KIERKEGAARD, MARTENSEN, AND THE MEANING OF MEDIEVAL MYSTICISM George Pattison University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK Abstract Although it is not known whether Kierkegaard read Martensen’s 1840 study on Meister Eckhart, this small book provides a useful point for identifying key issues in Kierkegaard’s relation to speculative idealism and mysticism. Following a summary of Martensen’s text, the article ar- gues that although Kierkegaard rejects speculative idealism’s reading of medieval mysticism, his own work reflects in devotional idiom some of the same themes we find in Eckhart and even, quite specifically, in Mar- tensen’s Eckhart. Key words: Speculative theology, mysticism, God, Martensen, Eckhart. Resumen Aunque no se sabe si Kierkegaard leyó el trabajo de Martensen de 1840 sobre Meister Eckhart, esta pequeña obra nos ofrece una herramienta útil para identificar planteamientos clave en la relación de Kierkegaard con el idealismo especulativo y el misticismo. Después de hacer un re- sumen del escrito de Martensen, el presente artículo sugiere que si bien Kierkegaard rechaza la interpretación del idealismo especulativo sobre el misticismo medieval, su propia obra refleja, en términos devocionales, algunos de los mismos temas que encontramos en Eckhart e incluso, de forma más específica, en el Eckhart de Martensen. Palabras clave: teología especulativa, misticismo, Dios, Martensen, Eckhart. I. Introduction It is now commonplace to note that Kierkegaard’s literary career in- volved a mildly obsessive rivalry with his five-year older contemporary Hans Lassen Martensen. Their paths were, it seems, destined to cross repeatedly from the time when Kierkegaard hired Martensen as a private tutor to work Estudios Kierkegaardianos. Revista de filosofía 3 (2017) 66 GEORGE PATTISON on Schleiermacher (1834), through his attendance at the lectures in which Martensen introduced Hegelianism into Danish theology (1837-8), through literary rivalry associated with the Heiberg circle (1837-40), right through to when Martensen became the prime target of Kierkegaard’s final ‘Attack on Christendom’ (1854-5). Throughout this time, it is clear that Kierkegaard closely tracked Martensen’s work—from this cry of misery over Martensen having published an article on Faust1 through to his outrage at Martensen’s memorial eulogy over Bishop Mynster in 1854. Yet he seems never to have explicitly commented on Martensen’s 1840 book Meister Eckhart: A Study in Speculative Theology.2 In fact, he seems never to have explicitly men- tioned Meister Eckhart at all, although it is clear that he read many works in which Eckhart is referred to and was certainly familiar with works strongly influenced by Eckhart including Johannes Tauler and Johann Arndt and there are passages in Kierkegaard’s devotional writings that to some extent converge with the kind of mystical themes associated. Did Martensen’s book and its subject, Eckhart, simply pass Kierke- gaard by, or is this work in some way reflected in the authorship, perhaps in a “silent way,” as Peter Šajda has argued? It seems implausible that Kierke- gaard didn’t know of Martensen’s book and improbable that he didn’t read it. In an intriguing essay Šajda suggests that the portrait of the aesthete “A” offered by Assessor Vilhelm in part reflects Martensen’s characterization of the mystic, as found in the book on Eckhart.3 This is not impossible. Yet in light of the growing awareness of significant commonalities between Kier- kegaard’s religious writings and the mystical tradition broadly understood as well as of the importance of the kind of speculative theology represented by Martensen, the book on Eckhart might seem to provide a useful point 1 Cfr., SKS 27, Papir 244 / JP 5, 5225. 2 An English translation is found in Thompson, C. L., and Kangas, D. (trans.), Be- tween Hegel and Kierkegaard. Hans L. Martensen’s Philosophy of Religion, Georgia: Schol- ars Press 1997, pp. 149-242. Further references will be given in the text as ME followed by page number. 3 Cfr., Peter Šajda, “Meister Eckhart: The Patriarch of German Speculation who was a Lebemeister: Meister Eckhart’s Silent Way into Kierkegaard’s Corpus” in Kierkegaard Research:Sources, Reception and Resources, Vol. 4: Kierkegaard and the Patristic and Medi- eval Traditions, ed. by Jon Stewart, Farnham: Ashgate 2008, pp. 237-53. Šajda also usefully sets Martensen’s Eckhart book in the context of contemporary speculative theology. Cfr., Peter Šajda, “Martensen’s Treatise Meister Eckhart and the Contemporary Philosophical- Theological Debate on Speculative Mysticism in Germany” in Hans Lassen Martensen. Theologian, Philosopher and Social Critic, ed. by Jon Stewart, Copenhagen: Museum Tus- culanum 2012, pp. 47-72. Estudios Kierkegaardianos. Revista de filosofía 3 (2017) KIERKEGAARD, MARTENSEN, AND THE MEANING OF MEDIEVAL MYSTICISM 67 of reference for teasing out new aspects of Kierkegaard’s relation to both mysticism and speculative theology. Kierkegaard indeed left no notes on the work, but it is by no means difficult to see how he might have responded to it and why his disagreement with Martensen might have led to his not pursuing Eckhart as a source of spiritual understanding, despite his interest in several of Eckhart’s followers. In this essay I shall therefore begin by offering a brief summary of Mar- tensen’s book in the overall context of early nineteenth-century receptions of Eckhart’s work; next, I shall consider how the book highlights aspects of Martensen’s thought that would especially have displeased Kierkegaard; and, finally, I shall consider how, nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to talk of an “Eckhartian” current in Kierkegaard’s work. This is not to argue that Eckhart really was a “hidden source” of Kierkegaard’s key religious ideas. Kierkegaard’s thought was an ocean criss-crossed by multiple currents and not all of them flowed in the same direction. To identify one of these many currents as “Eckhartian” is therefore no more than to observe one small part of a complex phenomenon—yet it is, I suggest, an important part. II. Martensen on Eckhart The history of publication of Martensen’s work itself has Kierkegaard- ian echoes in that it was originally conceived as a doctorate to be submit- ted for examination to Copenhagen University. Like Kierkegaard’s Concept of Irony, however, it was written in Danish, not Latin, and as Kierkegaard would do shortly afterwards, Martensen therefore had to petition the King to have it presented in Danish. In the event, however, he actually submitted it to Kiel University, so that the petition did not proceed. In English transla- tion the title appears as Meister Eckhart. A Study in Speculative Theology. This is certainly accurate as far as the content of the work goes, but (as the translators note in their Introduction) the literal translation of the sub-title is “A Contribution to illuminating the Mysticism of the Middle Ages.” And although Meister Eckhart is the main focus of the work, Martensen himself quickly makes clear that he will also be considering the continuation of the Eckhartian tradition in Tauler, Henry Suso, and the Theologica Germanica. Although works by Eckhart are now widely available in both scholarly and popular editions and selections and he is often seen as one of the repre- sentative figures of medieval thought and of Christian mysticism more gen- Estudios Kierkegaardianos. Revista de filosofía 3 (2017) 68 GEORGE PATTISON erally, his work and reputation only started to emerge from obscurity in the very late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Although some work by Eckhart had been mistakenly credited to Tauler or recycled in authors such as Arndt, allowing him to have had some unacknowledged influence, it was only with the Romantic return to the medieval past (a return coloured, in the case of Eckhart, by a certain nationalistic interest) that a significant body of texts became formally identified as genuinely Eckhartian. At the same time as the work of early Eckhart textual research, Eckhartian themes begin to be taken up by key thinkers of German Idealism, including J. G. Fichte, Franz von Baader (whose work Kierkegaard was reading in his stu- dent years), Hegel, and Schopenhauer. There was an explicit recognition that the kind of mystical vision articulated in Eckhart resonated with ideal- ism’s understanding of the divine-human relationship, a resonance summed up for Hegel in Eckhart’s line that “the eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me” (Hegel had in fact been introduced to Eckhart by von Baader).4 Now this may have involved a significant misread- ing of Eckhart’s own text, although it is not to the purpose of this article to pursue that issue further. Nevertheless, it is clear that by 1840 there was a widespread sense that Eckhart in some way anticipated the more fully de- veloped speculative theology developed in German Idealism. In the light of this situation, it would be easy to assume that Martensen (as Kierkegaard tends to depict him) was doing no more than popularizing others’ ideas. However, at the same time it should be said to Martensen’s credit that his was amongst the very first monographs to be dedicated to Eckhart’s work. Noting Kierkegaard’s aspersions, Cyril O’ Regan comments on Martensen’s work that, in comparison with Baader, his ‘reading of Eck- hart is by far the more focused, his method considerably more “scientific” (wissenschaftlich), and his ability to make distinctions between genres and levels of discourse much more developed’.5 O’Regan therefore sees Mar- tensen as a significant milestone in the reception of Eckhart in the nine- teenth century. Martensen himself was aware of the context in which he offered his ‘contribution’ and starts his study by locating the growing interest in Eck- 4 On German idealism as one of the sources for Kierkegaard’s knowledge of mysti- cism see Marie Mikulova Thulstrup, “Kierkegaards møde med mystik gennem den speku- lative idealismen,” Kierkegaardiana, X, 1977, pp.