Темпоральность мистического опыта Экхарта.

Ercole Erculei

Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn

„[…] von zîtlîchem vernünftigen gewerbe gote naeher und glîcher werden“: reflections on Eckhart’s reception of the topic of homoiôsis theô and a significant divergence between Pagans and Christians

Plato’s exhortation (Theat., 176a-b) to “try to escape from earth to the dwelling of the gods as quickly as we can” through becoming “like God, so far as this is possible”, i.e. becoming “righteous and holy and wise” had an enormous resonance in the history of philosophy. From Plotinus to Pico della Mirandola, from Gregory of Nyssa to Hugh of S. Victor, from Meister Eckhart to Giordano Bruno, several authors of the non-Christian as well as the Christian philosophical tradition throughout the centuries liked to identify the highest aim of the human being in the homoiôsis theô. Indeed, if questioning about the issue of the manifold relations of the Christian religion during its establishing in the Roman Empire with the pagan philosophical traditions and – above all – the platonic one, the topic of the homoiôsis theô undoubtedlyrepresented a significant common ground between the two fields.

However, the remark of such a commonness cannot implicate the overlooking of the deep abyss that divides the Christian homoiôsis theô from the non-Christian one, a difference that clearly emerges if looking at the ways, the modalities of achieving such a aim, especially from the perspective of the relation of the single human being with the others and, more generally, with the world of the praxis.

In this regard, the reflections of Meister Eckhart truly represent a privileged point of view. Overcoming the traditional dichotomy between vita activa and vita contemplativa and offering a model of one, contemplative-practically engaged way of life, the German theologian indeed pleads for a mystical union with God that doesn’t demand the radical separation from the concrete world of the praxis but rather is intimately connected with the typical Christian form of relation with the other human beings: the charitable service. Without hesitating to define the living as “daz edelste bekennen”, Eckhart recognizes in an “ordenlîche und redelîche und wizzentlîche” working in the world not only a way that leads us to God as closely as “aller der lust Marîen Magdalênen in der wüeste”, but also a more mature and better founded virtue in comparison to a simple, naïve (“einvaltic”) contemplation performing no activities, which continuously risks being saddened by the first practical interference and remaining clinging “in dem luste und der süeze”. The German thinker is very clear: “werk und gewerbe in der zît” firstly doesn’t represent a lessening, an obstacle towards the eternal happiness; secondly, it’s a necessary, indispensable condition concerning the way of the union with God (cfr. Meister Eckhart, sermo 86, DW III, pp. 472-506).

The main aim of my paper is to try to situate such a doubtlessly innovative version of the topic of the homoiôsis theô in the mare magnum of the non-Christian and Christian reuses of this platonic idea, particularly through a comparison with the emblematic voices of Plotinus and Porphyry for the Neo-Platonic non-Christian tradition, of Origen for the Christian one, and of Giordano Bruno for the Platonising yet in his case polemically antichristian tradition of the Renaissance.

Briefly sketching the main coordinates of such a comparison, at this point I’d first like to remark upon how strongly the typical intellectualism and elitism of the Neo-Platonic way of life is related with a sharp depreciation of the “political” dimension, of the vita activa, of the concrete dealing with the other humans beings: the imperative to “aphele panta”, the fully withdrawing into oneself, the radical disengagement from the corporeality in order to achieve the supreme joy of the contemplation of the One/the transformation in Him emerges as entirely incompatible with a “political” engagement in the world of the praxis, source of dispersion and chaining of the soul in the sensible dimension. Here, unlike the Eckhartian perspective, the love of God and the way for reaching the satisfaction of the desire to become like Him/to be united with Him could be hardly associated – or even united in the same model of life – with something similar to the Christian love of the neighbour and the charitable works towards him as its expression and fulfilment. In this regard, an emblematic confirmation is offered by both Plotinus and Porphyry, through their stressing that, even if the practical, political virtues doubtlessly represent a first and necessary step on the way of the supreme contemplation/henôsis as a moderation of the passions and corporeal desires, one leaves behind their actual exercise through the acquisition of the higher levels of virtues. The possession of a higher level of virtues automatically implicates the possessions of the lower level; however, this doesn’t mean that the possessor of a higher level of virtues continues to perform the actions corresponding to the virtues of the lower level. On the contrary, he uses them in actu only insofar as it is requested by the necessities for the survival of the complex body-soul and an “unharmed coexistence” with the other human beings; he is mostly engaged with the performance of the higher levels of virtues. The one who is looking to become “like to God” actually looks for complete detachment from the sensible world; he “will live, no longer, the human life of the good man — such as Civic Virtue commends — but, leaving this beneath him, will take up instead another life, that of the Gods”. One will not become like God through the acquisition and the performance of the politikai aretai; rather, one will just become a better human being (cfr. Plotinus, Enn., I, 2, 1-7; VI, 9, 9; cfr. Porphyrius, Sententiae ad intelligibilia ducentes, sent. 32).

Thus, if compared with the Neo-Platonic pagan tradition, Eckahrt’s declination of the motive of the homoiôsis theô emerges in all its radical originality. On the contrary, its relation with the Christian version of such a Platonic topos appears more complex and multifaceted. On the one hand, Eckhart’s idea of rehabilitation of the figure of Martha as the personification of the unity of vita activa and vita contemplativa against the immature Maria also doesn’t lack of originality, since the Christian tradition – even always avoiding as universal religion and (true) philosophy of the carpenters, the fishers etc., that radical devaluation of the practical dimension, of the world of the ponos and the life of the oi polloi, which so strongly characterizes the elitist Greek philosophic tradition from Aristotle to the Neo-Platonism – had privileged the figure of Maria as personification of the vita contemplativa. After all, Jesus’s words in the Gospel of Luke (Lk 10.38-40) are quite clear and Eckhart’s attempt to anchor his rehabilitation of Martha to such a passage is truly an audacious and bold hermeneutical operation. On the other hand, the model proposed by the German theologian shows a remarkable continuity with the patristic thought and especially with the most important, basic text of the Christian mystical tradition: Origen’s Commentary on Song of Songs. The theologian of Alexandria strongly reminds the reader of the necessity of the connexion love of God – love of the neighbour in several passages of this work. Consequently, the true mystical union/marriage of our soul as the bride with God/Christ as the groom should not really be understood as a single event, a well-delimited, supreme yet single moment after a long philosophical purification/training as in Plotinus, but rather as a new way of life that must be confirmed, renewed and deepened through one’s own concrete actions every day (cfr. Origenes, Comm. In Cant. Cant., GCS 33, Prol., pp. 70,9sqq.; lib. III, pp. 183, 13sqq.; lib. IV, pp. 223, 8sqq).

A work such as De gli eroici furori of Giordano Bruno offers a further, emblematic confirmation of the distance between the Origen’s and Eckhart’s Christian model of homoiôsis theô. Even in such a text, which Bruno explicitly understands as the ‘Song of Songs’ of the Nolan philosophy, where he constantly and abundantly reuses a huge quantity of Origenian motives and images taken from his Commentary on the Song of Songs, the Italian author drops every reference to possible charitable works in favour of the other human beings, to the evangelic love of the neighbour, while his description of the becoming like God by the “furioso” relives the elitist-contemplative ideal of Plotinus and Porphyry more than the Christian one (cfr. G. Bruno, De gli eroici furori, ed. M. Ciliberto et al., Milano 2000, pp. 755-960).

Conclusively, Christians and pagans can easily agree with the identification of the homoiôsis theô as the final aim of human being; however, based upon the voice of Eckhart in comparison with those of Plotinus, Origen, Porphyry and Bruno, I will attempt in my paper to show how far the Christian and non-Christian versions actually differ.

Arianne Conty

American University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates