Meister Eckhart, the German Works: 56 Homilies for the Liturgical Year. 2. de Sanctis: Introduction, Translation and Notes (Eckhart: Texts and Studies) 904293932X, 9789042939325

Citation preview

ECKHART: TEXTS AND STUDIES

VOLUME 12

meister eckhart, The german works 56 homilies for the liturgical year 2. «de sanctis»

Loris Sturlese and Markus Vinzent

PEETERS

MEISTER ECKHART, THE GERMAN WORKS 󰀅󰀆 HOMILIES FOR THE LITURGICAL YEAR 󰀂. DE SANCTIS

Eckhart: Texts and Studies EDITED BY

MARKUS VINZENT (King’s College, London & Max-Weber-Kolleg, Universität Erfurt)

ADVISORY BOARD

CHRISTINE BÜCHNER (Fakultät für Geisteswissenschaften, Universität Hamburg)

MARKUS ENDERS (Theologische Fakultät, Universität Freiburg)

GOTTHARD FUCHS (Kultur-Kirche-Wissenschaft, Bistümer Limburg und Mainz)

FREIMUT LÖSER

(Philosophisch-historische Fakultät, Universität Augsburg)

DIETMAR MIETH (Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät, Universität Tübingen)

REGINA D. SCHIEWER (Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaftliche Fakultät, Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt)

LORIS STURLESE (Storia della filosofia medievale, Università del Salento)

RUDOLF K. WEIGAND (Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaftliche Fakultät, Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt)

Eckhart: Texts and Studies VOLUME 󰀁󰀂

Meister Eckhart, The German Works 󰀅󰀆 Homilies for the Liturgical Year 󰀂. De Sanctis Introduction, Translation, and Notes

BY

LORIS STURLESE and MARKUS VINZENT

PEETERS LEUVEN — PARIS — BRISTOL, CT

󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀

ISBN 󰀉󰀇󰀈-󰀉󰀀-󰀄󰀂󰀉-󰀃󰀉󰀃󰀂-󰀅 eISBN 󰀉󰀇󰀈-󰀉󰀀-󰀄󰀂󰀉-󰀃󰀉󰀃󰀃-󰀂 D/󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀/󰀀󰀆󰀀󰀂/󰀁󰀁󰀂 A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀, Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 󰀁󰀅󰀃, B-󰀃󰀀󰀀󰀀 Leuven, Belgium

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage or retrieval devices or systems, without prior written permission from the publisher, except the quotation of brief passages for review purposes.

Table of Contents Introduction I. The structure of De sanctis . . . . . . . . . . . II. Eckhart’s liturgical cycle of homilies De sanctis . III. Eckhart on saints and sainthood . . . . . . . . IV. Eckhart’s homilies in Cologne . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

󰀁 󰀃 󰀅 󰀁󰀂

Homily 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃]: In Sanctorum Innocentium, die 󰀂󰀈 decembris, ‘Vidi supra montem Syon agnum stantem’ etc. (Apoc. 󰀁󰀄:󰀁–󰀅) . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀁󰀇 󰀁󰀇 󰀁󰀈 󰀂󰀃 󰀂󰀃 󰀂󰀄

Homily 󰀆󰀅a* [Q 󰀁󰀃a]: In Sanctorum Innocentium, 󰀂󰀈 decembris, ‘Sant Johannes sach in einer gesichtte’ (Apoc. 󰀁󰀄:󰀁–󰀅) . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀃󰀅 󰀃󰀅 󰀃󰀆 󰀃󰀇 󰀃󰀇 󰀃󰀈

Homily 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁]: In conversione sancti Pauli, die 󰀂󰀅 ianuaris, ‘Surrexit autem Saulus de terra apertisque oculis nihil videbat’ (Acta 󰀉:󰀈) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀄󰀂 󰀄󰀂 󰀄󰀂

Meister Eckhart: 󰀅󰀆 Homilies for the Liturgical Year De sanctis

VI

T ABLE

OF CONTENTS

Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀄󰀅 󰀄󰀅 󰀄󰀆

Homily 󰀆󰀇* [Q 󰀃󰀁]: In purificatione beatae Mariae, die 󰀂 februaris, ‘Ecce ego mitto angelum meum’ etc. (Mal. 󰀃:󰀁–󰀂) . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀆󰀃 󰀆󰀃 󰀆󰀃 󰀆󰀅 󰀆󰀅 󰀆󰀆

Homily 󰀆󰀈* [Q 󰀄󰀄]: In purificatione beatae Mariae, die 󰀂 februaris, ‘Postquam completi erant dies, puer Iesus portabatur in templum. Et ecce, homo erat in Ierusalem’ (Luc. 󰀂:󰀂󰀂.󰀂󰀅) . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀇󰀃 󰀇󰀃 󰀇󰀄 󰀇󰀅 󰀇󰀅 󰀇󰀆

Homily 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅]: In cathedra sancti Petri, die 󰀂󰀂 februaris, ‘Beatus es, Simon Bar Iona, quia caro et sanguis’ etc. (Matth. 󰀁󰀆:󰀁󰀇). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀈󰀈 󰀈󰀈 󰀈󰀈 󰀈󰀉 󰀈󰀉 󰀉󰀀

Homily 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃]: In festo sancto Benedicti, die 󰀂󰀁 martii, ‘Dilectus deo et hominibus, cuius memoria in benedictione est. Similem illum fecit in gloria sanctorum’ (Eccli. 󰀄󰀅:󰀁–󰀂) . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀁󰀀󰀁 󰀁󰀀󰀁 󰀁󰀀󰀁 󰀁󰀀󰀂 󰀁󰀀󰀃 󰀁󰀀󰀄

T ABLE

OF CONTENTS

VII

Homily 󰀇󰀁* [Q 󰀇󰀈]: In annuntiatione dominica, die 󰀂󰀅 martii, ‘Missus est Gabriel angelus’ etc. (Luc. 󰀁:󰀂󰀆–󰀇) . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀁󰀁󰀂 󰀁󰀁󰀂 󰀁󰀁󰀂 󰀁󰀁󰀃 󰀁󰀁󰀃 󰀁󰀁󰀄

Homily 󰀇󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀀]: In festo sancti Vitalis martiris, die 󰀂󰀈 aprilis, ‘blîbet in mir!’ (Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀄) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀁󰀂󰀀 󰀁󰀂󰀀 󰀁󰀂󰀀 󰀁󰀂󰀁 󰀁󰀂󰀁 󰀁󰀂󰀂

Homily 󰀇󰀃* [Q 󰀂󰀈]: In festo sancti Barnabae, die 󰀁󰀁 junii, ‘Ego elegi vos de mundo’ (Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀆) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀁󰀃󰀁 󰀁󰀃󰀁 󰀁󰀃󰀁 󰀁󰀃󰀃 󰀁󰀃󰀃 󰀁󰀃󰀄

Homily 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃]: In vigilia sancti Iohannis Baptiste, die 󰀂󰀂 junii, ‘Misit dominus manum suam et tetigit os meum et dixit mihi’ etc. ‘Ecce constitui te super gentes et regna’ (Ier. 󰀁:󰀉) . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀁󰀄󰀅 󰀁󰀄󰀅 󰀁󰀄󰀅 󰀁󰀄󰀇 󰀁󰀄󰀇 󰀁󰀄󰀈

Homily 󰀇󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀆]: In vigilia sancti Iohannis Baptiste, die 󰀂󰀂 junii, ‘Elizabeth pariet tibi filium et vocabis nomen eius Johannem’ (Luc. 󰀁:󰀁–󰀁󰀇) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀁󰀅󰀆 󰀁󰀅󰀆 󰀁󰀅󰀆

VIII

T ABLE

OF CONTENTS

Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀁󰀅󰀇 󰀁󰀅󰀇 󰀁󰀅󰀈

Homily 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁]: In festo sancti Iohannis Baptiste, die 󰀂󰀃 junii, ‘Impletum est tempus Elizabeth’ (Luc. 󰀁:󰀅󰀇.󰀆󰀃.󰀆󰀆) . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀁󰀆󰀅 󰀁󰀆󰀅 󰀁󰀆󰀅 󰀁󰀆󰀆 󰀁󰀆󰀇 󰀁󰀆󰀈

Homily 󰀇󰀇* [Q 󰀈󰀂]: In festo sancti Iohannis Baptiste, die 󰀂󰀃 junii, ‘Quis, putas, puer iste erit? Etenim manus domini cum ipso est’ (Luc. 󰀁:󰀆󰀆) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀁󰀈󰀁 󰀁󰀈󰀁 󰀁󰀈󰀁 󰀁󰀈󰀃 󰀁󰀈󰀃 󰀁󰀈󰀄

Homily 󰀇󰀈* [Q 󰀂󰀃]: In festo sancti Petri et Pauli, die 󰀆 julii, ‘Jêsus hiez sîne jüngern ûfgân in ein schiffelîn und hiez sie varn über die wuot’ (Matth. 󰀁󰀄:󰀂󰀂) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀁󰀉󰀂 󰀁󰀉󰀂 󰀁󰀉󰀂 󰀁󰀉󰀃 󰀁󰀉󰀃 󰀁󰀉󰀄

Homily 󰀇󰀉* [Q 󰀃]: In festo Sancti Petri ad Vincula, die 󰀁 augusti, ‘Nunc scio vere, quia misit dominus angelum suum’ (Act. 󰀁󰀂:󰀁󰀁) Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀂󰀀󰀄 󰀂󰀀󰀄 󰀂󰀀󰀄 󰀂󰀀󰀅 󰀂󰀀󰀅 󰀂󰀀󰀆

T ABLE

OF CONTENTS

IX

Homily 󰀈󰀀* [Q 󰀃󰀀]: In festo Sancti Dominici, die 󰀅 augusti, ‘Praedica verbum, vigila, in omnibus labora’ (II Tim. 󰀄:󰀂.󰀅) . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀂󰀁󰀅 󰀂󰀁󰀅 󰀂󰀁󰀅 󰀂󰀁󰀉 󰀂󰀁󰀉 󰀂󰀂󰀀

Homily 󰀈󰀁* [Q 󰀆󰀀]: In die assumptionis beatae Mariae, 󰀁󰀅 augusti, ‘In omnibus requiem quaesivi’ (Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁) . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀂󰀃󰀀 󰀂󰀃󰀀 󰀂󰀃󰀀 󰀂󰀃󰀁 󰀂󰀃󰀁 󰀂󰀃󰀂

Homily 󰀈󰀂* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀀]: In die assumptionis beatae Mariae, 󰀁󰀅 augusti, ‘In omnibus requiem quaesivi’ (Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁). . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀂󰀄󰀂 󰀂󰀄󰀂 󰀂󰀄󰀂 󰀂󰀄󰀃 󰀂󰀄󰀃 󰀂󰀄󰀄

Homily 󰀈󰀃* [Q 󰀂]: In die assumptionis beatae Mariae, 󰀁󰀅 augusti, ‘Intravit Iesus in quoddam castellum et mulier quaedam, Martha nomine, excepit illum in domum suam’ (Luc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀃󰀈) . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀂󰀅󰀁 󰀂󰀅󰀁 󰀂󰀅󰀁 󰀂󰀅󰀃 󰀂󰀅󰀃 󰀂󰀅󰀄

Homily 󰀈󰀄* [Q 󰀈󰀆]: In die assumptionis beatae Mariae, 󰀁󰀅 augusti, ‘Intravit Iesus in quoddam castellum’ (Luc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀃󰀈) . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀂󰀆󰀆 󰀂󰀆󰀆 󰀂󰀆󰀆

X

T ABLE

OF CONTENTS

Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀂󰀆󰀇 󰀂󰀆󰀇 󰀂󰀆󰀈

Homily 󰀈󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀃]: In die assumptionis beatae Mariae, 󰀁󰀅 augusti (?), ‘Quae est ista, quae ascendit quasi aurora’ (Cant. 󰀆:󰀉) . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edition, commentary and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀂󰀈󰀇 󰀂󰀈󰀇 󰀂󰀈󰀈 󰀂󰀈󰀉 󰀂󰀈󰀉 󰀂󰀉󰀀

Homily 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉]: In festo sancti Augustini episcopi, die 󰀂󰀈 augusti, ‘Quasi stella matutina in medio nebulae et quasi luna plena in diebus suis lucet et quasi sol refulgens, sic iste refulsit in templo dei’ (Eccli. 󰀅󰀀:󰀅–󰀆) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀃󰀀󰀃 󰀃󰀀󰀃 󰀃󰀀󰀃 󰀃󰀀󰀅 󰀃󰀀󰀅 󰀃󰀀󰀆

Homily 󰀈󰀇* [Q 󰀁󰀆a]: In festo sancti Augustini 󰀂󰀈 augusti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . .

die . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀃󰀂󰀀 󰀃󰀂󰀀 󰀃󰀂󰀀 󰀃󰀂󰀁 󰀃󰀂󰀁 󰀃󰀂󰀂

Homily 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆b]: In festo sancti Augustini episcopi, die 󰀂󰀈 augusti, ‘Quasi vas auri solidum ornatum omni lapide pretioso’ (Eccli. 󰀅󰀀:󰀁󰀀) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀃󰀂󰀅 󰀃󰀂󰀅 󰀃󰀂󰀅 󰀃󰀂󰀇

episcopi, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE

OF CONTENTS

XI

Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀃󰀂󰀇 󰀃󰀂󰀈

Homily 󰀈󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀉]: In decollatione sancti Iohannis Baptiste, die 󰀂󰀉 augusti, ‘Nolite timere eos, qui occidunt corpus’ (Matth. 󰀁󰀀:󰀁󰀈) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀃󰀃󰀉 󰀃󰀃󰀉 󰀃󰀃󰀉 󰀃󰀄󰀁 󰀃󰀄󰀁 󰀃󰀄󰀂

Homily 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂]: In nativitate beate Marie virginis, die 󰀈 septembris, ‘Qui audit me’ (Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀃󰀀–󰀁) . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀃󰀅󰀁 󰀃󰀅󰀁 󰀃󰀅󰀁 󰀃󰀅󰀃 󰀃󰀅󰀃 󰀃󰀅󰀄

Homily 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁]: In festo sanctorum Cosmae et Damiani, die 󰀂󰀇 septembris, ‘Qui sequitur iustitiam, diligetur a domino’ (Prov. 󰀁󰀅:󰀉) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀃󰀆󰀉 󰀃󰀆󰀉 󰀃󰀇󰀀 󰀃󰀇󰀁 󰀃󰀇󰀁 󰀃󰀇󰀂

Homily 󰀉󰀂* [Q 󰀇󰀄]: In festo sancti Francisci confessoris, die 󰀄 octobris, ‘Dilectus deo et hominibus, cuius memoria in benedictione est. Similem eum fecit in gloria sanctorum’ (Eccli. 󰀄󰀅:󰀁–󰀂) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀃󰀈󰀅 󰀃󰀈󰀅 󰀃󰀈󰀅 󰀃󰀈󰀇

XII

T ABLE

OF CONTENTS

Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀃󰀈󰀇 󰀃󰀈󰀈

Homily 󰀉󰀃* [Q 󰀃󰀂]: In festo sanctae Elisabethae, die 󰀂󰀉 novembris, ‘Consideravit semitas domus suae et panem otiosa non comedit’ (Prov. 󰀃󰀁:󰀂󰀇) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀄󰀀󰀀 󰀄󰀀󰀀 󰀄󰀀󰀀 󰀄󰀀󰀁 󰀄󰀀󰀁 󰀄󰀀󰀂

Homily 󰀉󰀄* [S 󰀉󰀅]: In festo sanctae Elisabethae, die 󰀂󰀉 novembris, ‘Os suum aperuit sapientiae’ (Prov. 󰀃󰀁:󰀂󰀆) . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edition, commentary and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀄󰀁󰀂 󰀄󰀁󰀂 󰀄󰀁󰀂 󰀄󰀁󰀃 󰀄󰀁󰀃 󰀄󰀁󰀄

Meister Eckhart: 󰀅󰀆 Homilies for the Liturgical Year De sanctis in communi et de festis Homily 󰀉󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀇]: In communi unius apostoli vel plurimorum, ‘Hoc est praeceptum meum ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos’ (Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀂–󰀆) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀄󰀃󰀁 󰀄󰀃󰀁 󰀄󰀃󰀁 󰀄󰀃󰀃 󰀄󰀃󰀃 󰀄󰀃󰀄

Homily 󰀉󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀅]: In communi unius apostoli vel plurimorum (?), ‘Mandatum novum do vobis, ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos’ etc. (Ioh. 󰀁󰀃:󰀃󰀄–󰀅) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀄󰀄󰀄 󰀄󰀄󰀄 󰀄󰀄󰀄

T ABLE

OF CONTENTS

XIII

Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀄󰀄󰀅 󰀄󰀄󰀅 󰀄󰀄󰀆

Homily 󰀉󰀇* [S 󰀉󰀇]: In communi unius apostoli vel plurimorum, ‘Qui manet in me et ego in eo, hic fert fructum multum’ (Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀅) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edition, commentary and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀄󰀅󰀆 󰀄󰀅󰀆 󰀄󰀅󰀆 󰀄󰀅󰀇 󰀄󰀅󰀇 󰀄󰀅󰀈

Homily 󰀉󰀈* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀇]: In communi unius martyris, ‘Qui vult venire post me, abneget semetipsum et tollat crucem suam et sequatur me’ (Matth. 󰀁󰀆:󰀂󰀄) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀄󰀆󰀄 󰀄󰀆󰀄 󰀄󰀆󰀄 󰀄󰀆󰀅 󰀄󰀆󰀅 󰀄󰀆󰀆

Homily 󰀉󰀉* [S 󰀉󰀈]: In communi unius martyris [II], ‘Nisi granum frumenti cadens in terram mortuum fuerit, ipsum solum manet’ (Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀄–󰀆) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Edition, commentary and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀄󰀇󰀂 󰀄󰀇󰀂 󰀄󰀇󰀂 󰀄󰀇󰀃 󰀄󰀇󰀃 󰀄󰀇󰀄

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀇]: In communi unius martyris [II], ‘Qui odit animam suam in hoc mundo’ etc. (Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀅) . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀄󰀇󰀈 󰀄󰀇󰀈 󰀄󰀇󰀈 󰀄󰀇󰀉 󰀄󰀇󰀉 󰀄󰀈󰀀

XIV

T ABLE

OF CONTENTS

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀁* [Q 󰀅󰀈]: In communi unius martyris [II], ‘Qui mihi ministrat, me sequatur, et ubi ego sum, illic et minister meus erit’ (Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀆) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀄󰀈󰀈 󰀄󰀈󰀈 󰀄󰀈󰀈 󰀄󰀈󰀉 󰀄󰀈󰀉 󰀄󰀉󰀀

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀂* [Q 󰀃󰀉]: In communi plurimorum martyrum, ‘Iustus in perpetuum vivet et apud dominum est merces eius’ etc. (Sap. 󰀅:󰀁󰀆) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀄󰀉󰀆 󰀄󰀉󰀆 󰀄󰀉󰀆 󰀄󰀉󰀇 󰀄󰀉󰀇 󰀄󰀉󰀈

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀃* [Q 󰀆]: In communi plurimorum martyrum, ‘Iusti vivent in aeternum’ (Sap. 󰀅:󰀁󰀆) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀅󰀀󰀇 󰀅󰀀󰀇 󰀅󰀀󰀇 󰀅󰀀󰀉 󰀅󰀀󰀉 󰀅󰀁󰀀

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀄* [Q 󰀃󰀃]: In communi plurimorum ‘Sancti per fidem vicerunt regna’ (Hebr. 󰀁󰀁:󰀃󰀂–󰀃) . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀅󰀂󰀄 󰀅󰀂󰀄 󰀅󰀂󰀄 󰀅󰀂󰀅 󰀅󰀂󰀅 󰀅󰀂󰀆

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀅* [Q 󰀈]: In communi plurimorum occisione gladii mortui sunt’ (Hebr. 󰀁󰀁:󰀃󰀇) . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . .

martyrum, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

martyrum, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

‘In . . . . . .

󰀅󰀃󰀀 󰀅󰀃󰀀 󰀅󰀃󰀀

T ABLE

OF CONTENTS

XV

Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀅󰀃󰀁 󰀅󰀃󰀁 󰀅󰀃󰀂

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀆* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀂]: Alia missa de Communi plurimorum Martyrum, ‘Alliu diu schare suochten unsern herren ze rüerenne, wan ein kraft gienc von im, diu mahte sie alzemâle gesunt’ (Luc. 󰀆:󰀁󰀉) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀅󰀄󰀃 󰀅󰀄󰀃 󰀅󰀄󰀃 󰀅󰀄󰀅 󰀅󰀄󰀅 󰀅󰀄󰀆

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀇* [Q 󰀇󰀂]: In festo omni sanctorum, die 󰀁 novembris, ‘Videns Iesus turbas, ascendit in montem’ etc. (Matth. 󰀅:󰀁) . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀅󰀆󰀂 󰀅󰀆󰀂 󰀅󰀆󰀂 󰀅󰀆󰀃 󰀅󰀆󰀃 󰀅󰀆󰀄

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀈* [Q 󰀅󰀂]: In festo omni sanctorum, die 󰀁 novembris, ‘Beati pauperes spiritu, quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum’ (Matth. 󰀅:󰀃) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀅󰀇󰀅 󰀅󰀇󰀅 󰀅󰀇󰀅 󰀅󰀇󰀇 󰀅󰀇󰀇 󰀅󰀇󰀈

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀆]: Alia missa in communi unius confessoris, ‘Euge serve bone et fidelis, quia super pauca fuisti fidelis, intra in gaudium domini tui’ (Matth. 󰀂󰀅:󰀂󰀁). . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀅󰀉󰀀 󰀅󰀉󰀀 󰀅󰀉󰀀 󰀅󰀉󰀁

XVI

T ABLE

OF CONTENTS

Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀅󰀉󰀁 󰀅󰀉󰀂

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀]: In communi confessorum et pontificum, ‘In diebus suis placuit deo et inventus est iustus’ (Eccli. 󰀄󰀄:󰀁󰀆–󰀇) Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀆󰀀󰀅 󰀆󰀀󰀅 󰀆󰀀󰀆 󰀆󰀀󰀇 󰀆󰀀󰀇 󰀆󰀀󰀈

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀁* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀆]: In communi unius enim vos Dei aemulatione’ (II Cor. 󰀁󰀁:󰀂). . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . Previous English translations . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . .

virginis, ‘Aemulor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀆󰀂󰀄 󰀆󰀂󰀄 󰀆󰀂󰀄 󰀆󰀂󰀅 󰀆󰀂󰀅 󰀆󰀂󰀆

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀂* [Q 󰀅󰀇]: In die consecrationis ecclesie et in anniversario eiusdem, ‘Vidi civitatem sanctam Ierusalem novam descendentem de caelo a domino’ etc. (Apoc. 󰀂󰀁:󰀂) . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀆󰀃󰀂 󰀆󰀃󰀂 󰀆󰀃󰀂 󰀆󰀃󰀃 󰀆󰀃󰀃 󰀆󰀃󰀄

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀃* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀀]: In die consecrationis ecclesie et in anniversario eiusdem, ‘Et quaerebat videre Iesum, quis esset’ (Luc. 󰀁󰀉:󰀂–󰀄) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀆󰀄󰀄 󰀆󰀄󰀄 󰀆󰀄󰀄 󰀆󰀄󰀅 󰀆󰀄󰀅 󰀆󰀄󰀆

T ABLE

OF CONTENTS

XVII

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀄* [Q 󰀁󰀅]: ‘Homo quidam nobilis abiit in regionem longinquam accipere regnum et reverti’ (Luc. 󰀁󰀉:󰀁󰀂) . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀆󰀅󰀂 󰀆󰀅󰀂 󰀆󰀅󰀂 󰀆󰀅󰀃 󰀆󰀅󰀃 󰀆󰀅󰀄

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀅* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀅]: ‘Illumina oculos meos’ Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . Edition, commentary and notes . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . .

(Ps. 󰀁󰀂:󰀄) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

󰀆󰀆󰀄 󰀆󰀆󰀄 󰀆󰀆󰀄 󰀆󰀆󰀅 󰀆󰀆󰀅 󰀆󰀆󰀆

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀆* [Q 󰀄󰀈] . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes Previous English translations . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

󰀆󰀇󰀀 󰀆󰀇󰀀 󰀆󰀇󰀀 󰀆󰀇󰀁 󰀆󰀇󰀁 󰀆󰀇󰀂

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀇* [Q 󰀆󰀂] . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes Previous English translations . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

󰀆󰀇󰀈 󰀆󰀇󰀈 󰀆󰀇󰀈 󰀆󰀇󰀉 󰀆󰀇󰀉 󰀆󰀈󰀀

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀈* [Q 󰀈󰀁]: ‘Fluminis impetus laetificat civitatem Dei: sanctificavit tabernaculum suum Altissimus’ (Ps. 󰀄󰀅:󰀅) . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous English translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀆󰀈󰀈 󰀆󰀈󰀈 󰀆󰀈󰀈 󰀆󰀈󰀉 󰀆󰀈󰀉 󰀆󰀉󰀀

XVIII

T ABLE

OF CONTENTS

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀅] . . . . . . . . . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . The content of the homily . . . . Editions, commentaries and notes Previous English translation . . . . Text and translation . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

󰀇󰀀󰀂 󰀇󰀀󰀂 󰀇󰀀󰀂 󰀇󰀀󰀃 󰀇󰀀󰀃 󰀇󰀀󰀄

Bibliography Primary sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Secondary sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀇󰀁󰀇 󰀇󰀃󰀉

Numbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

󰀇󰀅󰀃

Introduction I The structure of De sanctis

T

he De sanctis of Eckhart’s homilies has two major sections according to the liturgical calender and the collections of homilies of his days. The first part (De sanctis) contains homilies for the feasts of individual or of several saints, following the old Dominican lectionary and missal and starting with a homily for the feast of the Holy Innocents (Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃]), celebrated on 󰀂󰀈 December, ending with the homily for the feast of St. Elizabeth for 󰀂󰀉 November. This part is the easier one for ordering Eckhart’s homilies (then and now). More complicated, as can be seen from the various medieval collections of homilies of other authors, are homilies In communi sanctorum, or for feasts, such as the ones of any martyr, confessor, virgin, bishop and others. Equally difficult to place are those homilies that are given for the dedication of a church and the like. Already in medieval cycles of liturgical collections of homilies those were placed inconsistently.󰀁 Eckhart’s homilies that are of such nature are collected in the second part (De sanctis in communi et de festis). By its very nature this second part cannot follow a chronological order, but groups the homilies in a systematic way, starting with the feasts In communi unius apostoli vel plurimorum (Hom. Hom. 󰀉󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀇] – Hom. 󰀉󰀇* [S 󰀉󰀇]), followed by In communi unius martyris (Hom. 󰀉󰀈* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀇] – Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀁* [Q 󰀅󰀈]), then In communi plurimorum martyrum (Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀂* [Q 󰀃󰀉] – Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀆* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀂]), then In festo omni sanctorum, die 󰀁 novembris (Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀇* [Q 󰀇󰀂] and Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀈* [Q 󰀅󰀂]), then In communi unius confessoris (Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀆]), then In communi confessorum et pontificum (Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀]), then In communi unius virginis (Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀁* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀆]), 󰀁. See S. Wenzel, Latin Sermon Collections from Later Medieval England (󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅), 󰀂.

󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

then In die consecrationis ecclesie et in anniversario eiusdem (Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀂* [Q 󰀅󰀇] and Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀃* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀀]), and ending with some homilies where the liturgical place can not be established (Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀄* [Q 󰀁󰀅], Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀅* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀅], Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀆* [Q 󰀄󰀈]) and texts that are not homilies, but a collatio (Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀇* [Q 󰀆󰀂], Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀈* [Q 󰀈󰀁]) and a quaestio disputata (Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀅]). Here follows an inventory of the individual saints Eckhart preaches about in homilies, present in the critical edition of DW: Paul: Hom. 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁] Mary: Hom. 󰀆󰀇* [Q 󰀃󰀁], Hom. 󰀆󰀈* [Q 󰀄󰀄], Hom. 󰀇󰀁* [Q 󰀇󰀈], Hom. 󰀈󰀁* [Q 󰀆󰀀], Hom. 󰀈󰀂* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀀], Hom. 󰀈󰀃* [Q 󰀂], Hom. 󰀈󰀄* [Q 󰀈󰀆], Hom. 󰀈󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀂], Hom. 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂] Peter: Hom. 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅], Hom. 󰀇󰀉* [Q 󰀃] Benedict: Hom. 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃] Vitalis: Hom. 󰀇󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀀] Barnabas: Hom. 󰀇󰀃* [Q 󰀂󰀈] John, the Baptist: Hom. 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃], Hom. 󰀇󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀆], Hom. 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁], Hom. 󰀇󰀇* [Q 󰀈󰀂], Hom. 󰀈󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀉] Peter and Paul: Hom. 󰀇󰀈* [Q 󰀂󰀃] Dominic: Hom. 󰀈󰀀* [Q 󰀃󰀀] Augustine: Hom. 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉], Hom. 󰀈󰀇* [Q 󰀁󰀆a], Hom. 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆b] Cosmas and Damian: Hom. 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁] Francis: Hom. 󰀉󰀂* [Q 󰀇󰀄] Elizabeth: Hom. 󰀉󰀃* [Q 󰀃󰀂], Hom. 󰀉󰀄* [S 󰀉󰀅] German: Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀] As can be seen from this list, Mary is by far the saint who is the topic of the most homilies, followed by John the Baptist and Augustine. The latter is the only Church Father on whom Eckhart gave homilies (to the vernacular ones, edited so far in DW, we have to add his famous Latin homily Sermo die b. Augustini Parisius habitus󰀂). The three founders of monastic communities or friaries, Benedict, Dominic and Francis are also amongst the ones on whom Eckhart preached.

󰀂. LW V 󰀈󰀉–󰀉󰀉.

I NTRODUCTION

󰀃

II Eckhart’s liturgical cycle of homilies De sanctis The reasons for ordering Eckhart’s homilies according to the liturgical tradition of the Dominicans have already been given in the introduction to volume I of this collection (chapter IX on ‘The reconstruction of Eckhart’s vernacular Temporale and the editing criteria’). What we did not notice, however, at the time when we worked on volume I, and what gives an important additional argument for the potential existence of an author’s collection of these homilies in the liturgical order, is the relationship between concepts and ideas across homilies which becomes apparent only when they are read in the order given here. Hence, in addition to external or internal references to specific liturgical days or feasts and cross-references between homilies, it is the content of the homilies themselves that point to the existence of a collection of these texts in a liturgical order. The logic of arguments that develop over several homilies becomes clear, when they are moved from their liturgically random place in earlier editions and put together, as done here. To give some examples: 󰀁) The three homilies from the cycle De sanctis, Hom. 󰀇󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀀], Hom. 󰀇󰀃* [Q 󰀂󰀈], Hom. 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃] are linked by the topic of ‘dwelling’. This theme started in Hom. 󰀇󰀂* with an elaboration on Jes. Sir. 󰀁󰀄:󰀂󰀂 (‘Blessed is the person who dwells in wisdom’), linked to the other verse from the Gospel, John 󰀁󰀅:󰀄 (‘Remain in me’), both readings on the feast of Saint Vitalis, celebrated on 󰀂󰀈 April. But both the topic and the readings are picked up in the next homily, Hom. 󰀇󰀃* for the feast of Saint Barnabas, 󰀁󰀁 June, without direct exegesis of the scriptural verses noted, but clearly resonating again in the homily. In Hom. 󰀇󰀃*, n. 󰀂, for example, Eckhart talks about the one ‘who dwells in love’ and adds with John 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀀, that this person ‘will remain’ in Christ’s ‘love’. In Hom. 󰀇󰀄*, n. 󰀈 Eckhart comes back to ‘dwelling’, when he now speaks about our dwelling in the Holy Spirit. This last link is even underpinned by Eckhart, as he had just quoted earlier in the same passage of Hom. 󰀇󰀄* the verse from Ier. 󰀁,󰀉 (‘Et misit Dominus manum suam, et tetigit os meum: et dixit mihi … Ecce constitui te hodie super gentes et super regna’), where his rendering of ‘set’ (‘constitui ’) by ‘elected’ (‘ûzerwelt’) refers, too, to the same two previous homilies, Hom. 󰀇󰀃* and Hom. 󰀇󰀂*. Now, with Hom. 󰀇󰀄* Eckhart is making the link to the previous two homilies. The same homily also has a strong link to the following three homilies, as the four are all given at the feast of the birth of Saint John the Baptist. And, as we will see in what follows, there is also a strong content connection which goes

󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

beyond the liturgical day of Saint John. Moreover, when one compares these parts of the liturgical reading the four homilies are developing, one realizes the theme: Hom. 󰀇󰀄* from the Vigil of the feast develops the reading Ier. 󰀁:󰀉; Hom. 󰀇󰀅* deals with Luc. 󰀁:󰀁-󰀁󰀇; Hom. 󰀇󰀆* with Luc. 󰀁:󰀅󰀇.󰀆󰀃.󰀆󰀆 and Hom. 󰀇󰀇* with Luc. 󰀁:󰀆󰀆. 󰀂) Two of the three homilies for the feast of the birth of Saint John the Baptist are immediately linked to each other by the other topic of ‘grace’. First mentioned and discussed in Hom. 󰀇󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀆], it is further developed in Hom. 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁]. The relation of the two texts is so close that the reading of the latter homily can hardly be understood without the reading of the previous one, as one can see from Hom. 󰀇󰀆*, n. 󰀃. Here the topic is introduced by ‘When the time was full, grace was born’, without any mention being made that this opening can only be understood, if one presupposes that ‘grace’ is here the synonym and interpretation of the name of ‘John’. Eckhart has not given an explanation in this homily, but had developed it already in the previous homily Hom. 󰀇󰀅*, n. 󰀄, where he said: ‘John’ means ‘the one in whom is grace’. Without the liturgical order, therefore, and especially with their being volumes apart in the critical edition (Hom. 󰀇󰀅* in DW IV and Hom. 󰀇󰀆* in DW I) one would hardly see the progression of the discussion that runs through both these homilies. 󰀃) An interesting case is provided by Hom. 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁] where a number of references are given which now can be seen to point to the sequence of the homilies in the liturgical order: In Hom. 󰀇󰀆*, n. 󰀃 there is a reference to Hom. 󰀇* [Q 󰀃󰀄], n. 󰀅, and in n. 󰀅 to Hom. 󰀆* [Q 󰀃󰀈], n. 󰀅, in n. 󰀈 to Hom. 󰀈* [Q 󰀇󰀆], n. 󰀈, and n. 󰀉 to Hom. 󰀄󰀁* [Q 󰀄], n. 󰀉. Another reference in n. 󰀁󰀀 is made to Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃], n. 󰀄, while this homily refers, too, to the the early part of the liturgical collection De tempore, namely to Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀁󰀀. Hence it seems that when the references were introduced, Eckhart appears to have had his homilies in a collection that followed the liturgical order. 󰀄) Hom. 󰀉󰀄* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀅], n. 󰀅 picks up the same quote by Augustine which was already quoted in the previous homily, Hom. 󰀉󰀃 [Q 󰀃󰀂], n. 󰀅 and develops it further. 󰀅) The theme of God pouring himself into creatures is an overlapping theme that is shortly indicated in Hom. 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁], n. 󰀁󰀀 and then developed in Hom. 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂], n. 󰀉, Hom. 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁], nn. 󰀉-󰀁󰀀, Hom. 󰀉󰀂* [Q 󰀇󰀄], 󰀉 and Hom. 󰀉󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀅], nn. 󰀄-󰀅, all of which show the proximity of these homilies. It is only picked up again in Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀆* [Q 󰀄󰀈], n. 󰀃. Further similarities for the section De sanctis in communi et de festis are not indicative, as the topics are often given by the shared biblical core verse.

I NTRODUCTION

󰀅

III Eckhart on saints and sainthood Eckhart has a very special theology of saints and sainthood, particularly, if we compare it to that of his master Thomas Aquinas. The latter states that saints are mediators between God and human beings: According to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) the order established by God among things is that ‘the last should be led to God by those that are midway between’. Wherefore, since the saints who are in heaven are nearest to God, the order of the Divine law requires that we, who while we remain in the body are pilgrims from the Lord, should be brought back to God by the saints who are between us and Him: and this happens when the Divine goodness pours forth its effect into us through them. And since our return to God should correspond to the outflow of His boons upon us, just as the Divine favors reach us by means of the saints’ intercession, so should we, by their means, be brought back to God, that we may receive His favors again.󰀃 Contrary to Thomas for whom saints ‘are midway between’ God and man, for God ‘pours forth’ the effects of his goodness ‘through’ the saints into human beings, in Eckhart’s homilies saints do not mediate between God and human beings. It is one of the key concepts that again and again he hammers into the minds of his audiences and readers that in spiritual things no mediation can take place (see Hom. 󰀈󰀇* [Q 󰀁󰀆a]). Related to this message is his view that saints are not placed beyond normal people and that they are not closer to God than anybody else. At best, saints are examples of God’s endowment to all creatures, and at worst they stand for the fragility of human nature. Below we will see that Eckhart has also developed more specific views on various saints, and that different kinds of saints seem to have existed for him. They all, however, share that they are nothing else but creatures of God. Eckhart’s specific theology of sainthood becomes crystal clear already with the first homily (Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃]) that opens the collection here and could serve as an introduction. In it Eckhart re-writes the long Neoplatonic tradition of the Golden Chain, interpreting Rev. 󰀁󰀄:󰀁-󰀅. The lamb in this vision, identified with Christ, passes on his own and his Father’s name to those who are underneath 󰀃. Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae III suppl. q. 󰀇󰀂 a. 󰀂 resp.

󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

him, the 󰀁󰀄󰀄,󰀀󰀀󰀀. In between the Father and the mass of all the saintly creatures, there is no medium. The lamb that stands for all creatures ‘is elevated into God’ by its ‘pure bare nature’. To exclude not only any medium, but also to avoid any hierarchical thinking, Eckhart speaks only in superlatives. When it comes to tasting and touching God, no external creaturely reality counts, all happens in the pure, bare nature of being, any hierarchy belongs to external things, to createdness. This makes him believe that at this level all creatures are taken into the inner-trinitarian relation. It is no surprise, therefore, that Eckhart loves to repeat the message of taking God in full purity, in the supreme power, in one’s own and in God’s bare being (see Hom. 󰀇󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀀], n. 󰀃), in full oneness (ibid. n. 󰀉). That saints are no form of mediation between the soul and God is one of the overarching themes of these De sanctis homilies.󰀄 It is the basis of his view that verses which refer to these saints ‘one can refer to … any good, holy soul’ (Hom. 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆b], n. 󰀂). This non-hierarchical thinking on saints and sainthood makes Eckhart identify the people with the saints. In Hom. 󰀆󰀅a* [Q 󰀁󰀃a] he asks them to become ‘John’. And in Hom. 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅] he shows that Saint Peter has no special place at the table of the Lord, but that all places are equally open ‘to all those who are God’s own’. Grace plays an important, but also only a limited, role, just as saints and sainthood are no media between the soul and God, grace, taken as something created, can be of help, but when it comes to the union between God and his creatures there is no space left for either grace or sainthood. Just like any hierarchical element they are part of the external world which needs to be overcome. There are different characteristics of Eckhart’s description of individual saints: 󰀁) We are made ‘equal to his saints’. Often, the saint’s names indicate what the particular saint is standing for: A good example is Saint Peter. His name is being interpreted as ‘knowledge’ (Hom. 󰀇󰀉* [Q 󰀃]), but, as Eckhart adds, ‘in God no creature is nobler than the other’ (ibid. n. 󰀇). Thus the saints are less praised for what they do, but for what they are and for what is expressed by their names, often pointed out in the early parts of the homilies. 󰀄. See the recurrence of the topic of saints being ‘no medium’ in Hom. 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁], n. 󰀁󰀄; Hom. 󰀆󰀈* [Q 󰀄󰀄], n. 󰀃; Hom. 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅], nn. 󰀉.󰀁󰀂; Hom. 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁]. nn. 󰀉–󰀁󰀀; Hom. 󰀇󰀈* [Q 󰀂󰀃], n. 󰀈; Hom. 󰀈󰀄* [Q 󰀈󰀆], nn. 󰀉–󰀁󰀃; Hom. 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆b], nn. 󰀄–󰀅.󰀇.󰀁󰀁; Hom. 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁], nn. 󰀈.󰀁󰀁; Hom. 󰀉󰀂* [Q 󰀇󰀄], n. 󰀁󰀆; Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀃* [Q 󰀆], n. 󰀁󰀀; Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀈* [Q 󰀅󰀂], n. 󰀂󰀀; Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀], nn. 󰀂–󰀃.󰀆.󰀈–󰀉; Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀄* [Q 󰀁󰀅], nn. 󰀉–󰀁󰀀; Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀆* [Q 󰀄󰀈], n. 󰀅; Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀈* [Q 󰀈󰀁], n. 󰀈.

I NTRODUCTION

– – – – –

󰀇

‘“John” means “the one in whom is grace”’ (Hom. 󰀇󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀆], n. 󰀄), ‘with “Elizabeth” is taken up, what consideration a soul should have’ (ibid.), ‘his name is “Benedictus”, a “blessed one”’ (Hom. 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃], n. 󰀃), ‘“Peter” means “knowledge”’ (Hom. 󰀇󰀉* [Q 󰀃], nn. 󰀃.󰀆), ‘“Secundus” … means “he who follows God”’ (Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀁* [Q 󰀅󰀈], 󰀃).

When Eckhart preaches about Barnabas and mentions that he is called ‘an apostle’, even addressed by the Lord as one of the ‘elected, chosen and selected’ ones, the homily is not about the achievements of Barnabas, but about being a representation of God’s action that includes everybody and everything: ‘as long as you consider yourself somebody or something, you know as little what God is as my mouth knows what colour is, and as my eye knows what taste is: so little do you know and realise what God is’ (Hom. 󰀇󰀃* [Q 󰀂󰀈], n. 󰀈). Even Mary, as Hom. 󰀇󰀁* [Q 󰀇󰀈] shows, and despite her important role in the history of salvation, is exclusively the spiritual servant in which she is matched by all creatures that give birth to the Son. God’s election, therefore, elevates not just the saints, but likewise all creatures and takes them beyond all creatureliness (see Hom. 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃]). For this reason, Eckhart in his homily on Dominicus, Hom. 󰀈󰀀* [Q 󰀃󰀀], n. 󰀉, states that, if one loves ‘blessedness in Saint Peter and Saint Paul’ just as ‘in our Lady’ as much as in oneself, one possesses ‘the same blessedness that they too have’. Hence, no saint is more saintly than anybody who follows God’s commandments. Eckhart concludes, quoting Jesus Sirach 󰀄󰀅:󰀂: ‘He has made him equal to His saints’ (ibid.). 󰀂) ‘Saints become saints’: Saints are subordinate to the perfect person. More radical than in the first section according to which Eckhart sets saints on level ground with all creatures, some saints serve as examples that they are even below the perfect person and that saints need to learn to become saints. The first and outstanding example is Peter. In Hom. 󰀇󰀈* [Q 󰀂󰀃], n. 󰀅, Eckhart explains that Peter is not only not standing hierarchically above any creature, he is even subordinate ‘to the one’ who is ‘introduced’ by the Holy Spirit to God, who is ‘focused and enclosed in God’. For Eckhart Saint Peter is one of all those creatures who ‘are subject’ to whoever is fully one with God. Yes, Peter too can be reckoned to be amongst those who are introduced to God, insofar as Peter’s ‘mind was simply focused and enclosed in God’, so that ‘the sea was closed under his feet’ and he could walk ‘on water’, but, Eckhart adds, Peter must also be criticised, for ‘as soon as’ Peter ‘withdrew his thought, he sank’ (n. 󰀅).

󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

A second example is Francis. As one would expect from a Dominican, Eckhart will not only praise St. Francis, but also find faults with him. First, of course, Francis is described and admired for his poverty and his humility, and Eckhart draws on Bonaventure to illustrate both virtues. He starts with ‘true poverty’, but already in the opening refers to Bonaventure’s story that Francis and one of his companions once ‘met a poor man’. Francis is reported to have said to his confrater: ‘Now this man has shamed us and has caused us dishonor by the fact that he is poorer than us’ (Hom. 󰀉󰀂* [Q 󰀇󰀄], n. 󰀃). Instead of defending Francis and having made use of an authentic Franciscan source, Eckhart draws from the response to the encounter that ‘whoever truly loves poverty, is in such need that he does not allow anyone to have less than him’. This, of course as shown by the story, was not true in the case of Francis. The founder of the Franciscans is ashamed as he longs for ‘the highest place’ to be the poorest person of all and ‘loved poverty so much that he could not stand that someone was poorer than him’. Yet, Eckhart shows by this simile that the saint who was celebrated that day had not achieved what he was aiming for. Different from the poverty in which Francis apparently failed, the saint is acknowledged by Eckhart to have possessed perfect humility. The failure in the first virtue makes Francis great in the second, from which the listener can learn that virtuous goals and intentions stand in the way of true sainthood,󰀅 as it was ‘the disregard and rejection of himself’ that made him ‘greatest’ (n. 󰀄). Thus, Eckhart not only criticises Francis, but also the Franciscans with their core virtue of poverty by focussing on humility instead. To these two examples we can add Paul, who is praised on the feast of his conversion not for having become enlightened or knowledgeable, as the one who has turned from a non-believer to a believer, but as the one who first saw and from the moment ‘he was thrown down to the earth, and with eyes wide open’ saw nothing (Hom. 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁], n. 󰀉). This seeing nothing, however, Eckhart takes more radically, and in this sense, we are told, Paul made his most important discovery, he saw not only nothing, but ‘all things “as nothing”’, even God as nothing and only as such, he also saw God as something (n. 󰀁󰀂) and with him ‘all creatures’ as ‘nothing’ (n. 󰀁󰀃). This experience, Eckhart uses again to drive home his central message that Saint Paul cannot be taken as a medium: ‘If we want to know God, it must happen without a medium … it must be proper and indrawn without any occurence of anything created’ (n. 󰀁󰀄). As saints are 󰀅. See also Hom. 󰀈󰀃* [Q 󰀂].

I NTRODUCTION

󰀉

creatures, by their very nature they cannot mediate any aquaintance with God, they are often ambiguous figures, and, at best, they point to the negation of what creatures themselves intend. A further example is Augustine. Astonishingly, in his highly sophisticated and learned homily for the feast of St. Augustine, Eckhart quotes widely from the Book of the 󰀂󰀄 Philosophers, but neither mentions nor quotes from Augustine. The ‘morning star in the mist’, the ‘full moon in its day’, the ‘temple of God’ – all of this ‘is the intellect’ (Hom. 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉], n. 󰀁󰀁), no direct relation is made to Augustine. Even if we call somebody ‘who is communicative and helpful’ ‘good’, and on the feast of Augustine people must have thought of this saint, Eckhart holds that ‘God says: “No one is good except God alone”’ (ibid. n. 󰀁󰀀). Consequently in another homily on Augustine, Eckhart points out that the praise which is expressed in applying Jesus Sirach 󰀅󰀀:󰀁󰀀 (‘Quasi vas auri solidum ornatum omni lapide pretioso’) to Augustine, equally refers to ‘any good, holy soul who has given up all things and takes them in where they are eternal’ (Hom. 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆b], n. 󰀂). If, therefore, people ‘want to be with Saint Augustine and in the sainthood of all the saints’, their ‘heart must be closed to every creatureliness’, and they ‘must take God as He is in Himself’ (ibid. n. 󰀁󰀁). In his Latin homily on Augustine Eckhart lauds him even more as ‘a good theorist, an exceptional rhetorician, and a most excellent ethicist’ (‘bonus theoricus, egregius logicus et excellentissimus ethicus’), but at the end he quotes Augustine praying to become perfected, as he is not ‘satisfied until’ he is ‘made completely [God’s] in love’ (n. 󰀁󰀂). In a further homily on Augustine, Eckhart states that in ‘spiritual things’ no medium is needed as ‘the one is always in the other’, hence, ‘what receives is the same as what is received’ (Hom. 󰀈󰀇* [Q 󰀁󰀆a], n. 󰀁). Certainly the most prominent saint is Mary. As seen before, there is no other saint of whom Eckhart speaks so often as of Mary. And yet, in the first homily on one of her feast days, Hom. 󰀆󰀇* [Q 󰀇󰀁], Eckhart talks amply about the birth of the Son, but Mary is not mentioned at all, it is the soul that is at the core of the homily. Eckhart’s answer to the Father’s announcement: ‘I send my angel’ is: ‘We do not want it, for us it is not enough’ (n. 󰀄). Eckhart explicates what is meant by this in the next homily on Mary, Hom. 󰀆󰀈* [Q 󰀄󰀄], which again makes no mention of her. Instead, Eckhart explains that the total inclusion and union of God and the soul excludes the existence of any medium between them (n. 󰀃). The first homily on Mary that talks of her is Hom. 󰀇󰀁* [Q 󰀇󰀈], and here Eckhart starts by pointing out that ‘God was first spiritually generated in our Lady before He could be bodily born by her’ (n. 󰀃). Moreover, it is not only the spiritual

󰀁󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

generation that has precedence over the historic events in the Galilee, the city of Nazareth of which the introductory verse of this homily speaks. For Eckhart the ‘abundant generation, in which the heavenly Father begat His only begotten Son’ took place in Mary’s ‘soul’ (n. 󰀃), here ‘she became bodily pregnant’, but it is a pregnancy that she shares with all human beings who receive the Son in their soul (nn. 󰀈-󰀉). As with the first two homilies, so also the next three homilies on her feast days, Hom. 󰀈󰀁* [Q 󰀆󰀀], Hom. 󰀈󰀂* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀀] and Hom. 󰀈󰀃* [Q 󰀂] do not name her. The first two speak of the soul’s ‘repose’ and the third about the virgin by which Jesus was received. We presume that anybody who listens to a homily on the day of Mary’s Assumption would presume that the preacher who mentions a virgin is speaking about the Lord’s mother, but Eckhart is not doing so. Right in the opening, he states that we must ‘scrutinize with diligence’ (n. 󰀃) the biblical verse (Luc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀃󰀈: ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ went up to a castle and was received by a virgin who was a woman’). And the closer look at what ‘virgin’ means leads Eckhart to explain that the term means ‘a person who is freed from all the alien images, as free as she was when she was not’ (n. 󰀃). Now, who is this virgin person? Eckhart answers that it is he himself, the one who preaches: ‘If I were so intellectual that I had all images intellectually in me that all people ever received and that are in God Himself, and if I were this way without owning them, so that I had grasped not a single one with attachment in my doing and letting go, neither before nor after, indeed: that in this very present now I myself stood free and freed according to the most amiable will of God, in order to follow it without interruption, in truth so I would be a virgin without impediment of any image as truthfully as I was when I was not’ (n. 󰀃). It is only in the next homily, where Eckhart treats the same biblical verse of Luc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀃󰀈, that he comes to speak about a Mary, though it is Mary, the sister of Martha. The phenomenon of blending different biblical persons of the same name is well known from Patristic and Medieval exegetes, so is nothing specific to Eckhart, but not only to introduce, but also to favour Martha above Mary – against the common reading of this verse and passage of the New Testament󰀆 – is a further indication, how Eckhart wants us to see Mary. Mary is not yet perfected, she ‘was held by pleasure according to all the satisfaction of her soul’ (n. 󰀆), when she was sitting at the feet of the Lord. Hence, ‘we suspect that dear Mary sat in a certain way more for pleasure than for rational advantage’ (n. 󰀇). Mary was not as mature as Martha yet (n. 󰀆), while Martha ‘wished her sister was placed in the same place, for she saw that she was 󰀆. See M. Vinzent, The Art of Detachment (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂), 󰀁󰀆󰀆–󰀂󰀄󰀉.

I NTRODUCTION

󰀁󰀁

not substantially there’ (n. 󰀁󰀆). Christ comforts Martha, saying: ‘Relax, Martha, she has chosen the best part … she will be blessed like you’ (n. 󰀁󰀆). As with Augustine, Eckhart’s praise is linked to the note that perfection is still lacking, though promised, for ‘God gives something else into the ground of the soul, that is an eternal will with a physical command of the Holy Spirit’ (n. 󰀁󰀇). Nobody, however, has come as far as to fully realise the potential that God has given. ‘Therefore I say that there was never a saint, nor that he could reach the point that pain does not hurt him and pleasure does not do him good’ (n. 󰀁󰀈). Saints, therefore, have no advantage compared to other creatures. All have to learn and have to be ‘put to school’ and learn ‘to live’ (n. 󰀂󰀁). This way, Eckhart is able to say that ‘saints’ have to ‘become saints’ and that only ‘then they begin to act in virtue, and only then do they collect a treasure of eternal bliss’. In a further homily on Mary, Hom. 󰀈󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀃], Eckhart explicates ‘three honours of our Lady’ (n. 󰀃), her birth, her holy life on earth, her being the mother of God (n. 󰀄). Of these, he focuses on the second element. With Thomas, he maintains that Mary was not immaculately conceived, but that her body and soul, united in original sin, were purified by the Holy Spirit, hence ‘born holy’ (n. 󰀇). The stress in this homily is on Mary’s humility. The last homily is given on the birthday of Mary, Hom. 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂]. And it is about the question whether the saints are perfect. Did, for example, Paul ‘achieve complete perfection’? (n. 󰀇). In this case, Eckhart is positive about it, yes, ‘he has achieved complete perfection’, but the reason for this is that Paul stated: ‘I wanted to be eternally separated from God for the sake of my friend and for God’ (Rom. 󰀉:󰀃). Yet, this does not elevate him beyond other people, as ‘God gives to all things alike, and when they flow from God, they are alike … whoever takes a fly in God, it is more noble in God than the highest angel is in itself’ (n. 󰀉). As with Paul, the saints imitate God in His self-detachment. God is not holding on to Himself, but goes out, he communicates Himself and entirely gives Himself to his creatures. God tastes Himself in the soul that He loves and kisses a soul that loves and kisses Him. This is what the saints do and what all people should do. In such acting they become ‘co-workers’ of God (Hom. 󰀆󰀇* [Q 󰀃󰀁], n. 󰀈). 󰀃) Angels are a particular case – they are not saints, but stand above the saints, and yet, they are below the perfect person and soul: Angels are often understood as mediators between God and human beings. The angel is called the one ‘to prepare’ the way of Christ (Mal. 󰀃:󰀁-󰀂, Hom. 󰀆󰀇* [Q 󰀃󰀁]). Yet, right from the opening of this homily, Eckhart states that the divine

󰀁󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

light would be in the soul even if the angel’s light ‘were unacceptable to the soul’ (n. 󰀄). Hence it is not the angel that mediates the divine light, but it is God Himself who gives ‘Himself to the soul’ and who with His light finds His way straight into her. The intimacy between God and the soul is so great that ‘neither angel nor saint knows of it, nor can the soul herself do anything’ to the ‘hidden way’ in which God acts ‘in the most intimate [part] of the soul’, ‘except that she experiences’ God’s acting. Instead of angels mediating the divine to the soul, it is the soul’s elevated nature that ‘touches angelic nature’ (n. 󰀆), and it is the soul’s activity by which she elevates herself ‘above herself to divine order’, there is nothing in between her and God, no ladder, no medium, no angelic order. Hence, what Eckhart says about the highest angels ‘that are so illuminated and are so like God, that draw and suck God into themselves’, he also says of himself, and he says it of himself more than of the angels. For while the angels are ‘standing right in front of God in the divine light, so alike that they perform divine action’, Eckhart says of himself that ‘if I was empty and had a fiery love and likeness in me, I would draw God completely into me’ (n. 󰀇). What angels can only do approximately, the soul does completely.

IV Eckhart’s homilies in Cologne At the conference on ‘Meister Eckhart in Cologne’, organised by the ThomasInstitut of the University of Cologne in connection with the Meister Eckhart Gesellschaft, held on 󰀁󰀅th–󰀁󰀈th March 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈, Andreas Speer delivered a paper on the reconstruction of the cycle of homilies that Eckhart gave in his last stay at Cologne, before going to Avignon to face his trial.󰀇 As he shows in this paper, already earlier scholarship has established a sequence of homilies that Eckhart delivered and which formed a certain corpus. Looking at the order of these homilies, Speer noticed that in our presentation of these homilies in vol. 󰀁 and this vol. 󰀂 according to the liturgical year – an attempt which he himself does not reject, but support – he sees a certain disjunction, at least at a first glance:

󰀇. See Andreas Speer, ‘“Edel sei der Mensch …” – Anthropologische und soteriologische Perspektiven in den Kölner Predigten Meister Eckharts’ (forthcoming).

I NTRODUCTION

󰀁󰀃

A first comparison of these homilies between the order of DW and Eckhart’s homilies according to the liturgical year (HLY) shows: DW

HLY

󰀁󰀀 󰀁󰀁 󰀁󰀂 󰀁󰀃 󰀁󰀄 󰀁󰀅 󰀂󰀂 󰀄󰀈 󰀅󰀁 󰀅󰀂

󰀁󰀁󰀀 󰀇󰀆 󰀉󰀀 󰀆󰀅 󰀁󰀂 󰀁󰀁󰀄 󰀅 󰀁󰀁󰀆 󰀂󰀃 󰀁󰀀󰀈

Commune: Confessors 󰀂󰀄th June: Birth of John the Baptist 󰀈th September: Birth of Mary 󰀂󰀈th Dezember: Feast of the Holy Innocents Epiphany Not datable Wednesday of the Fourth Week of Advent Not datable Wednesday after the Third Sunday of Lent Commune: a Martyr

To keep these Cologne homilies together by putting forward a series of arguments for a different liturgical placing of some of the homilies, he suggests an alternative order which would amount to the following one: DW

Speer

󰀁󰀀 󰀁󰀁 󰀁󰀂 󰀂󰀂 󰀁󰀃 󰀁󰀅 󰀁󰀄 󰀄󰀈 󰀅󰀁 󰀅󰀂

󰀁󰀁󰀀 󰀇󰀆 󰀉󰀀 󰀅 󰀆󰀅 󰀁󰀁󰀄 󰀁󰀂 󰀁󰀁󰀆 󰀂󰀃 󰀁󰀀󰀈

Commune: Confessors 󰀂󰀄th June: Birth of John the Baptist 󰀈th December: Immaculate Conception of Mary 󰀁󰀃th December, Wednesday of Advent 󰀂󰀈th December: Feast of the Holy Innocents Dedication of a Church, End of December/New Year Epiphany Not datable Wednesday after the Third Sunday of Lent Commune: a Martyr

Future scholarship will need to assess the alternatives.

MEISTER ECKHART: 56 HOMILIES FOR THE LITURGICAL YEAR DE SANCTIS

Note The works of Eckhart that will be quoted here mostly follow the critical edition of Meister Eckhart, Die deutschen und die lateinischen Werke, herausgegeben im Auftrage der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft; Die deutschen Werke, hrsg. von Josef Quint und Georg Steer [sigla: DW]; Die lateinischen Werke, hrsg. von Ernst Benz, Karl Christ, Bruno Decker, Bernhard Geyer, Joseph Koch, Heribert Fischer, Erich Seeberg, Loris Sturlese, Albert Zimmermann [sigla: LW]) (Stuttgart, 󰀁󰀉󰀃󰀆–), 󰀁󰀀 vols (almost completed). In the quotation of the German homilies, an asterisk after the number indicates that this is the number given to a homily in the present collection, following the liturgical order. To this is always added the number in the critical edition, indicated by [Q, S] for the editors Quint or Steer. To allow for easier consultation of the critical edition of the Latin works, we also add the section numbers present there. For example: ‘Hom. 󰀁* [S 󰀈󰀇], n. 󰀃’ means the third section in the margins of Homily 󰀁* in our collection, which is Homily 󰀈󰀇 of the critical edition of the German works, edited by Georg Steer. Similarly, ‘Hom. 󰀂* [Q 󰀂󰀄], n. 󰀁’ means the first section in the margins of Homily 󰀂* in our collection, which is Homily 󰀂󰀄 of the critical edition of the German works, edited by Josef Quint [= Q]).

Homily 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃] In Sanctorum Innocentium, die 󰀂󰀈 decembris ‘Vidi supra montem Syon agnum stantem’ etc. (Apoc. 󰀁󰀄:󰀁–󰀅) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to is read on the feast of the Holy Innocents, celebrated on 󰀂󰀈 December, which recalls the children killed by Herod throughout Bethlehem in the vain attempt to get rid of Jesus (Matth. 󰀂:󰀁󰀆). In the liturgy of the day, the reading comprises Apoc. 󰀁󰀄:󰀁–󰀅, where John presents the vision of the lamb on mount Zion (‘[󰀁] Then I looked, and here was the Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with him were one hundred and forty-four thousand, who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. [󰀂] I also heard a sound coming out of heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder. Now the sound I heard was like that made by harpists playing their harps, [󰀃] and they were singing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one was able to learn the song except the one hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth. [󰀄] These are the ones who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These were redeemed from humanity as firstfruits to God and to the Lamb, [󰀅] and no lie was found on their lips; they are blameless’). The text is handed down by five manuscripts: B󰀁󰀆, Bra󰀂, Lo󰀁, Mai󰀁, Str󰀃 and two fragments. There is also a fragment of a ‘parallel’ homily dedicated to the same theme and transmitted from ms. Ba󰀁 alone, which is perhaps a version ‘purified’ of the most radical formulations (for the incriminated passages see below). It will be placed after the present homily as Hom. 󰀆󰀅a* [Q󰀁󰀃a]. The manuscript evidence does not allow us to reconstruct a text that goes beyond a much-damaged Vorlage:

󰀁󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

already Quint noted that the translation of the biblical passage at the beginning of the Homily is problematic, and that at DW I, 󰀂󰀁󰀂,󰀆 the text requires a conjecture (‘entwahsen’). Quint’s rejection of glîcheit as spurious, however, does not seem to be correct, as will be explained below. At n. 󰀇, Seneca’s quote appears disconnected from the context. The same goes, according to Quint, for the Boethius’ reference (n. 󰀉). The homily was probably given in Cologne, as n. 󰀆 contains a reference to Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀁󰀂 as having been given not long ago (Als ich nû niuwelîche sprach). For the dating of the latter, see the literature in vol. I 󰀃󰀆󰀉–󰀇󰀀 in the introduction to Hom. 󰀂󰀂* [Q 󰀃󰀇]. To the same Hom. 󰀂󰀂* also Hom. 󰀁󰀂* [Q 󰀁󰀄], n. 󰀅 refers (with the location ‘Mariengarten’) which has some parallels to our homily here. The homily here also refers back to the shell-kernel relationship evoked in Hom. 󰀂󰀃* [Q 󰀅󰀁], n. 󰀁󰀀. There is also the characteristic entwahsen, found in Hom. 󰀂󰀃* [Q 󰀅󰀁], n. 󰀈, on the basis of which Eckhart develops the similar idea here as he did in Hom. 󰀂󰀃*. A further relation exists with Hom. 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁] where the name of ‘John’ is interpreted. Moreover the Golden Chain that plays a role here with the question of how God and creatures are connected and how superior and lower entities are related (touched or untouched), is being a central topic with parallels in Eckhart’s, In Sap. n. 󰀁󰀃󰀄 (LW II 󰀄󰀇󰀂,󰀃–󰀄󰀇󰀃,󰀇); In Sap. n. 󰀁󰀃󰀅 (LW II 󰀄󰀇󰀃,󰀈–󰀄󰀇󰀅,󰀂); In Sap. n. 󰀁󰀃󰀉 (LW II 󰀄󰀇󰀆,󰀁󰀁–󰀄󰀇󰀇,󰀃); In Sap. n. 󰀁󰀄󰀂 (LW II 󰀄󰀇󰀉,󰀉–󰀄󰀈󰀀,󰀇); note also the vernacular rendering of these passages in the recently discovered Eckhart manuscript Wartburg-Stiftung, Ms. 󰀁󰀃󰀆󰀁-󰀅󰀀, 󰀁󰀀󰀂r–󰀁󰀀󰀄r and its parallel manuscript Berlin, Ms. germ. fol. 󰀉󰀈󰀆, 󰀂󰀀󰀈va󰀂–󰀂󰀀󰀉rb󰀇. The content of the homily A) The homily begins after the Latin quotation (n. 󰀁) and the vernacular rendering of the passage (n. 󰀂) with a reflection on the image of the lamb on the top of the mountain that expresses the hierarchical order that governs reality. The top of the lower order always touches the bottom of the upper order (the ‘golden chain’ of the ancients), but no creature touches God according to createdness. So far, Eckhart’s reading seems uncontroversial, but specific characteristics are noticeable. They start with the vernacular translation of the Latin text, an apparent difficulty, already noted by Quint. The problem refers to

H OMILY 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃]

󰀁󰀉

Eckhart’s particular view of the vision. According to the biblical text the lamb stood together with 󰀁󰀄󰀄,󰀀󰀀󰀀, soon interpreted as virgins (Apoc. 󰀁󰀄:󰀄). Of these 󰀁󰀄󰀄,󰀀󰀀󰀀 the biblical text seems to say that they had the name of the lamb and the name of the Father written on their foreheads. Eckhart, however, re-organises the structure of the text and translates the text by the singular. According to him the lamb had its own name and the Father’s name written on its forehead, and he places the apposition last: ‘and with it … forty-four thousand’. Quint (ad loc.) takes these alterations as a sign of the early corruption of the Vorlage and guesses that the original text ran as follows: ‘ein lamp stân ûf dem berge Syon und hâte bî im stânde hundert vier und vierzic tûsent und hâten geschriben vornân an irn stirnen sînen namen und sînes vaters namen’ (see below n. 󰀉). This harmonisation of Eckhart’s translation with the standard text of the Vulgate, however, overlooks the argument that Eckhart is drawing from the way he reads the passage.󰀁 According to Eckhart, God has arranged the creatures in a certain order (n. 󰀃). The lamb, seen by John and identified with Christ (n. 󰀄), is the first to have its own name and that of its Father written on its forehead, the 󰀁󰀄󰀄,󰀀󰀀󰀀 are mentioned last. The lamb or Christ who has its own and the name of the Father on its forehead passes it on to those who are underneath him, the 󰀁󰀄󰀄,󰀀󰀀󰀀. The lamb itself that is ‘on [the] mount[ain]’ ‘is elevated into God’ by its ‘pure bare nature’ (n. 󰀃). Eckhart radicalises the ‘golden chain’ by not using comparatives (the superior, the inferior – or: the higher, the lower), but he introduces superlatives: ‘Each touches the others, and the highest one has laid its foot on the lowest parting of the hair’, in order to express that when it comes to being elevated into God, tasting and touching, this is not something external or outside, but relates to the pure, bare nature, and in that nature the ‘chain’ has to be re-defined. Hierarchy belongs to external things, but when it comes to the pure, bare nature and to touching God, this does not happen ‘according to createdness’, hence here the ‘highest one has laid its foot on the lowest parting of the hair’. Moreover, ‘if good has to come out’, the pure and bare nature, ‘the shell must be split, if the kernel is to come out’ (n. 󰀃).

󰀁. So already N. Largier I 󰀈󰀈󰀁.

󰀂󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

B) ‘On [the] mount[ain]’ (n. 󰀄) one comes ‘to this purity’ by getting ‘married to the lamb’ and becoming ‘divorced from all the creatures’, a relation that leads to following ‘the lamb wherever it went’. Eckhart first unfolds, what it means to follow the lamb ‘wherever it went’. To him this implies being prepared to suffer at the hands of one’s friends or oneself. It is noteworthy that Eckhart gets so personal and that he points not to disasters, illnesses or anything alike, but to personal relations and to the selves that are inflicting harm. Being prepared for such suffering, however, that contrasts with one’s will and prevents one from making a u-turn away from the lamb, is the sign of being married to the lamb and being divorced from createdness and creatures. C) ‘They were on the top’ (n. 󰀅): The ‘top’ picks up the idea of suffering and links it to the golden chain. Being on top also means an undermining of the chain’s nature. Whereas a hierarchical chain links in such a way that superior and inferior are bound together and the upper one passes down goods to the lower one whereas the lower one can drag down the upper one. According to Eckhart, one has to revise the understanding of the chain. First, in Eckhart’s chain the one on top ‘does not suffer from what is below him’, even though the upper one touches the lower one, as we have read before (n. 󰀃). And yet, Eckhart introduces an important condition, the one on top does not suffer, ‘unless there is something above him that is higher than he is’. Now, instantaneously, one will ask, why would the fact that there is somebody above me, me standing on top of the mountain, lead me potentially to suffer? Eckhart deploys a pagan master’s saying, according to which a man who is with God does not suffer, but ‘if he should suffer, the heart of God would be struck’. So, it seems, Eckhart wants to say that his understanding of the chain is such unity – a topic which he is going to develop further in this homily – that any hierarchy is dissolved and any suffering of the one on top of the mountain is possible, because God’s own nature, His very heart, is open for suffering. The very suffering makes God and the one on top no longer being hierarchically separated, but binds them to being one. This, however, also means, that the one on top can be affected by those below him, when it comes to suffering. In Eckhart, therefore, once createdness is left behind, hierarchy disappears, and all are open to each other, which includes a preparedness for mutually inflicted sufferings.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃]

󰀂󰀁

D) ‘They were on Mount Zion’ (n. 󰀆) – this note builds on the previous one to indicate that the preacher is taking the scenario of suffering further – on the one side, his mention of ‘contemplation’ and ‘peace’ seems to pacify the previous thought of suffering which even affects the one on top and the one above him, God. And yet, Eckhart moves in the opposite direction and develops the idea of making oneself open for affection, open to the one below on an even more emphatic level. With reference to Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀁󰀂 and Luc. 󰀈:󰀄󰀃–󰀅 he explains that God can be touched and even forced by the ones below through contemplation and peace. Consciously Eckhart does not make God say ‘ich bin berüeret’ (‘I have been touched’), but uses the much rarer and more personal ‘ich bin gerüeret’ (‘I have been touched’, or even ‘I have been molested’). With Peter’s answer (‘a great multitude surrounds you and pushes you’), Eckhart stresses the negative sense, while he equally underlines that God does not see being pushed as a kind of being molested, but the way of suffering that results in healing. N. 󰀇 shows how far such suffering can go, as it may lead to death. We are not only healed by suffering, but – he quotes Seneca – also ‘live by death’, hence, have to accept death to be as ‘pleasurable as life’. N. 󰀈 deals with the potential counter-argument that Eckhart may have seen coming from his audience, i.e. that creatures, even when standing ‘on the top’, will still differ from God, hence, will only be able to imitate His nature to some extent, but not live and follow in the same radical way that Eckhart suggested. As an answer Eckhart rejects the idea of ‘likeness’ between God and the creatures and explains that the relation between God and creatures has to be taken as oneness. E) ‘They had written their names and their father’s name on their foreheads’ (n. 󰀉). Here, Eckhart comes back to the biblical text in its literal translation which deviates from the way he rendered the text before (n. 󰀂). Now, of course, this translation makes sense, as in a nonhierarchical chain, as developed before, the lamb and the creatures are no longer separated. Therefore, Eckhart takes the lamb and the virgins together as ‘their’ and even ‘our’ – this ‘our name’ and ‘the father’s name’ leads him to a specific definition whereby all creatures are taken into the traditional inner-trinitarian relation between the personal properties of ‘Father’ and ‘Son’, ‘son’ meaning to be born, ‘father’ meaning to give birth. Again, Eckhart refers to the previously held Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂],

󰀂󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

n. 󰀁󰀀, so he must have reckoned that people in his audience followed him from one place to another to listen to him. The inner-trinitarian Father-Son-relation into which the creatures are taken, he even extends by pointing out that creatures, too, have to be not only ‘Son’, but also ‘Father’. Even though Eckhart subscribes to the Aristotelean idea, expressed by the Boethius’ quote, that ‘God is an unmoved’ mover, he re-interprets this concept, pointing to constancy. He does not stress the difference between the one that is unmoved and moves others and others that are moved by the one who is unmoved, but Eckhart focuses on the pleasant, constant dynamics which encompasses all (‘the more noble each thing is, the more constantly it runs’), hunted by ‘the ground’, but, as it seems, the ground itself is understood as being part of this mutual hunting. That there is no difference between hunter and hunted brings Eckhart to his next explanation. F) ‘There was no lie in their mouth’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). Eckhart moves to the last verse of the passage, following the Vulgate reading here, but with his last sentence of this passage he also goes back to his initial thought about the virgin. As lies are bound to createdness and creatures, Eckhart sees in this verse the proof that the text is speaking about the state of the virgins where they are no longer creaturely. The examples he uses, are taken from practical experience – telling the truth does not mean telling or being told niceties, all depends on the quality of the source that is doing the talking, praise from somebody wicked is shameful; people talk about things they do and practice – interesting, this even accounts for preachers who like talking about preaching. Instead, Eckhart states that ‘a good person does not speak willingly except of God’. If, however, the virgin on the top, the lamb, the Father, are one and divorced from createdness, what does it mean with regards to being a creature? Here, Eckhart ends the homily pointing to the one ‘power in the soul’, the intellect, or, as he here says, ‘intellectuality’ (n. 󰀁󰀁) and dares to say – something that is going to be picked up against him in the trial (amongst other parts of this homily, see below) – that if the soul were nothing else than this power, ‘she would be uncreated and non-creaturely’. Of course, ‘that is not the case’, as she has other parts too, parts where she reflects and belongs to time and createdness.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃]

󰀂󰀃

The idea that ‘there is a power in the soul … and if the soul was all this, she would be uncreated and non-creaturely’ was denounced as heretical; it found its way into the Votum Avenionense art. 󰀄 and was sentenced in the Papal bull, art. 󰀁. On incriminated passages see Proc. Col. I no. 󰀇󰀂 = 󰀂󰀁󰀅.󰀁󰀁 + 󰀂󰀁󰀆.󰀅–󰀇 Proc. Col. I n. 󰀅󰀉 = 󰀂󰀂󰀀.󰀄–󰀉 Proc. Col. II n. 󰀅 = 󰀂󰀁󰀈.󰀅–󰀆 Proc. Col. II n. 󰀇 = 󰀂󰀂󰀀.󰀄–󰀅 Editions, commentaries and notes A. Jundt, n. 󰀁󰀁, 󰀂󰀆󰀅–󰀆󰀈; J. Quint, DW I 󰀂󰀀󰀇–󰀂󰀂; N. Largier I 󰀁󰀅󰀂–󰀉. 󰀈󰀇󰀉–󰀈󰀆. Previous English translations The Works of Meister Eckhart Doctor Ecstaticus, vol. II, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂), 󰀁󰀀󰀂–󰀅; J.M. Clark, Meister Eckhart (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀇), 󰀂󰀃󰀇–󰀄󰀀; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀁󰀅󰀉–󰀆󰀂.

󰀂󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀁󰀁) ‘Vidi supra montem Syon agnum stantem’ etc. Sant Johannes sach ‘ein lamp stân ûf dem berge Syon und hâte geschriben vornân an sîner stirnen sînen namen und sînes vaters namen und hâte bî im stânde hundert vier und vierzic tûsent’. Er sprichet, ‘ez wæren allez juncvrouwen und sungen einen niuwen sanc, den nieman gesingen mohte dan sie, und volgeten dem lambe nâch, swar ez gienc’. Die heidenischen meister sprechent, daz got die crêatûren alsô geordent hât, daz ie einiu ist ob der andern und daz die obersten die nidersten rüerent und die nidersten die obersten. Daz dise meister gesprochen hânt mit beslozzenen worten, daz sprichet ein ander offenbâre und sprichet, daz diu guldîn (󰀂󰀁󰀂) | ketene ist diu lûter blôze natûre, diu gehœhet ist in got und der niht ensmecket, daz ûzer im ist, und diu got begrîfet. Ein ieglîchiu rüeret die andern, und diu oberste hât irn vuoz gesast ûf der nidersten scheitele. Alle crêatûren enrüerent got niht nâch der geschaffenheit, und daz geschaffen ist, daz muoz gebrochen sîn, sol daz guot her ûz komen. Diu schal muoz enzwei sîn, sol der kerne her ûz komen. Ez meinet allez ein entwahsen, wan der engel ûzerhalp dirre blôzen (󰀂󰀁󰀃) | natûre enweiz niht mê dan diz holz; jâ, der engel âne dise natûre enhât niht mê dan ein mücke hât âne got.

󰀂. Apoc. 󰀁󰀄:󰀁–󰀅. The context of the text can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀂rb: ‘Sanctorum Innocentium lectio libri Apocalipsis beati Iohannis apostoli. in diebus illis: vidi supra montem Syon agnum stantem [Vg.: Et vidi: et ecce agnus stabat supra montem Sion] et cum eo centum quadraginta quatuor milia habentes nomen eius, et nomen patris eius scriptum in frontibus suis. Et audivi vocem de celo, tanquam vocem aquarum multarum et tanquam vocem tonitrui magni, et vocem, quam audivi, sicut cytharedorum cytharizantium in cytharis suis. Et cantabant quasi canticum novum ante sedem, et ante quatuor animalia, et seniores: et nemo poterat dicere canticum, nisi illa centum quadraginta quatuor milia, qui empti sunt de terra. Hi sunt, qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati: virgines enim sunt. Hi sequuntur agnum quocumque ierit. Hi empti sunt ex omnibus [hominibus Vg.] primitie Deo, et agno, et in ore iustorum [eorum Vg.] non est inventum mendacium: sine macula [enim add. Vg.] sunt ante thronum Dei’ (Here and later Latin texts are given to show parallel texts; unfortunately, they can only rarely be translated as otherwise the footnotes would be too long). Quint already notes that according to Revelation ‘his name and his father’s name’ was written on the front of the 󰀁󰀄󰀄,󰀀󰀀󰀀, and not on the lamb’s forehead, as suggested by Eckhart’s translation. However, below, in Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃], n. 󰀉 Eckhart then follows the canonical text and states that the name of each one and that of the Father was written on the front of the 󰀁󰀄󰀄,󰀀󰀀󰀀. Perhaps he understood the text in the sense that everybody, the lamb and the 󰀁󰀄󰀄,󰀀󰀀󰀀, had their own name and that of the Father.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃]

󰀂󰀅

‘Vidi supra montem Syon agnum stantem’ etc. St. John saw󰀂 ‘a lamb standing on Mount Zion, and it had written on its forehead its name and its father’s name, and with it were standing there one hundred and forty-four thousand’. He says ‘they were all virgins and they sang a new song that no one could sing except they, and they followed the lamb wherever it went’. The pagan masters say󰀃 that God has arranged the creatures in a certain order so that each one is above the other and that the highest ones touch the lowest ones and the lowest ones the highest ones.󰀄 What these masters have said in veiled words, another openly says󰀅 and he says that the golden chain is the pure bare nature that is elevated into God and that it does not taste anything that is outside of Him and grasps God. Each touches the others, and the highest one has laid its foot on the parting of the hair of the lowest. No creature touches God according to createdness, and what is created must be broken, if good has to come out. The shell must be split, if the kernel is to come out. All this means an inner growing,󰀆 because the angel, outside this naked nature, knows nothing more than this wood; yes, the angel without this nature has nothing more than a fly without God.

󰀃. Macrobius, Commentarium in Somnium Scipionis I c. 󰀁󰀄 n. 󰀁󰀅 (Willis 󰀅󰀈,󰀈–󰀁󰀁): ‘invenietur pressius intuenti a summo deo usque ad ultimam rerum faecem una mutuis se vinculis religans et nusquam interrupta conexio’. See also Eckhart (?), Hom. 󰀇󰀄 (Jostes 󰀇󰀇,󰀃󰀃–󰀅): ‘Sanctus Dyonisius dicit, daz got alle dink hat gemacht an ein ordenung als an einer keten: also beweget di oberst kraft di nidersten und di niderst die obersten’ (‘Saint Dionysius says that God has made all things in an order like on a chain, thus the highest power moves the lowest one and the lowest ones the highest ones’). 󰀄. That the superlatives do not contradict the image of the chain is explained by the similar image in Hom. 󰀂* [Q 󰀂󰀄], n. 󰀅 where Eckhart writes: ‘Ez ist als natiurlich umbe alliu dinc, daz alle zît den nidersten die obersten sint învliezende, als lange die nidersten den obersten sint zuogevüeget’ (‘Naturally, in all things the highest ones always flow into the lowest ones, as long as the lowest ones are attached to the highest ones’). 󰀅. Macrobius, Commentarium in Somnium Scipionis I c. 󰀁󰀄 n. 󰀁󰀅 (Willis 󰀅󰀈,󰀁󰀁–󰀃): ‘Et haec est Homeri catena aurea, quam pendere de caelo in terras deum iussisse commemorat’. See also Eckhart, In Gen. II n. 󰀂󰀀󰀈 and In Ioh. n. 󰀂󰀆󰀅. 󰀆. Quint conjectures ‘entwahsen’: ‘eyn wassen’ Lo󰀁 B󰀁󰀆, ‘inwachsen’ Bra󰀂 ‘in wachsen’ Str󰀃 ‘jn vachsten’ Mai󰀁. Indeed, the conjectured term is found in an anologous passage in Hom. 󰀂󰀃* [Q 󰀅󰀁], n. 󰀈.

󰀂󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Er sprichet: ‘ûf dem berge’. Wie sol diz geschehen, daz man ze dirre lûterkeit kome? Sie wâren juncvrouwen und wâren obenân ûf dem berge und wâren dem lambe getrûwet und allen crêatûren entrûwet und volgeten dem lambe nâch, swar ez gienc. Etlîche liute die volgent dem lambe nâch, als lange ez in wol gât; aber sô ez niht nâch irm willen gât, sô kêrent sie wider. Daz enmeinet dirre sin niht, wan er sprichet: ‘sie volgeten dem lambe nâch, swar (󰀂󰀁󰀄) | ez gienc’. Bist dû ein juncvrouwe und bist dem lambe getrûwet und allen crêatûren entrûwet, sô volgest dû dem lambe nâch, swar ez gât; niht, sô lîden kumet von dînen vriunden oder von dir selber von keiner bekorunge, daz dû denne zerstœret werdest. Er sprichet: ‘sie wâren obenân’. Waz obenân ist, daz enlîdet niht von dem, daz under im ist, ez ensî denne, daz etwaz ob im sî, daz hœher sî, dan ez ist. Ein ungloubiger meister sprichet: die wîle der mensche bî gote ist, sô ist unmügelich, daz er lîde. Der mensche, der hôhe ist und entrûwet allen crêatûren und gote getrûwet ist, der enlîdet niht; und sölte der lîden, gotes herze würde getroffen. ‘Sie wâren ûf dem berge Syon’. Syon sprichet als vil als schouwen; Jêrusalem sprichet als vil als vride. Als ich nû niuwelîche sprach ze Mergarden: diu zwei twingent got; und hâst dû diu an dir, sô muoz er in dir geborn werden. Ich wil iu sagen ein halbes mære: unser herre gienc einest (󰀂󰀁󰀅) | under einer grôzen schar. Dô kam ein vrouwe und sprach: möhte ich berüeren die vasen von sînem kleide, ich würde gesunt. Dô sprach unser herre: ich bin gerüeret. Got segen! sprach sant Pêter, wie sprichest dû, herre, dû sîst gerüeret? Ein grôziu menge gât umbe dich und dringet dich. Ein meister sprichet, daz wir leben von dem tôde. Sol ich ein huon ezzen oder ein rint, ez muoz vor tôt sîn. Man sol ûf sich nemen

󰀇. ‘getrûwet … entrûwet’: ‘married … divorced’, it is a paronomasia in MHG (here and later the acronym for ‘Middle High German’) which cannot be imitated in English. 󰀈. This, of course, was not Eckhart’s translation of the passage in question, but only introduced in n. 󰀄 as his interpretation. 󰀉. Quint refers to Aulus Gellius, Noct. Att., see Eckhart, In Gen. I n. 󰀂󰀂󰀈 (LW I/󰀁, 󰀃󰀇󰀂), but that seems to say the opposite, that, in principle, the philosopher can suffer. 󰀁󰀀. Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiae XV c. 󰀁 n. 󰀅 (Lindsay II 󰀁󰀄󰀉,󰀆–󰀇): ‘Sion … Hebraice interpretatur speculatio…’; Hieronymus, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum (Lagarde 󰀇󰀅,󰀂󰀁): ‘Israhel est videre deum siue uir aut mens uidens deum’. 󰀁󰀁. See (Ps.-)Hieronymus, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum (Lagarde 󰀁󰀃󰀆,󰀅): ‘Ierusalem uisio pacis’.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃]

󰀂󰀇

He says ‘on [the] mount[ain]’. How will it happen that one comes to this purity? They were virgins and were on the top of the mountain and were married to the lamb and divorced󰀇 from all the creatures and they followed the lamb wherever it went. Some people follow the lamb as long as they are fine; but as soon it does not go according to their will, they make a u-turn. This is not what is meant, because he says: ‘They followed the lamb everywhere it went’. If you are a virgin and married to the lamb and divorced from all creatures, you follow the lamb wherever it goes; that when you suffer from your friends or yourself from any temptation, you will not be crushed. He says ‘they were on the top’.󰀈 What is on the top does not suffer from what is below it, unless there is something above it that is higher than what it is. A non-believing master says:󰀉 As long as man is with God, it is impossible for him to suffer. The man who is up and divorced from all creatures and married to God does not suffer; and if he should suffer, the heart of God would be struck. ‘They were on Mount Zion’. Zion means ‘contemplating’;󰀁󰀀 Jerusalem means ‘peace’.󰀁󰀁 As I recently said at Mariengarten:󰀁󰀂 these two things force God;󰀁󰀃 and if you have these with you,󰀁󰀄 He must be born into you. I want to tell you half a story:󰀁󰀅 ‘Our Lord once went in the middle of a large crowd. Then a woman came and said: [if] I could touch the edge of his garment, I would be healed. Then our Lord said: I am touched. God bless! said St. Peter, did you say, Lord, you were touched? A great multitude surrounds you and pushes you’. A master says󰀁󰀆 that we live by death. When I eat a chicken or a beef, it must first be killed. You have to take the suffering on 󰀁󰀂. Reference to Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀁󰀂: ‘man may come to force God’. On the convent see H.J. Hüsgen, Zisterzienserinnen in Köln. Die Klöster Mariengarten, Seyen und St. Mechtern, St. Apern (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃). 󰀁󰀃. Forcing God (twingent got) is also found in Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀁󰀂 with further explanation. 󰀁󰀄. From the text it would appear that ‘contemplation’ (‘Zion’) and ‘peace’ (‘Jerusalem’) are the two ways of ‘forcing’ God, yet, as stated before, this happens through humility. 󰀁󰀅. Luc. 󰀈:󰀄󰀃–󰀅: ‘Et contigit, dum iret, a turbis comprimebatur. Et mulier quaedam … accessit retro, et tetigit fimbriam vestimenti eius … Et ait Iesus: Quis est, qui me tetigit? Negantibus autem omnibus, dixit Petrus, et qui cum illo erant: Praeceptor, turbae te comprimunt, et affligunt, et dicis: Quis me tetigit?’ 󰀁󰀆. Seneca, Controversiae X praef. n. 󰀉 (Ηåkanson 󰀂󰀈󰀆,󰀂󰀃–󰀂󰀈󰀇,󰀁), see also Eckhart, In Gen. I n. 󰀁󰀂󰀆; N. Largier I 󰀈󰀈󰀃 thinks also of Xenophanes as presented by Aristoteles, Metaphysica I c. 󰀅, 󰀉󰀈󰀆b.

󰀂󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

lîden und sol dem lambe nâch gân in leit als in liep. Die aposteln nâmen ûf sich glîche leit und liep; darumbe was ez in allez süeze, daz sie liten; in was als liep der tôt als daz leben. Ein heidenischer meister glîchet die crêatûren gote. Diu geschrift sprichet, ‘wir süln gote glîch werden’. Glîch daz ist bœse und trügenlich. Glîche ich mich einem menschen und vinde ich einen menschen, der mir glîch ist, der mensche der gebâret, als ob er ich sî, und er enist ez niht und triuget. Vil dinges glîchet sich dem golde; ez liuget und enist niht golt. Alsus, alliu dinc glîchent sich (󰀂󰀁󰀆) | gote und diu liegent, und sie ensint ez niht alle. Diu geschrift sprichet, wir süln gote glîch sîn. Nû sprichet ein heidenischer meister, der mit natiurlîchen sinnen dar zuo kam: got enmac als wênic glîch lîden, als wênic er niht gelîden enmac, daz er got niht ensî. Glîchnisse ist, daz niht an gote enist; ez ist einsîn in der gotheit und in der êwicheit; mêr, glîcheit daz enist niht ein. Wære ich ein, sô enwære ich niht glîch Glîcheit. Dâ enist niht vremdes in der einicheit; ez gibet mir einsîn in der êwicheit, niht glîchsîn. (󰀂󰀁󰀇) | Er sprichet: ‘sie hâten irn namen und irs vaters namen geschriben an irn stirnen’. Waz ist unser name und waz ist unsers vaters name? Unser name ist, daz wir suln geborn sîn, und des vaters name ist gebern, dâ diu gotheit ûzglimmet ûzer der êrsten lûterkeit, diu ein vüllede ist aller lûterkeit, als ich sprach ze Mergarden. Philippus sprach: ‘herre, zeige uns den vater, (󰀂󰀁󰀈) | sô genüeget uns’. Ez meinet ze dem êrsten, daz wir suln vater sîn; ze dem andern suln wir gnâde sîn, wan des vaters name ist gebern; er gebirt in mich sîn glîch. Sihe ich eine spîse 󰀁󰀇. Phil. 󰀁:󰀂󰀀: ‘sive per vitam sive per mortem’. 󰀁󰀈. Author unidentified by Quint. 󰀁󰀉. I Ioh. 󰀃:󰀂: ‘similes ei erimus’. 󰀂󰀀. ‘Glîch … trügenlich’: Proc. Col. I n. 󰀇󰀂 (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀅,󰀆–󰀇): ‘Simile esse est malum et deceptorium’. The extract from the trial document, see below n. 󰀂󰀅. 󰀂󰀁. I Ioh. 󰀃:󰀂: ‘similes ei erimus’. 󰀂󰀂. Avicenna, Metaphysica IX 󰀁 (Van Riet 󰀄󰀃󰀄,󰀁–󰀁󰀃): ‘Iam manifestum est nobis quod universitas habet principium quod est necesse esse, non contentum sub genere, nec sub definitione, nec subest demonstrationi, expers qualitatis et quantitatis et quidditatis, ubi et quando et motus, nec est aliquid sibi simile nec communicans nec contrarium, et quia est unum quod intelligitur multis modis, eo quod ipsum est non divisibile, nec in partes in effectu, nec in partes positione nec aestimatione sicut continuum, nec intellectu quasi essentia eius sit composita ex intentionibus intelligibilibus diversis ex quibus provenit unum coniunctum. Et quia est unum inquantum non est communicans ei aliquid ullo modo in suo esse quod est ei, et ideo propter hanc unitatem est impar’. 󰀂󰀃. As the end of this text here, Homily 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃], n. 󰀁󰀁 shows (‘niht glîch mit der glîcheit’), the text is not corrupt, but ‘likeness’ goes with ‘like’, hence is not a gloss and should not, as in Quint, be bracketed.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃]

󰀂󰀉

yourself and follow the lamb in suffering as in pleasure. The apostles took upon themselves both suffering and pleasure; therefore, all that they suffered was sweet to them; to them death was as pleasurable as life.󰀁󰀇 A pagan master󰀁󰀈 likened the creatures to God. The Scripture says󰀁󰀉 that ‘we must become like God’. ‘Like’ is wicked and deceitful.󰀂󰀀 If I made myself look like a man and found a man who looked like me, this man would behave as if he were me, even though he is not, hence, he deceives. Many things look like gold; they lie and are not gold. So all things that look like God, they lie and they all are not [God]. The Scripture says,󰀂󰀁 ‘We must be like God’. Now, a pagan master, who came to this with natural understanding, says:󰀂󰀂 God can stand ‘like’ as little as He can stand ‘not’, that He not be God. Likeness is what is not at all in God; in the Godhead and in eternity there is oneness, likeness is not one. If I were one, I would not be like likeness.󰀂󰀃 There is nothing foreign in unity; this gives me oneness in eternity,󰀂󰀄 not likeness.󰀂󰀅 He says,󰀂󰀆 ‘they had written their names and their father’s name on their foreheads’. What is our name and what is our father’s name? Our name is: that we must be born, and the father’s name is: to give birth, where the Godhead glowes out from the first purity which is a fullness of all purity, as I said at Mariengarten.󰀂󰀇 Philip said,󰀂󰀈 ‘Lord, show us the Father, and that is enough for us’. It means, first, that we must be a father; second, we must be grace, because the father’s name is: to give birth; he gives birth of his likeness in me.󰀂󰀉 If I see food and

󰀂󰀄. ‘es gibt nur Einssein in der Ewigkeit’, so J. Quint, but the ‘nur’ mistranslates the MHG ‘mir’. 󰀂󰀅. ‘Wære ich … niht glîchsîn’: Proc. Col. I n. 󰀇󰀂 (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀅,󰀇–󰀁󰀀): ‘Si ego essem unum, tunc non essem similis. Nihil est extraneum in unitate. Unitas dat mihi unum esse, non similem esse’. The same text refers to Proc. Col. II n. 󰀃 (LW V 󰀃󰀁󰀉,󰀄–󰀅): ‘Primus articulus in hoc secundo rotulo habet in sermone “Vidi super montem Syon agnum stantem”: Homo non debet esse similis deo, sed unum cum deo’. 󰀂󰀆. As J. Quint notes, the tradition speaks of their names, while in John it is the name of the lamb. 󰀂󰀇. See Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀁󰀀: ‘… in the first beginning of the first purity in which there is a fullness of all purity’. 󰀂󰀈. Ioh. 󰀁󰀄:󰀈: ‘dicit ei Philippus: Domine, ostende nobis Patrem, et sufficit nobis’. The same quote is found in a similar context in Hom. 󰀂󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀆], n. 󰀁󰀀. 󰀂󰀉. ‘sein Ebenbild’, so the translation by J. Quint.

󰀃󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

und ist si mir glîch, sô kumet ein minne dar ûz; oder sihe ich einen menschen, der mir glîch ist, sô kumet ein minne dar ûz. Alsô ist ez: der himelische vater der gebirt in mich sîn glîch, und von der glîcheit sô kumet ûz ein minne, daz ist der heilige geist. Der der vater ist, der gebirt daz kint natiurlîche; der daz kint hebet ûz der toufe, der enist niht sîn vater. Boethius sprichet: got ist ein guot stille stânde, der alliu dinc beweget. Daz got stæte ist, daz machet alliu dinc loufende. Etwaz ist sô lustlich, (󰀂󰀁󰀉) | daz beweget und jaget und machet alliu dinc ze loufenne, daz sie komen wider, dannen sie gevlozzen sint, und blîbet ez unbewegelich in im selber. Und ie denne ein ieglich dinc edeler ist, ie stæticlîcher ez loufet. Der grunt jaget sie alliu. Wîsheit und güete und wârheit leget etwaz zuo; ein enleget niht zuo dan den grunt des wesens. Nû sprichet er: ‘in irm munde enist kein lüge vunden’. Die wîle ich crêatûre hân und die wîle mich crêatûre hât, sô ist ez lüge, und des enist in irm munde niht vunden. Ez ist ein zeichen eines guoten menschen, daz er lobet guote liute. Lobet mich aber ein guoter mensche, sô bin ich wærlîche gelobet; lobet mich aber ein bœser, sô bin ich wærlîche geschant. Schiltet mich aber ein bœser mensche, sô bin ich wærlîche gelobet. ‘Wes daz herze vol ist, dâ von redet der munt’. Daz ist alwege eines guoten menschen zeichen, daz er gerne von gote rede, wan wâ mite die liute umbegânt, dâ von redent sie gerne. Die mit (󰀂󰀂󰀀) | antwerken umbegânt, die redent gerne von den antwerken; die mit den predigen umbegânt, die redent gerne von den predigen. Ein guot mensche enredet niht gerne wan von gote. Ein kraft ist in der sêle, von der ich mêr gesprochen hân, – und wære diu sêle alliu alsô, sô wære si ungeschaffen und ungeschepfelich. Nû enist des niht. An dem andern teile sô hât si ein zuosehen und ein zuohangen ze der zît, und dâ rüeret si geschaffenheit und ist geschaffen – vernünfticheit: dirre kraft enist niht verre noch ûzer. Daz enent 󰀃󰀀. ‘der himerliche vater … geist’: Proc. Col. II n. 󰀅 (LW V 󰀃󰀂󰀀,󰀁–󰀂): ‘Secundus est: »Caelestis pater generat in me suam similitudinem, et ab illa similitudine venit nobis amor unus vel caritas: hic est spiritus sanctus«’. 󰀃󰀁. Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae III m. 󰀉 (Moreschini 󰀇󰀉,󰀃): ‘stabilisque manens das cuncta moveri’. 󰀃󰀂. Apoc. 󰀁󰀅:󰀄: ‘et in ore eorum non est inventum mendacium’. 󰀃󰀃. See Augustinus, Confessiones X c. 󰀄󰀁 n. 󰀆󰀆 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀁󰀉󰀁,󰀅–󰀈): ‘ego per auaritiam meam non amittere te uolui, sed uolui tecum possidere mendacium, sicut nemo uult ita falsum dicere, ut nesciat ipse, quid uerum sit. Itaque amisi te, quia non dignaris cum mendacio possideri’. 󰀃󰀄. Matth. 󰀁󰀂:󰀃󰀄: ‘ex abundantia enim cordis os loquitur’.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃]

󰀃󰀁

it is like me, love comes from it; or if I see a human being like me, love comes from it. So it is: the heavenly father gives birth of his likeness in me, and love comes from this likeness, that is the Holy Spirit.󰀃󰀀 Whoever is father naturally gives birth to his child; he who raises the child from baptism, is not his father. Boethius says:󰀃󰀁 God is an unmoved good, that moves all things. The fact that God is constant keeps all things running. There is something so pleasant that it moves and hunts and makes all things running, so they return from where they flowed, and it remains motionless in itself. And the more noble each thing is, the more constantly it runs. The ground drives them all. Wisdom and goodness and truth add something; one adds nothing except the ground of being. Now, he says,󰀃󰀂 ‘There was no lie in their mouth’. As long as I have a creature, and as long as the creature has me, it is a lie, but this is not found in their mouth.󰀃󰀃 A good person’s sign is that he praises good people. But if a good person praises me, I am truly praised; but if a wicked one praises me, I am really shamed. Yet, if a wicked man insults me, then I am truly praised. ‘Of which the heart is full, the mouth speaks’.󰀃󰀄 It is always the sign of a good man that he willingly speaks of God, because what people are practising, they are willing to talk.󰀃󰀅 Those who practise handicrafts, are gladly talking about crafts; those who are used to preach, willingly speak of preaching. A good person does not speak willingly except of God. There is a power in the soul, of which I have spoken many times󰀃󰀆 – and if the soul was all this, she would be uncreated and noncreaturely. Now, that is not the case. In the other part she has a respect and a belonging to time, and there she touches createdness and is created – the intellect:󰀃󰀇 for this power nothing is either far nor outside. What 󰀃󰀅. Seneca, Epistulae, 󰀅󰀂,󰀁󰀂: ‘qualis quisque sit scies, si quemadmodum laudet, quemadmodum laudetur aspexeris’. 󰀃󰀆. See, for example, Hom. 󰀃󰀁* [Q 󰀅󰀉], n. 󰀃; Hom. 󰀃󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀉], n. 󰀉; Hom. 󰀄󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀆], n. 󰀅; Hom. 󰀅󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀀°], n. 󰀁󰀀 and more often. 󰀃󰀇. One would expect MHG ‘vernunft’ to be translated by ‘intellect’, but Eckhart loves the abstract form which must have sounded as strange as in English ‘intellectuality’, meaning ‘intellect’. Unfortunately, we have to translate the abstract term here and later mostly by ‘intellect’, as particularly in later texts like Hom. 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁], n. 󰀆 it would not only preserve the strangeness of Eckhart’s phrasing, but would result in an unbearable diction.

󰀃󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

des mers ist oder über tûsent mîle, daz ist ir als eigenlîche kunt und gegenwertic als dise stat, dâ ich inne stân. Disiu (󰀂󰀂󰀁) | kraft ist ein juncvrouwe und volget dem lambe nâch, swar ez gât. Disiu kraft nimet got blôz zemâle in sînem istigen wesene; si ist ein in der einicheit, niht glîch mit der glîcheit. Daz uns daz widervar, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

󰀃󰀈. ‘Ein kraft … ich inne stân’: Proc. Col. I n. 󰀅󰀉 (LW V 󰀂󰀁󰀈,󰀄–󰀁󰀂): ‘Item. »Una virtus est in anima,« »si anima esset talis, ipsa esset increata et increabilis. Sed modo non est sic. Nam in alia parte habet ipsa dependentiam ad tempus, ibi attingit ipsa creationem et est creata. Sed isti virtuti, scilicet intellectui, est ita praesens illud quod est ultra mare sicut iste locus in quo ego sto«’. Proc. Col. II n. 󰀇 (LW V 󰀃󰀂󰀀,󰀅–󰀆): ‘Tertius articulus est: »Una virtus est in anima«, »si anima esset tota talis, tunc esset increata«’. It is interesting to note that in both Latin translations of the passage the reference ‘von der ich mêr gesprochen hân’ is missing, which could have effectively validated the accusation of heresy: was this element perhaps missing in the version available to the accusers? To the accusation Eckhart answers, Acta Eckhardiana n. 󰀅󰀄, 󰀁󰀃 feb. 󰀁󰀃󰀂󰀇 (LW V 󰀅󰀄󰀈): ‘… et quod aliquid sit in anima, si ipsa tota esset talis, ipsa esset increata, intellexi verum esse et intelligo etiam secundum doctores meos collegas, si anima esset intellectus essentialiter’. See also Proc. Col. I n. 󰀆󰀀 (LW V 󰀂󰀁󰀈,󰀁󰀆–󰀂󰀄): ‘Item alibi, quod »in anima sit una virtus vel potentia quae non sit creata vel

H OMILY 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃]

󰀃󰀃

is beyond the sea or over a thousand miles away is as well known and present to her as this place wherein I stand.󰀃󰀈 This power is a virgin and follows the lamb wherever it goes. This power takes God completely nakedly in His very󰀃󰀉 beingness; it is one in the unity, not like with likeness. That this may happen to us, God help us. Amen.

creabilis, et si tota anima esset huiusmodi, ipsa esset increata«, et anima, in quantum esset natura, in tantum esset [in]creata. Sed alia reportatio habet quod anima, in quantum est creata, in tantum est ipsa natura’. Proc. Col. II n. 󰀁󰀇 (LW V 󰀃󰀂󰀁,󰀂󰀂–󰀃): ‘Octavus articulus dicit quod »virtus quaedam in anima est increata; si tota anima esset talis, esset increata et increabilis«’. His reference (‘etiam secundum doctores meos collegas’) could possibly allude to the interpretation of the Aristotelean intellectus agens and the abditum mentis of Augustine according to the formulation of the ‘acting intellect through being’ by Dietrich of Freiberg in his De visione beatifica and reiterated in numerous other treatises, although Dietrich never removed the consequence that the intellectus agens could grow through being. See also in this regard Eckhart, Sermo XXIX n. 󰀃󰀀󰀁 (LW IV 󰀂󰀆󰀇,󰀉–󰀁󰀀): ‘… nec quidquam creatum est purum et se toto intellectus. Iam enim non esset creabile’; see also Eckhart, Quaest. Par. I n. 󰀇 (LW V 󰀄󰀃,󰀁󰀃–󰀄󰀄,󰀉). 󰀃󰀉. On ‘istic’, see vol. 󰀁, 󰀃󰀂󰀈.

Homily 󰀆󰀅a* [Q 󰀁󰀃a] In Sanctorum Innocentium, 󰀂󰀈 decembris ‘Sant Johannes sach in einer gesichtte’ (Apoc. 󰀁󰀄:󰀁–󰀅) Introduction

L

ike the parallel Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃], this homily is based on the reading of the feast of the Holy Innocents, celebrated on 󰀂󰀈 December, which recalls the children killed by Herod throughout Bethlehem in the vain attempt to get rid of Jesus (Matth. 󰀂:󰀁󰀆). In Apoc. 󰀁󰀄:󰀁–󰀅 John presents his vision of the lamb on mount Zion.󰀁 The text is handed down from a single manuscript (Ba󰀁), was published by Quint in diplomatic edition and is fragmentary. In his edition, Quint has been forced to make several conjectural corrections which, as far as we follow his suggestions, are not highlighted here. The homily shares some of the themes and the liturgical occasion with the previous Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃]. Although Quint thought this version could have constituted a ‘purged’ edition, cleaned from incriminated passages, we will see from parallels and differences between the two texts that it is an ‘independent homily’.󰀂 The homily is clearly related to those other homilies, mentioned in the introduction to Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃], but even closer than the previous one to Hom. 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁] where also ‘John’ as ‘grace’ is a core topic. Textual problems, amongst others (conjectures are given in italics), is the the scribal error of the number of those who John saw standing on the mountain. The manuscript gives 󰀄󰀄 instead of 󰀁󰀄󰀄,󰀀󰀀󰀀, but, as Eckhart does not make use of the ‘󰀄󰀄’, we need to correct this number against the text given by Quint. The difficulties that scribes had with numbers can be seen with the same number in Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃], n. 󰀂 󰀁. For the translation of the reading see the introduction to Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃]. 󰀂. So correctly N. Largier I 󰀈󰀈󰀆.

󰀃󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

where only one single manuscript got the number correct. In n. 󰀄 Eckhart mentions that he wants to take four lessons from the passage ‘I saw the lamb standing’, but only two are present in the text. As the text is fragmentary, it seems likely that those two missing lessons followed in the part that is lost today. The content of the homily Although this homily shares not only the reference text of Apoc. 󰀁󰀄:󰀁–󰀅, but also a number of interpretations with the previous Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃], it has a different structure and focus, as it concentrates on John, whose feast day was the day before (󰀂󰀇 December), but who was commemorated (together with St. Stephanus, feast day 󰀂󰀆 December) on the same day as the Innocent Children.󰀃 The people listening are exhorted to become ‘John’ – insofar as this focus is preserved in the fragment, one wonders whether a scribe has not intentionally stopped copying the rest of the sermon, hence it would not be a purged or cleaned copy with regards the content of what is given, but potentially a shortened copy by which elements had been cut off for whatever reasons (which could include the further content). Here, Eckhart does not emphasise the virgin nature of the 󰀁󰀄󰀄,󰀀󰀀󰀀. A) The first section Eckhart explains is ‘standing on the mountain’ (n. 󰀂). John is – following Augustine – identified with the mountain, but quickly broadened to encompass everyone ‘whoever shall see the divine lamb’, everyone insofar has he has ‘come into his highest and his purest’. B) ‘The lamb standing on the mountain’ (n. 󰀃): Here, as in the previous homily, he unfolds the idea of the Golden Chain. ‘God touches all things, but he himself remains untouched’, but he now unfolds what it means to stand in oneself or to sit in oneself, as God does. It is the way by which God also holds the creatures standing and sitting in themselves. Yet, this standing or sitting in oneself is not a forgetting of the outside, but just as he de-hierarchised the image of the Golden Chain in the previous homily, so he turns the idea of inwards and outwardness 󰀃. F.-M. Guerrini, Ordinarium juxta ritum sacri ordinis fratrum praedicatorum (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀁), 󰀈󰀁.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀅 A * [Q 󰀁󰀃 A ]

󰀃󰀇

upside down. While he first mentioned that creatures go out to look for what is missing in themselves, now he can state that the nobler they are, the more they are turning to the outside out of themselves, exemplified with the comparison between a tuff, which shows nothing more of its inner being than being a stone, and the precious element by which the stone stands out, an example that stands for the unity between the soul (with her highest part) and the body, and the function of the soul for this unity. C) ‘I saw the lamb standing’ (n. 󰀄): Although Eckhart indicates four lessons, only the first two are preserved. The first thought continues the previous idea of going out from inside and giving itself. This is, what the lamb or God does, it gives to eat and to dress out of benevolence, a power that should force the creatures to long for nothing but the lamb. The second lesson is the complementary part, as ‘standing’ also means that God is not moving away from His friends, the creatures, even if they do not perform. God is ‘constant and unmoved’, but ‘it does such good when a friend stands by his friend’, precisely what God does. D) ‘With it were standing very many’ (n. 󰀅): Eckhart turns to the special rendering of the biblical verse with which he had started Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃], n. 󰀂. He does so, to insist how deeply God’s name (and that of the lamb) is ‘inscribed into us’. This divine signature in us is the condition that allows us to shine out (again an idea taken potentially from Augustine), like the precious stone, and to become what John is, mountain and grace. Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀂󰀄,󰀉󰀆,󰀉–󰀉󰀇,󰀁󰀇; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀂󰀆󰀆; J. Quint, DW I 󰀂󰀂󰀃–󰀆; N. Largier I 󰀁󰀆󰀀–󰀆󰀃.󰀈󰀈󰀆–󰀈. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀇󰀃–󰀄; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀁󰀆󰀃–󰀄.

󰀃󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀂󰀄) Sant Johannes sach in einer gesichtte vf dem berge syon ein lembelin stan vnd bi ime vier vnd vierzig , die waren nicht irdensch vnd hetten nicht frovwen namen. Si waren alle megde vnd stuonden dem namen aller nechst bi, vnd swa das lamb hin weich, Da wichen si allú nach vnd sungen alle mit dem lambe ein sunderliche sang vnd hatten ire name vnd ir vatter namen gescriben vor an irme hoepte. Nu spricht iohannes, er sech ein lembeli stan vf dem berge. Ich spriche: Johannes was selber der berg, da er das lembeli vf sach, vnd swer das goetlich lamb sehen sol, Der muos selber der berg sin vnd komen in sin hochstes vnd in sin luterstes. Das ander, das er sprichet, das er das lambelin stan sach vf dem berge. Swas vf dem andern stat, das rueret mit sinem vndresten des vndresten des obrestes. Got rueret ellú ding vnd belibet er vnberueret. Got ist v´ber ellú ding ein instan in sich selber vnd sin instan das enthaltet alle creaturen. | (󰀂󰀂󰀅) alle creaturen habt ein oberstes vnd ein vnderstes; Des enhat got niht. Got ist v´ber allú ding vnd wirt niuen beruert von nichte. alle creaturen suochent vsser in selber ie eins an dem ander, des es nicht enhat; des entuot got nút. Got suochet nicht vsser im selber. das alle creaturen habint, das hat got alzemale in ime. Er ist der boden, der reif aller creaturen. es ist wol war, das eine vor der anderen ist, ioch zeminsten, das eine von der anderen geborn wirt. Nochdenne engibet si im ir wesen nicht; Es behaltet etwas des sinen. Got ist ein einvaltig 󰀄. Apoc. 󰀁󰀄:󰀁–󰀅. The context of the text can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀂rb: ‘Sanctorum Innocentium lectio libri Apocalipsis beati Iohannis apostoli. in diebus illis: vidi supra montem Syon agnum stantem [Vg.: Et vidi: et ecce agnus stabat supra montem Sion] et cum eo centum quadraginta quatuor milia habentes nomen eius, et nomen patris eius scriptum in frontibus suis. Et audivi vocem de celo, tanquam vocem aquarum multarum et tanquam vocem tonitrui magni, et vocem, quam audivi, sicut cytharedorum cytharizantium in cytharis suis. Et cantabant quasi canticum novum ante sedem, et ante quatuor animalia, et seniores: et nemo poterat dicere canticum, nisi illa centum quadraginta quatuor milia, qui empti sunt de terra. Hi sunt, qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati: virgines enim sunt. Hi sequuntur agnum quocumque ierit. Hi empti sunt ex omnibus [hominibus Vg.] primitie Deo, et agno, et in ore iustorum [eorum Vg.] non est inventum mendacium: sine macula [enim add. Vg.] sunt ante thronum Dei’. 󰀅. Scribal error, the correct version in Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃], n. 󰀂. 󰀆. Instead of ‘name’, given by the manuscript and accepted by F. Pfeiffer, J. Quint conjectures ‘lambe’ (perhaps inspired by C. de B. Evans without acknowledging it. Evans translated: ‘These were all virgins who stood next the lamb’) which misleads Walshe/McGinn to translate: ‘They were all virgins and stood as close as possible to the lamb’. This, however, goes against

H OMILY 󰀆󰀅 A * [Q 󰀁󰀃 A ]

󰀃󰀉

St. John saw in a vision ‘a lamb standing on mount Zion’󰀄 and with it were forty-four 󰀅 who were not earthly and had not the name of women. They were all virgins and stood very close by the name,󰀆 and where the lamb turned, there they all followed him and all sang with the lamb a particular song and had their name and their father’s name on the forefront of their head. Now John says, he saw a lamb ‘standing on the mountain’. I say, John himself was the mountain󰀇 on which he saw the lamb, and whoever shall see the divine lamb, must himself be the mountain and come into his highest and his purest. The second thing he says is that he saw ‘the lamb standing on the mountain’: that which stands on another, touches with its lowest point the lowest’s highest [point].󰀈 God touches all things, but he himself remains untouched. God is above all things, one standing in Himself, and His standing in [Himself] holds all creatures. All creatures have a highest and a lowest; these God does not have. God is above all things and is never touched by anything. Every creature seeks outside itself, each one in another, what it[self] does not have; this God does not. God does not seek anything outside of Himself. What all creatures have, God has anyway in Himself. He is the ground, the circumference󰀉 of all creatures. It is quite true that one is before the other, or at least one is born from the other. Nevertheless, it does not convey it its being. It retains

Eckhart’s thinking – the virgins are not standing very close by the lamb, rather the lamb stands close to the virgins, see below n. 󰀄. Instead, Eckhart is here continuing the thought of the same sentence that the 󰀁󰀄󰀄,󰀀󰀀󰀀 were called ‘virgins’, not ‘women’, and that they stood very close by this name of ‘virgins’. This is the explanation of the fact that they followed the lamb wherever it turned. The similar thought can be found in Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃], nn. 󰀂.󰀄 (‘If you are a virgin and married to the lamb and divorced from all creatures, you follow the lamb wherever it goes’). 󰀇. So already Augustinus, In Iohannis evangelium tr. 󰀁 c. 󰀂–󰀅 (Willems 󰀁,󰀂󰀆–󰀂,󰀂󰀆): ‘Erat enim iste Iohannes, fratres charissimi, de illis montibus … de his montibus et Iohannes erat’. 󰀈. Ba󰀁: ‘mit sinem vnderen stein des vndresten des obrestes’; Pfeiffer conjectured: ‘mit sînem understen des anderen oberstez’; Quint: ‘mit sinem vndersten des vndern obrestes’. The text is clearly corrupt, and Quint, following Pfeiffer is certainly correct to change ‘vnderen stein’ into ‘vndersten’, as ‘vndresten’ is immediately following again. That is, however, the reason, why we think that this ‘vndresten’ should not be changed into ‘vndern’, neither should the conjectured term read ‘vndersten’, but ‘vndresten’. 󰀉. Liber XXIV philosophorum, prop. 󰀂 (Hudry 󰀇): ‘circumferentia nusquam’.

󰀄󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

instan, ein insiczen in sich selber. Ein ieklich creature nach der edelkeit ir nature, so si me insiczet in sich selber, so si sich me vs bútet. Ein enveltig stein als ein dupstein der bewiset nút me, denne das er ein stein ist. aber ein edel-stein, der grosse kraft hat, in dem das er hat ein instan, Ein insiczen in sich selber, in dem selber reket er ieczet das hovpt vf vnd luoget vs. die meister sprechent, Das kein creature so gros insiczen in sich selber habe alse lip vnd sele, Vnd hat ovch enkein so gros vs gen so die sele nach irme obersten teile. Nu sprichet er: Ich sach das lamp stan. Hie múgen wir vier guot lere an nemen. Das eine: das lamp spiset vnd kleidet vnd tuot das alse guetlich, vnd das sol v´nserm verstentnisse loken, Das wir so vil von got emphangen | (󰀂󰀂󰀆) hant vnd v´ns das so guonlichen tuot; Das sol v´ns twingen, das wir an allen v´nsern werken nicht ensuochen denne sin lob vnd sin ere. Das ander: das lembelin stuont. Es tuot vil sanfte, so ein frúnt bi sime frùnde stat. got stat v´ns bi vnd stende belibet er bi v´ns stete vnd vnbeweget. Nu spricht er: bi ime stuonden alzemale vil [was]; der hatte iekliches gescriben vor an irme hovpte sinen namen vnd sines vatter namen. zem minsten sol gottes name in v´ns gescriben sin. Wir soen gottes bilde in vns tragen, vnd sin liecht sol in v´ns lúchten, ob wir Johannes wellen sin.

󰀁󰀀. See Hom. 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆b], n. 󰀁󰀂. 󰀁󰀁. See, for example, Th. Aqu., Contra Gentiles II 󰀆󰀈,󰀁󰀂: ‘[anima] naturaliter unitur corpori ad complendam speciem humanam’ (‘the soul is naturally united to the body in order to complete the human species’). 󰀁󰀂. Only the first two lessons are preserved in this fragment, lessons three and four were most likely following in the part that is lost today. 󰀁󰀃. See Eckhart, Pr. 󰀁󰀁󰀇 (DW IV 󰀁󰀁󰀃󰀅,󰀄󰀂󰀆–󰀉) with reference to Auctoritates Aristotelis n. 󰀁󰀇󰀇 (Hamesse 󰀂󰀄󰀅,󰀄󰀇–󰀈): ‘Amicus debet se habere ad amicum, sicut ad se ipsum, quia amicus est alter ipse’, see also Aristoteles, Ethica ad Nicomachum IX c. 󰀄, 󰀁󰀁󰀆󰀆a󰀃󰀀–󰀂. 󰀁󰀄. Note that the text here switches from ‘their name and their father’s name’ written to the forefront of ‘their’ head, as in n. 󰀁, so also in Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃], n. 󰀉, to how Eckhart also rendered

H OMILY 󰀆󰀅 A * [Q 󰀁󰀃 A ]

󰀄󰀁

something of its own. God is one simple standing in Himself, a sitting in Himself. Depending on the nobility of its nature, the more each creature is sitting in itself, it is offering itself more to the outside. A simple stone, like a tuff, shows nothing more than being a stone. But a precious stone that has great power󰀁󰀀 by having a standing in itself, a sitting in itself, in itself elevates its head and looks out. The masters say󰀁󰀁 that no creature has such a great sitting in itself as body and soul, and none has such a great outgoing as the soul according to her highest part. Now he says, ‘I saw the lamb standing’. Here we can take four good lessons.󰀁󰀂 The first: the lamb offers something to eat and to dress and does so kindly and it should make us understand that we have received from God so much and that He is so benevolent to us; this should force us to seek nothing in all our actions anything other than His praise and honour. The second: the lamb ‘was standing’. It does such good when a friend stands by his friend.󰀁󰀃 God stands by us and remains standing by us, constant and unmoved. Now he says, ‘with it were standing very many’; Each of them had written its name and its father’s name on the forefront of their󰀁󰀄 head. At least God’s name should be inscribed into us. We have to carry in us the beautiful image of God, and His light should shine in us󰀁󰀅 if we want to be ‘John’.󰀁󰀆

the verse in Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃], n. 󰀂, namely individualised and minted to the lamb: ‘Each of them had written its name and its father’s name on the forefront of their head’. The clear and careful switch in both texts underlines that in both cases we are not faced with a scribal error (so J. Quint, see above), but with a conscious alteration by the author. 󰀁󰀅. See, again, Augustinus, In Iohannis evangelium tr. 󰀁 c. 󰀁󰀈 (Willems 󰀁󰀀,󰀉–󰀁󰀃): ‘Ab illo lumine illuminatus est Iohannes Baptista; ab ipso et ipse Iohannes euangelista. Ex ipso lumine plenus erat qui dixit: “Non sum ego Christus; sed qui post me uenit, cuius non sum ego dignus corrigiam calceamenti soluere” (Ioh. 󰀁:󰀉.󰀂󰀀.󰀂󰀇)’. 󰀁󰀆. ‘John’ in the sense of ‘grace’, see Hieronymus, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum (Lagarde 󰀁󰀃󰀆,󰀆–󰀇): ‘Iohannan cui est gratia uel domini gratia’.

Homily 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁] In conversione sancti Pauli, die 󰀂󰀅 ianuaris ‘Surrexit autem Saulus de terra apertisque oculis nihil videbat’ (Acta 󰀉:󰀈) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart is explaining here (Acts 󰀉:󰀈) is read on the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul on January 󰀂󰀅 (‘Vff sant Pauls bekerung’ BT). On the same feast, but on the Gospel reading of Matth. 󰀁󰀉:󰀂󰀇–󰀉 Eckhart has given Sermo LIII (LW IV 󰀄󰀄󰀁–󰀂). Acts 󰀉:󰀈 is also quoted in Eckhart’s Hom. 󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀁], n. 󰀁󰀉 and his Latin Sermo XXXIV,󰀂 (LW IV 󰀂󰀉󰀉,󰀁󰀂). The text as given in the critical edition is derived from four manuscripts: B󰀂, Ba󰀁, Mai󰀁, Str󰀃, by BT, HT and eight further manuscripts with excerpts and fragments, and the Greith excerpts. The witnesses H󰀄, Kon, M󰀅󰀇 and Ka󰀂 were not used in the critical edition of DW. The preacher refers to (‘Ich han etwenne gesprochen …’) Hom. 󰀄󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀀], n. 󰀄, and the text is also closely connected with Hom. 󰀃󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀉]. N. Largier sees also parallels to the first set of Eckhart’s Parisian Questions.󰀁 The content of the homily After quoting the reference text (Acts 󰀉:󰀈) in Latin (n. 󰀁), the preacher renders it in the vernacular (n. 󰀂). The verse and its explication here by Eckhart is particularly of interest, because scholarship has long looked for the Latin equivalent for Eckhart’s metaphor of ‘mîner sêle grund’. As one can see, he takes ‘terra’, translates it first by ‘from the earth’ (n. 󰀂), 󰀁. N. Largier II 󰀆󰀈󰀁.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁]

󰀄󰀃

but later equates it with ‘grund’, the ‘ground of the soul’ (n. 󰀁󰀃). Then he suggests that ‘this phrase has four meanings’ which all play on the notion of ‘nothing’ or ‘nothingness’ (n. 󰀃). A) ‘A light came from the sky’ (nn. 󰀄–󰀅): Eckhart begins his explanation with reference to the best masters by introducing an idea from Albertus Magnus, then mentions ‘our masters’ with reference to Maimonides without giving the name of either of them. The topic is the light, as given by the Scriptural quote. Eckhart contrasts this with Albertus’ statement that ‘the sky has light in itself’, but that the sky itself does not shine, whereas ‘the sun’ does shine. Perhaps Eckhart may have explained this contrast, but in the version that we have, no explanation follows. It is obvious, of course, that this contrast points to the interpretation that while the verse speaks of a light coming from heaven, this cannot be the sky’s own light, as it would be in the case of the sun, but that it must be another, the divine light that shines through the sky down to the earth. The Maimonides-quote takes the interpretation even further and radicalises the idea of ‘fire’ and ‘shining’. According to the Jewish master, ‘fire’ does not shine at all, at least not in its ‘simple natural purity’ or in its ‘nature’, hence the eye can not catch it. Fire can only be seen, if it is caught in an object like wood or coal. This idea Eckhart supports by I Tim. 󰀆:󰀁󰀆 that God lives in an ‘inaccessible’ light (n. 󰀅). Hence, there is no access to it, not by coming closer or by an increase, one can only see it ‘in a light that is God Himself’ – which delivers the interpretation of ‘sky’ and ‘sun’ that was missing in n. 󰀃. Eckharts adds a further ‘master’ who seems to be Thomas. B) ‘A light from the sky shone around him’ (n. 󰀆): With ‘around him’ Eckharts moves to the outer world to see what the opposite of ‘nothing’ is, namely ‘something’. This ‘something’ is what the soul can ‘grasp’.󰀂 The master that is introduced is not identified, although Eckhart could point to the author of the Song of Songs (󰀃:󰀄). ‘The intellect’ is beyond what can grasp and can be grasped. Yet, even the intellect is differentiated in its status. First it is seen as acting, above which there is ‘another intellect that does not seek’. This Eckhart calls light for 󰀂. Unfortunately the wordplay that Eckhart uses in MHG (‘umbeschein’ – ‘umbegriffen’) can hardly be imitated in the English translation.

󰀄󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

which the soul’s powers strive. Eckhart points to a debate amongst masters, hence he may have some particular Quaestiones in mind (which we can not identify), i.e. ‘whether the angels do not know the thoughts unless they are coming forth and the thoughts then originate in the intellect’ (n. 󰀇). Eckhart answers the question by referring to the Liber de causis (prop. 󰀂󰀁) according to which the superior thing that emanates (light) gives to, but does not receive from, the inferior things and remains untouched. This is a topic that Eckhart has dealt with in his Commentary on Wisdom, and which occurs again in a text preserved in the manuscript of the Wartburg-Stiftung, Ms. 󰀁󰀃󰀆󰀁-󰀅󰀀, fol. 󰀁󰀀󰀂r–󰀁󰀀󰀄r (with the parallel in Berlin, Ms. germ. fol. 󰀉󰀈󰀆 [󰀂󰀀󰀈va󰀂–󰀂󰀀󰀉rb󰀇]). Therefore, with regards to emanation, Eckharts contradicts ‘certain masters’, one of them might be Maimonides, who thought that the soul is totally in the heart in such a way that she emanates life into the other body parts and is herself being affected by such sustenance (n. 󰀈). C) ‘As nothing’ (nn. 󰀉–󰀁󰀁): Eckhart comes back to the initial discussion about ‘nothing’ (n. 󰀉).󰀃 For this, he refers to the Song of Songs, or as he calls it here, the Book of Love (Cant. 󰀃:󰀁): ‘In my bed I searched through the night the one that my soul loves, but I did not find him’. ‘Night’ he then contrasts with ‘light’ and develops the image of the bed: ‘She searched him in the bed; with this she means: for those who are attached or covered with something that is below God, this bed is too tight. All that God can create is too tight’. This radical criticism of createdness, Eckhart, however, balances by adding: ‘There is no night that has no light’, even though he admits, that this light ‘is covered’. On the other side, he also points out that the sun’s light, an example for the divine light, during the day overpowers and covers all other lights. In a further step Eckhart interprets Song of Songs 󰀃:󰀂–󰀄 that initially the soul did not find the one she was looking for, but coming ‘a little further’ found the one she loved (nn. 󰀁󰀀–󰀁). He then gives four reasons why the soul did not name the beloved’s name (n. 󰀁󰀁). D) ‘Paul got up from the earth, and with eyes open he saw nothing’ (nn. 󰀁󰀂–󰀄): Eckhart adds four more thoughts on Paul who ‘saw nothing’. First, he reflects upon the difference between ‘nothing’ and ‘something’ (n. 󰀁󰀂). He quotes ‘the enlightened Dionysius’ and refers to Augustine. 󰀃. See n. 󰀃.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁]

󰀄󰀅

In a wonderful third person reference to ‘a person’, Eckhart seems to portray himself as having a ‘daydream’ (‘ein wachender troum’), where he imagines himself ‘to have become pregnant, like a woman with a child’. A second topic is taken, presumably from Aristotle, that seeing has to do with taking impressions in (n. 󰀁󰀃), but that knowing God is not based on external impressions. In a third step, he equates nothing with God (n. 󰀁󰀄), from which results that knowing God cannot be through any medium. ‘When he did not see anything, then he saw God’ (n. 󰀁󰀅): Eckhart comes back to what he indicated in n. 󰀁󰀁 that God’s light darkens every light. His fourth topic is that God’s light is ‘unmixed’ (n. 󰀁󰀆). A key example is the colourless eye that sees all colours. In consequence, knowing God presupposes rejecting any affection by or mixture with creatures (n. 󰀁󰀇), supported by another reference to Cant. 󰀃:󰀄. God has to be taken ‘in a way without a way and as being without a being’ (‘wîse âne wîse und wesen âne wesen’). This wayless and measureless way is what Eckhart is praying for at the end (n. 󰀁󰀈). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀁󰀉,󰀇󰀉–󰀈󰀄; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀂󰀃󰀅–󰀄󰀂; J. Quint, DW III 󰀂󰀀󰀄–󰀃󰀁; N. Largier II 󰀆󰀄–󰀇󰀉.󰀆󰀈󰀁–󰀈; B. Hasebrink, LE, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈, 󰀂󰀂󰀀–󰀉. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀅󰀉–󰀆󰀄; R. Schürmann, Meister Eckhart (󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀈), 󰀁󰀂󰀂–󰀈; Meister Eckhart, Teacher and Preacher (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇), 󰀃󰀂󰀀–󰀅; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀁󰀃󰀇–󰀄󰀂.

󰀄󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀁󰀁) ‘Surrexit autem Saulus de terra apertisque oculis nihil videbat’. Diz wort, daz ich gesprochen hân in der latîne, daz schrîbet sant Lukas in actibus von sant Paulô und sprichet alsô: ‘Paulus stuont ûf von der erden, und mit offenen ougen ensach er niht’. Mich dünket, daz diz wörtelîn vier sinne habe. Ein sin ist: dô er ûfstuont von der erden, mit offenen ougen sach er niht, und daz niht was got; wan, dô er got sach, daz heizet er ein niht. Der ander sin: dô er ûfstuont, dô ensach er niht wan got. Der dritte: (󰀂󰀁󰀂) | in allen dingen ensach er niht wan got. Der vierde: dô er got sach, dô sach er alliu dinc als ein niht. Hie vor hât er gesprochen, wie ein lieht snelle kam von dem himel und sluoc in nider ze der erden. Nû merket, daz er sprichet, daz ein lieht von himel kam. Ez sprechent unser besten meister, daz der himel in im selber lieht habe und doch niht enliuhtet. Diu sunne hât ouch lieht in ir selben und liuhtet. Die sternen hânt ouch lieht, swie ez 󰀄. Act. 󰀉:󰀈. The context of the text can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀂va: ‘In conversione sancti Pauli lectio actuum apostolorum. In diebus illis Saulus [Saulus autem Vg.] adhuc spirans minarum, et cedis in discipulos Domini, accessit ad principem sacerdotum et petiit ab eo epistulas in Damascum ad synagogas, ut si quos inveniret [invenisset Vg.] huius vie viros ac mulieres, vinctos perduceret [in add. Vg.] Iherusalem. Et cum iter faceret, contigit ut appropinquaret Damasco. Et subito circunfulsit eum lux de celo. Et cadens in terram audivit vocem dicentem sibi: Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris? Qui dixit: Quis es Domine? et ille: Ego sum Ihesus Nazarenus [om. Vg.], quem tu persequeris. Durum est tibi contra stimulum calcitrare. Et tremens ac stupens dixit: Domine, quid me vis facere? Et Dominus ad eum: Surge, et ingredere civitatem, et dicetur tibi quid te oporteat facere. Viri autem illi, qui comitabantur cum eo, stabant stupefacti, audientes quidem vocem, neminem autem videntes. Surrexit autem Saulus de terra, apertisque oculis nichil videbat. Ad manus autem illum trahentes, introduxerunt Damascum. Et erat [ibi add. Vg.] tribus diebus non videns, et non manducavit neque bibit. Erat autem quidem discipulus Damasci, nomine Ananias: et dixit ad illum in visu Dominus: Anania. At ille ait: Ecce ego, Domine. Et Dominus ad illum [eum Vg.]: Surge, vade in vicum qui vocatur rectus, et quere in domo Iude Saulum nomine Tharsensem: ecce enim orat. Et vidit virum Ananiam nomine introeuntem et imponentem sibi manus, ut visum recipiat. Respondit autem Ananias: Domine, audivi a multis de viro hoc, quanta mala sanctis tuis fecerit [fecerit sanctis tuis Vg.] in Iherusalem: et hic habet potestatem a principibus sacerdotum alligandi omnes, qui invocant nomen tuum. Dixit autem ad eum Dominus: Vade, quoniam vas electionis michi est iste, ut portet nomen meum coram gentibus et regibus et filiis Israel. Ego enim ostendam illi quanta oporteat eum pro nomine meo pati. Et abiit Ananias, et introivit in domum: et imponens ei manus, dixit: Saule frater, Dominus misit me Ihesus, qui apparuit tibi in via, qua veniebas, ut videas, et implearis Spiritu sancto. Et confestim ceciderunt ab oculis eius tanquam scame, et visum recepit: et surgens baptizatus est. Et cum accepisset cibum, confortatus est. Fuit autem cum discipulis, qui erant Damasci, per dies aliquot. Et continuo ingressus in synagogas [synagogis Vg.] predicabat Ihesum, quoniam hic est filius Dei. Stupebant autem omnes, qui eum [om. Vg.] audiebant, et dicebant: Nonne

H OMILY 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁]

󰀄󰀇

‘Surrexit autem Saulus de terra apertisque oculis nihil videbat’.󰀄 This phrase I said in Latin, St. Luke writes in Acts about Saint Paul, and it means: ‘Paul got up from the earth and with his eyes open he did not see anything’. It seems to me that this phrase has four meanings. One meaning is: when he got up from the earth, with his eyes open, he saw nothing, and that nothing was God; because when he saw God, he calls Him nothing. The second meaning: when he got up, he saw nothing but God. The third: in all things󰀅 he saw nothing but God. The fourth: when he saw God, he saw all things as nothing.󰀆 Previously he󰀇 had said how a light came suddenly from the sky and threw him󰀈 down to the earth.󰀉 Now note that he says that ‘a light came from the sky’. Our best masters󰀁󰀀 say that the sky has light in itself and yet does not shine. The sun, too, has light in it, but it shines. Even the stars have light, although it comes to them.󰀁󰀁 Our masters hic est, qui expugnabat in Iherusalem eos, qui invocabant nomen istud? Et huc ad hoc venit, ut vinctos illos duceret ad principes sacerdotum? (f. 󰀄󰀃󰀂vb) Saulus autem multo magis convalescebat, et confundebat Iudeos, qui habitabant Damasci, affirmans quoniam hic est Christus’. 󰀅. On ‘all things’, see N. Largier I 󰀁󰀀󰀃󰀄–󰀇. 󰀆. On ‘all things as nothing’, see N. Largier I 󰀇󰀈󰀉–󰀉󰀃. 󰀇. Paul is here projected onto Luke; while Luke is taken as author of Acts; the introduction of ‘hie vor hât er gesprochen’ introduces an oral component which refers rather to Paul. 󰀈. I.e. Paul. 󰀉. Act. 󰀉:󰀃: ‘et subito circumfulsit eum lux de caelo. Et cadens in terram audivit vocem dicentem sibi…’ 󰀁󰀀. Albertus, De caelo II tr. 󰀃 c. 󰀁󰀂.󰀁󰀄–󰀅 (Colon. 󰀅,󰀁, 󰀁󰀇󰀈,󰀅󰀅–󰀆): ‘Et ideo dico, quod caelum primum est universale in lumine movente ad esse. Et caelum secundum habet lumen distinctum, sed non figuratum ad expressas figuras’; ibid. II tr. 󰀁 c. 󰀂 (Colon. 󰀅,󰀁, 󰀁󰀀󰀇,󰀅󰀃–󰀇): ‘Et ideo necesse est caelum esse spissius et minus spissum, ut diversificetur suum instrumentun, quod est lumen, et ita per consequens diversimode moveat materiam ad diversas formas generatorum et corruptorum’. It seems to to be directly taken from Thomas, Super II Sententiarum d. 󰀂 q. 󰀂 a. 󰀂 (Mandonnet 󰀇󰀂): ‘Videtur quod caelum empyreum non sit lucidum. Quia, secundum Avicennam, VI Naturalium, parte III, causa luciditatis est congregatio partium diaphani … Sed caelum empyreum est subtilissimum … dicendum, quod illa ratio procedit de eo quod est hoc modo lucidum quod radios emittit sensui nostro visibiles: propter quod etiam ignis in propria sphaera non lucet. Sic autem non dicimus lucidum caelum empyreum, sed quia in natura sua lucem habet, eo quod maxime formale est’. 󰀁󰀁. See Albertus, De causis proprietatum elementorum I tr. 󰀂 c. 󰀁󰀁 (Hossfeld 󰀈󰀁,󰀁󰀇): ‘Ignis autem in sphaera propria non lucet’. Albertus, De caelo I tr. 󰀁 c. 󰀁󰀁 (Colon. 󰀅,󰀁, 󰀂󰀉,󰀅󰀃–󰀇): ‘Quoniam stellae omnes accipiunt lumen a sole, sicut dicit Aristoteles in Secundo de Causis Proprietatum Elementorum et Planetarum, videbitur, quod omnis stella debeat esse calida’; note the Liber de causis, prop. 󰀂 (Pattin 󰀅󰀀–󰀁); and Albertus, De caelo II tr. 󰀃 c. 󰀁 (Colon. 󰀅,󰀁, 󰀁󰀄󰀃,󰀃󰀂–󰀄󰀀).

󰀄󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

joch an sie kome. Ez sprechent unser meister: daz viur an sîner einvaltiger natiurlîcher (󰀂󰀁󰀃) | lûterkeit, an sîner obersten stat, dâ enliuhtet ez niht. Sîn natûre ist sô lûter, daz ez kein ouge niht gesehen enmac enkeine wîs. Ez ist sô kleinvüege und entvremdet dem ougen, wære ez hie niden bî dem ougen, ez enmöhte sîn niht berüeren mit der gesiht. Aber an einem vremden dinge dâ sihet man ez wol, dâ ez entfenget ist an einem holze oder an einem koln. (󰀂󰀁󰀄) | Bî dem liehte des himels prüeven wir daz lieht, daz got ist, daz daz keines menschen sin gereichen enmac. Dâ von sprichet sant Paulus: ‘got wonet in einem liehte, dâ nieman zuo komen enmac’. Er sprichet: got ist ein lieht, dâ niht zuoganges enist. Ze gote enist kein zuoganc. Swer noch ûfgânde und zuonemende ist an gnâden und an liehte, der enkam noch nie in got. Got enist niht ein zuonemende lieht: man muoz mit dem zuonemenne dar sîn komen. In dem zuonemenne ensihet man gotes niht. Sol got gesehen werden, daz muoz geschehen in einem liehte, daz got selber ist. Ein meister (󰀂󰀁󰀅) | sprichet: in gote enist niht minner und mê noch daz und daz. Die wîle wir in dem zuogange sîn, sô enkomen wir niht dar în. Nû sprichet er: ‘ein lieht von himel umbeschein in’. Dâ meinet er: swaz sîner sêle iht was, daz wart umbegriffen. Ein meister sprichet, daz in disem liehte alle die krefte der sêle überhüpfent und erhœhent

󰀁󰀂. See Maimonides, Dux neutrorum II 󰀃󰀁 (󰀆󰀀r 󰀅󰀀–󰀃): ‘… tenebras, per quas intelligitur ignis primus, scilicet quae est unum quattuar elementorum … Ignis vero primus vocatus est illo nomine, quia non est lucidus, sed est pervius visui’, see Eckhart, In Gen. I n. 󰀃󰀀 (LW 󰀃󰀀󰀈,󰀃–󰀄): ‘ignis tenebrae vocatur, quia in sphaera sua non lucet, cuius signum est stellarum apparitio’; In Ioh. n. 󰀇󰀄 (LW III 󰀆󰀂,󰀉–󰀁󰀀): ‘Sic enim ignis in se ipso, in sphaera sua, non lucet’; In Ioh. n. 󰀈󰀃 (LW III 󰀇󰀁); see also Albertus, De caelo II tr. 󰀃 c. 󰀂; Meteor. I tr. 󰀂 c. 󰀆 (IV 󰀄󰀉󰀇a); Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀆󰀆 a. 󰀁 ad 󰀂 o.: ‘Sed Rabbi Moyses … dicit ignem significari per tenebras, quia, ut dicit, in propria sphaera ignis non lucet’. 󰀁󰀃. I.e. the eye. 󰀁󰀄. I Tim. 󰀆:󰀁󰀆: ‘lucem inhabitat inaccessibilem’. 󰀁󰀅. J. Quint and N. Largier do not identify the master, but he seems to be again Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀂 a. 󰀃: ‘Quod autem dicitur maxime tale in aliquo genere, est causa omnium quae sunt illius generis, sicut ignis, qui est maxime calidus, est causa omnium calidorum, ut in eodem libro dicitur. Ergo est aliquid quod omnibus entibus est causa esse, et bonitatis, et cuiuslibet perfectionis, et hoc dicimus Deum. Quinta via sumitur ex gubernatione rerum. Videmus enim quod aliqua quae cognitione carent, scilicet corpora naturalia, operantur propter finem, quod apparet ex hoc quod semper aut frequentius eodem modo operantur, ut consequantur id quod est optimum; unde patet quod non a casu, sed ex intentione perveniunt ad finem. Ea autem quae non habent cognitionem, non tendunt in finem nisi directa ab aliquo cognoscente et intelligente, sicut sagitta a sagittante. Ergo est aliquid intelligens, a quo omnes res naturales ordinantur ad finem, et hoc dicimus Deum’ (‘But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble

H OMILY 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁]

󰀄󰀉

say:󰀁󰀂 fire in its simple natural purity, in its highest place, does not shine. Its nature is so pure that no eye can see it in any way. It is so subtle and foreign to the eye, that if it were down here next to the eye, it󰀁󰀃 could not touch it with vision. Yet in an alien thing you see it well, as when it is lit in a wood or coal.

By the light of the sky we indicate the light that God is, which nobody’s sense can reach. Of this Saint Paul says:󰀁󰀄 ‘God lives in a light which no one can reach’. He says: God is a light to which there is no entrance. There is no entrance to God. He who is still ascending and growing in grace and light never came into God. God is not a light that increases: one has to come into Him by increasing. While increasing one does not see God. If one should see God, this must happen in a light that is God Himself. A master says,󰀁󰀅 in God is neither less nor more, neither this nor that. As long as we are at the gate, we are not coming in. Now, he says:󰀁󰀆 ‘A light from the sky shone around him’. There he meant: What for his soul was ‘something’, that was grasped. A master says󰀁󰀇 that in this light all the powers of the soul are jumping in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God’, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀀). 󰀁󰀆. See Act. 󰀉:󰀃: ‘Et cum iter faceret, contigit ut appropinquaret Damasco: et subito cirumfulsit eum lux de caelo’. 󰀁󰀇. N. Largier II 󰀆󰀈󰀄 thinks of the searching intellect as the power of the soul, while the highest intellect might be the intellectus possibilis. Perhaps Eckhart means Dietrich of Freiberg’s intellectus agens, on this see N. Largier I 󰀈󰀄󰀄–󰀅󰀁; the master could also refer to Cant. 󰀃:󰀄: ‘Paululum cum pertransissem eos, inveni quem diligit anima mea’, as in Hom. 󰀃󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀉], n. 󰀄 he takes this verse to also speak of the soul’s jumping up (‘überhüpfent’): ‘“dar nâch, dô ich ein wênic oder ein lützel überspranc, dô vant ich, den mîn sêle dâ minnet”, rehte, als ob si spræche: dô ich überhüpfete alle crêatûren, daz “ein wênic oder ein lützel” ist, “dô vant ich, den mîn sêle minnet”. Diu sêle, diu got vinden sol, diu muoz überhüpfen und überspringen alle crêatûren (‘“Then, when I jumped over a little or a trifle, there I found Him whom my soul loves”, just as if she said: when I hopped over all the creatures, which are “a little and a trifle”, “then I found Him whom my soul loves”. The soul who is to find God, has to hop and jump over all creatures’).

󰀅󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

sich die ûzern sinne, dâ mite wir sehen und hœren, und die inwendigen sinne, die wir gedenke heizen: wie wît die sîn und wie gruntlôs, daz ist wunder. Als wol gedenke ich über mer als hie bî mir. Über die gedenke ist vernünfticheit, als si noch suochende ist. Si gât alumbe und suochet; si lûzet her und dar, und ir gât zuo und abe. Über die vernünfticheit, diu dâ suochende ist, sô ist ein ander vernünfticheit, diu dâ niht ensuochet, diu dâ stât in irm lûtern einvaltigen wesene, daz dâ begriffen ist in dem liehte. Und ich spriche, daz in disem liehte alle die krefte der sêle (󰀂󰀁󰀆) | sich erhœhent. Die sinne entspringent in die gedenke: wie hôch und wie gruntlôs die sîn, daz enweiz nieman wan got und diu sêle. Ez sprechent unser meister, und ist ein swære vrâge, daz die engel niht enwizzen die gedenke, sie enbrechen ûz und die gedenke enspringen denne in die vernünfticheit, (󰀂󰀁󰀇) | als diu vernünfticheit suochende ist, und diu vernünfticheit, diu dâ suochende ist, enspringe in die vernünfticheit, diu dâ niht suochende enist, diu dâ ein lûter lieht in ir selber ist. Daz lieht begrîfet alle die krefte der sêle in im. Dar umbe sprichet er: ‘daz lieht des himels umbeschein in’. Ez sprichet ein meister: alliu diu dinc, diu ûzvluz hânt, diu enhânt kein enpfâhen von den nidern dingen. Got vliuzet in alle crêatûren, und blîbet er doch unberüeret von in allen. Er enbedarf ir niht. Got gibet der natûre, daz si würket, und daz êrste werk ist daz herze. Dâ von wolten etlîche meister, daz diu sêle alzemâle in dem herzen (󰀂󰀁󰀈) | wære 󰀁󰀈. Gedenke: [etwas denken (= vorstellen) J. Quint]. 󰀁󰀉. Again, as before in Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃], n. 󰀉, we translate the strange ‘vernünfticheit’ here with ‘intellect’, although in conformity with Eckhart’s abstract we ought to render it with ‘intellectuality’. 󰀂󰀀. Though J. Quint does not identify the masters, Eckhart certainly has Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀅󰀇 in his mind whether, what and how angels know, and, as already N. Largier II 󰀆󰀈󰀄 saw, Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀅󰀈 a. 󰀄 ad 󰀁: ‘Angelus autem, intelligendo quidditatem alicuius rei, simul intelligit quidquid ei attribui potest vel removeri ab ea. Unde intelligendo quod quid est, intelligit quidquid nos intelligere possumus et componendo et dividendo, per unum suum simplicem intellectum’ (‘When an angel apprehends the nature of anything, he at the same time understands whatever can be either attributed to it, or denied of it. Hence, in apprehending a nature, he by one simple perception grasps all that we can learn by composing and dividing’). 󰀂󰀁. Liber de causis, prop. 󰀂󰀁; see also Eckhart, In Sap. n. 󰀁󰀃󰀄 (LW II 󰀄󰀇󰀂,󰀃–󰀄󰀇󰀃,󰀄): ‘“Nihil inquinatum in illam incurrit”. Augustinus dicit, et naturale est, quod omne superius coniunctum et attactum inferiori se, puta aurum argento et argentum cupro, et sic de aliis, deterioratur et inquinatur. Sed deus, utpote supremum, tangit et afficit omne inferius, sed non tangitur nec afficitur ab inferiori sicut nec caelum – tangit quidem et afficit physice elementum sibi proximum – secundum illud Ioh. 󰀁: “lux in tenebris lucet”, id est deus in creaturis; sequitur: “tenebrae”, scilicet creaturae, “eam non comprehenderunt’, quia ab ipsa affectae ipsam non affecerunt. Et hoc est quod hic dicitur: “nihil inquinatum incurrit in illam” (Sap. 󰀇:󰀂󰀅), quia nihil inferius ipsum

H OMILY 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁]

󰀅󰀁

up, and lift their outer senses with which one sees and hears, and the inner senses we call thoughts: it is a wonder, how open they are and how bottomless. I can think about something󰀁󰀈 beyond the sea just as if it where here with me. Above thoughts is the intellect,󰀁󰀉 as far as it still searches. It goes around and seeks; it spies here and there, and it increases and decreases. Above the intellect that is searching, there is another intellect that does not seek, which stands there in its pure simple being that is contained in that light. And I say that in this light all the powers of the soul lift themselves up. The senses emanate into the thoughts: how high and how groundless these are, no one knows but God and the soul. Our masters say󰀂󰀀 – and it is a difficult question – that the angels do not know the thoughts, unless they are coming forth and the thoughts then emanate into the intellect, as the intellect is searching, and the intellect that is searching emanates into the intellect that is not searching, that is a pure light in itself. This light encompasses all the powers of the soul in it. So he says, ‘the light of the sky shone around him’. A master says:󰀂󰀁 All things that have an emanation, do not receive from the inferior things. God flows into all creatures, but remains untouched by all of them. He does not need them. God gives to nature so that it acts, and the first activity is the heart. For this reason certain masters󰀂󰀂 wanted the soul to be completely in the heart and emanate afficit nec per consequens inquinat’ (‘“Nothing tarnished enters that one” [Sap. 󰀇:󰀂󰀅]. Augustine says, and it is also natural, that anything superior that is connected and affected by what is inferior is being destroyed or tarnished, for example gold by silver and silver by copper, and so with other things. God, however, insofar he is the supreme, touches and affects everything inferior, but is neither touched nor affected by the inferor, like the heaven, that, indeed, touches and affects the physical element that is close to it, according to that verse in John 󰀁[:󰀅]: “The light shines into the darkness”, i.e. God in his creatures, followed by “the darkness”, i.e. the creatures, “have not comprehended Him”, because they were affected by Him, but did not affect Him. Und this is what is meant here: “Nothing tarnished enters that one” [Sap. 󰀇:󰀂󰀅], because nothing inferior affects Him and, consequently, tarnishes [Him]’); see also the translation of this passage in Wartburg–Stiftung, Ms. 󰀁󰀃󰀆󰀁–󰀅󰀀, fol. 󰀁󰀀󰀂r–󰀁󰀀󰀄r (with the parallel in Berlin, Ms. germ. fol. 󰀉󰀈󰀆 [󰀂󰀀󰀈va󰀂–󰀂󰀀󰀉rb󰀇]; see also Eckhart, Prol. gen. n. 󰀁󰀀 passim. 󰀂󰀂. On the heart as first part of the body, see Albertus, De animalibus XIII tr. 󰀁 c. 󰀄 n. 󰀂󰀈 (Stadler 󰀉󰀀󰀄,󰀂󰀈–󰀉): ‘Generatio enim ipsius [cordis] primo apparet sanguinea inter omnia alia membra…’; XIII tr. 󰀁 c. 󰀄 n. 󰀂󰀉 (󰀉󰀀󰀅,󰀅–󰀇): ‘cor enim est primum quod apparet formari in corpore embrionis in initio suae creationis: et est primum quod videtur moveri inter alia membra motu animalis et vitae’; on ‘certain masters’, see Alfredus Anglicus, De motu cordis c. 󰀆 n. 󰀇 (Baeumker 󰀂󰀃,󰀁󰀇–󰀂󰀁): ‘Cor igitur naturalis caloris domicilium … fecit ipsum sapientissimus omnium artifex Deus’; c. 󰀁󰀀 n. 󰀃 (󰀃󰀈,󰀂󰀂–󰀃󰀉,󰀂): ‘Anima enim, cum ex se immobilis et impartibilis usquequaque sit cumque certam in corpore sedem obtineat, instrumento, cuius actu et ministerio vitam virtutesque

󰀅󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

und ûzvlüzze mit lebenne in diu andern glider. Des enist niht. Diu sêle ist in einem ieglîchen glide alzemâle. Ez ist wol wâr: ir êrste werk ist in dem herzen. Daz herze ist enmitten; ez wil alumbe behuot sîn, als der himel niht vremdes învluzzes enhât noch enpfâhennes von nihte enhât. Er hât alliu dinc in im; er berüeret alliu dinc, und er blîbet unberüeret. Dennoch daz viur, swie hôch daz sî an sîner obersten stat, ez enrüeret doch den himel niht. (󰀂󰀁󰀉) | In dem umbeschîne wart er geworfen ûf die erden und wurden im sîniu ougen ûfentslozzen, daz er sach mit offenen ougen alliu dinc als niht. Und dô er alliu dinc sach als niht, dô sach er got. Nû merket! Ein wörtelîn sprichet diu sêle in der minne buoche: ‘in mînem bettelîne hân ich gesuochet durch die naht, den mîn sêle minnet, und ich envant sîn niht’. Si suochte in in dem bettelîne; dâ meinet si: swer behaftet oder behanget an ihte, daz under gote ist, des bette ist ze enge. Allez, daz got geschaffen mac, daz ist ze enge. Si sprichet: ‘ich suochte in al durch die naht’. Ez enist kein naht, si enhabe ein lieht: ez ist aber bedecket. Diu sunne schînet in der naht, si ist aber bedecket. Des tages schînet si und bedecket alliu andern lieht. Alsô tuot daz götlich lieht: daz bedecket alliu lieht. Swaz wir suochen an crêatûren, daz ist allez naht. Diz meine (󰀂󰀂󰀀) | ich: allez, swaz wir an deheiner crêatûre suochen, daz ist allez schate und ist naht. Nochdenne des obersten engels lieht, swie hôch ez sî, ez enrüeret doch der sêle niht. Swaz daz êrste lieht niht enist, daz ist allez tunkel und ist naht. Dâ von envindet si gotes niht. ‘Dô stuont ich ûf und suochte alumbe und lief durch wîte und durch enge. Dô vunden mich die wahtære – daz wâren die engel –, und ich vrâgete sie, ob sie den iht hæten gesehen, den mîn sêle minnet?’, und sie swigen; vil lîhte enkunden sie sîn niht genennen. ‘Dô ich dô ein wênic vürbaz kam, dô vant ich’, den ich suochte. Daz wênige und daz kleine, daz sie irte, daz si sîn niht envant, dâ von hân ich ouch mê gesprochen: swem niht kleine und als ein niht ensint alliu zergen-

corpori ministraret, indigebat’. Maimonides, Dux neutrorum I c. 󰀇󰀁 (󰀃󰀁r 󰀃󰀄–󰀇): ‘sicut ergo membrum quod est de dominantibus, scilicet cor, mouetur semper: et est fons cuiuslibet motus qui est in corpore: et alia membra seruiunt ipsi: et ipsum cor transmittit eis virtutes suas quibus egent in operationibus suis in motu suo’ (‘As the part that is of those that direct, such as the heart, is always in motion, and is the source of any movement in the body, and other parts serve it, itself also transmits to them its own powers that they require for their operations in its own motion’ [own trans.]); see also Eckhart, Hom. 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉], n. 󰀅.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁]

󰀅󰀃

with life into the other body parts. That is not the case. The soul is in each body part completely. It is quite true: its first action is in the heart. The heart is in the middle; it wants to be protected all around, as the sky neither has foreign influence nor receives from anything. It has all the things in it; it touches all things, but remains untouched. Even the fire, no matter how high it is at its top, it will not touch the sky. In the brightness surrounding him he was thrown down to the earth and his eyes were wide open, so that he saw all things ‘as nothing’. And when he saw all things as nothing, he saw God. Now note! The soul says a word in the Book of Love:󰀂󰀃 ‘In my bed I searched through the night for the one that my soul loves, but I did not find him’. She searched for him in the bed; with this she means: for those who are attached or hang on to something that is below God, this bed is too narrow. All that God can create, is too narrow. She says:󰀂󰀄 ‘I searched for him all night’. There is no night that has no light; but it is covered. The sun shines in the night,󰀂󰀅 but it is covered. By day it shines and covers every other light. Thus does the divine light: it covers all light. What we seek in creatures is all night. I mean this: Everything we look for in some creature, is all shade and it is night. Even the light of the supreme angel, however high it is, however, it does not touch the soul. Everything that is not the first light is all dark and it is night. Therefore, she finds nothing of God. ‘I got up and looked around and ran through wide and narrow. Then the night watchmen found me – these were the angels – and I asked them whether they had not seen the one that my soul loves’,󰀂󰀆 but they remained silent; maybe they could not name him. ‘Then when I came a little further, I found the one’󰀂󰀇 that I was looking for. The small or the little thing that tricked her not to find him, I have more often spoken: the one to whom all things do not seem small or as nothing, he will not find God. About this she said: ‘When I came a little

󰀂󰀃. Cant. 󰀃:󰀁: ‘In lectulo meo per noctes quaesivi quem diligit anima mea … et non inveni’. 󰀂󰀄. Ibid. 󰀂󰀅. See also Eckhart, Hom. 󰀁󰀂* [Q 󰀁󰀄], n. 󰀅. 󰀂󰀆. Cant. 󰀃:󰀂–󰀄: ‘Surgam, et circuibo civitatem: per vicos et plateas quaeram quem diligit anima mea: quaesivi illum, et non inveni. Invenerunt me vigiles, qui custodiunt civitatem: Num quem diligit anima mea, vidistis’. 󰀂󰀇. Cant. 󰀃:󰀄: ‘Paululum cum pertransissem eos, inveni quem diligit anima mea’.

󰀅󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

clîchiu dinc, der envindet gotes (󰀂󰀂󰀁) | niht. Dâ von sprach si: ‘dô ich ein wênic vürbaz kam, dô vant ich’, den ich suochte. Sô sich got in die sêle bildet und îngiuzet, nimest dû in denne als ein lieht oder ein wesen oder eine güete, bekennest dû noch iht von im, daz enist got niht. Sehet, daz ‘kleine’ sol man übergân und sol alle zuolegunge abenemen und got bekennen éin. Dâ von sprichet si: ‘dô ich ein wênic vürbaz kam, dô vant ich, den mîn sêle minnet’. Wir sprechen gar dicke: ‘den mîn sêle minnet’. War umbe sprichet sí: ‘den mîn sêle minnet’? Nû ist er doch gar verre obe der sêle, und si ennante sîn niht, den si minnete. Ez sint vier sache, war umbe si in niht ennante. Ein sache ist, wan got namelôs (󰀂󰀂󰀂) | ist. Sölte si im namen geben, daz müeste bedâht werden. Got ist über alle namen; nieman enkan im zuokomen, daz er got gesprechen müge. Daz ander ist, war umbe si im niht namen engap, daz ist: swenne diu sêle alzemâle mit minnen in got vervliuzet, sô enweiz si niht anders wan minne. Si wænet, daz in alle liute bekennen als si. Si wundert, daz ieman iht anders bekennet wan got aleine. Daz dritte: si enhâte sô vil zîtes niht, daz si in genante. Si enkan sô lange von minne niht gekêren; si enmac kein ander wort geleisten wan minne. Daz vierde: daz si vil lîhte wânde, daz er keinen namen anders enhabe wan minne; si nennent allen namen in der minne. Dâ von sprichet si: ‘ich stuont ûf und gienc durch wîte und durch enge. Dô ich ein wênic vürbaz kam, dô vant ich’, den ich suochte. ‘Paulus stuont ûf von der erden, und mit offenen ougen ensach er niht’. Ich enmac (󰀂󰀂󰀃) | niht gesehen, daz ein ist. Er sach niht, daz was got. Got ist ein niht, und got ist ein iht. Swaz iht ist, daz ist ouch niht. Swaz got ist, daz ist er alzemâle. Dâ von sprichet der liehte Dionysius, wâ er von gote schrîbet, dâ sprichet er: er ist über wesen, er ist über leben, er ist über lieht; er engibet im noch diz noch daz, und er meinet, daz er sî neizwaz, daz gar verre dar über sî. Der iht sihet oder

󰀂󰀈. See Eckhart, Hom. 󰀃󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀉], n. 󰀃 and Hom. 󰀄󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀀], n. 󰀆. 󰀂󰀉. ‘vervliuzet’ is more than ‘vliuzet’, so does not only mean transition, but dissolution. 󰀃󰀀. J. Quint and N. Largier point to Ps.-Dionysius, De myst. theol. c. 󰀅, Dionysiaca 󰀆󰀀󰀀, 󰀁: ‘neque est aliquid exsistentium neque aliquid non exsistentium’, but see also De divinis nominibus c. 󰀁, 󰀅 (󰀁󰀁󰀇 Suchla). See also Iohannes Scotus, Periphyseon, III, 󰀆󰀈󰀀CD (Jeauneau 󰀄󰀄󰀂,󰀄󰀅󰀀󰀆–󰀁󰀈), quoted in Honorius Augustodunensis, Clavis physicae 󰀁󰀆󰀂–󰀃 (Lucentini 󰀁󰀂󰀈–󰀉): ‘Quid autem eo nomine, quod est nihilum, sancta significat theologia, explanari a te peto. N.: Ineffabilem et incomprehensibilem diuinae bonitatis inaccessibilemque claritatem omnibus intellectibus siue humanis siue angelicis incognitam – superessentialis est enim et supernaturalis – eo nomine significatam

H OMILY 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁]

󰀅󰀅

further, I found the one’󰀂󰀈 that I was looking for. When God takes shape in and pours himself into the soul, but you take him as light or being or goodness, you still do not know anything about him, this is not God. See, the ‘small’ thing one has to transcend and you must remove all additions and know God as one. Of this she says: ‘When I came a little further, I found the one that my soul loves’. We often say, ‘the one that my soul loves’. Why does she say, ‘the one that my soul loves’? Now, he is far above the soul, and she did not name the one she loved. There are four reasons why she did not name him. One reason is that God is unnamed. If she had to give Him a name, it would have to be invented. God is above every name, no one can become able to say ‘God’. There is a second reason why she did not name Him, that is: when the soul completely dissolves󰀂󰀉 with love in God, then she knows nothing but love. She believes that all people know Him as she does. It would be a surprise for her that someone knows something other than God alone. The third: she did not have enough time to name Him. She can not stay away from love for so long; she can not utter any word than ‘love’. The fourth: that she might have imagined that He had no other name than ‘love’; with ‘love’ she has given all the names. Of this she says, ‘I got up and ran through wide and narrow’. ‘When I came a little further, I found the one’, that I looked for. ‘Paul got up from the earth, and with eyes open he saw nothing’. I can not see what is one. He saw nothing, that was God. God is a nothing, and God is a something. What is something is also nothing. What God is, He is completely. About this, says the enlightened Dionysius,󰀃󰀀 where he writes about God, and says: He is above being, He is above life, He is above light; he does not give Him either this or that, and he thinks that He is something, I do not know what, that is

crediderim, quae, dum per se ipsam cogitatur, neque est, neque erat, neque erit’; Periphyseon V, 󰀈󰀉󰀇D–󰀈󰀉󰀈A (Jeauneau 󰀅󰀅,󰀁󰀇󰀂󰀃–󰀅󰀆,󰀁󰀇󰀅󰀅), in Honorius Augustodunensis, Clavis physicae 󰀃󰀅󰀂–󰀃 (Arfè 󰀈󰀇–󰀈): ‘qui propter superessentialitatem suae naturae nihil dicitur … Et ne rearis me temere deum uocasse nihil et nulla auctoritate suffultum, audi beatum Dionysium Ariopagitam in primo capitulo De diuinis nominibus: … humani animi – quoniam secundum omnem intellectualem operationem requiescunt, talis autem fit deificatorum animorum ad summum lumen unitas – laudant ipsum potissime per omnium quae sunt ablationem … ipsum autem nihil, ut omnibus quae sunt superessentialiter exaltatum”, … summum lumen, Deum videlicet … nomine quod est ‘nihil’ insinuat. Et subiecit rationem, cur ‘nihil’ uocatur, quia super omnia, quae sunt, superessentialiter exaltatur’.

󰀅󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

vellet iht in dîn bekennen, daz enist got niht; dâ von niht, wan er noch diz noch daz enist. Swer sprichet, daz got hie oder dâ sî, dem engloubet niht. Daz lieht, daz got ist, daz liuhtet in der vinsternisse. (󰀂󰀂󰀄) | Got ist ein wâr lieht; swer daz sehen sol, der muoz blint sîn und muoz got al abenemen von ihte. Ein meister sprichet: swer von gote redet bî deheiner glîchnisse, der redet unlûterlîche von im. Der aber bî nihte von gote redet, der redet eigenlîche von im. Swenne diu sêle kumet in ein und si dâ inne tritet in ein lûter verworfenheit ir selber, dâ vindet si got als in einem nihte. Ez dûhte einen menschen als in einem troume – ez was ein wachender troum –, wie ez swanger würde von nihte als ein vrouwe mit einem kinde, und in dem nihte wart got geborn; dér was diu vruht des nihtes. Got wart (󰀂󰀂󰀅) | geborn in dem nihte. Dâ von sprichet er: ‘er stuont ûf von der erden, und mit offenen ougen sach er niht’. Er sach got, dâ alle crêatûren niht ensint. ‘Er sach alle crêatûren als ein niht, wan er hât aller crêatûren wesen in im. Er ist ein wesen, daz alliu wesen in im hât.’ Ein ander sache meinet, daz er sprichet: ‘er ensach niht’. Ez sprechent unser meister: swer iht bekennet von ûzerlîchen dingen, dâ muoz etwaz învallen, ze dem minsten ein îndruk. Sô ich ein bilde wil nemen bî einem dinge, als von einem steine, sô ziuhe ich daz allergröbeste in mich; daz ziuhe ich ûzwendic abe. Als ez aber in mîner sêle grunde ist, dâ ist ez an dem hœhsten und an dem edelsten; dâ enist ez niht wan ein bilde. Swaz mîn sêle von ûzwendic bekennet, dâ vellet etwaz vremdes în; swaz ich crêatûren in gote bekenne, dâ envellet niht în wan got aleine, wan in gote enist niht wan got. Sô ich alle crêatûren in gote bekenne, sô enbekenne ich niht. Er sach got, dâ alle crêatûren niht ensint. (󰀂󰀂󰀆) | Ze dem dritten mâle, war umbe er niht sach: niht, daz was got. Ein meister sprichet: alle crêatûren sint in gote als ein niht,

󰀃󰀁. Ps.-Dionysius, Ep. I, Dionysiaca 󰀆󰀀󰀆, 󰀄: ‘Et si aliquis videns Deum intellexit quod vidit, non ipsum vidit’. 󰀃󰀂. Ioh. 󰀁:󰀅. 󰀃󰀃. Augustinus, De Trinitate VIII 󰀂 n. 󰀃, De ord. II 󰀁󰀆 n. 󰀄󰀄; Liber XXIV philosophorum, prop. 󰀂󰀃 and 󰀁󰀆 (Hudry 󰀃󰀁; 󰀂󰀃). 󰀃󰀄. Eckhart speaks of a ‘person’, but most likely he means himself. 󰀃󰀅. I.e. Paul.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁]

󰀅󰀇

really far above. If anyone sees something, or if you get to know something, this is not God;󰀃󰀁 the reason is that He is neither this nor that. Don’t believe those who say that God is here or there. The light, which is God, shines in the darkness.󰀃󰀂 God is a true light; whoever wants to see it, must be blind and take everything away from God. A master says: ‘Whoever speaks of God through some likenesses, speaks untruly of him. But the one who speaks of God through nothing, speaks of him properly’.󰀃󰀃 When the soul comes into the one and there enters by a pure rejection of herself, there she finds God as in nothingness. A person󰀃󰀄 thought to have dreamt – it was a daydream – to have become pregnant, like a woman with a child, from nothing, and in this nothing God was born; He was the fruit of nothingness. God was born through nothingness. About this he󰀃󰀅 says: ‘He got up from the earth and with his eyes open he did not see anything’. He saw God, where all creatures are nothing. ‘He saw all creatures as one nothing, because He has in Him all creatures’ beings. He is a being that has all being in Himself.’󰀃󰀆 A second topic is given when he says, ‘he did not see anything’. Our masters say:󰀃󰀇 Whoever knows something of external things, something must come into him, at least an impression. When I want to take an image of a thing, like of a stone, I take the most coarse󰀃󰀈 in me; I have to pull it off from outside. But when it is in the ground of my soul, there it is in the highest and the noblest [part]; there it is nothing but an image. Whatever my soul knows from the outside, something foreign falls into [her]; in what I know of creatures in God, nothing falls into [me] except God alone, because in God there is nothing but God. When I know all creatures in God, I know nothing.󰀃󰀉 He saw God, where all creatures are nothing. Third, why did he see nothing: Nothing, that was God. A master says: ‘All creatures are in God as one nothing, because He has

󰀃󰀆. The master has not been identified yet. But from n. 󰀁󰀄 where the sentence is repeated, it is clear that already here Eckhart is quoting a master. 󰀃󰀇. N. Largier II 󰀆󰀈󰀆–󰀇 and I 󰀉󰀉󰀂–󰀃 sees a more general reference to antique and medieval epistemology, but again, it is so close to the above mentioned question by Thomas, that he still seems to be the reference here: Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀅󰀇–󰀈. 󰀃󰀈. ‘allergröbeste’, translated here (and before in vol. I) with ‘coarse’ means the non-polished, non-spiritual, bodily or creaturely elements in us. 󰀃󰀉. J. Quint translates: ‘so erkenne ich (sie als) nichts’.

󰀅󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

wan er hât aller crêatûren wesen in im. Er ist ein wesen, daz alliu wesen in im hât. Ein meister sprichet, daz niht under gote enist, swie nâhe ez im bî sî, dâ envalle etwaz în. Ein meister sprichet, (󰀂󰀂󰀇) | der engel bekenne sich selben und got sunder mittel. Swaz er anders bekennet, dâ vellet etwaz vremdes în; daz ist noch ein îndruk, swie kleine ez sî. Suln wir got bekennen, daz muoz geschehen sunder mittel; dâ enkan niht vremdes îngevallen. Bekennen wir got in disem liehte, daz muoz eigen sîn und îngezogen âne allez înrîsen deheiner geschaffener dinge. Denne bekennen wir êwic leben sunder allez mittel. ‘Dô er niht ensach, dô sach er got’. Daz lieht, daz got ist, daz vliuzet ûz und machet vinster allez lieht. Daz lieht, in dem dâ Paulus sach, in dem liehte sach er got, niht mê. Dâ von sprichet Job: ‘er gebiutet der sunnen, daz si niht enschîne, und hât die (󰀂󰀂󰀈) | sternen under im beslozzen als under ein insigel’. Von dem, daz er umbegriffen was mit dem liehte, dô ensach er anders niht; wan, swaz der sêle was, daz was bekümbert und was unmüezic mit dem liehte, daz got ist, daz er anders niht enmohte war nemen. Und daz ist uns ein guotiu lêre; wan, swenne wir mit gote bekümbert sîn, sô sîn wir wênic bekümbert von ûzen. Daz vierde, war umbe er ensach niht: daz lieht, daz got ist, daz enhât keinen gemanc, dâ envellet kein gemanc în. Daz was ein zeichen, daz er daz wâre lieht sach, daz dâ niht enist. Mit dem liehte enmeinet er anders niht, wan daz er mit offenen ougen niht ensach. In dem, daz er niht ensach, dô sach er daz götlich niht. Sant Augustînus sprichet: dô er niht ensach, dô sach er got. swer anders niht ensihet und blint ist, der sihet got. Dâ von sprichet sant Augustînus: sît dem (󰀂󰀂󰀉) | mâle daz got ein wâr lieht ist und der sêle ein enthalt und ir næher ist, dan diu sêle ir selber sî: swenne diu sêle gekêret ist von allen gewordenen dingen, von nôt muoz daz sîn, daz got in ir glenze und blicke. Diu sêle enmac 󰀄󰀀. See Iohannes Scotus, Periphyseon III 󰀆󰀈󰀁A–C (Jeauneau 󰀄󰀄󰀂,󰀄󰀅󰀂󰀄–󰀄󰀄󰀄,󰀄󰀅󰀆󰀆), see Honorius Augustodunensis, Clavis physicae 󰀁󰀆󰀃 (Lucentini 󰀁󰀂󰀉): ‘Dum ergo incomprehensibilis intelligitur, per excellentiam nihilum non immerito uocitatur. At uero in suis theophaniis incipiens apparere, veluti ex nihilo in aliquid dicitur procedere … Diuina autem bonitas, quae propterea nihilum dicitur quoniam ultra omnia quae sunt et quae non sunt, in nulla essentia inuenitur, ex negatione omnium essentiarum in affirmationem totius uniuersitatis essentiae a se ipsa in se ipsam descendit, ueluti ex nihilo in aliquid’. 󰀄󰀁. The master has not been identified yet. 󰀄󰀂. J. Quint adds which is, first, not needed and, second, going against what Eckhart is doing here, namely broadening his statement, as he is now speaking about God.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁]

󰀅󰀉

the beings of all creatures in Him. He is a being that has all being in Himself’.󰀄󰀀 A master says󰀄󰀁 that nothing is under God, however close to Him it could be, where something󰀄󰀂 could fall into [Him]. A master says󰀄󰀃 that the angel knows itself and God without any medium. What else it knows, something foreign falls into [it]; that is still an impression, however subtle it is. If we want to know God, it must happen without a medium; nothing foreign can fall in there. If we know God in this light, it must be proper and indrawn without any occurrence of anything created. Then we know eternal life without any medium. ‘When he did not see anything, then he saw God’. The light that is God emanates and darkens every light. In the light in which Paul saw, he saw God, nothing else. About this Job says: ‘He orders the sun not to shine, and has included the stars under Him as under a seal’.󰀄󰀄 Because he was surrounded by light, he saw nothing else; because, what belonged to the soul cared for and was busy with the light that is God, so that it could not realise anything else. And this is a good lesson for us; because, when we care about God, we are not very concerned about the outside. The fourth reason why he did not see anything: the light that is God is unmixed, no mixture comes into it. It was a sign that he saw the true light, the fact that there is nothing there. With this light, he means nothing else than that with open eyes he did not see anything. By seeing nothing, he saw the divine nothingness. St. Augustine says: ‘As he saw nothing, he saw God’.󰀄󰀅 Whoever sees nothing else and is blind, this one sees God. About this St. Augustine says:󰀄󰀆 Since God is a true light and support to the soul and is closer to her than the soul is to herself, so, when the soul is detached from all the created things, by necessity God must shine and glow in her. The soul can not have love

󰀄󰀃. Although not identified by J. Quint or N. Largier, again it seems to be Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀅󰀇–󰀈. 󰀄󰀄. Iob. 󰀉:󰀇: ‘Qui praecipit soli, et non oritur. et stellae claudit quasi sub signaculo’. 󰀄󰀅. Augustinus, Sermo 󰀂󰀇󰀉 c.󰀁 n. 󰀁 (PL 󰀃󰀈, 󰀁󰀂󰀇󰀆): ‘Et eo tamen tempore, quo cetera non videbat, Iesum videbat’. See also Hom. 󰀄󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀀], n. 󰀄. 󰀄󰀆. J. Quint and N. Largier point to Augustinus, De Trinitate VIII 󰀇 n. 󰀁󰀁. See, however, Augustinus, Confessiones III c. 󰀆 n. 󰀁󰀁 (Verheijen 󰀃󰀃,󰀅󰀇): ‘Tu autem eras interior intimo meo et superior summo meo’.

󰀆󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

minne noch angest haben, si enwizze, wâ von. Swenne diu sêle niht ûz engât an diu ûzern dinc, sô ist si heim komen und wonet in irm einvaltigen lûtern liehte. Dâ enminnet si noch enhât angest noch vorhte. Bekantnisse ist ein gruntveste und ein fundament alles wesennes. Minne enmac niht anders haften wan in bekantnisse. Swenne diu sêle blint ist und anders niht ensihet, sô sihet si got, und daz muoz von nôt sîn. Ein meister sprichet: daz ouge in (󰀂󰀃󰀀) | sîner grœsten lûterkeit, dâ ez keine varwe enhât, dâ sihet ez alle varwe; niht aleine, dâ ez in im selber blôz ist aller varwe, mêr: dâ ez an dem lîchamen stât, dâ muoz ez âne varwe sîn, dâ man bekennen sol varwe. Swaz dâ ist âne varwe, dâ sihet man alle varwe, wære ez joch unden an den vüezen. Got ist ein solch wesen, daz in im treget alliu wesen. Sol got werden bekant der sêle, sô muoz si blint sîn. Dâ von sprichet er: ‘er sach’ daz ‘niht’, des lieht alliu lieht sint, des wesen alliu wesen sint. Dâ von sprichet diu brût in der minne buoche: ‘dô ich ein wênic vürbaz kam, dô vant ich, den mîn sêle minnet.’ Daz ‘wênic’, vür daz si kam, daz wâren alle crêatûren. Swer die niht ze rücke stœzet, der envindet gotes niht. Si meinet ouch: swie kleine, swie lûter daz ist, dâ bî ich got bekenne, daz muoz abe. Nochdenne daz lieht, daz wærlîche got ist, nime ich daz, als ez mîne sêle rüeret, im ist unreht: ich sol ez nemen in dem, dâ ez ûzbrichet. Ich enmöhte daz lieht niht wol gesehen, dâ ez schînet an die want, ich enkêrte denne mîn ouge dar, dâ ez ûzbrichet. Dennoch, nime ich ez, dâ ez ûzbrichet, des selben ûzbrechennes muoz ich beroubet werden; ich sol ez nemen, dâ ez in im selben swebende ist. Dennoch spriche ich, im ist unreht: ich sol ez nemen weder, dâ ez rüerende ist noch ûzbrechende ist noch (󰀂󰀃󰀁) | in im selben swebende, wan ez ist noch allez wîse. Man muoz got nemen wîse âne wîse und wesen âne wesen, wan er enhât keine wîse. Dâ von sprichet sant Bernhart: swer dich, got, bekennen sol, der muoz dich mâzen sunder mâze. Biten wir unsern herren, daz wir komen in daz bekantnisse, daz dâ alzemâle âne wîse und âne mâze sî. Des helfe uns got. Âmen.

󰀄󰀇. Aristoteles, De anima II c. 󰀇, 󰀄󰀁󰀈b󰀂󰀆: ‘Est autem coloris susceptivum quod sine colore’. 󰀄󰀈. Here, Eckhart uses again his joke with the corn, on this see also Hom. 󰀈* [Q 󰀇󰀆], n. 󰀅. 󰀄󰀉. Cant. 󰀃:󰀄. 󰀅󰀀. See N. Largier II 󰀆󰀈󰀈; I 󰀈󰀀󰀃–󰀇.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁]

󰀆󰀁

or fear, without knowing the reason. When the soul does not go out into external things, she has come home and lives in her simple pure light. There she loves, neither is she anxious nor has fears. Knowledge is a basis and a foundation of all being. Love can not adhere except through knowledge. When the soul is blind and sees nothing else, then she sees God, and this must be so of necessity. A master says:󰀄󰀇 the eye in its greatest purity, when it has no colour, sees every colour; not solely because it is in itself bare of all colour, but rather because it is in the body, it must be without colour, in order to recognise colour. What is without colour, sees every colour, even if it were placed down at the feet.󰀄󰀈 God is such a being that carries in Himself all being. If God shall become known to the soul, she must be blind. Of this he says, ‘He saw’ that ‘nothing’, whose light is that of all lights, whose being is that of all beings. So the bride says in the Book of Love:󰀄󰀉 ‘When I came a little further, I found Him whom my soul loves’. The ‘little’, that she came further, were all creatures. Whoever does not reject them, does not find God. She also means: how subtle, however pure it is by which I know God, that must go. Even the light that is truly God, if I take this when it touches my soul, it is wrong: I have to take it from where it emanates. I would not want to see the light clearly when it shines on the wall, unless I turned my eye to where it emanates from. However, even if I took it from where it emanates, I have to be divested of that same emanation; I have to take it as it is hovering in itself. Still, I say, this is wrong: I have to take it neither as it is touching nor where it is emanating nor as it is being hovering in itself, because thus it is still [taken] in a particular way. One has to take God in a way without a way and as being without a being,󰀅󰀀 as He has no way. Of this Saint Bernard says: ‘Whoever ought to know you, O God, must measure you without measure’.󰀅󰀁 Let us pray to our Lord that we come to knowing that He is completely without way and without measure. May God help us! Amen.

󰀅󰀁. See Bernardus, Sermones super Cantica canticorum, Sermo XI n. 󰀂 (Leclercq/Talbot/ Rochais 󰀅󰀇): ‘Porro fructum talem exspectamus nostri amoris, qualem ipse quem amamus promisit: Mensuram, inquiens, plenam … Mensura ista, ut audio, erit sine mensura’.

Homily 󰀆󰀇* [Q 󰀃󰀁] In purificatione beatae Mariae, die 󰀂 februaris ‘Ecce ego mitto angelum meum’ etc. (Mal. 󰀃:󰀁–󰀂) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to is taken from the prophet Mal. 󰀃:󰀁–󰀂 which is read on 󰀂 February on the feast of Candlemas (‘In purificatione beatae Mariae’). The text is handed down in full by two manuscripts (B󰀆, B󰀇) and a number of fragments (N󰀁, Str󰀁, and others, including Greith excerpts). The witnesses B󰀉, Ei󰀂, Ka󰀂, H󰀄, Kon, M󰀅󰀇 and ST were not used in DW. The witnesses used fall into two different families, of which, according to Quint, the manuscripts that provide us with the text in full are more trustworthy than the fragments. A first back reference is found in n. 󰀄 where Eckhart seems to direct the reader to Hom. 󰀄󰀁* [Q 󰀄], n. 󰀁󰀁. And while the next back-reference in n. 󰀇 seems to refer to n. 󰀅 of the present homily, it might also lead the reader to Hom. 󰀄* [Q 󰀇󰀇], n. 󰀃. The content of the homily

First, the text is given in abbreviated form in Latin (n. 󰀁), then translated into the vernacular in a more extended form (n. 󰀂). From this text, Eckhart picks his core sentences, which in his translation he immediately dramatises, when he renders ‘et statim veniet ad templuum suum’ as ‘Immediately he is sacrificed in his temple’ – what one might see as a consequence is transferred directly into the translation of the rather low key fut. ind. act. ‘veniet’, ‘he will come’. A) ‘Immediately he is sacrificed in his temple, he, whom we are waiting for’ (n. 󰀃): The preacher starts with precisely this dramatised

󰀆󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

translation – an indication, how important that sharpening of the translation was to him for his homiletic purpose. The subject is taken to be the soul, he drops the ‘et’, as he must have noticed the tension between this opening and the ‘statim’ (‘alzehant’/‘immediately’), so start, without the obstacle of ‘et’, straight with ‘immediately’. This fine sense for language is typical for Eckhart. ‘Alzehant’, however, he also takes in the sense of ‘al-zehant’ which leads him to his interpretation that the soul has to sacrifice herself ‘with all that she is and that she has’. Sacrifice, here, however is not a liturgical act, but an elevation, later also called an ascension, an eruption, an illumination and a coming home und unification, a process that finally makes the soul a co-worker with God. B) ‘Behold’ (n. 󰀄): Eckhart gives three ways to read this ‘behold’ – as ‘something great, or something wonderful, or something extraordinary’. As he states explicitly later (n. 󰀇), he will only develop the first and the last of these three points, the first one in nn. 󰀄-󰀆, and the third in nn. 󰀇-󰀈. ‘Behold, I send my angel, in order to prepare’: Based on this part of the verse, he is embarking on the first point. It is the preparatory step of the purification of the soul. Yet, even before that purification starts, Eckhart emphasises that the light is already found in the soul, even if the soul were to reject the divine light mediated by the angels. He adds the drive within God to pour Himself and His light out. With reference back to Hom. 󰀄󰀁* [Q 󰀄], n. 󰀁󰀁 – a further parallel is found below in n. 󰀇 to Hom. 󰀄󰀁* [Q 󰀄], n. 󰀃 – he is answering the question what God is doing in heaven by pointing to God giving birth to His Son. Supporting this idea, he highlights the personal pronoun of the first person in the verse, the ‘I’. Following this, it is not only the birth of His Son, it is God’s own birth which, at the same time, is His birth in the soul. Human beings do not want any mediation of God, even if He were given by the angel, but, with reference to (Pseudo)-Origen, the soul is only ‘seeking God’. The idea of mediation through angels takes him to (Pseudo-)Dionysius and divine order (n. 󰀅) and the order of the soul (n. 󰀆). As the introductory note shows, the explanation of the second point, that ‘behold’ can be interpreted as ‘something wonderful’, is deliberately missing, perhaps, because Eckhart develops his thoughts on the angels further, going straight to ‘something extraordinary’ (n. 󰀇). This ‘seltsæne’

H OMILY 󰀆󰀇* [Q 󰀃󰀁]

󰀆󰀅

in Eckhart has also the meaning of ‘rare’, ‘seldom’, as can be seen from his Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀂* [Q 󰀅󰀇], n. 󰀅, where it is the contrast to ‘Lîhtlîch’ (‘commonly’, ‘easily’). The likeness of angels with God in their illumination make them ascend to the divine and perform, indeed, God’s actions. Yet, ‘they draw and suck God into themselves’, hence, they are in need of Him, they draw on Him. In contrast, human beings and their soul are not meant to be like angels, they should rather get rid of any divine light and, having ‘a fiery love and likeness in me’, become ‘empty’. This then does not ask something of God, but makes God shine and illuminate the soul, makes the soul ascend beyond herself. This also goes far beyond an angelic likeness with God and makes the soul become a ‘co-worker’ of God and lets her act ‘with the Father all His actions’. For this co-acting, Eckhart finally prays (n. 󰀈). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀄󰀈,󰀁󰀅󰀉,󰀂󰀀–󰀁󰀆󰀁,󰀃󰀃; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀄󰀆󰀈–󰀇󰀅; J. Quint, DW II 󰀁󰀁󰀀–󰀂󰀅; N. Largier I 󰀃󰀄󰀈-󰀅󰀅.󰀉󰀇󰀁–󰀅. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀁󰀂󰀅–󰀇; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀂󰀅󰀈–󰀆󰀁.

󰀆󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀁󰀁󰀄) ‘Ecce ego mitto angelum meum’ etc. ‘Sehet, ich sende mînen engel vor dîn antlütze, daz er bereite dînen wec. Alzehant wirt er geopfert in sînem tempel. Wer weiz den tac sîner zuokunft? Er ist als ein zesamenblâsende viur’. Nû sprichet er: ‘alzehant wirt er geopfert in sînem tempel, des wir beitende sîn’. Diu sêle sol sich opfern mit allem dem, daz si ist und daz si hât, gebresten und tugende: daz sol si allez mit einander ûftragen und opfern mit dem sune in (󰀁󰀁󰀄) | den himelischen vater. Allez, daz der vater minne geleisten mac, als vil ist der sun minniclich. Der vater enminnet kein dinc dan sînen sun und allez, daz er vindet in sînem sune. Dar umbe sol sich diu sêle ûftragen mit aller ir kraft und opfern sich dem vater in dem sune, und alsô wirt si geminnet mit dem sune von dem vater. (󰀁󰀁󰀅) | Nû sprichet er: ‘sehet, ich sende mînen engel’. Dâ man sprichet: ‘sehet’, dâ verstât man driu dinc: einez, daz grôz ist, oder einez, daz wunderlich ist, oder einez, daz seltsæne ist. ‘Sehet, ich sende mînen engel, daz er bereite’ und lûter die sêle, daz si enpfâhen müge daz götlîche lieht. Götlich lieht daz klebet alle zît in des engels liehte, und des engels lieht wære der sêle unbequæme und ensmackete ir niht, gotes lieht enwære dar inne bewunden. Got bewindet und bedecket sich in dem engelischen liehte und ist allez wartende, wanne er ûzgekriechen müge, daz er sich der sêle gegeben müge. Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen: der mich vrâgete, waz got in dem himel tæte, (󰀁󰀁󰀇) | ich spræche: er gebirt sînen sun und gebirt in alzemâle niuwe und vrisch und hât sô grôzen lust in dem werke, daz er anders niht entuot, dan daz er daz werk würket. Dar umbe sprichet er: ‘sehet, ich’. Swer dâ sprichet ‘ich’, der muoz daz werk allerbeste (󰀁󰀁󰀈) | tuon. Nieman enmac daz wort eigenlîche

󰀁. Mal. 󰀃:󰀁–󰀂. The context of the text can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀂vb: ‘In purificatione beate Marie. Lectio Malachie prophete. Hec dicit dominus Deus: Ecce ego mittam angelum meum, et preparabit viam ante faciem meam. Et statim veniet ad templum suum dominator, quem vos queritis, et angelus testamenti, quem vos vultis. Ecce venit, dicit Dominus exercituum: et quis poterit cogitare diem adventus eius? Et quis stabit ad videndum eum? Ipse enim quasi ignis conflans, et quasi herba fullonum; et sedebit conflans et emundans argentum, et purgabit filios Levi, et colabit eos quasi aurum et quasi argentum, et erunt Domino offerentes sacrificia in iustitia. Et placebit Domino sacrificium Iuda, et Iherusalem sicut dies seculi et sicut anni antiqui. Dicit Dominus omnipotens [Dicit … omnipotens om. Vg.]’. 󰀂. I.e. the prophet, even though later below Eckhart sees here God Himself speaking.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀇* [Q 󰀃󰀁]

󰀆󰀇

‘Ecce ego mitto angelum meum’ etc. ‘Behold, I send my angel before your face, in order to prepare your way. Immediately He is sacrificed in His temple. Who knows the day of His arrival? He is like a melting fire’.󰀁 Now, he says: ‘Immediately He is sacrificed in His temple, He, whom we are waiting for’.󰀂 The soul must sacrifice herself with all that she is and that she has, imperfections and virtues: all this together she must elevate and sacrifice with the Son into the heavenly Father. All that the Father is able to love,󰀃 that much the Son is loving. The Father loves nothing but His Son and all that He finds in His Son. Therefore the soul must elevate herself with all her power and sacrifice herself to the Father in the Son, and thus is loved together with the Son by the Father. Now, he says, ‘Behold, I send my angel’. When you say, ‘Behold’, it means three things: something great, or something wonderful, or something extraordinary. ‘Behold, I send my angel, in order to prepare’ and purify the soul so that she can receive the divine light. The divine light is always glued to󰀄 the light of the angel, and the light of the angel would be unacceptable to the soul and be not to her taste, would not the light of God be found in it. God envelops and covers Himself in the angelic light and is just awaiting when to get out, so that He can give Himself to the soul. I have already said󰀅 that if anyone asked me what God is doing in heaven, I would say: He gives birth to His Son and He gives birth to Him completely new and fresh and has so much pleasure in this action that He does nothing but performing this act. Therefore, He says, ‘Behold, I’. Those who say ‘I’ must perform the act in the best way. No one can properly say the word,󰀆 except the 󰀃. The text seems slightly uneven here, as J. Quint admits (‘nicht so glatt’), while G󰀅 has ‘Alz vil’. See Eckhart, Hom. 󰀇* [Q 󰀃󰀄], n. 󰀈: ‘Allez, daz der vater hât und geleisten mac, daz sprichet er alzemâle in sînen sun’ (‘Everything that the Father has and is able to do, He speaks it always through His Son’); Hom. 󰀅󰀃* [Q 󰀆󰀅], n. 󰀂: ‘allez daz, daz got ie geschuof und minne geleisten mac, daz jaget in von sîner minne, ez ze minnenne, ez sî im joch liep oder leit’ (‘all that God has ever created, and can give His love to, goes hunting for Him because of His love to love it, whether He likes or dislikes it’). 󰀄. J. Quint translates: ‘klebet … in’ by ‘steckt’. 󰀅. Back reference to Eckhart, Hom. 󰀄󰀁* [Q 󰀄], n. 󰀁󰀁. 󰀆. J. Quint translates: ‘dieses Wort’, but Eckhart plays with the theological equation of ‘wort’ = Son = ‘verbum’.

󰀆󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

gesprechen dan der vater. Daz werk ist im sô eigen, daz ez nieman gewürken enmac dan der vater. In dem werke würket got alliu sîniu werk, und der heilige geist hanget dar inne und alle crêatûren. Wan got würket daz werk in der sêle, daz sîn geburt ist; sîn geburt daz ist sîn werk, und diu geburt ist der sun. Daz werk würket got in dem innigesten der sêle und sô verborgenlîche, daz ez niht enweiz engel noch heilige, noch diu sêle selber enkan dar zuo niht getuon, dan daz si ez lîdet; ez gehœret gote aleine zuo. Dar umbe sprichet der vater eigenlîche: ‘ich sende mînen engel’. Nû spriche ich: wir enwellen sîn niht, uns engenüeget (󰀁󰀁󰀉) | niht dar ane. Origenes sprichet: ‘Marîâ Magdalênâ suochte unsern herren; si suochte einen tôten menschen und vant zwêne lebende engel, und ir engenüegete niht dar ane. Sî hâte reht, wan si suochte got’. Waz ist ein engel? Dionysius sprichet von dem gewîheten vürstentuome der engel, dar inne ist götlich ordenunge und götlich werk und götlich wîsheit und götlich glîchnisse oder götlich wârheit, als ez mügelich ist. Waz ist götlich ordenunge? Von götlîcher mügentheit brichet ûz diu wîsheit, und ûz in beiden brichet diu minne, daz ist der brant; wan wîsheit und wârheit und mügentheit und diu minne, der brant, (󰀁󰀂󰀀) | ist in dem umbekreize des wesens, daz ist ein überswebende wesen, lûter âne natûre. Daz ist sîn natûre, daz er âne natûre sî. Swer bedenken wil güete oder wîsheit oder gewalt, der bedecket wesen und bevinstert ez in dem gedanke. Ein einic zuobedenken bedecket wesen. Daz ist danne götlich ordenunge. Wâ got vindet glîcheit dirre ordenunge in der sêle, dâ gebirt der vater sînen sun. Diu sêle muoz mit aller maht sich (󰀁󰀂󰀁) | brechen in ir lieht. Ûz der maht und ûz dem liehte entspringet ein brant, ein minne. Alsô muoz diu sêle sich brechen mit aller ir maht ze götlîcher ordenunge. Nû sprechen wir von der ordenunge der sêle. Ez sprichet ein heidenischer meister: daz überswebende natiurlich lieht der sêle daz ist

󰀇. J. Quint does not refer ‘ez’ to ‘angel’ and translates: ‘wir wollen es nicht, uns genügt es nicht damit’. 󰀈. Ps.-Origenes, Homilia super ‘Maria stabat’, in Origenis Operum pars secunda (Basileae, 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀅), II 󰀃󰀁󰀉: ‘… et vidit duos angelos in albis sedentes, unum ad pedes, et unum ad caput, qui dicunt ei: Mulier quid ploras? O Maria, ecce magnam consolationem invenisti, et forsitan melius tibi contingit quam sperasti. Nam tu quaerebas unum, et duos invenisti’. So also Eckhart, Hom. 󰀄󰀆* [Q 󰀂󰀉], n. 󰀁󰀁. See Ioh. 󰀂󰀀:󰀁󰀁ff. 󰀉. Ps.-Dionysius, De caelesti hierarchia c. 󰀃 § 󰀂: ‘Cum enim hierarchia dicatur sacer principatus…’; cap. 󰀃 § 󰀁: ‘Est quidem hierarchia secundum me ordinatio sancta et scientia et operatio

H OMILY 󰀆󰀇* [Q 󰀃󰀁]

󰀆󰀉

Father. The act is so His own that no one can perform it but the Father. In this act God performs all His work, and the Holy Spirit is within it and all creatures. When God performs this act in the soul, it is His birth; His birth is His act, and the birth is the Son. This act God performs in the most intimate of the soul and in such a hidden way that neither angel nor saint knows of it, nor can the soul herself do anything to this, except that she experiences it; it is only due to God. Therefore, the Father correctly says, ‘I send my angel’. Now, I say, we do not want it, for us it is not enough.󰀇 Origen says:󰀈 ‘Mary Magdalene looked for our Lord; she was looking for a dead man and found two living angels, and they were not enough for her. She was right, because she was seeking God.’ What is an angel? Dionysius speaks󰀉 of the sacred principality of the angels: there is divine order and divine action and divine wisdom and divine similitude, or divine truth as far as possible.󰀁󰀀 What is divine order? From divine potentiality wisdom emanates,󰀁󰀁 and from both love emanates, that is the fire; because wisdom and truth and potentiality and love, the fire, are within the rim of being that is a transcendent being, pure without nature. It is His nature to be without nature. Those who want to think about goodness or wisdom or power conceal being and obscure it by this thought. Just one added thought conceals󰀁󰀂 being. This, therefore, is the divine order. Where God finds a like order in the soul, there the Father gives birth to His Son. The soul must with all her power break through into her light. From this power and from this light originates a fire, a love. Thus the soul must break through with all her power into the divine order. Now let us talk about the order of the soul. A pagan master says:󰀁󰀃 The independent natural light of the soul is so pure and so clear ad deiforme, sicut est possibile, assimilata (alia translatio: Hierarchia est ordo divinus et scientia et actio deiforme inquantum possibile similans)’. 󰀁󰀀. ‘Or divine truth as far as possible’ is clarification of ‘divine similitude’, for the rest is literally translated which J. Quint did not recognize. 󰀁󰀁. See Eckhart, Hom. 󰀂󰀄* [Q 󰀃󰀇], n. 󰀇. 󰀁󰀂. Literally, Eckhart takes ‘bedecket’ here in the symbolic sense, whereas in n. 󰀄 before he took it literally. 󰀁󰀃. See Avicenna, Metaphysica IX c. 󰀇 (Van Riet 󰀅󰀁󰀀,󰀇󰀂–󰀅󰀁󰀂,󰀁󰀀) (see Eckhart, Serm. LV, 󰀄 n. 󰀅󰀅󰀀–󰀁 [LW IV 󰀄󰀆󰀀–󰀂]). See also Moses Maimonides, Dux neutrorum III c. 󰀅󰀃 (󰀁󰀁󰀂r 󰀁󰀇–󰀂󰀀): ‘… intellectus … nos coniungit cum creatore … Haec fuit rectitudo hominis’.

󰀇󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

sô lûter und sô klâr (󰀁󰀂󰀂) | und sô hôch, daz ez rüeret engelische natûre; daz ist sô getriuwe und sô ungetriuwe und sô gram den nidersten kreften, daz ez sich niemer in sie gegiuzet noch der sêle niemer engeliuhtet, die nidersten krefte ensîn denne geordent under die obersten krefte und die obersten krefte under die oberste wârheit. Als ein her ist geordent, der kneht ist geordent under den ritter und der ritter under den grâven und der grâve under den herzogen. Sie wellent alle vride hân; dar umbe hilfet ieglîcher dem andern. Alsô sol ein ieglîchiu kraft der andern undertænic sîn und helfen strîten, daz ein lûter (󰀁󰀂󰀃) | vride in der sêle sî und ein ruowe. Unser meister sprechent: ‘ganziu ruowe ist vrîheit aller bewegunge’. In disem sol sich diu sêle ûfheben über sich selben ze der götlîchen ordenunge. Dâ gibet der vater sînen eingebornen sun der sêle in einer lûtern ruowe. Diz ist danne daz êrste: von der götlîchen ordenunge. Diu andern stücke diu blîben. Von dem lesten ein wênic. Als ich sprach von den engeln, die sô vil gotes glîchnisse in in hânt und ein înerliuhtunge: in der înerliuhtunge (󰀁󰀂󰀄) | klimment sie über sich in götlîche glîchnisse, allez stânde gegen gote in götlîchem liehte, sô glîch, daz sie würkent götlich werk. Die engel, die alsô înerliuhtet sint und alsô glîch gote sint, die ziehent und sûgent got in sich. Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen: wære ich îtel und hæte ein inviuric minne und glîcheit, ich züge got alzemâle in mich. Ein lieht giuzet sich ûz und erliuhtet daz, dâ ez sich ûf giuzet. Daz man etwenne sprichet: daz ist ein erliuhtet mensche, daz ist kleine. Aber dâ ez ûzbrichet, daz ist verre bezzer und brichet durch in die sêle und machet sie glîch gote und gotvar, als ez mügelich ist, und înerliuhtet sie. In der înerliuhtunge klimmet si über sich in dem götlîchen liehte. (󰀁󰀂󰀅) | Als si nû danne alsô heim kumet und alsô mit im vereinet ist, sô ist si ein mitewürkerin. Kein crêatûre enwürket niht dan der vater, der würket aleine. Diu sêle sol niemer ûfgehœren, si enwerde des werkes als gewaltic als got. Sô würket si mit dem vater alliu sîniu werk; si würket mit im einvalticlîche und wîslîche und minniclîche. Daz wir mit gote alsô würken müezen, des helfe uns got. Âmen. 󰀁󰀄. Aristoteles, Physica VIII c. 󰀈, 󰀂󰀆󰀄a󰀂󰀇: ‘quies privatio motus est’. 󰀁󰀅. He refers to what he had just said in n. 󰀅, see, however, also Hom. 󰀄* [Q 󰀇󰀇], n. 󰀃. The rare ‘înerliuhtunge’, is according to J. Quint derived from ‘illuminatio’, yet it stresses that illumination is not an external reception of light on a surface, but an illumination from within. We do not

H OMILY 󰀆󰀇* [Q 󰀃󰀁]

󰀇󰀁

and so high that it touches angelic nature; it is so faithful, while so unfaithful and so hostile to the lower powers that it never poured itself into them nor ever illumined the soul, unless the lower powers are placed under the superior powers and the superior powers under the supreme truth. When an army is orderly structured, the squire is placed under the knight and the knight under the count and the count under the duke. Everyone wants to have peace: therefore each one helps the other. Thus each power shall be subdued to the other and help to fight so that pure peace and quiet may be in the soul. Our masters say,󰀁󰀄 ‘complete quietness is freedom from every movement’. In this the soul must elevate herself above herself to divine order. There the Father gives His only born Son to the soul in pure quietness. This, then, is the first [point] on divine order. The other points are left. Just a little bit on the last one. As I said󰀁󰀅 of angels who have in them so much the likeness and illumination of God: in this illumination they ascend above themselves into divine similitude, standing right in front of God in the divine light, so alike that they perform divine action. The angels that are so illuminated and are so like God, draw and suck God into themselves. I have already said,󰀁󰀆 if I was empty and had a fiery love and likeness in me, I would draw God completely into me. A light pours itself out and illuminates the things it pours itself on. What is sometimes said: this is an illuminated man, that is a little thing. But when it breaks out, it is much better, and it breaks out into the soul and makes her resemble God and godlike, as far as possible, and illuminates her. In this illumination she ascends beyond herself into divine light. Now that she comes home and is so united to Him, she is a co-worker. No creature acts, only the Father acts. The soul must never cease until she masters the action as God does. Thus, she performs with the Father all His actions; she performs with Him simply and wisely and lovingly. That we thus must co-act with God, may God help us! Amen.

translate the term by ‘enlightenment’, as this might too quickly make the reader miss the literal imagery. 󰀁󰀆. According to J. Quint Eckhart here refers to Book of Consolation (DW V 󰀃󰀀,󰀅–󰀃󰀁,󰀄) where it is said of ‘glîchnisse und hitzige minne’.

Homily 󰀆󰀈* [Q 󰀄󰀄] In purificatione beatae Mariae, die 󰀂 februaris ‘Postquam completi erant dies, puer Iesus portabatur in templum. Et ecce, homo erat in Ierusalem’ (Luc. 󰀂:󰀂󰀂.󰀂󰀅) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to is taken from Luc. 󰀂:󰀂󰀂 (‘Et postquam impleti sunt dies purgationis eius secundum legem Moysi, tulerunt illum in Ierusalem … [󰀂󰀅] Et ecce homo erat in Ierusalem, cui nomen Simeon, et homo iste iustus, et timoratus, exspectans consolationem Israel, et Spiritus sanctus erat in eo’). The text is read in the Gospel reading on the same day, 󰀂 February, and the feast of Candlemas as noted for the previous homily (‘In purificatione beatae Mariae’). The text as given in the critical edition is derived from one manuscript only (B󰀁), and the print BT. We also know of 󰀈 fragments (Ba󰀁, Ba󰀂, Str󰀄, Do󰀁, Ka󰀁, Mai󰀅, S󰀁, S󰀃, Str󰀉) and also the Greith excerpts. The least reliable of the witnesses is, however, the manuscript (B󰀁). The witnesses Ka󰀂, H󰀄, Kon and M󰀅󰀇 were note used in the DW. There are two back references, the first is found in n. 󰀁󰀁 where Eckhart seems to direct the reader to Hom. 󰀄󰀈* [Q 󰀆󰀁], n. 󰀁󰀁. The next can be found in n. 󰀁󰀃 which may refer to his Latin homily: Eckhart, Sermo XV,󰀂 n. 󰀁󰀅󰀆 (LW IV 󰀁󰀄󰀈,󰀁󰀃–󰀁󰀄󰀉,󰀇). As noted below on Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀁* [Q 󰀅󰀈] this homily on St. Secundus, celebreated on 󰀂󰀄 March, should more correctly have been placed following the homily here, Hom. 󰀆󰀈*, but when we drew up the list of homilies, we had not yet recognized the fine and often parallel structure of Eckhart’s homilies on particular saints that is also matched by Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀁*. Yet, as this homily focuses on a core verse, taken from the Commune the homily has been placed with those others on the same and related verses of the Commune below.

󰀇󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

The content of the homily Eckhart first gives the Latin verse (n. 󰀁) of Luc. 󰀂:󰀂󰀂 in an abbreviated form and then adds a broader translation of it in the vernacular (n. 󰀂). The abbreviation can also be seen from section E below where the last part of the vernacular translation which is missing in the given Latin verse of n. 󰀁, is interpreted. Much of the interpretation in this homily reveals the influence of Modism, a fashion of his days to read grammar ontologically, as can be seen from Eckhart’s contemporary, Master Thomas of Erfurt.󰀁 A) Eckhart’s first step, (nn. 󰀃–󰀇), is to interpret the small Latin word ‘et’ which he renders semantically with the three vernacular terms: ‘union’ (‘einunge’), ‘tying together’ (‘zuobinden’), and an ‘inclusion’ (‘însliezen’). The latter two are then seen as presuppositions of the former, the union (n. 󰀃). Eckhart exemplifies what he means with ‘bilde’, a picture that is incised into a stone or hung on a wall (nn. 󰀄–󰀅). In a further thought (n. 󰀆), Eckhart takes the image further and shows that only what gives birth can produce something that is similar or like itself. As an example, he points to fire. By its own nature it could not burn, but it needs the object within which it burns, hence its ‘other’ which is nothing other, as it lights it up and makes it what it is itself, namely fire. This he takes and applies to both the soul and God (nn. 󰀆–󰀇). As a result the soul that loves God becomes divine, while also God becomes what the soul is, is born in her and is carried by her (n. 󰀇). B) In a second step (nn. 󰀈–󰀁󰀁), he interprets the small word ‘ecce’. As he highlights, this Latin word cannot be conjugated, nothing can be added to it, hence it represents the word that ‘is God’, the ‘Son’ (n. 󰀈), but also all of ‘our lives’ and ‘all our wishes’ (n. 󰀉). C) As part of this step, he adds the interpretation of ‘Homo erat’, even though his translation ‘Behold, a man’ shows that he is discussing ‘Ecce, homo erat’, hence, this section is part of his second step (nn. 󰀁󰀀–󰀁). First he sets out a number of ways, in which ‘homo’ can be interpreted, starting with a grammatical obervation about the gendered understanding of this Latin term. Interestingly, he notes that the Latin can refer 󰀁. See the forthcoming volume M. Vinzent and C.M. Wojtulewicz, Meister Eckhart and Thomas of Erfurt (󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀).

H OMILY 󰀆󰀈* [Q 󰀄󰀄]

󰀇󰀅

to both ‘women and men’, and the ‘Welsh’ grammatical use, i.e. the use in French languages, where ‘homme’ only refers to male human beings and no longer to both sexes. ‘Homo’ here means ‘what is perfect’ and ‘does not lack anything’ – revealing that women were seen by Eckhart according to the standard knowledge of his days as bodily defective, compared to the perfect body of a men. To this he quickly adds that ‘homo’, however also means the one ‘of the earth’, meaning ‘humility’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). Another interpretation of ‘homo’ is ‘humidity’ or being ‘pungent in grace’, where there is neither time nor space (n. 󰀁󰀁). D) The third step, indicated as such, continues, however, the previous thought of the divine where there is neither time nor space (n. 󰀁󰀂), something that he highlights with the discussion of the grammatical notion of time in ‘erat’, ‘it was’ (n. 󰀁󰀂). E) In a fourth step (n. 󰀁󰀃), he continues the discussion of ‘erat’ and sees indicated in it ‘birth’ or ‘one complete becoming’ (‘ein volkomen gewerden’) to which he will come back at the end of n. 󰀁󰀃. F) Yet not only God ‘was’, it is also said of man that he ‘was’ by which Eckhart reads that man was in ‘Jerusalem’ and interprets this as man being ‘peaceful and well-placed’ (n. 󰀁󰀄). Although he does not detail this statement, his Pauline reference (Phil. 󰀄:󰀇) shows that he thinks of his hearer’s heart and intellect to whom he wishes this ‘peace’. This brings him to his final prayer for this place and for peace (n. 󰀁󰀅). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀂󰀀,󰀈󰀅,󰀁–󰀈󰀈,󰀂󰀈; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀂󰀄󰀃–󰀇; J. Quint, DW II 󰀃󰀃󰀁–󰀅󰀁; N. Largier I 󰀄󰀆󰀈–󰀄󰀇󰀉.󰀁󰀀󰀂󰀂–󰀇. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀆󰀄–󰀇; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀁󰀄󰀃–󰀇.

󰀇󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀃󰀃󰀇) ‘Postquam completi erant dies, puer Iesus portabatur in templum. Et ecce, homo erat in Ierusalem.’ Sant Lukas schrîbet in dem êwangeliô: ‘dô die tage volbrâht wurden, dô wart Kristus getragen in den tempel. Und nemet war, dô was ein mensche, hiez Simeôn, in Jêrusalem, der was gereht und gotvorhtic; der beite des trôstes des volkes von Isrâêl, und der heilige geist was in im’. ‘“Und” nemet war’: diz wörtelîn ‘et’ bediutet in latîne eine einunge und ein zuobinden und ein însliezen. Swaz alzemâle zesamengebunden und îngeslozzen ist, daz (󰀃󰀃󰀈) | meinet einunge. Hie meine ich, daz der mensche zesamengebunden und îngeslozzen und geeiniget ze gote sî. Daz sprechent unser meister: einunge wil haben glîchnisse. Einunge enmac niht gesîn, si enhabe glîchnisse. Swaz zesamengebunden und îngeslozzen ist, daz machet einunge. Daz enmachet niht glîchnisse, daz mir nâhe bî ist, als ich bî im sitze oder in éiner stat wære. Dâ von sprichet Augustînus: herre, dô ich mich verre von dir vant, daz enkam niht von der verre der stat, mêr: ez kam von der unglîcheit, dâ ich mich inne vant. Ein meister sprichet: swes wesen und werk alzemâle ist in êwicheit (󰀃󰀃󰀉) | und des wesen und werk alzemâle ist in der zît, die entragent niemer über ein; sie enkoment niemer zesamen. Ez sprechent 󰀂. Luc. 󰀂:󰀂󰀂.󰀂󰀅. The context of the text can be found in Collectarium, Arch. 󰀄󰀅󰀁va: ‘Et postquam impleti sunt dies purgationis eius secundum legem Moysi, tulerunt illum in Ierusalem … (󰀂󰀅) Et ecce homo erat in Ierusalem, cui nomen Simeon, et homo iste iustus, et timoratus, exspectans consolationem Israel, et Spiritus sanctus erat in eo’. 󰀃. ‘ecce’ is dealt with at n. 󰀈. 󰀄. See, for example, Ps.-Augustinus, De grammatica 󰀂󰀅 (PL 󰀃󰀂, 󰀁󰀄󰀀󰀅–󰀆): ‘Coniunctio est pars orationis nectens ordinansque sententiam … Sunt … copulativae, et, que, ast, at, atque … Ex his, et, copulativa multa significat…’ 󰀅. Aristoteles, Metaphysica V c. 󰀁󰀅, 󰀁󰀀󰀂󰀁a󰀁󰀁–󰀁󰀂: ‘similia vero quorum qualitas est una’; Auctoritates Aristotelis, n. 󰀁󰀃󰀅 (Hamesse 󰀁󰀂󰀅): ‘unum in qualitate facit simile’. 󰀆. Augustinus, Confessiones VII c. 󰀁󰀀 n. 󰀁󰀆 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀁󰀀󰀃,󰀁󰀆–󰀁󰀀󰀄,󰀂󰀁): ‘… et contremui amore et horrore: et inueni longe me esse a te in regione dissimilitudinis, tamquam audirem uocem tuam de excelso: Cibus sum grandium: cresce et manducabis me. Nec tu me in te mutabis sicut cibum carnis tuae, sed tu mutaberis in me’. 󰀇. J. Quint points to a vague parallel, Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I–II q. 󰀅 a. 󰀅 ad 󰀃: ‘Imperfecta autem operatio, quae subiacet naturali hominis potestati, non est eiusdem speciei cum operatione illa perfecta quae est hominis beatitudo: cum operationis species dependeat ex obiecto’. Instead, the better parallel seems to be Liber de causis, prop. 󰀃󰀀 (󰀃󰀁) n. 󰀂󰀁󰀁 (Pattin 󰀁󰀁󰀁): ‘Res autem cadens sub tempore in omnibus dispositionibus suis seiuncta est a re cadente sub tempore in omnibus

H OMILY 󰀆󰀈* [Q 󰀄󰀄]

󰀇󰀇

‘Postquam completi erant dies, puer Iesus portabatur in templum. Et ecce, homo erat in Ierusalem.’ Saint Luke writes in the Gospel: ‘When the days were fulfilled, Christ was brought into the temple. And behold, there was in Jerusalem a man called Simeon, who was righteous and fearful of God; he was awaiting the consolation of the people of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was in him.’󰀂 ‘“And” behold’:󰀃 this Latin word ‘et’ means a union, a tying together and an inclusion.󰀄 Union means that something is entirely connected and included. Here I think that the person is tied together, included and united with God. Our masters say what follows:󰀅 union requires similarity. Union can not be, unless there is similarity. What is connected and included produces union. It does not produce similarity, something being close to me, for example, when I am sitting close to it or am in the same place. Of this Augustine says:󰀆 ‘Lord, when I was away from you, this did not come from spacial distance, but rather, it came from internal dissimilarity’. A master says:󰀇 Whose being and action are entirely in eternity, and whose being and action are entirely in time, never correspond; they never converge. Our masters say:󰀈 Among things, whose being and action are in eternity, and things whose being and

dispositionibus suis’. See also Proclus, Elementatio theologica prop. 󰀁󰀀󰀆 (Boese 󰀅󰀄): ‘omnis eius, quod omniquaque eternale secundum substantiam et operationem et eius quod substantiam habet in tempore medium est quod hac quidem eternale est, hac autem tempore mensuratur’. 󰀈. See Theodoricus de Vriberg, De animatione caeli 󰀁󰀄 (󰀁) (Opera omnia III, ed. L. Sturlese 󰀂󰀅): ‘Praeterea ad principale propositum est ratio, super quam fundatur paenultima propositio Libri de causis, quae ratio talis est: “Res cadens sub tempore in omnibus dispositionibus suis (id est tam secundum suam substantiam quam secundum suam actionem) seiuncta est a re cadente sub aeternitate in omnibus dispositionibus suis” (id est tam secundum suam substantiam quam secundum suam actionem); continuatio autem non est nisi in rebus similibus (id est proportionalibus hinc inde utrique extremorum), necesse est, ut sit res alia tertia media, cuius substantia cadat sub aeternitate et eius actio cadat sub tempore’: et hoc est caelum. (󰀂): Vocat autem auctor iste res cadentes sub aeternitate quantum ad substantiam et operationem principia separata secundum ipsum, res autem cadentes sub tempore secundum substantiam et operationem intendit generabilia et corruptibilia, inter quae duo extrema caelum natura medium posuit, medium, inquam, continuativum et coniunctivum per quandam causalem derivationem essentialium perfectionum, quae sunt in principiis separatis, ad res generabiles et corruptibiles quantum ad ipsarum essentiales formas et perfectiones’; see also homily 󰀃󰀉 on the verse Omne datum optimum (Iac. 󰀁:󰀁󰀇) (Pfeiffer 󰀁󰀃󰀂,󰀃󰀅–󰀁󰀃󰀃,󰀄), not yet published in the critical edition, but most likely by Eckhart.

󰀇󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

unser meister: diu dinc, der wesen und werk ist in der êwicheit, und diu dinc, der wesen und werk ist in der zît, zwischen den muoz von nôt ein mittel sîn. Swâ ein însliezunge und zesamenbindunge ganz ist, daz muoz von nôt glîch sîn. Swâ got und diu sêle vereinet suln werden, daz muoz von glîcheit (󰀃󰀄󰀀) | komen. Swâ niht enist unglîcheit, daz muoz von nôt ein sîn; niht aleine in einer însliezunge wirt ez vereinet, mêr: ez wirt ein; niht aleine glîchnisse, mêr: glîch. Dar umbe sprechen wir, daz der sun dem vater niht glîch ensî, mêr: er ist diu glîchnisse, er ist ein mit dem vater. Ez sprechent unser besten meister: ein bilde, daz in einem steine ist oder an einer want, enwære dar under niht zuogeleget, der ez næme, als ez ein bilde ist, daz (󰀃󰀄󰀁) | bilde wære al ein mit dem, des bilde ez ist. Swenne diu sêle tritet in daz bilde, dâ niht vremdes enist dan daz bilde, mit dem ez ein bilde ist, daz ist ein guot lêre. Swenne man gesetzet ist in daz bilde, dâ man gote glîch ist, dâ nimet man got, dâ vindet man got. Swâ iht ûzzerteilet ist, dâ envindet man got niht. Swenne diu sêle kumet in daz bilde und sich vindet in dem bilde aleine, in dem bilde vindet si got; und in dem, daz si sich vindet und got, daz ist al éin werk, daz ist âne zît: dâ vindet si got. Als verre si dar inne ist, als verre ist si mit gote ein; er meinet: als verre man dar în geslozzen ist, dâ diu sêle gotes bilde ist. Als verre er dar inne ist, als verre ist er götlich; als verre dar inne, als verre in gote, niht îngeslozzen, niht vereiniget, mêr: ez ist ein.

󰀉. J. Quint translates: ‘ein mittel’ which is precisely the opposite of what is meant here. 󰀁󰀀. Perhaps Theodoricus de Vriberg, De visione beatifica 󰀁.󰀂.󰀁.󰀁.󰀆 (Opera omnia I, ed. Mojsisch 󰀄󰀂): ‘(󰀆) Dicendum igitur summarie ex iam dictis, quod ad completam et propriissimam rationem imaginis in rebus creatis pertinet, ut imago eius, cuius est imago, sit repraesentativum secundum naturam seu essentiam suam, id est imaginati et eorum, quae sunt essentiae per se, item, quod imago sit quid expressum ab imaginato, item, ut sit expressum secundum rationem naturae seu essentiae eius, cuius est imago – sic enim contingit imaginem esse repraesentativam sui imaginati secundum naturam seu essentiam eius et eorum, quae sunt essentiae per se –, item in exprimendo a se suam imaginem sit expressivum sui ipsius in altero, immo sit in se aliquid per suam propriam essentiam et id ipsum sit in sua imagine, secundum aliud tamen esse ita, quod esse in sua imagine sit esse in

H OMILY 󰀆󰀈* [Q 󰀄󰀄]

󰀇󰀉

action are in time, by necessity between them there must be a medium.󰀉 When there is a total inclusion and a tying together, by necessity this must be alike. Where God and the soul are to be united, this must come from likeness. Where there is no unlikeness, by necessity this must be one; it not only becomes united in an inclusion, but rather it becomes one; not just similar things, but rather, things alike. So we say that the Son is not like His Father, but rather: He is the likeness, He is one with His Father. Our best masters say:󰀁󰀀 If something was not placed under a picture that is in a stone or on a wall, that carries the picture as an image, the picture would be completely one with the thing of which it is the image. This is a good lesson about when the soul comes to the image where there is nothing foreign but the image, with which it is an image.󰀁󰀁 When you are set into the image, where you are like God, you take God there, you find God there. Where something is divided, there you will not find God. When the soul comes into the image󰀁󰀂 and finds herself alone in the image, in this image she finds God; and in finding herself and God, that is entirely one action, which is timeless: there she finds God. To the extent that she is inside, she is one with God; he means:󰀁󰀃 to the extent that one is included there, there the soul is the image of God. To the extent that one󰀁󰀄 is in there, one is divine; so much in there, so much in God, not included, not united, but rather: it is one.

se ipso altero, item, ut haec, quae dicta sunt, inveniantur in substantiis et quantum ad imaginem et quantum ad imaginatum’. 󰀁󰀁. J. Quint translates: ‘dann ist sie gut belehrt’. 󰀁󰀂. Here Eckhart glides from the semantic field of ‘bilde’ as ‘picture’ into that of ‘bilde’ as ‘image’, yet, without entirely leaving behind the first notion. As our modern languages have become more sophisticated and detailed, the double nature and the broader semantic field of ‘bilde’ that allows Eckhart this slow transition from one notion to another and enables his argument, can hardly be imitated in the translation. 󰀁󰀃. Who is speaking? Apparently Luke. Eckhart is already moving to the interpreation of ‘in’. 󰀁󰀄. Namely the human being.

󰀈󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Ein meister sprichet: alliu glîcheit meinet eine geburt. Er sprichet mê: diu natûre envindet sich niemer glîch, ez enmüeze geborn werden. Ez sprechent unser meister: daz viur, swie kreftic ez sî, ez engebrante niemer, enhoffete ez niht einer geburt. (󰀃󰀄󰀂) | Swie dürre daz holz wære, daz man dar în legete, enmöhte ez sîn glîchnisse niht enpfâhen, ez engebrante niemer. Des begert daz viur, daz ez geborn werde in dem holze und daz ez werde al ein viur und daz ez enthalten werde und blîbe. Erlæsche ez und vergienge, sô enwære ez niht mê viur; dar umbe begert ez, daz ez enthalten werde. Diu natûre der sêle engetrüege niemer glîch, enwære, daz si begerte, daz got in ir geborn werde; niemer enkæme si in ir natûre, niemer engerte si dar în ze komenne, wan daz si wartet der geburt, und daz würket got; und niemer engewürhte ez got, wan daz er wil, daz diu sêle geborn werde in in. Ez würket got und begert diu sêle. Got hât daz werk und diu sêle daz begern und daz vermügen, daz got in sie geborn werde und si in got. Daz würket got, daz diu sêle im glîch werde. Von nôt muoz daz sîn, daz si warte, daz got in ir geborn werde und daz ir enthaltnisse werde in gote, und beger einer einunge, daz si in gote enthalten werde. Götlich natûre giuzet sich in daz lieht der sêle, und si wirt enthalten dar inne. Hie meinet got, daz er in ir geborn werde und ir geeiniget (󰀃󰀄󰀃) | werde und in ir enthalten werde. Wie mac daz sîn? Wir sprechen doch, daz got sî sîn selbes enthalt? Swenne er die sêle dar în geziuhet, sô vindet si, daz got sîn selbes enthalt ist, und dâ blîbet si, anders si enblibe niemer. Augustînus sprichet: ‘rehte als dû minnest, alsô bist dû: minnest dû erde, sô wirdest dû irdisch; minnest dû got, sô wirdest dû götlich. Minne ich denne got, wirde ich danne got? Des enspriche ich niht, ich wîse iuch die heiligen geschrift. Got hât in dem wîssagen gesprochen: ir sît gote und sît kint des obersten’. Und dâ von spriche ich: in dem glîche dâ gibet got die geburt. Enversæhe sich des diu sêle niht, si enbegerte niemer dar în ze komenne. Si wil in im

󰀁󰀅. Aristoteles, De anima II c. 󰀄, 󰀄󰀁󰀅a󰀂󰀆–󰀂󰀉: ‘naturalissimum enim operum viventibus est, quaecumque perfecta et non orbata, aut generationem spontaneam habent, facere alterum quale ipsum’. See also Eckhart, In Ioh. n. 󰀆󰀇 (LW III 󰀅󰀅,󰀉–󰀁󰀀): ‘omne agens agit simile sibi, quantum potest, et agit se ipsum alterum’; In Sap. n. 󰀄󰀉 (LW II 󰀃󰀇󰀆,󰀄–󰀅): ‘Perfecti enim est generare et facere sive gignere sibi simile’; In Gen. I n. 󰀁󰀁󰀂 (LW I 󰀂󰀆󰀅,󰀁󰀀–󰀁󰀁): ‘de rebus animatis generantibus sibi simile’; see also In Gen. I n. 󰀂󰀈󰀃 (LW I 󰀄󰀁󰀈,󰀄–󰀄󰀁󰀉,󰀄).

H OMILY 󰀆󰀈* [Q 󰀄󰀄]

󰀈󰀁

A master says:󰀁󰀅 every similarity means a birth. He also says: Nature nowhere shows itself to be alike but where it is born. Our masters say:󰀁󰀆 The fire, however strong it is, would never burn, if it did not hope for a birth. No matter how dry the wood was that one puts in it, if it could not become alike, it would never burn. The fire wants to be birthed into the wood and to become all a fire and to be preserved and to remain. If it went out and died down, it would no longer be fire; so it wants to be kept alive. The nature of the soul would never stand like herself if it were not that she wanted God to be birthed in her; never would she ever come in her nature, she would never want to come into it, except because she is waiting for the birth, and this God brings about; and God would never do it, unless He wanted the soul to be born in Him. This God brings about and the soul desires. God has the action and the soul the desire and power that God is born in her and she in God. This God brings about that the soul becomes like Him. By necessity, she has to wait for God to be born in her and that she is carried in God and that she desires a union for her to be carried by God. Divine nature poures itself into the light of the soul, and she is carried by it. This means, God intends to be born into her and be united with her and be carried by her. How can this be? Even though we say that God is the one who carries Himself? When He draws the soul into this, she finds that God is carrying Himself, and there she remains, otherwise she would never remain. Augustine says: ‘Just as you love, you are; if you love earth, you become earthly; if you love God, you become divine. So if I love God, do I become divine? This is not I who says so, I refer you to Sacred Scripture. God said through the Prophet: you are gods and you are the children of the Most High’.󰀁󰀇 And of this I speak: in the like God gives birth. If the soul did not expect this, she would never want to come into this. She wants to be carried

󰀁󰀆. The master here seems to be Mose (Gen. 󰀂:󰀁󰀆–󰀇), as Eckhart gives this example to explain this scriptural passage In Gen. II nn. 󰀈󰀄–󰀅 (LW I 󰀃󰀇󰀆,󰀁–󰀂󰀄). He does not seem to have any other reference in mind, as he uses this example widely in his various Latin and German works without ever pointing to any other authority, see the list of references in DW V 󰀁󰀁󰀅, note 󰀁. 󰀁󰀇. Augustinus, In epistulam Iohannis ad Parthos 󰀂 n. 󰀁󰀄 (PL 󰀃󰀅, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇): ‘quia talis est quisque, qualis eius dilectio est. Terram diligis? terra erit. Deum diligis? quid dicam? deus erit? Non audeo dicere ex me, scripturas audiamus: ego dixi, dii estis, et filii altissimi omnes’ (Ps. 󰀈󰀁:󰀆).

󰀈󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

enthalten werden; ir leben stât an im. Got hât einen enthalt, ein blîben in sînem wesene; und dâ von enist kein rât, man enschel und enscheide abe allez, daz der sêle ist: ir leben, krefte und natûre, ez muoz allez hine, und si stâ in dem lûtern (󰀃󰀄󰀄) | liehte, dâ si mit gote éin bilde ist: dâ vindet si got. Daz ist gotes eigenschaft, daz niht vremdes in in envellet, niht ûfgetragen, niht zuogeleget. Dar umbe ensol diu sêle keinen vremden îndruk haben, niht ûfgetragen, niht zuogeleget. Daz ist von dem êrsten. ‘Und nemet war’: ‘ecce’. ‘Ecce’: daz wörtelîn hât in im beslozzen allez, daz ze dem worte gehœret; man enkan im niht mê gegeben. Wort, daz ist got, got ist ein wort, gotes sun ist ein wort. Er meinet, daz allez unser leben, alliu unser gerunge alzemâle (󰀃󰀄󰀅) | sî îngeslozzen und ûfgehangen und ûf got geneiget. Dar umbe sprichet Paulus: ‘ich bin, daz ich bin, von der gnâde gotes’, und sprichet mê: ‘ich lebe, niht ich, mêr: got lebet in mir alzemâle’. Waz mê? ‘Homo erat’. Er sprichet: ‘nemet war, ein mensche’. Daz wort ‘homo’ nemen wir von vrouwen und von mannen, aber die Walhe enwellent ez niht den vrouwen lâzen durch ir krankheit. ‘Homo’ diutet als vil als ‘daz volkomen ist’ und ‘dem nihtes engebristet’. ‘Homo’, ‘der mensche’, meinet als vil als ‘der von der erde ist’ und meinet ‘dêmüeticheit’. Diu erde ist daz niderste element und liget enmitten und ist alzemâle umbegriffen (󰀃󰀄󰀆) | mit dem himel und enpfæhet ganz des himels învluz. Allez, daz der himel würket und ûzgiuzet, daz wirt enpfangen enmitten in dem grunde der erde. ‘Homo’ sprichet in einer andern wîse als vil als ‘viuhticheit’ und meinet als vil als ‘der begozzen ist mit gnâden’ und meinet, der 󰀁󰀈. In the sense of ‘ecce’ being without declension. 󰀁󰀉. I.e. Luke. 󰀂󰀀. I Cor. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀀: ‘Gratia autem Dei sum id, quod sum…’ 󰀂󰀁. Gal. 󰀂:󰀂󰀀: ‘Vivo autem, iam non ego: vivit vero in me Christus’. 󰀂󰀂. ‘Homo’ in Latin and ‘mensch’ in German stand for ‘human being’, hence for both man and woman. Even though in Old French ‘home’ can also designate both sexes, Eckhart is right that here the predominant understanding is the male sex. 󰀂󰀃. Eckhart knows of the difference between the Latin tradition and the more particular French reasoning, as, for example proposed by Giles of Rome, De formatione corporis humani in utero, written between 󰀁󰀂󰀇󰀄 and 󰀁󰀂󰀇󰀈 where, following Aristotle he sees a woman as an ‘imperfect man’ (‘mas occasionatus’), even though he admits that she is contributing to the process of generation. Nevertheless, there is a clear bias in Giles towards man: ‘In the case of man, the male agent is disposed to generate a male, the generation of a female in any particular case being beyond the

H OMILY 󰀆󰀈* [Q 󰀄󰀄]

󰀈󰀃

by Him; her life depends on Him. God has space, a place to stay in His being; and therefore there is no other suggestion than to peel off and detach everything that belongs to the soul: her life, powers and nature, everything must go, and she stays in the pure light where she is one image with God: there she finds God. God’s property is that nothing foreign falls into Him, nothing affixed, nothing added. Therefore, the soul must not have any foreign impression, nothing affixed, nothing added. So far about the first step. ‘And behold’: ‘ecce’. ‘Ecce’: this word has in itself all that belongs to this word; you can not add anything to it.󰀁󰀈 A word, that is God, God is a word, the Son of God is a word. He󰀁󰀉 thinks that all our lives, all our wishes be completely included, be dependent on and inclined towards God. Therefore Paul says: ‘I am what I am by the grace of God’,󰀂󰀀 and he adds: ‘I live, not me, but rather: God lives in me completely’.󰀂󰀁 What more? ‘Homo erat’. He says, ‘Behold, a man.’ The word ‘homo’󰀂󰀂 refers to women and men, but the French do not want to admit it to women because of their weakness. ‘Homo’ means ‘what is perfect’ and ‘does not lack anything’.󰀂󰀃 ‘Homo’, man, means the one who is ‘of the earth’,󰀂󰀄 and means ‘humility’. The earth is the lowest element, lies in the middle and is completely surrounded by the sky and receives the full influence of the sky. Everything that heaven produces and pours out is received in the middle in the ground of the earth. ‘Homo’ means in another way ‘humidity’,󰀂󰀅 and it means ‘the one who is drenched in grace’ and means that the humble man

intention of the agent. For this reason woman is called an “imperfect man”, a mas occasionatus’, from which Giles concludes in his De regimine principum of 󰀁󰀂󰀇󰀇: ‘as the woman is not a perfect man…, she has not a perfect use of reasoning’, so Giles, De regimine, fol. 󰀁󰀅; see on this P. Allen, The Concept of Woman (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅), 󰀁󰀅󰀅. 󰀂󰀄. This etymology which is linked to the next one of ‘humility’ is repeatedly used by Eckhart. See, for example, Eckhart, Pr. 󰀁󰀅 (DW I 󰀂󰀄󰀉,󰀂–󰀃): ‘Nun merkent, was aristotiles spricht von disem mentschen. homo das ist als vil gesprochen als ain mentsch…’; see Aristoteles, De anima II c. 󰀁, 󰀄󰀁󰀂 ab. 󰀂󰀅. This is a thought that is not encountered, yet, anywhere else in Eckhart. See Donatus Ortigraphus, Ars grammatica de nomine, linea 󰀂󰀉 (CChr.CM 󰀄󰀀D, 󰀆󰀆): ‘Discipulus. Quot sunt genera diffinitionis nominis? Magister. ... diffinitio specialis ut dicitur: “proprie communiterve diffinitio secundum ethimologiam ut dicitur: “homo ab humo, humus ab humiditate”’.

󰀈󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

dêmüetige mensche der enpfâhe zehant den învluz der gnâden. In dem învluzze der gnâden klimmet ûf alzehant daz lieht der vernünfticheit; dâ glenzet got in ein unbedecklîchez lieht. Der alsus krefticlîchen begriffen wære in disem liehte, der wære als vil edeler wider einem andern menschen als ein lebender mensche wider (󰀃󰀄󰀇) | einem, der gemâlet ist an der want. Daz lieht ist sô kreftic, daz ez niht aleine in im beroubet ist zît und stat, mêr: swâ ez sich ûf giuzet, daz beroubet ez zît und stat und aller lîphafter bilde und alles des, daz vremde ist. Ich hân ez mê gesprochen: enwære zît noch stat noch anders niht, sô wære al éin wesen. Der alsus ein wære und sich verwürfe in den grunt der dêmüeticheit, der würde dâ begozzen mit gnâden. Ze dem dritten mâle: daz lieht benimet zît und stat. ‘Ein mensche der was’. Wer gap im daz lieht? – Diu lûterkeit. Daz wort ‘erat’ gehœret gote allereigenlîchest zuo. In latînischer zungen sô enist kein wort, daz gote als eigen sî als ‘erat’. Dar umbe kumet Johannes in sînem êwangeliô und sprichet als dicke ‘erat’, ‘ez was’, und meinet (󰀃󰀄󰀈) | ein blôz wesen. Alliu dinc legent zuo, ez enleget niht zuo dan in einem gedanke; niht mit einem zuolegenden gedanke, mêr: in einem abenemenden gedanke. Güete und wârheit leget zuo, ze dem minsten in einem gedanke; mêr: daz blôze wesen, dem niht zuogeleget enist, dáz meinet ‘erat’. Ze dem andern mâle: ‘erat’ meinet eine geburt, ein volkomen gewerden. Ich bin nû komen, ich was hiute komende, und wære diu zît (󰀃󰀄󰀉) | abe in dem, daz ich kam und komen bin, sô wære daz komende und komen-bin in ein geslozzen und wære ein. Dâ sich daz komende und komen-ist in ein sliuzet, in dem werden wir geborn und widerschaffen und widerbildet in daz êrste bilde. Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen: al die wîle des dinges iht ist an sînem wesene, sô enwirt ez niht widerschaffen; ez wirt wol gemâlet oder erniuwet als ein ingesigel, daz alt ist; daz drücket man wider în und erniuwet ez. Ein heidenischer meister

󰀂󰀆. Reference to Hom. 󰀄󰀈* [Q 󰀆󰀁], n. 󰀁󰀁: ‘Ein heidenisch meister sprichet: enwære kein zît noch stat noch materie, sô wære ez al éin wesen’ (the master is not identified, although Quint, DW III 󰀄󰀆, note 󰀁 thinks of Aristotle). Other potential references could be Hom. 󰀈* [Q 󰀇󰀆], n. 󰀄; Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀], n. 󰀁󰀀. 󰀂󰀇. At first sight a bizarre claim, on which he is developing further. 󰀂󰀈. Ioh. 󰀁:󰀁.󰀃.󰀄.󰀆.󰀈.󰀉.󰀁󰀀. 󰀂󰀉. See Eckhart, Sermo XV,󰀂 n. 󰀁󰀅󰀆 (LW IV 󰀁󰀄󰀈,󰀁󰀃–󰀁󰀄󰀉,󰀇): ‘primo, quia dum res et stat in suo esse, stat in suo principio nec est longe nec distans a suo principio; non ergo est vetus, sed

H OMILY 󰀆󰀈* [Q 󰀄󰀄]

󰀈󰀅

immediately receives the influx of grace. In this influence of grace the light of the intellect immediately ascends; there, God shines in a light that cannot be covered. Whoever was so powerfully gripped in this light would be so much nobler compared to another man as a living man compared to one who is painted on the wall. This light is so powerful that it is not only in itself devoid of time and space, but rather: from whatever it pours upon it draws out time and space and all bodily images and all that is foreign. I have already said󰀂󰀆 that if there were no time, space or anything else, everything would be one being. So that then whoever were one and threw himself into the ground of humility, he would become ‘drenched in grace’ there. On the third step: this light draws out time and space. ‘A man who was.’ Who gave him the light? – Purity. The word ‘erat’ belongs most properly to God. In the Latin language there is no other word that is so much God’s own as ‘erat’.󰀂󰀇 Therefore, John starts his Gospel and so often repeats ‘erat’, ‘it was’, and means a naked being.󰀂󰀈 All things add, this does not add anything but a thought; not an added thought, but rather: an abstract thought. Goodness and truth add, at least as a thought; but the naked being to which nothing is added, this is what ‘erat’ means. On the next step, ‘erat’ means birth, one complete becoming. I have come now, I was coming today, and if time were taken out in ‘I came’ and ‘I have come’, the ‘coming’ and ‘come’ would be subtracting and would be the same. Where ‘coming’ and ‘have come’ would coincide, there we are born, recreated and reimagined into the first image. I have already said it:󰀂󰀉 when a thing is something in its being, it will not be recreated; it may well be painted or renewed like a seal that is old; this is incised again and renewed. A pagan master says:󰀃󰀀 Everything that is, no time will let it age; there is a blessed life in an eternal

novum. Secundo, quia ipsum esse, deus, non recedit, non dimittit aliquem, sed ipse dimittitur, ipsum esse dimittit, quicumque cadit ab esse quocumque et quocumque modo. Esse ergo non flectitur, non curvatur, non veterascit, non mutatur, sed ab ipso est elongatus, veterascit, et quo plus aut pluribus modis ab ipso elongatur, plus et plus antiquatur. Accedens autem ad ipsum esse innovatur, renovatur, et quo plus, et plus.’ 󰀃󰀀. Aristoteles, Physica c. 󰀁󰀂, 󰀂󰀂󰀁a󰀃󰀁: ‘non facit tempus vetus’. On the further use of this idea in Eckhart, see note 󰀁 in DW II 󰀃󰀅󰀀.

󰀈󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

sprichet: swaz dâ (󰀃󰀅󰀀) | íst, daz enmachet kein zît alt; dâ ist ein sælic leben in einem iemermê, dâ kein valt enist, dâ niht bedaht enist, dâ ein lûter wesen ist. Salomôn sprichet: ‘niht enist under der sunnen, daz niuwe sî’. Daz wirt selten verstanden nâch sînem sinne. Allez, daz under der sunnen ist, daz altet und nimet abe; aber dort, dâ ist niuwan ein niuwe. Zît gibet zwei dinc: alter und abenemen. Swaz diu sunne überschînet, daz ist in der zît. Alle crêatûren die sint nû und sint von gote; aber dort, dâ sie in gote sint, dâ sint sie als unglîch dem, als sie hie sint, als diu sunne wider dem mânen und verre mê. Dar umbe sprichet er ‘erat in eo’, ‘der heilige geist was in im’, dâ daz wesen ist und dâ ein gewerden ist. (󰀃󰀅󰀁) | ‘Ein mensche der was’. Wâ was er? ‘In Jêrusalem’. ‘Jêrusalem’ meinet ‘ein gesiht des vrides’; kürzlîche, ez meinet, daz der mensche vridesam sî und wol gesetzet. Ez meinet vil lîhte mê. Paulus sprichet: ‘ich wünsche iu des vrides, der dâ überwindet alle sinne. Der behüete iuwer herzen und iuwer vernunft’. Biten des unsern herren, daz wir alsus ‘ein mensche’ sîn und in disen vride gesetztet werden, der er selber ist. Des helfe uns got. Âmen.

󰀃󰀁. Eccl. 󰀁:󰀁󰀀: ‘Nihil sub sole novum’. 󰀃󰀂. See Augustinus, Enarrationes in Psalmos 󰀉, 󰀁󰀂; 󰀅󰀀, 󰀂󰀂, 󰀆󰀁, 󰀇; 󰀆󰀄, 󰀃–󰀄 etc.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀈* [Q 󰀄󰀄]

󰀈󰀇

growth, where there is no fold, where nothing is covered, where there is pure being. Solomon says: ‘There is nothing under the sun that is new.’󰀃󰀁 The meaning of this is rarely understood. Everything that is under the sun is aging and decreasing; but there is only one new one. Time implies two things: ageing and decreasing. Whatever the sun shines on is in time. All creatures are now and are from God; but there, where they are in God, they are so different from how they are here, as the sun compared to the moon and much more. Therefore, he says, ‘erat in eo’, ‘the Holy Spirit was in Him’, where there is being and where there is one becoming. ‘A man who was.’ Where was he? ‘In Jerusalem’. ‘Jerusalem’ means󰀃󰀂 a ‘vision of peace’; in short, it means that man is peaceful and well-placed. It probably means more. Paul says: ‘I wish you the peace that surpasses all the senses. May this protect your hearts and your minds’.󰀃󰀃 Thus we pray to our Lord that we might be ‘a human being’ and to be placed into this peace which He Himself is. May God help us! Amen.

󰀃󰀃. Phil. 󰀄:󰀇: ‘Et pax Dei, quae exsuperat omnem sensum, custodiat corda vestra, et intelligentias vestras in Christo Iesu’.

Homily 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅] In cathedra sancti Petri, die 󰀂󰀂 februaris ‘Beatus es, Simon Bar Iona, quia caro et sanguis’ etc. (Matth. 󰀁󰀆:󰀁󰀇) Introduction

T

he Gospeltext that Eckhart refers to, Matth. 󰀁󰀆:󰀁󰀇 (‘Beatus es Symon Bar Iona: quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus, qui in celis est’), is read in the mass on 󰀂󰀂 February for the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, also at the feast of the Saints Peter and Paul on 󰀂󰀉 June, and on that of Saint Peter in Chains on 󰀁 August. In this case, we register the text for its first appearance in the list of feasts. The text as given in the critical edition is derived from five manuscripts (B󰀇, B󰀉, N󰀁, Str󰀁, Str󰀂), and by thirteen fragments; the homily was also used by Nicolaus of Landau and is quoted in the Greith excerpts. The witnesses Go󰀂, Ka󰀂 are not used in DW. According to J. Quint, DW II 󰀃󰀆󰀀–󰀁, note 󰀃, Eckhart refers in Sermo LV n. 󰀅󰀃󰀅 (LW IV 󰀄󰀅󰀀,󰀆): ‘Vide in eodem sermone’ to this homily here, n. 󰀄. The content of the homily The present homily for the feast of the Chair of Saint Peter is artfully constructed and full of theological depth. In a way, it is rather a critique of a super-elevation of the chair of Peter, as Eckhart shows that there is no special place that Peter holds at the table of the Lord which would not be open for any of God’s other creatures. Yes, Peter is blessed, but it is the beatitude that is meant for all those who are God’s own. After having set out the Gospel-reading of the day, from which Eckhart picks the special verse about the blessedness of ‘Simon Bar Iona’

H OMILY 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅]

󰀈󰀉

(nn. 󰀁–󰀃), he points out that he is going to structure the homily along the four names that he finds in this verse. A) The four names of Peter: 󰀁) Peter, 󰀂) Bar Iona, 󰀃) Simon, 󰀄) Cephas (n. 󰀃). B) ‘You are blessed’ (nn. 󰀄–󰀅). Before embarking on these names, he adds a short introduction on what it means to be blessed and on what ‘beatitude’ is (n. 󰀆). C) ‘Peter’ means ‘he who contemplates God’ (nn. 󰀇–󰀈). Contemplation of God means a contemplation without and with a medium (n. 󰀉). D) ‘Bar Iona’ means ‘a son of grace’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). E) ‘Simon’ means the ‘one who is obedient’ and ‘one who is subjected’ (n. 󰀁󰀁). The intellect that touches God without medium needs six elements which have been mentioned before (n. 󰀁󰀂). F) ‘Cephas’ means ‘a head’, namely the intellect (n. 󰀁󰀃). G) The sole and precise name for God and for those who are His own, is ‘is’. Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀃󰀀,󰀁󰀀󰀆,󰀁–󰀁󰀀󰀉,󰀃; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀃󰀀󰀀–󰀈; J. Quint, DW II 󰀃󰀅󰀂–󰀇󰀃; N. Largier I 󰀄󰀈󰀀–󰀉.󰀁󰀀󰀂󰀇–󰀃󰀀. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀈󰀁–󰀄; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀁󰀈󰀃–󰀆.

󰀉󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀃󰀆󰀀) ‘Beatus es, Simon Bar Iona, quia caro et sanguis’ etc. Unser herre sprichet: ‘Simôn Pêtre, sælic dû bist; daz enhât dir niht geoffent vleisch noch bluot, sunder mîn vater, der in dem himel ist!’ Sant Pêtrus hât vier namen: er heizet ‘Pêtrus’ und heizet ‘Bar Iôna’ und heizet ‘Simôn’ und heizet ‘Cephas’. Nû sprichet unser herre: ‘sælic dû bist!’ Alle liute begernt sælicheit. Nû sprichet (󰀃󰀆󰀁) | ein meister: alle liute begernt gelobet ze sînne. Nû sprichet sant Augustînus: ein guot mensche begert keines lobes, ez begert wol, lobes wert ze sînne. Nû sprechent unser meister: diu tugent ist alsô lûter und alsô gar abegezogen und abegescheiden von allen lîplîchen dingen in irm grunde und in ir eigenschaft, daz nihtes niht in sie gevallen enmac, ez enbevlecke die tugent und wirt ein untugent. Ein einic gedank oder iht eigens nutzes gesuochet, sô enist ez niht ein wâriu tugent, mêr: ez wirt ein untugent. Und daz ist diu tugent von natûre. (󰀃󰀆󰀂) | Nû sprichet ein heidenischer meister: swer die tugent würket umbe anders iht dan umbe die tugent, sô enwart ez nie ein tugent. Suochet er lop oder iht anders, sô verkoufet er die tugent. Man ensol ein tugent von natûre niht geben umbe allez, daz in ertrîche ist. Dar umbe enbegert ein guot mensche keines lobes; ez begert wol, lobes (󰀃󰀆󰀃) | wert ze sînne. Einem menschen ensol niht leit sîn, daz man mit im zürnet; im sol leit sîn, daz ez den zorn verdienet.

󰀁. Matth. 󰀁󰀆:󰀁󰀇. The context of the text can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀁vb: ‘In cathedra sancti Petri. Secundum Mattheum. In illo tempore venit [Venit autem Vg.] Ihesus in partes Cesaree Phylippi: et interrogabat discipulos suos, dicens: Quem dicunt homines esse filium hominis? At illi dixerunt: Alii Iohannem baptistam, alii autem Helyam, alii vero Ieremiam, aut unum ex prophetis. Dicit illis Ihesus: Vos autem quem me esse dicitis? Respondens Symon Petrus dixit: Tu es Christus, filius Dei vivi. Respondens autem Ihesus, dixit ei: Beatus es Symon Bar Iona: quia caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi, sed Pater meus, qui in celis est. Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram edificabo ecclesiam meam, et porte inferi non prevalebunt adversus eam. Et tibi dabo claves regni celorum. Et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in celis: et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in celis’. 󰀂. Ioh. 󰀁:󰀄󰀂: ‘Intuitus eum Iesus dixit: “Tu es Simon filius Ioannis; tu vocaberis Cephas”, quod interpretatur Petrus’. 󰀃. Ennius according to Augustinus, De Trinitate XIII c. 󰀃 n. 󰀆 (CChr.SL 󰀅󰀀–󰀅󰀀A, 󰀃󰀈󰀈,󰀄󰀃– 󰀃󰀈󰀉,󰀄󰀇): ‘uetus poeta dixit Ennius: Omnes mortales sese laudarier optant … uidetur pronuntiasse hominum omnium uoluntatem’.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅]

󰀉󰀁

‘Beatus es, Simon Bar Iona, quia caro et sanguis’ etc. Our Lord says: ‘Simon Peter, you are blessed; this neither flesh nor blood has revealed to you, but my Father who is in heaven’.󰀁 St. Peter has four names: he is called ‘Peter’, and [he] is called ‘Bar Iona’, and is called ‘Simon’, and is called ‘Cephas’.󰀂 Now, our Lord says, ‘You are blessed!’ All people desire beatitude. Now a master says:󰀃 All people wish to be praised. Now St. Augustine says: a good man does not want any praise, but wants to be worthy of praise.󰀄 Now, our masters say:󰀅 virtue is so pure and so abstract and detached from all bodily things in their depth and in their property, that nothing at all can fall into it without staining virtue and making it a vice. A single thought or something sought after for one’s own advantage – it is not a true virtue, but rather: it becomes a vice. And this is virtue by nature. Now, a pagan master says:󰀆 If someone performs a virtue for something other than this virtue, it never was a virtue. If he seeks praise or something else, he sells virtue. We must not give a virtue of nature in exchange for all that is on earth. Therefore a good man desires no praise, but he desires to be worthy of praise. A man should not be sorry if someone gets angry with him; he must be sorry to deserve anger.

󰀄. Eckhart himself in his Sermo XLIII,󰀁 n. 󰀄󰀂󰀅 (LW IV 󰀃󰀅󰀉,󰀄–󰀅) points to two references in Augustine: ‘Nunc autem omnes volunt beati esse, secundum Augustinum De trinitate et X Confessionum’, see Augustinus, De Trinitate XIII c. 󰀃 nn. 󰀆–󰀇; c. 󰀈 n. 󰀁󰀁; c. 󰀂󰀀 n. 󰀂󰀅 (CChr.SL 󰀅󰀀–󰀅󰀀A, 󰀃󰀈󰀇–󰀉; 󰀃󰀉󰀆–󰀈; 󰀄󰀁󰀇–󰀈); Confessiones X c. 󰀂󰀁 n. 󰀃󰀁 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀁󰀇󰀂,󰀂󰀆–󰀇): ‘nec ego tantum aut cum paucis, sed beati prorsus omnes esse volumus’; X c. 󰀂󰀃 n. 󰀃󰀃 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀁󰀇󰀂,󰀈–󰀁󰀀): ‘Non ergo certum est, quod omnes esse beati uolunt, quoniam qui non de te gaudere uolunt, quae sola uita beata est, non utique beatam uitam uolunt’; X c. 󰀃󰀇 n. 󰀆󰀁 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀁󰀈󰀈,󰀂󰀆–󰀂󰀉): ‘… nam si mihi proponatur, utrum malim furens aut in omnibus rebus errans ab omnibus hominibus laudari an constans et in ueritate certissimus ab omnibus uituperari, uideo quid eligam’. 󰀅. See Aristoteles, Ethica ad Nicomachum II 󰀄 a. 󰀃󰀀. 󰀆. Seneca, De clementia I c. 󰀁 n. 󰀁: ‘nec ullum virtutum pretium dignum illis extra ipsas’.

󰀉󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Nû sprichet unser herre: ‘sælic dû bist!’ Sælicheit liget an vier stücken: daz man habe allez, daz wesen hât und lustlich ist ze begerne und smak bringet, und habe daz zemâle ungeteilet mit einer ganzen sêle und daz in gote genomen in dem lûtersten und in dem hœhsten, blôz, unbedecket in dem êrsten ûzbruche und in dem grunde des wesens, und alles dâ genomen, dâ got selber nimet: daz ist sælicheit. Nû sprichet er ‘Pêtre’, daz ist als vil als ‘der got schouwet’. Nû vrâgent die meister, ob der kerne des êwigen lebens mê lige an der verstantnisse oder an dem willen. Wille hât zwei werk: begerunge und minne. Verstantnisse, der werk ist einvaltic; dar (󰀃󰀆󰀄) | umbe ist si bezzer; ir werk ist bekennen und engeruowet niemer, si enrüere blôz, daz si bekennet. Und alsô gât si dem willen vor und kündet im, daz er minnet. Die wîle man der dinge begert, sô enhât man ir niht. Sô man sie hât, sô minnet man sie; sô vellet begerunge abe. Wie sol der mensche sîn, der got schouwen sol? Er sol tôt sîn. Unser herre sprichet: ‘nieman enmac mich gesehen und leben’. Nû sprichet sant Grêgôrius: der ist tôt, (󰀃󰀆󰀅) | der der werlt tôt ist. Nû prüevet selbe, wie ein tôte sî und wie wênic ez in allez berüeret, daz in der werlt ist. Stirbet man dirre werlt, man enstirbet gote niht. Sant Augustînus betete maniger hande gebet. Er sprach: herre, gip mir, daz ich erkenne dich und mich’. ‘Herre, erbarme dich über mich und zeige mir dîn antlütze und gip mir, daz ich sterbe, und gip mir, daz ich niht ensterbe, umbe daz ich dich êwiclîche schouwe’. Diz (󰀃󰀆󰀆) | ist daz êrste stücke: daz man tôt sî, ob man got schouwen wil. Diz ist der êrste name: ‘Pêtrus’. Ein meister sprichet: enwære kein mittel, man sæhe eine âmeizen an dem himel. Nû sprichet ein ander meister: enwære kein

󰀇. (Pseudo-)Hieronymus, Liber interpretationis nominum hebraicorum 󰀆󰀅,󰀁󰀈 et 󰀇󰀀,󰀁󰀆: ‘Petrus agnoscens … sive cognitus’. 󰀈. Exod. 󰀃󰀃:󰀂󰀀: ‘non enim videbit me homo, et vivet’. 󰀉. Gregorius, Moral. XVIII c. 󰀅󰀄 n. 󰀈󰀉 and the Glossa ord.: ‘qui sapientiam quae deus est videt, huic vitae funditus moritur, ne eius amore teneatur’. 󰀁󰀀. Various prayers in different places, see Augustinus, Soliloquia II c. 󰀁 n. 󰀁: ‘Deus semper idem, noverim me, noverim te’; Confessiones X c. 󰀄 n. 󰀅 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀁󰀅󰀇,󰀁󰀇): ‘miserere mei secundum magnam misericordiam tuam’; IV c. 󰀁󰀀 n. 󰀁󰀅 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀄󰀈,󰀁–󰀂): ‘Deus uirtum, conuerte

H OMILY 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅]

󰀉󰀃

Now, our Lord says: ‘You are blessed!’ The beatitude consists of four parts: having everything that has being and is pleasant to desire and brings taste, and having this completely undivided with a complete soul, and having this taken in God, in the purest and in the highest, naked, not covered, in the first emanation and in the ground of being, and all taken where God himself takes: this is beatitude. Now He says: ‘Peter’, which means ‘he who contemplates God’.󰀇 Now the masters ask the question whether the core of eternal life consists more in the intellect or in the will. The will has two actions: desire and love. The intellect’s action is single; therefore it is better; its action is to know, and it never finds rest except when it touches nakedly what it knows. And so it precedes the will and announces to it what it loves. As long as you want things, you do not have them. When you have them, you love them, and the desire goes away. How should the man be to contemplate God? He must be dead. Our Lord says: ‘No one can see me, and live’.󰀈 Now, St. Gregory says:󰀉 Dead is he who is dead to the world. Now see for yourself, how a dead person is and how little all that is in the world touches him. If one dies to this world, one does not die to God. St. Augustine prayed various prayers. He said, ‘Lord, give me that I may know you and me.’ ‘Lord, have mercy on me and show me your face and give me that I might die, and give me that I do not die, so that I may contemplate you eternally’.󰀁󰀀 This is the first point: that one is dead, if one wants to contemplate God. This is the first name: ‘Peter’. A master says:󰀁󰀁 if there were no medium, one would see an ant in the sky. Now, a second master says:󰀁󰀂 If there were no medium,

nos et ostende faciem tuam, et salui erimus’; I c. 󰀅 n. 󰀅 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀃,󰀁󰀀–󰀁): ‘noli abscondere a me faciem tuam: moriar, ne moriar, ut eam uideam’. 󰀁󰀁. Aristoteles, De anima II c. 󰀇, 󰀄󰀁󰀉a󰀁󰀅–󰀇: ‘Non enim bene dicit Democritus opinatus, si esset vacuum medium, perspici utique certe, etsi formica esset in caelo. Hoc enim impossibile est …’, the Latin text is given according to Albertus, De anima (Stroick 󰀁󰀂󰀁,󰀆󰀉–󰀇󰀂). See also Hom. 󰀃󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀉], nn. 󰀆–󰀇. 󰀁󰀂. Aristoteles, De anima II c. 󰀇, 󰀄󰀁󰀉a󰀁󰀇–󰀈: ‘Vacuo autem facto non quidem certe, sed omnino nihil videbitur’, given according to Albertus, De anima (Stroick 󰀁󰀂󰀁,󰀆󰀉–󰀇󰀂).

󰀉󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

mittel, man ensæhe niht. Sie hânt beide wâr. Diu varwe, diu an der want ist, sol diu getragen werden in mîn ouge, sô muoz si gebiutelt werden und kleinlich gemachet werden in dem lufte und in dem liehte und alsô geistlîche getragen werden in mîn ouge. Alsô muoz diu sêle gebiutelt werden in dem liehte und in der gnâde, diu got schouwen sol. Dar umbe hât der meister reht, (󰀃󰀆󰀇) | der dâ sprach: enwære kein mittel, man ensæhe niht. Der ander meister hât ouch reht, der dâ sprach: enwære kein mittel, man sæhe die âmeizen an dem himel. Enwære kein mittel an der sêle, si sæhe got blôz. Der ander name, ‘Bar Iôna’, daz sprichet als vil als ‘ein sun der gnâde’, in der diu sêle geliutert wirt und ûfgetragen und bereitet ze götlîcher schouwunge. Der dritte name heizet ‘Simôn’; daz bediutet als vil als ‘einez, daz gehœric ist’, und ‘einez, daz underböugic ist’. Der got hœren sol, der sol gescheiden sîn verre von den liuten. Dar umbe sprichet Dâvît: ‘ich wil swîgen und wil hœren, waz got in mir (󰀃󰀆󰀈) | rede. Er sprichet vride in sîn volk und über sîne heiligen und ze allen den, die dâ sint gekêret wider ze irm herzen’. Sælic ist der mensche, der dâ vlîzliclîche hœret, waz got in im spreche, und sol sîn underböugic ze rihte under den zein götlîches liehtes. Diu sêle, diu dâ ist gekêret mit aller kraft under daz lieht gotes, diu wirt inhitzic und inviuric in götlîcher minne. Götlich lieht schînet ze rihte oben în. Wære, daz diu (󰀃󰀆󰀉) | sunne schine die rihte ûf unser houbet, ez enmöhte wênic ieman leben. Alsô sölte diu oberste kraft der sêle, diu daz houbet ist, glîche erhaben sîn under den zein götlîches liehtes, daz daz götlich lieht dar în geschînen möhte, von dem ich mê gesprochen hân: daz ist sô lûter und sô überswebende und sô hôch, daz alliu lieht ein vinsternisse sint und ein niht wider disem liehte. Alle crêatûren, in dem daz sie sint, dâ sint sie als ein niht; swenne sie überschinen werdent mit dem liehte, in dem sie ir wesen nement, dâ sint sie iht. (󰀃󰀇󰀀)

󰀁󰀃. Bar Iona is according to Hieronymus, In Matth. III c. 󰀁󰀆: ‘Siquidem “Bariona” in nostra lingua sonat “filius columbae”. Alii simpliciter accipiunt quod Simon, id est Petrus, sit filius Iohannis … Et volunt scriptorum vitio depravatum, ut pro “Bar Ioanna” hoc est “filis Iohannis”, “Bar Iona” scriptum sit, una detracta syllaba. “Ioanna” autem interpretatur “domini gratia”’. 󰀁󰀄. (Pseudo-)Hieronymus, Liber interpretationis nominum hebraicorum: ‘Simon oboediens’.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅]

󰀉󰀅

nothing would be seen. They are both right. If the colour that is on the wall is to be brought into my eye, it must be filtered and refined in the air and in the light and so spiritually brought into my eye. In this way the soul which is to contemplate God must be filtered in light and grace. Therefore the master is right who said: if there were no medium, nothing would be seen. The other master is also right, who said: If there were no medium, you would see the ant in the sky. If there were no medium in the soul, she would see God nakedly. The second name, ‘Bar Iona’,󰀁󰀃 means ‘a son of grace’, in which the soul is purified and elevated and prepared for divine contemplation. The third name is ‘Simon’; it means the ‘one who is obedient’ and ‘one who is subjected’.󰀁󰀄 One who is to hear God must be clearly separated from people. Therefore David says: ‘I will be silent and will hear what God speaks in me. He preaches peace to His people and His saints and to all those who are turned to their hearts’.󰀁󰀅 Blessed is the man who eagerly listens to what God says in him, and shall be subjected directly to the ray of divine light.󰀁󰀆 The soul which is turned with all power under the light of God, becomes inflamed and inspired by divine love. The divine light shines directly from above. If the sun shone directly on our head, few could survive. Likewise the highest power of the soul, which is the head, should be similarly elevated under the ray of divine light, so that the divine light of which I have already spoken󰀁󰀇 can illuminate: this is so pure and so transcendent and so high, that compared to this light all the lights are darkness and nothingness. All creatures, to the extent that they are, are like a nothing; when they are glowed over by the light in which they take their being, there they are something.

󰀁󰀅. Ps. 󰀈󰀄:󰀉: ‘Audiam quid loquatur in me Dominus Deus: quoniam loquetur pacem in plebem suam. Et super sanctos suos: et in eos, qui convertuntur ad cor’. 󰀁󰀆. J. Qunit’s emendation ‘die rihte’ for ‘ze rihte’ is possible, but unnecessary. 󰀁󰀇. Possibly a reference to Hom. 󰀂󰀂* [Q 󰀃󰀇], n. 󰀃.

󰀉󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

| Dar umbe enmac diu natiurlîche verstantnisse niemer sô edel gesîn, daz si got berüere oder begrîfe âne mittel, diu sêle enhabe disiu sehs stücke an ir, dâ ich von gesprochen hân: daz êrste, daz man tôt sî aller unglîche. Daz ander, daz man wol geliutert sî in dem liehte und in der gnâde. Daz dritte, daz man sî âne mittel. Daz vierde, daz man gehœric sî gotes worte in dem innigesten. Daz vünfte, daz man underböugic sî götlîchem liehte. Daz sehste ist, daz ein heidenischer meister sprichet: daz ist sælicheit, daz man lebe nâch der obersten kraft der sêle; diu sol allez sîn ûftragende und in gote nemen ir sælicheit. Dâ der sun selber nimet, in dem êrsten ûzbruche, dâ suln wir ouch nemen in gotes oberstem; sô müezen ouch wir unser oberstez glîch halten dâ engegen. ‘Cephas’, daz sprichet als vil als ‘ein houbet’. Vernünfticheit daz ist daz houbet (󰀃󰀇󰀁) | der sêle. Die die gröbesten rede haltent, die sprechent, daz diu minne vorgâ; aber die die næhsten rede haltent, die sprechent eigenlîche – und ist ouch wâr –, daz der kerne des êwigen lebens mê lige an verstantnisse dan an minne. Und wizzet daz, war umbe. Ez sprechent unser besten meister – der enist niht vil –, daz diu verstantnisse und diu vernünfticheit gât die rihte ûf in got. Aber diu minne kêret ûf daz si minnet; dâ nimet si, daz dâ guot ist. Aber verstantnisse diu nimet daz, dâ von ez guot ist. Honic daz ist in im selben süezer dan dehein dinc, daz man dâ von gemachen mac. Diu minne nimet got, als er guot ist; aber verstantnisse diu dringet ûf und nimet got, als er

󰀁󰀈. Reference to what he has said before in the same homily. 󰀁󰀉. See before Hom. 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅], n. 󰀈. 󰀂󰀀. See before Hom. 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅], n. 󰀁󰀀. 󰀂󰀁. See before Hom. 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅], n. 󰀉. 󰀂󰀂. See before Hom. 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅], n. 󰀁󰀁. 󰀂󰀃. See before Hom. 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅], n. 󰀁󰀁. 󰀂󰀄. See before Hom. 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅], n. 󰀆. Aristoteles, Ethica ad Nicomachum X c. 󰀇, 󰀁󰀁󰀇󰀇a 󰀁󰀂 ff.: ‘Si autem felicitas est secundum virtutem operatio, rationabile secundum optimam: haec autem erit optimi. Sive igitur intellectus hoc, sive aliud quid, quod utique secundum naturam videtur principari et dominari et intelligentiam habere de bonis et divinis: sive divinum ens et ipsum, sive eorum, quae in nobis divinissimum; huius operatio secundum propriam virtutem erit utique perfecta felicitas’. 󰀂󰀅. See Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiae VII c. 󰀉 n. 󰀃 (Lindsay I 󰀂󰀉󰀄,󰀂󰀂–󰀃): ‘Cephas dictus eo quod in capite sit constitutus Apostolorum; κεφαλή enim Graece caput dicitur’.

H OMILY 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅]

󰀉󰀇

Therefore the natural intellect can never be so noble as to touch or understand God without any medium, unless the soul has within herself those six elements of which I have spoken:󰀁󰀈 The first, that one is dead to all that is dissimilar.󰀁󰀉 The second, that one is well purified in light and grace.󰀂󰀀 The third, that one is without medium.󰀂󰀁 The fourth, that one is obedient to the word of God in the most intimate [part].󰀂󰀂 The fifth, that one is subject to the divine light.󰀂󰀃 The sixth is, what a pagan master says:󰀂󰀄 Beatitude is to live according to the highest power of the soul; this must elevate everything and take its beatitude in God. Where the Son takes Himself, in the first emanation, we must also take ourselves, in the highest [part] of God; thus, we must also similarly hold our highest towards it. ‘Cephas’ means ‘a head’.󰀂󰀅 The intellect is the head of the soul. Those who make the most coarse speeches say that love precedes; but those who hold more accurate speeches properly say󰀂󰀆 – and it is also true – that the core of eternal life consists more in knowledge than in love.󰀂󰀇 And you should know, why! Our best masters – and of these there are not many – say that knowledge and intellect go straight up to God.󰀂󰀈 Love, however, turns to what it loves; there it draws on what is good there. But knowledge captures that by which it is good. Honey in itself is sweeter than anything that can be made from it. Love takes God inasmuch as He is good; but knowledge goes on and takes God as He is being. Therefore God says: ‘Simon Peter, you are blessed!’ God

󰀂󰀆. See the discussion between Franciscans and Dominicans, on this more in Hom. 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉], n. 󰀁󰀄. 󰀂󰀇. This refers to the discussion between Franciscans and Dominicans, see vol. I, 󰀅󰀆󰀆–󰀇. 󰀂󰀈. ‘intellectus ascensus in deum’ is the definition of preaching according to John of Damascus, to whom Eckhart explicitly refers, see Johannes Damascenus, De fide orthodoxa III 󰀂󰀄 (PG 󰀉󰀄, 󰀁󰀀󰀈󰀉) in his Sermo XXIV,󰀂 n. 󰀂󰀄󰀆 (LW IV 󰀂󰀂󰀅,󰀁󰀃–󰀂󰀂󰀆,󰀈): ‘Secundo principaliter notandum, quomodo secundum Damascenum oratio est “intellectus in deum ascensus”. Igitur intellectus [deum] in se non attingit, nisi ascendat. Ascensus autem ad superius est. Transcendere igitur oportet non solum imaginabilia, sed etiam intelligibilia. Item cum intellectus resolvat esse, oportet et hoc transire. Esse namque non est causa esse, sicut nec ignis causa ignis, sed aliquid longe altius, in quo oportet ascendere. — Praeterea intellectus accipit deum sub veste veritatis, et ideo oportet ascendere. Unde ait: “in deum”. Nam et ipsum deum sub hoc nomine, immo sub omni nomine debet transire anima’; on this topic see N. Largier, ‘“intellectus in deum ascensus”. Intellekttheoretische Auseinandersetzungen in Texten der deutschen Mystik’ (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅).

󰀉󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

wesen ist. Dar umbe sprichet got: ‘Simôn Pêtre, sælic dû bist!’ Got gibet dem gerehten menschen (󰀃󰀇󰀂) | ein götlich wesen und nennet in mit dem selben namen, der sînem wesene eigen ist. Dar umbe sprichet er dar nâch: ‘mîn vater, der in dem himel ist’. Under allen namen enist kein eigener dan ‘der dâ ist’. Wan swer ein dinc wîsen wil, sprichet er: ‘ez ist’, daz schine ein tôrheit; spræche er: ‘ez ist ein holz oder ein stein’ sô wiste man, waz er meinet. Dar umbe sprechen wir: allez abegescheiden und abegezogen und abegeschelt, daz dâ nihtes niht enblîbet dan ein einic ‘ist’: daz ist diu eigenschaft sînes namen. Dar umbe sprach got ze Moysese: ‘sprich: der dâ ist, der hât mich gesant!’ Dar umbe nennet unser herre die sînen mit sînem eigenen namen. Unser (󰀃󰀇󰀃) | herre sprach ze sînen jüngern: ‘die mîne nâchvolgære sint, die suln sitzen ze mînem tische in mînes vaters rîche und ezzen mîne spîse und trinken mînen trank, den mir mîn vater hât bereit; alsô hân ich in ouch iu bereit’. Sælic ist der mensche, der hie zuo komen ist, daz er sol nemen mit dem sune in dem selben, dâ der sun nimet. Rehte dâ suln wir ouch nemen unser sælicheit, und dâ sîn sælicheit ane stât, dâ er sîn wesen inne hât, in dem selben grunde, dâ suln alle sîne vriunde ir sælicheit inne nemen und ûz schepfen. Daz ist der ‘tisch in gotes rîche’. Daz wir ze disem tische komen, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

󰀂󰀉. Exod. 󰀃:󰀁󰀄: ‘Qui est’. 󰀃󰀀. Exod. 󰀃:󰀁󰀄: ‘Sic dices filiis Israel: Qui est, misit me ad vos’. 󰀃󰀁. Matth. 󰀁󰀉:󰀂󰀈: ‘Amen dico vobis quod vos, qui secuti estis me, in regeneratione, cum sederit Filius hominis in throno gloriae suae, sedebetis et vos super thronos duodecim, iudicantes

H OMILY 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅]

󰀉󰀉

gives the just man a divine being and calls him by the same name that is proper to His being. Therefore He then says: ‘My Father who is in heaven’. Among all the names there is none more precise than ‘He who is there’.󰀂󰀉 If someone wants to point to something, but says: ‘it is’, it would seem like nonsense; if he said: ‘it is a [piece of] wood or a stone’, one would know what he meant. So we say: entirely detached, abstracted and peeled off, so that absolutely nothing remains, but a single ‘is’: this is the property of His name. Therefore God said to Moses: ‘Say, He who is there, He has sent me!’󰀃󰀀 Therefore our Lord calls those who are His own with His own name. Our Lord said to His disciples: ‘Those who are my followers shall sit at my table in the kingdom of my Father and eat my food and drink my drink which my Father has prepared for me; so I also prepared it for you’.󰀃󰀁 Blessed is the man who has come so far that he shall take together with the Son the same place where the Son takes. Right there we too shall take our blessedness, and where His blessedness has its place, where He has His being within, in the same ground, there all His friends will have to take and scoop out their beatitude. This is ‘the table in the kingdom of God’. May God help us to get to this table. Amen.

duodecim tribus Israel’; Luc. 󰀂󰀀:󰀂󰀉–󰀃󰀀: ‘Et ego dispono vobis sicut disposuit mihi pater meus regnum: ut edatis, et bibatis super mensam meam in regno meo: et sedeatis super thronos iudicantes duodecim tribus Israel’.

Homily 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃] In festo sancto Benedicti, die 󰀂󰀁 martii ‘Dilectus deo et hominibus, cuius memoria in benedictione est. Similem illum fecit in gloria sanctorum’ (Eccli. 󰀄󰀅:󰀁–󰀂) Introduction

E

ckhart’s core passage in this homily is Eccli. 󰀄󰀅:󰀁–󰀂 (‘Dilectus Deo, et hominibus, Moyses: cuius memoria in benedictione est. Similem illum fecit in gloria sanctorum’) which is read on the feast of St. Benedict (󰀂󰀁 March). The text as given in the critical edition is derived from three manuscripts (Bra󰀂, Mai󰀁, Str󰀃) and printed in BT and HT with a few fragments. The manuscript Ka󰀂 and the further witnesses G󰀉, H󰀄, Kon, M󰀇, M󰀅󰀇 and Z󰀄 are not used in DW. In his Latin Sermo I, n. 󰀂 (LW IV 󰀄,󰀇), Eckhart seems to refer to this homily, when he writes: ‘Quid sit sanctitas habes in sermone “Dilectus deo et hominibus”’, even though ‘sanctity’ per se is not discussed below, yet, the homily gives a clear insight into what Eckhart means by ‘sanctity’, highlighted in how he portrays Saint Benedict. The content of the homily One wonders what this text is contributing to the feast of St. Benedict to which Eckhart explicitly refers in the opening (n. 󰀃). Very quickly it becomes clear that the preacher is not praising the saint for what he has done, but what he and his name stand for. After the Latin quote of Eccli. 󰀄󰀅:󰀁–󰀂 (n. 󰀁), and the vernacular translation (n. 󰀂), where he locates the quote according to the Dominican lectionary in the Book of Wisdom, even though it is taken from Jesus

󰀁󰀀󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Sirach, Eckhart concentrates on the name ‘Benedict’. Using the scriptural verse which he first renders as commemoration ‘with praise’, he interprets this as a ‘blessing of praise’ (n. 󰀃). This switch from a praise of the saint to the saint being blessed ‘of praise’ allows Eckhart to broaden the scope of both the Scriptural reading and the celebration of the feast. Now it is no longer only the one saint that is centre stage of this mass, but Eckhart invites the listeners to praise ‘everything that is receptive to’ God (n. 󰀇). A) ‘Benedictus’, the ‘blessed’ one (n. 󰀃), and a saint who already had a global view, who saw in a revelation ‘the whole world completely gathered as in a sphere’. B) ‘Glory’ – to the soul ‘that is in this “glory”’ everything is ‘small and narrow’ (n. 󰀄). She does not want anything less than God Himself in His being. The first light, by which God is brought into the soul is the intellect, yet, there is a second light, too, the soul herself in which God is with grace and which is in the grace of God (n. 󰀅). To the soul ‘that has tasted God, all that is not God becomes a stinking disgust’ (n. 󰀆). C) ‘The one loved by God and by men’, or ‘how it can happen that this immutable, untouchable and detached being can be communicated to the soul’ (n. 󰀇). Eckhart’s emphatic answer is: It is God’s nature to communicate Himself. Conversely God tastes Himself in the soul (n. 󰀈). That this may happen, the soul needs to be totally detached, something that seems startling, but is easier than one would believe (n. 󰀉). The reason for this is God’s nature, as only ‘in the soul’ is ‘God divine’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). So, when Eckhart states that ‘God loves nothing except Himself’, God is doing so, by loving Himself as herself, as the soul. Hence, creatures do not loose out in this self-love of God, but they are the full winners, as God can not love Himself exept in His creatures (n. 󰀁󰀁). The final prayer makes it abundantly clear that what the saint of the day is, the one called ‘blessed’, is what Eckhart is praying for to be given to his entire audience (n. 󰀁󰀂). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀇󰀃,󰀂󰀂󰀈–󰀃󰀁; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀆󰀃󰀉–󰀄󰀅; J. Quint, DW III 󰀂󰀅󰀅–󰀇󰀀; N. Largier II 󰀉󰀀-󰀉.󰀆󰀉󰀂–󰀆.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃]

󰀁󰀀󰀃

Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀁󰀇󰀇–󰀉; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀃󰀇󰀀–󰀃.

󰀁󰀀󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀅󰀉) ‘Dilectus deo et hominibus, cuius memoria in benedictione est. Similem illum fecit in gloria sanctorum.’ Diz wort stât geschriben in dem buoche der wîsheit, und ez sprichet der wîse man: ‘der geminnete von gote und den menschen, des man nû mit lobe gedenket. Got hât in glîch gemachet sînen heiligen in der klârheit’. Disiu wort mac man eigenlîche sprechen von disem heiligen, des hôchzît man hiute begât, wan sîn name ist Benedictus, ein ‘gesegenter’, und vüeget im gar wol diz wort, (󰀂󰀆󰀀) | daz man ouch von im an dem orte liset ‘cuius memoria in benedictione est’, daz ist: ‘des gedæhtnisse in dem segene des lobes ist’ und dar umbe, als man ouch von im liset, daz im geoffenbâret wart ein klârheit, dar inne er sach vor im die ganze werlt als in einer kugel alzemâle versamenet. Und diz wort sprichet alsô: ‘got hât in glîch gemachet sînen heiligen in der klârheit’. Nû merket von der ‘klârheit’. Sant Grêgôrius sprichet, daz der sêle, diu in dirre ‘klârheit’ ist, kleine und enge sîn alliu dinc. Daz natiurlich lieht der vernünfticheit, daz got gegozzen hât in die sêle, daz ist sô edel und sô kreftic, daz im enge und kleine ist allez, daz got ie geschuof an lîplîchen dingen. Diz lieht ist ouch edeler dan alliu lîplîchiu dinc, diu got ie geschuof, wan daz allerminste und daz allersnœdeste, daz dâ ist an lîplîchen dingen, daz ie beschinen oder beliuhtet wart von disem liehte, daz vernünfticheit ist, daz wirt edeler dan allez, daz lîplich ist. Ez wirt lûterer und liehter dan (󰀂󰀆󰀁) | diu sunne, wan ez scheidet von den dingen lîplicheit und zîtlicheit. Diz lieht ist ouch sô wît, daz ez der wîte entwahset; ez ist wîter dan diu wîte. Ez entwahset der wîsheit und der güete, als got entwahset der wîsheit und der güete, wan got der enist weder wîsheit noch güete, mêr: von gote kumet wîsheit

󰀁. Eccli. 󰀄󰀅:󰀁–󰀂. The context of the text can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀅ra: ‘In communi unius confessoris. Lectio libri Sapientie. Dilectus Deo et hominibus [Moyses add. Vg.], cuius memoria in benedictione est. Similem illum fecit in gloria sanctorum, et magnificavit eum in timore inimicorum, et in verbis suis mostra pacavit. Glorificavit illum in conspectu regum, et iussit illi coram populo suo, et ostendit illi gloriam suam. In fide et lenitate ipsius sanctum fecit illum, et elegit eum ex omni carne. Audivit enim [eum et add. Vg.] vocem ipsius, et induxit illum in nube. Et dedit illi cor ad [cor ad: coram Vg.] precepta et legem vite et discipline’. 󰀂. Eckhart refers to the Vita S. Benedicti by Gregorius Magnus, as it is found in his second book of the Dialogues, Dialogi II 󰀃󰀅 (Vita S. Benedicti). The Vita is also used as preface to the

H OMILY 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃]

󰀁󰀀󰀅

‘Dilectus deo et hominibus, cuius memoria in benedictione est. Similem illum fecit in gloria sanctorum.’ This sentence is written in the Book of Wisdom; and the wise man says: ‘The one loved by God and by men, who is now commemorated with praise. God made him similar to his saints in glory’.󰀁 These words can be properly said of this saint whose feast is celebrated today, because his name is Benedictus, a ‘blessed’ one, and this phrase fits very well with him, which is also read of him in this place: ‘cuius memoria in benedictione est’, which means: ‘whose memory consists in the blessing of praise’, and because one also reads of him󰀂 that a glory was revealed to him in which he saw before him the whole world completely gathered as in a sphere. And this phrase says thus: ‘God made him similar to his saints in glory’. Now look at this ‘glory’: St. Gregory says󰀃 that all things are small and narrow to the soul that is in this ‘glory’. The natural light of the intellect, which God has poured into the soul, is so noble and so powerful that for it everything that God ever created in bodily things is narrow and small. This light is also more noble than all the bodily things that God ever created, because the least and the cheapest of bodily things, when ever it was lighted or illuminated by this light which is the intellect becomes more noble than all that is bodily. It becomes more pure and brighter than the sun, because it detaches from things [their] bodilyness and temporality. This light is also so wide, that it grows beyond the width, it is wider than width. It grows beyond wisdom and goodness, as God grows beyond wisdom and goodness, because God is neither wisdom nor goodness, but rather: from God come wisdom

Regula commentata of Saint Benedict (PL 󰀇󰀇, 󰀁󰀉󰀈): ‘Cumque vir dei Benedictus, … ad fenestram stans, et omnipotentem deum deprecans, subito intempesta noctis hora respiciens, vidit fusam lucem desuper cunctas noctis tenebras effugasse, tantoque splendor clarescere, ut diem vinceret lux illa quae inter tenebras radiasset. Mira autem res valde in hac speculatione secuta est: quia, sicut post ipse narravit, omnis etiam mundus velut sub uno solis radio collectus ante oculos eius adductus est’. 󰀃. Gregorius, Dialogi II 󰀃󰀅: ‘Animae videnti creatorem angusta est omnis creatura’.

󰀁󰀀󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

und güete. Vernünfticheit enwirt niht von der wîsheit, noch vernünfticheit engât niht ûz von der wârheit noch enwirt von ir niht geborn als der wille von der güete. Wan von der güete wil der wille und wirt dâ von geborn und gât ûz von vernünfticheit und niht vernünfticheit von der wârheit. Und ist diz lieht bekantnisse, daz dâ vliuzet von der vernünfticheit, und ist rehte als ein ûzvluz und ein ûzbruch oder ein strâm gegen dem, daz vernünfticheit in ir selber ist in irm wesene. Und dirre ûzbruch ist sô verre dâ von geverret, als der himel ist über die erde. Ich spriche daz dicke und gedenke ez noch dicker: ez ist ein wunder, daz got in die sêle gegozzen hât vernünfticheit. (󰀂󰀆󰀂) | Nû ist ein ander lieht, daz ist daz lieht der gnâde; gegen dem ist daz natiurlich lieht als kleine als einer nâdel spitze mac begrîfen des ertrîches gegen dem ganzen ertrîche, oder daz einer nâdel spitze möhte begrîfen des himels, der unglouplich grœzer ist dan allez ertrîche. Daz got mit gnâden in der sêle ist, daz treget mê liehtes in im, dan alliu vernünfticheit geleisten müge; und allez daz lieht, daz vernünfticheit geleisten mac, ist gegen disem liehte als ein einiger tropfe ist gegen dem mer und noch tûsentmâl kleiner. Alsô ist der sêle, diu in gotes gnâden ist: der sint kleine und enge alliu dinc und allez, daz vernünfticheit geleisten und begrîfen mac. (󰀂󰀆󰀃) | Ich wart einest gevrâget, wâ von daz wære, daz guoten liuten als wol mit gote wære, daz sie gote alsô ernstlîche dieneten? Dô antwurte ich und sprach, ez wære dâ von, daz sie gotes gesmecket hæten, und ez wære ein wunder, diu sêle, diu gotes einest gesmecket und versuochet hæte, daz der iemer iht anders gesmacken möhte. Daz sprichet ein heilige, daz der sêle, diu gotes gesmecket hât, ein unsmak stinkende wirt allez, daz got niht enist. Nû nemen wir daz wort ûf einen andern sin, daz der wîse man sprichet: ‘der geminnete von gote und den menschen’ und geswîget des wortes ‘ist’, daz er niht ensprichet: (󰀂󰀆󰀄) | ‘er íst geminnet von gote und den menschen’ und engedenket des niht umbe der wandelbæricheit und bewegelicheit der zîtlicheit, dâ daz wesen, daz diz wort entheltet, ist sô hôhe über erhaben. Daz wesen hât in im begriffen alliu dinc und ist

󰀄. Unidentified reference.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃]

󰀁󰀀󰀇

and goodness. The intellect does not derive from wisdom, nor does the intellect come from the truth nor is it generated by it as the will from goodness. Because from goodness, the will wants and is born from it and comes from the intellect, and not the intellect from the truth. And this light is knowledge that flows from the intellect, and is just like an emanation and an eruption or a stream compared to the intellect in itself in its being. And this erupting is as far from this as the sky is above the earth. I say it often and more often I still think of it: it is a miracle,󰀄 that God has poured the intellect into the soul. Now there is a second light, that is the light of grace; compared to this, the natural light is as small as the tip of a needle can carry of the earth with respect to the whole earth, or as the tip of a needle could carry of the sky, which is incredibly larger than the entire earth. The fact that God is in the soul with grace, brings more light by itself than anything the entire intellect could accomplish; and all the light that the intellect can accomplish is compared to this light as a single drop is compared to the sea and still a thousand times smaller. So it is with the soul that is in the grace of God: for her all things are small and narrow, even everything that the intellect can accomplish and understand. I was once asked for the reason that good people are so happy with God that they serve God so seriously. Then I replied saying that it would derive from the fact that they would have tasted God, and it would be a wonder, if the soul that once tasted and tried God could ever find something else tasty. A saint says󰀅 that for the soul that has tasted God, all that is not God becomes a stinking disgust. Now let’s direct the text to another topic that the wise one speaks about: ‘The one loved by God and by men’, without mentioning the word ‘is’, so that he does not say: ‘He is loved by God and by men’, and does not mention it, because of the mutability and mobility of temporality, far above which is the being that this word contains. This being contains all things in itself and is nevertheless so far above, that it

󰀅. See Isa. 󰀃:󰀂󰀄: ‘et erit pro suavi odore fetor’.

󰀁󰀀󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

doch sô hôhe überhaben, daz ez noch nie berüeret enwart von allem dem, daz ie geschaffen wart. Alle, die dâ wænent, daz sie hie von iht wizzen, die enwizzen dâ von nihtes niht. (󰀂󰀆󰀅) | Ez sprichet sant Dionysius: allez, daz wir bekennen, daz wir teilen oder dem wir underscheit geben mügen, daz enist got niht, wan in gote enist weder diz noch daz, daz wir abegeziehen mügen oder mit underscheit begrîfen. Niht enist in im wan einez, daz ist er selbe. Und hie von ist vil rede under den meistern, wie daz zuogân müge, daz diz unbewegelîche und diz unberüerlîche, abegescheiden wesen gemeine müge werden der sêle, daz sich heltet in einem ûzluogenne der sêle, und sint sêre hie mite bekümbert, wie es diu sêle enpfenclich werden müge. Und ich spriche, daz sîn gotheit hanget dar ane, daz er sich gemeinen müge allem dem, daz sîn enpfenclich ist; und engemeinete er sich niht, sô enwære er niht got. (󰀂󰀆󰀆) | Diu sêle, die got minnen sol und der er sich gemeinen sol, diu muoz sô gar entblœzet sîn von zîtlicheit und von allem gesmacke der crêatûren, daz got in ir smacke nâch sînem eigenen gesmacke. Diu geschrift sprichet, daz ‘in mitter zît der naht, dô alliu dinc in einem swîgenne wâren, dô kam, herre, dîn wort her abe von den küniclîchen stüelen’, daz ist: in der naht, sô kein crêatûre in die sêle enliuhtet noch enluoget, und in dem stilleswîgenne, dâ niht in die sêle ensprichet, dâ wirt daz wort gesprochen in die vernünfticheit. Daz wort ist ein eigen der vernunft und sprichet ‘verbum’, als daz wort ist und stât in der vernunft. Ich erschricke ofte, sô ich von gote reden sol, wie gar abegescheiden diu sêle muoz sîn, diu ze der einunge komen wil. Und daz endarf nieman unmügelich dünken; ez enist (󰀂󰀆󰀇) | niht unmügelich der sêle, diu dâ gotes gnâde hât. Ez enwart nie kein dinc lîhter einem menschen dan der sêle, diu gotes gnâde hât, ze lâzenne alliu dinc. Ich spriche mê: ez enwart ouch nie kein dinc einem menschen lîhter ze tuonne dan der sêle, diu gotes gnâde hât, alliu dinc ze lâzenne; kein crêatûre enmac ir geschaden. Daz sprichet sant Paulus: ‘ich bin des gewis, daz kein crêatûre mich gescheiden enmac von gote, weder glücke noch unglücke noch leben noch tôt’. 󰀆. Ps.-Dionysius, De caelesti hierarchia c. 󰀂 § 󰀅 (PG 󰀃, 󰀁󰀄󰀄), Dionysiaca 󰀁󰀁󰀄󰀅,󰀂–󰀁󰀁󰀄󰀆,󰀂: ‘Sed non est summe contrariis simul participare neque communionem quamdam ad unum habentem divisibiles habere vitas, si ab unius obtinetur forti participatione; sed esse teneri impotentem et inordinabilem in omnibus ab uniformi divisionibus’. 󰀇. The reference is not clear.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃]

󰀁󰀀󰀉

was never touched by anything ever created. All those who think to know something of it, know nothing at all about it. Saint Dionysius says:󰀆 all that we know, that we differentiate or within which we can make distinctions, is not God, because in God there is neither ‘this’ nor ‘that’ which we can abstract or understand through distinctions. There is nothing in Him but one thing, that is Himself. And of this there is a lot of debate among the masters,󰀇 how it can happen that this immutable, untouchable and detached being can be communicated to the soul, yet which has a respect for the soul, and they are very concerned with the question how the soul can become receptive for it. And I say that his Godhead depends on the fact that He can communicate to everything that is receptive to Him; and if He did not communicate Himself, He would not be God. The soul that shall love God and to whom He is to communicate, must be so naked of temporality and of all the taste of creatures, that God in her tastes according to His own taste. The Scripture says that ‘at the time of midnight, when all things were silent, then, Lord, your word fell from the royal throne’,󰀈 that is: in the night, when no creature shines or looks into the soul, and in silence, where nothing speaks into the soul, then the word is spoken into the intellect. That word belongs properly to the intellect and is called ‘verbum’, because the word is and stays in the intellect. I am often startled when I have to talk about God, how far detached the soul must be that wants to come to that union. And this nobody must think to be impossible; it is not impossible to the soul that there she has the grace of God. Nothing was ever easier for a man than for the soul who has the grace of God, to let all things go. I say more: nothing was ever easier to do for a man than for the soul, who has the grace of God, to let all things go; no creature can harm her. Saint Paul says: ‘I am certain that no creature can separate me from God, neither good nor bad fortune nor life nor death’.󰀉

󰀈. Sap. 󰀁󰀈:󰀁󰀄–󰀅: ‘Dum medium silentium tenerent omnia et nox in suo cursu medium iter haberet omnipotens sermo tuus domine de celis a regalibus sedibus venit’ (Arch. f. 󰀃󰀉󰀅ra); Vg. reads: ‘(󰀁󰀈:󰀁󰀄) cum enim quietum silentium contineret omnia et nox in suo cursu medium iter haberet, (󰀁󰀈:󰀁󰀅) omnipotens sermo tuus de caelo a regalibus sedibus durus debellator in mediam exterminii terram prosilivit’.

󰀁󰀁󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Nû merket! Niene enist got eigenlîche got als in der sêle. In allen crêatûren ist etwaz gotes, aber in der sêle ist got götlich, wan si ist sîn ruowestat. Dar umbe sprach ein meister: got enminnet niht wan sich selber; er verzert alle sîne minne in im selber. Er wære wol ein tôre, der mit einem griffe begrîfen möhte hundert mark, begriffe er (󰀂󰀆󰀈) | denne niht mê dan einen pfenninc. Sîn minne ist in uns ein ûzblüejen des heiligen geistes. Ein ander wort hie von: got enminnet niht in uns wan die güete, die er in uns würket. Ein heilige sprichet: ez enwirt niht gekrœnet von gote wan sîn eigen werk, daz er in uns würket. Nieman ensol erschrecken dâ von, daz ich spriche, daz got niht enminnet wan sich selber; ez ist unser allerbestez, wan er meinet unser allergrœsten sælicheit dar inne. Er wil uns dâ mite in sich selber locken, daz wir geliutert werden, (󰀂󰀆󰀉) | daz er uns dâ mite in sich selber setze, ûf daz er uns in im und sich in uns mit im selber müge minnen. Und im ist alsô nôt nâch unser sælicheit, daz er uns in sich locket mit allem dem und er uns in sich mac bringen, ez sî gemach oder ungemach. Trutz gote, daz er des iemer über uns verhenge, dâ mite er uns in sich niht enlocke. Ich enwil des gote niemer gedanken, daz er mich minnet, wan er enmac ez niht gelâzen, er welle oder enwelle, sîn natûre twinget in dar zuo. Ich wil im des danken, daz er ez niht gelâzen enmac von sîner güete, er enmüeze mich minnen. Daz wir uns selber benomen werden (󰀂󰀇󰀀) | und in got gesetzet werden, diz enist niht swære, wan got der muoz ez selber würken in uns, wan ez ist ein götlich werk, der mensche volge aleine und enwiderstâ niht, er lîde und lâze got würken. Daz wir gote alsô volgen, daz er uns in sich müge gesetzen, daz wir mit im vereinet werden, daz er uns mit im selber müge geminnen, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

󰀉. Rom. 󰀈:󰀃󰀈: ‘Certus sum enim quia neque mors, neque vita, neque anteli, neque principatus, neque virtutes, neque instantia, neque futura, neque fortitudo, neque altitudo, neque profundum, neque creatura alia poteris nos separare a caritate Dei, quae est in Christo Iesu Domino nostro’. 󰀁󰀀. The master is the wise man of the Book of Wisdom, as can be seen from Hom. 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁], n. 󰀃: ‘Waz minnet got? Got enminnet niht wan sich selben und als vil er sîn glîch vindet in mir und mich in im. In dem buoche der wîsheit stât geschriben: ‘got der enminnet nieman, wan der

H OMILY 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃]

󰀁󰀁󰀁

Now note! Nowhere is God more properly God as in the soul. In all creatures there is something of God, but in the soul God is divine, because she is His resting place. Therefore a master said:󰀁󰀀 God loves nothing except Himself; He consumes all His love in Himself. It would certainly be a foolish man who could take a hundred marks with a pinch and take nothing more than a penny. His love is a flowering of the Holy Spirit in us. To put it another way: God loves nothing in us but the goodness that He works in us. A saint says:󰀁󰀁 Nothing is crowned by God except His own work which He works in us. No one should be startled by the fact that I say that God loves nothing except Himself; this is the best for us, because He means by this our highest blessedness. With this, He wants to draw us into Him, so that we may be purified, so that He can place us in Himself, so as to be able to love us in Him and Himself in us with Himself. And our blessedness is so necessary to Him that He draws us into Himself with all that He can bring us to Himself, whether pleasant or unpleasant. God forbid, that He never inflicts on us something that does not attract us to Him! I never want to thank God for the fact that He loves me, because He can not refrain from it, whether or not He wanted to, His nature forces him to this. I want to thank Him for the fact that for His goodness He can not refrain from His need to love me. To be taken out of ourselves and to be placed in God, this is not difficult, because God Himself must do this in us, because it is a divine action, man only follows and does not resist, suffers and lets God act. May we follow God, so that He can place us in Himself, so that we may become united with Him, so that He may love us with Himself, in this may God help us. Amen.

dâ wonet in der wîsheit’; see also Sermo VI,󰀁 n. 󰀅󰀆 (LW IV 󰀅󰀅,󰀈): ‘Tertio, quod sit intima deo anima et deus animae, quam sic amat, qui nihil extra se amat nec dissimile aut alienum amat’. 󰀁󰀁. Augustinus, Ep. 󰀁󰀉󰀄 c. 󰀅 n. 󰀁󰀉 (CSEL LVII 󰀁󰀉󰀀,󰀁󰀂–󰀅): ‘Quod est ergo meritum hominis ante gratiam … cum deus coronat merita nostra, nihil aliud coronet quam munera sua?’ See also Augustinus, De gratia et libero arbitrio, c. 󰀆, n. 󰀁󰀅 (PL 󰀄󰀄, 󰀈󰀉󰀀): ‘Dona sua coronat deus, non merita tua’.

Homily 󰀇󰀁* [Q 󰀇󰀈] In annuntiatione dominica, die 󰀂󰀅 martii ‘Missus est Gabriel angelus’ etc. (Luc. 󰀁:󰀂󰀆–󰀇) Introduction

T

his is a first homily on Mary for her feast of Annunciation. The core text for this homily is Luc. 󰀁:󰀂󰀆–󰀇 (‘missus est angelus Gabriel a Deo in civitatem Galilaeae, cui nomen Nazareth, ad Virginem desponsatam viro, cui nomen erat Ioseph, de domo David, et nomen virginis’). The text as given in the critical edition is derived from three manuscripts (E󰀂, N󰀁, Str󰀁) and four fragments. The witnesses B󰀉 and Ka󰀂 are not used in the critical edition in DW. The reference that can be found in the text relates to Hom. 󰀆* [Q 󰀃󰀈], n. 󰀃 – a homily that centers on the same Scriptural text as the one here, Luc. 󰀁:󰀂󰀆–󰀇. The content of the homily In what is certainly an abbreviated homily on Mary, we encounter a similar message as in the previous one on Saint Benedict. The saints, and even Mary with their historical lives, and also with their role in the history of salvation, are not goals in themselves, but only serve the one birth, that of God becoming man in the soul of all humans, and the human soul being one in God. So Eckhart opens this homily, having given the Latin text (n. 󰀁) and his vernacular translation (n. 󰀂) with Bede’s statement that Mary’s Annunciation is ‘a beginning of our salvation’ (n. 󰀃), of all human beings and all creatures. The spiritual generation of God in Mary is more important than the bodily birth of Christ (n. 󰀃). A) ‘An angel was sent by God’ (n. 󰀄), not by an intermediary. B) ‘An angel’ – Eckhart provides different definitions which he gathers from (Pseudo-)Dionysius, Augustine and John Damascene (n. 󰀅).

H OMILY 󰀇󰀁* [Q 󰀇󰀈]

󰀁󰀁󰀃

C) ‘An angel was sent by God’ (nn. 󰀆–󰀇). In this section Eckhart asks what is the purpose of the angels and answers with three different types of actions: Angels cleanse, illuminate and perform. In addition, they enlighten the soul (n. 󰀆) and the angel ‘affixes its reason to the soul and invigorates her’ (n. 󰀇). D) ‘An angel was sent by God’ (n. 󰀈). Though the same part of the verse is being looked at, Eckhart puts a different stress on it, highlighting the term ‘sent’. The final prayer summarises the three actions of the angels by which Eckhart highlights again that this feast is not only, and even not primarily, about Mary, but rather that all may ‘eternally be blessed with God’ (n. 󰀉). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀂󰀈,󰀁󰀀󰀃–󰀄; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀂󰀉󰀃–󰀈; J. Quint, DW III 󰀃󰀄󰀇–󰀅󰀇; N. Largier II 󰀁󰀄󰀇–󰀅󰀁.󰀇󰀁󰀃–󰀇. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀇󰀉–󰀈󰀀; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀁󰀇󰀅–󰀆.

󰀁󰀁󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀃󰀅󰀁) ‘Missus est Gabriel angelus’ etc. Ez schrîbet sant Lukas in dem êwangeliô: ‘ein engel wart gesant von gote in ein lant, hiez Galylêâ, in eine stat, hiez Nazareth, ze einer juncvrouwen, hiez Marîâ, diu was gemahelt Jôsephe, der was von dem ingesinde Dâvîdes’. Bêdâ, ein meister, sprichet: ‘diz was ein begin unsers heiles’. Ich hân etwenne gesprochen und spriche ez noch: allez, daz unser herre ie getete, daz entete er niendert umbe, dan daz got mit uns sî und wir ein mit im werden; und dar umbe ist got mensche worden. Die meister sprechent, daz got ê was geborn in unser vrouwen geistlîche, ê (󰀃󰀅󰀂) | er lîplîche von ir geborn würde; und von der übervlüzzicheit der geburt, dô der himelsche vater gebar sînen eingebornen sun in ir sêle, dannen abe enpfienc daz êwige wort menschlîche natûre in ir, und si wart lîplîche berhaftic. Nû sprichet er: ‘ein engel wart gesant von gote’. Ich spriche, daz muoste von nôt sîn, daz er ir von gote gesant wære. Ez versmâhte der sêle ze enpfâhenne des engels lieht, ez enwürde ir denne von gote gesant und dâ enklebete inne daz götlîche lieht verborgen, daz dâ smakhaftic machete des engels lieht; anders si enwolde sîn niht. (󰀃󰀅󰀃) | Nû sprichet er: ‘ein engel’. Waz ist ein engel? Ez sprechent drîe meister drîerleie rede, waz ein engel sî. Dionysius sprichet: ein engel

󰀁. ‘gemahelt’: J. Quint translates ‘verlobt’ (‘engaged’). 󰀂. Luc. 󰀁:󰀂󰀆–󰀇. The context of the text can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀁vb: ‘In annuntiatione dominica. Secundum Lucam. In illo tempore [In mense autem sexto Vg.] missus est angelus Gabriel a Deo in civitatem Galylee, cui nomen Nazareth, ad virginem desponsatam viro, cui nomen erat Ioseph, de domo David, et nomen virginis Maria. Et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit: Ave gratia plena: Dominus tecum: benedicta tu in mulieribus. Que cum audisset, turbata est in sermone eius, et cogitabat qualis esset ista salutatio. Et ait angelus ei: Ne timeas Maria, invenisti enim gratiam apud Deum: ecce concipies in utero, et paries filium, et vocabis nomen eius Ihesum. Hic erit magnus et filius Altissimi vocabitur, et dabit illi Dominus Deus sedem David patris eius: et regnabit in domo Iacob in eternum, et regni eius non erit finis. Dixit autem Maria ad angelum: Quomodo fiet istud, quoniam virum non cognosco. Et respondens angelus dixit ei: Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi. Ideoque et quid nascetur ex te sanctum, vocabitur filius Dei. Et ecce Elysabeth cognata tua, et ipsa concepit filium in senectute sua: et hic mensis est sextus [sextus est Vg.] illi, que vocatur sterilis: quia non erit impossibile apud Deum omne (󰀅󰀄󰀂ra) verbum. Dixit autem Maria: Ecce ancilla Domini, fiat michi secundum verbum tuum’.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀁* [Q 󰀇󰀈]

󰀁󰀁󰀅

‘Missus est Gabriel angelus’ etc. Saint Luke writes in the Gospel: ‘An angel was sent by God to a region, called Galilee, in a city, called Nazareth, to a virgin, named Mary, she was betrothed󰀁 to Joseph, who was of the lineage of David’.󰀂 Bede, a master, says: ‘This was a beginning of our salvation’.󰀃 I once said,󰀄 and I say it again: all that our Lord ever did, He did it for no reason except that God might be with us and we become one with Him; and for this God has become man. The masters say󰀅 that God was first spiritually generated in our Lady before He could be bodily born by her: and from the abundant󰀆 generation, in which the heavenly Father begat His only begotten Son in her soul, the eternal Word received human nature in her, and she became bodily pregnant. Now He says: ‘An angel was sent by God’. I say that it must be of necessity that it should be sent to her by God. The soul would despise receiving the light of the angel if it were not sent by God, and had the divine light not inhered hidden within it, which made her the angel’s light pleasant tasting; otherwise she would not want it. Now He says: ‘an angel’. What is an angel? Three scholars give three definitions of what an angel is. Dionysius says: an angel is

󰀃. Beda, Homiliae I 󰀁 (PL 󰀉󰀄, 󰀉): ‘Exordium nostrae redemptionis, fratres charissimi, hodierna nobis sancti Evangelii lectio commendat…’ 󰀄. Eckhart refers to Hom. 󰀆* [Q 󰀃󰀈], n. 󰀃. 󰀅. Augustinus, Sermo 󰀂󰀁󰀅 n. 󰀄 (PL 󰀃󰀈, 󰀁󰀀󰀇󰀄): ‘… Christus prius mente quam ventre concipiens …’; id., De sancta virginitate, c. 󰀃, n. 󰀃 (CSEL 󰀄󰀁, 󰀂󰀃󰀇,󰀁󰀇–󰀉). Leo Magnus, Sermo 󰀁 De nativitate domini (PL 󰀅󰀄, 󰀁󰀉󰀁): ‘Virgo … eligitur, quae sacro gravidanda foetu, divinam humanamque prolem prius conciperet mente, quam corpore’ (see also Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀄: ‘hæte Marîâ niht von êrste got geistlîche geborn, er enwære nie lîplîche von ir geborn worden’. The same topic can be found in Hom. 󰀈󰀂* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀀], n. 󰀄 and Pr. 󰀄󰀄 Pfeiffer (󰀁󰀅󰀀,󰀄–󰀆) which seems to be by Eckhart and has already been singled out by G. Steer, ‘Die Schriften Meister Eckharts’ (󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂), 󰀂󰀅󰀃 to be checked for being incorporated into the critical edition of the DW. 󰀆. This is a terminus technicus, J. Quint translates it with ‘Überfließen (= den Überschwang)’, but it is a subtle metaphor of the superfluitas which is given by God himself, see also Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀁󰀁; Hom. 󰀁󰀃* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀂], n. 󰀈; Hom. 󰀁󰀈* [Q 󰀁], n. 󰀁󰀄; Hom. 󰀈󰀂* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀀], n. 󰀄; Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀆], n. 󰀈.

󰀁󰀁󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

ist ‘ein spiegel âne vlecken’, geliutert ûf daz hœhste, der in sich enpfæhet den widerslac götlîches liehtes. Augustînus sprichet: der engel ist nâhe bî gote, und diu materie ist nâhe bî nihte. Johannes Damascênus sprichet: der engel ist ein bilde gotes und ist durchbrechende allez, daz sîn ist, (󰀃󰀅󰀄) | mit dem bilde gotes. Diu sêle hât daz bilde an irm obersten wipfel, an irm obersten zwîge, dâ götlich lieht âne underlâz liuhtet. Daz ist daz êrste stücke, daz er sprichet, waz ein engel sî. Dar nâch sprichet er, daz der engel sî ein durchsnîdendiu scherpfe, inviuric von götlîcher begirde, und sprichet, daz der engel vrî sî von materie und sô vrî, daz er vîent ist der materie. Sehet, diz ist ein engel. Nû sprichet er: ‘ein engel wart gesant von gote’. War zuo? Dionysius sprichet, daz der engel habe drîerleie werk. Daz êrste: er veget, daz ander: er liuhtet, daz dritte: (󰀃󰀅󰀅) | er volbringet. Er veget die sêle in drîerleie wîs: daz êrste: er veget sie von vlecken, die an sie gevallen sint; daz ander: er veget sie von materie und bereitet sie und sament sie ze ir selber; daz dritte: er veget sie von unwizzenheit, als ouch ein engel den andern tuot. Ze dem andern mâle erliuhtet er die sêle in zweierleie wîs: götlich lieht daz ist sô überswenkic, daz ez diu sêle niht gelîden enmac, ez enwerde getempert und beschatewet in des engels liehte und alsô getragen in die sêle. Dar nâch erliuhtet er sie mit glîchnisse. (󰀃󰀅󰀆) | Der engel leget sîn verstantnisse an die sêle und kreftiget sie, daz si enpfâhen oder lîden mac götlich lieht. Wære ich in einer wüestenunge aleine, dâ mich grûwelte, hæte ich dâ bî mir ein kint, sô vergienge mir der grûwel und würde gekreftiget; sô edel und sô lustic und sô kreftic ist daz leben in im selben. Und enmöhte ich niht ein kint haben, hæte ich ein tier, ich würde getrœstet. Dar umbe: die in den swarzen buochen vil wunders würkent, die nement ein tier, einen hunt, 󰀇. Ps.-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, c. 󰀄 § 󰀂󰀂 (PG 󰀃, 󰀇󰀂󰀄B), Dionysiaca 󰀂󰀆󰀉,󰀃–󰀂󰀇󰀀,󰀃: ‘manifestatio occulti luminis, speculum purum clarissimum, incontaminatum, incoinquinatum, immaculatum suscipiens totam … pulchritudinem boniformis deiformitatis, et munde resplendere faciens in se ipso (quemadmodum possibile est) bonitatem silentii, quod est in adytis’. 󰀈. Augustinus, Confessiones XII c. 󰀇 n. 󰀇 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀂󰀂󰀀,󰀁󰀄–󰀅): ‘fecisti caelum et terram, duo quaedam, unum prope te, alterum prope nihil’; also note Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I 󰀄󰀄 a. 󰀂: ‘Sed contra est quod dicit Augustinus, XII Confess.: Duo fecisti, domine, unum prope te scilicet angelum, aliud prope nihil, scilicet materiam primam’. 󰀉. Iohannes Damascenus, De fide orthodoxa II c. 󰀃 (Buytaert 󰀆󰀉,󰀃ff.): ‘Ipse angelorum est factor et conditor … secundum propriam imaginem creans eos et naturam incorpoream, velut

H OMILY 󰀇󰀁* [Q 󰀇󰀈]

󰀁󰀁󰀇

‘a mirror without stains’,󰀇 maximally purified, which welcomes in itself the reflection of the divine light. Augustine says:󰀈 The angel is close to God, and matter is close to nothing. John of Damascus says:󰀉 the angel is an image of God and is permeating everything that belongs to it with the image of God. The soul has the image at its highest point in its highest branch, where the divine light shines without interruption. This is the first point he makes, defining what an angel is. Then he says that the angel is a cutting edge, full of fire of divine desire, and says that the angel is free from matter and so free that he is an enemy of matter. Look, this is ‘an angel’. Now he says: ‘An angel was sent by God’. For what purpose? Dionysius says that the angel has a triple action.󰀁󰀀 The first: it cleanses; the second: it illuminates; the third: it performs. It cleanses the soul in a threefold way: first: it cleanses her from the spots that have fallen on her; second: it cleanses her from the material and prepares her and gathers her to herself; third: it cleanses her up from ignorance, as an angel does towards the other. Secondly, it enlightens the soul in a dual way: the divine light is so exuberant that the soul can not stand it, unless it is tempered and obfuscated in the light of the angel and thus carried into the soul. Thus, it illuminates her with similitudes. The angel affixes its reason to the soul and invigorates her, so that she can receive or stand divine light. If I were alone in a desert in which I was horrified, but had a child with me there, then I would lose the horror and would be reinvigorated; so noble and so pleasant and so strong is life in itself. And if I could not have a child, but had an animal, I would be comforted. Therefore, those who work many wonders in the black books take an animal, a dog, and the life of the

quemdam spiritum vel ignem immaterialem … levitatem et ignitionem et calorem et incisionem et acuitionem circa divinum desiderium et ministerium describens…’ 󰀁󰀀. Ps.-Dionysius, De caelesti hierarchia II c. 󰀃 § 󰀂 (PG 󰀃, 󰀁󰀆󰀅B–C), Dionysiaca 󰀇󰀉󰀂,󰀁–󰀃: ‘ordo hierarchiae est alios quidem purgari, alios vero purgare, et hos quidem illuminari, illos autem illuminare, et hos quidem perfici, illos autem perficere’; see also Albertus, Summa de creaturis I tr. IV q. 󰀃󰀆 a. 󰀂 (Borgnet 󰀃󰀄, 󰀅󰀄󰀁A): ‘Ergo una hierarchia debet esse penes assistere, et altera penes ministrare, et non plures. Nec potest dici, quod tres sint propter tres actus, scilicet purgare, illuminare, et perficere: quia secundum beatum Dionysium, illi actus conveniunt omni ordini et omni hierarchiae’; Albertus, Summa de creaturis, tr. IV q. 󰀃󰀇 a. 󰀂 (󰀅󰀄󰀈b): ‘actio enim est per purgare, illuminare, et perficere’.

󰀁󰀁󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

und daz leben an dem tiere sterket sie. Glîcheit (󰀃󰀅󰀇) | sterket an allen dingen. Dar umbe leget sie der engel an die sêle, wan er ir glîch ist und erliuhtet sie und sterket sie und bereitet sie, daz si enpfâhen mac götlich lieht. Nû sprichet er: ‘ein engel wart gesant von gote’. Diu sêle muoz glîch sîn dem engel an disen stücken, diu ich gesprochen hân, sol ir der sun gesant werden und in ir geborn werden. Nû blîbet daz stücke underwegen, wie sie der engel volbringet. Daz uns got sînen engel sende, der uns vege und uns erliuhte und volbringe und wir mit gote êwiclîche sælic sîn, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

󰀁󰀁. The ‘glîcheit’, not as J. Quint has it, the angel’s own knowledge. 󰀁󰀂. Reference to what Eckhart has just said before.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀁* [Q 󰀇󰀈]

󰀁󰀁󰀉

animal strengthens them. Likeness strengthens all things. Therefore, the angel affixes it󰀁󰀁 to the soul because it is similar to her, enlightens, strengthens and prepares her to be able to receive the divine light. Now he says: ‘An angel was sent by God’. The soul must be similar to the angel in these points that I have said,󰀁󰀂 if the Son must be ‘sent’ to her and must be generated in her. Now the point remains, as to how the angel performs it.󰀁󰀃 May God send us His angel, cleanse us, enlighten us and perfect us, and may we eternally be blessed with God, so help us God. Amen.

󰀁󰀃. The third point from above n. 󰀆.

Homily 󰀇󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀀] In festo sancti Vitalis martiris, die 󰀂󰀈 aprilis ‘blîbet in mir!’ (Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀄) Introduction

T

he present homily centers on John 󰀁󰀅:󰀄 (‘Remain in me’) and is read on the feast of Saint Vitalis, celebrated on 󰀂󰀈 April. The text in the critical edition is derived from two manuscripts (M󰀂 and N󰀁, the first being more reliable) and fragments in S󰀁. The witnesses M󰀂, N󰀁, S󰀁 are not used in DW. Although there is no external witness for Eckhart’s authorship of this homily, the parallelism to Eckhart’s Latin Sermo IV (LW IV 󰀄󰀅󰀀–󰀂) supports its attribution. We find a reference in n. 󰀁󰀁 to one (or any) of the following texts: Hom. 󰀅󰀆* [Q 󰀂󰀀a], n. 󰀁󰀃; Hom. 󰀂󰀂* [Q 󰀃󰀇], n. 󰀃; Hom. 󰀂󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀈], n. 󰀇. The content of the homily This is yet another homily that hardly refers to the feast of the saint, unless one takes the recurring mention of nakedness as an allusion to Vitalis of Milan’s torments, but it does develop a most intricate reflection about the fundamental unity between the soul and God. First he gives the short vernacular quote from the Gospel reading of the day from John 󰀁󰀅:󰀄 (‘Remain in me’) (n. 󰀁), and then adds a verse from the Epistle reading Jes. Sir. 󰀁󰀄:󰀂󰀂 (‘Blessed is the person who dwells in wisdom’), stating that the two verses ‘mean the same thing’. Throughout most of the homily, ‘der man’ means ‘the person’ and is gender neutral, but in n. 󰀁󰀀 he develops a gendered reading of the verse. Indeed, Eckhart starts with the verse from the Epistle and explains that the person who wants to dwell in God must have three things: selfdenial, love of the good as such, and taking God in his bare being (n. 󰀃).

H OMILY 󰀇󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀀]

󰀁󰀂󰀁

A) ‘Remains’ – ‘he who “remains” in Him has five points’ (n. 󰀄) which Eckhart is going to develop: 󰀁) There is no distinction between the person and God, but they are one, whereby ‘one’ is not a number (n. 󰀅). 󰀂) The blessedness is taken in the purity of God (n. 󰀆). 󰀃) The knowledge, action and knowing of the person are those of God (n. 󰀇). 󰀄) God is continuously born in the person (n. 󰀈). 󰀅) This is a continuous process of becoming more and more similar up to full oneness (n. 󰀉). B) ‘Blessed is the man who dwells in wisdom’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). ‘In wisdom’ here plays on the maternal name which shows the passivity of the Son who is being generated compared to the activity of the generating Father. C) ‘Blessed is the man’ (n. 󰀁󰀁). ‘The man’, here, is the supreme power of the soul, compared to the second power of the soul, seen as ‘the woman’. In the supreme power any person should always dwell, as the final prayer states (n. 󰀁󰀂). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀆󰀃,󰀁󰀉󰀇–󰀉; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀅󰀈󰀁–󰀆; J. Quint, DW II 󰀂󰀆󰀉–󰀈󰀁; N. Largier I 󰀄󰀂󰀈–󰀃󰀅.󰀁󰀀󰀁󰀀–󰀁. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀁󰀅󰀆–󰀈; Meister Eckhart, Teacher and Preacher (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇), 󰀃󰀀󰀀–󰀂; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀃󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀁; Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings, ed. and trans. O. Davies (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀁󰀄󰀈–󰀅󰀂.

󰀁󰀂󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀇󰀂) ‘blîbet in mir!’ Ez sprichet unser herre Jêsus Kristus in dem êwangeliô: ‘blîbet in mir!’, und ein ander wort sprichet in der epistel: ‘sælic ist der man, der dâ wonet in der wîsheit’. Und diu zwei wort tragent über ein: daz wort Kristî ‘blîbet in mir!’ und daz wort der epistel ‘sælic ist der man, der dâ wonet in der wîsheit’. Nû merket, waz der mensche haben sol, der dâ wonen sol in im, daz ist in gote. Der sol driu dinc haben. Daz êrste, daz er habe verlougent sîn selbes und aller dinge noch niht anehangende sî an deheinen dingen, diu inwendic die sinne begrîfende* sîn, noch (󰀂󰀇󰀃) | niht wonende sî in deheinen crêatûren, die dâ sint in zît noch in êwicheit. Daz ander ist, daz er niht enminne diz guot oder daz guot, sunder er minne daz guot, von dem allez guot vliezende ist; wan kein dinc enist niht mê lustlich noch begirlich, dan als vil got in im ist. Dar umbe ensol man daz guot niht mê minnen, dan als vil man got in im minnet, und alsô ensol man got niht minnen noch umbe sîn himelrîche noch umbe dehein dinc, sunder man sol in minnen umbe die güeticheit, diu er in im selben ist. Wan swer in minnet umbe anders iht, der enwonet niht in im, sunder er wonet in dem, umbe daz er in minnet. (󰀂󰀇󰀄) | Dar umbe: wellet ir in im blîben, sô minnet in umbe niht sunder umbe in selben. Daz dritte ist, daz er got niht nemen ensol, als er guot oder gereht ist, sunder er sol in nemen in der lûtern, blôzen substancie, dâ er sich selben blôz nemende ist. Wan güete und gerehticheit ist ein kleit gotes, wan ez bekleidet in. Dar umbe sô scheidet gote allez daz abe, daz in kleidende ist, und nemet in blôz in dem kleithûse, dâ er entdecket und blôz in im ist. Alsô sît ir blîbende in im.

󰀁. Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀄 (‘Manete in me’). The context of the text can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀂ra: ‘Sancti Vitalis martiris evangelium. «Ego sum vitis» [C󰀂 Commune unius apostoli vel plurimorum] In communi unius apostoli vel plurimorum. Qui manet in me et ego in eo, hic fert fructum multum’; f. 󰀄󰀅󰀃va: ‘Secundum Iohannem. In illo tempore dixit Ihesus discipulis suis: [In … suis om. Vg.] Ego sum vitis vera: et pater meus agricola est. Omnem palmitem in me non ferentem fructum, tollet eum: et omnem, qui fert fruc(󰀄󰀅󰀃rb)tum, purgabit eum, ut fructum plus afferat. Iam vos mundi estis propter sermonem, quem locutus sum vobis. Manete in me: et ego in vobis. Sicut palmes non potest ferre fructum a semet ipso, nisi manserit in vite: sic nec vos, nisi in

H OMILY 󰀇󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀀]

󰀁󰀂󰀃

‘Remain in me!’ Our Lord Jesus Christ says in the Gospel: ‘Remain in me!’󰀁 And another phrase says in the Epistle: ‘Blessed is the person who dwells in wisdom’.󰀂 And these two phrases mean the same thing: the word of Christ ‘Remain in me!’ and the word of the Epistle: ‘Blessed is the person who dwells in wisdom’.󰀃 Now note what the person must have to dwell in Him, that is in God. He must have three things. The first, that he has denied himself and all things and is in no way still adhering to anything that the senses are grasping within, nor is still dwelling in any creature that is in time nor in eternity. The second is that he does not love this good or that good, but that he loves the good, from which every good is flowing; because nothing more pleasant or desirable than God is in it. Therefore one should not love anything good any more than one loves God in it, and so one must not love God either for his kingdom of heaven or for anything, but one must love him for the goodness that He is in Himself. Because whoever loves him for something else, does not dwell in Him, but dwells in what he loves. Therefore: if you want to ‘remain’ in Him, do not love Him for anything other than Himself. The third is that he must not take God inasmuch as He is good or just, but he must take Him in His pure, naked being, where He is taking Himself nakedly. Goodness and justice are in fact a garment of God, because they cover Him. Therefore, detach God Himself from everything that is covering Him, and take Him naked in the dressing room where He is uncovered and naked in Himself. Thus, you are ‘remaining’󰀄 in Him. me manseritis. Ego sum vitis, vos palmites: qui manet in me, et ego in eo, hic fert fructum multum: quia sine me nichil potestis facere. Si quis in me non manserit: mittetur foras sicut palmes, et arescet, et colligent eum, et in ignem mittent, et ardet. Si manseritis in me, et verba mea in vobis manserint: quodcumque volueritis petetis, et fiet vobis’. 󰀂. Eccli. 󰀁󰀄:󰀂󰀂: ‘Beatus vir, qui in sapientia morabitur’. 󰀃. The topic ‘dwelling’ links this homily with the next two, Hom. 󰀇󰀃* [Q 󰀂󰀈] and Hom. 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃], on this phenomenon, see the Introduction. 󰀄. This is a durative.

󰀁󰀂󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Der alsô in im blîbet, der hât vünf dinc. Daz êrste, daz zwischen im und gote kein underscheit enist, sunder sie sint ein. Der engel ist vil âne zal, wan sie enmachent niht sunderzal, wan sie sint âne zal; daz ist von ir grôzen einvalticheit. Die drîe persônen in gote der ist drîe âne zal, aber ir ist menige. Aber zwischen dem menschen und gote enist aleine niht underscheit, sunder dâ enist ouch kein menige; dâ enist niht wan ein. Daz ander ist, daz er sîne sælicheit dâ nemende ist in der lûterkeit, dâ sie got (󰀂󰀇󰀅) | selber nemende ist und sich enthaltende ist. Daz dritte ist, daz er ein wizzen hât mit gotes wizzenne und ein würken hât mit gotes würkenne und ein bekennen mit gotes bekennenne. Daz vierde ist, daz got alle zît in dem menschen geborn wirt. Wie wirt got alle zît in dem menschen geborn? Daz merket! Swenne der mensche entblœzet und entdecket daz götlîche, daz got in im natiurlich geschaffen hât, sô wirt gotes bilde (󰀂󰀇󰀆) | in im offenbære. Wan bî geberunge dâ ist bî ze merkenne diu offenbârunge gotes; wan, daz der sun heizet geborn von dem vater, daz ist dâ von, daz im der vater veterlîche offenbârende ist sîne tougene. Und dar umbe, sô der mensche ie mê und ie klærlîcher gotes bilde in im entblœzende ist, sô got ie klærlîcher in im geborn wirt. Und alsô ist diu geberunge gotes alle zît ze nemenne nâch dem, daz der vater daz bilde blôz entdecket und in im liuhtende ist. Daz vünfte ist, daz der mensche alle zît in gote geborn wirt. Wie wirt der mensche alle zît in gote geborn? Daz merket! Von der entblœzunge des bildes in dem menschen sô ist sich der mensche gote glîchende, wan mit dem bilde ist (󰀂󰀇󰀇) | der mensche gotes bilde glîch, daz got blôz nâch der wesunge ist. Und sô sich der mensche ie mê entblœzende ist, sô er gote ie glîcher ist, und sô er gote ie glîcher wirt, sô er ie mê mit im vereinet wirt. Und alsô ist diu geberunge des menschen alle zît in gote ze nemenne nâch dem, daz der mensche mit sînem bilde liuhtende ist in gotes bilde, daz got blôz nâch der wesunge ist, mit dem der mensche ein ist. Und alsô ist diu einicheit des menschen und gotes

H OMILY 󰀇󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀀]

󰀁󰀂󰀅

So he who ‘remains’ in Him has five points. The first: that between him and God there is no distinction, but that they are one. Angels are many beyond number, because they are not individually numbered which derives from their great simplicity. The three persons in God are three without number, but theirs is multiplicity. Yet, between that person and God there is not only nondistinction, but there is also non-multiplicity; there is nothing but one. The second is that he is taking his blessedness in the purity where God Himself is taking it and sustaining Himself. The third is that he has a knowledge with the knowledge of God, has an action with the action of God and a knowing with the knowledge of God. The fourth is that God is always born in that person. How is God always born in that person? Note! When the person undresses and uncovers the divine [image]󰀅 that God has created in him, then the divine image in him becomes manifest. In fact, it is in birthing that the revelation of God must become manifest; because the fact that the Son is said to be born by the Father derives from the fact that the Father is paternally revealing His secret. And, therefore, the more and the more clearly a person is undressing the image of God in him, the more clearly God is born in him. Thus, the birth of God is to be understood as a continuous one, according to which the Father is uncovering the image nakedly and is shining in it. The fifth is that the person is always born in God. How is the person always born in God? Note! By undressing the image in the person, the person makes himself similar to God, because with this image the person is similar to the image of God in which God is naked according to the essence.󰀆 And the more the person is getting undressed, the more he is similar to God, and the more he becomes similar to God, the more he becomes united with Him. And so the birth of the person in God is to be understood as a continuous one, according to which the person with his image is shining in the image of God in which God is naked according to the essence, with which the person is one. And so 󰀅. J. Quint ad loc. takes it as the divine light (‘das göttliche Licht’). 󰀆. See Hom. 󰀃󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀉], n. 󰀁󰀄 where Eckhart speaks of the image and the image without distinction (‘man enmac keinen underscheit verstân zwischen bilde und bilde’).

󰀁󰀂󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

ze nemenne nâch glîcheit des bildes; wan der mensche ist gote glîch nâch dem bilde. Und dar umbe: als man sprichet, daz der mensche mit gote ein sî und nâch der einicheit got sî, sô nimet man in nâch dem teile des bildes, an dem er gote glîch ist, und niht nâch dem, und er geschaffen ist. Wan dâ man in got nemende ist, dâ ennimet man in niht nâch der crêatiurlicheit; wan als man in got nimet, sô enlougent man der crêatiurlicheit niht, daz diu lougenunge ze nemenne sî nâch dem, daz diu crêatiurlicheit ze nihte werde, sunder si ist ze nemenne nâch der verjehunge gotes in dem, daz man sie gote nemende ist. Wan Kristus, der got und mensche ist, als man den nimet nâch der menscheit, sô verlougent man sîn nâch der gotheit in dem nemenne, niht daz man im der gotheit verlougent, sunder man verlougent im ir nâch dem nemenne. Und alsô ist daz wort (󰀂󰀇󰀈) | Augustînî ze verstânne, daz er sprichet: ‘swaz der mensche minnet, daz íst der mensche. Minnet er einen stein, er ist ein stein, minnet er einen menschen, er ist ein mensche, minnet er got – nû engetar ich niht vürbaz gesprechen; wan spræche ich, daz er got danne wære, ir möhtet mich versteinen. Aber ich wîse iuch ûf die geschrift’. Und dar umbe, als sich der mensche mit minne ze gote blôz vüegende ist, sô wirt er entbildet und îngebildet und überbildet in der götlîchen einförmicheit, in der er mit gote ein ist. Diz hât allez der mensche in dem inneblîbenne. Nû merket die vruht, die der mensche dâ bringet. Daz ist: swenne er mit gote ein ist, sô ist er mit gote vürbringende alle crêatûren, und er ist sælicheit allen crêatûren bringende nâch dem, und er mit im ein ist. Nû sprichet daz ander wort der epistel alsô: ‘sælic ist der man, der dâ wonet in der wîsheit’. Daz er sprach ‘in der wîsheit’: wîsheit ist ein müeterlich name, wan müeterlich name ist eigenschaft eines lîdennes, wan in gote ist würken und lîden ze setzenne; wan (󰀂󰀇󰀉) | der vater ist würkende und der sun ist lîdende; und daz ist von der eigenschaft

󰀇. The verb ‘nemen’ means ‘to take’ in the primary sense of ‘to receive’ (‘accipere’, ‘recipere’), but also in the gnoseological sense of ‘learning’, ‘understanding’ (through the senses or the intellect). In this text Eckhart switches from one level of meaning to the other one without clear indications. Moreover, Eckhart differentiates between perspectivity and modality. 󰀈. I.e. The negation.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀀]

󰀁󰀂󰀇

the oneness of the person and God must be understood according to the similarity of the image; because the person is similar to God according to the image. And therefore: when we say that the person is one with God and is God according to oneness,󰀇 we take him according to that part of the image in which he is similar to God, and not according to that in which he is created. Because where one takes him as God, one does not take him according to his creatureliness. Then, when one takes him as God, one does not deny creatureliness, so that the negation would be understood as if creaturaliness becomes nothing, but it󰀈 must be taken as confirmation of God, in which it󰀉 is understood as God. Because when one takes Christ, who is God and man, according to humanity, one denies Him in this understanding the divinity, not that He is denied the divinity, but He is denied it according to this understanding. And so we must understand the phrase of Augustine when he says: ‘What man loves, man is. If he loves a stone, he is a stone, if he loves a person, he is a person, if he loves God – now I dare not speak further; because if I said that then he would be God, you might stone me. But I refer you to the Scriptures’.󰀁󰀀 And therefore, if the person is nakedly uniting himself with God in love, he will be de-formed and in-formed and trans-formed into the divine uniformity in which he is one with God. The person has all this in remaining within. Now look at the fruit that man brings forth. This is: when he is one with God, he is producing all creatures with God and is bringing blessedness to all creatures to the extent that he is one with Him. Now the second clause of the Epistle, says: ‘Blessed is the man who dwells in wisdom’. He said ‘in wisdom’ – wisdom is a maternal name, because the property of the maternal name is passivity, because we must put in God acting and passivity; because the Father is acting and the Son is passive, and this derives from the property of being

󰀉. I.e. The creatureliness. 󰀁󰀀. Augustinus, In epistulam Iohannis ad Parthos 󰀂 n. 󰀁󰀄 (PL 󰀃󰀅, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇): ‘quia talis est quisque, qualis eius dilectio est. Terram diligis? terra erit. Deum diligis? quid dicam? deus erit? Non audeo dicere ex me, scripturas audiamus: ego dixi, dii estis, et filii altissimi omnes (Ps. 󰀈󰀁:󰀆)’.

󰀁󰀂󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

der gebornheit. Wan denne der sun diu êwic geborne wîsheit ist, in der alliu dinc mit underscheide stânt, dar umbe sprichet er: ‘sælic ist der man, der dâ wonet in der wîsheit’. Nû sprichet er: ‘sælic ist der man’. Ich hân ez mê gesprochen, daz zwô krefte in der sêle sint: einiu ist der man und einiu ist diu vrouwe. Nû sprichet er: ‘sælic ist der (󰀂󰀈󰀀) | man’. Diu kraft, diu in der sêle ist, diu der man heizet, daz ist diu oberste kraft der sêle, in der got blôz liuhtet; wan in die kraft enkumet niht anders wan got, und diu kraft ist alle zît in gote. Und alsô: sölte der mensche alliu dinc nemen in der kraft, sô næme er sie niht, daz sie dinc sint, sunder er nimet sie nâch dem, daz sie in gote sint. Und dar umbe sölte der mensche alle zît wonen in der kraft, wan alliu dinc in der kraft glîch sint. Und alsô wonete der mensche in allen dingen glîch und næme sie nâch dem, daz sie alliu in gote glîch sint, und alliu dinc hæte der mensche dâ; der mensche næme abe von allen dingen daz gröbeste und næme sie nâch dem, und sie lustlich und begirlich sint. Nâch dem hât er sie dâ, wan got der envermac nâch sîner eigener natûre niht, er enmüeze (󰀂󰀈󰀁) | dir dâ geben allez, daz er ie geschuof, und sich selben. Und dar umbe ist der mensche sælic, der alle zît wonet in der kraft, wan er wonet alle zît in gote. Daz wir alle zît in gote wonen müezen, des helfe uns unser lieber herre Jêsus Kristus. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀀]

󰀁󰀂󰀉

generated. Since the Son is the eternally generated wisdom, in which all things are distinguished, He, therefore, says: ‘Blessed is the person who dwells in wisdom’. Now He says: ‘Blessed is the man’. I have already said󰀁󰀁 that in the soul there are two powers: one is the man and one is the woman. Now he says: ‘Blessed is the man’. The power that is in the soul, which is called ‘man’, is the supreme power of the soul, in which God nakedly shines; for in this power nothing else enters but God, and this power is always in God. And therefore: if a person were to take all things in this power, he would not take them as they are things, but he takes them as they are in God. And therefore the person should always dwell in this power, because all things in this power are similar. And thus the man would dwell in all things similarly and would take them as being all similar in God, and there the person would have all things; the person would strip away from all things that which is most coarse and would take them as they are both pleasant and desirable. He has them there as such, because God according to His own nature can not do anything else except having to give you everything He ever created, and Himself. And therefore the person who always dwells in that power is blessed, because he always dwells in God. That we should always dwell in God, may our dear Lord Jesus Christ help us! Amen.

󰀁󰀁. Eckhart refers to Hom. 󰀅󰀆* [Q 󰀂󰀀a], n. 󰀁󰀃; Hom. 󰀂󰀂* [Q 󰀃󰀇], n. 󰀃; Hom. 󰀂󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀈], n. 󰀇.

Homily 󰀇󰀃* [Q 󰀂󰀈] In festo sancti Barnabae, die 󰀁󰀁 junii ‘Ego elegi vos de mundo’ (Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀆) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, John 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀂–󰀆 (‘Ego elegi vos de mundo’), is read on the feast of Saint Barnabas, 󰀁󰀁 June (‘Vff sant Barnabastag’, BT: according to the Dominican Missal, the reading is the same as for the Commune apostolorum, but Barnabas is explicitly referenced), as Eckhart states (n. 󰀂). As will become clear below, there are a few places which are difficult to translate and interpret and others where the text might be corrupt. The text is handed down by three manuscripts (Bra󰀂, Str󰀃, Mai󰀁), the print in BT and fragments. The printed text of HT is not used in DW. A parallel homily can be found in Hom. 󰀉󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀇] which is also an exegesis of John 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀆, and Hom. 󰀄󰀆* [Q 󰀂󰀉]. In n. 󰀅 Eckhart seems to refer to Hom. 󰀄󰀆* [Q 󰀂󰀉], n. 󰀇; in n. 󰀈 he may also refer to that homily, n. 󰀁󰀂. The content of the homily As in the previous homilies, so also in this one, the homily for the feast of a saint (here Saint Barnabas), addresses the special character of saints, only to delimit this concept and incorporate all beings. Even though the ‘Holy Gospel … called Barnabas … an apostle’, and the Lord addresses him and the other apostles as the elected, chosen and selected ones, Eckhart quotes John 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀆 with a stress on the latter part of the text (‘I have elected you, I have chosen you from all the world, I have selected you from all the world and from all created things, that you may go and bear much fruit, and the fruit will remain’). The nature

󰀁󰀃󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

of sainthood is – as in the previous homilies – bearing fruit, not in the sense of being actors, but rather representations of God’s action which is meant to include everybody and everything, ‘the fruit’ that ‘will remain’ – which links this homily with the previous two. How central the idea of delimitation of sainthood is, can be derived from n. 󰀈 where Eckhart insists that ‘as long as you consider yourself somebody or something, you know as little what God is as my mouth knows what colour is, and as my eye knows what taste is: as little you know and realise what God is’. Even the greatest saint, an apostle or anybody who seems to be very close to God knows nothing of that God, except that he is ‘one with Him’, a oneness which, however, is open to anybody (n. 󰀆). Eckhart first gives the core phrase from the Gospel reading in Latin (‘Ego elegi vos de mundo’) (n. 󰀁) and adds to it the wider translation in the vernacular (n. 󰀂). By adding John 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀂.󰀉–󰀁󰀀 he makes the link to the foregoing two homilies, talking about the loving oneness which remains. Love of God is not seeking for one’s own, but only God ‘for all that He is in Himself’. Even if one were to have helpers, like the person in the example that Eckhart gives who has a servant looking after a vineyard or a field, the fruit remained not with the helper, but with the person. Likewise, even if one were to invest into this helper at some cost, the helper himself would not get the fruit, but this fruit stayed with the owner. The conclusion is obvious: The saint like the helper does nothing for himself, but works for the fruit of God. Without even mentioning this result, Eckhart draws the next conclusion that the right person ‘who dwells in the fruit of virtues … has no trouble or confusion, because he has detached himself from himself and from all things’ (n. 󰀃). So, saints as anybody dwelling ‘in the fruit of virtues’ carry fruit, but not for themselves, but ‘abandon’ everything and most of all themselves (n. 󰀄). This person who abandons himself is not only a just person, he is justice itself (n. 󰀅). He truly is (n. 󰀆). Even though this being is not shared, but unique to a person, this uniqueness is what is common to all (nn. 󰀆–󰀇). It is the result of one’s own action and that of God. What is beyond createdness is unnamed and unknown, hence, even unknown to saints and apostles. The more one thinks of oneself as ‘somebody or something’, the less one knows God (n. 󰀈).

H OMILY 󰀇󰀃* [Q 󰀂󰀈]

󰀁󰀃󰀃

With Plato Eckhart points out that God is this prototype of selfabandonment. All His Godhead is nothing but pushing forth ‘the fullness and the abyss’, giving birth and making His ‘I’ and His addressee, His ‘you’ to be one (n. 󰀉). This Eckhart summarises in his prayer, ‘that we be the same oneness and that we remain to be this oneness, may God help us’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀈󰀁,󰀂󰀅󰀈–󰀆󰀁; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀇󰀀󰀂–󰀈; J. Quint, DW II 󰀅󰀆–󰀆󰀉; N. Largier I 󰀃󰀁󰀆–󰀂󰀅.󰀈󰀅󰀈–󰀆󰀅. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀂󰀀󰀃–󰀅; Meister Eckhart: A modern Translation, by R.B. Blakney (󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀁), 󰀁󰀈󰀈–󰀉󰀁; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀁󰀂󰀉–󰀃󰀂; Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings, ed. and trans. O. Davies (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀁󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀂.

󰀁󰀃󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀅󰀈) ‘Ego elegi vos de mundo’. Disiu wort, diu ich gesprochen hân in der latîne, diu liset man hiute in dem heiligen êwangeliô von der hôchzît von einem heiligen, der hiez Barnabas, und sprichet diu geschrift gemeinlîche, daz er sî ein apostel, und sprichet unser herre: ‘ich hân iuch ûzerkorn, ich hân iuch ûzerwelt ûz aller der werlt, ich hân iuch ûzerlesen ûz aller der werlt und ûz allen geschaffenen dingen, daz ir ganget und bringet vil vruht und iu diu vruht blîbe’, wan daz ist gar lustlich, daz dâ vruht bringet und im diu vruht blîbet, und dem blîbet diu vruht, der dâ blîbet und der dâ wonet in der minne. (󰀅󰀉) | An dem ende dises êwangeliums sprichet unser herre: ‘minnet iuch under einander, als ich iuch êwiclîche geminnet hân; und als mich mîn vater êwiclîche geminnet hât, alsô hân ich iuch geminnet; haltet ir mîniu gebot, sô blîbet ir in mîner minne’. Alliu gotes gebot diu sint von minne und von der güete sîner natûre; wan enwæren sie niht von minne, sô enmöhten sie niht gotes gebot sîn; wan gotes gebot ist diu güete sîner natûre, und sîn natûre ist sîn güete in sînem gebote. Wer nû wonet in der güete sîner natûre, der wonet in gotes minne, und diu minne enhât kein warumbe. Hæte ich einen vriunt und minnete ich in dar umbe, daz mir guotez von im geschæhe und aller mîn wille, ich enminnete niht mînen vriunt, sunder mich selben. Ich sol mînen vriunt minnen umbe sîne eigene güete und umbe sîne eigene tugende und umbe allez daz, daz er an im selben ist: danne sô minne ich mînen vriunt rehte, sô ich in alsô, als vor gesaget ist, minne. Alsô ist dem menschen, der dâ stât in gotes minne, der des sînen niht ensuochet an gote noch an im selben noch an keinen dingen und minnet got aleine umbe (󰀆󰀀) | sîne eigene güete und umbe die güete sîner natûre und umbe allez daz, daz er an im selben ist, und daz ist gerehtiu minne. 󰀁. Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀆 (‘Ego elegi vos de mundo’). The context of the text can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀃va: ‘In communi unius apostoli vel plurimorum. Secundum Iohannem. In illo tempore dixit Ihesus discipulis suis: [om. Vg.] Hoc est preceptum meum ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos. Maiorem hac dilectionem nemo habet, ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis. Vos amici mei estis, si feceritis que ego precipio vobis. Iam non dicam vos servos, quia servus nescit quid faciat dominus eius. Vos autem dixi amicos: quia omnia quecumque audivi a Patro meo, nota feci vobis. Non vos me eligistis: sed ego elegi uos, et posui vos ut eatis, et fructum afferatis: et fructus vester maneat: ut quodcumque petieritis Patrem in nomine meo, det vobis.» 󰀂. Act. 󰀁󰀃:󰀁.󰀂; I Cor. 󰀉:󰀅–󰀆.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀃* [Q 󰀂󰀈]

󰀁󰀃󰀅

‘Ego elegi vos de mundo’.󰀁 This phrase which I have spoken in Latin is read today in the Holy Gospel of the feast of a saint called Barnabas, and Scripture more generally󰀂 says that he was an apostle, and our Lord says: ‘I have elected you, I have chosen you from all the world, I have selected you from all the world and from all created things, that you may go and bear much fruit, and the fruit will remain’,󰀃 because he is truly pleasing who bears fruit and to whom the fruit remains; and the fruit remains to the one who remains there and who dwells in love.󰀄 At the end of this Gospel our Lord says: ‘Love one another as I have eternally loved you; and as my father has eternally loved me, so I have loved you; keep my commandments and you will remain in my love’.󰀅 All the commandments of God derive from love and the goodness of His nature; because if they did not derive from love, they could not be commandments of God; because God’s commandment is the goodness of His nature, and His nature is His goodness in His commandment. Now, whoever dwells in the goodness of His nature, dwells in the love of God, and this love has no why. If I had a friend and loved him for goodness and for fullfilling entirely my will, I would not love my friend, but myself. I must love my friend for his own goodness and for his own virtues and for all that he is in himself: then I truly love my friend, when, as said before, I love him in this way. This is what happens to the person who is in the love of God, who does not seek his own with God or with himself or with anything and loves God alone for His own goodness and for the goodness of His nature and for all that He is in Himself, and this is the right love.

󰀃. Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀆: ‘… ego elegi vos, et posui vos ut eatis, et fructum afferatis: et fructus vester maneat…’ Unfortunately the word play of Eckhart’s vernacular translation with the repetition of ûz (ich hân iuch ûzerkorn, ich hân iuch ûzerwelt ûz aller der werlt, ich hân iuch ûzerlesen ûz aller der werlt und ûz allen geschaffenen dingen) can not be imitated in the English translation. 󰀄. The topic ‘dwelling’ links this homily with the previous one, Hom. 󰀇󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀀], and the next one, Hom. 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃], on this phenomenon, see the Introduction. 󰀅. Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀂.󰀉–󰀁󰀀: ‘ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos. (󰀉) Sicut dilexit me Pater, et ego dilexi vos. Si praecepta mea servaveritis, manebitis in dilectione mea…’

󰀁󰀃󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Minne der tugende ist ein bluome und ein gezierde und ein muoter aller tugende und aller volkomenheit und aller sælicheit, wan si ist got, wan got ist vruht der tugende, got vrühtet alle tugende und ist ein vruht der tugende, und diu vruht blîbet dem menschen. Der mensche, der dâ würhte umbe eine vruht und im diu vruht blibe, daz wære im gar lustlich; und wære ein man, der einen wîngarten hæte oder einen acker, und lieze er in sînem knehte, daz er in arbeite und daz im diu vruht blibe, und gæbe er im ouch allez, daz dar zuo gehœrte, daz wære im gar lustlich, daz im diu vruht ze der kost blibe. Alsô ist dem menschen gar lustlich, der dâ wonet in der vruht der tugende, wan der enhât kein verdriezen noch keine verworrenheit, wan er hât sich selben gelâzen und alliu dinc. (󰀆󰀁) | Nû sprichet unser herre: ‘der iht læzet durch mînen willen und umbe mînen namen, dem wil ich ez hundertvelticlîche widergelten und dar zuo geben daz êwige leben’. Læzest dû ez aber umbe daz hundertvalte und umbe daz êwige leben, sô enhâst dû niht gelâzen; jâ, læzest dû umbe hunderttûsentveltigen lôn, dû enhâst niht gelâzen: dû muost dich selben lâzen und gar lâzen, sô hâst dû rehte gelâzen. Ez kam einest ein mensche ze mir – des enist niht lanc – und sprach, er hæte grôziu dinc gelâzen von ertrîche, von guote, durch des willen, daz er sîne sêle behielte. Dô gedâhte ich: eyâ, wie wênic und kleine hâst dû gelâzen! Ez ist ein blintheit und ein tôrheit, die wîle dû ihtes ahtest, daz dû gelâzen hâst. Hâst dû dich selben gelâzen, sô hâst dû gelâzen. Der mensche, der sich selben gelâzen hât, der ist sô lûter, daz sîn diu werlt niht gelîden enmac. (󰀆󰀂) | Alsô sprach ich einest hie – des enist niht lanc –: swer dâ minnet die gerehticheit, des underwindet sich diu gerehticheit und wirt begriffen von der gerehticheit, und er ist diu gerehticheit. Ich schreip einest in mîn buoch: der gerehte mensche endienet weder gote noch den crêatûren, wan er ist vrî; und ie er der gerehticheit næher ist, ie mê er diu vrîheit selber ist und ie mê er diu vrîheit ist. Allez daz, daz geschaffen

󰀆. Him = i.e. the person, not the servant (pace J. Quint). 󰀇. For the work that the servant has to do in the vineyard or the field to care for the fruit. 󰀈. ‘At this cost’ (‘ze der kost’), not, as in J. Quint ‘without cost’ (‘ohne eigenen Kostenaufwand’).

H OMILY 󰀇󰀃* [Q 󰀂󰀈]

󰀁󰀃󰀇

Love of virtues is a flower and a decoration and a mother of all the virtues and of all the perfection and of all the blessedness, because it is God, as God is the fruit of the virtues, God bears all the virtues and is a fruit of the virtues, and this fruit remains to the person. If the fruit remained to the person who worked for a fruit, this would be very pleasant; and if there were a person who had a vineyard or a field and left it to his servant to work it, and the fruit remained his,󰀆 or if he gave him everything that he needed for it,󰀇 it would still be really pleasant for him to keep the fruit at this cost.󰀈 So it is really pleasant for the person who dwells in the fruit of virtues, because he has no trouble or confusion, because he has detached himself from himself and from all things. Now our Lord says: ‘To him who abandons something for my will and for my name, I will repay a hundred times and in addition I will give eternal life’.󰀉 But if you abandon something for the hundredfold and for eternal life, you have not abandoned anything; yes, even if you gave up for a prize of a hundredthousandfold, you have not abandoned anything: you must abandon yourself, but truly abandon, then you have rightly abandoned. Once a person came to me – not long ago – and said he had abandoned great things of land, of goods, in order to preserve his soul. Thereby I thought: Ah, what a little and small [amount] have you given up! It is blindness and stupidity when you esteem something that you have abandoned. If you have abandoned yourself, then you have abandoned. The person who has abandoned himself is so pure that the world can not bear him. Once I said here – it is not long ago:󰀁󰀀 whoever loves justice, to him justice submits itself and he is taken by justice and is justice. I once wrote in my book:󰀁󰀁 the just man serves neither God nor creatures, because he is free; and the closer he is to justice, the more he is freedom itself, and the more he is freedom. All that is created is not free. Since when anything at all is above me, which is not God Himself, it

󰀉. Matth. 󰀁󰀉:󰀂󰀉: ‘et omnis qui reliquit domum vel fratres aut sorores aut patrem aut matrem aut uxorem aut filios aut agros propter nomen meum centuplum accipiet et vitam aeternam possidebit’. 󰀁󰀀. Eckhart seems to refer to Hom. 󰀄󰀆* [Q 󰀂󰀉], n. 󰀇. 󰀁󰀁. See the other reference to his book in Hom. 󰀁󰀂* [Q 󰀁󰀄], n. 󰀈.

󰀁󰀃󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

ist, daz enist niht vrî. Die wîle ihtes iht obe mir ist, daz got selber niht enist, daz drücket mich, swie kleine ez joch ist oder ez ist, und wære ez joch vernunft und minne, als verre als si geschaffen ist und got selber niht enist, daz drücket mich, (󰀆󰀃) | wan ez ist unvrî. Der ungerehte mensche der dienet der wârheit, ez sî im liep oder leit, und dienet aller der werlt und allen crêatûren und ist ein kneht der sünde. Ich gedâhte einest – des enist niht lanc –: daz ich ein mensche bin, daz ist ouch einem andern menschen gemeine mit mir; daz ich gesihe und hœre und izze und trinke, daz tuot ouch ein ander vihe; aber daz ích bin, daz enist keines menschen mê dan mîn aleine, weder menschen noch engels noch gotes, dan als verre als ich ein mit im bin; ez ist ein lûterkeit und ein einicheit. Allez, daz got würket, daz würket er in dem einen im selben glîch. Got der gibet allen dingen glîch, und sint sie doch an irn werken gar unglîch, und meinent sie doch allez in irn werken ir eigen glîch. Diu natûre worhte in mînem vater daz werk der natûre. Der natûre meinunge was diu, daz ich vater wære, als er vater was. Er würket allez daz werk umbe sîn (󰀆󰀄) | eigen glîch und umbe sîn eigen bilde, daz er daz werk selber sî: daz meinet allez ‘man’. Wan dâ diu natûre wirt gewendet oder gehindert, daz si niht volle maht enhât in irm werke, dâ wirt ein vrouwe, und dâ diu natûre læzet von irm werke, dâ hebet got ane ze würkenne und ze schepfenne; wan enwæren niht vrouwen, sô enwæren ouch niht man. Sô daz kint enpfangen (󰀆󰀅) | wirt in der muoter lîbe, dâ hât ez bilde und forme und geschepfede; daz würket diu natûre. Alsô ist ez danne vierzic tage und vierzic nähte, und an dem vierzigesten tage sô schepfet got die sêle vil kürzer dan in einem ougenblicke, daz diu sêle dem lîbe ein forme und ein leben wirt. Sô treget ûz daz werk der natûre allez, daz diu natûre gewürken kan mit forme und mit bilde und mit geschepfede. Daz werk der natûre gât alzemâle ûz,

󰀁󰀂. For ‘swie’ we write here against the manuscripts ‘swær’. Either ‘swie’ has to be tanslated by ‘heavy’, or it is more likely that ‘swie’ is a misreading (triggered by the foregoing ‘swie’) for MHG ‘swær’ (J. Quint amends the text in the translation: ‘wie immer es sei’). 󰀁󰀃. The construction is ‘Got der gibet … glîch, und sint sie doch … unglîch, und meinent sie doch … glîch’, hence the last ‘glîch’ does not refer to ‘ir eigen’ (so J. Quint: ‘demungeachtet aber streben sie in ihren Werken nach dem, was ihrem eigenen Sein gleich ist’; Walsh/McGinn: ‘They tend in their operation to reproduce themselves’), but to the verb ‘meinent’, as the previous ‘glîch’ and ‘unglîch’ referred to the respective verbs.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀃* [Q 󰀂󰀈]

󰀁󰀃󰀉

presses me, however small it is or heavy󰀁󰀂 it is, even if it were intellect and love, to the extent that it is created and it is not God Himself, this presses me, because it is not free. The unjust person serves the truth, whether he likes it or dislikes it, and serves the whole world and all creatures and is a servant of sin. I once thought – not long ago: the fact that I am a person, another person has that in common with me; that I see and hear and eat and drink, so does another animal; but the fact that I am, belongs to no person but to me alone, neither to other people nor to angels or God, except to the extent that I am one with Him; it is a purity and a oneness. Everything that God works, He works in the same one, similar to Himself. God gives to all things in the same way, even though these are quite dissimilar in their works, and yet they similarly intend in all their works what is proper to them.󰀁󰀃 Nature worked in my father the work of nature. The intention of nature was that I be a father, as he was a father. He󰀁󰀄 works all works for the similarity to what is proper to him and for his own image in order to be the work󰀁󰀅 itself: all this aims at a ‘man’. In fact, when nature is diverted or prevented from exercising its full power in its action, then a woman is generated,󰀁󰀆 and when nature abandons its work, then God begins to work and to create; because if there were no women, there would not even be men. When the offspring is conceived in the mother’s body, it has image and form and material being; this is done by nature. Such it is for forty days and forty nights, and on the fortieth day God creates the soul more rapidly than in the blink of an eye, so that the soul becomes form and life for the body.󰀁󰀇 Thus the work of nature carries out all that nature can do, with form and with image and with material being. The work of nature completes its work,

󰀁󰀄. «Er»: my father, note the present tense here. 󰀁󰀅. ‘werk’ here means action and also the product. Again, our modern semantics is too specific compared to the semantic breadth of the MHG. 󰀁󰀆. Aristoteles, De generatione animalium II c. 󰀃 󰀇󰀃󰀇a󰀂󰀇–󰀈: ‘femina est mas occasionatus’; see Hom. 󰀆󰀈* [Q 󰀄󰀄], n. 󰀁󰀀; see also Eckhart, In Sap. n. 󰀄󰀉 (LW II 󰀃󰀇󰀆,󰀁); Hom. 󰀆󰀈* [Q 󰀄󰀄], n. 󰀁󰀀. 󰀁󰀇. Albertus, De animalibus IX tr. 󰀁 c. 󰀃 n. 󰀃󰀀 (Stadler 󰀆󰀈󰀅,󰀁󰀇ff.), on this doctrine see also Pf. 󰀂󰀆, 󰀁󰀀󰀀–󰀁, certainly a text which should be incorporated into the collection of Eckhart’s homilies, as it combines Hom. 󰀇󰀃* [Q 󰀂󰀈] with Hom. 󰀇󰀁* [Q 󰀇󰀈], n. 󰀃.

󰀁󰀄󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

und alsô als daz werk der natûre alzemâle ûzgât, alsô wirt ez widergegeben allez in der vernünftigen sêle. Nû ist diz ein werk der natûre und ein schepfunge von gote. (󰀆󰀆) | Allez daz, daz dâ geschaffen ist – als ich mê gesprochen hân –, dâ enist kein wârheit inne. Ez ist etwaz, daz über daz geschaffen wesen der sêle ist, daz kein geschaffenheit enrüeret, daz niht ist; noch der engel enhât ez niht, der ein lûter wesen hât, daz lûter und breit ist; daz enrüeret sîn niht. Ez ist ein sippeschaft götlîcher art, ez ist in im selben ein, ez enhât mit nihte niht gemeine. Hie hinkent manige grôze pfaffen ane. Ez ist ein ellende und ist ein wüestenunge und ist mê ungenennet, dan ez namen habe, und ist mê unbekant, dan ez bekant sî. Kündest dû dich selben vernihten einen ougenblik, ich spriche, joch kürzer dan einen ougenblik, sô wære dir allez daz eigen, daz ez in im selben ist. Die wîle daz dû dich selben iht ahtest oder dehein dinc, sô weist dû als wênic, waz got ist, als mîn munt weiz, waz varwe ist, und als mîn ouge weiz, waz smak ist: als wênic weist dû und ist dir bekant, waz got ist. (󰀆󰀇) | Nû sprichet Plâtô, der grôze pfaffe, der væhet ane und wil sprechen von grôzen dingen. Er sprichet von einer lûterkeit, diu enist in der werlt niht; si enist niht in der werlt noch ûzer der werlt, ez enist weder in zît noch in êwicheit, ez enhât ûzerlich noch (󰀆󰀈) | innerlich. Her ûz drücket im got, der êwige vater, die vüllede und den abgrunt aller sîner gotheit. Daz gebirt er hie in sînem eingebornen sune und daz wir der selbe sun sîn, und sîn gebern daz ist sîn inneblîben, und sîn inneblîben ist sîn ûzgebern. Ez blîbet allez daz eine, daz in im selben

󰀁󰀈. This is a difficult passage in which we adopt the suggestion made by John Connolly in the margins of the draft translation. He admits, however, that he is also unsure what Eckhart exactly wants to say here. He suspects ‘from the context … that when the natural (created) soul is done with its work of forming the body, the rational soul can recapitulate it geistlich by understanding it’. J. Quint translates the first part literally (‘Jetzt geht das Werk der Natur mit allem, was die Natur an Form, Bildung und Gestalt zu wirken vermag, hinaus. Das Werk der Natur geht völlig hinaus; so aber, wie das Werk der Natur völlig hinausgeht’), but the verb ‘hinausgehen’ (‘to go out’) is ambiguous. Then, J. Quint translates ‘widergegeben’ with ‘ersetzt’ (‘replaced’) which does not conform with Eckhart’s use of this verb, where, as in Hom. 󰀂󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀉], n. 󰀆, it means ‘return’. Walsh/McGinn deviate further from the MHG text: ‘Now ends the work of nature with all that nature can contrive in form, image and material being. The work of nature goes out altogether, and as nature’s activity withdraws, it is fully replaced in the rational soul’. Both these translations overlook the fact that Eckhart’s idea here is a detailed description of the cooperation between human

H OMILY 󰀇󰀃* [Q 󰀂󰀈]

󰀁󰀄󰀁

and thus when the work of nature is completed, it all is given back in the rational soul.󰀁󰀈 Now this is an action of nature and a creation of God. In all that is created – as I have already said󰀁󰀉 – there is no truth. There is something that is above the created being of the soul that no createdness which is nothing touches; neither does the angel have it, who has a pure being, which is pure and broad; not even this touches it. It is a kinship to the divine, it is one in itself, it has nothing in common with anything.󰀂󰀀 Here many great scholars stumble. It is an exile and is a desert and is more unnamed than it is named, and it is more unknown than it is known. If you could annihilate yourself for a moment, I say, even more briefly than a moment, you would own all that it is in itself. As long as you consider yourself somebody or something,󰀂󰀁 you know as little what God is as my mouth knows what colour is, and as my eye knows what taste is: as little you know and realise what God is.

Now Plato, the great scholar, speaks,󰀂󰀂 and he begins and wants to talk about great things. He speaks of a purity that does not exist in the world; it does exist neither in the world nor out of the world, it is neither in time nor in eternity, it has neither exterior nor interior. From this God, the eternal Father, pushes forth the fullness and the abyss of all His Godhead. This He births in His only begotten Son, so that we are the same Son, and that His birth is His immanence, and His immanence is Him giving birth. He remains completely the one

nature and God. The soul is first placed as the bridge between God and human beings, as it is created by God, but also hands the form to the body. Then, however, Eckhart speaks of nature acting not only on image and appearance, but also on form. The entire work of nature (which in itself is, as said, already a cooperation between God and nature), is then returned to the rational soul and in there creation is only the one single act of both co-operators, the soul and God. 󰀁󰀉. Eckhart seems to refer what he had just said, or perhaps to Hom. 󰀄󰀆* [Q 󰀂󰀉], n. 󰀁󰀂. 󰀂󰀀. Aristoteles, De anima III c. 󰀄, 󰀄󰀂󰀉b󰀂󰀃–󰀄: ‘intellectus simplex est et impassibilis et nulli nihil habet commune, sicut dixit Anaxagoras’. 󰀂󰀁. J. Quint translates: ‘Solange du auf dich selber noch irgendwie achtest oder auf irgendein Ding’. 󰀂󰀂. More a general reference to Plato, as no specific text seems to be in mind, see Palazzo, Fonti Eckhart II 󰀂󰀀󰀁.

󰀁󰀄󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

quellende ist. ‘Ego’, daz wort ‘ich’, enist nieman eigen dan gote aleine in sîner einicheit. ‘Vos’, daz wort daz sprichet als vil als (󰀆󰀉) | ‘ir’, daz ir ein sît in der einicheit, daz ist: daz wort ‘ego’ und ‘vos’, ‘ich’ und ‘ir’, daz meinet die einicheit. Daz wir diu selbe einicheit sîn und diu einicheit blîbende sîn, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀃* [Q 󰀂󰀈]

󰀁󰀄󰀃

who is gushing in Himself. ‘Ego’, the word ‘I’, is not proper to anyone except to God alone in his oneness. ‘Vos’, the word means ‘you’, that you are one in oneness, that is: the words ‘ego’ and ‘vos’, ‘me’ and ‘you’, mean oneness. That we be the same oneness and that we continue to be this oneness, may God help us! Amen.

Homily 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃] In vigilia sancti Iohannis Baptiste, die 󰀂󰀂 junii ‘Misit dominus manum suam et tetigit os meum et dixit mihi’ etc. ‘Ecce constitui te super gentes et regna’ (Ier. 󰀁:󰀉) Introduction

T

he four following homilies were given for the feast of St. John the Baptist’s birth, celebrated on 󰀂󰀃 June. The main passage to which Eckhart refers here is taken from the Scriptural reading of the Vigil of this feast (‘An sant Johans toeuffers geburt abent’, BT). It is Ier. 󰀁:󰀉 (‘Et misit Dominus manum suam, et tetigit os meum: et dixit mihi … Ecce constitui te hodie super gentes et super regna’). The rendering of ‘set’ (‘constitui’) by ‘elected’ (‘ûzerwelt’) links this homily, however, to the previous two. Moreover, Hom. 󰀇󰀃* [Q 󰀂󰀈] and Hom. 󰀇󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀀] with their immediate introduction of the topic of ‘dwelling’ underline the close relation between them. The text as given in the critical edition is derived from five manuscripts, of which two have been used in DW: Ba󰀁, N󰀇; it is also present in the prints BT and HT and in a few fragments (Ka󰀁, G󰀉, M󰀇, Z󰀄) and the Greiths excerpts have been preserved. The witnesses H󰀄, Kon, M󰀅󰀇, Gs and Ka󰀂 are not used in DW. There is a reference to Pr. 󰀅󰀀 Pfeiffer. The content of the homily Even more than the previous homilies on Mary and several saints, this text provides a core message related to the notions of election and detachment. To be elected and chosen does elevate the chosen one, and yet God’s election does not only take this person, but all creatures up

󰀁󰀄󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

beyond all creatureliness. There, freed from all that binds, one with God who is always the one who departs from Himself, who utters His Son and in Him utters all creatures. It is that dynamic process where, as Eckhart says, ‘God’s departure is His return’ (n. 󰀄). The titles of God are ambiguous, they elevate and turn towards time (n. 󰀅), because God, and with Him all creatures, is this dynamic being which is both beyond and immanent. That is why God has ‘consecrated’ His name, not in pure transcendance, but ‘in the hearts’ of His ‘saints’, He has ‘flooded’ those names with His ‘light’. These names of God are known to creatures, and they can be heard in this world, and, yet, we can only hear them in twilight. When, as the Prophet says, the Lord says ‘one’, we hear it as ‘two’. Hence, the entire life of creatures is ‘a cry and a hurry’ to where the creatures ‘have come from’ (n. 󰀇). God, indeed, ‘streched out His hand’, and it is the most intimate offer that God realises in kissing the soul, ‘mouth to mouth’ (n. 󰀈). First of all, Eckhart gives the two passages from the main verse Ier. 󰀁:󰀉 (‘Misit dominus manum suam et tetigit os meum et dixit mihi’ etc. ‘Ecce constitui te super gentes et regna’) (n. 󰀁), and then only translates the beginning of the first part (n. 󰀂). He then makes a more general remark about the importance of his teaching on ‘detachment’ (n. 󰀃), and the vanity of ‘all writing’, contrasted by the speaking of God (n. 󰀄). A) ‘Lord’ (n. 󰀅) is the first topic that Eckhart develops, drawing on Ps. 󰀆󰀇:󰀅 to embark on one of his beloved themes of the titles and names of God (nn. 󰀅–󰀇). B) ‘The Lord has stretched out His hand’, ‘He touched my mouth’, and ‘He has spoken to me’, and ‘Note, I have elected you today and I have set you beyond people and beyond kingdoms’ (n. 󰀈). Here he develops the idea that God’s transcendence, stressed in the previous section ‘A’ on God’s names, goes beyond itself, it transcends transcendence and becomes immanence, an immanence which is elevated to transcendence, a dynamism that is captured by the kissing of God and the soul. For this intimacy, God, the Holy Spirit, is invoked (n. 󰀉).

H OMILY 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃]

󰀁󰀄󰀇

Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀂󰀂,󰀉󰀁–󰀃; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀂󰀅󰀆–󰀉; J. Quint, DW II 󰀅󰀂󰀅–󰀃󰀈; N. Largier I 󰀅󰀆󰀄–󰀇󰀁. 󰀁󰀀󰀆󰀀–󰀃. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀆󰀉–󰀇󰀁; M. Fox, Breakthrough (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀), 󰀅󰀇–󰀆󰀀; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀁󰀅󰀂–󰀄; Meister Eckhart, The Essential Sermons (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁), 󰀂󰀀󰀃–󰀅; Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings, ed. and trans. O. Davies (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀁󰀂󰀇–󰀃󰀀.

󰀁󰀄󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀅󰀂󰀈) ‘Misit dominus manum suam et tetigit os meum et dixit mihi’ etc. ‘Ecce constitui te super gentes et regna’. ‘Der herre hât gesant sîne hant und hât berüeret mînen munt und hât mir zuogesprochen’. Swenne ich predige, sô pflige ich ze sprechenne von abegescheidenheit und daz der mensche ledic werde sîn selbes und aller dinge. Ze dem andern mâle, daz man wider îngebildet werde in daz einvaltige guot, daz got ist. Ze dem dritten mâle, daz man gedenke der grôzen edelkeit, die got an die sêle hât geleget, daz der mensche dâ mite kome (󰀅󰀂󰀉) | in ein wunder ze gote. Ze dem vierden mâle von götlîcher natûre lûterkeit – waz klârheit an götlîcher natûre sî, daz ist unsprechelich. Got ist ein wort, ein ungesprochen wort. Augustînus sprichet: ‘alliu diu schrift ist îtel. Sprichet man, daz got ein wort sî, sô ist er gesprochen; sprichet man, daz got ungesprochen sî, sô ist er unsprechelich’. Sô ist er aber etwaz; wer kan diz wort gesprechen? Daz entuot nieman, dan der diz wort ist. Got ist ein wort, daz sich selben sprichet. Swâ got ist, dâ sprichet er diz wort; swâ er niht enist, dâ ensprichet er niht. Got ist gesprochen und ist ungesprochen. Der (󰀅󰀃󰀀) | vater ist ein sprechende werk, und der sun ist ein spruch würkende. Swaz in mir ist, daz gât ûz mir; sô ich ez joch gedenke, sô offenbâret ez mîn wort und blîbet doch inne. Alsô sprichet der vater den sun ungesprochen und blîbet doch in im. Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen: gotes ûzganc ist sîn înganc. Als vil ich gote nâhe bin, als vil sprichet sich got in mich. Alle vernünftigen crêatûren an irn werken, sô sie mê gânt ûz in selben, sô sie mê gânt in sich selben. Des enist an lîplîchen

󰀁. Ier. 󰀁:󰀉 (‘Et misit Dominus manum suam, et tetigit os meum: et dixit mihi … Ecce constitui te hodie super gentes et super regna’). The context of the text can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀃rab: ‘In vigilia sancti Iohannis Baptiste (󰀄󰀃󰀃rb) In diebus illis [Et Vg.] factum est verbum Domini ad me, dicens: Priusquam te formarem in utero, novi te: et antequam exires de vulva, sanctificavi te, et prophetam in gentibus dedi te. Et dixi: A a a, Domine Deus: ecce nescio loqui, quia puer ego sum. Et dixit Dominus ad me: Noli dicere, quia [om. Vg.] puer sum, quoniam ad omnia. que mittam te, ibis: et universa, quecumque mandavero tibi, loqueris. Ne timeas a facie eorum: quia ego tecum [tecum ego Vg.] sum ut eruam te, dicit Dominus. Et misit Dominus manum suam, et tetigit os meum: et dixit Dominus ad me: Ecce dedi verba mea in ore tuo: ecce constitui te hodie super gentes et super regna ut evellas, et destruas, et disperdas, et dissipes, et edifices, et plantes. Dicit Dominus omnipotens [Dicit … omnipotens om. Vg.]’.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃]

󰀁󰀄󰀉

‘Misit dominus manum suam et tetigit os meum et dixit mihi’ etc. ‘Ecce constitui te super gentes et regna’.󰀁 ‘The Lord has sent His hand and has touched my mouth and has spoken to me’. When I preach, I usually speak of detachment, and that a person becomes freed from himself and all things. Secondly, that one should be informed back into the simple good that is God. Thirdly, that one remembers the great nobility that God has placed into the soul, so that the person through this comes to God by a wonder. Fourthly of the purity of the divine nature: what glory there is in the divine nature – that is inexpressible. God is a word, an unspoken word. Augustine says: ‘All writing is vain. If we say that God is a word, He is spoken; if we say that God is unspoken, He is inexpressible’.󰀂 But He is something; who can utter󰀃 this word? No one does it, except the one who is this word: God is a word that utters itself. Where God is, He utters this word; where He is not, He does not speak. God is spoken and is unspoken. The Father acts in speaking, and the Son is an acting saying. What is in me, comes out of me; while I only think of it, my word manifests it, yet remains inside. Thus the Father utters the Son in an unspoken way, yet He remains in Him. I have already said it:󰀄 God’s departure󰀅 is His return. As close as I am to God, so much God speaks Himself into me. The more in their actions all rational creatures depart from themselves, the more they return into themselves. This does not happen with bodily creatures: the more they act, the more 󰀂. Augustinus, Sermo 󰀁󰀁󰀇 c. 󰀅 n. 󰀇 (PL 󰀁󰀃󰀈, 󰀆󰀆󰀅): ‘Forsitan enim silendo aliquid dignum de re ineffabili cogitaretur. Nam quidquid potest fari, non est ineffabile. Ineffabilis est autem Deus’. 󰀃. As in previous cases, here the MHG ‘sprechen’ has a semantic breadth (‘to speak’, ‘to utter’, ‘to express’) which cannot be rendered with one single contemporary English term. 󰀄. Eckhart may refer to what he had just said before, but the specific reference is most likely Pr. 󰀅󰀀 Pfeiffer (‘Exivi a patre et veni in mundum’ (󰀁󰀆󰀇,󰀁󰀄): ‘sîn ûzganc ist sîn înganc’, already seen by J. Quint ad loc.; Pr. 󰀅󰀀 Pfeiffer is surely by Eckhart and should be published in the critical edition. It is externally attested for Eckhart by W󰀁, and Nicolaus of Landau has incorporated parts of it into one of his homilies, see J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts (󰀁󰀉󰀃󰀂), 󰀄󰀈󰀃. 󰀅. Unfortunately, the translation can not catch the notion of ‘ûzganc’, that God’s departure is a ‘going out’ of Himself.

󰀁󰀅󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

crêatûren niht: sô sie mê würkent, (󰀅󰀃󰀁) | sô sie mê gânt ûz in selben. Alle crêatûren wellent got sprechen in allen irn werken; sie sprechent alle, sô sie nâhest mügen, sie enmügen in doch niht gesprechen. Sie wellen oder enwellen, ez sî in liep oder leit: sie wellent alle got sprechen, und er blîbet doch ungesprochen. Dâvît sprichet: ‘der herre ist sîn name’. ‘Herre’ sprichet als vil als ein übersetzunge einer hêrschaft; ‘kneht’ ist ein undersetzunge. Etlîche namen die sint gote eigen (󰀅󰀃󰀂) | und abegelœset von allen andern dingen, als ‘got’. ‘Got’, der name ist der allereigenlîcheste name gotes, als ‘mensche’ menschen name ist. Ein mensche ist ie ein mensche, er sî tôrihtic oder wîse. Senecâ sprichet: ‘daz ist ein snœder mensche, der über den menschen niht enkumet’. Etlîche namen hânt ein zuohaften an gote, als ‘vaterschaft’ (󰀅󰀃󰀃) | und ‘sunschaft’. Swâ man ‘vater’ nennet, dâ verstât man ‘sun’. Vater enmac niht gesîn, er enhabe denne einen sun, noch sun, er enhabe denne einen vater; sie tragent doch in in über zît éin êwic wesen. Ze dem dritten: etlîche namen hânt ein ûftragen ze gote und ein kêren in die zît. Man nennet ouch got in der schrift mit vil namen. Ich spriche: swer iht bekennet in gote und im deheinen namen anekleibet, daz enist got niht. Got ist über namen und über natûre. Wir lesen von einem guoten man, der got bat (󰀅󰀃󰀄) | in sînem gebete und wolte im namen geben. Dô sprach ein bruoder: swîc, dû entêrest got! Wir enmügen keinen namen vinden, den wir gote mügen geben. Doch sint uns die namen erloubet, dâ mite in die heiligen genant hânt und die got in irn herzen alsô gewîhet und übergozzen hât mit götlîchem liehte. Und hie bî suln wir ze dem êrsten lernen, wie wir got biten süln. Wir suln sprechen: ‘herre, in den selben namen, die dû alsô gewîhet hâst in dîner heiligen herzen und übergozzen mit dînem liehte, sô biten wir dich und loben dich’.

󰀆. Ps. 󰀆󰀇:󰀅: ‘Dominus nomen illi’. 󰀇. Seneca, Naturales quaestiones I praef. 󰀅: ‘O quam contempta res est homo nisi supra humana surrexerit’. 󰀈. As Eckhart is talking of God, the Father, and God, the Son, one could also capitalize father and son. Yet, he also thinks more generally or logically, and, therefore, the terms here are not capitalized.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃]

󰀁󰀅󰀁

they depart from themselves. All creatures want to express God in all their actions; they all speak, but, as close as they may come, they still can not express Him. Whether they want it or do not want it, whether they like it or dislike it, they all intend to express God, and yet He remains unspoken. David says: ‘The Lord is His name’.󰀆 ‘Lord’ means a superimposition of ‘lordship’; ‘servant’ means a subjugation. Certain names, like ‘God’, are proper to God and distinct from all other things. ‘God’, this name is the most proper name of God, as ‘man’ is the name of man. A human being is always a human being, whether stupid or wise. Seneca says: ‘It is a worthless human being who does not reach beyond a human being’.󰀇 Certain names imply an adherence to God, like ‘fatherhood’ or ‘sonship’.󰀈 When one says ‘father’, one implies a ‘son’. A father can not be, unless he has a son, nor a son, unless he has a father; they both have one eternal being beyond time. Thirdly: Certain names imply an elevation to God and a turn towards time. God is also given many names in the Scripture. I say: whoever knows something in God and attaches to Him some name, this God ist not. God is beyond names and above nature. We read󰀉 of a good man who prayed to God in his prayer and wanted to give Him names. Then a brother said: shut up, you dishonour God! We can not find any name that we can give to God. Yet, we are allowed the names by which the saints named Him and which God in their hearts thus consecrated and flooded with divine light. And here we must first learn how we must pray to God. We must say: ‘Lord, in the same name that you have consecrated in the hearts of your saints and flooded with your light, we pray and praise you’.

󰀉. See Eckhart, In Exod. n. 󰀁󰀇󰀄 (LW II 󰀁󰀅󰀀,󰀆–󰀁󰀃): ‘Hinc est quod, sicut ipse (= Rabbi Moyses) in alio capitulo dicit, grave fuit, molestum et indignum sapientibus audire multiplicantem verba de deo etiam in oratione, propter imperfectionem, quam implicant nomina vel verba, et elongationem a simplicitate dei … littera Rabbi Moysis habet: “tibi silentium laus”’; see Moses Maimonides, Dux neutrorum I c. 󰀅󰀈 (󰀂󰀃r 󰀂󰀀–󰀇. 󰀁󰀂–󰀄).

󰀁󰀅󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Ze dem andern mâle suln wir lernen, daz wir gote keinen namen geben, alsô daz wir wænen wölten, daz wir in genuoc dâ mite gelobet und erhaben hæten; wan got ist ‘über namen’ und unsprechelich. (󰀅󰀃󰀅) | Der vater sprichet den sun ûz aller sîner mügentheit und alliu dinc in im. Alle crêatûren sint ein sprechen gotes. Daz selbe, daz mîn munt got sprichet und offenbâret, daz selbe tuot des steines wesen, und verstât man mê an dem werke dan an den worten. Daz werk, daz diu oberste natûre würket von ir hœhsten maht, daz enmac diu natûre, diu under ir ist, niht begrîfen. Würhte si daz selbe, sô enwære si under ir (󰀅󰀃󰀆) | niht, mêr: si wære daz selbe. Alle crêatûren wölten got nâchsprechen in allen irn werken. Ez ist doch gar kleine, daz sie geoffenbâren mügen. Joch die obersten engel, in dem daz sie ûfklimment und got rüerent, daz ist als unglîch wider dem, daz in gote ist, als wîz und swarz. Ez ist gar unglîch, daz alle crêatûren hânt enpfangen, aleine sie alle gerne wölten sprechen daz næhste, daz sie mügen. Der prophête sprichet: ‘herre, dû sprichest einez, und ich verstân zwei’. Sô got in die sêle sprichet, sô ist si und er einez; zehant sô ez abevellet, sô wirt ez geteilet. Ie wir mit unserm verstantnisse mê ûfgân, sô wir mê in im einez sîn. Dar umbe sprichet der vater den sun alle zît in der einicheit (󰀅󰀃󰀇) | und entgiuzet in im alle crêatûren. Die hânt alle ein ruofen, wider în ze komenne, dâ sie ûzgevlozzen sint. Allez ir leben und ir wesen daz ist allez ein ruofen und ein îlen wider ze dem, von dem sie ûzgegangen sint. Der prophête sprichet: ‘der herre hât ûzgesant sîne hant’, und meinet den heiligen geist. Nû sprichet er: ‘er hât gerüeret mînen munt’ und sprichet zehant: ‘er hât mir zuogesprochen’. Der munt der sêle ist daz oberste teil der sêle, daz meinet si und sprichet: ‘er hât sîn wort in mînen munt geleget’ – daz ist der kus der sêle: dâ ist munt ze munde komen, dâ gebirt der vater sînen sun in die sêle, und dâ ist ir ‘zuogesprochen’. Nû (󰀅󰀃󰀈) | sprichet er: ‘nim war, ich hân dich hiute ûzerwelt und hân dich gesetzet über volk und über rîche’. In ein ‘hiute’ gelobet uns got ze ûzerwelenne, dâ niht enist, dâ dannoch in der êwicheit ist ein ‘hiute’. ‘Und ich hân dich gesetzet über volk’ – daz ist

󰀁󰀀. Here, as one can see from what precedes and follows, he clearly plays with the double nature of the genitive: all creatures are spoken as one by God, and all creatures together utter God. 󰀁󰀁. Ps. 󰀆󰀁:󰀁󰀂: ‘Semel locutus est Deus, duo haec audivi’. 󰀁󰀂. Eckhart renders the main verse slightly differently here, Ier. 󰀁:󰀉: ûzgesant.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃]

󰀁󰀅󰀃

Secondly, we must learn not to give God any name, wanting to believe that thus we have praised and exalted Him enough, because God is ‘beyond names’ and unspeakable. The Father utters the Son with all His power and all things in Him. All creatures are one uttering of God.󰀁󰀀 That my mouth utters and reveals God, the same is done by the stone’s being, and it is easier understood by action than by words. The work which the supreme nature works with its supreme power can not be comprehended by a nature that is beneath it. If it worked the same, it would not be under it, but rather: it would be the same. All creatures would like to echo God in all their works. However, it is very little that they can reveal. Even the supreme angels, though they ascend and touch God, are so dissimilar, compared to what is in God, as is white compared to black. It is quite different what all creatures have received, though they all would like to express the deepest that they can. The Prophet says: ‘Lord, you say one, and I hear two’.󰀁󰀁 When God speaks in the soul, then she and He are one; as soon as this passes away, they become divided. The more we ascend with our reason, the more we are one in Him. Therefore the Father utters the Son always in oneness, and He pours out all creatures in Him. These all cry out to return to Him, whence they emanated. All their life and their being, it is all a cry and a haste to where they have come from. The Prophet says: ‘The Lord has streched out His hand’,󰀁󰀂 which means the Holy Spirit. Now he says: ‘He touched my mouth’, and immediately says: ‘He has spoken to me’. The ‘mouth’ of the soul is the supreme part of the soul which she󰀁󰀃 means in saying: ‘He has put His word in my mouth’ – this is the kiss of the soul: there came mouth to mouth, there the Father generates his Son in the soul, and there she has been ‘spoken to’. Now, he says: ‘Note, I have elected you today and I have set you over people and over kingdoms’.󰀁󰀄 God promises to elect us in ‘today’, where nothing is, and yet in eternity there is a ‘today’. ‘And I have set you over people’ – which means, above the whole world;

󰀁󰀃. I.e. the soul. 󰀁󰀄. Ier. 󰀁:󰀁󰀀. With this quote that parallels Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀆 (‘… ego elegi vos, et posui vos…’), the first link is made to the previous two homilies, Hom. 󰀇󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀀] and Hom. 󰀇󰀃* [Q 󰀂󰀈]. A second link directly follows, see next note.

󰀁󰀅󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

über alle die werlt; der muost dû ledic sîn – ‘und über rîche’ – daz ist: swaz mê ist dan ein, des ist ze vil, wan dû muost allen dingen sterben und solt wider îngebildet werden in die hœhe, dâ wir wonen in dem heiligen geiste. Des helfe uns got, der heilige geist. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃]

󰀁󰀅󰀅

from this you must be liberated – ‘and over kingdoms’ – which means, all that is more than one, of this there is too much, because you must die to all things and you must be informed in the height where we dwell in the Holy Spirit.󰀁󰀅 May God, the Holy Spirit, help us to do this. Amen.

󰀁󰀅. The topic ‘dwelling’ links this homily with the previous two, on this phenomenon, see the Introduction.

Homily 󰀇󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀆] In vigilia sancti Iohannis Baptiste, die 󰀂󰀂 junii ‘Elizabeth pariet tibi filium et vocabis nomen eius Johannem’ (Luc. 󰀁:󰀁–󰀁󰀇) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Luc. 󰀁:󰀁󰀃 (‘Elizabeth pariet tibi filium et vocabis nomen eius Johannem’), is read as part of the Gospel reading on the feast of St. John the Baptist’s birth, celebrated on 󰀂󰀃 June, as the previous Hom. 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃] (‘von der geburt sente Johannis des toufers vnsers hern’, Lo󰀄) and the following two Hom. 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁] and Hom. 󰀇󰀇* [Q 󰀈󰀂]. The text is handed down by the manuscripts of the Paradisus anime intelligentis (O, H󰀂) and further witnesses (B󰀆, B󰀇, Lo󰀄). In n. 󰀆 we find a reference to Hom. 󰀉󰀉* [S 󰀉󰀈], n. 󰀄 with further parallels in Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀇* [Q 󰀇󰀂], n. 󰀉 and Hom. 󰀁󰀄* [S 󰀉󰀀 B], n. 󰀈. The content of the homily

In this homily Eckhart explicitly talks about the topic of this feast, about Elizabeth having ‘a son’ or ‘a child’, about John whose name he interprets as ‘the one in whom is grace’, and about the cleansing of John. And yet, his attention is drawn more by the mention of the ‘angel’ as bringing the message than by other elements of the Gospel reading. Having given the Latin verse of Luc. 󰀁:󰀁󰀁.󰀁󰀃 and its vernacular translation (n. 󰀁), Eckhart embarks on how ‘the angel reveals itself’, first through miracles (n. 󰀂), and second through its spiritual similarity with God (n. 󰀃). ‘Elizabeth will have a child’ (n. 󰀄) with a special interpretation of ‘Elizabeth’ (‘what a consideration a soul should have’), and ‘John’ (‘the

H OMILY 󰀇󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀆]

󰀁󰀅󰀇

one in whom is grace’). Both mean the purity of the soul, so that her actions flow from her being and from nothing else (n. 󰀅). Eckhart asks how we can know that ‘grace is in the soul’ (n. 󰀆) and he mentions three things, that she is godlike, similar to God and that she ‘is not satisifed, unless she has all perfection completely’. Secondly, he adds the question ‘how grace acts in the soul’ (n. 󰀇), and he turns to ‘the example of an axe’ which has three features: it is sharp, it cuts through, and it performs what the worker that uses it wants to do with it. From the example he draws the conclusion that ‘there remains nothing but God and the soul without mediation’, hence, even grace is not needed any longer, as grace ‘itself must give room, being a creature’. Editions, commentaries and notes G. Steer, DW IV 󰀂󰀀󰀂–󰀁󰀉. Previous English translation The Works of Meister Eckhart Doctor Ecstaticus, vol. II, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂), 󰀁󰀇󰀇–󰀈.

󰀁󰀅󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation ‘Elizabeth pariet tibi filium et vocabis nomen eius Johannem’. ‘Elizabêt sol gewinnen einen sun und der sol heizen Johannes’. Disiu wort ‘sprach der engel’, dô ‘er sich offenbârte Zacharias’. Zweierhande wîse offenbâret sich der engel. Alsô an einem lîchamen, den er nimet von den elementen. Der engel vermac daz von natûre, daz er mache einen boum in einer stunde ze bewîsenne, der manic jâr wehset von einem kernen. Des menschen natûre vermac, daz si spîse verwandele ze vleische und ze bluote. Sô ist ez mügelîcher, daz von götlîcher kraft wîn und brôt wirt gewandelt in gotes lîchamen. Ze dem andern mâle offenbâret sich der (󰀂󰀁󰀁) | engel an einem glîchnisse götlîches liehtes, gotes willen ze bewîsenne der sêle, und bindet gotes willen in daz lieht und drücket den in die sêle. Als daz wort, daz ich sprechen wil, enist niht daz dinc, dâ von ich sprechen wil, sunder ein bewîsen der dinge, dâ von ich sprechen wil, als ich mîniu wort binde an die luft mit der stimme, und die luft vüeret ez ze iuwern ôren, und wirt alsô brâht in die sêle. Als etlîche geistlîche liute bewisent mit den vingern, waz sie meinent, alsô offenbarent sich die engel an einem glîchnisse, daz geistlich ist, und bewîsent alsô gotes willen der sêle. Nû sol man merken daz êrste wort, daz der engel sprichet: ‘Elizabêt sol gewinnen ein kint’. Bî ‘Elizabêt’ ist ûfgenomen, in welcher ahte diu sêle sin sol, in der gotes gnade geborn (󰀂󰀁󰀂) | sol werden. ‘Johannes’ bediutet als vil als ‘in dem diu gnâde ist’. Daz kint ‘sol grôz werden’ und ‘heilic geborn’. Dar umbe begât man drîerleie geburt, daz sie gereiniget wurden in irer muoter lîbe. 󰀁. Luc. 󰀁:󰀁–󰀁󰀇 (󰀁󰀃: ait … angelus: … Elizabeth pariet tibi filium, et vocabis nomen eius Iohannem; 󰀁󰀁: apparuit autem illi angelus Domini…). The context of the text can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀂rb: ‘In vigilia sancti Iohannis Baptiste. Initium sancti evangelii secundum Lucam. Fuit in diebus Herodis, regis Iudee, sacerdos quidam nomine Zacharias de vice Abia, et uxor illi de filiabus Aaron, et nomen eius Elysabeth. Erant autem iusti ambo ante Deum incedentes in omnibus mandatis et iustificationibus Domini sine querela, et non erat illis filius eo quod esset Elysabeth sterilis, et ambo processissent in diebus suis. Factum est autem, cum sacerdotio fungeretur Zacharias in ordine vicis sue ante Deum secundum consuetudinem sacerdotii, sorte exiit ut incensum poneret, ingressus in templum Domini: et omnis multitudo erat populi [populi erat Vg.] orans foris hora incensi. Apparuit autem illi angelus Domini, stans a dextris altaris incensi. Et Zacharias turbatus est videns, et timor irruit super eum. Ait autem ad illum angelus: Ne timeas Zacharia, quoniam exaudita est deprecatio tua: et uxor tua Elysabeth pariet tibi filium, et vocabis

H OMILY 󰀇󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀆]

󰀁󰀅󰀉

‘Elizabeth pariet tibi filium et vocabis nomen eius Johannem’.󰀁 ‘Elizabeth will have a son and he will be called John’. This phrase ‘the angel has spoken’, when ‘it revealed itself to Zechariah’. The angel reveals itself in two ways. First, in a body that it takes from the elements. By nature, for demonstration, the angel can make in one hour a tree that grows from a seed in many years. A person’s nature can turn food into flesh and blood. Thus it is even more possible that by divine virtue wine and bread be transformed into the body of God. Secondly, the angel reveals itself in a similitude of the divine light, to demonstrate the will of God to the soul, and links the will of God with this light and imprints it󰀂 in the soul, just like the word that I want to say which is not the thing that I want to talk about, but a demonstration of the things which I want to talk about, when with my voice I bind my word to the air, and the air brings it to your ears, and it is thus carried into the soul. Just as some spiritual people demonstrate by their fingers what they mean, thus the angels reveal themselves in a similitude that is spiritual, and thus demonstrate the will of God to the soul. Now, we must observe the first sentence that the angel says: ‘Elizabeth will have a child’.󰀃 With ‘Elizabeth’ is taken up, what state a soul should be, in which the grace of God should be generated. ‘John’ means ‘the one in whom is grace’.󰀄 The child ‘is going to grow’ and will ‘be born holy’.󰀅 Therefore, we celebrate a triple birth, which was purified in the body of the mother. nomen eius Iohannem: et erit gaudium tibi, et exultatio, et multi in nativitate eius gaudebunt: erit enim magnus coram Domino, et vinum et siceram non bibet, et Spiritu sancto replebitur adhuc ex utero matris sue: et multos filiorum Israel convertet ad Dominum Deum ipsorum: et ipse precedet ante illum in spiri(󰀄󰀅󰀂va)tu, et virtute Helye: ut convertat corda patrum in filios, et incredulos ad prudentiam iustorum, parare Domino plebem perfectam’. 󰀂. I.e. The will. 󰀃. Luc. 󰀁:󰀁󰀃: ‘Elizabeth pariet … filium’. See (Pseudo-)Hieronymus, Liber interpretationum hebraicorum nominum (Lagarde 󰀁󰀄󰀀,󰀁󰀇–󰀈): ‘Elisabeth dei mei saturitas uel dei mei iuramentum aut septimus’. 󰀄. See (Pseudo-)Hieronymus, Liber interpretationum hebraicorum nominum (Lagarde 󰀁󰀄󰀆,󰀁󰀆–󰀇): ‘Iohannes in quo est gratia uel domini gratia’. 󰀅. Luc. 󰀁:󰀁󰀄: ‘erit enim magnus coram Domino’.

󰀁󰀆󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Sant Johannes wart alsô gereiniget, daz er niht houbetsünde getuon enmohte. Und unser vrouwe was alsô ervüllet mit der gnâde, daz si noch houbetsünde noch tegelich (󰀂󰀁󰀃) | sünde nie engetete. Und unser herre Jêsus Kristus was alzemâle reine, wan von der er enpfangen wart, diu was gereiniget vor dem enpfencnisse, daz nie erbesünde an in gevallen enmohte. Alsô diu vrouwe ‘unberhaftic was’, alsô sol diu sêle unberhaftic sîn, in der gotes gnâde geborn wirt, daz si niergen gedenke an behagunge noch an missehagunge der liute dan ze gote aleine. Ein ieglich werk vliuzet von einem wesen. Enwære kein wesen, so enwære kein werk. (󰀂󰀁󰀄) | Glîcher wîse, als warmiu dinc koment von dem viure – enwære kein viur, sô enwære kein werme –, und alliu kaltiu dinc koment von dem wazzer, und alliu truckeniu dinc koment von der erden, und alle die der erden vil hânt, die sint tôreht und mügen vil lîden und sint kalt, alsô liget alliu volkomenheit der sêle an der hitze, diu dâ lebendigiu werk würket. (󰀂󰀁󰀅) | Bî drin dingen mügen wir merken, ob diu gnâde in der sêle sî. Daz êrste, daz diu sêle gotvar sî, wan si von einem götlîchen wesene her kumet. Daz ander, daz si die sêle machet gote glîch und drücket gotes glîchnisse in die sêle und machet sie gotvar, daz si sich den tiuveln erbiutet vür einen got, daz ist von der edelkeit der gnâde. Daz dritte, daz der sêle niht (󰀂󰀁󰀆) | engenüege, si enhabe alle volkomenheit zemâle. Wan ein heidenisch meister sprichet: alliu volkomenheit der sêle liget dar ane, daz si habe glîchnisse gotes, engel und aller crêatûren, als ich ouch mê gesprochen hân, daz glîchnisse und volkomenheit aller crêatûren ist geschaffen an den engeln geistlîche, ê sie geschaffen wurden an den crêatûren. Nû sol (󰀂󰀁󰀇) | diu sêle den engeln glîch sîn in dem

󰀆. See below n. 󰀇 on the need of the soul to be ‘cleansed and purified of sins’. 󰀇. This seems to be a reference to Hom. 󰀉󰀉* [S 󰀉󰀈], n. 󰀄: ‘in einem ieglîchen engel ist ein werlt geistlîche; wan allez, daz got geschaffen hât, daz ist in einem ieglîchen engel erbildet vil edeler, wan ez sî an im selben; wan ez ist in in âne materie’; see also Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀇* [Q 󰀇󰀂], n. 󰀉: ‘Waz got geschepfen mac, daz treget der engel in im, dar umbe daz sie niht beroubet ensint der volkomenheit, die ander crêatûren hânt’; Hom. 󰀁󰀄* [S 󰀉󰀀 B], n. 󰀈: ‘Diu dritte kunst ist, die er hât mit den engeln, die in in hânt bilde aller dinge’. See a similar thought with a reference in Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀈* [Q 󰀈󰀁], n. 󰀁󰀂: ‘Als ich ouch mê gesprochen hân, daz alle bilde und glîchnisse aller crêatûren ê geschaffen wurden

H OMILY 󰀇󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀆]

󰀁󰀆󰀁

St. John was so cleansed that he could not perform mortal sin. And our Lady was so filled with grace that she never made a mortal sin or a venial sin. And our Lord Jesus Christ was perfectly pure, because He was conceived by the one who was cleansed before conception, so that original sin could not fall into Him either. As the woman was ‘sterile’,󰀆 so must the soul be sterile in which divine grace is born, so that nowhere is she thinking of the pleasure or displeasure of the people, but of God alone. Every action flows from a being. If there were no being, there would be no action. Similarly, as hot things come from fire – if there was no fire, there would be no heat –, and all cold things come from the water, and all the dry things come from the earth and all those that have a lot of earth are stupid, can suffer greatly and are cold, so the entire perfection of the soul consists in the heat that there produces the vital action. In three things we can see if grace is in the soul. The first, that the soul is godlike, because she derives from a divine being. The second, which makes the soul similar to God and impresses the similitude of God in the soul and makes her godlike, so that she presents herself to the devils as a God, derived from the nobility of grace. The third, that the soul is not satisfied, unless she has all perfection completely. In fact, a pagan master says: every perfection of the soul consists in the fact that she has the similitude of God, of angels and of all creatures, as I have already said,󰀇 that the similitude and perfection of all creatures is created in a spiritual way in the angels before they are created in creatures. Now the soul must be like the angels in the kingdom of heaven. What the angels have possessed, is promised to the soul. What the angels

an den engel, ê dan sie lîphaftic gemachet wurden an den crêatûren’. See Avicenna, Metaphysica IX c. 󰀇 (Van Riet 󰀅󰀁󰀀,󰀇󰀂–󰀅󰀁󰀁,󰀇󰀈): ‘Dico igitur, quod sua perfectio animae rationalis est ut fiat saeculum intelligibile, et describatur in ea forma totius et ordo intellectus in toto, et bonitas fluens in omne, et ut incipiens a principio rorius procedat ad substantias excellentiores spiritales absolute, et deinde ad spiritales pendentes aliquo modo ex corporibus, et deinde ad animas moventes corpora, et postea ad corpora caelestia, et ut haec omnia sint descripta in anima secundum dispositiones et vires eorum…’.

󰀁󰀆󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

himelrîche. Swaz die engel besezzen hânt, daz ist der sêle gelobet. Swaz die engel enpfangen hânt, daz sol ir werden gegeben. Dar umbe engenüeget der sêle niemer, si enkome dar, dâ aller crêatûren volkomenheit ist ungeteilet und âne underscheit. Ze dem andern mâle suln wir merken, welche wîse diu gnâde würket in der sêle, als man prüeven mac bî glîchem als bî einem bîhele. Daz sol haben driu dinc an im. Daz êrste: ein (󰀂󰀁󰀈) | reht gestaltnisse und daz ez gesliffen sî. Alsô muoz diu sêle gereiniget und geliutert sîn von sünden, daz si keine sünde envermüge, als ein sündic mensche niht guotes envermac âne die gnâde und âne glîchnisse gotes. Und wie vil er guotes getuot, daz enkumet im niemer ze staten. Daz ander: daz diz bîhel durchsnîdic sî. Alsô sol diu sêle durchsnîdic sîn an allen götlîchen und tugentlîchen werken. Daz dritte: daz diz bîhel würke des werkmannes gerunge ûf daz ende. Alsô bringet diu gnâde die sêle in got und bringet die sêle über sich selber und beroubet sie ir selbes und alles des, daz crêatûre ist, und vereinet die sêle mit gote. Alsô lange würket diu gnâde mit der sêle, daz si selber rûmen muoz, wan si ein crêatûre ist, daz dâ niht enblîbet dan got und diu sêle sunder mittel. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀆]

󰀁󰀆󰀃

have received must be given to her. Therefore the soul is never satisfied, unless she arrives at where the perfection of all creatures is undivided and without distinction. Secondly, we must observe how grace acts in the soul, as can be seen from the example of an axe. This must have three things in it: The first: a straight shape, and it must be sharpened. Thus, the soul must be so cleansed and purified of sins, that she cannot sin, as a sinful person can do nothing good without the grace and without the similitude of God. And as much he does good, he will never achieve it. The second: that this axe cuts through. Thus the soul must be cutting through to all divine and virtuous deeds. The third: that this axe fulfills the wishes of the worker to their end. Thus grace brings the soul into God and elevates the soul beyond herself and deprive her of herself and of all that is creature, and unites the soul to God. Grace acts with the soul until it must depart, being a creature, so that there remains nothing but God and the soul without mediation. Amen.

Homily 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁] In festo sancti Iohannis Baptiste, die 󰀂󰀃 junii ‘Impletum est tempus Elizabeth’ (Luc. 󰀁:󰀅󰀇.󰀆󰀃.󰀆󰀆) Introduction

T

his is another homily for the feast of Saint John the Baptist’s birth (‘Vff sant Johans toeüffers geburt fest die erste predigt’, BT). The passage is Luc. 󰀁:󰀅󰀇.󰀆󰀃.󰀆󰀆 (‘Elizabeth impletum est tempus pariendi et peperit filium … Iohannes est nomen eius … et posuerunt omnes, qui audierant in corde suo, dicentes: Quis, putas, puer iste erit? Etenim manus Domini erat cum illo’). The text as given in the critical edition is derived from four manuscripts (E󰀁, Bra󰀂, Str󰀃, Ma󰀁), the print in BT and one fragment (Ba󰀂). The print HT is not used in DW. The homily has numerous references to what has been said earlier. It is clearly related to the foregoing homily Hom. 󰀇󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀆], but also to the opening homily of this collection De sanctis, Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃]. In n. 󰀃 there is a reference to Hom. 󰀇* [Q 󰀃󰀄], n. 󰀅 and in n. 󰀅 to Hom. 󰀆* [Q 󰀃󰀈], n. 󰀅, in n. 󰀈 to Hom. 󰀈* [Q 󰀇󰀆], n. 󰀈 and n. 󰀉 to Hom. 󰀄󰀁* [Q 󰀄], n. 󰀉. The content of the homily The third homily on the feast of Saint John the Baptist’s birth follows up the topic of ‘grace’ and is even based on the previous homily, as, for example, with the interpretation of the name of ‘John’ meaning ‘grace’ which was developed in Hom. 󰀇󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀆], n. 󰀄, but not in this homily, though Eckhart makes use of this interpretation in n. 󰀃 and at the end in n. 󰀁󰀁. He also comes back in n. 󰀉 to what he had developed on the lamb in Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃], n. 󰀄.

󰀁󰀆󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Here, as often, Eckhart starts with the core part of the Latin verse Luc. 󰀁:󰀅󰀇 (‘Impletum est tempus Elizabeth’), taken from the longer Gospel reading of the feast, Luc. 󰀁:󰀅󰀇–󰀆󰀈 (n. 󰀁). After his translation of this text into the vernacular, he adds the next part of the verse (‘and she begot a son’) and two further elements of Luc. 󰀁:󰀆󰀃 and 󰀆󰀆 (‘John is his name’; ‘Then the people said: What wonders will come from this child, as the hand of God is with him’) (n. 󰀂). Immediately he equates the offspring of God with the soul and speaks about grace, elaborating on the theme of Hom. 󰀇󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀆]. This link to the previous homily becomes even more apparent with the introduction of n. 󰀃: ‘When the time was full, grace was born’. A) ‘Fullness of time’ (nn. 󰀃–󰀄). Or, what prevents people to ‘rejoice in God all the time’ (Phil. 󰀄:󰀄)? It is ‘time, bodiliness and multiplicity’. B) ‘When the time was full, God sent his Son’ which is a variation of the core verse Luc. 󰀁:󰀅󰀇 (nn. 󰀅–󰀇). The birth of God in the soul requires exclusivity. Nothing else has a place in the soul but God which he shows using the example of fire and wood (n. 󰀅). God’s presence requires that we intend nothing, but God, so that our actions become those of God (n. 󰀆). This happens in the noble power of the soul, where there is no time and where neither the soul nor God have any cover (n. 󰀇). C) ‘What wonders will come from this child’ (nn. 󰀈–󰀁󰀀). Eckhart continues to the topic of covering, uncovering and discovering. All cover has to go (n. 󰀈), and the one who seeks God purely without any cover or medium, that person is discovered by God (n. 󰀉). Any medium – which would also apply to saints – do not make us taste God in Himself. Hence, he reads Apoc. 󰀁󰀄:󰀄 to mean that ‘the young girls follow the lamb wherever it goes without medium’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). For this birth ‘in us’ when the ‘time is fulfilled’, Eckhart prays at the end (n. 󰀁󰀁). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀉󰀀,󰀂󰀉󰀅–󰀉; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀈󰀁󰀃–󰀂󰀂; J. Quint, DW I 󰀁󰀇󰀅–󰀈󰀉; N. Largier I 󰀁󰀃󰀂–󰀄󰀁.󰀈󰀆󰀄–󰀇󰀃.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁]

󰀁󰀆󰀇

Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀂󰀂󰀆–󰀉; Meister Eckhart: A modern Translation, by R.B. Blakney (󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀁), 󰀁󰀅󰀁–󰀅; J.M. Clark, Meister Eckhart (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀇), 󰀂󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀂; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀃󰀄󰀇–󰀅󰀁.

󰀁󰀆󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀁󰀇󰀆) ‘Impletum est tempus Elizabeth’. ‘Elizabêten zît ist ervüllet, und si gebar einen sun. Johannes ist sîn name. Dô sprâchen die liute: waz wunders sol werden von disem kinde, wan gotes hant ist mit im?’ Ein geschrift sprichet: diu grœste gâbe ist daz, daz wir (󰀁󰀇󰀇) | gotes kint sîn und daz er sînen sun in uns geber. Diu sêle ensol niht in sich gebern, diu gotes kint wil sîn und in der gotes sun geborn sol werden, in die ensol sich niht anders gebern. Gotes hœhstiu meinunge ist gebern. Im engenüeget niemer, er engeber denne sînen sun in uns. Der sêle engenüeget ouch enkeine wîs niht, der sun gotes enwerde denne in ir geborn. Und dâ entspringet gnâde. Gnâde wirt dâ îngegozzen. Gnâde enwürket niht; ir werk ist ir gewerden. Si vliuzet ûz dem wesene gotes und vliuzet in daz wesen der sêle und niht in die krefte. Dô diu zît vol was, dô wart geborn gnâde. Wenne ist vüllede der zît? Sô der zît niemê enist. Swer in der zît sîn herze gesast hât in êwicheit und (󰀁󰀇󰀈) | in dem alliu zîtlîchiu dinc tôt sint, daz ist vüllede der zît. Ich sprach einest: der envröuwet sich niht alle zît, der sich vröuwet in der zît. Sant Paulus sprichet: ‘vröuwet iuch in gote alle zît’. Der vröuwet sich alle zît, der sich vröuwet über zît und ûzer der zît, ein geschrift sprichet. driu dinc hindernt den menschen, daz er got enkeine wîs bekennen kan. Daz êrste ist zît, daz ander lîplicheit, daz dritte manicvalticheit. Als lange disiu driu in mir sint, sô enist got in mir niht noch

󰀁. Luc. 󰀁:󰀅󰀇.󰀆󰀃.󰀆󰀆 (Elizabeth impletum est tempus pariendi et peperit filium … Iohannes est nomen eius … et posuerunt omnes, qui audierant in corde suo, dicentes: Quis, putas, puer iste erit? Etenim manus Domini erat cum illo). The context of the text Luc. 󰀁:󰀅󰀇–󰀆󰀈 can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀁va: ‘In die. In illo tempore Elysabeth [Elysabeth autem Vg.] impletum est tempus pariendi, et peperit filium. Et audierunt vicini, et cognati eius quia magnificavit Dominus misericordiam suam cum illa, et congratulabantur ei. Et factum est in die octavo, venerunt circumcidere puerum, et vocabant eum nomine patris sui Zachariam. Et respondens mater eius, dixit: Nequaquam, sed vocabitur Iohannes. Et dixerunt ad illam: Quia nemo est in cognatione tua, qui vocetur hoc nomine. Innuebant autem patri eius, quem vellet vocati eum. Et postulans pugillarem scripsit, dicens: Iohannes est nomen eius. Et mirati sunt universi. Apertum est autem ilico os eius, et lingua eius, et loquebatur benedicens Deum. Et factus est timor super omnes vicinos eorum: et super omnia montana Iudee divulgabantur omnia verba hec: et posuerunt omnes, qui audierant in corde suo, dicentes: Quis putas puer iste erit? Et enim manus Domini erat cum illo. Et Zacharias pater eius impletus [repletus Vg.] est Spiritu sancto: et prophetavit dicens: Benedictus Dominus Deus Israel, quia visitavit, et fecit redemptionem plebis sue’.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁]

󰀁󰀆󰀉

‘Impletum est tempus Elizabeth’󰀁. ‘Elizabeth’s time is fulfilled, and she begot a son’.󰀂 ‘John is his name’.󰀃 ‘Then the people said: What wonders will come from this child, as the hand of God is with him’.󰀄 A scripture says:󰀅 the greatest gift is that we are the offspring of God and that He generated His Son in us. The soul that wants to be the offspring of God and in which God’s Son must be born should not generate anything in herself and in her nothing else should be generated. God’s highest intention is to generate. He is not satisfied until He has given birth to His Son in us. Likewise, the soul is not satisfied in any way until the Son of God is born in her. And there grace springs up. Grace is poured in there. Grace does not act; its action is its becoming. It flows from God’s being and flows into the being of the soul and not into the powers. When the time was full, grace was born.󰀆 When is the ‘fullness of time’? When there is no more time. Whoever over time has placed his heart in eternity and in whom all temporal things are dead, this is ‘fullness of time’. I said once:󰀇 the one who rejoices in time does not rejoice all the time. St. Paul says: ‘Rejoice in God all the time’.󰀈 A scripture says, they rejoice all the time, who rejoice beyond time and out of time.󰀉 Three things prevent man from being able to know God in any way. The first is time, the second is bodiliness, the third is multiplicity. As long as these three things are in me, God is not in me nor

󰀂. Luc. 󰀁:󰀅󰀇: ‘impletum est tempus pariendi, et peperit filium’. 󰀃. Luc. 󰀁:󰀆󰀃: ‘Iohannes est nomen eius’. 󰀄. Luc. 󰀁:󰀆󰀆: ‘et posuerunt omnes, qui audierant in corde suo, dicentes: Quis putas puer iste erit? Et enim manus Domini erat cum illo’. 󰀅. I Ioh. 󰀃:󰀁: ‘Videte qualem caritatem dedit nobis Pater, ut filii Dei nominemur, et sumus’. 󰀆. See the introduction to this volume. This argument presupposes the equation between ‘John’ and ‘grace’ from the previous homily, Hom. 󰀇󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀆], n. 󰀄. 󰀇. Eckhart seems to refer to Hom. 󰀇* [Q 󰀃󰀄], n. 󰀅, as can be seen from the note below. 󰀈. Phil. 󰀄:󰀄: ‘Gaudete in Domino semper’. 󰀉. The punctuation of the critical edition has been changed here, as ‘ein geschrift sprichet’ seems to relate to the foregoing text, not to what follows. It refers to Augustine, although Eckhart does not seem to have a precise text in mind, similarly is his reference in Hom. 󰀇* [Q 󰀃󰀄], n. 󰀅: ‘Sant Augustînus sprichet: der vröuwet sich alle zît, der sich vröuwet sunder zît’. The text can, however, be identified: Augustinus, Sermones CLXXI 󰀁 (PL 󰀃󰀈, 󰀉󰀃󰀃): ‘Quando gaudetur in saeculo, non gaudetur in Domino; quando gaudetur in Domino, non gaudetur in saeculo … gaudium in Domino semper augeatur; gaudium in saeculo semper minuatur, donec finiatur’.

󰀁󰀇󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

enwürket in mir niht eigenlîche. Sant Augustînus sprichet: ez kumet von gîticheit der sêle, daz si vil wil begrîfen und hân, und grîfet an die zît und die lîplicheit und die manicvalticheit und verliuset dâ mite daz selbe, daz si hât. Wan als lange sô mêr und mêr in dir ist, sô enkan got niemer gewonen noch gewürken in dir. Disiu dinc müezent (󰀁󰀇󰀉) | iemer ûz, sol got în, dû enhætest sie denne in einer hœhern und bezzern wîse, daz menige ein sî worden in dir. Ie denne der manicvalticheit mêr ist in dir, ie der einicheit mêr ist, wan daz eine ist gewandelt in daz ander. Ich sprach einest: einicheit einet alle manicvalticheit, aber manicvalticheit eneinet niht einicheit. Sô wir überhaben werden über alliu dinc und allez, daz in uns ist, ûferhaben ist, sô endrücket uns niht. Waz under mir ist, daz endrücket mich niht. Wære ich lûterlîche got meinende, daz niht obe mir enwære dan got, sô enwære mir nihtes niht swære noch enwürde niht als schiere betrüebet. Sant Augustînus sprichet: herre, als ich mich neige ûf dich, sô wirt mir benomen alliu swære, leit und arbeit. Als wir zît und zîtlich dinc hân übertreten, sô sîn wir vrî und alle zît vrô, und denne ist vüllede der zît, und denne sô wirt der sun gotes geborn in dir. Ich sprach einest: dô diu (󰀁󰀈󰀀) | zît vol was, dô sante got sînen sun. Wirt iht in dir geborn dan der sun, sô enhâst dû des heiligen geistes niht noch gnâde enwürket in dir niht. Ursprunc des heiligen geistes ist der sun. Enwære der sun niht, sô enwære ouch der heilige geist niht. Der heilige geist kan niergen sîn ûzvliezen hân noch sîn ûzblüejen dan aleine von dem sune. Dâ der vater gebirt sînen sun, dâ gibet er im allez, daz er hât wesenlîche und natiurlîche. In dem gebenne quillet ûz der heilige geist. Alsô ist gotes meinunge, daz er sich uns alzemâle gebe.

󰀁󰀀. See Augustinus, Confessiones X c. 󰀄󰀁 n. 󰀆󰀆 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀁󰀉󰀁,󰀅–󰀈): ‘at ego per auaritiam meam non amittere te uolui, sed uolui tecum possidere mendacium, … itaque amisi te, quia non dignaris cum mendacio possideri’. 󰀁󰀁. Unidentified reference. 󰀁󰀂. Eckhart seems to refer to Hom. 󰀆* [Q 󰀃󰀈], n. 󰀅: ‘Sant Paulus sprichet: “in der vüllede der zît sante got sînen sun”’ (Gal. 󰀄:󰀄). 󰀁󰀃. See Acta Echardi n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II n. 󰀉) (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀇,󰀁󰀁–󰀆): ‘Quartus articulus in sermone “Elizabeth impletum est tempus pariendi”, sic habet: “Si aliquid in te generatur vel paritur quam filius”, vel si alicuius alterius imago sit in te nisi filius, “tunc tu non habes spiritum sanctum nec gratia fit in te”’; also compare Eckhart’s answer, in Acta Echardi n. 󰀄󰀈 (Mag. Echardi Responsio ad

H OMILY 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁]

󰀁󰀇󰀁

does he act in me properly. Saint Augustine says:󰀁󰀀 it derives from the greed of the soul that she wants to understand and hold a lot, and so she grasps time, bodiliness and multiplicity and loses precisely what she holds. Because as long as there is more and more in you, so long God can never dwell or act in you. These things must always be discarded, if God should come inside, unless you have them in a higher and better way, so that multiplicity has become one in you. Then, the more there is multiplicity in you, the more oneness there is, because the one has turned into the other. I once said:󰀁󰀁 oneness unites every multiplicity, but multiplicity does not unite oneness. When we are elevated above all things, and all that is in us is elevated, nothing oppresses us. What is below me does not oppress me. If I purely intended nothing but God, so that there was nothing above me but God, nothing would be burdening me and I would not be saddened so soon. Saint Augustine says: ‘Lord, when I myself lean on you, all burden, suffering and labour are taken away from me. When we have transcended time and temporal things, we are free and happy all the time, and then it is the ‘fullness of time’, and then and thus the Son of God is born in you. I once said:󰀁󰀂 When the time was full, God sent His Son. If something else is born in you than the Son, you do not have anything of the Holy Spirit nor does grace act in you.󰀁󰀃 The origin of the Holy Spirit is the Son. If there were no Son, there would not be the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can not have its emanation or its flowering anywhere except from the Son. Where the Father gives birth to His Son, there He gives him everything He has, in being and nature. In this giving the Holy Spirit flows forth. God’s intention is to give Himself to

articulos sibi impositos II nn. 󰀉–󰀁󰀀) (LW V 󰀃󰀂󰀀,󰀁󰀀–󰀃󰀂󰀁,󰀂): ‘Quartus articulus in sermone “Elizabeth impletum est tempus pariendi” sic habet: “Si aliquid in te generatur vel paritur quam filius”, vel si alicuius alterius imago sit in te nisi filius, “tunc tu non habes spiritum sanctum nec gratia fit in te.” Dicendum ut prius. Qui hoc negat pauca novit. Non enim procedit spiritus sanctus nisi a filio. Vis ergo habere spiritum sanctum, dona dei, caritatem quae “per spiritum” diffunditur “in cordibus nostris”, esto filius? Filius autem a philos, quod est amor, dicitur. Operare ergo ex amore, quae facis, non ex timore. Item secundo. Filius dicitur, qui fit alius, non aliud. Nihil ergo aliud vel alienum a deo ama. Nam omne quod quis amat pater eius est et se in illo generat. Item tertio. “Filius hominis non habet ubi caput suum reclinet”. Vide ergo quod nihil terrenum habeas in quo quiescas, et es filius. Et multa similia, quae optime docent hominem ad sancte et pie vivendum’.

󰀁󰀇󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Ze glîcher wîse, als daz viur daz holz in sich ziehen wil und sich wider in daz holz, sô vindet ez im daz holz unglîch. Des hœret dâ zît zuo. Von êrste machet ez warm und heiz, und denne sô rouchet ez und krachet, wan ez im unglîch ist; und ie daz holz denne heizer wirt, ie ez stiller wirt und geruowiger, und ie glîcher ez dem viure ist, ie vridelîcher ez ist, biz ez zemâle viur wirt. Sol daz viur daz holz in sich drücken, sô muoz al unglîcheit ûz sîn. (󰀁󰀈󰀁) | In der wârheit, diu got ist, meinest dû iht dan got eine, oder suochest dû iht dan got, sô enist daz werk, daz dû würkest, dîn niht noch ez enist entriuwen gotes niht. Swaz dîn ende meinende ist in dem werke, daz ist daz werk. Swaz in mir würket, daz ist mîn vater, und ich bin im undertænic. Ez ist unmügelich, daz in der natûre zwêne veter sîn; ez muoz iemer éin vater (󰀁󰀈󰀂) | sîn in der natûre. Swenne ander dinc sint ûz und vol, sô geschihet disiu geburt. Swaz vüllet, daz rüeret an allen enden und sîn engebristet niergen; ez hât breite und lenge, hœhe und tiefe. Hæte ez hœhe und niht breite noch lenge noch tiefe, sô envulte ez niht. Sant Paulus der sprichet: ‘bitet, daz ir begrîfen müget mit allen heiligen, welhez sî diu breite, diu hœhe, diu lenge und diu tiefe’. Disiu driu stücke meinent drîer hande bekantnisse. Daz eine ist sinnelich. Daz ouge sihet gar verre diu dinc, diu ûz im sint. Daz ander ist vernünftic und ist vil hœher. Daz dritte meinet eine edele kraft der sêle, diu ist sô hôch und sô edel, daz si got nimet in sînem blôzen eigenen wesene. Disiu kraft enhât mit nihte niht gemeine; si machet von nihte iht und al. Si enweiz (󰀁󰀈󰀃) | von gester noch von êgester, von morne noch von übermorne, wan ez ist in der êwicheit weder gester noch morne, dâ ist ein gegenwertigez nû; daz vor tûsent jâren was und daz über tûsent jâr komen sol, daz ist dâ gegenwertic, und daz jensît mers ist. Disiu kraft nimet got in sînem kleithûse. Ein geschrift (󰀁󰀈󰀄) | sprichet: in im, übermitz im und durch in. ‘In im’ daz ist in dem vater, ‘übermitz im’ daz ist in dem sune, ‘durch in’ daz ist in dem heiligen 󰀁󰀄. I.e. The wood. 󰀁󰀅. In the sense of accomplished. 󰀁󰀆. Eph. 󰀃:󰀁󰀈: ‘ut valeatis comprehendere cum omnibus sanctis, quae sit latitudo et longitudo et sublimitas et profundum’. 󰀁󰀇. See Aristoteles, De anima III c. 󰀄 (󰀄󰀂󰀉b󰀂󰀃–󰀄): ‘intellectus simplex est et impassibilis et nulli nihil habet commune, sicut dixit Anaxagoras’ (Latin text in Albertus, De anima [Stroick 󰀂󰀀󰀁,󰀈󰀀]).

H OMILY 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁]

󰀁󰀇󰀃

us completely. In the same way, as the fire wants to draw the wood into itself and again itself into the wood, it finds the wood to be dissimilar to it. This is why it needs time. First it heats up and burns, and then it smokes and crackles, because it󰀁󰀄 is dissimilar to it; and the more the wood becomes hot, the more it becomes silent and quiet, and the more similar it is to the fire, the more peaceful it is, until it becomes completely fire. If the fire has to imprint the wood into itself, all dissimilarity must be discarded. In the truth that is God, if you intend something that is not God, or you search for something that is not God, the action you perform is not yours nor is it really God’s. What your final intention is in an action is the action. What acts in me is my father, and I am subject to him. It is impossible that there are two fathers in nature; in nature there must always be one father. When the other things are discarded and ‘full’,󰀁󰀅 this birth happens. What fills, touches all the ends and nowhere is something missing; it has width and length, height and depth. If it had height and not breadth nor length nor depth, it would not fill. St. Paul says: ‘Pray that you can understand with all the saints what the width, height, length and depth are.’󰀁󰀆 These three points mean a triple form of knowledge. The first is sensitive. The eye sees things that are very far outside of it. The second is intellectual, and is much higher.󰀁󰀇 The third means a noble power of the soul, which is so high and so noble that it takes God in His own naked being. This power has nothing in common with anything; it does nothing and everything. It does not know of yesterday nor of the day before yesterday, of tomorrow or of the day after tomorrow, because in eternity there is neither yesterday nor tomorrow, there is a present now. What was a thousand years ago and what will be in a thousand years time, is there present, and even what is beyond the sea. This power takes God in His dressing room.󰀁󰀈 A scripture says: in him, through him and for him.󰀁󰀉 ‘In him’, that is, in the Father, ‘through

󰀁󰀈. ‘eine edele kraft … in sînem kleithûse’: Proc. Col. II n. 󰀁󰀁 (LW V 󰀃󰀂󰀁,󰀃–󰀆): ‘Quintus articulus est: In homine est “una virtus, quae ita alta est et nobilis quod ipsa accipit deum in suo proprio et nudo esse vel essentia”, non in sua veste, ut ipse est misericors vel veritas, “accipit ipsum in sua propria medulla, secundum quod ipse est nudus”’. 󰀁󰀉. Rom. 󰀁󰀁:󰀃󰀆: ‘… ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso’.

󰀁󰀇󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

geiste. Sant Augustînus sprichet ein wort, daz disem hillet gar unglîche und ist im doch gar glîch: niht enist wârheit, ez enhabe in im beslozzen alle wârheit. Disiu kraft nimet alliu dinc in der wârheit. Dirre kraft enist kein dinc bedecket. Ein geschrift sprichet: den mannen sol daz houbet blôz sîn und den vrouwen bedecket. Die vrouwen daz sint die nidersten krefte, die suln bedecket sîn. Der man ist disiu kraft, diu sol blôz und unbedecket sîn. (󰀁󰀈󰀅) | ‘Waz wunders sol werden von disem kinde?’ Ich sprach niuwelîche wider etlîche liute, die vil lîhte ouch hie sint, ein wörtelîn, und sagete alsô: ez enist niht sô bedecket, ez ensüle entdecket werden. Allez daz niht ist, sol abegeleget sîn und sô bedecket, daz ez joch niemermê gedâht sol werden. Von nihte ensuln wir niht wizzen und mit nihte ensuln wir niht gemeine hân. Alle crêatûren sint ein lûter niht. Swaz niht hie noch dâ enist und dâ ein vergezzenheit aller crêatûren ist, dâ ist vüllede alles wesens. Ich sprach dô: niht ensol in uns bedecket sîn, wir ensüln ez gote alzemâle entdecken und im alzemâle geben. (󰀁󰀈󰀆) | Swâ wir uns inne vinden mugen, ez sî in mügenne oder in unmügenne, in liebe oder in leide, swâ wir uns zuo geneiget vinden, des suln wir ûzgân. In der wârheit, entdecken wir im allez, sô entdecket er uns her wider allez, daz er hât, und enbedecket uns in der wârheit alzemâle niht allez, daz er geleisten mac, wîsheit noch wârheit noch heimlicheit noch gotheit noch nihtes niht. Diz ist in der wârheit als wâr, als daz got lebet, 󰀂󰀀. Eckhart seems to refer to Augustinus, Contra Maximinum II c. 󰀂󰀃 n. 󰀄 (PL 󰀄󰀂, 󰀈󰀀󰀀): ‘ex ipso dicens, propter Patrem; et per ipsum, propter Filium; in ipso, propter Spiritum Sanctum’. 󰀂󰀁. Perhaps Augustinus, De lib. arb. 󰀁.󰀂 c. 󰀁󰀂 n. 󰀃󰀃 (PL 󰀃󰀂, 󰀁󰀂󰀅󰀉): ‘Quapropter nullo modo negaveris esse incommutabilem veritatem haec omnia quae incommutabiliter vera sunt continentem’. On this topic see Acta Echardi n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II n. 󰀉) (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀈,󰀈–󰀉): ‘Nonus articulus dicit: “Nihil est verum quod non includat omnem veritatem”’; also compare Eckhart’s answer, in Acta Echardi n. 󰀄󰀈 (Mag. Echardi Responsio ad articulos sibi impositos II nn. 󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀) (LW V 󰀃󰀂󰀂,󰀁󰀂–󰀇): ‘Nonus articulus dicit: “Nihil est verum quod non includat omnem veritatem”. Dicendum quod hoc negare est ignorare. Media enim veritas non est veritas. Praeterea, deus est veritas, Ioh.󰀁󰀄, qui in quolibet totus est aut non est aut non est in quolibet. In talibus autem oportet “intellectualiter versari neque ad imaginationes deduci”, ut ait Boethius.’ 󰀂󰀂. I Cor. 󰀁󰀁:󰀆.󰀇: ‘(󰀆) Nam si non velatur mulier, et tondeatur! Si vero turpe est mulieri tonderi aut decalvari, veletur. (󰀇) Vir quidem non debet velare caput, quoniam imago et gloria est Dei; mulier autem gloria viri est’. 󰀂󰀃. Luc. 󰀁:󰀆󰀆: ‘et posuerunt omnes, qui audierant in corde suo, dicentes: Quis putas puer iste erit? Et enim manus Domini erat cum illo’. 󰀂󰀄. Perhaps a reference to Hom. 󰀈* [Q 󰀇󰀆], n. 󰀈: ‘Dar umbe, daz dû mit gote ein sîst, sô enmuoz niht in dir sîn noch îngebildet noch ûzgebildet, daz ist, daz niht in dir ensî bedecket,

H OMILY 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁]

󰀁󰀇󰀅

him’, that is, in the Son, ‘for him’, that is, in the Holy Spirit.󰀂󰀀 Saint Augustine says a phrase that sounds very dissimilar to this and is nevertheless really similar: there is no truth that has not included in itself every truth.󰀂󰀁 This power takes everything in the truth. For this power nothing is covered. A scripture says:󰀂󰀂 the head of men must be naked and that of women covered. The ‘women’ mean the inferior powers, which must be covered. The ‘man’ means this power, which must be naked and uncovered. ‘What wonders will come from this child’.󰀂󰀃 I recently said to some people, who may be here as well, a phrase, speaking thus:󰀂󰀄 there is nothing so covered that it should not be uncovered.󰀂󰀅 All that is nothing, must be deposed and so covered, so that it will never have to be thought of again. Of nothing, we should not know anything, and with nothing we must have nothing common. All creatures are a pure nothing. That which is neither here nor there and there is a forgetting of all creatures – there is fullness of all being. I said then: nothing must be covered in us, but we should completely uncover it to God and give it to Him completely. Where we can find ourselves within, either in power or in powerlessness, in love or in suffering, where we find ourselves inclined to ourselves, we must leave it. Verily, if we uncover all of it for Him, He will uncover for us entirely what He has and truly does not cover anything at all that He can give us, wisdom or truth or intimacy or Godhead or anything else.󰀂󰀆 This is truly as true as God lives, if we daz niht offen enwerde und ûzgeworfen enwerde’, or to Hom. 󰀉󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀇], n. 󰀁󰀀: ‘Jâ, allez, daz er êwiclîche gehœret hât von sînem vater, daz hât er uns geoffenbâret und enhât sîn uns niht vorbedecket’. 󰀂󰀅. See Matth. 󰀁󰀀:󰀂󰀆: ‘Nihil enim est opertum, quod non revelabitur, et occultum, quod non scietur’ (see also the parallels in Luc. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂; Marc. 󰀄:󰀂󰀂). 󰀂󰀆. See Acta Echardi n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II n. 󰀉) (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀈,󰀁󰀀–󰀂󰀁): ‘Decimus articulus dicit: “Ubicumque invenimus nos in hiis, quae bene possumus vel quae male possumus, in placentibus vel in displicentibus, ad quodcumque invenimus nos inclinatos, illi debemus renuntiare; et in veritate discooperire si nos fecerimus ipsi, deo scilicet, sic, tunc ipse discooperiet vel revelat nobis vice versa omne, quod ipse habet, et discooperit seu revelat nobis in veritate totum quod ipse habet, suum secretum, suam divinitatem et suam sapientiam”’; also compare Eckhart’s answer, in Acta Echardi n. 󰀄󰀈 (Mag. Echardi Responsio ad articulos sibi impositos II nn. 󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀) (LW V 󰀃󰀂󰀃,󰀁–󰀁󰀂): ‘Decimus articulus dicit: “Ubicumque invenimus nos in his, quae bene possumus vel quae male possumus, in placentibus vel in displicentibus, ad quodcumque invenimus nos inclinatos, illi debemus renuntiare et in veritate discooperire. Si nos fecerimus ipsi, deo scilicet, sic, tunc ipse discooperiet vel revelat nobis vice versa omne, quod ipse habet, et discooperit seu revelat nobis in veritate totum quod ipse habet, suum secretum, suam divinitatem et suam sapientiam”. Dicendum quod totum verum est. Oportet siquidem affectum hominis denudari ab amore mundi, ut uniatur

󰀁󰀇󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

ob wir im entdecken. Entdecken wir im niht, sô enist kein wunder, ob er uns denne niht entdecket; wan ez muoz rehte glîch sîn, wir im als er uns. Ez ist ze klagenne von etlîchen liuten, die sich gar hôch dünkent und gar ein mit gote, und sint noch zemâle gar ungelâzen, und hânt sich noch ze als kleinen dingen in liebe und in leide. Dise sint dem harte verre, daz sie sich (󰀁󰀈󰀇) | dünkent. Sie meinent vil und wellent als vil. Ich sprach etwenne: der niht suochet, daz der niht vindet, wem mac er daz klagen? Er vant, daz er suochte. Swer iht suochet oder meinet , der suochet und meinet niht, und der umbe iht bitet, dem wirt niht. Aber der niht ensuochet noch niht enmeinet dan lûter got, dem entdecket got und gibet im allez, daz er verborgen hât in sînem götlîchen herzen, daz ez im als eigen wirt, als ez gotes eigen ist, weder minner noch mêr, ob er in aleine meinet âne mittel. Daz der sieche der spîse und des wînes niht ensmecket, waz wunders ist daz? wan er ennimet den wîn noch die spîse niht in irm eigenen smacke. Diu zunge hât eine decke und ein kleit, dâ si mite enpfindet, und daz ist bitter nâch sühticheit der suht. Ez enkam noch niht dar, dâ ez smecken solte; ez dünket den siechen bitter, und er hât reht, wan ez muoz bitter sîn mit dem kleide und mit dem mittel. Daz mittel ensî denne abe, sô ensmecket ez niht nâch sînem eigene. Sô lange als mittel niht abe enist an uns, sô ensmecket uns got niemer in sînem eigene, und unser leben ist uns dicke swære und bitter. (󰀁󰀈󰀈)

deo amore caritatis. Nam, sicut dicit Augustinus LXXXIII quaestionum, plena cupiditas, terrenorum scilicet, nulla caritas, parva cupiditas, magna caritas, nulla cupiditas perfecta caritas. Adhuc autem constat quod deus se totum dat cuicumque se dat. Impium est enim a deo sperare medium sive imperfectum, sed verum est quod non omnes omnia recipiunt’. 󰀂󰀇. Perhaps a reference to Hom. 󰀄󰀁* [Q 󰀄], n. 󰀉: ‘Wizzest daz, swenne dû iht suochest des dînen, sô envindest dû got niemer, wan dû got niht lûterlîchen suochest’. 󰀂󰀈. See Acta Echardi n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II n. 󰀉) (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀈,󰀂󰀂–󰀂󰀂󰀉,󰀄): ‘Undecimus articulus sic dicit: Qui nihil quaerit, non potest conqueri, si ipse nihil inveniat. Ipse invenit hoc, quod ipse quaesivit. Qui aliquid quaerit et intendit, ille quaerit et intendit nihil et propter hoc accipit quod petit nihil accipiendo. Sed qui nihil quaerit nec aliquid intendit quam deum purum vel pure, illi dat deus et discooperit seu aperit omne quod secretum deus habet in suo divino corde, quod hoc fit ei ita proprium, sicut est proprium dei, nec plus nec minus, si ipse eum solum quaerat sine medio’; also compare Eckhart’s answer, in Acta Echardi n. 󰀄󰀈 (Mag. Echardi Responsio ad articulos sibi impositos II nn. 󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀) (LW V 󰀃󰀂󰀃,󰀁󰀃–󰀃󰀂󰀄,󰀁󰀁): ‘Undecimus articulus sic dicit: Qui nihil quaerit, non potest conqueri, si ipse nihil inveniat. Ipse invenit hoc, quod ipse quaesivit. Qui aliquid quaerit et intendit praeter deum, ille quaerit et intendit nihil et propter hoc accipit quod petit nihil accipiendo. Sed qui nihil quaerit nec aliquid intendit quam deum purum vel

H OMILY 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁]

󰀁󰀇󰀇

uncover Him. If we do not uncover Him, it is not surprising if He does not uncover us then; because one must be really alike, we to Him like Him to us. It is to be deplored that some people who really think highly of themselves and to be one with God, but are still truly undetached and still hold themselves to small things in love and pain. These are very far from what they believe they are. They intend a lot and want a lot. I once said:󰀂󰀇 Whoever seeks nothing, how can he complain if he finds nothing? He found what he was looking for. He who seeks or intends something , seeks and understands nothing, and whoever prays for something, nothing comes to him. But to those who do not seek anything nor intend anything other than purely God, him God uncovers and gives him all that He has hidden in His divine heart, so that it becomes as much his own as it is God’s, neither less nor more, if he intends Him only without medium.󰀂󰀈 What is strange if the patient does not like food and wine? Because he perceives neither wine nor food according to their own taste. The tongue has a coating and a cover through which it tastes, and this is bitter due to the sick nature of the disease. It could not reach where it should be tasted; it seems bitter to the sick person, and he is right, because through the cover and the medium it must be bitter.󰀂󰀉 Unless the medium is away, it does not taste according to its own. As long as any medium is not discarded from us, God will never taste to us according to His own, and our life is often a burden and bitter for us. pure, illi dat deus et discooperit seu aperit omne quod secretum deus habet in suo divino corde, quod hoc fit ei ita proprium, sicut est proprium dei, nec plus nec minus, si ipse eum solum quaerat sine medio. Verum est, devotum et morale et patet ex iam dictis. Quod autem dicitur in fine deus sic esse proprius homini divino sicut sibimet deo, emphatica locutio est secundum illud: “deus, deus meus” – “meus” inquit – “ad te de luce vigilo”. Alioquin non essent opera dei in nobis nostra, nisi deus noster in nobis esset. Nulla enim operatio nostra est, nisi principium operationis nostrum sit, in nobis sit. Nunc autem Is. dicitur: “omnia opera nostra nobis operatus es”. “Nostra” ait et “nobis”. Sciendum enim quod scriptura, sancti et praedicator frequenter utitur et convenienter tali modo loquendi emphatico, secundum quod cor loquentis suggerit et magis excitantur auditores ad amorem virtutum et ipsius dei, secundum illud Hieronymi: “o lacrima, tua est potestas, tuum est regnum. Tribunal iudicis non vereris, amicorum tuorum accusatoribus silentium imponis”. “Non est qui vetet intrare. Si sola intras, non sola exis et vacua”. Plus crucias diabolum quam poena infernalis. “Quid plura? Vincis invincibilem, ligas omnipotentem, inclinas filium virginis”’. 󰀂󰀉. See Augustine, Confessiones VII c. 󰀁󰀆 n. 󰀂󰀂 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀁󰀀󰀆,󰀁–󰀃): ‘non esse mirum, quod palato non sano poena est et panis, qui sano suauis est, et oculis aegris odiosa lux, quae puris amabilis’.

󰀁󰀇󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

| Ich sprach einest: die megede volgent dem lambe nâch, swar ez gât, âne mittel. Hie werdent sumlîche megede und sumlîche sint hie niht megede, die doch wænent megede sîn. Die die wâren megede sint, swar daz lamp gât, dar volgent sie im nâch in leit als in liep. Sumlîche volgent dem lambe, sô ez gât in süezicheit und in gemach; sô ez aber in lîden und in ungemach und in arbeit gât, sô kêrent sie wider und envolgent im niht. Entriuwen, die ensint niht megede, swaz sie joch schînen. Etlîche sprechent: eyâ, herre, ich mac wol her zuo komen in êren und in rîchtuome und in gemache. Entriuwen, hât daz (󰀁󰀈󰀉) | lamp alsô gelebet und ist alsô vorgegangen, sô gan ich es iu wol, daz ir alsô nâchgânt, wan die megede sliefent dem lambe nâch durch enge und durch wîte und swâ ez hin sliufet. Dô diu zît vol was, dô wart geborn gnâde. Daz alliu dinc an uns volbrâht werden, daz götlich gnâde in uns geborn werde, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁]

󰀁󰀇󰀉

I once said: the virgins follow the lamb wherever it goes,󰀃󰀀 without medium. Here, there are some virgins, and some here are not virgins, but who still believe that they are virgins. Those who are true virgins follow the lamb where it goes, in pain as in pleasure. Some follow the lamb when it goes smoothly and in good fortune; but when, however, it goes into suffering, in bad fortune and in labour, they turn around and do not follow it. Trust me, they are not virgins, even though they seemed to be. Some say: Ah sir, I can well join you in honour, wealth and good fortune. Trust me, if the lamb has lived in this way and has gone on like this, I grant you well that you will come after it; but the true virgins wander behind the lamb on the narrow and wide paths and everywhere it goes. When the ‘time was fulfilled’, grace was born. That all things might be fulfilled in us, so that divine grace may be born in us, may God help us. Amen.

󰀃󰀀. Apoc. 󰀁󰀄:󰀄. The reference refers to Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃], n. 󰀄.

Homily 󰀇󰀇* [Q 󰀈󰀂] In festo sancti Iohannis Baptiste, die 󰀂󰀃 junii ‘Quis, putas, puer iste erit? Etenim manus domini cum ipso est’ (Luc. 󰀁:󰀆󰀆) Introduction

T

his is the fourth homily on the feast of the birth of Saint John the Baptist (together with the previous three homilies). The core passage that Eckhart refers to is Luc. 󰀁:󰀆󰀆 (‘Quis, putas, puer iste erit? Etenim manus domini cum ipso est’) which he had already touched upon in Hom. 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁], nn. 󰀈–󰀁󰀀. The text as given in the critical edition is derived from the manuscripts of the Paradisus anime intelligentis (O, H󰀂), and also by B󰀇, St󰀁 and a few fragments; the homily is also excerpted by Nicolaus of Landau. The witnesses Lo󰀂, Lo󰀄, P󰀁 and Z󰀂 are not used in the critical edition of DW. There is no obvious reference to any other homily preserved in this text. The content of the homily Quint (DW I 󰀄󰀂󰀂) notes that this homily has no close relation to the previous Hom. 󰀇󰀇* [Q 󰀈󰀂], although dealing with the same scriptural verse Luc. 󰀁:󰀆󰀆 and meant for the same feast. Even though he is not completely incorrect, the liturgical order that brings together all four homilies for the same feast reveals the content frame that holds these texts together and that goes beyond the scriptural reference. Here in Hom. 󰀇󰀇* as the foregoing Hom. 󰀇󰀆* develops the topic of ‘grace’ further which started with Hom. 󰀇󰀅*. Just like Hom. 󰀇󰀆*, Eckhart here in Hom. 󰀇󰀇* relies on the equation of ‘John’ and ‘grace’ that had been

󰀁󰀈󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

developed in Hom. 󰀇󰀅*. Moreover, while Eckhart had already indicated the limitation of ‘grace’ as being something created and transient with regards the oneness of soul and God, here he is even more explicitly developing this limitation and stressing the wonderful nature of the soul which lies precisely in her being an agent out of herself, meaning out of what God has given to her no longer as something created, but as letting her be Himself by fully being herself, or vice versa, by being herself she is fully Himself. Only in following the liturgical order we can see, how Eckhart develops his ideas in steps from homily to homily. First he gives the Latin core verse Luc. 󰀁:󰀆󰀆 (n. 󰀁) and then the translation of it (n. 󰀂). Before zooming in on elements of the verse, he makes a general observation that we have to note ‘three things’, the ‘dignity of the craftsman’, where he includes in the nobility of ‘the Holy Spirit’ the bodily nature and the purpose that drives the action, and discovers in this verse ‘the Holy Trinity’ (n. 󰀃). From this he draws that we should ask ‘how the person in whom God does His work should be’ (n. 󰀄), notice that imitation needs a kind of matching which is the basis for a voluntary following (n. 󰀅). In a next step, indicated by the ‘now’, Eckhart develops the idea that ‘no creature can act beyond what it has in itself’ (n. 󰀆). Despite the divine light that God in His union with the soul (see the bridal imagery of the morning gift) has given to her, the soul is not satisfied with a finite and created gift (n. 󰀇). Hence, focusing on the main first, Eckhart asks: A) ‘What wonders will come from this child’? (n. 󰀈) The divine light that God has given to the soul as something ‘similar to Him’ by grace needs to be elevated further (n. 󰀉), as the soul still ‘is not satisfied, until she arrives there, where God acts in the nature of Himself’. ‘Thus the soul becomes united with and enclosed by God, and there grace slips away from her, so that she no longer acts by grace but in a divine way in God. There the soul is wonderfully enchanted and derives from herself’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). This is a love which has ‘no way’, here ‘the way is without a way’, a love of ‘a beingless being’ which is ‘beyond all that can be said’. Eckhart closes praying ‘that we come to this perfect love’ (n. 󰀁󰀁).

H OMILY 󰀇󰀇* [Q 󰀈󰀂]

󰀁󰀈󰀃

Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀆󰀂,󰀁󰀉󰀅–󰀇; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀅󰀇󰀉–󰀈󰀁; J. Quint, DW III 󰀄󰀁󰀇–󰀃󰀁; N. Largier II 󰀁󰀈󰀀–󰀇.󰀇󰀂󰀇–󰀃󰀁. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀁󰀅󰀄–󰀆; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀃󰀁󰀄–󰀇.

󰀁󰀈󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀄󰀂󰀂) ‘Quis, putas, puer iste erit? Etenim manus domini cum ipso est’. ‘Waz wunders sol werden von disem kinde? Gotes hant ist mit im’. An disen worten suln wir merken driu dinc. Daz êrste: die wirdicheit des werkmeisters, dâ er sprichet: ‘gotes hant ist mit im’. ‘Diu hant gotes’ bediutet den heiligen geist durch zwei dinc. Daz êrste: daz man mit der hant würket diu werk. Daz ander, daz si ein ist mit dem lîchamen und mit dem arme; wan alliu diu werk, diu der mensche würket mit der hant, diu entspringent in dem herzen und tretent vürbaz in diu glit und werdent volbrâht an der hant. Dar umbe mac man an disen worten merken die heilige drîvalticheit: den vater bî dem herzen und bî dem lîchamen. Alsô, als der sêle wesen allermeist ist an dem herzen, aleine si in allen gliden volkomen ist, und als volkomen in dem minsten als in dem meisten, doch ist ir wesen und daz gesprinc irre werke allermeist (󰀄󰀂󰀃) | in dem herzen –, alsô ist der vater ein angenge und ein gesprinc aller götlîcher werke. Und der sun ist bezeichent bî dem arme, als dâ geschriben stât in dem ‘Magnificat’, daz ‘er sînen gewalt hât volbrâht in dem arme’. Und alsô tritet diu götlîchiu kraft vürbaz von dem lîchamen und von dem arme in die hant, dâ der heilige geist bî bediutet ist. Wan alsô, als diu sêle bewunden ist in dem lîchamen und in materielîchen dingen, waz man ir geistlîcher dinge bewîsen sol, diu müezen bewunden sîn in materielîchen dingen, ob si ez bekennen sol. Dar umbe muoz man den heiligen geist bewîsen bî der ‘hant’, diu diz werk gewürket hât an disem ‘kinde’. (󰀄󰀂󰀄)

󰀁. Luc. 󰀁:󰀆󰀆 (‘Quis, putas, puer iste erit? Etenim manus Domini erat cum illo’). The context of the text Luc. 󰀁:󰀅󰀇–󰀆󰀈 can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀁va: ‘In die. In illo tempore Elysabeth [Elysabeth autem Vg.] impletum est tempus pariendi, et peperit filium. Et audierunt vicini, et cognati eius quia magnificavit Dominus misericordiam suam cum illa, et congratulabantur ei. Et factum est in die octavo, venerunt circumcidere puerum, et vocabant eum nomine patris sui Zachariam. Et respondens mater eius, dixit: Nequaquam, sed vocabitur Iohannes. Et dixerunt ad illam: Quia nemo est in cognatione tua, qui vocetur hoc nomine. Innuebant autem patri eius, quem vellet vocati eum.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀇* [Q 󰀈󰀂]

󰀁󰀈󰀅

‘Quis, putas, puer iste erit? Etenim manus domini cum ipso est’. ‘What wonders will come from this child, God’s hand is with him’.󰀁 In these words we must note three things. Firstly, the dignity of the craftsman, when he says: ‘the hand of God is with him’. ‘The hand of God’ means the Holy Spirit for two reasons. The first, that the work is done by hand. The second, that it is one with the body and the arm; because all the work that a person does with his hand derives from the heart, moves further to the limbs and are executed by hand. Therefore in these words we can observe the Holy Trinity: the Father through the heart and through the body. As the soul’s being is most in the heart, however perfectly she is in all the limbs, and perfectly in the smallest as in the greatest, nevertheless her being and the origin of her actions lie most in the heart: thus the Father is a beginning and an origin of all divine actions. And the Son is designated by the arm, as it is written in the ‘Magnificat’, that He ‘has accomplished His power by the arm’.󰀂 And so the divine power passes from the body and from the arm to the ‘hand’, by which the Holy Spirit is meant. As the soul is wrapped up in the body and in material things, so that which must be shown in spiritual things, what has to be made known to her of spiritual things must be wrapped in material things, if she is to recognize them. Therefore by ‘hand’, the Holy Spirit must be meant, who did the work in this ‘offspring’.

Et postulans pugillarem scripsit, dicens: Iohannes est nomen eius. Et mirati sunt universi. Apertum est autem ilico os eius, et lingua eius, et loquebatur benedicens Deum. Et factus est timor super omnes vicinos eorum: et super omnia montana Iudee divulgabantur omnia verba hec: et posuerunt omnes, qui audierant in corde suo, dicentes: Quis putas puer iste erit? Et enim manus Domini erat cum illo. Et Zacharias pater eius impletus [repletus Vg.] est Spiritu sancto: et prophetavit dicens: Benedictus Dominus Deus Israel, quia visitavit, et fecit redemptionem plebis sue’. 󰀂. Luc. 󰀁:󰀅󰀁: ‘Fecit potentiam in brachio suo’.

󰀁󰀈󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

| Daz êrste: daz wir merken, wie der mensche sîn sol, in dem got würket sîn werk. Dâ er sprichet ein ‘kint’, daz bediutet als vil als ein lûter luft oder, daz âne vlecken ist. Alsô sol diu sêle lûter und reine sîn, ob der heilige geist in ir würken sol. Ein wîser meister sprichet: ‘diu êwige wîsheit ist beheftet in Syon, und ir ruowe sol sîn in der lûtern stat’. ‘Syon’ sprichet als vil als ein hœhe oder ein warte. Alsô sol diu sêle gehœhet sîn über alliu zergenclîchiu dinc. Ze dem andern mâle sol si entzogen sîn von vergenclîchen und von wandelhaftigen dingen. Ze dem dritten mâle sol si sîn an der warte vor zuokünftiger hindernisse. (󰀄󰀂󰀅) | Daz ander: daz wir merken die würkunge des heiligen geistes an der sêle. Nieman enmac lusticlîche gewürken, er envinde sîne glîchnisse in dem, dâ er ane würket. Solte ich einen menschen leiten, enpfienge er niht mîne glîchnisse in sich, er envolgete mir niemer lusticlîche; wan niemer kein bewegunge noch werk enwirt lusticlîche gewürket âne glîchnisse. Alsô ist ez umbe alle die, die gote volgent; wan alle liute müezen gote volgen, sie wellen oder enwellen. Volgent sie im williclîche, sô ist ez in lustlich; volgent sie im aber unwilliclîche, sô ist ez in pînlich und bringet aleine smerzen în. Dar umbe hât got von der gunst und von der minne, die er ze der sêle hât, sô hât er ir gegeben ein götlich lieht von der zît, daz si geschaffen wart, ûf daz, daz er in sîn selbes glîchnisse lustlîche gewürken möhte. Nû enmac kein crêatûre vürbaz gewürken, dan si in ir selber hât. Dar umbe enmac diu sêle über sich selber niht gewürken mit dem liehte, daz ir got gegeben hât, wan (󰀄󰀂󰀆) | ez ir eigen ist und ez ir got gegeben hât ze einer morgengâbe in die oberste kraft der sêle. Swie daz lieht gotes glîchnisse sî, sô ist ez doch geschaffen von gote, wan der schepfer ist ein und daz lieht ein ander und ist ein crêatûre; wan ê got ie crêatûre geschuof, dô was got und niht lieht und niht vinsternisse. Dar umbe kumet got mit der minne ze der sêle, ûf daz daz sí die sêle erhebe, daz si über sich selber gewürken müge. Nû enmac minne niht gesîn, si envinde glîch oder enmache glîch. Als verre als got

󰀃. Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀅: ‘Et sic in Sion firmata sum, et in civitate sanctificata similiter requievi’. 󰀄. See Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiae XV c. l n. 󰀅 (Lindsay 󰀁󰀄󰀉,󰀆–󰀈): ‘… Sion, quae Hebraice interpretatur speculatio, eo quod in sublimi constructa sit, et de longe venientia contempletur’; ibid. VIII c. l n. 󰀆 (Lindsay I 󰀃󰀀󰀄,󰀂󰀂): ‘… Sion, id est speculatio’. See also (Pseudo-)

H OMILY 󰀇󰀇* [Q 󰀈󰀂]

󰀁󰀈󰀇

First of all: that we notice how the person in whom God does His work should be. Where He says: an ‘offspring’, it means a pure air, or what is spotless. Thus, the soul must be pure and clear, if the Holy Spirit should act in her. A wise master says: ‘Eternal wisdom remains in Zion, and its repose must be in the pure city’.󰀃 ‘Sion’ means a summit or a guard.󰀄 Thus the soul must be elevated above all corruptible things. Secondly she must be pulled away from transient and changeable things. Thirdly, she must guard against future impediments. The second thing: that we notice the action of the Holy Spirit in the soul. Nobody can act pleasantly if he does not find his likeness in what he does. If I were to guide a man, and he did not find his match in me, he would never follow me with pleasure; because without likeness no movement or action is acted with pleasure. Thus it happens to all those who follow God; because all people must follow God, they want it or they do not want it. If they follow Him voluntarily, it is pleasant for them; but if they follow Him reluctantly, it is painful for them and brings them only suffering. Therefore God, out of benevolence and love that He has for the soul, has given her a divine light from the moment in which she was created, so as to be able to act pleasantly in the likeness of Himself. Now, no creature can act beyond what it has in itself. Therefore, the soul can not act beyond herself with the light that God has given her, because that is her own and God has given it to her as a morning gift󰀅 in the supreme power of the soul. Although this light is a likeness of God, it is nevertheless created by God, because the Creator is one thing and this light is another thing and is a creature; because before God ever created a creature, there was God, and neither light, nor darkness. Therefore, God comes with love to the soul, so that this raises the soul and that she can act beyond herself. Now, love can not exist if it does not find similarity or makes something similar. To the

Hieronymus, Liber interpretationum Hebraicorum nominum (Lagarde 󰀁󰀂󰀂,󰀂󰀅; 󰀁󰀅󰀃,󰀂; 󰀁󰀅󰀇,󰀁󰀅; 󰀁󰀆󰀁,󰀁󰀇): ‘Sion specula’. 󰀅. In MHG the ‘morgengâbe’ is the gift that a newly married husband gave to his wife the morning after their first night together.

󰀁󰀈󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

sîne glîchnisse vindet in der sêle, als verre würket got mit der minne boben der sêle. Wan got ist endelôs, (󰀄󰀂󰀇) | dar umbe sol diu minne endelôs sîn. Lebete der mensche tûsent jâr oder langer, er möhte zuonemen an der minne, als man merken mac bî dem viure: als verre als ez holz hât, als verre würket daz viur. Dar nâch daz viur grôz ist und der wint sêre wæjet, dar nâch ist daz viur grôz. Dar umbe nemen wir die minne ûf bî dem viure und den heiligen geist bî dem winde durch daz würken des heiligen geistes an der sêle. Sô diu minne grœzer ist an der sêle und ie der heilige geist mê wæjet, ie daz viur volkomener ist, doch niht zemâle, sunder algemechlîche durch daz zuonemen der sêle; wan verbrünne der mensche alzemâle, daz enwære niht guot. Dar umbe wæjet der heilige geist algemechlîche, solte der mensche tûsent jâr leben, daz er möhte zuonemen an der minne. Ze dem dritten mâle sol man merken daz wunderlîche werk, daz got würket an der sêle an den worten, dâ er sprichet: ‘waz wunders sol werden von disem kinde?’ Daz muoz sîn, daz ein ieglich gezouwe als verre reiche, als der werkman würket, ob daz werk volkomen sîn sol; wan der mensche ist ein gezouwe gotes, und nâch der edelkeit des werkmeisters würket daz gezouwe. Dar umbe engenüeget der sêle niht, daz der heilige (󰀄󰀂󰀈) | geist in ir würket, wan er irre natûre niht enist. Und als ich ouch mê gesprochen hân, daz er ir gegeben hât ein götlich lieht, daz im glîch ist und als vil als sîn natûre, und hât ez der sêle als eigenlîche gegeben, daz ez ein stücke ist der sêle, daz er lustlîche in ir müge gewürken; als man gemerken mac bî dem liehte, daz dâ würket nâch der edelkeit der materie, dâ ez ûf vellet. An dem holze würket ez sîn selbes werk, daz ist hitze und viur; an boumen und an viuhten dingen würket ez wahsen und niht hitze noch sîn selbes werk, sunder daz sie grüenent und vruht bringent. An lebenden crêatûren würket ez leben von tôten dingen als daz schâf, daz dâ gras izzet, und dâ von wirt ein ouge oder ein ôre. An dem menschen würket ez sælicheit. Daz kumet von der gnâde gotes: diu (󰀄󰀂󰀉) | erhebet die sêle ûf ze gote und vereinet sie mit im und machet sie gotvar.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀇* [Q 󰀈󰀂]

󰀁󰀈󰀉

extent that God finds His similitude in the soul, in the same measure God acts with love over the soul. Because God is infinite, and therefore love must be infinite. If a person lived a thousand years or more, he could still increase in love, as can be observed in the case of fire: as long as it has wood, fire burns. When then the fire lights up and the wind blows strongly, then the fire is big. And we take love for ‘fire’ and the Holy Spirit for ‘wind’ because of the action of the Holy Spirit in the soul. The greater love is in the soul and the more the Holy Spirit breathes, the more perfect is the fire, not yet fully, but little by little, for the growth of the soul; because if a person fully burned, it would not be good. Therefore the Holy Spirit breathes little by little, so that if a person lived a thousand years he could still increase in love. Thirdly, in these words we must note the wonderful work that God does in the soul, when He says: ‘What wonders will come from this child’? If the work is to be perfect, each tool needs to last, as long as the craftsman uses it; because the person is a tool of God, and the tool acts according to the nobility of the craftsman, it is not enough for the soul that the Holy Spirit acts in her, as He is not of her nature. And as I have already said,󰀆 that He has given her a divine light that is similar to Him and as much as His nature, and He has given it to the soul as her own, so that it is a part of the soul, in order to be able to act pleasantly in her, as can be observed in the case of light, which acts according to the nobility of the matter on which it falls. On wood it does its own action, that is heat and fire; on trees and humid things, it acts growth, neither heat nor its own action, but that they are greening and fructifying. In living creatures it acts life from dead things, like the sheep that eats grass and from this derives an eye or an ear. In people, it acts beatitude. This comes from the grace of God: It elevates the soul to God, unites her with Him and makes her godlike.

󰀆. This refers to what Eckhard said before in the present homily in n. 󰀆.

󰀁󰀉󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Sol diu sêle götlich sîn, sô muoz si erhaben sîn. Solte ein mensche ûf einen turn reichen, sô müeste er erhaben sîn als hôhe, als der turn ist: alsô muoz diu gnâde die sêle erheben in got. Der gnâde werk ist, daz si ziuhet und vollen ziuhet, und wer ir niht envolget, der wirt unsælic. Nochdenne engenüeget der sêle niht an der gnâde werke, wan si ein crêatûre ist, si enkome dar zuo, dâ got würket in sîn selbes natûre, dâ der werkmeister würket nâch der edelkeit des gezouwes, daz ist: in sîn selbes natûre, dâ daz werk als edel ist als der werkmeister und der, der sich ergiuzet, und daz ergozzene alles ein sint. Sant (󰀄󰀃󰀀) | Dionysius sprichet, daz diu obersten dinc ergiezent sich ûf diu nidersten und diu nidersten in diu obersten und vereinent sich in den obersten. Alsô wirt diu sêle vereinet in gote und beslozzen, und dâ entglîtet ir diu gnâde, daz si mit der gnâde niht mê enwürket, sunder in gote götlîche. Dâ wirt diu sêle wunderlîche bezoubert und kumet von ir selber, als der einen tropfen wazzers güzze in eine bütten vol wînes, daz si von ir selber niht enweiz und wænet, daz si got sî, als ich iu ein mære sagen wil. Ein kardenâl vrâgete sant Bernharten: ‘war umbe sol ich got minnen und welche wîs?’ Dô sprach (󰀄󰀃󰀁) | sant Bernhart: ‘daz wil ich iu sagen. Got ist diu sache, dar umbe man in minnen sol. Diu wîse ist âne wîse’, wan got ist niht; niht alsô, daz er âne wesen sî: er enist weder diz noch daz, daz man gesprechen mac; er ist ein wesen ob allen wesen. Er ist ein wesen weselôs. Dar umbe sol diu wîse wîselôs sîn, dâ mite man in minnen sol. Er ist über allez sprechen. Daz wir ze dirre volkomen minne komen, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

󰀇. See Ps.-Dionysius, De caelesti hierarchia c. 󰀇 § 󰀃 (PG 󰀃, 󰀂󰀀󰀉A, Dionysiaca 󰀈󰀅󰀃); c. 󰀁󰀂 § 󰀂–󰀃 (PG 󰀃, 󰀂󰀉󰀃A–B, Dionysiaca 󰀉󰀃󰀈–󰀉󰀄󰀁). 󰀈. ‘kumet von’ in Eckhart is always ‘derives from’, not ‘loosing oneself’, as understood here by J. Quint. The following image of the water and the vat shows that now that the soul has no longer grace, but acts out of her own, she derives from herself even without knowing it.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀇* [Q 󰀈󰀂]

󰀁󰀉󰀁

If the soul is to be divine, she must be elevated. If a person were to reach a tower, he must be as high as the tower is: so grace must elevate the soul into God. The action of grace is to draw and to draw fully, and those who do not follow it become unhappy. However, the soul is not satisfied with the action of grace, because this is a creature, until she arrives there, where God acts in the nature of Himself, where the craftsman acts according to the nobility of the tool, that is: in the nature of himself, where the action is as noble as the craftsman and the one who fulfils himself and what is fulfilled are completely one. Saint Dionysius says󰀇 that the highest things are poured out onto the lowest and the lowest into the highest and that these are united with the highest. Thus the soul becomes united with and enclosed by God, and there grace slips away from her, so that she no longer acts by grace but in a divine way in God. There the soul is wonderfully enchanted and derives from herself,󰀈 as if someone poured a drop of water into a vat full of wine, so that she knows nothing of herself and believes she is God,󰀉 as I will tell you with a history. A cardinal asked Saint Bernard:󰀁󰀀 ‘Why do I have to love God and in what way?’ Then Saint Bernard said: ‘I will tell you. God is the cause for which we must love Him. The way is without a way’, because God is nothing; not so that He is without being, He is neither this nor that, that can be said; He is a being above every being. He is a beingless being. Therefore, the way in which He must be loved must be without a way. He is beyond all that can be said. That we come to this perfect love, may God help us. Amen.

󰀉. See Bernardus, De diligendo Deo c. 󰀂󰀀 n. 󰀂󰀈 (Leclercq/Rochais 󰀁󰀄󰀃,󰀁󰀅–󰀇): ‘Sic affici, deificari est. Quomodo stilla aquae modica, multo infusa vino, deficere a se tota videtur, dum et saporem vini induit e colorem…’ 󰀁󰀀. See Bernardus, De diligendo Deo c. 󰀁 n. 󰀁 (Leclercq/Rochais 󰀁󰀁󰀉,󰀁󰀈–󰀉): ‘Vultis ergo a me audire, quare et quo modo diligendus sit Deus. Et ego: Causa diligendi Deum, Deus est; modus, sine modo diligere’.

Homily 󰀇󰀈* [Q 󰀂󰀃] In festo sancti Petri et Pauli, die 󰀆 julii ‘Jêsus hiez sîne jüngern ûfgân in ein schiffelîn und hiez sie varn über die wuot’ (Matth. 󰀁󰀄:󰀂󰀂) Introduction

T

he passage Eckhart refers to in this homily is read on the Octave of the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul on 󰀆 July. The core passage of the homily, Matth. 󰀁󰀄:󰀂󰀂 (‘Compulit Iesus discipulos ascendere in naviculam, et praecedere eum trans fretum’) is taken from the Gospel reading for this day, Matth. 󰀁󰀄:󰀂󰀂–󰀃󰀃. The text as given in the critical edition is derived from two manuscripts (Bra󰀃, N󰀁) and a number of fragments. The witnesses H󰀄, Kon, M󰀅󰀇, Do󰀁, Fl, Bra󰀁, M󰀅󰀁 and U󰀁 are not used in the critical edition of DW. In n. 󰀃 Eckhart seems to refer to Hom. 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃], n. 󰀄; and in n. 󰀆 he seems to refer to Hom. 󰀆󰀁* [Q 󰀇], n. 󰀇.

The content of the homily Even though this homily is the first to deal with a new feast, that of St. Peter and St. Paul, after the previous four for the feast of St. John the Baptist’s birth, the first topic that is addressed here continues the discussion of ‘cover’ (n. 󰀂), dealt with in the earlier homilies, Hom. 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁], nn. 󰀇–󰀈; Hom. 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀅󰀄], n. 󰀆 and Hom. 󰀆󰀇* [Q 󰀃󰀁], nn. 󰀄–󰀅; Hom. 󰀆󰀆* [Q󰀇󰀁], n. 󰀉. As in so many other of his homilies on saints, Eckhart stresses again that saints are by no means media which could serve as step ladders from the here and now to the divine. On the contrary, saints are as every human being, as he points out with regard to Peter in particular. As he states in n. 󰀅, Peter is not only not hierarchically standing above

H OMILY 󰀇󰀈* [Q 󰀂󰀃]

󰀁󰀉󰀃

any creature, he is even subordinate ‘to the one’ who is ‘introduced’ by the Holy Spirit to God, who is ‘focused and enclosed in God’. For Eckhart Saint Peter is the one example here of all those creatures who ‘are subject’ to the person who is fully one with God. Yes, Peter too can be reckoned to be amongst those who are introduced to God, insofar as Peter’s ‘mind was simply focused and enclosed in God’, so that ‘the sea was closed under his feet, so that he walked on water’; but Eckhart adds the criticism that ‘as soon as’ Peter ‘withdrew his thought, he sank’ (n. 󰀅). Without giving the Latin text, Eckhart opens his homily by immediately giving the translation of the core verse, Matth. 󰀁󰀄:󰀂󰀂 (‘Jesus told His disciples to get up into a boat and told them to sail above the storm’) (n. 󰀁). Then, he discusses the meaning of ‘storm’ – He ‘told His disciples to get up’ (n. 󰀂). People who want to hear the word of the Lord need to get up and go beyond all forms of mutability (= storms). In picking up on the discussion of Hom. 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃], nn. 󰀄.󰀁󰀀, Hom. 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃], n. 󰀈 and Hom. 󰀇󰀇* [Q 󰀈󰀂], nn. 󰀇–󰀈 he talks about, how the Holy Spirit elevates the soul (nn. 󰀃–󰀄). The immediacy between God and the soul is then supported by Saint Paul (II Cor. 󰀃:󰀁󰀈) and the experience of his rapture into the third heaven (nn. 󰀅–󰀈). Three questions are added that relate to Paul’s rapture: 󰀁) Whether, if someone had touched Saint Paul during him being enraptured he would have perceived what Paul saw (n. 󰀈); 󰀂) Whether Saint Paul understood timelessly or within time (n. 󰀉); 󰀃) Whether he was in God or God in him (n. 󰀁󰀀). Eckhart closes his homily with the prayer that God may help to get to God as the origin (n. 󰀁󰀁). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Jostes, n. 󰀂󰀈, 󰀂󰀁–󰀂󰀄; J. Quint, DW I 󰀃󰀉󰀀–󰀄󰀀󰀉; N. Largier I 󰀂󰀆󰀆–󰀇󰀅. 󰀉󰀃󰀉–󰀄󰀄. Previous English translation Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀂󰀈󰀅–󰀈.

󰀁󰀉󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀃󰀉󰀃) ‘Jêsus hiez sîne jüngern ûfgân in ein schiffelîn und hiez sie varn über die wuot’. Wie heizet daz mer ein ‘wuot’? Umbe daz, daz ez wüetet und unruowic ist. Er ‘hiez sîne jüngern ûfgân’. Wer daz wort hœren wil und Kristî jüngern wesen wil, der muoz ûfgân und sîne vernunft erheben über alliu lîplîchiu dinc und muoz varn über ‘die wuot’ der unstæticheit der zergenclîchen dinge. Alsô lange als dâ iht ist wandelwerticheit, ez sî kündicheit oder zorn oder trûricheit, daz bedecket die vernunft, daz si daz wort niht gehœren mac. | (󰀃󰀉󰀄) Ein meister sprichet: wer natiurlîchiu dinc verstân sol und ouch materielîchiu dinc, er muoz enblœzen sîn verstantnisse von allen andern dingen. Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen: als diu sunne irn schîn ûzgiuzet ûf diu lîplîchen dinc, waz si denne begrîfen mac, daz machet si kleine und ziuhet ez ûf mit ir; möhte der schîn der sunne, er züge ez in den grunt, dâ er ûzgevlozzen ist. Sô er aber ez ûfziuhet in den luft und ez denne grôz ist an im selber und warm von der sunnen und denne ûfklimmet ze der kelte, sô vindet ez einen widerslac von der kelte und wirt hernider geslagen ze regene oder ze snê. Alsô ist der heilige geist: er erhebet die sêle ûf und underhebet sie | (󰀃󰀉󰀅) und ziuhet sie ûf mit im, und wære si bereit, er züge sie in den grunt, dâ er ûzgevlozzen ist. Alsô kumet ez, swenne der heilige geist in der sêle ist: sô klimmet si ûf,

󰀁. Matth. 󰀁󰀄:󰀂󰀂 (‘Compulit Iesus discipulos ascendere in naviculam, et praecedere eum trans fretum’). The context of the text is Matth. 󰀁󰀄:󰀂󰀂–󰀃󰀃 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀂va: ‘In octava apostolorum. Secundum Mattheum. In illo tempore iussit [Et statim compulit Vg.] Ihesus discipulos suis ascendere in naviculam, et precedere eum trans fretum, donec dimitteret turbas. Et dimissa turba, ascendit in montem solus orare. Vespere autem facto solus erat ibi. Navicula autem in medio mari iactabatur fluctibus: erat enim contrarius ventus. Quarta autem vigilia noctis, venit ad eos ambulans supra [super Vg.] mare. Et videntes eum supra [super Vg.] mare ambulantem, turbati sunt, dicentes: Quia fantasma est. Et pre timore clamaverunt. Statimque Ihesus locutus est eis, dicens: Habete fiduciam: ego sum, nolite timere. Respondens autem Petrus dixit: Domine si tu es, iube me venire ad te super aquas. At ipse ait: Veni. Et descendens Petrus de navicula, ambulabat super aquam ut veniret ad Ihesum. Videns vero ventum validum, timuit: et cum cepisset mergi, clamavit dicens: Domine, salvum me fac. Et continuo Ihesus extendens manum, apprehendit eum: et ait illi: Modice fidei, quare dubitasti? Et cum ascendissent in naviculam cessavit ventus. Qui autem in navicula erant, venerunt et adoraverunt eum, dicentes: Vere filius Dei es’. 󰀂. Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiae XIII 󰀁󰀈 n. 󰀂 (Lindsay II 󰀁󰀀󰀁,󰀁󰀂–󰀃): ‘Fretum autem appellatum quod ibi semper mare ferveat’.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀈* [Q 󰀂󰀃]

󰀁󰀉󰀅

‘Jesus told His disciples to get up into a boat and told them to sail above the storm’.󰀁 Why is the sea called a ‘storm’? Because it rages and is agitated.󰀂 He ‘told His disciples to get up’. Whoever wants to hear this word and wants to be a disciple of Christ, must get up and raise his intellect above all bodily things and must ‘sail above the storm’ of the inconstancy of transient things. As long as there is some mutability in it, whether it be slyness, anger or sadness, it covers the intellect, so that it can not hear the word. A master says:󰀃 whoever must understand natural things and material things too must strip his reason from all other things. I have already said it:󰀄 When the sun pours out its shine on bodily things, what it is able to grasp, it makes small and draws it up with it; if the sunshine could, it would take it into the ground from which it emanated. But when it draws it up into the air and is becoming large in itself and warmed by the sun and then ascends to the cold, it finds a backlash from the cold and is precipitated down in the form of rain or snow.󰀅 Thus is the Holy Spirit: He elevates the soul, supports her and draws her up with Him, and if she were ready, He would draw her into the ground whence He emanated. This happens when the Holy Spirit is in the soul: she ascends, because He draws her with Him. But

󰀃. Aristoteles, De anima III c. 󰀄, 󰀄󰀂󰀉a󰀁󰀅–󰀂󰀂: ‘Si igitur est intelligere sicut sentire aut pati quoddam erit ab intelligibili, aut aliquid huiusmodi alterum. Impassibilem ergo oportet esse, susceptivum autem speciei, et potentia tale, sed non hoc; … necesse est itaque, quoniam omnia intelligit, immixtum esse, sicut ait Anaxagoras, ut imperet. Hoc autem est, ut cognoscat. Intus apparens enim prohibebit extraneum, et obstruet’. 󰀄. ‘mê gesprochen’: This seems a reference to Hom. 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃], n. 󰀄: ‘Daz natiurlich lieht der vernünfticheit, daz got gegozzen hât in die sêle, daz ist sô edel und sô kreftic, daz im enge und kleine ist allez, daz got ie geschuof an lîplîchen dingen. Diz lieht ist ouch edeler dan alliu lîplîchiu dinc, diu got ie geschuof, wan daz allerminste und daz allersnœdeste, daz dâ ist an lîplîchen dingen, daz ie beschinen oder beliuhtet wart von disem liehte, daz vernünfticheit ist, daz wirt edeler dan allez, daz lîplich ist. Ez wirt lûterer und liehter dan diu sunne, wan ez scheidet von den dingen lîplicheit und zîtlicheit. Diz lieht ist ouch sô wît, daz ez der wîte entwahset; ez ist wîter dan diu wîte. Ez entwahset der wîsheit und der güete, als got entwahset der wîsheit und der güete, wan got der enist weder wîsheit noch güete, mêr: von gote kumet wîsheit und güete’. Note, however, also Hom. 󰀈󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀉], n. 󰀈. 󰀅. See Eckhart on Albert in In Gen. I n. 󰀅󰀈 (LW I 󰀂󰀂󰀆,󰀁󰀀–󰀂󰀂󰀇,󰀂 = 󰀁󰀀󰀉,󰀁󰀃–󰀈); Albert, Meteor. II tr. 󰀃 c. 󰀂 (Colon. 󰀆,󰀁, 󰀅󰀆󰀆A).

󰀁󰀉󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

wan er ziuhet sie denne mit im. Sô aber der heilige geist abevellet von der sêle, sô sinket si nider, wan, swaz von der erde ist, daz sinket nider; aber, swaz von viure ist, daz wirbet ûfwert. Dar umbe muoz der mensche under die vüeze getreten hân alliu dinc, diu irdisch sint, und allez, daz daz verstantnisse bedecken mac, daz dâ niht enblîbe dan aleine, | (󰀃󰀉󰀆) daz dem verstantnisse glîch ist. Würket si noch in verstantnisse, sô ist si dem glîch. Diu sêle, diu alsô alliu dinc überkomen hât, die erhebet der heilige geist und underhebet sie mit im in den grunt, dâ er ûzgevlozzen ist. Jâ, er bringet sie in ir êwic bilde, dâ si ûzgevlozzen ist, in daz bilde, nâch dem der vater alliu dinc gebildet hât, in daz bilde, dâ alliu dinc al ein sint, in die wîte und in die tiefe, dâ alliu dinc wider endent. Swer hie zuo komen | (󰀃󰀉󰀇) wil, der muoz alliu dinc under die vüeze getreten hân, diu dem unglîch sint, und daz wort hœren wil und Jêsû jünger wesen wil des heiles. Nû merket! Sant Paulus sprichet: als wir mit enblœztem antlütze aneschouwen den glanz und die klârheit gotes, sô werden wir widergebildet und îngebildet in daz bilde, daz al éin bilde ist gotes und der gotheit. Dô sich diu gotheit gap in unser vrouwen vernunft alzemâle, wan si blôz und lûter was, dô enpfienc si got in sich; und von der übervülle der gotheit brach ez ûz und vlôz über in den lîp unser vrouwen und wart gebildet ein lîchame von dem heiligen geiste in unser vrouwen lîbe. Und enhæte si die gotheit | (󰀃󰀉󰀈) niht getragen in der vernunft, si enhæte in nie enpfangen lîplîche. Ein meister sprichet: daz ist ein sunderlich gnâde und ein grôz gâbe, daz man mit der veder des verstantnisses ûfvliege und erhebe die vernunft gegen gote und werde übergevüeret von klârheit ze klârheit und mit klârheit in klârheit. Diu vernunft der sêle daz ist daz hœhste der sêle. Als si gestætiget ist in gote, sô wirt

󰀆. I.e. the soul. 󰀇. Needs to be added, not in DW. 󰀈. II Cor. 󰀃:󰀁󰀈: ‘Nos vero omnes, revelata facie gloriam Domini speculantes in eamdem imaginem transformamur’. 󰀉. Here, the English language fails, as Eckhart can go further with the semantics of ‘bilde’, ‘gebildet’ which can mean both, ‘image’, ‘imagined’, but also ‘form’ and ‘formed’, ‘created’.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀈* [Q 󰀂󰀃]

󰀁󰀉󰀇

when the Holy Spirit falls off the soul, she sinks down, because what is of the earth sinks down, while that which is of fire swirls upwards. Therefore a person must have put under his feet all the things that are earthly and all that can cover the reason, so that there does not remain anything except that which is similar to reason. If she󰀆 still acts according to reason, she is similar to it. The soul that has thus overcome all things, the Holy Spirit lifts up, supports 󰀇 with Himself into the ground from which He emanated. Yes, He carries her into her eternal image whence she flowed, into the image, according to which the Father has imagined all things, into that image in which all things are absolutely one, in breadth and depth, where all things will end again. Whoever wants to come to here must have put under his feet all the things that are unlike it and whoever wants to hear the word and be a disciple of Jesus in order to be saved. Now note! Saint Paul says: ‘When we look at the splendour and glory of God with an uncovered face, we are reformed and informed into the image’󰀈 which is entirely a unique image of God and Godhead. When the Godhead gave Itself into the intellect of Our Lady, since she was naked and pure, then she received God in her; and from the overabundance of the Godhead it emanated and flowed over into the body of Our Lady and a body was formed󰀉 in the body of Our Lady by the Holy Spirit. And if she had not carried the Godhead in her intellect, she would never have conceived󰀁󰀀 it bodily. A master says:󰀁󰀁 It is a special grace and a great gift that with the feather of understanding one is flying upwards raising the intellect to God and being carried away and over from glory to glory and with glory into glory.󰀁󰀂 The intellect of the soul is the supreme part of the soul. When she is strengthened in

󰀁󰀀. ‘enpfangen’ means ‘received’ and ‘conceived’, and both is meant here. On the topic of Mary and her spiritual conception being more important than her bodily conception, see Hom. 󰀇󰀁* [Q 󰀇󰀈], n. 󰀃. 󰀁󰀁. Augustinus, Sermo 󰀃󰀁󰀁 c. 󰀄 (PL 󰀃󰀈, 󰀁󰀄󰀁󰀅): ‘Quod amas in terra, impedimentum est: viscum est pennarum spiritualium, hoc est virtutum, quibus volatur ad Deum’. 󰀁󰀂. II Cor. 󰀃:󰀁󰀈: ‘Nos vero omnes, revelata facie gloriam Domini speculantes, in eamdem imaginem transformamur (a claritate in claritatem, tamquam a Domini Spiritu)’.

󰀁󰀉󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

si gevüeret von dem heiligen geiste in daz bilde und dar an | (󰀃󰀉󰀉) geeiniget. Und mit dem bilde und mit dem heiligen geiste wirt si durchgevüeret und îngevüeret in den grunt. Dâ der sun îngebildet ist, dâ sol ouch diu sêle îngebildet werden. Diu dâ alsô îngevüeret ist und underslozzen und îngeslozzen in gote ist, der sint alle crêatûren undertænic, als sant Pêtre: die wîle sîn gedank einvalticlîche underslozzen und îngeslozzen in gote was, dô sloz sich daz mer zesamen under sînen vüezen, daz er ûf dem wazzer gienc; zehant, dô er den gedank her abe kêrte, dô sank er. Ez ist wol ein grôz gâbe, daz diu sêle alsô îngevüeret wirt von dem heiligen geiste, wan, als der sun geheizen ist ein wort, alsô ist der heilige geist geheizen ein gâbe: alsô heizet in diu geschrift. Ich hân ouch mê gesprochen: minne nimet got, als er guot ist; enwære er niht guot, si enminnete sîn niht und ennæme sîn niht ze gote. Âne güete enminnet si niht. Aber diu vernunft | (󰀄󰀀󰀀) der sêle nimet got, als er ein lûter wesen ist, ein überswebendez wesen. Aber wesen und güete und wârheit sint glîche breit, wan, als verre wesen ist, sô ist ez guot und ist wâr. Nû nement sie güete und legent sie ûf wesen: daz bedecket wesen und machet im eine hût, wan ez zuogeleget ist. Sô nement sie in, als er wârheit ist. Ist wesen wârheit? Jâ, wan wârheit | (󰀄󰀀󰀁) bestât an wesene, wan er sprach ze Moyse: ‘der dâ ist, der hât mich gesant’. Sant Augustînus sprichet: diu wârheit ist der sun in dem vater, wan wârheit bestât an wesene. – Ist wesen wârheit? Der des manigen meister vrâgete, er spræche: ‘Jâ!’ Der mich selber gevrâget hæte, ich hæte gesprochen: ‘Jâ!’ Aber nû spriche ich: ‘Nein!’ wan wârheit ist ouch zuogeleget. Nû nement sie in, als er ein ist, wan ein daz ist eigenlîcher ein, dan daz dâ geeinet ist. Swaz ein ist, dâ ist al ander abegeleget; mêr doch daz selbe, daz dâ abegeleget ist, daz selbe daz ist zuogeleget, in dem daz ez andert. | (󰀄󰀀󰀂) 󰀁󰀃. Matth. 󰀁󰀄:󰀂󰀈–󰀃󰀃. 󰀁󰀄. See, for example, Ioh. 󰀁:󰀁: ‘Deus erat Verbum’. 󰀁󰀅. See Act. 󰀂:󰀃󰀈: ‘donum Spiritus sancti’. 󰀁󰀆. Most likely a reference to Hom. 󰀆󰀁* [Q 󰀇], n. 󰀇: ‘Minne nimet got selben, als er guot ist, und entviele got dem namen güete, minne enkünde niemer vürbaz. Minne nimet got under einem velle, under einem kleide. Des entuot vernünfticheit niht; vernünfticheit nimet got, als er in ir bekant ist; dâ enkan si in niemer begrîfen in dem mer sîner gruntlôsicheit’. 󰀁󰀇. As J. Quint rightly saw, Eckhart is already thinking of the masters that he is going to mention. 󰀁󰀈. Exod. 󰀃:󰀁󰀄: ‘qui est misit me’.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀈* [Q 󰀂󰀃]

󰀁󰀉󰀉

God, she is led by the Holy Spirit into the image and united there. And with this image and with the Holy Spirit she is guided further and introduced to the ground. Where the Son is imagined, there the soul must also be imagined. To the one who is so introduced, focused and enclosed in God, all creatures are subject, like St. Peter: while his mind was simply focused and enclosed in God, the sea was closed under his feet, so that he walked on water; as soon as he withdrew his thought, he sank.󰀁󰀃 It is certainly a great gift that the soul is thus introduced by the Holy Spirit, because just as the Son is said to be a ‘word’,󰀁󰀄 so the Holy Spirit is said to be a ‘gift’: that is what Scripture calls Him.󰀁󰀅 I have already said it:󰀁󰀆 love takes God as He is good; if He were not good, it would not love Him and would not take Him as God. Without goodness, it would not love [Him]. But the intellect of the soul takes God inasmuch as He is a pure being, a transcendant being. But being, goodness and truth are similarly broad, because to the extent that being is, it is good and it is true. Now they󰀁󰀇 take goodness and place it over being: this covers being and creates for it a coat, because it is added. So they take Him as He is truth. Is being the truth? Yes, because the truth is based on being, when He said to Moses: ‘He who is there He has sent me’.󰀁󰀈 Saint Augustine says:󰀁󰀉 the truth is the Son in the Father, because the truth is based on being. Is being the truth? Anyone who questioned some masters about this would answer: ‘Yes!’ Had the same asked me, I had answered: ‘Yes!’ But now I answer: ‘No!’ because truth has also been added. Now they take Him as being one, because one is more properly one than that which is united. From what is one, anything other is discarded; indeed, the very same that is discarded there, is the same that is added, only being altered.

󰀁󰀉. Augustinus, De vera religione c. 󰀃󰀆 n. 󰀆󰀆 (PL 󰀃󰀄, 󰀁󰀅󰀁): ‘Sed cui saltem illud manifestum est, falsitatem esse, qua id putatur esse quod non est, intelligit eam esse veritatem. quae ostendit id quod est … datur intelligi esse aliquid, quod illius unius solius. a quo Principio unum est quidquid aliquo modo unum est, ita simile sit ut hoc omnino impleat ac sit idipsum; et haec est Veritas et Verbum in Principio, et Verbum Deus apud Deum … Caetera illius unius similia dici possunt in quantum sunt. in tantum enim et vera sunt: haec est autem ipsa ejus similitudo, et ideo Veritas … Quapropter vera quoniam in tantum vera sunt in quantum sunt; in tantum autem sunt, in quantum principalis unius similia sunt’; see also Augustinus, Soliloquia II c. 󰀅 n. 󰀈 (PL 󰀁󰀂, 󰀈󰀈󰀉): ‘nam verum mihi videtur esse id quod est’.

󰀂󰀀󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Und enist er noch güete noch wesen noch wârheit noch ein, waz ist er denne? Er ist nihtes niht, er enist weder diz noch daz. Gedenkest dû noch ihtes, daz er sî, des enist er niht. Wâ sol denne diu sêle nemen wârheit? Vindet si dâ niht wârheit, dâ si îngebildet wirt in eine einicheit, in die êrste lûterkeit, in den îndruk der lûtern weselicheit, – envindet si dâ niht wârheit? Nein, si envindet keinen begrif einer wârheit, mêr: dâ kumet wârheit nâch, dâ kumet wârheit abe. | (󰀄󰀀󰀃) Sant Paulus wart gezücket in den dritten himel. Welhez nû die drî himel sîn, daz merket! Der eine ist ein abescheiden aller lîplicheit, der ander ein | (󰀄󰀀󰀄) entvremden aller bildicheit, der dritte ein blôz verstân âne mittel in gote. Nû ist ein vrâge, ob man sant Paulum hæte gerüeret in der zît, dô er enzücket was, ob er sîn hæte enpfunden. Ich spriche: ‘Jâ!’ Dô er beslozzen was in dem slozze der gotheit, hæte man in dô gerüeret mit einer nâdelspitze, er wære sîn gewar worden, wan sant Augustînus sprichet in dem buoche ‘von der | (󰀄󰀀󰀅) sêle und von dem geiste’: diu sêle ist geschaffen als ûf ein ort zwischen zît und êwicheit. Mit den nidersten sinnen nâch der zît üebet si zîtlîchiu dinc; nâch der obersten kraft begrîfet und enpfindet si âne zît êwigiu dinc. Dar umbe spriche ich: hæte man gerüeret sant Paulum mit einer nâdelspitze in der zît sîner enzückunge, er wære sîn gewar worden, wan sîn sêle bleip in sînem lîbe als diu forme in ir materie. Und als diu sunne erliuhtet den luft und der luft die erde, alsô enpfienc sîn geist lûter lieht von gote und diu sêle von dem geiste und der lîp von der sêle. Alsô ist offenbære, wie sant Paulus wart enzücket und ouch bleip. Er was enzücket nâch der geistlicheit, er bleip nâch der sêlicheit. | (󰀄󰀀󰀆)

󰀂󰀀. II Cor. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂–󰀃: ‘Scio hominem in Christo ante annos quattuordecim, sive in corpore nescio sive extra corpus nescio, Deus scit, raptum huiusmodi usque ad tertium caelum’. On this passage see the reference by Eckhart in Sermo 󰀄󰀈,󰀁 n. 󰀅󰀀󰀁 (LW IV, 󰀄󰀁󰀆): ‘De quibus in Sermone “Iussit Iesus discipulos suos ascendere” etc’, even though the interpretation of the three heavens is different. See Barbara Faes de Mottoni, ‘Il ms. Douai, Bibliothèque municipale 󰀄󰀃󰀄/I e le questioni n. 󰀂󰀃󰀀 e 󰀂󰀆󰀀 ‘de raptu’’ (󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆), 󰀁󰀀󰀃–󰀂󰀆. 󰀂󰀁. See on this topic the introduction to this volume; J. Quint ad loc. refers to Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae II II q. 󰀁󰀇󰀅 a. 󰀃 ad 󰀄, but note the difference to Eckhart. 󰀂󰀂. (Pseudo-)Augustinus (Alcher of Clairvaux), De spiritu et anima c. 󰀄󰀇 (PL 󰀄󰀀, 󰀉󰀁󰀄): ‘Humanus animus quasi in medio collocatus quadam conditionis suae excellentia, et huic mutabi-

H OMILY 󰀇󰀈* [Q 󰀂󰀃]

󰀂󰀀󰀁

And if He is neither goodness nor being neither truth nor oneness, then what is He? He is not something, He is neither this nor that. If you still think that He is something, this He is not. So whence should the soul take the truth? Does she not find the truth, where she is informed into a single oneness, in the first purity, in the impression of pure being – does she not find there the truth? No, she does not find any concept of truth, but rather: there, the truth comes later, there the truth runs off. Saint Paul was lifted into the third heaven.󰀂󰀀 Note, what the three heavens are! One is detachment from all bodiliness, the second is estrangement from everything that can be imagined, the third is a naked knowing in God without medium.󰀂󰀁 Now, the question arises, whether, if someone had touched Saint Paul during him being enraptured he would have perceived it. I say: ‘Yes!’ When he was enclosed in the closure of the Godhead, if someone had touched him then with the point of a needle, he would have been aware of it, because Saint Augustine says in the book On the Soul and the Spirit:󰀂󰀂 the soul has been created as in a place between time and eternity. With the lower senses she exercises temporal things according to time; according to the supreme power she grasps and senses eternal things without time. Therefore, I say: if someone had touched Saint Paul with the point of a needle during the time of his ecstasy, he would have been aware of it, because his soul remained in his body as the form of her matter.󰀂󰀃 And as the sun illuminates the air and the air the earth, so his spirit received the pure light from God, and the soul from the spirit and the body from the soul. Thus it is clear, how Saint Paul was enraptured and also remained in the body. He was enraptured according to the spiritual side, he remained according to side of the soul.󰀂󰀄

litati quae deorsum est supereminet, et ad illam quae est apud Deum veram immutabilitatem necdum pertingit’; the Liber de causis, prop. 󰀂 is closer: ‘anima … est in horizonte aeternitatis inferius et supra tempus’. 󰀂󰀃. Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae II II q. 󰀁󰀇󰀅 a. 󰀅 c.: ‘Et ideo in raptu non fuit necessarium quod anima sic separaretur a corpore ut ei non uniretur quasi forma’. 󰀂󰀄. According to J. Quint ad loc. the parallel is Bonaventura, Itinerarium c. 󰀁 n. 󰀄 (Opera V, 󰀂󰀉󰀇): ‘Mens nostra tres habet aspectus principales. Unus est ad corporalia exteriora, secundum quem vocatur animalitas seu sensualitas. alius intra se et in se, secundum quem dicitur spiritus; tertius supra se, secundum quem dicitur mens’.

󰀂󰀀󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Diu ander vrâge ist, ob sant Paulus verstuont âne zît oder in zît. Ich spriche: er verstuont âne zît, wan er verstuont niht von den engeln, die in der zît geschaffen sint, sunder er verstuont von gote, der dâ was vor der zît, den nie zît enbegreif. Diu dritte vrâge ist, weder er in gote wære oder got in im. Ich spriche: | (󰀄󰀀󰀇) got verstuont in im und er als niht in gote. Nemet ein glîchnisse: diu sunne schînet durch daz glas und dringet daz wazzer von der rôsen; daz kumet von kluocheit der materie des glases von der berlîchen kraft der sunnen; alsô birt diu sunne in dem glase und niht daz glas in der sunnen. Alsô was ez umbe sant Paulum: dô diu klâre sunne der gotheit sîne sêle durchschein, dô wart ûzgedrungen von der liehten rôsen sînes geistes des minniclîchen götlîches underscheides vluz, von dem der prophête sprichet: ‘der sturm des vluzzes ervröuwet mîne stat’, daz ist mîne sêle; und daz geschach im doch von klârheit sîner sêle; dâ durch dranc diu minne von berunge der gotheit. | (󰀄󰀀󰀈) Diu gemeinschaft des lîbes irret, daz diu sêle niht als lûter verstân mac als der engel; aber, als vil als man bekennet âne materielîchiu dinc, als vil | (󰀄󰀀󰀉) ist man engelisch. Diu sêle erkennet von ûzen, got verstât in im selben durch sich selber, wan er ist ein ursprunc aller dinge, und ze disem ursprunge helfe uns êwiclîchen got. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀈* [Q 󰀂󰀃]

󰀂󰀀󰀃

The second question is whether Saint Paul understood timelessly or within time. I say: he understood timelessly, because he did not understood by angels, which are created in time, but he understood by God, who was there before time, who time never grasps. The third question is, whether he was in God or God in him. I say: God knew in him, and he as nothing in God. Take a simile: the sun shines through the glass and draws water from the rose; this comes from the subtlety of the material of the glass through the generative power of the sun; thus the sun generates in the glass and not the glass in the sun. So it was with Saint Paul: when the clear sun of the Godhead enlightened his soul, the loving divine flow of differentiation was taken from the shining rose of his spirit, of which the Prophet says: ‘The storm of the flow rejoices my city’,󰀂󰀅 that is my soul; and this happened to him only by virtue of the glory of his soul; love penetrated there by virtue of the Godhead giving birth. The communion with the body disturbs, so that the soul can not understand as purely as the angel; but to the extent that one knows without [the help of] material things, one is somehow angelic. The soul knows from the outside, God understands in Himself through Himself, because He is a source of all things, and to this origin may God help us eternally. Amen.

󰀂󰀅. Ps. 󰀄󰀅:󰀅: ‘Fluminis impetus laetificat civitatem Dei’.

Homily 󰀇󰀉* [Q 󰀃] In festo Sancti Petri ad Vincula, die 󰀁 augusti ‘Nunc scio vere, quia misit dominus angelum suum’ (Act. 󰀁󰀂:󰀁󰀁) Introduction

T

he passages that Eckhart refers to, Act. 󰀁󰀂:󰀁󰀁 (‘Nunc scio vere, quia misit dominus angelus suum, et eripuit me de manu Herodis, et de omni exspectatione plebis Iudaeorum’) is taken from the reading (Act. 󰀁󰀂:󰀁–󰀁󰀁) on the feast of St. Peter ad Vincula (or St. Peter in Chains), celebrated on 󰀁 August (‘An sant Peters kettenfeyer’, BT) to which Eckhart adds the parallel verse Ps. 󰀁󰀇:󰀁 (‘qua eripuit eum dominus de manu omnium inimicorum eius’). The text as given in the critical edition is derived from four manuscripts (Ba󰀁, Br󰀁, E󰀂, G󰀁), the printed text in BT and a few fragments. The witnesses M󰀂󰀇, M󰀂󰀈 and the printed text in HT are not used in the critical edition of DW. N. 󰀃 gives us a reference to Hom. 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅], n. 󰀁󰀃, and in n. 󰀇 we find a reference to the previous homily, Hom. 󰀇󰀈* [Q 󰀂󰀃], n. 󰀇. The content of the homily

Through the two references, this text is firmly bound together with previous texts on the saints, particularly on Peter. Already with the first core verse, Eckhart enhances his teaching on Peter, granting him here the etymological interpretation of ‘knowledge’. He begins with the Latin verse of Act. 󰀁󰀂:󰀁󰀁 (‘Nunc scio vere, quia misit dominus angelum suum’) (n. 󰀁) and his translation to which is added the text from Ps. 󰀁󰀇:󰀁 (n. 󰀂). In a wonderful inversion, he reads the sentence as ‘because God has sent me His angel, I truly know’ (n. 󰀃) to

H OMILY 󰀇󰀉* [Q 󰀃]

󰀂󰀀󰀅

state that ‘“Peter” means “knowledge”’, and that ‘knowledge and intellect unite the soul in God’. A) ‘Now I truly get to know’ (n. 󰀄) gives a slightly altered rendering of the beginning of the core verse (instead of ‘nû weiz ich wærlîche’ from n. 󰀂 Eckhart writes here ‘nû bekenne ich wærlîche’), where he first asks about the origin of knowledge – of course, the divine light. B) ‘God dwells in a light, where there is no access’ (n. 󰀅). Here, secondly, he stresses that we know the wisdom without any cover (or medium), but asks whether this is not a contrast to what Paul says about our wisdom, that it ‘vanishes’ (I Cor. 󰀁󰀃:󰀈). In a third step he develops that there are two forms of wisdom, one ‘here’, of and in this world that is changeable, the other ‘there’ which is ‘unchangeable’. C) ‘Now I truly know that God sent me his angel’ (nn. 󰀆–󰀉). Through God’s messenger, the angel, the soul becomes ‘a truly knowing one’. It is not Peter who gives the soul the key of knowledge, but it is God Himself. That He is the one who gave the key to Peter makes Peter into being ‘knowledge’. Not Peter as Peter, but ‘knowledge has the key’ that ‘opens’ the soul and makes her find God. And so that we do not misinterpret his thoughts, Eckhart ends this section, stating: ‘In God no creature is nobler than the other’. Whether Peter or saints or masters, in God all are of equal standing. Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀂󰀅, 󰀉󰀇–󰀉; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀂󰀆󰀆–󰀇󰀆; J. Quint, DW I 󰀄󰀆–󰀅󰀇; N. Largier I 󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀅. 󰀇󰀇󰀂–󰀇. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀇󰀄–󰀆; Meister Eckhart: A modern Translation, by R.B. Blakney (󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀁), 󰀁󰀄󰀀–󰀂; J.M. Clark, Meister Eckhart (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀇), 󰀁󰀅󰀃–󰀆; Meister Eckhart, Teacher and Preacher (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇), 󰀂󰀄󰀄–󰀆; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀁󰀆󰀅–󰀇.

󰀂󰀀󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀄󰀈) ‘Nunc scio vere, quia misit dominus angelum suum’. Dô Pêtrus von dem gewalte des hôhen obersten gotes wart ûz dem gebende sîner gevancnisse erlediget, dô sprach er: ‘nû weiz ich wærlîche, daz mir got sînen engel hât gesant und hât mich erlôst von dem gewalte Herôdes’ und ‘von den henden der vîende’. Nû kêren wir daz wort umbe und sprechen: wan mir got sînen engel hât gesant, dâ von bekenne ich wærlîche. Pêtrus sprichet als vil als bekantnisse. Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen: bekantnisse und vernünfticheit einigent die (󰀄󰀉) | sêle in got. Vernünfticheit diu vellet in daz lûter wesen, bekantnisse diu loufet vor, si vürloufet und durchbrichet, daz dâ geborn wirt gotes einborner sun. Unser herre sprichet in Matthêô, daz ‘nieman bekennet den vater niuwan der sun’. Die meister sprechent, bekantnisse lige an glîchnisse. Ez sprechent etlîche meister, diu sêle sî gemachet von allen dingen, wan si eine mügelicheit (󰀅󰀀) | hât alliu dinc ze verstânne. Ez lûtet tôrlîche und ist doch wâr. Die meister sprechent: swaz ich bekennen sol, daz muoz mir zemâle gegenwertic sîn und glîch mîner bekantnisse. Die heiligen sprechent, daz in dem vater sî mügentheit

󰀁. Act. 󰀁󰀂:󰀁󰀁 (‘Nunc scio vere, quia misit dominus angelus suum, et eripuit me de manu Herodis, et de omni exspectatione plebis Iudaeorum’) and Ps. 󰀁󰀇:󰀁 (‘qua eripuit eum dominus de manu omnium inimicorum eius’). The context of the text is Act. 󰀁󰀂:󰀁–󰀁󰀁 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀃rb (in die apostolorum Petri et Pauli & 󰀄󰀃󰀃vb ad vincula sancti petri, Require in passione eiusdem): ‘In die (apostolorum Petri et Pauli). Lectio actuum apostolorum. In diebus illis [Eodem tempore Vg.] misit Herodes rex manus ut affligeret quosdam de ecclesia. Occidit autem Iacobum fratrem Iohannis gladio. Videns autem quia placeret Iudeis, apposuit apprehenderet et Petrum. Erant autem dies azimorum. Quem cum apprehendisset, misit in carcerem, tradens quatuor quaternionibus militum custodiendum, volens post pascha producere eum populo. Et Petrus quidem servabatur in carcere. Oratio autem fiebat sine intermissione ab ecclesia ad Deum pro eo. Cum autem producturus eum esset Herodes, in ipsa nocte erat Petrus dormiens inter duos milites, vinctus catenis duabus: et custodes ante ostium custodiebant carcerem. Et ecce angelus Domini asti(󰀄󰀃󰀃va)tit: et lumen refulsit in habitaculo: percussoque latere Petri, excitavit eum dicens: Surge velociter. Et ceciderunt catene de manibus eius. Dixit autem angelus ad eum: Precingere, et calcia te caligas tuas. Et fecit sic. Et dixit illi: Circunda tibi vestimentum tuum, et sequere me. Et exiens sequebatur eum, et nesciebat quia verum est, quod fiebat per angelum: estimabat [existimabat Vg.] autem se visum videre. Transeuntes autem primam et secundam custodiam, venerunt ad portam ferream, que ducit ad civitatem: que ultro aperta est eis. Et exeuntes processerunt vicum unum: et continuo discessit angelus ab eo. Et Petrus ad se reversus, dixit: Nunc scio vere quia misit Dominus angelum suum, et exripuit me de manu Herodis, et de omni expectatione plebis Iudeorum’. 󰀂. Certainly a reference to Hom. 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅], n. 󰀁󰀃, where Eckhart also spoke about the meaning of ‘Peter’: ‘Ez sprechent unser besten meister – der enist niht vil –, daz diu verstantnisse und

H OMILY 󰀇󰀉* [Q 󰀃]

󰀂󰀀󰀇

‘Nunc scio vere, quia misit dominus angelum suum’. When Peter was released from the snares of his captivity through the power of the high supreme God, he said: ‘Now I truly know that God sent me His angel and delivered me from the power of Herod’ and ‘from the hands of enemies’.󰀁 Now let us reverse this sentence and say: because God has sent me His angel, I truly know. ‘Peter’ means ‘knowledge’. I have already said it:󰀂 knowledge and intellect unite the soul in God. The intellect falls into pure being, knowledge precurses, it precurses and breaks through, so that the only begotten Son of God is being born there. Our Lord says in Matthew that ‘nobody knows the Father except the Son’.󰀃 The masters say that knowledge is based on likeness.󰀄 Some masters say that the soul is made of all things, because she has the potential to know all things.󰀅 It sounds wrong, and yet it is true. The masters say: what I should know must be completely present to me and be as my knowledge.󰀆 The saints say that in the Father there is potentiality, in the Son is likeness and in the Holy Spirit union.󰀇 Therefore,

diu vernünfticheit gât die rihte ûf in got. Aber diu minne kêret ûf daz si minnet; dâ nimet si, daz dâ guot ist. Aber verstantnisse diu nimet daz, dâ von ez guot ist. Honic daz ist in im selben süezer dan dehein dinc, daz man dâ von gemachen mac. Diu minne nimet got, als er guot ist; aber verstantnisse diu dringet ûf und nimet got, als er wesen ist. Dar umbe sprichet got: ‘Simôn Pêtre, sælic dû bist!’ Got gibet dem gerehten menschen ein götlich wesen und nennet in mit dem selben namen, der sînem wesene eigen ist.’ See also there the note on John of Damascus to whom Eckhart explicitly refers. 󰀃. See Matth. 󰀁󰀁:󰀂󰀇: ‘… nemo novit filium nisi pater: neque patris quis novit nisi filius’. 󰀄. See Aristoteles, De anima I 󰀂. 󰀄󰀀󰀄b󰀁󰀇, in Th. Aqu., In libr. I de anima lectio 󰀄 (Pirotta 󰀄󰀃–󰀅): ‘… cognitio fit per similitudinem rei cognitae in cognoscente; oportet enim quod res cognita aliquo modo sit in cognoscente. Antiqui vero philosophi arbitrati sunt … quod oportebat simile simili cognosci; unde si anima cognoscat omnia, oportet quod habeat similitudinem omnium in se secundum esse naturale … Empedocles dicit animam esse ex omnibus elementis et unumquodque horum dicit animam’. 󰀅. See the previous note on Empedocles. See also Aristoteles, De anima III c. 󰀈, 󰀄󰀃󰀁b󰀂󰀁: ‘omnia ea quae sunt, quodammodo est anima’. 󰀆. Liber XXIV philosophorum prop. 󰀂󰀃 in commento (Baeumker 󰀃󰀉,󰀉–󰀁󰀁): ‘Nihil enim cognoscitur ab anima, nisi cuius speciem secundum habitum recipere potest et ad exemplum eius, quod est in ipsa, comparare’. 󰀇. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀃󰀉 a. 󰀈: ‘Praeterea Augustinus sic dicit: In Patre est unitas, in Filio aequalitas, in Spiritu sancto aequalitas unitatisque concordia’; ‘item secundum Augustinum Patri attribuitur potentia’; Augustinus, De doctr. christ. I 󰀅 (PL 󰀃󰀄, 󰀂󰀁).

󰀂󰀀󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

und glîcheit in dem sune und einunge in dem heiligen geiste. Dar umbe wan der vater dem sune zemâle gegenwertic ist und der sun zemâle im glîch ist, dar umbe bekennet nieman den vater niuwan der sun. Nû sprichet Pêtrus: ‘nû bekenne ich wærlîche’. Wâ von bekennet man hie wærlîche? Daz ist dâ von, wan ez ein götlich lieht ist, daz nieman triuget. (󰀅󰀁) | Daz ander, wan man dâ blôz und lûter bekennet und unbedecket mit ihte. Dâ von sprichet Paulus: ‘got wonet in einem liehte, dâ niht zuoganges enist’. Die meister sprechent, diu wîsheit, die wir hie lernen, diu süle uns dort blîben. Sô sprichet Paulus, ‘si süle abe gân’. Ein meister sprichet: lûter bekantnisse, nochdenne in disem lîbe, daz habe sô grôzen lust an im selber, daz aller geschaffener dinge lust sî rehte als ein niht wider dem luste, daz lûter bekantnisse an im treit. Nochdenne swie edel ez sî, sô ist ez doch ein zuoval; und als kleine als ein wörtelîn ist wider al der werlt, als kleine ist alliu diu wîsheit, die wir hie lernen mügen, wider die blôzen lûtern wârheit. Dâ von sprichet Paulus, ez ‘süle abe gân’. Swie si doch blîbe, si wirt rehte ze einer tœrinne und als ob si niht ensî wider der blôzen wârheit, die man dâ bekennet. Daz dritte, war umbe man dâ wærlîche bekennet, daz ist dâ von: (󰀅󰀂) | diu dinc, diu man hie siht wandelhaftic, diu bekennet man dort unwandelbære, und man nimet sie dâ, als sie sint zemâle ungeteilet und nâhe bî ein; wan daz hie verre ist, daz ist dâ nâhe, wan alliu dinc sint dâ gegenwertic. Daz an dem êrsten und an dem jüngesten tage geschehen sol, daz ist dâ gegenwertig. ‘Nû weiz ich wærlîche, daz mir got sînen engel hât gesant.’ Swenne got sînen engel sendet ze der sêle, sô wirt si wærlîche bekennende. In unbederbe hât got sante Pêter den slüzzel niht bevolhen, wan Pêter sprichet als vil als bekantnisse; wan bekantnisse hât den slüzzel und sliuzet ûf und dringet und brichet durch und vindet got blôz und saget denne ir gespiln, dem willen, waz si besezzen habe, swie si doch den willen ê gehabet habe; wan swaz ich wil, daz suoche ich. Bekantnisse 󰀈. I Tim. 󰀆:󰀁󰀆: ‘et lucem inhabitat inaccessibilem’. 󰀉. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀈󰀉 a. 󰀅: ‘Utrum habitus scientiae hic acquisitae remaneat in anima separata’; a. 󰀆: ‘Utrum actus scientiae hic acquisitae remaneat in anima separata’. 󰀁󰀀. I Cor. 󰀁󰀃:󰀈: ‘scientia destruetur’. 󰀁󰀁. J. Quint translates: ‘in diesem Leben’ (‘in this life’). 󰀁󰀂. Aristoteles, Ethica ad Nicomachum II c. 󰀁󰀂, 󰀁󰀁󰀅󰀂b󰀂󰀄ff.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀉* [Q 󰀃]

󰀂󰀀󰀉

since the Father is completely present to the Son and the Son is completely like Him, the Father knows no one but the Son. Now Peter says: ‘Now I truly get to know’. Whereof does one really get to know here? It derives from the fact that it is a divine light that does not deceive anyone. Second: because there we know nakedly, purely and not covered by anything. Therefore, Paul says: ‘God dwells in a light, where there is no access’.󰀈 The masters say that the wisdom we learn here should be preserved to us there.󰀉 But Paul says: ‘it should vanish’.󰀁󰀀 A master says: pure knowledge, still in this body,󰀁󰀁 provides such a great pleasure in itself that the pleasure of all created things is just like nothing compared to the pleasure that pure knowledge in itself brings.󰀁󰀂 However noble as it may be, it is nevertheless an accident; and as small a word is compared to the whole world, so small is all the wisdom that we can learn here, compared to the naked, pure truth. Therefore, Paul says that it ‘should vanish’.󰀁󰀃 Even if it remained, it turns into a fool and as if it is nothing compared to the naked truth that is known there. Third: The reason why one truly knows there derives from the fact that the things that are seen here are changeable, are known there to be unchangeable, and one takes them there as being completely undivided and close to the one󰀁󰀄; because what is far away here, there it is near, because all things are present there. What is going to take place on the first and the last day is present there. ‘Now I truly know that God sent me his angel’.󰀁󰀅 When God sends his angel to the soul, she becomes a truly knowing one. God did not order the key to Saint Peter for no reason, because ‘Peter’ means ‘knowledge’,󰀁󰀆 as knowledge has the key, opens up, penetrates, breaks through and finds God nakedly and then says to His companion, the will, what it has possessed, no matter how much the will has already had: because what I want I look for. Knowledge precedes. It is

󰀁󰀃. I Cor. 󰀁󰀃:󰀈: ‘scientia destruetur’. 󰀁󰀄. J. Quint translates: ‘nahe beieinander’ (‘close to each other’). 󰀁󰀅. Act. 󰀁󰀂:󰀁󰀁: ‘Nunc scio vere, quia misit dominus angelus suum’. 󰀁󰀆. Matth. 󰀁󰀆:󰀁󰀉.

󰀂󰀁󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

gât vor. Si ist ein vürstinne und suochet hêrschaft in dem hœhsten und in dem lûtersten und teilet ez vort der sêle und diu (󰀅󰀃) | sêle vort der natûre und diu natûre allen lîplîchen sinnen. Diu sêle ist als edel an irme hœhsten und lûtersten, daz ir die meister keinen namen enkünnen (󰀅󰀄) | vinden. Sie sprechent ir sêle, dâ si dem lîbe daz wesen gibet. Nû sprechent die meister, daz nâch dem êrsten ûzbruche der gotheit, dâ der sun ûzbrichet von dem vater, dâ sî der engel aller næhest gebildet nâch gote. Ez ist wol wâr: diu sêle ist gebildet nâch gote an irme obersten teile; aber der engel ist ein næher bilde gotes. Allez daz des engels ist, daz ist gebildet nâch gote. Dar umbe wirt der engel gesant an die sêle, daz er sie wider bringe (󰀅󰀅) | an daz selbe bilde, dâ er nâch gebildet ist; wan bekantnisse kumet von glîcheit. Wan denne diu sêle hât eine mügelicheit alliu dinc ze bekennenne, dâ von geruowet si niemer, si enkome in daz êrste bilde, dâ alliu dinc ein sint, und dâ geruowet si, daz ist in gote. In gote ist enkein crêatûre edeler dan diu ander. Die meister sprechent: wesen und bekantnisse sî al ein, wan swaz niht enist, daz bekennet man ouch niht; swaz allermeist wesen hât, daz bekennet man ouch allermeist. Wan denne got ein überswenkende wesen hât, dar umbe überswenket er allem bekantnisse, als ich êgester sprach in dem jüngesten (󰀅󰀆) | sermône, daz diu sêle îngebildet wirt in die êrsten lûterkeit, in den îndruk der lûtern weselicheit, dâ si gotes gesmecket, ê er wârheit oder bekantlicheit an sich vâhe, dâ alliu nemelicheit abe geleget ist: dâ bekennet si aller lûterlîchest, dâ nimet si daz wesen in ebenmæzicheit. Dâ von sprichet Paulus: ‘got wonet in einem liehte, dâ niht zuoganges enist’. Er ist ein înhangen in sîn selbes lûter

󰀁󰀇. See (Pseudo-)Augustinus (Alcher of Clairvaux), De spiritu et anima c. 󰀉 (PL 󰀄󰀀, 󰀇󰀈󰀄): ‘Anima et spiritus idem sunt in homine, quamvis aliud notet spiritus et aliud anima’; Johann of La Rochelle, Summa de anima P. I c. II (Domenichelli 󰀁󰀀󰀆): ‘Definitur autem anima rationalis aliquando ut spiritus, aliquando ut anima…’ 󰀁󰀈. See Th. Aqu., Super libros Sententiarum I d. 󰀃 q. 󰀃 a. 󰀁 (Mandonnet 󰀁󰀀󰀉): ‘… et ideo in angelo et homine (Parm addit: tantum dicitur imago divinitatis, et in homine) secundum id quod est in ipso nobilius’; ad 󰀄 (Mandonnet 󰀁󰀁󰀀): ‘… imago Trinitatis potest attendi tripliciter. Vel quantum ad expressam repraesentationem divinorum attributorum; et sic, cum divinae bonitates copiosius effulgeant in angelo quam in homine, angelus est expressior imago Dei quam homo … Vel quantum ad distinctionem personarum; et sic expressior est similitudo in homine quam in angelo … Sed quia ista repraesentatio est quantum ad exteriora, simpliciter concedendum est quod angelus magis est ad imaginem, quam homo’; see also Albertus, In Sent. II d. 󰀂 a. 󰀁 (Borgnet 󰀂󰀇, 󰀄󰀅A): ‘… etiam Angelus non est immediate juxta Verbum nisi ordine naturae et non temporis in ordine exitus creaturarum’; see also Liber de causis, prop. 󰀂,󰀄,󰀆.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀉* [Q 󰀃]

󰀂󰀁󰀁

a princess and seeks lordship in the supreme and the purest and communicates it to the soul and the soul to nature and nature to the bodily senses. The soul is so noble in its supreme and purest [part] that the masters can not find a name for it. They call it ‘soul’ because she gives being to the body.󰀁󰀇 Now the masters say that after the first emanation of the Godhead, where the Son emanates from the Father, she is the one that is most closely formed to the angels according to God. This is very true: the soul is formed according to God in its supreme part; but the angel is a closer image of God.󰀁󰀈 All that belongs to the angel is formed according to God. Therefore, the angel is sent to the soul to bring her back to the same image according to which she󰀁󰀉 is formed; because knowledge derives from likeness. Since the soul has the potentiality to know all things, she never rests unless she comes into the first image, where all things are one, and there she rests, that is in God. In God no creature is nobler than the other. The masters say: being and knowledge are completely one, because what is not is not known; what has most being, is known to the fullest.󰀂󰀀 Because God has an exuberant being, He exudes all knowledge, as I said yesterday in my last homily,󰀂󰀁 that the soul is informed into the first purity, into the impression of pure substantiality, where she tastes God before He accepts truth or knowability in Himself, where any nameability is put aside: there she knows in a most pure way, there she takes being in harmony. Therefore, Paul says: ‘God dwells in a light, where there is no access’.󰀂󰀂 He is dwelling in His own pure being, where there is nothing added. What contains an accident must vanish. He is

󰀁󰀉. The soul. 󰀂󰀀. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀁󰀆 a. 󰀃: ‘Unumquodque autem in quantum habet de esse, in tantum est cognoscibile’; Th. Aqu., Metaph. l. 󰀂 lect. 󰀁 (Cathala n. 󰀂󰀈󰀀): ‘Cum enim unumquodque sit cognoscibile inquantum est ens actu, … illa quae habent esse deficiens et imperfectum, sunt secundum seipsa parum cognoscibilia, ut materia, motus et tempus…’ 󰀂󰀁. This is a reference to Hom. 󰀇󰀈* [Q 󰀂󰀃], n. 󰀇, even though the homilies are almost a month apart in the liturgical calender: ‘Wâ sol denne diu sêle nemen wârheit? Vindet si dâ niht wârheit, dâ si îngebildet wirt in eine einicheit, in die êrste lûterkeit, in den îndruk der lûtern weselicheit, – envindet si dâ niht wârheit? Nein, si envindet keinen begrif einer wârheit, mêr: dâ kumet wârheit nâch, dâ kumet wârheit abe.’ 󰀂󰀂. I Tim. 󰀆:󰀁󰀆: ‘et lucem inhabitat inaccessibilem’.

󰀂󰀁󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

weselicheit, dâ niht zuohangendes enist. Swaz zuoval hât, daz muoz abe. Er ist ein lûter înstân in im selber, dâ noch diz noch daz enist; wan swaz in gote ist, daz ist got. Ein heiden meister sprichet: die krefte, die under gote swebent, die hânt ein înhangen in gote, und swie sie hânt ein lûter înstân in in selber, sô hânt sie doch ein înhangen in dem, der weder begin noch ende hât; wan in got mac niht vremdes gevallen. Des habet ein bewîsunge an dem himel: der mac niht enpfâhen enkeinen vremden îndruk in vremder wîse. Alsô geschiht ez: swaz ze gote kumet, daz wirt verendert; swie snœde ez sî, bringen wir ez ze gote, ez gât sîn selbes abe. Des habet ein glîchnisse: hân ich wîsheit, diu enbin ich selber niht. Ich mac (󰀅󰀇) | wîsheit gewinnen, ich mac sie ouch verliesen. Aber swaz an gote ist, daz ist got; daz enmac im niht entvallen. Ez wirt gesast in götlîche natûre, wan götlich natûre ist sô kreftic, swaz dar în geboten wirt, daz wirt alzemâle dar în gesast oder ez blîbet alzemâle ûzen. Nû merket wunder! Sît got sô snœdiu dinc in sich verendert, waz wænet ir denne, daz er der sêle tuo, die er mit sîn selbes bilde gewirdiget hât? Daz wir diz erlangen, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

󰀂󰀃. See Acta Echardi n. 󰀄󰀈 (Mag. Echardi Responsio ad articulos sibi impositos II n. 󰀁󰀁󰀉) (LW V 󰀃󰀄󰀆,󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀂): ‘Quinquagesimus in sermone “Nunc scio vere quia misit dominus angelum suum” sic ait: “Omne quod est, hoc est deus”. Solutio. Falsum est et error. Sed verum est quod “ex [se] ipso, per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia”. Et Tob. 󰀁󰀀: “omnia in te uno habentes”. Et secundum hoc omnia citra deum contemnenda sunt et ipse amandus in omnibus et omnia in illo’.

H OMILY 󰀇󰀉* [Q 󰀃]

󰀂󰀁󰀃

a pure standing in Himself, where there is neither this nor that; because what is in God is God.󰀂󰀃 A pagan master says: the powers that hang on God depend on God, and even though they have a pure standing in themselves, they nevertheless are dependend on the one who has neither beginning nor end;󰀂󰀄 because nothing alien can fall into God. This one can prove with heaven: it can not receive any foreign impression in a foreign way.󰀂󰀅 So it happens: what comes to God is changed; however cheap it is, once we bring it to God, what it is vanishes. Take an example: if I have wisdom, it is not me. I may gain wisdom, I may also lose it. But what is in God is God; this he can not lose. It is placed in the divine nature, because the divine nature is so powerful that all that is offered in it is completely placed in there or remains completely outside. Now be surprised! Since God transforms such cheap things into Himself, what do you think He is going to do to the soul which He has honoured with the image of Himself? May God help us to attain to this. Amen.

󰀂󰀄. See Liber de causis, prop. 󰀁󰀆: ‘Omnes virtutes quibus non est finis, pendentes sunt per infinitum primum…’ 󰀂󰀅. See Albertus, Summa de creaturis I tr. III q. 󰀇 a. 󰀂 (Borgnet 󰀃󰀄,󰀃󰀉󰀉A-B).

Homily 󰀈󰀀* [Q 󰀃󰀀] In festo Sancti Dominici, die 󰀅 augusti ‘Praedica verbum, vigila, in omnibus labora’ (II Tim. 󰀄:󰀂.󰀅) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, II Tim. 󰀄:󰀂.󰀅: (‘Praedica verbum … vigila, in omnibus labora’) is read on the Feast of St. Dominicus, the founder of the Dominican order, celebrated on 󰀅 August. The text as given in the critical edition is derived from four manuscripts (Bra󰀃, G󰀁, G󰀅, M󰀂), a number of fragments, the Greith excerpts; the witnesses H󰀄, Kon, M󰀅󰀇 are not used in the critical edition of DW. In n. 󰀃 reference is perhaps made to Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀], n. 󰀁󰀀 and in n. 󰀆 to Hom. 󰀉󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀇], n. 󰀁󰀀 or Hom. 󰀄󰀁* [Q 󰀄], n. 󰀅. The content of the homily For Eckhart, the Dominican, this is a key homily, the only one that has been preserved dealing with Dominicus, the founding father of the Dominicans. And, indeed, Eckhart delivers in this text his understanding not only of what to him a saint is, but also what Dominicus and, therefore, the Dominican order stands for. And yet, Eckhart does so without mentioning the order, without mentioning the life and the achievements of Dominicus. This stands in stark contrast to the efforts within his order and while Eckhart was prior in Erfurt to re-write the life of Dominicus and to paint Dominicus in stronger ways, portraying him as a miraculous wonderworker. The colourful example is the new Vita Dominici that was commissioned by the Dominican General to Dietrich of Apolda who had worked on this commission for a number of years and brought it to fruition, while Eckhart was his prior at Erfurt. The text of this Vita has been preserved in several manuscripts, giving us both a

󰀂󰀁󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Latin version and also a vernacular translation. In a Munich manuscript of the vernacular translation of this Vita one finds an incomplete homily that has been added to the Vita and which seems to be another critical response to the Vita. It shows so many parallels to Latin and vernacular works by Eckhart that it most likely derives from Eckhart’s pen. The text will be added to the third volume of the present series where we will publish those vernacular homilies that have not found a place in the volume of the vernacular homilies De tempore or De sanctis. Eckhart opens the present homily with a quote from II Tim. 󰀄:󰀂.󰀅 (‘Praedica verbum, vigila, in omnibus labora’) (n. 󰀁), the same text with which he ends on a high his two Sermons and Lectures on Jesus Sirach.󰀁 The ‘Praedica verbum’, of course, is the motto of the Dominican order, the ‘Order of the Preachers’, but, with ‘vigilia’, is added the constant vigilance, a topic which Eckhart apparently leaves aside in this homily as he does in his Sermons and Lectures. In both these texts, however, he stresses the last element, ‘labor’, and he takes this element literally as action, work, pains and suffering in giving birth to the word that is in one’s being and needs to be pushed out from there, expressed, uttered (n. 󰀂). Clearly, as with his mention of the feast of ‘my lord Saint Dominic’, Eckhart sees in this biblical verse a summary of what Dominic stands for. Likewise, he mentions the great astonishment, even unbelieveability, that is linked to the fact that this inward word needs to be given birth outside in this world, yet remaining inside in one’s being (n. 󰀃). It is amazing that God is ‘in all things’ and most properly ‘in soul and angel’, or more precisely, ‘in the most intimate’ and ‘the most supreme’ part of the soul (n. 󰀄). This is the reason why the saints have no advantage compared to any other person. Because ‘all that God acts in all the saints, God acts in the most intimate [part] of the soul’. The Dominican brothers are not in a lower position than Saint Dominic himself, no non-Dominican worst off compared to the Dominicans. God Himself is the one who gives birth to His Son into the soul of His creatures, as Eckhart reads I Ioh. 󰀃:󰀁.

󰀁. As we will see below, there are more parallels between this text and the Sermons and Lectures on Jesus Sirach.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀀* [Q 󰀃󰀀]

󰀂󰀁󰀇

A) ‘Say the word, push it out, express it, deliver it, give birth to the word!’ (n. 󰀅). By leaving out the last ‘and’, compared to the first quotation of the central verse, the preacher is intensifying and compressing the rendering of the verse. By adding ‘Push it out!’ he even dramatisise the text, as can also be seen by the repetition of ‘Push it out!’ Eckhart adds the prophetic word from Ps. 󰀆󰀁:󰀁󰀂 (‘God said one, and I heard two’) which the reader of this collection already knows from Hom. 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃], n. 󰀇 for the feast of St. John the Baptist’s birth where he interpreted the verse, stating: ‘When God speaks in the soul, then she and He are one’. Similarly, here in this homily, he draws the conclusion that God is only speaking ‘one’, even if we as creatures in this world hear ‘two’, ‘God and creatures’. Eckhart draws the incarnational consequence that God did not only become incarnate ‘there’, in the divine realm, as ‘people believe’, but that God also has become man ‘here and there’. Apparently, Eckhart does not differentiate here between God becoming ‘Son’ and becoming ‘man’, in order to make the case that His becoming ‘man’ means that God has given birth ‘to you’, the addressee of this homily and the listener to it, are ‘His only begotten Son, and nothing less’. In the opening to his next section, Eckhart mentions a previous homily or collatio, perhaps for the vigil of the feast of Saint Dominicus, which has not come down to us yet. It centred on the text of the Lord’s Prayer, on its clause ‘Your will be!’ Eckhart summarises what seems to have been another inversion of a biblical text by reading it as ‘Be your will!’ (n. 󰀆). So, for Eckhart, this clause and the entire Lord’s Prayer has the meaning that ‘my will shall be His will, that I become Him’, indeed, an interpretation which we can read in his extensive commentary on the Lord’s Prayer that is preserved in Latin.󰀂 It is an exhortation, to ‘depart from all things’ and ‘understand what God is doing in you’. B) ‘Labor in all things!’ (n. 󰀇) This is the second element on which Eckhart draws the listeners’ and readers’ attention. His interpretation first sounds a bit odd, that one should ‘apply’ oneself ‘to all things’. As if he knew the oddity, Eckhart adds his explanation to this phrase, pointing to Augustine. According to this saint, God did not leave His creatures on their own after He had created them, but ‘He remained in 󰀂. See on this M. Vinzent, Meister Eckhart’s On the Lord’s Prayer (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂).

󰀂󰀁󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

them’, hence was the inner driver of them and also remained active with them. With this, Eckhart picks up the earlier topic of nn. 󰀃–󰀄 (the oneness of soul and God), but he now explains that having the Son alone and not the Father, or the Father alone and not the Son does not make one miss the other. Hence, whether somebody believes in one God or in Father and Son, or in the Trinity, on in God being in all things does not add or change anything. On this basis, Eckhart develops a moral ontology, the second meaning of this verse here, expressed by the great commandment to ‘love God beyond all things and your neighbour as yourself’ (n. 󰀈). The right understanding of this commandment which, according to Eckhart ‘is not difficult’, he gives by the example of nature (n. 󰀉). Nature acts with regards to the entire body, then through it by acting in each individual limb, and with regards to itself. None of this is given any preference, but all are equally valid and important. For this reason, so Eckhart, if one loves ‘blessedness in Saint Peter and Saint Paul’ just as ‘in our Lady’ as much as in oneself, one possesses ‘the same blessedness that they too have’. Hence, no saint is more saintly than anybody who follows God’s commandent. And Eckhart concludes quoting Jesus Sirach 󰀄󰀅:󰀂: ‘He has made him equal to His saints’ (n. 󰀉). The third meaning of the verse draws on the consequences that being equal to the saints also means that one should love God ‘willingly’ not only in ‘fortune’, ‘wealth’ and ‘health’, but also in ‘poverty’ and ‘sickness’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). With a reference to the Lord’s Prayer, he also mentions that one should love God as much being ‘in temptation’ as being ‘without temptation’. And, he thinks, the more one gives away, the easier it is to give away. C) ‘Labor in all things!’ (n. 󰀁󰀁) In one way a summary, in another a dramatising of this, Eckhart repeats this verse, translates it as ‘raise your head’ and gives it two meanings, first discard what is yours by handing yourself to God, and second ‘direct all your actions to God’. Detachment and elevation beyond all things is the perfection, Eckhart is praying for (n. 󰀁󰀂).

H OMILY 󰀈󰀀* [Q 󰀃󰀀]

󰀂󰀁󰀉

Editions, commentaries and notes F. Peiffer, Pr. 󰀆󰀆,󰀂󰀀󰀆–󰀉; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀆󰀀󰀇–󰀁󰀆; J. Quint, DW II 󰀉󰀀–󰀁󰀀󰀉; N. Largier I 󰀃󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀇.󰀉󰀆󰀈–󰀇󰀁. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀁󰀆󰀄–󰀆; Meister Eckhart, Selected Treatises and Sermons, J.M. Clark and J.V. Skinner (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀈), 󰀅󰀄–󰀈; R. Schürmann, Meister Eckhart (󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀈), 󰀁󰀈󰀁–󰀅; M. Fox, Breakthrough (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀), 󰀆󰀅–󰀉; Meister Eckhart, Teacher and Preacher (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇), 󰀂󰀉󰀂–󰀅; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀁󰀃󰀃–󰀆; Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings, ed. and trans. O. Davies (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀁󰀂󰀂–󰀇.

󰀂󰀂󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀉󰀃) ‘Praedica verbum, vigila, in omnibus labora’. Ein wörtelîn liset man hiute und morne von mînem herren sant Dominicus, und schrîbet daz sant Paulus in der epistel und sprichet ze tiutsche alsô: ‘sprich daz wort, sprich ez her ûz, sprich ez her vür, brinc ez her vür und gebir daz wort!’ (󰀉󰀄) | Ez ist ein wunderlich dinc, daz ein dinc ûzvliuzet und doch inneblîbet. Daz daz wort ûzvliuzet und doch inneblîbet, daz ist gar wunderlich; daz alle crêatûren ûzvliezent und doch inneblîbent, daz ist gar wunderlich; daz got gegeben hât und daz got gelobet hât ze gebenne, daz ist gar wunderlich und ist unbegrîfelich und unglouplich. Und dem ist reht; wan wære ez begrîfelich und wære ez glouplich, sô enwære ez niht reht. Got ist in allen dingen. Ie mê er ist in den dingen, ie mê er ist ûz den dingen: ie mê inne, ie mê ûze, und ie mê ûze, ie mê inne. Ich hân ez etwenne mê gesprochen, daz got alle dise werlt schepfet nû alzemâle. Allez, daz got ie geschuof vor sehs tûsent jâren und mê, dô got die werlt machete, die schepfet got nû alzemâle. Got ist in (󰀉󰀅) | allen dingen, aber als got götlich ist und als got vernünftic ist, alsô ist got niendert als eigenlîche als in der sêle und

󰀃. II Tim. 󰀄:󰀂.󰀅 (‘Praedica verbum … vigila, in omnibus labora’). The context of the text is II Tim. 󰀄:󰀁–󰀈 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀃vb: ‘In festo Sancti Dominici. Epistula ad Tymotheum. Karissime: testificor coram Deo, et Christo Ihesu [Ihesu Christo Vg.], qui iudicaturus est vivos, et mortuos, per adventum ipsius, et regnum eius: predica verbum, insta oportune, importune: argue, obsecra, increpa in omni patientia, et doctrina. Erit enim tempus, cum sanam doctrinam non sustinebunt, sed ad sua desideria coacervabunt sibi magistros, prurientes auribus, et a veritate quidem auditum avertent, ad fabulas autem convertentur. Tu vero vigila, in omnibus labora, opus fac evangeliste, ministerium tuum imple. Sobrius esto. Ego enim iam delibor, et tempus mee resolutionis [resolutionis mee Vg.] instat. Bonum certamen certavi, cursum consummavi, fidem servavi. In reliquo reposita est michi corona iustitie, quam reddet michi Dominus in illa die iustus iudex: non solum autem michi, sed et his [iis Vg.], qui diligunt adventum eius’. The semantic breadth of this verse as here, Eckhart discusses in his Sermons and Lectures on Jesus Sirach, In Eccli. n. 󰀆󰀉 (LW II 󰀂󰀉󰀈,󰀇–󰀂󰀉󰀉,󰀃): ‘Notandum etiam in exemplo quod fetus prius in utero concipitur et formatur … In nativitate vero, dum nascitur ex utero, datur luci et manifestatur per id quod factum est extra. Quod tamen factum extra iam intus vita erat, sed latens … Sic etiam verbum omne prius formatur intus in anima quam producatur et manifestetur per loquelam extra. Unde apostolus Timotheo scribit: “Praedica verbum”. “Praedica” quasi praedic, id est prius intus dic; vel ‘praedica’, id est prodic vel produc extra, ut “luceat coram hominibus”’ (‘Yet again observe

H OMILY 󰀈󰀀* [Q 󰀃󰀀]

󰀂󰀂󰀁

‘Praedica verbum, vigila, in omnibus labora’. A sentence is being read today and tomorrow about my lord Saint Dominic, which Saint Paul writes in the Epistle which translates into German as follows: ‘Say the word, push it out, express it, deliver it and give birth to the word!’󰀃 It is an astonishing thing that a thing emanates and yet remains immanent. That the word emanates and yet remains immanent, is quite astonishing; that all creatures emanate and yet remain immanent, is quite astonishing; what God has given and what God has promised to give is very amazing and is incomprehensible and unbelievable. And that is right; because if it were understandable and if it were credible, it would not be right. God is in all things. The more He is in things, the more He is outside of things: the more inside, the more outside, and the more outside, the more inside.󰀄 I have sometimes said󰀅 that God creates this whole world entirely in a now. All that God ever created more than six thousand years ago, when God made the world, God created entirely in a now. God is in all things, but as God is divine and as God is intellectual, God is nowhere as properly as in the soul and in an angel, if you

for example that a foetus is first conceived and formed in the womb … However, at birth as long as it is born from the uterus it is given to the light and revealed through it insofar as it is fashioned outside. Yet, whatever happened outside was already a life inside, but hidden. Hence it is that they who observe the stars, not knowing the hour of conception determine the hour of birth by which the infant is given birth and exposed to the light and to the appearance of a planet. “You”, it is said, “are the light of the world”, and it follows “let your light shine before men”. Likewise, in such a way [it is with] every word first formed within the soul which is revealed and made known through speech outside. Wherefore the apostle Timothy writes: “preach the word”. “Preach” as it were say beforehand, that is say [it] first within; or “preach” that is come forth or reveal outside, so that “it shines before men”; trans. of In Eccli. by Patricia Impey). 󰀄. See Eckhart, In Eccli. n. 󰀅󰀄 (LW II 󰀂󰀈󰀂,󰀁󰀃–󰀂󰀈󰀃,󰀃): ‘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’ (‘God is intimate to all things as being, and thus every being eats Him; and He is outside because He is above all things and so outside all things. Therefore, all things eat Him because He is intimate, they are hungry because He is outside; they eat because He is totally within, they hunger because He is totally outside. Thus the whole soul is in the hand and the whole [soul is] outside’).

󰀂󰀂󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

in dem engel, ob dû wilt, in dem innigesten der sêle und in dem hœhsten der sêle. Und swenne ich spriche ‘daz innigeste’, sô meine ich daz hœhste, und swenne ich spriche ‘daz hœhste’, sô meine ich daz innigeste der sêle. In dem innigesten und in dem hœhsten der sêle, dâ meine ich sie beide in einem. Dâ nie (󰀉󰀆) | zît în enkam, dâ nie bilde îngeliuhtete, in dem innigesten und in dem hœhsten der sêle schepfet got alle dise werlt. Allez, daz got geschuof vor sehs tûsent jâren, dô er die werlt machete, und allez, daz got noch geschaffen sol über tûsent jâr, ob diu werlt sô lange bestât, daz schepfet got in dem innigesten und in dem hœhsten der sêle. Allez, daz vergangen ist, und allez, daz gegenwertic ist, und allez, daz künftic ist, daz schepfet got in dem innigesten der sêle. Allez, daz got würket in allen heiligen, daz würket got in dem innigesten der sêle. Der vater gebirt sînen sun in dem innigesten der sêle und gebirt dich mit sînem eingebornen sune, niht minner. Sol ich sun sîn, sô muoz ich in dem selben wesene sun sîn, dâ er sun inne ist, und in keinem andern. Sol ich ein (󰀉󰀇) | mensche sîn, sô enmac ich in eines tieres wesene niht ein mensche gesîn, ich muoz in eines menschen wesene ein mensche sîn. Sol ich aber dirre mensche sîn, sô muoz ich in disem wesene dirre mensche sîn. Nû sprichet sant Johannes: ‘ir sît kint gotes’. ‘Sprich daz wort, sprich ez her ûz, sprich ez her vür, brinc ez her vür, gebir daz wort!’ ‘Sprich ez her ûz!’ Daz von ûzen în wirt gesprochen, daz ist ein grop dinc; ez ist inne gesprochen. ‘Sprich ez her ûz!’, daz ist: bevint, daz diz in dir ist. Der prophête sprichet: ‘got sprach einez, und ich hôrte zwei’. Daz ist wâr: got ensprach nie dan einez. Sîn spruch enist niht dan einez. In dem éinen spruche sprichet er sînen sun und den heiligen geist mite und alle crêatûren und enist niht dan éin spruch in gote. Aber der prophête sprichet: ‘ich hôrte zwei’, daz ist: ich verstuont got und crêatûren. Dâ ez got sprichet, dâ ist ez got; aber hie ist ez crêatûre. Die liute wænent, daz got aleine dort mensche sî worden. Des enist niht, wan got ist hie als wol mensche 󰀅. Perhaps a reference to Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀], n. 󰀁󰀀: ‘Got schepfet die werlt und alliu dinc in einem gegenwertigen nû; und diu zît, diu dâ vergangen ist vor tûsent jâren, diu ist gote iezuo als gegenwertic und als nâhe als diu zît, diu iezuo ist’. 󰀆. I Ioh. 󰀃:󰀁: ‘ut filii Dei nominemur et simus’. 󰀇. Here we have the limitation of the English language in seeking to imitate Eckhart’s interpretation which plays on ‘sprich ez her ûz’, literally: ‘speak it out’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀀* [Q 󰀃󰀀]

󰀂󰀂󰀃

want, in the very intimate [part] of the soul and in the supreme [part] of the soul. And when I say ‘the most intimate [part]’, I mean the supreme [part], and when I say ‘the supreme [part]’, I mean the most intimate [part] of the soul. By the most intimate and the supreme of the soul, I mean both in one. Where never time entered, where never the image shone, in the most intimate and in the supreme [part] of the soul, God creates this entire world. All that God created six thousand years ago, when he made the world, and all that God will have to create over a thousand years, if the world remains for so long, God creates it in the most intimate and the supreme [part] of the soul. All that has passed and all that is present, and all that is future, God creates it in the most intimate [part] of the soul. All that God acts in all the saints, God acts in the most intimate [part] of the soul. The Father gives birth to His Son in the most intimate [part] of the soul and gives birth to you together with His only begotten Son, nothing less. If I must be a son, I must be son in the same being where He is a Son inside, and in no other. If I must be a person, I can not be a person in the being of an animal, I must be a person in the being of a man. But if I must be this particular person, I must be this particular person in this being. Now, St. John says: ‘You are the Son of God’.󰀆 ‘Say the word, push it out, express it, deliver it, give birth to the word!’ ‘Push it out!’󰀇 What is said inside from outside is a gross thing; but it is said inside. ‘Push it out!’, this means: feel that this is in you. The Prophet says: ‘God said one, and I heard two’.󰀈 This is true: God never said anything but one. His speaking is but one. In this one speaking, He speaks His Son together with the Holy Spirit and all creatures and, yet it is nothing but one speaking in God. But the Prophet says: ‘I heard two’, which means: I understand God and creatures. Where God speaks it󰀉, it is God; but here󰀁󰀀 it is creature. People believe that only there God has become man. This is not so, because here as well as there God has become man, and, therefore, He has

󰀈. Ps. 󰀆󰀁:󰀁󰀂: ‘Semel locutus est Deus, duo haec audivi’. 󰀉. I.e. the creatures. 󰀁󰀀. J. Quint rightly interprets here = in space and time.

󰀂󰀂󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

worden als dort, und dar umbe ist er mensche worden, daz er dich geber sînen eingebornen sun und niht minner. (󰀉󰀉) | Ich saz gester an einer stat, dô sprach ich ein wörtelîn, daz stât in dem pater noster und sprichet: ‘dîn wille der werde!’ Mêr: ez wære bezzer: ‘werde wille dîn!’; daz mîn wille sîn wille werde, daz ich er werde: daz meinet daz pater noster. Daz (󰀁󰀀󰀀) | wort hât zwêne sinne. Der eine ist: slâf von allen dingen!, daz ist, daz dû noch umbe zît noch umbe crêatûren noch umbe bilde niht enwizzest – die meister sprechent: ein mensche, der rehte sliefe, sliefe er hundert jâr, er enweste umbe keine crêatûre, er enweste noch umbe zît noch umbe bilde –, und danne maht dû vernemen, waz got in dir würket. Dar umbe sprichet diu sêle in der minne buoche: ‘ich slâfe, und mîn herze wachet’. Dar umbe: slâfent alle crêatûren in dir, sô maht dû vernemen, waz got in dir würket. Daz wort: ‘arbeite in allen dingen!’, daz hât drîe sinne in im. Ez sprichet als vil als: schaf dînen vrumen in allen dingen!, daz ist: nim got in allen dingen!, wan got (󰀁󰀀󰀁) | ist in allen dingen. Sant Augustînus sprichet: ‘got hât alliu dinc geschaffen, niht daz er sie lieze gewerden und gienge er sînen wec, mêr: er ist in in bliben’. Die liute wænent, daz sie mê haben, sô sie diu dinc hânt mit gote, dan ob sie got hæten âne diu dinc. Aber dem ist unreht, wan alliu dinc mit gote enist niht mê dan got aleine; und swer des wânde, der den sun hæte und den vater mit im, daz er mê hæte, dan ob er den sun hæte âne den vater, dem wære unreht. Wan der vater mit dem sune enist niht mê dan der sun aleine, noch der sun mit dem vater enist niht mê dan der vater aleine. Dar umbe sô nim got in allen dingen, und daz ist ein zeichen, daz er dich geborn hât sînen eingebornen sun und niht minner.

󰀁󰀁. This could be a reference to Hom. 󰀉󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀇], n. 󰀁󰀀: ‘Ich gedâhte nû, dô ich mîn pater noster bette, daz uns got selbe lêrte: dâ wir sprechen: “zuo kome uns dîn rîche, dîn wille werde!”, dâ biten wir allez got, daz er uns selben uns beneme’; or Hom. 󰀄󰀁* [Q 󰀄], n. 󰀅: ‘Ich pflige dicke ein wörtelîn ze sprechenne und ist ouch wâr: wir ruofen alle tage und schrîen in dem Pater noster: “herre, dîn wille werde!” Sô denne sîn wille wirt, sô wellen wir zürnen und genüeget uns niht an sînem willen’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀀* [Q 󰀃󰀀]

󰀂󰀂󰀅

become man, so as to give birth to you as His only begotten Son, and nothing less. I sat in a place yesterday,󰀁󰀁 where I said a sentence that is written in the Our Father and reads: ‘Your will be!’ Rather: it would be better: ‘… be Your will!’; that my will shall be His will, that I become Him: this means the Our Father. This sentence has two meanings. One is: depart from all things, meaning that you know neither time nor creatures nor images – the masters say:󰀁󰀂 if a person, who really is asleep, slept for a hundred years, he would neither know of any creature, nor would he know of time and images – and then you can understand what God is doing in you. Therefore the soul says in the Book of Love: ‘I sleep, and my heart watches’.󰀁󰀃 Therefore: if all creatures sleep in you, you can understand what God is doing in you. The phrase: ‘labour in all things!’ carries three meanings. It means just as much as: apply yourself to all things!, which means, take God in all things!, because God is in all things. Saint Augustine says: ‘God created all things, not that He let them get on and went His way, but rather: He remained in them’.󰀁󰀄 People believe they have more, if they have things together with God, rather than if they have God without things. But this is wrong, because all things together with God are nothing more than God alone; and whoever believes that having the Son together with the Father, would have more than if he had the Son without the Father, would be wrong. Because the Father together with the Son is nothing more than the Son alone, nor is the Son together with the Father anything more than the Father alone. Therefore take God in all things, and this is a sign that He has given birth to you as His only begotten Son, and nothing less.

󰀁󰀂. Unidentified. 󰀁󰀃. Cant. 󰀅:󰀂: ‘ego dormio et cor meum vigilat’. 󰀁󰀄. See Augustinus, Confessiones IV c. 󰀁󰀂 n. 󰀁󰀈 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀄󰀉,󰀆–󰀇): ‘non enim fecit atque abiit, sed ex illo in illo sunt’; see Eckhart, In Eccli. n. 󰀄󰀉 (LW II 󰀂󰀇󰀈,󰀂–󰀃): ‘Augustinus IV Confessionum c. 󰀁󰀀 sic ait: fecit deus omnia. “Non fecit atque abiit, sed ex illo in illo sunt”’.

󰀂󰀂󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Der ander sin ist: schaf dînen vrumen in allen dingen!, daz ist: ‘minne got obe (󰀁󰀀󰀂) | allen dingen und dînen næhsten als dich selben!’, und daz ist ein gebot von gote. Ich spriche aber, daz ez niht aleine ein gebot sî, mêr: ez ist ouch, daz got gegeben hât und daz got gelobet hât ze gebenne. Und minnest dû hundert mark mê in dir dan in einem andern, dem ist unreht. Hâst dû einen menschen lieber dan den andern, dem ist unreht; und hâst dû dînen vater und dîne muoter und dich selben lieber dan einen andern menschen, im ist unreht; und hâst dû die sælicheit lieber in dir dan in einem andern, im ist unreht. ‘Got segen! Waz saget ir? Sol ich die sælicheit niht in mir lieber haben dan in einem andern?’ Ez ist vil gelêrter liute, die diz niht enbegrîfent, (󰀁󰀀󰀃) | und dünket sie gar swære; aber ez enist niht swære, ez ist gar lîhte. Ich wil dir wîsen, daz ez niht swære enist. Sehet, diu natûre hât , daz ein ieglich glit dâ würket an dem menschen. Diu êrste meinunge, die ez meinet in sînen werken, daz ist, daz ez dem lîchamen zemâle diene und dar nâch einem ieglîchen glide sunderlîche als im selben und niht minner dan im selben noch enmeinet sich selben niht mê in sînen werken dan ein ander glit. Vil mê sol ez von gnâden sîn. Got sol ein regel und ein (󰀁󰀀󰀄) | fundament sîn dîner minne. Diu êrste meinunge dîner minne sol blôz sîn an got und dar nâch an dînen næhsten als dich selben und niht minner dan dich selben. Und minnest dû die sælicheit mê in dir dan in einem andern, im ist unreht; wan, minnest dû die sælicheit mê in dir dan in einem andern, sô minnest dû dich selben; wâ dû dich minnest, dâ enist got niht dîn minne blôz, und dem ist danne unreht. Wan, hâst dû die sælicheit in sant Pêter und in sant Paulô als liep als in dir selben, dû besitzest (󰀁󰀀󰀅) | die selben sælicheit, die ouch sie hânt. Und hâst dû die sælicheit in den engeln als liep als in dir und hâst dû die sælicheit in unser vrouwen als liep als in dir, dû gebrûchest der selben sælicheit als si selbe eigenlîche: si ist dîn als eigen als ir. Dar umbe sprichet man in der wîsheit buoche: ‘er hât in glîch gemachet sînen heiligen’. Der dritte sin: schaf dînen vrumen in allen (󰀁󰀀󰀆) | dingen!, daz ist: minne got in allen dingen glîche!, daz ist: minne got als gerne

󰀁󰀅. Luc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀂󰀇: ‘Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, et ex tota anima tua, et ex omnibus viribus tuis, et ex omni mente tua: et proximum tuum sicut teipsum’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀀* [Q 󰀃󰀀]

󰀂󰀂󰀇

The second meaning is: apply yourself to all things! which means, ‘love God beyond all things and your neighbour as yourself’, and this is a commandment of God.󰀁󰀅 But I say that it is not only a commandment, but rather: that God has given it and that God has promised to give [it]. And if you love a hundred marks more with you than with another, this is wrong: If you love somebody more than another, this is wrong; and if you love your father and your mother and yourself more than another person, this is wrong; and if you love the blessedness in you more than in somebody else, this is wrong. ‘God bless! What are you saying? Should I not prefer the blessedness in me than in somebody else?’ There are many learned people who do not understand this, and it seems very difficult for them; but it is not difficult, it is very easy. I will show you that it is not difficult. Look, nature has according to which each limb acts in a person. The first intention that it intends by its act is to serve the entire body, and then each member individually just as itself, and not less than itself, nor does it intend itself more in its acting than anyone limb. Much more will this be in the case of grace. God must be a rule and a foundation of your love. The first intention of your love must be nakedly addressed to God and then to your neighbour as to yourself and not less than to yourself. And if you love the blessedness more in you than in another person, it is wrong; because if you love blessedness more in you than in another person, you love yourself; where you love yourself, there God is not your sole love, and this then is wrong. For if you love blessedness in Saint Peter and Saint Paul as much as in yourself, you possess the same blessedness that they too have. And if you love blessedness in the angels as much as in you and if you love the blessedness in our Lady as in you, you will properly enjoy the same blessedness as she does: it is as much your own as it is hers. Therefore it is said in the Book of Wisdom: ‘He has made him equal to His saints’.󰀁󰀆 The third meaning: apply yourself to all things!, which means, love God likewise in all things!, that is, love God willingly in

󰀁󰀆. Eccli. 󰀄󰀅:󰀂: ‘Similem illum fecit in gloria sanctorum’.

󰀂󰀂󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

in armuot als in rîchtuome und habe in als liep in siechtuome als in gesuntheit; habe in als liep in bekorunge als âne bekorunge und als liep in lîdenne als âne lîden! Jâ, ie grœzer lîden, ie ringer lîden, als zwêne eimer: ie swærer einer, ie ringer der ander, und ie mê der mensche begibet, ie lîhter ist im ze begebenne. Ein mensche, daz got minnet, dem wære als lîhte, alle dise werlt ze begebenne als ein ei. Ie mê er begibet, ie lîhter ist im ze begebenne, als die aposteln: sô sie ie swærer lîden hâten, ie lîhter sie ez liten. (󰀁󰀀󰀇) | ‘Arbeite in allen dingen!’, daz ist: swâ dû dich vindest ûf manicvaltigen dingen und anders dan ûf einem blôzen, lûtern, einvaltigen wesene, daz lâz dir ein arbeit sîn; daz ist: ‘arbeite in allen dingen’ ‘vüllende dînen dienst!’ Daz sprichet als vil als: hebe ûf dîn houbet! Daz hât zwêne sinne. Der êrste ist: lege abe allez, daz dîn (󰀁󰀀󰀈) | ist, und eigene dich gote, sô wirt got dîn eigen, als er sîn selbes eigen ist, und er ist dir got, als er im selben got ist, und niht minner. Waz mîn ist, daz hân ich von niemanne. Hân ich ez aber von einem andern, sô enist ez niht mîn, sô ist ez jenes, von dem ich ez hân. Der ander sin ist: hebe ûf dîn houbet!, daz ist: rihte alliu dîniu werk in got! Ez ist vil liute, die diz niht enbegrîfent, und bedünket mich niht unbillich; (󰀁󰀀󰀉) | wan der mensche, der diz begrîfen sol, der muoz sêre abegescheiden sîn und erhaben über alliu dinc. Daz wir komen ze dirre volkomenheit, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀀* [Q 󰀃󰀀]

󰀂󰀂󰀉

poverty as well as in wealth and like Him in sickness as much as in health; like Him in temptation as much as without temptation and in suffering as much as without suffering! Yes, the greater the suffering, the less the suffering, like two buckets: the heavier one, the lighter the other, and the more the person gives away, the easier it is for him to give away. To a person who loves God it would be as easy to give away this whole world as much as an egg. The more he gives away, the easier it is for him to give away, like with the Apostles: the heavier they had to suffer, the more easily they endured it. ‘Labor in all things!’ which means: where you find yourself in many things and otherwise than in a naked, pure, simple being, let this be a labor for you; which means: ‘Labor in all things’ ‘fulfil your service’.󰀁󰀇 This means as much as: Raise your head! This has two meanings. The first is: discard everything that is yours and hand yourself over to God, so that God holds you as His own,󰀁󰀈 as He holds Himself, and He is God to you, as He is God to Himself, and nothing less. What is mine I do not have it from anybody else. But if I had it from somebody else, it were not mine, but it belonged to the one whom I have got it from. The second sense is: raise your head!, which means: direct all your actions towards God! There are many people who do not understand this, but I do not think this is indecent; because the person who is supposed to understand this, must be very detached and be elevated beyond all things. That we come to this perfection, may God help us. Amen.

󰀁󰀇. II Tim. 󰀄:󰀅: ‘ministerium tuum imple’. 󰀁󰀈. Another wordplay by Eckhart of ‘eigene dich gote, sô wirt got dîn eigen’ which one can hardly imitate in English.

Homily 󰀈󰀁* [Q 󰀆󰀀] In die assumptionis beatae Mariae, 󰀁󰀅 augusti ‘In omnibus requiem quaesivi’ (Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁) Introduction

H

ere follow five homilies on the feast of the Assumption of Mary, celebrated on 󰀁󰀅 August. The core passage to which Eckhart refers in the first homily is taken from Jesus Sirach (Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁). The text as given in the critical edition is derived from ten manuscripts (B󰀆, B󰀇, B󰀈, B󰀁󰀂, E󰀁, K󰀂, M󰀁, N󰀂, Sa [twice], St󰀁 [twice]), the two manuscripts of the Paradisus anime intelligentis (O, H󰀂), the print in BT and a number of fragments. The witnesses S󰀃 and the print HT are not used in the critical edition of DW. In n. 󰀆 we find a reference to Hom. 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁], n. 󰀃, and the homily shows a proximity to Eckhart’s Commentary on John.

The content of the homily The entire homily centres on ‘seeking a repose’, taken from the core verse Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁. Given in Latin (n. 󰀁) Eckhart translates the verse with additional verses from its context in the passage (n. 󰀂). On the latter, however, Eckhart, does not return. Then, the preacher develops four answers to questions which he rhetorically introduces (n. 󰀃): 󰀁) What were the intentions of the creator? (n. 󰀄) 󰀂) What of the Trinity? (n. 󰀅) 󰀃) What of the soul? (nn. 󰀆–󰀁󰀂) 󰀄) What of all creatures? (n. 󰀁󰀃) Interestingly, there is no mention in this homily about Mary and her Assumption, and yet, the topic of the Assumption is being developed

H OMILY 󰀈󰀁* [Q 󰀆󰀀]

󰀂󰀃󰀁

by unfolding the four questions regarding the intention of the creator, the Trinity, the soul and all creatures – they have the one and same intention, namely to seek the repose where there is a ‘cooeing’ of God and soul (n. 󰀂). Mary’s goal is, therefore, no different from that of anybody else, including the creator, to be in unity with one’s ‘other’ self. Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀄󰀅,󰀁󰀅󰀂–󰀄; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀄󰀄󰀁–󰀆󰀂; J. Quint, DW III 󰀃–󰀂󰀉; N. Largier I 󰀆󰀃󰀆–󰀄󰀃. 󰀁󰀀󰀈󰀇–󰀉󰀁; B. Morgan, LE IV 󰀆󰀃–󰀉󰀄. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀁󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀁; M. Fox, Breakthrough (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀), 󰀃󰀈󰀀–󰀃; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀂󰀄󰀆–󰀉.

󰀂󰀃󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀁󰀁) ‘In omnibus requiem quaesivi’. Disiu wort stânt geschriben in dem buoche der wîsheit. Diu wellen wir ze disem mâle diuten, als diu êwige wîsheit kôset mit der sêle und sprichet: ‘ich hân ruowe gesuochet in allen dingen’, und sprichet diu sêle wider: ‘der mich geschaffen hât, der hât geruowet in mînem gezelte’. Ze dem dritten mâle sprichet diu êwige wîsheit: ‘an der geheiligeten stat ist mîn ruowe’. Vrâgete man mich, daz ich endelîche berihten sölte, waz der schepfer gemeinet hæte, (󰀁󰀂) | daz er alle crêatûren geschaffen hæte, ich spræche: ‘ruowe’. Vrâgete man mich ze dem andern mâle, waz diu heilige drîvalticheit suochte zemâle an allen irn werken, ich spræche: ‘ruowe’. Vrâgete man mich ze dem dritten mâle, waz diu sêle suochte an allen irn bewegungen, ich spræche: ‘ruowe’. Vrâgete man mich ze dem vierden mâle, waz alle crêatûren suochten an irn natiurlîchen begerungen und bewegungen, ich spræche: ‘ruowe’. (󰀁󰀃) | Ze dem êrsten mâle suln wir merken und prüeven, wie daz götlîche antlütze götlîcher natûre machet unsinnic und tobic aller der sêle begerunge nâch im, daz er sie ze im ziehe. Wan gote smacket sô wol und ist im sô behegelich götlîchiu natûre, daz ist ruowe, daz er sie ûz im entworfen hât ze reizenne und ze im ze ziehenne aller crêatûren natiurlîche begerunge. Niht aleine suochet der schepfer sîne eigene ruowe, daz er sie ûz im entworfen hât und gebildet an allen crêatûren, sunder, daz er alle crêatûren mit im ziehe wider in (󰀁󰀄) | irn êrsten ursprunc, daz ist: ruowe. Und ouch minnet got sich selben an allen crêatûren. Alsô als er sîn selbes minne suochet an allen crêatûren, alsô suochet er ouch sîn selbes ruowe.

󰀁. Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁 (‘et in his omnibus requiem quaesivi…’). The context of the text is Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁–󰀂󰀀 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀃vb: ‘In die (assumptionis beatae Mariae). Lectio libri Sapientie. In [Et in his Vg.] omnibus requiem quesivi, et in hereditate Domini morabor. Tunc precepit, et dixit (󰀄󰀃󰀄ra) michi creator omnium: et qui creavit me, requievit in tabernaculo meo, et dixit michi: In Iacob inhabita, et in Israel hereditare, et in electis meis mitte radices. (add. Vg.: Ab initio, et ante secula, creata sum, et usque ad futurum seculum non desinam, et in habitatione sancta coram ipso ministravi) Et sic in Syon firmata sum, et in civitate sanctificata similiter requievi, et in Iherusalem potestas mea. Et radicavi in populo honorificato, et in partes Dei mei hereditas illius, et in plenitudine sanctorum detentio mea. Quasi cedrus exaltata sum in Libano, et quasi cypressus in monte Syon: quasi palma exaltata sum in Cades, et quasi plantatio rose in Iherico:

H OMILY 󰀈󰀁* [Q 󰀆󰀀]

󰀂󰀃󰀃

‘In omnibus requiem quaesivi’.󰀁 These words are written in the Book of Wisdom.󰀂 This time, we want to explain it as the eternal wisdom which is cooeing with the soul and says: ‘I have sought a repose in all things’.󰀃 And the soul answers: ‘He who created me has rested in my tent’.󰀄 In the third place eternal wisdom says: ‘My repose is in the sanctified city’.󰀅 If one asked me to finally explain what the creator intended in having created all creatures, I would say: ‘A repose’. If one asked me a second time what the Holy Trinity entirely seeks in all its actions, I would say: ‘A repose’. If one asked me for the third time what the soul seeks in all its movements, I would say: ‘A repose’. If one asked me for the fourth time what all creatures seek in their natural desires and movements, I would say: ‘A repose’. First, we must note and examine how the divine face󰀆 of the divine nature makes every soul’s desire of Him to draw her towards Him foolish and mad. God tastes the divine nature, i.e. ‘a repose’, so well and it is so pleasant, that He has thrown it outside of Himself to stimulate and to draw to Himself the natural desires of all creatures. The creator seeks not only His own ‘repose’, thus, has put it outside of Himself and formed it in all creatures, but He draws all creatures with Him back into their first origin, this is ‘the repose’. Moreover, God loves Himself in all creatures. As He seeks the love of Himself in all creatures, so He also seeks his own ‘repose’.

quasi oliva speciosa in campis, et quasi platanus exaltata sum iuxta aquam in plateis. Sicut cinamomum, et balsamum aromatizans odorem dedi: quasi mirra electa dedi suavitatem odoris’. 󰀂. As in the previous homilies, Hom. 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃], n. 󰀂 and Hom. 󰀈󰀀* [Q 󰀃󰀀], n. 󰀉 here too Eckhart calls Jesus Sirach the Book of Wisdom. As other places show (see the Index Biblicus) Eckhart often seems to mix up the biblical books Jesus Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Qohelet (Ecclesiastes), and the Book of Wisdom (Sapientia) when quoting from one of them. 󰀃. Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁: ‘in his omnibus requiem quaesivi’. 󰀄. Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀂: ‘et qui creavit me, requievit in tabernaculo meo’. 󰀅. Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀅: ‘et in civitate sanctificata similiter requievi’.

󰀂󰀃󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Ze dem andern mâle suochet diu heilige drîvalticheit ruowe. Der vater suochet ruowe an sînem sune, daz er alle crêatûren an im entgozzen und gebildet hât, und sie beide suochent ruowe an dem heiligen geiste, daz er von in beiden ûzgegangen ist als ein êwigiu unmæzigiu minne. Ze dem dritten mâle suochet diu sêle ruowe an allen irn kreften und bewegungen, der mensche wizze ez oder enwizze ez niht. Er engetuot niemer ouge ûf noch zuo, er (󰀁󰀅) | ensuoche ruowe dar ane: entweder er wil etwaz von im werfen, daz in hindert, oder er (󰀁󰀆) | wil etwaz ze im ziehen, dar ûf er ruowet. Durch disiu zwei dinc sô tuot der mensche alliu sîniu werk. Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen, daz der mensche niemer ze keiner crêatûre liebe noch wollust enmöhte gehaben, gotes glîchnisse enwære dar ane. Swaz ich liep hân, daz ist, dâ ich gotes glîchnisse allermeist ane bekenne, und niht enist gote sô glîch an allen crêatûren als ruowe. Ze dem dritten mâle suln wir prüeven, wie diu sêle sol sîn, in der got ruowet. Si sol sîn reine. Wâ von wirt diu sêle reine? – Daz si sich heltet ze geistlîchen (󰀁󰀇) | dingen, dâ von wirt si erhaben; und sô si ie hœher erhaben wirt, sô si ie lûterer wirt an ir andâht; und sô si ie lûterer wirt an ir andâht, sô si ie kreftiger wirt an irn werken. Ein meister sprichet von den sternen: sô sie dem ertrîche ie næher schînent, sô sie ie minner sint an irn werken; sô ensint sie in irm rehten zirkel niht. Swenne sie in irn rehten zirkel koment, sô stânt sie allerhœhste; sô enmac man sie ûf dem ertrîche niht gesehen; (󰀁󰀈) | sô sint iriu werk ûf dem ertrîche allerkreftigest.

󰀆. See Ps. 󰀇:󰀄: ‘lumen vultus tui’; Ps. 󰀃󰀃:󰀁󰀇: ‘vultus Domini’; Ps. 󰀄󰀃:󰀄: ‘illuminatio vultus tui’. 󰀇. The reference points to Hom. 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁], n. 󰀃: ‘Wir enminnen niht mê dan als vil, als wir got vinden in dem, daz wir minnen’. Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀁* [Q 󰀅󰀈], n. 󰀄 seems to point to the same place: ‘Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen und ist gewis und ein wâriu rede: ob ein mensche ze tôde hungeric wære, und büte man im die besten spîse, er stürbe ê hungers, ê er ir iemer gesmeckte oder enbizze, gotes glîchnisse enwære dar ane. Und ob der mensche ze tôde vrostic wære, swaz kleider man im büte, er enmöhte niemer hant dar ane gelegen noch an sich geziehen, gotes glîchnisse enwære denne dar ane’. One can also compare Hom. 󰀁󰀇* [S 󰀉󰀁], n. 󰀆: ‘Dar umbe hât sich got geteilet, der einvaltic ist, an alle crêatûren, daz diu sêle an keinem wege sich kêren enmac von gote an die crêatûren, si envinde gotes glîchnisse dar ane’. 󰀈. See Eckhart, In Ioh. n. 󰀃󰀁󰀉 (LW III 󰀂󰀆󰀆,󰀈–󰀁󰀁): ‘Augustinus II De trinitate c.󰀁󰀇 dicit animam rationalem “tanto mundiorem, quanto ad spiritualia resurgentem; tanto autem ad spiritualia resurgentem, quanta a carnalibus” sive terrenis “morientem”’; see Augustinus, De Trinitate II c. 󰀁󰀇 n. 󰀂󰀈

H OMILY 󰀈󰀁* [Q 󰀆󰀀]

󰀂󰀃󰀅

Second, the Holy Trinity seeks ‘a repose’. The Father seeks ‘a repose’ in His Son, casting and imagining all creatures in Him, and both seek ‘a repose’ in the Holy Spirit, so that He went forth from both as an eternal immeasurable love. Third, the soul seeks ‘a repose’ with all her powers and movements, whether or not a person knows it. He does not even open or close the eye, if not seeking in this ‘a repose’: either he wants to discard from himself something that hinders him, or he wants to draw something towards himself on which he rests. For these two things a person performs all his actions. I have already said it,󰀇 that a person could never have pleasure or enjoyment in any creature, unless it carried God’s likeness. What I like is where I know most of God’s ‘likeness’, and nothing is so like God in all creatures as is ‘a repose’. Third, we must examine how the soul resting in God must be. She must be pure. How does the soul become pure? That she is directed towards spiritual things, by these she is elevated; and the higher she is elevated, the purer she becomes in her recollection; and the purer she becomes in her recollection, the more powerful she becomes in her actions.󰀈 A master says of the stars: the closer they shine near the earth, the weaker they are in their actions; so they are not in their right orbit. When they arrive in their right orbit, they are in their highest; then they can not be seen on earth; then their actions on earth are very powerful.󰀉

(CChr.SL 󰀅󰀀–󰀅󰀀A, 󰀁󰀁󰀉,󰀃󰀇–󰀄󰀀): ‘Illa est ergo species quae rapit omnem animam rationalem desiderio sui tanto ardentiorem quanto mundiorem, et tanto mundiorem quanto ad spiritalia resurgentem’; Aristoteles, De caelo et mundo IV t. 󰀃󰀅 (Δ c. 󰀄 󰀃󰀁󰀂a󰀁󰀂–󰀂󰀁); Albertus, Meteor. II tr. 󰀃 c. 󰀂 (Colon. 󰀆,󰀁, 󰀅󰀆󰀅B): ‘inferiora elementa sunt sicut materia respectu superiorum, et superiora sunt formalia et spiritualia respectu inferiorum’. 󰀉. See Eckhart, In Ioh. n. 󰀃󰀁󰀉 (LW III 󰀂󰀆󰀇,󰀁–󰀄): ‘Adhuc autem in planetis: quanto quis a terra elongatior, tanto nobilior universalioris virtutis et permanentioris influentiae. Rursus etiam idem ipse planeta in auge, ubi est plus elongatus a terra, efficacius operatur quam in opposito augis, ubi minus a terra elongatur’; see Robertus Anglicus, in Cicchus Esculanus, Tractatum de sphaera lect. 󰀄 (󰀁󰀆󰀂 Thorndike): ‘Item notandum quod luna et alii planetae habent dominium fortius super res inferiores, quando sunt in auge sui circuli quam quando sunt in opposito suae augis. Cuius causa est quia quando stella est in auge sui circuli, velocius movetur et quando velocius movetur, fortius influit in haec inferiora’.

󰀂󰀃󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Sant Anselmus sprichet ze der sêle: entziuch dich ein wênic von der unruowe ûzwendiger werke. Ze dem andern mâle: vliuch und verbirc dich vor dem sturme inwendiger gedanke, die ouch unruowe machent in der (󰀁󰀉) | sêle. Ze dem dritten mâle: entriuwen, niht enmac der mensche gote liebers erbieten dan ruowe. Vastennes und betennes und aller kestigunge enahtet noch enbedarf got zemâle niht wider der ruowe. Got enbedarf nihtes, wan daz man im ein ruowic herze gebe; sô würket er sôgetâniu heimlîchiu götlîchiu werk in der sêle, daz dâ kein crêatûre zuo gedienen noch gesehen enmac; noch diu sêle unsers herren Jêsû Kristî enmac dâ niemer (󰀂󰀀) | zuo geluogen. Diu êwige wîsheit ist sô kleinlîche zart und alsô schînic, daz si niht gelîden enmac, daz dâ dehein gemanc sî deheiner crêatûre, dâ got aleine würket in der sêle; dar umbe enmac diu êwige wîsheit niht gelîden, daz dâ dehein crêatûre zuo gesehe. Unser (󰀂󰀁) | herre sprichet: ‘ich wil mîne vriundinne leiten in die wüestunge und wil ze irm herzen sprechen’, daz ist: in die wüestunge von allen crêatûren. Ze dem vierden mâle sprichet er, daz diu sêle ruowen sol in gote. Götlich werk enmac got in der sêle niht gewürken, wan allez, daz in die sêle kumet, daz wirt mit mâze begriffen. Mâze ist, daz etwaz inner im besliuzet und etwaz ûzer im besliuzet. Alsô enist ez niht umbe götlîchiu werk: diu sint unbegriffen und sint beslozzen unbeslozzenlîche nâch götlîcher offenbârunge. Dar umbe (󰀂󰀂) | sprichet Dâvît: ‘got der sitzet obe Cherubîn’; er ensprichet niht, er sitze obe Seraphîn. Cherubîn bezeichent die wîsheit, daz ist die bekantnisse; diu treget got in die sêle und leitet die sêle an got. Aber in got enmac si sie niht bringen. Dar umbe enwürket got sîniu götlîchiu werk niht in der bekantnisse, wan si in der sêle mit mâze begriffen ist; mêr: er würket sie als got götlich. Sô tritet diu oberste kraft hervür – daz ist diu minne – und brichet in got und leitet die sêle mit der bekantnisse und mit allen irn kreften in got und vereinet sie mit gote; und dâ würket got obe der sêle kraft, niht als in der sêle, sunder als (󰀂󰀃) | in gote götlich.

󰀁󰀀. See next note. 󰀁󰀁. See Anselmus, Proslogion c. 󰀁 (Schmitt, 󰀉󰀇,󰀄–󰀆): ‘Eia nunc, homuncio, fuge paululum occupationes tuas, absconde te modicum a tumultuosis cogitationibus tuis. Abice nunc onerosas curas, et postpone laboriosas distentiones tuas. Vaca aliquantulum deo, et requiesce aliquantulum in eo’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀁* [Q 󰀆󰀀]

󰀂󰀃󰀇

Saint Anselm says to the soul: detach yourself a little from the restlessness of external actions.󰀁󰀀 Second, flee and hide from the storm of inner thoughts that also produce restlessness in the soul.󰀁󰀁 Third, in truth, nothing can a person offer to God more dear than ‘a repose’. Fastings and prayers and all the mortifications God does not take into consideration nor does He really need them, compared to ‘a repose’. God does not need anything, except that one offers Him a quiet heart; thus, He performs secret divine actions in the soul, that no creature can help with nor see them; not even the soul of our Lord Jesus Christ can ever attend to [them]. Eternal wisdom is so subtely tender and so shiny that it can not stand that where only God is acting in the soul there is a mixing with any creature; therefore eternal wisdom can not stand that any creature attends to this. Our Lord says: ‘I will lead my friend into the desert and speak to her heart’,󰀁󰀂 that is: into the desert of all creatures. Fourth, he󰀁󰀃 says that the soul must rest in God. God can not act in the soul the divine action because everything that comes into the soul is grasped in measures. Measure is what includes something inside of itself and excludes something outside of itself. It is not so in the case of divine actions: these are unlimited and are non-exclusively included according to divine revelation. Therefore David says: ‘God sits on the Cherub’.󰀁󰀄 He does not say that he sits on the Seraph. ‘Cherub’ means wisdom, that is, knowledge;󰀁󰀅 this brings God into the soul and directs the soul to God. But it cannot carry her into God. Therefore, God does not act His divine actions through knowledge, because it is grasped in the soul by measure; He rather acts as God in a divine way. Thus, the supreme power appears – that is love – and breaks into God and directs the soul together with knowledge and all her powers into God and unites her with God; and there God acts upon the power of the soul, not in the soul, but in God in a divine way. There the soul is

󰀁󰀂. Hos. 󰀂:󰀁󰀄: ‘et ducam eam in solitudinem: et loquar ad cor eius’. 󰀁󰀃. Anselm. See the quote above. 󰀁󰀄. Ps. 󰀇󰀉:󰀂: ‘Qui sedes super cherubim’. 󰀁󰀅. See Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiae VII c. 󰀅 nn. 󰀂󰀁–󰀄 (Lindsay I 󰀂󰀇󰀆,󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀇󰀇,󰀃) (for the text see above); (Pseudo-)Augustinus (Alcher of Clairvaux), De spiritu et anima c. 󰀅 (PL 󰀄󰀀, 󰀇󰀈󰀃).

󰀂󰀃󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Dâ wirt diu sêle ertoufet in gote und getoufet in götlîcher natûre und enpfæhet dar inne ein götlich leben und ziuhet götlîche ordenunge an sich, daz si geordent (󰀂󰀄) | wirt nâch gote. Als man prüeven mac bî einem glîchnisse, als die meister schrîbent von natûre: swenne daz kint enpfangen wirt in der muoter lîbe, sô hât ez lidemæze und varwe. Swenne aber diu sêle gegozzen wirt in den lîchamen, sô vergât im diu gestaltnisse (󰀂󰀅) | und diu varwe, die ez von êrste hâte, und wirt ein einvaltic dinc – daz ist von der sêle kraft – und enpfæhet eine ander geschepfnisse von der sêle und eine ander varwe nâch dem lebene der sêle. Alsô ist ez an der sêle: swenne si genzlîche vereinet wirt in gote und ertoufet in götlîcher natûre, sô verliuset si alle ir hindernisse und krankheit und unstæticheit und wirt zemâle verniuwet an einem götlîchen lebene und wirt geordent an allen irn siten und tugenden nâch götlîchen siten und tugenden, als man prüeven mac an dem liehte: sô daz viur næher dem tâhte brinnet, sô ez swerzer und gröber ist; sô (󰀂󰀆) | sich der louc hœher ûf ziuhet von dem tâhte, sô er ie liehter ist. Sô diu sêle hœher gezogen ist über sich, sô si lûterer und klârer ist, sô got ie volkomenlîcher in ir gewürken mac in sîn selbes glîchnisse sîn götlich werk. Wüehse ein berc von dem ertrîche als hôch als zwô mîle und schribe man dar ûf in stüppe oder in sant buochstaben, sie bliben ganz, daz sie wint noch regen enzerstœrte. Alsô sölte ein rehte geistlich mensche sîn erhaben an einem rehten vride ganz und unwandelhaftic an götlîchen werken. Des mac sich ein (󰀂󰀇) | geistlich mensche wol schamen, daz er sô lîhte gewandelt wirt an betrüepnisse und an zorne und an ergerunge: der mensche enwart nie rehte geistlich. Ze dem vierden mâle suochent alle crêatûren von natiurlîcher begerunge ruowe; sie wizzen ez oder enwizzen ez niht, sô bewîsent sie ez an irn werken. Dem steine enwirt diu bewegunge niemer benomen, die wîle er ûf der erde niht enliget, er enkriege iemer ze der erde. Des

󰀁󰀆. See Th. Aqu., Super libros Sententiarum III d. 󰀃 q. 󰀅 a. 󰀂 (Mandonnet 󰀁󰀄󰀅–󰀆): ‘… maris conceptio non perficitur nisi usque quadragesimum diem, ut Philosophus in IX De animalibus dicit; feminae autem usque ad nonagesimum’; Aristoteles, De hist. animal. VII c. 󰀃 (Η c. 󰀃 󰀅󰀈󰀃b󰀁󰀄ff.); see Albertus, De animalibus IX tr. l c. 󰀃 n. 󰀃󰀀 (Stadler 󰀆󰀈󰀅,󰀁󰀇ff.); Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae III q. 󰀃󰀃 a. 󰀂 ad 󰀃: ‘Ad tertium dicendum quod in generatione aliorum hominum locum habet quod dicit Philosophus, propter hoc quod successive corpus formatur et disponitur ad animam: unde primo, tanquam imperfecte dispositum, recipit animam imperfectam; et postmodum, quando perfecte est dispositum, recipit animam perfectam’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀁* [Q 󰀆󰀀]

󰀂󰀃󰀉

immersed in God and baptized in the divine nature and receives in there a divine life and draws the divine order to herself, so that she is ordained to God. As one can examine through an example, when the masters write of nature:󰀁󰀆 when the child is conceived in the mother’s body, it has limbs and appearance. But when the soul is infused into the body, the form and appearance she had before vanishes and becomes a simple thing – this comes from the power of the soul – and receives another creation󰀁󰀇 from the soul and another appearance according to the life of the soul.󰀁󰀈 So it is with the soul: when she is completely united in God and baptized in the divine nature, she loses all her impediments and weakness and inconstancy and becomes completely renewed in a divine life and becomes ordered in all her customs and powers according to divine customs and powers, as can be seen from light: the closer the fire is to the wick, the more it burns black and coarse; the higher the flame rises from the wick, the more bright it is. The more the soul is drawn above herself, the more pure and luminous she is, so much more fully can God act in her His divine action in likeness of Himself. If a mountain grew from the earth two miles high and one wrote letters on it in the dust or sand, these would remain entirely, and neither wind nor rain would destroy them. Thus a truly spiritual person should be elevated in true peace completely and immutably in divine actions. A spiritual person can truly be ashamed to change so easily into sadness, anger and rage: this person was never truly spiritual. Fourth, all creatures seek ‘a repose’ by natural desire; whether or not they know it, they prove it in their actions. Never can movement be removed from a stone, when it does not rest on the earth, it is tending towards the earth.󰀁󰀉 The same goes with fire: it tends

󰀁󰀇. J. Quint translates: ‘Gestalt’. 󰀁󰀈. See on this Hom. 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃], n. 󰀇. 󰀁󰀉. See Eckhart, In Ioh. n. 󰀂󰀂󰀅 (LW III 󰀁󰀈󰀈,󰀁󰀃–󰀅): ‘Exemplum est de forma gravitatis, quae dat gravi primo quidem esse grave, consequenter tendere vel inclinare deorsum et tandem actu moveri deorsum et finaliter quiescere deorsum’; see Aristoteles, Phys. VIII t. 󰀃󰀂 (Θ c. 󰀄 󰀂󰀅󰀅b󰀁󰀃–󰀇); Th. Aqu., In Ioh. lect. 󰀈 n. 󰀆 (II 󰀃󰀉󰀂b).

󰀂󰀄󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

glîche tuot daz viur: daz krieget ûfwert, und ein ieglîchiu crêatûre (󰀂󰀈) | suochet ir natiurlîche stat; und dar ane bewîset si die glîchnisse götlîcher ruowe, die got an alle crêatûren geworfen hât. (󰀂󰀉) | Daz wir die glîchnisse götlîcher ruowe alsô suochen und vinden müezen an gote, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀁* [Q 󰀆󰀀]

󰀂󰀄󰀁

upwards, and every creature looks for its natural place; and in this one shows the similarity with the divine ‘repose’ that God has put into all creatures. That we thus should seek the likeness of a divine ‘repose’ and must find it in God – may God help us. Amen.

Homily 󰀈󰀂* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀀] In die assumptionis beatae Mariae, 󰀁󰀅 augusti ‘In omnibus requiem quaesivi’ (Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁) Introduction

L

ike the previous homily, this one deals with the same scriptural verse from Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁 (‘In omnibus requiem quaesivi’), part of the lectionary for all the feasts of Mary according to the Commune Festorum B. Mariae Virginis. It is likely that the homily was given for the feast of the Assumption of Mary, as the one before. The text is handed down by one manuscript (Str󰀁) which was burnt and lost (in the year 󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀀) and on the basis of which Franz Pfeiffer published the text. In addition, there are three fragments (Bra󰀃, Ka󰀁 and Ka󰀂). The content of the homily Although Eckhart had not made any explicit application of the verse Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁 to Mary in the previous homily, it is different here, where the preacher refers to ‘our Lady’ right in the opening sentence. He is referring the verse not only to ‘God’s eternal wisdom’, but also thinking that it might refer to Mary. And so he starts with the highest praise of her. The whole thrust of the homily turns into a praise of the supreme power of the soul as the place where the Lord wants ‘to give birth to Himself in there’ (n. 󰀇). This spiritual place is combined with a certain criticism of the female gender, as daughters compared to boys are only conceived ‘by accident’ (von unglücke) which could also be translated ‘by misfortune’. As the soul is the only place of God’s birth and where he rests, one wonders what this homily says about Mary. Towards the end it becomes clear: She is one of the creatures who are all addressed:

H OMILY 󰀈󰀂* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀀]

󰀂󰀄󰀃

‘I have begotten you from my most intimate [part] in the most intimate [part] of the soul’ (n. 󰀁󰀀) After giving the core text, Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁 in Latin (n. 󰀁) and in translation (n. 󰀂), Eckhart reflects upon the way, people like to listen about Mary. There are the ordinary people on the one side and on the other the ‘educated … and perfect good people’ (n. 󰀃). The former would like to hear about Mary’s ‘honours’, the latter about her ‘holiness and perfection’. In a rather weak way, he turns them both off, claiming that if he spoke about one of her merits, he would omit another one. And yet, he does pick one, as ‘the greatest’ honour for her was to have been ‘the mother of God’, which, as stated in earlier homilies, is her spiritual achievement, more than her bodily one (n. 󰀄). Out of ‘overabundance’ by ‘the Godhead’ she ‘became worthy to carry God bodily’. The spiritual similarity is what draws to each other (n. 󰀅), whereas bodily images, like that of ‘the cathedral’, or a person standing in front of me, is outside of me and in me at best in a kind of reflection (n. 󰀆). In contrast, what happens to the soul and in the soul goes beyond reflection and is oneness (n. 󰀇). Now God does not want to rest in any outside place, but ‘in the soul’ (nn. 󰀈–󰀁󰀁). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀄󰀄,󰀁󰀄󰀉–󰀅󰀂; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀄󰀄󰀁; G. Steer, DW IV 󰀇󰀇󰀅–󰀉󰀁. Previous English translations none.

󰀂󰀄󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀇󰀈󰀁) ‘In omnibus requiem quaesivi’. In omnibus requiem quaesivi. In allen dingen hân ich ruowe gesuochet. Disiu wort sint gesprochen von der êwigen wîsheit gotes, und mac man sie gar wol geben unser vrouwen. Ich wil sie aber lâzen gotes wîsheit, von der sie gesprochen sint. Etlîche liute die hôrten gerne von unser vrouwen zeichen sagen. Gelêrte liute und guote volkomen liute die hœrent lieber von ir heilicheit und volkomenheit. Sölte ich aber dâ von sagen, sô enweste ich, wâ ich anevâhen sölte: ich möhte von einem sagen und lieze ein, daz vil bezzer wære, wan alliu zeichen und heilicheit und volkomenheit, die alle crêatûre ie enpfiengen, die hâte unser vrouwe ûf daz allerhœhste gehabet. Wil man von heilicheit sagen, sô ist daz diu grœste, daz unser vrouwe nie sünde engetete. Wil man ouch von zeichen sagen, sô ist daz daz grœste, daz si gotes muoter was. Wan unser meister sprechent, daz unser vrouwe vil sæliger (󰀇󰀈󰀂) | was dar umbe, daz sie got ze der gotheit vereinigete, dan si wære, daz si got lîplîche truoc. Wan von der übervüllede, die unser vrouwe enpfienc von der gotheit, dâ von wart si des wirdic, daz si got lîplîche truoc, wan daz muoste sîn, dô diu sêle als übervlüzzic was, daz ez ûzbræche in den lîchamen und der lîchame dar nâch gebildet würde, und dar umbe wart si gotes muoter lîplîche. Dar umbe sprechent etlîche meister, daz der begrif der sêle mê würket an dem lîbe dan der arzât und alliu (󰀇󰀈󰀃) | sîn arzenîe. Dar umbe ist ez lîhte alsô, daz der arzât sich schône heltet mit den guoten kleidern, daz die liute deste bezzern wân ze im hân, und ez hilfet ûzer mâze wol, daz man glouben habe ze im, daz er gehelfen müge den siechen.

󰀁. Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁 (‘et in his omnibus requiem quaesivi…’). The context of the text is Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁–󰀂󰀀 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀃vb, on the text see the previous Hom. 󰀈󰀁* [Q 󰀆󰀀]. 󰀂. On this topic see before Hom. 󰀇󰀁* [Q 󰀇󰀈], n. 󰀃 with parallels. 󰀃. See Eckhart, In Gen. I n. 󰀂󰀉󰀂 (LW I 󰀄󰀂󰀉,󰀅–󰀁󰀀): ‘Avicenna VI Naturalium p. IV c. 󰀄 sic ait: “attende dispositionem infirmi, cum credit se convalescere, aut dispositionem sani, cum credit se aegrotare. Multotiens contingit ex hoc, ut, cum corroboratur forma in anima eius, patiatur ex ea ipsius materia et proveniat ex hoc sanitas aut infirmitas. Et est actio haec efficacior quam id quod agit medicus instrumentis suis et mediis’; Sermo XLV n. 󰀄󰀆󰀆 (LW IV 󰀃󰀈󰀅,󰀁󰀁–󰀂): ‘Avicenna dicit et probat exemplis quod ad curam plus valet fiducia quam medicus et sua instrumenta’; Sermo

H OMILY 󰀈󰀂* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀀]

󰀂󰀄󰀅

‘In omnibus requiem quaesivi’. ‘In omnibus requiem quaesivi’. ‘I sought repose in all things’.󰀁 These words are spoken of by God’s eternal wisdom, and one can very well attribute them to our Lady. But I want to leave them to the wisdom of God, by whom they are said. Some people would gladly hear about the honours of our Lady. Educated people and perfect, good people prefer to listen about her holiness and perfection. But if I had to talk about these, I would not know where to start: If I mentioned one, I would omit another much better one, because all the honours, holiness and perfection that all creatures ever received, our Lady had in the highest degree. If we want to talk about holiness, the greatest [truth] is that our Lady never sinned. If we also want to speak of honours, the greatest is that she was the mother of God. In fact, our masters say that our Lady was much more blessed for having united God with Godhead than for carrying God bodily.󰀂 Because of the overabundance that our Lady received from the Godhead she became worthy to carry God bodily, because this had to happen where the soul was overflowing so much that it overflowed in the body and the body was formed according to this, and therefore she became the mother of God in a bodily way. Therefore, some masters say that the grip of the soul acts more on the body than the doctor and all his medicines.󰀃 This is perhaps the reason why the doctor equips himself with good clothes, so that people feel better when they call on him, and it helps beyond measure that one has faith that he can help the sick.

XLVII,󰀁 n. 󰀄󰀈󰀁 (LW IV 󰀃󰀉󰀇,󰀇–󰀈): ‘Dic quam fiducialiter debet homo se deo committere et quam utile hoc est. Item, quantae efficaciae est fiducia, sicut docet Avicenna in exemplis’; Sermo Paschalis n. 󰀄 (LW V 󰀁󰀃󰀉,󰀇–󰀁󰀀): ‘Videmus, quando mater infantem vult provocare ad comedendum et medicus infirmum ad sumendum medicinam, uterque utrumque commendat, quia opinio bona de his ut plurimum proficit, et talis imaginatio prima boni plus quandoque confert quam medicus per instrumenta’; see Avicenna, De anima IV c. 󰀄 (Van Riet, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈, 󰀆󰀄,󰀂󰀀–󰀄): ‘Attende dispositionem infirmi cum credit se convalescere, aut sani cum credit se aegrotare: Multotiens enim contingit ex hoc ut cum corroboratur forma in anima eius, patiatur ex ea ipsius materia et proveniat ex hoc sanitas aut infirmitas, et est haec actio efficacior quam id quod agit medicus instrumentis suis et mediis’.

󰀂󰀄󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Dar umbe sprechent die meister, daz got alle die krefte der sêle alsô habe gemachet von natûre, daz sie ir glîchnisse in sich ziehen, als daz ôre, daz wil iemer hœren und daz ouge sehen. Swaz mîn ouge sihet, daz ist ein mit im als der luft mit dem liehte. Des ougen natûre ist, daz ez sehe varwe, ez enwære anders ouge (󰀇󰀈󰀄) | niht. Alsô ist ez ouch umbe die varwe, daz si sich teile den ougen, ez enwære anders varwe niht. Der ez joch ir mit den gedenken benæme, daz ez varwe wære und sich niht enteilte den ougen, der benæme der varwe, daz si niht varwe enwære. (󰀇󰀈󰀅) | Ich sihe daz münster ane. War umbe ensihet man ez niht in mir? Sol man ein dinc in mir sehen, daz muoz gegen mir gevüeget sîn, daz ez einen widerslac in mir neme. Alsô: stüende ein mensche vor mir und sæhe mich rehte ane, er sæhe sîn (󰀇󰀈󰀆) | bilde in mînen ougen. Der über ein wazzer stüende, die wîle ez vlüzze, der ensæhe ouch sînes bildes niht. Stüende ez ouch und wære ez trüebe, man ensæhe ouch sich niht. Aber wære ez lûter und iergen gesament in eine stille, daz ez widerslac möhte haben, sô sæhe man sîn bilde danne. Man sprichet, daz daz glas enpfâhe die varwe des liehtes als die kristallen. Sô man aber dar ane leget bech oder blî, sô hât ez einen widerslac: waz dâ vor stât, daz bildet sich dar inne rehte in alle wîs. Unser herre machete die sêle an ir obersten kraft in ir besten, daz er sich selben dar inne gebære. Ein meister sprichet: daz dâ gebirt und daz geborn wirt, daz (󰀇󰀈󰀇) | wære ein, und enwære zît noch stat noch materie. Materie ist grop, lîplich dinc und ist unvuoge, ez hindert. Dar umbe sprichet man: möhte der vater, er machete sich selber. Wan des niht enmac sîn, sô würket er sîn glîch. Daz kint ist natiurlîche glîch dem vater, und mê der sun dan diu tohter. Dar umbe wolte diu natûre alle zît würken einen sun, enhæte si niht hindernisse. Ez kumet von unglücke, sô ez ein tohter wirt. Ez sî der natûre liep oder leit, si wil alwege würken einen sun. Nû weste unser herre wol, daz ez guot wære und wol gezimet, daz ouch vrouwen werdent, und hilfet dar zuo. Hie von enwil er niht anders, dan daz der himelische vater sînen einbornen sun gebere in unsere sêle. 󰀄. See Aristoteles, De anima I c. 󰀂 (󰀄󰀀󰀄b󰀁󰀇): ‘… cognosci enim simile simili’ (Latin text in Albertus, De anima [Stroick 󰀂󰀀,󰀇󰀈]). 󰀅. See Aristoteles, Metaphysica VIII c. 󰀆 (󰀁󰀀󰀄󰀅a󰀃󰀆–b󰀆) (Latin text in Albertus, Metaphysica [Geyer, 󰀄󰀀󰀅,󰀇󰀃–󰀆]: ‘Quaecumque vero non habent materiam, nec intellectualem nec sensualem,

H OMILY 󰀈󰀂* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀀]

󰀂󰀄󰀇

Therefore, the masters say󰀄 that God has naturally made all the powers of the soul so that she draws into herself what is similar to her, like the ear that always wants to hear, and the eye to see. What my eye sees is one with it like air with light. The nature of the eye is to see colour, otherwise it would not be an eye. So it is also with the colour, that is shared with the eyes, otherwise there would be no colour. Whoever, even if only by thinking, took away the colour and did not share it with the eyes, would take away that colour should be colour. I look at the cathedral. Why can one not see it in me? If I am to see something in me, it must be fixed to me, so that it has a reflection in me. So if a person stood before me and looked right at me, she would see her image in my eyes. Whoever stood above water, while it flows, would not see her image. Even if it were still, but cloudy, one would not see it. But if it were pure and somehow collected in a quiet space, so to produce a reflection, one would then see one’s image. It is said that glass receives the colour of light like crystals. But when one adds pitch or lead to it, it produces a reflection: what stands in front of it, quite fully forms itself inside. Our Lord made the soul to be her best in her supreme power, so as to give birth to Himself in there. A master says:󰀅 what gives birth there and what is birthed there would be one, if there was no time, place or matter. The matter is coarse, a bodily thing, and muddled, it hinders. Therefore one says: if the father could, he would reproduce himself. Since this can not be, he produces somebody like himself. The child is naturally similar to the father, and more the son than the daughter. Therefore nature always intended to produce a son, if it had no impediments. It comes by accident, if the result is a daughter. Whether or not nature likes it, it always intends to produce a son. Now our Lord knew well that it would be good and proper that also women are born, and He helps in this. In this regard He wants nothing else than the heavenly Father to give birth to His only begotten Son in our soul.

statim quidem esse est unumquodque, quemadmodum et quod est ens hoc, inquantum quale quid. Quapropter etiam non inest in diffinitionibus nec ens nec unum; et quid erat esse statim unum quid est sicut et ens quid. Quapropter non est aliqua alia causa unum esse nulli horum nec ens esse; statim enim unumquodque est ens quid, non quasi in genere’).

󰀂󰀄󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Unser herre sprach: ‘ich wone in Jâcob und ruowe in Isrâêl’. Jâcob sprichet als vil als ein verworfenheit aller dinge. Alsô enwil got niergen geborn werden (󰀇󰀈󰀈) | dan aleine in der sêle, diu alle crêatûren under irn vüezen hât. Sant Augustînus sprichet, daz got alle zît geborn werde âne underlâz in der sêle, er enwirt aber niht ‘uns geborn’, wan er enist uns niht offenbâr, er ist bedecket. Alle die wîle daz got bedecket ist in der sêle mit ihte, sô enwirt er ‘uns’ niht ‘geborn’. Und des sît gewis, (󰀇󰀈󰀉) | daz got in keiner sêle geborn enwerde dan in der sêle, diu alle crêatûren under irn vüezen hât. Dâ kein ander enist, dâ gebirt sich got selben, niht sîn glîch, sich selben ‘got von gote’. Dar umbe sprach der sun gar wol: ‘ich wone in Jâcob und mîn ruowe ist in Isrâêl’, und sprach er: der vater ‘gebôt mir und gebar mir daz în’ und ist mîn natûre und ist sîn gebot, daz ich alle zît geborn werde in der sêle, diu alsus lûter ist, in der got vindet einen widerschîn sîn selbes. Dâ ‘widerruowet’ got und diu sêle ‘widerruowet’ in gote. Der daz gote benæme, daz er ruowete in der sêle, der (󰀇󰀉󰀀) | benæme gote sîne gotheit. Der im ez joch mit gedenken benæme, der beroubete got sîner gotheit, wan ‘er suochet ruowe in allen dingen’. Dar umbe sprach Dâvît: ‘mîn herre sprach ze mînem herzen: mîn kint bist dû, ich hân dich hiute geborn’ in dem widerschîne des heiligen geistes, und sprach zwirunt: ich hân dich geborn ûz mînem innigesten in der sêle innigestez, ‘und hân mîne wurzele gebreitet und verstætiget in den, die ich ûzerwelt hân und die mich ûzerwelt hânt, und bin bestætiget in der stat Syon und mîn gewalt in Jêrusalem’. Diu sêle, diu dâ ist in Syon, diu übertreten hât alliu dinc und diu dâ wonet in ir allerinnerstem, rehte aldâ wil got gebern sînen allerinnersten. Der himelische vater sprach ze sînem einbornen sune: alsô als ich dich hân geborn in mînem allerinnersten, alsô ‘verbiute ich dir’ bî der götlîcher natûre, daz du dich anders niergen engeberest (󰀇󰀉󰀁) | wan in der sêle allerinnerstem. Und swer daz gote wölte abesprechen, daz er sich niht alsô in der sêle engebære, der spræche gote abe sîne götlîche natûre. Daz sich got alsô in uns gebere, des helfe uns got. Âmen. 󰀆. Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀃: ‘In Iacob inhabita, et in Israel hereditare’. 󰀇. See (Pseudo-)Hieronymus, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum (Lagarde 󰀆󰀇,󰀁󰀉). 󰀈. See Augustinus, Epistula 󰀂󰀃󰀈 c. 󰀄 n. 󰀂󰀄 (Goldbacher 󰀅󰀅󰀂,󰀁󰀆): ‘semper gignit pater et semper nascitur filius’. 󰀉. Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀂: ‘Tunc praecepit, et dixit mihi Creator omnium: et qui creavit me, requievit in tabernaculo meo’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀂* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀀]

󰀂󰀄󰀉

Our Lord said:󰀆 ‘I live in Jacob and rest in Israel’. Jacob means a ‘misery of all things’.󰀇 So God does not want to be born in any other place but in the soul that has all the creatures under her feet. Saint Augustine says󰀈 that God is always being born in the soul without interruption, but He is not ‘born to us’, because He is not revealed to us, but covered. As long as God is covered in the soul with something, He is not ‘born to us’. And be certain of this: that God is not born in any soul except in the soul that has all the creatures under her feet. Where there is no one else, there God gives birth to Himself, not something similar to Himself, but Himself as ‘God of God’. Therefore the Son said very well:󰀉 ‘I live in Jacob and my rest is in Israel’, and He said: the Father ‘commanded me and birthed it in me’, and it is my nature and it is His commandment that I might always be born in the soul that is so pure, in which God finds a reflection of Himself. There God ‘rests again’ and the soul ‘rests again’ in God. Whoever took away from God that He rests in the soul, would take away from God His Godhead. Whoever took it away conciously would rob God of His Godhead, because ‘he seeks repose in all things’.󰀁󰀀 Therefore, David said,󰀁󰀁 ‘My Lord said to my heart, you are my child, I have begotten you today’ in the reflection of the Holy Spirit, and he said two things: I have begotten you from my most intimate [part] in the most intimate [part] of the soul ‘and I have extended and consolidated my roots in those I have chosen and who have chosen me, and I am confirmed in the city of Zion and my power in Jerusalem’.󰀁󰀂 The soul that is in Zion, who has transcended all things and who lives there in her most intimate [part], right there God wants to generate his most intimate [part]. The heavenly Father said to His only begotten Son: as I have begotten you in my most intimate [part], ‘I forbid you’ by the divine nature to be born anywhere else but in the most intimate [part] of the soul. And whoever would want to deny to God that thus gives birth to Himself in the soul, would disavow to God His divine nature. That thus God generates Himself in us, may God help us. Amen.

󰀁󰀀. Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁. 󰀁󰀁. Ps. 󰀂:󰀇: ‘Dominus dixit ad me: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te’. 󰀁󰀂. Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀆: ‘Et radicavi in populo honorificato, et in parte Dei mei hereditas illius’; 󰀁󰀅: ‘Et sic in Sion firmata sum … et in Hierusalem potestas mea’.

Homily 󰀈󰀃* [Q 󰀂] In die assumptionis beatae Mariae, 󰀁󰀅 augusti ‘Intravit Iesus in quoddam castellum et mulier quaedam, Martha nomine, excepit illum in domum suam’ (Luc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀃󰀈) Introduction

T

his is a further homily for the feast of the Assumption of Mary (‘die predist ist vff vnszer frowen himelfart Str󰀃; ‘Vff Marie himelfart / die .iiij. predig’, BT). The core verse Luc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀃󰀈 (‘Factum est autem, dum irent, et ipse intravit in quoddam castellum; et mulier quaedam, Martha nomine, excepit illum in domum suam’), is part of the Gospel reading for that feast day. The text as given in the critical edition is derived from thirteen manuscripts (B󰀄, B󰀆, Br󰀁, Ga, Ka󰀁, Koa, Kob [lat. trans.], Mai󰀁, Sa, St󰀁, St󰀂, Str󰀃, Tr), the print in BT and a number of fragments. The witnesses N󰀃, Cam, Me󰀃, N󰀂󰀀, W󰀁󰀁 and the print HT are not used in the critical edition of DW. The content of the homily In the core verse of the Gospel reading the two key terms that caught Eckhart’s attention were ‘intravit’ and ‘excepit’, complemented by a further two, ‘castellum’ and ‘mulier quaedam’. The first pair indicated that the feast was a celebration of the generation, conception, reception and birth of the Son, while the ‘mulier quaedam’ invited the preacher to reflect upon the nature of Mary. ‘Castellum’, however, must have sparked Eckhart’s idea that the supreme part of the soul is like a castle, remote, well fenced off and not to be overcome by any outside force, not even by God in Him being trinitarian. As the many surviving manuscripts and fragments demonstrate, it is one of the most famous homilies

󰀂󰀅󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

of Eckhart, not only because it was picked up in the process against his teaching, but also, because it is rhetorically and theologically a delight and a challenge. The translation is made difficult by its semantic breadth and the many shifts. Eckhart first gives the Latin of the core verse Luc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀃󰀈 (‘Intravit Iesus in quoddam castellum et mulier quaedam, Martha nomine, excepit illum in domum suam’) (n. 󰀁) to which he adds his vernacular translation (n. 󰀂). A) ‘juncvrouwe’ (n. 󰀃) – Immediately Eckhart plays on the term ‘juncvrouwe’, and makes it clear quickly that he does understand it not just as ‘young woman’, but as ‘virgin’, not in the sexual sense, but in the sense of a person who ‘is freed from all the alien images’, as only what is open and free can be receptive. This, as he quickly adds, does, however, not mean that the actions and activities of a person are therefore rendered unimportant or useless. Intellectual freedom is not a giving up of responsibilities in this world, but it is, as he will mention in nn. 󰀆–󰀇, not about self-interested actions in the world, ownership of agency, but of acting with the sole interest in following God’s will (nn. 󰀃–󰀄). He is even critical of those who are ‘always a virgin’, as he states that ‘no fruit would come’ out of them (n. 󰀅). In this section he puts the most startling phrase that ‘Woman’ (and not ‘virgin’) ‘is the noblest name that can be given to the soul … much nobler than “virgin”’. In a nutshell, this is one of the central messages of Eckhart, as already Dietmar Mieth in his Doktorarbeit noticed. The criticism continues, as Eckhart mentions the many ‘good gifts’ that are not having fruitful effects and are not being ‘re-birthed into God’ (n. 󰀆). In a dense passage that is not easy to understand, Eckhart develops the idea that ‘parents’ normally have not more than one offspring per year, to which he compares all those spiritual parents, people who do all kind of spiritual exercises who are meant to have daily offsprings (n. 󰀇). According to Eckhart, they are less fruitful than ordinary parents, as personal spiritual self-interest steals their freedom which should always be an ongoing new and open freedom. To these, he contrasts ‘a virgin, who is a woman’, as she is ‘free and freed without ownership’ (n. 󰀈), as such a person ‘generates daily innumerable fruit a hundred times’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀃* [Q 󰀂]

󰀂󰀅󰀃

Interestingly, Eckhart does not revert back to Mary at this stage, but introduces the power in the soul (n. 󰀉). Not Mary, but this power in the soul is the cogenerator of the Son. In n. 󰀁󰀀 Eckhart introduces ‘yet another power’, the relation to the previous power remains unclear as it blends with the previous one. In the next note, Eckhart develops the idea that suffering is nothing compared to the experience of this (which of the two?) power (n. 󰀁󰀁). With n. 󰀁󰀂 Eckhart comes back to his core verse and underlines the complementary character of virgin and woman, of ‘receiving’ and rejecting, or being a ‘castle’. He endorses the already mentioned power of the spirit, which here seems to be the power of the mind, as the only one that is free (nn. 󰀁󰀃–󰀆). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀈,󰀄󰀂–󰀇; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀁󰀂󰀅–󰀆󰀈; J. Quint, DW I 󰀂󰀁–󰀄󰀅; N. Largier I 󰀁󰀈󰀈–󰀉󰀇. 󰀇󰀅󰀉–󰀇󰀂. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀃󰀅–󰀈; Meister Eckhart: A modern Translation, by R.B. Blakney (󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀁), 󰀂󰀀󰀇–󰀁󰀁; J.M. Clark, Meister Eckhart (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀇), 󰀁󰀃󰀃–󰀈; M. Fox, Breakthrough (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀), 󰀂󰀇󰀃–󰀈; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀇󰀇–󰀈󰀂; Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings, ed. and trans. O. Davies (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀁󰀅󰀈–󰀆󰀄; Meister Eckhart, The Essential Sermons (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁), 󰀁󰀇󰀇–󰀈󰀁.

󰀂󰀅󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀄) ‘Intravit Iesus in quoddam castellum et mulier quaedam, Martha nomine, excepit illum in domum suam.’ Lucae II. Ich hân ein wörtelin gesprochen des êrsten in dem latîne, daz stât geschriben in dem êwangeliô und sprichet alsô ze tiutsche: ‘unser herre Jêsus Kristus der gienc ûf in ein bürgelîn und wart enpfangen von einer juncvrouwen, diu ein wîp was’. Eyâ, nû merket mit vlîze diz wort: ez muoz von nôt sîn, daz si ein juncvrouwe was, der mensche, von der Jêsus wart enpfangen. Juncvrouwe (󰀂󰀅) | ist alsô vil gesprochen als ein mensche, der von allen vremden bilden ledic ist, alsô ledic, als er was, dô er niht enwas. Sehet, nû möhte man vrâgen, wie der mensche, der geborn ist und vor gegangen ist in vernünftic leben, wie er alsô ledic müge sîn aller bilde, als dô er niht enwas, und er weiz doch vil, daz sint allez bilde; wie mac er denne ledic sîn? Nû merket daz underscheit, daz wil ich iu bewîsen. Wære ich alsô vernünftic, daz alliu bilde vernünfticlîche in mir stüenden, diu alle menschen ie enpfiengen und diu in gote selber sint, wære ich der âne eigenschaft, daz ich enkeinez mit eigenschaft hæte begriffen in tuonne noch in lâzenne, mit vor noch mit nâch, mêr: daz ich in disem (󰀂󰀆) | gegenwertigen nû vrî und ledic stüende nâch dem liebesten willen gotes und den ze tuonne âne underlâz, in der wârheit sô wære ich juncvrouwe âne hindernisse aller bilde als gewærlîche, als ich was, dô ich niht enwas. Ich spriche aber: daz der mensche ist juncvrouwe, daz enbenimet im nihtes niht von allen den werken, diu er ie getete; des stât er megetlich und vrî âne alle hindernisse der obersten wârheit, als Jêsus ledic und vrî ist und megetlich in im selber. Als die meister sprechent,

󰀁. It is strange that the manuscripts give Lucae II and not Lucae 󰀁󰀀. 󰀂. See Luc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀃󰀈 (‘Factum est autem, dum irent, et ipse intravit in quoddam castellum; et mulier quaedam, Martha nomine, excepit illum in domum suam’). The context of the text is Luc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀂 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀃ra: ‘In die (assumptionis). Secundum Lucam. In illo tempore intravit Ihesus [Factum est autem, dum irent, et ipse intravit Vg.] in quoddam castellum: et mulier quedam Martha nomine, excepit illum in domum suam. Et huic erat soror nomine Maria, que etiam sedens secus pedes Domini, audiebat verbum illius. Martha autem satagebat circa frequens ministerium: que stetit, et ait: Domine, non est tibi cure quod soror mea

H OMILY 󰀈󰀃* [Q 󰀂]

󰀂󰀅󰀅

‘Intravit Iesus in quoddam castellum et mulier quaedam, Martha nomine, excepit illum in domum suam.’ Lucae II.󰀁 I said a sentence, first in Latin, which is written in the Gospel and sounds in German: ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ went up to a castle and was received by a virgin who was a woman’.󰀂 Ah, now scrutinize this word with diligence: by necessity it must be that the person by whom Jesus was received was a virgin. Virgin means a person who is freed from all the alien images, as free as she was when she was not. Look, now you could ask how the person who is born and has progressed in intellectual life, still can be free from all images as when she was not: in fact she knows a lot, but these are all images; how can he then be free? Now look at the differentiation which I want to explain to you. If I were so intellectual that I had all images intellectually in me that all people ever received and that are in God Himself, and if I were this way without owning󰀃 them, so that I had grasped not a single one with attachment in my doing and letting go, neither before nor after, indeed: that in this very present now I myself stood free and freed according to the most amiable will of God, in order to follow it without interruption, in truth so I would be a virgin without impediment of any image as truthfully as I was when I was not. But I say: that the person is a virgin, this does take absolutely nothing away from all the actions she ever did; therefores he is innocent and free without any impediment towards the supreme truth,󰀄 as Jesus is freed and free and innocent in Himself. As the scholars say that like

reliquit me solam ministrare? Dic ergo illi, ut me adiuvet. Et respondens dixit illi Dominus: Martha, Martha, sollicita es, et turbaris erga plurima. Porro unum est necessarium. Maria optimam partem elegit, que non auferetur ab ea’. 󰀃. J. Quint ad loc. notes already the difficulty of translating ‘eigenschaft’. It is often close to ‘property’, but also ‘ownership’, can also mean ‘characteristic’, hence moves between Latin ‘proprietas’ and ‘qualitas’ and because of its semantic breadth can not be translated by one single English term. 󰀄. Understood as genetivus obiectivus also by J. Quint ad loc.

󰀂󰀅󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

daz glîch und glîch aleine ein sache ist der einunge, her umbe sô muoz der mensche maget sîn, juncvrouwe, diu den megetlîchen Jêsum enpfâhen sol. (󰀂󰀇) | Nû merket und sehet mit vlîze! Daz nû der mensche iemer mê juncvrouwe wære, sô enkæme keiniu vruht von im. Sol er vruhtbære werden, sô muoz daz von nôt sîn, daz er ein wîp sî. Wîp ist daz edelste wort, daz man der sêle zuo gesprechen mac, und ist vil edeler dan juncvrouwe. Daz der mensche got enpfæhet in im, daz ist guot, und in der enpfenclicheit ist er maget. Daz aber got vruhtbærlich in im werde, daz ist bezzer; wan vruhtbærkeit der gâbe daz ist aleine dankbærkeit der gâbe, und dâ ist der geist ein wîp in der widerbernden dankbærkeit, dâ er gote widergebirt Jêsum in daz veterlîche herze. Vil guoter gâben werdent enpfangen in der juncvröuwelicheit und enwerdent niht wider îngeborn in der wîplîchen vruhtbærkeit mit dankbærem lobe in got. (󰀂󰀈) | Die gâbe verderbent und werdent alle ze nihte, daz der mensche niemer sæliger noch bezzer dar abe wirt. Dâ enist im sîn juncvröuwelicheit ze nihte nütze, wan er niht ein wîp enist zuo der juncvröuwelicheit mit ganzer vruhtbærkeit. Dar an lît der schade. Dar umbe hân ich gesprochen: ‘Jêsus gienc ûf in ein bürgelîn und wart enpfangen von einer juncvrouwen, diu ein wîp was’. Daz muoz von nôt sîn, als ich iu bewîset hân. Êlîche liute die bringent des jâres lützel mê dan éine vruht. Aber ander êlîche liute die meine ich nû ze disem mâle: alle die mit eigenschaft gebunden sint an gebete, an vastenne, an wachenne und aller hande ûzerlîcher üebunge und kestigunge. Ein ieglîchiu eigenschaft eines ieglîchen werkes, daz die (󰀂󰀉) | vrîheit benimet, in disem gegenwertigen nû gote ze wartenne und dem aleine ze volgenne in dem liehte, mit dem er dich anwîsende wære ze tuonne und ze lâzenne in einem ieglîchen nû vrî und niuwe, als ob dû anders niht enhabest noch enwellest noch enkünnest: ein ieglîchiu eigenschaft oder vürgesetzet werk, daz dir dise vrîheit benimet alle zît niuwe, daz heize ich nû ein jâr; wan dîn sêle bringet dekeine vruht, si enhabe daz werk getân, daz dû mit eigenschaft besezzen hâst, noch dû engetriuwest gote noch dir selber, dû enhabest 󰀅. See Aristoteles, Metaphysica V c. 󰀁󰀅, 󰀁󰀀󰀂󰀁a󰀁󰀁–󰀂: ‘similia vero (dicuntur) quorum qualitas est una’; Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀉󰀃 a. 󰀉: ‘similitudo quaedam unitas est: unum enim in qualitate similitudinem causat, ut dicitur in V Metaphys.’

H OMILY 󰀈󰀃* [Q 󰀂]

󰀂󰀅󰀇

and like is solely caused by union,󰀅 therefore, the person must be a virgin girl to receive the innocent Jesus. Now look and look carefully! If now the person was always a virgin, no fruit would come to her. If she is to become fruitful, she must necessarily be a woman. ‘Woman’ is the noblest name that can be given to the soul, and it is much nobler than ‘virgin’. It is good that the person receives God in her, and in this receptivity she is a girl. But it is better for God to become fruitful in her; for only the fruitfulness of the gift is the gratitude of the gift,󰀆 and there the spirit is a woman in re-birthing gratitude where she re-births Jesus into the paternal heart. Many good gifts are received in virginity and are not re-birthed into God in the womanly fruitfulness with grateful praise in God. These gifts become corrupted and all become nothing, so that the person never becomes blessed or improves through these. There his virginity is of no use to him, because besides his virginity he is not a woman with complete fruitfulness. There is the damage. Therefore, I have said: ‘Jesus went up to a castle and was received by a virgin who was a woman’. This must be of necessity, as I have shown you. Parents carry little more than one fruit in the year. But now I mean other parents: all those who are bound by ownership of prayers, fasting, watching and all kinds of external exercises and asceticisms. Each ownership of each action that takes away the freedom to wait for God in this present now and to follow only Him in the light with which He would be pointing out to you to do or not to do in each free and new now, as if you had nothing else, nor be interested nor able to do: every ownership or prescribed work which steals for you this freedom [which is] always new, this now I call ‘a year’; because your soul bears no fruit, unless she has done the action that you have owned, and you trust in God and in yourself, that you have accomplished your action that you have undertaken with ownership; otherwise you have

󰀆. Unfortunately, the MHG play of words ‘vruhtbærlich’ – ‘widerbernden dankbærkeit’ can not be imitated in English.

󰀂󰀅󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

dîn werk volbrâht, daz dû mit eigenschaft begriffen hâst; anders sô enhâst dû dekeinen vride. Dar umbe sô enbringest dû ouch dekeine vruht, dû enhabest dîn werk getân. Daz setze ich vür ein jâr, und diu vruht ist nochdenne kleine, wan si ûz eigenschaft gegangen ist nâch dem werke und niht von vrîheit. Dise heize (󰀃󰀀) | ich êlîche liute, wan sie an eigenschaft gebunden stânt. Dise bringent lützel vrühte, und diu selbe ist nochdenne kleine, als ich gesprochen hân. Ein juncvrouwe, diu ein wîp ist, diu ist vrî und ungebunden âne eigenschaft, diu ist gote und ir selber alle zît glîch nâhe. Diu bringet vil vrühte und die sint grôz, minner noch mêr dan got selber ist. Dise vruht und dise geburt machet disiu juncvrouwe, diu ein wîp ist, geborn und bringet alle tage (󰀃󰀁) | hundert mâl oder tûsent mâl vruht âne zal gebernde und vruhtbære werdende ûz dem aller edelsten grunde; noch baz gesprochen: jâ, ûz dem selben grunde, dâ der vater ûz gebernde ist sîn êwic wort, dar ûz wirt si vruhtbære mitgebernde. Wan Jêsus, daz lieht und der schîn des veterlîchen herzen – als sant Paulus sprichet, daz er ‘ist ein êre und ein schîn des veterlîchen herzen’, und er durchliuhtet mit gewalte daz veterlîche herze – dirre Jêsus ist mit ir vereinet und si mit im, und si liuhtet und schînet mit im als ein einic ein und als ein lûter klâr lieht in dem veterlîchen herzen. (󰀃󰀂) | Ich hân ouch mê gesprochen, daz ein kraft in der sêle ist, diu berüeret niht zît noch vleisch: si vliuzet ûz dem geiste und blîbet in dem geiste und ist zemâle geistlich. In dirre kraft ist got alzemâle grüenende und blüejende in aller der vröude und in aller der êre, daz er in im selber ist. Dâ ist alsô herzenlîchiu vröude und alsô unbegrîfelîchiu grôze vröude, daz dâ nieman volle abe gesprechen kan. Wan der êwige vater gebirt sînen êwigen sun in dirre kraft âne underlâz, alsô daz disiu kraft mitgebernde ist den sun des vaters und sich selber den selben sun in der einiger kraft des vaters. Hæte ein (󰀃󰀃) | mensche ein ganzez künicrîche oder allez guot von ertrîche und lieze daz lûterlîche durch got und würde der ermesten menschen einer, der ûf ertrîche iener lebet, und gæbe im denne got alsô vil ze lîdenne, als er ie menschen gegap, und lite

H OMILY 󰀈󰀃* [Q 󰀂]

󰀂󰀅󰀉

no peace. Therefore, you do not bear any fruit, if you have not done your action. I place it as a year, and the fruit is nevertheless small, because it results from ownership of action and not from freedom. These I call ‘parents’, because they are bound to what is theirs. These bear little fruit, and yet it is small, as I said.

A virgin, who is a woman, is free and freed without ownership, she is always equally close to God and to herself. She bears many fruits and they are great, no less and no more than God Himself is. This fruit and this birth give birth to this virgin who is a woman, and generates daily innumerable fruit a hundred times, which are giving birth and becoming fruitful out of the most noble ground; to say it more clearly: yes, from the very ground where the Father is giving birth to His eternal Word, from this she is fruitfully co-generating. Because Jesus, light and glory of the paternal heart, as Saint Paul says, that ‘He is an honour and a glory of the paternal heart’,󰀇 and He enlightens the paternal heart with power, this Jesus is united with her and she with Him, and she shines and shines with Him as a single One and as a pure, clear light in the paternal heart. I have also already said󰀈 that there is a power in the soul that does not touch time or flesh: it emanates from the spirit and remains in the spirit and is completely spiritual. In this power God is completely flourishing and flowering in all joy and in all the honour He is in Himself. There is so much heartfelt joy and so incomprehensibly great joy that no one can fully talk about it. As the eternal Father gives birth to His eternal Son in this power without interruption, so is this power cogenerating the Son of the Father and Himself as the same Son in the one power of the Father. If a person had an entire kingdom or all the goods of the earth and left this purely for God and if she became one of the poorest people living somewhere on earth, and if God gave her so much suffering as He ever gave to a person, and the person suffered all

󰀇. See Hebr. 󰀁:󰀃: ‘qui cum sit splendor gloriae et figura substantiae eius…’ 󰀈. As this is one of the main themes of Eckhart, one could point to many potential other texts without being able to single out a specific one.

󰀂󰀆󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

er allez diz unz an sînen tôt und gæbe im denne got einen blik ze einem mâle ze schouwenne, wie er in dirre kraft ist: sîn vröude würde alsô grôz, daz alles dis lîdens und armüetes wære nochdenne ze kleine. Jâ, engæbe im joch got her nâch niemer mê himelrîches, er hæte nochdenne (󰀃󰀄) | alze grôzen lôn enpfangen umbe allez, daz er ie geleit; wan got ist in dirre kraft als in dem êwigen nû. Wære der geist alle zît mit gote vereinet in dirre kraft, der mensche enmöhte niht alten; wan daz nû, dâ got den êrsten menschen inne machete, und daz nû, dâ der leste mensche inne sol vergân, und daz nû, dâ ich inne spriche, diu sint glîch in gote und enist niht dan éin nû. Nû sehet, dirre mensche wonet in éinem liehte mit gote; dar umbe enist in im noch lîden noch volgen sunder ein glîchiu êwicheit. Disem menschen ist in der wârheit wunder abegenomen, und alliu dinc stânt weselîche in im. Dar umbe enpfæhet (󰀃󰀅) | er niht niuwes von künftigen dingen noch von keinem zuovalle, wan er wonet in einem nû alle zît niuwe âne underlâz. Alsolîchiu götlîchiu hêrschaft ist in dirre kraft. Noch ein kraft ist, diu ist ouch unlîplich; si vliuzet ûz dem geiste und blîbet in dem geiste und ist zemâle geistlich. In dirre kraft ist got âne underlâz glimmende und brinnende mit aller sîner rîcheit, mit aller sîner süezicheit (󰀃󰀆) | und mit aller sîner wunne. Wærlîche, in dirre kraft ist alsô grôziu vröude und alsô grôziu, unmæzigiu wunne, daz nieman vollen dar abe gesprechen noch geoffenbâren kan. Ich spriche aber: wære ein einic mensche, der hie inne schouwete vernünfticlîche in der wârheit einen ougenblik die wunne und die vröude, diu dar inne ist: allez daz er gelîden möhte und daz got von im geliten wolte hân, daz wære im allez kleine und joch nihtes niht; ich spriche noch mê: ez wære im alzemâle ein vröude und ein gemach. Wilt dû rehte wizzen, ob dîn lîden dîn sî oder gotes, daz solt dû her an merken: lîdest dû umbe dîn selbes willen, in welher wîse daz ist, daz lîden (󰀃󰀇) | tuot dir wê und ist dir swære ze tragenne. Lîdest dû aber umbe got und got aleine, daz lîden entuot dir niht wê und ist dir ouch niht swaere, wan got treit den last. Mit guoter wârheit! Wære ein mensche, der lîden wolte durch got und lûterlîche got aleine, und viele allez daz lîden ûf in zemâle, daz alle menschen ie geliten und daz al diu

H OMILY 󰀈󰀃* [Q 󰀂]

󰀂󰀆󰀁

this until her death, and God gave her to contemplate once with a look to see how He is in this power: her joy would be so great that all this suffering and poverty would still be too small. Yes, even if God never gave her the kingdom of heaven then, she would nevertheless receive such a great reward for all that she ever suffered; because God is in this power as in an eternal now. If the spirit were always united with God in this power, the person could not age; for the now in which God made the first person inside, and the now in which the last person should die, and the now in which I speak, are the same in God, and they are but one now. Now you see, this person lives in a light with God; therefore in her there is neither suffering nor progression but the same eternity. This person is truly stripped of all wonder, and all things are substantially in them. They receive nothing new from future things or from any accident, because they live in a constantly ever new now. Such is the divine lordship that lies in this power. There is yet another power, which is also incorporeal; it emanates from the spirit and remains in the spirit and is completely spiritual.󰀉 In this power God is constantly sparkling and burning with all His richness, with all His sweetness and with all His delight. In truth, in this power there is so great joy and so great boundless delight that no one can completely talk about it or reveal it. But I say: if there were only one person who at this moment in truth intellectually saw inside this delight and this joy that is in it: all that she could suffer and that God wanted her to suffer, would be a very small thing for her, or rather nothing; I say more: it would be a complete joy and a good fortune. If you really want to know whether your suffering is yours or God’s, you must note the following: if you suffer for your sake, in any way, suffering hurts you and is hard to bear. If instead you suffer for the love of God and for God alone, suffering does not hurt you nor is it heavy for you, because God carries the burden. In good truth! If there were a person who wanted to suffer for God’s sake and purely for God alone, and all the suffering that all people have ever suffered and which

󰀉. See above n. 󰀉.

󰀂󰀆󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

werlt hât gemeinlich, daz entæte im niht wê noch enwære im ouch niht swære, wan got der trüege den last. Der mir einen zentener leite ûf mînen hals und in denne ein ander trüege ûf mînem halse, als liep leite ich hundert ûf als einen, wan ez enwære mir niht swære (󰀃󰀈) | noch entæte mir ouch niht wê. Kürzlîche gesprochen: swaz der mensche lîdet durch got und got aleine, daz machet im got lîhte und süeze. Als ich sprach in dem beginne, dâ mite wir unser predige begunden: ‘Jêsus gienc ûf in ein bürgelîn und wart enpfangen von einer juncvrouwen, diu ein wîp was’. War umbe? Daz muoste sîn von nôt, daz si ein juncvrouwe was und ouch ein wîp. Nû hân ich iu geseit, daz Jêsus enpfangen wart; ich enhân iu aber niht geseit, waz daz bürgelîn sî, alsô als ich nû dar abe sprechen wil. (󰀃󰀉) | Ich hân underwîlen gesprochen, ez sî ein kraft in dem geiste, diu sî aleine vrî. Underwîlen hân ich gesprochen, ez sî ein huote des geistes; underwîlen hân ich gesprochen, ez sî ein lieht des geistes; underwîlen hân ich gesprochen, ez sî ein vünkelîn. Ich spriche aber nû: ez enist weder diz noch daz; nochdenne ist ez ein waz, daz ist hœher boben diz und daz dan der himel ob der erde. Dar umbe nenne ich ez nû in einer edelerr wîse dan ich ez ie genante, (󰀄󰀀) | und ez lougent der edelkeit und der wîse und ist dar enboben. Ez ist von allen namen vrî und von allen formen blôz, ledic und vrî zemâle, als got ledic und vrî ist in im selber. Ez ist sô gar ein und einvaltic, als got ein und einvaltic ist, daz man mit dekeiner wîse dar zuo geluogen mac. Diu selbe kraft, dar abe ich gesprochen hân, dâ got inne ist blüejende und grüenende mit aller (󰀄󰀁) | sîner gotheit und der geist in gote, in dirre selber kraft ist der vater gebernde sînen eingebornen sun als gewærlîche als in im selber, wan er wærlîche lebet in dirre kraft, und der geist gebirt mit dem vater den selben eingebornen sun und sich selber den selben sun und ist der

󰀁󰀀. See above nn. 󰀂–󰀃. 󰀁󰀁. ‘bürgelîn … huote des geistes … vünkelîn’: Proc. Col. I n. 󰀆󰀉 (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀃,󰀁󰀁): ‘Item quod in anima est quoddam “castellum”, quod “interdum vocavi custodiam animae” sive “scintillam”’. 󰀁󰀂. ‘Ez ist … einvaltig ist’: Proc. Col. I n. 󰀆󰀉 (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀃,󰀁󰀇–󰀈): ‘Sequitur quod “est valde simplex, sicut deus est unus et simplex”’. 󰀁󰀃. ‘Ich hân underwîlen … geluogen mag’: Proc. Col. II n. 󰀁󰀂󰀁 (LW V 󰀃󰀄󰀆,󰀂󰀃–󰀃󰀄󰀇,󰀂): ‘Quinquagesimus primus in sermone “Intravit Iesus in quoddam castellum” sic ait: “Ego interdum dixi” de illo castello “quod ipsum sit una virtus in anima, quae sola sit libera. Interdum vocavi ipsum

H OMILY 󰀈󰀃* [Q 󰀂]

󰀂󰀆󰀃

the whole universe has together would fall on her, it would not hurt her nor would she also be burdened, because God would carry the load. If someone loaded a quintal on my neck and then another person supported it on my neck, I would load with pleasure a hundred rather than one, because it would not be heavy and would not even hurt me. In short: what man suffers for God’s sake and for God alone, God makes him light and sweet. As I said at the beginning, with which we started our hom󰀁󰀀 ily: ‘Jesus went up to a castle and was received by a virgin who was a woman’. Why? It had to be of necessity that she was a virgin and also a woman. Now, I told you that Jesus was ‘received’; but I have not told you what the ‘castle’ is, so now I will tell you about this. I have said sometimes that this is a power in the mind that alone is free. Sometimes I said it was a cover of the mind; sometimes I said that it is a light of the mind; sometimes I said it’s a spark.󰀁󰀁 But now I say: it is neither this nor that; and yet it is something that is higher, beyond this and that, than heaven is above the earth. Therefore, I call it now in a more noble way than I ever called it, and yet it refuses the noble and wise and is beyond them. It is free of all names and bare of all forms, freed and free completely as God is freed and free in Himself. It is so absolutely one and simple as God is one and simple,󰀁󰀂 so that one can not look at it in any way.󰀁󰀃 The same power of which I have spoken, in which God is incessantly flowering and flourishing with all His Deity and Spirit in God, in this same power the Father is giving birth to His only begotten Son as truly as in Himself, because He truthfully lives in this power and the Spirit generates with the Father the same only-begotten Son and Himself as the same Son and is the same Son in this light and is the truth. If you could follow with my

custodiam animae vel spiritus. Interdum dixi ipsum esse lumen animae vel spiritus. Interdum dixi ipsum esse scintillam quandam. Sed modo dico quod ipsum est nec illud nec illud, sed tamen est aliquid, quod est illud vel istud vel super hoc et illud altius quam caelum super terram. Propter hoc nomino ego ipsum modo nobiliori modo quam umquam ipsum nominaverim. Ipsum insidiatur sive contrariatur etiam ipsi modo et est super hoc. Ipsum est liberum ab omni nomine et nudum absque omni forma et est sibi ipsi. Ipsum est valde simplex, sicut deus est unus et simplex, quod cum nullo modo ad hoc respici potest”’.

󰀂󰀆󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

selbe sun in disem liehte und ist diu wârheit. Möhtet ir gemerken mit mînem herzen, ir verstüendet wol, waz ich spriche, wan ez ist wâr und diu wârheit sprichet ez selbe. (󰀄󰀂) Sehet, nû merket! Alsô ein und einvaltic ist diz bürgelîn boben alle wîse, dâ von ich iu sage und daz ich meine, in der sêle, daz disiu edele kraft, von der ich gesprochen hân, niht des wirdic ist, daz si iemer ze einem einigen mâle einen ougenblik geluoge in diz bürgelîn und ouch diu ander kraft, dâ ich von sprach, dâ got ist inne glimmende und brinnende mit aller sîner rîcheit und mit aller sîner wunne, diu engetar ouch niemer mê dar în geluogen; sô (󰀄󰀃) | rehte ein und einvaltic ist diz bürgelîn, und sô enboben alle wîse und alle krefte ist diz einic ein, daz im niemer kraft noch wîse zuo geluogen mac noch got selber. Mit guoter wârheit und alsô wærlîche, als daz got lebet! Got selber luoget dâ niemer în einen ougenblik und geluogete noch nie dar în, als verre als er sich habende ist nâch wîse und ûf eigenschaft sîner persônen. Diz ist guot ze merkenne, wan diz einic ein ist sunder wîse und sunder eigenschaft. Und dar umbe: sol got iemer dar în geluogen, ez muoz in kosten alle sîne götlîche namen und sîne persônlîche eigenschaft: daz muoz er alzemâle hie vor lâzen, sol er iemer mê dar în geluogen. Sunder als er ist einvaltic ein, (󰀄󰀄) | âne alle wîse und eigenschaft: dâ enist er vater noch sun noch heiliger geist in disem sinne und ist doch ein waz, daz enist noch diz noch daz. Sehet, alsus als er ein ist und einvaltic, alsô kumet er in daz ein, daz ich dâ heize ein bürgelîn in der sêle, und anders kumet er enkeine wîse dar în; sunder alsô kumet er dar în und ist dâ inne. Mit dem teile ist diu sêle gote glîch und anders niht. Daz ich iu geseit hân, daz ist wâr; des setze ich iu die wârheit ze einem geziugen und mîne sêle ze einem pfande. (󰀄󰀅) | Daz wir alsus sîn ein bürgelîn, in dem Jêsus ûfgange und werde enpfangen und êwiclîche in uns blîbe in der wîse, als ich gesprochen hân, des helfe uns got. Âmen. 󰀁󰀄. Here is another difficulty. ‘wîse’ here means both ‘form’ and ‘wise person’. In the same paragraph the ‘wîse’ is given an agency role, hence, cannot simply be the abstract ‘form’, yet in the beginning it is hard to understand in any other way than as ‘form’. 󰀁󰀅. See above n. 󰀁󰀀. 󰀁󰀆. ‘sô rehte ein … persônlîche eigenschaft’: Proc. Col. I n. 󰀆󰀉 (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀃,󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀂󰀄,󰀄): ‘ita simplex et super omnem modum quod nec deus pater potest ipsum intueri secundum modos et

H OMILY 󰀈󰀃* [Q 󰀂]

󰀂󰀆󰀅

heart, you would understand well what I say, because it is true and the truth itself says so. Look, now note! So one and simple is this castle in the soul beyond all form󰀁󰀄 of which I spoke to you and who I mean, that this noble power, of which I have spoken, is never worthy once to cast a glance at this castle nor the other power, of which I spoke,󰀁󰀅 it dares never to look within, where God is internally sparkling and burning with all His richness and all His delight; so just one and simple is this castle, and so beyond all form and all the powers is this single One, that no power or wise person can ever look at it, not even God Himself. In good truth and so truly how God lives, God Himself never looks into it for one moment and has never looked into it, insofar as He keeps him wise and according to the property of his persons. It is good to note that this single One is without a way and without property.󰀁󰀆 And therefore: if God were ever to look into it, it would cost Him all His divine names and His personal property: these He must leave completely out here, if He has to look inside it. But as He is a simple One, without a way or property: there He is neither Father nor Son nor Holy Spirit, thus understood, and yet He is something, which is neither this nor that. Look, as He is one and simple, so He comes into the One that I call a castle in the soul,󰀁󰀇 and otherwise He does not come into it in any way; but so He comes into it and is in it. With this part the soul is like God and nothing else. What I have told you is true; of this I put the truth to witness and my soul in pledge. That we are thus a castle in which Jesus rises and is received and eternally remains in us in the way I have said – to this may God help us. Amen.

proprietates personales’. ‘Et si intueretur ipsum, hoc constaret ipsum omnia sua nomina divina et suas proprietates personales«, eo quod »ipsum est sine modo et proprietate”’. 󰀁󰀇. ‘Sunder als er … in der sêle’: Proc. Col. I n. 󰀆󰀉 (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀄,󰀄–󰀉): ‘“Sed secundum quod ipse deus est unus et simplex et sine modo et proprietate, secundum quod nec est pater nec filius nec spiritus sanctus”, “sic potest intrare illud unum, quod voco castellum”’.

Homily 󰀈󰀄* [Q 󰀈󰀆] In die assumptionis beatae Mariae, 󰀁󰀅 augusti ‘Intravit Iesus in quoddam castellum’ (Luc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀃󰀈) Introduction

T

his is one more homily for the feast of the Assumption of Mary dealing with the passage Luc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀀. The text as given in the critical edition is derived from six manuscripts (B󰀅, G󰀅, Mai󰀁, Sa, St󰀁, Str󰀃), and a number of fragments, including the Greiths fragments. The witnesses H󰀄, Kon, M󰀅󰀇 are not used in the critical edition of DW. The content of the homily This is another of the famous homilies of Eckhart with his particular interpretation of Mary and Martha (Luc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀀) and the way he interrelates contemplation and action. After giving the shortened Latin verse (n. 󰀁), he summarises the verses in the vernacular (n. 󰀂). First, he points out three things that ‘made Mary sit at Christ’s feet’ (n. 󰀃), and three things that ‘drew Mary’ (n. 󰀄). Then he broadens the view, pointing out what according to ‘the masters’ affects people, namely both rational and things of the senses (n. 󰀅). A) ‘Lord, tell her to help me’ (nn. 󰀆–󰀇). Martha’s exhortation out of ‘loving benevolence’. B) ‘Martha, Martha, you are worried, you are very upset. One thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the best part that can never be taken away from her’ (nn. 󰀇–󰀁󰀀). The twofoldedness of Martha and Mary (n. 󰀁󰀀).

H OMILY 󰀈󰀄* [Q 󰀈󰀆]

󰀂󰀆󰀇

C) ‘One thing is necessary’ (n. 󰀁󰀁), or oneness ‘in the circle of eternal light’ (nn. 󰀁󰀁–󰀂). The three ways of the soul into God: 󰀁) ‘to seek God in all creatures’ (n. 󰀁󰀂), 󰀂) ‘a way without a way’, 󰀃) ‘a way and yet it is a home’ (n. 󰀁󰀃); the wonder and marvelous thing ‘to be outside and inside, to understand and to be understood’ (n. 󰀁󰀄). Returning ‘to our discourse’ about ‘Martha and with her all friends’, ‘three things we must have in our works’, to ‘act properly, rationally and consciously’ (n. 󰀁󰀅). D) ‘You are troubled for a number of things’ (n. 󰀁󰀆), or about being by things, under things or in and among things. ‘Living virtuously has three points related to the will’ and the threefoldedness of the will: sensitive, rational and eternal (n. 󰀁󰀇). Being unaffected is no good, and being affected by the senses is nothing bad (n. 󰀁󰀈). E) ‘You become troubled by too much concern’ (nn. 󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀁) – so to be concerned is nothing that should worry us, as can be seen from Martha, and we should remain sensible (n. 󰀂󰀀) and engage in actions (n. 󰀂󰀁), and hence should pray to follow the Lord ‘in the exercise of true virtues’ (n. 󰀂󰀂). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀉,󰀄󰀇–󰀅󰀃; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀁󰀆󰀈–󰀇󰀇; J. Quint, DW III 󰀄󰀇󰀂–󰀉󰀂; N. Largier II 󰀂󰀀󰀃–󰀂󰀉.󰀇󰀃󰀉–󰀄󰀇; D. Mieth, Predigt 󰀈󰀆: ‘Intravit Iesus in quoddam castellum’, in: Lectura Eckhardi II (󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃), 󰀁󰀄󰀀–󰀅󰀅. Previous English translations The Works of Meister Eckhart Doctor Ecstaticus, vol. II, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂), 󰀉󰀀–󰀈; M. Fox, Breakthrough (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀), 󰀄󰀇󰀈–󰀆; Meister Eckhart, Teacher and Preacher (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇), 󰀃󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀄; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀈󰀃–󰀉󰀀; Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings, ed. and trans. O. Davies (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀁󰀉󰀃–󰀂󰀀󰀂.

󰀂󰀆󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀄󰀈󰀁) ‘Intravit Iesus in quoddam castellum’ etc. Sant Lukas schrîbet in dem êwangeliô, daz unser herre Jêsus Kristus gienc in ein kleinez stetlîn; dâ enpfienc in ein vrouwe, hiez Marthâ; diu hâte eine swester, hiez Marîâ; diu saz ze den vüezen unsers herren und hôrte sîniu wort; aber Marthâ gienc umbe und dienete dem lieben Kristô. Driu dinc tâten Marîen sitzen bî den vüezen Kristî. Daz eine was, daz diu güete gotes umbegriffen hâte ir sêle. Daz ander was unsprechelîchiu begirde: si begerte, si enwiste wes, und wolte, si enwiste waz. Daz dritte was süezer trôst und lust, den si schepfete ûz den êwigen worten, diu dâ runnen durch den munt Kristî. Marthen zugen ouch driu dinc, diu sie tâten umbegân und dienen dem lieben Kristô. Daz eine was ein hêrlich alter und ein wol geüebeter grunt ûf daz allernæhste; dâ von dûhte sie, daz niemanne daz werk als wol ze tuonne wære als ir. Daz ander was ein wîsiu (󰀄󰀈󰀂) | verstantnisse, diu daz ûzer werk wol gerihten kunde in daz allernæhste, daz minne gebiutet. Daz dritte was grôziu wirdicheit des lieben gastes. Die meister sprechent, daz got einem ieglîchen menschen bereit sî nâch redelîcher genüegede und nâch sinnelîcher ûf daz hœhste, des er begert. Daz uns got genuoc sî nâch redelicheit und daz er uns ouch genuoc sî nâch sinnelicheit, daz hât underscheit an den lieben vriunden gotes. Genuoc sîn nâch sinnelicheit, daz ist, daz uns got gibet trôst, lust und genüegede; und hie inne verwenet sîn, daz gât abe den lieben vriunden gotes nâch den nidern sinne. Aber redelîchiu genüegede, daz ist nâch dem geiste. Ich spriche dem redelîche genüegede, daz von allem luste daz oberste wipfelîn der sêle niht enwirt geneiget her abe, daz ez niht ertrinke in dem luste, ez enstande gewalticlîche ûf im. Danne ist er in redelîcher genüegede, sô liep und leit der crêatûre daz oberste wipfelîn niht geneigen enmac her abe. ‘Crêatûre’ heize ich allez, daz man enpfindet und sihet under got.

󰀁. The context of the text is Luc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀂 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀃ra (for the text see the previous Hom. 󰀈󰀃* [Q 󰀂]).

H OMILY 󰀈󰀄* [Q 󰀈󰀆]

󰀂󰀆󰀉

‘Intravit Iesus in quoddam castellum’ etc. Saint Luke writes in the Gospel that our Lord Jesus Christ entered a small city; a lady there received him, whose name was Martha; she had a sister, whose name was Mary; this one sat at our Lord’s feet and listened to his word, but Martha moved around and served the dear Christ.󰀁 Three things made Mary sit at Christ’s feet. One was that the goodness of God had held her soul. The second was an inexpressible desire: she desired, but did not know what, and wanted, but did not know what. The third was the sweet comfort and pleasure that she derived from the eternal words that flowed there from the mouth of Christ. Three things also drew Martha, and made her move around and serve dear Christ. One was a mature age and the most accomplished well-practiced ground; for this reason it seemed to her that nobody could do the work as well as she. The second was a wise understanding, which knew how to direct external action towards the highest degree that love commands. The third was the great dignity of the dear guest. The masters say󰀂 that God is ready for every person according to rational and sensitive satisfaction with respect to the peak they desire. That God is satisfying us according to rationality and that He is also satisfying us according to our sensibility, can be discerned in dear friends of God. Being satisfactory according to sensibility means that God gives us comfort, pleasure and satisfaction; and to be spoiled here does not happen to the dear friends of God with respect to their lower senses. But rational satisfaction is according to the spirit. I speak of rational satisfaction when the peak of the soul is not bent down by all pleasure so that it does not drown in pleasure, but stands with its power above it. Then the creature is in rational satisfaction, when their pleasure and pain can not bend down the peak [of the soul]. With ‘creature’ I mean everything that one senses and sees to be beneath God.

󰀂. The reference is unidentified.

󰀂󰀇󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Nû sprichet Marthâ: ‘herre, heiz, daz si mir helfe’. Diz ensprach Marthâ niht von hazze, mêr: si sprach ez von einem minnegunste, von dem wart si betwungen. Wir suln im sprechen einen minnegunst oder einen minneschimpf. Als wie? Daz merket! Si sach, daz Marîâ umbegriffen was mit luste nâch aller ir sêle genüegede. Marthâ bekante baz Marîen dan Marîâ Marthen, wan si lange und wol gelebet hâte; wan leben gibet daz edelste bekennen. Leben bekennet baz dan lust oder lieht allez, daz man in disem lîbe under gote enpfâhen mac, und etlîche wîs bekennet leben lûterer, dan êwic lieht gegeben (󰀄󰀈󰀃) | müge. Êwic lieht gibet ze erkennenne sich selber únd got, aber niht sich selber âne got; aber leben gibet ze erkennenne sich selber âne got. Dâ ez sich selber aleine sihet, dâ merket ez baz daz, waz glîch oder unglîch ist. Daz bewîset sant Paulus und ouch die heidenischen meister. Sant Paulus sach in sînem zucke got únd sich selber nâch geistes wîse in gote, und enwas doch niht bildelîche wîs in im eine ieglîche tugent erkennende an daz næhste; und daz was dâ von, daz er sie an werken niht geüebet enhâte. Die meister kâmen mit üebunge der tugende in sô hôch bekantnisse, daz sie eine ieglîche tugent bildelîche nâher bekanten dan Paulus oder dehein heilige in sînem êrsten zucke. Alsô stuont ouch Marthâ. Dâ von sprach si: ‘herre, heiz, daz si mir helfe’, als ob si spræche: mîne swester dunket, si vermüge, swaz si welle, die wîle si bî dir in dem trôste sitzet. Nû lâz sie schouwen, ob ez alsô sî, und heiz sie ûfstân und von dir gân. Daz ander was ein lieplich minnen, wan daz si ez spræche ûz dem sinne. Marîâ was sô vol girde: si gerte, si enwiste wes, und wolte, si enwiste waz. Wir hân sie arcwænic, die lieben Marîen, si sæze etwenne mê durch lust dan durch redelîchen nutz. Dâ von sprach Marthâ: ‘herre, heiz sie ûfstân’, wan si vorhte, daz si blibe in dem luste und niht vürbaz enkæme. Dô antwurte ir Kristus und sprach: ‘Marthâ, Marthâ, dû bist sorcsam, dû wirst betrüebet umbe vil. Des einen ist nôt. Marîâ hât den besten teil erwelt, der ir niemer enmac benomen werden’. Diz wort ensprach Kristus niht ze Marthen in einer strâfenden wîse, mêr: er antwurte ir und gap ir trôst, daz Marîâ werden sölte als si begerte. (󰀄󰀈󰀄)

󰀃. The reference is unidentified. 󰀄. Only here and in Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀], n. 󰀆: ‘Daz ûzer ouge der sêle ist, daz dâ gekêret ist gegen allen crêatûren und die merket nâch bildelîcher wîse und nâch kreftlîcher wîse’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀄* [Q 󰀈󰀆]

󰀂󰀇󰀁

Now, Martha says: ‘Lord, tell her to help me’. This Martha did not say out of resentment, but rather: she spoke out of a loving benevolence, by which she was overcome. We must speak to Him either in a loving benevolence, or in loving blame. How is that? Note! She saw that Mary was held by pleasure according to all the satisfaction of her soul. Martha knew Mary better than Mary [knew] Martha, because she had lived long and well; because living provides the most noble knowledge. Living more than pleasure or light knows all that in this life under God one can receive; and in many ways living knows in a purer way than eternal light can give. The eternal light enables one to know oneself and God, but not oneself without God; on the contrary, living enables one to know oneself without God. Where one sees only oneself, there one observes better what is similar or dissimilar. And this is shown by Saint Paul and also by the pagan masters.󰀃 In Saint Paul’s rapture, he saw God and himself spiritually in God, and yet he did not see, by way of imagination,󰀄 precisely each virtue in him; and this stemmed from the fact that he had not exercised them in actions. By the exercising of virtues the masters󰀅 came to such a high knowledge that they knew each virtue by imagination󰀆 closer than Paul in his first rapture or any saint. Martha was also like that. Of this she spoke: ‘Lord, tell her to help me’, as if to say: my sister is of the opinion she can do whatever she wants, as long as she is near you in comfort. Now let her see if that is the case, and tell her to get up and go away from you. The second was an affectionate love, though she did not say it in this sense. Mary was so full of desire: she wished, she did not know what, and she wanted, but she did not know what. We suspect that dear Mary somehow sat more for pleasure than for spiritual advantage. So Martha said: ‘Lord, tell her to get up’, because she feared she would stay in pleasure and would not progress. Then Christ answered and said: ‘Martha, Martha, you are worried, you are upset about many things. One thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the best part that can never be taken away from her’.󰀇 Christ spoke these words to Martha not to reproach her, but rather: He answered her and gave her the comfort that Mary would become as she desired.

󰀅. These seem to be the above mentioned pagan master. 󰀆. J. Quint translates ‘anschaulich’. 󰀇. Luc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀄󰀁–󰀂.

󰀂󰀇󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

| Warumbe sprach Kristus: ‘Marthâ, Marthâ’ und nante sie zwirunt? Isidôrus sprichet: ez ist âne zwîvel, daz got vor der zît, daz er mensche wart und nâch der zît, daz er mensche wart, nie mensche genante mit namen, daz ir dehein ie verlorn würde. Die er niht ennante mit namen, umbe die stât ez in zwîvel. ‘Nennen-Kristî’ heize ich sîn êwigez wizzen, unbetrogenlîche stân êwiclîche vor geschepfede aller crêatûren in dem lebenden buoche ‘vater-sun-und-heilic-geist’. Swaz dar inne genennet was und Kristus den namen mit worten her ûz sprach, der menschen enwart keinez nie verlorn. Daz bewîset Moyses, ze dem got selber sprach: ‘ich hân dich mit namen erkant’, und Nathanaêl, ze dem der liebe Kristus sprach: ‘ich bekante dich, dô dû læge under den bletern des vîcboumes’. Der vîcboum bezeichent got, in dem sîn name êwiclîche geschriben was. Und alsô ist bewîset, wie der menschen keiner noch niemer enwart noch enwirt verlorn, den der liebe Kristus durch menschlîchen munt ûz dem êwigen worte ie genante. Wâ von nante er Marthen zwirunt? Er meinte, allez, daz zîtlîches und êwiges guotes wære und daz crêatûre besitzen sölte, daz daz Marthâ zemâle hâte. An dem êrsten, dô er sprach Marthâ, dô bewîsete er ir volkomenheit zîtlîcher werke. Ze dem andern (󰀄󰀈󰀅) | mâle, dô er sprach Marthâ, dô bewîsete er, allez, daz dâ hœret ze êwiger sælde, daz ir des niht enbræste. Dâ von sprach er: ‘dû bist sorcsam’, und meinte: dû stâst bî den dingen, und diu dinc enstânt niht in dir; und die stânt mit sorgen, die âne hindernisse stânt in allem irm gewerbe. Die stânt âne hindernisse, die alliu iriu werk rihtent ordenlîche nâch dem bilde des êwigen liehtes; und die liute stânt bî den dingen und niht ín den dingen. Sie stânt vil nâhe und enhânt es niht minner, dan ob sie stüenden dort oben an dem umberinge der êwicheit. ‘Vil nâhe’, spriche ich, wan alle crêatûren die mittelnt. Mittel ist zwîvalt. Einez ist, âne daz ich in got niht komen enmac: daz ist werk und gewerbe in der zît, und daz enminnert niht êwige sælde. Werk ist, sô man sich üebet von ûzen an werken der

󰀈. Not to be found in Isidorus, but note Augustinus, Sermo 󰀁󰀀󰀃 c. 󰀂 (PL 󰀃󰀈, 󰀆󰀁󰀄): ‘Quid ergo dixit? Martha, Martha, Repetitio nominis indicium est dilectionis’. 󰀉. See Phil. 󰀄:󰀃: ‘et ceteris adiutoribus meis, quorum nomina sunt in libro vitae’; Apoc. 󰀃:󰀅: ‘… et non delebo nomen eius de libro vitae’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀄* [Q 󰀈󰀆]

󰀂󰀇󰀃

Why did Christ say: ‘Martha, Martha’ and called her twice? Isidore says:󰀈 it is beyond doubt that God, before the time when He became man and after the time when He became man, never mentioned by name men any of whom was ever lost. But there is doubt about those whom He did not name by name. By ‘Christ naming I mean His eternal knowledge of all creatures that stand infallibly and eternally before the creation in the living book of the ‘Father-Son-and-Holy Spirit’.󰀉 Whoever was named in there and whose name Christ called in these words, none of these people were lost. Moses is proof of this, to whom God Himself said: ‘I have known you by name’,󰀁󰀀 and Nathaniel, to whom the dear Christ said: ‘I knew you, when you were lying under the branches of the fig tree’.󰀁󰀁 The fig tree means God, in whom his name󰀁󰀂 was eternally written. And so it shows how none of the people was ever lost nor will be lost whom the dear Christ ever mentioned through His human mouth from the eternal Word. Why did He name Martha twice? He meant that Martha had completely everything temporal and eternal that a creature should possess. When He said ‘Martha’ first, He showed her perfection in temporal actions. When He said ‘Martha’ again, He showed that she lacked nothing of all that belongs to eternal bliss. Therefore He said: ‘You are careful’, and meant: you stay near things, yet things are not in you; and those people stand with concern who stand without impediment in all their business. Those people stand without impediment who direct all their actions properly according to the image of eternal light; and those people stand near things and not in things. They are very close and have none less than if they were standing over there at the circle of eternity. ‘Very close’, I say, because all creatures form a medium. Any medium is twofold. The one element is that without which I can not reach God: it is action and business in time, and this does not diminish eternal bliss. ‘Action’ is when one externally practices

󰀁󰀀. Exod. 󰀃󰀃:󰀁󰀂. 󰀁󰀁. Ioh. 󰀁:󰀅󰀀. 󰀁󰀂. The name of Nathaniel.

󰀂󰀇󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

tugende; aber gewerbe ist, sô man sich mit redelîcher bescheidenheit üebet von innen. Daz ander mittel daz ist: blôz sîn des selben. Wan dar umbe sîn wir gesetzet in die zît, daz wir von zîtlîchem vernünftigen gewerbe gote næher und glîcher werden. Daz meinte ouch sant Paulus, dô er sprach: ‘lœset die zît, die tage sint übel’. Die zît lœsen ist, daz man âne underlâz mit vernünfticheit ûfgâ in got, niht nâch bildelîcher underscheidenheit, mêr: mit vernünftiger lebelîcher wârheit. Und dâ ‘sint die tage übel’, daz verstât alsô: tac bewîset naht. Enwære kein naht, sô enwære und hieze ez ouch niht tac, wan ez wære allez éin lieht; und daz meinte Paulus, wan ein liehtez leben ist alze kleine, bî dem noch iht vinsternisse gesîn mac, daz einen hêrlîchen geist bewîlet und beschatewet êwiger sælde. Daz meinte ouch Kristus, dô er sprach: (󰀄󰀈󰀆) | ‘gât, die wîle ir daz lieht hât’; wan, swer dâ würket in dem liehte, der gât ûf in got, vrî und blôz alles mittels: sîn lieht ist sîn gewerbe, und sîn gewerbe ist sîn lieht. Alsô stuont diu liebe Marthâ. Dâ von sprach er ze ir: ‘des einen ist nôt’, niht zwei. Ich und dû, einstunt umbevangen mit êwigem liehte, ist einez, und zwei-einez ist ein brinnender geist, der dâ stât ob allen dingen und under gote an dem umberinge der êwicheit. Der ist zwei, wan er âne mittel got niht ensihet. Sîn bekennen und sîn wesen oder sîn bekennen und ouch des bekantnisses bilde diu enwerdent niemer ein. Sie ensehent got, wan, dâ wirt got geistic gesehen, vrî von allen bilden. Einez wirt zwei, zwei ist ein; lieht und geist, diu zwei ist éin in dem umbevange êwiges liehtes. Nû merke, waz umberinc sî der êwicheit. Diu sêle hât drî wege in got. Der eine ist: mit manicvaltigem gewerbe, mit brinnender minne in allen crêatûren got suochen. Daz meinte der künic Salomôn, dô er sprach: ‘in allen dingen hân ich ruowe gesuochet’. Der ander wec ist wec âne wec, vrî und doch gebunden, erhaben und gezucket vil nâhe über sich und alliu dinc âne willen und âne bilde, swie aleine ez doch weselîche niht enstâ. Daz meinte Kristus, dô er sprach: ‘sælic bist dû, Pêter! Vleisch und bluot enliuhtent dir niht’, mêr:

󰀁󰀃. Eph. 󰀅:󰀁󰀆. 󰀁󰀄. Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀃󰀅. 󰀁󰀅. Implied is: in this case.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀄* [Q 󰀈󰀆]

󰀂󰀇󰀅

actions of virtues; but ‘business’ is when one internally practices with rational judgements. The second element is: to be bare of this (other one). Because we are placed in time so that we become closer and more like God with an intellectual temporal business. This is also what Saint Paul meant when he said: ‘Redeem the time, the days are evil’.󰀁󰀃 Redeeming time means ascending without interruption intellectually to God, not according to the distinction of images but rather: with rational, vital truth. And then understand ‘the days are evil’ as follows: the day points to the night. If there were no night, there would not be day and [it] would not even be spoken of, because everything would be nothing but one light; and this is what Paul meant, because a light-filled life in which there is some darkness is very modest, which veils and puts the shade of eternal bliss on a great spirit. This is also what Christ meant when He said: ‘Go while you have the light’,󰀁󰀄 because he who acts in this light, ascends into God, free and bare of every medium: his light is his business, and his business is his light. This was how dear Martha was. So He said to her: ‘One thing is necessary’, not two. I and you, once surrounded by eternal light, are one, and two-one is a burning spirit that stands above all things and under God in the circle of eternity. This one is two, when he does not see God without a medium. His knowledge and his being or his knowledge and also the image of knowledge never become one. They do not see God except where God is seen spiritually, free from all images. One becomes two,󰀁󰀅 two is one; light and spirit, these two are one in the circle of eternal light. Now note, what the circle of eternity is. The soul has three ways into God. The first is: to seek God in all creatures with multiple undertakings, with ardent love. This King Solomon meant when he said: ‘In all things I have sought quiet’.󰀁󰀆 The second way is a way without a way, free and yet bound, elevated and raptured, very closely above itself and above all things without will and without images, although alone it does not essentially exist. This Christ meant when He said:󰀁󰀇 ‘You are blessed, Peter! Flesh and blood

󰀁󰀆. Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁. Solomon is seen as the author of Jesus Sirach (Eccli.). 󰀁󰀇. Matth. 󰀁󰀆:󰀁󰀇.

󰀂󰀇󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

‘in-die-vernunft-erhaben-sîn’, in dem dû mir sprichest ‘got’: ‘mîn himelscher vater hât ez dir geoffenbâret’. Sant Pêter ensach got niht blôz; er was wol über alle geschaffene redelicheit mit des himelschen vaters kraft gerucket an den umberinc der êwicheit. Ich spriche, daz er was begriffen von dem himelschen vater in (󰀄󰀈󰀇) | einem lieplîchen umbevange mit stürmiger kraft, unwizzende in einem ûfkapfenden geiste, der entzücket ist über alle redelicheit in des himelschen vaters vermügenheit. Dâ wart sant Pêtrô îngesprochen von obenân nider mit einem süezen geschaffenen dône, blôz doch alles lîplîchen gebrûchennes, in einvaltiger wârheit gotes und menschen einicheit in der persône des himelschen vater-sunes. Ich spriche getürsticlîche: hæte sant Pêter got âne mittel gesehen in natûre, als er dar nâch tete und als Paulus, dô er in den dritten himel gezucket wart, im wære des obersten engels gespræche alze grop gewesen. Sus sprach er manicvaltigiu lieplîchiu wort, der der liebe Jêsus niht enhæte bedorft, wan er sihet in herzen und in geistes grunt, dâ er âne allez mittel stât vor gote in vrîheit wârer iresheit. Daz meinte sant Paul, dô er sprach: ‘ez wart ein mensche gezucket in got und hôrte heimlîchiu wort, diu unsprechelich sint allen menschen’. Dâ bî verstât, daz sant Pêter stuont an dem umberinge der êwicheit und niht in einicheit got sehende in sînesheit. Der dritte wec heizet wec und ist doch heime, daz ist: got sehen âne mittel in sînesheit. Nû sprichet der liebe Kristus: ‘ich bin der wec und diu wârheit und daz leben’, ein Kristus ein persône, ein Kristus ein vater, ein Kristus ein geist, driu ein, driu ‘wec, wârheit und leben’, ein der liebe Kristus, in dem ez allez ist. Ûzerhalp disem wege umberingent (󰀄󰀈󰀈) | und vermittelnt alle crêatûren. In got in disem wege geleitet mit sînes wortes liehte und umbevangen mit ir beider geistes minne: daz ist über allez, daz man geworten mac.

󰀁󰀈. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae II II q. 󰀁󰀇󰀅 a. 󰀃 corp.: ‘Ad primum ergo dicendum quod mens humana divinitus rapitur ad contemplandam veritatem divinam, tripliciter. Uno modo, ut contempletur eam per similitudines quasdam imaginarias. Et talis fuit excessus mentis quid cecidit supra Petrum …. Tenio, ut contempletur eam in sua essentia. Et talis fuit raptus Pauli’. 󰀁󰀉. II Cor. 󰀁󰀂:󰀃–󰀄. 󰀂󰀀. This ‘His’ is also ‘his’, as in oneness, there would be no difference between Peter and God. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae II II q. 󰀈󰀀 a. 󰀅 corp.: ‘Alio modo potest esse aliquis in hac

H OMILY 󰀈󰀄* [Q 󰀈󰀆]

󰀂󰀇󰀇

do not enlighten you’, but rather: ‘being elevated in the intellect’, in which you say to me ‘God’: ‘My heavenly Father has revealed it to you’. Saint Peter did not see God naked; he was well above all created reason raptured by the power of the heavenly Father into the circle of eternity. I say that he was caught by the heavenly Father in an affectionate embrace with tempestuous power, unaware in a contemplative spirit rapt above all reason in the power of the heavenly Father. There Saint Peter was called from above with a sweet, creaturely tone, naked of any bodily enjoyment, in simple truth of the unity of God and man in the person of the heavenly Father-Son. I say boldly: if Saint Peter had looked at God in nature without a medium, as he did then, and like Paul when he was raptured into the third heaven, for him the conversation with the supreme angel would have been too coarse.󰀁󰀈 So he said many loving words for which the dear Jesus would have had no need, because He sees in the depths of the heart and the spirit where He stands without any medium in front of God in the freedom of the true being Himself. This Saint Paul meant when he said: ‘There was a man raptured in God, and he heard secret words that are unspeakable to all men’.󰀁󰀉 By this understand that Saint Peter stood at the circle of eternity, and not in oneness, God seeing in His own being.󰀂󰀀 The third way is called a way and yet it is a home, that is, to see God without any medium in the divine being. Now, dear Christ says: ‘I am the way and the truth and the life’,󰀂󰀁 one Christ, one person, one Christ, one Father, one Christ, one Spirit, three one, three ‘way, truth and life’, one the dear Christ, in whom all things are. Outside this way all creatures encircle and mediate. Led into God on this way with the light of His Word and surrounded with the love of the Spirit of both: this is beyond all that can be articulated with words.

vita potentialiter, et non secundum actum: inquantum scilicet anima eius est corpori mortali coniuncta ut forma, ita tamen quod non utatur corporis sensibus, aut etiam imaginatione, sicut accidit in raptu. Et sic potest contemplatio huius vitae pertingere ad visionem divinae essentiae. Unde supremum gradus contemplationis praesentis vitae est qualem habuit Paulus in raptu, secundum quem fuit medio modo se habens inter statum praesentis vitae et futurae’. 󰀂󰀁. Ioh. 󰀁󰀄:󰀆.

󰀂󰀇󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Nû lose wunder! Welch wunderlich stân ûze und innen, begrîfen und umbegriffen werden, sehen und sîn diu gesiht, enthalten und enthalten werden: daz ist daz ende, dâ der geist blîbet mit ruowe in einicheit der lieben êwicheit. Nû kêren wider ze unser rede, wie diu liebe Marthâ und mit ir alle gotes vriunde stânt mít der sorge, niht ín der sorge, und dâ ist daz zîtlich werk als edel als dehein vüegen in got; wan ez vüeget als nâhe als daz oberste, daz uns werden mac, âne aleine got sehen in blôzer natûre. Dâ von sprichet er: dû stâst bî den dingen und bî der sorge und meinet, daz si was wol mit den nidern sinnen betrüebet und bekümbert, wan si niht alsô verwenet stuont in geistes süeze. Si stuont bî den dingen, niht in den dingen; si stuont sunder und ez sunder. Driu dinc suln wir haben in unsern werken. Daz ist, daz man würke ordenlîche und redelîche und wizzentlîche. Dem spriche ich ordenlîche, daz in allen orten antwürtet dem næhsten. Sô spriche ich dem redelîche, daz man in dér zît niht bezzers enbekenne. Sô spriche ich dem wizzentlîche, daz man bevinde lebelîcher wârheit mit lustiger gegenwürticheit in guoten werken. Swâ disiu driu dinc sint, diu vüegent als nâhe und sint als nütze als aller der lust Marîen Magdalênen in der wüeste. (󰀄󰀈󰀉) | Nû sprichet Kristus: ‘dû bist betrüebet umbe vil’, niht umbe einez. Daz ist: sô si lûter einvaltic stât âne allen ùp, hin ûf gerihtet an den umberinc der êwicheit, sô wirt si betrüebet, sô si von sache gemittelt wirt, daz si niht enmac stân mit luste dort oben. Der mensche wirt betrüebet in der sache, der dâ versinket und stât bî der sorge. Aber Marthâ stuont in hêrlîcher, wol gevestenter tugent und in einem vrîen gemüete, ungehindert von allen dingen. Dâ von begerte si, daz ir swester in daz selbe gesetzet würde, wan si sach, daz si niht weselîche stuont. Ez was ein hêrlîcher grunt, ûz dem si begerte, daz si stüende in allem dem, daz dâ gehœret ze êwiger sælde. Dâ von sprichet Kristus: ‘eines ist nôt’. Waz ist daz? Daz ist daz eine, daz ist got. Daz ist nôt allen crêatûren; wan, züge got daz sîne an sich, alle crêatûren würden ze nihte. Züge got daz sîne abe der sêle Kristî, dâ ir geist geeiniget ist an die êwige persône,

󰀂󰀂. ‘nâhe’ means ‘close’ or ‘near’, ‘nâher’ means ‘closer’, ‘næhste’ means ‘very close’, but also ‘extremely’ and ‘in the lowest’, perhaps Eckhart plays with this semantic breadth.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀄* [Q 󰀈󰀆]

󰀂󰀇󰀉

Now listen to the wonder! What a marvelous thing to be outside and inside, to understand and to be understood, to see and to be the seen, to contain and to be contained: this is the end where the spirit remains still in the unity of the beloved eternity. Now let us return to our discourse, as dear Martha and with her all friends of God stand with care, not being in care, and there the temporal action is as noble as any joining of God; because it joins us as closely󰀂󰀂 as the supreme [part] can do, only without seeing God in naked nature. About this he says: ‘You stand by things and by concerns, and it means that she was quite troubled in her lower and worried senses, because she was not spoiled in the sweetness of the spirit. She stood by the things, not amongst the things; she stood apart and they stood apart.󰀂󰀃 Three things we must have in our works. That is: that one acts properly, rationally and consciously. I say ‘properly’ of that which in all places corresponds to the highest. I call it nothing better is known in the present time. I say ‘consciously’ when one encounters the living truth with a pleasant presence in good actions. Where these three things are, they join as closely and are as useful as all the pleasures of Mary Magdalene in the desert. Now Christ says: ‘You are troubled about a number of things’, not for one. That means: as she󰀂󰀄 stands pure and simple without any undertaking, oriented towards the circle of eternity, she is troubled, if anything interferes, so that she can not stand there with pleasure. A person who is there submerged and stands there concerned, becomes troubled among things. But Martha stood in masterly, wellstrengthened virtue and in a free mind, not hindered by anything. Therefore, she wished her sister to be established in the same place, for she saw that she was not substantially there. It was a masterly ground from which she wished her to be in all that belongs to eternal bliss. Of this Christ says: ‘One is necessary’. What is this? It is the One that is God. This is necessary for all creatures; because if God withdrew to Himself what is His, all creatures would become nothing. If God

󰀂󰀃. See J. Quint ad loc. on the textual difficulty of this passage. 󰀂󰀄. I.e. both, Martha and the soul.

󰀂󰀈󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Kristus blibe blôze crêatûre. Dâ von bedarf man des éinen wol. Marthâ vorhte, daz ir swester behaftete in dem luste und in der süeze, und begerte, daz si würde als si. Dâ von sprach Kristus, als ob er spræche: ‘gehap dich wol, Marthâ, si hât den besten teil erwelt’; diz sol ir abegân. Daz næhste, daz crêatûre werden mac, daz sol ir werden: si sol sælic weden als dû. Nû nemet lêre der tugende. Tugenthaft leben hât drî puncte an willen. Daz eine ist: den willen ûfgeben in got, wan daz muoz sîn, daz man daz volbringe, daz man dâ bekennet, ez sî danne abelegen oder zuonemen. Ez ist drîerleie wille. Der eine ist ein sinnelîcher wille, der ander ist ein redelîcher wille, der dritte ein êwiger wille. Der sinnelîche wille gebiutet lêre, daz man hœre wâre lêrære. Der redelîche wille daz (󰀄󰀉󰀀) | ist, daz man die vüeze setze in alliu diu werk Jêsû Kristî und der heiligen, daz ist: daz man glîche schicke wort, wandel und gewerp, an daz næhste geordent. Sô diz allez volbrâht wirt, sô gibet got ein anderz in der sêle grunt, daz ist: ein êwiger wille mit lieplîchem gebote des heiligen geistes. Danne sprichet diu sêle: herre, sprich in mich, daz dîn êwiger wille sî. Sô si alsus genuoc ist dem, als wir hie vor gesprochen hân, gevellet ez danne gote wol, sô sprichet der liebe vater sîn êwigez wort in die sêle. Nû sprechent unser guoten liute, man sül alsô volkomen werden, daz uns kein liep bewegen müge und daz man unberüerlich sî von liebe und von leide. Sie tuont im unrehte. Ich spriche, daz heilige sô grôz nie enwart, er enmöhte beweget werden. Sô spriche ich ouch dâ wider: daz wirt heiligen wol in disem lîbe, daz in nihtes niht her abe von gote gewegen mac. Ir wænet, alle die wîle wort wegen mügen in liep und in leit, sô sît ir unvolkomen. Des enist niht. Kristus enhâte sîn niht; daz bewîsete er, dô er sprach: ‘mîn sêle ist trûric biz ûf den tôt’. Kristô tâten wort als wê, und wære aller crêatûren wê gevallen ûf éine crêatûre, daz

󰀂󰀅. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I II q. 󰀉 a. l: ‘Utrum voluntas moveatur ab intellectu’, a. 󰀂: ‘Utrum voluntas moveatur ab appetitu sensitivo’, a. 󰀆: ‘Utrum voluntas moveatur a deo solo sicut ab exteriori principio’. 󰀂󰀆. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I II q. 󰀉 a. 󰀂 ad 󰀃: ‘Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Philosophus dicit in I Polit., ratio, in qua est voluntas, movet suo imperio irascibilem et concupiscibilem, non quidem despotico principatu, sicut movetur servus a domino, sed principatu regali seu politico, sicut liberi homines reguntur a gubernante, qui tamen possunt contra movere. Unde et

H OMILY 󰀈󰀄* [Q 󰀈󰀆]

󰀂󰀈󰀁

withdrew what is His from the soul of Christ, where Her spirit is united with the eternal person, Christ would remain a simple creature. Therefore, one really needs the One. Martha feared that her sister would be caught by pleasure and sweetness and she wished like her to be like herself. Therefore Christ spoke as if He was saying: ‘Relax, Martha, she has chosen the best part’; this should depart from her. The closest that creatures can become, she shall become: she will be blessed like you. Now take a lesson on virtues. Living virtuously has three points related to the will. One is to renounce the will in God, because it is necessary to accomplish what one then recognizes, both in giving up and in growing. The will is threefold.󰀂󰀅 One is the sensitive will, the second is the rational will, the third is the eternal will. The sensitive will requires teaching, that true teachers are listened to.󰀂󰀆 The rational will is that in all the actions one follows the steps of Jesus Christ and of the saints, that is: that one should orient words, conduct and undertakings alike towards the highest. When all this is accomplished, God gives something else into the ground of the soul, that is an eternal will with a loving command of the Holy Spirit.󰀂󰀇 Then the soul says: Lord, speak into me,󰀂󰀈 so that ‘your eternal shall be’. When she thus satisfies this, as we have said before, and then pleases God, then the dear Father speaks His eternal Word into the soul. Now our good people say that we must become so perfect that no pleasure can move us and that we are untouchable by pleasure and pain.󰀂󰀉 These are not right. I say that there never was a great saint who could not be moved. So I also say to the contrary: this turns out well for a holy person so that nothing can distract them from God. You imagine that as long as words can move you in pleasure and in pain, you are imperfect. It is not so. Christ was not like that; He showed it when He said: ‘My soul is sad even to death’.󰀃󰀀 Christ was hurt by words,

irascibilis et concupiscibilis possunt in contrarium movere ad voluntatem. Et sic nihil prohibet voluntatem aliquando ab eis moveri’. 󰀂󰀇. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I II q. 󰀉 a.󰀆 corp.: ‘Voluntatis autem causa nihil aliud esse potest quam deus’. 󰀂󰀈. J. Quint translates: ‘gib mir ein’. 󰀂󰀉. See Augustinus, De civitate Dei XIV 󰀉. 󰀃󰀀. Matth. 󰀂󰀆:󰀃󰀈: ‘tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem’.

󰀂󰀈󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

enwære als grôz niht gewesen, als Kristô wê was; und daz was von adel sîner natûre und von der heiligen vereinunge götlîcher und menschlîcher natûre. Dâ von spriche ich, daz heilige nie enwart noch niemer erkriegen enmac, pîne entuo im wê und liep entuo im wol. Daz beschihet etwenne von liebe und minne und von gnâde: der kæme und spræche, er wære ein ketzer oder wie man wölte, sô der mensche mit der gnâde übergozzen wære, sô stüende er wol glîch in liebe und in leide. (󰀄󰀉󰀁) | Aber daz wirt heiligen wol, daz in nihtes niht her ûz von gote gewegen mac, wirt joch daz herze gepînget, ob der mensche in der gnâde niht enist, daz doch der wille einvalticlîche bestâ in gote, alsô sprechende: herre, ich dir und dû mir. Swaz dar în vellet, daz enhindert niht êwige sælde, alle die wîle ez niht envellet in daz oberste wipfelîn des geistes dort oben, dâ ez stât in einicheit gotes allerliebesten willen. Nû sprichet Kristus: ‘umbe vil sorge wirst dû betrüebet’. Marthâ was sô weselich, daz sie ir gewerp niht enhinderte; werk und gewerp leitete sie ze êwiger sælde. Si wart wol etwaz gemittelt: ez stiuret wol edeliu natûre und stæter vlîz und vor genante tugende. Marîâ was ê Marthâ, ê si Marîâ würde; wan, dô si saz bî den vüezen unsers herren, dô enwas si niht Marîâ: si was ez wol an dem namen, si enwas ez aber niht an dem wesene; wan si saz bî luste und bî süeze und was allerêrst ze schuole gesetzet und lernete leben. Aber Marthâ stuont sô weselîche, dâ von sprach si: ‘herre, heiz sie ûfstân!’, als ob si spræche: herre, ich wölte gerne, daz si dâ niht ensæze durch lust; ich wölte, daz si lernete leben, daz si ez weselîche besæze. ‘Heiz sie ûfstân’, daz si durnehte werde. Si enhiez niht Marîâ, dô si bî Kristî vüezen saz. Ich heize daz Marîâ: ein wol geüebeter lîp, gehôrsam einer wîsen sêle. Daz heize ich gehôrsam: swaz bescheidenheit gebiutet, daz des der wille genuoc sî. Nû wænent unser guoten liute erkriegen, daz gegenwürticheit sinnelîcher dinge den sinnen niht ensî. Des engât in niht zuo. Daz ein pînlich gedœne mînen ôren als lustic sî als ein süezez seitenspil, daz erkriege ich niemer. Aber daz sol man haben, daz ein (󰀄󰀉󰀂) | redelich gotgeformeter wille blôz stande alles natiurlîchen lustes, swenne ez bescheidenheit aneschouwet, daz si dem willen gebiete, sich abe ze

H OMILY 󰀈󰀄* [Q 󰀈󰀆]

󰀂󰀈󰀃

and if the pain of all creatures had fallen upon one creature, this would not have been as big a pain as that by which Christ was hurt; and this derived from the nobility of His nature and from the holy union of divine and human nature. Therefore I say that there was never a saint that could reach the point where pain does not hurt him and pleasure does not do him good. It happens sometimes out of pleasure, love and grace, that if one came and said that he is a heretic or whatever one wants, and this man was sprinkled with grace, he would remain unchanged in pleasure and pain. But it will be good for a saint that nothing can distract him from God, so that even if the heart is made to suffer, if this man is not in grace, yet the will simply remains in God, and says thus: ‘Lord, I for you and you for me’. What happens to him does not prevent eternal bliss, as long as it does not fall into the highest summit of the spirit, up there where it is in unity with the beloved will of God. Now Christ says: ‘You become troubled by too much concern’. Martha was so in being that her undertaking did not hinder her; action and undertaking led her to eternal bliss. Truly she was helped in a certain way: noble nature, constant diligence and the aforementioned virtues do steer. Mary was first Martha, before she might become Mary; for when she sat at the feet of our Lord, she was not Mary: she was it well by name, but she was not so by being; because she sat in pleasure and sweetness and had just been put to school and was learning to live. But Martha was so in being, and so she said, ‘Lord, tell her to get up’, as if to say: Lord, I would wish she did not sit there for pleasure: I wished she would learn to live, so that she would possess it󰀃󰀁 substantially. ‘Tell her to get up’, so that she becomes perfect. She was not called Mary, when she sat at the feet of Christ. This I call ‘Mary’: a well-practiced body, obedient to a wise soul. This I call ‘obedience’: that the will executes whatever rationality asks for. Now our good people imagine they can get to where the presence of sensible things does not affect the senses. With this they are not convincing. That a painful sound be as pleasant as a sweet playing of a harp, I will never get to that point. But one should maintain that a rational godlike will stands bare of all natural pleasure, when it

󰀃󰀁. I.e. life.

󰀂󰀈󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

kêrenne, und der wille spreche: ich tuon ez gerne. Sehet, dâ würde kriec ze luste; wan, swaz der mensche mit grôzer arbeit muoz erstrîten, daz wirt im ein herzenvröude, und danne wirt ez vruhtbære. Nû wellent etelîche liute dar zuo komen, daz sie werke ledic sîn. Ich spriche: ez enmac niht gesîn. Nâch der zît, dô die jünger enpfiengen den heiligen geist, dô viengen sie êrste ane, tugende ze würkenne. ‘Marîâ saz bî den vüezen unsers herren und hôrte sîniu wort’ und lernete, wan si allerêrst ze schuole was gesetzet und lernete leben. Aber dar nâch, dô si gelernete und Kristus ze himel gevuor und si den heiligen geist enpfienc, dô vienc si allerêrst ane ze dienenne und vuor über mer und predigete und lêrte und wart ein dienærinne und ein wescherinne der jünger. Sô die heiligen ze heiligen werdent, danne allerêrst vâhent sie ane, tugende ze würkenne, wan danne samenent sie hort êwiger sælde. Swaz dâ vor ist gewürket, daz giltet schulde und leitet wîze abe. Des vinden wir geziucnisse an Kristô: von dem anbeginne, daz got mensche wart und mensche got, dô vienc er ane, ze würkenne unser êwigen sælicheit unz an daz ende, daz er starp an dem kriuze. Kein glit was an sînem lîbe, ez enüebete sunderlîche tugent. Daz wir im gewærlîche nâchvolgen an üebunge wârer tugende, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

󰀃󰀂. See Jacobus a Voragine, Legenda Aurea (Graesse, XCVI [󰀉󰀆], 󰀄󰀁󰀃): ‘Interea beata Maria supernae contemplationis avida asperrimum eremum petiit et in loco angelicis manibus praeparato per XXX annos incognita mansit…. Qualibet autem die septem horis canonicis ab angelis in aethera elevabatur et caelestium agminum gloriosos concentus etiam corporibus auribus audiebat, unde

H OMILY 󰀈󰀄* [Q 󰀈󰀆]

󰀂󰀈󰀅

contemplates rationality, so that it asks the will to turn away and the will answers: I do it willingly. Look, there strife becomes pleasure: because what man must earn with great effort becomes a cordial joy for him, and then it becomes fruitful. Now certain people want to become free of actions. I say: this can not be. After the disciples had received the Holy Spirit, they began to act in virtue. ‘Mary sat at the feet of our Lord and listened to His words’ and learned, because she had just been put to school and was learning to live. But later, when she had learned and Christ ascended to heaven and she had received the Holy Spirit, then, indeed, did she begin to serve, went overseas, preached and taught and was a servant and a washerwoman of the disciples.󰀃󰀂 When the saints become saints, only then they begin to act in virtue, and only then do they collect a treasure of eternal bliss. What was previously done, expiates guilt and drives away punishment.󰀃󰀃 We find a testimony of this in Christ: from the beginning, when God became man and man God, He began to work our eternal bliss until the end, when He died on the cross. There was no limb in His body which had not exercised a special virtue. May we truly follow Him in the exercise of true virtues, towards this God help us. Amen.

diebus singulis his suavissimis dapibus satiata et inde per eosdem angelos ad locum proprium revocata corporibus alimentis nullatenus indigebat’. 󰀃󰀃. See Th. Aqu., Super libros Sententiarum III d. 󰀃󰀅 q. 󰀁 a. 󰀄 sol. 󰀂 (Mandonnet 󰀁󰀁󰀈󰀉): ‘Est ergo duplex meritum: scilicet dimissionis culpae, et consecutionis gloriae’.

Homily 󰀈󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀃] In die assumptionis beatae Mariae, 󰀁󰀅 augusti (?) ‘Quae est ista, quae ascendit quasi aurora’ (Cant. 󰀆:󰀉) Introduction

T

he core passage that Eckhart refers to, Cant. 󰀆:󰀉 (‘Quae est ista, quae ascendit quasi aurora’), is not one of the readings for a feast of Mary, hence the placing of the text for the feast of Mary’s Assumption is doubtful, and only the content may support it. Yet, it may also be supported by the quote in n. 󰀈 of Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁 (‘I have sought peace in all things and rested in the inheritance of my Lord God’)󰀁 which is part of the reading for the feast of Mary’s Assumption in the Dominican liturgy on which Eckhart has given Hom. 󰀈󰀁* [Q 󰀆󰀀], Hom. 󰀈󰀂* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀀] and which is also quoted in Hom. 󰀈󰀄* [Q 󰀈󰀆]. The text is handed down by six manuscripts (B󰀆, B󰀇, N󰀁, Wo󰀁 and by the two manuscripts of the collection Paradisus anime intelligentis, O, H󰀂) and a few fragments, including the quote in Nicolaus of Landau. See the reference in Hom. 󰀉󰀃* [Q 󰀃󰀂], n. 󰀆: ‘Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen: die vil vastent und vil wachent und grôziu werk tuont und niht enbezzernt ir gebrechen und ir site, dâ daz wâre zuonemen ane liget, die triegent sich selben und sint des tiuvels spot’. This could refer to Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀄* [Q 󰀃󰀃], n. 󰀄: ‘Ez ist ein grôz tôrheit, daz manic mensche vil vastet und betet und grôziu werk tuot und alle zît aleine ist, daz er niht enbezzert sîne site und ist ungeruowic und zornic’, but there is also a parallel passage in the Talks of Instructions (DW V 󰀂󰀄󰀄,󰀅–󰀂󰀄󰀅,󰀃: ‘Vil liute dünket; daz sie grôziu werk süln tuon von ûzern dingen, als vasten, barvuoz gân und ander dinc des glîche, daz pênitencie heizet. Wâriu und diu aller beste pênitencie ist, dâ mite man grœzlîche und ûf daz hœhste 󰀁. Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁: ‘Et in his omnibus requiem quaesivi, et in hereditate eius morabor’.

󰀂󰀈󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

bezzert’), but the closest parallel is our homily here, Hom. 󰀈󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀃], n. 󰀄: ‘niht ensprichet er: die dâ vil vastent und grôziu werk tuont’. Hom. 󰀈󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀃] shows some parallels to Hom. 󰀁* [S 󰀈󰀇]. The content of the homily Even if we are unsure about the precise placing of this homily, it is certainly one on Mary and also the topic of her being elevated is core. First, the homily gives the shortened Latin verse of Cant. 󰀆:󰀉 (‘Quae est ista, quae ascendit quasi aurora’) (n. 󰀁), before repeating the verse slightly broadened in Latin (‘Quae est ista, quae ascendit quasi aurora consurgens, pulchra ut luna, electa ut sol?’) together with a vernacular translation (n. 󰀂). The preacher starts with his observations on the ‘three honours of our Lady’ (n. 󰀃): her birth (she ‘rises like the dawn’); her ‘holy life on earth’ (she is ‘beautiful as the moon’); her being the mother of God (she is ‘elected like the sun’) (n. 󰀄). These three honours structure the following homily, whereby, as one can quickly see, the second forms the centre of it. A) She ‘rises like the dawn’ (nn. 󰀅–󰀁󰀁), taken twice in a double sense, ‘aurora’ as ‘light and darkness’ and as ‘an end of the night and a beginning of the day’. The second is developed first in n. 󰀆, the first and ‘more important one’ of ‘light and darkness’ Eckhart develops in nn. 󰀇–󰀁󰀁. ‘An end of the night and a beginning of the day’ leads to Christ’s statement about ‘those who are of pure heart’ (Matth. 󰀅:󰀈), our desire for God’s present birth. On ‘light and darkness’ Eckhart defends the idea that Mary was not immaculately conceived, just as did others before him such as Thomas Aquinas (Summa theologiae, III I q. 󰀂󰀇). For Eckhart, Mary ‘was conceived in sins and her body and soul united in original sin, and then immediately she was purified by the Holy Spirit and was born holy’ (n. 󰀇), and he adds his theological reasoning for his position, making the point that no creature – not even Mary – can take the place of God, He is the only one where one should and can rest (nn. 󰀈–󰀁󰀁).

H OMILY 󰀈󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀃]

󰀂󰀈󰀉

B) She is ‘beautiful as the moon’ (nn. 󰀁󰀂–󰀃). Here Eckhart develops Mary’s humility that is only exceeded by that of Christ. C) She is ‘elected like the sun’ (n. 󰀁󰀄). Only a short note is dedicated to this honour. Election means that ‘a vessel of light … is not the light itself’, yes Mary ‘brought us true light into the world’, but she herself is not the light that she brought. As in the previous homilies, despite elevating Mary and praising her, he guards the listener and reader from overestimating the value and importance of Mary. More important than seeking for God in Mary is to seek Him everywhere. Edition, commentary and notes G. Steer, DW IV 󰀁󰀀󰀆–󰀃󰀇. Previous English translation The Works of Meister Eckhart Doctor Ecstaticus, vol. II, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂), 󰀁󰀆󰀇–󰀇󰀁.

󰀂󰀉󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀁󰀂󰀄) ‘Quae est ista, quae ascendit quasi aurora’. ‘Quae est ista, quae ascendit quasi aurora consurgens, pulchra ut luna, electa ut sol?’ Disiu wort stânt geschriben in der minne buoche: ‘wer ist disiu, diu dâ ûfstîget als ein morgenrôt, schœne als der mâne, ûzerwelt als diu sunne?’ An disen worten suln wir merken drîe wirdicheit unser vrouwen. Diu êrste ist ir geburt; diu ist dâ bewîset, dâ er sprichet, daz si ‘ûfstîget als ein morgenrôt’. Diu ander wirdicheit irs heiligen lebens ûf ertrîche ist bewîset, dâ er sprichet ‘schœne als der mâne’. Diu dritte wirdicheit, die si hât, daz si gotes muoter ist, diu ist bewîset, dâ er sprichet ‘ûzerwelt als diu sunne’. | (󰀁󰀂󰀅) Daz êrste, daz man sie glîchet einem morgenrôt, dâ nime ich von zwei wort: daz eine, daz diz morgenrôt beide lieht und vinster in sich hât. Daz ander, daz ez heizet ein ende der naht und ein begin des tages. Daz bezeichent die geburt unser vrouwen, diu was ein ende der jâmerkeit und ein begin der vröude der alten veter, wan sie vor der zît niht des enmohten getuon, daz sie ze himel vuoren. Aber nû genüeget unserm herren lîhticlîche: umbe einen trunk kaltes wazzers gibet er sîn himelrîche an einem reinen herzen; dâ mite ist ez genuoc. Dar umbe sprichet Kristus: ‘sælic sint, die reines herzen sint’, niht ensprichet er: die dâ vil vastent und grôziu werk tuont. | (󰀁󰀂󰀆) Sant Bernhart sprichet: wolte got, daz wir alsô grôze gerunge hæten ze der geburt unsers herren, als die alten veter hâten dar zuo, daz ez geschehen solte, wan alliu lîphaftigiu dinc grœzer wollust hânt als man ir gert, dan als sie gegenwertic sint. Alsô enist ez niht umbe geistlîche dinc: diu hânt grœzer wollust an der gegenwerticheit, dan als 󰀂. Cant. 󰀆:󰀉 (‘Quae est ista, quae ascendit quasi aurora’). 󰀃. Solomon? 󰀄. See Hom. 󰀁* [S 󰀈󰀇], n. 󰀅: ‘Dô die alten veter bekanten daz jâmer, dâ sie inne wâren, dô schrîeten sie mit ir begerunge in das himelrich und wurden in got gezogen mit irm geiste und lâsen in götlicher wîsheit, daz got geborn solte werden in meschlicher natur, der vns losen solde von aller vnser iammerkeit’. 󰀅. See Matth. 󰀁󰀀:󰀄󰀂: ‘et quicumque potum dederit uni ex minimis istis calicem aquae frigidae tantum in nomine discipuli amen dico vobis non perdet mercedem suam’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀃]

󰀂󰀉󰀁

‘Quae est ista, quae ascendit quasi aurora’. ‘Quae est ista, quae ascendit quasi aurora consurgens, pulchra ut luna, electa ut sol?’ This sentence is written in the Book of Love: ‘Who is this that rises like the dawn, as beautiful as the moon, elected like the sun?’󰀂 In these words we must observe three honours of our Lady. The first is her birth; this is shown where he󰀃 says that she ‘rises like the dawn’. The second honour of her holy life on earth is shown where he says: ‘Beautiful as the moon’. The third honour that she has, that she is the mother of God, is shown where he says: ‘Elected like the sun’. The first point, that one compares her to the dawn, I take from two meanings of the word: one, that this dawn has both light and darkness in itself. The other, that it is called an end of the night and a beginning of the day. This means the birth of our Lady, which was an end of misery and a beginning of the joy of the ancient fathers, because before that time they could not do anything that could lead them to heaven.󰀄 But now something easy is enough for our Lord: for a sip of fresh water He gives His kingdom of heaven to a pure heart:󰀅 this is enough. Therefore Christ says: ‘Blessed are those who are of pure heart’,󰀆 He does not say: those who fast a lot and who do great deeds. Saint Bernard says: God wanted us to have such a great desire for the birth of our Lord, as the ancient fathers had that it would happen, because all bodily things have greater pleasure when they are desired, than when they are present.󰀇 So it does not happen in spiritual things: These give greater pleasure when they are present than when they are

󰀆. Matth. 󰀅:󰀈: ‘Beati mundo corde’. 󰀇. See Bernardus, Sermo II super Cant. c. I n. 󰀁 (Cist. t. I, p. 󰀈,󰀂󰀀–󰀅): ‘Ardorem desiderii patrum suspirantium Christi in carne praesentiam frequentissime cogitans, compungor et confundor in memetipso. Et nunc vix contineo lacrimas, ita pudet teporis torporisque miserabilium temporum horum. Cui namque nostrum tantum ingerat gaudium gratiae huius exhibitio, quantum veteribus sanctis accenderat desiderium promissio?’

󰀂󰀉󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

man ir gert. Bedæhte man rehte der alten veter begerunge, man müeste weinen. Daz ander ist noch hœher. Dâ mite ist bewîset diu geburt unser vrouwen, alsô daz diz morgenrôt beide lieht und vinster an sich hât. Dâ mite ist bewîset, daz unser vrouwe in den sünden wart enpfangen und ir lîp und ir sêle vereinet in der erbesünde, und dar nâch mit der vart wart si von dem heiligen geiste gereiniget und wart heilic geborn. Und dar umbe begât | (󰀁󰀂󰀇) man ir geburt. Dar ane ist uns bewîset volkomene liebe unsers herren, wan er nie lûterer crêatûre geschuof, diu alsô edel wære, und enwolte sie doch sô volkomen niht machen, daz diu sêle mit liebe in ir vereinet wære oder möhte gesîn. Got wil wol, daz diu sêle sehe und hœre, daz got niht enist, er enwil aber niht, daz si iht liebers habe dan in, wan er hât sie ze sîner einunge geschaffen. Aleine hât er wârheit an die crêatûre geworfen, doch sô enist si diu wârheit selber niht, als got diu wârheit selber ist. Aber in etlîcher wîse ist wârheit an den crêatûren, alsô daz sehs ir | (󰀁󰀂󰀈) mê ist dan zwei und dem glîch. Und die sêle suochet von nâture die wârheit. Vünde si keine crêatûre, diu diu wârheit selber wære, dâ ruowete si ane. Dar umbe sprichet unser vrouwe: ‘ich hân ruowe gesuochet in allen dingen und hân geruowet in dem erbe mînes herren gotes’. Ouch sante Nôe die tûben ûz der arken nâch der vluot, ob si iergen ruowen vünde. Und si envant niergen, dâ si den vuoz ûfsaste. Daz meinet eine ieglîche vernüftige sêle, diu von rehter wârheit keine ruowe vindet an den crêatûren. Dar umbe kêret si wider ze irm schepfer als diu tûbe ze der arken, wan diu sêle ist genant ein ‘tûbe’ in der minne buoche. | (󰀁󰀂󰀉) Diu sêle enminnet ouch niht dan güete von natûre. Dar umbe spriche ich und ez ist wâr: ein ieglich mensche trete mit verstantnisse in sîn herze, er vindet, daz er niht liep enhât dan volkomene güete.

󰀈. See Augustinus, De doctr. christ. I c. 󰀃󰀈 n. 󰀄󰀂 (CChr.SL 󰀃󰀂, ed. Martin, 󰀃󰀁,󰀆–󰀁󰀄): ‘Inter temporalia quippe atque aeterna hoc interest, quod temporale aliquid plus diligitur, antequam habeatur, uilescit autem, cum aduenerit; non enim satiat animam, cui uera est et certa sedes aeternitas: aeternum autem ardentius diligitur adeptum quam desideratum. Nulli enim desideranti conceditur plus de illo existimare, quam se habet, ut ei uilescat, cum minus inuenerit, sed quantum quisque ueniens existimare potuerit, plus perueniens inuenturus est’. 󰀉. See Aristoteles, Metaphysica I c. 󰀁 (A c. 󰀁, 󰀉󰀈󰀀 a 󰀂󰀁): ‘Omnes homines natura scire desiderant’. 󰀁󰀀. Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁: ‘Et in his omnibus requiem quaesivi, et in hereditate eius morabor’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀃]

󰀂󰀉󰀃

desired.󰀈 If one were to think properly of the desire of the ancient fathers, one would need to cry. The second point is even more important. The birth of our Lady is indicated by the fact that this dawn has both light and darkness in it. With this it is proven that our Lady was conceived in sins and her body and soul united in original sin, and then immediately she was purified by the Holy Spirit and was born holy. And therefore her birth is celebrated. In this we are shown the perfect love of our Lord, because He never created a purer creature that was so noble, and yet He did not want to make her so perfect that the soul in her was or wanted to be united with love. God quite wants the soul to see and hear what is not God, but He does not want her to have anything more dear than Him, because He created her for His union. Even though He has cast the truth on the creature, it is not the truth itself, as God is the truth itself. But in a certain way the truth is in the creatures, as six is more for them than two and the like. And the soul seeks the truth by nature.󰀉 If she did not find any creature that was the truth itself, she would rest without. Therefore our Lady says: ‘I have sought peace in all things and rested in the inheritance of my Lord God’.󰀁󰀀 So also Noah sent the doves out of the ark after the flood, to see whether they could find a place to rest. But they found none where they were able to put down their pawn. This means each intellectual soul󰀁󰀁 that seeking the right truth does not find any rest in the creatures. Therefore she returns to her creator as the dove to the ark, because the soul is called a ‘dove’ in the Book of Love.󰀁󰀂 Neither does the soul by nature love anything, but goodness. Therefore I say, and it is true: if any person entered their heart with understanding, they will find that they do not love anything other than

󰀁󰀁. According to Hom. 󰀅󰀅* [Q 󰀈󰀀], n. 󰀉 this idea of the ‘intellectual soul’ is taken from Albertus Magnus, see Albertus, De causis et processu universitatis II tr. 󰀁 c. 󰀁 (Fauser, 󰀆󰀁,󰀁󰀆–󰀂󰀂): ‘Quia cum lumen primae causae tripliciter influat rebus, scilicet influentia constitutionis ad esse et influentia irradiationis ad perfectionem virtutis et operis et influentia reductionis ad primum fontem ut ad boni principium, et huius influentia luminis omnis illuminationis principium sit et lumen, erit ipsum lumen luminum’. 󰀁󰀂. Cant. 󰀁:󰀁󰀄: ‘Ecce tu pulchra es, amica mea, ecce tu pulchra oculi tui columbarum’; 󰀂:󰀁󰀀: ‘Et dilectus meus loquitur mihi. Surge, propera, amica mea, columba mea, formosa mea, et veni’; 󰀂:󰀁󰀄; 󰀄:󰀁; 󰀅:󰀂: ‘Aperi mihi, soror mea, amica mea, columba mea, inmaculata mea’; 󰀅:󰀁󰀂; 󰀆:󰀈.

󰀂󰀉󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Und dar umbe enhât got keiner crêatûre volkomene güete gegeben. Wan vünde diu sêle volkomene güete an den crêatûren, dâ vereinete si sich ane. Got weiz wol, daz diu minne ein einendiu kraft ist: waz si genzlîche minnet, dâ vereinet si sich ane. Des engan got enkeiner crêatûre, wan diu minne setzet den menschen ûz im selber und ordent in in den er minnet. Dar umbe was sant Marîen Magdalênen sêle mê vereinet in dem tôten lîchamen unsers herren Jêsû Kristî dan in irs selbes. Dar umbe hâte si vergezzen alles, des si vor | (󰀁󰀃󰀀) gehœret hâte. Sant Augustînus sprichet: ‘diu sêle ist eigenlîcher dâ si minnet, dan dâ si daz leben gibet’. Und sant Paulus sprichet: ‘ich lebe und enlebe doch niht, Kristus lebet in mir’. Alle crêatûren ruofent den menschen ane: ‘dû suochest wârheit und güete, des ensint wir niht. Suoche got, er ist beide wârheit und güete’. Dar umbe sprichet sant Augustînus: | (󰀁󰀃󰀁) ‘suochet, daz ir suochet, und niht, dâ ir suochet’. Er sprichet in einem andern buoche, daz der mensche liep hât und sich vröuwet in den sünden. Kêret er die wîse umbe, er vindet ez wærlîche an gote. An allen dingen suochet der mensche ein sælic leben und ein vröuden lieht. Genüegede und volkomenheit enist an keiner crêatûre und ein ieglich wîset von sich ûf die andern: genüegede der kleider enist niht genüegede der spîse noch des trankes. An allen disen dingen mügen wir suochen genüegede unsers herren volkomenheit. Darumbe sprichet sant Augustînus: ‘suochet, daz ir suochet, und niht, dâ ir suochet’. Wan an gote ist diu volkomenheit aller crêatûre zemâle. Und enwære aller crêatûren volkomenheit niht an gote, sô enmohte diu sêle an gote niemer volkomene genüegede gehaben noch ruowe. Dar umbe, wan diu sêle alle volkomenheit zemâle an gote haben wil, wære iht volkomenheit ûzer gote an den crêatûren, daz wolte si ouch haben, so verzige si des grœsten durch daz minste und würde alsô gepîniget. | (󰀁󰀃󰀂) Sant Augustînus sprichet: ez ist ein grôz tôrheit, daz diu sêle âne den ist, der allenthalben ist, und daz si mit dem niht enist, âne den si niht wesen enmac, daz si den niht enminnet, âne den si niht geminnen enmac. 󰀁󰀃. I.e. the soul or love. 󰀁󰀄. This Ps.-Augustinian text is properly by Bernardus, De praecepto et dispensatione c. 󰀂󰀀 n. 󰀆󰀀 (Cist., t. III, 󰀂󰀉󰀂,󰀂󰀄–󰀅): ‘Neque enim praesentior spiritus noster est ubi animat, quam ubi amat’. 󰀁󰀅. Gal. 󰀂:󰀂󰀀: ‘Vivo autem, iam non ego, vivit vero in me Christus’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀃]

󰀂󰀉󰀅

perfect goodness. And therefore God has not given to any creature perfect goodness. Because if the soul found perfect goodness in the creatures, she would unite herself with them. God knows well that love is a unitive power: what she󰀁󰀃 totally loves, she unites herself with. This God did not grant to any creature, because love places the person outside of themselves and directs them towards what they love. For this reeason the soul of Saint Mary Magdalene was more united to the dead body of our Lord Jesus Christ than to her own. So she had forgotten everything she had heard before. Saint Augustine says: ‘The soul is more properly where she loves than where she gives life’.󰀁󰀄 And Saint Paul says: ‘I live and yet I do not live, Christ lives in me’.󰀁󰀅 All creatures cry out to the person: ‘you seek truth and goodness, these we are not. Search for God, he is both, truth and goodness’. Therefore, Saint Augustine says: ‘Seek what you seek, but not, where you seek’.󰀁󰀆 In another book he says󰀁󰀇 that man cherishes sin and rejoices in it. If he changes the order, he truly finds it in God. In all things a person seeks a blessed life and a joyful light. Satisfaction and perfection is not in any creature and each points from itself to another: satisfaction of garments is not satisfaction of food or drink. In all these things we can seek satisfaction with the perfection of our Lord. Therefore Saint Augustine says: ‘Seek what you seek, but not where you seek’.󰀁󰀈 Because in God is the complete perfection of all creatures. And if the perfection of all creatures were not in God, the soul could never have in God perfect satisfaction or rest. Therefore, since the soul wants to have all complete perfection in God, if something of perfection were outside of God in creatures, she would want to have it too, so she would renounce the greatest for the smallest and would thus be tormented. St. Augustine says: it is a great stupidity that the soul is without the one who is everywhere, and that she is not with the one without whom she can not be, that she does not love the one, without whom she can love nothing. 󰀁󰀆. Augustinus, Confessiones IV c. 󰀁󰀂 n. 󰀁󰀈 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀅󰀀,󰀁󰀄–󰀅): ‘Quaerite quod quaeritis, sed ibi non est, ubi quaeritis’. 󰀁󰀇. Augustinus, In epist. Ioannis ad Parthos tr. 󰀄 n. 󰀄 (PL 󰀃󰀅, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇): ‘Illi amando delectationes peccatorum, non agnoscebat Deum’. 󰀁󰀈. See n. 󰀉.

󰀂󰀉󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Ich spriche ein wort und daz ist wâr, daz sich got der sêle niht benemen enmac, als wênic als er sînes selbes verzîhen mac. Und als vil als si sîn bekennen mac und im glîch ist ze enpfâhenne, als vil muoz er sich ir geben von natiurlîcher wîsheit, und joch einer ieglîchen crêatûre als vil als sîn ein ieglich enpfâhen mac, als man prüven mac bî glîchnisse: ich stân hie, und hielte man vil spiegele gegen mir, mîn glîchnisse müeste sich werfen in alle die spiegele. Des enmohte ich mich niht bewern, als wênic als ich mich mir selber benemen mac. Ie der spiegel klârer ist, ie daz glîchnisse volkomener dar ane ist. Dar ane mac man wærlîche sîn înwonunge bekennen in allen crêatûren. Dar umbe sprichet sant Augustînus: ‘alte niuwe güete, wie | (󰀁󰀃󰀃) hân ich dich sô lancsam vunden! Dar umbe alt, wan dû êwic bist, dar umbe niuwe, wan dû alle zît lustlich bist’. Ez sprichet ouch sant Augustînus: ich suochte dich und vant mich verre vorn dir in einem lande des unglîchnisses, niht alsô verre, wan dû allenthalben bist, und niht daz ich dir verborgen wære, wan dû alliu dinc weist, sunder ich hâte mich verborgen in dem unglîchnisse daz ich dich niht enbekante. Daz ist daz êrste, daz unser vrouwe ‘ûfgegangen ist als ein morgenrôt’. Daz ander: ‘schœne als der mâne’. Durch zwei dinc glîchet er unser vrouwen dem mâne: daz er der niderste plânête ist und der minste sunder einen, der noch miner ist. Der bezeichent unsern herren Jêsum Kristum, wan er der minste was an der dêmüeticheit dar næhst Marîâ. Sant Bernhart sprichet: ‘Diu kiuscheit unser vrouwen behagete gote wol, aber durch die dêmüeticheit wart si gotes muoter’. Daz ander ist, daz der mâne grœzer schînet dan andere sternen. | (󰀁󰀃󰀄) Daz ist dâ von daz er niderre ist dan andere plânêten. Dar ane ist bezeichent diu volkomene barmherzicheit unser vrouwen wan swenne der mâne zuonimet, sô sint alle crêatûren lîphaftiger und kreftiger, die danne werdent enpfangen, dan als er abenimet. Alsô ist ez umbe die erden. Diu ist diu minste under den elementen und diu niderste, wan ir ieglich zehenstunt grœzer ist dan daz ander, daz wazzer und diu luft und daz viur. Dar umbe swebet daz ertrîche mitten in dem himel, wan aller sternen kraft

󰀁󰀉. See Augustinus, Confessiones X c. 󰀂󰀇 n. 󰀃󰀈 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀁󰀇󰀅,󰀁–󰀂): ‘Sero te amaui, pulchritudo tam antiqua et tam noua, sero te amaui!’ 󰀂󰀀. See Augustinus, Confessiones VII c. 󰀁󰀀 n. 󰀁󰀆 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀁󰀀󰀃,󰀁󰀇): ‘et inueni longe me esse a te in regione dissimilitudinis’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀃]

󰀂󰀉󰀇

I say a sentence, and it is true, that God can not take Himself away from the soul, as little as He can renounce Himself. And as much as she can know of Him and receive just like Him, so much He must give Himself to her by natural wisdom, and also to each creature as much as each can receive Him, as can be shown with a simile: if I were here and many mirrors were held in front of me, my likeness would be reflected in all the mirrors. I could not prevent this, as little as I can remove myself from myself. The more the mirror is clear, the more perfect is the likeness. In this one may truly understand His indwelling in all creatures. Therefore, says Saint Augustine: ‘Old new goodness, how slowly I found you! Ancient, because you are eternal; new, because you are always a pleasure’.󰀁󰀉 St. Augustine also says:󰀂󰀀 I looked for you and found myself distant from you, in a country of dissimilitude, not so distant, because you are everywhere, and not that I were hidden from you, because you know all things, but I had hidden in dissimilarity, that I did not know you. This is the first point, that our Lady ‘has risen like the dawn’. The second: ‘Beautiful as the moon’. Our Lady is similar to the moon for two things: because it is the lowest and the smallest planet, except for one that is even smaller. The latter means our Lord Jesus Christ, because He was the smallest with regards to humility, Mary coming after Him. Saint Bernard says: ‘The chastity of our Lady was well pleasing to God, but for humility she was the mother of God’.󰀂󰀁 The second thing is that the moon appears larger than the other stars. This derives from the fact that it is lower than the other planets. With this is meant the perfect mercy of our Lady, because when the moon rises, all creatures that are then conceived are more vital and strong than when it is on the wane. So it is the case with the earth. It is the least of the elements and the lowest, because any of its parts is ten times greater than the other, water and air and fire. Therefore, the earth hangs in the midst of the sky, because the power of all the stars concentrate in

󰀂󰀁. Bernardus, In laudibus virginis matris, Homilia I n. 󰀅 (Cist., t. IV 󰀁󰀈,󰀉–󰀁󰀀): ‘Et si placuit ex virginitate, tamen ex humilitate concepit’.

󰀂󰀉󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

loufet zesamene in den andern elementen und vert durch sie wan ûf dem ertrîche vereinet sich eines ieglîchen sternen kraft sunderlîchen durch die stæticheit des ertrîches, daz niht umbeloufet als diu andern element. Dar umbe würket diu kraft des liehtes unglouplîchiu dinc ûf dem ertrîche. Alsô ist ez umbe unser | (󰀁󰀃󰀅) vrouwen: alle die volkomenheit, die got ie gelegen mohte an keine crêatûre die hât si enpfangen. Alsô suln wir prüeven bî glîchnisse mit welchen menschen unser herre got ist. Daz mac man prueven an zwein dingen, als wâriu dêmüeticheit und barmherzicheit. Wan manic mensche wænet, daz er dêmüetic sî, dem si verre ist. Wan swer sich der niderste und der snœdeste dünket under allen crêatûren swaz unser herre guotes und volkomenheit würket an allen crêatûren, daz enpfæhet der mensche. Daz ander ist an der barmherzicheit, daz sol man prüeven an dem mitelîdene: tuot einem andern menschen daz ouge wê, daz entuot mir niht wê, ob ez mîn niht enist. Wan als vil als ich einunge mit im hân als vil tuot ez mir wê. Bin ich aber unsers herren eigener dan mîn selbes, tuot mir mîn ouge wê, ez entuot mir doch niht wê. War umbe? Ez enist mîn niht. Alsô ist ez umbe allez, daz mir gewerren mac, daz enwirret mir niht, wan ich mîn niht enbin. Dar umbe sprichet sant Augustînus: ‘unser herre der leget ûf, als ob er | (󰀁󰀃󰀆) grœzer wollust habe umbe unser sælicheit, dan wir selber haben kunnen, und grœzer leit umb unser pîne dan wir selber’. Diu dritte wirdicheit unser vrouwen ist dâ bewîset, dâ er sprichet ‘ûzerwelt als diu sunne’. Wan diu sunne ist ein vaz des liehtes und enist daz lieht selber niht, wan si daz lieht in ir hât und giuzet ez in alle crêatûren, wan kein crêatûre geborn noch volbrâht möhte werden âne hilfe des liehtes. Wol enschînet si des nahtes niht, sô giuzet si ir lieht in die sternen. Dar umbe heizet si daz êrste vaz des liehtes, daz si grôziu dinc würket an edeln steinen und an manigen dingen ûf ertrîche, daz man götlîcher werke kraft vindet an den steinen. Alsô ist ez | (󰀁󰀃󰀇) umbe

󰀂󰀂. I.e. humility. 󰀂󰀃. See Augustinus, Sermo 󰀁󰀀󰀅 c. l n. 󰀁 (PL 󰀃󰀈, 󰀆󰀁󰀉): ‘Dominus autem noster Jesus Christus inter nos peitor, cum Patre dator, non utique nos tantum hortaretur ut peteremus, nisi dare vellet. Erubescat humana pigritia: plus vult ille dare, quam nos accipere: plus vult ille misereri, quam nos a miseria liberari: et utique si non liberati fuerimus, nos miseri remanebimus. Nam ille quod nos

H OMILY 󰀈󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀃]

󰀂󰀉󰀉

the other elements and moves through them, while on earth the power of each star is focused on the particular due to the constancy of the earth which does not revolve like the other elements. Therefore the power of light produces incredible things on earth. So it is with our Lady: all the perfection that God could never put in a creature, she received it. Hence, we must see through simile, with which people our Lord God is. It can be seen by two things, like true humility and mercy. Why do many people believe they are humble, from whom it󰀂󰀂 is distant. Because whoever considers himself the lowest and the most worthless under all creatures, he receives what our Lord brings about of good and perfection in all creatures. The second is about mercy, which must be seen in compassion: if another person’s eye hurts, it does not hurt me, as it is not mine. But the closer I am joined with him, the more it hurts me. But if I belong more properly to our Lord than to myself, then, if my eye hurts, it does not hurt me. Why? It is not mine. So it is with everything that could damage me, it can not hurt me, because I am not mine. Therefore, Saint Augustine says: ‘Our Lord carries, as if He had greater pleasure of our happiness than we ourselves have been able to have, and greater suffering because of our suffering than we have ourselves’.󰀂󰀃 The third honour of our Lady is shown where he says: ‘Elected like the sun’. Because the sun is a vessel of light, but is not the light itself, because it has the light in it and pours it into all creatures and no creature could be generated or perfected without the help of light. Though at night it does not shine, it pours its light into the stars. Therefore, it is called the first vessel of light, that works great things in precious stones and in many things on earth, so that the power of divine actions is found in the stones. So it is the case with our Lady.

hortatur, propter nos hortatur’; see Eckhart, Sermo XLV n. 󰀄󰀅󰀆 (LW IV 󰀃󰀇󰀈,󰀄–󰀇): ‘Augustinus De verbis domini tractans hoc verbum: “omnis qui petit” etc. (Luc. 󰀁󰀁:󰀁󰀀) dicit: “erubescat humana pigritia: plus vult deus dare quam nos accipere”. “Plus”, id est maius et magis, et vere magis vult, quia gratiam sibi reputat quod volumus accipere’.

󰀃󰀀󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

unser vrouwen. Dar umbe ist si ein vaz des liehtes, wan si uns hât brâht daz wâre lieht in die werlt. Daz wir erliuhtet und ervüllet werden mit götlîchem liehte, des helfe uns got, daz wâre lieht. Âmen.

󰀂󰀄. See Konrad von Megenberg, Buch der Natur II 󰀄 (Pfeiffer 󰀆󰀁,󰀁󰀆–󰀂󰀀): ‘diu vierd wirdicheit ist, daz si (Maria) alle ir tag be laib ân mail, wann dô si ain arch was und ain auzerwelter sal des obristen gotes, dô was pilleich, daz daz götleich vaz all zeit smekt nâch dem schatz, der dâ inne was’;

H OMILY 󰀈󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀃]

󰀃󰀀󰀁

Hence, she is a vessel of light because she brought us true light into the world.󰀂󰀄 That we might be enlightened and filled with divine light, may God, the true light, help us! Amen.

see also Thomas Cantimpratensis, Liber de natura rerum XVII 󰀇 (Boese 󰀃󰀉󰀁,󰀁󰀀󰀅–󰀃󰀉󰀂,󰀁󰀀󰀇): ‘De virginitate accepit munditiam, de coniugio fecunditatem, et duo alia dereliquit. Sequitur: “Hec sine labe manens”, et hoc quia vas saporem traxit a contento’.

Homily 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉] In festo sancti Augustini episcopi, die 󰀂󰀈 augusti ‘Quasi stella matutina in medio nebulae et quasi luna plena in diebus suis lucet et quasi sol refulgens, sic iste refulsit in templo dei’ (Eccli. 󰀅󰀀:󰀅–󰀆) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Eccli. 󰀅󰀀:󰀆–󰀇 (‘Quasi stella matutina in medio nebulae et quasi luna plena in diebus suis lucet et quasi sol refulgens, sic iste refulsit in templo dei’) is read on the feast of St. Augustine (󰀂󰀈 August), even though the BT states: ‘Vff sant Dominici tag’, while O notes ‘Sermo de sanctis’, and H󰀂 ‘de sanctis’. The text as given in the critical edition is derived from four manuscripts (B󰀆, N󰀁, the manuscripts of the Paradisus anime intelligentis, O, H󰀂), the print in BT and a few fragments, including quotes by Nicolaus of Landau and the Greith’s fragments. The witnesses Bra󰀁, Bra󰀃, Do󰀁, Fl, Ka󰀂, H󰀄, Kon, M󰀅󰀇, Str󰀉 and the print HT are not used in the critical edition of DW. The content of the homily There are three homilies (this and the following two) on Augustine (to which one has to add, as mentioned, the Latin homily on Augustine). And yet, this one here is certainly one of Eckharts key homilies. It is philosophically oriented, it seems to be based on his first set of Parisian Questions from the years 󰀁󰀃󰀀󰀂/󰀁󰀃󰀀󰀃, and it explicitly refers to and interprets the famous Liber XXIV philosophorum (the title of which Eckhart is the first to mention). As often, Eckhart first gives the core verse in Latin (n. 󰀁), and then adds his vernacular translation (n. 󰀂). In the next note he is explicit that

󰀃󰀀󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

he first wants to pick up the last expression of the verse, the ‘Temple of God’, and immediately asks the two questions related to it: ‘What is “God”’ and ‘what is the “temple of God”’ (n. 󰀃). A) ‘God’ (nn. 󰀃–󰀁󰀀). To answer the first question ‘what is “God”’, Eckhart makes use of and interprets core passages from the Liber XXIV philosophorum with their statements and explanations. And even though, he does not quote this book literally, he takes from it core topics that he develops in his own way. First he mentions explicitly three philosophers’ statements: 󰀁) ‘God is something in the face of which all the changing and temporal things are nothing, and all that has being is little compared to Him’; 󰀂) ‘God is what by necessity transcends being, which in itself does not need anything and of which all things are in need’; 󰀃) ‘God is an intellect that lives alone in self-knowledge’ (n. 󰀄). He, then starts with the second (n. 󰀅), a passage which was scrutinized and rejected by the Church in the process against Eckhart. He complements this statement by adding another one from the Liber (statement 󰀁󰀃) which he freely renders, interprets and develops to talk about the way ‘without a way’ (n. 󰀆) and to state that ‘God acts beyond being’ (Liber, statement 󰀁󰀁) (n. 󰀇). With his claim of God acting ‘beyond being’, he distinguishes himself from ‘unsophisticated’ masters, backed by Augustine (n. 󰀈), and ‘young masters’ who are still clinging to Aristotle’s teaching on the categories (n. 󰀉), perhaps thinking of those who still have to read their commentaries of Lombard’s Sentences. Here he comes to speak about the two elements in God, ‘substantia’ and ‘relatio’ with which he also deals elsewhere in his work, particularly in his Commentary on Exodus and the second set of Parisian Questions from his Parisian years 󰀁󰀃󰀁󰀁/󰀁󰀃󰀁󰀃. Again, his comments on God being beyond goodness was questioned in the inquisition process (nn. 󰀉–󰀁󰀀). B) ‘Temple’ (nn. 󰀁󰀁–󰀄). Taking God ‘in His being’ means taking Him in the intellect (n. 󰀁󰀁), also in the soul ‘which has a drop of the intellect’ (n. 󰀁󰀂). And yet, Eckhart is still developing the previous thoughts about God being beyond goodness (n. 󰀁󰀃). In a final note here, he comes back to the discussion between Franciscans and Dominicans to claim against the Franciscans the greater nobility of the intellect compared to the will (n. 󰀁󰀄). C) ‘Like a morning star in the mist’ (n. 󰀁󰀅). The core term, on which he focuses here is ‘quasi’ – ‘like’, a preposition which he calls

H OMILY 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉]

󰀃󰀀󰀅

an adverb. In a modist way, Eckhart takes grammar ontologically and develops from it the view that people should be adverbs of the verb, the Word, God. D) ‘Like a full moon in its days’ (nn. 󰀁󰀆–󰀇). Using the example of the moon, Eckhart shows that proximity and distance are both important. The adverb, as seen before, is powerful, because it is not simply close to (or even identical with) the verb and God, but because there is distance, as one can see from the moon, there is an enormous power which is greater than that between elements that are too close to each other. Hence, he concludes, looking for God is not a search for being close to Him, but is a search for His creatures that are distant from Him. This kind of distance is the greatest power that brings people into unity with God. There follows a final prayer for ‘always’ being ‘an adverb of this Word’ (n. 󰀁󰀈) Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀈󰀄, 󰀂󰀆󰀇–󰀇󰀂; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀇󰀂󰀅–󰀄󰀇; J. Quint, DW I 󰀁󰀃󰀈–󰀅󰀈; N. Largier I 󰀁󰀀󰀄–󰀁󰀇.󰀈󰀃󰀈–󰀅󰀅; K. Flasch, LE IV 󰀁–󰀂󰀈. Previous English translation Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀃󰀄󰀁–󰀆.

󰀃󰀀󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀁󰀄󰀁) ‘Quasi stella matutina in medio nebulae et quasi luna plena in diebus suis lucet et quasi sol refulgens, sic iste refulsit in templo dei’. ‘Als ein morgensterne miten in dem nebel und als ein voller mâne in sînen tagen und als ein widerschînendiu sunne alsô hât dirre geliuhtet in dem tempel gotes’. Nû nime ich daz leste wort: ‘tempel gotes’. Waz ist ‘got’ und waz ist ‘tempel gotes’? (󰀁󰀄󰀂) | Vierundzweinzic meister kâmen zesamen und wolten sprechen, waz got wære. Sie kâmen ze rehter zît und ir ieglîcher brâhte sîn wort, der nime ich nû zwei oder drî. Der eine sprach: got ist etwaz, gegen dem alliu wandelbæriu und zîtlîchiu dinc niht ensint, und allez, daz wesen hât, daz ist vor im kleine. Der ander sprach: got ist etwaz, daz dâ ist über wesene von nôt, daz in im selber niemannes bedarf und des alliu dinc bedürfen. Der dritte sprach: ‘got ist ein vernünfticheit, diu dâ lebet in sîn aleines bekantnisse’. Ich lâze daz êrste und daz leste und spriche von dem andern, daz got etwaz ist, daz von nôt über wesene sîn muoz. Waz wesen hât, zît oder stat, (󰀁󰀄󰀂) | daz enrüeret ze gote niht, er ist dar über. Got ist in allen crêatûren, als sie wesen hânt, und ist doch dar über. Daz selbe, daz er ist in allen crêatûren, daz ist er doch dar über; waz dâ in vil dingen ein ist, daz muoz von nôt über diu dinc sin. Etlîche meister wolten, daz diu sêle aleine in dem herzen wære. Des enist niht, und dâ hânt grôze meister an 󰀁. Eccli. 󰀅󰀀:󰀅–󰀆 (‘Quasi stella matutina in medio nebulae et quasi luna plena in diebus suis lucet et quasi sol refulgens, sic iste refulsit in templo dei’). The context of the text is Eccli. 󰀅󰀀:󰀁–󰀁󰀂 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀄ra: ‘Sancti Augustini episcopi. Lectio libri sapientie. Ecce [Simon, Onie filius Vg.] sacerdos magnus, qui in vita sua suffulsit domum, et in diebus suis corroboravit templum. (Vg. add.: Templi etiam altitudo in ipso fundata est, duplex edificatio et excelsi parietes templi) In diebus ipsius emanaverunt putei aquarum, et quasi mare adimpleti sunt supra modum. Qui curavit gentem suam, et liberavit eam a perditione. Qui prevaluit amplificare civitatem, qui adeptus est gloriam in conversatione gentis (Vg. add.: et ingressum domus, et atrii amplificavit). Quasi stella matutina in medio nebule, et quasi luna plena in diebus suis lucet. Et quasi sol refulgens, sic ille effulsit in templo Dei. Quasi arcus refulgens inter nebulas glorie, et quasi flos rosarum in diebus vernis. [et add. Vg.] Quasi lilia que sunt in transitu aque, et quasi thus redolens in diebus estatis. Quasi ignis effulgens, et thus ardens in igne. Quasi vas auri solidum, ornatum omni lapide pretioso. Quasi oliva pullulans, et cypressus in altitudinem se tollens, in accipiendo ipsum stolam glorie, et vestiri eum [in add. Vg.] consummatione virtutis in ascensu altaris sancti gloriam dedit sanctitatis amictum’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉]

󰀃󰀀󰀇

‘Quasi stella matutina in medio nebulae et quasi luna plena in diebus suis lucet et quasi sol refulgens, sic iste refulsit in templo dei’. ‘Like a morning star in the mist, and like a full moon in its day, and like a reflecting sun, so he shone in the temple of God.’󰀁 Now, I take the last word: ‘Temple of God’. What is ‘God’, and what is the ‘temple of God’? Twenty-four masters gathered and wanted to say what God was.󰀂 They arrived on the day, and each of them said his sentence, of which I now pick two or three. One said: ‘God is something, in the face of which all the changing and temporal things are nothing, and all that has being is little compared to Him’.󰀃 The second one said: ‘God is what by necessity transcends being, which in itself does not need anything and of which all things are in need’.󰀄 The third one said: ‘God is an intellect that lives alone in self-knowledge’.󰀅 I leave aside the first and the last and speak of the second, or that ‘God is something which necessarily transcends being’. What has being, time and place does not touch God: He is beyond it. God is in all creatures, for they have being, and yet He is beyond. Likewise, He is in all creatures, yet He is nevertheless beyond: what is one in many things must necessarily be beyond those things. Certain wise people insisted that the soul was only in the heart.󰀆 This is not true, and on this

󰀂. See Liber XXIV philosophorum (Hudry). 󰀃. A combination of two statements in the Liber XXIV philosophorum prop. 󰀆 (Hudry 󰀁󰀂): ‘Deus est cuius comparatione substantia est accidens, et accidens nihil’; 󰀇 (Hudry, 󰀁󰀃): ‘deus est principium sine principio, processus sine variatione, finis sine fine’; it seems that Eckhart also knew the description of the various theses, as given in this book. 󰀄. Liber XXIV philosophorum prop. 󰀁󰀁 (Hudry 󰀁󰀈): ‘Deus est super ens, necesse, solus sibi abundanter, sufficienter’. 󰀅. Liber XXIV philosophorum prop. 󰀄 (Hudry 󰀁󰀀): ‘Deus est mens orationem generans, continuationem perseverans’; 󰀂󰀀 (Hudry 󰀂󰀇): ‘Deus est, qui solus suo intellectu vivit’. 󰀆. See Alfredus Anglicus, De motu cordis c. 󰀆 n. 󰀇 (Baeumker 󰀂󰀃,󰀁󰀇–󰀂󰀁): ‘Cor igitur naturalis caloris domicilium … fecit ipsum sapientissimus omnium artifex Deus’; c. 󰀁󰀀 n. 󰀃 (󰀃󰀈,󰀂󰀂–󰀃󰀉,󰀂): ‘Anima enim, cum ex se immobilis et impartibilis usquequaque sit cumque certam in corpore sedem obtineat, instrumento, cuius actu et ministerio vitam virtutesque corpori ministraret, indigebat’; see also Eckhart, Hom 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁], n. 󰀇.

󰀃󰀀󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

geirret. Diu sêle ist ganz und ungeteilet alzemâle in dem vuoze und alzemâle in dem ougen und in ieglîchem glide. Nime ich ein stücke von der zît, sô enist ez weder der tac hiute noch der tac gester. Nime ich aber nû, daz begrîfet in im alle zît. Daz nû, dâ got (󰀁󰀄󰀄) | die werlt inne machete, daz ist als nâhe dirre zît als daz nû, dâ ich iezuo inne spriche, und der jüngeste tac ist als nâhe disem nû als der tac, der gester was. Ein meister sprichet: got ist etwaz, daz dâ würket in êwicheit ungeteilet in im selber, daz niemannes hilfe noch gezouwes bedarf und in im selber blîbende ist, daz nihtes bedarf und des alliu dinc bedürfen und dâ alliu dinc înkriegent als in ir lestez ende. Diz ende enhât keine wîse, ez entwehset der wîse und gât in die breite. Sant Bernhart sprichet: got ze minnenne daz ist wîse âne wîse. Ein arzât, der einen siechen gesunt wil machen, der enhât niht wîse der gesuntheit, wie gesunt er den siechen welle machen; er (󰀁󰀄󰀅) | hât wol wîse, wâ mite er in gesunt welle machen, aber wie gesunt er in welle machen, daz ist âne wîse; als gesunt, als er iemer mac. Wie liep wir got suln hân, daz enhât niht wîse; als liep, als wir iemer mugen, daz ist âne wîse. Ein ieglich dinc würket in wesene, kein dinc enmac würken über sîn wesen. Daz viur enmac niht würken dan in dem holze. Got würket über wesene in der wîte, dâ er sich geregen mac, er würket in unwesene; ê denne wesen wære, dô worhte got; er worhte wesen, dô niht wesen enwas.

󰀇. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀈 a. 󰀂 ad 󰀁: ‘Et ideo sicut anima est tota in qualibet parte corporis, ita deus totus est in omnibus et singulis entibus’. 󰀈. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀆 (Proc. Col. I, n. 󰀄󰀃) (LW V 󰀂󰀁󰀃,󰀉–󰀁󰀅): ‘Principium, in quo “creavit deus caelum et terram”, est primum nunc simplex aeternitatis, ipsum, inquam, idem nunc penitus, in quo deus est ab aeterno, in quo etiam est, fuit et erit aeternaliter personarum emanatio. Ait ergo Moyses deum caelum et terram creasse in principio absolute primo, in quo deus ipse est sine quolibet medio et intervallo. Unde cum quaereretur a me aliquando, quare deus mundum non creas set prius, respondi quod non potuerit eo quod non esset nec fuerat prius, antequam esset mundus’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi) (LW V 󰀃󰀁󰀂,󰀂󰀅–󰀃󰀁󰀃,󰀁󰀃): ‘Principium in quo “creavit deus caelum et terram”, est primum nunc simplex aeternitatis, ipsum, inquam, idem nunc penitus, in quo deus est ab aeterno, in quo etiam est, fuit, et erit aeternaliter personarum emanatio. Ait ergo Moyses deum caelum et terram creasse in principio absolute primo, in quo deus ipse est sine quolibet medio et intervallo. Unde cum quaereretur a me aliquando, quare deus mundum non creasset prius, respondi quod non potuerit eo quod non esset nec fuerat prius, antequam esset mundus. Praeterea. Quomodo poterat creasse prius, cum in eodem nunc mox mundum creaverit in quo fuerit deus? Non enim imaginandum est falso quasi deus steterit exspectans nunc aliquod temporis futurum in quo crearet mundum. Simul enim et semel, quo deus fuit, filium sibi coaeternum per omnia aequalem deum genuit, etiam mundum creavit. Iob: “semel loquitur deus”. Loquitur autem

H OMILY 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉]

󰀃󰀀󰀉

point great masters have erred. The soul is whole and completely undivided in the foot and completely in the eyes and in each limb.󰀇 If I take a part of time, this is neither today nor yesterday. But if I took the ‘now’, it would contain in it all the time. The ‘now’, in which God made the world inside, is as close to this time as the ‘now’, in which I now speak, and doomsday is as close to this ‘now’ as yesterday.󰀈 A master says: ‘God is something that acts in eternity undivided in itself, that does not need anybody’s help or tool and permanently remains in itself, that does not need anything and which all things are in need of and to which all things tend as their final goal’.󰀉 This goal has no way,󰀁󰀀 rather it escapes the way and moves laterally. Saint Bernard says: ‘To love God is a way without a way’.󰀁󰀁 A doctor who wants to heal a sick person is not health in any way himself, according to which he wants to heal the patient; but he has a way, by which he wants to heal him, but how healthy he wants to make him is without a way: as healthy as he ever can make him. How we must love God [that] has no way: as much as we ever can, that is without a way. Everything acts in [its] being, nothing can act beyond its being. Fire can only act in wood. God acts beyond being in the open,󰀁󰀂 where He can freely move, He acts in non-being; in fact, before there was being, God acted; He brought about being, where no being was.

filium generando, quia filius est verbum. Loquitur etiam creaturam creando, Psalmus: ‘”dixit, et facta sunt, mandavit, et creata sunt”. Hinc est quod in alio Psalmo dicitur: “semel locutus est deus, (duo) haec audivi”. “Duo”, inquam, scilicet caelum et terram; vel potius “duo haec”, scilicet personarum emanationem et mundi creationem, quae tamen ipse semel loquitur, “semel locutus est”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀆󰀅 (the bull) (LW V 󰀅󰀉󰀇,󰀂󰀂–󰀅): ‘Primus articulus: Interrogatus quandoque, quare deus mundum non prius produxerit, respondit tunc sicut nunc quod deus non potuit primo producere mundum, quia res non potest agere, antequam sit. Unde quamcito deus fuit, tam cito mundum creavit’; Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀁󰀀 a. 󰀂 ad 󰀄. 󰀉. The first part reminds of the Liber XXIV philosophorum prop. 󰀁󰀃 (Hudry 󰀂󰀀): ‘Deus est sempiternitas agens in se, sine divisione et habitu’. 󰀁󰀀. ‘wîse’, as noted before, is difficult to translate, J. Quint ad loc. translates: ‘bestimmte Weise’. 󰀁󰀁. See Bernardus, De diligendo Deo c. 󰀁 n. 󰀁 (Leclercq/Rochais 󰀁󰀁󰀉,󰀁󰀈–󰀉): ‘Vultis ergo a me audire, quare et quo modo diligendus sit Deus. Et ego: Causa diligendi Deum, Deus est; modus, sine modo diligere’. 󰀁󰀂. See Liber XXIV philosophorum prop. 󰀁󰀁 (Hudry 󰀁󰀈): ‘Deus est super ens, necesse, solus sibi abundanter, sufficienter’.

󰀃󰀁󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Grôze meister sprechent, got sî ein lûter wesen; er ist als hôch über wesene, als (󰀁󰀄󰀆) | der oberste engel ist über einer mücken. Ich spræche als unrehte, als ich got hieze ein wesen, als ob ich die sunnen hieze bleich oder swarz. Got enist weder diz noch daz. Und sprichet ein meister: swer dâ wænet, daz er got bekant habe, und bekante er iht, sô enbekante er got niht. Daz ich aber gesprochen hân, got ensî niht ein wesen und sî über wesene, hie mite enhân ich im niht wesen abegesprochen, mêr: ich hân ez in im gehœhet. Nime ich kupfer in dem golde, sô ist ez dâ und ist dâ in einer hœhern wîse, dan ez ist an im (󰀁󰀄󰀇) | selber. Sant Augustînus sprichet: got ist wîse âne wîsheit, guot âne güete, gewaltic âne gewalt. Kleine meister lesent in der schuole, daz alliu wesen sîn geteilet in zehen wîse, und die selben sprechent sie gote zemâle abe. Dirre wîsen enberüeret got keiniu, und er enbirt ir ouch keiner. Diu êrste, diu des wesens allermeist hât, dâ alliu dinc wesen inne nement, daz ist substancie, und daz leste, daz des wesens aller minnest treit, daz heizet relatio, daz ist glîch in gote dem aller grœsten, daz des wesens allermeist hât; sie hânt ein glîch bilde (󰀁󰀄󰀈) | in gote. In gote sint aller dinge bilde glîch; aber sie sint unglîcher dinge bilde. Der hœhste engel und diu sêle und diu mücke hânt ein glîch bilde in gote. Got enist niht wesen noch güete. Güete klebet an wesene und enist niht breiter dan wesen; wan enwære niht wesen, sô enwære niht güete, und wesen ist noch lûterer dan güete. Got enist guot noch bezzer noch allerbeste. Wer dâ spræche, daz got guot wære, der tæte im als unrehte, als ob er die sunnen swarz hieze. (󰀁󰀄󰀉) 󰀁󰀃. With N󰀁, BT, Pfeiffer, against ‘Grobe’ in DW 󰀁 with the rest of the mss. The contrast between ‘grôze’ and ‘kleine’ masters, however, seems to make the alternative reading more likely, even though the ‘grobe’ can make sense, too, as the ‘kleine’ would criticize the ‘grôze’ as ‘grobe’. Meant are the advanced masters of the quadrivium, in contrast to the masters of the trivium. 󰀁󰀄. See Eckhart, Quaestiones Parisienses I (‘Utrum in deo sit idem esse et intelligere?’) n. 󰀈 (LW V 󰀄󰀅,󰀁–󰀁󰀅): ‘Ex his ostendo quod in deo non est ens nec 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 … Deo ergo non competit esse, nisi talem puritatem voces esse’; n. 󰀁󰀂 (LW V 󰀄󰀇,󰀁󰀄–󰀅): ‘Sic etiam dico quod deo non convenit esse nec est ens, sed est aliquid altius ente’; Sermo XI,󰀂 n. 󰀁󰀁󰀈 (LW IV 󰀁󰀁󰀂,󰀆–󰀉): ‘Est enim “super omne nomen”, rationem et intellectum et super esse et ens, cuius differentia est numerus, et omnia huiusmodi. Quod autem sit supra ens et esse, patet, quia est causa entis et esse’. 󰀁󰀅. Ps.-Dionysius, Epistulae I (PG 󰀃, 󰀁󰀀󰀆󰀅A, Dionysiaca 󰀆󰀀󰀆,󰀅): ‘Et si aliquis videns Deum intellexit quod vidit, non ipsum vidit’. 󰀁󰀆. See Augustinus, De Trinitate V c. 󰀁 n. 󰀂 (Mountain/Glorie 󰀂󰀀󰀇,󰀃󰀉–󰀄󰀁): ‘ut sic intellegamus deum … sine qualitate bonum, sine quantitate magnum’. 󰀁󰀇. Here Eckhart uses the Latin substantia because he talks about the Peripatetic doctrine of the categories.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉]

󰀃󰀁󰀁

Advanced masters󰀁󰀃 state that God is a pure being; He is so high above being, as the supreme angel is above a fly. I would be speaking wrongly if I called God a being, as if I called the sun white or black.󰀁󰀄 God is neither this nor that. And a master says:󰀁󰀅 whoever believes that he has known God, and has known something, has not known God at all. But when I said that God is not a being and is beyond being, with this I have not denied Him being, instead I have elevated it in Him. If I take copper in gold, it is there, but in a higher way than it is in itself. Saint Augustine says:󰀁󰀆 ‘God is wise without wisdom, good without goodness, powerful without power’. Young masters teach in the university that all beings are divided into ten ways, and these they absolutely deny to God. None of these ways touch God, and He does not even lack one of them. The first, which has most of being and in which all things draw being, is substantia,󰀁󰀇 and the last, which has the least of being, is called relatio, which in God is equal to the greatest that has most of being; they have the same image󰀁󰀈 in God. In God the images of all things are the same, but they are images of dissimilar things. The supreme angel, the soul and the fly have the same image in God. God is neither being nor goodness. Goodness is attached to being and is not more extended than being; because if there were not being, there would be no goodness, and being is even purer than goodness. God is neither good nor better nor the very best. Whoever says that God is good would do Him an injustice as if he were calling the sun black.󰀁󰀉 󰀁󰀈. J. Quint translates ‘Urbild’. 󰀁󰀉. See Acta Echardi n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II n. 󰀁󰀂󰀇) (LW V 󰀂󰀄󰀃,󰀂󰀄–󰀂󰀄󰀄,󰀃): ‘Quinquagesimus quartus in sermone qui incipit: “Quasi stella matutina in medio nebulae” sic habet: “Deus non est bonus nec melior nec optimus. Ita male dico quandocumque deum voco bonum, ac si ego album vocarem nigrum’; also compare Eckhart’s answer, in Acta Echardi n. 󰀄󰀈 (Mag. Echardi Responsio ad articulos sibi impositos II nn. 󰀁󰀂󰀇–󰀈) (LW V 󰀃󰀄󰀈,󰀂󰀀–󰀈): ‘Quinquagesimus quartus in sermone qui incipit “Quasi stella matutina in medio nebulae” sic habet: “Deus non est bonus nec melior nec optimus. Ita male dico, quandocumque deum voco bonum, ac si ego album vocarem nigrum.” Solutio. Dicendum quod deus utique, cum sit “super omne nomen”, quo ipsum nominare possumus, excellentior est quam album super nigrum. Et valet hoc exponere seu proponere hominibus ad commendandam dei excellentiam, “ut in nomine ipsius flectatur omne genu caelestium, terrestium et infernorum”; Acta Echardi n. 󰀅󰀇 (LW V 󰀅󰀅󰀇,󰀁󰀁–󰀃): ‘Quintus articulus sic habet: “Deus non est bonus neque melior neque optimus. Ita male dico quotienscumque voco deum bonum, ac si ego album vocarem nigrum”’; Acta Echardi n. 󰀅󰀉 (Votum nn. 󰀂󰀆–󰀉) (LW V 󰀅󰀇󰀃,󰀄–󰀅󰀇󰀄,󰀄): ‘Quintus articulus sic habet: “Deus non est bonus neque melior neque optimus. Ita male dico quotienscumque voco deum bonum, ac si ego album vocarem nigrum”. Praedictum articulum, prout sonat, haereticum reputamus, quia contra scripturam et rationem negat bonitatem in deo sicut album a

󰀃󰀁󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

| Nû sprichet doch got: nieman enist guot dan got aleine. Waz ist guot? Daz ist guot, daz sich gemeinet. Den heizen wir einen guoten menschen, der gemeine und nütze ist. Dar umbe sprichet ein heidenischer meister: ein einsidel enist weder guot noch bœse in dem sinne, wan er niht gemeine noch nütze enist. Got ist daz aller gemeineste. Kein dinc gemeinet sich von dem sînen, wan alle crêatûren von in selber niht ensint. Swaz sie gemeinent, daz hânt sie von einem andern. Sie gebent sich ouch niht selben. Diu sunne gibet irn schîn und blîbet doch dâ stânde, daz viur gibet sîne hitze und blîbet doch viur; aber got gemeinet daz sîne, wan er von im selber ist, daz er ist, und in allen den gâben, die er gibet, sô gibet er sich selben ie zem êrsten. Er gibet sich got, als er ist in allen sînen gâben, als verre als ez an im ist, der in enpfâhen möhte. Sant Jâcob sprichet: ‘alle guoten gâben sint von oben her abe vliezende von dem vater der liehte’. | Als wir got nemen in dem wesene, sô nemen wir in in sînem vorbürge, wan wesen ist sîn vorbürge, dâ er inne wonet. Wâ ist er denne in sînem tempel, dâ er heilic inne schînet? Vernünfticheit ist der tempel gotes. Niergen wonet got eigenlîcher dan in sînem tempel, in vernünfticheit, 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. Got in sîn selbes bekantnisse bekennet sich selben in im selben. (󰀁󰀅󰀁) nigro. Hunc articulum, ut sonat, etiam ipse magister erroneum reputat. Sed circa ipsum hoc verificat quod deus est “super omne nomen” et “superior omni narratione” et super omne quod intelligimus, cum omnes “linguae deficiunt ab eius” proprietate. Et plus differt omne nomen quo ipsum deum nominamus ab illius proprietate quam album a nigro. Haec enim habent unum genus univoce. Hoc non evacuat errorem, quia tunc ista esset magis impropria et neganda “deus est bonus” quam illa “album est nigrum”, immo nulla propositio de deo esset concedenda, ut “deus est deus”, “ens”, “unus”, “trinus” et similia. Quae sunt haeretica. Et quamvis deus sit “super omne nomen” et supra omnem intellectum, non tamen debent negari a deo nomina quae magis proprie sibi conveniunt quam creaturae, ut quod “deus est ens”, “substantia”, “deus”, “bonus”, sicut negamus album nigrum. Et plus convenit signatum bonitatis deo quam album nigro vel e converso. Nec unitas generi reddit propositionem magis propriam et veram in terminis dividentibus genus; aliter ista esset magis propria et vera “homo est asinus” quam “homo est ens” vel “homo est quantus vel albus”. Quod est absurdum vel falsum. Nec est dubium quin magis conveniant omnia praedicata de deo, puta bonitas, sapientia, vita et cetera cum deo, cum quo dicunt unam rem simplicissima et indistinctam, quam album et nigrum, quae sunt distincta et apposita realiter et solum conveniunt in communi conceptu generis ex tenui similitudine accepto, ut dicit Themistius’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀆󰀅 (the bull) (LW V 󰀅󰀉󰀉,󰀈󰀉–󰀉󰀄): ‘Obiectum preterea extitit dicto Ekardo, quod predicaverat alios duos articulos sub hiis verbis: … Secundus articulus: Quod “deus non est bonus neque melior neque optimus. Ita male dico, quandocunque voco deum bonum, ac si ego album vocarem nigrum”’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉]

󰀃󰀁󰀃

Now, however, God says: ‘No one is good except God alone’.󰀂󰀀 What is good? Good is what communicates itself. We call somebody a ‘good’ person who is sharing and helpful. Therefore, a pagan master says:󰀂󰀁 in this sense, a hermit is neither good nor bad, because he is neither sharing nor helpful. God is the most sharing one. Nothing shares itself by itself, because creatures in themselves are nothing. What they share, they have from another. They do not even give themselves. The sun provides its splendor and yet remains where it is, and the fire gives its heat and yet remains fire; but God communicates what is His, because He is by Himself what He is, and in all the gifts He gives, He always gives Himself first. He gives Himself as God, as He is in all His gifts, to the extent that one can receive Him. Saint James says: ‘All good gifts descend from above, flowing from the father of lights’.󰀂󰀂 When we take God as being, we take Him in his entrance hall, because being is his entrance hall, where He resides. But where is He in His temple, within which He shines as holy? The intellect is ‘the temple of God’. Nowhere does God dwell more fully than in His temple, in the intellect, as the second󰀂󰀃 master said, that ‘God is an intellect that lives alone in self-knowledge, remaining alone in Himself, where nothing ever touched Him, as He is alone there in His quietness. In His self-knowledge God knows Himself in Himself.󰀂󰀄

󰀂󰀀. Marc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀁󰀈: ‘Iesus autem dixit ei quid me dicis bonum nemo bonus nisi unus Deus’. 󰀂󰀁. See Averroes, Metaph. V comm. 󰀂󰀇 (Venetiis, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀂), f. 󰀁󰀃󰀅rB: ‘… quoniam non omnis homo est aut malus aut bonus. Homo enim non ciuilis neque dicitur bonus neque malus, et similiter iustus aut iniustus’; X comm. 󰀁󰀅, f. 󰀂󰀆󰀃vI: ‘Ideo horum quidem est aliquid medium, et est nec bonus homo, nec malus’. 󰀂󰀂. Iac. 󰀁:󰀁󰀇: ‘omne datum optimum et omne donum perfectum desursum est descendens a Patre luminum’. 󰀂󰀃. As mentioned in n. 󰀄, it is the third of the three quoted masters. 󰀂󰀄. See Eckhart, Quaestiones Parisienses I (‘Utrum in deo sit idem esse et intelligere?’) n. 󰀄 (LW V 󰀄󰀀,󰀅–󰀇; 󰀄󰀂,󰀇; 󰀄󰀃,󰀆–󰀇;): ‘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’; n. 󰀅: ‘Et ideo intelligere est altius quam esse’; n. 󰀇: Secundo accipio quod ipsum intelligere et ea quae ad intellectum pertinent, sunt alterius condicionis quam ipsum esse’; Quaestiones Parisienses III (‘Utrum laus dei in patria sit nobilior eius dilectione in via’) n. 󰀉 (LW V 󰀆󰀀,󰀈–󰀉): ‘Item: ipsum intelligere quaedam deiformitas vel deiformatio, quia ipse deus est ipsum intelligere et non est esse’.

󰀃󰀁󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

| Nû nemen wirz in der sêle, diu ein tröpfelîn hât vernünfticheit, ein vünkelîn, ein zwîc. Diu hât krefte, die dâ würkent in dem lîbe. Ein kraft ist, dâ von der mensche döuwet, diu würket mêr in der naht dan in dem tage, dâ von der mensche zuonimet und wehset. Diu sêle hât ouch eine kraft in dem ougen, dâ von ist daz ouge sô kleinlich und sô verwenet, daz ez diu dinc niht ennimet in der gropheit, als sie an in selber sint; sie müezent ê gebiutelt werden und klein gemachet in dem lufte und in dem liehte; daz ist dâ von, daz ez die sêle bî im hât. Ein ander kraft ist in der sêle, dâ mite si gedenket. Disiu kraft bildet in sich diu dinc, diu niht gegenwertic ensint, daz ich diu dinc als wol bekenne, als ob ich sie sæhe mit den ougen, und noch baz – ich gedenke wol eine rôsen in dem winter – und mit dirre kraft würket diu sêle in unwesene und volget gote, der in unwesene würket. (󰀁󰀅󰀂) | Ein heidenischer meister sprichet: diu sêle, diu got minnet, diu nimet in under dem velle der güete – noch sint ez allez heidenischer meister wort, diu hie vor gesprochen sint, die niht enbekanten dan in einem natiurlîchen liehte; noch enkam ich niht ze der heiligen meister worten, die dâ bekanten in einem vil hœhern liehte – er sprichet: diu sêle, diu got minnet, diu nimet in under dem velle der güete. Vernünfticheit ziuhet gote daz vel der güete abe und nimet in blôz, dâ er entkleidet ist von güete und von wesene und von allen namen. Ich sprach in der schuole, daz vernünfticheit edeler wære dan wille, und gehœrent doch beidiu in diz lieht. Dô sprach ein meister in einer andern schuole, wille wære edeler dan vernünfticheit, wan wille nimet diu dinc, als (󰀁󰀅󰀃) | sie in in selben sint, und vernünfticheit nimet diu dinc, als sie in ir sint. Daz ist wâr. Ein ouge ist edeler in im selber dan ein ouge, daz an eine want gemâlet ist. Ich spriche aber, daz vernünfticheit edeler ist dan wille. Wille nimet got under dem kleide der güete. Vernünfticheit nimet got blôz, als er entkleidet ist von güete und von wesene. Güete ist ein kleit, dâ got under verborgen ist, und wille nimet got under dem kleide der güete. Wære güete an gote niht, mîn wille enwölte sîn niht. Der einen künic kleiden wolte an dem tage, als man in ze künige machete, und kleidete in in grâwiu kleit, der enhæte in niht wol gekleidet. Dâ von enbin ich niht sælic, daz got guot ist. Ich

H OMILY 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉]

󰀃󰀁󰀅

Now let us take Him in the soul, which has a drop of the intellect, a spark, a shoot. She has powers that act in the body. One power is that by which man digests, which acts more by night than by day, and by which man becomes bigger and grows. The soul also has a power in the eye, for which the eye is so subtle and so refined, that it can not take things in their coarseness in which they are in themselves; these must rather be filtered and refined in the air and in the light; and this derives from the fact that the eye has the soul within it. The soul has another power, by which she thinks. This power imagines in itself the things that are not present, so that I know things as well as if I saw them with my eyes, and even better – I can easily think of a winter rose – and with this power the soul acts with non-being, and follows God, who acts with non-being. A pagan master says: ‘The soul that loves God grasps Him under the skin of goodness’ – so far these words that have been said before are still the words of pagan masters who did not know except in a natural light; I have not yet arrived at the sayings of the holy masters, who knew in a much higher light – he says: the soul that loves God grasps Him under the skin of goodness. The intellect removes from God the skin of goodness and takes Him naked, where He is stripped of goodness, of being and of all names. At the university I said that the intellect is more noble than the will, and yet both belong to this light. Then a master󰀂󰀅 said in another university department that the will would be more noble than the intellect, because the will takes things as they are in themselves, and the intellect takes things as they are in it. This is true. An eye is more noble in itself than an eye painted on a wall. But I state that the intellect is more noble than the will. The will grasps God under the guise of goodness. The intellect grasps Him nudely when He is stripped of goodness and being. Goodness is a garment, under which God is hidden, and the will grasps God under the garment of goodness. If goodness were not in God, my will would not want Him. Whoever wished to dress a king on the day he was made king, and dressed him in a grey robe, he would not dress him well. I am not blessed by the fact that 󰀂󰀅. Presumably the Franciscan Gonsalvus Hispanus, see Eckhart, Quaestiones Parisienses III (LW V 󰀅󰀅–󰀇󰀁).

󰀃󰀁󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

enwil des niemer begern, daz mich got sælic mache mit sîner güete, wan er enmöhte ez niht getuon. Dâ von bin ich aleine sælic, daz got vernünftic ist und ich daz bekenne. Ein meister sprichet: vernünfticheit gotes ist, dâ (󰀁󰀅󰀄) | des engels wesen zemâle ane hanget. Man vrâget, wâ daz wesen des bildes aller eigenlîchest sî: in dem spiegel oder in dem, von dem ez ûzgât? Ez ist eigenlîcher in dem, von dem ez ûzgât. Daz bilde ist in mir, von mir, zuo mir. Die wîle der spiegel glîch stât gegen mînem antlite, sô ist mîn bilde dar inne; viele der spiegel, sô vergienge daz bilde. Des engels wesen hanget dar an, daz im götlich vernünfticheit gegenwertic ist, dar inne er sich bekennet. ‘Als ein morgensterne miten in dem nebel’. Ich meine daz wörtelîn ‘quasi’, daz heizet ‘als’, daz heizent diu kint in der schuole ein bîwort. Diz ist, daz ich in allen mînen predigen meine. Daz aller eigenlîcheste, daz man von gote (󰀁󰀅󰀅) | gesprechen mac, daz ist wort und wârheit. Got nante sich selber ein wort. Sant Johannes sprach: ‘in dem anvange was daz wort’, und meinet, daz man bî dem worte sî ein bîwort. Als der vrîe sterne, nâch dem vrîtac genant ist, Vênus: der hât manigen namen. Als er vor der sunnen gât und er ê ûfgât dan diu sunne, sô heizet er ein morgensterne; als er der sunnen nâch gât, alsô daz diu sunne ê undergât, sô heizet er ein âbentsterne. Etwenne loufet er ob der sunnen, etwenne bî niden der sunnen. Vor allen sternen ist er alwege glîch nâhe der sunnen; er enkumet ir niemer verrer noch næher und meinet einen menschen, der hie zuo komen wil, der sol gote alle zît bî und gegenwertic sîn, alsô daz in niht von gote müge geverren weder glücke noch unglücke noch kein crêatûre. Er sprichet ouch: ‘als ein voller mâne in sînen tagen’. Der mâne hât hêrschaft (󰀁󰀅󰀆) | über alle viuhte natûre. Niemer enist der mâne der sunnen sô nâhe, dan sô er vol ist und als er sîn lieht von der sunnen zem êrsten nimet; und dâ von, daz er der erde næher ist dan kein sterne, sô hât er zwêne schaden: daz er bleich und vleckeht ist und daz er sîn lieht verliuset. Niemer enist er sô kreftic, dan sô er der erde aller verrest ist, denne sô wirfet er daz mer aller verrest ûz; ie mêr er abenimet, ie

󰀂󰀆. Perhaps a referenceto Ps.-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus c. 󰀇 § 󰀂 (PG 󰀃, 󰀈󰀆󰀈B, Dionysiaca 󰀃󰀈󰀈,󰀁–󰀃󰀉󰀀,󰀃). 󰀂󰀇. Ioh. 󰀁:󰀁.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉]

󰀃󰀁󰀇

God is good. I will never desire that God makes me blessed with His goodness, because this He could not do. I am only blessed for the fact that God is intellect, and that I know this. A master says:󰀂󰀆 the intellect of God is that from which the angel’s being completely depends. One asks, where is the being of the image more properly: in the mirror or in what it derives from? It is more properly in what it derives from. The image is in me, from me, to me. As long as the mirror remains in front of my face, my image is in there; if the mirror fell down, the image would disappear. The being of the angel depends on the fact that the divine intellect is present to it, in which it knows itself. ‘Like a morning star in the mist’. I focus on the term ‘quasi’, that means ‘like’, which the children at school call an adverb. This is what I focus on in all my sermons. The most proper [name] that can be said of God is ‘word’ and ‘truth’. God called Himself a ‘word’. Saint John said: ‘In the beginning was the Word’,󰀂󰀇 and he means that one must be a ‘to-word’ (adverb) to that Word.󰀂󰀈 Like the free star, from which Friday has its name,󰀂󰀉 Venus has many names. When it precedes the sun and rises before the sun, it is called ‘the morning star’. When it follows the sun so that this has been set before, it is called an ‘evening star’. Sometimes it runs above the sun, sometimes under the sun. Among all the stars it is that which is always equally close to the sun; it never comes farther or closer to it; and it means that a person who wants to get to that point must always be with and present to God, so that nothing can remove them from God, neither fortune nor misfortune nor any creature. He also says, ‘like a full moon in its days’. The moon has dominion over all wet natures. Never is the moon so close to the sun as when it is full and when it takes its light from the sun directly. And due to the fact that it is closer than any other star to the earth, it has two drawbacks: it is pale and spotted and that it loses its light. It is never as powerful as when it is farthest from the earth, because then it pushes the sea the farthest back; the more it wanes, the less it can push

󰀂󰀈. Unfortunately, Eckhart’s wordplay here and below at nn. 󰀁󰀆 and 󰀁󰀈 (‘bî dem worte sî[n] ein bîwort’) can not be rendered into English. 󰀂󰀉. The Latin for ‘Friday’ is dies Veneris, the day of Venus.

󰀃󰀁󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

minner er ez ûzgewerfen mac. Ie mêr diu sêle erhaben ist über irdischiu dinc, ie kreftiger si ist. Der niht dan die crêatûren bekante, der endörfte niemer gedenken ûf keine predige, wan ein ieglîchiu crêatûre ist vol gotes und ist ein buoch. Der mensche, der hie zuo komen wil, dâ von hie vor gesprochen ist – hie gât alliu diu rede zemâle ûf – der sol sîn als ein morgensterne: iemermê gote gegenwertic und (󰀁󰀅󰀇) | iemermê bî und glîch nâhe und erhaben über alliu irdischiu dinc und bî dem worte sîn ein bîwort. Ez ist ein vürbrâht wort, daz ist der engel und der mensche und alle crêatûren. Ez ist ein ander wort, bedâht und vürbrâht, 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. Ie kleinlîcher und ie (󰀁󰀅󰀈) | geistlîcher daz dinc ist, ie krefticlîcher ez înwert würket, und ie diu vernunft kreftiger und kleinlîcher ist, ie daz, daz si bekennet, mêr dâ mite vereinet wirt und mêr ein mit ir wirt. Alsô enist ez niht umbe lîplîchiu dinc; ie kreftiger diu sint, ie mêr sie ûzwert würkent. Gotes sælicheit liget an der înwertwürkunge der vernünfticheit, dâ daz wort inneblîbende ist. Dâ sol diu sêle sîn ein bîwort und mit gote würken ein werk, in dem înswebenden bekantnisse ze nemenne ir sælicheit in dem selben, dâ got sælic ist. Daz wir alle zît bî disem worte müezen sîn ein bîwort, des helfe uns der vater und diz selbe wort und der heilige geist. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉]

󰀃󰀁󰀉

it back. The more the soul is elevated above earthly things, the more powerful she is. One who knew nothing but creatures, would not need to think of any homily, because every creature is full of God and is a book. The person who wants to get to that point, of which I have spoken before here – and this sums up this entire speech –, that person must be like a morning star: always present to, always close to and equally near to God and elevated above all earthly things, and being an adverb of the Word. There is a word that has been brought forward, which is that of angels, of people and of all creatures. There is another word, reflected and brought forward, through which it is possible for me to realize images in me. Then there is still another word, which is not brought forward and is unreflected, which never goes out, rather it is eternally in the one who speaks it; it is always being conceived in the Father, who speaks it, and remains within. The intellect acts entirely inwardly. The finer and the more spiritual the thing is, the more powerfully it works inwardly, and the more the intellect is powerful and fine, the more the thing that it knows is united with it and becomes one with it. This does not happen in bodily things: the more powerful these are, the more they act outwards. God’s blessedness consists in intellect acting inwardly, where the word remains inside. There the soul must be an adverb and together with God act one act, in order to take her blessedness in the same inward knowledge in which God is blessed. May the Father and this same Word and the Holy Spirit help us to always be an adverb of this Word! Amen.

Homily 󰀈󰀇* [Q 󰀁󰀆a] In festo sancti Augustini episcopi, die 󰀂󰀈 augusti Introduction

T

he present text is only a fragment of a homily by Eckhart, but it is externally attributed to him (‘MEyster Eggart spreeckt, Nu), and there is an almost literal parallel to one of Eckhart’s theses that was criticised by the inquisition (Acta Echardiana [Proc. Col. I, n. 󰀆󰀂]). Because of the parallel text, Hom. 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆b] with the core verse of ‘Quasi vas auri solidum ornatum omni lapide pretioso’ [Eccli. 󰀅󰀀:󰀁󰀀] which is read on the feast of St. Augustine, 󰀂󰀈 August, it is also very likely that this homily was given on that day. The text as given in the critical edition is derived from one manuscript only (Lo󰀃). The witness Nu is not used in the critical edition of DW. The content of the homily Given that this is only a fragment of a homily, it nevertheless makes an important point, that in spiritual things there is no distance and, therefore, no medium between giver and receiver, as both are one and the same (n. 󰀁). Even though ‘many masters’ exist who think that an image is generated ‘out of will and knowledge’, Eckhart holds the opposite view (n. 󰀂), namely that the image is ‘an expression of itself’. This he illustrates with the example of the mirror, hence developing further what he has just indicated in the previous homily for the same feast, Hom. 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉], nn. 󰀁󰀁; 󰀁󰀄 (see also Hom. 󰀃󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀉], n. 󰀈), and the example of the bud in bloom (n. 󰀃). In a further thought, he applies the oneness of spiritual things to the Son as the ‘image of the Father’ to state emphatically that ‘this image is myself’ (n. 󰀄). Both the theoretical and the applied reasoning of Eckhart were incriminated in the beginning

H OMILY 󰀈󰀇* [Q 󰀁󰀆 A ]

󰀃󰀂󰀁

of the inquisitional process against him, as demonstrated below in the given parallels, even though, Eckhart tries to diffuse the criticism, pointing out that he was not talking about ‘myself’ in the creaturely, but in the spiritual sense. Editions, commentaries and notes J. Quint, DW I 󰀂󰀅󰀇–󰀉; N. Largier I 󰀁󰀈󰀂–󰀅.󰀉󰀀󰀃–󰀄. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀁󰀁󰀂–󰀃; Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings, ed. and trans. O. Davies (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀁󰀉󰀂.

󰀃󰀂󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀅󰀈) Een meester sprect: ware alle middel af tusscen mi ende dien muer, soe waric ane den muer, nochtan en waric in den muer niet. aldus en eest niet in gheesteliken dingen, want dat een es emmer in den anderen; dat daer ontfaet, dat es dat daer ontfangen wert, want en ontfaet niet dan hê seluen. Dit es subtijl. die dit verstaet, hê es gnoech ghepredecht. doch een luttel van den beelde der sielen. der meesterre sijn vele, die willen, dat dit beelde si ute geboren van wille ende van bekentenissen, ende des en es niet; maer ic spreke, dat dit beelde si een uutdruc sijn selfs sunder wille ende sunder bekentenisse. | (󰀂󰀅󰀉) Ic wille v seggen ene gelikenesse. houde enen spieghel vor mi: ic wille of ic en wille, sunder wille ende sunder bekentenisse mijns selfs beeldic mi in d spiegel. dit beelde en es van den spiegele niet, en es oec van hê seluen niet, maer dit beelde alremeest es in dien, van wien tsijn wesen heeft ende sine nature. wanneer die spiegel van vor mi es, sone beeldic mi niet langher in den spiegel, want ic ben dit beelde selue. Noch ene andere gelikenisse: wanneer een telch vut spruut ute enen boeme, se voert hi beide name ende wesen des boemds. dat daer ute gaet, dat es, dat daer in blijft, ende dat daer in blijft, dat es, dat daer ute gaet. aldus es die telch een utedruc sijns selfs. alsoe sprekic oec van den beelde der s. dat daer ut gaet, dat es, dat daer in blijft, ende dat daer in blijft, dat es, dat daer ute gaet. Dit beelde es die sone d ader, ende dit beelde benic selue, ende dit beelde es die . des si god geloeft nu ende emmermeer. Amen. Diet niet en verstaet, hi enbecummere hê niet.

󰀁. Unidentified source. Note that the text is written in Middle Dutch. 󰀂. Unidentified sources. 󰀃. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀆 (Proc. Col. I n. 󰀆󰀂) (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀀,󰀇–󰀁󰀀): ‘Octavus articulus est de imagine in anima, quod “imago” trinitatis in anima sit “quaedam expressio (sui) ipsius absque voluntate et intellectu”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi nn. 󰀁󰀄󰀁–󰀂) (LW V 󰀃󰀀󰀀,󰀁󰀄–󰀃󰀀󰀁,󰀃): ‘Ad

H OMILY 󰀈󰀇* [Q 󰀁󰀆 A ]

󰀃󰀂󰀃

A master says:󰀁 if every medium would fall away between me and the wall, I would be on the wall, and yet I would not be in the wall. It is not so with spiritual things, for the one is always in the other: what receives is the same as what is received, because it receives nothing but itself. This is subtle. Whoever understands this, has been preached enough. However, a little about the image of the soul. There are many masters who believe that the image is generated out of will and knowledge,󰀂 and this is not the case. On the contrary, I say that the image is an expression of itself without will and without knowledge.󰀃 I want to give you a simile. I put a mirror in front of me: Whether I want it or do not want it, without will and without knowledge of myself, my self’s image is formed in the mirror. This image does not derive from the mirror, nor does it derive from itself; rather, this image is entirely in that from which it derives its being and its nature. As soon as the mirror is no longer in front of me, my image is no longer formed in the mirror, because I am myself this image. Yet another example: when a bud blooms from a tree, it carries both the name and the being of the tree. What germinates there is what remains in there, and what remains in there is what germinates there. Thus the bud is an expression of itself. So I also speak of the image of the soul. What comes out is what remains inside, and what remains inside is what comes out. This image is the Son of the Father, and this image is myself, and this image is wisdom. For this God be praised now and always. Amen. Who does not understand this, should not worry.

octavum quod est “de imagine in anima, quod imago trinitatis in anima sit quaedam expressio sui ipsius absque voluntate et intellectu”. Obscurum est quod dicitur, nisi quantum apparet in exemplis ibidem adductis. Unde ibi non video periculum. Quod autem in fine dicitur quod “ego sum illa imago”, error est et falsum. Non enim quidquam creatum est imago, sed ad imaginem creati sunt angelus et homo. Imago enim proprie et similitudo non est proprie facta nec opus naturae’.

Homily 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆b] In festo sancti Augustini episcopi, die 󰀂󰀈 augusti ‘Quasi vas auri solidum ornatum omni lapide pretioso’ (Eccli. 󰀅󰀀:󰀁󰀀) Introduction

T

his is the third homily for the feast of St. Augustine, celebrated on 󰀂󰀈 August (‘Op S. Augustyns dach oft op / eens H. Confessoors dach’, Ge󰀄; ‘De S. Augustino / et de quolibet sancto’, G󰀅; ‘Vff sant Augustinus tag’, BT) with the core passage being Eccli. 󰀅󰀀:󰀁󰀀 (‘Quasi vas auri solidum ornatum omni lapide pretioso’) which he also focused on in his Latin sermo on St. Augustine.󰀁 The text as given in the critical edition is derived from seven manuscripts (B󰀂, B󰀃, Bra󰀃, G󰀁, G󰀅, Ge󰀄, M󰀂), the print in BT and the fragmentary S󰀁. The witnesses Ge󰀅, U󰀁 and the print HT are not used in the critical edition of DW. We also need to note the references in Heinrich von Erfurt (‘also spricht maister Eckart…’) and Hartung von Erfurt. Hom. 󰀂󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀈], n. 󰀆 (‘“Diu grôze schar” daz sint die tugende, dâ ich niuwelîche von sprach’) seems to be a reference to our homily here, n. 󰀁󰀂. The content of the homily Less technical than the previous homily Hom. 󰀈󰀇* [Q 󰀁󰀆a], it is still an address that requires an inquisitive mind to follow our preacher. Augustine is not only compared to the vase, a vessel or a barrel, Eckhart makes use also of some of his writings to support his arguments. Yet already, right in the opening, he points out that the comparison bet󰀁. Eckhart, Sermo die B. Augustini Parisius habitus (LW V 󰀈󰀅–󰀉󰀉).

󰀃󰀂󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

ween the vase and Augustine does not exclusively relate to the saint, but to ‘any good, holy soul’ (n. 󰀂), following consistently his line of thought about saints and sainthood. This time Eckhart only gives the verse in Latin, not followed by a vernacular translation (n. 󰀁). He introduces the idea of comparing Augustine, but quickly notes that one ‘single simile’ would not be enough. Nevertheless, he concentrates on the image of the container, based on the core verse (‘Vas auri’) (n. 󰀂). He starts by pointing out that the nature of a barrel is twofold, to receive and to contain’ (n. 󰀃). Likewise, ‘each image has two properties’ (n. 󰀄). In both passages, Eckhart highlights the absence of any medium, again, his favourite topic in his homilies on the saints. Being without a medium is the first property of the image (nn. 󰀄–󰀅), the second is ‘the likeness’ of an image with that of which it is the image of (n. 󰀆). The topic of the image is then broadened, covering ‘four points, or maybe there are more’ (n. 󰀇). With n. 󰀈 Eckhart moves the homily from examples and theoretical reflections to answer the question ‘how you should live’. He speaks about his thoughts which he developed when looking at ‘sage and other aromatic herbs’ that have been placed on a grave in a convent: ‘here lies the dear friend of a person, and therefore this earth is so much dearer to him. Whoever has a really dear friend, he loves everything that belongs to him, and what is unpleasant to his friend, he does not like’. To this he adds the example of a dog who is loyal to its lord and likes what its lord likes, and dislikes what the lord dislikes, irrespective of wealth or poverty. So close is the dog to its lord that if it were only half-loyal, it ‘would hate half of itself’. Having talked about ‘images’, Eckhart reflects upon people who complain that they ‘have no inner sense nor contemplation nor pleasure nor a particular comfort from God’ (n. 󰀉). And he answers that life is not about having visions, but to take God nakedly. Hence, it is also not about seeing God, as righteous life is not about following one’s own intentions (n. 󰀁󰀀). This brings him back to Augustine (n. 󰀁󰀁). The comparison of the higher and the lower powers (male and female) underpins the idea that if people want ‘to be with Saint Augustine and in the sainthood of all the saints’, they need to be free from all creatureliness, and also ‘persistent and firm … in pleasure and suffering, in fortune

H OMILY 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆 B ]

󰀃󰀂󰀇

and misfortune’ (n. 󰀁󰀂). Such overcoming of all the powers and such taking of ‘all the powers … in the ground’ leads to oneness with God, Eckhart’s final prayer. Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀁󰀄,󰀆󰀇–󰀇󰀁; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀂󰀀󰀄–󰀁󰀂; J. Quint, DW I 󰀂󰀆󰀁–󰀇󰀆; N. Largier I 󰀁󰀈󰀆–󰀉󰀇.󰀉󰀀󰀅–󰀁󰀂; S. Köbele, Predigt 󰀁󰀆b: ‘Quasi vas auri solidum’, in: Lectura Eckhardi (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈), 󰀄󰀄–󰀅󰀁. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀅󰀀–󰀃; J.M. Clark, Meister Eckhart (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀇), 󰀁󰀄󰀄–󰀈; R. Schürmann, Meister Eckhart (󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀈), 󰀉󰀉–󰀁󰀀󰀃; Meister Eckhart, Teacher and Preacher (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇), 󰀂󰀇󰀅–󰀉; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀁󰀁󰀄–󰀈.

󰀃󰀂󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀆󰀃) ‘Quasi vas auri solidum ornatum omni lapide pretioso’. Ich hân ein wörtelîn gesprochen in dem latîne, daz liset man hiute in der epistel, daz mac man sprechen von sant Augustînus und von einer ieglîchen guoten, heiligen sêle, wie die sint gelîchet einem guldînen vazze, daz dâ ist veste und stæte und hât an im edelkeit alles gesteines. Daz kumet von edelkeit der heiligen, daz man sie mit éinem glîchnisse niht bewîsen enmac; dar umbe glîchet man sie den boumen und der sunnen und dem mânen. Und alsô ist hie sant Augustînus gelîchet einem guldînen vazze, daz dâ ist veste und stæte und hât an im edelkeit alles gesteines. Und diz mac man wærlîche sprechen (󰀂󰀆󰀄) | von einer ieglîchen guoten, heiligen sêle, diu dâ hât gelâzen alliu dinc und nimet sie dâ, dâ sie êwic sint. Swer diu dinc læzet, als sie zuoval sint, der besitzet sie, dâ sie ein lûter wesen sint und êwic sint. Ein ieglich vaz hât zwei dinc an im: ez enpfæhet und entheltet. Geistlîchiu vaz und lîplîchiu vaz hânt underscheit. Der wîn ist in dem vazze; daz vaz enist niht in dem wîne, noch der wîn enist niht in dem vazze als in den breten; wan wære er in dem vazze als in den breten, sô enmöhte man in niht getrinken. Anders ist ez umbe daz geistlîche vaz. Allez, daz dar în enpfangen wirt, daz ist in dem vazze und daz vaz in im und ist daz vaz selbe. Allez, (󰀂󰀆󰀅) | daz daz geistlich vaz enpfæhet, daz ist sîn natûre. Gotes natûre ist daz, daz er sich gibet einer ieglîchen guoten sêle, und der sêle natûre ist daz, daz si got enpfæhet; und diz mac man sprechen von dem edelsten, daz diu sêle geleisten mac. Dâ treget diu sêle daz götlîche bilde und ist gote glîch. Bilde enmac niht gesîn âne glîcheit, aber glîcheit mac wol gesîn âne bilde. Zwei eier sint glîche wîz, und einez enist doch des andern bilde niht; wan daz des andern bilde sol sîn, daz muoz von sîner natûre komen sîn und muoz von im geborn sîn und muoz im glîch sîn.󰀅 󰀂. Eccli. 󰀅󰀀:󰀁󰀀 (‘Quasi vas auri solidum ornatum omni lapide pretioso’). On the liturgical context see the note on Hom. 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉]. 󰀃. ‘edelkeit’ is here both, ‘preciousness’ and also ‘nobility’. 󰀄. See Liber XXIV philosophorum prop. 󰀆 (Hudry 󰀁󰀂): ‘Deus est, cuius comparatione substantia est accidens, et accidens nihil’. 󰀅. See Augustinus, De diversis quaestionibus (PL 󰀄󰀀, 󰀈󰀅–󰀆): ‘Imago et aequalitas et similitudo distinguenda sunt. Quia ubi imago, continuo similitudo, non continuo aequalitas: ubi aequalitas, continuo similitudo, non continuo imago: ubi similitudo, non continuo imago, non continuo aequalitas … Ubi aequalitas, continuo similitudo, non continuo imago: velut in duobus ovis paribus, quia inest aequalitas, inest et similitudo; quaecumque enim adsunt uni, adsunt et alteri; imago

H OMILY 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆 B ]

󰀃󰀂󰀉

‘Quasi vas auri solidum ornatum omni lapide pretioso’.󰀂 I have spoken a sentence in Latin, which we read today in the epistle, which one can refer to Saint Augustine and to any good, holy soul: how they resemble a golden vessel that is solid and durable and has itself the preciousness󰀃 of every stone. It comes from the nobility of the saints that can not be shown with a single simile; therefore we compare them with the tree and the sun and the moon. And thus, Saint Augustine is here likened to a vessel of gold that is solid and durable and has in itself the preciousness of every stone. And this can truly be said of every good, holy soul who has given up all things and takes them in where they are eternal. Who lets things go, insofar as they are accidental, and possesses them, insofar as they are pure being and are eternal.󰀄 Every barrel has two things in itself: it receives and contains. A spiritual barrel and a bodily barrel are different. The wine is in a barrel; the barrel is not in the wine, nor is the wine in the barrel or in the staves; because if it were in the barrel or in the staves, it could not be drunk. With a spiritual barrel it is different. All that is received in it, is in the barrel and the barrel is in it, and it is itself the barrel. All that the spiritual barrel receives is its nature. It is God’s nature to give Himself to every good soul, and it is the soul’s nature to receive God; and this can be said of the noblest that the soul can accomplish. There the soul carries the divine image and is like God. An image can not be without likeness, but likeness may well be without image. Two eggs are similarly white, and yet one is not the image of the other; for what should be the image of the other must have come from its nature, must be generated by it and must be similar to it.

tamen non est, quia neutrum de altero expressum est. Ubi similitudo, non continuo imago, non continuo aequalitas: omne quippe ovum omni ovo, in quantum ovum est, simile est; sed ovum perdicis, quamvis in quantum ovum est, simile sit ovo gallinae, nec imago tamen ejus est, quia de illo expressum non est … Potest etiam aliquando similitudo esse et aequalitas, quamvis non sit imago, ut de duobus ovis paribus dictum est’; see also Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀃󰀅 a 󰀁. c.: ‘Sed neque ipsa similitudo speciei sufficit vel figurae; sed requiritur ad rationem imaginis origo: quia, ut Augustinus dicit in Octoginta trium Quaest., unum ovum non est imago alterius, quia non est de illo expressum. Ad hoc ergo quod vere aliquid sit imago, requiritur, quod ex alio procedat simile ei in specie, vel saltem in signo speciei’.

󰀃󰀃󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Ein ieglich bilde hât zwô eigenschaft. Daz ein ist, daz ez von dem, des bilde ez ist, sîn wesen âne mittel nemende ist obe dem willen, wan ez hât (󰀂󰀆󰀆) | einen natiurlîchen ûzganc und dringet ûz der natûre als der ast ûz dem boume. Swenne daz antlite geworfen wirt vür den spiegel, sô muoz daz antlite dar inne erbildet werden, ez welle oder enwelle. Aber diu natûre erbildet sich niht in daz bilde des spiegels, mer: der munt und diu nase und diu ougen und alliu diu gestaltnisse des antlites daz erbildet sich in dem spiegel. Aber daz hât got im aleine behalten, swâ er sich inne erbildet, daz er dâ sîne natûre und allez, daz er ist und geleisten mac, zemâle dar inne erbildet obe dem willen; wan daz bilde vürsetzet dem willen, und der wille volget dem bilde, und daz bilde hât den êrsten ûzbruch ûz der natûre und ziuhet in sich allez, daz diu natûre und daz wesen geleisten mac; und diu natûre ergiuzet sich zemâle in (󰀂󰀆󰀇) | daz bilde und blîbet doch ganz in ir selber. Wan die meister enlegent niht daz bilde in den heiligen geist, mêr: sie legent ez in die mittelste persône, wan der sun hât den êrsten ûzbruch ûz der natûre; dar umbe heizet er eigenlîche ein bilde des vaters, und daz entuot niht der heilige geist: der ist aleine ein ûzblüejen von dem vater und von dem sune und hât doch éin natûre mit in beiden. Und doch enist der wille niht ein mittel zwischen dem bilde und der natûre; jâ, noch bekennen noch wizzen noch wîsheit enmac hie niht ein mittel gesîn, wan daz götlîche bilde brichet ûz der vruhtbærkeit der natûre âne mittel. (󰀂󰀆󰀈) | Ist aber hie ein mittel der wîsheit, daz ist daz bilde selber. Her umbe heizet der sun in der gotheit diu wîsheit des vaters. Ir sult wizzen, daz daz einvaltic götlîche bilde, daz in die sêle gedrücket ist in dem innigesten der natûre, âne mittel sich nemende ist; und daz innigeste und daz edelste, daz in der natûre ist, daz erbildet sich aller eigenlîchest in daz bilde der sêle, und hie enist niht ein mittel weder wille noch wîsheit, als ich ê sprach: ist hie wîsheit ein mittel, daz ist daz bilde selber. Hie ist got âne mittel in dem bilde, und daz bilde ist âne mittel in gote. Doch ist got vil edellîcher in dem bilde, dan daz bilde sî in gote. Hie ennimet daz bilde niht got, als er ein schepfer ist, sunder ez 󰀆. On the incrimination of what follows see the notes with the passages from the inquisitorial process in the previous homily. 󰀇. See Petrus Lombardus, Sententiae I d. 󰀆 c. 󰀁 (Grottaferrata, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀁, 󰀉󰀀,󰀂󰀀–󰀂): ‘Ita, cum unum sit natura Dei et voluntas, dicitur tamen Pater genuisse Filium natura, non voluntate, et esse Deus natura, non voluntate’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆 B ]

󰀃󰀃󰀁

Each image has two properties.󰀆 One is that it takes its being without medium involuntarily from that of which it is an image, because it comes naturally from it and pushes out by nature like the branch from the tree. When the face is placed in front of the mirror, the face must be formed in it as an image, whether or not it wants this. But its nature does not form itself into the mirror image, but rather: the mouth and the nose and the eyes and the whole figure of the face form themselves in the mirror. But God reserved for Himself alone that, wherever He forms His image, He entirely forms His nature and all that He is and can be in there without will; because the image precedes the will and the will follows the image, and the image has the first emanation from the nature and draws into itself all that the nature and the being can do; and the nature pours itself completely into the image and yet remains totally in itself. For the masters do not place the image in the Holy Spirit, rather: they place it in the mediating person, because the Son has the first emanation from the nature; therefore He is properly called an image of the Father, and this the Holy Spirit is not: He is only a flowering from the Father and the Son and yet has one nature with both. Still, the will is not a medium between the image and the nature;󰀇 indeed, neither recognising nor knowing nor wisdom can be a medium here, because the divine image emanates from the fruitfulness of the nature without a medium. But if there is a medium of wisdom here, it is the image itself. Therefore, the Son is called the wisdom of the Father in the Godhead. You must know that the simple divine image that is impressed in the soul within the most intimate of its nature is received without medium; and the most intimate and the noblest that is in the nature forms its image in the most proper way in the image of the soul, and here there is no medium, neither will nor wisdom, as I said before:󰀈 if wisdom is a medium here, it is the image itself. Here God is in the image without a medium, and the image is in God without a medium. Yet God is in a much nobler way in the image than the image is in God. Here the image

󰀈. Perhaps a reference to Hom. 󰀈󰀇* [Q 󰀁󰀆a] or Hom. 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂], n. 󰀄.

󰀃󰀃󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

nimet in, als er ein vernünftic wesen ist, und daz edelste der natûre erbildet sich aller eigenlîchest in daz bilde. Diz ist ein natiurlich bilde gotes, daz got in alle sêlen natiurlîche gedrücket hât. Nû enmac ich niht mêr gegeben dem bilde; gæbe aber ich im iht mêr, sô müeste ez got selber sîn, und des enist niht, wan sô enwære got niht got. (󰀂󰀆󰀉) | Die ander eigenschaft des bildes sult ir merken an der glîcheit des bildes. Und hie merket sunderlîche zwei stücke. Daz ein ist: daz bilde enist sîn selbes niht, noch enist im selber niht. Ze glîcher wîs als daz bilde, daz in dem ougen enpfangen wirt, daz enist des ougen niht und enhât kein wesen an dem ougen, sunder ez hât aleine ein zuohangen und anehaften an dem, des bilde ez ist. Her umbe enist ez sîn selbes niht und enist im selber niht, sunder ez ist eigenlîche des, des bilde ez ist und ist im alzemâle, und von dem nimet ez sîn wesen und ist daz selbe wesen. (󰀂󰀇󰀀) | Nû merket mich vil rehte! Waz eigenlîche ein bilde sî, daz sult ir merken an vier stücken, oder vil lîhte wirt ir mêr. Bilde enist sîn selbes niht, noch enist im selber niht; ez ist aleine des, des bilde ez ist, und ist im alzemâle allez, daz ez ist. Daz dem vremde ist, des bilde ez ist, dem enist ez niht, noch enist sîn niht. Bilde nimet aleine sîn wesen âne mittel an dem, des bilde ez ist, und hât éin wesen mit im und ist daz selbe wesen. Diz enist niht gesprochen von den dingen, diu man sol reden in der schuole; sunder man mac sie wol gesprechen ûf dem stuole ze einer lêre. (󰀂󰀇󰀁) | Ir vrâget dicke, wie ir leben sült. Daz sult ir hie merken mit vlîze. Ze glîcher wîs, als hie gesprochen ist von dem bilde, sich, alsus soltû leben. Dû solt sîn sîn und solt im sîn und ensolt dîn niht sîn und ensolt dir niht sîn und ensolt niemannes sîn. Dô ich gester her in diz klôster kam, dô sach ich salbei und ander wurzen ûf einem grabe stân; und dô gedâhte ich: hie liget eines menschen lieber vriunt, und dar umbe hât ez diz ertrîche deste lieber. Swer dâ hât einen rehte lieben vriunt, der hât allez daz liep, daz im zuo gehœret, und swaz sînem vriunde wider ist, des enmac er niht. Des nemet ein glîchnisse an dem hunde, der ein unvernünftic tier ist. Der ist sînem herren alsô getriuwe, allez daz sînem herren

H OMILY 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆 B ]

󰀃󰀃󰀃

does not take God as being the creator, but it takes Him being an intellectual being, and the noblest of the nature forms itself in the most proper way in the image. This is a natural image of God, which God has naturally impressed on every soul. Now, I can not add anything more to the image; if, however, I added something to it, it would need to be God Himself, and this is not so, because then God would not be God. The second property of the image you must see in the likeness of the image. And here you have to note two points in particular. One is: the image is not of itself, nor is it for itself.󰀉 In the same way that the image that is received in the eye is not of the eye and has no being in the eye, but is only dependent on and linked to what it is the image of, therefore it is not of itself and it is not for itself, but it is properly of what it is image, and it is for it entirely, and from this it takes its being and is the same being. Now listen to me carefully! What properly an image is, you need to note in four points, or maybe there are more. An image is not of itself, nor is it for itself; it is only of what it is image, and it is this all that this is. What is foreign to that of which it is image, this it is not, nor is it of it. An image only takes its being without medium from what it is the image of, and it has one being with it and it is the same being. This is not said of the things that should be discussed in the university, but they must be spoken from the pulpit as a teaching. You often ask me how you should live. Listen carefully here. You see, in the same way as it has been spoken here about the image, so you should live. You must be His and you must be for Him, and you must not be yours and you must not be for yourself nor be anybody’s. When I came into this convent here, yesterday, I saw sage and other aromatic herbs standing on a grave, and then I thought: here lies the dear friend of a person, and therefore this earth is so much dearer to him. Whoever has a really dear friend, he loves everything that belongs to him, and what is unpleasant to his friend, he does not like. Take as an example a dog, which is a non-rational animal. It is so loyal to its 󰀉. J. Quint, ad loc. translates: ‘nicht aus sich selbst, nicht ist es für sich selbst’ (‘neither out of itself nor is it for itself’), taking the last ‘im selber’ as a dativ.

󰀃󰀃󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

wider ist, daz hazzet er, und swer sînes herren (󰀂󰀇󰀂) | vriunt ist, den hât er liep, und er ensihet niht an rîchtuom noch armuot. Jâ, und wære ein blinder dürftiger, der sînem herren heimlich wære, den hæte er lieber dan einen künic oder einen keiser, der sînem herren wider wære. Ich spriche wærlîche: und wære daz mügelich, daz der hunt sînem herren halber ungetriuwe wære, er hazzete sich selben halber. Aber nû klagent etlîche liute, daz sie niht enhaben innicheit noch andâht noch süezicheit noch sunderlîchen trôst von gote. Den liuten ist wærlîche noch gar unreht; man mac sie aber wol lîden, doch enist ez daz beste niht. Ich spriche wærlîche: alle die wîle daz sich kein dinc in dir erbildet, daz daz êwige wort niht enist oder ein ûzluogen hât ûz dem êwigen worte, daz enkan niemer sô guot gesîn, im ensî wærlîche unreht. Her umbe ist daz aleine ein (󰀂󰀇󰀃) | gereht mensche, der alliu geschaffeniu dinc vernihtet hât und an einer glîchen linien âne allez ûzluogen in daz êwige wort gerihtet stât und dar în gebildet und widerbildet in der gerehticheit. Der mensche nimet, dâ der sun nimet und ist der sun selber. Ein geschrift sprichet: ‘nieman bekennet den vater dan der sun’, und dâ von, wellet ir got bekennen, sô sult ir niht aleine glîch sîn dem sune, sunder ir sult der sun selber sîn. (󰀂󰀇󰀄) | Aber etlîche liute wellent got mit den ougen anesehen, als sie eine kuo anesehent, und wellent got alsô minnen, als sie eine kuo minnent. Die minnest dû umbe die milch und umbe die kæse und umbe dînen eigenen nutz. Alsô tuont alle die liute, die got minnent umbe ûzwendigen rîchtuom oder umbe inwendigen trôst; und die minnent got niht rehte, sunder sie minnent irn eigenen nutz. Jâ, ich spriche wærlîche: allez, daz dû vürsetzest in dîner meinunge, daz got niht in im selber enist, daz enkan niemer sô guot gesîn, ez ensî dir ein hindernisse der næhsten wârheit. Und als ich ê sprach, wie sant Augustînus gelîchet ist einem guldînen vazze, daz dâ ist unden ganz und oben offen, sich, alsô solt dû sîn: wilt dû mit (󰀂󰀇󰀅) | sant Augustînus bestân und in aller heiligen heilicheit, sô sol dîn herze beslozzen sîn vor aller geschaffenheit und solt got nemen, als er in im selber ist. Her umbe sint die man gelîchet den

󰀁󰀀. One is reminded of the metaphor of the magnetized needle. 󰀁󰀁. Matth. 󰀁󰀁:󰀂󰀇: ‘… nemo novit filium nisi pater: neque patris quis novit nisi filius’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆 B ]

󰀃󰀃󰀅

master, that it hates all that is unpleasant to its lord, and whoever is a friend of its lord, this one it likes, disregarding wealth or poverty. Yes, even if there were a poor blind person who is close to its lord, it would be more fond of him than of a king or an emperor who was unpleasant to its lord. I say truly: if it were possible that the dog was half-faithless to its lord, this dog would hate half of itself. But now some people complain that they have no inner sense nor contemplation nor pleasure nor a particular comfort from God. These people are still really wrong; one can certainly understand them, but this is not ideal. I say truly: even if an image forms itself in you, which is not the eternal Word or gives a glimpse from the eternal Word, it can never be so good as not to be truly wrong. Therefore a righteous man is only the one who has discarded all created things and without a glimpse is oriented along the same line towards the eternal Word󰀁󰀀 and is there imagined and reflected in justice. This man takes where the Son takes and is himself the Son. A scripture says: ‘No one knows the Father except the Son’,󰀁󰀁 and therefore, if you want to know God, you must not only be like the Son, but you must be the Son Himself. But some people want to see God with their eyes as they look at a cow, and they want to love God as they love a cow. These you love for the milk and for the cheese and out of your own interest. So do those people who love God for external wealth or for inner comfort; and these do not love God in the right way, but they love Him out of their own interest. Yes, I say truly: everything that you propose in your intention, that is not God in Himself, can never be so good as not to be an impediment to the highest truth for you. And, as I said before,󰀁󰀂 how Saint Augustine is compared to a golden vase that below is closed and above open, see, this is how you must be: if you want to be with Saint Augustine and in the sainthood of all the saints, your heart must be closed to every creatureliness and you must take God as He is in Himself. Therefore, men are equated with

󰀁󰀂. See n. 󰀂.

󰀃󰀃󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

obersten kreften, wan sie alle zît blôzes houbetes sint, und die vrouwen den nidersten kreften, wan in daz houbet alle zît bedecket ist. Die obersten krefte sint über zît und über stat und ursprungent âne mittel in dem wesene der sêle; und dâ von sint sie gelîchet den mannen, wan sie alle zît blôz stânt. Dâ von ist ir werk êwic. Ein meister sprichet, daz alle die nidersten krefte der sêle, als verre sie hânt berüeret zît oder stât, als vil hânt sie verlorn ir juncvröuwelîche reinicheit und enmügen niemer sô gar ûzgezogen werden noch sô gar gebiutelt werden, daz sie iemer komen mügen in die obersten krefte; in wirt aber wol gegeben ein glîchez bilde einer îngedrücketheit. (󰀂󰀇󰀆) | Dû solt sîn stæte und veste, daz ist: dû solt glîch stân liebes und leides, glückes und unglückes, und solt hân an dir edelkeit alles gesteines, daz ist, daz alle tugende in dir beslozzen sîn und wesenlîche von dir vliezen. Dû solt alle tugende durchgân und übergân und solt aleine die tugent nemen in dem grunde, dâ si ein ist mit götlîcher natûre. Und als vil sô dû mê geeiniget bist götlîcher natûre dan der engel, als verre muoz er durch dich enpfâhen. Daz wir ein werden, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆 B ]

󰀃󰀃󰀇

the superior powers, because they always have their heads uncovered, and women with the inferior powers, because they always have their head covered. The superior powers are beyond time and beyond space and originate without a medium in the being of the soul; thus, they are equated with men, because they are always bare. Therefore, their action is eternal. A master says󰀁󰀃 that all the lower powers of the soul, to the extent that they have touched time and space, have lost their virginal purity and can no longer be truly stripped or filtered so as to ever reach the higher powers; yet, they are certainly given the imprint of the one same image. You must be persistent and firm, that is: you must be equanimous in pleasure and suffering, in fortune and misfortune, and have in you the preciousness of all the stones, that is: that all the virtues in you are enclosed and essentially flow from you. You must cross and overcome all the virtues and you must take the virtues only in the ground, where they are one with the divine nature.󰀁󰀄 And the more you are united with the divine nature than the angel, the more it must receive through you. God help us to become one. Amen.

󰀁󰀃. See Avicenna, De anima IV p. 󰀂 (S. Van Riet, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈, 󰀁󰀂–󰀃󰀄). 󰀁󰀄. See the reference to this in Hom. 󰀂󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀈], n. 󰀆 (‘“Diu grôze schar” daz sint die tugende, dâ ich niuwelîche von sprach’).

Homily 󰀈󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀉] In decollatione sancti Iohannis Baptiste, die 󰀂󰀉 augusti ‘Nolite timere eos, qui occidunt corpus’ (Matth. 󰀁󰀀:󰀁󰀈) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Matth. 󰀁󰀀:󰀁󰀈 (‘Nolite timere eos, qui occidunt corpus’) is not read on the feast commemorating the Beheading of St. John the Baptist on 󰀂󰀉 August, but it is related to this feast by the print BT (‘Uff sant Johans enthauptung’, BT), and, as we see below, Eckhart himself connects the text with John in his opening of the homily (‘Hie ist gelobet mîn herre sant Johannes’, n. 󰀂). The text as given in the critical edition is derived from six manuscripts (B󰀆, Ba󰀃, Bra󰀂, E󰀁, Mai󰀁, Str󰀃), the print in BT and some fragments. The content of the homily This homily that praises St. John for the loss of his physical life, turns into a highly rhetorical eulogy for the most intimate union of soul and Godhead, in which Eckhart is not only emphatic, but also seems to celebrate this union within his rhetoric. With his repeated exclamations: ‘God bless, God bless!’ (n. 󰀄, twice) and exhortations like: ‘Now I beg you to listen, because I want to say what I have never said before’ (nn. 󰀃; 󰀅; see also nn. 󰀆; 󰀇), he performs what he is claiming in this homily, namely that creatures who are one in the ground of the Godhead, and emanate from there, ‘utter God’ (n. 󰀁󰀁). This speaking God is at the same time the breaking through and return to the Godhead, this latter being even ‘more noble’ than one’s ‘emanating’ from the Godhead. And, although preached from the pulpit, it is both so intimate to the preacher and at the same time such an urgent need for

󰀃󰀄󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

him that he would have preached this homily ‘to this offertory box’, ‘if no one had been’ present (n. 󰀁󰀂). After having given the Latin core verse of Matth. 󰀁󰀀:󰀁󰀈 (‘Nolite timere eos, qui occidunt corpus’) (n. 󰀁) and his vernacular translation and a reflection on the fight between blood and flesh, Eckhart admits that he can not praise John more than ‘God has praised him’ (n. 󰀂). Instead of continuing, therefore, the praise of John, Eckhart continues the discussion that we encountered in many of the foregoing homilies, but particularly in Hom. 󰀈󰀇* [Q 󰀁󰀆a] and Hom. 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆b] on the imprint of the image into what has been created, an act ‘by myself and with myself and in myself’ (n. 󰀃). Not only God as a Trinity, but all creatures with Him act ‘in the council of the Holy Trinity’ and create ‘someone alike’. If this is one act not only by God, but also by his creatures, the question arises, what the precise place and activity of the soul in this is. Eckhart answers, as God’s action is ‘none other than love’, He loves ‘creatures as God’ (n. 󰀄), ‘tastes all creatures … as God’ (n. 󰀅), hence all creatures are geared towards God’s ‘supreme perfection’ (n. 󰀆). If so, are the creatures only ‘God’ on the level of the Trinitarian persons (which is already a daring thought), or are they even ‘God’ at the level of God’s ground, His ‘Godhead’ which is as distant from ‘God’ as is the outer personality from the inner personality of people (n. 󰀇)? With the example of the sun which shines, but according to Eckhart’s medieval cosmology does not lose any energy, all creatures are gathered into the intellect of one person to be brought back to God (n. 󰀈). While the outer personality is tasted by creatures as creatures, the inner personality is seen ‘as gifts of God’, but, as in his homily On the nobleman, Eckhart introduces a third layer, ‘the most intimate personality’, and this wants to be ‘more and more’ (n. 󰀉). Nevertheless, despite the union between God and the soul and despite them being what the other is, they both remain what they are (n. 󰀁󰀀). The difference between God and Godhead is that between acting and non-acting (n. 󰀁󰀁). Yet, creatures are not only in the acting God, but also in the non-acting Godhead, and Eckhart speaks of himself and mentions himself by name – the only time he does so in his extant work. While they ‘utter God’, they can not utter the Godhead, as the Godhead is unspeakable (n. 󰀁󰀂). Similarly, ‘when I come into the ground, into the

H OMILY 󰀈󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀉]

󰀃󰀄󰀁

depths, into the region and into the well of the Godhead, then nobody asks me, whence I came or where I was. There nobody missed me. There God un-becomes’. In two final numbers, Eckhart adds that he would have given this homily, even if nobody had been present (n. 󰀁󰀂), and also reflects about the people who leave the church and do not want to make any changes in their lives. Instead, Eckhart, emphasises that these people will not be able to strive for and receive what those people can strive for and receive ‘who follow God in poverty and exile’ (n. 󰀁󰀃). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀅󰀆, 󰀁󰀇󰀉–󰀈󰀁; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀅󰀂󰀈–󰀃󰀆; G. Steer, DW IV 󰀇󰀄󰀈–󰀇󰀄. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀁󰀄󰀂–󰀃; Meister Eckhart: A modern Translation, by R.B. Blakney (󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀁), 󰀂󰀂󰀄–󰀆; M. Fox, Breakthrough (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀), 󰀇󰀅–󰀇; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀂󰀉󰀂–󰀄.

󰀃󰀄󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀇󰀆󰀁) ‘Nolite timere eos, qui occidunt corpus’. ‘Envürhtet niht die iuch tœten wellent an dem lîbe’, wan geist entœtet niht geist. Geist gibet geiste leben. ‘Die iuch tœten wellent’, daz ist bluot und vleisch. Daz dâ ist bluot und vleisch, daz stirbet mit einander. Daz edelste daz an dem menschen ist, daz ist daz bluot, swenne ez wol wil. Aber daz ergeste, daz an dem menschen ist, daz ist daz bluot, sô ez übel wil. Gesiget aber daz bluot dem vleische ane, sô ist der mensche dêmüetic und geduldic und kiusche und hât alle tugende an im. Gesiget aber daz vleisch dem bluote ane, sô wirt der mensche hôchvertic und zornic und unkiusche und hât alle untugende an im. Hie ist gelobet mîn herre sant Johannes. (󰀇󰀆󰀁) Ich enkan in niht mê geloben, got hât in mê gelobet. Nû bite ich, daz ir vernemet, wan ich wil sprechen, daz ich nie mê engesprach: Dô got himel und erde geschuof und alle crêatûren, dô enworhte got niht. Er enhâte niht ze würkenne. In im enwas ouch kein werk. Dô sprach got: ‘wir machen einen glîchen’. Schepfen daz ist ein (󰀇󰀆󰀂) lîht dinc. Daz tuot man, swenne man wil und swie man wil. Aber daz ich mache, daz mache ich selber und mit mir selber und in mir selber und drücke mîn bilde zemâle dar în. ‘Wir machen einen glîchen’: niht dû, vater, noch dû, sun, noch dû, heiliger geist, wir in dem râte der heiligen drîvalticheit, ‘wir machen einen glîchen’. Dô got den menschen gemachete, dô worhte er in der (󰀇󰀆󰀃) sêle sîn glîch werk und sîn würkendez werk und sîn iemerwerndez werk. Daz werk was sô grôz, daz daz werk anders niht enwas dan diu sêle, und diu sêle enwas anders niht dan daz werk gotes. Gotes natûre und sîn wesen und sîn gotheit die hangent dar ane, daz er muoz würken in (󰀇󰀆󰀄) der sêle. Got segen, got segen! Dâ got würket in der sêle, dâ minnet er sîn werk. Wâ ist nû diu sêle, dâ got sîn

󰀁. Matth. 󰀁󰀀:󰀁󰀈 (‘Nolite timere eos, qui occidunt corpus’). Interestingly, the core verse can be found in the Gospel reading of the Commune Sanctorum in the Roman Missal: ‘Missa unius Martyris non Pontificis’, while the Dominican Missal provides Marc. 󰀆:󰀁󰀇–󰀂󰀉 as reading for the Beheading of St. John the Baptist, see Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀄ra: ‘In decollatione sancti Iohannis Baptiste. Epistula. Expectatio iustorum’. 󰀂. Perhaps on the basis of Matth. 󰀁󰀁:󰀁󰀁: ‘Amen dico vobis: Non surrexit inter natos mulierum maior Iohanne Baptista; qui autem minor est in regno caelorum, maior est illo’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀉]

󰀃󰀄󰀃

‘Nolite timere eos, qui occidunt corpus’. ‘Do not be afraid of those who want to kill your body’,󰀁 because the spirit does not kill the spirit. The spirit gives life to the spirit. ‘Those who want to kill you’ are blood and flesh. What is blood and flesh dies together. What is noblest in man is blood, when it means well. But what is worst in man is blood, when it means evil. If the blood, however, wins over the flesh, the person is humble, patient, chaste and has in them all the virtues. But if the flesh wins over the blood, the person becomes proud, angry, shameless and has all the vices in them. Here, my lord St. John is praised. I can not praise him more than God has praised him.󰀂 Now I beg you to listen, because I want to say what I have never said before: When God created heaven and earth and all creatures, God did not act. He had nothing to do. There was not even any action in Him. Then God said, ‘let’s make someone like [me]’.󰀃 Creating is an easy thing. It is done when you wish and how you wish. Yet what I make, I make by myself and with myself and in myself and I print my image into it completely.󰀄 ‘Let’s make someone like [us]’: not you, Father, nor you, Son, nor you, Holy Spirit, we in the the council of the Holy Trinity, ‘we make someone like [us]’. When God made man, He performed in the soul the same action as His, His acting agency and His continuous action.󰀅 The action was so great that the action was none other than the soul, and the soul was none other than the action of God. God’s nature, His being and His Godhead depend on the fact that He must act in the soul. God be blest, God be blest! As God acts in the soul, He loves His action. Where is the soul now, where God

󰀃. See Gen. 󰀁:󰀂󰀆: ‘Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram’. 󰀄. This is obviously a continuation of the topic, dealt with in the previous homily, Hom. 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆b], n. 󰀅: ‘Ir sult wizzen, daz daz einvaltic götlîche bilde, daz in die sêle gedrücket ist in dem innigesten der natûre, âne mittel sich nemende ist’. 󰀅. The translation of the semantically broad ‘werk’ cannot be limited to ‘action’ here.

󰀃󰀄󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

werk inne würket? Daz werk ist sô grôz, daz daz werk anders niht enist dan diu minne, und diu minne enist anders niht dan got. Got minnet sich selber und sîn natûre und sîn wesen und sîn gotheit. In der minne, dâ sich got inne minnet, dâ inne minnet er alle crêatûren. Mit der minne, dâ sich got inne minnet, dâ mite minnet er alle crêatûren, niht als crêatûren, mêr: crêatûren als got. In der minne, dâ sich got inne minnet, dâ inne minnet er alliu dinc. Got segen, got segen! (󰀇󰀆󰀆) Nû bite ich iuch, daz ir vernemet, wan ich wil sprechen, daz ich nie mê engesprach: Got smacket im selber. In dem smacke, dâ sich got inne smacket, dâ inne smacket er alle crêatûren. Mit dem smacke, dâ sich got mite smacket, dâ mite smacket er alle crêatûren, niht als crêatûren, mêr: crêatûren als got. In dem smacke, dâ sich got inne smacket, dâ inne smacket er alliu dinc. (󰀇󰀆󰀇) Nû merket! Alle crêatûren hânt irn louf ûf ir hœhste volkomenheit. Nû bite ich iuch, daz ir vernemet bî der êwigen wârheit und bî iemerwernder wârheit und bî mîner sêle, wan ich wil sprechen, daz ich nie mê engesprach: Got und gotheit hânt underscheit (󰀇󰀆󰀈) als verre als himel und erde. Ich spriche ein anderz und spriche mê: Der inner mensche und der ûzer mensche die hânt als verre underscheit als himel und erde. Got hât vil tûsent mîle dar obe: Got der wirt und entwirt. Nû kume ich wider ûf mîne rede: Got smacket im selber in allen dingen. Diu sunne wirfet ûz irn liehten schîn ûf alle crêatûren. Und dâ diu sunne irn schîn ûf wirfet, daz ziuhet si in sich und enverliuset doch niht ir sunnelicheit. Alle crêatûren verzîhent sich irs bekennennes ûf ir wesen. Alle crêatûren tragent sich in mîn vernunft, daz sie in mir vernünf(󰀇󰀆󰀉)tic sîn. Ich aleine bereite alle crêatûren wider ze gote. Wartet, waz ir alle tuot! Nû kume ich wider ûf mînen innern menschen und ûf mînen ûzern menschen. Ich sihe (󰀇󰀇󰀀) ane die liljen ûf dem velde und ane irn liehten schîn und ane ir varwe und ane alliu iriu bleter, aber ir swelgen

󰀆. It, i.e. the earth. 󰀇. See the reference in Hom. 󰀇󰀈* [Q 󰀂󰀃], n. 󰀃: ‘Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen: als diu sunne irn schîn ûzgiuzet ûf diu lîplîchen dinc, waz si denne begrîfen mac, daz machet si kleine und ziuhet ez ûf mit ir; möhte der schîn der sunne, er züge ez in den grunt, dâ er ûzgevlozzen ist’.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀉]

󰀃󰀄󰀅

works His work internally. This work is so great that the work is none other than love, and love is none other than God. God loves Himself and His nature and His being and His Godhead. In the love in which Go d loves Himself He loves all creatures. With the love, in which God loves Himself, He loves all creatures, not as creatures, but rather: creatures as God. In the love, in which God loves Himself, He loves all things. God be blest, God be blest! Now I beg you to listen, because I want to say what I have never said before: God savors Himself. In the taste, in which God savors Himself, He savors all creatures. With the taste with which God savors Himself, He savors all creatures, not as creatures, but rather: creatures as God. In the taste, in which God savors Himself, He savors all things. Now note! All creatures have their course towards their supreme perfection. Now I beg you to listen for the eternal truth and for the everlasting truth and by my soul, because I want to say what I have never said before: God and Godhead are as distant as heaven and earth. I say another thing and I say more: The inner person and the outer person are as distant as heaven and earth. God is many thousands of miles beyond it󰀆: God becomes and un-becomes. Now I return to what I have said: God savors Himself in all things. The sun casts its shining rays on all creatures. And where the sun casts its rays, it draws to itself and never gives up being the sun.󰀇 All creatures are denied to know their being. All creatures carry themselves into my intellect, so as to be in an intellectual way in me. I simply prepare all creatures back to God. Take care of what you all do! Now I return to my inner person and to my outer person.󰀈 I look at the lilies in the field󰀉 and their luminous splendor and their colour and all their petals, but their intake I do not see. Why? Because

󰀈. See II Cor. 󰀄:󰀁󰀆: ‘Propter quod non deficimus; sed licet is, qui foris est, noster homo corrumpitur, tamen is, qui intus est, renovatur de die in diem’; see also Eckhart, On the noble man (DW V 󰀁󰀀󰀉,󰀇–󰀂󰀂). 󰀉. See Matth. 󰀆:󰀂󰀈–󰀉: ‘Considerate lilia agri quomodo crescunt: non laborant nec nent. Dico autem vobis quoniam nec Salomon in omni gloria sua coopertus est sicut unum ex istis’.

󰀃󰀄󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

ensihe ich niht. War umbe? Dâ ist der󰀁󰀀 swelge in mir. Aber daz ich spriche, daz ist in mir und ich spriche ez ûzer mir. Alle crêatûren die smackent mînem ûzern menschen als crêatûren: wîn als wîn, brôt als brôt, vleisch als vleisch. Aber mînem innern (󰀇󰀇󰀁) menschen ensmacket ez niht als crêatûren, mêr: als gâben gotes. Aber mînem innersten menschen ensmacket ez niht als gâben gotes, mêr: als ie und iemer. Ich nime ein becke mit wazzer und lege einen spiegel dar în und setze ez under daz rat der sunnen: sô wirfet diu sunne ûz irn liehten schîn ûz dem rade und ûz dem bodem der sunnen und envergât doch niht. Daz widerspil des spiegels in der sunnen daz ist in der sunnen sunne. Und er ist doch daz er ist. Alsô ist ez umbe got. Got ist in der sêle mit sîner natûre und mit sînem wesene und mit sîner gotheit. Und er enist doch niht diu sêle. Daz widerspil der sêle daz ist in gote got. Und si ist doch daz si ist. Got der wirt. Dô alle crêatûren gotes sprechent, dô wirt got. Dô ich stuont in dem grunde, in dem bodem, in dem rivier und in dem quellenne der gotheit, dô envrâgete mich nieman, (󰀇󰀇󰀂) was󰀁󰀁 ich wölte oder waz ich tæte. Dô enwas nieman, der mich vrâgete. Dô ich ûzvlôz, dô sprâchen alle crêatûren got. Vrâgete man mich: ‘Bruoder Eckart, wannen gienget ir ûz dem hûse?’, dô was ich dâ inne. Alsô sprechent alle crêatûren von gote. Und war umbe ensprechent sie niht von der gotheit? Allez daz in der gotheit ist, daz ist ein. Und dâ enist niht von ze sprechenne. Got der würket, diu gotheit enwürket niht. Si enhât ouch niht ze würkenne. In ir enist ouch kein werk. Si engeluoget ouch ûf kein werk. Got und gotheit hânt underscheit an würkenne und an niht (󰀇󰀇󰀃) würkenne. Swenne ich widerkume in got, enblîbe ich dâ niht, sô ist mîn durchbrechen edeler dan mîn ûzvliezen. Ich aleine bringe alle crêatûren ûz ir vernunft in mîn vernunft, daz sie in mir ein sint. Swenne ich kume in den grunt, in den bodem, in den rivier und in daz quellen der gotheit, sô envrâget mich nieman, wannen ich kume oder wâ ich sî gewesen. Dâ envermiste mîn nieman. Dâ entwirt got. (󰀇󰀇󰀄)

󰀁󰀀. DW mistakenly follows the reading of X (‘ir’) which makes little sense, instead, the reading in E󰀁 and BT (and similar B󰀆 and Ba󰀃) is preferable, as given in the main text here. 󰀁󰀁. Recommended by John Connolly I follow here the reading of Mai󰀁, B󰀆, Ba󰀃 against Str󰀃, Bra󰀂, E󰀁, BT and DW.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀉]

󰀃󰀄󰀇

the intake happens in me. Though I speak, it happens in me and I speak it out. All creatures taste my outer personality as creatures: wine as wine, bread as bread, meat as meat. My inner personality, however, they do not taste as creatures, but rather as gifts of God. But my most intimate personality does not taste this as gifts of God, but rather: as more and more. I take a container of water and put a mirror in it and put it under the wheel of the sun: then the sun casts its luminous ray from the wheel and from the ground of the sun and yet it does not wane. The reflection of the mirror in the sun is sun in the sun. And yet it is what it is. So it is with God. God is in the soul with His nature and with His being and with His Godhead. And yet He is not the soul. The reflection of the soul is God in God. And yet she is what she is. God becomes. When all creatures utter God, then God becomes. When I was in the ground, in the depths, in the brook and in the well of the Godhead, no one asked me what I wanted or what I did. There was nobody to ask me. When I emanated, then all creatures uttered God. If one asked me, ‘Friar Eckhart, when did you leave home?’, it means that I was inside. So all creatures utter God. But why do they not utter the Godhead? All that is in the Godhead is one. And thus there is nothing to say. God acts, the Godhead does not act. And it has nothing to do. There is not even any action in it. Nor does it look at any action. The difference between God and Godhead is that between acting and not acting. When I return to God, if I do not remain there, my breaking through is more noble than my emanating. I alone carry all creatures from their intellect into my intellect, so that they are one in me. When I come into the ground, into the depths, into the brook and into the well of the Godhead, then nobody asks me, whence I came or where I was. There nobody missed me. There God un-becomes.

󰀃󰀄󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Swer dise predige hât verstanden, dem gan ich ir wol. Enwære hie nieman gewesen, ich müeste sie disem stocke geprediget hân. Ez sint etlîche arme liute, die kêrent wider heim und sprechent: Ich wil sitzen ûf ein stat und ezzen mîn brôt und dienen gote. Ich spriche bî der êwigen wârheit, daz die liute müezen verirret sîn und blîben, wan sie enmügen niemer ervolgen noch erkriegen, daz die ervolgent oder erkriegent, die gote nâchvolgent in armuot und in ellendicheit. Daz wir her zuo komen, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀈󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀉]

󰀃󰀄󰀉

Whoever understood this homily, good luck to him. If no one had been here, I should have had to to preach it to this offertory box.󰀁󰀂 There are some poor people who return home and say: I want to settle down and eat my bread and serve God. By the eternal truth I say that these people must be and will remain in error, because they can never strive nor receive what they strive for or receive, who follow God in poverty and exile. To get there, may God help us! Amen.

󰀁󰀂. See Marc. 󰀁󰀂:󰀄󰀁: ‘Et sedens Iesus contra gazofilacium aspiciebat quomodo turba iactaret aes in gazofilacium’; Luc. 󰀂󰀁:󰀁: ‘Respiciens autem vidit eos qui mittebant munera sua in gazofilacium divites’.

Homily 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂] In nativitate beate Marie virginis, die 󰀈 septembris ‘Qui audit me’ (Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀃󰀀–󰀁) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀃󰀀–󰀁 (‘Qui audit me, non confundetur: et qui operantur in me, non peccabunt. Qui elucidant me, vitam aeternam habebunt’), is read on the feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 󰀈 September (‘Vff vnser lieben frawen empfengnusz oder geburt fest’, BT). If the reference in Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀈 pointed to this homily here (see below), the homily was given at the Benedictine Monastery of the Saints Maccabees. The text as given in the critical edition is derived from five manuscripts (Bra󰀂, E󰀁, Str󰀃, Str󰀅, Mai󰀁), the print in BT and some fragments. The print HT has not been used for the critical edition of DW. In n. 󰀈 we find a reference (‘als ich mêr gesprochen hân, daz etwaz in der sêle ist, daz gote alsô sippe ist, daz ez ein ist und niht vereinet. Ez ist ein, ez enhât mit nihte niht gemeine noch enist dem nihtes niht allez daz gemeine, daz geschaffen ist’) to Hom. 󰀄󰀆* [Q 󰀂󰀉], n. 󰀁󰀂 or Hom. 󰀄󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀆], n. 󰀅, or Hom. 󰀅󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀂], n. 󰀃. In Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀈 we read a reference that seems to go to our homily and this topic here, yet it could also be to one of the other parallel homilies. The content of the homily As can be seen from the notes, this homily was one of the key texts in the inquisition process against Eckhart. The critiques have cut pieces of this homily, often shortening the argument, so that Eckhart in his Responsio gives mixed commentaries, ranging from ‘this statement is entirely wrong’ to, this idea ‘is true, emphatic and often stated by saints’.

󰀃󰀅󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

First the text gives the opening only of the Latin verse Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀃󰀀–󰀁 (‘Qui audit me’) (n. 󰀁), then follows a translation into the vernacular, whereby the verse is divided into three sections, of which each is commented upon: ‘Whoever listens to me, is not ashamed’ … ‘whoever acts in me, does not sin’ and ‘whoever reveals me and lets me shine will have eternal life’. Eckhart concludes that ‘each of these three sentences that I said would be enough for a homily’, but, as will be seen, he is only concentrating on the first topic. Eckhart contrasts being ‘ashamed’ with being ‘inside’, ‘at home’ and ‘one’ (n. 󰀃). Likewise, he sees ‘three things that prevent us from hearing the eternal Word’, ‘bodilyness’, ‘multiplicity’ and ‘temporality’ (n. 󰀄). Whoever overcomes these is ‘the only-begotten Son’ (nn. 󰀄–󰀅). And, although criticised by the inquisition, Eckhart defends this position, stating that ‘as God is in me, God, the Father surely gives birth to His Son in me, and in me is born the Son Himself, and He is Himself the single one’ (see note below). Using sexual imageries (‘eager’, ‘running after’, wanting ‘to burst’, ‘pleasure’, ‘delight’…), Eckhart describes God’s mad love for His creatures. This, Eckhart, also applies to us, so that also creatures love others as they love themselves, and concludes: ‘If you love one single person less than yourself, you would not come to love yourself in truth’, another statement that was criticised, yet his answer is: ‘this is totally true!’ (n. 󰀆). True friendship for Eckhart is giving up everything for the sake of the other, hence, he points to the emphatic statement (repeated in a number of other places in his work) that Paul wished ‘to be eternally separated from God for the sake of my friend and for God’ (Rom. 󰀉:󰀃), for Eckhart the sign of ‘complete perfection’ (n. 󰀇). And he interprets this verse: ‘the highest and utmost that a person can let go is that they let go God for God’s sake’ (n. 󰀈). It is interesting to note that the inquisition has picked up on the verse, but not on this interpretation. That Eckhart did not intend to venture a kind of a-theism, is shown by the result of letting God go ‘for God’s sake’, as in return God stays with such a person who is prepared to even let God go. In this way God is staying with this person, is being the ‘something in the soul that is so familiar to God that it is one and not united’, a further view criticised by the inquisition. From oneness follows that if God gives, what He gives cannot be any different from Him, hence it is absolutely like Him, as it is Himself (n. 󰀉). Hence, there

H OMILY 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂]

󰀃󰀅󰀃

cannot be a diminished likeness, not even for the angels (n. 󰀁󰀀). Like the angels, so also the person that stands ‘in the will of God wants nothing else than what God is and what is God’s will’ (n. 󰀁󰀁). Such is the oneness of God and His creatures, again critiqued by the inquisition, that ‘the eye in which I see God is the same eye in which God sees me; my eye and the eye of God are one eye and one sight and one knowing and one loving’. This time, Eckhart who believes that this is a ‘true’ statement backs it up with reference to Augustine and Paul. He then further unfolds what he means by a fully detached person (n. 󰀁󰀂). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀉󰀆,󰀃󰀀󰀉–󰀁󰀂; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀈󰀃󰀉–󰀅󰀃; J. Quint, DW I 󰀁󰀉󰀀–󰀂󰀀󰀃; N. Largier I 󰀁󰀄󰀂–󰀅󰀁.󰀈󰀇󰀄–󰀉; A. Haas, LE I 󰀂󰀅–󰀄󰀁. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart’s Sermons, trans. by C. Field (󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀀), 󰀂󰀉–󰀃󰀃; Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀂󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀁; Meister Eckhart: A modern Translation, by R.B. Blakney (󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀁), 󰀂󰀀󰀃–󰀆; J.M. Clark, Meister Eckhart (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀇), 󰀂󰀂󰀃–󰀇; Meister Eckhart, Teacher and Preacher (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇), 󰀂󰀆󰀇–󰀇󰀀; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀂󰀉󰀅–󰀉; Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings, ed. and trans. O. Davies (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀁󰀇󰀅–󰀈󰀀.

󰀃󰀅󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀁󰀉󰀂) ‘Qui audit me’. Daz wort, daz ich gesprochen hân in latîne, daz sprichet diu êwige wîsheit des vaters und sprichet: ‘swer mich hœret, der enschamet sich niht’ – schamet er sich ihtes, sô schamet er sich des, daz er sich schamet – ‘swer in mir würket, der ensündet niht. Swer mich offenbâret und ûzliuhtet, der sol hân daz êwige leben’. Von disen drin wörtelîn, diu ich gesprochen hân, wære ein ieglich genuoc ze einer predige. Ze dem êrsten wil ich sprechen, daz diu êwige wîsheit sprichet: ‘swer mich hœret, der enschamet sich niht’. Swer die êwige wîsheit des vaters hœren sol, der sol inne sîn und sol dâ heime sîn und sol ein sîn, sô mac er hœren die êwige wîsheit des vaters. (󰀁󰀉󰀃) | Driu dinc sint, diu uns hindernt, daz wir niht enhœren daz êwige wort. Daz êrste ist lîplicheit, daz ander manicvalticheit, daz dritte ist zîtlicheit. Hæte der mensche disiu driu dinc übergangen, sô wonete er in êwicheit und wonete in dem geiste und wonete in einicheit und in der wüestunge, und dâ hôrte er daz êwige wort. Nû sprichet unser herre: ‘nieman enhœret mîn wort noch mîne lêre, er enhabe denne sich selben gelâzen’. Wan der gotes wort hœren sol, der muoz gar gelâzen sîn. Daz selbe, daz dâ hœret, daz ist daz selbe, daz dâ gehœret wirt in dem êwigen worte. Allez daz, daz der êwige vater lêret, daz ist sîn wesen und sîn natûre und alliu sîn gotheit, daz offenbâret er uns alzemâle in sînem eingebornen sune und lêret uns, daz wir der selbe sun sîn. Der mensche, der dâ wære ûzgegangen alsô, daz er wære der eingeborne sun, dem wære eigen, daz dâ eigen ist dem eingebornen sune. Swaz got würket und swaz er lêret, daz würket und lêret er allez in sînem (󰀁󰀉󰀄) | eingebornen sune.

󰀁. Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀃󰀀–󰀁 (‘Qui audit me, non confundetur: et qui operantur in me, non peccabunt. Qui elucidant me, vitam aeternam habebunt’). The context of the text is Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀂󰀃–󰀃󰀁 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀄ra: ‘In nativitate beate Marie virginis. Lectio libri sapientie. Ego quasi vitis fructificavi suavitatem odoris: et flores mei fructus honoris et honestatis. Ego mater pulchre dilectionis, et timoris, et agnitionis, et sancte spei. In me gratia omnis vite et veritatis, in me omnis spes vite et virtutis. Transite ad me omnes qui concupiscitis me, et a generationibus meis

H OMILY 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂]

󰀃󰀅󰀅

‘Qui audit me’. The sentence that I said in Latin, is said by the eternal wisdom of the Father, and it means: ‘Whoever listens to me, is not ashamed’ – if one is ashamed of something, then one is ashamed of the fact that one is ashamed – ‘whoever acts in me, does not sin. Whoever reveals me and lets me shine will have eternal life’.󰀁 Each of these three sentences that I said would be enough for a homily. First, I want to talk about the word of the eternal wisdom: ‘whoever listens to me, is not ashamed’. Who should listen to the eternal wisdom of the Father, must be inside, be at home and be one, so he can listen to the eternal wisdom of the Father. There are three things that prevent us from hearing the eternal Word. The first is bodyliness, the second is multiplicity, the third is temporality. If a person had overcome these three things, he would dwell in eternity, dwell in the spirit and dwell in oneness and in the desert, and there he would hear the eternal Word. Now our Lord says: ‘No one hears my word nor my teaching, unless he has forsaken himself’.󰀂 Because he who should hear the Word of God must be completely detached. The one that hears there is the same that is heard in the eternal Word. All that the eternal Father teaches, is His being, His nature and all His Godhead which He entirely reveals to us in His onlybegotten Son, and He teaches us that we are the same Son. To the person who had thus gone out, in order to be the only-begotten Son, would belong what belongs to the only-begotten Son. What God acts and what He teaches, He acts and teaches entirely through His onlybegotten Son.

implemini: Spiritus enim meus super mel dulcis, et hereditas mea super mel et favum. Memoria mea in generatione seculorum. Qui edunt me, adhuc esurient: et qui bibunt me, adhuc sitient. Qui audit me, non confundetur: et qui operantur in me non peccabunt. Qui elucidant me, vitam eternam habebunt’. 󰀂. Luc. 󰀁󰀄:󰀂󰀆.

󰀃󰀅󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Got würket alliu sîniu werk dar umbe, daz wir der eingeborne sun sîn. Swenne got sihet, daz wir sîn der eingeborne sun, sô ist gote sô gâch nâch uns und îlet sô sêre und tuot rehte, als ob im sîn götlich wesen welle zerbrechen und ze niht werden an im selben, daz er uns offenbâre allen den abgrunt sîner gotheit und die vüllede sînes wesens und sîner natûre; dâ îlet got zuo, daz ez unser eigen sî alsô, als ez sîn eigen ist. Hie hât got lust und wunne in der vüllede. Dirre mensche stât in gotes bekennenne und in gotes minne und enwirt kein anderz, dan daz got selber ist. (󰀁󰀉󰀅) | Hâst dû dich selben liep, sô hâst dû alle menschen liep als dich selben. Die wîle dû einen einigen menschen minner liep hâst dan dich selben, dû gewünne dich selben nie liep in der wârheit, dû

󰀃. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀆 (Proc. Col. I n. 󰀅󰀁) (LW V 󰀂󰀁󰀅,󰀁󰀃–󰀅): ‘Ad idem alibi: “Deus operatur omnia opera sua propter hoc, ut nos efficiamur unigenitus filius suus”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀉,󰀂󰀈–󰀅): ‘Decimus quintus articulus in sermone qui incipit “Qui audit me non confundetur” sic dicit: “Homo, qui sic exivisset se ipsum quod ipse esset ille unigenitus filius, illi esset hoc totum proprium, quod est proprium unigenito filio”. “Deus operatur omnia opera sua propter hoc quod nos simus ille unigenitus filius”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi n. 󰀁󰀂󰀈) (LW 󰀂󰀉󰀄,󰀁󰀁–󰀅): ‘Ad primum ergo cum dicitur: “Pater generat filium suum in me” etc. Sciendum quod articulus iste plura implicat. Unum est quod “homo stans in dei amore et cognitione efficitur nihil aliud quam quod deus ipse est”. Hoc dico esse falsum omnino nec hoc dixi nec sensi nec scripsi nec praedicavi, et est erroneum et haereticum, si temere defendatur, sine quo nullus error haeresis est … Quantum vero ad alia, quae in eodem articulo primo ponuntur, sciendum primo quod procul dubio deus et ipse unus, quia non est alius, est in quolibet ente per potentiam, praesentiam et essentiam indivisus, pater ingenitus et filius genitus. Pater enim non est pater nisi generans et ingenitus, nec filius est filius nisi genitus et ipse unicus, utpote deus. Unde ubicumque deus est, pater est et generans et ingenitus est, et ubicumque deus est, et filius genitus est. Unde cum in me est deus, utique in me generat filium deus pater et in me est ipse filius genitus unus indivisus, cum non sit alius filius in divinis nisi unus et ipse deus. Secundo sciendum quod in divinis est proprie filius et ipse unicus, ut dictum est. Et ipse “unigenitus in sinu”, id est in intimis, “patris”, Ioh. 󰀁󰀄; ipse “imago dei invisibilis, primogenitus omnis creaturae”, Col. 󰀁; “verbum in principio” et deus Ioh. 󰀁. Et quia ipse filius proprie, propter hoc proprie et heres, Gal. 󰀄. Hinc est quod nemo alius praeter ipsum est heres, nisi per ipsum et in illo membrum ipsius per gratiam et caritatem sit nec filius? Unde quantumcumque sumus filii, non sumus heredes, quia nec filii, nisi in quantum per filiationem in nobis conformamur illi unigenito et primogenito, ut imperfectum perfecto, secundum primo, membrum capiti. Propter quod et “primogenitus” dictus est. Unde signanter cum dixisset apostolus: “si filii, et heredes”, adiunxit: “heredes quidem dei, coheredes autem Christi”, Rom. 󰀈 …’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Proc. Col. II n. 󰀃󰀁) (LW V 󰀃󰀂󰀅,󰀁󰀀–󰀃): ‘Decimus quintus articulus in sermone qui incipit: “Qui audit me, non confundetur” sic dicit: “Homo, qui sic exivisset se ipsum, quod ipse esset ille unigenitus filius, illi esset hoc totum proprium, quod est proprium unigenito filio”. “Deus operatur omnia opera sua propter hoc quod nos simus ille unigenitus filius”’. 󰀄. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (LW V 󰀂󰀃󰀀,󰀁–󰀅): ‘Adhuc autem sic: “Deus tantum festinat venire ad bonum hominem, ac si divinum esse vel divina essentia velit rumpi”, “nisi ipse revelet nobis totam

H OMILY 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂]

󰀃󰀅󰀇

God acts all His actions, so that we are the only-begotten Son.󰀃 When God sees that we are the only-begotten Son, then God is so eager for us and runs so quickly after us and acts as if His divine being wanted to burst and rids itself off by itself, so to reveal to us the entire abyss of His Godhead󰀄 and the fullness of His being and His nature; God is quick to make this our own as it is His own. Here God has pleasure and delight in fullness. This person stands in the knowledge of God and in the love of God and does not become anything other than what God Himself is.󰀅 If you love yourself, then you love everybody like yourself. If you love one single person less than yourself, you would not come to love yourself in truth,󰀆 unless you love everybody like yourself, in one

abyssum suae divinitatis”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi nn. 󰀃󰀃–󰀄) (LW V 󰀃󰀂󰀅,󰀁󰀈–󰀃󰀂󰀆,󰀄): ‘Adhuc autem sic: “Deus tantum festinat venire ad bonum hominem, ac si divinum esse vel divina essentia velit rumpi”, “nisi ipse revelet nobis totam abyssum suae divinitatis”. Verum est et emphaticum et frequenter sancti dicunt quod deus sic dolet de peccato hominis, quasi ipsi plus noceat et contristet peccatum quam ipsum peccantem. Constat etiam quod omne iniquum plus detestatur ipsa aequitas secundum aliquod aequale. Sic humilitas plus repugnat et detestatur, utpote per essentiam, esse superbum quam aliquis humilis. Hic enim detestatur per participationem et per ipsam humilitatem esse superbum; et “propter quod unumquodque, illud magis”’. 󰀅. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀆 (Proc. Col. I n. 󰀅󰀂) (LW V 󰀂󰀁󰀅,󰀁󰀆–󰀈): ‘Item sequitur: »Iste homo stat in dei amore et cognitione et efficitur nihil aliud quam quod deus ipse est”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀉,󰀃󰀃–󰀅): ‘Deus operatur omnia opera sua propter hoc quod nos simus ille unigenitus filius’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi n. 󰀁󰀂󰀈) (LW 󰀂󰀉󰀄,󰀁󰀁–󰀅) (the text is quoted in the previous note). 󰀆. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (LW V 󰀂󰀃󰀀,󰀁󰀁–󰀄): ‘Decimus sextus articulus sic habet: “Quamdiu aliquem hominem minus diligis quam te ipsum, tu numquam dilexisti te ipsum in veritate”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi n. 󰀃󰀆) (LW 󰀃󰀂󰀆,󰀇–󰀂󰀄): ‘Decimus sextus articulus sic habet: “Quamdiu aliquem hominem minus diligis quam te ipsum, tu numquam dilexisti te ipsum in veritate”. “Unus homo bonus omnes homines sicut se ipsum diligit”. “Dicunt homines aliqui: ego plus diligo amicum benefactorem quam alium hominem. Hoc non est rectum et est imperfectum”. “Si ego unum alium recte ita diligerem sicut me ipsum, quidquid accideret consolationis vel turbationis, seu mori sive vivere, tantum placeret mihi quantum si mihi accideret (quod illi accideret). Haec esset vera amicitia. Propter hoc dicit sanctus Paulus: “Optabam anathema”, id est separatus, “esse a deo propter fratres meos” et propter deum. Ad ictum oculi separari a deo sic esset inconveniens perfecto homini, sicut aeternaliter separari. Separari a deo est infernalis poena”. Dicendum quod totum verum est, secundum illud Cor. 󰀁󰀃: “si gloriatur unum membrum, congaudent omnia membra. Vos autem estis corpus Christi, et membra de membro”; et Cor. 󰀃: “omnia vestra sunt”, “sive hic mundus sive vita sive mors sive praesentia sive futura: omnia vestra sunt, vos autem Christi”. Ratio est, quia caritas diligit omnes in uno et unum deum in omnibus. Constat etiam quod poena infernalis est separari a deo, sicut videre deum per essentiam, ipsum habere, ipsi uniri est praemium essentiale. Adhuc autem caritas pro omni eo quod creatum est nec ad momentum deum dimitteret quo modo nec aeternaliter’.

󰀃󰀅󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

enhabest denne alle menschen liep als dich selben, in einem menschen alle menschen, und der mensche ist got und mensche; sô ist dem menschen reht, der hât sich selben liep und alle menschen liep als sich selben, und dem ist gar reht. Nû sprechent etlîche liute: ich hân mînen vriunt, von dem mir guot geschihet, lieber dan einen andern menschen. Im ist unreht, ez ist unvolkomen. Doch muoz man ez lîden, als etlîche liute, die varnt über sê mit halbem winde und koment ouch über. Alsô ist den liuten, die einen menschen lieber hânt dan den andern; daz ist natiurlich. Hæte ich in als rehte liep als mich selben, swaz im denne geschæhe ze liebe oder ze leide, ez wære tôt oder leben, daz wære mir als liep, daz ez mir geschæhe als im, und daz wære rehtiu vriuntschaft. Dar umbe sprichet sant Paulus: ‘ich wolte êwiclîche gescheiden sîn von gote durch mînes vriundes willen und durch got’. Einen ougenblik von gote scheiden, daz ist êwiclîche von gote gescheiden, von gote scheiden ist hellischiu pîne. Waz meinet nû sant Paulus mit disem worte, daz er sprach, er wolte (󰀁󰀉󰀆) | von gote gescheiden sîn? Nû vrâgent die meister, ob sant Paulus wære ûf dem wege der volkomenheit oder ob er wære in ganzer volkomenheit. Ich spriche, daz er stuont in ganzer volkomenheit, er enmöhte sîn anders niht gesprochen hân. Diz wort wil ich diutschen, daz sant Paulus sprach, daz er von gote gescheiden wolte sîn.

󰀇. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀆 (Proc. Col. I n. 󰀆󰀇) (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀂,󰀇–󰀁󰀃): ‘Item ad idem. “Dicunt aliqui homines: plus diligo amicum benefactorem quam unum alium hominem. Hoc est imperfectum nec est recte diligere”. „Et est naturale“ „plus diligere unum hominem quam alium“’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (LW V 󰀂󰀃󰀀,󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀃󰀁,󰀇): ‘Dicunt aliqui homines: plus diligo amicum benefactorem quam unum alium hominem. Hoc est imperfectum nec est recte diligere. Si ego unum alium recte ita diligerem sicut me ipsum, quidquid accideret consolationis vel turbationis, seu mori sive vivere, tantum placeret mihi quantum si mihi accideret (quod illi accideret). Haec esset vera amicitia. Propter hoc dicit sanctus Paulus: “Optabam anathema”, id est separatus, “esse a deo propter fratres meos” et propter deum. Ad ictum oculi separari a deo sic esset inconveniens perfecto homini, sicut aeternaliter separari. Separari a deo est infernalis poena’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi nn. 󰀃󰀆–󰀇) (LW 󰀃󰀂󰀆,󰀇–󰀂󰀄): ‘Decimus sextus articulus sic habet: “Quamdiu aliquem hominem minus diligis quam te ipsum, tu numquam dilexisti te ipsum in veritate”. “Unus homo bonus omnes homines sicut se ipsum diligit”. “Dicunt homines aliqui: ego plus diligo amicum benefactorem quam alium hominem. Hoc non est rectum et est imperfectum”. “Si ego unum alium recte ita diligerem sicut me ipsum, quidquid accideret consolationis vel turbationis, seu mori sive vivere, tantum placeret mihi quantum si mihi accideret (quod illi accideret). Haec esset vera amicitia. Propter hoc dicit sanctus Paulus: “Optabam anathema”, id est separatus, “esse a deo propter fratres

H OMILY 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂]

󰀃󰀅󰀉

person everybody, and this person is God and man; so the person is right who loves himself and loves everybody like himself, this is really right. Now some people say: I love my friend who does me good more than somebody else. He is not right, it is not perfect. Even though one must accept it, just like some people who sail across the sea in half wind and still arrive at their destination. So it is with people who love one person more than another; this is natural.󰀇 If I loved him as much as myself, what happened to him in pleasure or in suffering, whether it be death or life, it would be so dear to me as if it happened to me as to him, and this would be true friendship. Therefore, Saint Paul says: ‘I wanted to be eternally separated from God for the sake of my friend and for God’.󰀈 To separate one moment from God is to be separated eternally from God, to separate oneself from God is hellish punishment. What does Saint Paul now mean by the phrase he said, of wanting to be separated from God?󰀉 Now, the masters ask󰀁󰀀 whether Saint Paul was on the path to perfection or whether he had achieved complete perfection. I say that he has achieved complete perfection, otherwise he could not have said what he said. I will explain this phrase, which Saint Paul said, that he wanted to be separated from God.

meos” et propter deum. Ad ictum oculi separari a deo sic esset inconveniens perfecto homini, sicut aeternaliter separari. Separari a deo est infernalis poena. Dicendum quod totum verum est, secundum illud Cor. 󰀁󰀃: “si gloriatur unum membrum, congaudent omnia membra. Vos autem estis corpus Christi, et membra de membro”; et Cor. 󰀃: “omnia vestra sunt”, “sive hic mundus sive vita sive mors sive praesentia sive futura: omnia vestra sunt, vos autem Christi”. Ratio est, quia caritas diligit omnes in uno et unum deum in omnibus. Constat etiam quod poena infernalis est separari a deo, sicut videre deum per essentiam, ipsum habere, ipsi uniri est praemium essentiale. Adhuc autem caritas pro omni eo quod creatum est nec ad momentum deum dimitteret quo modo nec aeternaliter’. 󰀈. Rom. 󰀉:󰀃: ‘Optabam enim ego ipse anathema esse a Christo pro fratribus meis qui sunt cognati mei secundum carnem’. 󰀉. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀆 (Proc. Col. I n. 󰀆󰀇) (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀂,󰀁󰀇–󰀉): ‘Sequitur: “Paulus dicit: ego volo aeternaliter esse separatus a deo propter amicum meum et propter deum”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (LW V 󰀂󰀃󰀀,󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀃󰀁,󰀇) (on the text see note above); Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi nn. 󰀃󰀆–󰀇) (LW 󰀃󰀂󰀆,󰀇–󰀂󰀄) (on the text see same note above). 󰀁󰀀. Unidentified reference.

󰀃󰀆󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Daz hœhste und daz næhste, daz der mensche gelâzen mac, daz ist, daz er got durch got lâze. Nû liez sant Paulus got durch got; er liez allez, daz er (󰀁󰀉󰀇) | von gote nemen mohte und liez allez, daz im got geben mohte, und allez, daz er von gote enpfâhen mohte. Dô er daz liez, dô liez er got durch got, und dô bleip im got, dâ got istic ist sîn selbes, niht nâch einer enpfâhunge sîn selbes noch nâch einer gewinnunge sîn selbes, mêr: denne in einer isticheit, daz got in im selber ist. Er gap gote nie niht, noch er enpfienc nie niht von gote; ez ist ein ein und ein lûter einunge. Hie ist der mensche ein wâr mensche, und in disen menschen envellet kein lîden, als wênic als in götlich wesen gevallen mac; als ich mêr gesprochen hân, daz etwaz in der sêle ist, daz gote alsô sippe ist, daz ez ein ist und niht vereinet. Ez ist ein, ez enhât mit nihte niht gemeine noch enist dem nihtes niht allez daz gemeine, daz geschaffen ist. Allez daz geschaffen ist, daz ist niht. Nû ist diz aller geschaffenheit verre und (󰀁󰀉󰀈) vremde. Wære der mensche aller alsô, er wære alzemâle ungeschaffen und ungeschepfelich; wære allez daz alsô, daz lîphaftic und gebresthaftic ist, wære daz verstanden in der einicheit, ez enwære niht anders, dan daz diu einicheit selber ist. Vünde ich mich einen ougenblik in disem wesene, ich ahtete als wênic ûf mich selben als eines mistwürmelîns. (󰀁󰀉󰀉)

󰀁󰀁. Seems to be a reference to Hom. 󰀄󰀆* [Q 󰀂󰀉], n. 󰀁󰀂: ‘Und etlîche pfaffen die enverstânt des niht, daz etwaz sî, daz gote alsô sippe ist und alsô ein ist’; or Hom. 󰀄󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀆], n. 󰀅: ‘Daz dû niht enbist dér mensche, daz niht machet underscheit zwischen dir und dém menschen. Und alsô: wellet ir sîn sunder underscheit, sô scheidet iuch von nihte. Wan ein kraft ist in der sêle, diu ist gescheiden von nihte, wan si enhât niht gemeine mit deheinen dingen; wan niht enist in der kraft wan got aleine: der liuhtet blôz in die kraft’; or Hom. 󰀅󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀂], n. 󰀃: ‘Nû wizzet: in allen guoten liuten ist got alzemâle, und ez ist ein etwaz in der sêle, dâ got inne lebet, und ist ein etwaz in der sêle, dâ diu sêle lebet in gote’. Because of the close relationship between these parallels, it is not easy to decide whether the following reference refers to our passage here, although it seems the closest match (even though the idea of the spark [=‘vunke’] is missing in all of the parallel quotes), see Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀈: ‘Ich sprach niuwelîche an einer stat: dô got geschuof alle crêatûren, und hæte dô got niht vor geborn etwaz, daz ungeschaffen wære, daz in im getragen hæte bilde aller crêatûren: daz ist der vunke – als ich ê sprach ze sant Magfire, daz ir niht vergebens hie ensît gewesen – diz vünkelîn ist gote alsô sippe, daz ez ist ein einic ein ungescheiden und daz bilde in im treget aller crêatûren, bilde sunder bilde und bilde über bilde’. 󰀁󰀂. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀆 (Proc. Col. I, n. 󰀇󰀁) (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀅,󰀃–󰀅): ‘Item. “Aliquid est in anima ita cognatum deo, quod est unum et non unitum”’; also the quote from Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃], n. 󰀁󰀃 in ibid. (Proc. Col. I nn. 󰀅󰀉–󰀆󰀀) (LW V 󰀂󰀁󰀈,󰀄–󰀂󰀄): ‘Item. “Una virtus est in anima”, “si anima

H OMILY 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂]

󰀃󰀆󰀁

The highest and utmost that a person can let go is that he lets go of God for God’s sake. Now, Saint Paul let God go for God’s sake; he let go all that he could take from God and let go everything that God could give him, and all that he could receive from God. As he let that go, he let go of God for God’s sake, and there God stayed with him, where God is Himself beingness, neither having received Himself nor having gained Himself, instead in one beingness which God is in Himself. He never gave anything to God, and never received anything from God; it is a one and a pure oneness. Here the person is a true person, and as little suffering will befall this person as it may befall the divine being; as I have already said,󰀁󰀁 that there is something in the soul that is so familiar to God that it is one and not united.󰀁󰀂 It is one, it has nothing in common with anything, nor has anything that is created anything in common with it. All that is created is nothing. Now, this is far and alien to any createdness. If the person were entirely like this, he would be completely uncreated and uncreatable; if everything that is bodily and imperfect were understood in oneness, it would be nothing but what this oneness itself is. If I found myself in this being for one moment, I had as little regard for myself as for a dung worm.

esset talis, ipsa esset increata et increabilis. Sed modo non est sic. Nam in alia parte habet ipsa dependentiam ad tempus, ibi attingit ipsa creationem et est creata. Sed isti virtuti, scilicet intellectui, est ita praesens illud quod ultra mare sicut iste locus in quo ego sto”. Item alibi quod »in anima sit una virtus vel potentia, que non sit vel creabilis, et si tota anima esset huiusmodi, ipsa esset increata”, et anima, in quantum esset natura, in tantum esset [in]creata. Sed alia reportatio habet quod anima, in quantum est creata, in tantum est ipsa natura’; on the same text from Hom. 󰀆󰀅* see Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀇,󰀇–󰀉): ‘Tertius articulus est: “Una virtus est in anima”, “si anima esset tota talis, tunc esset increata”’; see Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (LW V 󰀂󰀃󰀂,󰀄–󰀈): ‘Quod autem hic additur, quod “aliquid est cognatum in anima deo, ut ipsum est unum et non unitum; ipsum est unum et cum nihilo quidquam habet commune”, dicendum quod verum est’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi n. 󰀁󰀄󰀈) (LW 󰀃󰀀󰀃,󰀈–󰀁󰀂): ‘Ad decimum quartum cum dicitur; “Sicut anima et corpus uniuntur in esse” etc. Verum est, et est verbum Christi in Ioh., informans nos, ut exuti amore creaturarum uniamur deo sicut in exemplo cibus exuitur forma panis aut piscis, ut uniatur cibato. Ubi et hoc advertendum quod exempla ponimus, “ut sentiat” qui addiscit, ut ait philosophus’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Proc. Col. I n. 󰀇󰀁) (LW V 󰀃󰀁󰀇,󰀉–󰀁󰀀): ‘Item. “Aliquid est in anima ita cognatum deo, quod est unum et non unitum”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Proc. Col. II n. 󰀄󰀂) (LW V 󰀃󰀂󰀇,󰀁󰀂–󰀄): ‘Quod autem hic additur, quod “aliquid est cognatum in anima deo, ut ipsum est unum et non unitum; ipsum est unum et cum nihilo quidquam habet commune”’.

󰀃󰀆󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Got gibet allen dingen glîch, und als sie von gote vliezent, alsô sint sie glîch; jâ engel und menschen und alle crêatûren die vliezent von gote glîch in irm êrsten ûzvluzze. Der nû diu dinc næme in irm êrsten ûzvluzze, der næme alliu dinc glîch. Sint sie alsô glîch in der zît, sô sint sie in gote in der êwicheit vil glîcher. Der eine vliegen nimet in gote, diu ist edeler in gote dan der hœhste engel an im selber sî. Nû sint alliu dinc glîch in gote und sint got selber. Hie ist gote als lustlich in dirre glîcheit, daz er sîne natûre und sîn wesen alzemâle durchgiuzet in der glîcheit in im selber. Daz ist im lustlich; ze glîcher wîse, als der ein ros lât loufen ûf einer grüenen heide, diu zemâle eben und glîch wære, des rosses natûre wære, daz ez sich zemâle ûzgüzze mit aller sîner kraft mit springenne ûf der heide, daz wære im lustlich und wære sîn natûre. (󰀂󰀀󰀀) Alsô ist gote lustlich und genuoclich, dâ er glîcheit vindet. Ez ist im lustlich, daz er sîne natûre und sîn wesen alzemâle dâ giezende ist in die glîcheit, wan er diu glîcheit selber ist. Nû ist ein vrâge von den engeln, ob die engel, die hie mit uns wonent und uns dienent und uns behüetent, ob die iht minner glîcheit haben an irn vröuden, dan die in der êwicheit sint, oder ob sie iht geletzet werden von den werken, daz sie unser hüetent und uns dienent. Ich spriche: nein sie niht. Ir vröude enist niht deste minner und ir glîcheit; wan daz werk des engels ist der wille gotes, und der wille gotes ist daz werk des engels; dar umbe enwirt er niht gehindert an sîner vröude noch an sîner glîcheit noch an sînen werken. Hieze got den engel varn an einen boum und hieze in dar abe rûpen lesen, der engel wære dar zuo bereit, daz er die rûpen læse, und ez wære sîn sælicheit und wære der wille gotes. Der mensche, der nû alsô stât in dem willen gotes, der enwil niht anders, dan daz got ist und daz gotes wille ist. Wære er siech, er enwölte niht gesunt sîn. Alliu pîne ist im ein vröude, alliu manicvalticheit ist im ein blôzheit und ein einicheit, stât er rehte in dem willen

󰀁󰀃. Here the ‘glîch’ can not be rendered with ‘alike’ in English, so the translation may not reflect the continuation of the argument. 󰀁󰀄. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀆󰀄 a. 󰀄 ad 󰀁: ‘Unde dicendum est quod sicut locus coelestis pertinet ad gloriam angelorum. tamen gloria eorum non minuitur, eum ad nos veniunt, quia considerant illum locum esse suum; eo modo quo dicimus honorem episcopi non minui, dum

H OMILY 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂]

󰀃󰀆󰀃

God gives to all things alike, and when they flow from God, they are alike; indeed, angels and people and all creatures flow from God alike in their first emanation. Now, whoever would take the things in their first emanation would take all things alike. If they are already alike in time, they are much more alike in God in eternity. Whoever takes a fly in God, it is more noble in God than the highest angel is in itself. Now, all things are alike in God and they are God Himself. Here this likeness is so pleasing to God that He pours His nature and His being even in the likeness in Himself. This pleases Him; in the same way as if one were to let a horse run loose on a green meadow that was entirely smooth and level,󰀁󰀃 it would be natural for the horse to let itself go with all its strength in galloping across the meadow, which would be pleasant to it and would be its nature. Thus for God it is pleasant and satisfying where He finds likeness. It is pleasing to Him that He is pouring His nature and His being entirely into the likeness, because He Himself is this likeness. Now the question arises about the angels, whether the angels who live here with us, serve and protect us have some minor likeness in their joys compared to those who are in eternity, or whether they are somehow diminished because of their actions with which they protect and serve us. I say: No, they are not. Their joy and their likeness is not diminished; because the action of the angel is the will of God, and the will of God is the action of the angel; therefore, it is not hindered in its joy nor in its likeness nor in its actions. If God told the angel to go to a tree and told it to catch the caterpillars, the angel would be prepared to catch the caterpillars, and it would be its bliss and it would be God’s will.󰀁󰀄 The person that now stands in the will of God, wants nothing else than what God is and what is God’s will. If he were sick, he would not want to be healthy. Any pain is a joy for him, any multiplicity is for him a simplicity and a oneness, if he is truly standing in the will

actu non sedet in cathedra’; I q. 󰀁󰀁󰀂 a. 󰀁 ad 󰀃: ‘Sed angelus per solam intellectualem operationem regulat suas actiones exteriores. Unde actiones exteriores in nullo impediunt eius contemplationem; quia duarum actionum, quarum una est regula et ratio alterius, una non impedit, sed iuvat aliam. Unde Gregorius dicit, quod “angeli non sic foras exeunt ut internae contemplationis gaudiis priventur”’.

󰀃󰀆󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

gotes. Jâ, hienge hellischiu pîne dar (󰀂󰀀󰀁 | an, ez wære im ein vröude und ein sælicheit. Er ist ledic und ûzgegangen sîn selbes, und alles, daz er enpfâhen sol, des muoz er ledic sîn. Sol mîn ouge sehen die varwe, sô muoz ez ledic sîn aller varwe. Sihe ich blâwe oder wîze varwe, diu gesiht mînes ougen, daz dâ sihet die varwe, daz selbe, daz dâ sihet, daz ist daz selbe, daz dâ gesehen wirt mit dem ougen. Daz ouge, dâ inne ich got sihe, daz ist daz selbe ouge, dâ inne mich got sihet; mîn ouge und gotes ouge daz ist éin ouge und éin gesiht und éin bekennen und éin minnen. Der mensche, der alsô stât in gotes minne, der sol sîn selbes tôt sîn und allen geschaffenen dingen, daz er sîn selbes als wênic ahtende sî als eines über tûsent mîle. Der mensche blîbet in der glîcheit und blîbet in der einicheit (󰀂󰀀󰀂) | und blîbet gar glîch; in in envellet kein unglîcheit. Dirre mensche muoz sich selben gelâzen hân und alle dise werlt. Wære ein mensche, des alliu disiu werlt wære, und er sie lieze als blôz durch got, als er sie enpfienc, dem wölte unser herre wider geben alle dise werlt und ouch daz êwige leben. Und wære ein ander mensche, der niht enhæte dan eines guoten willen, und er gedæhte: herre, wære disiu werlt mîn und hæte ich denne noch eine werlt und aber eine, daz wæren drî, daz er des begernde wære: herre, ich wil dise lâzen und mich selben alsô blôz, als ich ez von dir enpfangen hân, dem menschen gæbe got als vil, als ob er ez allez mit sîner hant hæte enwec gegeben. Ein ander mensch, der niht enhæte lîplîches noch geistlîches ze lâzenne noch ze gebenne, der mensche lieze allermeist. Der sich zemâle lieze einen ougenblik, (󰀂󰀀󰀃) | dem würde zemâle gegeben. Und wære ein mensche zweinzic jâr gelâzen, næme er sich selben wider einen ougenblik, er enwart noch nie gelâzen. Der mensche, der gelâzen hât und gelâzen ist

󰀁󰀅. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (LW V 󰀂󰀃󰀂,󰀁󰀂–󰀈): ‘Decimus nonus articulus dicit: “Oculus, in quo video deum, est ille idem oculus, in quo me deus videt. Oculus meus et oculus dei est unus oculus et una visio. vel videre et unum cognoscere et unum amare”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi nn. 󰀄󰀅–󰀆) (LW V 󰀃󰀂󰀇,󰀂󰀁–󰀃󰀂󰀈,󰀃): ‘Decimus nonus articulus dicit: “Oculus, in quo video deum, est ille idem oculus, in quo me deus videt. Oculus meus et oculus dei est unus oculus et una visio vel videre et unum cognoscere et unum amare”. Dicendum quod hoc verum est, secundum quod docet Augustinus De trinitate l. IX c. 󰀁󰀂 de prole genita a cognoscibili et cognoscente. Et apostolus dicit: “tunc cognoscam, sicut et cognitus sum”, Cor. 󰀁󰀃’. 󰀁󰀆. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀆 (Proc. Col. I n. 󰀆󰀅) (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀁,󰀁󰀆–󰀂󰀂): ‘Item praemissis quibusdam dicitur sic: “Iste homo, qui stat in amore, ille debet esse sibi ipsi mortuus et omnibus rebus creatis sic, quod ita parum curet de se sicut de uno, qui est ultra mille miliaria. Iste homo est in aequalitate et manet in unitate”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi n. 󰀁󰀄󰀅) (LW 󰀃󰀀󰀁,󰀁󰀃–󰀃󰀀󰀂,󰀉):

H OMILY 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂]

󰀃󰀆󰀅

of God. Indeed, if infernal punishment would be part of it, it would be a joy and a bliss for him. He is free and has gone out of himself, and must be free of everything which he is to receive. If my eye is to perceive colour, it must be free of any colour. If I see the colour blue or white, the sight of my eye which sees the colour, this that sees, is the same as that which is seen with the eye. The eye in which I see God is the same eye in which God sees me; my eye and the eye of God are one eye and one sight and one knowing and one loving.󰀁󰀅 The person who thus stands in the love of God must have died to himself and to all created things, so that he is paying as little regard to himself as to one who is over a thousand miles away. That person remains in likeness, remains in oneness󰀁󰀆 and remains truly alike, and no unlikeness befalls him. This person must have let go of himself and all this world. If there were a person to whom all this world belonged, and he were as simply (blôz) to give it up for God’s sake as he received it, to this person our Lord would return all this world and also eternal life. And if there were another person who had nothing but a good will, and thought: Lord, if this world were mine and I still had another world and one more, and they would be three, and if he expressed his wish: Lord, I want to let these go and also myself to become so naked as when I received them from You, to this person God would give as if he had given it all away out of his own hand. A third person who had nothing bodily or spiritual to let go or to give away, this person would let go most. Whoever let himself go entirely for one moment, him would be given entirely. And if a person were detached for twenty years, but took himself back for one moment, he was never detached. The person who

‘Ad undecimum cum dicitur: “Iste homo qui stat in amore” etc. Iste articulus duo tenet. Primum est quod homo perfectus debet esse mortuus mundo et creaturis. Item quod homo perfectus debet diligere proximum suum sic intense sicut se ipsum. Quod utrumque verum est, concordans ei quod, ubi Matthaeus et Lucas habent “sicut te ipsum”, Marcus habet “tamquam te ipsum”. Qua littera Augustinus frequenter utitur. Est autem “tamquam” tantum quantum et hoc utique et perfectionis est; gratia enim altior et superior est natura. Et qui deum amat ex toto corde, ex tota anima, ex tota mente et ex omnibus viribus, utique non habet extra deum quod amet plus unum altero. Qui enim plus unum amat quam alterum in creaturis, creaturam amat nec unum amat deum in omnibus et omnia in deo. In uno enim non est plus et minus. Et hoc est quod signanter dominus dicit: “qui amat plus”, “non est me dignus”. Deus enim unus est, “in quo nullus numerus” est, plus scilicet et minus’.

󰀃󰀆󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

und der niemermê gesihet einen ougenblik ûf daz, daz er gelâzen hât, und blîbet stæte, unbeweget in im selber und unwandellîche, der mensche ist aleine gelâzen. Daz wir alsô stæte blîben und unwandelbære als der êwige vater, des helfe uns got und diu êwige wîsheit. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂]

󰀃󰀆󰀇

did let go and who is detached󰀁󰀇 and who never looks for one moment at what he has let go, and remains unhesitating, immutable in himself and unchangeable, only this person is detached. That thus we remain unhesitating and unchangeable like the eternal Father, may God and eternal wisdom help us. Amen.

󰀁󰀇. Unfortunately, the wordplay ‘gelâzen hât und gelâzen ist’ can not be imitated in English.

Homily 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁] In festo sanctorum Cosmae et Damiani, die 󰀂󰀇 septembris ‘Qui sequitur iustitiam, diligetur a domino’ (Prov. 󰀁󰀅:󰀉) Introduction

T

he two passages that Eckhart refers to, Prov. 󰀁󰀅:󰀉 (‘Those who follow justice, these God loves’) and Matth. 󰀅:󰀆–󰀇 (‘Blessed are the poor and those who are hungry and thirsty for justice’ and ‘who follow it’), are read on the feast of two saints, but it is not correct that, as the editor Josef Quint states, the two passages coincide only for the feast of the saints Cosmas and Damian, as the readings are part of the Commune for several martyrs. So the texts could also have been used at a feast of two other martyrs, since the names are not specified. So, it is only with some probability that the homily here is rightly placed at the feast of the saints Cosmas and Damian, celebrated on 󰀂󰀇 September (if so, the reference ‘Vff aller heyligen tag’, BT, would be an error, based on the fact that the Gospel verse is read on All Saints’ Day). The text is handed down by only one manuscript (E󰀂), the print in BT and a few fragments. The print HT is not used in the critical edition of DW. As will become quickly clear, there are a number of references that link this homily to several others: In n. 󰀃 the reference could refer to the previous homily, Hom. 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂], nn. 󰀅–󰀆; in n. 󰀅 it seems to be a reference to Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀃* [Q 󰀆], n. 󰀉; n. 󰀇 could refer to Hom. 󰀂󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀆], n. 󰀆 while this text could also be a circular reference to this text and note here; n. 󰀈 is most likely a reference to Hom. 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆b], n. 󰀉.

󰀃󰀇󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

The content of the homily In this homily Eckhart combines the reading from the ‘Epistle’ with that of the ‘Gospel’. Already in the opening note, both texts are given in Latin, the combining topic being ‘iustitia’, ‘justice’ (n. 󰀁). That this is not a common way of preaching makes him point out the combination in the opening (n. 󰀂). A) ‘God loves’ (nn. 󰀃–󰀄). With this phrase, Eckhart starts his homily with reference to the verse from the ‘Epistle’, Prov. 󰀁󰀅:󰀉. In a wonderful rhetorical turn, Eckhart asks ‘what does God love’, to add ‘nothing except Himself’ and that which is ‘alike to Him’. Drawing on Wisd. 󰀇:󰀂󰀈 those who dwell ‘in wisdom’ are alike to God and loved by Him with Matth. 󰀅:󰀆–󰀇 he is able to combine the idea of dwelling in wisdom and following justice in wisdom. Col. 󰀁:󰀁󰀃 is the Scriptural support for the creatures ‘transformation’ into the Son. As God’s being is love, he must love us (n. 󰀄). B) ‘Those who follow justice’ ‘in wisdom’ (n. 󰀅). Like God, the just person acts without a why. C) ‘Hungry and thirsty for justice’ (n. 󰀆). In spiritual things, different from bodily ones, drinking and eating make one more thirsty and hungry. Hence, those who like the will of God want to do so ever more. When people ask ‘How do I know if it is God’s will?’, Eckhart’s answer is – whatever happens to a just person is God’s will, if things happen to the unjust person, this person deserves them (n. 󰀇). Once we only have regard for God’s will, ‘the Son will be born in us’ (n. 󰀈). God’s presence, however, does not last like the fire’s heat that can even be sensed, once the fire is extinguished, but like the sun’s rays, can only be felt or known when actually present (n. 󰀉). This also means that God does everything (again we notice some sexual images here) to win the soul’s attention, so that she intends nothing but God. This just person’s soul Eckhart contrasts with those people who believe that they are really holy, perfect, can do big things, utter big words, aim for contemplation, and are also recognized by others (n. 󰀁󰀀). Instead, the preacher insists, that the soul has to go out of herself and beyond herself to leave all external things. Then what about virtues – is the just person not bound to live virtuously? Eckhart does not deny this, but he sees virtue too as a gift from God, being for God, or in God (n. 󰀁󰀁).

H OMILY 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁]

󰀃󰀇󰀁

He adds a personal prayer which summarises that God is the most willing giver and that we ought to be the most daring petitioner who asks for the most possible, while at the same time ‘let go all things in justice’ (n. 󰀁󰀂). The plea for such ‘following justice’ ‘in wisdom’ concludes the homily. Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀄󰀃,󰀁󰀄󰀅–󰀉; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀄󰀃󰀆–󰀄󰀁; J. Quint, DW II 󰀂󰀈󰀂–󰀉󰀇; N. Largier I 󰀄󰀃󰀆–󰀄󰀉.󰀁󰀀󰀁󰀂–󰀅. Previous English translations The Works of Meister Eckhart Doctor Ecstaticus, vol. II, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂), 󰀁󰀁󰀇–󰀂󰀂; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀂󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀂; Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings, ed. and trans. O. Davies (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀁󰀃󰀉–󰀄󰀄.

󰀃󰀇󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀈󰀅) ‘Qui sequitur iustitiam, diligetur a domino. Beati, qui esuriunt, et sitiunt iustitiam: quoniam ipsi saturabuntur’. Ich hân ein wörtelîn genomen von der epistel, die man hiute liset von zwein heiligen, und ein ander wort von dem êwangeliô. Künic Salomôn sprichet hiute in der epistel: ‘die der gerehticheit nâchvolgent, die minnet got’. Ein ander wörtelîn sprichet mîn herre sant Matthêus: ‘sælic sint die armen und die dâ hungert und dürstet nâch der gerehticheit und der nâchvolgent’. Merket diz wort: ‘got minnet’, und ist mir gar ein grôz lôn und alze grôz, ob wir des begern sölten, als ich mê gesprochen hân, daz mich got minnet. Waz minnet got? Got enminnet niht wan sich selben und als vil er sîn glîch vindet in mir und mich in im. (󰀂󰀈󰀆) | In dem buoche der wîsheit stât geschriben: ‘got der enminnet nieman, wan der dâ wonet in der wîsheit’. Ein ander wort stât ouch in der geschrift, daz ist noch bezzer: ‘got minnet, die nâchvolgent der gerehticheit’ ‘in der wîsheit’. Die meister koment des alle über ein, daz gotes wîsheit ist sîn eingeborner sun. Diz wort sprichet: ‘die nâchvolgent der gerehticheit’ ‘in der wîsheit’, und dar umbe: die im nâchvolgent, die minnet er, wan er niht in uns minnet wan als vil, als er uns in im vindet. Ez ist verre einander gotes minne und daz wir minnen. Wir enminnen niht mê dan als vil, als wir got vinden in dem, daz wir minnen. Und hæte ich ez gesworn, ich enkünde niht geminnen wan güete. Aber got minnet als vil, als ér guot ist, – niht daz er iht vinde in dem menschen, daz er minne, wan sîne éigene güete – und als vil, als wir in im sîn und in sîner minne. Daz ist geben; daz gibet uns sîne minne, daz wir in im sîn und ‘wonen in der wîsheit’. (󰀂󰀈󰀆) |

󰀁. Prov. 󰀁󰀅:󰀉. 󰀂. Matth. 󰀅:󰀆. 󰀃. Prov. 󰀁󰀅:󰀉 (‘Qui sequitur iustitiam, diligetur ab eo…’). The context is Prov. 󰀁󰀅:󰀂–󰀉, and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀄vb: ‘(In communi plurimorum martyrum III) Lectio libri Sapientie. Lingua sapientium ornat scientiam: os fatuorum ebullit stultitiam. In omni loco oculi Domini contemplantur bonos et malos. Lingua placabilis, lignum vite: que autem immoderata est, conteret spiritum. [Vg. add. v. 󰀅] Domus iusti plurima fortitudo: et in fructibus impii conturbatio. Labia sapientium disseminabunt scientiam: cor stultorum dissimile erit. Victime impiorum abhominabiles Domino: vota iustorum placabilia. [Vg. add.: Abominatio est Domino via impii] Qui sequitur iustitiam, diligetur a Domino [ab eo Vg.]’.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁]

󰀃󰀇󰀃

‘Qui sequitur iustitiam, diligetur a domino’.󰀁 ‘Beati, qui esuriunt, et sitiunt iustitiam: quoniam ipsi saturabuntur’.󰀂 I took a sentence from the Epistle which we read today about two saints, and a second sentence from the Gospel. King Solomon says today in the Epistle: ‘Those who follow justice, these God loves’.󰀃 Another sentence says my lord Saint Matthew: ‘Blessed are the poor and those who are hungry and thirsty for justice’ and ‘who follow it’.󰀄 Note this phrase: ‘God loves’, and to me it is truly a great reward,󰀅 – and perhaps too great to be wished for, as I have already said – that God loves me.󰀆 What does God love? God loves nothing except Himself and to the extent that he finds something alike to Him and as much as he finds like Himself in me and me in Him. In the Book of Wisdom it is written: ‘God loves no one except the one who dwells in wisdom’.󰀇 Another sentence is also found in Scripture, which is even better: ‘God loves those who follow justice’ ‘in wisdom’. The masters all agree that the wisdom of God is His only-begotten Son.󰀈 The phrase reads: ‘who follow justice’ ‘in wisdom’, and therefore, those who follow Him, He loves, because He only loves in us to the extent that He finds us in Him. The love of God and our love are very different from each other. We only love to the extent that we find God in what we love. And even if I had sworn it, I could not love anything except goodness. God, however, loves to the extent that He is good – not that He finds something in a person to love but His own goodness – and to the extent that we are in Him and in His love. This is giving; this gives us His love, that we are in Him and ‘dwell in wisdom’.

󰀄. Matth. 󰀅:󰀆–󰀇: ‘beati qui esuriunt et sitiunt iustitiam quoniam ipsi saturabuntur. (󰀇) beati misericordes quia ipsi misericordiam consequentur’. 󰀅. J. Quint’s translations of ‘lôn’ is historicizing or even theological: ‘Begnadung’ meaning ‘blessing’. 󰀆. The reference could refer to the previous homily, Hom. 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂], nn. 󰀅–󰀆. 󰀇. Sap. 󰀇:󰀂󰀈: ‘neminem enim diligit Deus nisi eum qui cum sapientia inhabitat’. 󰀈. See Petrus Lombardus, Sententiae I dist. 󰀅 cap. 󰀁 (Grottaferrata, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀁), 󰀈󰀃,󰀈–󰀁󰀂: ‘Et ut expressius dicamus, dicimus Filium sapientia esse de Patre sapientia … et dicitur Filius sapientia Patris’.

󰀃󰀇󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Sant Paulus sprichet: ‘wir werden überworfen in der minne’. Merket diz wort: ‘got minnet’. Ein wunder! Waz ist gotes minne? Sîn natûre und sîn wesen: daz ist sîn minne. Der gote daz benæme, daz er uns minnet, der benæme im sîn wesen und sîne gotheit, wan sîn wesen swebet dar ane, daz er mich minnet. Und in dirre wîse sô gât ûz der heilige geist. Got segen! waz wunders ist diz! Minnet mich got mit aller sîner natûre – wan diu hanget hie ane –, sô minnet mich got rehte, als sîn gewerden und sîn wesen dar ane hange. Got enhât niht wan éine minne: mit der selben minne, dâ der vater sînen eingebornen sun mite minnet, dâ mite minnet er mich. (󰀂󰀈󰀇) | Nû ein ander sin. Merket gar ebene: der geschrift ist gar rehte, der sie entdecket und sie entblœzen wil. Er sprichet: ‘die nâchvolgent der gerehticheit’ ‘in der wîsheit’. Dem gerehten menschen ist sô nôt ze der gerehticheit, daz er niht anders enkan geminnen dan gerehticheit. Enwære got niht gereht – als ich mê gesprochen hân –, er enahtete niht ûf got. Wîsheit und gerehticheit ist ein in gote, und der dâ minnet die wîsheit, der minnet ouch die gerehticheit; und wære der tiuvel gereht, er minnete in als vil, als er gereht wære, und niht eines hâres mê. Der gerehte mensche der enminnet niht an gote (󰀂󰀈󰀉) | weder diz noch daz; und gæbe im got alle sîne wîsheit und allez, daz er geleisten mac ûzer im, er enahtete sîn niht und ensmackete im niht, wan er enwil niht noch ensuochet niht; wan er enhât kein warumbe, dar umbe er iht tuo, alsô als got würket sunder warumbe und kein warumbe enhât. In der wîse, als got würket, alsô würket ouch der gerehte sunder warumbe; und alsô als daz leben lebet umbe sich selben und ensuochet kein warumbe, dar umbe ez lebe, alsô enhât ouch der gerehte kein warumbe, dar umbe er iht tuo. Nû merket diz wörtelîn, daz er sprichet: ‘sie hungert und dürstet nâch der gerehticheit’. Unser herre sprichet: ‘die mich ezzent, die sol noch mê hungern; die mich trinkent, die sol noch mê dürstende werden’. Wie sol man diz verstân? Wan des enist an lîplîchen dingen niht; sô man der ie mê izzet, sô man ir ie seter wirt. Aber an geistlîchen dingen enist kein sete; wan ie mê man ir hât, ie mê man ir gelüstet.

󰀉. See Col. 󰀁:󰀁󰀃: ‘(qui eripuit nos de potestate tenebrarum,) et transtulit in regnum filii dilectionis suae…’ 󰀁󰀀. Seems to be a reference to Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀃* [Q 󰀆], n. 󰀉: ‘Den gerehten menschen den ist alsô ernst ze der gerehticheit, wære, daz got niht gereht wære, sie enahteten eine bône niht ûf got und

H OMILY 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁]

󰀃󰀇󰀅

St. Paul says: ‘We will be transformed into of love’.󰀉 Note this phrase: ‘God loves’. A wonder! What is God’s love? His nature and His being: these are His love. Whoever would took away from God the fact that He loves us, would take away His being and His Godhead, because His being depends on the fact that He loves me. And in this way the Holy Spirit goes forth. God bless! What a wonder is this! If God loves me with all His nature – because it depends on this – it is right for God to love me, as His becoming and His being depend on it. God has only one love: with the same love with which the Father loves His only-begotten Son, with this He loves me. Now another meaning. Note it as well: It is right for the Scripture to be explored and laid bare. He says: ‘Those who follow justice’ ‘in wisdom’. Justice is so necessary for the just person that they can love nothing but justice. If God was not just – as I have often said󰀁󰀀 – they would not have any regard for God. Wisdom and justice are one in God, and he who loves wisdom also loves justice; and if the devil were just, he would love him to the extent that he were just, and not one hair more. The just man does not love in God either this or that; and if God gave him all His wisdom and anything external that He can do for him, he would not have any regard for Him and he would not savor Him, because he does not want anything and does not look for anything; because he does not know any why for the sake of which he does something, just as God acts without a why and has no reason why. In the way God acts without a way, so the just person acts without why; and just as life lives for itself and does not seek for any reason why to live, so also the just has no reason why he does something. Now note this phrase which He says: ‘He is hungry and thirsty for justice’. Our Lord says: ‘Those who eat me will hunger even more; those who drink me shall become even more thirsty’.󰀁󰀁 How should this be understood? Because in bodily things it is not so, the more you eat of it, the more you become satiated. But in spiritual things there is no satiety; because the more one has of these, the more

stânt alsô vaste in der gerehticheit und sint ir selbes alsô gar ûzgegangen, daz sie niht enahtent pîne der helle noch vröude des himelrîches noch keines dinges’. 󰀁󰀁. Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀂󰀉: ‘qui edunt me adhuc esurient et qui bibunt me adhuc sitient’.

󰀃󰀇󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Dar umbe sprichet diz wort: ‘sie sol noch mê dürstende werden, die mich trinkent, und hungernde, die mich ezzent’. Dise die hungert sô sêre nâch dem willen gotes und smacket in der sô (󰀂󰀉󰀀) | wol, daz allez daz, daz got über sie verhenget, daz ist in sô genüegelich und behaget in sô wol, daz sie niht anders enmöhten gewellen noch begern. Die wîle den menschen hungert, die wîle smacket im diu spîse; und ie daz der hunger grœzer ist, ie genühticlîcher im ist, daz er ezze. Alsô ist den, die dâ hungert nâch dem willen gotes: den smacket sô wol sîn wille, und allez daz, daz got wil und daz er über sie verhenget, daz behaget in sô wol, und wölte sie joch got es erlâzen, sie enwölten sîn niht erlâzen sîn; alsô wol gevellet in der êrste wille gotes. Wölte ich mich einem menschen lieben und wölte dem aleine behagen, allez, daz dem menschen behegelich wære und dâ von ich im wol geviele, daz wölte ich lieber dan dehein dinc. Und wære, daz ich im baz geviele in einem bœsen kleide dan in einem samîte, des enist kein zwîvel, ich entrüege daz bœse kleit lieber dan dehein ander kleit. Alsô ist dem, dem gotes wille (󰀂󰀉󰀁) | behaget: allez daz, daz im got gibet, ez sî siechtage oder armuot oder swaz ez ist, daz hât er lieber dan iht anders. Wan ez got wil, dar umbe smacket ez im baz dan iht anders. Nû sprechet ir gerne: ‘waz weiz ich, ob ez gotes wille ist?’ Ich spriche: und enwære ez gotes wille niht einen ougenblik, sô enwære ez niht; ez muoz iemer sîn wille sîn. Smackete dir nû der wille gotes, sô wærest dû rehte als in einem himelrîche, swaz dir geschæhe oder niht engeschæhe; und den geschihet gar rehte, die iht anders gernt dan gotes willen, wan sie sint alwege in jâmer und in unsælden; man tuot in dicke gewalt und unreht, und sie hânt alwege leit. Und ez sol ouch von rehte alsô sîn, wan sie tuont rehte, als sie got verkoufen, als in Jûdas verkoufte. Sie minnent got umbe iht anders, daz got niht enist. Und eht in wirt, daz sie dâ minnent, sô enruochent sie umbe got niht. Ez sî andâht (󰀂󰀉󰀂) | oder lust oder swaz dir wol kæme: ez enist allez got niht, swaz dâ geschaffen ist. Ein geschrift sprichet: ‘diu werlt ist gemachet durch in, und daz dâ gemachet ist, daz enbekante sîn niht’. Swer des wânde, daz tûsent werlte mit gote genomen iht mê genomen wære dan got aleine, der enbekante got niht noch enweste ein hâr niht, waz got wære, und

H OMILY 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁]

󰀃󰀇󰀇

desire one feels for them. This is what this phrase says: ‘Those who drink me shall become even more thirsty, and hungry those who eat me’. They are so hungry for God’s will and they like it so much, that everything that God makes befall them satisfies them and they like it so much that they could not want or desire anything else. As long as a person is hungry, he likes food; and the more hunger there is, the more satisfying it is for him to eat. So it is with those who are hungry for the will of God: they like so much His will and all that God wants, and what He makes befall them satisfies them so much that if God wanted to withhold it, they would not want it to be withheld; so well do they like God’s prior will. If I wanted to make myself loved by a person and would like to please only him, I would prefer anything that would please that person and through which I would be liked by him. And if it were that I pleased him in a poor dress rather than in velvet, there is no doubt that I would prefer to wear the modest dress more than any other garment. So it is with the one who likes the will of God: all that God gives him, whether sickness or poverty or what it is, this he prefers to anything else. Because God wants it, he likes it more than anything else. Now you like to say: ‘How do I know if it is God’s will?’ I say: if it were not God’s will for a single moment, it would not be; it must always be His will. Now, if you liked the will of God, it would be just as if you were in a kingdom of heaven, whatever happened to you or did not happen to you; and it serves them right who desire something other than the will of God, because they are always in misery and in misfortune; they often suffer violence and injustice, and they are always in pain. And it must also be rightly so, because they do indeed sell God, as Judas sold Him. They love God for the sake of something that God is not. And when what they love truly happens to them, they no longer care about God. Whether contemplation or pleasure or what good comes to you: nothing that is created is God. A Scripture says: ‘The world is made through him, and what is created did not know him’.󰀁󰀂 Whoever believed that a thousand worlds taken together with God were more than God alone, would not know God or know a hair

󰀁󰀂. Ioh. 󰀁:󰀁󰀀: ‘mundus per ipsum factus est, et mundus eum non cognovit’.

󰀃󰀇󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

wære ein gebûre. Dar umbe ensol der mensche nihtes niht ahten mit gote. Swer noch iht suochet an gote, als ich mê gesprochen hân, der enweiz niht, waz er suochet. (󰀂󰀉󰀃) | Alsus sô wirt der sun in uns geborn: daz wir sîn sunder warumbe und werden wider îngeborn in dem sune. Origenes der schrîbet gar ein edel wort, und spræche ich ez, ez diuhte iuch unglouplich: »niht aleine werden wir îngeborn in dem sune; wir werden ûzgeborn und wider îngeborn und werden niuwe geborn und âne mittel geborn in dem sune. Ich spriche – und ez ist wâr –: in einem ieglîchen guoten gedanke oder guoter meinunge oder guoten werke werden wir alle zît niuwe geborn in gote«. Dar umbe, als ich hân nû niuwelîche gesprochen: der vater enhât niht dan einen einigen sun, und als vil als wir minner hân meinunge oder ahtunge ûf ihtes iht anders dan ûf got und als vil als wir an nihte ûzluogen, als vil werden wir überbildet in dem sune, und als vil wirt der sun in uns geborn, und wir werden geborn in dem sune und werden éin sun. Unser herre (󰀂󰀉󰀄) | Jêsus Kristus der ist ein einic sun des vaters, und er aleine ist mensche und got. Sô enist dâ niht dan éin sun in éinem wesene, und daz ist götlich wesen. Alsô werden wir ein in im, ob wir niht dan in meinen. Got der wil iemer aleine sîn; daz ist ein nôtwârheit, und ez enmac niht anders gesîn, dan daz man iemer got aleine meinen muoz. Got der hât wol genüegede und lust gegozzen in die crêatûren; aber die wurzel aller genüegede und daz wesen aller lust daz hât got aleine in im selben behalten. Ein glîchnisse: daz viur daz wirfet wol sîne wurzel ûz in daz wazzer mit der hitze, wan als man daz viur abetuot, sô blîbet dâ wol eine wîle diu werme in dem wazzer und ouch in dem holze; nâch gegenwerticheit des viures sô blîbet dâ als lange diu hitze, als kreftic daz viur gewesen ist. Aber diu sunne erliuhtet wol den luft und durchliuhtet in; si wirfet aber ir wurzel niht dar în; wan swenne diu

󰀁󰀃. See what he has just said before, but see also Hom. 󰀂󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀆], n. 󰀆: ‘Ich hân etwenne gesprochen: swer got suochet und iht mit gote suochet, der envindet got niht; und swer aber got aleine suochet, in der wârheit, der vindet got und vindet got niemer aleine, wan allez, daz got geleisten mac, daz vindet er mit gote’; note the reference in the beginning of this quote which may well be a circular reference pointing back to our homily here, other potential pointers are given in note 󰀃 to Hom. 󰀂󰀅* of our volume 󰀁. 󰀁󰀄. Origenes, In Ier. Hom. 󰀆 (Hieronymo interprete) (PL 󰀂󰀅, 󰀆󰀃󰀇): ‘Rursumque multum beatus qui semper ex Deo nascitur. Neque enim semel dicam justum ex deo natum, sed per singula virtutis opera semper justus nascitur ex Deo. … Salvator noster sapientia est Dei. Sapientia vero

H OMILY 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁]

󰀃󰀇󰀉

of what God is, and would be a boor. Therefore a person must have regard for absolutely nothing besides God. Whoever still seeks something with God, as I have already said,󰀁󰀃 does not know what he seeks. Thus the Son will be born in us: when we are without a why and are reborn into the Son. Origen writes a very fine sentence, and if I had said it, it would sound incredible to you: ‘Not only are we born into the Son; we are outborn and reborn into [Him] and we are newly born and born without a medium into the Son. I say, and it is true: in every good thought or good intention or good action we are always newly born into God’.󰀁󰀄 Therefore, as I said recently:󰀁󰀅 the Father has only one single Son, and so much the less we intend or consider something other than God, and the more we look out for nothing else, the more we are transformed into the Son, the more the Son is born in us, and we are born in the Son and become one Son. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the one single Son of the Father, and He alone is man and God. Hence there is nothing but one Son in one being, and this is the divine being. Thus, we become one in Him, if we do not intend anything but Him. God always wants to be alone; this is a necessary truth, and it can not be otherwise that one must always intend God alone. God has widely poured satisfaction and pleasure into creatures; but the root of all satisfaction and the substance of every pleasure God has preserved only in Himself. A simile: the fire stretches its root with the heat well into the water, because when you extinguish fire, the heat remains in the water and also in the wood for quite a while; when the fire has gone, the time that the heat remains there depends on how strong the fire was. But the sun well illuminates the air and shines through it; but it does not stretches its root into it; because when the

splendor est lucis aeternae. Sic igitur Salvator semper nascitur … semper ex Patre nascitur Dominus, etiam tu in similitudinem ejus tantum adoptionis scriptum habens, semper generaris a Deo per singulos intellectus, per singula opera, et efficeris filius Dei in Christo Jesu’. 󰀁󰀅. Most likely a reference to Hom. 󰀈󰀈* [Q 󰀁󰀆b], n. 󰀉: ‘Ich spriche wærlîche: alle die wîle daz sich kein dinc in dir erbildet, daz daz êwige wort niht enist oder ein ûzluogen hât ûz dem êwigen worte, daz enkan niemer sô guot gesîn, im ensî wærlîche unreht. Her umbe ist daz aleine ein gereht mensche, der alliu geschaffeniu dinc vernihtet hât und an einer glîchen linien âne allez ûzluogen in daz êwige wort gerihtet stât und dar în gebildet und widerbildet in der gerehticheit. Der mensche nimet, dâ der sun nimet und ist der sun selber’.

󰀃󰀈󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

sunne niht mê gegenwertic enist, sô enhân wir ouch niht mê liehtes. Alsô tuot got mit den crêatûren: er wirfet sînen schîn der genüegede in die crêatûren; aber die wurzel aller genüegede die hât er aleine in im selben behalten dar umbe, daz er uns aleine ze im haben wil und ze niemanne anders. (󰀂󰀉󰀅) | Got der smücket und erbiutet sich alsô engegen der sêle und hât sich mit aller sîner gotheit des gevlizzen, daz er der sêle behegelich werde; wan got der wil aleine der sêle behagen, und er enwil keinen glîchen haben. Got der enlîdet kein gedrenge; er enwil ouch niht, daz man iht anders ûzer im meine oder beger. Nû wænent etlîche liute, daz sie gar heilic sîn und gar volkomen, und nement sich ane grôzer dinge und grôzer worte und meinent und begernt doch sô vil, und wellent ouch sie vil haben und hânt sô vil sehennes ûf sich und ûf diz und ûf daz, und sie meinent, sie wellen andâht haben, und sie enkünnen niht ein wort vertragen. Sît des gewis wærlîche, daz sie gote verre sint und ûzer diser einunge. Der prophête sprichet: ‘ich hân mîne (󰀂󰀉󰀆) | sêle ûzgegozzen in mir’, und sprichet sant Augustînus ein bezzer wort; er sprichet: ich hân mîne sêle ûzgegozzen über mich. Daz muoz von nôt sîn, daz si über sich komen muoz, sol si ein werden in dem sune; und als vil mê, als si ir selbes ûzgât, als vil wirt si ein mit dem sune. Sant Paulus sprichet: ‘wir suln überformieret werden in daz selbe bilde, daz er ist’. Ein geschrift sprichet: diu tugent enist niemer ein tugent, si enkome denne von gote oder durch got oder in gote; der drîer muoz iemer einez sîn. Ob si joch wol anders wære, sô enwære ez doch niht ein tugent; wan swaz man meinet âne got, daz ist ze kleine. Diu tugent ist got oder âne mittel in gote. Welhez aber daz beste sî, des enwil ich iu nû niht sagen. Nû möhtet ir sprechen: ‘saget, herre, waz ist diz? Wie möhten wir âne mittel gesîn in gote, daz wir niht anders enmeinen noch ensuochen dan got, und wie sölten wir alsus arm gesîn und alliu dinc

󰀁󰀆. Ps. 󰀄󰀁:󰀅: ‘effudi in me animam meam’. 󰀁󰀇. See Augustinus, En. in Ps. 󰀄󰀁:󰀅 n. 󰀈 (PL 󰀃󰀆, 󰀄󰀆󰀉): ‘… aliquid super animam esse sentio Deum meum … Quando anima mea contingeret quod super animam meam quaeritur, nisi anima mea super seipsam effunderetur?’ 󰀁󰀈. II Cor. 󰀃:󰀁󰀈: ‘nos vero … in eandem imaginem transformamur … tamquam a Domini’. 󰀁󰀉. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I II q. 󰀆󰀁 a. 󰀅 o. 󰀁: ‘Ut enim Macrobius dicit, in I super Somnium Scipionis, virtutes exemplares sunt quae in ipsa divina mente consistunt … Respondeo

H OMILY 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁]

󰀃󰀈󰀁

sun is no longer present, we do not have any light left. Thus, God does with creatures: He casts his splendor of satisfaction into creatures; but the root of all satisfaction He has kept to Himself alone, because He wants us only towards Himself and towards no one else. God adorns Himself and offers Himself to the soul and with all His Godhead has made the effort of becoming pleasant to the soul; because God wants to please the soul alone and He does not want to have a rival. God does not stand a crowd; neither does He wants one to intend and desire anything else than Him. Now some people believe they are really holy and really perfect, and they aim for big things and big words and, indeed, they intend and desire a lot; and even if they might have a lot and are paid a lot of respect to themselves and for this and for that, and they go for contemplation, but they can not bear even a word. Be sure of this, truly, that they are far from God and outside of this oneness. The Prophet says: ‘I have poured out my soul in me’,󰀁󰀆 and Saint Augustine says a better phrase; he says: I have poured my soul beyond me.󰀁󰀇 It must necessarily be that she must come beyond herself, if she is to become one in the Son; and the more she goes out of herself, the more she becomes one with the Son. Saint Paul says: ‘We have to be transformed into the same image that He is’.󰀁󰀈 A book says:󰀁󰀉 virtue is never a virtue, if it does not come from God or through God or in God; one of these three must always be there. And if it were otherwise, it would not be a virtue; because what is intended without God is too little.󰀂󰀀 Virtue is God or without a medium in God. What is the best, I do not want to tell you now. Now you could say: ‘Say, sir, what is this? How could we be in God without a medium so that we do not intend or seek anything other than God, and how could we be so poor and simply let go all things? It is a heavy

dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit in libro De moribus Eccles., oportet quod anima aliquid sequatur, ad hoc quod ei possit virtus innasci: et hoc deus est, quem si sequimur, bene vivimus. Oportet igitur quod exemplar humanae virtutis in deo praeexistat, sicut et in eo praeexistunt omnium rerum rationes. Sic igitur virtus potest considerari vel prout est exemplariter in deo’; I II q. 󰀅󰀅 a. 󰀂; see also Augustinus, Contra Julianum IV c. 󰀃 n. 󰀂󰀁 (PL 󰀄󰀄, 󰀇󰀄󰀉): ‘Verae quippe virtutes deo serviunt in hominibus, a qua donantur hominibus’. 󰀂󰀀. J. Quint ad loc. translates ‘nichtig’ (‘worth nothing’).

󰀃󰀈󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

alsus lâzen? Daz ist gar ein swæriu rede, daz wir niht lônes begern sölten!’ – Sît des gewis, daz got des niht enlæzet, er engebe uns al; und hæte er sîn gesworn, er enkünde sîn doch niht gelâzen, er enmüeze (󰀂󰀉󰀇) | uns geben. Im ist vil nœter, daz er uns gebe, dan uns ze nemenne; aber wir suln ez niht meinen; wan ie minner wir ez meinen oder gern, ie mê got gibet. Dâ mite meinet got niht anders, dan daz wir deste rîcher werden und deste mê enpfâhen mügen. Ich pflige etwenne ein wörtelîn ze sprechenne, als ich beten sol, sô spriche ich: ‘herre, diz ist sô kleine, des wir dich biten! der mich sîn bæte, ich tæte ez im, und vüeget dir hundertwarbe baz dan mir, und dû tætest ez ouch gerner. Und wære daz, daz wir dich iht grœzers bæten, ez vüegete dir wol ze gebenne; und sô ez ie grœzer ist, sô dû ez ie gerner gibest’. Wan got der ist bereit grôziu dinc ze gebenne, und künden wir alliu dinc gelâzen in der gerehticheit. Daz wir alsus ‘nâchvolgen der gerehticheit’ ‘in der wîsheit’ und nâch ir ‘hungern und dürsten’, daz wir ‘gesetet werden’, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁]

󰀃󰀈󰀃

demand that we should not want any reward!’ – Be assured, that God does not rest, until He has given us everything; and if He swore to Himself, he could not let Himself go, but He must give to us. It is much more necessary for Him to give than for us to receive; but we should not intend it; because the less or less willingly we intend, the more God gives. With this God does not intend anything else than us becoming so much richer and may receive so much more. I am sometimes wont to say a phrase, when I have to pray, and then I say: ‘Lord, what we ask you for is too modest! If anyone would ask me for what is mine, I would do it, and for you it is a thousand times easier than for me, and you would do it more willingly. And if we were to ask you for something greater, it would be easy for you to give it; and the bigger it is, the more willingly you give it’. Because God is ready to give great things, if we could let all things go in justice. That we ‘follow justice’ ‘in wisdom’ and be ‘hungry and thirsty’ for it, as to ‘be satisfied’, may God help us! Amen.

Homily 󰀉󰀂* [Q 󰀇󰀄] In festo sancti Francisci confessoris, die 󰀄 octobris ‘Dilectus deo et hominibus, cuius memoria in benedictione est. Similem eum fecit in gloria sanctorum’ (Eccli. 󰀄󰀅:󰀁–󰀂) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Eccli. 󰀄󰀅:󰀁–󰀂 (‘Dilectus deo et hominibus, cuius memoria in benedictione est. Similem eum fecit in gloria sanctorum’), is read on the feast of St. Francis, 󰀄 October, according to the Dominican Missal (‘Vff sant Franciscus tag’, BT), and as the preacher himself states in the opening of the text (n. 󰀂). The text is handed down by no manuscript, but only by the print in BT and a few fragments. N. 󰀉 most likely first refers to Hom. 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃], n. 󰀁󰀀, and a little later to Hom. 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁], n. 󰀁󰀀. The content of the homily

This homily which is preserved only in a few witnesses seems to continue some of the topics that have been dealt with in the previous homily such as poverty and virtue, detachment, non-preference of love and overcoming what is mine, and particularly the topic of going ‘beyond’ oneself with an explicit reference (Hom. 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁], n. 󰀁󰀀) (n. 󰀁󰀀). Then there are also topics that go back to the homily before such as being ashamed and detachment (Hom. 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂]), while further back goes the idea of God loving us (Hom. 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃]). And yet the homily also brings new material. First of all there is the mention of St. Francis who receives full praise for poverty and humility, illustrated with the help of Bonaventure. As in the previous homilies on the Saints, so also here St. Francis is not

󰀃󰀈󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

the exceptional hero who is elevated above other people, or even thought of as a medium between God and people, on the contrary, he is quickly equated with all people, or even more, he is taken as an example of one who needs to be ashamed, as together with a companion he met a person who was even poorer than they were (n. 󰀃). Hence, the second praisworthy characteristic of St. Francis, humility, opens already with the general statement that refers to anybody (n. 󰀄), and so he continues (nn. 󰀅ff.). Other remarkable topics discussed here are the nature of sin and punishment, loving one’s neighbour as oneself. The homily begins with the core phrase Eccli. 󰀄󰀅:󰀁–󰀂 (n. 󰀁), followed by Eckhart’s translation into the vernacular and the application to St. Francis (n. 󰀂): ‘These words are read today about my dear lord Saint Francis, and he is praised here for two things, and he who has them is a great man’. Then, Eckhart develops the topic of ‘true proverty’ (n. 󰀃) and ‘true humility’ (n. 󰀄). A) ‘He was dear’ (says the Scriptures) ‘to God and to men’ (n. 󰀅), where he develops that ‘the person who loves God is loved by all the saints and by all the angels’. The mention of angels leads to the question about the number and specific nature of angels, also about the enemy of God (n. 󰀆) and bad people and the nature of sin and punishment (n. 󰀇). B) ‘He was liked and loved by God and by people, whose memory is in praise and blessing’ (n. 󰀈), which is first referred to Moses. Moses meaning ‘drawn from the waters’ is a symbol of detachment. The question is raised ‘how could I do as much to despise the whole world for God’s sake?’ (n. 󰀉) which triggers an interpretation of Ps. 󰀄󰀄:󰀁󰀁–󰀁󰀂. Added is a note on the four degrees of virtue (n. 󰀁󰀀), underpinning the teaching on detachment and the interpretation of the Psalm verse. C) ‘Because He is your Lord, and they will honour and worship Him’ (nn. 󰀁󰀁–󰀅). How God is His and also mine. Again, with further Psalm verses interpreted. At the end St. Peter serves as a negative simile: ‘I said of Saint Peter, who said, “Ecce nos reliquimus omnia”: “Look, Lord, we have left all things; what comes to us from this?”; who looked at what would come to him, how could he have left all things?’ (n. 󰀁󰀅). Peter serves as a springboard to talk about being common and sharing with all in what is most intimate to us, namely being (n. 󰀁󰀆). The homily ends with a related final prayer (n. 󰀁󰀇).

H OMILY 󰀉󰀂* [Q 󰀇󰀄]

󰀃󰀈󰀇

Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀈󰀆,󰀂󰀇󰀅–󰀉; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀇󰀅󰀁–󰀃; J. Quint, DW III 󰀂󰀇󰀁–󰀈󰀈; N. Largier II 󰀁󰀀󰀀–󰀁󰀅.󰀆󰀉󰀆–󰀇󰀀󰀁. Previous English translation Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀃󰀇󰀄–󰀉.

󰀃󰀈󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀇󰀄) ‘Dilectus deo et hominibus, cuius memoria in benedictione est. Similem eum fecit in gloria sanctorum’. ‘Er ist lieb gewesen gott vnd den menschen’ (deß wir nun gedencken), ‘vnd ist gebenedyet vnd ist in gott geheiliget in der klarheit der heiligen’. Soelche wort lißt man heüt von meinem lieben herren sant Francisco, vnd der wirt hie gelobt an zwey dingen, vnd wer die hat, der ist ein groß mensch. Daz ein ist geware armuot. Man lißt von im, dz er einest gieng mit eim seinem gesellen. Do begegnet jn ein armer mensch. Do sprach er zuo seinem gesellen: Nun hat vns diser mensch geschendet vnd hatt vns laster gethan, das er aermer ist dann wir. Diß wort merckent, das er darab geschennt sich selber achtet, dz er yemant fandt, der aermer was dann er. Ich pflag etwan ein wort zuo sprechen (vnd ist warlich war): Wer da warlich liebhat armuot, dem ist so not darzuo, dz er niemant gont, dz er minder hab dann er. Vnd also ist es von allen dingen, es sey reinigkeit, es sey gerechtigkeit, es sey, was tugend er liebhabe, an dem wil er an dem hoechsten sein. Er wil ymmer den hoechsten grad haben, den man haben mag in der zeit, vnd mag nit leiden, das icht ob im sey; (󰀂󰀇󰀅) | er wil ymmer die obersten statt haben. Der liebe gnuegt nit, die weil etwas da ist, da mit man liebhaben mag. Diser heilig hett armuet also seer lieb, das er nit mocht leyden, das yemant aermer were dann er. Ie aermer der mensch ist im geyst, ye abgescheidner vnd vernichtende mer alle ding; ye aermer er ist im geist, ye eigner alle ding sein seind vnd mer sein eigen seind. Die ander tugent, die einen menschen groß machet, das ist ware demuetigkeit; die hat diser heilig volkommenlich vnd vernichtigkeit vnd verworffenheit sein selbs. Dise tugent machet den menschen aller groeßt; der diß in dem aller tieffsten vnd in dem volkomnesten hat, der hat müglicheit, alle volkommenheit zuo empfahend. (󰀂󰀇󰀆) | 󰀁. Eccli. 󰀄󰀅:󰀁–󰀂. The context is Eccli. 󰀄󰀅:󰀁–󰀆 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀅ra: ‘In communi unius confessoris. Lectio libri Sapientie. Dilectus Deo et hominibus cuius memoria in benedictione est etc.’. For the text see above on Saint Benedict, Hom. 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃]. 󰀂. See Bonaventura, Legenda Sancti Francisci c. VII n. 󰀆 (Opera omnia VIII 󰀅󰀂󰀄b [Quaracchi]): ‘Accidit enim, ut pauperculum quendam obvium haberet in via, cuius cum nuditatem aspiceret, compunctus corde, lamentabili voce dixit ad socium: “Magnam verecundiam intulit nobis huius inopia, quia nos pro magnis divitiis paupertatem elegimus, et ecce, magis relucet in isto”’.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀂* [Q 󰀇󰀄]

󰀃󰀈󰀉

‘Dilectus deo et hominibus, cuius memoria in benedictione est. Similem eum fecit in gloria sanctorum’. ‘He (whom we now commemorate) was dear to God and to men’, ‘and is blessed and sanctified in God in the glory of the saints’.󰀁 These words are read today about my dear lord Saint Francis, and he is praised here for two things, and he who has them is a great man. One is true poverty. One reads of him that he once walked with one of his companions. Then they met a poor man. Then he said to his companion: now this man has shamed us and has caused us dishonor by the fact that he is poorer than we.󰀂 Note this phrase: that he considered himself as being ashamed for finding somebody who was poorer than he was. I used to sometimes say a phrase (and it is really true):󰀃 Whoever truly loves poverty, is in such need that he does not allow anyone to have less than him. And so it is about all things, whether purity or justice or whatever virtue he loves, in this he wants to be at the best. He always wants to have the highest degree he can achieve in time, and he can not stand that something is above him; he always wants to have the highest place. To love it is not enough, as long as there is something [more], which one can love. This saint loved poverty so much that he could not stand that someone was poorer than him. The poorer a person is in spirit, the more he is detached and discards all things; the poorer he is in spirit, the more all things are his own and are more his own. The second virtue that makes a person great is true humility; this saint has it perfectly, along with the disregard and rejection of himself.󰀄 This virtue makes the person greatest; whoever has it in the most profound and in the highest perfection, has the possibility to receive every perfection.

󰀃. Unidentified reference. 󰀄. See Bonaventura, Legenda Sancti Francisci c. VII n. 󰀆 (Opera omnia VIII 󰀅󰀀󰀉a [Quaracchi]): ‘Exinde totius humilitatis amator [= Francis] se transtulit ad leprosos eratque cum eis, diligentissime serviens omnibus propter deum’.

󰀃󰀉󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

‘Er ist lieb gewesen’, (spricht die schrifft), ‘got vnd den menschen’. Nun wil ich euch sagen ein gar guote meer; der es versteet, so ist es gar ein troestlich ding. Der mensch, der got liebhat, der ist liebgehebt von allen heiligen vnd von allen englen als vnmessiglich seer, das alle die lieb, die man erdencken kan, die ist diser lieb vngleich vnd ist ein nicht gegen diser liebe. Alle, die im hymelreich seind, die hant mich so ser lieb (ob ich got liebhab), alles, das man von lieb gedencken mag, das ist ein vngleich ding, ioch was ir woellen vnd wie ir woellent: Ich bin liebgehebt von aller der menige der engel, der so vnzalich vil ist. Ich bin neüwlich gefraget, wie das müg sein, das der engeln mer sey denn aller leiplichen dinge zal, der so recht vil ist als an korn vnd an graß vnd an sovil dings? So (󰀂󰀇󰀇) | sprich ich: Die ding muessent groß sein, da sich gott inn get vnd die gott in im eiget vnd die gott nahe seind. Die meister sprechent (die wol sprechen woellen), Das ein yeglicher engel hab ein sondere natur vnd empfahe sonderlich alle die natur in sich. Zuo gleicher weiß: were ich ein mensch vnd hett aller menschen natur in mir, stercke, weißheit, schoene vnd alles das, daß alle menschen hant, so wer ich gar ein schoen mensch; vnd so werent nit me menschen dann ich, so empfieng ich, das alle menschen empfahent. Ein yeglicher engel hat sein sonder natur; ye neher er got ist, ye edler er ist vnd hat in sich gefasset gottes also vil, als er sein empfahen mag. Vnd dise menig hat mich lieb, vnd alle die hant mich lieb, die got liebhaben, vnd niemant (󰀂󰀇󰀈) | hasset mich, denn die gottes feind seind. Wer er ioch sey, an dem selben wirt er gottes feind, vnd ist im gott wider an dem selben, ist denn, das gott sein feind ist, vertregt dann got seim feind, warumb woelt ich im dann nit auch vertragen? Vnd richet mich got, weß nimm ich mich dann an zuo rechende? Nun moegent ir sprechen: Boeß leüt hant es ser guot, sy habent iren willen mer dann ander leüt. Salomon spricht: Der boeß man sol nit sprechen: Waß schadet mir, das ich übel thet, vnd es thett mir

󰀅. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀅󰀀 a. 󰀃 corp.: ‘angeli secundum quod sunt immateriales substantiae, in quadam multitudine maxima sunt, omnem materialem multitudinem excedentes … Et huius ratio est quia, cum perfectio universi sit illud quod praecipue deus intendit in creatione rerum, quanto aliqua sunt magis perfecta, tanto in maiori excessu sunt creata a deo. Sicut autem in corporibus attenditur excessus secundum magnitudinem, ita in rebus incorporeis potest attendi excessus secundum multitudinem’.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀂* [Q 󰀇󰀄]

󰀃󰀉󰀁

‘He was dear’ (says the Scriptures) ‘to God and to men’. Now I want to tell you a very good story; for those who understand it, it is a great comfort. The person who loves God is loved by all the saints and by all the angels so immensely that all the love that one can think of is dissimilar from this love and is nothing compared to this love. All that are in the kingdom of heaven love me so much (if I love God) that all that you can think of love is dissimilar, however much and for how you want it: I am loved by the whole multitude of angels, which is so innumerably large. I was recently asked how it is possible that angels are more in number than all bodily things, of which there are as many as wheat and grass and so many things.󰀅 Then I say: The things must be many to which God makes Himself their own and which God makes His own in Him and which are close to God. The masters say (those who want to speak well)󰀆 that each angel has a specific nature and specifically receives the whole nature in itself. In the same way: if I were a man and had in me the nature of all men, strength, whiteness, beauty and all that all men have, I would be an absolutely beautiful man; and if there were no other men besides me, so I would receive what all men receive. Each angel has its specific nature; the closer it is to God, the more noble it is and has grasped in itself so much of God as it can receive of Him. And this multitude loves me, and all those who love God love me, and no one hates me except those who are enemies of God. Whoever he is, in that same he becomes the enemy of God, and God is against him for this very thing. If then God is his enemy, and God forgives His enemy, why should I not forgive him? And if God avenges me, why do I try to avenge myself? Now you could say: bad people have it very good, they get their will more than others. Solomon says: The bad person must not say: what harm would it do me if I did wrong, but it would not hurt me?󰀇

󰀆. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀁󰀁 a. 󰀃: ‘Si ergo Socrates per id esset homo per quod est hic homo, sicut non possunt esse plures Socrates, ita non possent esse plures homines’; and Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀅󰀀 a. 󰀄 ad 󰀄: ‘Unde perfectio naturae angelicae requirit multiplicationem specierum, non autem multiplicationem individuorum in una specie’. 󰀇. Iob 󰀃󰀅:󰀆: ‘Si peccaveris, quid ei nocebis? et si multiplicatae fuerint iniquitates tuae, quid facies contra eum?’

󰀃󰀉󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

doch nit we? Oder: wer thet mir darumb übel? Daßselb, das du übels thuest, dz ist dein schad allzuomal vnd ist dir wee gnuog. Seind deß gewiß bey der ewigen warheit, das es ein also grosser gottes zorn ist; er moecht dem sünder nit wirß gethuon weder mit helle noch iener mit, denn er im damit thuot, das er im deß gestattet oder über jn verhenget, dz er sündig ist, vnd das er sich nit über jn erbarmmet, das er nit über jn verhangte so grossen iamer, das er nit sünden moechte. Vnd geb im got wee aller der welt, dannoch moecht jn gott nit mer schlahen, dann er damit geschlagen ist, das er sündiget. (󰀂󰀇󰀉) | ‘Er ist gott geuellig vnd lieb gewesen vnd den leüten, deß gedechtniß ist in dem lob vnd segen.’ Diß wort ward von ersten gesprochen von Moyse, vnnd der selbig wirt als vil gesprochen als einer, der vom wasser ist genommen. Bey dem wasser nimpt man vergengkliche ding. Der mensch ist allein got geuellig, der von allen zergengklichen dingen abgescheiden vnd abgenommen ist. Der mensch, der aller abgescheidne ist vnd aller vergessen ist aller zergengklicher ding, der ist gott aller geuelligest vnnd an dem selben got aller nehest. Nun moechtest du sprechen: ‘Wie moecht ich als vil gethuon, dz ich all die welt verschmachte durch gott?’ Ich spriche: der hett verr mer gethan, der sich aller dingen verwinden oder verzeihen moecht. Künig Dauid spricht: ‘Dochter vergiß deins volcks vnd das hauß deins vatters, so wirt der künig begeren deiner schoene’. Als ob er sprech: der künig wirt recht vertoeret vnd vnsinnig werden nach dir von liebe. Was gottes (󰀂󰀈󰀀) | lieb in vns würcke vnd was wirdigkeit wir darab empfahen, das vns got liebhat, das sprch ich in einem andern sermon vnd predig. Diß wort (‘vergiß deins volcks vnd ds hauß deines vatters’) merckent ebent. Warumb ist mir meyn vatter lieber denn ein ander man? Darumb, das er mein vatter ist vnd meyn Omne, wann er mein Omne ist, das ist alles das mein, ia das mein. Des meinen sol ich vergessen in allen dingen, meynet diß wort. Der prophet spricht: ‘deins vatters

󰀈. Eccli. 󰀄󰀅:󰀁–󰀂 (with a different rendering). 󰀉. See Exod. 󰀂:󰀁󰀀: ‘… vocavitque nomen eius Moyses, dicens: Quia de aqua tuli eum’; Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiae VII c. 󰀆 n. 󰀄󰀆 (Lindsay I 󰀂󰀈󰀂,󰀂󰀁): ‘Denique Moyses interpretatur sumptus ex aqua’; Hieronymus, Liber interpret. Hebr. nom. (de Lagarde 󰀁󰀄,󰀁): ‘Moyses vel Moses adtrectans vel palpans aut sumptus ex aqua sive adsumptio’. 󰀁󰀀. Ps. 󰀄󰀄:󰀁󰀁–󰀂: ‘audi filia et vide et inclina aurem tuam et obliviscere populum tuum et domum patris tui. (󰀁󰀂) et concupiscet rex decorem tuum’.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀂* [Q 󰀇󰀄]

󰀃󰀉󰀃

Or: who for this would hurt me? Just the fact that you do wrong is altogether your harm and it hurts you enough. Be assured by the eternal truth that this is an equally great anger of God; He could not do anything worse to the sinner, either with hell or with something else, than He does by allowing or letting it befall on him to be a sinner and by not having mercy on him by not having the mercy on him of inflicting such a calamity on him, that he would not want to sin. And if God gave him the sorrow of the whole world, God could not strike him more than he is struck with the fact that he sins. ‘He is liked and loved by God and by the people whose memory is in praise and blessing’.󰀈 This phrase was said for the first time of Moses, and he is said to be the one who is drawn from the water.󰀉 With water we mean transient things. That person alone is liked by God who is detached and withdrawn from all transient things. The person who is most entirely detached and completely oblivious of all corruptible things, is most liked by God and therefore closest to God. Now you could say: how could I do as much as to despise the whole world for God’s sake? I say: He would have done much more who could overcome or deny all things. King David says: ‘Daughter, forget your people and your father’s house, so the king will desire your beauty’.󰀁󰀀 As if to say: the king really goes crazy and becomes mad for love of you. What the love of God works in us and what nobility we receive from the fact that God loves us, I said it in another sermon and homily.󰀁󰀁 Note this sentence precisely (‘forget your people and your father’s house’). Why is my father dearer to me than another man? Because he is my father and my Omne,󰀁󰀂 because he is my Omne, it means all that is mine, yes that is mine. I must forget what is mine in all things, says this sentence. The prophet says: ‘the house of your father’; as I said recently:󰀁󰀃 if a person could achieve, to go beyond

󰀁󰀁. The reference most likely refers to Hom. 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃], n. 󰀁󰀀: ‘got enminnet niht in uns wan die güete, die er in uns würket. Ein heilige sprichet: ez enwirt niht gekrœnet von gote wan sîn eigen werk, daz er in uns würket’. 󰀁󰀂. I.e. everything. 󰀁󰀃. Likely a reference to the previous homily, Hom. 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁], n. 󰀁󰀀: ‘Saint Augustine says a better phrase; he says: I have poured my soul beyond me. It must be necessary that she must come beyond herself, if she is to become one in the Son’; see also Hom. 󰀉󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀅], n. 󰀁󰀀.

󰀃󰀉󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

haußes’; als ich neülich sprach: koende der mensch darzuo kommen, über sich vnd auß sich, so hett er wol gefochten. Vergiß deß deinen, so gewünnestu die tugent. Die tugent hat vierley grad. Der erst brichet hindurch vnd machet weg dem menschen von allen vergengklichen dingen. Der ander benimpt sy dem menschen allzemal. Der dritt benimpt sy nit allein, mer: sy thuot ir allzuomal vergessen, als sy nie wurden, vnd dz hoeret darzuo. Der vierd grad ist allzuomal in gott vnd ist got selb. Als wir hierzuo kommen, ‘so wirt der kunig begeren vnser gezierd’. (󰀂󰀈󰀁) | Er spricht weyter: ‘Wann er ist der herr, dein got, vnd sy werdent jn eren vnd anbetten’. Denn ist vnser herr dein gott; als warlich vnd als gewaltiglich ist er dein, als er sein selbs ist, (gedenck ioch, wie du wilt), so ist er dein. Wie wirt er also din? – das du allzuomal sein seyest. Sol gott mein sein als sein, so sol ich sein sein als mein. Ein geschrifft spricht: Wenn ist gott dein? – Wenn dich nichtes gelüstet , denn so schmackt er dir. Aber begerest du ichtes, das yena auß im locket, so ist er dein nit. (󰀂󰀈󰀂) | An einer ändern stat sagt er: Hastu einen menschen lieber denn den andern, es sey denn, das du in i tugenden liebhabest, da bistu dein selbs, vnd da ist got dein got nit. Weyter spricht der prophet: ‘Denn werdent sy jn anbetten vnd werden im gaben bringen vnd geben alle die geschlechte vnd die künig der erden’. Vnd also ist diß wort berichtet: ‘er ist got lieb vnd geuellig gewesen vnd den menschen vnd ist im gegeben benedeiung aller (󰀂󰀈󰀃) | leüten’. Da man ‘all’ sagt, da ist nichts außge. Alles, das die hant, die in hymelreich vnd vff erttrich seind, dz ist mein als eigen als inen vnd bin als selig dar ab, das vnser liebe Frow hat, als von dem, das ich selber hab; vnd auch ir wirdigkeit, ir tugent, da bin ich als selig, als ob ich sy selber gewürckt hett.

󰀁󰀄. Ps. 󰀄󰀄:󰀁󰀂: ‘quoniam ipse est dominus tuus et adorabunt eum’. 󰀁󰀅. J. Quint ad loc. adds , but the discussion in the foregoing paragraph shows that this addition is not needed. See Avicenna, Metaphysica IX c. 󰀇 (S. Van Riet 󰀅󰀁󰀂,󰀇-󰀉): ‘non inquiri-

H OMILY 󰀉󰀂* [Q 󰀇󰀄]

󰀃󰀉󰀅

himself and out of himself, he would have fought well. Forget what is yours, that way you win virtue. This virtue has four degrees. The first breaks through and prepares the way for a person, away from all transient things. The second completely removes them from the person. The third one not only removes them, even more: it leaves them completely forgotten, as if they had never been, this belongs to it. The fourth degree is fully in God and is God Himself. When we achieve this, ‘then the king will desire our beauty’. He says further: ‘Because He is your Lord, and they will honour and worship Him’.󰀁󰀄 In that case, our Lord is your God. So truly and powerfully is He yours, as much as He is His own (think what you like), so He is yours. How is He becoming yours – by you being entirely His. Shall God become mine as He is His, I have to become His as I am mine. A book says: When is God yours󰀁󰀅? When nothing gives you pleasure , for He tastes so good for you. But if you desire something that somehow lures you out of Him, then He is not yours.󰀁󰀆 In another place he says: If you love one person more than another, unless you love the virtues in him, then you are yours and there God is not your God. Moreover, the prophet says: ‘Then they will worship Him and bring Him gifts and offer all houses and kings of the earth’.󰀁󰀇 And so this word is explained: ‘He was liked and loved by God and by the people and he has received the blessings of all people’. Where it says ‘all’, nothing is exempted. All that those possess who are in the kingdom of heaven and on earth is mine as much as theirs, and I am as blest for what our beloved Lady has as for what I have; and also for her nobility, her virtue I am so blest as if I myself had achieved them.

mus eam nec allicimur ad eam nisi prius deposuerimus a cervicibus nostris iugum voluptatis et irae et sorores earum’. 󰀁󰀆. Again, J. Quint ad loc. adds an unneeded .

󰀃󰀉󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Nun moecht man sprechen: ‘Eya, seind alle ding also mein vnnd gebrauch ich ir als sy, was soelt ich dann als seer arbeiten vnd sovil abgescheiden sein? Ich wil recht einen guoten willen haben vnd sein ein guot mensch vnd meines gemaches pflegen vnd wil haben als guoten teil im hymel als die darumb arbeitent’. Nun sprich ich: als vil du abgescheiden bist, (󰀂󰀈󰀄) | als vil hast du mer. Meinest aber du das, daß dir werden sol, vnd hast ein sehen daruff, so wirt dir nichts. Gang ich aber gleich auß, so wirdt mir gleich. Vnd ein ander wort: ob ich gleich liebhab mein ebenmenschen als mich selber. Als wer gott von hertzen liebhat, der liebhat seinen ebenmenschen als sich selber. Darumb stat geschriben Tanquam, das ist: recht oder eben gleich (󰀂󰀈󰀅) |. Warumb ist mir lieber, das meinem bruoder icht guotes geschehe oder mir selber denn einem andern? Darumb, das ich deß meinen mer liebhan denn eines andern. Hab ich in aber gleych lieb als mich, als das gebott gottes heisset, das ich sol liebhaben, von allem hertzen, von aller meiner sel als mich selber: an got sol sy anfahen vnd gleich sein an (󰀂󰀈󰀆) | dem nehsten. Gee ich auß allzuomal meines vnnd hab gleich lieb, so hab ich gleich lieb alzuomal vnd tritt in das ir. Das mag nit sein an leiplichen dingen; da hant sy vnderscheyd von geistlichen, ia, an nicht seind sy gleich. Nement ein gleichniß. Das wasser, das in einem vaß ist, das ist im holtz nit, das holtz ist aber vmb dz wasser; das holtz ist auch in dem wasser nit; ir keins ist in dem andern, Vnd dz wasser, das in dem vaß ist, dz ist abgescheiden von allen wassern. Aber an geistlichen dingen da ist kein außscheiden eines von dem andern. Alles, das der oberst engel in im hat, das hat auch der, der vnder im ist, alzuomal in sich geschlossen, das der oberst hat nit eins puncten groß, es ensey in dem nidersten, weder wesen noch seligkeit. Also ist es in geistlichen dingen, wann was in eim ist, das ist auch in dem andern gemein; vnd nach dem, der allermeist laßt, der auch allermeist. Meintent aber die leüt sich ald deß iren icht, so hetten sy nit gelassen, als ich sprich von sant (󰀂󰀈󰀇) |

󰀁󰀇. Ps. 󰀇󰀁:󰀁󰀀: ‘reges Tharsis et insulae munera offerent reges Arabum et Saba dona adducent’. 󰀁󰀈. Mark 󰀁󰀂:󰀃󰀀–󰀁: ‘et diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo et ex tota anima tua et ex tota mente tua et ex tota virtute tua hoc est primum mandatum. (󰀃󰀁) secundum autem simile illi diliges proximum tuum tamquam te ipsum maius horum aliud mandatum non est’.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀂* [Q 󰀇󰀄]

󰀃󰀉󰀇

Now one could say: ‘Eh, if all things are so very much mine and I use them as you do, why should I work so hard and be so detached? I want to have a good will, of course, be a good person and take care of my well-being and I want to have as good a part in heaven like those who struggle for it’. Now I say: as much as you are detached, you have, and no more. But if you think it will have to become yours, and you have your eyes on it, it will not become yours. The way, however, I go out, I receive. And yet another phrase: that I love my neighbour as myself.󰀁󰀈 The one who loves God from his heart loves his neighbour as himself. So it is written tamquam, that is: just as or alike.󰀁󰀉 Why is it dearer to me that something good is happening to my brother or myself than to somebody else? For this reason, that I prefer what is mine over what belongs to somebody else. If, however, I have him as dear as I myself, as the commandment of God says, that I must love , , with all my soul and as myself: it󰀂󰀀 must begin with God and be the same with the neighbour. If I go completely out of what is mine and love alike, I love entirely in the same way and step into what is theirs. This can not happen with bodily things; they are different from the spiritual things, yes, they are not alike in anything. Take a comparison: the water that is in a barrel is not in the wood, but the wood is around the water; neither is the wood in water; nothing is in the other, and the water that is in the barrel is separated from all the waters. But in spiritual things there is no separation from one another. Everything that the supreme angel has in it, this also has that which is beneath it, completely contained in itself, so that the supreme possesses nothing even of the size of a dot, unless it is in the lowest, neither being nor bliss. So it is in spiritual things, because what is in one is also common in the others; and accordingly, the one who gives up most, also takes most. But if people had intended something of their own, they had left nothing, as I said of Saint Peter, who said, ‘Ecce

󰀁󰀉. Here J. Quint ad loc. adds which is not needed, as the ‘tamquam’ only needs the translation of ‘really’ or ‘like’. 󰀂󰀀. I.e. love.

󰀃󰀉󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Peter, das er sprach: ‘Ecce nos reliquimus omnia’: ‘Sich, herr, wir hant alle ding gelassen; was wirt vns darumb?’; der da gesehen hat, was im darumb würd, wie mag der alle ding gelassen han? Nement noch ein wort vnd denn nit me. Ie das ding gemeiner ist, ye es edler vnd wirdiger ist. Ich han gemein das leben mit den dingen, die da lebent, das mit dem wesen ist. Der ist mer, die da wesen habent denn leben. Ich hab gemein die sinn mit den thieren. Ich ließ mir ee mein sinn nemen denn meyn leben. Das wesen ist mir allerliebst, es ist mir aller gemeinst vnd i mir aller inwendigest. Ich ließ er alle, die vnder got seind. Dz wesen fleüsset on mittel auß gott, vnnd das leben fleusset von dem wesen, vnnd darumb schmacket es mir aller bast vnd ist allen creaturen aller meist geliebt. Ie vnser leben gemeyner ist, ye besser vnd edler es ist. (󰀂󰀈󰀈) | Das wir hierzuo kommen, das wir ‘got geuellig’ werden vnd in warer armuot übergeben alle die welt vnd vergessen ‘deß haußes vnßers vatters’ vnd ‘gleich liebhaben vnsern nehsten als vns selber’, das vns gegeben werde gleych ‘in klarheit der heiligen’, Deß helff vns gott. Amen.

󰀂󰀁. See Augustinus, En. in Ps. CIII, sermo 󰀃 n. 󰀁󰀆 (PL 󰀃󰀇, 󰀁󰀃󰀇󰀁): ‘Bene, optime; non illi insultemus, non dicamus: Nihil dimisisti. Non superbiat qui multa dimisit. Petrus ut sequeretur dominum, novimus quod piscator erat, quid potuit dimittere? Vel frater eius Andreas, vel filii Zebedaei Joannes et Jacobus, etiam ipsi piscatores; et tamen quid dixerunt? Ecce nos dimisimus omnia,

H OMILY 󰀉󰀂* [Q 󰀇󰀄]

󰀃󰀉󰀉

nos reliquimus omnia’: ‘Look, Lord, we have left all things; what comes to us from this?’; whoever looked at what would come to him, how could he have left all things?󰀂󰀁 Take one more phrase and then no more. The more common something is, the more it is noble and worthy. I have life that󰀂󰀂 is with being in common with the things that live. Those are more who have being rather than life. I have the senses in common with animals. I would rather let one of my senses be taken away than my life. Being is for me the most important, it is for me the most common and the most intimate for me. I would rather let go all that is below God. Being flows from God without a medium, and therefore it tastes best to me and is preferred most by all creatures. The more our life is common, the better and nobler it is. That we achieve that we are ‘liked by God’, in true poverty hand over the whole world and forget ‘about our father’s house’ and ‘love our neighbour as ourselves’, so that it is given to us alike ‘in the glory of the saints’, may God help us! Amen.

et secuti sumus te. Non ei dixit dominus: Oblitus es paupertatem tuam; quid dimisisti ut totum mundum acciperes?’ 󰀂󰀂. J. Quint writes instead of BTa ‘das’, and yet the latter is easier and more logical.

Homily 󰀉󰀃* [Q 󰀃󰀂] In festo sanctae Elisabethae, die 󰀂󰀉 novembris ‘Consideravit semitas domus suae et panem otiosa non comedit’ (Prov. 󰀃󰀁:󰀂󰀇) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Prov. 󰀃󰀁:󰀂󰀇 (‘Consideravit semitas domus suae et panem otiosa non comedit’) is not found in the Dominican lectionary for the feast of St. Elizabeth, celebrated on 󰀂󰀉 november, but she is explicitly mentioned below in n. 󰀇 (‘von sant elsbethen’, Str󰀃). The text is handed down by eight manuscripts (the manuscripts of the Paradisus anime intelligentis O, H󰀂, then also Mai󰀁, Str󰀁, Str󰀃, Wo󰀁, K󰀁a, St󰀆) and a number of fragments; the homily was also known to and excerpted by Nicolaus of Landau and is present in the Greith’s fragment. In n. 󰀆 we find a reference that seems to go to Hom. 󰀈󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀃], n. 󰀄.

The content of the homily This homily is clearly one about St. Elizabeth, as Eckhart makes reference to her works and deeds, but it is more, as it is a homily about the soul of every human being. As often, he gives the core Latin verse (n. 󰀁) and his vernacular translation (n. 󰀂) first. A) ‘House’ and ‘paths’ (n. 󰀃). The ‘house’ signifies the soul, and the ‘paths’ ‘the powers of the soul’. In a first step he talks about the soul (nn. 󰀃–󰀄). The soul is meant, with exercise and strengthening, to ‘endure the divine light’. ‘With the superior powers the soul touches God’ (n. 󰀄). In a second step, he speaks about the powers of the soul using the example of the hedgehog (nn. 󰀅–󰀆).

H OMILY 󰀉󰀃* [Q 󰀃󰀂]

󰀄󰀀󰀁

B) ‘She had’ wisely ‘tried the paths of her house’ and ‘she did not eat her bread idly’ (nn. 󰀇–󰀉). Eckhart introduces Elizabeth and connects her with the previous arguments: ‘She also had her superior powers turned towards God’. Then he gives the names of ‘the superior powers’: knowledge, irascibilis, will. He starts with knowledge (n. 󰀇), goes on to explain the irascibilis (n. 󰀈), and the will (n. 󰀉). The final prayer refers back to the core verse ‘that we thus illuminate the paths of our house and that we do not eat our bread idly’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀅󰀂,󰀁󰀇󰀀–󰀃; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀄󰀉󰀄–󰀅󰀀󰀁; J. Quint, DW II 󰀁󰀂󰀆–󰀄󰀇; N. Largier I 󰀃󰀅󰀆–󰀆󰀅.󰀉󰀇󰀅–󰀉. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀁󰀃󰀄–󰀆; Meister Eckhart: A modern Translation, by R.B. Blakney (󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀁), 󰀁󰀆󰀁–󰀄; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀂󰀇󰀅–󰀈.

󰀄󰀀󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀁󰀃󰀂) ‘Consideravit semitas domus suae et panem otiosa non comedit’. ‘Ein guot vrouwe hât umbeliuhtet die stîge irs hûses und enhât ir brôt niht müezic gezzen’. Diz hûs meinet genzlîche die sêle, und die stîge des hûses bezeichent die (󰀁󰀃󰀃) | krefte der sêle. Ein alter meister sprichet, daz diu sêle ist gemachet enmitten zwischen einem und zwein. Daz ein ist diu êwicheit, diu sich alle zît aleine (󰀁󰀃󰀄) | heltet und einvar ist. Diu zwei daz ist diu zît, diu sich wandelt und manicvaltiget. Er wil sprechen, daz diu sêle mit den obersten kreften rüeret die êwicheit, daz ist got, und mit den nidersten kreften rüeret si die zît, und dâ von wirt si wandelhaftic und geneiget ûf lîphaftiu dinc, und dâ von wirt si entedelt. Möhte diu sêle got genzlîche bekennen als die engel, si enwære nie in den lîchamen komen. Möhte si got bekennen âne die werlt, diu werlt enwære nie durch sie geschaffen. Dar umbe ist diu werlt durch sie geschaffen, daz der sêle ouge geüebet und gesterket werde, daz si daz götlîche (󰀁󰀃󰀅) | lieht lîden mac. Als der sunnen schîn, der sich niht enwirfet ûf daz ertrîche, er enwerde bewunden in dem lufte und gebreitet ûf anderiu dinc, sô enmöhte ez des menschen ouge niht gelîden: alsô ist daz götlîche lieht alsô überkreftic und klâr, daz ez der sêle ouge niht gelîden enmöhte, ez enwerde gestætiget und ûfgetragen bî materie und bî glîchnisse und enwerde alsô geleitet und gewenet in daz götlîche lieht. Mit den obersten kreften rüeret diu sêle got; dâ von wirt si gebildet nâch gote. Got ist gebildet nâch im selben und hât sîn bilde von im selben und von niemanne (󰀁󰀃󰀆) | mê. Sîn bilde ist, daz er sich durchkennet und al ein lieht ist. Swenne in diu sêle rüeret mit rehter bekantnisse, sô ist si im glîch an dem bilde. Drücket man ein ingesigel an ein grüene wahs oder an ein rôt oder in ein tuoch, daz ist allez ein bilde. Wirt daz ingesigel gedrücket genzlîche durch daz wahs, daz des wahses niht überblîbet, ez ensî zemâle gedrücket in daz ingesigel, sô ist 󰀁. Prov. 󰀃󰀁:󰀂󰀇 (‘Consideravit semitas domus suae et panem otiosa non comedit’). The context is not found in the Dominican liturgy. 󰀂. See Liber de causis, prop. 󰀂 (Pattin, 󰀁󰀃󰀈): ‘anima … est in horizonte aeternitatis inferius et supra tempus’. (Pseudo-)Augustinus (Alcher of Clairvaux), De spiritu et anima c. 󰀄󰀇 (PL 󰀄󰀀, 󰀉󰀁󰀄): ‘Humanus animus quasi in medio collocatus quadam conditionis suae excellentia, et huic mutabi-

H OMILY 󰀉󰀃* [Q 󰀃󰀂]

󰀄󰀀󰀃

‘Consideravit semitas domus suae et panem otiosa non comedit’. ‘A good woman has illuminated the paths of her house and has not idly eaten her bread’.󰀁 This ‘house’ means the entire soul, and the paths of the house signify the powers of the soul. An ancient master says󰀂 that the soul is made between one and two. One is eternity, which is always kept alone and is pure.󰀃 The two is time, which changes and multiplies. He means that the soul with the superior powers touches eternity, that is God, and with the inferior powers she touches time, and from this she becomes changeable and inclined to bodily things, and so she is demeaned. If the soul could know God completely like the angels, she would never have come into the body. If the soul could know God without the world, the world would not have been created for her. The world has been created for her for this reason, so that the eye of the soul may be exercised and strengthened so that she can endure the divine light. As the eye of a person could not bear the splendor of the sun which does not fall on the earth unless it is wrapped in the air and spread over other things: thus the divine light is so overpowering and resplendent that the eye of the soul could not bear it, if it were not strengthened and elevated with matter and with likenesses, and thus led and accustomed to the divine light. With the superior powers the soul touches God; from this she is formed as an image of God. God is formed as an image according to Himself and has His image from Himself and from no one else. His image is that He knows Himself through and through and is nothing but light. When the soul touches Him with true knowledge, then she is like Him in the image. If one presses a seal in a green or red wax or a cloth, this is always one image. If the seal is pressed entirely through the wax, so that no wax remains, unless it is entirely imprinted in the

litati quae deorsum est supereminet, et ad illam quae est apud Deum veram immutabilitatem necdum pertingit’; in Hom. 󰀇󰀈* [Q 󰀂󰀃], n. 󰀈 Eckhart shows that he knows this book under the name of Augustine. 󰀃. J. Quint translates: ‘einförmig’.

󰀄󰀀󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

ez ein mit dem ingesigel âne underscheit. Alsô wirt diu sêle genzlîche mit gote vereinet an dem bilde und an (󰀁󰀃󰀇) | der glîchnisse, als si in rüeret an rehter bekantnisse. Sant Augustînus sprichet, daz diu sêle alsô edel ist und alsô hôhe ist geschaffen über alle crêatûre, daz kein vergenclich dinc, daz an dem jüngesten tage vergân sol, in die sêle gesprechen enmac noch würken âne underscheit und âne boten. Daz sint diu ougen und diu ôren und (󰀁󰀃󰀈) | die vünf sinne: daz sint die stîge, dâ diu sêle ûzgât in die werlt, und in den stîgen gât diu werlt wider ze der sêle. Ein meister sprichet, daz »die krefte der sêle mit grôzer vruht wider süln loufen ze der sêle«; als sie ûzgânt, sô bringent sie ie etwaz wider în. Dar umbe sol der mensche vlîziclîchen behüeten sîniu ougen, daz sie iht înbringen, daz der sêle schedelich sî. Ich bin des gewis: swaz der guote mensche sihet, des wirt er gebezzert. Sihet er bœsiu dinc, er danket gote, daz er in dâ vor bewart hât und bitet vür jenen, daz in got bekêre, an dem ez ist. Sihet er guotiu dinc, des gert er, daz ez an im volbrâht werde. (󰀁󰀃󰀉) | Diz sehen sol zwivalt sîn: daz man abetuo, daz schedelich sî, und daz wir zuobüezen, des uns gebrichet. Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen: die vil vastent und vil wachent und grôziu werk tuont und niht enbezzernt ir gebrechen und ir site, dâ daz wâre zuonemen ane liget, die triegent sich selben und sint des tiuvels spot. Ein man der hâte einen igel, dâ wart er rîche von. Er wonte bî dem sêwe. Swenne der igel pruofte, wâ sich der wint hine kêrte, dâ bôzte er sîne hût und kêrte sînen rücken dâ hine. Sô gienc der man ze dem sêwe und sprach ze in: ‘waz 󰀄. See Augustinus, De Trinitate XIV c. 󰀇 n. 󰀉 (Mountain/Glorie 󰀄󰀃󰀃,󰀁󰀉–󰀄󰀃󰀄,󰀂󰀆); XIV c. 󰀁󰀄 n. 󰀁󰀈 (󰀄󰀄󰀅,󰀅–󰀇) (‘abditum mentis’); id., En. in Ps. 󰀁󰀄󰀆 n. 󰀁󰀃 (PL 󰀃󰀇, 󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀇–󰀈): ‘Totum autem hoc quod per terram carnis tangitur, terra est Deo. Habemus enim unde videamus, unde audiamus, unde odoremus, unde gustemus, unde tangamus. Caro ista per quinque nuntios quosdam, quos appellamus sensus, percipit nonnisi corporalia; intelligibilia vero et spiritualia mente capiuntur … Quidquid per oculos capis, ad terram pertinet; quidquid per aures, quidquid per olfactum, quidquid per gustum, quidquid per tactum, ad terram pertinet; quia per terram percipitur. Illi ergo non valebant intelligere intelligentiam’; see also id., In Ioh. tr. 󰀂󰀃 n. 󰀅 (PL 󰀃󰀅, 󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀄–󰀅): ‘… insinuavit (scil. Dominus Iesus) nobis animam humanam et mentem rationalem, quae inest homini, non inest pecori, non vegetari, non beatificari, non illuminari, nisi ab ipsa substantia Dei: eamque animam facere aliquid per corpus et de corpore, atque habere subjectum corpus, et per corporalia mulceri posse sensus corporis vel offendi, et propter hoc, id est propter consortium quoddam animae et corporis in hac vita atque complexu, delectari animam lenitis, vel contristari offensis corporis sensibus; beatitudinem tamen eius qua fit beata ipsa anima, non fieri nisi participatione illius vitae semper vivae, incommutabilis, aeternaeque substantiae, quae Deus est’.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀃* [Q 󰀃󰀂]

󰀄󰀀󰀅

seal, then it is one with the seal without distinction. Thus the soul will be completely united with God in the image and in the likeness, when she touches Him in true knowledge. St. Augustine says󰀄 that the soul is so noble and is created so high above all creatures, that nothing transient, which shall vanish on the day of judgement, can speak nor act into the soul without distinction and without messengers. These are the eyes and the ears and the five senses: these are the paths through which the soul goes out into the world, and via these paths the world returns to the soul. A master says that ‘the powers of the soul must run back to the soul with great fruits’;󰀅 when they go out, they each bring something back. Therefore man must diligently protect his eyes, so that they do not carry in something that is harmful to the soul. I am sure of this: from what a good person sees, he is made better. If he sees evil things, he thanks God who has protected him from this and prays for the one who is befallen by it, that God may clean him from it. If he sees good things, he wants them to be accomplished in him. This seeing must be twofold: that what is harmful is removed, and that we improve in what we lack. I have already said it:󰀆 those who often fast and often stay awake, who do great works and do not improve their shortcomings and their habits, where true growth depends, they deceive themselves and are a laughing stock of the devil. A person had a hedgehog, and with it he became rich. He lived near the sea. When the hedgehog noticed where the wind was blowing, he ruffled his skin and turned his back in that direction. So the man went to the sea and

󰀅. See Avicenna, De anima I c. 󰀅 (S. Van Riet, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈, 󰀈󰀆,󰀉󰀄–󰀆): ‘forma est illa quam apprehendit sensus interior et sensus exterior simul, sed sensus exterior primo apprehendit eam et postea reddit eam sensui interiori’; ibid. V c. 󰀃 (S. Van Riet 󰀁󰀀󰀂,󰀉󰀈–󰀉): ‘sensus reddit ei (scil. animae rationali) singularia; ex quibus singularibus acquiruntur ei quatuor …’; see Eckhart, In Gen. I n. 󰀂󰀃󰀇 (LW I 󰀃󰀈󰀂,󰀂): ‘Unde et Avicenna dicit quod sensus a sensibilibus redeunt ad animam cum suis lucris’. 󰀆. The reference could refer to Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀄* [Q 󰀃󰀃], n. 󰀄 (so J. Quint ad loc.): ‘Ez ist ein grôz tôrheit, daz manic mensche vil vastet und betet und grôziu werk tuot und alle zît aleine ist, daz er niht enbezzert sîne site und ist ungeruowic und zornic’, but there is also a parallel passage in the Talks of Instructions (DW V 󰀂󰀄󰀄,󰀅–󰀂󰀄󰀅,󰀃: ‘Vil liute dünket; daz sie grôziu werk süln tuon von ûzern dingen, als vasten, barvuoz gân und ander dinc des glîche, daz pênitencie heizet. Wâriu und diu aller beste pênitencie ist, dâ mite man grœzlîche und ûf daz hœhste bezzert’), but the closest parallel is Hom. 󰀈󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀃], n. 󰀄: ‘niht ensprichet er: die dâ vil vastent und grôziu werk tuont’.

󰀄󰀀󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

wöltet ir mir geben, daz ich iuch wîse, wâ sich der wint hine kêre?’ und verkoufte den wint und wart dâ von (󰀁󰀄󰀀) | rîche. Alsô würde der mensche wærlîche rîche an tugenden, daz er prüefte, dâ er allerkrenkest ane wære, daz er dâ zuobüezte und daz er sînen vlîz dâ zuo kêrte, daz er daz überwünde. (󰀁󰀄󰀁) | Daz hât vlîziclîche getân sant Elizabêt. ‘Si hâte’ wîslîche ‘besehen die stîge irs hûses’. Dar umbe ‘envorhte si den winter niht, wan ir gesinde was zwivalt gekleidet’. Wan swaz ir geschaden mohte, dâ hâte si ir huote vor. Swâ ez ir gebrach, dâ kêrte si irn vlîz dar, daz ez volkomen wart. Dar umbe ‘enhât si ir brôt niht müezic gezzen’. Si hâte ouch ir obersten krefte ze unserm gote gekêret. Der hœhsten krefte der sêle der sint drî: diu êrste ist bekantnisse, diu ander irascibilis, daz ist ein ûfkriegendiu kraft; daz dritte ist der wille. Swenne sich diu sêle ziuhet an die bekantnisse der rehten (󰀁󰀄󰀂) | wârheit, an die einvaltige kraft, dâ man got ane bekennet, dâ heizet diu sêle ein lieht. Und got ist ouch ein lieht; und swenne sich daz götlîche lieht giuzet in die sêle, sô wirt diu sêle mit got vereinet als ein lieht mit liehte; sô heizet ez ein lieht des glouben, und daz ist ein götlîchiu tugent. Und dar diu sêle mit irn sinnen noch kreften niht komen enmac, dâ treget sie der gloube hine. (󰀁󰀄󰀃) Daz ander ist diu ûfkriegende kraft, der werk ist daz eigenlîche, daz si ûfkriegende ist. Als dem ougen daz eigen ist, daz ez sehe gestaltnisse und varwe, und dem ôren daz eigen ist, daz ez hœre süeze lûte und stimme, alsô ist der sêle ein eigen werk, daz si an der kraft âne underlâz ûfkriegende ist; und sihet si bî sîten, sô vellet si an hôchmuot, daz ist sünde. Si enmac niht gelîden, daz iht ob ir sî. Ich wæne, si joch niht gelîden enmüge, daz got ob ir sî; er ensî in ir und si enhabe ez als guot als er selber, sô enmac si niemer geruowen. An dirre kaft wirt got begriffen an der sêle als verre, als ez der crêatûre mügelich ist, und

󰀇. I.e. the sailors. 󰀈. See Avicenna, De animalibus VIII c. 󰀄 (󰀃󰀈va 󰀃󰀁–󰀅) = Aristoteles, De hist. animal. IX c. 󰀆 (I c. 󰀆 󰀆󰀁󰀂b 󰀄–󰀁󰀀); see also Albertus, De animalibus VIII tr. 󰀂 c. 󰀂 n. 󰀅󰀀 (Stadler 󰀅󰀉󰀁,󰀇–󰀁󰀁); Eckhart, In Ioh. n. 󰀂󰀇󰀀 (LW III 󰀂󰀂󰀇,󰀆–󰀁󰀃: ‘Ad hoc autem exemplum est quod ponit Avicenna in libro De animalibus, ubi ait: “ericii sentiunt ventum septentrionalem et austrinum, antequam fiant, et intrant petras, ne percutiantur a vento. Et erat quidam homo apud Constantinopolim et habebat ericium et per ipsum praedixit ventos et per ipsum factus est dives”. Verba sunt Avicennae. Vult dicere quod per pecuniam a nautis acceptam, ut ventum praediceret, ditatus est. Sic enim videmus apud nos

H OMILY 󰀉󰀃* [Q 󰀃󰀂]

󰀄󰀀󰀇

told them:󰀇 what do you want to give me if I show you in which direction the wind turns? and he sold the wind and became rich from it.󰀈 In this way the person would become truly rich in virtues who sees where he is very weak so as to improve and who uses his diligence to overcome it. This St. Elizabeth has diligently done. ‘She had’ wisely ‘tried the paths of her house’. Therefore ‘she did not fear the winter, because her servants were twice dressed’.󰀉 Because she was on guard for what could damage her. Where she lacked, she turned her diligence to be perfect. Therefore ‘she did not eat her bread idly’. She also had her superior powers turned towards God. The superior powers of the soul are three: the first is knowledge, the second is irascibilis, that is, an ascending power; the third is the will. When the soul is drawn to the knowledge of the genuine truth, to the simple power where God is known, then the soul is called ‘light’. And God is also a light; and when the divine light is poured into the soul, the soul becomes united with God as a light with light; this is called a light of faith, and this is a divine virtue.󰀁󰀀 And where the soul with her senses and her powers cannot reach, faith leads her.󰀁󰀁 The second is the ascending power, whose action is properly that it is ascending. As to the eye it is proper to see figures and colours, and to the ear it is proper to hear sweet sounds and voices, so it is the soul’s proper action to ascend without interruption by this power; and if she looks to the side, she falls into pride, which is a sin. She cannot bear that something is beyond her. I am convinced that she could not even bear that God is beyond her; as long as He is not in her and she is not as well placed as He Himself, she can never rest. In that power God is known in the soul to the extent that this is possible to a creature,

quod ingeniosiores concipiunt et vident conclusiones in causis universalibus, quas non vident tardiores’. 󰀉. Prov. 󰀃󰀁:󰀂󰀁. 󰀁󰀀. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae II II q. 󰀄 a. 󰀂: ‘Credere autem est immediate actus intellectus: … Et ideo necesse est quod fides, quae est proprium principium huius actus, sit in intellectu sicut in subiecto’. 󰀁󰀁. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I II q. 󰀆󰀂 a. 󰀃 ad 󰀂: ‘… quia fides est de his quae non videntur’.

󰀄󰀀󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

sô heizet ez ein hoffenunge, daz ist (󰀁󰀄󰀄) | ouch ein götlîchiu tugent. An der hât diu sêle sô grôzen zuoverlâz ze gote, daz sie dünket, daz got in allen sînem wesene niht enhabe, ez ensî ir mügelich ze enpfâhenne. Her Salomôn sprichet, daz ‘verstolne wazzer süezer sîn’ dan ander wazzer. Sant Augustînus sprichet: die birn wâren mir süezer, die ich verstal, dan die mir mîn muoter koufte, dar umbe, daz sie mir verboten und beslozzen wâren. Alsô ist der sêle vil süezer diu gnâde, die si erkrieget mit sunderlîcher wîsheit und vlîze, dan die allen liuten gemeine ist. (󰀁󰀄󰀅) | Diu dritte kraft daz ist der inwendige wille, der als ein antlütze alle zît ze gote gekêret ist in götlîchen willen und schepfet von gote die minne in sich. Dâ wirt got gezogen durch die sêle und diu sêle wirt gezogen durch got und heizet ez ein götlîchiu minne, und daz ist ouch ein götlîchiu tugent. Götlîchiu sælicheit liget an drin dingen: daz ist an bekantnisse, daz er sich selben endelîche bekennet, daz ander vrîheit, daz er unbegriffen und unbetwungen blîbet von aller sîner crêatûre, und an volkomener genüegede, daz er sich selben und aller crêatûre genüeget. Dar ane liget ouch der sêle volkomenheit: an bekantnisse und an begrîfenne, daz si got begriffen (󰀁󰀄󰀆) | hât, und an vereinunge volkomener minne. Wellen wir wizzen, waz sünde ist? Daz abekêren von der sælicheit und von der tugent, dâ von kumet alliu sünde. Dise stîge sol ouch besehen ein ieglîchiu sæligiu sêle. Dar umbe ‘envürhtet si den winter niht, wan ir gesinde ouch gekleidet ist mit zwivalten kleidern’, als diu schrift von ir sprichet. Si was gekleidet mit der sterke ze widerstânne aller unvolkomenheit, und (󰀁󰀄󰀇) | was gezieret mit der wârheit. Disiu vrouwe was in rîchtuome und in êren ûzwendic gegen der werlt, und inwendic anebetete si wâr armüete. Und dô ir der ûzwendic trôst abegienc, dô

󰀁󰀂. See Albertus, In Sent. III d. 󰀂󰀆 a. 󰀃 (Borgnet 󰀂󰀈, 󰀄󰀉󰀅A): ‘Dicendum … quod spes … est in irascibili potentia animae’; Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae II II q. 󰀁󰀈 a. 󰀁 obi. 󰀁: ‘Spei enim obiectum est bonum arduum … arduum autem non est obiectum voluntatis, sed irascibilis. Ergo spes non est in voluntate, sed in irascibili’; corp.: ‘Et ideo spes est in appetitu superiori, qui dicitur voluntas, sicut in subiecto: non autem in appetitu inferiori, ad quem pertinet irascibilis’; on the opposite view of Eckhart and Eckhart, see J. Quint ad loc. 󰀁󰀃. Prov. 󰀉:󰀁󰀇. 󰀁󰀄. See Augustinus, Confessiones II c. 󰀄 n. 󰀉 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀂󰀂,󰀃–󰀁󰀃): ‘nam id furatus sum, quod mihi abundabat et multo melius, nec ea re uolebam frui, quam furto appetebam, sed ipso furto et peccato. Arbor erat pirus in uicinia nostrae uineae pomis onusta nec forma nec sapore inlecebrosis. Ad hanc excutiendam atque asportandam nequissimi adulescentuli perreximus nocte intempesta … et abstulimus inde onera ingentia non ad nostras epulas, sed uel proicienda porcis’; c. 󰀆 n. 󰀁󰀂

H OMILY 󰀉󰀃* [Q 󰀃󰀂]

󰀄󰀀󰀉

hence, it is called hope, which too is a divine virtue.󰀁󰀂 In this the soul has such great trust in God that it seems to her that God has nothing in His entire being which she cannot receive. Lord Solomon says that ‘stolen waters are sweeter’ than other waters.󰀁󰀃 St. Augustine says:󰀁󰀄 The pears that I stole were sweeter than those which my mother bought, because they were forbidden and locked away from me. Thus the grace which the soul obtains󰀁󰀅 with special wisdom and diligence is so much sweeter than the one which is common to all people. The third power is the inner will which is like a face always turned to God in the divine will and draws love from God. There God is drawn through the soul and the soul is drawn through God and is called a divine love, and this too is a divine virtue.󰀁󰀆 Divine bliss consists of three things: that is, of knowledge, that is, that He knows Himself completely, the second of freedom, that He remains untouched and not be constrained by all His creatures, and of perfect sufficiency, that is that He suffices Himself and all creatures. In this also consists the perfection of the soul: in knowledge and understanding in which she has understood God, and in the union of perfect love. Do we want to know what sin is? A turning away from bliss and virtue, from this comes all sin. This ‘path’ also every blessed soul must watch. Therefore ‘she does not fear the winter, because her servants are dressed in double clothes’, as Scripture says of them. She was dressed with the strength of resisting all imperfections, and she was adorned with the truth.󰀁󰀇 This woman was wealthy and of honour in the external eyes of the world, and inwardly she worshiped true poverty. And when she had lost external comfort, she fled to Him to whom all creatures flee and despised the

(CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀂󰀃,󰀆–󰀈): ‘pulchra erant poma illa, quae furati sumus, … sed non ipsa concupiuit anima mea miserabilis. Erat mihi enim meliorum copia, illa autem decerpsi, tantum ut furarer’; see Eckhart, In Sap. n. 󰀁󰀆󰀈 (LW II 󰀅󰀀󰀄,󰀄–󰀁󰀀): ‘Et Prov. 󰀉 dicitur: “aquae furtivae dulciores sunt et panis absconditus suavior”. Exemplum istorum duorum, scilicet quia difficilius et 󰀅 a paucioribus, ponit Augustinus de auro quod plus amant et honorant homines quam lumen lucernae, quia aurum habent pauci et cum labore, lucerna vero sine labore sibi accendit et mendicus. Ipse etiam Augustinus de se narrat II Confessionum c. 󰀄 et 󰀅 quod magis sibi sapiebant poma quae furto tulit quam quae ultro et in copia et sine furto habebat’. 󰀁󰀅. The wordplay ‘ûfkriegende’ – ‘erkrieget’ cannot be replicated in English. 󰀁󰀆. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae II II q. 󰀂󰀄 a. 󰀁: ‘Et ideo caritatis subiectum non est appetitus sensitivus, sed appetitus intellectivus, id est voluntas’. 󰀁󰀇. Prov. 󰀃󰀁:󰀂󰀅.

󰀄󰀁󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

vlôch si, ze dem alle crêatûren vliehent, und versmâhte die werlt und sich selben. Dâ mite kam si über sich selben und versmâhte, daz man sie versmâhte, alsô daz si sich dâ mite niht enbewar und daz si ir volkomenheit dar umbe niht enliez. Si gerte des, daz si sieche und unvlætige liute waschen und handeln müeste mit einem reinen herzen. Daz wir alsus umbeliuhten die stîge unsers hûses und unser brôt niht müezic ezzen, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

󰀁󰀈. See the Oration in the Missal for the day: ‘… prospera mundi despicere, et cælesti semper consolatione gaudere’. 󰀁󰀉. See Hermann of Fritslar, Das Heiligenleben (Pfeiffer I 󰀂󰀄󰀂–󰀆): ‘Sente Elsebêten tac der landes vrowen zu Duringen’; ibid. 󰀂󰀄󰀃,󰀁–󰀄: ‘Siche lûte pflac si zu etzene und zu trenkene mit iren

H OMILY 󰀉󰀃* [Q 󰀃󰀂]

󰀄󰀁󰀁

world and herself. Thus, she overcame herself and despised the fact that she was despised, so she did not worry about it and did not leave her perfection for it.󰀁󰀈 She desired to wash and treat sick and dirty people with a pure heart.󰀁󰀉 That we thus illuminate the paths of our house and that we do not eat our bread idly, may God help us! Amen.

henden und ûzsetzige lûte phlac si zu badene und zu weschene und in ir houbit selber zu twâne und trug si in ir bette, dô si inne phlac zu ligene mit irme wirte’ (‘Sick people she used to feed and give something to drink with her hands and lepers she used to bath and to clean and to wash herself their head and to carry them into her bed where she used to lie with her husband’).

Homily 󰀉󰀄* [S 󰀉󰀅] In festo sanctae Elisabethae, die 󰀂󰀉 novembris ‘Os suum aperuit sapientiae’ (Prov. 󰀃󰀁:󰀂󰀆) Introduction

T

his is another homily on St. Elizabeth, given on 󰀂󰀉 November (‘Vff sant Elizabeten der heiligen witwen tag…’, BT), as Eckhart indicates in n. 󰀁󰀇 (‘Diz hât wol geprüevet sant Elizabêt, wie tiure und wie edel daz ein kouf ist…’; ‘Saint Elizabeth has proven well, how dearly and noble that trade is…’). The two core verses are Prov. 󰀃󰀁:󰀂󰀆 (‘Os suum aperuit sapientiae’) and Prov. 󰀃󰀁:󰀁󰀈 (‘Gustavit, et vidit quia bona est negotiatio eius; non extinguetur in nocte lucerna eius’), a reading that is taken from the Dominican Missal of a female saint who is not a martyr (even though not present in the Dominican Collectarium). The text is handed down by the following witnesses (recension A: the manuscripts of the Paradisus anime intelligentis O, H󰀂; and Lo󰀄, recension B: B󰀇, N󰀁b, the print in BT), and a number of fragments. The witness W󰀁󰀁 has not been used in the critical edition of DW. As recension A seems to be a reworked and abbreviated form of the homily, below recension B is presented. In n. 󰀃 the reference seems to refer to Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀆* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀂], n. 󰀆. The content of the homily The second homily on St. Elizabeth is a rhetorically skilled piece, as particularly shown in the development of the six descriptions of wisdom, adopted from Alcher of Clairvaux (taken as Augustine by Eckhart) (n. 󰀇), the masterfully developed rhetorical dialogue between Augustine and Dionysius (n. 󰀁󰀂), but also the contrast between the two saints who ‘had to pray’ (n. 󰀁󰀅). It starts with the first of the two Latin core verses

H OMILY 󰀉󰀄* [S 󰀉󰀅]

󰀄󰀁󰀃

(n. 󰀁), followed by the vernacular translation of the two verses (n. 󰀂). The latter verse of Prov. 󰀃󰀁:󰀁󰀈 (‘her light was not extinguished in the night’), however, reminds the preacher and reader of the verse from Matth. 󰀂󰀅:󰀈 which supports him to introduce Elizabeth as the wise woman who not only has opened her mouth for wisdom, but also seems to win the contest for waiting for the Lord. Hence, the structure of the homily, which first sets out what wisdom is (nn. 󰀃–󰀁󰀆), to then come to Elizabeth (nn. 󰀁󰀇–󰀂󰀁). As a surprise, of which Eckhart has spoken shortly before with regards to the soul that on her way to God becomes ‘rejected and falls silent’ (n. 󰀁󰀆), Elizabeth serves as the example that also the saints are tested by God. She has given up ‘her princely fiefdom and became a poor person’ and it is even stated that ‘her light never extinguishes at night’ (n. 󰀁󰀇), but, Eckhart adds, ‘no matter how perfect a person is, if one loses something transient, one’s heart will change and become sad’ (n. 󰀁󰀈). ‘Our Lord has tried the saints here’ on earth’ in pain’ (n. 󰀁󰀉). Hence, the saints are not placed differently from any other person. All need to become ‘alike to God in all purity’ (n. 󰀂󰀀), even though God does not taste equally good to all souls, as not all have truly tasted God – but this is precisely what Eckhart is praying for (n. 󰀂󰀂). Edition, commentary and notes G. Steer, DW IV 󰀁󰀅󰀀–󰀂󰀀󰀁. Previous English translation The Works of Meister Eckhart Doctor Ecstaticus, vol. II, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂), 󰀁󰀇󰀄–󰀇.

󰀄󰀁󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀁󰀇󰀈) ‘Os suum aperuit sapientiae’. Ein meister sprichet: ein guot vrouwe ‘hât ûfgetân irn munt der wîsheit’ und ‘hât gesmeket und gesehen, wie guot der kouf ist’ und daz gewerbe der êwigen vröuden. Dar umbe ‘enwart ir lieht niht verleschet in der naht’, daz ist in der naht des widermuotes. (󰀁󰀇󰀉) | Ich hân gesprochen von zweierleie wîsheit: ein diu got ist, diu ander diu got niht enist, und ist doch von gote als der schîn von der sunnen. Diu ist ein gâbe gotes und ein toum götlîcher natûre. Mit dirre wîsheit erkrieget man in im, daz man sælic wirt in disem lîbe. (󰀁󰀈󰀀) | Ein meister sprichet, daz diu sêle sî ein ort oder ein ecke, dar ane sich stœzet beide zît und êwicheit, und si enist doch weder von zît noch von êwicheit gemachet, sunder si ist éin natûre, gemachet von nihte, zwischen in beiden. Wære si von der zît gemachet, sô wære si vergenclich. Wære si aber von der êwicheit gemachet, sô wære si unwandelhaftic. (󰀁󰀈󰀁) | Her umbe enist si weder von zît noch von êwicheit gemachet, wan si ist wandelhaftic und unvergenclich.

󰀁. Prov. 󰀃󰀁:󰀂󰀆. Liturgical context: Epistolar., Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀃va–b: ‘Sancte marie magdalene. Lectio libri sapientie [Prov. 󰀃󰀁:󰀁󰀀–󰀃󰀁]. Mulierem fortem quis inveniet? Procul et de ultimis finibus pretium eius. Confidit in ea cor viri sui, et spoliis non indigebit. Reddet ei bonum et non malum omnibus diebus vite sue. Quesivit lanam et linum, et operata est consilio manuum suarum. Facta est quasi navis institoris, de longe portans panem suum. Et de nocte surrexit, deditque predam domesticis suis et cibaria ancillis suis. Consideravit agrum et emit eum, de fructu manuum suarum plantavit vineam. Accinxit fortitudine lumbos suos, et roboravit brachium suum. Gustavit et vidit quia bona est negotiatio eius, non extinguetur in nocte lucerna eius. Manum suam misit ad fortia, et digiti eius apprehenderunt fusum. Manum suam aperuit inopi, et palmas suas extendit ad pauperem. Non timebit domui sue a frigoribus nivis, omnes enim domestici eius vestiti [sunt add. Vg.] duplicibus. Stragulatam vestem fecit sibi, byssus et purpura indumentum eius. Nobilis in portis vir eius, quando sederit cum senatoribus terre. Syndonem fecit et vendidit, et cyngulum tradidit Chananeo. Fortitudo et decor indumentum eius, et ridebit in die novissima [novissimo Vg.]. Os suum aperuit sapientie, et lex clementie in lingua eius. Consideravit semitas domus sue, et panem otiosa non comedit. Surrexerunt filii eius, et beatissimam predicaverunt, vir eius et laudavit eam. Multe filie congregaverunt divitias, tu supergressa es universas. Falax [sic] gloria et vana est pulchritudo, mulier timens Deum [Dominum Vg.] ipsa laudabitur. Date ei de fructu manuum suarum, et laudent eam in portis opera eius’.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀄* [S 󰀉󰀅]

󰀄󰀁󰀅

‘Os suum aperuit sapientiae’. A master says: a good woman ‘has opened her mouth of wisdom’󰀁 and ‘has tasted and seen, how good is the purchase’ and the business of eternal joy. Therefore, ‘her light was not extinguished in the night’,󰀂 that is, in the night of trial.󰀃 I have spoken of a twofold wisdom:󰀄 one that is God, the second that is not God, and yet is from God like the splendor from the sun. This one is a gift from God and a vapor of divine nature. With this wisdom we obtain in Him to be blessed in this body. A master says that the soul is a place or a corner in which time and eternity collide, and yet she is neither made of time nor eternity, but she is one nature, made out of nothingness, between these two.󰀅 If she were made of time, she would be transient. But if she were made of eternity, she would be immutable. Therefore, she is neither made of time nor of eternity, because she is mutable and intransient.

󰀂. Prov. 󰀃󰀁:󰀁󰀈: ‘Gustavit, et vidit quia bona est negotiatio eius; non extinguetur in nocte lucerna eius’. 󰀃. This reflects the last part of Prov. 󰀃󰀁:󰀁󰀈 being read in the light of Matth. 󰀂󰀅:󰀈: ‘fatuae autem sapientibus dixerunt date nobis de oleo vestro quia lampades nostrae extinguntur’, hence it is the night of contest. 󰀄. The reference seems to refer to Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀆* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀂], n. 󰀆: ‘Diu wîsheit ist zweierleie. Diu eine ist natiurlich, daz man sich kan rihten nâch der zît nâch wandelhaftigen dingen. Dar zuo hât der mensche vrîe willekür, daz er die wîsheit mac kêren ze gote oder ze vergenclîchen dingen. Diu ander wîsheit kumet von gotes gegenwerticheit und von gotes bekantnisse: die enmac man ze nihte kêren dan ze gote’. 󰀅. See Hom. 󰀉󰀃* [Q 󰀃󰀂], n. 󰀅, where Eckhart refers to a wise man, identified with the Liber de causis, prop. 󰀂 (Pattin, 󰀁󰀃󰀈): ‘anima … est in horizonte aeternitatis inferius et supra tempus’. (Pseudo-)Augustinus (Alcher of Clairvaux), De spiritu et anima c. 󰀄󰀇 (PL 󰀄󰀀, 󰀉󰀁󰀄): ‘Humanus animus quasi in medio collocatus quadam conditionis suae excellentia, et huic mutabilitati quae deorsum est supereminet, et ad illam quae est apud Deum veram immutabilitatem necdum pertingit’; in Hom. 󰀇󰀈* [Q 󰀂󰀃], n. 󰀈 Eckhart shows that he knows this book under the name of Augustine.

󰀄󰀁󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Sant Augustînus sprichet, daz diu sêle gemachet sî von dem aller edelsten und heimlîchesten nihte, daz ez vil lustlîcher ist alle unser lebetage dar nâch ze vorschenne, dan daz wir ez iemer bevinden mügen. Dar umbe ist diu sêle als edel, daz an sie stœzet beide zît und êwicheit. Neiget si sich ûf diu zîtlîchen dinc, sô wirt si vervinstert. (󰀁󰀈󰀂) | Und heltet si sich an diu êwigen dinc, sô wirt si stark und stæte. Mit der sterke und mit der stæticheit sô überwindet si alliu wandelhaftigiu dinc. Got unser herre hât der sêle ze hilfe geben zweierleie krefte, daz si mit den nidern kreften diene gote in der zît und daz si mit den obersten kreften diene gote in der êwicheit. Ein meister wart gevrâget, wie man komen sol ze der wîsheit. Under andern stücken beschrîbet er sehs, diu der mensche sol haben. (󰀁󰀈󰀃) | Daz êrste ist ein ôtmüetic herze, daz ander ein stæte vlîz, daz dritte ein geruowic herze, daz vierde ist ein swîgende vorschen. Wan kein werk ist sô volkomen, ez enhindere die innicheit. Man möhte mit grœzer innicheit messe hœren dan messe sprechen. Man möhte sô grôz innicheit haben an der messe, man tæte, daz schedelich wære. (󰀁󰀈󰀄) | Wan alle die kunst, die der mensche kan, die prüevet man an den werken. Ist daz der mensche wol singet, daz hœret man an dem gesange. Sô bekennet man einen rehte wîsen menschen bî sînem swîgenne. Daz vünfte ist willic armuot. Der ist nützelîche arm, der sich aller dinge arm kan machen, diu got niht ensint. Daz sehste ist ein vremdez lant. Der in sînem hûse ellende künde gesîn, daz wære rehtiu armuot.

󰀆. This homily picks up the same text, quoted in the previous homily, Hom. 󰀉󰀃* [Q 󰀃󰀂], n. 󰀅: ‘Sant Augustînus sprichet, daz diu sêle alsô edel ist und alsô hôhe ist geschaffen über alle crêatûre, daz kein vergenclich dinc, daz an dem jüngesten tage vergân sol, in die sêle gesprechen enmac noch würken âne underscheit und âne boten’; see See Augustinus, En. in Ps. 󰀁󰀄󰀆 n. 󰀁󰀃 (PL 󰀃󰀇, 󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀇–󰀈) (for the text see above). 󰀇. See Hugo de Sancto Victore, Didascalicon III c.󰀁󰀂 (Buttimer 󰀆󰀁,󰀁󰀀–󰀉 [= Didasc. III c. 󰀁󰀂 (PL 󰀁󰀇󰀆, 󰀇󰀇󰀃B)]: ‘Sapiens quidam cum de modo et forma discendi interrogaretur: Mens, inquit, humilis, studium quaerendi, vita quieta, scrutinium tacitum, paupertas, terra aliena, haec reserare solent multis obscura legendi. Audierat, puto, quod dictum est: Mores ornant scientiam, et ideo

H OMILY 󰀉󰀄* [S 󰀉󰀅]

󰀄󰀁󰀇

Saint Augustine says󰀆 that the soul is made from the noblest and most intimate nothingness, so that it is more pleasant to look for it in our whole life than to ever find it. For that reason the soul is so noble that time and eternity collide in her. If she tends towards temporal things, she becomes obscured. And if she sticks to eternal things, she becomes strong and unhesitating. With force and constancy she overcomes all changing things. God our Lord has given to the soul the help of two powers, so that with the lower powers she serves God in time and that with the superior powers she serves God in eternity. A master was asked󰀇 how one can reach wisdom. Among other points that a person must have, he describes six. The first is a humble heart, the second an unhesitating diligence, the third a quiet heart, the fourth is a silent search. Because no action is so perfect that it does not impede contemplation, one might want to have more contemplation listening to mass, than reading mass. One might want to have such great contemplation in mass that the result would be harmful. For every skill that a person knows is tested in actions. Whether a person sings well, is heard from the singing. This way one recognizes a truly wise person by his silence. The fifth is voluntary poverty. Whoever can render himself poor of all things that are not God, is usefully poor. The sixth is a foreign region. Whoever could be exiled in his home – this would be true poverty.

praeceptis legendi, praecepta quoque vivendi, adiungit, ut et modum vitae suae et studii sui rationem lector agnoscat. Illaudabilis est scientia quam vita maculat impudica. Et idcirco summopere cavendum ei qui quaerit scientiam, ut non negligat disciplinam’; see Eckhart, In Ioh. n. 󰀆󰀈󰀅 (LW III 󰀆󰀀󰀀,󰀅–󰀁󰀇): ‘Chrysostomus vero aliam ponit causam, quare Pilatus non exspectaverit audire, quid esset veritas. Docere enim et discere veritatem, sive quid sit veritas, et tempus requirit longius et quietum; tunc autem et tempus erat breve et inquietum, Eccli. 󰀃󰀈: “sapientiam scribe in tempore vacuitatis, et qui minoratur actu, percipiet sapientiam”. Et philosophus dicit quod anima sedendo et quiescendo fit prudens. Et Hugo de Sancto Victore in Didascalicon libro sic ait: “mens humilis, studium quaerendi, vita quieta, scrutinium tacitum, paupertas, terra aliena: haec reserare solent multis secreta legendi”’.

󰀄󰀁󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Mit disen sehs dingen erkrieget man die wîsheit, dâ mite man sælic wirt in disem lîbe. Diu ander wîsheit ist ein învluz götlîcher klârheit und ist ein brunne götlîcher edelkeit und ist got selber. Die wîsheit enmac nieman in disen zîtlîchen dingen begrîfen. Der mensche der wære harte tôreht, der got zîtlich wolte (󰀁󰀈󰀅) | machen und hæte got vür harte snœde, der mit den nidersten kreften got wolte begrîfen. Got der blîbet unbegriffen von allen crêatûren. Dar umbe sprach der wîse man: ‘ein guot vrouwe hât ûfgetan irn munt der wîsheit’. Daz enist anders niht, dan daz dû ûf solt tuon dîn begerunge in dem allerhœhsten (󰀁󰀈󰀆) | und solt wonen in der aller obersten kraft der sêle. Diu ist gote alsô sippe, daz er sich der kraft niht versagen enmac, und diu kraft sol alsô vil süezicheit und wîsheit enpfâhen von gote und alsô vil trôstes und wârheit, daz si sie vort in alle die sêle giezen sol. Die heiligen sprechen, daz ez ein wîse stâ umbe diz zîtlich leben und ein ander wîse stâ umbe daz êwic leben, wan wir müezen iemer des dinges hie beginnen ze dem êrsten und sol danne mit der êwigen wîsheit in dem êwigen lebene volbrâht werden. (󰀁󰀈󰀇) | Ein meister sprach ze dem andern: weist dû iht, waz got sî? Nein, sprach er, ich enweiz niht, waz got sî. Alsô vil weiz ich von im, daz ich weiz, waz er niht enist, wan nieman enmac got bekennen dan in gotes natûre. Noch nieman enmac ouch in einer andern natûre lebendic werden, er ensî in sîn selbes natûre ze dem êrsten tôt. (󰀁󰀈󰀈) | Eyâ, war umbe ist daz danne, daz im diu schrift sô manigen namen gibet? Si sprichet, daz er algewaltic sî, wîse und guot. Daz sint drî sachen.

󰀈. Prov. 󰀃󰀁:󰀂󰀆: ‘Os suum aperuit sapientiae’. 󰀉. I.e. supreme power. 󰀁󰀀. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae II II q. 󰀁󰀈󰀂 a. 󰀂: ‘Praeterea, vita contemplativa est quaedam inchoatio futurae felicitatis. Unde super illud Ioan. 󰀂󰀁 [Ioh. 󰀂󰀁:󰀂󰀂]: Sic eum volo manere donec veniam, dicit Augustinus: “Hoc apertius dici potest: Perfecta me sequatur actio, informata meae passionis exemplo: inchoata vero contemplatio maneat donec venio, perficienda cum venero”. Et Gregorius dicit, super Ezech., quod “contemplativa vita hic incipitur, ut in caelesti patria perficiatur”’. 󰀁󰀁. I.e. in this temporal life.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀄* [S 󰀉󰀅]

󰀄󰀁󰀉

With these six things wisdom is obtained, with which one becomes blessed in this body. The second wisdom is an influx of divine glory and a fountain of divine nobility and is God Himself. This wisdom no one can grasp in these temporal things. This person would be stubbornly foolish who wanted to make God temporal, and he would hold God truly worthless who wanted to understand God with the lower powers. God remains ungrasped by all creatures. Therefore the master said: ‘A good woman has opened her mouth of wisdom’.󰀈 This means nothing other than you must lift your desire into the highest and you must dwell in the supreme power of the soul. This󰀉 is so akin to God that He cannot withhold Himself from this power, and this power must thus receive from God so much pleasure and wisdom and as much comfort and truth, so that it further pours them into the whole soul. The saints say󰀁󰀀 that one way is in this temporal life and another way is in eternal life, because we must always begin at first from the thing here󰀁󰀁 and must then be brought to completion with eternal wisdom in eternal life. One master said to another: Do you know what God is? No, he said, I do not know what God is. I know as much of Him, that I know what He is not, because no one can know God except in the nature of God.󰀁󰀂 Nor can anyone become alive in another nature, unless he is first dead in his own nature. Ah! Why is it then that Scripture gives Him so many names? It says, He is omnipotent, wise and good. There are three reasons.

󰀁󰀂. See Moses Maimonides, Dux neutrorum c. 󰀅󰀇 (󰀂󰀃r 󰀈–󰀁󰀀): ‘Quod scientiae non apprehenderunt Creatorem: et non apprehendit quid est nisi ipse: et apprehensio nostra respectu ipsius est defectus appropinquandi apprehensioni eius’; see Eckhart, In Exod. n. 󰀁󰀈󰀄 (LW II 󰀁󰀅󰀈,󰀈–󰀁󰀅): ‘“ldcirco convenerunt sapientes”, ut ait Rabbi Moyses, “quod scientiae non apprehenderunt creatorem, et non apprehendit quid est nisi ipse, et apprehensio nostra respectu ipsius est defectus appropinquandi apprehensioni ipsius”. Unde et Plato, ut scribit Macrobius, cum de deo “loqui esset animatus, dicere quid sit non ausus est, hoc solum de ipso sciens quod sciri qualis sit ab hominibus non possit”. Et secundum hoc verificatur “illud Socraticum: hoc scio quod nescio”, quasi dicat: hoc solum de deo scio quod ipsum nescio’.

󰀄󰀂󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Diu êrste sache ist, daz got niht beslozzen enist in keiner natûre. Ich stân iezunt hie, ich enbin niht ein lewe. War umbe ist daz? Dâ bin ich ein mensche. Diu natûre, dâ mich got inne geordent hât, dâ bin ich alsô beslozzen inne, daz ich niht vürbaz enmac komen an ein ander natûre. Alsô sint alle crêatûren, die got geschaffen hât. Got ist über alle natûre und enist selber niht natûre. Diu ander sache ist, daz man gote kein glîchnisse niht gegeben enmac. Sant Augustînus gibet im manigen namen. Er sprichet, daz er wîse sî. Nû sprichet sant Dionysius: nein niht, er ist (󰀁󰀈󰀉) | über wîse. Er sprichet, daz er ein lieht sî. Nein niht, er ist über lieht. Er sprichet, daz er ein wesen sî. Nein niht, er ist über wesen. Er sprichet, daz er ein êwicheit sî. Nein niht, er ist über êwicheit. Allez daz man gesprechen mac, daz enist got niht. Nieman enmac gotes adel noch sîn wirdicheit mit deheinen worten begrîfen. (󰀁󰀉󰀀) | Daz ich spriche ‘ein mensche’, dâ mite begrîfe ich menschlîche natûre. Daz ich spriche ‘ein grâve’, dâ mite begrîfe ich die hêrschaft des grâven. Daz ich spriche ‘ein engel’, dâ mite begrîfe ich engelische natûre. Daz ich spriche ‘got’, dâ mite enmac iche götlîchen adel noch götlich hêrschaft niht begrîfen. Sant Augustînus sprichet an (󰀁󰀉󰀁) | einer stat ze einem meister: vil ist der sachen, waz got ist. Ein guot mensche; waz sol der guot mensche? Ein guot stein; waz sol der guot stein? Ein guot engel; waz sol der guot engel? Den engel abe, den stein abe, den menschen abe, drî ein abe; wâ ist danne daz blôz guot, daz got ist?

󰀁󰀃. See Augustinus, De Trinitate V c. 󰀁 n. 󰀂 (CChr.SL 󰀅󰀀–󰀅󰀀A, 󰀂󰀀󰀇,󰀃󰀉–󰀄󰀃): ‘ut sic intellegamus deum … sine qualitate bonum, sine quantitate magnum, sine indigentia creatorem, sine situ praesentem, sine habitu omnia continentem, sine loco ubique totum, sine tempore sempiternum’. 󰀁󰀄. See Ps.-Dionysius, De mystica theologia c. 󰀅 (PG 󰀃, 󰀁󰀀󰀄󰀈B); Dionysiaca 󰀅󰀉󰀈,󰀄: ‘neque lumen neque vita est neque vivit; neque substantia est’. 󰀁󰀅. I.e. Augustine. 󰀁󰀆. Quotation marks added. 󰀁󰀇. See Augustinus, De Trinitate VIII c. 󰀃 nn. 󰀄–󰀅 (CChr.SL 󰀅󰀀–󰀅󰀀A, 󰀂󰀇󰀂,󰀂󰀄–󰀅; 󰀂󰀇󰀃,󰀄󰀆– 󰀂󰀇󰀄,󰀆󰀂): ‘… deus? Non bonus animus aut bonus angelus aut bonum caelum, sed bonum bonum

H OMILY 󰀉󰀄* [S 󰀉󰀅]

󰀄󰀂󰀁

The first reason is that God is not contained in any nature. I am here now; I am not a lion. Why is this so? Because I am a human being. In the nature in which God has ordained me I am so contained that, indeed, I can not come into another nature. So are all the creatures that God has created. God is beyond all nature and is not Himself nature. The second reason is that no simile can be applied to God. Saint Augustine gives Him many names.󰀁󰀃 He says that He is wise. But Saint Dionysius says:󰀁󰀄 No, no, He is beyond being wise. He󰀁󰀅 says He is a light. No, no, He is beyond light. He says He is being. No, no, He is beyond being. He says He is an eternity. No, no, He is beyond eternity. All that can be said, God is not. Nobody can grasp with whatever word the nobility of God or His dignity. When I say ‘a man’,󰀁󰀆 with this I understand human nature. When I say ‘a count’, with this I understand the lordship of a count. When I say ‘an angel’ with this I understand the angelic nature. When I say ‘God’, with this I can not comprehend either divine nobility or divine lordship. Saint Augustine says in one place to a master:󰀁󰀇 There are many reasons for what God is. A good man: who is a good man? A good stone: what is a good stone? A good angel: who is the good angel? Do away with the angel, away with the stone, away with the man, away to all three: what then is the bare good which God is?

… Cum itaque audis bonum hoc et bonum illud … si ergo potueris illis detractus per se ipsum perspicere bonum … non enim est aliud aliquid quam ipsum bonum, ac per hoc etiam summum bonum’; see Eckhart, In Exod. n. 󰀁󰀇 (LW II 󰀂󰀂,󰀁󰀀–󰀂󰀃,󰀈): ‘Rursus etiam: sum qui sum dictum est, sicut Augustinus VIII De trinitate c. 󰀃 ait: “deus non bonus animus aut bonus angelus aut bonum caelum, sed bonum bonum”. Et infra: “cum audis hoc aut illud bonum”, “si potueris illis detractis per se ipsum perspicere bonum, perspexeris deum”. Et infra: “non enim est aliud aliquid quam ipsum bonum, ac per hoc etiam summum bonum”. Sic ergo “bonum bonum” significat bonum impermixtum et summum bonum in se ipso fixum, nulli innitens, super se ipsum “rediens reditione completa”. Sic li sum qui sum impermixtionem esse et eius plenitudinem indicat’.

󰀄󰀂󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Diu dritte sache ist, war umbe im diu schrift so manigen namen gibet. Daz ist dar umbe, daz er keinen natûren glîch niht enist, und daz man mit keiner glîchnisse niht komen enmac ze sînem bekantnisse. Diu hœhste crêatûre, die got geschaffen hât an engelischer natûre, diu ist gote unglîcher dan der allermeist unvlât sî der natûîre, den dû ie gesæhe mit dînen ougen. (󰀁󰀉󰀂) | Ein heilige sprach: herre, ez zimet dir wol, daz man dich lobe. Dô sprach ein ander: ez zimet dir wol, daz man von dir swîge. Zwêne heiligen solten beten. Dô sprach der ein: algewaltiger guoter got, gnâde! Dô sprach der ander: swîc, dû lesterst got! Got der ist über uns alsô hôch, daz wir in mit deheinen worten geloben mügen. Enwære got sô ôtmüetic niht und enhæten ez die heiligen gesprochen niht und enhæte er ez selber niht geannæmet, ich entörste in mit worten niemer geloben. (󰀁󰀉󰀃) | Ie man sîn mê lougent, ie man in mê lobet. Ie man im mê unglîches zuoleget, ie man sînem bekantnisse næher kumet, als ich ein glîchnisse sagen wil. Wolte ich einem menschen sagen, waz ein schif wære, der nie keinez gesehen enhæte, swaz der mensche sæhe, er sæhe daz wol, daz ez niht ein schif enwære. Sæhe er einen stein, er sæhe daz wol, daz ein stein ein schif niht enwære. Ie er des mê sæhe, daz ez niht geschaffen enwære als ein schif, ie er des schiffes bekantnisse næher kæme. Alsô ist ez umbe got. Ie man im mê unglîches zuoleget, ie man sînem bekantnisse næher kumet. Wan allez daz diu heilige schrift geleisten mac, daz lougent sîn alzemâle. Ôtmüetic wort suln wir sprechen, daz er algewaltic sî. (󰀁󰀉󰀄) | Als diu sêle in daz bekantnisse kumet, daz got alsô unglîch ist allen natûren, sô kumet si in ein wunder und wirt wider getriben und kumet in ein swîgen. Mit der stille senket sich got in die sêle, und mit

󰀁󰀈. See Moses Maimonides, Dux neutrorum I c. 󰀅󰀈 (Di Segni 󰀁󰀇󰀅): ‘Multiplicaverunt etiam verba in hoc, quod non est utile, ut hic ponatur. Finis autem eorum, que dicuntur secundum hanc rationem, est, quod David dixit: ‘Tibi silentium laus’, id est: tacere est laus tibi. Istud autem est verbum dulce in ratione ista, quicquid enim laudis vel exaltationis dicimus de eo, invenimus, quod per illud diminuimus id, quod pertinet ad ipsum, et videmus, quod defectus est, et tacere melius est’. 󰀁󰀉. Though he mentions a saint, the closest parallel we know of is Moses Maimonides, Dux neutrorum I c. 󰀅󰀈 (Di Segni 󰀁󰀇󰀆): ‘Quidam orabat coram Rabi Hanina dicens: “Deus potens, magne,

H OMILY 󰀉󰀄* [S 󰀉󰀅]

󰀄󰀂󰀃

There is a third reason why Scripture gives Him so many names. It is because He is not like any nature and because we can not reach to know Him with any simile. The highest creature that God created in the angelic nature is more dissimilar to God than the greatest filth in nature that you have ever seen with your eyes. A saint said: Lord, it is well fitting to you that one praises you. Then somebody else said:󰀁󰀈 it is well fitting to you that one keeps silent about you. Two saints had to pray. Then one said:󰀁󰀉 almighty good God, grace! Then the second said: be silent, you slander God! God is so high above us that we cannot praise Him with any word. If God were not so humble and if the saints had not said it and if He had not accepted it, I would never dare to praise Him with words. The more is denied of Him, the more He is praised. The more unlikeliness one attributes to Him, the closer one gets to know Him, as I want to say with a simile. If I wanted to explain to somebody who had never seen a ship what a ship is, this person would learn, that what he sees is not a ship. If he saw a stone, he would recognize that a stone is not a ship. The more he saw something that was not made as a ship, the closer he would come to know what a ship is. So it is with God. The more unlikeness is attributed to Him, the closer one comes to know Him. Because all that the Holy Scriptures can offer is completely deceptive of Him. In humble words we must say that He is omnipotent. When the soul arrives at knowing that God is so unlike all creatures, she faces a surprise, is driven back and falls silent. With this silence God descends into the soul󰀂󰀀 and she is sprinkled with grace, as

metuende, honorate, fortis et multa similia”. Cui ipse vir honoratus dixit: “Perfecisti omnes laudes Domini tui? Nos autem non diceremus tres primas, nisi Moyses magister noster dixisset eas, et quidam de Scola Magna dederunt eas aliis in consuetudine. Tu vero dicis et superaddis … Nonne videtur tibi turpe?”’, see also Hom. 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃], n. 󰀆. 󰀂󰀀. See Gennadius Massiliensis, De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus c. 󰀅󰀀 (PL 󰀄󰀂, 󰀁󰀂󰀂󰀁): ‘Illabi autem menti illi soli possibile est qui creavit’.

󰀄󰀂󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

der gnâde wirt (󰀁󰀉󰀅) | si begozzen, als unser herre gesprochen hât in dem prophêten: ‘der boum der bî dem vliezenden wazzer gepflanzet ist, der bringet vil vruht’. Diu sêle sol sterben in dem leide, als unser herre gesprochen hât. Daz ist bewîset an dem weizenkorn, daz dâ vellet ze der erden: sô enmac dâ kein vruht werden, ez ensterbe ze allerêrst. Daz sterben der sêle daz sol sîn an dem bekantnisse gotes, daz si von ir selber vliehen sol und daz ir alliu dinc âsmec und stinkende suln werden, daz got niht enist. Si (󰀁󰀉󰀆) | sol wurzeln an dem glouben und wahsen an der liebe. Diz hât wol geprüevet sant Elizabêt, wie tiure und wie edel daz ein kouf ist, daz man alliu dinc gibet umbe die êwige wîsheit. Dar umbe verzêch si vrœlîche ûf ir vürstenlehen und wart ein arm mensche. Diu schrift sprichet von ir, daz ‘ir lieht nie enverlesche des nahtes’, daz ist: si wart in betrüepnisse gereht vunden. Dar umbe sol ir lieht schînen in dem êwigen lebene. (󰀁󰀉󰀇) | Wie volkomen daz ein mensche ist, verliuset er iht vergenclîches guotes, sîn herze wil sich wandeln und betrüeben. Daz ist ein gewis dinc: waz der mensche verliuset wider sînen willen, und lîdet er daz gedulticlîche, er verdienet grœzern lôn dar ane, dan ob er ez mit willen gote gebe. Und swer diz tete, der gebe sînen willen und sîn guot an der gedult gote unserm herren. Swelch mensche wirt in ungemache ungedultic vunden, diu bôsheit der ungedult enist im von der pîne niht anekomen, sunder diu bôsheit wirt geoffenbâret in der pîne, und geschihet dem menschen als dem kupferîn pfenninge: die wîle daz er in dem viure niht enist, sô schînet er klâr silber; (󰀁󰀉󰀈) | kumet er aber in daz viur, sô wirt geoffenbâret, daz er kupferîn ist. Daz enhât im daz viur niht getân, daz er kupferîn ist. Dar umbe hât unser herre die heiligen hie versuochet in der pîne, daz sie gereht sint vunden an allen tugenden, und liuhten hie in der naht und suln liuhten in dem êwigen lebene êwiclîche. Daz ander ist: swem ‘smecken’ sol götlîchiu wîsheit, dâ loufent vier dinc ûf. (󰀁󰀉󰀉) |

󰀂󰀁. Ps. 󰀁:󰀃: ‘tamquam lignum quod plantatum est secus decursus aquarum, quod fructum suum dabit in tempore suo’; see also Ier. 󰀁󰀇:󰀇–󰀈: ‘Benedictus vir qui confidit in Domino, et erit Dominus fiducia eius. (󰀈) Et erit quasi lignum quod transplantatur super aquas’.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀄* [S 󰀉󰀅]

󰀄󰀂󰀅

our Lord said in the Prophet: ‘The tree which is planted near running water bears much fruit’.󰀂󰀁 The soul must die in suffering, as our Lord has said. This is shown with the wheat which falls into the earth: as no fruit can come from it, if it does not die first.󰀂󰀂 The soul has to die in knowing God, so that she must flee from herself and that all the things that God is not must become inedible and their smell unbearable. She must take root in faith and grow in love. Saint Elizabeth has proven well, how dear and noble that trade is which gives all things for eternal wisdom. So she gladly gave up her princely fiefdom and became a poor person. Scripture says󰀂󰀃 of her that ‘her light never extinguishes at night’, that is: she was found just in afflictions. Therefore her light will shine in eternal life. No matter how perfect a person is, if one loses something transient, one’s heart will change and become sad. This is certain: what a person loses against his will and bears this patiently, he diserves a greater reward than if he voluntarily offered it to God. And whoever would do this, would give his will and his goods to the patience of God, our Lord. The person who is found impatient in misfortune, does not suffer the wickedness of impatience from the pain, but the wickedness becomes apparent in pain and comes to the person like the copper to a penny: before it is in the fire, it shines like pure silver; if however it is held in the fire, it becomes obvious that it is made of copper. The fire is not the cause that it is made of copper. Therefore our Lord has tried the saints here in pain, so that they have been found righteous in all the virtues, and shine here in the night and will shine eternally in eternal life. The second reason is: to those who ‘will like’ divine wisdom, four things are needed. 󰀂󰀂. See Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀄–󰀅: ‘Nisi granum frumenti cadens in terram mortuum fuerit, ipsum solum manet: si autem mortuum fuerit, multum fructum adfert’. 󰀂󰀃. Prov. 󰀃󰀁:󰀁󰀈: ‘non extinguetur in nocte lucerna eius’.

󰀄󰀂󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Daz êrste ist glîchnisse, daz man sich glîch mache gote an aller lûterkeit. Daz ander ist götlich lieht, daz dâ durchschînet die sêle als diu sunne durch das glas. Daz dritte ist einunge; diu kumet von glîchnisse und reht einunge kumet von glîchen dingen als lieht und lieht. Daz vierde ist mâze, daz got die sêle gemezzen hât. Aber got der enmac niht (󰀂󰀀󰀀) | geminnert noch gemêret werden, wan er unmæzic und unwandelhaftic ist, sunder diu sêle muoz erhaben und gewîtet werden, wan si kleine und wandelhaftic ist. Dar umbe sol si erhaben werden über sich selber, und swaz si gewîtet wirt, sô ist ez doch kleine gegen gotes unmæzikeit. Ein meister sprichet, der mensche sî ein klein dinc, er enwerde denne erhaben (󰀂󰀀󰀁) | über sich selber. Sô allerêrst enpfæhet diu sêle volkomene wollust von gote, als si im gemæze wirt. War umbe ensmacket got allen sêlen niht glîche? Daz ist dâ von, daz si dar zuo gevüeget niht ensint. Daz wir dar zuo gevüeget werden, daz uns got wærlîche in unser sêle smeckende werde, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀄* [S 󰀉󰀅]

󰀄󰀂󰀇

The first is likeness, that one becomes alike to God in all purity. The second is divine light, which illuminates the soul like the sun through glass. The third is oneness; which comes from likeness and true oneness comes from things that are as alike as light and light. The fourth is measure; that God has measured the soul. But God can not become diminished or increased, because He is immeasurable and immutable, but the soul must be elevated and broadened, because she is modest and changeable. Therefore she must be elevated beyond herself, and in whichever way she is broadened, she is nevertheless modest compared to the immeasurability of God. A master says󰀂󰀄 that a person is a modest thing, unless he becomes elevated beyond himself. Thus, the soul receives perfect enjoyment of God, only once she measures󰀂󰀅 up to God. Why does God not taste equally good to all souls? This derives from the fact that they have not been fitted to this. That we are made fitted to this and that God truly becomes pleasing in our soul, may God help us! Amen.

󰀂󰀄. See Seneca, Naturales quaestiones I praef. 󰀅 (Hine 󰀃,󰀃󰀆–󰀇): ‘O quam contempta res est homo nisi supra humana surrexerit’. 󰀂󰀅. The MHG ‘gemæze’ means rather ‘corresponds’, but thus, the semantic link between ‘gemæze’, ‘gemezzen’, ‘unmæzic’ and ‘unmæzikeit’ would be lost.

MEISTER ECKHART: 56 HOMILIES FOR THE LITURGICAL YEAR DE SANCTIS IN COMMUNI ET DE FESTIS

Homily 󰀉󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀇] In communi unius apostoli vel plurimorum ‘Hoc est praeceptum meum ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos’ (Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀂–󰀆) Introduction

T

he core passage that Eckhart refers to, Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀂–󰀆 is part of the Gospel reading on the feasts ‘of one or more apostles’. As J. Theisen, Predigt und Gottesdienst (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀), 󰀂󰀃󰀂 (with n. 󰀃󰀉) has shown, the homily shows several parallels to liturgical readings of the octave of the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul, hence for the 󰀂󰀉 June to 󰀆 July. The BT print gives ‘Vff sant Jacobstag’, the feast of the Apostle James, celebrated on 󰀂󰀅 July. On the latter day, Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀆 is part of the Gospelreading, too. The text as given in the critical edition is derived from three manuscripts (B󰀂; Sa; St󰀁), two fragments and the print in BT. The witnesses B󰀉, Bra󰀁, Go󰀁 and the print HT are not used in the critical edition of DW. Hom. 󰀈󰀀* [Q 󰀃󰀀], n. 󰀆 possibly refers to our homily here, Hom. 󰀉󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀇], n. 󰀁󰀀. In n. 󰀉 Eckhart explicitly refers to a Latin sermo that he gave on the feast of the Holy Trinity which seems to be his Sermo II,󰀁 n. 󰀆 (LW IV 󰀈,󰀆–󰀁󰀄). In n. 󰀉 he seems to point to a homily which he has given in the same place as the present one, possibly referring to Hom. 󰀂󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀆], n. 󰀁󰀀. The content of the homily The homily deals with one of Eckhart’s major topics, the love of God, focussing on several passages from the core Gospel reading, Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀂–󰀆. He first gives the main commandment only, presented in Latin (n. 󰀁), to then translate it into vernacular by adding those passages from the

󰀄󰀃󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Gospel verses on which he is going to expand in his homily (n. 󰀂). In his explanation he follows the order of these verses. I. On the first verse (nn. 󰀃–󰀈): ‘This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you’ (Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀂): A) ‘This is my commandment’ – ‘stay with you’ – ‘that you love’ (nn. 󰀃–󰀅). Eckhart discusses whether love is the Holy Spirit, as suggested by ‘the best masters’ (and this we know as an opinion of Peter Lombard) but disputed by others (as, for example, by Thomas Aquinas). Eckhart develops an independent position. For Eckhart ‘love … must be so pure, so naked, so detached, that it should not be tended either towards me or to a friend of mine or to something beside itself’ (nn. 󰀃–󰀄). B) ‘That you love one another’ (n. 󰀆). He is still continuing the discussion of the previous section on love being ‘so pure, so detached, so naked in itself, that you love nothing but goodness and God’. C) ‘As I have loved you’ (nn. 󰀇–󰀈). The section discusses the overcoming of distance between the lover and the one who is loved, as love can only be of two people who are alike and where all hierarchy has gone. II. On the second verse (nn. 󰀉–󰀁󰀀): ‘I have called you my friends, because I have revealed all that I have ever heard from my father’ (Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀅). D) ‘I have called you my friends’ (n. 󰀉). Friends we are called, as we originate from the same origin as the Son and the Holy Spirit. And the Father in generating gives all that He has and that He is, including His properties as Eckhart has already pointed out in his Latin sermon to which he explicitly refers. E) ‘That I have heard’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). God has held nothing of Himself back to Himself. III. On the third verse (nn. 󰀁󰀁–󰀂): ‘I have chosen you to go and bear fruit, and let the fruit remain with you’ (Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀆). F) Eckhart does ‘not want to say anything now of the third sentence’ (n. 󰀁󰀁), but apparently not because he has run out of time or ideas, but because ‘this fruit nobody knows except God alone’, hence it is willing acceptance of the limitation of language and thinking. Hence, the final prayer follows that we may ‘mature to this fruit’ (n. 󰀁󰀂).

H OMILY 󰀉󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀇]

󰀄󰀃󰀃

Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀁󰀂,󰀆󰀀–󰀄; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀁󰀈󰀆–󰀉󰀀; J. Quint, DW II 󰀃󰀇; N. Largier I 󰀃󰀀󰀄–󰀁󰀅.󰀉󰀅󰀃–󰀇. Previous English translations M. Fox, Breakthrough (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀), 󰀃󰀁󰀃–󰀇; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀉󰀉–󰀁󰀀󰀃.

󰀄󰀃󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀄󰀀) ‘Hoc est praeceptum meum ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos’. Ich hân driu wörtelîn gesprochen in der latîne, diu stânt geschriben in dem êwangeliô: daz êrste wörtelîn, daz unser herre sprichet: ‘daz ist mîn gebot, daz ir iuch under einander minnet, als ich iuch geminnet hân’; ze dem andern sprichet er: ‘ich hân iuch gesprochen mîne vriunde, wan allez, daz ich ie gehœret hân von mînem vater, daz hân ich iu geoffenbâret’; ze dem dritten sprichet er: ‘ich hân iuch ûzerwelt, daz ir gât und vruht bringet und daz diu vruht bî iu blîbe’. (󰀄󰀁) | Nû merket daz êrste wörtelîn, daz er sprichet: ‘daz ist mîn gebot’. Dâ von wil ich ein wörtelîn sprechen, daz ez ‘bî iu blîbe’. ‘Daz ist mîn gebot, daz ir minnet’. Waz wil er sprechen, daz er sprichet: ‘daz ir minnet’? Er wil sprechen ein wörtelîn, daz merket: minne diu ist alsô lûter, alsô blôz, alsô abegescheiden in ir selber, daz die besten meister sprechent, daz diu minne, mit der wir minnen, ist der heilige geist. (󰀄󰀂) | Etlîche wâren, die wolten ez widersprechen. Daz ist iemer wâr: alliu diu bewegede, dâ wir beweget werden ze minne, dâ beweget uns niht anders wan der heilige geist. Minne in dem lûtersten, in dem abegescheidensten, in ir selber enist niht anders dan (󰀄󰀃) | got. Die meister sprechent, daz daz ende der minne, ûf daz minne alliu ir werk würket, ist güete, und diu güete ist got. Als lützel mîn ouge kan sprechen und mîn zunge varwe erkennen, als lützel enmac sich minne ûf anders iht geneigen dan ûf güete und ûf got. 󰀁. Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀂. 󰀂. Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀅. 󰀃. Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀆; Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀂–󰀆 (‘Hoc est praeceptum meum ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos… Vos autem dixi amicos: quia omnia quaecumque audivi a Patre meo, nota feci vobis … ego elegi vos, et posui vos ut eatis, et fructum afferatis: et fructus vester maneat…’). The text is found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀃va: ‘(In communi unius apostoli vel plurimorum) Secundum Iohannem. In illo tempore dixit Ihesus discipulis suis: [In … suis om. Vg.] Hoc est preceptum meum, ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos. Maiorem hac dilectionem nemo habet, ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis. Vos amici mei estis, si feceritis que ego precipio vobis. Iam non dicam vos servos, quia servus nescit quid faciat dominus eius. Vos autem dixi amicos: quia omnia quecumque audivi a patro meo, nota feci vobis. Non vos me eligistis: sed ego elegi vos, et posui vos ut eatis, et fructum afferatis: et fructus vester maneat: ut quodcumque petieritis Patrem in nomine meo, det vobis’. 󰀄. Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀂. 󰀅. See Petrus Lombardus, Sententiae I d. 󰀁󰀇 c. 󰀁 (Grottaferrata, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀁, 󰀁󰀄󰀂,󰀉–󰀁󰀄): ‘His autem addendum est quod ipse idem Spiritus Sanctus est amor sive caritas, qua nos diligimus Deum et proximum; quae caritas, cum ita est in nobis ut nos faciat diligere Deum et proximum, tunc

H OMILY 󰀉󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀇]

󰀄󰀃󰀅

‘Hoc est praeceptum meum ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos’.󰀁 I have said three sentences in Latin, which are written in the Gospel: the first sentence that our Lord says: ‘This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you’; secondly He says: ‘I have called you my friends, because I have revealed all that I have ever heard from my father’;󰀂 in the third place He says: ‘I have chosen you to go and bear fruit, and let the fruit remain with you’.󰀃 Now note the first sentence that He says: ‘This is my commandment’.󰀄 Of this I will say a few words, which should ‘stay with you’. ‘This is my commandment, that you love’. What does He mean by saying ‘that you love’? He wants to say a sentence that you should note: love is so pure, so naked, so detached in itself, that the best masters say󰀅 that the love, with which we love, is the Holy Spirit. There were some who wanted to contradict this.󰀆 This is always true: in all the movements in which we are moved to love, there nothing moves us but the Holy Spirit. Love in the purest, in the most detached, in itself is nothing but God. The masters say󰀇 that the goal of love, for which love acts all its action, is goodness, and this goodness is God. As little as my eye can talk and my tongue recognize colour, so little love can tend towards something else than goodness and God.

Spiritus Sanctus dicitur mitti vel dari nobis; et qui diligit ipsam dilectionem, qua diligit proximum, in eo ipso Deum diligit, quia ipsa dilectio Deus est, id est Spiritus Sanctus’; ibid. c. 󰀆 (Grottaferrata, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀁, 󰀁󰀄󰀉,󰀁–󰀂): ‘… quod autem ipse idem sit caritas qua diligimus Deum et proximum, a plerisque negatur’. 󰀆. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae II II q. 󰀂󰀃 a. 󰀂: ‘Respondeo dicendum quod Magister perscrutatur hanc quaestionem in XVII dist. I lib. Sent., et ponit quod caritas non est aliquid creatum in anima, sed est ipse Spiritus Sanctus mentem inhabitans. Nec est sua intentio quod iste motus dilectionis quo Deum diligimus sit ipse Spiritus Sanctus: sed quod iste motus dilectionis est a Spiritu Sancto non mediante aliquo habitu, sicut a Spiritu Sancto sunt alii actus virtuosi mediantibus habitibus aliarum virtutum, puta habitu spei aut fidei aut alicuius alterius virtutis. Et hoc dicebat propter excellentiam caritatis. Sed si quis recte consideret, hoc magis redundat in caritatis detrimentum … Unde maxime necesse est quod ad actum caritatis existat in nobis aliqua habitualis forma superaddita potentiae naturali, inclinans ipsam ad caritatis actum, et faciens eam prompte et delectabiliter operari’. 󰀇. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I II q. 󰀂󰀇 a. 󰀁: ‘(Utrum bonum sit sola causa amoris) … Oportet igitur ut illud sit proprie causa amoris quod est amoris obiectum. Amoris autem proprium obiectum est bonum’.

󰀄󰀃󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Nû merket! Waz wil er hie sprechen, daz im alsô ernst ist, daz wir minnen? Er wil sprechen, daz diu minne, mit der wir minnen, diu sol sîn alsô lûter, alsô blôz, alsô abegescheiden, daz si niht ensol geneiget sîn weder ûf mich noch ûf mînen vriunt (󰀄󰀄) | noch neben sich. Die meister sprechent, daz man enkein guot werk ein guot werk geheizen mac noch enkein tugent tugent, ez enbeschehe denne in der minne. Tugent diu ist alsô edel, alsô abegescheiden, alsô lûter, alsô blôz in ir selber, daz si niht bezzers enbekennet dan sich und got. Nû sprichet er: ‘daz ist mîn gebot’. Der mir gebiutet, daz mir süeze ist, daz mir nütze ist und dâ mîn sælicheit ane ist, daz ist mir gar süeze. Sô mich dürstet, sô gebiutet mir daz trank; sô mich hungert, sô gebiutet mir diu spîse. Und alsus tuot got: jâ, alsô süeze, daz alliu disiu werlt des glîch niht geleisten enmac. Und der der (󰀄󰀅) | süezicheit ze einem mâle gesmecket, wærlîche, als wênic sich got mac gekêren von sîner gotheit, als lützel mac sich der mensche gekêren mit sîner minne von güete und von gote; jâ, und im ist lîhter, daz er sich verzîhe sîn selbes und aller sîner sælicheit und blîbe mit sîner minne an güete und an gote. Nû sprichet er: ‘daz ir under einander minnet’. Ach, daz wære ein edel leben, daz wære ein sælic leben! Enwære daz niht ein edel leben, daz ein ieglîcher wære bekêret ûf sînes næhsten vride als ûf sînen eigenen vride und daz sîn minne alsô blôz und alsô lûter und alsô abegescheiden sî in ir selber, daz si niht enmeine wan güete und got? Der einen guoten menschen vrâgete: ‘war umbe minnest dû güete?’ – ‘umbe güete’; ‘war umbe minnest dû got?’ – ‘umbe got’. Und ist, daz dîn minne alsô lûter, alsô abegescheiden, alsô blôz ist in ir selber, daz dû niht anders enminnest (󰀄󰀆) | dan güete und got, sô ist daz ein sicher wârheit, daz alle die tugende, die alle menschen ie geworhten, die sint dîn alsô volkomenlîche, als ob dû sie selber geworht hætest, und lûterer und bezzer; wan, daz der bâbest bâbest ist, daz hât er dicke mit grôzer arbeit; die tugent hâst dû lûterer und abegescheidener und

󰀈. Eckhart could be referring to Aristotle (or Plato). Aristotle insists that a deed can be virtuous only if it is done for its own sake, and Eckhart could be interpreting this ‘for its own sake’ as ‘out of love (for the virtue in question)’. See also Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I II q. 󰀆󰀅 a. 󰀂: ‘virtutes morales sine caritate esse non possunt’.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀇]

󰀄󰀃󰀇

Now note! What does He mean to say here, that it is so important to Him that we love? He means to say that the love, with which we love, must be so pure, so naked, so detached, that it should not be tended either towards me or to a friend of mine or to something beside itself. The masters say that one can not call a good action a good action or a good virtue a good virtue if they do not happen in love.󰀈 Virtue is so noble, so detached, so pure, so naked in itself, that it knows nothing better than itself and God. Now He says:󰀉 ‘This is my commandment’. If someone commands me what is comfortable to me, which is beneficial to me and in which my happiness consists, then it is really comforting to me. When I am thirsty, a drink commands me; when I am hungry, food commands me. And so does God: yes, so comforting that this whole world can not offer something like this. And whoever has tasted this comfort for once, in truth, just as God can not turn away from His Godhead, this person can as little turn away his love from goodness and from God; indeed, it is easier for him to renounce himself and all his bliss and remain with his love in goodness and in God. Now He says,󰀁󰀀 ‘that you love one another’. Ah, this would be a noble life, this would be a blessed life! Would it not be a noble life, if each one took care of the peace of his neighbour as much as of his own peace, and that his love was so naked and so pure and so detached in itself, that it intended nothing but goodness and God? If you ask a good man: ‘Why do you love goodness?’ – ‘For goodness’; ‘Why do you love God?’ – ‘For God’. And if your love is so pure, so detached, so naked in itself, that you love nothing but goodness and God, then it is an ascertained truth that all the virtues that all people have ever performed are so perfectly yours as if you yourself had performed them, and even more purely and better; because the fact that the Pope is Pope, he often has it with great difficulty; but you have virtue in a purer and more detached and peaceful way and it is more

󰀉. Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀂. 󰀁󰀀. Luc. 󰀆:󰀂󰀈.

󰀄󰀃󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

mit ruowe und ist mê dîn dan sîn, ist, daz dîn minne alsô lûter, alsô blôz in ir selber ist, daz dû niht anders enmeinest noch enminnest dan güete und got. Nû sprichet er: ‘als ich iuch geminnet hân’. Wie hât uns got geminnet? Er minnete uns, dô wir niht enwâren und dô wir sîn vîent wâren. Alsô nôt ist gote ze unser vriuntschaft, daz er niht erbeiten enmac, biz daz wir in biten; er gât uns engegen und bitet uns, daz wir sîne vriunde sîn, wan er begert von uns, daz wir wellen, (󰀄󰀇) | daz er uns vergebe. Dâ von sprichet unser herre gar wol: ‘daz ist mîn wille, daz ir die bitet, die iu leit tuont’. Alsô ernst sol uns sîn, daz wir die biten, die uns leit tuont. War umbe? – Daz wir gotes willen tæten, daz wir niht ensölten erbeiten, biz daz man uns bæte; wir sölten sprechen: ‘vriunt, vergip mir, daz ich dich betrüebet hân!’ Und alsô ernst solte uns sîn ze der tugent: sô diu pîne ie grœzer wære, sô unser ernst ie grœzer sölte sîn ze der tugent. Alsô ein sol dîn minne sîn, wan minne diu enwil nienâ sîn, wan dâ glîcheit ist und ein ist. Ein herre, der einen kneht hât, dâ enist niht (󰀄󰀈) | vride, wan dâ enist niht glîcheit. Ein vrouwe und ein man diu sint einander unglîch; aber in der minne sint sie gar glîch. Dâ von sprichet diu schrift gar wol, daz got die vrouwen næme von des mannes rippe und sîten, weder von dem houbete noch von den vüezen, wan swâ zwei sint, dâ ist gebreste. War umbe? Einez enist daz ander niht, wan daz niht, daz dâ machet underscheit, daz enist niht anders wan bitterkeit, wan dâ enist niht vride. Hân ich einen apfel in mîner hant, der ist mînen ougen lustlich, aber der munt wirt der süezicheit beroubet. Aber izze ich in, sô beroube (󰀄󰀉) | ich mîniu ougen des lustes, den ich dar ane hân. Alsus enmügen zwei niht bî einander gesîn, wan einez muoz sîn wesen verliesen. Dâ von sprichet er: ‘minnet under einander!’, daz ist: in einander. Dâ von sprichet diu schrift gar wol. Sant Johannes sprichet: ‘got ist diu minne, und der in der minne ist, der ist in gote, und got ist in im’. Jâ, er sprichet gar wol: wære got in mir und enwære ich niht in gote, oder wære ich in gote und enwære got niht in mir, sô wære allez enzwei. Dâ aber got ist in mir und bin ich in gote, sô enbin ich niht snœder (󰀅󰀀) | 󰀁󰀁. J. Quint ad loc. translates ‘Anstrengung’ (‘effort’). 󰀁󰀂. See Gen. 󰀂:󰀂󰀂: ‘et aedificavit Dominus Deus costam quam tulerat de Adam in mulierem et adduxit eam ad Adam’.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀇]

󰀄󰀃󰀉

yours than his, if your love is so pure, so naked in itself, that you do not intend anything else nor love anything but goodness and God. Now He says: ‘As I have loved you’. How did God love us? He loved us, when we were not yet and when we were his enemies. Our friendship is so necessary to God that He can not wait until we ask Him; He comes to meet us and begs us to be His friends, because He wants us to want Him to forgive us. Of this our Lord says very well: ‘This is my will, that you pray for those who bring you suffering’. Hence it must be important to us, that we pray for those who bring us suffering. Why? – For us to do God’s will, so that we must not wait until we are asked; we should say: ‘Friend, forgive me that I have saddened you!’ And so important virtue should be for us: the greater the pain is,󰀁󰀁 the greater our effort should be for virtue. So one must be your love, because love does not want to be anywhere except where there is likeness and there is one. Between a lord and a servant he has, there is no peace, because there is no likeness. A woman and a man are unlike each other; but in love they are completely alike. Of this the Scripture says󰀁󰀂 very well that God took the woman from the rib and from the man’s side, not from the head and not from the feet, because where there is two, there is imperfection. Why? The one is not the other, because the ‘not’ that indicates the difference, is nothing but bitterness, because there is no peace there. If I have an apple in my hand, this is pleasing to my eye, but the mouth is deprived of the sweetness. But when I eat it, then I deprive my eyes of the pleasure that I had of it. Thus two can not coexist, because one of them must lose its being. Therefore He says:󰀁󰀃 ‘Love amongst one another’, that is, in one another. Of this the Scripture speaks very well. St. John says:󰀁󰀄 ‘God is love, and he who is in love is in God, and God is in him’. Yes, he speaks very well: if God were in me and I were not in God, or if I were in God and God were not in me, everything would be split. But since God is in me and I am in God, I am no longer worthless nor is God

󰀁󰀃. Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀂. 󰀁󰀄. Ioh. 󰀄:󰀁󰀆.

󰀄󰀄󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

noch got niht hœher. Nû möhtet ir sprechen: herre, dû sprichest, daz ich minne, und ich enmac niht minnen. Dâ von sprichet unser herre gar wol, als er sprach ze sant Pêter: ‘Pêtre, minnest dû mich? – Herre, dû weist wol, daz ich dich minne’. Hâst dû mirz gegeben, herre, sô minne ich dich; hâst dû mirz niht gegeben, sô enminne ich dich niht. Nû merket daz ander wörtelîn, daz er sprichet: ‘ich hân iuch gesprochen mîne vriunde’, wan ich hân iu geoffenbâret allez, daz ich gehœret hân von mînem vater. Nû merket, daz er sprichet: ich hân iuch gesprochen mîne vriunde. In dem selben (󰀅󰀁) | ursprunge, dâ der sun urspringet, dâ der vater sîn êwic wort ûzsprichet, und ûz dem selben herzen, dâ urspringet ouch der heilige geist und vliuzet ûz. Und enwære der heilige geist niht ûzgevlozzen von dem sune, sô enhæte man enkeinen underscheit bekant zwischen dem sune und dem heiligen geiste. Dô ich nû predigete an der drîvalticheit tage, dô sprach ich ein wörtelîn in der latîne, daz der vater sînem eingebornen sune gæbe allez, daz er geleisten mac, alle sîne gotheit, alle sîne sælicheit, (󰀅󰀂) | und enbehielte im selber niht. Dô was ein vrâge: gap er im ouch sîne eigenschaft? Und ich sprach: jâ! wan diu eigenschaft des vaters, daz er gebirt, daz enist niht anders wan got; wan ich hân gesprochen, daz er im selber niht behalten enhât. Jâ, ich spriche: die wurzel der gotheit die sprichet er alzemâle in sînen sun. Dâ von sprichet sant Philippus: ‘herre, zeige uns den vater, sô benüeget uns’. Ein boum, der vruht treget, der bringet sîne vruht vür. Der mir die vruht gibet, der engibet mir niht den boum. Aber der mir den boum gibet und die wurzel und die vruht, der hât mir mê gegeben. Nû sprichet er: ‘ich hân iuch gesprochen mîne vriunde’. Jâ, in der selben geburt, dâ der vater gebirt sînen eingebornen sun und im gibet die wurzel und alle sîne gotheit und alle sîne sælicheit und im selben niht enbeheltet, in der selben geburt sprichet er uns sîne vriunde. Aleine dû des sprechennes niht enhœrest noch enverstâst, doch sô ist ein kraft in der sêle – von der sprach ich, dô ich nû hie predigete –, (󰀅󰀃) | diu ist alsô abegescheiden und

󰀁󰀅. Ioh. 󰀂󰀁:󰀁󰀅: ‘dicit Simoni Petro Iesus Simon Iohannis diligis me plus his dicit ei etiam Domine tu scis quia amo te’. 󰀁󰀆. Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀅. 󰀁󰀇. This reference most likely refers to Eckhart, Sermo II,󰀁 n. 󰀆 (LW IV 󰀈,󰀆–󰀁󰀄): ‘In causis autem primordialibus sive originalibus primo–primis, ubi magis proprie nomen est principii quam causae, principium se toto et cum omnibus suis proprietatibus descendit in principiatum. Audeo dicere quod etiam cum suis propriis – Ioh. 󰀁󰀄: “ego in patre et pater in me est” – ut non solum hoc

H OMILY 󰀉󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀇]

󰀄󰀄󰀁

above (me). Now you might say, Lord, you say that I love, but I can not love. Of this our Lord says very well, when He said to Saint Peter: ‘Peter, do you love me?’ – ‘Lord, you know well that I love you’.󰀁󰀅 Have you given it to me, Lord, I love you; if you did not give it to me, I do not love you. Now note the second sentence which He says: ‘I have called you my friends, because I have revealed to you all that I have heard from my father’.󰀁󰀆 Now note that He says: ‘I have called you my friends’, in the same origin where the Son originates from, where the Father utters His eternal Word, and from the same heart, there also the Holy Spirit originates and flows out. And if the Holy Spirit had not flowed from the Son, no distinction would be known between the Son and the Holy Spirit. When I now preached on the day of the Trinity, I said a sentence in Latin,󰀁󰀇 that the Father gave His only-begotten Son all He can offer, all His Godhead, all His bliss, and that He held nothing back for Himself. Then a question was asked: did He also give Him His property? And I said: yes! because the property of the Father that He generates is none other than God; because I said that He did not hold back anything for Himself. Yes, I say: the root of the Godhead He utters completely into His Son. Of this Saint Philip speaks: ‘Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us’.󰀁󰀈 A tree bearing fruit brings forth its fruit. The one who gives me the fruit does not give me the tree. But he who gives me the tree, the root and the fruit, gave me more. Now He says: ‘I have called you my friends’. Yes, in the same generation, where the Father generates His only-begotten Son and gives Him the root and all His Godhead and all His bliss and where He does not hold back anything to Himself, in this same generation He calls us His friends. Even if you do not hear this word or understand it, there is a power in the soul – of this I spoke, when just now I preached here󰀁󰀉 – which is so detached and so pure in itself and is akin to the divine

sit in illo, quodlibet in quolibet, sed hoc sit illud, quodlibet quodlibet, Ioh. 󰀁󰀀: “ego et 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’. 󰀁󰀈. Ioh. 󰀁󰀄:󰀈–󰀉: ‘Dicit ei Philippus: Domine, ostende nobis Patrem, et sufficit nobis’. 󰀁󰀉. The reference seems to refer to Hom. 󰀂󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀆], n. 󰀁󰀀: ‘Die meister sprechent, daz ûz dem obersten teile der sêle vliezent zwô krefte. Diu eine heizet wille, diu ander vernünfticheit’.

󰀄󰀄󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

alsô lûter in ir selben und ist sippe götlîcher natûre, und in der kraft wirt ez verstanden. Dannen von sprichet er ouch gar wol: ‘dâ von hân ich iu geoffenbâret allez, daz ich gehœret hân von mînem vater’. Nû sprichet er: ‘daz ich gehœret hân’. Des vaters sprechen ist sîn gebern, des sunes hœren ist sîn geborn werden. Nû sprichet er: ‘allez, daz ich gehœret hân von mînem vater’. Jâ, allez, daz er êwiclîche gehœret hât von sînem vater, daz hât er uns geoffenbâret und enhât sîn uns niht vorbedecket. Ich spriche: und hæte er tûsentwarbe mê gehœret, er hæte ez uns geoffenbâret und enhæte sîn uns niht vorbedecket. Alsus ensuln wir gote niht vorbedecken; wir suln im offenbâren allez, daz wir mugen geleisten. Wan behieltest dû dir selber iht, als vil verlürst dû dîne êwige sælicheit, (󰀅󰀄) | wan uns got niht vorbedecket enhât des sînen. Diz dünket etlîche liute ein swære rede. Her umbe ensol nieman verzwîveln. Sô dû dich gote mê gibest, sô sich got dir selben mê widergibet: sô dû dîn selbes mê verzîhest, sô dîn êwigiu sælicheit mê ist. Ich gedâhte nû, dô ich mîn pater noster bette, daz uns got selbe lêrte: dâ wir sprechen: ‘zuo kome uns dîn rîche, dîn wille werde!’, dâ biten wir allez got, daz er uns selben uns beneme. (󰀅󰀅) | Von dem dritten wörtelîn enwil ich nû zemâle niht sprechen, daz er sprichet: ‘ich hân iuch ûzerwelt, gesat [gesat], gestellet [gestellet], bestatet [bestatet], daz ir gât und vruht bringet und diu vruht bî iu blîbe!’ Und diu vruht enweiz nieman wan got aleine. Und daz wir ze dirre vruht komen, des helfe uns diu êwige wârheit, von der ich gesprochen hân. Âmen.

󰀂󰀀. Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀅. 󰀂󰀁. See the possible reference to this place here in Hom. 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁], n. 󰀈: ‘Ich sprach niuwelîche wider etlîche liute, die vil lîhte ouch hie sint, ein wörtelîn, und sagete alsô: ez enist niht sô bedecket, ez ensüle entdecket werden’.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀇]

󰀄󰀄󰀃

nature, and in this power it is understood. Of this He also speaks so well: ‘Therefore I have also revealed to you all that I have heard from my Father’.󰀂󰀀 Now He says: ‘That I have heard’. The speaking of the Father is His generating, the hearing of the Son is His being generated. Now He says: ‘All that I have heard from my Father’. Yes, all that He has eternally heard from His Father, He has revealed to us and has not concealed anything from us. I say: if He had heard a thousand times more, He would have revealed it to us and would have concealed nothing from us.󰀂󰀁 Thus we must not conceal anything from God; we have to reveal all that we can do. Because if you hold back something for yourself, in the same measure you lose your eternal bliss, because God has not concealed anything of His. This seems to some people a difficult saying. But nobody should be in despair because of it. The more you give yourself to God, the more God gives Himself back to you: the more you renounce what is yours, the more eternal bliss is yours. I just now thought, when I pray my Pater noster, that God himself taught us: when we say:󰀂󰀂 ‘Thy kingdom come, let your will become!’ We pray incessantly to God that He removes us from ourselves. I do not want to say anything now of the third sentence that He says: ‘I have chosen you, placed you, set you, installed you, so that you go and bear fruit, and the fruit remains with you!’󰀂󰀃 And this fruit nobody knows except God alone. That we ripen to this fruit, may the eternal truth, of which I spoke, help us! Amen.

󰀂󰀂. Matth. 󰀆:󰀁󰀀. 󰀂󰀃. Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀆.

Homily 󰀉󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀅] In communi unius apostoli vel plurimorum (?) ‘Mandatum novum do vobis, ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos’ etc. (Ioh. 󰀁󰀃:󰀃󰀄–󰀅) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Ioh. 󰀁󰀃:󰀃󰀄–󰀅 (‘Mandatum novum do vobis, ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos’) is closely related to Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀂–󰀆 of the previous homily. According to the print BT, the homily was given for the feast of St. Bartholomew, celebrated on 󰀂󰀈 August (‘Vff sant Bartholomes tag’, BT), but the verse is not found in the Dominican Missal. The text is handed down by the single manuscript Ba󰀂 and the print in BT and one additional fragment S󰀁 to which one has to add the print HT. Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀈* [Q 󰀈󰀁], n. 󰀅 seems to refer to n. 󰀄. To n. 󰀅 see the parallels in Hom. 󰀉󰀂* [Q 󰀇󰀄], 󰀉 with a reference perhaps to Hom. 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁], n. 󰀁󰀀 or to this note in the homily here. If the reference goes to Hom. 󰀉󰀁*, we are at least given parallel passages that show the proximity of these homilies. N. 󰀆 is an internal back reference to n. 󰀄. The content of the homily The homily has a slim basis of witnesses, but is in many ways of great interest. Just like the previous homily, it deals with the central topic of love which is unfolded here, mentioning three ascending forms of love, the natural, the graceful or spiritual, and the divine. Talking about the highest stage, Eckhart mentions the feminine character of the divine, lying ‘in the bed of childbirth as a woman who has given birth’ (n. 󰀈; see also n. 󰀉). Then he adds the two examples of ‘Liah’ (= ‘active life’)

H OMILY 󰀉󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀅]

󰀄󰀄󰀅

and ‘Rachel’ (= ‘contemplative life’) (n. 󰀁󰀀). The short note on the student and his master in n. 󰀁󰀁, is almost like a saying of the fathers of the desert or a zen story. Having given the core verses abbreviated (Ioh. 󰀁󰀃:󰀃󰀄–󰀅) in Latin, he adds the fuller vernacular translation (n. 󰀂). This is followed by the major theme: the ‘three forms of love’ (n. 󰀃). ‘About the first love’ (nn. 󰀄–󰀅), or how to love all creatures alike (n. 󰀅). ‘The second love’ (nn. 󰀆–󰀇) ‘The third love’ (nn. 󰀈–󰀁󰀁) And the final prayer ‘that we may ascend from one love to the other and be united within God and remain in there eternally blessed’ (n. 󰀁󰀂). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀇,󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀂; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀁󰀁󰀃–󰀂󰀄; J. Quint, DW III 󰀂󰀈󰀉–󰀃󰀂󰀉; N. Largier II 󰀁󰀁󰀆–󰀂󰀅.󰀇󰀀󰀁–󰀅. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀂󰀁󰀄–󰀇; M. Fox, Breakthrough (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀), 󰀉󰀁–󰀄; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀄󰀂󰀇–󰀃󰀁.

󰀄󰀄󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀉󰀂) ‘Mandatum novum do vobis, ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos’ etc. In dem heiligen êwangeliô, daz uns Johannes schrîbet, liset man, daz unser herre sprach ze sînen jüngern: ‘ein niuwe gebot gibe ich iu: daz ir sült iuch under einander minnen, als ich iuch geminnet hân; und dâ bî werdent die liute erkennen, daz ir mîne jüngern sît: ob ir minne ze einander hât’. Nû vinden wir von drîerleie minne, die unser herre hât; dar ane müezen wir uns im glîchen. Diu êrste ist natiurlich, diu ander ist gnædiclich, diu dritte ist götlich, swie (󰀂󰀉󰀃) | doch in gote niht enist, ez ensî ouch got. Aber wir müezen ez nemen, als ez in uns ûfklimmende ist von einem guoten in ein bezzerz und von einem bezzern in ein volkomenerz. Aber in gote enist weder minner noch mê; er ist aleine ein einvaltigiu, lûteriu, wesenlîchiu wârheit. Diu êrste minne, die got hât, dâ suln wir ane lernen, wie in sîn natiurlîchiu güete dar zuo twanc, daz er alle crêatûren geschuof, der er êwiclîche swanger was worden in dem bilde sîner vürsihticheit, ûf daz sie sîner güete niezen mit im. Und under allen (󰀂󰀉󰀄) | crêatûren sô enminnet er eine niht mê dan die andern; wan als verre ieglîchiu wît ist ze enpfâhenne, als verre ergiuzet er sich in sie. Wære mîn sêle als wît und als breit als der engel von Seraphîn, der niht in im enhât, got güzze in mich als volkomenlîche als in den engel von Seraphîn. Rehte als der einen zirkel machete sinwel und der umbe und umbe vol pünctelîne wære und enmitten inne ein punct: dem puncten wæren diu andern pünctelîn alliu glîche nâhe und verre; sölte im ein pünctelîn næher werden, daz müeste ûzer sîner stat rucken, wan der mittelpunct blîbet glîche enmitten. Alsô ist ez umbe daz götlîche wesen: ez enist niht ûzer im suochende, mêr: alles in im selber blîbende. Sol daz sîn, daz diu crêatûre von im enpfâhe, sô muoz daz von nôt sîn, daz si (󰀂󰀉󰀅) | ûzer ir selber

󰀁. Ioh. 󰀁󰀃:󰀃󰀄–󰀅 (‘Mandatum novum do vobis: Ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos, ut et vos diligatis invicem. In hoc cognoscent omnes quia discipuli mei estis, si dilectionem habueritis ad invicem’). 󰀂. See below n. 󰀈.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀅]

󰀄󰀄󰀇

‘Mandatum novum do vobis, ut diligatis invicem, sicut dilexi vos’ etc. In the holy Gospel that John writes for us, we read that our Lord said to His disciples: ‘I give you a new commandment: that you must love one another as I have loved you; and in this people will know that you are my disciples: if you have love for one another’.󰀁 Now, we know of three forms of love that our Lord has; in these we must become like Him. The first is natural, the second is graceful, the third is divine, though there is nothing in God, except it is also God. But we must understand them as ascending from a good to a better and a better to a more perfect form. In God, however, there is neither less nor more; He is only a simple, pure, essential truth. About the first love that God has, we must learn how His natural goodness forced Him to create all the creatures with which He was eternally pregnant in the image of His providence,󰀂 so that they would enjoy with Him His goodness. And among all creatures He does not love one more than the other; because as open as each of them is, so much He pours Himself into it. If my soul were as open and as wide as the angel of the Seraphim, who has nothing in itself, God would pour Himself󰀃 into me as perfectly as into the angel of the Seraphim. Just like the one who makes a round circle which would be full of dots all around and in the center one dot:󰀄 to this dot all other dots would all be equally near and far; and if a dot should become closer to it, it would need to move out of its place, because the dot in the center would always remain the same in the center. So it is with the divine being: It is not looking for anything outside of Itself, rather: It is remaining completely in Itself. If the creature should receive from It, by necessity, it must be moved outside 󰀃. The textual witnesses give ‘ez’ which is certainly wrong. J. Quint ad loc. accepts the wrong reading, but translates, as if he read , hence, we have changed the text here. 󰀄. See the reference in Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀈* [Q 󰀈󰀁], n. 󰀅: ‘Ich hân ez etwanne mê gesprochen: ein beginnære, der eines guoten lebens beginnen sol, der neme ein glîchnisse: der einen zirkel machen wil, – als er den êrsten vuoz setzet, alsô stât er, biz er den zirkel gemachet; sô wirt der zirkel guot’.

󰀄󰀄󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

gerucket werde. Swenne man von dem menschen redet, sô redet man von allen crêatûren, wan Kristus sprach selber ze sînen jüngern: ‘gât hine und prediget daz êwangelium allen crêatûren’, wan alle crêatûren sint gesament an dem menschen. Aber got der giuzet sich doch wesenlîche in alle crêatûren, in ieglîche, als vil si (󰀂󰀉󰀆) | enpfâhen mac. Diz ist uns ein guotiu lêre, wie wir alle crêatûren glîche minnen süln mit allem dem, daz wir von gote enpfangen hân; ist uns joch einiu næher von sippeschaft oder von vriuntschaft natiurlîche, daz wir doch von götlîcher minne glîchen gunst tragen des selben guotes. Ich schîne etwanne, daz ich einen menschen mê minne dan den andern; aber ich hân den selben gunst ze einem andern, den ich nie gesach, und dirre erbiutet sich mir mê; und dar umbe mac ich mich mê in in ergiezen. Alsô minnet got alle crêatûren glîche und ervüllet sie mit sînem wesene. Und alsô suln wir mit minne vliezen ûf alle crêatûren. Diz vindet man vil an den heidenen, daz sie ze disem minnerîchen vriden mit natiurlîcher bekantnisse kâmen, wan daz sprichet ein heidenischer lêrære: »der mensche ist ein tier, daz von natûre sanftmüetic ist«. (󰀂󰀉󰀇) | Diu ander minne gotes, diu dâ geistlich ist, dâ mite ist er vliezende in die sêle und in den engel, als ich vor sprach, wie diu vernünftige crêatûre ûz ir selber gerucket muoz werden mit einem liehte, daz über allez natiurlîche lieht ist. Wan alle crêatûren in irm natiurlîchen liehte sô vil lustes hânt, sô muoz daz grœzer sîn, daz sie dar ûz ziuhet ein lieht von gnâden. Wan in dem natiurlîchen liehte hât der mensche lust in im selben; aber daz lieht der gnâde, daz unsprechelîche grœzer ist, daz benimet dem menschen eigenen lust und ziuhet in in sich selben. Her umbe sprichet diu sêle in der minne buoche: ‘ziuch mich nâch dir in dînem gesmacke’. (󰀂󰀉󰀈) |

󰀅. Perhaps, Hom. 󰀉󰀂* [Q 󰀇󰀄], 󰀉: ‘als ich neülich sprach: koende der mensch darzuo kommen, über sich vnd auß sich, so hett er wol gefochten. Vergiß deß deinen, so gewünnestu die tugent’ refers to this passage or rather Hom. 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁], n. 󰀁󰀀: ‘Saint Augustine says a better phrase; he says: I have poured my soul beyond me. It must necessarily be that she must come beyond herself, if she is to become one in the Son’; if the reference is to the latter passage, we are at least given parallel passages. 󰀆. Marc. 󰀁󰀆:󰀁󰀅. 󰀇. J. Quint ad loc. translates ‘begegnen’ (‘encounter’).

H OMILY 󰀉󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀅]

󰀄󰀄󰀉

of itself.󰀅 When one speaks of a person, one speaks of all creatures, because Christ Himself said to His disciples:󰀆 ‘Go there and preach the Gospel to all creatures’, because all creatures are gathered in that person. God, however, pours Himself essentially into all creatures, into each of them, to the extent that it can receive. This is a good lesson for us, how we should love all creatures alike with all that we have received from God; even if one is naturally closer by familiarity or friendship, but for God’s sake we bring him the same benevolence of the same good. I sometimes seem to love one person more than another; but I have the same benevolence towards somebody else who I have never seen and this one offers himself more to me; and this is why I can pour myself more into him. Thus God loves all creatures alike and fills them with his being. And so with love we must flow󰀇 to all creatures. This is often found among pagans, who came to this loving peace by natural knowledge, because a pagan teacher says: ‘Man is an animal that is gentle by nature’.󰀈 The second love of God, which is ‘spiritual’,󰀉 with this He is flowing into the soul and the angel, as I said before,󰀁󰀀 as the intellectual creature must be moved out of itself by a light that is beyond all natural light. Since all creatures in their natural light have so much pleasure, it must be a greater light of grace that draws them out of it. Because in natural light, the human being enjoys himself; but the light of grace, which is unspeakably greater, deprives him of his own pleasure and draws him into itself 󰀁󰀁. Therefore the soul says in the Book of Love: ‘Draw me after you in your taste’.󰀁󰀂

󰀈. See Aristoteles, Topic. V c. 󰀂󰀁 (Ε c. 󰀈 󰀁󰀃󰀈 a 󰀁󰀀–󰀁); see Eckhart, Sermo II,󰀂, n. 󰀁󰀇 (LW IV 󰀁󰀉,󰀁–󰀂): ‘Vel “hominibus”, id est mansuetis. Est enim homo animal mansuetum natura’. 󰀉. J. Quint ad loc. corrects the text by introducing (), but Eckhart often switches from one expression to another, emphasising a different aspect. 󰀁󰀀. See above n. 󰀄. 󰀁󰀁. I.e. the light of grace. 󰀁󰀂. Cant. 󰀁:󰀃: ‘trahe me post te … in odorem unguentorum tuorum’.

󰀄󰀅󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Nû enkan man got niht geminnen, man enmüeze in ê bekennen, wan der wesenlîche punct, der got ist, der dâ stât enmitten glîche verre und nâhe allen crêatûren, sol ich dem genâhet werden, sô muoz mîn natiurlîche vernunft ûzgerucket werden mit einem liehte, daz über sie ist. Als ob mîn ouge ein lieht wære und sô stark wære, daz ez daz lieht der sunnen in sîner kraft enpfienge und dâ mite ein würde, sô engesæhe ez niht aleine mit sîner kraft, mêr: mit dem liehte der sunnen gesæhe ez, als si in ir selber ist. Alsô ist ez umbe mîne vernunft. Vernunft, diu ein lieht ist, kêre ich die von allen dingen die rihte gegen gote, wan denne got âne underlâz ist ûzvliezende mit gnâden, sô wirt mîn vernunft erliuhtet und vereinet mit minne und dar inne got bekennende und got minnende, als er in im selber ist. Hie mite werden wir underwîset, wie got ûzvliezende ist in die vernünftigen crêatûren mit dem liehte der gnâde und wie wir mit unser vernunft nâhen süln disem gnædiclîchen liehte und ûz uns selben gezogen werden und ûfklimmende in ein lieht, daz got selber ist. (󰀂󰀉󰀉) | Diu dritte minne , dar ane wir lernen süln, wie got êwiclîche ûzgeborn hât sînen eingebornen sun und gebirt in nû und êwiclîche – sprichet ein meister –; und alsô liget er kindes als ein vrouwe, diu geborn hât, in einer ieglîchen guoten, ûzgebrâhten und îngewonten sêle. Disiu geburt ist sîn verstantnisse, diu êwiclîche ursprungen ist von sînem veterlîchen herzen, in dem er alle sîne wunne hât. Und allez, daz er geleisten mac, daz verzert er in der verstantnisse, diu sîn geburt ist, und er ensuochet niht ûzer im. Alle sîne wunne hât er in sînem sune, und er enminnet niht wan sînen sun und allez, daz er in im vindet; wan der sun ist ein lieht, daz dâ êwiclîche geliuhtet hât in dem veterlîchen herzen. Suln wir dar în komen, sô müezen wir klimmen (󰀃󰀀󰀀) | von natiurlîchem liehte in daz lieht der gnâde und dar inne wahsen in daz

󰀁󰀃. I.e. the sun. This seems to be an echo of the Platonic view that vision involves a power going out from the eye, as the following sentences make clear. 󰀁󰀄. See Anselmus, Proslogion c. 󰀁󰀆 (Schmitt, 󰀁󰀁󰀂,󰀂󰀀–󰀄): ‘Vere, domine, haec est lux inaccessibilis, in qua habitas. Vere enim non est aliud, quod hanc penetret, ut ibi te pervideat. Vere ideo hanc non video, quia nimia mihi est; et tamen, quidquid video, per illam video, sicut infirmus oculus, quod videt, per lumen solis videt, quam ipso sole nequit aspicere. Non potest intellectus meus ad illam’. 󰀁󰀅. See above n. 󰀄; see also Eisenach, Bibliothek der Wartburg-Stiftung, Ms. 󰀁󰀃󰀆󰀁-󰀅󰀀, f. 󰀁󰀀󰀁r: ‘Meister eghard spriched, das god nihd allein ein vader ist aller g0der dinge, mer er ist !ch ein

H OMILY 󰀉󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀅]

󰀄󰀅󰀁

Now, you can not love God, unless necessarily you first know Him, because if I have to approach the essential point, i.e. God, that is at the center equally distant and close to all creatures, my natural intellect must be moved out by a light that is beyond it. As if my eye were a light and were so strong as to receive the light of the sun in its power and become one with it, it would not only see by its own power, but would rather see by the light of the sun as it󰀁󰀃 is in itself. So it is with my intellect. If I turn the intellect, which is a light, from all creatures directly to God, since God without interruption is flowing out with grace, my intellect is enlightened and united with love and in this knows God and loves God as He is in Himself. This teaches us how God is flowing out into the intellectual creatures by the light of grace, how we ought to approach this light by our intellect and how we are moved out of ourselves and ascend into a light that is God Himself.󰀁󰀄 The third love , from which we must learn how God has eternally generated His only-begotten Son and gives birth to Him in the ‘now’ and eternally – as a master says –; and so He lies in the bed of childbirth as a woman who has given birth,󰀁󰀅 in every good, drawn out and indwelling soul. This birth is His self-knowledge who is eternally originated from His paternal heart, in which He has all His delight. And all that He can accomplish, He consumes in knowledge that is His birth, and does not look for anything outside Him.󰀁󰀆 All His delight He has in His Son, and He loves nothing but His Son and all that He finds in Him; because the Son is a light that has eternally shone in the paternal heart. If we shall come into this, we must ascend from natural light into the light of grace and within it grow into the light that

m0der aller dinge, wan er ist ein vader darvmbe, wan er ein sache ist aller dinge vnd ein schepher. Er ist !ch ein m0der aller dinge, wan wanne dv creature von im ir wesen nimed, so blibed er bi der creature vnd behelded si in irme wesen’ (‘Meister Eckhart says that God is not only a Father of all good things, rather He is also a Mother of all things, because He is Father for He is the cause of all things and a creator. He is also a Mother of all things, because when the creature takes from Him its essence, He remains with the creature and keeps it in its essence’). 󰀁󰀆. As can be seen from the next sentence, Eckhart switches from the Son as subject to the Father, without indicating the switch.

󰀄󰀅󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

lieht, daz der sun selber ist. Dâ werden wir geminnet in dem sune von dem vater mit der minne, diu der heilige geist ist, diu dâ êwiclîche entsprungen ist und ûzgeblüejet ist ze sîner êwigen geburt – daz ist diu dritte persône – und ûzblüejende ist von dem sune ze dem vater als ir beider minne. Der meister sprichet: ich gedenke etwanne an daz wort, daz der engel ze Marîen sprach: ‘gegrüezet sîst dû, gnâden vol’. Waz hülfe mich, daz Marîâ ‘gnâden vol’ wære, (󰀃󰀀󰀁) | ich enwære denne ouch ‘gnâden vol’? Und waz hülfe mich, daz der vater sînen sun gebære, ich engebære in denne ouch? Dar umbe gebirt got sînen sun in einer volkomenen sêle und liget alsô kindes inne, ûf daz si in vort ûzgebære in allen irn werken. Dar über sprach ein heidenischiu juncvrouwe von herren Jôsephe, des patriarchen sune: ‘ich ensach in niht ane als einen menschen, mêr: als einen got, wan got der liuhtet ûz sînen werken’. Alsô suln wir geeiniget werden mit der minne des heiligen geistes in dem sune und mit dem sune bekennen den vater und minnen uns in im und in in uns mit ir beider minne. Wer nû volkomen wil sîn an dirre drîerleie minne, der muoz von nôt vier stücke hân. Daz êrste: eine wâre abegescheidenheit von allen crêatûren. Daz ander: ein wâr (󰀃󰀀󰀂) | leben Lyae, daz bediutet ein würkende leben, daz dâ beweget sî in dem grunde der sêle von der berüerunge des heiligen geistes. Daz dritte: ein wâr leben Rachêlis, daz ist ein schouwelich leben. Daz vierde: einen ûfklimmenden geist. Ez vrâgete ein jünger sînen meister von der ordenunge der engel. Dô berihte er in und sprach: ‘ganc hinwec und vüege dich in dich selben sô lange, daz dû ez verstandest, und gip dich danne mit wesenne dar în und luoge, daz dû in niht anders ensîst, wan daz dû an im vindest. Sô dünket dich ze dem êrsten, wie dû die engel mit in sîst; und als dû dich in aller wesen gibest, sô wirt dich bedünken, wie dû alle engel mit allen engel sîst’. Der jünger gienc hinwec und vuogte sich in

󰀁󰀇. See Origenes, Homiliae in Lucam c. 󰀂󰀂 (Rauer 󰀁󰀄󰀄,󰀁󰀂–󰀅): ‘Quid enim tibi prodest, si Christus quondam venit in carne, nisi ad tuam quoque animam venerit? Oremus, ut illius cotidie nobis adventus fiat…’. 󰀁󰀈. Luc. 󰀁:󰀂󰀈: ‘ave, gratia plena’. 󰀁󰀉. Gen. 󰀃󰀉:󰀂󰀃: ‘dominus enim erat cum illo, et omnia opera eius dirigebat’. 󰀂󰀀. See Gregorius Magnus, Epist. I epist. 󰀅 (PL 󰀇󰀇, 󰀄󰀄󰀉): ‘Contemplativae vitae pulchritudinem velut Rachelem dilexi sterilem, sed videntem ac pulchram; quae etsi per quietem suam minus

H OMILY 󰀉󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀅]

󰀄󰀅󰀃

is the Son Himself. There we are loved by the Father in the Son with the love that is the Holy Spirit who has eternally originated there and flourished to His eternal ‘generation’ – this is the third Person – and is flourishing from the Son to the Father as the love of both. The master says:󰀁󰀇 I think sometimes about the phrase that the angel said to Mary: ‘Greetings to you, full of grace’.󰀁󰀈 What would it help me that Mary was ‘full of grace’ if I was not ‘full of grace’ too? And what would it help me that the Father would give birth to His Son, if I did not give birth to Him too? Therefore God gives birth to His Son in a perfect soul and thus lies in the childbed, so that she further gives birth to Him in all her actions. About this a pagan virgin said of the lord Joseph, son of the patriarch: ‘I did not see him as a man but rather as a God, because God shines from his actions’.󰀁󰀉 Thus we shall be united with the love of the Holy Spirit in the Son and with the Son know the Father and love ourselves in Him and Him in us with the love of Both. Whoever now wants to be perfect in these three forms of love, must by necessity have four elements. The first: a true detachment from all creatures. The second: a true life of Leah, which means an active life, which is moved in the ground of the soul by the touch of the Holy Spirit. The third: a true life of Rachel, that is, a contemplative life. The fourth: a spirit that is ascending.󰀂󰀀 A student asked his master about the order of angels. He then explained to him and said: ‘Go away and turn to yourself long enough that you understand it, and then immerse yourself essentially into this and see that you are not in anything else than what you find in it. So that it first seems to you that you are as the angels with it; and when you immerse yourself into all being, it will seem to you that you are all angels with all angels’. The disciple went away and turned to

generat, lucem tamen subtilius videt. Sed quo iudicio, nescio, Lia mihi in nocte coniuncta est, activa videlicet vita; fecunda, sed lippa; minus videns, quamvis amplius pariens’; Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiae VII c. 󰀆 n. 󰀃󰀆 (Lindsay I 󰀂󰀈󰀁,󰀂󰀆–󰀈): ‘Lia laboriosa, utique generando. Plurimos enim dolores quam Rachel fecunditate pariendi experta est. Rachel interpretatur ovis. Pro ea enim Iacob pavit oves Laban’.

󰀄󰀅󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

sich selben als lange, biz er dis alles bî der wârheit bevant. Dô gienc er wider ze dem meister und dankete im und sprach: ‘mir ist geschehen, wie dû mir gesaget hâst. Dô ich mich gap in daz wesen der engel und ûfklam in ir wesene, dô dûhte mich ze jungeste, wie ich alle engel mit allen engeln wære’. Dô sprach der meister: ‘eyâ, kumest dû ein wênic vürbaz in den ursprunc, sô sol wunder über wunder mit dîner sêle werden gewürket’; wan die wîle der mensche ûfklimmende ist und enpfâhende ist mit (󰀃󰀀󰀃) | mittel der crêatûren, sô enist er niht ze ruowe komen. Swenne er aber ûfklimmende ist in got, dâ enpfæhet er in dem sune mit dem sune von dem vater allez, daz got geleisten mac. Daz wir alsô ûfklimmen von einer minne in die ander und geeiniget werden in gote und dar inne êwiclîche sælic blîben, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀅]

󰀄󰀅󰀅

himself for as long until he found all this in truth. Then he returned to the master and thanked him and said: ‘It happened to me as you had told me. When I gave myself into the the being of the angels and ascended to their being, it seemed to me at last that I was all angels with all angels’. Then the master said: ‘Ah, if you come a little further into the origin, wonder on wonder shall happen to your soul’; because as long as a person is ascending and receiving by means of creatures, he has not come to rest. But when he is ascending into God, he receives in the Son with the Son from the Father all that God has to offer. That we may ascend from one love to the other and are united within God and remain in there eternally blessed, may God help us! Amen.

Homily 󰀉󰀇* [S 󰀉󰀇] In communi unius apostoli vel plurimorum ‘Qui manet in me et ego in eo, hic fert fructum multum’ (Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀅) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀅 is read on the feast day of one or several apostles, while the Roman Missal links it to the Commune of a martyr during the Easter time. Its precise place in the liturgical calender cannot be established, though the print BT mentions that it was meant for ‘De sanctis’. The text is handed down by two manuscripts of the Paradisus anime intelligentis (O, H󰀂). In n. 󰀇 we can infer a reference to Hom. 󰀈󰀁* [Q 󰀆󰀀].

The content of the homily This text, as many of the homilies preserved only by the Paradisus anime intelligentis, is a redacted and abbreviated version of Eckhart’s text, as can, for example, be seen from the missing prayer at the end, but also from the abbreviated opening which misses the preacher’s introductions of the quoted verses. The homily in this recension starts with the Latin core verse, Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀅, followed by Eckhart’s vernacular translation (n. 󰀁). Then he breaks the verse up into three sections (n. 󰀂): 󰀁) ‘Whoever remains or dwells in me’; 󰀂) ‘and I in him’; 󰀃) ‘he shall bring forth great fruit’. A) ‘Whoever remains or dwells in me’ (nn. 󰀃–󰀅). Starting with Col. 󰀃:󰀃 from where Eckhart draws the ‘life … with Christ in God’ and the notion that this life is ‘hidden’, he first explores ‘who the people are

H OMILY 󰀉󰀇* [S 󰀉󰀇]

󰀄󰀅󰀇

who thus live in God’ (n. 󰀄). They are ‘warm’, but, as the example of the course of the water from the spring down the river shows, the course of life cools down and muddles (n. 󰀅). This is also one of those places where Eckhart seems to take the Franciscan position on the ascent to God with his emphasis on love breaking through to God. B) ‘He who dwells in me and I in him’ (nn. 󰀆–󰀇). Remaining in the origin, therefore, is of utmost importance. And, yet, with Bernard, Eckhart states that it is equally important that God is the whole being of and in us (n. 󰀇). C) ‘He who dwells in me and I in him bears great fruit’ (nn. 󰀈–󰀁󰀄). Eckhart admits not to know ‘what the fruit is’ (n. 󰀈). With reference to the Liber XXIV philosophorum he underlines that not knowing God is the best knowledge of God. Hence one can not know the ‘fruit that God has promised, except by certain signs’. On these signs he elaborates and lists six (n. 󰀉): The first is ‘that the soul falls into its vices’ (n. 󰀁󰀀); the second is ‘that true virtues begin in the soul’ (n. 󰀁󰀁); the third is ‘that the root of divine things enters the heart with power’ (n. 󰀁󰀂); the fourth is ‘that all that was dried up by sins and weaknesses, becomes moist and green and growing by grace’ (n. 󰀁󰀃); the fifth is ‘that all the powers of the soul become enlightened’ (n. 󰀁󰀄); the sixth is ‘that all that was destroyed and frozen in the soul and in the body is gathered in God and completely ignited in divine love’ (n. 󰀁󰀅). Unfortunately, we mostly have just the headings, and we can only guess what Eckhart may have explained with regards to each of them. Edition, commentary and notes G. Steer, DW IV 󰀂󰀂󰀀–󰀉. Previous English translation The Works of Meister Eckhart Doctor Ecstaticus, vol. II, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂), 󰀁󰀈󰀀–󰀂.

󰀄󰀅󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀂󰀄) ‘Qui manet in me et ego in eo, hic fert fructum multum’. Kristus sprichet: ‘swer dâ blîbet in mir und ich in im, der bringet grôze vruht’. Disiu wort teilent sich in driu. Daz êrste ist: ‘swer in mir blîbet oder wonet’; daz ander ist: ‘und ich in im’; daz dritte: ‘der sol grôze vruht bringen’. Von dem êrsten sprichet sant Paulus: ‘iuwer leben ist verborgen mit Kristô in gote’ alsô bescheidenlîche: ob ir mit im tôt sît und mit im erstanden, sô ist iuwer leben mit Kristô verborgen in dem himelischen vater. 󰀉󰀇:󰀄>Nû suln wir prüeven, welch die liute sîn, die alsus wonent in gote. Daz ist ein zeichen an den liuten, daz sie warm sîn, daz an in kein trâcheit noch unlust joch beswærnisse ensî ze götlîchen werken. Wir haben, daz diu wazzer niht bevriesent, dâ sie entspringent. Daz ist dâ von, daz diu sunne daz wazzer ziuhet ûz dem grunde des berges und ziuhet in daz hœhste des berges und ziuhet ez ûz dem berge, daz ez vliuzet. Darumbe daz ez diu hitze würket, sô ist ez warm und lebendic an sînem gespringe. Und ie ez verrer vliuzet, ie ez unlûterer und kelter wirt. Alsô ist ez umbe den menschen: ie er gote verrer ist, ie er krenker und (󰀂󰀂󰀅) | kelter und unsmachaftiger ist. Ambrôsius lêret in einem buoche, daz heizet von der vluht der werlt vröude und irs gestaltnisses, ‘ und sol suochen got bî gote’. Der mensche ist nider und got der ist hôch. Dar umbe muoz sich der mensche ziehen hôhe boben die werlt an götlîcher liebe; sô brichet diu liebe in got und leitet die sêle umbe in got und machet ir in gote alliu dinc offenbâr. Alsô verre als der sêle mügelich ist ze verstânne oder ze begrîfenne, sô ziuhet sie der minnen kraft ûf an daz hœhste, daz an gote ist, daz ist diu güete, und mit der

󰀁. Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀅: ‘Qui manet in me et ego in eo, hic fert fructum multum’. 󰀂. The context is Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁–󰀇 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀃va: (In communi unius apostoli vel plurimorum) ‘Secundum Iohannem. In illo tempore dixit Ihesus discipulis suis: [In … suis om. Vg.] Ego sum vitis vera: et pater meus agricola est. Omnem palmitem in me non ferentem fructum, tollet eum: et omnem, qui fert fruc(󰀄󰀅󰀃rb)tum, purgabit eum, ut fructum plus afferat. Iam vos mundi estis propter sermonem, quem locutus sum vobis. Manete in me: et ego in vobis. Sicut palmes non potest ferre fructum a semet ipso, nisi manserit in vite: sic nec vos, nisi in

H OMILY 󰀉󰀇* [S 󰀉󰀇]

󰀄󰀅󰀉

‘Qui manet in me et ego in eo, hic fert fructum multum’. Christ says: ‘Whoever remains there in me and I in him, bears great fruit’.󰀁 This sentence divides into three parts. The first is: ‘Whoever remains or dwells in me’; the second is: ‘and I in him’; the third: ‘he shall bring great fruit’.󰀂 Of the first Saint Paul says: ‘Your life is hidden with Christ in God’,󰀃 or more precisely: if you have died with Him and risen with Him, your life is hidden with Christ in the heavenly Father. Now we must see who the people are who thus live in God. These people are characterized by being warm, that there is in them neither laziness nor sadness nor burdensomeness in divine actions. It is known that water does not freeze where it springs up. This comes from the fact that the sun draws the water from the bottom of the mountain, draws it up to the height of the mountain and draws it out of the mountain, so it flows. As heat moves it, it is warm and alive in its spring. But the further it flows, the more it becomes impure and cold. So it is with man: the farther away from God he is, the weaker, colder and less savory he gets. Ambrose teaches in a book called On the flight from the world’s joy and its forms:󰀄 and must seek God with God’. Man is at the bottom and God is at the top. Therefore man must draw high above the world to divine love; so love breaks into God and brings the soul back into God and reveals all things in God. Insofar as the soul is able to understand or grasp, the power of love draws her up to the highest that is in God which is goodness, and with goodness it flows out together

me manseritis. Ego sum vitis, vos palmites: qui manet in me, et ego in eo, hic fert fructum multum: quia sine me nichil potestis facere. Si quis in me non manserit: mittetur foras sicut palmes, et arescet, et colligent eum, et in ignem mittent, et ardet. Si manseritis in me, et verba mea in vobis manserint: quodcumque volueritis petetis, et fiet vobis’. 󰀃. Col. 󰀃:󰀃: ‘vita vestra abscondita est cum Christo in Deo’. 󰀄. See Ambrosius, De fuga saeculi 󰀁,󰀄 (CSEL XXXII,󰀂, ed. Schenkl 󰀁󰀆󰀅,󰀁󰀂–󰀅): ‘denique qui saluus esse uult supra mundum adscendat, quaerat uerbum apud deum’.

󰀄󰀆󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

güete vliuzet si ûz mit gote an alliu götlîchiu werk, und in der güete geschuof got himel und erden. Dar umbe sprichet ouch unser herre: ‘wer vindet einen getriuwen und wîsen kneht, der alsô getriuwe sî, daz er sînes nutzes niht ensuoche, sunder gotes êre aleine?’ Der dâ kneht blîbe in dem dienste an der ôtmüeticheit, dem wil ich daz geloben: allez daz got ist und vermac, daz enpfæhet wærlîche der mensche. (󰀂󰀂󰀆) | Daz ander ist, daz unser herre sprichet: ‘swer in mir wonet und ich in im’. Sant Bernhart wil, daz ez vil grœzer sî, daz got in uns sî, dan daz wir in gote sîn. Daz got sîn wesen in uns setze und sich in uns bewege und lebe, daz ist alsô vil, daz diu sêle ir leben setze nâch gote, nâch der êwicheit und unwandelhafticheit gotes, und alsô nâch im würke und lebe, als got in ir ûzmizzet und ûzgibe. Aber ich lege den dritten sin dâ zuo, daz got alle der sêle wesen und leben alzemâle sî, und ir alzemâle niht ensmecke dan got aleine an allen irn bewegungen und werken. Ein gewis zeichen ist daz, daz got in der sêle alsus wone, daz diu sêle geruowic sî. Ich spriche, daz got in allen sînen werken niht ensuochet dan ruowe; alsô enmac im ouch diu sêle an nihte sô liebe getuon sô an ruowe. Diu sêle enmac ouch im an nihte sô glîch werden sô an ruowe, daz si sich geruowiclîchen halte. (󰀂󰀂󰀇) | Daz dritte ist, daz unser herre sprichet: ‘swer in mir wonet und ich in im, der bringet grôze vruht’. Wolte ich nû sprechen, waz diu vruht wære, des enweiz ich niht; daz ich ez niht enweiz, des weiz ich ez wol. Ein meister sprichet: swer got alsô verre bekennet, daz er allen crêatûren unbekentlich ist, der bekennet got allermeist. Und swer daz lûterlîche bekennet, daz man got niht bekennen enmac, der bekennet got aller genzlîchest. Alsô enmac ouch nieman die vruht genzlîche erkennen, die got gelobet hât, dan bî etlîchen zeichen. (󰀂󰀂󰀈) | 󰀅. Matth. 󰀂󰀄:󰀄󰀅: ‘Quis, putas, est fidelis servus, et prudens, quem constituit dominus suus supra familiam suam ut det illis cibum in tempore?’; Luc. 󰀁󰀂:󰀄󰀂: ‘Dixit autem Dominus: Quis, putas, est fidelis dispensator, et prudens, quem constituet dominus super familiam suam, ut det illis in tempore tritici mensuram?’ 󰀆. Bernardus, Sermones super Cantica canticorum, Sermo 󰀇󰀁 n. 󰀁󰀀 (Opera omnia II, ed. Leclercq/Talbot/Rochais, 󰀂󰀂󰀁,󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀂): ‘Sed homo quidem ab aeterno in Deo, tamquam ab aeterno dilectus, si tamen ex illis sit qui dicunt quia dilexit et gratificavit nos in dilecto Filio suo ante mundi constitutionem; Deus vero in homine, ex quo dilectus ab homine est. Et si ita est, homo quidem in Deo est, et quando in homine Deus non est; Deus autem in homine non est, qui non sit in Deo’.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀇* [S 󰀉󰀇]

󰀄󰀆󰀁

with God in all divine actions and in this goodness God created heaven and earth. Therefore our Lord also says: ‘Who finds a faithful and wise servant, who is so faithful that he does not seek his own profit, but only the honour of God?’󰀅 To him who remains a servant in service of humility I want to promise: that man truly receives everything that God is and is able to do. The second is that our Lord says: ‘He who dwells in me and I in him’. Saint Bernard thinks󰀆 that it is a much greater thing that God is in us, than us to be in God. That God puts His being into us, moves in us and dwells in us means as much as that the soul orders her life according to God,󰀇 according to the eternity and immutability of God,󰀈 so also to act and live according to Him, as God plans and determines in her. But here I add a third meaning, that God is the whole being and the entire life of the soul, and that she does not like anything but God alone in all her movements and actions. A certain sign that God, indeed, dwells in the soul is that the soul rests. I say that God in all His actions seeks nothing but repose;󰀉 hence, the soul, too, can not do anything more desirable for Him than resting. Nor can the soul become more like Him than by resting, that she keeps herself at rest.󰀁󰀀 The third is that our Lord says: ‘He who dwells in me and I in him bears great fruit’.󰀁󰀁 If I now wanted to say what the fruit is, I do not know: That I do not know it, this I know well. A master says: whoever knows as much of God as that He is unknowable to all creatures, he knows God most. And whoever purely knows that we cannot know God, he knows God entirely.󰀁󰀂 Thus too, no one can entirely know the fruit that God has promised, except by certain signs. 󰀇. See Act. 󰀁󰀇:󰀂󰀈: ‘In ipso enim vivimus, et movemur, et sumus’; Rom. 󰀁󰀁:󰀃󰀆: ‘Quoniam ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso omnia’. 󰀈. I Tim. 󰀁:󰀁󰀇: ‘Regi autem saeculorum incorruptibili, invisibili, soli Deo honor et gloria in saecula saeculorum’. 󰀉. This is, perhaps, a reference to Hom. 󰀈󰀁* [Q 󰀆󰀀], a homily on Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁: ‘et in his omnibus requiem quaesivi’. 󰀁󰀀. Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀁: ‘et in his omnibus requiem quaesivi’. 󰀁󰀁. Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀅. 󰀁󰀂. See Liber XXIV philosophorum prop. 󰀂󰀃 (Hudry 󰀃󰀁): ‘Deus est qui sola ignorantia mente cognoscitur’; ‘Et hoc est vere ignorare, scilicet scire quid non est, et nesciendo quid est’.

󰀄󰀆󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Sehs zeichen mac man dar ane merken: Daz êrste, daz diu sêle nidervellic wirt an irn untugenden, als ein alt gebûwe nidervellet, als man ez reget; daz ist ein zeichen, daz man ez von niuwes bûwen wil, ob jener die stat hât oder die kost, der ez zerbrichet. Alsô ergibet sich diu sêle genzlîche gote mit allen irn kreften ze sînen werken. Daz ander zeichen ist, daz wâre tugende beginnent an der sêle, dâ stæticheit und sicherheit und vrîheit der samewizzecheit nâchvolget. Daz dritte zeichen ist, daz diu wurzel götlîcher dinge tritet in daz herze mit kraft, alsô daz der mensche entsebet, daz im niht ensmecket noch wollust engibet dan götlich dinc. Daz vierde zeichen ist, daz allez, daz verdorret was von sünden und von gebrechen, daz wirt viuhte und grüenende und wahsende von der gnâde. Daz vünfte zeichen ist, daz alle die krefte der sêle erliuhtet werdent, daz dâ kein vlecke der sünde noch der unwizzentheit enblîbet, diu sêle enwerde alzemâle ein lieht. Aber götlich lieht entritet niht mit offener türe in die sêle, sunder heimelîche und bewunden, daz ez diu sêle kûme weiz, wanne got kumet oder wanne er von ir vert; und daz hât got durch sîne güete getân, daz er sîne gegenwerticheit sô heimelich und alsô bewunden hât gemachet. Træte got offenlîche in die sêle, si enmöhte ez niht gelîden, si müeste von liebe und von vröuden (󰀁󰀁󰀉) | allez zerglîten und verwerden. Entzüge er ouch sich ir offenlîche, des enmöhte si ouch niht gelîden, si enmüeste vor leiden als mê als zerglîten und sterben, wan götlich lieht und wollust ist sô überkreftic, daz diu sêle dise beide niht gelîden enmöhte, si enwürde widergeslagen, als daz ouge der sunnen lieht niht gelîden enmac, ez enwerde bewunden in der luft. Daz sehste zeichen ist, daz allez daz zerstœret was und verkaltet an der sêle und an lîbe, daz wirt gesament in got und alzemâle enbrant an götlîcher minne.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀇* [S 󰀉󰀇]

󰀄󰀆󰀃

Six signs one can note in this regard: The first is that the soul becomes frail in its vices, as an old building crumbles when one shakes it; it is a sign that one wants to rebuild it, if the one who has demolished it owns the place or has the means. Thus the soul with all her powers surrenders entirely to God for His actions. The second sign is that true virtues begin in the soul, where they follow constancy, security and freedom of conscience. The third sign is that the root of divine things enters the heart with power, so that a person feels that nothing pleases him or gives him enjoyment, except something divine. The fourth sign is that all that was dried up by sins and weaknesses, becomes moist and green and growing by grace. The fifth sign is that all the powers of the soul become enlightened, that there remains no stain of sin or ignorance that prevents the soul from fully becoming a light. But the divine light does not enter the soul through an open door, but through a hidden and veiled one, so that the soul barely knows when God comes or when He departs from her; and this God has done out of His goodness in rendering His presence so hidden and so veiled. If God entered the soul openly, she could not bear it, by necessity she would totally collapse and dissolve. If He too were to withdraw from her openly, neither could she bear this, by necessity out of pain she would collapse even more and die, because the divine light and pleasure is so overpowering that the soul could not bear either one or the other, she would be hurt, as the eye can not stand the light of the sun, unless it is veiled by the air. The sixth sign is that all that was destroyed and frozen in the soul and in the body is gathered in God and completely ignited in divine love.

Homily 󰀉󰀈* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀇] In communi unius martyris ‘Qui vult venire post me, abneget semetipsum et tollat crucem suam et sequatur me’ (Matth. 󰀁󰀆:󰀂󰀄) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Matth. 󰀁󰀆:󰀂󰀄 (‘Qui vult venire post me, abneget semetipsum et tollat crucem suam et sequatur me’) is read on the feast of St. Peter, the martyr and also in the Commune Sanctorum for a martyr. The fragmentary text is handed down by seven manuscripts (B󰀆, B󰀇, B󰀈, Lo󰀁, Lo󰀄, N󰀁, Str󰀁) and a number of fragments; the homily is also known to and excerpted by Nicolaus of Landau. The content of the homily

This text is only a fragment, and yet, as can be seen from the numerous witnesses, it attracted readers and scribes due to its content. The main theme, based on the core verse, is self-negation, voluntary martyrdom, which is certainly related to the feast of the day. First Eckhart gives the core verse in Latin (n. 󰀁), then the vernacular translation in which he immediately interprets the lifting up of the cross as ‘voluntary martyrdom’ and self-denial (n. 󰀂). It is important to see how he develops this theme as an individual and not as a general call. The Lord’s call is not a general rule, but an invitation which each individual has to respond to in ‘one’s own way’, as each creature’s nature is different (n. 󰀃). This can be an ascension (as with fire), but also a falling down (as in the case of earthly things). Also noteworthy is the range of authorities from the church fathers and later masters such as Avicenna and Thomas Aquinas who are invoked by Eckhart in his homily. Selfdenial is closely linked to humility (n. 󰀅).

H OMILY 󰀉󰀈* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀇]

󰀄󰀆󰀅

Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀅󰀃,󰀁󰀇󰀃–󰀄; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀅󰀀󰀁–󰀈; G. Steer, DW IV 󰀇󰀀󰀅–󰀃󰀀. Previous English translations none.

󰀄󰀆󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀇󰀁󰀉) ‘Qui vult venire post me, abneget semetipsum et tollat crucem suam et sequatur me’. Unser herre sprichet: ‘swer ze mir komen wil, der hebe ûf sîn kriuze’ mit williger marter ‘und verzîhe sich sîn selbes und volge mir’. (󰀇󰀂󰀀) | Alliu dinc von natûre diu wellent ze gote, ieglîchez sîn wîs: daz viur krieget ûfwert, und die erde ze vallenne, und des glîche ein ieglîchiu crêatûre suochet ir stat, als sie (󰀇󰀂󰀁) | got geordent hât. Hie von sprichet Origenes: der mensche verzîhet sich sîn selbes, der süntlîchiu dinc læzet mit strîte, dâ er ane gewonet ist, und verzîhet sich sîn an dem teile, dâ er ane vellic ist, und hebet alsô ûf sîn kriuze mit williger pîne, und üebet sich an tugentlîchen werken. Diz wort triffet vürbaz Basilius, ein heilige sprichet: swelch mensche læzet diu dinc, (󰀇󰀂󰀂) | diu hinder im sint und under im sint und daz got niht enist, der hât sich selber gelâzen. Hie von sprichet sant Augustînus in einem buoche, dâ er sprichet von der sêle, daz si edeler und sterker und grœzer ist an alle crêatûre, und ist gote an disen dingen aller glîchest. Sunder die engel die sint edeler an ir natûre, daz sie ze dem êrsten entbrochen und entgozzen sint von götlîchem geiste und hânt ein enthalt an im. Des enhât diu sêle niht: si muoz sich giezen ûf den (󰀇󰀂󰀃) | lîchamen. (󰀇󰀂󰀄) | Hie zuo wellent etlîche liute wîslîche sprechen: sô got al ein ist einvaltic, war umbe er (󰀇󰀂󰀅) | niht alliu dinc al einez enschüefe als

󰀁. Matth. 󰀁󰀆:󰀂󰀄. 󰀂. Matth. 󰀁󰀆:󰀂󰀄 (‘Si quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum, et tollat crucem suam, et sequatur me’). The context is Matth. 󰀁󰀆:󰀂󰀄–󰀇 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀃vb: ‘(In communi unius martyris) Secundum Mattheum. In illo tempore dixit Ihesus discipulis suis: [In … suis om. Vg.] Si quis vult post me venire, abneget semet ipsum, et tollat crucem suam, et sequatur me. Qui enim voluerit animam suam salvam facere, perdet eam. Qui autem perdiderit animam suam propter me, inveniet eam. Quid enim prodest homini, si mundum universum lucretur, anime vero sue detrimentum patiatur? Aut quam dabit homo commutationem pro anima sua? Filius enim hominis venturus est in gloria patris sui cum angelis suis: et tunc reddet unicuique secundum opera eius’. 󰀃. See Th. Aqu., Catena aurea in Lucam 󰀉:󰀂󰀃 (Marietti 󰀁󰀃󰀀A): ‘unde dicitur Abneget semetipsum. Basilius. Abnegatio quidem sui ipsius est totalis praeteritorum oblivio, et recessus a propriis voluntatibus. Origenes. Abnegat etiam aliquis seipsum, dum vitam prius in malitia consuetam alteratione debita commutat; puta qui dudum in lascivia vixerat, abnegat semetipsum lascivum, cum fit castus: et similiter abstinentia cuiuslibet criminis, suipsius abnegatio est. Basilius. Appetitus autem mortis tolerandae pro Christo, et mortificatio membrorum, quae sunt super terram, et viriliter disponi ad omne periculum sustinendum pro Christo, et non affici quemquam ad vitam praesentem, hoc est tollere crucem suam; unde subditur Et tollat crucem suam quotidie’.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀈* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀇]

󰀄󰀆󰀇

‘Qui vult venire post me, abneget semetipsum et tollat crucem suam et sequatur me’.󰀁 Our Lord says: ‘Whoever wants to follow me, lift up his cross’ with a voluntary martyrdom and deny himself ‘and follow me.’󰀂 All things of nature tend to God, each in its own way. The fire moves upward, and the earth falls down, and, likewise, each creature seeks its place, according to the order that God has given it. Of this Origen says:󰀃 man denies to himself what is his, the one who rejects sinful things to which he is accustomed struggles, and he denies what is his in that part in which he is weak, and thus lifts up his cross with voluntary pain and exercises in virtuous actions. This phrase is further met by Basil, a saint, who says: Whoever has given up those things that are behind him and below him and that God is not, he has given up himself. Of this, Saint Augustine says in a book󰀄 in which he speaks of the soul, that she is nobler, stronger and greater than all creatures, and is most like God in these things. But the angels are nobler in their nature, so that they first broke out and were poured out by the divine Spirit and have support from Him. This the soul does not have: She must pour herself upon the body, rely on her body.󰀅 On this topic certain people try say something wise:󰀆 since God, absolutely one, is simple, why did He not create all things 󰀄. See Augustinus, De quantitate animae c. 󰀅 n. 󰀉 (CSEL LXXXIX, ed. Hörmann, 󰀁󰀄󰀂,󰀁󰀄–󰀆): ‘innumerabiles tales tantosque mundos secum anima imaginari potest, quas imagines quo spatio contineat, suspicari non possum’; c. 󰀃󰀄 n. 󰀇󰀇 (󰀂󰀂󰀅,󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀂): ‘Audisti, quanta sit animae vis ac potentia. Quod ut breviter conligam: quemadmodum fatendum est animam humanam non esse, quod deus est, ita praesumendum nihil inter omnia, quae creavit, deo esse propinquius’; see Eckhart, In Sap. n. 󰀁󰀃󰀁 (LW II 󰀄󰀆󰀉,󰀈–󰀉): ‘Unde per hoc Augustinus libro De quantitate animae probat animam esse maiorem toto mundo’; Sermo XLVIII,l n. 󰀅󰀀󰀁 (LW IV 󰀄󰀁󰀆,󰀂–󰀆): ‘Et nota: licet caeli noni latitudo sit tanta, quod sit incognita … imaginativum tamen animae latius est, ut probat Augustinus’. 󰀅. I.e., the soul’s nature, unlike that of the angel, is to animate and intellectualize a body. Whereas the angels naturally look up, the soul must look down. 󰀆. See Eckhart, In Sap. n. 󰀃󰀆 (LW II 󰀃󰀅󰀆,󰀇–󰀃󰀅󰀇,󰀄): ‘Et sic perit quaestio et difficultas, multos gravans usque hodie, quomodo ab uno simplici, quod est deus, possint esse multa immediate. Sunt enim qui putant, ut Avicenna et sui sequaces, quod a primo sit primo et immediate creata intelligentia et ab illa deinceps alia. Dicendum est enim quod totum universum tamquam unum totum, sicut ipsum nomen indieat, quod dicitur universum tamquam unum, est ab uno simplici, unum ab uno, primo et immediate. Apte quidem; nam sicut deus est unum quid simplex per omnia in esse, “multiplex” tamen “ratione”, sic et ipsum universum unum quidem est – unus est enim mundus – multiplex tamen in partibus et rebus distinctis. Sie ergo unum, multiplex in partibus, est a deo uno, multiplici rerum ratione’; on more reflections of Eckhart on this topic see G. Steer ad loc.

󰀄󰀆󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

die engel. Des enmac niht sîn, sprechent die meister; (󰀇󰀂󰀆) | einerleie crêatûre enmöhte gotes niht bewîsen dan ein lützel. Dar umbe geschuof er manigerleie crêatûren, daz ir ieglîchiu got bewîsete; und enmügen sîn doch niht mê bewîsen, dan ein tropfe meres bewîsen möhte daz mer. Doch bewîset ein tropfe des meres mê und joch (󰀇󰀂󰀇) | aller der werlt, dan alle crêatûren gotes bewîsen mügen, wan von tropfen möhte man machen ein mer, und von aller crêatûren helfe enmöhte daz niht zuokomen, daz man got begriffe. Dar umbe sprichet sant Grêgôrius: diu sêle, der got erschinen ist, daz si in etwaz bekennet, der sint alle crêatûren enge oder zemâle ze nihte worden. Ze dem dritten mâle triffet diz wort Crisostomus alzemâle: der mensche, der solche marter lîdet, diu in ze dem tôde bringet, der hât sich sîn selbes verzigen. Unser herre sprach ze (󰀇󰀂󰀈) | Moysese: ‘ze mir enmac nieman komen, der dâ lebet’. Dar umbe sprichet Crisostomus: sol ich ein ander werden dan ich bin, sô muoz ich verliesen daz ich bin. Daz muoz geschehen an der dêmüeticheit, wan sant Grêgôrius sprichet, daz niht den menschen sô sêre vernihte als diu dêmüeticheit. Daz ist schône bewîset an Moysese, dô er sîniu schâf zesamene treip in (󰀇󰀂󰀉) | ein tal, dâ er ruowen wolte. Dô sach er den busch glüejen und niht verbrinnen, und sprach: ‘ich wil gân und sehen daz wunder’. Dô sprach

󰀇. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀄󰀇 a. 󰀁: ‘Respondeo dicendum quod causam distinctionis rerum multipliciter aliqui assignaverunt. … Quidam vero attribuerunt distinctionem rerum secundis agentibus. Sicut Avicenna, qui dixit [Metaph. tr. 󰀉 cap. 󰀄] quod Deus, intelligendo se, produxit intelligentiam primam: in qua, quia non est suum esse, ex necessitate incidit compositio potentiae et actus, ut infra patebit. Sic igitur prima intelligentia, inquantum intelligit causam primam, produxit secundam intelligentiam; inquantum autem intelligit se secundum quod est in potentia, produxit corpus caeli, quod movet; inquantum vero intelligit se secundum illud quod habet de actu, produxit animam caeli. Sed hoc non potest stare propter duo … Unde dicendum est quod distinctio rerum et multitudo est ex intentione primi agentis, quod est Deus. Produxit enim res in esse propter suam bonitatem communicandam creaturis, et per eas repraesentandam. Et quia per unam creaturam sufficienter repraesentari non potest, produxit multas creaturas et diversas, ut quod deest uni ad repraesentandam divinam bonitatem, ita suppleatur ex alio: nam bonitas quae in Deo est simpliciter et uniformiter, in creaturis est multipliciter et divisim. Unde perfectius participat divinam bonitatem, et repraesentat eam, totum universum, quam alia quaecumque creatura’. 󰀈. Eckhart refers to the Vita S. Benedicti by Gregorius Magnus, as it is found in his second book of the Dialogues, Dialogi II 󰀃󰀅 (Vita S. Benedicti). The Vita is also used as preface to the Regula commentata of Saint Benedict (PL 󰀇󰀇, 󰀁󰀉󰀈); for the text see above Hom. 󰀇󰀀* [Q 󰀇󰀃], n. 󰀄; Gregorius, Dialogi II 󰀃󰀅: ‘Animae videnti creatorem angusta est omnis creatura’.

H OMILY 󰀉󰀈* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀇]

󰀄󰀆󰀉

absolutely one like the angels? This can not be, say the masters;󰀇 One single creature could not show God in the slightest. For this reason He has fashioned manifold creatures, so that each one would show God; even if they can not show Him more than a drop of the sea can show the sea. Yet, a drop shows more of the sea and the whole world, too, than all creatures could show of God, because of drops one could produce a sea, while with the help of all the creatures one could not come to grasp God. Therefore Saint Gregory says:󰀈 To the soul, to whom God appeared so that she somehow knows Him, all creatures are narrow or have become entirely nothing. Third, Chrysostom󰀉 catches this word perfectly: the person who suffers such a martyrdom that leads him to death, has denied himself. Our Lord said to Moses: ‘No one who lives can come to me’. Therefore, Chrysostom says:󰀁󰀀 if I am to become another from the one I am, I must give up the one I am. This must happen in humility, because Saint Gregory says that nothing annihilates a person as much as humility.󰀁󰀁 This is well shown by Moses󰀁󰀂 when he gathered his sheep in a valley where he wanted to rest. Then he saw the bush glow, but not burn up, and said, ‘I will go and see the miracle’. Then our Lord said to him: ‘Stop, Moses, and do not go any further. Take off your shoes

󰀉. See Th. Aqu., Catena aurea in Lucam 󰀉:󰀂󰀃 (Marietti 󰀁󰀃󰀀A): ‘Basilius. Appetitus autem mortis tolerandae pro Christo, et mortificatio membrorum, quae sunt super terram, et viriliter disponi ad omne periculum sustinendum pro Christo, et non affici quemquam ad vitam praesentem, hoc est tollere crucem suam; unde subditur Et tollat crucem suam quotidie’; note the name change which might be due to a different textual version of the Catena aurea at hand to Eckhart; see also the next note. 󰀁󰀀. See Th. Aqu., Catena aurea in Matthaeum 󰀁󰀆:󰀂󰀄 (Marietti 󰀂󰀅󰀅A): ‘Gregorius Super Ezech. (Hom. 󰀁󰀀). Semetipsum etiam abnegat quicumque mutatur ad meliora, et incipit esse quod non erat, et desinit esse quod erat’; note as in the previous note the changed name. 󰀁󰀁. Unidentified reference. 󰀁󰀂. See Exod. 󰀃:󰀁–󰀅: ‘Moses autem pascebat oves lethro cognati sui sacerdotis Madian, cumque minasset gregem ad interiora deserti, venit ad montem Dei Horeb, (󰀂) apparuitque ei Dominus in flamma ignis de medio rubi et videbat, quod rubus arderet et non conbureretur. (󰀃) Dixit ergo Moses: “Vadam et videbo visionem hanc magnam, quare non conburatur rubus”. (󰀄) Cernens autem Dominus, quod pergeret ad videndum, vocavit eum de medio rubi et ait: “Moses Moses”. Qui respondit: “Adsum”. (󰀅) At ille: “Ne adpropies”, inquit, “huc. Solve calciamentum de pedibus tuis; locus enim in quo stas terra sancta est”’.

󰀄󰀇󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

im unser herre zuo: ‘stant, Moyses, und enganc niht vürbaz. Ziuch ûz dîne schuohe ûzer dînen vüezen’. Die vüeze bezeichent die begerunge der sêle. Diu sol blôz und ûzgezogen sîn von allen zergenclîchen und tœtlîchen dingen, sô mac sich diu sêle unserm herren genzlîche erbieten. Ein heilige sprichet: hebet sich diu sêle ûf ungeliutert und wil sich unserm herren erbieten, sô wirt si wider nidergeslagen und vellet ûf bœsiu (󰀇󰀃󰀀) | dinc. Als daz sêre ouge vrevellîche sehen wil in die sunnen, sô wirt ez blinder und noch sêrer

󰀁󰀃. See Augustinus, De quantitate animae c. 󰀃󰀂 n. 󰀇󰀅 (CSEL LXXXIX, ed. Hörmann, 󰀂󰀂󰀂,󰀂󰀁– 󰀂󰀂󰀃,󰀁󰀆): ‘Sed haec actio, id est adpetitio intellegendi ea, quae vere summeque sunt, summus aspectus est animae, quo perfectiorem, meliorem rectioremque non habet. Sextus ergo erit iste actionis gradus; aliud est enim mundari oculum ipsum animae, ne frustra et temere aspiciat et prave videat, aliud ipsam custodire atque firmare sanitatem, aliud iam serenum atque rectum aspectum in id, quod videndum est, dirigere. Quod qui prius volunt facere quam mundati et sanati fuerint, ita illa luce reverberantur veritatis, ut non solum nihil boni, sed etiam mali plurimum in ea putent esse

H OMILY 󰀉󰀈* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀇]

󰀄󰀇󰀁

from your feet’. Feet mean the desires of the soul. She must be naked and undressed of all transient and mortal things, so that the soul can offer herself totally to our Lord. A saint says:󰀁󰀃 if the soul rises up unclean and wants to offer herself to our Lord, she will be beaten back down and fall on bad things. As the sick eye wants to look recklessly at the sun, but becomes blinder and even sicker

atque ab ea nomen veritatis abiudicent et cum quadam libidine et voluptate miserabili in suas tenebras, quas eorum morbus pati potest, medicinae maledicentes refugiant. Unde divino adflatu et prorsus ordinatissime illud a propheta dicitur: “Cor mundum crea in me, Deus, et spiritum rectum innova in visceribus meis”. Spiritus enim rectus est, credo, quo fit, ut anima in veritate quaerenda deviare atque errare non possit. Qui profecto in ea non instauratur, nisi prius cor mundum fuerit, hoc est, nisi prius ipsa cogitatio ab omni cupiditate ac faece rerum mortalium sese cohibuerit et eliquaverit’.

Homily 󰀉󰀉* [S 󰀉󰀈] In communi unius martyris [II] ‘Nisi granum frumenti cadens in terram mortuum fuerit, ipsum solum manet’ (Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀄–󰀆) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀄–󰀆, is part of the Gospel reading in the Commune for a single martyr. The manuscripts add that it is a ‘(sermo) de sanctis’. The precise liturgical place cannot be established. The text is handed down by the two manuscripts of the Paradisus anime intelligentis (O, H󰀂), and the fragment in Ba󰀂, to which one would need to add another witness B󰀁󰀅.

The content of the homily This is another abbreviated homily of Eckhart that derives from the Paradisus anime intelligentis. Appropriately for a homily on a single martyr, the preacher deals with dying and the losing of one’s individual nature, in order to be receptive of God’s very being. Only the opening with the Latin core verse is left in our manuscripts (n. 󰀁), so one misses Eckhart’s rendering of it into the vernacular. Instead, the argument starts about the losing of one’s individual characteristics and one’s individual being (n. 󰀂). A) ‘Whoever hates his soul, protects her’ (nn. 󰀃–󰀄). The double nature of dying, hating and giving up is summed up in this quote from Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀅. B) ‘Whoever wants to serve me, must follow me’ (Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀆) (nn. 󰀅–󰀆). Eckhart emphasises the radicality of this call to follow. It is balanced, however, with the claim that God is as radical in His response,

H OMILY 󰀉󰀉* [S 󰀉󰀈]

󰀄󰀇󰀃

as ‘He wants nothing more than to be able to communicate Himself to us … completely’ (n. 󰀆). C) ‘Where I am, there my servant must be with me?’ (Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀆) (n. 󰀇). This radicality of God’s wish to give Himself totally is continued in this section, complemented by the soul becoming the same being as God’s being, not only ontologically, but also in co-operating with God in His creation and salvation. Hence, ‘together with the Son she comes to be’, the soul is co-eternal with the Son. Edition, commentary and notes G. Steer, DW IV 󰀂󰀃󰀀–󰀄󰀅. Previous English translation The Works of Meister Eckhart Doctor Ecstaticus, vol. II, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂), 󰀁󰀈󰀄–󰀆.

󰀄󰀇󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀃󰀄) ‘Nisi granum frumenti cadens in terram mortuum fuerit, ipsum solum manet’. Die meister sprechent, daz diz weizenkorn alsô gar sterbe, daz ez verliese sîn gestaltnisse, sîne varwe und sîn wesen. Als vil ist dâ kornes natûre als steines natûre, dâ enblîbet (󰀂󰀃󰀅) | niht dan eine enpfenclîcheit. Alsô muoz diu sêle sterben, sol si enpfenclich werden eines andern wesens. Daz muoz von nôt sîn, daz man sich halte ze allen dingen, diu geschehen, rehte als man tôt sî: got der enwirt anders niemer genzlîche dîn wesen. Er gibet wol etlîche gâbe und lieht und trôst, die man grôz ahtet, die ouch grôz sint; aber got der engibet sich dir niemer alzemâle, dû engibest dich denne zemâle. Als vil als diu sêle genzlîche stirbet in ir selber, (󰀂󰀃󰀆) | als vil wirt got genzlîche ir wesen, und alsô daz dâ niht enblîbet dan ein wesen, als mîn lîp und mîn sêle niht mê ist dan ein wesen. Nû sprichet unser herre: ‘swer sîne sêle hazzet, der behüetet sie’. Daz wort ‘sêle’ enhœret niht ze der natûre der sêle. Der natûre der sêle mac man als wênic namen vinden als (󰀂󰀃󰀇) | gote. Diu sêle enaltet ouch niht. Mêr: dâ si ein ûzluogen hât ze dem lîbe und ein însehen, daz sol man hazzen, wan dâ ist si heizlich. Dar umbe sprichet diu sêle in Canticô: ‘töhter (󰀂󰀃󰀈) | von Jêrusalem, merket mich niht, daz ich brûn sî. Daz hânt mir zwei dinc getân. Daz ein: diu sunne hât mich beschinen, Daz ander: mîner muoter kint hânt wider mich gevohten’. Allez, daz zîtlich ist und daz diu sunne ie beschein, dâ hân ich unordenlîche minne zuo gehabet. Dannen sint ‘mîner muoter kint, diu wider mich vehten’, und niht mînes vaters, wan diu sint gar ordenlich. ‘Dar umbe ensprechet niht, daz ich brûn sî. Ich bin schœne und edel in mîner natûre und bin gar liutsælic’.

󰀁. Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀄. The context is Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀄–󰀆 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀃vb: ‘(In communi unius martyris [II]) Secundum Iohannem. In illo tempore dixit Ihesus discipulis suis: Amen, amen dico vobis, nisi granum frumenti cadens in terram, mortuum fuerit; ipsum solum manet. Si autem mortuum fuerit, multum fructum affert. Qui amat animam suam, perdet eam: et qui odit animam suam in hoc mundo, in vitam eternam custodit eam. Si quis michi ministrat, me sequatur: et ubi sum ego, illic et minister meum erit. Si quis michi ministraverit, honorificabit eum pater meus’. 󰀂. See Albertus, Enarrationes in Ioannem XXIV (Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀄) (Borgnet 󰀂󰀄,󰀄󰀈󰀃A): ‘“Mortuum fuerit”. Adhuc tangit fructum cui comparatur seminatio fidei. Ad litteram enim granum seminatum

H OMILY 󰀉󰀉* [S 󰀉󰀈]

󰀄󰀇󰀅

‘Nisi granum frumenti cadens in terram mortuum fuerit, ipsum solum manet’.󰀁 The masters say󰀂 that this wheat grain dies so thoroughly that it loses its shape, its colour and its being. To the extent that the nature of the grain is then like the nature of stone, there is nothing left but a receptivity. Thus the soul must die, if she is to become receptive to another being. This must be of necessity that one should keep oneself towards all things that happen as if one were dead: otherwise God will never fully become your being. He may well give certain gifts, light and comfort which are considered great, and, indeed, are great; God, however, never gives to you entirely, unless you give yourself entirely. To the extent that the soul fully dies in herself, God becomes fully her being, and so there remains nothing but one being, as my body and my soul are no more than one being. Now our Lord says: ‘Whoever hates his soul, protects her’.󰀃 The term ‘soul’ does not belong to the nature of the soul.󰀄 Because for the nature of the soul, one can as little find a name as for God. The soul does not even age. On the contrary: as she has a regard for the body and an intuition, one must hate this, because in this she gets excited. Therefore the soul says in the Canticle: ‘Daughters of Jerusalem, do not consider that I am brown-skinned’.󰀅 Two things have caused this in me. The one: the sun has shone on me, the other: my mother’s children have fought against me’. All that is temporal and that the sun ever shone on, for this I had a disordered love. From this they are ‘my mother’s children, who fight against me’, and not my father’s, because these are completely in order. ‘So do not say I am brown-skinned. I am beautiful and noble in my nature and I am really beautiful’.󰀆

moritur in esse individuali, ut multiplicetur in multo fructu suae speciei’; Th. Aqu., Commentum in Matthaeum et Joannem evangelistas (Parma 󰀁󰀈󰀆󰀁, Tom X 󰀅󰀁󰀂b): ‘Mortuum fuerit; non quod amittat virtutem seminativam, sed quia mutatur in aliam speciem’. 󰀃. Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀅: ‘qui odit animam suam in hoc mundo, in vitam aeternam custodiet eam’. 󰀄. See Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀇], nn. 󰀂–󰀃. 󰀅. Cant. 󰀁:󰀄–󰀅: ‘filiae Hierusalem … nolite me considerare, quod fusca sim, quia decoloravit me sol. Filii matris meae pugnaverunt contra me’. 󰀆. Cant. 󰀁:󰀄–󰀅: ‘Nigra sum, sed formosa, filiae Hierusalem … Nolite me considerare, quod fusca sim’.

󰀄󰀇󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

‘Der sîne sêle hazzet’ in dirre werlt, ‘der behüetet sie’. Augustînus sprichet von zweierhande werlt und heizet die sêle ein werlt, und in einem ieglîchen engel ist ein werlt geistlîche; (󰀂󰀃󰀉) | wan allez, daz got geschaffen hât, daz ist in einem ieglîchen engel erbildet vil edeler, wan ez sî an im selben; wan ez ist in in âne materie. Des ist ez dâ wârheit, wan in (󰀂󰀄󰀀) | den engeln ist wârheit, doch kûme gegen einer nâdel spitze wider der êrsten wârheit. (󰀂󰀄󰀁) | Nû sprichet unser herre: ‘swer mir dienen welle, der volge mir’ niht mê von dem volgenne, wan etlîche liute volgent, die wîle ez in wol gât. Nû möhte man sprechen: unser herre wil gar vil. Er enwil niht mê, wan daz er sich uns gemeinen müge. Wan nâch der minne ist diu gâbe: wan denne ‘got diu minne ist’, sô gibet er (󰀂󰀄󰀂) | sich alzemâle. Des hât diu sêle ein natiurlich bilde in ir, daz si ist in allen gliden und in einem ieglîchen alzemâle. Wan als diu sêle geschaffen ist, sô wirt si gegeben in den grunt des wesens; des mac si gewürken in allen gliden alzemâle und in einem ieglîchen sunderlîchen. Nû möhte man vrâgen: waz meinet unser herre, daz er sprichet: ‘dâ ich bin, dâ sol mîn dienære mit mir sîn’? Vil lîhte meinet er, daz got gote etwaz wolte versteln, daz er der sêle (󰀂󰀄󰀃) | wolte gemeinen? In dem êrsten ûzbruche, dâ der sun ûzblicket von dem vater und doch inne blîbende, dâ inne – ê dan er, der sun, geborn wurde – dâ wil er sich ir gemeinen, dâ inne blîbende, dâ er noch niergen ûz enblicket, dâ gewirdet si mit dem sune. Gebern ist alsô vil als (󰀂󰀄󰀄) | gewerden; ir gewerden ist in der êwigen geburt. Dâ wirt si sô lûterlîchen ein, daz si kein ander wesen enhât dan daz selbe wesen, daz sîn ist, daz ist daz sêle-wesen. Diz wesen ist ein begin alles des werkes, daz got würket in himelrîche und in ertrîche. Ez ist ein urhap und ein grunt aller sîner götlîchen werke. Diu sêle engât ir natûre und irm wesene und irm lebene und wirt geborn in der gotheit. Aldâ ist ir gewerden. Si wirt sô gar ein wesen, daz dâ kein underscheit ist, dan daz er got blîbet und si sêle.

󰀇. See Augustinus, Contra Academicos III c. 󰀁󰀇 n. 󰀃󰀇 (CSEL LXIII, ed. Knöll, 󰀇󰀆,󰀇–󰀁󰀆): ‘sat est enim ad id, quod uolo, Platonem sensisse duos esse mundos, unum intellegibilem, in quo ipsa ueritas habitaret, istum autem sensibilem, quem manifestum est nos uisu tactuque sentire; itaque illum uerum, hunc ueri similem et ad illius imaginem factum, et ideo de illo in ea quae se cognosceret anima uelut expoliri et quasi serenari ueritatem, de hoc autem in stultorum animis non scientiam sed opinionem posse generari; quidquid tamen ageretur in hoc mundo per eas uirtutes,

H OMILY 󰀉󰀉* [S 󰀉󰀈]

󰀄󰀇󰀇

‘He who hates his soul’ in this world, ‘protects her’. Augustine speaks of a twofold world and calls the soul a world, and in each angel is a spiritual world;󰀇 for all that God has created is in every angel formed in a more noble way than it is in itself,󰀈 because it is in it without matter. Therefore it is truth, because in the angels there is truth, but compared to the first truth it is barely the point of a needle. Now our Lord says: ‘Whover wants to serve me, must follow me’ no more about such following, because certain people follow as long as they are comfortable. Now one might say: our Lord wants too much. He wants nothing more than to be able to communicate Himself to us. Because as the love is, so is the gift: since ‘God is love’,󰀁󰀀 He gives Himself completely. Of this the soul has a natural image in herself, namely the fact that she is in all the limbs and in each one completely. Because as the soul is created, she is given into the ground of being; for this she can fully act in all the limbs and in each in a special way. 󰀉

Now one might ask: what does our Lord mean by saying: ‘Where I am, there my servant must be with me?’󰀁󰀁 Perhaps He means that God wanted to steal something from God, which He wanted to communicate to the soul? In the first emanation, in which the Son comes forth from the Father and yet remains in Him – before He, the Son, is born – there He wants to communicate Himself to her, remaining inside, when He has not yet looked anywhere outside, there together with the Son she comes to be. Giving birth is the same as being born. Her becoming takes place in the eternal birth. There she becomes so purely one, that she has no other being than the same being that is His, that is the soul-being. This being is a principle of all the action that God brings about in the kingdom of heaven and on earth. It is a source and a ground of all His divine actions. The soul goes out from her nature, her being and her life and is born in the Godhead. There is her becoming. She thus becomes so much one being, that there is no distinction, except that He remains God and she the soul. quas ciuiles uocabat, aliarum uerarum uirtutum similes, quae ni si paucis sapientibus ignotae essent, non posse nisi ueri simile nominari’. 󰀈. I.e. the thing in the world itself. 󰀉. Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀆: ‘Si quis mihi ministrat, me sequatur’. 󰀁󰀀. I Ioh. 󰀄:󰀁󰀆: ‘Deus caritas est’. 󰀁󰀁. Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀆: ‘et ubi sum ego, illic et minister meus erit’.

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀇] In communi unius martyris [II] ‘Qui odit animam suam in hoc mundo’ etc. (Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀅) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀅 (‘Qui odit animam suam in hoc mundo etc.’) connects this homily with the previous one and is read in the Commune for a single martyr. In Str󰀃 it is linked to the feast of St. Laurentius, celebrated on 󰀁󰀀 August (‘Von sant lorencius ain bredig’, Str󰀃). But as the precise place cannot be ascertained, the homily is here placed into the Commune. The text of the critical edition in DW is based on five manuscripts (Ba󰀁, G󰀁, Mai󰀁, Str󰀃, Str󰀄) and a number of fragments. The witnesses S󰀃, Bra󰀁 and Ka󰀂 are not used in the critical edition of DW. The content of the homily This vernacular homily has close parallels to Eckhart’s Latin sermo on the same core verse (Sermo LV,󰀄). After giving the abbreviated form of the verse in Latin (n. 󰀁), he gives his vernacular translation (n. 󰀂). The homily deals with the paradox of hating one’s soul, yet through this protecting her for eternal life.

A) ‘One must hate the soul’ (n. 󰀃). Eckhart states this contrast that sounds like a paradox. B) ‘Soul’ (nn. 󰀄–󰀅). What does the term mean? Based on Avicenna – set in contrast to a number of other masters – who plays a big role in this homily (and also in the parallel Latin Sermo), Eckhart states the difference between the soul taken as ‘ground’ of the soul and the bodily and spiritual nature of the soul (including her powers) which do ‘not

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀇]

󰀄󰀇󰀉

touch’ the ‘ground’ (n. 󰀄). The soul as ‘ground’, just like God Himself, has no name and ‘is indescribable’ (n. 󰀅). C) One hates the soul (nn. 󰀆–󰀁󰀀). This section comes back to the topic A, but now builds on the distinction made in the previous section to clarify that hatred refers not to the soul as ‘ground’, but to her insofar as she is part of this world, imprisoned in it. Eckhart adds ‘three reasons why the soul must hate herself’ (n. 󰀇): 󰀁) insofar as ‘she is mine’, 󰀂) as she is not fully ‘in God’, 󰀃) insofar as she ‘has a taste for herself’. In contrast, the supreme or the ground of the soul is beyond this world (n. 󰀈). In herself she ‘becomes an intellectual world’, as stated by the unnamed master Avicenna (n. 󰀉), a world where ‘all things are incomparably nobler’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). D) As in his Latin sermon, towards the end (n. 󰀁󰀁) Eckhart moves to the interpretation of a verse from the Song of Songs: ‘You daughters of Jerusalem, do not consider that I am a brunette! The sun has coloured me, and my mother’s children have fought against me’ (Cant. 󰀁:󰀄–󰀅). Even the powers of the soul are not identical with the ‘ground’, but unlike the angels who have no attachment to this world, the soul as ‘ground’, despite and also because of being bound to this world is called ‘the most beautiful’ amongst all creatures. And yet, she has to hate herself precisely for this utter beauty (n. 󰀁󰀁). That we may ‘hate our soul under the dress’, Eckhart asks in his final prayer (n. 󰀁󰀂). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀂󰀁,󰀈󰀈–󰀉󰀁; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀂󰀄󰀈–󰀅󰀆; J. Quint, DW I 󰀂󰀇󰀉–󰀉󰀃; N. Largier I 󰀁󰀉󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀅.󰀉󰀁󰀂–󰀅; L. Sturlese, Predigt 󰀁󰀇: ‘Qui odit animam suam’, in: Lectura Eckhardi (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈), 󰀇󰀆–󰀈󰀁. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀆󰀇–󰀉; J.M. Clark, Meister Eckhart (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀇), 󰀁󰀄󰀉–󰀅󰀂; R. Schürmann, Meister Eckhart (󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀈), 󰀄󰀈–󰀅󰀁; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀁󰀄󰀈–󰀅󰀁.

󰀄󰀈󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀈󰀁) ‘Qui odit animam suam in hoc mundo’ etc. Ich hân ein wort in latîne gesprochen, daz sprichet unser herre in sînem êwangeliô: ‘swer sîne sêle hazzet in dirre werlt, der behüetet sie in daz êwige leben’. Nû merket an disen worten, waz unser herre meinet, daz er sprichet, man sol hazzen die sêle. Swer sîne sêle minnet in disem tœtlîchen lebene und als si in dirre werlt ist, der verliuset sie in dem êwigen lebene; swer sie aber hazzet, als si tœtlich ist und in dirre werlt ist, der behüetet sie in daz êwige leben. Zwô sache sint hie inne, war umbe er sprichet ‘sêle’. Ez sprichet ein meister: daz wort sêle daz enmeinet den grunt und die natûre der sêle enrüeret ez niht. Dâ von sprichet ein meister: swer dâ schrîbet von bewegelîchen (󰀂󰀈󰀂) | dingen, der enrüeret die natûre noch den grunt der sêle niht. Swer nâch der einvalticheit und lûterkeit und blôzheit die sêle, als si in ir selber ist, nennen sol, der enkan ir enkeinen namen vinden. Sie sprechent ir sêle: daz ist, als der einen zimberman nennet, der ennennet in niht einen menschen noch Heinrîch noch niht nâch sînem wesene eigenlîche, mêr: man nennet in nâch sînem werke. Hie meinet unser herre: swer die sêle minnet (󰀂󰀈󰀃) | in der lûterkeit, als der sêle einvaltic natûre ist, der hazzet sie und ist ir vîent in disem kleide, der hazzet sie und hât trûricheit und ist sêric, daz si alsô verre stât dem lûtern liehte, daz si in ir selber ist. Unser meister sprechent: diu sêle heizet ein viur durch die kraft und durch die hitze und durch den schîn, der an ir ist. Die andern sprechent, si sî ein vünkelîn himelischer natûre. Die dritten sprechent, si sî ein lieht. Die vierden sprechent, si sî ein geist. Die fünften sprechent, 󰀁. Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀅. 󰀂. Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀅. On the context see the note above on Hom. 󰀉󰀉* [S 󰀉󰀈]. 󰀃. Avicenna, De anima I c. 󰀁 (S. Van Riet, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈, 󰀁󰀅,󰀇󰀆–󰀈󰀀): ‘Et id a quo emanant istae actiones dicitur anima, et omnino quicquid est principium emanandi a se affectiones quae non sunt unius modi et sunt voluntariae, imponimus ei nomen “anima”. Et hoc nomen est nomen huius rei non ex eius essentia, nec ex praedicamento in quo continebitur postea’. 󰀄. Avicenna, De anima I c. 󰀁 (S. Van Riet, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈, 󰀂󰀆–󰀇,󰀂󰀄–󰀃󰀆): ‘Dicemus igitur quod, cum nos scierimus animam esse perfectionem, quacumque declaratione aut differentias designaverimus perfectionem, non dicemus nos tamen adhuc propter hoc scire animam quid sit, sed sciemus eam secundum hoc quod est anima. Hoc enim nomen anima non est inditum ei ex sua substantia, sed ex hoc quod regit corpora et refertur ad illa, et idcirco recipitur corpus in sui definitione, exempli

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀇]

󰀄󰀈󰀁

‘Qui odit animam suam in hoc mundo’ etc.󰀁 I said a sentence in Latin that our Lord says in His Gospel: ‘Whoever hates his soul in this world, protects her for eternal life’.󰀂 Now note in these words what our Lord means by saying that one must hate the soul. Whoever loves his soul in this mortal life and how she is in this world, loses her in eternal life; but whoever hates her, because she is mortal and is in this world, protects her in eternal life. Herein are two reasons, why He says ‘soul’. A master says:󰀃 the term ‘soul’ that means the ground and the nature of the soul does not touch it. About this a master says:󰀄 Whoever writes about movable things does not touch either the nature or the ground of the soul. Whoever has to name the soul according to simplicity, purity and nakedness, as she is in herself, can not find any name for her. They call her ‘soul’: this is like when you call someone ‘carpenter’, who is neither called ‘a man’ nor ‘Henry’ nor properly according to his being, but rather one calls him according to his work. Here our Lord wants to say: whoever loves the soul in the purity that is the simple nature of the soul, hates her and is her enemy in this guise, hates her, has sadness and is troubled that she is so far from the pure light that she is in herself. Our masters say:󰀅 the soul is called a fire for the power, for the ardor and for the splendor that is in her. The others say, she is a spark of a celestial nature. The third ones say she is a light. The fourth ones say she is a spirit. The fifth ones say she is a number.󰀆 We do not

gratia, sicut opus accipitur in definitione opificis, quamvis non accipiatur in definitione eius secundum hoc quod est homo. Et ideo tractatus de anima fuit de scientia naturali, quia tractare de anima secundum hoc quod est anima, est tractare de ea secundum quod habet comparationem ad materiam et ad motum. Unde oportet ad sciendum essentiam animae facere alium tractatum per se solum’. 󰀅. See Macrobius, In Somnium Scipionis commentarii I c. 󰀁󰀄 n. 󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀀 (Willis 󰀅󰀈–󰀉). 󰀆. See Aristoteles, De anima I t. 󰀂󰀀 (Α c. 󰀂 󰀄󰀀󰀃b 󰀃󰀁ff.): ‘quocirca Democritus quidem ignem aliquem atque calorem ipsam censet esse … Democritus: is enim animam et intellectum simpliciter idem esse putabat … Quum autem anima et motivum et cognitivum esse videretur, quidam idcirco utrumque complexi sunt, atque animam numerum esse se ipsum moventem asseruerunt…’

󰀄󰀈󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

si sî ein zal. Wir envinden niht, daz sô blôz und sô lûter sî sô zal. Dâ von wolten sie die sêle (󰀂󰀈󰀄) | nennen etwâ bî, daz blôz und lûter wære. In den engeln ist zal – man nennet einen engel, zwêne engel –, in dem liehte ist ouch zal. Dar umbe nennet man sie bî dem blœzesten und bî dem lûtersten, und ez enrüeret doch den grunt der sêle niht. Got, der âne namen ist – er enhât enkeinen namen –, ist unsprechelich, und diu sêle in irm grunde ist si ouch unsprechelich, als er unsprechelich ist. (󰀂󰀈󰀅) | Ez ist noch ein anderz, war umbe er sprichet, daz si hazzet. Daz wort, daz die sêle nennet, daz meinet die sêle, als si in dem kerker des lîbes ist, und dâ von meinet er, swaz diu sêle in ir selber ist, daz si noch bedenken mac, dâ ist si noch in irm kerker. Dâ si noch zuoversiht hât ze disen nidern dingen und si iht mit sinnen in sich ziuhet, dâ wirt si zehant enge; wan wort enmügen enkeiner natûre, diu ob ir ist, namen gegeben. (󰀂󰀈󰀆) | Ez sint drî sache, war umbe diu sêle hazzen sol sich selber. Diu eine sache: als verre si mîn ist, sô sol ich sie hazzen; wan als verre si mîn ist, als verre enist si gotes niht. Daz ander: wan mîn sêle niht alzemâle in got gesast und gepflanzet und widerbildet ist. Augustînus sprichet: swer wil, daz got sîn eigen sî, der sol ê gotes eigen werden, und daz muoz von nôt sîn. Diu dritte sache ist: smecket diu sêle ir selber, als si sêle ist, und smecket ir got mit der sêle, dem ist unreht. Ir sol got in im selber smecken, wan er ist alzemâle ob ir. Diz ist, daz Kristus sprach: ‘swer sîne sêle minnet, der verliuset sie’. (󰀂󰀈󰀇) | Swaz der sêle in dirre werlt ist oder in dise werlt luoget und swâ ir iht begriffen ist und ûzluoget, daz sol si hazzen. Ein meister sprichet, daz diu sêle in irm hœhsten und lûtersten sî ob der werlt. Niht entreget die sêle in dise werlt denne minne aleine. Etwenne hât si eine natiurlîche minne, die si ze dem lîbe hât. Etwenne hât si eine gewillige

󰀇. J. Quint’s text and translation is incomprehensible here. As the variety of textual readings show, the passage seems to have been corrupted in an early stage of transmission. The added follows from the argument that this is a second reason why ‘one must hate the soul’ (n. 󰀃). 󰀈. I.e. above the soul. 󰀉. See Augustinus, En. in Ps. 󰀁󰀄󰀅 n. 󰀁󰀁 (PL 󰀃󰀇, 󰀁󰀈󰀉󰀁): ‘Eris tu possessio, et possidebis; possessio dei eris, et possessio tua erit deus: tu eris possessio eius, ut colaris ab eo; et ipse erit possessio tua, ut colas eum’; id., En. in Ps. 󰀃󰀂, Sermo 󰀂 n. 󰀁󰀈 (PL 󰀃󰀆, 󰀂󰀉󰀅): ‘Possidet ergo (scil. deus), et possidetur, et totum propter nos. Non enim quomodo, ut nos ex illo beati simus, possidetur a nobis, ita et ille, ut beatus sit, possidet nos. Et possidet, et possidetur, non ob aliud nisi ut nos beati simus’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀇]

󰀄󰀈󰀃

find anything that is so naked and so pure as number. Therefore they wanted to call the soul by something that was naked and pure. In the angels there is number – one counts one angel, two angels – even in the light there is number. Therefore it is called with the most naked and purest, and yet it does not touch the ground of the soul. God, who is nameless – He has no name – is indescribable, and the soul is also indescribable in her ground, as He is indescribable. There is yet another reason why He says, 󰀇 hates her. The term that addresses the soul means the soul in the prison of the body, and therefore it means that everything that the soul is in herself and that she can even think is still there in her prison. Because she still has a regard for these inferior things and draws into herself something with the senses, there she is immediately restricted; because a term can not name any nature that is above her.󰀈 There are three reasons why the soul must hate herself. The first reason: to the extent that she is mine, I must hate her; because to the extent that she is mine, she does not belong to God. The second: because my soul is not completely placed, planted and reflected in God. Augustine says: Whoever wants God to be His own must first become God’s own, and this must be of necessity.󰀉 The third reason is: if the soul has a taste for herself as she is soul, and if she has a taste for God with the soul, then this is wrong. She should have a taste for God in Himself, because He is entirely beyond her. This is what Christ meant: ‘Whoever loves his soul, loses her’.󰀁󰀀 Whatever of the soul is in this world or looks into this world and whatever that is grasped by her and looks outside, that she must hate. A master says that in her supreme and purest the soul is beyond the world.󰀁󰀁 Nothing attracts the soul in this world but love See also Iulianus Pomerius, De vita contemplativa II c. 󰀁󰀆 n. 󰀂 (PL 󰀅󰀉, 󰀄󰀆󰀀): ‘Nemo possidet Deum, nisi qui possidetur a Deo’. 󰀁󰀀. Ioh. 󰀁󰀂,󰀂󰀅. 󰀁󰀁. See Avicenna, Metaphysica IX c. 󰀇 (Van Riet 󰀅󰀁󰀀,󰀇󰀂–󰀅󰀁󰀁,󰀈󰀃): ‘Dico igitur, quod sua perfectio animae rationalis est ut fiat saeculum intelligibile, et describatur in ea forma totius … et ut haec omnia sint descripta in anima secundum dispositiones et vires eorum, quousque perficiatur in ea dispositio esse universitatis, et sic transeat in saeculum intellectum instar esse totius mundi, cernens id quod est pulchritudo absolute et bonitas absolute et decor verus, fiat unum cum ea, insculpta exemplo eius et dispositione eius, et incedens secundum viam eius, conversa in similitudinem substantiae eius’.

󰀄󰀈󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

minne, die si ze der (󰀂󰀈󰀈) | crêatûre hât. Ein meister sprichet: als wênic daz ouge ze tuonne hât mit dem gesange und daz ôre mit der varwe, als wênic hât diu sêle in ir natûre ze tuonne mit allem dem, daz in dirre werlt ist. Dar umbe sprechent unser natiurlîchen meister, daz der lîchame vil mêr sî in der sêle dan diu sêle in dem lîbe. Als daz vaz den wîn mêr entheltet dan der wîn daz vaz, alsô heltet diu sêle den lîp mêr in ir dan der lîp die sêle. Swaz diu sêle minnet in dirre werlt, des ist si in ir natûre blôz. Ein meister sprichet: der sêle (󰀂󰀈󰀉) | natûre und natiurlîchiu volkomenheit ist, daz si in ir werde ein vernünftigiu werlt, dâ got in sie gett hât aller dinge bilde. Swer dâ sprichet, daz er ze sîner natûre komen sî, der sol alliu dinc in im gebildet vinden in der lûterkeit, als sie in gote sint, niht als sie sint in ir natûre, mêr: als sie sint in gote. Noch geist noch engel enrüeret den grunt der sêle niht noch die natûre der sêle. In dem kumet si in daz êrste, in den begin, dâ got ûzbrichet mit güete in alle crêatûre. Dâ nimet si alliu dinc in gote, niht in der lûterkeit, als sie in ir natiurlîcher lûterkeit sint, mêr: in der lûtern einvalticheit, als sie sint in gote. Got hât gemachet alle dise werlt als in einem koln. Daz bilde, daz in dem golde ist, daz ist vester, dan daz in dem koln ist. Alsô sint (󰀂󰀉󰀀) | alliu dinc in der sêle lûterer und edeler dan sie sîn in dirre werlt. Diu materie, dâ got alliu dinc ûz gemachet hât, daz ist snœder dan ein kol wider dem golde. Der einen haven machen wil, der nimet ein wênic erde; daz ist sîn materie, dâ er ane würket. Sô gibet er im eine forme, diu ist in im, diu ist in im edeler dan diu materie. Hie meine ich, daz alliu dinc unzellîche edeler sint in der vernünftigen werlt, diu diu sêle ist, dan sie sîn in dirre werlt; rehte als daz bilde, daz in daz golt gehouwen und durchgraben ist, alsô sint (󰀂󰀉󰀁) | aller dinge bilde einvaltic in der sêle. Ein meister sprichet: diu sêle hât 󰀁󰀂. See Avicenna, De anima I c. 󰀁 (Van Riet 󰀂󰀆,󰀂󰀇–󰀂󰀇,󰀃󰀆), as above. 󰀁󰀃. See Aristoteles, De anima I t. 󰀉󰀀 (Α c. 󰀅 󰀄󰀁󰀁b󰀈): ‘quid igitur tandem continet animam, si partibilis est? quippe certe non corpus, utpote eum contra potius videatur anima corpus continere’. 󰀁󰀄. See Avicenna, Metaphysica IX c. 󰀇 (Van Riet 󰀅󰀁󰀂,󰀇–󰀉): ‘non inquirimus eam nec allicimur ad eam nisi prius deposuerimus a cervicibus nostris iugum voluptatis et irae et sorores earum’; see amongst other places Eckhart, Sermo LV,󰀄 n. 󰀅󰀅󰀀 (LW IV 󰀄󰀆󰀀,󰀉–󰀄󰀆󰀁,󰀁󰀀): ‘Sic illud Avicennae IX Metaphysicae capitulo ultimo, bene ante medium; “sua perfectio animae rationalis est, ut fiat saeculum intellegibile et describatur in ea forma totius et ordo intellectus in toto et bonitas fluens in omne et ut incipiens a principio totius procedat ad substantias” intellectuales, “excellentiores, spiritales absolute et deinde ad spiritales, pendentes aliquo modo ex corporibus, et deinde ad animas

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀇]

󰀄󰀈󰀅

alone. Sometimes she has a natural love towards the body. Sometimes she has a voluntary love towards the creature. A master says:󰀁󰀂 as little as the eye has to do with sound and the ear with colour, so little does the soul have to do in her nature with all that is in this world. So our natural science masters say󰀁󰀃 that the body is much more in the soul than the soul is in the body. As the barrel contains the wine more than wine contains the barrel, so the soul contains the body in herself rather than the body the soul. Whatever the soul loves in this world, she is freed of in her nature. A master says:󰀁󰀄 the soul’s nature and natural perfection is that she in herself becomes an intellectual world, where God has formed in her the image of everything. Whoever says, he has come to his nature, must find all things imagined in him in the purity in which they are in God, not as they are in their own nature, but rather: as they are in God. Neither spirit nor angel touches the ground of the soul or the nature of the soul. There she arrives in the first, in the beginning, where God emanates with goodness into all creatures. There she takes all things in God, not in the purity as they are in their natural purity, but rather: in the pure simplicity, as they are in God. God has made this whole world like coal. The image that is in gold is stronger than it is in coal. Thus all things are in the soul in a purer and nobler way than they are in this world. The matter from which God has made all things is cheaper than coal compared to gold. Whoever wants to create a pot, takes a bit of clay; this is his material, on which he acts. Then he gives it󰀁󰀅 a form that is in himself, which is more noble in it than matter. Here I mean that all things are incomparably nobler in the intellectual world which is the soul than they are in this world; just like the image that is etched and carved in gold, so the images of all things are onefold in the soul. A master says:󰀁󰀆 the soul has in herself a potential

moventes corpora et postea ad corpora caelestia, et ut haec omnia sint descripta in anima secundum dispositionem et vires eorum, quousque perficiatur in ea dispositio esse universitatis, et sic transeat in saeculum intellectum instar esse totius mundi, cernens id, quod est pulchritudo absolute et bonitas absolute et decor verus, fiat unum cum ea insculpta exemplo eius et dispositione eius et incedens secundum viam eius, conversa in similitudinem substantiae eius”’. 󰀁󰀅. I.e. the pot. 󰀁󰀆. See Aristoteles, De anima III t. 󰀁󰀈 (Γ c. 󰀅 󰀄󰀃󰀀a 󰀁󰀄): ‘intellectus potentia quidem sit quodammodo intelligibilia ipsa … atque quidam intellectus talis est qualis est eo quod omnia fit, quidam vero eo quod omnia facit’.

󰀄󰀈󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

eine mügelicheit in ir, daz aller dinge bilde in sie gedrücket wirt. Ein ander sprichet: niemer ist diu sêle komen in ir blôze natûre, si envinde alliu dinc in ir gebildet in der vernünftigen werlt, diu unbegrîfelich ist; enkein gedank enhœret dar zuo. Grêgôrius sprichet: swaz wir von götlîchen dingen reden, daz müezen wir stameln, wan man muoz im wort geben. Noch ein wörtelîn von der sêle und denne niht mêr: ‘Ir töhter von Iêrusalem, niht enmerket mich, daz ich brûn bin! Diu sunne hât mich entverwet, (󰀂󰀉󰀂) | und diu kint mîner muoter hânt wider mich gestriten’. Hie meinet si diu kint der werlt; ze den sprichet diu sêle: swaz diu sunne, daz ist lust der werlt, swaz mich des beschînet und berüeret, daz machet mich dunkel und brûn. Brûn enist niht ein ganziu varwe; ez hât etwaz liehtes und ouch tunkelheit. Swaz diu sêle gedenket oder gewürket mit irn kreften, swie lieht daz in ir sî, doch ist ez gemenget. Dar umbe sprichet si: ‘diu kint mîner muoter hânt wider mich gestriten’. Diu kint, daz sint alle die nidern krefte der sêle; die strîtent alle wider sie und vehtent sie ane. Der himelische vater ist unser vater, und diu kristenheit ist unser muoter. Swie schœne und swie gezieret si sî und swie nütze mit irn werken, ez ist noch allez unvolkomen. Dâ von sprichet er: ‘ô schœneste under den vrouwen, ganc ûz und ganc abe!’ Disiu werlt ist als ein vrouwe, wan si krank ist. War umbe sprichet er aber: ‘schœneste under den vrouwen?’ Die engel sint schœner und sint verre ob der sêle. (󰀂󰀉󰀃) | Dar umbe sprichet er: ‘schœneste’ – in irm natiurlîchen liehte – ‘ganc ûz und ganc abe’: ganc ûz dirre werlt und ganc abe allem dem, dâ dîn sêle noch zuo geneiget ist. Und swâ ir iht begriffen ist, daz sol si hazzen. Bittet des unsern lieben herren, daz wir unser sêle hazzen under dem kleide, als si unser sêle ist, daz wir sie behüeten in daz êwige leben. Des helfe uns got. Âmen.

󰀁󰀇. See Avicenna, Metaphysica IX c. 󰀇 (Van Riet 󰀅󰀁󰀂,󰀇–󰀉) (on this text see before n. 󰀉). 󰀁󰀈. See Gregorius Magnus, Moralia in Iob XX c. 󰀃󰀂 (PL 󰀇󰀆, 󰀁󰀇󰀄): ‘Paene omne quippe quod de deo dicitur, eo ipso iam indignum est, quo potuit dici. Nam cuius laudi non sufficit obstupescens conscientia, quando sufficiet loquens lingua?’

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀇]

󰀄󰀈󰀇

that the images of all things be impressed in her. A second says:󰀁󰀇 never has the soul come to her bare nature, unless she finds all the things imagined in herself in the intellectual world that is incomprehensible; no thought belongs to it. Gregory says:󰀁󰀈 whatever we say about divine things, we must stutter, because it must be expressed in words. One more sentence on the soul, and then nothing more: ‘You daughters of Jerusalem, do not consider that I am black-skinned! The sun has coloured me, and my mother’s children have fought against me’.󰀁󰀉 With this she means the sons of the world; to which the soul says: whatever the sun, that is the pleasure of the world, enlightens me and touches me with, makes me dark and brown. Brown is not a full colour; it has something light and also dark. Whatever the soul thinks or acts by its powers, however light it may be in her, is still mixed. Therefore she says: ‘My mother’s children have fought against me’. The sons, these are all the lower powers of the soul; they all fight against her and they challenge her. The heavenly Father is our Father, and Christianity is our mother. And yet, as beautiful and adorned it is and how useful in its actions, it is still all imperfect. Therefore He says: ‘O most beautiful among women, get out and go away!’󰀂󰀀 This world is like a woman, because it is weak. But why does He say: ‘Most beautiful among women’? The angels are more beautiful and are far above the soul. Therefore He says: ‘Most beautiful’ – in her natural light – ‘get out and go away’: get out of this world and go away from everything that your soul is still inclined to. And where something is grasped by her, this she must hate. Pray to our beloved Lord that we hate our soul under the guise in which she is our soul, so that we protect her for eternal life. May God help us in this! Amen

󰀁󰀉. Cant. 󰀁:󰀄–󰀅: ‘filiae Ierusalem … Nolite me considerare quod fusca sim, quia decoloravit me sol: filii matris meae pugnaverunt contra me’. 󰀂󰀀. Cant. 󰀁:󰀇: ‘o pulcherrima inter mulieres, egredere, et abi’.

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀁* [Q 󰀅󰀈] In communi unius martyris [II] ‘Qui mihi ministrat, me sequatur, et ubi ego sum, illic et minister meus erit’ (Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀆) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀆, is one that has already been treated in some of the previous homilies of the Commune and, therefore, this homily has been placed here. Yet, in n. 󰀃 Eckhart explicitly refers to St. Secundus, normally an indication that this homily was given for his feast. This is also supported by the content of the homily. Hence, this homily would have been held on 󰀂󰀄 March; see also the arguments in J. Theisen, Predigt und Gottesdienst (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀), 󰀁󰀁󰀁–󰀅. It is only placed here because it focusses on a Commune verse, but following the liturgical order, the homily should more correctly have been placed after Hom. 󰀆󰀈* [Q 󰀄󰀄] (see note there). The text of the critical edition DW is based on five manuscripts (B󰀈, B󰀁󰀂, Er, Me󰀂, N󰀁) and a fragment. The witnesses K󰀁b, Lo󰀄 and W󰀁󰀁 are not used in the critical edition of DW. In n. 󰀃 we find a reference that points to Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀇], n. 󰀈, perhaps also Hom. 󰀅󰀄* [Q 󰀂󰀀a], n. 󰀁󰀄; in n. 󰀄 the reference could go to Hom. 󰀉󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀅], n. 󰀁󰀁; and a bit later in n. 󰀄 there is a reference to Hom. 󰀃󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀉], n. 󰀁󰀁, or Hom. 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁], n. 󰀃; in return, Hom. 󰀈󰀁* [Q 󰀆󰀀], n. 󰀆 seems to point to the same place. A similar thought is also present in Hom. 󰀁󰀇* [S 󰀉󰀁], n. 󰀆. The content of the homily The homily is not simply an interpretation of the verse as we can find it in the Commune for the saints, but a particular interpretation of the

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀁* [Q 󰀅󰀈]

󰀄󰀈󰀉

name of St. Secundus, as Eckhart often does, when he has to give a homily on a particular saint. The preacher first gives the core verse in Latin (n. 󰀁), adds his vernacular translation (n. 󰀂), and then picks up the expression ‘me sequatur’ (‘must follow me’) (n. 󰀃), the way he renders with Isidorus the saint’s name Secundus. Eckhart gives the homily a threefold structure (‘three things can be noted’, n. 󰀃). 󰀁) ‘Whoever serves me, let him follow me’ (nn. 󰀃–󰀄). Following God means letting go everything bodily, as ‘all spiritual things are elevated above bodily things’ (n. 󰀄), unless those earthly things contain God’s likeness. 󰀂) ‘In what way we must serve our Lord’ (n. 󰀅). Eckhart first notes that God serves us, and that what we do is only a return of what God has pre-delivered in his total offering. 󰀃) ‘Where I am, there my servant shall be with me’ (nn. 󰀆–󰀈). This section is about the reward that the Lord mentions, and it is the living with God, or rather a ‘co-habitation’. This leads Eckhart to introduce a distinction with regards the notion of togetherness or union (n. 󰀇). There can be no union between opposites such as something and nothing, black and white. Hence, when the soul is one with God, this can only be, insofar as she has God in her, united without distinction, so that one could better speak of oneness. This union or oneness was the purpose of creation (n. 󰀈). And while Adam was thrown out of paradise, we can return through our ‘angelic nature’ and ‘through good and divine actions’, which is ‘love for God’ and our ‘fellows’. He closes with a short final prayer (n. 󰀉). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Jostes, n. 󰀇󰀇, 󰀈󰀂–󰀄; J. Quint, DW II 󰀆󰀀󰀇–󰀁󰀇; N. Largier I 󰀆󰀁󰀆–󰀂󰀃. 󰀁󰀀󰀈󰀂–󰀄. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀂󰀄󰀃–󰀅; Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings, ed. and trans. O. Davies (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀁󰀃󰀀–󰀃.

󰀄󰀉󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀆󰀁󰀀) ‘Qui mihi ministrat, me sequatur, et ubi ego sum, illic et minister meus erit’. Disiu wort sprach unser herre Jêsus Kristus: ‘swer mir dienet, der sol mir volgen, und dâ ich bin, dâ sol mîn dienære mit mir sîn’. An disen worten mac man merken driu dinc. Daz eine ist, daz man unserm herren volgen sol und dienen, dâ er sprichet: ‘swer mir dienet, der sol mir volgen’. Dar umbe vüegent disiu wort sant Secundô, daz sprichet als vil als ‘der gote volget’, wan er guot und lîp und alliu dinc hât gelâzen durch got. Alsô suln alle die lâzen, die gote volgen wellent, daz sie von gote gehindern mac. Crisostomus sprichet: daz ist ein swæriu rede den, die sich geneiget hânt ûf dise werlt und ûf lîplîchiu dinc: den sint sie gar süeze (󰀆󰀁󰀁) | ze habenne und swære und bitter ze lâzenne. Hie bî mac man merken, wie swære etlîchen liuten sint ze lâzenne alliu lîplîchiu dinc, die geistlîcher dinge niht enbekennent. Als ich ouch mê gesprochen hân: war umbe ensmackent dem ôren niht süeziu dinc als dem munde? – Dar umbe, daz ez dar zuo niht gevüeget enist. Dar umbe enbekennet ein vleischlich mensche niht geistlîcher dinge, wan er dar zuo niht bereitet enist. Alsô ist dâ engegen einem bekanten menschen lîhte ze lâzenne alliu lîplîchiu dinc, der geistlîchiu dinc bekennet. Sant Dionysius sprichet, daz got sîn himelrîche biutet veile; und kein dinc enist sô snœde als daz himelrîche, sô ez veile ist, und niht enist sô edel und sô sælic ze habenne, sô ez vergolten ist. Dar umbe heizet ez snœde, wan ez einem ieglîchen veile ist umbe als vil, als er geleisten mac. Dar umbe sol der mensche geben allez, daz er hât, umbe daz (󰀆󰀁󰀂) | himelrîche: sînen eigenen willen. Die wîle daz er iht beheltet sînes eigenen willen, sô enhât er daz himelrîche niht vergolten. Der sich selben læzet und sînen eigenen willen, dem sint lîhte ze lâzenne alliu lîplîchiu dinc.

󰀁. Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀆 (‘Si quis mihi ministrat, me sequatur: et ubi sum ego, illic et minister meus erit’). On the context see the note on Hom. 󰀉󰀉* [S 󰀉󰀈]. 󰀂. Ioh. 󰀁󰀂:󰀂󰀆. 󰀃. Literally translated: The second. 󰀄. See Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiae X n. 󰀂󰀅󰀇 (Lindsay I 󰀄󰀂󰀂,󰀁󰀁–󰀂): ‘Secundus, quia secus pedes: et tractus est sermo a sequentibus servis pedisequis’. 󰀅. See Ps.-Chrysostomus, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum Hom. 󰀁󰀄 (PG 󰀅󰀆, 󰀇󰀁󰀁): ‘Qui es in caelis. Vult ut sciamus nos Patrem habere caelestem, et erubescamus nos terrenis rebus substernere, scientes nos Patrem caelestem habere’; Th. Aqu., Catena aurea XVI 󰀁󰀂󰀀b: ‘Chrysostomus In opere

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀁* [Q 󰀅󰀈]

󰀄󰀉󰀁

‘Qui mihi ministrat, me sequatur, et ubi ego sum, illic et minister meus erit’.󰀁 This sentence our Lord Jesus Christ said: ‘Whoever serves me, must follow me, and where I am, there my servant must be with me’.󰀂 In these words three things can be noted. The first is that we should follow and serve our Lord, where He says: ‘Whoever serves me, let him follow me’. Therefore these words fit St. Secundus,󰀃 which means ‘he who follows God’,󰀄 because he has let go of possessions and body and all things for God’s sake. So those who want to follow God have to let go all the things that can be an impediment to God. Chrysostom says:󰀅 it is a harsh speech for those who tend towards this world and to bodily things: for those it is a pleasure to have them and a bitter difficulty to let them go. Here one can note how difficult it is for certain people who do not know spiritual things to let go all bodily things. As I have already said:󰀆 why does the ear not like the taste of sweet things as does the mouth? Because it is not meant for it. Therefore, the bodily person does not know spiritual things, because he is not prepared for this. Thus, on the contrary, it is easy to let go all bodily things to a knowing person who knows spiritual things. Saint Dionysius says󰀇 that God offers His celestial kingdom for sale; and nothing is as cheap as the kingdom of heaven, when it is for sale, but nothing is so noble and so blessed to possess, when it is deserved. It is called cheap because it is for sale to everyone for as much as he can afford it. Therefore a person must give all he has for the kingdom of heaven: his own will. While he retains something of his own will, he does not deserve the kingdom of heaven. To the one who lets go himself and his own will, it is easy to let go all bodily things.

imperf. ut supra. Addit autem: Qui es in caelis, ut sciamus nos habere patrem caelestem, et erubescant se terrenis rebus substernere qui patrem habent in caelis’. 󰀆. The reference points to Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀇], n. 󰀈: ‘Ein meister sprichet: als wênic daz ouge ze tuonne hât mit dem gesange und daz ôre mit der varwe, als wênic hât diu sêle in ir natûre ze tuonne mit allem dem, daz in dirre werlt ist’, perhaps also Hom. 󰀅󰀄* [Q 󰀂󰀀a], n. 󰀁󰀄: ‘Diu kraft, dâ mite ich sihe, dâ mite enhœre ich niht, noch dâ mite ich hœre, dâ mite ensihe ich niht’. 󰀇. See Ps.-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus c. 󰀅 § 󰀂 (PG 󰀃, 󰀈󰀃󰀃); Dionysiaca, 󰀃󰀂󰀅,󰀂–󰀃󰀂󰀆,󰀁: ‘manifestatam bonitatem et excedenter beneficam providentiam, et omnium bonorum causam laudat et exsistentem et vitam et sapientiam, et vivificat et est sapientia donatrix causa his quae substantia et vita et ratione et sensu participant’.

󰀄󰀉󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Als ich ouch mê gesprochen hân, wie ein meister lêrte sînen jünger, wie er dar zuo kæme, daz er geistlîchiu dinc bekente. Dô sprach der jünger: ‘meister, nâch dîner lêre sô bin ich erhaben und bekenne, daz alliu lîplîchiu dinc sint als ein klein schif, daz dâ swebet in dem mer, und als ein vogel, der dâ vliuget in dem lufte’. Wan alliu geistlîchiu dinc sint erhaben über diu lîplîchen; ie sie mê erhaben sint, ie sie sich mê wîtent und besliezent diu lîplîchen dinc. Dar umbe sint diu lîplîchen dinc kleine wider diu geistlîchen; und ie diu geistlîchen dinc hœher sint, ie sie grœzer sint; und ie kreftiger sie sint an den werken, ie lûterer sie sint an dem wesene. Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen und ist gewis und ein wâriu rede: ob ein mensche ze tôde hungeric wære, und büte man im die besten spîse, er stürbe ê hungers, ê er ir iemer gesmeckte oder enbizze, gotes glîchnisse enwære dar ane. Und ob der mensche ze tôde vrostic wære, swaz kleider man im büte, er enmöhte niemer hant dar ane gelegen noch an sich geziehen, gotes glîchnisse enwære denne dar ane. Diz ist von dem êrsten: wie man sol lâzen alliu dinc und gote volgen. (󰀆󰀁󰀃) | Daz ander: in welher wîse wir unserm herren dienen suln. Sant Augustînus sprichet: »der ist ein getriuwer dienære, der an allen sînen werken niht engesuochet wan gotes êre aleine«. Ouch sprichet her Dâvît: ‘got ist mîn herre, ich sol im dienen’, wan er hât mir gedienet, und an allem sînem dienste enbedorfte er mîn niht wan durch mînen nutz aleine; alsô sol ich im wider dienen und sîne êre aleine suochen. Des entuont ander herren niht; sie suochent irn eigenen nutz an irm dienste, wan sie dienent uns dar umbe aleine, (󰀆󰀁󰀄) | daz sie unser geniezen. Dar umbe sîn wir in niht grôzes dienstes pflihtic; nâch der grœze des dienstes und edelkeit sô sol wesen der lôn. Daz dritte ist, daz wir prüeven disen lôn, daz unser herre sprichet: ‘dâ ich bin, dâ sol mîn dienære mit mir sîn’. Wâ ist diu wonunge unsers herren Jêsû Kristî? Daz ist: an der einunge sînes vaters. Daz ist ein alze grôzer lôn, daz alle, die im dienent, suln an der einunge mit im wonen. Dar umbe sprach sant Philippus, dô unser herre hâte 󰀈. This could be a reference to the previous master–student dialogue in Hom. 󰀉󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀅], n. 󰀁󰀁. 󰀉. This seems to be a reference to Hom. 󰀃󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀉], n. 󰀁󰀁: ‘Nie deheinen menschen engedurste sô sêre, der im trinken gæbe, er enbegerte sîn niht, und enwære etwaz gotes dar inne niht’, or Hom. 󰀉󰀁* [Q 󰀄󰀁], n. 󰀃: ‘Wir enminnen niht mê dan als vil, als wir got vinden in dem, daz wir minnen’. Hom. 󰀈󰀁* [Q 󰀆󰀀], n. 󰀆 seems to point to the same place in Hom. 󰀉󰀁* or our homily here: ‘Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen, daz der mensche niemer ze keiner crêatûre liebe noch wollust

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀁* [Q 󰀅󰀈]

󰀄󰀉󰀃

As I have already said, a master taught his student how to come to know spiritual things.󰀈 Then the student said: ‘Master, following your teaching, I am uplifted and know that all bodily things are like a small boat that sways in the sea and like a bird that flies in the air’. Because all spiritual things are elevated above the bodily things: the more those are elevated, the more they expand and contain the bodily things. Therefore bodily things are small compared to spiritual ones; and the higher the spiritual things are, the greater they are; and the stronger they are in works, the more pure they are in being. I have already said, and it is certain and a true thought:󰀉 if a person were hungry to death, and one offered him the best food, he would die of hunger before tasting or eating it, unless God’s likeness were in it. And if the man were freezing to death, whatever clothes were offered to him, he could never put his hand to them or wear them, unless God’s likeness were in them. so much about the first thing: how one should let go all things and follow God. The second: in what way we must serve our Lord. Saint Augustine says: ‘He is a faithful servant who in all his actions seeks nothing other than the honour of God alone’.󰀁󰀀 Lord David says, too: ‘God is my Lord, I will serve Him’,󰀁󰀁 because He served me and in all His service He required nothing of me except for my benefit; so I have to serve Him in return and seek His honour alone. This other lords do not do; they seek their own reward in their service, because they serve us only to make use of us. Therefore we are not obliged to a great service to them; the reward should be reckoned according to the greatness and the nobility of the service. The third is that we discuss this reward which our Lord mentions: ‘Where I am, there my servant shall be with me’. Where are the dwellings of our Lord Jesus Christ? This means: in the unity with His Father. This is such a great reward that all those who serve Him must live in unity with Him. This is why Saint Philip said, when our enmöhte gehaben, gotes glîchnisse enwære dar ane’. A similar thought is also present in Hom. 󰀁󰀇* [S 󰀉󰀁], n. 󰀆: ‘Dar umbe hât sich got geteilet, der einvaltic ist, an alle crêatûren, daz diu sêle an keinem wege sich kêren enmac von gote an die crêatûren, si envinde gotes glîchnisse dar ane’. 󰀁󰀀. Augustinus, Confessiones X c. 󰀂󰀆 n. 󰀃󰀇 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀁󰀇󰀅,󰀈–󰀁󰀀): ‘optimus minister tuus est, qui non magis intuetur hoc a te audire quod ipse uoluerit, sed potius hoc uelle quod a te audierit’. 󰀁󰀁. Ios. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀈.󰀂󰀄: ‘(󰀁󰀈) Serviemus igitur Domino, quia ipse est Deus noster… (󰀂󰀄): ‘… Domino Deo nostro serviemus’.

󰀄󰀉󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

gesaget von sînem vater: ‘herre, wîse uns dînen vater, und uns genüeget’, als ob er spræche, (󰀆󰀁󰀅) | daz im genüegete an dem sehenne. Michel grœzer genüegunge suln wir haben an der bîwonunge. Ouch sprach sant Pêtrus, dô sich unser herre verwandelte ûf dem berge und bewîsete in ein glîchnisse der klârheit, diu in dem himel ist: dô bat er unsern herren, dâ êwiclîche ze blîbenne. Unmâzen grôze begerunge sölten wir haben ze der einunge unsers herren gotes. Die einunge unsers herren gotes sol man merken bî einem underscheide: als got drîvaltic ist an den persônen, alsô ist er ein an der natûre. Alsô sol man ouch verstân die einunge unsers herren Jêsû Kristî mit sînem vater und der sêle. Als wîz und swarz underscheiden ist – ir einez enmac daz ander niht gelîden, daz wîze enist niht swarz –, alsô ist iht und niht. Niht ist daz, daz von nihte niht genemen enmac; iht ist daz, daz von ihte iht nimet. Alsô ist ez alzemâle an gote: swaz iht ist, daz ist an gote alzemâle; des engebristet dâ niht. Swanne diu sêle mit gote vereinet wirt, sô hât si an im allez, daz iht ist, an aller volkomenheit. Diu sêle vergizzet dâ ir selbes und aller dinge, als si an ir selben ist, und bekennet sich an gote götlich, als vil als got in ir ist; und als vil (󰀆󰀁󰀆) | minnet si sich an im götlich und ist mit im vereinet âne underscheit, daz si nihtes wan sîn engebrûchet und sich sîn vröuwet. Waz wil der mensche mê gern oder wizzen, swanne er mit gote alsô sæliclîche vereinet ist? Ze dirre einunge hât unser herre den menschen geschaffen. Dô her Âdam daz gebot brach, dô wart er ûz dem paradîse gestôzen. Dô saste unser herre zweier hande huote vür daz paradîs: einen engel und ein viuric swert, daz sneit ze beiden enden. Daz bediutet zwei dinc, durch diu der mensche wider ze dem himel komen sol, als er dâ von gevallen ist. Daz êrste: durch engelische natûre. Sant Dionysius sprichet, »daz engelischiu natûre ist als vil als diu offenunge götlîches liehtes«. (󰀆󰀁󰀇) | An den engeln durch die engel und an dem liehte sol diu sêle widerkriegen ze gote, biz daz si wider kumet an den êrsten ursprunc. – Daz ander: durch daz viuric swert, daz ist, daz diu sêle komen sol durch guotiu und götlîchiu werk, diu in viuriger minne getân werdent durch got und den ebenkristen. Daz uns daz geschehe, des helfe uns got. Âmen. 󰀁󰀂. Ioh. 󰀁󰀄:󰀈: ‘Domine, ostende nobis Patrem, et sufficit nobis’. 󰀁󰀃. Matth. 󰀁󰀇:󰀁–󰀄; Marc. 󰀉:󰀁–󰀄; Luc. 󰀉:󰀂󰀈–󰀃󰀃. 󰀁󰀄. See Gen. 󰀃:󰀂󰀃–󰀄: ‘Et emisit eum Dominus Deus de paradiso voluptatis, ut operaretur terram de qua sumptus est. Ejecitque Adam: et collocavit ante paradisum voluptatis’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀁* [Q 󰀅󰀈]

󰀄󰀉󰀅

Lord spoke of His Father, ‘Lord, show us your Father, and it is enough for us’,󰀁󰀂 as if he were saying that seeing was enough for him. Greater satisfaction we will have in co-habitation. Saint Peter said, too, when our Lord was transformed on the mountain and showed them an image of the splendor that is in heaven: then he asked our Lord to remain there eternally.󰀁󰀃 Unmeasurably great desire we should have for the union with God our Lord. One should note a difference with regard to the union with God our Lord: as God is triune in Persons, He is one in nature. Thus we must also understand the union of our Lord Jesus Christ with His Father and the soul. As black and white are distinct – the one can not stand the other, white is not black –, so too are something and nothing. Nothing is that which can not take anything from anything; something is that which takes something from something. Thus it is entirely in God: what is something is entirely in God; He does not lack anything there. When the soul is united with God, she has in Him everything that is something, in all perfection. There the soul forgets herself and all things, as she is in herself, and knows herself in God divinely, to the extent that God is in her; and to this extent she loves herself in Him divinely and is united with Him without distinction, so that she enjoys nothing but what is His and rejoices in Him. What more does a person desire or know, once he is so blissfully united with God? For this union our Lord created man. When the lord Adam broke the commandment, he was thrown out of paradise.󰀁󰀄 Then our Lord placed a double guard in front of paradise: an angel and a fiery sword, which cuts on both sides. This means two things, through which man should return to heaven, as he has fallen from it. The first: through the angelic nature. Saint Dionysius says ‘that the angelic nature is like the manifestation of divine light’.󰀁󰀅 In the angels, through the angels and in this light the soul should be redirected to God, until she returns to the first origin. – The second: through the fiery sword, that means that the soul must turn through good and divine actions, which are done in a fiery love for God and one’s fellows. That this may happen to us, may God help us! Amen.

󰀁󰀅. Ps.-Dionysius, De caelesti hierarchia c. 󰀃 § 󰀂; c. 󰀄 § 󰀂 (PG 󰀃, 󰀁󰀆󰀅.󰀁󰀈󰀀) with reference: ‘Interpretatur Iohannes Scottus’ (PL 󰀁󰀂󰀂, 󰀁󰀀󰀄󰀄–󰀅.󰀁󰀀󰀄󰀇).

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀂* [Q 󰀃󰀉] In communi plurimorum martyrum ‘Iustus in perpetuum vivet et apud dominum est merces eius’ etc. (Sap. 󰀅:󰀁󰀆) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Sap. 󰀅:󰀁󰀆 (‘Iusti autem in perpetuum vivent, et apud Dominum est merces eorum’) is read on the feast day of several martyrs (‘In communi plurimorum martyrum’), as, for example, on the feast of the martyrs Tiburtius, Valerian, and Maximus, celebrated on 󰀁󰀄 April; or the martyrs Nereus, Achilleus, and Pancras, 󰀁󰀂 May; or the Seven Holy Brothers, 󰀁󰀀 July; or Abdon and Sennen, July 󰀃󰀀 (‘Vff sant Sebastiani tag’, BT, seems to be erroneous). The critical text is based on eight manuscripts (Bra󰀃, E󰀁, G󰀅, Ha󰀁, M󰀂, Mai󰀁, N󰀁, Str󰀃), the print in BT and a number of fragments, including the Greith’s fragments. In n. 󰀃 there seems to be a reference to Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀃* [Q 󰀆] on the same core verse Sap. 󰀅:󰀁󰀆. The content of the homily This is a powerful homily, dealing with one of Eckhart’s preferred topics, the just person and justice. Indeed, it leads to the most emphatic statements, and one is surprised that this text was not picked up by the Inquisition, even though it had quite a dissemination, as can be seen from the number of witnesses that are still preserved today (see also the number of English translations of this text). In this homily, the Latin core verse given initially is more extended (n. 󰀁) than its vernacular translation by Eckhart (n. 󰀂). A) ‘Iustus’ (nn. 󰀃–󰀄). In the beginning of this note Eckhart points out that he is now advancing a different meaning to what he had done

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀂* [Q 󰀃󰀉]

󰀄󰀉󰀇

in another homily (presumably Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀃* [Q 󰀆]). His first point is that ‘the just lives in God and God in him, because God is born in the just and the just in God’. It is noticeable how Eckhart distinguishes between the ‘coarse people’ who have to believe his statement and ‘the enlightened ones’ who have to know what he said. The just acts without any intention, not even God Himself (n. 󰀄). B) ‘His reward is with the Lord’ (n. 󰀅). The word ‘with’ (‘bî’) points out how close is the relation between the just and God. Where the just is, there is God (n. 󰀅). The just is not only in God, he is God. C) ‘Iustus’ (nn. 󰀆–󰀁󰀁). Eckhart comes back to topic A, the just, but by building on what he has just stated about the identity between the just and God, he arrives at the following: ‘The Father gives birth to His Son as the just and the just as His Son’. In return, ‘nothing should act’ in the just, ‘except God alone’ (n. 󰀇). Based on what Eckhart has stated in the first Parisian Question, he sees a person who is ‘elevated above time into eternity’ performing God’s actions (n. 󰀈). This being ‘above time’ is endorsed by Eph. 󰀁:󰀄 (‘We are eternally elected in the Son’) (n. 󰀉). It is a relation where the two, God and the person, are totally in love with each other (nn. 󰀉–󰀁󰀀). This, however, does not take place in time, even not for the human spirit, but above time (n. 󰀁󰀁). The prayer ‘that we may live in eternity’ is the close of the homily (n. 󰀁󰀂). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀅󰀉,󰀁󰀈󰀉–󰀉󰀂; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀅󰀅󰀇–󰀆󰀉; J. Quint, DW II 󰀂󰀄󰀆–󰀆󰀈; N. Largier I 󰀄󰀂󰀀–󰀇.󰀁󰀀󰀀󰀇–󰀁󰀀; K. Flasch, LE III 󰀃󰀃–󰀅󰀀. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀁󰀄󰀉–󰀅󰀁; Meister Eckhart: A modern Translation, by R.B. Blakney (󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀁), 󰀁󰀇󰀈–󰀈󰀂; Meister Eckhart, Selected Treatises and Sermons, J.M. Clark and J.V. Skinner (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀈), 󰀄󰀉–󰀅󰀃; M. Fox, Breakthrough (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀), 󰀄󰀆󰀄–󰀇; Meister Eckhart, Teacher and Preacher (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇), 󰀂󰀉󰀆–󰀈; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀃󰀀󰀅–󰀈; Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings, ed. and trans. O. Davies (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀁󰀄󰀄–󰀈.

󰀄󰀉󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀅󰀁) ‘Iustus in perpetuum vivet et apud dominum est merces eius’ etc. Ein wörtelîn liset man hiute in der epistel, und ez sprichet der wîse man: ‘der gerehte lebet in die êwicheit’. (󰀂󰀅󰀂) | Etwenne hân ich gesprochen, waz ein gereht mensche sî; aber nû spriche ich in einem andern sinne anders: daz ist ein gereht mensche, der in die gerehticheit îngebildet und übergebildet ist. Der gerehte lebet in gote und got in im, wan got wirt geborn in dem gerehten und der gerehte in gote; wan von einer ieglîchen tugent des gerehten wirt got geborn und wirt ervröuwet von einer ieglîchen tugent des gerehten, und niht aleine von einer ieglîchen tugent, mêr: von einem ieglîchen werke des gerehten, swie kleine ez (󰀂󰀅󰀃) | sî, daz von dem gerehten in der gerehticheit geworht wirt, von dem wirt got ervröuwet, jâ durchvröuwet; wan ez enblîbet niht in sînem grunde, ez enwerde durchkützelt von vröude. Und diz ist groben liuten ze gloubenne und erliuhten ze wizzenne. Der gerehte ensuochet niht in sînen werken; wan die iht suochent in irn werken, die sint knehte und mietlinge, oder die umbe einic warumbe würkent. Dar umbe, wilt dû (󰀂󰀅󰀄) | în- und übergebildet werden in die gerehticheit, sô enmeine niht in dînen werken und enbilde kein warumbe in dich, noch in zît noch in êwicheit, noch lôn noch sælicheit, noch diz noch daz; wan disiu werk sint alliu wærlîche tôt. Jâ, und bildest dû got in dich, (󰀂󰀅󰀅) | swaz dû werke dar umbe würkest, diu sint alliu tôt, und dû verderbest guotiu werk; und niht aleine verderbest dû guotiu werk, mêr: dû tuost ouch sünde, wan dû tuost rehte als ein gartenære, der einen garten pflanzen sölte und danne die böume ûzriutete und wölte danne lôn haben. Alsô verderbest dû guotiu werk. Und dar umbe, wilt dû leben und wilt, daz dîniu werk

󰀁. Sap. 󰀅:󰀁󰀆. 󰀂. Sap. 󰀅:󰀁󰀆: ‘Iusti autem in perpetuum vivent, et apud Dominum est merces eorum’. The context is Sap. 󰀅:󰀁󰀆–󰀂󰀂 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀄vb: ‘In communi plurimorum martyrum. Lectio libri Sapientie. Iusti in perpetuum vivent, et apud Dominum est merces eorum, et cogitatio illorum apud Altissimum. Ideo accipient regnum decoris, et diadema speciei de manu Domini: quoniam dextera sua teget eos, et brachio sancto suo defendet illos. Accipiet armaturam zelus illius, et armabit creaturam ad ultionem inimicorum. Induet pro torace iustitiam, et accipiet pro galea iudicium certum. Sumet scutum inexpugnabile equitatem [add. Vg.: acuet autem duram

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀂* [Q 󰀃󰀉]

󰀄󰀉󰀉

‘Iustus in perpetuum vivet et apud dominum est merces eius’ etc.󰀁 A sentence is read today in the Epistle, and the wise man says: ‘The just lives eternally’.󰀂 Once I said what a just man is;󰀃 but now I point out a different meaning from another perspective:󰀄 a just man is somebody who is informed by and transformed into justice. The just lives in God and God in him, because God is born in the just and the just in God; because by every virtue of the just God is born and is delighted by every virtue of the just; and not only by each virtue, on the contrary: every action of the just, however small it may be, which is performed by the just in justice, God enjoys, yes, He enjoys through and through; because there is nothing left in His ground, that is not intensely tickled by joy. And for the coarse people this is to be believed, and for the enlightened ones to be known. The just is seeking nothing in his actions; for those who seek something in their actions are servants and mercenaries, or those who act for some reason. Therefore, if you want to be in- and transformed into justice, do not intend anything in your actions and do not form any why in you, neither in time nor in eternity, neither reward nor bliss, neither this nor that; because these actions are all really dead. Yes, even if you made an image of God in yourself,󰀅 the actions that you would then perform, they are all dead, and you corrupted good actions; and not only would you corrupt good deeds, indeed: you sinned, because you would act like a gardener who had to plant a garden and uprooted the trees, but then wanted to get the reward. Hence, you corrupted good deeds. Thus, if you want to live and want your actions

iram in lanceam, et pugnabit cum illo orbis terrarum contra insensatos]. Ibunt directe emissiones [fulgurum add. Vg.] Et ad certum locum deducet illos Dominus Deus noster. [Et … noster om. Vg.]’. 󰀃. Seems to be a reference to Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀃* [Q 󰀆] on the same verse Sap. 󰀅:󰀁󰀆: ‘Iusti vivent in aeternum’. 󰀄. Indeed, his interpretation here differs from that of Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀃* [Q 󰀆]. 󰀅. J. Quint ad loc. translates ‘wenn du dir Gott zum Ziel nimmst’ (‘if you aim at God’). The sense of this splendid passage seems to be that the only way to produce living works is first to become detached; an undetached person, even if he forms an image of God in himself, cannot achieve that.

󰀅󰀀󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

leben, sô muost dû allen dingen tôt sîn und ze nihte worden (󰀂󰀅󰀆) | sîn. Der crêatûre eigen ist, daz si von ihte iht mache; aber gotes eigen ist, daz er von nihte iht mache; und dar umbe, sol got iht in dir oder mit dir machen, sô muost dû vor ze nihte worden sîn. Und dar umbe ganc in dînen eigenen grunt, und dâ würke, und diu werk, diu dû dâ würkest, diu sint alliu lebendic. Und dar umbe sprichet er: ‘der gerehte lebet’, wan dar umbe daz er gereht ist, dar umbe würket er, und sîniu werk diu lebent. (󰀂󰀅󰀇) | Nû sprichet er: ‘sin lôn ist bî dem herren’. Von disem ein wênic. Daz er sprichet ‘bî’, daz ist, daz des gerehten lôn ist, dâ got selber ist; wan des gerehten sælicheit und gotes sælicheit ist éin sælicheit, wan dâ ist der gerehte sælic, dâ got sælic ist. Ez sprichet sant Johannes: ‘daz wort was bî gote’. Er sprichet ‘bî’, und dar umbe ist der gerehte glîch gote, wan got ist diu gerehticheit. Und dar umbe: swer in der gerehticheit ist, der ist in gote und ist got. (󰀂󰀅󰀈) | Nû sprechen vürbaz von dem worte ‘gereht’. Er ensprichet niht, ‘der gerehte mensche’ noch ‘der gerehte engel’, er sprichet aleine: ‘der gerehte’. Der vater gebirt sînen sun den gerehten und den gerehten sînen sun; wan alliu diu tugent des gerehten und ein ieglich werk, daz von tugent des gerehten geworht wirt, enist niht anders, dan daz der sun von dem vater geborn wirt. Und dar umbe engeruowet der vater niemer, er enjage und entrîbe alle zît dar zuo, daz sîn sun in mir geborn werde, als ein geschrift sprichet: ‘noch durch Syon enswîge ich niht noch durch Jêrusalem enruowe ich niht, biz daz der gerehte offenbære (󰀂󰀅󰀉) | werde und schîne als ein blitze’. ‘Syon’ ist hôcheit von lebene, und ‘Jêrusalem’ ist hôcheit von vride. Jâ, weder durch hôcheit von lebene noch durch hôcheit von vride sô engeruowet got niemer, er enjage und entrîbe alle zît dar zuo, ez werde offenbære der gerehte. In dem gerehten ensol kein dinc würken dan aleine got. Wan ist, daz dich dehein dinc ûzwendic anerüeret ze würkenne, wærlîche, diu werk sint alliu tôt; und ist, daz dich got ûzwendic anerüere ze würkenne, wærlîche, diu werk sint alliu tôt. Und suln dîniu werk 󰀆. Sap. 󰀅:󰀁󰀆. 󰀇. Sap. 󰀅:󰀁󰀆. 󰀈. Ioh. 󰀁:󰀁: ‘verbum erat apud deum’. 󰀉. Isa. 󰀆󰀂:󰀁: ‘propter Sion non tacebo et propter Hierusalem non quiescam donec egrediatur ut splendor iustus eius’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀂* [Q 󰀃󰀉]

󰀅󰀀󰀁

to live on, you must be dead to all things and have become nothing. It is proper to creatures to make something from something; but it is proper to God to make something from nothing, and therefore, if God shall make something in you or with you, you must first become nothing. And, therefore, go into your own ground, and act there, and the actions that are done there are all alive. And therefore He says: ‘The just lives’,󰀆 for by the fact that he is just, he acts, and his actions are alive. Now He says: ‘His reward is with the Lord’.󰀇 A little about this. That He says ‘with’ means that the reward of the just is, where God Himself is; for the bliss of the just and the bliss of God is one bliss, for the just is blessed where God is blessed. Saint John says: ‘The word was with God’.󰀈 He says ‘with’, and, therefore, the just is like God, because God is justice. And therefore: whoever is in justice, is in God and is God. Now let us say more of the word ‘just’. He does not say: ‘the just person’ nor the ‘just angel’, He only says: ‘the just’. The Father gives birth to His Son as the just and the just as His Son; because all the virtues of the just and each work which is performed by the virtue of the just is none other than the Son being generated by the Father. And therefore the Father never rests, He hunts and always pushes for His Son to be born in me, as a book says: ‘Neither do I keep silent for Zion’s sake, nor do I rest for Jerusalem, until the just becomes revealed and shines like lightning’.󰀉 ‘Sion’ means the peak of life, and ‘Jerusalem’ is the summit of peace.󰀁󰀀 Yes, neither for the peak of life nor for the summit of peace does God rest from hunting and always pushing for the just to be revealed. In the just nothing should act except God alone. Because if something moves you from the outside to act, really, those actions are all dead; and even if God moved you from the outside to act, truly, those actions are all dead. And if your actions are to be alive, God must

󰀁󰀀. See Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiae XV c. 󰀁 n. 󰀅 (Lindsay II 󰀁󰀄󰀉,󰀆–󰀉): ‘… Sion, quae Hebraice interpretatur speculatio, eo quod in sublimi constructa sit, et de longe venientia contempletur. Hierusalem [autem] pacifica in nostro sermone transfertur’; ibid. VIII c. 󰀁 nn. 󰀅–󰀆 (Lindsay I 󰀃󰀀󰀄,󰀂󰀂–󰀄): ‘… Sion, id est speculatio, … Hierusalem pacis visio interpretatur’.

󰀅󰀀󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

leben, sô muoz dich got inwendic anerüeren in dem innigesten der sêle, suln (󰀂󰀆󰀀) | sie leben; wan dâ ist dîn leben, und dâ lebest dû aleine. Und ich spriche: dünket dich ein tugent grœzer dan diu ander und ahtest dû sie mê dan die ander, sô enminnest dû sie niht, als si in der gerehticheit ist, und got enwürket noch in dir niht. Wan als lange der mensche eine tugent mê ahtet oder minnet, sô enminnet noch ennimet er sie niht, als sie in der gerehticheit sint, noch er enist gereht; wan der gerehte nimet und würket alle tugende in der gerehticheit, als sie diu gerehticheit selbe sint. (󰀂󰀆󰀁) | Ez sprichet ein geschrift: ‘vor der gemacheten werlt bin ich’. Er sprichet: ‘vor’ ‘bin ich’, daz ist: dâ der mensche erhaben ist über zît in êwicheit, dâ würket der mensche ein werk mit gote. Etlîche vrâgent, wie der mensche müge gewürken diu werk, diu got vor tûsent jâren und nâch tûsent jâren geworht hât, und enverstânt ez niht. In êwicheit (󰀂󰀆󰀂) | enist weder vor noch nâch. Und dar umbe, daz vor tûsent jâren und nâch tûsent jâren und nû geschihet, daz enist niht dan einez in der êwicheit. Und dar umbe, swaz got vor tûsent jâren und nâch tûsent jâren getân und geschaffen hât und daz er nû tuot, daz enist niht dan éin werk. Dar umbe: der mensche, der über zît erhaben ist in êwicheit, der würket mit gote, daz got vor tûsent und nâch tûsent jâren geworht hât. Und diz ist wîsen liuten ze wizzenne und groben ze gloubenne. Sant Paulus sprichet: ‘wir sîn êwiclîche erwelt in dem sune’. Dar umbe suln (󰀂󰀆󰀃) | wir niemer geruowen, biz wir daz werden, daz wir in im êwiclîche gewesen sîn, wan der vater trîbet und jaget dar zuo, daz wir in dem sune geborn werden und daz selbe werden, daz der sun ist. Der vater gebirt sînen sun, und in dem geberne sô nimet der vater sô grôze ruowe und lust, daz er alle sîne natûre dar inne verzert. Wan swaz in gote ist, daz beweget in ze geberne; jâ, von sînem grunde und von sîner wesunge und von sînem wesene wirt der vater beweget ze geberne. (󰀂󰀆󰀄)

󰀁󰀁. Eccli. 󰀂󰀄:󰀁󰀄: ‘ab initio ante saeculum creata sum’. 󰀁󰀂. The same grammatical structure and interpretation is given in Eckhart’s Parisian Question ‘Utrum in deo sit idem esse et intelligere’ n. 󰀄 (LW V 󰀄󰀁,󰀁󰀁–󰀃): ‘Et si dicatur quod immo, quia Eccli. 󰀂󰀄: “ab initio et ante saecula creata sum”, potest exponi “creata”, id est genita. Sed aliter dico sic: “ab initio et ante saecula creata” “sum”’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀂* [Q 󰀃󰀉]

󰀅󰀀󰀃

touch you inwardly in the most intimate part of the soul, if they are to be alive; because there is your life, and there alone you live. And I say: if one virtue seems to you greater than another and you consider it more than the other, then you do not love it as it is in justice and God does not yet act in you. Because as long as a person considers and loves one virtue more, he does not love them, as they are in justice, nor is he just; because the just takes and performs all virtues in justice, because they are justice itself. A book says: ‘Before the created world, I am’.󰀁󰀁 He says: ‘before’ ‘I am’,󰀁󰀂 that means: where a person is elevated above time into eternity, there the person performs one action together with God. Some ask how a person can perform the actions that God has performed a thousand years ago and will have performed in a thousand years, and they do not understand it. In eternity there is neither before nor after. And so what happens a thousand years ago and in a thousand years and now is nothing but eternally one. And therefore what God has done and created a thousand years ago and in a thousand years and what he is doing now, is nothing but one action. Therefore: the person who is elevated above time into eternity, performs with God what God has performed a thousand years ago and in a thousand years. And this for the wise people to know and for the coarse people to believe. Saint Paul says: ‘We are eternally chosen in the Son’.󰀁󰀃 Therefore we must never rest until we become what we have been eternally in Him,󰀁󰀄 because the Father pushes and hunts so that we may be born in the Son and become the same as the Son is. The Father gives birth to His Son, and in this birth the Father takes so much rest and pleasure that He expends all His nature in this. Because whatever is in God moves Him to give birth; yes, from His ground and His essence and His being the Father is moved to give birth.

󰀁󰀃. Eph. 󰀁:󰀄: ‘sicut elegit nos in ipso ante mundi constitutionem’. 󰀁󰀄. See Rom. 󰀈:󰀂󰀉: ‘nam quos praescivit et praedestinavit conformes fieri imaginis Filii eius ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus’.

󰀅󰀀󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

| Etwenne wirt ein lieht offen in der sêle, und der mensche wænet, ez sî der sun, und ez ist niuwan ein lieht. Wan swâ der sun offenbære wirt in der sêle, dâ wirt ouch offenbære diu minne des heiligen geistes. Dar umbe spriche ich: des vaters wesen ist, daz er den sun geber, und des sunes wesen ist, daz ich in im und nâch im geborn werde; des heiligen geistes wesen ist, daz ich in im verbrant werde und in im zemâle versmolzen werde und zemâle minne werde. Der alsô in der minne ist und zemâle minne ist, der wænet, daz got nieman minne dan in aleine, und er enweiz nieman minnen noch von niemanne dan von im aleine. (󰀂󰀆󰀅) | Sumlîche lêrære wellent, daz der geist neme sîne sælicheit in der minne; etlîche wellent, daz er sie neme in dem anesehenne gotes. Aber ich spriche: er ennimet sie noch in minne noch in bekennenne noch in anesehenne. Nû möhte man sprechen: enhât der geist kein anesehen in dem êwigen lebene an got? Jâ und nein. Dâ er geborn ist, dâ enhât er kein ûfsehen noch kein anesehen an got. Aber dâ er geborn wirt, dâ hât er anesehen gotes. Dar umbe ist des geistes sælicheit, dâ er geborn ist, und niht, dâ er (󰀂󰀆󰀆) | geborn wirt, wan er lebet, dâ der vater lebet, daz ist: in einvalticheit und in blôzheit des wesens. Dar umbe kêre dich von allen dingen und nim dich blôz in wesene; wan swaz ûzwendic wesene ist, daz ist zuoval, und alle zuovelle machent warumbe. Daz wir in êwicheit leben, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀂* [Q 󰀃󰀉]

󰀅󰀀󰀅

Sometimes a light is manifested in the soul, and the man is convinced that it is the Son, but it is only a light. Because wherever the Son is revealed in the soul, there is also revealed the love of the Holy Spirit. Therefore I say: the Father’s being is that He gives birth to the Son, and the Son’s being is that I be born in Him and according to Him; the Holy Spirit’s being is that I be burned in Him and totally melted in Him and become completely love. He who is so in love and is completely love, is convinced that God does not love anybody but him, and He does not know anyone to love, nor anyone to be loved by, except by Himself. Some teachers want the spirit to take its bliss in love;󰀁󰀅 several want it to take it in contemplating God. But I say: It does not take it either in love or in knowing or in to contemplating. Now we might say: in eternal life, does not the spirit contemplate God? Yes and no. Where it is generated, it has neither a regard for nor a contemplation of God. But where it becomes born, it contemplates God. Therefore, the bliss of the spirit is where it is born, and not where it becomes born, because it lives where the Father lives, that means: in the simplicity and in the nakedness of being. Therefore, turn your back on all things and take yourself nakedly in being; because what is external to being is accident, and all accidents imply a why. That we may live eternally, may God help us! Amen.

󰀁󰀅. See the reference to a Franciscan master in Hom. 󰀆󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀅], n. 󰀁󰀃, and Hom. 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉], n. 󰀁󰀄.

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀃* [Q 󰀆] In communi plurimorum martyrum ‘Iusti vivent in aeternum’ (Sap. 󰀅:󰀁󰀆) Introduction

T

his is Eckhart’s second homily on the same core passage Sap. 󰀅:󰀁󰀆 (‘Iusti autem in perpetuum vivent, et apud Dominum est merces eorum’) which is read on a feast day of several martyrs (‘In communi plurimorum martyrum’) as pointed out in the introduction to the previous Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀂* [Q 󰀃󰀉]. The indication ‘An aller Heiligen Abent’ of BT is possible (󰀁.󰀁󰀁–󰀄.󰀁󰀂). The homily has been heavily excerpted and criticized in the inquisition process, as will be seen from the parallels below. The text of the critical edition in DW is based on three manuscripts (B󰀉, Bra󰀃, M󰀂), the print in BT and a number of fragments. The witnesses N󰀁󰀁, B󰀆, Ba󰀂, Ba󰀅, Bra󰀁 and the print HT are not used in the critical edition of DW. A passage in n. 󰀃 seems to be referred to by Hom. 󰀃󰀁* [Q 󰀅󰀉], n. 󰀃, in the opening of n. 󰀁󰀆 Eckhart seems to refer to Hom. 󰀄󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀆], n. 󰀆. The content of the homily As can be seen from the inquisition, this is one of the programmatic homilies of Eckhart in which he outlines some of the most fundamental ideas of his thinking. Hence, he defends all the criticized elements vehemently with the result that only one incriminated passage was included in the papal bull. Following the abbreviated core quote in Latin (n. 󰀁) and the more elaborate translation into the vernacular (n. 󰀂), we have Eckhart’s statement that this ‘is simple and commonplace for coarse people, but nevertheless worth noticing and very good’.

󰀅󰀀󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Part 󰀁 (nn. 󰀃–󰀇): In n. 󰀃 Eckhart lists the main topics he is going to elaborate first: ‘The just’ are ‘those who give to God what is His and to the saints and to the angels, what is theirs, and to the neighbour what is his’, hence, he is going to talk about ‘God’, ‘the saints and the angels’, ‘purgatory’, ‘fellow citizens’. 󰀁) Of God and those ‘who honour God’ (n. 󰀄). These people ‘have gone out’ not only of earthly things, but first and foremost of all spiritual things, as long as these are done with an intention and, therefore, part of what is ‘theirs’. 󰀂) Of angels and saints (n. 󰀅). The saints enjoy the actions of people, because they love God and His honour more than their own bliss, and because God Himself takes pleasure in these actions of people. 󰀃) Of purgatory (n. 󰀆). Unfortunately, Eckhart’s remarks here are truncated. 󰀄) On fellow human beings (n. 󰀇). It is leaving one’s will, to ‘receive from God all things alike’, even though this note is not fully developed, or perhaps has been shortened, too. Part 󰀂 (nn. 󰀈–󰀉): On God’s will and my will (n. 󰀈); the just, justice and God (n. 󰀉). A) ‘The just shall live’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). Only here does Eckhart start with a reading of the core verse. His first point is the high value that people give to their life, concluding that ‘God’s being is my life’. B) ‘With God’ (nn. 󰀁󰀁–󰀆). Eternal life is a life with God, to be like Him, neither being underneath Him, nor above Him. These people are unlike anything else and they have given up ‘self-love’ (n. 󰀁󰀂). In these people who are like God Himself, God gives birth to His Son, giving birth to me as His Son ‘without any distinction’ (n. 󰀁󰀃). This birth will completely transform us ‘into God’ (n. 󰀁󰀄). It is a giving birth ‘without interruption’ (n. 󰀁󰀅). Referring back to a homily that Eckhart gave in the same place, he develops what it means to take from God as taking from one’s own, as taking from God as a stranger would not be right (n. 󰀁󰀆). The homily closes with a prayer ‘that we love justice by itself and God without a why’ (n. 󰀁󰀇).

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀃* [Q 󰀆]

󰀅󰀀󰀉

Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀆󰀅,󰀂󰀀󰀂–󰀆; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀅󰀉󰀀–󰀆󰀀󰀆; J. Quint, DW I 󰀉󰀇–󰀁󰀁󰀅; N. Largier I 󰀇󰀆–󰀈󰀇.󰀈󰀀󰀈–󰀁󰀉; K. Flasch, Predigt 󰀆: ‘Iusti vivent in aeternum’, in: Lectura Eckhardi II (󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃), 󰀃󰀀–󰀉. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀁󰀆󰀀–󰀃; J.M. Clark, Meister Eckhart (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀇), 󰀁󰀈󰀅–󰀉󰀀; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀃󰀂󰀈–󰀃󰀃; Meister Eckhart, The Essential Sermons (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁), 󰀁󰀈󰀅–󰀉.

󰀅󰀁󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀉󰀉) ‘Iusti vivent in aeternum’. ‘Die gerehten suln leben êwiclîche, und ir lôn ist bî gote’. Nû merket disen sin gar eben; aleine er grop lûte und gemeine, sô ist er doch gar merklich und gar guot. ‘Die gerehten suln leben’. Welhez sint die gerehten? Ein geschrift sprichet: »der ist gereht, der einem ieglîchen gibet, daz sîn ist«: die gote gebent, daz sîn ist, und den heiligen und den engeln, daz ir ist, und dem ebenmenschen, daz sîn ist. (󰀁󰀀󰀀) | ‘Gotes ist diu êre’. Wer sint, die got êrent? Die ir selbes alzemâle sint ûzgegangen und des irn alzemâle niht ensuochent an keinen dingen, swaz ez joch sî, noch grôz noch klein, die niht ensehent under sich noch über sich noch neben sich noch an sich, die niht enmeinent noch guot noch êre noch gemach noch lust noch nutz noch innicheit noch heilicheit noch lôn noch himelrîche und dis alles sint ûzgegangen, alles des irn, dirre liute hât got êre, und die êrent got eigenlîche und gebent im, daz sîn ist. (󰀁󰀀󰀁) |

󰀁. Sap. 󰀅:󰀁󰀆: ‘Iusti vivent in aeternum et apud dominum est merces eorum’. On the context see note to the previous Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀂* [Q 󰀃󰀉]. 󰀂. What follows seems to be referred to by Hom. 󰀃󰀁* [Q 󰀅󰀉], n. 󰀃: ‘Etwenne hân ich gesprochen, waz ein gereht mensche sî’, so J. Quint, DW I 󰀉󰀉, note 󰀁. 󰀃. See Iustinianus, Institutiones 󰀁,󰀁 pr. (Mommsen/Krüger 󰀁): ‘Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuens’. 󰀄. I Tim. 󰀁:󰀁󰀇: ‘Soli Deo honor et gloria’. 󰀅. God is honored by detached persons, in that they allow or become open to the birth of the Son in the soul, which is what God’s will for us is. The same point is made in n. 󰀇 in this sermon, since the detached person is accepting of the divine will. See also Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀃󰀆,󰀁–󰀁󰀀): ‘Tricesimus quintus articulus in sermone “Iusti in perpetuum vivent” sic dicit: “Qui nec intendunt res nec honores nec commodum nec delectationem nec utilitatem nec devotionem internam nec sanctitatem nec praemium nec regnum caelorum, sed omnibus istis renuntiaverunt, quidquid est suum, in illis hominibus honoratur deus”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi, nn. 󰀈󰀉–󰀉󰀀) (LW 󰀃󰀃󰀉,󰀁󰀃–󰀂󰀆): ‘Tricesimus quintus articulus. In sermone “Iusti in perpetuum vivent” sic dicit: “Qui nec intendunt res nec honores nec commodum nec delectationem nec utilitatem nec devotionem internam nec sanctitatem nec praemium nec regnum caelorum, sed omnibus istis renuntiaverunt, quidquid est suum, in illis hominibus honoratur deus”. Solutio. Totum verum est, et negare hoc est ignorare et errare. Perfectus enim nihilo prorsus contentatur

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀃* [Q 󰀆]

󰀅󰀁󰀁

‘Iusti vivent in aeternum’. ‘The just will live forever, and their reward is with God’.󰀁 Now note the precise meaning; although it sounds simple and a commonplace, but nevertheless it is worth noticing and very good. ‘The just will live’. Who are the just ones?󰀂 A book says: ‘Just is he who gives to each one what is his’:󰀃 those who give to God what is His and to the saints and to the angels, what is theirs, and to the neighbour what is his. ‘Honour belongs to God’.󰀄 Who are those who honour God? Those who have entirely gone out of themselves and do not seek anything at all for themselves, whatever it may be, neither big nor small, who do not have any regard to what is below themselves, nor above themselves, nor next to themselves nor in themselves, who do not intend either good or honour, or well-being or pleasure, nor advantage, nor contemplation, nor sanctity, nor reward, nor the kingdom of heaven, and who have left all of this behind, of all theirs, from these people God has honour, and these honour God properly and give Him what is His.󰀅

nec quiescit in aliqua mercede aut dono dei, sed deus, id quod est, merces est ipsi sufficiens, secundum illud Cor.: “nostra sufficientia ex deo est”; Gen. 󰀁󰀅: “ego ero merces tua”; Exodi 󰀃󰀃: “si non tu ipse praecesseris, ne educas nos de loco isto” ait ille, cui dictum est: “ego ostendam tibi omne bonum”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀅󰀉 (Votum Avenionensium nn. 󰀅󰀈–󰀆󰀀) (LW V 󰀅󰀇󰀈,󰀁󰀃–󰀅󰀇󰀉,󰀄): ‘Decimus quintus articulus sic habet: Item praedicavit: “Qui non intendunt res nec honores nec utilitatem nec devotionem internam nec sanctitatem nec praemium nec regnum caelorum, sed omnibus his renuntiaverunt, etiam quod suum est, in illis hominibus honoratur deus”. Istum articulum verificat magister, scilicet quod deum et nihil citra deum debemus quaerere nec aliud intendere pro mercede, iuxta illud: “ego merces tua”. Hoc non excusat, quia licet deus sit merces nostra, non tamen sine merito gratiae per quam habemus internam devotionem et sanctitatem. Et per hoc meremur deum mercedem nostram et praemium ac regnum caelorum per quod vita aeterna intelligitur. Igitur deus nulli est merces qui renuntiat internae devotioni, sanctitati, praemio et regno caelorum. Quare expositio ista nihil facit ad verificandum seu tollendum errorem articuli, ut in illis honoretur deus qui renuntiant istis, cum haec renuntiatio sit peccatum gravissimum. Et per consequens articulus inducit homines in peccatum et errorem’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀆󰀅 (the bull) (LW V 󰀅󰀉󰀈,󰀃󰀆–󰀈): ‘Octavus articulus: “Qui non intendunt res nec honores nec utilitatem nec devotionem internam nec sanctitatem nec premium nec regnum celorum, sed omnibus hiis renuntiaverunt, etiam quod suum est, in illis hominibus honoratur deus”’.

󰀅󰀁󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Man sol geben den engeln und den heiligen vröude. Eyâ, wunder über alliu wunder! Mac ein mensche in disem lebene vröude geben den, die in dem êwigen lebene sint? Jâ wærlîche! ein ieglich heilige hât sô grôzen lust und sô unsprechelîche vröude, von einem ieglîchen guoten werke, von einem guoten willen oder einer begerunge hânt sie sô grôze vröude, daz ez kein munt ûzsprechen kan, noch kein herze kan ez erdenken, wie grôze vröude sie dâ von hânt. War umbe ist daz? Dâ minnent sie got als unmæzlîche sêre und hânt sô rehte liep, daz sîn êre in lieber ist dan ir sælicheit. Niht aleine die heiligen noch die engel, mêr: got selber hât sô grôzen lust dar abe, rehte als ob ez sîn sælicheit sî, und sîn wesen swebet dar an und sîn genüegede und sîn wollust. Eyâ, nû merket! Enwellen wir gote niht dienen umbe kein ander sache wan umbe die grôzen vröude, die sie dar an hânt, die in dem êwigen lebene sint, und got selber, wir möhten ez gerne tuon und mit allem vlîze. Man sol ouch den geben, die in dem vegeviure sint, hilfe und bezzerunge und den, die noch lebent. (󰀁󰀀󰀂) | Dirre mensche ist gereht in einer wîse, und in einem andern sinne sô sint die gereht, die alliu dinc glîch enpfâhent von gote, swaz ez joch sî, ez sî grôz oder klein, liep oder leit, und al glîch, noch minner noch mêr, einz als daz ander. Wigest dû daz ein iht mêr dan daz ander, sô ist im unreht. Dû solt dînes eigen willen alzemâle ûzgân. Ich gedâhte niuwelîche umbe ein dinc: enwölte got niht als ich, sô wölte ich doch als er. Sumlîche liute wellent irn eigenen willen hân an allen dingen; daz ist bœse, dar în vellet gebreste. Die andern sint ein wênic bezzer, die wellent wol, waz got wil, wider sînen willen enwellent sie niht; wæren sie siech, sô wölten sie wol, daz ez gotes wille wære, daz sie gesunt wæren. Alsô wölten die liute, daz got nâch irm willen wölte, lieber dan daz sie nâch sînem willen wölten. Man muoz ez vertragen, im ist aber unreht. Die gerehten enhânt zemâle keinen willen: waz got wil, daz ist in allez glîch, swie grôz daz ungemach sî. (󰀁󰀀󰀃) | Den gerehten menschen den ist alsô ernst ze der gerehticheit, wære, daz got niht gereht wære, sie enahteten eine bône niht ûf got und stânt alsô vaste in der gerehticheit und sint ir selbes alsô gar ûzgegangen, daz sie niht enahtent pîne der helle noch vröude des himelrîches noch keines dinges. Jâ, wære alliu diu pîne, die die hânt, die in der helle sint, menschen oder vîende, oder alliu diu pîne, diu in ertrîche

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀃* [Q 󰀆]

󰀅󰀁󰀃

We must give joy to the angels and saints. Ah, wonder of all wonders. Can a person in this life give joy to those who are in eternal life? Yes, indeed! Each saint takes such great pleasure and such an unspeakable joy from every good action, from a good will or from a desire he takes such great joy that no mouth can utter it, nor can any heart think of what great joy they have from this. Why is this the case? Because they love God so immensely and they so dearly love Him that His honour is more dear to them than their own bliss. Not only the saints and the angels, but even more: God Himself takes such great pleasure from this, just as if it is His bliss, and as if His being depended on it, His satisfaction and His enjoyment. Ah, now note! If we do not want to serve God for any other reason than for the great joy they have in this who are in eternal life and God Himself, we should love to do it willingly and with all diligence. Even those who are in purgatory should be given help, improvement and to those who still live. In one way, this man is just, but in another sense, those are just who receive from God all things alike, whatever it is, whether great or small, pleasure or suffering, and all alike, no less, no more, one like the other. If you weigh something more than the other, this is wrong. You must entirely leave your own will. I reflected recently on one thing: if God did not want as I want, I would nonetheless want as He does. Some people want to have their own will in all things: this is evil, imperfection falls into this. The others are a little better, and they want what God wants, against His will they do not want anything; if they were ill, they would want, however, that it were the will of God that they were healthy. Thus, these people want that God would want according to their will, rather than that they wanted according to His will. This one has to accept, but it is wrong. The just have absolutely no will: all that God wants, is alike for them, however great the misfortune is. To the just justice is so serious, if it were that God was not just, they would not care a bean for God and would have stood so firmly in justice and have gone out of themselves so completely that they consider neither the pain of hell nor the joy of the kingdom of heaven or anything. Yes, if all the punishment of those who are in hell, men or devils, or all the pain on earth that was ever suffered or will ever be

󰀅󰀁󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

ie geliten wart oder iemer sol werden geliten, wære diu gesast bî der gerehticheit, sie enahteten sîn niht einen bast; sô vaste stânt sie an gote und an der gerehticheit. Dem gerehten menschen enist niht pînlîcher (󰀁󰀀󰀄) | noch swærer, dan daz der gerehticheit wider ist, daz er in allen dingen niht glîch ist. Als wie? Mac sie ein dinc vröuwen und ein anderz betrüeben, sô ensint sie niht gereht, mêr: sint sie ze einer zît vrô, sô sint sie ze allen zîten vrô; sint sie ze einer zît mêr vrô und ze der andern minner, sô ist in unreht. Swer die gerehticheit minnet, der stât sô vaste dar ûf, swaz er minnet, daz ist sîn wesen; den enmac kein dinc abeziehen, noch keines dinges enahtet er anders. Sant Augustînus sprichet: »dâ diu sêle minnet, dâ ist si eigenlîcher, (󰀁󰀀󰀅) | dan dâ si leben gibet«. Daz wort lûtet grop und gemeine, und verstât doch wênic ieman, wie im sî, und ist doch wâr. Swer underscheit verstât von gerehticheit und von gerehtem, der verstât allez, daz ich sage. ‘Die gerehten suln leben.’ Ez enist kein dinc sô liep noch sô begirlich als leben under allen dingen. Sô enist kein leben sô bœse noch sô swærlich, ein mensche enwelle dennoch leben. Ein geschrift diu sprichet: ie daz dinc dem tôde næher ist, ie pînlîcher ez ist. Nochdenne swie bœse daz leben ist, sô wil ez leben. War umbe izzest dû? War umbe slæfest dû? Umbe daz dû lebest. War umbe begerst dû guotes oder êren? Daz weist dû harte wol. Mêr: war umbe lebest dû? Umbe leben, und enweist dennoch niht, war umbe dû lebest. Sô begirlich ist daz leben in im selber, daz man ez umbe sich selber begert. Die in der helle sint in êwiger pîne, die enwölten niht ir leben verliesen, noch vîende noch sêlen, wan ir leben ist sô edel, daz ez sunder allez mittel vliuzet von gote in die sêle. Dar umbe wan ez von gote alsô vliuzet (󰀁󰀀󰀆) | sunder mittel, dar umbe wellent sie leben. Waz ist leben? Gotes wesen ist mîn leben. Ist mîn leben gotes wesen, sô muoz daz gotes sîn mîn sîn und gotes isticheit mîn isticheit, noch minner noch mêr.

󰀆. Ps.-Augustinus, or rather Bernardus, De praecepto et dispensatione c. 󰀂󰀀 n. 󰀆󰀀 (Leclerq and Rochais 󰀂󰀉󰀂,󰀂󰀄–󰀅): ‘Neque enim praesentior spiritus noster est ubi animat, quam ubi amat’. 󰀇. The first one above, n. 󰀃. 󰀈. Sap. 󰀅:󰀁󰀆. 󰀉. See Aristoteles, Ethica ad Nicomachum III c. 󰀉 (󰀁󰀁󰀁󰀅a󰀂󰀆–󰀂󰀇); Auctoritates Aristotelis 󰀁󰀂 n. 󰀅󰀆 (Hamesse 󰀂󰀃󰀆,󰀇󰀈): ‘Terribilissimum omnium terribilium est mors’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀃* [Q 󰀆]

󰀅󰀁󰀅

suffered were associated with justice, they would not consider these a straw; so firmly do they stand in God and in justice. To the just man nothing is more painful and burdensome than what is against justice: that he is not equanimous in all things. How is that? If one thing can cheer them up and another sadden them, they are not just; on the contrary, if they are happy at a certain time, they are happy at all times; if they are more happy at a certain time and less at another, this is wrong. Those who love justice stand so firmly in it that what they love is their being; nothing can take it away, nor does he consider anything else. Saint Augustine says: ‘Where the soul loves, there she is more properly than where she gives life’.󰀆 This sentence󰀇 sounds coarse and trivial, but few understand what it means, and yet it is true. Those who understand the difference between justice and the just, understands everything that I say. ‘The just shall live’.󰀈 There is nothing so dear nor so desirable among all things as life. Thus there is no life so bad nor so burdensome, that a person does not want to live. A book says:󰀉 the more something is close to death, the more painful it is. Nonetheless, no matter how bad life is, one wants to live. Why do you eat? Why do you sleep? To live. Why do you want goods and honours? You know it very well. But why do you live? For the sake of life, and you do not even know why you live. So desirable is life in itself that one desires it for itself. Those who are in eternal punishment in hell would not want to lose their lives, neither the demons nor the souls, because their life is so noble as to emanate without any medium from God into the soul. Therefore, because it emanates from God without a medium, they want to live. What is life? God’s being is my life. If my life is God’s being, what is God’s must be what is mine and God’s beingness my beingness, nothing less or more.󰀁󰀀 󰀁󰀀. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀃󰀆,󰀁󰀁–󰀄): ‘Tricesimus sextus articulus sic dicit: “Vivere meum est esse dei, vel vita mea est essentia dei, quidditas dei quidditas mea”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi nn. 󰀉󰀁–󰀂) (LW 󰀃󰀄󰀀,󰀁–󰀈): ‘Tricesimus sextus articulus sic dicit: “Vivere meum est esse dei, vel vita mea est essentia dei, quidditas dei quidditas mea”. Dicendum quod falsum est et error, sicut sonat. Verum quidem est, devotum et morale quod hominis iusti, in quantum iustus, totum esse est ab esse dei, analogice tamen. Constat enim quod nemo iustus est nisi a iustitia, sicut nec albus nisi ab albedine, secundum illud: “mihi vivere Christus est” et iterum: “vivo ego, iam non ego, vivit in me Christus”. Propter quod debet homo esse sollicitus, ut sit iustus et iuste agat. Dictum est de hoc supra’ (see Proc. Col. II n. 󰀈󰀈 [LW V 󰀃󰀃󰀉,󰀁󰀂–󰀆]).

󰀅󰀁󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Sie lebent êwiclîche ‘bî gote’, rehte glîch bî gote, noch unden noch oben. Sie würkent alliu iriu werk bî gote und got bî in. Sant Johannes sprichet: ‘daz wort was bî gote’. Ez was alzemâle glîch und was bî neben, noch undenân noch obenân, sunder glîch. Dô got den menschen machete, dô machete er (󰀁󰀀󰀇) | die vrouwen von des mannes sîten, dar umbe daz si im glîch wære. Er machete sie niht von dem houbte noch von den vüezen, daz si im wære weder vrouwe noch man, sunder daz si glîch wære. Alsô sol diu gerehte sêle glîch bî gote sîn und bî neben gote, rehte glîch, noch unden noch oben. Wer sint die alsô glîch sint? Die nihte glîch sint, die sint aleine gote glîch. Götlich wesen enist niht glîch, in im enist noch bilde noch forme. Die sêlen, die alsô glîch sint, den gibet der vater glîch und entheltet in nihtes niht vor. Swaz der vater geleisten mac, daz gibet er dirre sêle glîch, jâ ob si glîch stât ir selber niht mêr dan einem andern, und si sol ir selber niht næher sîn dan einem andern. Ir eigen êre, ir nutz und swaz ir ist, des ensol si niht mêr begern noch ahten dan eines vremden. Swaz iemannes ist, daz sol ir weder sîn vremde noch verre, ez sî bœse oder guot. Alliu minne dirre werlt ist (󰀁󰀀󰀈) | gebûwen ûf eigenminne. Hætest dû die gelâzen, sô hætest dû al die werlt (󰀁󰀀󰀉) | gelâzen. Der vater gebirt sînen sun in der êwicheit im selber glîch. ‘Daz wort was bî gote, und got was daz wort’: ez was daz selbe in der selben natûre. Noch spriche ich mêr: er hât in geborn in mîner sêle. Niht aleine ist si bî im noch er bî ir glîch, sunder er ist in ir, und gebirt

󰀁󰀁. Ioh. 󰀁:󰀁: ‘Verbum erat apud deum’. 󰀁󰀂. See Eckhart, In Ioh. n. 󰀅 (LW III 󰀇,󰀁–󰀄): ‘Adhuc autem quinto sciendum quod hoc ipso, quod quid procedit ab alio, distinguitur ab illo. Et hoc est quod sequitur: verbum erat apud deum. Non ait: sub deo, nec ait: descendit a deo, said ait: verbum erat apud deum. Li enim apud deum sonat in quandam aequalitatem’. 󰀁󰀃. Ioh. 󰀁:󰀁. 󰀁󰀄. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀃󰀆,󰀁󰀅–󰀂󰀃󰀇,󰀈): ‘Tricesimus septimus articulus habet sic: “Debet anima iusta esse apud deum et iuxta deum, recte aequaliter nec infra nec supra. Qui sunt illi, qui sic sunt aequales? Illi qui non habent similitudinem, in quibus non est aliqua imago nec aliqua forma, illi sunt omnes deo similes, quia esse dei non est simile, essentia dei non est similis, et in eo nec est imago nec forma. Anima, quae sic stat aequaliter, illi dat pater aequaliter et nihil retinet quod non det ei. Quidquid pater habet, hoc dat ei aequaliter, si ipsa stat aequaliter et non sit plus sibi ipsi quam alteri, et ipsa non debet sibi ipsi esse propinquior quam alteri. Suum proprium honorem et suam propriam utilitatem et quidquid suum est, illud non debet ipsa magis desiderare nec curare quam unius extranei. Quidquid est cuiuscumque, hoc non debet

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀃* [Q 󰀆]

󰀅󰀁󰀇

They live eternally ‘with God’,󰀁󰀁 completely alike with God, neither underneath nor above.󰀁󰀂 They perform all their actions with God and God with them. Saint John says: ‘The Word was with God’.󰀁󰀃 It was entirely alike and next with [Him], neither underneath nor above, but alike. When God made man, He made the woman by the man’s side, so that she was equal to him. He did not make her from the head nor from the feet, so that she was neither a woman nor a man to him, but so that she was equal to him. Thus the just soul must be alike with God, with and next to God, rightly alike, neither underneath nor above. Who are those who are alike? Those who are alike to nothing, are alike only to God. The divine being is not alike to anything, in it there is neither image nor form. To the souls who are thus alike, the Father gives likeness and does not hold back anything from them. Whatever the Father can give, He gives to the soul alike, yes, if she is alike to herself not any more than to another, and she must not be closer to herself than to another. Her own honour, her advantage and whatever is hers, she must no longer desire nor consider more than that of any stranger. What belongs to someone must be neither foreign nor distant, be it bad or good.󰀁󰀄 All the love of this world is built on self-love. If you had left that one, you would have left the whole world. The Father gives birth to His Son in eternity alike to Himself. ‘The word was with God, and God was the word’:󰀁󰀅 it was the same in the same nature. I say even more: He has given birth to Him in my soul. Not only is she with Him or He with her alike, but He is in

ei esse alienum nec distans, sive sit bonum sive malum”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi, nn. 󰀉󰀃–󰀄) (LW 󰀃󰀄󰀀,󰀉–󰀂󰀄): ‘Tricesimus septimus articulus habet sic: “Debet anima iusta esse apud deum et iuxta deum, recte aequaliter nec infra nec supra. Qui sunt illi, qui sic sunt aequales? Illi qui non habent similitudinem, in quibus non est aliqua imago nec aliqua forma, illi sunt omnes deo similes, quia esse dei non est simile, essentia dei non est similis, et in eo nec est imago nec forma. Anima, quae sic stat aequaliter, illi dat pater aequaliter et nihil retinet quod non det ei. Quidquid pater habet, hoc dat ei aequaliter, si ipsa stat aequaliter et non sit plus sibi ipsi quam alteri, et ipsa non debet sibi ipsi esse propinquior quam alteri. Suum proprium honorem et suam propriam utilitatem et quidquid suum est, illud non debet ipsa magis desiderare nec curare quam unius extranei. Quidquid est cuiuscumque, hoc non debet ei esse alienum nec distans, sive sit bonum sive malum”. Solutio. Intellectus patet ex superioribus? Constat enim quod amans deum oportet quod abneget semet ipsum, tollat quod suum est, diligat proximum sicut se ipsum, sit conformis divinae voluntati, ut omne quod deus vult et ipse velit et aequaliter hoc et illud. Nam si inaequaliter, iam non solum deum nec dei voluntatem nec deum in omnibus nec omnia in deo vult’. 󰀁󰀅. Ioh. 󰀁:󰀁: ‘Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum’.

󰀅󰀁󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

der vater sînen sun in der sêle in der selben wîse, als er in in der êwicheit gebirt, und niht anders. Er muoz ez tuon, ez sî im liep oder leit. Der vater gebirt sînen sun âne underlâz, und ich spriche mêr: er gebirt mich sînen sun und den selben sun. Ich spriche mêr: er gebirt mich niht aleine sînen sun, mêr: er gebirt mich sich und sich mich und mich sîn wesen und sîne natûre. In dem innersten quelle dâ quille ich ûz in dem heiligen geiste, dâ ist éin leben und éin wesen und éin werk. (󰀁󰀁󰀀) | Allez, waz got würket, daz ist ein; dar umbe gebirt er mich sînen sun âne allen underscheit. Mîn lîplîcher vater ist niht eigenlîche mîn vater sunder an einem kleinen stückelîn sîner natûre, und ich bin gescheiden von im; er mac tôt sîn und ich leben. Dar umbe ist der himelische vater wærlîche mîn vater, wan ich sîn sun bin und allez daz von im hân, daz ich hân, und ich der selbe sun bin und niht ein ander. Wan der vater éin werk würket, dar umbe würket er mich sînen eingebornen sun âne allen underscheit. ‘Wir werden alzemâle transformieret in got und verwandelt.’ Merke ein (󰀁󰀁󰀁) | glîchnisse. Ze glîcher wîse, als an dem sacramente verwandelt wirt brôt in unsers herren lîchamen; swie vil der brôte wære, 󰀁󰀆. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀃󰀇,󰀉–󰀁󰀃): ‘Tricesimus octavus sic habet: “Pater generat suum filium in anima eodem modo, sicut ipse generat eum in aeternitate, et non aliter. Oportet eum facere, sive ei placeat sive displiceat”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi nn. 󰀉󰀅–󰀇) (LW 󰀃󰀄󰀀,󰀂󰀅–󰀃󰀄󰀁,󰀁󰀀): ‘Tricesimus octavus sic habet: “Pater generat suum filium in anima eodem modo, sicut ipse generat eum in aeternitate, et non aliter. Oportet eum facere, sive ei placeat sive displiceat”. Dicendum quod verum est, quia nec alium filium nec aliter generat pater in me quam in aeternitate. In deo enim nec cadit aliud nec aliter nec habet filium in aeternitate nisi unum, qui est “primogenitus in multis fratribus”, “in eandem imaginem transformatis”, qui non dividitur in multis, sed multos in se unit. Nimirum, cum ipse sit deus, qui utique unus est in omnibus, etiam per essentiam. Quod autem dicitur: “Oportet eum facere”, verum est. Est tamen locutio emphatica, commendans dei bonitatem et amorem, qui se toto bonus est per essentiam, quae bonitas non sinit ipsum sine germine esse, ut dicit Dionysius. Propter quod et se ipsum dat et omne quod habet, secundum illud: “cum illo omnia nobis donavit”, Rom. 󰀈, dummodo nos simus apti recipere, Apoc. 󰀃: “ego sto ad ostium et pulso et Is. 󰀃: “exspectat dominus, ut misereatur vestri”. Ipsi enim dare est per essentiam et per se, secundum illud: “primum dives est per se”, et Matth. 󰀂󰀃: “quotiens volui congregare pullos tuos, et noluisti?” secundum Augustinum super illo”’. 󰀁󰀇. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀃󰀇,󰀁󰀄–󰀂󰀃󰀈,󰀁󰀂): ‘Tricesimus nonus articulus sic dicit: “Pater generat suum filium sine intermissione. Plus dico: ipse generat me suum filium et eundem filium”. “Quidquid deus operatur, hoc est unum; propter hoc generat ipse me suum filium sine omni distinctione”. Et infra: “Propter hoc est caelestis pater vere pater meus, quia ego sum filius eius et ab eo habeo omne quod ego habeo et quia ego sum ille idem filius et non alius. Quia pater unum opus operatur et simplex, propter hoc operatur ipse me unum filium suum sine omni distinctione”. “Nos transformamur et convertimur in eum simili

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀃* [Q 󰀆]

󰀅󰀁󰀉

her and the Father gives birth to His Son in the soul in the same way in which He gives birth to Him in eternity, and not otherwise. He must do so, whether He might like it or not.󰀁󰀆 The Father gives birth to His Son without interruption, and I say more: He gives birth to me as His Son and as the same Son. I say more: He gives birth to me not only as His Son, but more, He gives birth to me as Himself, and Himself as me, and me as His being and His nature. In the innermost source, there I flow forth in the Holy Spirit, there is one life and one being and one action. Everything that God works is one, therefore He gives birth to me as His Son without any distinction.󰀁󰀇 My physical father is not properly my father, except for a small part of his nature, and I am separated from him; he can be dead, while I am alive. Therefore the heavenly Father is truly my father, because I am His Son and I have everything that I have from Him, and I am the same Son and not another. Since the Father performs one act, therefore He produces me as His onlybegotten Son without any distinction. ‘We will be completely transformed and changed into God’.󰀁󰀈 Note a simile. In the same way that bread is transformed into the body of our Lord in the sacrament; whatever the number of loaves

modo sicut in sacramento convertitur panis in corpus Christi. Quotquot panes essent, tamen fit unum corpus Christi”. “Quidquid in alterum convertitur, hoc fit unum cum eo. Sic ego convertor in eum, quod ipse operatur me suum esse non simile. Per viventem deum, verum est hoc quod ibi nulla est distinctio”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi nn. 󰀉󰀈–󰀉) (LW 󰀃󰀄󰀁,󰀁󰀁–󰀃󰀄󰀂,󰀅): ‘Tricesimus nonus articulus sic dicit: “Pater generat suum filium sine intermissione. Plus dico: ipse generat me suum filium et eundem filium”. “Quidquid deus operatur, hoc est unum; propter hoc generat ipse me suum filium sine omni distinctione”. Et infra: “Propter hoc est caelestis pater vere pater meus, quia ego sum filius eius et ab eo habeo omne quod ego habeo et quia ego sum ille idem filius et non alius. Quia pater unum opus operatur et simplex, propter hoc operatur ipse me unum filium suum sine omni distinctione”. “Nos transformamur et convertimur in eum simili modo sicut in sacramento convertitur panis in corpus Christi. Quotquot panes essent, tamen fit unum corpus Christi”. “Quidquid in alterum convertitur, hoc fit unum cum eo. Sic ego convertor in eum, quod ipse operatur me suum esse non simile. Per viventem deum, verum est hoc quod ibi nulla est distinctio”. Solutio. Totum, quod dictum est, falsum est et absurdum secundum imaginationem adversantium. Verum est tamen secundum verum intellectum quod idem filius est deus ipse in singulis nobis, et quod omnia nobis dat cum illo et in illo. Ipse est, per quem operatur omnia, et “sine ipso nihil”. Exemplum supra positum est in natura. Patet etiam hic exemplum in sacramento altaris, nisi quod omne “sicut” est “sicutissimum”. In sacramento enim altaris convertitur totum in totum, non sic in nobis. Unde non sequitur quod nos simus deus, sicut in Christo primogenito homo est deus, qui est imago et similitudo dei patris genita, nos autem ad imaginem et similitudinem et creati”’. 󰀁󰀈. II Cor. 󰀃:󰀁󰀈 and I Cor. 󰀁󰀅:󰀅󰀁–󰀂: ‘Nos vero omnes … in eandem imaginem transformamur’.

󰀅󰀂󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

sô wirt doch éin lîchame. Ze glîcher wîse, wæren alliu diu brôt verwandelt in mînen vinger, sô wære doch niht mêr dan éin vinger. Mêr: würde mîn vinger verwandelt in daz brôt, sô wære diz als vil als jenez wære. Waz in daz ander verwandelt wirt, daz wirt ein mit im. Alsô wirde ich gewandelt in in, daz er würket mich sîn wesen ein, unglîch; bî dem lebenden got, sô ist daz wâr, daz kein underscheit enist. (󰀁󰀁󰀂) | Der vater gebirt sînen sun âne underlâz. Dâ der sun geborn ist, dâ ennimet er niht von dem vater, wan er hât ez allez; aber dâ er geborn wirt, dâ nimet er von dem vater. In disem ensuln wir ouch niht begern von gote als von einem vremden. Unser herre sprach ze sînen jüngern: ‘ich enhân iuch niht geheizen knehte sunder vriunde’. Waz ihtes begert von dem andern, daz ist kneht, und waz dâ lônet, daz ist herre. Ich gedâhte niuwelîche, ob ich von gote iht nemen wölte oder begern. Ich wil mich harte wol berâten, wan dâ ich von gote wære nemende, dâ wære ich under gote als ein kneht und er als ein herre an dem gebenne. Alsô ensuln wir niht sîn in dem êwigen lebene. (󰀁󰀁󰀃) | Ich sprach einest alhie und ist ouch wâr: waz der mensche ûzer im ziuhet oder nimet, dem ist unreht. Man ensol got niht nemen noch ahten ûzer im sunder als mîn eigen und daz in im ist; noch man ensol dienen noch würken umbe kein warumbe, noch umbe got noch umbe sîn êre noch umbe nihtes niht, daz ûzer im sî, wan aleine umbe daz, daz sîn eigen wesen und sîn eigen leben ist in im. Sumlîche einveltige liute wænent, sie süln got sehen, als er dâ stande und sie hie. Des enist niht. Got und ich wir sîn ein. Mit bekennenne nime ich got in

󰀁󰀉. K. Flasch’s translation is not fully accurate here: ‘daß er mich als sein Wesen und ein gleiches wirkt’ (‘that he makes me his being, a similar one’). 󰀂󰀀. Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀄: ‘Iam non dicam vos servos … Vos autem dixi amicos’. 󰀂󰀁. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀃󰀈,󰀁󰀃–󰀂󰀀): ‘Quadragesimus sic habet: “Ego volo deliberare utrum aliquid velim recipere a deo vel desiderare, quia ubi ego essem accipiens a deo, ibi essem ego sub deo vel infra deum sicut unus famulus vel servus et ipse sicut dominus in dando, et sic non debemus esse in aeterna vita”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi nn. 󰀁󰀀󰀀–󰀁) (LW 󰀃󰀄󰀂,󰀆–󰀂󰀀): ‘Quadragesimus sic habet: “Ego volo deliberare utrum aliquid velim recipere a deo vel desiderare, quia ubi ego essem accipiens a deo, ibi essem ego sub deo vel infra deum sicut unus famulus vel servus et ipse sicut dominus in dando, et sic non debemus esse in aeterna vita”. Solutio. Planum est quod in aeterna vita erit deus “omnia in omnibus”, Cor. 󰀁󰀅. Adhuc autem omnes fideles cum Christo primogenito unum corpus sumus, Cor. 󰀁󰀂. Totius autem et partium unum est esse et unum operari. “Si unum patitur, compatiuntur omnia”, si unum gaudet, “gaudent omnia”. Quin

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀃* [Q 󰀆]

󰀅󰀂󰀁

there are, they nevertheless become one body. In the same way, if all the loaves were transformed into my finger, there would still be no more than one finger. Moreover: if my finger was transformed into that bread, this would be as much as that. What is transformed into the other becomes one with it. Thus I become transformed into Him, that He makes me His being as one, not as similar;󰀁󰀉 by the living God, it is so true that there is no distinction. The Father gives birth to His Son without interruption. Where the Son is born, He does not take anything from the Father, because He has everything; but where He will be born, there He takes from the Father. In this we must not even desire anything from God as from a stranger. Our Lord said to His disciples: ‘I have not called you servants, but friends’.󰀂󰀀 He who desires something from the other is a servant, and he who rewards is a lord. I thought recently, if I wished to take or desire something from God. I quite like to consider it thoroughly, because if I were taking from God, I would be under God as a servant and He would be a lord in giving. So we should not be in eternal life.󰀂󰀁 I once said in this place,󰀂󰀂 and it is also true: what anybody draws or takes from outside himself is not right. No one should take of or consider God as outside of oneself, but as Him being my own and as what is in oneself; nor should one serve or act for a reason, be it either for God or for his honour or for anything that is outside of him, except for what is his own being and his own life in him. Some simple people ponder that they should see God as if He were there and they here. This is not so. God and I, we are one. By knowing I take God in me,

immo Augustinus super illo: “ego pro eis sanctifico me ipsum”, Ioh. 󰀁󰀇, sic ait: “quia ipsi sunt ego in praesenti”. Etiam perfectus homo citra et sub deo non quiescit. Non est servus, Ioh. 󰀁󰀅: “iam non dicam vos servos, sed amicos”. Amor ordinem nescit, ut ait Bernardus, aut enim pares invenit aut pares facit. Et secundum philosophum non est amor inter servum et dominum. Dominus enim nomen est superpositionis, servus nomen subiectionis. Propter quod deus “pater noster” dicitur, eorum autem quae sub homine sunt “dominus”, Matth. 󰀁󰀁: “confiteor tibi pater, domine caeli et terrae”’. 󰀂󰀂. J. Quint, ad loc., thinks of Hom. 󰀄󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀆], n. 󰀆: ‘allez, daz dû nimest, daz nimest dû in dînem eigene; und swaz werke dû niht ennimest in dînem eigene, diu werk sint alliu tôt vor gote. Daz sint diu werk, dar zuo dû ûzer dir | (󰀃󰀈󰀄) beweget bist von vremden sachen, wan sie engânt von lebene niht: dar umbe sint sie tôt; wan daz dinc lebet, daz bewegunge nimet von sînem eigene. Und alsô: suln des menschen werk leben, sô müezen sie genomen werden von sînem eigene, niht von vremden dingen noch ûzer im, sunder in im’.

󰀅󰀂󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

mich, mit minnenne gân ich in got. Etlîche sprechent, daz sælicheit (󰀁󰀁󰀄) | niht lige an bekantnisse, sunder aleine an willen. Die hânt unreht; wan læge ez aleine an willen, sô enwære ez niht ein. Daz würken und daz werden ist ein. Sô der zimmerman niht enwürket, sô enwirt ouch daz hûs niht. Dâ diu barte liget, dâ liget ouch daz gewerden. Got und ich wir sîn ein in disem gewürke; er würket, und ich gewirde. Daz viur verwandelt in sich, swaz im zuogevüeget wirt und wirt sîn natûre. Daz holz daz verwandelt daz viur in (󰀁󰀁󰀅) | sich niht, mêr: daz viur verwandelt daz holz in sich. Alsô werden wir in got ‘verwandelt’, daz ‘wir in bekennen suln, als er ist’. Sant Paulus sprichet: ‘alsô suln wir bekennende sîn, rehte ich in als er mich’, noch minner noch mêr, glîch blôz. ‘Die gerehten suln leben êwiclîche, und ir lôn ist bî gote’ alsô glîch. Daz wir die gerehticheit minnen durch sich selben und got âne warumbe, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀃* [Q 󰀆]

󰀅󰀂󰀃

by loving I enter God. Some say that bliss does not consist in knowledge, but only in will. They are wrong; because if it consisted only in the will, it would not be one. Acting and becoming are one. If the carpenter does not act, the house does not come to be. Where the ax is put down, so also the becoming comes to a halt. God and I, we are one in this acting; He acts, and I become. Fire transforms into itself what is added to it and this becomes its nature. Wood does not transform fire into itself, rather: fire transforms wood into itself. Thus, we are ‘transformed’ into God, so that ‘we will know him as He is’.󰀂󰀃 Saint Paul says: ‘In this way we will be knowers, rightly me Him as He me’,󰀂󰀄 no less and no longer, both likewise bare. ‘The just will live forever, and their reward with God’ is, therefore, alike. That we love justice by itself and God without a why, may God help us! Amen.

󰀂󰀃. II Cor. 󰀃:󰀁󰀈: ‘in eandem imaginem transformamur…’; I Ioh. 󰀃:󰀂: ‘similes ei erimus: quoniam videbimus eum, sicuti est’. 󰀂󰀄. I Cor. 󰀁󰀃:󰀁󰀂: ‘tunc autem cognoscam, sicut cognitus sum’.

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀄* [Q 󰀃󰀃] In communi plurimorum martyrum ‘Sancti per fidem vicerunt regna’ (Hebr. 󰀁󰀁:󰀃󰀂–󰀃) Introduction

T

his fragmentary or shortened homily that derives from the Paradisus anime intelligentis refers to the core verses Hebr. 󰀁󰀁:󰀃󰀂–󰀃 which are read on a feast of several martyrs (‘Sermo de sanctis’, H󰀂). The text of the critical edition in DW is based on five manuscripts, the two of the Paradisus (O, H󰀂) and on N󰀁, N󰀄 and Wo󰀁. The witness Lo󰀄 is not used in the critical edition of DW. See the potential reference to this text in Hom. 󰀉󰀃* [Q 󰀃󰀂], n. 󰀆 with the parallel passage in the Talks of Instructions and Hom. 󰀈󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀃], n. 󰀄.

The content of the homily Despite its abbreviated form, the homily gives a valuable insight into Eckhart’s teaching on the powers of the soul. After giving the core verse in Latin (n. 󰀁) and the translation into the vernacular (n. 󰀂), Eckhart mentions that one has to conquer ‘four kingdoms’ (n. 󰀃), 󰀁) the world, 󰀂) our flesh, 󰀃) the devil, 󰀄) the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, and how these kingdoms should be conquered. In this section we find one of the most original metaphors for the spiritual life. Eckhart seems to mean this: all things are like manure spread on the field so that I may harvest our Lord Jesus Christ. Eckhart then develops how to conquer the first kingdom, the world, reflecting on how grace works in the soul (n. 󰀄). Either Eckhart has not developed how to conquer the other kingdoms, or his reflections on how to conquer 󰀂-󰀄 have been dropped. The final statement that mentions the conquering of the ‘kingdoms’ in the plural point to the loss of text.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀄* [Q 󰀃󰀃]

󰀅󰀂󰀅

Editions, commentaries and notes J. Quint, DW II 󰀁󰀄󰀈–󰀅󰀅; N. Largier I 󰀃󰀆󰀆–󰀉.󰀉󰀇󰀉–󰀈󰀁. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀂󰀄󰀅–󰀈; The Works of Meister Eckhart Doctor Ecstaticus, vol. II, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂), 󰀁󰀇󰀉–󰀈󰀀; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀄󰀀󰀁–󰀂; Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings, ed. and trans. O. Davies (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀁󰀁󰀁–󰀂.

󰀅󰀂󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀁󰀅󰀀) ‘Sancti per fidem vicerunt regna’. Sant Paulus sprichet: ‘die heiligen hânt überwunden diu rîche mit dem glouben’. Vier künicrîche hânt die heiligen überwunden, und diu suln wir ouch überwinden. Daz êrste rîche ist diu werlt; der werlt rîche sol man überwinden mit armuot des geistes. Daz ander rîche ist unsers vleisches; daz suln wir überwinden mit hunger (󰀁󰀅󰀁) | und mit durste. Daz dritte rîche ist des tiuvels; daz suln wir überwinden mit jâmer und mit pîne. Daz vierde rîche ist unsers herren Jêsû Kristî; daz suln wir überwinden mit kraft der minne. Hæte der mensche alle die werlt, sô sol er doch sich dünken arm und sol alle zît ûzrecken die hant vür die tür unsers herren gotes und biten umbe daz almuosen der gnâde unsers herren, di si gotz chinder machet. Dar umbe sprichet (󰀁󰀅󰀂) | Dâvît: ‘herre, alliu mîniu gerunge ist vor dir und nâch dir’. Sant Paulus sprichet: ‘alliu dinc sint mir als ein pfuol, umbe daz ich gewuocher unsern herren Jêsum Kristum’. Ez ist unmügelich, daz deheiniu sêle âne sünde sî, gotes gnâde envalle in sie. Der gnâde werk ist, daz si die sêle snel machet und gevüege ze allen götlîchen werken, wan diu gnâde vliuzet ûz dem götlîchen brunnen und ist ein glîchnisse gotes und smacket als got und machet die sêle gote glîch. Swenne sich diu selbe gnâde und (󰀁󰀅󰀃) | der smak wirfet in den willen, sô heizet ez ein minne; und swenne sich diu gnâde und der smak wirfet in die redelîche kraft, sô heizet ez ein lieht des glouben; und swenne sich diu selbe gnâde und smak wirfet in die zürnerîn, daz ist diu ûfkriegende kraft, sô heizet ez ein hoffenunge. Dar umbe heizent sie götlîche tugende, daz sie götlîchiu werk würkent in der sêle, als man

󰀁. Hebr. 󰀁󰀁:󰀃󰀂–󰀃: ‘… Deficiet enim me tempus enarrantem de Gedeon, Barae, Samson, Iephte, David, Samuel, et Prophetis. (󰀃󰀃) qui per fidem vicerunt regna, (operati sunt iustitiam, adepti sunt repromissiones)…’. 󰀂. Hebr. 󰀁󰀁:󰀃󰀂. The context is Hebr. 󰀁󰀁:󰀃󰀂–󰀉 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀄vb: ‘(In communi plurimorum martyrum) Ad Hebreos. Fratres. Sancti per fidem vicerunt regna operata sunt iustitiam, adepta sunt repromissiones, obturaverunt aciem gladii convaluerunt de infirmitate fortes facti sunt in bello castra verterunt . . . torum acceperunt mulieres de (󰀄󰀃󰀅ra) resurrectione mortuos suos. Alii autem distenti sunt non suscipientes redemptionem ut meliorem invenirent resurrectionem. Alii vero ludibria et verbera experti insuper et vincula et carceres lapidati sunt, secti

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀄* [Q 󰀃󰀃]

󰀅󰀂󰀇

‘Sancti per fidem vicerunt regna’.󰀁 St. Paul says: ‘The saints have conquered the kingdoms with faith’.󰀂 The saints have conquered four kingdoms, and these we should also conquer. The first kingdom is the world; the kingdom of the world must be conquered by poverty of the spirit. The second kingdom is that of our flesh; this we must conquer by hunger and thirst. The third kingdom is that of the devil; this we must conquer by misery and by pain. The fourth kingdom is that of our Lord Jesus Christ; this we must conquer by the power of love. If a person possessed the whole world, he should nevertheless regard himself as poor and should always stretch out his hand at the door of our Lord, God, and pray for the almsgiving of the grace of our Lord, which makes offsprings of God.󰀃 Therefore David says: ‘Lord, all my desire is before you and for you’.󰀄 Saint Paul says: ‘All things are for me like a slurry, in order to grow into our Lord Jesus Christ’.󰀅 It is impossible for a soul to be without sin, unless the grace of God falls into her. The action of grace results in speeding up the soul and joining her to all divine actions, because grace emanates from the divine well, is a likeness of God, tastes like God and makes the soul alike with God. When the same grace and taste throw themselves into the will, it is called love; and when grace and the taste are thrown into the rational power, it is called the light of faith; and when the same grace and taste throw themselves into the irascible, i.e. the ascending power, it is called hope. Therefore, they are called divine virtues, in order to perform divine actions in the soul, as we can see with the power of the sun that

sunt, temprati sunt in occisione gladii mortui sunt: Circuierunt in melo … is, in pellibus caprinis egentes angustiati afflicti quibus dignus non erat mundus, in sollicitudinibus errantes in montibus et in speluncis et in cavernis terre. Et hi omnes testimonio fidei probati inventi sunt in Christo Ihesu domino nostro’. 󰀃. DW has ‘wan diu gnâde machet sie gotes kint’, which grammatically does not work, the ‘sie’ is plural, but the reading preferred here is more consistent, taken from N󰀁, Wo󰀁. 󰀄. Ps. 󰀃󰀇:󰀁󰀀: ‘Domine, ante te omne desiderium meum’. 󰀅. Phil. 󰀃:󰀈: ‘… (propter quem) omnia (detrimentum feci, et) arbitror ut stereora, ut Christum lucrifaciam’.

󰀅󰀂󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

prüeven mac bî der kaft der sunnen, daz si lebendigiu werk würket ûf dem ertrîche, wan si alliu dinc lebendic machet und entheltet an irm wesene. Vergienge daz lieht, sô vergiengen alliu dinc, als dô sie niht (󰀁󰀅󰀄) | enwâren. Alsô ist ez in der sêle: swâ diu gnâde ist und diu minne, dem menschen sint lîhte ze tuonne alliu götlîchiu werk, und ist ein gewis zeichen, swelhem menschen swære sint ze tuonne götlîchiu werk, daz dâ kein gnâde inne ist. Dar umbe sprichet ein meister: ich enurteile die liute niht, die guotiu kleit tragent oder wol ezzent, ob sie die minne hânt. Ich enhân mich ouch niht grœzer, ob ich ein hart leben hân, dan ob ich prüeve, daz ich der minne mê hân. Ez ist ein grôz tôrheit, daz manic mensche vil vastet und betet und grôziu werk tuot und alle zît aleine ist, daz er niht (󰀁󰀅󰀅) | enbezzert sîne site und ist ungeruowic und zornic. Er solte prüeven, dâ er allerkrenkest ane wære, dâ solte er sînen vlîz zuo kêren, wie er daz überwünde. Swenne er wol geordent ist an sînen siten, swaz er danne tuot, daz behaget gote. Und alsô überwindet man diu rîche.

󰀅. See Ps.-Bernardus, Tractatus de statu virtutum, pars tertia: De timore et charitate n. 󰀃󰀇 (PL 󰀁󰀈󰀄, 󰀈󰀁󰀀): ‘Iure ergo caritas dicitur signum, quo discernuntur electi a reprobis. Non enim discerni possunt fide, aut eleemosynarum largitione, vel scientia, vel ieiuniorum vel vigiliarum affectionibus, vel martyrio: haec enim sunt communia electis et reprobis. Sola ergo caritas filios dei a filiis gehennae distinguit, … O quam dulce et salubre est vinculum caritatis, in qua, affirmante beato Augustino, pauper dives, sine qua dives pauper est!’

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀄* [Q 󰀃󰀃]

󰀅󰀂󰀉

it performs a vital action on earth, because it makes all things alive and sustains them in their being. If the light disappeared, all things would disappear, as if they did not exist. So it is in the soul: where grace and love are, it is easy for somebody to perform all the divine actions, and it is an assured sign that where somebody has difficulties to perform divine actions, that no grace is in him. Therefore, a master says:󰀆 I do not condemn people who wear good clothes or eat well, if they have love. I do neither consider myself greater, if I have a hard life, unless I then see that I have more love. It is a great stupidity that some people fast a lot and pray and do great deeds and are always alone, but do not improve their habits and are impatient and angry.󰀇 One should see where one is weakest, onto this one should turn one’s diligence, how to overcome it. When one is well-ordered in one’s habits, the actions that one then performs please God. And so the kingdoms are conquered.

󰀆. See the potential reference to this text in Hom. 󰀉󰀃* [Q 󰀃󰀂], n. 󰀆: ‘Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen: die vil vastent und vil wachent und grôziu werk tuont und niht enbezzernt ir gebrechen und ir site, dâ daz wâre zuonemen ane liget, die triegent sich selben und sint des tiuvels spot’, but there is also a parallel passage in the Talks of Instructions (DW V 󰀂󰀄󰀄,󰀅–󰀂󰀄󰀅,󰀃: ‘Vil liute dünket; daz sie grôziu werk süln tuon von ûzern dingen, als vasten, barvuoz gân und ander dinc des glîche, daz pênitencie heizet. Wâriu und diu aller beste pênitencie ist, dâ mite man grœzlîche und ûf daz hœhste bezzert’), see also Hom. 󰀈󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀃], n. 󰀄: ‘niht ensprichet er: die dâ vil vastent und grôziu werk tuont’.

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀅* [Q 󰀈] In communi plurimorum martyrum ‘In occisione gladii mortui sunt’ (Hebr. 󰀁󰀁:󰀃󰀇) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Hebr. 󰀁󰀁:󰀃󰀇 is part of the reading for the feast of several martyrs (‘Vff Johannis vnd Pauli der heiligen marterer fest, BT, celebrated on 󰀂󰀆 June; the Latin Sermo LVI uses the verse for the feast of the saints Fabian and Sebastian, celebrated on 󰀂󰀀 January). The critical edition in DW is based on three manuscripts (G󰀃, Mai󰀁, Str󰀃), the print in BT and two fragments (B󰀉, S󰀁). The text is also quoted by Henry of Erfurt. The content of the homily

This homily, too, had fallen into the hands of the inquisition and excerpts taken from which were heavily criticised. Yet, Eckhart, again, defended and retorted successfully, so that none of the excerpts made their way into the papal bull. The text is an elaboration on one’s radical giving up, but right from the start this giving up is balanced by the Lord’s statement from Matthew’s beatitudes, that the people who suffer for his name ‘are blessed’. Josef Quint was surprised (ad loc.) that Eckhart does not come back to this quote from Matthew, but he did not need to, as Christ’s promise, from the start, introduces the tension which Eckhart uses as the counter-weight to the threat of death. Hence, after giving the core verse in Latin (n. 󰀁), he adds the verses from Matth. 󰀅:󰀁󰀁 and 󰀁󰀀:󰀂󰀂 to the vernacular translation of the core verse Hebr. 󰀁󰀁:󰀃󰀇 (n. 󰀂), but then only interprets the last part of the verse: ‘They are dead’ (‘mortui sunt’) (nn. 󰀃–󰀁󰀁).

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀅* [Q 󰀈]

󰀅󰀃󰀁

Eckhart develops four meanings of this part of the verse: 󰀁) ‘One is suffering in this world and in this body’ (n. 󰀄); 󰀂) ‘this entire life is mortal’, hence ‘we should not fear’ pain and labors (n. 󰀅); 󰀃) ‘we must behave as if we were dead’ (n. 󰀆); 󰀄) the best that death gives those who are dead is ‘being’ (nn. 󰀇–󰀁󰀁). He closes the homily with a short prayer that we move ‘from a life that is divided into a life that is united’, following his fourth interpretation. Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀈󰀂,󰀂󰀆󰀁–󰀄; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀇󰀀󰀈–󰀁󰀆; J. Quint, DW I 󰀁󰀂󰀅–󰀃󰀇; N. Largier I 󰀉󰀆–󰀁󰀀󰀃.󰀈󰀂󰀇–󰀃󰀄. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀂󰀀󰀅–󰀇; Meister Eckhart: A modern Translation, by R.B. Blakney (󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀁), 󰀁󰀇󰀀–󰀃; J.M. Clark, Meister Eckhart (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀇), 󰀁󰀉󰀄–󰀇. M. Fox, Breakthrough (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀), 󰀈󰀃–󰀆; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀄󰀀󰀃–󰀆; Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings, ed. and trans. O. Davies (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀁󰀆󰀄–󰀈.

󰀅󰀃󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀁󰀂󰀇) ‘In occisione gladii mortui sunt’. Man liset von den marteræren, daz ‘sie tôt sint under dem swerte’. Unser herre sprach ze sînen jüngern: ‘ir sît sælic, sô ir etwaz lîdet durch mînen namen’. Nû sprichet er: ‘sie sint tôt’. Daz êrste, daz sie tôt sint, daz meinet, swaz man lîdet in dirre werlt und in disem lîbe, daz nimet ein ende. Sant Augustînus sprichet: alliu pîne und werk der arbeit daz nimet ein ende, aber der lôn, den got dar umbe gibet, der ist êwic. Daz ander, daz wir anesehen süln, daz allez diz leben tœtlich ist, daz wir niht vürhten süln alle pîne und alle (󰀁󰀂󰀈) | die arbeit, die uns zuokomen, wan ez nimet ende. Daz dritte, daz wir uns halten, als ob wir tôt sîn, daz uns niht berüere weder liep noch leit. Ein meister sprichet: den himel enmac niht berüeren, und meinet, daz der mensche ein himelisch mensche ist, dem alliu dinc niht sô vil ensint, daz sie in berüeren mügen. Ez sprichet ein meister: sît daz alle crêatûren sô snœde sint, wâ von kumet ez denne, daz sie den menschen sô lîhte von gote kêrent; diu sêle ist doch an irm snœdesten bezzer dan der himel und alle crêatûren? Er sprichet: ez kumet dâ von, daz er gotes wênic ahtet. Ahtete der mensche gotes, als er solte, ez wære bî nâhe unmügelich, daz er iemer geviele. Und ist ein guotiu lêre, daz sich der mensche halte in dirre werlt, als ob er tôt sî. Sant Grêgôrius sprichet, daz gotes nieman enmüge vil hân, wan der grunttôt ist dirre werlt. (󰀁󰀂󰀉) 󰀁. Hebr. 󰀁󰀁:󰀃󰀇. The context is Hebr. 󰀁󰀁:󰀃󰀃–󰀉 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀄vb: ‘(In communi plurimorum martyrum) Ad Hebreos. Fratres: Sancti [qui Vg.] per fidem vicerunt regna, operati sunt iustitiam, adepti sunt repromissiones, obturaverunt ora leonum, et extinxerunt impetum ignis, effugerunt aciem gladii, convaluerunt de infirmitate, fortes facti sunt in bello, castra verterunt exterorum: acceperunt mulieres de (󰀄󰀃󰀅ra) resurrectione mortuos suos: alii autem distenti sunt non suscipientes redemptionem, ut meliorem invenirent resurrectionem. Alii vero ludibria, et verbera experti, insuper et vincula, et carceres: lapidati sunt, secti sunt, temptati sunt, in occisione gladii mortui sunt, circuierunt in melotis, in pellibus caprinis, egentes, angustiati, afflicti: quibus dignus non erat mundus: in solitudinibus errantes, in montibus, et in [in om. Vg.] speluncis, et in cavernis terre. Et hi omnes testimonio fidei probati inventi sunt in Christo Ihesu Domino nostro [inventi … nostro om. Vg.]. 󰀂. Matth. 󰀅:󰀁󰀁: ‘Beati estis eum maledixerint vobis, et persecuti vos fuerint, et dixerint omne malum adversum vos mentientes propter me’; 󰀁󰀀:󰀂󰀂: ‘… et eritis odio omnibus propter nomen meum’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀅* [Q 󰀈]

󰀅󰀃󰀃

‘In occisione gladii mortui sunt’.󰀁 We read about the martyrs who ‘died under the sword’. Our Lord said to His disciples: ‘You are blessed, when you suffer something for my name’.󰀂 Now, He says, ‘they are dead’. That ‘they are dead’ means in the first place that what one suffers in this world and in this body󰀃 finds an end. Saint Augustine says: every pain and burden of labor find an end, but the reward that God gives us for it is eternal.󰀄 The second thing that we must consider is that this entire life is mortal, that we should not fear all the pain and all the labors that befall us, because it finds an end. The third thing is that we must behave as if we were dead, that we are not touched either by pleasure or pain. A master says:󰀅 nothing can touch heaven, and he means that that person is a heavenly person to whom all things are not worth so much that they can touch him. A master says:󰀆 since all creatures are so cheap, what is the reason that people can so easily be distracted from God, while the soul in its lowest is better than heaven and all creatures? He says: it derives from the fact that one thinks little of God. If a person thought of God as he should, it would be almost impossible for him to ever fall. And it is a good teaching that the person behaves in this world as if he were dead. Saint Gregory says󰀇 that no one can have much of God, but the one who is fundamentally dead of this world.

󰀃. J. Quint translates ad loc. ‘in diesem Leben’ (‘in this life’). 󰀄. Source unidentified. 󰀅. See Albertus, Summa de creaturis I tr. III q. 󰀇 a. 󰀂 (Borgnet 󰀃󰀄,󰀃󰀉󰀉A-B). See also Auctoritates Aristotelis 󰀃 n. 󰀁󰀇 (Hamesse 󰀁󰀆󰀀): ‘Caelum non potest suscipere peregrinas impressiones’ (= Aristoteles, De caelo I c. 󰀃 [󰀂󰀇󰀀a󰀂󰀇–󰀃󰀅]). And see Hom. 󰀃* [Q 󰀆󰀈], n. 󰀈. 󰀆. Source unidentified. 󰀇. See Gregorius, Moralia in Iob XVIII c. 󰀅󰀄 n. 󰀈󰀉 (Adriaen 󰀉󰀅󰀂,󰀆󰀄–󰀅): ‘Nullus quippe eam uidit qui aduc carnaliter uiuit, quia nemo potest amplecti Deum simul et saeculum’; Glossa ordinaria in Exodi 󰀃󰀃:󰀂󰀀 (Argentinae, 󰀁󰀄󰀈󰀀), : ‘qui sapientiam quae Deus est videt, huic vitae funditus moritur, ne eius amore teneatur’.

󰀅󰀃󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

| Diu vierde lêre ist aller beste. Er sprichet, daz sie tôt sîn. Der tôt gibet in ein wesen. Ein meister sprichet: diu natûre engebrichet niemer, si engebe ein bezzerz. Als luft ze viure wirt, daz ist bezzer; aber sô luft ze wazzer wirt, daz ist ein zerstœren und irret. Sît diz diu natûre tuot, vil mêr tuot ez got: der gebrichet niemer, er engebe ein bezzerz. Die marterære sint tôt und hânt verlorn ein leben und hânt enpfangen ein wesen. Ein meister sprichet, daz edelste daz sî wesen und leben und bekantnisse. Bekantnisse ist hœher dan leben oder wesen, wan in dem, daz ez bekennet, sô hât ez leben und wesen. Aber dar nâch ist leben edeler dan wesen oder bekantnisse, als der boum der lebet; sô hât der stein ein wesen. Nû (󰀁󰀃󰀀) | nemen wir wider wesen blôz und lûter, als ez in im selber ist; sô ist wesen hœher dan bekantnisse oder leben, wan in dem, daz ez wesen hât, sô hât ez bekantnisse und leben. Sie hânt verlorn ein leben und hânt vunden ein wesen. Ein meister sprichet, daz gote niht sô glîch ensî als wesen; als verre ez wesen hât, als verre ist ez gote glîch. Ein meister sprichet: wesen ist sô lûter und sô hôch, allez daz got ist, daz ist ein wesen. Got enbekennet niht dan aleine wesen, er enweiz niht dan wesen, wesen ist sîn rinc. Got enminnet niht dan sîn wesen, er gedenket niht dan sîn wesen. Ich spriche: alle crêatûren sint ein wesen. Ein meister sprichet, daz etlîche crêatûren sô nâhe gote sint (󰀁󰀃󰀁) | und hânt sô vil gedrücket in sich götlîches liehtes, daz sie andern crêatûren wesen gebent. Daz enist niht wâr, wan wesen ist sô hôch und sô lûter und gote sô sippe, daz nieman wesen geben enmac wan got aleine in im selber. Gotes

󰀈. See Albertus, De generatione et corruptione I tr. 󰀁 c. 󰀂󰀅 (IV 󰀃󰀆󰀆b): ‘Est enim formae generatio ex terra in ignem quasi ad magis formale: et tunc est generatio simpliciter et corruptio huius sive quo: quia a quo corrumpitur, non habuit esse nobile et formale scilicet terra. Si autem e contrario terra generetur ab igne, erit corruptio simpliciter: quia ignis est generatio huius et non simpliciter, quia terrae’. 󰀉. See Liber de causis, prop. 󰀁 n. 󰀁-󰀁󰀀 (Pattin 󰀁󰀃󰀄–󰀅): ‘Omnis causa primaria plus est influens super causatum suum quam causa universalis secunda … Et noc exemplificamus illud per esse et vivum et hominem. Quod est quia oportet ut sit res esse in primis, deinde vivum, postea homo … Esse ergo vehementius est causa homini quam vivum, quoniam est causa vivo quod est causa homini, et similiter, quando ponis rationalitatem causam homini, est esse vehenemtius causa homini quam rationalitas, quoniam est causa causae eius’. 󰀁󰀀. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀄 a. 󰀂 ad 󰀃: ‘Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut in eodem capite idem Dionysius dicit, licet ipsum esse sit perfectius quam vita, et ipsa vita quam ipsa

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀅* [Q 󰀈]

󰀅󰀃󰀅

The fourth teaching is the very best. He says that ‘they are dead’. Death gives them a being. A master says: nature does not destroy anything, unless it gives something better. When the air becomes fire, it is better; but when the air becomes water, it is a destruction and a mistake.󰀈 If nature does this, God does it better: He does not destroy anything, unless He gives something better. The martyrs are dead and have lost a life, but have received a being. A master says that the noblest is being, life and knowledge.󰀉 Knowledge is higher than life or being, because in that one knows, one has life and being. But after it, life is nobler than being and knowledge, like the tree that lives, while the stone has being. Now, if we take again being nakedly and purely, as it is in itself, being is higher than knowledge or life, because wherein one has being, one has knowledge and life.󰀁󰀀 They have lost a life and have found a being. A master says that nothing is so like God as being; to the extent that something has being, it is alike with God. A master says:󰀁󰀁 being is so pure and so high, all that God is, is one being. God does not know anything except being, He knows nothing except being, being is His circumference. God loves nothing but His being, He thinks only of His being.󰀁󰀂 I say: all creatures are one being. A master says󰀁󰀃 that some creatures are so close to God and have so much of divine light impressed in themselves that they give being to other creatures. This is not true, because being is so high and so pure and so akin to God that no one can give being except God alone in Himself. God’s property is

sapientia, si considerentur secundum quod distinguuntur ratione, tamen vivens est perfectius quam ens tantum, quia vivens etiam est ens; et sapiens est ens et vivens. Licet igitur ens non includat in se vivens et sapiens, quia non oportet quod illud quod participat esse, participet ipsum secundum omnem modum essendi, tamen ipsum esse Dei includit in se vitam et sapientiam; quia nulla de perfectionibus essendi potest deesse ei quod est ipsum esse subsistens’. 󰀁󰀁. See Liber de causis, prop. 󰀂 n. 󰀂󰀀 (Pattin 󰀁󰀃󰀈): ‘Esse vero quod est ante aeternitatem est causa prima, quoniam est causa ei’. 󰀁󰀂. ‘Got enbekennet … sîn wesen’: Proc. Col. II n. 󰀁󰀁󰀄 (LW V 󰀃󰀄󰀅,󰀁󰀁–󰀃): ‘Quadragesimus octavus articulus in sermone, qui incipit: “In occisione gladii mortui sunt” sic dicit: “Deus non cognoscit nisi esse, ipse non scit nisi esse”, “deus non diligit nisi suum esse, ipse non cogitat nisi esse”’. 󰀁󰀃. See Avicenna, Metaphysica IX c. 󰀃 (Van Riet 󰀄󰀈󰀂–󰀄).

󰀅󰀃󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

eigenschaft ist wesen. Ein meister sprichet: ein crêatûre mac wol der andern leben geben. Dar umbe aleine in wesene liget allez, daz iht ist. (󰀁󰀃󰀂) | Wesen ist ein êrster name. Allez, daz gebrestenlich ist, daz ist abeval von wesene. Allez unser leben solte ein wesen sîn. Als verre unser leben ein wesen ist, als verre ist ez in gote. Als verre unser leben îngeslozzen ist in wesene, als verre ist ez gote sippe. Ez enist kein leben sô krank, der ez nimet, als ez wesen ist, sô ist ez edeler dan allez, daz ie leben gewan. Ich bin des gewis, bekante ein sêle daz minste, daz wesen hât, si enkêrte niemer einen ougenblik dannân. Daz snœdeste, daz man in gote bekennet, der joch einen bluomen bekante, als er ein wesen in gote hât, daz wære edeler dan alliu diu werlt. Daz snœdeste, daz in gote ist, als ez ein wesen ist, daz ist bezzer, dan der einen engel bekante. (󰀁󰀃󰀃) | Der engel, dâ er sich kêrte ze der crêatûren bekennenne, dâ würde ez naht. Sant Augustînus sprichet: swenne die engel die crêatûren âne got bekennent, daz ist ein âbentlieht; aber swenne sie die crêatûren in gote bekennent, daz ist ein morgenlieht. Daz sie got bekennent,

󰀁󰀄. See Liber de causis, prop. 󰀃 (Pattin 󰀁󰀄󰀀): ‘Et non efficit anima has operationes, nisi quia ipsa est exemplum superioris virtutis: quod est, quia causa prima causavit esse animae mediante intelligentia’; see Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀄󰀁,󰀁󰀅–󰀂󰀀): ‘Quadragesimus octavus articulus in sermone qui incipit “In occisione gladii mortui sunt” sic dicit; “Deus non cognoscit nisi esse, ipse non scit nisi esse, deus non diligit nisi suum esse, ipse non cogitat nisi esse”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi nn. 󰀁󰀁󰀄–󰀅) (LW 󰀃󰀄󰀅,󰀁󰀁–󰀃󰀄󰀆,󰀄): ‘Quadragesimus octavus articulus in sermone qui incipit “In occisione gladii mortui sunt” sic dicit; “Deus non cognoscit nisi esse, ipse non scit nisi esse, deus non diligit nisi suum esse, ipse non cogitat nisi esse”. Solutio. Constat quod deus omnia cognoscit et diligit in se ipso et per suam essentiam. Propter quod solliciti esse debemus de habenda caritate per quam manemus in deo et deus in nobis. Iterum etiam, ut simus filii dei, secundum illud: “dedit eis potestatem filios dei fieri”. Filius enim in patre est et pater in filio. Filius autem est, a philos, quod est amor, qui amore, non timore operatur. Item filius est, qui “non habet” extra deum “ubi caput suum reclinet”. Exemplo columbae, de qua dicitur Gen., secundum illud Psalmi: “deus meus es tu, quoniam bonorum meorum non eges”; alia translatio habet: “quoniam bene mihi non est sine te”. Item filius est qui fit alius, non aliud, qui non habet patrem quippiam aliud sive alienum a deo, secundum illud: “patrem nolite vocare super terram. Unus est enim pater vester”’. 󰀁󰀅. See Iohannes Damascenus, De fide orthodoxa I c. 󰀉 (PG 󰀉, 󰀈󰀃󰀆); see Eckhart, Prol. in op. prop. n. 󰀅 (LW I,󰀁 󰀁󰀆󰀈,󰀆–󰀈 = LW I,󰀂 󰀄󰀃,󰀇–󰀉): ‘Primum inter quattuor, scilicet quod solus deus proprie est ens, patet Exodi 󰀃: “ego sum qui sum”; “qui est misit me” et Iob: “tu, qui solus es”. Item Damascenus primum nomen dei dicit “esse quod est”’. 󰀁󰀆. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀄󰀁,󰀂󰀁–󰀃): ‘Quod autem idem articulus secundo dicit; “Ego dico: omnes creaturae sunt unum esse”, male sonat’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi n. 󰀁󰀁󰀆) (LW 󰀃󰀄󰀆,󰀅–󰀉): ‘Quod autem idem articulus secundo dicit: “Ego dico: omnes

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀅* [Q 󰀈]

󰀅󰀃󰀇

being. A master says: a creature can well give life to another.󰀁󰀄 Therefore, only in being consists all that is something. Being is a first name.󰀁󰀅 All that is imperfect has fallen away from being. Our whole life should be one being.󰀁󰀆 To the extent that our life is one being, it is in God. To the extent that our life is contained in being, it is akin to God. There is no life so weak that if one takes it in as much as it is being, it is more noble than everything that ever gained life.󰀁󰀇 I am sure of this: if a soul knew the least that has being, it would never again be distracted for an instant. The cheapest thing one knew in God, who even knew a flower as it has being in God, it would be nobler than the whole world. The cheapest thing that is in God, as it is a being, is better than if one knew an angel. If the angel turned to the knowledge of the creatures, it would become night. Saint Augustine says:󰀁󰀈 if angels know creatures without God, it is an evening light; but if they know creatures in God, then it is a morning light. If they know God as He is alone in His own

creaturae sunt unum esse”, male sonat et sic falsum est. Verum est quod sic unum sunt in esse, sicut unum sunt in deo, qui est esse, a quo omnia sunt et esse habent immediate. Propter quod sollicitus sit homo vitare malum, quod est privatio esse et consequenter privati o veri et boni, et sit extra deum et extra communionem sanctorum’. 󰀁󰀇. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀄󰀂,󰀁–󰀅): ‘Quadragesimus nonus articulus sic habet: “Non est aliquod vivere ita debile, si accipiatur in quantum est esse, nisi tunc sit nobilius quam omne quod umquam vivere vel vitam habuit”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi n. 󰀁󰀁󰀆) (LW 󰀃󰀄󰀆,󰀁󰀀–󰀇): ‘Quadragesimus nonus articulus sic habet: “Non est aliquod vivere ita debile, si accipiatur in quantum est esse, nisi tunc sit nobilius quam omne quod umquam vivere vel vitam habuit” … Solutio. Rudis est qui hoc negat. Nam sine esse omnia sunt nihil, et certe sine esse deus nec esset nec deus esset. Propter quod moraliter sollicitus sit homo cavere peccatum et malum, quod est privatio esse, ut iam dictum est supra’. 󰀁󰀈. See Augustinus, De Gen. ad litt. IV c. 󰀂󰀃 n. 󰀄󰀀 (PL 󰀃󰀄, 󰀃󰀁󰀂): ‘Multum quippe interest inter cognitionem rei cuiusque in Verbo Dei, et cognitionem eius in natura eius; ut illud merito ad diem pertineat, hoc ad vesperam’; ibid. c. 󰀂󰀄 n. 󰀄󰀁 (PL 󰀃󰀄, 󰀃󰀁󰀃): ‘Quapropter cum sancti angeli, quibus post resurrectionem coaequabimur … semper videant faciem Dei, Verboque eius unigenito … perfruantur, in quibus prima omnium creata est sapientia; procul dubio universam creaturam, in qua ipsi sunt principaliter conditi, in ipso Verbo Dei prius noverunt, in qua sunt omnium, etiam quae temporaliter facta sunt, aeternae rationes, tanquam in eo per quod facta sunt omnia: ac deinde in ipsa creatura, quam sic noverunt tanquam infra despicientes, eamque principaliter vident. Ibi ergo tanquam per diem…; hic autem tanquam per vesperam: sed continuo fit mane…, quia non remanet angelica scientia in eo quod creatum est, quin continuo referat ad eius laudem atque charitatem…; in qua veritate stando dies est’.

󰀅󰀃󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

als er aleine in im selben wesen ist, daz ist der liehte mittac. Ich spriche: diz solte der mensche (󰀁󰀃󰀄) | begrîfen und bekennen, daz daz wesen sô edel ist. Ez enist kein crêatûre sô snœde, si enbeger des wesens. Die rûpen, swenne die abevallent von den boumen, sô kriechent sie eine want ûf, daz sie ir wesen behalten. Alsô edel ist daz wesen. Wir loben in gote sterben, ûf daz er uns setze in ein wesen, daz bezzer ist dan ein leben: ein wesen, dâ unser leben inne lebet, dâ unser leben ein wesen wirt. Der mensche sol sich williclîche geben in den tôt und sterben, daz im ein bezzer wesen werde. Ich spriche etwenne, daz ein holz edeler ist dan golt; daz ist gar wunderlich. Ein stein ist edeler, als er ein wesen hât, dan got und sîn gotheit âne wesen, ob man im wesen möhte abetuon. Ez muoz gar ein kreftic leben sîn, (󰀁󰀃󰀅) | in dem tôtiu dinc lebende werdent, in dem joch der tôt ein leben wirt. Gote dem enstirbet niht: alliu dinc lebent in im. ‘Sie sint tôt’, sprichet diu geschrift von den marteræren, und sint gesast in ein êwic leben, in daz leben, dâ daz leben ein wesen ist. Man sol grunttôt sîn, daz uns berüere weder liep noch leit. Waz man bekennen sol, daz muoz man bekennen in sîner ursache. Niemer enmac man ein dinc rehte in im selber bekennen, man enbekenne ez in sîner ursache. Niemer enmac ez bekantnisse sîn, ez enbekenne denne in sîner berlîchen sache. Alsô enmac daz leben niemer volbrâht werden, ez enwerde denne brâht in sîne berlîchen sache, dâ daz leben ein wesen ist, daz diu sêle enpfæhet, sô si ze grunde stirbet, daz wir leben in dem lebene, dâ leben ein wesen ist. Waz uns des hindert, daz wir hier inne niht stæte sîn, daz bewîset ein meister und sprichet: ez kumet dâ von, daz wir zît rüeren. Waz zît rüeret, daz ist tœtlich. Ein meister sprichet: des himels louf ist êwic; ez ist wol wâr, dâ kumet zît von, daz tuot ez im abevallenne. In sînem loufe ist er êwic; er enweiz von zît niht, und meinet, daz diu sêle

󰀁󰀉. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀄󰀂,󰀆–󰀁󰀁): ‘Et infra: “Ego dico interdum quod carbo est nobilior quam aurum. Hoc est mirabile. Unus lapis est nobilior, in quantum habet esse, quam deus et sua deitas sine esse, si esse ab eo auferri posset”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi n. 󰀁󰀁󰀆) (LW 󰀃󰀄󰀆,󰀁󰀀–󰀇): ‘Et infra: “Ego dico interdum quod carbo est nobilior quam aurum. Hoc est mirabile. Unus lapis est nobilior, in quantum habet esse, quam deus et sua deitas sine esse, si esse ab eo auferri posset”. Solutio … (as the one before)’. 󰀂󰀀. Hebr. 󰀁󰀁:󰀃󰀇: ‘mortui sunt’. 󰀂󰀁. Liber de causis, prop. 󰀂 (Pattin, 󰀁󰀃󰀈): ‘anima … est in horizonte aeternitatis inferius et supra tempus’, see also Hom. 󰀉󰀃* [Q 󰀃󰀂], n. 󰀃.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀅* [Q 󰀈]

󰀅󰀃󰀉

being, then it is the bright midday. I say: this a person should grasp and know, that being is so noble. There is no creature so cheap that it does not long for being. The caterpillars, when they fall from the trees, crawl up a wall to keep their being. Such is the nobility of being. We praise dying in God, so that He may place us in a being that is better than being alive: a being where our life is lived inwardly, where our life becomes being. A person should voluntarily give himself into death and die, so that a better being comes to him. I sometimes say that wood is better than gold; this is quite astonishing. A stone, as it has a being, is nobler than God and His Godhead without being, if one could take away His being.󰀁󰀉 It must truly be a powerful life in which dead things become alive, in which even death becomes alive. Nothing dies to God: all things live in Him. ‘They are dead’, says the Scripture of the martyrs,󰀂󰀀 and they are placed into eternal life, in the life in which life is being. One must be fundamentally dead, so that neither pain nor pleasure touches us. What we would know, we must know in its cause. Never can one know something truly in itself, unless one knows it in its cause. Never can it be knowledge, unless it is knowledge of its productive cause. Thus life can never be perfected, unless it is brought back into its productive cause, where life is a being that the soul receives when she dies to its ground, so that we live in the life in which living is being. What prevents us from being here constantly, a master shows us, and he says:󰀂󰀁 this derives from the fact that we touch time. What touches time is deadly. A master says:󰀂󰀂 the course of heaven is eternal; it is true that time comes from there, but this happens by a falling off. In its course it is eternal; it knows nothing of time, that means that the soul is to be placed in a pure being. The

󰀂󰀂. Augustinus, Confessiones XII c. 󰀉 n. 󰀉 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀂󰀂󰀁,󰀂–󰀁󰀂): ‘nimirum enim caelum caeli, quod in principio fecisti, creatura est aliqua intellectualis, quamquam nequaquam tibi, trinitati, coaeterna, particeps tamen aeternitatis tuae, ualde mutabilitatem suam prae dulcedine felicissimae contemplationis tuae cohibet et sine ullo lapsu, ex quo facta est, inhaerendo tibi, excedit omnem uolubilem uicissitudinem temporum. Ista uero informitas, terra inuisibilis et incomposita, nec ipsa in diebus numerata est. Vbi enim nulla species, nullus ordo, nec uenit quidquam nec praeterit, et ubi hoc non fit, non sunt utique dies nec uicissitudo spatiorum temporalium’. See also Liber de causis, prop. 󰀃󰀁 (󰀃󰀂) n. 󰀂󰀁󰀅 (Pattin 󰀂󰀀󰀀): ‘res cadens sub aeternitate est ens vere et omnis res cadens sub tempore est generatio vere’.

󰀅󰀄󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

gesast sî in ein lûter wesen. Daz ander (󰀁󰀃󰀆) | ist, daz ez in im treit widersatzunge. Waz ist widersatzunge? Liep und leit, wîz und swarz daz hât widersatzunge, und diu enblîbet in wesene niht. Ein meister sprichet: diu sêle ist dar umbe dem lîbe gegeben, daz si geliutert werde. Diu sêle, als si von dem lîbe ist gescheiden, sô enhât si weder vernunft noch willen: si ist ein, si enmöhte niht die kraft geleisten, dâ mite si sich ze gote kêren möhte; si hât sie wol in irm grunde als in ir wurzeln und niht in dem werke. Diu sêle wirt geliutert in dem lîchamen dar umbe, daz si samene, daz zerspreitet ist und ûzgetragen. Waz die vünf sinne ûztragent, als daz wider înkumet in die sêle, sô hât si eine kraft, dâ wirt ez allez ein. Daz ander, daz si geliutert wirt in üebunge der tugende, daz ist, swenne diu sêle ûfklimmet in ein leben, daz vereinet ist. Dar ane liget der sêle lûterkeit, daz si geliutert ist von einem lebene, daz geteilet ist, und tritet in ein leben, daz vereinet ist. Allez daz geteilet ist in nidern sachen, daz wirt vereinet, als diu sêle ûfklimmet in ein leben, dâ kein widersatzunge enist. Swenne diu sêle kumet in daz lieht der vernünfticheit, sô enweiz si niht widersatzunge. Waz dém liehte entvellet, daz vellet in tœtlicheit und stirbet. (󰀁󰀃󰀇) | Daz dritte ist der sêle lûterkeit, daz si ûf niht ensî geneiget. Waz ûf iht anders ist geneiget, daz stirbet und enmac niht bestân. Wir biten des unsern lieben herren got, daz er uns helfe von einem lebene, daz geteilet ist, in ein leben, daz vereinet ist. Des helfe uns got. Âmen.

󰀂󰀃. Which prevents the soul, see above. 󰀂󰀄. Avicenna, De anima I c. 󰀅 (S. Van Riet, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈, 󰀁󰀀󰀀,󰀈󰀅–󰀇): ‘Obligatio enim animae cum copore, sicut postea adhuc declarabitur, est propter hoc ut perficiatur intellectus contemplativus et sanctificetur et mundetur’; see Eckhart, In Gen. II n. 󰀁󰀁󰀃 (LW I 󰀅󰀇󰀉,󰀁󰀂–󰀅󰀈󰀀,󰀂): ‘Et hoc Avicenna De anima p. I capitulo ultimo dicit: “obligatio corporis cum anima” “est propter hoc, ut perficiatur intellectus contemplativus et sanctificetur et mundetur”’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀅* [Q 󰀈]

󰀅󰀄󰀁

second point󰀂󰀃 is the fact that it carries contradictions in itself. What are contradictions? Pleasure and pain, black and white are contradictions, and these do not remain in being. A master says: the soul has been given to the body in order for her to be purified.󰀂󰀄 When the soul is separated from the body, she has neither intellect nor will: she is one, but she would not have the strength to be able to turn to God; she, indeed, has them󰀂󰀅 in her ground as in her roots, but not in action.󰀂󰀆 Therefore, the soul is purified in the body, in order to collect what is fragmented and dispersed. When what the five senses dispersed returns to the soul, she has a power that makes it become all one. The second point is that she is purified in the exercise of the virtues, that is, when the soul ascends into a life that is united. In this the purity of the soul consists, that she is purified from a life that is divided, and enters into a life that is united. All that is divided in the lower things is united, when the soul ascends into a life, where there is no contradiction. When the soul enters the light of the intellect, she does not know of any contradiction. What falls off this light, falls into mortality and dies. The third point is the soul’s purity, that she does not tend towards anything. What tends towards something else dies and can not remain. We pray to God our dear Lord to help us [to move] from a life that is divided into a life that is united. In this God help us! Amen.

󰀂󰀅. I.e. intellect and will. 󰀂󰀆. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀇󰀇 a. 󰀈: ‘Utrum omnes potentiae animae remaneant in anima a corpore separata’; c.: ‘Unde corrupto coniuncto, non manent huiusmodi potentiae actu, sed virtute tantum manent in anima sicut in principio vel radice’; ibid. I II q. 󰀆󰀇 a. 󰀁 ad 󰀃: ‘Sed in statu ante resurrectionem partes irrationales non erunt actu in anima, sed solum radicaliter in essentia ipsius, … unde nec huiusmodi virtutes erunt in actu nisi in radice…’

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀆* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀂] Alia missa de Communi plurimorum Martyrum ‘Alliu diu schare suochten unsern herren ze rüerenne, wan ein kraft gienc von im, diu mahte sie alzemâle gesunt’ (Luc. 󰀆:󰀁󰀉) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Luc. 󰀆:󰀁󰀉 (‘Omnis turba quaerebant eum tangere’) is part of the Gospel reading of the second mass on the feast of several martyrs (‘Alia missa de Communi plurimorum Martyrum’). The text of the critical edition in DW is based on one manuscript only (Lo󰀄) and a number of fragments (Wo󰀁, B󰀆, B󰀇, Me󰀂, Me󰀅); a new critical edition has been presented in LE III 󰀁󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀉. Hom. 󰀄󰀇* [Q 󰀄󰀇], n. 󰀉 seems to refer to n. 󰀅 of this homily here, even though G. Steer in his edition doubts this. In Hom. 󰀉󰀄* [S 󰀉󰀅], n. 󰀃 we find a reference that seems to point to n. 󰀆. In Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀁󰀄 the reference seems again to point to the homily here, n. 󰀉. The editors G. Steer (DW IV 󰀈󰀈󰀂) and F. Löser (LE III) are not agreed on the authenticity of this homily. While Steer suggests that the homily in the given form is not from Eckhart’s pen, Löser strongly affirms Eckhart’s authority. As can be seen from the parallels below, even if the text has been reworked by a redactor and gone through the hands of scribes, the homily certainly goes back to Eckhart. The content of the homily That the text is abbreviated and in passages reworked, can be seen right from the beginning where, contrary to Eckhart’s habit, the core verse is not given in Latin, but the homily starts straight with the vernacular translation of Luc. 󰀆:󰀁󰀉 (n. 󰀁).

󰀅󰀄󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

A) The Lord has ‘become dearly beloved by all those who can give love’ (nn. 󰀂–󰀇): Without further explanation, Eckhart introduces Augustine and points to the correspondence between what the Gospel and what Augustine are saying (n. 󰀂). That the Lord has ‘become dearly beloved by all those who can give love’, Eckhart refers not only to human beings, but, as the next phrase shows, even to wood and stone, to herbs and trees. This tending towards, this growing and giving love to God Eckhart distinguishes from the kind of growth that is counted in numbers or is bodily. Spiritual growth does not happen on what one has, but rather on what one lacks (n. 󰀃). Such search for God does not come from our will. Instead, there are four things that Eckhart mentions with which ‘we touch our Lord, God’: ‘being, life, wisdom and light’ (n. 󰀄) 󰀁) ‘being’ (n. 󰀄), with the notable comparison of Judas in hell and Peter in the kingdom of heaven. 󰀂) ‘life’ (n. 󰀅), a rather short note. 󰀃) ‘wisdom’ (n. 󰀆), where Eckhart differentiates between two forms of wisdom, a natural one and the one that ‘comes from the presence of God and the knowledge of God’. 󰀄) ‘light’ (n. 󰀇), with observations from nature (flowers’ reaction to sunlight). B) Who are the people ‘who are touching God’ (nn. 󰀈–󰀁󰀃). He first introduces ‘Saint Luke’ (even though he gives a version that is contaminated with the parallel passage in Matthew, which is consciously reflected, as noted in n. 󰀁󰀁): ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit. Blessed are those who are hungry for justice. Blessed are those who weep. Blessed are those who suffer injustice for the sake of justice’ (Luc. 󰀆:󰀂󰀀–󰀂). 󰀁) ‘On the poor’ (n. 󰀉) with further observations from nature (lightening, thunder) and related religious practices. 󰀂) ‘Blessed are they who hunger for justice’ (nn. 󰀁󰀀–󰀁). The difference between spiritual growth and bodily decay. 󰀃) ‘The afflicted’ (n. 󰀁󰀂). Building on the previous note Eckhart expands on spiritual life and contemplation, and he reflects on the nature of emotions. The reference to Mary having ‘gone with body and soul to heaven’ might be an indication of the liturgical place of this homily.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀆* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀂]

󰀅󰀄󰀅

󰀄) ‘Those who suffer temptation for the sake of justice’ (n. 󰀁󰀃). Temptation is interpreted as humiliation. The homily closes with a short prayer without specifying the content. Editions, commentaries and notes G. Steer, DW IV 󰀈󰀂󰀇–󰀆󰀂; F. Löser, Predigt 󰀁󰀁󰀂: ‘Omnis turba quaerebat eum tangere’, in Lectura Eckhardi III (󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈), 󰀁󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀉 (The text below follows the latter edition, the changes indicated by italicised characters). Previous English translations none.

󰀅󰀄󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation ‘Alliu diu schare suochten unsern herren ze rüerenne, wan ein kraft gienc von im, diu mahte sie alzemâle gesunt’. (󰀁.󰀁) Sant Augustînus sprichet: ‘Dû, herre, der minniclîche liep gehabet bist von alle dem, daz liebe geleisten mac’. Diz wort treget mit dem êrsten über ein. Daz holz, daz abegesniten ist, und der stein die hânt ein wesen von der liebe, die sie ze gote hânt. Noch vürbaz diu dinc, diu dâ lebent: alliu diu dinc, diu dâ wachsent und sich wandeln mügent und sich breiten an die lenge und an die breite, diu heizen wir ein leben haben, als krût und böume. Disiu dinc hânt wesen und wachsent von natiurlîcher liebe ze gote. Noch vürbaz ist liebe an vernünftigen crêatûren, als menschen sint. Welchiu sêle niht in sich enwandelt götlîchiu werk und niht ein zuonemen enhât an die breite und an die lenge gotes liebe, diu ist genzlîche tôt. Ich enmeine daz zuonemen niht, daz man hiute ein pater noster sprichet und morgen zwei und übermorgen vier; ich gloube des wol, daz manic mensche über zehen jâren mê vermöhte beten und vasten und wachen und allerleie kestigunge des lîbes. Des enahte ich niht wider der zuonemunge, diu geistlich ist und an der wârheit; daz ist, daz dem menschen hiure baz smeckent götlîchiu dinc dan ze jâre, und grœzern haz hât ze den sünden und mê smâcheit ze der werlt und heizer gerunge ze gote und mê jâmers ze dem êwigen lebene. Der an disen dingen zuonimet von jâre ze jâre, der hât rehte liebe ze gote. Ein meister sprichet: ‘Swer arm ist, der gert des rîchtuomes; swer müede ist, der gert der ruowe; swer siech ist, der gert der gesuntheit’. Dar umbe suochten alle liute unsern herren got an ze rüerenne:

󰀁. Luc. 󰀆:󰀁󰀉 (‘Omnis turba quaerebant eum tangere’). The context is Luc. 󰀆:󰀁󰀇–󰀂󰀃 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀃vb: ‘(In communi plurimorum martyrum) Secundum Lucam. In illo tempore descendens Ihesus de monte [et descendens cum illis Vg.] stetit in loco campestri, et turba discipulorum eius, et multitudo copiosa plebis ab omni Iudea, et Ierusalem, et maritima, et Tyri, et Sydonis qui venerant ut audirent eum, et sanarentur a langoribus suis. Et qui vexabantur a spiritibus immundis, curabantur. Et omnis turba querebat eum tangere: quia virtus de illo exibat, et sanabat omnes. Et ipse, elevatis oculis in discipulos suos, dicebat: Beati pauperes: quia vestrum est regnum Dei. Beati, qui nunc esuritis: quia saturabimini. Beati, qui nunc fletis: quia ridebitis. Beati eritis cum vos oderint homines, et cum separaverint vos, et exprobaverint, et eiecerint nomen vestrum tanquam malum propter filium hominis. Gaudete in illa die, et exultate: ecce enim merces vestra multa est in celo’. See the reference to this homily in Eckhart, Sermo XLIV,󰀂 n. 󰀄󰀄󰀄

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀆* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀂]

󰀅󰀄󰀇

‘The whole crowd tried to touch our Lord, because a power came from Him that healed them completely’.󰀁 Saint Augustine says:󰀂 ‘You, Lord, you have become dearly beloved by all those who can give love’. This sentence corresponds with the first one. The wood that is cut and the stone have one being from the love they have for God. Even more living things: all the things that grow, can change and can expand in length and width, we say they have a life, like herbs and trees. These things have being and grow out of natural love for God. Even more is love in rational creatures, as are men. The soul which in herself does not transform divine actions and has no growth in the breadth and length of God’s love, is completely dead. I do not mean the growth according to which today one says one pater noster, tomorrow two and the day after tomorrow four; I believe very well that over ten years some people can pray, fast, stay awake and try all forms of bodily asceticisms for even longer. I do not consider this to be anything compared with growth that is spiritual and in truth, i.e. that people like the things of God more this year than the previous year, and they have greater enmity to sin and more disdain of the world and a warmer desire for God and more longing for eternal life. Whoever grows in these things from year to year has true love for God. A master says: ‘Who is poor, desires wealth; who is tired, desires rest; who is sick, desires health’.󰀃 Therefore, all the people tried to touch our Lord, God: all that they lacked, they fully found in Him.

(LW IV 󰀃󰀇󰀁,󰀉–󰀁󰀀): ‘Quinto: “omnia parata”, quia omnia propter immensitatem. Vide super “Virtus de illo exibat et sanabat omnes”’. 󰀂. Augustinus, Soliloquia I c. 󰀁 n. 󰀂 (CSEL LXXXIX, 󰀄): ‘Deus, quem amat omne quod potest amare, sive sciens sive nesciens’. 󰀃. See Aristotle, Ethica ad Nicomachum I c. 󰀂, 󰀁󰀀󰀉󰀅 a 󰀁󰀄; Albertus, Super Ethica I lect. III n. 󰀁󰀆 (Colon. 󰀁󰀄,󰀁, 󰀁󰀄,󰀇󰀉–󰀈󰀂): ‘De felicitate autem, quae est, altercantur, et non similiter multi sapientibus tradiderunt. Hi quidem enim apertorum quid et manifestorum, ut puta voluptatem, divitias aut honorem, alii autem aliter. Multotiens autem et idem ipse alterum; aegrotans quidem enim sanitatem, mendicans autem divitias, conscii sibi ipsis ignorantiae eos qui magnum aliquid et super ipsos dicunt, admirantur’.

󰀅󰀄󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

daz allez, des in gebrach, daz vunden sie alzemâle an im. Und alles, daz in werrende was, des wurden sie gesunt. Dar umbe suln wir alle suochen unsern herren got ze rüerenne: daz allez, des uns gebrichet, daz ervüllet er alzemâle. Ein meister sprichet: ‘Herre, gip mir, daz ich dich williclîche suoche’. Des ist mir nôt, wan ich muoz dich suochen, ez sî mir liep oder leit. Suoche ich dich williclîche, sô hân ich allez êrlîche und an tugenden und mit vröuden, daz ich haben muoz, ob ich dich unwilliclîche suoche, mit sünden und mit pîn. Swenne ich eines dinges gedenke, sô muoz ich entweder innicheit haben oder ich muoz mich schemen, ‘daz ich bî dem niht enbin, âne den ich kein wesen gehaben enmac, und daz ich den niht liep enhân, âne den ich niht liep gehaben enmac’. Dar umbe sprichet er: ‘Dû, herre, der minniclîche liep gehabet bist von alle dem, daz liebe geleisten mac’. Mit vier stücken rüeret man unsern herren got. Diu sint im allernæhste besippe, daz ist wesen und leben und wîsheit und lieht. Man gibet gote manigerleie namen durch daz, daz man im keinen eigenen namen vinden enkan ûf ertrîche. Zwêne namen die sint im allereigenst. Sant Dionysius der heizet in eine güete, daz ist als vil als got. Damascênus der heizet in ein wesen. Und wil sant Dionysius, daz diu güete breiter sî dan daz wesen, durch zwei dinc: Diu güete twinget in

󰀄. See Augustinus, Soliloquia I c. 󰀁 n. 󰀆 (CSEL LXXXIX 󰀁󰀀,󰀁󰀅–󰀉): ‘Fac et me, pater, vindica me ab errore; quaerenti te mihi nihil aliud pro te occurrat. Si nihil aliud desidero quam te, inveniam te iam, quaeso, pater. Si autem est in me superflui alicuius appetitio, tu ipse me munda, et fac idoneum ad videndum te’; closer to Eckhart is the text version, given in PL 󰀃󰀂, 󰀈󰀇󰀂: ‘Fac me, Pater, quaerere te, vindica me ab errore; quaerenti te mihi nihil aliud pro te jam quaeso, Pater’. 󰀅. See Augustinus, De Trinitate XIV c. 󰀁󰀂 n. 󰀁󰀆 (CChr.SL 󰀅󰀀–󰀅󰀀A, 󰀄󰀄󰀄,󰀄󰀁–󰀄): ‘Magna itaque hominis miseria est cum illo non esse sine quo non potest esse. In quo enim est procul dubio sine illo non est, et tamen si eius non meminit eumque non intellegit neque diligit, cum illo non est’; see Eckhart, Sermo XXX,󰀂 n. 󰀃󰀁󰀉 (LW IV 󰀂󰀈󰀀,󰀁󰀀–󰀃): ‘Unde Augustinus XIV De trinitate c. 󰀁󰀂 in fine: “magna miseria hominis est cum illo non esse, sine quo non potest esse. In quo enim est, procul dubio sine illo non est. Et tamen, si eius non meminit eumque non intelligit neque diligit, cum illo non est”’. 󰀆. See on what follows Albertus, De causis et processu universitatis II tr. 󰀁 c. 󰀁 (Fauser 󰀆󰀁, 󰀁󰀆–󰀂󰀂): ‘Quia cum lumen primae causae tripliciter influat rebus, scilicet influentia constitutionis ad esse et influentia irradiationis ad perfectionem virtutis et operis et influentia reductionis ad primum fontem ut ad boni principium, et huius influentia luminis omnis illuminationis principium sit et lumen, erit ipsum lumen luminum’. 󰀇. Ps.-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus c. 󰀄 § 󰀁 (PG 󰀃, 󰀆󰀉󰀃B); Dionysiaca, 󰀁󰀄󰀅,󰀁–󰀁󰀄󰀆,󰀃: ‘De bono, lumine, pulchro, amore, exstasi, zelo; et quod malum neque exsistens, neque ex exsistente,

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀆* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀂]

󰀅󰀄󰀉

And from everything that hurt them they recovered. For that reason, we must all try to touch our Lord, God: because all that we are lacking is entirely fulfilled by Him. A master says: ‘Lord, grant me that I seek you voluntarily’.󰀄 This is necessary for me, because I have to search for you, like it or dislike it. If I search for you voluntarily, I have everything with honour, in virtue and with joy that I must have even if I seek you reluctantly, with sins and with pain. When I reflect upon something, I must either have concentration or I must be ashamed ‘that I am not with the one without whom I cannot have any being, and that I do not love the one without whom I can not love anything’.󰀅 Therefore, he says: ‘You, Lord, you have become dearly beloved by all those who can give love’. With four elements we touch our Lord, God.󰀆 These are very related to Him, namely being, life, wisdom and light. Many names are given to God because one can not find any true name for Him on earth. Two names are most appropriate for Him. Saint Dionysius calls Him goodness, which means as much as God.󰀇 Damascene calls Him a being.󰀈 And Saint Dionysius wants goodness to be broader than being for two reasons:󰀉 goodness forces Him not to be

neque in exsistentibus. Si oportet igitur jam sermone ad ipsam eamus boni nominationem, quam excellenter attribuunt theologi superdeae Deitati et ab omnibus determinant ipsam (sicut reor) thearchicam essentiam bonitatem dicentes ea quae est bonum (ut substantiale bonum) ad omnia exsistentia extendit bonitatem’; see Eckhart, Prol. in op. prop. n. 󰀈 (LW I,󰀁 󰀁󰀇󰀀,󰀄–󰀉 = LW I,󰀂 󰀄󰀅,󰀁–󰀅): ‘Adhuc autem eodem modo se habet de bono, Luc. 󰀁󰀈: “nemo bonus nisi solus deus”; Matth. 󰀉: “nemo bonus nisi unus deus”. Et Proclus prop. 󰀁󰀂 ait: “omnium entium principium et causa prima bonum est”. Ad hoc facit quod Dionysius primum nomen dei ponit bonum. Et Augustinus VIII De trinitate c. 󰀃 ait: “vide ipsum bonum, si potes; ita deum videbis«, »bonum omnis boni”’. See Proclus, Elementatio theologica prop. 󰀁󰀂 (Boese 󰀉). 󰀈. See Iohannes Damascenus, De fide orthodoxa I c. 󰀉 (PG 󰀉, 󰀈󰀃󰀆); see Eckhart, Prol. in op. prop. n. 󰀅 (LW I,󰀁 󰀁󰀆󰀈,󰀆–󰀈 = LW I,󰀂 󰀄󰀃,󰀇–󰀉): ‘Primum inter quattuor, scilicet quod solus deus proprie est ens, patet Exodi 󰀃: “ego sum qui sum”; “qui est misit me” et Iob: “tu, qui solus es”. Item Damascenus primum nomen dei dicit “esse quod est”’. 󰀉. Ps.-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus c. 󰀄 § 󰀃 (PG 󰀃, 󰀆󰀉󰀇A); Dionysiaca, 󰀁󰀅󰀇,󰀃–󰀁󰀅󰀉,󰀂: ‘Si autem et super omnia exsistentia est (sicut quidem est) bonum, et carens forma format. Et in ipso solo: non-exsistens substantiae excessus, non-vivens excedens vita, et sine mente exsistens excellens sapientia, et quaecumque in bono non-formatorum sunt excedentis formationis. Et (si fas est dicere) bonum quod est super omnia exsistentia et ipsum non-exsistens desiderat, et certat aliquo modo in bono et ipsum esse, quod est vere supersubstantiale secundum ab omnibus ablationem’; Albertus,

󰀅󰀅󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

dar zuo, daz er sîn wesen in im niht enthalten enmöhte, er engæbe ez allen crêatûren. Und âne underscheit gibet er wesen selber und enhât ez keiner crêatûre bevolhen, daz si wesen geben müge. In dem daz got die crêatûre schepfet, sô neiget si sich, daz wesen ze enpfâhenne von gote. Und daz ist eine güete an der crêatûre, daz si sich ze dem wesene neiget. Dar umbe heizet er ouch die güete breiter dan daz wesen. Dar umbe hânt liep alle crêatûre daz wesen, daz sie ez von gote âne underscheit enpfangen hânt. Dâ von ist daz: ob alliu diu pîne, diu in der helle ist und an allen crêatûren, ûf eine sêle viele alzemâle, si enmöhte ûz der liebe niht geslagen werden, si enwölte ie wesen haben. Ich wil ein unvernemelîchez wort sprechen – und bin es doch gewis –, daz Jûdas, der in der helle ist, der enwölte niht sant Pêter sîn in dem himelrîche durch daz lustlîche bilde sînes wesennes, daz sich von gote êrste an im gebildet hât âne underscheit. Dar umbe enmöhte er von keiner crêatûre kein ander wesen enpfâhen, daz joch der mensche ze einer wîle hât, dâ er sich zuovüeget und sich des doch verziehen muoz als an süntlîchem lebene und bescheltet alliu leben, diu guot sint, und lobet daz sîne, daz bœse ist, durch daz er sich dar zuo gevüeget hât. Daz ander daz ist leben. Und dar umbe smecket allen crêatûren ir leben, daz sie êwiclîche in gote ein leben sint gewesen und nû sint. Dar umbe sô enlebet kein crêatûre sô pînlîche, si envröuwe sich ze dem lebene. Und welch crêatûre des götlîchen lebennes allermeist smecket, diu lebet aller vrœlîchest. Und ie si dem götlîchen lebene næher krieget, ie ez ir süezer ist. Daz dritte ist wîsheit. Ein meister sprichet: ‘Alle liute die gernt der wîsheit, daz sie mit der wîsheit geordent werden ze gote’. Diu wîsheit ist zweierleie. Diu eine ist natiurlich, daz man sich kan rihten

Super Dionysium De divinis nominibus c. 󰀄 n. 󰀃 (Simon 󰀁󰀄󰀂,󰀆󰀄–󰀈): ‘Si autem et super omnia existentia est, sicut quidem est, bonum et carens forma format, et in ipso solo non-existens substantiae excessus et non-vivens excedens vita et sine-mente-existens excellens sapientia, et quaecumque in bono non-formatorum sunt excedentis formationis. Et si fas est dicere, bonum, quod est super omnia existentia, et ipsum non-exsistens desiderat et certat aliquo modo in bono et ipsum esse, quod vere est supersubstantiale secundum ab omnibus ablationem’. 󰀁󰀀. I.e. Dionysius. 󰀁󰀁. See the reference to this passage in Hom. 󰀄󰀇* [Q 󰀄󰀇], n. 󰀉: ‘Sehet dar umbe, als ich ouch etwenne mê gesprochen hân und niht wol verstanden wart, daz Jûdas in der helle niht enwölte ein ander sîn in dem himelrîche’. In volume I this reference was not yet marked as identified. 󰀁󰀂. I.e. Judas’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀆* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀂]

󰀅󰀅󰀁

able to retain His being to Himself, but He gives it to all creatures. And without distinction He gives Himself and has not commanded any creature to pass on being. By the fact that God makes the creature, it tends to receive being from God. And it is a good in the creature that it tends towards being. Therefore, he󰀁󰀀 also says goodness is broader than being. Therefore, all creatures cherish being, because they received it from God without distinction. From this derives: if all the pain that exists in hell and in all creatures fell entirely on one soul, she would not want to be driven out from love, even for the desire to have being. I want to say an unheard-of phrase – and I am sure about it –󰀁󰀁 that Judas, who is in hell, would not want to be Saint Peter in the kingdom of heaven for the pleasing image of his󰀁󰀂 being, which from the beginning was formed in him by God without distinction. He therefore would not like to receive any other creature’s being, which people have for their domicile󰀁󰀃, to which they accustom themselves, even if he ought to withdraw from it as a sinful life, and he rants against all good lives and praises his own, for he has accustomed himself to it. The second is life. And therefore all creatures like the taste of their life, because they have been eternally and are now a life in God. Therefore, no creature lives in so much suffering that it does not rejoice in life. And the creature who tastes most of divine life lives in the happiest way. And the closer it moves to divine life, the more sweet it is. The third is wisdom. A master says: ‘All people desire wisdom, so as to be directed towards God by wisdom’.󰀁󰀄 There are two forms of wisdom.󰀁󰀅 The first is natural, so that one can orient oneself

󰀁󰀃. F. Löser ad loc. translates ‘wîle’ with ‘Bleibe’ (‘a dwelling’), whereas G. Steer, DW IV 󰀈󰀃󰀇 suggests, instead, to translate it with ‘Schleier’ (‘a veil’). The latter would be rather rare, as Eckhart usually uses ‘wîle’ in the temporal sense (over a hundred times in his works). We owe the translation of this difficult passage to John Connolly. 󰀁󰀄. See Aristoteles, Metaphysica I c. 󰀁 (A c. 󰀁, 󰀉󰀈󰀀 a 󰀂󰀁): ‘Omnes homines natura scire desiderant’. 󰀁󰀅. There seems to be a reference to this passage here in Hom. 󰀉󰀄* [S 󰀉󰀅], n. 󰀃: ‘Ich hân gesprochen von zweierleie wîsheit’.

󰀅󰀅󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

nâch der zît nâch wandelhaftigen dingen. Dar zuo hât der mensche vrîe willekür, daz er die wîsheit mac kêren ze gote oder ze vergenclîchen dingen. Diu ander wîsheit kumet von gotes gegenwerticheit und von gotes bekantnisse: die enmac man ze nihte kêren dan ze gote. Wîsheit ist der grœsten dinge ein, diu got gegeben mac. Diu selbe sælicheit, diu got selber ist und hât, der wirt der mensche teilhaftic mit der wîsheit. Daz ist gotes sælicheit, daz er sich selber durnehticlîche bekennet und minnet und wollust hât. Mit der selben sælicheit wirt der mensche belêhenet von gote, daz er got bekennet und minnet und gebrûchunge an sîner wollust hât. Daz vierde ist lieht. Âne daz lieht enist kein dinc behegelich noch enmac sich offenbâren. Wan alliu dinc entsliezent sich zegegen dem liehte und besliezent sich vor der naht, als bluomen und ander dinc, diu sich offenbârent an dem liehte. Alsô enmac diu sêle niemer behegelich werden noch sich entsliezen dan an der gegenwerticheit götlîches liehtes, daz got selber ist. Dâ alle die schœnesten und edelsten crêatûren, die got geschaffen hât, zemâle zuogiengen und wîseten sich mit al irer schœne und edelkeit, sie enmöhten mit al irer schœne und edelkeit die snœdesten crêatûren niht entsliezen noch erwermen, daz glîchnisse götlîches liehtes enwære an in, sô enmöhten si ez alzemâle niht geahten. Sol ich innicheit haben, daz muoz sîn von zwein dingen: Daz eine ist gotes vüllede und diu snœdicheit der crêatûren, daz si ist als ein ‘stoup der erden’ und daz unglîchnisse mînes selbes, und ich gote doch sô gerne glîch wære, und joch alle crêatûre arbeitent mit aller kraft dar nâch, daz sie gote glîch werden. Nû suln wir prüeven, welche die liute sîn, die got rüerent. Dâ von sprichet sant Lukas: ‘Sælic sint die armen des geistes. Sælic sint die, die dâ hungert nâch der gerehticheit. Sælic sint die, die dâ weinent. Sælic sint die, die dâ unrehtunge lîdent durch daz reht’. (󰀃.󰀁) Ze dem êrsten von den armen. Daz ist ein reht arm mensche: Ob er allez daz hæte, daz got geschaffen hât, daz er niht eigenschaft geleisten enmöhte an sînem geiste, er enwære alle zît ein betelære

󰀁󰀆. F. Löser ad loc. translates ‘behegelich’ with ‘vertraut’ which is more interpretative. 󰀁󰀇. See Gen. 󰀁󰀃:󰀁󰀆: ‘Faciamque semen tuum sicut pulverem terrae’. 󰀁󰀈. See Luc. 󰀆:󰀂󰀀–󰀂: ‘Beati pauperes, quia vestrum est regnum Dei. (󰀂󰀁) Beati, qui nunc esuritis, quia saturabimini. Beati, qui nunc fletis, quia ridebitis. (󰀂󰀂) Beati eritis, cum vos oderint

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀆* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀂]

󰀅󰀅󰀃

according to time in changing things. In this a person has free will, so that he can turn wisdom towards God or towards transient things. The second wisdom comes from the presence of God and the knowledge of God: this can not be turned to anything but God. Wisdom is one of the greatest things God can give. Man becomes a participant by wisdom of the same bliss, which God Himself is and has. God’s bliss is that He knows Himself through and through, loves Himself and has pleasure in Himself. With the same bliss man is gifted by God in order to know God, love Him and enjoy His pleasure. The fourth is light: without light, nothing is pleasant,󰀁󰀆 nor can it manifest itself. Because all things open up to the light and close before the night like flowers and other things, which make themselves manifest in the light. Thus, the soul can never become pleasant or open up, except in the presence of the divine light that is God Himself. If the most beautiful and noble creatures that God made all agreed and showed themselves with all their beauty and nobility, they could not with all their beauty and nobility open up or warm the cheapest creatures, unless the resemblance of the divine light were in them: otherwise they could not even notice it. If I am to have interiority, it must be from two things: the first is the fullness of God and the worthlessness of creatures, that they are like a ‘dust of the earth’,󰀁󰀇 and the [second] the dissimilarity of myself, even though I would love to be so much like God, and all creatures also struggle with all their might to become like God. Now we must see who the people are who are touching God. Of these Saint Luke says: ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit. Blessed are those who are hungry for justice. Blessed are those who weep. Blessed are those who suffer injustice for the sake of justice’.󰀁󰀈 First of all the poor. This person is really poor who, if he had all that God created, but did not own it by his spirit, would be always a beggar for the grace of our Lord, God. This we can see from a natural experience, why one lights candles, rings bells and sings against

homines’; Matth. 󰀅:󰀃.󰀅.󰀆.󰀁󰀀): ‘Beati pauperes spiritu, quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum. (󰀅) Beati, qui lugent, quoniam ipsi consolabuntur … (󰀆) Beati, qui esuriunt et sitiunt iustitiam, quoniam ipsi saturabuntur … (󰀁󰀀) Beati, qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam, quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum’.

󰀅󰀅󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

der gnâden unsers herren gotes. Dâ von prüeven wir ein natiurlîche lêre, wâr umbe man diu lieht enbrenne gegen dem weter und die glocken liute und singe. Als verre sich daz viur wîset und blîbet in der luft, als verre kêret der blitze wider und entuot keinen schaden. Daz ist niht aleine von götlîcher kraft, daz daz lieht gewîhet sî, sunder von natûre von allerleie liehte. Alsô ist ez an dem liutenne der glocken gegen dem doner. Als verre der lût bekumet in der luft, als verre kêret der doner wider, daz er die luft niht ensleht. Alsô ist ez an dem menschen. Als vil er sich bekümbert und bildet nâch vergenclîchen und wandelhaftigen dingen, als verre kêret got wider mit sînem lieht und würket, daz er niht gewürken enmac in der sêle. Dar umbe muoz der mensche stæteclîche vertragende sîn alle schatwen und bilde der crêatûren, wan als verre sich diu crêatûre bildet und schatwen machet in der sêle, als verre hindert si gotes werk. Dar umbe smacket man nüehtern. Die wîle diu zunge unbewollen ist, sô ist der smak reht. Die wîle der mensche iht trôstes hât an der kraft oder an gesuntheit, sô enist er niht arm: Er ensî denne als blint oder siech oder ungestalt als sehende oder schœne oder gesunt, sô enist er sîn selbes niht arm. Dar umbe sol der geistlîche mensche alle gâbe, die er hât an lîbe oder an sêle, alle tage von niuwenes enpfâhen von gote und an dem âbende wider opfern als ganz und lûter, als er sie von gote enpfangen hât. Die andern liute sint ‘sælic, die dâ hungert nâch der gerehticheit’. Ez enist âne sache niht, daz sant Lukas schrîbet den ‘hunger’ aleine. Diu schrift ‘Von natûre’ diu wil, daz der mensche grœzer wollust und vröude hât, als er trinket, wenne in dürstet, dan er von spîse hât, als er izzet, wenne in hungert. Und doch diu spîse nôtdürftiger ist der natûre dan der trank. Wenne ich die spîse enpfâhe, sô muoz si an mich gewandelt werden, daz si ir gropheit verliese und an mir gewermet werde von irm tôde und muoz zemâle gekleidet werden mit mir. Des glîch ist an der sêle, wenne der heilige geist kumet in die sêle. Er enwandelt sich niht nâch der sêle gropheit noch wandellicheit, sunder er wandelt sie an sîne geistlicheit und an sîne zuht, daz si geordent und erliuhtet wirt und zuonimet. Der hât ein gewis zeichen,

󰀁󰀉. See the reference in Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀁󰀄: ‘I was speaking recently about whose fault it was if a man could not taste that and said, it was because his tongue was coated with extraneous

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀆* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀂]

󰀅󰀅󰀅

thunder-storms. As long as the fire shows and stays in the air, the lightning is turning away and does no harm. This does not happen only by divine power, because the light has been consecrated, but by the nature of all kinds of lights. So it is with the sound of the bells against the thunder. As far away as the sound can be heard in the air, the thunder travels further away, so that it does not hit the air. So it is with man. To the extent that he cares for and forms himself according to transient and changeable things, God turns away with His light and acts in such a way that He cannot act in the soul. Therefore, man must consistently avoid all the shadows and images of creatures, because to the extent that the creature forms an image and casts a shadow into the soul it is thus preventing the action of God. Therefore one has a taste with an empty stomach. As long as the tongue is unpolluted, the taste is right.󰀁󰀉 As long as a person has some trust in his strength or health, he is not poor: if he is blind, ill or deformed to the extent that he sees, is beautiful and healthy, he is not poor in himself. Therefore, every day the spiritual man must receive from God anew all the gifts he has in his body or soul, and in the evening return them as a sacrifice as completely and purely as he received them from God.

The second people are ‘blessed who are hungry for justice’. It is not without reason that Saint Luke only writes ‘hunger’. The book ‘On nature’ suggests that a person has greater pleasure and joy when he drinks being thirsty than when he eats being hungry. And yet food is more necessary to his nature than drink. When I take in food, it must be transformed into me so that it loses its coarseness and is heated in me from its death and must be completely clothed with me. Alike it is with the soul, when the Holy Spirit comes into the soul. He does not transform Himself according to the coarseness or the changeability of the soul, but He changes her into His spirituality and in His discipline, so that she becomes ordered and enlightened and grows. The person shows a certain sign of being spiritual who constantly grows in knowledge and

filth, that is to say, with creatures, just like a man to whom all food seems bitter and not to his taste’.

󰀅󰀅󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

daz er geistlich ist, der dâ stæteclîche zuonimet an bekantnisse und an liebe. Alliu lîphaftiu dinc diu vliezent und vallent an ein verderpnisse; als daz mezzer: ie mê man dâ mite snîdet, ie ez stumpfer wirt; und diu ougen des menschen, ie sie ein dinc lenger anesehent, daz alze lieht ist, ie sie stumpfer und vinsterer werdent. Alsô ist ez umbe die liute, den die sinne sô schiere stumpf werdent und vallent wider an ein verderpnisse des lîbes und in verdrozzenheit. Die gebrûchent gotes als lîphaftiger dinge. Daz enheize ich keine rehte gnâde, die dâ wunderlîche gelâz hânt, als sie beweget werdent und ungeordent sint an irn siten, daz niht guot enist mit in umbe ze gânne. Die enpfâhent die gnâde als in trankes wîs, der dâ snelliclîche beweget und alze grôze vröude gibet oder alze grôze betrüebicheit von der gewîtheit des trankes, der zehant durchgât alliu diu gelide und snelliclîche beweget und doch sîn kraft drâte vergât. Alsô enist ez an der spîse niht. Diu setzet sich lancsam und gibet grôze kraft. Daz ist diu geistlîche gebrûchunge. Als viere eine gewalt hânt ze vünfen und vünfe ze sehsen, alsô hât diu sêle eine gewalt an geistlîchen werken. Ein niuwe bekantnisse bringet ein niuwe lieht. Ein niuwe liebe bringet ein niuwe einunge. Alsô ist daz zuonemen âne zal als ein stunde von einem ougenblicke. Daz ist ein êwic werk. Und swie kleine eine liebe ist, diu bringet eine niuwe hitze und eine wollust und eine vereinunge. An disen dingen enist der sêle kein zil gesetzet. Ir zuonemen ist âne ende. Möhte si got als lûterlîche bekennen als unser herre Jêsus Kristus, si hæte in liep als volkomenlîche und würde als genzlîche ein. Dar umbe sprichet sant Lukas: ‘Sælic sint die dâ hungert’. Sant Matthêus schrîbet beide ‘hunger und durst’. Bî dem durste ist bezeichent diu wollust, wan er wol weiz, daz gotes nieman gebrûchen enmac, si sol aber bescheiden sîn. Daz dritte daz sint die betrüebeten. Bêdâ sprichet, daz contemplacio ist ein dinc, dâ alzemâle ane begriffen ist geistlich leben, und ist ein vorschen götlîcher dinge, und ist, daz der mensche mit gedult trage diz leben; daz ist, daz im alliu dinc ein pîn sîn, dâ er mite umbegât,

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀆* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀂]

󰀅󰀅󰀇

in love. All bodily things dissolve and decay; like a knife: the more one cuts with it, the more it becomes blunt; and the eyes of a person, the longer they look at something that is very luminous, the more obtuse and obscure they become. So it is with people to whom the senses become so obtuse that they fall away into the decay of the body and into unwillingness. They make use of God as of bodily things. I do not call this the right grace, if they display a strange behavior, as they are moved and are disordered in their habits, so that it is not easy to deal with them. They take grace as a sort of drink that immediately shakes one and gives either too great joy or too much sadness from the strength of the drink, which immediately spreads into all the limbs, moves quickly and yet with its strength quickly running out. So it is not with food. This settles slowly and gives great strength. This is spiritual enjoyment. As four have the power to become five, and five to become six, so the soul has a power towards spiritual things. A new knowledge brings a new light. A new love brings a new union. Hence, the growth without number is like the switch to an hour from a moment. This is an eternal work. And however weak love is, it brings a new heat, pleasure and union. In these things there is no limit to the soul. Her growth has no limit. If she were to know God as purely as our Lord Jesus Christ, she would love Him as perfectly and would become as totally one [as He is]. Therefore, Saint Luke says: ‘Blessed are those who are hungry’. Saint Matthew writes both: ‘hunger and thirst’. ‘Thirst’ designates pleasure, because he well knows that no one can enjoy God, unless it is humble. Third, they are ‘the afflicted’. Bede says󰀂󰀀 that contemplatio is something in which spiritual life is fully captured, it is a search for divine things, and it means that man patiently endures this life; that is, all the things with which he is dealing are a pain, but that he is not

󰀂󰀀. See Beda Venerabilis, In Lucae evangelium expositio X 󰀄󰀁–󰀂 (CChr.SL 󰀁󰀂󰀀), 󰀂󰀂󰀆, 󰀂󰀃󰀆󰀂–󰀄: ‘Vna ergo et sola est theoria, id est contemplatio Dei, cui merito omnia iustificationum merita uniuersa uirtutum studia postponuntur’; see also Beda, Hom. subdititiae l. III, Hom. LVII (PL 󰀉󰀄, 󰀄󰀂󰀁A); Iohannes Cassianus, Collat. XXIII c. 󰀃 n. 󰀁 (CSEL 󰀁󰀃, 󰀆󰀄󰀂,󰀁󰀁–󰀃).

󰀅󰀅󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

und daz er sich niht erzürne. Mir mac wol ein dinc missehagen, und bewîse mich doch, als ob ez mir niht enmissehage, daz ist, daz bewegunge undertænic sî der bescheidenheit. Man mâlet dicke unser vrouwen bilde unrehte, als ob si ungelâz gæbe vor dem kriuze vor leide. Des enist niht. Diu bewegunge was an ir alsô geistlich und diu bekantnisse sô lûter, daz si nie verwandelt enwart an keiner unrehten leide. Von disem jâmer sprichet Dâvît: ‘Herre, wie lange sol mîn jâmer wern?’ Sant Paulus sprichet: ‘Wer sol mich erlœsen von disem unsæligen tœtlîchen lîbe, daz ich kome ze gote’. Sant Augustînus sprichet: ‘Dô ich mit mîner lieben muoter sprach, diu mich geistlîche niunzehen jâr hâte getragen, ê si mich gote gebære, und dô si mich gote geborn hâte, dô redeten wir von der smâcheit dirre werlt und trehene giengen uns ûz unsern ougen. Dâ was uns wol mite’. Sant Bernhart schrîbet: ‘Dô unser herre tôt was, dô vlôz wazzer ûz sîner sîten, daz ein reinunge ist aller werlt’. Alsô muoz diu sêle tôt sîn alles, daz got niht enist, ob si genzlîche vliezen sol von reinicheit, daz si sich gote genzlîche müge bieten. Ich spriche von den hœhsten heiligen, die in dem himelrîche sint: Die wîle sie iht liebe hânt ze irn lîchamen, die noch in der aschen ligent, sô enmügen sie sich gote niht genzlîche bieten. Und joch unser vrouwe, gotes muoter: Enwære si niht mit lîbe und sêle ze dem himelrîche, si enmöhte sich gote niht genzlîche

󰀂󰀁. Ps. 󰀆:󰀄: ‘Et anima mea turbata est valde, et tu, Domine usquequo?’ 󰀂󰀂. Rom. 󰀇:󰀂󰀄: ‘Infelix ego homo! quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huius?’ 󰀂󰀃. See Augustinus, Confessiones V c. 󰀃 n. 󰀃 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀅󰀈,󰀁–󰀂): ‘Proloquar in conspectu dei mei annum illum undetricesimum aetatis meae’; V c. 󰀉 n. 󰀁󰀆 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀆󰀆,󰀁󰀆–󰀂󰀃): ‘neque enim desiderabam in illo tanto periculo baptismum tuum, et melior eram puer, quo illum de materna pietate flagitavi, sicut iam recordatus atque confessus sum. sed in dedecus meum creveram, et consilia medicinae tuae demens irridebam, qui non me sivisti talem bis mori. quo vulnere si feriretur cor matris, numquam sanaretur. non enim satis eloquor, quid erga me habebat animi et quanto maiore sollicitudine me parturiebat spiritu, quam carne pepererat’; IX c. 󰀁󰀀 n. 󰀂󰀆 (CChr. SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀁󰀄󰀈,󰀅󰀂–󰀆󰀁): ‘Dicebam talia, etsi non isto modo et his verbis, tamen, domine, tu scis, quod illo die, cum talia loqueremur et mundus iste nobis inter verba vilesceret cum omnibus delectationibus suis, tunc ait illa: fili, quantum ad me adtinet, nulla re iam delector in hac vita. quid hic faciam adhuc et cur hic sim, nescio, iam consumpta spe huius saeculi. unum erat, propter quod in hac vita aliquantum inmorari cupiebam, ut te Christianum catholicum viderem, priusquam morerer. cumulatius hoc mihi deus praestitit, ut te etiam contemta felicitate terrena servum eius videam. quid hic facio?’; IX c. 󰀆 n. 󰀁󰀄 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀂󰀀󰀈,󰀁–󰀃): ‘nec satiabar in illis diebus dulcitudine mirabili considerare altitudinem consilii tui super salute generis humani. quantum flevi in hymnis et canticis tuis, suave sonantis ecclesiae tuae vocibus commotus acriter! voces illae influebant auribus meis, et eliquabatur veritas in cor meum, et exaestuabat inde affectus pietatis, et currebant lacrimae, et bene mihi erat cum eis’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀆* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀂]

󰀅󰀅󰀉

upset. One thing may well displease me, but I behave myself as if I did not mind it, that is, that emotion is subjected to rationality. We often paint the image of our Lady in the wrong way, as if she were uncontrolled in her suffering in front of the cross. This is not so. Her emotion was so spiritual and her knowledge so pure, that she was never transformed by any wrong suffering. Of this misery David speaks: ‘Lord, how long will my misery last?’󰀂󰀁 Saint Paul says: ‘Who will deliver me from this unhappy mortal body, so that I may come to God’.󰀂󰀂 Saint Augustine says: ‘Then I spoke with my dear mother, who had been spiritually pregnant with me for nineteen years before she delivered me to God, and when she had delivered me to God, we spoke of the contempt of this world and tears came to our eyes. And I was the better for them’.󰀂󰀃 Saint Bernard writes: ‘When our Lord was dead, water poured from His side which is a purification of the whole world’.󰀂󰀄 Thus, the soul must be dead to all that is not God, if she shall completely flow out of purity, so as to be able to offer herself completely to God. I say of the most eminent saints who are in heaven: As long as they have some love for their bodies that lie still in the dust, they can not offer themselves completely to God.󰀂󰀅 And also our Lady, the mother of God: if she were not gone with body and soul to heaven, she could not have

󰀂󰀄. See Bernard of Clairvaux, Post octavam Epiphaniae Sermo 󰀁 n. 󰀃 (Cist. IV 󰀃󰀁󰀆,󰀂󰀁–󰀄): ‘A primo homine in te manavit macula, qua inquinatus es; a Christi latere aqua, qua mundatus es. Nunc iam inquinatus culpa propria, propria nihilominus aqua mundaberis, ab illo tamen et per illum, qui solus est purgationem faciens peccatorum’; id., In octava Paschae Sermo 󰀂 n. 󰀄 (Cist. V 󰀁󰀂󰀀,󰀉–󰀁󰀄): ‘Scitis, fratres, quia in primo homine peccavimus omnes, in ipso etiam cecidimus universi. Cecidimus sane in carcerem, luto pariter et lapidibus plenum. Exinde iacebamus captivi, inquinati, conquassati, donec venit desideratus gentium, qui nos redimeret, ablueret, adiuvaret. Hic est enim qui sanguinem proprium dedit in redemptionem, aquam simul produxit de latere suo in ablutionem, emisit deinde de excelso Spiritum suum, qui adiuvaret infirmitatem nostram’; id., In dedicatione Ecclesiae Sermo 󰀁 n. 󰀄 (Cist. V 󰀃󰀇󰀂,󰀂󰀅–󰀃󰀇󰀃,󰀂): ‘Lavat, inquam, nos in confessione, lavat nos lacrimarum imbre, lavat sudore paenitentiae; magis autem lavat nos aqua illa pretiosissima, quae de fonte pietatis, id est ab eius latere, emanavit’. 󰀂󰀅. See Augustinus, De Gen. ad litt. XII c. 󰀃󰀅 (CSEL XXVIII,󰀁, 󰀄󰀃󰀂,󰀁󰀈–󰀄󰀃󰀃,󰀁): ‘sed tamen minime dubitandum est, et raptam hominis a carnis sensibus mentem, et post mortem ipsa carne deposita, transcensis etiam similitudinibus corporalium, non sic videre posse incommutabilem substantiam, ut sancti angeli vident; sive alia latentiore causa, sive ideo quia inest ei naturalis quidam appetitus corpus administrandi; quo appetitu retardatur quodammodo ne tota intentione pergat in illud summum coelum, quamdiu non subest corpus, cuius administratione appetitus ille conquiescat’; see Eckhart, Hom. 󰀆󰀃* [Q 󰀈󰀄], n. 󰀅: ‘Dar umbe sprichet sant Augustîn die sêlen in dem himelrîche ensint noch niht volkomen sælic, wan sie noch eine neigunge hânt ze dem lîchamen’.

󰀅󰀆󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

bieten. Ein heilige sprichet: ‘Ez ist ein ganz widerwechsel. Alsô vil sich diu sêle gote erbiutet, alsô vil biutet ir sich got wider’. Waz mügen wir von den sprechen, die an manigen dingen haftent mit irer liebe? Daz vierte ist: ‘die dâ anevehtunge lîdent durch die gerehticheit’. Ez giltet alles ein gelt, daz der mensche bœse sî oder daz er bœsen liuten behage. Daz wir von bœsen liuten gescholten sint, dâ von sint wir gelobet von gote. Dar umbe sprichet unser herre: ‘Vröuwet iuch an dem tage und entspringet von vröuden, daz ir versmâcheit lîdet durch mich’. Hievor begiengen die künige ir geburt und gaben grôze vrîheit und gâben irn vürsten. Billîcher suln wir uns ‘vröuwen und springen von vröuden’, daz got in uns geborn wirt in einer stunden. Als ein ougenblic, ob man den in tûsent teilen möhte, in alsô kleiner stunden wirt got in uns geborn alsô genzlîche, als ob er nie geborn enwære. Alsô niuwe und vrœlich ist danne in dem himelrîche diu offenbârunge und geburt unsers herren gotes âne underlâz, als ob er nie geoffenbâret noch geborn enwürde dan ze der stunde aleine. Swenne diz diu sêle bekennet, sô entspringet ein vröude von boben enbinnen ir, und entgiuzet sich diu sêle von vröuden in alle die lide, und ist dem menschen behegelich allez, daz er von bûzen sihet und hœret, und alzemâle vrœlich. Daz enist i von bûzen niht anekomen, sunder von binnen entsprungen. Daz uns diz geschehe, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

󰀂󰀆. Unidentified saint. 󰀂󰀇. See Matth. 󰀅:󰀁󰀀: ‘Beati, qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam’. 󰀂󰀈. ‘entspringet’ here means ‘jump’ (‘entspringet’), but also ‘blossom’ (‘entspringet’), and Eckhart uses both meanings in this paragraph. 󰀂󰀉. Luc. 󰀆:󰀂󰀂–󰀃: ‘(󰀂󰀂) Beati eritis, cum vos oderint homines et cum separaverint vos et exprobaverint et eiecerint nomen vestrum tramquam malum propter Filium hominis. (󰀂󰀃) udete in

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀆* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀂]

󰀅󰀆󰀁

offered herself completely to God. A saint says: ‘It is a total exchange. As much as the soul offers herself to God, so much God offers Himself to her in return’.󰀂󰀆 The fourth is: ‘Those who suffer persecution for the sake of justice’.󰀂󰀇 It is the same coin, whether somebody is evil or whether he is liked by evil people. By being insulted by evil people, we are praised by God. Therefore, our Lord says: ‘Rejoice in the day and jump󰀂󰀈 for joy, if you suffer humiliation for love of me’.󰀂󰀉 Once the kings celebrated their birth and gave great privileges and gifts to their lords. To a greater right we should ‘rejoice and jump for joy’, that God is born in us in one moment. In one moment, if we could divide it into a thousand parts, in such a small moment God is being born in us as totally as if He had never been born. Thus, so new and joyful and without interruption in the kingdom of heaven are the revelation and the birth of our Lord, God, as if He were never revealed and born, except only at that very moment. When the soul gets to know this, a joy from above blossoms within her and the soul pours herself into all the limbs out of joy, and everything that he sees and hears from the outside becomes pleasant and entirely joyful for the person. This is not come to him󰀃󰀀 from outside, but has blossomed from within. That this may happen to us, may God help us! Amen.

illa die et exsultate, ecce enim merces vestra multa in caelo’; Matth. 󰀅:󰀁󰀁–󰀂: ‘(󰀁󰀁) Beati estis cum maledixerint vobis et persecuti vos fuerint et dixerint omne malum adversum vos, mentientes, propter me. (󰀁󰀂) Gaudete et exsultate, quoniam merces vestra copiosa est in caelis; sic enim persecuti sunt prophetas, qui fuerunt ante vos’. 󰀃󰀀. The ms. has ‘in’, the plural ‘them’.

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀇* [Q 󰀇󰀂] In festo omni sanctorum, die 󰀁 novembris ‘Videns Iesus turbas, ascendit in montem’ etc. (Matth. 󰀅:󰀁) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Matth. 󰀅:󰀁, gives the opening of the sermon on the mountain, and thus relates to the Gospel reading of the previous homily. According to BT (‘Vff aller Heiligen tag’, BT), the homily was given on All Saints’ Day (󰀁.󰀁󰀁.–󰀄.󰀁󰀂). The text is present in the Paradisus anime intelligentis (n. 󰀅󰀁), and the critical edition is based on the manuscripts (O, H󰀂, then on Bra󰀃, Ga, Str󰀂), the print in BT and a number of fragments. The content of the homily

This homily reads like a continuation of the previous one. Eckhart develops how Jesus Himself is the model of turning away from the multitude and ascending to the height of God and the soul. First he gives the core verse (Matth. 󰀅:󰀁) in Latin (n. 󰀁), followed by the extended vernacular translation (n. 󰀂), before embarking on selected elements of the verse. A) ‘And He taught’ (n. 󰀃). With teaching, Eckhart also reads listening to and receiving ‘the teaching of God’, hence he places both preacher and listener onto the same ‘chair’ which Augustine says is placed ‘in heaven’ (n. 󰀃). Such a placing includes the rejection of all that is multiple. B) ‘Ascent to the mountain’ (nn. 󰀄–󰀇) means God Himself points out that one should know ‘nothing except God’ and oneself. The phrase also indicates the ‘height’, that which is ‘close to God’ (n. 󰀅). What it means is that God gives Himself into the soul, Eckhart explains, referring

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀇* [Q 󰀇󰀂]

󰀅󰀆󰀃

to Augustine and his teaching ‘of a triple knowledge’: the bodily, the spiritual and the ‘internal in the spirit’ (n. 󰀆). Eckhart also draws on the tripartite lordship of the supreme angels (n. 󰀇). C) ‘He ascended to the mountain and was transformed before them’ (nn. 󰀈–󰀁󰀃), here Eckhart talks about the transformation of the soul. He supports his idea that it is God who takes the lead in this transformation by drawing on Ezekiel with ‘the wise man’ (n. 󰀉) and Augustine (n. 󰀁󰀀). He, then, comes back to the ascent of the mountain (n. 󰀁󰀁), where he develops the idea that at the top there is no light, but darkness (nn. 󰀁󰀁–󰀃). The final prayer resumes the idea that one has to leave the multitude and grow out of ‘all that is not God’ (n. 󰀁󰀄). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀉󰀈,󰀃󰀁󰀄–󰀇; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀈󰀆󰀂–󰀇󰀃; J. Quint, DW III 󰀂󰀃󰀂–󰀅󰀄; N. Largier II 󰀈󰀀–󰀉.󰀆󰀈󰀈–󰀉󰀂; Haug, LE II 󰀁󰀁󰀁–󰀃󰀇. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀂󰀄󰀂–󰀅; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀄󰀅󰀈–󰀆󰀁.

󰀅󰀆󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀃󰀉) ‘Videns Iesus turbas, ascendit in montem’ etc. Man liset in dem êwangeliô, daz ‘unser herre liez die schar und gienc ûf den berc. Dô tete er ûf sînen munt und lêrte von dem rîche gotes’. (󰀂󰀄󰀀) | ‘Und lêrte’. Sant Augustînus sprichet: »swer dâ lêret, der hât gesetzet sînen stuol in den himel«. Swer gotes lêre enpfâhen wil, der muoz ûfgân und übergân über allez, daz ûzgespreitet ist: des muoz er sich verzîhen. Swer gotes lêre enpfâhen wil, der muoz sich samenen und însliezen in sich selber und sich kêren von allen sorgen und kumbernissen und von dem gewerbe niderr dinge. Die krefte der sêle, der alsô vil ist und sich alsô wîte teilent, die sol er übergân dannoch, dâ sie sint in den gedenken, swie doch der gedank wunder würket, dâ er in im selber ist. Disen gedank sol man übergân, sol got sprechen in die krefte, die niht geteilet ensint. (󰀂󰀄󰀁) | Daz ander: ‘er gienc ûf den berc’, daz meinet, daz got dâ wîset die hœhe und die süezicheit sîner natûre, in den von nôt abevellet allez, daz crêatûre ist. Dâ enweiz er niht wan got und sich, als er ist ein bilde gotes. Daz dritte: ‘er gienc ûf den berc’, daz erzeiget sîne hœhe – daz hôch ist, daz ist gote nâhe – und meinet die krefte, die gote sô nâhe sint. Unser herre nam ze einem mâle drîe sîner jünger und vuorte sie ûf einen berc und erschein vor in in glîcher klârheit an dem lîchamen, als wir suln haben in dem êwigen lebene. Unser herre sprach: (󰀂󰀄󰀂) | ‘gedenket des, dô ich ze iu sprach, dô ensâhet ir noch bilde noch glîchnisse’. Sô der mensche læzet ‘die schar’, sô gibet sich got in die sêle sunder bilde und glîchnisse. Alliu dinc werdent bekant in bilde und in glîchnisse. 󰀁. Matth. 󰀅:󰀁 (‘Videns autem Iesus turbas, ascendit in montem, … et aperiens os suum docebat eos’). The context is Matth. 󰀅:󰀁–󰀁󰀂 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀃vb: ‘Secundum Mattheum. In illo tempore videns [Videns autem Vg.] Ihesus turbas, ascendit in montem, et cum sedisset, accesserunt ad eum discipuli eius, et aperiens os suum docebat eos dicens: Beati pauperes spiritu: quoniam ipsorum est regnum celorum. Beati mites: quoniam ipsi possidebunt terram. Beati, qui lugent: quoniam ipsi consolabuntur. Beati, qui esuriunt, et sitiunt iustitiam: quoniam ipsi saturabuntur. Beati misericordes: quoniam ipsi misericordiam consequentur. Beati mundo corde: quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. Beati pacifi(󰀄󰀅󰀄ra)ci: quoniam filii Dei vocabuntur. Beati, qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam: quoniam ipsorum est regnum celorum. Beati estis cum maledixerunt vobis homines [om. Vg.], et persecuti vos fuerint, et dixerint

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀇* [Q 󰀇󰀂]

󰀅󰀆󰀅

‘Videns Iesus turbas, ascendit in montem’ etc. We read in the Gospel that ‘our Lord left the multitude and ascended to the mountain. Then He opened His mouth and taught about the kingdom of God’.󰀁 ‘And he taught’. St. Augustine says: ‘He who teaches has placed his chair in heaven’.󰀂 Whoever wants to receive the teaching of God must ascend and transcend all that is spread out: this he must renounce. Whoever wants to receive the teaching of God, must concentrate and go into himself and turn away from all worries and oppressions and from getting involved in the lower things. The powers of the soul which are so many and separate themselves so widely, these he must transcend even as they are in thinking, although thought works wonders, where it is in itself. This thinking one must transcend, if God shall speak into the powers that are not divided. Second: ‘Ascent to the mountain’ means that God points to the height and the sweetness of His nature, in which by necessity all that is creaturely falls away. There he knows nothing except God and himself, being an image of God. Third: ‘Ascended to the mountain’, this indicates His height – what is high, is close to God – and points to the powers that are so close to God. Our Lord once took three of his disciples and took them up a mountain and appeared before them in the same glory in the body that we shall have in eternal life.󰀃 Our Lord said: ‘Remember, when I spoke to you, then you saw neither image nor likeness’.󰀄 When man abandons the multitude, then God gives Himself into the soul without image and likeness. All things are known in image and in likeness.

omne malum adversum vos mentientes, propter me: gaudete, et exultate, quoniam merces vestra copiosa est in celis’. 󰀂. Augustinus, De discipl. christ. c. 󰀁󰀄 n. 󰀁󰀅 (PL 󰀄󰀀, 󰀆󰀇󰀈): ‘Christus est qui docet; cathedram in caelo habet’; id., In epist. Ioannis ad Parthos tr. 󰀃 n. 󰀁󰀃 (PL 󰀃󰀅, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄): ‘Cathedram in caelo habet qui corda docet’. 󰀃. Matth. 󰀁󰀇:󰀁–󰀂: ‘(󰀁) et post dies sex adsumpsit Iesus Petrum et Iacobum et Iohannem fratrem eius et ducit illos in montem excelsum seorsum (󰀂) et transfiguratus est ante eos et resplenduit facies eius sicut sol vestimenta autem eius facta sunt alba sicut nix’. 󰀄. Ioh. 󰀁󰀆:󰀄: ‘Sed haec locutus sum vobis: ut cum venerit hora eorum reminiscamini, quia ego dixi vobis’.

󰀅󰀆󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Sant Augustînus lêret von drîerleie bekantnisse. Daz êrste ist lîplich, daz nimet bilde als daz ouge: daz sihet und nimet bilde. Daz ander ist geistlich und nimet doch (󰀂󰀄󰀃) | bilde von lîplichen dingen. Daz dritte ist inwendic in dem geiste, daz bekennet sunder bilde und glîchnisse, und diz bekantnisse glîchet sich den engeln. Diu oberste hêrschaft der engel diu teilet sich in driu. Ein meister sprichet: diu sêle bekennet sich niht sunder glîchnisse; aber der engel bekennet sich sunder glîchnisse und got. Er wil sprechen: got gibet sich in der hœhe in die sêle sunder bilde und glîchnisse. (󰀂󰀄󰀄) | ‘Er gienc ûf den berc und wart widerbildet vor in’. Diu sêle sol widerbildet sîn und îngedrücket in daz bilde und widerslagen in daz bilde, daz gotes sun ist. Diu sêle ist gebildet nâch gote; aber die meister sprechent, daz der sun ist ein bilde gotes, und diu sêle ist gebildet nâch dem bilde. Sô spriche ich mê: der sun ist ein bilde gotes obe (󰀂󰀄󰀅) | bilde; er ist ein bilde sîner verborgenen gotheit. Dâ der sun ein bilde gotes ist und dâ der sun îngebildet ist, dár nâch ist diu sêle gebildet. In dem selben, dâ der sun nimet, dâ nimet ouch diu sêle. Dannoch, dâ der sun ûzvliezende ist von dem vater, dâ enbehanget diu sêle niht: si ist obe bilde. Viur und hitze daz ist ein und ist doch verre von einem. Smak und varwe an einem apfel ist ein und ist doch verre von

󰀅. See Augustinus, De Genesi ad litteram XII c. 󰀃󰀄 (CSEL XXVIII,󰀁, 󰀄󰀃󰀂,󰀁-󰀉): ‘Si ergo caelum primum recte accipimus hoc omne corporeum generali nomine quidquid est super aquas et terram, secundum autem in similitudine corporali quod spiritu cernitur, sicut illud, unde animalibus plenus in extasi Petro discus ille submissus est, tertium uero, quod mente conspicitur ita secreta et remota et omnino abrepta a sensibus carnis atque mundata, ut ea, quae in illo caelo sunt, et ipsam Dei substantiam, uerbumque deum, per quod facta sunt omnia, per caritatem spiritus sancti ineffabiliter ualeat uidere et audire’; see Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae II II q. 󰀁󰀇󰀅 a. 󰀃 ad 󰀄: ‘… ut primum caelum dicatur visio supermandana corporalis, quae fit per sensum…; secundum autem caelum sit visio imaginaria…, tertium vero caelum dicatur visio intellectualis … Tertio potest dici tertium caelum contemplatio dei secundum gradus cognitionis qua deus videtur’. 󰀆. I.e. Throni, Cherubim and Seraphim, Isidorus Hispalensis, Etymologiae VII c. 󰀅 nn. 󰀂󰀁–󰀄 (Lindsay I 󰀂󰀇󰀆,󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀇󰀇,󰀃): ‘(󰀂󰀁) Throni sunt agmina angelorum, qui Latino eloquio sedes dicuntur; et vocati Throni quia illis conditor praesidet, et per eos iudicia sua disponit. (󰀂󰀂) Cherubin autem et ipsi sublimes caelorum potestates et angelica ministeria perhibentur; qui ex Hebraeo in linguam nostram interpretantur scientiae multitudo. Sunt enim sublimiora agmina angelorum, qui pro eo, quod vicinius positi divina scientia ceteris amplius pleni sunt, Cherubin, id est plenitudo scientiae, appellantur. (󰀂󰀃) Ipsa sunt illa duo animalia super propitiatorium arcae ficta ex metallo, propter significandam angelorum praesentiam, in quorum medio ostenditur Deus. (󰀂󰀄) Seraphin quoque similiter multitudo est angelorum, qui ex Hebraeo in Latinum ardentes vel incendentes interpretantur. Qui idcirco ardentes vocantur, quia inter eos et Deum nulli angeli consistunt; et ideo quanto vicinius coram eo consistunt, tanto magis luminis claritate divini inflammantur’. See also Hom. 󰀆󰀆*

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀇* [Q 󰀇󰀂]

󰀅󰀆󰀇

Saint Augustine teaches of a triple knowledge.󰀅 The first is bodily, this welcomes images like the eye: this sees and receives images. The second is spiritual and yet welcomes images of bodily things. The third is internal in spirit, this knows without images and likenesses, and this knowledge is like the angels. The supreme lordship of the angels is tripartite.󰀆 A master says:󰀇 the soul knows herself not without similitudes; but the angel knows itself and God without similitudes. He wants to say: God gives Himself in the supreme part of the soul without image and similitude. ‘He ascended to the mountain and was transformed before them’.󰀈 The soul must be transformed and impressed in the image and reflected󰀉 in the image that is the Son of God. The soul is formed in the image according to God;󰀁󰀀 but the masters say󰀁󰀁 that the Son is an image of God, and the soul is formed according to this image. But I say more: the Son is an image of God beyond an image; He is an image of His hidden Godhead. Where the Son is an image of God and where the Son is informed, according to this the soul is formed. In the same way where the Son takes [His form], there also the soul takes hers. And then, where the Son is emanating from the Father, there the soul does not remain stuck; she is beyond an image. Fire and heat are one and yet they are

[Q 󰀇󰀁], n. 󰀁󰀃; Aegidius Romanus, De cognitione angelorum q. 󰀁 (Venetiis, 󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀃), f. 󰀇󰀇vb: ‘natura angelica, quae est actu intelligibilis, ex quo est presens suo intellectui, non requirit ibi aliam speciem; sed ad solam presentiam talis intelligibilis causatur in ipso intellectu angelico actus intelligendi quo intelligit seipsum et substantiam suam … non ergo per aliam speciem intelligibilem differentem ab actu intelligendi, sed per substantiam suam seipsum intelligit’; Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀅󰀆 art. 󰀁: ‘Angelus autem, cum sit immaterialis, est quaedam forma subsistens, et per hoc intelligibilis actu. Unde sequitur quod per suam formam, quae est sua substantia, seipsum intelligat’. 󰀇. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologia 󰀁 q. 󰀈󰀇 a. 󰀁 corp.: ‘etsi enim per essentiam suam se intelligat angelus, tamen non omnia potest per essentiam suam cognoscere, sed cognoscit alia a se per eorum similitudines. – Intellectus autem humanus se habet in genere rerum intelligibilium ut ens in potentia tantum’. 󰀈. See Matth. 󰀁󰀇:󰀁–󰀂: ‘(󰀁) Et post dies sex assumit Iesus Petrum, et Iacobum, et Ioannem fratrem eius, et ducit illos in montem excelsum seorsum: (󰀂) et transfiguratus est ante eos’. 󰀉. J. Quint ad loc. translates ‘widerslagen’ with ‘eingeprägt’ (‘impressed’). 󰀁󰀀. See Gen. 󰀁:󰀂󰀆–󰀇: ‘(󰀂󰀆) et ait: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem, et similitudinem nostram … (󰀂󰀇) Et creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam’. 󰀁󰀁. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀃 a. l ad 󰀂: ‘Ad secundum dicendum quod homo dicitur esse ad imaginem dei, non secundum corpus, sed secundum id quod homo excellit alia animalia’; ibid. I q. 󰀈󰀈 a. 󰀃 ad 󰀃: ‘Ad tertium dicendum quod, si anima nostra esset perfecta imago dei, sicut filius est perfecta imago patris, statim mens nostra intelligeret deum. Est autem imago imperfecta. Unde ratio non sequitur’.

󰀅󰀆󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

einem. Der munt nimet den smak, dar zuo enkan daz ouge niht getuon; daz ouge nimet die varwe, (󰀂󰀄󰀆) | dâ enweiz der munt niht umbe. Daz ouge wil lieht haben; dannoch ist der smak wol in der naht. Diu sêle enweiz niht wan umbe éin, si ist obe bilde. Der wîssage sprichet: ‘got wil vüeren sîniu schâf an eine grüene weide’. Daz schâf ist einvaltic: alsô sint die liute einvaltic, die in ein gevalten sint. Ein meister sprichet, (󰀂󰀄󰀇) | daz man des himels louf an nihte enmüge als wol erkennen als an einvaltigen tieren, diu enpfâhent einvalticlîche des himels învluz, und diu kint, diu enhânt niht eigens sinnes. Aber die liute, die dâ wîse sint und vil sinne hânt, die werdent allez ûzgetragen in manicvaltigen dingen. Daz gelobete unser herre, daz ‘er sîniu schâf laben wölte ûf dem berge an einem grüenen grase’. Alle crêatûren grüenent in gote. Alle crêatûren vallent ze dem êrsten ûz gote, dar nâch durch die engel. Waz kéiner crêatûre natûre enhât, daz hât îndruk áller crêatûren in im selben. Der engel hât in sîner natûre îndruk aller crêatûren. Waz des engels natûre enpfâhen mac, daz hât er allez alzemâle in im. (󰀂󰀄󰀈) | Waz got geschepfen mac, daz treget der engel in im, dar umbe daz sie niht beroubet ensint der volkomenheit, die ander crêatûren hânt. Wâ von hât daz der engel? Dâ ist er gote nâhe. (󰀂󰀄󰀉) | Sant Augustînus sprichet: waz got schepfet, daz hât einen durchvluz durch die engel. In der ‘hœhe’ dâ sint ‘grüene’ alliu dinc. In der ‘hœhe des berges’ dâ sint alliu dinc ‘grüene’ und niuwe; dâ sie vallent in zîtlicheit, dâ bleichent sie und valwent. In der niuwen ‘grüene’ aller crêatûren dâ wil unser herre ‘spîsen’ sîniu ‘schâf’. Alle crêatûren, die dâ

󰀁󰀂. Ez. 󰀃󰀄:󰀁󰀁–󰀅: ‘(󰀁󰀁) Ecce ego ipse requiram oves meas … (󰀁󰀂) et liberabo eas … (󰀁󰀃) Et educam eas de populis, et congregabo eas … et inducam eas in terram suam … (󰀁󰀄) In pascuis uberrimis pascam eas, et in montibus excelsis Israel erunt pascua earum: ibi requiescent in herbis virentibus, et in pascuis pinguibus pascentur super montes Israel. (󰀁󰀅) Ego pascam oves meas’. 󰀁󰀃. Unfortunately, Eckhart’s wordplay on ‘einvaltic … einvaltic, die in ein gevalten sint’ can not be imitated in English. On the background see Avicenna, De natura animalium VIII c. 󰀄 (f. 󰀃󰀈r): ‘Caprae et oves et arietes sunt stulti’. 󰀁󰀄. See Th. Aqu., Scriptum super Sententiis II d. 󰀂󰀀 q. 󰀂 a. 󰀂 ad 󰀅: ‘Ad quintum dicendum, quod alia animalia non prosequuntur conveniens et fugiunt nocivum per rationis deliberationem, sed per naturalem instinctum aestimativae virtutis: et talis naturalis instinctus est etiam in pueris; unde etiam mamillas accipiunt, et alia eis convenientia, etiam sine hoc quod ab aliis doceantur’; Albertus, De anima III tr. 󰀁 c. 󰀁 (Stroick 󰀇,󰀁, 󰀁󰀆󰀇,󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀉): ‘Et similiter fit, quod anima occupata

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀇* [Q 󰀇󰀂]

󰀅󰀆󰀉

far from being one. Taste and colour in an apple are one, and yet they are far from being one. The mouth learns the taste, but the eye can not add anything to it: the eye learns the colour, of which the mouth knows nothing. The eye longs for light, while the taste quite works in the darkness. The soul knows nothing except being one, she is beyond image. The wise man says: ‘God will lead his sheep to a green meadow’.󰀁󰀂 The sheep are simple: so simple are the people who are folded into one.󰀁󰀃 A master says󰀁󰀄 that the course of heaven can not be better known than from simple animals which receive in a simple way the influence of the heavens, and from the infants, who do not really understand it. But the people who are wise and who have lots of knowledge, are fully pushed out into multiple things. Our Lord promised that ‘He would refresh his sheep on the mountain in green grass’. All creatures blossom in God. All creatures fall first of all from God, and then through the angels. What has the nature of no creature has the impression of all the creatures in itself. The angel has in its nature the impression of all creatures. What the nature of the angel can receive, it has it always within it. What God can create, the angel carries in itself, and so they are not deprived of perfection that other creatures have. Where does the angel have it from? From the fact that it is close to God. Saint Augustine says:󰀁󰀅 what God creates, flows through the angels. All things are ‘green’ in the ‘high’ part. In the ‘high part of the mountain’ all things are ‘green’ and new; when they fall into temporality, they fade and wither. In the new ‘green’ of all creatures our Lord wants to ‘feed’ His ‘sheep’. All the creatures that are in the ‘green’ and

circa exteriora non advertit motus et impressiones caelestium, quae fiunt in suo corpore; abstracta ab his autem sentit talia et parat eis imagines, quia connaturale sibi est sub imaginibus corporalibus cognoscere, quidquid cognoscit, et in talibus impressionibus caelestium radicantur illa somnia quae aliquid significant de futuris. Qualiter autem impressiones tam motuum caelestium quam intelligentiarum, quae sunt motores, veniant ad animas animalium, in Prima Philosophia erit ostendendum’. 󰀁󰀅. See Augustinus, In Genesim ad litteram IV c. 󰀂󰀄 n. 󰀄󰀁 (PL 󰀃󰀄, 󰀃󰀁󰀃): ‘… in quibus [i.e. in the angels] prima omnium creata est sapientia; procul dubio universam creaturam, in qua ipsi sunt principaliter conditi, in ipso verbo dei prius noverunt, in quo sunt omnium, etiam quae temporaliter facta sunt, asternae rationes, tanquam in eo per quod facta sunt omnia: ac deinde in ipsa creatura, quam sic noverunt tanquam infra despicientes, eamque referentes ad illius laudem, in cuius incommutabili veritate rationes secundum quas facta est, principaliter vident’.

󰀅󰀇󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

sint in der ‘grüene’ und in der ‘hœhe’, als sie in den engeln sint, die werdent der sêle lustlîcher dan allez, daz in dirre werlt ist. Als unglîch diu sunne ist wider die naht, als unglîch ist diu minste crêatûre, als si dâ ist, wider aller der werlt. (󰀂󰀅󰀀) | Dar umbe: swer gotes lêre enpfâhen wil, der muoz komen ûf disen ‘berc’; dâ wil sie got volbringen in dem tage der êwicheit, dâ ein ganz lieht ist. Waz ich in gote bekenne, daz ist ein lieht; waz crêatûre rüeret, daz ist naht. Dâ ist ein wâr lieht, dâ ez crêatûre niht enrüeret. Swaz man bekennet, daz muoz lieht sîn. Sant Johannes sprichet: ‘got ist ein wâr lieht, daz dâ liuhtet in der vinsternisse’. Waz ist diu ‘vinsternisse’? Ze dem êrsten: daz der mensche niendert enhafte noch enhange und blint sî und niht enwizze von crêatûren. Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen: swer got sehen wil, der muoz blint sîn. Daz ander: ‘got ist ein lieht, daz dâ liuhtet in der vinsternisse’. Er ist ein (󰀂󰀅󰀁) | lieht, daz verblendet. Diz meinet ein sôgetân lieht, daz unbegriffen ist; ez ist unendelich, daz ist, daz ez kein ende enhât; ez enweiz umbe kein ende niht. Daz meinet, daz ez die sêle blendet, daz si niht enweiz und daz si niht enbekennet. Diu dritte ‘vinsternisse’ ist allerbeste und meinet, daz kein lieht enist. Ein meister sprichet: der himel enhât kein lieht, er ist ze hôch dar zuo; er enliuhtet niht, er enist noch kalt noch warm in im selber. Alsô verliuset diu sêle in der ‘vinsternisse’ allez lieht; si entwahset allem dem, daz hitze geheizen mac oder varwe. Ein meister sprichet: daz hœhste daz ist lieht, dâ got sîn antheiz geben wil. Ein meister sprichet: gesmak alles des, daz begirlich ist, daz muoz brâht werden in (󰀂󰀅󰀂) | die sêle mit dem liehte. Ein meister sprichet: ez enwart nie niht sô lûter, daz in der sêle grunt möhte komen wan got aleine. Er wil sprechen: ‘got liuhtet in einer vinsternisse’, dâ entwahset diu sêle allem liehte; si enpfæhet in irn kreften wol lieht

󰀁󰀆. Ioh. 󰀁:󰀉.󰀅: ‘(󰀉) Erat lux vera’; ‘(󰀅) et lux in tenebris lucet’. 󰀁󰀇. A reference to Hom. 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁], n. 󰀁󰀁. 󰀁󰀈. See Hom. 󰀆󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀁], n. 󰀄: DW refers to Albertus, De caelo II tr. 󰀃 c. 󰀁󰀄 (Hossfeld 󰀁󰀇󰀈,󰀅󰀅–󰀆), but Eckhart clearly refers to Thomas, Super II Sententiarum d. 󰀂 q. 󰀂 a. 󰀂 (Mandonnet 󰀇󰀂.󰀇󰀄): ‘videtur quod caelum empyreum non sit lucidum. Quia, secundum Avicennam, VI Natur., parte III, causa luciditatis est congregatio partium diaphani … Sed caelum empyreum est subtilissimum … dicendum quod illa ratio procedit de eo quod est hoc modo lucidum, quod radios emittit sensui nostro visibiles: propter quod etiam ignis in propria sphaera non lucet. Sic autem non dicimus lucidum caelum empyreum, sed quia in natura sua lucem habet, eo quod maxime formale est’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀇* [Q 󰀇󰀂]

󰀅󰀇󰀁

in the ‘high’ part, as they are in the angels, these become more pleasant to the soul than all that is in this world. As different as the sun is compared to the night, so different is the smallest creature, as it is there compared to the whole world. Therefore: whoever wants to receive the teaching of God must ascend to this ‘mountain’; there God will perfect it in the day of eternity, where there is full light. What I know in God is a light; what the creature touches, this is night. There is a real light, where it does not touch a creature. What one knows must be light. Saint John says: ‘God is a true light, which shines in the darkness’.󰀁󰀆 What is ‘darkness’? In the first place: that a person nowhere adheres or gets stuck, but is blind and knows nothing of creatures. I have already said it:󰀁󰀇 he who wants to see God must be blind. Secondly: ‘God is a light that shines in the darkness’. He is a light that blinds. This means a so-called light which is incomprehensible; it is infinite, that is, it has no end; it does not know of any end. This means that it blinds the soul so that she does not know anything and that she does not recognize anything. The third ‘darkness’ is the best one and it means that there is no light. A master says:󰀁󰀈 heaven has no light, it is too high for it; it does not shine, it is neither cold nor hot in itself. Thus the soul loses all light in the ‘darkness’; she outgrows everything that can be called heat or colour. A master says:󰀁󰀉 the supreme is light where God wants to give his promise. A master says:󰀂󰀀 The taste of all that is desirable must be brought into the soul with light. A master says:󰀂󰀁 Nothing was ever so pure that it could come into the ground of the soul, except God alone. He wants to say: ‘God shines into a darkness’, there the soul outgrows all light; she does receive in her powers light, sweetness and

󰀁󰀉. Source unidentified. 󰀂󰀀. Source unidentified. 󰀂󰀁. See (Pseudo-)Augustinus (Alcher of Clairvaux), De spiritu et anima c. 󰀂󰀇 (PL 󰀄󰀀, 󰀇󰀉󰀉): ‘Animam hominis, id est mentem, nulla creatura iuxta substantiam implere potest nisi sola trinitas … Solius enim trinitatis est intrare et implere naturam sive substantiam quam creavit’. See also Gennadius Massiliensis, De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus c. 󰀅󰀀 (PL 󰀄󰀂, 󰀁󰀂󰀂󰀁): ‘Illabi autem menti illi soli possibile est qui creavit’.

󰀅󰀇󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

und süezicheit und gnâde; aber in der sêle grunt enmac niht în wan blôz got. Dâ ûz gote brichet sun und heiliger geist, daz enpfæhet diu sêle wol in gote; waz aber anders ûz im vliuzet liehtes und süezicheit, daz enpfæhet si niht wan in irn kreften. (󰀂󰀅󰀃) | Die hœhsten meister sprechent, krefte der sêle und si sîn al ein. Viur und schîn ist ein, aber, swâ ez in vernunft vellet, dâ vellet ez in ein ander natûre. Wâ vernünfticheit ûzbrichet ûz der sêle, dâ vellet si als in ein ander natûre. Ze dem dritten mâle: daz ist ein lieht über liehte; dâ entwahset diu sêle allem liehte ‘ûf dem berge der hœhe’, dâ kein lieht enist. Dâ got ûzbrichet in sînen sun, dâ enbehanget diu sêle niht. Wâ got ûzvliuzet, nimet man got iendert, dâ enbehanget diu sêle niht: ez ist al dar obe; si entwahset allem liehte und bekantnisse. Dar umbe sprichet er: ‘ich wil sie lœsen und samenen (󰀂󰀅󰀃) | und vüeren in ir lant, und dâ wil ich sie vüeren in eine grüene weide’. ‘Ûf dem berge dâ tete er ûf sînen eigenen munt’. Ein lêrære sprichet: unser herre tuot wol hie sînen munt ûf; er lêret uns durch die geschrift und durch die crêatûren. Sant Paulus sprichet aber: ‘nû hât uns got zuogesprochen in sînem eingebornen sune; in dem sol ich bekennen von dem minsten ze dem meisten alzemâle in gote’. Daz wir entwahsen allem dem, daz got niht enist, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

󰀂󰀂. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae III q. 󰀉󰀀 a. 󰀃 corp.: ‘Quia singulis partibus potentialibus adest totum secundum totam essentiam: sicut tota essentia animae adest cuilibet eius potentiis’; Albertus, De anima III tr. 󰀁 c. 󰀂 (Stroick 󰀇,󰀁, 󰀁󰀆󰀇,󰀁󰀂–󰀇): ‘… quia anima propter unionem suarum potentiarum in sua substantia talem habet colligationem virium suarum, quod quando intenditur operatio eius secundum unam quamcumque potentiam, tunc abstrahitur ab intentione circa aliam’; id., De caelo II tr. 󰀃 c. 󰀁–󰀂.󰀁󰀄–󰀅 (Stroick 󰀅,󰀁, 󰀁󰀇󰀈,󰀅󰀅–󰀆): ‘Et ideo dico, quod caelum primum est universale in lumine movente ad esse. Et caelum secundum habet lumen distinctum, sed non figuratum ad expressas figuras’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀇* [Q 󰀇󰀂]

󰀅󰀇󰀃

grace; but into the ground of the soul nothing can enter except only God. Wherever the Son and the Holy Spirit emenate from God, the soul receives as well in God; but what otherwise emanates from Him, such as light and sweetness, she receives only in her powers. The most learned masters say about the powers of the soul that they are completely one.󰀂󰀂 Fire and brightness are one, but where it falls into the intellect, it falls into another nature. Where the intellect breaks out of the soul, it falls as into another nature. Thirdly: it is a light beyond light; there the soul outgrows all the light ‘on the mountain of the high’, where there is no light. Where God emanates into His Son, there the soul does not get stuck. If one takes God somewhere where God emanates, the soul does not get stuck: she is entirely up there; she outgrows all light and knowledge. Therefore He says: ‘I will redeem, gather and lead them into their land, and there I will lead them into a green pasture’.󰀂󰀃 ‘Upon the mountain he opened his mouth’.󰀂󰀄 A teacher says:󰀂󰀅 Our Lord indeed opens His mouth here; He teaches us through writing and through creatures. But Saint Paul says: ‘Now God has spoken to us in His only-begotten Son; in Him I am to know from the smallest to the greatest completely in God’.󰀂󰀆 That we may outgrow all that is not God, may God help us! Amen.

󰀂󰀃. Ez. 󰀃󰀄:󰀁󰀂: ‘liberabo eas’; 󰀁󰀃: ‘et congregabo eas … et inducam eas in terram suam’; 󰀁󰀄: ‘ibi requiescent in herbis virentibus’. 󰀂󰀄. Matth. 󰀅:󰀁-󰀂: ‘(󰀁) … in montem … (󰀂) aperiens os suum’. 󰀂󰀅. Source unidentified. 󰀂󰀆. Hebr. 󰀁:󰀂: ‘novissime, diebus istis locutus est nobis in Filio’; Hebr. 󰀈:󰀁󰀁: ‘omnes scient me a minore usque ad maiorem eorum’.

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀈* [Q 󰀅󰀂] In festo omni sanctorum, die 󰀁 novembris ‘Beati pauperes spiritu, quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum’ (Matth. 󰀅:󰀃) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Matth. 󰀅:󰀃 (‘Beati pauperes spiritu, quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum’) is a further reading from the Sermon on the Mount, hence the close relation between this homily and the previous two. As Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀇* [Q 󰀇󰀂], so this is also linked to All Saints’ Day by BT (‘Vff aller heiligen Tag’, BT). The critical edition of the text in DW and LE is based on twelve manuscripts (B󰀆, B󰀁󰀄, Br󰀈, Bra󰀃, Eb, Ga, Gö󰀁, Ko, M󰀈, Mai󰀁, Str󰀃, Wü󰀁), the print in BT and a number of fragments. The homily was widely available and also known to John of Ruusbroec (󰀁󰀂󰀉󰀃-󰀁󰀃󰀈󰀁), Jan van Leeuwen (d. 󰀁󰀃󰀇󰀈), Pelgrim Pullen (󰀁󰀅󰀅󰀀-󰀁󰀆󰀀󰀈), Valentin Weigel (󰀁󰀅󰀃󰀃-󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀈) and others. The content of the homily One can hardly imagine what would have happened to Eckhart, if the inquisition had got hold of this homily. It is one of the most daring ones – even acknowledged by Eckhart himself in the text, when he repeatedly states that he wants to push beyond the opinion of other masters and even of what he himself had said earlier. In all his radicality, he wants to exhaust what poverty can and should stand for. And he takes ‘the mouth of wisdom’ as the one divine groundless wisdom of God that moves him as preacher to his extreme views. After having given the core verse of Matth. 󰀅:󰀃 in Latin (n. 󰀁), pointing out that ‘the mouth of wisdom’ speaks, Eckhart renders the verse

󰀅󰀇󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

in his vernacular translation (n. 󰀂). The divine voice urges that ‘all the angels and all the saints and all that was ever born must be silent’, a request to which Eckhart later comes back in n. 󰀅. First, Eckhart differentiates between two forms of poverty, an external and an internal one (n. 󰀃). The first ‘is much to be praised’, but of no great interest to the preacher, even though he admits that ‘our Lord Jesus Christ … Himself had it on earth’ (n. 󰀄). As little as Eckhart elsewhere is interested in the historical and earthly Jesus, so here he concentrates in what follows on the latter of the two poverties. That Matthew speaks of ‘the poor in spirit’ Eckhart reads as supporting his interpretation of poverty as an inner notion. But before he starts with his interpretation, he asks his audience ‘to be this way’, to be silent as the angels and all the saints as everybody has to be in listening to this divine, inner wisdom (n. 󰀅). The main body of the homily starts with reference to a question that Eckhart had been asked, namely ‘what poverty is in itself and what a poor person is’ (n. 󰀆). In his answer, Eckhart starts with reference to ‘Bishop Albert’ whom he praises for his view, but whom he also wants to excel, by outlining the three elements which characterise a poor person: it is somebody ‘who wants nothing and knows nothing and has nothing’ (n. 󰀇). These three notions will also structure the homily. As can be seen below, Eckhart’s emphasis is clearly on the third notion of not having anything, followed by the first one on not wanting anything. 󰀁) ‘Somebody who wants nothing’ (nn. 󰀈–󰀁󰀁). People who do penitence and other outward rituals with ‘self-intent’ are only externally saints. Trying to fulfil God’s will is no guarantee, as this intention, linked to the idea of getting a reward from God, ruins the attempt. One wonders whether Eckhart in this passage borders on cynicism, when he claims that ‘we want to praise’ these people, adding that ‘God shall give them the kingdom of heaven’, but only ‘for his mercy’ (n. 󰀈). He continues and calls these people (twice) ‘asses’, because of their ‘ignorance of the truth’. This external wanting-nothing, he then contrasts with a true longing for nothing. This true longing is a standing ‘free’ from one’s ‘created will’ (n. 󰀉). To this he adds a section where he reflects about his pre-created status, when he ‘stood’ in his ‘first cause’ and was ‘free from God and all things’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). Creatures in God do not need any goal that perfects them, as they have all the ‘wealth’ they need, be it even a fly (n. 󰀁󰀁).

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀈* [Q 󰀅󰀂]

󰀅󰀇󰀇

󰀂) Somebody ‘who knows nothing’ (nn. 󰀁󰀂–󰀃). In this passage Eckhart corrects his own earlier view (which, unfortunately, we cannot locate yet) and states: radical non-knowing means that the person ‘must have got rid of all knowledge, so that he does not know, grasp or feel that God lives in him; even more: he must have got rid of all the knowledge about what lives in him’ (n. 󰀁󰀂). This has implications on the question, whether ultimate bliss consists in loving or knowing. Eckhart’s answer is that neither of the two give us bliss, but that bliss derives from the ‘one thing in the soul’ which ‘does not know itself nor does it love like the powers of the soul’ (n. 󰀁󰀃). 󰀃) Somebody ‘who has nothing’ (nn. 󰀁󰀄–󰀉). The key element of not having anything is that one does not even have a place for God to act. The really poor person is the one where God and this person is one, without and beyond any distinction. The one who not only got rid of all things, but also of God Himself, this is the one who has broken through to God, a more noble move than the original emanation from God. At the end of this homily, Eckhart comforts those who do not understand his speech which he regards as a speech of ‘uncovered truth, which came from the heart of God without a medium’ (n. 󰀂󰀀), leading to the final prayer ‘that we may live like this, to experience’ such poverty ‘eternally’ (n. 󰀂󰀁). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀈󰀇,󰀂󰀈󰀀–󰀄; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀇󰀅󰀃–󰀉󰀂; J. Quint, DW II 󰀄󰀇󰀈–󰀅󰀀󰀆; N. Largier I 󰀅󰀅󰀀–󰀆󰀃. 󰀁󰀀󰀅󰀀–󰀆󰀀; K. Flasch, Predigt 󰀅󰀂: ‘Beati pauperes spiritu’, in: Lectura Eckhardi (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈), 󰀁󰀆󰀄–󰀈󰀁 (with new critical edition which is being followed here). Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀂󰀁󰀇–󰀂󰀁; Meister Eckhart: A modern Translation, by R.B. Blakney (󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀁), 󰀂󰀂󰀇–󰀃󰀂; R. Schürmann, Meister Eckhart (󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀈), 󰀂󰀁󰀄–󰀂󰀀; M. Fox, Breakthrough (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀), 󰀂󰀁󰀃–󰀈; Meister Eckhart, The Essential Sermons (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁), 󰀁󰀉󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀃; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀄󰀂󰀀–󰀆; Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings, ed. and trans. O. Davies (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀂󰀀󰀂–󰀉.

󰀅󰀇󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀄󰀈󰀆) ‘Beati pauperes spiritu, quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum’. Diu sælicheit tete ûf den munt der wîsheit und sprach: ‘sælic sint die armen des geistes, wan daz himelrîche ist ir’. Alle engel und alle heiligen und allez, daz ie geborn wart, daz muoz swîgen, wan diu wîsheit des vaters sprichet; wan alliu wîsheit der engel und aller crêatûren, daz ist ein lûter tôrheit vor der gruntlôsen wîsheit gotes. Disiu hât gesprochen, daz die armen sælic sîn. Nû ist zweier hande armuot: ein ûzwendigiu armuot, und diu ist guot und ist sêre (󰀄󰀈󰀇) | ze prîsenne in dem menschen, der ez mit willen tuot umbe die minne unsers herren Jêsû Kristî, wan er ez selbe hât gehabet ûf ertrîche. Von dirre armuot enwil ich nû niht mê sprechen. Mêr: ez ist ein ander armuot, ein inwendigiu armuot, von der ist daz wort unsers herren zu verstânne, wan er sprichet: ‘sælic sint die armen des geistes’. Nû bite ich iuch, daz ir alsô sît, daz ir verstât dise rede; wan ich sage iu bî der êwigen wârheit: ir ensît glîch der wârheit, von der wir nû sprechen wellen, sô ensult ir mich nicht verstân. (󰀄󰀈󰀈) | Ir hât mich gevrâget, waz armuot sî in im selben und waz ein arm mensche sî. Her zuo wil ich antwürten. Bischof Albreht sprichet, daz daz sî ein arm mensche, der enkein genüegede hât von allen den dingen, diu got ie geschuof, – und diz ist wol gesprochen. Mêr: wir sprechen noch baz und nemen armuot in einer hœhern wîse: daz ist ein arm mensche, der niht enwil und niht enweiz und niht enhât. Von disen drin punkten wil ich nû sprechen. Und ich bite iuch umbe die minne gotes, daz ir verstât dise wârheit, ob ir künnet; und enverstât ir sie niht, sô enbekümbert iuch dâ mite niht, wan ich wil sprechen (󰀄󰀈󰀉) | von sô getâner wârheit, die lützel guoter liute verstân suln.

󰀁. Matth. 󰀅:󰀃 (‘Beati pauperes spiritu, quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum’). The context is Matth. 󰀅:󰀁–󰀁󰀂 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀃vb (for the text see the note of the previous homily). 󰀂. J. Quint ad loc. understands this ‘alsô’ as ‘so poor’, but Eckhart rather recalls the people to be so silent in face of the word of wisdom (see n. 󰀃).

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀈* [Q 󰀅󰀂]

󰀅󰀇󰀉

‘Beati pauperes spiritu, quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum’. Beatitude opened the mouth of wisdom and said: ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven is theirs’.󰀁 All the angels and all the saints and all that was ever born must be silent, because the wisdom of the Father speaks; for all the wisdom of angels and all creatures is pure nonsense in the face of God’s groundless wisdom. This has spoken that the poor are blessed. Now, poverty is twofold: there is an external poverty, and it is good and it is much to be praised in the person who voluntarily follows it for the love of our Lord Jesus Christ, because He Himself had it on earth. I do not want to talk about this poverty any more now. Rather: there is a second poverty, an inner poverty, about which we must understand the sentence of our Lord, when He says: ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit’. Now I beg you to be this way󰀂 to understand this speech; because I tell you in the eternal truth: if you are not like the truth, of which we will now speak, you will not understand me. You asked me what poverty is in itself and what a poor person is. To this I want to answer. Bishop Albert says󰀃 that a poor person is somebody who has no satisfaction from anything that God ever created – and this is well said. But we say it even better and take poverty in a higher sense: that is a poor person who wants nothing and knows nothing and has nothing. I want to talk about these three points now. And I pray you for the love of God that you understand this truth, if you can; and if you do not understand it, do not worry about this, because I want to talk about a truth such that few good people will understand it.

󰀃. See Albertus, En. in Matthaeum 󰀅, 󰀃 (Borgnet 󰀂󰀀,󰀁󰀄󰀉B.󰀁󰀅󰀀A.󰀁󰀅󰀁A): ‘“Pauperes”. Hoc est, qui ex omnibus, quae mundus iste in divitiis, honoribus et deliciis praebere potest, reputant esse se insufficientes ad deum … se insufficientes reputantes … beatitudo ista, quae consistit in abdicatione omnium rerum, sive sint interiora sive exteriora, ex quibus aliquis vane se putat sufficere sibi’.

󰀅󰀈󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Ze dem êrsten sprechen wir, daz daz ist ein arm mensche, der niht enwil. Disen sin enverstânt sumlîche liute niht wol; daz sint die liute, die sich behaltent mit eigenschaft in penitencie und in ûzwendiger üebunge, daz die liute vür grôz ahtent. Daz erbarme got, daz die liute alsô kleine bekennent der götlîchen wârheit! Dise menschen heizent heilic von den ûzwendigen bilden; mêr: von innen sint sie esel, wan sie enverstânt niht den (󰀄󰀉󰀀) | underscheit götlîcher wârheit. Dise menschen sprechent, daz sî ein arm mensche, der niht enwil. Daz bewîsent sie alsô: daz der mensche alsô sül leben, daz er sînen willen niemermê ervülle an deheinen dingen, mêr: daz er alzoges dar nâch stân sol, wie er ervülle den liebsten willen gotes. Diese menschen sint wol dar ane, wan ir meinunge ist guot. Her umbe wellen wir sie loben. Got sol in geben himelrîche von sîner barmherzicheit. Mêr: ich spriche bî der götlîchen wârheit, daz dise menschen niht ensint arme menschen noch armen menschen glîch. Sie sint grôz geahtet in der liute ougen, die niht bezzers enwizzen. Mêr: ich spriche, daz sie sint esel in unbekantnisse der wârheit. (󰀄󰀉󰀁) | Mit ir guoter meinunge suln sie haben himelrîche; mêr: von dirre armuote, von der wir sprechen wellen, dâ enwizzen sie nihtes von. Der mich nû vrâgete, waz ein arm mensche wære, der niht enwil, dar zuo antwürte ich und spriche: alsô lange als der mensche daz hât, daz daz sîn wille ist, daz er wil ervüllen den liebesten willen gotes, der mensche enhât niht armuot, dâ von wir sprechen wellen; wan dirre mensche hât einen willen, dâ mite er genuoc wil sîn dem willen gotes, und daz enist niht rehtiu armuot. Wan, sol der mensche armuot haben gewærlîche, sô sol er sînes geschaffenen willen alsô ledic stân, als er tete, dô er niht enwas. Wan ich sage iu bî der êwigen wârheit: als lange als ir willen hât, ze ervüllenne (󰀄󰀉󰀂) | den willen gotes, und begerunge hât der êwicheit und gotes, als lange ensît ir niht arm; wan daz ist ein arm mensche, der niht enwil und niht enbegert. Dô ich stuont in mîner êrsten sache, dô enhâte ich keinen got, und dô was ich sache mîn selbes; do enwolte ich niht, noch enbegerte ich niht, wan ich was ein ledic sîn und ein bekenner mîn selbes nâch gebrûchlîcher wârheit. Dô wolte ich mich selben und enwolte kein ander dinc; daz ich wolte, daz was ich, und daz ich was, daz wolte ich, und hie stuont ich ledic gotes und aller dinge. Mêr: dô ich ûzgienc von mînem vrîen willen und ich enpfienc mîn geschaffen wesen, dô hâte ich

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀈* [Q 󰀅󰀂]

󰀅󰀈󰀁

First we say that a poor person is somebody who wants nothing. Some people do not correctly understand this idea; it is the people who cling with attachment to penitence and to outward rituals, things these people consider to be great. May God have mercy on these people as they know so little of divine truth! These people are called saints for their outward formation; but internally they are asses, because they do not understand the difference in divine truth. These people say that a poor person is somebody who wants nothing. This they demonstrate by stating that a person must live so that he never fulfils his will in anything, indeed: that he must truly strive to fulfil God’s most beloved will. These people are on the right path, because their intention is good. Therefore, we want to praise them. May God give them the kingdom of heaven in His mercy. Yet, I say for the divine truth, that these people are neither poor people nor similar to poor people. They are considered great in the eyes of people who do not know any better. In contrast, I say that they are asses in ignorance of the truth. With their good intention they shall have the kingdom of heaven; but, indeed, of the poverty of which we want to speak they know nothing. To those who now ask me, what a poor person is who wants nothing, I respond and say: as long as a person holds to his will to do the most beloved will of God, this person does not have the poverty of which we want to speak; because this person has a will with which he wants to satisfy the will of God, and this is not true poverty. For if a person shall truly have poverty, he must stand free from his created will as he did when he was not. Because I tell you by the eternal truth: as long as you have the will to fulfil God’s will, and you desire eternity and God, you are not poor; because that is a poor person who wants nothing and desires nothing. When I stood in my first cause, I had no God, and then I was the cause of myself; then I wanted nothing and desired nothing, because I was a free being and a knower of myself in an enjoyment of the truth. Then I wanted myself and I did not want anything else; what I wanted I was, and what I was I wanted and here I stood free from God and all things. However: when I went out of my free will and received my created being, then I had a God; because before the

󰀅󰀈󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

einen got; wan ê die crêatûren wâren, dô enwas got niht got, mêr: er was, daz er was. Dô die crêatûren gewurden und (󰀄󰀉󰀃) | sie enpfiengen ir geschaffen wesen, dô enwas got niht got in im selben, mêr: er was got in den crêatûren. Nû sprechen wir, daz got nâch dem, daz er got ist, sô enist er niht ein volmachet ende der crêatûre; alsô grôze rîcheit hât diu minste crêatûre in gote. Und wære daz sache, daz ein vliege vernunft hæte und möhte vernünfticlîche suochen den êwigen abgrunt götlîches wesens, ûz dem si komen ist, sô spræchen wir, daz got mit allem dem, daz er got ist, sô enmöhte er niht ervüllen noch genuoc tuon der vliegen. Her umbe sô biten wir got, daz wir gotes quît werden und daz wir nemen die wârheit und gebrûchen der êwicheit, dâ die obersten engel und diu vliege und diu sêle glîch sint in (󰀄󰀉󰀄) | dem, daz ich stuont und wolte, daz ich was, und was, daz ich wolte. Alsô sprechen wir: sol der mensche arm sîn von willen, sô muoz er als lützel wellen und begern, als er wolte und begerte, dô er niht enwas. Und in dirre wîse ist der mensche arm, der niht enwil. Ze dem andern mâle ist daz ein arm mensche, der niht enweiz. Etwenne hân wir gesprochen, daz der mensche alsô sölte leben, daz er niht enlebete noch im selben noch der wârheit noch gote. Mêr: nû sprechen wir anders und wellen mê sprechen, daz der mensche, der diz armüete haben sol, der sol alsô leben, daz er niht enweiz, daz er niht enlebe in keiner wîse weder im selben noch der wârheit noch gote; mêr: er sol alsô quît sîn alles wizzennes, daz er niht enwizze noch enbekenne noch engevüele, daz got in im (󰀄󰀉󰀅) | lebe; mêr: er sol quît sîn alles des bekennennes, daz in im lebende ist. Wan, dô der mensche stuont in der êwigen art gotes, dô enlebete in im niht ein anderz; mêr: waz dâ lebete, daz was er selber. Alsô sprechen wir, daz der mensche alsô ledic sol stân sînes eigenen wizzenes, als er tete, dô er niht enwas, und lâze got würken, waz er welle, und stâ der mensche ledic. Allez, daz ie von gote gekam, daz ist gesast in ein lûter würken. Nû ist des menschen eigen werk minnen und bekennen. Nû ist ein vrâge, war ane sælicheit allermeist lige. Etlîche meister sprechent, daz si

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀈* [Q 󰀅󰀂]

󰀅󰀈󰀃

creatures were, God was not God, indeed: He was what He was. When creatures came to be and received their created being, then God was not God in Himself, but rather: He was God in creatures. Now we say that God, inasmuch as He is God, is not a finishing goal of the creature; such great wealth has the lowest creature in God. And if it were so that a fly had intellect and could search in an intellectual way the eternal abyss of the divine being, from which it came, we would say that God, inasmuch as He is God, would not fulfil or satisfy the fly. Therefore, we pray to God to be rid of God and to take the truth and enjoy eternity, where the supreme angel and the fly and the soul are alike, where I stood and wanted what I was and was what I wanted. So we say: if a person shall be poor of will, he must want and desire as little as he wanted and desired when he was not. And in this way the person is poor who wants nothing. Secondly, that is a poor person who knows nothing. We once said that a person should live in a way not to live either for himself or for the truth or for God.󰀄 But now we speak differently and want to say more: that the person who shall have this poverty must live so that he knows nothing of living neither for himself nor for the truth nor for God in any way; moreover, he must have got rid of all knowledge, so that he does not know, grasp or feel that God lives in him; even more: he must have got rid of all the knowledge about what lives in him. For when a person stood in the eternal way of God, then nothing else lived in him; indeed, what lived there was he himself. Thus, we say that a person shall stand free of his knowledge just as he did when he was not, and let God work what He wants, and the person stands freed. Everything that ever came from God is based on pure action. Now, man’s own action is to love and to know. Now, the question arises, in what does beatitude consist most. Some masters say󰀅 that

󰀄. Unidentified reference. 󰀅. See Hom. 󰀈󰀆* [Q 󰀉], n. 󰀁󰀄; Eckhart, In Ioh. n. 󰀆󰀇󰀃 (LW III 󰀅󰀈󰀇,󰀄–󰀆): ‘Beatitudo utrum consistat in actu intellectus vel voluntatis antiqua quaestio est. Videtur autem ex praemissis verbis quod consistat in cognitione et intellectu substantialiter’.

󰀅󰀈󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

(󰀄󰀉󰀆) | lige an minnene; ander sprechent si lige an bekennenne und an minnenne, und die sprechent baz. Mêr: wir sprechen, daz si niht enlige an bekennenne noch an minnenne; mêr: ein ist in der sêle, von dem vliuzet bekennen und minnen; daz enbekennet selber niht noch enminnet niht alsô als die krefte der sêle. Der diz bekennet, der bekennet, war ane sælicheit lige. Diz enhât noch vor noch nâch, und ez enist niht wartende keines zuokomenden dinges, wan ez enmac noch gewinnen noch verliesen. Her umbe sô ist ez beroubet, daz ez niht enweiz got in im ze würkenne; mêr: ez ist selbe daz (󰀄󰀉󰀇) | selbe, daz sîn selbes gebrûchet nâch der wîse gotes. Alsô sprechen wir, daz der mensche sol quît und ledic stân, daz er niht enwizze noch enbekenne, daz got in im würke: alsô mac der mensche armuot besitzen. Die meister sprechent, got der sî ein wesen und ein vernünftic wesen und bekenne alliu dinc. Aber ich spriche: got enist niht wesen noch vernünftic wesen noch enbekennet noch diz noch daz. Her umbe ist got ledic aller dinge, und her umbe ist er alliu dinc. Der nû arm sol sîn des geistes, der muoz arm sîn alles sînes eigenen wizzennes, daz er niht enwizze dehein dinc, noch got noch crêatûre noch sich (󰀄󰀉󰀈) | selben. Her umbe sô ist ez nôt, daz der mensche sich dâr zuo bereite, daz er niht enmüge wizzen noch bekennen diu werk gotes. In dirre wîse sô mac der mensche arm sîn sînes eigenen wizzennes. Ze dem dritten mâle ist daz ein arm mensche, der niht enhât. Vil menschen hânt gesprochen, daz daz sî volmahtheit, die der lîplîchen dinge von ertrîche niht enhât, und diz ist wol wâr in einem sinne: der ez mit willen tuot. Aber diz enist niht der sin, den ich meine. (󰀄󰀉󰀉) | Ich hân vor gesprochen, daz daz sî ein arm mensche, der niht enwil ervüllen den willen gotes, mêr: daz der mensche alsô lebe, daz er alsô ledic sî beidiu sînes eigenen willen und des willen gotes, als er was, dô er niht enwas. Von dirre armuote sprechen wir, daz ez sî diu hœhste armuot. Ze dem andern mâle hân wir gesprochen, daz daz sî ein arm mensche, der niht enweiz in im diu werk gotes. Der sô ledic stât ze wizzenne und ze bekennenne, als got ledic stât aller dinge, daz ist diu klârste armuot. Aber daz dritte ist diu næhste armuot, dâ von wir nû wellen sprechen: daz ist, daz der mensche niht enhât.

󰀆. See Aristoteles, Metaphysica XII c. 󰀉 (󰀁󰀀󰀇󰀄b󰀃󰀃–󰀅).

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀈* [Q 󰀅󰀂]

󰀅󰀈󰀅

it consists in loving; others say it consists in knowing and loving, and they speak better. We, however, say that it consists neither in knowing nor in loving; rather, there is one thing in the soul from which both emanate, knowing and loving; this does not itself know nor does it love as do the powers of the soul. He who knows this, knows what bliss consists in. This has neither a before nor after, and is not waiting for anything to be added, because it can neither gain nor lose. Therefore it is devoid of knowing that God is acting in it; moreover, it is itself the one which enjoys itself according to the manner of God. Thus, we say that the person should get rid and stay free, so that he does neither know nor grasp that God acts in him: in this way the person can possess poverty. The masters say󰀆 that God is a being, an intellectual being, and that He knows all things. But I say: God is neither being nor an intellectual being nor does He know this or that. Therefore, God is free from all things, and, therefore, He is all things. Whoever now shall be poor in spirit, must be poor in all his own knowledge, so that he knows nothing at all, neither God nor creature nor himself. Therefore it is necessary for the person to prepare himself for not being able to know or to grasp the actions of God. In this way the person may be poor in his own knowledge. Thirdly, this is a poor person who has nothing. Many people have said that perfection would be to have nothing of the bodily things of the earth, and this is quite true in the sense of one who does it voluntarily. But this is not the point that I mean. I have previously said󰀇 that this a poor person who does not want to fulfil God’s will, rather: that this person lives in a way to be so free both from his own will and from the will of God, as he was when he was not. We speak of this poverty that it is the utmost poverty. Secondly, we said that this is a poor person who does not know God’s action in him. He who stays so free from knowing and understanding, as God stands free of all things, is the purest poverty. But the third is extreme poverty, of which we now want to speak: that is, that man has nothing.

󰀇. Reference to the previous part, n. 󰀉.

󰀅󰀈󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Nû merket hie mit ernste! Ich hân solhe stunde gesprochen und sprichet (󰀅󰀀󰀀) | ez ouch ein grôz meister, daz der mensche solde sîn alsô ledic aller dinge und aller werke, beidiu innerlîche und ûzerlîche, alsô daz er möhte sîn ein eigen stat gotes, dar gote inne möhte würken. Nû sagen wir anders. Ist daz sache, daz der mensche aller crêatûren und gotes und sîn selbes ledic stât, und ist noch alsô in im, daz got stat vinde in im ze würkenne, sô sprechen wir: als lange daz ist in dem menschen, sô enist der mensche niht arm in dem næhsten armuot. Wan got enist daz niht meinende in sînen werken, daz der mensche habe eine stat in im, dar got inne müge gewürken; wan daz ist armuot des geistes, daz er alsô ledic stâ gotes und aller sîner werke, welle got wirken in (󰀅󰀀󰀁) | der sêle, daz er selbe sî diu stat, dar inne er würken wil, – und daz tuot er gerne. Wan, vindet er den menschen alsô arm, sô ist got sîn selbes werk lîdende, und got ist ein eigen stat sîner werke mit dem, daz got ist ein würker in im selben. Alhie, in dirre armuot sô ervolget der mensche daz êwic wesen, daz er ist gewesen und daz er nû ist und daz er iemer blîben sol. Es ist ein vrâge. Sant Paulus sprichet: ‘allez, daz ich bin, daz bin ich von der gnâde gotes’. Nû schînet disiu rede obe gnâde und obe wesene und obe verstantnisse und obe willen und ob aller begirde – wie mac denne sant Pauli wort wâr sîn? Hie zuo (󰀅󰀀󰀂) | antwürtet man alsô, daz sant Pauli wort wâr sîn: daz diu gnâde gotes in im was, des was nôt; wan diu gnâde gotes diu worhte in im, daz diu zuovellicheit verkreic daz wesen. Dô diu gnâde endete und ir werk volbrâhte, dô bleip Paulus, daz er was. Alsô sprechen wir, daz der mensche alsô arm sül stân, daz er niht ensî noch enhabe deheine stat, dar got inne müge würken. Dâ der mensche stat beheltet, dâ beheltet er underscheit. Her umbe sô bite ich got, daz er mich quît mache gotes, wan mîn wesenlich wesen ist obe gote, alsô als wir got nemen begin der crêatûren; wan in dem wesene gotes, dâ got ist obe wesene und ob underscheide, dâ was ich selbe, und dâ wolte ich mich selben und bekante mich selben ze machenne disen

󰀈. Unidentified master.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀈* [Q 󰀅󰀂]

󰀅󰀈󰀇

Now seriously note! I have said at such time, and also a great master says󰀈 that man should be so free from all things and from all actions, both interior and exterior, so that he may be a proper place for God, in which God would like to act. Now we say it differently. If it is so that a person is free from all creatures and from God and from himself, but is still in him so that God finds in him place to act, then we say: as long as this exists in the person, the person is not poor in the extreme form of poverty. Because God has not the intention in his action that the person has a place in himself within which God can act; because poverty of the spirit is that he stands so free from God and from all his actions, that God, if He wants to act in the soul, be Himself the place within which He wants to act – and this He does with delight. Because if He finds the person so poor, then God is the one who endures His own action󰀉 and God is [His] own place of His actions because God is a worker in Himself. Here in this poverty the person thus achieves the eternal being, which he has been and which he now is and which he shall remain forever. A question arises. Saint Paul says: ‘All I am, I am by the grace of God’.󰀁󰀀 Now this speech seems to be beyond grace and beyond being and beyond will and beyond any desire – how can Saint Paul’s phrase be true? To this one responds that the sentence of Saint Paul is true: that the grace of God was in him, was necessary; because the grace of God acted in him so that the accidental achieved being. When grace ended and accomplished its action, Paul remained what he was. Thus we say that the person should be so poor as neither to be nor have any place within which God may want to act. Where the person keeps a place, there he retains distinction. Therefore, I pray to God to get me rid of God, because my essential being is beyond God, insofar as we take God as the principle of creatures; because in the being of God, where God is beyond being and beyond distinction, there I myself was and there I wanted myself and knew myself to create this 󰀉. J. Quint ad loc. translates in an interpretative way ‘sô ist got sîn selbes werk lîdende’ with ‘so wirkt Gott sein eigenes Werk und der Mensch erleidet Gott so in sich’ (‘so God performs his own action and thus the person endures God in himself’). 󰀁󰀀. I Cor. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀀: ‘gratia autem Dei sum id quod sum et gratia eius in me vacua non fuit sed abundantius illis omnibus laboravi non ego autem sed gratia Dei mecum’.

󰀅󰀈󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

menschen. Her umbe (󰀅󰀀󰀃) | sô bin ich mîn selbes sache nâch mînem wesene, daz êwic ist, und niht nâch mînem gewerdenne, daz zîtlich ist. Her umbe sô bin ich geborn, und nâch mîner gebornen wîse sô bin ich sterblich. Nâch mîner ungebornen wîse sô bin ich êwicliche gewesen und bin nû und sol êwiclîche blîben. Daz ich bin nâch gebornheit, daz sol sterben und ze nihte werden, wan ez ist zîtlich; her umbe sô muoz ez mit der zît verderben. In mîner geburt dâ wurden alliu dinc geborn, und ich was sache mîn selbes und aller dinge; (󰀅󰀀󰀄) | und hæte ich gewolt, ich enwære niht, noch alliu dinc enwæren niht; und enwære ich niht, sô enwære ouch got niht. Daz got got ist, des bin ich ein sache; enwære ich niht, sô enwære got niht got. Diz ze wizzene des enist niht nôt. Ein grôz meister sprichet, daz sîn durchbrechen edeler sî dan sîn ûzvliezen. Daz ist wâr. Dô ich ûz got vlôz, dô sprâchen alliu dinc: got der ist; und diz enmac mich niht sælic machen, wan alhie bejehe ich mich crêatûre. Mêr: in dem durchbrechen, dâ ich ledic stân mîns willen und des willen gotes und aller sîner werke und gotes selben, sô bin ich ob allen crêatûren und enbin noch got noch crêatûre, mêr: ich (󰀅󰀀󰀅) | bin, daz ich was und daz ich blîben sol nû und iemermê. Dâ enpfâhe ich einen îndruk, der mich bringet über alle engel. In disem îndrucke enpfâhe ich sôgetâne rîcheit, daz mir niht genuoc enmac gesîn got nâch allem dem, daz er ‘got’ ist, und nâch allen sînen götlîchen werken; wan ich enpfâhe in disem durchbrechen, daz got und ich ein sîn. Dâ bin ich, daz ich was, und dâ nime ich niht abe noch zuo, wan ich bin dâ ein unbewegelîchiu sache, diu alliu dinc beweget. Alhie envindet got keine stat in dem menschen, wan der mensche erkrieget mit dirre armuot, daz er ist gewesen und iemermê blîben sol. Alhie ist got ein in dem geiste, und daz ist diu næhste armuot, die man vinden mac. (󰀅󰀀󰀆) | Der diz niht enverstât, der enbekümber sîn herze niht dâ mite. Wan alsô lange der mensche niht glîch enist dirre wârheit, sô lange ensol er dise rede niht verstân; wan diz ist ein unbedahtiu wârheit, diu komen ist ûz dem herzen gotes sunder mittel. Daz wir alsô leben müezen, daz wir ez bevinden êwichlîche, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

󰀁󰀁. As so often, so also here, the meaning of ‘geborn’ ranges from ‘generated’ to ‘being born’. 󰀁󰀂. Source unidentified.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀈* [Q 󰀅󰀂]

󰀅󰀈󰀉

person. Therefore, I am the cause of myself according to being which is eternal, and not according to my becoming, which is temporal. Therefore, I am thus created, and according to me being born,󰀁󰀁 I am mortal. According to me being unborn I have eternally been and am now and I shall remain forever. What I am as being born must die and become nothing, because it is temporal; so it must decay with time. All things were born in my birth, and I was the cause of myself and of all things; and if I had wanted, neither I would be, nor would all things be; and if I were not, not even God would be. That God is God, I am a cause; if I were not, God would not be God. To know this is not necessary. A great master says󰀁󰀂 that his breaking through was more noble than his emanating. This is true. When I emanated from God, all things said: God, He is; and this can not make me blessed, because here I declare myself as a creature. Rather: in breaking through, where I stand free from my will and from the will of God and from all His acts and from God Himself, I am beyond all creatures and I am neither God nor creature, but rather: I am what I was and what I shall remain now and forever. There I receive an impression that carries me beyond all the angels. In this impression I receive such a richness that God can not be enough for me, insofar as He is God and with all his divine actions; because I receive in this breaking through that God and I are one. There I am what I was, and there I do not decrease nor grow, because there I am a motionless cause that moves all things.󰀁󰀃 Here God finds no place in the person, because the person reaches with this poverty what he has been and will forever remain. Here God is one in the spirit, and this is the most extreme poverty that one can find. Whoever does not understand this, should not be worried in his heart. Because, as long as somebody is not equal to this truth, he shall not understand this speech; because this is an uncovered truth, which came from the heart of God without medium. That we must live like this, to experience it eternally, may God help us! Amen.

󰀁󰀃. See Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae III m. 󰀉 (Moreschini, 󰀇󰀉,󰀃): ‘stabilisque manens das cuncta moveri’.

Homily 󰀁󰀀󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀆] Alia missa in communi unius confessoris ‘Euge serve bone et fidelis, quia super pauca fuisti fidelis, intra in gaudium domini tui’ (Matth. 󰀂󰀅:󰀂󰀁) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Matth. 󰀂󰀅:󰀂󰀁 (‘Euge serve bone et fidelis, quia super pauca fuisti fidelis, intra in gaudium domini tui’) is part of the Gospelreading of the second mass In communi unius confessoris (‘Vff Martini oder Nicolaifest’, BT), though the arguments by J. Theisen, Predigt und Gottesdienst (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀), 󰀂󰀇󰀆–󰀈 for the feast of Pope Marcellus (celebrated on 󰀁󰀆 January) are not convincing, hence, the homily is here placed into the Commune part. The critical edition of the text in DW is based on six manuscripts (Ba󰀃, Bra󰀃, E󰀂, M󰀂, Mai󰀁, Str󰀃), and the print in BT. The text is also present in the print HT. In n. 󰀄 we find a reference to Hom. 󰀃* [Q 󰀆󰀈], n. 󰀄. The content of the homily Although this is a homily on a confessor, it becomes quickly obvious that the ‘good, faithful, servant’ is anybody, as all are called to enter into the joy of our Lord. The preacher first gives an abbreviated version of the core verse Matth. 󰀂󰀅:󰀂󰀁 in Latin (n. 󰀁), and then he gives an extended translation in the vernacular (n. 󰀂). This extended version is the one on which Eckhart develops his homily, as he plays on the contrast between the servant who has been faithful ‘to the little’ and was, therefore, placed by God above ‘all’ His ‘goods’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀆]

󰀅󰀉󰀁

A) ‘Good’ (nn. 󰀃–󰀄). With reference to Marc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀁󰀇 Eckhart explains what is meant by the term ‘good’, namely God alone (n. 󰀃). Yet, any person who ‘denies himself for God and becomes united with God’ is more God than himself (n. 󰀄). Such-being God is even true for ‘a stone or wood’. B) ‘Little’ (nn. 󰀅–󰀉). ‘Little’ means anything created, including the servant himself and his created will – and all this the servant has left. As a result, he entered into the Lord’s joy and, Eckhart states, all his listeners should not be afraid, as ‘this joy is close’ to them (nn. 󰀆–󰀉). How close the joy is, Eckhart exemplifies with the simile of Ioh. 󰀄:󰀆–󰀂󰀉 and the story of the Samaritan woman with Jesus at the well (nn. 󰀇–󰀈). C) The Lord’s ‘goods’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). The Lord’s goods are only His, as they are ‘distributed and allocated to all things or to all creatures’. God does not hold anything to Himself. What is His belongs to His creatures. And what is His is what is being taught to the audience. D) ‘Go into the joy of your Lord; I will place you above all my goods’ (n. 󰀁󰀁). While God gives and distributes, the creature’s movement goes the opposite direction, away from what is divided and into the undivided and uncreated. E) ‘The joy of the Lord’ (n. 󰀁󰀂). This joy ‘is the Lord Himself’. The homily ends with a prayer ‘that we, too, may be “good” and “faithful”’ (n. 󰀁󰀃). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀅󰀈,󰀁󰀈󰀄–󰀈; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀅󰀄󰀇–󰀅󰀇; J. Quint, DW III 󰀁󰀀󰀄–󰀂󰀅; N. Largier II 󰀁󰀀–󰀂󰀁.󰀆󰀄󰀇–󰀅󰀁. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀁󰀄󰀆–󰀉; The Works of Meister Eckhart Doctor Ecstaticus, vol. II, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂), 󰀁󰀂󰀂–󰀆; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀃󰀀󰀀–󰀄.

󰀅󰀉󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀁󰀀󰀈) ‘Euge serve bone et fidelis, quia super pauca fuisti fidelis, intra in gaudium domini tui’. Wir lesen in dem êwangeliô, daz unser herre sprach: ‘eyâ, ganc în, guoter kneht getriuwer, in die vröude dînes herren; wan dû getriuwe bist gewesen über kleine, dar umbe wil ich dich setzen über allez mîn guot’. Eyâ, nû merket mit vlîze unsers herren wort, daz er gesprochen hât und sprach: ‘guoter kneht und getriuwer, ganc in die vröude dînes herren; wan dû getriuwe bist gewesen über kleine, dar umbe wil ich dich setzen über allez mîn guot’. Nû hât unser (󰀁󰀀󰀉) | herre gesprochen in einem andern êwangeliô ze einem jüngelinge, der im zuosprach und hiez in guot, ‘dô sprach unser herre: war umbe heizest dû mich guot? Ez enist nieman guot dan got aleine’, und daz ist ouch in der wârheit wâr. Allez, daz crêatûre ist, als verre als ez ûf im selber stât, sô enist ez niht guot. Nihtes niht enist guot wan got aleine. Hât denne got gesprochen wider sîn eigen wort? Nein er, nihtes niht! Nû merket dise rede! Als verre der mensche sîn selbes verlougent durch got und wirt vereinet mit gote, als verre ist er mê got dan crêatûre. Swenne der mensche sîn selbes zemâle ledic ist durch got und er niemans ist dan gotes aleine und durch niht enlebet dan durch got aleine, sô ist er wærlîche daz selbe von gnâden, daz got ist von natûre, und got enbekennet sîn selbes keinen underscheit zwischen im und disem menschen. (󰀁󰀁󰀀) | Ich hân aber gesprochen: von gnâden. Wan got der ist und dirre mensche ist, und alsô als got guot ist von natûre, alsô ist dirre mensche guot von gnâden, wan gotes leben und sîn wesen ist in disem menschen alzemâle. Her umbe hât er disen menschen guot

󰀁. Matth. 󰀂󰀅:󰀂󰀁. 󰀂. See Matth. 󰀂󰀅:󰀂󰀁. Liturgical context: Evangelistar., Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀄ra: ‘In communi unius confessoris [III] … Secundum Mattheum [󰀂󰀅, 󰀁󰀄–󰀂󰀃]. In illo tempore dixit Ihesus discipulis suis parabolam hanc. Homo quidam [Sicut enim homo Vg.] peregre proficiscens vocavit servos suos et tradit illis bona sua. Et uni dedit quinque talenta, alii autem duo, alii vero unum, unicuique secundum propriam virtutem, et profectus est statim. Abiit autem qui quinque talenta accepit, et operatus est in eis, et lucratus est alia quinque. Similiter qui duo acceperat, lucratus est alia duo. Qui autem unum acceperat, abiens fodit in terram et abscondit pecuniam domini sui. Post multum vero temporis venit dominus servorum illorum et posuit rationem cum eis. Et accedens qui quinque talenta

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀆]

󰀅󰀉󰀃

‘Euge serve bone et fidelis, quia super pauca fuisti fidelis, intra in gaudium domini tui’.󰀁 We read in the Gospel that our Lord said, ‘Ah, enter in, good, faithful, servant, into the joy of your Lord; because you have been faithful to the little, I will put you over all my goods’.󰀂 Well, now note with diligence the sentence that our Lord said, when He stated: ‘Good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your Lord, because you have been faithful to the little, I will put you over all my goods.’ Now, our Lord said in another gospel󰀃 to a young man who turned to him and called him ‘good’ – ‘then our Lord said: Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone’,󰀄 and this is also true in truth. Everything that is a creature, to the extent that it rests on itself, is not good. Nothing is good except God alone. So, did God speak against his own word? No, absolutely not! Now note these words! To the extent that a person denies himself for God and becomes united with God, the more he is God rather than a creature. When a person is completely free of himself for God and does not belong to anyone except to God alone and lives for nothing but for God alone, then he is truly by grace what God is by nature, and God does not know for Himself of any distinction between Himself and this person. But I said, by grace. Because there is God and there is this person, and as God is good by nature, this person is good by grace, for the life of God and His being is entirely in this person. For this reason He called this person ‘good’, and this is the phrase our

acceperat, obtulit alia quinque talenta dicens: Domine, quinque talenta tradidisti michi, ecce alia quinque superlucratus sum. Ait illi dominus eius: Euge serve bone et fidelis, quia super pauca fuisti fidelis, supra multa te constituam, intra in gaudium domini tui. Accessit autem et qui duo talenta acceperat, et dixit: Domine, duo talenta tradidisti michi: ecce alia duo lucratus sum. Ait illi dominus eius: Euge serve bone et fidelis, quia super pauca fuisti fidelis, supra multa te constituam, intra in gaudium domini tui’. 󰀃. Marc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀁󰀇: ‘et cum egressus esset in viam procurrens quidam genu flexo ante eum rogabat eum magister bone quid faciam ut vitam aeternam percipiam’. 󰀄. Marc. 󰀁󰀀:󰀁󰀈: ‘Iesus autem dixit ei quid me dicis bonum nemo bonus nisi unus Deus’.

󰀅󰀉󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

geheizen, und diz ist daz wort, daz unser herre sprach: ‘guoter kneht’, wan dirre kneht ist guot bî gote in keiner andern güete, dan dâ got guot ist. Ich hân etwenne mê gesprochen, daz gotes leben und wesen sî in einem steine oder in einem holze und ouch in andern (󰀁󰀁󰀁) | crêatûren, die niht sælic ensint. Got der ist in disem knehte in einer andern wîse, dar abe er sælic ist und guot, wan er ist in im lustbærlîche und lebet in im und mit im vrœlîche und vernünfticlîche als in im selben und mit im selben; her umbe ist er sælic und guot. Her umbe sprach unser herre: ‘ganc în, guoter kneht und getriuwer, in die vröude dînes herren, wan dû getriuwe bist gewesen über kleine, dar umbe wil ich dich setzen über allez mîn guot’. Nû hân ich ein teil gesprochen von sîner güete, war umbe dirre kneht guot ist. Nû wil ich iu bewîsen von sîner triuwe, wan unser herre sprach: ‘guoter kneht getriuwer, wan dû getriuwe bist gewesen über kleine’. (󰀁󰀁󰀂) | Eyâ, nû merket, waz daz kleine sî, über daz dirre kneht getriuwe ist gewesen. Allez, daz got geschaffen hât in himelrîche und in ertrîche, daz er selber niht enist, daz ist kleine vor im. Über allez diz ist dirre guoter kneht getriuwe gewesen. Wie daz sî, daz wil ich iu bewîsen. Got hât disen kneht gesast zwischen zît und êwicheit. Ze keinem enwas er geeigent, sunder er was vrî mit vernunft und mit willen und ouch in allen dingen. Vernünfticlîche durchgienc er alliu dinc, diu got geschaffen hât; williclîche liez er alliu (󰀁󰀁󰀃) | dinc und ouch sich selber und allez, daz got geschaffen hât, daz got selber niht enist; vernünfticlîche nam er sie ûf und gap gote dar abe lop und êre und antwurte sie gote in sîne gruntlôse natûre und sich selber, als verre als er geschaffen ist. Dâ liez er sich selber und alliu dinc, daz er sich selber nie enberuorte noch kein geschaffen dinc mit sînem geschaffen willen. Mit guoter wârheit, der alsô getriuwe wære, got der hæte in im als unsprechelîche grôze vröude, der im die vröude benæme, der benæme im sîn leben und sîn wesen und sîne gotheit alzemâle.

󰀅. The reference seems to go to Hom. 󰀃* [Q 󰀆󰀈], n. 󰀄: ‘Got ist mir næher, dan ich mir selber bin; mîn wesen hanget dar ane, daz mir got nâhe und gegenwertic sî. Alsô ist er ouch einem steine und einem holze, mêr: sie enwizzens niht’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀆]

󰀅󰀉󰀅

Lord said, ‘good servant’, for this servant is good with God in no other goodness as in the one in which God is good. I have already said󰀅 that the life and being of God is in a stone or wood and also in other creatures that are not blessed. God is in this servant in another way, for which he is blessed and good, for He is joyously in him and lives in him and is with him cheerfully and intellectually as in Himself and with Himself; therefore he is blessed and good. Thus, our Lord said: ‘Enter in, good and faithful servant, into the joy of your Lord, because you have been faithful in the little, I will put you over all my goods’.󰀆 Now, I have spoken about one element of his goodness, namely why this servant is good. Now, I want to show you his faithfulness, because our Lord said: ‘Good and faithful servant, for you have been faithful in the little’. Ah, now note what the ‘little’ is to which this ‘servant’ has been ‘faithful’. All that God has created in heaven and on earth which He Himself is not, is ‘little’ compared to Him. To all of this, this good servant was ‘faithful’. How this can be, I want to show you. God has placed this servant between time and eternity.󰀇 He was not owned by either of them, but he was free in intellect and in will and also in all things. Intellectually he went about all the things that God created; voluntarily he let go all things and even himself and all that God created which God Himself is not; intellectually he welcomed them and made them give praise and honour to God and entrusted them to God in His groundless nature, and even himself, to the extent that he was created. There he let himself go and all things, so that he never again touched himself or anything created with his created will. In good truth, whoever was so faithful God would have so unspeakably great joy in him that those who would take this joy away would entirely take away His life and His being and His Godhead.

󰀆. Matth. 󰀂󰀅:󰀂󰀁: ‘euge bone serve et fidelis quia super pauca fuisti fidelis super multa te constituam intra in gaudium domini tui’. 󰀇. See Liber de causis, prop. 󰀂 (Pattin 󰀁󰀃󰀈): ‘anima … est in horizonte aeternitatis inferius et supra tempus’.

󰀅󰀉󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Ich spriche aber mê – erschricket niht, wan disiu vröude diu ist iu nâhe, und si ist in iu –: ez enist iuwer keinez sô grop noch sô kleine von verstantnisse noch sô verre, er enmüge dise vröude in im vinden in der wârheit, als si ist, mit vröude und mit verstânne, ê daz ir tâlanc ûz dirre kirchen komet, jâ, ê daz ich tâlanc gepredige; er mac ez (󰀁󰀁󰀄) | als wærlîchen in im vinden und leben und haben, als daz got got ist und ich mensche bin! Des sît gewis, wan ez ist wâr, und diu wârheit sprichet ez selber. Daz wil ich iu bewîsen mit einem glîchnisse, daz stât geschriben in einem êwangeliô. ‘Unser herre saz ze einem mâle ûf einem brunnen, wan er was müede. Dô kam ein wîp diu was ein Samaritânâ von den heiden, und si brâhte einen kruoc und ein seil und wolte wazzer gewinnen. Und (󰀁󰀁󰀅) | unser herre sprach ze ir: ‘wîp, gip mir ze trinkenne!’ Und si antwurte im und sprach: ‘war umbe eischest dû von mir trinken? Nû bist dû doch von den juden, und ich bin ein Samaritânâ, und unser ê und iuwer ê hânt keine gemeinschaft mit einander’. Dô antwurte unser herre und sprach: ‘westest dû, wer von dir trinken eischet, und bekantest die gnâde gotes, vil lîhte ieschest dû mir trinken, und ich gæbe dir von dem lebendigen wazzer. Swer dâ trinket von disem wazzer, den dürstet aber; der aber trinket von dem wazzer, daz ich gibe, den endürstet niemermê, und von im sol (󰀁󰀁󰀆) | entspringen ein brunne des êwigen lebens’. Daz wîp merkte diu wort unsers herren, wan si engienc niht gerne dicke ze dem brunnen. Dô sprach daz wîp: ‘herre, gip mir trinken des wazzers, daz mich niht mê endürste’. Dô sprach unser herre: ‘ganc und brinc her dînen man’. Und si sprach: ‘herre, ich enhân keinen man’. Dô sprach unser herre: ‘wîp, dû hâst wâr: dû hâst aber vünf man gehabet, und den dû nû hâst, der enist niht dîn man’. Dô liez si vallen seil und kruoc und sprach ze unserm herren: ‘herre, wer bist dû? Dâ stât geschriben: als Messias kumet, den man heizet Kristum, der sol uns lêren alliu dinc und sol uns die wârheit kunt tuon’. Dô sprach unser herre: ‘wîp, ich bin ez, der mit dir sprichet’, und daz wort ervulte allez ir herze. Dô sprach si: ‘herre, unser eltern die betten under den böumen ûf dem berge, und iuwer eltern von der jüdischeit die betten in dem tempel: herre, welche von disen betent allerwærlîchest got ane, und welchez ist

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀆]

󰀅󰀉󰀇

But I say more – do not be frightened, because this joy is close to you, and it is in you –: none of you is so coarse, so little in understanding or so far away that you would be unable to find this joy in yourself in truth, the way it is, with joy and understanding, before you even leave this church today, yes, before I have finished preaching today; one can truly find it, live it and have it in oneself, as God is God and I am a man! Be assured, because it is true, and the truth itself says it. This I want to show you with a simile that is written in a Gospel.󰀈 ‘Our Lord once sat at a well, because he was tired. Then came a woman who was a Samaritan of the pagans, and brought a pitcher and a rope and wanted to get water. And our Lord said to her: ‘Woman, give me something to drink!’ And she answered Him saying: ‘Why do you ask me for a drink? Now you are one of the Jews, and I am a Samaritan woman, and our Law and your Law have nothing in common with each other’. Then our Lord answered and said: ‘If you knew who asks you for a drink, and recognised the grace of God, perhaps you would ask me for a drink, and I would give you some living water. Whoever drinks of that water, is thirsty; but whoever drinks from the water that I give will never be thirsty again, and from that person a source of eternal life will flow’. The woman noticed the words of our Lord, because she did not like to go to the well at all. Then the woman said: ‘Lord, give me to drink of that water, so that I will no longer be thirsty’. Then our Lord said: ‘Go and bring your husband to this place’. And she said: ‘Lord, I do not have a husband’. Then our Lord said: ‘Woman, you say the truth: you did, however, have five husbands, and the one that you have now is not your husband’. Then she dropped the rope and pitcher and said to our Lord: ‘Lord, who are you? It is written: when the Messiah comes, who is called Christ, He shall teach us all things and shall reveal the truth’. Then our Lord said: ‘Woman, I am the one, the one who speaks with you’, and this word filled her heart entirely. Then she said: ‘Lord, our parents prayed under the trees on the mountain, and your parents of the Jewish people prayed in the temple: Sir, which of these worship God in the truest way,

󰀈. Ioh. 󰀄:󰀆–󰀂󰀉; on this see below.

󰀅󰀉󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

diu stat? Berihte mich des’. Dô sprach unser herre: ‘wîp, diu zît sol komen und ist iezuo hie, daz die wâren anbetære niht aleine suln beten ûf dem berge noch in dem tempel, sunder in (󰀁󰀁󰀇) | dem geiste und in der wârheit beten alsô den vater ane; wan got der ist ein geist, und wer in anebeten sol, der sol in anebeten in dem geiste und in der wârheit, und alsolîche anbetære suochet der vater’. Daz wîp wart alsô vol gotes und übervliezende vol und ûzquellende von vülle gotes und wart predigende und rüefende mit lûter stimme und wolte allez daz ze gote bringen und vol gotes machen, daz si mit den ougen anesach, als si selber ervüllet was’. Sehet, diz geschach ir, dô si irn man wider hâte. Niemermê engibet sich got der sêle offenbâre noch al noch genzlîche, si enbringe irn man, daz ist ir vrîer wille. Dar umbe sprach unser herre: ‘wîp, dû sprichest wâr, dû hâst vünf man gehabet, (󰀁󰀁󰀈) | die sint tôt; und den dû nû hâst, der enist niht dîn’. Welchez wâren die vünf man? Daz sint die vünf sinne, dâ mite hâte si gesündet, und dar umbe wâren sie tôt. ‘Und der man, den dû nû hâst, der enist dîn niht’: daz was ir vrîer wille, der enwas ir niht: wan er was gebunden in tôtsünden, und si was sîn ungewaltic; und dar umbe enwas er ir niht: wan wes der mensche niht gewaltic enist, daz enist sîn niht; ez ist mê des, der sîn gewaltic ist. Ich spriche aber nû: swenne der mensche sînes vrîen willen gewaltic wirt in der gnâde und daz er in vereinen mac mit dem willen gotes genzlîche und als ein einic ein, sô bedarf er niht mê, wan daz er spreche, als diz wîp sprach: ‘herre, wîse mich, wâ sol ich beten, und waz sol ich tuon, daz dir allerliebest sî in der wârheit?’ Und Jêsus antwürtet, daz ist, daz er sich offenbâret wærlîche und genzlîche und al, als er ist, und ervüllet den

󰀉. Ioh. 󰀄:󰀆–󰀂󰀉: ‘(󰀆) erat autem ibi fons Iacob Iesus ergo fatigatus ex itinere sedebat sic super fontem hora erat quasi sexta (󰀇) venit mulier de Samaria haurire aquam dicit ei Iesus da mihi bibere. (󰀈) discipuli enim eius abierant in civitatem ut cibos emerent (󰀉) dicit ergo ei mulier illa samaritana quomodo tu Iudaeus cum sis bibere a me poscis quae sum mulier samaritana non enim coutuntur Iudaei Samaritanis. (󰀁󰀀) respondit Iesus et dixit ei si scires donum Dei et quis est qui dicit tibi da mihi bibere tu forsitan petisses ab eo et dedisset tibi aquam vivam. (󰀁󰀁) dicit ei mulier Domine neque in quo haurias habes et puteus altus est unde ergo habes aquam vivam. (󰀁󰀂) numquid tu maior es patre nostro Iacob qui dedit nobis puteum et ipse ex eo bibit et filii eius et pecora eius. (󰀁󰀃) respondit Iesus et dixit ei omnis qui bibit ex aqua hac sitiet iterum qui autem biberit ex aqua quam ego dabo ei non sitiet in aeternum, (󰀁󰀄) sed aqua quam dabo ei fiet in eo fons aquae salientis in vitam aeternam. (󰀁󰀅) dicit ad eum mulier Domine da mihi hanc aquam ut non sitiam neque veniam huc haurire. (󰀁󰀆) dicit ei Iesus vade voca virum tuum et veni huc. (󰀁󰀇) respondit mulier et dixit non habeo virum. dicit ei Iesus bene dixisti quia non habeo virum, (󰀁󰀈) quinque enim viros habuisti et

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀆]

󰀅󰀉󰀉

and which place should it be? Let me know’. Then our Lord said: ‘Woman, the time will come and it is already here, that true worshipers will not pray on the mountain or in the temple, but in spirit and in truth they will worship the Father; for God is a spirit, and whoever shall worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth, and such worshipers seek the Father’. The woman was so full of God, so abundantly full and flowing over from the fullness of God, and she began to preach and to cry in a pure voice and wanted to bring to God and make full of God all that she saw with her eyes, as she was filled by the same’.󰀉 See, this happened to her when she got her husband back. Never does God reveal Himself entirely and fully to the soul, unless she brings her husband, that is, her free will. Therefore, our Lord said: ‘Woman, you say the truth, you have had five husbands, who are dead; and the one that you now have is not yours’. Who were the five husbands? They are the five senses, with which she had sinned, and therefore they were dead. ‘And the husband who you now have is not yours’: this was her free will, which was not hers: because it was bound in mortal sins, and she had no power over it; and therefore it was not hers. Because what is not under the control of a person, is not his; it rather belongs to the one who has power over it. But now I say: when a person takes control of his free will in grace and is able to unite it with the will of God totally and as one single one, he needs to say no more than what this woman said: ‘Lord, show me where I shall pray and what I must do that is dearest to you in truth?’ And Jesus answers, that is, He reveals Himself truly and completely and totally as He is, and fulfills the person

nunc quem habes non est tuus vir hoc vere dixisti. (󰀁󰀉) dicit ei mulier Domine video quia propheta es tu. (󰀂󰀀) patres nostri in monte hoc adoraverunt et vos dicitis quia Hierosolymis est locus ubi adorare oportet. (󰀂󰀁) dicit ei Iesus mulier crede mihi quia veniet hora quando neque in monte hoc neque in Hierosolymis adorabitis Patrem. (󰀂󰀂) vos adoratis quod nescitis nos adoramus quod scimus quia salus ex Iudaeis est, (󰀂󰀃) sed venit hora et nunc est quando veri adoratores adorabunt Patrem in spiritu et veritate nam et Pater tales quaerit qui adorent eum (󰀂󰀄) spiritus est Deus et eos qui adorant eum in spiritu et veritate oportet adorare. (󰀂󰀅) dicit ei mulier scio quia Messias venit qui dicitur Christus cum ergo venerit ille nobis adnuntiabit omnia. (󰀂󰀆) dicit ei Iesus ego sum qui loquor tecum. (󰀂󰀇) et continuo venerunt discipuli eius et mirabantur quia cum muliere loquebatur nemo tamen dixit quid quaeris aut quid loqueris cum ea. (󰀂󰀈) reliquit ergo hydriam suam mulier et abiit in civitatem et dicit illis hominibus, (󰀂󰀉) venite videte hominem qui dixit mihi omnia quaecumque feci numquid ipse est Christus’.

󰀆󰀀󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

menschen alsô übervlüzziclîche, daz er ûzquellende ist und ûzvliezende von übervoller vüllede gotes, als diz wîp tete in einer kurzen zît ob dem brunnen, diu vor gar ungeschicket was dar zuo. Und dar umbe spriche ich aber, als ich ê sprach, daz kein mensche hie enist sô grop noch sô unverstendic noch sô ungeschicket dar zuo, mac er sînen willen mit der gnâde gotes lûterlîche und al vereinen mit dem willen gotes, und er enbedarf niht mê wan sprechen in sîner begerunge: ‘herre, wîse mich dînen liebesten willen und sterke (󰀁󰀁󰀉) | mich den ze tuonne!’, und got der tuot ez als gewærlîche, als daz er lebet, und got gibet im in als rîchlîcher vüllede in aller wîse volkomen, als er disem wîbe ie gegap. Sehet, diz mac der gröbeste und der minste von iu allen enpfâhen von gote, ê er tâlanc ûz dirre kirchen kome, jâ, ê daz ich tâlanc gepredige, mit guoter wârheit als wærlîche, als got lebet und ich mensche bin. Und dar umbe spriche ich: erschricket niht, disiu vröude enist iu niht verre, wellet ir sie wîslîche suochen. Nû spriche ich aber, als unser herre sprach: ‘ganc în, guoter kneht und getriuwer, in die vröude dînes herren; wan dû getriuwe bist gewesen über kleine, dar umbe wil ich dich setzen über allez mîn guot’. Eyâ, nû merket daz edel wort, daz er sprach: ‘über allez mîn guot’. (󰀁󰀂󰀀) | Waz ist nû des herren guot? Daz ist güete, als verre si gespreitet ist und geteilet in allen dingen oder in allen crêatûren, die dâ guot sint von sîner güete, in himelrîche oder in ertrîche: daz ist des herren guot, wan nieman enist guot noch enhât guot noch güete wan von im aleine. Dar umbe ist ez sîn guot, und ouch allez daz, daz man von gote selben gesprechen mac oder mit vernunft begrîfen mac oder in deheiner hande wîse ze liehte bringen mac oder geprüeven oder gewîsen mac: diz ist noch allez des herren guot; und her über alzemâle wil er disen kneht setzen, wan er ouch guot ist und getriuwe gewesen über kleine. Und über allez diz guot ist der herre noch ein ander, und ist doch (󰀁󰀂󰀁) | daz selbe und ist doch ein waz, daz enist diz noch daz und enist weder hie noch dâ. Und (󰀁󰀂󰀂) | dar umbe sprach er: ‘ganc în, guoter kneht und getriuwer, in die vröude dînes herren; (󰀁󰀂󰀃) | wan dû getriuwe bist gewesen über kleine, dar umbe wil ich dich setzen über allez mîn guot’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀆]

󰀆󰀀󰀁

so abundantly that he is overflowing and emanating from the overflowing fullness of God, as this woman did in a short time at the well, who before was quite incapable of it. And, therefore, I say, as I said before,󰀁󰀀 that no person here is so coarse or so devoid of understanding or so incapable of it, if he can unite his will with the grace of God, purely and totally, and he has nothing more to say in his desire than: ‘Lord, show me your most beloved will and give me the strength to do it!’, and God does it so truly as He is alive, and God gives it to him in such rich fullness that is perfect in every respect, as He ever gave it to this woman. See, this the coarsest and smallest of you all can receive from God before he leaves this church today, yes, before I finish preaching today, with good truth as truly as God is alive and I am a man. And, therefore, I say: do not be frightened, this joy is not far from you, if you will seek it wisely. But now I say, as our Lord said: ‘Enter, good and faithful servant, into the joy of your Lord; because you have been faithful in little, I will place you above all my goods’. Now, notice the noble phrase that He said: ‘Above all my goods’. Now, what is the good of the Lord? It is goodness, insofar as it is distributed and allocated to all things or to all creatures, which are good by His goodness, in heaven or on earth: this is the good of the Lord, because no one is good nor has goods or goodness except from Him alone. Therefore it is His good, and all that too that one can say of God or understand with intellect or can somehow be brought to light or we can be shown or taught: this is still all the good of the Lord; and above all of it He wants to place this servant, because he too is good and was faithful over the little. And beyond all this good the Lord is yet another [good] and yet [He] is the same and yet is something that is neither this nor that and is neither here nor there. And, therefore, He said: ‘Enter, good and faithful servant, into the joy of your Lord; because you have been faithful over the little, I will place you above all my goods’.

󰀁󰀀. See above n. 󰀆.

󰀆󰀀󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Nû hân ich iu gesaget, welchez des herren guot ist, und dar umbe sprach er: ‘ganc in die vröude dînes herren; ich wil dich setzen über allez mîn guot’, als er sprechen wölte: ganc ûz allem geschaffenem guote und ûz allem geteiltem guote und ûz allem gestücketem guote: über allez diz wil ich dich setzen in daz ungeschaffen und in daz ungeteilte und in daz ungestückete guot, daz ich selbe bin, und sprach ouch: ‘ganc in die vröude dînes herren’, rehte als er sprechen wölte: ganc ûz ûz aller vröude, diu geteilet ist und diu von ir selben niht enist daz, daz si ist, in die ungeteilte vröude, diu von ir selber und in ir selber ist daz, daz si ist, und daz enist niht anders wan diu vröude des herren. Noch ein wörtelîn vürbaz: waz ist diu vröude des herren? Ein wunderlîchiu rede! Wie möhte man daz berihten oder gesprechen, daz nieman verstân enkan noch bekennen (󰀁󰀂󰀄) | enmac! Mêr: doch etwaz dâ von. Diu vröude des herren daz ist der herre selber und kein ander, und der herre ist ein lebende, wesende, istige vernünfticheit, diu sich selber verstât und ist und lebet selber in ir selber und ist daz selbe. Hie zuo enhân ich keine wîse geleget, sunder ich hân im abegenomen alle wîse, als er selbe ist wîse âne wîse und lebet und ist vrô des, daz er ist. Sehet, diz ist diu vröude des herren und ist der herre selber, und her (󰀁󰀂󰀅) | în hiez er disen kneht gân, als er selber gesprochen hât: ‘ganc în, guoter kneht und getriuwer, in die vröude dînes herren; wan dû getriuwe bist gewesen über kleine, dar umbe wil ich dich setzen, über allez mîn guot’. Daz wir ouch ‘guot’ werden müezen und ‘getriuwe’, daz ouch uns unser herre heize îngân und êwiclîche inneblîben mit im und er mit uns, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀀󰀉* [Q 󰀆󰀆]

󰀆󰀀󰀃

Now I have told you what the good of the Lord is, and thus He said: ‘Enter into the joy of your Lord; I will place you above all my goods’, as if to say: go out from all created goods and from every divided good and from all sundered goods: above all this I will place you into the uncreated and into the undivided and into the unsundered good that I am myself, and He also said: ‘Enter into the joy of your Lord’, just as if to say: go out, out of every joy that is divided and that is not by itself what it is, into the undivided joy that is by itself and in itself that what it is, and this is none other than the joy of the Lord. Just one more sentence: what is ‘the joy of the Lord’? An amazing question! How could one explain or formulate what no one can understand or know? And yet: here is something about it. The joy of the Lord is the Lord Himself and no one else, and the Lord is a living, being, essential intellect which knows itself and is and lives in itself and is itself. To this I have not added any mode, but I have removed from Him every mode, just as He Himself is a mode without a mode, lives and is happy that He is. See, this is the joy of the Lord and it is the Lord Himself, and into this He asked this servant to enter, as He Himself said: ‘Enter, good and faithful servant, into the joy of your Lord; because you have been faithful over the little, I will place you above all my goods’. That we, too, may be ‘good’ and ‘faithful’, that our Lord may ask us too to enter in and remain eternally with Him and He with us, may God help us! Amen.

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀] In communi confessorum et pontificum ‘In diebus suis placuit deo et inventus est iustus’ (Eccli. 󰀄󰀄:󰀁󰀆–󰀇) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Eccli. 󰀄󰀄:󰀁󰀆-󰀇 is part of the reading of the ordinary of confessors and popes (In communi confessorum et pontificum) in the Roman Missal, although in BT we find the indication that the homily is meant for the feast of St. German (‘Vff sant Germanstag’, BT) and his name is found twice in the version of BT. Yet the editor Josef Quint is not fully convinced that the homily was, indeed, given for this feast, celebrated on 󰀃󰀁 July, but he admits that it could well have been the case. The critical edition of the text in DW is based on three manuscripts (Mai󰀁, N󰀂, Str󰀃) and the fragmentary print in BT. To this one has to add the print HT. The manuscript Bre󰀁 (fol. 󰀇r–󰀁󰀀r) provides a different homily on St. German which, however, has a striking parallel on fol. 󰀇r to n. 󰀉 here. In n. 󰀆 the reference goes to Hom. 󰀈* [Q 󰀇󰀆], n. 󰀈: ‘Dar umbe, swanne ich dar zuo kume, daz ich mich gebilde in niht und niht engebilde in mich und ûztrage und ûzwirfe, waz in mir ist, sô mac ich gesast werden in daz blôze wesen gotes, und daz ist daz blôze wesen des geistes. Dâ muoz allez daz ûzgetriben werden, daz glîcheit ist, daz ich übergesast werde in got und werde ein mit im und éin substancie und éin wesen und éin natûre und der sun gotes’; in n. 󰀇 the reference seems to go to Hom. 󰀃󰀆* [Q 󰀃󰀆a], n. 󰀂. The precise reference (‘as I said eight days ago’) in n. 󰀈 could go to Hom. 󰀇󰀃* [Q 󰀂󰀈], n. 󰀃 or Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀄* [Q 󰀁󰀅], n. 󰀅; in n. 󰀉 the reference goes to Hom. 󰀄󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀆], n. 󰀅: ‘Dar umbe: wellet ir éin sun sîn, sô scheidet iuch von allem nihte, wan niht

󰀆󰀀󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

machet underscheit’; in n. 󰀁󰀀 we find a cross-reference to Hom. 󰀈󰀀* [Q 󰀃󰀀], n. 󰀂: ‘Ich hân ez etwenne mê gesprochen, daz got alle dise werlt schepfet nû alzemâle’. The content of the homily This is another homily that fell into the hands of the inquisition and had many excerpts taken from it. In this case, however, Eckhart was able to fully defend himself and the quotes were dropped from the list of incriminating passages and did not make it into the papal bull. Nevertheless, as can be seen from the series of quotes which Eckhart defends, the text provides the reader with a number of Eckhart’s key ideas. In n. 󰀁 Eckhart gives the core quote of Eccli. 󰀄󰀄:󰀁󰀆, before translating it in the inverted order of the two parts of the verse (n. 󰀂). And, indeed, he starts with what comes second in the Latin version, that A) ‘he was found inwardly just in his days’ (nn. 󰀂–󰀆). First, he explains what justice and what being just is. As in so many other of his homilies on saints, so also here, he highlights that the soul has her being from God ‘without a medium’ (n. 󰀂). This raises the question, ‘whether the divine light flows into the powers of the soul as purely as it is in [its] being’ (n. 󰀃). To this is added the question, whether the Son through whom one knows the Father, is to be understood as a medium (n. 󰀄). So is He the image through which the soul must understand? While Paul points to the ‘only-begotten Son’ as the one who has made us ‘free’ from our sins so that we ‘have become servants of God’, Eckhart adds that ‘our Lord speaks more accurately than Saint Paul’ by pointing out that He has not ‘called’ us ‘servants’, but ‘friends’. Friends, unlike servants, however, know all that the Father knows. Therefore, for such a person, the Son is no medium, and the person who is a friend of God is ‘a God-knowing person’. And yet, ‘it takes a lot’ to become wise (n. 󰀅). The person, however, who ‘is turned into himself so that he knows God with his own taste and within his own ground, this person is freed from all created things’, hence ‘is placed in himself in a true palace of truth’ (n. 󰀆). This person is in no need for a medium, God does not need to come to him, as ‘He essentially is there’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀]

󰀆󰀀󰀇

B) ‘He has been delightful to God in his days’ (nn. 󰀇–󰀁󰀁). Eckhart turns to the first part of the Latin verse and develops first, why the verse speaks of ‘days’ in the plural. He distinguishes ‘the day of the soul’ and ‘the day of God’ (n. 󰀇). In connecting the day of God as the day ‘beyond time in the day of eternity’, Eckhart comes back to the person who ‘is truly just’ (n. 󰀈). It is the person who lives in virtues that ‘are in the heart of God’ and whose soul ‘is touched by the Holy Spirit without a medium’. In a fine synoptic comparison on the verse Marc. 󰀁:󰀁󰀁 par. he concludes that ‘the person must … be one with the only-begotten Son and be the only-begotten Son’, hence is without need of any medium, as ‘there is no distinction between the only-begotten Son and the soul’ (n. 󰀉). Although ‘the day of the soul and the day of God are different’, and, as shown before, the day of the soul refers to time and space, Eckhart emphasises that ‘where the soul is in her natural day’, she is in ‘the day of God’, is beyond time and space, and stands ‘in a present now’. In this now, he adds, ‘the Father generates His only-begotten Son, and in the same generation the soul is regenerated in God’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). What this birth means, is explained in n. 󰀁󰀁 and leads to the last topic: C) ‘He is found inwardly’ (n. 󰀁󰀂), or that ‘the just person is one with God’. Eckhart finishes with a final prayer ‘that we may find ourselves on the day … of bliss’ (n. 󰀁󰀃). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀈󰀃,󰀂󰀆󰀄–󰀇; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀇󰀁󰀆–󰀂󰀅; J. Quint, DW I 󰀁󰀅󰀉–󰀇󰀄; N. Largier I 󰀁󰀁󰀈–󰀃󰀁.󰀈󰀅󰀆–󰀆󰀄; R. Schönberger, Predigt 󰀁󰀀: ‘In diebus suis placuit deo’, in: Lectura Eckhardi II (󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃), 󰀅󰀄–󰀆󰀃. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀂󰀀󰀈–󰀁󰀀; Meister Eckhart: A modern Translation, by R.B. Blakney (󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀁), 󰀂󰀁󰀂–󰀇; J.M. Clark, Meister Eckhart (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀇), 󰀁󰀉󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀄; Meister Eckhart, Teacher and Preacher (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇), 󰀂󰀆󰀁-󰀆; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀃󰀃󰀄–󰀄󰀀; Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings, ed. and trans. O. Davies (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀁󰀆󰀈–󰀇󰀅.

󰀆󰀀󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀁󰀆󰀁) ‘In diebus suis placuit deo et inventus est iustus’. Diz wort, daz ich gesprochen hân in latîne, daz ist geschriben in der epistel, und mac man ez sprechen von einem heiligen bîhter, und sprichet daz wort ze tiutsche alsô: ‘er ist inne vunden gereht in sînen tagen, er hât gote wol gevallen in sînen tagen’. Gerehticheit hât er vunden von innen. Mîn lîp ist mêr in mîner sêle, dan mîn sêle in mînem lîbe sî. Mîn lîp und mîn sêle ist mêr in gote, dan sie in in selben sîn; und daz ist gerehticheit: diu ursache aller dinge in der wârheit. Als sant Augustînus sprichet: got ist der sêle (󰀁󰀆󰀂) | næher, dan si ir selber sî. Diu nâheit gotes und der sêle diu enhât keinen underscheit in der wârheit. Daz selbe bekantnisse, dâ sich got selben inne bekennet, daz ist eines ieglîchen abegescheidenen geistes bekantnisse und kein anderz. Diu sêle nimet ir wesen âne mittel von gote; dar umbe ist got der sêle næher, dan si ir selber sî: dar umbe ist got in dem grunde der sêle mit aller sîner gotheit. Nû sprichet ein meister, ob daz götlîche lieht vlieze in der sêle krefte als lûter, als ez in dem wesene ist, wan diu sêle ir wesen âne mittel von gote hât und die krefte vliezent âne mittel ûz dem wesene der sêle? Götlich lieht daz ist ze edel darzuo, daz ez den kreften niht gemeinschaft enmac tuon; wan allez, daz dâ berüeret und berüeret wirt, dem ist got verre und fremde. Und dar umbe wan die krefte berüeret werdent und berüerent, sô verliesent sie irn magetuom. Götlich lieht

󰀁. Eccli. 󰀄󰀄:󰀁󰀆. 󰀂. Eccli. 󰀄󰀄:󰀁󰀆. Liturgical context: Epistolar., Arch., f. 󰀄󰀃󰀅ra: ‘In communi unius confessoris [II] Lectio libri sapientie. [cf. 󰀄󰀄:󰀁󰀆–󰀄󰀅:󰀂󰀀] Ecce sacerdos magnus qui in diebus suis placuit Deo et inventus est iustus. Et in tempore iracundie factus est reconciliatio. Non est inventus similis illi, qui conservaret legem excelsi. Ideo iure iurando fecit illum Dominus crescere in plebem suam. Benedictionem omnium gentium dedit illi, et testamentum suum confirmavit super caput eius. Cognovit eum in benedictionibus suis, conservavit illi misericordiam suam, et invenit gratiam coram oculis Domini. Magnificavit eum in conspectu regum et dedit illi coronam glorie. Statuit illi testamentum sempiternum et dedit illi sacerdotium magnum et beatificavit illum in gloria. Fungi sacerdotio et habere laudem in nomine ipsius. Et offerre illi incensum dignum in odorem suavitatis’. 󰀃. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 󰀈 a. 󰀁 ad 󰀂: ‘Ad secundum dicendum, quod licet corporalia dicantur esse in aliquo sicut in continente. tamen spiritualia continent ea in quibus sunt; sicut anima continet corpus. Unde et deus est in rebus, sicut continens res. Tamen per quamdam similitudinem corporalium dicuntur omnia esse in deo, inqantum continentur ab ipso’. 󰀄. See Augustinus, Confessiones III c. 󰀆 n. 󰀁󰀁 (Verheijen 󰀃󰀃,󰀅󰀇–󰀈): ‘Tu autem eras interior intimo meo et superior summo meo’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀]

󰀆󰀀󰀉

‘In diebus suis placuit deo et inventus est iustus’.󰀁 This phrase that I said in Latin is written in the Epistle, and one can say it of a holy confessor, and the phrase means in German: ‘He was found inwardly just in his days, he was a delight to God in his days’.󰀂 He has found justice from within. My body is more in my soul than my soul is in my body.󰀃 My body and my soul are more in God than they are in themselves; and this is justice: the cause of all things in truth. As Saint Augustine says:󰀄 God is closer to the soul than she is to herself. The closeness of God and the soul has truly no distinction. The same knowledge through which God knows Himself internally is the knowledge of each detached spirit, and of no one else.󰀅 The soul takes her being from God without a medium; for this reason is God closer to the soul than she is to herself. Hence, God is in the ground of the soul with all His Godhead. Now a master aks,󰀆 whether the divine light flows into the powers of the soul as purely as it is in [its] being, since the soul has its being from God without a medium and the powers flow out of the soul’s being without a medium. The divine light is too noble to have something in common with the powers; because to all there that touches and is touched God is far and alien. And so when the powers are touched and touch, they lose their virginity. Divine light can not shine into

󰀅. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀄󰀄,󰀄–󰀁󰀃): ‘Quinquagesimus quintus articulus in sermone “In diebus suis placuit deo” sic habet: “Sanctus Augustinus sic dicit: deus est intimior animae, quam anima sit sibi ipsi. Intimitas vel propinquitas dei et animae non habent in veritate aliquam distinctionem. Illud idem cognitivum vel cognitio, in quo deus se cognoscit, hoc est uniuscuiusque abstracti spiritus cognitio vel cognoscere vel cognitivum”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi nn. 󰀁󰀂󰀉–󰀃󰀁) (LW 󰀃󰀄󰀉,󰀁–󰀁󰀁): ‘Quinquagesimus quintus articulus in sermone “In diebus suis placuit deo” sic habet: “Sanctus Augustinus sic dicit: deus est intimior animae, quam anima sit sibi ipsi. Intimitas vel propinquitas dei et animae non habent in veritate aliquam distinctionem. Illud idem cognitivum vel cognitio, in quo deus se cognoscit, hoc est uniuscuiusque abstracti spiritus cognitio vel cognoscere vel cognitivum”. Solutio. Dicendum omnis distinctus a deo distinctus est ab esse, a quo immediate est omne esse. Quod autem dicitur: eodem deus se ipsum cognoscit et nos ipsum, ipsum est quod ait apostolus: “tunc cognoscam, sicut et cognitus sum”, Cor. 󰀁󰀃, et quod in Psalmo dicitur: “in lumine tuo videbimus lumen”. Unumquodque enim cognoscitur in specie sua propria, nequaquam in aliena’. 󰀆. Source unidentified.

󰀆󰀁󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

enmac niht in sie geliuhten; aber mit üebunge und mit abelegunge mügen sie enpfenclich werden. Hie ûf sprichet ein ander meister, daz den kreften werde gegeben ein lieht, daz glîch sî dem innern. Ez glîchet sich dem innern, aber ez enist niht daz inner lieht. Von dem liehte (󰀁󰀆󰀃) | in ein îndruk beschihet, daz sie werdent enpfenclich des innern liehtes. Ein ander meister sprichet, daz alle die krefte der sêle, die dâ würkent in dem lîbe, daz die sterbent mit dem lîbe âne bekantnisse und willen: daz blîbet der sêle aleine. Sterbent die krefte, die dâ würkent in dem lîbe, sô blîbent sie doch in der wurzel. Sant Philippus sprach: ‘herre, wîse uns den vater, sô genüeget uns’. Nû enkumet nieman ze dem vater wan durch den sun. Wer den vater sihet, der sihet den sun, und der heilige geist ist ir beider minne. Diu sêle ist als einveltic an ir selber, daz si in ir gegenwerticheit niht enverstât wan ein bilde. Als si des steines bilde verstât, sô enverstât si niht des engels bilde, und als si des engels bilde verstât, sô enverstât si kein anderz; und daz selbe bilde, daz si verstât, daz muoz si minnen in der gegenwerticheit. Verstüende si tûsent engel, daz wære als vil als zwêne engel, und si enverstünde doch niht dan einen. Nû sol sich der mensche vereinen in im selber. Nû sprichet sant Paulus: ‘sît ir nû vrî gemachet von iuwern sünden, sô sît ir worden knehte gotes’. Der eingeborne sun hât uns gevrîet von unsern sünden. Nû sprichet unser herre vil næher dan sant Paulus: ‘ich enhân iuch niht knehte geheizen, ich hân iuch mîne vriunde geheizen. Der kneht enweiz niht sînes herren willen’, aber der vriunt weiz allez, daz sîn vriunt weiz. ‘Allez, daz ich von mînem vater gehœret hân, daz hân ich iu kunt getân’, und allez, daz mîn vater weiz, (󰀁󰀆󰀄) | daz weiz ich, und allez, daz ich weiz, daz wizzet ir; wan ich und mîn vater hân einen geist. Der mensche, der nû weiz allez, daz got weiz, der ist ein got–wizzender mensche. Der mensche nimet got in sîn selbes eigenschaft und in sîn selbes einicheit und in sîn selbes gegenwerticheit und in sîn selbes wârheit; dem menschen dem ist gar reht. 󰀇. Source unidentified. 󰀈. See Thomas, Summa theologiae I q. 󰀇󰀇 a. 󰀈: ‘corrupto coniuncto non manent huiusmodi potentiae actu; sed virtute tantum manent in anima, sicut in principio vel radice’; I-II q. 󰀆󰀇 a. 󰀁 ad 󰀃: ‘in statu ante resurrectionem partes irrationales non erunt actu in anima, sed solum radicaliter in essentia ipsius, … unde nec huiusmodi virtutes erunt in actu nisi in radice’. 󰀉. Ioh. 󰀁󰀄:󰀈: ‘Dicit ei Philippus: Domine, ostende nobis Patrem, et sufficit nobis’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀]

󰀆󰀁󰀁

them; but with training and with detachment they can become receptive. To this another master says󰀇 that the powers are given a light that is like the inner one. It is like the inner one, but it is not the inner light. This light makes an impression, so that these become receptive to the inner light. Another master says󰀈 that all the powers of the soul which act in the body, die with the body, except knowledge and will: these alone remain to the soul. If the powers, which act in the body, die, they still remain in the root. Saint Philip said: ‘Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.’󰀉 Now, no one comes to the Father unless through the Son.󰀁󰀀 Whoever sees the Father sees the Son,󰀁󰀁 and the Holy Spirit is the love of both. The soul is so simple in herself that in her present being she does not understand, except through an image. When she understands the image of a stone, she does not understand the image of the angel, and when she understands the image of the angel, she does not understand that of any other; and the same image that she understands, she must love at present. If she knew a thousand angels, it would be as much as two angels, but she would not know more than one. Now, man must unite in himself. Now Saint Paul says: ‘If now you are made free from your sins, you have become servants of God’.󰀁󰀂 His only-begotten Son has freed us from our sins. Now, our Lord speaks more accurately than Saint Paul:󰀁󰀃 ‘I have not called you servants, I have called you my friends, the servant knows nothing of his lord’s will’, but his friend knows all that his friend knows. ‘Everything I heard from my father, I have made known to you’, and everything that my father knows, I know, and everything I know, you know;󰀁󰀄 because my Father and I have one spirit. The person who now knows everything that God knows is a God-knowing person. This person takes God in his selfhood and in his own unity and in his own presence and in his own truth; with this person all is well. 󰀁󰀀. See Ioh. 󰀁󰀄:󰀆: ‘nemo venit ad Patrem nisi per me’. 󰀁󰀁. See the opposite relation in Ioh. 󰀁󰀄:󰀉: ‘qui vidit me vidit et Patrem’. 󰀁󰀂. Rom. 󰀆:󰀂󰀂: ‘nunc vero liberati a peccato servi autem facti Deo’. 󰀁󰀃. Ioh. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀅: ‘iam non dico vos servos quia servus nescit quid facit dominus eius vos autem dixi amicos quia omnia quaecumque audivi a Patre meo nota feci vobis’. 󰀁󰀄. See Matth. 󰀁󰀁:󰀂󰀇: ‘omnia mihi tradita sunt a Patre meo et nemo novit Filium nisi Pater neque Patrem quis novit nisi Filius et cui voluerit Filius revelare’.

󰀆󰀁󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Aber dem menschen, der von inwendigen dingen nie gewon enist, der enweiz niht, waz got ist. Als ein man, hât er wîn in sînem keller und enhæte er sîn niht getrunken noch versuochet, sô enweiz er niht, daz er guot ist. Alsô ist den liuten, die in unwizzenne lebent: die enwizzen niht, waz got ist und sie dünket und wænent leben. Daz wizzen enist niht von gote. Ein mensche muoz ein lûter klâr wizzen hân götlîcher wârheit. Der mensche, der eine rehte meinunge hât in allen sînen werken, der anvanc der meinunge ist got und daz werk der meinunge daz ist er selber und ist lûter götlîchiu natûre und endet sich in götlîcher natûre in im selber. Nû sprichet ein meister, daz kein mensche enist sô tôreht, er enbeger wîsheit. War umbe enwerden wir denne niht wîs? Dâ gehœret vil dar zuo. Diu meiste sache ist, daz der mensche muoz durchgân und übergân alliu dinc und aller dinge ursache, und dis beginnet den menschen verdriezen. Dâ von blîbet der mensche in sîner kleinheit. Daz ich ein rîcher mensche bin, dar (󰀁󰀆󰀅) | umbe enbin ich niht wîs; aber daz mir daz wesen der wîsheit und der natûre einförmic ist und ich diu wîsheit selber bin, sô bin ich ein wîser mensche. Ich sprach einest ze einem klôster: daz ist daz eigen bilde der sêle, dâ weder ûz- noch îngebildet wirt, dan daz got selber ist. Diu sêle hât zwei ougen, einz inwendic und einz ûzwendic. Daz inner ouge der sêle ist, daz in daz wesen sihet und sîn wesen von gote âne allez mittel nimet: daz ist sîn eigen werk. Daz ûzer ouge der sêle ist, daz dâ gekêret ist gegen allen crêatûren und die merket nâch bildelîcher wîse und nâch kreftlîcher wîse. Welher mensche nû in sich selber wirt gekêret, daz er bekennet got in sînem eigenen smacke und in sînem eigenen grunde, der mensche ist gevrîet von allen geschaffenen dingen und ist in im selber beslozzen in einem wâren slozze der wârheit. Alsô als ich einest sprach, daz unser herre kam ze sînen jüngern an dem 󰀁󰀅. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀄󰀄,󰀁󰀄–󰀉): ‘Quinquagesimus sextus sic habet: “Homo, qui rectam habet intentionem in omnibus suis operibus, principium illius intentionis est deus, et actus intentionis est hoc ipsum et est pura divina natura et terminatur in divina natura in se ipso”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi nn. 󰀁󰀃󰀂–󰀃) (LW 󰀃󰀄󰀉,󰀁󰀂–󰀉): ‘Quinquagesimus sextus sic habet: “Homo, qui rectam habet intentionem in omnibus suis operibus, principium illius intentionis est deus, et actus intentionis est hoc ipsum et est pura divina natura et terminatur in divina natura in se ipso”. Solutio. Dicendum quod utique omnis boni operis et rectae intentionis finis et principium est ipsa divina et pura substantia dei. Quod autem dicitur quod actus ipsius intentionis sit ipsa divina essentia, non bene stat, tum quia actus gignitur ab obiecto, nihil autem se ipsum gignere potest, tum quia actus ad creaturam pertinet. Deus autem creator est’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀]

󰀆󰀁󰀃

But the person who is not used to inner things does not know what God is. Like a person who has wine in his cellar, but has not drunk or tasted it, he does not know that he is good. So it is with people who live in ignorance: they do not know what God is, yet they seem and are convinced of being alive. Such knowledge is not from God. One must have a pure and clear knowledge of divine truth. Whoever has the right intention in all his actions, the principle of intention is God and the action resulting of this intention is He Himself and is pure divine nature and ends in divine nature, in Him.󰀁󰀅 Now a master says󰀁󰀆 that no man is so stupid that he does not want wisdom. Why then do we not become wise? It takes a lot for that. The main thing is that one must go through and go beyond all the things and the causes of all things, and this starts to irritate one. Through this one remains in one’s limitation. Being a rich person does not make me wise; but that the being of wisdom and of nature becomes uniform and that I am wisdom myself, makes me a wise person. I once said in a convent:󰀁󰀇 the soul’s own image is where she is neither outwardly formed nor informed, except as what is God Himself. The soul has two eyes, one inner and one outer. The inner eye of the soul is the one that looks into being and takes its being from God without any medium: this is its own action. The outer eye of the soul is the one that is directed towards all creatures and it observes these in the manner of images and in the way of the powers. Whoever now is turned into himself so that he knows God with his own taste and within his own ground, this person is freed from all created things and is placed󰀁󰀈 in himself in a true palace of truth. As I once said, that our Lord came to his disciples on Easter day with locked doors;󰀁󰀉 hence, in

󰀁󰀆. See Aristoteles, Metaphysica I c. 󰀁 (󰀉󰀈󰀀a󰀂󰀁); Auctoritates Aristotelis 󰀁, 󰀁 (Hamesse 󰀁󰀁󰀅,󰀈󰀂): ‘Omnes homines naturaliter scire desiderant’. 󰀁󰀇. Reference to Hom. 󰀈* [Q 󰀇󰀆], n. 󰀈. 󰀁󰀈. Eckhart’s High Middle German wordplay ‘in im selber beslozzen in einem wâren slozze der wârheit … mit beslozzenen türn’ is difficult to imitate. 󰀁󰀉. The reference seems to go to Hom. 󰀃󰀆* [Q 󰀃󰀆a], n. 󰀂: ‘Sant Johannes schrîbet uns in sînem êwangeliô: “an dem êrsten tage in der wochen, dô ez âbent was, dô kam unser herre ze beslozzenen türn în enmitten under die jünger und sprach: vride sî iu! und anderwarbe: vride sî iu! und ze dem dritten mâle: nemet den heiligen geist!”’.

󰀆󰀁󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

ôstertage mit beslozzenen türn; alsô dirre mensche, der dâ gevrîet ist von aller anderheit und von aller geschaffenheit, in den menschen enkumet got niht: er ist dâ wesenlîche. (󰀁󰀆󰀆) | ‘Er ist gote gevellic gewesen in sînen tagen’. Dâ ist mêr tac dan einer, dâ man sprichet ‘in sînen tagen’: der sêle tac und gotes tac. Die tage, die dâ hin sint sehs tage oder siben, und die tage, di dâ wâren vor sehs tûsent jâren, die sint dem tage hiute als nâhe als der tac, der gester was. War umbe? Dâ ist diu zît in einem gegewertigen nû. Daz der himel loufet, der êrste umbelouf des himels dâ von ist ez tac. Dâ geschihet in einem nû der sêle tac, und in irm natiurlîchen liehte, dâ alliu dinc inne sint, dâ ist ein ganzer tac; dâ ist tac und naht ein. Dâ ist gotes tac, dâ diu sêle stât in dem tage der êwicheit in einem wesenlîchen nû, und dâ gebirt der vater sînen eingebornen sun in einem gegenwertigen nû und wirt diu sêle wider in got geborn. Als dicke sô diu geburt geschihet, als dicke gebirt si den eingebornen sun. Dar umbe ist der süne vil mêr, die die juncvrouwen gebernt dan der, die die vrouwen gebernt, wan sie gebernt über zît in êwicheit. (󰀁󰀆󰀇) | Wie vil der süne ist, die diu sêle gebirt in êwicheit, sô ist ir doch niht mêr dan éin sun, wan ez geschihet über zît in dem tage der êwicheit. Nû ist dem menschen gar reht, der in tugenden lebet, wan ich sprach vor aht tagen, daz die tugende wæren in gotes herzen. Der 󰀂󰀀. Eccli. 󰀄󰀄:󰀁󰀆. 󰀂󰀁. See Isa. 󰀅󰀄:󰀁: ‘lauda sterilis quae non paris decanta laudem et hinni quae non pariebas quoniam multi filii desertae magis quam eius quae habebat virum dicit Dominus’. 󰀂󰀂. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀄󰀄,󰀂󰀀–󰀃󰀀): ‘Quinquagesimus septimus articulus sic dicit: “Anima regeneratur in deum. Quotienscumque fit illa generatio, tunc parit ipsa illum unigenitum filium. Propter hoc multo plures sunt filii, quos pariunt virgines quam aliae mulieres, quia ipsae pariunt supra tempus in aeternitate. Quotquot sunt filii, quos anima parit in aeternitate, tunc tamen non est plus quam unus filius, eo quod hoc accidat supra tempus in die aeternitatis”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi nn. 󰀁󰀃󰀄–󰀆) (LW 󰀃󰀄󰀉,󰀂󰀀–󰀃󰀅󰀀,󰀁󰀃): ‘Quinquagesimus septimus articulus sic dicit: “Anima regeneratur in deum. Quotienscumque fit illa generatio, tunc parit ipsa illum unigenitum filium. Propter hoc multo plures sunt filii, quos pariunt virgines quam aliae mulieres, quia ipsae pariunt supra tempus in aeternitate. Quotquot sunt filii, quos anima parit in aeternitate, tunc tamen non est plus quam unus filius, eo quod hoc accidat supra tempus in die aeternitatis”. Dicendum quod veritas praemissorum patet ex illo Gal. 󰀄 ex Is.: “multi filii desertae magis quam eius, quae habet virum”. Docet de hoc Origenes pulchre et manifeste in glossa super illo: “inventa est coniuratio”, Ier. 󰀁󰀁, et Augustinus libro capitulo: “in quantum aeternum aliquod mente concipimus, iam non in hoc mundo sumus” et libro capitulo dicit. quod “opera bona” in deo facta “filii sunt”, partus et proles sunt animae sanctae. Quod autem dicitur: “Quotquot sunt filii, quos anima parit in aeternitate, tamen non est plus quam unus filius”, dicendum quod utique sive opera sive operantes uno utique filio, qui deus est, filii dei sunt. Ipse “imago”, nos filii

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀]

󰀆󰀁󰀅

this person who is freed from all other things and creations, into this person God does not come: He essentially is there. ‘He was delightful to God in his days’.󰀂󰀀 There is more than one day where one speaks of ‘in his days’: it is the day of the soul and the day of God. The days that have passed, be they six or seven days, and the days that were six thousand years ago, these are as close to today as the day that was yesterday. Why? There the time is in a ‘present’ now. Since the heavens revolve, the first revolution of the sky causes day. There in one moment the day of the soul happens, and in her natural light, where all things are internally, there is a full day; there, day and night are one. Then there is the day of God, where the soul in an essential now stands in the day of eternity, and there the Father generates His only-begotten Son in a present now and the soul is reborn in God. As often as birth happens, she gives birth to the onlybegotten Son. For that reason, there are many more Sons that are born by virgins than those that are born by women, because they give birth in eternity beyond time.󰀂󰀁 For as many Sons as the soul gives birth in eternity, nevertheless, she has no more than one Son, for this happens beyond time in the day of eternity.󰀂󰀂 Now this person is truly just who lives in virtues, because I said eight days ago󰀂󰀃 that the virtues are in the heart of God.󰀂󰀄 Whoever “ad imaginem”. Ipse similitudo, nos “ad similitudinem”. Ipse filius naturalis, nos adoptivi, “transformati in eandem imaginem”, “ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus”. Ipse “heres”, nos “coheredes”, in quantum filii et membra ipsius; propter quod ipse unicus salvator est’. 󰀂󰀃. The reference seems to point to Hom. 󰀇󰀃* [Q 󰀂󰀈], n. 󰀃: ‘Alliu gotes gebot diu sint von minne und von der güete sîner natûre; wan enwæren sie niht von minne, sô enmöhten sie niht gotes gebot sîn; wan gotes gebot ist diu güete sîner natûre, und sîn natûre ist sîn güete in sînem gebote. Wer nû wonet in der güete sîner natûre, der wonet in gotes minne, und diu minne enhât kein warumbe. Hæte ich einen vriunt und minnete ich in dar umbe, daz mir guotez von im geschæhe und aller mîn wille, ich enminnete niht mînen vriunt, sunder mich selben. Ich sol mînen vriunt minnen umbe sîne eigene güete und umbe sîne eigene tugende und umbe allez daz, daz er an im selben ist: danne sô minne ich mînen vriunt rehte, sô ich in alsô, als vor gesaget ist, minne. Alsô ist dem menschen, der dâ stât in gotes minne, der des sînen niht ensuochet an gote noch an im selben noch an keinen dingen und minnet got aleine umbe sîne eigene güete und umbe die güete sîner natûre und umbe allez daz, daz er an im selben ist, und daz ist gerehtiu minne’, or to Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀄* [Q 󰀁󰀅], n. 󰀅: ‘wan die tugend, die da haisset demu´tikait, du´ ist ain wurtzel in dem grund der gothait, dar in si gepflantzet ist, das si allain ir wesen in dem ewigen a´in hat vnd niena anderswa’. 󰀂󰀄. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀄󰀅,󰀄–󰀇): ‘Quinquagesimus octavus articulus sic habet: “Valde recte dispositus est homo, qui vivit in virtutibus, quia dixi ante octo dies quod virtutes essent in corde ipsius dei”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi nn. 󰀁󰀃󰀇–󰀈)

󰀆󰀁󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

in tugent lebet und in tugent würket, dem ist gar reht. Der des sînen niht ensuochet an keinen dingen weder an gote noch an crêatûren, der wonet in gote und got wonet in im. Dem menschen ist lustlich alliu dinc ze lâzenne und ze versmæhene, und dem ist lustlich alliu dinc ze volbringenne ûf ir aller hœhstez. Ez sprichet sant Johannes: ‘deus caritas est’, ‘got ist diu minne’, ‘und diu minne ist got, und wer in der minne wonet, der wonet in gote und got wonet in im’. Der dâ in gote wonet, der hât wol gehûstet und ist ein erbe gotes, und in wem got (󰀁󰀆󰀈) | wonet, der hât wirdige hûsgenôzen in im. Nû sprichet ein meister, daz der sêle werde gegeben ein gâbe von gote, dâ von diu sêle beweget wirt ze innern dingen. Ez sprichet ein meister, daz diu sêle berüeret wirt âne mittel von dem heiligen geiste, wan in der minne, dâ sich got selben inne minnet, in der minne minnet er mich, und diu sêle minnet got in der selben minne, dâ er sich selben inne minnet, und enwære disiu minne niht, dar inne got die sêle minnet, der heilige geist enwære niht. Ez ist ein hitze und ein ûzblüejen des heiligen geistes, dar inne diu sêle got minnet. Nû schrîbet ein êwangeliste: ‘diz ist mîn lieber sun, in dem ich mir wol behage’. Nû schrîbet der ander êwangeliste: ‘diz ist mîn lieber sun, in dem mir alliu dinc behagent’. Nû schrîbet der dritte êwangeliste: ‘diz ist mîn lieber sun, in dem ich mir selber behage’. Allez, daz gote gevellet, daz gevellet (󰀁󰀆󰀉) | im in sînem eingebornen sune; allez, daz got minnet, daz minnet er in sînem eingebornen sune. Nû sol der mensche alsô leben, daz er ein sî mit dem eingebornen sune und daz er der eingeborne sun sî. Zwischen dem eingebornen sune und der sêle (LW V 󰀃󰀅󰀀,󰀁󰀄–󰀆): ‘Quinquagesimus octavus articulus sic habet: “Valde recte dispositus est homo, qui vivit in virtutibus, quia dixi ante octo dies quod virtutes essent in corde ipsius dei”. Verum est, ut dictum est supra, de virtutibus exemplaribus’. 󰀂󰀅. I Ioh. 󰀄:󰀁󰀆: ‘Deus caritas est: et qui manet in caritate, in Deo manet, et Deus in eo’. 󰀂󰀆. Source unidentified. 󰀂󰀇. Source unidentified. 󰀂󰀈. Marc. 󰀁:󰀁󰀁: ‘tu es Filius meus dilectus in te conplacui’. 󰀂󰀉. Luc. 󰀃:󰀂󰀂: ‘tu es Filius meus dilectus in te conplacuit mihi’. 󰀃󰀀. Matth. 󰀃:󰀁󰀇: ‘hic est Filius meus dilectus in quo mihi conplacui’. 󰀃󰀁. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀄󰀅,󰀄–󰀇): ‘Quinquagesimus nonus sic habet: “Homo debet sic vivere, quod ipse sit unum in illo unigenito filio et quod ipse sit ille unigenitus filius. Inter unigenitum filium et animam non est aliqua distinctio”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi nn. 󰀁󰀃󰀀–󰀄󰀅) (LW 󰀃󰀅󰀁,󰀁–󰀃󰀅󰀂,󰀂󰀇): ‘Quinquagesimus nonus sic habet: “Homo debet sic vivere, quod ipse sit unum in illo unigenito filio et quod ipse sit ille unigenitus filius. Inter unigenitum filium et animam non est aliqua distinctio”. Solutio. Tria dicit iste articulus: Primo quod

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀]

󰀆󰀁󰀇

lives in virtue and acts in virtue, all is well with him. Whoever does not seek his own, neither in God nor in the creatures, lives in God and God dwells in him. To this person it is pleasant to let go and despise all things, and it is pleasant for him to bring all things to their highest perfection. Saint John says: ‘Deus caritas est’, ‘God is love’, ‘and love is God, and he who dwells in love, dwells in God, and God dwells in him’.󰀂󰀅 He who dwells in God is well established and is an heir of God, and he in whom God dwells has worthy housemates in him. Now a master says󰀂󰀆 that a gift is given to the soul by God, through which the soul is moved to inner things. A master says󰀂󰀇 that the soul is touched by the Holy Spirit without a medium, because in the love by which God loves Himself within – in this love He loves me, and the soul loves God in the same love by which He loves Himself within, and if this love in which God loves the soul did not exist, the Holy Spirit would not be. It is a heat and a blossoming of the Holy Spirit, within which the soul loves God. Now an evangelist says: ‘This is my dear Son, in whom I have pleasure’.󰀂󰀈 Now the second evangelist says: ‘This is my dear Son, in whom I have pleasure in all things’.󰀂󰀉 Now the third evangelist writes: ‘This is my dear Son, in whom I delight myself’.󰀃󰀀 All that pleases God, pleases Him in His only-begotten Son; all that God loves, He loves in His only-begotten Son. Now, the person must so live as to be one with the only-begotten Son and be the only-begotten Son. There is no distinction between the only-begotten Son and the soul.󰀃󰀁 There is never “homo debet sic vivere, quod ipse sit unum in illo unigenito filio”. Quod verum est. Debet enim homo vivere in caritate; sed “qui manet in caritate in deo manet”, Ioh. 󰀄, et post 󰀅 capitulo ait: “simus in vero filio eius”. Secundo dicit “quod ipse sit ille unigenitus filius”. Si intelligatur quod ego sim deus, falsum est. Si vero intelligatur quod ego sum ille, utpote membrum illius, verum est, sicut frequenter dicit Augustinus, et super illo: “ego pro ipsis sanctifico me ipsum”, Ioh. 󰀁󰀆, dicit: “quia ipsi sunt ego”. Tertio 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. 󰀁󰀇: “ut et ipsi in nobis unum sint, sicut et nos unum sumus”, non tamen creatura est creator nec homo iustus est deus. Nec 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 adoptionis et illi per ipsum et in ipso sunt filii analogice, sicut supra frequenter ostensum est. Exemplum est in imaginibus genitis in multis speculis ab una facie intuentis, ubi omnes imagines illae, secundum quod imagines, sunt

󰀆󰀁󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

enist kein underscheit. Zwischen dem knehte und dem herren enwirt niemer minne glîch. Die wîle ich kneht bin, sô bin ich dem eingeborenen sune gar verre und unglîch. Sæhe ich got ane mit mînen ougen, sô wære mir gar unreht, mit den ougen, dâ mite ich die varwe anesihe, wan ez ist zîtlich; wan allez, daz zîtlich ist, daz ist gote verre und vremde. Dâ man zît nimet, und nimet man sie von dem minsten, nû, daz ist zît und stât in im selber. Die wîle der mensche zît und stat hât und zal und menige und schar, sô ist im gar unreht und ist im got verre und vremde. Dar umbe sprichet (󰀁󰀇󰀀) | unser herre: wer mîn jünger wil werden, der muoz sich selben lâzen; nieman enmac mîn wort hœren noch mîne lêre, er enhabe denne sich selben gelâzen. Alle crêatûren in in selber sint niht. Dar umbe hân ich gesprochen: lâzet niht und nemet ein volmachet wesen, dâ der wille reht ist. Der allen sînen willen hât gelâzen, dem smacket mîn lêre und hœret mîn wort. Nû sprichet ein meister, daz alle crêatûren nement ir wesen âne mittel von gote; dar umbe hânt die crêatûren, daz sie got minnent von rehter natûre mêr dan sich selben. Bekante der geist sîne blôze abegescheidenheit, er enmöhte sich ûf kein dinc geneigen, er enmüeste blîben ûf sîner blôzen abegescheidenheit. Dar umbe sprichet er: ‘er hât im wol gevallen in sînen tagen’. Der sêle tac und gotes tac hânt underscheit. Dâ diu sêle in irm natiurlîchen (󰀁󰀇󰀁) | tage ist, dâ bekennet si alliu dinc obe zît und stat; ir enist kein dinc weder verre noch nâhe. Dar umbe hân ich gesprochen, daz alliu dinc glîch edel sîn in disem tage. Ich sprach einest, daz got die werlt nû schepfet, und alliu dinc sint glîch edel in disem tage. Spræchen wir, daz got die werlt schepfete gester oder morne, sô giengen wir mit

ab ipsa una imagine, quae est facies intuentis. Iterum, nulla ipsarum erat nec manet nisi per illam et in illa. Propter quod signanter apostolus ait: nos “coheredes Christi”, Rom. 󰀈. Ille enim, quia homo erat, heres est; et “in domo” “manet in aeternum”, Ioh. 󰀈, quia naturalis filius est. Sic enim et imago sive species obiecta speculis semper manet manente natura. Naturalis enim a nativitate et ex nativitate est. Hinc est quod nos, in quantum sumus filii multi sive distincti, non sumus heredes regni, sed in quantum sumus ab ipso, per ipsum et in ipso filio, secundum illud: “si filius vos liberaverit, veri liberi eritis”, Ioh. 󰀈, et 󰀁󰀇: “ego in eis et tu in me, ut sint consummati in unum”. Non est ergo putandum quod alius sit filius, quo Christus eius est filius, et alius, quo nos nominamur et sumus filii dei, sed id ipsum et is ipse, qui Christus filius est naturaliter genitus, nos filii dei sumus analogice, cui cohaerendo, utpote haerenti, coheredes sumus. Nec est putandum quasi ipse filius dei, deus, sit aliquid extrinsecum sive distans a nobis, ad quod analogemur, sicut est imago obiecta speculis, sed ipse, utpote deus indivisus et unicus, per essentiam intimus est et proximus unicuique nostrum, “in ipso vivimus, movemur et sumus”, Act. 󰀁󰀇’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀]

󰀆󰀁󰀉

equal love between a servant and a lord. As long as I am a servant, I am very far from and unlike the only-begotten Son. If I looked at God with my own eyes, it would be very wrong, as the eyes with which I look at colours are temporal; because everything that is temporal is far from and alien to God. Where time is involved, even if only the smallest, a now, it is in itself time and place.󰀃󰀂 As long as a person has time and place, number, multiplicity and multitude, he is not in the right and God is distant and foreign to him. Therefore, our Lord says:󰀃󰀃 whoever wishes to become my disciple must forsake himself; no one can hear my word or my teaching if he has not forsaken himself. All creatures in themselves are nothing.󰀃󰀄 Therefore, I said:󰀃󰀅 forsake nothing and take a perfect being, where the will is right. Whoever has forsaken his entire will, will like my teaching and listen to my word. Now a master says that all creatures take their being from God without any medium;󰀃󰀆 this is the reason why creatures love God more than themselves by their own nature. If the spirit knew its naked detachment, it could not tend towards anything, but must remain in its naked detachment. Therefore He says: ‘He was a delight to Him in his days’. The day of the soul and the day of God are different. Where the soul is in her natural day, she knows all things beyond time and place; nothing is either distant or near to her. So I said󰀃󰀇 that all things are similarly noble on this day. I said once󰀃󰀈 that God creates the world now, and that all things are similarly noble on this day. If we said that God creates the world yesterday or tomorrow, we would venture

󰀃󰀂. J. Quint ad loc. translates ‘daz ist zît und stât in im selber’ with ‘ist Zeit und besteht in sich selbst’ (‘this is time and stands in itself’). 󰀃󰀃. Luc. 󰀉:󰀂󰀃: ‘dicebat autem ad omnes si quis vult post me venire abneget se ipsum et tollat crucem suam cotidie et sequatur me’. 󰀃󰀄. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀄󰀀,󰀂󰀂–󰀃): ‘Quadragesimus sextus articulus sic ait: “Omnes res creatae sunt nihil in se ipsis”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi n. 󰀁󰀁󰀁) (LW V 󰀃󰀄󰀄,󰀂󰀆–󰀈): ‘Quadragesimus sextus articulus sic ait: “Omnes res creatae sunt nihil in se ipsis”. Solutum est supra’. 󰀃󰀅. Reference to Hom. 󰀄󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀆], n. 󰀅: ‘Dar umbe: wellet ir éin sun sîn, sô scheidet iuch von allem nihte, wan niht machet underscheit’. 󰀃󰀆. See Aristoteles, Metaphysica XII c. 󰀈 (󰀁󰀀󰀇󰀃a󰀁󰀄–b󰀁󰀁). 󰀃󰀇. See above n. 󰀇. 󰀃󰀈. Reference to Hom. 󰀈󰀀* [Q 󰀃󰀀], n. 󰀂: ‘Ich hân ez etwenne mê gesprochen, daz got alle dise werlt schepfet nû alzemâle’. Here, one has to note that we are faced with a cross-reference.

󰀆󰀂󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

einer tôrheit umbe. Got schepfet die werlt und alliu dinc in einem gegenwertigen nû; und diu zît, diu dâ vergangen ist vor tûsent jâren, diu ist gote iezuo als gegenwertic und als nâhe als diu zît, diu iezuo ist. Diu sêle, diu dâ stât in einem gegewertigen nû, dâ gebirt der vater in sie sînen eingebornen sun, und in der selben geburt wirt diu sêle wider in got geborn. Daz ist ein geburt, als dicke si widergeborn wirt in got, sô gebirt der vater sînen eingebornen sun in sie. Ich hân gesprochen von einer kraft in der sêle; an irm êrsten ûzbruche sô ennimet si got niht, als er guot ist, si ennimet niht got, als er diu wârheit ist: si gründet und suochet vort und nimet got in sîner einunge und in sîner einœde; si nimet got in sîner wüestunge und in sînem eigenen grunde. Dar umbe enlât (󰀁󰀇󰀂) | si ir niht genüegen, si suochet vürbaz, waz daz sî, daz got in sîner gotheit ist und in sînem eigentuome sîner eigenen natûre. Nû sprichet man, daz kein einunge grœzer sî, dan daz die drîe persônen sîn ein got. Dar nâch sprichet man, daz kein einunge grœzer sî dan got und diu sêle. Wenne der sêle ein kus beschihet von der gotheit, sô stât si in ganzer volkomenheit und in sælicheit; dâ wirt si umbevangen von der einicheit. In dem êrsten berüerenne, dâ got die sêle berüeret hât und berüerende ist ungeschaffen und ungeschepfelich, dâ ist diu sêle als edel als got selber ist nâch der berüerunge gotes. Got berüeret (󰀁󰀇󰀃) | sie nâch im selber. Ich predigete einest in latîne, und daz was an dem tage der drîvalticheit, dô sprach ich: der underscheit kumet von der einicheit, der underscheit in der drîvalticheit. Diu einicheit ist der underscheit, und der underscheit ist diu einicheit. Ie der underscheit mêr ist, ie diu einicheit mêr ist, wan daz ist underscheit âne underscheit. Wæren dâ tûsent persônen, sô enwære doch dâ

󰀃󰀉. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi n. 󰀂) (LW V 󰀃󰀁󰀈,󰀁󰀄–󰀂󰀀): ‘Item tertio, cum dicunt deum creasse mundum in alio nunc quam in nunc aeternitatis, cum omnis actio dei sit ipsius substantia, quae aeterna est, non intelligentes quod Augustinus libro Confessionum I deo loquens ait: “tu idem ipse es, et omnia crastina atque ultra, omnia quae hesterna et retro, hodie facies, hodie fecisti. Quid ad me, si quis non intelligat?” Verba sunt Augustini. Et in XI dicit: “adhuc in praeteritis et futuris rerum motibus cor eorum volitat et vanum est. Quis tenebit illud”, ut “rapiat splendorem stantis aeternitatis?”’ 󰀄󰀀. As often in Eckhart, there is a constant semantic shift between generation and birth. Generation has the notion of eternal, non–categorical beginning, whereas birth is the beginning of creatures and creation. Yet, the blurring of these two notions derives from Eckhart’s idea that every divine act, whether the generation of the divine persons in the Trinity or the creation of creatures or the salvific regeneration or rebirth is but one single act.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀]

󰀆󰀂󰀁

nonsense. God creates the world and all things in a present now;󰀃󰀉 and the time that has since passed for a thousand years is as present to God now and as close as the time that is now. In the soul that stands in a present now the Father generates󰀄󰀀 His only-begotten Son, and in the same generation the soul is regenerated in God. This is one birth: As often as she is regenerated in God, so often does the Father generate His only-begotten Son in her. I have spoken of a power in the soul;󰀄󰀁 in her first emanation she does not take God, insofar as He is good, she does not take God, inso far as He is the truth: she deepens and seeks further and takes God in His oneness and in His solitude; she takes God in His desert and in His own ground. Therefore, she is not satisfied, she seeks further what that is that God is in His Godhead and in His selfhood of His own nature. Now, one says that no union is greater than that in which the three Persons are one God. According to this, one says that there is no greater union than that of God and the soul. When the soul is given a kiss from the Godhead, she stands in total perfection and in bliss; there she is surrounded by unity. In the first touch, where God has touched the soul and is (still) touching (her) as uncreated and uncreatable, there according to the touch of God the soul is as noble as God Himself. God touches her as Himself. I preached once in Latin,󰀄󰀂 and it was on the day of the Trinity, when I said: the distinction comes from the unity – the distinction in the trinity. The unity is the distinction and the distinction is the unity. The more there is distinction, the greater the unity, because this is distinction without distinction. If there were a thousand persons, there would still be nothing but unity. Where

󰀄󰀁. See above n. 󰀂 and n. 󰀇. 󰀄󰀂. Eckhart may refer to his Sermo II,󰀂 n. 󰀁󰀄 (LW IV 󰀁󰀅,󰀄–󰀅): ‘Patet igitur personarum verissima distinctio, secundum ipsarum in tres distinctio, tertio ipsa aequalitas, et quarto ipsarum in esse identitas’; or his In Sap. n. 󰀃󰀈 (LW II 󰀃󰀆󰀀,󰀁–󰀃): ‘Hinc est, quod tres personae in divinis, quamvis sint plures, non tamen multa, sed unum, etiam si essent personae mille’; n. 󰀁󰀁󰀂 (LW II 󰀄󰀄󰀉,󰀂–󰀄): ‘Propter quod in ipso nec est numerus nec multitudo; propter quod tres personae non sunt multi, sed unus deus, etiam si essent mille personae’; see also Pr. 󰀃󰀈 (DW II 󰀂󰀃󰀄,󰀄–󰀉).

󰀆󰀂󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

niht dan einicheit. Dâ got die crêatûre anesihet, dâ gibet er ir ir wesen; dâ diu crêatûre got anesihet, dâ nimet si ir wesen. Diu sêle hât ein vernünftic bekennelich wesen: dâ von, swâ got ist, dâ ist diu sêle, und swâ diu sêle ist, dâ ist got. Nû sprichet er: ‘er ist inne vunden’. Daz ist inne, daz dâ wonet in dem grunde der sêle, im innersten der sêle, in vernünfticheit und engât niht ûz und ensihet niht ûf kein dinc. Dâ sint alle krefte der sêle glîch edel; hie ist er inne (󰀁󰀇󰀄) | vunden gereht. Daz ist gereht, daz dâ glîch ist in liebe und in leide und in bitterkeit und in süezicheit und dem zemâle kein dinc wider enist, daz er sich ein vindet in der gerehticheit. Der gerehte mensche der ist ein mit gote. Glîcheit wirt geminnet. Minne minnet alwege glîch; dar umbe sô minnet got den gerehten menschen im selber glîch. Daz wir uns inne vinden in dem tage und in der zît der vernünfticheit und in dem tage der wîsheit und in dem tage der gerehticheit und in dem tage der sælicheit, des helfe uns der vater und der sun und der heilige geist. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀]

󰀆󰀂󰀃

God looks at creatures, He gives them their being; where the creature looks at God, there it receives its being. The soul has an intellectual, knowing being: whereby wherever God is, the soul is, and whereby wherever the soul is, God is. Now he says: ‘He is found inwardly’. Inwardly is what dwells in the ground of the soul, in the most intimate of the soul, in the intellect, and what neither goes out nor looks at anything. There all the powers of the soul are similarly noble; here inside he was found just. This one is just who is alike in love and in pain, in bitterness and in sweetness, and to whom nothing at all keeps from finding himself one in justice. The just person is one with God. Likeness is loved. Love always loves alike; therefore God loves the just person just like Himself. That we may find ourselves within on the day and in the time of the intellect and on the day of wisdom and on the day of justice and on the day of bliss, may the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit help us! Amen.

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀁* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀆] In communi unius virginis ‘Aemulor enim vos Dei aemulatione’ (II Cor. 󰀁󰀁:󰀂) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, II Cor. 󰀁󰀁:󰀂 (‘Aemulor enim vos Dei aemulatione’) is read on the feast of a virgin and this reading is part of the Commune sanctorum in the rubric In communi unius virginis. The text is handed down by sixteen manuscripts (version A: B󰀆, B󰀇, N󰀁, Str󰀁, W󰀁; version B: Mai󰀁, Str󰀃; version C: B󰀉, Ba󰀄, F󰀁, Fr󰀁, Kla; version D: M󰀃󰀅, M󰀃󰀆, Mai󰀈, S󰀈) and a number of fragments. As the text is preserved in four different versions, the text below follows what Quint and Steer believe to be the closest version to Eckhart’s own text, version A, yet with some corrections. The content of the homily As the extraordinarily wide spread in the manuscript tradition of this homily shows, this was not an unimportant text, as it deals with the continuous generation and birth of the Son who is the very same Son that the soul ceaselessly generates and gives birth to. And even though its poorer literary quality has been noted by the editors, the content is rather succinct. The core Latin verse, II Cor. 󰀁󰀁:󰀂, is given only in its abbreviated beginning (n. 󰀁), while only the following part is being translated into the vernacular (n. 󰀂), and it is only this part on which the preacher focuses. Before entering into the intepretation of the verse, Eckhart starts with a fictive dialogue between masters on the question ‘whether the Son is generated’ (n. 󰀃). The ceaseless generation and birth within the relation ‘between soul and God’ is then compared to marriage (n. 󰀄). God only acts and speaks once as all acts are one act and the one

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀁* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀆]

󰀆󰀂󰀅

act pleases God so much that ‘He never wishes to say one more’ word (n. 󰀅). The example of marriage leads to the next thought that there is also a marriage of the two powers in the soul (n. 󰀆). As nature always tends to reproduce, according to the Aristotelean teaching, it would only produce male offspring. But, so Eckhart’s belief, it was God’s ‘own free goodness’ and His wish to be fruitful that prevented nature from being so limited, so that also women were and are generated. More importantly, Eckhart adds that also God wanted to be fruitful, hence, did not wish to simply replicate Himself as nature would do. How God creates multiplicity is explained in n. 󰀇, whereby the generation of God’s Son is identified with the offspring of the soul as the ‘one offspring’ that they have ‘together’. As before, Eckhart insists that God giving Himself to the soul cannot be time limited, but has to be done both eternally and ceaselessly. This is possible, because God is not an external, but an internal agent who, like the soul, acts beyond time and space (n. 󰀈). The homily closes with a final prayer that ‘we may be generated in Him’, and ‘that He generate Himself into us’ (n. 󰀉). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Jostes, Nr. 󰀃󰀆, 󰀃󰀀–󰀂; F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀂󰀆,󰀁󰀀󰀀–󰀁; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀂󰀇󰀇–󰀈󰀆; G. Steer, DW IV 󰀆󰀅󰀅–󰀇󰀀󰀄. Previous English translations none.

󰀆󰀂󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀆󰀈󰀂) ‘Aemulor enim vos Dei aemulatione’. In dem namen unsers herren. Man liset an der iuncvrouwen tage, sô sie hôchzît hânt, daz sant Paulus sprichet: ‘ich hân iuch gelobet und getrûwet einem manne Kristô’, der dâ kraft ist und niuwe und grüenende ist. Die meister vrâgent, ob der sun geborn sî. Man sprichet: Nein. Die meister vrâgent, ob der sun geborn sül werden. Man sprichet: Nein. (󰀆󰀈󰀄) | Den meistern wirt geantwürtet: Der sun ist geborn volkomenlîche und wirt geborn volkomenlîche: niuwe grüenende âne underlâz. Sant Paulus sprichet: ‘Kristus ist götlîchiu maht und götlîchiu wîsheit’. In dirre maht hât got alliu dinc geschaffen, wan sîn wîsheit ist dâ und sîn maht. Kristus ist ‘ein man’, der alle zît niuwe grüenende ist. Nû sprichet sant Paulus: ‘disem manne hân ich iuch gelobet und getrûwet’. Ze glîcher wîse als ein ê ist an entwesen (󰀆󰀈󰀆) | zwischen vrouwen und manne, alsô sol ein ê sîn zwischen der sêle und gote. Dar umbe gibet man eine juncvrouwen einem manne durch die wartunge der geburt. Dar umbe hât got die sêle geschaffen, daz er sînen eingebornen sun in sie gebere.

󰀁. II Cor. 󰀁󰀁:󰀂. 󰀂. See Apoc. 󰀂󰀁:󰀅: ‘Et dixit, qui sedebat in throno: “Ecce nova facio omnia”’. 󰀃. II Cor. 󰀁󰀁:󰀂 (‘Aemulor enim vos Dei aemulatione; despondi enim vos uni viro virginem castam exhibere Christo’). The context is II Cor. 󰀁󰀀:󰀁󰀇–󰀁󰀁:󰀂 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀅rb: ‘(In communi unius virginis.) Ad Corinthios. Fratres. Qui [Qui autem Vg.] gloriatur, in Domino glorietur. Non enim qui se ipsum commendat, ille probatus est: sed quem Deus commendat. Utinam sustineretis modicum quid insipientie me, sed et supportate me. Emulor enim vos Dei emulatione’. 󰀄. See Petrus Lombardus, Sententiae I d. 󰀉 c. 󰀄 (Grottaferrata, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀁, 󰀁󰀀󰀆,󰀂–󰀁󰀆): ‘󰀁. Utrum debeat dici “semper gignitur” vel “semper est genitus Filius”. Hic quaeri potest, cum generatio Filii a Patre nec principium habeat nec finem, quia aeterna est, utrum debeat dici: Filius semper gignitur, vel semper genitus est, vel semper gignetur. 󰀂. De hoc Gregorius super Iob [Iob 󰀃󰀈:󰀁󰀂] ait: “Dominus Deus Iesus, in eo quod virtus et sapientia Dei est [I Cor. 󰀁:󰀂󰀄], de Patre ante tempora natus est, vel potius, quia nec coepit nasci nec desiit, dicamus verius ‘semper natus’. Non autem possumus dicere ‘semper nascitur’, ne imperfectum esse videatur. At vero, ut aeternus designari valeat et perfectus, et semper dicamus et natus, quatenus et ‘natus’ ad perfectionem pertineat et

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀁* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀆]

󰀆󰀂󰀇

‘Aemulor enim vos Dei aemulatione’.󰀁 In the name of our Lord. We read on the day of the virgins, as they have a feast day, that Saint Paul says: ‘I have betrothed you and entrusted you to a man, Christ’, who, indeed, is strength and new󰀂 and blossoming.󰀃 The masters ask, whether the Son has been generated. Some say: no. The masters ask, whether the Son should be born. Some say: no. To the scholars it is answered: The Son is generated perfectly and is being born perfectly,󰀄 blossoming anew without interruption. Saint Paul says: ‘Christ is divine power and divine wisdom’.󰀅 In this power God created all things, because this is His wisdom and His power. Christ is ‘a man’, who is always blossoming anew. Now Saint Paul says: ‘To this man I have betrothed you and entrusted you’.󰀆 In the same way as a marriage is perpetual󰀇 between a woman and a man, thus a marriage should be between soul and God. For this reason, one gives a virgin to a man to expect a birth.󰀈 Hence, God created the soul to generate His only-begotten Son in her.

‘semper’ ad aeternitatem; quamvis per hoc ipsum quod ‘perfectum’ dicimus, multum ab illius veritatis expressione deviamus, quia quod factum non est, nec potest dici proprie perfectum”. Sed balbutiendo, ut possumus, excelsa Dei resonamus; et “Dominus, nostrae infirmitatis verbis condescendens: Estote, inquit, perfecti, sicut et Pater vester caelestis perfectus est”’. 󰀅. I Cor. 󰀁:󰀂󰀃–󰀄: ‘nos autem praedicamus … Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam’. 󰀆. II Cor. 󰀁󰀁:󰀂: ‘despondi enim vos uni viro virginem castam exhibere Christo’. 󰀇. The version A here has ‘ûzwendic’ (‘from the outside’), missing in the B and D versions, but this term contradicts the following comparison: ‘alsô sol ein ê sîn zwischen der sêle und gote … daz er sînen eingebornen sun in sie gebere’. Instead, W󰀁 seems to have the correct expression ‘an entwesen’ (see the reference to our passage in Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch, ad lem., translating it with ‘ceaselessly’, altered here to ‘perpetual’), as the following argument shows. Hence, the ‘ûzwendic’ seems to be a redactional alteration to minimise the radical nature of the comparison between a marriage and the relation between God and the soul. 󰀈. See Petrus Lombardus, Sententiae IV d. 󰀃󰀀 c. 󰀃 (Grottaferrata, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁, 󰀄󰀄󰀁,󰀇–󰀉): ‘Est igitur finalis causa contrahendi matrimonii principalis procreatio prolis. Propter hoc enim instituit Deus coniugium inter primos parentes, quibus dixit [Gen. 󰀁:󰀂󰀈]: Crescite el multiplicamini etc.’.

󰀆󰀂󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Dô disiu geburt geschach geistlîche in unser vrouwen, daz was gote lustlîcher, dan dô er lîplîche von ir geborn wart. Dô disiu geburt geschihet noch hiute dises tages in einer gotminnender sêle, daz ist gote lustlîcher, dan dô er himel und erde geschuof. (󰀆󰀈󰀈) | Die meister sprechent und die heiligen – und ist al wâr –, daz diu sêle wîter sî dan der himel. Sant Johannes sprichet in Apocalypsi: ‘jener der dâ saz ûf dem trône, der sprach: ich mache alliu dinc niuwe’. Sant Augustînus sprichet: gotes sprechen daz ist sîn gebern und sîn gebern daz ist sîn sprechen. Got engesprach nie kein wort mê dan einez. Und daz ist im alsô lustlich, daz er (󰀆󰀉󰀀) | niemer kein anderz gesprechen enwil. Und lieze got diz wort-sprechen abe als lange als einen ougenblik, himel und erde müeste zergân. Sant Augustinus sprichet: als ein ê ist zwischen vrouwen und manne, alsô ist ein ê an der sêle. Diu oberste kraft der sêle, diu alzane kriegende ist (󰀆󰀉󰀂) | ûf in got, daz ist der man. Diu niderste kraft, der dâ lîdelich ist ze wandelne in lîplîchen dingen, daz ist diu vrouwe. Diu oberste kraft, der man, sol alzane blôz stân, aber diu niderste kraft, diu vrouwe, sol alzane bedecket stân, alsô daz diu niderste kraft si gezogen in die oberste. Diu natûre hât daz an ir, daz si alle zît glîche würkende ist. (󰀆󰀉󰀄) | Alle zît wil si dem vater glîche gebern. Und enwürde si niht gehindert, alle zit würde ein sun geborn und niemer kein vrouwe. Nû tuot ez got 󰀉. See Augustinus, Sermo 󰀂󰀁󰀅 n. 󰀄 (PL 󰀃󰀈, 󰀁󰀀󰀇󰀄): ‘… Christus prius mente quam ventre concipiens…’; id., De sancta virginitate c. 󰀃 n. 󰀃 (CSEL XLI, 󰀂󰀃󰀇,󰀁󰀇–󰀉). Leo Magnus, Sermo 󰀁 De nativitate domini (PL 󰀅󰀄, 󰀁󰀉󰀁): ‘Virgo … eligitur, quae sacro gravidanda foetu, divinam humanamque prolem prius conciperet mente, quam corpore’ (see also Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀄: ‘hæte Marîâ niht von êrste got geistlîche geborn, er enwære nie lîplîche von ir geborn worden’. The same topic can be found in Hom. 󰀈󰀂* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀀], n. 󰀄 and Pr. 󰀄󰀄 Pfeiffer (󰀁󰀅󰀀,󰀄–󰀆); see also above Hom. 󰀇󰀁* [Q 󰀇󰀈], n. 󰀃: ‘Die meister sprechent, daz got ê was geborn in unser vrouwen geistlîche, ê er lîplîche von ir geborn würde’. 󰀁󰀀. See Aristoteles, De anima III c. 󰀅 (󰀄󰀃󰀀 a 󰀁󰀄). Augustinus, De quantitate animae c. 󰀅 n. 󰀉 (Hörmann 󰀁󰀄󰀂,󰀁󰀄–󰀆): ‘innumerabiles tales tantosque mundos secum anima imaginari potest, quas imagines quo spatio contineat, suspicari non possum’. See also Hom. 󰀅󰀆* [Q 󰀂󰀀a], n. 󰀁󰀂 and Hom. 󰀅󰀇* [Q 󰀂󰀀b], n. 󰀁󰀀: ‘Nû sprichet ein meister, daz ein kraft der sêle liget über dem ougen, diu ist wîter dan alliu diu werlt und wîter dan der himel’. 󰀁󰀁. Apoc. 󰀂󰀁:󰀅: ‘Et dixit, qui sedebat in throno: “Ecce nova facio omnia”’. 󰀁󰀂. See Augustinus, Confessiones XI c. 󰀇 n. 󰀉 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀁󰀉󰀉,󰀁󰀁–󰀄): ‘uerbo tibi coaeterno simul et sempiterne dicis omnia, quae dicis, et fit, quidquid dicis ut fiat; nec aliter quam dicendo facis: nec tamen simul et sempiterna fiunt omnia, quae dicendo facis’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀁* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀆]

󰀆󰀂󰀉

When this generation happened spiritually in our Lady, this was more pleasing to God than when He was physically born by her.󰀉 When this birth is still today, on this very day, happening in a Godloving soul, it is more pleasing to God than when He created heaven and earth. The masters and the saints say – and it is absolutely true – that the soul is broader than heaven.󰀁󰀀 Saint John says in the Apocalypse: ‘The one who sat on the throne said: I make all things anew’.󰀁󰀁 Saint Augustine says: ‘God’s speaking is His generating and His generating is His speaking’.󰀁󰀂 God never said more than one word.󰀁󰀃 And this is so pleasant to Him, that He never wishes to say one more. And if God stopped this saying-the-word for a single moment, heaven and earth would have to dissolve. Saint Augustine says:󰀁󰀄 as there is a marriage between woman and man, so is a marriage in the soul. The highest power of the soul, which constantly ascends to God, is the man. The lowest power that is receptive to changing in bodily things is the woman. The highest power, man, must constantly be naked, but the lowest power, the woman, must constantly be covered, so that the lowest power is drawn into the highest. Nature by itself is always acting in the same way. It always wants to generate like a father.󰀁󰀅 And if it were not prevented, it would always generate a son and never a woman.󰀁󰀆 Now God, by His own free goodness,

󰀁󰀃. See Iob 󰀃󰀃:󰀁󰀄: ‘Semel loquitur Deus et secundo id ipsum non repetit’. 󰀁󰀄. See Augustinus, De diversis quaestionibus LXIV 󰀇 (CChr.SL 󰀄󰀄A, ed. Mutzenbecher, 󰀁󰀄󰀄,󰀁󰀇󰀂–󰀄): ‘Est enim animae quasi maritus quodammodo spiritus hominis, qui animalem affectionem tamquam coniugem regit’. 󰀁󰀅. See the teaching of Themistius quoted by Averroes, who is mentioned by Eckhart in In Ioh. tabula (LW III 󰀆󰀅󰀅,󰀆–󰀈). See the Auctoritates Aristotelis (Hamesse, 󰀁󰀃󰀈): ‘“Opus enim naturae” est “opus intelligentiae”, et tota natura agit tamquam rememorata a causis altioribus, ut ex Themistio inducit commentator XII Metaphysicae’; see also the quote of a Greek master in Hom. 󰀄󰀇* [Q 󰀄󰀇], n. 󰀅: ‘Hie von sprichet ein kriechischer meister, daz got alle crêatûren halte als in einem zoume ze würkenne nâch sînem glîchnisse. Her umbe würket diu natûre alle zît ûf daz allerhœhste, daz si gewürken mac. Diu natûre enwölte niht aleine würken den sun, und möhte si, si wölte den vater würken. Und dar umbe, würhte diu natûre âne zît, sô enhæte si niht anvellige gebresten’. 󰀁󰀆. See on this our comments above on Hom. 󰀆󰀈* [Q 󰀄󰀄], n. 󰀁󰀀.

󰀆󰀃󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

durch (󰀆󰀉󰀆) | sine vrîen güete und hindert die natûre. Dâ von wirt ein vrouwe geborn; ez enwürde anders niemer kein vrouwe geborn. Und enwære kein mensche mê dan einez, und enwære noch zît noch stat noch materie, der mensche verniuwete sich selber, als der sun den vater in alle wîs. Got sprach: ich hân alliu dinc berhaftic gemachet, war umbe enwære ich denne selber niht berhaftic? Got gebirt von êrste sin glîchnisse in einer gotminnender sêle, dar nâch sich selber und niht minner dan sich selber. Alsô: der dâ ist in der êwicheit gotes sun, der ist der sêle sun und ir kint: alsô daz got und diu sêle hânt (󰀆󰀉󰀈) | ein kint mit einander. Gæbe sich got der sêle zîtlîche, ez verdriuze sie. Nû gibet er sich ir in êwicheit in einem niuwen nû, grüenende âne underlâz. Si ist sô vürwitzic, daz si niemer geruowen enwil, si enkume ze dem ursprunge. Dar umbe hete Philippus reht, dô er sprach: ‘herre, zeige uns dînen vater, sô genüeget uns’. Ze glîcher wîse als der êwic gotes sun quillet ûz dem veterlîchen herzen, alsô quillet er in einer gotminnender sêle. (󰀇󰀀󰀀) | Lîplîchiu dinc diu sint ûzwürkende, geistlichiu dinc diu sint înwürkende. Diu vruht des boumes diu ist ze dem êrsten in dem boume. Dar nach blüejet si ûz und hanget an dem boume. Ze dem dritten mâle vellet si abe von dem boume. Geistlîchiu dinc diu sint înwürkende. Dô disiu geburt eines geschihet in eines menschen sêle, der wirt nâhe in got gevüeget. Dô disiu geburt noch eines geschihet, der wirt noch næher in got gevüeget. Ie dicker disiu geburt geschihet, ie inniger der mensche in daz veterliche (󰀇󰀀󰀂) | herze gevüeget wirt. Disiu geburt muoz geschehen enboben hie und nû. Hie daz ist stat, nû daz ist zît. Si muoz geschehen in êwicheit. Daz wir alsus in im geborn werden, daz er sich selber in uns gebere, des helfe uns der vater und der sun und der heilige geist. Amen.

󰀁󰀇. See Eph. 󰀃:󰀁󰀄–󰀅: ‘(󰀁󰀄) Huius rei gratia flecto genua mea ad Patrem Domini nostri Iesu Christi, (󰀁󰀅) ex qua omnis paternitas in caelis et in terra nominatur’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀁* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀆]

󰀆󰀃󰀁

prevents nature [from doing this]. Therefore, a woman is generated; otherwise no women would ever be born. And if there existed no more than one man, and if there was neither time nor space nor matter, that man would renew himself, like the son his father in every way. God said:󰀁󰀇 I have made all the things to be fruitful, why would I myself not be fruitful? God first generates His likeness in a God-loving soul, then Himself and nothing less than Himself. Therefore: the one who is there in eternity God’s Son, He is the son of the soul and her offspring: so that God and the soul have one offspring together. If God gave Himself to the soul only for a given time, this would sadden her. Now, He gives Himself to her in eternity in a new now, blossoming without interruption. She is so curious that she never wants to rest unless she arrives in the origin.󰀁󰀈 Therefore, Philip was right when he said: ‘Lord, show us your father, and it is enough for us’.󰀁󰀉 In the same way that the eternal Son of God flows from the paternal heart, so He flows in a God loving soul. Bodily things are external agents, spiritual things are internal agents. The fruit of the tree is first in the tree. Then it blossoms and hangs from the tree. Third, it falls from the tree. Spiritual things are internal agents. When this generation once takes place in the soul of a man, he is closely joined to God. When this generation occurs again, he is joined even closer to God. The more often this generation takes place, the more intimately the man is joined to the paternal heart. This generation must take place beyond ‘here’ and ‘now’. ‘Here’ is a place, ‘now’ has to do with time. It must take place in eternity. That thus we may be generated in Him, that He generates Himself into us, may the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit help us! Amen. 󰀁󰀈. See Augustinus, Confessiones I c. 󰀁 n. 󰀁/󰀁,󰀈 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀈󰀁,󰀆–󰀇): ‘quia fecisti nos ad te et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te’. 󰀁󰀉. Ioh. 󰀁󰀄:󰀈: ‘Dicit ei Philippus: “Domine, ostende nobis Patrem, et sufficit nobis”’.

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀂* [Q 󰀅󰀇] In die consecrationis ecclesie et in anniversario eiusdem ‘Vidi civitatem sanctam Ierusalem novam descendentem de caelo a domino’ etc. (Apoc. 󰀂󰀁:󰀂) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Apoc. 󰀂󰀁:󰀂 (‘Vidi civitatem sanctam Ierusalem novam descendentem de caelo a domino’) is read on the celebration of the anniversary of the dedication of a church. The homily is part of the collection of the Paradisus anime intelligentis, hence, handed down by the following manuscripts (O, H󰀂), but also by further two manuscripts (B󰀈, B󰀁󰀂) and a fragment. In n. 󰀅 is a reference that seems to go to Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀇. The content of the homily The homily which is extant in only an abbreviated form deals with the topic of the place of worship, fitting the feast of the day. Yet, Eckhart immediately focuses on the city to point out with Apoc. 󰀂󰀁:󰀂󰀂 that the city of Jerusalem of which there is mention in the core verse is a ‘city’ without a ‘house of prayer’, because in this city ‘God Himself was the temple’ (n. 󰀂), hence, after giving the core verse in Latin (n. 󰀁), the homily turns to the explanation of the kind of ‘city’ that the Apocalypse talks about. A) ‘The city’ (nn. 󰀂–󰀃). It is not only a city where God is the temple, but more properly, as Paul in I Cor. 󰀃:󰀁󰀆 says, it is ‘the soul’. As ‘city’ means ‘two things’, something that ‘is fortified’ and ‘the harmony of the people’, the soul is characterised by both. She is strong and ‘no one can harm her’, but she is also in peace and has a social nature (n. 󰀃).

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀂* [Q 󰀅󰀇]

󰀆󰀃󰀃

B) ‘Holy’ (nn. 󰀄–󰀅). ‘Holiness is complete purity, freedom and perfection’, Eckhart states with Ps.-Dionysius and then explains ‘purity’ as separation from sins, ‘freedom’ as ‘likeness’ with God, and perfection that is ‘in God alone’. Second, holiness means to be ‘without earthly things’ (n. 󰀅). C) ‘New’ (nn. 󰀆–󰀁󰀀). ‘New’ means something ‘inexperienced’, or ‘close to its beginning’. As ‘God is our beginning’, we become ‘new’ when ‘we are united to Him’. He adds the thought that uniting with Him is something that comes without effort, as God is already in us, so that we are ‘both new and eternal’. The soul is poured by God into the body, it also resembles the body and through this resemblance loves the body. The question is, whether it is the body or the soul that for Eckhart counts amongst the things that are to be loved as they ‘bring us to God’ (n. 󰀇). According to Plato, the soul does not know God as long as she is bound to the body (n. 󰀈). The body serves like a veil for the divine light which cannot be faced immediately (n. 󰀉), at least not for the five kinds of people who Eckhart describes. Yet, there seems to be a sixth sort of people who look at God ‘without impediment’, even though they are ‘near the body’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). Love, however, seems to be what overcomes all impediments and ‘commands all the perfection to come into the soul’. The abbreviated character of the text is shown by the missing prayer at the end of the homily. Editions, commentaries and notes J. Quint, DW II 󰀅󰀉󰀁–󰀆󰀀󰀆; N. Largier I 󰀆󰀀󰀆–󰀁󰀅.󰀁󰀀󰀇󰀆–󰀈󰀂. Previous English translations The Works of Meister Eckhart Doctor Ecstaticus, vol. II, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂), 󰀁󰀉󰀁–󰀅; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀁󰀆󰀈–󰀇󰀁.

󰀆󰀃󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀅󰀉󰀄) ‘Vidi civitatem sanctam Ierusalem novam descendentem de caelo a domino’ etc. Sant Johannes sach ‘eine stat’. Ein ‘stat’ bezeichent zwei dinc: daz eine, daz si veste ist, daz ir nieman geschaden enmac; ze dem andern mâle die eintrehticheit der liute. ‘Disiu stat enhâte kein betehûs; got was selber der tempel. Man endarf keines liehtes der sunnen noch des mânen; diu klârheit unsers herren erliuhtet sie’. Disiu ‘stat’ bezeichent eine ieglîche geistlîche sêle, als sant Paulus sprichet: ‘diu (󰀅󰀉󰀅) | sêle ist ein tempel gotes’ und ist sô stark, als sant Augustînus sprichet, daz ir nieman geschaden enmac, si enschade denne ir selben mit muotwillen. Ze dem êrsten sol man merken den vride, der in der sêle sîn sol. Dar umbe ist si genant ‘Jêrusalem’. Sant Dionysius sprichet: »der götlîche vride durchvert und ordent und endet alliu dinc; und entæte der vride des niht, sô zervlüzzen alliu dinc und enhæten keine ordenunge«. – Ze dem andern mâle machet der vride die crêatûren sich entgiezende und vliezende in der minne und niht ze schadenne. – Ze dem dritten mâle machet er die crêatûren diensthaft under einander, daz sie ein bestân hân ir ein an dem andern. Daz ir ein niht gehaben enmac an im selben, daz beheltet ez an dem andern. Dar umbe kumet ein crêatûre von der andern. – Ze dem vierden mâle machet er sie widerböugic in irn êrsten ursprunc, daz ist: in got. (󰀅󰀉󰀆) | 󰀁. See Apoc. 󰀂󰀁:󰀂 (‘Vidi civitatem sanctam Ierusalem novam descendentem de caelo a domino’). The context is Apoc. 󰀂󰀁:󰀂–󰀅 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀃󰀂ra: ‘In die consecrationis ecclesie et in anniversario eiusdem. Lectio libri Apocalipsis beati Iohannis apostoli. In diebus illis vidi civitatem sanctam [Et ego Ioannes vidi sanctam civitatem Vg.] Iherusalem novam descendentem de celo a Deo, paratam, sicut sponsam ortatam viro suo. Et audivi vocem magnam de throno dicentem: Ecce tabernaculum Dei cum hominibus, et habitabit cum eis. Et ipsi populus eius erunt, et ipse Deus cum eis erit eorum Deus: et absterget Deus omne lacrimam ab oculis eorum, et mors ultra non erit, neque luctus, neque clamor, neque dolor erit ultra, quia prima abierunt. Et dixit qui sedebat in throno: Ecce nova facio omnia’. 󰀂. Apoc. 󰀂󰀁:󰀂󰀂: ‘(󰀂󰀂) Et templum non vidi in ea. Dominus omnipotens templum illius est … (󰀂󰀃) Et civitas non eget sole, neque luna … nam claritas Dei illuminavit eam’. 󰀃. I Cor. 󰀃:󰀁󰀆: ‘Nescitis quia templum Dei estis’. 󰀄. See Ps.-Augustinus, Iuliani Sententiae, expressae ex eius opusculis, cum illarum refutatione. Venerabilis Beda presbyter, in praefatione libri in Cantica canticorum c. 󰀅 n. 󰀉 (PL 󰀄󰀅, 󰀁󰀇󰀄󰀅): ‘Et iterum postmulta, quibus libertatem nostrae voluntatis praedicat, ait: Etenim, si ut praeclare

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀂* [Q 󰀅󰀇]

󰀆󰀃󰀅

‘Vidi civitatem sanctam Ierusalem novam descendentem de caelo a domino’ etc.󰀁 Saint John saw ‘a city’. A ‘city’ means two things: first, that it is fortified, so that no one can harm it; secondly, the harmony of the people. ‘This city had no house of prayer; God Himself was the temple. There is no need of sunlight or the moon; the splendor of our Lord enlightens it’.󰀂 This ‘city’ means each spiritual soul, as Saint Paul says: ‘The soul is a temple of God’,󰀃 and it is so strong, as Saint Augustine says, that no one can harm her, unless she damages herself from wilfulness.󰀄 First of all we must note the peace that should exist in the soul. This is why she is called ‘Jerusalem’.󰀅 Saint Dionysius says:󰀆 ‘Divine peace pervades, orders and accomplishes all things; and if peace did not do it, all things would be dispersed and would have no order’. Secondly, peace causes creatures to gush out and flow in love, but not to harm. Third, it makes creatures helpful to each other, so that they support each other. What one of these can not have by itself, it gets from the other. Therefore one creature comes from the other. Fourthly, it makes them turn back into their first origin, namely: in God.

a doctissimis atque orthodoxis disputatum est, nemini vere unquam noceri nisi a se ipso potest, nec est prorsus aliquid quo quisquam invitus fiat miser; quid tandem virtus timebit, nisi defectum sui, quo homini in aeternum nocetur?’ 󰀅. See (Pseudo-)Hieronymus, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum (Lagarde 󰀁󰀃󰀆,󰀅): ‘Ierusalem uisio pacis’. 󰀆. See Ps.-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus c. 󰀁󰀁 § 󰀁 (PG 󰀃, 󰀉󰀄󰀈–󰀉; Dionysiaca 󰀄󰀉󰀅,󰀃–󰀄󰀉󰀆,󰀁): ‘Age igitur, divinam et principem congregationis pacem hymnis pacificis laudemus. Ipsa enim est omnium unitiva, et universorum et consensus et connaturalitatis generativa et operativa…’; (󰀄󰀉󰀇,󰀃– 󰀄󰀉󰀈,󰀃): ‘Quae simpliciter superveniens totis, sicut quibusdam vectibus divisorum conclusivis omnia definit, terminat et firmat, et non sinit divisa effundi ad interminatum et infinitum, inordinata et non-collocata, et deserta a Deo facta, et ab unitione sui ipsorum exeuntia, et in se invicem omni mixtione conspersa…’; (󰀅󰀀󰀂,󰀃–󰀅󰀀󰀃,󰀂): ‘Unam igitur quamdam et simplicem pacificae unitionis contemplemur naturam, unientem universa sibi ipsi et illis ipsis et sibi invicem, et salvantem omnia in non-confusa omnium continentia et immixta et concreta’.

󰀆󰀃󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Daz ander: daz er sprichet, daz diu ‘stat’ ‘heilic’ ist. Sant Dionysius sprichet, »daz heilicheit ist ganziu lûterkeit, vrîheit und volkomenheit«. Lûterkeit ist, daz der mensche gesundert ist von den sünden; daz machet die sêle vrî. Glîchnisse ist diu grœste wollust und vröude, diu in dem himelrîche ist; und kæme got in die sêle und enwære si im niht glîch, si würde dâ von gepîniget, wan sant Johannes sprichet: ‘wer sünde tuot, der ist ein kneht der sünde’. Von den engeln und von den heiligen mügen wir sprechen, daz sie volkomen sîn, doch von den heiligen niht genzlîche, wan sie noch liebe tragent ze den lîchamen, die noch in der aschen ligent; aber in gote ist aleine ganziu volkomenheit. (󰀅󰀉󰀇) | Mich wundert, daz sant Johannes ie getorste gesprechen, enhæte er ez in dem geiste niht gesehen, daz drî persônen sîn: wie der vater sich ergiuzet mit aller volkomenheit in der geburt als in den sun und sich ergiuzet in den heiligen geist mit einer güete als in einer minne. Ze dem andern mâle sprichet ‘heilicheit’ als vil als ‘daz von der erde genomen ist’. Got ist iht und ein lûter wesen, und diu sünde ist niht und verret von gote. Got geschuof die engel und die sêle bî ihte, daz ist: bî gote. Diu sêle ist geschaffen als mê als under (󰀅󰀉󰀈) | dem schaten des engels, und hânt doch eine gemeine natûre; und alliu lîphaftigiu dinc sint geschaffen bî nihte und verre von gote. Dar umbe, daz sich diu sêle giuzet ûf den lîchamen, sô wirt si vervinstert und muoz wider ûfgetragen werden mit dem lîchamen ze gote. Sô diu sêle âne irdischiu dinc ist, sô ist si ‘heilic’. Zachêus, die wîle er ûf der erde was, sô enmohte er unsers herren niht gesehen. Sant Augustînus sprichet:

󰀇. See Ps.-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus c. 󰀁󰀂 § 󰀂 (PG 󰀃, 󰀉󰀆󰀉; Dionysiaca 󰀅󰀂󰀈,󰀄–󰀅󰀂󰀉,󰀁): ‘sanctitas quidem est (ut secundum nos dicatur) ab omni immunditia libera et perfecta et omnino immaculata munditia’. 󰀈. Ioh. 󰀈:󰀃󰀄: ‘qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati’. 󰀉. See Augustinus, De Gen. ad litt. XII c. 󰀃󰀅 (CSEL XXVIII,󰀁, 󰀄󰀃󰀂,󰀁󰀈–󰀄󰀃󰀃,󰀁): ‘sed tamen minime dubitandum est, et raptam hominis a carnis sensibus mentem, et post mortem ipsa carne deposita, transcensis etiam similitudinibus corporalium, non sic videre posse incommutabilem substantiam, ut sancti angeli vident; sive alia latentiore causa, sive ideo quia inest ei naturalis quidam appetitus corpus administrandi; quo appetitu retardatur quodammodo ne tota intentione pergat in illud summum coelum, quamdiu non subest corpus, cuius administratione appetitus ille conquiescat’; see Eckhart, Hom. 󰀆󰀃* [Q 󰀈󰀄], n. 󰀅: ‘Dar umbe sprichet sant Augustîn die sêlen in dem himelrîche ensint noch niht volkomen sælic, wan sie noch eine neigunge hânt ze dem lîchamen’, and Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀆* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀂], n. 󰀁󰀂. 󰀁󰀀. See Ioh. 󰀁:󰀁–󰀃; Eckhart is clearly equating the author of the Gospel with that of the Apocalypse.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀂* [Q 󰀅󰀇]

󰀆󰀃󰀇

Secondly: that he says, that the ‘city’ is ‘holy’. Saint Dionysius says󰀇 ‘that holiness is complete purity, freedom and perfection’. Purity means that a person is separated from sins; this makes the soul free. Likeness is the greatest pleasure and joy that exist in the kingdom of heaven; and if God came into the soul and she was not like Him, she would be tormented, because Saint John says: ‘Whoever sins is a servant of sin’.󰀈 Of the angels and saints we can say that they are perfect, but of the saints not entirely, because they still love the bodies that still lie in the dust;󰀉 yet in God alone is all perfection. I wonder if Saint John had ever dared to speak,󰀁󰀀 if he had not seen in the spirit that there are three persons: how the Father pours Himself out with all perfection into the generation as into the Son and pours Himself out into the Holy Spirit with goodness as in a love. Further, ‘holiness’ means ‘what is taken away from the earth’.󰀁󰀁 God is something and a pure being, and sin is nothing and turns away from God. God created the angels and the soul close to something, that is: near God. The soul is created as more or less under the shadow of the angel, and yet they have a common nature:󰀁󰀂 and all bodily things are created near nothing and far from God. Therefore, when the soul poures herself on the body, she is darkened and must be brought up together with the body to God. When the soul is without earthly things, then she is’ holy’. While Zacchaeus was on the earth,󰀁󰀃 he could not see our Lord. Saint Augustine says:󰀁󰀄 ‘If a person wants to become pure, he

󰀁󰀁. See Albertus, Super Matthaei evangelium c. 󰀆, 󰀉 (Schmidt 󰀁󰀈󰀈,󰀆󰀆–󰀈): ‘Dicitur etiam sanctum Latine idem quod agios Graece, et hoc est idem quod ‘sine terra’ sive depuratio ab offuscatione terrena’; Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae II II q. 󰀈󰀁 a. 󰀈: ‘nomen sanctitatis duo videtur importare. Uno quidem modo, munditiam: et huic significationi competit nomen graecum, dicitur enim agios quasi sine terra’. 󰀁󰀂. See Albertus, Meteor. II tr. 󰀂 c. 󰀂󰀈 (Colon. 󰀁󰀆,󰀂, 󰀅󰀁󰀉,󰀂󰀁–󰀇): ‘Et ideo quidam dixerunt, quod sicut ratio est in umbra intelligentiae et sensus in umbra rationis et vegetabile principium in umbra sensus, ita una intelligentiarum est in umbra alterius, et prima intelligentia in umbra causae primae’. 󰀁󰀃. See Luc. 󰀁󰀉:󰀂–󰀄: ‘(󰀂) … vir nomine Zachaeus: … (󰀃) et quaerebat videre Iesum, quis esset: et non poterat prae turba, quia statura pusillus erat. (󰀄) Et praecurrens in arborem sycomorum ut videret eum’. 󰀁󰀄. See Augustinus, Sermo 󰀂󰀁󰀆 c. 󰀂 n. 󰀂 (PL 󰀃󰀈, 󰀁󰀀󰀇󰀇): ‘Si despicitis mundum, habebitis cor mundum…’

󰀆󰀃󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

»wil der (󰀅󰀉󰀉) | mensche lûter werden, sô lâze er von irdischen dingen«. Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen, daz diu sêle niht lûter enmac werden, si enwerde widergetriben in ir êrste lûterkeit, als si got geschaffen hât, als man von kupfer niht golt gemachen enmac, daz man zwirn oder drî stunt brenne, man entrîbe ez wider ûf sîne êrste natûre; wan alliu dinc, diu von hitze smelzent oder von kaltem hart werdent, diu sint genzlîche von wezzeriger natûre. Dar umbe müezen sie genzlîche widergetriben werden ûf daz wazzer und beroubet genzlîche der natûre, dâ sie nû ane sint; und sô hilfet der himel und diu kunst dar zuo, daz ez genzlîche verwandelt wirt ze golde. Man glîchet wol îsen silber und kupfer golde: ie man ez mê glîchet und niht enberoubet, ie ez velscher ist. Alsô ist ez an der sêle. Lîhtlîche (󰀆󰀀󰀀) | sint tugende ze bewîsenne oder dâ von ze sprechenne; aber in der wârheit ze habenne sint sie gar seltsæne. Ze dem dritten mâle sprichet er, daz disiu ‘stat’ ‘niuwe’ sî. ‘Niuwe’ heizet daz, daz ungeüebet ist oder daz sînem anvange nâhe ist. Got ist unser anvanc. Swanne wir mit im vereinet sîn, sô werden wir ‘niuwe’. Etlîche liute wænent tôrlîche, als ob got diu dinc êwiclîche an im gemachet habe oder behalten, diu wir nû sehen, und sie in der zît her vür gebe. Götlîchiu werk suln wir verstân âne arbeit, als ich iu sagen wil: ich stân hie, und hæte ich vor drîzic jâren hie gestanden und wære mîn antlütze offenbâr und enhæte ez nieman gesehen, ich hæte doch hie gestanden. Und würde ein spiegel bereit und hielte man in gegen mir, mîn antlütze würfe und bildete sich dar ane âne mîne arbeit; und geschæhe daz gester, sô wære ez niuwe, und aber hiute, sô wære ez noch niuwer, und alsô über drîzic jâr oder êwiclîche, sô wære ez êwic ; und ob der spiegel tûsent wæren, daz wære âne mîne arbeit. Alsô hât got êwiclîche alliu bilde an im, niht als die sêle und ander crêatûre, sunder als got: an im enist niht niuwe noch bilde, sunder, als ich gesaget hân von dem spiegel, alsô ist ez an uns beidiu niuwe und êwic. 󰀁󰀅. The reference seems to go to Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀇: ‘Alsô hât got getân. Er hât die sêle geschaffen nâch der allerhœhsten volkomenheit und hât in sie gegozzen alle sîne klârheit in der êrsten lûterkeit, und ist er doch unvermischet bliben’. 󰀁󰀆. See Albertus, Meteor. IV tr. l c. 󰀅 (Colon. 󰀁󰀆,󰀁, 󰀂󰀂󰀀,󰀄󰀄–󰀅󰀀): ‘Sicut operum aereorum ad ipsa quidem opera prima sive proxima materia est aes, totaliter autem et universaliter prima materia ad illa est aqua, quia in IV Meteororum Nostrorum ostendimus omnium eorum quae liquefiunt calido sicco, primam materiam esse aquam. Aeris igitur forsan prima materia est aqua, si omnia liquescentia secundum primam materiam sunt aqua’. 󰀁󰀇. Apoc. 󰀂󰀁:󰀂: ‘civitatem sanctam Hierusalem novam vidi’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀂* [Q 󰀅󰀇]

󰀆󰀃󰀉

must let go of earthly things’. I have already said it,󰀁󰀅 that the soul can not become pure if she is not driven back into her first purity, as God created her, just as one can not make gold from copper which one burns for two or three hours, unless one drives it back to its first nature; because all the things that liquefy by heat or which harden by cold, are entirely of a watery nature. Therefore, they must be totally driven back to the water and completely deprived of the nature in which they find themselves now; and so heaven and craft applied to it help it to be completely transformed into gold.󰀁󰀆 One can quite compare iron with silver and copper with gold, but the more one compares them without subtraction, the more false it is. So it is with the soul. It is easy to demonstrate virtues or talk about them; but they are very rare to have in truth. Thirdly, he says that this ‘city’ is ‘new’.󰀁󰀇 ‘New’ means that something is inexperienced or that it is close to its beginning.󰀁󰀈 God is our beginning. When we are united with Him, then we become ‘new’. Some people stupidly believe that God would have done or kept eternally in Himself the things we now see, and that He made them go out in time. We have to understand divine action as without effort, as I will tell you: I stand here, and if I had been standing here for thirty years with my face open, yet nobody had seen it, I would nevertheless have been standing here. And if you prepared a mirror and held it in front of me, my face would mirror itself and produce its image in it without my effort; and if it happened yesterday, it would be new and if today it would be even more new, and if so for thirty years or eternally, it would be eternally ; and if there were thousand mirrors, it would happen without my effort. Thus God has eternally all images in Him, not as the soul and other creatures, but as God: in Him there is nothing new nor image, but, as I said of the mirror, in us it is both new and eternal.󰀁󰀉 󰀁󰀈. See Albertus, Super Matthaeum c. 󰀆, 󰀉 (Schmidt 󰀁󰀈󰀇,󰀅󰀅–󰀆): ‘Novum enim est, quod principio est coniunctum et vicinat ipsi’; similar is Hom. 󰀂󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀃], n. 󰀇: ‘Die meister sprechent: daz ist junc, daz sînem beginne nâhe ist. Vernünfticheit, in der ist man alzemâle junc: ie man mê würkende ist in dér kraft, ie næher man sîner geburt ist. Daz ist junc, daz sîner geburt nâhe ist’. 󰀁󰀉. See Bonaventura, In Hexaemeron Collatio 󰀁 n. 󰀁󰀆 (V 󰀃󰀃󰀂a): ‘Et hoc est contra errore eorum qui credunt mundum ab aeterno creatum. Quia enim mentes nostrae cognatae sunt aeternis luminibus, putant, quod sicut res productae sunt seu descriptae in arte aeterna ab aeterno, sic ab aeterno in isto munda creatae sint; et sicut mundus ab aeterno descriptus est in arte aeterna, sic descriptum putant in materia’.

󰀆󰀄󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Swanne der lîchame bereit ist, (󰀆󰀀󰀁) | sô giuzet got die sêle dar în und bildet sie nâch dem lîchamen und hât eine glîchnisse mit (󰀆󰀀󰀂) | im und von der glîchnisse eine minne. Dar umbe enist nieman, er enhabe sich selben liep; sie triegent sich selben, die dâ wænent, daz sie sich selben niht liep enhaben. Sie müesten sich hazzen und enmöhten niht blîben. Wir müezen diu dinc wol liep haben, diu uns ze gote vürdernt; daz ist aleine liebe mit gotes liebe. Hân ich die liebe, daz ich über mer wil, und hæte ich gerne ein schif, ez wære aleine, daz ich gerne über mer wære; und als ich über mer kume, sô enbedarf ich des schiffes niht. Plâtô sprichet: waz got ist, des enweiz ich niht – und wil sprechen: die wîle diu sêle bewunden ist in dem lîbe, sô enmac si got niht bekennen –, aber waz er niht enist, daz weiz ich wol, als man merken mac bî der sunnen, der schîn nieman gelîden enmac, er enwerde von êrste bewunden in dem (󰀆󰀀󰀃) | lufte und enschîne alsô ûf daz ertrîche. Sant Dionysius sprichet: »ist, daz daz götlîche lieht in mich schînet, sô muoz ez bewunden sîn, als mîn sêle bewunden ist«. Er sprichet ouch: daz götlîche lieht erschînet an vünfleie liuten. Die êrsten enpfâhent sîn niht. Sie sint, als daz vihe ist, unglîch ze enpfâhenne, als man merken mac bî glîchem: gienge ich über ein wazzer und wære ez gemenget und trüebe, sô enmöhte ich mîn antlütze dar inne niht gesehen durch die unglîchnisse. – Den andern erschînet wênic liehtes als ein blik (󰀆󰀀󰀄) | von einem swerte, der ez würket. – Die dritten enpfâhent sîn mê, als einen grôzen blik, der lieht ist und aber vinster; daz sint alle, die dâ abevallent von götlîchem liehte in die sünde. – Die vierden enpfâhent sîn noch mê; aber bî wîlen entziuhet er sich durch

󰀂󰀀. See Macrobius, Commentarium in Somnium Scipionis I c. 󰀂 n. 󰀁󰀅 (Willis, 󰀇,󰀅–󰀇): ‘loqui esset animatus, dicere quid sit non ausus est, hoc solum de eo sciens, quod sciri quale sit ab homine non possit’; see Eckhart, In Exod. n. 󰀁󰀈󰀄 (LW II 󰀁󰀅󰀈,󰀁󰀁): ‘Unde et Plato, ut scribit Macrobius, cum de deo “loqui esset animatus, dicere quid sit non ausus est, hoc solum de ipso sciens quod sciri qualis sit ab hominibus non possit”’. 󰀂󰀁. Ps.-Dionysius, De caelesti hierarchia c. 󰀁 § 󰀂 (PG 󰀃, 󰀁󰀂󰀁B; Dionysiaca 󰀇󰀃󰀃,󰀁–󰀄): ‘Etenim neque possibile aliter nobis supersplendere thearchicum radium nisi varietate sanctorum velaminum sursum active circumvelatum, et his quae secundum nos, providentia paterna, connaturaliter et familiariter apparatum’. See also Eckhart, In Ioh. n. 󰀇󰀄 (LW III 󰀆󰀂,󰀅–󰀉): ‘“Deus” autem “lux est, et tenebrae in eo non sunt ullae”, Ioh. 󰀁. Hoc est ergo quod hic dicitur: “lux in tenebris lucet”, id est in creaturis quae habent aliquid opaci, id est nihili, adiunctum. Et hoc est quod dicit Dionysius: “impossibile est nobis aliter lucere divinum radium nisi varietate velaminum circumvelatum”’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀂* [Q 󰀅󰀇]

󰀆󰀄󰀁

When the body is ready, then God pours the soul in it, forms her according to the body and she has a resemblance to it, and from the resemblance a love. Therefore, there is no one who does not love himself; the people who believe that they do not love themselves, deceive themselves. They would need to hate themselves and could not last. We do, indeed, have to love the things that bring us to God; only this is love with the love of God. If I loved to go overseas, and I would want to have a ship, it would be only because I would want to go overseas; and as soon as I arrived overseas, I would no longer need the ship. Plato says:󰀂󰀀 what God is, I do not know – and he means: as long as the soul is bound to the body, she can not know God – but what He is not, this I know well, as can be seen in the case of the sun whose splendor no one can bear, unless it is first bound by the air and thus shines on earth. Saint Dionysius says:󰀂󰀁 ‘If the divine light shines in me, it must be veiled,󰀂󰀂 as my soul is veiled’. He also says: the divine light appears to five kinds of people. The first ones do not receive it. They are, as animals are, inadequate to receive, as can be seen from a simile: if I walked upon a water and this was mixed and cloudy, I could not see my face for the inadequacy.󰀂󰀃 – To the second ones only little light appears like a flash of a sword that makes it light up.󰀂󰀄 – The third ones receive more of it, like a big flash, which is clear and then obscure; they are all those who fall from the divine light into sin. – The fourth ones receive even more of it; but sometimes it󰀂󰀅 escapes for no other reason than to excite them and make them broad in desire. It is certain: whoever

󰀂󰀂. ‘bewunden’, here without object, needs to be translated differently from ‘bound’ as in the previous section, but Eckhart still develops the idea of the reduction of divine power, when impacting creatures, a topic as old as the Middle Platonic tradition to which he here refers, on this, see M. Vinzent, Asterius von Kappadozien (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃), 󰀅󰀅–󰀆. 󰀂󰀃. J. Quint, ad loc. translates ‘unglîchnisse’ more closely to the simile as ‘Unebenheit (der Wasseroberfläche)’ (‘uneveness of the surface of the water’) which is possible and right, but we wanted to stick closer to the line of argument. 󰀂󰀄. J. Quint, ad loc. is here thinking of the smith who causes flashes when hardening a sword. 󰀂󰀅. Subject is ‘blik’ (‘flash’), but Eckhart shifts his argument towards God, so that also ‘God’ can be regarded as subject.

󰀆󰀄󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

niht, wan daz er sie reize und wît mache an der begerunge. Ez ist gewis: der unser ieglîchem sînen schôz wolte vüllen, unser ieglich machete sînen schôz wît, daz er vil enpfâhen möhte. Augustînus: »wer vil enpfâhen welle, der wîte die begerunge«. – Die vünften enpfâhent ein grôz lieht, als ob ez tac sî, und doch gemachet als durch einen schranz. Dâ von sprichet diu sêle in der minne buoche: ‘mîn liep hât mich anegesehen durch einen schranz; sîn antlütze daz was lustlich’. Dâ von sprichet ouch sant Augustînus: »herre, dû gibest (󰀆󰀀󰀅) | underwîlen sô grôze süezicheit, ob si volkæme, enist daz niht himelrîche, sô enweiz ich, waz himelrîche ist«. Ein meister sprichet: wer got bekennen wil, enist er niht gezieret mit götlîchen werken, er wirt widergeslagen ûf bœsiu dinc. Gehœret aber kein rât dar zuo, daz man got volkomenlîche bekenne? – Jâ, hie von sprichet diu sêle in der minne buoche: ‘mîn liep sach mich ane durch ein venster’ – daz ist: âne hindernisse –, ‘und ich wart sîn gewar; er stuont bî der want’ – daz ist: bî dem lîchamen, der nidervellic ist – und sprach: ‘tuo mir ûf, mîn vriundinne!’ – daz ist: wan si ist zemâle mîn an der liebe, wan ‘er ist mir und ich bin im aleine’; ‘mîn tûbe’ – daz ist: einvaltic an der begerunge –, ‘mîn schœne’ – daz ist: an den werken –, ‘stant ûf snelliclîche und kum ze mir! Daz kalte ist vergangen’, dâ alliu dinc von sterbent; alsô lebent alliu dinc in dem warmen. (󰀆󰀀󰀅) | ‘Der regen ist entwichen’ – daz ist wollust vergenclîcher dinge. ‘Die bluomen sint entsprungen in unserm lande’ – die bluomen sint diu vruht des êwigen lebens. ‘Var hine, nordwint, der dâ derret!’ – dâ gebiutet got der bekorunge, daz si die sêle niht mê enhinder. ‘Kum, wint von sûden, und durchwæje mînen garten, daz mîne wurze vliezen!’ dâ gebiutet got aller volkomenheit, ze komenne in die sêle.

󰀂󰀆. See Augustinus, En. in Ps. 󰀈󰀃 n. 󰀃 (PL 󰀃󰀇, 󰀁󰀀󰀅󰀇): ‘Desiderium eorum differtur, ut crescat; crescit, ut capiat … Ad capiendum deum exercere; quod semper habiturus es diu desidera’. 󰀂󰀇. Cant. 󰀂:󰀉, 󰀁󰀄: ‘(󰀉) … dilectus meus … prospiciens per cancellos, (󰀁󰀄) … et facies tua decora’. 󰀂󰀈. See Augustinus, Confessiones X c. 󰀄󰀀 n. 󰀆󰀅 (CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇, 󰀁󰀉󰀁,󰀂󰀁–󰀃): ‘Et aliquando intromittis me in affectum multum inuitatum introrsus ad nescio quam dulcedinem, quae si perficiatur in me, nescio quid erit, quod uita ista non erit’; see also Th. Aqu., Sermo in Dom. Sexag. III (Raulx, 󰀄󰀇): ‘Augustinus: Introducit ad me Dominus aliquando quandam nescio quam dulcedinem, quae perficitur in me; nescio quae sit vita aeterna si illa non est’. 󰀂󰀉. Source unidentified. See Augustinus, De quantitate animae c. 󰀃󰀂 n. 󰀇󰀅 (CSEL LXXXIX, ed. Hörmann, 󰀂󰀂󰀂,󰀂󰀁–󰀂󰀂󰀃,󰀁󰀆) (for the text see Hom. 󰀉󰀈* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀇], n. 󰀅).

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀂* [Q 󰀅󰀇]

󰀆󰀄󰀃

of us wanted to fill his lap would make his lap so wide that he could receive a lot. Augustine:󰀂󰀆 ‘Whoever wants to receive a lot, let him widen his desire’. – The fifth receive a great light, as if it were day, and yet done as if through a crack. Of this the soul says in the Book of Love: ‘My beloved looked at me through a crack; his face was enchanting’.󰀂󰀇 Therefore Saint Augustine too says:󰀂󰀈 ‘Lord, sometimes you give such a great sweetness, that if it were complete and were not the kingdom of heaven, I would not know what the kingdom of heaven is’.

A master says:󰀂󰀉 whoever wants to know God will be thrown back to evil things, if he is not adorned with divine actions. But is there no need for advice to know God perfectly? Yes, of this the soul speaks in the Book of Love: ‘My beloved looked at me through a window’󰀃󰀀 – that is: without impediment –, ‘and I noticed him; he stood near the wall’󰀃󰀁 – that is, near the body, which is transient – and said: ‘Open for me, my dear!’󰀃󰀂 – that is: because in love she is completely mine, because ‘he is mine and I am his alone’;󰀃󰀃 ‘My dove’󰀃󰀄 – that is, simple in desire –, ‘my beauty’ – that is: in actions –, ‘get up immediately and come to me! The cold has gone’,󰀃󰀅 from which all things die; therefore, all things live in the warmth. ‘The rain has disappeared’󰀃󰀆 – that is, the pleasure of corruptible things. ‘Flowers have blossomed in our land’:󰀃󰀇 flowers are the fruit of eternal life. ‘Go away, north wind that parches’󰀃󰀈 – so God orders the temptation to stop hindering the soul. ‘Come, wind of the south, and blow on my garden, that my spices flow!’󰀃󰀉 There God commands all perfection to come into the soul.

󰀃󰀀. Cant. 󰀂:󰀉.󰀁󰀄: ‘(󰀉) … dilectus meus … prospiciens per cancellos, (󰀁󰀄) … et facies tua decora’. 󰀃󰀁. Cant. 󰀂:󰀉: ‘En ipse stat post parietem nostrum’. 󰀃󰀂. Cant. 󰀅:󰀂: ‘Aperi amica mea’. 󰀃󰀃. Cant. 󰀂:󰀁󰀆: ‘Dilectus meus mihi, et ego illi’. 󰀃󰀄. Cant. 󰀂:󰀁󰀄: ‘columba mea’. 󰀃󰀅. Cant. 󰀂:󰀁󰀀.󰀁󰀁: ‘(󰀁󰀀) … Surge, propera amica mea … formosa mea, et veni. (󰀁󰀁) Iam enim hiems transiit’. 󰀃󰀆. Cant. 󰀂:󰀁󰀁: ‘imber abiit’. 󰀃󰀇. Cant. 󰀂:󰀁󰀂: ‘Flores apparuerunt in terra nostra’. 󰀃󰀈. Cant. 󰀄:󰀁󰀆: ‘Surge aquilo’. 󰀃󰀉. Cant. 󰀄:󰀁󰀆: ‘et voni auster, perfla hortum meum, et fluant aromata illius’.

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀃* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀀] In die consecrationis ecclesie et in anniversario eiusdem ‘Et quaerebat videre Iesum, quis esset’ (Luc. 󰀁󰀉:󰀂–󰀄) Introduction

T

his is another homily for the anniversary of the dedication of a church, this time taken from the Gospel reading. The passage that Eckhart refers to is Luc. 󰀁󰀉:󰀂–󰀄 (‘Et quaerebat videre Iesum, quis esset’). The text of the critical edition in DW is based on only two manuscripts (B󰀂, E󰀂) and a number of fragments. We have to add to the witnesses H󰀄, Kon, M󰀅󰀇. In n. 󰀈 there is a reference which may point to either Hom. 󰀁󰀂* [Q 󰀁󰀄], n. 󰀆 or Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀄* [Q 󰀁󰀅], n. 󰀅. The content of the homily The homily does not concentrate on the church as the previous one, but on the wish ‘to see Jesus’. This raises for Eckhart the question, whether one can see and comprehend God at all. First, the crowd, usually associated with a communal gathering in a church, rather is alluded to as a hindrance to encounter God. And so, after giving an abbreviated form of the Latin core verse, Luc. 󰀁󰀉:󰀃 (‘et quaerebat videre Iesum quis esset’) (n. 󰀁), Eckhart adds his vernacular translation, where he points to the ‘rich man’ who ‘wanted to see Jesus’ (n. 󰀂). This notion of richness is picked up and elaborated on with reference to ‘a saint’, Augustine (n. 󰀃). Encountering the Lord presupposes that one lets all things go by preceding them and breaking through things (n. 󰀄). Eckhart, then points out that such breaking through needs boldness, not ‘modesty of desire’. Only a strong aspiration for the greatest things will make one leave the crowd and multitude

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀃* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀀]

󰀆󰀄󰀅

and encounter Jesus, as he shows with the example of Peter walking over the water (n. 󰀅). But how can one meet Jesus, if ‘he has no names’? ‘Where is God seen?’ ‘What is God’ (n. 󰀆). Eckhart quotes a few masters and their statements to which he adds his own about the impossibility to know God (nn. 󰀆–󰀈). The whole paragraph of n. 󰀈 is one of the strongest statements of Eckhart’s negative theology. Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀅󰀁,󰀁󰀆󰀈–󰀇󰀀; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀄󰀉󰀁–󰀃; G. Steer, DW IV 󰀂󰀆󰀂–󰀇󰀈. Previous English translations none.

󰀆󰀄󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀇󰀁) ‘Et quaerebat videre Iesum, quis esset’. Sant Lukas schrîbet uns: dô unser herre wandelte ûf ertrîche in menschlîcher natûre, ‘dô was ein rîcher man, der begerte Jêsum ze sehenne. Dô enmohte er sîn vor der vile der schar niht gesehen, wan er kleine was’. Ein heilige sprichet: der ist eigenlîche rîche, der gotes und tugenden vil hât. Der des guotes vil hât und gotes lützel, der ist arm und ist nihtes rîche, wan alliu dinc sint gegen gote als ein niht. Dâ von sprach ein herre, den lobete sîn gesinde von vil gewaltes und rîchtuomes. Dô sprach der herre: ‘wærlîche, sie enhânt mich nihtes niht gelobet, wan sie hânt vergezzen des allergrœsten, umbe daz ich ze lobenne bin. Ich enbin niht ze lobenne, daz ich vil hân gewaltes und rîchtuomes, mêr: ich bin dar umbe ze lobenne, daz ich mînem lîbe gewaltic bin ze gebietenne, swaz ich wil’. ‘Dirre mensche, der Jêsum begerte ze sehenne, der vürlief die schar und klam ûf einen boum, daz er Jêsum möhte gesehen. Dô sprach unser herre: balde kum her abe, ich muoz noch hiute bî dir sîn’. Swer Jêsum sehen wil, der muoz vürloufen alliu dinc. Waz meinet, daz ein (󰀂󰀇󰀂) | mensche niht snelliclîche vürloufet alliu dinc? Ez meinet, daz er gotes niht enhât gesmecket. Hæte er gotes gesmecket, er vürliefe snelliclîche alliu dinc, niht aleine vürliefe, mêr: er durchbræche alle crêatûren. Swaz sîn minne gelâzen möhte, daz durchbræche er. Daz wir got niht gesehen enmügen, daz kumet von kleine der gerunge und von menige der crêatûren. Swer hôher dinge gert, der ist hôch. Swer got schouwen sol, der muoz hôher gerunge sîn. Wizzet,

󰀁. Luc. 󰀁󰀉:󰀃: ‘et quaerebat videre Iesum quis esset’. 󰀂. Luc. 󰀁󰀉:󰀂–󰀃 (‘ecce vir … ipse dives; et quaerebat videre Iesum, quis esset; et non poterat prae turbam quia statura pusillus erat’). The context is Luc. 󰀁󰀉:󰀁–󰀁󰀀 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀁ra: ‘In die consecrationis ecclesie et in anniversario eiusdem. Secundum Lucam. In Illo tempore ingressus Ihesus [Et ingressus Vg.] perambulabat Iherico. Et ecce vir nomine Zacheus: et hic erat princeps [princeps erat Vg.] publicanorum. et ipse dives: et querebat videre Ihesum, quis esset: et non poterat pre turba, quia statura pusillus erat. Et precurrens ascendit in arborem sicomorum ut videret illum [eum Vg.]: quia inde erat transiturus. Et cum venisset ad locum, suspiciens Ihesus vidit illum, et dixit ad eum: Zachee festinans descende: quia hodie in domo tua oportet me manere. Et festinans descendit, et excepit illum gaudens. Et cum viderent omnes, murmurabant, dicentes quod ad hominem peccatorem divertisset. Stans autem Zacheus,

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀃* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀀]

󰀆󰀄󰀇

‘Et quaerebat videre Iesum, quis esset’.󰀁 St. Luke writes for us: when our Lord walked on earth in human nature, ‘there was a rich man, who wanted to see Jesus. He could not see Him then because of the multitude of the crowd, because he was small’.󰀂 A saint says:󰀃 He who is rich in God and virtues is rich indeed. He who has many goods, but little of God, is poor and is rich in nothing, because all things compared to God are nothing. Of this a lord spoke who was praised by his farmhands for his great power and wealth. Then the lord said: ‘Verily, they have praised me for nothing, because they have forgotten the greatest thing for which I am to be praised. I am not to be praised for the fact that I have great power and wealth, but rather: I am to be praised because I have the power to order my body to do what I want’. ‘This man who wished to see Jesus, ran ahead of the crowd and climbed a tree, so that he could see Jesus. Then our Lord said: come right down, I need to be with you today’.󰀄 Whoever wants to see Jesus, must run ahead of all things. What does it mean that a person does not quickly run ahead of all things? It means that he has not tasted God. If he had tasted God, he would quickly run ahead of all things, not only would he run ahead, even more: he would break through all creatures. Whatever his love would let go, that he would break through. That we cannot see God comes from the modesty of our desire and the multitude of creatures. The one who aspires to great things, he is great. Whoever is to contemplate God must be of a great

dixit ad Dominum: Ecce dimidium bonorum meorum, Domine, do pauperibus: et si quid aliquem defraudavi, reddo quadruplum. Ait Ihesus ad eum: Quia hodie salus domui huic facta est: eo quod et ipse filius sit Abrahe. Venit enim filius hominis querere, et salvum facere quod perierat’. 󰀃. See Augustinus, De civitate Dei VII c. 󰀁󰀂 (CChr.SL 󰀄󰀇, ed. Dombart–Kalb, 󰀁󰀉󰀆,󰀁󰀀–󰀄): ‘Aliud namque sunt diuitiae, aliud pecunia. Nam dicimus diuites sapientes, iustos, bonos, quibus pecunia uel nulla uel parua est; magis enim sunt uirtutibus diuites, per quas eis etiam in ipsis corporalium rerum necessitatibus sat est quod adest’. 󰀄. Luc. 󰀁󰀉,󰀃–󰀅: ‘Et quaerebat videre Iesum, quis esset; … et praecurrens ascendit in arborem sycomorum, ut videret illum … et dixit ad eum: Zachee, festinans descende: quia hodie in domo tua oportet me manere’.

󰀆󰀄󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

daz ernsthaftiu gerunge und verworfeniu dêmüeticheit wunder würket. (󰀂󰀇󰀃) | Ich spriche, daz got alliu dinc vermac: und er envermac des niht, daz er dem menschen iht versage, der dêmüetic und grôzer gerunge ist. Und swâ ich got niht entwinge, daz er tuot allez, daz ich wil, dâ gebristet mir eintweder dêmuot oder gerunge. Ich spriche daz ûf mînen lîp und spriche ez sicherlîche, daz ein mensche von gerunge möhte dar zuo komen, daz ez vüere durch ein stehelîne mûre, als wir lesen von sant Pêter, dô er Jêsum sach, daz er von girde ûf dem wazzer hine gienc. Ich spriche daz vür wâr, daz sîniu girde mohte sîne natûre wandeln, daz er ûf (󰀂󰀇󰀄) | dem wazzer gienc. Nû spriche ich: daz dinc, daz vüllende wehset, daz enwirt niemer vol; als der næme ein vaz, daz vüederic wære, der darîn ein vuoder güzze, wüehse ez dâ mite, sô enwürde ez niemer vol. Diz meinet die sêle: ie mê si begert, ie mê ir gegeben wirt; ie mê si enpfæhet, ie mê ir begrif wîter wirt. Wer ist Jêsus? Er enhât niht namen. Wâ sihet man got? Swâ niht enist ein gester noch ein morne: dâ ein hiute ist und ein iezunt, dâ sihet man got. Waz ist got? Ein meister sprichet: muoz daz von nôt sîn, daz ich von gote rede, sô spriche ich, daz got ist etwaz, daz kein sin erlangen noch begrîfen enkan; anders enweiz ich niht von im. (󰀂󰀇󰀅) | Ein ander meister sprichet: swer daz von gote bekennet, daz er unbekant ist, der bekennet got. Nû kumet sant Augustînus und vellet in die rede und sprichet: got ist daz hœhste und oberste dinc, daz gemeine ist aller gebrûchunge. Er wil daz sprechen, daz got ist etwaz, in dem von nôt alle crêatûren müezen sîn; wan vallent sie ûz der hant der 󰀅. See Matth. 󰀁󰀄:󰀂󰀈–󰀉: ‘(󰀂󰀈) Respondens autem Petrus dixit: Domine, si tu es, iube me venire ad te super aquas. (󰀂󰀉) At ipse ait: Veni. Et descendens Petrus de navicula, ambulabat super aquam ut veniret ad Iesum’. 󰀆. See Luc. 󰀂:󰀂󰀁: ‘Et postquam consummati sunt dies octo, ut circumcideretur, vocatum est nomen eius Iesus’; I Cor. 󰀁󰀂:󰀃: ‘Et nemo potest dicere, Dominus Iesus, nisi in Spiritu Sancto’. 󰀇. See Maimonides, Dux neutrorum I c. 󰀅󰀇 (󰀂󰀃r󰀈–󰀁󰀀): ‘Quod scientiae non apprehenderunt Creatorem: et non apprehendit quid est nisi ipse: et apprehensio nostra respectu ipsius est defectus appropinquandi apprehensioni eius’; see Eckhart, In Exod. n. 󰀁󰀈󰀄 (LW II 󰀁󰀅󰀈,󰀈–󰀁󰀅): ‘“Idcirco convenerunt sapientes”, ut ait Rabbi Moyses, “quod scientiae non apprehenderunt creatorem, et non apprehendit quid est nisi ipse, et apprehensio nostra respectu ipsius est defectus appropinquandi apprehensioni ipsius”. Unde et Plato, ut scribit Macrobius, cum de deo “loqui esset animatus, dicere quid sit non ausus est, hoc solum de ipso sciens quod sciri qualis sit ab hominibus non possit”. Et secundum hoc verificatur “illud Socraticum: hoc scio quod nescio”, quasi dicat: hoc solum de deo scio quod ipsum nescio’; Hom. 󰀇󰀄* [Q 󰀅󰀃], n. 󰀆. 󰀈. See Ps.-Dionysius, De mystica theologia c. 󰀁 § 󰀁 (PG 󰀃, 󰀉󰀉󰀇B; Dionysiaca 󰀅󰀆󰀇,󰀂–󰀅󰀆󰀉,󰀁): ‘Tu autem, amice Thimothee, circa mysticas visiones forti contritione et sensus derelinque et intellectuales operationes, et omnia sensibilia et intelligibilia et omnia exsistentia et non exsistentia;

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀃* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀀]

󰀆󰀄󰀉

desire. Know, that serious desire and servile humility work wonders. I say that God is able to do all things: and yet He cannot deny anything to a person who is humble and of great desire. And where I do not force God to do everything I want, I lack either humility or desire. I apply this to my body and I say it with certainty that a person with desire could achieve to cross through a wall of steel, as we read of Saint Peter when he saw Jesus, that with desire he walked over the water.󰀅 I say for real that his desire could transform his nature so that he could walk over the water. Now I say: the thing that grows while filling up, never becomes full; like someone who took a barrel that could contain a cartload, if he poured in a cart and it grew with it, it would never become full. This means the soul: the more she desires, the more she is given; the more she receives, the more her grasp broadens. Who is Jesus? He has no names.󰀆 Where is God seen? Where there is neither a yesterday nor a tomorrow, there is a today and a now, there one sees God. What is God? A master says:󰀇 if there is need for me to speak of God, then I say that God is something that no mind can reach or grasp; anything else I do not know about Him. Another master says:󰀈 he who knows of God that He is unknown, he knows God. Now Saint Augustine comes and intervenes in the discourse and says:󰀉 God is the highest and supreme thing that is common to every enjoyment. He means that God is something in which all creatures must be of necessity; for if they fall out of the hand of God’s et, sicut est possibile, ignote consurge ad ejus unitionem qui est super omnem substantiam et cognitionem. Et enim excessu tui ipsius et omnium irretentibili et absoluto munde, ad supersubstantialem divinarum tenebrarum radium, cuncta auferens et a cunctis absolutus sursum ageris’. See also Liber XXIV philosophorum, prop. 󰀂󰀃 (Hudry 󰀃󰀁): ‘Deus est qui sola ignorantia mente cognoscitur’. 󰀉. See Augustinus, De natura boni c. 󰀂󰀆–󰀇 (CSEL XXV 󰀈󰀆󰀇,󰀂󰀁–󰀈󰀆󰀈,󰀁󰀇): ‘Quia ergo deus omnia, quae non de se genuit, sed per uerbum suum fecit, non de his rebus, quae iam erant, sed de his, quae omnino non erant, hoc est de nihilo fecit … deus autem, ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia, non opus habebat aliqua materia, quam ipse non fecerat, adiuuari omnipotentiam suam’; id., De doctrina christiana I c. 󰀃󰀂 n. 󰀃󰀅 (Martin 󰀂󰀆,󰀃–󰀄): ‘quia bonus est, sumus’. Avicenna, Metaphysica VIII c. 󰀆 (S. Van Riet 󰀄󰀁󰀂,󰀅󰀅–󰀆󰀂): ‘Necesse esse est perfectum esse. Nam nihil deest sibi de suo esse et de perfectionibus sui esse … Sed necesse esse est plus quam perfectum, quia ipsum esse quod est ei non est ei tantum, immo etiam omne esse est exuberans ab eius esse et est eius et fluit ab illo. Necesse esse per se est bonitas pura’; Eckhart, Sermo XLIX,󰀃 n. 󰀅󰀁󰀁 (LW IV 󰀄󰀂󰀆,󰀅–󰀁󰀄): ‘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 modo quo bonum sui diffusivum … Vide Augustinum, De natura boni c. 󰀂󰀅. 󰀂󰀆, et Avicennam, VIII Metaphysicae c. 󰀆 circa principium’.

󰀆󰀅󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

erbarmherzicheit gotes, sô vallent sie in die hant der gerehticheit gotes. Sie müezen iemer in im blîben. Von nôt muoz der mensche sîn wesen nemen in gote und gebrûchunge haben, jâ, in gote selber, ob er wil. Swer aber niht enwil êwiclîche genüegede und gebrûchunge haben in gote selber, der muoz ez nemen von den dingen, diu alsô snœde sint, daz sie verre sint under sînem vuoztuoche, wan von nôt müezen alle crêatûren ir wesen nemen in gote, nochdenne die vertüemeten in (󰀂󰀇󰀆) | der helle, die müezen blîben ûf etwaz sînes wesennes. Enwellent sie niht blîben in gote in der sælicheit, sô müezen sie in im blîben wider ir willen in der vertüemunge. Waz tôrheit ist daz, daz man bî dem niht sîn enwil, âne den man niht sîn enmac! Nû sprichet sant Augustînus: waz ist got? Er ist etwaz, daz man niht bezzers gedenken enmac. Und ich spriche: got ist bezzer, dan man gedenken kan, und spriche: got ist etwaz, ich enweiz waz, ich enweiz wærlîche waz. Er ist allez daz, daz bezzer ist wesen dan nihtwesen, und bezzer ist ze sînne dan niht ze sînne. Allez daz gerunge gegern mac, daz ist gar verre und kleine (󰀂󰀇󰀇) | gegen gote. Er ist über allez daz, daz gerunge gern mac. Sô ich ze Parîs predige, sô spriche ich – und ich getar ez wol sprechen –: alle die von Parîs enmügent niht begrîfen mit allen irn künsten, waz got sî in der minsten crêatûre, nochdenne in einer mücken. Aber ich spriche nû: alliu disiu werlt enmac ez niht begrifen. Allez, daz man von gote gesprechen oder gedenken mac, daz enist got zemâle niht. Waz got sî in im selber, dar zuo enkan nieman komen, er enwerde denne gerucket in ein lieht, daz got selber ist. Waz got sî in den engeln, daz ist gar verre und enweiz nieman. Waz got sî in einer gotminnender sêle, daz enweiz nieman wan diu (󰀂󰀇󰀈) | sêle, in der er ist. Waz got sî in disen nidern dingen, des weiz ich ein wênic, doch gar lützel. Swâ got vellet in bekantnisse, dâ vellet abe alliu natiurlîchiu sinnelicheit. Daz wir alsus gerucket werden in ein lieht, daz got selber ist, und dar inne êwiclîche sælic sîn, des helfe uns got. Âmen.

󰀁󰀀. See Augustinus, De doctrina christiana I c. 󰀇 n. 󰀇 (CChr.SL 󰀃󰀂, ed. J. Martin, 󰀁󰀀,󰀁–󰀄. 󰀂󰀀–󰀁): ‘Nam cum ille unus cogitatur deorum deus, ab his etiam, qui alios et suspicantur et uocant et colunt deos siue in caelo siue in terra, ita cogitatur, ut aliquid, quo nihil sit melius atque sublimius, illa cogitatio conetur attingere … nec quisquam inueniri potest, qui hoc deum credat esse, quo est aliquid melius’; Eckhart, Sermo XXIX n. 󰀂󰀉󰀅 (LW IV 󰀂󰀆󰀃,󰀅–󰀈): ‘Augustinus I De doctrina christiana c. 󰀁󰀁: “deorum deus cogitatur ut aliquid, quo nihil sit melius atque sublimius”. Et infra: “nec quisquam inveniri potest, qui hoc deum credat esse, quo est aliquid melius”’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀃* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀀]

󰀆󰀅󰀁

mercy, they fall into the hand of God’s justice. They must always remain in Him. Of necessity man must take his being in God and have enjoyment, yes, in God Himself, if he wants. Yet whoever does not want to have eternal satisfaction and enjoyment in God Himself, must take it from the things which are so cheap that they are far underneath his socks, because of necessity all creatures must take their being in God, even the damned in hell must remain on something of His being. If they do not want to remain in God in bliss, they must remain in Him against their will in damnation. What stupidity is that one does not want to be with the one, without whom one can not be! Now, Saint Augustine says:󰀁󰀀 what is God? He is something than which nothing better can be thought of. And I say: God is better than we can think of, and I say: God is something, I do not know what, I really do not know what. He is all that is better to be than not to be, and it is better to be than not to be. All that desire may long for is truly far and small compared to God. He is beyond all that desire may long for. As I preached in Paris,󰀁󰀁 so I say – and I quite dare to say so –: all those in Paris cannot grasp with all their skills what God is in the lowest creature, not even in a fly. But I say now: this whole world can not grasp it. All that can be said or thought of God, God is absolutely not. What God is in Himself, no one can reach, unless one is moved into a light that God Himself is.󰀁󰀂 What God might be in the angels, is very far and nobody knows. What God might be in a God-loving soul, nobody knows except the soul in which He is. What God might be in these things below, I know a little, but just a little. Where God falls into knowledge, all natural senses fall away. That we thus may be moved into a light that is God Himself and be eternally blessed in there, may God help us! Amen.

󰀁󰀁. The closest parallels are Hom. 󰀁󰀂* [Q 󰀁󰀄], n. 󰀆: ‘jch sprach zo paris in der schoelen, dat alle dynck sollen volbracht werden an deme rechten oitmoedegen mynschene’; and Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀄* [Q 󰀁󰀅], n. 󰀅: ‘Jch sprach ze paris in der schu°l, das aellu´ ding sond volbracht werden in dem reht demuetigen mentschen’. 󰀁󰀂. See I Tim. 󰀆:󰀁󰀅–󰀆: ‘Dominus … lucem inhabitat inaccessibilem’ and Rom. 󰀁󰀁:󰀃󰀃: ‘O altitudo divitiarum sapientiae, et scientiae Dei: quam incomprehensibilia sunt iudicia eius, et investigabiles viae eius!’

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀄* [Q 󰀁󰀅] ‘Homo quidam nobilis abiit in regionem longinquam accipere regnum et reverti’ (Luc. 󰀁󰀉:󰀁󰀂) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Luc. 󰀁󰀉:󰀁󰀂 (‘Homo quidam nobilis abijt in regionem longinquam accipere regnum et reuerti’) is read on the feast of Pope and martyr St. Stephan, celebrated on 󰀂 August, and on the feast of the Pope and confessor St. Marc, celebrated on 󰀇 October. It is not present in the print BT, so we do not have any further information. J. Theisen, Predigt und Gottesdienst (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀), 󰀃󰀀󰀇–󰀁󰀁 provides some good arguments that support the link of this homily to the latter feast, particularly the prominence of humility that can be found both in this homily and in the opening of the mass in the officium (‘sacerdotes dei benedicite dominum sancti et humiles corde laudate deum’). The text of the critical edition in DW is based on only two manuscripts (G󰀁 and N󰀈) to which one has to add Wi󰀁. To n. 󰀅 Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀], n. 󰀈 may refer. The reference in n. 󰀁󰀁 could be an internal reference to n. 󰀄 of the same homily, but there is also a close parallel in Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀁󰀇 to which the preacher could have referred. The content of the homily This homily also fell into the hands of the Inquisition and passages are found both in the first and the second list of incriminated texts. Again, Eckhart argued successfully, and none of the passages were included in the Papal bull. The core text is the same as the one used in Eckhart’s famous homily ‘On the noble man’󰀁 and the two texts show a few 󰀁. See DW V 󰀁󰀀󰀆–󰀃󰀆.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀄* [Q 󰀁󰀅]

󰀆󰀅󰀃

parallel ideas. The text here makes no reference to the saints’ feast day, but develops Eckhart’s teaching about detachment and humility. Right from the opening after the presentation of the core Latin verse, Luc. 󰀁󰀉:󰀁󰀂 (‘Homo quidam nobilis abiit in regionem longinquam accipere regnum et reverti’) (n. 󰀁), and an interpretative translation into the vernacular (n. 󰀂), Eckhart starts to talk about leaving oneself, one’s own will, in order to subjugate one’s will to that of God (nn. 󰀂–󰀃). Doing God’s will is only acting according to one’s origin (n. 󰀄). And yet, when one is returning to the origin, one is richer than when one had left it. However, so close is the relation between the person who had left and God, his origin, that ‘whatever is God’s own’ is the person’s ‘own’, and the place where the two are no longer two, but one, is humility (n. 󰀅). ‘A man went away’ (nn. 󰀆–󰀁󰀂). Eckhart comes back to the core verse. He explicates the message of what ‘a man’ is with reference to Aristotle. Even his teaching on detachment he finds in this ‘greatest master’ of the natural sciences. When it comes to the definition of God, Eckhart makes use of Boethius (n. 󰀈), but only to return to Aristotle’s Metaphysics (n. 󰀉). According to Eckhart, ‘no scholar can say anything higher’ than Aristotle on these matters, unless someone ‘speaks in the Holy Spirit’. And indeed, he seems to apply this to himself, as he continues to speak about the ‘man’ who ‘is not satisfied’ with the kind of knowledge of God that the angels have, and states that this man ‘is not satisfied with anything, except the single One’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). This oneness, however, is one of ‘the hidden Godhead’ and darkness, ‘where the ground of God and the ground of the soul is one ground’ (note the singular ‘is’!) (n. 󰀁󰀁). The homily ends with a prayer that ‘we may seek Him in such a way that we eternally remain with Him’ (n. 󰀁󰀂). Editions, commentaries and notes M. Pahncke, 󰀄󰀀󰀀–󰀄; J. Quint, DW I 󰀂󰀄󰀂–󰀅󰀆; N. Largier I 󰀁󰀇󰀂–󰀈󰀁.󰀈󰀉󰀄–󰀉󰀀󰀃. Previous English translations J.M. Clark, Meister Eckhart (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀇), 󰀂󰀄󰀁–󰀅; M. Fox, Breakthrough (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀), 󰀁󰀆󰀆–󰀉; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀂󰀇󰀀–󰀄; Meister Eckhart, The Essential Sermons (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁), 󰀁󰀈󰀉–󰀉󰀂.

󰀆󰀅󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀂󰀄󰀄) ‘Homo quidam nobilis abiit in regionem longinquam accipere regnum et reverti’. Luc. Dis wort ist geschriben in dem ewangelio vnd spricht in tu´tsch: ‘Es was ain edel mentsch, der gieng us in froemde land von im selber vnd kam richer wider hain’. Nun liset man in aim ewangelio, das christus sprach: ‘Nieman mag min iunger gesin, er volg mir denn nach’ vnd hab sich selber gelassen vnd hab im niht behalten; vnd der ha´t aellu´ ding, wa´n niht enhaben das ist aellu´ ding haben. Aber mit begerung vnd mit hertzen sich vnder got gewerfen vnd sinen willen al ze mal setzen in gottes willen vnd enhain gesicht haben uff die geschaffenhait: der alsus us gegangen waer sin selbes, der sol im selber aigenlich wider geben werden. Gueti in sich, gueti, das stillet die sele nit; si loket der sele vnd[er] si besta´t, vnd lu´get her us. gu°t beraitschaft in alles, das gu°t ist in ainer gemainsami, vnd gnad belibet bi der bigerung. vnd geb mir got dehain ding uswendig (󰀂󰀄󰀅) | sines willen, ich achtete sin nit; wa´n das minst, das mir got in sinem willen git, das machet mich saelig. Alle creaturen sint usser gottes willen geflossen. kund ich allain gottes gueti begeren, der will ist als edel, das der hailig gaist sunder mitel dar us fliessend ist. Alles gu°t flu´sset us der u´berflu´ssikait der gu°thait gottes. Ja vnd smakt mir der will gottes allain in der ainikait, da die gottes ru°w der gu°thait in allen creaturen ist; in dem si da ru°wet vnd alles, das wesen vnd leben ie gewan, als in ir lesten end, da solt du den hailgen gaist minnen, als er da ist in der ainikait; niht an im selber, sunder da er smeket mit der gu°thait gottes allain in der ainikait, da aellu´

󰀂. Luc. 󰀁󰀉:󰀁󰀂. Liturgical context: Evangelistar., Arch. f. 󰀄󰀅󰀄ra–rb: ‘(In communi unius confessoris [IV] … Secundum Lucam [󰀁󰀉, 󰀁󰀂–󰀂󰀆]. In illo tempore dixit Ihesus discipulis suis parabolam hanc: [om. Vg.] Homo quidam nobilis abiit in regionem longinquam accipere sibi regnum et reverti. Vocatis autem decem servis suis dedit illis decem mnas, et ait ad illos: Negotiamini dum venio. Cives autem eius oderant illum [eum Vg.] et miserunt legationem post illum dicentes: Nolumus hunc regnare super nos. Et factum est ut rediret accepto regno. [add. et Vg.] Iussit vocari servos quibus dedit pecuniam, ut sciret quantum quisque negotiatus esset. Venit autem primus dicens: Domine, mna tua decem mnas adquisivit. Et ait illi: Euge serve bone, quia in modico fuisti fidelis, eris potestatem habens supra decem civitates. Et alter venit dicens: Domine, mna tua fecit quinque mnas. Et huic ait: Et tu esto supra quinque civitates. Et alter venit dicens: Domine, ecce

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀄* [Q 󰀁󰀅]

󰀆󰀅󰀅

‘Homo quidam nobilis abiit in regionem longinquam accipere regnum et reverti’. Luc.󰀂 This phrase is written in the Gospel and means in German: ‘There was a noble man, who went away from himself into a foreign country and returned home richer’. Now, we read in a Gospel that Christ said:󰀃 ‘No one can be my disciple, unless he follows me’ and has left himself and has not kept himself; and he has everything, because having nothing is having everything. But to subjugate oneself with desire and with [one’s] heart to God, to place one’s own will completely in the will of God and to have no regard for createdness: to him who had thus gone away from what is his, he will be properly given back to himself. Goodness in itself, goodness, does not satisfy the soul.󰀄 It entices the soul to what is below from where she stands and to watch out: Being well prepared for all that is good in fellowship, and grace remains with desire. And if God would give me anything outside of his will, I would not consider it; because the least that God gives me in his will, makes me blessed. All creatures have flowed out of God’s will. If I could only desire the goodness of God, that will is so noble that the Holy Spirit is flowing out of it without a medium. Every good flows from the superabundance of God’s goodness. Yes, and the will of God pleases me only in unity where the repose of God’s goodness is in all creatures; resting in there as in its final end, together with all that ever obtained being and life, there you should love the Holy Spirit as He is there in unity, not in Himself, but where He is pleased with God’s goodness only in unity,

mna tua quam habui repositam in sudario. Timui enim te, quia homo austerus es, tollis quod non posuisti et metis quod non seminasti. Dicit ei: De ore tuo te iudico, serve nequam. Sciebas quod ego homo austerus sum, tollens quod non posui et metens quod non seminavi. Et quare non dedisti pecuniam meam ad mensam, et [ut Vg.] ego veniens cum usuris utique exegissem illam? Et astantibus dixit: Auferte ab illo mnam, et date illi qui decem mnas habet. Et dixerunt ei: Domine, habet decem mnas. Dico autem vobis, quia omni habenti dabitur [et habundabit add. Vg.] ab eo autem qui non habet, et quod habet auferetur ab eo’. 󰀃. Luc. 󰀁󰀄:󰀂󰀇: ‘Et qui non baiulat crucem, et venit post me, non potest meus esse discipulus’. 󰀄. What follows in this paragraph is, according to its editor (and previous translators concur) corrupt and almost incomprehensible.

󰀆󰀅󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

gueti us flu´sset uss der u´berflu´ssikait der gu°thait gottes. Dirre mentsch kumet richer wider hain, denn er us gegangen (󰀂󰀄󰀆) | was. Der alsus usgegangen waere sin selbes, der soelti im selber aigenlicher wider geben werden. vnd aellu´ ding, als er su´ gar gelassen ha´t in der manigualtikait, das wirt im alzemal wider in der ainualtikait, wa´n er sich selber vnd aellu´ ding in dem gegenwurtigen nu der ainikait vindet. vnd der alsus usgegangen waere, der kaem vil adelicher hain, denn er us gegangen was. Dirre mentsch lebt nu in ainer ledigen frihait vnd in ainer lutern bloshait, wan er enha´t sich enkainer ding ze vnderwinden noch an ze nemende lu´tzel noch vil; wa´n alles das gottes aigen ist, das ist sin aigen. D sine antwurtend got nach sinem hoechsten tail in siner grundlosen tieffi in siner tieffen der demuetikait. Ja, der demuetig mentsch bedarf dar umb nit bitten, sunder er mag im wol gebieten. wan die hoehi der gothait kan es anders nit an gesehen denn in der tieffen der demuetikait; wa´n der demuetig mentsch vnd got sind ain vnd nit zwai. Dirre demuetig mentsch ist gottes also gewaltig, als er sin selbs gewaltig ist; vnd alles das gu°t, das in allen engeln vnd in allen hailgen ist, das ist alles sin aigen, als es gottes aigen ist. Got vnd dirre demuetig mentsch sind alzemal ain vnd nit zwai; wan was got wu´rket, das wu´rket och er, vnd was got wil, das wil och er, vnd was got ist, das ist och er: ain leben vnd ain wesen. Ja bi got: waer dirre mentsch in der hell, got muest zu° im in die hell, vnd die hell muest im ain himelrich sin. er mu°ss dis von

󰀅. The manuscript gives ‘Die sine’ which is certainly a misreading of ‘D sine’ which is the man’s own (the main topic of this paragraph) of whom is said before that ‘whatever is God’s own is his own’ (‘… das ist sin aigen’). J. Quint, ad loc. and all who follow him, building on the misreading of the article, translate here ‘die sine’ as ‘die Sonne’ (‘the sun’) which does not make any sense so that, for example, Walsh/McGinn (󰀂󰀇󰀃) state that ‘the whole passage is obscure’. 󰀆. On this passage and what follows immediately see Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. I) (LW V 󰀂󰀁󰀇,󰀁󰀄–󰀂󰀀): ‘Humilis homo est ita potens super deum, sicut ipse sui ipsius; et quidquid est in omnibus angelis et omnibus sanctis, hoc est proprium humilis hominis. Quidquid deus operatur, hoc operatur ipse, et quidquid deus est, hoc ipse est, una vita et unum esse’; ibid. n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀉,󰀉–󰀂󰀇): ‘Decimus quartus articulus sic dicit: “Omnia debent impleri in vero humili homine. Humilis homo et deus non sunt duo, sed sunt unum”. Caveat deus ne obmittat se infundere in hominem recte humilem. “Humilis homo non indiget quod deum roget, ipse potest deo imperare. Humilis homo est ita potens super deum, sicut ipse est, deus scilicet, potens super se ipsum. Si iste homo esset in inferno, oporteret deum venire in infernum et oporteret infernum esse regnum caelorum. Oporteret deum facere de necessitate. Ipse cogitur ad hoc quod ipsum oportet hoc facere, quia istius esse est esse divinum et divinum esse est suum [est divinum] esse”’; Acta

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀄* [Q 󰀁󰀅]

󰀆󰀅󰀇

where every goodness emanates from the superabundance of God’s goodness. This man ‘returns home richer’ than when he had gone away. Whoever has so gone out of himself should be more properly given back to himself. And all the things, just as he had fully abandoned them in multiplicity, will return to him completely in simplicity, for he finds himself and all things in the present now of unity. And he who has thus gone away would return much nobler than when he had gone away. This man now lives in a liberated freedom and in pure nakedness, because he has nothing to take upon himself or to receive, either a little or a lot; for whatever is God’s own is his own. What is his󰀅 corresponds to God according to his supreme part in his groundless depth, in his depth of humility. Yes, the humble person has no need to pray for it, but he can well demand it from Him. For the height of the Godhead can not have any other regard but the depth of humility; for the humble person and God are one and not two. This humble person is so in command over God as he is in command over himself; and all the good that is in all the angels and in all the saints is all his own just as it is God’s own. God and this humble person are completely one and not two;󰀆 for what God works, he works too, and what God wants, he wants it too, and what God is, he too is: one life and one being. Yes, by God: if this person were in hell, God would need to join him in hell, and hell would need to become a kingdom of heaven

Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi n. 󰀂󰀉) (LW 󰀃󰀂󰀄,󰀁󰀉–󰀃󰀂󰀅,󰀉): ‘Decimus quartus articulus sic dicit: “Omnia debent impleri in vero humili homine. Humilis homo et deus non sunt duo, sed sunt unum”. Caveat deus ne obmittat se infundere in hominem recte humilem. “Humilis homo non indiget quod deum roget, ipse potest deo imperare. Humilis homo est ita potens super deum, sicut ipse est, deus scilicet, potens super se ipsum. Si iste homo esset in inferno, oporteret deum venire in infernum et oporteret infernum esse regnum caelorum. Oporteret deum facere de necessitate. Ipse cogitur ad hoc quod ipsum oportet hoc facere, quia istius esse est esse divinum et divinum esse est suum [est divinum] esse”. Dicendum quod totum verum est, morale et devotum, emphaticum tamen, sicut supra dictum est de lacrima. Quod autem dicitur quod talis “homo et deus non sunt duo, sed unum”, patet ex eo quod Ioh. 󰀁󰀇 salvator pro nobis orat patrem. Homo enim humilis in quantum humilis non est duo cum humilitate. Duo enim divisionem dicit et est radix divisionis. Quomodo autem esset quis unus divisus ab humilitate, albus divisus ab albedine et sine albedine? Quapropter ubicumque in inferno esset humilis, necessario esset humilitas. Constat etiam quod eodem quo deus est deus, homo est divinus analogice. Nec enim quis est divinus sine deo, sicut nec albus sine albedine’.

󰀆󰀅󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

not tu°n, er wurdi bezwungen dar zu°, das er es tu°n muesti; wan da ist dirre mentsch goetlich wesen, vnd goetlich (󰀂󰀄󰀇) | wesen ist dirre mentsch. wan hie so geschiht von der ainikait gottes vnd von dem demuetigen mentschen der kuss. wan die tugend, die da haisset demu´tikait, du´ ist ain wurtzel in dem grund der gothait, dar in si gepflantzet ist, das si allain ir wesen in dem ewigen a´in hat vnd niena anderswa. Jch sprach ze paris in der schu°l, das aellu´ ding sond volbracht werden in dem reht demuetigen mentschen. vnd darumb sprich ich, das dem reht demuetigen mentschen enkain (󰀂󰀄󰀈) | ding geschaden mag noch geirren mag. wan es ist enhain ding, es flihe das, das es ze niht moehte gemachen. das fliehen aellu´ geschaffnen ding, wa´n su´ sind nihtes niht an in selber. vnd darumb so flu´het der demuetig mentsch alles, das in gottes geierren mag. Darumb so flu´ch ich den kolen, wan er mich ze niht machen wolt, wan er wolt mir min wesen benemen. (󰀂󰀄󰀉) | Vnd sprach: ‘ain mentsch gieng us’. Aristotiles nam ain bu°ch fu´r sich vnd wolt sprechen von allen dingen. Nun merkent, was aristotiles spricht von disem mentschen. homo das ist als vil gesprochen als ain mentsch, dem forme zu° gefueget ist, vnd git im wesen vnd leben mit allen creaturen, mit redlichen vnd mit vnredlichen, mit allen liplichen creaturen vnd redlich mit den engeln. vnd er sprichet: also als alle creaturen mit bilden vnd formen in den engeln begriffen sind vernu´nfteklichen, vnd die engel bekennent vernu´nfteklich ain ieglich

󰀇. As God and this person are one, and not two, this ‘Him’, capitalised for God, is also ‘him’, not capitalised for the person. Yet, what follows refers to God, so we have also capitalised the ‘Him’ here. 󰀈. To this place, Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀], n. 󰀈 may refer: ‘Nû ist dem menschen gar reht, der in tugenden lebet, wan ich sprach vor aht tagen, daz die tugende wæren in gotes herzen’; see also Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀆 (Proc. Col. I n. 󰀅󰀆) (LW V 󰀂󰀁󰀇,󰀉–󰀁󰀂): ‘Item quod “virtus” “habet radicem in fundo divinitatis radicatam et plantatam, ubi habet esse suum vel essentiam suam et solum ibi et nusquam alibi”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. I) (LW V 󰀂󰀁󰀇,󰀉–󰀁󰀂): ‘Item quod “virtus” “habet radicem in fundo divinitatis radicatam et plantatam, ubi habet esse suum vel essentiam suam et solum ibi et nusquam alibi”’; ibid. (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀄󰀀,󰀁󰀃–󰀇): ‘Quadragesimus quartus articulus sic dicit: “Virtus”, quam homo perfectus habet, ipsa “habet radicem in fundo deitatis radicatam et plantatam, ubi solum ipsa suum esse vel suam essentiam habet’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi n. 󰀂󰀉) (LW V 󰀃󰀂󰀄,󰀁󰀉–󰀃󰀂󰀅,󰀉): ‘Quadragesimus quartus articulus sic dicit: “Virtus, quam homo perfectus habet, ipsa habet radicem in fundo deitatis radicatam et plantatam, ubi solum ipsa suum esse vel suam essentiam habet”. Solutio. Verum est hoc, secundum illud: “dominus virtutum, ipse est rex gloriae”. Docet hoc Thomas I II distinguens virtutes politicas, purgatorias, purgati animi et exemplares. Et hoc est quod apostolus ait: “in caritate radicati et fundati”. Ad Rom. 󰀅: “caritas dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per spiritum sanctum”’ (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀃󰀄󰀄,󰀁󰀆–󰀈): ‘Quadragesimus

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀄* [Q 󰀁󰀅]

󰀆󰀅󰀉

for Him.󰀇 He must do this of necessity, He would be forced to do it; for there this person is divine being, and divine being is this person. For here the kiss happens in the unity of God and the humble person. Because the virtue which is called humility is a root in the ground of the Godhead, in which it is planted, so that it has its being solely in the eternal one and nowhere else.󰀈 I spoke in Paris at the university that all things would be accomplished in the truly humble person.󰀉 And therefore I say that to the truly humble person, nothing can cause harm or trouble. For there is nothing that does not flee that which could annihilate it: all created things flee from it, for they are absolutely nothing in themselves,󰀁󰀀 and, therefore, the humble person flees everything that can mislead him, away from God. Therefore I flee the (burning) coal, for it wants to reduce me to nothing, as it wants to take away my being. And he said, ‘A man went away’.󰀁󰀁 Aristotle began a book and wanted to talk about all things.󰀁󰀂 Now note what Aristotle says about this ‘man’. ‘Homo’ means ‘a man’,󰀁󰀃 to whom the form is added, which gives him being and life together with all creatures, rational and nonrational, with all the physical creatures and rational together with the angels. And he says: as all creatures with their images and forms are intellectually grasped by the angels, and the angels intellectually know each thing distinctly – of which the angel have such great

quartus articulus sic dicit: “Virtus, quam homo perfectus habet, ipsa habet radicem in fundo deitatis radicatam et plantatam, ubi solum ipsa suum esse vel suam essentiam habet”’. 󰀉. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀄󰀀,󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀁): ‘Quadragesimus quintus articulus sic habet; “Omnia debent perfici in uno humili homine’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi n. 󰀁󰀁󰀀) (LW V 󰀃󰀄󰀄,󰀂󰀃–󰀅): ‘Quadragesimus quintus articulus sic habet: “Omnia debent perfici in uno humili homine”. Solutio. Dictum est supra’. 󰀁󰀀. See Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀇 (Proc. Col. II) (LW V 󰀂󰀂󰀉,󰀇–󰀈): ‘Decimus tertius sic dicit: “Omnes creaturae sunt nihil in se ipsis”’; ibid. (LW V 󰀂󰀄󰀀,󰀂󰀂–󰀄): ‘Quadragesimus sextus articulus sic ait: “Omnes res creatae sunt nihil in se ipsis”’; Acta Echardiana n. 󰀄󰀈 (Resp. Echardi nn. 󰀂󰀇–󰀈) (LW V 󰀃󰀂󰀄,󰀁󰀅–󰀈): ‘Decimus tertius sic dicit: “Omnes creaturae sunt nihil in se ipsis”. Hoc negare est ignorare et deum blasphemare; si quominus, deus non esset creator nec creatura esset creata. Creatio enim est ex nihilo, non sic factio. Ioh. 󰀁 dicitur: “omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil”’; ibid. (n. 󰀁󰀁󰀁) (LW V 󰀂󰀄󰀀,󰀂󰀆–󰀈): ‘Quadragesimus sextus articulus sic ait: “Omnes res creatae sunt nihil in se ipsis”. Solutum est supra’. 󰀁󰀁. Luc. 󰀁󰀉:󰀁󰀂: ‘homo quidam … abiit’. 󰀁󰀂. See Aristoteles, Metaphysica. 󰀁󰀃. See Aristoteles, De anima II c. 󰀁, 󰀄󰀁󰀂 ab.

󰀆󰀆󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

ding mit vnderschaid – dar an der engel so grossen lust ha´t, das es ain wunder waere den, die es nit befunden, vnd hettin si sin nit gesmeket –: Also versta´t der mentsch vernu´nfteklichen aller creatur bild vnd form mit vnderschaid. dis gab Aristotiles dem mentschen, das der (󰀂󰀅󰀀) | mentsch da von ain mentsch si, das er aellu´ bild und form verstat; darumb si ain mentsch ain mentsch. vnd das was die hoechst bewisung, dar an Aristotiles bewisen moht ainen mentschen. Nun wil ich och wisen, was ain mentsch si. Homo sprichet als vil als ain mentsch, dem substanci zu° geworfen ist, vnd git im wesen vnd leben vnd ain vernu´nftiges wesen. Ein vernu´nftiger mentsch ist, der sich selber vernu´nfteklichen versta´t vnd in im selber abgeschaiden ist von allen materien vnd formen. ie me er abgeschaiden ist von allen dingen vnd in sich selber gekeret, ie me er aellu´ ding clarlich vnd vernu´nfteklich bekennet in im selber sunder uskeren: ie me es ain mentsch ist. Nun sprich ich: wie mag das gesin, das abgeschaidenhait des verstentniss sunder form vnd bild in im selber aellu´ ding versta´t sunder uskeren vnd verwandlung sin selbes? Ich sprich, es kum von siner ainualtikait; wa´n ie luter ainualtiger der mentsch sin selbes in im selber ist, ie ainualteklicher er alle manigualtikait in im selber versta´t vnd belibt vnwandelber in im selber. Boecius sprichet: got ist ain vnbeweglich gu°t, in im selber still staend, vnberueret vnd vnbewegt vnd aellu´ ding bewegend. Ain ainualtig verstantniss ist so luter in im selber, das es begriffet das luter blos goetlich wesen sunder mitte. vnd in dem influss enpfahet es goetlich natur glich den engeln, dar an die engel (󰀂󰀅󰀁) | enpfahend gross froed. Daz man moecht gesehen ain engel, darumb moecht man in der hell sin tusent iar. Dis verstantniss ist so luter vnd so clar in im selber, was man in disem liecht saehi, es wurd ain engel! Nun merket mit flisse, das Aristotiles spricht von den abgeschaidnen gaisten in dem bu°ch, das da haisset methaphisica. Der hoehst vnder den maistern, der von natu´rlichen ku´nsten ie gesprach, der nemmet dis abgeschaiden gaist vnd sprichet, das si enkainer ding form sien, vnd si nemend ir wesen sunder mittel von got usfliessend; vnd also

󰀁󰀄. See Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae III 󰀉 (Moreschini 󰀇󰀉,󰀃): ‘stabilisque manens das cuncta moveri’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀄* [Q 󰀁󰀅]

󰀆󰀆󰀁

pleasure that it would be a wonder for those who had not noticed and had not tasted it –, so man knows in an intellectual way the images and the forms of all creatures distinctly. This Aristotle attributed to man, so that a man is a man by the fact that he knows all images and forms. This is why a man is a man. And this was the highest criterion by which Aristotle defined what a man is. Now I also want to demonstrate what a man is. ‘Homo’ means as much as ‘a man’ to whom was added a substantia that gives him being, life and an intellectual being. An intellectual man is one who understands himself intellectually and who in himself is detached from all matters and forms. The more he is detached from all things and turned into himself, the more he knows all things in a clear and intellectual way in himself without turning to the outside: the more he is ‘a man’. Now I say: how is it possible that detachment of knowing without form and image gives knowledge of everything in itself without turning to the outside and without change of itself? I say that derives from its simplicity; for the more purely, simply the person is what is his in himself, the more simply he knows all the multiplicity in himself, and remains immutable in himself. Boethius says:󰀁󰀄 God is an immovable good, reposing in himself, untouched and unmoved, but making all things move. A simple intellect is so pure in itself that it grasps the pure, naked, divine being without a medium. And in this influx, it receives the divine nature like the angels, for which the angels receive great joy. To be able to see an angel, one might wish to spend in hell a thousand years. This knowledge is so pure and so clear in itself that the things that one might see in this light become an angel. Now note with diligence, that Aristotle speaks of detached spirits in the book called Metaphysics.󰀁󰀅 The greatest among the masters who ever spoke of the natural sciences calls them detached spirits and says that they are not the form of any thing, and that they take their being without a medium, emanating from God; and thus they also flow

󰀁󰀅. See Aristoteles, Metaphysica XII c. 󰀈 (󰀁󰀀󰀇󰀃a󰀁󰀄–b󰀁󰀁).

󰀆󰀆󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

fliessend si och wider in vnd enpfahend den usfluss von got sunder mittel obwendig den engeln, vnd schowent das bloss wesen gottes sunder vnderschaid. Dis luter bloss wesen nemmet Aristotiles ain ‘was’. Das ist das hoechst, das Aristotiles von natu´rlichen ku´nsten ie gesprach, vnd u´ber das so enmag kain maister hoeher gesprechen, er spraech dann in dem hailgen gaist. Nun sprich ich, das disem edlen mentschen genueget nit an dem wesen, das die engel begriffent vnformlichen vnd dar an hangent sunder mittel; im begnueget nit an dem ainigen ain. (󰀂󰀅󰀂) | Ich hab och me gesprochen von dem ersten begin vnd von dem lesten end. Der vater ist ain begin der gothait, wa´n er begriffet sich selber in im, selber. us dem gat das ewig wort inne belihend, vnd der hailig gaist flu´sset von in beiden inne belibend vnd gebirt in nit, wa´n er ain ende ist der gothait inne belibend vnd aller creaturen, da ain luter ru°w ist vnd ain rasten alles des, das wesen ie gewan. Das begin ist durch des endes willen, wan in dem lesten end ru°wet alles das, das vernu´nftig wesen ie gewan. (󰀂󰀅󰀃) | des wesens ist das vinsterniss oder das vnbekantniss der verborgenen gothait, dem dis lieht schinet, vnd dis vinsterniss enbegraiff das nit. Darumb sprach Moyses: ‘der da ist, der hat mich gesant’, der da sunder namen ist, der ain lo´genung aller namen ist vnd der nie namen gewan. vnd darumb sprach der prophet: ‘waerlich, du bist der verborgen got’ in dem grund der sele, da gottes grund vnd der sele grund ain grund ist. So man dich ie me su°chet, so man dich ie minder vindet. Du solt in su°chen, also das du in niena vindest. su°chest du in nit, so vindest du in. Das wir also su°chent, das wir ewenklich bi im belibent, des helf vns got amen.

󰀁󰀆. See Aristoteles, Metaphysica, VII, 󰀃, 󰀁󰀀󰀂󰀈b 󰀃󰀄: ‘quod quid erat esse’. 󰀁󰀇. See above in this homily, n. 󰀄. Yet, J. Quint, ad loc., is right to point to Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀁󰀇: ‘‘In principio daz sprichet als vil ze tiutsche als ein anegenge alles wesens, als ich sprach in der schuole; ich sprach noch mê: ez ist ein ende alles wesens, wan der êrste begin ist durch des lesten endes willen. Jâ, got der ruowet selbe niht dâ, dâ er ist der êrste begin; er ruowet dâ, dâ er ist ein ende und ein raste alles wesens, niht daz diz wesen ze nihte werde, mêr: ez wirt dâ vor volbrâht in sînem lesten ende nâch sîner hœhsten volkomenheit. Waz ist daz leste ende? Ez ist diu

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀄* [Q 󰀁󰀅]

󰀆󰀆󰀃

back in and receive the emanation of God without a medium beyond the angels, and contemplate the naked being of God without distinction. This pure, naked being, Aristotle calls a ‘something’.󰀁󰀆 This is the highest that Aristotle ever spoke about the natural sciences, and above which no scholar can say anything higher, unless he speaks in the Holy Spirit. Now, I say that this noble man is not satisfied with the being that the angels grasp in a formless way and on which they depend without a medium; he is not satisfied with anything except the single One. I have already spoken of the first beginning and the final end.󰀁󰀄 The Father is a principle of the Godhead, for He grasps Himself󰀁󰀇 in Himself. Out of Him the eternal word comes forth, remaining inside, and the Holy Spirit flows from both, remaining inside, and [it, the Father/the Godhead] does not generate it, for He is an end of the Godhead, remaining inside, and of all creatures, as He is a pure repose and a rest of all that ever received being. The beginning is for the sake of the end, for in the final end everything that ever got intellectual being rests. of being is darkness or nescience of the hidden Godhead, for which this light shines, but ‘this darkness did not grasp it’.󰀁󰀈 Therefore, Moses said: ‘He who is there, He has sent me’,󰀁󰀉 the one who is without names, the one who is a denial of all names and who never got a name. And, therefore, the Prophet said: ‘Verily, you are the hidden God’󰀂󰀀 in the ground of the soul, where the ground of God and the ground of the soul is one ground. Hence, the more one searches for You, the less one finds You. You should search for Him in a way that you never find Him. If you do not search for Him, you will find Him. That we may seek Him in such a way that we eternally remain with Him, may God help us! Amen.

verborgen vinsternisse der êwigen gotheit und ist unbekant und wart nie bekant und enwirt niemer bekant. Got blîbet dâ in im selber unbekant, und daz lieht des êwigen vaters hât dâ êwiclîche îngeschinen, und diu vinsternisse enbegrîfet des liehtes niht’. 󰀁󰀈. Ioh. 󰀁:󰀅: ‘et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt’. 󰀁󰀉. Exod. 󰀃:󰀁󰀄: ‘Qui est, misit me ad vos’. 󰀂󰀀. Isa. 󰀄󰀅:󰀁󰀅: ‘Vere tu es Deus absconditus’.

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀅* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀅] ‘Illumina oculos meos’ (Ps. 󰀁󰀂:󰀄) Introduction

T

his homily is not easy to locate in the liturgical order. A core verse is missing, although Ps. 󰀁󰀂:󰀄 (‘Illumina oculos meos’) is quoted at the beginning. One version of the homily derives from the collection of the Paradisus anime intelligentis where it is marked as a ‘sermo de sanctis’ (n. 󰀅󰀆), thus we have placed it here in the commune part, i.e. the liturgical section which can be used for the celebration of the feast of any saint. The mention of Dionysius in the incipits is the reason why Predigt im Kontext relates it to the feast of St. Dionysius, celebrated on 󰀉 October.󰀁 The text is handed down in version A by the two manuscripts of the Paradisus anime intelligentis (O, H󰀂), in version B by eight manuscripts (B󰀃󰀉, Do󰀁, Kl󰀁, Mai󰀄, N󰀁, N󰀂, Str󰀁, W󰀁) and a number of fragments, including the Greith fragments, in version C by one manuscript (St󰀆) and one fragment (K󰀁b), in version D by one fragment (N󰀄). To these witnesses one has to add H󰀄, Kon, M󰀅󰀇. Note that the MHG text here is not normalised in the critical edition. The content of the homily Another typical homily from the collection of the Paradisus, we are given an abbreviated form which is not more extended even in any of the other three versions that have been preserved in quite a good number of manuscripts. The text also misses a biblical reference text, hence has been described rather as a tractate than a homily by its editor. He also doubts that the verse from Ps. 󰀁󰀂:󰀆 in the beginning (n. 󰀁) originally belonged to the text. Instead, the text develops the teaching of the ‘triple light that 󰀁. See http://pik.ku-eichstaett.de/󰀁󰀁󰀅󰀈󰀄/

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀅* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀅]

󰀆󰀆󰀅

the soul must have, in order to come to a pure knowledge of God’ – these are the ‘natural’, the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘divine’ light (n. 󰀂). The text, then, unfolds those three lights, whereby the preserved text focuses on the first and the third light: 󰀁) The natural light (nn. 󰀃–󰀄). The natural light is the soul’s capability to know that things are not by themselves, but presuppose a cause that is by itself (n. 󰀃). It also understands that ‘all good is divided amongst all things’, but ‘contained in the sole cause’. The negative element of the natural light is the sole unsteadiness (n. 󰀄) which is supported by a quote from Augustine and contrasted with God’s perfection. And yet, Eckhart adds, the soul in her likness of God is as ‘incomprehensible’ as God is. 󰀂) The spiritual light (n. 󰀅). This light is related to faith and the belief in the Trinity that acts ‘as one God’. 󰀃) The divine light (nn. 󰀆–󰀇). This light is one of ‘glory’ and which ‘the soul receives in its supreme power’ (n. 󰀆). It allows one to know God ‘without a medium’ – one of the key motifs in Eckhart’s homilies on saints, as we have seen before. The last thought – and perhaps an abbreviated one – is that God cannot be understood, ‘except by a groundless understanding’ (n. 󰀇). Unfortunately, it is not further developed here whether the soul in her supreme power is this kind of groundless understanding. The text ends, as most homilies, with a short prayer of which, here, only the opening is preserved. Edition, commentary and notes G. Steer, DW IV 󰀉󰀅󰀃–󰀉󰀃. Previous English translations none.

󰀆󰀆󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀁󰀂󰀁) ‘Illumina oculos meos’. sente Dyonisius sprichit: ez ist drigirleige licht daz di sele habin sal di da cumen sal in ein lutir bekentnisse Godis. daz erste ist naturlich, das andere ist geistlich, daz dritte ist gotlich. waz ist nu daz naturliche licht und wi verre mac di sele mide cumen in daz bekentnisse Godis? fon nature hait di sele daz si forsteit alle di dinc di da sint, daz si fon un selber nicht in sint. so muiz uber in ein sin daz fon ume selber ist und daz gesachit hait alle dinc. ouch forsteit di sele fon nature daz alliz daz gudis ist geteilit in alle dinc, daz daz zumale ist beslozzin in der enigin sache aller dinge. fon nature hait di sele daz si minnit ein iclich dinc noch deme daz ez guit ist. wan si dan fon naturlicheme bekentnisse ist cumen uf di sache allir dinge und alliz daz gudis ist geteilit in alle dinc, daz ez zu mole, ist beslozzin in der sache allir dinge, fon deme naturlichime bekentnisse intspringit ein naturliche minne zu deme daz di sache ist allir dinge. alle creature sint gebrechlich und wandilhaftic, nicht all eine an urin wesine, daz daz forge, mer an dem ufgange irre volmachtheit. Augustinus sprichit: ‘di sele inmac nicht lange blibin an eime gedanke, si vellit uz eime in den anderen. di sele inmac auch nicht file gedanke gehabin zumale. uze den si vellit, den stirbit si und lebit den anderen’. wan dan Got keine gemeinschaft hait mit den creaturen, (󰀁󰀂󰀂) | hi ane ist bewisit daz keine gebrechlichkeit in deme enist di da keine gemenschaf inhait mit den creaturen, daz ist Got alleine; und also vil alse di sele sines glichnisses hait, also vil ist si unbegriflich. alsus bekennit und minnit di sele fon nature Got pobin alle dinc. 󰀂. Ps. 󰀁󰀂:󰀄: ‘inlumina oculos meos’ (‘Give light to my eyes’). 󰀃. Rather Augustinus, see Augustinus, De Genesi ad litteram XII c. 󰀃󰀄 (Zycha, 󰀄󰀃󰀂,󰀁–󰀁󰀀): ‘Si ergo caelum primum recte accipimus hoc omne corporeum generali nomine quidquid est super aquas et terram, secundum autem in similitudine corporali quod spiritu cernitur … tertium uero quod mente conspicitur ita secreta et remota et omnino abrepta a sensibus carnis atque mundata ut ea, quae in illo caelo sunt, et ipsam dei substantiam uerbumque deum, per quod facta sunt omnia, per caritatem spiritus sancti ineffabiliter ualeat uidere et audire: non incongruenter arbitramur et illuc esse apostolum raptum’. 󰀄. See Aristoteles, De anima III c. 󰀈, 󰀄󰀃󰀁b󰀂󰀁: ‘omnia ea quae sunt, quodammodo est anima’; Auctoritates Aristotelis (Hamesse, 󰀁󰀈󰀈,󰀇󰀄 n. 󰀁󰀆󰀁): ‘Anima est quodammodo omnia’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀅* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀅]

󰀆󰀆󰀇

‘Illumina oculos meos’.󰀂 St. Dionysius says:󰀃 there is a triple light that a soul must have, in order to come to a pure knowledge of God. The first is natural, the second is spiritual, the third is divine. What then is the natural light, and how far can the soul come into the knowledge of God with it? By nature the soul has the capability to understand that all the things that exist are not by themselves.󰀄 Hence, there must be someone beyond them that is by itself and that has caused all things. The soul also understands by nature that all good is divided amongst all things, which is entirely contained in the sole cause of all things. It is the soul’s nature that she loves each thing insofar as it is good. For she came from natural knowledge to the cause of all things and that all the good is divided amongst all things, and that it is entirely contained in the cause of all things, from this natural knowledge derives a natural love towards that which is the cause of all things. All creatures are frail and changeable, not so much in their being, that this vanishes, rather in the growth of their perfection. Augustine says:󰀅 ‘The soul can not stay with one thought for a long time, she passes from one to another. Neither can the soul can have many thoughts at all. She dies off from the ones from which she falls away, and she lives for the other’. Since God has no commonality with creatures, it shows that there is no imperfection in the one who has no commonality with creatures, that is, God alone; and as much as the soul has His likeness, she is incomprehensible. Thus, by nature, the soul knows and loves God beyond all things. Eckhart’s point, however, is not about the soul, but rather about all creatures needing a cause which is itself uncaused. 󰀅. See Augustine, De Trinitate XII c. 󰀁󰀄 n. 󰀂󰀃 (CChr.SL 󰀅󰀀–󰀅󰀀A, 󰀃󰀇󰀆,󰀅󰀄–󰀆󰀁): ‘Non autem solum rerum sensibilium in locis positarum sine spatiis localibus manent intellegibiles incorporalesque rationes, uerum etiam motionum in temporibus transeuntium sine temporali transitu stant etiam ipsae utique intellegibiles, non sensibiles. Ad quas mentis acie peruenire paucorum est, et cum peruenitur quantum fieri potest, non in eis manet ipse peruentor, sed ueluti acies ipsa reuerberata repellitur et fit rei non transitoriae transitoria cogitatio’; De Trinitate XV c. 󰀁󰀆 n. 󰀂󰀆 (CChr.SL 󰀅󰀀–󰀅󰀀A, 󰀅󰀀󰀁,󰀂󰀆–󰀈): ‘Fortassis etiam non erunt uolubiles nostrae cogitationes ab aliis in alia euntes atque redeuntes, sed omnem scientiam nostram uno simul conspectu uidebimus’.

󰀆󰀆󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

daz andir licht ist geistlich. daz inspringit in deme gelaubin, wan alliz daz der glaube in ume beslozzin hait, daz inmac di sêle fon nature nicht gerechin. der gelaube ist daz dri personen sint in eime wesine und ein wesin in drin personen. hi zu ist zu cleine alliz naturlich licht und forstentnisse, wan al naturlich licht inmac kein glichnisse hi zu geleistin. alleine dri personen sint, si inwirkin doch nicht alse dri, mer si wirkin alse ein Got. daz dritte daz ist ein licht der glorien, daz ist ein gotlich licht, daz inphehit di sele in di ubirstin craft. in disime lichte irkennit man Got sundir mittil. also verre alse sich daz licht senkit in di uberstin craft, also verre wirt Got one mittil irkant. in disime lichte irkennit di sele allir dinge edilkeit in Gode, wan alliz daz ie uzgefloiz oder nu uzfluzit oder ummir uzgeflizin sal, daz hait ewic wesin und lebin in Gode, nicht also alse ez hi gebrechlich ist an der creature, mer alse ez sin eigin wesin ist, wan ez ist sin nature. Got inhait sin eigin wesin nicht fon nichte, he hait ez fon siner eginen nature, di werliche icht ist an ir selbir. di nature ist grundelois. da fon inwirdit auch si nicht gegrundit dan fon eime grundelosin bekentnisse. allir creature forstentnisse ist gemezzin, darumme hait ez grunt. da fon inkan ez daz grundelose forstentnisse nicht begrifin noch Christus nôch der menscheit. da Got sine, egine nature aneschowit, di grundelois ist, di inmac fon nichte begrifin werdin dan fon eime grundelosin forstentnisse. daz forstentnisse enist nicht ein ander dan daz di nature selber ist. alsus begrifit sich Got alleine an siner eginen nature in eime lichte da niman zu cumen inmac, alse sente Pauwil sprichit. bide wir etc.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀅* [S 󰀁󰀁󰀅]

󰀆󰀆󰀉

The second light is spiritual. This derives from faith, for everything that faith contains in itself, the soul by nature cannot reach. It is believed that three persons are in one being and one being in three persons. All natural light and understanding is too small for this, because all natural light can offer no simile for this. Although they are three persons, they do not act as three, but rather they act as one God. The third is a light of glory, that is, a divine light, which the soul receives in its supreme power. In this light one gets to know God without a medium. To the extent that this light descends into supreme power, to this extent God becomes known without a medium. In this light the soul grasps the nobility of all things in God, for everything that ever emanated or now emanates or will ever emanate has being and life in God, not as it is imperfect here in the creature, rather as it is its own being, for it is its nature. God has His own being not from nothing, He has it from His own nature, which truly is something in itself. This nature is groundless. Of this it is even not caused but by a groundless knowledge. The understanding of all creatures is limited, thus, it has a cause. For this reason it cannot understand the groundless understanding of Christ according to humanity. Where God contemplates His own nature, which is groundless, it can not be understood, except by a groundless understanding. The understanding is nothing but what the nature is itself. Thus, God understands Himself alone in His own nature in a light into which no one can come, as Saint Paul says.󰀆 Let us pray etc.

󰀆. See I Tim. 󰀆:󰀁󰀆: ‘qui solus habet immortalitatem lucem inhabitat inaccessibilem, quem vidit nullus hominum, nec videre potest’.

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀆* [Q 󰀄󰀈] Introduction

S

imilar to the previous homily, this has no core biblical verse and does not even hint at any biblical passage. Yet, there is a close connection of this text with others that are connected with Eckhart’s teaching in Cologne towards the end of his career, such as Hom. 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂], Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], Hom. 󰀆󰀅* [Q 󰀁󰀃], Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀄* [Q 󰀁󰀅] and Hom. 󰀁󰀂* [Q 󰀁󰀄].󰀁 The text as printed in the critical edition of DW is based on two manuscripts (E󰀁, Mz󰀂) and the print in BT. To these witnesses we have to add HT. In n. 󰀅 the reference seems to go to Hom. 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂], n. 󰀈. The content of the homily According to Karl Heinz Witte, Meister Eckhart (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆), 󰀂󰀄󰀂–󰀅, this text intensifies Eckhart’s teaching on the generation and birth of the Son, as can be found in the other homilies from his late Cologne period. The ‘light’ as the spark of the soul is called here, is not satisfied with the Trinity that still displays the distinctions in persons with their own personal properties, as taught in the Christian tradition, but it longs for the radical oneness. This is not only the rebirth of the Son into the Father, but it is the soul’s oneness with the Godhead. The text starts with a master’s saying (most likely reflecting Eckhart’s teacher, Thomas Aquinas) which serves like a core verse that directs the entire line of arguments (n. 󰀁).

󰀁. On these Cologne homilies see the forthcoming volume of the special conference of the Meister-Eckhart-Gesellschaft, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈 at Cologne. K.H. Witte, Meister Eckhart (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆), 󰀂󰀃󰀁–󰀄󰀅 counts further to this series of homilies Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀], Hom. 󰀇󰀆* [Q 󰀁󰀁], Hom. 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂], Hom. 󰀂󰀃* [Q 󰀅󰀁] and also our homily here, Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀆* [Q 󰀄󰀈].

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀆* [Q 󰀄󰀈]

󰀆󰀇󰀁

To explain the attraction of things that are alike, Eckhart starts with things that are wide apart, heaven and earth, and shows that even there one notes an attraction, namely that the one above tends to pour itself out into what is below, because the other has taken the lower place (n. 󰀂). This simile is than applied to ‘the person who has annihilated himself’ (n. 󰀃). Into him God must pour Himself entirely. With another simile that of the eye and the wood, Eckhart tries to explain the deeper meaning of how to understand commonality, difference and oneness (n. 󰀄). Then, he moves to the soul (n. 󰀅). Just as the human eye has more in common with a sheep’s eye, despite being eyes of different beings, than the human eye with a human ear, so the soul has more in common with God than with its own powers. Hence, when a person turns away from its createdness and towards the divine light in itself, God and that person become one in the one simple and single action (n. 󰀆). This action, however, is no movement, but a repose, where there is no distinction at all, but as repose it is the unmoved mover which moves all things and pours out all lives. A final prayer ‘that we may thus live intellectually’ ends the text (n. 󰀇). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀆󰀀,󰀁󰀉󰀂–󰀄; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀅󰀆󰀉–󰀇󰀂; J. Quint, DW II 󰀄󰀀󰀉–󰀂󰀁; N. Largier I 󰀅󰀀󰀄–󰀉.󰀁󰀀󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀀; B. Mojsisch, ‘Predigt 󰀄󰀈: “alliu glîchiu dinc minnent sich”, in Lectura Eckhardi (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈), 󰀁󰀅󰀂–󰀅. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀁󰀅󰀂–󰀃; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀃󰀀󰀉–󰀁󰀁; Meister Eckhart, The Essential Sermons (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁), 󰀁󰀉󰀇–󰀈; Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings, ed. and trans. O. Davies (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀁󰀃󰀃–󰀆.

󰀆󰀇󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀄󰀁󰀃) Ein meister sprichet: alliu glîchiu dinc minnent sich under einander und vereinent sich mit einander, und alliu unglîchiu dinc vliehent sich und hazzent sich under einander. Nû sprichet ein meister, daz niht enist sô unglîch einander als himel und (󰀄󰀁󰀄) | erde. Daz hât daz ertrîche bevunden in sîner natûre, daz ez dem himel verre ist und unglîch. Her umbe hât ez in gevlohen ûf die niderste stat, und dar umbe ist daz ertrîche unbewegelich, daz ez dem himel iht genâhe. Des ist der himel gewar worden in sîner natûre, daz in daz ertrîche gevlohen hât und die niderste stat besezzen hât. Dar umbe ergiuzet er sich alzemâle in vruhtbærlîcher art in daz ertrîche, und wellent daz die meister, daz der breite, wîte himel niht enbehalte als breit als einer nâdel spitze, er engebe ez alzemâle in vruhtbærlîcher art in daz ertrîche. Dar umbe heizet daz ertrîche diu vruhtbærlîcheste crêatûre under allen zîtlîchen dingen. (󰀄󰀁󰀅) | Ze glîcher wîs alsô spriche ich von dem menschen, der sich selben vernihtet hât in im selben und in gote und in allen crêatûren: der mensche hât die niderste stat besezzen, und in den menschen muoz sich got alzemâle ergiezen, oder er enist niht got. Ich spriche ez bî guoter wârheit und bî der êwigen wârheit und bî iemerwernder wârheit, daz sich got in einen ieglîchen menschen, der sich ze grunde gelâzen hât, muoz alzemâle ergiezen nâch sîner vermügenheit alsô ganz und gar, daz er in allem sînem lebene noch in allem sînem wesene noch in sîner natûre noch in aller sîner gotheit niht enbeheltet, er enmüeze ez alzemâle ergiezen in vruhtbærlîcher art in den menschen, der sich gote gelâzen hât und die niderste stat besezzen hât. (󰀄󰀁󰀆) | Dô ich hiute her gienc, dô gedâhte ich, wie ich iu alsô vernünfticlîche gepredigete, daz ir mich wol verstüendet. Dô gedâhte ich ein glîchnisse, und kündet ir daz wol verstân, sô verstüendet ir mînen 󰀂. On this Neo-Platonic rule see Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae Ia IIae q. 󰀂󰀉 a. l: ‘In appetitu autem naturali hoc manifeste apparet quod, sicut unumquodque habet naturalem consonantiam vel aptitudinem ad id, quod sibi convenit, quae est amor naturalis; ita ad id, quod est ei repugnans et corruptivum, habet dissonantiam naturalem, quae est odium naturale. Sic igitur et in appetitu animali seu in intellectivo, amor est consonantia quaedam appetitus ad id quod apprehenditur ut conveniens: odium vero est dissonantia quaedam appetitus ad id quod apprehenditur ut repugnans et nocivum’; Albertus, Metaphysica III tr. 󰀂 c. 󰀁󰀀 (Colon. 󰀁󰀆,󰀁, 󰀁󰀂󰀈,󰀂󰀈–󰀃󰀉): ‘Simul autem cum his quae dicta sunt, reprehensibilis est Empedocles, quod transmutationis, quae fit in entibus, nullam

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀆* [Q 󰀄󰀈]

󰀆󰀇󰀃

A master says:󰀂 all things that are alike love one another and join one another, and all things that are unlike flee and hate each other. Now a master says󰀃 that there is nothing as unlike as heaven and earth. The earth has felt it in its nature that it is far from and unlike heaven. Therefore, it has fled from it to the lowest place, and, therefore, the earth is immovable, in order not to come close to heaven. This the heaven has realized in its nature that the earth has fled from it and has taken the lowest place. Therefore, it pours itself fully fruitfully into the earth, and the masters want [to say] that the broad, wide heaven holds nothing back, not the width of a needle-tip, but it gives itself fully fruitfully into the earth. Therefore, the earth is called the most fruitful creature among all temporal things. In the same way I speak of the person who has annihilated himself in himself and in God and in all creatures: this person has taken the lowest place, and into this person God must completely pour Himself or else He is not God. I say it by the trustworthy truth and by the eternal truth and by lasting truth, that into every person who has let himself go to the ground, God must completely pour Himself according to His potential, hence, completely and totally, that neither from all His life, nor from His being, nor from His nature nor from His entire Godhead does He retain anything, as He must pour it all fruitfully into that person who has detached himself for God and has taken the lowest place. While I was coming here today, I thought how I could intelligibly preach to you so that you would understand me perfectly. Then a simile came to mind, and if you could understand it well, you would sufficientem dicit causam, praecipue quare hoc transmutetur ad hanc formam et illud ad aliam. Non enim dicit, nisi quia sic aptum natum est ex materia, quod amantia se et habentia symbolum et germanitatem conveniunt et diversa ab his separantur. Sed quando magnum odium ex multa elementorum componentium contrarietate in membris eius quod compositum est, nutritum est et amicitiae colla dissoluta est, ad honorem intendebat, ut separatum esset et vinceret perfecto tempore periodi’. 󰀃. Maimonides, Dux neutrorum II c. 󰀂󰀇 (󰀅󰀆r 󰀄󰀁–󰀂): ‘… quia fecit scire quod materia coelorum non est materia terrae: et quod sunt duae materiae inter quas est magna differentia’.

󰀆󰀇󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

sin und den grunt aller mîner meinunge, den ich ie gepredigete, und was daz glîchnisse von mînem ougen und von dem holze: wirt mîn ouge ûfgetân, sô ist ez ein ouge; ist ez zuo, sô ist ez daz selbe ouge, und durch der gesiht willen sô engât dem holze weder abe noch zuo. Nû merket mich vil rehte! Geschihet aber daz, daz mîn ouge ein und einvaltic ist in im selben und ûfgetân wirt und ûf daz holz geworfen wirt mit einer angesiht, sô blîbet ein ieglîchez, daz ez ist, und werdent doch in der würklicheit der angesiht als ein, daz man mac gesprechen in der wârheit: ougeholz, und daz holz ist mîn ouge. Wære aber daz holz âne materie und ez zemâle geistlich wære als diu gesiht mînes ougen, sô möhte man sprechen in der wârheit, daz in der würklicheit der gesiht daz holz und mîn ouge bestüenden in éinem wesene. Ist diz wâr (󰀄󰀁󰀇) | von lîplîchen dingen, vil mê ist ez wâr von geistlîchen dingen. Ir sult daz wizzen, daz mîn ouge vil mê einicheit hât mit eines schâfes ougen, daz jensît mers ist und daz ich nie gesach, dan mîn ouge habe einicheit mit mînen ôren, mit den ez doch ein ist in dem wesene; und daz ist dâ von, wan des schâfes ouge hât die selben würklicheit, die ouch mîn ouge hât; und dâ von gibe ich in mê einicheit in dem werke dan ich tuon mînen ougen und mînen ôren, wan diu sint gesundert an den werken. (󰀄󰀁󰀈) | Ich hân etwenne gesprochen von einem liehte, daz ist in der sêle, daz ist ungeschaffen und ungeschepfelich. Diz lieht pflige ich alwege ze rüerenne in mînen predigen, und diz selbe lieht nimet got sunder mittel und sunder decke und blôz, als er in im selben ist; daz ist ze nemenne in der würklicheit der îngeberunge. Dâ mac ich wærlîche sprechen, daz diz lieht habe mê einicheit mit gote, dan ez habe einicheit mit deheiner kraft, mit der ez doch ein ist in dem wesene. Wan ir sult wizzen, daz diz lieht niht edeler enist in dem wesene mîner sêle dan diu

󰀄. This reference seems to go to Hom. 󰀉󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀂], n. 󰀈: ‘als ich mêr gesprochen hân, daz etwaz in der sêle ist, daz gote alsô sippe ist, daz ez ein ist und niht vereinet. Ez ist ein, ez enhât mit nihte niht gemeine noch enist dem nihtes niht allez daz gemeine, daz geschaffen ist. Allez daz geschaffen ist, daz ist niht. Nû ist diz aller geschaffenheit verre und vremde. Wære der mensche aller alsô, er wære alzemâle ungeschaffen und ungeschepfelich’; as one reads, this, in return, points to other homilies. As indicated above, these might be to Hom. 󰀄󰀆* [Q 󰀂󰀉], n. 󰀁󰀂: ‘Und etlîche pfaffen die enverstânt des niht, daz etwaz sî, daz gote alsô sippe ist und alsô ein ist’; or Hom. 󰀄󰀂* [Q 󰀄󰀆], n. 󰀅: ‘Daz dû niht enbist dér mensche, daz niht machet underscheit zwischen dir und dém menschen. Und alsô: wellet ir sîn sunder underscheit, sô scheidet iuch von nihte. Wan ein kraft ist in der sêle, diu ist gescheiden von nihte, wan si enhât niht gemeine mit deheinen dingen; wan niht

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀆* [Q 󰀄󰀈]

󰀆󰀇󰀅

grasp what I want to say and the ground of all my meaning that I have ever preached; and it was the simile of my eye and this wood: if my eye opens, it is an eye; if it is closed, it is the same eye, and because of the vision, the wood does not undergo any increase or decrease. Now, be careful what I say! If, however, it happens that my eye in itself is one and simple and that it opens and focuses on this wood with a look, well, both remains what it is, and yet, in the act of looking, they become as one that one can say in truth: eye-wood, and: the wood is my eye. If, however, the wood were without matter and were completely spiritual like the vision of my eye, it could be said in truth that, in the act of looking, the wood and my eye consisted of a single being. If this is true of bodily things, the more true it is of spiritual things. You need to know that my eye has much more in common with the eye of a sheep that lives overseas and which I have never seen, than my eye has in common with my ear, with which it is one in being; and the reason for this is that the eye of the sheep acts the same way as my eye; and for this I grant it more commonality in the act than I grant to my eyes and ears, for they are separate in action. I have sometimes spoken of a light that is in the soul, which is uncreated and uncreatable.󰀄 In my homilies I use to always touch on this light, and this same light takes God without a medium and without cover and nakedely, as He is in Himself; this is to be applied to the act of the internal generation. There I can truly say that this light has more in common with God than it has in common with any power with which it is one in being. For you must know that this light is not nobler in my soul’s being than the lowest or the most coarse

enist in der kraft wan got aleine: der liuhtet blôz in die kraft’; or Hom. 󰀅󰀉* [Q 󰀄󰀂], n. 󰀃: ‘Nû wizzet: in allen guoten liuten ist got alzemâle, und ez ist ein etwaz in der sêle, dâ got inne lebet, und ist ein etwaz in der sêle, dâ diu sêle lebet in gote’. Because of the close relationship between these parallels, it is not easy to decide whether the following reference refers to our passage here, although it seems the closest match (even though the idea of the spark [=‘vunke’] is missing in all of other the parallel quotes), see Hom. 󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀂], n. 󰀈: ‘Ich sprach niuwelîche an einer stat: dô got geschuof alle crêatûren, und hæte dô got niht vor geborn etwaz, daz ungeschaffen wære, daz in im getragen hæte bilde aller crêatûren: daz ist der vunke – als ich ê sprach ze sant Magfire, daz ir niht vergebens hie ensît gewesen – diz vünkelîn ist gote alsô sippe, daz ez ist ein einic ein ungescheiden und daz bilde in im treget aller crêatûren, bilde sunder bilde und bilde über bilde’.

󰀆󰀇󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

niderste kraft oder diu allergröbeste, als gehœrde oder gesiht oder ein ander kaft, an die hunger oder durst, vrost oder hitze gevallen mac; und daz ist des schult, daz daz wesen einvaltic ist. Dâ von, als man die krefte nimet in dem wesene, sô sint sie alle ein und glîche edel; aber dâ man die krefte nimet in irn werken, sô ist einiu vil edeler und vil hœher dan diu ander. (󰀄󰀁󰀉) | Dar umbe sô spriche ich: swenne sich der mensche bekêret von im selben und von allen geschaffenen dingen, – als vil als dû daz tuost, als vil wirst dû geeiniget und gesæliget in dem vunken in der sêle, der zît noch stat nie enberuorte. Dirre vunke (󰀄󰀂󰀀) | widersaget allen crêatûren und enwil niht dan got blôz, als er in im selben ist. Im engenüeget noch an vater noch an sune noch an heiligen geiste noch an den drin persônen, als verre als ein ieglîchiu bestât in ir eigenschaft. Ich spriche wærlîche, daz disem liehte niht engenüeget an der einbærkeit der vruhtbærlîchen art götlîcher natûre. Ich wil noch mê sprechen, daz noch wunderlîcher hillet: ich spriche ez bî guoter wârheit und bî der êwigen wârheit und bî iemerwernder wârheit, daz disem selben liehte niht engenüeget an dem einvaltigen stillestânden götlîchen wesene, daz weder gibet noch nimet, mêr: ez wil wizzen, von wannen diz wesen her kome; ez wil in den einvaltigen grunt, in die stillen wüeste, dâ nie underscheit îngeluogete weder vater noch sun noch heiliger geist; in dem innigesten, dâ nieman heime enist, dâ genüeget ez jenem liehte, (󰀄󰀂󰀁) | und dâ ist ez inniger, dan ez in im selben sî; wan dirre grunt ist ein einvaltic stille, diu in ir selben unbewegelich ist, und von dirre unbewegelicheit werdent beweget alliu dinc und werdent enpfangen alliu leben, diu vernünfticlîche lebende in in selben sint. Daz wir alsus vernünfticlîche leben, des helfe uns diu iemerwernde wârheit, von der ich gesprochen hân. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀆* [Q 󰀄󰀈]

󰀆󰀇󰀇

power, such as hearing or sight or another power, which are exposed to hunger or thirst, cold or heat; the reason for this is the fact that being is simple. Therefore, when one takes the powers in their being, they are all one and similarly noble; but if one takes the powers in their actions, then one is much nobler and higher than the other. Therefore I say: when the person turns away from himself and from all created things – as much as you do this, you are united and beatified in the spark in the soul, which never touched time or space. This spark rejects all creatures and wants nothing else than just God, as He is in Himself. It is satisfied neither with the Father nor with the Son nor with the Holy Spirit nor with the three persons, insofar as each consists in its ownness. I truly say that this light is not satisfied with the commonality of the fruitful way󰀅 of the divine nature. I want to say even more, which sounds even more astonishing: I say it by the good truth and eternal truth and by the lasting truth that this same light is not satisfied by the simple, immovable, divine being which neither gives nor takes, but rather: it wants to know where this being comes from; it wants to come into the simple ground, into the quiet desert, where never distinction looked in, neither Father nor Son nor Holy Spirit; in the innermost, where no one is at home, there that light is satisfied and there it is more inward than it is in itself; for this ground is a simple repose which is in itself immovable, and from this immovability all things are moved and all lives are received which are intellectually living in themselves. That we may thus live intellectually, may the lasting truth of which I have spoken help us! Amen.

󰀅. J. Quint, ad loc. translates ‘vruhtbærlîchen art’ by ‘fruchtträchtigen Schoßes’ (‘fruitful bossom/womb’).

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀇* [Q 󰀆󰀂] Introduction

E

ven though, this text is classified as ‘homily’ in the critical edition of DW, it seems to be a ‘collatio’ rather than a ‘sermo’, as also indicated by the manuscripts E󰀂 and Z󰀁 which state ‘Das ist ein collectie (collacie) von meister egh’t’. Accordingly, the text does not have a core biblical reference text, even though the text opens with a quote from Prov. 󰀂󰀂:󰀂 (‘Got hât die armen gemachet durch die rîchen und die rîchen durch die armen’). Neither does the text close with a prayer. The text of the critical edition in DW is based on eight manuscripts (Bra󰀃, E󰀂, Fr󰀄, Ge󰀄, M󰀂, S󰀁, St󰀂, Z󰀁), a number of fragments and also on an excerpt in Nicolaus of Landau. Perhaps n. 󰀁 could be pointed to by Hom. 󰀂󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀆], n. 󰀆, yet, there are other places too in Eckhart’s works with similar thoughts. The content of the homily

This collatio stresses that it is not enough to believe in God, one must also trust in Him. Trust also means non-intention, or the determination to give up one’s own will and to accept anything that comes from God (n. 󰀁). This non-intentionality, non-seeking, includes a renouncing of understanding, knowing, introspection, contemplation and repose (n. 󰀂). Accepting God’s will is particularly difficult when it comes to suffering (n. 󰀃). Trusting God also means, not setting one’s hope and belief in oneself (n. 󰀄). Moreover, as the soul is made for such high good, she hurries and rushes towards God, and yet, more important is a slow, patient and steady move towards God. This helps, excluding accidental things that are easily taken for or with God (n. 󰀅). The entire aim is, to follow one’s first impulse and move steadily towards God (n. 󰀆).

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀇* [Q 󰀆󰀂]

󰀆󰀇󰀉

Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀅󰀅,󰀁󰀇󰀆–󰀉; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀅󰀁󰀅–󰀂󰀇; J. Quint, DW III 󰀄󰀈–󰀆󰀉; N. Largier I 󰀆󰀅󰀄–󰀆󰀁.󰀁󰀀󰀉󰀄–󰀉󰀇. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀁󰀃󰀉–󰀄󰀁; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀂󰀈󰀉–󰀉󰀁.

󰀆󰀈󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀅󰀆) Got hât die armen gemachet durch die rîchen und die rîchen durch die armen. Lîhet gote, er giltet iu! Etlîche sagent, sie glouben an got, und engloubent niht gote. Ez ist grœzer, daz man an got gloubet, dan daz man gote gloubet. Man gloubet wol einem menschen, ob man im vünf schillinge lîhet, daz er sie gelte, und gloubet doch niht an den menschen. Gloubet denne ein mensche an got, war umbe gloubet er denne gote niht, (󰀅󰀇) | daz er im gelte, waz er im lîhet an sînen armen? Swer alliu dinc læzet, der nimet hundertvalt wider. Swer aber hundertvalt meinet, dem enwirt niht, wan er enlâezet niht alliu dinc: er wil hundertvalt wider haben. Aber unser herre gelobet den hundertvalt, die alliu dinc lâzent. Læzet er alliu dinc, sô sol er hundertvalt nemen und daz êwige leben. Viele (󰀅󰀈) | aber in den menschen, daz nâch dem lâzenne volget, und die umbe daz selbe warumbe liezen, der enlieze niht al, und dem enwürde nihtes niht. Die iht in gote suochent, ez sî wizzen, bekantnisse oder andâht oder swaz ez sî, – vindet er ez, nochdenne envindet er got niht, swie daz er nochdenne vindet wizzen, verstân, innicheit, daz ich doch wol lobe; (󰀅󰀉) | aber ez enblîbet im niht. Aber suochet er niht, sô vindet er got und alliu dinc in im, und diu blîbent im. Ein mensche ensol nihtes niht suochen, noch verstân noch wizzen noch innicheit noch andâht noch ruowe, wan aleine gotes willen. Der sêle, der reht ist, als ir ze rehte sîn sol, diu engert niht, daz ir got alle sîne gotheit gebe, noch si enwürde dâ von als wênic getrœstet, als

󰀁. Prov. 󰀂󰀂:󰀂: ‘dives et pauper obviaverunt sibi utriusque operator est Dominus’. See also Ps.-Chrysostomus, Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum hom. 󰀄󰀆 (PG 󰀅󰀆, 󰀈󰀉󰀂): ‘Ne putes, quia propter utilitatem pauperum Deus divitem fecit…; sed propter utilitatem divitum pauperes fecit’. 󰀂. See Augustinus, En. in Ps. 󰀇󰀇 n. 󰀈 (PL 󰀃󰀆, 󰀉󰀈󰀈): ‘Hoc est etiam credere in deum; quod utique plus est quam credere deo. Nam et homini cuilibet plerumque credendum est, quamvis in eum non sit credendum’; Petrus Lombardus, In ep. ad Rom. c. 󰀄 n. 󰀁󰀈 (PL 󰀁󰀉󰀁, 󰀁󰀃󰀆󰀇): ‘Attende quod ait credenti in eum, non ei. Non enim continuo qui credit ei credit in eum. Aliud enim est credere in eum, aliud credere ei, aliud credere illum. Nam et daemones credebunt ei, sed non credebant in eum. Et nos credimus Paulo, credimus et Petro, sed non in Paulum vel Petrum’; id., Sent. III d. 󰀂󰀃 c. 󰀄 n. 󰀁󰀆󰀀 (Grottaferrata, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁, 󰀁󰀄󰀃,󰀁󰀁–󰀁󰀄󰀄,󰀇); Glossa ord. epist. ad Rom. 󰀄,󰀅 (PL 󰀁󰀁󰀄, 󰀄󰀈󰀂): ‘Credenti autem, etc. Non dicit ei. Credit enim illi qui credit vera esse quae ille loquitur, quod et muli faciunt. Credere illum est credere, quod ille sit deus, quod et diaboli faciunt. Sed credere in eum, est illum

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀇* [Q 󰀆󰀂]

󰀆󰀈󰀁

God has made the poor for the rich and the rich for the poor.󰀁 Lend to God, He repays you! Some say they believe in God, yet they do not trust in God. It is a bigger thing to trust in God than to believe in God. It is quite a belief, to lend someobody five shillings, and hope that he repays them, without trusting this person. If somebody believes in God, why does he not trust in God, that He will repay what he lends Him [giving] to His poor?󰀂 Whoever lets go all things, takes a hundred times in exchange. But to those who aim at a hundred times [in exchange], will not get it, because he has not let go all things: he wants to have a hundred times in exchange. Our Lord, however, promises a hundred times to those who let go all things.󰀃 If he leaves all things, he will receive a hundred times and eternal life. However, if it happened to a man that after letting go, this [same thing] would follow, and if he had let go for this very reason, he would not have let go everything and nothing would come of it. Those who look for something in God, be it understanding, knowing or contemplation or whatever it may be – if one finds it, nevertheless, one will not find God, even if one finds wisdom, knowledge or introspection, which I quite praise; but this will not remain with him.󰀄 If, however, one does not seek, then one finds God and all things in Him, and these remain with one. A person should seek nothing at all, neither understanding, nor knowledge, nor introspection, nor contemplation, nor repose, but only the will of God. The soul that is right as she should be right, neither should she wish that God give her all His Godhead, nor would she be

credendo amare, credendo diligere, credendo in eum ire, et eius membris incorporari’; on a threefold understanding of to believe see Albertus, Sent. III d. 󰀂󰀃 a. 󰀄 (Borgnet 󰀂󰀈,󰀄󰀁󰀂A–󰀄󰀁󰀃A); Th. Aqu., In Rom. c. 󰀄 lect. 󰀁 (Fretté 󰀄󰀃󰀇A): ‘Cum autem dicatur triplex esse actus fidei, scilicet Deum, Deo, et in Deum…’ 󰀃. Matth. 󰀁󰀉:󰀂󰀉: ‘et omnis qui reliquit domum vel fratres aut sorores aut patrem aut matrem aut uxorem aut filios aut agros propter nomen meum centuplum accipiet et vitam aeternam possidebit’. 󰀄. See the reference in Hom. 󰀂󰀅* [Q 󰀂󰀆], n. 󰀆: ‘Ich hân etwenne gesprochen: swer got suochet und iht mit gote suochet, der envindet got niht; und swer aber got aleine suochet, in der wârheit, der vindet got und vindet got niemer aleine, wan allez, daz got geleisten mac, daz vindet er mit gote’. As there are, however, other places too with similar thoughts, the reference could go to one of those places, see the note ad loc. in Hom. 󰀂󰀅*.

󰀆󰀈󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

ob er ir eine mücken gæbe. Gotes bekantnisse ûzwendic gotes willen enist niht. In gotes willen sint alliu dinc und sint etwaz und gevallent gote und sint volkomen; (󰀆󰀀) | ûzwendic gotes willen sint alliu dinc niht und engevallent gote niht und sint unvolkomen. Ein mensche ensölte niemer umbe ein zergenclich dinc biten; aber swenne er iht biten wil, sô sol er aleine biten umbe gotes willen und anders niht, sô wirt im al. Bitet er umbe anders iht, sô enwirt im niht. In gote enist niht wan ein, und ein ist unteillich, und der (󰀆󰀁) | iht nimet wan ein, daz ist teil und niht ein. ‘Got ist ein’, und der iht mê suochet und meinet, daz enist got niht, ez ist teil. Ez sî ruowe oder bekennen oder swaz ez sî wan gotes wille aleine, daz ist durch sich selben und ist niht. Und swenne er aleine suochet gotes willen, swaz im dar ûz vliuzet oder geoffenbâret wirt, daz sol er enpfâhen als gâbe gotes und niemer engesehen mit deheinen gedanken dar ûf, weder ez sî von natûre oder (󰀆󰀂) | von gnâden oder wâ von oder in welcher wîse ez sî: des sol er gar unruochen. Dem ist reht und sol ein gemeine kristenlich leben haben, und man ensol niht sehen ûf ein sunderlich tuon. Dan einez sol man von gote nemen, und swaz ûf in valle, daz neme er vür sîn bestez und sî âne allen vâr, daz er in disem abescheidenne iht gehindert werde, inwendic oder ûzwendic. Swaz er tuon sol, daz er in im vinde die minne gotes, sô ist sîn genuoc. (󰀆󰀃) | Sô etlîchen liuten ûfvellet ze lîdenne oder ze tuonne, sô sprechent sie: wiste ich, daz ez gotes wille wære, ich wölte ez gerne lîden oder tuon. Got segen! Daz ist ein wunderlîchiu vrâge, daz ein siech mensche vrâget, ob ez gotes wille sî, daz er siech sî. Er sol es gewis sîn, daz ez gotes wille sî, swenne er siech ist. Alsô ist ez ouch an andern dingen. Dar umbe sol ein mensche ein ieglich dinc, daz ûf in vellet, lûterlîche und einvalticlîche von gote enpfâhen. Etlîche sint, sô ez in wol gât innen oder ûzen, sô lobent sie got und getriuwent im wol, als etlîche sagent: ich hân zehen vierteil kornes und als vil wînes ze disem jâre: ich getriuwe gote wol! – Jâ, spriche ich, dû getriuwest wol dem korne und dem wîne. (󰀆󰀄) |

󰀅. Gal. 󰀃:󰀂󰀀: ‘Deus autem unus est’. 󰀆. J. Quint, ad loc. translates ‘vâr’ ‘ohne alle Befürchtung’ which, however, does not fit the argument.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀇* [Q 󰀆󰀂]

󰀆󰀈󰀃

comforted by it more than if He gave her a fly. Knowing God without the will of God is nothing. In the will of God all things are, and they are something, they please God and they are perfect; Outside of the will of God all things are nothing, they do not please God and they are imperfect. A person should never ask for a transient thing; and if he wants to ask for something, he should only ask for God’s will and nothing else, so everything comes to him. If he asks for something else, nothing comes to him. In God there is nothing but one, and one is indivisible, and whoever takes something other than one, it is a part and not one. ‘God is one’,󰀅 and whoever seeks and intends more, this is not God, but is a part. Be it repose or knowing or whatever it may be except God’s will alone, it is for itself and is nothing. And when he seeks the will of God alone, that which flows from this or is revealed to him, he must receive as a gift from God and never spend any thought on whether it came by nature or by grace or from whence or in what way it is: this should not concern him at all. This person is right and he should live a simple Christian life, and not long for outstanding deeds. Only one thing he must receive from God, and whatever befalls him, he should take for his best and be without any desire,󰀆 so that he is not impeded by something in this detachment, inwardly or outwardly. Whatever he may do the fact that he finds the love of God in himself, this should satisfy him. If it happens to some people to suffer or to act, they say: If I knew it were God’s will, I would willingly suffer or act. For God’s sake! It is an astonishing question that a sick person asks whether it is God’s will that he is sick. He must be sure that it is God’s will when he is sick. So it is also in other things. Therefore a person should accept purely and simply from God everything that happens to him. There are some who praise God and trust well in Him, when they are inwardly or outwardly fine, as some say: This year, I have ten bushels󰀇 of wheat and as many of wine: well, I trust in God! – Yes, I say, you trust well in the wheat and the wine.

󰀇. According to Martin Herold (in J. Quint, ad loc.), in Eckhart’s times, one bushel measured between 󰀁󰀂󰀀 and 󰀂󰀀󰀀 liters of wheat or wine.

󰀆󰀈󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Diu sêle ist gemachet ze einem sô grôzen und sô hôhen guote, dar umbe enmac si niht geruowen an deheiner wîse und ist alle zît îlende, daz si kome über alle wîse ze dem êwigen guote, daz got ist, dâ si zuo geschaffent ist. Und her zuo enist niht ze kommenne mit sturme, daz sich der mensche setze in grôze stæticheit, daz ze tuonne oder ze lâzenne, wan mit senfticheit in einer getriuwer dêmüeticheit und verzîhunge sîn selbes in dem (󰀆󰀅) | selben und in einem ieglîchen, daz dâ gevellet; niht daz der mensche in sich setze: diz wilt dû über ein tuon, swaz daz koste! Dem ist unreht, wan dâ beheltet er sich selber inne. Vellet iht in in, daz in müejet und betrüebet und in unruowic machet, dem ist aber unreht, wan hie inne beheltet er sich selber. Daz im sêre versmâhete, dâ sölte er im inne got lâzen râten und sich under in dêmüeticlîche neigen und in einer senftmüetiger getriuwunge ein ieglich dinc von im enpfâhen, daz ûf in viele: dem wære reht. Her ûf gât allez, daz man gerâten oder gelêren mac: daz im ein mensche selben râten læzet und ûf niht ensehe wan aleine ûf got, aleine man diz in vil und in sunderlîchen worten mac (󰀆󰀆) | vürbringen. Ze einer geordenten consciencie hilfet, daz man der zuovallenden dinge niht enahte, und sô der mensche bî im selber ist, daz er sînen willen gote genzlîche gebe und danne ein ieglich dinc von gote glîch neme: gnâde und swaz des dinges ist, ûzwendic oder inwendic. Swer iht sihet an gote, der ensihet gotes niht. Ein rehter mensche der enbedarf gotes niht. Daz ich hân, des enbedarf ich niht. Er dienet umbe niht, er enahtet (󰀆󰀇) | aller dinge niht; er hât got, dar umbe endienet er umbe niht. Als verre got ist über den menschen, als verre ist got bereiter ze gebenne, dan der mensche sî ze nemenne. Dar ane ensol ein mensche niht merken, ob er zuoneme an guotem lebenne, ob er vil vaste und vil ûzer werke tuo; sunder ein gewis zeichen ist, daz er zuoneme, ob im lieber ist ze êwigen dingen und leider ze zergenclîchen dingen. Hæte ein mensche hundert mark und (󰀆󰀈) | gæbe die durch got und machete ein klôster, daz wære ein grôz dinc. Sô sage ich: daz wære vil grœzer und bezzer, daz ein mensche als vil in im versmæhete und vernihte durch got. Ein mensche sol in allen sînen werken sînen willen ze gote kêren und got aleine meinen, und gange alsô vür sich hin, und enhabe niht vorhte, sô daz er iht gedenke, ob im reht sî, daz er im

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀇* [Q 󰀆󰀂]

󰀆󰀈󰀅

The soul is made for such great and such high good, that she cannot rest by any means, and she always hurries to reach the eternal good that is God beyond all means, for which she is created. But this can not be accomplished in a rush, that a person has to set himself on a firm and steady path, to do this or to let that go, but rather patiently in a trusting humility and renunciation of himself in the same and in each thing that happens; not that the person sets on himself: ‘this is absolutely what you want to do, whatever it costs!’ This is wrong, for thus he relies on himself. If something happens to him so that he worries and is saddened and makes him restless, it is not right, for in this he relies on himself. In what is apalling to him, he should seek in himself God’s advice and humbly bend before him and in patient trust welcome everything from Him that might happen to him: this would be right. Everthing that can be advised or taught converges towards this: that a person allows himself to be advised and has regard to nothing else but only to God, even if this can be expressed in many and particular words. For an orderly conscience it helps that we do not consider accidental things, and when a person is so harmonious in himself, he gives his will totally to God and then takes each thing from God alike: grace and whatever the thing is, outward or inward. Whoever sees something in God, does not see God. A just person does not need God. What I possess I do not need. He does not serve for the sake of anything, he has no regard for anything; he has God, therefore he does not pay a service for anything. By as far as God is beyond man, so God is readier to give than man is to take. Not in this should a person measure whether he improves in living a good life by whether he fasts a lot and does a lot of external deeds; but a sure sign for his improvement is, whether he prefers eternal things and disapproves of transient things. If a man had a hundred marks, gave them for God’s sake and created a convent, that would be a great thing. But, I say: it would be much greater and better if a person rejected as much in himself and annihilated himself for God’s sake. A person should turn his will in all his actions towards God and have a regard for God alone, and thus progresses without being afraid, without reflecting whether it is right

󰀆󰀈󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

iht unrehte tuo. Wan wölte ein mâler aller striche gedenken an dem êrsten striche, dâ enwürde niht ûz. Sölte einer in eine stat gân und gedæhte, wie er den (󰀆󰀉) | êrsten vuoz saste, dâ enwürde aber niht ûz. Dar umbe sol man dem êrsten volgen und gange alsô vür sich hine; sô kumet man dâ hine, dar man sol, und dem ist reht.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀇* [Q 󰀆󰀂]

󰀆󰀈󰀇

for him, that He does him some injustice.󰀈 Because if a painter wanted to reflect on all the brushstrokes in the first stroke, nothing would come out of it. If one were to go to a city and reflect how to take the first step, nothing would come of it. Therefore one must follow the first [impulse] and move on; so one gets where one should, and this is the right thing.

󰀈. J. Quint, ad loc. translates ‘ob im reht sî, daz er im iht unrehte tuo’ differently: ‘ob’s auch recht sei, auf daß er nicht etwas falsch mache’ (‘whether it is right, so that he does not make a mistake’).

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀈* [Q 󰀈󰀁] ‘Fluminis impetus laetificat civitatem Dei: sanctificavit tabernaculum suum Altissimus’ (Ps. 󰀄󰀅:󰀅) Introduction

T

he passage that Eckhart refers to, Ps. 󰀄󰀅:󰀅 (‘Fluminis impetus laetificat civitatem Dei: sanctificavit tabernaculum suum Altissimus’) does not give us an indication for its liturgical setting. The text of the critical edition in DW is based on six manuscripts (B󰀆, B󰀇, G󰀅, M󰀂, N󰀂, Wo󰀁) and a number of fragments. In n. 󰀅 we find a reference that seems to refer to Hom. 󰀉󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀅], n. 󰀄 and in the same section later to Hom. 󰀁󰀅* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀃], n. 󰀂󰀃. A further reference that can be identified is found in n. 󰀁󰀂 which seems to refer to Hom. 󰀇󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀆], n. 󰀆 or to Hom. 󰀁󰀄* [S 󰀉󰀀 B], n. 󰀈. The content of the homily The present homily centers on Ps. 󰀄󰀅:󰀅. First the quote is given in a broader version (n. 󰀁) than the translation into the vernacular (n. 󰀂). The text is clearly structured into three parts, which each pick up an element of the translated text: A) ‘The rapid river’, B) ‘the city’, C) the benefit. A) ‘The rapid river’ (n. 󰀃). The explanation starts with the Holy Spirit being meant by ‘the rapid river’, a Spirit who flows into everything where it finds space. B) ‘The city’ (nn. 󰀄–󰀅). The spiritual interpretation of this has two elements, first that it is a city, closed to the outside, and second, that inside it is a united city, for Eckhart a perfect example to illustrate the soul. With the simile of the compass, the preacher demonstrates the importance of being steadfast (n. 󰀅). This does not mean that one should not move or be moved. Pointing to ‘Christ and His other saints’,

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀈* [Q 󰀈󰀁]

󰀆󰀈󰀉

he stresses that these were moved, but ‘not overthrown’, just like a ship on an anchor. C) The benefit (nn. 󰀆–󰀁󰀃) is that the ‘Lord dwells’ in the soul. Such dwelling means that she even does not need nor want to be transformed, as she aims at nothing but the purity which she already is. When grace acts in this soul, it happens without division. In this, there is no cooperation, but only one acting and being (n. 󰀇). Hence, ‘to this noble action the soul must gather and lock herself up’ (n. 󰀈). In this divine freedom and pleasure, she can not tolerate anything, not even God, above her (n. 󰀉). Further, the soul ‘desires the most pleasurable … that she acts herself and according to herself in the highest’ (n. 󰀁󰀀). In the highest, however, also means that one needs to act like the highest, namely to share what one has received, to be communicative and to flow out. This starts from the heart, and happens with grace, in order to remain good (n. 󰀁󰀁). The example of such communicative being are the angels, also Eckhart, when writing a letter to somebody, and the heavens which pour out to give life (n. 󰀁󰀂). Such communicative giving shows the ‘perfect will’ of a ‘perfect person’, so that ‘according to goodness one loves all things’ (n. 󰀁󰀃). With a short prayer the homily ends (n. 󰀁󰀄). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀆󰀄,󰀂󰀀󰀀–󰀂; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀅󰀈󰀆–󰀉󰀀; J. Quint, DW III 󰀃󰀈󰀉–󰀄󰀀󰀄; N. Largier II 󰀁󰀆󰀆–󰀇󰀉.󰀇󰀂󰀃–󰀇. Previous English translations Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. C. de B. Evans (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄), 󰀁󰀅󰀈–󰀆󰀀; M. Fox, Breakthrough (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀), 󰀃󰀆󰀃–󰀈; Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀃󰀂󰀂–󰀇.

󰀆󰀉󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀃󰀉󰀅) ‘Fluminis impetus laetificat civitatem Dei: sanctificavit tabernaculum suum Altissimus’. ‘Der rüsche oder der snelle vluz der hât ervröuwet gotes stat’. An disen worten suln wir merken driu dinc. Daz êrste: ‘den snellen vluz’ gotes; daz ander: die ‘stat’, dâ er hine vliuzet; daz dritte: den nutz, der dâ von kumet. Sant Johannes sprichet, daz ‘alle, die den glouben hânt’, der dâ lebendic ist von götlîcher liebe und ez bewîsent mit guoten werken, ‘von allen den suln vliezen die lebendigen wazzer’. Dâ mite wil er bewîsen den heiligen geist, und enweiz der prophête von wunder, wie er den heiligen geist nennen sol von sînem snellen und wunderlîchen werke. Dar umbe heizet er in einen ‘rûsch’ von sînem snellen ûzvluzze, wan er vliuzet in die (󰀃󰀉󰀆) | sêle als volkomenlîche, als verre als si ûzgebrochen ist an der dêmüeticheit und sich gewîtet hât ze enpfâhenne. Ich bin des gewis: wære mîn sêle alsô bereit und vünde got als verre stat an ir als an der sêle unsers herren Jêsû Kristî, er ervülte sie als volkomenlîche mit dirre ‘vluot’; wan der heilige geist enmac sich niht enthalten, er envlieze in allez daz, dâ er stat vindet und als verre, als er ‘stat’ vindet. Ze dem andern mâle suln wir prüeven, welchez diu ‘stat’ sî; daz ist geistlîche diu sêle. Ein ‘stat’ bediutet als vil als ‘civium unitas’; daz bediutet als vil als ein stat, diu bûzen beslozzen ist und binnen vereinet ist. Alsô sol diu sêle sîn, in die got vliezen sol, daz si bûzen bewart sî von hindernisse und binnen vereinet an allen irn kreften. Sihe ich einem menschen in sîn ouge, ich sihe mîn bilde dar inne und ist doch ê in dem lufte dan in den ougen. Ez enmöhte niemer in daz ouge komen, ez enwære ê in dem lufte, und man ensihet ez doch in dem lufte niht. Dar umbe daz der luft dünne ist und niht dîhte zesamengezogen ist, sô enmac sich kein bilde in im geoffenbâren, als man prüeven mac an dem regenbogene: swenne der luft dicke ist, sô erschînet der sunnen bilde an maniger varwe an dem regenbogene. Sihe ich in

󰀁. Ps. 󰀄󰀅:󰀅: ‘Fluminis impetus laetificat civitatem Dei: sanctificavit tabernaculum suum Altissimus’. 󰀂. Ps. 󰀄󰀅:󰀅. No liturgical context is found in the Dominican missal.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀈* [Q 󰀈󰀁]

󰀆󰀉󰀁

‘Fluminis impetus laetificat civitatem Dei: sanctificavit tabernaculum suum Altissimus’.󰀁 ‘The rushing or rapid river has gladdened the city of God’.󰀂 In these words we must note three things. First: ‘the rapid river’ of God; second: ‘the city’, to which it flows; third: the benefit that comes from it. Saint John says that from ‘all those who have faith’ that is living by divine love and who show it with good deeds, that from ‘all those the living waters shall flow’.󰀃 By this he wants to indicate the Holy Spirit; the Prophet, however, out of surprise, does not know how to call the Holy Spirit because of its quick and surprising actions. For this reason he calls it a ‘rush’ because of its fast emanation, for it flows into the soul as perfectly as she has broken out in humility and broadened herself in order to receive. I am certain of this: if my soul was so prepared and God found so much space in her as in the soul of our Lord Jesus Christ, He would fill her just as perfectly with this ‘river’; because the Holy Spirit can not refrain from flowing into everything where it finds space and to the extent that it finds ‘space’. Secondly, we must consider what the ‘city’ is; in a spiritual sense it is the soul. A ‘city’ means as much as ‘civium unitas’ (unity of the citizens);󰀄 it means as much as a city that is closed to the outside and united within. So the soul must be into which God should flow, to the outside protected from impediments and united within in all her powers. If I look at the eye of a person, I see my image in it, and, yet, it is rather in the air than in the eye. It could never reach the eye if it were not first in the air, and yet one does not see it in the air. From the fact that the air is transparent and not densely packed, no image can appear in it, as can be shown from the rainbow: when the air is packed, then the image of the sun appears in different colours in the rainbow. When I look into a mirror, there is a reflection of my face. This would

󰀃. Ioh. 󰀇:󰀃󰀈: ‘qui credit in me sicut dixit scriptura flumina de ventre eius fluent aquae vivae’. 󰀄. See Guillelmus Brito, Summa sive expositiones vocabulorum Biblie (Daly/Daly 󰀁󰀃󰀃,󰀁󰀁–󰀃): ‘Civitas … est concors hominum multitudo, societatis vinculo ordinata, sic dicta quasi civium unitas’.

󰀆󰀉󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

einen spiegel, mîn antlütze gewinnet einen widerslac. Daz engeschæhe niemer, dâ enwære ein hût undergeleget von blîe. Alsô muoz diu sêle zesamengezogen sîn und dîhte an die edelste kraft, diu an ir ist, ob si den götlîchen (󰀃󰀉󰀇) | ‘vluz’ enpfâhen sol, der sie ervüllet und ervröuwet. Sant Johannes schrîbet, daz die aposteln zesamene gesament wâren und beslozzen, dô sie den heiligen geist enpfiengen. Ich hân ez etwanne mê gesprochen: ein beginnære, der eines guoten lebens beginnen sol, der neme ein glîchnisse: der einen zirkel machen wil, – als er den êrsten vuoz setzet, alsô stât er, biz er den zirkel gemachet; sô wirt der zirkel guot. Daz ist als vil: der mensche lerne ze dem êrsten, daz sîn herze stæte werde, sô wirt er stæte an allen sînen werken. Swaz er grôzer dinge tuot, – ist sîn herze unstæte, ez enhilfet niht. Zweierleie meister wâren. Die einen wolten daz, daz der guote mensche niht beweget enmohte werden; daz hânt sie bewîset mit maniger schœnen rede. Die andern die enwolten des niht; die wolten, daz der guote mensche beweget mohte werden, und daz heltet diu heilige schrift. Er wirt wol beweget, er enwirt aber niht entworfen. Unser herre Jêsus Kristus wart dicke beweget und andere sîne heiligen; sie enwurden aber niht entworfen an untugenden, (󰀃󰀉󰀈) | als die liute ouch bevunden hânt, die ûf dem wazzer pflegent ze varenne: als man slâfen wil, sô wirfet man den anker in daz wazzer, sô bestât daz schif; sie wankelnt wol ûf dem wazzer, sie envarnt aber niht. Ich hân daz gesprochen, daz ein volkomen mensche niht lîhte gehindert enmac werden; ergert er sich aber an deheinen dingen, sô enist er niht volkomen.

󰀅. Not in Ioh. but Act. 󰀄:󰀃󰀁: ‘Et cum orassent, motus est locus, in quo erant congregati: et repleti sunt omnes Spiritu sancto’. 󰀆. Perhaps a reference to Hom. 󰀉󰀆* [Q 󰀇󰀅], n. 󰀄: ‘Rehte als der einen zirkel machete sinwel und der umbe und umbe vol pünctelîne wære und enmitten inne ein punct: dem puncten wæren diu andern pünctelîn alliu glîche nâhe und verre; sölte im ein pünctelîn næher werden, daz müeste ûzer sîner stat rucken, wan der mittelpunct blîbet glîche enmitten’. 󰀇. See Augustinus, De civitate Dei IX c. 󰀄 (Dombart/Kalb 󰀂󰀅󰀁,󰀄–󰀁󰀂: ‘Has ergo perturbationes siue affectiones siue passiones quidam philosophi dicunt etiam in sapientem cadere, sed moderatas rationique subiectas, ut eis leges quodam modo, quibus ad necessarium redigantur modum, dominatio mentis inponat. Hoc qui sentiunt, Platonici sunt siue Aristotelici, cum Aristoteles discipulus Platonis fuerit, qui sectam Peripateticam condidit. Aliis autem, sicut Stoicis, cadere ullas omnino huiusce modi passiones in sapientem non placet…’ 󰀈. The first masters are unidentified. On the second, see Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae II II q. 󰀈󰀃 a. 󰀉 corp.: ‘Et ne nos inducas in tentationem: per quod non petimus ut non tentemur, sed ut a tentatione non vincamur, quod est in tentationem induci’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀈* [Q 󰀈󰀁]

󰀆󰀉󰀃

never happen if no layer of lead were placed underneath. Thus the soul must be united and close to the noblest power that there is in her, if it shall receive the divine ‘river’ that fills and rejoices her. Saint John writes that the apostles were gathered together and enclosed, when they received the Holy Spirit.󰀅 I have already said it once:󰀆 a beginner who is going to start a good life should take a simile: whoever wants to make a circle – when he first places the first foot [= of the compass], he keeps still until he has completed the circle; in this way the circle will be fine. This means: a person first learns that his heart becomes steadfast, and he will become steadfast in all his actions. Whatever great actions he does – if his heart is not steadfast, it does not help anything. There were two types of masters.󰀇 The first wanted that the good person should not be moved; this they showed with many beautiful arguments. The others did not want this; they wanted the good person to be moved, and this is what the scripture holds. He is quite moved, but he is not overthrown.󰀈 Our Lord Jesus Christ and His other saints were often moved; but they were not overthrown by sins, as also the people have found who are used to travel by sea:󰀉 when one wants to sleep, one casts an anchor into the water, so the ship stands still; they indeed sway on the water, but they do not move away. I have said that a perfect person can not be easily hindered; but if he is angered by anything, then he is not perfect.󰀁󰀀

󰀉. See Albertus, De caelo et mundo l. 󰀃 tr. 󰀁 c. 󰀇 (Colon. 󰀅,󰀁, 󰀂󰀁󰀈,󰀈󰀉–󰀉󰀄): ‘Omne autem quod movetur per accidens in eo quod ipsum movet, oportet, quod moveat aliquid per se; sicut videmus in nauta, qui movetur per accidens in eo quod movet, oportet, quod moveat navem per se. Nauta enim, in eo quod nauta, per se movet navem’; Augustinus, En. in Ps. 󰀃󰀁, Sermo ad plebem n. 󰀄 (PL 󰀃󰀆, 󰀂󰀅󰀉): ‘Fac enim hominem optime gubernare navim, et perdidisse quo tendit, quid valet quia artemonem optime tenet, optime movet, dat proram fluctibus, cavet ne latera infligantur; tantis est viribus, ut detorqueat navim quo velit, atque unde velit’. 󰀁󰀀. The reference may point to Hom. 󰀁󰀅* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀃], n. 󰀂󰀃: ‘Jâ, in der wârheit, swenne disiu geburt in der wârheit geschehen ist, sô enmügen dich alle crêatûren niht gehindern, mêr: sie wîsent dich alle ze gote und ze dîrre geburt’.

󰀆󰀉󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Daz dritte ist der nutz, der dâ von kumet, daz ist, daz der prophête sprichet: unser herre wonet enmitten in ir; dar umbe enwirt si niht verwandelt. Si enwil niht wan daz lûterste. Dar umbe daz gotes lûterkeit in ir würke, sô enmac si niht gemengedes lîden, daz gemenget ist mit crêatûren. Etelich werk würket unser herre got âne underscheit selbe, etelich mit underscheide und mit helfe. Möhte diu gnâde, diu in mîn wort gebunden ist, âne underscheit komen in die sêle, als ob ez got selbe spræche oder wörhte, diu sêle würde alzehant bekêret und würde heilic und enmöhte sich niht dâ vor enthalten. Als ich gotes wort spriche, sô bin ich ein mitewürker gotes und ist diu gnâde gemenget mit der crêatûre und enwirt niht genzlîche enpfangen in die sêle. Aber diu gnâde, die der (󰀃󰀉󰀉) | heilige geist bringet in die sêle, diu wirt enpfangen âne underscheit, ob diu sêle gesament ist an die einvaltige kraft, diu got bekennet. Diu gnâde entspringet in dem herzen des vaters und vliuzet in den sun, und in der vereinunge ir beider vliuzet si ûz der wîsheit des sunes und vliuzet in die güete des heiligen geistes und wirt gesant mit dem heiligen geiste in die sêle. Und diu gnâde ist ein antlütze gotes und wirt âne underscheit gedrücket in die sêle mit dem heiligen geiste und bildet die sêle nâch gote. Dáz werk würket got âne underscheit selbe. Ez enist kein engel sô edel, der dar zuo dienen müge noch keiniu wirdicheit des menschen. Nochdenne: vermöhte er ez wol an der edelkeit sîner natûre, got enmöhte ez niht erlîden, daz im dehein crêatûre dâ dienen sölte; wan in der stunde hât er die sêle sô hôch erhaben über ir natiurlich wonstat, daz sie kein crêatûre erlangen enmac. Nochdenne: vermöhte der engel wól diz werk und lieze ouch got in dâ einen dienære sîn, ez versmæhte diu sêle, wan si versmæhet in der stunde allez, daz mit der (󰀄󰀀󰀀) | crêatûre vermenget ist. Nochdenne daz lieht, in dem si geeiniget wirt, daz versmæhet si, enweste si niht und enwære niht sicher, daz si got in dem liehte enpfæhet, wan si versmæhet allez, daz got an im selber niht enist; wan got leitet sîne brût ûz aller crêatûren wirdicheit und edelkeit an ein einœde in sich selber und sprichet selber in ir herze, daz ist: er machet sie im selber glîch an der gnâde. 󰀁󰀁. See Eccli. 󰀄󰀄:󰀁󰀆: ‘In diebus suis placuit deo et inventus est iustus’ and Eckhart’s interpretation of this verse in Hom. 󰀁󰀁󰀀* [Q 󰀁󰀀], n. 󰀁󰀂: ‘Nû sprichet er: “er ist inne vunden”. Daz ist inne, daz dâ wonet in dem grunde der sêle, im innersten der sêle, in vernünfticheit und engât niht ûz und ensihet niht ûf kein dinc’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀈* [Q 󰀈󰀁]

󰀆󰀉󰀅

The third thing is the benefit that comes from it, that is, that the Prophet says:󰀁󰀁 our Lord dwells in her. Therefore she will not be transformed, for she wants nothing else than the purest. In order for God’s purity to act in her, she can not tolerate anything mixed that is mixed with creatures. Certain actions are performed by our Lord, God, Himself without division [of labour], others with division and support. If the grace that is bound in my word could reach the soul without division [of labour], as if God Himself spoke or acted, the soul would be immediately converted and would become holy and could not hold back from it. When I say the word of God, I am a cooperator of God and grace is mixed with the creature and is not completely received in the soul. But the grace that the Holy Spirit brings into the soul, is received without division, if the soul is united in the simple power that knows God. Grace originates in the heart of the Father and flows into the Son and in the union of both it flows from the wisdom of the Son and flows into the goodness of the Holy Spirit and is sent with the Holy Spirit into the soul.󰀁󰀂 And grace is a face of God and without division becomes impressed in the soul with the Holy Spirit and forms the soul according to God. This action God Himself performs without division. There is no angel so noble or any dignity of human beings that can help with it. Again: if it could do it for the nobility of its nature, God could not bear that any creature should serve Him in this; for at that moment He has elevated the soul so high above her home, that no creature can reach her. And again: if the angel could well perform this action and God also let it be a servant in this, the soul would despise this, for at that moment she despises all that is mixed with the creature. Even the light in which she is united she despises, if she would not know and were not sure of receiving God in this light, for she despises everything that is not God in Himself; for God leads his bride from the dignity and nobility of all creatures into a desert in Himself and speaks Himself into her heart, that is: He makes her like Himself in grace.

󰀁󰀂. Here Eckhart explicitly contradicts Thomas Aquinas and adopts the view of Peter Lombard that the Holy Spirit Itself enters the soul.

󰀆󰀉󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Ze disem edeln werke sol sich diu sêle samenen und besliezen, als man prüeven mac bî einem glîchnisse an der sêle: als diu sêle eigenlîche daz leben gibet dem lîchamen âne mittel des herzen und aller der glider, – müeste si daz herze ze helfe haben, sô müeste aber vürbaz ein ander herze sîn, dâ si daz leben vone næme – alsô würket got âne mittel daz lûter leben der gnâde und der güete an der sêle. Als alle lidemæze sich vröuwent von dem lebene der sêle, alsô werdent alle die krefte der sêle ervüllet und ervröuwet von dem lûtern învluzze der gnâde unsers herren; wan diu gnâde heltet sich ze gote als der schîn der sunnen ze der sunnen und ist ein mit im und bringet die sêle in daz götlîche wesen und machet sie gotvar und daz si smecket götlîcher edelkeit. (󰀄󰀀󰀁) | Diu sêle, diu enpfangen hât den învluz götlîcher gnâde und smecket götlîcher edelkeit, der wirt bitter und unmære allez, daz got niht enist. Daz ander ist, daz si wil daz allerhœhste, daz si niht über ir gelîden enmac. Ich spriche joch genzlîche, daz si got boben ir niht gelîden enmac. Wære diu sêle als verre ûfgezogen über alliu dinc an ir hœhste vrîheit, daz si got rüerte an sîne blôze götlîche natûre, si engeruowete niemer, got der enbræhte sich in sie und sie in got. Aleine got an sîner edelkeit und an sîner natûre verre boben sie ist, sô enmac si doch niht geruowen, si enbegrîfe got als verre, als ez einer crêatûre mügelich ist, got ze begrîfenne. Dar umbe sprichet her Salomôn, daz daz verstolne wazzer vil süezer sî dan anderiu wazzer, daz ist: daz diu volkomene sêle in nihte verbunden enmac sîn, si enbreche sich ûz allen und über allen dingen und enkome an götlîche vrîheit; dâ von hât si grôze wollust. Daz dritte, daz si wil daz allerlustlîcheste, daz diu natûre gewürken mac, daz ist: daz si würke an dem hœhsten sich selben und nâch ir selben. Diu grœste wollust in himelrîche und in ertrîche diu liget (󰀄󰀀󰀂) | an glîchnisse. Daz götlîche natûre würket an dem hœhsten an der sêle, daz ist glîchnisse. Kein mensche enmac gote genzlîche gevolgen, er enhabe eine glîchnisse gotes in im. Daz sol man prüeven, ob alle die gnâden, die er enpfangen hât, ob die götlich sîn und ob sie nâch götlîcher edelkeit smacken und ob sie gemeine sîn und ûzvlüzzic, als got ûzvlüzzic ist mit sîner güete ûf allez daz, daz sîn iht enpfâhen mac. Alsô

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀈* [Q 󰀈󰀁]

󰀆󰀉󰀇

To this noble action the soul must gather and enclose herself, as can be shown with a simile of the soul: as the soul properly gives life to the body without the medium of the heart and all the limbs – if, however, she needed the help of the heart, one would need to assume a second heart, from which she took life – thus God brings about without a medium the pure life of grace and the goodness in the soul. As all the limbs rejoice in the life of the soul, so all the powers of the soul are filled with delight by the pure influx of the grace of our Lord; for grace relates to God as the splendor of the sun to the sun and is one with Him and brings the soul into the divine being, makes her godlike and that she tastes the divine nobility. To the soul that has received the influx of divine grace and tastes the divine nobility, all that is not God becomes bitter and cheap. On the other hand, she wants the highest, that she cannot tolerate anything that is above herself. I also say fully that she can not tolerate God above her. If the soul were drawn as far beyond all things into her highest freedom, so that she touches God in His naked divine nature, she would never rest until God brought Himself into her and she into God. Even though God in His nobility and in His nature is far above her, yet she cannot rest until she grasps God as far as a creature can grasp God. So Lord Solomon says󰀁󰀃 that the stolen water is sweeter than the other water, that means that the perfect soul cannot be bound to anything, without her breaking free from everything and [going] beyond all things and coming into divine freedom; this gives her great pleasure. The third thing is that she desires the most pleasurable that the [divine] nature can provide, that means: that she acts herself and according to herself in the highest. The greatest pleasure in heaven and on earth consists in likeness. What the divine nature performs in the highest of the soul is likeness. No person can follow God completely if he does not have a likeness of God in him. One needs to see whether all the graces that he has received are divine, have the taste of divine nobility and are communicative and emanating as God is emanating with His goodness to all that can receive something of Him. Thus the

󰀁󰀃. Prov. 󰀉:󰀁󰀇: ‘Aquae furtivae dulciores sunt’.

󰀆󰀉󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

sol der mensche ûzvlüzzic sîn und gemeine mit allen gâben, die er von gote enpfangen hât. Ez sprichet sant Paulus: ‘waz ist, daz wir von im niht enpfangen enhân?’ Hât ein mensche iht, des er einem andern niht engan, sô enist er niht guot. Welch mensche dem andern vergan geistlîcher dinge und daz ze sîner sælicheit getriffet, der enwart nie geistlich. Er ensol sich aleine niht enpfâhen noch haben, sunder er sol sich gemeine machen und ûzvliezen mit allem dem, daz er hât an lîbe und an sêle, als verre als er iemer mac und waz ieman von im begert. Sant Paulus sprichet: ‘ez ist daz hœhste guot, daz der mensche sîn herze bestætiget mit der gnâde’. An disen worten sol man merken driu dinc. Daz eine: wâ man (󰀄󰀀󰀂) | ez beginnen sol? Daz ist: an dem herzen; und wâ mite? Daz ist: mit der gnâde; und war umbe? Daz ist: daz man guot blîbe. Des sol man an dem herzen beginnen. Daz ist daz edelste glit an dem lîbe und liget enmitten, daz ez allem dem lîbe daz leben gibet: wan der brunne des lebens entspringet in dem herzen und würket dem himel glîche. Wan der himel loufet âne underlâz umbe; dar umbe muoz er sinwel sîn, daz er snelliclîche müge umbeloufen, wan er allen crêatûren ir wesen und leben gibet. Und stüende er einen ougenblik, – næme ein mensche viur an die hant, ez enbrente in niht noch diu wazzer diu envlüzzen noch alle crêatûren die enhæten keine kraft. Joch âne die sêle und âne den himel aleine sô vergiengen alle crêatûren zemâle, als dô sie niht enwâren. Die kraft enhât der himel von im selber niht, sunder von dem engel, der in trîbet. Als ich ouch mê gesprochen hân, daz alle bilde und glîchnisse aller crêatûren ê geschaffen wurden an den engel, ê dan sie lîphaftic gemachet wurden an den crêatûren. Dar umbe giuzet der engel sîn leben und sîne kraft an den himel und trîbet in âne underlâz umbe und würket alsô mit dem himel alliu leben und alle kraft an den crêatûren. Als ich den willen, den ich in dem herzen begriffen hân, an einen brief

󰀁󰀄. I Cor. 󰀄:󰀇: ‘quid autem habes quod non accepisti’. 󰀁󰀅. Hebr. 󰀁󰀃:󰀉: ‘optimum enim est gratia stabiliri cor’. 󰀁󰀆. See on this and the following: Aristoteles, De gen. et corr. II t. 󰀅󰀆–󰀈 (Β c.󰀁󰀀 󰀃󰀃󰀆a󰀂󰀃–b󰀂󰀆). 󰀁󰀇. See Aristoteles, Phys. VIII c. 󰀈 (t. 󰀅󰀃, Θ 󰀂󰀆󰀀a󰀁󰀇–󰀉); see also Eckhart, In Sap. n. 󰀁󰀉󰀁 (LW II 󰀅󰀂󰀇,󰀃): ‘Propter hoc philosophus probat hunc motum tantum, sphaericum scilicet, esse unum, simplicem et continuum’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀈* [Q 󰀈󰀁]

󰀆󰀉󰀉

person must be emanating and communicative with all the gifts he has received from God. Saint Paul says: ‘What is it that we have not received from Him?’󰀁󰀄 A person who has something that he does not offer to someone else is not good. The person who begrudges spiritual things to someone else that would serve his beatitude, was never spiritual. He must not simply receive or possess, but must be communicative and flow with all he has with body and soul, as much as he ever can and as someone wants from him. Saint Paul says: ‘The greatest good is that man strengthen his heart with grace’.󰀁󰀅 Three things must be noted in these words. The first: where should one start with this? The answer is: from the heart. And with what? The answer is: with grace. And why? The answer is: to remain good. We must start from the heart. It is the noblest part in the body and lies in the middle, so as to give life to the whole body: for the source of life wells up in the heart and acts similarly to the heaven.󰀁󰀆 As the heaven turns without interruption, it must be round to be able to turn quickly,󰀁󰀇 for it gives all creatures their being and life. And if it stopped for a moment, and a man took fire in his hand, it would not burn him, neither would the waters flow nor all the creatures have any power. And without the soul and without the heaven all creatures would totally disappear, as if they had not existed. Heaven has this power not by itself, but from the angel who drives it. I have also already said󰀁󰀈 that all the images and likenesses of all the creatures were already created in the angels before they were made bodily in the creatures. Therefore the angel pours its life and its power into the heaven and drives it around without interruption and thus produces together with the heaven all that lives and all the powers in the creatures. As I pour the thought that I have conceived in my heart

󰀁󰀈. See the similar thought and reference in Hom. 󰀇󰀅* [S 󰀉󰀆], n. 󰀆: ‘als ich ouch mê gesprochen hân, daz glîchnisse und volkomenheit aller crêatûren ist geschaffen an den engeln geistlîche, ê sie geschaffen wurden an den crêatûren’; see Hom. 󰀉󰀉* [S 󰀉󰀈], n. 󰀄: ‘in einem ieglîchen engel ist ein werlt geistlîche; wan allez, daz got geschaffen hât, daz ist in einem ieglîchen engel erbildet vil edeler, wan ez sî an im selben; wan ez ist in in âne materie’; see also Hom. 󰀁󰀀󰀇* [Q 󰀇󰀂], n. 󰀉: ‘Waz got geschepfen mac, daz treget der engel in im, dar umbe daz sie niht beroubet ensint der volkomenheit, die ander crêatûren hânt’; Hom. 󰀁󰀄* [S 󰀉󰀀 B], n. 󰀈: ‘Diu dritte kunst ist, die er hât mit den engeln, die in in hânt bilde aller dinge’.

󰀇󰀀󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

giuze mit der hant, daz ich den buochstaben rüere mit der vedern, und sende in einem andern menschen und lâze in den lesen, sô bekennet er mînen willen, – alsô giuzet der engel mit dem rüerenne des himels alliu geschepfnisse, diu er von gote enpfangen hât, mit sînem willen an die crêatûren. Der himel ist ouch enmitten; er ist allen enden glîche nâhe. Alsô ist daz herze in dem menschen vil nâhe sinwel und würket âne underlâz; ez klopfet und reget sich âne underlâz. Swanne aber daz herze enzwei treget oder ez eine stunde geruowet, sô ist der mensche als mê als tôt. Dar umbe ist daz: swanne der mensche in nœten ist, sô wirt er bleich, daz ist, daz diu natûre und daz bluot verzîhet aller der lidemæze und vliuzet ze dem herzen und wil dem herzen bîstân; wan der brunne des lebens in dem herzen ist. Dar umbe ist daz, daz daz herze mitten liget, – ob dehein nôt kome an den lîchamen, daz diu alrêst ze dem herzen niht komen enmüge. Und swanne der mensche vürhtet, daz man in houwen oder stechen wil, sô leget er beide sîne hende vür daz herze und vürhtet (󰀄󰀀󰀄) | allermeist des herzen. Alsô ist ez umbe die gnâde, die got âne underscheit in daz allerinnigeste in die sêle drücket: swaz hindernisse dem menschen zuokumet an lîbe oder an sêle, daz doch diu gnâde bewart werde, daz man sie iht verliese. Dar umbe sol der mensche vor die gnâde sich selber legen und allez, daz got niht enist, ê er die gnâde verliese, dâ daz leben sîner êwigen sælicheit ane liget. Die wîle daz der mensche den willen hât, daz im niemer kein dinc sô liep ensî noch sô wol behage, ê er der gnâde gehindert würde, er enwolde es gerner verzîhen, – als lange ez alsus stât, die wîle stât der mensche an sîner volkomenheit; wan ein guot wille machet einen guoten menschen, und ein volkomen wille machet einen volkomen menschen, und nâch der güete minnet man alliu dinc. Swer dâ wil sîn der liebeste under allen liuten, der sî der beste under allen liuten. Sô mê bezzer, sô mê geminnet von gote. Ze dirre wârheit helfe uns got. Âmen.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀈* [Q 󰀈󰀁]

󰀇󰀀󰀁

into a letter, forming characters by using the hand and wielding the pen, and send it to another person and let him read it, so that he gets to know my thought, so touching the heavens the angel pours all products that it has received from God into the creatures using its will. The heaven, too, is in the middle; it is equally close to all the ends. Thus too, the heart in a person is almost round and acts without interruption; it beats and moves without interruption. But if the heart breaks in two or stops for a moment, the person is immediately dead. Therefore, when someone is in difficulties, he turns pale, for nature and blood leave all the limbs, flow to the heart and want to support the heart; for the source of life is in the heart.󰀁󰀉 This is the reason why the heart is placed in the middle – if anything assaults the body, it can not immediately reach the heart. And when a person fears he may be struck or stabbed, he puts both his hands in front of the heart and fears above all for the heart. Thus it is with the grace that God without division imprints in the innermost soul: so that with any impediment that comes to a person in body or soul, grace is preserved that it is not lost. Therefore the person should place himself and all that is not God in front of this grace, before losing grace in which the life of his eternal bliss consists. As long as the person is so willed that nothing is so dear or so pleasing to him that he would not rather give it up than be bereft of grace, then the person remains in his perfection; for a good will makes a good person, and a perfect will makes a perfect person, and according to goodness one loves all things. Whoever wants to be the most beloved among all people, be the best among all people. So much better, so much more loved by God. God help us to this truth! Amen.

󰀁󰀉. See Moses Maimonides, Dux neutrorum I c. 󰀇󰀁 (󰀃󰀁r 󰀃󰀄–󰀇): ‘sicut ergo membrum quod est de dominantibus, scilicet cor, mouetur semper: et est fons cuiuslibet motus qui est in corpore: et alia membra seruiunt ipsi: et ipsum cor transmittit eis virtutes suas quibus egent in operationibus suis in motu suo’ (‘As the part that is of those that direct, such as the heart, is always in motion, and is the source of any movement in the body, and other parts serve it, itself also transmits to them its own powers that they require for their operations in its own motion’ [own trans.]).

Homily 󰀁󰀁󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀅] Introduction

E

ven though this text is given in the DW section of vernacular homilies, its editor Georg Steer (DW IV 󰀆󰀃󰀀) states that it is instead a Quaestio disputata. The text of the critical edition in DW is based on seven manuscripts (version A: B󰀁, B󰀉, E󰀂, and a number of fragments; version B: B󰀄, Ko, St󰀂, Tr). Below we will follow version A. The content of the homily As Eckhart himself admits, this is not an easy reasoning which he is unfolding for his audience. The question that he is answering – against the opinions of all the living masters of his time (this he states twice!) – is whether works and the time in which these works have been carried out while a person was in the state of mortal sins, are entirely lost, even though the person has repented these sins and grace has returned to this person. The unanimous position of the living masters is that, even though grace may return to a person who was in the state of mortal sins, the time and the works carried out while the person was in the state of mortal sins are entirely lost. 󰀁) Eckhart starts with his exposition (nn. 󰀁–󰀂) by presenting the status quaestionis. He mentions the three elements of the masters’ answers with which he agrees and adds the one point where he disagrees with them all. 󰀂) In his reply he first radicalises the masters’ position by pointing out that all actions and time are lost anyway, as long as they are taken as works and as time (n. 󰀃). For as such, they are neither ‘good nor holy nor blessed, nor ever will be’, hence they cannot last. In contrast, he asks, ‘why is a work called a work and a good work, a holy and a blessed work,

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀅]

󰀇󰀀󰀃

and also the time in which this work occured?’ (n. 󰀄) Good, holy and blessed is no epithet which work or time can give or which is inherent in them. Instead, it is the work of ‘the spirit in which the work is carried out’ which gives these attributes to work and time (n. 󰀅). Hence, while action and time pass, what has been achieved by the spirit through them remains preserved in the spirit (n. 󰀆). Thus, neither work nor time is lost (n. 󰀇). If this is so, the preservation of works and time must also be true while a person is in mortal sins and then has returned to grace, because it is not the person or his actions or the time being spent on actions, but the ontological and spiritual basis of these which preserves action and time (nn. 󰀈–󰀁󰀁). Editions, commentaries and notes F. Pfeiffer, Pr. 󰀁󰀅,󰀇󰀁–󰀄; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts, 󰀂󰀁󰀂–󰀂󰀇; G. Steer, DW IV 󰀆󰀁󰀁–󰀅󰀄. Previous English translation Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇; rev. B. McGinn 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀁󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀃.

󰀇󰀀󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Text and translation (󰀆󰀃󰀃) Ich hân gesprochen in einer predige, daz ich wolte lêren den menschen, der guotiu (󰀆󰀃󰀄) | werk hete getân, die wîle er in tôtsünden was, wie diu lebende wider ûf mügen stân mit der zît, in der sie wurden getân. Und daz wil ich nû bewîsen, als ez in der wârheit ist, wan ich bin gebeten, daz ich den sin erliuhte. Und daz wil ich tuon, und doch ist ez wider alle die meister, die nû lebent. Die meister sprechent alle gemeinlîche: die wîle der mensche in der gnâde ist, diu werk diu er danne tuot, diu sint êwiges lônes wert. Und daz ist wâr, wan got tuot diu werk in der gnâde. Und ich spriche ez ouch mit in. Die meister sprechent ouch alle gemeinlîche: vellet der mensche in tôtsünde, alliu diu werk diu er danne würket, die wîle er in tôtsünden ist, diu sint alzemâle tôt, als er (󰀆󰀃󰀅) | selber tôt ist, und ensint niht êwiges lônes wert, wan er niht enlebet in der gnâde. Und ez ist wâr in disem sinne. Und ich spriche ez ouch mit in. Die meister sprechent: swenne got die gnâde wider gibt dem menschen, dem sîne sünde leit sint, alliu diu werk, diu er ie getete in der gnâde, ê er in tôtsünde viel, diu stânt alzemâle wider ûf in der niuwen (󰀆󰀃󰀆) | gnâde und lebent, als sie vor tâten. Und daz spriche ich ouch mit in.

󰀁. Unknown homily up to now. Pfeiffer and Walshe add the verse from Luc. 󰀁󰀅:󰀃󰀂 ‘He was dead and has come back to life. He was lost and has been found again’, which was most likely added later when the text became regarded to be a homily. 󰀂. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae III q. 󰀈󰀉 a. 󰀆: ‘Utrum per poenitentiam subsequentem etiam opera mortua vivificentur … Respondeo dicendum quod opus aliquod dicitur mortuum dupliciter. Uno modo, effective: quia scilicet est causa mortis. Et secundum hoc, opera peccati dicuntur opera mortua … Haec igitur opera mortua non vivificantur per poenitentiam, sed magis abolentur … Aliomodo dicuntur opera mortua privative: scilicet quia carent vita spirituali, quae est ex caritate, per quam anima Deo conjungitur, ex quo vivit sicut corpus per animam. Et per hunc modum etiam fides quae est sine caritate, dicitur mortua; … Et per hunc etiam modum omnia opera quae sunt bona ex genere, si sine caritate fiant, dicuntur mortua: inquantum scilicet non procedunt ex principio vitae; sicut si dicamus sonum citharae vocem mortuam dare. Sic igitur differentia mortis et vitae in operibus est secundum comparationem ad principium a quo procedunt. Opera autem non possunt iterum a principio procedere quia transeunt, et iterum eadem numero assumi non possunt. Unde impossibile est quod opera mortua iterum fiant viva per poenitentiam’.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀅]

󰀇󰀀󰀅

I have said in a homily󰀁 that I wanted to teach how the good works of a person who had carried them out while in mortal sins can come to life again with the time in which they were done. And this I want to show now, as it truly is, for I was asked to clarify the meaning. And I will do this, even though it is against all the masters who are now alive. The masters all commonly say: while a person is in grace, the works he does then are deserving of eternal reward. And this is true, for God carries out the works in grace. And in this I agree with them. The masters also all commonly say: if a person falls into mortal sin, all the works that he then carries out, while he is in mortal sin, are all completely dead, as he himself is dead, and are not worthy of eternal reward, for he does not live in grace.󰀂 And in this sense it is true. And in this I also agree with them. The masters say: when God restores grace to the person who repents his sins, all the works which he ever did in grace before falling into mortal sins, fully rise again in the new grace and are alive as they were before.󰀃 And in this I also agree with them.

󰀃. See Iohannes Duns Scotus, Reportata Parisiensia l. IV d. XXII q. unica, schol. II (Opera omnia XI,󰀂 [Lyon 󰀁󰀆󰀃󰀉 = Hildesheim 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉, 󰀇󰀆󰀉]): ‘Et quod resurgat in maiori charitate, probatur, quia omnia priora opera bona, cum ille resurrexit a peccato, sunt uiua, quia semper manent in acceptatione diuina, et principaliter, quia in actu resurgendi habet unum bonum motum in Deum de nouo, quem prius non habuit. Secundum patet, scilicet quod non grauius cadit, quia non addit nouum peccatum, sed tantum iterat peccatum illud, in quod prius cecidit’; in contrast, Thomas Aquinas does not believe in a full revival of the works that have died with the mortal sinner, see Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae III, q. 󰀈󰀉, a. 󰀅: ‘Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt quod opera meritoria per peccatum sequens mortificata non reviviseunt per poenitentiam sequentem, considerantes quod opera illa non remanent, ut iterum vivificari possent. Sed hoc impedire non potest quin vivificentur. Non enim habent vim perducendi in vitam aeternam, quod pertinet ad eorum vitam, solum secundum quod actu existunt, sed etiam postquam actu esse desinunt, secundum quod remanent in acceptatione divina. Sic autem remanent, quantum est de se, etiam postquam per peccatum mortificantur; quia semper Deus illa opera, prout facta fuerunt, acceptabit, et sancti de eis gaudebunt …. Unde restat quod opera prius mortificata per poenitentiam recuperant efficaciam perducendi eum qui fecit ea in vitam aeternam: quod est ea reviviscere. Et ita patet quod opera mortificata per poenitentiam reviviscunt’.

󰀇󰀀󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Sie sprechent aber mê: alliu diu werk, diu der mensche tete, die wîle er in tôtsünden was, diu sint alliu verlorn êwiclîche und ouch diu (󰀆󰀃󰀇) | zît, in der sie geschâhen. Diz widerspriche ich zemâle und spriche alsô: alliu diu guoten werk, diu der mensche getân hât, die wîle er in tôtsünden was, der enist (󰀆󰀃󰀈) | keinez verlorn noch ouch diu zît, in der sie geschâhen, ob er gnâde wider enpfæhet. Sehet, diz ist wider alle die meister, die nû lebent. Nû merket mit vlîze, wâ ich diu wort hine meine, sô mügent ir den sin verstân. (󰀆󰀃󰀉) | Ich spriche einvalticlîche, daz alliu diu guoten werk, diu ie wurden getân und iemermê getân suln werden, und (󰀆󰀄󰀀) | alliu diu zît, in der sie geschehen sint und geschehen suln, beidiu werk und zît, diu sint alzemâle verlorn, daz nie kein sô guot werk engeschach noch geschehen ensol – ez ist allez verlorn, werk und zît mit einander, jâ, werk als werk und zît als zît. Ich spriche ouch mê, daz nie kein werk guot noch heilic noch sælic enwart, daz zît noch guot noch heilic noch sælic nie enwart, noch niemermê werden ensol. Daz eine noch daz ander wie möhte ez denne behalten blîben, sô ez noch guot noch sælic noch heilic enist? Sît denne diu guoten werk und diu zît, in der sie geschehen sint, verlorn sint alzemâle, wie möhten denne diu werk behalten sîn, diu in tôtsünden geschehen sint, und diu zît, in der sie geschehen sint? (󰀆󰀄󰀁) | 󰀄. See Bruder Berthold, Rechtssumme G 󰀇󰀀 und G 󰀇󰀁 (Steer a.o. 󰀁󰀂󰀄󰀇,󰀁–󰀁󰀂; 󰀁󰀂󰀅󰀁,󰀁–󰀁󰀆): ‘Gute werch getan in todsünden sind got nit löblich. lxij. 󰀇󰀀. G4te werch getan in todsünden helffent dem menschen nit zü dem ewigen leben. Wann der mensch der sie tut, der ist nicht in den gnaden gots. Jedoch tut sie der mensch in guter maynung vnd in libe, so werdent sie im nutz zü funff dingen … Von den guten werchen die ain mensch getan hat vor den sunden, ob die mit den sunden sterben. lxiij. 󰀇󰀁. Gvte werch getan wann der mensch ist an sünde vnd in der gnad gots, vnd dar nach todlichen sündet vnd die werch getöt werden, jst das der mensch ware reu vnd leiden hat darnach, so werdent die werch wider lebentig vnd dem menschen nütz. Aber die guten werch die nie lebendig sind gewesen vnd tod geporn, also die der mensch tut in todsünden, die werdent von der reü vmb die sünd nicht lebentig’; see also Iohannes of Freiburg, Summa Confessorum III, 󰀃󰀄 q. 󰀁󰀄󰀁 (Hamm and Ulmschneider, 󰀃󰀈󰀅): ‘Occasione predictorum quero generaliter [generalius P] utrum opera de genere bonorum que vel fuerunt facta in charitate et postea per peccatum mortale sequens mortificata, vel fuerunt [fuerint P] facta in mortali et per consequens mortua, reviviscant, cum ipse peccator venerit ad veram penitentiam. Resp. secundum Raymundum q. liiij. Ad illud quod fuit. Dicendum est breviter quod opera viva que fuerunt facta in charitate, mortificantur per sequens peccatum mortale, et si postea sequatur vera penitentia, reviviscunt. Illa vero que nunquam viva fuerunt, puta que in peccato mortali fuerunt facta, vivere non possunt, quia mortua nata fuerunt. Et secundum hoc exponende sunt auctoritates de hac materia loquentes. Augustinus: Pium est credere, et nostra fides hoc postulat, ut, cum gratia

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀅]

󰀇󰀀󰀇

But they then say: all the works that a person did while he was in mortal sins, are all eternally lost, and also the time in which they were performed.󰀄 With this I totally disagree and say as follows: of all the good works that a person has done while he was in mortal sins, none is lost and neither the time in which they were done, if he again receives grace. Look, this is against all the masters who are now alive. Now note with diligence where I aim these words, so you can understand the reasoning. I simply say that all the good works that were ever done and ever will be done, and all the time in which they were done and in which they will be done, both works and time are totally lost, so that never a good work was done nor will be done, they are all totally lost, work and time together, indeed, work as work, and time as time. I say even more, that no work was ever good or holy or blessed, that time was never good nor holy nor blessed, nor ever will be. How could the one or the other remain preserved, if neither is good nor holy nor blessed? Since the good works and the time in which they took place are totally lost, how could the works that took place in mortal sins be preserved, and the time in which they occurred?

Christi in homine destruxerit mala priora, etiam remuneret bona, et cum destruit quod suum non invenit, amat et diligit bonum quod in peccante plantavit … Predicta omnia habentur de pen. dist. iij, circa finem, c. Pium est et in sequentibus paragraphis et capitulis usque ad § Penitentia ergo’; Nikolaus of Straßburg, Pr. V (Pf. I 󰀂󰀇󰀃,󰀂󰀅–󰀃󰀀): ‘wenne ein mensche eine tôtsünde getuot und sô er wider ûf gestât, sô werdent diu guoten werg wider lebende, aber diu werg diu in tôtsünden geschehent, diu werdent niemer lebende. Einz sint tôtiu werk, daz ander ertœtetiu werg; daz sint diu werg diu âne tôtsünde geschehent, diu werdent wider lebende, sô der mensche ûf stât von sînen sünden’; Heinrich of Langenstein, Erchantnuzz der sund I c. 󰀂󰀃 (Rudolf, 󰀇󰀈,󰀁–󰀈): ‘Nu fragent sÿ, ob dÿ guten werich, dÿ er vor getan het, wider lebentig werden. Daruber antb(rten dy lerer vnd sprechent, daz dÿ guten werich, dÿ der mensch t(t, wenn er nicht in todsunden ist, wider lebentig werden, so der mensch hernach in todsvnd felt vnd mit der rainen, waren peicht wider aufstet. Aber dÿ güten werich, dÿ der svnder in todsunden t(t,vnd ob der svnder darnach halt aufstet vnd sich bechert von den svnden, dÿ werdent doch nÿmmer mer lebentig dem menschen ze hilf zu den ewigen frewden, aber sÿ frument dem menschen in funflaÿ sachen, als ich vör geschriben hab’; Hugo of Trimberg, Der Renner (Ehrismann I, 󰀂󰀇󰀂, V. 󰀆󰀅󰀂󰀅–󰀆󰀅󰀃󰀀): ‘Swer in tœtlichen sünden tuot / Guotiu werc, der gemêrt sîn guot / Ûf erden und minnert der helle pîn, / In dem sîn sêle muoz immer sîn, / Ob er niht gotes hulde erwirbet / Und in tœtlichen sünden stirbet’; further evidence can be found in R. Lievens, ‘Eggaert en de (nog steeds) onbekende leek’ (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉), 󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀅.

󰀇󰀀󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Ich spriche mê: sie sint verlorn, werk und zît mit einander, bœsiu und guotiu, werk als werk und zît als zît. Sie sint verlorn mit einander êwiclîche. Nû ist ein vrâge: war umbe heizet ein werk ein werk und ein guot werk, ein heilic und ein sælic werk, und ouch diu zît, in der daz werk geschach? Sehet, als ich ê sprach: daz werk und diu zît, in der ez geschach, enist noch heilic noch sælic noch guot, wan güete, heilicheit und sælicheit ist ein zuovallender name des werkes und der zît, und enist sîn eigen niht. War umbe? Ein werk als ein werk daz enist von (󰀆󰀄󰀂) | im selber niht, ez enist ouch umbe sînes selbes willen niht, ez engeschihet ouch von im selber niht, ez engeschihet ouch umbe sîn selbes willen niht, ez enweiz ouch umbe sich selber (󰀆󰀄󰀃) | niht. Dar umbe sô enist ez weder guot noch bœse von im selber noch sælic noch unsælic. Mêr: der geist, ûz dem daz werk geschihet, der lediget sich des bildes, und daz enkumet (󰀆󰀄󰀄) | niht wider în. Wan als ez werk was, sô ist ez alzehant ze nihte worden und ouch diu zît, in der ez geschach, und enist noch hie noch dort, wan der geist enhât des werkes niht mê ze tuonne. Sol er iht mê würken, daz muoz sîn mit andern werken und ouch in einer andern zît. (󰀆󰀄󰀅) | Her umbe sô werdent werk und zît einez mit dem andern verlorn, bœsiu und guotiu. Sie sint doch glîche verlorn, wan sie enhânt in dem geiste kein blîben noch an in selber wesen noch stat, und got enbedarf ir ouch ze nihte. Dar umbe werdent sie an in selber ze nihte, und alsô sint sie verlorn. Geschihet ein guot werk von einem menschen, mit dem werke lediget sich der mensche. Und von der ledicheit sô ist er sînem beginne glîcher und næher, dan er vor was, ê daz diu ledicheit geschæhe. Und als vil ist er sæliger und bezzer, dan er was vor, ê daz diu ledicheit geschæhe. Dannen abe heizet man daz werk guot, heilic und sælic und ouch die zît, in der ez geschach. Und daz enist niht wâr, wan daz werk enhât kein wesen noch ouch (󰀆󰀄󰀆) | diu zît, in der ez geschach, wan ez

󰀅. See the note before, n. 󰀃. 󰀆. I.e. the image. 󰀇. I.e. the work. 󰀈. I.e. the spirit.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀅]

󰀇󰀀󰀉

I say further: works and time together are lost, bad and good ones, works as works and time as time. They are lost together forever. Now a question arises: why is a work called a work and a good work, a holy and a blessed work, and also the time in which this work occured? Look, as I have said before:󰀅 the work and the time, in which it occured, is neither holy nor blessed nor good, for goodness, holiness and blessedness is an accidental name of the work and of the time, and is not something of its own. Why? No work inasmuch as it is a work is anything by itself, nor is it for its own sake, nor does it happen by itself, nor does it happen for its own sake, nor does it know of itself. Therefore, by itself it is neither good nor bad nor blessed nor damned. In addition: the spirit which the work is carried out rids itself of the image, and this does not return to it. For when it󰀆 became a work, it became entirely annihilated, and so did the time in which it󰀇 was carried out, and it is neither here nor there, for the spirit no longer has anything to do with the work. If it󰀈 shall still be active, it needs to carry out other works and in a different time as well. Therefore both action󰀉 and time are passing together, both bad and good. But they are similarly lost for they have neither persistence in the spirit nor in their own being or place nor does God need these for anything. Therefore they become annihilated in themselves, and thus they are lost. If a good action of a person happens, with the action the person liberates himself. And by this liberation he is more like and closer to his origin than before the liberation took place. And so much he is more blessed and better than he was before the liberation took place. Since then the action is called good, holy and blessed and also the time in which it happened. And this is not true, if the action has neither being nor even time when it happened, for it passes by itself.

󰀉. As so often, the MHG term, here ‘werk’, has a broader semantic spectrum than modern English. In this case, it is difficult to determine when to translate ‘werk’ as ‘work’, ‘works’ or ‘action’. Here, however, where activity has been mentioned in the previous paragraph, Eckhart seems to switch from ‘works’ to ‘action’.

󰀇󰀁󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

vergât an im selber. Dar umbe enist ez noch guot noch heilic noch sælic, mêr: der mensche ist sælic, in dem diu vruht des werkes blîbende ist, niht als werk und als zît, sunder als ein guot getât, diu dâ êwic ist mit dem geiste, als der geist êwic ist, und ist der geist selbe. Sehet, in dirre wîse enwart nie guot getât verlorn noch diu zît, in der si geschach. Niht daz si behalten werde als werk und als zît, mêr: âne werk und âne zît mit der getât in dem geiste, dar inne si êwic ist, als der geist êwic ist in im selber. (󰀆󰀄󰀇) | Sehet, nû merket von den werken, diu dâ geschehent in tôtsünden, alsô als ir gehœret hât, die mich verstanden hânt. Nâch dem werke und nâch der zît sô sint diu guoten werk alzemâle verlorn, diu in tôtsünden geschehent, werk und zît mit einander. Nû hân ich ouch gesprochen, daz werk und zît an in selber niht ensint. Enist danne werk und zît niht an in selber, sehet, sô enverliuset er ouch niht, der sie verliuset. Daz ist wâr. Ich spriche ez aber und hân ez mê gesprochen: werk und zît enhânt noch wesen noch stat noch leben an in selber; ez ist gevallen (󰀆󰀄󰀈) | würklîche ûz dem geiste in der zît. Sol der geist mê würken, daz muoz von nôt ein ander werk sîn und in einer andern zît geschehen. Dar umbe enmac ez niemer in den geist komen, als ez werk und zît was. Ez enmac ouch mit nihte in got komen, wan ez enkam nie zît noch zîtlich werk in got. Dar umbe sô muoz ez von nôt ze nihte werden und verlorn sîn. Nû hân ich doch gesprochen, daz alliu diu guoten werk, diu der mensche tuot, die wîle er in tôtsünden ist, daz der keinez enblîbet verlorn, weder zît noch werk. Und daz ist wâr nâch dem sinne und ich iu bewîsen wil. Und als ich ê sprach, sô ist ez wider alle die meister, die nû lebent. (󰀆󰀄󰀉) |

󰀁󰀀. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae III q. 󰀈󰀉 a. 󰀅: ‘Sed hoc impedire non potest quin vivificentur. Non enim habent vim perducendi in vitam aeternam, quod pertinet ad eorum vitam, solum secundum quod actu existunt, sed etiam postquam actu esse desinunt, secundum quod remanent in acceptatione divina’. 󰀁󰀁. See above n. 󰀃. 󰀁󰀂. See above n. 󰀅. 󰀁󰀃. See Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae III q. 󰀈󰀉 a. 󰀆: ‘Utrum per poenitentiam subsequentem etiam opera mortua vivificentur … Et per hunc etiam modum omnia opera quae sunt bona ex

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀅]

󰀇󰀁󰀁

For this reason it is neither good nor holy nor blessed, but rather: the person is blessed in whom the fruit of action is permanent, not as action and in time, but as a good disposition󰀁󰀀 that is eternally together with the spirit, as the spirit is eternal, and is the spirit itself. Look, this way the good work was never lost, nor the time when it was carried out. Not that they be preserved as action and in time, instead: without action and without time with the disposition in the spirit, where it is eternal, as the spirit is eternal in itself. Look, now note about the works that are carried out in mortal sins, as you who have understood me have heard. According to action and according to time, the good works that are carried out in mortal sins are totally lost, works and time together. Now, I have also said before󰀁󰀁 that works and time in themselves are nothing. But if action and time are nothing in themselves, look, then the one who loses them, does not lose anything. This is true. But I say, and I have said it before:󰀁󰀂 works and time have neither being nor place nor life in themselves;󰀁󰀃 it has truly fallen from the spirit into time. If the spirit shall act any further, it has to be another action and this has to take place at another time. Therefore it󰀁󰀄 can not return to the spirit as it was work and time. Nor can it enter into God at all, for never time or temporal action can come into God. Therefore, it must of necessity be annihilated and be lost. But now I have said that none of all the good works that a person does while he is in mortal sins remains lost, neither time nor works. And this is true according to the reasoning that I will demonstrate to you. And as I have already said,󰀁󰀅 this is against all the masters who are now alive.

genere, si sine caritate fiant, dicuntur mortua: inquantum scilicet non procedunt ex principio vitae; sicut si dicamus sonum citharae vocem mortuam dare. Sic igitur differentia mortis et vitae in operibus est secundum comparationem ad principium a quo procedunt. Opera autem non possunt iterum a principio procedere quia transeunt, et iterum eadem numero assumi non possunt. Unde impossibile est quod opera mortua iterum fiant viva per poenitentiam’. 󰀁󰀄. I.e. the action as image, what the action has been before it was moved out by the spirit. 󰀁󰀅. See above n. 󰀂.

󰀇󰀁󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Nû merket den sin kurzlîche, als ez in der wârheit ist: diu werk, diu der mensche tuot, die wîle er in tôtsünden ist, sô entuot er doch diu werk niht ûz tôtsünden. Wan disiu werk sint guot, sô sint tôtsünde bœse. Mêr: er würket sie ûz dem grunde sînes geistes, der guot ist in im selber natiurlîche, aleine er niht enist in der gnâde. Und enverdienent diu werk niht himelrîche in in selber in der zît, in der sie geschehent, ez enschadet doch dem geiste niht, wan die vrühte des werkes âne werk und âne zît blîbent in dem geiste, und ist geist mit dem geiste, und wirt als lützel ze nihte, als lützel dem geiste sîn wesen ze nihte wirt. Mêr: der geist lediget sîn wesen mit dem ûzwürkenne der bilde, diu dâ guot sint, als wærlîche er tæte, ob er in der gnâde wære. Aleine er doch niht von den werken himelrîche enpfæhet, als er tæte, ob er in der (󰀆󰀅󰀀) | gnâde wære, sô machet er doch die selben bereitschaft ze der einunge und ze der glîcheit, als vil ez an im ist als vor, wan werk und zît ze nihte nütze ensint, wan daz sich der mensche ûzwürke. Und als vil sich der mensche ledigende ist und ûzwürkende, als vil nâhet er gote, der ledic ist in im selber. Und als verre sich der mensche ledigende ist, als verre verliuset er weder werk noch zît. Und swenne gnâde wider kumet: allez daz natiurlîche in im stuont, daz stât nû gnædiclîche in im zemâle. Und als vil er sich gelediget hât mit guoten werken, die wîle er in tôtsünden was, als vil tuot er einen glîchen înslac, mit gote sich (󰀆󰀅󰀁) | ze vereinenne, daz er niht getuon enmöhte, ob er sich vor niht gelediget enhæte mit den werken, die wîle er in tôtsünden was. Und solte er sie nû ûzwürken, sô müeste er zît dar zuo tuon. Und swenne er sich gelediget hât in der vorgânden zît, die wîle er in tôtsünden was, sô hât er im gewunnen die zît, dar inne er nû ledic ist. Dar umbe enist diu zît niht verlorn, in der er nû ledic ist, wan er hât dise zît gewunnen und mac anderiu werk würken in dirre zît, diu in noch næher vereinent in got. Die vrühte der werke, diu er tete in dem geiste, diu sint blîbende in dem geiste und sint geist mit dem geiste. Aleine diu werk und diu zît enwec sint, sô lebet doch der geist, ûz dem sie geschâhen, und diu vruht der (󰀆󰀅󰀂) | werke âne werk und âne zît vol gnâden, als ouch der geist vol gnâden ist. Sehet, alsus hân wir den sin bewæret, als ez in der wârheit wâr ist. Und alle, die hie widersprechent, den ist zemâle widersprochen, und ich enahte ir niht ein hâr. Wan daz ich gesprochen hân, daz ist wâr und diu wârheit sprichet ez selber.

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀅]

󰀇󰀁󰀃

Now briefly note the reasoning as it is in truth: the works that a person carries out, while he is in mortal sins, he does not do out of mortal sins. For while these works are good, the mortal sins are bad. Moreover: he acts them from the ground of his spirit, which is good in itself by nature, only that he is not in grace. And if the works do not deserve the kingdom of heaven in themselves in the time in which they occur, it does not harm the spirit for the fruits of action remain in the spirit without action and time, and are spirit with the spirit, and are as little annihilated as little as the spirit’s being becomes annihilated. On the contrary: the spirit liberates its being by moving out the images which are good there, as it really would do if it were in grace. Even if it does not receive the kingdom of heaven from these actions, as it would if it were in grace, it nevertheless prepares the same readiness for the union and for the likeness, as far as it is due to it as before, for action and time are of no use, unless the person moves [the images] out. And as much as the person is liberating himself by moving [the images] out, he comes close to God who is free in Himself. And as far as the person is liberating himself, to that extent he does not lose work or time. And when grace returns: everything that stood in him by nature, now stands in him completely by grace. And as much as he has liberated himself with good works, while he was in mortal sins, he makes such a similar impression, to unite with God, that he could not have done without having first liberated himself with his works, while he was in mortal sins. And if he now had to move them out, he would need to add time. And if he had liberated himself in the time that has gone, while he was in mortal sins, he has gained the time for himself in which he is now freed. Therefore, the time in which he is now freed is not lost, for he has gained this time and can carry out other works in this time, which unite him even more tightly to God. The fruits of the actions that he performed in this spirit, they remain in the spirit and are spirit with the spirit. The actions alone and the time have passed, yet nevertheless the spirit is alive out of which these were carried out, and the fruit of the actions without action and without time are full of grace, as also the spirit is full of grace. Look, so I proved the reasoning as it is true in truth. And all those who here contradict , are completely contradicted, and I do not care more for what they say than for one hair. For what I have said is true, and the truth itself says it.

󰀇󰀁󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Verstüenden sie, waz geist ist und in welher wîse daz werk antwürtet dem geiste (󰀆󰀅󰀃) | und waz werk und zît an im selber ist, sô enspræchen sie mit nihte, daz kein guot werk oder getât iemer verlorn werde oder möhte verlorn werden, aleine gât werk hine mit der zît und wirt ze nihte. Aber als ez dem geiste antwürtet in sînem wesene, sô enwirt ez niemer ze nihte. Wan daz antwürten enist niht anders, wan daz der geist gelediget ist von der getât, diu dâ geschehen ist in den werken. Daz ist diu kraft des werkes, dar umbe ez ist geschehen. Diz blîbet in dem geiste und enkam nie her ûz, und enmac als wênic vergân als der geist an im selber, wan er ist ez selber. (󰀆󰀅󰀄) | Sehet, der diz verstüende, wie möhte der iemer gesprechen, daz dekein guot werk verlorn würde, die wîle der geist sîn wesen hât und lebet in der niuwen gnâde!

H OMILY 󰀁󰀁󰀉* [S 󰀁󰀀󰀅]

󰀇󰀁󰀅

If they understood what the spirit is and how the work corresponds to the spirit and what action and time are in themselves, they would not claim at all that good actions or disposition are ever lost or might get lost, but that only the action disappears with time and becomes annihilated. Yet, because it󰀁󰀆 corresponds to the spirit in its being, it will never be annihilated. For the correspondence is nothing else, than the spirit being liberated by the disposition which takes effect in the works. This is the power of the work for which it happened. This remains in the spirit and never will get out and can vanish as little as the spirit by itself can vanish, for it itself󰀁󰀇 is it.󰀁󰀈 Look, whoever understands this, how could he ever say that a good work would be lost while the spirit has its being and lives in the new grace!

󰀁󰀆. I.e. the work. 󰀁󰀇. I.e. the spirit. 󰀁󰀈. I.e. the work.

Bibliography Primary sources Albertus Magnus, Commentarii in III Sententiarum, ed. Auguste Borgnet (Opera omnia 󰀂󰀈) (Paris, 󰀁󰀈󰀉󰀄). —. De anima, ed. Clemens Stroick (Opera omnia, editio Coloniensis 󰀇,󰀁) (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈). —. De animalibus libri XXVI, ed. Hermann Stadler, BGPhMA 󰀁󰀅.󰀁󰀆 (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀆, 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀀). —. De caelo et mundo, ed. Paul Hoßfeld (Opera omnia, editio Coloniensis 󰀅,󰀁) (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀁). —. De causis et processu universitatis a prima causa, ed. Winfried Fauser (Opera omnia, editio Coloniensis 󰀁󰀇,󰀂) (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀). —. De causis proprietatum elementorum. De generatione et corruptione, ed. Paul Hoßfeld (Opera omnia, editio Coloniensis 󰀅,󰀂) (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀). —. De homine, ed. Hendryk Anzulewicz, Joachim R. Söder (Opera omnia, editio Coloniensis 󰀂󰀇,󰀂) (Münster i.W., 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈). —. De natura et origine animae, ed. Bernhard Geyer (Opera omnia, editio Coloniensis 󰀁󰀂) (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀅). —. De principiis motus processivi, ed. Bernhard Geyer (Opera omnia, editio Coloniensis 󰀁󰀂) (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀅). —. De vegetabilibus, ed. Ernestus Meyer, Carolus Jessen (Berlin, 󰀁󰀈󰀆󰀇). —. Enarrationes in Evangelium Matthaei, ed. Auguste Borgnet (Opera omnia 󰀂󰀀) (Paris, 󰀁󰀈󰀉󰀃). —. Enarrationes in Joannem, ed. Auguste Borgnet (Opera omnia 󰀂󰀄) (Paris, 󰀁󰀈󰀉󰀉). —. Metaphysica, ed. Bernhard Geyer (Opera omnia, editio Coloniensis 󰀁󰀆,󰀁–󰀂) (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀀, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀄). —. Meteora, ed. Paul Hoßfeld (Opera omnia, editio Coloniensis 󰀆,󰀁) (Münster i.W., 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃). —. Mineralia, ed. Auguste Borgnet (Opera omnia 󰀅) (Paris, 󰀁󰀈󰀉󰀀).

󰀇󰀁󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

—. Physica, ed. Paul Hoßfeld (Opera omnia, editio Coloniensis 󰀄,󰀁–󰀂) (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃). —. Quaestiones de animalibus, ed. Ephrem Filthaut (Opera omnia, editio Coloniensis 󰀁󰀂) (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀅). —. Quaestiones, ed. Albert Fries (Opera omnia, editio Coloniensis 󰀂󰀅) (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃). —. Summa de creaturis, ed. Auguste Borgnet (Opera omnia 󰀃󰀅) (Paris, 󰀁󰀈󰀉󰀆). —. Summa theologiae sive de mirabili scientia Dei, libri I pars I, quaestiones 󰀁–󰀅󰀀A, ed. Dionys Siedler, Wilhelm Kübler, Heinrich Georg Vogels (Opera omnia, editio Coloniensis 󰀃󰀄,󰀁) (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀈). —. Super Dionysium De divinis nominibus, ed. Paul Simon (Opera omnia, editio Coloniensis 󰀁󰀄,󰀁–󰀂) (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂). —. Super Ethica. Commentum et quaestiones, ed. Wilhelm Kübel (Opera omnia, editio Coloniensis 󰀁󰀂) (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂). —. Super Matthaeum, ed. Bernhard Schmidt (Opera omnia, editio Coloniensis 󰀂󰀁) (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇). Alcherius Claravallensis, De Spiritu et anima, PL 󰀄󰀀. Alfredus de Sarashel, De motu cordis, ed. Clemens Baeumker, BGPhMA 󰀂󰀃,󰀁–󰀂 (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀃). Anselmus, Opera omnia, ed. Franciscus Salesius Schmitt, 󰀆 vols. (Seckau, Edinburgh, 󰀁󰀉󰀃󰀈–󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀁). Aristoteles, Opera, ed. Academia Regia Borussica, ex rec. Immanuelis Bekkeri, 󰀄 vols. (Berlin, 󰀁󰀈󰀃󰀁–󰀁󰀈󰀃󰀆). —. Opera latine cum commento Averrois (Venetiis, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀄). —. Latinus, Ethica Nicomachea, trans. Roberti Grosseteste, ed. RenéAntoine Gauthier (Aristoteles Latinus 󰀂󰀆,󰀁–󰀃) (Leiden, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀃). —. Les Auctoritates Aristotelis. Un florilège médiéval. Étude historique et édition critique, par Jacqueline Hamesse, Philosophes Médiévaux 󰀁󰀇 (Louvain, Paris, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀄). Augustinus, Confessiones, ed. Lucas Verheijen, CChr.SL 󰀂󰀇 (Turnhout, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁). —. De civitate Dei, ed. Bernhard Dombart, Alfons Kalb, CChr.SL 󰀄󰀇–󰀄󰀈 (Turnhout, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀅). —. De consensu evangelistarum, ed. Franz Weihrich, CSEL 󰀄󰀃 (Wien, 󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀄). —. De diversis quaestionibus octoginta tribus, ed. Almut Mutzenbecher, CChr.SL 󰀄󰀄A (Turnhout, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀅).

B IBLIOGRAPHY

󰀇󰀁󰀉

—. De Genesi ad litteram, ed. Josef Zycha, CSEL 󰀂󰀈,󰀁 (Wien, 󰀁󰀈󰀉󰀄). —. De libero arbitrio, ed. William MacAllen Green, CChr.SL 󰀂󰀉 (Turnhout, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀀). —. De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum, ed. Johannes Baptist Bauer, CSEL 󰀉󰀀 (Wien, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂). —. De natura boni, ed. Josef Zycha, CSEL 󰀂󰀅,󰀁 (Wien, 󰀁󰀈󰀉󰀄). —. De Trinitate, ed. W.J. Mountain, François Glorie, CChr.SL 󰀅󰀀–󰀅󰀀A (Turnhout, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈). —. De vera religione, ed. Klaus-Detlef Daur, CChr.SL 󰀃󰀂 (Turnhout, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀂). —. Enarrationes in Psalmos, ed. Eligius Dekkers, Johannes Fraipont, CChr.SL 󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀀 (Turnhout, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀆). —. Epistulae I–CCLXX, ed. Alois Goldbacher, CSEL 󰀃󰀄,󰀁–󰀂.󰀄󰀄.󰀅󰀇 (Wien, 󰀁󰀈󰀉󰀅–󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀃). —. Epistulae, ed. Johannes Divjak, CSEL 󰀈󰀈 (Wien, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁). —. In Iohannis Evangelium tractatus CXXIV, ed. Radbodus Willems, CChr.SL 󰀃󰀆 (Turnhout, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀄). —. Retractationes, ed. Almut Mutzenbecher, CChr.SL 󰀅󰀇 (Turnhout, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀄). —. Sermones et opuscula concionatoria, ed. J.B. Raulx (Paris, 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀁). Averroes v. Aristoteles, Opera latine cum commento Averrois (Venetiis, 󰀁󰀅󰀆󰀂–󰀁󰀅󰀇󰀄). Averroes, Commentarium magnum in Aristoteles De anima libros, ed. Frederick S. Crawford, Corpus commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem, versionum Latinarum vol. 󰀆/󰀁 (Cambridge, Mass., 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀃). Avicenna, Opera: Logyca, Sufficentia, De celo mundo, De anima, De animalibus, De intelligentijs, Alpharabius de intelligentijs, Philosophia prima (Venetiis, 󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀈). —. Liber de anima seu Sextus de naturalibus, ed. Simone Van Riet (Louvain, Leiden, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀈, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂). —. (Metaphysica) Liber de philosophia prima sive scientia divina, ed. Simone Van Riet (Louvain, Leiden, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀). Bernardus, Opera, ed. Jean Leclercq, Charles H. Talbot, Henri M. Rochais (Romae, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀇–󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈). Bertholdus de Mosburch, Expositio super Elementationem theologicam Procli, ed. Udo R. Jeck, Burkhard Mojsisch, Maria Rita PagnoniSturlese, Antonio Punzi, Fiorella Retucci, Antonella Sannino, Loris Sturlese, Isabel Tautz, Irene Zavattero, Corpus Philosophorum Teutonicorum Medii Aevi, VI 󰀁–󰀉 (Hamburg, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀–󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄).

󰀇󰀂󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

BGPhMA = Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀈󰀉󰀅–). BMW = Mittelhochdeutsches Wörterbuch. Mit Benutzung des Nachlasses von Goerg Friedrich Benecke ausgearbeitet von Wilhelm Müller und Friedrich Zarncke, I–III (Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀄–󰀁󰀈󰀆󰀆) (http://woerterbuchnetz.de/BMZ/). Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. Robert Weber, adiuv. Bonifatius Fischer, Jean Gribomont, H.F.D. Sparks, W. Thiele, 󰀄th ed. edited by Roger Gryson (Stuttgart, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉). Biblia Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti V Pont. Max. iussu recognita et Clementis VIII auctoritate edita, edited by Michael Hetzenauer (Regensburg, Rome, 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀄). Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae. Opuscula theologica, ed. Claudio Moreschini, Bibliotheca Teubneriana (München, Leipzig, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀). Bonaventura, Sermones de diversis, ed. Jacques Guy Bougerol (Paris, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃). Cicchus Esculanus, In tractatum de sphaera, ed. Lynn Thorndike, in The Spheres of Sacrobosco and its Commentators (Chicago, 󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀉). (Ps.-)Dionysius Areopagita, Dionysiaca, receuil donnant l’ensemble des traductions latines des ouvrages attribués au Denys de l’Aréopage (Bruges, 󰀁󰀉󰀃󰀇–). Meister Eckhart: Predigten und Traktate, ed. Franz Pfeiffer, Deutsche Mystiker des vierzehnten Jahrhunderts 󰀂 (Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇 = Aalen, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁). —. Preger, Wilhelm, ‘Kritische Studien zu Meister Eckhart’, Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie 󰀃󰀆 (󰀁󰀈󰀆󰀆), 󰀄󰀅󰀃–󰀅󰀁󰀇. —. Sievers, Eduard, ‘Predigten von Meister Eckhart’, ZDA 󰀁󰀅 (󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀂), 󰀃󰀇󰀃–󰀄󰀃󰀉. —. Wackernagel, Wilhelm, Altdeutsche Predigten und Gebete (Basel, 󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀆). —. Meister Eckhart und seine Jünger: Ungedruckte Texte zur Geschichte der deutschen Mystik, ed. Franz Jostes (Freiburg / Switzerland, 󰀁󰀈󰀉󰀅) = Deutsche Neudrucke Texte des Mittelalters (Berlin and New York, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂). —. Meister Eckhart’s Sermons, First time translated into English by Claud Field (London, 󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀀). 󰀁󰀁–󰀈: I. Pr. 󰀆󰀈 (Pfeiffer). 󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀄: II. Pr. 󰀆󰀈 (DW III).

B IBLIOGRAPHY

󰀇󰀂󰀁

󰀂󰀅–󰀈: III. Pr. 󰀂󰀂 (DW I). 󰀂󰀉–󰀃󰀃: IV. Pr. 󰀁󰀂 (DW I). 󰀃󰀄–󰀄󰀀: V. Tr. XI 󰀁 (Pfeiffer): Von der Übervart der Gotheit. 󰀄󰀁–󰀅󰀂: VI. Von abegescheidenheit (DW V). 󰀅󰀃–󰀆󰀀: VII. 󰀁Cor. 󰀁󰀅:󰀁󰀀 Grace is from God, and works in the depth of the soul whose powers it employs. —. Texte aus der deutschen Mystik des 󰀁󰀄. und 󰀁󰀅. Jahrhunderts, ed. Adolf Spamer (Jena, 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀂). —. Paradisus anime intelligentis (Paradis der fornuftigen sele) aus der Oxforder Handschrift Cod. Laud. Misc. 󰀄󰀇󰀉 nach E. Sievers Abschrift, ed. Philipp Strauch (Berlin, 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀉; 󰀂nd ed., eds Niklaus Largier and Gilbert Fournier, Hildesheim, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈). —. Meister Eckhart by Franz Pfeiffer Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀇, trans. with some omissions and additions by C. de B. Evans (London, 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀄). 󰀃–󰀉: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀁 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀉–󰀁󰀄: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀂 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀁󰀄–󰀂󰀀: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀄 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀂󰀀–󰀅: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀃 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀂󰀅–󰀇: Pr. 󰀆󰀅 (DW III). 󰀂󰀈–󰀃󰀁: Pr. 󰀁 (DW I). 󰀃󰀁–󰀄: Pr. 󰀇󰀆 (DW III). 󰀃󰀅–󰀈: Pr. 󰀂 (DW I). 󰀃󰀉–󰀄󰀁: Nr. 󰀃 (Jostes). 󰀄󰀁–󰀄: Pr. 󰀂󰀆 (DW II). 󰀄󰀄–󰀇: Die Anreizung und Anweisung zu dem beschauenden Leben (Preger, 󰀁󰀈󰀆󰀆). 󰀄󰀇–󰀅󰀀: Pr. 󰀅b (DW I). 󰀅󰀀–󰀃: Pr. 󰀁󰀆b (DW I). 󰀅󰀃–󰀅: B 󰀁 (Spamer). 󰀅󰀅f.: Pr. 󰀁󰀆 (Pfeiffer). 󰀅󰀇f.: Pr. 󰀁󰀇 (Pfeiffer). 󰀅󰀈f.: Pr. 󰀁󰀈 (Pfeiffer). 󰀅󰀉–󰀆󰀄: Pr. 󰀇󰀁 (DW III). 󰀆󰀄–󰀇: Pr. 󰀄󰀄 (DW II). 󰀆󰀇–󰀉: Pr. 󰀁󰀇 (DW I). 󰀆󰀉–󰀇󰀁: Pr. 󰀅󰀃 (DW II). 󰀇󰀁–󰀃: Pr. 󰀄󰀇 (DW II).

󰀇󰀂󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

󰀇󰀃f.: Pr. 󰀁󰀃a (DW I). 󰀇󰀄–󰀆: Pr. 󰀃 (DW I). 󰀇󰀆f.: Pr. 󰀂󰀆 (Pfeiffer). 󰀇󰀇–󰀉: Pr. 󰀃󰀄 (DW II). 󰀇󰀉f.: Pr. 󰀇󰀈 (DW II). 󰀈󰀀f.: Pr. 󰀃󰀈 (DW II). 󰀈󰀁–󰀄: Pr. 󰀄󰀅 (DW II). 󰀈󰀄–󰀆: Pr. 󰀃󰀇 (DW II). 󰀈󰀆–󰀉󰀂: Pr. 󰀂󰀀a (DW I). 󰀉󰀂–󰀄: Pr. 󰀃󰀅 (DW II). 󰀉󰀄f.: Nr. 󰀆󰀉 (Jostes). 󰀉󰀅–󰀈: Pr. 󰀁󰀉 (DW I). 󰀉󰀈–󰀁󰀀󰀀: Pr. 󰀁󰀈 (DW I). 󰀁󰀀󰀀–󰀂: Pr. 󰀄󰀃 (DW II). 󰀁󰀀󰀂–󰀄: Pr. 󰀃󰀆a (DW II). 󰀁󰀀󰀄–󰀇: Pr. 󰀃󰀉 (Pfeiffer). 󰀁󰀀󰀇–󰀁󰀀: Pr. 󰀄 (DW I). 󰀁󰀁󰀀–󰀃: Pr. 󰀇󰀀 (DW III). 󰀁󰀁󰀃–󰀆: Pr. 󰀆󰀉 (DW III). 󰀁󰀁󰀆–󰀈: Nr. 󰀁󰀀 (Jostes). 󰀁󰀁󰀈f.: Pr. 󰀄󰀄 (Pfeiffer). 󰀁󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀁: Pr. 󰀆󰀀 (DW III). 󰀁󰀂󰀂f. 󰀃󰀀󰀆–󰀈: Nr. 󰀃󰀄 (Jostes). 󰀁󰀂󰀃–󰀅: Pr. 󰀄󰀆 (DW II). 󰀁󰀂󰀅–󰀇: Pr. 󰀃󰀁 (DW II). 󰀁󰀂󰀇–󰀉: Pr. 󰀇󰀇 (DW III). 󰀁󰀂󰀉–󰀃󰀂: Pr. 󰀅󰀀 (Pfeiffer). 󰀁󰀃󰀂–󰀄: Pr. 󰀅󰀁 (Pfeiffer). 󰀁󰀃󰀄–󰀆: Pr. 󰀃󰀂 (DW II). 󰀁󰀃󰀆f.: Pr. 󰀅󰀃 (Pfeiffer). 󰀁󰀃󰀇–󰀉: Pr. 󰀅󰀄 (Pfeiffer). 󰀁󰀃󰀉–󰀄󰀁: Pr. 󰀆󰀂 (DW III). 󰀁󰀄󰀂f.: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀉 (DW IV/󰀂). 󰀁󰀄󰀄–󰀆: Pr. 󰀅󰀇 (Pfeiffer). 󰀁󰀄󰀆–󰀉: Pr. 󰀆󰀆 (DW III). 󰀁󰀄󰀉–󰀅󰀁: Pr. 󰀃󰀉 (DW II). 󰀁󰀅󰀂f.: Pr. 󰀄󰀈 (DW II). 󰀁󰀅󰀃f.: Pr. 󰀆󰀁 (Pfeiffer).

B IBLIOGRAPHY

󰀁󰀅󰀄–󰀆: Pr. 󰀈󰀂 (DW III). 󰀁󰀅󰀆–󰀈: Pr. 󰀄󰀀 (DW II). 󰀁󰀅󰀈–󰀆󰀀: Pr. 󰀈󰀁 (DW III). 󰀁󰀆󰀀–󰀃: Pr. 󰀆 (DW I). 󰀁󰀆󰀄–󰀆: Pr. 󰀃󰀀 (DW II). 󰀁󰀆󰀆–󰀉: Pr. 󰀆󰀇/󰀁 (Pfeiffer). 󰀁󰀆󰀉–󰀇󰀁: Pr. 󰀆󰀇/󰀂 (Pfeiffer). 󰀁󰀇󰀁–󰀃: Pr. 󰀆󰀈 (DW III). 󰀁󰀇󰀄: Pr. 󰀇󰀀 (Pfeiffer). 󰀁󰀇󰀄f.: Pr. 󰀇󰀁/󰀂 (Pfeiffer). 󰀁󰀇󰀅–󰀇: Pr. 󰀇 (DW I). 󰀁󰀇󰀇–󰀉: Pr. 󰀇󰀃 (DW III). 󰀁󰀇󰀉–󰀈󰀂: Pr. 󰀂󰀉 (DW II). 󰀁󰀈󰀃–󰀅: Pr. 󰀇󰀅 (Pfeiffer). 󰀁󰀈󰀅–󰀉󰀅: Pr. 󰀇󰀆/󰀁–󰀂 (Pfeiffer). 󰀁󰀉󰀅f.: Pr. 󰀇󰀇 (Pfeiffer). 󰀁󰀉󰀆–󰀈: Pr. 󰀇󰀈 (Pfeiffer). 󰀂󰀀󰀁f.: Pr. 󰀄󰀂 (DW II). 󰀂󰀀󰀃–󰀅: Pr. 󰀂󰀈 (DW II). 󰀂󰀀󰀅–󰀇: Pr. 󰀈 (DW I). 󰀂󰀀󰀈–󰀁󰀀: Pr. 󰀁󰀀 (DW I). 󰀂󰀁󰀀–󰀄: Pr. 󰀉 (DW I). 󰀂󰀁󰀄–󰀇: Pr. 󰀇󰀃 (DW III). 󰀂󰀁󰀇–󰀂󰀁: Pr. 󰀅󰀂 (DW II). 󰀂󰀂󰀁–󰀄: Pr. 󰀂󰀂 (DW I). 󰀂󰀂󰀆–󰀉: Pr. 󰀁󰀁 (DW I). 󰀂󰀃󰀀f.: Pr. 󰀇󰀉 (DW III). 󰀂󰀃󰀂f.: Pr. 󰀉󰀂 (Pfeiffer). 󰀂󰀃󰀃f.: Pr. 󰀉󰀃 (Pfeiffer). 󰀂󰀃󰀄–󰀆: Pr. 󰀂󰀄 (DW I). 󰀂󰀃󰀆–󰀈: Pr. 󰀅󰀀 (DW II). 󰀂󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀁: Pr. 󰀁󰀂 (DW I). 󰀂󰀄󰀁f.: Pr. 󰀈󰀀 (DW III). 󰀂󰀄󰀂–󰀅: Pr. 󰀇󰀂 (DW III). 󰀂󰀄󰀅–󰀈: Pr. 󰀃󰀃 (DW II). 󰀂󰀄󰀈–󰀅󰀀: Pr. 󰀂󰀁 (DW I). 󰀂󰀅󰀀–󰀆: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀁 (Pfeiffer). 󰀂󰀅󰀇–󰀆󰀀: Pr. 󰀅󰀁 (DW II).

󰀇󰀂󰀃

󰀇󰀂󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

󰀂󰀆󰀀–󰀂: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀃 (Pfeiffer). 󰀂󰀆󰀂–󰀄: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀄 (Pfeiffer). 󰀂󰀆󰀇–󰀇󰀉: Nr. 󰀈󰀂 (Jostes). 󰀂󰀇󰀉–󰀈󰀈: B 󰀂 (Spamer). 󰀂󰀈󰀈–󰀃󰀀󰀆: Tr. III. (Pfeiffer) Von der Sele Werdikeit und Eigenschaft. 󰀃󰀀󰀆–󰀈: Tr. IV. (Pfeiffer) Von dem Adel der Sele. 󰀃󰀀󰀈–󰀁󰀁: Liber Benedictus. I. (only DW V 󰀈,󰀁–󰀁󰀅,󰀄). 󰀃󰀁󰀂–󰀃󰀄: Tr. VI. (Pfeiffer) Daz ist Swester Katrei. 󰀃󰀃󰀄–󰀆: Tr. VII. (Pfeiffer) Diu Zeichen eines Wârhaften Grundes. 󰀃󰀃󰀆–󰀄󰀀: Tr. VIII. (Pfeiffer) Von der Geburt des Ewigen Wortes in der Sêle. 󰀃󰀄󰀀–󰀈: Von abegescheidenheit (DW V). 󰀃󰀄󰀈–󰀅󰀀: Tr. X. (Pfeiffer) Von Armuot des Geistes. 󰀃󰀅󰀀–󰀆󰀇: Tr. XI. (Pfeiffer) Von der Übervart der Gotheit. 󰀃󰀆󰀈.󰀃󰀆󰀉–󰀇󰀁: Tr. XII. (Pfeiffer) Von dem Uberschalle. 󰀃󰀇󰀁–󰀆: Tr. XIII. (Pfeiffer) Von dem Anefluzze des Vater. 󰀃󰀇󰀇–󰀈󰀂: Tr. XIV. (Pfeiffer) ‘Sant Johannes sprichet…’. 󰀃󰀈󰀂–󰀉: Tr. XV. (Pfeiffer) ‘Die drîe persône…’. 󰀃󰀈󰀉f.: Tr. XVI. (Pfeiffer) Von dem Zorne der Sêle. 󰀃󰀉󰀀–󰀆: Tr. XVII. (Pfeiffer; Preger) Von zweierlei Wegen. 󰀃󰀉󰀆–󰀄󰀀󰀈: Tr. XVIII. (Pfeiffer) Diu Glôse über daz Ewangelium S. Johannis. 󰀄󰀀󰀈–󰀁󰀃: The Beatific Vision (Preger, 󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀄, I 󰀄󰀈󰀄). 󰀄󰀁󰀇–󰀄󰀁: Sprüche (Pfeiffer). 󰀄󰀄󰀃–󰀈󰀃: Liber Positionum (Pfeiffer). —. Meister Eckhart, Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke. Hrsg. im Auftrage der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln, Mainz, 󰀁󰀉󰀃󰀆ff.) (shortcuts: DW = Deutsche Werke; LW = Lateinische Werke). —. Meister Eckhart: A Modern Translation, by Raymond Bernard Blakney (New York a.o., 󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀁). 󰀃–󰀄󰀂: Die rede der underscheidunge (DW V). 󰀄󰀃–󰀇󰀃: Liber Benedictus. I. (DW V). 󰀇󰀄–󰀈󰀁: Von dem edeln menschen (DW V). 󰀈󰀂–󰀉󰀁: Von abegescheidenheit (DW V). 󰀉󰀅–󰀁󰀀󰀂: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀁 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀁󰀀󰀃–󰀈: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀂 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀁󰀀󰀉–󰀁󰀇: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀄 (DW IV/󰀁).

B IBLIOGRAPHY

󰀇󰀂󰀅

󰀁󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀄: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀃 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀁󰀂󰀅–󰀈: Pr. 󰀅b (DW I). 󰀁󰀂󰀉–󰀃󰀂: Pr. 󰀆󰀈 (DW III). 󰀁󰀃󰀃–󰀅: Pr. 󰀄󰀂 (DW II). 󰀁󰀃󰀆–󰀉: Pr. 󰀁󰀅 (Pfeiffer). 󰀁󰀄󰀀–󰀂: Pr. 󰀃 (DW I). 󰀁󰀄󰀃–󰀅: Pr. 󰀇󰀉 (DW III). 󰀁󰀄󰀆–󰀅󰀀: Pr. 󰀅󰀁 (DW II). 󰀁󰀅󰀁–󰀅: Pr. 󰀁󰀁 (DW I). 󰀁󰀅󰀆–󰀆󰀀: Pr. 󰀁 (DW I). 󰀁󰀆󰀁–󰀄: Pr. 󰀃󰀂 (DW II). 󰀁󰀆󰀅–󰀉: Pr. 󰀆󰀉 (DW III). 󰀁󰀇󰀀–󰀃: Pr. 󰀈 (DW I). 󰀁󰀇󰀄–󰀇: Pr. 󰀂󰀅 (DW II). 󰀁󰀇󰀈–󰀈󰀂: Pr. 󰀃󰀉 (DW II). 󰀁󰀈󰀃–󰀇: Pr. 󰀄 (DW I). 󰀁󰀈󰀈–󰀉󰀁: Pr. 󰀂󰀈 (DW II). 󰀁󰀉󰀂–󰀆: Pr. 󰀂󰀉 (DW II). 󰀁󰀉󰀇–󰀂󰀀󰀂: Pr. 󰀇󰀆/󰀁 (Pfeiffer). 󰀂󰀀󰀃–󰀆: Pr. 󰀁󰀂 (DW I). 󰀂󰀀󰀇–󰀁󰀁: Pr. 󰀂 (DW I). 󰀂󰀁󰀂–󰀇: Pr. 󰀁󰀀 (DW I). 󰀂󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀃: Pr. 󰀉 (DW I). 󰀂󰀂󰀄–󰀆: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀉 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀂󰀂󰀇–󰀃󰀂: Pr. 󰀅󰀂 (DW II). 󰀂󰀅󰀈–󰀃󰀀󰀅: Magistri Echardi Responsio ad articulos sibi impositos de scriptis et dictis suis (LW V). —. The Works of Meister Eckhart Doctor Ecstaticus, vol. II, trans. C. de B. Evans (London, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂).󰀁 󰀁–󰀄󰀂: Die rede der underscheidunge (DW V). 󰀁. Needs a separate study, as Evans translates amongst other texts (see above) nine pieces from a manuscript (Str󰀃), once in the possession of Prof. Karl Schmid (Strassburg) from the year 󰀁󰀄󰀄󰀀, which appears to have belonged to the Dominican Convent at Inzighofen near Sigmaringen; note also the six translated homilies (XLVI–LI), which are taken from Ms. K󰀂 from the University Library of Kassel (󰀄° Ms. theol. 󰀉󰀄). Of these six homilies, five are not yet published in the critical editio maior, but are available here in translation: Beatus vir qui inventus est sine macula (Jes. Sir. 󰀃󰀁,󰀈) (XLVI); Domus mea domus orationis vocabitur etc. (Matth. 󰀂󰀁,󰀁󰀃) (XLVII); Justorum autem animae in manu dei sunt etc. (Weish. 󰀃,󰀁) (XLVIII); Daz hummelriche ist glich eim konnige etc. (Matth. 󰀂󰀂,󰀂) (XLIX); Vere dominus iste est in loco isto etc. (Gen. 󰀂󰀈,󰀁󰀆) (LI).

󰀇󰀂󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

󰀄󰀃–󰀇󰀈: Liber Benedictus. I. Daz buoch der götlîchen trœstunge (DW V). 󰀇󰀈–󰀈󰀆: II. Von dem edeln menschen (DW V). 󰀈󰀉f.: Pr. 󰀆󰀅 (DW III). 󰀉󰀀–󰀈: Pr. 󰀈󰀆 (DW III). 󰀉󰀈–󰀁󰀀󰀀: Pr. Amor est fortis sicut et mors. 󰀁󰀀󰀁f.: No. II 󰀁󰀄 (Jundt). 󰀁󰀀󰀂–󰀅: Pr. 󰀁󰀃 (DW I). 󰀁󰀀󰀅: No. II 󰀁󰀇 (Jundt). 󰀁󰀀󰀅f.: Von zweierlei Wegen (Pfeiffer) (excerpt). 󰀁󰀀󰀆–󰀈: No. II 󰀁󰀂 (Jundt). 󰀁󰀀󰀈–󰀁󰀁: No. II 󰀁󰀆 (Jundt). 󰀁󰀁󰀇–󰀂󰀂: Pr. 󰀄󰀁 (DW II). 󰀁󰀁󰀃–󰀇: Pr. 󰀂󰀅 (DW II). 󰀁󰀂󰀂–󰀆: Pr. 󰀆󰀆 (DW III). 󰀁󰀂󰀆–󰀈: Pr. 󰀄󰀉 (DW II) (excerpt). 󰀁󰀄󰀄–󰀆: No. LXII (Wackernagel). 󰀁󰀄󰀆–󰀈: No. LXIII (Wackernagel). 󰀁󰀄󰀈–󰀅󰀁: Pr. 󰀈󰀇 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀁󰀅󰀁–󰀆: Pr. 󰀃󰀈 (DW II). 󰀁󰀅󰀆f.: Pr. 󰀈󰀈 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀁󰀅󰀇f.: Pr. 󰀈󰀉 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀁󰀅󰀈–󰀆󰀁: Pr. 󰀉󰀀 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀁󰀆󰀁–󰀄: Pr. 󰀉󰀁 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀁󰀆󰀄f.: Pr. 󰀅󰀆 (DW II). 󰀁󰀆󰀅–󰀇: Pr. 󰀉󰀂 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀁󰀆󰀇–󰀇󰀁: Pr. 󰀉󰀃 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀁󰀇󰀁–󰀄: Pr. 󰀉󰀄 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀁󰀇󰀄–󰀇: Pr. 󰀉󰀅 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀁󰀇󰀇f.: Pr. 󰀉󰀆 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀁󰀇󰀉f.: Pr. 󰀃󰀃 (DW II). 󰀁󰀈󰀀–󰀂: Pr. 󰀉󰀇 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀁󰀈󰀂–󰀄: Pr. 󰀇󰀂 (DW III). 󰀁󰀈󰀄–󰀆: Pr. 󰀉󰀈 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀁󰀈󰀆–󰀈: Pr. 󰀈󰀄 (DW III). 󰀁󰀈󰀈f.: Pr. 󰀈󰀅 (DW III). 󰀁󰀉󰀀f.: Pr. 󰀁󰀁󰀆 (DW IV/󰀃). 󰀁󰀉󰀁–󰀅: Pr. 󰀅󰀇 (DW II).

B IBLIOGRAPHY

󰀇󰀂󰀇

󰀁󰀉󰀅–󰀈: Pr. 󰀂󰀁 (Sievers). 󰀁󰀉󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀂: Pr. 󰀂󰀂 (Sievers). 󰀂󰀀󰀂–󰀄: Pr. 󰀂󰀃 (Sievers). 󰀂󰀀󰀄–󰀆: Pr. 󰀂󰀄 (Sievers). 󰀂󰀀󰀇–󰀉: Pr. 󰀆󰀁 (DW III). 󰀂󰀁󰀀–󰀂: Pr. 󰀂󰀆 (Sievers). —. Meister Eckehart, Deutsche Predigten und Traktate, ed. and trans. Josef Quint (München, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀅). —. Meister Eckhart. An Introduction to the Study of his Works with an Anthology of his Sermons, selected, annotated and translated by James Midgely Clark (Edinburgh, New York and Toronto, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀇). 󰀁󰀂󰀇–󰀃󰀂: Pr. 󰀁 (DW I). 󰀁󰀃󰀃–󰀈: Pr. 󰀂 (DW I). 󰀁󰀃󰀉–󰀄󰀃: Pr. 󰀂󰀅 (DW II). 󰀁󰀄󰀄–󰀈: Pr. 󰀁󰀆b (DW I). 󰀁󰀄󰀉–󰀅󰀂: Pr. 󰀁󰀇 (DW I). 󰀁󰀅󰀃–󰀆: Pr. 󰀃 (DW I). 󰀁󰀅󰀇–󰀆󰀁: Pr. 󰀂󰀀a (DW I). 󰀁󰀆󰀂–󰀅: Pr. 󰀁󰀉 (DW I). 󰀁󰀆󰀆–󰀉: Pr. 󰀁󰀈 (DW I). 󰀁󰀇󰀀–󰀅: Pr. 󰀄 (DW I). 󰀁󰀇󰀆–󰀈󰀁: Pr. 󰀆󰀉 (DW III). 󰀁󰀈󰀂–󰀄: Pr. 󰀅󰀆 (Pfeiffer). 󰀁󰀈󰀅–󰀉󰀀: Pr. 󰀆 (DW I). 󰀁󰀉󰀁–󰀃: Pr. 󰀇 (DW I). 󰀁󰀉󰀄–󰀇: Pr. 󰀈 (DW I). 󰀁󰀉󰀈–󰀂󰀀󰀄: Pr. 󰀁󰀀 (DW I). 󰀂󰀀󰀅–󰀁󰀁: Pr. 󰀉 (DW I). 󰀂󰀁󰀂–󰀇: Pr. 󰀂󰀂 (DW I). 󰀂󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀂: Pr. 󰀁󰀁 (DW I). 󰀂󰀂󰀈–󰀃󰀂: Pr. 󰀂󰀁 (DW I). 󰀂󰀂󰀃–󰀇: Pr. 󰀁󰀂 (DW I). 󰀂󰀃󰀃–󰀆: Pr. 󰀅a (DW I). 󰀂󰀃󰀇–󰀄󰀀: Pr. 󰀁󰀃 (DW I). 󰀂󰀄󰀁–󰀅: Pr. 󰀁󰀅 (DW I). 󰀂󰀄󰀆–󰀉: Pr. 󰀁󰀄 (DW I). 󰀂󰀅󰀁–󰀈: The Bull ‘In agro dominico’ (LW V).

󰀇󰀂󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

—. Meister Eckhart, Selected Treatises and Sermons, trans. James Midgely Clark and John V. Skinner (London, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀈). 󰀄󰀉–󰀅󰀃: Pr. 󰀃󰀉 (DW II). 󰀅󰀄–󰀈: Pr. 󰀃󰀀 (DW II). 󰀅󰀉–󰀁󰀀󰀅: Die rede der underscheidunge (DW V). 󰀁󰀀󰀆–󰀄󰀅: Liber Benedictus. I. Daz buoch der götlîchen trœstunge (DW V). 󰀁󰀄󰀆–󰀅󰀅: II. Von dem edeln menschen (DW V). 󰀁󰀅󰀆–󰀆󰀇: Von abegescheidenheit (DW V). 󰀁󰀆󰀈–󰀈󰀀: Expositio sancti Evangelii secundum Iohannem (LW III 󰀁󰀈󰀉,󰀄–󰀂󰀀󰀇,󰀅, nn. 󰀂󰀂󰀆–󰀄󰀈). 󰀁󰀈󰀁–󰀄: Sermo II/󰀁 (LW IV nn. 󰀃–󰀈). 󰀁󰀈󰀅–󰀈: Sermo XXIII (LW IV nn. 󰀂󰀁󰀆–󰀂󰀅). 󰀁󰀈󰀉–󰀉󰀁: Sermo XXI (LW IV nn. 󰀂󰀀󰀁–󰀅). 󰀁󰀉󰀂–󰀂󰀀󰀀: Sermo XXII (LW IV nn. 󰀂󰀀󰀆–󰀁󰀆). 󰀂󰀀󰀁–󰀅: Sermo XXIX (LW IV nn. 󰀂󰀉󰀅–󰀃󰀀󰀅). 󰀂󰀀󰀆–󰀁󰀁: Sermo XXX/󰀁 (LW IV nn. 󰀃󰀀󰀆–󰀁󰀆). 󰀂󰀁󰀁–󰀄: Sermo XXX/󰀂 (LW IV nn. 󰀃󰀁󰀇–󰀂󰀁). 󰀂󰀁󰀄f.: Sermo LII (LW IV nn. 󰀅󰀂󰀁–󰀃). 󰀂󰀁󰀆–󰀂󰀁: Expositio Libri Exodi (LW II 󰀂󰀀,󰀁–󰀂󰀈,󰀁󰀀, nn. 󰀁󰀄–󰀂󰀁). 󰀂󰀂󰀂–󰀄󰀉: Expositio sancti Evangelii secundum Iohannem (LW III 󰀃,󰀁– 󰀄󰀄,󰀁󰀅, nn. 󰀁–󰀅󰀃). —. Fox, Matthew, Breakthrough: Meister Eckhart’s Creation Spirituality in New Translation (Garden City, New York, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀). 󰀅󰀇–󰀆󰀀: Pr. 󰀅󰀃 (DW II). 󰀆󰀅–󰀉: Pr. 󰀃󰀀 (DW II). 󰀇󰀅–󰀇: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀉 (DW IV/󰀂). 󰀈󰀃–󰀆: Pr. 󰀈 (DW I). 󰀉󰀁–󰀄: Pr. 󰀇󰀅 (DW III). 󰀁󰀀󰀂–󰀅: Pr. 󰀂󰀄 (DW I). 󰀁󰀁󰀄–󰀇: Pr. 󰀄󰀇 (DW II). 󰀁󰀂󰀆–󰀉: Pr. 󰀄󰀂 (DW II). 󰀁󰀃󰀇–󰀄󰀁: Pr. 󰀆󰀈 (DW III). 󰀁󰀅󰀁–󰀃: Pr. 󰀇󰀉 (DW III). 󰀁󰀆󰀆–󰀉: Pr. 󰀁󰀅 (DW I). 󰀁󰀇󰀇–󰀈󰀀: Pr. 󰀈󰀃 (DW III). 󰀁󰀈󰀈–󰀉󰀂: Pr. 󰀂󰀁 (DW I). 󰀁󰀉󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀂: Pr. 󰀅b (DW I).

B IBLIOGRAPHY

󰀇󰀂󰀉

󰀂󰀁󰀃–󰀈: Pr. 󰀅󰀂 (DW II). 󰀂󰀂󰀆–󰀃󰀀: Pr. 󰀂󰀅 (DW II). 󰀂󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀅: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀄 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀂󰀅󰀁–󰀇: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀂 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀂󰀆󰀆f.: Pr. 󰀈󰀅 (DW III). 󰀂󰀇󰀃–󰀈: Pr. 󰀂󰀇 (DW II). 󰀂󰀉󰀃–󰀃󰀀󰀁: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀁 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀃󰀁󰀃–󰀇: Pr. 󰀂 (DW I). 󰀃󰀂󰀅–󰀃󰀀: Pr. 󰀇󰀆 (DW III). 󰀃󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀅: Pr. 󰀄󰀉 (DW II). 󰀃󰀅󰀄–󰀈: Pr. 󰀂󰀉 (DW II). 󰀃󰀆󰀃–󰀈: Pr. 󰀈󰀁 (DW III). 󰀃󰀈󰀀–󰀃: Pr. 󰀆󰀀 (DW III). 󰀃󰀈󰀈–󰀉󰀁: Pr. 󰀆󰀇 (DW III). 󰀃󰀉󰀇–󰀄󰀀󰀁: Pr. 󰀄 (DW I). 󰀄󰀁󰀇f.: Sermo XII/󰀁 (LW IV nn. 󰀁󰀂󰀂–󰀄). 󰀄󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀇: Sermo XII/󰀂 (LW IV nn. 󰀁󰀂󰀅–󰀄󰀅). 󰀄󰀄󰀀–󰀂: Pr. 󰀇 (DW I). 󰀄󰀅󰀀–󰀅: Pr. 󰀁 (DW I). 󰀄󰀆󰀄–󰀇: Pr. 󰀃󰀉 (DW II). 󰀄󰀇󰀈–󰀆: Pr. 󰀈󰀆 (DW III). 󰀄󰀉󰀅–󰀅󰀀󰀃: Tractatus super Oratione Dominica (LW V). 󰀅󰀁󰀀–󰀈: Von dem edeln menschen (DW V). 󰀅󰀃󰀁–󰀅: Sermo XXX/󰀁 (LW IV nn. 󰀃󰀀󰀆–󰀁󰀆). 󰀅󰀃󰀅–󰀇: Sermo XXX/󰀂 (LW IV nn. 󰀃󰀁󰀇–󰀂󰀁). —. Meister Eckhart, The Essential Sermons, Commentaries, Treatises and Defense, trans. and eds Bernard McGinn and Edmund Colledge (New York, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁; re-published in paperback without notes and a foreword by John O’Donohue as Meister Eckhart, Selections from His Essential Writings, New York, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅). 󰀇󰀁–󰀆: Response to the list of forty-nine articles (LW V). 󰀇󰀆f.: Response to the list of fifty-nine articles (LW V). 󰀇󰀇–󰀈󰀁: The Bull ‘In agro dominico’ (LW V). 󰀈󰀂: Prologi in Opus tripartitum (LW I 󰀁󰀈󰀃,󰀁–󰀁󰀁). 󰀈󰀂–󰀉󰀁: Expositio Libri Genesis (LW I 󰀁󰀈󰀅,󰀁–󰀂󰀀󰀆,󰀄, nn. 󰀁–󰀂󰀈). 󰀉󰀂–󰀅: Liber Parabolarum Genesis (LW I 󰀄󰀄󰀇,󰀁–󰀄󰀅󰀆,󰀆, nn. 󰀁–󰀇). 󰀉󰀂–󰀁󰀀󰀇: Liber Parabolarum Genesis (LW I 󰀄󰀇󰀉,󰀁–󰀅󰀀󰀇,󰀆, nn. 󰀁–󰀄󰀀). 󰀁󰀀󰀈–󰀂󰀁: Liber Parabolarum Genesis (LW I 󰀆󰀀󰀁,󰀁–󰀆󰀃󰀆,󰀃, nn. 󰀁󰀃󰀅–󰀆󰀅).

󰀇󰀃󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

󰀁󰀂󰀂–󰀇󰀃: Expositio sancti Evangelii secundum Iohannem (LW III 󰀃,󰀁– 󰀁󰀁󰀃,󰀁󰀂, nn. 󰀁–󰀁󰀃󰀁). 󰀁󰀇󰀇–󰀈󰀁: Pr. 󰀂 (DW I). 󰀁󰀈󰀁–󰀅: Pr. 󰀅b (DW I). 󰀁󰀈󰀅–󰀉: Pr. 󰀆 (DW I). 󰀁󰀈󰀉–󰀉󰀂: Pr. 󰀁󰀅 (DW I). 󰀁󰀉󰀂–󰀆: Pr. 󰀂󰀂 (DW I). 󰀁󰀉󰀇f.: Pr. 󰀄󰀈 (DW II). 󰀁󰀉󰀉–󰀂󰀀󰀃: Pr. 󰀅󰀂 (DW II). 󰀂󰀀󰀃–󰀅: Pr. 󰀅󰀃 (DW II). 󰀂󰀀󰀆–󰀈: Pr. 󰀈󰀃 (DW III). 󰀂󰀀󰀉–󰀃󰀉: Liber Benedictus. I. Daz buoch der götlîchen trœstunge (DW V). 󰀂󰀄󰀀–󰀇: II. Von dem edeln menschen (DW V). 󰀂󰀄󰀇–󰀈󰀅: Die rede der underscheidunge (DW V). 󰀂󰀈󰀅–󰀉󰀄: Von abegescheidenheit (DW V). —. Meister Eckhart, Teacher and Preacher, trans. and eds Bernard McGinn and Frank Tobin (New York and London, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇). 󰀄󰀁: Expositio Libri Exodi (LW II 󰀁,󰀁–󰀆). 󰀄󰀁–󰀁󰀂󰀉: Expositio Libri Exodi (LW II 󰀉,󰀁–󰀂󰀂󰀇,󰀁󰀂, nn. 󰀁–󰀂󰀈󰀂). 󰀁󰀄󰀇–󰀅󰀅: Expositio Libri Sapientiae (LW II 󰀃󰀃󰀉,󰀃–󰀃󰀆󰀂,󰀂, nn. 󰀁󰀉–󰀄󰀀). 󰀁󰀅󰀅–󰀆󰀆: Expositio Libri Sapientiae (LW II 󰀄󰀂󰀉,󰀁󰀀–󰀄󰀅󰀇,󰀉, nn. 󰀉󰀆–󰀁󰀂󰀀). 󰀁󰀆󰀆–󰀇󰀁: Expositio Libri Sapientiae (LW II 󰀄󰀈󰀁,󰀃–󰀄󰀉󰀄,󰀅, nn. 󰀁󰀄󰀄–󰀅󰀇). 󰀁󰀇󰀁–󰀄: Expositio Libri Sapientiae (LW II 󰀆󰀀󰀉,󰀅–󰀆󰀁󰀉,󰀄, nn. 󰀂󰀇󰀉–󰀈󰀅). 󰀁󰀇󰀄–󰀈󰀁: Sermones et Lectiones super Ecclesiastici cap. 󰀂󰀄 (LW II 󰀂󰀆󰀉,󰀁– 󰀂󰀉󰀀,󰀈, nn. 󰀄󰀂–󰀆󰀁). 󰀁󰀈󰀂–󰀉󰀃: Expositio sancti Evangelii secundum Iohannem (LW III 󰀄󰀇󰀇,󰀃– 󰀅󰀀󰀆,󰀄, nn. 󰀅󰀄󰀆–󰀇󰀆). 󰀂󰀀󰀇–󰀁󰀀: Sermo IV/󰀁 (LW IV nn. 󰀂󰀀–󰀈). 󰀂󰀁󰀀f.: Sermo IV/󰀂 (LW IV nn. 󰀂󰀉–󰀃󰀀). 󰀂󰀁󰀂–󰀄: Sermo VI/󰀁 (LW IV nn. 󰀅󰀂–󰀆). 󰀂󰀁󰀄f.: Sermo VI/󰀂 (LW IV nn. 󰀅󰀇–󰀆󰀁). 󰀂󰀁󰀆–󰀉: Sermo XXV/󰀁 (LW IV nn. 󰀂󰀅󰀁–󰀆󰀁). 󰀂󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀁: Sermo XXV/󰀂 (LW IV nn. 󰀂󰀆󰀂–󰀈). 󰀂󰀂󰀃–󰀆: Sermo XXIX (LW IV nn. 󰀂󰀉󰀅–󰀃󰀀󰀅). 󰀂󰀂󰀇–󰀃󰀃: Sermo XLV (LW IV nn. 󰀄󰀄󰀈–󰀆󰀈). 󰀂󰀃󰀄–󰀇: Sermo XLIX/󰀁 (LW IV nn. 󰀅󰀀󰀅–󰀈).

B IBLIOGRAPHY

󰀇󰀃󰀁

󰀂󰀃󰀉–󰀄󰀃: Pr. 󰀁 (DW I). 󰀂󰀄󰀄–󰀆: Pr. 󰀃 (DW I). 󰀂󰀄󰀇–󰀅󰀁: Pr. 󰀄 (DW I). 󰀂󰀅󰀂–󰀄: Pr. 󰀇 (DW I). 󰀂󰀅󰀅–󰀆󰀀: Pr. 󰀉 (DW I). 󰀂󰀆󰀁–󰀆: Pr. 󰀁󰀀 (DW I). 󰀂󰀆󰀇–󰀇󰀀: Pr. 󰀁󰀂 (DW I). 󰀂󰀇󰀁–󰀄: Pr. 󰀁󰀄 (DW I). 󰀂󰀇󰀅–󰀉: Pr. 󰀁󰀆b (DW I). 󰀂󰀈󰀀–󰀃: Pr. 󰀂󰀁 (DW I). 󰀂󰀈󰀄–󰀆: Pr. 󰀂󰀄 (DW I). 󰀂󰀈󰀇–󰀉󰀀: Pr. 󰀂󰀉 (DW II). 󰀂󰀉󰀂–󰀅: Pr. 󰀃󰀀 (DW II). 󰀂󰀉󰀆–󰀈: Pr. 󰀃󰀉 (DW II). 󰀃󰀀󰀀–󰀂: Pr. 󰀄󰀀 (DW II). 󰀃󰀀󰀄–󰀆: Pr. 󰀄󰀆 (DW II). 󰀃󰀀󰀇–󰀁󰀀: Pr. 󰀅󰀉 (DW II). 󰀃󰀁󰀁–󰀅: Pr. 󰀆󰀉 (DW III). 󰀃󰀁󰀆–󰀉: Pr. 󰀇󰀀 (DW III). 󰀃󰀂󰀀–󰀅: Pr. 󰀇󰀁 (DW III). 󰀃󰀂󰀇–󰀃󰀀: Pr. 󰀇󰀆 (DW III). 󰀃󰀃󰀂–󰀄: Pr. 󰀈󰀀 (DW III). 󰀃󰀃󰀅–󰀇: Pr. 󰀈󰀄 (DW III). 󰀃󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀄: Pr. 󰀈󰀆 (DW III). 󰀃󰀄󰀉–󰀈󰀄: Daz ist Swester Katrei (Pfeiffer; Schweitzer). —. Meister Eckhart, Sermons and Treatises, trans. M. O’C. Walshe, 󰀃 vols (Longmead, Shaftesbury, Dorset, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇); now: The Complete Mystical Works of Meister Eckhart, trans. and ed. by M. O’C. Walshe, rev. by Bernard McGinn (New York, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉) (the rev. ed. used here). 󰀂󰀆–󰀈: The Bull ‘In agro dominico’ (LW V). 󰀂󰀉–󰀃󰀈: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀁 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀃󰀉–󰀄󰀅: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀂 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀄󰀆–󰀅󰀄: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀄 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀅󰀅–󰀆󰀁: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀃 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀆󰀂–󰀅: Pr. 󰀆󰀅 (DW III). 󰀆󰀆–󰀇󰀁: Pr. 󰀁 (DW I). 󰀇󰀂–󰀆: Pr. 󰀇󰀆 (DW III).

󰀇󰀃󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

󰀇󰀇–󰀈󰀂: Pr. 󰀂 (DW I). 󰀈󰀃–󰀉󰀀: Pr. 󰀈󰀆 (DW III). 󰀉󰀁–󰀄: Pr. 󰀂󰀅 (DW II). 󰀉󰀅–󰀈: Pr. 󰀂󰀆 (DW II). 󰀉󰀉–󰀁󰀀󰀃: Pr. 󰀂󰀇 (DW II). 󰀁󰀀󰀄–󰀇: Pr. 󰀅a (DW I). 󰀁󰀀󰀈–󰀁󰀁: Pr. 󰀅b (DW I). 󰀁󰀁󰀂f.: Pr. 󰀁󰀆a (DW I). 󰀁󰀁󰀄–󰀈: Pr. 󰀁󰀆b (DW I). 󰀁󰀁󰀉–󰀂󰀃: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀅 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀁󰀂󰀄–󰀈: Pr. 󰀂󰀉 (DW II). 󰀁󰀂󰀉–󰀃󰀂: Pr. 󰀂󰀈 (DW II). 󰀁󰀃󰀃–󰀆: Pr. 󰀃󰀀 (DW II). 󰀁󰀃󰀇–󰀄󰀂: Pr. 󰀇󰀁 (DW III). 󰀁󰀄󰀃–󰀇: Pr. 󰀄󰀄 (DW II). 󰀁󰀄󰀈–󰀅󰀁: Pr. 󰀄󰀇 (DW II). 󰀁󰀅󰀂–󰀄: Pr. 󰀅󰀃 (DW II). 󰀁󰀅󰀅–󰀈: Pr. 󰀁󰀇 (DW I). 󰀁󰀅󰀉–󰀆󰀂: Pr. 󰀁󰀃 (DW I). 󰀁󰀆󰀃f.: Pr. 󰀁󰀃a (DW I). 󰀁󰀆󰀅–󰀇: Pr. 󰀃 (DW I). 󰀁󰀆󰀈–󰀇󰀁: Pr. 󰀅󰀇 (DW II). 󰀁󰀇󰀂–󰀄: Pr. 󰀃󰀄 (DW II). 󰀁󰀇󰀅f.: Pr. 󰀇󰀈 (DW III). 󰀁󰀇󰀇–󰀈󰀂: Pr. 󰀃󰀈 (DW II). 󰀁󰀈󰀃–󰀆: Pr. 󰀄󰀅 (DW II). 󰀁󰀈󰀇–󰀉󰀀: Pr. 󰀃󰀇 (DW II). 󰀁󰀉󰀁–󰀅: Pr. 󰀂󰀀a (DW I). 󰀁󰀉󰀆–󰀉: Pr. 󰀂󰀀b (DW I). 󰀂󰀀󰀀–󰀂: Pr. 󰀃󰀅 (DW II). 󰀂󰀀󰀃–󰀆: Pr. 󰀅󰀅 (DW II). 󰀂󰀀󰀇–󰀁󰀀: Pr. 󰀁󰀉 (DW I). 󰀂󰀁󰀁–󰀁󰀃: Pr. 󰀁󰀈 (DW I). 󰀂󰀁󰀄–󰀇: Pr. 󰀃󰀇 (Pfeiffer). 󰀂󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀀: Pr. 󰀃󰀆a (DW II). 󰀂󰀂󰀁–󰀃: Pr. 󰀃󰀆b (DW II). 󰀂󰀂󰀄–󰀈: Pr. 󰀄 (DW I).

B IBLIOGRAPHY

󰀂󰀂󰀉–󰀃󰀂: Pr. 󰀇󰀀 (DW III). 󰀂󰀃󰀃–󰀇: Pr. 󰀆󰀉 (DW III). 󰀂󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀂: Pr. 󰀄󰀁 (DW II). 󰀂󰀄󰀃–󰀅: Pr. 󰀅󰀈 (DW II). 󰀂󰀄󰀆–󰀉: Pr. 󰀆󰀀 (DW III). 󰀂󰀅󰀀–󰀄: Pr. 󰀅󰀄b (DW II). 󰀂󰀅󰀅–󰀇: Pr. 󰀄󰀆 (DW II). 󰀂󰀅󰀈–󰀆󰀁: Pr. 󰀃󰀁 (DW II). 󰀂󰀆󰀂–󰀅: Pr. 󰀇󰀇 (DW III). 󰀂󰀆󰀆–󰀉: Pr. 󰀁󰀄 (DW I). 󰀂󰀇󰀀–󰀄: Pr. 󰀁󰀅 (DW I). 󰀂󰀇󰀅–󰀈: Pr. 󰀃󰀂 (DW II). 󰀂󰀇󰀉–󰀈󰀄: Pr. 󰀂󰀂 (DW I). 󰀂󰀈󰀅–󰀈: Pr. 󰀂󰀃 (DW I). 󰀂󰀈󰀉–󰀉󰀁: Pr. 󰀆󰀂 (DW III). 󰀂󰀉󰀂–󰀄: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀉 (DW IV/󰀂). 󰀂󰀉󰀅–󰀉: Pr. 󰀁󰀂 (DW I). 󰀃󰀀󰀀–󰀄: Pr. 󰀆󰀆 (DW III). 󰀃󰀀󰀅–󰀈: Pr. 󰀃󰀉 (DW II). 󰀃󰀀󰀉–󰀁󰀁: Pr. 󰀄󰀈 (DW II). 󰀃󰀁󰀂f.: Pr. 󰀆󰀁 (Pfeiffer). 󰀃󰀁󰀄–󰀇: Pr. 󰀈󰀂 (DW III). 󰀃󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀁: Pr. 󰀄󰀀 (DW II). 󰀃󰀂󰀂–󰀇: Pr. 󰀈󰀁 (DW III). 󰀃󰀂󰀈–󰀃󰀃: Pr. 󰀆 (DW I). 󰀃󰀃󰀄–󰀄󰀀: Pr. 󰀁󰀀 (DW I). 󰀃󰀄󰀁–󰀆: Pr. 󰀉 (DW I). 󰀃󰀄󰀇–󰀅󰀁: Pr. 󰀁󰀁 (DW I). 󰀃󰀅󰀂–󰀆: Pr. 󰀆󰀈 (DW III). 󰀃󰀅󰀇–󰀆󰀁: Pr. 󰀆󰀇 (DW III). 󰀃󰀆󰀂–󰀆: Pr. 󰀅󰀉 (DW II). 󰀃󰀆󰀇–󰀉: Pr. 󰀇 (DW I). 󰀃󰀇󰀀–󰀃: Pr. 󰀇󰀃 (DW III). 󰀃󰀇󰀄–󰀉: Pr. 󰀇󰀄 (DW III). 󰀃󰀈󰀀–󰀃: Pr. 󰀇󰀅 (Pfeiffer). 󰀃󰀈󰀄–󰀇: Pr. 󰀆󰀁 (DW III). 󰀃󰀈󰀈–󰀉󰀁: Pr. 󰀆󰀃 (DW III).

󰀇󰀃󰀃

󰀇󰀃󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

󰀃󰀉󰀂f.: Pr. 󰀆󰀄 (DW III). 󰀃󰀉󰀄–󰀇: Pr. 󰀄󰀃 (DW II). 󰀃󰀉󰀈–󰀄󰀀󰀀: Pr. 󰀄󰀂 (DW II). 󰀄󰀀󰀁f.: Pr. 󰀃󰀃 (DW II). 󰀄󰀀󰀃–󰀆: Pr. 󰀈 (DW I). 󰀄󰀀󰀇–󰀁󰀂: Pr. 󰀅󰀁 (DW II). 󰀄󰀁󰀃–󰀅: Pr. 󰀈󰀄 (DW III). 󰀄󰀁󰀆f.: Pr. 󰀈󰀅 (DW III). 󰀄󰀁󰀈f.: Pr. 󰀅󰀆 (DW II). 󰀄󰀂󰀀–󰀆: Pr. 󰀅󰀂 (DW II). 󰀄󰀂󰀇–󰀃󰀁: Pr. 󰀇󰀅 (DW III). 󰀄󰀃󰀂–󰀄󰀀: Pr. 󰀄󰀉 (DW II). 󰀄󰀄󰀁–󰀄: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀃 (Pfeiffer). 󰀄󰀄󰀅–󰀇: Pr. 󰀇󰀉 (DW III). 󰀄󰀄󰀈–󰀅󰀁: Pr. 󰀂󰀄 (DW I). 󰀄󰀅󰀂–󰀄: Pr. 󰀅󰀀 (DW II). 󰀄󰀅󰀅–󰀇: Pr. 󰀈󰀀 (DW III). 󰀄󰀅󰀈–󰀆󰀁: Pr. 󰀇󰀂 (DW III). 󰀄󰀆󰀂–󰀅: Pr. 󰀈󰀃 (DW III). 󰀄󰀆󰀆–󰀇󰀀: Pr. 󰀂󰀁 (DW I). 󰀄󰀇󰀁–󰀆: Expositio Libri Sapientiae (LW II 󰀃󰀅󰀉,󰀄–󰀃󰀆󰀉,󰀃, nn. 󰀃󰀈–󰀄󰀅). 󰀄󰀈󰀆–󰀅󰀂󰀃: Die rede der underscheidunge (DW V). 󰀅󰀂󰀄–󰀅󰀆: Liber Benedictus. I. Daz buoch der götlîchen trœstunge (DW V). 󰀅󰀅󰀇–󰀆󰀅: II. Von dem edeln menschen (DW V). 󰀅󰀆󰀆–󰀇󰀅: Von abegescheidenheit (DW V). 󰀅󰀇󰀆–󰀉: Pr. 󰀉󰀉 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀅󰀈󰀀–󰀇: Sprüche (Pfeiffer). 󰀅󰀈󰀈–󰀉󰀀: Liber Positionum (Pfeiffer, 󰀆󰀈󰀅f.). —. Werke, ed. and comm. Niklaus Largier, 󰀂 vols (Frankfurt, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃). —. Meister Eckhart, Selected Writings, ed. and trans. Oliver Davies (London, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄). 󰀁–󰀅󰀂: Die rede der underscheidunge (DW V). 󰀅󰀃–󰀉󰀅: Liber Benedictus. I. Daz buoch der götlîchen trœstunge (DW V). 󰀉󰀇–󰀁󰀀󰀈: II. Von dem edeln menschen (DW V). 󰀁󰀁󰀁f.: Pr. 󰀃󰀃 (DW II). 󰀁󰀁󰀂–󰀈: Pr. 󰀃󰀈 (DW II).

B IBLIOGRAPHY

󰀇󰀃󰀅

󰀁󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀂: Pr. 󰀂󰀈 (DW II). 󰀁󰀂󰀂–󰀇: Pr. 󰀃󰀀 (DW II). 󰀁󰀂󰀇–󰀃󰀀: Pr. 󰀅󰀃 (DW II). 󰀁󰀃󰀀–󰀃: Pr. 󰀅󰀈 (DW II). 󰀁󰀃󰀃–󰀆: Pr. 󰀄󰀈 (DW II). 󰀁󰀃󰀆–󰀈: Pr. 󰀅󰀀 (DW II). 󰀁󰀃󰀉–󰀄󰀄: Pr. 󰀄󰀁 (DW II). 󰀁󰀄󰀄–󰀈: Pr. 󰀃󰀉 (DW II). 󰀁󰀄󰀈–󰀅󰀂: Pr. 󰀄󰀀 (DW II). 󰀁󰀅󰀂–󰀈: Pr. 󰀁 (DW I). 󰀁󰀅󰀈–󰀆󰀄: Pr. 󰀂 (DW I). 󰀁󰀆󰀄–󰀈: Pr. 󰀈 (DW I). 󰀁󰀆󰀈–󰀇󰀅: Pr. 󰀁󰀀 (DW I). 󰀁󰀇󰀅–󰀈󰀀: Pr. 󰀁󰀂 (DW I). 󰀁󰀈󰀀–󰀄: Pr. 󰀂󰀁 (DW I). 󰀁󰀈󰀄–󰀇: Pr. 󰀄󰀂 (DW II). 󰀁󰀈󰀈–󰀉󰀁: Pr. 󰀅a (DW I). 󰀁󰀉󰀂: Pr. 󰀁󰀆a (DW I). 󰀁󰀉󰀃–󰀂󰀀󰀂: Pr. 󰀈󰀆 (DW III). 󰀂󰀀󰀂–󰀉: Pr. 󰀅󰀂 (DW II). 󰀂󰀀󰀉–󰀁󰀄: Pr. 󰀆󰀉 (DW III). 󰀂󰀁󰀅–󰀂󰀂: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀂 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀂󰀂󰀂–󰀃󰀀: Pr. 󰀁󰀀󰀃 (DW IV/󰀁). 󰀂󰀃󰀀f.: Pr. 󰀈󰀅 (DW III). 󰀂󰀃󰀂–󰀅: Pr. 󰀅󰀆 (Pfeiffer). 󰀂󰀃󰀅–󰀉: Pr. 󰀈󰀃 (DW III). 󰀂󰀃󰀉f.: Nr. 󰀄󰀆 (Jostes). 󰀂󰀄󰀁–󰀅󰀁: Nr. 󰀈󰀂 (Jostes). 󰀂󰀅󰀅–󰀈: Sermo XXIV/󰀂 (LW IV nn. 󰀂󰀄󰀄–󰀅󰀀). 󰀂󰀅󰀈–󰀆󰀂: Sermo XXIX (LW IV nn. 󰀂󰀉󰀅–󰀃󰀀󰀅). 󰀂󰀆󰀃f.: Sermo XL/󰀃 (LW IV nn. 󰀄󰀀󰀄f.). 󰀂󰀆󰀄f.: Sermo XLVII/󰀂 (LW IV nn. 󰀄󰀈󰀉). —. Lectura Eckhardi: Predigten Meister Eckharts, von Fachgelehrten gelesen und gedeutet, eds Georg Steer and Loris Sturlese (Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈–) (shortcut: LE) Lectura Eckhardi, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈, 󰀁󰀆󰀄–󰀈󰀁 (with new critical edition of Pr. 󰀅󰀂). Lectura Eckhardi, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈, 󰀂󰀀󰀂–󰀀󰀉 (with reworked edition of Pr. 󰀆󰀃). Lectura Eckhardi II, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃.

󰀇󰀃󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Lectura Eckhardi III, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, 󰀅󰀁–󰀉󰀁 (with a new text critical edition of Pr. 󰀅󰀁, ibid., 󰀅󰀂–󰀆󰀀). Lectura Eckhardi III, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, 󰀁󰀁󰀈–󰀂󰀉 (first critical edition of Pr. 󰀁󰀁󰀂 with German translation). Lectura Eckhardi IV, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇 (with a new version of Pr. 󰀈󰀇, ibid., 󰀁󰀂󰀄–󰀃󰀈 with German translation). Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, ed. Heinrich Denzinger, Alfons Schönmetzer, 󰀃󰀆th ed. (Barcelona, Freiburg i. Br., Rome, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀆). Das Geistbuch. Ein Traktat zur Vollkommenheit aus dem Umkreis Meister Eckhart, ed. Dagmar Gottschall, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 󰀁󰀆󰀀 (Leiden, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂). Glossa ordinaria, in Biblia Latina cum Glossa ordinaria (Argentinae, 󰀁󰀄󰀈󰀀–󰀁󰀄󰀈󰀁). Gregorius Magnus, Homiliae in evangelia, ed. Raymond Étaix, CChr.SL 󰀁󰀄󰀁 (Turnhout, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉). —. Homiliae in Hiezechielem prophetam, ed. Marc Adriaen, CChr.SL 󰀁󰀄󰀂 (Turnhout, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀁). —. Moralia in Iob, ed. Marc Adriaen, CChr.SL 󰀁󰀄󰀃–󰀁󰀄󰀃A (Turnhout, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀉). Guiardus Laudunensis, De XII fructibus sacramenti, ed. Albert Ampe, ‘Een oud Florilegium Eucharisticum in een veertiende-eeuws handschrift’, Ons Geestelijk Erf 󰀃󰀁 (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀇), 󰀃󰀀󰀁–󰀂󰀄. Guillelmus Altissiodorensis, Summa aurea, ed. Jean Ribaillier (Paris, Grottaferata, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀–󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇). Guillelmus de Ockham, Summa logicae, ed. Philotheus Boehner, Gideon Gal, Stephen F. Brown (New York, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀄). Guglielmo di Tocco, Ystoria sancti Thome de Aquino, ed. Claire le Brun– Gouanvic, Studies and Texts 󰀁󰀂󰀇 (Toronto, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇). Henricus a Gandavo, Summa quaestionum ordinariarum (Paris, 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀). Hieronymus, Commentarius in Ecclesiasten, ed. Marc Adriaen, CChr.SL 󰀇󰀂 (Turnhout, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀉). —. Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, ed. Paul de Lagarde, CChr.SL 󰀇󰀂 (Turnhout, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀉). Honorius Augustoduniensis, Clavis physicae, ed. P. Lucentini, Temi e testi 󰀂󰀁 (Rome, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀄). —. Clavis physicae (󰀃󰀁󰀆–󰀅󰀂󰀉), ed. Pasquale Arfè (Naples, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂).

B IBLIOGRAPHY

󰀇󰀃󰀇

—. Imago mundi, ed. Valerie I.J. Flint, in Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age 󰀄󰀉 (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀂), 󰀇–󰀁󰀅󰀃. Hugo a sancto Caro, Postilla, in Prima (–sexta) pars huius operis continens textum biblie cum postilla domini Hugonis Cardinalis (Basel, 󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀄) (http://gateway-bayern.de/VD󰀁󰀆+B+󰀂󰀅󰀈󰀂). Hugo de Sancto Victore, Soliloquium de arrha animae, ed. Karl Müller (Bonn, 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀃). Innocentius Papa III, De sacro altaris mysterio, PL 󰀂󰀁󰀇. Iohannes Papa XXII, Constitutio apostolica “In agro dominico”, ed. Loris Sturlese, in Eckhart, LW V 󰀅󰀉󰀆–󰀆󰀀󰀀. Iohannes Damascenus, De fide orthodoxa, versions of Burgundio and Cerbanus, ed. Eligius M. Buytaert (New York, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀅). Isidorus Hispalensis, Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi Etymologiarum sive originum libri XX, ed. Wallace Martin Lindsay, Tom. I-II (Oxford, 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀁). Iustinianus, Institutiones, ed. Theodor Mommsen, Paul Krüger, 󰀁󰀇th ed. (Berlin, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀃). Jacobus a Voragine, Legenda Aurea, ed. Th. Graesse (Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀀). Konrad von Megenberg, Buch der Natur, ed. Robert Luff, Georg Steer, Texte und Textgeschichte 󰀅󰀄 (Tübingen, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃). Liber de causis, ed. Adriaan Pattin, Tijdschrift voor filosofie 󰀂󰀈 (󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆), 󰀁󰀃󰀄–󰀂󰀀󰀃. Liber viginti quattuor philosophorum, ed. Françoise Hudry, CChr.CM 󰀁󰀄󰀃A (Turnhout, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇). Macrobius, Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis, ed. James A. Willis, 󰀂nd. ed. (Stuttgart and Leipzig, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄). Missale Ordinis Praedicatorum. Missale Romanum. Moses Maimonides, Dux seu director dubitantium aut perplexorum (Paris, 󰀁󰀅󰀂󰀀). Origenes, Commentaria in Evangelium Iohannis = Johanneskommentar Buch I–V, ed., trans. and comm. Hans G. Thümmel, Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity 󰀆󰀃 (Tübingen, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁). —. Homiliae in Lucam, ed. Max Rauer, GCS 󰀃󰀅 (Leipzig, 󰀁󰀉󰀃󰀀). —. (Ps.-), Homilia super “Maria stabat”, in Origenis, Operum pars secunda (Basel, 󰀁󰀅󰀄󰀅). Otto Frisingensis, Chronica sive historia de duabus civitatibus, ed. Adolf Hofmeister (Hannover, Hahn, 󰀁󰀉󰀁󰀂).

󰀇󰀃󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Papias, Elementarium doctrinae rudimentum (Venice, 󰀁󰀄󰀉󰀆). Paradisus anime intelligentis (Paradis der fornuftigen sele), ed. Philipp Strauch, Deutsche Texte des Mittelalters 󰀃󰀀, 󰀂nd ed. Niklaus Largier, Gilbert Fournier (Berlin, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈). Petrus Abaelardus, Theologia “Scholarium”, ed. Eligius M. Buytaert, Constant J. Mews, CChr.CM 󰀁󰀃 (Turnhout, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇). Petrus Lombardus, Sententiae in IV libros distinctae, Spicilegium Bonaventurianum 󰀄–󰀅 (Grottaferrata, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀁, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁). Philippus Cancellarius, Nikolaus Wicki, Die Philosophie Philipps des Kanzlers (Fribourg, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅). PG = Patrologia cursus completus. Series Graeca. PL = Patrologia cursus completus. Series Latina. Porphyrius, Isagoge, ed. Adolf Busse, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 󰀄,󰀁 (Berlin, 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀇). Priscianus, Institutiones grammaticae, ed. Martin Hertz (Leipzig, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀉). Proclus, Elementatio theologica, translata a Guillelmo de Morbecca, ed. Helmut Boese, Ancient and Medieval Philosophy 󰀁/󰀅 (Leuven, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇). Quintilianus, Institutio oratoria, ed. Michael Winterbottom, Oxford Classical Texts (Oxford, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀀). Rabanus, De rerum naturis, PL 󰀁󰀁󰀁. Rogerus Bacon, Compendium studii philosophiae, ed. John S. Brewer (London, 󰀁󰀈󰀅󰀉). Sacramentarium Gregorianum, nach dem Aachener Urexemplar, ed. Hans Lietzmann, Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen 󰀃 (Münster i.W., 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀁). Sallustius, De coniuratione Catilinae, ed. Alfons Kurfess, Bibliotheca Teubneriana (Leipzig, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀄). Sigerus de Brabantia, Quaestiones super librum de causis, ed. Antonio Marlasca, Philosophes médiévaux 󰀁󰀂 (Louvain, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂). Summa Britonis sive Guillelmi Britonis Expositiones vocabularum Bibliae, ed. Lloyd W. Daly and Bernardine A. Daly, Thesaurus mundi 󰀁󰀅–󰀁󰀆 (Padova, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀅). Theodoricus de Vriberg (Dietrich von Freiberg), Opera omnia, ed. Jean-Daniel Cavigioli, Ruedi Imbach, Burkhard Mojsisch, Maria Rita Pagnoni-Sturlese, Rudolf Rehn, Hartmut Steffan, Loris Sturlese, William W. Wallace, Corpus Philosophorum Teutonicorum Medii Aevi II, 󰀄 vols (Hamburg, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇–󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀄).

B IBLIOGRAPHY

󰀇󰀃󰀉

Thomas Contimpratensis, Liber de natura rerum, ed. Helmut Boese (Berlin, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀃). Thomas Aquinas, Opera omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII edita (Rome, 󰀁󰀈󰀈󰀂–) (= Leonina). —. Catena aurea in quatuor evangelia, ed. Angelico Guarienti (Torino, Roma, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀃). —. Summa contra Gentiles (Torino, Roma, 󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀀). —. In duodecim libros Metaphysicorum Aristotelis expositio, ed. M.-R. Cathala, Raimondo M. Spiazzi, 󰀂nd ed. (Torino, Roma, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀁). —. In Epistolam ad Romanos, ed. Stanislai Eduardi Fretté (Paris, 󰀁󰀈󰀇󰀆). —. Scriptum super libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi, ed. Pierre Mandonnet, Fabien Moos (Paris, 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀉–󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀇). —. Summa theologiae (Alba, Roma, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀂). —. Super evangelium S. Ioannis lectura, ed. Raffaele Cai, 󰀅th ed. (Torino, Roma, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀂). Ulricus de Argentina, De summo bono, ed. Alessandra Beccarisi, Sara Ciancioso, Alain de Libera, Burkhard Mojsisch, Alessandro Palazzo, Sabina Pieperhoff, Fiorella Retucci, Sabina Tuzzo, Corpus Philosophorum Teutonicorum Medii Aevi I (Hamburg, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇–). Valerius Maximus, Facta et dicta memorabilia, ed. John Briscoe, Bibliotheca Teubneriana (Stuttgart, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈). Vincentius Bellovacensis, Speculum naturale (Venice, 󰀁󰀅󰀉󰀁). Secondary sources Abendländische Mystik im Mittelalter. Symposion Kloster Engelberg 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀄 (Stuttgart, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀆). Allen, Prudence, The Concept of Woman: The Early Humanist Reformation, 󰀁󰀂󰀅󰀀-󰀁󰀅󰀀󰀀, Part 󰀁 (Montréal, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅). Aux origines de la liturgie dominicaine: Le manuscrit Santa Sabina XIV L 󰀁, sous la dir. de Leonard E. Boyle O.P., Pierre-Marie Gy O.P. (Paris, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄). Beccarisi, Alessandra, ‘Predigt 󰀁’, Lectura Eckhardi 󰀂 (󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃), 󰀁–󰀂󰀇. —. ‘Philosophische Neologismen zwischen Latein und Volkssprache: “istic” und “isticheit” bei Meister Eckhart’, Recherches de Philosophie et de Théologie Médiévale 󰀇󰀀 (󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀃), 󰀉󰀇–󰀁󰀂󰀆. —. Eckhart (Rome, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂).

󰀇󰀄󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Bibliothèque Nationale. Catalogue général des Manuscrits Latins. Tables des Tomes III à VI, IIe partie, Liste des lemmes bibliques des sermons, par Denise Bloch, Marie-Pierre Laffitte, Jacqueline Sclafer (Paris, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃), 󰀁󰀁󰀂󰀇–󰀁󰀁󰀉󰀄. Burrell, David B., Knowing the Unknowable God: Ibn Sina, Maimonides, Aquinas (Notre Dame, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀆). Clark, James Midgely, The Great German Mystics (New York, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀀 = Oxford, 󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀉). —. Meister Eckhart: An Introduction to the Study of His Works with an Anthology of His Sermons (Edinburgh a.o., 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀇). Connolly, John M., ‘Eudaimonism, Teleology, and the Pursuit of Happiness: Meister Eckhart on “Living without Why”’, Faith and Philosophy 󰀂󰀆 (󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀂󰀇󰀄–󰀉󰀆. —. Living without Why. Meister Eckhart’s Critique of the Medieval Concept of Will (Oxford, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄). —. ‘Eckhart and the Will of God: A Reply to Stump’, Medieval Mystical Theology 󰀂󰀅 (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆), 󰀆–󰀂󰀀. —. ‘Tatort Garten Eden: Eigennutz und Individualisierung in der Ursündenlehre Meister Eckharts’, Theologische Quartalschrift 󰀁󰀉󰀇 (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇), 󰀄󰀈–󰀇󰀁. —. ‘Freiheit und Wille bei Eckhart und Kant’, in Freimut Löser and Christine Büchner (eds), Meister Eckhart und die Freiheit, MeisterEckhart-Jahrbuch 󰀁󰀁 (Stuttgart, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀈), 󰀂󰀉󰀃–󰀃󰀁󰀈. Davies, Oliver, God Within: The Mystical Tradition of Northern Europe (London, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈). —. ‘Why were Eckhart’s propositions condemned?’ New Blackfriars 󰀇󰀁 (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀), 󰀄󰀃󰀃–󰀄󰀅. —. Meister Eckhart: Mystical Theologian (London, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁). —. ‘On Reading Meister Eckhart’, Medieval Mystical Theology 󰀁󰀁 (󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂), 󰀄–󰀁󰀀. —. ‘The Challenge of the Past: Meister Eckhart, Reasoning and Contemporary Philosophy’, Medieval Mystical Theology 󰀂󰀀 (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁), 󰀉–󰀂󰀇. Meister Eckhart: Lebensstationen – Redesituationen, ed. Klaus Jacobi, QGDOD.NF 󰀇 (Berlin, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇). Meister Eckhart and the Beguine Mystics: Hadewijch of Brabant, Mechthild of Magdeburg, and Marguerite Porete, ed. Bernard McGinn (New York, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄).

B IBLIOGRAPHY

󰀇󰀄󰀁

Meister Eckhart der Prediger: Festschrift zum Eckhart-Gedenkjahr, Udo M. Nix and Raphael Öchslin (eds) (Freiburg i. Br. a.o., 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀀). Meister Eckhart in Erfurt, Andreas Speer and Lydia Wegener (eds), Miscellanea Mediaevalia 󰀃󰀂 (Berlin and New York, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅). Meister Eckhart und Augustinus, Rudolf Kilian Weigand and Regina D. Schiewer (eds), Meister-Eckhart-Jahrbuch 󰀃 (Stuttgart, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁). Meister Eckhart und Nikolaus von Kues, Harald Schwaetzer and Georg Steer (eds), Meister-Eckhart-Jahrbuch 󰀄 (Stuttgart, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁). Meister Eckharts Straßburger Jahrzehnt, Andrés Quero-Sánchez and Georg Steer (eds), Meister-Eckhart-Jahrbuch 󰀂 (Stuttgart, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈). Meister Eckhart. Le 󰀆󰀄 Prediche sul Tempo Liturgico. Introduzione, traduzione, note e apparati di Loris Sturlese (Milano, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄). Faes de Mottoni, Barbara, ‘Il ms. Douai, Bibliothèque municipale 󰀄󰀃󰀄/I e le questioni n. 󰀂󰀃󰀀 e 󰀂󰀆󰀀 “de raptu”’, in Stefano Caroti (ed.), ‘Ad ingenii acuitionem’: Studies in Honour of Alfonso Maierù, Textes et études du Moyen Âge 󰀃󰀈 (Louvain-la-Neuve, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆), 󰀁󰀀󰀃-󰀂󰀆. Flasch, Kurt, Meister Eckhart. Philosoph des Christentums (München, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀); engl. trans.: id., Meister Eckhart. Philosopher of Christianity (Yale, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅). —. ‘Procedere ut imago: Das Hervorgehen des Intellekts aus seinem göttlichen Grund bei Meister Dietrich, Meister Eckhart und Berthold von Moosburg’, in Kurt Ruh (ed.), Abendländische Mystik im Mittelalter. Symposion Kloster Engelberg 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀄 (Stuttgart, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀆), 󰀁󰀂󰀅–󰀃󰀄. Forman, Robert K.C., ‘Eckhart’s Stages of Mystical Progression’, The Downside Review 󰀁󰀀󰀅 (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀇), 󰀁󰀃󰀂–󰀄󰀂. —. Meister Eckhart: Mystic as Theologian: An Experiment in Methodology (Rockport, Mass. and Shaftesbury, Dorset, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁). Freed, John B., The Friars and German Society in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, Mass., 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀇). Good, Byron J., Medicine, Rationality and Experience: An Anthropological Perspective (Cambridge, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄). Greith, Karl, Die deutsche Mystik im Prediger-Orden (Freiburg i.Br., 󰀁󰀈󰀆󰀁). Guerrini, Franciscus-M., Ordinarium juxta ritum sacri Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum. Iussu Ludovici Theissling (Romae, 󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀁). Haas, Alois, Sermo Mysticus: Studien zu Theologie und Sprache der deutschen Mystik (Freiburg i. Switzerland, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀉). —. Geistliches Mittelalter, Dokimion 󰀈 (Freiburg i. Switzerland, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀄).

󰀇󰀄󰀂

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Hackett, Jeremiah M. (ed.), A Companion to Meister Eckhart, Brill’s companions to the Christian tradition 󰀃󰀆 (Leiden, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃). Hasebrink, Burkhard, Formen inzitativer Rede bei Meister Eckhart: Untersuchungen zur literarischen Konzeption der deutschen Predigt, Texte und Textgeschichte 󰀃󰀂 (Tübingen, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂). —. ‘Studies on Redaction and Use of the Paradisus anime intelligentis’, in Jacqueline Hamesse and Xavier Hermand (eds), De l’homélie au sermon: Histoire de la predication médiévale (Louvain-la-Neuve, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃), 󰀁󰀄󰀄–󰀅󰀈. —. ‘mitewürker gotes. Zur Performativität der Umdeutung in den deutschen Schriften Meister Eckharts’, in Peter Strohschneider (ed.), Literarische und religiöse Kommunikation in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit. DFG–Symposion 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆 (Berlin a.o., 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀆󰀂–󰀈󰀈. —. ‘Die Anthropologie der Abgeschiedenheit. Urbane Ortlosigkeit bei Meister Eckhart’, in Meister-Eckhart-Jahrbuch 󰀇 (Stuttgart, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃), 󰀂󰀉–󰀄󰀄. Hüsgen, H.J., Zisterzienserinnen in Köln. Die Klöster Mariengarten, Seyen und St. Mechtern, St. Apern (Köln, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃). King, Archdale A., Liturgies of the Religious Orders (London, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀅). Klimanek, Wolfgang, Verzeichnis der in DW IV benutzten Textzeugen und ihrer Siglen (http://www.eckhart.de/index.htm?tzeugen.htm) Köbele, Susanne, ‘Emphasis, überswanc, underscheit. Zur literarischen Produktivität spätmittelalterlicher Irrtumslisten (Eckhart und Seuse)’, in Peter Strohschneider (ed.), Literarische und religiöse Kommunikation in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit. DFG–Symposion 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆 (Berlin a.o., 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀉󰀆󰀉–󰀁󰀀󰀀󰀂. Lane, Belden C., The Solace of Fierce Landscape: Exploring Desert and Mountain Spirituality (New York and Oxford, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈). Largier, Niklaus, Bibliographie zu Meister Eckhart (Fribourg, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉). —. ‘“intellectus in deum ascensus”. Intellekttheoretische Auseinandersetzungen in Texten der deutschen Mystik’, Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 󰀆󰀉 (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅), 󰀄󰀂󰀃–󰀇󰀁. —. ‘Time and Temporality in the “German Dominican School”: Outlines of a Philosophical Debate between Nicolaus of Strasbourg, Dietrich of Freiberg, Eckhart of Hoheim, and Ioannes Tauler’, in Pasquale Porro (ed.), The Medieval Concept of Time: Studies on the Scholastic Debate and its Reception in Early Modern Philosophy,

B IBLIOGRAPHY

󰀇󰀄󰀃

Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters 󰀇󰀅 (Leiden a.o., 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁), 󰀂󰀂󰀁–󰀅󰀄. —. ‘Interpreting Eckhart’s Incarnation Theology: The Sermon Collection Paradisus anime intelligentis’, Eckhart Review 󰀁󰀃 (󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄), 󰀂󰀅–󰀃󰀆. Late Medieval Mysticism, ed. Ray C. Petry, LCC XIII (Philadelphia, 󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀇). Libera, Alain de, Le problème de l’être chez Maître Eckhart: Logique et métaphysique de l’analogie, Cahiers de la Revue de théologie et de philosophie (Geneva, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀). —. ‘Avant-propos’, in Maître Eckhart, Sur l’humilité (Paris, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈), 󰀇–󰀄󰀁. —. ‘Mystique et philosophie: Maître Eckhart’, in Emilie Zum Brunn (ed.), Voici Maître Eckhart. Textes et études (Grenoble, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀃󰀁󰀉–󰀄󰀀. —. ‘On Some Philosophical Aspects of Master Eckhart’s Theology’, in François Cheneval, Ruedi Imbach, and Thomas Ricklin (eds), Albert le Grand et sa réception au moyen âge. Hommage à Zénon Kaluza, = Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 󰀄󰀅 (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈), 󰀁󰀅󰀁–󰀆󰀈. Lievens, Robrecht, ‘Eggaert en de (nog steeds) onbekende leek’, Leuvense bijdragen 󰀈󰀈 (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉), 󰀁󰀅–󰀄󰀉. Löser, Freimut, ‘Diskussionsbericht’, in Abendländische Mystik im Mittelalter (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀆), 󰀉󰀄–󰀁󰀁󰀅. —. ‘Als ich mê gesprochen hân: Bekannte und bisher unbekannte Predigten Meister Eckharts im Lichte eines Handschriftenfundes’, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 󰀉󰀇 (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀆), 󰀂󰀀󰀆–󰀂󰀇. —. ‘Einzelpredigt und Gesamtwerk: Autor- und Redaktortext bei Meister Eckhart’, editio 󰀆 (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂), 󰀄󰀃–󰀆󰀃. —. ‘Pahncke versus Quint: Zu einem Streitfall der Eckhart-Philologie’, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 󰀁󰀂󰀃 (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀁󰀇󰀃–󰀂󰀀󰀀. —. ‘Der niht enwil und niht enzweiz und niht enhât: Drei übersehene Texte Meister Eckharts zur Armutslehre’, in C. Brinker, U. Herzog, N. Largier, and P. Michel (eds), Contemplata aliis tradere. Studien zum Verhältnis von Literatur und Spiritualität: Festschrift A.M. Haas (Bern a.o., 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅), 󰀃󰀉󰀁–󰀄󰀄󰀀. —. Meister Eckhart in Melk: Studien zum Redaktor Lienhart Peuger. Mit einer Edition des Traktats ‘Von der sel wirdichait vnd aigenschafft’ (Tübingen, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉).

󰀇󰀄󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

—. ‘Was sind Meister Eckharts deutsche Straßburger Predigten?’ In Meister Eckharts Straßburger Jahrzehnt (󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈), 󰀃󰀇–󰀆󰀃. —. ‘Augustinus sprichet: Wann, wie oft und wie genau wird Augustinus im deutschen Werk Eckharts zitiert?’ In Meister Eckhart und Augustinus (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁), 󰀈󰀇–󰀁󰀃󰀆. —. / Robert Steinke, Günter Hägele (eds), Meister Eckhart in Augsburg. Deutsche Mystik des Mittelalters in Kloster, Stadt und Schule. Katalog zur Handschriftenausstellung in der Schatzkammer der Universitätsbibliothek Augsburg (󰀁󰀈. Mai bis 󰀂󰀉. Juli 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁) (Augsburg, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁). —. ‘Poor Eckhart?’, Medieval Mystical Theology 󰀂󰀁 (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂), 󰀁󰀉󰀃–󰀂󰀁󰀃. —. ‘Des témoignages de la prédication de Maître Eckhart à Strasbourg? Gertrud von Ortenberg, les Sermons 󰀂󰀅–󰀂󰀇, et les Sermons 󰀆󰀃 et 󰀆󰀄’, in D. Mieth, M.-A. Vannier, M. Vinzent, and C. Wojtulewicz (eds), Meister Eckhart in Paris and Strasbourg (Leuven, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇), 󰀄󰀀󰀁–󰀃󰀂. McGinn, Bernard, ‘Eckhart’s Condemnation Reconsidered’, The Thomist 󰀄󰀄 (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀), 󰀃󰀉󰀀–󰀄󰀁󰀄. —. ‘St. Bernard and Meister Eckhart’, Citeaux 󰀃󰀁 (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀀), 󰀃󰀇󰀃–󰀈󰀆. —. ‘The God beyond God: Theology and Mysticism in the Thought of Meister Eckhart’, Journal of Religion 󰀆󰀁 (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀁), 󰀁–󰀁󰀉. —. ‘Meister Eckhart on God as Absolute Unity’, in Dominic O’Meara (ed.), Neoplatonism and Christian Thought (Albany, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀂), 󰀁󰀂󰀈– 󰀃󰀉. —. ‘The Human Person as Image of God. II. Western Christianity’, in Jean Leclercq, Bernard McGinn, John Meyendorff (eds), Christian Spirituality. I. Origins to the Fifth Century (New York, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅), 󰀃󰀁󰀂–󰀃󰀀. —. ‘Do Christian Platonists Really Believe in Creation?’ in David B. Burrell and Bernard McGinn (eds), God and Creation: An Ecumenical Symposium (Notre Dame, Ind., 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀), 󰀁󰀉󰀇–󰀂󰀂󰀃. —. The Foundations of Mysticism: Origins to the Fifth Century, The Presence of God. A History of Western Christian Mysticism, vol. 󰀁 (New York, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀁). —. ‘Ibn Gabirol: The Sage among the Schoolmen’, in Lenn E. Goodman (ed.), Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought (Albany, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂), 󰀇󰀇–󰀁󰀀󰀉. —. ‘Meister Eckhart’, in Jeremiah Hackett (ed.), Medieval Philosophers: Dictionary of Literary Biography 󰀁󰀁󰀅 (Detroit and London, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂), 󰀁󰀅󰀀–󰀆󰀈.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

󰀇󰀄󰀅

—. ‘The Language of Love in Jewish and Christian Mysticism’, in Steven T. Katz (ed.), Mysticism and Language (New York and Oxford, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀂), 󰀂󰀀󰀂–󰀃󰀅. —. ‘Ocean and Desert as Symbols of Mystical Absorption in the Christian Tradition’, Journal of Religion 󰀇󰀄 (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄), 󰀁󰀅󰀅–󰀈󰀁. —. The Growth of Mysticism: Gregory the Great to the Twelfth Century, The Presence of God. A History of Western Christian Mysticism, vol. 󰀂 (New York, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀄). —. ‘The Abyss of Love’, in E. Rozanne Elder (ed.), The Joy of Learning and the Love of God: Studies in Honor of Jean Leclercq (Kalamazoo, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅), 󰀉󰀅–󰀁󰀂󰀀. —. ‘Asceticism and Mysticism in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages’, in Vincent L. Wimbush and Richard Valantasis (eds), Asceticism (New York and Oxford, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀅), 󰀅󰀈–󰀇󰀄. —. ‘Love, Knowledge and Unio mystica in the Western Christian Tradition’, in Moshe Idel and Bernard McGinn (eds), Mystical Union in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: An Ecumenical Dialogue (New York, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆), 󰀅󰀉–󰀈󰀆. —. ‘The Originality of Eriugena’s Spiritual Exegesis’, in Gerd Van Riel, Carlos Steel, and James McEvoy (eds), Iohannes Scottus Eriugena: The Bible and Hermeneutics (Leuven, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆), 󰀅󰀅–󰀈󰀀. —. ‘A Prolegomenon to the Role of the Trinity in Meister Eckhart’s Mysticism’, Eckhart Review 󰀆 (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇), 󰀅󰀁–󰀆󰀁. —. The Flowering of Mysticism: Men and Women in the New Mysticism (󰀁󰀂󰀀󰀀–󰀁󰀃󰀅󰀀), The Presence of God. A History of Western Christian Mysticism, vol. 󰀃 (New York, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈). —. ‘Suffering, emptiness and annihilation in three beguine mystics’, in Claudia Brinker-von der Heyde and Niklaus Largier (eds), Homo Medietas: Aufsätze zu Religiosität, Literatur und Denkformen des Menschen vom Mittelalter bis in die Neuzeit. Festschrift für Alois Maria Haas (Bern a.o., 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉), 󰀁󰀅󰀅–󰀇󰀄. —. ‘Sapientia Judaeorum: The Role of Jewish Philosophers in Some Scholastic Thinkers’, in Robert F. Bast and Andrew C. Gow (eds), Continuity and Change: The Harvest of Late Medieval and Reformation History. Essays presented to Heiko A. Oberman on his 󰀇󰀀th Birthday (Leiden, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀), 󰀂󰀀󰀆–󰀂󰀈.

󰀇󰀄󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

—. ‘The Four Female Evangelists of the Thirteenth Century’, in Walter Haug and Wolfram Schneider-Lastin (eds), Deutsche Mystik im abendländischen Zusammenhang. Neu erschlossene Texte, neue methodische Ansätze, neue theoretische Konzepte. Kolloquium Kloster Fischingen 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀈 (Berlin, New York, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀 = 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁), 󰀁󰀇󰀅–󰀉󰀄. —. The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart: The Man from Whom God Hid Nothing, The Edward Cadbury Lectures 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀀–󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁 (New York, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁). Mieth, Dietmar, Die Einheit von Vita activa und Vita contemplativa in den deutschen Predigten und Traktaten Meister Eckharts und bei Johannes Tauler: Untersuchungen zur Struktur des christlichen Lebens, Studien zur Geschichte der kath. Moraltheologie 󰀁󰀅 (Regensburg, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉). —. Christus, das Soziale im Menschen: Texterschließungen zu Meister Eckhart (Düsseldorf, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀂). —. ‘Religiöse Freiheit in der Mystik. Das Beispiel der Frauenpredigten Meister Eckharts’, in id. and Britta Müller-Schauenburg (eds), Mystik, Recht und Freiheit. Religiöse Erfahrung und kirchliche Institutionen im Spätmittelalter (Stuttgart, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂), 󰀁󰀈󰀅–󰀂󰀀󰀀. —. ‘Meister Eckhart on Wealth’, Medieval Mystical Theology 󰀂󰀁 (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂), 󰀂󰀃󰀃–󰀅󰀄. —. ‘Margherita e il Maestro. Meister Eckhart e Margherita Porete’, Concilium 󰀄󰀇 (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁), 󰀅󰀀󰀈–󰀂󰀃. —. Meister Eckhart (München, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀄). —. / Marie–Anne Vannier, Markus Vinzent, and Chris Wojtulewicz (eds), Meister Eckhart in Paris and Strasbourg, Eckhart: Texts and Studies 󰀄 (Leuven, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇). Milem, Bruce, The Unspoken Word: Negative Theology in Meister Eckhart’s German Sermons (Washington, D.C., 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂). Mojsisch, Burkhard, Meister Eckhart: Analogie, Univozität u. Einheit (Hamburg, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀃); engl. trans. Meister Eckhart: Analogy, Univocity and Unity, trans. Orrin F. Summerell (Philadelphia, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀁). Moos, Peter von, ‘Le dialogue latin au Moyen Âge: l’exemple d’Evrard d’Ypres’, Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations 󰀄󰀄 (󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉), 󰀉󰀉󰀃– 󰀁󰀀󰀂󰀈. Nemes, Balázs J., ‘Meister Eckhart auf der Wartburg. Fundbericht anlässlich der Wiederentdeckung einer frühen Eckhart-Handschrift

B IBLIOGRAPHY

󰀇󰀄󰀇

aus dem Prämonstratenserinnenstift Altenberg im Bestand der Wartburg-Stiftung’, Wartburg-Jahrbuch (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅), 󰀁󰀇󰀆–󰀂󰀀󰀂. Otto, Rudolf, Mysticism East and West: A Comparative Analysis of The Nature of Mysticism, transl. by Bertha L. Bracey and Richenda C. Payne (New York, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀂). Pahncke, Max, ‘Zwei ungedruckte deutsche Mystiker-reden’, Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 󰀄󰀉 (󰀁󰀉󰀀󰀇), 󰀃󰀉󰀅–󰀄󰀀󰀄. Quero-Sánchez, Andrés, Sein als Freiheit: Die idealistische Metaphysik Meister Eckharts und Johann Gottlieb Fichtes (Freiburg and München, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀄). Quint, Josef, ‘Die Sprache Meister Eckeharts als Ausdruck seiner mystischen Geisteswelt’, Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 󰀆 (󰀁󰀉󰀂󰀈), 󰀆󰀇󰀁–󰀇󰀀󰀁. —. Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckeharts textkritisch untersucht (Bonn, 󰀁󰀉󰀃󰀂). —. Neue Handschriftenfunde zur Überlieferung der deutschen Werke Meister Eckharts und seiner Schule, Meister Eckhart: Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke. Untersuchungen 󰀁 (Stuttgart and Berlin, 󰀁󰀉󰀄󰀀). —. ‘Mystik und Sprache. Ihr Verhältnis zueinander insbesondere in der spekulativen Mystik Meister Eckeharts’, Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 󰀂󰀇 (󰀁󰀉󰀅󰀃), 󰀄󰀈–󰀇󰀆. —. Fundbericht zur handschriftlichen Überlieferung der deutschen Werke Meister Eckharts und anderer Mystikertexte, Meister Eckhart: Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke. Untersuchungen 󰀂 (Stuttgart and Berlin a.o., 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀉). Rubino, Elisa, ‘“Dâ von sprichet der liehte Dionysius”: Eckhart e Dionigi Areopagita’, in Loris Sturlese (ed.), Studi sulle fonti di Meister Eckhart (Fribourg, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈), 󰀁󰀁󰀃–󰀃󰀄. Ruh, Kurt, Meister Eckhart: Theologe, Prediger, Mystiker (Munich, 󰀂󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉; 󰀁 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅). —. Geschichte der abendländischen Mystik I–IV (Munich, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀉). Schiewer, Regina Dorothea, and Rudolf Kilian Weigand, ‘“Ich glaube vestiglich, das dise predigen entweder Meister Eckhards oder Taulers sind, dan sich durch auss ire worte gleich lautet”. Zur Problematik der Rezeption und Authentizität der Predigten Johannes Taulers und Meister Eckharts’, Ons Geestelijk Erf 󰀈󰀄 (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃), 󰀇–󰀁󰀉.

󰀇󰀄󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

Schürmann, Reiner, ‘Heidegger and Meister Eckhart on Releasement’, Research in Phenomenology 󰀃 (󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀃), 󰀉󰀅–󰀁󰀁󰀉. —. ‘The Loss of the Origin in Soto Zen and in Meister Eckhart’, The Thomist (󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀈), 󰀂󰀈󰀁–󰀃󰀁󰀂. —. Meister Eckhart: Mystic and Philosopher (Bloomington and London, 󰀁󰀉󰀇󰀈). Senner, Walter, ‘Meister Eckhart als Ordensmann’, Meister-EckhartJahrbuch 󰀇 (Stuttgart, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃), 󰀁󰀂󰀁–󰀄󰀈. —. ‘Meister Eckhart’s Life, Training, Career, and Trial’, in J.M. Hackett (ed.), A Companion to Meister Eckhart (Leiden, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃), 󰀇–󰀈󰀄. Speer, Andreas, ‘Are there One or Two Theologies? A Fundamental Disagreement between Thomas Aquinas and Meister Eckhart’, Medieval Mystical Theology 󰀂󰀂 (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅), 󰀁󰀃󰀉–󰀅󰀄. Steer, Georg, Scholastische Gnadenlehre in mittelhochdeutscher Sprache (München, 󰀁󰀉󰀆󰀆). —. ‘Echtheit und Authentizität der Predigten Meister Eckharts: Schwierigkeiten und Möglichkeiten einer kritischen Edition’, in Germanistik – Forschungsstand und Perspektiven: Vorträge des Deutschen Germanistentages 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀄. Tl. 󰀂: Ältere Deutsche Literatur, Neuere Deutsche Literatur, ed. Georg Stötzel (Berlin and New York, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀅), 󰀄󰀁–󰀅󰀀. —. ‘Die Schriften Meister Eckharts in den Handschriften des Mittelalters’, in Hans-Jochen Schiewer and Karl Stackmann (eds), Die Präsenz des Mittelalters in den Handschriften (Tübingen, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀂), 󰀂󰀀󰀉–󰀃󰀀󰀂. Sturlese, Loris, ‘Mysticism and Theology in Meister Eckhart’s Theory of the Image’, Eckhart Review 󰀂 (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃), 󰀁󰀈–󰀃󰀁. —. ‘A Portrait of Meister Eckhart’, Eckhart Review 󰀅 (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆), 󰀇–󰀁󰀂. —. ‘Dietrich di Freiberg lettore di Eckhart?’ Giornale critico della filosofia italiana 󰀈󰀅 (󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀆), 󰀄󰀃󰀇–󰀅󰀃. —. Meister Eckhart: Ein Porträt, Eichstätter Hochschulreden 󰀉󰀀 (Regensburg, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃) (part of which is available in English as ‘A Portrait of Meister Eckhart’, Eckhart Review 󰀅, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆, 󰀇–󰀁󰀂) (now in: id., Homo divinus, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇, 󰀁󰀅–󰀃󰀄). —. Homo divinus: Philosophische Projekte in Deutschland zwischen Meister Eckhart und Heinrich Seuse (Stuttgart, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇). —. ‘A New Interpretation of Eckhart’s Defence of 󰀁󰀃󰀂󰀆’, Eckhart Review 󰀁󰀆 (󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀇), 󰀄–󰀁󰀈.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

󰀇󰀄󰀉

—. (ed.), Studi sulle fonti di Meister Eckhart, 󰀂 vols (Fribourg, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂). —. / Elisa Rubino, Bibliotheca Eckhardiana Manuscripta. Studien zu den lateinischen Handschriften der Werke Meister Eckharts I (Stuttgart, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂). —. Eckhart, Tauler, Suso. Filosofi e mistici nella Germania medievale (Florence, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀀). —. ‘L’edizione storico-critica delle opere di Meister Eckhart. Nuove interpretzioni, nuovi manoscritti – nuovi principi editoriali?’, in France A. Meschini (ed.), Le opere dei filosofi e degli scienziati. Filosofia e scienza tra testo, libro e biblioteche (Firenze, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁), 󰀇󰀇–󰀈󰀉. —. Philosophie im Mittelalter. Von Boethius bis Cusanus (München, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃). —. / Markus Vinzent, Index Eckhardianus, Meister Eckhart. Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke. Die lateinischen Werke IV. Indices in opera omnia Magistri Echardi, 󰀁.–󰀆. Lieferung Index Eckhardianus. Meister Eckhart und seine Quellen. I. Die Bibel (Stuttgart, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅). Theisen, Joachim, Predigt und Gottesdienst: Liturgische Strukturen in den Predigten Meister Eckharts (Frankfurt a. M., 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀀). Tobin, Frank, Meister Eckhart: Thought and Language (Philadelphia, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀆). —. ‘Meister Eckhart and the Angels’, in Winder McConnell (ed.), In hôhem prise: A Festschrift in Honor of Ernst S. Dick (Göppingen, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀉), 󰀃󰀇󰀉–󰀉󰀃. Trusen, Winfried, Der Prozess gegen Meister Eckhart, VGG.R 󰀅󰀄 (Paderborn a.o., 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀈). Vannier, Marie-Anne, ‘L’homme noble, figure de l’œuvre d’Eckhart à Strasbourg’, Revue des sciences religieuses 󰀇󰀀 (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆), 󰀇󰀃–󰀈󰀉. —. ‘Eckhart à Strasbourg (󰀁󰀃󰀁󰀃–󰀁󰀃󰀂󰀃/󰀁󰀃󰀂󰀄)’, in Jean-Luc Eichenlaub (ed.), Dominicains et Dominicaines en Alsace XIII e–XX e s. (Colmar, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆), 󰀁󰀉󰀇–󰀂󰀀󰀈. —. ‘Der edle Mensch, eine Figur in Eckharts Straßburger Werk’, Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 󰀄󰀄 (󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀇), 󰀃󰀁󰀇–󰀃󰀄. —. ‘La naissance de Dieu dans l’âme dans la predication d’Eckhart à Strasbourg’, Meister-Eckhart-Jahrbuch 󰀂 (Stuttgart, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈), 󰀃󰀁󰀁–󰀂󰀁. Vinzent, Markus, Asterius von Kappadokien, Theologische Fragmente: Einleitung, kritischer Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar, SVigChr 󰀂󰀀 (Leiden, New York and Köln, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀃).

󰀇󰀅󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

—. Pseudo-Athanasius, Contra Arianos IV: Eine Schrift gegen Asterius von Kappadokien, Eusebius von Cäsarea, Markell von Ankyra und Photin von Sirmium, SVigChr 󰀃󰀆 (Leiden, New York and Köln, 󰀁󰀉󰀉󰀆). —. ‘Now: Meister Eckhart’, Eckhart Review 󰀁󰀈 (󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀉), 󰀅󰀄–󰀆󰀅. —. The Art of Detachment, Eckhart: Texts and Studies 󰀁 (Leuven, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁). —. Meister Eckhart, On the Lord’s Prayer, Eckhart: Texts and Studies 󰀂 (Leuven, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂). —. ‘Questions on the attributes (of God): Four Rediscovered Parisian Questions of Eckhart’, Journal of Theological Studies 󰀆󰀃 (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂), 󰀁󰀅󰀆–󰀈󰀆. —. ‘Original, Zitat, Plagiat? Meister Eckharts Auffassung von Quellen’, in Freimut Löser and Dietmar Mieth (eds), Eckhart im Original, Meister-Eckhart-Jahrbuch 󰀇 (Stuttgart, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃), 󰀁󰀀󰀅–󰀂󰀂. —. ‘Salus extra ecclesiam? Meister Eckhart’s Institutionenskepsis’, in Dietmar Mieth and Britta Müller-Schauenburg (eds), Mystik, Recht und Freiheit: Religiöse Erfahrung und kirchliche Institutionen im Spätmittelalter (Stuttgart, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀂), 󰀁󰀅󰀈–󰀆󰀈. —. ‘Neither Money nor Delights, but Daily Bread: The Extraordinary as Spiritual Temptation’, in Louise Nelstrop and Simond D. Podmore (eds), Christian Mysticism and Incarnational Theology: Between Transcendence and Immanence (Farnham, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀃), 󰀁󰀀󰀇–󰀃󰀀. —. ‘Eckharts Bildsprache in den lateinischen Predigten’, in Cora Dietl and Dietmar Mieth (eds), Sprachbilder und Bildersprache bei Meister Eckhart und in seiner Zeit, Meister-Eckhart-Jahrbuch 󰀉 (Stuttgart, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅), 󰀁–󰀂󰀅. —. ‘Omnipotence between Duns Scotus and Meister Eckhart’, Archa Verbi 󰀁󰀃 (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀅), 󰀄󰀅󰀅–󰀇󰀄. —. ‘Meister Eckharts lateinische Texte, überlieferungsgeschichtlich gelesen – am Beispiel seiner Pariser Quästionen’, in Dorothea Klein a.o. (ed.), Überlieferungsgeschichte transdisziplinär, Neue Perspektiven auf ein germanistisches Forschungsparadigma, Wissensliteratur im Mittelalter 󰀅󰀂 (Wiesbaden, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆), 󰀁󰀂󰀃–󰀃󰀄. —. ‘Towards the One. Eckhart on Monotheistic and Trinitarian Mysticism’, in Regina D. Schiewer (ed.), Meister Eckhart – interreligiös, Meister-Eckhart-Jahrbuch 󰀁󰀀 (Stuttgart, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆), 󰀂󰀀󰀇–󰀂󰀂. —. ‘Pseudo-Chrysostom’s Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum in Meister Eckhart’, Studia Patristica 󰀇󰀄 (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆), 󰀂󰀈󰀁–󰀃󰀀󰀁.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

󰀇󰀅󰀁

—. ‘Eckhart’s Early Teaching and Preaching in Paris’, in D. Mieth, M.-A. Vannier, M. Vinzent, and C. Wojtulewicz (eds), Meister Eckhart in Paris and Strasbourg (Leuven, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇), 󰀂󰀀󰀉–󰀆󰀅. —. ‘Eckharts deutsche Übersetzung seiner lateinischen Bibelkommentare. Eckharts lateinisches Werk in deutscher Rezeption’, MeisterEckhart-Jahrbuch 󰀁󰀁 (Stuttgart, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇), 󰀂󰀁󰀉–󰀅󰀈. —. ‘Meister Eckhart’s Self-Translations into the Vernacular’, Bulletin de Philosophie Médiévale 󰀅󰀉 (󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇), 󰀁󰀀󰀉–󰀃󰀃. —. / Christopher M. Wojtulewicz (eds), Meister Eckhart and Thomas of Erfurt, Eckhart: Texts and Studies 󰀁󰀂 (Leuven, 󰀂󰀀󰀂󰀀). Weigand, Rudolf Kilian, ‘Proclaiming Caritas: The Propagation of a Way of Life in Sermons’, in Gert Melville (ed.), Aspects of Charity. Concern for one’s neighbour in medieval vita religiosa, Vita regularis. Abhandlungen 󰀄󰀅 (Berlin, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁), 󰀁󰀄󰀇–󰀆󰀆. —. ‘Predigt und Beichte als Prägungsmittel der Identität von Religiosengemeinschaften’, in G. Andenna (ed.), Religiosità e civiltà. Identità nelle forme religiose (secoli X–XIV) (Milano, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀁), 󰀂󰀂󰀅–󰀄󰀂. Wenzel, Siegfried, Latin Sermon Collections from Later Medieval England. Orthodox preaching in the Age of Wyclif (Cambridge, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀅). Witte, Karl Heinz, ‘Von Straßburg nach Köln: Die Entwicklung der Gottesgeburtslehre Eckharts in den Kölner Predigten’, MeisterEckhart-Jahrbuch 󰀂 (Stuttgart, 󰀂󰀀󰀀󰀈), 󰀆󰀅–󰀉󰀄. —. Meister Eckhart: Leben aus dem Grunde des Lebens. Eine Einführung (Freiburg i.Br., 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀆). Wojtulewicz, Christopher M., Meister Eckhart on the Principle, Eckhart: Texts and Studies 󰀅 (Leuven, 󰀂󰀀󰀁󰀇). Zum Brunn, Emilie, and Alain de Libera, Maître Eckhart: Métaphysique du Verbe et théologie négative, Bibliothèque des archives de philosophie, n.s. 󰀄󰀂 (Paris, 󰀁󰀉󰀈󰀄).

Numbering 󰀁. Eckhart’s Homilies in DW and HLY HLY   󰀁*   󰀂*   󰀃*   󰀄*   󰀅*   󰀆*   󰀇*   󰀈*   󰀉*  󰀁󰀀*  󰀁󰀁*  󰀁󰀂*  󰀁󰀃*  󰀁󰀄*  󰀁󰀅*  󰀁󰀆*  󰀁󰀇*  󰀁󰀈*  󰀁󰀉*  󰀂󰀀*  󰀂󰀁*  󰀂󰀂*  󰀂󰀃*  󰀂󰀄*  󰀂󰀅*  󰀂󰀆*

DW S 󰀈󰀇 Q 󰀂󰀄 Q 󰀆󰀈 Q 󰀇󰀇 Q 󰀂󰀂 Q 󰀃󰀈 Q 󰀃󰀄 Q 󰀇󰀆 S 󰀁󰀀󰀁 S 󰀈󰀈 S 󰀈󰀉 Q 󰀁󰀄 S 󰀁󰀀󰀂 S 󰀉󰀀 S 󰀁󰀀󰀃 S 󰀁󰀀󰀄 S 󰀉󰀁 Q󰀁 S 󰀁󰀁󰀆 Q 󰀅󰀀 Q 󰀄󰀉 Q 󰀃󰀇 Q 󰀅󰀁 Q 󰀁󰀉 Q 󰀂󰀆 S 󰀉󰀉

DW Q󰀁 Q󰀂 Q󰀃 Q󰀄 Q 󰀅a Q 󰀅b Q󰀆 Q󰀇 Q󰀈 Q󰀉 Q 󰀁󰀀 Q 󰀁󰀁 Q 󰀁󰀂 Q 󰀁󰀃 Q 󰀁󰀃a Q 󰀁󰀄 Q 󰀁󰀅 Q 󰀁󰀆a Q 󰀁󰀆b Q 󰀁󰀇 Q 󰀁󰀈 Q 󰀁󰀉 Q 󰀂󰀀a Q 󰀂󰀀b Q 󰀂󰀁 Q 󰀂󰀂

HLY  󰀁󰀈*  󰀈󰀃*  󰀇󰀉*  󰀄󰀁*  󰀄󰀉*  󰀅󰀀* 󰀁󰀀󰀃*  󰀆󰀁* 󰀁󰀀󰀅*  󰀈󰀆* 󰀁󰀁󰀀*  󰀇󰀆*  󰀉󰀀*  󰀆󰀅*   󰀆󰀅a*  󰀁󰀂* 󰀁󰀁󰀄*  󰀈󰀇*  󰀈󰀈* 󰀁󰀀󰀀*  󰀂󰀈*  󰀂󰀄*  󰀅󰀆*  󰀅󰀇*  󰀆󰀀*   󰀅*

󰀇󰀅󰀄

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

HLY  󰀂󰀇*  󰀂󰀈*  󰀂󰀉*  󰀃󰀀*  󰀃󰀁*  󰀃󰀂*  󰀃󰀃*  󰀃󰀄*  󰀃󰀅*  󰀃󰀆*  󰀃󰀇*  󰀃󰀈*  󰀃󰀉*  󰀄󰀀*  󰀄󰀁*  󰀄󰀂*  󰀄󰀃*  󰀄󰀄*  󰀄󰀅*  󰀄󰀆*  󰀄󰀇*  󰀄󰀈*  󰀄󰀉*  󰀅󰀀*  󰀅󰀁*  󰀅󰀂*  󰀅󰀃*  󰀅󰀄*  󰀅󰀅*  󰀅󰀆*  󰀅󰀇*  󰀅󰀈*  󰀅󰀉*  󰀆󰀀*

DW Q 󰀂󰀅 Q 󰀁󰀈 Q 󰀄󰀃 Q 󰀇󰀉 Q 󰀅󰀉 S 󰀁󰀀󰀈 Q 󰀃󰀅 Q 󰀅󰀅 Q 󰀅󰀆 Q 󰀃󰀆a Q 󰀃󰀆b S 󰀉󰀂 Q 󰀆󰀉 Q 󰀇󰀀 Q󰀄 Q 󰀄󰀆 Q 󰀅󰀄a Q 󰀅󰀄b S 󰀁󰀁󰀁 Q 󰀂󰀉 Q 󰀄󰀇 Q 󰀆󰀁 Q 󰀅a Q 󰀅b Q 󰀆󰀃 Q 󰀆󰀄 Q 󰀆󰀅 Q 󰀆󰀇 Q 󰀈󰀀 Q 󰀂󰀀a Q 󰀂󰀀b S 󰀉󰀄 Q 󰀄󰀂 Q 󰀂󰀁

DW Q 󰀂󰀃 Q 󰀂󰀄 Q 󰀂󰀅 Q 󰀂󰀆 Q 󰀂󰀇 Q 󰀂󰀈 Q 󰀂󰀉 Q 󰀃󰀀 Q 󰀃󰀁 Q 󰀃󰀂 Q 󰀃󰀃 Q 󰀃󰀄 Q 󰀃󰀅 Q 󰀃󰀆a Q 󰀃󰀆b Q 󰀃󰀇 Q 󰀃󰀈 Q 󰀃󰀉 Q 󰀄󰀀 Q 󰀄󰀁 Q 󰀄󰀂 Q 󰀄󰀃 Q 󰀄󰀄 Q 󰀄󰀅 Q 󰀄󰀆 Q 󰀄󰀇 Q 󰀄󰀈 Q 󰀄󰀉 Q 󰀅󰀀 Q 󰀅󰀁 Q 󰀅󰀂 Q 󰀅󰀃 Q 󰀅󰀄a Q 󰀅󰀄b

HLY  󰀇󰀈*   󰀂*  󰀂󰀇*  󰀂󰀅*  󰀉󰀅*  󰀇󰀃*  󰀄󰀆*  󰀈󰀀*  󰀆󰀇*  󰀉󰀃* 󰀁󰀀󰀄*   󰀇*  󰀃󰀃*  󰀃󰀆*  󰀃󰀇*  󰀂󰀂*   󰀆* 󰀁󰀀󰀂*  󰀇󰀂*  󰀉󰀁*  󰀅󰀉*  󰀂󰀉*  󰀆󰀈*  󰀆󰀉*  󰀄󰀂*  󰀄󰀇* 󰀁󰀁󰀆*  󰀂󰀁*  󰀂󰀀*  󰀂󰀃* 󰀁󰀀󰀈*  󰀇󰀄*  󰀄󰀃*  󰀄󰀄*

N UMBERING

HLY  󰀆󰀁*  󰀆󰀂*  󰀆󰀃*  󰀆󰀄*  󰀆󰀅*   󰀆󰀅a*  󰀆󰀆*  󰀆󰀇*  󰀆󰀈*  󰀆󰀉*  󰀇󰀀*  󰀇󰀁*  󰀇󰀂*  󰀇󰀃*  󰀇󰀄*  󰀇󰀅*  󰀇󰀆*  󰀇󰀇*  󰀇󰀈*  󰀇󰀉*  󰀈󰀀*  󰀈󰀁*  󰀈󰀂*  󰀈󰀃*  󰀈󰀄*  󰀈󰀅*  󰀈󰀆*  󰀈󰀇*  󰀈󰀈*  󰀈󰀉*  󰀉󰀀*  󰀉󰀁*  󰀉󰀂*  󰀉󰀃*

DW Q󰀇 Q 󰀈󰀃 Q 󰀈󰀄 Q 󰀈󰀅 Q 󰀁󰀃 Q 󰀁󰀃a Q 󰀇󰀁 Q 󰀃󰀁 Q 󰀄󰀄 Q 󰀄󰀅 Q 󰀇󰀃 Q 󰀇󰀈 Q 󰀄󰀀 Q 󰀂󰀈 Q 󰀅󰀃 S 󰀉󰀆 Q 󰀁󰀁 Q 󰀈󰀂 Q 󰀂󰀃 Q󰀃 Q 󰀃󰀀 Q 󰀆󰀀 S 󰀁󰀁󰀀 Q󰀂 Q 󰀈󰀆 S 󰀉󰀃 Q󰀉 Q 󰀁󰀆a Q 󰀁󰀆b S 󰀁󰀀󰀉 Q 󰀁󰀂 Q 󰀄󰀁 Q 󰀇󰀄 Q 󰀃󰀂

DW Q 󰀅󰀅 Q 󰀅󰀆 Q 󰀅󰀇 Q 󰀅󰀈 Q 󰀅󰀉 Q 󰀆󰀀 Q 󰀆󰀁 Q 󰀆󰀂 Q 󰀆󰀃 Q 󰀆󰀄 Q 󰀆󰀅 Q 󰀆󰀆 Q 󰀆󰀇 Q 󰀆󰀈 Q 󰀆󰀉 Q 󰀇󰀀 Q 󰀇󰀁 Q 󰀇󰀂 Q 󰀇󰀃 Q 󰀇󰀄 Q 󰀇󰀅 Q 󰀇󰀆 Q 󰀇󰀇 Q 󰀇󰀈 Q 󰀇󰀉 Q 󰀈󰀀 Q 󰀈󰀁 Q 󰀈󰀂 Q 󰀈󰀃 Q 󰀈󰀄 Q 󰀈󰀅 Q 󰀈󰀆 S 󰀈󰀇 S 󰀈󰀈

HLY  󰀃󰀄*  󰀃󰀅* 󰀁󰀁󰀂* 󰀁󰀀󰀁*  󰀃󰀁*  󰀈󰀁*  󰀄󰀈* 󰀁󰀁󰀇*  󰀅󰀁*  󰀅󰀂*  󰀅󰀃* 󰀁󰀀󰀉*  󰀅󰀄*   󰀃*  󰀃󰀉*  󰀄󰀀*  󰀆󰀆* 󰀁󰀀󰀇*  󰀇󰀀*  󰀉󰀂*  󰀉󰀆*   󰀈*   󰀄*  󰀇󰀁*  󰀃󰀀*  󰀅󰀅* 󰀁󰀁󰀈*  󰀇󰀇*  󰀆󰀂*  󰀆󰀃*  󰀆󰀄*  󰀈󰀄*   󰀁*  󰀁󰀀*

󰀇󰀅󰀅

󰀇󰀅󰀆

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

HLY  󰀉󰀄*  󰀉󰀅*  󰀉󰀆*  󰀉󰀇*  󰀉󰀈*  󰀉󰀉* 󰀁󰀀󰀀* 󰀁󰀀󰀁* 󰀁󰀀󰀂* 󰀁󰀀󰀃* 󰀁󰀀󰀄* 󰀁󰀀󰀅* 󰀁󰀀󰀆* 󰀁󰀀󰀇* 󰀁󰀀󰀈* 󰀁󰀀󰀉* 󰀁󰀁󰀀* 󰀁󰀁󰀁* 󰀁󰀁󰀂* 󰀁󰀁󰀃* 󰀁󰀁󰀄* 󰀁󰀁󰀅* 󰀁󰀁󰀆* 󰀁󰀁󰀇* 󰀁󰀁󰀈* 󰀁󰀁󰀉*

DW S 󰀉󰀅 Q 󰀂󰀇 Q 󰀇󰀅 S 󰀉󰀇 S 󰀁󰀀󰀇 S 󰀉󰀈 Q 󰀁󰀇 Q 󰀅󰀈 Q 󰀃󰀉 Q󰀆 Q 󰀃󰀃 Q󰀈 S 󰀁󰀁󰀂 Q 󰀇󰀂 Q 󰀅󰀂 Q 󰀆󰀆 Q 󰀁󰀀 S 󰀁󰀀󰀆 Q 󰀅󰀇 S 󰀁󰀀󰀀 Q 󰀁󰀅 S 󰀁󰀁󰀅 Q 󰀄󰀈 Q 󰀆󰀂 Q 󰀈󰀁 S 󰀁󰀀󰀅

DW S 󰀈󰀉 S 󰀉󰀀 S 󰀉󰀁 S 󰀉󰀂 S 󰀉󰀃 S 󰀉󰀄 S 󰀉󰀅 S 󰀉󰀆 S 󰀉󰀇 S 󰀉󰀈 S 󰀉󰀉 S 󰀁󰀀󰀀 S 󰀁󰀀󰀁 S 󰀁󰀀󰀂 S 󰀁󰀀󰀃 S 󰀁󰀀󰀄 S 󰀁󰀀󰀅 S 󰀁󰀀󰀆 S 󰀁󰀀󰀇 S 󰀁󰀀󰀈 S 󰀁󰀀󰀉 S 󰀁󰀁󰀀 S 󰀁󰀁󰀁 S 󰀁󰀁󰀂 S 󰀁󰀁󰀃 S 󰀁󰀁󰀄 S 󰀁󰀁󰀅 S 󰀁󰀁󰀆 S 󰀁󰀁󰀇

HLY  󰀁󰀁*  󰀁󰀄*  󰀁󰀇*  󰀃󰀈*  󰀈󰀅*  󰀅󰀈*  󰀉󰀄*  󰀇󰀅*  󰀉󰀇*  󰀉󰀉*  󰀂󰀆* 󰀁󰀁󰀃*   󰀉*  󰀁󰀃*  󰀁󰀅*  󰀁󰀆* 󰀁󰀁󰀉* 󰀁󰀁󰀁*  󰀉󰀈*  󰀃󰀂*  󰀈󰀉*  󰀈󰀂*  󰀄󰀅* 󰀁󰀀󰀆* 󰀁󰀁󰀅*  󰀁󰀉* -

The translated sermons skip, in the DW numbering, the S 󰀁󰀁󰀃 [disputed in its authorship by G. Steer; though seen as authentic by F. Löser], S 󰀁󰀁󰀄 [is a treatise], S. 󰀁󰀁󰀇 [is disputed in its authorship by G. Steer, though the question of authorship would need to be assessed again].

N UMBERING

󰀂. Eckhart’s Homilies in HLY and Walshe HLY  󰀁*  󰀂*  󰀃*  󰀄*  󰀅*  󰀆*  󰀇*  󰀈*  󰀉* 󰀁󰀀* 󰀁󰀁* 󰀁󰀂* 󰀁󰀃* 󰀁󰀄* 󰀁󰀅* 󰀁󰀆* 󰀁󰀇* 󰀁󰀈* 󰀁󰀉* 󰀂󰀀* 󰀂󰀁* 󰀂󰀂* 󰀂󰀃* 󰀂󰀄* 󰀂󰀅* 󰀂󰀆* 󰀂󰀇* 󰀂󰀈* 󰀂󰀉* 󰀃󰀀* 󰀃󰀁*

Walshe 󰀉󰀂 󰀆󰀉 󰀄󰀉 󰀅󰀃 󰀂󰀉 󰀂󰀇 󰀇 󰀁 󰀅󰀀 󰀂 󰀄 󰀃 󰀆 󰀉󰀃 󰀈󰀉 󰀃󰀁 󰀈󰀃 󰀃󰀅 󰀁󰀁 󰀉󰀈 󰀁󰀀 󰀃󰀆 󰀇󰀉 󰀉󰀁 󰀇󰀁

Walshe 󰀁 󰀂 󰀃 󰀄 󰀅 󰀆 󰀇 󰀈 󰀉 󰀁󰀀 󰀁󰀁 󰀁󰀂 󰀁󰀃a 󰀁󰀃b 󰀁󰀄a 󰀁󰀄b 󰀁󰀅 󰀁󰀆 󰀁󰀇 󰀁󰀈 󰀁󰀉 󰀂󰀀 󰀂󰀁 󰀂󰀂 󰀂󰀃 󰀂󰀄a 󰀂󰀄b 󰀂󰀅 󰀂󰀆 󰀂󰀇 󰀂󰀈

HLY 󰀉* 󰀁󰀃* 󰀁󰀆* 󰀁󰀅* 󰀅󰀃* 󰀁󰀈* 󰀈* 󰀈󰀃* 󰀈󰀄* 󰀂󰀇* 󰀂󰀅* 󰀉󰀅* 󰀄󰀉* 󰀅󰀀* 󰀈󰀇a* 󰀈󰀈* 󰀁󰀁󰀉* 󰀄󰀆* 󰀇󰀃* 󰀈󰀀* 󰀆󰀆* 󰀆󰀈* 󰀁󰀀󰀀* 󰀇󰀄* 󰀄󰀇* 󰀆󰀅* 󰀆󰀅a* 󰀇󰀉* 󰀁󰀁󰀂* 󰀇* 󰀇󰀁*

󰀇󰀅󰀇

󰀇󰀅󰀈

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

HLY 󰀃󰀂* 󰀃󰀃* 󰀃󰀄* 󰀃󰀅* 󰀃󰀆* 󰀃󰀇* 󰀃󰀈* 󰀃󰀉* 󰀄󰀀* 󰀄󰀁* 󰀄󰀂* 󰀄󰀃* 󰀄󰀄* 󰀄󰀅* 󰀄󰀆* 󰀄󰀇* 󰀄󰀈* 󰀄󰀉* 󰀅󰀀* 󰀅󰀁* 󰀅󰀂* 󰀅󰀃* 󰀅󰀄* 󰀅󰀅* 󰀅󰀆* 󰀅󰀇* 󰀅󰀈* 󰀅󰀉* 󰀆󰀀* 󰀆󰀁* 󰀆󰀂* 󰀆󰀃*

Walshe 󰀃󰀃 󰀃󰀄 󰀈󰀆 󰀃󰀈 󰀃󰀉 󰀄󰀂 󰀄󰀁 󰀄󰀀 󰀄󰀇 󰀄󰀆 󰀁󰀆 󰀂󰀃 󰀇󰀆 󰀁󰀃a 󰀁󰀃b 󰀇󰀇 󰀇󰀈 󰀅 󰀇󰀀 󰀉󰀄 󰀃󰀂a 󰀃󰀂b 󰀈󰀀 󰀉󰀇 󰀇󰀂 󰀉󰀆 󰀈󰀄

Walshe 󰀂󰀉 󰀃󰀀 󰀃󰀁 󰀃󰀂a 󰀃󰀂b 󰀃󰀃 󰀃󰀄 󰀃󰀅 󰀃󰀆 󰀃󰀇 󰀃󰀈 󰀃󰀉 󰀄󰀀 󰀄󰀁 󰀄󰀂 󰀄󰀃 󰀄󰀄 󰀄󰀅 󰀄󰀆 󰀄󰀇 󰀄󰀈 󰀄󰀉 󰀅󰀀 󰀅󰀁 󰀅󰀂 󰀅󰀃 󰀅󰀄 󰀅󰀅 󰀅󰀆 󰀅󰀇 󰀅󰀈 󰀅󰀉

HLY 󰀆* 󰀆󰀉* 󰀂󰀂* 󰀅󰀆* 󰀅󰀇* 󰀃󰀃* 󰀃󰀄* 󰀂󰀄* 󰀂󰀈* 󰀃󰀆* 󰀃󰀇* 󰀄󰀁* 󰀄󰀀* 󰀃󰀉* 󰀉󰀁* 󰀁󰀀󰀁* 󰀈󰀁* 󰀄󰀄* 󰀄󰀂* 󰀆󰀇* 󰀄* 󰀁󰀂* 󰀁󰀁󰀄* 󰀉󰀃* 󰀅* 󰀇󰀈* 󰀁󰀁󰀇* 󰀈󰀉* 󰀉󰀀* 󰀁󰀀󰀉* 󰀁󰀀󰀂*

N UMBERING

HLY 󰀆󰀄* 󰀆󰀅* 󰀆󰀅a* 󰀆󰀆* 󰀆󰀇* 󰀆󰀈* 󰀆󰀉* 󰀇󰀀* 󰀇󰀁* 󰀇󰀂* 󰀇󰀃* 󰀇󰀄* 󰀇󰀅* 󰀇󰀆* 󰀇󰀇* 󰀇󰀈* 󰀇󰀉* 󰀈󰀀* 󰀈󰀁* 󰀈󰀂* 󰀈󰀃* 󰀈󰀄* 󰀈󰀅* 󰀈󰀆* 󰀈󰀇* 󰀈󰀈* 󰀈󰀉* 󰀉󰀀* 󰀉󰀁* 󰀉󰀂* 󰀉󰀃* 󰀉󰀄*

Walshe 󰀈󰀅 󰀂󰀄a 󰀂󰀄b 󰀁󰀉 󰀄󰀈 󰀂󰀀 󰀃󰀀 󰀇󰀃 󰀂󰀈 󰀆󰀃 󰀁󰀇 󰀂󰀂 󰀆󰀈 󰀆󰀂 󰀅󰀄 󰀂󰀅 󰀁󰀈 󰀄󰀅 󰀈 󰀉 󰀆󰀇 󰀁󰀄a 󰀁󰀄b 󰀅󰀆 󰀅󰀇 󰀄󰀃 󰀇󰀄 󰀅󰀂 -

Walshe 󰀆󰀀 󰀆󰀁 󰀆󰀂 󰀆󰀃 󰀆󰀄 󰀆󰀅 󰀆󰀆 󰀆󰀇 󰀆󰀈 󰀆󰀉 󰀇󰀀 󰀇󰀁 󰀇󰀂 󰀇󰀃 󰀇󰀄 󰀇󰀅 󰀇󰀆 󰀇󰀇 󰀇󰀈 󰀇󰀉 󰀈󰀀 󰀈󰀁 󰀈󰀂 󰀈󰀃 󰀈󰀄 󰀈󰀅 󰀈󰀆 󰀈󰀇 󰀈󰀈 󰀈󰀉 󰀉󰀀 󰀉󰀁

HLY 󰀁󰀁󰀆* 󰀇󰀇* 󰀇󰀂* 󰀁󰀁󰀈* 󰀁󰀀󰀃* 󰀁󰀁󰀀* 󰀈󰀆* 󰀇󰀆* 󰀃* 󰀅󰀄* 󰀃󰀁* 󰀆󰀁* 󰀇󰀀* 󰀉󰀂* 󰀄󰀈* 󰀅󰀁* 󰀅󰀂* 󰀂󰀉* 󰀅󰀉* 󰀁󰀀󰀄* 󰀁󰀀󰀅* 󰀂󰀃* 󰀆󰀃* 󰀆󰀄* 󰀃󰀅* 󰀁󰀀󰀈* 󰀉󰀆* 󰀂󰀁* 󰀃󰀀*

󰀇󰀅󰀉

󰀇󰀆󰀀

M EISTER E CKHART , T HE G ERMAN W ORKS II

HLY  󰀉󰀅*  󰀉󰀆*  󰀉󰀇*  󰀉󰀈*  󰀉󰀉* 󰀁󰀀󰀀* 󰀁󰀀󰀁* 󰀁󰀀󰀂* 󰀁󰀀󰀃* 󰀁󰀀󰀄* 󰀁󰀀󰀅* 󰀁󰀀󰀆* 󰀁󰀀󰀇* 󰀁󰀀󰀈* 󰀁󰀀󰀉* 󰀁󰀁󰀀* 󰀁󰀁󰀁* 󰀁󰀁󰀂* 󰀁󰀁󰀃* 󰀁󰀁󰀄* 󰀁󰀁󰀅* 󰀁󰀁󰀆* 󰀁󰀁󰀇* 󰀁󰀁󰀈* 󰀁󰀁󰀉*

Walshe 󰀁󰀂 󰀈󰀈 󰀂󰀁 󰀄󰀄 󰀅󰀉 󰀆󰀅 󰀈󰀁 󰀈󰀂 󰀉󰀅 󰀈󰀇 󰀅󰀈 󰀆󰀆 󰀂󰀆 󰀅󰀁 󰀆󰀀 󰀅󰀅 󰀆󰀄 󰀁󰀅

Walshe 󰀉󰀂 󰀉󰀃 󰀉󰀄 󰀉󰀅 󰀉󰀆 󰀉󰀇 󰀉󰀈

HLY 󰀂* 󰀂󰀀* 󰀅󰀅* 󰀁󰀀󰀇* 󰀆󰀂* 󰀆󰀀* 󰀂󰀆*

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706