MMT 21 (2012): 147-169

doi: 10.1558/mmt.v21i2.147

MMT (print) ISSN 2046-5726

MMT (online) ISSN 2046-5734

Poor in Ourselves and Rich in God:

Indwelling and Non-identity of Being
(wesen) and Suprabeing (overwesen)
in John of Ruusbroec*
ROB FAESEN
Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies,
Catholic University of Leuven, 4 St Michielsstraatbox 3101,
3000 Leuven, Belgium
Email: Robertus.Faesen@theo.keleuven.be
Translated by John Arblaster

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

Medieval Mystical Theology 21.2 (2012)

It is generally assumed that John of Ruusbroec (12931381), the most

important Middle Dutch mystical author, began his literary activities in
approximately 13351338. In this period, mystical literature was confronted with considerable challenges, for example as a result of the
condemnation of a number of statements from Eckharts work (1329) and
the condemnation of Marguerite Porete (1310).1 Ruusbroec was undoubtedly familiar with both these cases.2 It appears that Ruusbroec intended
fundamentally to rethink a number of difculties, and that he attempted
to valorise the radical union with God in a period in which it was
becoming increasingly unclear how best to conceive of this union. It is
striking that to this end, Ruusbroec never employed polemics, but rather
that he sought to rethink the central issues. One such central issue may be
found in his analysis of what he calls the wesen of the human person. In
my opinion, the way he analyses this aspect, namely in relation to the
overwesen, is decisive in discovering how he rethinks the problem of the
union with God. Ruusbroec realised that the misunderstanding of the
condemned texts concerned precisely this issue, and through meticulous
formulation he attempted to solve this misunderstanding.
In this contribution, I will rst explain what exactly is meant by wesen
and overwesen, investigate the relationship of the wesen to the overwesen
and nally, briey indicate the relevance of this specic theme.
1. Wesen and Overwesen
When Ruusbroec uses the word wesen, he is not referring in the rst
instance to essence: the word wesen does not have the same meaning as
what is usually understood by essence, namely the intrinsic, fundamental
nature. In Middle Dutch, the word wesen is related to the verb sijn, which
means to be. For lack of a better equivalent, it is translated into English as
essence. But one should be aware that the original word refers to the simple
fact that the human person isnamely as creature. Albert Deblaere

1. See e.g. McGinn, B., 2006, pp. 19-41.

2. Paul Verdeyen has made a compelling argument for the fact that Ruusbroec knew
Poretes work. See Verdeyen, P., 1992, pp. 88-96. Whether Ruusbroec was also familiar
with Eckharts work is unclear, though it is highly probable that he knew the bull In agro
dominico, which was promulgated in the ecclesiastical province of Cologne. Brussels,
where Ruusbroec lived and which was located in the diocese of Cambrai, is very near the
border of the prince-bishopric of Lige (a part of the ecclesiastical province of Cologne).
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012

FAESEN Poor in Ourselves and Rich in God

149

summarised this briey as follows: Le point dinsertion, o lacte crateur

donne ltre la crature spirituelle, sappelle essence (wesen) de lme.3
The best-known passage in this regard, in which Ruusbroec refers to
the wesen, is to be found in the Espousals:
The rst and the highest unity is in God; for all creatures hang in this unity with
(their) being, life and subsistence; and if they should be cut off in this way from
God, they would fall into nothingness and be annihilated. This unity is in us
essentially by nature, whether we are good or evil, and it renders us neither holy
nor blessed without our effort. We possess this unity in ourselves, and in fact,
above ourselves, as a principle and support of our being and our life. A second
union, or unity, is also in us by nature, that is the unity of the higher faculties,
where they take their natural origin as to their activity: in the unity of the spirit or
of the mind. This is the same unity which is hanging in God, but in the latter
instance we understand it as active, and in the former as essential. Nevertheless,
the spirit is totally within each unity, according to the entirety of its substance.
We possess this unity in ourselves, above sensory perception, and from it come
memory and intellect and will and every faculty of spiritual activity.4

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

Medieval Mystical Theology 21.2 (2012)

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

FAESEN Poor in Ourselves and Rich in God

151

created being. In relation to the created being, God is over-wesen. The

human person as a creature is completely dependent on God for its
existence. It is not the cause of its own being. That which is deeper or
higher than the being of the createdthat from which it has its origin
is the Creator, and that is the overwesen. In the Little Book, Ruusbroec
expresses this briey and concisely: gods wesen, dat alre wesene overwesen
es (450).11 This also conrms that the term wesen ought to be understood
as the substantivised form of being: this thus concerns the being of
God, which is deeper or higher than the being of all beings, and may
consequently be referred to as overwesen.
From the passage above, we may also conclude that the decisive
element in Ruusbroecs description is the constant contact between overwesen and wesen. If at any moment the being of the created person were
to be separated from the overwesenthe cause of its beingthe creature
would ipso facto immediately cease to exist.12 The wesenoverwesen
ende alre heylegen, boven alle wisen ende boven allen werken ende oefeninge van doechden.
Si es ene gestilde, grondeloese vloet van rijcheden ende van vrouden, daer alle heilegen met
gode inne vervloeyt sijn in een wiseloes gebruken. Ende dit gebruken es welt ende wuste alse
een verdolen. Want daer en es wise noch wech, noch pat noch zate noch mate, noch inde
noch begin ochte yet dat men gewaerden mach ochte getoenen. Ende dit es onser alre
eenvuldege salecheit, dat godeleke wesen ende onse overwesen, boven redene ende sonder
redene. Selen wi dit bevenden, soe moeten wi ontgeest sijn in dat selve boven onse gescapenheit, in dat ewege punct daer alle onse linien in beginnen ende inden. Ende inden puncte
verliesen si haeren name ende al ondersceet, ende sijn een met den puncte, ende dat selve een
dat dat puncte selve es. Nochtan blive si altoes toegaende linien in hen selven. Siet, aldus
selen wi altoes bliven dat wi sijn in onse gescapene wesen, ende nochtan met ontgeestene
altoes overliden in onse overwesen). Vanden vij sloten, Ruusbroec, J.v., 1981b, pp. 187-91
(lines 834-858).
11. Line 450, cf. also e.g. Vanden XII beghinen 2a, lines 630-63, Ruusbroec, J.v., 2000,
p. 145.
12. An important passage in this regard is Brulocht, lines b1655-b1669: This essential
unity of our spirit with God does not exist by itself, but abides in God, and it ows forth
from God, and it hangs in God, and it returns back into God as into its eternal cause, and
in this mode, it never parted from God nor will it ever do so. For this unity is in us by our
bare nature. And were the creature ever to part from God, it would fall into a pure
nothingness. And this unity is above time and place, and it always acts without cease after
the mode of God; only it receives the impress of its eternal image passively, insofar as it is
God-like but creature in itself. This is the nobility which we have by nature in the essential
unity of our spirit, where it is naturally united with God. This makes us neither holy nor
blessed, for all persons, good and evil, have this within themselves, but this is certainly the
rst cause of all holiness and of all our blessedness. And this is the meeting and the union
between God and our spirit in our bare nature (Dese weselijcke eenicheit ons gheests met
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012

152

Medieval Mystical Theology 21.2 (2012)

relationship is fundamental and decisive, which Ruusbroec claries in the

Espousals through the image of the wesen as the source of the faculties and
activities of the human person, and the overwesen as the hidden fountain
of life from which this source ows. The wesen exists, simply on the basis
of its relationship with the overwesen.
We might also note that through the attention he devotes to the wesen,
and the fact that he uses this specic term, Ruusbroec clearly emphasises
the being of the created person. Indeed, the older spiritual tradition used
terms such as heart, ground, apex mentis, conscientia, synderesis, and
so on. The theological commission at Avignon investigating Meister
Eckharts case charged Eckhart with not taking the act of creation sufciently seriously, and that his works appeared to have lost sight of the
actual being of creatures.13 Ruusbroec clearly avoids this in his thinking by
emphasizing that beings are (sijn, hence: wesen).
2. The Relationship of the Wesen vis--vis the Overwesen
Thus far there is nothing particularly surprising about Ruusbroecs
position. The important question now, however, is how the wesen and
overwesen relate to one another. Essentially, this is the question of the way

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

FAESEN Poor in Ourselves and Rich in God

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

The decisive clause in this passage is so God is always in like manner in

the essence of the soul,16 in which the preposition in demands all our
14. Ruusbroecs Little Book is probably the clearest, most concise explanation of this
issue, which he also treats more extensively elsewhere. The book was written following a
visit to the Charterhouse of Herne in approximately 1362. The Carthusians had requested
him to clarify this point. As Ruusbroec himself said [they] desire and have prayed me to
show and explain in a few words () most precisely and clearly, the truth that I
understand and feel about the most profound doctrine that I have written () and that I
most willingly do ( [si] begheren ende hebben mi ghebeden dat ic met corten waerden
tonen ende verclaren soude () die naeste ende die claerste waerheit die ic versta ende
ghevoele van alle der hoechster leren die ic ghecreven hebben. () Ende dit wille ic gherne
doen). Boecsken der verclaringhe, Ruusbroec, J.v., 1981a, p. 109, lines 24-29.
15. anneer dat hem al selc levende mensche, met gheheelheiden sijns selves ende met
allen sinen crachten, op recht ende te gode voeghet met levender werkeleker minnen, soe
ghevoelt hi dat sine minne in haren gronde, daer si beghent ende indet, ghebrukeleec es ende
sonder gront. Wilt hi dan voert in dringhen met sijnre werkeleker minnen in die
ghebrukeleke minne, al daer moeten wiken alle die crachte siere zielen, ende moeten liden
ende ghedoghen die doregaende waerheit ende goetheit die god selve es. Want gheliker wijs
dat die locht doregaen wert met claerheiden ende met hitten der sonnen, ende alsoe dat yser
doregaen wert met den viere, alsoe dat met den viere viers werc werketwant het berrent
ende licht ghelijc viere; ende dat selve spreke ic van der locht; ware die locht verstendech, si
sprake: Ic verclare ende ic verhitte al de werelt, nochtan behout ieghewelc sine eighene
nature, want dat vier enwert niet yser, noch dat yser vier, maer die eninghe es sonder
middel, want 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 , alsoe gheliker wijs es god altoes in
den wesene der zielen. Ibid., pp. 129-31, lines 246-263.
16. Lines 262-263: alsoe ghelikerwijs es god altoes in den wesene der zielen.
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012

154

Medieval Mystical Theology 21.2 (2012)

attention. Indeed, Ruusbroec chose the foregoing comparisons precisely

because he wants to emphasise the importance of this in: 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,17 and also: 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 air.18 In both comparisons, he places a clear
emphasis on the fact that the one element penetrates the other, and it does
so completely. The one is completely in the other. In precisely the same
way, God (overwesen) is in the wesen.
The great advantage of these comparisonswhich are, incidentally,
very classical, and were used for centuries in the preceding tradition19is
that they illustrate the point well and that though one element permeates
the other, no fusion occurs between the two, as Ruusbroec explicitly states:
each keeps his own nature, for the re does not become iron nor the iron
re.20 This is most probably the reason why Ruusbroec made a selective
choice from the series of classic comparisons. Indeed, a third comparison
is often added to the two aforementioned images, namely of the drop of
water in the wine. It is far less clear in this comparison, however, that
each keeps his own nature and thus Ruusbroec wisely avoided the use of
this metaphor. This makes it all the more evident that he describes
indwelling without fusion. In precisely the same way that the re is in the
iron, without the iron becoming re as a result, and in precisely the same
way as the light is in the air, God dwells in the soul. The overwesen is thus
in the wesen. Although the prex over- indicates that the overwesen is
higher than the wesen, and thus does not coincide with it, Ruusbroec
emphasises that it does dwell in the wesen of the soul. The transcendence
of the overwesen should thus not be understood as exterior, but as something that is within the wesen itself.
What is more, Ruusbroec conceives of this relationship as a mutual
indwelling: the iron is within the re and the re within the iron, and in

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

FAESEN Poor in Ourselves and Rich in God

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

Medieval Mystical Theology 21.2 (2012)

Ruusbroec provides a precise description here: we live completely in God

and in ourselvesself-evidently the word live is important in this
regard.23 Indeed, if he were to say that we are simultaneously both God
and ourselves, the statement would have very different ramications. This
becomes even clearer at the end of the paragraph, where Ruusbroec
radically rejects the position that fusion occurs between God and the
human person (we cannot become God at all and lose our createdness:
that is impossible),24 as well as the opinion that there is a dualistic division between the two (if we remained in ourselves completely, separated
from God, we would be desolate and miserable).25 If relationality is indeed
the fundamental category, Ruusbroecs position is very understandable:
both fusion and division would entail the end of the relationship.
3. A Possible Mistake
There is a remarkable clause in the abovementioned passage from the
Little Book, in which Ruusbroec briey indicates a possible mistake. Discussing the mutual indwelling of light and air he says if the air itself could
reason it would say I give light and warmth to the world.26 The activity
that is proper to the light permeates the air to such an extent that the air
might come to think that it actually lights the world, however obvious it
may seem that this is not the case. After all, indwelling entails no identity
or fusion, and yet it is so profound, so complete and so total that it might
give rise to the impression that air actually gives light. Incidentally, this is
only possible precisely because light and air are of a different order.27 If we
were to compare, for example, light and darkness, it is evident that as the
light increases, the darkness diminishes and vice versa. In this case, if the
darkness could reason, it would certainly not say I give light to the world.
The comparison is clear. Ruusbroec suggests that the overwesen dwells
in the wesen of the soul in such a wayso completely and so totallythat
a mistake may arise on the part of the wesen, i.e. the human person,
namely to think that he/she does or accomplishes that which is in reality
23. See also: Vanden XII Beghinen 1, lines 733-743, Ruusbroec, J.v., 2000, p. 73.
24. Lines 585-586: wij en moghen te male niet god werden ende onse ghescapenheit
verliesen; dat es ommoghelijc.
25. Lines 589-590: Bleven wij oec te male in ons selven ghesondert van gode, soe
moesten wij sijn elendich ende onsalich.
26. Line 257: ware die locht verstendech, si sprake: Ic verclare ende ic verhitte al de
werelt.
27. Cf. Van Nieuwenhove, R., 2003, pp. 60-61.
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012

FAESEN Poor in Ourselves and Rich in God

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

In this passage, Ruusbroec discusses people who have an experiential

consciousness of their wesen and its simplicity (turned to the nakedness
of their essence,29 and further: in the highest point in which they are
turned, they feel nothing save the simplicity of their essence).30 Ruusbroec remains completely consistent here in emphasising that the wesen
of these people hangs in God, in the overwesen, and is thus by no means
identical to it (they are so simple and inactively united to the naked
essence of their soul and to the indwelling of God in themselves31 and
further: in the highest point in which they are turned, they feel nothing
28. Siet, dese menschen sijn overmidts eenvoldeghe sempelheit ende naturleke
gheneicheit ghekeert in bloetheit haers wesens (). Siet, dese menschen sijn verdoelt in ene
ledege verblende sempelheit haers eighens wesens ende willen salech sijn in bloeter naturen.
Want si sijn alsoe eenvoldech ende alsoe ledechleke gheenecht den bloten wesene haerre
zielen, ende den inwesene gods in hen, dat si en hebben noch ernst, noch toevoeghen te gode,
van buten noch van binnen. Want in dat hoechste daer si inne ghekeert sijn, en ghevoelen si
niet dan sempelheit haers wesens, hanghende in gods wesen. Ende die eenvoldeghe
sempelheit die si besitten, houden si vore god, om dat si daer naturleke raste in venden. Ende
hieromme dunct hen dat si selve god sijn in den gronde haerre eenvoldecheit. Want hen
ghebrect ghewarech ghelove, hope ende minne. Boecsken der verclaringhe, Ruusbroec, J.v.,
1981a, p. 115, lines 80-100.
29. Line 81: ghekeert in bloetheit haers wesens.
30. Lines 95-96: in dat hoechste daer si inne ghekeert sijn, en ghevoelen si niet dan
sempelheit haers wesens.
31. Lines 92-93: si sijn alsoe eenvoldech ende alsoe ledechleke gheenecht den bloten
wesene haerre zielen, ende den inwesene gods in hen.
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012

158

Medieval Mystical Theology 21.2 (2012)

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

FAESEN Poor in Ourselves and Rich in God

159

condemned.38 Ruusbroec implicitly indicates that the condemnation on

this point is entirely justied, despite the fact that the mistake is understandableconsidering the structure of the wesenoverwesen relationship.
To what do these condemnations relate precisely? Let us begin with a
statement referred to by the theological commission at Avignon, which
prepared the bull In agro dominico: Whatever Holy Scripture says of
Christ, all that is also true of every good and divine man, and so this man
works whatever God works39 (art. 23, art. 12 in the bull). These sentencesdrawn from a lost sermonappear to be consonant with one of
the doctrinal positions noted by Albert the Great in the Movement of the
Free Spirit many decades earlier, ca. 12601262: that a human person
may attain a state wherein God operates entirely in him.40 Eckharts statements were radically rejected by the theological commission at Avignon
(this is so obviously foolish and deranged that it need not even be
discussed,41 the only occasion upon which the commission expressed
reproach of Eckhart in such strong terms). Eckhart, however, defended
himself by stating Christ is our head and we are the members; when we
speak, He speaks in us.42 This indicates that Eckhart was not referring to
mere, simple identity, but rather to indwelling.
A similar problem arises from another sentence: Whatever God the
Father gave to his only-begotten Son in human nature, he gave all this to
me43 (art. 21, art. 11 in the bull). This was rejected because through the
hypostatic union, human nature and divine nature are united in one subject in Jesus Christ, which is not the case for any other person (Indeed,
God gave his Son a personal being in human nature, by which the Word
38. It is often assumed that in his Little Book, Ruusbroec adopts an apologetic, defensive position, in light of the condemnations of 1310 and 1329. Upon closer inspection,
however, this appears rather unlikely, as I argue in my contributions Ruusbroec at the
Charterhouse of Herne: How Did the Carthusians React to the Eckhart-Shock? (Faesen,
R., 2011, forthcoming), and We Were Perplexed by What He Wrote: The Carthusians
and a Crucial Moment in the Development of Mystical Literature in the Low Countries
(Faesen, R., 2011, forthcoming).
39. Quidquid est proprium divinae naturae, hoc totum proprium est homini iusto et
divino. Propter hoc iste homo operatur quidquid deus operator, LW, V, p. 584.
40. Quod homo ad talem statum potest pervenire quod Deus in ipso omnia operetur,
Guibert, J. de, 1933, p. 118 (nr. 15).
41. Quae omnia sic sunt patenter fatua et vaesana quod non egent discussione, LW, V,
p. 585.
42. Quia Christus caput et nos membra; cum loquimur, in nobis loquitur, ibid.
43. Quidquid deus pater dedit lio suo unigenito in humana natura, hoc totum dedit
mihi, ibid., p. 583.
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012

160

Medieval Mystical Theology 21.2 (2012)

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

FAESEN Poor in Ourselves and Rich in God

161

Ruusbroecs position with the contemporary French historian and

philosopher Marcel Gauchet (b. 1946). Naturally, it is not my intention
here to provide an extensive discussion of Gauchet, but rather, as a short
excursus, to indicate an example of the relevance of Ruusbroecs position.
Indeed, Gauchet is well known as a representative of the thought that
suggests that Christianity is the religion that made the exodus from
religion possible. Gauchets primary objective is to understand current
political problems, especially those that developed in the 1970s (which he
refers to as the pathology of unattachedness: the rise of the individual
that thinks it owes nothing to society but expects and demands everything
from it).49 I will not treat this theme. It is his point of departure that is
particularly interesting for our purposes. According to him, every religion
contains some conception of the manner in which the human person
relates to that which transcends it. There are two central ideas in these
conceptions:
The religions of the Middle East (Jewish, Christian and Muslim) developed
according to the idea of two realities that are distinguishable: a relationship of
exclusion. This is a dualistic conception, though awareness of it will penetrate
only gradually. The eastern religions developed in the direction of the idea of
fusion. The distinction between the visible and invisible world does not
exclude their eventual unity: the transcendent is found in immanence (in
Hinduism or Chinese Taoism, for example). Here we see a relationship of
inclusion, a conception of unity.50

According to Marcel Gauchet, this leads Christianity to a profoundly

dualistic vision. The reality of God and that of the human person are
radically different and detached, and the world of the human person is
increasingly experienced as an autonomous reality. Though it is true that
during the rst millennium, the conception of unity was still very attractive, but it necessarily entails the subordinate, heteronymous position of
the human world with respect to Gods. Around the beginning of the
second millennium, an essential reversal occurred, and the idea gained
49. Segers, B., 2011, pp. 305-17, quote p. 313.
50. De religies van het Midden-Oosten (joodse, christelijke en islamitische) hebben
zich ontwikkeld naar de idee van twee werkelijkheden die van elkaar te onderscheiden zijn:
een verhouding van uitsluiting. Dit is een dualistische opvatting, ook al zal het besef
hiervan pas langzaam doordringen. De oosterse religies hebben zich ontwikkeld in de
richting van de idee van vermenging. Het onderscheid tussen de zichtbare en de
onzichtbare wereld sluit hun uiteindelijke eenheid niet uit: de transcendentie is te vinden
in de immanentie (bijvoorbeeld in het hindoesme of het Chinese taosme). Hier zien we
dus een band van insluiting, een eenheidvisie, ibid., p. 306 (Segerss emphasis).
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012

162

Medieval Mystical Theology 21.2 (2012)

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

FAESEN Poor in Ourselves and Rich in God

163

Indeed, as is well known, Jean Gerson accused Ruusbroec of championing

the idea that in the last instance, the human person fuses into God as a
drop of water in the oceanthough Gerson did honestly admit that
Ruusbroec never used this image.53
The passage from the Mirror is as follows:
Furthermore, in our mere being, where we are one with God in his love, there
begins a superessential contemplation and feeling, the highest one can put into
words, that is: to live dying, and to die living, out of our essential being in our
superessential blessedness. When we are in control of ourselves through the
grace and the help of God so that we can rid ourselves of images whenever we
wish, right down to our mere being, where we are one with God, in the
fathomless abyss of his love, there we are indeed satised. For 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; but we are blessed and
blessedness in Gods essential being, where he has joy of Himself and of us all,
in his high nature: that is 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. For He is
his own blessedness, and has joy of Himself in his nature. And in his enjoyment we have died and sunken away from ourselves and we are lost according
to the manner of our having joy, but not according to the manner of our
essence. For 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 Him.54

53. See: Faesen, R., 2010, pp. 285-307 (esp. 299-303).

54. Vooertmeer, in onsen ledeghen sine, daer wi een sijn met gode in sijnre minnen, daer
beghint .i. overweselec scouwen ende ghevoelen, dat hooeghste dat men ghewaerden mach,
dat es stervende leven ende levende sterven ute onsen wesene in onse overwesende salecheit.
Wanneer dat wi overmids gratie ende de hulpe gods ons selfs gheweldegh sijn, alsoe dat wi
ons ontbeelden moghen altoes alse wi willen tote in onsen ledeghen sine, daer wi met gode
een sijn in dat grondeloes abys sijnre minnen, daer ons wel ghenoeght. Want 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. Maer wi sijn salegh ende salegheit in gods wesen,
daer hi sijns selfs ghebruuct ende onser alre in sine hooeghe natuere, dat es der minnen
kerne,die ons verborghen es in deemsterheit, in niet wetene sonder grond. Dit nietweten es .i.
ontoegankelec licht dat gods wesen es ende ons overweselec ende heme alleene weselec. Want
hi es sijns selfs salegheit ende ghebruuct sijns selfs in sijnre natueren. Ende in sijn ghebruken
sijn wi ghestorven ende ons selven ontsonken ende verloren na wise ons ghebrukens maer
niet na wise ons wesens. 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. Spieghel der eeuwigher salicheit, Ruusbroec,
J.v., 2001, pp. 405-407, lines 2131-2149.
Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012

164

Medieval Mystical Theology 21.2 (2012)

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

FAESEN Poor in Ourselves and Rich in God

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

In order to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding on this point,

Ruusbroec emphasises that this does concern fusion, a melting into God
(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).63 An
important argument in this regard is precisely that in case fusion occurred,

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

Medieval Mystical Theology 21.2 (2012)

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

FAESEN Poor in Ourselves and Rich in God

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

Medieval Mystical Theology 21.2 (2012)

God the human person might be completely misunderstoodand it

appears that de facto this was the caseprecisely if it is not understood as
love. Ruusbroecs analysis provides clarication, and a clear solution to
the impasse the mystical literature of the thirteenth and fourteenth
century had reached, for example following the condemnations of Porete
and Eckhart. According to him, this impasse may be understood to be an
unsurprising but highly unfortunate misunderstanding. The history of
mysticism shows, however, that the same difculties recurred later, in, for
example, the condemnations of so-called Quietism (Miguel de Molinos,
Madame Guyon). If Ruusbroecs analysis of the relationship between the
wesen and the overwesen had received a more widespread and positive
reception, many such mistakes and misunderstandings would undoubtedly have been avoided.
Bibliography
Deblaere, Albert, Essays on Mystical LiteratureEssais sur la littrature mystiqueSaggi
sulla letteratura mistica, (Ed.) Rob Faesen, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 177, (Peeters/University Press, 2004)
Eckhart, Lateinische Werke, V, (Ed.) Loris Sturlese, (Kohlhammer, 2000)
Faesen, R., Dupliciter intelligi potest: Jan van Ruusbroec in the First Century of the Society
of Jesus (15401640), quoted from, De letter levend maken: Opstellen aangeboden
aan Guido de Baere S.J. bij zijn zeventigste verjaardag, (Eds.) Kees Schepers and
Frans Hendrickx, with the co-operation of Rob Faesen and Ineke Cornet,
Miscellanea Neerlandica, 39, (Peeters, 2010), 285-307
, Ruusbroec at the Charterhouse of Herne: How Did the Carthusians React to the
Eckhart-Shock?, quoted from, A Fish Out of Water? From Contemplative Solitude to
Carthusian Involvement in Pastoral Care and Reform Activity, (Eds.) T. Gaens and S.
Molvarec, Miscellanea Neerlandica, 41 / Studia Cartusiana, 2, (Leuven, 2011,
forthcoming)
, We Were Perplexed by What He Wrote: The Carthusians and a Crucial Moment
in the Development of Mystical Literature in the Low Countries, quoted from,
Carthusian Worlds: Exploring the Carthusians and Their Heritage, (Eds.) P. Nissen
and K. Pansters, (Leuven, 2011, forthcoming)
Guarnieri, Romana, Il movimento del libero spirito, Archivio Italiano per la storia della
piet, IV, (1965), 351-499
Guibert, J. de, Documenta ecclesiastica christianae perfectionis studium spectantia, (Pont.
Univ. Gregoriana, 1933)
McGinn, Bernard, The Signicance of Ruusbroecs Mystical Theology, Louvain Studies,
31, (2006), 19-41 (http://dx.doi.org/10.2143/LS.31.1.2019377)
Moretti, Roberto, and Guy-M. Betrand, Inhabitation, Dictionnaire de spiritualit, VII, 2,
(1970), c. 17351767

Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012

FAESEN Poor in Ourselves and Rich in God

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)

Equinox Publishing Ltd 2012