¹ Eckhart, O.P., born about 1260 at Hochheim, near Gotha in Thuringia, taught at Paris that his genius lay in his being imbued with but one single truth, a truth ‘monumental in its simplicity, profound in its implications, impressive in its sincerity.’ This one central idea, from which all others of the Master are derived and towards which all are orientated, is that of the generation or birth of the Divine Word, or Son, in the soul. Anyone who has not grasped that the generation of the Son through the Father in the Tittle spark of the soul’ (‘daz vünkelîn’) constitutes the sole motive, subject-matter and purpose of Eckhart's sermons and gives to them in various formulations, which are merely variants of the one great theme, a certain grand one-sidedness, has failed to understand the Master. To him there is lacking the knowledge of the unitive and orientating centre of Eckhart's intellectual heritage, whose meaning, inaccessible to him, becomes ever more and more entangled in an inextricable medley of contradictions and obscurities, until he is unable to see the wood for the trees. He does not comprehend that all the tracks of this mystic's speculative thought lead toward one predetermined goal: the mystic union ca. 1300–1303 and again ca. 1311–1314. It is now generally assumed that it was during his second stay in Paris that Eckhart laid the foundation of his great philosophico-theological work in Latin, the Opus Tripartitum, which has come down to us only as a fragment. In 1314 he was lector at the Dominican friary in Strasbourg. Here he won widespread fame as a popular preacher, here German mysticism reached the culminating point of its development. It was undoubtedly during the Strasbourg period that a large number of Eckhart's stirring and provocative sermons were delivered in the many convents for women in the Upper Rhine valley as the centers and nurseries of mystical life and spirit. The German sermons represent the fairest flower that blossomed forth from the blending of Scholasticism and Mysticism. All that the wisdom of the academic chair was in any way able to contribute to religious inspiration and the furtherance of the inner life was here translated by the Master from the Latin of the schools into the living language of edification. He adapted his sermons to the mental capacity of his listeners, thereby simultaneously softening and vitalizing the formalistic rigidity of the scholastic syllogisms. Eckhart was probably in his sixties when he was appointed lector at the Studium generale in Cologne, where Albert the Great (f 1280) had taught within living memory. In 1326 the Archbishop of Cologne, Henry of Virneburg, opened inquisitional proceedings against Eckhart on a charge of heresy. After the Master had appealed to Pope John XXII on the 24th of January 1327, the investigation of the case was renewed before a Papal Commission in Avignon. It is known that Eckhart himself was present at Avignon and that he defended his opinions there (William Ockham, Dialogus, in Melchior Goldast's Monarchia Romani S. Imperii [Francofurti 1668] 2.909). Of the original one hundred and eight propositions cited in the Cologne bill of accusation, twenty-eight were finally embodied in the Bull, In agro dominico, of the 27th of March 1329, and condemned as either heretical or dangerous and suspect. Eckhart did not live to see the condemnation of these articles. The Bull refers to him as to one already dead, who had withdrawn everything that he had written or taught, either in the schools or in sermons, that might create in the minds of the faithful an heretical or erroneous impression and one hostile to the true faith. Eckhart died some time between February 1327 and the 27th of March 1329. The place of his death is not recorded. of the intellect and will of man with the Godhead through the birth of the Divine Logos in the soul. Google Scholar

² Literally, ‘shine forth,’ namely in Creation. Google Scholar

³ That is, with its own separate existence. Google Scholar

⁴ DW 1 15.10–16.11. (Cf. Clark 131.) Google Scholar

⁵ DW 1 377.1–3 (Cf. Clark 212.) Google Scholar

⁶ LW 3.8.1–9; 48.4–10. (Cf. Clark 31.) Google Scholar

⁷ DW 1.148.1–3. Google Scholar

⁸ DW 1.55.3–5. (Cf. Clark 155.) Google Scholar

⁹ St. Thomas, S. Th. 1.15.2 corpus. Google Scholar

¹⁰ From all this it can be seen how deeply Eckhart was rooted in the great tradition of Christian Platonic thought. Google Scholar

¹¹ Pfeiffer 2.290.34–40. Google Scholar

¹² DW 1.382.3–383.1. (Cf. Clark 214.) Google Scholar

¹³ DW 1.376.7–377.1. (Cf. Clark 212.) — Cf. St. Augustine, Sermo 225.3 (PL 38.1097f.). Google Scholar

¹⁴ St. Augustine, De diversis quaestionibus LXXXIII 46 (PL 40.29–31): ‘Sunt namque ideae principales formae quaedam, vel rationes rerum stabiles atque incommutabiles, quae ipsae formatae non sunt, ac per hoc aeternae ac semper eodem modo sese habentes, quae in divina intelligentia continentur. Et cum ipsae neque oriantur, neque intereant, secundum eas tamen formari dicitur omne quod oriri et interire potest, et omne quod oritur et interit.’ — Cf. St. Thomas, S. Th. 1.15.2. Google Scholar

¹⁵ That is, in ‘the still wilderness’ of the undifferentiated Godhead. Eckhart drew a distinction, as did Thomas Aquinas, between the Godhead and God. By the former he understood the undifferentiated Deity, by the latter the Three Persons. Eckhart's view is discussed by Heinrich Denifle, Archiv 2.454–5, 481 n.1. — See also Clark 39–40, 183–4. Google Scholar

¹⁶ Cf. Pfeiffer, 2, Serm. 87 (p. 280ff.). — Our text is a translation from Quint, ME 308.8–19. Google Scholar

¹⁷ DW 1.109.5–110.7. Google Scholar

¹⁸ The two primary sources concerning the process against Eckhart are:Google Scholar

1. The so-called Rechtfertigungsschrift, i.e., Eckhart's own apology or vindication of his teaching, extant as MS 33b of the municipal library of Soest. It contains the protocol of two sessions of the process conducted in Cologne in 1326. The two principal critical editions of this document are: Augustinus Daniels, O.S.B., ‘Eine lateinische Rechtfertigungsschrift des Meister Eckhart’ (cit. supra, introductory note); Gabriel Théry, ‘Édition critique des pièces relatives au procès d'Eckhart contenues dans le manuscrit 33b de la bibliothèque de Soest,’ Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 1 (1926) 129–268. The Théry edition is to be preferred because it presents the contents of the Soest MS in better chronological order and indicates important authorities used in the Articles of indictment.

2. The so-called Gutachten, in all probability the official expert opinion drawn up by a committee of competent theologians and presented to the Papal Commission in Avignon. This Gutachten is contained in Codex Vaticanus lat. 3899, which is a collection and medley of various MSS dealing with the most heterogeneous subjects. The two principal critical editions of this document are: Franz Pelster, S.J., ‘Ein Gutachten aus dem Eckehart-Prozess in Avignon’ (cit. supra, introductory note); M. H. Laurent, ‘Autour du procès de Maître Eckhart: Les documents des Archives Vaticanes,’ Divus Thomas ³ 13 (1936) 331–48, 430–47.

¹⁹ Preger, Wilhelm, Geschichte der deutschen Mystik im Mittelalter I: Geschichte der deutschen Mystik bis zum Tode Meister Eckharts (Leipzig 1874) 361, 365.Google Scholar

²⁰ DW 1.171.10–11. (Clark 203.) Google Scholar

²¹ Clark 84–5 (the italicization has been added). Google Scholar

²² John 3.3, 7. Google Scholar

²³ Romans 8.16; 1 John 3.1. Google Scholar

²⁴ 2 Peter 1.4. Google Scholar

²⁵ In connection with our spiritual rebirth St. Paul employs the term τέϰνον, which in Greek in the strict sense means ‘one who is begotten,’ at least five times. Google Scholar

²⁶ 1 John 3.9; cf. 1 Peter 1.23. Google Scholar

²⁷ 1 Cor. 13.12; 1 John 3.2. For a thorough treatment of this inspiring doctrine of our Spiritual Regeneration and the physical elevation of our nature into a supernatural sphere of existence, see Lange, paragraphs 254–303, 520–530. Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. Karrer, , Das System , esp. Chap. 4 (‘Gottessohnschaft’) pp. 113–128.Google Scholar

²⁹ Romans 5.5. — Cf. Lange, paragrs. 442–455. Google Scholar

³⁰ Romans 8.8–11; 1 Cor. 3.16–17; 1 Cor. 6.19. Google Scholar

³¹ Ephesians 1.13–14. Cf. Lange, paragr. 270a. Google Scholar

³² Romans 8.23. Cf. Lange, paragr. 270b. Google Scholar

³³ DW 1.40.5–41.3. (Clark 137.) Google Scholar

³⁴ DW 1.109.2–7. (Clark 188.) Google Scholar

³⁵ Daniels 14.15–20: ‘unde ubicumque deus est pater est et generans ingenitus est, et ubicumque deus est, et filius genitus est. Unde cum in me est deus, utique in me generat filium deus pater et in me est ipse filius genitus, unus, indivisus, cum non sit alius filius in divinis nisi unus et ipse deus.’ — To the first two lines of the text as above cited, Daniels remarks: ‘pater … deus est] Corresponding to what follows the probable reading is: ubicumque deus est, et pater generans ingenitus est. By repetition of the est the corrector has mistakenly put the words est et after pater.’ — Cf. Eckhart, Expos. s. Evang. secund. Ioh. (LW 3.9.3–4): ‘Filius in divinis, verbum in principio, semper nascitur, semper natus est.’ — (LW 3.33.17–18): ‘(Filius) sic est a principio natus a patre quod nihilominus semper nascitur.’ Google Scholar

³⁶ Cf. Pelster 1109.31–38; Daniels 29.23–30.1; DW 1.171.5–8. In all these passages Eckhart is speaking of the Divine Act of Creation. Google Scholar

³⁷ In the second session of the Cologne process Eckhart vindicates his doctrine on the same subject in the following words: ‘Dicendum quod verum est quia nec alium filium nec aliter generat pater in me quam in eternitate. In deo enim nec cadit aliud nec aliter, nec habet filium in eternitate nisi unum etc…’ ‘Quod autem dicitur “oportet eum facere (sive ei placeat sive displiceat)” verum est, est tamen locutio emphatica commendans dei bonitatem et amorem qui se toto bonus est per essentiam, que bonitas non sinit ipsum sine germine esse ut dicit Dyonisius, propter quod et se ipsum dat et omne quod habet secundum illud: “cum illo omnia nobis donavit” (Rom. 8.32) etc.’: Daniels 53.6–27. The same thought recurs often in the works of the Scholastics in the form: ‘Bonum est diffusivum sui.’ Google Scholar

³⁸ Cf. also Daniels 60.35–61.6, where we may clearly observe with what keen psychological penetration the Master recognized the fitness of this sublime truth for kindling the love of God in the hearts of his hearers. Google Scholar

³⁹ DW 1.109.8–110.7: ‘und ich spriche mêr: er gebirt mich sînen sun und den selben sun. Ich spriche mêr: er gebirt mich niht aleine sînen sun, mêr: er gebirt mich sich und sich mich und mich sîn wesen und sîn natûre. In dem innersten quelle dâ quille ich ûz in dem heiligen geiste, dâ ist éin leben und éin wesen und éin werk. Allez, waz got würket, daz ist ein; dar umbe gebirt er mich sînen sun âne allen underscheit. Mîn lîplîcher vater ist niht eigenlîche mîn vater sunder an einem kleinen stuckelîn sîner natûre, und ich bin gescheiden von im; er mac tôt sîn und ich leben. Dar umbe ist der himelische vater waerlîche mîn vater, wan ich sîn sun bin und allez daz von im hân, daz ich hân, und ich der selbe sun bin und niht ein ander. Wan der vater éin werk würket, dar umbe würket er mich sînen eingebornen sun âne allen underscheit.’ (Clark 188–189.) Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Denifle, , Archiv 2.638.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Pelster 1117.32–35: ‘Hunc articulum, ut sonat, hereticum reputamus sicut precedentes quia ponit quod Deus genuit istum loquentem et secundum dietos articulos quemeunque bonum hominem filium suum et eundem cum unitate, absque aliqua distinccione.’ — 1118. 4–7: ‘… tamen (unigenitus Dei filius) non est idem cum omnibus fiiiis adopcionis nec omnes filii adopcionis sunt idem cum unigenito Dei filio et absque omni distinccione, ut articulus ponit.’ Google Scholar

⁴² Pelster 1117.8–10. Google Scholar

⁴³ Daniels 13.15–21: ‘… articulus iste plura inplicat. Unum est quod homo stans in dei amore et cognitione efficitur nichil aliud quam quod deus ipse est. Hoc dico esse falsum omnino nec hoc dixi, nec sensi, nec scripsi, nec predicavi; et est erroneum et hereticum si temere defendatur sine quo nullus error heresis est.’ Similar protestations that he had never said or written certain statements attributed to him occur several times in Eckhart's vindication of his doctrine.Google Scholar

Scholars have long since recognized that before the interpreter strives to find out what Eckhart meant, he must first be sure what Eckhart actually wrote or said. Far more than four hundred MSS — and the number may well be enlarged by further findings — present to us whatever in sermons, tracts, and smaller compositions passes for or is claimed to be the work of Meister Eckhart. One of the main problems of Eckhartian research is to establish the genuineness of these MS texts. The German sermons have come down to us only in copies of notes which were taken by listeners from the spoken word of the preacher, and these transcripts are mingled with deliberate or unconscious distortions and corruptions of every kind through omissions, interpolations, misconceptions, and arbitrary alterations of formulation and of meaning. Nevertheless the ineffaceable and unmistakable character of the bold and profound Eckhartian expression still shines forth through the cruelest distortion and the most hopeless misconception. The further the work progresses on the definitive critical edition of the Master's Latin and German productions now being published under the auspices of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft of the Thomas-Institut in Cologne, the stronger and more reliable will become the criteria whereby it may be hoped that the double problem of authenticity and genuineness of the received texts will be solved. And even in the case of very corrupt tradition the possibility will grow of restoring the texts with relative certitude, if not in their strictly original form, still in a wording that will reproduce the original thought as well as the characteristic formulation of the Master. It is to be noted, moreover, that the authenticity of at least twenty-three German sermons of Eckhart is established through the evidence afforded by the Rechtfertigungsschrift, the Gutachten, and the Bull In agro Dominico of John XXII, furthermore through characteristic conformities with the Latin works of Eckhart, especially with the Latin sermons (Opus Sermonum), all of which are contained in the Opus Tripartitum, the authenticity of which is unquestioned.

⁴⁴ Daniels 14.17–15.7: ‘Hinc est quod nemo alius preter ipsum est heres nisi per ipsum et in illo membrum ipsius per gratiam et caritatem sit, nec films. Unde quantumeunque sumus filii non sumus heredes, quia nec filii, nisi in quantum per filiationem in nobis conformamur illi unigenito et primo genito ut inperfectum perfecto, secundum primo, membrum capiti, propter quod et primogenitus dietus est.’ Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Daniels 15.20–31: ‘Quod autem sequitur ultimo in eodem articulo: transformamur et convertimur in deum, error est. Homo enim sanctus sive bonus quicunque non fit ipse Christus nec primogenitus, nec per ipsum salvantur alii nec est ymago dei, filius dei unigenitus sed est ad ymaginem dei, membrum ipsius qui vere et perfecte filius est primogenitus et heres, nos autem coheredes, ut dictum est et hoc sibi vult similitudo que inducitur. Sicud enim panes multi in diversis altaribus convertuntur in ipsum verum unicum corpus Christi conceptum et natum de virgine, passum sub Pilato, remanentibus tamen accidentibus singulorum, sic mens nostra per gratiam adoptionis et nos unimur vero filio dei, membra unius capitis ecclesie qui est Christus.’ Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Daniels 15.26–31. See supra n. 45 for Latin text. Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Daniels 54.9–26. Google Scholar

⁴⁸ DW 193.11–12. (Clark. 223.) Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Daniels 40.21–30: ‘… frustra essemus filii dei nisi per ipsum qui est vere filius dei naturaliter, cum sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus et primogenitus omnis creature.’ Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Daniels 63.1–6: ‘Ipse (unigenitus filius) ymago, nos filii ad ymaginem. Ipse similitudo, nos ad similitudinem. Ipse filius naturalis, nos adoptivi, transformati in eandem ymaginem ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus. Ipse heres, nos coheredes in quantum filii et membra ipsius, propter quod ipse unicus salvator est.’ Google Scholar

⁵¹ Daniels 63.20–24: ‘…2° dicit quod “ipse sit ille unigenitus filius.” Si intelligatur quod ego sim deus falsum est, si vero intelligatur quod ego sum ille utpote membrum illius verum est sicut frequenter dicit Augustinus et super illo “ego pro ipsis sanctifico me ipsum” (Ioh. 17.19), dicit quia ipsi sunt ego’ (In Ioh. evangelium tractatus 108.5 [PL 35.1916]). Google Scholar

⁵² Daniels 63.2–3. Google Scholar

⁵³ Note carefully that Eckhart here uses the words, ‘distinctum’ and ‘divisum’ as synonyms in the sense of ‘separate.’ This is plain from the conjunction ‘seu.’Google Scholar

For the sake of clearness it may be well at this point to define the term, ‘distinct.’ ‘Distinct’ is that which is ‘not identical.’ A thing may be identical either absolutely or only according to reality. A thing is absolutely identical in the strict sense only with itself. What is not absolutely identical can be distinct in various ways. Two objects are said to be distinct according to reality when the reality of the one is not the reality of the other. Three persons are distinct from one another, because the reality of the one is not the reality of the other. Whether the distinct realities are likewise separated from one another is irrelevant with regard to the distinction as such. Whatever is separate or at least separable is likewise always distinct. But this does not hold good of the reverse. Body and soul of man are distinct from each other, but in a living man they are not separate one from the other. The human nature of Christ is distinct in reality from the Divine Word, that is, the former is not identical with the latter, yet both are most intimately united with each other. To be distinct according to reality and to be separate from one another do not, therefore, signify the same.

Whatever things are distinct from one another according to reality are always likewise really distinct from one another, as, for example, three persons, body and soul in man, the human nature of Christ and the Second Person of the Godhead. We call those things really distinct which are distinct independently of our comprehension or conception and also independently of any comprehension or conception — which, therefore, are distinct not merely for the reason that they are conceived by us as distinct. Whatever is distinct according to reality is therefore really, that is, independently of our understanding, distinct, because the distinct realities as such are present independently of our cognition. Three really existing persons exist independently of our cognition, they exist even though we do not think of them. Their distinction from one another is, therefore, independent of our apprehension, that is, it is real.

There can, however, likewise exist real distinctions, which are not distinctions between different realities. For to be real simply means to exist independently of our conception. And accordingly a real distinction, too, simply means that it exists independently of our comprehension. It is not necessary that it be itself a reality, nor that there be two realities, of which one is not the other. When water in a liquid state freezes, then the frozen water is really distinct from the water in liquid state, but it is not distinct according to reality. It is really distinct from the latter, because, independently of our comprehension, frozen water is not liquid water. On the other hand, it is not distinct from it according to reality, because it is the same water which before was in a liquid state and now is frozen, just as it likewise remains the same water, when it is changed back from the frozen into a liquid state. We encounter similar real distinctions in the case of many real changes and modifications, which are not founded upon any different realities.

⁵⁴ Daniels 64.1–11. For the complete Latin text see n. 56 infra. Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Mark 10.17–18. — This teaching concerning the essentially analogical manner of existence of the spiritual perfections in the Creator and His creature, the metaphysical relations existing between the righteous man and righteousness, the good man and goodness, etc., is set forth by Eckhart in speculations of extremely subtle, abstract, and abstruse nature in his famous Book on Divine Comfort, a treatise he composed to console the bereaved Queen Agnes of Hungary after the assassination of her father, Emperor Albrecht I of Austria, in 1308. Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Daniels 64.1–14: ‘3° dicit articulus quod “inter unigenitum filium et animam non est aliqua distinctio.” Dicendum quod verum est. Qumodo enim esset quid album distinctum seu divisum ab albedine? Rursus, materia et forma sunt unum in esse, vivere, et operari. Nec propter hoc materia est forma nec e converso. Sic in proposito quamvis anima sancta unum sit cum deo secundum illud Ioh. 17.21.-22: “ut et ipsi in nobis unum sint sicut et nos unum sumus,” non tamen creatura est creator, nec homo iustus est deus. Nec putandum est quod alio et alio filio dei iusti quique sint filli dei sed sicut omnes boni ab una et eadem bonitate analogice boni sunt. Et sicut unus est deus in omnibus per essentiam sic unus est filius deus in omnibus filiis adoptionis et illi per ipsum et in ipso sunt filii analogice, sicut supra frequenter ostensum est.’ — Cf. also Daniels 65.9–13: ‘Non est ergo putandum quod alius sit filius quo Christus eius est filius et alius quo nos nominamur et sumus filii dei, sed id ipsum et is ipse, qui Christus filius est naturaliter genitus, nos filii dei sumus analogice cui coherendo utpote herenti coheredes sumus.’ Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Romans 8.16–17; Galat. 4.7. Google Scholar

⁵⁸ LW 4.58.3–5: ‘Deus etiam in hoc mundo concessit nobis potestatem filios dei fieri, etiam unigenitos sive potius unigenitum, sic ut vivamus per eum.’ Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Daniels 54.24–26. — Here we again meet with the antithesis between ‘genita’ (begotten) and ‘creati’ (created), to which attention was called in There, Part I. we observed that all things created or merely creatable were ‘begotten,’ not ‘created,’ in the Divine Word from all Eternity, that is, in their eternal eidetic pre-existence in the mind of God. As soon, however, as they enter into a state of separate created existence, then they are no longer ‘geniti,’ but ‘creati,’ for the concept ‘Image’ is then verified in them only in an imperfect and analogous sense, as we shall presently explain. One must distinguish carefully in what sense these two terms are used in the concrete text, as Eckhart often uses the term ‘geniti’ as synonymous with ‘creati,’ but never vice versa when he is referring to the eternal eidetic pre-existence of things in the mind of God. Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Daniels 18.22–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶¹ Genesis 1.26–27. Google Scholar

⁶² St. Thomas, S. Th. 1.35.1.2; cf. also 1.27.2. Google Scholar

⁶³ Cf. Daniels 64.14–65.4. — Cf. LW 3.19.5–6: ‘Imago enim, in quantum imago est, nihil sui accipit a subiecto in quo est, sed totum suum esse accipit ab obiecto, cuius est imago.’ Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Pelster 1117.28–1118.13. Google Scholar

⁶⁵ This definitively rules out a pantheistic interpretation. Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Cf. Pfeiffer 2, Serm. 56 (p. 180.34–181.1). — Our text is a translation from Quint, ME Serm. 26 (273.1–9). Cf. Clark 184.) Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Daniels 14.26, 15.5. — For Latin text see n. 44 supra. Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Daniels 15.20–31. — For Latin text see n. 45 supra. Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Daniels 63.1–6. — For Latin text see n. 50 supra. Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Daniels 63.20–24. — For Latin text see n. 51 supra. Google Scholar

⁷¹ Daniels 13.17–21. — For Latin text see n. 43 supra. Google Scholar

⁷² Daniels 63.20–21. — For Latin text see n. 51 supra. Google Scholar

⁷³ Daniels 15.21–24. — For Latin text see n. 45 supra. Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Matthew 26.63–64. Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Daniels 1.12–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁶ Denifle, ZfdA 29.264. Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Cf. Karrer, , Das System 113–128.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Rom. 12.4–5; Cor. 12.12ff.; Ephes. 4.11–16; 5.23, 29–30. Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Cf. Serm. 341.11 (PL 39.1500–1), 361.14 (PL 39.1606–7), 224 (PL 38.1093–95), 227 (PL 38.1099–1101); also other quotations from Augustine cited elsewhere in this study. Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Daniels xviii. Google Scholar

⁸¹ LW 4, Sermo 5.2.46 (p. 45.1–3). Google Scholar

⁸² Cf. Augustine, , Sermo 229 (PL 38.1103).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ LW 3.298.16, 301.9. Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Moral. 27.15.30 (PL 76.416).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ De peccatorum meritis et remissione 1.31.60 (PL 44.144–5).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Enarrano in Ps. 85.4, 1 (PL 37.1084, 1082; CCL 39.1179, 1177).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Enarratio in Ps. 85.4 (PL 37.1084; CCL 39.1179f.).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ At this point the codices and editions diverge. The editio Lovaniensium reads ‘sancta sunt’; the editio Maurinorum (reprinted in PL and CCL) has ‘sancta non sunt.’ However Eckhart likewise further on, in his Expositio s. evang. sec. Ioh. 381 (LW 3, the critical edition of Eckhart's work, from which all texts of Augustine referred to above in Notes 85–88 have been taken), writes: ‘facti sunt.’ Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Pelster 1118.1–8. Google Scholar

⁹⁰ we refer the reader to n. 53 supra. Google Scholar

⁹¹ Daniels 15.10–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹² This idea of a real, though imperfect, inadequate identity is elucidated by Matthias Joseph ‘Scheeben: ‘Auch am menschlichen Leibe sind ja die Glieder vom Haupte und die Seele vom Leibe der Substanz nach verschieden, und doch sind sie wahrhaft eins, weil sie ein Ganzes bilden und nicht getrennt für sich bestehen’ (Die Herrlichkeiten der göttlichen Gnade [17th ed. Freiburg im Breisgau 1949] 126). Google Scholar

⁹³ Daniels 64.1–9. Cf. supra n. 56. Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Cf. Daniels 65.14–18: ‘Nec est putandum quasi ipse filius dei deus sit aliquid extrinsecum sive distans a nobis ad quod analogemur sicut est ymago obiecta speculis, sed ipse utpote deus indivisus et unicus per essentiam intimus est et proximus unicuique nostrum, in ipso vivimus, movemur et sumus’ (Acts 17.28).’ Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Daniels 54.32–55.5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁶ In his In loannis evangelium tractatns 108.5 (PL 35.1916; CCL 36.618) Angustine asks: ‘Quid est enim, Et pro eis ego sanctifico me ipsum nisi, eos in me ipso sanctifico, cum et ipsi sint ego?’ Google Scholar

⁹⁷ From an anonymous Tractatns de charitate 2.9 (PL 184.588). Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Acts 17.28. Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Cf. Daniels 54.33–36, 64.11–13, 65.14–18. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Galat. 2.20. Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Daniels 63.20–21. Google Scholar

¹⁰² Daniels 15.21–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰³ Daniels 54.22–26: ‘In sacramento enim altaris convertitur totum in totum, non sic in nobis. Unde non sequitur quod nos simus deus sicut in Christo primogenito homo est deus’ etc. For the context in which these words occur, see the quotation in full infra at n. 116 of Article 10 of the Bull. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Denifle, , Archiv 2.638. It is to be noted that, while hitherto almost all the articles of the Bull could be found in the original in the various works of Eckhart, Article 20 forms an exception in that up to the present no one has been able to identify it.Google Scholar

^104a See supra n. 45. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ PL 35.1568–09; CCL 3ö.216f. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ PL 44.144–5. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Denifle, , Archiv 2.638.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Psalm 2.7. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ DW 1.239.2–7: ‘Dauit sprach: “hoede hayn ich dich geboren.” wat is hoede? ewicheit. ich hayn mych dich inde dich mych eweclichen geboren, nochtant in genoeget den edelen oitmoedegen manschen da myt neit, dat hey der eynege geboren sun is, den der vader ewenclichen geboren hait, hey in wylt och vader syn inde treden in de selue gelicheit der eweger vaderschafft inde geberen den, van dem ich ewenclichen geboren byn.’ (Cf. Clark 248–249.) Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Pelster 1117.19–21. — Cf. Eckhart, Expositio s. evang. secundum Ioh. (LW 3.104.4–8.) Google Scholar

¹¹¹ PL 42.970. Google Scholar

^111a Daniels 51.19–29. Cf. ibid. 15.32–16.10. Google Scholar

¹¹² Denifle, , Archiv 2.638.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Daniels 15.26–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹⁴ Daniels 54.9–15. — But note that two important words contained in Article 10, sc. ‘totaliter’ et ‘unum,’ in the clause, ‘quod ipse me operatur suum esse unum,’ do not occur in this passage, but are to be found in the bill of indictment presented in the first session of the Cologne process (Daniels 31.14–19). Both these passages will be cited later on in the body of this article — at nn. 125 and 126. Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ The sense of these words is very obscure. In a footnote Daniels places (?) after ‘sicutissimum,’ indicating the obscurity of meaning or uncertainty as to authenticity. Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Daniels 54.16–26. Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Daniels 54, 9–15 and 31.14–19. See n. 114 supra. Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Cf. 2 Cor. 3.18: ‘Nos vero omnes … in eandem imaginem transformamur.’ Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Literally, ‘makes me as His Being, (and that) as one.’ Google Scholar

¹²⁰ DW 1.110.8–111.7: ‘“Wir werden alzemâle transformieret im got und verwandelt.” Merke ein glîchnisse. Ze glîcher wîse, als an dem sacramente verwandelt wirt brôt in unsers herren lîchamen, swie vil der brôte waere, sô wirt doch éin lîchame. Ze glîcher wîse, waeren alliu diu brôt verwandelt in mînen vinger, so waere doch niht mêr dan éin vinger. Mêr: würde mîn vinger verwandelt in daz brôt, sô waere diz als vil als jenez waere. Waz in daz ander verwandelt wirt, daz wirt ein mit im. Also wirde ich gewandelt in in, daz er würkct mich sîn wesen ein unglîch; bî dem lebenden got sô ist daz war, daz kein underscheit enist.’ Google Scholar

¹²¹ Daniels 54.16–26. Google Scholar

¹²² Cf. 2 Cor. 3.18. Google Scholar

¹²³ Daniels 53.11–16. Google Scholar

¹²⁴ In the MS there follows after ‘in’ a deleted ‘deum’. Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Daniels 54.9–15. The punctuation of our text is that of the MS. Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Daniels 31.14–19. — It is to be observed that the underlined words ‘totaliter’ and ‘unum’, which are contained in Article 10, do not occur in the version cited in the second session of the Cologne process: Daniels 54.9–15. Cf. n. 114 supra. Google Scholar

¹²⁷ DW 1. 111.1–4. For the German text of the sermon, Justi vivent in aeternum, see supra n. 120. Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Daniels 31.14–19, 54.9–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹²⁸ Cf. n. 43. Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Daniels 22.26–23.15: ‘… Et tamen quia (illae potentiae et vires superiores animae) non sunt deus, quia in anima et cum ea create sunt, oportet eas propria ymagine denudari et in deum per ymaginem transformari et in deo et ex deo generari, quod solus deus ibi sit pater quia sic sunt filii dei et unigenitus dei filius’ … ‘homo debet esse multum diligens ut spoliet vel denudet se ipsum a propria ymagine et cuiusque creature … tunc … totum suum esse, vivere, nosse, scire et amare est ex deo et in deo et deus.’ Google Scholar