sign in sign up
<<
Home , Friends of God, Henry Suso, Johannes Tauler

FIVE

DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE IN GERMAN

German mysticism (die deutsche Mystik) refers to the peculiar and extra- ordinary flowering of Christian mystical and practice that occurred in the area in the 13th–14th centuries.1 Unlike ‘Dzogchen,’ the term is an etic, rather than emic, designation. The mystics who made up the movement did not consider themselves founders or members of a distinct mystical school.2 In their minds, they were simply professing and practicing their Christian faith.3 Nevertheless, the boundaries of what may be considered a semi- cohesive, German mystical movement or school emerge through the

1 ‘German mysticism’ is one of several designations used to refer to this partic- ular Christian mystical movement. Others include Rhineland mysticism, Dominican mysticism, and speculative mysticism. Bernard McGinn also recommends “the German mysticism” and “mysticism of the ground,” the latter based on his contention that grunt [ (MHG): ground] represents the “master metaphor” of ’s mysticism. See Bernard McGinn, preface to : The Exemplar with Two German [translated selections from the works of Henry Suso (Heinrich Seuse), b.1295], trans. Frank Tobin, The Classics of Western Spirituality Series (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), 3; Bernard McGinn, The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart: The Man from Whom God Hid Nothing (New York: Crossroad, 2001), 35–38. I will tend to use either ‘German mysticism’ or ‘German school,’ though I use ‘school’ not in a strict sense, but to refer to a general movement of thought and practice. 2 Tauler, Suso, and other 14th century religious writings refer to the “,” which has been interpreted by some modern scholars as “an organized soci- ety or congregation” to which Tauler and Suso belonged. As James Clark shows, however, the friends of God were not an organized society. The phrase merely referred to “a free association of like-minded” individuals distinguished by their ded- ication to a mystical path. See James Midgley Clark, The Great German Mystics, Eckhart, Tauler and Suso (Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1949; reprint, New York: Russell & Russell, 1970), 92–3; quotation is from W. Preger in Clark. See also Frank Tobin, intro- duction to Henry Suso: The Exemplar with Two German Sermons [translated selections from the works of Henry Suso (Heinrich Seuse), b.1295], The Classics of Western Spirituality Series (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), 17. 3 This does not mean that the German mystics were not aware that what they professed went beyond conventional Christian piety. See Bernard McGinn, “Eckhart’s Condemnation Reconsidered,” The Thomist 44 (1980): 403; Jeanne Ancelet-Hustache, Master Eckhart and the German Mystics, trans. Hilda Graef (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1957), 161. The radical form of self-abnegation associated with the German school is identified as an “advanced school” in one of Suso’s visions. Henry Suso, in Frank 174 chapter five distinctiveness of certain repeated concerns and themes, in particu- lar, the combination of , apophatic contemplative practice, and an emphasis on attitudes and practices of extreme self- abnegation. The central figures of this school are Meister Eckhart (1260–1328), John Tauler (1300–1361), and Henry Suso (1295–1366).4 This chap- ter focuses on Eckhart, with secondary references to Tauler, Suso, and the anonymous text Sister Catherine 5 (Schwester Katrei). An empha- sis on Eckhart is justified on two grounds. First, Eckhart’s thought and mystical path set him apart as German mysticism’s greatest rep- resentative (perhaps one of the greatest representatives of the Chris- tian mystical tradition as a whole).6 Second, the range and complexity of the German mystical tradition require some limits be set on the data (especially in the context of a single chapter). Concentrating on Eckhart is one way to set those limits, and probably the best way given his importance. Of course, Eckhart’s thought is itself complex, and my discussion of his and practice is by no means comprehensive. The goal of this chapter is limited to iden-

Tobin, trans., Henry Suso: The Exemplar with Two German Sermons [translated selections from the works of Henry Suso (Heinrich Seuse), b.1295.], The Classics of Western Spirituality Series (New York: Paulist Press, 1989), 98. 4 The latter two are the common Anglicized versions of and Heinrich Seuse respectively. 5 The text cited here is the translation by Elvira Borgstädt (under the title The “Sister Catherine” Treatise) in Meister Eckhart: Teacher and Preacher, ed. Bernard McGinn, The Classics of Western Spirituality Series (New York: Paulist Press, 1986): 347–87. The content of Sister Catherine clearly locates it within the German mystical tradi- tion. See Bernard McGinn, introduction to Meister Eckhart, Teacher and Preacher [trans- lated selections from the works of Meister Eckhart, b.1260], ed. Bernard McGinn, The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1986), 10, 14. The text consists of a series of conversations between “a daughter” and her confessor. The text does not identify either by name. The title of some manuscripts refers to them as Sister Catherine and Meister Eckhart. Scholars consider the reference to Eckhart spurious, though the text may have been written by one of Eckhart’s stu- dents and contains within it many Eckhartian themes. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the female protagonist as Sister Catherine below. 6 Blamires describes Eckhart as “the greatest and most daring of the medieval German mystics” while McGinn claims that “Eckhart is arguably the most pro- found and influential, as well as most controversial, late medieval mystical author.” D. Blamires, “Tauler and Eckhart Marginalia in a Copy of theologia teutsch (1518),” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 73/1 (1991): 102. See also Bernard McGinn, “The God Beyond God: Theology and Mysticism in the Thought of Meister Eckhart,” Journal of Religion 61 (1981): 2; Dom Placid Kelley, “Meister Eckhart’s Doctrine of Divine Subjectivity,” Downside Review 76 (1958): 65.