Ruling the Spirit. Claire Taylor Jones

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ perception of God in the divine ground; only the characteristics of individual personhood obstruct Gelassenheit. Even so, Truth specifies that these traits must not be destroyed but simply given up or despised (ufgeben oder verahten).³⁹ Here as in the Vita, self-denial, defined as the recognition of one’s own powerlessness and the acceptance of suffering, allows one to un-become (entwerden) and unite with Christ in the divine ground. Truth summarizes, “dis gelassen sich wirt ein kristförmig ich [this gelassen self becomes an I according to Christ’s form].”⁴⁰ Abandoning one’s own identity, goals, aspirations, and practices produces a Christlike self through acceptance of God’s will in suffering.

      Tauler’s understanding of Gelassenheit is similarly broad but often more abstract than Seuse’s. In her systematic analysis of Tauler’s use of Gelassenheit throughout the surviving sermons, Imke Früh notes that Tauler never explicitly defines Gelassenheit as Seuse does, so that the term comes to encompass a broad range of virtues, importantly including the monastic virtues of humility and obedience.⁴¹ Moreover, although Tauler does also endorse contemplation and imitation of Christ’s passion, suffering does not pervade his sermons as it does Seuse’s writings. When he does speak of it, Tauler tends quickly to abstract the concept of leiden from the experience of pain to a state of passivity. As Alois Haas explains, “Gotliden meint die Absenz allen menschlichen wúrkens … und damit die schrankenlose Offenheit und Empfänglichkeit für die von Gott gewirkte Einigung des Menschen mit Gott [suffering God entails the absence of all human work … and therefore the unbounded openness and receptivity for the union of the person with God, effected through God himself].”⁴² Früh also emphasizes passivity in Tauler’s conception of Gelassenheit, noting that “leaving oneself” constitutes “weniger eine aktive Handlung als vielmehr einen Übergang in die Passivität [less an active deed than a transition into passivity].”⁴³ This passivity is not a form of quietism but rather a receptivity to the workings of God, who can only enter an empty vessel. Achieving this state of receptivity (“reine Empfänglichkeit und Bestimmbarkeit” in Markus Enders’s words⁴⁴) by preparing the ground of the soul proves absolutely central to Tauler’s concept of Gelassenheit.

      This concept of Gelassenheit as receptive passivity is worked out in a sermon for Christmas. Tauler explains that the three Masses celebrated on Christmas day honor three different ways in which Christ is born. First, the birth of the Son from the Father, second, the birth of Jesus from Mary, and third, the eternal birth of God in the soul should be commemorated over the course of the day. In explaining the first form of birth, Tauler draws on the Johannine association of Christ with the Word of God. Echoing the inward turn that he will argue the human soul must take, Tauler explains that God turned inward to the abyss (abgrund) of his own being and, in pure understanding of himself, spoke himself out as a Word, that is, Christ the Son. If one wishes to receive God in the soul, Tauler continues, one must be able to hear the speaking of this Word.

      Wan wenne zwei súllent eins werden, so můs sich daz eine halten lidende und daz ander wúrckende; sol min ouge enpfohen die bilde in der want oder waz es sehen sol, so můs es an ime selber blos sin aller bilde, wan hette es ein einig bilde in ime einiger varwen, so gesehe es niemer kein varwe; oder hat daz ore ein getöne, so gehört es niemer enkein getöne; so welich ding enpfohen sol, das můs itel, lidig und wan sin.⁴⁵

      For if two should become one, then the one must stay passive and the other active; if my eye is to receive the images on the wall or whatever it is supposed to see, it must in itself be pure of all images, since if it even had one image in it of whatever color, it would never see any color; or if the ear had a tone, it would never hear any tone; so anything that should be receptive must be empty, passive, and pure.

      According to medieval Aristotelian theories of perception, sense impressions quite literally impressed the form of the object perceived into the soul’s cognitive faculty, causing that faculty momentarily to share the form of the perceived object. In order for this object impression to operate correctly, the faculty had to be itself formless and plastic, allowing it to receive foreign forms easily.⁴⁶

      The natural receptivity of the soul’s faculties is both an advantage and a disadvantage. If one turns inward, the soul will easily be able to receive (or conceive) God, but the faculties too often are oriented outward toward things in the world. These outer things occupy the soul and obstruct God’s natural desire to pour himself out. “Und darumbe soltu swigen,” Tauler explains, “so mag dis wort diser geburt in dich sprechen und in dir gehört werden; aber sicher, wiltu sprechen, so můs er swigen [And for this reason, you should be silent: so that the Word of this birth should speak in you and be heard in you; but certainly, if you want to speak, he must be silent].”⁴⁷ The obstructive tones that may prevent an ear from hearing are here given a power that goes beyond inattention to full interruption. It is not merely that the soul cannot hear; unless silence is accomplished, God does not speak at all. In order passively to receive God’s will, one must empty the soul of the world. McGinn concludes that debating whether lidikeit in Tauler’s sermons should be translated as emptiness (Ledigkeit) or passivity (Leidendheit) argues a moot point: lidikeit represents a neologism that intentionally evokes both meanings.⁴⁸ Emptying out the soul prepares it for true passivity.

      In order to undergird his association of Christmas with Gelassenheit with silence, Tauler cites Wisdom 18:14–15, signaling explicitly that the text serves as the Introit for Mass on the Sunday within the Octave of Christmas.⁴⁹ Because of its reference to the descent of the Word, the verse had long been used for the celebration of the Incarnation.⁵⁰ After translating the entirety of the Introit, Tauler expounds the mention of silence as the purification of the soul required for Gelassenheit.

      Hievon sol man singen in dem nehsten sunnendage in dem anhebende der messen: dum medium silencium fieret, do daz mittel swigen wart und alle ding in dem höhsten swigende worent und die naht iren louf vollebroht hette, herre, do kam dine almehtige rede von dem kúniglichen stůle, das waz daz ewige wort von dem vetterlichen hertzen. In disem mittel swigende, in disem do alle ding sint in dem höhsten swigende und ein wor silencium ist, denne wurt man dis wort in der worheit hörende; wan sol Got sprechen, du můst swigen; sol Got ingon, alle ding müssent uzgon.⁵¹

      One sings about this next Sunday at the beginning of Mass: dum medium silencium fieret, when the middle/medium was silent and all things were in the highest silence and the night had completed its course, Lord, your almighty speech came from the royal seat, that was the eternal word from the Fatherly heart. In this silent medium, in this where all things are in the highest silence and there is a true silencium, here one will hear the word in truth; since if God should speak, you must be still; if God should go in, all things must go out.

      By using the Introit for an upcoming Mass to illustrate his point, Tauler prepares his audience to understand that feast in light of his spiritual philosophy. The Christmas season and its celebration of Mary’s passive role should lead one to reflect on one’s own submission to God’s will. However, identifying silence as the ethical concern of a liturgical text produces an interesting paradox. Tauler urges his audience to consider their own pursuit of Gelassenheit while singing the Divine Office. This contemplative performance results in a curious situation in which the singers ought to be striving for inner silence, while they are singing outwardly. Seuse, with his greater attention to the immediate liturgical contexts, deals with this paradox of passive performance more effectively than Tauler, who remains more interested in the theological significance of feasts than in the spiritual interpretation of individual texts.

      Liturgical Piety in the Global and the Particular

      Tauler and Seuse deal with liturgical context in very different ways, which are at least partly motivated by the difference in genre. As sermons, Tauler’s works were naturally embedded in the liturgical context during which they would have been delivered. Although it is rarely СКАЧАТЬ