← Back to Overview

Tractate — Chapter 4

Tractate — Chapter 4Middle High German + EnglishAbout this edition

Original Source (Middle High German)
English Translation
VON DEM ADEL DER SÊLE.

Die meister sprechent von dem hœhsten adel der sêle unde frâgent, wie ez zemâle ze verstân sî, daz der geist in sînem bekennen ist ein vernünftic sîn des êwigen wesens in einem niuwen nû geworden âne alle mitel? und daz ist diu êrste frâge. Diu ander frâge ist, wie daz müge gesîn, daz der geist vernünfteclîche wider umbe komen mag in ein unwandelberkeit unde daz er habe daz êwig bilde in sîner hœhsten klârheit und in wesentlîcher heimlîcheit und in der inswebenden frîheit des geistes? Diu dritte frâge ist von dem hœhsten überfluzze des geistes, dâ der aller glîchest stât der götlîchen gegenwürtekeit, und ob er müge gevolgen von eigener kraft?

Ze dem êrsten sol man verstân, wie daz götlîch wesen ist ûz geflozzen in einem gegenwürtigen nû, alsô daz daz verwerden des menschen im wesentlîch ist âne mitel ûf dem bilde des geistes unde von der nêhe und ouch von dem heimlîchen nû sînes liehtes götlîcher klârheit unde daz glîch der vernünftikeit, dâ von diu vernünftikeit sô lûterlîchen widerpruoget nâch ungewordener klârheit des êwigen inswebenden geistes bildes, unde dâ von ist ez namlôs und engât allen worten, diu crêatûrlîch sint. Wan daz wort ist in dem êwigen worte und ist dem gelîch in gegenwürtikeit, und got mit aller sîner nâtûre unde nâch sînem geordenôten gewalte mag er niht gemachen ûz sînem wesen, daz gelîcher müge sîn der götlîchen art in dem grunde götlîcher nâtûre und im gelîche widerblichet. Und wer den schîn nimt nâch dem geiste als er ist ein bilde gotes, dâ ist kein stüke, daz underscheit machet nâch dem adel, wan dâ ist der geist glîch götlîcher nâtûre.

ON THE NOBILITY OF THE SOUL.

The masters speak of the highest nobility of the soul and ask how it is altogether to be understood that the spirit in its knowing is an intellectual being of eternal being, become in a new now without any means? This is the first question. The second question is how it can be that the spirit may intellectually return into an immutability and possess the eternal image in its highest radiance and in essential hiddenness and in the indwelling freedom of the spirit. The third question concerns the highest overflowing of the spirit, where it stands most like the divine presence, and whether it can follow from its own power.

Concerning the first, one should understand how divine being has flowed forth in a present now, so that the human being’s becoming is essential to him without means upon the image of the spirit and from the nearness, and also from the hidden now of his light of divine radiance and the likeness of intellect, from which intellect reflects back so purely according to the uncreated radiance of the eternal indwelling image of the spirit; and therefore it is nameless and escapes all words that are creaturely. For the Word is in the eternal Word and is like it in presence; and God, with all his nature and according to his ordered power, cannot make from his being anything that could be more like the divine kind in the ground of divine nature and reflect back to him in likeness. And whoever takes the brightness according to the spirit insofar as it is an image of God, there is no part that makes distinction with respect to nobility, for there the spirit is like divine nature.

Nû ûf die andern frâge sô verstânt alsô. Wie wol daz vernünftic glîch gotes in dem geiste nâch sîner nâtûre und lûterkeit mê wesens unde lûterlîcher hât nâch dem înhangen sînes wesentlîchen inneblîbens dan nâch dem gewerden sîn selbes, alleine aber doch ist ez dâ ouch wesen, dâ ez geworden ist. Und dar umbe verstânt den geist nâch sînem nêhsten grunde, als er sich inne haltende ist nâch sînem endelôsen bilde unde êwigen bilde. Nû merkent den underscheit. Nâch dem endelôsen bilde haltet er sich alwege inne unde nâch dem êwigen bilde haltet er sich als ein êwige frâge. Als Kristus frâgete ‘wes ist daz bilde unt disiu übergeschrift?’ Nû merkent den underscheit von dem bilde unde von der übergeschrift. Nâch dem bilde sô ist got und allez daz er geleisten mag in geist und in nâtûre unde des menschen geist und allez daz er geleisten mag die sint in einformikeit sô gelîch und sô nâhe, daz daz bilde götlîcher klârheit sô eigenlîchen liuhtet in den geist, daz der widerslac ûz dem geiste sô eigenlîchen wider în liuhtet in blîbenlîcher wesenlîcheit, und daz ist daz bilde gotes. Nû merkent, waz ist diu übergeschrift? Daz ist diu unsagelîche art götlîcher nâtûre und nâch allem irem grunde würkenlîch und wesenlîch, sô ist ein blôz gegenwurf in dem geiste âne allez mittel, dâ von der geist nâch frîer art unde nâch vernünftigem glîch allez daz gelîden mac, daz got gewürken mac über alle redelîcheit. Unde dâ ist der underscheit, daz diu götlîche frîheit des geistes frîheit nimet, dâ von ist ez wîslôs, und ûf disem puncten müezent alle kunstrîche meister belîben unde man mac mit aller nâtûrlîcher crêatûrlîcher kunst niht für baz komen, wan alleine in dem geiste in lîdelîcheit gotes.

Nû merkent die antwurt über die dritten frâge. Die meister sprechent, swaz eigen ist, daz wirt wesenlîch ân underlâz und man mag ez hân swenne man wil. Dar umbe mac der geist ûf gân in sînen hœhsten adel sîner nâtûre götlîch, wan er mac stân in sînem êrsten nû, in dem dô er niht enwas, und daz ist diu antwurt über die dritten frâge.

Now concerning the second question, understand thus. Although the intellectual likeness of God in the spirit, according to its nature and purity, has more being, and more purely, according to the inherence of its essential indwelling than according to its own becoming, nevertheless there too it is being where it has become. And therefore understand the spirit according to its nearest ground, as it holds itself inwardly according to its endless image and eternal image. Now note the distinction. According to the endless image it always holds itself inwardly, and according to the eternal image it holds itself as an eternal question. As Christ asked, “Whose is the image and this inscription?” Now note the distinction between the image and the inscription. According to the image, God and all that he can accomplish in spirit and in nature, and the human spirit and all that it can accomplish, are in one-formity so alike and so near that the image of divine radiance shines so properly into the spirit that the reflection out of the spirit shines back in so properly in abiding essentiality, and that is the image of God. Now note: what is the inscription? It is the unspeakable mode of divine nature, active and essential according to its whole ground; thus there is a bare object in the spirit without any means, from which the spirit, according to its free nature and according to intellectual likeness, can undergo all that God can work beyond all discursiveness. And there is the distinction: divine freedom takes the spirit’s freedom, whereby it is without knowing; and at this point all artful masters must remain, and with all natural creaturely art one can go no farther, but only in the spirit, in passivity to God.

Now note the answer to the third question. The masters say: whatever is proper to a thing is essentially present without interruption and can be had whenever one wills. Therefore the spirit can rise divinely into the highest nobility of its nature, for it can stand in its first now, in which it was not; and this is the answer to the third question.

Nû ist ein frâge, ob got des menschen geist im selber müge lâzen oder niht? Ich spriche: nein! ez wære wider daz reht sîner nâtûre und wider alle sîne wârheit und allez daz würde verkêret, daz got ie geschuof. Eintweder got muoz den geist got lâzen sîn ûz im selber, oder er muoz in in sich selber vereinigen, wenne er alliu dinc abe gelâzen hât. Daz ellendet got niht unde der geist ist ze hôchvertic und er lêge ze nâhen der götlîchen êre, daz nie kein wesen ûz im selber machen kunde, als ein ende sîner vollekommenheit. Wan diz ist alleine eigen, daz der grunt müge alle geist überhoffen in sînen geist über alle vernünftige begriffunge, unde daz ist daz inswebende wesen der götlîchen nâtûre.

Ein mensche wart gefrâget, wes im gebreste? Er sprach: nihtes, wan daz ich niht enhân armuot des geistes. Wan sô ich als grôzen willen hân als ein senfkörnlîn, sô bin ich niht ein arm mensche, und frâgete mich got, ob ich ein arm mensche wære, ich spræche: und wære mîn wille als guot als gotes wille, nochdenne wære ich niht ein arm mensche, und daz ich joch mit dem selben willen als vil würhti als got würket. War umbe? Dâ ist got unde gotes wille einz, ich und mîn wille sîn zwei, wan ich bin ein mensche unde niht got, unde wolte ich würken wâriu werc sunder oder âne allen willen, sô solte ich tuon als der stein: der lît in dem wazzer unde daz wazzer fliuzet dar über unde kumet niht in den stein. Alsô ze gelîcher wîse wære ich ein arm mensche, sô solte ich mîniu werc würken, daz sie alsô wênic kæmen in mînen willen als daz wazzer in den stein, wan ich solte sie alleine würken nâch dem willen gotes. Frâgete mich aber got, ob ich ein arm mensche wære und ob ich alsô spræche: ich bin mînes willen ûz gegangen, und weste ich, waz der wille gotes wære, daz wolte ich tuon, sô nime ich mich des an, daz mîn niht enist, wan nieman weiz, wer wir sîn, wan wir sîn niht diu wârheit, und dar umbe enderet got unser wizzen, unde sîn wizzen niht. wan er ist diu wârheit, unde wir niht.

Now there is a question whether God can leave the human spirit to itself or not. I say: no! It would be contrary to the right of its nature and contrary to all his truth, and everything God ever created would be overturned. Either God must let the spirit be God out of himself, or he must unite it in himself when it has let go of all things. This does not impoverish God, and the spirit is too highborn and lies too near divine honor for any being ever to be able to make itself the end of its perfection. For this alone is proper: that the ground may surpass all spirits in its spirit beyond all intellectual comprehension; and that is the indwelling being of divine nature.

A man was asked what he lacked. He said: nothing, except that I do not have poverty of spirit. For as long as I have as great a will as a mustard seed, I am not a poor man. And if God asked me whether I were a poor man, I would say: even if my will were as good as God’s will, I would still not be a poor man, even if with that same will I worked as much as God works. Why? There God and God’s will are one; I and my will are two, for I am a human being and not God. And if I wished to work true works separately or without any will, I should act like the stone: it lies in the water, and the water flows over it and does not enter into the stone. In the same way, if I were a poor man, I should work my works so that they came into my will as little as the water into the stone, for I should work them only according to God’s will. But if God asked me whether I were a poor man and I said: I have gone out of my will, and if I knew what God’s will were, I would do it, then I claim for myself what is not mine, for no one knows who we are, since we are not the truth; and therefore God changes our knowing, but not his knowing, for he is the truth and we are not.

Nû möhte ein mensche sprechen: wie kan alsô ein mensche würken sîniu werc âne willen? Dem antwürtet man alsô: man sol diu werc würken als ob nieman sî noch nieman lebe noch ûf daz ertrîche nie kein mensche komen sî. Und frâgete mich noch mêr got, ob ich ein arm mensche wære und ob ich spræche: ich bin des wizzens niht wirdic, daz wære diu lûterôste armuot, die ich ie gehôrte noch gepruofte, ein armuot an dem hœhsten und an dem grœsten. Wan al die wîle ich sô vil stat in mir wil hân, daz got sîn werc in mir würken müge unde mir sîne gâbe geben müge, als die wîle bin ich niht ein arm mensche, und ouch al die wîle ich ûf got wartende bin. Wie sol ich im aber noch tuon? Alsô solt dû tuon: dû solt alliu dinc lâzen in willen, in wizzen und in enpfâhen, und in dem selben puncten, dâ dû alliu dinc hâst gelâzen, dâ hât dir got alliu dinc gegeben, dâ darf er nihtes dir mêr geben und nimmer mit dir würken und dû darft nihtes mêr enpfâhen, wan dû solt dîn selbes alleine ûz gân. Daz ist diu allernêhste armuot des geistes, wan ez ist nieman rehte arm, wan der niht enwil und niht enweiz und niht enhât, weder ûzwendic noch inwendic. Zuo der êwigen wârheit helf uns got. Âmen.

Now a person might say: how then can a person work his works without will? The answer is this: one should work the works as though no one were and no one lived and no human being had ever come upon earth. And if God asked me further whether I were a poor man and I said: I am not worthy of knowledge, that would be the purest poverty I have ever heard of or experienced, a poverty in the highest and in the greatest. For as long as I wish to have so much room in myself that God may work his work in me and may give me his gift, so long I am not a poor man; and likewise as long as I am waiting upon God. How then should I act toward him? Thus should you act: you should let go of all things in willing, in knowing, and in receiving; and at the very point where you have let go of all things, there God has given you all things. There he need give you nothing more and never again work with you, and you need receive nothing more, for you should go out of yourself alone. This is the most immediate poverty of spirit, for no one is truly poor except the one who wills nothing and knows nothing and has nothing, neither outwardly nor inwardly. May God help us to eternal truth. Amen.