Carmen A. Cvetković Phd Thesis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Seeking the Face of God: A Study on Augustine’s Reception in the Mystical Thought of Bernard of Clairvaux and William of Saint Thierry ! ! ! ! !"#$%&'()#*)+(,%#$-(./0-1ü# *#.2(313#34!'1..(5#60&#.2(#5(+&((#06# 708.0#921,030:2"# *4+43.#;<=<# >)1-(&31."#06#?.#*)5&(@3# ! ! ! ! !"#$%&'()#*)+(,%#$-(./0-1ü"#2(&(34#5(&.164#.2%.#.217#.2(717"#82152#17#%99&0:1'%.(,4#;<<<<#80&=7# 1)#,()+.2"#2%7#3(()#8&1..()#34#'("#.2%.#1.#17#.2(#&(50&=#06#80&/#5%&&1(=#0>.#34#'(#%)=#.2%.#1.#2%7# )0.#3(()#7>3'1..(=#1)#%)4#9&(-10>7#%99,15%.10)#60&#%#21+2(&#=(+&((?## # !#8%7#%='1..(=#%7#%#&(7(%&52#7.>=().#1)#@(9.('3(&"#A<<B#%)=#%7#%#5%)=1=%.(#60&#.2(#=(+&((#06#C2D# 1)#@(9.('3(&"#A<<EF#.2(#21+2(.>=4#60𔃨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	%&.#06#9&1).(=#5094#3>.#('3%&+0#06#%,,#0	%&.#06#(,(5.&0)15#9>3,15%.10)#06#.2(717# 60&#%#9(&10=#06#61-(#4(%&7#0)#.2(#60,,081)+#+&0>)=Q# # 9>3,15%.10)#80>,=#9&(5,>=(#6>.>&(#9>3,15%.10)F## # =%.(#II#71+)%.>&(#06#5%)=1=%.(#II#71+)%.>&(#06#7>9(&-170&#III# # Abstract The present thesis examines the way in which two twelfth century authors, the Cistercian monks, Bernard of Clairvaux and William of St. Thierry, used Augustine in the articulation of their mystical thought. The approach to this subject takes into account the fact that in the works of all these medieval authors the “mystical” element is inescapably entangled with their theological discourse and that an accurate understanding of their views on the soul’s direct encounter with God cannot be achieved without a discussion of their theology. This thesis posits that the cohesion of Bernard’s and William’s mystical thought lies in their appropriation of the guiding principle of Augustine’s mystical theology: “You made us for yourself and our heart is restless until it rests in you” (conf. 1.1.1), reflected in the subtle interplay of three main themes, namely (1) the creation of humanity in the image and likeness of God, which provides the grounds for the understanding of the soul’s search for direct contact with God; (2) love as a longing innate in every human being, which explores the means to attain immediacy with God; and (3) the soul’s direct encounter with God, which discusses the nature of the soul’s immediate experience of the divine presence that can only be achieved in lasting fullness at the end of time. This examination of Bernard’s and William’s use of Augustine is structured on the basis of these three core themes which form the scaffolding of their mystical thought. Investigating the specific methods of their reception of Augustine will highlight the originality and uniqueness of each of the two Cistercian authors, who while drawing on the same patristic source use it nevertheless in various ways, by focussing on different aspects of Augustine’s immense oeuvre and by arriving at distinct mystical programmes. Was du ererbt von deinen Vätern hast, Erwirb es, um es zu besitzen. „What you have as heritage, Take now as task; For thus, you will make it your own!” Goethe, Faust Acknowledgements I owe a great deal of gratitude to many people who provided support, encouragement and inspiration in the course of my work on this project. Special thanks are due to my supervisor, Karla Pollmann, who with immense patience and care commented and made valuable suggestions on each chapter of my thesis, being an unfailing source of support throughout the whole project. I would also like to thank my second supervisor David Lambert for his wise criticism and for his guidance in the early stages of this work. My thanks are also due to the Trustees of the Leverhulme Trust for their generous financial help, without which a large part of this project could not have been carried out. I owe many thanks to the Faculty of Theology of Aarhus University (Denmark) who offered me the possibility to spend six months in Aarhus at the Department of Systematic Theology in the spring and summer of 2007 in order to work on my own project. I am especially grateful to Anders-Christian Jacobsen for having been a constant source of encouragement and also a wonderful friend during all these years. I am also indebted to Else Marie Wiberg Pedersen who kindly sacrificed her Danish students for my sake, accepting to teach a whole course in English so that I could attend it. Many thanks are owed to the Baden Württemberg government for having offered me a ten months scholarship so that I could spend the academic year 2008-2009 at the Faculty of Theology of the Albert-Ludwigs Universität in Freiburg (Germany). I have greatly appreciated the kindness of my academic adviser Markus Enders and his willingness to read and to comment on large sections of my thesis despite his very busy schedule. I would also like to express my gratitude to my examiners, Willemien Otten and Mark Elliott, and to the convener, Emma Buckley, for making the viva a rather enjoyable experience. I am indebted to their ideas about my thesis and for the insightful comments and suggestions they provided in order to improve my work. As the main part of my research was carried out in the School of Classics at St. Andrews, I would like thank our secretaries Irene Paulton and Margaret Goudie for their always prompt and efficient administrative help. I am also grateful to the staff of Classics for the inspiring and thought provoking conversations we had over the years: in particular to Katerina Oikonomopoulou, Arnoud Visser, Jon Coulston and Ralph Anderson. I owe many thanks to my PG fellows for making the School such a friendly and vibrant environment in which to work and study, to: Jeremy Armstrong, Symke Haverkaamp, Jamie McIntyre, Gwynaeth McIntyre, Jon Entwisle, Mark Philippo, Joe Howley, Trevor Mahy, Daniel Mintz, Hannah Swithinbank, Michael Sloan, Allison Weir, Matthijs Wibier, Laurie Wilson and Christos Zekas. Special thanks are owed to my dear colleagues and friends Margarita Lianou, Paula Whiscombe, Susanne Gatzemeier and Georgiana Mazilu who offered me much help and affection at some of the most difficult moments of this project. Finally, my deepest gratitude goes to my parents for their immense kindness, unwavering love and generous support and to my husband Vladimir to whom I dedicate this thesis. Table of Contents Declarations....................................................................................................................... i Abstract............................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ vi Abbreviations ................................................................................................................viii Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1 Part I: The Exegetical Mysticism of Bernard of Clairvaux ....................................... 11 Preliminary Remarks................................................................................................................. 11 1. The problem of sources ................................................................................................... 12 2. Monastic Learning........................................................................................................... 14 3. Writing............................................................................................................................. 20 4. Bernard and the “Fathers” ............................................................................................... 23 5. Bernard and Augustine .................................................................................................... 32 6. Methodology...................................................................................................................