Master Eckhart

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Meister Eckhart portal of the Erfurt Predigerkirche (2009)

Meister Eckhart (also Eckehart , Eckhart von Hochheim ; * around 1260 in Hochheim or in Tambach ; † before April 30, 1328 in Avignon ) was an influential Thuringian theologian and philosopher of the late Middle Ages .

Even as a teenager stepped Eckhart in the Order of the Dominicans one in which he later gained high office. With his sermons he not only had a strong impact on his contemporaries, but also impressed posterity. He also made an important contribution to the shaping of German philosophical terminology. His main concern was the dissemination of principles for a consistently spiritual life practice in everyday life. His unconventional, sometimes provocatively worded statements and his sharp contradiction to the convictions widespread at the time caused a sensation. Was controversial, for example, his statement that " the soul reason " is not like anything creaturely created by God, but divine and uncreated. The deity is always directly present in the soul base. Eckhart often took up ideas from the Neoplatonic tradition. He is often characterized as a mystic , but the appropriateness of this designation is controversial in research.

After many years in the service of the order, Eckhart was denounced and charged with heresy (heresy, deviation from orthodoxy) only in the last years of his life . The inquisition process initiated in Cologne was resumed at the papal court in Avignon and brought to an end. Eckhart died before the proceedings against him were concluded. Since he had submitted to the judgment of the Pope from the start, he escaped classification as a heretic, but Pope John XXII. condemned some of his statements as false doctrine and banned the circulation of the works containing them. Nevertheless, Eckhart's ideas had a considerable influence on late medieval spirituality in the German and Dutch regions.


Origin and education

Preacher Church and Preacher Monastery Erfurt

Eckhart was born around 1260 in today's Gotha district in Thuringia , either in Hochheim or Tambach. He was probably a son of the knight Eckhart, "called von Hochheim", whose death is recorded in a document dated May 19, 1305.

Probably around 1275 he entered the order of the Dominicans (preacher brothers) in Erfurt . In the local Dominican monastery he probably received his basic training. He completed a degree at one of the universities ( Studium generale ) of his order, probably in Cologne. This started with the artes ("arts"). In the formation within the Order, this did not mean the entirety of the Seven Liberal Arts , but specifically the logic of Aristotle . The next section comprised naturalia ("natural history") and moral philosophy . This was followed by theological training and the reception of priestly ordination . In Cologne Eckhart might have got to know Albertus Magnus , who died in 1280. It has been suggested that he studied in Paris, but there is no concrete evidence of this.

Teaching at Paris University

From 1293 to 1294 Eckhart worked at the University of Paris, the most famous university in the West at the time, as lecturer of the sentences of Petrus Lombardus . A minimum age of 33 years was required for this position. He held his inaugural lecture, with which he started teaching in Paris, in September or October 1293. The first certain date in his life is April 18, 1294, an Easter Sunday on which he was in the church of the Dominican convent of St. Jacques in Paris held the sermon. Before the end of 1294 he returned to Erfurt.

1302 Eckhart was in Paris for Master doctorate of theology. The common term "master" Eckhart refers to his Germanized master's degree. After completing his doctorate, he was given the Dominican chair, which was reserved for non-French people, for a year . In addition to lecturing and leading the disputations , his duties also included preaching.

In the service of the Order

In 1294 Eckhart became prior of the Erfurt Dominican monastery and vicar (deputy) of the provincial who headed the Teutonia order in Thuringia. The office of provincial was then exercised by the philosopher Dietrich von Freiberg , whose way of thinking influenced Eckhart.

At the provincial chapter in Erfurt, which took place for the first time on September 8, 1303 , Eckhart was elected the first provincial of the order province of Saxonia, which comprised large parts of northern and central Germany as well as the present-day Netherlands and extended to Latvia in the east . Saxonia emerged from the division of the too large province of Teutonia (Eckhart's home province), which the general chapter of the order had decided at Pentecost 1303. When it was founded, Saxonia consisted of 47 male monasteries, to which three more were added during Eckhart's tenure, and a few women's monasteries. It was directed from Erfurt. At the General Chapter in Toulouse Pentecost 1304, Eckhart's election was confirmed. Probably on this occasion the new provincial preached a sermon and a lecture on the 24th chapter of the book Jesus Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) at the provincial and general chapters .

At Pentecost 1307 Eckhart was appointed Vicar General (representative of the Master General ) for the Bohemian Dominican Province at the General Chapter in Strasbourg . He was supposed to carry out radical reforms in the conventions there. In autumn 1310 he was elected provincial in the provincial chapter of the Teutonia order in Speyer . However, the general master refused to confirm the election. The General Chapter in Naples released Eckhart on May 30, 1311 from his office as Provincial of the Saxonia and sent him back to the University of Paris for a second teaching position. There he again filled the chair intended for non-French people. The repeated assumption of the chair was an award that had only been bestowed upon Thomas Aquinas before him .

Eckhart's stay in Strasbourg, often referred to as his “Strasbourg decade”, is said to have lasted from 1313/1314 to 1322/1324. Research assumes that he was assigned to the Dominican monastery there as vicar general. However, a continuous stay in Strasbourg is doubted by some researchers, as it is only supported by three dated documents from 1314, 1316 and 1322. The view is often taken that pastoral care in women's convents was one of his main duties during these years . According to another research opinion, he was entrusted with teaching duties in Strasbourg.

From 1323/24 Eckhart was in Cologne. One of his main tasks there was preaching. There is no evidence of teaching activity, but in view of his qualifications it is reasonable to assume that the Order appointed him as a lecturer at the Studium generale .

A page from Eckhart's statement on the indictment. Manuscript Soest , City Archives and Scientific City Library, Codex No. 33, Sheet 57v
The notarial instrument concerning Eckhart's public revocation of his "errors" in Cologne on February 13, 1327, which was sent to the papal chancellery. Città del Vaticano, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Archivum Arcis, arm. C, 1123

Indictment and trial in Cologne

In Cologne in 1325 Eckhart was accused of heresy (deviation from orthodoxy) by his friars Hermann de Summo and Wilhelm von Nidecke with the local Archbishop Heinrich II of Virneburg . According to a statement written in 1327 by Gerhard von Podanhs, who was the vicar of the General Procurator of the Dominican Order, both accusers were monks who had committed serious offenses against religious discipline; Gerhard demanded their arrest. Although the two accusers apparently had no support in their own order, their advance was successful. The archbishop, known for harshness in cases of suspected heresy, initiated an investigation with which he commissioned two inquisition commissioners , Reinerius Friso and Petrus de Estate. Reinerius was a Cologne canon , while Peter belonged to the Franciscan order rivaling the Dominicans . Charges were brought between August 1325 and September 1326. The commissioners, who were also the judges in the heresy trial, presented the defendant with two lists of his contested statements. The first contained 49 sentences from his Latin works and - in Latin translation - from one of his German writings (the consolation book) and from his German sermons. The second list consisted of 59 sentences translated into Latin from the German sermons. Apparently other lists were made. The Dominican Nikolaus von Straßburg , who was then Vicar General of the Teutonia Order Province, had already initiated an internal review of Eckhart's orthodoxy, which he responded to accusations. Nicholas found nothing objectionable. Because he stood up for Eckhart, he was also charged. The accusation was that he favored the heresy.

On September 26, 1326, Eckhart presented the Inquisition Commissioners with a statement, the Responsio ad articulos sibi impositos de scriptis et dictis suis . In it he denied not only his guilt, but also the legal basis of the proceedings, since an archbishop's court was not competent for his case because of the privileges of his order. Nevertheless, he is ready to comment on the allegations. The lack of a precedent - there had never been a heresy trial against such a high-ranking theologian and religious - apparently unsettled the inquisitors. In any case, the trial was delayed. On January 24, 1327 Eckhart appealed to the Apostolic See . He complained that the judges repeatedly set appointments but did not come to a verdict, and that the commission placed more trust in people of bad repute (the prosecutors) than in him. In addition, he had already been exonerated by the investigation of Nicholas of Strasbourg. On February 13, 1327, he had a written general revocation of any errors of faith read out publicly in the Dominican Church. He personally translated this declaration (protestatio) , which was notarized, into German. It is formulated in general terms and does not contain any distancing from individual criticized statements, but only the assurance that he will revoke in advance any error that can be proven to him. In doing so, he prevented the accusation of being a persistent heretic, which according to the law of the time should have led to a death sentence if convicted.

Trial in Avignon and death

The Cologne Inquisition Commission did not accept the appeal to the Pope and informed the accused of this on February 22, 1327. Nevertheless, the proceedings in Cologne were broken off and the matter was left to the Pope to clarify. At that time the Pope did not reside in Rome, but in Avignon . Eckhart went there. He was accompanied by several friars, including the Provincial of Teutonia, and emphatically supported by the Vicar of the General Procurator of the Dominicans. At this point in time his order was still behind him.

Now a papal commission of inquiry examined the files sent from Cologne and gave the accused the opportunity to comment. Of the total of around 150 suspicious statements that the prosecution in Cologne had compiled, 28 remained that were classified as reprehensible by the commission. As in Cologne, the defendant asserted in Avignon that he might have erred in his theological assumptions, but that this was no reason to doubt his orthodoxy and to classify him as a heretic. Heresy can only exist if there is the will to do so. This time he was successful with this argument. In the new trial at the papal court it was no longer a question of whether he should be classified as a heretic, but only a doctrinal objection procedure was used to check whether his suspicious statements contained heretical errors.

Finally, the commission drew up a protocol, the "Avignon report", in which it established and justified the reprehensibility of the 28 sentences. As is customary in such proceedings, not entire writings of the accused or his entire work were judged, but only individual sentences according to their wording ( prout sonant ) without taking into account the meaning of the texts from which they were taken. Eckhart's works were not available to the commission. Cardinal Jacques Fournier, later Pope Benedict XII. , prepared an additional detailed report in which he declared part of Eckhart's sentences to be heretical.

Copy of the bull In agro dominico (manuscript I 151, Mainz City Library ).

Eckhart died between July 1327 and April 1328 before the conclusion of the trial, in all probability in Avignon, because it can be assumed that he had to be available to the papal court for the entire duration of the trial. The date of death is traditionally January 28, 1328, because according to a note by the Dominican Friedrich Steill from 1691, the order commemorated his death on January 28. However, it is unclear whether the commemoration was based on actual knowledge of the day of death.

After Eckhart's death, the proceedings were continued. It ended with the condemnation of the 28 sentences, which were classified partly as heretical, partly as suspicious of heresy. In the bull In agro dominico of March 27, 1329, the Pope announced that Eckhart had completely revoked his errors before his death. The wording of this document, however, shows that Eckhart avoided calling his challenged teachings untrue. Rather, he stuck to his theological convictions and did not distance himself from what he meant by his criticized statements. He only thrown out any heretical, anti-belief misinterpretations of his theses. The Pope was satisfied with that.


Eckhart's works are partly in Latin and partly in Middle High German . None of them have survived as autographs . The German works have been handed down much more broadly than the Latin ones. In addition to complete works, drafts, sometimes tiny fragments and quotations in foreign writings have been preserved. In some cases, however, the authenticity is disputed.

German works

With his German works, Eckhart expressly addresses the “unlearned people” in particular. He rejects the idea of ​​a truth that is only accessible to the theologically educated Latin, and that is to be hidden from the common people. He is convinced that the most sublime teachings should also be preached to the general public, for the unlearned are those who need instruction. The risk that some things are not properly understood must be accepted. The German plants are:

  • The speech of the underscheidunge (often translated as "speeches of instruction"; the traditional title is not authentic). This is a collection of casually strung together teachings on a variety of spiritual and lifestyle topics. The writing, which was created in Erfurt between 1294 and 1298, contains answers to questions from (spiritual) "children", that is, the monks with whom the author had doctrinal conversations as prior. It is the most widely handed down work by Eckhart.
Fragment of the German sermon 5b in a manuscript that was made during Eckhart's lifetime. Göttingen, Georg-August University , Diplomatic Apparatus, 10 E IX No. 18, fol. 1r
  • The sermons. The most famous sermons include No. 86 Intravit Iesus in quoddam castellum and No. 52 Beati pauperes spiritu . A collection of sermons from the 14th century, the Paradisus anime intelligentis (“Paradise of the sensible soul”), contains 64 sermons, half of which are by Eckhart. In the older research it was assumed that most of the sermon texts received are unauthorized recordings by listeners. But based on the current state of research, this is unlikely. Philological and historical evidence suggests that Eckhart authorized the texts (apart from a few isolated exceptions). He probably wrote down a collection of his German sermons himself, which were not mere copies of speeches that had been given, but versions edited for a reading public. However, some of the surviving texts were revised considerably by later editors. In addition, text corruption due to tradition must be expected.
  • The "Book of Divine Consolation". Eckhart wrote the work belonging to the genre of consolation writings for the widowed Queen Agnes of Hungary , whose father, King Albrecht I , was murdered in 1308. The fact that the Queen commissioned Eckhart with the drafting of this pamphlet testifies to his high reputation. Together with the sermon "From the noble man", the "Book of Divine Consolation" forms the Liber Benedictus ("Book 'Praised"), so named after the Latin words Benedictus deus ("Praised be God").
  • The poem Granum sinapis ("The Mustard Seed"), the authenticity of which is not certain, but plausible. It has come down to us along with a Latin commentary that was wrongly ascribed to Eckhart himself earlier.

The authenticity of the treatise “From Seclusion”, in which a central concept of Eckhart's teaching is explained, is controversial. The editor Josef Quint considers the treatise to be genuine, other researchers dispute its authenticity. In Kurt Ruh's view, there are broad correspondences with Eckhart's authentic teaching and style , but the font is not his own.

Latin works

Among the Latin works, the unfinished "three-part work" (Opus tripartitum) takes up the largest space. In the three parts, the author intended to provide comprehensive information about his teaching as well as to compile his notes and instructions for everyday life. According to his plan outlined in the preface, the first part was to form the “work of the tenets” (Opus propositionum) , for which the treatment of more than a thousand doctrines was planned, divided into 14 treatises (tractatus) . In each treatise, Eckhart first wanted to discuss and clarify a fundamental philosophical term and its opposition (for example, beings and nothing, one and many, true and false, good and evil) and then present the doctrines that arise refer to the respective term. A “work of questions (problems)” (Opus quaestionum) was planned as the second part . The third part, the "work of interpretations" (Opus expositionum) , should include the exegetical works and consist of two components: the Bible commentaries - Eckhart planned to comment on all books of both testaments - and a collection of Latin sermons in which biblical texts are interpreted were. The huge project could only be partially realized. Some of the commentaries on books of the Bible are in place.

Of the Latin works, the following have been preserved:

  • Preface to Opus tripartitum : a general Preface (Prologus generalis) and Preface to the "Work of the Doctrines" and the "Work of the Interpretations"
  • Two comments on the Book of Genesis . The second, entitled “Book of the Parables of Genesis” (Liber parabolarum Genesis) deals with the symbolic interpretation of events told in the Book of Genesis.
  • The commentary on the book of Exodus
  • The Commentary on the Book of Wisdom (Expositio libri Sapientiae)
  • The interpretation of the gospel according to John
  • Two sermons and two lectures on the 24th chapter of the book Jesus Sirach (Sermones et lectiones super Ecclesiastici caput 24)
  • A fragment of a commentary on the Song of Songs
  • The "Pariser Quaestionen " (Quaestiones Parisienses) , problem discussions that emerged from teaching, in which Eckhart explains, among other things, his position on the question of the relationship between being and knowing in God and in creatures, thus working out the contrast between his theology and Thomistic .
  • The inaugural lecture (principium) held in Paris in 1293 on the sentences of Petrus Lombardus (Collatio in libros Sententiarum)
  • The sermones . Only a part of it is fully worked out, for others only drafts or mere keyword collections are available.
  • A brief explanation of the Our Father


Eckhart's teaching revolves around two poles: God and the human soul. He wants to enlighten his listeners or readers about the nature of the soul and (as far as possible) about God and teach them how God and soul relate to one another. The practical relevance of his explanations plays a central role for him. The listener or reader should be instructed to arrive at the insights described by Eckhart based on their own experience of themselves and God. The starting point for dealing with this topic is the question of how knowledge of God can come about and what requirements must be met for it.

In the wider public and in some of the specialist literature, Eckhart is perceived as a mystic . In recent research, however, it is emphasized on various occasions that the term “mysticism”, which is defined differently as a term for elements of his teaching, is problematic, at least requires explanation and can only be used to a limited extent.


To support and illustrate his claims, Eckhart cites copious amounts of authorities: biblical texts as well as ancient and medieval church writers and non-Christian philosophers. He uses the Aristotelian terminology of university science of his time; In terms of content, however, it is closer to Neoplatonism than to Aristotelian thought. Among the authors whom he particularly values, the medieval philosopher Maimonides plays a prominent role alongside the late antique church father Augustine . Despite this intellectual historical background, the core statements of his teaching are not primarily based on a generally recognized philosophical and theological tradition that he subscribes to. More important to him than the appeal to authorities is the insight based on reason and experience. He considers his insights to be universally valid and wants his audience to understand even more demanding content. However, the comprehension requires much more than a purely mental grasp of the conclusiveness of the statements. Everyone who really wants to understand and judge Eckhart's central statements has to create the necessary prerequisites in himself: for as long as a person does not resemble this truth, he will not understand this speech; for this is an undisguised truth that came directly from the heart of God. God help us that we may live in such a way that we experience it forever. If the prerequisites are created, the truth as such can be recognized with certainty.

With this approach, Eckhart arrives at results that are unusual for an ecclesiastical author of his time and that make his thinking appear bold and original. There is - contrary to a previously widespread view - no contradiction between the German and the Latin works. Eckhart doesn't just want to reach an educated audience, but everyone who is interested in his teaching. As a preacher, he also addresses listeners or readers who have little previous knowledge of philosophy or theology in German. However, it places high demands on the willingness of the audience to engage in unfamiliar and sometimes exaggerated lines of thought. In exegesis he often deviates from the literal meaning of the biblical passages to be interpreted in order to find a hidden meaning. He is well aware of the shocking audacity of his claims; In the prologue to the Opus tripartitum he writes that some things appear monstrous, dubious or wrong at first glance.

Doctrine of God and Godhead

For medieval scholastics, God is the object of both philosophical and theological endeavors. It is to be known on the one hand through revelation and on the other hand through reason. Eckhart does not differentiate between these two approaches. For him theology and philosophy form a unity; Philosophy is neither subordinate to theology nor are they to be separated because of different methodology. Philosophical considerations and arguments are on an equal footing with theological ones. For Eckhart - in contrast to the view of many patristic and medieval theologians - every area of ​​theology is fundamentally accessible to philosophical reflection and comprehensible with philosophical statements. In accordance with this basic attitude, Eckhart also considers the difference between natural and supernatural processes to be insignificant and recommends that one should not worry about it, since both are equally worked by God. Fundamental to the relationship between man and God is the difference between believing and knowing; Faith is related to looking or perfect knowledge like an opinion is related to proof, like something imperfect to perfect. So it is not a question of staying with faith, but of moving forward from believing to knowing.

God and deity

Eckhart does not assign the same meaning to the terms “God” and “Deity”, but rather uses them to denote different levels on which the divine reality can show itself to man. He claims that God and Godhead are as different from each other as heaven and earth. Through revelation, people striving for knowledge of God first encounter God, who is triune in the sense of the doctrine of the Trinity. As Father God begets, as Creator he is the exemplary cause of all that is created, as Trinity he appears in three persons. The three persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit ) form a unity because of their identity , but at the same time there is a real difference between them, so that divine relationships and processes within the Trinity are possible.

From the existence of God, insofar as he is the creator and confronts his creatures in this quality, Eckhart distinguishes a higher level of the reality of the divine, on which it appears as "deity" or as a "single one", "above God". Terminologically, however, Eckhart does not consistently distinguish between God and Deity. He also uses the word "God" for statements that refer to what he otherwise calls "Godhead". In doing so, he follows the expression that his audience - especially those who listen to his sermons - is familiar with. What is meant can be seen from the context.

On the level of the “deity” or the “one”, the divine reality is no longer a determinable authority in the sense of the doctrine of the Trinity, which begets and creates. The deity does not produce anything, it does not convey itself in a bewitching or producing manner, but is related to nothing but itself. But although the relationship between the Creator and the creature is not considered at the divinity level, it is actually accessible to man, just like the level of the Creator God. One should not “stop” with God, but “break through” to Godhead. The deity is the supra-personal aspect of the divine total reality. Nothing definite can be said about it, since it is beyond any differentiation. It is “ignorant” (without properties by which it could be defined), is a “groundless ground” and a “silent desert”, a “simple silence”. In this, Eckhart's deity agrees with the One , the highest given in the system of Neoplatonism . The One is the origin of everything and therefore cannot have any characteristics, for each characteristic would be at the same time a limitation and as such would be incompatible with the all-embracing and undifferentiated character of the One. Since God has no such limitations, there is nothing he is not; thus it is "a denial of denial". With this approach Eckhart follows the tradition of negative theology , especially the teaching of the Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita .

God, as a person with personal characteristics expressed in his name, exists on a plane separate from and subordinate to that of the deity. If he wanted to turn to his own impersonal aspect, he would have to - just like a person who does this - leave aside everything that defines his particularity. Thus the quality of being Trinity also belongs to God, but not to the Godhead. Eckhart remarks on this: This is easy to see, because this one one is wise and uniqueness. And so: if God is ever to peek into it, it must cost him all his divine names and his personal peculiarity; He has to leave that outside if he ever peeps in it.

Like the Neo-Platonists, Eckhart denies the deity not only all properties that characterize God such as “good” or “wise”, but consequently also being, since being is also a determination and as such cannot be attributed to the uncertain. Therefore, if the divine realm is not spoken of under the aspect of "God" but under the aspect of "Godhead", the statement that this reality "is" does not apply; rather, it is a question of "an over-being and an over-being nothingness". Hence the deity is also not an object of knowledge, neither for itself nor for others, because where a knowing subject is separated from a known object, it is not the level of the deity. Eckhart remarks: The hidden darkness of the invisible light of the eternal deity is undetected and will never be recognized.

The ideas

Platonic ideas have their place in the deity . Eckhart calls them in German "Urbilder", Latin "ideae" or "rationes (ideales)", whereby he explicitly refers to Plato . They are uncreated like the deity itself; in it they exist, but not as individual things, but undivided, since the unity of the deity does not permit any differentiation. In addition, the ideas also exist in the differentiated way according to which the human understanding can grasp them, because they are not only in the deity or in God, but were also “born” from God. From this point of view, the ideas or forms are elements of divine wisdom. This is, expressed in the terminology of the Trinity doctrine, the “ Word of God ” (according to the prologue of the Gospel of John) or the “Son” whom the Father has begotten of himself. God as wisdom is the form of all forms. The ideas give the sensually perceivable individual things their forms and thus their existence; Eckhart, like the Neoplatonists, understands formless matter as ontologically non-existent.

God's thinking and God's being

In his statements about God Eckhart deals with the question of the relationship between the divine intellect and the divine being. An important topic of late medieval scholastic theology is the question of which of these determinations of God, “thinking” and “knowing” ( intelligere ) or being ( esse ), the original and thus higher ranking and which is derived from the other. In Thomism , a theological trend that was influential at the time, God's being is considered a prerequisite for his intellect. In contrast, Eckhart represents the primacy of the intellect: It is therefore obvious that (...) God is intellect or thinking (knowing) and that he is simply thinking (knowing) par excellence, without any other being. That means that being comes to God through thinking (knowing) and not the other way around. In support Eckhart cites, among others, being is as a principle in the sense of the theory of categories of Aristotle categorically tangible while thinking stand above the frame of the category system and not subject to any formal determination. Thus thinking as the higher principle is the basis of God's being. Thought and being are, however, only separated for the purpose of analytical consideration. In terms of their existence in God, they are not separate elements, but exist indifferently in him. The statement “God is being” is just as true as the statement “God is thinking (knowing)”, although his mode of being must be clearly distinguished from that of creation.

God as Creator

The ideas as archetypes of everything created are in God. The world that can be perceived by the senses reproduces these archetypes and owes its existence to them. Thus every single thing is present in God with regard to its essence, which lies in the archetype. From this perspective, creation reveals itself to be God's self-development.

However, Eckhart emphasizes the sharpness of the fundamental opposition between God and everything created. God's simplicity, sublimity, immutability and all-causality ( universalis causalitas ) contrasts with the opposing characteristics of the created. Everything created is varied, changeable, suffering ( patiens ), caused and perishable. Nothing changeable can be easy, because at any point in time it is persistent in one respect and changing in another.

Due to its transience, the created does not show any “being” in the actual sense, in the sense of an absolute, timeless existence. In that way, it doesn't really exist. If one uses the term “being” in the sense of the absolute being of God, then things “are” not; if used in the sense in which it is applied to things, then God “is” not.

The existence of created things is nothing other than becoming and passing away. Following this approach, Eckhart does not see creation as a completed act of the past, but as an ongoing process. God did not give the individual things perceptible to the senses when he created them the quality of permanence and persistence, but creation takes place anew in every moment. If this were not the case, what has been created would immediately fall into nothing, since, in contrast to the Creator, it is incapable of enabling its own continuation by itself. All creatures are nothing.

Understanding creation means understanding the phenomenon of time. The timeless God creates his timelessness (eternity) in a permanent present, in the “now” or “now” (Latin nunc , Middle High German ). Eckhart differentiates between the nû der zît , the point in time within the flow of time, and the nû der êwicheit , the now of eternity (Latin nunc aeternitatis ). The timelessness of the eternal is reproduced in Eckhart's language as a “moment” (“now”), but this “moment” is not to be confused with a point in time, rather it encompasses “all time”, i.e. the totality of that which is given in all time is. The now of eternity is also not to be understood in the sense of a static state, it does not mean a standstill (that would be an inappropriate description from the perspective of temporality). What is meant is a timeless “present”, which, because of its presentness (Latin praesentialitas ), is given a name that is linked to the concept of present in the present. As the “fullness of time”, the presence of the eternal “now” differs from the point in time in that it is not deprived of past and future givens, but includes them in itself.

From the perspective of eternity the world appears as beginningless because its existence is not a series of points in time. That it had a beginning in time is only an idea necessary and appropriate for human thought, not a statement about creation itself. Only from the human perspective, which is based on the idea of ​​a linear temporal order with “before” and “after”, is creation a temporal process. In reality, God is not “earlier” in time than the world. But man lives in the time when the unity of the divine being has disintegrated. Therefore, his ideas move within a framework that results from his experience of time.

The soul, its ways of knowing and its relationship to God

The soul ground

The gap between the eternal God and the ephemeral created is so deep with Eckhart that nothing created can find an access to God. The lower does not grasp and comprehend the upper. The relationships between God and his human creatures are at the center of Christian teaching, and Eckhart's thought also revolves around them. Eckhart eliminates this contradiction by not assigning the human soul to the realm of created things with regard to its core area, but ascribing a divine quality to it. The deity itself is always present in the soul, immediately within. Thus there is something in the soul to which the imperfection, immortality and lack of attributes of the Godhead belong. The core area of ​​the soul is eternal and unified like God, more precisely like God as "deity" above the Trinity. Eckhart expressly speaks of a “part” of the soul which, in contrast to the other parts, is “godlike”. The divine “part” of the soul is not a part of a whole alongside other parts, but is fundamentally different in nature from everything in the soul that is created. Expressions like "part" and "in the soul" seem to suggest a position. However, they are only meant in a figurative sense, because they give the impression of a spatial structure, with which they do not do justice to the reality in question.

The divine core area of ​​the soul, its “innermost”, is the timeless and spaceless “soul ground”, in which there is complete calm. Eckhart also uses other names for this. Among other things, he speaks of the “sparkling” or “bailiff”, of the “highest”, “purest” or “head” of the soul; also with the “intellect as such” he means the soul ground. But he also emphasizes that the soul ground is actually nameless like the deity. The twinkle always shines, but is hidden. The soul base stands as high above the world of the senses as heaven above the earth. From this unchangeable core area Eckhart distinguishes the outer areas in which the activities of the soul take place. It is there that the expressions of their worldly activity such as desire, memory and will appear. They are needed so that the soul can meet the requirements of its connection with the body and can be in contact with the created and perishable things. The soul ground is separated from this; the impressions that flow in from the world of sensory perception do not reach him. He is as foreign and distant to them as the deity, because the soul ground is indistinguishable from the deity.

Man can emancipate himself from the transitory and therefore vain aspects of his existence by turning to what is divine in him - that is, in the soul. Thanks to God's presence in the soul, its self-knowledge is knowledge of God. From this point of view, all human souls are equal. The knowledge of God meant here is not a reflected one, in which a subject stands looking at an object, but rather an immediate one, in which there is no distance between the knower and his divine object of knowledge. While with a reflected knowledge an abstraction takes place, with which the archetype is deduced from an image, the knowledge of God takes place without any mediation: This must happen without means and any kind of mediation is alien to God.

Intellect and will

Eckhart, like other Dominicans, regards the intellect as the highest manifestation of spiritual activity and not - like some Franciscans - the will. He mistrusts the will, because he sees in it the self-will, which is remote from God and aims at the created, which, even when it is directed towards God, presupposes the separation of subject and object, soul and God: That is why reason is always looking inward . The will, on the other hand, goes outwards towards what it loves. The intellect is that instance in the soul which evaluates the information that comes from the outside world by separating the material from the spiritual ( intelligible ) and thus arrives at an understanding of the general (the ideas) by taking the ideas from the sense objects abstracted. Eckhart shares the view of the Dominican tradition formulated particularly succinctly by Albert the Great , according to which man, insofar as he is man, is only intellect; the intellect constitutes what is specifically human in a person. Eckhart uses the term intellect in a different sense than that which is common today. For Eckhart, the intellect "as such" ( intellectus inquantum intellectus ) is not one of the abilities ("soul faculties") or instruments that the soul has at its disposal, but rather an independent entity active in the soul. It is not something created, but something divine in man, which belongs to a dimension above space and time.

The stages of knowledge

The soul comes to the knowledge of different objects in different ways. The sense organs convey information from the sensory world to her, but she does not derive her knowledge of this area from sensory perception, but it already carries it latently and is only reminded of this already existing knowledge by what comes in via the sense organs. For this purpose Eckhart appeals to Augustine as well as to Plato, who had tried to prove the knowledge as something already established in the soul ( anamnesis concept). The soul owes a higher level of knowledge to the five “inner senses”, which Eckhart assumes according to Avicenna's current model , to which he refers in his commentary on Solomon's wisdom : the common sense ( sensus communis ), the power of imagination ( vis imaginativa ), the Thinking power responsible for the terms ( vis cogitativa ), the power of judgment ( vis aestimativa ) and memory ( memoria ). They enable her to imagine something that is not present and to assess its meaning. Above the inner senses stands the cognitive ability of the inferring understanding ( ratio ) related to external things and above this as the highest cognitive faculty is the God-oriented intellect, which Eckhart also calls "higher understanding" ( ratio superior ) and describes as the image of God. Eckhart usesintellect ” to describe both the intellectus agens , the “active intellect”, which abstracts the cognitive images, and the intellectus possibilis , the “possible” or “passive” intellect, which does not act but only receives. In contrast to the entire Aristotelian tradition and especially to Dietrich von Freiberg , Eckhart sees the passive intellect as the higher one.

The life

The soul is the principle of life, because it controls the living being from within and thus causes it to move, which is the essence of being alive. Life flows directly from God, it is “God's being” and an expression of his presence, it springs from his own and is an end in itself (“without why”). That is why nothing is as desirable for Eckhart as life, even under the worst and most difficult circumstances.

The sin

Eckhart's understanding of sin , which, like confession and penance, plays a remarkably minor role in his works, fits in with the above assumptions . He does not deal with the doctrine of original sin and the idea of ​​atonement through a vicarious suffering of Christ. For him, sin is a willful turning away from God. In philosophical terms it is “always a step back from the one to the many things”. This means that “the order of things is abolished and the higher is subjected to the lower”. This is reversed by turning back to God. Eckhart interprets evil or evil in Neoplatonic terms; for him it is a diminution and a partial loss of the good and thus only exists through its respective relation to the particular good that affects it. It can diminish the good, but it can never completely erase it. There cannot be anything thoroughly evil or absolutely evil. As a mere lack, the evil has no cause, but is caused by the lack of a cause. The perfection of the universe requires that there be evil, and evil is ordained upon good. One should not sin, but neither should one repent of a sin in the sense of wishing it had not happened. Such a wish would be an expression of a self-will which is directed against the will of God, because God willed what happened for the good of man.

The birth of God in the soul

Turning to God should lead to an experience that plays a central role in Eckhart's teaching. He calls them God's birth in the soul. What is meant is that the soul perceives the divinity of its own nature and thus finds God in itself. It does not become something that it was not before, but realizes what it is beyond time. The birth of God proceeds from the soul base of the individual and encompasses the soul in its entirety. For Eckhart, this is the meaning and purpose of creation. It is not a one-off event that comes to an end, but an ongoing process without end. The emphasis on the process-like nature of events is a special feature of Eckhart's thinking.

The birth of God in the soul happens inevitably when the conditions are met. To cause it is a natural necessity for God, he follows his own nature, so could not want and act otherwise: He must do it, be it dear to him or sorry and God's nature, his being and his deity depend on him must work in the soul. The foundations of the birth of God are not the belief, feeling or vision of the individual concerned, but his knowledge and reason ("reasonableness"). The knowledge "runs ahead" and "breaks through"; reason "falls into pure being". Reason is not transcended, but continues to play an essential role, according to Eckhart's statement: And man should use his reason attentively in all his works and in all things.

The birth of God gives an extraordinary meaning to all actions of the person so connected with God. As a result, even his smallest deeds are raised above anything that people do who are not turned to God in this way. When someone who has grasped God steps on a stone, it is a more divine work than receiving the Eucharist without such an attitude .

God's Son

The doctrine of the divine in man also determines Eckhart's understanding of the Christian concept of God's incarnation . According to ecclesiastical dogma, Christ is both God and man, he unites in himself a divine and a human nature. The two natures are not separated, but also unmixed. He is completely human and at the same time completely God. Eckhart emphasizes that the human nature of Christ is no different from that of any other person. All human beings have human nature in common with Christ, in the same sense and in the same way ( univoce et equaliter ). Since Eckhart also ascribes a divinity lying in the soul to every human being, from his point of view there is no fundamental difference between Christ and others with regard to the divine nature. Christ is an unrivaled example, but not fundamentally different from other people by nature. In principle, everyone is capable of realizing and doing what Christ realized and achieved. A natural uniqueness of Christ finds no place in Eckhart's thinking. Rather, he states: (...) and the father gives birth to his son in the soul in the same way as he gives birth to him in eternity and no differently. (...) The father gives birth to his son without ceasing, and I say more still: he gives birth to me as his son and as the same son. I say even more: he does not bear me alone as his son; he gives birth to me as himself and himself as me and me as his being and as his nature. Eckhart considers this to be necessary: Whatever he (the father) gave him (Jesus Christ), he aimed at me and gave me right as he did; I do not except anything, neither unification nor holiness of God or anything (...), because God can not only give a little; either he has to give everything or nothing at all.

Preparation for the birth of God

The prerequisite for the birth of God is that the soul purifies itself from that which does not belong to it, and thereby allows its true nature to emerge. God can only be born in the soul if man creates space for it and removes that which stands in the way. These are not just sins and vices in the traditional sense, but simply everything ungodly and therefore impermanent. This includes in particular the “images” of the sensory objects that have been recorded, because they bind and hinder people. As man removes obstacles, he becomes receptive to God. Eckhart explains in detail what needs to be considered in practice.

For making the birth of God possible, it is not a discursively gained insight into the truth content of philosophical-theological doctrines that is decisive, but life practice. Hence there is a difference between the “reading master”, who argues, proves and refutes in his writings, and the “living master”, who implements what the theory demands in his own life. A saying attributed to Eckhart is that one master craftsman is more necessary than a thousand master readers. In this sense he notes: Man should not be satisfied with an imaginary God; for when the thought passes, God also passes. Rather, one should have an essential God who is far above the thoughts of man and all creatures.

God can be grasped in many different ways. Nobody can realize all the wise, but one should have one of them - the one God has assigned one - and stick to it consistently. To impose one's own way on someone who lives in a different way is wrong; rather, everyone should find the good of all wise men in his own way. Christ had the highest way, but that doesn't mean that everyone should try to adopt Christ's way.

Seclusion and serenity

Turning to God is incompatible with a will and desire directed towards the world. Therefore, the first task of man seeking union with God is to purify himself from all such aspirations. This is the prerequisite for being deified. Eckhart calls the result of separation from the world "isolation". The soul base is always isolated by nature. But it is important to completely separate the other areas of the soul from “all things” so that the person becomes empty like a receptive receptacle. Then God can fill the whole soul. Man should grasp God in all things and should accustom his mind to having God always present. In this way he is deified: I am transformed into him in such a way that he affects me as his being, as one, not as an equal; with the living God it is true that there is no difference whatsoever . Eckhart confirms this with the words: Some simple-minded people think they should see God as if he were there and they were here. It is not so. God and me, we are one. For Eckhart, seclusion is the highest virtue and even stands above humility and love. It is the basis of union with God; Love, on the other hand, can never put the lover in God, because it can only exist between what has already been united, it is united in action, but not in being . God's love is always self-love; it is directed towards all things, but in things he only loves himself.

One of the “things” from which a person should free himself primarily belongs to himself: direct your attention to yourself, and where you find yourself let go of yourself; this is the very best. He should find out his main personal weakness and direct his diligence towards overcoming it. Liberation from oneself means more than that: Anyone who wants to make themselves receptive to God has to give up all hopes, wishes and goals that aim at their own well-being in this world or in the hereafter. He forgets himself and all things. In doing so, he renounces his own will. All expectations and all associated sensations disappear completely. This makes emotions such as hope, fear and grief impossible. All suffering ends, because it is invariably a consequence of turning to the created things. In the soul, what has been cleared away is replaced by emptiness and spiritual poverty. This is how you achieve “serenity”. This term apparently by Eckhart newly formed called the attitude of one who not only things left has , but let 's . Letting is first about an inner being, only then about an outer action. One cannot achieve a serene being by letting oneself act. Ascetic practices such as mortification and penance are not required, only the consistent inward orientation is important. Striving for poverty and humiliation is pointless and an expression of self-will. Serenity results from turning to God in being. However, it can only be reached approximately. Eckhart thinks that no one has ever succeeded in letting go. He compares practicing serenity with learning to write, in which the learner has to be diligent, “however angry and difficult it becomes for him”.

Self-will is to be given up not only in so far as it aims at one's own well-being, but also in another of its manifestations in which it has apparently disappeared because the individual has identified his will with the will of God. To want what God wants is still a will and as such forms an obstacle between man and God. The departed does not want what God wants, but wants nothing at all, so that God can will in him. The striving for eternity and for God, which formed the original drive to walk the path of knowledge, is also to be cast off as self-will. Whoever desires eternity and God is not yet really poor (stripped of all desires). A truly poor person is only one who does not want or desire anything. He not only lets go of himself, but also God. His poverty is that he “has” nothing; he has neither will nor knowledge nor possessions. God should not find a place to work in man, but what is required is that man “stands so free from God and all his works” that God, if he wants to work in the soul, is always the place in which he works want.

The way of life Eckhart advocates is a life “without a why” (Middle High German sunder whybe ). This formulation had already been used by Beatrijs of Nazareth and later by Marguerite Porete in the early 13th century . God has no “why” outside and beside himself, and his love is also groundless. Likewise, divine works of man are also characterized by the fact that they are performed without cause. What has a reason exists for its sake and is therefore subordinate to it. The groundless is its own reason and purpose and thus takes precedence over what needs to be justified by something else.

The relationship between people

Turning away and giving attention

Eckhart demands turning away from everything that is in the world and exclusive concentration on one's own soul, where God can be found. The seclusion achieved in this way does not express itself as indifference to the world. In search of God man has consistently turned away from the world, but God, whom he has found in the ground of his soul and to whom he has completely surrendered dominion over himself, is turned towards people. This is expressed in the fact that the separated and serene do not lead a withdrawn life, but an active and social one. He performs works that benefit his fellow men. In contrast to those who did not experience the birth of God, he does not pursue worldly goals, but divine ones. Only when this is the case does his works have any value, and then he is a “righteous man”. Otherwise, good works can even prove to be an obstacle, because they offer those who do them “support, support and trust”. In this way they separate the “good people” from God, who “wants him to be their sole support and dependability”.


Eckhart's concept of justice has nothing to do with modern ideas of justice. Eckhart does not understand justice to be a specific way of distributing earthly goods, but rather the attitude of those who do not act on their own initiative but out of divine impulse and therefore always do the right thing - that is appropriate to the respective situation. It is true that the righteous have separated from all things for God's sake, but it is precisely because of this that all things become pure God for him. (...) and all works of this person are done by God alone. The slightest thing that one recognizes as in God, yes, if one only recognizes a flower as it has a being in God, that would be nobler than the whole world. The righteous person in Eckhart's sense maintains equanimity towards all external circumstances and events; his state of mind cannot be affected by external developments: if people can please one thing and grieve another, they are not righteous; rather, if they are happy at one time, they are happy at all times. God himself is just because his work is always aimed at the best. It is only because of this - not because he is God - that righteous people conform to him: righteous people are so serious about justice that, if God were not righteous, they would not pay attention to God.

Being and doing

Eckhart emphasizes that holiness is never based on doing , but exclusively on being . The works do not at all sanctify those who do them, but to the extent that a person is holy, he sanctifies all his works, "be it eating, sleeping, waking or whatever". For a person's spiritual status, their works are meaningless; The only important thing is whether their being is characterized by seclusion. But the works are inextricably linked with spirituality. Therefore they are by no means secondary or even dispensable, but a necessary consequence of right being; the righteous cannot act otherwise than just.

Eckhart's high esteem for social activity guided by a divine impulse even leads him to an unconventional interpretation of the biblical story of the sisters Maria and Martha , which completely contradicts conventional understanding. It does not follow the traditional interpretation of the presentation in the Gospel of Luke ( Lk 10.38-42  EU ), according to which Christ states the priority of the purely contemplative attitude of Mary over the active Martha. Rather, according to Eckhart's interpretation, the outwardly active Martha stands higher than the Mary who only listens to Christ. Martha was active in the midst of the worries of the world, but carefree, in a level-headed manner and without losing sight of God. In this way she combined the advantages of contemplation and action in her posture. Maria, on the other hand, limited herself to contemplation, since she had not yet learned how to act correctly. Martha was the older of the two sisters and was therefore able to gain more knowledge than the still inexperienced Maria, who was oriented towards contemplative enjoyment. According to Eckhart, the praise that Christ bestowed on Mary relates to an insight that Mary did not yet have at the time, but which was still ahead of her. Eckhart's rejection of a volatile attitude results from his conviction that things are not obstacles in themselves, but only a wrong relationship between people and them.

Eckhart emphasizes the priority of social action over passive contemplation even more drastically in a treatise where he writes that someone who is in a state of rapture like the apostle Paul , when he knows about a sick person who needs a soup from him, to let go of the rapture to serve the needy. In doing so, one does not neglect grace, on the contrary, one gives priority to God. This has nothing to do with worldly love. Eckhart considers love among people, insofar as it comes from a human impulse, to be spiritually worthless: All love in this world is built on self-love. If you had left them, you would have left the whole world.


Late Middle Ages

On April 30, 1328 Pope John XXII. informed the Archbishop of Cologne that Eckhart had died, but that the trial against him would be continued and ended quickly. On March 27, 1329, the Pope published the bull In agro dominico . In it he states that the 28 sentences suspected of being heresy had been checked by many theologians, by the College of Cardinals and by himself. It turned out that seventeen sentences were erroneous or heretical; Eckhart's authorship is unclear for two of them. With the formulation that the sentences contained error "or" heresy, the Pope leaves open the possibility that Eckhart erred in good faith and was therefore not a heretic. The remaining eleven sentences were formulated in a bad way and very boldly and therefore suspicious, but with many explanations and additions they could be interpreted in a orthodox sense. Incidentally, Eckhart accepted every decision of the Pope from the outset with regard to all of his writings and statements. Therefore the Pope did not deny the accused the orthodoxy, but only condemned the sentences. However, he stated in the preamble ( narratio ) of the bull that Eckhart had been seduced by the devil.

On April 15, 1329, John XXII ordered. the Archbishop of Cologne to publish the bull In agro dominico in his church province . The papal condemnation of Eckhart's teachings was also made known in other church provinces in northwestern Europe. The bull not only condemns Eckhart's theorems, which were classified as erroneous or heretical or suspicious of heresy in the inquisition proceedings, but also every one of his works that contains even one of the tenets. It prohibits any defense or dissemination of the condemned teachings and threatens heresy proceedings if they are violated. The Pope stressed that he was particularly concerned about the risk of misleading ordinary believers.

The result of the procedure caused a sensation. Nevertheless, in the late Middle Ages, German works continued to be distributed in the German and Dutch-speaking areas and some of the Latin scripts were translated into the vernacular, although usually without mentioning the author's name or with attribution to another author.

One of Eckhart's pupils, Heinrich Seuse , defended his theology in the Book of Truth after the death of his teacher - albeit without naming his name and in an indirect way . Therefore Seuse was brought to justice, but got off lightly. Johannes Tauler was strongly influenced by Eckhart's ideas . Other authors of the 14th century such as Nikolaus von Landau, Johannes von Dambach and the Franciscan Marquard von Lindau also cited him, usually without naming him as a source, and his influence can be determined in numerous anonymous writings from the late Middle Ages. The inquisitor Jordan von Quedlinburg fiercely opposed the doctrines condemned by the Pope, but also quoted passages from Eckhart's commentary on the Gospel of John in his writings with approval and without attribution.

In addition to the reception in the world of scholars, Eckhart's memory also lived on among the people. Stories and anecdotes from his life - partly in the form of conversations - were disseminated to the lay audience ("Eckhart legends"). For his admirers he became a “wise master”, a model of a spiritual teacher and a shining example. His work was presented and glorified in the manner of the saints' legends.

On the one hand, the accusation of heresy had a deterrent effect, on the other hand, Eckhart's conflict with the church hierarchy contributed to the fact that lay circles who were critical of the church appealed to him. The endeavors of this rebellious current are summarized in modern research under the name "anti-hierarchical tendencies". From the perspective of the anti-hierarchical minded, Eckhart appears as a friend and supporter of the common people, the theologically uneducated lay people who defend themselves against the tutelage of theologians and accuse the clergy of wealth and secularization. The most important and extensive document from this milieu is the Middle Dutch dialogue "Eckhart and the layman" ( De dialoog van Meester Eggaert en de onbekende leek ). It was probably built in 1340/41 in the vicinity of the Rijnsburg Benedictine monastery . In a fictional dialogue, Eckhart answers questions from a very self-confident layman who claims a theological say and in turn answers Eckhart's questions. The layman severely criticizes the persecution of heretics by the Inquisition. He played off lay piety against the clergy's claim to superiority and felt that he was in agreement with Eckhart.

The verdict of Pope John XXII in the poverty dispute was quite different . excommunicated Franciscan theologians of the 14th century through Eckhart. Michael von Cesena and Wilhelm von Ockham viewed Eckhart as propagators of hideous errors. The Franciscan critics complained that Eckart's teachings had found so many followers. Ockham thought Eckhart's views were more fantastic and crazy than heretical. He accused Pope John XXII, whom he accused of heresy because of his attitude to the issue of the poverty of Jesus and the apostles themselves, of promoting Eckhart's nonsensical teachings, and claimed that the Dominican's errors were never condemned. Apparently he didn't know the conviction bull.

In the Netherlands, in the 14th century, Eckhart's teachings, which were popular there, arose fierce resistance, which was supported by leading figures in the piety movement. Jan van Ruysbroek attacked him sharply, but without naming him, as a "false prophet". In the fifties of the 14th century, Jan van Leeuwen passionately polemicized in several treatises against the “ antichrist ” and “devilish people” Eckhart, to whom he assumed a pantheistic worldview. Geert Groote , the inspirer of the Devotio moderna , excluded anyone from his congregation who represented Eckhart's condemned views or had relevant writings. Even Gerard van Zutphen Zerbolt warned of Eckhart.

Nikolaus von Kues. Contemporary donor image of the high altar of the chapel of the St. Nicholas Hospital , Bernkastel-Kues

In the 15th century, Eckhart found great interest and high praise from Nikolaus von Kues . In 1444 Nikolaus had a comprehensive copy of the parts of the Dominican's Latin works made available to him, which he provided with commentary in the margin. In his Apologia doctae ignorantiae (1449), he wrote that Eckhart's writings contain “a lot of astute and useful information”, but such knowledge is only helpful to intelligent ( intelligent ) readers ; These teachings are incomprehensible to simple minds, so they should not be made accessible to the people ( vulgus ). Nikolaus was answering his adversary Johannes Wenck , a Heidelberg theology professor. Wenck had accused him of being close to Eckhart and pantheistic ideas in the pamphlet Ignota litteratura , referring to the papal condemnation bull of 1329.

In the Benedictine monastery of Melk , German sermons and sayings by Eckhart were copied in the 15th century, and the name of the author was even given. In an edited, defused version they should serve to instruct the lay brothers. Eckhart's texts were also known in other Austrian monasteries in the late Middle Ages.

Early modern age

Four of Eckhart's sermons, which at the time were wrongly attributed to Johannes Tauler, were included in the first Tauler prints (Leipzig 1498 and Augsburg 1508). In Adam Petri's 1521 erschienenem Basler Taulerdruck are also sermons that ascribes the editor authors influenced Tauler. Among these “teachers”, Petri Eckhart emphasizes, who was an “excellently highly learned man” but was not understood by many of his learned contemporaries. Petri's print contains numerous sermons by Eckhart. Eckhart's texts can also be found in the Cologne Tauler Print published in 1543 and edited by Petrus Canisius and in its Latin translation by Laurentius Surius (1548). Surius dared to name Eckhart as the author. Its edition was reprinted several times in the 16th and 17th centuries and translated into a number of other languages. As a result, some of Eckhart's sermons became known outside of the German-speaking area.

Martin Luther studied the Tauler print from 1508 . Its marginal notes have been preserved; some of them relate to a sermon by Eckhart, which was included in the print and attributed to Tauler. But there is no evidence that Luther or his circle consciously took notice of Eckhart. A Protestant writer who recorded Eckhart's ideas not only indirectly through Tauler, but also directly from Eckhart's sermons in the Taulerdruck in Basel, was Valentin Weigel († 1588). Among other things, he took up the concept of spiritual poverty and explicitly referred to Eckhart. The evangelical song writer Daniel Sudermann processed Eckhart's thoughts, whom he admired, in some of his song texts. He eagerly collected and copied manuscripts of medieval religious works, including copies of Eckhart's texts. The Pietist Gottfried Arnold († 1714) was a prominent representative of a Protestant Eckhart reception that declared the Dominican to be a forerunner of the Reformation.

In the Age of Enlightenment , Eckhart received little attention from the educated public. In large circles of those interested in medieval spirituality, they followed the standard presentation of the literary history of the Dominican Order by Jacques Quétif and Jacques Echard, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum , published in Paris from 1719 to 1721 . There was a relatively unbiased presentation and interpretation of the material known at the time by Quétif, which did much to rehabilitate Eckhart with Catholics who were receptive to his ideas. On the other hand, the image of the arch heretic and blasphemer Eckhart was cultivated in the ecclesiastical milieu with reference to the convicting bull. A spokesman for this direction in the 17th century was the Italian church historian Odoricus Raynaldus (Odorico Rinaldi), on whom later Eckhart opponents relied.


Historical-philological research and development

Franz Pfeiffer

In the early 19th century Eckhart was rediscovered, to which the philosopher Franz von Baader made a significant contribution. The Germanist Franz Pfeiffer , who in 1857 published the first modern edition of Middle High German sermons and tracts by Eckhart , made use of the preliminary work that Baader had begun or suggested . Pfeiffer initiated the scientific research of Eckhart's writings. The Dominican Father Heinrich Denifle discovered previously unknown Latin works, from which he published excerpts in 1886. This was the first time he brought Eckhart to the fore as a “scholastic”. Denifle criticized that the older research had largely limited itself to treating Eckhart as a "mystic" on the basis of the German works, although the existence of the Latin works in which he shows himself as a scholastic thinker was known, for example, about Nikolaus von Kues .

The philosophy historian Raymond Klibansky and a group of colleagues planned a critical edition of the Latin works. But he was only able to bring out three fascicles that appeared in the period 1934–1936. On the other hand, a more comprehensive project aimed at producing a large final standard edition of all works was successful. The German Research Foundation tackled this project in autumn 1934 . She founded an Eckhart commission. Josef Quint was entrusted with the publication of the German works, the edition of the Latin works was carried out by Josef Koch . With regard to individual sermons, difficult questions of authenticity had to be clarified. Today the edition project is almost complete.

Philosophical and theological reception in the 19th century

Hegel valued the late medieval thinker and regarded him as a kindred spirit. Schopenhauer occupied himself with Eckhart in the last years of his life. He said that Eckhart had "wonderfully deep and correct knowledge", but that it was difficult for him to communicate it, because he was obliged to "translate his thoughts into the language and mythology of Christianity".

The Hegelian student Karl Rosenkranz coined the catchphrase “ German mysticism ” as a name for a medieval philosophical movement in which he saw a forerunner of a specifically German philosophy. With romantics and followers of German idealism , an admiration-determined Eckhart picture formed, which in the second half of the 19th century also showed national features. The Dominican was seen as a typically German thinker who dared to use his mother tongue and opposed the Latin-speaking world of scholasticism and the Catholic church hierarchy. He was made the founder of a specifically German philosophy and theology and ranked among the German heroes of the past. The notion propagated by the Hegelian Adolf Lasson that Eckhart was a pantheist , and the associated view that he had completely broken away from ecclesiastical authority, was also widespread .

Heinrich Denifle

Heinrich Denifle, who not only classified Eckhart among the scholastics, turned against these widespread notions, but at the same time also passed a damning judgment on his achievements within the framework of scholastic science. He characterized him as a bad scholastic and confused thinking theologian who expressed himself imprecisely, and denied his originality. Denifle criticized Eckhart from a Thomistic point of view, accusing him of "pathological thinking" and came to the conclusion that the church condemnation was completely right.

World outlook controversies of the 20th century

From the turn of the century there was a correction in science - initially on the German side - of the negative image coined by Denifle, which is based on Eckhart's role as a scholastic writing in Latin. Outside the scholarly world, Eckhart's traditional positive assessment still dominated. From the theological point of view, Denifle had explicitly linked to the church tradition of condemning Eckhart's teaching as heresy. In circles remote from the church, however, this aspect played no role, or Eckhart's conflict with the teaching office was even rated positively. Church critics and anti-dogmatists saw the emancipation from dogmatic ecclesiastical bias, which he had achieved, as a particularly commendable achievement.

The two-volume translation of Middle High German works into modern German by Herman Büttner, which was published by Eugen Diederichs in 1903–1909, contributed significantly to the development and consolidation of the anti-church and anti-Catholic Eckhartbild . It achieved an extraordinary broad impact; a new edition appeared in 1959. Büttner, who translated very freely and incorporated his own interpretations, made Eckhart's teaching accessible to a broad public interested in religion for the first time and popularized it in the form he gave it. He portrayed his hero as a fighter against churchism and for a direct relationship between believers and God without mediation by priests.

Gustav Landauer published a selection translation of Eckhart's writings in 1903, which was re-edited by Martin Buber in 1920 , but which by no means achieved the distribution of Büttner's translation.

As in the 19th century, nationalist motives played a role in the reception of the general public in the first half of the 20th century. Even Büttner considered Eckhard to be a representative of "Germanic nature". Nationally minded authors emphasized the contrast between the German thinker and the Roman church. In doing so, they referred to Eckhart's German works, in which he had proclaimed the essence of his message, and considered the Latin ones to be relatively insignificant.

National Socialism was able to build on these ideas and evaluations . His propagandists took over the medieval monk as a representative of a specifically Germanic worldview. Among the National Socialist philosophers who were enthusiastic about Eckhart were Hermann Schwarz and Ernst Bergmann . The main role was played by Alfred Rosenberg , who saw Eckhart as his most important forerunner and the creator of a new religion and made him a key figure in Germanic cultural history. Rosenberg named as merits of the medieval thinker that he had proclaimed the equality of the soul with God and that the will had priority over reason.

There was controversy among Catholic scholars between a direction that Eckhart wanted to rehabilitate with regard to the accusation of heresy ( Otto Karrer , Alois Dempf , Herma Piesch), and the direction mainly represented by the influential scholastics researcher Martin Grabmann , which stuck to Denifle's assessment.

Marxist authors used to classify Eckhart's activity as objectively progressive. They found a pantheistic trait in his teaching which they regarded as a preliminary stage of atheism and materialism . He equated the subject with the deity and thus rejected the church's claim to be needed as an indispensable mediator between God and believers. In doing so, he opposed a core element of the feudal ideology prevailing at the time. Hermann Ley , who dealt extensively with Eckhart, considered him to be a theoretician of peasant-plebeian groups from whom an anti-feudal, social-revolutionary impulse had emanated. Ernst Bloch saw in Eckhart a continuation of the Neoplatonic tradition, whose historical achievement consisted in "jumping over the sacred church and then every government".

Younger research on the history of philosophy

Interest in Eckhart has intensified since the late 1960s. One focus is the investigation of his relationship to philosophical and theological literature, from which he received suggestions. Thereby u. a. the differences between his teaching and Thomism are more clearly worked out. The influence of Dietrich von Freiberg on Eckhart's thinking is attracting increasing attention.

More recent research in the history of philosophy is increasingly trying to embed Eckhart's thinking in its historical context. There is controversial debate as to whether it makes sense to regard Eckhart as a mystic, even though he did not call himself that, and to classify his works in a genre of “mystical literature”. The philosophy historians Kurt Flasch and Burkhard Mojsisch ("Bochum School") deny this. Your references to terminological problems met with broad approval; Reinhard Margreiter welcomes the Bochumers' objection to a “somewhat sloppy, d. H. too little questioned and often unseen repeated concept of mysticism ”. Nevertheless, many researchers - including Margreiter - do not want to forego the term “mysticism” for certain aspects of Eckhart's teaching. You continue to use them, but with caution and only in a limited sense defined by certain criteria. Margreiter demands a more precise definition of the term, which is "exposed to an almost Babylonian confusion of languages"; the diversity of the approaches results in a wide range of meanings that are often incompatible with one another. Alois M. Haas advocates sticking to the term mysticism, which is indispensable. However, it should be admitted that this label was used incorrectly in Eckhart research "in a sometimes grotesque sense". Eckhart was "one of the most consistent opponents of lush vision mysticism". The background of the terminological debate is the question of the relationship between philosophical argumentation and the appeal to knowledge that can only be derived from individual experience and is therefore exclusive. It is not a question of whether Eckhart claimed a “mystical” experience and knowledge for himself, but rather whether or to what extent such a claim plays a recognizable role in his works.

The interdisciplinary "Meister Eckhart Society", founded in 2004, is dedicated to the scientific research and presentation of Eckhart's life and work. It organizes conferences and publishes the "Meister-Eckhart-Jahrbuch".

Perspectives in psychology and religious studies

In addition to the philosophical and theological examination of Eckhart's thinking, religious studies began at the end of the 19th century , and psychological approaches in the 20th century. In addition, there is a variety of extra-scientific efforts to make his teaching fruitful for a lived spirituality. In doing so, comparisons with Far Eastern traditions are often made and, in particular, correspondences with Zen Buddhism are worked out. Schopenhauer had already assumed an agreement with original Buddhism. The authors who have dealt with this topic include Rudolf Otto , Heinrich Dumoulin , Karlfried Graf Dürckheim , Hugo M. Enomiya-Lassalle , Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki , Hildegard Elisabeth Keller , Alois M. Haas and Shizuteru Ueda .

CG Jung saw Eckhart as the greatest thinker of his era and said that he had proclaimed a "relativistic conception of God" that made God dependent on the human subject. He understood God as a “psychological value” and recognized that this “main value” should not be projected into the objects of the outside world, from where one would then have to get it, although one would be disturbed by the objects. Rather, the projection is to be recognized and reversed and God to be located in the soul, i.e. in the subject, which results in an increased feeling of life. In this sense, the birth of God in the soul is to be understood as a psychic process and Eckhart's God - in contrast to his deity - is a function of the soul.

The psychoanalyst Erich Fromm went into detail in his study, haben oder Sein , published in 1976, on Eckhart's German sermon on poverty in the spirit . He reinterpreted Eckhart's ontological statements psychologically. He interpreted the ideal of poverty of will, knowledge and having dealt with in the sermon in the sense of his plea for a mode of existence of being instead of having.


In the first half of the 20th century, Eckhart's life also provided material for fictional depictions, some of which were nationalist in color according to the then prevailing Eckhart image. In 1925 Paul Gurk received the Cologne Prize for his novel Meister Eckehart . Master Ekkehart appeared in 1927 . A novel of the German soul by Hans Much . In 1931, Ludwig Fahrenkrog dedicated the sixth volume of the cycle God through the ages with the title Richter Irrwahn to the medieval thinker . Erwin Kolbenheyer wrote the novel Das Gottgelobte Herz (1938), in which Eckhart appears as a representative of an irrational worldview. The Dutch writer Simon Vestdijk published his novel Het proces van Meester Eckhart in 1970 .

Remembrance day

The Evangelical Church in Germany commemorates Meister Eckhart with a memorial day on March 27 in the Evangelical Name Calendar .

Editions and translations

The complete critical edition of the works has been published except for volume 6/2 of the Latin works (register). Loris Sturlese has collected all documents that provide information about Eckhart's biography and especially his trial and edited them critically in the fifth volume of the Complete Edition of Latin Works.

Critical complete edition

  • Meister Eckhart: The German and Latin works. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart
    • The German works (Middle High German text with translation into modern German)
      • Volume 1: Sermons. Edited by Josef Quint, 1958 (reprint 1986), ISBN 3-17-061210-7 (sermons 1–24)
      • Volume 2: Sermons. Edited by Josef Quint, 1971 (reprinted 1988), ISBN 3-17-071183-0 (sermons 25–59)
      • Volume 3: Sermons. Edited by Josef Quint, 1976 (reprint 1999), ISBN 3-17-002740-9 (sermons 60–86)
      • Volume 4/1: Sermons. Edited by Georg Steer, 2003, ISBN 3-17-007593-4 (Sermons 87-105)
      • Volume 4/2: Sermons. Edited by Georg Steer, 2003–2016, ISBN 3-17-017850-4 (Sermons 106–117)
      • Volume 5: Master Eckhart's treatises. Edited by Josef Quint, 1963 (reprint 1987), ISBN 3-17-071075-3 (tracts: 1. Liber “Benedictus” [I. Daz buoch der gœtlîchen consolation , II. From the noble people ]; 2. The speech of underscheidunge ; 3. Of abegescheidenheit )
    • The Latin Works (Latin text with German translation)
      • Volume 1, main part 1: Magistri Echardi prologi, expositio libri Genesis, liber parabolarum Genesis. Edited by Konrad Weiß , 1964 (reprint 1988), ISBN 3-17-071082-6 .
      • Volume 1, main part 2: Magistri Echardi prologi in opus tripartitum et expositio libri Genesis secundum recensionem Cod. Oxoniensis Bodleiani Laud misc. 222 (L). Liber parabolarum Genesis, editio altera. Quaestiones Parisienses, Supplementum. Collatio in libros Sententiarum denuo recognita. Edited by Loris Sturlese, 2015, ISBN 978-3-17-010109-8
      • Volume 2: Magistri Echardi expositio libri Exodi, sermones et lectiones super Ecclesiastici cap. 24, expositio libri Sapientiae, expositio Cantici Canticorum cap. 1.6. Edited by Heribert Fischer, Josef Koch, Konrad Weiß, 1992, ISBN 3-17-001084-0 .
      • Volume 3: Magistri Echardi expositio sancti evangelii secundum Iohannem. Edited by Karl Christ u. a., 1994, ISBN 3-17-001085-9 .
      • Volume 4: Magistri Echardi sermones. Edited by Ernst Benz u. a., 1956 (reprint 1987), ISBN 3-17-061207-7 .
      • Volume 5: Magistri Echardi opera Parisiensia. Tractatus super oratione dominica. Responsio ad articulos sibi impositos de scriptis et dictis suis. Acta Echardiana. Edited by Bernhard Geyer, Loris Sturlese a. a., 2006, ISBN 3-17-001086-7 .
      • Volume 6: Index Eckhardianus. Meister Eckhart and his sources (register)
        • Part 1: The Bible. Edited by Loris Sturlese, Markus Vinzent, 2015, ISBN 978-3-17-029001-3
        • Part 2: Authors. Edited by Loris Sturlese (not yet published)

Partial editions (partly with translation)

  • Niklaus Largier (Hrsg.): Meister Eckhart: works. Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2008 (texts and translations of the large Stuttgart edition without a critical apparatus, with comments from Largier)
  • Georg Steer, Loris Sturlese (Ed.): Lectura Eckhardi. Master Eckhart's sermons read and interpreted by specialist scholars. 3 volumes, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1998–2008 (5 Latin and 22 Middle High German sermons with translations into modern German and commentaries)
    • Volume 1 (1998): Sermons 4, 12, 16b, 17, 18, 19, 48, 52, 63, 71 and 101 and Sermon IV.
    • Volume 2 (2003): Sermons 1, 6, 10, 37, 72 and 86 and Sermones XXV and XXIX.
    • Volume 3 (2008): Sermons 14, 39, 51, 77 and 112 and Sermones XVII and XLIX.
  • Georg Steer, Heidemarie Vogl (ed.): Master Eckhart's bürgelîn sermon. In: Harald Schwaetzer, Georg Steer (eds.): Meister Eckhart and Nikolaus von Kues . Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2011, ISBN 978-3-17-021524-5 , pp. 139–259 (new critical edition of Sermon No. 2, replaces the outdated edition by Quint in the first volume of the "Deutsche Werke")
  • Kurt Flasch (ed.): Meister Eckhart: The book of divine comfort. From the noble person. Middle High German and New High German. Beck, Munich 2007, ISBN 978-3-406-56324-9 (the "Liber Benedictus" in an uncritical Middle High German version, also in a New High German translation by Kurt Flasch; with an afterword by the translator).
  • Eduard Schaefer (Ed.): Master Eckhart's treatise “Von Abegescheidenheit”. Investigation and text revision. Röhrscheid, Bonn 1956 (critical edition of the Middle High German text with commentary and translation into modern German)

Translations without the original text

  • Josef Quint (translator): Meister Eckehart: German sermons and tracts. 7th edition. Nikol, Hamburg 2007, ISBN 978-3-937872-76-6 .
  • Karl Albert (translator): Meister Eckhart: Commentary on the book of wisdom. Academia Verlag Richarz, Sankt Augustin 1988, ISBN 3-88345-431-1 .




  • Josef Koch: Critical studies on the life of Meister Eckhart . In: Josef Koch: Kleine Schriften , Volume 1 (= Storia e Letteratura , Volume 127), Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, Rome 1973, pp. 247–347
  • Dietmar Mieth : Master Eckhart. Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65986-7 .
  • Hartmut Sommer: The Little Soul - Master Eckhart's Monastery in Erfurt . In: Hartmut Sommer: The great mystics. Places of their work . Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 2008, ISBN 978-3-534-20098-6 .
  • Winfried Trusen: The trial against Meister Eckhart. Prehistory, course and consequences. Schöningh, Paderborn 1988, ISBN 3-506-73354-0 .


  • Karl Albert : Reflections on the History of Philosophy , Part 2: Meister Eckhart and the Philosophy of the Middle Ages . Röll, Dettelbach 1999, ISBN 3-89754-145-9 .
  • Rodrigo Guerizoli: The internalization of the divine. A study of the cycle of God's birth and the sermon of Master Eckhart's poverty. Brill, Leiden 2006, ISBN 90-04-15000-5 .
  • Christian Jung: Master Eckhart's philosophical mysticism. Tectum, Marburg 2010, ISBN 978-3-8288-2343-3 .
  • Udo Kern: “God's being is my life.” Philosophical fragments from Meister Eckhart. De Gruyter, Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-11-017741-2 .
  • Bernard McGinn : The Mysticism of the Occident , Volume 4: Abundance. Mysticism in Medieval Germany (1300–1500) . Herder, Freiburg 2008, ISBN 978-3-451-23384-5 , pp. 167-340.
  • Burkhard Mojsisch: Master Eckhart. Analogy, Univocality and Unity. Meiner, Hamburg 1983, ISBN 3-7873-0595-5 .
  • Martina Roesner: Logic of the origin. Reason and revelation with Meister Eckhart. Alber, Freiburg / Munich 2017, ISBN 978-3-495-48939-0
  • Erwin Waldschütz : Thinking and experiencing the reason. On the philosophical interpretation of Meister Eckhart . Herder, Vienna 1989, ISBN 3-210-24927-X .

Collections of articles

  • Klaus Jacobi (Ed.): Meister Eckhart: Stations of Life - Speech Situations (= sources and research on the history of the Dominican order , new series, volume 7). Akademie Verlag, Berlin 1997, ISBN 3-05-003127-1 .
  • Heinrich Stirnimann (Ed.): Eckardus Theutonicus, homo doctus et sanctus. Evidence and reports on the trial of Meister Eckhart . Universitätsverlag, Freiburg (Switzerland) 1992, ISBN 3-7278-0773-3 .


  • Ingeborg Degenhardt: Studies on the change of the Eckhart picture. Brill, Leiden 1967.
  • Thorsten Hinz: Mysticism and Anarchy, Meister Eckhart and its significance in Gustav Landauer's thinking . Karin Kramer, Berlin 2000, ISBN 3-87956-260-1
  • Wolfram Malte Fues : Mysticism as Knowledge? Critical studies on Meister Eckhart research . Bouvier, Bonn 1981, ISBN 3-416-01638-6 .
  • Norbert Winkler (Ed.): Of the effective and possible reason. Philosophy in the vernacular sermon according to Meister Eckhart . Akademie Verlag, Berlin 2013, ISBN 978-3-05-006092-7

Web links

Commons : Meister Eckhart  - Collection of images, videos and audio files

Texts by Eckhart

Wikisource: Eckhart von Hochheim  - Sources and full texts
  • Texts in New High German translation by Gustav Landauer (1903) at CCEL and
  • Franz Pfeiffer (ed.): German mystics of the fourteenth century (Bd. 2, Leipzig 1857): facsimiles
  • German sermon No. 2 "Intravit Jesus" in New High German translation by Edward Viesel (2014)




Meister Eckhart Prize


  1. On the question of the place of birth see Winfried Trusen: The trial against Meister Eckhart. Paderborn 1988, pp. 11-15; Burkhard Mojsisch: Note 'Eckhart von Hochheim'. In: Bochum Philosophical Yearbook for Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Volume 6, 2001, p. 239.
  2. Acta Echardiana No. 11, in: Meister Eckhart: Die lateinischen Werke. Vol. 5, p. 162 f. ( Transcript online ). See Winfried Trusen: Master Eckhart in front of his judges and censors. In: Klaus Jacobi (Hrsg.): Meister Eckhart: Stations in life - speech situations. Berlin 1997, pp. 335-352, here: pp. 336 f .; Udo Kern: “God's being is my life”. Berlin 2003, p. 4.
  3. See Winfried Trusen: The Trial against Meister Eckhart. Paderborn 1988, p. 15 f.
  4. On Eckhart's Dietrich reception see Norbert Winkler: Meister Eckhart for an introduction. Hamburg 1997, pp. 42-50 and 82-84.
  5. See on this complex of questions the second volume of the Meister-Eckhart-Jahrbuch : Andrés Quero-Sánchez, Georg Steer (ed.): Meister Eckharts Straßburger decade. Stuttgart 2008, especially the contribution by Walter Senner : Master Eckhart's Order of the Order of Strasbourg (pp. 17–35).
  6. Udo Kern: "God's being is my life". Berlin 2003, p. 8 and note 40; Loris Sturlese: The Cologne Eckhartisten. In: Albert Zimmermann (Ed.): The Cologne University in the Middle Ages. Berlin 1989, p. 192-211, here: p. 193 f. Walter Senner has a different opinion: Meister Eckhart in Cologne. In: Klaus Jacobi (Hrsg.): Meister Eckhart: Stations in life - speech situations. Berlin 1997, pp. 207-237, here: pp. 207-210. Senner emphasizes that only participation in a school disputation is attested. Sigrun Jäger follows him: Meister Eckhart - a word in a word. Berlin 2008, pp. 58-60.
  7. Winfried Trusen: Master Eckhart before his judges and censors. In: Klaus Jacobi (Hrsg.): Meister Eckhart: Stations in life - speech situations. Berlin 1997, pp. 335-352, here: p. 341.
  8. See on the place and date of death Kurt Ruh: Meister Eckhart. Theologian, preacher, mystic. 2nd Edition. Munich 1989, p. 187; Walter Senner: Master Eckhart in Cologne. In: Klaus Jacobi (Hrsg.): Meister Eckhart: Stations in life - speech situations. Berlin 1997, pp. 207-237, here: pp. 232-234; Udo Kern: “God's being is my life”. Berlin 2003, p. 13 f.
  9. The 28 sentences online (Latin and German) with evidence of the relevant passages in Eckhart's works.
  10. Winfried Trusen: Master Eckhart before his judges and censors. In: Klaus Jacobi (Hrsg.): Meister Eckhart: Stations in life - speech situations. Berlin 1997, pp. 335-352, here: p. 345; Jürgen Miethke : The Eckhart Trial in Cologne and Avignon . In: Antonio Rigon (ed.): L'età dei processi. Inchieste e condanne tra politica e ideologia nel '300. Rome 2009, pp. 121–143, here: p. 140.
  11. See also Georg Steer: The trial of Meister Eckhart and the consequences. In: Literary Yearbook. Volume 27, 1986, pp. 47-64, here: pp. 49 f.
  12. Georg Steer: The trial of Meister Eckhart and the consequences. In: Literaturwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch 27, 1986, pp. 47–64, here: 62–64; Georg Steer: On the authenticity of Master Eckhart's German sermons. In: Heinrich Stirnimann (Ed.): Eckardus Theutonicus, homo doctus et sanctus. Evidence and reports on the trial of Meister Eckhart , Freiburg (Switzerland) 1992, pp. 127–168; Sigrun Jäger: Meister Eckhart - a word in a word , Berlin 2008, pp. 72–76; Loris Sturlese: Was there a corpus of Master Eckhart's German sermons? In: Andreas Speer , Lydia Wegener (eds.): Meister Eckhart in Erfurt , Berlin 2005, pp. 393–408; Kurt Ruh: Meister Eckhart , 2nd edition. Munich 1989, p. 174 f.
  13. See Kurt Ruh: History of occidental mysticism. Volume 3, Munich 1996, pp. 282-289.
  14. Kurt Ruh: History of occidental mysticism. Volume 3, Munich 1996, p. 356.
  15. The report on a symposium discussion from 1984 in the conference volume Occidental Mysticism in the Middle Ages contains various considerations and statements . Engelberg Monastery Symposium 1984 , ed. Kurt Ruh, Stuttgart 1986, pp. 2, 95-102, 138 f., 143, 219 and 223 f. Kurt Flasch offers a detailed argument against the use of the term mysticism in his essays Meister Eckhart - An attempt to save him from the mystical stream. In: Peter Koslowski (Ed.): Gnosis and Mystik in the History of Philosophy , Zurich 1988, pp. 94–110, here: 100–109 and Meister Eckhart and the “German Mysticism”. On the critique of a historiographical scheme. In: Olaf Pluta (ed.): Philosophy in the 14th and 15th centuries , Amsterdam 1988, pp. 439–463. See also Burkhard Mojsisch: Meister Eckhart , Hamburg 1983, pp. 11-14; Ulrich Köpf: Meister Eckhart and Bernhard von Clairvaux: Two types of medieval theology. In: Meister-Eckhart-Jahrbuch 1, 2007, pp. 27–41, here: 28; Mauritius Wilde: The new image of the image of God. Image and theology with Meister Eckhart , Freiburg (Switzerland) 2000, pp. 27–33; Karl Albert: Meister Eckhart and the philosophy of the Middle Ages , Dettelbach 1999, p. 530 f. Alois M. Haas advocates sticking to the term mysticism: Sermo mysticus , Freiburg (Switzerland) 1979, pp. 141–147.
  16. See Yossef Schwartz: Between unit metaphysics and unit hermeneutics: Eckhart's Maimonides reading and the dating problem of the 'Opus tripartitum'. In: Andreas Speer, Lydia Wegener (eds.): Meister Eckhart in Erfurt , Berlin 2005, pp. 259–279.
  17. To assess the knowledge made possible by experience, see Meister Eckhart, Sermon 86, The German Works , Vol. 3, p. 482 f. = Largier edition (1993) vol. 2, p. 210 f.
  18. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 52, The German Works , Vol. 2, p. 506 = Edition Largier (1993) Vol. 1, p. 562 f. See Wolfram Malte Fues: Mysticism as Knowledge? Critical studies on Meister Eckhart research. Bonn 1981, pp. 16-20.
  19. Eberhard Winkler: Exegetical methods with Meister Eckhart. Tübingen 1965, p. 32; see. Pp. 34-42.
  20. For Eckhart's view of the relationship between theology and philosophy, see Burkhard Mojsisch: Meister Eckhart. Hamburg 1983, pp. 6-15.
  21. Meister Eckhart, Tract 2, The German Works , Vol. 5, p. 307 = Edition Largier (1993) Vol. 2, p. 430 f.
  22. Meister Eckhart, Expositio sancti evangelii secundum Iohannem 158 f., Die lateinischen Werke , vol. 3, p. 130 f.
  23. See Mauritius Wilde: The new image of the image of God. Image and theology with Meister Eckhart. Freiburg (Switzerland) 2000, p. 221.
  24. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 52, The German Works , Vol. 2, pp. 502–505 = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 1, pp. 560–563.
  25. See Mauritius Wilde: The new image of the image of God. Image and theology with Meister Eckhart. Freiburg (Switzerland) 2000, pp. 220–222.
  26. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 109, The German Works , Vol. 4/2, p. 772: God works, God does not work. (...) God and deity are differentiated by working and non-working. See Michel Henry : The inner structure of immanence and the problem of its understanding as revelation: Meister Eckhart. In: Rolf Kühn , Sébastien Laoureux (ed.): Meister Eckhart - Knowledge and Mysticism of Life , Freiburg 2008, pp. 13–33, here: 27 f.
  27. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 109, The German Works , Vol. 4/2, p. 773.
  28. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 48, The German Works , Vol. 2, pp. 420 f. = Largier edition (1993) vol. 1, p. 508 f .; Sermon 2, The German Works , Vol. 1, pp. 43 f. = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 1, pp. 34-37; Sermon 42, The German Works , Vol. 2, p. 309 = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 1, p. 456 f.
  29. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 21, The German Works , Vol. 1, p. 361 line 10 - p. 363 line 2 = edition Largier (1993) vol. 1, p. 248 f. See Mauritius Wilde: The New Image of God. Image and theology with Meister Eckhart. Freiburg (Switzerland) 2000, pp. 224–226.
  30. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 2, The German Works , Vol. 1, p. 43 = Edition Largier (1993) Vol. 1, p. 34 f. Regarding the Trinity, Eckhart remarks in this sermon: Rather, just as he is a single one, devoid of all manner and peculiarity, he is neither father nor son nor holy spirit in this sense and yet is something that is neither this nor that ( Die German works , vol. 1, p. 44).
  31. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 83, The German Works , Vol. 3, p. 442 f. = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 2, pp. 190-193. For the deity as “nothing” or “nothingness” see Burkhard Mojsisch: Meister Eckhart. Hamburg 1983, p. 106 f.
  32. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 51, The German Works , Vol. 2, p. 476 f. = Largier edition (1993) vol. 1, p. 548 f. Cf. Rodrigo Guerizoli: The internalization of the divine. A study of the cycle of God's birth and the sermon of Master Eckhart's poverty. Leiden 2006, pp. 104-111.
  33. Meister Eckhart, Expositio libri Genesis 3, Die lateinischen Werke , vol. 1, p. 186 f.
  34. Meister Eckhart, Expositio libri Sapientiae 189, Die lateinischen Werke , Vol. 2, p. 524 f.
  35. Heribert Fischer: Master Eckhart. Freiburg 1974, pp. 76-78 and 80 f.
  36. Meister Eckhart, Sermo 29, Die lateinischen Werke , Vol. 4, p. 268; see. Sermo 54.1, The Latin Works , Vol. 4, p. 445; Quaestiones Parisienses 1, Die lateinischen Werke , Vol. 5, p. 40 = Edition Largier (1993) Vol. 2, pp. 542-545. See Alois M. Haas: Nim din selbes war. Freiburg (Switzerland) 1971, pp. 18-20; Burkhard Mojsisch: Meister Eckhart , Hamburg 1983, pp. 30–41; Erik A. Panzig: Gelâzenheit und Abgescheidenheit , Leipzig 2005, pp. 122–142.
  37. Loris Sturlese: Meister Eckhart. A portrait. Regensburg 1993, p. 11.
  38. For Eckhart's conception of the relationship between God's being and his thinking (recognition) see the detailed study by Christian Jung: Meister Eckhart's philosophical mysticism. Marburg 2010, pp. 13–53.
  39. Meister Eckhart, Collatio in libros sententiarum 3, Die lateinischen Werke , vol. 5, p. 19 f. See also Erik A. Panzig: Gelâzenheit und Isolationheit. Leipzig 2005, pp. 70-74.
  40. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 4, The German Works , vol. 1, p. 69 line 8 = edition Largier (1993) vol. 1, p. 52 f.
  41. For Eckhart's understanding of time, see Michael Egerding: Got confess. Structures of the knowledge of God with Meister Eckhart. Frankfurt a. M. 1984, pp. 59-64; Niklaus Largier: time, temporality, eternity. An outline of the time problem in Dietrich von Freiberg and Meister Eckhart , Bern 1989, pp. 81–138, 149–194 (especially on creation, pp. 137 f.).
  42. Meister Eckhart, Expositio sancti evangelii secundum Iohannem 280, Die lateinischen Werke , vol. 3, p. 234, line 16 f.
  43. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 2, The German Works , Vol. 1, p. 44, lines 5 f. = Largier edition (1993) vol. 1, p. 36 f .; see. Sermon 52, The German Works , Vol. 2, pp. 502–505 = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 1, pp. 560–563; Sermon 6, The German Works , Vol. 1, p. 109 = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 1, p. 82 f .; Sermon 48, The German Works , Vol. 2, p. 418 = Edition Largier (1993) Vol. 1, p. 506 f .: I have sometimes spoken of a light that is in the soul, that is uncreated and inexhaustible. See Michael Egerding: Got confess. Structures of the knowledge of God with Meister Eckhart , Frankfurt a. M. 1984, pp. 36-45; Michel Henry: The inner structure of immanence and the problem of its understanding as revelation: Meister Eckhart. In: Rolf Kühn, Sébastien Laoureux (ed.): Meister Eckhart - Knowledge and Mysticism of Life , Freiburg 2008, pp. 13–33, here: 13–15; Burkhard Mojsisch: Meister Eckhart , Hamburg 1983, pp. 131-137, 145; Erik A. Panzig: Gelâzenheit und Abgescheidenheit , Leipzig 2005, p. 246 f.
  44. For the definition and terminology see Peter Reiter: Der Seele Grund. Würzburg 1993, pp. 406-421.
  45. ^ Burkhard Mojsisch: Meister Eckhart. Hamburg 1983, pp. 139-143.
  46. Meister Eckhart, Tract 1, The German Works , Vol. 5, p. 117 = Edition Largier (1993) Vol. 2, p. 330 f .: But when the soul realizes that it knows God, it gains knowledge at the same time of God and of yourself.
  47. Meister Eckhart, Tract 1, The German Works , Vol. 5, p. 114, line 21 = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 2, p. 324 f .; Sermon 71, The German Works , Vol. 3, p. 227 = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 2, p. 74 f. See Michael Egerding: Got confess. Structures of the knowledge of God with Meister Eckhart. Frankfurt a. M. 1984, pp. 123-130.
  48. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 69, The German Works , Vol. 3, p. 174, line 6 f. = Largier edition (1993) vol. 2, p. 50 f. See Gerard Visser: A mind only touched by “deity”. In: Rolf Kühn, Sébastien Laoureux (ed.): Meister Eckhart - Knowledge and Mysticism of Life , Freiburg 2008, pp. 288–321, here: p. 300 f.
  49. Heribert Fischer: Master Eckhart. Freiburg 1974, pp. 110-112; Loris Sturlese: Master Eckhart. A portrait , Regensburg 1993, p. 10.
  50. Loris Sturlese: Meister Eckhart. A portrait. Regensburg 1993, p. 12.
  51. ^ Gotthard Strohmaier: Avicenna. Munich 1999, p. 148.
  52. Christian Jung: Meister Eckhart's philosophical mysticism. Marburg 2010, pp. 96-103.
  53. See Dietmar Mieth: Meister Eckhart. Mysticism and the art of living. Düsseldorf 2004, pp. 11-13.
  54. Meister Eckhart, Sermo 17, Die lateinischen Werke , Vol. 4, S. 158. Alois M. Haas: Nim din selbes war. Freiburg (Switzerland) 1971, p. 16 f.
  55. Kurt Ruh: Meister Eckhart. Munich 1985, pp. 37-39.
  56. On Eckhart's doctrine of evil see Heribert Fischer: Meister Eckhart. Freiburg 1974, p. 86 f .; Karl Albert: Meister Eckhart and the philosophy of the Middle Ages , Dettelbach 1999, pp. 218–223.
  57. Meister Eckhart, Expositio libri Genesis 136, Die lateinischen Werke , Vol. 1, p. 289, lines 11 f.
  58. Meister Eckhart, Expositio libri Genesis 21, Die lateinischen Werke , Vol. 1, p. 202, lines 10 f.
  59. Erwin Waldschütz: Master Eckhart. Bonn 1978, pp. 65-67.
  60. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 38, The German Works , Vol. 2, p. 228 Z. 1-3 = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 1, p. 406 f.
  61. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 6, The German Works , Vol. 1, p. 109, lines 6 f. = Largier edition (1993) vol. 1, p. 82 f .; Sermon 4, The German Works , Vol. 1, p. 72 lines 8-11 = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 1, p. 54 f .; Sermon 109, The German Works , Vol. 4/2, p. 764 f. See Dietmar Mieth: Meister Eckhart. Mysticism and the art of living. Düsseldorf 2004, p. 91; Michel Henry: The inner structure of immanence and the problem of its understanding as revelation: Meister Eckhart. In: Rolf Kühn, Sébastien Laoureux (ed.): Meister Eckhart - Knowledge and Mysticism of Life , Freiburg 2008, pp. 13–33, here: 15; Erwin Waldschütz: Meister Eckhart , Bonn 1978, p. 219 f .; Mauritius Wilde: The new image of the image of God. Image and theology in Meister Eckhart , Freiburg (Switzerland) 2000, pp. 264–269.
  62. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 3, The German Works , Vol. 1, p. 48 f. = Largier edition (1993) vol. 1, p. 38 f.
  63. Meister Eckhart, Tract 2, The German Works , Vol. 5, p. 210 = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 2, p. 352 f.
  64. Meister Eckhart, Tract 2, The German Works , Vol. 5, p. 200 = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 2, p. 344 f.
  65. See also Alois M. Haas: Nim din selbes war. Freiburg (Switzerland) 1971, pp. 53-57.
  66. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 6, The German Works , Vol. 1, p. 109 = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 1, p. 82 f. See Sermon 22, The German Works , Vol. 1, p. 376 = Edition Largier (1993) Vol. 1, p. 254 f.
  67. ^ Sermon 5A, The German Works , Vol. 1, p. 77 = Edition Largier (1993) Vol. 1, p. 58 f.
  68. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 2, The German Works , Vol. 1, pp. 24-26 = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 1, pp. 24 f. See Mauritius Wilde: The New Image of God. Image and theology with Meister Eckhart. Freiburg (Switzerland) 2000, pp. 12–15.
  69. Meister Eckhart, Tract 2, The German Works , Vol. 5, p. 205 = Edition Largier (1993) Vol. 2, p. 348 f .; "Essential" for Middle High German "has been".
  70. Erwin Waldschütz: Master Eckhart. Bonn 1978, pp. 68-72.
  71. Meister Eckhart, Tract 2, The German Works , Vol. 5, p. 203 = Edition Largier (1993) Vol. 2, p. 346 f.
  72. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 6, The German Works , Vol. 1, p. 111, lines 6 f., P. 113, lines 6 f. = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 1, pp. 84-87.
  73. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 7, The German Works , Vol. 1, p. 122, lines 4 f. = Largier edition (1993) vol. 1, p. 92 f. For seclusion as the highest virtue, see Erwin Waldschütz: Meister Eckhart. Bonn 1978, pp. 201-218.
  74. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 109, The German Works , Vol. 4/2, p. 765.
  75. Meister Eckhart, Tract 2, The German Works , Vol. 5, p. 196, line 3 f. = Largier edition (1993) vol. 2, p. 340 f.
  76. Meister Eckhart, Tract 1, The German Works , Vol. 5, p. 12 f. = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 2, pp. 238-241.
  77. Erik A. Panzig: Gelâzenheit and remoteness. Leipzig 2005, pp. 54-57.
  78. Meister Eckhart, Tract 2, The German Works , Vol. 5, pp. 191–194 = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 2, pp. 338–341. Erik A. Panzig: Solitude and seclusion. Leipzig 2005, pp. 86-97.
  79. Meister Eckhart, Tract 2, The German Works , Vol. 5, p. 196 = Edition Largier (1993) Vol. 2, p. 342 f.
  80. Meister Eckhart, Traktat 2, Die Deutschen Werke , Vol. 5, pp. 207-209 = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 2, pp. 350-353.
  81. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 52, The German Works , Vol. 2, p. 488 = Edition Largier (1993) Vol. 1, p. 550 f .: This is a poor person who wants nothing and knows nothing and has nothing.
  82. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 52, The German Works , Vol. 2, pp. 500 f. = Largier edition (1993) vol. 1, p. 558 f. See Burkhard Mojsisch: Meister Eckhart. Hamburg 1983, p. 138; Rodrigo Guerizoli: The internalization of the divine. A study of the cycle of the birth of God and the sermon of poverty by Meister Eckharts , Leiden 2006, pp. 198–204.
  83. Bernard McGinn: The Mysticism of the Occident. Volume 4, Freiburg 2008, pp. 330–333.
  84. Meister Eckhart, Tract 2, The German Works , Vol. 5, pp. 260 f. = Largier edition (1993) vol. 2, p. 392 f. For the relationship between seclusion and works, see Erwin Waldschütz: Meister Eckhart. Bonn 1978, pp. 19-48.
  85. Meister Eckhart, Tract 2, The German Works , Vol. 5, pp. 201 f. = Largier edition (1993) vol. 2, p. 346 f.
  86. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 8, The German Works , Vol. 1, p. 132, lines 7-9 = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 1, p. 100 f.
  87. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 6, The German Works , vol. 1, p. 104 lines 2-4 = Largier edition (1993) vol. 1, p. 80 f.
  88. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 6, The German Works , Vol. 1, P. 103 Z. 1 f. = Largier edition (1993) vol. 1, p. 78 f.
  89. Meister Eckhart, Traktat 2, The German Works , Vol. 5, p. 198 = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 2, p. 342 f.
  90. Loris Sturlese: Meister Eckhart. A portrait. Regensburg 1993, p. 9; Erwin Waldschütz: Meister Eckhart , Bonn 1978, pp. 129-131.
  91. Bernard McGinn: The Mysticism of the Occident. Volume 4, Freiburg 2008, pp. 334-340; Kurt Flasch: Master Eckhart. 2nd Edition. Munich 2010, pp. 255–264.
  92. Meister Eckhart, Tract 2, The German Works , Vol. 5, pp. 221 f. = Largier edition (1993) vol. 2, p. 362 f.
  93. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 6, The German Works , Vol. 1, pp. 107-109 = Largier edition (1993) Vol. 1, pp. 82 f.
  94. ^ For the distribution of In agro dominico see Robert E. Lerner: Meister Eckhart's Specter: Fourteenth-Century Uses of the Bull In agro dominico Including a Newly Discovered Inquisitorial Text of 1337. In: Mediaeval Studies 70, 2008, pp. 115-134; Robert E. Lerner: New Evidence for the Condemnation of Meister Eckhart. In: Speculum 72, 1997, pp. 347-366.
  95. ^ Ingeborg Degenhardt: Studies on the change of the Eckhart picture. Leiden 1967, pp. 18-21; Loris Sturlese: Master Eckhart's continued work. In: Heinrich Stirnimann (Ed.): Eckardus Theutonicus, homo doctus et sanctus. Evidence and reports on the trial of Meister Eckhart , Freiburg (Switzerland) 1992, pp. 169–183.
  96. ^ Robert E. Lerner: Meister Eckhart's Specter: Fourteenth-Century Uses of the Bull In agro dominico Including a Newly Discovered Inquisitorial Text of 1337. In: Mediaeval Studies 70, 2008, pp. 115-134, here: 120-123.
  97. ^ Ingeborg Degenhardt: Studies on the change of the Eckhart picture. Leiden 1967, pp. 21-28; Kurt Ruh: Master Eckhart. 2nd Edition. Munich 1989, pp. 11-13.
  98. ^ Ingeborg Degenhardt: Studies on the change of the Eckhart picture. Leiden 1967, pp. 28-30. Franz Josef Schweitzer: Meister Eckhart und der Laie offers a detailed examination and edition of the text . An anti-hierarchical dialogue of the 14th century from the Netherlands , Berlin 1997.
  99. See on the Dutch criticism of Eckhart Maria Alberta Lücker: Meister Eckhart and the devotio moderna. Leiden 1950, pp. 53-58; Ingeborg Degenhardt: Studies on the change of the Eckhart picture, Leiden 1967, pp. 32–46.
  100. The fourth volume of the Meister Eckhart yearbook is dedicated to Nikolaus' Eckhart reception : Harald Schwaetzer, Georg Steer (eds.): Meister Eckhart and Nikolaus von Kues , Stuttgart 2011.
  101. Freimut Löser: Meister Eckhart in Melk. Tübingen 1999, pp. 55-67, 257-272, 317-323.
  102. Steven E. Ozment: An Aid to Luther's Marginal Comments on Johannes Tauler's Sermons. In: Harvard Theological Review 63, 1970, pp. 305-311, here: 309; Steven E. Ozment: Eckhart and Luther: German Mysticism and Protestantism. In: The Thomist 42, 1978, pp. 259-280, here: 260.
  103. For details see Winfried Zeller: Eckhartiana V: Meister Eckhart at Valentin Weigel. In: Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 57, 1938, pp. 309–355.
  104. ^ Ingeborg Degenhardt: Studies on the change of the Eckhart picture. Leiden 1967, p. 85 f. (to Arnold) and 90–100 (to Sudermann).
  105. ^ Ernst Soudek: Meister Eckhart. Stuttgart 1973, p. 51; Ingeborg Degenhardt: Studies on the change of the Eckhart picture , Leiden 1967, pp. 79–84.
  106. ^ Ernst Soudek: Meister Eckhart. Stuttgart 1973, p. 51 f .; Werner Schultz: Theology and Reality , Kiel 1969, p. 151 f.
  107. Arthur Schopenhauer: The handwritten estate in five volumes , ed. Arthur Hübscher , Volume 4/2, Munich 1985, p. 28 f.
  108. ^ Ernst Soudek: Meister Eckhart. Stuttgart 1973, p. 52 f.
  109. On the neo-Homist Eckhart criticism of Denifle see Ingeborg Degenhardt: Studies on the change of the Eckhart picture. Leiden 1967, pp. 168-187; Kurt Flasch: Master Eckhart. The birth of “German mysticism” from the spirit of Arabic philosophy. 2nd Edition. Munich 2008, p. 152 f.
  110. ^ Ernst Soudek: Meister Eckhart. Stuttgart 1973, pp. 55-58.
  111. ^ Ernst Soudek: Meister Eckhart. Stuttgart 1973, pp. 56-60. Relevant literature from the period 1908–1944 is compiled by Niklaus Largier: Bibliographie zu Meister Eckhart , Freiburg (Switzerland) 1989, pp. 135–139.
  112. Claus-Ekkehard Bärsch : The political religion of National Socialism. The religious dimensions of the Nazi ideology in the writings of Dietrich Eckart, Joseph Goebbels, Alfred Rosenberg and Adolf Hitler , 2nd, revised edition, Munich 2002, p. 234 f.
  113. ^ On the Marxist reception of Eckhart see Alois M. Haas: Sermo mysticus. Freiburg (Switzerland) 1979, pp. 238-254. For Ley see also the criticism by Karl Albert: Meister Eckhart's thesis of being. Studies on the metaphysics of Opus tripartitum , Saarbrücken 1976, pp. 77-108.
  114. Ernst Bloch: Atheism in Christianity. Frankfurt 1968, pp. 93-95. For further details see Wolfram Malte Fues: Unio inquantum spes: Meister Eckhart from Ernst Bloch. In: Alois M. Haas, Heinrich Stirnimann (ed.): Das “einig Ein” , Freiburg (Switzerland) 1980, pp. 109–166, here: 109–113, 147–166.
  115. Kurt Flasch: Meister Eckhart - attempt to save him from the mystical stream. In: Peter Koslowski (Ed.): Gnosis and Mystik in the History of Philosophy , Zurich 1988, pp. 94–110, here: 100–109; Kurt Flasch: Meister Eckhart and the "German Mysticism". On the critique of a historiographical scheme. In: Olaf Pluta (ed.): Philosophy in the 14th and 15th centuries , Amsterdam 1988, pp. 439–463.
  116. Burkhard Mojsisch: Meister Eckhart , Hamburg 1983, pp. 11-14.
  117. Reinhard Margreiter: Mysticism between literacy and orality . In: Klaus Jacobi (Ed.): Meister Eckhart: Lebenszüge - Redesituationen , Berlin 1997, pp. 15–42, here: 16.
  118. Reinhard Margreiter: Mysticism between literacy and orality . In: Klaus Jacobi (Ed.): Meister Eckhart: Lebenszüge - Redesituationen , Berlin 1997, pp. 15–42, here: 17 f.
  119. Alois M. Haas: Gottleiden - Gottlieben , Frankfurt 1989, p. 38.
  120. A brief overview of the research controversy is provided by Sigrun Jäger: Meister Eckhart - a word in a word. Berlin 2008, p. 80 f. The report on a symposium discussion from 1984 in the conference proceedings Occidental Mysticism in the Middle Ages contains various considerations and statements . Engelberg Monastery Symposium 1984 , ed. Kurt Ruh, Stuttgart 1986, pp. 2, 95-102, 138 f., 143, 219, 223 f. Cf. Ulrich Köpf: Meister Eckhart and Bernhard von Clairvaux: Two types of medieval theology. In: Meister-Eckhart-Jahrbuch 1, 2007, pp. 27–41, here: 28; Mauritius Wilde: The new image of the image of God. Image and theology with Meister Eckhart , Freiburg (Switzerland) 2000, pp. 27–33; Karl Albert: Meister Eckhart and the philosophy of the Middle Ages , Dettelbach 1999, p. 530 f.
  121. Hildegard Elisabeth Keller: The camel and the eye of the needle. An encounter between Zhuangzi and Meister Eckhart , Zurich 2011, pp. 29–87 (radio play / audio CD with non-fiction book).
  122. Relevant works by European and Asian authors are compiled by Niklaus Largier: Bibliography on Meister Eckhart. Freiburg (Switzerland) 1989, pp. 95-99. See Reiner Manstetten: Esse est Deus , Freiburg 1993, pp. 36-40; Volker Frederking: Breakthrough from having to being. Erich Fromm and the mysticism of Meister Eckharts , Paderborn 1994, pp. 90–93, 132–139.
  123. Carl Gustav Jung: Psychological types. 9th edition. Zurich 1960 ( Collected Works Vol. 6), pp. 259–276.
  124. Meister Eckhart, Sermon 52, The German Works , Vol. 2, pp. 486–506.
  125. Volker Frederking offers a very detailed account of Fromm's Eckhart interpretation: Breakthrough from having to being. Erich Fromm and the mysticism of Meister Eckhart. Paderborn 1994. See Bernd Niles: About poverty in the spirit. On Erich Fromm's Eckhart interpretation. In: Zeitwende 56, 1985, pp. 156-172.
  126. Frieder Schulz: The memory of the witnesses. In: Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie 19, 1975, pp. 69-104, here: 95.
  127. ^ Table of contents (under Lectura Eckhardi ).
This article was added to the list of excellent articles on June 2, 2011 in this version .