Mystics of the Renaissance and their relation to modern thought, including Meister Eckhart, Tauler, Paracelsus, Jacob Boehme, Giordano Bruno, and othersSteiner, Rudolf
Religion
Mystics of the Renaissance and their relation to modern thought, including Meister Eckhart, Tauler, Paracelsus, Jacob Boehme, Giordano Bruno, and others
Steiner, Rudolf
Mysticism
As a guide to such a new life, we possess a book about whose author
nothing is known. Luther first made it known in print. The philologist,
Franz Pfeiffer, has recently printed it according to a manuscript of
the year 1497, with a modern German translation facing the original
text. What precedes the book indicates its purpose and its goal: “Here
begins the man from Frankfurt and saith many very lofty and very
beautiful things about a perfect life.” Upon this follows the “Preface
about the man from Frankfurt”: “Al-mighty, Eternal God hath uttered
this little book through a wise, understanding, truthful, righteous
man, his friend, who in former days was a German nobleman, a priest and
a custodian in the German House of Nobles at Frankfurt; it teacheth
many a lovely insight into Divine Wisdom, and especially how and
whereby one may know the true, righteous friends of God, and also the
unrighteous, false, free-thinkers, who are very hurtful to Holy Church.”
By “free-thinkers” one may perhaps understand those who live in a
merely conceptual world, like the “Master” described above before his
transformation by means of the “Friend of God,” and by the “true,
righteous friends of God,” such as possess the disposition of the
“layman.” One may further ascribe to the book the intention of so
working upon its readers as the “Friend of God from the Mountains” did
upon the Master. It is not known who the author was. But what does that
mean? It is not known when he was born and died, or what he did in his
outer life. That the author aimed to preserve eternal secrecy about
these facts of his outer life, belongs naturally to the way in which
he desired to work. It is not the “I” of this or the other man, born
at a definite point of time, who is to speak to us, but the “I-ness”
in the depths whereof “the separateness of individualities” (in the
sense of Paul Asmus’ saying[5]) must first unfold itself. “If God took
to Himself all men who are or who have ever been, and became man in
them, and they became God in Him, and it did not happen to me also,
then my fall and my turning away would never be made good, unless it
also happened in me too. And in this restoration and making good, I
neither can nor may nor should do anything thereto save a mere pure
suffering, so that God alone doeth and worketh all things in me, and
I suffer Him and all His works and His divine will. But if I will not
submit to this, but possess myself with egotism, _i.e._, with mine,
and I, to me, for me, and the like, that hinders God so that He cannot
work His work in me purely alone and without hindrance. Therefore my
fall and my turning away remain thus not made good.” The “man from
Frankfurt” aims to speak not as a separated individual; he desires
to let God speak. That he yet can do this only as a single, distinct
personality he naturally knows full well; but he is a “Friend of God,”
that means a man who aims not at presenting the nature of life through
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account