ruusbroec

MMT 21 (2012): 147-169 MMT (print) ISSN 2046-5726 doi: 10.1558/mmt.v21i2.147 MMT (online) ISSN 2046-5734

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012, Unit S3, Kelham House, 3, Lancaster Street, Sheffield S3 8AF.

‘Poor in Ourselves and Rich in God’: Indwelling and Non-identity of Being (wesen) and Suprabeing (overwesen)

in John of Ruusbroec*

ROB FAESEN

Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, Catholic University of Leuven, 4 St Michielsstraat—box 3101,

3000 Leuven, Belgium Email: [email protected]

Translated by John Arblaster

Abstract John of Ruusbroec’s analysis of the relationship of wesen and overwesen is decisive for his rethinking of the problem of the union with God, in a period in which mystical literature had become problematic as a result of the condemnation of a number of statements from Eckhart’s work. In his view, the overwesen is present in the wesen and the wesen is so completely in the overwesen—just as the air is in the light or the iron in the fire—that it appears to some mystics as though the simplicity of their being (sempelheit haers wesen) is God Himself. Nevertheless, wesen and overwesen are distinct (which implies that human autonomy is fully valorised in Ruusbroec’s conception), but this certainly need not lead to dualism. On the contrary, it concerns a mutual indwelling of love. And since it is an indwelling of love, it would be a highly unfortunate mistake to understand this to be a fusion. Thus, in Ruusbroec’s analysis, the union with God is neither dualism nor fusion.

Keywords: John of Ruusbroec, Eckhart, overwesen, wesen, minne.

* This is a revised version of a lecture delivered at the International Medieval Congress in Leeds in July 2011, in the session ‘Poor in Ourselves, Rich in God’: The Anthropology of the Mystics of the Low Countries, organised by the Faculty of Theology of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and the Ruusbroec Society, Antwerp University.

148 Medieval Mystical Theology 21.2 (2012)

© Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012

It is generally assumed that John of Ruusbroec (1293–1381), the most important Middle Dutch mystical author, began his literary activities in approximately 1335–1338. In this period, mystical literature was con-fronted with considerable challenges, for example as a result of the condemnation of a number of statements from Eckhart’s work (1329) and the condemnation of Marguerite Porete (1310).1 Ruusbroec was undoubt-edly familiar with both these cases.2 It appears that Ruusbroec intended fundamentally to rethink a number of difficulties, and that he attempted to valorise the radical union with God in a period in which it was becoming increasingly unclear how best to conceive of this union. It is striking that to this end, Ruusbroec never employed polemics, but rather that he sought to rethink the central issues. One such central issue may be found in his analysis of what he calls the wesen of the human person. In my opinion, the way he analyses this aspect, namely in relation to the overwesen, is decisive in discovering how he rethinks the problem of the union with God. Ruusbroec realised that the misunderstanding of the condemned texts concerned precisely this issue, and through meticulous formulation he attempted to solve this misunderstanding. In this contribution, I will first explain what exactly is meant by wesen and overwesen, investigate the relationship of the wesen to the overwesen and finally, briefly indicate the relevance of this specific theme.

1. Wesen and Overwesen When Ruusbroec uses the word wesen, he is not referring in the first instance to ‘essence’: the word wesen does not have the same meaning as what is usually understood by essence, namely ‘the intrinsic, fundamental nature’. In Middle Dutch, the word wesen is related to the verb sijn, which means ‘to be’. For lack of a better equivalent, it is translated into English as essence. But one should be aware that the original word refers to the simple fact that the human person ‘is’—namely as creature. Albert Deblaere

1. See e.g. McGinn, B., 2006, pp. 19-41. 2. Paul Verdeyen has made a compelling argument for the fact that Ruusbroec knew Porete’s work. See Verdeyen, P., 1992, pp. 88-96. Whether Ruusbroec was also familiar with Eckhart’s work is unclear, though it is highly probable that he knew the bull In agro dominico, which was promulgated in the ecclesiastical province of Cologne. Brussels, where Ruusbroec lived and which was located in the diocese of Cambrai, is very near the border of the prince-bishopric of Liège (a part of the ecclesiastical province of Cologne).

FAESEN ‘Poor in Ourselves and Rich in God’ 149


summarised this briefly as follows: ‘Le point d’insertion, où l’acte créateur donne l’être à la créature spirituelle, s’appelle essence (wesen) de l’âme’.3 The best-known passage in this regard, in which Ruusbroec refers to the wesen, is to be found in the Espousals:

The first and the highest unity is in God; for all creatures hang in this unity with (their) being, life and subsistence; and if they should be cut off in this way from God, they would fall into nothingness and be annihilated. This unity is in us essentially by nature, whether we are good or evil, and it renders us neither holy nor blessed without our effort. We possess this unity in ourselves, and in fact, above ourselves, as a principle and support of our being and our life. A second union, or unity, is also in us by nature, that is the unity of the higher faculties, where they take their natural origin as to their activity: in the unity of the spirit or of the mind. This is the same unity which is hanging in God, but in the latter instance we understand it as active, and in the former as essential. Nevertheless, the spirit is totally within each unity, according to the entirety of its substance. We possess this unity in ourselves, above sensory perception, and from it come memory and intellect and will and every faculty of spiritual activity.4

This passage concerns the highest unity of the human person, wherein Ruusbroec distinguishes two aspects: weselijcke and werkelijcke. It is clear throughout the passage that Ruusbroec conceives of weselijc as ‘being’. Indeed, the expressions ‘if they should be cut off in this way from God, they would fall into nothingness and be annihilated’5 and ‘a principle and support of our being and our life’6 leave no doubt in this regard. The highest unity of the human spirit rests in the mere fact that the human person is.

3. Deblaere, A., 2004, p. 12. 4. Die eerste ende die hoochste eenicheit es in gode, want alle creatueren hanghen in deser eenicheit met wesene, met levene ende met onthoude; ende scieden si in deser wijs van gode, si vielen in niet ende worden te niete. Dese eenicheit es weselijc in ons van natueren, weder wij sijn goet ochte quaet, ende si en maect ons sonder ons toedoen noch heylich noch salich. Dese eenicheit besitten wi in ons selven ende doch boven ons, als een beghin ende een onthout ons wesens ende ons levens. Eene andere eninghe ochte eenicheit es oec in ons van natueren, dat es eenicheit der overster crachten, daer si haren natuerlijcken oerspronc nemen werkelijcker wijs: in eenicheit dies gheests ochte der ghedachten. Dit es die selve eenicheit die in gode hanghet, maer men neemse hier werkelijcke ende daer weselijcke; nochtans es die gheest in elcke eenicheit gheheel, na alheit sire substancien. Dese eenicheit besitten wij in ons selven boven senlijcheit; ende hier ute comt memorie ende verstannisse ende wille, ende alle die macht gheestelijcker werke. Die geestelike brulocht, b43-b57, Ruusbroec, J.v., 1986, p. 287, All the English translations are from the Opera omnia, with occasional amendments. 5. Lines b45-b46: scieden si in deser wijs van gode, si vielen in niet ende worden te niete. 6. Line b49: een beghin ende een onthout ons wesens ende ons levens.



At the same time, Ruusbroec indicates that this is the necessary condi-tion for human activity. As he says, it is ‘the unity of the higher faculties, where they take their natural origin as to their activity’.7 Or, as he says further down: ‘from it come memory and intellect and will and every faculty of spiritual activity’.8 And as he clearly states, this is one and the same unity: ‘the same unity (…), but in the latter instance we understand it as active, and in the former as essential’9. Ruusbroec conceives of overwesen as that which is deeper or higher than the wesen, in other words: that which belongs to the life of God himself.10 The prefix ‘over-’ thus presupposes the perspective of the

7. Lines b51-b52: eenicheit der overster crachten, daer si haren natuerlijcken oerspronc nemen werkelijcker wijs. 8. Lines b56-b57: hier ute comt memorie ende verstannisse ende wille, ende alle die macht gheestelijcker werke. 9. Lines b53-b54: die selve eenicheit (…) maer men neemse hier werkelijcke ende daer weselijcke. 10. Ruusbroec provides a concise but informative description of his conception of overwesen in Enclosures: ‘Beyond all the divine modes (…) he shall understand the modeless essence of God which is a modelessness, for it can be demonstrated neither by words nor by actions, by modes nor by signs nor by likenesses. It reveals itself, however, to the simple in-sight of the imageless mind. We may also set out signs and likenesses along the way, to prepare man to see the kingdom of God. Imagine it this way: as if you saw a glow of fire, immensely great, wherein all things were burnt away in a becalmed, glowing, motionless fire. This is how it is to view becalmed, essential love, which is an enjoyment of God and of all the saints, above all modes and above all activities and practice of virtue. It is a becalmed, bottomless flood of richness and joy, into which all the saints together with God are swept in a modeless enjoyment. And this enjoyment is wild and waste as wander-ing, for there is no mode, no trail, no path, no abode, no measure, no end, no beginning, or anything one might be able to put into words or demonstrate. This the simple blessed-ness of us all, the divine essence and our superessence, above reason and without reason. If we are to experience this, our spirit must be transported into that same (essence), above our creatureliness, in the eternal point, wherein all our lines begin and end, the point wherein they lose their name and all differentiation, and are one with the point and the selfsame one that the point itself is. Nonetheless, in themselves, they always remain converging lines. So, you see, we shall always remain what we are in our created essence; nonetheless, losing our proper spirit, we shall always cross over into our superessence’ (Ende boven alle godleke wise sal hi verstaen (…) dat wiseloese wesen gods, dat ene onwise es. Want men maechs niet toenen met waerden noch met werken, met wisen noch met tekenen noch met geliken. Maer het openbaert hem selven den eenvuldegen insiene der ongebeelder gedachten, ende men mach oec setten inden wege tekenen ende geliken, die den minsche bereyden dat rike gods te siene. Ende dit ymagineert aldus: alse ocht gi saecht ene gloet van viere sonder mate groet daer alle dinc verberrent waren in een gestilt gloeyende onberuerleec vier. Alsoe es ane te siene die gestilde, weseleke minne die een gebruken gods es



created being. In relation to the created being, God is ‘over’-wesen. The human person as a creature is completely dependent on God for its existence. It is not the cause of its own being. That which is deeper or higher than the ‘being’ of the created—that from which it has its origin—is the Creator, and that is the overwesen. In the Little Book, Ruusbroec expresses this briefly and concisely: gods wesen, dat alre wesene overwesen es (450).11 This also confirms that the term wesen ought to be understood as the substantivised form of ‘being’: this thus concerns the ‘being’ of God, which is deeper or higher than the ‘being’ of all beings, and may consequently be referred to as overwesen. From the passage above, we may also conclude that the decisive element in Ruusbroec’s description is the constant contact between over-wesen and wesen. If at any moment the ‘being’ of the created person were to be separated from the overwesen—the cause of its being—the creature would ipso facto immediately cease to exist.12 The wesen–overwesen

ende alre heylegen, boven alle wisen ende boven allen werken ende oefeninge van doechden. Si es ene gestilde, grondeloese vloet van rijcheden ende van vrouden, daer alle heilegen met gode inne vervloeyt sijn in een wiseloes gebruken. Ende dit gebruken es welt ende wuste alse een verdolen. Want daer en es wise noch wech, noch pat noch zate noch mate, noch inde noch begin ochte yet dat men gewaerden mach ochte getoenen. Ende dit es onser alre eenvuldege salecheit, dat godeleke wesen ende onse overwesen, boven redene ende sonder redene. Selen wi dit bevenden, soe moeten wi ontgeest sijn in dat selve boven onse gescapen-heit, in dat ewege punct daer alle onse linien in beginnen ende inden. Ende inden puncte verliesen si haeren name ende al ondersceet, ende sijn een met den puncte, ende dat selve een dat dat puncte selve es. Nochtan blive si altoes toegaende linien in hen selven. Siet, aldus selen wi altoes bliven dat wi sijn in onse gescapene wesen, ende nochtan met ontgeestene altoes overliden in onse overwesen). Vanden vij sloten, Ruusbroec, J.v., 1981b, pp. 187-91 (lines 834-858). 11. Line 450, cf. also e.g. Vanden XII beghinen 2a, lines 630-63, Ruusbroec, J.v., 2000, p. 145. 12. An important passage in this regard is Brulocht, lines b1655-b1669: ‘This essential unity of our spirit with God does not exist by itself, but abides in God, and it flows forth from God, and it hangs in God, and it returns back into God as into its eternal cause, and in this mode, it never parted from God nor will it ever do so. For this unity is in us by our bare nature. And were the creature ever to part from God, it would fall into a pure nothingness. And this unity is above time and place, and it always acts without cease after the mode of God; only it receives the impress of its eternal image passively, insofar as it is God-like but creature in itself. This is the nobility which we have by nature in the essential unity of our spirit, where it is naturally united with God. This makes us neither holy nor blessed, for all persons, good and evil, have this within themselves, but this is certainly the first cause of all holiness and of all our blessedness. And this is the meeting and the union between God and our spirit in our bare nature’ (Dese weselijcke eenicheit ons gheests met



relationship is fundamental and decisive, which Ruusbroec clarifies in the Espousals through the image of the wesen as the source of the faculties and activities of the human person, and the overwesen as the hidden fountain of life from which this source flows. The wesen exists, simply on the basis of its relationship with the overwesen. We might also note that through the attention he devotes to the wesen, and the fact that he uses this specific term, Ruusbroec clearly emphasises the being of the created person. Indeed, the older spiritual tradition used terms such as ‘heart’, ‘ground’, apex mentis, conscientia, synderesis, and so on. The theological commission at Avignon investigating Meister Eckhart’s case charged Eckhart with not taking the act of creation suffi-ciently seriously, and that his works appeared to have lost sight of the actual being of creatures.13 Ruusbroec clearly avoids this in his thinking by emphasizing that beings ‘are’ (sijn, hence: wesen).

2. The Relationship of the Wesen vis-à-vis the Overwesen Thus far there is nothing particularly surprising about Ruusbroec’s position. The important question now, however, is how the wesen and overwesen relate to one another. Essentially, this is the question of the way

gode die en besteet op haere selven niet, maer si blivet in gode, ende si vlietet ute gode, ende si hanghet in gode, ende si keeret weder in gode alse in hare eewighe sake, ende si en sciet nie van gode, noch nummermeer en doet na deser wijs. Want dese eenicheit es in ons in bloter natueren. Ende sciede de creatuere van gode, si viele in een puur niet. Ende dese eenicheit es boven tijt ende stat, ende werct altoes sonder onderlaet na die wise gods; sonder alleene indruc haers ewichs beelds ontfeetse lidende, alse dat gode ghelijc es ende creatuere in hem selven. Dit es de edelheit die wij hebben van natueren in die weselijcke eenicheit ons gheests, daer hy natuerlijcke vereenicht es met gode. Dit en maect ons heylich noch salich, want dit hebben alle menschen in hem, goede ende quade; maer dit es wel die ieerste sake alre heylicheit ende alre salicheit. Ende dit es dat ontmoet ende die vereeninghe gods ende ons gheests in blotere natueren). 13. ‘Although creatures depend on the creating God, they are nevertheless, through the act of creation, beings in themselves and of themselves concerning their form. Further still, precisely because they genuinely depend on God—considering that their genuine dependence is founded in genuine being—it is clear that creatures possess genuine being’ (Quamvis creaturae dependeant a deo creante, sunt tamen aliquid in se ipsis et secundum se ipsa formaliter per actionem creantis. Immo ex hoc quod realiter dependent a deo, cum realis dependentia fundetur in reali entitate, probatur creaturas habere esse reale, ad art. 6 (art. 26 in bull In agro Dominico), cf. Eckhart, 2000, p. 547 (hereafter LW).



in which God and the human person relate to one another. A passage from the Little Book provides an enlightening explanation on this point:14

When he who lives in this manner raises himself with the totality of himself and with all the powers and turns to God with lively active love, then he feels that the depth of his love, there where it begins and ends, is enjoyable and fathomless. If he then wishes further to penetrate this enjoyable love with his active love, there all the powers of his soul must give way and suffer and endure the piercing truth and goodness which is God himself. For in the same way as the air is bathed with the sun’s light and heat, and just as the iron is penetrated by the fire so that with the fire it does fire’s work—for it burns and gives light like fire; I say the same thing for the air: if the air itself could reason it would say ‘I give light and warmth to the world’; nevertheless each keeps his own nature, for the fire does not become iron nor the iron fire, but the union is without intermediary, because the iron is within the fire and the fire within the iron, and in the same way the air is in the light of the sun and the light of the sun is in the air—so God is always in like manner in the essence of the soul.15

The decisive clause in this passage is ‘so God is always in like manner in the essence of the soul’,16 in which the preposition ‘in’ demands all our

14. Ruusbroec’s Little Book is probably the clearest, most concise explanation of this issue, which he also treats more extensively elsewhere. The book was written following a visit to the Charterhouse of Herne in approximately 1362. The Carthusians had requested him to clarify this point. As Ruusbroec himself said ‘[they] desire and have prayed me to show and explain in a few words (…) most precisely and clearly, the truth that I understand and feel about the most profound doctrine that I have written (…) and that I most willingly do’ (… [si] begheren ende hebben mi ghebeden dat ic met corten waerden tonen ende verclaren soude (…) die naeste ende die claerste waerheit die ic versta ende ghevoele van alle der hoechster leren die ic ghecreven hebben. (…) Ende dit wille ic gherne doen). Boecsken der verclaringhe, Ruusbroec, J.v., 1981a, p. 109, lines 24-29. 15. anneer dat hem al selc levende mensche, met gheheelheiden sijns selves ende met allen sinen crachten, op recht ende te gode voeghet met levender werkeleker minnen, soe ghevoelt hi dat sine minne in haren gronde, daer si beghent ende indet, ghebrukeleec es ende sonder gront. Wilt hi dan voert in dringhen met sijnre werkeleker minnen in die ghebrukeleke minne, al daer moeten wiken alle die crachte siere zielen, ende moeten liden ende ghedoghen die doregaende waerheit ende goetheit die god selve es. Want gheliker wijs dat die locht doregaen wert met claerheiden ende met hitten der sonnen, ende alsoe dat yser doregaen wert met den viere, alsoe dat met den viere viers werc werket—want het berrent ende licht ghelijc viere; ende dat selve spreke ic van der locht; ware die locht verstendech, si sprake: ‘Ic verclare ende ic verhitte al de werelt’, nochtan behout ieghewelc sine eighene nature, want dat vier enwert niet yser, noch dat yser vier, maer die eninghe es sonder middel, want dat yser es binnen int vier ende dat vier int yser, ende aldus es de loecht in den lichte der sonnen ende dat licht der sonnen in die locht –, alsoe gheliker wijs es god altoes in den wesene der zielen. Ibid., pp. 129-31, lines 246-263. 16. Lines 262-263: alsoe ghelikerwijs es god altoes in den wesene der zielen.



attention. Indeed, Ruusbroec chose the foregoing comparisons precisely because he wants to emphasise the importance of this ‘in’: ‘in the same way as the air is bathed with the sun’s light and heat, and just as the iron is penetrated by the fire’,17 and also: ‘the iron is within the fire and the fire within the iron, and in the same way the air is in the light of the sun and the light of the sun is in the air’.18 In both comparisons, he places a clear emphasis on the fact that the one element penetrates the other, and it does so completely. The one is completely in the other. In precisely the same way, God (overwesen) is in the wesen. The great advantage of these comparisons—which are, incidentally, very classical, and were used for centuries in the preceding tradition19—is that they illustrate the point well and that though one element permeates the other, no fusion occurs between the two, as Ruusbroec explicitly states: ‘each keeps his own nature, for the fire does not become iron nor the iron fire’.20 This is most probably the reason why Ruusbroec made a selective choice from the series of classic comparisons. Indeed, a third comparison is often added to the two aforementioned images, namely of the drop of water in the wine. It is far less clear in this comparison, however, that ‘each keeps his own nature’ and thus Ruusbroec wisely avoided the use of this metaphor. This makes it all the more evident that he describes indwelling without fusion. In precisely the same way that the fire is in the iron, without the iron becoming fire as a result, and in precisely the same way as the light is in the air, God dwells in the soul. The overwesen is thus in the wesen. Although the prefix over- indicates that the overwesen is ‘higher’ than the wesen, and thus does not coincide with it, Ruusbroec emphasises that it does dwell in the wesen of the soul. The transcendence of the overwesen should thus not be understood as exterior, but as some-thing that is within the wesen itself. What is more, Ruusbroec conceives of this relationship as a mutual indwelling: ‘the iron is within the fire and the fire within the iron, and in

17. Lines 253-255: gheliker wijs dat die locht doregaen wert met claerheiden ende met hitten der sonnen, ende alsoe dat yser doregaen wert met den viere. 18. Lines 260-262: dat yser es binnen int vier ende dat vier int yser, ende aldus es de loecht in den lichte der sonnen ende dat licht der sonnen in die locht. 19. Cf. Pépin, J., 1967, pp. 331-75. See also Vanden XII beghinen 1, lines 628-36, Ruusbroec, J.v., 2000, p. 63. 20. Lines 258-259: nochtan behout ieghewelc sine eighene nature, want dat vier enwert niet yser, noch dat yser vier.



the same way the air is in the light of the sun and the light of the sun is in the air’.21 It is evident that for a correct understanding of this indwelling, one must not conceive of the wesen and overwesen as comparable entities, which are situated on the same level and whereby the one stands in opposition to the other, or the one might reduce the other, just as the presence of light by no means reduces the reality of the air, or as the heat of the fire does not affect the reality of the iron. Air and light are of a different order and should in no way be considered competitors; the essential character of the iron is not transformed as a result of being put in the fire. In the same way, the wesen remains entirely wesen despite dwelling entirely in the overwesen. The foundational character of relationality, to which we referred earlier, is again emphasised here. Ruusbroec thus provides a fundamental reflec-tion on the ‘I’, which from his perspective is located completely in God, without being any less of an ‘I’ as a result. On the contrary, it is precisely this relationality that determines the ‘being’ of the ‘I’. In the Sparkling Stone, Ruusbroec expresses it as follows:

Therefore we are poor in ourselves and rich in God (…) And so we live completely in God, where we possess our bliss, and completely in ourselves, were we practice our love towards God. And even if we live completely in God and completely in ourselves, yet it is only one life. But it is contrary and twofold according to experience, for poor and rich, hungry and replete, work-ing and at rest, those are contraries indeed. Yet in them resides our highest nobility, now and forever. For we cannot become God at all and lose our createdness: that is impossible. And if we remained in ourselves completely, separated from God, we would be desolate and miserable.22

21. Lines 260-262: dat yser es binnen int vier ende dat vier int yser, ende aldus es de loecht in den lichte der sonnen ende dat licht der sonnen in die locht. The indwelling was used extensively among others, cf. Moretti, R., and Betrand, G.-M., 1970, c. 1735-1767. 22. Ende hieromme sijn wij in ons selven arm ende in gode rike (…). Ende aldus leven wij gheheel in gode, daer wij onse salicheit besitten; ende wij leven gheheel in ons selven, daer wij ons in minnen te gode oefenen. Ende al eest dat wij gheheel in gode leven ende gheheel in ons selven, dit en es doch maer een leven. Maer het es contrarie ende tweevuldich van ghevoelne: want arm ende rijcke, hongherich ende sat, werkende ende ledich, dese dinghe sijn te male contrarie. Nochtan gheleghet hier inne onse hoochste edelheit, nu ende eewelijc. Want wij en moghen te male niet god werden ende onse ghescapenheit verliesen; dat es ommoghelijc. Bleven wij oec te male in ons selven ghesondert van gode, soe moesten wij sijn elendich ende onsalich. Vanden blinkenden steen, Ruusbroec, J.v., 1991, p. 151, lines 574-588.



Ruusbroec provides a precise description here: we live completely in God and in ourselves—self-evidently the word ‘live’ is important in this regard.23 Indeed, if he were to say that we ‘are’ simultaneously both God and ourselves, the statement would have very different ramifications. This becomes even clearer at the end of the paragraph, where Ruusbroec radically rejects the position that fusion occurs between God and the human person (‘we cannot become God at all and lose our createdness: that is impossible’),24 as well as the opinion that there is a dualistic divi-sion between the two (‘if we remained in ourselves completely, separated from God, we would be desolate and miserable’).25 If relationality is indeed the fundamental category, Ruusbroec’s position is very understandable: both fusion and division would entail the end of the relationship.

3. A Possible Mistake There is a remarkable clause in the abovementioned passage from the Little Book, in which Ruusbroec briefly indicates a possible mistake. Dis-cussing the mutual indwelling of light and air he says ‘if the air itself could reason it would say “I give light and warmth to the world”’.26 The activity that is proper to the light permeates the air to such an extent that the air might come to think that it actually lights the world, however obvious it may seem that this is not the case. After all, indwelling entails no identity or fusion, and yet it is so profound, so complete and so total that it might give rise to the impression that air actually gives light. Incidentally, this is only possible precisely because light and air are of a different order.27 If we were to compare, for example, light and darkness, it is evident that as the light increases, the darkness diminishes and vice versa. In this case, if the darkness could reason, it would certainly not say ‘I give light to the world’. The comparison is clear. Ruusbroec suggests that the overwesen dwells in the wesen of the soul in such a way—so completely and so totally—that a mistake may arise on the part of the wesen, i.e. the human person, namely to think that he/she does or accomplishes that which is in reality

23. See also: Vanden XII Beghinen 1, lines 733-743, Ruusbroec, J.v., 2000, p. 73. 24. Lines 585-586: wij en moghen te male niet god werden ende onse ghescapenheit verliesen; dat es ommoghelijc. 25. Lines 589-590: Bleven wij oec te male in ons selven ghesondert van gode, soe moesten wij sijn elendich ende onsalich. 26. Line 257: ware die locht verstendech, si sprake: ‘Ic verclare ende ic verhitte al de werelt’. 27. Cf. Van Nieuwenhove, R., 2003, pp. 60-61.



the work of the overwesen. The person then confuses the most profound element of personhood, the wesen, with God—though in fact there is fundamental ‘alterity’ between the two. Ruusbroec provides a more detailed explanation of this in the same Little Book of Enlightenment:

These men then, remark, by their plain simplicity and natural inclination, have turned to the nakedness of their essence (…). You see, these men have strayed into the empty and blind simplicity of their own essence and wish to become blessed within their own nature. For they are so simple and inactively united to the naked essence of their soul and to the indwelling of God in themselves, that they have neither ardor nor devotion towards God, neither without nor within. For in the highest point in which they are turned, they feel nothing save the simplicity of their essence, hanging in the essence of God. This absolute simplicity which they posses they regard as being God because there they find a natural repose. This is why they consider themselves as being God in the ground of their simplicity, for they lack real faith, hope and love.28

In this passage, Ruusbroec discusses people who have an experiential consciousness of their wesen and its simplicity (‘turned to the nakedness of their essence’,29 and further: ‘in the highest point in which they are turned, they feel nothing save the simplicity of their essence’).30 Ruus-broec remains completely consistent here in emphasising that the wesen of these people hangs in God, in the overwesen, and is thus by no means identical to it (‘they are so simple and inactively united to the naked essence of their soul and to the indwelling of God in themselves’31 and further: ‘in the highest point in which they are turned, they feel nothing

28. Siet, dese menschen sijn overmidts eenvoldeghe sempelheit ende naturleke gheneicheit ghekeert in bloetheit haers wesens (…). Siet, dese menschen sijn verdoelt in ene ledege verblende sempelheit haers eighens wesens ende willen salech sijn in bloeter naturen. Want si sijn alsoe eenvoldech ende alsoe ledechleke gheenecht den bloten wesene haerre zielen, ende den inwesene gods in hen, dat si en hebben noch ernst, noch toevoeghen te gode, van buten noch van binnen. Want in dat hoechste daer si inne ghekeert sijn, en ghevoelen si niet dan sempelheit haers wesens, hanghende in gods wesen. Ende die eenvoldeghe sempelheit die si besitten, houden si vore god, om dat si daer naturleke raste in venden. Ende hieromme dunct hen dat si selve god sijn in den gronde haerre eenvoldecheit. Want hen ghebrect ghewarech ghelove, hope ende minne. Boecsken der verclaringhe, Ruusbroec, J.v., 1981a, p. 115, lines 80-100. 29. Line 81: ghekeert in bloetheit haers wesens. 30. Lines 95-96: in dat hoechste daer si inne ghekeert sijn, en ghevoelen si niet dan sempelheit haers wesens. 31. Lines 92-93: si sijn alsoe eenvoldech ende alsoe ledechleke gheenecht den bloten wesene haerre zielen, ende den inwesene gods in hen.



save the simplicity of their essence, hanging in the essence of God’).32 The only difference is that these people labour under the impression that their wesen is the same thing as God; they have an experiential consciousness of their wesen, and they think that it is God (‘This absolute simplicity which they posses they regard as being God’).33 Considering the fact that wesen refers to the ‘being’ of the person, it is evident that these people think that they are God, in the most profound depth of their being (‘this is why they consider themselves as being God in the ground of their simplicity’),34 or to put it otherwise, that they have found God Himself, ipso facto, through the discovery of the simplicity of their essence (sempelheit haers wesens). From the passage cited above, it is clear that from Ruusbroec’s perspec-tive, this mistake is very understandable. The overwesen is present in the wesen and the wesen is so completely in the overwesen—just as the air is in the light or the iron in the fire—that it seems as though this sempelheit haers wesen is God Himself. And yet, this is a drastic mistake. It implies that the human person has no regard for the alterity of God, and that consequently, the experience of relationship ceases (‘these men…wish to become blessed within the limits of their own nature’35 and further: ‘For they are so simple and inactively united to the naked essence of their soul…that they have neither ardour nor devotion towards God, neither without nor within’).36

4. The Historical Context When we situate Ruusbroec’s specifications in their historical context, it appears that he attempts to provide an explanation of the central point on which Meister Eckhart and the so-called ‘Movement of the Free Spirit’,37 for example, remain unclear, were misunderstood and were even

32. Lines 95-96: in dat hoechste daer si inne ghekeert sijn, en ghevoelen si niet dan sempelheit haers wesens, hanghende in gods wesen. 33. Line 97: die eenvoldeghe sempelheit die si besitten, houden si vore god. 34. Lines 98-99: hieromme dunct hen dat si selve god sijn in den gronde haerre eenvoldecheit. 35. Lines 90-92: dese menschen…willen salech sijn in bloeter naturen. 36. Lines 92-95: si sijn alsoe eenvoldech ende alsoe ledechleke gheenecht den bloten wesene haerre zielen…dat si en hebben noch ernst, noch toevoeghen te gode, van buten noch van binnen. 37. The use of the term ‘Movement of the Free Spirit’ is, of course, a simplification. It is by no means used to indicate a concrete, organised movement, as Romana Guarnieri indicated as early as 1965 in her important contribution ‘Il movimento del libero spirito’ (Guarnieri, R., 1965, pp. 351-499 [esp. p. 354]).



condemned.38 Ruusbroec implicitly indicates that the condemnation on this point is entirely justified, despite the fact that the mistake is under-standable—considering the structure of the wesen–overwesen relationship. To what do these condemnations relate precisely? Let us begin with a statement referred to by the theological commission at Avignon, which prepared the bull In agro dominico: ‘Whatever Holy Scripture says of Christ, all that is also true of every good and divine man, and so this man works whatever God works’39 (art. 23, art. 12 in the bull). These sen-tences—drawn from a lost sermon—appear to be consonant with one of the doctrinal positions noted by Albert the Great in the Movement of the Free Spirit many decades earlier, ca. 1260–1262: ‘that a human person may attain a state wherein God operates entirely in him’.40 Eckhart’s state-ments were radically rejected by the theological commission at Avignon (‘this is so obviously foolish and deranged that it need not even be discussed’,41 the only occasion upon which the commission expressed reproach of Eckhart in such strong terms). Eckhart, however, defended himself by stating ‘Christ is our head and we are the members; when we speak, He speaks in us’.42 This indicates that Eckhart was not referring to mere, simple identity, but rather to indwelling. A similar problem arises from another sentence: ‘Whatever God the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in human nature, he gave all this to me’43 (art. 21, art. 11 in the bull). This was rejected because through the hypostatic union, human nature and divine nature are united in one sub-ject in Jesus Christ, which is not the case for any other person (‘Indeed, God gave his Son a personal being in human nature, by which the Word

38. It is often assumed that in his Little Book, Ruusbroec adopts an apologetic, defen-sive position, in light of the condemnations of 1310 and 1329. Upon closer inspection, however, this appears rather unlikely, as I argue in my contributions ‘Ruusbroec at the Charterhouse of Herne: How Did the Carthusians React to the Eckhart-Shock?’ (Faesen, R., 2011, forthcoming), and ‘ “We Were Perplexed by What He Wrote”: The Carthusians and a Crucial Moment in the Development of Mystical Literature in the Low Countries’ (Faesen, R., 2011, forthcoming). 39. Quidquid est proprium divinae naturae, hoc totum proprium est homini iusto et divino. Propter hoc iste homo operatur quidquid deus operator, LW, V, p. 584. 40. Quod homo ad talem statum potest pervenire quod Deus in ipso omnia operetur, Guibert, J. de, 1933, p. 118 (nr. 15). 41. Quae omnia sic sunt patenter fatua et vaesana quod non egent discussione, LW, V, p. 585. 42. Quia Christus caput et nos membra; cum loquimur, in nobis loquitur, ibid. 43. Quidquid deus pater dedit filio suo unigenito in humana natura, hoc totum dedit mihi, ibid., p. 583.



became flesh, and this he gave to nobody else’44). From Eckhart’s answer, it appears again that he understands the sentence from the perspective of indwelling: ‘When He gave us his Son, he also gave us all the properties of the Son, just as when fire brings forth fire, it also imbues it with the properties of fire, such as light and warmth, or upward motion’.45 And yet, we must state that Eckhart did not explain the issue convinc-ingly. Not only was the commission utterly unconvinced by his responses in the two examples mentioned above, during the discussion of another sentence, he did not take advantage of an excellent opportunity to raise the issue of indwelling explicitly. We refer here to the sentence ‘There is something in the soul that is uncreated and not capable of creation; if the whole soul were such, it would be uncreated and not capable of creation’46 (art. 4, art. 27 in the bull). Although from the perspective of indwelling, this sentence may be very meaningful, Meister Eckhart himself emphati-cally rejected it (‘he rejects this article because he claims that it is foolish to maintain that the soul is divided into a created and an uncreated part’).47 The commission responded, somewhat surprised, that the state-ment was in fact based on the writings of the Meister himself.48 This would have been an ideal opportunity for Eckhart to indicate that it is not a question of simple identity. He did not, however, take advantage of it. On the contrary, it appears that he implicitly assented to a conception of the soul that precludes the possibility of indwelling, whereby the soul is considered as a single ‘I’, in contrast to the relational conception.

5. A Number of Consequences The position Ruusbroec adopts on this point does not only have historical dimensions. It concerns a fundamental issue, namely the way in which the relationship between God (or the divine) and the human person should be understood, and this questions has self-evidently always occupied a central place in human thought. As an example, let us briefly contrast

44. Dedit enim deus filio suo in humana natura esse personale qua verbum caro factum, quod nulli alteri dedit, ibid. 45. Dando nobis filium dedit nobis omnia quae filio conveniunt, sicut ignis generans ignem dat sibi omnia quae sunt ignis, ut lucefacere, calefacere et moveri sursum, ibid. 46. Aliquid est in anima quod est increatum et increablile; si tota anima esset talis, tota esset increata et increabilis, ibid., p. 572. 47. Istum articulum negat quia, ut dicit, stultum est sentire quod anima sit petiata ex creato et increato, ibid. 48. Quidquid tamen neget, in pluribus locis reperitur et probatur dixisse, ibid.



Ruusbroec’s position with the contemporary French historian and philosopher Marcel Gauchet (b. 1946). Naturally, it is not my intention here to provide an extensive discussion of Gauchet, but rather, as a short excursus, to indicate an example of the relevance of Ruusbroec’s position. Indeed, Gauchet is well known as a representative of the thought that suggests that Christianity is the religion that made ‘the exodus from religion’ possible. Gauchet’s primary objective is to understand current political problems, especially those that developed in the 1970s (which he refers to as the ‘pathology of unattachedness’: the rise of the individual that thinks it owes nothing to society but expects and demands everything from it).49 I will not treat this theme. It is his point of departure that is particularly interesting for our purposes. According to him, every religion contains some conception of the manner in which the human person relates to that which transcends it. There are two central ideas in these conceptions:

The religions of the Middle East (Jewish, Christian and Muslim) developed according to the idea of two realities that are distinguishable: a relationship of exclusion. This is a dualistic conception, though awareness of it will penetrate only gradually. The eastern religions developed in the direction of the idea of fusion. The distinction between the visible and invisible world does not exclude their eventual unity: the transcendent is found in immanence (in Hinduism or Chinese Taoism, for example). Here we see a relationship of inclusion, a conception of unity.50

According to Marcel Gauchet, this leads Christianity to a profoundly dualistic vision. The reality of God and that of the human person are radically different and detached, and the world of the human person is increasingly experienced as an autonomous reality. Though it is true that during the first millennium, the conception of unity was still very attrac-tive, but it necessarily entails the subordinate, heteronymous position of the human world with respect to God’s. Around the beginning of the second millennium, an essential reversal occurred, and the idea gained

49. Segers, B., 2011, pp. 305-17, quote p. 313. 50. ‘De religies van het Midden-Oosten (joodse, christelijke en islamitische) hebben zich ontwikkeld naar de idee van twee werkelijkheden die van elkaar te onderscheiden zijn: een verhouding van uitsluiting. Dit is een dualistische opvatting, ook al zal het besef hiervan pas langzaam doordringen. De oosterse religies hebben zich ontwikkeld in de richting van de idee van vermenging. Het onderscheid tussen de zichtbare en de onzichtbare wereld sluit hun uiteindelijke eenheid niet uit: de transcendentie is te vinden in de immanentie (bijvoorbeeld in het hindoeïsme of het Chinese taoïsme). Hier zien we dus een band van insluiting, een eenheidvisie’, ibid., p. 306 (Segers’s emphasis).



ground that the world exists for the human person, that the person can appropriate this world and that the Christian message can be translated into a mission in the world itself. The ‘exodus from religion’ had begun. It will doubtless be clear how relevant Ruusbroec’s conception of the relationship between wesen and overwesen is in this regard. Ruusbroec explicitly states that the two alternatives Gauchet posits—the exclusion of dualism or the fusion of the conception of unity—are disastrous, namely in the passage from the Stone quoted above. In Ruusbroec’s conception, wesen and overwesen are indeed distinct, but it certainly need not ulti-mately lead to dualism. On the contrary, it concerns a mutual indwelling, and it would be a highly unfortunate mistake to understand this to be a fusion. Ruusbroec’s analysis of the relationship indicates this very clearly. For Ruusbroec, the crucial element is self-evidently that this relation-ship should be understood as a loving encounter. Love is neither fusion nor dualism (and most certainly not subordination). On the contrary, love fosters the alterity of the other, while at the same time entails the possibility of a profound unity—which of course does not imply identity. Gauchet’s historical analysis appears entirely to overlook this possibility.

6. Minne as the Key for Correct Understanding: Wesen and Overwesen in the Mirror

The extent to which Ruusbroec considered minne (‘love’)51 to be the fundamental category with which to address the issue of the relationship between wesen and overwesen, is evident from the following passage from the Mirror. It is an important passage in this regard, which is also indi-cated by a gloss in the Groenendaal manuscript:

What is written here exonerates and justifies the author of this book, which was proclaimed to be unsound by the Chancellor of [the University of] Paris concerning a certain other passage in his work. The Chancellor, however, was insufficiently informed of the good intentions of the very enlightened Brother who wrote this book.52

51. The Middle Dutch word minne may be rendered in English as ‘love’. In the edition of Ruusbroec’s Seven Enclosures, Guido de Baere defines it as follows: ‘minne is love in its orientation towards and in its meeting with another person, whether it be God or man’, and adds that on a number of occasions, ‘minne has in view the unification aspect of love’, Ruusbroec, J.v., 1981b, p. 272. 52. Quod hic subscribitur rectificat et excusat auctorem presentis libri in alio operis passu reprobato a cancellario parisiensi non satis informato de recta intentione illuminatissimi patris scriptoris huius voluminis. Cf. Ruusbroec, J.v., 2001, p. 405.



Indeed, as is well known, Jean Gerson accused Ruusbroec of championing the idea that in the last instance, the human person fuses into God as a drop of water in the ocean—though Gerson did honestly admit that Ruusbroec never used this image.53 The passage from the Mirror is as follows:

Furthermore, in our mere being, where we are one with God in his love, there begins a superessential contemplation and feeling, the highest one can put into words, that is: to live dying, and to die living, out of our essential being in our superessential blessedness. When we are in control of ourselves through the grace and the help of God so that we can rid ourselves of images whenever we wish, right down to our mere being, where we are one with God, in the fathomless abyss of his love, there we are indeed satisfied. For we have God in us, and are blessed in our essential being through the inworking of God, with whom we are one in love, not in essence, nor in nature; but we are blessed and blessedness in God’s essential being, where he has joy of Himself and of us all, in his high nature: that is the kernel of love that is hidden from us in darkness, in fathomless unknowing. This unknowing is an inaccessible light that is God’s essential being, and superessential to us, and essential to Him only. For He is his own blessedness, and has joy of Himself in his nature. And in his enjoy-ment we have died and sunken away from ourselves and we are lost according to the manner of our having joy, but not according to the manner of our essence. For our love and his love are always alike and one in having joy, where his Spirit has drunk up our love and swallowed it in Him in having joy and in one blessedness with Him.54

53. See: Faesen, R., 2010, pp. 285-307 (esp. 299-303). 54. Vooertmeer, in onsen ledeghen sine, daer wi een sijn met gode in sijnre minnen, daer beghint .i. overweselec scouwen ende ghevoelen, dat hooeghste dat men ghewaerden mach, dat es stervende leven ende levende sterven ute onsen wesene in onse overwesende salecheit. Wanneer dat wi overmids gratie ende de hulpe gods ons selfs gheweldegh sijn, alsoe dat wi ons ontbeelden moghen altoes alse wi willen tote in onsen ledeghen sine, daer wi met gode een sijn in dat grondeloes abys sijnre minnen, daer ons wel ghenoeght. Want wi hebben gode in ons ende sijn salegh in onse wesen overmids dat inwerken gods, daer wi een mede sijn in minnen, niet in wesene noch in natueren. Maer wi sijn salegh ende salegheit in gods wesen, daer hi sijns selfs ghebruuct ende onser alre in sine hooeghe natuere, dat es der minnen kerne,die ons verborghen es in deemsterheit, in niet wetene sonder grond. Dit nietweten es .i. ontoegankelec licht dat gods wesen es ende ons overweselec ende heme alleene weselec. Want hi es sijns selfs salegheit ende ghebruuct sijns selfs in sijnre natueren. Ende in sijn ghebruken sijn wi ghestorven ende ons selven ontsonken ende verloren na wise ons ghebrukens maer niet na wise ons wesens. Want onse minne ende sine minne sijn altoes ghelijc ende een int ghebruken, daer sijn gheest onse minne op ghesopen heeft ende in heme verswolghen in ghebrukene ende in eene salecheit met heme. Spieghel der eeuwigher salicheit, Ruusbroec, J.v., 2001, pp. 405-407, lines 2131-2149.



Ruusbroec here describes the union with God on the level of the mere ‘being’ of the human person (‘our mere being, where we are one with God, in the fathomless abyss of his love’).55 This is a union in love, not an identity of ‘being’, and it is rooted in the active indwelling of God in the wesen of the human person (‘we have God in us, and are blessed in our essential being through the inworking of God, with whom we are one in love, not in essence, nor in nature’).56 It is notable, moreover, that Ruusbroec emphasises the joy of this union-in-love,57 a joy that for God is absolute and which he has by his nature (‘he is his own blessedness, and has joy of Himself in his nature’58), and in which the human person shares by sharing in God’s life (‘we are blessed and blessedness in God’s essential being, where he has joy of Himself and of us all, in his high nature’59). Although the human person shares in this joy of absolute love, its origin, the ‘core of love’, remains concealed from the human person precisely because it belongs to the overwesen (‘the kernel of love that is hidden from us in darkness, in fath-omless unknowing. This unknowing is an inaccessible light that is God’s essential being, and superessential to us, and essential to Him only’).60 By no means, however, does this imply that there is a qualitative difference between the joy of minne as it is experienced by God and as it is gifted to the human person (‘Our love and his love are always alike and one in having joy, where his Spirit has drunk up our love and swallowed it in Him in having joy and in one blessedness with Him’61).

55. Line 2131: in onsen ledeghen sine, daer wi met gode een sijn in dat grondeloes abys sijnre minnen. 56. Lines 2138-2140: Wi hebben gode in ons ende sijn salegh in onse wesen overmids dat inwerken gods, daer wi een mede sijn in minnen, niet in wesene noch in natueren. 57. Wi hebben gode in ons ende sijn salegh in onse wesen (line 2138); the first meaning of the word salegh (‘blessed’) is ‘happy’, ‘joyful’, see Verwijs, E., and Verdam, J., 1885–1929, VII, s.v. 58. Lines 2144-2145: Hi es sijns selfs salegheit ende ghebruuct sijns selfs in sijnre natueren. 59. Lines 2140-2141: Wi sijn salegh ende salegheit in gods wesen, daer hi sijns selfs ghebruuct ende onser alre in sine hooeghe natuere. 60. Lines 2141-2144: Dat es der minnen kerne, die ons verborghen es in deemsterheit, in nietwetene sonder grond; dit nietweten es .i. ontoegankelec licht dat gods wesen es ende ons overweselec ende heme alleene weselec. 61. Lines 2147-2149: Want onse minne ende sine minne sijn altoes ghelijc ende een int ghebruken, daer sijn gheest onse minne op ghesopen heeft ende in heme verswolghen in ghebrukene ende in eene salecheit met heme.



Ruusbroec continues:

And when I write that we are one with God, it is to be understood: in love, not in essence, nor in nature; for God’s essence is uncreated, and our essence is created. And this is unlike without measure, God and creature. And therefore, even though it may unite, it cannot become one. If our essence came to naught, we would not know, love or be blessed. But our created essence is to be beheld as a wild, waste wilderness, wherein God lives who reigns over us. And in that wilderness we must wander modelessly and without manner. For we cannot come out of our essential being into our superessential being otherwise than with love. And therefore we are blessed in our essential being, if we live in love. And we are blessedness in God’s essential being, if we, in love, have died to ourselves in his enjoyment. We are always living in our essential being through love. And we are always dying in God’s essential being through having joy. And therefore this is called a dying life and a living dying, for we live with God and we die in God. Blessed are the dead who live and die thus, because they have been made heirs in God and in his realm.62

In order to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding on this point, Ruusbroec emphasises that this does concern fusion, a melting into God (‘And when I write that we are one with God, it is to be understood: in love, not in essence, nor in nature; for God’s essence is uncreated, and our essence is created, and this is unlike without measure, God and creature, and therefore, even though it may unite, it cannot become one’).63 An important argument in this regard is precisely that in case fusion occurred,

62. Lines 2149-2165: Ende waer ic sette dat wi een met gode sijn, dat es te verstane in minnen, niet in wesene noch in natueren. Want gods wesen es onghescapen ende onse wesen es ghescapen. Ende dit es sonder mate onghelijc, god ende creatuere. Ende hier omme, al maecht vereeneghen, en mach niet een werden. Ghinghe oec onse wesen te niete, soe en souden wi niet kinnen noch minnen noch salegh sijn. Maer onse ghescapene wesen es ane te siene alse eene welde, wueste wustine, daer god in leeft, die ons regeert. Ende in dese wustine moeten wi dolen wiselooes ende sonder maniere. Want wi en connen ute onsen wesene niet comen in onse overwesen anders dan met minnen. Ende hier omme sijn wi salegh in onse wesen, eest dat wi leven in minnen. Ende wi sijn salegheit in gods wesen, eest dat wi in minnen ons selfs ghestorven sijn in sijn ghebruken. Altoes leven wi in onse eighen wesen overmids minne. Ende altoes sterven wi in gods wesen overmids ghebruken. Ende hier omme es dit ghenoemt een stervende leven ende .i. levende sterven. Want wi leven met gode ende wi sterven in gode. Salegh sijn de dooede die aldus leven ende sterven,want si sijn gheerft in gode ende in sijn rike. 63. Lines 2150-2153: Waer ic sette dat wi een met gode sijn, dat es te verstane in minnen, niet in wesene noch in natueren. Want gods wesen es onghescapen ende onse wesen es ghescapen. Ende dit es sonder mate onghelijc, god ende creatuere. Ende hier omme, al maecht vereeneghen, en mach niet een werden.



this would entail, ipso facto, the end of love (‘If our essence came to naught, we would not know, love or be blessed’).64 This makes clear that for Ruusbroec, the relationship between wesen and overwesen must funda-mentally be understood as minne. He summarises this in the expression: ‘For we cannot come out of our essential being into our superessential being otherwise than with love. And therefore we are blessed in our essential being, if we live in love. And we are blessedness in God’s essen-tial being, if we, in love, have died to ourselves in his enjoyment.’65 Ruusbroec expresses the fact that the structure of love entails both the autonomy of the human person (the wesen) and the complete dedication of the Other (overwesen, i.e. God’s wesen), as well as the joy of this dedica-tion, by saying ‘we are always living in our essential being through love. And we are always dying in God’s essential being through having joy.’66 From the twofold use of the word altoes, it is clear that Ruusbroec does not conceive of these two as consecutive stages, but rather as aspects that necessarily belong together in the complex structure of the union. From Ruusbroec’s perspective, the autonomy of the human person is not abrogated by the dedication of God.67 Finally, it is also notable that Ruusbroec uses the term ‘unfathomable’ for God’s love.68 In mystical literature, the ‘ground’ of the soul is often referred to as an abyss (e.g. in Hadewijch’s Eighteenth Letter). Though in the above, Ruusbroec clarifies that the soul as such is not unfathomable, but that the ground of the soul is an unfathomable relationship. It is precisely this relationship (wesen–overwesen) that is the foundation of the soul, and it is in this sense that the soul can be called ‘unfathomable’.

64. Lines 2153-2155: Ghinghe oec onse wesen te niete, soe en souden wi niet kinnen noch minnen noch salegh sijn. 65. Lines 2157-2161: Wi en connen ute onsen wesene niet comen in onse overwesen anders dan met minnen, ende hier omme sijn wi salegh in onse wesen, eest dat wi leven in minnen, ende wi sijn salegheit in gods wesen, eest dat wi in minnen ons selfs ghestorven sijn in sijn ghebruken. 66. Lines 2161-2162: Altoes leven wi in onse eighen wesen overmids minne, ende altoes sterven wi in gods wesen overmids ghebruken. 67. As e.g. Sloten, 854-856 ‘So, you see, we shall always remain what we are in our created essence; nonetheless, losing our proper spirit, we shall always cross over into our superessence’ (Siet, aldus selen wi altoes bliven dat wi sijn in onse gescapene wesen, ende nochtan met ontgeestene altoes overliden in onse overwesen), cf. n. 10 above. 68. Line 2137: in dat grondeloes abys sijnre minnen.



7. Conclusion

What has this investigation taught us? First, it is clear that Ruusbroec makes a precise and clear distinction between the wesen and the over-wesen. This means that the ‘being’ of the human person does not coincide with God, and that God is understood to be the origin of the human person’s ‘being’. This implies that human autonomy is fully valorised in Ruusbroec’s conception. As a creature, the human person certainly has a personal and autonomous existence.69 A genuine loving encounter and loving union between God and the human person would simply be impossible if this were not the case. Second, Ruusbroec describes an unbreakable connection between the wesen and the overwesen, considering that the overwesen is the constant life source of the wesen. This relationship is only fully realised in love. What is more, when this minne is fully realised, Ruusbroec conceives of it as a mutual indwelling. The fact that in describing this indwelling he used the metaphors of the iron in the fire and the water in the air but omitted the drop of water in wine indicates that he attempted to retain the rela-tionality as completely as possible. Wesen and overwesen may be distinct, but they are completely united with one another in love. Ruusbroec rejects both fused unicity and the unbridgeable gulf.70 Indeed, an addi-tional aspect in this regard is that the actual sense and meaning of the ‘being’ of the human person is not located in him/herself but in the Other. The human person can thus rightfully claim that the sense of his/her being completely eludes him/her, since he/she cannot grasp it, but can only receive it in love. Third, when we read his analysis in light of the historical context of his work, it seems highly probable that Ruusbroec’s clear position on this point is an explanation of a dramatic misunderstanding. The mutual indwelling of wesen and overwesen may, according to Ruusbroec, be so complete that the human person has the impression that his/her wesen is God. Though wesen and overwesen are completely present in each other, they never become identical; on the contrary, they are united in love. Ruusbroec thus emphasises that in his conception, the intimacy between

69. According to the theological commission at Avignon, this was one of the problematic aspects of some statements in Eckhart’s work (…negat deum creatorem rerum dantem esse eis, negat creationem terminari ad esse, LW, V, p. 574). 70. See e.g. Sparkling Stone, line 585-589 (Ruusbroec, J.v., 1991, p. 151).



God the human person might be completely misunderstood—and it appears that de facto this was the case—precisely if it is not understood as love. Ruusbroec’s analysis provides clarification, and a clear solution to the impasse the mystical literature of the thirteenth and fourteenth century had reached, for example following the condemnations of Porete and Eckhart. According to him, this impasse may be understood to be an unsurprising but highly unfortunate misunderstanding. The history of mysticism shows, however, that the same difficulties recurred later, in, for example, the condemnations of so-called Quietism (Miguel de Molinos, Madame Guyon). If Ruusbroec’s analysis of the relationship between the wesen and the overwesen had received a more widespread and positive reception, many such mistakes and misunderstandings would undoubt-edly have been avoided.

Bibliography Deblaere, Albert, Essays on Mystical Literature—Essais sur la littérature mystique—Saggi

sulla letteratura mistica, (Ed.) Rob Faesen, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologica-rum Lovaniensium, 177, (Peeters/University Press, 2004)

Eckhart, Lateinische Werke, V, (Ed.) Loris Sturlese, (Kohlhammer, 2000) Faesen, R., ‘Dupliciter intelligi potest: Jan van Ruusbroec in the First Century of the Society

of Jesus (1540–1640)’, quoted from, De letter levend maken: Opstellen aangeboden aan Guido de Baere S.J. bij zijn zeventigste verjaardag, (Eds.) Kees Schepers and Frans Hendrickx, with the co-operation of Rob Faesen and Ineke Cornet, Miscellanea Neerlandica, 39, (Peeters, 2010), 285-307

——, ‘Ruusbroec at the Charterhouse of Herne: How Did the Carthusians React to the Eckhart-Shock?’, quoted from, A Fish Out of Water? From Contemplative Solitude to Carthusian Involvement in Pastoral Care and Reform Activity, (Eds.) T. Gaens and S. Molvarec, Miscellanea Neerlandica, 41 / Studia Cartusiana, 2, (Leuven, 2011, forthcoming)

——, ‘ “We Were Perplexed by What He Wrote”: The Carthusians and a Crucial Moment in the Development of Mystical Literature in the Low Countries’, quoted from, Carthusian Worlds: Exploring the Carthusians and Their Heritage, (Eds.) P. Nissen and K. Pansters, (Leuven, 2011, forthcoming)

Guarnieri, Romana, ‘Il movimento del libero spirito’, Archivio Italiano per la storia della pietà, IV, (1965), 351-499

Guibert, J. de, Documenta ecclesiastica christianae perfectionis studium spectantia, (Pont. Univ. Gregoriana, 1933)

McGinn, Bernard, ‘The Significance of Ruusbroec’s Mystical Theology’, Louvain Studies, 31, (2006), 19-41 (http://dx.doi.org/10.2143/LS.31.1.2019377)

Moretti, Roberto, and Guy-M. Betrand, ‘Inhabitation’, Dictionnaire de spiritualité, VII, 2, (1970), c. 1735–1767



Pépin, Jean, ‘Stilla aquae modica multo infusa vino, ferrum ignitum, luce perfusus aer: L’origine de trois comparaisons familières à la théologie mystique médiévale’, quoted from, Miscellanea André Combes I, Cathedra Sancti Thomae Ponticificae Universitatis Lateranensis, 3, (Libreria editrice della Pont. Università Lateranense; Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1967), 331-75

Ruusbroec, Jan van, Opera omnia, 1, (Ed.) Guido de Baere, Corpus Christanorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 101, (Brepols, 1981a)

——, Opera omnia, 2, (Ed.) Guido de Baere, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 102, (Brepols, 1981b)

——, Opera Omnia, 3, (Ed.) Jos Alaerts, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 103, (Brepols, 1986)

——, Opera omnia, 10, (Ed.) Hilde Noë, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 110, (Brepols, 1991)

——, Opera omnia, 7a, (Ed.) M.M. Kors, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 107A, (Brepols, 2000)

——, Opera omnia, 8, (Ed.) Guido de Baere, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis, 108, (Brepols, 2001)

Segers, Bruno, ‘Marcel Gauchet en de uittocht uit de religie’, Streven, 78, (2011), 305-17 Van Nieuwenhove, Rik, Jan van Ruusbroec: Mystical Theologian of the Trinity, Studies in

Spirituality and Theology, (University of Notre Dame Press, 2003) Verdeyen, Paul, ‘Oordeel van Ruusbroec over de rechtgelovigheid van Margareta Porete’,

Ons Geestelijk Erf, 66, (1992), 88-96 Verwijs, Eelco, and Jacob Verdam, Middelnederlandsch Woordenboek, (Nijhoff, 1885–

1929)

ruusbroec

Documents

ruusbroec society

relationship of wesen

suprabeing overwesen

sempelheit haers wesen

medieval mystical theology

mystical literature

radical union

number of statements