Martin Luther enthusiastically recommended the writings of Johannes Tauler in various letters he wrote throughout his life. On the basis of these comments and Lutherâs references to Tauler in his early theological writings, Reformation historians have long recognized the possibility of some influence of this fourteenth-century mystic on the development of his thought. In more recent years, a few historical theologians, sometimes motivated by ecumenical concerns or interests in spirituality, have ventured to call Luther a mystic. Other scholars who have directed renewed attention to continuities between Lutherâs thought and some late medieval theological themes have spoken more cautiously about an enduring mystical element in his outlook.1 Critics of such views have been more inclined to see Lutherâs attraction to Tauler as only an early phase in the development of his thought or have argued that the affinity Luther felt with Tauler was based on a creative misunderstanding of the mysticâs writings.2
Lutherâs ambivalence about Tauler
Steven Ozmentâs first book, published in 1969, was an important contribution to the debate about Lutherâs relation to medieval mystical theology.3 In Homo Spiritualis, Ozment focused on the neglected issue of theological anthropology and concluded from a study of Lutherâs marginal notations on Taulerâs sermons that, already in 1515, Luther was well on his way toward a break with the basic ontological presuppositions of the Catholic mystics. Ozment argued that Tauler understood the Seelengrund to be an uncorrupted higher part of the soul that allowed a person, when divine indwelling took place, to become by grace what God substantively is by nature. He noted that, when passages in Taulerâs sermons seemed to depict the âground of the soulâ as a soteriologically significant resource for spiritual development, Luther substituted the assertion that the truly spiritual man is one who lives by faith.4 This shift in emphasis, according to Ozment, reveals a clash between two profoundly different understandings of salvation. While Tauler and the other mystics held to the widespread medieval notion that likeness to God is a precondition for the soulâs union with God, Lutherâs new perspective asserted that, because of Christ, union with God could take place even though a person was still utterly dissimilar from God.5
To explain how Luther could praise Tauler so highly despite opposition to some of his central teachings, Ozment has argued that it is important to differentiate between the mystical and non-mystical aspects of Taulerâs writings. Luther appreciated Taulerâs psychological treatment of the religious life and, in particular, his statements about the need for self-denial and passivity in the development of a relationship with God. Luther was less interested in what the mystic had to say about a culminating experience of union with God. Ozment has concluded that Lutherâs attraction to the German mystics was quite consciously selective and not based on a misunderstanding of their thought.6
There continue to be disagreements about the way to interpret specific passages in the writings of Tauler and Luther, but Ozmentâs research has convinced most historians that Lutherâs attitude toward Tauler can best be described as âambivalentâ.7 Lutherâs misgivings about mysticism increased in the 1520s, when his reform movement struggled with Spiritualists who were also influenced by Tauler, but his last explicit comments about Tauler, written in the 1530s, continued to be complimentary.8
Interest in Tauler among later Lutherans
Interest in Tauler continued among Lutherans long after Lutherâs death and sporadically intensified. Many writers of devotional literature cited Tauler frequently in their books, anthologies of excerpts from Taulerâs sermons were circulated for Protestant use, and eventually even full editions of Taulerâs writings were prepared and published by Lutherans. This longstanding interest in Tauler provoked mixed evaluations throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Some Lutheran theologians charged those who made use of Taulerâs writings with heresy, prompting the admirers of Tauler to mount extensive defenses of their actions. This debate has continued among modern evaluators of Lutheran theology, some of whom have viewed the increased appropriation of mystical resources as a departure from Lutherâs outlook and as an alien influence infiltrating post-Reformation Lutheranism, while others have argued that a form of mysticism emerged among Taulerâs Lutheran admirers that was quite compatible with the central affirmations of their theological tradition.9
Some important general assessments of the ârenaissance of mysticismâ in post-Reformation Lutheranism have been published in recent years, and a number of detailed studies of the influence of medieval mystics on individual Lutheran authors have been undertaken.10 However more work could be done to clarify why Tauler, in particular, attracted such interest. This chapter will examine the specific efforts of Lutherans to keep the writings of Tauler in circulation during the century and a half after Lutherâs death and what those who perpetuated this process explicitly said to justify these efforts. Analysis of this group of writings should shed some more light on the way later Lutherans interpreted Tauler and on the extent to which they would have agreed with Lutherâs ultimately ambivalent assessment of the writings of this medieval mystic.
Influential recommendations
There are a couple of factors that seem especially to have enhanced the reputation of Tauler among post-Reformation Lutherans. First of all, they felt justified in continuing to read his writings because Luther and several of his associates had explicitly recommended that Christians do so. There are at least 26 places in Lutherâs published writings where he mentioned Tauler. 11 In the middle of the sixteenth century, several of these passages were being cited whenever the merits and demerits of Tauler were under discussion. In a letter written in 1516 to Georg Spalatin, Luther stated that he had found âno purer and more wholesome theology in Latin or Germanâ than what Tauler wrote in his sermons. In a second letter, Luther specifically urged Spalatin to buy Taulerâs sermons because he thought all the teachings of their own times seemed like iron or earth when compared to them.12
A frequently cited quotation from Philipp Melanchthon offered proof of Taulerâs basic orthodoxy by noting his gravestone in Strasbourg, which portrayed him pointing his finger towards Christ, the Lamb of God, to indicate that his teachings were Christ centric. Melanchthon also claimed that Taulerâs fellow monks viewed him as a fool, a report that only contributed further to the perception that Tauler stood on the side of the Protestants in the continuing battle against Catholicism, even though he lived and died as a Dominican friar.13
The evidence of the gravemarker was subjected to a more elaborate interpretation in an additional favorite quotation from Matthias Flacius Illyricus (1520â75). This prominent Gnesio-Lutheran wrote a book in 1562 entitled Catalogue of True Witnesses, in which he attempted to defend Lutheranism against the charge of doctrinal innovation by presenting short descriptions of over 400 individuals who constituted a remnant of true Christianity throughout the dark centuries before the occurrence of the Lutheran Reformation.14 Bernard of Clairvaux and Johannes Tauler are the only medieval mystics among his âwitnessesâ. Flacius honored Tauler for rightly teaching justification by grace and described him as a bitter enemy of superstition. Citing various passages from the sermons, Flacius claimed that Tauler fervently dismissed the value of human merits and preached dependence on faith alone. Flacius noted sermons in which Tauler criticized conspicuous displays of external sanctity and claimed that Tauler condemned prayers addressed to the saints.
The list of supportive quotations expanded with the passage of time, and an additional one that frequently appeared came from Jerome Weller (1499â1572), a church superintendent in Freyburg, near Naumburg, who authored many commentaries on the Psalms. Luther had valued Taulerâs understanding of the role of suffering in the Christian life, and Weller, in his comments on the 119th Psalm, suggested that Tauler wrote well on this topic because he had personal experience of humiliation and Anfechtung}5 Weller based this claim on the story that for two years Tauler was afflicted with such weakness that he could not bring himself to preach or go out among people. This was interpreted as an act of God to keep him from becoming too proud of his natural abilities. After humbling Tauler, God supposedly restored his gifts and empowered him to teach effectively once again. This story can be traced back to the Meisterbuch, an account of Taulerâs life and spiritual conversion, which came to be, in addition to the existence of testimonials from respected Lutheran theologians, a second major factor causing many Lutherans to feel that Taulerâs life and work was especially worthy of respect.
The influence of the Meisterbuch
The Meisterbuch, which first appeared in 1361, described the interactions of its author, a layman who called himself âthe Friend of God of the Oberlandâ, with âthe Masterâ, a great preacher in Strasbourg.15 This was later assumed to be Johannes Tauler, although such an identification only appeared for the first time in a manuscript of the work dating from 1486. Modern analysis of this text has conclusively proved that the account is legendary and offers no reliable information about Taulerâs life, yet for several centuries it was seen as an authentic explanation of the way Tauler came to his enlightened spiritual perspective.16 According to the story, the author was told by God in a dream to go to Strasbourg to hear the preaching...