S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 4 - 1 S p r i n g 2 0 1 8 1 1 Hanneke Arts-Honselaar But the just nature of the Unity, in which Love belongs to Love and is perfect fruition of herself, does not seek after virtues, virtuous tendencies, or particular works, however pure or of however pure authority they are; and it does not give its protection, out of mercy, to any need, mighty though it is to enrich. For in that fruition of Love there never was and never can be any other work than that one fruition in which the one almighty Deity is Love. In “The verses that come second” Hadewych refers to the Stanzas 3 to 5 from the poem at the beginning of this Letter. What is remarkable is the separation that Hadewych has made in the text. The structure of the poem does expect that Stanza 1 to 3 will be explained together and after that Stanza 4 and 5. However, Stanza 3 is joined to Stanza 4 and 5. Does Hadewych have a special intention by doing so? I do think so. Because of this separation Hadewych strongly emphasizes these last three verses. “Have good will and compassion for every need but take nothing under your protection.” This Stanza applies Hadewych a little further in the text to the Son. “The verses that come second in each of the three Couplets I have composed express the perfection of the Unity and of Love.” To achieve the Unity and the perfect Minne it is necessary to experience the essence (wesene) of all three Persons, however the experience of the essence of the Son, makes the Unity and the Minne utterly complete. In Minne the three Persons are one. Minne is the unifying principle. But not only the three Persons are one, also those who dedicate themselves to Minne become one with the three Persons who are one. In Minne, everything is united. So, everything is one and nothing else. Apparently, Hadewych has been aware of this insight for a long time, “[t]his I wished long since to tell you, for it lies heavy on my heart.” There must have been a reason why see did not speak before. According to the following rules, it could be suspected that she has kept quiet because she knew that she would not be able to say what she really wanted to say. But the silence began to weigh her too heavily, and now she must speak, but with an appeal to God himself to make her readers understand what she really means. She knows that a good understanding of what is meant can only be obtained in the one nature of Minne alone. This means that the readers can only gain insight in the movement of Minne, and in this movement it is Minne itself who gives insight. Hadewych’s sighing about hating and charity (“O Deus! This is a frightening being who, at one and the same time engulfs in unison such hatred and such charity!”) is based on the experience of the unison of “pouring out” and “keeping back”. How can anyone pour out himself completely and keep back everything at the same time? Hadewych does not answer this sigh. It is a kind of rhetoric question that raises the tension between “pouring out” and “keeping back” again. It is precisely this inconceivable fact, this new understanding of how the Deity is in its essence, that Hadewych wants to bring to the attention of her readers. In the next paragraph, Hadewych relates the third Stanza from the poem to the Son. Again here, now in relation to the Son, the “pouring out” returns. This “pouring out” exists in “[h]ave good will and compassion for every need”. After all, “He was purely this and did purely this”. In having affection and compassion the Son exists as an actual Person, like the nature of the Holy Spirit exists in being “generous and zealous” (“pouring out”) and the nature of the Father exists in “doing nothing in particular” (“keeping back”). The “keeping back” of the Father appears again in the phrase: “But take nothing under your protection. Thus, his Father engulfed him in himself; this cruel great work ever belongs to the Father.” By the fact that the Son himself cannot take anything in protection (he must surrender completely, that is the self-gift of the Son) devours the Father him. The Father thus keeps back, yet it is “the Unity of purest love in the Deity”. From this sentence it appears that devouring the Son by the Father happens through Minne. In Minne the Son is devoured by the Father, this is the “keeping back” of the Father and the surrender of the Son, his self-giving. This work is cruel and great because in the Minne everything is reclaimed, but at the same time the Unity of purest love in the Divinity is realized. So that this Unity is also just with the justice of love and includes this Devotion, this Manhood, and this Power; nor would it have anyone left in need. The term “this Unity” refers to the situation in which the Son was devoured by the Father. In this being devoured the Unity is just with the justice of Love. This justice ensures that the Unity includes this Devotion, the Manhood and the Power. It is about the Devotion, the Manhood and the Power of the human soul. This can be concluded because Hadewych is talking about “those in hell and purgatory” in the next line. Hadewych changes the perspective here. Where she first spoke about the Son who was devoured by God, she now relates this to the human soul. Through the justice of love his zeal, humanity and strength are included in the Unity. This zeal, the human being and the strength are the means by which nobody would have left in need. They are the means to reach the Unity. But in the unison, itself the work has fallen silently, although it is still present, it is indeed included. Precisely because it is absorbed and becomes part of the Unity in Minne, the unison of “works” and “refrain from works” are
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=