De visione Dei
Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464)
De visione Dei sive de icona
De visione Dei, or De icona (On the Vision of God, 1453), addressed to the Benedictines of Tegernsee: seeing God through the icon that gazes on all. Latin transcribed from the 1514 Paris Opera; English translation new.
Letter to the Abbot and Brethren of Tegernsee
Preface
Capitulum I: That the perfection of appearance holds true of the most perfect God
Capitulum II: That absolute sight embraces all modes
Capitulum III: That the things said of God do not really differ
Capitulum IV: God's vision bespeaks providence, grace, and eternal life
Capitulum V: O how great the multitude of your sweetness
Capitulum VI: On facial vision
Capitulum VII: What fruit facial vision bears
Capitulum VIII: How seeing God is loving
Capitulum IX: How God is universal and particular together
Capitulum X: How God is seen beyond the coincidence of contradictories
Capitulum XI: How succession is seen in God without succession
Capitulum XII: Where the invisible is seen, the uncreated is created
Capitulum XIII: God is seen as absolute infinity
Capitulum XIV: How God enfolds all things without otherness
How God enfolds all things without otherness. I see, Lord, from the infinity of your mercy: you the infinity encompassing all things. There is therefore nothing outside you. But all things in you: are not other than you. You teach me, Lord, how otherness, which is not in you: also is not in itself, nor can be. Nor does otherness, which is not in you,, make one creature be other than another: although one is not another. For heaven is not earth: although it is true heaven is heaven, and earth is earth. If therefore I seek otherness which is neither in you nor outside you: where shall I find it? And if it is not: how is earth another creature than heaven? For without otherness this cannot be conceived. But you speak in me, Lord,, and say otherness has no positive principle: and thus it is not. For how would otherness be without principle: unless it were itself principle and infinity? But otherness is not a principle of being. For otherness is said from non-being. For that one is not another: hence it is called other. Otherness therefore cannot be a principle of being: for it is said from non-being. Nor has it a principle of being: since it is from non-being. Otherness therefore is not anything. But that heaven is not earth: is because heaven is not infinity itself, which encompasses all being. Whence because infinity is absolute infinity: thence it befalls one cannot be another. As the being of Socrates encompasses all Socratic being: in which simple Socratic being, there is no otherness or diversity. For of all that are in Socrates: the being of Socrates is the individual unity, so that in that one being, is enfolded the being of all that are in Socrates: in individual simplicity itself, where nothing is found other or diverse. But in that one being: all which
MARG: Esse indiuiduale.
have Socratic being, are and are unfolded, and outside it neither are nor can be. Although with this in that most simple being: the eye does not become the ear, and the head does not become the heart, and sight does not become hearing, and sense is not reason. Nor does this befall from any principle of otherness: but, the most simple Socratic being posited,, it befalls the head is not the feet, for the head is not Socratic being itself most simple. Hence its being does not encompass all Socratic being. And thus I see (you, Lord, enlightening) that because simple Socratic being is utterly incommunicable and incontrahibile to the being of any member: thence the being of one member is not the being of another. But that simple Socratic being is the being of all members of Socrates: in which all variety of being and otherness which befalls the members, is simple unity, as the plurality of forms of parts in the form of the whole: is unity. So in some measure, God, holds your being: which is infinity absolute to all those that are.
But absolutely I say: as the absolute form of being of all contracted forms. Whence the hand of Socrates when separated from Socrates, although after cutting off it is no longer the hand of Socrates: yet it remains still in some being of the corpse. This is from this: that the form of Socrates which gives being, gives not simply being, but contracted being, namely Socratic. From which being the hand is separable: and yet remains under another form. But if once the hand were separated from being wholly uncontracted, which is infinite and absolute: it would wholly cease to be. For it would be separated from all being. Thanks I give you, Lord my God: who show yourself to me largely as much as I can grasp, how you are infinity itself, enfolding the being of all with most simple power, which would not be infinite: unless infinitely united. For united power: is stronger. What power therefore is so united, that it cannot be more united: is infinite and omnipotent. You are omnipotent God: for you are absolute simplicity which is absolute infinity.