Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
doi: 10.1558/mmt.v21i2.147
Abstract
John of Ruusbroecs 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
Eckharts work. In his view, the overwesen is present in the wesen and the wesen is so
completely in the overwesenjust as the air is in the light or the iron in the rethat 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 Ruusbroecs 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 Ruusbroecs 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.
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012, Unit S3, Kelham House, 3, Lancaster Street, Shefeld S3 8AF.
148
149
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 annihilated5 and a principle and
support of our being and our life6 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.
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012
150
At the same time, Ruusbroec indicates that this is the necessary condition 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 essential9.
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 prex 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 re, immensely great, wherein all things were burnt away in a becalmed, glowing,
motionless re. 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 ood 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 wandering, 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 blessedness 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
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012
151
152
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 Godconsidering that their genuine
dependence is founded in genuine beingit 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).
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012
153
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 suns light and heat, and just as the iron is
penetrated by the re so that with the re it does res workfor it burns and
gives light like re; 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 re does not become iron nor the iron re, but the union is
without intermediary, because the iron is within the re and the re 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 airso God is always in like manner in the essence of the soul.15
154
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. Ppin, 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.
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012
155
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 re 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 re. 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 reection 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, working 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 574588.
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012
156
157
the work of the overwesen. The person then confuses the most profound
element of personhood, the wesen, with Godthough 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 nd 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
158
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 Ruusbroecs perspective, this mistake is very understandable. The overwesen is present in the
wesen and the wesen is so completely in the overwesenjust as the air is in
the light or the iron in the rethat 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 menwish to
become blessed within the limits of their own nature35 and further: For
they are so simple and inactively united to the naked essence of their
soulthat they have neither ardour nor devotion towards God, neither
without nor within).36
4. The Historical Context
When we situate Ruusbroecs specications 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 menschenwillen salech sijn in bloeter naturen.
36. Lines 92-95: si sijn alsoe eenvoldech ende alsoe ledechleke gheenecht den bloten
wesene haerre zielendat 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 simplication. 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]).
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012
159
160
became esh, and this he gave to nobody else44). From Eckharts 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 re brings forth re, it also imbues it with the
properties of re, such as light and warmth, or upward motion.45
And yet, we must state that Eckhart did not explain the issue convincingly. 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 creation46
(art. 4, art. 27 in the bull). Although from the perspective of indwelling,
this sentence may be very meaningful, Meister Eckhart himself emphatically 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 statement 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 briey contrast
44. Dedit enim deus lio suo in humana natura esse personale qua verbum caro factum,
quod nulli alteri dedit, ibid.
45. Dando nobis lium dedit nobis omnia quae lio 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.
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012
161
162
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 Ruusbroecs conception of the
relationship between wesen and overwesen is in this regard. Ruusbroec
explicitly states that the two alternatives Gauchet positsthe exclusion of
dualism or the fusion of the conception of unityare disastrous, namely
in the passage from the Stone quoted above. In Ruusbroecs conception,
wesen and overwesen are indeed distinct, but it certainly need not ultimately 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. Ruusbroecs analysis of the relationship indicates this very clearly.
For Ruusbroec, the crucial element is self-evidently that this relationship 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 unitywhich of course does not imply identity.
Gauchets 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 indicated by a gloss in the Groenendaal manuscript:
What is written here exonerates and justies 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
insufciently 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 Ruusbroecs Seven Enclosures, Guido de Baere denes 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 unication aspect of love,
Ruusbroec, J.v., 1981b, p. 272.
52. Quod hic subscribitur recticat 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.
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012
163
164
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 nature58),
and in which the human person shares by sharing in Gods life (we are
blessed and blessedness in Gods essential being, where he has joy of
Himself and of us all, in his high nature59). 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 fathomless unknowing. This unknowing is an inaccessible light that is Gods
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 Him61).
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 rst 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.
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012
165
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 Gods 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 Gods 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 Gods 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
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.
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012
166
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 fundamentally 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 Gods essential 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. Gods wesen), as well as the joy of this dedication, by saying we are always living in our essential being through love.
And we are always dying in Gods 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
Ruusbroecs 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 Gods love.68 In mystical literature, the ground of the soul is often
referred to as an abyss (e.g. in Hadewijchs Eighteenth Letter). Though in
the above, Ruusbroec claries that the soul as such is not unfathomable,
but that the ground of the soul is an unfathomable relationship. It is
precisely this relationship (wesenoverwesen) 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.
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012
167
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 overwesen. 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
persons being. This implies that human autonomy is fully valorised in
Ruusbroecs 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 re and the water in the air but omitted
the drop of water in wine indicates that he attempted to retain the relationality 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 additional 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 Ruusbroecs 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 Eckharts 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).
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012
168
169
Ppin, Jean, Stilla aquae modica multo infusa vino, ferrum ignitum, luce perfusus aer:
Lorigine de trois comparaisons familires la thologie mystique mdivale,
quoted from, Miscellanea Andr Combes I, Cathedra Sancti Thomae Ponticicae
Universitatis Lateranensis, 3, (Libreria editrice della Pont. Universit 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 No, 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)