execution of a work of art. Of course, this cannot be a form inherent within God, nor, even less, could it be a model which would remain exterior to creative action. However, since Eckhart allows for a distinction between the Word in principio (= logos, abstract ratio, identical to the essence of the Father) and the same Word apud Deum (= concrete image, generated person, equal with the Father),42 he fi nds a way to also distinguish formal cause from exemplary cause, by attributing them to the Word under two different aspects  – in principio et apud Deum: primum pro causa formali, ut ‘in’ patre, secundum pro forma vel causa exemplari, ‘apud’ patrem. Under the first aspect, the Word in principio is the formal reason for its own generation and for the interior, immanent production of creatures in the Divine Intellect; under the second aspect, like the generated Person which is distinct from the Father, the Word is ‘exemplary’ as it is the principle of exterior production, the ‘Similitude’ whereby the First Cause manifests itself in its effects.43 The Word is thus comparable to the ars apud artificem,44 an ‘art’ which exists in mente artificis even when it proceeds outwards in the work itself.45 Since the art of statuary is the formal cause of a statue, then we must say that Polycletus is the cause of a statue only ‘by accident’, insofar as it is him, and not Peter, Martin, a man, or a horse, which practises the art of statuary.46 God is thus the Formal Cause of creatures inasmuch as He possesses the Word, that by which he acts – id quo formaliter et per se ipsum efficiens est causa effectus.47 It is the exemplarity of the Word in creative efficiency, rota 42. See above, Chapter  5, section ‘Rota in Medio Rotae’, notes 134-36. See Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 115, n. 135; p. 116, n. 137. 43. See the text from Lib. Parabol. Genes. cited above, pp. [279-280?] and notes 112-113 of Chapter 5. 44. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 32, n. 37. 45. Ibid., p. 33, n. 40. Compare p. 8, n. 7. 46. Ibid., p.  54, n. 66. See the reference to Aristotle (ibid., notes 7-10): Meister Eckhart has strained the text of ‘the Philosopher’ a bit. Compare ibid., pp. 31-32, n. 37. 47. Ibid. Here Eckhart comments: quod factum est in ipso vita erat: if the effect were not ‘life’ in its producer, then efficiency would not be production of likeness by likeness.

Imago in Speculo

443

in medio rotae,48 which receives the character of a formal cause. This is discovered every time that creatures are known in their ‘essential principles’ or ‘original principles’ by which the seminal action of the Word develops in created natures, an action which establishes the logical structure of the essences of all things.

Being, Life, Intelligence Seminal development, which properly belongs to ‘real being’, and which is superior to ‘nature’, does not succeed in deducing the concrete from the abstract, since it stops at the level of species and thus remains in the domain of universals, without beginning to engage the generation of individual forms. However, if these created forms id quod sunt, formae et actus, a Deo sunt, qui est primus actus formalis,49 it is because they participate in the virtue of a superior and intellectual causality which establishes the quiddities of created beings.50 In order to discover this participation, we must disregard the Creative Agent and the created subject, and God – the Efficient Cause of the ‘real being’ of creatures, by considering only the Word, the ‘Art’ of the Creator, in the Divine Intellect and in its exterior manifestation; in other words, it will be necessary to consider the creature in its transcendent principle, in which it exists ‘by itself’, and in the intelligible structure of the cosmic ‘all’. We shall thus find, on the one hand, the ‘concrete’, which is co-natural with its abstract exemplary, forming itself in the Word-Image which folds back into the essence of the Father in the closed circle of the trinitarian procession, and, on the other hand, the concrete, which is unequal to the abstract in which it participates only at the different levels of perfection: as being, as life or as intelligence. These three determinations  – esse, vivere, intelligere  – which represent an abridged form of Porphyry’s logical tree (beings, animate beings, rational animate beings), ‘exhaust or fill up the totality of being’ (ens totum).51 However, it must be noted that they are not 48. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘ ’Rota in Medio Rotae’. 49. See above, Chapter  5, section headed “Qui Edunt Me Adhuc Esuriant”,note 338. Compare Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 401. 50. [The manuscript bears only the following note: ‘Make a note about the rememoratio of Themistius.’] 51. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 51, n. 63.

444

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

one and the same order in abstracto and in concreto: in its abstract expression, being (esse) receives the first place, being ‘more noble’ than the levels of vivere and intelligere, since ‘no mode or perfection of being (perfectio essendi) can lack Being itself’; on the contrary, in the concrete order, ens holds the slightest place, while intelligens occupies the most supreme level of perfection, since it includes both vivens and ens. Meister Eckhart specifies that here we are concerned with the essential order, in which the inferior is contained within its immediate superior nobilius et perfectiori modo: thus ens will be ‘life’ in the ‘living’, the living will be ‘intellect’ in the intelligens.52 This is Homer’s ‘golden chain’, the hierarchy of species (rerum species)53 or of ‘pure and naked natures’ (lûter blôze natûre)54 which assures created beings their different order of dignity in the entirety of the universe.55 The different degrees of participation in the abstract form the essences of concrete participants. Considered in itself, each participant remains ‘naked and imperfect’ in the essential order,56 in potentia sola passiva;57 but outside its ‘naked nature’ which is made for knowledge, an angel would not know more than ‘this wood’ (of 52. Ibid., p. 53, nn. 63-64. See Lib. de causis, Prop. 30 (ed. Steele, p. 186; ed. Bardenhewer, Prop. 29, p. 188). 53. Ibid., p. 219, n. 265. 54. Serm. all. 13, DW I, p.  211-12. Compare, in Lib Parabol. Genes. (C., f. 39va, ll. 53-58), a reconciliation of Jacob’s ladder with Homer’s chain: notandum autem quod id quod hic dicitur scala in terra stare et celis attingere ipsum est quod Homerus dixit: cathenam auream de celo in terram pendentes dimitti, eo scilicet quod suprema inferiorum attingunt et connectuntur infimis superiorum sicut videmus in ansis cathenarum contingere. Meister Eckhart could have had knowledge of the ‘golden chain’, an allegory often used by the Neo-Platonists (see Proclus’ σειρά, Elements of Theology, Prop. 21-30, ed. Dodds, pp. 24-34), by Macrobius, Commentarii in somnium Scipionis I.14.15 (ed. Eyssenhardt, p.  542): Cumque omnia continuis successionibus se sequantur degenerantia per ordinem ad imum meandi: invenietur pressius intuenti a summo deo usque ad ultimam rerum faecem una mutuis se vinculis religans et nusquam interrupta connexio et haec est Homeri catena aurea. … 55. Exp. in Io., LW III p.  71, n. 83: Here Eckhart distinguishes quattuor graus entium in universo by superimposing upon the human intellect intellectus angelicus, et si quis sit alius a materia et phantasmate liber, separatus. 56. Ibid., p. 52, n. 63. 57. Ibid., p. 91, n. 106.

Imago in Speculo

445

flesh) or a gnat58 – natures which participate only in being or in life. Thus, in the essential structure of the universe, a creature which participates primarily in being participat ex sui imperfectione in imperfectiori gradu participationis,59 since the participated being we are speaking of here is not the ipsum esse, but the universal attribute of all that is, the ens commune, and to it alone. This is nothing more than an inferior mode of receiving esse by becoming analogous to God, a ‘passive possibility’ of being what one is, more restrained in inanimate essences, and greater in the essences of the living, and it infinitely expands in essences which are capable of intellection. This participated principle, which is divisible according to the different modes of essences, thus belongs to the logical structure of that which is created: it is an essential determination which receives its value of ‘being’ only in the communication of ipsum esse, which is not participated in, but which contains all that it causes to be. ‘Without being, the entirety of the universe would be worth no more than a fly, the sun would be worth no more than a lump of coal, and wisdom would be but ignorance.’60 Perfect as essences might be as parts of the created universe, without the esse which they possess ab alio (from the Efficient Cause) they are but ‘darknesses’ of privation, all equal in the ‘nothingness of creatures’. They cannot show what they are, their id quod est conforms to the Creator’s ‘art’, to the Word-Exemplar which manifests itself in creation, if they do not receive being: per ipsum autem esse formantur, lucent et placent.61 Thus, essences are ‘formed’ by the ipsum esse, without which they cannot become entia and participate in the essential principles which determine them as inanimate, animate or intelligent beings. It is the same for the transcendent attributes of being – oneness, truth, and goodness  – which are all equally necessary for essential formation.62 58. Serm. all. 13, DW I, pp.  212-13 (French translation by AubierMontaigne, p. 180). The entwahsen by which one reaches the core (kern) of creatures in the Fatherhood is the prerogative of a nature endowed with intelligence, diu dâ niht suochet weder diz noch daz, sonder si entwahset allem andern unde luofet alleine zuo der êrsten lûterleit (Pf., Pr. 102, p. 334, II. 8-11). 59. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 52, n. 63. 60. In Eccli., text cited above, Chapter 5, note 332. 61. Exp. in Gen., LW I, p. 211, n. 33 (see ibid., p. 59). 62. See above, Chapter  6, section headed ‘Formal Causality and Divine Exemplarity’. Compare Exp. in Io., C., f. 128vb, ll. 32-35: notandum

446

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

It cannot be otherwise, since, as it is ‘more intimate than essence’, it is the esse which gives the name of essentia to substances, as St Augustine said.63 As for the potentiality of things, qua nondum sunt entia, that also comes from God, ‘Who calls things into being which were not’ (Romans 4:17).64 If the modes of receiving ipsum esse, which are conferred to each essence [without mediation], are not the same, but vary according to their degree of similitude with God, this is because the call of God, the Word by which He speaks to creatures and ‘speaks forth’ in creation65 is not heard in the same manner by all that is: Loquitur, inquam, omnibus et omnia, sed alia ipsum audiunt, ipsi respondent sub proprietate esse, qua scilicet Deus est esse et ab ipso esse omnium; dent sub proprietate esse, qua scilicet Deus est esse et ab ipso esse omnium; alia vero ipsum audiunt et suscipiunt verbum Dei ut est vita prima et vera, et ista sunt viventia omnia; suprema vero in entibus ipsum audiunt Deum non solum per esse aut per vivere et in vivere, sed per intelligere et in ipso intelligere; intellectio enim locutio illic idem.66 The word of God and the response from creatures  – an interior ‘conversation’ which Meister Eckhart compares to the visual species which is generated by the object’s form and reflected by the mirror67 – quod generaliter ‘id quod est’ ab alio, ut sit quod est, et omne quod perfectionis est in ipso est ipsi ab alio. Et sic ipsum se toto clarificat, honorficat, predicat et laudat. 63. De moribus ecclesiae, 1.II.2.2 (PL 32, col. 1346). 64. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 199, n. 238. 65. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The Word without Words’, Chapter 4, section headed ‘Grace, Glory and Divine Dissimilitude’, and Chapter 5, section headed ‘Analogical Causality’. 66. Lib. Parabol. Genes., C., f. 35va, ll. 36-45. Compare Exp. in Io., C., f. 117va, ll. 6-12: Omnibus omnia loquitur Deus, sed non omnes omnia audiunt, secundum illud psalmi: ‘semel locutus est Deus duo hec audivi,’ id est multa duo enim primus numerus et multitudo. Loquitur ergo Deus semel perfecte, simul et omnia, sed non omnes nec omnia audiunt omnia, sed alia ipsum audiunt aliud et aliter, ut vita vel intellectus vel ut iustitia. 67. Ibid., ll. 24-33: Exemplum est de speculo respondente et repercutiente speciem et formam obiecti visibilis, ubi ipsa irradiatio sive gignitio ymaginis est visibilis locutio, speculi vero repercussio est ipsius responsio sive locutio. Et hec sibi invicem loquuntur voce

Imago in Speculo

447

is the exemplary relationship between the Divine Word and created essences which participate in it by showing themselves to be conformed to their eternal quiddities. For the created id quod est is united to its quiddity in an intimate embrace, in an immediate meeting of the superior with the inferior which cannot be compared to the exterior language of created things – an imperfect remnant, an assimilation in the sensible analogues to the interior and intelligible conversation, to the only true language of things, known in their essential principle.68 One may feel a bit awkward before the new riddle presented to us in this interior meeting, which seems to replace analogy with univocity in the hidden depths of creatures, where their essences are formed in an immediate relationship to divine exemplarity. This difficulty will be easily removed, however, if we make recourse to the ‘being of knowledge’ which, in Meister Eckhart’s works,69 is so tightly linked with exemplary causality and, more specifically, to the intentional species which are, for him, ‘words’ or ‘sons’ generated by the forms of real objects in the cognitive faculties.70 Let us recall, above all, that, for this Dominican, intelligible species received from par ticu lar substances are not different with regard to their cognitive message, the ‘first principles’ or semina scientiarum in which the active intellect knows all things, discovering their exemplary reasons in abdito mentis.71 The latter shine forth from the unique ‘Reason’ or ‘Seed’, which is the Word of God,72 the consona, in ipsa ymagine, hinc inde genita, tamquam prole, ut sint duo in prole una spiritualiter et veraciter, sicut mas et femina duo in carne una corporaliter. 68. Ibid., C., f. 35rb, ll. 29-39: Hec autem locutio et collocutio, qua id quod est et quod quid est rerum quidditates sibi locuntur se osculantur et uniuntur suis intimis et intime, verissima, naturalis et dulcissima locutio est. … Loquela enim et sermo exterior vestigium quoddam solum est et imperfectio et qualiscumque assimilatio analogice tantum, illius vere locutionis et allocutionis qua sibi locuntur et collocuntur superius et inferius immediate. 69. See above, Chapter  4, section headed “Cognitivum Ens’ and ‘Ens Reale”, notes 211-304. 70. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘Dissimilitudo-Similitudo’, notes 89-98. 71. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Seminal Reasons and the Divine Word’, notes 273-278. 72. See above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Seminal Reasons and the Divine Word’, notes 286-289.

448

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

principle of a causality which forms the essences of creatures by determining their immutable species. This is the ‘interior discourse’ which God addresses to all things; their response is the intelligible species which they send back to the level of the intellect, like a mirror which reflects the image of the person looking at it. Divine speech and the created response  – the seminal reason by which the Word establishes the nature of a real thing, and the intelligible species by which a thing makes known its quiddity on the level of the intellect – belong in equal measure to intentional being, the first ut in transitu (cognitive intentionality).73 An intentional species, procedens et genita, in order to represent the object which sends it, must be idem in natura, differens in modo essendi with the real thing which generates it: hinc genita, illinc gignens.74 Similarly, the Son, the Image of the Father, ‘by Whom all things were made’, the ‘Art’ of the Divine Artisan, is unum, sed non unus with the Creator of the

73. Jacob’s Ladder, Lib. Parabol. Genes., f. 39va, ll. 17-42: Adhuc autem, quod angeli dicuntur quatuor distincti et binos, duos scilicet ascendentes et duos descendentes, videtur parabola esse quia causa descendit in effectum et econverso, effectus quasi ascendens in sua causa est dupliciter: secundum esse reale scilicet et secundum esse spirituale. Iterum etiam, utrumque istorum duobus modis. Quantum ad esse naturale quidem dupliciter: puta, vel secundum eandem rationem, ut in causis univocis, de quibus supra exposui, super illo: Relinquet homo patrem et matrem et adherebit uxori sue; vel non secundum eandem rationem, sicut in causis analogicis, de quibus notavi prius, super illo: creavit Deus celum et terram. Quantum vero ad esse spirituale, similiter duobus modis, proportionaliter valde respondentibus activis in natura analogicis et univocis, suo siquidem modo causa descendit in effectum et effectus quasi ascendens est in causa sua secundum esse spirituale, per modum quiescentis, sicut archa in artifice. Et iste modus respondet directe agenti univoce in naturalibus. Secundo modo effectus est in causa et causa descendit in ipsum secundum omne spirituale non fi xum neque per modum qualitatis passibilis herendo et inherendo, sed tantum ut passio, in quodam scilicet fluxu fleri et transitu, puta in instrumentis artificis, ut forma arce in dolabra. Et iste modus manifeste sapit naturam activorum et passivorum analogicorum in naturalibus. Hoc est ergo quod angeli traduntur quidem quatuor fuisse, sed tamen bini et bini. 74. Exp. in Io., C., f. 110ra. (Text cited in Chapter 5, note 97.)

Imago in Speculo

449

world.75 Thus, in the interior meeting between God and creatures, there is a difference in the mode of being between the two parties: the divine word and the created response are distinguished from the real beings of the two interlocutors. Th is is why they can coincide and correspond in an interlocution between a superior and an inferior, between the analogical Cause and its effect, an interlocution which takes place voce consona, in ipsa imagine hinc inde genita, tamquam prole, ut sint duo in prole una spiritualiter et veraciter.76 Th is unique ‘offspring’, which is generated by the two interlocutors on two different levels, is the quiddity which is formed by God in the Word and shown forth by the created thing in its species intelligibilis. The coincidence, and perhaps the identity, of these two intelligible contents, that of the call and that of the response, cannot occur anywhere except on the same level, that is, in the ‘super natural’ region of the Intellect, which is accessible solely to beings endowed with intelligence, the only ones who could hear the ‘interior conversation’ between created things and God, by coming to know or grasp their quiddities.77 On the levels of participation which are outside the intellect, creatures remain 75. Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 162-63, n. 194. 76. See above, Chapter  6, section headed ‘Being, Life Intelligence’, note 66. 77. In a passage from Lib. Parabol. Genes. on the ‘interior meeting’, from which we just cited several extracts (see the text cited above at notes 64-67), Meister Eckhart uses St Augustine, lending the expressions species and intentio the value of technical terms which they could not have had in Augustine’s thought. Eckhart says (C., f. 35va, ll. 16-24): Et hoc quod Augustinus X Confessionum dicit: ‘interrogavi terram, mare, abyssos, celum, solem, lunam, stellas,’ etc., and below: ‘interrogatio mea intentio mea et responsio eorum species eorum.’ Vocem suam non mutant, id est speciem suam. Si tamen alius videat et videns interrogat, eodem modo omnibus apparens illi muta est, huic loquitur. Illi intelligunt, qui eius vocem acceptam foris intus cum veritate conferunt. Exemplum est de speculo. Compare Confessions, X.5.9-10, ed. Belles Lettres, vol. 2, pp.  246-47. The discourse or exterior ‘word’, addressed to the senses, does not support any kind of comparison with the true discourse which remains a secret for beings which are deprived of an intellect (ll. 8-10): et hec est propriissima et dulcissima locutio, sermo vel verbum, cuius exterior locutio, sermo et verbum ignobile est.

450

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

foreign, ‘exterior’ to their intimate meeting with God that man hears for them. God is: equally close to a stone or a piece of wood, but they know nothing of it. If the wood were to know God and to know  how much He is near to Him, like an angel in the most exalted choir knows Him, it would be just as blissful for it as for the angel of the most exalted choir. If man is happier than a piece of wood, … this is not at all because God is in him and God is close to him and because he has God, but because he knows how much God is close to him and because he knows that he knows God.78 Since blessedness depends upon knowledge, one can guess that a very important place must be given to the reception of the double generation of the image in Meister Eckhart’s spiritual teachings, when it concerns the union of man and God. If we can speak of ‘univocity’ in the secret meeting between superior and inferior, it must remain confined within the ‘being of knowledge’, in which ‘real’ subjects that support each other (God and creatures) are not considered directly. The modes of conceiving of and of giving meaning to things are not to be confused with the mode of being which is their own.79 In the intentional order, which is that of cognitive being, a concept remains univocal and this identity of conceptual content persists in the analogy which is, for Meister Eckhart, id ipsum utrobique, per prius tamen et posterius.80 As we have seen, this moment of univocity is avoided but not eliminated by the negation of the mode of attribution per posterius. It constitutes an indispensable element in the analogy of attribution, in which the same concept receives the real sense of a form in the main element of the analogy and, without becoming ‘equivocal’ in its minor ele78. Pf., Serm. all. 49, p.  221, ll. 11-20. In our citation of this passage (corrected by Quint, Meister Eckhart, p.  503) in French translation (Aubier-Montaigne, p. 197), we have modified the final sentence: ‘[man knows] wie nâhe er [God] im ist und daz er [man] got wizzende [und minnende – del. Quint] ist. 79. Exp. in Ex., LW II, p.  60, n. 55; compare p.  87, n. 84. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘The Analogy of Attribution’, note 292. 80. See above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘A Deo et in Deo’, note 351.

Imago in Speculo

451

ments, is lent to them intentionally, with respect to the real subject of the attribution.81 When the ipsum esse is not considered just in its conceptual content, but independently of creative action, that is, each time that both God and creatures are concerned, Eckhart relies upon analogy of attribution in order to ward off the dangers of univocal predication. Therefore, the formal or exemplary causality which is the foundation of created essences must be situated in the same analogical perspective, since it cannot be isolated from creative efficiency except on the plane of ‘cognitive being’. From the moment that a created concrete thing is involved, its level is unavoidably inferior to that of its abstract exemplar and of the Image (the generated Son) who actualises the essential exemplar in divinis. So too, since he is created, the created ‘just’ man is not consubstantial with the Justice in which he participates analogically; he is not equal to Justice, since Justice is uncreated, the Unigenitus in the Trinity. In order to reduce the created participant’s concrete form to its uncreated abstract principle, it will be necessary to jump into the region of ‘cognitive univocity’, by means of the logical operation referred to as ‘in quantum’, or as ‘reduplication’, which allows us to cut out the essential contents and isolate them from their real subjects. One would then say: ‘The (created) just man, inasmuch as he is just (an essence – or quality – unaffected by the status of “creatability” and “uncreatability”), is justice itself’ (uncreated exemplar). Iustus enim, verbum iustitiae, est ipsa iustitia, infra Ioh. 10: ‘ego et pater unum sumus’.82 In this way, we can access trinitarian relations, finding the Son who ‘folds back into’ the essence of the Father in the Holy Spirit;83 therein we shall recognise the first ‘formation’, which is univocal and the inference of the concrete from the abstract, the divine formation, the ‘preamble’ to the production of created being. The latter is performed in an analogical relationship of the concrete participants in the abstract principle of esse, vivere, intelligere. In the abstract divine order, the esse which includes all modes of being is the richest aspect, the first in perfection, unlike the concrete order, that of created participants, in which the ens commune, the poorest concept,

81. See above, Chapter  5, section headed “Qui Edunt Me Adhuc Esuriant”, notes 309-311. 82. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 41, n. 50. 83. See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Puritas et Plenitudo Essendi’.

452

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

receives the last place, yielding primacy to the intelligere.84 However, if the analogy of attribution is reversed, if the true sense of being is returned to the creature, as we have seen in the Parisian Questions85 and in the German sermon, Quasi stella matutina,86 then the intelligere will receive the first place not only in comparatione ad participantem, but also secundum se, as the most perfect aspect of the purely intellectual Cause of all that is: ‘in principio’ enim ‘erat verbum’, quod ad intellectum omnino pertinet, ut sic ipsum intelligere teneat primum gradum in perfectionibus, deinde ens vel esse.87 In this perspective of the apophasis of opposition, one cannot attribute being to God either formally or really, but only virtually or intentionally, inasmuch as God is an intellect which is superior to being and contains the exemplary reasons of created essences in His Word: si in Deo est aliquid, quod velis vocare esse, sibi competit per intelligere.88,89 If God, as pure Intelligere, contains esse, then He alone possesses it as a ‘being of knowledge’; strictly speaking, being will be ‘real being’ which, here, will belong solely to the creature, its principal analogue. However, this way of ascent towards a God who is always dissimilar corresponds, as we have seen,90 to a deficient, creaturely point of view. Additionally, the overturning of this analogical perspective will be, at the same time, a suppression of apophaticism: if God is truly the fullness of being, then any modus essendi can no longer be refused to the Ipsum Esse, to the Being-One which cannot be opposed to anything, not even to nothingness, since it affirms itself by denying the negation of being. The way of negative knowledge then becomes unworkable when God takes the place of principal analogue in the analogy of attribution. God’s real esse, which is identical to the vivere and intelligere which it indistinctly contains in its unique perfection, is superior to the modes of participated being: this is also true for the ens commune which extends outwards to all the entia, as it is for the genus of living beings which 84. See above, Chapter 6, section headed ‘Being, Life, Intelligence’. 85. Parisian Questions, see above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘The Opposition between “Intelligere” and “Esse” ’. 86. Quasi stella matutina, see above, ibid., in the same section. 87. Utrum in Deo, LW V, pp. 42-43, n. 6. 88. Ibid., pp.  40-41, n. 4. Compare ibid., p.  41, note 6, a reference to Godfrey of Fontaines, citing Henri de Gand: constat quod Deus se habet in ratione causae duplicis, scilicet formalis exemplaris et efficientis; primum autem respicit rerum essentias, secundum rerum existentias. 89. Ibid., p. 45, n. 8. 90. See above, Chapter 4, section headed ‘Ascensio Intellectus’.

Imago in Speculo

453

includes all plants and animals; it is also superior to the species of animals which are endowed with intelligence; and both men and angels, which are capable of knowing it. In the German sermon, In occisione gladii mortui sunt,91 in his preaching on the martyrs who ‘lost their lives and have found being’, Eckhart, after having spoken of being in the order of essential participation, in which ‘knowledge is higher than life or being’, turns towards ‘Being in itself’ by saying: ‘If we consider it in its purity, it is superior to both knowledge and life, since, by the very fact that it has being, it also has knowledge and life. The martyrs lost their life and have gained being.’ To find being which is richer than life and intellection is to renounce one’s ‘own nature’ as a limited participant in a distinct essence, reduced to a determined mode of receiving being, by detaching oneself in order to embrace Being in its fullness. It is necessary to ‘die’ to oneself, to obliterate oneself in our essential determination as ‘this or that’92 and to attach oneself solely to the ‘indistinct’ ipsum esse, by recognising or acknowledging Divinity ‘without modes’ in the absolute Form of esse, which is sought after by all that exists. To find the Divinity is to find oneself united to God by Christ who, having assumed human nature, gives to those who receive Him ‘the power to become sons of God’, sons who know nothing but God and thus receive being and oneness along with the sole object of their knowledge.93

The Theology of the Image and DeifyingTransformation God works in creatures per ipsum esse et sub ratione esse; his creative and conservational operation is ‘the indivisible work of the Trinity’, since there is but one esse in the three Persons.94 Thus, it is the Divinity which is common to the three Persons which is the Esseform of creative action. However much Divinity is present in all the essences which receive esse,95 only intellectual beings are ‘capable of 91. Pr. 8 (Pf., Pr. 82), DW I, pp.  129-30 (French translation by AubierMontaigne, p. 156). 92. Serm. lat. 25, 2, LW IV, p. 242, n. 266: Abnegatio proprii est abnegatio creaturae sive huius et huius. Hoc enim et hoc proprium est creatura. 93. Exp. in Io., p. 94-95, n. 110; p. 92, n. 107. 94. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p.  344 (cited above, note 16  in this chapter). 95. Exp. in Io., LW III, p.  199, n. 238: Deus autem esse est, et ab ipso immediate omne esse. Propter quod ipse solus illabitur rerum essentiis. Compare Serm. lat. 29, LW IV, p. 264, n. 296.

454

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

God’, since they have been created in His image, ad ymaginem totius unius substantie Dei, and not only in a likeness of ‘something in God’, in ydea alicuius in Deo.96 De ratione enim ymaginis est quod sit expressiva totius eius plene, cuius ymago est, non expressiva alicuius determinati in illo.97 Since he is created ‘in the image’, and not simply ‘in the likeness’, of God, man, who is called to union, must surpass the exemplary relationship which establishes his quiddity in the Word and his nature in the universe, where the human species receives a determined place in the hierarchy of the entia. He must seek a formation which is more eminent than that which determines his nature in the created world, a ‘supernatural’ transformation, beyond the ‘principles’ (species, genus, ens commune) which constitute his essence here below. In order to become ‘deiform’, man must ‘transform himself into the same image’ (2 Corinthians 3:18) by which Christ is the Son of God. The same ‘image’ or the same ‘son’ makes of Christ the Son of God by nature and bestows upon ‘the just and deiform man’ the quality of a son of God by adoption.98 The example of the image in a mirror which, as we have seen, is meant to illustrate the ideal relationship of created essences to the Divine Art or the Word which they manifest in making themselves known,99 returns here with a new meaning. At present, we are no longer concerned with the formation of essences by a participation in the seminal exemplarity of the Word, but, rather, with a deifying transformation which is the first fruit of the Incarnation of the Son of God: quod homo sit per gratiam adoptionis quod ipse est per naturam:100

96. Exp. in Gen., 2nd  edition, C., f. 12va, ll. 12-16: Creavit Deus hominem ad ymaginem suam, non alicuius sui, ad ymaginem Dei, non alicuius in Deo. Et Augustinus dicit quod anima eo ymago Dei est, quo capax Deo est, capax perfectionum substantialium propriarum divine substantie. Compare Exp. in Io. See C., f. 121rb, ll. 21-39. 97. Ibid., C., f. 12va, ll. 20-23. Compare ibid., f. 12rb, ll. 54-56: Natura vero intellectualis, ut sic, potius habet ipsum deum similitudinem quam aliquid quod in deo sit ydeale. 98. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 104, n. 119. See ibid., pp. 90-91, n. 106; pp. 1012, n. 117. 99. See above, Chapter  6, section headed ‘Being, Life, Intelligence’, note 66. 100. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 90. n. 106.

Imago in Speculo

455

Like mirrors, as many as can be placed before a man’s face, which all receive the form of the same numerically identical face, so too are the just and each one among them just by the same justice, wholly and absolutely, being formed, informed and transformed into the same justice. They cannot be (all) univocally just, nor can each just one be truly just, if justice were different in itself and in the just.101 The expression univoce iusti should not trouble us,102 since it does not concern the relationship between the just and justice: what is relevant, here, is the univocity of the just among themselves and with ‘the first Just One’, Christ, to the extent that the Son of God is made co-natural with humans, having assumed their nature.103 The relationship of the just to justice (of the concrete God to the abstract Deity, if we can put it in such a way, borrowing Gilbert de la Porrée’s risky terminology) is univocal only for the Son of God.104 This relationship remains univocal in the Incarnation, since the Son 101. Ibid., p. 104, n. 119. 102. Exp. in Io., LW III. 103. Ibid. See f. 105va, ll. 39-44: Secundo notandum quod Deus verbum assumpsit naturam, non personam hominis. Circa quod notanda sunt quinque. Primo quidem, quod natura est nobis omnibus equaliter communis cum Christo univoce, ex quo datur fiducia quod, sicut in ipso sic et in quolibet nostrum, propter ‘verbum caro factum est’ et habitare in nobis. Compare the proceedings of the Cologne trial, Archives, I, p. 180: Filius assumpsit non personam humanam, sed naturam. Ex quo igitur natura humana communis est, etc … ut supra (p. 179). Compare ibid., p. 231: humanam naturam assumpsit verbum ex intentione prima, hanc tamen naturam, scilicet in Christo, propter totam speciem humanam. Assumendo igitur ipsam naturam, in ipso et per ipsum contulit gratiam filiationis et adoptionis omnibus hominibus, michi tibi et quilibet participantibus univoce et equaliter ipsam naturam. 104. Compare the Cologne trial, Archives, I, p.  186: hec tamen, bonus et bonitas sunt in filio, spiritu sancto et patre unum univoce. In Deo autem et nobis, qui boni sumus, sunt analogice unum. Compare ibid., p. 240, n. 36: Hominis iusti, inquantum iustus, totum esse est ab esse dei, analogice tamen. Constat enim quod nemo iustus est nisi a iustitia, sicut nec album nisi ab albedine, secundum illud: ‘michi vivere Christus est’ (Philip. I: 21); et iterum: ‘vivo ego, iam non ego, vivit in me Christus’ (Gal. 2:20).

456

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

has not assumed the person, but rather, the nature of man:105 Christ is one divine person in two natures, a person who is consubstantial with the Father in His divinity (= justice), and consubstantial with us in His humanity (as such, deprived of justice). It can be seen that Meister Eckhart remains meticulously faithful to the teachings of Chalcedon.106 If human persons are univocal with the Son of God (= the Just) as pertains to the humanity which He had assumed, they are not so in respect of His divinity. Thus, human beings do not become univocally ‘divine’ (or univocal ‘sons’ of justice) by virtue of the fact of the Incarnation,107 but they receive ‘the power to become the sons of God’ (John 1:12) in a new analogical relationship which is no longer that of creation. We are no longer concerned with the exemplary ‘formation’ of the human essence according to a ‘likeness’ to ‘some determined thing in God’, but to a ‘reformation’ or ‘transformation’ ‘in the same Image’ (2 Corinthians 3:18) which has no exemplar other than the totality of Divine Being, that is, God’s very essence. The Son is the natural Image of the Father, because His generation is a ‘simple emanation’, ‘formal’, a ‘transfusion of the complete Essence’;108 man is ‘in the image of God’, ‘in the image of the entire Trinity’, because he must attain to the ‘conformity of nature’ with God by means of ‘regeneration’.109 Natural generation of the only Son and the regeneration of the adopted sons by grace have the same formal principle: this is the total Being of God or Divine Essence which has become operative and generative in the Person of the Father. Man’s ‘regeneration’, however, does not have the simplicity of the eternal birth of the ‘natural Son’: it implies the indwelling of Christ in the soul and the sanctifying action of the Holy Spirit,110 that is, the cooperation of the two divine Persons who are sent into the world. There is no doubt that the passage in which Eckhart opposes

105. See the texts cited in note 102. 106. [Here, the manuscript has the following words:] Fr. Théry’s criticism. 107. The Cologne trial, Archives, I, p.  219: constat etiam quod eodem quo Deus est Deus, homo est divinus analogice. Nec enim quis est divinus sine Deo, sicut nec album sine albedine. 108. Serm. lat. 49, 3, LW IV, p. 511, p. 425, n. 511. 109. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 107, n. 123. 110. Ibid., p. 105, n. 120.

Imago in Speculo

457

‘the Image of the Father’ with regeneration ‘in the image of the entire Trinity’111 must be understood in this sense. However they may, by grace, be ‘sons of God’, regenerated humans are not univocally identical with the Unigenitus who is born of the Father alone: they are quasi unigeniti.112 This does not in any way exclude ‘transfiguration into the same Image’, nor the indivisible unity of adopted sons with the Son by nature: we are simply obliged to consider the relationship of human persons to the Divine Person of the only Son according to the rules of analogical attribution. Meister Eckhart had to express himself very clearly concerning this subject at his trial in Cologne:113 Non putandum est quod alio et alio filio Dei iusti quique sint filii Dei, sed sicut omnes boni ab una et eadem bonitate analogice boni sunt, et sicut unus est Deus in omnibus per essentiam, sic unus est filius Deus in omnibus filiis adaptionis, et illi per ipsum et in ipso sunt fi lii analogice, sicut supra frequenter ostensum est. Exemplum est in ymaginibus genitis in multis speculis ab una facie intuentis, ubi omnes ymagines ille, secundum quod ymagines, sunt ab ipsa una ymagine que est facies intuentis. However, the example of an image placed before a mirror seems still to imply an idea of exteriority, which is incompatible with the new analogical relationship of man to God in Christ. This is why Meister Eckhart seeks to correct this, by adding to his defence the following remarks: Nec est putandum quasi ipse Filius Dei, Deus sit aliquid extrinsecum sive distans a nobis ad quod analogemur, sicut est ymago obiecta speculis, sed ipse utpote Deus 111. Serm. lat. 49, 3, LW IV, p.  427, n. 512: Patet iterum quod filius, imago, est in patre et pater in ipso. …Patet septimo quomodo ‘imago’, filius ‘primogenitus’, est ‘omnis creaturae’ unum cum patre et spiritus sancto principium. 112. Exp. in Io., p. 107, n. 123. 113. Ed. Théry, Archives, I, p.  267. We have modified Fr Théry’s punctuation by eliminating the comma after filio Dei and placing a comma instead of a full stop after boni sunt.

458

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology indivisus et unicus per essentiam intimus est et proximus unicuique nostrum, ‘in ipso vivimus, movemur et sumus,’ Act. 17° (28).114

The theme of the ‘Image of the Father’ (the divine person of the Son) and of being ‘made in the image of God’ (the created person of man) surpasses the level of ‘likeness’ and exemplary assimilation to the Word, which is offered to all creatures;115 additionally, this relationship can be located solely on the ‘supernatural’ plane of the intellect,116 at the level of ‘unity’ and of union with God, a level which is accessible to the man who was created ‘in the image of all the substance of God’, et sic non ad simile sed ad unum.117 The One is attributed to the Father, generating the Son-Image and making man ‘in the image’, such that he is aligned to unity and not only to likeness, as are other creatures, which are deprived of intellect. Thus, there 114. Ibid., p. 268. 115. Serm. lat. 49, 1, LW IV, p. 422, n. 506: primogenitus omnis creaturae id est propositus omni creature ut exemplar, qui se assimilet, sicut pictor imaginem proponit discipulo, cui similem operetur. Unde similitudo secundum Augustinum est in omni creatura, imago vero solum in intellectuali. See St Augustine, De Trinitate, XI.5.8 (PL 42: 991): Non sane omne quod in creaturis aliquo modo simile est Deo, etiam eius imago dicenda est, sed illa sola qua superior ipse solus est. 116. Concerning the ‘supernatural’ intellect, see above, Chapter  3, section headed ‘Intelligere et Esse’. 117. Exp. in Io. (See C., f. 121rb, ll. 21-39): Unum, ut iam sepe dictum est, appropriatur patri. Sciendum igitur quod omnis creatura citra hominem facta est ad similitudinem Dei, in ydea alicuius in Deo. Homo autem creatus ad ymaginem totius substancie Dei, et sic non ad simile sed ad unum; ‘Deus’ autem ‘unus est’, Deuteron. 6° et Galat. 3°, ydee vero plures sunt, etiam simile semper plurium est. Tunc sic: ‘ad loca unde exeunt flumina reveruntur,’ Eccles. I°, et sicut ait Boetius 3°, De consolatione ‘reditu suo singula gaudient.’ Sed omnis creatura citra hominem exit producta in esse sub ratione similitudinis et propter hoc repetitit Deum et sufficit ipsi esse ‘similem Deo’ homini autem, cum sit factus ad ymaginem totius unius substantie Dei et sit in esse productus sub ratione unius totius, non sufficit recursus ad simile, sed recurrit ad unum unde exivit, et sic solum sibi sufficit. Et hoc est quod hic dicitur: ‘ostende nobis patrem’,  – id est unum,  – ‘et sufficit nobis’ (Io. 14, 18). Infra, 17°: ‘exivi a patre et vado ad patrem’; Psalmus (18,7): ‘a summo celo egressio eius et occursus eius usque ad summum eius’.

Imago in Speculo

459

is, in the creation of man, a moment which renders him, so to speak, naturally supernatural, not only because the faculty of intellection gives him the possibility of transcending the universe’s natural being, but also, and above all, because only beings which are endowed with an intellect are made to receive ‘second grace’, which is quite properly supernatural. This gratia gratum faciens does not belong to exterior work, which is common to the three divine Persons, since it ‘proceeds from God under personal and notional reason and property’.118 Since it must return man to the ‘Oneness’ of the Father, it is the ‘Grace of return’ into God: consistit in quodam refluxu sive regressu in ipsum Deum. Its ‘notional’ origin reattaches it to the ‘intimate bosom of the Father’ (radicem habens in ipso patris pectore intimo),119 from whence it gushes forth with the generation of the Son-‘Image’ (gratia est ebullitio quaedam parturitionis filii)120 in order to transform ‘into the same Image’ men who are created ‘in the image’. With respect to the human persons who receive it, grace is thus ‘a confirmation, a configuration, or, even better, a transfiguration of the soul in God and with God’.121 It is confirmatio, because creation ‘in the image of God’ finds its true meaning in the reception of grace; it is configuratio, because ‘justice and the other virtues’ which could be called habitus present themselves in the soul which receives grace like ‘a sort of configuration in action’ in respect of justice and God, without being ‘something permanent and figured’, such as a habitus which is ‘fi xed 118. Serm. lat. 25, 1 (Gratia Dei sum id quod sum), LW IV, pp.  233-34, n. 258. The ‘first grace’ (gratis data), that of creation, procedit a Deo sub ratione et proprietate entis sive boni potius. Being is attributed to Essence, while the Divine Essence, as such, non generat, sed nec creat nisi in supposito. Goodness is appropriated to the third person of the Trinity; however, since bonum is the last of the ‘transcendentals’ which determined Being, the free act of creating is not a notional property of the Holy Spirit, the final ‘suppositum’, but the common operation of the Three Persons in which Essence becomes operative in time as one, true and good. By contrast, the ratio unius or ratio veri cannot, on their own, be applied to the ‘indivisible work’ of the Trinity, even though the ‘Oneness’ of the Father is the first principle of all interior and exterior production. 119. Ibid., p. 237, n. 259. 120. Serm. lat. 25, 2 (on the same ‘authority’ [on the basis of the same scriptural ‘authority’ or source]), ibid., p. 239, n. 263. Compare Serm. all. 44, Pf. p. 201, ll. 8-11. 121. Ibid.

460

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

and rooted in the virtuous’.122 Finally, grace is above all transfiguratio animae in Deum et cum Deo, since it gives the soul esse divinum.123 The expression ‘with God’124 is accounted for by the texts in which Meister Eckhart reconciles the ‘transfiguration of the soul in God’ with the humanity of the transfigured Christ on the mountain (Matthew 17:18; Mark 9:1-8; Luke 9:27-36). Along with Christ, a person passes from likeness into the unity of ‘one and the same image’: similis est Deo, qui nullo creato assimilatur, qui nulli habenti simile vel similitudinem assimilatur, scilicet qui reliquit omnia, qui transfiguratur in monte cum Christo. Dei enim proprium est non habere similem aut simile. Cor. 3: ‘nos autem revelata facie (in eandem imaginem transformamur’.125 If grace gives us esse unum cum Deo, quod est plus assimilatione, it is because in Christ, who assumed the human nature common to us all, there is no other esse but esse divinum126 ‘by which He is the Son of God’.127 In abandoning every thing, in renouncing ‘his own nature’, 122. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 369. 123. Exp. in Io., C., f. 119va, ll. 15-20:  … gratia, cum sit in essentia animae, non in potentia, secundum doctores meliores, non operatur proprie nec immediate per se miracula vel opera exteriora, sed per se dat esse divinum, secundum illud (1) Corinthiorum (15,10) ‘gratia Dei sum id quod sum’; et Rom. 6°: ‘gratia Dei vita’ vivere autem viventibus est esse. Gratia igitur per se dat esse divinum. 124. Being disturbed by this expression, Ernst Benz translated this passage of Serm. all. 25, 2, by relating cum Deo to configuratio: ‘Für den, der sie empfängt, ist die Gnade eine Festigung, eine Gleichgestaltung der Seele mit Gott oder vielmehr deren Umgestaltung in Gott.’ In order to see that this change is not justifiable grammatically, it is sufficient to look back at the Latin text: in respectu suscipientis gratiam gratia est conformatio, configuratio sive potius transfiguratio animae in Deum et cum Deo (LW IV, p. 240, n. 263). 125. Serm. lat. 44, 1, LW IV, p.  367, n. 437. Compare Serm. lat. 49, 2, ibid., p. 424, n. 509. 126. Serm. lat. 25, 2, LW IV, p.  240, n. 263: Being elliptically expressed, in a sermon outline: Secundo dat esse unum cum Deo, quod est plus assimilatione. Nota quomodo verbum assumpsit naturam, quae est aequaliter ad omnem hominem. In Christo autem non est aliud esse quam esse divinum. 127. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p.  370: et iterum quod in ipso Christo homine non est aliud esse preter esse divinum quo est Filius Dei. Unde Ioh. cap. V° . Compare Exp. in Io., C., f. 112rb, ll. 19-28 (concerning ‘pater meus’, etc.,

Imago in Speculo

461

man, who was created in the image of God, becomes by the grace of filial adoption what Christ, the Son of God, is by His divine nature.128 Meister Eckhart’s affirmation, in ipso Christo homine non est aliud esse praeter esse divinum quo est Filius Dei, is not a ‘monophysite’ thesis, as one might have believed it to be: here again, Eckhart thinks within the spirit of Chalcedonian dogma which advocates the recognition of not only the duality of natures, but also the unity of hypostases in the Son of the incarnated God. In the same spirit, St Thomas Aquinas had responded in the affirmative to the question Utrum in Christo sit tantum unum esse: since there is but a single hypostasis of Christ, it is then an ens subsistens exercising the unique act of existing which can be nothing other than esse divinum.129 Thus, we find the same solution to this theological problem in both Dominicans, Aquinas and Eckhart, despite a notable difference in their philosophy of being: for Eckhart, the uniquely divine esse in the Christ-man is not the act of existing of a unique ens, but, rather, the quo est of the Son of God which informs the humanity which is taken on by the Divine Person. This is the Essence which has become active in the suppositum of the Father eternally generating the Son: since it is the exemplary principle of the gignitio imaginis (the ‘exemplar’ from which the Image takes its being),130 it is this divine filiation by virtue of which Christ is born as the only Son of God both in His divinity and in His humanity. Christ-man, having no other person distinct from the Word ‘by whom all things were made’, Being and divine perfections will pertain equally fully to the ‘assumed man’, in such a way that it could be said: this child has created and is creating the stars.131 The unique being in Christ is thus, for Meister Eckhart, the see Chapter 6, section headed ‘The Theology of the Image and Deifying Transformation’, note 130). 128. See above, Chapter  6, section headed ‘The Theology of the Image and Deifying Transformation’, n. 99. See Pf., Pr. 58, p. 184, l. 36-p. 185, l. 9 (French translation by Aubier-Montaigne, p. 192). 129. III Sent., d. 6, q. 2, a. 2 (ed. Mandonnet-Moos, III, pp. 237-40); Sum. theol., IIIa, q. 17, a. 2. 130. Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 19-20, nn. 23-25. 131. Exp. in Io., C., f. 112vb, ll. 19-28: Sic ergo verba premissa exponuntur de patre et filio secundum divinitatem. Possunt tamen exponi et de filio quantum ad eius humanitatem. Tanta est enim unio divinitatis et humanitatis in Christo, ut ea que divinitatis sunt competant homini

462

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

divine quo est which forms him as the Son of God. This will serve to remind us of the Porretian temptation to distinguish within God the abstract form or Deity qua est Deus and the concrete persons of the Trinity. What, then, is ‘formal emanation’ if not a communication of form without any efficiency or finality, a pure formation by which the Son is generated as the same God, identical in substance with the Father?132 However, Eckhart escapes the dangers of Porretianism since this ‘form’, this esse divinum quo est Filius Dei, is distinguished from the quod est or, rather, from the qui est of the Son, only with respect to His assumed humanity, in the measure that human nature receives, in Christ’s personal unity, the same divine esse which belongs to the second person of the Trinity in divinis. For an essentialist philosophy, in which ‘being’ means to be something or someone, the hypostatic union will be presented as an informing of Christ’s humanity by the divine being of the incarnated Son. This unique being of God become man is thus Divinity under the reason of divine filiation, Divinity communicating its idioms133 to the assumed human nature, for which it is a quo est Filius Dei: Christ-man is not a different son from the Unigenitus which is eternally begotten by the Father. However, can we distinguish, in Meister Eckhart’s works, the ‘form’ or the quo est in the very procession of the divine Persons? assumpto. Dicimus enim quod ille puer stellas creavit et creat. Nam, sicut Bernardus dicit 5° De Consideratione: ‘inter omnia que unum recte dicuntur arcem tenet unitas trinitatis, qua tres persone una substantia sunt; secundo loco illa precellit, qua econverso tres [sic] substantie una, in Christo persona sunt’. Compare ibid., f. 111ra, ll. 5-12: Homo assumptus a verbo creavit celos a principio, ut dicunt doctores. Et licet homo assumptus sit a verbo novissimis hiis diebus, Heb. 1° , dicunt tamen doctores quod ille homo celos creavit, quia homo est una persona cum verbo ipso quod celos creavit. Communicant enim sua ydiomata verbum et homo assumptus, ut quod verbum fecit ab inicio dicatur fecisse et ipse homo dudum assumptus postea. 132. Ibid., f. 108vb, ll. 29-34: Rursus, forma ipsa ex sui proprietate se totam communicat et est principium sive causa totius esse in producto. Et propter hoc iterum in formali emanacione producens et productum sunt unum in substantia, similiter in esse, vivere et intelligere et operari secus autem se habet de productione creaturarum, sive a Deo sive inter se ab invicem. 133. The Christological doctrine of communicatio idiomatum was not foreign to Meister Eckhart (see note 130 on this page). He received it from St John Damascene, whom he had read in Burgundion of Pisa’s Latin translation. See De fide orthodoxa, III.3 and III.4 (PG 94, cols 993-99).

Imago in Speculo

463

With a bit of bad faith, we might detect a latent Porretianism in the distinction between the Word-‘Reason’ in principio, which is identical to the Father in the one essence, and the concrete Word-Image apud Deum, a Person who is distinct from, yet equal to, the Father.134 However, while Eckhart does identify an aspect of ‘abstract reason’, the principle of His filiation, in the divine Person of the Son, he never calls this a ‘form’;135 indeed, he does not oppose it to a ‘concrete Son’ either. Thus, here Meister Eckhart remains approximately in line with the doctrine of notional properties, insisting more than St Thomas did upon the identity of the paternitas and the filatio in the unity of essence.136 This insistence is understandable for a theologian who did not wish to allow for any kind of distinction, even that of ‘reason’, in God’s absolute unity.137 Moreover, Eckhart’s ‘indistinct’ Essence cannot be qualified as ‘abstract’ or ‘concrete’, neither in itself, nor in the divine persons in which it is ‘totally transfused’. Being determined by ‘the One’, a property of the Father and principle of the ‘formal emanation’ of persons, for Eckhart the trinitarian process remains subject to Unity. It is a dynamic manifestation of the identity of a God-Monad generating a Monad which is equal to itself, making it return towards the first unity in the ‘Ardour’ which proceeds from the two and demonstrates their essential identity.138 The Western formula of processio ab utroque permits Meister Eckhart to conceive 134. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘Rota in Medio Rotae’, notes 134-136, Chapter 6, section headed ‘Being, Life, Intelligence’, notes 41, 42, 43. 135. On the other hand, the begotten Son (apud Deum) is referred to as an exemplary ‘form’ and ‘cause’ with respect to creatures (see above, Chapter 6, section headed ‘Formal Causality and Divine Exemplarity’). 136. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘Dissimilitudo-Similitudo’, and notes 93-96. 137. See above, Chapter  2, Chapter  2, section headed ‘The One  – ‘The Name above All Names” and ‘The First Determination of Being’; also Chapter 5, section headed ‘Analogical Causality’. 138. See above, Chapter  2, section headed ‘Puritas et Plenitudo Essendi’. Compare Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 133-34, n. 162: Et quia iste amor non procedit aliunde nec ab alio quolibet nisi a patre et filio, et ab his ut unum sunt in natura et substantia, nec sunt nisi substantia pura et mera quam solum pronomen significat – ‘ego’, inquit, ‘et pater unum sumus’, – necessarium est, ut amor iste spiritus sanctus sit, pura sicut mera substantia sit, Iob. 4: ‘spiritus est Deus.’ Ibid., p. 135, n. 164, reference

464

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

of this ‘total transfusion of essence’ in the procession of the divine Persons as a circular movement of ‘return upon itself’. For Eckhart, the trinitarian process would recall Proclus’ triadic cycles, with their μονή, πρόοδος, ἐπιστροφή,139 if the theology of the Image did not thankfully intervene to turn this Neo-Platonic scheme into a dynamic expression of the mystery of a personal God who eternally begets His Son, ‘another self’ – alterum se, non aliud a se.140 This Image, which is a ‘formal expression’ rather than an effect of that which produced it,141 pertains solely to ‘intellectual nature’ in which ‘the same returns upon itself in a complete return’ in such a way that the Begetter and the Begotten are, respectively, unum idem in se altero.142 The trinitarian process is thus an eternal formation of the Image which is simultaneously conceived of and generated by the Intellect of the Father, in the same present where the Father and the Son recognise each other, one in the other, and manifest their essential identity by producing the Holy Spirit. The three moments which Meister Eckhart wishes to identify in analysing the prologue of St John  – verbum (= logos, ratio) in principio, verbum apud deum and deus erat verbum143 – belong to the Image in the Trinity and cannot be isolated from the circular process of its formation which Eckhart compares to an interior ‘bullition’.144 By means of this metaphor, which we have encountered more than once,145 Eckhart wishes to present the to Pseudo-Trismegistus: monas monadem gignit et in se suum reflectit ardorerm. 139. The Elements of Theology, Props 31-35 (ed. Dodds, pp. 34-38). See above, Chapter 2, section headed ‘Puritas et Plenitudo Essendi’. 140. Exp in Io., LW III, p. 164, n. 195. See p. 133, n. 162. 141. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p. 246. 142. Serm. lat. 49, 2, LW IV, p. 425, n. 510. 143. Exp in Io., LW III, pp.  6-8, n. 4-6 (Quarto notandum …, quinto …, sexto …, septimo). The fourth moment which Eckhart notes, verbum hic erat in principio apud Deum, is only a confirmation of the first: the word remains in its principle despite its procession (ibid., p.  8, n. 7), the image and the exemplar are ‘co-eternal’ and reciprocally condition each other (ibid., p. 20, n. 25). 144. Serm. lat. 49, 3, LW IV, pp.  427-28, n. 512 (especially see primo …, secundo …, sexto). 145. For more on ‘bullitio’, see above, Chapter 2, sections headed ‘Puritas et Plenitudo Essendi’ ‘The way of Unified Eminence’, and Chapter 3, section headed ‘Quidditas et Anitas’.

Imago in Speculo

465

divine ‘Life’ as a wholly ‘formal’ operation which allows for neither a distinction between concrete and abstract, nor for the opposition of the quo est and the quod est of the ‘form’ and the ‘informed’. It is, rather, a continuous formation, if we can even speak of continuity in that which is timeless. God’s ‘interior work’ is ‘always new’ because, in the formation of the Image, there is no interval or discrepancy between the ‘principle’ and the ‘end’. Indeed, to be always ‘new’ does not involve a distancing of oneself from the principle as one arrives at the final accomplishment. Notivas est propria principio, vetustas autem omnis est separatio et distantia ab eodem; veterascit ergo omne recedens et elongatum a principio, renovatur autem et innovatur accedendo et redeundo ad principium.146 Meister Eckhart makes use of a text from the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach, Ecclesiasticus 24:17: ‘My flowers are my fruits’, in order to express the mystery of this formal operation which is always accomplished and yet always in process, present, recent, ‘new’: ubi Deus operatur in se ipso, si opus dici debeat, semper filium genuit et gignit, semper natus est, semper nascitur: flos est fructus, flos in fructu, fructus in flore.147 ‘God could not have generated His only Son in eternity, if “to have generated” were not also “to generate”. Th is is why the Saints say that the Son is eternally born in the sense that, ceaselessly, he continues to be born today.’148 Th is continuous birth of the Son is the uniquely divine esse for Christ’s assumed humanity and, since ‘(human) nature is equally

146. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p. 264. 147. In Eccli., LW II, p.  249, n. 21. See every thing following, until the end of the commentary on this ‘authority’. 148. Daz buoch der goetlichen troestunge, DW V, pp.  43-44: got enhaete sînen eingebornen sun in der êwiccheit nie geborn, enwaere geborn niht gebern. Dar umbe sprechent die heiligen, daz der sun alsô êwiclîche geborn ist, daz er doch âne underlâz noch wîrt geborn. See Aubier-Montaigne’s French translation, p. 89 (we have modified the first sentence, to bring it more in line with the original’s concise formula). The patristic authorities are, without a doubt, St Augustine, St Gregory the Great (Moralia in Job, XXIX Moralium, ch. 1) and Origen (Sup. Hieremiam, ch. II, hom. IX, 4), cited by Peter Lombard, Sentent., I, d. 9, c. 4, n. 94 Meister Eckhart uses Origen above all, who insists upon the continuous character of the birth of the Son: In Eccli., LW II, p. 250, n. 23.

466

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

common to all of us and Christ univocally’,149 the same eternal birth of the Son will be also a divine quo est for deified men: in talibus, divinis scilicet, idem est verbum conceptum et verbum natum, flos et fructus, Eccli. 24°: ‘flores mei fructus’; idem ‘principium et finis’, Apoc. 1° (8) et ultimo (22,13); et propter hoc verbum in talibus semper nascitur et semper natum est.150 Now, we shall understand much better the sequence of ideas in the elliptical passage from Expositio Libri Sapientiae151 in which Meister Eckhart speaks of transformation in eandem imaginem, grouping together the different themes: (1) the virtues  – ‘conformations’ and ‘configurations’, relating to ‘the first Just man, the Son of God’; (2) the ‘flower-fruits’; (3) the continuous birth of the Son in divinis; and (4) the uniquely divine being in Christ-the-man. In a passage on the subject of configuring and transfiguring grace that is just as uneven, the parallel text of Sermo latina 25, 2, underlines all the more, that the Word assumed the nature common to all men. In order to grasp Meister Eckhart’s thought which connects together these juxtaposed doctrinal moments, it is necessary for us to realise that the theme of virtues which are ‘not rooted in the virtuous’, ‘not figured’ as a stable habitus, is inserted into the theme of the birth of the Son in the soul. The Son being ‘the splendour of the glory and the Figure of the Substance’ of the Father (2 Corinthians 3:18), the virtues which configure us in actions unto God are in continuo fieri, sicut splendor in medio et imago in speculo. This double metaphor reminds us, in its first section, that analogical causality is continuously exercised by light in the illuminable space;152 the second example attributes the same continuity to the birth of an image in a mirror. It seems, then, that the continuous formation of the virtues which configure us in God is none other than ‘transformation into the same Image’, begotten endlessly in the soul like in a mirror. It could not be other wise in a relationship which is determined by the Eckhartian analogy, where the minor element possesses ‘every thing’ or has ‘nothing’ of the form according to 149. See above, Chapter  6, section headed ‘the Theology of the Image and Deifying Transformation’, note 102. 150. Exp. in Io., C., f. 110va, ll. 20-24. 151. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, pp.  360-70. See above, Chapter  6, section headed ‘The Theology of the Image and Deifying Transformation’. See the parallel passage in Serm. lat. 25, 2, cited in note 119 above. 152. See above, Chapter 5, notes 172-181.

Imago in Speculo

467

which it is ‘analogised’ in the sole subject of real attribution;153 since there is no formal rootedness of virtues in the virtuous, there can be, then, no middle way between ‘configuration’ and the birth of the ‘Figure’ itself in the soul. This birth, which obtains for men the divine virtues of the Son, cannot be any other than instantaneous, and thus timeless, which gives it the character of a continuous action in time with respect to the soul which endlessly receives it. Precisely because the divine form is not continuously fixed, as a habitus would be, in the human subjects which it informs, generation is, then, a continuous act: eo ipso continue, quia non continue.154 Here, the theme of flores mei fructus naturally intervenes: if virtues are ‘fruits’ according to St Ambrose,155 then it is necessary that they also be ‘flowers’, since the divine birth of the Son is continuous, as was demonstrated in the commentary on this text from Ecclesiasticus.156 It just remains to recall that this divine birth of the Son is not foreign to Christ-as153. See Exp. in Io., LW III, pp. 18-19, n. 22: … Iustitia se tota est in iusto quolibet. Media enim iustitia non est iustitia. Quod si tota est in quolibet iusto, est et tota extra quodlibet et quemlibet iustum. Ibid., C., f. 127ra, l. 54-f. 127rb, l. 3: Iustitia enim gignens et pariens iustum se tota dat iusto et, se dando, dat et notificat omnia que iustitie sunt, quamvis enim iustus habeat magis et minus, ut dicitur in predicamentis. Impium est enim a Deo dimidiam separare iustitiam. Patet ergo quomodo camentis. Impium est enim a Deo dimidiam separare iustitiam. Patet ergo quomodo ad litteram filius quecumque audit a patre nota facit omnibus qui filii sunt. Fiendo enim quis filius, hoc ipso audit et noscit omnia que patris sunt. Sibi fieri audire est, et sibi fieri audire et generari est. 154. See ibid., LW III, p.  15, n. 18: Adhuc novo constat quod iustitia, sed nec iustus ut sic non cadunt sub motu et tempore, sicut nec vita nec lux. Et propter hoc iustus sic semper nascitur ab ipsa iustitia, sicut a principio quo iustus natus est, sicut est de generatione luminis in medio et eius conservatione: eo ipso continue quia non continue. We have deleted two commas which the editor (Koch) had placed before and after the words quo iustus. See Serm. all. 1, DW I, p. 11, l. 5-p. 12, l. 4. 155. De paradiso, 13 (PL 14, col. 325a), doubtlessly according to St Thomas’ reference in III Sent., d. XXXIV, q. 1, a. 5 (ed. MandonnetMoos, vol. III, pp. 1130-33), as Fr Théry supposes. 156. In Eccli., LW II, p.  249, nn. 21-22 and passim, in the same expositio. The corresponding text of Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 370) is not clear for Fr Théry. By modifying the punctuation, we read the text in the following way: Ad premissa facit quod, sicut dictum est super illo, ‘flores mei fructus’, in divinis filius semper nascitur.

468

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

man: it is the principle of his uniquely divine being. It will also not be forgotten that Christ’s human nature is common to all humans; thus, by the fact of the Incarnation, men are found to be likened to God according to a new form which is divine filiation. This is, as we have seen,157 the ‘first fruit of the incarnation of Christ’: dedit eis potestatem filios dei fieri (John 1:12) – to become by regenerating grace that which the unique Son is by His natural birth.

Analogy in the ‘Transformation into the Same Image’ Since he is associated by the grace of filial adoption to the eternal formation of the Image in the trinitarian process, man cannot remain foreign to the continuous birth of the Son in his soul: by the same virtue of divine filiation which establishes the personal unity of Christ, God and Man, human persons are transformed ‘into the same Image’; in their turn, they are thus continuously generated as sons of God. However, this transformation or continual regeneration is not a pure and simple identification of created persons with the divine hypostasis of the only Son. Meister Eckhart had to protest several times, both in Cologne and in Avignon, against this false interpretation of his teaching.158 His insistence upon the analogical relationship which governs the ‘transformation of man into God’159 was neither a deception, nor a clumsy attempt at defending an indefensible position being attacked by his accusers. The latter had every opportunity to condemn the more daring passages, which were chosen from the German sermons where Eckhart speaks of a transformative union without explicitly referring to analogy. These articles, Meister Eckart says, quasi falsi sunt et erronei, in sensu quo ipsos accipiunt qui illos abiiciunt; … falsum est et absurdum, secundum ymaginationem

157. See above, Chapter  6, section headed ‘The Theology of the Image and Deifying Transformation’. 158. The proceedings of the Cologne trial, Archives, I, pp.  176-77, 4, art. 1, A-E; pp. 197-99; pp. 242-44, art. 39; pp. 264-65, art. 57; pp. 266-68, art. 59. Procès d’Avignon, ed. Pelster, Gutachten … art. 17-18. 159. The Cologne trial, Archives, I, p.  219, art. 14: Constat etiam quod eodem quo Deus est Deus, homo est divinus analogice. Nec enim quis est divinus sive Deo, sicut nec album sine albedine. See above, Chapter  6, section headed ‘The Theology of the Image and Deifying Transformation’, note 103.

Imago in Speculo

469

adversantium, verum est tamen secundum verum intellectum.160 In effect, when he was speaking of the union with God in terms of identification, Meister Eckhart had in mind an identity which could not be numerical, nor, furthermore, could it be generic, insofar as unity of genus implies division and an uncountable plurality.161 In the passage which precedes the elliptical text of Expositio Libri Sapientiae upon which we have just commented, long before his trial in Cologne Eckhart made use of the example of justice and the just in order to insist upon the analogical character of the identity of deified men with God.162 He begins by eliminating the false idea of a justice which is divided and numerically distinct, rooted in several just individuals; this imagination of ‘benumbed’ spirits (sicut pleririque tardiores estimant) which would like to lend spiritual and divine perfections an accidental inherence similar to that of elementary and corporal qualities. It must be said, rather, that the same justice, which is indivisible, indistinct and numerically one, renders all just individuals just, if numerical unity were applicable to a divine attribute, transcending the unity of calculation: sed pocius omnes iusti sunt ab una numero iusticia, numero tamen sine numero et una sine unitate, vel proprius loquendo una super unitatem; quapropter omnes iusti, inquantum iusti, unum sunt, sicut manifeste docet Salvator, Ioh. XVII.163,164 In citing St Augustine,165 Eckhart wishes to show that the identity of justice in the just of different countries and ages escapes spatial and temporal limitations, just as it escapes number. What is the relationship of this uncreated, timeless and non-numerical justice to the created subjects which it renders just? It must ‘eternise’ them and, in their capacity as ‘just’ individuals, 160. Ibid., p. 208; p. 243. 161. See ibid., pp.  267-68: Hinc est quod nos, in quantum summus filii multi sive distincti, non sumus heredes regni, sed in quantum sumus ‘ab ipso, per ipsum et in ipso’ filio. 162. See Archives, III, pp. 368-69. 163. Théry transcribed this as unde, which has no meaning here: it is clearly a copy error. 164. Archives, III, p.  368. We have modified Théry’s punctuation somewhat, deleting the two periods after loquendo and putting a period and a comma before qua propter. The text of John 17 which Eckhart refers to must be: ut omnes unum sint, sicut in pater in me et ego in te, ut et ipsi in nobis unum sint (v. 21). 165. Confessions, III.7.13-14 (ed. Belles Lettres, vol. 1, pp. 55-56).

470

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

remove them from uncountable multiplicity. This presupposes an analogical relationship. Eckhart will demonstrate this by eliminating both equivocity and univocity. Justice is not different in itself and in just individuals: other wise there would be an equivocal aspect to justice in men. Moreover, justice does not behave like a univocal quality with respect to ‘the just’, being rooted in each subject which it informs. Since, on the contrary, created subjects must adhere to justice, being as they are contained by it, in order to become ‘just’ or ‘sons of justice’,166 the form-justice behaves analogice, exemplariter et per prius with respect to the just individuals which it informs:167 ‘analogically’, because just subjects, as creatures, have nothing in themselves of the uncreated justice which by grace renders them just; ‘according to an exemplary relationship’, because justice, as the formal cause of just individuals, operates or effects a ‘conformation’ of all just individuals to the single Justice, to the principal subject of the analogy to which justice properly belongs, by virtue of its birth or eternal ‘formation’ in the trinitarian process; ‘by primacy’, because the form-justice according to which created subjects are made analogous to God, remains identical in God and in just men, per prius tamen et posterius.168 In the men which it renders just, justice does not then become subject to the conditions of number or of time. This must, moreover, be true of all the spiritual and divine virtues. Thus, ‘wisdom has no number’, according to the Psalmist (146:5 [147:5 KJV]), and Ecclesiasticus (1:5) specifies that ‘all wisdom comes from the Lord God’. This is the reason why Avicenna wished for justice and the other virtues to have as a principle the ‘Giver of forms’, thus placing in opposition their provenance with that of corporal accidents which are caused by the modifications produced

166. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, pp.  365-67. See above, Chapter  6, section headed ‘Formal Causality and Divine Exemplarity’, and notes 27-32. 167. Ibid., p.  369: Si enim alia et alia iusticia plures iusti essent, uisti equivoce essent iusti, aut iusticia se haberet ad iustos univoce, nunc autem se habet analogice, exemplariter et per prius, non cadit sub numero, sicut nec sub tempore. Et hoc est quidem generale omnibus spiritualibus divinis, secundum illud psalmi: ‘Sapiencie eius non est numerus’, sicut ibidem notavi; ‘omnis enim sapientia a domino Deo est,’ Eccli. – Ps, CXLVI, 5; Eccli. I, 1. 168. Compare the definition of analogy in Serm. lat. 44, 2 (see above, Chapter 5, section headed ‘A Deo et in Deo’, note 351).

Imago in Speculo

471

by the active qualities of a body.169 We know the following: it is the passage which we analysed on the habitus of divinising virtues, the ‘flower-fruits’ by which the human person is configured to the Son continuously born in the soul of the ‘virtuous’. Referring to Avicenna,170 Meister Eckhart wished to show us once more the non-accidental character or nature of ‘analogical qualities’: unlike the accidents which belong to a becoming which is subject to modification and remains outside being171 and generation, ‘spiritual and divine’ virtues operate the regeneration of the subject by communicating to it the unity of being with God. Just as the generation of the substantial form in matter which is disposed to receive it sets an immediate term or limit to becoming so, in the same vein, with even greater reason, the communication of ‘being one with God’ is accomplished instantaneously, by means of generation which is not time-bound. The Aristotelian doctrine of ‘generationbeing’, the counterpart of ‘modification-becoming’, was largely used by Meister Eckhart to bring to light certain aspects of the birth of the Son in the soul of the one who receives the deiform being or the habitus of divine virtues. The example of the form of fire, generated in combustible material, is most often used in this sense. However, one cannot insist too much upon the limited character of this link: Meister Eckhart’s world coincides with that of Aristotle solely on the plane of material substances, where God is not the formal cause of creatures, even though the form, the interior cause of the substance, has ‘the flavour of the divine or of God’, since and inasmuch as it confers being to a compound.172 As soon as he begins to speak about the formal causality which God exercises on the whole of creatures, Eckhart places us before a dynamic exemplarism of the Divine Word: it is an 169. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p. 369. 170. Metaphysics, IX.3-4(Venice edition, 1508, f. 104-105). 171. See Exp. in Ex., LW II, pp. 55-56, n. 52. 172. Exp. in Io., C., f. 120rb, l. 62-f. 120va, l. 8. Moreover, accidents, on a plane which is inferior to that of substantial form, have in their own turn the ‘flavour’ of a form and, indirectly, of compound being, since modification is oriented towards generation. See the following part of the quoted text (C., f. 120va, ll. 8-13): Sed, cum hoc ipso quod alteratio corrumpit, est in ipsis qualitatibus per accidens, utpote sapientibus virtutem et naturam forme substantialis a qua descendunt, cuius est dare esse et salvare. Et sic alterati per se respicit et intendit generationem, cuius terminus est esse. Unde et ipsius alterationis terminus est generatio.

472

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

intellectual pre-formation of created essences, a seminal development of quiddities or eternal ‘similitudes’, which has nothing in common with the generation of Aristotelian forms, apart from the fact that the latter participate, on the plane of the created, in this superior ‘formal’ causality, which permits created agents to produce beings of the same species. This acceptance of the term ‘formal cause’, which receives a sense of ‘exemplary cause’ when it relates to God, brings Eckhart closer to a Chartrian Platonism.173 Did Eckhart know of the cosmogony of the Doctors of Chartres? Even so, his Divinity-Form exercises an efficient causality in the creation of the world which is inseparable from the exemplary or ‘formal’ function of the Word. In Eckhart’s thought Aristotle’s formal causality remains confined to the inferior level of being, to that of suppositia, where the generation of the form is but a distant reflection of the intellectual formation of ‘reasons’ in the eternally begotten Word. Meister Eckhart’s naturalia are figures of superior realities: it is Aristotle’s world which has lost its opacity and, since it is reduced to the ‘second’ or ‘formal’ being of things in a far greater doctrinal edifice, it has again become transparent to theological analogies, as was the case in the world of Platonising theologians of the twelft h century.174 If Meister Eckhart’s exegesis discovers in Scriptural texts certain ‘natural truths’ concerning the 173. Concerning the formal God-cause in the cosmogonies of the Chartres school, see N.M. Haring’s judicious remarks: ‘The Creation and Creator of the World according to Thierry of Chartres and Clarembaldus of Arras’, Archives, XXII (1955), p. 146, note 2; pp. 16567. Compare the passages from the two treatises on creation (ibid., published by Haring), by Thierry (p. 185; pp. 195-96 and 198-200) and by Clarembaut (p. 210). Other parallels (which are frequent, above all, in Thierry of Chartres’ treatises) can reveal a doctrinal parentage; the omnipotence of the Unity (p. 196), the first and second generatio rerum (p. 197), ideal ‘creation’ in the Word (p. 210) and ‘seminal reasons’, both Stoic and Augustinian (ibid.). It is known that Meister Eckhart used the latter theme at the beginning of the sermon he gave in Paris in honour of St Augustine, LW V, pp. 89-91; it is not impossible that he had known several texts by Thierry of Chartres. 174. See P. Glorieux (ed.), ‘La Somme “Quoniam homines” d’Alain de Lille’, Archives, XX (1954), p. 119: Cum enim termini a naturalibus ad theologica transferantur novas significationes admirantur et antiquas exposcere, videntur. Hoc ignorantes plerique iuxta naturalium semitam de divinis sumentes iudicium celestia terrenis conformant, etc.

Imago in Speculo

473

structure of the things of this world,175 concerning generation and modification, form and matter, substance and accident, this is because the inferior is explained by the superior upon which it depends, and because the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘divine’, indeed the truth regarding the procession of divine persons, reflected onto the entire spectrum of naturae and artis productions,176 can find more or less eloquent examples in the inferior region. Thus, we shall find the trinity of begetting, begotten and their reciprocal love in all actions at the levels of naturae, moris et artis. The generation of the substantial form has as its purpose the being of the begotten in which the begetter finds its perfect image, beyond the becoming where the agent always sees something dissimilar which it eliminates by modifying it. The trinity, then, characterises acquired being, whereas the duality of the agent and the passive partner or ‘patient’ belongs only to that becoming which precedes generation. Based on this ‘natural’ truth, one can be raised up to the ‘divine’ truth concerning the Trinity and creation, by comparing superior and inferior: accidentia, proprietates naturales et omnia forinseca habent se [ad generationem formae substantialis] sicut creatio seu creaturarum productio ad trinitatem patris, filii, et spiritus sancti, [seu] ad generacionem et spiracionem in divinis.177 This metaphorical ‘analogy of proportionality’, for Meister Eckhart, presupposes a universal correspondence which permits every thing to be illustrated by every thing, without the different levels thereby finding themselves identified on the plane of being or simply subjected to the same metaphysical interpretation.178 Aristotle’s philosophy remains true here below, where it establishes the law of generation and modification in created substances and finds three principles which constitute them.179 However, its truth is only a pale reflection of the divine truth concerning the single Generation which, in the 175. See the prologue of Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 4, nn. 2-3. 176. Exp. in Io., ibid., p.  8, n. 6, on the procession of the divine persons reflected onto the whole ladder of productions, naturae et artis. 177. Exp. in Sap., Archives, III, p.  348; see p.  349. We have introduced several words in brackets into the text cited so as to make it more intelligible. In referring to the two pages indicated from Exp. in Sap., the reader will see clearly that we have not obscured or distorted Meister Eckhart’s thought. 178. Concerning this subject, see Hans Hof’s very just remarks (against M. Ebeling and K. Weiss), op. cit., pp. 174-75. 179. In Exp. in Io., this physical ‘trinity’ is not the same as in Exp. in Sap.

474

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Being, is worthy of this name, concerning this eternal formation of the perfect Image in the trinitarian process, with respect to which exterior production and the being of the universe are but change and becoming. Generation without modification and being without becoming pertain only to ‘interior creation’ in the Word, who is eternally begotten by the Intellect of the Father. Aristotle’s physical truth, in the ‘proportionality’ formulated by Eckhart, had a merely metaphorical role: it confronts us with a Platonic world, beyond Being itself, comparable to the accident which remains beyond the generated form. However, this analogy of proportionality separates more than it reconciles the two truths which it seeks to compare; for Eckhart, it will bear no ontological significance: in order to find the relationship between the passive aspect of creation and the creative Trinity, it will be necessary to have recourse to the analogy of ‘attribution’, the only one which has a legitimate place in Eckhart’s doctrine of being. Between the generation of the substantial form, which is discovered by Aristotle’s science, and the generation of the Son in the Trinity, which is revealed by the Gospel of St John, we fi nd every thing which separates Plato’s region of becoming and the ‘being which truly is’. Seen from above, Aristotle’s world is no longer the object of a precise science. Meister Eckhart does not contradict himself when, having quoted Maimonides and recognised along with him that all Aristotle had said concerning beings in the region which extends ‘from the centre of the earth to the sphere of the moon’ verum est sine dubio,180 he then refers to ‘Augustine and Plato’ in order to reserve for truth, virtue and science ‘the world and super natural region’, not leaving for ‘the region of nature and the inferior world’ anything but opinion and probability, ‘an emanation or likeness of truth’.181 The truth of the physicist who studies the nature of things submitted to change, according to the rules of efficiency and fi nality, is concerned with fieri more than esse; it becomes, then, at best equivocal when it is compared to the truth of the metaphysician who draws abstract inferences in order to consider created beings in the ‘transphysical’ and timeless region of the intellect, where he knows and defi nes them as invariable quiddities, solely in their formal cause, that is, relating the essences of creatures to the exemplarity of the 180. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p. 304. 181. Ibid., p. 361.

Imago in Speculo

475

Divine Word. It seems, then, that there can be nothing in common between the ‘fi rst production’ of all things, which is inherent in the generation of the Word, and the origin of substantial forms by which creatures receive being of ‘this or that’ in their own nature. However, if created forms exist in time, their generation is instantaneous: the instant of information is timeless, insofar as it is the limit of fieri and esse.182 Thus, it marks a discontinuity between being one of a substance and the extrinsic adherence of accidents,183 which ‘descend’ from the substantial form and ‘fall’ in naturam contrarii,184 where the real being of a compound applies to them only by means of an analogy of attribution. As long as the generation of forms by univocal second causes occurs in a timeless instant, it coincides with the timelessness of the ipsum esse conferred to substances by the analogical First Cause. Infused with being, the substantial form is placed on the side of divine action: it has ‘the taste of the divine, of the God who is Being itself, the source and root of all that is being, redemption, and subsistence.’185 And yet, the generated forms belong no less to the passive aspect of creation, for they are not identically ‘essence’ and ‘being’, but ab alio they receive this ‘being itself ’ which is ipsa actualitas

182. Exp. in Io., C., f. 112va, ll. 24-27: Hinc est quod generatio, cuius terminus est esse, non est motus sed est in instanti, sive tempore. Alteratio vero, ut pote generationem et esse precedens, est in tempore. Compare Exp. in Ex., LW II, p. 141, n. 159. See other texts, for example, Daz buoch der goetlichen troestunge, DW V, p. 34, ll. 17-19: gewerden des viures ist mit widerkriege, mit andunge und unruowe und in der zît; aber geburt des viures und lust ist sunder zît und sunder verre. 183. See Exp. in Ex., LW II, pp.  126-27, n. 139: the form which gives being to the compound is immediate inhaerens, while the accidents, belonging to the fieri, are found to be ‘discharged’ after the generation of the form: non enim erit ‘ heres’ nec iam haeret aut inhaeret filius alterationis, sed adhaeret forinsecus. 184. See above, Chapter  5, section headed ‘The Analogy of Attribution’, note 295. 185. Exp. in Io., C., f. 120rb, l. 62-f. 120va, l. 8: Notandum ergo quod forma substantialis, utpote dans esse et subsistere composito (et in hoc sapiens divinum sive deum qui est et ipsum esse, fons et radix omnis esse et salutis sive subsistentie) nulli est contraria, nulli inimica, nulli molesta, nulli nociva. Accidentia vero, puta qualitater, hoc ipso quod descendunt et cadunt a forma substantiali, non dant esse composito simpliciter et incidunt sive cadunt in naturam contrarii quidem, alterantis et corrumpentis.

476

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

omnium, etiam formarum.186 As between the generation of the form and accidents which are exterior to substantial being, a rift emerges between the generation of the Word, in which all things are eternally pre-formed, and the ‘formal’ being of creatures which will be continuously actualised by the ipsum esse because there is no continuity whatsoever between the  created and the divine. The being ‘acquired’ by the generation of the form establishes its becoming ‘such or such a thing’, but the timeless instant in which the form is generated serves only to inaugurate, for the substance thus constituted, a period of time in being which it will not cease ‘analogically’ to receive from God, a period of time which is assimilable to a new becoming: creatura  … accipit esse a Deo, et suum esse est in continuo fluxu et fieri.187 Having been created by the God of the Christians, Aristotle’s world of substances fi nds itself introduced into a new perspective, in which the analogy of attribution places it before the unique Being who is God. The world of natu ral science loses its stability and, in endlessly receiving the being which never belongs to it, draws near to the Platonic becoming. Th is becoming, driven by a never-quenched thirst for absolute being, would exist indefi nitely, without end, if the eternal generation of the Word had to remain forever enclosed within the trinitarian process, without also being realised on the earth, by the incarnation of the Son of God. In a passage from the commentary on St John about the unique source of all that is truth in scriptura et in natura,188 Meister Eckhart attributes to the incarnation of the Wisdom of God a role of mediation between the procession of the divine Persons and the creation of the world: Dei sapientia sic caro fieri dignata est, ut ipsa incarnatio quasi media inter divinarum personarum processionem et creaturarum productionem utriusque naturam sapiat, ita ut incarnatio ipsa sit exemplata quidem ab aeterna emanatione et exemplar totius 186. See above, Chapter 3, section headed ‘Essentia et Esse’, note 238. 187. Exp. in Sap., Archives, IV, p.  385. Compare above (Chapter  5, the section headed ‘Analogical Causality’), concerning the effects of analogical cause (C., f. 27rb, ll. 7-8): ita ut semper sit in fieri et sibi esse. 188. LW III, pp.  154-56, nn. 185-186. Hans Hof deserves credit for extensive use of this impor tant passage in his study on Meister Eckhart, op. cit., pp. 173-77.

Imago in Speculo

477

naturae inferioris.189 In its immediate context, this declaration permits Eckhart to justify by means of the incarnation of the Word the presence here below of analogically participated perfections which are observable in the naturalia, moralia and artificialia.190 Thus, being, generation, immutability, eternity, spirit, simplicity, incorruptibility, infinity, oneness, and unity all properly belong to Christ, while their opposites  – becoming, modification, mutability, time, corporeality, division, corruption, number, and multitude  – pertain to the ‘Old Testament’, since ‘time makes old’.191 In reuniting in His own person the two natures – uncreated and created – Christ reveals to us the truth about creatures, the veritas which does not contradict the credibile, which was proclaimed by Moses, nor the probabile sive verisimile as taught by the ‘Philosopher’, Aristotle.192 It is necessary that the Incarnation be included in the trinitarian process, such that the eternal generation of the Son in divinis, continued in the humanity which Christ assumed, can serve as the exemplary foundation for all instantaneous ‘generation’ which introduces, into the world which is subject to time, being after non-being and stable perfections of formed essences after the uncertainty of their becoming. The sure knowledge of the metaphysician, knowing created beings apart from their spatial and temporal limitations, becomes possible, as a foretaste of this ‘accidental recompense’ of the blessed which will consist of knowing creatures while knowing Jesus Christ who was sent into the world by the Father.193 This is why, in coming into this 189. Ibid., p. 154, n. 185. 190. Ibid., pp.  46-50, nn. 56-60, the passage to which Meister Eckhart returns the reader: it is about the New Testament truths concerning the Trinity and the eternal generation of the Son, who necessarily precedes creation, and which are also manifested in the Old Testament and in natura et in arte. 191. Ibid., p. 155, n. 186. 192. Ibid., p. 185. 193. Exp. in Io., C., f. 122rb, l. 5: secundo notandum, quod beatorum distinguitur duplex premium, essentiale et accidentale. Premium essentiale consistit in cognitione divinitatis, accidentale vero in cognitione creaturarum, secundum illud infra, 17° (3): ‘Hec est vita eterna, ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum’, quantum ad primum, ‘et quem misisti ihesum Christum’, quantum ad secundum. Ad quod etiam referri potest illud Mat. 6° (33): ‘primum querite regnum Dei’ et sequitur

478

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

world, in taking on creatures, in becoming man, God descended, in some way, from the highest common place towards the propria:194 a work of mercy,195 the most exalted of the works which God had ever accomplished in creatures,196 superior to knowledge and to love,197 since every work of God in a creature presupposes the work of mercy which is its foundation and root.198 In order to establish the universal concordance which permits us to illustrate divine mysteries by means of the naturalia and to know created nature based on Revelation,199 Meister Eckhart invokes the incarnation of the Word, the ‘image’ of eternal emanation and the ‘exemplar’ of inferior nature, without referring to the birth of Christ in a determined moment of historical time. This historicity was hardly compatible with the cosmological significance of the Incarnation as stressed by Eckhart, unless, before Christ, apart from denying to those philosophers who preceded Christ the faculty of knowing the transcendental truths of becoming. However, Eckhart does not consider this alternative. Here, once again, we are reminded of certain figures of the Chartres school, especially the theologian-grammarians for whom time, be it past, present or future, ‘co-signified’ in the verb, was but ‘an exterior variant of the known object’: consignificatio non tollit identitatem. The temporal modes of assigning meaning remain extrinsic to the unity of the res significata: tempora enim variantur et verba, sed fides manet eadem et significatio as the Nominales said, alluding to St Augustine.200 Of course, in desiring to ‘de-temporalise’ the Incarnation, Meister Eckhart served the philosophical demands ‘et omnia adicientur vobis’, quantum ad secundum. Et hoc supra, X° (9): ‘per me si quis introierit, salvabitur; et ingredietur et egredietur et pascua inveniet’. ‘Ingredietur’, quantum ad cognitionem et gaudium in creaturis. 194. Exp. in Io., LW III, p. 89, n. 103. 195. Ibid., p. 84, n. 98. 196. Serm. all. 7, DW I, p. 121. 197. Ibid., p. 123. 198. Serm. lat. 12, 2, LW IV, pp. 122-23, n. 129. 199. See ibid., p.  184: secundum hoc ergo convenientur valde scriptura sacra sic exponitur, ut in ipsa sint consona, quae philosophi de rerum naturis et ipsarum proprietatibus scripserunt. 200. M.-D. Chenu, La théologie au XIIe siècle (Paris: Vrin, 1957), pp. 94-96. See by the same author, ‘Grammaire et théologie aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles’, pp. 9-15.

Imago in Speculo

479

which had to remain foreign to the grammatical speculations of Bernard of Chartres and his disciples. Perhaps he was never aware of their strange doctrine of exterior ‘co-signification’, apart from its mitigated expression, in Peter Lombard, or by way of the criticisms which Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas directed against the Chartrian Nominales, while sparing the Magister.201 Nevertheless, this encounter is meaningful: it testifies to the same indifference with respect to time and history among the twelft h century Platonising theologians and, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, in a mystic whose ‘analogical’ speculation was open to all kinds of NeoPlatonic admixture.202 What, then, is the theological application of the analogy of attribution for Meister Eckhart if not a means of maintaining the invariable identity of the eternal and divine analogon, which is ‘co-signified’ by time and place in created ‘analogues’? So that creation, in its passive aspect, would not be only a causus ab ente, uno, vero, et bono, so that created essences could analogically participate in the divine Form of being and in its transcendental attributes, it is necessary for the eternal generation of the Son in divinis to be reproduced here below, in a timeless moment; the incarnation of the Divine Word will thus become the exemplary foundation of all instantaneous generations which place a limit between the fieri and esse of things. Never mind if the birth of Christ took place in a determined historical moment: its timeless moment is the limit of time and eternity. This is the meaning which Meister Eckhart gives St Paul’s expression: ubi venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus Filium suum (Galatians 4:4). ‘The fullness of time is where there is no time.’203 201. The criticised point is found, in Peter Lombard, in Sentent. I, d. 41, ch. 3, and d. 44, ch. 2. 202. Aware of the insensitivity of his master with respect to the positive value of time, Tauler attempted, in the realms of spirituality, to remedy this doctrinal insufficiency concerning Eckhart’s ‘eternalism’, as was well demonstrated by Maurice de Gandillac: Valeur du temps dans la pédagogie spirituelle de Jean Tauler (Montréal: Institut d’Études médiévales; Paris: Vrin, 1956). 203. Exp. in Io., C., f. 105vb, ll. 54-58: Plenitudo temporis est ubi nullum tempus est. Sic enim plena dies dicitur quando finis est diei et iam nichil illius diei est. Adhuc autem tempus plenum est in eternitate, nunc enim eternitatis plenissime complectitur omne tempus. Compare Serm. all. 11 (Impletum est tempus Elisabeth), DW I, p. 177: Wenne ist vüllede der zît? Sô der zît niemê enist.

480

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Let us recall that Dionysius, in speaking of the ‘suddenness’ of the Incarnation, had recourse to the language of the Platonic ἐξαίφνης: an irruption of the eternal which breaks the continuity of time.204 The Platonic character of the Eckhartian instant is all the more remarkable since the texts concerning the ἐξαίφνης remained unknown in the fourteenth century West: the seventh letter was not translated into Latin. As for the translation of Proclus’ commentary on Parmenides, it stopped at the end of the first hypothesis.205 This timeless limit of time and eternity, this point of contact between becoming according to Heraclitus and being according to Parmenides, this spark which bursts forth upon contact between the created and the uncreated, belongs to the personal speculation of the Thuringian mystic, Meister Eckhart. The variety of expressions under which this elusive notion is presented in Meister Eckhart’s writings shows clearly that it is an intuition which is his own rather than some doctrinal influence or other of some ‘Pagan masters’ or of any Platonising theologians.206

204. Third letter (to Gaius), PL 3, col. 1069b. 205. This Latin translation, which contained an impor tant part of the text from Plato (126a-142a), by William of Moerbeke (around 1285), was recently published by Klibansky (Plato Latinus III), see above, Chapter  4, section headed ‘Grace, Glory and Divine Dissimilitude’, note 32. 206. Concerning the moment of timeless ‘contact’ in St Augustine, see Paul Henry’s study, La vision d’Ostie: Sa place dans la vie et oeuvre de saint Augustin (Paris: Vrin, 1938). See our article, ‘Les éléments de “théologie négative” dans la pensée de saint Augustin’, Augustinus Magister I (Paris, 1954), pp. 580 and ff.

Bibliography

Works by Meister Eckhart Von abegescheidenheit (DW V:400-437) Daz buoch der goetlichen troestunge (DW V:1-105) Die deutschen Werke, ed. J. Quint and G. Steer, vols I-V (The MHGGerman critical edition) (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1936-2007) Von dem edeln menschen (DW V:106-136) Expositio Libri Exodi (LW II) Expositio sancti Evangelii secundum Iohannem (LW III) Expositio Libri Genesis (LW I:185-444; LW I/2:61-329) Expositio Libri Sapientiae (LW II:303-644) Die lateinischen Werke, ed. E. Benz, C. Christ, B. Decker, H. Fischer, B. Geyer, J. Koch, E. Seeberg, L. Sturlese, K. Weiss and A. Zimmermann, vols I-V (The Latin-German critical edition) (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1936-2007) Liber Parabolarum Genesis (LW I: 445-702; LW I/2: 331-452) Magistri Echardi Responsio ad articulos sibi impositos de scriptis et dictis suis (LW V:275-354) Predigten (DW I, II, III, IV/1, IV/2) Prologus generalis in Opus tripartitum (LW I: 148-165; LW I/2:21-39) Prologus in Opus expositionum (LW 1:183–84), Prologue to the Work of Commentaries. Prologus in Opus propositionum (LW I:166-182; LW I/2:41-57) Quaestiones Parisienses (LW I:37-83 [Questions 1-5]; LW I/2:461-469 [recently discovered Questions 6-9]) Die rede der underscheidunge (‘Talks of Instruction’) (DW V:137-376) Sermones (Latin sermons), LW IV Sermones et Lectiones super Ecclesiastici ch. 24:23-31 (LW II:231-300) The list above is taken from Amber L. Griffioen, ‘Meister Eckhart’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2023 edition), Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman (eds) ? Avignon manuscript (Cod. 1071, which also contains both of Eckhart’s Parisian Questions) [??]

482

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Maître Eckhart, Traités et sermons, trans. J. Molitor and F. Aubier (Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1942) Paradisus animae intelligentis, ed. Philipp Strauch (1919]) Meister Eckharts Reden der Unterscheidung (Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen 117), ed. Ernst Diederichs (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1913) (rev. edn in J.A. Bizet, Mystiques allemands du XIVe siècle [Paris: Aubier, 1957]) Troyes manuscript (Bibl. mun. 661)

Other Works Cited Alain de Lille, Regulae theologicae (PL 210) Albert the Great, Alberti Magni Opera Omnia, ed. A. Borgnet (Paris, 18901899) Albert the Great, De causis et processu universitatis, in Alberti Magni Opera Omnia, vol. 10 Albert the Great, Commentary on Ethics Albert the Great, Commentary on St John Albert the Great, Summa theologiae de mirabilis scientia Dei, in Alberti Magni Opera Omnia, vol. 31 Alexander of Hales, Summa Universae Theologiae Alverny, M.-Th. d’, ‘Notes sur les traductions médiévales des oeuvres philosophiques d’Avicenne’, in Archives, XIX (1952), pp. 59-62 St Ambrose, De paradiso (PL 14) Ancelet-Hustache, J., Maître Eckhart et la mystique rhénane (Paris: Seuil, 1956) St Anselm, Proslogion (PL 158) Aquinas, St Thomas, De anima, [? ed. Pirotta, no. 718 – see mention on p. 135, n. 224] Aquinas, St Thomas, De ente et essentia (Le ‘De ente et essentia’ de S. Thomas d’Aquin, ed. M.D. Roland-Gosselin [Paris: Vrin, 1948]; Opuscula philosophica sancti Thomae Aquinatis, ed. J. Perrier [Paris: Lethielleux, 1949]) Aquinas, St Thomas, Expositio super Dionysium, De divinis nominibus: lectio III, in S. Thomae Aquinatis Opuscula Omnia, ed. Pierre Mandonnet (Paris: Lethielleux, 1927), vol. 2 Aquinas, St Thomas, De potentia Aquinas, St Thomas, De veritate Aquinas, St Thomas, In decem libros Ethicorum expositio Aquinas, St Thomas, Quaestiones quodlibetales, ed. Pierre Mandonnet (Paris: Lethielleux, 1926) Aquinas, St Thomas, Quodlibet II (1269) Aquinas, St Thomas, Scriptum super libros sententiarum Petri Lombardi, ed. Pierre Mandonnet and Fabien Moos, 4 vols (Paris: Lethielleux, 1927-1947)

Bibliography

483

Aquinas, St Thomas, S. Thomae Aquinatis Opuscula Omnia, ed. Pierre Mandonnet (Paris: Lethielleux, 1927), vols 1 and 2 Aquinas, St Thomas, Summa Theologica Aristotle, Analytica posteriora Aristotle, Metaphysics Aristotle, Physics Saint Augustin, Confessions: Livres I-VIII (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1941) St Augustine, Commentary on St John (PL 35) St Augustine, Contra Academicos (PL 32) St Augustine, De diversis quaestionibus (PL 40) St Augustine, De doctrina christiana (PL 34) St Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram (PL 34) St Augustine, De immortalitate animae (PL 32) St Augustine, In Iohannis evangelium tractatus (PL 35) St Augustine, De libero arbitrio (PL 32) St Augustine, De moribus ecclesiae (PL 32) St Augustine, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum (PL 34) St Augustine, Soliloquiorum (PL 31) St Augustine (?; or Alcher of Clairvaux), De spiritu et anima (PL 40) St Augustine, De Trinitate (PL 42) St Augustine (?; or Vigilius of Thapsus), De unitate trinitatis contra felicianum, PL 42 St Augustine, De vera religione (PL 34) St Augustine, Soliloquiorum (PL 31) Averroes, Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, in Aristo. Op. Omnia (Venice, 1552) Avicenna, Metaphysics (included in the Venice 1508 edition of Avicenna’s, Opera Philosophica) Bange, M.W., ‘Meister Eckeharts Lehre vom göttlichen und geschöpflichen Sein’ (thesis, University of Bonn, Limburg 1937) Bardenhewer, Otto, Die pseudo-aristotelische Schrift über das reine Gute, bekannt unter dem Namen Liber de causis (Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1882) Bascour, H., ‘La double rédaction du premier commentaire de Maître Eckhart sur la Genèse’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 7 (Louvain, 1936), pp. 294-320 Bäumker, C., Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters (Münster, 1895) Bede, Super Acta Apostol. expositio (PL 92) St Bernard of Clairvaux, De consideratione (PL 182) St Bernard of Clairvaux, De diligendo Deo (PL 182) St Bernard of Clairvaux, De gratia et libero arbitrio (PL 182) St Bernard of Clairvaux, Letters (PL 182) St Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermones in Cantica Cantorum (PL 183)

484

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Bindschedler, Maria, Der lateinische Kommentar zum Granum Sinapis (Basel: Schwabe, 1949) Bindschedler, Maria, Meister Eckhart: Vom mystischen Leben (Basel: Schwabe, 1951) Boethius, Comment. in lib. Boethii de duabus naturis et una persona Christi (PL 64) Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae (PL 63) Boethius, De hebdomadibus (PL 64) Boethius, Liber de persona et duabus naturis (PL 64) Boethius, In Porphyrium Commentaria (PL 64) Boethius, De Trinitate (PL 64) St Bonaventure, Itinerarium mentis in Deum St Bonaventure, Tria opuscula Seraphici Doctoris S. Bonaventurae: Breviloquium, Itinerarium mentis in Deum, et De reductione artium ad theologiam, ed. the Fathers of the Collegii S. Bonaventura (Florence: Quaracchi, 1938) Bracken, Ernst von, Meister Eckhart und Fichte (Würzburg: Konrad Triltsch, 1943) Capella, Martianus, De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii by Martianus Capella, ed. F. Eyssenhardt (Leipzig: Teubner, 1866) Capelle, G.C., Autour du décret de 1210: 3. Amaury de Bène, Bibliothèque Thomiste XVI (Paris: Vrin, 1932) Chenu, M.-D., ‘Grammaire et théologie aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles’, in Archives, X (1936) Chenu, M.-D., La théologie au XIIe siècle (Paris: Vrin, 1957) Clarembaud d’Arras, Tractatus super librum Boetii de Trinitate, ed. W. Jansen Clement of Alexandria, Stromates, ed. O. Stählin (Berlin, 1905-36) Coreth, Emerich, ‘Dialektik und Analogie des Seins: Zum Seinsproblem bei Hegel und in der Scholastik’, Scholastik 26, no. 1 (1951), pp. 57-86 Dallmann, M., Die Anthropologie Meister Eckharts (thesis, University of Tübingen, 1939) Daniélou, Jean, Platonisme et théologie mystique (Paris: Aubier, 1944) Dempf, Alois, Meister Eckhart (Leipzig: Jakob Hegner, 1934) Denifle, Heinrich, Meister Eckeharts lateinische Schriften und die Grundanschauung seiner Lehre, in Aus dem Archiv für Litteratur- und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters, II (Berlin, 1886), pp. 417-652 Dictionnaire de spiritualité (Paris: Beauchesne, 1928- ) Diels, Hermann, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (2nd edition, Berlin, 1906) Durantel, J., Saint Thomas et le Pseudo-Denis (Paris: Félix Alcan, 1919) Ebeling, H., Meister Eckharts Mystik: Studien zu den Geisteskämpfen um die Wende des 13. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1941) Ethier, A.-M., Le ‘De Trinitate’ de Richard de Saint-Victor (Paris: Vrin, 1939)

Bibliography

485

Fliche-Martin, Histoire de l’Église (Paris, 1951), Volume XIII: Le Mouvement doctrinal du XIe au XIVe siècle [This ref. needs the editors, Fliche and Martin, to be listed with either their first names or their initials.] Florovsky, Fr Georges, ‘The Idea of Creation in Christian Philosophy’, Eastern Churches Quarterly 8, no. 3, supplementary issue (1949), 53-77 Gandillac, M. de, La Sagesse de Plotin (Paris: Hachette 1952) Gandillac, M. de, ‘Tradition et développement de la mystique rhénane’, Mélanges de science religieuse 3 (1946) Gandillac, M. de, Valeur du temps dans la pédagogie spirituelle de Jean Tauler (Montréal: Institut d’Études médiévales; Paris: Vrin, 1956) Gennadius of Marseille, De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus (PL 58) Giles of Rome, Errores philosophorum, trans. Josef Koch (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1944) Gilson, Étienne, L’Être et l’essence (Paris: Vrin, 1948) Gilson, Étienne, Jean Duns Scot: Introduction à ses positions fondamentales (Paris: Vrin, 1952) Gilson, Étienne, ‘Maïmonide et la Philosophie de l’Exode’, Medieval Studies 13 (1951), pp. 223-25 Gilson, Étienne, ‘La Notion d’existence chez Guillaume d’Auvergne’, in Archives, 15 (1946), pp. 55-91 Gilson, Étienne, La Philosophie au moyen âge, 2nd and 3rd editions (Paris: Payot, 1944-1952) Gilson, Étienne, La Théologie mystique de saint Bernard (Paris: J. Vrin, 1934) Gilson, Étienne, Le Thomisme: Introduction à la philosophie de Saint Thomas d’Aquin, 5th edn (Paris: Vrin, 1947) Gilson, Étienne, and Gabriel Théry (eds), Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge (Paris: Vrin, 1926-1946) Glorieux, P., ‘L’auteur de la Somme “Quoniam homines” ’, Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 17, no. 1-2 (1950), 29-45 Glorieux, P., La Littérature quodlibétique de 1260 à 1320, Bibliothèque Thomiste V, 2 vols (Paris: J. Vrin, 1925) Glorieux, P., (ed.), ‘La Somme “Quoniam homines” d’Alain de Lille’, in Archives, XX (1954), pp. 119-359 Glossa ordinaria, misattributed to Walafrid Strabo (PL 113) Godfrey of Fontaines, Quodlibet VIII Goichon, A.-M., La distinction de l’essence et de l’existence d’après Ibn Sina (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1937) Goichon, A.-M., Lexique de la langue philosophique d’Ibn Sina (Avicenne) (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1938) Gonsalve of Balboa, Fr. Gonsalvi Hispani, O.F.M., Quaestiones disputatae et de Quodlibet, ed. L. Amorós (Bibl. Franc. Schol. IX) (Florence: Quaracchi, 1935) Gonsalve de Balboa, Rationes Equardi (LW V)

486

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Grabmann, Martin, ‘Die Lehre des Jakob von Viterbo (1308) von der Wirklichkeit des göttlichen Seins: Beitrag zum Streit über das Sein Gottes zur Zeit Meister Eckharts’, in Philosophia Perennis: Festgabe für Joseph Geyser zum 60. Geburtstag, I, pp. 288-308 (Regensburg, 1930) (reprinted 1936 in Mittelalterliches Geistesleben 2 [1936], pp. 490-511) Grabmann, Martin, Neuaufgefundene Pariser Quaestionen Meister Eckharts (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1927) Grabmann, Martin, ‘Neuaufgefundene “Quaestionen” Sigers von Brabant zu den Werken des Aristoteles (Clm. 9559)’, in Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle: Scritti di storia e paleografia, vol. I (Rome: Biblioteca apostolica Vaticana, 1924) Grabmann, Martin, Philosophia perennis: Abhandlungen zu ihrer Vergangenheit und Gegenwart St Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job (PL 75) St Gregory Palamas, Capita physica, theologica, moralia et practica (PG 150) Haring, N.M., ‘The Creation and Creator of the World according to Thierry of Chartres and Clarembaldus of Arras’, in Archives, XXII (1955), pp. 137-216 Hayen, A., ‘Le Concile de Reims et l’erreur théologique de Gilbert de la Porrée’, in Archives, X, pp. 80-82 Hayen, A., L’Intentionnel selon saint Thomas (2nd edn, Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1954) Henry, Paul, La vision d’Ostie: Sa place dans la vie et oeuvre de saint Augustin (Paris: Vrin, 1938) St Hilary of Poitiers, De Synodis (PL 10) Hof, Hans, Scintilla animae: Eine Studie zu einem Grundbegriff in Meister Eckharts Philosophie (Lund: Gleerup; Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1952) Hugh of St-Victor, Soliloquium de arrha animae (PL 176) St Isidore of Seville, Etymologies (PL 82) Ivanka, Endre von, ‘Die neuplatonische Synthese: Ihre Bedeutung und ihre Elemente’, Scholastik 24, no. 1 (1949), pp. 30-38 St John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa (PG 94) (also, ed. E.M. Buytaert, trans. Burgundion of Pisa [St Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute, 1955]) St John Damascene, Dialectics (PG 94) John Duns Scotus, Reportatio Parisiensis John Scotus Eriguena, De divisione naturae Karrer, Otto, Meister Eckehart: Das System seiner religiösen Lehre und Lebensweisheit (Munich: Josef Müller, 1926) Klibansky, R., Commentariolum de Eckhardi magisterio, in OL XIII Klibansky, R., ‘Plato’s Parmenides in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance’, Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 1, no. 2 (1943), 281-330 Klibansky, R., on Proclus’ commentary on Plato’s Parmenides, Plato Latinus III (London, 1953)

Bibliography

487

Koch, Josef, ‘Meister Eckhart und die jüdische Religionsphilosophie des Mittelalters’, in 161. Jahresbericht der Schlesischen Gesellschaft für vaterländische Geschichte (1928) Krebs, E., Meister Dietrich [Theodoricus Teutonicus de Vriberg], Sein Leben, seine Werke, seine Wissenschaft (Münster: Aschendorff, 1906) Kucharski, P., Étude sur la doctrine pythagoricienne de la tétrade (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1954) Liber de causis, in Robert Steele and Ferdinand M. Delorme (eds), Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi (Oxford: Clarendon, 1935) Liber XXIV philosophorum (Book of the 24 Philosophers), in C. Bäumker, ‘Das pseudo-hermetische “Buch der vierundzwanzig Meister” ’, in Festgabe zum 70. Geburtstag von Georg Freiherrn von Hertling (Freiburgim-Bresgau, 1913) Lombard, Peter, Libri Quattuor Sententiorum (PL 192) (ed. Quaracchi – published by the Collegium S. Bonaventure at Quaracchi, 1916) Lossky, Vladimir, ‘Les éléments de “théologie négative” dans la pensée de saint Augustin’, Augustinus Magister I (Paris, 1954), pp. 575-81 Lottin, O., Psychologie et morale au XIIe et XIIIe siècles (Louvain: Abbaye du Mont César, 1948) Lucker, M.-A., Meister Eckhart und die Devotio Moderna (Leiden: Brill, 1950) Lüers, Grete, Die Sprache der deutschen Mystik des Mittelalters im Werke der Mechthild von Magdeburg (Munich: E. Reinhardt, 1926) Macrobius, Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis, ed. F. Eyssenhardt (Leipzig: Teubner, 1893) Maïmonide, Moïse, Le Guide des égarés (Guide for the Perplexed), Fr. trans. S. Munk, 3 vols (1856-70) Maimonides, Dux neutrorum (Paris: Agostini Giustiniani, 1520) Mahnke, Dietrich, Unendliche Sphäre und Allmittelpunkt: Beiträge zur Genealogie der mathematischen Mystik (Halle/Saale: Niemeyer, 1937) Mandonnet, P., Siger de Brabant et l’Averroïsme au XIIIe siècle, 2nd edn, 2 vols (Louvain: Institut Supérieur de Philosophie de l’Université, 1911), vol. II, Appendix Mascall, E.L., Existence and Analogy: A Sequel to ‘He Who Is’ (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1949) Mechthild of Magdeburg, Offenbarungen der Schwester Mechthild von Magdeburg: oder das fliessende Licht der Gottheit, ed. P. Gall Morel (Regensburg, 1869) Muller-Thym, B.J., The Establishment of the University of Being in the Doctrine of Meister Eckhart of Hochheim (London: Published for the Institute of Medieval Studies by Sheed & Ward, 1939) Oltmanns, K., Die Philosophie des Meister Eckhart (Frankfurt-am-Main: Osterrieth, 1935)

488

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology

Origen, Commentarius in Evangelium Ioannis, in Origenes Werke: Volume 4: Der Johanneskommentar, ed. E. Preuschen (GCS 10) (1903) Origen, First Homily on Genesis, in Origenes Werke: Volume 6: Die Homilien zu Genesis, Exodus und Leviticus, ed. W.-A. Baehrens (GCS 29) (1920) Origen, Fourth Homily on Genesis (PG 12) Origen, Super Hieremiam Otto, Rudolf, West-Östliche Mystik: Vergleich und Unterscheidung zur Wesensdeutung (Gotha: Leopold Klotz, 1926) (French translation by Jean Gouillard, Mystique d’Orient et mystique d’Occident (Paris: Payot, 1951) Pahncke, Max, Untersuchungen zu den deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts (Halle: Karras, 1905) Paulus, J., Henri de Gand: Essai sur les tendances de sa métaphysique (Paris: J. Vrin, 1938) Penido, T.-L., Le Rôle de l’analogie en théologie dogmatique (Paris: Vrin, 1931) Peter of Spain’s Summulae logicales Peters, Barthold, ‘Gottesbegriff Meister Eckharts’ (dissertation, Hamburg, 1936) Plato, Philebus Plato, Statesman (Paris: Les Belles Lettres) Plato, Timaeus Plotinus, The Six Enneads (Paris: Les Belles Lettres) Porphyry, Isagoge et in Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium, ed. Adolfus Busse, in Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (Berlin: Reimer, 1887) Procès d’Avignon, ed. Pelster [?] Proclus, Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, ed. Ernest Diehl, 3 vols (Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1906) Proclus, The Elements of Theology: A Revised Text with Translation, Introduction, and Commentary, ed. E.R. Dodds (Oxford: Clarendon, 1933) Pseudo-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus (PG 3) (French translation by Maurice de Gandillac in Oeuvres complètes du Pseudo-Denys l’Aréopagite [Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1943; repr. 1980]) (Latin 41-volume set of works, Dionysii Cartusiani Opera Omnia [1896-1912]) Quint, Josef, Meister Eckhart: Deutsche Predigten und Traktate (Munich: Carl Hanser, 1955) Quint, Josef, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckeharts (Bonn: Ludwig Röhrscheid, 1932) Rabanus Maurus, Commentary on Ecclesiasticus (PL 109) Reffke, E., ‘Studien zum Problem der Entwicklung Meister Eckharts im Opus tripartitum’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 57 (1938), pp. 19-95 Reportata Parisiensia, ed. Luke Wadding, Op. XI, 2 vols (Lyon, 1639) Richard of St-Victor, De quattuor gradibus violentae caritatis (PL 196) Richard of St-Victor, De Trinitate (PL. 196) Robin, Léon, La Théorie platonicienne des idées et des nombres d’après Aristote (Paris: Félix Alcan, 1908)

Bibliography

489

Roland-Gosselin, M.-D., Le ‘De ente et essentia’ de S. Thomas d’Aquin, 2nd edn (Paris: Vrin, 1948) Schmoldt, Benno, Die deutsche Begriffssprache Meister Eckharts: Studien zur philosophischen Terminologie des Mittelhochdeutschen (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1954) Schneider, A., ‘Der Gedanke der Erkenntnis des Gleichen durch Gleiches in antiker und patristischer Zeit’, in Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Supplement II: Festgabe Clemens Bäumker (1923) Seeberg, Erich, ‘Eckhartiana I’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 56 (1937), pp. 87-105 Seeberg, Erich, Meister Eckhart (Tübingen: Mohr, 1934) Sertillanges, A.-D., Le Christianisme et les philosophies, 2 vols (Paris: Aubier-Montaigne, 1939) Sladeczek, SJ, F.-M., ‘Die spekulative Auffassung vom Wesen der Einheit in ihrer Auswirkung auf Philosophie und Theologie (mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der aristotelischen Auffassung)’, Scholastik 25, no. 3 (1950), pp. 361-88 Strauch, Philipp, Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters XXX (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlungen, 1919) Taylor, A.E., ‘Regio dissimilitudinis’, in Archives, VII, pp. 305-6 Théry, Gabriel, ‘Le Commentaire de Maître Eckhart sur le livre de la Sagesse’, in Archives, III, pp. 321-443; IV, pp. 233-394 Théry, Gabriel, ‘Contribution à l’histoire du procès d’Eckhart’, La vie spirituelle, suppl. 9, no. 4 and 6 (1924); 12, no. 2 (1925), 13, no. 4, and 14, no. 3 (1926) Vansteenkiste, C., ‘Procli Elementatio theologica translata a Guilelmo de Moerbeke’, Tijdschrift voor Philosophie 13, no. 3 (1951), pp. 491-531 Vicaire, P.-H., ‘Les porrétains et l’avicennisme avant 1215’, Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 26 (1937), pp. 449-82 Volpe, Galvano della, Il misticismo speculativo de Maestro Eckhart nei soui rapporti storici (Bologna: LicinioCappelli, 1930) Wahl, Jean, Étude sur le Parménide de Platon (4th edn, Paris: Vrin, 1951) Webert, J., ‘Reflexio’, in P. Mandonnet (ed.), Mélanges Mandonnet, Bibliothèque Thomiste XIII (Paris: J. Vrin, 1930), vol. I, pp. 285-325. Wrobel, Johann, Platonis Timaeus: Interprete Chalcidio, Cum Eiusdem Commentario (Leipzig: Teubner, 1876)Analytical

Analytical Index

24 philosophers, 37, 73, 75-77, 80, 81, 124, 137, 183, 209, 253, 261 Abgeschiedenheit, 33 Absolute Being, 71, 79, 81, 143, 149, 160, 187, 192, 193, 329, 332, 335, 376, 385, 476 act of existence, 21, 30, 100, 122, 132, 174, 184, 186, 188, 391 agnominans/atum, 120-21 agnosticism, 94, 388, 394, 397-98 conceptual, 397 aliquid, 17, 28, 44, 46, 55, 81, 96, 97, 103, 122, 127, 148, 155, 162, 176, 184, 206, 209, 228, 239, 250, 259, 272, 301, 315, 323, 330, 340-41, 395, 405, 418, 419, 433, 452, 458 all-powerful, 36, 39, 42, 68, 319, 412 Amalricians, 379 analectic, 326, 408 analogia entis, 31, 408 analogical agent, 365, 366, 372-75, 411 analogata, 400, 410 analogy, 16, 21, 23, 31, 39, 77, 99, 143, 170, 188, 193, 196, 210, 225, 248, 270, 326, 329, 361-62, 377, 382, 385, 387-88, 389, 390-98, 400-12, 421-28, 428-35, 447-52, 467-70, 473, 474-479 angel, 16, 26, 79, 188, 201, 203, 218, 233, 234, 250-51, 272, 280, 287, 302, 3056, 309-10, 347-48, 445, 450, 453 Angelic Doctor, 19-20, 30, 163, 174, 294, 394 animal, 104, 142, 156, 158, 175, 177, 230, 291, 337, 379, 385, 413, 453 anonymity, 10, 13, 35, 37, 63, 68, 101, 239

apophaticism, 1, 4-5, 10 13-14, 17-23, 33, 38, 94, 243, 247, 255, 260, 26566, 269-70, 305, 313, 316, 321, 452 Arab, 95, 109, 112, 140, 171, 181, 266, 388 archa in mente, 45-46, 48 Areopagites, 11 beatitude, 225, 227, 236-37, 240-41, 253 being as being, 140-41, 145, 147, 155, 164, 275, 416 Belles Lettres, 22, 41, 53, 117, 132, 145, 212, 220, 291-92, 317, 410, 427, 449, 469 bipolarity, 231-32 birth, xxi, 356, 456, 465, 466-71, 478-79 blessedness, 220, 225-29, 234, 236, 310, 450 see also glory bonum bonum, 117-18, 126, 131 Book of Causes, 372 Book of Divine Consolation, 130, 307, 310, 369, 393 Book of Judges, 2, 13 Book of the Parables of Genesis, 170, 182, 296, 363 Book of Wisdom, 42, 70, 83-84, 86, 14142, 172, 326, 365 bubbling up, 125, 130-31, 135-36, 13840 see also bullitio bullitio, 136-37, 139, 191, 222, 347, 465 see also bubbling up, ebullition Cana, 25 see also Wine of Cana casus ab Uno, 58-59, 69, 73, 78, 101, 124, 144, 374

Index causality, 10, 38-39, 55, 57, 61-63, 79, 87, 90, 104, 116, 130, 136-37, 140-43, 147, 149, 153, 155, 166, 176, 182, 184, 189, 191-93, 210, 226, 241, 269, 278, 287, 288-90, 293-95, 300, 304, 329, 334, 338, 340-41, 346-48, 350, 352, 357-63, 370, 373-80, 382, 398, 405, 411, 412, 414, 426-28, 432-41, 44648, 451, 466, 470-72 charity, 52, 82, 128, 437-38 Chartres school, 145, 413, 472, 478 Christology, 230-31, 461 citra Deum, 40, 104, 146, 208, 377, 386 collatio esse, 39-41, 58, 167, 191, 346, 375 Cologne trial, 48, 81, 127-30, 142, 163, 183, 225, 231, 245, 248, 299, 307, 393, 425, 455, 468 colour, 327, 333, 335, 338, 342-45 Commentariolum, 258, 260, 262 common good, 20 consciousness, 24-25 consubstantiality, 61, 68, 75, 353, 449, 454 Corinthians, 105, 110, 115, 121, 173, 184, 224, 227, 236-37, 370, 454, 456, 466 Corpus, 11-13, 16, 63-65 cosmogony, 65, 73, 472 cosmos, 217-18, 223, 278 creatability, 41, 172, 203, 205, 256, 272, 285, 305-12, 451 creation, 11, 31-32, 40-48, 55, 58-66, 80-93, 133, 137, 152-55, 166, 169, 174, 181, 191, 209, 211, 215-16, 221-25, 229, 231, 252, 279-81, 290, 300-304, 314-16, 322-25, 329-30, 337, 347-51, 354-62, 370, 374-80, 383, 389, 42527, 440, 444-46, 459, 472-79 see also Creator Creative Cause, 23, 41, 45, 47, 64, 92, 113, 147, 176, 180, 280, 286, 304, 366, 397 Creator, 16, 21, 25, 33, 50, 62, 65, 86, 92-93, 124, 167, 189, 210, 234, 273, 281, 290, 302-4, 320, 333-35, 340, 346, 351, 359-61, 375-76, 383, 39799, 410, 443, 445-49, 472 darkness, 27-29, 34, 54, 66, 110, 151, 15557, 160, 171, 186, 241, 303, 365-66, 445

491 De anima, 91, 161, 169, 273, 274, 284, 292, 307, 343 De causis, 36, 38, 86, 91, 95, 125, 153, 167, 169, 176, 182, 183, 195, 201, 268, 276, 279, 372 see also Liber de causis De divinis nominibus, 8, 11, 13, 17, 20, 146, 243 De doctrina christiana, 3, 4, 334 De Genesi ad litteram, 290-1, 298, 368 deiform, 226, 269, 308, 309, 310, 431, 454 Deity-Being, 65 see also Divine Being, God-Being Deus absconditus, 3, 5, 7, 22, 25, 27, 37, 66, 434 Deus unus est, 71, 105, 199-205, 209, 215, 256-62, 265, 269, 316 Deuteronomy, 9, 199 De vera religione, 3, 5, 22, 24, 190, 233 diet, 396, 398, 400, 405 dissimilitude, 212-13, 219, 222, 225-26, 230, 235, 240-41, 245-50, 255, 257, 265, 268-71, 289, 305, 310-16, 325, 331, 332-40, 340-46, 358, 361, 375, 441 see also similitude diversity, 30, 103, 107, 130, 138, 218, 219, 273, 336 Divine Being, 16, 29, 336, 359, 386, 391, 397, 433, 435, 456, 462, 468 see also Deity-Being, God-Being Craftsman, 47 Cause, 9, 50, 54-55, 78, 84, 90, 98, 178, 180, 185, 243, 361, 398, 405-6 Intellect, 42, 48, 77, 102-4, 126, 13236, 145, 151, 155, 150-61, 166, 170, 177, 180-81, 194, 202, 224, 270, 273, 275, 286, 294, 303, 306, 308, 344-47, 350, 359, 440, 442-43 nihilism, 271, 301 Dixitque Deus, 152, 351, 359 ebullition, 72, 76, 93, 103, 117, 134, 139, 159, 190, 222-23, 273, 348, 440 see also bullitio Ecclesiasticus, 208, 296, 370, 405, 406, 409, 411, 418, 425, 427, 465, 467, 470 Efficient Cause, 41, 86, 91, 113, 123, 134, 137, 140, 145, 146, 153, 164, 166-67,

492 169, 179, 191, 193, 199, 222, 226, 246, 290, 351, 380, 427, 443, 445 ego distinctus, 318 Ego sum qui sum, 3, 5, 36, 71, 76, 105, 109-11, 113, 115, 118-26, 195-98, 201, 210-12, 224, 254, 270, 272, 304, 415, 431 Eleatics, 111, 195, 196, 198, 377 Elementatio theologica, 136, 322, 321 Enneads, 212, 273 ens commune, 82, 89, 90, 92, 274, 37882, 379-89, 394, 445, 451, 453-54 ens reale extra animam, 277, 278-82, 348 Ephesians, 9, 292, 439 Epistles, 214, 249 eschatology, 98, 229, 309 Esse ab alio, 40, 87, 93, 124, 143-44, 146, 155, 161, 180, 199, 329, 340, 347, 349, 357, 360, 374, 421, 422, 427, 431, 435 see also non ab alio absconditum, 3, 5-7, 13, 14, 17, 20, 23, 25, 29-33, 39, 42, 66, 73, 131 see also esse intimum absolutum, 122, 143, 186-89, 382 est Deus, 28, 33, 123, 187, 196, 198, 271, 377, 405 formaliter inhaerens, 143, 163, 189 innominabile, 13, 17, 20, 31, 210, 380 intimum, 26-30, 32, 90 omnium, 80, 83, 86, 116, 153, 184, 188, 192, 252, 255, 264, 270, 319, 375, 377-82, 383-89, 446 primum, 69, 157, 160-61, 165, 178-89, 199, 207, 214, 222, 251, 259, 275, 278, 300, 308, 350, 368 secundum, 45, 48, 122, 157, 160-62, 166-68, 170-72, 178-79, 181, 184, 18889, 199, 207, 222, 234, 308, 368, 396 Essence of God, 97, 108, 158 evil, 58, 59, 105, 127, 141, 158-59, 293, 299, 374-78, 416 see also sin exclusio fastidii, 416-17 ex nihilo, 40, 51, 59, 82, 89, 155, 174, 178, 222, 318, 322, 330, 340, 350, 360-62, 374-75, 378, 422, 427

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology Exodus, 3, 9-10, 27, 34, 35, 71, 77, 95, 10910, 116, 118, 121, 131, 195-96, 224, 254, 261, 270-71, 281, 331-32, 346 Expositio Libri Exodi, 36, 38, 95, 325, 331, 333, 407 Expositio Libri Genesis, 20-21, 25, 33 Expositio Libri Sapientiae, 325, 331, 334, 336, 336, 338-41, 412, 466, 469 Expositio sancti Evangelii secundum Iohannem, 54, 150, 262, 277, 280, 282, 383, 441 Expositio super Dionysium, 13 extra-stantia, 152, 180, 190, 196 Ezekiel, 31, 351 Face of God, 93, 410 Fall, the, 74, 92, 296 Father, 7, 32, 47-49, 52-61, 67-68, 72-76, 87, 89, 93-94, 102, 110, 127, 129, 131, 138-39, 155, 169, 222, 239, 276, 278, 280, 285, 299-302, 322, 323, 327, 341-45, 353-59, 383-84, 428, 439, 442-43, 449, 451, 456-58, 459-64, 466, 474, 477 see also Image of the Father Final End, 34, 50, 74, 134, 226, 246, 255, 317, 417 see also First Cause First Cause, 37, 74, 77, 83-95, 102, 104, 116, 143-49, 152-57, 165, 177, 185-90, 202, 210, 221, 233, 246, 251, 255, 259, 264-69, 271, 280-81, 296, 305, 306, 313-21, 335, 339-42, 347, 353-58, 361, 363, 370, 374, 381, 386-87, 408, 409, 414, 416, 422-28, 434, 436, 441-42, 475 see also Final End First Essentiality, 179, 198 First Person, 52, 67-68, 73, 75, 119 Formal Cause, 142-45, 149, 190-91, 226, 328, 388, 412, 419, 428, 436, 439-43, 470-71, 474 Fullness, 3, 72-78, 91, 105, 117, 124, 131, 139, 167-70, 190, 251, 273, 316-19, 348, 383, 387, 428, 452-53, 479 Galatians, 199, 477 Genesis, 2, 6-11, 13, 42, 45, 59, 110, 145, 152, 167, 169-70, 173-74, 182, 187,

Index 209, 261-64, 267, 291, 293, 296, 298, 317, 333, 351, 354, 362-63, 368, 371 Commentary on, 6, 13, 145, 158, 187, 209, 264, 298, 371 German Dominican, 18, 21, 36, 65, 99, 146, 191, 196, 296, 318, 390, 430, 437 glory, 18, 215, 221, 226-34, 311, 370-71, 466 see also blessedness Glossa ordinaria, 416 God -Being, 33, 39, 113, 210, 259, 319, 320, 322, 386, 391, 436 see also Deity-Being, Divine Being -Intellect, 254, 256, 257, 260, 268-70, 273, 272, 313 of Truth, 7 golden chain, 444 see also Homer goodness, 8, 10, 12, 58, 62-65, 101, 107, 130, 141, 166, 204, 216, 237-40, 245, 248-56, 263, 274, 279, 335, 355, 377, 392-99, 405, 423, 437, 440, 446, 459 Gospel, 25, 252, 367, 399 of John, 25, 41, 49, 264, 317, 351, 354, 358, 474 grace, 24, 32, 110, 115-16, 135, 210, 21230, 233-39, 241-46, 255, 262, 264, 309-10, 371-72, 456, 457-60, 466, 468, 470 gratia gratum faciens, 218, 221-26, 311, 372, 450 Great Doctor of his Order, 13, 165 habitus, 229, 293, 295-96, 460, 466-67, 471 health, 247-48, 393-94, 396-401, 405 see also diet, urine heaven, 43, 45, 52, 58, 60, 149, 179, 214, 216, 230-31, 236, 241, 281, 293, 352, 363-64 Hebrew, 39, 95, 109, 138 heresy, 59, 81, 392 Holy Spirit, 49, 55, 57, 64, 73, 75, 129, 224, 240, 246, 279, 329, 378, 451, 457, 459, 464 hylomorphism, 176, 190, 201, 412 hypostases, 63-65, 75-76, 98, 132, 202, 232, 272, 324, 355, 376, 461, 468

493 ‘I am that I am’, 9-10, 304 Idealism, 268, 318 identity, 63, 71-78, 93, 99-110, 116-18, 123-27, 129-38, 160, 191, 196-219, 223, 233, 245, 252, 257-71, 272, 275, 299, 323-25, 336-41, 343-46, 351, 353-59, 386, 391, 407-10, 432-41, 449-50, 463-64, 469-70 see also Indistinction of the Being Id ipsum, 117, 343-44, 359, 361, 430, 450 see also Augustine, Saint illabi animae, 26-27 Immutable Identity, 211 Incarnation, 48, 53, 89, 229-32, 455-56, 459-60, 468, 476-79 indetermination, 16, 66, 69, 76, 78, 110, 206, 240, 248-49, 255, 307, 313, 31519, 379, 383, 391, 392 indistinction, 67, 77, 101-3, 110, 124, 159-60, 196, 198, 204, 210, 273, 31519, 320-31, 334, 336, 339-340, 361, 361-62, 375, 377-79, 384-87, 427, 433 see also Indistinct One Indistinction of the Being, 124, 198, 204 Indistinct One, 200, 328 ineffability, 1-7, 9, 11-14, 17, 20, 22, 27, 29, 31-39, 61-66, 101, 204, 336 inexpressible, 37-38, 65-66, 93, 102, 210, 311 Infinite First Being, 394 infinite intellectual sphere, 76, 144, 207-9 In principio creavit Deus, 51, 59, 17275, 315, 361 In principio erat Verbum, 48, 59, 133, 152, 165, 190, 233, 300, 317, 345, 349-51, 356, 361 inquantum, 126-29, 141, 221, 270, 274 intellect see Divine Intellect, locus specierum, Paternal Intellect intellectualiter, 41, 46, 193 interior man, 7, 24-25, 29-32, 193, 355 intimacy, 6, 20, 22-30, 39-40, 66, 90, 143, 145-46, 152-53, 198, 209, 215, 292, 335-38, 358, 381, 417, 446-47, 450, 459 see also esse intimum

494 intraneitas, 290-92 Image of the Father, 354, 449, 456-58 impermixtio, 117, 131, 168, 188, 274, 275, 282, 306, 318, 343, 366 ipsum ens, 89, 194, 379, 385-86, 390 esse, 15-16, 23-30, 71, 81, 116, 122, 142-47, 153, 162-66, 170, 174-75, 18089, 191-98, 204, 257-58, 269-73, 280, 284, 329-32, 345, 366, 373, 376-77, 380-92, 415-23, 427, 431, 433, 436, 445-46, 451-52, 475-76 esse infinitum, 15, 189, 391 intelligere, 125-26, 198, 205-9, 214, 25859, 265, 270-74, 282, 286, 308, 451 Isaiah, 3, 5, 34, 229, 236, 315, 333 iustitia et iustus, 130, 135, 221 Jacob’s Ladder, 444, 448 Jewish, 109, 119, 140, 216, 266, 298, 358, 388 Job, 53, 60, 195, 368 Judaism see Jewish justice, 126-29, 135-38, 157, 214-15, 21920, 353-56, 376, 393, 410, 412, 425, 428, 432, 439, 451-60, 469-70 locus specierum, 161, 169, 274, 280 Logos, 48, 102, 150-57, 160, 165, 166, 198, 209, 299, 301, 340, 341, 351-56, 358, 442, 464 Liber de causis, 36, 41, 46, 61, 71, 88, 95, 105, 117, 124, 131, 133, 157, 171, 200, 218, 276, 278, 282, 324, 365, 381 Liber Parabolarum Genesis, 50, 165, 173, 262, 264, 268, 276 lux, 27, 60, 409, 467 in luce et in lucem, 72 in tenebris lucet, 54, 151, 244, 303 Magister, 279-81, 477-79 Medio Rotae, 346, 443 metaphysics, 23-24, 45, 50, 69, 70, 83, 111, 112, 123, 132, 136, 140-42, 149, 153-56, 164-65, 186, 190, 274, 278, 299, 431, 440 Middle Ages, 15, 26, 75, 134, 154, 260, 408

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology Monad, 74-75, 78, 87, 109, 110, 117, 124, 141, 145, 210, 223, 320, 463 multiplicity, 9, 54, 56, 63, 70-72, 78, 80, 84, 87-88, 90, 96, 100-7, 130, 158, 210, 219, 303, 321, 327, 332, 381-85, 470 Muslim, 155 Mystical Theology, 63, 432 mysticism, 6, 8, 23-27, 32, 33, 38, 39, 46, 93, 127, 143, 145, 147, 196, 206, 21011, 229, 232, 241-50, 260-62, 314, 324, 390, 400, 423-34, 377, 479 name above all names, the, 8, 36-37, 39, 45, 55, 61, 94, 100, 110 naturalia, 213, 245, 340, 344, 363, 472, 477, 478 Necessary Being see Necesse Esse Necesse Esse, 112, 121, 251 negatio negationis, 71-72, 105, 159-60, 197, 210, 385-86, 418 Neo-Platonism, 56, 216-17, 261, 273, 390, 422 New Testament, 254, 249, 351, 353, 360, 477 nihil, 77-83, 86, 353, 373, 377-81, 389 nobiliori modo, 46, 341, 352 nomen innominabile, 1-15, 33, 61, 119 Nomen Super Omne Nomen, 35, 37, 61 non ab alio, 93, 113, 118, 123, 149, 153, 161, 176, 180, 182, 199, 202, 340, 347, 350, 357 non-being, 10, 41-42, 48-51, 59, 70, 76, 79, 81, 87, 101, 105, 170, 189, 196, 197, 249, 258, 274, 276, 283-85, 3059, 319, 320, 331-33, 360, 375-76, 380, 389, 408, 415, 423, 438, 477 nothingness, 40, 42, 59, 77-83, 86-90, 104, 107, 155, 165, 169, 171, 182, 19293, 209-14, 219, 260, 270-72, 319-20, 323-24, 330-32, 347, 360-62, 375, 380, 384-89, 409, 415, 420-22, 430, 445, 452 see also nihil Ocean of infinite and indeterminate substance, 389 Old Testament, 253, 349, 356, 475 omnia, 38, 61, 76-88, 90-100, 105-7, 114, 116, 121, 136, 159, 193-96, 207, 232, 234, 310, 316, 377-87 see also singula

Index omnipotence, 35, 37, 53, 77-78, 81, 98, 107, 472 Oneness, 215, 304, 310, 314, 326, 330, 446, 453, 459 One, the, 52, 56-64, 69-72, 75-80, 86-108, 110, 117, 124-25, 129-40, 159, 166, 191, 193, 196-200, 204-10, 224, 230, 244, 254-57, 259, 264, 267, 273, 277-79, 281, 290, 299, 313-31, 346, 359, 374-81, 418, 458, 463 On the Divine Names, 7-10, 17, 36, 38, 65 ontology, 10, 14-15, 20, 30, 87, 162, 16970, 174, 178, 186, 189, 195-96, 210, 331, 390-92, 402, 408, 424 opus bonum, 28-31, 40, 238 opus obliquatum, 40, 234 opus propositionum, 28, 79, 81, 183, 372, 405, 437 see also Prologus in Opus propositionum pagan masters, 140, 237, 320, 478 pantheism, 194, 318, 320, 330, 332, 351, 386, 394, 404, 432 Paris, 18, 84, 259, 261, 304, 470 Parisian Questions, 199, 204, 255-71, 272-83, 305-7, 316, 318, 403, 405, 452 Paternal Intellect, 47, 48, 53-54, 60-61, 76, 79, 81, 102, 107, 159, 160, 199, 204, 209, 223, 224, 253, 281, 300302, 340, 361, 439 paternity, 127, 324, 344 see also Paternal Intellect Philippians, 3, 8, 13, 28, 36 Platonic dualism, 44, plenitude, 71-72, 76, 79, 80, 91, 95, 136, 159, 269, 312, 316, 321, 324, 385-86, 424 see also plenitudo plenitudo, 71-72, 124, 131, 159, 168, 282, 317-19, 449, 479 plurality, 57-58, 87, 99, 254, 323, 331, 337, 340, 383, 469 polynymy, 8, 10, 13, 35-37, 54, 61-63, 68, 94-95, 101, 243 see also anonymity Porretianism, 436, 462-63 see also Porrée, Gilbert de la prima intelligibilium principia, 293 prima rerum creatorum, 84

495 Prime Mover, 132, 134, 229 Principle (God), 16, 37, 48-50, 75-76, 130, 147, 166, 194, 210, 281, 302, 354, 361, 428, 441 see also Father productum, 51-52, 356, 411, 439 Prologus generalis in Opus tripartitum, 184, 422 Prologus in Opus propositionum, 372, 379, 437 property, 23-26, 53, 70, 105, 204, 213, 313, 325, 364, 368, 369, 372, 383, 411, 415, 426, 459, 463 proportionality, 395-408, 421, 424, 473-74 Psalms, 3, 28, 29, 60, 144, 293, 294, 333, 470 Pseudo-Dionysius, 1, 15, 21, 62, 64-65, 243, 266, 323, 481 see also Dionysius, On the Divine Names pure affirmation, 71, 107, 118, 125, 15960, 197, 210, 271 Pure Being, 88, 236, 249 puritas essendi, 16, 159, 272 purity, 18, 29-31, 66, 70-72, 76, 89, 95, 96, 124, 131, 159, 168-70, 197, 202, 205, 218, 224, 237, 251, 264, 266, 267, 271-73, 287, 308, 310, 311, 316, 319, 321, 348, 385, 453 Quaestio, 84, 85, 99, 106, 161, 258-60, 262-66, 271-72, 305, 308-10, 395 Quasi stella matutina, 94, 238, 248, 251-58, 260, 262, 266, 270, 301, 310, 316, 380, 398, 452 quiddities, 59, 76, 93, 113, 149-50, 15354, 160-61, 166, 170, 180, 298, 348, 443, 447, 449, 472, 474 Qui manet in caritate, 32, 437 quod est, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11-12, 22, 29, 31, 84, 87, 88, 93, 96, 115-16, 121, 141, 151, 162-63, 175-78, 183-84, 187-90, 193-95, 200, 208, 270, 317, 343-344, 350, 362, 374, 378, 381-82, 392, 400, 403, 405, 415, 418, 425, 431-40, 445, 460, 465 radix et causa prima omnium, 166 rationalism, 23, 24, 215, 219, 232, 242, 247, 248, 291-93, 299, 305, 309, 337, 413

496 Rationes Equardi, 161, 263, 264, 305, 308, 431 recessus ab Uno, 58, 60, 90 reduplicatio, 126-29, 270, 355, 451 see also inquantum reduplication see reduplicatio regeneration, 456-57, 468, 471 regio dissimilitudinis, 217-19, 220, 240, 269, 288, 311 intellectus, 169, 207 Revelation, 223, 476 Romans, 190, 212, 315, 329, 426, 446 Rome, 19-20, 85, 225 second grace see gratia gratum faciens Seed, 165, 198, 290-96, 299-300, 303, 441, 448 semen scientiarum, 293, 295, 300 seminal virtue, 291, 295, 440 semina scientiarum, 294, 440, 448 Sermones et Lectiones super Eccliasiaticus, 412, 419, 426 similitude, 152, 180, 214, 219, 235, 239, 244-45, 247, 255, 268, 277, 288-89, 291-92, 299, 300-4, 310-14, 323, 33139, 340-41, 344-46, 351, 354, 358, 361, 375, 408, 428, 441, 442, 446, 472 see also dissimilitude sin, 105, 212, 227, 291, 378, 423 see also evil, sinner sine ipsa cognitum et factum est nihil, 165, 166, 299 singula, 196, 199, 200, 378 see also omnia sinner, 215-16, 221, 229 Son, 48-49, 53, 55, 59, 64, 74-75, 129, 131, 138-39, 199, 222-24, 233, 278, 327, 341-44, 353-55, 356, 359, 376, 422, 425, 428, 439, 447, 451, 454-68, 471, 474-76, 479 soul, 22-29, 33-34, 39, 44, 125, 143, 166, 192, 215-21, 223-25, 227-29, 236, 244-47, 251, 275-82, 291, 296-99, 301, 302, 306, 309, 314, 321, 381-82, 388, 437, 437, 438, 457, 459-60, 46668, 471

Eckhart’s Apophatic Theology species intelligibilis, 282-83, 287, 449 spirit, 19, 23, 26, 37, 46, 74, 79, 110, 127, 131, 161, 163, 168, 186, 196, 216, 231, 246, 250, 257, 298, 306, 307, 309, 311, 393, 399, 441, 461, 477 Statesman, 212, 240 Stoicism, 48, 160, 291, 301, 472 subiectum, 112, 115, 120, 183-84, 363, 425, 433 sub ratione esse, 5, 13, 17, 37, 51, 53, 66-69, 76, 83, 86, 90, 290, 348, 377, 381, 434, 453 Sufficiency, 119-24, 126, 391, 432 Summa Theologica, 14, 27, 125, 328, 336, 418 superessential, 35, 63-66 supernatural, 32, 110, 217-19, 221, 227, 232, 237-38, 266, 289, 297, 302, 311, 348, 449, 454, 458-59, 474 see also supernaturalis supernaturalis, 216-17 suppositia, 68, 92, 166-69, 178, 188-89, 202, 234, 275, 277, 282, 285, 290, 302, 348-49, 383, 472 Thearchy, 8, 62-65, 432 theognosis, 1, 210, 240, 314 Thomism, 18-25, 30, 86, 106-7, 126, 142-43, 150-51, 162-64, 170, 176-78, 180, 185-91, 193-94, 196-98, 199, 210, 245, 283-84, 293, 295, 323, 328, 382, 390-98, 401, 403 Three Divine Persons, 129, 140, 329, 459 see also Father, Holy Spirit, Son, Trinity Thuringian Dominican, 4, 13, 18, 33, 122, 142, 162, 168, 171, 177, 181, 184, 186-88, 258, 275, 432 Master, 7, 17, 19-20, 25, 70, 75, 109, 164, 184, 209, 305, 309 Timaeus, 154, 217 tota intus, tota deforis, 150, 156, 188, 358, 363 totum, 166, 231, 335, 373, 381-82, 387, 444 transcendence, 10-12, 24, 34-35, 37, 62, 93, 144, 210, 245, 260, 324, 327, 389, 399, 426

Index transcendentals, 68-70, 126, 184, 196, 204, 249, 253, 279, 335, 390, 411, 422, 423, 434, 459 transcende et teipsum, 7 transfiguration, 223, 457, 459-60 transformation, 21, 23, 38, 196, 226, 310, 453-56, 466-68 transphysical, 149, 299, 348, 357, 474 tree of logic, 89, 379, 383 see also Porphyry Trinity, 49, 57, 62-67, 73, 75, 94, 95, 110, 125, 129, 182, 279, 434, 439, 451, 453, 456-59, 462, 464, 473-74, 477 see also Father, Holy Spirit, Son Tri-Unity, 75 truth, 6, 7, 9, 22-25, 43-44, 107, 118, 123, 128, 140, 147, 154, 157, 163, 167, 177, 179, 188, 197, 212, 215, 235-37, 242, 253, 256, 264, 274-79, 282, 294, 298, 304, 311, 318-20, 322, 333, 335-36, 340, 345, 358, 377, 388, 393, 400-01, 406, 410-14, 421, 423, 424, 427, 437, 440, 446, 473-78 see also God of Truth uncreatable, 41, 47, 140, 154, 157, 203, 206, 257, 265, 302, 308, 354 Unified Eminence, 92 Unigenitus, 328, 50-51, 449, 455, 461 Unique Being, 109, 121, 219, 324, 332, 361, 387, 401, 415, 425, 462, 476 unity, 39, 47, 53-57, 63, 67, 70-89, 91-103, 110-11, 124-25, 131-35, 143, 158-59, 175-76, 194, 198-99, 201-20, 225, 234, 244, 246, 253, 254-66, 267-72, 289, 293, 300, 302, 311-24, 328-33, 340, 355, 358, 361, 363, 373, 377, 380, 381, 383-87, 427, 434, 437, 440, 355, 457-63, 468-72, 477-78 see also Tri-Unity

497 Universal Cause, 10, 35, 63, 184, 273, 397 univocity, 320, 361, 374-76, 387-88, 393-94, 407, 409, 435, 447, 450-51, 455, 470 Unmoved Mover, 365, 417 unnameable name, 3-10, 17, 21 25, 33-37, 63, 69, 98 unum, 61-62, 64-72, 76-77, 93, 95, 102, 116, 118, 128-29, 159, 256, 334, 344, 353, 380-82, 386, 401, 382, 386, 390, 413, 449 in duobus, 288, 303, 313, 331, 333, 343 in multis, 130 unutterable, 2, 76, 102, 119 urine, 248, 396, 398, 399-405 utterance, 47, 51, 60, 390 Verbum, 48-49, 152, 157, 351, 354, 356, 464 veritas, 3, 22, 157, 289, 430, 477 virtue, 8-12, 29, 41, 47, 56, 62, 65, 70, 72, 85, 101, 154, 185, 190, 202, 204, 210, 227-29, 247, 251, 280, 291-95, 305, 321-23, 329-30, 334, 337, 342, 349-50, 352, 377, 384, 398, 417, 421, 438, 443, 456, 460-61, 466-71, 474 Wine of Cana, 25 Wisdom, 51, 85, 101, 137, 245, 301, 324, 326, 329, 334, 346, 365, 392, 397-98, 406, 412, 425, 465, 476 see also Book of Wisdom woman, 370 Word of God, 43, 45-48, 224, 230, 360, 447-48 Yahweh, 119

Index of Names

— — —

Adam, 212, 291, 297, 363 Albert the Great, 11, 113-14, 143, 162, 176, 182, 276, 382, 387, 412, 479 Alcher of Clairvaux, 26 Amalric of Bena, 318 Ambrose, St, 467 Anaxagoras, 273, 343 Anselm, St, 83, 101, 331 Aquinas, Thomas, St, 1, 4, 13-31, 36, 38, 40, 42, 45, 55, 57, 67, 68 85-87, 89, 92, 95-97, 99-104, 107, 112-13, 119, 12228, 132-33, 140-47, 152, 154, 162-64, 168, 171-92, 198, 216, 227, 236-39, 241-250, 256, 258, 276, 283-85, 29394, 297-98, 323, 326, 328, 342, 350-51, 364, 368, 390-402, 404, 407-08, 413, 418018, 423, 429, 461, 463, 467, 479 Aristotle, 23, 45, 50, 69-70, 88, 90-91, 111, 132, 140-41, 147-49, 152, 155 56, 161, 169-74, 178, 190, 195-96, 248, 273-82, 285, 292, 294, 296, 307, 323, 343, 362, 383, 395, 401, 402, 416, 442, 471-77 Augustine, St, 1-7, 12, 22-26, 37, 41-48, 53, 67, 74, 83, 106, 117-18, 133-34, 145, 157, 159-60, 179-80, 189, 198, 211-12, 215, 219-20, 240-41, 289, 296, 298, 302, 309, 317, 335-38, 344, 362, 368, 407-10, 413, 421, 424-27, 446, 449, 458, 465, 469, 472, 478, 480 Averroes, 44, 45, 132-33, 147, 149, 153-55, 165, 171, 260, 266, 280, 336, 354, 365 Avicenna, 40, 83-87, 111 16, 119, 121, 123, 141, 158, 162, 173, 175, 177,

180-86, 195, 252, 266, 280, 299, 341, 347, 352, 372, 415, 432, 436, 470-71 Bede, 26, 27, 233 Benz, Ernst, 224, 460 Bernard of Clairvaux, St, 24, 27, 103, 111, 128, 212, 247, 388 Berthold of Moosburg, 136 Bishop of Hippo, 4, 24 Boethius, 43-44, 56-58, 86-87, 96, 111, 115, 120, 161-62, 171, 174, 180, 184, 232, 242, 321, 335, 378, 382, 431-35, 441 Bonaventure, St, 254, 328 Burgundion of Pisa, 463 Cajetan, Thomas, 395, 429 Chalcedon, 456, 461 Chrysostom, John, 171, 178 Clement of Alexandria, 354 Damascene, St John, 65, 74, 115, 179, 195, 232, 235, 238, 254, 271, 319, 328, 391, 463 Della Volpe, Galvano, 6, 46, 82, 154, 199, 260, 380, 387 89, 404 Denifle, Heinrich, 19, 82-85, 162-3, 185, 191, 208, 296, 368-70, 378, 380, 395, 400, 403-6, 407-10, 412-18, 423-26 Dietrich of Freiberg, 136-37, 296-97, 300 Dionysius, 7-16, 19-23, 33, 35-38, 53, 62-66, 94, 101, 146, 171, 218, 241-47, 250, 254, 266, 434, 479 see also Pseudo-Dionysius Duns Scotus, John, 169, 181, 262, 286, 394-95

Index

499

Ebeling, Heinrich, 163-64, 176, 318, 390, 473

Muller-Thym, B.J., 64, 143, 163, 187, 191, 382, 388, 412

Gallus, Thomas, 8-9 Gennadius of Marseille, 26-27 Gerard of Cremona, 115 Giles of Rome, 19, 20, 85, 224 Godfrey of Fontaines, 284, 450 Gonsalve de Balboa, 161, 259, 304 Grabmann, Martin, 46, 176, 199, 205, 238, 258, 260, 262, 266-68, 283, 309, 395, 403 Gregory of Nyssa, St, 239-40 Gundissalinus, 97, 115

Nazianzen, Gregory, 75, 237 Nicholas of Cusa, 26, 140, 156, 186, 199, 200, 203, 204, 206, 407, 411

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 260, 325, 408 Hilary of Poitiers, St, 179 Hof, Hans, 268, 325-26, 335, 348, 38790, 394, 398, 476 Homer, 444 Ibn Gebirol, 96-97, 115 Isidore of Seville, St, 256 Jerome, St, 388 Jesus Christ, 54, 234, 244, 314, 453, 460, 465, 477 John, St, 25, 41, 45, 49, 54, 67, 134, 15152, 156-57, 221, 263, 276, 282, 300, 305, 317, 349, 354, 373, 377, 410, 464, 474, 476 Karrer, Otto, 18, 163, 199, 325, 335, 390, 395 Klibansky, R., 158, 258, 260, 262, 263, 267, 323, 480 Lille, Alain de, 67, 73, 139, 472 Lombard, Peter, 26, 67, 344, 466, 479 Luke, St, 17, 34, 208, 367, 399, 460 Macrobius, 56, 78, 84, 320-22, 326, 444 Maimonides, Moses, 35, 38, 92, 96-97, 100, 108, 110, 113, 118-21, 216, 261, 264, 266, 280, 291, 298, 358, 362, 388, 432, 474 see also Rabbi Moses Mary, 208 Melissus, 111, 195, 198, 431 Moses, 27, 34, 66, 92, 109, 197, 254, 304, 477

Origen, 75, 291-93, 354-55, 465 Palamas, St Gregory, 116, 434 Parmenides, 65, 98, 111, 154, 195-96, 198, 205, 273, 323-24, 431, 480 Paul, St, 14, 37, 110, 121, 184, 237, 314, 323, 370, 480 Philo, 48 Plato, 15, 16, 43, 132, 149, 152-54, 17071, 180, 195-97, 212, 218, 240, 267, 276, 292-94, 298, 323, 355, 432, 472, 474, 476, 479, 480 see also NeoPlatonism, Platonic dualism Plotinus, 1, 24, 65-66, 76, 98, 103, 132, 202, 212, 254, 273, 282, 291, 324 Polycletus, 442 Porphyry, 89, 161, 250, 275, 292, 379, 383, 392, 444 Porrée, Gilbert de la, 242, 382, 432-35, 453 see also Porretianism Proclus, 41, 56, 57, 73-75, 78, 84, 86, 125, 133, 136, 171, 201, 218, 224, 267, 276, 280, 321-24, 381, 444, 464, 480 Pythagoras, 292, 324 Rabbi Moses, 96, 107, 109, 358, 388 see also Maimonides, Moses Sarrazin, John, 7, 12, 14, 250, 356 Siger of Brabant, 176, 182 Spinoza, Baruch, 318, 404 Thales of Miletus, 43 Théry, Gabriel, 19, 32, 48, 85, 86, 94, 126-27, 141-42, 145, 163, 185, 187, 189, 217, 248, 323, 325, 326, 328, 384, 398, 412, 456, 467-69 Themistius, 263, 278, 288, 441 William of Moerbeke, 322-23, 480 Zacharias, 97-98

You may also be interested in:

The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church Vladimir Lossky Lossky’s great work on Eastern Orthodoxy covers the whole range of its spirituality and theology. Combining careful theology with the warmth of the deep personal devotion of the author, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church is the best introduction to Orthodox teaching and theology available. It provides a reliable and informative presentation of the theological spirit of the Eastern Church. His account makes clear the profound theological differences underlying the practices of the East and West, and yet it is also an important contribution to ecumenism and to the life of Christian devotion. It brings together subjects that are more usually separated, asserting that there is no true mysticism that is not firmly rooted in theology, and no true theology that is not experienced, and therefore mystical. The tradition of the Eastern Church is presented as a mystical theology with doctrine and experience mutually conditioning each other. ‘Its great merit lies in its mastery and systematic exposition of the Eastern Church..’ – The Guardian Vladimir Lossky (1903-58) was an influential Eastern Orthodox theologian. Born in Germany, he grew up in St Petersburg, but spent most of his adult life in exile in Paris, where he taught dogmatic theology at the St Dionysus Institute in Paris and the Orthodox Institute of St Irene. Essai sur la theologie mystique de l’Eglise d’orient (1944) (here translated as The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church) is his best known work. Published 2005 Paperback ISBN: 978 0 227 67919 7 PDF ISBN: 978 0 227 90509 8 ePub ISBN: 978 0 227 90508 1

You may also be interested in:

Purification of Memory A Study of Orthodox Theologians from a Catholic Perspective Ambrose Mong Although its various bodies boast a combined total of at least 300 million members, the Eastern Orthodox Church is widely perceived among those of other denominations to be an exotic branch of the faith, often shrouded in mysticism and misunderstanding that has been exacerbated by the longstanding Eastern-Western split. In Purification of Memory, Ambrose Mong casts light on the true nature of Orthodox theology, illuminating the thinking of eight distinguished modern Orthodox theologians who have made important contributions on topics as ecclesiology, ecumenism, Christology, and Mariology. Approaching the work of John Meyendorff, Nicholas Afanasiev, John Zizioulas, Georges Florovsky, Sergius Bulgakov, Vladimir Lossky, Nicolas Berdyaev, and Jaroslav Pelikan from an ecumenical standpoint, Mong deft ly draws comparisons with the theology of their Roman Catholic counterparts to reveal points on which the two traditions have much more in common than either side will always admit. Ambrose Mong (PhD) is a visiting professor at the University of St Joseph, Macau, and a research associate at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Published 2015 Paperback ISBN: 978 0 227 17513 2 PDF ISBN: 978 0 227 90414 5 ePub ISBN: 978 0 227 90416 9

You may also be interested in:

Divine Audacity Unity and Identity in Hugh of Balma, Eckhart, Ruusbroec, and Marguerite Porete Peter S. Dillard In Divine Audacity, Peter Dillard presents a historically informed and rigorous analysis of the themes of mystical union, volition and virtue that occupied several of the foremost theological minds in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. In particular, the work of Marguerite Porete raises complex questions in these areas, which are further explored by a trio of her near contemporaries. Their respective meditations are thoroughly analysed and then skilfully brought into dialogue. What emerges from Dillard’s synthesis of these voices is a contemporary mystical theology that is rooted in Hugh of Balma’s affective approach, sharpened through critical engagement with Meister Eckhart’s intellectualism, and strengthened by crucial insights gleaned from the writings of John Ruusbroec. The fresh examination of these thinkers – one of whom paid with her life for her radicalism – will appeal to philosophers and theologians alike, while Dillard’s own propositions demand attention from all who concern themselves with the nature of the union between the soul and God.. Peter S. Dillard is an independent scholar living in Tucson, Arizona, having received his PhD in Philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania. He has previously published studies of St Bonaventure’s The Soul’s Journey into God and Hugh of St Victor’s De Sacramentis. Published 2022 Hardback ISBN: 978 0 227 17758 7 Paperback ISBN: 978 0 227 17837 9 PDF ISBN: 978 0 227 90758 0 ePub ISBN: 978 0 227 90757 3

You may also be interested in:

Theology and Philosophy in Eastern Orthodoxy Essays on Orthodox Christianity and Contemporary Thought Christopher Schneider (Editor) Even in the twenty-first century, critical and creative engagement with modern and postmodern philosophy is a rarity in Orthodox circles. The collection of essays presented here by Christoph Schneider makes a significant contribution to overcoming this deficit. Eight scholars from six different countries, working on the intersection between Orthodox thought and philosophy, present their research in short and accessible form. The topics covered range from political philosophy to phenomenology, metaphysics, philosophy of self, logic, ethics, and philosophy of language. The authors do not all promote one particular approach to the relationship between Orthodox theology and philosophy. Nevertheless, taken together, their work demonstrates that Orthodox scholarship is not confined to historical research about the Byzantine era, but can contribute to, and enrich, contemporary intellectual debates. ‘eloquently demonstrates that this very rootedness in tradition can facilitate a singularly lucid articulation of contemporary Christian philosophy.' – Bruce V. Foltz, Professor of Philosophy Emeritus, Eckerd College Christoph Schneider is Academic Director and Lecturer in Systematic and Philosophical Theology at the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies in Cambridge. His research interests include the relation between Orthodox theology and Continental philosophy, and ecumenical dialogue between Orthodox and Protestant theology. Published 2021 Paperback ISBN: 9780227177532 PDF ISBN: 9780227907528