Page 68

Page 68

Eckhart

especially the exposition of the Gospel of John, which may contain information on many things.

Some deductions, however, can be made. In the first place, it appears that Eckhart was a true scholastic, who reflected upon and treated all the numerous questions which interested scholasticism in general. That there existed an opposition in principle between mysticism and scholasticism is in his case out of the question, because at that time it did not exist at all, as was z. School- long ago proved by Engelhardt (Rir man and chard von St. Victor and Johannes Ruys- Mystic. broek, Erlangen, 1838, preface). As a scholastic, as far as sentences and elegance of description are concerned, Eckhart seems to be inferior to Thomas Aquinas, whom he follows for the most part. For the rest it is worthy of notice that the sphere of subjects, which espe cially engaged Eckhart's mind, is limited in his Latin writings. His thoughts are concentrated on the divine being in its unity and trinity; on the relation between God and the creature, especially between God and the human soul; on the nature of the soul; on regeneration and union with God, to which he recurs again and again. But these objects are the very ones with which mysticism especially used to concern itself. Even as a scho lastic Eckhart shows a predominant leaningtoward mysticism. Eckhart's sermons are primarily for monks or nuns, and, indeed, according to Denifle (ALKG, ii. 641, fi52), the German sermon of the Dominicans in general originated from the care of the nunneries. But when the sermon was deliv ered in the church, other hearers were not ex cluded, and Eckhart sometimes refers to them (Pfeiffer, 287, 26). Indeed, his sermons presuppose a religiously educated and interested congregation.

It is possible that no preacher ever propounded to his hearers more lofty and profound speculations on the Deity and the world, on the soul and its life. But he does it not for the sake of ostentation nor because of mere pleasure in these speculations, but because he is convinced that thus he will best serve his hearers. He knew that not all could follow him (Pfeiffer, 209, 29; 242, 35), and such he exhorted to piety (310, 1; 498, 18).

3. As a For him these thoughts were most Preacher. intimately connected with his spiri tual life and they are therefore expressed with a fervor and ardor which could not fail to im press the more intelligent of his hearers. He is convinced that the thoughts which he presents are found in the Scripture in which he has more faith than in himself (4, 17). The present custom of taking a text for the sermon did not restrict him and in accordance with the use of his time he selects only a phrase, a " word " from a larger section. This mode of exposition is such that he can easily deduce any thought from any text. To us his method appears like an incredible abuse of Holy Writ, but Eckhart practised it in good faith; he followed the custom of his time, and no one took offense. On the other hand Eckhart is truly great in the way and manner in which he gave form and expression to his thoughts. This is clearly to be seen in spite of the faults of the copies, to which THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG

must be ascribed the disproportion of the execution and the want of connection. One might say that truth and purity of sentiment, to which he everywhere attaches the greatest value, also shapes his sermon. He avoids all tinsel, every artificial adornment. He speaks in an artless, pleasing and touching manner. Powerful seriousness and humor are at his command. He often uses parables, but briefly, without detail, and this brevity he also applies where the narrative elements prevail (13, 25; 108; 168, 12; 285, 24). While he often enlivens his discourse by introducing thesis and antithesis, his manner is truly German, his sentences are devoid of the influence of Latin phraseology. Not a few passages of his sermons have a beauty of language which to this day makes them worthy of commendation as models of German style.

III. System: As has already been stated it is impossible to give at present a final decision on Eckhart's world of ideas. Nevertheless an attempt may be made to delineate his fundamental thoughts, based upon the material at hand. The great need of man is that his soul be united with God; for this a knowledge of God and his relation to the world, a knowledge of the soul z. His Fun- and the way which it must go, are

damental necessary. Eckhart does not doubt View of that such knowledge is given in the Deity. traditional faith of the Church, but it is not sufficient for one who is longing for salvation. He must attain to it with his own understanding. Eckhart accordingly does not move and live in ecclesiastical tradition after the man ner of Bernard of Clairvaux or Hugo of St. Victor; in his thinking on the highest questions he is inde pendent and in this way he arrives at views which do not harmonize with the teaching of the Church, without, however, as far as can be seen, being con scious of any opposition. The last and highest object of thinking is the Deity, i.e. the divine entity as distinguished from the persons, yet Eckhart often uses " God " in the sense of " Deity," where his thought does not call for accurate definitions (but cf., on the other hand, 180, 14; 181, 7). The Deity is absolute being without distinction of place or manner (ALKG, ii. 439-440). No predicate de rived fromfinitebeingisapplicabletotheDeity; but this is therefore not mere negation or emptiness. Rather is finite being, as such, negation; and the Deity, as the negation of finite being, is the negation of negation, i.e. the absolute fulness of being (322, 13; 539, 10-27). Dionysius wrongly states: God is not, he is rather a nonentity. When in other passages (82, 26; 182, 31; 500, 27) Eckhart himself designates God as non-existent, he only means that he has none of the characteristics of finite existence. The same apparent contradiction is found, where Eckhart on the one hand calls God absolute being, and on the other denies that he is a being (319, 4; 659, 1); but he reconciles the two views (268-2fi9). The same is the case with occasional seemingly paradoxical expressions, e.g. that God is not good, etc. (269, 18; 318, 35-319, 3). The essential elements of finite things are present in God, but in an exalted degree and in a manner that can not be comprehended by man (322, 20; 540, 2-7).