When the anarchical socialist Gustav Landauer
(1870-1919) insulted Emperor Wilhelm II and was sent to prison in Berlin-Tegel
for lese-majeste, he spent his time
translating parts of Meister Eckhart’s Middle High German works. He did not get
to see them in print; he was a member of the Munich Soviet Republic and was
kicked to death in prison after its suppression. In 1920, Martin Buber
published them in Berlin as Meister
Eckharts Mystische Schriften: In usere Sprache ubertragen von Gustav Landauer.
In the first sentence of his preface, Landauer declares, ‘ I will leave out
everything that does not make sense to us. Meister Eckhart is too precious for
historical evaluation; he has to been resurrected as a living human being.’
Many interpreters of Eckhart have thought similarly, but not many were able to
couch their anti-historicism in such grand terms: Eckhart – ‘to precious’ for
historical evaluation – to be ‘resurrected’ as a living human being. I take
these flashy expressions as a starting point for thinking about the
preconditions of historical knowledge. For someone who decides that certain
parts of Eckhart’s works ‘do not make sense to us’ lays claim to historical
knowledge, even if he calls it something else and even if he does not consider
his work on Eckhart ‘historical.’ What matters here are not disciplinary
affiliations but the fact that Eckhart died in 1328 and that mediation between
his texts and us is unavoidable.
Everyone who speaks about Eckhart produces just such
historical knowledge in his present and under present conditions. Eckhart does
not simply spill over into the present from ‘sources’ in the past. He is
identified, constructed, and evaluated under the conditions of the present. No
one simply crosses over into the past. The epistemological capabilities,
interests, and constraints of the present shape the image of Eckhart that we
create for ourselves. Some authors attempt to draw Eckhart directly into their
present. They aim to ‘resurrect him,’ but that seems to go beyond human
capabilities – at least my own. Eckhart is dead and thus is an object of
historical knowledge. Someone who speaks and writes about him is well advised
to let us know who is determining the criteria according to which something
‘makes sense’ to ‘us’. Only then will he
think about how much his present predetermines the nature of his historical
knowledge, and if his interest in Eckhart is genuine, he will want to use all
his available options for acquiring knowledge.
Much of our present, of course, can distract us from Eckhart or obscure him.
Yet one of the advantages of the present is the speed with which new source
material that expands our image of the constellation of intellectual life
around 1300 is made available. Today, we have a better understanding of the
conditions of study within the Dominican order and the intellectual debates at
Paris than we did fifty years ago – for example, through the continual editions
of the works of influential teachers such as Albertus Magnus of Cologne and
Henry of Ghent. An account of Eckhart’s thinking must not be limited to identificatory
paraphrases of individual ideas and motifs. It requires a focus on Eckhart’s
ideas, but at the same time, every reader of Eckhart who really wants t get to
know him has first go out into the wide, growing field of
historical-philological details.
Within the past decades, four initiatives have improved our understanding of
Eckhart’s thoughts:
First, the edition and analysis of sermon cycle of German sermons by Georg Steer. Steer made the unity and previously contested authenticity of these sermons plausible.
Second, Loris Sturlese discovery of the Eckhart manuscript at Oxford has improved the quality of important texts among Eckhart’s Latin works. Sturlese also rewrote the chronology of Eckhart’s Latin works on the basis of a painstaking examination of the Eckhart manuscripts at Erfurt.
Third, Loris Sturlese edition and analysis of
Eckhart’s trial records shed new light on
this last phase of Eckhart’s life and thought.
Fourth, the editors of the Corpus Philosophorum Teuonicorum
Medii Aevi made Eckhart’s intellectual milieu
accessible. It used to be fashionable to cloak Eckhart in the pathos of lofty solitude;
nowadays, we can prove that he had connections to others. We find both similarities
and stark contrasts between Eckhart and his contemporaries or his Dominican teachers.
Studies of his theoretical position within the German order’s province have
received new impetus in the past decades. New texts are constantly being published.
A unified picture of the debates will be possible only after a series of
specialized studies. There were German followers and adversaries of both Dietrich
and Eckhart.
We could argue that someone who has drunk the living juice of the intellectual
and linguistic power of an Eckhart or Plato or Kant need not bother with the
odds and ends of historical and philosophical detail. But we should remind
ourselves that what is considered essential, the poetic-philosophical substrate
of Plato’s texts, or Eckhart’s or Kant’s, is controversial and continually
being reinterpreted. Not fixed, it is in continual motion, and seemingly small
details –dates, manuscript finds, and new biographical data – can all cause significant
ripples.
Our knowledge or ignorance of certain facts can change
our understanding of the basic tenets of earlier philosophers. A failed or
successful incorporation of new facts into our commonly held assumptions
corrects or conserves certain schools of thought. Without them, subjective
appropriations will never experience a corrective; the confident pathos of
having captured the essence once and for all remains intact; speech that shuns
facts trickles away, vague and imprecise. What previous readings of Eckhart
often lack are linguistic discipline, semantic specification, and a philological
basis . . .
Evens small advances within philology and history have consequences. All texts
even the Bible and even Eckhart’s, are situated within a specific historical
context and have to be read and analyzed carefully within that context. Such a
proper historical reading by itself is not enough, but it is the only way to
avoid wild speculation, mere subjective appropriations, exploitation of the author
in behalf of the church or in anti-ecclesiastical contexts, all of which abound
within scholarly interpretations of Eckhart.
كيف يمكنني استعادة درجة الائتمان الخاصة بي
ReplyDeleteأهلا بالجميع! اسمي فيليب مور من المملكة العربية السعودية ولكن ولدت وترعرعت في الولايات المتحدة. أكتب هذا المقال لأخبر العالم كيف استعادت شركة Jessica Rojas Loan درجتي الائتمانية من خلال منحني مبلغ قرض بقيمة 250.000 دولار أمريكي ، وقد أخذت على عاتقي إخطار عامة الناس وأقول شكراً جزيلاً للسيدة جيسيكا روخاس ومقدمي خدمة رعاية العملاء. والأهم من كل ذلك ، كل الشكر للسيدة فاطمة إبراهيم لأنه من خلال مساعدتها ، لم أكن أعرف أبدًا عن شركة جيسيكا روجاس للقروض. وفقها الله وبارك على أهلها. ان شاء الله. بفضل الله ، تمت استعادة درجة الائتمان الخاصة بي وأنا سعيد لأنني على مدار السنوات الثلاث الماضية كان لدي ائتماني سيء للغاية ولكن تم استعادتي بالكامل الآن. أنصحكم جميعًا الذين يحتاجون إلى قرض بالاتصال بهم عبر البريد الإلكتروني: Jessicarojasloanfirm1998@hotmail.com أو WhatsApp مباشرة +1 (325) 231-4574.
شكرا جزيلا
السيد فيليب مور راشد