Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Freedom and the Mystical Union in Der Cherubinische Wandersmann

1957; Routledge; Volume: 32; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/19306962.1957.11786869

1930-6962

Joachim Seyppel,

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size NotesScheffler, whose father was Protestant, was converted to Catholicism in 1653 and then took on his new name. His subsequent theological quarrels have unfortunately been continued by his various interpreters.First published in 1657 (five books and ten extra sonnets); the second edition of 1675 had six books. The original work was probably written between 1651 and 1653. Translations : The Cherubinic Wanderer, selections trans. Willard R. Trask, intro. by Curt von Faber du Faur (New York, 1953); Angelus Silesius, a selection from the rhymes of a German mystic, trans. in the original meter by Paul Carus (Chicago, 1909).Cf. the definition by F.-W. Wentzlaff-Eggebert: mysticism is “die Überwindung der Trennung zwischen der irrationalen Gottheit und der reinen Seele schon in diesem Leben bis zur vollkommenen Wesensvereinigung in der unio mystica.” (Deutsche Mystik zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit [Berlin, 1944], p. 7).Cf. H. S. Denifle, Die deutschen Mystiker des 14. Jahrhunderts (Freiburg, Schweiz, 1951), chap. 1; in fact, the whole book is devoted to controversy between Catholicism and Protestantism.Angelus Silesius, Sämtliche Poetische Werke (München, 1952), I, 87. We shall quote Silesius’ epigrams from this edition, using book and number of epigram unless otherwise stated.Fn. 116, I, p. 189. Held quotes then: “Gott ist nur alles gar; er stimmt die Saiten ab,/Er singt und spielt in uns: wie hast denn du’s getan?” (III, 216).Georg Ellinger, Angelus Silesius sämtliche poetische Werke und eine Auswahl aus seinen Streitschriften (Berlin, 1923), holds that there are discrepancies in the Wandersmann (pp. lxxxii–lxxxix); cf. also Held, pp. 80–81. Paul Mahn, Die Mystik des Angelus Silesius, diss. Rostock (Paderborn, 1892), says, “Über die Freiheit des Willens ist Angelus Silesius zu keiner durchgebildeten Anschauung gelangt” (p. 41); on “indeterminsm” see p. 41, “determinism,” p. 42, “good will,” p. 43, negation of the will p. 48—but no synthesis is found anywhere. M. H. Godecker, Angelus Silesius’ Personality through his Ecclesiologia, diss. The Catholic University of America (Washington, D. C., 1938), cites Mahn’s opinion that Silesius never attained stability on the question of freedom of the will and leaves it at that. Rudolf Neuwinger, Johann Schefflers “Cherubinischer Wandersmann” und die deutsche Mystik, diss. Leipzig, 1937 (Bleicherode, n.d.), deals with the same question in his sixth chapter (“Vom Willen,” pp. 72–78) but fails by using such clichés as “von der Willensfreiheit im niederen Triebleben … über die Willensverneinung … und die ‘Wiedergemeinsammachung’ mit dem göttlichen Willen, erlangt der Mystiker somit die volle und eigentliche Freiheit des Willens … auf einer höheren Stufe zurück.” Our analysis must show whether there are “discrepancies” in Silesius’ solution to the question of the freedom of the will.The one quotation given by Held to demonstrate Silesius’ “determinism” is, seen in the light of the mass of material, surely not the best one he might have selected; of “indeterminism” he gives no examples at all.Cf. Denifle’s quest “ob nicht gerade die richtigverstandene Mystik der Schlüssel sei zu einem wahren Verständis der deutschen Mystiker” (p. 29). Also Mahn who says, “Wir werden uns daher in unserer Darstellung … aller-ismen … enthalten und lieber immer von der Sache selbst reden” (p. 9, footnote).The wheel as something negative is also described in I, 227, “Die Rachgier ist ein Rad.” For “Unruh,” see also I, 85, 189.See I, 230; IV, 69, 70; V, 230; VI, 81.See also II, 17; VI, 30–33, 72.See his analysis in Fear and Trembling of “teleological suspension of the ethical” with reference to Abraham’s submission to the apparently capricious command of God that he sacrifice his son Isaac. Cf. also Qu. Kuhlmann’s theme, “Er [Gott] machs, wie ihms gefaellt!” (Wentzlaff-Eggebert, p. 202).Cf. Benno von Wiese, “Die Antithetik in den Alexandrinern des Angelus Silesius,” Euphorion, XXIX (1928), 503–522.Similar epigrams are I, 211 (“Das Himmelreich ist der Gewaltsamen”) and VI, 157. I, 210–212, by the way, should be read as thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.The title of the book is Theologia Mystica (1627). A full study of the influence of this work on Silesius has still to be done. M. Hildburgis Gies compared Sandaeus’ Pro Theologia Mystica Clavis with Silesius’ major work in Eine lateinische Quelle zum Cherubinischen Wandersmann des Angelus Silesius (Breslau, 1929), and found certain relationships (“voluntas bona” in Sandaeus, etc.).Silesius’ use of a double negative (“verhindern” is followed by “nicht verbringe”) makes the meaning of this footnote somewhat obscure. But double negatives were used occasionally by Silesius, e.g., I, 21; III, 122; IV, 21.The deliberate ambiguity of Silesius comes out again in the sixth book. Here he says that “I can hit” God “whenever I will” (152) with my “arow” (135); but, “Gott legt den Pfeil selbst auf, Gott spannet selbst den Bogen,/ Gott drücket selber ab, drum ists so wohl gezogen” (154).Preface of the second edition (1675), omitted in the Held edition but included by Ellinger, I, 11. The preface of the first edition, according to P. Mahn, p. 3, is the same except for some additions at the beginning and end.“Was bildest du dir ein, zu zähln der Sternen Schar?/ Der Schöpfer ists allein, der sie kann zählen gar.” And, “Der Himmel ist in dir und auch der Höllen Qual:/ Was du erkiest und willst, das hast du überall.”Cf. Karl Jaspers’ and Martin Heidegger’s respective philosophies.Other paradoxes are: II, 59, 63; III, 141, etc.Cf. Meister Eckhart’s famous sermon, “Wie die Seele ihren eigenen Weg geht und sich selber findet,” which contains the statement: “Das ist ja durchaus Gottes Absicht, daß die Seele Gott verliere,” in Meister Eckharts deutsche Predigten und Traktate ed. F. Schulze-Maizier (Leipzig, 1927), p. 330.Cf. H. Leisegang, Denkformen (Berlin, 1951), p. 73, and Benno Schmoldt, Die deutsche Begriffssprache Meister Eckharts (Heidelberg, 1954), p. 13. Very important is B. v. Wiese, op. cit., who points out the close relationship between mysticism and antithesis (p. 504), the use of the latter in the Baroque (p. 504), the difficulty of expressing the irrational rationally and the subsequent use of the irrationalistic antithesis (p. 514). Also Fritz Linde, “Das Gegensätzliche in Johann Schefflers Lebensgefühl,” diss. Leipzig 1924, typewritten, and Curt von Faber du Faur’s introduction to The Cherubinic Wanderer, p. 6.Numerically speaking, there is approximately equal “evidence” of “indeterminism” and “determinism” in the Wandersmann.Cf. also preface, pp. 13 and 14, and the epigram, “Aus Liebe wird Gott Ich, ich aus Genaden Er,/ So kommt ja all mein Heil nur bloß von ihme her” (V, 270).Whether through grace man may “become” God (essentia) or only “participate in” God (per accidens), as Denifle, p. 177, in regard to Tauler’s mysticism argues, seems to be decided, in the case of Silesius, in favor of essentia.Something like this is also brought out by Curt von Faber du Faur in his introduction when he says of Silesius’ enlightenment that it had not been gained “through an act of will but through grace bestowed upon him” (p. 5).See also I, 234.“Die Gnade fließt von Gott wie Wärme von dem Feur,/ Nahst du dich nur zu ihm, sie kommt dir bald zu Steur” (V, 361).Stoicism is an outstanding feature of German Baroque literature; cf. the works of Martin Opitz (Trostgedichte in Widerwärtigkeit des Krieges, 1633), Paul Fleming, Simon Dach, Andreas Gryphius, Grimmelshausen, etc.See also the two epigrams on the “wise man” (V, 136, 140).See also V, 146.See also I, 74; II, 71.See also I, 171; II, 19, 200; III, 116, 140; V, 142, 220, etc.With “Eingelassenheit (in die Entbergung des Seienden),” Martin Heidegger has used a similar term to express the (mystical) union of “object” and “subject.” Cf. J. Seyppel, “A Comparative Study of Truth in Existentialism and Pragmatism,” The Journal of Philosophy, L (April 9, 1953), 229–241.See also II, 92, 144; IV, 196.Held also recognizes the fact of the negation of the will (I, 88–89), but adds, “Die absolute Verneinung des Willens will selbst Gott nicht mehr” (p. 89). No longer? And what is this “absolute” negation? And why does God not want it? Held’s interpretation has reached here the point of greatest confusion.“Nichts bringt dich über dich als die Vernichtigkeit;/ Wer mehr vernichtigt ist, der hat mehr Göttlichkeit.” (II, 140).There is no doubt that Silesius means personal death, although according to Denifle (pp. 132–134, pp. 155–157) self-annihilation, at least as far as Meister Eckhart and Tauler are concerned, is to be taken “morally”; for in scholasticism there is supposed to be no annihilation of the seif in the unio fruitiva, but only of “self-reflection.”See also I, 43, 70, 245; V, 297.See also I, 9, 14, 82, 86, 89, 106, 107, 212, 216, 224, 234–238, 248, 251, 252, 255, 276, 295, 298; II, 3; III, 87; IV, 155; VI, 134, etc.See also I, 13, 72, 92, 102, 138, 189, 285, 293; II, 142; IV, 224; VI, 135 etc.See also V, 196, 197.