Markus Vinzent's Blog

Thursday, 11 April 2019

1Cor. 14:34 - Should women be silent in church? A disorderly commandment


Working on Marcion's version of the Pauline text of First Corinthians, I noticed that according to both Tertullian and Epiphanius, Marcion's Paul had already the passage about the silencing of women, 1Cor. 14:34. This, of course, is a counterargument to Harnack and others who saw this as a later gloss [Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung, 590-91, cf. B. Nongbri, ‘Pauline Letter Manuscripts’, in M. Harding and A. Nobbs (eds), All Things to All Cultures: Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans (Grand Rapids and Cambridge, 2013) 84-102 at 96; P.H. Payne, ‘Vaticanus Distigme-Obelos Symbols Marking Added Text, Including 1 Corinthians 14.34-35’, NTS 63 (2017) 604-25], unless that gloss  had entered the Pauline text at a rather early stage - pretty hypothetical.

However, contrary to our textus receptus of Paul today, Marcion's Paul must have pointed out with his explicit reference to the Law that this teaching about the silencing and subjugating of women derives from the Law and, therefore, only showed the 'disorderly nature' of the Law (so explicit in the commentary of Epiphanius, somehow also in Tertullian). Hence, instead of a later gloss, I would presume that the Pauline text had been altered later so that the critical note (1Cor. 14:33: 'For God is not characterized by disorder, but by peace') could be misinterpreted. It seems that Marcion's Paul intended by 1Cor. 14:34 to point out the subjugation of women and their silencing in the church was a kind of disorder that was inconsistent with the God of Jesus Christ. This then explains the strong dissent with the earlier statement that women in the congregations are allowed to prophecy.

Monday, 8 April 2019

The Unknown Meister Eckhart

The next topic of the conference of the Meister Eckhart Gesellschaft in 2020 will be "The unknown Eckhart".

Amongst many texts by Eckhart which are rarely studied or quoted, are those that have been edited by critical scholars over the past 150 years, but which have not made their way into the critical edition of Kohlhammer. As this edition is now coming to a close, I am working on an editio minor of these texts, based on the sources that are given with each homily. See here, work in progress. Please feel free to comment and correct.


Homily * [Pfeiffer 78]
In festo S. Trinitatis
‘Ego plantavi, Apollo rigavit: sed Deus incrementum dedit’ (I Cor. 3:6)

Introduction
Eckhart is refers to is read on the Feast of Trinity (‘Uff der heiligen Dreyfaltikeit tag’, BT; though Str3 gives: ‘Die ij vff den vj sontag’ and ‘vff den vj sonntag’).
          The text is handed down by five manuscripts (Ba2 [245vb-246rb], B7 [66v-70r], B9 [166v-169r], Str3 [319r-322r], Mai1 [227r-228v]), two older prints (BT [265vb-266rb], HT [Anhang II 37-8]) and few excerpts (G9, H4, (Kon?), M7, M57, Z4).

The content of the homily
The homily does not start with a clear reference to a biblical verse, so can not be liturgically located. The closest parallel to the statement of Paul seems to be I Cor. 3:6-7, but it is not clear whether the opening relates to the liturgical reading. It could be that this initial reference was lost in the Vorlage of the extant witnesses, though, as the text does not develop an interpretation of a particular biblical verse, it might be that from the beginning, the homily had no such reference and was more a collatio or lecture than a homily. Still, when Eckhart, for example, refers to both, his two sermons and lectures on Jesus Sirach he calls them simply at the end ‘homilies’ – hence seems to have regarded the genre of ‘homilies’ the overarching category amongst which he also put lectures.[1]
The main topic is, indeed, how to attain a true contemplation which, according to Eckhart, ‘needs to have three things’ (n. 2), that structure this homily:
- ‘The possession of one’s mind’ (A)
- ‘A free ind’ (B)
- ‘A speculative mind’ (C)
As the distribution of paragraphs below shows, the emphasis of this homily is on the third element, the speculative mind.

A) ‘The possession of one’s mind’ (nn. 3-4)
Eckhart moves straight to the soul as the mindful, or rational, place, in which ‘she has all things without matter’ (n. 3). This structuring of the soul, having a mind and having a deeper light within, is further explicated as the two being so mutually united ‘that each posseses the place of the other’. As one reads in n. 4, this mutual in-being is that between the soul own one and ‘hightest power’ and God’s own power. It even leads to a renaming of the soul as ‘the highest power of God’.

B) ‘A free mind’ (n. 5)
This is only dealt with in a rather short note, but it is not unimportant. It relates the free mind and its freedom to the original freedom, as the soul was in her ‘first emanation’ (n. 5).

C) ‘A speculative mind’ (nn. 6-11)
The speculative mind is the one contemplating God (n. 6). In repeating, what he had said before, it is the soul’s ‘unique power’ that makes her like God’s hightest power. Conversely, it is God’s power that draws the soul’s power into that oneness. Even if a person does not sense God’s touch, God moves the person out of itself, out of the lower things and into Himself. It is not only a touch of grace, but rather it is a mutual touching or huggling, because no physical element is preventing the full oneness witht the Godhead. The soul is so centred that Eckhart moves to Ps.-Dionysius, starting with his image of a circle: the soul is ‘like in a circle ... she nowhere leaves her centre’ (n. 7). Furthermore, he takes from Dionysius (not from Paul, as the Pfeiffer and the Tauler prints read it) that God is beautiful, for ‘three reasons’:
- 1) God is clear, 2) He is a mutual enlightening and 3) He is one and the same.
These three elements, the preacher then develops each of these notions in a subsequent paragraph.


Editions, commentaries and notes
F. Pfeiffer, 251-3. J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckeharts textkritisch untersucht (1932), 686-92.

Previous English translations
C. De B. Evans I 196-8.

Text and translation

<:1>Sanctus Paulus spricht und manet uns, das wir gepflanzet werden in die glicheyt gottes uff das das wir komen zu hoer beschauwunge.
<:1>Saint Paul speaks and admonishes us, to be planted into the likeness of God,[2] so that we come to a higher contemplation.[3]
<:2>Zu warer anschauwungen muß man druw dinc hann das spricht sanctus Dionysius das durchläuchtend liecht das ain ist ain besitzunge des gemuttes Das andere ist eyn frij gemude Das dritte ist eyn sichtiges gemude Wie man das sichtige gemude besitzen sal das ist an einer steden inblibungen des menschen in ime selber
<:2>To [attain] a true contemplation one needs to have three things, this says saint Dionysius,[4] the transparent light,[5] the first is the possession of one’s mind.[6] The second is a free mind.[7] The third is a speculative mind that can see.[8] How can one possess the speculative mind? This depends on a constant resting of a person in itself.
<:3>Die sele hait eyn geystlich stait in ir in der hait sie alle dingke sunder materien als diu erste sache alliu dinc in ir hat sunder materie. Die sele hait auch eyn liecht in ir mit dem sie alle dingk scheppet geystlich. Wan das liecht unde die stat also vereyniget sint das ir ieigliches des andern stat besitzt dann alrerste hat man das gemute ze rehte besezzen.
<:3>The soul has a mindful[9] place in her, in it she has all things without matter, just as the first cause has all things in itself without matter. The soul also has a light in herself,[10] with which she mindfully creates all things.[11] When this light and the place are so united that each possesses the place of the other, only then one rightly possesses the mind.[12]
<:4>Nochme ist aber noch hie vonn zu sprechene das ist das unser ußer mensche gescheiden sal sin von aller genungden der creaturen unt der innere mensche solde also gefuget sin zu godde das in ym nit uff enstunde das er gewanlt wulde han nu alrerst hat der mensche sich selber besezten zu recht Dis ist hie unmogelich zu geschene, want die meystere sprechent also, wan das geschicht von dem hie gesprochen ist das die oberste krafft gottes dan bekenne mit ir eyniger krafft want sie ist dann vereynet mit syner krafft. Hie von spricht sanctus Dionisius das die sele danne nit sele enheißet sie heyßet die oberste krafft gottes
<:4>How, then, can one still speak about it? It means that our outer person has to be separated of all satisfaction in creatures,[13] and the inner person should be as joined with God[14] that nothing arises in it that he would have changed: Only then a person rightly possesses itself. This is impossible to happen here, as also the masters say, when this happens of which we speak here, that the highest power then knows God in Her one power, as it is then united with His power. To this saint Dionysius says that the soul, then, is not called ‘soul’, she is called ‘the highest power of God’.[15]
<:5>Das andere ist eyn frij gemude. zffriheyt ist das das wir mit nicht gebunden sin das wir also frij und also luter und also unvermenget sin als wir waren in unserm ersten ußfluße das wir gevriet wurden in dem heiligen geyst
<:5>The second thing is a free mind.[16] Freedom means that we are not bound in any way, so that we were free and pure and unalloyed, as we were in our first emanation, that we were freed in the Holy Spirit.

<:6>Das dritte ist eyn sichtiges gemute Her inne sicht diu sele got Was beschauwet die sele als sie got beschauwet Herzu antwort sanct Dionysius und spricht das sie sicht eyn eynige krafft Die eynige krafft machet sie eyn ir glich Si sicht auch in im ein guot uber gude das alle dingk in yme beslossen hait Her umbe wolte er uns leuken ußer uns selben das wir in uns selber blyben nyt enmochten Heruff spricht eyn heydensche meistere Die uberste lust die alle luste uberwindet die zucht die sele uß aller genugeden in die uberste warheyt da alle dinge inne endent
<:6>The third is the speculative mind. In this the soul sees God. What does the soul contemplate, when she contemplates God? This [question] saint Dionysius answers and says that she sees a unique power. This unique power makes her one, like it.[17] She also sees in Him a good which is beyond the good that encompasses in itself all that is good.[18] Therefore, He wanted to entice us out of ourselves, so that we do not want to stay within ourselves.[19] To this a pagan master says:[20] The highest lust that overcomes all lust draws the soul out of all satisfaction into the highest truth, wherein all things find an end.
<:7>Derselbe meystere spricht von wan von ist das das wir des nit entpfinden Das ist das wir geneiget sin zu nidderen dingen Want wir enpfinden in uns das wir gottes begeren uber alle dingk So hat got die uberste krafft gerurret Von der berüerunge wirdt sie beweget ußer ir selber in eyn in in mit si nit das sie von gnaden also gerueret werde mer also das da eyn ding das andere rueret want es enhait libes nyt nach der gotheit Hie vonn sprich sant Dionisius das die bewegunge der selen sij als in eyme zirckel das ist das si nyrgen uß enlauffe von ir rehtem puncte.
<:7> The same master says:[21] What is the reason that we do not sense this? This is due to the fact that we are inclined towards lower things.[22] When we sense in us that we desire God above all things, then God has touched the highest power.[23] By this touch it[24] is moved out of itself into Him with her; not that she is touched by grace more as one thing touches the other, for according to the Godhead, He has no body. About this, saint Dionysius speaks, that the motion of the soul is like in a circle, since she nowhere leaves her centre.[25]
<:8>Dis spricht auch sanctus Dioniusius Got ist schone und ist das von drihen dingen Er ist clare und ist eyn samenhellunge und ist eyn und dasselbe
<:8>Saint Dionysius also says,[26] God is beautiful, and he is this for three reasons. He is clear,[27] He is a mutual enlightening, and He is one and the same.
<:9> Was ist clarheyt Das ist da nit lipliches enist zugemenget und das doch stediglich blybet in syner purheit oder luterkeyt Die sunne ist clare und ist doch eyn liplich dingk Nu spricht die schrifft das die sele sal siben mal clarer werden dan die sunne Ich sprechen sie sal hundertstunt clarer werden dan die sunne want die sunne ist eyn liplich dingk so ist die sele geystlich Herumbe ist das die sache das ir clarheyt so viel übertreffenlicher ist, so viel unt daz geistliche daz lipliche übertriffet. Ist nu, daz die sele also clare ist so ist got unmeßiglichen clare, want er hat sy geschaffen. Wann die sach ist mer, dann die sachait
<:9>
What is clarity? This is, when no body is alloyed and what constantly remains in its purity or immaculateness. The sun is clear, though it is a bodily thing. Now Scripture says: The soul should become seven times clearer than the sun. I say, she must become a hundred times clearer than the sun, for the sun is a bodily thing, whereas the soul is spiritual. Therefore, this is the reason that her clarity is so much surpassing it, as much as the spiritual surpasses the bodily. Now if it is so that the soul is so clear, then God is still unmeasurably clearer, because He has created her, as the cause is more than what is created.
<:10>Er ist auch eyn samenhellunge want als das in got ist das ist got Das spricht sanctus Augustinus sprichet der vatter und der sone einhellent sich in dem heyligen geyst der eyn samenknupper yr beyder ist Und die drij stutzen das sint die dri personen die liuhtent eyn wesen als da dru liecht eynen schyn liuhtet der sich ynent also sulde auch an uns eyn samenhellunge sin Das ist daz alle manigveldigkeit in uns gesammet sulde sin under die oberste krafft und die uberste krafft sulde sich werfen in got und sulde da blyben sunder widderscheyn
<:10>He also is a mutual enlightening,[28] as all that is in God, that is God. This saint Augustine says: The Father and the Son enlighten themselves in the Holy Spirit, who is a tie between them. And the three pillors, these are the three Persons who light up one being, like three lights cast one light that is united. So too with us there should be a mutual enlightening, i.e. that all multiplicity in us should be brought together under the highest power and this highest power should cast itself into God there to abide without reflection.
<:11>Das dritte er ist auch eyn und dasselbe das hort eygenlich gotlichem wesen zu want die eynigkeit das gotlich wesen ist Das ist dasselbe das eynigkeyt ist Das ist nyt zusprechen von keiner creature want man enmag nit gesprechen von keynen dingen das sie das von in selber sin, daz sie sint. Hie von sprichet sant Paulus ‘waz wir han, daz han wir empfangen von dem einigen guote, daz got ist, von dem allez guot kumet’. Alliu dinc sint von in selber niht. Daz von im selber ist unde von dem diu dinc sint, daz ist got. Also ist eigentlich bewiset, wie got ein ist unt daz selbe Als wir auch sulden gelich dem selben sin Wanne wir gescheyden sin von uns selber so sin wir me das wir nyt ensin dann das wir sin.
<:11>Thirdly, He is one and the same, which is properly a characteristic of divine being, as oneness is the divine being.[29] It is the same as oneness. This one can not say of any creature, for one can not say of anything that they are by themselves that they are. Of this saint Paul says: ‘What we have we have received from the one good, that God is,[30] from whom all good things come’. Nothing comes from itself. That which is from itself and from which the things are, this is God. Hence, we have properly proven how God is one and the same. Thus, we too should be like the one who is the same. When we have parted from ourselves then we are not-being rather than being.

<:12> Daz wir nu gepflanzet werden in die glicheit gotes, uf daz wir komen zuo hoher unde warer gothait und götlicher anschouwunge, des helf uns got. Amen.
<:12> That we may now be planted into the likeness of God, to attain the high and true Godhead and divine contemplation, may God help us. Amen.
1 manet] vermanet BT, HT, Pf; uff das das] uf das BT, Pf; 1-2 beschauwunge. Zu warer anschauwungen muß] unde warer anschouwunge.
2 Dazu muoz Str3, BT, HT, Pf; druw dinc hann (han BT, HT, Pf)] han drü ding Str3; das durchläuchtend liecht das ain] om. B7, BT, HT, Pf; das ain] Das erst BT; ist ain besitzunge] ein besitzunge BT, HT, besitzunge B7; das sichtige gemude BT, HT, Pf] das gemude B7; steten] stat Str3; inbelibung Str3, Qu] in belibung  B9, inbildunge BT, HT, Pf;
3 sunder materien B7, sunder materie Str3, sunder Matery HT] on materi BT, ane materie Pf; als die erst sach alle ding in ir hatt on materie BT, als diu erste sache alliu dinc in ir hat sunder materie HT, als diu erste sache alliu dinc in ir hat ane materie Pf] om. B7; eyn liecht] om. Str3; geystlich] om. Str3, BT, HT, Pf; sint das ir ieigliches] sint ieigliches Ba2, BT, Pf; besitzt] heizet Pf; dann alrerste hat man B7, Str3, dann alrerste hat man das gemute ze rehte besezzen B7, B9, Str3, BT, HT] denne alrerst hat der mensche sich selber besezzen Pf;
4 Nochme] Wie BT, HT, Pf; aber noch] om. B7, Str3; in ym] ym B7, si Str3; das er] das si Str3, nu] denne Str3, BT, HT, Pf; besezten zu recht] zu recht besessen Str3, BT, besezten HT, Pf; hie unmogelich] unmogelich hie Str3, BT, HT, Pf; geschene] zesprechene Str3, beschehen BT, HT, Pf; die meystere sprechent] der meister sprichet BT, HT, Pf; gottes dan bekenne mit ir eyniger krafft want sie ist dann vereynet mit syner krafft (gottes del. et rest.) B7] der sele got dene erkenne in ir aigner kraft wann si ist denne verainiget mit seiner kraft Str3, der sele got dan bekenne in ir eigener kraft Ba2, BT, HT, Pf; Hie von spricht B7; Hier uf sprichet Pf] Hieruff sprach BT, HT; sanctus] om. Str3;
5 das das] das Str3, BT, HT, Pf; und also1] und BT, HT, Pf; das wir gevriet] unt do wir gevriet Str3, BT, HT, Pf, das wir geeyniget B7;
6 sicht] hat Str3, BT, HT, Pf; als] so Str3, BT, HT, Pf; sanct om. Str3, BT, HT, Pf; sie sicht] die sele Str3; ir glich] mit ir Str3, BT, HT, Pf; in im] an ime Str3; in im ein guot] ein gut an ym B7; alle dingk] allez guot Str3, BT, HT, Pf; wolte er] sulden wir B7, solt er Str3; niht bliben möhten Str3, BT, HT, Pf; Heruff] herumb Str3; alle luste] allen lust Ba2, BT, HT; zucht] trenket Str3;
7 von wan von] wa von Str3, BT, HT, Pf; entpfinden in uns] finden Str3; Das ist das] des ist des schult, das Str3, BT, HT, Pf; geneiget] geeyniget B7; den nidern Str3, BT, HT, Pf, disen nidern Ba2; enpfinden] finden B7; berüerunge] begerungen B7; wirdt sie beweget ußer] er si beweget von Str3; in in mit si Str3] in eyn nicht nit das B7, in in, niht daz BT, HT, Pf; von gnaden also] von genaden BT, HT, Pf; mer also das da] als da B7, also, das Str3, BT; das andere rueret] rüret das ander Str3; es enhait] er hat Str3, BT, HT, Pf; nach der gotheit] om. B7; sant] om. B7, Str3; das ist das sie] daz si BT, HT, Pf; nyrgen] niender Str3, BT, HT, Pf; neme rechten puncten B7, Str3;
8 auch sanctus Dionisius] er ouch BT, HT, Pf; eyn und dasselbe] das selber] Str3;
9 Das ist] om. B7, BT, HT, Pf; lipliches enist zugemenget] libes zuo gemenget ist Str3, BT, HT, Pf; und das doch] und das Str3, BT, HT, Pf; blybet] om. Str3; oder luterkeyt] om. Str3; purheit oder] om. B7; Die sunne ist clare und ist doch eyn liplich dingk] om. Str3, BT, HT, Pf; schrifft das] geschrift Str3, BT, HT, Pf; sibenstun Str3, siben mal BT, sieben mahl HT, sibenwarbe Pf] om. B7; Ich sprechen sie sal] Diu sunne ist klar und ist (+ doch Str3) ein liplich dinc. Und hie (hie] om. Str3) spriche ich, diu sele (ich, diu sele] si Str3) sol Str3, BT, HT, Pf; want die] die Str3, ist doch (doch] om. Str3) eyn liplich Str3, BT, HT] ist liplich Pf;  hundertstunt] hundertmal BT, hundert mahl HT, hundertwarbe Pf; dingk so ist die sele] dingk und die sele ist B7; geystlich] ein gaistlich Ding Str3; die sache das] die sache B7, B9, Str3; Herumbe ist das die sache das ir clarheyt so viel übertreffenlicher ist, so viel unt daz geistliche daz lipliche übertriffet. Ist nu, daz die sele also clare ist] Hier umbe ist das die sache ir clarheyt. Ist die sele also clare B7, B9; Wann die sach ist mer, dann die sachait (sach hait BT) Str3, BT] die sache ist großer dan die gesachtheyt B7, B9, Dann die sach ist mer, dann das sie gemacht hat HT, wan diu sache ist mer dan diu creature hat Pf;
10 Das spricht sanctus Augustinus] Sanct Augustinus sprichet BT, HT, Pf; sprichet der vatter] der vater Str3; einhellent] verhellent Str3, B7, B9; yr beyder ist] ist ir beider BT, HT, Pf; die liuhtent ein wesen B7, B9, Stz3, Qu] die liebent ein wesen BT, die lieben ein Wesen HT, die lebent ein wesen Pf; liuhtet der sich ynent] schinent Str3, B7, B9, BT, HT, Pf; also] also so Str3; eyn samenhellunge] samenhellunge Str3; manigveldigkeit in uns] manigfaltigkeiten BT, HT, manicvaltikeit Pf; und die uberste krafft] under die uberste krafft B7; sich werfen in got] sich werfen in B7, sich werfen got Str3; sunder widderscheyn] on widerschein BT, ane widerschin HT, Pf;
11 er ist auch] ist er och Str3; dasselbe das] daz selbe BT, HT, Pf; hort eygenlich gotlichem wesen zu] hörent aigenlich was götlich wesen ist Str3; want die eynigkeit das gotlich wesen ist] want, daz götlich wesen ist, daz ist daz selbe, daz einikeit ist Qu, om. Str3, BT, HT, Pf; Das ist] Das Str3; enmag] mag + es BT, HT, Pf; Das ist nyt zusprechen von keiner creature want man enmag nit gesprechen von keynen dingen] Dis nit gesprechenne wann dekain Ding. Das so das von im selber sigm (?) Str3; das sie das von in selber sin, daz sie sint. Hie von sprichet sant Paulus ‘waz wir han, daz han wir empfangen von dem einigen guote, daz got ist, von dem allez guot kumet’. Alliu dinc sint von in selber niht. Daz von im selber ist unde von dem diu dinc sint, daz ist got. Also ist eigentlich] das si sint hie von sprichet sanctus paulus was wir haben das haben wir empfangen von den ainigen guot das got ist von dem alle guot homent alle ding sind da von in selber nit das das von im selber ist vnd dem die ding sind nu ist aigenlich Str3; daß von in selber seyen, das sy seind. Hievon spricht sant Paulus, Was wir haben, das haben wir empfangen von dem einigen guot, das gott ist, von dem alles guot kompt. Alle ding seind von in selber nit. Das von im selber ist, vnn von dem die ding seind, das ist gott. Also ist eigentlich BT, daß sie das von ihn selber seyn, das sie seynd. Hievon spricht Sact Paulus: Was wir haben, das haben wir empfangen von dem einigen Gut, das Gott ist, von dem alles Gut koempt. Alle ding seynd von ihn selber nicht. Das von ihm selber ist, und von dem die ding seynd, das ist Gott. Also ist eigentlich HT, von im selber ist unde von dem diu dinc sint, daz ist got. Also ist eigentlich, von in selber sin, daz sie sint. Hie von sprichet sant Paulus ‘waz wir han, daz han wir empfangen von dem einigen guote, daz got ist, von dem allez guot kumet’. Alliu dinc sint von in selber niht. Daz von im selber ist unde von dem diu dinc sint, daz ist got. Also ist eigentlich Pf] dasselbe sin das sie synne Alle dinge sint dasselbe nit das selbe ist das von dem die dinge sint ist eigentlich B7; wir auch sulden] solten wir auch Str3, BT, HT, solten ouch wir Pf; ouch wir] wir auch BT, HT; gelich dem selben] dem selben geleich Str3; gothait und götlicher] om. B7, BT, HT, Pf; des hlef uns got] des helf vns der vater vnd der sun vnd der hailig gaist amen Str3



Homily * [Pfeiffer 54]
In festo S. Trinitatis
 ‘Ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia, ipsi gloria in saecula’ (Rom. 11:36)

Introduction
The passage that Eckhart refers to is read on the feast of the Trinity in the lecture of the Roman missal. Eckhart has preached on this text, as we know from the surviving Latin homilies (Serm. IV 1-2).[31] Already Adolf Spamer and Josef Quint noted some parallels between these texts[32] and Spaner printed the texts even in parallel rows, so that the literal relations between this homily here and the Latin sermons are immediately visible.[33] In the index of codex St1, the homily is registered as being by Meister Eckhart (‘Egghart’). This external evidence together with the parallels in the Latin homilies and the content relation to Eckhart’s Parisian Questions and others of his Trinitarian texts, it seems certain that this text is by Eckhart.
          The text is handed down by the manuscript, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Cod. (ascet.) HB I 6 (= St1), fol. 113v-116r and, as Spamer and Quint note, by a second, unknown manuscript,[34] then being included in the Postille of Heinrich of Erfurt (F1a [223r-225r], F1b [356v-357r], Kö1) and in that of Hartung of Erfurt (M6a [175rb-177vb], M6b [429vb-30ra]), and a few fragments (Fl, N2, Sa). According to Quint, only the texts by St1 and Heinrich and Hartung are of textual value for the reconstruction of the text.

The content of the homily
The text starts with the Latin quotation of Rom. 11:36 and the vernacular rendering of it (n. 1). Then the text moves on to unfold it, explaining first the basic belief ‘of the threefoldedness of persons and of the oneness of nature’, relating each of the expressions ‘out of Him’, ‘through Him’ and ‘in Him’ to the respective three divine persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In addition the ‘to Him’, Eckhart takes ‘to mean the oneness of nature’ (n. 2).
          Then, the text moves on to a higher sophistication which needs ‘great attention’ (n. 3). The preacher admits that there are those in his audience who might not be able ‘to understand what follows’ and he comforts them that they can simply return to the more basic belief that he had set out before.
First follows the logical distinction – based on Middle- and Neoplatonic thinking – about ‘father’ and ‘fatherhood’ (nn. 4-5), followed by ‘son’ and ‘sonship’ (nn. 6-10) and finally about ‘Spirit’ and ‘Spiritness’ (n. 11). As the capitalisation of the latter shows, in n. 7 the preacher clearly moves from a more logical argument to a Trinitarian application of it.
          On ‘father’ and ‘fatherhood’ (n. 4) he makes a first point that these two terms do not indicate two different substances, but that he is talking of only one. When he adds that ‘rather they are truly said one and three’, this can meaningful only refer to one nature in three persons, as set out by the preacher before.
Unfolding ‘fatherhood’ (n. 5) he gives the meaning of ‘the power of the father’s potentiality’ (‘maht der art des vaters’), a highly technical translation of the Latin potentia generandi patris. And, indeed, this homiletic text can hardly be understood, if we had not rather recently re-discovered Eckhart’s Parisian Questions from his second stay in Paris during the years 1311-1313.[35] Particularly in what is now his seventh Parisian Question, Eckhart details how to understand the power to generate of the Father.[36] And it was this and the sixth of these questions, where he explains God’s omnipotence, and the unique teaching that are being found in there which drew the attention to these texts and revealed them to be genuinely by Eckhart, as they tie in with his idiosyncratic thinking. The present homily explains this teaching more plainly and less technically – though even technical enough, as the preacher himself admits. He starts in n. 5 with the logical assumption (shared by Middle- and Neoplatonic philosophers) that the term ‘father’ is a relational term which by necessity implies its counterpart, the ‘son’. ‘Fatherhood’, in contrast, indicates the pre-relational capability or potentiality (MHG: ‘art’) of becoming a father through the power to generate. Asterius, the Sophist, in the fourth century had used the example of a medical doctor who even prior to him actually healing patients has the capability of healing and drew the conclusion that also prior to generating a son, a father has the capability of generating an offspring, hence could rightly be called already a father before the birth of this offspring.[37] Eckhart here uses the similar simile of ‘a maid who is a virgin’. She too has the natural potentiality of becoming a mother, yet, as a virgin she is not, and still can be called ‘motherly’ (n. 5). As said, this argument was still traditional,  but what is new in Eckhart was him applying it ‘to the soul’. Based on the soul being drawn into and formed by God’s light and having become ‘a divine potentiality’, she is enabled to be not only divinely, but to be called ‘fatherly’ (n. 5). And through this divine potentiality and her in-being power to generate, she is even ‘called “Father” with the Father’ (n. 6). In this, Eckhart speaks out what he pointed towards in his seventh Parisian Question, namely that the power to generate ‘applies to all’ (‘convenit omnibus’[38]) and, therefore, as he said with Paul in other homilies, that ‘we are Sons’ and ‘also heirs’ (Rom. 8:17; see also Gal. 4:7).[39] This teaching was picked up during the inquisition process against Eckhart and he furiously defended himself against the accusations which were short-cutting his nuanced arguments.[40]
          As he distinguished between ‘father’ and ‘fatherhood’, so he does between ‘son’ and ‘sonship’ (nn. 6-10), and, as the numbers show, in an even more subtle way than he did on the previous notions. He starts with the similar note that ‘son’ and ‘sonship’ do not differ in substance, but are one and the same. Interestingly, however, the definition of ‘sonship’ is not related to the son’s potentiality, but again to the father’s potentiality, this time, however, to the son being encompassed within the father’s potentiality. The reason for this is simple, as Eckhart states: ‘a thing that comes out must first have been in’, hence, ‘sonship’ means that the future son is as the unborn son in the father the father’s potentiality. Thus, the Trinitarian Son is God by the Father, being in the Father and by the Father and one with the Father (n. 8).[41] Already over the past hundreds of years, the discussion, then, was about the personal unique properties of Father and Son (and of the Holy Spirit), a topic Eckhart now picks up (n. 9). He maintains that the three have personal properties (‘the Father’s property is that He is by none, but by Himself. The Son’s property is that He is not by Himself, but by the Father by way of birth. The Holy Spirit’s property is that He does not come forth by way of birth, but that His coming forth is from these two, Father und Son together, not as birth, but as love’), but the Father ‘shares with the Son his entire being and all perfection which belongs to nature’s being’, hence ‘the Father withholds nothing from his Son’, even not, as we have seen, the power to generate. This is true for the Father bringing forth the Holy Spirit together with the Son, but it is also true for generating all other things. Everything the Son does, he does through the Father, just as ‘Sonship’ is the Father’s potentiality, because Father and Son are one (n. 10).
          In a further step, Eckhart reflects upon ‘Spirit’ and ‘Spiritness’ (n. 11). We use this abstract translation of ‘Spiritness’ (rather than ‘spiration’), to highlight Eckhart’s emphasis on logical determination. And right from the beginning, he asks the questions whether one can talk about this topic at all. He repeats that Sonship is not different from the (inactivated) potentiality of Fatherhood (= ‘der art des vater’), because the Son is a product of the Father and Himself through the Father. In this, however, the Spirit is different, and this poses an ‘objection to speaking of Spirit and Spiritness’. Now, why is this so? ‘Spiritness’ is taken to be ‘without any form’, as the Spirit has no body, hence His property is not something by Himself (in this He is similar to the Son, whose property is that of the Father), nor is the Spirit by the Father alone, and in this He differs from the Son, but the Spirit is by the relation, as He is by both, Father and Son, and yet, by these two not as two, but as one which keeps the Trinitarian relations as one being.
          The text closes with a final prayer (n. 12), as is usually the case with a homily in Eckhart. In it he draws back on the distinction that, what has been said, goes only as far as one can and needs to understand this sophisticated differences, reminding the listener to his earlier comfort, that not everybody must scrutinise the Trinitarian concept as the preacher has done in this homily.[42]


Editions, commentaries and notes
F. Pfeiffer, 174-6; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckeharts textkritisch untersucht (1932), 509-13.

Previous English translations
C. De B. Evans I 137-9.

Text and translation

<:1>Ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia, ipsi gloria in saecula. Sanctus Paulus sprichet ‘ûzer ime, an ime, in ime sint alliu dinc: ime sî lob und êre’.
<:1>Ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia, ipsi gloria in saecula’.[43] Saint Paul says: ‘Out of Him, through Him, in Him are all things, to Him be glory and honour.’
<:2>Disiu wort sint gesprochen von der drîvaltikeit der persônen unde von der einekeite der nâtûre. An dem worte daz er sprichet ‘ûzer ime’ verstêt man den vater, der ein anegenge ist alles des, daz ist ân êwekeit und ân zît. An dem worte daz man sprichet ‚an ime‘ sô verstêt man den sun, an dem elliu dinc sint ûz gegangen. An dem worte daz man sprichet ‚in ime‘ verstêt man den heiligen geist, in dem elliu dinc behalten und gegeistet und widerbrâht werdent zuo irm ende. Dâ man disiu wort anderwarbe an siht, sô bewîsent sie aber die drîvaltikeit der persônen, dâ er sprichet: ûz und an und in, als disiu wort underscheiden sint. Daz wort us bewiset die vnderschaid der persônen. Aber an dem worte ‘ime’ (daz al einz liutet) dâ verstêt man die einekeit der nâtûre. Dâ von sprichet er ‘ime si lob und êre’. Hie ist bewîset, daz drîe persônen sint ein got, dem man alleine die êre geben sol.
<:2>These words are said of the threefoldedness of persons and of the oneness of nature. The words ‘out of Him’ that he says, one takes to mean the Father, who is one origin of all that is in eternity and in time. The words ‘through Him’ that one says, one takes to mean the Son, through whom all things have come forth. The words ‘in Him’ that one says, one takes to mean the Holy Spirit, in whom all things are contained, are rationalised and brought back to their end. When one views these words from a different perspective, they show, however, the threefoldedness of persons, him saying: from and through and in, as these words are distinct. The vers shows us[44] the distinction of the persons. Yet, the word ‘Him’ applies the same to all, one takes to mean the oneness of nature. Of this he says: ‘To Him be glory and honour’. This shows that three persons are one God to whom alone one shall give the honour.
<:3>Nû gebürt uns fort ze sprechende von götlichen dingen, von persônen und von wesenne, daz man mit grôzem vlîze muoz verstân. Die aber disiu dinc niht wol verstênt, die kêren wider uf den gelouben, den ich dâ vor gewîset hân, der ist alsô: daz drîe persônen sint in einem wesenne, und ein wesen ist in drin persônen.
<:3> Now it is our duty to talk about[45] divine things, of persons and of nature, which one has to understand with  great attention. Those, however, who quite can not understand this matter, they will return to the belief that I have set out bevore, namely that three persons are in one nature, and that one nature is in three persons.[46]
<:4>Nû verstênt, wir wellen sprechen von vater und vaterlicheit, unde wizzent, daz disiu zwei niht underscheiden sint an zwein understôzen, mêr: sie sint ein understôz, mêr: sie sint underscheiden nâch der wârheit der rede.
<:4>Now note, we want to speak about the father and fatherhood, and know that these two are not to be distinguished as two substances, rather they are one substance, and rather they are rationally distinguished.
<:5>Nû prüevet, wie man vaterlicheit verstân sol. Daz tuot man in der maht der art des vater. Man merket vater dâ, dâ er birt; aber vaterlicheit merket man in der maht der art des vater. Des habent ein glîchnisse bî einer juncfrouwen, diu ein maget ist. Diu ist an ir wesennes art wol muoterlich und enist doch niht muoter. Alsô verstânt umbe den vater: an der maht, daz er bern mac, dâ ist er veterlich, aber an dem, dâ er birt, dâ ist er vater.

<:5>Now ask how to understand fatherhood. That is done through the power of the father’s potentiality. A father is known by the fact that he begets, but fatherhood is known as the power of the father’s potentiality. To give one example of a maid who is a virgin. By her natural potentiality she is motherly, though not actually being a mother. Likewise understand the matter about the father: according to the power that he is capable of begetting, he is fatherly, but once he begets, he is a father.
<:6>Seht, alsus verstânt underscheit vater unde vaterlicheit. Dâ man dise rede geistliche bringet ûf die sêle, daz verstên wir: swenne diu sêle geistlîche in got gezogen vnd zü gefüget wirt, da sî von sîme liehte enpfenget und götlich geartet wirt von der îngeartekeit götlicher vermügenheit, sô wirdet si enpfenget götlicher mehte. Seht, nâch diser înwesender maht sô heizet ouch diu sêle vaterlich. Aber nâch der ûzliuhtunge der offenbârunge, sô birt si mit dem vater, unde dâ heizet si mit dem vater vater. Diz ist underscheit an der sêle vater unde vaterlicheit.

<:6> See that is how to understand the difference between father and fatherhood. As one applies this reasoning to the soul, then we think: when the soul is rationally drawn into God and so formed that she receives from His light and becomes a divine potentiality by the innate divine potentiality, she becomes receptive of divine power. See, according to this in-being power, the soul is also called fatherly. Yet, after the shining forth of revelations, she begets with the Father, and then she is called ‘Father’ with the Father. This is the difference in the soul of Father and Fatherhood.
<:7>Ouch merkent underscheit von sune unde sunlicheit, unde wizzent ouch, daz dise zwei niht underscheiden sint an zwein understôzen, mêr: ez ist ein understôz. Sunlicheit nimet man in der maht der art des vater ungeboren, want enwêre er niht in der maht der art des vater ungeborn, sô enmöhte in der vater niht gebern, want szaz ûzganc haben sol, daz muoz ê inne wesen. Alsus bewîset man sunlicheit.
<:7>Also note the difference between son and sonship, and also know that these two are not distinguished as two substances, rather it is one substance. Sonship is taken as the power of the father’s unbegotten potentiality, for were he[47] not unbegotten in the power of the father’s potentiality, the father could not beget him, for a thing that comes out must first have been in. So much about sonship.
<:8>Aber sun bewîset man an begerunge des vater sînes eigenen wortes, dâ von ouch der vater vater ist. Der sun ist ouch got an ime selber unde niht von ime selber, mêr: von dem vater alleine. Wêre er got von ime selber, sô enmöhte er niht ein mit dem vater gesîn, so müesten zwai anbegenn sîn. Alsô enmac ez niht sîn.

<:8>The son,  however, will be shown by what the term ‘father’ itself implies, through which the father is father. The Son,[48] moreover, is God in Himself, not by Himself, instead, alone by the Father. If He were God by Himself, he could not have been one with the Father, so that there would have been two principles. This can not have been the case.  
<:9>Dâ man bewîset drîe underscheidenliche eigenschefte, sô ist des vater eigenschaft, daz er von niemande sî, mêre: von ime selber. Sô ist des sunes eigenschaft, daz er von ime selber niht ensî, mêr: von dem vater gêt er in gebürte wîse. Des heiligen geistes eigenschaft ist, daz er niht ûz gêt von dem dem vater in gebürte wîse, mêre: sîn ûzgang ist von in zwein, gemeine vater und sun, und enist niht als gebürte, mêr: als minne. Want zwei, diu gesundert sint an den persônen, diu enmügent mit einander ein niht gebern, mêr: sie gebent mit einander einez ûz als minne. Hie von ist der heiliger geist niht geborn, want er von zwein ûz gêt und niht von dem vater alleine, als etliche meister sprechent, daz der heilige geist alleine von dem vater gê unde niht von dem sune. Daz was valsch, want dâ der vater sînen sun gebirt, dâ gemeinet er ime allez sîn wesen und alle die volkomenheit, diu dâ hoeret ze wesende der nâtûre, alsô daz der vater vor dem sune niht behaltet. Har umbe mac der vater niht alleine ûz geben den geist, als er alleine bar den sun. Doch hêten ez die meister rehte verstanden, sie soltenz wol bewîset haben. Sie sprâchenz und verstuondenz niht.
<:9>As one assumes three distinct properties, the Father’s property is that He is by none, but by Himself. The Son’s property is that He is not by Himself, but by the Father by way of birth.[49] The Holy Spirit’s property is that He does not come forth from the Father by way of birth, but that His coming forth is from these two, Father und Son together, not as birth, but as love. For two who are separated as persons, can not generate one offspring together, but together they can bring forth love. Hence, the Holy Spirit was not born, as He comes forth from two and not merely from the Father, albeit certain masters do maintain that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father alone and not from the Son. This is wrong; for when the Father begets His Son He shares with Him his entire being and all perfection which belongs to nature’s being, the Father withholding nothing from his Son. It follows that the Father can not alone bring forth the Holy Spirit as he alone did beget the Son. Had these masters, however, understood it correctly, they would no doubt have assumed the same. They said things without understanding them.

<:10>Dâ von was daz unreht, daz man spricht, der sun sî got von ime selber unde niht von dem vater. Dâ sprichet man, daz der sun den geist geben mac, aber niht von ime selber, mêr: von dem vater, von dem er selber ist. Alsus gêt ûz der heiliger geist von in zwein unde niht von eime; aber niht als sie zwêne sind, mêre: als sie einz sint. Diz ist gesprochen von sune und von sunlicheit.
<:10>Therefore, it is wrong to say that the Son is God by Himself and not by the Father. The Son may be said to bring forth the Spirit yet not by Himself, rather by the Father, by whom He comes Himself. Thus, the Holy Spirit comes forth from these two and not from one, yet not while these are two, but while they are one. So far about Son and Sonship.

<:11>Nû möhte man vrâgen von geiste und von geistekeit, obe man daz ouch sprechen möhte oder niht, ob iht widerrede sî ze disen dingen, dâ von man ez niht sprechen müge? Man vindet wol, daz die sunlicheit ist ze verstênde in der art der veterlicheit. Aber alsô enmac man niht sprechen, daz diu geistekeit sî ze verstênde in der art der veterlicheit, want er niht alleine von ime vs geben ist noch geborn. Diz ist widersatz, daz man niht wol sprechen mac von geiste unde geistekeit. Nû suln wir brüeven, ob man irgen künne vinden einen niuwen behenden sin von geiste unde von geistekeit. Diz verstân wir: dâ zwei mit einem. Hie merkent unterscheit: geist unde geistekeit. In dem êrsten, dâ man sprichet: dâ zwei, dâ verstêt man sun unde vater. Aber dâ man sprichet: mit einem, dâ verstân wir geistekeit. Daz selbe mit einem ist blôz aller formen: dâ von bewîset man hî geistekeit. Aber dâ man sprichet: mit einander, dâ bewîset man geist, der ein ander ist denne vater unde sun an sîner eigenschaft. Also ist hie beweysit geist vnd geistlicheit.
<:11>Now one may ask about Spirit and Spiritness. Can we talk about this or not? Is it not a contradiction in itself, as one can not speak about these? It was clear that Sonship has to be understood as the potentiality of Fatherhood. However, one can not say that Spiritness is to be taken as potentiality of Fatherhood, as He is not brought forth or begotten solely by Him. Herein lies the objection to speaking of Spirit and Spiritness. Now we need to see whether we can discover a new proper meaning of Spirit and Spiritness. We think that we have here two with one. Note the difference between Spirit and Spiritness. With the first, by saying ‘there are two’ we mean ‘Son and Father’, but by saying ‘with one’ we mean ‘Spiritness’. The same ‘with one’ is without any form, which here marks Spiritness, but by saying ‘together with’, there one means the ‘Spirit’ who in His property is distinct from Vater and Son. So is here shown Spirit and Spiritness.
<:12>an den wortin do man spricht das tzwei mittenandir seyn/ vnd das wir dese selige vndirscheiden hie irkennen müsen also vil als des möeglichin vnd notdorft ist das helfe vns got allen. Amen.
<:12>With the words that are said that two should be together and that we ought to know as much as possible and necessary this blessed distinction, may God help us. Amen.
1 Sanctus Paulus sprichet] Nûwil ich sprechen von der heiligen drîvaltikeit unde nim ein wort ûz der episteln Sancti Pauli, daz er sprichet (vz der epistolin von dem svntage die senthe pauwel beschreybit/ das spricht also M6a) F1a, Kö1, M6a;
2 ân zît] âne zît Pf; behalten und gegeistet (gegaistet sind vnd St1) und widerbrâht werdent] behaltet vnd getichtet würden F1a, behaldin vnd gerichtit sint wordin Kö1, behalden sint vnd ouch geachtit sint worden M6a; anderwarbe] anderweide F1a, Kö1, M6a; al einz] einz F1a, Kö1, M6a; Daz wort us bewiset St1, Wenn das wort beweysit M6a] alsô bewîsent sie Pf; die vnderschaid der persônen] vnderschaid St1; an dem worte ‘ime’] an dem worte daz er sprichet ‘ime’ Pf; Hie ist] Her an ist F1a, Kö1, M6a;
3 Disiu dinc] dise rede Pf; Die aber ... verstênt, die kêren] Der aber ... verstêt, der kêre F1a, Kö1, M6a; alsô: daz drîe persônen] als drîe persônen F1a, Kö1, also/ die drey personen M6a;
4 an zwein M6a, Qu] als zwein F1a, mit zwein St1, Pf; mêr: sie sint ein understôz] sunder einen understôz (understôz] om. M6a) F1b, M6b, N2, om. F1a, M6a; mer (aber F1a, vnd mer M6a): sie sint underscheiden nâch der wârheit der (der] om. St1) rede St1, F1a, M6a] mer: sie sint ein unde drîe nâch der wârheit der rede Pf;
5 Nû prüevet] om. F1a, M6a; Daz tuot man in] daz ist in F1a, M6a; Man merket vater] Vater nimet man F1a, M6a, F1b, M6b, N2; aber vaterlicheit merket man] unde veterlicheit nimet man F1a, M6a; Dâ nimet man veterlicheit (vaterheit F1b) F1b, M6b, N2; des vater] om. F1a, M6a, F1b, M6b, N2;
6 Daz verstên wir, swenne] Daz ist ze versten als F1a, das ist also zu vorstehn/ also M6a; geistlîche in got gezogen vnd zü gefüget wirt St1, geistlîche in got gefüeget wirt F1a, M6a] geistlîche gezogen und zuo gefüeget wirt Pf; Seht] om. F1a, M1a; Aber nâch der ûzliuhtunge der offenbârunge St1, F1a, M6a] Aber sô si ûz liuhtet mit offenbârunge Pf;
7 mêr: ez ist ein understôz] sunder an einem understôz F1a, M1a; des vater St1, der veterlicheit F1b, N2] om. F1a, M1a; der art des vater ungeborn F1a, M6a, der art der veterlicheit (niht) vngeboren F1b, der vetterlicher art (nicht) vngeboren N2] der art ungeborn St1; want enwêre er niht in der maht der art des vater ungeborn] om. St1; daz muoz ê inne wesen ... von ime selber] müzz ee innen sein nach reden alsus beweisset man sünlicheit. Aber beweiset man (sünlicheit ... man in marg.) die gebürt dez vater. Die gebürt seines ewigen wortes. Da von daz der vater vater ist. vnde der sün sün ist. Daz ist got an im selber. vnd nicht von im selb selber F1a, mus jn e in deme synn doraus is gehen sal. noch der reden beweysit man also die s=nlicheit me beweysit man is ane gebort des vaters vnd des ewigen wortis. do uon das der vatir vatir ist. vnd das ist got an im selbir vnd nicht von im selbir M6a;
8 an begerunge St1] an gebort M6a, die gebürt F1a, an geberunge Qu; zwai anbegenn St1, F1a, M6a] zwei âne begin Pf; Alsô enmac ez niht sîn] Alsô (vnde also M6a) enist ez niht F1a, M6a;
9 ûz gêt] gêt F1a, M6a; vater und sun] om. F1a, M6a; ein niht gebern] niht gebern F1a, M6a; gebent mit einander] gebernt wol (om. Pf) mit einander F1a, M6a; sînen sun gebirt St1, F1a, M6a] den sun gebirt Pf; behaltet F1a, M6a, Qu] behalten hât St1, Pf ;
10 der sun sî got] om. F1a, M6a;
11 veterlicheit. Aber alsô enmac man niht sprechen, daz diu geistekeit sî ze verstênde (ze verstênde] om. F1a) in der art der veterlicheit, want St1, F1a] veterlicheit, want M6a, Pf; vom ime vs geben ist noch geborn St1, F1a, M6a, Qu] von ime ûz geborn ist Pf; ist der widersatz St1, F1a, Qu] ist die wedirsache. vnd dy wdirrede M6a, ist widersatz Pf; von geiste unde geistekeit St1] von dem underscheide von geiste (von dem geiste M6a) unde von (von] om. M6a) geistekeit F1a, M6a, Qu; niuwenSt1, F1a, M6a, Qu] nâwen Pf; Hie merkent unterscheit: geist unde geistekeit] Hie scheidet geist und geistekeit F1a, M6a; dâ von bewîset man hî geistekeit St1, F1a, M6a, Qu] daz bewîset geistekeit Pf; dâ zwei, dâ verstêt man sun unde vater. Aber dâ man sprichet] om. F1a, M6a; aller formen] aller dinge F1a, M6a; Also ist hie beweysit ... das helfe vns got allen M6a, Qu (?)] Alsüs ist hie beweiset geist vnd geistikeit an dem wort da man spricht. das zwey mit einander F1a, om. St1, Pf; Amen F1a, M6a, Qu (?)] om. St1, Pf.




[1] See on this Eckhart, In Eccli. (LW II 300,6): ‘Expliciunt Sermones facti ad fratres praedicatores in capitulo generali’.
[2] Perhaps I Cor. 3:6-7: ‘(6) Ego plantavi, Apollo rigavit: sed Deus incrementum dedit. (7) Itaque neque qui plantat est aliquid, neque qui rigat: sed qui incrementum dat, Deus’ (‘[6] I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. [7] So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth’).
[3] In Eckhart, Hom. 21* [Q 49], n. 14 he speaks of an intellectual contemplation: ‘In einer wîse, als ich ê sprach, daz diu edel sêle ein vernünftic aneschouwen hâte mit dem êwigen worte alle götlîche natûre’. Though this reference could go the what he has said before in n. 12, there he does not mention the ‘intellectual contemplation’, so perhaps Eckhart is also thinking of this homily here. See also Thomas who speaks of the highest degree of contemplation, Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae II II q. 80 a. 5 corp.: ‘Alio modo potest esse aliquis in hac 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’, on this see also Eckhart, Hom. 84* [Q 86], n. 12.
[4] See Ps.-Dionysius, De mystica theologia, c. 1, § 1 (PG 3, 997B), Dionysiaca 557–8: ‘Tu autem, amice Thimothee, circa misticas visiones forti contritione et sensus derelinque et intellectuales operationes …’ On this, see Eckhart, Hom. 19* [S 116], n. 7: ‘Dyonisius: “muzigit uch fon allin dingin zu bekennine daz ubirste gut, daz Got ist”’.
[5] That Dionysius is here called ‘the transparent light’ reflects the main argument of the homily on the speculative mind, but might also have entered the manuscript reading from an older gloss.
[6] On the equation of ‘gemude’ and ‘mind’ see Eckhart, Hom. 62* [Q 21], n. 2: ‘“Ir svnt ernu´wet werden an vwerme geiste, der do mens heiset”, das ist ein gemv´te’.
[7] See, again, Eckhart, Hom. 84* [Q 86], here n. 16: ‘Marthâ stuont in hêrlîcher, wol gevestenter tugent und in einem vrîen gemüete, ungehindert von allen dingen’.
[8] More closely described by Eckhart, Hom. 62* [Q 83], n. 3: ‘Schowet si got, als <er> got ist oder als er bilde ist oder als er drv´ ist –, es ist ir ein gebreste. Swenne aber alle bilde der selen abegescheiden werden vnd <si> allein schowet das einig ein, so vindet das bloze wesen der selen das blose formlose wesen gotlicher einkeit, dc da ist ein vberwesende wesen, lidende ligende in ime selben’.
[9] One could also translate this as ‘rational’, but ‘mindful’ keeps the link with the topic of ‘mind’.
[10] See Eckhart, Hom. 2* [Q 24], n. 5: ‘the soul receives as light from light, where there is nothing strange or distant’.
[11] See Ps.–Dionysius, De divinis nominibus c. 11 § 1 (PG 3, 948–9; Dionysiaca 495, 3 – 496, 1): ‘Age igitur, divinam et principem congregationis pacem hymnis pacificis laudemus. Ipsa enim est omnium unitiva, et universorum et consensus et connaturalitatis generativa et operativa ...’
[12] See also Eckhart, Hom. 14* [S 90], n. 2: ‘Her umbe sol diu sêle sitzen, daz ist in einer verdrücketer dêmüeticheit under alle crêatûren. Danne kumet si in einen gerasteten vride. Den vride erkrieget si in einem liehte. Daz lieht wirt ir gegeben in einer stilheit, dâ si inne sitzet und wonet’.
[13] See Eckhart, Hom. 19* [S 91], nn. 7-9.
[14] See, for example, Eckhart, Hom. 58* [S 94], n. 6: ‘Alsô sol diu sêle und muoz ir selbes ûzgân, sol si got enpfâhen, und alsô wirt si mit gote vereinet und würket mit im alliu sîniu götlîchen werk’.
[15] Ps.-Dionysius, De div. nom. VIII 3 (PG 3,891B): ‘Haec igitur Dei infiniti-potens in omnia quae sunt meat et progreditur, nihilque eorum quae sunt sic omnino nudatum est, quin aliquam potestatem habeat: quin potius potestatem habet vel intelligentem vel ratiocinanetem, vel septientem vel viventem, vel propriam substantiae; et ipsum esse, si fas est dicere, potentiam, habet ut sit ab ipsa supraessentiali potentia’. See Eckhart, Hom. 54* [Q 67], n. 6: ‘Dâ si ist in gote, jâ, nâch înhangunge der persônen in daz wesen9, dâ ist werk únd wesen ein, dâ ez ist, dâ si die persônen nimet in der inneblîbunge des wesens, dâ sie nie ûzkâmen, dâ ein lûter wesenlich bilde ist. Ez ist diu wesenlich vernünfticheit gotes, der diu lûter blôz kraft ist intellectus, daz die meister heizent10 ein enpfenclîchez’.
[16] See the note before on Eckhart, Hom. 84* [Q 86], n. 16: ‘in einem vrîen gemüete, ungehindert von allen dingen’.
[17] i.e. the power.
[18] See Ps.-Dionysius, De mystica theologia, c. 1, § 1 (PG 3, 997B), Dionysiaca 557–69: ‘Tu autem, amice Thimothee, circa misticas visiones forti contritione et sensus derelinque et intellectuales operationes, et omnia sensibilia et intelligibilia et omnia existentia et non existentia, et sicut est possibile, ignote consurge ad eius unitionem qui est super omnem substantiam et cognitionem. Et enim excessu tui ipsius et omnium irretentibili absolute, et munde ad supersubstan­tialem divinarum tenebrarum radium, cuncta aufferens et a cunctis absolutus sursum agens’; on this see Eckhart, Hom. 9* [S 101], n. 24. See further developed in Eckhart, Hom. 63* [Q 84], nn. 5-6: ‘Dar umbe enmac diu sêle an niemanne ruowe hân wan an gote, wan si aller güete samentheit in im vindet ... Diu sêle muoz ouch boben ir selber wonen, sol si got begrîfen; wan swie vil si würket mit der kraft, dâ si allez daz mite begrîfet, daz geschaffen ist – hæte got tûsent himelrîche und tûsent ertrîche geschaffen, die begriffe si alle wol mit der einen kraft –, nochdenne enmac si got niht begrîfen. Der unmezlîche got, der in der sêle ist, der begrîfet den got, der unmezlich ist. Dâ begrîfet got got und würket got sich selben in der sêle und bildet sie nâch im’ (‘For this reason, the soul cannot find peace in anything but God, because she finds the totality of all that is good in Him ... The soul must also dwell beyond herself, if she is to grasp God; because as far as she works with the power by which she grasps everything that is created – if God had created a thousand kingdoms of heaven and a thousand kingdoms of earth, she would grasp all of them with this one power –, nevertheless she cannot grasp God. The immeasurable God who is in the soul, He grasps God who is immeasurable. There God grasps God and God produces Himself in the soul and forms her according to Himself’). See also Hom. 118* [Q 81] and its parallel below.
[19] See on the idea that we drawn out of ourselves: Eckhart, Hom. 70* [Q 73], n. 11: ‘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’; Hom. 96* [Q 75[, n. 7: ‘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’.
[20] Perhaps Aristoteles, Ethica ad Nicomachum X c. 7, 1177a 12 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 on this Eckhart, Hom. 69* [Q 45], n. 12, where he also speaks of the ‘first emanation’: ‘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’.
[21] Still seems to be Aristotle; see also (there an unidentified master) in Eckhart, Hom. 9* [S 101], n. 26.
[22] See Eckhart, Hom. 107* [Q 72], n. 3: ‘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’.
[23] See the parallel in Eckhart, Hom. 9* [S 101], n. 16: ‘Dâ muoz dich got rüeren mit sînem einvaltigen wesene âne mittel keines bildes’; Hom. 13* [S 102], n. 7: ‘Alsô geschach sant Paulô, dô in got ruorte mit sînem liehte ûf dem wege und im zuosprach’; Hom. 110* [Q 10], n. 11: ‘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’; see also Eckhart, In Sap. n. 134 (LW II 472,3–473,4): ‘“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. 1: “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. 7:25), quia nihil inferius ipsum afficit nec per consequens inquinat’ (‘“Nothing tarnished enters that one” [Sap. 7:25]. 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 1[:5]: “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. 7:25], because nothing inferior affects Him and, consequently, tarnishes [Him]’); see also the translation of this passage in Wartburg–Stiftung, Ms. 1361–50, fol. 102r–104r (with the parallel in Berlin, Ms. germ. fol. 986 [208va2 – 209rb7]; see also Eckhart, Prol. gen. n. 10 passim.
[24] i.e. the power. On this see Eckhart, Hom. 10* [S 88], n. 5: ‘swenne diu sêle berüeret wirt von êwigen dingen, sô wirt si beweget. Und von der bewegunge sô wirt si erhitzet. Und von der erhitzunge sô wirt si erwîtet, daz si vil guotes mag enpfâhen’; Hom. 13* [S 102], n. 10: ‘Wan alzehant sô got den grunt gerüeret inwendic, mit der vart sô wirfet sich daz lieht in die krefte und kan der mensche mê underwîlen, dan in ieman gelêren mac’; see also Augustinus, Enarrationes in Psalmos 83, n. 3, ed. Dekkers and Fraipont, 1148, 31–5: ‘Desiderium eorum differtur, ut crescat; crescit, ut capiat … Ad capiendum Deum exercere’.
[25] See rather See Liber XXIV philosophorum, prop. 2, ed. Hudry, 7: ‘Deus est sphaera infinita cuius centrum est ubique, circumferentia nusquam’; prop. 3, ed. Hudry, 9: ‘Deus est totus in quolibet sui’.
[26] See Ps.-Dionysius, De div. nom. IV 7 (PG 3,701C): ‘Pulchrum autem et pulchritudo sunt distinguenda in causa quae universa in uno complexa est; haec enim in omnibus rebus, in participationes et in participantia dividentes, pulchrum quidem dicimus, quod pulchritudinis particeps est; pulchritudinem vero, participationem causae omnia pulchra efficientis. Ipsum autem pulchrum superessentiale pulchritudo quidem appellatur’.
[27] See the idea of God’s clarity in Eckhart, Hom. 5* [Q 22], n. 7: ‘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’; Hom. 48* [Q 61], n. 7: ‘die wîle er mit den irdischen dingen gemenget ist, sô enkan er sîne reinicheit noch gotes lûterkeit niht bekennen’.
[28] See the parallel idea in Eckhart, Hom. 96* [Q 75], nn. 7-8.
[29] See Eckhart, Hom. 62* [Q 83], n. 3: ‘das blose formlose wesen gotlicher einkeit’.
[30] See 1 Cor. 4:7: ‘quid autem habes quod non accepisti?’ See on this Eckhart, Hom. 118* [Q 81], n. 10: ‘Ez sprichet sant Paulus: „waz ist, daz wir von im niht enpfangen enhân?“’ As here, in this homily Eckhart develops the link between this receiving from God and God’s goodness.
[31] LW IV 122-32.
[32] A. Spamer, Ueber die Zersetzung und Vererbung in den deutschen Mystikertexten (1910), 244; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckeharts textkritisch untersucht (1932), 509.
[33] See A. Spamer, Ueber die Zersetzung und Vererbung in den deutschen Mystikertexten (1910), 252-77.
[34] See A. Spamer, Ueber die Zersetzung und Vererbung in den deutschen Mystikertexten (1910), 244; J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckeharts textkritisch untersucht (1932), 510.
[35] Now printed in LW V 461-9.
[36] LW V 463-5.
[37] See Asterius, Frg. 14 (88-9 Vinzent); ibid. 181, n. 3 further sources from Middle- and Neoplatonists and secondary literature.
[38] LW V 463,13, here formulated as a problem, while Eckhart’s answer has been left out by a scribe, potentially, because it was too daring a position to hold; see also Meister Eckhart, ‘On the Lord’s Prayer’, ed. M. Vinzent (2012), 182-95 (with further quotes from Eckhart and interpretations).
[39] See Eckhart, Hom. 41* [Q 4] and Hom. 90* [Q 12].
[40] See Meister Eckhart, ‘On the Lord’s Prayer’, ed. M. Vinzent (2012), 185-6.
[41] J. Quint’s conjecture of ‘an begerunge’ to ‘an geberunge’ (following M6a and F1a) seems the easier reading, certainly a possible one, but in light of the more technical speach here, the purely logical form that St1 provides seems the better one.
[42] In St1 and following it in Pf, the final prayer is omitted. To see, how quickly such prayers can be omitted, one can take, for example, the Latin homily II on Jesus Sirach (LW II 268,13) which ends abruptly or Eckhart’s homilies, contained in the Paradisus animae intelligentis where the final prayers have also gone lost.  
[43] Rom. 11:36: ‘ex ipso, et per ipsum, et in ipso sunt omnia: ipsi gloria in sæcula’.
[44] ‘us’ does not mean ‘out’ here (so J. Quint, Die Überlieferung der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckeharts textkritisch untersucht [1932], 513), but ‘us’.
[45] See the same formula in Eckhart, Hom. 9* [S 101], n. 3: ‘Nû gebürt uns ze redenne von ...
[46] See Eckhart, Hom. 115* [S 115], n. 5: ‘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’.
[47] The son.
[48] Eckhart who deploys before a logical form of reasoning which can be found since Middle- and Neoplatonic times has, of course, his Trinitarian thinking in mind, yet, only here it is clear that he switches from a logical reasoning to that of a Trinitarian application.
[49] Or: begetting as ‘gebürte’ means both.

Homily * [Strauch V 379-82]

‘Scitis quid fecerim vobis etc’ (Ioh. 13,12)

Editions, commentaries and notes

Ph. Strauch, Zur Überlieferung Meister Eckharts I (1925), 379-82. The transcription below has been checked against the manuscript and in several places corrected.

Previous English translations

None.
  

Text and translation

<:1>[59a]Scitis quid fecerim vobis etc. Unsere herre Jhesus Christus sprach zu synen jungeren: wißent ir was ich uch getan hann?
<:1>Scitis quid fecerim vobis etc.[1] Our Lord Jesus Christ said to His disciples: ‘Do you know what I did to you?’
<:2>An diesen wortten gibbet er uns zuverstene dru dinge. Das eyn ist das wir wisende sullen sin an dem wortte da er sprach „wisset ir“? Das andere ist, wes wyr wißende sullen sin ann dem wort da er sprach: „wz ich getan han“. Das dritte ist, was das sy, dem er es getan hait an dem wortte da er sprach „uch“.
<:2>With these words He lets us know three things: The first is that we must be people who know,[2] because He said ‘do you know’? The second is, what we must know, taken from the word that He said: ‘what I did to you’. The third is, who the one is to whom He has done it, from the word that He said: ‘you’.
<:3>Crisustimus spricht, das unsere herre zum ersten knyewete fur Judam, der yne verraden sulde, und zwug yme syne fuße. Das zwahen unsers herren syner jungern fuyß was [59b] eyn bereydunge zu dem sacrament, das er yn geben wulde. Da unser herre zu sanct Peter kquam, da enwulde er sich nyt laßen zwahen unsern herren und sprach: du ensalt mir der fuyß nyt zwahen, herre. Beda spricht: unsere herre kqueme zum ersten zu sanct Peter, und Judas hette sich durch synen freuel zu fure gesatzt, daz er zum ersten gezwagen wurde. Eyn andere heilige spricht, das sanct Peter gezwahen wurde zu aller lest, und das die andern jungern alle geswiegen hatten von eynualdigkeyt und von duffe ir wißheyt, want sie wischten das wol, das alle unsers herren wergk in dem besten wurden [60a] gethan. Do so bekantte sant Peter sin große unwirdigkeyt des dinstes von dem herren, darumbe sprach unsere herre: Peter, das ich nu tun, das enweystu nyt, du salt es aber hernach wißen. An den wortten engnungete noch sant Peter nit, sunder da er sprach: entzwahen ich dich nyt, du ensalt (380) | keyn deyl mit mir han.
<:3>Chrysostom says that the Lord first knelt in front of Jude who later would betray Him and washed his feet.[3] That our Lord washed the feet of His disciples was a preparation for the sacrament that He wanted to offer them.[4] When our Lord came to saint Peter, he did not want to get washed by our Lord and said:[5]  ‘Lord, you shall not wash my feet’. Bede says:[6] our Lord first came to saint Peter, but in his wickedness Jude had already sat down, so that he got washed first. Another saint says[7] that Peter got washed last and that all other disciples remained silent out of simplicity and through their wisdom, as they rightly wished that all our Lord’s works should be done with the best [person]. As saint Peter admitted his immense unworthiness of the service of the Lord, our Lord said: ‘Peter, what I am now doing that you do not understand, but you shall later know it’.[8] As the words, however, were not enough for Peter, He said: ‘Unless I wash you, you have no part with me’.[9]
<:4>nu mochte man fragen, ob an der gotheyt deyle were zu gebene. neyn nit! an der gotheit enist keyn deyle zu gebene, sunder an dem entphaen der creaturen so ist deyle, want an den creaturen da ist mee und mynner. des enist an der gotheyt nyt. da sprach sant Peter: herre, nyt alleyn die fuße, sunder handt und heubt. [60b] da antworttet unsere herre sant Petro und sprach: were gezwahen ist, der endarff nit dann das er die fuße zwahe. By den fußen ist uffgenomen die begerunge des menschen, want als die fuße den lichamen dragent, also dreyt die begerunge des menschen hertze und sele. Darumbe sprach unser herre: enzwahen ich nit din fuß, das ist enkeren ich nyt din begerunge zu mir, so ensaltu keyn deil mit myr hann, das ist, so enmagstu nit wonen in myr, want din begerunge muß dich leyden in mich. Eye, wie dicke die begerunge gereysset wurdt von godde und doch widder vermenget wurdt! [61a] Darumbe sprach sant Peter: herre, nit alleyn die fuyß, sunder auch hende und heubt. Bij der handt ist uffgenomen die verstentenisse und die redelichkeyt, bij dem heubt die meynunge, want die meynunge ist hoi mit allen wercke<n>, und als die wercke mit der hant gewircket werden unde geordent zu yrme ende, also als sie gewer<ck>en sollen liplich, also werdent alle geystlich wergk geordent mit dem verstentenisse und mit der redelichkeyt also als sie gescheen sullen geistlich. unde also als das heubt verderbet alle gliddere, also verderbet die meynunge al des menschen wercke. Alsus ist es, wan das verstentenisse und die redelichkeyt, die die werck zierent, in godde [61b] stediglichen dringent in abgenomenheyt alles hindernisses, so endarff der mensche nyt dann das er die begerunge hude vor anfelligen sachen, das sie nit vermenget werde. Herumbe sprach unsere here zu sant Peter: were getzwahen ist, der endarff nit dann das er die fuyß zwahe.
<:4>Now one wished to ask whether one could give parts of the Godhead.[10] No, of course not! There are no parts of the Godhead that could be given away, instead what creatures receive are parts, as with creatures are more and less. This does not exist with the Godhead.[11] Then, Saint Peter said:[12] ‘Lord, do not wash only my feet, but my hands and my head.’ Then our Lord answered saint Peter and said:[13] ‘who is washed does not need anything except getting the feed washed’. With ‘feet’ is taken up the human desire, for as the feet carry the body, so the desire moves the heart and soul of human beings. Therefore, our Lord said: if I do not wash your feet, i.e. if I do not turn your desire towards me,[14] you will not have part of me, i.e. you will not reside in me, as your desire must lead you into me. Indeed, how strongly is the desire being pulled by God, and, yet, it is entangled again! Therefore, saint Peter said: ‘Lord, not only the feet, but the hands and the head, too’.[15] With ‘hands’ is taken up knowledge and rationality, with ‘head’ intention, as intention is involved in all actions, and as actions are carried out and directed towards their goals by using hands, as they must be done[16] bodily.[17] Thus, all spiritual things are directed by intellect and ratio, as they must be done spiritually. And as the head ruins all limbs, so the intention ruins all human actions.[18] It follows that when intellect and ratio which embellish the actions, gradually push into God by reducing all hindrances, a person does only need to restrain any desire from susceptible causes, so that it does not get entangled. That is why our Lord said to saint Peter: ‘who is washed does not need anything except getting the feed washed’.[19]
<:5>unsere herre sprach zu eynem male zu synen jungern: ist das ir nyt enessent das fleysche des menschen sones noch drinckent sin bluyt, so enmogent ir keyne leben in uch haben. Des worttes erschracken sin jungern und flohen von ym one sin apposteln, die blieben bij yme. want die jungern beduchte, das er gar dorliche gesprochen hette. Da sprach [62a] unsere herre zu synen apposteln: wollent ir auch von mir? da antwordt sant Peter: herre, was sal ich? wisestu mich von dir? du bist eynborn, ußer dir flußet daz wortte des ewigen lebens. uff das wortte „wisestu mich von dir?“ spricht sanctus Augustinus, so wise mich zu eym andern dich oder zu dir in eyner andern wise. Ylarius spricht: Es enwart nye besser ordenunge da<n> das der vader ist in dem sone und der sone in dem vatter unde sie beyde in dem heiligen geyst unde der heylige geyst in yne beyden und das die middelste persone menschlich nature an sich genomen hat und sie in sich an eyner personen vereynet hait. eyn styme [62b] sprach zu Sant Au(gu)styn: ich bin eyn (381) | spise der großen wash und du salt mich essen und ich ensal nyt gewandelt werden in dich, sunder du salt gewandelt werden in mich. also als die spise verwandelt und vernaturet wirt in dem menschen, also wurt menschliche nature mit der spisen, die got ist, verwandelt und vernaturet in gotlicher naturen. Ignacius, unser frauwen cappellan, wart geworffen in des lewen mundt. Da sprach er: ich bin Christi spise. Du salt mich wol zuriben, das er mich destabaß verdauwen moge. Die gotheit ist eyn condimentum gottes lichamen. Salomon spricht: Eyn cleyn gabe wurdt dicke siebenfalt [63a] also wurt gottes lichame in der selen, want sie entpfecht gotliche nature mit der gotheyt alzumal an dem lichame unsers herren mit dem ewigen lebene das sie entpfecht, want gotliche nature ist eyn burne des ewigen lebens und sie entpfecht eyn sune zwischen ir und godde und sie entpfecht eyn widdermachunge der gebrechen ame geyst. want gottes liachame gibt der selen zubekennen yren gebrechen, der sie vergessen hat, off das sie ir bichte tuwe, oder er gibt ir sicherheit, das sie yr vergeben sin. Er gibbet ir sußigkeyt, want sie  entpfecht von der eynungen synes mit der gotheyt. Er gibbet ir auch eyn gehugnisse Christi von syme sacrament [63b] das sie entpfecht. Er gibbet ir auch ye gegenwordige gnade von der heymelicheyt irs mit yme, als sie yne entpfecht. Er gibbet ir auch in ir selber, eyn glichnisse des ewigen lebens, want er ist der, als der prophete spricht, by dem alle dinge lebent.
<:5>Once our Lord said to His disciples: ‘If you do neither eat the body of the Son of Man nor drink His blood, you cannot have life in you’.[20] These words scared His disciples and they flew from Him without His apostles who stayed with Him.[21] When the disciples thought that He had spoken senselessly, our Lord spoke to His apostles: ‘Do you also want [to go] away from me?’[22] Then saint Peter answered: ‘Lord, why shall I? Do you send me away from You? You are the inborn, the word of eternal life flows out of You’.[23] About the word ‘Do you send me away from You’ saint Augustine says:[24] ‘Then send me to another You or to You in another way’. Hilary says:[25] There was never a better order than[26] the Father being in the Son and the Son in the Father and they both in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit in the two of them, and that the person in the middle took on human nature and that they have united themselves in one single person. A voice said to saint Augustine:[27] ‘I am a food that was big and you should eat me and I shall not be transformed into you, but you shall be transformed into me’. Then, as the food is being transformed and processed in a human being, so by the food that is God human nature is transformed and processed into divine nature. Saint Ignatius, the custodian of our Lady, has been thrown into the mouth of the lions. There he said: I am the food of Christ. You shall me grind, so that He can me easier digest.[28] The Godhead is a condiment of God’s body. Salomon says:[29] ‘A small gift will richly become sevenfold’. So God’s body will be in the soul, when she receives divine nature with the Godhead notably with the body of our Lord together with eternal life that she receives, as divine nature is a fountain of eternal life,[30] and from herself and God she receives a son, and she receives a restoration of what has been deficient in the mind.[31] For God’s body makes the soul known her deficiencies, which she has forgotten, so that she can repent, or it gives her security that these have been forgiven to her.[32] It gives her sweetness when she receives it, because of its oneness with the Godhead. It also gives her a memory of Christ through its sacrament that she receives. Each time it also gives her actual grace by the intimacy of her and Him, when she receives Him. He also gives her in herself a simile of eternal life, because He is, as the Prophet says,[33] the one in which all things are alive.
<:6>Unsere herre sprach, er sulde synen getruwen diener setzen uber alles sin gut. Augustinus sprach: Gottes eygen gutt ist sin eygen wesen. Paulus spricht: wer got zuhafftet, der wurdt eyn geyste mit godde. Hie von spricht der prophete: Herre, myn sele hait abgenomen in dem heile. Uff disselbe wort spricht sanctus Ambrosius: alse nymmet die sele abe, das sie seligkeyt verluset und wurdt me geyst dan sele. [64a] want sie magk so sere zunemen an gotlicher liebe, das sie zumale geyst wurdt. Auch spricht sanctus Augustinus, das die sele me sij da sie mynnet dann da sie leben gibbet. In Cantic. stet geschreben, das die liebe starcke sij als der dot, der die sele scheydet von dem libe. Ich sprechen aber, das sie tusentwerbe starcker sij dann der dot, want sie nymmet die sele ußer ir selber. Das spricht sanctus Dionisius, das die liebe setzet die sele ußer ir selber in das daz sie mynnet, want die liebe setzt das gemyntte in das das da mynnet und sie setzet das da mynnet in das gemynte. Auch spricht sanctus Dionisius, das die mynne machet gedeylt dingk eyn unge(64b)deyltes. Alsus eynet die liebe das das die liebe sele eyn wurdt mit godde. Herumbe sprache unsere herre zu synen jungern: wißent ir was ich uch gethan hann? und sprach auch: das ich nu tun, das enwissent ir nyt. ir sollent es aber hernach wißen, als er sprechen sulde, ir sijt mit ußeren und mit groben dingen so verbildet und so verblendet, das ihr der inneren dinge noch nyt erkennen konnent.
<:6>Our Lord says,[34] He should put His faithful servants above all that is His. Augustine said:[35] God’s own is His being. Paul says: Who sticks to God is becoming one mind with God. Of this the Prophet speaks:[36] Lord, my soul has diminished in salvation. On this word saint Ambrose says:[37] The soul diminishes, when she loses beatitude and becomes more mind than soul. Then she may increase so much in divine love that she becomes then mind. Augustine, too, says that the soul is more, when she loves than when she gives life.[38] In the Song it is written[39] that love is stronger than death which separates the soul from the body. I, however, say, that it is thousand times stronger than this one, because it[40] takes the soul out of herself. This, saint Dionysius says,[41] that love puts the soul out of herself into what she loves, because loves puts what is being loved into what is loving it, and it sets the one that loves into what is being loved. Saint Dionysius also says[42] that love turns a divided thing into an undivided one. Thus love unifies this,[43] so that the loving soul has become one with God. Therefore, our Lord said to His disciples: ‘Do you know what I did to you?’[44] And he also said: ‘what I am now doing that you do not understand, but you shall know it later than’,[45] when He shall say: You are so deformed and blinded by external and coarse things that you could not yet recognise the internal things.
<:7>Unsere herre sprach auch: das broit daz ich salle geben, das ist myn fleisch. Der (382) | propheta spricht, das der mensch aße der engel broit. Raphael sprach zu dem jungen Dobias: die spise die ich essen, der enmagstu nyt gesehen. Augustinus [65a] spricht: Es enwardt nye nature edeler dann die nature Christi sele. Das ist darumbe, want sie geeynet wardt mit der gotheyt. Es enwardt auch nye seele geschaffen luter creature zu sin, die also edel were na ir nature als der mynste engel der ye geschaffen wardt, want an syner ersten formen magk der engel got ansehen. des enmag die sele nyt. Sie muß zum ersten geeyniget werden in die forme des lichamen. Dionisius spricht: der engel ist eyn offenbarunge gotlichs liechtes, want durch yn schynet das gotlich liecht in die sele. Dionisius spricht auch, der engel sij eyn durchluchtig spiegel. Herumbe wan [65b] wir alle begeben als der engel, so sin wir als der engel luter, clare das gotlich liecht zu begriffen als der engel.
<:7>Our Lord also said: ‘The bread that I shall give you, this is my body’.[46] The prophet says[47] that the person ate the angel’s bread. Raphael said to young Toby:[48] The food that I eat you can not see. Augustine says: No nature was more noble than the nature of Christ’s soul.[49] For it was united with the Godhead. And it was no soul created to be simply a creature which was so noble according to her nature as the smallest angel that has ever been created, for in its first form the angel can contemplate God. This, the soul can not.[50] She first has to be united with the form of the body. Dionysius says: the angel is a revelation of God’s light, for through it the divine light shines into the soul.[51] Dionysius also says that the angel is a transparent mirror.[52] Therefore, if we give away everything as the angel [does], then we are as translucent as the angel, pure as the angel to grasp the divine light.
<:8>Vier stucke sal der lichame hann nach diesem libe. Subtiligkeyt. want were eyn stein oder eyn andere ding, was das were, also groß als alles erterich und das das ganze were an allen steden und were eyne sele darinne mit dem lichamen nach der ufferstendungen, die daruß wolde, sie fure daruß one alles hindernysse des lichamen. Das andere das ist clarheyt. Er sal siebenstunt clarrer werden dan die sonne wan sie noch siebenstunt clarer wurdt dan sie itzunt ist, ia tusentstunt [66a] wurt er clarrer. Das dritte ist lichtigkeyt, das ist das er uff der lufft gan magk als unsere herre hie bewisete uff dem wassere. Das vierde ist unlidelichkeyt, das ist das yne keyne fure gebornen enmagk noch keyn wassere erdrencken nach keyn wafen gewunden nach keynerley anfelligkeyt enmag yne nyt lidende gemachen. Die ersten dru die hatte unsere herre Jhesus Christus in syme dotlichen libe: subtiligkeyt da er von unsere lieben frauwen libe kquame, clarheyt da er syne<n> jungern uff dem berge erscheyn, lichtigkeyt da er uff dem wassere gingk. Diß hatten auch sin apposteln gesehen und enwischten doch [66b] nyt was es bedute. Des mochte er wol sprechen: wißent ir waz ich uch getan hann? Neyn! ir enwissent es noch nyt. Ir sollent es aber hernach wißen.
<:8>Four elements the body should have after this life. Subtlety. For, if a stone or something else, whatever it were, were as big as the entire ground of the earth and that it fully reached all cities, und there would be one soul in there with the body after the resurrection, and she wished to get out of there,[53] she would move out of there without being hindered by the body. The second is clarity.[54] It should become seven times clearer than the sun when it has become seven times clearer than it is now, indeed, it will be a thousand times clearer. The third is lightness. That is that it can walk on air as our Lord has proven on the water.[55] The fourth is impassivity. That is that neither fire can birth it nor water can drown it nor can it be overcome by any weapon nor can any affection make it suffer. The first three our Lord Jesus Christ had in his mortal body: subtlety, as it derived from the body of our Lady, clarity, as he appeared to His disciples on the mountain, lightness, as He walked on the water. This, His apostles, too, have seen, but did not grasp what it meant. This, he wanted to express: ‘Do you know what I did to you? No! You do not understand, yet, later, however, you should know’.[56]
<:9>Das wir uns und got bekennen muszen luterlich nach der ubersten warheit, des helff uns der der die warheyt ist. Amen.
<:9>That we must know us and God in a pure way[57] according to the highest truth, may the one who is the truth,[58] help us. Amen.





[1] Ioh. 13:12: ‘Postquam ergo lavit pedes eorum, et accepit vestimenta sua, cum recubuisset iterum, dixit eis: Scitis quid fecerim vobis?’ Liturgical context: Evangelistar., Arch. f. 444vb: ‘Feria quinta in cena Domini. Secundum Iohannem [13, 1–15]. In illo tempore [> Vg.] ante diem festum Pasche, sciens Ihesus quia venit eius hora [hora eius Vg.] ut transeat ex hoc mundo ad Patrem: cum dilexisset suos, qui erant in mundo, in finem dilexit eos. Et cena facta, cum diabolus iam misisset in cor ut traderet eum Iudas Symonis Scariothis: sciens quia omnia dedit ei patrer in manus, et quia a Deo exivit, et ad Deum vadit: surgit a cena, et ponit vestimenta sua: et cum accepisset linteum, precinxit se. Deinde misit [mittit Vg.] aquam in pelvim, et cepit lavare pedes discipulorum, et extergere linteo, quo erat precinctus. Venit ergo ad Symonem Petrum. Et dicit ei Petrus: Domine, tu michi lavas pedes? Respondit Ihesus et dixit ei: Quod ego facio, tu nescis modo, scies autem postea. Dicit ei Petrus: Non lavabis michi pedes in eternum. Respondit ei Ihesus: Si non lavero te, non habebis partem mecum. Dicit ei Symon Petrus: Domine, non tantum pedes meos, sed et manus, et caput. Dicit ei Ihesus: Qui lotus est, non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet, sed est mundus totus. Et vos mundi estis, sed non omnes. Sciebat enim quisnam esset qui traderet eum: propterea dixit: Non estis mundi omnes. Postquam ergo lavit pedes eorum, et accepit vestimenta sua: cum recubuisset iterum dixit eis: Scitis quid fecerim vobis? Vos vocatis me magister, et Domine, et benedicitis: sum etenim. Si ergo ego lavi pedes vestros, Dominus, et magister: et vos debetis alter alterius lavare pedes. Exemplum enim dedi vobis, ut quemadmodum ego feci vobis, ita et vos faciatis’.
[2] See Eckhart, Sermo Paschalis (LW V 144,10-1): ‘ergo agnitio sui ipsius et infirmitatis propriae est unum quod praemittitur ad parandum’.
[3] See Eckhart, Hom. 32* [S 108], n. 4: ‘Ouch sprichet Bêdâ, daz unser herre ze dem êrsten ze sant Pêtrô kam. Danne Jûdas der hâte sich durch sînen vrevele ze vor gesast. Und dem wurden ze dem êrsten die vüeze getwagen’; DW IV 739 notes that this topic cannot be found in Bede’s homilies; yet, one can find this statement in Beda, In s. Joannis evangelium expositio (PL 802C-D). As this passage begins with Jude and even remarkes that when Jesus went to Peter, ‚quasi aliquibus jam lavisset, et post eos venisset ad primum‘, one can see, why Eckhart here is making this link between Chrysostom and Bede. Different from Hom. 32*, it does not cut out Chrysostom, but mentions both, Chrysostom and Bede. See also Th. Aqu., Super Evangelium S. Ioannis lectura, c. 13, 6, ed. Cai, 328b: ‘Secundo exponitur, secundum Chrysostomum, ut scilicet Christus inceperit prius lavare pedes a primis Apostolorum. Sed quia proditor ille stultus erat et superbus, scilicet Iudas, prior ad pedum ablutionem recubuit ante Petrum. Nullus enim aliorum ausus fuisset Petrum praevenire’.
[4] See the parallel in Eckhart, Sermo Paschalis (LW V 144,2-3): ‘In signum huius etiam Christus lavit et mundavit pedes discipulorum, ut etiam contagia minima docerentur auferenda’.
[5] Ioh. 13:8: ‘Dicit ei Petrus: Non lavabis mihi pedes in aeternum’.
[6] On ‘Bede’, see the note above.
[7] Unidentified source.
[8] Ioh. 13:7: ‘Respondit Jesus, et dixit ei: Quod ego facio, tu nescis modo: scies autem postea’.
[9] Ioh. 13:9: ‘Si non lavero te, non habebis partem mecum’.
[10] See on this Hom. 32* [S 108], n. 2: ‘Ist daz ich dich niht entwahe, sô enhâst dû kein teil mit mir’; on the comparison of God giving grace in parts and giving more in the sacrament of the Eucharist, see Eckhart, Sermo Paschalis (LW V 141,10-1): ‘Si autem deus dat gratiam per partes, multo fortius in hoc sacramento, in quo latet fons gratiae’.
[11] See Eckhart, Hom. 66* [Q 71], n. 5: ‘Ein meister sprichet: in gote enist niht minner und mê noch daz und daz’; the mentioned master seems to be Th. Aqu., Summa theologiae I q. 2 a. 3.
[12] Ioh. 13:9: ‘Dicit ei Simon Petrus: Domine, non tantum pedes meos, sed et manus, et caput’; see on this Hom. 32* [S 108], n. 11: ‘Dô sprach sant Pêter: „herre, niht aleine entwahe mîne vüeze, sunder hende und houbet“’.
[13] Ioh. 13:10: ‘Dicit ei Jesus: Qui lotus est, non indiget nisi ut pedes lavet’.
[14] See Eckhart, Sermo Paschalis (LW V 146,13-4): ‘in hac sacra(menti) perceptione debet esse collectio desideriorum unitorum in deum’.
[15] Ioh. 13:9.
[16] The ms. has ‘gewerden’.
[17] See Eckhart, Hom. 77* [Q 82], n. 3: ‘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.’.
[18] See Eckhart, Hom. 80* [W 30], n. 9: ‘Sehet, diu natûre hât <zwô meinunge>, 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’.
[19] Ioh. 13:10.
[20] Ioh. 6:54: ‘Dixit ergo eis Jesus: Amen, amen dico vobis: nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis, et biberitisejus sanguinem, non habebitis vitam in vobis’. See the parallel idea of the bodily and spiritual food in Eckhart, Sermo V,3 (LW IV 48,9).
[21] See Ioh. 13:21: ‘Cum hæc dixisset Jesus, turbatus est spiritu: et protestatus est’; Ioh. 6:61: ‘Multi ergo audientes ex discipulis ejus, dixerunt: Durus est hic sermo, et quis potest eum audire?’; Ioh. 6:66: ‘Ex hoc multi discipulorum ejus abierunt retro: et jam non cum illo ambulabant’.
[22] Ioh. 6:68: ‘Dixit ergo Jesus ad duodecim: Numquid et vos vultis abire?’
[23] Ioh. 6:69-70: ‘(69) Respondit ergo ei Simon Petrus: Domine, ad quem ibimus? verba vitæ æternæ habes: (70) et nos credidimus, et cognovimus quia tu es Christus Filius Dei.’
[24] Perhaps Augustinus, Confessiones XIII, c. 8 n. 9, ed. Verheijen, 246, 13–4: ‘da mihi te, deus meus …’; see also Eckhart, Hom. 56* [20a], n. 5: ‘Sant Augustînus sprichet: herre, nimest dû dich uns, sô gip uns einen andern dich’. See the parallel Hom. 32* [S 108], n. 7: ‘Dar umbe sprichet sant Augustînus: herre, nimest dû uns dich, sô gip uns einen andern vür dich’; Hom. 56* [Q 20a], n. 5: ‘Sant Augustînus sprichet: herre, nimest dû dich uns, sô gip uns einen andern dich, oder wir engeruowen niemer; wir enwellen anders niht dan dich’; Hom. 57* [Q20b], n. 3: ‘Nû sprichet sant Augustînus3: herre, benimest dû uns dich, sô gip uns einen andern dich, anders uns engenüeget niht dan an dir, wan wir enwellen niht dan dich’; BgT (DW V 18,3-9): ‘Und anderswâ sprichet er (= Augustinus): “wie möhte dem genüegen an gotes gâben an den crêatûren, dem an gote selben niht engenüeget?” ... Er (= ein guoter mensche) sol alle zît sprechen: herre gôt und mîn trost, wîsest dû mich ûf iht von dir, sô gip mir einen andern dich, daz ich gange von dir ze dir, wan ich enwil niht wan dich’.
[25] See Hil. Pict., De trinitate VIII 11 (ed. Hurter [Innsbruck, 1887], 309): ‘Tum deinde unitatis profectus exemplo unitatis ostenditur, cum ait: Sicut tu Pater in me, et ego in te, ut et ipsi sint in nobis unum: ut sicut Pater in Filio, et Filius in Pater est, ita per hujus unitatis formam in Patre et Filio unum omnes essent’; and also ibid. VIII 15 (314-5): ‘cur gradum quendam atque ordinem consummandae unitatis exposuit: nisi ut cum ille in Patre per naturam divinitatis esset, nos contra in eo per corporalem ejus nativitatem, et ille rursum in nobis per sacramentorum inesse mysterium crederetur: ac sic perfecta per Mediatorem unitas doceretur, cum nobis in se manentibus ipse maneret in Patre, et in Patre manens maneret in nobis; et ita ad unitatem Patris proficeremus, cum qui in eo naturaliter secundum nativitatem inest, nos quoque in eo naturaliter inessemus, ipso in nobis naturaliter permanente?’ See also Th. Aqu., Catena aurea (ed. S.E. Fretté [Paris, 1876] 650): ‘Hilarius, VII De Trin. post princ. Tum demum unitatis profectus, exemplo unitatis ostenditur cum ait: Sicut tu Pater in me, et ego in te, ut et ipsi in nobis unum sint: ut scilicet sicut Pater in Filio, et Filius in Pater est, ita per hujus unitatis formam in Pater et Filio unum omnes essent’.
[26] dan ms.] das Strauch.
[27] See Augustine, Conf. c. 10 n. 16, CChr.SL 27 (103,17-104,20): ‘et inveni longe me esse a te in regione dissimilitudinis, tamquam audirem vocem 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”’; this quote is included and referred to in Eckhart, Sermo Paschalis (LW V 158,3-5); see also Eckhart, Acta Echardiana (Proc. Col. II n. 113) (LW V 345,8-10): ‘Verum est, devotum et morale, secundum illud Augustini: “cresce, et manducabis me. Nec tu me mutabis in te, sicut cibum carnis tuae, sed tu mutabens In me”’; see also Eckhart, Hom. 32* [S 108], n. 10: ‘dû solt in mich gewandelt werden’; Hom. 56* [Q 20a], n. 6: ‘Dâ von hât er sich bekleidet mit dem rocke der glîchnisse des brôtes, englîches als diu lîplich spîse gewandelt wirt mit mîner sêle, daz enkein winkelîn in mîner natûre niht enist, ez enwerde dar în vereinet’; Hom. 57* [Q 20b], n. 4: ‘Sant Augustînô grûwelte vor dirre spîse; dô sprach im ein stimme zuo in dem geiste: „ich bin ein spîse der grôzen; wahs und nim zuo und iz mich. Dû enverwandelst mich niht in dich, mêr: dû wirst gewandelt in mich“
[28] See IgnRom. 4: ‘Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may be no trouble to any one’; see Hermann von Fritzlar, Heiligenleben 78,6.28ff.
[29] Eccli. 35:13: ‘quoniam Dominus retribuens est, et septies tantum reddet tibi’.
[30] See Eckhart, Sermo Paschalis (LW V 147,7): ‘Quia ibi stillat fons omnium gratiarum’.
[31] See Eckhart, Sermo Paschalis (LW V 140,1): ‘Primo ergo commendat hoc pascha, quia hoc tam corpus reficit quam animam’.
[32] See Eckhart, Sermo Paschalis (LW V 143,8): ‘paratur mundas conscientias habentibus’; and ibid. (146,1-2): ‘ex cognitione propriae infirmitatis consurgit humilitas et gratia’.
[33] Unidentified, but see I Cor. 15:22: ‘in Christo omnes vivificabuntur’.
[34] Matth. 24:47: ‘super omnia bona sua constituet eum’; see Eckhart, Hom. 52* [Q 64], n. 3: ‘nun nim ich ain wörtlin, sprach vnser her: „ganc in, getrüwer chnecht, | (88) ich sol dich seczen boben all mein gu°t“’.
[35] See Augustinus, En. in Ps. 145 n. 11 (PL 37,1891): ‘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. 32, Sermo 2 n. 18 (PL 36,295): ‘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’; see the parallel passage, where this quote is referred to, Eckhart, Hom. 100* [Q 17], n. 7 : ‘Augustînus sprichet: swer wil, daz got sîn eigen sî, der sol ê gotes eigen werden, und daz muoz von nôt sîn’.
[36] Perhaps Ps. 72:26: ‘Defecit caro mea et cor meum’.
[37] Unidentified.
[38] Ps.-Augustinus, or rather Bernardus, De praecepto et dispensatione, c. 20, n. 60 (ed. Leclerq and Rochais, 292, 24–5): ‘Neque enim praesentior spiritus noster est ubi animat, quam ubi amat’; the same reference can befound in Eckhart, Hom. 13* [S 102], n. 12: ‘Wan sant Augustînus sprichet: “diu sêle ist mê dâ si minnet, dan dâ si in dem lîbe ist, dem si doch leben gibet”’.
[39] Cant. 8:6: ‘Fortis est ut mors dilectio, dura sicut inferus (… aemulatio)’; see Eckhart, Hom. 15* [S 103}, n. 27: ‘Der tôt scheidet die sêle von dem lîbe’.
[40] i.e. love.
[41] See Ps.-Dionysius, De div. nom. c. 4 § 12. 17 (PG 3,710D): ‘Estque hoc virtutis cujusdam unificae ac collectivae excellenterque contemperantis, quae in pulchro et bono per pulchrum et bonum praeexistit, et ex pulchro et bono propter pulchrum et bonum emanat, continetque quidem aequalia per mutuam connexionem, superiora vero ad inferiorum movet providentiam, inferiora porro per conversionem quamdam superioribus inserit’; 714D: ‘dicamus, unam esse simplicem virtutem, per se moventem unitivam quamdam mistionem ex bono usque ad extremum eorum quae exsistunt, et ab illo rursus consequenter per omnia ad bonum, ex seipsa, per seipsam, et in seipsa seipsam revolventem, et ad seipsam semper eodemmodo revertentem’; on this quote see also Eckhart, In Eccli. (LW II 236,4): ‘amor ex sui proprietate unitivus est’; In Ioh. (LW III 569,9): ‘amor specialiter ex sui natura sit unitivus’; Serm. 6,1 (LW IV 51,4): ‘caritas sive amor est uniens, et quanta est illa unio’; Serm. 44,1 (368,5): ‘amor enim nunquam deserit’. See also Iohannes Scottus, Periphyseon II, ed. Jeauneau, 107, 2601–9: ‘Humana siquidem mens notitiam suam, qua se ipsam cognoscit, ueluti quandam prolem sui de se ipsa gignit. Et est sui notitia aequalis sibi, quia se ipsam totam nouit ad similitudinem dei et patris, qui de se ipso filium suum qui est sapientia sua gignit … Ex humana mente procedit appetitus quidam, quo se ipsam quaerit ut suam notitiam pariat …’; on this see Eckhart, Hom. 29* [Q 43], n. 11.
[42] See Ps.-Dionysius, De eccl. hier. c. 3 (PG 3,424C; Dionysiaca 1163,2-1164,1): ‘unaquaque sacra perfectiva actione partitas nostras vitas in uniformem deificationem colligente et diversarum deiformi complicatione ad unum communionem et unitatem donante’ (secundum versionem Iohannis Scotti); the same reference is included in Eckhart, Sermo Paschalis (LW V 147, 1-4).
[43] See the two previous notes.
[44] Ioh. 13:12.
[45] Ioh. 13:7. In this place, Strauch introduced a dittographic text which needs to be taken out: ‘das enwissent ir nyt. ir sollet es aber hernach wißen, als er sprechen sulde’.
[46] Ioh. 6:52: ‘et panis quem ego dabo, caro mea est’.
[47] Ps. 77:25: ‘Panem angelorum manducavit homo’.
[48] Tob. 12:19: ‘ego cibo invisibili, et potu qui ab hominibus videri non potest, utor’.
[49] See Eckhart, Hom. 84* [Q 86], n. 16: ‘Züge got daz sîne abe der sêle Kristî, dâ ir geist geeiniget ist an die êwige persône, Kristus blibe blôze crêatûre. Dâ von bedarf man des éinen wol’.
[50] See Eckhart, Hom. 16* [S 104], n. 5: ‘Wan aber daz lîden und daz | (573) schouwen gotes dem geiste überlestic ist sunderlîche în disem lîbe, dar umbe underziuhet sich got dem geiste underwîlen’.
[51] See Eckhart, Hom. 24* [Q 19], 3: ‘des engels lieht überschîne daz lieht der sêle und bereite und vüege sie, daz daz götlîche lieht dar inne gewürken müge’; Hom. 37* [Q 36b], n. 2: ‘alsô tritet diu sêle ûf mit des engels liehte in götlich lieht’.
[52] See Ps.-Dionysius, De divinis nominibus, c. 4, § 22 (PG 3, col. 724B; Dionysiaca pp. 269,3–270,3): ‘manifestatio occulti luminis, speculum purum suscipiens totam … pulchritudinem boniformis deiformitatis et munde resplendere faciens in se ipso, quemadmodum possibile est, bonitatem silentii, quod est in adytis’ (perhaps Eckhart uses a text with the reading of ‘abditis’, see Albertus, Super Dionysii De divinis nominibus, c. 4 n. 182, ed. Simon, 268, 13–4: ‘quod est in abditis, idest in occultis divinitatis, vel in aditis, idest quae adiri non possunt’); see the parallel in Eckhart, Hom. 71* [Q 780], n. 5: ‘Dionysius sprichet: ein engel ist “ein spiegel âne vlecken”’; see also Hom. 4* [Q 77], n. 3: ‘Der dritte sprichet, er [der engel] sî “ein lûter spiegel”’; see also ibid. n. 11.
[53] i.e. the ground of the earth.
[54] On ‘clarity’, see Eckhart, Hom. 5* [Q 22], n. 7.
[55] See Matth. 14:25.
[56] Ioh. 13:7.
[57] See Eckhart, Sermo Paschalis (LW V 143,11-2): ‘Ergo mundis tantum paratur’; see also Hom. 32* [S 108], nn. 11-4.
[58] Ioh. 14:6: ‘Dicit ei Jesus: Ego sum via, et veritas, et vita’.

Homily * [München]

On the Feast of saint John, Apostle and Gospel Writer (27.12.)

“Petrus vidit illum discipulum quem diligebat Jesus sequentem” (Ioh. 21:20)

Introduction

The scriptural passage that Eckhart refers to is part of the Gospel reading on 27 December, yet, it is rarely used by preachers in the Medieval period.[1]
               Unfortunately, this homily is only preserved in a fragmentary state, derived from a single codex, Munich, BSB, Cgm 186, fol. 162r–165v and to my knowledge has never been the object of any study before. In the manuscript it follows the vernacular translation of Dietrich of Alpolda’s Life of saint Dominicus which Dietrich had written as requested by the General of the order while Eckhart was the prior of his convent in Erfurt. Eckhart, therefore, must have known Dietrich’s work, presumably has signed it off, as it was published in its Latin version during this time. 
               To date, the reference in Hom. 67* [Q 31], n. 7 („Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen: wære ich îtel und hæte ein inviuric minne und glîcheit, ich züge got alzemâle in mich“) could not securely be located in Eckhart’s extant work, but the present homily, n. 2 („vnd dz ist dannen von. won ain iegklich geschaffen ding z#euhet vnd minnet dz ds es ist vnd all sin volkumenhait von dem ersten oberesten anuang dz gott ist“), seems to procure the anchor for it.
               There is, yet, another anchor for a reference of Eckhart. In this case, scholars had provided a parallel to which this reference could have gone, but the present homily provides an even closer text which seems to be the better place to which Eckhart referred to. In Hom. 114* [Q 15], n. 11 one reads: ‘Ich hab och me gesprochen von dem ersten begin vnd von dem lesten end. Der vater ist ain begin der gothait, wan er begriffet sich selber in im selber’. In DW I 252 and 389 the editor rightly pointed for the first part (‘von dem ersten begin vnd von dem lesten end’) to Hom. 5* [Q 22], n. 17: ‘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’. Yet, the second part (‘Der vater ist ain begin der gothait, wan er begriffet sich selber in im selber’) had not been recognised as being a further element of Eckhart’s reference. Still, one could draw on Hom. 78* [Q 23], n. 11: ‘Diu sêle erkennet von ûzen, got verstât in im selben durch sich selber, wan er ist ein ursprunc aller dinge’, but in this quote, Eckhart talks about God, not about the Father. The closer parallel and more likely the anchor for Eckhart’s reference in Hom. 114* is the present homily, n. 3 where one reads: ‘mit dem wort #evstait der vatter. sich selben. vnd etli anderi ding von imselben’. In the background is Eckhart’s interpretation of Augustine as in In Ioh. n. 568 (LW III 495,9–10): ‘pater autem principium est totius divinitatis, ut ait Augustinus -, nec aliter intellectui sufficit, quousque cognoscat rem in suis principiis’, and Sermo 2,1 (LW IV 7,4-5): ‘Ratio, quia secundum Augustinum „pater principium est totius deitatis“‘, and Sermo 2,1, LW IV 11,15): ‘„pater secundum Augustinum „principium est totius deitatis“‘; see Augustinus, De trinitate IV c. 20 n. 29 (PL 42,908).
 




[1] See Ioh. 21:20. This vers is rarely used by Medieval preachers, on which see Karin Morvay and Dagmar Grube, Bibliographie der deutschen Predigt des Mittelalters. Veröffentlichte Predigten, MTU 47 (München, 1974). The vers can not be found in the index or the list of initia. Nevertheless, the contrast between a vita activa (Petrer) and a vita contemplativa (John, the Evangelist) can be found in vernacular literature of South-Western German female dominicans: for example in so-called conversus homilies on Peter in two South-West-German libelli of John from the 13th c.: Karlsruhe, LB, St. Peter pap. 21, 174v-190r (https://digital.blb-karlsruhe.de/blbhs/content/pageview/398490, 17.03.2019), one from Pommersfelden (Ms. 120), 69rb-79ra and one, mentioned by Rudolf von Klingenberg (http://www.handschriftencensus.de/15224, 17.03.2019). In addition, one can find a few more traditions linked to this scripturalvers in Heinrich von Erfurt: http://pik.ku-eichstaett.de/13702/, 17.03.2019; this homily has been integrated by Hermann von Fritzlar in his collection of homilies on saints which in its parallel collection from Vienna is given the initial conversus Petrus (I am grateful to Regina D. Schiewer for drawing my attention to these traditions); no homily, however, on this pericope can be found in Die St. Georgener Predigten, ed. Regina D. Schiewer and Kurt Otto Seidel, DTM 90 (Berlin, 2010).


<:1> [162r]<P>etrus uidit illum discipulum quem diligebat jhesus sequentem petrus sach den junger den jhesus minnet nach volgen vnd der da r#ouwet vff sim hertzen an dem nacht mäl
<:1>„Petrus vidit illum discipulum quem diligebat Jesus sequentem“.[1] Peter saw that the disciple following whom Jesus loved and who there rested on His heart at the nightly banquet.[2]
<:2>sanctus dyonysius spricht ain ieglich ding daz genaiget ist. z#ou selikait vnd volkumenhait. ist so vil seliger vnd volkumener so vil es neher vnd z#ou gezogner ist dem dz da gewärlich vnd aigenlich vnd s#ealig vnd volkumen ist vnd von dem ez entl#euhtung enphahet. vnd dz ist dannen von. won ain iegklich geschaffen ding z#euhet vnd minnet dz ds es ist vnd all sin volkumenhait von dem ersten oberesten anuang dz gott ist. der alle volkumenhait het on allen gebresten.

<:2> Saint Dionysius says:[3] ‘Everything that tends towards beatitude and perfection,[4] is so much more blest and perfect,[5] the closer and more enamoured[6] to the one that is reliably and properly blest[7] and perfect, and of which it receives illumination[8]’.[9] For this happens, because every created thing enamours and loves,[10] of which it is, and because it has all its perfection from the first, highest beginning,[11] that is God who has all perfection without deficiency.[12]



<:3>vnd [162v] da von spricht anshelmus dz erst ist rich vnd volkumen von jm selber. da von so vil ain iegklich ding neher ist. vnd gelicher gott ist so vil me ist ez neher vnd innerlicher mit gott. geainbert der ain brunn ist vnd ain vrspr#eungkliche anuang aller vollkumenhait. vnd da von wirt och der mensch edler vnd volkumner an allen den dingen die gott z#ou geh#eorend vnd genaigt sind. Je me vnd ie neher er sich z#ou gottlicher aigenschafft f#eugt. aber #evber alle die vollkumenhait die man gott git vnd gott z#ou geh#eoren mag. ist die w#eurkung der verstanust. vnd des willen. won mit der w#eurkung der gottlichen verstanust gebirt der vatter den sun. der von dem vatterlichen hertzen in wortes wis. vnd #evstan nust enspringet vnd vsgait. mit dem wort #evstait der vatter. sich selben. vnd etli anderi ding von imselben as augustinus spricht von dem kumet der hailig gaist als ain minnen mit der gott der vatter sich minnet vnd jm selben geualet in dem sun vnd elly ding schepfet gar g#out als sant augustinus spricht [163r] vff ds wort spiritus divini verebatur super aquas. Gottes gaist in wonhafft vff dem wasser. vnd Gott sach elle ding die er geschaffen het vnd  warent gar g#out. dis ist aber die enph#eanglichy enl#euchtung. da mit der mensch als der engel z#ou gott gezogen vnd gott gelich w#eurt also das von der enl#euchtung wegen vnd von der w#eurkung der verstanust die mit den gottlichen liecht enz#eut ist. das ist die w#eurkung des willen vnd des begrid die sich vswendig brucht vnd zaigt mit der als aristotiles spricht homo sodinn et zeter

<:3>And of this speaks Anselm: ‘The first is rich and perfect by itself’.[13] For the closer and more similar every thing is to God, the closer and more internally it is with God, the more impound is a fountain[14] and the more original the beginning of all perfection.[15] And, therefore, also a person becomes more noble and perfect in all things, that belong and tend to God, the more and the closer it yields divine propriety[16]. Yet, the acting of the intellect and of the will go beyond all perfection that one credits to God and which might belong to God. For through the action of the divine intellect, the Father gives birth to the Son who derives from and goes out of the paternal heart[17] as word and intellect. Through this Word the Father knows Himself and all other things through Himself,[18] as Augustine sazs: Of this the Holy Spirit derives as love with which God, the Father, loves Himself and likes Himself in the Son, and creates all things as something good,[19] as saint Augustine says about the vers: ‘Spiritus divini verebatur super aquas’.[20] ‘God’s Spirit dwells above the water’.[21] And God saw all things that He had created, and they were very good. This, however, is the illumination that has been received with which the person like the angel is drawn to God and becomes like God, because of the action of the Intellect which is lit by the divine light.[22] Likewise is the action of the will, which is understood by those who turn towards outside, proven by Aristotle when he says: ‘Homo’ and so forth.[23]
<:4>der mensch der nach der verstanust. w#eurket der ist gott alle gelichest vnd aller liebst. vnd dis regel halt dyonisius da er redet von den engelschen koren vnd spricht kerrubin vnd serraphin ist als fil gesprochen als zundet als brinnet. von minnen ist. kerubin als fil gesprochen als voll kunst als l#euchtet. zvon die engel sind mit gott aller n#east verainbart.

<:4>A person who acts according to the intellect is like God in everything and most liked [by God]. And this principle is known by Dionysius, when he speaks of the choirs of angels and when mentions Cherubim and Seraphim. ‘Seraphim’ means as much as ‘being lit’, as it burns of love, ‘Cherubim’ as much as wisdom, as it shines.[24] The two angels are very closely united with God.
<:5>wissend wen man von vollkumenhait der creatur redet so ist alweg die gros geachtet vnd geeret vor den vatterlichen hertzen die loblich magt marien gottes m#euter die vs genomen ist über all creaturen vnd erhöcht an den löb näch [163v] an Cristem geloben sy lait ir. de kain Creatur ir gelichnet noch genos noch kain gelichnust ist da von ze reden. da von sprichet der minn sam Anshelm#ou.
die selig Maria Gottes mGter so vil ist sy wirdiger vnd h#eoher ob allen Creaturen. also das under gott jr gelich nie funden wart noch niemer funden w#eurt. so vil ist sy me volkumner an aller luterkait vnd loblicher ob allen creaturen sy ist vol gnäd. da von sprich et orienus Inter omnes et zeter. vnder allen menschen die ie gnäd enpfiengend mocht kains menschen gnaid z#ou ir gnäd nie gelichen won sy gesetzt ist vff die oberesten statt der gnäd won sy gottes m#outer wart mit hertzen vnd mit lib vnd ain gaist vnd ain ansag ist mit irm sun wesenklichen.
<:5>If one speaks of a perfection of the creature, then always also of the praisworthy maid Mary who highly respected and honoured by the paternal heart[25] is elevated in praise and lifted above all creatures[26] who are keen to praise Christ. One has to mention that neither any creature is like her nor tastes like her, nor comes her close, of which the beloved Anselm speaks:

The blessed Mary, mother of God, is so much more honourable and elevated than all creatures, so that nobody was found or could be found to equal her before God.[27] She is so much more perfect in all purity and more praisworthy than all creatures, she is full of grace. Of this Origen speaks: ‘Inter omnes’ etc.[28] Amongst all those people who have received grace, no grace of anybody comes close to her grace, as she has been placed on top of grace, because she was the mother of God with heart and body and is essentially together with her Son one Spirit and one cause.[29]
<:6>aber näch dir geerten magt gottes m#outer so ist der loblich fürst der aller luterst mensch sant der johanns der Ewangelist. so vil er me #evberfl#euset vnd für triffet #evber all creaturen vnd an des habend wir von im vrk#eund an gottlicher volkumenhait so fil ist er neher mit Gott ferainbert vnd gott z#ou gezogen vnd Gott gelichner denn ie Creatur. vnd [164r] des habend wir aber vrk#eund vnd bewerung an sant petern der ain ph#eundm#eunt in der cristenhait vnd ain beslieser der hell ain torwachter der himel. ain vestuung des globen vnd ain pfleger gotz an gottes statt. do im gott r#oufft z#ou der volkumnesten selikait das er im nachgieng vnd nach volgen söl mit der marter do kert er sich z#ou dem aller selgosten johannem recht als z#ou ainen richen vnd gütigen vnd vollen bilder aller volkumenhait vnd sach inn an vnd schowet. vnd wunderet vnd betrachtot vnd sinnot sich näch den r#ouf vnd da von stät geschriben petrus uidit illum Petrus sah den junger den jesus minnot im näch ze volgen vnd der da röwet uff sim hertzen. an den nacht mäl. In disen worten die man aigenlich mag z#euhen uff den loblichen geminnten junger sant johanns ist der geminnt joh(ann)es ger#eumt. an fünfer hand vol kumenhait.
1 Die erst ist an dem wort. petrus vidit.
2 Die fürtreffenlich glichnust dz er gelichet wart den aller volkumensten man vnd den gottlichen man sancto petro.
3 die andere ist die schowelich vnderschidung näch der verstanust al der die sunderbair vs genumen luterkait [164v] der fernuft die br#euft man an den worten illum discipulum dz spricht die minnsam der wellung näch der begird an den worten quem diligebat jhs spricht den Gott minnet
die fierd ist die gantz vnd volkumen nach volgung mit der vollf#eurung an dem wort sequentem etc spricht näch volgen oder näch genden
5) Die v ist die begärt vnd gew#eunst row gen sinem geminnten an den worten qui in cena recubuit
<:6>Yet, after the honoured maid, the mother of God, comes the praised prince, the most pure human being, saint John, the evangelist. The more he surpasses and exceeds all creatures, of whom we posses a document[30] of divine perfection, the closer he is united with God and drawn to God and more like God than any other creature. For this, too, we posses a document and a proof[31] through saint Peter who is a foundation of Christianity, a locker of hell, a guard at the door of heaven, a bulwark of faith and a representative Gods and acts on God’s behalf. When God called him to perfect beatitude, so that he should succeed Him and follow Him in martyrdom, he turns to the most blessed John, just like to someone who is rich, gracious and full of images of perfection, and saw to him, looked and wondered and contemplated, he longed for the call and of this it is written: ‘Petrus vidit illum [...]’,[32] ‘Peter saw that the disciple following whom Jesus loved and who there rested on His heart at the nightly banquet’.[33] With these words which one rather might refer to the beloved disciple, saint John, the beloved John is praised of perfection in five ways:
1) First through the verse ‘Petrus vidit’.
2) The brilliant example that he has been made equal to the most perfect human being and the divine person, saint Peter.
3) Third, the noticeable distinction,[34] according to which one understands the entire and particular purity of the intellect, which is proven by the words: illum discipulum, which means the loving stir[35] of desire,[36] and the words: quem diligebat Jesus, which means the one whom God loves.
<4)> Fourth, the entire and perfect following by the words: sequentem etc.
5) Fifth, the desired and wished for silence together with the beloved by the words: ‘qui in cena recubuit.
<:7>Was spricht der an dem nacht mäl rowet vf sinem hertzen z#ou den ersten so w#eurt er gemint junger sant johanns Gelopt ander f#eur treffenden gelichnust z#ou sant petern den aller volkumesten vnd got aller nästen man vnd där nach z#ou allen luteren menschen die #eumer geborn sond werden bis an den jungsten tag vnd des habend wir vrk#eund also der erst vrsprung ains jegklichen dings ist edler vnd besser am im selben denn da von kund alder da von gezogen w#eurt disi ragel die ist wair on alle widerred Dz der erst vrsprung ains jeglichen dings ist volkumner vnd edler den dz da von kund nun sind dis zwen apostel als paulus spricht [165r] sy sind recht fursten s#eul der hailigen Cristenhait vnd allen cristinen l#euten die von inen al ze mal sind vnd dz ist bew#eart an den wörten die gott selber sprach ze sant petern dz er sin cristenhait vff inn wet buwen als ain vest pfündm#eunt
<:7>What does it mean: ‘the one who rested on His heart at the nightly banquet?’ First, the beloved disciple, saint John is praised by the trenchant similitude of saint Peter, the most perfect person, closest to God, and then also of all pure human beings who will be ever born up to doomsday.
And for this we have a document, as the first origin of anything is more noble and better in itself, as of this all things derive what is drawn from there. This principle is true and without contradiction. For the first origin of anything is more perfect and noble than what comes off it. Now they are two apostles, as Paul says, they are certainly princes of holy Christianity[37] and of all Christians, and more generally of all human beings, and this is proven by the words, that God Himself said to Peter, namely that He would build Christianity on him as a solid foundation.
<:8>hie by merken wir dz er wer ain fürsten sul die elly cristinen menschen vff enthielt und geflossen als von dem ersten vrsprung won dis zwen apostel warend on allen zwiffel die besten vnd die höhsten die do warend in den ziten in der hailigen cristenhait. nun möcht ietwar gedenken dz als g#out alder bessers noch werden möcht her näch alder dz ietzend als g#out wer alder besser by vnseren ziten ald hinnazem jungsten tag des bewiset vns die Glos #evber dz wort. nos primitias spiritus habentes. dz spricht wir habend den ersten vrsprung des gaist. vnd spricht die Glos ds die junger werin hailgerus vnd volkumers lebens denn elli menschen die iemer sond geborn werden vntz an den iungsten tag. won der erst vrsprung des gaist het in inn volkumenlich alles dz da von fl#euset. Ist es nun also dz von den ersten vntz an den iunsten sy petrus wz der oberost vnd der best vnd dz der [165v] vnd dz der gm
<:8>To this we note that he who is meant to be a prince who should carry all Christians, is derived from the first origin. For these two apostles were without doubt the best and the highest people that existed during the time of holy Christianity. Now, however, I might remind us that who is so good, later, can become even better, or who already now, in our times, would be so good, later on doomsday could be even better, as the Gloss proves about this verse: ‘nos primitias spiritus habentes’.[38] This means that we possess the first origin of the spirit. And even when the Gloss says that the disciples were more saintly and perfect than all human beings that were ever born up to doomsday. For the first origin of the spirit has in them[39] all things in a perfect way, that flow from there. Now, if it is the case that saint Peter was the highest and the best person and that the com[mon][40]





[1] Ioh. 21:20: ‘Petrus videt illum discipulum quem diligebat Jesus sequentem’.
[2] See the mentioned parallel in Eckhart, In Ioh. nn. 736–40 (LW III 642,1–645,5).
[3] This is no quote, but rather a reception of Ps.-Dionysius, perhaps via Thomas Gallus, De septem gradibus contemplationis; on this see Gabriel Théry, ‘Thomas Gallus et Égide d’Assisi: le traité De septem gradibus contemplationis’, Revue néoscolastique de philosophie 36 (1934), 180–90; see also Boyd Taylor Coolman, ‘The Medieval Affective Dionysian Tradition’, in Sarah Coakley and Charles M. Stang (eds), Re-thinking Dionysius the Areopagite (Malden, 2009), 85–102, and Nigel F. Palmer, ‘“In kaffin in got”. Zur Rezeption des „Paradisus anime intelligentis“ in der Oxforder Handschrift MS. Laud Misc. 479’, in Burkhard Hasebrink, Nigel F. Palmer and Hans-Jochen Schiewer (eds), ›Paradisus anime intelligentis‹. Studien zu einer dominikanischen Predigtsammlung aus dem Umkreis Meister Eckharts (Tübingen, 2009), 69–132, 90–5.
[4] The combination of perfection and beatitude can be found in Eckhart, Hom. 110* [Q 10], n. 11: ‘in ganzer volkomenheit und in sælicheit’; so also Hom. 59* [Q 42], n. 9: ‘Nû wizzet: alliu unser volkomenheit und alliu unser sælicheit liget dar ane, daz der mensche durchgange und übergange alle geschaffenheit und alle zîtlicheit und allez wesen und gange in den grunt, der gruntlôs ist’.
[5] The intensification of perfect can often be found in Eckhart, see, for example, Eckhart, vgl. etwa Hom. 29* [Q 43], n. 4; Hom. 13* [S 102], n. 18.
[6] See Hom. 82* [Q 60], n. 5.
[7] On the likeness of all in heaven and on earth, hence a likeness that all human beings share with the saints and Mary, having the same honour and virtues, a likeness that plays such an important role in this homily here, see Eckhart, Hom. 92* [Q 74].
[8] Hom. 12* [Q 14], n. 2: ‘Stant vp jherosalem inde wirt erluchtet’.
[9] That perfection is being received, is repeatedly found in Eckhart, so, for example, Eckhart, Hom. 92* [Q 74], n. 4: ‘alle volkommenheit zuo empfahend’; Hom. 32* [S 108], n. 9: ‘Wan an im enpfæhet er volkomenheit’.
[10] The combination of drawing and loving together with a reference to one of his own works is to be found in Hom. 67* [Q 31], n. 7: ‘Ich hân ez ouch mê gesprochen: wære ich îtel und hæte ein inviuric minne und glîcheit, ich züge got alzemâle in mich’.
[11] See Hom. 5* [Q 22], n. 10: ‘in dem êrsten beginne der êrsten lûterkeit’; see ibid. n. 15; Hom. 18* [Q 1], n. 14: ‘in ir êrste begin’; Hom. 114* [Q 15], n. 11: ‘Ich hab och me gesprochen von dem ersten begin vnd von dem festen end. Der vater ist ain begin der gothait, wan er begriffet sich selber in im selber’; Hom. 100* [Q 17], n. 9: ‘In dem kumet si in daz êrste, in den begin’. Gott as origin, see Eckhart, Hom. 110* [Q 10], n. 4: ‘der anevanc der meinunge ist got’.
[12] See, for example, Hom. 67* [Q 31], n. 3: ‘Diu sêle sol sich opfern mit allem dem, daz si ist und daz si hât, gebresten und tugende’; Hom. 8* [Q 76], n. 9: ‘Daz der mensche klaget und leidic ist, daz ist allez von gebresten’; Hom. 5* [Q 22], n. 7: ‘alle crêatûren die würkent nâch ir êrsten lûterkeit und nâch ir aller hœhsten volkomenheit. Viur als viur enbrennet niht; ez ist als lûter und als kleinvüege, daz ez niht enbrennet; mêr: diu natûre des viures diu brennet und giuzet in daz dürre holz sîne natûre und sîne klârheit nâch sîner allerhœhsten volkomenheit. 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’; RdU (DW V 212,12–213,5): ‘Ez sint zwêne menschen: der ein mensche sî alsô, daz kein gebreste an in stôze oder wênic; aber der ander ist alsô, daz an in stôzent die gebresten. Von der ûzern gegenwerticheit der dinge sô wirt sîn ûzer mensche beweget [...]. Aber mit sînen obersten kreften sô stât er zemâle stæte, unbeweget und enwil niht des gebresten tuon’.
[13] See Eckhart, Hom. 55* [Q 80], n. 7, where this quote is given without reference to the source, even though Eckhart quoted the Liber de causis shortly before. Without source reference, we also read it in In Ioh. n. 97 (LW III 83,14-5). Eckhart, however, refers the idea explicitly to the Liber de causis in In Eccl. n. 12 (LW II 242,1-3). Indeed, the idea does not occur in Anselm, but in the Liber de causis, prop. 20 (21), n. 162 (ed. Adriaan Pattin, ‘Le Liber de causis. Edition établie à l’aide de 90 manuscrits avec introduction et notes’, Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 28 [1966], 90–203, 92): ‘Primum est dives per seipsum et non est dives maius’. Eckhart read the Liber de causis through Albertus, De causis et processu universitatis II, tr. 4, c. 5 (Albertus Magnus, De causis et processu universitatis a prima causa, ed. Winfried Fauser, Alberti Magni Opera omnia. Bd. 17,2 [Münster, 1993]), 160,6–8: ‘Dives autem ad omnia et simpliciter dives simplicissimum est, quod in uno et unite omnia continet et habet, quae sunt idem “ei quod ipsum est”’. See Studi sulle fonti di Meister Eckhart I, ed. Loris Sturlese, Dokimion 34 (Freiburg, 2008), 139; perhaps ‘Anselmus’ is a misreading for ‘Albertus’; see also DW IV with its first note to Pr. 117; on the combination with Ps.-Dionysius see Eckhart, Sermo 30 n. 55 (LW IV 55,1–4): ‘Adhuc nono dic quod dei natura, esse et vita subsistit in se communicando et se ipsum se totum dando. Primum enim est dives per se. Est ergo ipsi per se per se. Unde secundum Dionysium non ratiocinando se amare ipsum dat, sicut sol irradiat‘.
[14] See BgT (DW V 14,4): ‘einiger brunne’.
[15] See Hom. 94* [S 95], n. 8: ‘ein brunne götlîcher edelkeit und ist got selber’.
[16] On divine propriety see Hom. 4* [Q 77], n. 6: ‘daz got und diu sêle sô gar ein ist, daz got kein eigenschaft haben enmac, mit der er gescheiden sî von der sêle oder kein anderz ensî’; Hom. 68* [Q 44], n. 7: ‘Daz ist gotes eigenschaft’.
[17] The notion that the Son is born of the divine power of the soul can be found in Hom. 83* [Q 2], n. 9: ‘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’; Hom. 95* [Q 27], n. 9: ‘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 Hom. 111* [S 106], n. 7: ‘Ze glîcher wîse als der êwic gotes sun quillet ûz dem veterlîchen herzen, alsô quillet er in einer gotminnender sêle’ and n. 8: ‘Ie dicker disiu geburt geschihet, ie inniger der mensche in daz veterliche herze gevüeget wirt’; the Son is eternally in the intellect, Hom. 41* [Q 4], n. 11: ‘Der vater gebirt sînen sun in dem êwigen verstantnisse, und alsô gebirt der vater sînen sun in der sêle als in sîner eigenen natûre und gebirt in der sêle ze eigen’; that the Son is born from the paternal heart is found in Hom. 39* [Q 69], n. 15: ‘Vernünfticheit diu blicket în und durchbrichet alle die winkel der gotheit und nimet den sun in dem herzen des vaters und in dem grunde und setzet in in irn grunt’, und Hom. 96* [Q 75], n. 8: ‘Disiu geburt ist sîn verstantnisse, diu êwiclîche ursprungen ist von sînem veterlîchen herzen, in dem er alle sîne wunne hât ... wan der sun ist ein lieht, daz dâ êwiclîche geliuhtet hât in dem veterlîchen herzen’; He is in a pure heart, Hom. 49* [Q 5a], n. 8: ‘Merckend! Got enhat kein eygner statt dann ein rein hertz und ein reine sel; do gebirt der vatter sinen sun.
[18] See Hom. 114* [Q 15], n. 11: ‘Ich hab och me gesprochen von dem ersten begin vnd von dem lesten end. Der vater ist ain begin der gothait, wan er begriffet sich selber in im selber’; Hom. 78* [Q 23], n. 11: ‘Diu sêle erkennet von ûzen, got verstât in im selben durch sich selber, wan er ist ein ursprunc aller dinge’; here, Eckhart thinks already of Augustine as in In Ioh. n. 568 (LW III 495,9–10): ‘pater autem principium est totius divinitatis, ut ait Augustinus -, nec aliter intellectui sufficit, quousque cognoscat rem in suis principiis’, and Sermo 2,1 (LW IV 7,4-5): ‘Ratio, quia secundum Augustinum „pater principium est totius deitatis“‘, and Sermo 2,1, LW IV 11,15): ‘„pater secundum Augustinum „principium est totius deitatis“‘; see Augustinus, De trinitate IV c. 20 n. 29 (PL 42,908).
[19] See Augustinus, De trinitate IV c. 20 n. 29 (PL 42,908): ‘spiritus vero sanctus, caritas et sua et patris et filii’; Augustinus, De trinitate XV c. 19 n. 37 (PL 42, 1086): ‘Et si caritas qua pater diligit filium et patrem diligit filius, ineffabiliter communionem demonstrat amborum, quid convenientius quam ut ille dicatur caritas proprie, qui spiritus est communis ambobus’; the text is similarly used in In Ioh. n. 565 (LW III, 571,113): ‘spiritus sanctus procedit a filio, ubicumque procedit, sicut amor a notitia; filii autem ut filius non est generare filios, sed hoc est proprium patris’.
[20] Gn. 1:2. This passage has its parallel in Eckhart, Sermo 2,1 nn. 4–5 (LW IV, 7,1–12): ‘“et spiritus domini ferebatur super aquas”. Unde ibi scriptura in sui exordio trinitatem innuens nomen dei accipit in persona patris. Ratio, quia secundum Augustinum “pater principium est totius deitatis. Sequitur: “pacis, id est filii, Eph. 5: “ipse est pax nostra. “Dilectionis, id est spiritus sancti, Col. 1: “gratias agentes deo patri, qui nos transtulit in regnum filii dilectionis suae. Dilectio enim, qua se diligunt pater et filius, est ipse spiritus sanctus. Diligunt enim spiritu sancto, sicut arbor floret floritione, floret flore, Is. 11: “flos de radice eius ascendet, et requiescet super eum spiritus domini etc., “spiritus sapientiae etc. „Haec enim omnia operatur unus atque idem spiritus“‘; the combination of this verse from Gn. with Augustine’s interpretation and the conclusion is a particular support for Eckhart’s origin of this homily, see Augustinus, Confessiones XIII c. 5 n. 6, CSEL XXXIII, 348,23–349,3: ‘Et tenebam iam patrem in dei nomine, qui fecit haec, et filium in principii nomine in quo fecit haec, et trinitatem credens deum meum, sicut credebam, quaerebam in eloquiis sanctis eius, et ecce “spiritus tuus superferebatur super aquas”’; In Sap. n. 28 (LW II 348,9349,9); In Ioh. n. 56 (LW III 47,57): ‘Personam enim patris notat per nomen dei, personam filii nomine principii: “in principio”, inquit, “creavit deus”. De sancto spiritu sequitur ibidem: “spiritus dei ferebatur super aquas”’, ibid. n. 60.
[21] Gn 1:2.
[22] See Hom. 96* [Q 75], n. 7: ‘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’.
[23] Hom. 114 [Q 15], n. 6: ‘Nun merkent, was aristotiles spricht von disem mentschen. homo das ist als vil gesprochen als ain mentsch ...’; see Aristoteles, B c. 1 (412 ab).
[24] Hom. 22* [Q 37], n. 5: ‘[...] die drîe kœre in in hânt: Thrôni die nement got in sich und behaltent got in in, und got ruowet in in; Cherubîn die bekennent got und blîbent dar ane; Seraphîn daz ist der brant’. See also the reference in Hom. 24* [Q 19], n. 7: ‘In der stille und in der ruowe – als ich nû sprach von den engeln, die dâ sitzent bî gote in dem kôre der wîsheit und des brandes – dâ sprichet got in die sêle und spricht alzemâle in die sêle’; Hom. 81* [Q 60], n. 11 on Sap. 1:3-4: ‘Dar umbe sprichet Dâvît: „got der sitzet obe Cherubîn“; er ensprichet niht, er sitze obe Seraphîn. Cherubîn bezeichent die wîsheit, daz ist die bekantnisse’; the reference ot Dionysius is presumably borrowed from Thomas: Th. Aqu., STh I q. 108 a. 5 ad 6: ‘Ad sextum dicendum quod ordo Thronorum habet excellentiam prae inferioribus ordinibus in hoc, quod immediate in deo rationes divinorum operum cognoscere possunt. Sed Cherubim habent excellentiam scientiae; Seraphim vero escellentiam ardoris. [...] Exponit autem Dionysius nomen Thronorum, per conventiam ad materiales sedes [...]’; see on the angels Isid. Hisp., Etymologiae VII c. 5 n. 21ff. (ed. Wallace Martin 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 [...] qui ex Hebraeo in linguam nostram interpretantur scientiae multitudo. [...] qui pro eo, quod vicinius positi divina scientia ceteris amplius pleni sunt, Cherubin, ed est plenitudo scientiae, appellantur. [...] Seraphin quoque similiter multitudo est angelorum, qui ex Hebraeo in Latinum ardentes vel incendentes interpretantur’; see also Petrus Lombardus, Sent. II d. 9 c. 1 n. 59–60.
[25] On the paternal heart see above.
[26] On the high praise of Mary see In Sap. n. 16 (LW II 244). The homily can be found in Heinrich von Erfurt, see Regina D. Schiewer, „The postil of Hartwig of Erfurt as a preaching tool“, Medieval Sermon Studies 45 (2001), 40-57.
[27] Anselm, De conceptu virginali et de peccato originali c.18; on this see Eckhart, In Eccl. nn. 146 (LW II 244,1245,2): ‘De primo Anselmus: decebat nimirum, ut ea puritate virgo illa niteret qua maior sub deo nequit intelligi. Cant. 4: tota pulchra es, amica mea, et macula non est in te; Apoc. 12: “mulier amicta sole, et luna sub pedibus eius. Prosequere, ut libet. De secundo, scilicet fecunditate, Augustinus in quodam sermone Legimus Moysen: divina potentia operante credentis viscera fecundantur. Qui terra, mari caeloque non capitur, intra unius corpusculi membra suscipitur; de creatura creator omnium procreatus nascitur. Primum, scilicet puritas, respondet virginitati; secundum, scilicet fecunditas, maternitati. Beda in Homilia: o quam pium spectaculum, virgo et mater. De tertio, scilicet famae et opinionis odoriferae suavitate, Chrysostomus super Matthaeum, super illo: inventa est in utero habens scilicet: inaestimabilis laus Mariae. Magis credebat Ioseph eius castitati quam utero eius, plus gratiae quam naturae. Possibilius credebat mulierem sine viro posse concipere quam Mariam posse peccare. Eccli. 24: quasi myrrha electa dedi suavitatem odoris’.
[28] See Sermo 8 n. 84 (LW IV 81,4f.): ‘Origenes super “Maria stabat”: “deum quaero; idcirco poena est ad videndum omnis creatura”’.
[29] See Hom. 21* [Q 49].
[30] See next note.
[31] See BgT (DW V 33,10 Ba2): ‘urkunde und bewîsunge’.
[32] Ioh. 21:20.
[33] Ioh. 21:20.
[34] See Hom. 78* [Q 23], n. 20: ‘underscheides’; for example, Hom. 110* [Q 10], n. 11: ‘underscheit’.
[35] See RdU (DW V 245,7): ‘minnsamlîch’ (N4).
[36] See Hom. 21* [Q 49], n. 5 (BT); Hom. 108* [Q 52], n. 17; Hom. 51* [Q 63], n. 7; Hom. 71* [Q 78], n. 5; Hom. 84* [Q 86], n. 3; BgT (DW V 35,7); Von abegescheidenheit (DW V 432,9).
[37] See Hom. 21* [Q 49], n. 7: ‘heilige kristenheit’.
[38] Rom. 8:23; see on this In Ioh. n. 159 (LW III 131,6–13).
[39] Human beings.
[40] Here ends the text.

Homily * [Brethauer 262-7]

In communi confessorum et pontificum
‘In diebus suis placuit deo et inventus est iustus’ (Eccli. 44:16-7)

Introduction

The passage that Eckhart refers to, Eccli. 44:16-7 is part of the reading of the ordinary of confessors and popes (In communi confessorum et pontificum) in the Roman Missal, although different from Hom. 110* [Q 10] the text here is explicit in making reference to the feast of saint German.
               The text is handed down by only one manuscripts (Bre1), and except for this manuscript being a treasure of other texts by Eckhart (toghether with those of some other masters), there is no further external support for Eckhart’s authorship. Nevertheless, the text shows so many parallels and typical Eckhartian features that there is little doubt that this text originates from Eckhart. It even seems that it presumes Hom. 110* [Q 10], and reads like a continuation of this other homily on the same verse. 
               Eckhart, Hom. 91* [Q 41], n. 8 provides a reference (‘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’)[1] which most likely goes to this homily here, n. 6 (‘I am in the Son, when I am little concerned and have little regard for myself, neither focus on myself more nor love myself more than some other fellow Christian, but become alien to myself ... thus, I am Son to him and am something. And where I turn outside, hoping that I am something, there I am nothing and am truly full of doubt. And where I turn outside, there I am more alien to myself than the one who is beyond the sea. But somebody who has gone out of one’s self and is not in it, but in God, is something and is truly. For a fly had more truth in God than all the outer world. And the person who thus is in God, when he is Son to Him, confides in Him; therefore, God cannot reject him then, as he would not reject His Son. For the person who is alien to himself, God loves with all that He is. For whom God loves, He loves with all His power, and He loves him, as if nobody would be His, except this person alone’). Conversely, this homily here has a reference in n. 8 (‘I have said once what follows: By what we chase, we are chased, this is the semen, and the more we are chased by it, the more we chase it, so that we grasp it, this power, the highest part that Scriptures knows and announces in truth. Yet, all here know that of all spiritual things the highest is the innermost’) which most likely goes to Eckhart, Hom. 30* [Q 79], nn. 7-8: ‘(7) ... Look, so sweet is the comfort of God, that all creatures seek Him and chase Him. And I say more: that the being and life of all creatures are about seeking God and chasing Him. (8) Now you might say: where is this God, whom all creatures chase, from whom they have their being and their lives?[2]



[1] ‘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’.
[2]Sehet, als süeze ist gotes trôst, daz in alle crêatûren suochent und jagent im nâch. Und ich spriche mê, daz aller crêatûren wesen und leben liget dar ane, daz sie got suochent und im nâchjagent. Nû möhtet ir sprechen: wâ ist dirre got, dem alle crêatûren nâchjagent, dâ von sie ir wesen und ir leben hânt?

Text and translation


<:1> [7r] Man liset von s' germanus, vnd mag man iz ouch sprechen von eime anderen guten mensehen, ein wort uz der alden e vnd ein ander wort uz der nuwen e, vnd vlizen dog beide in ein. dit erste wort von der alden e lerit uns, wi wir lebe sullen, daz ander (263) | wes wi hoffe sullen. vnd sprichit dit wort also: her ist minneclich ader behegelich gewest gote in sinen tagen vnd ist funden gerecht’. darumme, sicher bi miner warheit ane zwivil, ‘ich wil in setze uber alle min gut’. he ist behegelig gewest gote.
<:1>One reads of saint German[1] (and one might this also say of other good people) a verse of the Old and another of the New Testament, yet both flow together. The first verse of the Old Testament teaches us, how we should live, the other, what we should hope for, und this verse reads as follows: ‘He has been lovely and delightful to God in his days and is found just’. Therefore, surely by my truth without doubt, ‘I will put him above all that is mine’.[2] He was a delight to God.
<:2>do s' iohannes unsen herren doufte, do wart ein stimme gehort. di stimme waz des vaters, alse alle die meistere sprechen. vnd di sprag also, alse s' matheus scribit: ‘dit ist min liber sun, in dem ich my selber behage’. aber s' marcus bescribit: ‘du bist min libe sun, in dem ich behay’. aber s' lucas scribit, daz sich fugit zu di<s>r rede: ‘du bist min libe sun, in dem mir behait’.
<:2>When saint John baptised our Lord, a voice was heard. This was the Father’s voice, as all the masters say.[3] And these say as follows, as saint Matthew wrote: ‘This is my dear Son, in whom I please myself’.[4] But saint Marc describes it: ‘You are my dear Son, whom I have pleasure’.[5] Now saint Luke writes what conforms to this version: ‘You are my beloved Son, in whom I have pleasure’.[6]
<:3>wan alliz, daz dem vatere ummer behait, daz muz vme behay in sime sune, vnd vz vme in behait vme nichtes nicht. Iz were unmvgelig, vnd got vermochtis nicht, daz vme ummer ich behaite dan in sime ein born sune. wan in vme vme sint alle ding icht vnd sint war, wan her selber di warheit ist. vnd were warheit etwaz anders dan got, ich wolde warheit ane bete vnd nicht got. wan were warheit abe gesundert von gote, so in were warheit nicht war got vnd in were nicht. darumme in wolde ich in nimmer an gebete.
<:3>All things which always pleased the Father must please Him in His Son, and without Him nothing at all pleases Him.[7] It would be impossible, and God could never enjoy anything, unless in His inborn Son. For in Him all things are something to Him and they are true, as He Himself is the truth. And if the truth were something else than God, I wished to worship the truth and not God.[8] For, if truth were separated from God, then truth would not be truly God, and He would not be. As a result, I wished never to worship Him.
<:4>vnd alliz, daz uz vme vellit, in ist nicht. darumme in sint di sunder nicht vnd sind tot. waz ist ein tote, dan ein ding, daz nog ettewaz schinet vnd in ist dog nicht? aber torechte lute nemen einen valschen sin hi von vnd sprechen, su sin icht, da von daz su hi etwaz schin. darumme sprichit ein scrift, daz di sune der wisheit vrteilen unrechte. were, daz ein mensche eine hant stize in die sunnen, die schine etwaz virn vurge, die anderen (!), di schine nicht. alse schint di sunder hi etwaz, vnd etwa nicht, daz ist vor gote: da sin su nicht. Got vrkennit iog vr nicht; der verfluchten in der helle sin sines bekentnisses nicht wirdig. her weiz su also wenig, alse ig weis den soldan uber mer. her kennit su nicht kennende und weis su nicht wiszende.
<:4>And everything that falls off Him, is nothing. Therefore, the sinners are nothing and they are dead.[9] What else is something dead, except a thing that still glimmers a little, yet is not? But stupid people misunderstand this and say, they are something from the fact that here something glimmers. Therefore, a writing states that the sons of wisdom are wrong in their judgement.[10] If a person stretched a hand into the sun, it would look like an old furrow, the other would not shine. Hence, here, the sinners shine a bit and then not, namely before God, there they are not. You, too, do not know God; those who are condemned in hell are not worthy to know Him. He knows them as little as I know the soldier beyond the sea. He recognises them as not-recognising and knows them as not-knowing.[11]
<:5>vorte di vet, hoffenuge vet, minne vet ouch; wi werden von allen dingen gevangen. Got di vet uns ouch vnd sin gevencnisse vriet vnd ledigit, Ja, iz lost alle bant. nv verstet, weliche wiz; wi gotis kinder werden, daz wi in ime sune sin, daz wi in vme behagen vnd geminnit werden, da got mensche [8r] wart, do nam di persone des sunes an sich menslig nature, nicht dan noch den menschen. alse ouch von der craft der worte, di der prister sprichit ober dem altare . . . (von ?) gotis licham alleine vnd ist da sunder groze vnd (264) | cleine, alleine iz alliz nach volge. her ist da also wenig in stat alse in anderen steten. die mensheit di Xc an sich nam, daz ist min mensheit, vnd in der bin ich vme also na, alse her vme selber ist. di ist uns allen glich gemeine, dem ermesten alseme kunge, dem do rechten alse dem wisen. wan in der mensheit in ist he vme nicht neher dan my, vnd ich in bin my selber nicht neher dan vme. sin wi vme so na vnd so ein in der mensheit, waz sin wy dan in der gotheit?
<:5>Words do bind, hope binds, love also binds; we are caught by everything. God, too, binds us, but we are free and bare of prisons, indeed, all bounds are lost. Now notice, in which way we become God’s children, that we are in His Son, that we are a delight and loved in Him, as God became human. Then the person of the Son took on Him human nature, not in addition a human being;[12] also through the power of words that the priest speaks on the altar ... (of?) God’s body alone and is there both big and small, yet, all follows. He is there as little in a place as in all other places. The humanity that Christ took on Him is my humanity, in it I am as close to Him, as He is to Himself. It is equally common to us, to the poorest as to a king, to the righteous here as to the wise. For in humanity He is not closer to Himself than to me, and in it I am not closer to myself than to Him.[13] If we are so close to Him and so one in humanity, what, then, are we in the godhead?
<:6>Nv merkit! dan bin ich in dem sune, alse ich also wenig geneigt bin vnd also wenig schin habent mich selber, nog mich selber nicht me meine nog minne vnd min selber also vremeden, alse ein anderen min eben cristen. alse ioch iz gebot heizit, daz ich in lip sal habe, alse mich selber. daz my der nicht minner behage, nog in minner meine, dan mich selber, ab her iog min vingit ist, vnd ab her uber mer ist, so ist mir recht, vnd so bin ich ime sune vnd bin icht. vnd wa ich mich us mich selber neige in eime wane, daz ich icht si, da bin ich nicht vnd bin werlig sunder zwivil. vnd da ich mich us mich selber neige, da bin ich mir selber vremede, dan dem, der uber mer ift. vnd di mensche, di sin selbiz alse uz gegangen ist, da her nicht in ist vnd in gote ist, da her icht ist vnd werlichen ist. wan ein mvcke hete me warheit in gote, dan alle werlt uz. vnd den menschen, die also in gote [8v] sai, wan her ime sune ist, so bit her in vme; darumme mag vme dan got nicht versai, alse her sime sune nicht versai mag. wan den mensche, di also von vme selber also gevremit ist, den minnit got mit allem dem, daz her ist. wan wa got minnit, da minnit her mit alle siner macht vnd minnit in also, ab niman mein si, dan der mensche alleine.
<:6>Now note! I am in the Son, when I am little concerned and have little regard for myself, neither focus on myself more nor love myself more than some other fellow Christian, but become alien to myself. As it is also said in this commandment that I should love him as much as myself.[14] That he is not less dear to me, nor is he less important to me than I am for myself, even if he is my foe, or if he is far beyond the sea, I am fine with and, thus, I am Son to him and am something. And where I turn outside, hoping that I am something, there I am nothing and am truly full of doubt. And where I turn outside, there I am more alien to myself than the one who is beyond the sea. But somebody who has gone out of one’s self and is not in it, but in God, is something and is truly. For a fly had more truth in God than all the outer world.[15] And the person who thus is in God, when he is Son to Him, confides in Him; therefore, God cannot reject him then, as he would not reject His Son. For the person who is alien to himself, God loves with all that He is. For whom God loves, He loves with all His power, and He loves him, as if nobody would be His, except this person alone.[16]

<:7>Ich denkes dicke: dit lutit gar groz, daz sich der mensche so gar mvz laze; ez ist etwaz swer. also her ab schelt di nuz, di etwaz herte vnd biter, er man durg di schalen kume zume kerne, di da susze ist. also ist iz zu ersten herte, alse man aber durg brichit, so ist iz suze vnd lustig. Ja, alliz daz der mensche tu sal, alle di gebot, di sin vme lichte vnd vrolig zu halden, vnd also lustig, alse eime hungirgen menschen daz lustig vnd naturlig ist, daz her iszit vnd trinkit. Iz in ist nicht groz, wan alliz, daz der mensche lezit, daz nimit her wider, aber her muz sig selber ie alrest gelazen habe, wan hi inne nimit her alle ding in dem hosten vnd hat su da in der warheit. vnd alliz, daz alle heiligen haben, daz ist sin also eigen, (265) | alse iz vr ist, vnd also daz sin eigen ist, vnd daz unse vrouwe hat. Ich spriche me: alliz, daz xpc hat mit allem dem, daz vme sin vater gegebin hat. wan her vme gegebin hat alliz, daz her geleisten mag, daz ist da sin also eigen, alse iz sin selbiz ist, wan her unse mensheit ist. vnd iz ist oug me unse dan sin, wan iz vme durg uns gegeben ist. wan man meinit me daz hus, daz man mit der barten machit, dan di barten, wan dit hus ist ein sache der barten, vnd di barte ist durg daz hus. wan iz vme durg uns gegeben ist, darumme ist me unser wan sin. iz ist alliz [9r] eigen des menschen, daz xc vnd alle heiligen haben, da von sprichit di scrift irl'm alse die teilunge sin in daz selbe, daz ist alliz, daz in vn allen ist. daz su alle haben, daz ist vme gemein vnd ist da eigen sin.
<:7>I am sure: It sounds hard that a person has to let himself fully go. Admittedly, it is difficult.[17] As one removes the nutshell which is slightly hard and bitter one comes through the shell to the kernel which then is sweet.[18] So it is with a hard beginning.[19] When one breaks through, it is sweet and delightful. Indeed, all that a person shall do, all the commandments, are easy and pleasant to keep,[20] just as it is delightful and natural for a hungry person to eat and drink.[21] It is not exceptional, because everything that the person lets go, one will receive again, but one must have let oneself fully go, then in this, one takes all things in the heighest place and has them there in truth.[22] And everything that all saints possess, this is also one’s own, as it is theirs, and also that is one’s that also our Lady has.[23] I dare to say more: everything that Christ has, together with everything that His Father has given Him [is one’s own].[24] For He has given the person everything, as much as He can, this is also one’s own, as it is His self, because He is our humanity. And it is more ours than His, as it is given to Him because of us.[25] For the house that one constructs using an ax is more important than the ax, because the house is a product of the axe, and the ax serves the house.[26] For it is given because of us, therefore, it is more ours than His. It is all the person’s own that Christ and all the saints have, and of this the Scripture speaks ...[27] as division is within the same, all that is, is in us all. That they all possess that is His intention and is what is His.
<:8>‘her hat gote behait in sinen tagen’. Ein scrift sprichit: ‘ein tag kundigit den anderen tage’. dit wort meinit got. darumme sprichit iz eigintliche: ein tag kundigit den anderen tage got. waz ist dise tag? alse di sunne geginwortig ist, so heize wis tag. alse dit antlize schinit in me spiegele, alse der spigel ge<g>inwortig ist. alse man den spigel abe kert, so in ist da nicht daz antlize. in me spigele in ist da nicht an der warheit; iz ist, iz hangit in weiz wa in der luft. alse ist diser tag alse nicht. Ein ander tag ist in der sele. Ein ander tag ist ein tag der gnaden. Ober dem ist der tag der ewikeit. diser tag in der sele ist ein craft, ein naturlig licht, in dem luchtit nacht alse tag. darumme sprichit ein ander scrift: got gibit vnd but sin bekentnisse vnd sin lop in der nacht, das ist alse man geruwig vnd unbehindert ist, aber an me tage siner barmherzikeit, daz ist daz sich der mensche ube an uszeren werken. Ein prophete sprichit: ‘set, di tage sint kumen, got wil vrwecken den samen davides’. diser same ist got, di slefit in der sele, in diseme tage wirt der same vr weckit, daz ist bekant. dieser tag meldit got. darumme alle, di dar inne nicht in sin, di in mvgen sin nicht bekenne. Globe ich eime ein ding zu geben in dirre kirchen, queme der nicht herin, iz inworden vme nummer. Ich spreche etwanne ein wortelin: daz, daz wi iagen, von dem werden wir geiagit, daz ist di same, vnd ie me wir da von geiagit werden, ie me wir vme nag iagen, daz wi in begrifen, dise kraft, di oberste, die di scrift kan vnd in der warheit bekennit. Joch al hi di bekennit, daz an allen geiftlichen [9v] dingen daz hoste ist innerste. In dirre (266) | krarft get alle engenote abe vnd cleine, wan got in mag nicht gegebe dan in einer wite, da her vil gegebe mag. vnd da meint her unse beste mite, daz her uns da in ladit, da her uns vil gegebe mag. Gebe ein kunig eine linsen, iz were vme ein ichande. Got in mag hi nicht gegebe in disen dingen, iu sint vme zu enge vnd zu cleine. Iz were vme lesterliche, daz her cleine gebe, wan daz ist sicher, daz got nummer dikeine Gabe gibt, he gebe sig selbe da mite.
<:8>‘He has been a delight to God in his days’. A writing states: ‘One day announces the next day’.[28] This word refers to God. Therefore, one could more properly say: One day announces God for the next day. What is this day? When the sun is present, one calls it daylight. Like this face that shines in my mirror, while the mirror is present.[29] When the mirror is turned away, the face is no longer in there. I am no longer truly in the mirror. It is, but it depends on the light in the air. So is this day, and it is not. There is a different day in the soul. Another day is that of grace. Above this is the day of eternity.[30] This day in the soul is a power, a natural light,[31] in which night shines as day. Therefore, another writing says:[32] God gives and offers his knowledge and his praise in the night, when one is at rest and unhindered, but more during the day of his mercy, i.e. that one does one’s good works. A prophet says: ‘See, the days have come, God wants to raise the semen of David’.[33] This semen is God which sleeps in the soul, on this day the semen will be raised, this has been made known. This day announces God. Hence, all that are not in there, may not recognise Him. If I believed I could give somebody something in church, but this person did not come, I could not deliver it to him. I have said once what follows:[34] By what we chase, we are chased, this is the semen, and the more we are chased by it, the more we chase it, so that we grasp it, this power, the highest part that Scriptures knows and announces in truth. Yet, all here know that of all spiritual things the highest is the innermost.[35] In this power, all narrowness and tightness are gone, as God does not want to give Himself, except in breadth, as He wants to give a lot. And with it He wants the best for us, that He invites us, in order to give us a lot. If a king gave a lentil, this would be a discgrace. God does not want to give Himself in such things, they would be to narrow and to tight to Him. It would be annoying to Him, to give small gifts, as that is sure that God never gives any gift, unless He offered Himself with it.[36]
<:9>in disem tage ist vnd got kennit, di bekennit, daz alle di werlt uz gote ist alse ein linse vnd der vil, di di linsen nemen vnd nicht got. alleine sig got dinne gebe, so in nemen su iz doch nicht, aber di got bekennit, den menschen sin alle ding, di uz gote sint, gein gote alse nicht. Iz ist glich, beide, in gote vnd uz gote, ein mucke ist also edil in gote alse der oberste engil, vnd uz gote ist ein ganz werlt nicht me dan alse ein nicht. In dirre craft ist mir also na di oberste planete alse, daz bi mir ist. vnd di tag, di vor tusint iaren waz, ist mir da also geginwortig alse di, di itzunt gegin wortig ist. vnd dit inreste dis steines ist mir semeliche alse offinbar alse dit uszerste. dit licht meldit got.
<:9>On this day God is and knows those who believe that all the world outside of God is a lentil and as much as those who take the lentil and not God.[37] God, however, gives Himself to them, yet they do not take Him, but those who believe in God all things that are outside God are like nothing not God. Both is the same, in God or outside God, a fly is as noble as the highest angel,[38] but outside God an entire world is nothing more than nothing. In this power, the highest planet is as close to me as what is near to me. And the days that were thousand years ago, are as present to me as those that are present now.[39] And the innerst part of this stone is as fully disclosed to me as the most external part. This light announces God.
<:10>‘her hat gote behait in sinen tagen; in sinen, in sinen! Neme wi iz in disem tage in der sele, so ist iz war, wan got ist da inne. Neme wi iz aber in dem tage, di got ist, so ist iz aber war, wan der mensche in gote ist vnd ist inne vonden gerecht; inne, inne! Got in wirt nirgen [10r] vonden dan inne. Got in ist nirgen, nog in ist got, noch in wirkit, nog in wirkit gotlichen, dan inne imme inresten. wi usze suchit, di in vindit sin nicht. Suchit he in aber inne vnd vin dit her sin danne nicht, so verwize her iz gote.
<:10>‘He has been a delight to God in his days’. In His, in His! If we take it in this day in the soul, then it is true, because in there is God. Yet, if we take it in this day that is God, it is still true, as the human being is in God and is found just inwardly. Inwardly, inwardly! God is not been found, except inwardly. God is nowhere, nor is God somewhere, nor does He act, nor does He act divinely, except within, in deepest interiority. Whoever searches outside, will not find Him. However, if one searches inwardly and one does not find Him,[40] one should refer it to God.
<:11>‘her inne vonden gerecht’. Der mensche ist gerecht in eime groben vnd dog guten sinne, des got ere hat vnd alle himelscher vroude vnd der eben cristen beszerunge vnd der gevangenen in dem vegefure losunge. Der ist gerecht, der nicht in denkit nog in spri(266)|chit nog in wirkit dan gerechtikeit. Daz ist gerecht, daz glig vellit vellit. Di ist gerecht, di glig vnd ein war stet in libe vnd in leide, in glucke vnd in unglucke. vnd der ist gerecht, di gerechtikeit liber hat dan alle ding vnd iog sig selber, vnd dem di gerechtikeit lustig ist pobin alle ding vnd ein pine ist, waz wider gerechtikeit ist, vnd den ein vroude vnd licht vnd lustelig ist, zu lidene durg di gerechtikeit. von diseme sprichit vnse herre imme ewangelio: ‘wer nag mir kumen wil, der verlouken sin selbis vnd hebe uf sin cruze’. nicht daz her ein pinlig leben uf sich neme, alleine iz gut ist, di nicht beszeres in weis; he sal nicht pine uf sig neme, mer: he sal su von vme werfe vnd sal pine uf hebe, wan pine wirt vme lichte vnd in ist vme nicht pine, su wirt vme iog lustig, vnd di mensche ist gerecht, di gerechtikeit bekennit vnd minnit, alse su gerechtikeit ist vnd warheit ist vnd got ist. vnd der mensche ist in gote imme sune vnd ist got behegelig vnd minlig in vme, vnd von dem sprichit her: ‘werligen, bi miner warheit, ich wil in setzen uber allis min gut’, daz ist: ich wil in min selbis gewaldig machen.
<:11>‘Inwardly, he is found just’.[41] A person is found just in a coarse, but still good sense who holds God in honour, has all heavenly joy, looks after fellow Christians and unbounds those who are kept in purgatory. This person is just who does not think nor talk nor act other than according to justice. This one is just who passes equal judgement. This one is just who remains the one and the same both in love and in suffering, in good and in bad luck. And this one is just who prefers justice more than all other things and even himself, to whom justice is more delightful beyond all things, to whom it is painful what goes against justice, und to whom it is easy and delightful to suffer because of justice. Of this person our Lord speaks in the Gospel: ‘Whoever wants to follow me, deny himself and lift up his cross.[42] Not that he takes on him a life of suffering, but it is good enough, not to know something better. He must not take suffering on him, rather, he must throw it off him and must remove suffering, thus he will be delighted and this person is just who knows justice and love, inasmuch as it is justice, is truth and is God. And this person is always Son in God and is a delight to God and loving in Him, and of him He speaks: ‘Truly, by my truth, I will put him above all that is mine’,[43] i.e. I will give him power of what is mine.

<:12>daz vns dit gesche, des helfe uns got. amen.
<:12> That this may happen to us, may God help us! Amen.[44]




[1] See the parallel homily that expounds the first part of Eccli. 44:16-7: Hom. 110* [Q 10].
[2] Eccli. 44:16-7: ’16 Enoch placuit Deo et translatus est in paradiso ut det gentibus paenitentiam. 17 Noe inventus est perfectus iustus et in tempore iracundiae factus est reconciliatio’; Matth. 25:21: ‘Euge serve bone, et fidelis: quia super pauca fuisti fidelis, super multa te constituam’; the same combination of the two verses of Eccli. 44:16 and Matth. 25:21 can be found in Eckhart, Hom. 109* [Q 66], n. 4, an important homily that centers on Matth. 25:21. More on Eckhart’s interpretation of Matth. 25:21 can be found in Hom. 52* [Q 64], nn. 3-4.
[3] The masters, here, refer to the authors of the Synoptic Gospels who are mentioned thereafter. A similar comparison can be found in Hom. 110 [Q 10], n. 9: ‘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’ (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).
[4] Matth. 3:17: ‘hic est Filius meus dilectus in quo mihi conplacui’.
[5] Marc. 1:11: ‘tu es Filius meus dilectus in te conplacui’.
[6] Luc. 3:22: ‘tu es Filius meus dilectus in te conplacuit mihi’.
[7] See Eckhart, Hom. 67* [Q 31], n. 3: ‘Der vater enminnet kein dinc dan sînen sun und allez, daz er vindet in sînem sune’; Hom. 23* [Q 51], n. 6: ‘Ûzwendic dem sune enweiz der vater nihtes niht. Er hât sô grôzen lust in dem sune, daz er anders niht enbedarf dan gebern sînen sun’.
[8] See Eckhart, Hom. 12* [Q 14], n. 4: ‘were eit hoeger dan got, sy in woilde gotzs neit. Der ander in genoeget neit dan an deme alre besten; were eit besser dan got, sy in wolde godes neit. Der dirder ingenoeget neyt dan an eynem goiden; were eit goiders dan got, sy in wolde godes neyt’ (‘if there was something higher than God, it would not want God. The second is not satisfied except by the very best; if there was something better than God, it would not wish for God. The third is not satisfied either except with something good; if there was something better than God,  it would not wish for God’).
[9] See Eckhart, Hom. 13* [S 102], n. 8: ‘Des enmac der sünder niht enpfâhen noch enist sîn niht wirdic, wan er ervüllet ist mit den sünden und mit bôsheit, daz dâ heizet vinsternisse’; Hom. 17* [S 91], n. 12: ‘Ze dem andern mâle ladet er an dem tôde, der dâ bitterlîche und swærlîche vellet ûf der sünder herze’.
[10] I Cor. 1:24-5: ‘(24) ... Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam (25) quia quod stultum est Dei sapientius est hominibus’.
[11] This seems to contradict Eckhart’s otherwise strong statements that those in hell, though separated from God, are not fully lost, even though they are called ‘condemned’ and obviously do not want to know God, see Eckhart, Hom. 113* [S 100], n. 7: ‘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!’ (‘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!’). Yet, it is clear, that those who do not want to be with God, have no knowledge of Him and His mercy. Contrarywise, God knows them as they are (as people who are not-recognising, not-knowing). And, as in Hom. 113* one reads in the next sentence here in n. 8 that God is binding, hence, he does not let go, even those who are condemned, he speaks His Word, Christ takes on human nature.
[12] A close parallel is Eckhart, Hom. 2* [Q 24], n. 9: ‘dar umbe nam got menschlîche natûre an sich und einigete sie sîner persônen. Dâ wart menschlich natûre got, wan er menschlîche natûre blôz und keinen menschen an sich nam’ (‘God took on Himself human nature and united it with His persons. There, human nature became God, because He took the naked human nature itself on Himself and not a man’).
[13] And again a parallel in the same Hom. 2* [Q 24], n. 9 straight after: ‘Dar umbe, wilt dû der selbe Krist sîn und got sîn, sô ganc alles des abe, daz daz êwige wort an sich niht ennam. Daz êwige wort nam keinen menschen an sich; dar umbe ganc abe, swaz menschen an dir sî und swaz dû sîst, und nim dich nâch menschlîcher natûre blôz, sô bist dû daz selbe an dem êwigen worte, daz menschlich natûre an im ist. Wan dîn menschlîche natûre und diu sîne enhât keinen underscheit: si ist ein, wan, swaz si ist in Kristô, daz ist si in dir’ (‘Therefore, if you wish to be the same Christ and be God, so abandon everything that the eternal Word did not assume. The eternal Word did not take on Himself a human being, hence, abandon what is a human being in you and what you are, and take yourself according to naked human nature, then you are the same with the eternal Word which human nature is with Him. As there is no difference between your human nature and His own, it is one, because what it is in Christ, this it is in you’).
[14] Marc. 12:31: ‘simile illi diliges proximum tuum tamquam te ipsum’; a straight parallel to this commandment which is felt to be hard (see n. 7) in Eckhart, Hom. 41* [Q 4], n. 8: ‘Ez schînet swære, daz unser herre geboten hât, daz man den ebenkristen minnen sol als sich selben’ (‘It seems hard, what our Lord has commanded,  that we must love our fellow Christians as much as oneself’).
[15] See Eckhart, Hom. 113* [S 100], n. 8: ‘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’ (‘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’); see also Hom. 90* [Q12], n. 9: ‘Der eine vliegen nimet in gote, diu ist edeler in gote dan der hœhste engel an im selber sî’ (‘Whoever takes a fly in God, it is more noble in God than the highest angel is in itself’).
[16] See Eckhart, Hom. 24* [Q 19], n. 2: ‘Der himelische vater sprichet ein wort und sprichet daz êwiclîche, und in dem worte verzert er alle sîne maht und sprichet sîne götlîche natûre alzemâle in dem worte und alle crêatûren’ (‘The heavenly Father says a Word and He says it eternally, and in this Word He consumes all His power, and He speaks in this Word His entire divine nature and all creatures’).
[17] See the note above on Marc. 12:31.
[18] See the parallel with a reference in Eckhart, Hom. 23* [Q 51], n. 10: ‘Ich hân gesprochen etwenne mê: diu schal muoz zerbrechen, und muoz daz, daz dar inne ist, her ûz komen; wan, wilt dû den kernen hân, sô muost dû die schalen brechen’ (‘I said at some time: the shell must break, and what is inside has to come out; because if you want to have the kernel, you have to break the shell’); though the reference may also go to Hom. 65* [Q 13], n. 3: ‘Diu schal muoz enzwei sîn, sol der kerne her ûz komen’ (‘The shell must be split, if the kernel is to come out’).
[19] See the parallel in Eckhart, Hom. 3* [Q 68], n. 15: ‘Daz ist wol wâr, daz ez in dem beginne etwaz swære ist in dem abescheidenne’ (‘It is true that in the beginning detaching is somehow difficult. Yet, as soon as one progresses, no life was ever lighter, more pleasurable and likeable’).
[20] See Eckhart, Hom. 6* [Q 38], n. 14: ‘Alliu sîniu gebot sint mir lîhte ze haltenne’ (‘All His commandments are easy for me to keep’).
[21] See Eckhart, Hom. 30* [Q 79], n. 5: ‘Brôt daz ist gar trœstlich dem menschen, sô in hungert; sô in aber dürstet, sô enhæte er als wênic trôst an dem brôte als an einem steine’ (‘Bread is really a comfort to a man when he is hungry; but when he is thirsty, he would have as little comfort from bread as from a stone’); Hom. 91* [Q 41], n. 6: ‘Die wîle den menschen hungert, die wîle smacket im diu spîse’ (‘As long as a person is hungry, he likes food’); Hom. 95* [Q 27], n. 5: ‘Sô mich dürstet, sô gebiutet mir daz trank; sô mich hungert, sô gebiutet mir diu spîse’ (‘When I am thirsty, a drink commands me; when I am hungry, food commands me’).
[22] See Matth. 19:29: ‘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’; vgl. Eckhart, Hom. 117* [Q 62], n. 1: ‘unser herre gelobet den hundertvalt, die alliu dinc lâzent. Læzet er alliu dinc, sô sol er hundertvalt nemen und daz êwige leben’ (‘Our Lord, however, promises a hundred times to those who let go all things’); see also Hom. 95* [Q 27], n. 9: ‘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’ (‘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’); the reference here might go to Sermo II,1 n. 6 (LW IV 8,6–14): ‘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. 14: “ego in patre et pater in me est” – ut non solum hoc sit in illo, quodlibet in quolibet, sed hoc sit illud, quodlibet quodlibet, Ioh. 10: “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’.
[23] See Eckhart, Hom. 114* [Q 15], n. 5: ‘alles das gu°t, das in allen engeln vnd in allen hailgen ist, das ist alles sin aigen, als es gottes aigen ist’ (‘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’).
[24] See Eckhart, Hom. 44* [Q 54b], n. 9: ‘allez, daz der vater gegeben hât sînem sune, allez, daz er ist, daz er in daz gebe’ (‘all that the Father has given to His Son, all that He is, that He may give this to them’).
[25] Another parallel to Eckhart, Hom. 2* [Q 24], n. 3: ‘Daz ander wunder ist von der sêle, daz got sô grôziu dinc mit ir und durch sie getân hât und tuot, wan er tuot, swaz er mac, durch sie; er tuot vil und grôziu dinc durch sie und ist zemâle unledic mit ir, und daz ist von ir grôzheit, in der si gemachet ist’ (‘The second wonder refers to the soul, that God has done and still does such great things with her and because of her, because He does, what he likes, because of her; He does many great things because of her, yet is entirely engaged with her which derives from her grandeur, in which she was made’).
[26] A similar simile for a different purpose in Eckhart, Hom. 103* [Q 6], n. 16: ‘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’ (‘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’).
[27] ‘irl'm’ seems to give the author or the source, but needs to be deciphered and the source identified.
[28] Ps. 18:3: ‘dies diei eructat verbum’; see on this Eckhart, In Ioh. n. 293 (LW III 245,13).
[29] See the same simile in Eckhart, Hom. 86* [Q 9], n. 14: ‘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’ (‘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’); Hom. 39* [Q 69], n. 8: ‘Daz merket an dem spiegel: hebest dû den vür dich, sô erschînet dîn bilde in dem spiegel. Daz ouge und diu sêle ist ein solch spiegel, daz allez daz dar inne erschînet, daz dar gegen gehabet wirt. Dar umbe ensihe ich niht die hant oder den stein, mêr: ich sihe ein bilde von dem steine’ (‘Note this in the mirror: if you place it in front of you, your image appears in the mirror. The eye, like the soul, is a mirror such that there appears all that is held in front of it. For that reason, I do not see the hand or the stone: but I see a picture of the stone’).
[30] On the ‘tag der ewikeit’, see Eckhart, Hom. 107* [Q 72], n. 11: ‘dâ wil sie got volbringen in dem tage der êwicheit, dâ ein ganz lieht ist’ (‘there God will perfect it in the day of eternity, where there is full light’).
[31] That this power of the soul is her ‘natural light’, is stated by Eckhart, Hom. 24* [Q 19], n. 3: ‘Alle crêatûren die engevallent gote niht, daz natiurlîche lieht der sêle überschîne sie, in dem sie ir wesen nement’ (‘None of the creatures pleases God, unless the soul’s natural light, in which they receive their being, shines upon them’); Hom. 28* [Q 18], n. 8: ‘dar umbe sol sich diu sêle ûf erheben in irm natiurlîchen liehte in daz hœhste und in daz lûterste’ (‘the soul must raise herself in her natural light into the supreme and most pure’).
[32] See Sap. 18:14–5: ‘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. 395ra); Vg. reads: ‘(18:14) cum enim quietum silentium contineret omnia et nox in suo cursu medium iter haberet, (18:15) omnipotens sermo tuus de caelo a regalibus sedibus durus debellator in mediam exterminii terram prosilivit’; on this see Hom. 70* [Q 73], n. 8: ‘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’; see also Cant. 3:1: ‘In lectulo meo per noctes quaesivi quem diligit anima mea … et non inveni’; see also Hom. 66* [Q 71], n. 9: ‘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’.
[33] See II Tim. 2:8: ‘memor esto Iesum Christum resurrexisse a mortuis ex semine David’.
[34] See Eckhart, Hom. 30* [Q 79], n. 7: ‘Sehet, als süeze ist gotes trôst, daz in alle crêatûren suochent und jagent im nâch. Und ich spriche mê, daz aller crêatûren wesen und leben liget dar ane, daz sie got suochent und im nâchjagent. Nû möhtet ir sprechen: wâ ist dirre got, dem alle crêatûren nâchjagent, dâ von sie ir wesen und ir leben hânt?’ (‘Look, so sweet is the comfort of God, that all creatures seek Him and chase Him. And I say more: that the being and life of all creatures are about seeking God and chasing Him. Now you might say: where is this God, whom all creatures chase, from whom they have their being and their lives?’).
[35] See Eckhart, Hom. 9* [S 101], n. 6: ‘Dar umbe muoz sich diu sêle, in der disiu geburt geschehen sol, gar lûter halten und gar adellîche leben und gar eine und gar inne, niht ûzloufen durch die vünf sinne in manicvalticheit der crêatûren, mêr: alles inne sîn und ein sîn; und in dem lûtersten dâ ist sîn stat, im versmâhet iht minners’ (‘Therefore, the soul in which this birth is to take place must hold herself very pure and live a very noble life, entirely united and fully interior, must not run out through her five senses into the manifoldness of creatures; rather, she has to be totally interior and to be one; and her place is in this purest part, He disdains anything less’).
[36] See on this entire passage Eckhart, Hom. 41* [Q 4], n. 10: ‘Dô got alle crêatûren geschuof, dô wâren si sô snœde und sô enge, daz er sich niht dar inne beregen mohte. Doch machte er im die sêle sô glîch und sô ebenmæzic, ûf daz er sich der sêle gegeben möhte; wan swaz er ir anders gæbe, des enahtet si niht. Got muoz mir sich selber geben als eigen, als er sîn selbes ist, oder mir enwirt niht noch ensmecket mir niht. Swer in alsus zemâle enpfâhen sol, der muoz zemâle sich selben ergeben | (72) hân und sîn selbes ûzgegangen sîn; der enpfæhet glîch von gote allez, daz er hât, als eigen als erz selber hât und unser vrouwe und alle, die im himelrîche sint: daz ist disen als glîch und als eigen. Die alsô glîch ûzgegangen sint und im selben ergeben hânt, die suln ouch glîch enpfâhen und niht minner’ (‘When God created all creatures, they were so despicable and so narrow, that He would not want to move in them. Yet, He made the soul so like and equal to Himself, that He wished to give Himself to the soul; because whatever else He gave her, she would not consider. God must give Himself to me as my own, as He is His own, otherwise He would neither become mine nor be to my taste. Whoever shall receive Him thus fully, must have entirely given up himself and detached himself from himself; he receives by God immediately all that He has as his own, as He Himself has it, as our Lady and all that are in the kingdom of heaven have it: this belongs to them in just the same way, yet as their own. Therefore, those who are also likewise detached and have given up themselves to Him, will also receive in a like way, and no less’); Hom. 63* [Q 84], n. 3: ‘allez, daz got geben mac, daz ist allez einer sêle ze kleine, engæbe sich got niht selber in den gâben’ (‘all that God can give, all that for the soul would be absolutely too little, unless God gave Himself in the gifts’); Hom. 86* [Q 9], n. 10: ‘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’ (‘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’).
[37] See the equation of ‘lentil’ and ‘nothing’ in Eckhart, Hom. 59* [Q 42], n. 6: ‘Wizzet: dem menschen wæren alliu dinc als lîhte ze lâzenne als ein erweiz oder ein linse oder als niht; jâ, bî mîner sêle, alliu dinc wæren disem menschen als ein niht!’ (‘Know: this person could so easily abandon all things as abandon a pea, a lentil or nothing’).
[38] A clear parallel in Eckhart, Hom. 90* [Q 12], n. 9: ‘Der eine vliegen nimet in gote, diu ist edeler in gote dan der hœhste engel an im selber sî’ (‘Whoever takes a fly in God, it is more noble in God than the highest angel is in itself’).
[39] On this topic of inward finding God, see Hom. 110* [Q 10]. See also Eckhart, Hom. 25* [Q 26], n. 3: ‘Allez, daz ie geschach vor tûsent jâren, der tac, der vor tûsent jâren was, der ist in êwicheit niht verrer dan disiu stunde, dâ ich ze <disem> mâle iezuo stân, oder der tac, der über tûsent jâr komen sol oder als vil dû gezeln maht, der enist in êwicheit niht verrer dan disiu stunde, dâ ich iezuo inne stân’ (‘Everything that ever happened a thousand years ago, the day that was a thousand years ago, is in eternity no farther than this hour, in this time in which I now stand here, or the day that will come in a thousand years or as much as you can count, it is in eternity not farther than this hour in which I now stand here’).
[40] See Eckhart, Hom. 9* [S 101], n. 23: ‘Ie mê dû âne bilde bist, ie mê dû sînes înwürkennes enpfenclîcher bist, und ie mê îngekêret und vergezzener, ie mê disem næher’ (‘The more you are without image, the more you are receptive to His inner activity, and the more you are turned inwardly and are ignorant, the more you are close to Him’).
[41] See the parallel in Eckhart, Hom. 2* [Q 24], n. 10 on the just that follows the earlier mentioned parallel between this homily here and Hom. 2*.
[42] Matth. 16:24: ‘Si quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum, et tollat crucem suam, et sequatur me’; see on this Eckhart, Hom. 98* [S 107] and Hom. 9* [S 101], n. 28.
[43] Matth. 25:21: ‘Euge serve bone, et fidelis: quia super pauca fuisti fidelis, super multa te constituam’; see above n. 1.
[44] See on this standard formula of Eckhart, for example, Hom. 1* [S 87], n. 10; Hom. 8* [Q 76], n. 13; Hom. 32* [S 108], n. 14; Hom. 101* [Q 58], n. 9; Hom. 106* [S 112], n. 14.


Homily * [Jostes 9]

In die consecrationis ecclesie et in anniversario eiusdem
‘Vidi civitatem sanctam Ierusalem novam descendentem de caelo a domino’ etc. (Apoc. 21:2)

F. Jostes, Nr. 9, 4,30-6,30.

<:1>‘Vidi civitatem sanctam Jherusalem’
<:1>‘Vidi civitatem sanctam Ierusalem’[1]
<:2>Sand Johannes sach in dem geist ‘ein stat’, die waz heilig und heiz Jherusalem; di stat waz niwe, si chom her nider vom himel und waz gemacht von golt und waz geziret alz ein braut irm man.
<:2>Saint John saw in a vision ‘a city’ which was holy and named Jerusalem; the city was new, came down from heaven, was made of gold and was ornated as a bride for her groom.
<:3>Daz wil ich auf di sel bringen. Der sun ist ewiclichen gewesen in dem vater, und er gebirt sinen sun an underlaz, und di geburt ist alle zeit newe. Waz bei sinem angang ist, daz ist newe. Ein hauz, daz gestern gemacht ward, daz ist heut newe, wan ez ist nahen bei sinem angange.
<:3>This I will refer to the soul. The Son has eternally been in the Father, and He gives birth to His Son without interruption, and the birth is new all the time. What is close to its beginning, is new. A house that was built yesterday, today is new, because it is near to its beginning.
<:4>Got schuf di sel in seinem einborn sun und bildet si in im und sach si in im, wie si im wehagte: do wehagt si im wol. Die sel, deu niwe sol sein, di schol sich halten al mittel in got und sich wider bilden in sinem einborn sun und schol wereit sein zu enphahen an underlaz den influz von got.
<:4>God created the soul in his inborn Son and formed her in Him and placed her in Him, as she pleased Him. There she pleased Him well. The soul, that was meant to be new, must keep herself by all means in god and form herself into His inborn Son and must be prepared to receive the influx of God without interruption.
<:5>Unser herre wart gefraget, wer sand Johannes wer, ob er wer ein prophete. Er ist mer den ein prophete: allez daz die propheten ye geprophetizierten, daz geschach in eim naturlich lauf. S. Johannes waz alz verre gezogen uber di natur, daz alle creatur warn ze grob dar zu, daz si sine werch enphahen mochten.
<:5>Our Lord was asked, who Saint John was, whether he was a prophet. He is more than a prophet: Everything that the prophets ever prophesied, naturally happened. Saint John was pulled so far beyond nature that all creatures were too coarse to be able to receive his works.
<:6>Johannes ist alz vil gesprochen alz gnad. Nu wart gefragt ein w=rtlein in unser schFl, daz di gnad wart mangerlei. Antwort ich dar zu und sprach: si enhert ni nicht auz einem trephelin, aber ein funkelin daz vellet wol auz der gnad in di sel, daz hat alz vil creft in im, daz dar uuz entspringent di creft der sel, wechantnuzze und gelaub und minne, di werden webeget. Waz ist gnad? Gnad, alz gnad an ir selber ist, so enwurht si niht uz, mer sie wurcht inn. Wer ein mensch, der diser gnad het ein tr=pflin, der het mer gutes und [wer] inreilicher gefugt in daz redlich wesen an werch, alzo, geworcht er nimmer niht und sliff all weg, nochden wer er neher got und inreilich[er] got. Ich sprich: wer daz ein mensch do sich hundertstund eines tages lizze brennen leuterlichen durch got, alle sine werch ch=nden im nit gehelffen dar zu, daz er kond in daz ungeborn wesen gefugt werden alz dicz mensch an werch. Waz ist gnad? gnad wurchet ein indem bodem der sel; da nie geburt in gedacht ward, da wurket gnad in und wurkt alz verre in, daz di drei ein wesen sein. Got und gnad sint alzo glich, wo got furget, do treit er di gnad auf dem nikken. Dicz spricht meister Ekkart.
<:6>John means as much as grace.[2] Now, one has asked a small question in our school, whether grace was a mixture. To this I answered and said: it never hardens out of a drop, but a spark quite falls out of grace into the soul which has so much power in it that from it come forth the powers of the soul, knowledge, belief and love, they are set in move. What is grace? Grace as grace by itself does not work externally, it rather works internally. If there were a human being who had a drop of this grace, he had more goodness and were more inwardly placed into the rational being without a work, hence, he would never work and slept everywhere, as much as he were nearer by and inwardly in God. I say, if there were a human being who would let himself purely burn by God for a hundred hours a day, none of his works could help him to be placed into the unborn being like this human being without a work. What is grace? Grace works within the ground of the soul. Wherein birth was never conceived of, in there grace works and it works in there so much, so that the three are one being. Hence, God and grace are the same, where God walks on, He carries grace on His neck. This Meister Eckhart says.
<:7>Der prophet spricht: Frawe sich auf der der nicht gebirt diner frucht der ist vil, der ist wol tausend stund mer dan di frucht gebernd sind in der werlt, der ist an zal vil. Di sel hat ein naturlich licht in ir. In dem naturlichen licht hat got mer lustes und me genug dan in allen creaturen, die er ie geschuff: er verzirt alle sin craft in dem naturlichen liht. Nem man ein schwarzen kolen: alz unglich der wer wider [den] himel, alzo sind alle creatur wider dem naturlichen licht, daz di sel in ir treit. Wan si ingetragen wird in daz liht, so gebirt si sich selben und ir selber in ir selber, und gebirt sich wider sich selber in sich. Si verleust alz gar alle di gebFrt und wirt alz gar uber sich derhaben und wirt alz gar geneiget ein in ein. Si chFmt dar zu, daz si got gebirt, alz sich got selbe gebirt; und da geschiecht rehte einung trucz allen creaturen, trucz den engeln, trucz got selbe, daz er da einik unterscheid vinde.
<:7>The prophet says: ‘Rejoice, o barren one who does not bear your fruit, there are many’, there are quite thousand times more than those who bear fruit in this world, they are numerous.[3] The soul has a natural light in herself. In this light, God has more pleasure and is more satisfied than in all creatures that he has ever created: He spends all his power in this natural light. If one takes a [piece of] black charcoal: As dissimilar this were compared to heaven, so are all creatures compared to the natural light, that the soul carries in herself. When she is carried into this light, then she gives birth to herself and for herself in herself, and, again, gives birth to herself in herself. Then she leaves birth and becomes elevated above herself and inclined to be one in one. She finally gives birth to God as God gives birth to Himself; and there true oneness happens, despite all creatures, despite the angels, despite God Himself, so that there He finds oneness of distinction.
<:8>Sümlich meister die suchen selicheit an bechantnuzze oder an willen: ich sprich, daz selicheit weder an wechantnuzze noch an willen en liet. Daz ist selicheit, daz sie l[ie]t[4] alle selicheit, daz ist alle ir selbesheit. Der himel wurchet alle sine werch darum, daz er sich got gelichen wil: niht daz er sich gelichen wol an den werchen, mer er sFcht reuwe, alzo alz daz wesen ist an werch: daz selbe sucht der himel, daz er cheme in ein stille stan. Sucht dicz der himel und ander creatur, di snoder ist, waz solten wir danne tun? Da belibet got got, da belibet selicheit selicheit und gnad gnad und sel sel.
<:8>All masters seek blessedness either in knowledge or will. I say that blessedness is given neither through knowledge nor will. Blessedness entirely is blessedness, it is entirely being itself. The heaven works all its works, in order to adjust itself to God. Not that it wants to adjust to its works, rather it seeks rest, just as the being is in works. The heaven seeks the same that it may come to a stand still. If the heaven and all other creatures that are less than it, seek this, what are we to do? There God remains God, there blessedness remains blessedness and grace grace and the soul the soul.
<:9>Meister Ekkart sprach: got der wer ein spruch an spruch und wer ein wort an wort, und in dem werden lebendich alle creatur und waschende. Wer hat daz wort gesprochen und den spruch gesprochen? Der himlisch vater der hat in gesprochen in sinem eingeborn sun. Mag daz wort [und den spruch] nimant gesprechen? Nein, den mag niemant gesprechen dan der himlisch vater, und wirt doch gesprochen. Wenn wirt er gesprochen und wo wirt er gesprochen? Wenn die sel chein genug hat an cheiner creatur und si sich ze mal in got getragen hat mit allen iren werchen und ir selbs vergezzen hat und meint got lauterlichen; da gibt got mer dan si selb immer gedenken mag. Alz si sich alzo leuterlichen in got getragen hat, so gibt sich ir got alzo, daz er ir werch wurket in ir an erbeit, daz si sei ein mitwurcherin mit got. Und wo wirt er gesprochen? Wen daz alleroberst teil der [sel] bloz und ledich ze mal vereint wird mit got, da wirt daz wort gesprochen und der spruch, und da ist mund zu mund kumen und da ist kFz ze kFz chumen, und di sel verstet daz wort in dem wort und nieman mer; und di sel di chunde auch etwaz dar auf geworten. Hie ist di sel zu irm aller obersten kumen.
<:9>Meister Eckhart said that God would be a saying without saying and would be a word without a word, and that in Him would come alive all creatures and all that grows. Who has spoken the word and has spoken the saying? The heavenly Father, he has spoken it in his inborn Son. Can nobody speak the word [and the saying]? No, nobody can speak it except the heavenly Father, and yet, it is spoken. When is it spoken and where is it spoken? When the soul does not longer satisfies itself with any creature and has herself entirely carried into God and with all her works and has forgotten about herself and purely thinks of God; there God gives more than she herself has ever dreamt of. As she has purely carried herself into God, so God gives Himself to her, that He works her work in her without help, so that she becomes a co-operator with God. Und were is it spoken? When the highest part of the [soul] is naked and free, entirely united with God, there the word and the saying are spoken, and there come mouth to mouth and kiss to kiss, and the soul understands the word in the word and nobody else; and the soul could answer to it. Here, the soul has arrived in her highest part.
<:10>Daz uns dicz gesche, dez helf unz got.
<:10>That this may happen to us, may God help us!




[1] See Apoc. 21:2 (Vidi civitatem sanctam Ierusalem novam descendentem de caelo a domino). The context is Apoc. 21:2–5 and can be found in Collectarium, Arch. f. 432ra: ‘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’.
[2] For ‘John’ in the sense of ‘grace’, see Hom. 75* [S 96], n. 4.  Hieronymus, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum (Lagarde 136, 6–7): ‘Iohannan cui est gratia uel domini gratia’.
[3] Is. 54:1: ‘Lauda, sterilis, quae non paris; decanta laudem, et hinni, quae non pariebas: quoniam multi filii desertae magis quam eius quae habeat virum, dicit Dominus’; see also Gal. 4:27: ‘Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear children; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labour! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband’ (‘Laetare sterilis, quae non paris: erumpe, et exclama, quae non parturis: quia multi filii desertae, magis quam eius quae habet virum’); on the two verses see Hom. 26* [S 99]. Unfortunately, the English language does not allow the word play between ‘gebernd’ (to bear fruit) and ‘gebernd’ (to give birth).
[4] The ms. mistakenly has ‘leit’.

Homily * [Brethauer 262-7]

In communi confessorum et pontificum
‘In diebus suis placuit deo et inventus est iustus’ (Eccli. 44:16-7)

K. Brethauer, 262-7 (slightly edited).

<:1> [7r] Man liset von s' germanus, vnd mag man iz ouch sprechen von eime anderen guten mensehen, ein wort uz der alden e vnd ein ander wort uz der nuwen e, vnd vlizen dog beide in ein. dit erste wort von der alden e lerit uns, wi wir lebe sullen, daz ander (263) | wes wi hoffe sullen. vnd sprichit dit wort also: her ist minneclich ader behegelich gewest   gote in sinen tagen vnd ist funden gerecht’. darumme, sicher bi miner warheit ane zwivil, ‘ich wil in setze uber alle min gut’. he ist behegelig gewest gote.
<:1> One reads of saint German[1] (and one might this also say of other good people) a verse of the Old and another of the New Testament, yet both flow together. The first verse of the Old Testament teaches us, how we should live, the other, what we should hope for, und this verse reads as follows: ‘He has been lovely and delightful to God in his days and is found just’. Therefore, surely by my truth without doubt, ‘I will put him above all that is mine’.[2] He was a delight to God.
<:2>do s' iohannes unsen herren doufte, do wart ein stimme gehort. di stimme waz des vaters, alse alle die meistere sprechen. vnd di sprag also, alse s' matheus scribit: ‘dit ist min liber sun, in dem ich my selber behage’. aber s' marcus bescribit: ‘du bist min libe sun, in dem ich behay’. aber s' lucas scribit, daz sich fugit zu di<s>r rede: ‘du bist min libe sun, in dem mir behait’.
<:2>When saint John baptised our Lord, a voice was heard. This was the Father’s voice, as all the masters say.[3] And these say as follows, as saint Matthew wrote: ‘This is my dear Son, in whom I myself have pleasure’.[4] But saint Marc describes it: ‘You are my dear Son, whom I have pleasure’.[5] Now saint Luke writes what conforms to this version: ‘You are my beloved Son, in whom I have pleasure’.[6]
<:3>wan alliz, daz dem vatere ummer behait, daz muz vme behay in sime sune, vnd vz vme in behait vme nichtes nicht. Iz were unmvgelig, vnd got vermochtis nicht, daz vme ummer ich behaite dan in sime ein born sune. wan in vme vme sint alle ding icht vnd sint war, wan her selber di warheit ist. vnd were warheit etwaz anders dan got, ich wolde warheit ane bete vnd nicht got. wan were warheit abe gesundert von gote, so in were warheit nicht war got vnd in were nicht. darumme in wolde ich in nimmer an gebete.
<:3>All things which always pleased the Father must please Him in His Son, and without Him nothing at all pleases Him.[7] It would be impossible, and God could never enjoy anything, unless in His inborn Son. For in Him all things are something to Him and they are true, as He Himself is the truth. And if the truth were something else than God, I wished to worship the truth and not God.[8] For, if truth were separated from God, then truth would not be truly God, and He would not be. As a result, I wished never to worship Him.
<:4>vnd alliz, daz uz vme vellit, in ist nicht. darumme in sint di sunder nicht vnd sind tot. waz ist ein tote, dan ein ding, daz nog ettewaz schinet vnd in ist dog nicht? aber torechte lute nemen einen valschen sin hi von vnd sprechen, su sin icht, da von daz su hi etwaz schin. darumme sprichit ein scrift, daz di sune der wisheit vrteilen unrechte. were, daz ein mensche eine hant stize in die sunnen, die schine etwaz virn vurge, die anderen (!), di schine nicht. alse schint di sunder hi etwaz, vnd etwa nicht, daz ist vor gote: da sin su nicht. Got vrkennit iog vr nicht; der verfluchten in der helle sin sines bekentnisses nicht wirdig. her weiz su also wenig, alse ig weis den soldan uber mer. her kennit su nicht kennende und weis su nicht wiszende.
<:4>And everything that falls off Him, is nothing. Therefore, the sinners are nothing and they are dead.[9] What else is something dead, except a thing that still glimmers a little, yet is not? But stupid people misunderstand this and say, they are something from the fact that here something glimmers. Therefore, a writing states that the sons of wisdom are wrong in their judgement.[10] If a person stretched a hand into the sun, it would look like an old furrow, the other would not shine. Hence, here, the sinners shine a bit and then not, namely before God, there they are not. You, too, do not know God; those who are condemned in hell are not worthy to know Him. He knows them as little as I know the soldier beyond the sea. He recognises them as not-recognising and knows them as not-knowing.[11]
<:5>vorte di vet, hoffenuge vet, minne vet ouch; wi werden von allen dingen gevangen. Got di vet uns ouch vnd sin gevencnisse vriet vnd ledigit, Ja, iz lost alle bant. nv verstet, weliche wiz; wi gotis kinder werden, daz wi in ime sune sin, daz wi in vme behagen vnd geminnit werden, da got mensche [8r] wart, do nam di persone des sunes an sich menslig nature, nicht dan noch den menschen. alse ouch von der craft der worte, di der prister sprichit ober dem altare . . . (von ?) gotis licham alleine vnd ist da sunder groze vnd (264) | cleine, alleine iz alliz nach volge. her ist da also wenig in stat alse in anderen steten. die mensheit di Xc an sich nam, daz ist min mensheit, vnd in der bin ich vme also na, alse her vme selber ist. di ist uns allen glich gemeine, dem ermesten alseme kunge, dem do rechten alse dem wisen. wan in der mensheit in ist he vme nicht neher dan my, vnd ich in bin my selber nicht neher dan vme. sin wi vme so na vnd so ein in der mensheit, waz sin wy dan in der gotheit?
<:5>Words do bind, hope binds, love also binds; we are caught by everything. God, too, binds us, but we are free and bare of prisons, indeed, all bounds are lost. Now notice, in which way we become God’s children, that we are in His Son, that we are a delight and loved in Him, as God became human. Then the person of the Son took on Him human nature, not in addition a human being;[12] also through the power of words that the priest speaks on the altar ... (of?) God’s body alone and is there both big and small, yet, all follows. He is there as little in a place as in all other places. The humanity that Christ took on Him is my humanity, in it I am as close to Him, as He is to Himself. It is equally common to us, to the poorest as to a king, to the righteous here as to the wise. For in humanity He is not closer to Himself than to me, and in it I am not closer to myself than to Him.[13] If we are so close to Him and so one in humanity, what, then, are we in the godhead?
<:6>Nv merkit! dan bin ich in dem sune, alse ich also wenig geneigt bin vnd also wenig schin habent mich selber, nog mich selber nicht me meine nog minne vnd min selber also vremeden, alse ein anderen min eben cristen. alse ioch iz gebot heizit, daz ich in lip sal habe, alse mich selber. daz my der nicht minner behage, nog in minner meine, dan mich selber, ab her iog min vingit ist, vnd ab her uber mer ist, so ist mir recht, vnd so bin ich ime sune vnd bin icht. vnd wa ich mich us mich selber neige in eime wane, daz ich icht si, da bin ich nicht vnd bin werlig sunder zwivil. vnd da ich mich us mich selber neige, da bin ich mir selber vremede, dan dem, der uber mer ift. vnd di mensche, di sin selbiz alse uz gegangen ist, da her nicht in ist vnd in gote ist, da her icht ist vnd werlichen ist. wan ein mvcke hete me warheit in gote, dan alle werlt uz. vnd den menschen, die also in gote [8v] sai, wan her ime sune ist, so bit her in vme; darumme mag vme dan got nicht versai, alse her sime sune nicht versai mag. wan den mensche, di also von vme selber also gevremit ist, den minnit got mit allem dem, daz her ist. wan wa got minnit, da minnit her mit alle siner macht vnd minnit in also, ab niman mein si, dan der mensche alleine.
<:6>Now note! I am in the Son, when I am little concerned and have little regard for myself, neither focus on myself more nor love myself more than some other fellow Christian, but become alien to myself. As it is also said in this commandment that I should love him as much as myself.[14] That he is not less dear to me, nor is he less important to me than I am for myself, even if he is my foe, or if he is far beyond the sea, I am fine with and, thus, I am Son to him and am something. And where I turn outside, hoping that I am something, there I am nothing and am truly full of doubt. And where I turn outside, there I am more alien to myself than the one who is beyond the sea. But somebody who has gone out of one’s self and is not in it, but in God, is something and is truly. For a fly had more truth in God than all the outer world.[15] And the person who thus is in God, when he is Son to Him, confides in Him; therefore, God cannot reject him then, as he would not reject His Son. For the person who is alien to himself, God loves with all that He is. For whom God loves, He loves with all His power, and He loves him, as if nobody would be His, except this person alone.[16]

<:7>Ich denkes dicke: dit lutit gar groz, daz sich der mensche so gar mvz laze; ez ist etwaz swer. also her ab schelt di nuz, di etwaz herte vnd biter, er man durg di schalen kume zume kerne, di da susze ist. also ist iz zu ersten herte, alse man aber durg brichit, so ist iz suze vnd lustig. Ja, alliz daz der mensche tu sal, alle di gebot, di sin vme lichte vnd vrolig zu halden, vnd also lustig, alse eime hungirgen menschen daz lustig vnd naturlig ist, daz her iszit vnd trinkit. Iz in ist nicht groz, wan alliz, daz der mensche lezit, daz nimit her wider, aber her muz sig selber ie alrest gelazen habe, wan hi inne nimit her alle ding in dem hosten vnd hat su da in der warheit. vnd alliz, daz alle heiligen haben, daz ist sin also eigen, (265) | alse iz vr ist, vnd also daz sin eigen ist, vnd daz unse vrouwe hat. Ich spriche me: alliz, daz xpc hat mit allem dem, daz vme sin vater gegebin hat. wan her vme gegebin hat alliz, daz her geleisten mag, daz ist da sin also eigen, alse iz sin selbiz ist, wan her unse mensheit ist. vnd iz ist oug me unse dan sin, wan iz vme durg uns gegeben ist. wan man meinit me daz hus, daz man mit der barten machit, dan di barten, wan dit hus ist ein sache der barten, vnd di barte ist durg daz hus. wan iz vme durg uns gegeben ist, darumme ist me unser wan sin. iz ist alliz [9r] eigen des menschen, daz xc vnd alle heiligen haben, da von sprichit di scrift irl'm alse die teilunge sin in daz selbe, daz ist alliz, daz in vn allen ist. daz su alle haben, daz ist vme gemein vnd ist da eigen sin.
<:7>I am sure: It sounds hard that a person has to let himself fully go. Admittedly, it is difficult.[17] As one removes the nutshell which is slightly hard and bitter one comes through the shell to the kernel which then is sweet.[18] So it is with a hard beginning.[19] When one breaks through, it is sweet and delightful. Indeed, all that a person shall do, all the commandments, are easy and pleasant to keep,[20] just as it is delightful and natural for a hungry person to eat and drink.[21] It is not exceptional, because everything that the person lets go, one will receive again, but one must have let oneself fully go, then in this, one takes all things in the heighest place and has them there in truth.[22] And everything that all saints possess, this is also one’s own, as it is theirs, and also that is one’s that also our Lady has.[23] I dare to say more: everything that Christ has, together with everything that His Father has given Him [is one’s own].[24] For He has given the person everything, as much as He can, this is also one’s own, as it is His self, because He is our humanity. And it is more ours than His, as it is given to Him because of us.[25] For the house that one constructs using an ax is more important than the ax, because the house is a product of the axe, and the ax serves the house.[26] For it is given because of us, therefore, it is more ours than His. It is all the person’s own that Christ and all the saints have, and of this the Scripture speaks ...[27] as division is within the same, all that is, is in us all. That they all possess that is His intention and is what is His.
<:8>‘her hat gote behait in sinen tagen’. Ein scrift sprichit: ‘ein tag kundigit den anderen tage’. dit wort meinit got. darumme sprichit iz eigintliche: ein tag kundigit den anderen tage got. waz ist dise tag? alse di sunne geginwortig ist, so heize wis tag. alse dit antlize schinit in me spiegele, alse der spigel ge<g>inwortig ist. alse man den spigel abe kert, so in ist da nicht daz antlize. in me spigele in ist da nicht an der warheit; iz ist, iz hangit in weiz wa in der luft. alse ist diser tag alse nicht. Ein ander tag ist in der sele. Ein ander tag ist ein tag der gnaden. Ober dem ist der tag der ewikeit. diser tag in der sele ist ein craft, ein naturlig licht, in dem luchtit nacht alse tag. darumme sprichit ein ander scrift: got gibit vnd but sin bekentnisse vnd sin lop in der nacht, das ist alse man geruwig vnd unbehindert ist, aber an me tage siner barmherzikeit, daz ist daz sich der mensche ube an uszeren werken. Ein prophete sprichit: ‘set, di tage sint kumen, got wil vrwecken den samen davides’. diser same ist got, di slefit in der sele, in diseme tage wirt der same vr weckit, daz ist bekant. dieser tag meldit got. darumme alle, di dar inne nicht in sin, di in mvgen sin nicht bekenne. Globe ich eime ein ding zu geben in dirre kirchen, queme der nicht herin, iz inworden vme nummer. Ich spreche etwanne ein wortelin: daz, daz wi iagen, von dem werden wir geiagit, daz ist di same, vnd ie me wir da von geiagit werden, ie me wir vme nag iagen, daz wi in begrifen, dise kraft, di oberste, die di scrift kan vnd in der warheit bekennit. Joch al hi di bekennit, daz an allen geiftlichen [9v] dingen daz hoste ist innerste. In dirre (266) | krarft get alle engenote abe vnd cleine, wan got in mag nicht gegebe dan in einer wite, da her vil gegebe mag. vnd da meint her unse beste mite, daz her uns da in ladit, da her uns vil gegebe mag. Gebe ein kunig eine linsen, iz were vme ein ichande. Got in mag hi nicht gegebe in disen dingen, iu sint vme zu enge vnd zu cleine. Iz were vme lesterliche, daz her cleine gebe, wan daz ist sicher, daz got nummer dikeine Gabe gibt, he gebe sig selbe da mite.
<:8>‘He has been a delight to God in his days’. A writing states: ‘One day announces the next day’.[28]   This word refers to God. Therefore, one could more properly say: One day announces God for the next day. What is this day? When the sun is present, one calls it daylight. Like this face that shines in my mirror, while the mirror is present.[29] When the mirror is turned away, the face is no longer in there. I am no longer truly in the mirror. It is, but it depends on the light in the air. So is this day, and it is not. There is a different day in the soul. Another day is that of grace. Above this is the day of eternity.[30]This day in the soul is a power, a natural light,[31] in which night shines as day. Therefore, another writing says:[32] God gives and offers his knowledge and his praise in the night, when one is at rest and unhindered, but more during the day of his mercy, i.e. that one does one’s good works. A prophet says: ‘See, the days have come, God wants to raise the semen of David’.[33] This semen is God which sleeps in the soul, on this day the semen will be raised, this has been made known. This day announces God. Hence, all that are not in there, may not recognise Him. If I believed I could give somebody something in church, but this person did not come, I could not deliver it to him. I have said once what follows:[34] By what we chase, we are chased, this is the semen, and the more we are chased by it, the more we chase it, so that we grasp it, this power, the highest part that Scriptures knows and announces in truth. Yet, all here know that of all spiritual things the highest is the innermost.[35] In this power, all narrowness and tightness are gone, as God does not want to give Himself, except in breadth, as He wants to give a lot. And with it He wants the best for us, that He invites us, in order to give us a lot. If a king gave a lentil, this would be a discgrace. God does not want to give Himself in such things, they would be to narrow and to tight to Him. It would be annoying to Him, to give small gifts, as that is sure that God never gives any gift, unless He offered Himself with it.[36]
<:9>in disem tage ist vnd got kennit, di bekennit, daz alle di werlt uz gote ist alse ein linse vnd der vil, di di linsen nemen vnd nicht got. alleine sig got dinne gebe, so in nemen su iz doch nicht, aber di got bekennit, den menschen sin alle ding, di uz gote sint, gein gote alse nicht. Iz ist glich, beide, in gote vnd uz   gote, ein mucke ist also edil in gote alse der oberste engil, vnd uz gote ist ein ganz werlt nicht me dan alse ein nicht. In dirre craft ist mir also na di oberste planete alse, daz bi mir ist. vnd di tag, di vor tusint iaren waz, ist mir da also geginwortig alse di, di itzunt gegin wortig ist. vnd dit inreste dis steines ist mir semeliche alse offinbar alse dit uszerste. dit licht meldit got.
<:9>On this day God is and knows those who believe that all the world outside of God is a lentil and as much as those who take the lentil and not God.[37]God, however, gives Himself to them, yet they do not take Him, but those who believe in God all things that are outside God are like nothing not God. Both is the same, in God or outside God, a fly is as noble as the highest angel,[38] but outside God an entire world is nothing more than nothing. In this power, the highest planet is as close to me as what is near to me. And the days that were thousand years ago, are as present to me as those that are present now.[39]And the innerst part of this stone is as fully disclosed to me as the most external part. This light announces God.
<:10>‘her hat gote behait in sinen tagen; in sinen, in sinen! Neme wi iz in disem tage in der sele, so ist iz war, wan got ist da inne. Neme wi iz aber in dem tage, di got ist, so ist iz aber war, wan der mensche in gote ist vnd ist inne vonden gerecht; inne, inne! Got in wirt nirgen [10r] vonden dan inne. Got in ist nirgen, nog in ist got, noch in wirkit, nog in wirkit gotlichen, dan inne imme inresten. wi usze suchit, di in vindit sin nicht. Suchit he in aber inne vnd vin dit her sin danne nicht, so verwize her iz gote.
<:10>‘He has been a delight to God in his days’. In His, in His! If we take it in this day in the soul, then it is true, because in there is God. Yet, if we take it in this day that is God, it is still true, as the human being is in God and is found just inwardly. Inwardly, inwardly! God is not been found, except inwardly. God is nowhere, nor is God somewhere, nor does He act, nor does He act divinely, except within, in deepest interiority. Who searches outside, will not find Him. However, if one searches inwardly and one does not find Him,[40] one should refer it to God.
<:11>‘her inne vonden gerecht’. Der mensche ist gerecht in eime groben vnd dog guten sinne, des got ere hat vnd alle himelscher vroude vnd der eben cristen beszerunge vnd der gevangenen in dem vegefure losunge. Der ist gerecht, der nicht in denkit nog in spri(266)|chit nog in wirkit dan gerechtikeit. Daz ist gerecht, daz glig vellit vellit. Di ist gerecht, di glig vnd ein war stet in libe vnd in leide, in glucke vnd in unglucke. vnd der ist gerecht, di gerechtikeit liber hat dan alle ding vnd iog sig selber, vnd dem di gerechtikeit lustig ist pobin alle ding vnd ein pine ist, waz wider gerechtikeit ist, vnd den ein vroude vnd licht vnd lustelig ist, zu lidene durg di gerechtikeit. von diseme sprichit vnse herre imme ewangelio: ‘wer nag mir kumen wil, der verlouken sin selbis vnd hebe uf sin cruze’. nicht daz her ein pinlig leben uf sich neme, alleine iz gut ist, di nicht beszeres in weis; he sal nicht pine uf sig neme, mer: he sal su von vme werfe vnd sal pine uf hebe, wan pine wirt vme lichte vnd in ist vme nicht pine, su wirt vme iog lustig, vnd di mensche ist gerecht, di gerechtikeit bekennit vnd minnit, alse su gerechtikeit ist vnd warheit ist vnd got ist. vnd der mensche ist in gote imme sune vnd ist got behegelig vnd minlig in vme, vnd von dem sprichit her: ‘werligen, bi miner warheit, ich wil in setzen uber allis min gut’, daz ist: ich wil in min selbis gewaldig machen.
<:11>‘Inwardly, he is found just’.[41] A person is found just in a coarse, but still good sense who holds God in honour, has all heavenly joy, looks after fellow Christians and unbounds those who are kept in purgatory. This person is just who does not think nor talk nor act other than according to justice. This one is just who passes equal judgement. This one is just who remains the one and the same both in love and in suffering, in good and in bad luck. And this one is just who prefers justice more than all other things and even himself, to whom justice is more delightful beyond all things, to whom it is painful what goes against justice, und to whom it is easy and delightful to suffer because of justice. Of this person our Lord speaks in the Gospel: ‘Whoever wants to follow me, deny himself and lift up his cross.[42] Not that he takes on him a life of suffering, but it is good enough, not to know something better. He must not take suffering on him, rather, he must throw it off him and must remove suffering, thus he will be delighted and this person is just who knows justice and love, inasmuch as it is justice, is truth and is God. And this person is always Son in God and is a delight to God and loving in Him, and of him He speaks: ‘Truly, by my truth, I will put him above all that is mine’,[43] i.e. I will give him power of what is mine.

<:12>daz vns dit gesche, des helfe uns got. amen.
<:12> That this may happen to us, may God help us! Amen.[44]



[1] See the parallel homily that expounds the first part of Eccli. 44:16-7: Hom. 110* [Q 10].
[2] Eccli. 44:16-7: ’16 Enoch placuit Deo et translatus est in paradiso ut det gentibus paenitentiam. 17 Noe inventus est perfectus iustus et in tempore iracundiae factus est reconciliatio’; Matth. 25:21: ‘Euge serve bone, et fidelis: quia super pauca fuisti fidelis, super multa te constituam’; the same combination of the two verses of Eccli. 44:16 and Matth. 25:21 can be found in Eckhart, Hom. 109* [Q 66], n. 4, an important homily that centers on Matth. 25:21. More on Eckhart’s interpretation of Matth. 25:21 can be found in Hom. 52* [Q 64], nn. 3-4.
[3] The masters, here, refer to the authors of the Synoptic Gospels who are mentioned thereafter. A similar comparison can be found in Hom. 110 [Q 10], n. 9: ‘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’ (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).
[4] Matth. 3:17: ‘hic est Filius meus dilectus in quo mihi conplacui’.
[5] Marc. 1:11: ‘tu es Filius meus dilectus in te conplacui’.
[6] Luc. 3:22: ‘tu es Filius meus dilectus in te conplacuit mihi’.
[7] See Eckhart, Hom. 67* [Q 31], n. 3: ‘Der vater enminnet kein dinc dan sînen sun und allez, daz er vindet in sînem sune’; Hom. 23* [Q 51], n. 6: ‘Ûzwendic dem sune enweiz der vater nihtes niht. Er hât sô grôzen lust in dem sune, daz er anders niht enbedarf dan gebern sînen sun’.
[8] See Eckhart, Hom. 12* [Q 14], n. 4: ‘were eit hoeger dan got, sy in woilde gotzs neit. Der ander in genoeget neit dan an deme alre besten; were eit besser dan got, sy in wolde godes neit. Der dirder ingenoeget neyt dan an eynem goiden; were eit goiders dan got, sy in wolde godes neyt’ (‘if there was something higher than God, it would not want God. The second is not satisfied except by the very best; if there was something better than God, it would not wish for God. The third is not satisfied either except with something good; if there was something better than God,  it would not wish for God’).
[9] See Eckhart, Hom. 13* [S 102], n. 8: ‘Des enmac der sünder niht enpfâhen noch enist sîn niht wirdic, wan er ervüllet ist mit den sünden und mit bôsheit, daz dâ heizet vinsternisse’; Hom. 17* [S 91], n. 12: ‘Ze dem andern mâle ladet er an dem tôde, der dâ bitterlîche und swærlîche vellet ûf der sünder herze’.
[10] I Cor. 1:24-5: ‘(24) ... Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam (25) quia quod stultum est Dei sapientius est hominibus’.
[11] This seems to contradict Eckhart’s otherwise strong statements that those in hell, though separated from God, are not fully lost, even though they are called ‘condemned’ and obviously do not want to know God, see Eckhart, Hom. 113* [S 100], n. 7: ‘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!’ (‘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!’). Yet, it is clear, that those who do not want to be with God, have no knowledge of Him and His mercy. Contrarywise, God knows them as they are (as people who are not-recognising, not-knowing). And, as in Hom. 113* one reads in the next sentence here in n. 8 that God is binding, hence, he does not let go, even those who are condemned, he speaks His Word, Christ takes on human nature.
[12] A close parallel is Eckhart, Hom. 2* [Q 24], n. 9: ‘dar umbe nam got menschlîche natûre an sich und einigete sie sîner persônen. Dâ wart menschlich natûre got, wan er menschlîche natûre blôz und keinen menschen an sich nam’ (‘God took on Himself human nature and united it with His persons. There, human nature became God, because He took the naked human nature itself on Himself and not a man’).
[13] And again a parallel in the same Hom. 2* [Q 24], n. 9 straight after: ‘Dar umbe, wilt dû der selbe Krist sîn und got sîn, sô ganc alles des abe, daz daz êwige wort an sich niht ennam. Daz êwige wort nam keinen menschen an sich; dar umbe ganc abe, swaz menschen an dir sî und swaz dû sîst, und nim dich nâch menschlîcher natûre blôz, sô bist dû daz selbe an dem êwigen worte, daz menschlich natûre an im ist. Wan dîn menschlîche natûre und diu sîne enhât keinen underscheit: si ist ein, wan, swaz si ist in Kristô, daz ist si in dir’ (‘Therefore, if you wish to be the same Christ and be God, so abandon everything that the eternal Word did not assume. The eternal Word did not take on Himself a human being, hence, abandon what is a human being in you and what you are, and take yourself according to naked human nature, then you are the same with the eternal Word which human nature is with Him. As there is no difference between your human nature and His own, it is one, because what it is in Christ, this it is in you’).
[14] Marc. 12:31: ‘simile illi diliges proximum tuum tamquam te ipsum’; a straight parallel to this commandment which is felt to be hard (see n. 7) in Eckhart, Hom. 41* [Q 4], n. 8: ‘Ez schînet swære, daz unser herre geboten hât, daz man den ebenkristen minnen sol als sich selben’ (‘It seems hard, what our Lord has commanded,  that we must love our fellow Christians as much as oneself’).
[15] See Eckhart, Hom. 113* [S 100], n. 8: ‘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’ (‘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’); see also Hom. 90* [Q12], n. 9: ‘Der eine vliegen nimet in gote, diu ist edeler in gote dan der hœhste engel an im selber sî’ (‘Whoever takes a fly in God, it is more noble in God than the highest angel is in itself’).
[16] See Eckhart, Hom. 24* [Q 19], n. 2: ‘Der himelische vater sprichet ein wort und sprichet daz êwiclîche, und in dem worte verzert er alle sîne maht und sprichet sîne götlîche natûre alzemâle in dem worte und alle crêatûren’ (‘The heavenly Father says a Word and He says it eternally, and in this Word He consumes all His power, and He speaks in this Word His entire divine nature and all creatures’).
[17] See the note above on Marc. 12:31.
[18] See the parallel with a reference in Eckhart, Hom. 23 [Q 51], n. 10: ‘Ich hân gesprochen etwenne mê: diu schal muoz zerbrechen, und muoz daz, daz dar inne ist, her ûz komen; wan, wilt dû den kernen hân, sô muost dû die schalen brechen’ (‘I said at some time: the shell must break, and what is inside has to come out; because if you want to have the kernel, you have to break the shell’); though the reference may also go to Hom. 65* [Q 13], n. 3: ‘Diu schal muoz enzwei sîn, sol der kerne her ûz komen’ (‘The shell must be split, if the kernel is to come out’).
[19] See the parallel in Eckhart, Hom. 3 [Q 68], n. 15: ‘Daz ist wol wâr, daz ez in dem beginne etwaz swære ist in dem abescheidenne’ (‘It is true that in the beginning detaching is somehow difficult. Yet, as soon as one progresses, no life was ever lighter, more pleasurable and likeable’).
[20] See Eckhart, Hom. 6* [Q 38], n. 14: ‘Alliu sîniu gebot sint mir lîhte ze haltenne’ (‘All His commandments are easy for me to keep’).
[21] See Eckhart, Hom. 30* [Q 79], n. 5: ‘Brôt daz ist gar trœstlich dem menschen, sô in hungert; sô in aber dürstet, sô enhæte er als wênic trôst an dem brôte als an einem steine’ (‘Bread is really a comfort to a man when he is hungry; but when he is thirsty, he would have as little comfort from bread as from a stone’); Hom. 91* [Q 41], n. 6: ‘Die wîle den menschen hungert, die wîle smacket im diu spîse’ (‘As long as a person is hungry, he likes food’); Hom. 95* [Q 27], n. 5: ‘Sô mich dürstet, sô gebiutet mir daz trank; sô mich hungert, sô gebiutet mir diu spîse’ (‘When I am thirsty, a drink commands me; when I am hungry, food commands me’).
[22] See Matth. 19:29: ‘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’; vgl. Eckhart, Hom. 117 [Q 62], n. 1: ‘unser herre gelobet den hundertvalt, die alliu dinc lâzent. Læzet er alliu dinc, sô sol er hundertvalt nemen und daz êwige leben’ (‘Our Lord, however, promises a hundred times to those who let go all things’); see also Hom. 95* [Q 27], n. 9: ‘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’ (‘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’); the reference here might go to Sermo II,1 n. 6 (LW IV 8,6–14): ‘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. 14: “ego in patre et pater in me est” – ut non solum hoc sit in illo, quodlibet in quolibet, sed hoc sit illud, quodlibet quodlibet, Ioh. 10: “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’.
[23] See Eckhart, Hom. 114* [Q 15], n. 5: ‘alles das gu°t, das in allen engeln vnd in allen hailgen ist, das ist alles sin aigen, als es gottes aigen ist’ (‘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’).
[24] See Eckhart, Hom. 44* [Q 54b], n. 9: ‘allez, daz der vater gegeben hât sînem sune, allez, daz er ist, daz er in daz gebe’ (‘all that the Father has given to His Son, all that He is, that He may give this to them’).
[25] Another parallel to Eckhart, Hom. 2* [Q 24], n. 3: ‘Daz ander wunder ist von der sêle, daz got sô grôziu dinc mit ir und durch sie getân hât und tuot, wan er tuot, swaz er mac, durch sie; er tuot vil und grôziu dinc durch sie und ist zemâle unledic mit ir, und daz ist von ir grôzheit, in der si gemachet ist’ (‘The second wonder refers to the soul, that God has done and still does such great things with her and because of her, because He does, what he likes, because of her; He does many great things because of her, yet is entirely engaged with her which derives from her grandeur, in which she was made’).
[26] A similar simile for a different purpose in Eckhart, Hom. 103* [Q 6], n. 16: ‘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’ (‘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’).
[27] ‘irl'm’ seems to give the author or the source, but needs to be deciphered and the source identified.
[28] Ps. 18:3: ‘dies diei eructat verbum’; see on this Eckhart, In Ioh. n. 293 (LW III 245,13).
[29] See the same simile in Eckhart, Hom. 86 [Q 9], n. 14: ‘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’ (‘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’); Hom. 39* [Q 69], n. 8: ‘Daz merket an dem spiegel: hebest dû den vür dich, sô erschînet dîn bilde in dem spiegel. Daz ouge und diu sêle ist ein solch spiegel, daz allez daz dar inne erschînet, daz dar gegen gehabet wirt. Dar umbe ensihe ich niht die hant oder den stein, mêr: ich sihe ein bilde von dem steine’ (‘Note this in the mirror: if you place it in front of you, your image appears in the mirror. The eye, like the soul, is a mirror such that there appears all that is held in front of it. For that reason, I do not see the hand or the stone: but I see a picture of the stone’).
[30] On the ‘tag der ewikeit’, see Eckhart, Hom. 107 [Q 72], n. 11: ‘dâ wil sie got volbringen in dem tage der êwicheit, dâ ein ganz lieht ist’ (‘there God will perfect it in the day of eternity, where there is full light’).
[31] That this power of the soul is her ‘natural light’, is stated by Eckhart, Hom. 24* [Q 19], n. 3: ‘Alle crêatûren die engevallent gote niht, daz natiurlîche lieht der sêle überschîne sie, in dem sie ir wesen nement’ (‘None of the creatures pleases God, unless the soul’s natural light, in which they receive their being, shines upon them’); Hom. 28* [Q 18], n. 8: ‘dar umbe sol sich diu sêle ûf erheben in irm natiurlîchen liehte in daz hœhste und in daz lûterste’ (‘the soul must raise herself in her natural light into the supreme and most pure’).
[32] See Sap. 18:14–5: ‘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. 395ra); Vg. reads: ‘(18:14) cum enim quietum silentium contineret omnia et nox in suo cursu medium iter haberet, (18:15) omnipotens sermo tuus de caelo a regalibus sedibus durus debellator in mediam exterminii terram prosilivit’; on this see Hom. 70* [Q 73], n. 8: ‘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’; see also Cant. 3:1: ‘In lectulo meo per noctes quaesivi quem diligit anima mea … et non inveni’; see also Hom. 66* [Q 71], n. 9: ‘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’.
[33] See II Tim. 2:8: ‘memor esto Iesum Christum resurrexisse a mortuis ex semine David’.
[34] See Eckhart, Hom. 30 [Q 79], n. 7: ‘Sehet, als süeze ist gotes trôst, daz in alle crêatûren suochent und jagent im nâch. Und ich spriche mê, daz aller crêatûren wesen und leben liget dar ane, daz sie got suochent und im nâchjagent. Nû möhtet ir sprechen: wâ ist dirre got, dem alle crêatûren nâchjagent, dâ von sie ir wesen und ir leben hânt?’ (‘Look, so sweet is the comfort of God, that all creatures seek Him and chase Him. And I say more: that the being and life of all creatures are about seeking God and chasing Him. Now you might say: where is this God, whom all creatures chase, from whom they have their being and their lives?’).
[35] See Eckhart, Hom. 9 [S 101], n. 6: ‘Dar umbe muoz sich diu sêle, in der disiu geburt geschehen sol, gar lûter halten und gar adellîche leben und gar eine und gar inne, niht ûzloufen durch die vünf sinne in manicvalticheit der crêatûren, mêr: alles inne sîn und ein sîn; und in dem lûtersten dâ ist sîn stat, im versmâhet iht minners’ (‘Therefore, the soul in which this birth is to take place must hold herself very pure and live a very noble life, entirely united and fully interior, must not run out through her five senses into the manifoldness of creatures; rather, she has to be totally interior and to be one; and her place is in this purest part, He disdains anything less’).
[36] See on this entire passage Eckhart, Hom. 41 [Q 4], n. 10: ‘Dô got alle crêatûren geschuof, dô wâren si sô snœde und sô enge, daz er sich niht dar inne beregen mohte. Doch machte er im die sêle sô glîch und sô ebenmæzic, ûf daz er sich der sêle gegeben möhte; wan swaz er ir anders gæbe, des enahtet si niht. Got muoz mir sich selber geben als eigen, als er sîn selbes ist, oder mir enwirt niht noch ensmecket mir niht. Swer in alsus zemâle enpfâhen sol, der muoz zemâle sich selben ergeben | (72) hân und sîn selbes ûzgegangen sîn; der enpfæhet glîch von gote allez, daz er hât, als eigen als erz selber hât und unser vrouwe und alle, die im himelrîche sint: daz ist disen als glîch und als eigen. Die alsô glîch ûzgegangen sint und im selben ergeben hânt, die suln ouch glîch enpfâhen und niht minner’ (‘When God created all creatures, they were so despicable and so narrow, that He would not want to move in them. Yet, He made the soul so like and equal to Himself, that He wished to give Himself to the soul; because whatever else He gave her, she would not consider. God must give Himself to me as my own, as He is His own, otherwise He would neither become mine nor be to my taste. Whoever shall receive Him thus fully, must have entirely given up himself and detached himself from himself; he receives by God immediately all that He has as his own, as He Himself has it, as our Lady and all that are in the kingdom of heaven have it: this belongs to them in just the same way, yet as their own. Therefore, those who are also likewise detached and have given up themselves to Him, will also receive in a like way, and no less’); Hom. 63 [Q 84], n. 3: ‘allez, daz got geben mac, daz ist allez einer sêle ze kleine, engæbe sich got niht selber in den gâben’ (‘all that God can give, all that for the soul would be absolutely too little, unless God gave Himself in the gifts’); Hom. 86 [Q 9], n. 10: ‘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’ (‘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’).
[37] See the equation of ‘lentil’ and ‘nothing’ in Eckhart, Hom. 59 [Q 42], n. 6: ‘Wizzet: dem menschen wæren alliu dinc als lîhte ze lâzenne als ein erweiz oder ein linse oder als niht; jâ, bî mîner sêle, alliu dinc wæren disem menschen als ein niht!’ (‘Know: this person could so easily abandon all things as abandon a pea, a lentil or nothing’).
[38] A clear parallel in Eckhart, Hom. 90* [Q 12], n. 9: ‘Der eine vliegen nimet in gote, diu ist edeler in gote dan der hœhste engel an im selber sî’ (‘Whoever takes a fly in God, it is more noble in God than the highest angel is in itself’).
[39] On this topic of inward finding God, see Hom. 110* [Q 10]. See also Eckhart, Hom. 25* [Q 26], n. 3: ‘Allez, daz ie geschach vor tûsent jâren, der tac, der vor tûsent jâren was, der ist in êwicheit niht verrer dan disiu stunde, dâ ich ze <disem> mâle iezuo stân, oder der tac, der über tûsent jâr komen sol oder als vil dû gezeln maht, der enist in êwicheit niht verrer dan disiu stunde, dâ ich iezuo inne stân’ (‘Everything that ever happened a thousand years ago, the day that was a thousand years ago, is in eternity no farther than this hour, in this time in which I now stand here, or the day that will come in a thousand years or as much as you can count, it is in eternity not farther than this hour in which I now stand here’).
[40] See Eckhart, Hom. 9* [S 101], n. 23: ‘Ie mê dû âne bilde bist, ie mê dû sînes înwürkennes enpfenclîcher bist, und ie mê îngekêret und vergezzener, ie mê disem næher’ (‘The more you are without image, the more you are receptive to His inner activity, and the more you are turned inwardly and are ignorant, the more you are close to Him’).
[41] See the parallel in Eckhart, Hom. 2* [Q 24], n. 10 on the just that follows the earlier mentioned parallel between this homily here and Hom. 2*.
[42] Matth. 16:24: ‘Si quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum, et tollat crucem suam, et sequatur me’; see on this Eckhart, Hom. 98* [S 107] and Hom. 9* [S 101], n. 28.
[43] Matth. 25:21: ‘Euge serve bone, et fidelis: quia super pauca fuisti fidelis, super multa te constituam’; see above n. 1.
[44] See on this standard formula of Eckhart, for example, Hom. 1* [S 87], n. 10; Hom. 8* [Q 76], n. 13; Hom. 32* [S 108], n. 14; Hom. 101* [Q 58], n. 9; Hom. 106* [S 112], n. 14.