Order and Discernment
Although the spiritual programs laid out by Tauler and Seuse display different characters, both insist that there is a wrong and a right way to seek spiritual perfection. As Bernhardt and Früh note separately, the two Dominicans both urge true detachment, rechte Gelassenheit, but never use negative adjectives to qualify this mystical virtue. The opposite vices are named rather as false freedom, false passivity, or even Ungelassenheit.70 In order to avoid the disorder of false freedom, one must tread a careful path between outer actions and inner contemplation. Both outer and inner devotions serve the pursuit of true Gelassenheit, provided they are performed in an orderly manner governed by discernment, bescheidenheit.
In the Middle Ages, bescheidenheit meant not modesty but rather prudence, discernment, or discretion. It is etymologically related to underscheidunge, which in Middle High German signifies not only difference itself but also the ability to perceive differences. Underscheidunge would become the technical term for discretio spirituum, discernment of spirits, that is, the ability to tell whether a vision came from God or from the devil.71 A vast literature on this subject would develop in the late fourteenth and the fifteenth century, but Tauler already uses the term unterscheid in discussing the discernment of spirits according to Paul in I Corinthians 12:10.72 Neither Tauler nor Seuse, however, restricts the term to this particular meaning, but instead they associate underscheidunge and bescheidenheit more broadly with order and orderliness as the preconditions for true Gelassenheit and avoidance of heresy.
Seuse frequently associates ordenunge with underscheid and ascribes central importance to these qualities. Indeed, the prologue to the Exemplar states that Seuse’s Vita provides instruction in precisely these virtues, because they are the most necessary but very often lacking. Without discernment and order, those who pursue mystical experience will go astray and become a danger to themselves. For this reason, the prologue tells us, “git es vil gůten underschaid warer und valscher vernúnftekeit und lert, wie man mit rehter ordenhafti zů der blossen warheit eins seligen volkomen lebens sol komen [it provides many good distinctions between true and false reasoning, and it teaches how one shall attain the pure truth of a blessed and perfect life through correct orderliness].”73 The Servant’s life provides a narrative, practical example of how to achieve Gelassenheit through discernment (underschaid) and order (ordenhafti).
These virtues also determine Seuse’s mentorship of Elsbeth Stagel. In advising her to discontinue the ascetic practices she had taken up in imitation of the Desert Fathers and the Servant himself, he insists that prudence must govern ascetic zeal. “Gemeinlich ze sprechen so ist vil bessrer bescheiden strenkheit füren denn unbescheiden [In general, it is much better to pursue prudent than imprudent austerity].”74 Such prudence is necessary because too quick an ascetic advance will result only in a relapse, “wan es geschiht dik, so man der natur ze vil unordenlich ab prichet, daz man ir och dur na ze vil můss unordenlich wider geben [for it often happens that if one withholds too much from one’s nature in a disorderly manner, one must afterwards disorderly give back too much, as well].”75 Only order and prudence lead to sustainable ascetic practice. The extreme castigation the Servant himself had pursued is unsuited to Elsbeth, “wan es diner fröwlichen krankheit und wol geordneten nature nit zů gehöret [because it is not appropriate for your feminine illness and well-ordered nature].”76 Whether or not one agrees with David Tinsley that it is Elsbeth’s frailty and not her gender that constitutes the first criterion,77 the second point is clear. The self-castigation that the beginning Servant performs is meant to order his disordered nature. Imprudent asceticism can only bring Elsbeth’s well-ordered soul into disorder, and the Servant must direct her down a different, prudent path.
This purpose is restated in the final chapter of the Vita as Stagel sums up the instruction she has received through his mentorship. Chapters 46 through 53, which Blank identified as representing the final stage of spiritual perfection, contain a series of theological questions posed by Elsbeth and answered by the Servant. He only permits her to ask them in the first place, because “du ordenlich dur dú rehten mitel bist gezogen [you have come in an orderly manner through the right means].”78 Once all her curiosity has been satisfied, the daughter exclaims at the conclusion of the book:
gelopt sie dú ewig warheit, daz ich von úweren wisen und leblichen worten so schon bewiset bin dez ersten beginnes eins anvahenden menschen, und der ordenlicher mitel midens und lidens und übens eins zůnemenden menschen, und mit gůtem underscheide in togenlicher wise der aller nehsten blossen warheit.79
Praised be eternal Truth, that by your wise and vivid words I have been so well instructed about the first steps of a beginner, about the orderly means of renunciation, suffering, and the exercises of a progressing person, and, with good discernment, about the most perfect and bare truth in a mysterious way.
Stagel here sums up the didactic program of the Vita, emphasizing order as necessary for the path and discernment for the goal. Achievement of mystical perfection is a gradual process with various stages on the way—beginning, progressing, and perfect. Certain kinds of ascetic or devotional practices are appropriate for some levels of mystical achievement and not for others. True progression requires orderliness for the development of discernment, without which one cannot grasp the most hidden truth.
This final point is developed further in the Little Book of Truth, where underscheit also proves a structuring theme, in Susanne Köbele’s words the “intellectual center”80 of the work. As Loris Sturlese has shown, this dialogue systematically takes up and defends the propositions that were condemned in Eckhart’s heresy trial.81 Seuse largely accomplishes this by qualifying the statements as true only according to human perception, not in essence. Susanne Köbele argues that the primary thrust of the Little Book of Truth is to limit Eckhart’s mystical-philosophical language, which operated analogically, by reintroducing difference (underscheit) and thus blocking the heretical movement toward indistinct union.82
Köbele’s argument that underscheit drives the Little Book of Truth is corroborated by two further observations. Namely, the disciple defends this very principle by differentiating between different kinds of difference and stating that the object motivating the discussion of distinction is right order. Although most of the work recounts conversations in which Seuse as the “disciple” interrogates the allegorical figure of Truth, in one chapter Seuse himself is put to the test by a sentient image (ein vernúnftiges bilde) that identifies itself as the Nameless Wild One (daz namelos wilde). The dialogue begins when the disciple asks this figure, “wa lendet din bescheidenheit? [where does your discernment lead?]” and receives the answer, “in lediger friheit [to unencumbered freedom].”83 To argue against the false freedom and misdirected bescheidenheit of this strange figure, the disciple differentiates between underscheit as good judgment or discernment, underschidunge as separation or disjuncture, and underscheidenheit as distinction between things that may be conjoined.84 Body and soul are underscheiden, since they are not the same thing, but they cannot exist in underschidunge if the person is to be alive. This distinction between the two different kinds of distinction is important, because it also describes the relationship between the three persons of the Godhead. Furthermore, and most importantly for the disciple’s argument, the difference between underscheidenheit and underschidunge justifies how a human soul can be united with God but remain distinct.