![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This contribution investigates the mystical anthropology of two important and related medieval mystics, William of Saint-Thierry and Hadewijch, neither of whom were well known in their own day, but who have come to the fore of scholarly attention in recent years. In the first part, the authors explore the Trinitarian theology of William of Saint-Thierry and the ways in which it provides the foundation for his mystical anthropology. William radically argues that the human soul is structured according to the pattern of the Trinitarian life, and advocates a reciprocal and mutual encounter between the soul and God in which each touch and pass over into one another, becoming one Spirit. In the 13th century, Hadewijch would draw on William’s fundamental insights, integrating them into her own mystical-theological thought. Following her theoretical reflections on the nature of the soul, and unlike her contemporaries in the Schools, Hadewijch maintains that the soul has the natural potential to be united with God without a created intermediary, and that in mystical union, the soul becomes God in love.
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our profound gratitude to Prof. Rob Faesen and Dr. Julia Meszaros, as well as to the anonymous peer reviewers for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Any remaining errors are of course our own.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. John of Ruusbroec, The Spiritual Espousals, 464. Our emphasis.
2. See on the one hand, principally, Van Nieuwenhove, “Ruusbroec: Apophatic Theologian,” 83–105, Jan van Ruusbroec; and on the other hand Mommaers, Waar naartoe is nu de gloed. McGinn, “Essential Themes,” 131, n. 7 comments: ‘Ruusbroec has been called both a “phenomenologist of the mystical experience” and a “mystical theologian.” I see no reason why he cannot be both.’
3. Newman, From Virile Woman, 137–67.
4. See, for example, McGinn’s recent article ‘The Spiritual Teaching,’ 223: ‘William’s Spirit-centred mysticism is one of the high points of Cistercian, indeed, of all medieval theology.’
5. For example, Tracy has claimed that William was ‘the greatest of the monastic theologians’ and that along with Bernard of Clairvaux, he ‘largely defined twelfth-century monastic theology.’ Tracy, ‘Trinitarian Theology and Spirituality,’ 390.
6. See principally Verdeyen, La théologie mystique. First published in: Ons geestelijk erf 51 (1977) 327–66; 52 (1978) 152–78, 257–95; 53 (1979) 129–220, 321–404.
7. For a more detailed biographical overview, see Verdeyen, ‘Introduction generale,’ and William of Saint-Thierry, Expositio super Epistolam, v–xxiii.
8. And thus not in the literal, allegorical or anagogical senses. See William of Saint-Thierry, Vita prima Bernardi, 74–5.
9. See Verdeyen’s analysis in Bernard of Clairvaux & William of Saint-Thierry, Korte Commentaar, 75–103.
10. Excellent overviews in English: Bell, The Image and Likeness, which downplays the influence of Origen in favour of Augustine; McGinn, The Growth of Mysticism, 225–74; and the most recent study of key aspects of William’s thought: Sergent et al., Unity of Spirit.
11. William of Saint-Thierry, Expositio super Cantica canticorum. Translation: William of Saint-Thierry, Exposition on the Song of Songs.
12. William of Saint-Thierry, Expositio super Cantica canticorum, 70. Translation: William of Saint-Thierry, Exposition on the Song of Songs, 77–8. Slightly modified.
13. Evidently, this reciprocity must in no sense be understood within the logic of economic exchange. It is not a do ut Des relationship, but a gift of self freely given and freely received.
14. See Tomasic, ‘William of Saint-Thierry,’ 3–76.
15. Bell, The Image and Likeness, ch. 3.
16. William of Saint-Thierry, Epistola ad fratres, 281. Translation: William of Saint-Thierry, The Golden Epistle, 95, slightly modified.
17. McGinn, The Growth of Mysticism, 231.
18. See, for example, the analysis in Faesen, ‘The Radical Humanism,’ 263–76.
19. On William’s pneumatology, see Arblaster, ‘The Pious Jackal,’ 121–48.
20. As mentioned, William bequeathed these insights to posterity under the attribution to Bernard and primarily in his most mature popular work, The Golden Epistle. No research has hitherto been conducted into identifying the ways in which 13th- and 14th-century mystical authors negotiated key differences between Bernard and William, given that they must have thought they were reading one and the same author.
21. See Tomasic, ‘William of Saint-Thierry,’ and the further discussion of these issues in Faesen, ‘Happy for No Other Reason,’ 45–60.
22. For detailed analysis, see Verdeyen, La théologie mystique.
23. Our reading differs here from the interpretation of E. Ann Matter as elaborated in The Voice of My Beloved, esp. 132–3, since we interpret William as defending far greater human spiritual potential than did Bernard.
24. Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermones super Cantica, 302.
25. William of Saint-Thierry, Epistola ad fratres, 282. Translation: William of Saint-Thierry, The Golden Epistle, 96.
26. It is important to note that William also repeatedly underscores the reciprocal nature of the encounter in his use of terms. He frequently employs the adjectives reciprocus and mutuus, as well as the adverb (ad) invicem. Indeed, inspired by the Song, the entire encounter between the human and God is characterized as a colloquium mutuum: Et ipse est sponsus; et ipsa est sponsa; et ipsum est mutuum eorum coloquium (William, Expositio super Cantica 17, ed. Verdeyen 27 and William, Expositio super Cantica 59, ed. Verdeyen 49–50), a mutual conversation, which he also calls a ‘dialogue of love and praise’: Sed primo notanda sunt utrimque amatoria blandimenta. O, ait sponsa, quem diligit anima mea. Sponsus vero: O pulchra inter mulieres, o amica mea. Cuicumque in tentationis furore, in veritate conscientiae suae sonare videntur reciproca haec nomina amoris et laudis, non sunt signa deserti vel deserentis (Expositio 59, ed. Verdeyen, 49–50).
27. See Lombard, Sententiae in IV libris, 152. Available in English translation as Lombard, The Sentences, 97.
28. Wéber, “Eléments néoplatoniciens,” 197. See also Rydstrøm-Poulsen, The Gracious God, 470; and Rosemann, “Fraterna dilectio est Deus,” 409–36, esp. 434.
29. For a reflection on these questions as they relate to Eckhart, see Hayes, ‘Response to Bernard McGinn,’ 220–5.
30. Rydstrøm-Poulsen, ‘The Humanism,’ 100.
31. See supra in the long quotation from the Expositio super Cantica canticorum.
32. Gregory the Great’s Moralia in Iob being a particularly influential example.
33. It must be noted that Origen had already advocated the dual spiritual meanings of the Song as moral and allegorical, so this is clearly not an invention of Bernard and William. They nevertheless bring the moral reading to its highest and clearest pitch. In his very first Sermon on the Song of Songs, Bernard describes the culmination of spiritual life as the moral application of the Song, after having applied the lessons of the other Wisdom books, Ecclesiastes and Proverbs.
34. See on this point Leclercq, Monks on Marriage, 86: ‘There are still people who insist on repeating that because marriage has, necessarily, something to do with the flesh, it was held in little esteem in the twelfth century. But many texts prove the contrary: monastic authors must have considered marriage as being great and beautiful since they saw it as a symbol of the most sublime mysteries.’ In this regard, it is also interesting to note that Jean-Pierre Sonnet has suggested that the Song was so popular among medieval monks because the language of human love and the language of divine love have so much in common: Sonnet, ‘Du chant érotique,’ 79–105. Incidentally, Hadewijch’s adoption of the forms of trouvères love songs may be considered in a similar vein. See infra.
35. Indeed, from these twin theological and literary perspectives, William may well be considered more humanist than many of his contemporaries, as Faesen argues in ‘The Radical Humanism.’ Despite his high praise for William’s theology, Tracy, ‘Trinitarian Theology and Spirituality,’ 393–4 maintains that Abelard was more optimistic and humanistic than William.
36. See Wéber, ‘Eléments néoplatoniciens;’ and Zuijdwegt, ‘Utrum caritas sit aliquid,’ 39–74 for detailed studies of Aquinas’ opposition to Peter Lombard’s (and thus implicitly also William’s) position.
37. On this point, see Deblaere, ‘La littérature mystique,’ Albert Deblaere: Essays on Mystical Literature, ed. Rob Faesen (Leuven: Peeters, 2004) 291–315; and Faesen, ‘Albert Deblaere on the Divorce,’ 407–26 in the same volume.
38. Aquinas, On Love and Charity, 14.
39. In addition to this summary, see the excellent introductions by Van Mierlo in his edition of Hadewijch’s complete works and the introduction by Veerle Fraeters and Frank Willaert in their new edition of the Strophische gedichten, which, having reconstructed the melodies to which they were sung, are now more correctly called Liederen, which might best be translated as Hymns or Songs. Hadewijch, Liederen, 13–55. Fraeters and Willaert devote extensive attention to the forms of Hadewijch’s hymns and the exemplars on which they were based: The majority have the same rhyme schemes as profane Trouvères love songs, while some others are based on Latin religious hymns. The best study of Hadewijch’s theology in English is McGinn, The Flowering of Mysticism, 200ff.
40. Indeed, of his hitherto identified sources, Hadewijch comes second only to the Bible.
41. Apart from his high praise for Hadewijch and critique of Eckhart, Jan van Leeuwen is himself now almost entirely forgotten, though as the only known layperson of the peasant class to write mystical treatises, he warrants further research.
42. For Pomerius’ false characterization of Ruusbroec as a heresy hunter and the mistaken history of Bloemardinne, see Arblaster and Faesen, ‘John of Ruusbroec’s Life,’ 47–80.
43. Space does not permit extensive discussion of the origins and significance of beguine and beghard life here, but we refer readers to the most comprehensive studies on the topic: Mens, Oorsprong en betekenis; and Simons, Cities of Ladies.
44. Most studies refer to William and Richard, and some also refer to Bernard. See, for example, Van Mierlo, ‘Hadewijch en Willem,’ 45–59; Verdeyen, ‘De invloed van Willem,’ 3–19; Faesen, Begeerte in het werk; and Mommaers, Hadewijch: Writer.
45. See in this regard Newman, From Virile Woman, 144–8.
46. Vision 7 and Vision 3 respectively.
47. This beautiful definition comprises a play on words between ‘sienlec’ (visible) and ‘siele’ (soul).
48. Hadewijch, The Complete Works, 86. Slightly modified.
49. For an excellent contribution on the language of the abyss in medieval women authors, see McGinn, ‘The Abyss of Love,’ 95–120.
50. This passage is also reminiscent of William’s Sixth Meditation, which reflects on how God and the soul are one another’s heaven, where each dwells in the other.
51. Newman, From Virile Woman, 145: ‘The distinction between bridal self and courtly self proves to be correlated with a preference for Brautmystik in the prose visions and mystique courtoise in the letters and lyrics.’ See also Hadewijch, Liederen, 35–47.
52. John of Ruusbroec, The Spiritual Espousals, 416–8.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
John Arblaster
John Arblaster defended his doctoral dissertation at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, KU Leuven and the Ruusbroec Institute, University of Antwerp in December 2016. His research focuses on the doctrine of deification in the late-medieval West, and particularly on authors from the Low Countries. He has published several articles on these authors as well as the English translation of the poems of Pseudo-Hadewijch. He co-edited A Companion to John of Ruusbroec (Brill, 2014) and Mystical Anthropology: Authors from the Low Countries (Routledge, 2016) with Rob Faesen.
Paul Verdeyen
Paul Verdeyen is Professor Emeritus of the Ruusbroec Institute, University of Antwerp. He edited the works of William of Saint-Thierry in the Corpus Christianorum series, and several volumes of the works of Bernard of Clairvaux in the Sources Chrétiennes series. He has published extensively on Ruusbroec, Marguerite Porete, William of Saint-Thierry, and Bernard of Clairvaux.