ECATE. - A minor deity of Greek religion; according to some, of Carian origin. Homer does not know her; Hesiod calls her the daughter of the Titan Perses and of Asteria, sister of Latona; she is the protector of men and of all their activities, grants victory and honors in war and in contests, and is the guardian of women, horsemen,
and of the Alemanne and Bavarian regions. In 1322, commissioned by the Master General, he visited the monastery of Unterlinden, a probable sign that he was still in Strasbourg. Later he lived in Cologne. In 1325 the General Chapter of Venice admonished certain German preachers to refrain from proposing themes that lend themselves to misunderstandings or errors. In 1326, from the opposing side, a process was instituted against E. before the archbishop of Cologne. Two commissioners, one of whom was a Franciscan, extracted 49 theses from E.’s writings and sermons, and on 26 September 1326 he presented a justification. After a second list of 59 propositions reproached to him, on 24 January 1327 E. appealed to the Pope, and on 13 February, under certain conditions, he abjured in the church of the Preachers in Cologne, then went to Avignon, where a commission examined the theses extracted in Cologne (the *Aethenienses*), and John XXII, although with regard for E.’s person, condemned in the bull *In agro dominico* of 27 March 1329, 28 propositions in their objective sense, declaring 17 of them tinged with heresy and 11 as offensive or suspect (Denz-U, 501-29).
His German works are: the *Sermons* (110), the *Treatises* (18, including *Rede der Unterscheidung*, *Buch der göttlichen Tröstung*), the fragments (68 [69], *Sprüche*), edited by F. Pfeiffer (Leipzig 1857; reprint ibid. 1924), by H. Büttner (2 vols., 1921), by W. Lehmann (2 vols., Göttingen 1919), by F. Schulze-Maizier (Leipzig 1936). There are also other editions of the *Rede* (Munich 1922), of the *Buch* (Berlin 1933), etc. In the edition of the *Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft*, J. Quint has published so far one volume of sermons (Stuttgart-Berlin 1936). Cf. also *Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke, Untersuchungen*, I, edited by J. Quint (ibid. 1940) and A. Faggin, *M. E.*, pp. 65-68, 375-77.
His Latin works are the *Collatio in libros Sententiarum*, *Tractatus super oratione dominica* (ca. 1268), the questions *Utrum in Deo sit idem esse et intelligere*, *Utrum laus Dei in patria sit nobilior eius dilectione in via*, the *Sermo die B. Augustini* held in Pavia (ca. 1302-1304), the questions *Utrum aliquem notum esse sine termino implicet contradictionem*, *Utrum in corpore Christi morientis in Cruce remanserint formae elementorum* (ca. 1311-14), parts of the *Opus tripartitum* (ca. 1314-33), *Responsio mag. Echardi ad Articulos sibi impositos* (1326). The *Opus tripartitum* was to embrace the *opus propositionum*, of which the plan is known from the *Prolegomena*, and a thesis developed (*Esse est Deus*), the *opus quaestionum* of discussions and lectures, and the *opus expositionum* of biblical passages and materials for sermons (*opus sermonum*, ed. Benz, 1937). The *opus expositionum* consists of prologues, expositions on Gen. I (I forma), In Eccli. XXIV, In Sap. (ed. G. Théry, 1928-29), In Gen. I (II forma), In Ex. (II forma), In Gen. 2 (*Liber parabolarum Genesis*), In Io. (eds. K. Christ and J. Koch 1936 ff.). Of the Latin writings (cf. Faggin, *M. E.*, pp. 68-75, 377-79), studied since Denifle, two recent editions have been devoted to them: one directed by G. Théry (Leipzig 1933, so far 3 fascicles), the other promoted by the *Deutsche Forschungsgesellschaft* under the care of J. Koch, B. Geyer, K. Weiss, K. Christ, R. Benz, R. Seeberg (Stuttgart-Berlin 1936 ff., so far 10 fascicles).
E.’s thought revolves around three preferred problems: God, the origin of things from God, and the return of spiritual creatures to God, bringing to their solution, in addition to Neoplatonic, Pseudo-Dionysian and other elements, the riches of the Thomistic school with the contribution of an original and bold mind.
“Esse est Deus,” in the sense of absolute being, not in the sense of inherent, created being. The creature is a non-esse, a relative, shadowy being; created being is nothing without the being of God. “Deus non habet esse” means that in God is the fullness, perfection, and purity of being. Being and essence are really distinct. Using the procedures and formulas of negative theology, E. teaches that God is without name, that God is not good, that is, not according to created goodness. This being, thus defined, is for E. the deity, distinct from the triune God of Revelation. The Trinity is explained by means of a process of self-knowledge of the divine essence, while avoiding, however, the sense falsely attributed to it by J. W. Preger of a temporal succession from power to act. E.’s conception of the eminent being of God is both metaphysical and mystical. The same applies to his manner of speaking of the divine attributes: unity, simplicity, spirituality, etc. God’s creative act is eternal, not the creature. For his clear concept of creation, E. is far removed from pantheism (F. Pelster).
The more human thought becomes aware of the sublimity of God, the less attainable does the ultimate end, which is God, appear to II. And yet the mystic insists on the attainment of God. He appeals to psychology. The human soul is the image of God, immediately created by Him. It is the *forma corporis* according to essence and the lower powers, but according to the higher powers (intellect, will), it lives in the world of the spirit. The *ratio superior* of the soul, which is one and spiritual, is oriented toward God. E. sometimes speaks of the castle, scintilla, apex of the soul, the seat or place where the union of God and the soul is realized according to the three stages of natural spirituality, elevation above the supernatural order, and mystical experience. While Neoplatonists and Beghards hold that a natural disposition is sufficient for the mystical union with God, E. maintains that the soul is divinized only through the infusion of grace and the gift of God.
Asking himself about the purpose of good works, of worship, of the world, of the Incarnation, E. answers: so that God may be born in the soul and the soul in God. This “Gottesgeburt” is both an idea and a central fact of the world, linked to the birth of the Son from the Father in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The transformation into the Son does not cause man to lose his existence, but his egoism; it does not lead to quietism, but to the interior fullness of works of charity and social assistance. The negative aspect of the birth of God in the soul is withdrawal, which becomes a positive function: “nihil apponendo, sed subtrahendo, in anima invenitur Deus.” The informing of God in us, the loss of the “form” of all that in us contrasts with the divine form, the abandonment to God, the “passive” union with God, make the soul docile and pliable under the light of God’s action; it listens and sees without images and works without fatigue. By leaving himself, man leaves all things, founds within himself true freedom for God.
E understood how to serve life, demanding that man be a seeker of God at all times, fortified by unceasing renunciation and self-reclamation through the trench of non-being. A preacher of interiority, he rejected every Pharisaic formalism. He urged the formation of man as a son of God. The propriety and purity of his expression, the clarity of his syntax, and the loftiness of his concepts constitute the charm of his discourse, heightened by his deeply felt religious attitude. They demand for him in German literature the place that belongs to Dante in Italian letters.
An eminent dialectician, E. loved paradoxes in thought and speech as means of profound effect; he was typically dynamic, indeed almost “existentialist.” A man of lofty mind and generous ministry, E. was revered by some, such as Tauler and Blessed Henry Suso, who called him the “holy master,” while others regarded him with suspicion for his doctrine, language, and writings. When E., a devoted son of the Church, did not exercise formal authority, he seemed to approach too near the precipice, and the Church recalled him and his contemporaries to order.
To Cardinal Cusanus we owe the most exact transcription of E.’s Latin works; his German sermons were printed in the 15th century. Romantics, philosophers, theologians, and Germanists of the 19th century extolled him. C. Schmidt of Strasbourg made him a pantheist, Martensen deemed him an atheist, and Lasson set him in opposition to the Church. While F. Pfeiffer (1897) edited the German works of E., J. W. Preger (1874) sought the historical person, and H. Denifle (1886–89) shed great light on the figure and Latin writings of E. For Delacroix (1907) and H. Büttner (1917) and Ott (1937), E. is a precursor of Luther; for A. Rosenberg he is the great apostle of Nordic Occident. While H. Denifle, H. V. Hornstein, G. Théry, and J. Koch insist on E.’s Latin writings, O. Karrer and H. Pesch affirm his orthodoxy, and A. Dempf, while granting priority to his mystical inspiration and originality of thought, reaffirms his integral Catholicism. The critical edition of his works will facilitate the exegesis of the authentic thought “force” of E.