This year sees the centenary of the foundation of the Dominican sisters of Newcastle, Natal (South Africa), now based at Bushey Heath on the outskirts of London. A cause of rejoicing and of thanks to God for all that the sisters have been and done, but also for asking why we should be having such a celebration at all. Why was this religious institute founded only 100 years ago, when the history of the Dominican order as a whole goes back to the 13th century? Throughout the world, there are 158 autonomous congregations of sisters, with 35,000 professed members and 950 novices at the last count, while there is one international institute of the brethren, comprising nearly fifty provinces and forty vicariates, numbering some 7000 men, a thousand of whom are in formation. Why is there so much fragmentation amongst the sisters when the brothers have maintained, relatively speaking, a great degree of unity in their structure? It is not as if there were no sisters before the massive expansion of the numbers of women religious in the 19th century. Marie Poussepin, recently beatified, started what was recognisably a congregation which she put under the patronage of St Dominic 300 years ago. At the time of St Dominic, there were groups of women who were not following a specific rule, some later becoming enclosed monasteries and others, monasteries of the third order. Why is there not the organic connection between the convents of the Dominican sisters today and these forebears, as there is between the medieval convents of brothers and those of today?

Sir John Morris Jones, the most distinguished pupil of Sir John Rhys, collaborated with the latter in editing a Jesus College manuscript. This work appeared in 1894 in the Medieval and Modem Series of Anecdota Oxoniensia under the title of The Elucidarium and other tracts in Welsh from Llyuyr Agkyr Llandewivrevi, A.D. 1346 (Jesus College Ms. 119) (The Book of the Anchorite of Llanddewifrefi). A note added to the translation of the preface to the Elucidarium says:

There are seventeen stories in the book, beginning with ‘Hystoria Lucidar’ and ending with ‘Hystoria o uuched beuno ae wyrtheu’ (The story of Beuno's life and of his miracles). One might say that the contents of this book give some idea of the nature of the religious teaching of the Church in Wales in the Middle Ages. Practically all the works included in this book are translations from Latin except for one which is our special interest on this occasion. It is known as ‘Kyssegyrlan Vuched’ or ‘Ymborth yr Eneit’ (The Holy Life or The Food of the Soul) ff. 78v - 92r. It begins on f. 78 with the words ('we now deal with divine love which joins the Creator God and the creature Man ...'). On f 80r there is the sentence ‘and so ends the second part of this book, namely, of Divine Love'.

The mystical language of the 14th century Dominican, Meister Eckhart, can certainly be characterised as daring in its creativity. Indeed, Eckhart uses language like few others in his talk of the divine, employing bold paradoxes and unusual metaphors. But as Bernard McGinn has written, “while Eckhart’s creative handling of language is one of the major attractions of his style, it often does not make the task of understanding him any easier.” Part of the problem in failing to understand Eckhart’s words involves a failure to understand the context of his theological vision and his efforts to bring his listeners to a new appreciation of the divine. This has been especially true in the contemporary philosophy of religion. Philosophical analyses have failed to attend to the conditions in which the mystic’s words have their meaning and instead have generally been attempts to “penetrate” the phenomena. What is required instead is what the 20th century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein has advised, namely, a grammatical investigation. When Eckhart writes, “The eye in which I see God is the same eye in which God sees me; my eye and God’s eye are one eye and one sight and one knowing and one loving”, it must be recognized that the meaning of such a statement can only be understood in seeing how Eckhart’s words are being used, for it is only in this context that these words have their significance. Rather than impose a philosophical explanation, therefore, it is important to note the grammar of Eckhart’s discourse and thus a description is offered.