Selections from The Cherubinic Wanderer

Angelus Silesius · translated by translated with an introduction by J. E. Crawford Flitch

· Public domain in the United States

Selections from The Cherubinic Wanderer
Selections from The Cherubinic Wanderer. By Angelus Silesius; Translated with an introduction by J. E. Crawford Flitch.

ANGELUS SILESIUS

SELECTIONS

FROM

THE CHERUBINIC WANDERER

TRANSLATED WITH AN INTRODUCTION

by

J. E. CRAWFORD FLITCH



CHAPTERPAGE
PREFACE9
INTRODUCTION13
I.GODHEAD99
II.GOD109
III.THE STILL WILDERNESS117
IV.ONENESS WITH THE DIVINE127
V.INWARDNESS137
VI.SELF-ABANDONMENT143
VII.SONSHIP151
VIII.TIME AND ETERNITY157
IX.ACCIDENT AND ESSENCE165
X.LOVE171
XI.NATURE181
XII.POVERTY AND RICHES191
XIII.MAN AND THE WORLD197
XIV.THOUGHT AND DEED205


PREFACE

To many of those acquainted with the literature of mysticism the name of Angelus Silesius has a familiar sound and yet recalls no familiar image. It appears and re-appears in footnotes or attached to a wandering verse. It is a name without a local habitation. It appears to have been first introduced to the notice of English readers by R. A. Vaughan in his lively, informative, but somewhat exasperating mid-Victorian dialogue, Hours with the Mystics. Vaughan, however, was in doubt as to the identity of its owner and repeated the error of the German critic Schrader in denying that it was the pseudonym of the Silesian convert to Roman Catholicism, Johannes Scheffler. His estimation, moreover, of the work which has made the name of Angelus Silesius memorable was tinged with contempt, for while acknowledging the pithiness of the epigrams and rhyming sentences of the Cherubinic Wanderer, he qualified his appreciation by the stricture that many of them were "as destitute of sense as all are of poetry."

 The obscurity which once involved the figure of the seventeenth-century poet and mystic has been completely dispelled by a long line of German investigaton, and his personality now stands revealed in its essential features, although the data are lacking which permit the outline to be filled up in precise detail.

 In these circumstances it has seemed opportune to offer to the English-speaking reader a fuller relation of the known facts concerning the author of the Cherubinic Wanderer, together with a larger selection of translations therefrom, than has hitherto been presented. My undertaking is less the result of a deliberate intention than the outgrowth of an increasing interest and appreciation. In revolving the German verses in my mind I found them gradually shaping themselves into English rhymes. The present collection, comprising nearly a quarter of the original work, may be claimed to be representative of the whole, although it is possible that I have allowed the mystical to preponderate over the purely devotional and didactic elements.

 For the fact that so many of the alexandrine couplets of the German poet appear in the following pages in the guise of quatrains of varying patterns, I have no other excuse to offer than that of my inability to preserve the original form without doing violence to the sense. If I have unhappily deviated from the sense as well as from the form, I can at any rate plead that I have made the best amends within my power by facilitating reference to the original text. The orthography has been modernized in accordance with the texts set forth in the editions of Georg Ellinger and H. L. Held. The headings, which not infrequently serve to explicate the meaning of the verses, are of course those supplied by Angelus Silesius himself. I have taken the liberty of rearranging the original sequence of the verses, which appears to be mainly chronological, and grouping them into sections of more or less homogeneous content. Possibly some of the couplets may gain an additional illumination by their new juxtaposition.

 To comment upon the residue of truth or wisdom enshrined in the utterances of Angelus Silesius does not lie within my scope. For mystics the heart is always the supreme court of appeal and within their community, though so widely extended in space and time, there has always been a remarkable unanimity in its findings. Needless to say, there are rival jurisdictions in which its Judgements are invariably reversed. The judge, it is to be feared, is not incorruptible, and the case for mysticism has commonly been supported by alluring bribes. The evidence submitted, nevertheless, lies open to inspection, and there is much in it which few who examine their inner experience with candour will fail to corroborate.

 The sense of a radical duality of self, or even or a plurality of selves, appears to be given in introspection. These diverse selves may be represented diagrammatically as concentric. Each one tends to ascribe finality to its own circumference. Each assigns value only to that which lies within its own boundary and finds in everything beyond an enemy to its peace. The problem is where to draw the line dividing self from not-self. If we determine it by the short radius measured by the primary needs and desires of our animal organism, we shall live within the most restricted circle of all. If we take as the measuring rod our more generous interests and idealisms, our circumference describes a wider sweep and we have a larger self to live in. But even against the limits of the widest periphery presses an inchoate mass of indefinite extent, unknown but vaguely suspected as hostile, or at best as icily indifferent, the vast world of the not-self, which our love has not yet embraced; and its pressure is felt as restrictive and painful. The mystics are those who have widened the circle of self to its utmost limits until all the not-self is drawn within it. They are free and at peace because there remains nothing outside of them to confine their freedom or trouble their serenity. They have abolished the frontier-line between internal and external, between I and Thou. They are to be defined by the definition which they themselves have given to the divine Essence—their centre is everywhere and their circumference is nowhere. They are those who can say with Angelus Silesius

Turn whereso'er I will, I find no evidence
Of End, Beginning, Centre or Circumference.

 There are perhaps few to-day who will find the language of Angelus Silesius adequate in every respect to the expression of their deepest intuitions. He spoke in the dialect of a venerable creed, but the experience of which he spoke is immemorial. And it appears to be unchanging. Those who are in possession of the code will readily decipher the message. Cor ad cor loquitur.



I
ANGELUS SILESIUS

MANY centuries before Frederick the Great's tall grenadiers wrenched Silesia from the grasp of the Austrian queen, Maria Theresa, the German people, by a continuous infiltration of settlers into the wide plain watered by the Oder and its tributaries, had thrust a wedge of Deutschtum into the heart of the Slavonic lands lying to the south-east. Walled in by the high Tarnowitz plateau on the east and the pine-clad peaks of the Riesen Gebirge on the west, the eighteen principalities into which Silesia was parcelled out owned a nominal allegiance first to the kingdom of Poland and then to that of Bohemia; but their sympathies flowed with their rivers and their commerce northwards to the home of the ancestral German stock. From Nuremberg the first impulse of the early Renaissance penetrated up the Oder valley and shortly afterwards from the Warthurg came the Bibles of Luther. The Reformation broke over German Silesia like an inrushing wave. Only in Breslau, the capital city of the province, the powerful prince-bishops still held the fort for the ancient faith.

 Lutheranism established itself as the sole recognized faith of the Silesian duchies and rapidly hardened into an orthodoxy as unyielding and intolerant as that which it had recently displaced. Luther, however, had released a spring which immediately reacted with disruptive force upon Lutheranism itself. That deep current of vital religion which had manifested itself in the German mystics of the fourteenth century and in those loose associations of spiritually minded laymen known as the Beghards and Brethren of the Free Spirit, driven for a time underground by an angry persecution, once again foamed up to the surface. Perhaps nowhere in Europe was this renaissance of spiritual life outside the pale of the organized churches more vigorous or more adventurous than in the territories of Silesia. The radical tenets of the Anabaptists were welcomed by the common folk of the towns and stamped out only by burnings and banishments. Caspar Schwenkfeld, a scion of a noble family in the duchy of Liegnitz, gained adherents among all classes, and notably among the Silesian nobility, to a purer and more primitive form of Christianity than that of Luther. Here and there in remote country villages "prophets" or Wundermänner, ignorant of the debates of the theologians at Wittenberg or Geneva, but glowing with visions which had surprised them when brooding over their newly translated German Bibles, announced to wondering peasants the proximate end of the world and the advent of the millennium. One of them, a certain cobbler of Görlitz, thinker as well as visionary, hammered out over his last a bizarre but pregnant theosophy which still engages the attention of the world. In the first quarter of the seventeenth century, manuscript copies of the cryptic writings of Jacob Böhme passed from hand to hand in Silesia and opened the eyes of their readers to the divine signature legible in all things.

 The aspiration common to all these sectaries, the fanatici Silesiorum as they were termed by the supercilious, was to liberate the spirit of religion from bondage to the letter. They acknowledged no authority, whether of church or synod or even of Scripture, save only the authority of the inward voice. Dismayed by the rigid dogmas and authoritative temper of the new Reformation ecclesiasticism, they sought to revive a freer, less theological, more interior and spiritual type of Christianity. They founded no churches, but grouped together in obscure fellowships they tended in quietness the flame of the spirit, while Catholics and Lutherans contended for thrones and dominions in the long agony of the Thirty Years War.

 Such was the spiritual soil in which the author of the Cherubinic Wanderer took root and grew to maturity in the second quarter of the seventeenth century.

*
*   *

Breslau was deemed by the poet, Martin Opitz, writing in the year 1631, to be perhaps the most beautiful of all the German cities. Built originally on a group of islands in the midst of the Oder, it was intersected by numerous streams spanned by graceful bridges. Its forty churches and eleven cloisters, for the most part amazingly lofty constructions of Gothic brickwork, jutted against the skyline a silhouette of crowded spires and pinnacles. As many bells rang from their towers, it was said, as would have sufficed for three cities of equal size. Its Rathaus, with its lavishly ornate balconies and gables, giving expression to the extravagant fantasies of the expiring art of the Middle Ages, testified to the wealth of its burghers and their pride in the magnificence of the Silesian capital.

 To this flourishing city there came in the early years of the seventeenth century a Polish nobleman, Stanislaus, Lord of Borwicze. As was indicated by his family name of Scheffler, he was of German descent. Born in Kraków in 1562, he had distinguished himself in both the civil and the military service of the Polish crown and had been duly rewarded with the grant of a title and a coat-of-arms. The cause of his self-exile from his native country is unknown; but as the profession of Lutheranism, to which faith he belonged, was still barely tolerated in Poland, it may be conjectured that it was in pursuit of religious liberty that he transferred his residence to a Protestant city.

 He brought with him a substantial fortune which he husbanded with care and almost, it would seem, with passion. An incident recorded in a lawsuit arising out of one of his financial transactions throws a gleam of light upon his character. Having made a loan to a prominent citizen who died before its repayment, he demanded restitution from the debtor's daughter. The refusal of the latter to acknowledge the liability threw him into a frenzy of indignation. He appears to have created a violent scene, hurling abuse at the young woman and possibly even striking her or attempting to tear from her shoulders a valuable fur to which he also laid claim. The city council was obliged to intervene in the unseemly quarrel. It decreed the repayment of the loan together with the surrender of the disputed fur, but at the same time threatened to inflict a penalty upon the irate creditor for his violence and strictly ordered him to refrain henceforth from molesting the young lady and her family by word or deed.

 Shortly after this incident the hot-blooded Polish nobleman, to whom years appear not to have brought discretion, married at the age of sixty-two a young woman some forty years younger than himself, Maria Hennemann, a daughter of a physician to the Imperial Court. The marriage took place in February 1624 and on the following Christmas Day a son was baptised in the Lutheran church of St. Elizabeth by the name of Johannes. Two years later followed the birth of a daughter, Magdalena, and in 1630 that of another son, Christian. In 1637 Stanislaus Scheffler died at the age of seventy-five. A specimen of his handwriting a year before his death indicates no declension of vigour through sickness or old age.

 The young wife did not long outlive her septuagenarian husband. The church register which records her death on May 27, 1639, makes a curious mention of her "troubled life." As her husband's fortune must have shielded her from material cares, it may be concluded that the allusion is to some form of physical suffering which shadowed her life and cut it short at a premature age.

 Johann Scheffler, destined to become known to fame as Angelus Silesius, was fourteen years old when his mother died. A month before her death she had entered him and his brother Christian at the Elizabeth Gymnasium in Breslau. The awakening of interest in German poetry which had been brought about in Silesia by the recently published works of Martin Opitz was reflected in the importance given to poetical composition, not merely in the classical languages but in the German tongue, in the school curriculum. The Gymnasium, moreover, possessed a theatre devoted to the representation of plays and masques by the scholars, in one of which, a Masque of May, it is recorded in a programme still extant that Johann Scheffler played the part of a nightingale. One of his masters, Christoph Köler, with whom he appears to have been on specially friendly terms, was himself a poet of some note and encouraged Johann in the practice of verse-making. The few specimens of his youthful compositions which have survived reveal an early acquired mastery of poetic technique without displaying any considerable originality of thought or expression.

 The impression derived from the scanty records of the young Scheffler is that of a talented youth, whose gentle nature won for him the name of "angel," studious, pliant and impressionable, of a disposition that both awakened and responded to affection. Christoph Köler spoke of him as "destined to the highest things."

 In his nineteenth year Scheffler matriculated at the university of Strassburg, where he studied medicine and law; but after only one year's residence he proceeded to Leyden. It is probable that the two years which he spent at the Dutch university brought him into contact with those religious dissidents for whom in the first half of the seventeenth century the United Provinces offered a refuge from persecution. It was in Amsterdam that the works of Jacob Böhme had been first published in 1642. Sects fermenting with the mystical leaven—Anabaptists, Mennonites, Collegiants—abounded in all the principal towns of Holland. In later life one of his controversial opponents accused Scheffler of having been a "free spirit" and a frequenter of sectarian conventicles, to which he replied, not altogether convincingly, that he did not know to that day where a Mennonite or Anabaptist church was to be found in Leyden. He acknowledged, however, that be had read several of Böhme's works, excusing himself on the ground that "when one is in Holland all sorts of things come one's way"; but he thanked God for it, as they were largely the cause of his coming to a knowledge of the truth.

 From Leyden, Johann Scheffler proceeded to the great medical school of Padua; where in 1648 he received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and Medicine. It is possible that a year elapsed between his departure from the Dutch and his matriculation at the Italian university. His assertion in later life that he had visited various "Catholic localities," having resolved to investigate for himself the charges of false doctrine brought against the Catholic Church may have reference to this period; but what these places were, other than Padua, cannot now be determined. The statement is important, however, as evidencing an early preoccupation with the question of Catholicism.

 During all this period we know as little of the inner workings of his mind as of the outward manner of his life. Only one illuminating datum remains. In 1649, possibly while he was still at Padua, he wrote in a friend's album or remembrance book this significant sentence: "The World is a very beautiful Nothing" (Mundus pulcherrimum nihil). It was the keythought of his life. It expresses at once his sensitiveness to beauty and his acceptance of the "negative way" of mysticism, an inner discord which he was never able to resolve into harmony.

 Although after his departure from Padua we are again without precise information as to Scheffler's movements, various circumstances point to the probability of his return to Breslau. His sister Magdalena was now married to a doctor named Tobias Brückner, who resided at Bernstadt near Breslau and held an appointment as physician to the Duke of Oels. In the preceding December the guardians of the children of Stanislaus Scheffler had disbursed to the elder brother and sister their shares of the paternal inheritance. Johann's portion had been entrusted provisionally to his brother-in-law Brückner, with whom it was natural that be sbould now seek a settlement. The condition of his brother Christian, now in his twentieth year, must also have claimed his attention. From a document of the year 1665 we learn that be was then insane; we may infer, however, that his malady dated back to a much earlier period, since his estate was never made over to him on his coming of age but continued throughout his life to be administered by guardians. It is natural to suppose that during his stay in Breslau, Scheffler renewed his friendly intercourse with his old schoolmaster, Christoph Köler. An important significance attaches to this relationship, for Köler was intimately connected with a group of Silesian Protestants who, finding it impossible to nourish their spiritual life upon the dry husks of Lutheran orthodoxy, discovered a richer sustenance in the writings of the pre-Reformation mystics. Scattered among the various Silesian duchies, these friends kept in touch with one another by correspondence and from time to time met together at Breslau. Two of the leaders of the movement, Dietrich von Tschesch and Daniel Czepko, were poets; both were deeply steeped in the thought of the fourteenth-century mystics. Whether Scheffler at this time actually became acquainted with these spiritual reformers cannot be distinctly ascertained, but it cannot be doubted that directly or indirectly he was initiated into their teaching.

 In November 1649, thanks undoubtedly to his brother-in-law's influence, Johann Scheffler was appointed Court Physician to the Lutheran Duke Sylvius Nimrod of Würtemberg-Oels. He received an annual salary of 175 thalers and was granted a licence to carry on a private practice within the limits of the Duchy.

*
*   *

When the young physician rode into Oels through the Breslauer Tor after his twenty-mile journey from Breslau he may well have reflected how little either the Catholics or Lutherans of his day were animated by the spirit of the religion of peace. Repeatedly cannonaded, stormed and plundered by both parties in the Thirty Years War which had ended only the previous year, the little country town was now scarcely more than a heap of ruins. Its former population of four thousand inhabitants had been reduced to less than half by slaughter, famine and disease. Most of the houses were uninhabitable. The ducal castle at which he presented his credentials, with its steep-pitched roof, its tall octagonal tower, its balconied Renaissance court yard, still stood intact on the outskirts of the town, overlooking a pleasant stretch of water-meadows backed by low wooded hills.

 About the time when Scheffler arrived at Oels to take up his appointment at the Court, another and older traveller was returning after a long absence to the town in the neighbourhood of which he had been born fifty-six years before. The friendships which he was destined to make exercised a strong influence on Scheffler's sensitive nature and perhaps afford a clue to the evolution of a character which otherwise presents a baffling problem in psychology. Of him it may be said that there were friends by whom he was saved and friends from whom the pity of it was that he could not be saved. Chief among the former was Abraham von Franckenberg, the man who in the following brief but critical years of his inner development was to guide him in his spiritual wayfaring.

 Like Scheffler, Franckenberg belonged to the class of the lesser nobility. He rejected, however, the brilliant career which his birth and talents opened up to him and even renounced the inheritance which fell to him as the eldest son, reserving for his own use only one or two rooms in the ancestral castle of Ludwigsdorf, where he gave himself up to a life of study and meditation. He emerged only occasionally from his retirement to minister to the sick in time of plague or to visit a circle of friends who were engaged like himself in the quest for truth. It was on one of these visits that he first met Jacob Böhme, whose writings he had long cherished and some of which he had caused to be printed at his own expense. He was in closest sympathy with the thought of the visionary of Görlitz, and it became one of the chief aims or his life to make it known to the world. He wrote two lives of Böhme, and he it was who undertook the publication of his works at Amsterdam in 1642.

 Franckenberg aspired to the most comprehensive world-view which the quasi-scientific knowledge of his day permitted. He availed himself of every key, no matter how questionable its shape, to unlock the universal mystery. He studied the Cabala and was deeply learned in the lore of Alchemy, that semi-mystical system which contained within itself the seeds of an experimental science. He eagerly absorbed the ideas of Giordano Bruno, though not without a certain shrinking from their pantheistic tendencies. In the discoveries of Copernicus he became aware of the melting into infinity of the static universe of medieval tradition, with its fixed spheres and local heaven.

 Such freedom of thought, verging indeed upon heresy, necessarily rendered Franckenberg obnoxious to the Lutheran clergy, of whose bigoted dogmatism he on his part only expressed his abhorrence. Rather, however, than embroil himself in a controversy which was repellent to his peace-loving nature he quitted Ludwigsdorf in 1641 and passed the greater part of the next eight years at Danzig, where he was the guest of the astronomer Helvelius. It was from this sojourn that we find him returning home in the early winter of 1649.

 If this student of science laboured so hard to win the secrets of the temporal world, it was in order to find through them a doorway into the eternal. The rending of the veil, so dense and yet so fragile, that hangs between the seen and the unseen was the supreme object of his endeavour. The results of his researches never disturbed his faith in the fundamental truth of the Scriptures and the Christian scheme of salvation. If he could not comprehend the whole of the mystery, he was content to hold fast to what he deemed to be the master-truth, the possibility in this life of the perfect union of the soul with God. This union was conditioned not by belief but solely by purity of heart. "God is not the God of Jews and Christians alone," he declared—and the utterance was far from being a colourless truism in mid-seventeenth-century Germany—"but also of the heathen, yea, of all peoples;" and when asked by the Duke Sylvius Nimrod to what faith he belonged, Catholic, Lutheran or Calvinist, he replied, "I am the Heart of these religions."1

 The effect upon Scheffler's responsive nature of such a personality as that of Abraham von Franckenberg can be conjectured but scarcely overestimated. The mystical doctrine, with which he was already familiar in the writings of Böhme, Czepko and others of the group of Silesian spiritual reformers, was now discovered to him in its operative force in a man of purified character, of breadth of mind and largeness of heart, perfected in self-renunciation. In Franckenberg's portrait we see a man of middle age with thick hair brushed back from a high forehead, short neatly trimmed beard, sensitive and finely modelled features, the gravity of the clear, sad eyes contrasting with an amused and kindly smile. It is a face that combines in a singular harmony the expressions of thoughtfulness, assurance, benevolence and inward peace. It is not difficult to imagine its mobility lit up with the glow of enthusiasm as he conversed with the young doctor in his lonely room at Ludwigsdorf on the matters that lay nearest to his heart—relating his reminiscences of his beloved Böhme, speculating upon the mysteries of Alchemy and the Cabala, imparting the astronomical knowledge that he had gained in the observatory at Danzig or unravelling the paradoxes of Eckhart and the Rhineland mystics. And with what burning thoughts must the poet-physician have walked back in the dusk over the low swell of meadow-land beyond which were disclosed the lighted windows and fantastic gables of the castle of Oels!

 The positive record of the friendship existing between these two men is to be found in Franckenberg's gift of books to Scheffler and in the moving verses in which the poet commemorated the death of his "dearest friend," which occurred only two-and-a-half years after their simultaneous arrival in Oels. The only worldly possessions in which Franckenberg was wealthy were his books and manuscripts. His library—"a real pharmacy of the soul" he called it—evidences his familiarity with the works of the medieval mystics, his predilection seemingly having been for Tauler and the unknown author of the Theologia Germanica, from whose writings he had compiled an anthology. As indicative of the sources which Scheffler was enabled to draw upon it is of interest to note, apart from the earlier mystical writers, the works of Böhme, Valentine Weigel, Sebastian Franck, Johann Arndt, Paracelsus, Bruno, Reuchlin, Daniel Sudermann and the manuscripts of von Tschesch. Two volumes are still extant which Scheffler rcceived as gifts during his friend's lifetime. One of them consists of the Revelations of St. Gertrude and St. Mechtild bound up with Tauler's sermons. That it was highly prized by Scheffler is manifest from the Latin inscription, written in his precise and shapely script and dated March 1652, in which he recorded that he had received it from his "faithful friend Abraham von Franckenberg" and had had it rebound in a new and handsome binding. Another volume, containing Rulwin Merswin's Book of the Nine Rocks and the Revelations of St. Bridget, is filled with cabalistic annotations in Scheffler's hand.

 Franckenberg died on June 25, 1652, but his burial in the castle-church of Oels did not take place until six months later. The funeral sermon was preached by the Court Chaplain, Christoph Freytag, who had regarded Franckenberg during his lifetime as a semi-heretical fanatic. On this occasion, however, he repressed his theological hatred and paid his tribute to the well-known virtues of his former enemy.

 Shortly afterwards Scheffler published a poem of twenty-eight stanzas in honour of his friend's memory, the first to appear in print since his juvenile compositions. In this noble and moving elegy he stressed the heavenly principles which underlay the nobility of his friend's character and which enabled him, while still in this life, to pass beyond the dominion of chance and time and place into the "state" of eternity, becoming "one spirit, one light, one life with God." Here the central doctrine of mysticism is announced in the boldest terms. The stately march of the alexandrine quatrains, reverberating like the roll of drums, envelops the tenderness of the elegy with the firm resonance of a hymn of triumph.1

*
*   *

 Franckenberg's death left Scheffler without a companion for his spirit. Doubtless he was not without an outer circle of friends, among them being Johann Dirix, the ducal secretary, for whom about this time he wrote a consolatory poem on the death of a young daughter. Neverthless his close association with the sage of Ludwigsdorf and his final preoccupation with alchemical and cabalistic mysteries must have attracted to him the suspicion of the orthodox society of the small town dominated by the pious but narrowly Lutheran Duke Sylvius and his still more bigoted chaplain.

 But if in Oels itself he was starved of companionship, he still remained in touch with those friends of the life of the spirit, scattered throughout Silesia, who had looked up to Franckenberg as their spiritual guide. To them Scheffler now turned in his loneliness and conceived the idea of presenting them with a New Year's gift in the form of an anthology of passages from his favourite mystical authors. The censorship of all books printed within the Duchy was in the hands of Christoph Freytag, to whom, as a matter of course the printer submitted Scheffler's anthology for approval. The occasion presented him with an opportunity of marking his disapproval of the mystical trend of the Franckenberg circle. In high-handed fashion he struck out in red ink the passages in which he detected an unorthodox flavour and returned the book to the printer with an unqualified refusal of his imprimatur. With Scheffler himself he declined to enter into any discussion.

 Scheffler's reaction to this repulse had swift and unforeseeable consequences. What appears to have shocked him most was the discovery that these extracts from the rapt meditations of Catholic saints, of which his anthology consisted, were obnoxious to Lutheran orthodoxy. In a letter to a friend he freely expressed his bitter opinion of the Lutheran clergy: "What sort of a priestly judgement and apostolic procedure this is, I leave each one to judge for himself. I know now exactly what I am to think of them." They were, so he affirmed, "inexperienced and unversed in the whole body of ancient piety and destitute of the true and living theology." The Court Chaplain's censure revealed to him with the harshest clarity what he must long before have more or less dimly recognized, the fact, namely, that the inner faith by which he lived was incompatible with the creed and temper of Lutheranism. For Luther himself he appears never to have had any great love. He was repelled by the strain of coarseness in his nature and by his contempt of asceticism. Although in his early days Luther had come under the spell of the mystics, especially of Tauler and the author of the Theologia Germanica, he reverted later to a rigid and more external theology and exceeded his wonted violence in his attacks on the Schwenkfeldians and kindred sects that laid emphasis on a more mystical interpretation of religion. But in rigidity of creed and anti-mystical bias the Lutheran pastors of the seventeenth century far out-Luthered Luther. As in a flash Freytag's condemnation of his anthology made it vividly clear to Scheffler that the Lutheran Church could never be his spiritual home.

 As soon as his resolution was taken, Scheffler acted without hesitation. He left Oels immediately and returned to his native Breslau. There he occupied himself for some months in a study of the works of Catholic apologists. The religious world of Silesia was startled to learn that on June 12, 1653, the ex-physician of the Lutheran Court of Oels had been received into the Roman Catholic Church. At his confirmation he assumed the name of Angelus.1

 His change of faith at once brought Scheffler into the full blaze of notoriety and was the signal for the outbreak of those venomous attacks of which he was the object throughout his life. At this time religious passions were inflamed by an intensification of the feud between Reformation and Counter-Reformation. In Silesia the Catholic Church was launching a successful offensive movement. The defeat of Frederick of the Palatinate at the battle or the White Mountain in 1620 had weakened the position of Protestantisin in the Silesian duchies. The Jesuits re-establisbed themselves in Breslau. The withdrawal of the Swedish troops at the close of the Thirty Years War cleared the way for a militant campaign, supported by the Emperor, for the restoration of Catholicism. As the road to office and promotion was conditional on communion with Rome, numerous conversions took place which were dictated solely by self-interest. In these circumstances the change of faith of a private individual, which might have passed unregarded in more normal times, was lifted from obscurity into the arena of public debate, to be hailed by one party as an addition to its forces and to be reviled by the other as a treasonable desertion.

 Scheffler's resolution to embrace Catholicism, so astonishing to his contemporaries, remains still not fully explicable when viewed in perspective. That the immediate cause of his defection from the church of his fathers was the censureship of his mystical anthology, he himself was ready to admit.1 But this incident in itself is not adequate to explain the subsequent orientation of his faith. In order to justify to the world the transfer of his ecclesiastical allegiance—one shrinks from using the word conversion—he drew up a tabulated statement which was published under the title The Fundamental Grounds and Motives of Johann Scheffler's renunciation of Lutheranism and of his profession of the Catholic Religion. This document impresses us not so much as the record of a deep inward experience as a rationalization in logical form of a decision previously determined upon. It is in the main a recapitulation of the stock arguments of the Catholic contraversialists of the day. Scheffler bases his condemnation of Lutheranism, among other grounds, on the novelty and uncertainty of its doctrines and their derivation not from the pure word of God but from the arbitrary judgement of the Reformers; the violent dissensions among the Reformers themselves; the rejection of the veneration of the Virgin and the saints; the repudiation of the oral tradition handed down from the Apostles; the corrupt translation of the Lutheran Bible. In point of doctrine the gravamen of his charge falls upon the tenet of justification by faith alone, together with its corollary, the denial of the meritoriousness of good works. If faith be the sole condition of salvation, love becomes a supererogatory virtue, whereas it is the pith and kernel of Scheffler's teaching that love and love alone unlocks the door which admits to the presence chamber of God. His most deep-seated motive appears to be revealed in the article in which he reproaches the exponents of Lutheranism with their "impious rejection of the hidden way, wholly unknown to them, of communion with God (Theologia Mystica) which is the Christian's highest wisdom." At this point his public conversion is intimately linked with the event which was of capital importance in his life.

 Although not yet published, it may be regarded as certain that Scheffler had already written the Cherubinic Wanderer before his overt profession of Catholicism. It is evident that the author of this work had already cast off his Lutheran moorings. But it seems no less clear that his voyage was set upon a course that would take him beyond all confessional and ecclesiastical landmarks. It might naturally be supposed that his religious evolution would have led him into closer association with that fellowship of mystically minded Christians into whose society he had been introduced by Franckenberg. It was for his friends among the members of this group that he had printed his ill-fated anthology. The poem in which he had given voice to the promptings of his heart suggests that the true goal or his spiritual pilgrimage could be none other than that Cor Religionum which Franckenberg represented—the religion of the spirit whose worship is at neither Rome nor Wittenberg nor Geneva.

 In our ignorance of the inner processes of his mind during the year following Franckenberg's death we can do more than hazard a guess at the motives which impelled Scheffler to communion with the Roman Catholic Church. We seem to be on known ground, however, when we point to the profound influence which the Catholic mystics had exercised upon his thought and character. Scheffler cannot but have felt a strong attraction to the church which had produced such men as Eckhart, Tauler, Suso and Ruysbroeck, who had revealed to him the "hidden way of communion with God"; and that the same church was still capable or giving birth to kindred spirits he had the witness or the post-Reformation saints, Teresa and St. John of the Cross. It seems scarcely possible to doubt that it was to Rome as the nursing-mother of the mystics that he surrendered his allegiance.

*
*   *

It was now the hap of Angelus Silesius, as we must henceforth designate the Catholic Scheffler, in his new environment to come under the influence of a man whose temperament and outlook contrasted in almost every respect with those of Abraham von Franckenberg. The son of a poor ropemarker, Sebastian von Rostack, now in the prime of life, owed his rapid advancement to the post of Vicar General of the diocese of Breslau to his own natural talents and capacity for tireless industry. As parish priest of Neisse he had shared in all the hardships and dangers of the Thirty Years War and, remaining faithful to his duties when all the municipal authorities had fled, had been taken prisoner by the Swedes and narrowly escaped with his life. Such was his devotion to his flock that in time of plague he was accustomed to place a ladder against those houses the doors of which were sealed up and to climb in through the windows to minister to the sick and dying. On one occasion, when riding alone in the country, he was set upon by two ruffianly troopers. Drawing the sword which even priests were in the habit of carrying in those troubled times, he ran one of his assailants through the body and then, mindful of the duties of his office, leaped off his horse and administered absolution to the victim of his prowess.

 Of a stiff and upright carriage—it is one of his chaplains who has sketched his portrait—he walked with a measured gait. From a stern countenance his penetrating eyes looked out with such a burning intensity that even the canons quailed before him. He was not easily amused or moved to laughter. He was quick with his tongue, but never spoke at meals, looking straight before him with a severity of expression that caused a profound uneasiness among his chaplains.

 During the winter of 1653-54, Sebastian von Rostock, as a member of the Imperial Commission appointed to carry out the "reduction" of the Protestant churches of Silesia, was energetically engaged in the work of the Counter-Reformation. Silesia had been almost wholly lost to Catholicism. Lutheran pastors had taken possession of the churches and had won over the congregations. In only a few parishes a mutilated form of Catholic worship was preserved; married priests said Mass in the German tongue and administered the Eucharist to the laity under both kinds. The Commission, backed by a military escort, went from village to village ejecting the Lutheran pastors and handing over the keys of the churches to newly appointed Catholic priests. The Protestant parishioners greeted them with hoots and jeers or, massed in the churchyard, chorused their defiant Lutheran hymns.

 It must have been with mingled feelings of satisfaction and frustration that Sebastian von Rostock returned to Breslau at the conclusion of this campaign. True, no fewer than 254 churches had been wrested out of the hands of the Lutherans, but the zeal of the devout Catholic could scarcely be content with a victory achieved by brute force rather than by the force of conviction. The need of the hour was for a propaganda capable of undermining the principles of the Reformation and winning back the hearts of the people to the faith which they had abandoned.

 It was at this juncture that Angelus Silesius came into prominence as an illustrious convert. The shrewd ecclesiastic could not fail to remark that here was a man fitted by a gifted speech and a glowing fervour for the church of his adoption to undertake the work of the reconversion of Silesia. As a mark of the esteem in which he was held by the Catholic party in Breslau, Angelus Silesius was appointed, early in 1654, probably at Rostock's instigation, Physician to the Imperial Court. This honour provoked his enemies to attribute his "conversion" to a desire for worldly advancement, a charge which his complete lack of self-interest rendered peculiarly ill-judged. As the appointment was titular only, he lost rather than gained by his transfer from the Court of Oels to that of the Emperor.

 Information is lacking as to the earlier development of the relations between the poet and the Vicar General. It was not long, however, before Angelus Silesius confided to Rostock the manuscript of the Cherubinic Wanderer which he had brought with him from Oels. It can scarcely be supposed that the verses of the mystic struck a responsive chord in the stern spirit of the man of action, although his insight must have discerned the steel of the warrior and the ascetic beneath the gentleness of the quietist. No doubt he was informed by their author of his treatment at the hands of Pastor Freytag. It would have been impolitic, to say the least of it, if he had shown as ungracious a welcome to the spiritual wanderer as the churlish doorkeeper of Lutheran orthodoxy. Mystics had a traditional leave to warm themselves at the Catholic hearth, even though at times the mistress of the house might have occasion to reprove them for their freedom of speech. Their dialect, strange though it might sound to the orthodox ear, could still be interpreted according to the grammar of faith. A judicious editing, a prefatory gloss, would be enough to warn the unwary reader against a too literal interpretation of the poet's mystical paradoxes. The Vicar General gave his imprimatur. Angelus wrote an Introduction in which the more daring of his speculations were modified and brought into harmony with Catholic teaching. Rostock's imprimatur is dated July 6, 1656, but the work did not appear until the spring of the following year, and then not at Breslau but at Vienna. It is possible that a lingering doubt as to the unimpeachable orthodoxy of the verses led him to prefer that it should not be published within the diocese which he administered.

 In the same year another volume of poems from the pen of Angelus Silesius was published, this time in Breslau, and again with the imprimatur of Sebastian von Rostock. The Soul's Holy Delight or Spiritual Pastorals of the Jesus-loving Psyche (Heilige Seelen-Lust oder geistliche Hirten-Lieder der in ihren Jesum verliebten Psyche) was probably of later date than the Cherubinic Wanderer, although from a certain parallelism of expression it may be inferred that in part at least the composition of the two was concurrent.1 In general, however, the earlier work may be assumed to reveal the mind of Angelus Silesius before his profession of Catholicism, while the Spiritual Pastorals expresses his emotional attitude during the transitional period and the years immediately following. The two books represent wholly diverse modes of spiritual experience. While the former embodies that mystical apprehension of reality in which creeds are dissolved into metaphor, the latter speaks the language of ecstatic devotion to an incarnate Saviour. It draws its inspiration and its images from a source to which Christian mystics have frequently turned, the love-motive of the Song of Songs. It has, moreover, a close connection with the contemporary pastoral poetry of Germany, the purpose of Angelus Silesius being to adapt the lyrical expression of earthly love to the soul's quest of the heavenly Lover. The opening lines of many of the songs are borrowed from the popular song-writers of the day, whereafter the theme is transposed from the secular to the spiritual key. The book met with popular success and was thrice reprinted before the close of the century. Many of the hymns passed into church hymnals and are sung to this day by Lutheran congregations in Germany.1

 In the following years we find Angelus Silesius identifying himself more and more closely with the activities of the Catholic Church in Breslau. He is recorded as the donor of a sum of 200 thalers to the Church of the Holy Cross, the interest on which was to be used to provide for an annual sermon on Shrove Tuesday and a distribution of cakes to the poor. He established another foundation for the provision of sermons during Lent at the Convent of St. Clare, evidencing his care for the bodily as well as the spiritual comfort of the nuns by directing that they should be given "a drink of good wine with biscuits of white bread." His name frequently appears in the baptismal registers of the period as godfather to children of poor parentage, whom it is probable that he assisted with financial support.

 His zeal for his adopted Church showed itself in his activity in promoting processions. These had been forbidden in Breslau since the Reformation. A Confraternity of the Rosary, of which Angelus was now a member, had formerly been wont to conduct a pilgrimage through the town to the shrine of a saint in the village of Trebnitz. Angelus became the promoter of a movement for the revival of the ancient custom and addressed an appeal to the Emperor to override the ban of the Protestant authorities. He saw in the projected procession not merely an occasion of triumph for the Church but also an opportunity of publicly signalizing his devotion to it. Great as the scandal of his change of faith had been to his former coreligionists, he yet wished to drink the cup of persecution and mockery to the very dregs. He craved to expose himself as a spectacle to men and angels and in some sort to share with his Master the ignominy of a via dolorosa. His exaltation of spirit is clearly indicated in the following memorandum: "1. I wish to carry the Cross through the town with a crown on my head, in order that thereby I may become like unto Christ who carried the Cross through the town with a crown of thorns on his most sacred head. 2. That thereby I may thank Christ in act and deed for carrying the Cross for my sake. 3. That thereby I may be dishonoured and despised by all men and before all men, for of this I am worthy, and Christ was dishonoured and despised for me; for the most part will rate me as a fool or deem me greedy of honour, as if in this matter I sought some vain glory, and thus I shall lose much of the esteem in which I was previously held. 4. That thereby I may serve as an example to all godly people. 5. That thereby I may help towards the conversion of the town and of all those who shall have ridiculed me, which is my singular intention. Blessed be God! In the year 1660."

 It was not long before he was enabled to gratify his wish. The Emperor granted his appeal and ordered the municipal authoritics to rescind their opposition. On August 22, 1661, the triumph of the Counter-Reformation was signalized by the first procession that had displayed the emblems of the Catholic faith in the streets of Breslau for 135 years. Sebastian von Rostock marched at the head and Angelus Silesius followed, carrying the Cross and crowned with thorns. A few months later the Confraternity organized a procession of the Blessed Sacrament in which he was allotted the honour of carrying the Monstrance.

 Shortly before these events, on May 29, 1661, Angelus Silesius had received the ordination to the priesthood. By this time the ardour with which he had thrown himself into the external activities of the Church had reacted profoundly upon his inner nature. He himself laments that by the press of external business he had been all unwillingly tom from that state of "spiritual peace and gracious inwardness" in which he had composed the Cherubinic Wanderer and the Spiritual Pastorals. "But the love of Christ compelled me thereto."1 Sebastian von Rostock had the satisfaction of witnessing the transformation of the mystic into the strenuous soldier of the Church Militant here on earth.

 The Vicar General had now attained the height of his ambition by being promoted to the episcopal throne. One of his first acts was to appoint Angelus Silesius to the post of Marshal to his princely court. Immediately after his enthronement he set out on a progress through the diocese. In a description of his state entry into Neisse, the town in which he had once officiated as a simple parish priest, we may catch a glimpse of the pageantry over which it was now the business of Angelus Silesius to preside. Heralded by mounted drummers and trumpeters and troops with banners, who in turn were followed by a cavalcade of nobles and a score of coaches conveying prelates and court officials, preceded by his noble page-boys and escorted by his bodyguard in crimson and violet uniform, the Prince-Bishop, "bare-headed and bowing smilingly on all sides," advanced through the narrow streets amid the roar of cannon, the pealing of bells and the cheers of the welcoming populace. Although more befitting a temporal than a spiritual ruler, it may be supposed that such pomp and circumstance was not uncongenial to the Court Marshal as assuring him of the revival of the lapsed glories of the Catholic Church in Silesia. Nevertheless the multifarious duties of his office consumed his time and imposed a strain on his weakly constitution, already preyed upon by consumption and undermined by his ascetic austerities. It is possible that the strain may have quickened a natural irritability which it has been suggested that he inherited from his hot-tempered father. Whatever may have been its cause, a sharp dispute with another dignitary of the Court arose out of his discharge of his functions. The affair might have been accommodated, as Angelus himself admitted, by a few friendly words, but he preferred to seize the opportunity to resign a post which doubtless had become irksome to him. The incident, however, did not disturb the amity between himself and the Bishop. It is indeed not unlikely that Rostock himself realized that the zeal and talents of his faithful henchman might be more advantageously employed than in ordering the ceremonies of an episcopal court.

 Shortly after his retirement from the office of Court Marshal, Angelus Silesius took up his residence in the Hospice of the Knights of the Cross with the Red Star (Matthiasstift), in whose church he had made his profession of faith as a Catholic more than ten years before. To this quiet cloister on the banks of the Oder, filled with the sound of the lapse of flowing waters, he withdrew not in order to recapture his lost spiritual peace but to forge weapons with which to strike at the reeling giant of Lutheranism. In the Church's truceless warfare with heresy he was to prove himself the most unwearying and implacable of combatants. Already in 1663 he had fired his first furious shot in his Türkenschrift or Causes of the Turkish Invasion and Downtreading of the people of God. Christendom was first menaced by the Infidel after it had been seduced by Protestantism, and therefore, so ran his inconsequential argument, post hoc, propter hoc. The tractate served only to inflame the passions of the calumniated Lutherans who demanded its suppression by the Emperor. Unmoved by the storm which he had provoked, Angelus replied by issuing his Christenschrift, in which he pertinaciously reiterated his argument that God's favour to his people was conditional upon their true allegiance to the Church of Rome.

 In the succeeding years his controversial activity was tireless. His attacks called forth counter-attacks and these in turn led to still more vigorous assaults upon his assailants. In his tactics he showed himself versatile and resourceful, always alert to seize an advantage by a change of ground or of weapons. Syllogism, persuasion, invective—all arms came ready to his hand. He aimed both high and low. Now he brought his artillery to bear on the fortresses of Lutheran orthodoxy, now he skirmished with the rank and file in the market-place. His earlier writings were signed with his own name, but in later years he made an effective use of anonymity to cloak his identity in a disguise barrowed from the enemy. Sometimes he posed as an honest Lutheran perplexed by the internal dissensions within the Reformed churches; sometimes as an unbeliever desirous of becoming a Christian and seeking instruction from Lutheran, Calvinist and Catholic advisers in turn; sometimes as a converted Catholic peasant searchingly cross-questioned by a Lutheran pastor. In order to reach the popular ear he cast his arguments into the form of dialogue, into which he introduced the telling and incisive turns of speech in use among his Silesian countrymen.

 In the twelve years between 1663 and 1675, Angelus Silesius contributed to the literary arsenal of the Counter-Reformation no fewer than fifty-five works of a controversial or propagandist nature. In nothing save in their superior literary dexterity are they distinguished from the mass of religious polemical writings of the period. The differences between the rival creeds are seized in their external aspects rather than in their deeper inner significance. We look in vain for a gleam of the spiritual illumination which in the couplets of the Cherubinic Wanderer played like lightning flashes on the far horizon of speculation or for the throb or personal devotion which pulsated in the Spiritual Pastorals. Even if the view be held that he was deliberately adapting his arguments to the lower intellectual level of the crowd, nevertheless it is difficult to resist the conviction that his finer perceptions were becoming blunted in the rough-and-tumble of controversy. His tone noticeably increases in bitterness as the conflict proceeds. Himself acutely sensitive to the abuse of his opponents, he does not shrink from retaliating in kind, and if in the earlier stages of the controversy he is outdone in invective by his antagonists, it becomes in course of time no easy matter to determine whether he or they should be awarded the palm in the ignoble art of vituperation.1

 The increasing petulance in the accents of the ageing poet was accompanied by an even more painful growth of intolerance. In all his writings the Catholic Church is declared to be the sole repository of a truth inaccessible to human reason, but it is disconcerting to the reader of the Cherubinic Wanderer to find its author affirming that outside the Church there is no Christ and no life-giving Holy Ghost.2 From the doctrine of extra ecclesia nulla salus it is but a short stride to the persuasion that those outside the fold must be driven in, if need be, by the blows of the shepherd's crook. "Who is the mother," Angelus cries, "who would not force her child to the medicine if there were no other cure? Who is he so cruelly gentle who would not use violent means to restrain a man in delirium from flinging himself out of a window?" The argument is familiar in the mouths of persecutors. And Angelus Silesius readily persuaded himself that the violence of the means which he demanded should be applied to the conversion of heretics was only the measure of his love for them. Of the success of these methods he seems to have entertained no doubt; compulsion would be necessary only in the first stage—once within the fold the erring sheep would lose the desire for liberty. His excess of zeal was not approved by the more judicious of his allies, whom he on his part reproached with lukewarmness. It cannot but be distressing to reflect that at the very time when Europe was beginning to weary of the long and disastrous fevers of religious hatred Angelus Silesius should have been exerting all his efforts to rekindle the dying fires of intolerance and persecution.

 In this period of controversial activity a further development of his poetic talent was hardly to be expected. In 1668 appeared a new and augmented edition of the Spiritual Pastorals. In 1675 the Cherubinic Wanderer also attained its second edition, in which a sixth book was added to the previous five. In the same year a new poetical work was given to the press, The Sensuous Description of the Four Last Things (Sinnliche Beschreibung der vier letzten Dinge). Death, the Last Judgement, the pains of Hell and the joys of Heaven are set forth in a series of pictures whose crude chiaroscuro of tortures and delights is designed alternately to terrify and entice the reader into the practice of holy living. The poet himself seems to be aware of the need of justifying so violent a transposition of spiritual doctrine into a context of uncompromising materiality. "We write," he explains in his Preface, "only what we know and what we can think of and what can be represented to the sensual man. As to what blessedness is in itself, it remains true that the eye hath not seen it nor the ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man." Together with this proviso we should no doubt also bear in mind the blunter sensibility to representations of physical suffering which characterized an age that had just emerged from the brutalities of the Thirty Years War. The poem presents itself frankly as an instrument of propaganda and is to be regarded rather as a pendant to the author's controversial literature than as a work of the disinterested imagination.

 Nevertheless it bears all too plain evidence of the clouding of the once serene heaven of the poet's mind. The scenes of torture which he depicts with unmixed colours in his description of the Last Judgement, accordant though they may be with traditional representation, seem to have presented themselves with a kind of fascination to his morbid fantasy. Obsessed with the spectre of heresy and frustrated in his campaign for its extermination, he appears to have found an almost sadistic relish in letting his fancy play upon the punishment to be inflicted in a future world upon those who had escaped a merited chastisement in this. His description of the joys of the blessed gives scope for a happier display of his sensitiveness to natural beauties and, in particular, of his love of flowers and birds. His Paradise is no less substantial than his Inferno. It reproduces all the pleasures without any of the inconveniences of the lower world, offering a composite and opulent landscape in which autumnal peaches and muscatels ripen side by side with spring daffodils and anemones, while flocks of sheep adorned with fleece of silk instead of wool repose in fields of never-fading clover. The Court of Heaven reduplicates on a grander scale that of a terrestrial prince-bishop, including even a Court Marshal and a corps of "Edelknaben." But the triviality of the Baroque imagery cannot obscure the moral earnestness of the poet. Even the accent of the mystic is heard in the prediction that ultimately all "otherness" will fall away and the very consciousness of self be lost.

 Tradition has asserted that in his later years Angelus Silesius burned all the books bequeathed to him by Abraham von Franckenberg. That in his fanatical detestation of heresy he should have destroyed the works of Giordano Bruno, whom the Inquisition had condemned to the stake, is not improbable, and his library of Protestant authors may have suffered a like fate. Others however survived the holocaust, and among them was a Latin version of a work by an anonymous Dutch sixteenth-century writer of a mildly mystical type, entitled Margarita Evangelica. A translation of this book by Angelus Silesius, undertaken at an earlier date, appeared in 1676. In the same year he edited thirty-nine of his controversial tractates, which were issued with a new Introduction under the title of Ecclesiologia. This publication terminated his literary activity.

*
*   *

 On June 8, 1671, the episcopal coach waited before the doors of the palace to convey Sebastian von Rostock to Trebnitz where he was to superintend the restoration of yet another Lutheran church to Catholicism. At the last moment an imperial decree cancelling the sequestration was put into his hands. The waiting coach was sent away. On receiving the news of this minor Protestant success the champion of the Counter-Reformation in Silesia was seized by a stroke. Early the following morning the Cathedral Chapter was informed that the Prince-Bishop was dead.

 The loss of his friend and protector added to the gloom which gathered round Angelus Silesius in his later years. Isolated from the friends of his youth by his change of faith, tormented by his Protestant adversaries, who clung round him, as he said, like a swarm of hornets and stung him with their poisonous satires, caricatures and lampoons, estranged even from many of his Catholic associates, who were repelled by the extravagance of his proselytizing temper, suffering under a mortal disease, Angelus Silesius was in greater need than ever before of those solaces of friendship which his nature appears always to have demanded. Fortunately his need was fulfilled and a friendship, warmer perhaps than that of the stern Prince-Bishop, cheered the later years of his life.

 Bernard Rose, Abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Grüssau and Vicar General of his Order for Silesia, belonged to the circle of Rostock's associates and was one of the most strenuous supporters of the Counter-Reformation movement. It was natural therefore that during his visits to Breslau he should have become acquainted with the famous Catholic controversialist and poet. He was in all respects an exemplary prelate, an enthusiastic church builder, a promoter of pilgrimages, enforcing a strict discipline in the monasteries under his rule, himself sharing in his own abbey the common life of the brethren in choir and refectory. Furthermore he was of a warm and generous heart. His abbey was renowned for its hospitality. Its doors were always open to the poor, and needy travellers were richly entertained and sent away laden with gifts.

 Grüssau was situated on a spur of the Riesen Gebirge on the borders of Bohemia, some fifty miles south-west of Breslau. Thither Angelus journeyed in spite of his weakness to visit the Abbot. His health suffered from the raw mountain air, but for this the warm welcome that he received more than made amends. Such kindness, he relates, somewhat wistfully perhaps, he had never experienced elsewhere. He was enchanted with all that he saw. The abbey was like heaven and the monks lived like angels. He was moved to tears at the sight of the hundreds of poor children who were fed by the Abbot's bounty. A pilgrimage which took place during his visit roused him, as processions were wont to do, to the highest degree of enthusiasm. "If you had been present," he writes, "you would have beheld with admiration not only the brightly shining paintings or shields, the multitude of burning torches, the worshipful images of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, the various costumes of the image bearers and all the rest of the furnishing, but you would also have seen him [the Abbot] going on foot the whole way, over hill and down dale, in the midst of his poor subjects, praying and singing with them and scattering alms, so that it is a pity that the whole pageant has not been engraved on copper."

 The "poor subjects," Angelus informs us, consisted chiefly of the Abbot's converts, and there were cogent reasons for their conversion, for Bernard Rose was a stringent represser of heresy and employed the threat of imprisonment to purge his territory from the taint of Lutheranism. It was the fervour of their mutual zeal for the reconversion of Silesia that helped to forge the link of their friendship. The Abbot lent the pamphleteer that support of which he had been deprived by the death of Rostock and spurred him to excesses which it is probable that the more statesmanlike Bishop would have restrained. Having lavished in charitable benefactions the considerable fortune which he had inherited, Angelus now lacked the necessary funds for financing the issue of his works. Rose's purse however was at his disposal. The poem of the Four Last Things and the Ecclesiologia were published at his expense, and the latter probably also at his instigation.

 More and more as the shadows closed round him, Angelus Silesius turned to Bernard Rose for assistance and sympathy. He was now a dying man, and as he wrote the dedication of the Ecclesiologia to his friend, feared that death would take the pen from his fingers before he had accomplished his task. He was broken, moreover, not only in body but in spirit. Silesia, in spite of his twenty years' warfare, remained stubbornly Protestant. His enemies, he states with a naïve surprise, rewarded him for his efforts to warn them of their eternal danger with nothing but ingratitude, hate and persecution. They had even complained of him to the Emperor as a sedition-monger who deserved to have his tongue torn out of his throat. His friends were lukewarm and misunderstood him. Sheltered though he was in his cloistral retirement from the hostility of the outer world, even there he was conscious of a certain aloofness in the attitude of those around him. He speaks of himself, when lying sick to death in the Hospice of St. Matthias, as "forsaken by all other spiritual flower-fragrance or refreshment" save that which came down to him like the breath of roses from the mountains of Grüssau. "You are what you are called—a rose," he wrote to his friend, "a spiritual rose which blossoms through God's grace in the flower-vessel of your body." He regrets that in his Introduction to the Ecclesiologia he has painted his friend's virtues in all too pale and niggardly colours, "but the painter is sick and can neither mix the colours nor guide the brush aright."

 These words were written towards the end of March 1677. As though not caring to keep his body alive any longer, he refused almost all nourishment, and to those who saw him appeared scarcely to own a corporal existence. During the last few weeks he declined to admit any visitor, in order that he might not be distracted even for a moment from inward contemplation. Having received the sacraments of Absolution and Extreme Unction with a clear consciousness, be died peacefully on July 9, 1677.

 His enemies, implacable to the last, gave out that Angelus Silesius had hanged himself.

*
*   *

The attempt to bring into clear focus the personality of the author of the Cherubinic Wanderer is frustrated by a lack of relevant material. Although as convert, court official, poet and controversialist, Dr. Johann Scheffler was a prominent actor on the public stage of Silesia, and played his part to the accompaniment of some applause and a storm of hisses, his contemporaries have left no records from which we can construct an intimate portrait of the man himself. Daniel Schwartz, the Jesuit Father who pronounced his funeral oration, speaks as a churchman in laudatory terms of the virtues of the deceased priest—his large charity, his rigorous asceticism, his zeal in the defence of orthodoxy—but he is silent upon those features of habit and character which it would most gratify our lay curiosity to be informed of. Nor is the gap in our knowledge filled by any disclosure made by Angelus himself. Little of a private nature remains to us from his hand; only in the preliminaries of his Ecclesiologia does be lift the veil for a moment and allow us a brief glimpse of his personal environment. Our portrait of him, therefore, must be pieced together from inferences drawn from the recorded events of his scanty biography and such autobiographical elements as can be discovered in his published writings.

 In his valuable study of the poet, Georg Ellinger emphasizes as the dominant note of his character an ungoverned impulsiveness which is presumed to have been inherited from his father, the irascible Polish nobleman. Before such a presumption could be well established, our knowledge, not only of the Lord of Borowisce but also of the laws of heredity, would have to be much more precise than they actually are: sons have a way of disowning as well as reproducing their fathers' distinctive qualities. Nevertheless indications are not wanting that Angelus Silesius was characterized by a certain nervous irritability which made it difficult for him in any course of thought or action to pursue the golden mean. Such a lack of balance and measure may be traced in his quickness to take offence at the action of Pastor Freytag, in his sudden determination to resign the office of Court Marshal rather than compromise a petty quarrel, in his eagerness to exhibit himself to the contempt of his fellow-townsmen in the Catholic processions at Breslau, in the intolerance of his polemical writings and the violence of the measures which he advocated for the extirpation of Protestantism, in the extremity of both his generosity and his asecticism. There was a quality of rashness in his nature which pushed him always to excess. His statement that he composed the first book of the Cherubinic Wanderer in four days announces a capacity for working at fever-heat. His verses give evidence of having been struck out in breathless moments of impulse. They lack the chastening of the file and remain ejaculatory and often contradictory. The habit of his mind impelled him to violence of expression and to neglect of the correlation of his ideas. It is understandable that he should have fallen under the spell of Eckhart, whose sentences were marked by an audacity and repudiation of compromise equal to his own. The excessive sweetness of his devotional poetry, with its luxuriance of physical symbolism, betrays a similar absence of restraint in the current of the emotions.

 His physical constitution and the circumstances of his upbringing contributed to enhance his sensibility. The child of an elderly father and an ailing mother, he inherited a frail body which was still further weakened by the encroachments of consumption. The fact that he was left an orphan at the age of fourteen is presumptive of the loneliness of his youth, and in later years the habit of solitude seems to have grown upon him. "I flee from the crowd," he remarks in one of his couplets, and it is probable that he himself is the Theophilus of another verse, whom an interlocutor reproaches for being too much alone. A solitary disposition is at once the cause of sensitiveness and the consequence of it. His habit of withdrawal from the world rendered less bearable the roughness of its contacts. The abusiveness of his enemies stung him to the quick and exacerbated the bitterness of his replies. The failure of his friends to adjust their views to his own was interpreted as coldness and became the matter of querulous complaint.

 Although it was a part of his religion to deny himself the pleasures of the senses, Angelus Silesius does not appear to have been indifferent to them. His body, he stated in one of his verses, was his dearest friend as well as his greatest enemy. Parting from it would be pain. Many of his verses open with a confession of delight: "Beauty I dearly love," "I love to see roses," "I love to hear trumpets." "The figure of the world," he exclaims, "is full of splendour." He makes a constant use of flowers in his poetic imagery. His employment of them goes beyond the conventionalism of the religious poet, to whom lilies are all but lifeless metaphors for purity and virginity; in an age of formalism, when admittance to the dignity of poetic mention was almost confined to the lily and the rose, he lingers lovingly over the names of the wilder varieties. His repeatedly expressed wish that his heart might be like "a vase full of flowers" could come naturally only to one to whom such an object was familiar and delightful. Nevertheless he finds it scarcely permissible to rest his satisfaction in the fugitive beauty of the objects of sense and to enjoy them for their own sakes, but must refer them to their moral significance. He loves roses, he says, because they blossom for themselves alone and care not whether they are seen of any eye, and he takes for a type of sinlessness the "dumb flowers" which never pretend to be other than they are. The unhappy doctrine, which he seems to have shared with almost all the medieval mystics, that the eye or the soul could only perform its function when the eye of sense was closed, thwarted the development of his esthetic perceptivity.

 Angelus Silesius was more than usually pliant to the radiations of a dominating personality. The important part played in his life by his friendships has already been remarked upon. Of these there can be no doubt that his relationship with Franckenberg was the most intimate and the most fruitful. The period of his sojourn at Oels witnessed the blossoming-time of his spirit and of his poetical activity, and it is scarcely too much to say that but for Franckenberg the Cherubinic Wanderer would never have been written. Rostock's militant zeal precluded a disinterested friendship; for him Angelus was a tool to be used for the furtherance of impersonal ends. Bernard Rose's warmth of affection was accompanied by an illiberal influence which still further deflected the mind of the poet from its earlier serenity. Throughout all his literary activity Angelus reveals the same eager receptiveness to suggestion. There is little that is strictly original in either the form or the substance of his work, but building on the foundations of others he was frequently successful, by a quickness of sympathetic insight, in perfecting a design which the original authors had left unfinished.

 Angelus Silesius sums up the long mystical tradition of Germany, and yet it remains to be asked to what extent he himself was the recipient of the authentic mystical experience. Was the ecstatic union of which he speaks the central fact of his spiritual life, or did he merely crystallize in scintillating phrases the reports of others? The fact that almost all his more pregnant utterances are transcriptions of passages which may be discovered in the writings of the older mystical authors suggests a deficiency in the fountains of inward experience. He views the promised land but seems to describe it in terms of hope and anticipation. A sympathetic imagination enabled him to decipher the mystical code, but the message itself appears to have been communicated from without rather than to have been received from within.

 It is in fact impossible, in a close attention to his voice, not to be aware of a note of defeat, perhaps even of despair. His reiterated Alas! Alas! voices a sense of unfulfilment. He has not yet succeeded in finding the central point of that Eternity into which he so ardently yearns to pass. He seeks but has not found the secret of Eternal Rest. He is himself the wheel that runs of itself and knows never any peace. He is in conflict with himself. "I love and hate myself. I make war upon myself. To get the victory over myself I use force and practise strategy. I batter and kill myself. I do all that I can to be myself no longer I."1 This is the language of tortured endeavour, not of attained peace. Such assertions as "I am as great as God," "I am as rich as God," owe their triumphant resonance to a logic of mysticism that was proved to the intellect rather than upon the heart. Transposed into the mode of Baroque, the Gothic sentences of Eckhart sometimes give out a brittle, staccato note; Angelus Silesius fails to reproduce the deep sonority, the massive groundswell of conviction, that sweeps through the sermons of the Rhineland master.

 The assured voices of the mystics telling of the peace that follows the stilling of the insistent clamour of the restless, desiring, anxious, personal I, came to Angelus with a promise of deliverance from the strain and turbulence of the life of impulse. Merged in the waveless ocean of Deity, asleep in the dark night of the Absolute, he would be freed at last from the fret of sensibility and the ache of an unsatisfied craving for love. But this effort of supreme abandonment was not within his power. At that altitude where the familiar world recedes into a concernless unreality the atmosphere was too frigid and rarefied for him to breathe. Not the impassive serenity of an unknowable Godhead but the love of a known and personal God alone could fill his being with light and warmth. And so be turned for the satisfaction of his emotional needs to the human figure of a divine Person. In the Cherubinic Wanderer the scenes of Bethlehem and Calvary, the images of the Virgin and the saints, already propitiate the eye that is baffled in its endeavour to penetrate into the void of the Divine Darkness. To the Cherubinic Wanderer succeeded the Spiritual Pastorals of the Psyche in love with her Jesus, in which the soul seeks and finds a Lover with a distinguishable form. Angelus Silesius aspired after an ineffable union in which the self loses its sense of distinction, but he convinces us of an experienced rapture rather when he relates his encounter with the loving Shepherd, his adorable Jesulein. The Catholic Church, with its personalization of the Divine, its human and heavenly society, beckoned him like a grateful hearth at which he could warm his spirit chilled with its wanderings in the "Silent Wilderness where no one is at home."

 Yet in the end it may be doubted whether the promises of the Catholic Church were crowned with a more satisfactory fulfilment than those of the via negativa of mysticism. Stronger natures than his own availed themselves of the ardour of the convert and urged him into the arena of controversial strife. Angelus found himself caught up in the machinery of the Counter-Reformation. As the peace which he sought eluded him, he endeavoured to recapture it by a more desperate devotion to the cause in which he had enlisted. "Fanaticism," it has been said, "consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim."1 Angelus Silesius never forgot his first aim, which was the conquest of the Kingdom of Heaven, but he spent his best energies in the service of a secondary one, the conquest of Protestant Silesia.

 It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the life of Angelus Silesius conceals an inner tragedy. It might perhaps be suggested that the tragedy was occasioned by his submission to Catholicism, and yet under happier circumstances he might have found peace for his spirit in the Church which Tauler, Suso and Ruysbroeck clung to and which even Eckhart did not abandon. It was his misfortune to have been received into the Church at a moment when the Church's militancy was most sharply accentuated. The need of the hour, at any rate in Silesia, was not for contemplatives but for combatants. It seems clear that if, at the moment when he rejected and was rejected by Lutheranism, Angelus had been true to his deepest self, be would have followed the way leading to spiritual freedom, even though it had led him into solitary places. Had Franckenberg lived it is possible to surmise that the Church would have been deprived of one of her most illustrious converts. But Angelus was not strong enough to stand alone. Dependent, clinging, responsive, his nature craved the support of an authority to which he could sacrifice himself, and in this sacrifice of his true self consisted the tragedy of his life.

 In the cloister of the Merciful Brethren at Breslau hangs a portrait in oils of Angelus Silesius painted in the last years of his life. The wasted cheeks are of an ashen hue. A thin black moustache droops round the corners of the close-shut mouth, below which clings a tuft of beard. The dome of the forehead recedes into the shadow of the dark hair enclosed in a velvet cap. Beneath the lifted eyebrows and falling eyelids the mournful eyes are fixed in a gaze which seems to rest upon its object without interest, as though what it saw was but a hallucination scarcely worthy of serious concern. A vertical furrow above the springing of the thin aquiline nose indicates suffering and perplexity. One hand rests upon a book, the other hangs downwards nervelessly. The frail hunched form has a vague suggestion of pain. In the compressed grey lips, the faded bitter smile, the steady but incurious gaze, it is not impossible to detect the imprint of a spirit whose sympathy has been frozen by chilling and fore-concluded judgements. But above all, the expression communicates a sense of strain and disillusionment, as of one who had toiled and suffered without enjoying the fruition of his labours, and had tasted the bitterness of defeat, yet with an unpersuadable refusal to acknowledge himself to be defeated.


Footnotes

 1 This reply recalls the epigrammatic verse of the contemporary Silesian poet, Friedrich von Logau:

Luthrisch, päbstisch, und calvinisch,
 diese Glauben alle drey
Sind vorhanden; doch ist Zweifel
 wo das Christenthum denn sey?

(Lutheran, Papist and Calvinist, these three faiths we know; but the question is, where is Christianity?)

 1 The poem culminates in an impressive final stanza:

Wer Zeit nunmt ohne Zeit und Sorgen ohne Sorgen,
Wem gestern war wie heut' und heute gilt wie morgen,
Wer alles gleiche schätzt, der tritt schon in der Zeit
In den gewunschten Stand der lieben Ewigkeit.

(Who takes Time and Care as if Time and Care were not, whose Yesterday was as To-day and whose To-day is as To-morrow, who values all things alike, he enters even now in the midst of time into the longed-for state of happy eternity.)

 The thought echoes that of Böhme in a verse which Franckenberg recorded in the second of his biographies:

Wem Zeit ist wie Ewingkeit
Und Ewigkeit wie Zeit,
Der is befreit von allem Streit.

(He to whom Time is as Eternity and Eternity as Time is freed from all conflict.)

There may also be an echo from à Kempis, who in Book III, Chapter XXVI, of the Imitation noted among the marks of a perfect man the ability to pass throught many cares as if without a care—inter multas curas quasi sine cura transire.

 1 According to one authority the choice of this name was due to Scheffler's esteem of a Spanish mystical writer, Johannes ab Angelis, author of Los Triunfos del Amor. In his funeral sermon, however, the Jesuit Daniel Schwartz stated that the allusion was to the name of "Angel" by which he was known in his childhood. The addition of Silesius serves to distinguish him from a contemporary Lutheran theologian, Johannes Angelus of Darmstadt.

 1 "Diese [the excerpts from the prayers of the saints inctuded in the anthology] ob zwar die Urheber drüber stunden, schalt der dahmalige Hoff prediger für Enthusiastisch. Welches mir denn den letzten Stoss gab, dem Lutherthum gram zu werden." Verthädigten Lutherischen Wahrheit, 1665.

 1 A comparison of the verses at the beginning of Book IV of the Cherubinic Wanderer with those of Book of the Spiritual Pastorals suggests many cross-references. Thus a verse (iv. 3) of the Cherubinic Wanderer begins as follows:

Ich habe dich, mein Kind, du zarter Nazarener,
Den Lilien oft vergleicht.

No such comparison is to be found in the preceding book, but in i. 12 of the Spiritual Pastorols we read:

Sagt an, ihr Lilien und Narzissen,
Wo ist das zarte Lilien-Kind?

 1 The best known are "Mir nach, spricht Christus, unser Reid" and "Auf, auf, O Seel, auf, auf, zum Streit."

 1 Preface to Ecclesiologia, 1676.

 1 Among the theologians of the day the schoolboy amenity of discovering an unpleasant allusion in an adversary's surname was much in vogue. Thus Scheffler is nicknamed Schneffler or Schefflermaul. He retorts by addressing a theologian of the name of Hunnius as a "totes Huhn." It may be recalled that Luther was not above referring to the saintly Schwenkfeld as "Stenkfeld."

 2 Ausser der Kirche Christi, die nur die eine und einzige, ist kein Christus . . . ausser ihr macht auch der heilige Geist niemanden lebendig. (Alleiniges Himmelbreich. 1675.)

 1 Cherubinic Wanderer, iii. 229.

 1 G. Santayana, Reason in Commonsense.



II
THE CHERUBINIC WANDERER

THE vicissitudes which the fame of Angelus Silesius has undergone since his death reflect the revolutions of popular taste and philosophic temper. As soon as the blaze of the religious controversies of the seventeenth century had smouldered out, the dust of their ashes settled thickly over his polemical writings. The vital experience which inspired his devotional poetry kept it afloat long after most of the religious versification or his day had sunk into oblivion. The piety of Germany never ceased to find an appropriate voice in the language of his hymns. But after the publication of the complete edition of the Cherubinic Wanderer in 1737 that work shared in the contempt with which the exponents of the Aufklärung dismissed the heritage of German mystical literature. It emerged to view, however, at the turn of the century, when the troubled and questing soul of Romanticism began to re-explore the forgotten habitations of man's spirit. An article by Friedrich Schlegel in 1819 reawakened interest in the seventeenth-century mystic. Both Hegel and Schopenhauer acknowledged the depth of his spiritual insight. Monographs, in which the Christian orthodoxy of his doctrines were debated, followed one another in the succeeding years. The generation that experienced the wave of prosperity following the establishment of the Empire lent a less attentive ear to the spokesman of the mystical tradition, but the definitive editions of Georg Ellinger and H. L. Held are proofs that the voice of the Silesian mystic still finds a response in the modern world.

 The work by which the name of Angelus Silesius will always be primarily remembered appeared in 1657 under the title of Geist-reiche Sinn- und Schluss-reime zur göttlichen Beschaulichkeit anleitend (Sapiential Rhyming Sentences and Epigrams Conducive to Divine Contemplation). It was divided into five books, containing in all 1,413 verses, mostly couplets, together with ten supplementary sonnets. To the second edition, printed at Glatz in 1675 and bearing the title of Cherubinischer Wandersmann, a sixth book was added. A third edition, the last to appear during the author's lifetime, was issued without change in the following year at Glogau.

 The first five books may be presumed to have been written after Scheffler's arrival at Oels and before his public confession of the Catholic faith, that is to say, between the years 1651 and 1653. In substance they carry on the thought of the medieval German mystics, modified by the speculation of those post-Reformation writers, notably Sebastian Franck, Valentine Weigel and Jacob Böhme, who chiefly influenced the members of the Franekenberg circle. In their concentration upon inward spiritual experience and in their freedom from specific dogmatic tenets these books may be said to represent that Cor Religionum, the kernel of the Christian faith, which Franckenberg claimed to have exemplified. The soul needs no induction into the presence of God. "Away with mediation!" the poet cries, "no man must build a wall before my sight." There is no magical virtue in baptism—lilies can be trampled into the mire. The Eucharist is transcended in the spiritual experience of every man who has become one with God (vergöttet), for such an one eats and drinks God in every piece of bread. The authority of the Book is no more binding than that of the Church. Scripture is mere writing (Die Schrift ist Schrift, sonst nichts). God speaks his word only to the heart. The doctrine of justification by faith is dismissed as worthless—belief unaccompanied by love is like an empty cask, "it soundeth but within is naught."

 In the third book and first part of the fourth a change of tone is noticeable. The gaze which had sought to pierce beyond the stars now turns towards the person of the human Saviour and to the figures of the saints. Verses dedicated to St. Teresa and St. Ignatius suggest a new orientation towards the literature of Neo-Catholicism. The epitaphs for St. Gertrude and St. Mechtild may furnish an indication of the date of this section if they are taken in conjunction with Franckenberg's gift of the book containing their Revelations, which Scheffler caused to be so preciously rebound in March 1652. In the later portion of the fourth and the whole of the fifth book the Christological motives once again recede into the background and the wider themes of the first and second books are resumed. The transition to overt Catholicism appears not yet to have taken place.

 The supplementary sixth book, first published in 1675, breathes a different atmosphere. The mystical element is overlaid by a severe didacticism. The gleams of purest spiritual insight which light up its pages show like rifts of blue between threatening clouds. The emphasis falls principally upon the need for action. The dominant image is that of the soldier. The drums roll and the bugle summons the Christian to rouse himself from the bed of sloth, to cast away all the impediments of worldly goods and to devote himself to a life of ceaseless vigilance and warfare. Exhortation passes occasionally from expostulation into abuse. As in the Sinnliche Beschreibung der vier letzten Dinge the reader is to be shocked and goaded into the narrow path. The assertion that "wisdom in God" belongs exclusively to the Catholic Christian measures the distance traversed from the undogmatic detachment of the earlier books. The poet is writing no longer for the mystical initiate but for the practising Catholic whom he seeks to spur to more strenuous moral effort. Nevertheless the intercurrence of the earlier mystical strain links the sixth book with the preceding five and suggests that its composition, at least in part, antedates by a considerable period its publication in 1675.

 The Cherubinic Wanderer consists of a series of detached reflections upon the spiritual world and the moral life, for the most part expressed in a more or less epigrammatic form. Its range embraces metaphysical and theological speculation, moral apophthegms, hortatory maxims, outpourings of personal devotion, spontaneous expressions of hope, endeavour, joy and compunction. The sources of these brief notations of the phases of religious experience are widely various. Many of them are condensed transcriptions of passages taken from the classic pages of the literature of Christian mysticism. Others owe their occasions to meditation upon an incident of Scripture, the succession of the Christian feasts, an aspect of nature, an encounter with a friend, the introspection of the depths of the soul. No general design governs the arrangement of the individual books or of the work as a whole. There are frequent repetitions and, consequent upon the poet's changing moods, frequent contradictions. The only unity which the work possesses is that of the author's mind; it follows the path traced by his wandering footsteps as he explores, with confidence or misgiving, the realm of the spirit.

 The explorer was not adventuring upon uncharted regions. However obscure or bewildering the landscape that presented itself to his gaze, it had been surveyed and described by innumerable travellers before him. The Cherubinic Wanderer made no new discoveries, added nothing to the reports which had been compiled by the great Christian mystics in the thousand years between St. Augustine and St. John of the Cross. In his Preface, Angelus Silesius acknowledges his indebtedness to St. Augustine, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventura, Tauler, Ruysbroeck, the author of the Theologia Germanica, Thomas a Jesu, Nicolaus a Jesu, Harphius, Ludovicus Blosius, Maria de Escobar and others. Eckhart, to whom perhaps his debt was the greatest, he passes over in silence, mindful no doubt of his condemnation by the Holy See; still less does he care to acknowledge his obligations to his Protestant mentors, Weigel, Böhme, Czepko and Franckenberg, in a book which was required to receive the Catholic imprimatur.

 As in the content of his verse so also in its form Angelus Silesius can claim no large measure of originality. The rhymed hexametric couplet was already established as a popular vehicle for epigram and aphorism, spiritual as well as profane, and had been skilfully handled by the poets Martin von Opitz, Friedrich von Logau and Andreas Gryphius, all of whom, it is of interest to note, were natives of Silesia. Among the members of the Franckenberg circle it had provided a convenient means for the concise formulation of their distinctive doctrines. By far the most proficient versifier of the group was Daniel von Czepko, whose Sexcenta Monodisticha Sapientium was certainly in Franckenberg's hands, and therefore accessible to Angelus Silesius, in 1651. It may indeed have been this work that gave him the immediate stimulus to the composition of the Cherubinic Wanderer. Certainly it served him as a model, and even in certain instances as a quarry, from which he appropriated with but slight verbal alterations the finished products of Czepko's workmanship.1

 It was not, however, in the writings of his contemporaries, but in the classical works of the great German mystics of the fourteenth century, that Angelus Silesius discovered the major part of his treasure-trove. His achievement was to melt down the gold of the Gothic mintage and reissue it with a stamp that would give it currency in the age of Baroque. His task was facilitated by the nature of the material that he worked upon. Eckhart, the father of German speculative mysticism, found the most effective channel for the conveyance of his teaching in the popular sermon. In order to impress his message most sharply upon his hearers, he sought for the vivid image, the startling paradox, the brief, pregnant, incisive, unforgettable phrase. These were further shaped in passing from mouth to mouth and from pen to pen until they attained complete independence of their context and came to constitute a kind of corpus of mystical wisdom, forming the elements from which subsequent discourses and tractates were built up. Hence the Spruch—the sentence, the gnomic saying, the epigram—tended to become the unit of mystic literature.

 The bulk of his matter, therefore, came to Angelus Silesius already cast in a more or less epigrammatic, at any rate in an aphoristic, mould. The answer to the inquiry as to whether and how far he was able to improve upon his originals must of necessity rest upon the adoption of a particular standard of taste. To the age of Opitz the diction of Eckhart sounded as uncouth as that of Chaucer to the age of Dryden. A later generation may find the ruggedness of the Gothic enunciation more agreeable than the refinement of the accent of Baroque. It must be remembered, moreover, that while Eckhart had at his command an organ with a multitude of stops, Angelus played upon an instrument of far smaller compass. Nevertheless, as a French critic remarked, even a distich may have its longueurs. Böhme's diamond phrases—"In der Uberwindung ist Freude," "So du heiligl ebest, so bist du selher Gott," "In Ja und Nein bestehen alle Dinge"1—may lose their sparkle when reset in pairs of hexameters. The alexandrine couplet was a Procrustean bed, the fixed dimensions of which necessitated a forced stretching or curtailment, both alike capable of inflicting injury upon the limbs of speech destined to be fitted to it.

 In general, however, the locus classicus of mystical literature emerged from its transmutation into the couplet of the Cherubinic Wanderer with sharper precision and not seldom with greater vigour. Angelus Silesius was a match for any of his predecessors in audacity of phrase. His common practice was to arrest the attention immediately by an assertion designed to provoke astonishment. "I am as great as God," "I am myself Eternity," "I must be Mary," "I disbelieve in Death," "God is a sheer Nothing," "God is not high or deep," "'Tis thou thyself that makest Time," "To practise love is troublesome"—may be cited as instances of his method of posing in the initial phrase an enigma which the remainder of the couplet is devoted to elucidating. Conversely the surprise may be delayed till the conclusion, following upon the enunciation of a commonplace. To the moderation of "Too much is never good" succeeds the seeming immoderation of "and yet I wish I were as full of God as Jesus is!" The orthodoxy of the opening clause, "We pray God's will be done," leads to the unexpected sequel "and lo! He hath no will." Aiming always at inducing a condition of breathlessness in the reader, Angelus intensified the effect of surprise by multiplying contrasts. "Go out—God goeth in; die to thyself—and live to God; be not—He is; do naught—His bidding's done"—so rapid a discharge of antitheses is suggestive of an almost strained determination to allow no breathing-space even within the brief span of a couplet. Yet another means of vivifying his statements was sought in the use of unfamiliar images. "Load a live charge into your gun" enforces the necessity of the heart being filled with the explosive quality of love. Tolerate differences in others, "for the nightingale finds no fault with the cuckoo's note." God drives a merchant's trade, seraphim cart dung, the devil is seen sitting upon God's throne and anger in the heart burns up the "little bed" whereon the Holy Ghost doth rest.

 It was precisely in his search for astonishing novelties and unprecedented effects of chiaroscuro that Angelus Silesius reveals most unmistakeably the influence of the spirit of Baroque. In his translation of the script of mysticism it cannot but be admitted that he occasionally lapsed from the purity of his models. Fertility in the invention of the conceit was demanded of the Baroque poet, and Angelus Silesius followed the fashion of the time when he indulged in a sophistication which sometimes disfigured rather than illuminated his thought.1 In this respect his verse suggests a comparison with the interiors of the churches of his native Breslau, in which a specious and irrelevant incrustation overlays the simplicity of the Gothic shell.

 If the rank of Angelus Silesius as a poet is to be measured by the degree of the resonance and sweetness of those overtones which detach themselves from the bare logical sense of the words and without which verse is only formally distinguished from prose, he can scarcely be assigned a very exalted place in the poetic hierarchy. He did not possess the poet's magical Open Sesame to aid him in forcing the locks of the doors which open upon infinity. A great part of the content of his verse was indeed intractable to the transmuting touch of poetry. He was a moralist as well as a mystic; and while the field of morals yields a rich harvest to the aphorist, it affords but a scanty gleaning to the poet. It was much if by a happy stroke of the pen he promoted many of his moral truisms to the rank of epigrams. But the temper which makes the fortune of the aphorist, the aroused tolerance spiced with malice, could not exist side by side with the passionate concern of one for whom the most trivial of human actions was weighty with tremendous issues. For Angelus the spectacle of human life was not a comedy but a tragedy; and if at times his voice became strident and shrill he could plead in excuse that it was not his business to amuse but to warn and exhort.

 In his view also of the natural world he never attained to that disinterestedness of gaze by virtue of which brooks and stones possess a precious value for the spirit apart from the books and sermons which a moralizing eye may find inscribed in them. For the poet the least of the objects of sense exists in its own right and in its own integrity; but for Angelus Silesius even the noblest shone only with the splendour of its unseen original, for a glimpse of which he was willing to barter all the fragmentary gleams of merely earthly beauty. If it is inferred from this inevitable bias of vision that the mystic is self-excluded from the company of the poets—a conclusion which would have to meet a challenging citation of names—the inference may be allowed to hold good of the medieval mystics who followed the Negative Way, and it was from them rather than from their post-Reformation successon, who read delightedly in the open book of Nature, that the author of the Cherubinic Wanderer traced his lineage. Mysticism did indeed give wings to his verse, but only to enable him to soar above the world of sense until at last words themselves proved too opaque and ponderous to serve as pinions in so pure an ether. He addressed himself to the impossible task of saying the unsayable. He endeavoured to speak in the local idiom of the mystics, with its meagre and well-thumbed vocabulary of symbols, the secrets which can only be uttered by tongues of fire. But so long as this idiom is spoken and listened to, not a few of the cadences of Angelus Silesius will always linger in the memory.

*
*   *

To review even summarily the basic ideas embodied in the Cherubinic Wanderer would involve a recapitulation of the philosophy of mysticism. All that can be attempted here is to gather into a few major strands the discrete utterances which Angelus Silesius made no endeavour to co-ordinate, and to offer a few clues which may help in the unravelling of the paradoxical expression of his thought.

 Any thread in the skein which we may choose to take hold of leads, if followed to its conclusion, to the central fact of the mystical doctrine, namely, the union, or according to a more radical interpretation, the identity, of the true self of the individual with the larger self of the All, whether it be termed God, the Absolute, or Ultimate Reality. This conception or experience found its earliest and briefest expression in the formula of the Upanishads, "That art Thou." Let us consider the two terms of the synthesis, first the That and then the Thou.

 One of the essential keys in the elucidation of mystical thought consists in the distinction between the twofold aspect under which the That, the divine Reality, may be viewed, namely as personal or impersonal, God or Godhead. Not a little of the obscurity which involves the utterance of Angelus Silesius is due to the fact that he did not always articulate this distinction clearly. The term God is understood as the creative principle whose fiat called man and the universe into being. God stands over against the world as its Maker. The Creator is the correlative or the Creation. He is revealed to us in the universe which he has created. He is conceived as possessing attributes analogous to the qualities of our human nature. He is moved to love, to wrath, to sorrow, to pity. He continually sustains the world which he has created and watches over his children with paternal solicitude. He is in a word a Person, with whom man can enter into personal relations, and is most perfectly revealed to our heart and understanding under the type of Father.

 But in conceiving a Creator who stands above or outside Creation we have already broken up the indivisible unity of the All. We are still in a world of relatives and have not yet reached the Absolute, which by definition has nothing relative to it. When the quest of unity is pursued to its utmost limit it issues in "the One" who is above all relations and determinations. This ultimate Reality—Deitas, Gottheit, Godhead—comprehends but is not comprehended by the generative energy which manifested itself in creation. God is revealed in and through Creation—without the creatures, Eckhart said, God would not be God; but the Godhead lies eternally unrevealed behind and beyond all its manifestations, as the unplumbed depth of ocean lies beneath the lighted surface visible to the eye. It is an undifferentiated unity, unknown, unknowable, anonymous, colourless.

 It follows, therefore, that we can affirm nothing positive of the Godhead. In ascribing to it any definite attribute we thereby exclude the opposite of this attribute, and nothing must be excluded from the That which comprehends everything. To define is to limit and to diminish. If we say that God is good or that he is wise, Eckhart declares, it is not true. "There is no knowing what God is. Something we do know, namely, what God is not." All that we can truthfully say about the Godhead is that it is "not this," "not that," since to describe it by any adjective would be to determine it, and the Absolute is indetermination itself. Un Dieu difini est un Dieu fini.

 This trend of reflection brings us to the via negativa—the familiar Negative Way of mysticism. Being indefinable, or definable only in negative terms, the Godhead must appear from our human standpoint as the very essence of Negation, and the mystics did not scruple to designate it by the term Nihil. For Eckhart the Deity was the "Nameless Nothing," the "Super-essential Naught," "the Still Wilderness where no one is at home." Expressions of a similar nature occur in the Cherubinic Wanderer: "God is a sheer Naught—the more thou graspest after Him the more He escapes thee," "The Godhead is a Super-Naught," "a colourless Sea," "God is not high or deep," "God neither loves nor lives."

 These and many other riddling statements in the Cherubinic Wanderer lose their effect of bewilderment if they are interpreted as expressions of the inability of the human mind to describe an Absolute which transcends an distinctions. They are so many warnings, inscribed in the boldest characters, against the naturally anthropomorphic tendency of our thought. If they seem to reduce the Godhead to an impenetrable darkness, "the fault is in our eye and not in that great Light." The Light which is beyond all light is but "dark with excessive bright." It is the absence of the finitude that characterizes our thinking that gives to infinite Fullness the appearance of infinite Void.

 Like the That, the divine Essence, so also the Thou, the self, possesses a twofold aspect. "God and Godhead," Eckhart states, "are as different from one another as heaven is from earth. And I maintain still further that the outer and the inner man are as infinitely different as heaven and earth." The outer man is the empirical or personal I, the mortal body with its psychic filling, the earthly, creaturely I which constitutes a distinguishable person and makes a man a Henry or a Conrad. This all-too-human I, which appears and passes away, accidental and fundamentally unreal, can never aspire to become one with the divine Reality. It is but the outward shell which encloses the inner or essential I.

 The central thought which runs through the Cherubinic Wanderer may be summed up in Eckhart's phrase, "Wouldst thou have the kernel, then must the shell be broken." For kernel and shell Angelus employs the scholastic terms essence and accident.

Become essential, Man. When the world fails at last,
Accident falls away, But Essence, that stands fast.

 In order to liberate the inward, essential self, the outward, accidental self must be abandoned. Self-abandonment (Gelassenheit) constitutes the indispensable mystical technique by means of which the goal of union with the divine is to be attained. The corner-stone upon which the whole structure of mysticism rests is the gospel paradox that the self is saved by being lost, lives by dying. In the mouth of Angelus Silesius this was no mere rhetorical trope. He accepted it in its fullest significance and pursued it to its furthest conclusion. The truth that selflessness is the apex of the spiritual life doubtless represents in a general sense the open secret of all the higher religions. But the paradox implicit in the selflessness of self is usually eluded by diluting selflessness to an amiable altruism. For Angelus, however, self-abandonment meant not merely the abandonment of egoistic motives, but the abandonment, the radical annihilation, of the self itself. The self must make an unconditional surrender of its selfhood. It must lose all sense of self-identity, of particularity, of otherness. Above all, it must be quit of all desires, whether for rewards, for happiness, for a future life, or even for God himself; for the persistence of any desire attests the fact that the desiring self still lives on. It must die. It must cease to be. The categorical imperative of Angelus Silesius is Sei nicht—Be not.

 If this were the conclusion of the whole matter, if the goal to be attained were merely cessation of existence, the doctrine embodied in the Cherubinic Wanderer might appear to be scarcely distinguishable from that of Buddhistic nihilism, culminating in the total extinction of self in Nirvana. But just at this point is disclosed the radiant secret which transforms mysticism from a religion of despair to one of rapture. The self, having shed off everything which constituted it a self, is seen to be one with the divine Essence! The Other, for which the self craved so long as it was a self, is no longer other. Rid of its selfhood the self finds that in its inmost essence it is abiding in the Godhead whence it has never "gone out."

Im Grenzenlose sich zu finden
Wird gern der Einzelne verschwinden.1

Gladly does the self surrender its individuality in order to find itself in the boundless Whole. The relation of subject to object, of creature to Creator, ceases to exist. The problem of how the finite can ever know the Infinite finds its solution in the obliteration of the distinction between Knower and Known. I and Thou are indistinguishable terms. The Thou discovers itself to be one with the That. There remains, as Angelus phrased it, "a single Light and a single Splendour."

 What appears at first sight to be the arrogance or an overweening egoism in many of the assertions of the Cherubinic Wanderer loses all its outrageousness if construed in the light of this distinction, not always clear in the text, between the accidental and the essential self.

Once I was God in God, or ever I was I,
And can be God again if this I could but die.

When the I of Angelus Silesius perishes, not by physical death but by the death of its selfhood, then the I of the soul's uncreated essence alone remains, inseverable from the Deity as it was before the Creation. Strictly speaking there is no "before," since Creation is not a temporal process. The essential, eternal I is occluded by the temporal I, which must "unself" itself and become an "Unthing" in order that its immortal companion may be freed and reabsorbed in the ocean of the Godhead.

 The shell, therefore, which must be broken before the inner kernel can be found is Selfhood. That which impedes the union of the self with God is the self's sense of "I" and "Me" and "Mine." "It is the property of God," says the author of the Theologia Germanica, "to be without this and that, and without Self and Me, and without equal or fellow; but it is the nature and property of the creature to seek itself and its own things, and this and that, here and there; and in all that it doeth and leaveth undone its desire is to its own advantage and profit. Now where a creature or man forsaketh and cometh out of himself and his own things, there God entereth in with his own, that is, with himself." "Where the creature ends, there God begins," Eckhart declares. "Now God demands of thee nothing more imperatively than that thou shalt go out of thyself, so far as thou art creaturely, and let God be God in thee." The same theme is recurrent in various forms in the Cherubinic Wanderer. "Go out and so God cometh in," "The more thou canst pour thyself out of thyself, the more must God with all his Godhead flow into thee," "The more thou canst annul thyself, the more thou hast of Deity." The quality of selfhood is like a prison wall; only when the wall is thrown down can the prisoner escape and breathe again the native air of heaven. Selfhood is sin. Angelus enforces this view in a daring image when he says that if the Devil could only lose his "His-ness" straightway we should see the Devil sitting upon God's throne. Nothing separates the Devil from God but the fact of selfhood. Conversely he asserts that if there were a trace of selfwill in Christ, "believe me, he would fall."

 The abandonment of self, with all its desire for its own advantage and profit, with its craving for a particular this or that, with its longing even for God, constitutes the spiritual death which is the prerequisite of absorption in the Godhead. The outward man must die hourly. "Die ere thou diest—then, dying, thou diest not"; that is, do not let physical death overtake you before you have died the spiritual death. For the spiritual death is death unto life. The death of the outward, accidental man is the birth of the inward, essential man. "That which thou sowest is not quickened except it die." Thus far this is the norm of Christian doctrine. But the thought of Angelus Silesius, following that of Eckhart, proceeds to unveil a more hidden mystery. This birth of the inner man in the Godhead is identified with the birth of the divine Son. The birth of the Son, like the creation of the world, is an eternal process. "God eternally brings forth his Son like unto himself," Eckhart declares. "But I say, furthermore, he has brought him forth in my soul. Not merely is she with him and he equally with her, but he is in her, and the Father gives birth to the Son in the soul in the very same way as he gives him birth in eternity, and in none other." Eckhart pursues the mystery still farther. The birth of the Son is God's realization of his own essence. For Eckhart proceeds: "Yea, I declare moreover, not only doth God give birth to me as his Son, he gives birth to me as himself and himself as me, he gives birth to me as his own essence and as his own nature." Angelus expresses this thought in such phrases as "I must give birth to God," "I must be pregnant with God," "I help him to sustain his being as much as he helps to sustain mine." Here the mystical doctrine of the oneness of the uncreated essence of the soul with the essence of Deity loses itself in an O Altitudo!

 The relation between the accidental and the essential self is presented in the Cherubinic Wanderer as corresponding with the relation between Time and Eternity. The empirical individual occupies a particular station in time and place, but simultaneously with the spiritual birth all temporal and spatial fetters fall away. Eternity is the sphere or habitat of Reality, Time the abode of the fragmentary and unreal. It is the illusion of the accidental self. "'Tis thou thyself that makest Time." Time is made by the unrest of the senses which continually crave for a particular this and that. The aim of the mystic is to pass from Time into Eternity, a process which is identical with the spiritual birth or divine union.

 Eternity, as Angelus Silesius understands it, has nothing to do with perpetuity of existence or infinite longevity. It is another dimension of being. It is rather an experience or a state, the state of perfection, in which futurity is inconceivable, for there is nothing further to seek. It is the desired state (der gewünschte Stand) to which the soul aspires. Nothing could be falser from this point of view than the notion that at death we are, as the common phrase goes, "launched into eternity." The merely physical destruction of the psycho-physical organism does not automatically bring in its train so great a prize. Death is not a kind of magic which converts accident into essence. The only death that can win admittance to Eternity is the spiritual death, which is also the spiritual birth. Hence we do not have to wait until our earthly, creaturely life has run its course before we can enter upon the Eternal Life. The art of spiritual living consists in the faculty of living in Eternity here and now. Time and Eternity are in a sense interpenetrating; both are present simultaneously as two different perspectives are present to the eye from the same point of view. The one presents a view of reality, the other its unreal reflection in the mirror of time. The aim of the mystic is to pass from the temporal to the Eternal Now. "If there is any difference between Time and Eternity," Angelus Silesius says, paraphrasing the verse of Böhme quoted by Franckenberg, "it is because the difference is made by you yourself." His twofold summons, "Be Eternity" and "Become essential," have one and the same significance.1

 Just as little reality attaches to space as to time. Both are perspectives viewed from the finite individual's station in a particular here and now. Both issue from his finitude and ignorance. It is we who create space just as we create time. We are not in space, but space is in us. Place being unreal, it follows that Heaven and Hell have no local status. And just as it is possible to be in eternity while still in the midst of time, so it is possible to be in Heaven or Hell while still upon earth. Heaven and Eternity are terms denoting the same blessed state of the soul which has lost the sense of selfhood.

 In his view of the relation of the soul to the created world Angelus Silesius follows the main line of thought traced out by Eckhart in his sermons. God did not create the world in time, since in the Godhead there is neither Before nor After. Creation is coeval with God. "For as soon as He was God," Eckhart asserts, "as soon as He begat His coeternal and coequal Son, He created the world." Angelus restates the essence of this passage in his favourite form of question and answer: after inquiring how we ought to date the year of the world's creation, he replies, "Not otherwise than thus, the first year of God's origin." The world, which is the outcome of this never-ceasing creative process, is not, however, the world of phenomena but of essences or prototypes. It is the thinking out of God's thoughts. When God, as it were, turning his gaze inwards upon himself, becomes conscious of himself he beholds the infinite riches of his nature, and in this self-contemplation, or self-objectification, the divine Ideas are born, or rather not born but discovered. True being belongs only to this world of perfect and changeless essences, of which the world of time and place is but a transitory and shadowy reflection. When Angelus says that the world does not pass away but only the darkness in which it is involved, he is speaking of the world of essences which are God's thoughts. Through every created thing shines as through a crystal the light of its uncreated essence.

The rose which here thou seest with thine outward eye
Hath blossomed in God from all eternity.1

 The things of this world are fleeting embodiments in a perishing substance of divine Ideas. In this sense, as the thoughts of God, they are all perfect and all alike of equal worth—the common pebble is not less precious than the ruby, the frog is as beautiful as the seraph and its harsh croaking as melodious in the ear of God as the song of the lark. It is only our human estimation which gives to things their relative values of better and worse.

 The author of the Cherubinic Wanderer, like his master Eckhart, has frequently been charged with holding views of the nature of the world which are indistinguishable from pantheism, and it can scarcely be denied that many of his utterances, if taken at their face-value, give colour to this supposition. He himself, while rebutting the charge in his Introduction, admits that owing to their brevity and compression his verses were liable to misinterpretation. If pantheism is understood as the identification of the material universe with God, then Angelus is anything but a pantheist. The burden of his message is the unreality of creatures in themselves. For the pantheist Nature is divine and there is no God above or beyond Nature. For Angelus, Nature is but a medium which imperfectly transmits the light of the divine reality. Things are real only so far as they exist in God, and so far as they are not in God their existence is illusory. It is when they claim reality for themselves by virtue of an independent selfhood that they are most unreal. The assertion of a self, the exercise of selfwill, is an act by which the creature alienates itself from God and cuts itself loose from the roots of Being.

 God has manifested himself in Creation, yet be is infinitely more than the sum of his manifestations. "The fullness of the creatures," says Eckhart, "can as little express God as a drop of water can express the sea." The question, then, arises whether our aspiration to know God in his fullness will be forwarded or hindered by our contemplation of Nature or "creatures." Eckhart maintained that creatures were a mere naught. "I do not say that they are insignificant or that they are anything at all; they are merely nothing. What has no being is nothing. Creatures have no real being, for their being consists in the presence of God," Angelus echoes this view in the verse in which he says, "Thou lovest actually nothing if thou lovest a something. God is not This or That—therefore let the something go." So far from leading the soul to God, creatures are rather an obstacle in the soul's upward progress, for they entangle it in the illusory world of time and space from which it would fain be free. In his passionate apprehension of God as the unity underlying all diversity Angelus tended to view the diversity of nature with an almost disparaging eye, as if its broken hues literally stained the white radiance of eternity. The ocean of the Godhead is colourless. Colour, distinction, individuation—all these denote a kind of separatism from the undivided reality and therefore to rest in them is to linger on the way that leads to union with the Godhead. "If thou wilt find perfect comfort and delight, see that thou art quit of all creatures," Eckhart counsels, "and of all comforts of creatures. It is quite certain that so long as creatures comfort thee, are able to comfort thee, so long thou wilt never find true comfort." He who has God, Angelus constantly iterates, has all; to wish for anything beside is a kind of infidelity, like that of the bride who wishes for other lovers beside her spouse. He who has the sun has no need to scarch the sky for stars.

 This is a harsh doctrine for a poet, and it may be that Angelus would have been a better poet if he had never embraced it. We continually discern in him a kind of violence done to his poetic nature, a strain between his esthetic and his metaphysic. Mundus pulcherrimum nihil—his metaphysic led him to the conclusion that the phenomenal world is a mere nothing, but his senses assured him none the less of its beauty. He resolved this contradiction by referring the beauty to the divine essence of which the phenomenon was the pale reflection; but it has been justly remarked that a "view of the world as a pale reflection of the Ideas leads in practice to a contempt for visible things."1 In Angelus Silesius it led not so much to contempt as to a kind of dread of the suasion of beauty. He seems almost to resent the pleadingness with which the transitory beauties of earth solicited his attention and sought to draw it away from fixation upon the Unity which is above diversity. It does not clearly appear, however, how a divine Idea or essence can be known and loved except through its manifestation in a temporal appearance; and in several verses in the Cherubinic Wanderer the poet suggests that the beauty of appearances may lead the soul to an apprehension of the infinitely more glorious beauty of the divine Reality. With one who complains that creatures are a hindrance he remonstrates, "How so?—to me all creatures must be a way to God."

 Nevertheless his attitude in face of the beauty of the world remains a wavering one. For though the myriad forms of nature reflect the beauty of the divine Countenance they also obscure it, as a mirror that is shattered into fragments distorts the image which is perfect only in its unity. The poet, we feel, would willingly let his eyes rest upon everything that the sun illuminates with its light, but the mystic must keep his gaze turned upon the sun itself, even though its intolerable brightness blinds his sight. He must strip himself of his selfhood, and with his selfhood of his awareness of other selves, of every particular this and that. He must pass beyond creatures, beyond even the Creator, if he would lose himself in the Divine Darkness where there is neither seeing nor hearing. He must close both eyes and ears to the distractions of sense before he can make the salto mortale into the lap of the Absolute.

 The mystic must walk warily if he is to maintain his balance on the razor edge of orthodoxy. Quietism, no less than pantheism, threatens to engulf him; and in the seventeenth century, under the influence of Miguel de Molinos, it captured the hearts of many of the devouter members of the Catholic Church. The suspension of thought in prayer and contemplation and the passivity of the will, which the Quietist upheld as the highest stage of the spiritual life, ran counter to the Church's insistence upon the necessity of active co-operation with divine grace. Angelus Silesius emphasizes alternately and with a seeming contradiction the need of both the quickening and the deadening of the will. "By thy will thou art saved," he asserts, and contrarily, "The dead will ruleth." The contradiction is not insoluble, for the death of the will is self-inflicted and therefore in itself an act of voluntarism. The goal of willing is willessness. For Eckhart, Tauler and the author of the Theologia Germania, selfwill (Eigenwille), the assertion of a separate selfhood, was the very essence of sin, the sole real evil in the world. Its eradication demanded the exercise of the supreme powers of the soul. But when once the victory was won and all the exorbitant desires of the lower creaturely self annihilated, then the will had nothing more to do but to remain passive and expectant; for a void had been created which God alone could fill. The creature acts no more, but God acts in him. The silence has been established in which God speaks. The Soul, having emptied her house of all her ruinous and turbulent guests, having swept and garnished it, has nothing further to do but to wait in stillness and solitude the coming of her Lord and Master.

 A mystic has been described as one who is in love with the Absolute, and the religion of Angelus Silesius, at all events in its earlier phase, was a longing to penetrate through all the veils of sense and thought to an experience of immediate contact with pure Being. Bleak and frigid as such a religion must appear in its exaltation of a Deity so void of all known or conceivable qualities, of all the colour and warmth belonging to familiar finite existences, that it can be spoken of only in terms of negation as a Dark Night or a Silent Wilderness, nevertheless it has always possessed an attraction for a certain type of mind and one that is frequently far from insensible to the delightful variegation of the landscape of the world of appearances. Especially to spirits sensitive to the transience and tragedy of human life there is a soothing balm in the assurance that all the broken and conflicting elements of existence as we know it somehow constitute a perfect and harmonious Whole, that beyond the flux of change there is One who changes not, that at the heart of the tumult there is a perpetual calm. Even one to whom the tumult had brought only wounds and disaster might be contented, like a fallen soldier, if he but heard "the distant strains of triumph break agonized and clear." To the mystic, however, the triumph is not distant and future but immediate and present. The blissful harmonious experience of the Absolute is his experience. But yet—and here reason stumbles—in what sense is it "his"? For the very condition of participation in that experience is the abandonment of self, of the personal I as a self-conscious separate entity. The finite can only attain to ultimate reality by ceasing to be finite. The ocean of the Absolute drowns all those who would swim in it. This is a price which those can scarcely be willing to pay for whom religion means principally the promise of personal immortality, the guarantee of a future world in which the dear familiar self can continue its thrilling and delightful adventures with indefinitely enhanced possibilities of success and happiness. Nor can those whose longing is for a God of love and sympathy find the satisfaction of their needs in an impersonal Absolute. "The Deity which they want is of course finite, a person much like themselves, with thoughts and feelings mutable in the process or time. They desire a person in the sense of a self among and over against other selves, moved by personal relations and feelings towards these others—feelings and relations which are altered by the conduct of others. And for their purpose, what is not this, is really nothing."1

 The Absolute is neither personal nor interested in persons. It stands above every particular This and That. It identifies itself with no partial interest, not even with the interest of goodness. To call God good, Eckhart declares to be as absurd as to call the sun black; and Angelus Silesius asserts that "in his self of Deity God feels no pain for sin in thee." And thus when he seeks for an ultimate answer to the riddle of existence he finds it only in the supposition that it is but a kind of divine game which has no other purpose beyond the playing of it.

All this is but a game, which God
Fashioneth for Himself alone.

 We are reminded of the reply of the Indian saint who, when asked by his disciple why the divine Mother has bound us hand and foot with the chains of the world, answered, "Well, I suppose it is Her pleasure. It is Her pleasure to go on with Her sport with all the things that She has brought into existence."2

 To suggest, however, that the spiritual intuition of Angelus Silesius culminated in this vision of divine apathy would be to misrepresent his fundamental conviction. He who is truly in love with the Absolute must not look to be loved in return, and the craving for love was at the very root of his nature. It was perhaps the tragedy of his life that he experienced so little of it in human relationships. All the greater, therefore, was his need to find it in heaven. It is questionable whether the religious consciousness can ever find satisfaction in the Absolute unless it surreptitiously introduces into the object of its worship the element of personality.

 The God of his metaphysic may have been the impassive Deity that plays its divine game for itself alone, but the God of his heart was "a person in the sense of a self, among and over against other selves, moved by personal relations and feelings." Angelus discovers the essential nature of the Godhead to be love. "Even the Trinity hath been in thrall to love from all eternity." God loves himself and thus be begets his Son. The chasm between the eternal and the human consciousness is bridged in the divine Son, Jesus Christ. The birth of the Son is necessarily an eternal proccss, since God is outside of time and space; but its manifestation to mankind takes place as an event in human history. For Angelus the historical Christ stands out with a distinctness of human feature, with a gaze of love and pity so profound that he is swept away in an outgush of personal devotion. In the whole range of Christian devotional literature it would be difficult to find the expression of a greater warmth of love for the person of Jesus or of a more intimate sympathy with his earthly life and sufferings than that of Angelus Silesius. This side of his nature is most fully revealed in the Spiritual Pastorals, but verses no less glowing with tender affection abound in the pages of the Cherubinic Wanderer. Unable to sustain his lonely flight to an altitude to which even the pinions of cherubin were powerless to attain, he dropped back to rest in a loved Personality, at once human and divine, like a tired lark to the warmth of its earthly nest. It would be an unprofitable search to seek to discover in the poetical writings of Angelus Silesius a coherent system of thought or even the expression of a unified mode of feeling. We should mistake his purpose if we were to credit him with the intention or laying the distinct foundations of a metaphysic or even of a theosophy. He was one of that numerous company of spirits who feel themselves to be in exile on the earth and whose chief concern is to find a way back to their native country. He explored both the Negative Way of mysticism and the devotional way of the Cross. He was responsive to the signals and beckonings or the many travellers who had set out before him on the way to the far country. An arresting paradox from Eckhart, a lightning flash from Böhme, an ecstatic cry from St. Mechtild or St. Teresa, an epigram from Czepko, these were the sparks which, falling upon his inflammable imagination, lit up the momentary visions he engraved in the incisive lines of his verse. He was too much at the mercy of his impulses and enthusiasms to stay to reflect upon the connection of his thoughts or to weave them into a continuous tissue. He was like a child picking up coloured pebbles on a beach, indifferent to the diversified geological strata from which they originated. It is after all for the variety as well as for the depth of its intuitions that the religious verse of Angelus Silesius is to be valued. All the audacity and extravagance, all the practical sagacity and the childish simplicity, all the aspiration, all the triumphs and despairs, which are involved in the effort of mysticism to penetrate into the heart of reality, are resumed in him and together constitute the thousand-faceted jewel of the Cherubinic Wanderer.


Footnotes

 1 An example of Angelus Silesius's method of adaptation is offered in the following comparison:

Indem der Teufel ist, ist er so gut als du
Dem Wesen nach, in Gott, nichts mangelt ihm als Ruh. 
Sexcenta Monodisticha Sapientum.
 
Der Teufel ist so gut dem Wesen nach als du.
Was gehet ihm denn ab? Gestorbner Will und Ruh.
Cherubinic Wanderer

 1 "Joy is in overcoming," "If thou livest holily then art thou thyself God," "All things consist in Yea and Nay."

 1 An example of the faults of taste into which he was betrayed by the lure of the conceit is afforded by the Collowing couplet:

Wie kocht man Gott das Herz? Es muss gestossen sein,
Gepresst und stark verguld't, sonst geht es ihm nicht ein. 
Cherubinic Wanderer. V. 100.

(How shall the heart be cooked for God? It must be brayed, compressed and thickly gilded, else He will not swallow it.)

 1 Goethe.

 1 In an entry dated July 22, 1652, in the friendship album of his old school-fellow, Elias Major (presented in the Stadt Bibliothek at Breslau), Angelus Silesius wrote "Aeternitas Esto" (Be Eternity). It is of interest to note that Elias Major had adopted as his "Symbolum" or device the phrase "Aeternitatem Cogita" (Think of Eternity). We may imagine Angelus Silesius turning to the first page and reading his friend's motto before making his entry. The turn which he gave to the phrase is deeply significant.

 1 Cherubinic Wanderer, I. 108. To the couplet he adds in a note the explanatory word, idealiter.

 1 Christian Mysticism, by W. R. Inge, p. 304.

 1 Appearance and Reality, by F. H. Bradley, p. 532.

 2 The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, Madras, p. 174.



I
GODHEAD

1 (II. 188)
BEING IS NOT MEASURED

Turn wheresoe'er I will, I find no evidence
of End, Beginning, Centre or Circumference.

2 (I. 263)
GOD NEVER EXPLORETH HIMSELF

The Thought and Deed of Deity
Are of such richness and extent
That It remaineth to Itself
An Undiscovered Continent.

3 (VI. 174)
IN THE SEA MANY ARE ONE

A Loaf holds many grains of corn
And many myriad drops the Sea:
So is God's Oneness Multitude
And that great Multitude are we.

4 (V. I)
ALL INTO ONE AGAIN

The All proceedeth from the One,
And into One must All regress:
If otherwise, the All remains
Asunder-riven manyness.

5 (I. 25)
GOD IS NOT GRASPED

God is an utter Nothingness,
Beyond the touch of Time and Place:
The more thou graspest after Him,
The more he fleeth thy embrace.

6 (I. 15)
THE SUPER-DEITY

What hath been told of God is not enough for me:
My life and light flow from the Super-Deity.

7 (I. 284)
MAN MUST GO BEYOND ALL KNOWLEDGE

What Cherubs know sufficeth not: beyond their zone
I fain would take my flight unto where nothing's known.

8 (I. 285)
THE KNOWER MUST BECOME THE KNOWN

Naught ever can be known in God: One and Alone
Is He. To know Him, Knower must be one with Known.

9 (I. 43)
MAN LOVETH EVEN WITHOUT KNOWING

One only Thing I love and know not what it is:
Because I know it not, therefore I've chosen this.

10 (V. 41)
MORE KNOWN LESS UNDERSTOOD

The more thou knowest God, the more thou wilt confess
That what He truly is, thou knowest less and less.

11 (I. 178)
THE BLAME IS THINE

If gazing on the Sun endangereth thy sight,
The blame is in thine eyes, and not in that great Light.

12 (I. 294)
GOD IS WITHOUT WILL

We pray: Thy Will be done! and lo! He hath no Will:
God in His changelessness eternally is still.

13 (IV. 166)
THE REST AND WORK OF GOD

Rested God never hath, nor toiled—'tis manifest,
For all His rest is work and all His work is rest.

14 (III. 170)
OF ETERNAL MOTION

The secret of Eternal Motion thou wouldst learn,
I, of Eternal Rest: which is of more concern?

15 (I. 49)
REST IS THE HIGHEST GOOD

Rest is the highest Good. I'd keep both eyes close pressed,
That He might have repose, were God Himself not Rest.

16 (I. 44)
THE SOMETHING MUST BE FORSAKEN

If thou dost love a Something, Man,
Thou lovest naught that doth abide.
God is not This nor That—do thou
Leave Somethings utterly aside.

17 (V. 328)
SIN TROUBLETH NOT GOD

God feeleth pain for sin in thee
 As in His son,
But in His Self of Deity
 He feeleth none.

18 (V. 16)
THROUGH THEE GOD LOSETH NAUGHT

Choose, Man, which of the twain thou wilt,
Thy self-destruction or thy peace.
Through thee God suffereth no loss,
Neither through thee hath He increase.

19 (V. 34)
GOD LOVETH NAUGHT BUT HIMSELF

God is so dear unto Himself,
Folded in self so utterly,
That He can never cherish love
For anything that is not He.

20 (V. 92)
GOD FORESEETH NOTHING

God foresees nothing—'tis thy dull and blundering sense
Doth clothe Him with the attribute of Providence.

21 (V. 173)
GOD HATH NO THOUGHTS

God thinketh naught. Yea verily,
Were thought in Him, then might He sway
—Which were a thing unthinkable—
Now this way, now the other way.

22 (II. 55)
GOD IS AND LIVETH NOT

God is, but in God-wise. He loves and lives, 'tis true,
But not as I or thou or other beings do.

23 (V. 124)
WHAT IS SPOKEN OF GOD IS MORE FALSE THAN TRUE

Since thou dost measure God by creature qualities,
There's more of lie than truth in thy theologies.

24 (V. 358)
GOD BECOMES WHAT HE WILLS

Eternal Spirit, God becomes
All that He wills to be—but still
Abideth ever as He is,
Without a form, an aim, a will.

25 (I. 115)
THOU MUST THYSELF BE SUN

I must myself be Sun. I with my beams must dye
The all-uncoloured Sea of the whole Deity.

26 (II. 17)
GOD DENIETH HIMSELF TO NONE

Take, drink, all that thou wilt or canst—'tis given thee free,
Thou hast the whole of Godhead for thy Hostelry.

27 (V. 339)
NO CREATURE FATHOMETH THE GODHEAD

No creature fathometh how deep the Godhead is,
Even the soul of Christ is lost in that Abyss.

28 (IV. 38)
GOD NAUGHT AND ALL

God is a Spirit, a Fire, a Being and a Flame,
And yet again He is not one of all these same.

29 (IV. 1)
GOD BECOMETH WHAT HE NEVER WAS

Here in the midst of Time God doth become what He,
The Unbecome, was not in all Eternity.

30 (II. 245)
THE GODHEAD IS MY MOTHER

God hath begotten me—such my true genesis,
But do thou never ask me who my Mother is.


II
GOD

31 (II. 48)
GOD IS KNOWN IN THE CREATURE

The hidden God becometh known
 And general to mankind
In the created World of Things
 Which He hath fashioned and designed.

32 (V. 214)
GOD IS ALL IN ALL

God in the Christ is God;
In angels, Form Angelical;
In men is Man; and in the rest
Is what thou wilt, the All in all.

33 (V. 65)
GOD CANNOT HIDE HIMSELF

God cannot ever hide Himself—if hid He seem,
'Tis thou that hast devised a hiding-place for Him.

34 (V. 91)
IN WHAT YEAR THE WORLD WAS CREATED

How date the year when God created Heaven and Earth?
Not otherwise than thus: The First Year of God's Birth.

35 (II. 40)
GOD IS THE SMALLEST AND THE GREATEST

My God, how great is God! My God, how God is small!
Small as the smallest thing, great—needs must be—as All.

36 (V. 75)
NAUGHT EXISTETH WITHOUT JOY

Naught that is joyless can endure.
Even the Being of God would pass,
Had He no pleasure in Himself,
And wither like the new-mown grass.

37 (V. 189)
GOD IS ETERNALLY IN LOVE WITH HIS OWN BEAUTY

God is so super-beautiful
That He beholdeth in a trance
Of rapture from eternity
The Splendour of His Countenance.

38 (II. 190)
OF GOD

God joyeth in Himself. Himself He cannot cloy.
For in Himself alone hath He the highest joy.

39 (V. 50)
GOD IS NOT VIRTUOUS

God is not virtuous. Out of Him virtue streams,
As water from the Sea and from the Sun sun-beams.

40 (V. 93)
GOD CANNOT BE WRATH

God is not ever wrath with us.
His wrath is but our dream.
It were a thing impossible
That wrath should be in Him.

41 (I. 137)
GOD DAMNETH NO MAN

Dost thou complain of God? Thyself thyself dost damn.
Damn thee He never would—of this full sure I am.

42 (V. 103)
GOD DIED NOT FOR THE FIRST TIME ON THE CROSS

Not first upon the Cross God let Himself be slain,
For see! He lieth dead there at the feet of Cain.

43 (V. 43)
HOW GOD IS SO VERY JUST

Behold, God is so just, were there aught higher than He,
He'd honour it above Himself on bended knee.

44 (I. 207)
THE FINEST INN

Inn most delectable! God is Himself the Wine,
Music and Feast and Servant too of them that dine.

45 (III. 142)
GOD DWELLETH IN GENTLENESS

Have quiet in thy heart; for God is sought in vain
In Fire, in Earthquake, in the roaring Hurricane.

46 (IV. 177)
ASTONISHMENT AT GOD'S FAMILIARITY

It is a wonderment that I,
Who am but dust and ash and clod,
Should dare to make myself the friend
And very hail-fellow of God!

47 (I. 279)
I-HOOD SHAPETH NAUGHT

Now this, now that, thou striv'st to shape
With thine own I for instrument.
Ah, wouldst thou but let God shape all
Accordingly to His intent!

48 (IV. 143)
THE LOVELIEST TONE

In all eternity there is no lovelier Tone
Than when man's heart soundeth with God in Unison.

49 (IV. 133)
MAN IS A COAL.

Man, thou art like a piece of coal;
And if thou liest not in Him,
Who is thy Fire and thy Light,
Then art thou black and cold and dim.

50 (I. 79)
GOD BEARETH PERFECT FRUIT

The Vine of God bears perfect fruit.
If any man bid me resign.
God-perfectness, he first must break
Me, branch-wise, from the Vine.

51 (II. 4)
THE ETERNAL YEA AND NAY

God's everlasting word is Yea,
Nay is the Devil's counter-cry:
To be all Yea and One with God
His own denial doth deny.

52 (IV. 126)
THE INSCRUTABLE CAUSE

God hath all things within Himself—His Heaven, His bliss.
Why then hath He created us? We know not this.

53 (I. 67)
THE CHILD CRIETH AFTER THE MOTHER

As for his mother's breast a weaned child maketh moan,
Crieth the soul for God, crieth for Him alone.


III
THE STILL WILDERNESS

54 (I. 7)
MAN MUST GO BEYOND GOD

Where is my hiding-place? Where there's nor I nor Thou.
Where is my final goal towards which I needs must press?
Where there is nothing. Whither shall I journey now?
Still farther on than God—into a Wilderness.

55 (I. 199)
GOD BEYOND THE CREATURE

Go, where thou canst not go; see, where light never breaks;
Hear, where no sound is heard: then art thou where God speaks.

56 (IV. 23)
DIVINE CONTEMPLATION

Who in this mortal life would see
The Light that is beyond all light,
Beholds it best by faring forth
Into the darkness of the Night.

57 (II. 6)
NOTHING IS THE BEST CONSOLATION

Best Consolation is in Naught.
If God should quench His shine, then dare
In naked Nothingness to find
Thy Consolation in despair.

58 (I. 126)
DESIRE EXPECTS FULFILMENT

If thou hast still for God a yearning and desire,
Then doth He not embrace thee yet, whole and entire.

59 (I. 76)
TO WILL NAUGHT IS TO BE LIKE GOD

Willing and seeking naught, God is eternal peace:
Willest thou likewise naught, thy peace is even as His.

60 (II. 248)
STILLNESS IS LIKE UNTO THE ETERNAL NAUGHT

Stillness and Loneliness are liker naught than Naught:
These willeth then my Will, if my Will willeth aught.

61 (I. 98)
THE DEAD WILL RULETH

God needs must do my Will, if Will in me is dead:
I write for Him His Paradigm and Copy-head.

62 (V. 207)
THE GREATEST DEED

The greatest Deed that thou canst do
For God, is to be deedless—best,
Suffering, to suffer unto God,
And, resting, unto Him to rest.

63 (V. 195)
GOD IS FOUND IN IDLENESS

Who sits in utter Idleness
Shall come much sooner to the goal
Than he who runneth after God
With sweat of body and of soul.

64 (IV. 31)
THE BLESSED IDLENESS

Both John upon the breast and Mary at the feet
Do nought but pass the happy hours away in sweet
Love-dalliance with God.—I would not stir at all,
Could I be idle so, even though the sky should fall.

65 (I. 171)
GOD IS FOUND BY NOT SEEKING

  God is not here nor there.
Thou seekest where He may be found?
Bound be thy hands and bound thy feet,
  Body and soul be bound.

66 (I. 240)
THE PRAYER OF SILENCE

So high above all things that be
Is God uplifted, man can dare
No utterance: he prayeth best
When Silence is his sum of prayer.

67 (II. 63)
THE DEAF HEARETH THE WORD

Unto my hearing momently the Eternal Word doth come
—Believe it, friend, or not—when I am deaf and dumb.

68 (I. 239)
GOD IS PRAISED IN SILENCE

Thinkest thou, foolish man, that with thy clapping tongue
Praise of the silent Godhead fitly can be sung?

69 (V. 366)
GOD'S LUTE

A Heart, as God would have it, wholly still and mute.
Loves to be played upon by Him—it is His lute.

70 (II. 169)
SAMENESS BEHOLDETH GOD

Be naught as all and all as naught, then art thou proved
Worthy to see the face of God, the Well-Beloved.

71 (I. 125)
SAMENESS HATH NO PAIN

To whom all things are one, to him all things are well,
No matter though he lie deep in the pit of Hell.

72 (II. 134)
SAMENESS

The man who hath no fatherland,
Who walks a stranger everywhere,
Though he abide in Hell he'll find
His darling country even there.

73 (II. 42)
NO HARM IN WHAT IS UNDERNEATH

Who sits above the mountain-tops
And high above the clouds doth ride,
Cares little when the lightnings flame
And the loud-crashing thunders chide.

74 (V. 136)
ALL IS ALIKE TO THE WISE MAN

All things are one to the Wise Man;
He sitteth peacefully and still;
Is his will thwarted, none the less
All things befall as God doth will.

75 (V. 85)
WHO KNOWETH NAUGHT IS AT PEACE

Had Adam never plucked the Tree
Of Knowledge and grown wise,
He then had dwelt eternally
At peace in Paradise.

76 (I. 85)
HOW GOD'S WORD IS HEARD

If thou wouldst hear the Eternal Word speak unto thee,
First must thou wholly lose the hearing faculty.

77 (II. 8)
MAN LEARNETH BY BEING SILENT

Be silent, silent, dearest one,
Only be silent utterly.
Then far beyond thy farthest wish
God will show goodness unto thee.

78 (II. 19)
THE HIGHEST IS STILLNESS

Doing is good; far better prayer;
But best of all if thou dost come
Into the presence of the Lord
With quiet footfall, still and dumb.

79 (V. 221)
THE DEAD HEAR NOT

The man who's dead unto himself
Rests tranquil in his thought,
Though all the world speak ill of him.
How so?—Dead men hear naught.

80 (I. 134)
NOT PERFECTLY DEAD

If over this and that thou makest such a stir,
Then art thou not yet laid with God in the sepulchre.

81 (II. 214)
WORKS HAVE LIKE WORTH

Have no distinctions. Angels would at God's behest
As lief cart dung as play their harps or take their rest.

82 (II. 152)
THE DIVINEST OF ALL

Naught more divine than this—whatever the event,
In this world or the next, to be indifferent.

83 (VI. 191)
WORLD FORSAKEN, LITTLE FORSAKEN

The whole great World is naught. Little has thou resigned,
Though thou hast banished all the World out of thy mind.

84 (VI. 142)
ON FORSAKING THE WORLD

Need oftentime determines deed;
And thou dost leave the world, maybe,
Thy heart foreboding that the world
Which thou dost leave is leaving thee.


IV
ONENESS WITH THE DIVINE

85 (I. 8)
GOD LIVETH NOT WITHOUT ME

I know God cannot live one instant without Me:
If I should come to naught, needs must He cease to be.

86 (I. 10)
I AM AS GOD AND GOD AS I

I am as great as God, He is as small as I:
No higher than I is He, nor I than He less high.

87 (I. 14)
A CHRISTIAN IS AS RICH AS GOD

I am as rich as God. He owns no particle
Of dust—believe me, Man!—that is not mine as well.

88 (II. 178)
ALL CONSISTS IN I AND THOU
(CREATOR AND CREATURE.)

Naught is but I and Thou. Were there nor Thou nor I,
Then God is no more God, and Heaven falls from the sky.

89 (I. 68)
DEEP CALLETH UNTO DEEP

Deep calls to Deep. My spirit's Deep doth cry amain
To Deep of God: say, which is deeper of the twain?

90 (II. 180)
MAN IS NAUGHT, GOD ALL

I am not I nor Thou: Thou art the I in Me:
Therefore I yield the meed of honour unto Thee.

91 (II. 142)
THOU MUST BE IT THYSELF

Ask not what is divine. It were too great a task
To comprehend—unless thou art what thou dost ask.

92 (I. 81)
GOD BLOSSOMS OUT OF HIS BRANCHES

If thou art born of God, God blossometh in thee:
His Godhead is thy sap and flower-finery.

93 (II. 120)
MAN EATETH AND DRINKETH GOD

If thou art one with God, truly it may be said
Thou eat'st and drinkest God in every piece of bread.

94 (III. 20)
GOD-MAN

That I may come to wealth, God comes to beggary:
That I may become He, lo! He becometh I.

95 (I. 96)
GOD CAN DO NOTHING WITHOUT ME

God hath no potency to make
A single worm without my aid:
If I sustain it not with Him
Straightway its being is unmade.

96 (I. 72)
HOW IS GOD SEEN?

No Way there is by which to go
Unto the Light wherein God dwells:
Thou must thyself become the Light
Or God is hidden from thee else.

97 (IV. 24)
THE TRANSFORMATION

Body must into Spirit pass,
And Spirit into Deity,
If thou wouldst have thy dearest wish
And know the perfect ecstasy.

98 (II. 255)
FIVE DEGREES IN GOD

Five ladder-rungs there are in God—
 Slave, Friend, Son, Bride and Spouse.
Who climbeth higher unselfs himself,
 Drops count of I's and Thou's.

99 (V. 76)
AS HIS FRIENDSHIP SO THE FRIEND

Thou drinkest in the soul of him
With whom thou'rt friended—in the end
Becomest God, if friend of God,
And Devil, if the Devil's friend.

100 (V. 200)
A MAN IS CHANGED INTO WHAT HE LOVES

Thou shalt become that thing itself
Which thou dost deem of dearest worth—
God shalt become if thou lov'st God,
And Earth if so thou lovest Earth.

101 (V. 332)
WHITHER MAN GOES WHEN HE DIES INTO GOD

When I die into God, I once again return
There where I was eternally ere I was born.

102 (V. 233)
WHEN MAN IS GOD

Once I was God in God, or ever I was I,
And can be God again, if this I could but die.

103 (VI. 175)
UNION WITH GOD IS EASY

'Tis easier, Man, to see thyself and God all one
Than open a closed eye—will it and it is done.

104 (V. 259)
GOD BECOMETH I BECAUSE I AFORETIME WAS HE

God doth become what now I am,
Assumes my manhood; what He is,
The same aforetime I have been:
Therefore it is He doeth this.

105 (II. 159)
SPIRIT IS AS ESSENCE

My Spirit is a partial Being:
It yearns to be recentred in
That Essence whence it broke away,
Its primal Root and Origin.

106 (IV. 12)
ALL WEAL IN ONE THING ONLY

From but one thing my all of Weal,
My all of Peace doth spring;
Though losing much upon the way,
I run with haste to this One Thing.

107 (II. 201)
MAN AND THE OTHER GOD

What only difference lies 'twixt me and God? Confess!
I'll tell you in a word—nothing but Otherness.

108 (IV. 10)
COMPLETE BEATITUDE

No man can ever know perfect Felicity
Till Otherness be swallowed up in Unity.

109 (IV. 181)
OF THE BLESSED SOUL

Of Otherness the blessed Soul
 Hath lost the very sense;
It is a single Light with God
 And one Magnificence.

110 (V. 126)
THE DEATH OF I-HOOD STRENGTHENS GOD IN THEE

The more the I in me doth fail,
Diminish and sink lower,
So much the more the I of God
Aggrandizeth its power.

111 (V. 234)
EVERYTHING RETURNS TO ITS ORIGIN

Of earth was Body born and once
 Again becometh earth:
And shall not Soul again become
 God, since God gave it birth?

112 (IV. 140)
THE NOBLEST PRAYER

That is the noblest prayer a man can pray when he
Becometh one with Him to Whom he bends his knee.

113 (V. 219)
MAN MUST NOT REMAIN MAN

Man, be not ever man! the summit must be gained!
In God's house Gods and Gods alone are entertained.

114 (VI. 171)
IN THE SEA EVERY DROP BECOMETH SEA

When to the Sea at last it comes
The smallest drop becometh Sea:
Even so thy Soul becometh God
When God at last absorbeth thee.

115 (II. 172)
MAN MUST BE A PHOENIX

I will be Phoenix, burn myself in God, and then
Nothing shall sunder me from Him ever again.

116 (IV. 135)
THE STREAM BECOMETH SEA

Here I, a Stream of Time, flow into Deity,
There I myself am the serene eternal Sea.

117 (I. 23)
THE SPIRITUAL MARY

I must be Mary and myself
Give birth to God, would I possess
—Nor can I otherwise—God's gift
Of everlasting Happiness.

118 (I. 276)
ONE THE OTHER'S BEGINNING AND END

God is my final end;
If then I am His origin,
From mine His Being floweth out,
To Him my Being floweth in.

119 (I. 100)
ONE UPHOLDETH THE OTHER

God's need of me, my need of God,
 Are equal in degree.
He helps to bear my being up
 And I help Him to be.

120 (IV. 153)
THE SEA IN A LITTLE DROP

Into this little drop, this I, how can it be
That there should flow the whole Sea of the Deity?


V
INWARDNESS

121 (I. 145)
WHAT THOU WOULDST HAVE IS WITHIN THEE

All Heaven is within thee, Man,
And all of Hell within thy heart:
What thou dost choose and will to have,
That hast thou wheresoe'er thou art.

122 (I. 82)
HEAVEN IS WITHIN THEE

Heaven is within thee. Stay! Why runn'st thou here and there?
Thou seekest God in vain seekest thou Him elsewhere.

123 (IV. 183)
ALL THAT THOU WILT IS WITHIN THEE

All thou wouldst have lies now within thee, every whit
'Tis thine—so long as thou dost never strive for it.

124 (III. 118)
THE PHILOSOPHERS' STONE

Travel within thyself! The Stone
Philosophers with wisest arts
Have vainly sought, cannot be found
By travelling in foreign parts.

125 (I. 50)
THE THRONE OF GOD

Christian, dost thou demand to know
 Where God hath set His Throne?
Even there within thyself, where He
 Gives birth to thee, His Son.

126 (I. 61)
GOD MUST BE BORN IN THEE

Though Jesus Christ in Bethlehem
A thousand times his Mother bore,
Is he not born again in thee
Then art thou lost for evermore.

127 (I. 62)
THE EXTERNAL HELPETH THEE NOT

In vain the Cross on Golgotha
Was raised—thou hast not any part
In its deliverance unless
It be raised up within thy heart.

128 (VI. 209)
WHAT IS OUTWARD ADDETH NO WORTH

Nothing external to thee, Man,
Can give thee Worth or Dignity:
Fine harness maketh not the horse,
Nor clothes the man's virility.

129 (VI. 24)
WHAT A MAN HATH IN HIMSELF HE SEEKETH NOT WITHOUT

He who hath honour in himself
Seeketh no honour among men.
Seekest thou honour in the world,
'Tis not thine own but alien.

130 (VI. 169)
WHAT A MAN WOULD NOT LOSE, THAT MUST HE BE

The Wise Man is that which he hath.
The precious Pearl of Paradise
Wouldst thou not lose, then must thou be
Thyself that Pearl of greatest price.

131 (I. 298)
HEAVEN IS WITHIN US

My Christian, whither runnest thou?
All Heaven within thy heart doth wait.
Why dost thou seek to find it then
By knocking at another's gate?

132 (II. 149)
THOU THYSELF ART ALL THINGS

How is it possible for thee
To feel desire or suffer dearth?
Thou canst be all things in thyself—
A thousand Angels, Heaven and Earth!

133 (VI. 166)
HE WHO HATH THE KINGDOM IN HIMSELF CANNOT BECOME POOR

God's Kingdom is within ourselvcs!
If, then, so great a Kingdom be
Already thine, how canst thou fear
The threatening of poverty?

134 (II. 85)
THY PRISON IS THYSELF

The World doth not imprison thee.
Thou art thyselfthe World, and there,
Within thyself, thou hold'st thyself
Thy self-imprisoned Prisoner.

135 (I. 37)
UNREST COMETH FROM THYSELF

Naught is that moveth thee: thou art thyself the wheel
That runneth of itself and never standeth still.

136 (I. 118)
SPIRIT REMAINETH EVER FREE

Fetter me with a thousand chains, and though they be
Never so strong, I shall be fetterless and free.

137 (III. 147)
GOD WOULD BE ALONE

Shut God up in thy heart. Let none else enter there,
So must He always bide with thee and be thy Prisoner.

138 (V. 128)
IT IS NEVER NIGHT IN THE SOUL

I am amazed that thou dost yearn
 For daylight to appear.
There is no sunset in my soul—
 Day is already here.


VI
SELF-ABANDONMENT

139 (I. 24)
THOU MUST BE NAUGHT, WILL NAUGHT

If thou art Somewhat to thyself,
If Somewhat thou dost love and will,
If Somewhat knowest, Somewhat hast—
Thou carriest thy Burden still.

140 (I. 58)
SELF-SEEKING

If seeking God thou seekest Rest,
Then is thy reckoning out of trim:
God's hireling art thou, not His child,
Thou seekest thine own Self, not Him.

141 (II. 57)
MAN MUST GROW FREE FROM HIMSELF

Grow free from self, from all created things grow free,
Then God will graft His Godlike nature on to thee.

142 (I. 143)
'TIS SELFHOOD THAT DAMNS

Could but the Devil quit his His-ness, thereupon
The Devil thou wouldst see sitting upon God's throne

143 (V. 32)
SELFWILL RUINS ALL

If even in Christ himself there were Selfwill at all,
Despite his Blessedness, believe me, he would fall.

144 (I. 138)
THE MORE THOU GOEST OUT, THE MORE GOD COMETH IN

The more thyself out of thyself
Thou canst dischannel and outpour,
The more must God flow into thee
With all His Godhead more and more.

145 (II. 140)
SELF-NULLIFYING

Naught bringeth thee beyond thyself
So surely as Self-nullity:
The more thou canst annul thyself
The more thou hast of Deity.

146 (II. 136)
ABANDONMENT

Go out—and so God goeth in;
Die to thyself—thou hast begun
To live to God; Be not—He is;
Do naught—His bidding's done.

147 (V. 220)
HOW GOD IS FOUND

Seekest thou God, then must thou, Man,
First lose thy Self-identity,
Nor ever find again the trace
Of Self in all eternity.

148 (V. 186)
OWNHOOD IS THE CAUSE OF ALL EVIL

Communion engendereth Peace;
 But Ownhood giveth rise
To Persecution, War and Strife,
 And all Calamities.

149 (V. 238)
"MINE" AND "THINE" ARE DAMNABLE

Two words, and nothing else in all the world, combine
To plunge thee into Hell—two hateful words, Mine, Thine.

150 (II. 72)
HE WHO CAN SING WITH THE ANGELS

He who can soar above himself
 One instant at the most,
He too can sing the Gloria
 With the angeleic host.

151 (V. 33)
WHEN GOD MOST DELIGHTS TO BE WITH US

God, whose extreme delight it is
 To dwell with thee, doth come
Most willingly into thy house
 When thou art not at home.

152 (I. 46)
THE BLESSED UNTHING

I am a blessed Thing if I
Can but unthing myself, forgo
All my community with things,
My cognizance of things unknow.

153 (I. 92)
HE WHO IS WHOLLY DEIFIED

Who is as were he not, nor yet had come to be,
He is become—O Happiness!—sheer Deity.

154 (IV. 139)
THE HAPPY DROWNING

If thou dost sail thy little ship
Upon the Sea of Deity,
It were indeed a happy chance
Shouldst thou be drowned in that great Sea.

155 (II. 92)
THE MYSTICAL ABANDONMENT

Abandonment ensnareth God:
But the Abandonment supreme,
Which few there be can comprehend,
Is to abandon even Him.

156 (VI. 172)
IN THE SEA NO DROP IS DISTINGUISHABLE

If thou canst designate a drop
Lost in the Sea's immensity,
Then wilt thou in the Sea of God
Divine my soul's identity.

157 (II. 25)
THOU MAKEST THY OWN DISQUIET

Thee into thy disquiet nor God nor Creature brings,
Thou dost disquiet thyself caring for many things.

158 (III. 177)
THE LONG MARTYRDOM

The Martyrs fare exceeding well:
Swift passage through the mortal fires,
Then God's embrace. But we lifelong
Are martyred. How?—By our Desires.

159 (I. 158)
WHO DRINKETH THE SPRING OF LIFE?

Fain wouldst thou drink the Spring of Life?
 Then must thou first
Sweat out, whilst here upon this earth,
 Thy proper thirst.

160 (II. 197)
SELF-ABNEGATION

Lord, take the Crown away! I know not aught of Mine:
How can it rightly then be mine and yet not Thine!

161 (V. 229)
MEASUREMENT IS THE FALL

Take not the measure of thy goodness—it is gone
As soon as it is self-confessed and thought upon.

162 (II. 133)
RESIGNATION

Should God forbid me Heaven, it pleaseth me as well
Here to abide on earth or take my place in Hell.

163 (V. 367)
READY FOR ALL

He is the proper Hero who remains unshaken
Whether by God befriended or by God forsaken.

164 (V. 105)
HEAVEN CAN BE STOLEN

Who, hidden, doeth good; secret, bestoweth wealth:
He is a Master-thief and stealeth Heaven by stealth.

165 (I. 39)
IMPERFECT ABANDONMENT

His Self is not all given to God who cannot dwell
Even in Hell itself and find in Hell no Hell.

166 (VI. 170)
TWO WAYS OF LOSING ONE'S SELF

So I may yet be lost? O ay!
If lost in death, loss limitless.
But if thou lose thyself in God
Thy loss is then all happiness.


VII
SONSHIP

167 (V. 250)
THE SPIRITUAL AND ETERNAL BIRTH ARE ONE

The Spiritual Birth within my soul is one
With that whereby the Father doth beget the Son.

168 (VI. 132)
GOD'S SOLE FELICITY

There's joy in giving birth. God's sole Felicity
Is that He bringeth forth His Son eternally.

169 (III. 175)
WHAT GOD WROUGHT FROM ETERNITY

What was God's deed, ere Time began,
Established on His ageless throne?
He loved Himself, and thus He wrought
The generation of His Son.

170 (I. 201)
WHY IS GOD BORN?

O Mystery! God's lost Himself, and therefore He,
To find Himself again, would be new-born in Me.

171 (I. 135)
WITH GOD IS ONLY HIS SON

Man, be thou born of God! for standeth by His Throne
His own begotten Son—and other standeth none.

172 (II. 102)
THE EXTERNAL COMFORTETH ME NOT

"Hail Mary!" so thou greetedst Her:
Yet, Gabriel, what doth this avail
To me, unless thou likewise come
And greet me with the self-same "Hail!"

173 (VI. 134)
TO BE BORN OF GOD IS TO BE WHOLLY GOD

God doth engender naught but God.
If He engender thee, His Son,
Then thou becomest God in God,
And Lord upon the Lord God's throne.

174 (I. 17)
A CHRISTIAN IS GOD'S SON

I also am God's Son. I sit beside His knee.
His Spirit, Flesh and Blood are known to Him in me.

175 (III. 4)
A SIGH

When God became a man, swaddled in straw He lay—
Alas, that I have never been that straw and bay!

176 (II. 53)
THOU ONLY ART WANTING

Could but my heart become a manger, God would then
Become a Child upon the earth yet once again.

177 (V. 9)
EVERYONE MUST BE CHRIST

The true-born Son of God is Christ and Christ alone,
Yet must each Christian be this Christ, this selfsame Son.

178 (I. 208)
BLESSED GLUTTONY

Too much is never good. I hate all Gluttonies—
Yet wish I were as full of God as Jesus is!

179 (VI. 236)
NAUGHT IS HIGHER THAN TO BE GOD'S SON

God's Son is God with God, rules from the selfsame Throne:
Naught standeth higher than I, if I am this same Son.

180 (IV. 49)
THE SPLENDOUR OF CHRIST IN THIS WORLD

The Sceptre is a reed; a branch of thorns the Crown;
Nails are Regalia; a deadly Cross the Throne;
The Purple Robe is blood; Bodyguard, murderers;
Hangmen and the dastard crowd, the train of Courtiers;
The Wine is bitter gall; the Music, mocking mirth:
Such the Magnificence of our Lord God on earth.


VIII
TIME AND ETERNITY

181 (II. 153)
ETERNITY

What is Eternity? It is not That, not This,
Not Now, not Aught, not Naught—I know not what it is.

182 (II. 65)
ETERNITY IS NOT MEASURED

Eternity knows naught of hour and day and year.
Alas, I have not found the centre of its sphere!

183 (II. 183)
IN THE CENTRE EVERYTHING IS SEEN

Stand at the centre-point—instantly shall appear
All that befell or now befalls, in Heaven and here.

184 (I. 47)
TIME IS ETERNITY

Eternity is one with Time,
Time with Eternity, and hence
Indifference between them lie,
Thyself dost make the difference.

185 (I. 189)
MAN MAKETH TIME

'Tis thou thyself that makest Time.
And like a clock thy senses run:
Do thou but quiet their unrest—
The clock is stopped and Time is gone.

186 (V. 23)
TIME IS NOT FAST

"Time flieth fast" we say, but who
Hath seen the fleeting of Time's wings?
Time standeth moveless in a view
That visioneth the Whole of Things.

187 (V. 148)
IN ETERNITY ALL HAPPENETH TOGETHER

There, in Eternity, events
Together strike a single chime:
There is no After, no Before,
As here, as in the realm of Time.

188 (IV. 200)
HOW TO SHORTEN TIME

Man, if thou findest Time on earth drag on too slow.
Turn unto God—live in the Everlasting Now.

189 (V. 127)
THE SOUL IS ABOVE TIME

The Soul, which is eternal Spirit,
Standeth above Time's sovranty:
Already in this present world
She liveth in Eternity.

190 (V. 111)
OUT OF GOD, LIVING IS BEING DEAD

Livest thou not in God, O Man,
—And let this be well credited—
Though thou dost live a thousand years,
A thousand years thou art dead.

191 (II. 168)
ONE IS AS OLD AS THE OTHER

A Child who on this earth but one short hour appears,
Already he hath lived Methuselah's long years.

192 (III. 180)
GOD KNOWETH NOT HIS BEGINNING

How long hath God been God? Be silent, ask not this!
So long, God knoweth not Himself how long it is.

193 (IV. 165)
GOD STILL CREATES THE WORLD

God still creates the World. Strange doth this thing appear?
God knoweth neither Then nor Now, as men know here.

194 (III. 90)
THOU MUST BLOSSOM NOW

O blossom, blossom, frozen soul!
May is abroad before thy door.
If thou dost blossom not to-day
Then art thou dead for evermore.

195 (I. 185)
PLACE IS WITHIN THEE

Nowise dost thou inhabit Place,
 Place doth inhabit thee.
Cast Place away!—then now and here
 Standeth Eternity.

196 (III. 112)
THE HEART IS IMMEASURABLE

A Heart that finds its full contcnt in Time and Place
In truth knows not its own Immeasurableness.

197 (I. 187)
THE BREADTH OF THE SOUL

Heaven is too little for me, Earth a narrow cell:
Where shall I find a space wherein my Soul can dwell?

198 (I. 188)
TIME AND ETERNITY

From Time into Eternity
Thou tellest me to get me hence!
Between Eternity and Time
Is there then any difference?

199 (IV. 90)
VIRTUE

"Virtue its own Reward"—so runs the argument:
If the Reward be here, in time, then I dissent.

200 (IV. 180)
THE DAY AND DAWN OF SOULS

Here in this present time God dawns in souls, but soon,
When they have put their splendour on, He'll be their noon.

201 (V. 67)
HOW FAR THE WAY TO HEAVEN

Think not the journey overlong if thou wouldst fare
To Heaven—take but one short stride and thou art there.

202 (I. 30)
THERE IS NO DEATH

I disbelieve in Death. Hourly I die—what then?
To new and better Life hourly I rise again.

203 (I. 34)
DEATH DEIFIETH THEE

When thou art dead and all thy life
Is taken up by God in His,
Then shalt thou rightly, nor till then,
Rank with the all-high Deities.

204 (IV. 81)
DEATH

Death doth not trouble me. 'Tis through that door I come
Unto the place which long hath been my spirit's home.

205 (IV. 77)
SPIRITUAL DYING

Die ere thou diest—dying, then thou diest not:
Die not—perchance then, dying, thou shalt die and rot.

206 (I. 29)
ETERNAL DEATH

The Death which no new Life within itself doth bear,
Of all deaths 'tis that death which most my soul doth fear.

207 (IV. 103)
LIFE AND DEATH

No richer death than that which Life engendereth,
No noble Life than that which springeth out of death.

208 (I. 190)
SAMENESS

I know not what to do! All things are one to me:
Place, Unplace, Day, Night, Joy, Pain, Time, Eternity.


IX
ACCIDENT AND ESSENCE

209 (II. 30)
ACCIDENT AND ESSENCE

Become essential, Man! When the world fails at last,
Accident falls away, but Essence, that stands fast.

210 (I. 274)
THE ACCIDENT MUST GO

All Accident must go, all false appearances:
Put off thy specious hues—be pure as Essence is.

211 (V. 356)
THE PERFECT DRIVETH OUT THE IMPERFECT

When full Perfection comes, the imperfect falls aside:
So fades my human part when I am deified.

212 (I. 108)
THE ROSE

The Rose which here thou seest with thine outward eye
Hath blossomèd in God from all eternity.

213 (II. 182)
GOD IS ALL AT ONCE

There is no After, no Before;
And what to-morrow shall befall
Already from eternity
In Essence God hath seen it all.

214 (V. 179)
GOD MAKETH NOTHING NEW

God maketh no new thing, though new
It seem to us. We think we see
The act of birth, but what is born
Is birthless in eternity.

215 (I. 71)
MAN MUST BE ESSENCE

To practise love is burdensome. 'Tis not enough
Merely to love—we must ourselves, like God, be Love.

216 (VI. 226)
A RIGHT JUDGEMENT BRINGETH NOT SADNESS

The true and proper worth of things
Who understandeth to assay,
Will never sorrow overmuch
For aught that Time can bear away.

217 (VI. 224)
CHILDREN WEEP FOR DOLLS

A child that weepeth for its dolls
Maketh thee smile—and are they more
Than dolls and toys, those very things
That thou thyself art weeping for?

218 (I. 38)
EQUAL ESTIMATION MAKETH PEACE

Canst thou divest from diverse things
Their aspect of diversity,
Come Love, come Pain, thou standest fast,
Poised in thy equanimity.

219 (V. 45)
VICE IS ONLY APPEARANCE

All naked Virtue stands, Vice doth apparelled go;
Virtue is truly large, Vice only seemeth so.

220 (V. 37)
GOD LOOKETH TO THE ROOT

'Tis not the Somewhat thou hast done
God values, looks not to the fruit;
Only the How He contemplates,
Only the kernel and the root.

221 (V. 168)
THE SINNER DOETH NOTHING WELL

Though thou dost feed and clothe the needy multitude,
Is goodness not in thee, then is thy deed not good.

222 (V. 72)
GOD IS EQUALLY NEAR TO ALL

God is as near Beelzebub
As He is near the Seraphim,
'Tis only that Beelzebub
Turneth his back on Him.

223 (V. 30)
THE DEVIL IS GOOD

The Devil is as good as thou
 If Being is the test.
What is it that the Devil lacks?
 Peace and a Will at rest.

224 (V. 15)
DAMNATION IS IN ESSENCE

Could one that's damned stand in high Heaven, even there
He'd feel within himself all Hell and Hell's despair.

225 (VI. 208)
WISE AND FOOLISH BEAUTY

Wiser the maid who knoweth well
Herself is her best loveliness
Than she who dreams she's beautiful
When she puts on a lovely dress.

226 (VI. 251)
TO THE FOOL

Opinions are a shifting sand,
And fools build houses thereupon:
Wise wilt thou never be if thou
Dost build upon Opinion.

227 (II. 71)
THE ESSENTIAL MAN

The essential Man is like unto Eternity,
Unchanged by any breath of externality.

228 (I. 102)
THE SPIRITUAL ALCHEMY

Then Lead becometh Gold, then Accident is ended,
When I with God, through God, in God, am wholly blended.


X
LOVE

229 (V. 242)
THE HIGHEST GOOD

What is the highest Good? Much talk hath been hereof
And high debate: I swear the highest Good is Love.

230 (V. 241)
EVERYTHING IS SUBJECT TO LOVE

Love is the Lord of All. Even the Trinity
Hath been in thrall to Love from all eternity.

231 (V. 243)
THE NATURE OF GOD

Love is God's nature. He can do naught else. Wouldst thou
Be God, then likewise love in every instant's Now.

232 (V. 292)
BEAUTY COMETH FROM LOVE

Beauty is born of Love alone.
 The Countenance Divine
Hath all its Loveliness from Love—
 Else it would cease to shine.

233 (V. 295)
THE MORE LOVING, THE HAPPIER

Love is the measure of the heart's Felicity;
The more 'tis filled with Love, the happier thou wilt be.

234 (V. 320)
THE SHORTEST WAY TO GOD

Pass through Love's gate if thou wouldst go
 The shortest way to God:
Who takes the Path of Knowledge, long
 Must tarry on the road.

235 (V. 307)
LOVE HATH MORE IN COMMON WITH GOD THAN WISDOM

Love unannounced goes in to God,
 Hath instant audience:
Long in the antechamber wait
 Wit and intelligence.

236 (II. 47)
LOVE SEEKETH NOT REWARD

Man, if thou lovest God and seekest hire for this,
'Tis plain thou tastest not what Love and Loving is.

237 (V. 303)
THE TOKEN OF FALSE LOVE

Wouldst thou discern false Love from true, the token's this—
False Love seeks self and fades under adversities.

238 (III. 205)
HE WHO IS MOST IN LOVE IS MOST HOLY

Who is the greatest saint? He who is most in love.
For saintship Love alone is warranty enough.

239 (V. 226)
THE NATURE OF HOLINESS

The more thou lovest—Love's the very heart
Of Holiness—the holier thou art.

240 (III. 173)
LOVE IS THE SIGN

Thou askest which of all the people are God's friends?
Behold the folk who carry Love in heart and hands!

241 (III. 164)
LOVE IS THE SOUL OF BELIEF

Belief alone is dead. It cannot live or move
Until united with its soul—its soul is Love.

242 (V. 108)
BELIEF ALONE IS A HOLLOW CASK

Belief alone, all void of Love,
(So have I weighed it in my thought)
Is like unto a hollow Cask—
It soundeth, but within is naught.

243 (V. 161)
NONE LAYETH HIS HEAD ON CHRIST'S BREAST BUT JOHN

Ah, think not, Child, that thou canst lay thy head upon
The breast of the Lord Christ ere thou becomest John.

244 (VI. 204)
THE SPIRlTUAL PASSWORD

Love is the password. He to whom it is not given
Must never hope to cross the frontier-line of Heaven.

245 (V. 297)
GOD CANNOT BE LOVED WITHOUT GOD

Did not God love Himself through thee and in thee, Man,
Thy love for Him would ever fail of its full span.

246 (III. 201)
GOD LOVETH TO GIVE GREAT GIFTS

Being Himself so great, greatly God loves to give,
But ah! man's little heart is so small to receive.

247 (V. 210)
NEW AND OLD LOVE

When Love is new, it foams like young and heady wine:
When stiller grown, 'tis proof that it is old and fine.

248 (I. 163)
MAN SHOULD LOVE MANKIND

Thou lovest none? 'Tis well. He has the better mind
Who loves not any man, but loves in man Mankind.

249 (II. 60)
OF LOVE

He wills and loveth right who wills and loveth naught:
Who loveth what he wills, loveth not what he ought.

250 (V. 289)
VIRTUE WITHOUT LOVE IS NOTHING WORTH

Before God Virtue cannot stand
 Naked and bare;
It must put on the robe of Love—
 Then is it fair.

251 (II. 130)
IT MUST BE GILDED

All that thou dost must be o'erlaid
With gold of Love—if otherwise,
Thyself and all thy works will find
But little favour in God's eyes.

252 (V. 299)
AS THE PERSON, SO THE MERIT

Richer reward the Bride doth earn
From God with but a single kiss,
Than all the hirelings though they wear
Themselves to death with drudgeries.

253 (II. 234)
CHOOSE WHICH THOU WILT

Love is the Queen; the Virtues are
 The Maids who wait upon her;
The serving-women, Work and Deed—
 Which wilt thou choose to honour?

254 (V. 302)
THE QUICKEST

Love is the quickest thing and of itself can fly
To topmost Heaven in but the twinkling of an eye.

255 (V. 306)
AN UNWOUNDED HEART IS UNSOUND

A Heart which God hath never wounded with Love's wound,
Scatheless though it appear, is never whole and sound.

256 (V. 211)
SERAPHIC LOVE

The purest Love—seraphic—
Is not easy to divine,
Because it is so quiet,
By any outward sign.

257 (VI. 159)
THE HEART MUST BE LOADED WITH BALL

Put a live charge into your gun!
 A puff of smoke and is that all?
Why, if you only load with blank,
 The bang is there, but where's the ball?

258 (VI. 164)
THE ORDINANCE IS AS WE ORDAIN

To him who wills his neighbour's weal
God gives what he soliciteth:
But if he wish his neighbour ill,
O then he prays for his own death!

259 (V. 308)
GOD'S COMMUNALITY

How broad God's communality!
He teacheth whomso'er He list,
The peasant lass no less than thee,
The art whereby He may be kissed.

260 (III. 138)
LOVE IS DEAD

Alas, Alas, Love's dead! How came she then to die?
She perished of the cold, for all men passed her by.


XI
NATURE

261 (I. 193)
THE CREATURE IS TRULY IN GOD

Rather in God than in itself
The Creature hath its true abode:
It perishes, yet evermore
Abides eternally in God.

262 (II. 109)
THE WORLD DOTH NOT PASS AWAY

The World doth pass away? Nay, the World stands its ground:
What God destroys is but the night that wraps it round.

263 (I. 270)
THE VOICE OF GOD

The Creatures are the utterance
Of the Eternal Word—now smooth
It sings itself in gentleness,
Now rings itself out loud in wrath.

264 (V. 5)
ZERO, IF IT PRECEDES, IS NAUGHT

The Creature, which is nullity,
Denoteth zero if it come
In front of God—placed after Him
It giveth value to the Sum.

265 (I. 114)
THE SUN IS ENOUGH

Superfluous to scan the sky, if shines the Sun on thee,
Inquiring for the moon and stars of less degree.

266 (IV. 218)
THE TOKEN OF THE BRIDE OF GOD

The Bride doth love the Bridegroom
 And loveth none beside:
If thou hast other lovers,
 How canst thou be the Bride?

267 (II. 231)
THE SUNFLOWER

Friend, marvel not that I behold
Naught that my eyes can rest upon,
For I must turn myself about
And gaze all day upon my Sun.

268 (II. 114)
CREATURES ARE GOOD

Dost thou complain that creatures thwart thy Godward road?
How so? To me all creatures are a way to God.

269 (IV. 164)
GOD'S COUNTERSIGN

I know God's countersign. His signature is writ
In every creature, canst thou but interpret it.

270 (I. 275)
MAN BRINGETH ALL INTO GOD

All things do love thee, Man, and thickly round thee throng:
They run to thee because they would to God belong.

271 (II. 115)
THE SPIRITUAL HUNT

Christian, the hounds will hunt thee well, both high and low,
Wilt thou but willingly consent to be God's doe.

272 (V. 110)
ALL CREATURES RUN AFTER THE CREATOR.

Who the Creator hath, all things run after him—
Man, Angel, Sun and Moon, Air, Fire, Earth and Stream.

273 (II. 143)
IN GOD ALL IS GOD

In God all things are God: one worm beneath the sod
Ranks with a thousand worms equivalent in God.

274 (V. 61)
EVERYTHING IS PERFECT

Naught is imperfect, Man. Pebble is analogue
Of ruby, Seraph not more beautiful than frog.

275 (I. 269)
ALL IS THE SAME TO GOD

God listeth to the croak of frogs as heedfully
As to the meadow-lark's sweet-throated melody.

276 (V. 203)
THE WORLDLING IS BLINDED

Open thine eyes and see! Heaven lieth all unfurled!
Thou seest it not? Then art thou blind drunk with the World.

277 (IV. 160)
GOD IS GLORIOUS EVERYWHERE

No motes of dust are so contemptible and small
But that the Wise see God all glorious in them all.

278 (III. 172)
THE FINEST IS THE COMMONEST

Things which are commonest are also the most fine:
'Tis evident in God and in His broad Sunshine.

279 (II. 198)
GOD PLAYETH WITH THE CREATURE

All this is but a Game which God
Fashioneth for Himself alone:
He hath devised the World of Things
Not for the Things' sake but His own.

280 (III. 216)
GOD DOETH IT ALL HIMSELF

God, God is All, All utterly,
The lute-strings tremble at His touch;
'Tis He that plays and sings in us—
Is therefore thy performance much?

281 (IV. 71)
HEAVEN ON EVERY SIDE.

All creatures live and move and have their being in God:
Why must thou then needs ask which is the heavenward road?

282 (V. 224)
TO THE DEAD ALL IS DEAD

If thou art dead, my Man, it needs must seem as though
All creatures and the world itself were dead also.

283 (VI. 101)
ALL GOES WHEN DESIRE GOES

Thy love and thy desire lend things their preciousness;
Take these away, then things are mean and valueless.

284 (VI. 20)
TEMPORAL THINGS ARE SMOKE

Things temporal are like a smoke.
If thou dost let it blow about
Within thy house, for sure 'twill bite
The twain eyes of the spirit out.

285 (I. 282)
THE BEST STATION IS IN GOD

To hear the Morning Stars praise God
Is little profit to my ears
If I am not yet lifted up
To God above the Morning Stars.

286 (I. 289)
WITHOUT WHY

The Rose because she is Rose
Doth blossom, never asketh Why;
She eyeth not herself, nor cares
If she is seen of other eye.

287 (III. 98)
NOT TO DISSEMBLE IS NOT TO SIN

What is it not to sin? There is no need to ponder,
They'll tell you what it is—the dumb flowers yonder.

288 (I. 290)
LET GOD CARE

Who gives the lilics grace? the daffodils who reeds?
Then, Christian, wherefore be so careful for thy needs?

289 (I. 127)
ALL IS ALIKE TO GOD

All things are one thing unto God,
 He knoweth no diversity.
Art thou in substance one with Him,
 So is He also with the fly.

290 (VI. 217)
THE ANT'S MIND

To thee the World is very wide,
A lump of earth is adamant,
A molehill is a mountain range:
The reason is—thou art an ant.

291 (VI. 213)
TO THE SMALL, EVERYTHING SMALL IS GREAT

Grow, Child, and become big! So long as thou art small,
Things little in themselves will show as great and tall.

292 (IV. 30)
GOD ABOVE ALL GIFTS

Oft have I prayed, "O God, Thy gifts be given me!"
Yet knowest Thou, 'tis not Thy gifts I crave but Thee.
Give me eternal Life—give what Thou wilt—give aught,
Hast thou not given Thyself, still hast Thou given me naught.


XII
POVERTY AND RICHES

293 (II. 56)
POVERTY AND RICHES

The man who, what he hath, hath not,
To all things stands indifferent,
He is most poor when he is rich,
Most rich when he is indigent.

294 (III. 69)
THE SAINT'S WEALTH

Be poor! On earth the Saint hath naught
Save one thing, which unwillingly
He needs must call his own, to wit,
This Body of Mortality.

295 (II. 148)
THE POOR IN SPIRIT

That man is truly poor who stands
Detached from all things, loose, adrift:
Were God to offer him Himself
I know he would refuse the gift.

296 (III. 139)
MAN FINDETH WHAT HE SEEKETH

The poor man seeketh God, the rich man seeketh wealth:
'Tis gold indeed the poor man finds, the rich man filth.

297 (V. 157)
THE RICH MAN IS TRULY POOR

When of his poverty he maketh much ado,
Doubt not the Rich Man's word—he speaketh what is true.

298 (VI. 185)
OUR WEALTH MUST BE WITHIN US

Be all thy Wealth within thyself.
If lie thy riches otherwhere,
Yea, though thy fortune were the world,
Then art thou rich in naught but Care.

299 (VI. 189)
TO DESIRE EVERYTHING IS TO HAVE NOTHING

Man, if desire for Everything
Possesseth all thy thought,
Then art thou poor as beggars are
And still possessest Naught.

300 (VI. 86)
WHO CRAVETH ALL HATH NAUGHT

Who craveth Naught hath All. Who yearneth to possess
The riches of the world, he still is penniless.

301 (VI. 84)
THE GREATEST WEALTH AND GAIN

Most Wealth hath he who Wealth doth most disdain,
And gaineth most who most renounceth Gain.

302 (VI. 168)
THE WISE MAN HATH NAUGHT IN COFFERS

Naught doth the Wise Man heard in guarded treasuries:
Riches that can be lost he never counteth his.

303 (VI. 99)
THE TREASURY OF THE WISE MAN AND THE MISER

Wise Men are wisely rich—the put
Their gold into a treasure-chest:
The Miser's gold is in his heart—
His heart hath never any rest.

304 (VI. 167)
HE WHO IS TRULY RICH

Much having is not being rich.
 The Wealthy Man is he
Who views the loss of all he hath
 With equanimity.

305 (VI. 100)
THE WISE MAN FORESTALLS THE THIEF

The Wise Man doth not wait until
 His fortune is bereft:
He steals his foretune from himself
 And so forestalls the theft.

306 (VI. 103)
NO PROGRESS WHEN HEAVILY LADEN

Storm-foundered seamen jettison
The weightiest cargo in the hold;
And thinkest thou to win to Heaven
O'erladen with a freight of gold?

307 (VI. 179)
HOW MISERS AND WISE MEN ACT

The Miser leaves his gold at last,
Heirs seize on his inheritance:
The Wise Man to the other world
Sends on his riches in advance.

308 (V. 132)
THE UNCONCERNED MAN SUFFERETH NO HURT

The man who in this world claims nothing for his own,
Suffereth no great loss when all his house falls down.

309 (V. 156)
WHO DESIRETH MUCH, LACKETH MUCH

Who hath enough, hath all. Who craveth more and more,
Betrayeth by his want how scanty is his store.

310 (VI. 181)
THE ESTIMATION OF THE FOOL AND THE WISE MAN

The Fool thinks he is rich enough
If he possess a sack of gold:
The Wise Man knoweth he is poor
With riches not the world can hold.


XIII
MAN AND THE WORLD

311 (I. 140)
MAN IS ALL THINGS

Man is the Sum of Things. If he lack but a jot,
The full scope of his wealth surely he knoweth not.

312 (IV. 146)
THE HIGHEST NOBILITY OF MAN

This is my true nobility,
That I have power to be, while still
On earth, a King, an Emperor,
A God, or anything I will.

313 (III. 111)
THE HUMAN HEART

God, Devil and the World would all
Invade my heart—such rivalry
Doth prove it to be wondrous fair
And of a high nobility.

314 (V. 181)
THE GREEDIEST

  How greedy is a Heart!
A thousand Worlds were all too few—
'Twould crave to have them all at once
  Ay, and more too.

315 (V. 170)
ALL WORKS ARE ALIKE TO GOD

Man's works are level before God.
To Him the Saint is full as dear
When he lifts up his cup to drink
As when he lifts his voice in prayer.

316 (V. 334)
GOD VALUETH THE WORK ACCORDING TO THE WORKER

Know this for sure—the good man's sleep
Is more of worth in God's own sight
Than all the cry the sinner makes,
Chanting and praying through the night.

317 (V. 174)
WHAT THE SAINT DOTH, GOD DOTH IN HIM

'Tis God Himself who in the Saint
Enacts the Saint's activities,
God walks, stands, sleeps, wakes, eats and drinks,
And the Saint's courage too is His.

318 (VI. 154)
GOD DOETH ALL HIMSELF

Himself God lays the cord to the shaft,
Himself draws back the bow—that's why,
When He Himself releases it,
The arrow cleaves the target's eye.

319 (I. 194)
WHAT ART THOU IN RESPECT OF GOD?

Think not thou standest high with God
Because thy works His favour claim:
Even the labours of the Saints
To Him are trifling as a game.

320 (I. 119)
THOU MUST GO TO THE SOURCE

Water is pure and clean when at the well-head quaffed:
Drink'st thou not at the Spring, there's danger in the draught.

321 (IV. 190)
THE CROSS MANIFESTETH WHAT IS HIDDEN

Thou canst not know thyself in ease and cheer of heart;
The Cross first showeth thee the man thou inly art.

322 (V. 275)
SUFFERING IS MORE PROFITABLE THAN JOY

Man, hadst thou only known the good
And profit Suffering can bestow,
Surely thou wouldst have chosen it
Rather than Pleasure, long ago.

323 (IV. 79)
THE BEST FRIEND AND ENEMY

My Body is my dearest Friend,
Likewise my bitterest Enemy;
It bears me up and binds me down,
As it doth list, contrarily.
I hate it, yet I love it too,
And when death comes to part us twain,
How joyful will that parting be!
And how that parting will be pain!

324 (V. 135)
READINESS MODIFIES THE BLOW

Is not the Wise Man sad at heart
When Sorrow knocketh at his door?—
He's made all ready long ago
To welcome such a Visitor.

325 (III. 88)
THERE MUST BE CRUCIFIXION

Who in the world-to-come would go rose-gathering
Must first know well how sharply this world's briars sting.

326 (III. 89)
BEAUTY

Beauty I dearly love, and yet
I think that Beauty scarce adorns
Aught that I see, unless I find
It always set about with thorns.

327 (V. 114)
IT IS FOLLY TO STRIVE FOR HONOUR

What fools are we who keenly strive
 Honour to win and keep.
God giveth Honour but to him
 Who holdeth Honour cheap.

328 (V. 141)
THE ACTION OF THE WORLD IS A TRAGEDY

Friend, envy not the World—it goes it own sweet way,
Yet is its Action nothing but a Tragic Play.

329 (V. 263)
HELL MUST BE TASTED

None can escape the throat of Hell.
The path thereto once must thou tread,
And if alive thou go not in,
Then surely shalt thou go in dead.

330 (III. 146)
THE MIGHT OF SOULS

The Soul is very strong—God's self
Acknowledgeth 'tis even so.
He cannot break from her embrace
Unless she please to let Him go.

331 (VI. 82)
THY WILL MAKETH THEE LOST

By thy own Will thou'rt lost, by thy own Will thou'rt found,
Thou by thy Will art freed, and by thy Will art bound.

332 (V. 98)
GOD CANNOT CONTROL THE WILL

Naught is there mightier than God;
Yet hath He not the might to turn
My Will from willing what it will,
My yearning as it needs must yearn?


XIV
THOUGHT AND DEED

333 (V. 89)
THOU MUST WIN IT HERE

Here must thy deed be done.
'Twere an undreamed-of thing
That he who wins no Kingdom here
Should there become a King.

334 (II. 75)
THOU MUST ALSO BEAR FRUIT

If thou dost drink the Blood of God
And yet no fruit be found in thee,
On thee shall fall a curse more fell
Than once did blast that barren tree.

335 (I. 53)
VIRTUE REMAINETH AT REST

If putting Virtue into act
Thou findest drudgery and moil,
Virtue thou hast not yet attained
But after Virtue still dost toil.

336 (I. 273)
RISE ABOVE HOLINESS

If thou art holy, it is well; but wouldst thou find
Favour with God and Man, leave holiness behind.

337 (VI. 33)
MAN MUST CHANGE HIMSELF

Everything changeth, Man. Canst thou remain alone
Careless of betterment and changeless as a Stone?

338 (VI. 72)
SLUGGARDRY WINNETH NOT HEAVEN

Sluggard, bestir thyself! Wilt thou
For ever lie abed and doze?
Heaven will not fly into thy mouth
While thou art taking thy repose.

339 (VI. 42)
WHO STANDS UNMOVED BELONGS NOT TO THE WHOLE

The Sun gives movement unto all,
And makes the Stars dance in the sky:
If I still stand immovable
No part in the great Whole have I.

340 (IV. 203)
A DARKENED HEART SEETH NOT

Give heed unto the Flame. If lamps are burning dim,
The Bridegroom when he comes, who shall distinguish him.

341 (VI. 146)
THE WORK PROVETH THE MASTER

A Master of the Craft art thou
When Virtue is but thought and planned:
But when it comes to Workmanship
Thou show'st thyself a Prentice-hand.

342 (V. 64)
WE SERVE OURSELVES, NOT GOD

God is not served by Fast, Vigil or Litany;
Thou rather serv'st thyself, being purified thereby.

343 (I. 153)
THOU MUST BECOME A CHILD

Unless thou dost become a Child
Thou canst not enter in the place
Where all God's children are—for thee
The doorway hath too small a space.

344 (V. 286)
SIMPLICITY MUST BE INTELLIGENT

I honour that Simplicity
To which God joins intelligence,
But scarcely worth the name I count
Simplicity that lacketh sense.

345 (I. 229)
ANGER

Anger is like the fire of Hell.
If it break out within thy breast,
It burneth up the little bed
Whereon the Holy Ghost doth rest.

346 (VI. 198)
SAFETY IN SECLUSION

If thou wouldst shun those strangers, Bride,
 Who seek to be thy paramours,
Then close the casement shutters fast
 And linger not at open doors.

347 (VI. 163)
HATE MAKETH ITSELF HATED

If Hate and envy rule thy heart
When thou for gifts dost supplicate,
The gift thy prayers achieve will be
Return of Envy and of Hate.

348 (IV. 203)
MAN FINDETH AS HE SEEKETH

As thou dost seek, so shalt thou find;
As thou dost knock and dost implore,
So shall the gift be unto thee,
And so the opening of the door.

349 (IV. 14)
GOD GIVETH THE GREAT IN THE SMALL

Take what God giveth thee. He giveth Great in Small,
Gold in base slag, where we surmise it least of all.

350 (V. 49)
THE FINEST WISDOM

Climb not too high; frame no unneedful subtleties;
The finest Wisdom is to be not overwise.

351 (IV. 122)
GOD SEETH NOT ABOVE HIMSELF

God seeth not above Himself.
If thou dost seek to raise thy height
Above thy stature, have a care
Lest thou shouldst vanish from His sight.

352 (I. 265)
UNITY

Ah, were men's voices like the wood-birds' melody—
Each happy note distinct, but all in harmony!

353 (I. 266)
NOTHING HATH WORTH FOR THE SCORNER

The Nightingale mocks not the Cuckoo's note, 'tis true,
And yet you scorn my song if I sing not as you.

354 (I. 218)
DIVINE SEEING

Who in his fellow-man sees God and Christ, none else,
He seeth with the light wherein the Godhead dwells.

355 (VI. 263)
CONCLUSION

Friend, it is now enough. Wouldst thou read more, go hence,
Become thyself the Writing and thyself the Sense.
Cite this text

Selections from The Cherubinic Wanderer. . Hermetic Cloud, https://hermeticcloud.com/library/silesius-selections-from-the-cherubinic-wanderer/. Public-domain text reproduced in full; markup only.