Esoteric and Cabalistic elements at Anna Katharina Emmerick’s visions
Introduction: Biographies and Polemic Emmerick
Only recently has a non-biased study about Anna Katharina Emmerick’s life started being done thanks to the publishing of original texts by Brentano. Even so, the case Katharina Emmerick still stirs lots of controversies.
Having lived in times when there was great antagonism between science and faith, many wanted to use her to demonstrate the spiritual world’s reality, whereas the rationalists would blame her of fraud. Such dispute has leftovers until today.
The controversy has not only debated weird facts that would happen with the clairvoyant. Brentano’s role in the issue has deepened the polemics.
One has discussed:
1.if the Katharina Emmerick’s stigmas were real or deceitful;
2.if both pretence visions had a supernatural origin or were phenomena artificially provoked by hypnosis, magnetism, or still, if they were the result of a pathologic nature;
3. if Katharina Emmerick were a saint, a swindler or just had a disturbed mind;
4.if Brentano were a faithful teller of the visions the nun said would have;
5.if the ideas expressed at her visions were Brentano’s or the clairvoyant’s as well.
Even though this work’s scope does not cover such questions, we will be forced, due to the logic progress of the theme, to deal with them, even if we do so just incidentally. We simply wish to verify if at the published texts of Katharina Emmerick’s visions we may find them to be tinged with cabalism and esoterism.
Brentano published "Das bittere Leiden unseres Herrn Jesu Christi, nebst dem Lebensumriss der Erzählerin"in 1833.
In this work the author presents a romantically pious picture of Katharina Emmerick’s life, the ambiance and region in which she used to live, with the very goal of touching and having the readers’ pitiful kindness. The work’s publishing would fit the general reaction of romantic mysticism and tradicionalism against the French Revolution and Racionalism ideas. The work had not, however, any historic objectivity.
Just before dying, the poet has handled the notes about the Visions to the future Bishop of Speier, Daniel Binifaz Hanneberg, who redirected them to redemptory priest Karl E. Schmoeger. The last published Katharina Emmerick’s life (1). We will quote the French version of this work done by priest E. de Cazalès, Brentano’s close friend (2).
Priest Schmoeger is among the guiltiest ones for the mess around Emmerick-Brentano’s issue. His work was unscrupulous. He has suppressed texts and facts. When analyzing the suppressed excerpts, one notices that he tried to prevent the public from knowing all that – with regard to ideas and habits at Katharina Emmerick’s life – could scandalize the Catholic mentality of the time. The publishing of the originals ended up revealing Priest Schmoeger’s the lack of objectiveness – or shall we say “dishonesty”.
Diel-Kreiten (3) and Priest Wegener’s (4) works are still a lot partial, due to their apologetic and pious concern.
The canonization process itself, introduced from 1892 to 1894, has proved to be marked with the same lack of objectiveness and postulators’ worry to safeguard her canonization at any cost.
As a result the process was transformed in a true mix-up (“un vero guazzabuglio”) at the picturesque expression of "Relatio et vota Congressus Peculiaris 10-II-1981", vow 1, document from the "Sacra Congregationis Pro Causa Sanctorum" p. 1225. And “a real mix-up exactly at the reproduction of those documents (witnesses’) done at a scientific barbarian way, and with criteria that discharge any possible classification, and that one cannot even have an insight of what they are, as they are arbitrary and oust the most elementary good sense, in a chaotic way. (5)
It was, nonetheless, the canonization that began bringing some light over Emmerick question. When coming to the point in which the process demands the examining of what was written by “God’s servant” (title given to those who are under canonization process) one found a serious obstacle: the ideas expressed at Brentano’s works would hinder the clairvoyant’s canonization.
In 1917, the three censors in charge of the examinations attributed to the nun of Dülmen have come unanimously to the same point: The texts were Brentano’s exclusive responsibility. Therefore the process could go on. However, some cardinals decided that it was necessary deeper studies concerning the authorship of the “Visions”, and encharged Priest Winifrid Hümpfner, O.E.S.A., to study the issue. The result was a work in which Hümpfner comes to the point that Brentano’s texts about the nun of Dülmen’s “Visions” are “scientific, conscious and thought-out mystification” (6).
Considering such conclusions, accepted by the Congregation of Cardinals that was judging the case, the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued on May 18th, 1927 a decree openly declaring that the “the written papers attributed to the Servant of God were Brentano’s works, and, consequently, there was nothing to prevent one to go on ad ulteriora” (7).
The process, still, did not go on due to a Saint Office veto on November 30th 1928, considering impossible its continuation, for a possible canonization of Katharina Emmerick would bestow great authority to the written work to her attributed.
In 1973, Paul VI determined the continuation of the process, and the Congregation to the Doctrine of Faith took up the 1928 veto, which triggered a new study on the matter, done, with Vatican’s orders, by Priest Ildefonz Maria Dietz, O.E.S.A. and by professor of theology at the University of Münster Dr. Erwin Iserloh, who passed sentence in 1976 and 1978 respectively. Both totally agreed with the studies and decisions previously made concerning the Roman Congregations:
“Brentano’s papers, due to this reason, shall not be considered as dictated by Emmerick, not even authentic transcriptions of her statements and narrations, but as Brentano’s literary works, and with such amplifications that “ it is not possible to establish a true and proper core that can be attributed to Emmerick” (8).
It seems to us, however, that the great concern at these studies done due to the canonization process was to save the nun from whatever responsibility for Brentano’s written papers so that the process could go on and keep away Katharina Emmerick’s position about the ideas expressed by Brentano in the Visions. Despite the limitations inherent to their work, one of Priest Hümpfner’s merits was, nonetheless, to prove Schmoeger’s lack of scruples, laying bare the falsifications made by him and Brentano. Besides, after his study, one demanded the exam of the poet’s notes originals, abandoning the study of the matter based on Schmoeger.
Since then we may notice two tendencies by the scholar about Emmerick problem:
1. A purely scientific trend that analyze the original documents not worrying about determining Katharina Emmerick’s saintness. To this trend belong the works by Joseph Adams’, S.C.J. (9) and Anton Brieger (10).
2. A trend that, although presenting documented works, is concerned about, proving the clairvoyant’s innocence facilitates her canonization.
In such works, the treatment of doctrinaire matters of Brentano’s texts and the ideas expressed by Katharina Emmerick is absent.
To our study about the nun of Dülmen’s life, we will use “Dr. Wesener’s Diary”, together with other Brentano’s texts, just as they were published by Adams and Brieger. We will check with Hümpfner’s, Diel-Kreiten’s and Dietz’s works, besides the less important authors. We will take advantage of Priest Schmoeger’s non-controversial information or of texts that shed some light to the matter.
Life of Anna Katharina Emmerick from 1774 to 1813
Katharina Emmerick was born on September 8th, 1774 in Flamske, a village near Coesfeld, in Westfalia. She was daughter of Bernard Emmerick and Anna Hillers. She was baptized just after her birth, at the Saint James of Coesfeld parish (11).
Her parents were peasants that had nine children, from which Anna Katharina Emmerick was the fiftieth. Adams quotes Katharina Emmerick’s words about her birth, which Schmoeger, by the way, omitted:
"I became aware that I came to the world with a rare signal: a plant like corn ear, called wisdom’s corn ear. My mother has taken it away because of her lack of common sense, and, due to it, I have lost something. I would see; if I had it, the things a lot clearer; yes, so clearer, as no man has received the gift of seeing, I would become able to know and reproduce everything. But, in order to completely remind and finish this matter I saw, in my youthfulness and after that many things were destroyed, because of people’s nonsense and ignorance, mainly the priests’" (12).
According to Katharina Emmerick, a signal similar to this "wisdom’s corn ear" has also existed in Joseph of Egypt and in the Old Testament prophets. In the Tagebuch, X, 8, 2, she also mention this corn ear, claiming that it was located “over the navel, in the belly region where I have now the signal of the Latin cross”. "Three women were helping my birth and one of them have untied it (the corn ear)" (13). Notice the contradiction in the texts: in one it is the mother, and in the other, one of the midwives that unties her “wisdom’s corn ear”.
Well, in these statements there is a serious confusion between natural and supernatural orders. No appendix or physical excrescence can produce itself, the gift of prophecy, which is God’s grace. This confusion between nature and grace is typical of the romantic Gnosis.
Brentano does a romantic description of the region where Katharina Emmerick lived and the morality of its inhabitants, which Schmoeger proudly quotes:
"I cannot forget how, in an early morning, passing by a fence, I heard the voice of a child: step by step, I came closer and saw a little pastor in rags, who was more or less seven years old. She was going after some gooses in a meadow, with a willow stick in her hand. She said with an inimitable tone of piety and sincerity:
"Good morning, my dear Lord God! Praised be Jesus Christ! Good Father, which is in the heaven! I salute thee Mary, full of grace! I want to be good; I want to be pious! Good saints in the paradise, good angels, I want to be good. I have a bit of bread to eat; I thank you for this dear bread! Oh! Protect me also in order that my gooses will not go to the wheat field and some bad guys will kill some of them by stoning them! Protect me, therefore. I want to be a good girl, dear Father who is in the heaven'' (14).
Brentano strives to make credible that the children of Münster were like that. He wants to make us believe that little Katharina Emmerick was like that. He wants to make us believe that this region was almost the paradise of innocence. But we cannot understand how, in this environment, so idyllically pious, there could have some “bad guys” that have had fun killing gooses by throwing stones at them...
Schmoeger tell us, yet, that according the Visions that Katharina Emmerick have had about herself, she possessed the use of reason since her birth, and that, when she was baptized, she would have acquired mystical marriage with Jesus Christ (15). However, according Dr. Wesener, she has never had visions about herself (16). Because of this, the supposed visions of the nun about herself have less credibility than others (17).
Brentano claims that, when she was a child, she has had visions of the youth Jesus and of John the Baptist as a boy, whom she called "Jungsten" e "Hanneschen"(18). The first one has taught her to make dresses to her doll. She also told that, when she was a child, she used to tell her father biblical scenes that she saw in her visions, and her father, touched, would cry, asking her where she had learnt those things (19).
From 1786 to 1789, she worked as a housekeeper in the house of one of her relatives, Gerhard Emmerick, and thereafter she went to learn the dresser job in Elisabeth Krabbe’s home, where she stayed until 1794 (20). She worked as a dresser until 1799.
She wished to become a nun, but because she was very poor and sick, she has had difficulties to be received in a monastery. The Augustinian of Borken rejected her, as the Trapists of Darfeld, and also the Clarisses of Münster (21). She considered, then, to learn to play the organ, which could easily open the doors of some religious house. To this, she entered the house of the organist Söntgen, in Coesfeld, as a housemaid. There, she became friends with the organist’s daughter, Klara Söntgen, who also wanted enter in a monastery. According to Wesener, in this house, she didn’t learn to play organ, but she learnt to read and write (22). Actually, it was her father who taught her to read and write.
Her biographers are used to saying that she read just a little. Brentano says that she has never read the Bible, which is surprising, because she has actually read several pious and mystical works:
"My father himself taught me to read. (...) I have never read a lot. I cannot read a lot, for I soon loose myself (she would be in ecstasy). I cannot read an entire chapter of Thomas de Kempis. I am not perseverant; to me everything must be very brief. (...) I like to read the German low language of preacher Tauler. It is one of the few books with which I can have a good time. . I understand the book, and it understands me. But, even though I don’t read it a lot, sometimes I hear somebody reading it, what several times caused me beautiful visions" (23).
She stayed with the Söntgens from 1799 to 1802, and, in this last year, according to what she affirmed later, she would have mystically received the Christ’s crown of thorns, but without blood effusion, just with an inflation in the forehead, in the temples, and even in the face. It was just later, when she was already in the monastery, that her forehead started to bleed, in small dots (24).
When she was just 16 or 17 years old, her parents thought about marrying her, but she declined because she had an invincible aversion to the matrimonial condition (25):
"When I, already in my first youthfulness, was instructed in a supernatural way regarding the temporal generation of men, not having to think a lot about this matter, my fantasy, by God’s grace, never worried about this. And, as for me, I kept myself totally innocent regarding these things and this matter to me was pretty more an aversion and compassion toward other people, instead of something I would have to fight back, like the other kids. Yet when I was a little child, I censored my beloved God, by saying that He could have made it differently. I have always had aversion towards marriage. And when I used to see a bride I couldn’t help but cry." (26).
But, this aversion to marriage is not natural, and indicated in her either Gnostic ideas, or, at least, a sick mentality. No saint could ever think this way.
When Katharina Emmerick decided to join a monastery, her parents became sad, but were not able to avoid this. Together with her friend Klara Söntgen, she was received in the monastery of Agnetenberg, of Augustinians at Dülmen, in November 03, 1801. She became a novice in November 03, 1802, and made her vows in November 13, 1803.
At the monastery, Katharina Emmerick has had a suffered life, being always sick. According Dr. Wesener, all her sicknesses had a proper nervous nature (27), and besides these sicknesses of nervous nature, she suffered an accident that damaged her pelvis. Also, morally, she suffered by verifying her non-fulfillment of the rules of her order.
In December 3, 1811, the monastery of Agnetenberg became suppressed as for the application of the Napoleonic decree of November 14, 1811. The region of Münster had an ecclesiastic sovereign until 1802; the last one was the brother of Emperor Joseph II of Austria, the prince bishop Maximilian-Xavier. When the Episcopal See became vacant in 1892, Prussia invaded the region and, in 1803, through an imperial decision, Prussia became owner of the town of Münster, while the southern region was divided amongst several princes. After the Battle of Iena, the region of Münster became part of the Great-Ducat of Berg, created by Napoleon, for the first born son of Queen Hortence. After 1810, the entire region was annexed to the French Empire, and remained like that until the Congress of Vienna, when it returned to the Prussia possession (28).
Katharina Emmerick stayed yet some time in the monastery building, but, in the first months of 1812, she had to go out, and went to live together with the monastery chaplain, the emigrated and refracted French priest Jean Martin Lambert, who has always supported her, at the widow Roters’ house. Katharina Emmerick intended to serve her ex-chaplain, who was sick, but afterwards she became so sick that it was she was the one who had to be served. According to her testimony in a state inquiry, she received her first mystical signal, in August 28, 1812, feast of Saint Augustine: it appeared a bleeding cross over her stomach. Few weeks later, there would appear another cross, similar to the previous, like the cross of Coesfeld, over the external bone, bleeding periodically. In the Saint Catherine’s day (November 25, 1812), another cross, similar to the previous, appeared over the external bone, just over the other she had already received, forming one single mark. At the Christmas of 1812, she received the stigmas of Christ over his feet and hands. And finally, she received the wound of the chest of Christ at her side, in December 29, 1812.
She herself cited all these dates in her testimony to Overberg, in 1812, but Anton Brieger gives different dates to each case. In august 28, 1812, she would have received the stigma of the cross at her chest; at the Saint Catherine day (November 25, 1812), a second cross; and, at the end of the year 1812, the wounds at the hands, feet and in her side (29).
These wounds would bleed in certain days in a week:
"The double cross over the extern bone bled, most times, on Wednesdays. The wounds at the side and at her head just on Fridays" (30).
Father Joseph Alois Limberg, a Dominican whose monastery was closed, and who lived in Dülmen, was summoned to hear Katharina Emmerick‘s confession, at the Lent in 1812. Her aunt, an ex master of the novices in the monastery the seer used to attend, called him. Since then, he became her ordinary confessor. On December 31, 1812, when he took the communion to her, he stated for the first time the bleeding of the wounds at her forehands. On January 28, 1813, Father Limberg could see, for the first time, the wounds at the feet of Katharina Emmerick (31).
The stigmas of Katharina Emmerick started to become of public knowledge since February 28, 1813, when her friend and partner in monastery Klara Söntgen saw the wounds bleeding. Soon, every one in Dülmen was talking about the subject. But it isn’t just the wounds that were amazing: Father Limberg ensured that, since the nun received the stigmas, she hadn’t had any solid food, except for the communion (32).
As soon as it became of public knowledge that there was in Dülmen a nun with stigmas, father Rensing, dean of the town, advised the general vicar of Münster, Clemens Auguste Dröste-Vischering, while Dr. Wesener, who had been called to support the nun together with fathers Lambert and Limberg, the Dean of Rensing and Dr. Peter Krauthausen, who was the doctor who took care of Katharina Emmerick during the time she was in a Convent, decided to make a complete check-up in his patient, and prescript a protocol that was going to be released to the ecclesiastics authorities.
This check-up took place in March 22,1813 and the protocol prescripts the following about Katharina Emmerick’s wounds, according to Schmoeger:
“In the back of her both hands we notice crusts of dry blood, there was a wound over it. In the palm of both hands, there were similar crusts of clot blood, however they were smaller. We found some similar crusts over the exterior part of the feet as well as in its middle. They were painful when touched, and that one in the right foot had been bleeding not long ago. In the right side we noticed, a little above the forth rib, from bottom to top, a large wound of about three inches, which must sometimes bleed. Above the stomach cavity, we saw some round spots, similar to a split cross. A little below, we saw a regular cross, made of many strips of half inch, and similar to wounds. In the upper front, we saw, in big amounts, like needle bites, extending from both sides until the hair roots” (33).
According to Dr. Wesener diary, the Latin cross of long shapes was located a little below her belly, precisely below the belly bottom (34). According to first researches’ protocol, as of 22 of March, 1813, it was exactly above the belly-bottom, which is more trustworthy. Rensing sent a report to the General Vicar of Münster talking about the virtues of Katharina Emmerick, about her fasting habits (he said that she used to have only water and the Holy Communion, any other food was immediately thrown up), and her swoons or “ecstasies” and her stigmas. The report dates of 25 of March, 1813 (35).
It’s curious what Rensing says about the “ecstasies”:
“During this swoon, which I would rather call it holy ecstasy, she stands as hard as a wooden board” (36).
In March 28th,1813, the General Vicar of Münster, C.A Dröste-Vischering, with the famous Dean Overberg and his personal doctor, Dr. Druffel, arrived in Dülmen to submit Katharina Emmerick to a rigorous check, after which a verbal process has been written. Latter on, this man who had a “such unbreakable character power, with such a soul sensitiveness that would, due to these, buy birds in cage juts to set them free." (37), asked Father Overberg to investigate the interior and exterior life of Katharina Emmerick, advising him to watch the nun very carefully, determining Fe. Krauthausen to make all he could to cure Emmerick’s wounds and sickness. The vicar also obliged Klara Söntgen to make a secret report about everything that took place with Katharina Emmerick.
On April 7th, 1813, the General Vicar visited the clairvoyant again, becoming very satisfied with what he saw and heard, and returned a third time, in April 28th, together with Overberg and the Protestant doctor Stadtlohn. At that moment, the Dean Rensing e o Dr. Krauthausen saw the new check-up of Katharina Emmerick, of whose Dröste-Vischering made a report with the wounds drawing (38), as reproduced below:
The Dean Rensing was not sure about Katharina Emmerick’s sincerity about her absolute fasting habits – which even Fe. Limberg was in doubts (39) – he who, after some time, withdrew from Katharina Emmerick not giving her any credit.
There were doubts, though, that Katharina Emmerick was secretly feeding herself, and also that her wounds were a real fraud. It has been decided, thus, that she was going to be continuously watched during 10 days, by 20 people from Dülmen, and during this period, Fe. Lambert – upon whom were the charges of the fraud – should be kept away from the nun. During these 10 days, the clairvoyant had only water and nobody touched her wounds. Bleeding of the wounds was reported in 16th (Wednesday, the crosses), 18th, 19th (Friday and Saturday – the stigmas) (40).
After all, there were no doubts, and the General Vicar of Münster ended up concluding the truths of the facts that happened with Katharina Emmerick, but did not excluded the possibility of continuing her examinations, and, in 1817, he suggested to the Council Member of State Ludwig Von Vincke (41), to make a new investigation by a mixed commission from Church and the Prussian State. This suggestion, however, was not accepted.
In February, 3rd 1819, the council member called together a Commission to investigate the case of Katharina Emmerick. The leader of this Commission was the vice-mayor of Münster, Clemens Maria Von Bönninghausen. The other members were Dr. Alexander Rave, doctor at Borken, near Dülmen, Dr. Busch, from Münster, the parish priest Niesert, from Velen, the vicar Roseri, from Leyden, and the professor Roeling, from Münster. The priests wondered permission from the parish of Münster to join the commission, which was not true. Following, Bönninghausen asked to Katharina Emmerick to allow him to drive her to Counselor Mersmann’s house.
In the meantime, Brentano was already installed in Dülmen, with the clairvoyant, and asked to be enrolled as witness in the process, but, both Bönninghausen and Vincke rejected the proposal, so Brentano, as per Katharina Emmerick’s request, went to Bokhold, the process was in place.
In August the 6th, arrived to Dülmen the Medicine Advisor Borge, protestant and very hostile to Katharina Emmerick, joining immediately the commission of inquiry. On Saturday, August 8th,1819, Bönninghausen took Katharina Emmerick against her will to the house of Advisor Mersmann, where she was kept watched and submitted to interrogation, until August 28th. One intended to separate the nun from the priests and friends, and from Dr. Wesener and Brentano, because they wanted to investigate if the wounds were not artificially and fraudulent made, as well as to make sure that she was not having meals hidden.
This commission was full of rationalist prejudice against the religion, and the strange facts that happened to Katharina Emmerick were seen as a fraud, to support the struggles of faith against rationalism:
“The researches from 1819 is cleared positioned as a background of the conflicts been the Catholic Church and the public power of Protestantism in Prussia” (42), says Erika Tunner. Moreover, the violence suffered by Katharina Emmerick can only be explained by the continuous fights between illuminist rationalism and the romantic mysticism, especially in Germany.
In the first evening of the kidnapping, there was an incident that affected Katharina Emmerick, which Schmoeger, carefully avoids to mention, although Dr. Wesener – whose report he states to be “very loyal and truth” – mentions (43):
“Saturday, August 7th, the patient has been taken against her will, escorted by soldiers, to the house of Mr. Advisor Mersmann, where she arrived unconscious, but alive. Once I did not know whether I could visit her at her prison, I sent the attached request to the president of the Inquiry Commission. The visit has been allowed to me. So I got the patient off bed and kept her over my knees, for about an hour. She was very weak, but glad… I thank to the Lord, said she, who gave me patience today. She looks forward to keep this grace much longer. After forty-five minutes with her, the Advisor of Medicine of the Government came in, a sick man, who suffers – as people say – of a venereal disease. It was dark and the patient did not realize his presence. But when he took a sit two steps away from her, she got close to me and mentioned to have a deep fear. I asked her loudly: “You have fear, but what makes you feel that way?” She said: “I don’t know, but it something that brings me fear”. I did not feel anything, but a strong smell of camphor”. After that, Dr. Bush, from the Commission Inquiry, in charge of the vigilance, told me that my visiting should not happen again. For that reason, I visited the Supreme President, Von Vincke, in the same night, to whom I introduced and repeated the warnings that was part of the letter addressed to Mr. Advisor, stating that the work, to relief the patient, should not be done by a woman, etc. to the reason that I attached the letter that I received from Mr. President,on the 10th. I should end up my diary here, until pleases the Lord Jesus, praised in eternity, to allow me going on” (44).
It’s symptomatic that Father Schmoeger had omitted this incident. It is really strange to a stigmatized,, with holiness reputation, to be found overnight at her doctor’s lap, and in the first Canonization process of Katharina Emmerick, introduced in 1892-1894, the Devil’s Advocate objected this matter against the holiness of the Servant of God. However, the cause defenders answered that there was nothing against chastity and modesty in the patient, on the other hand, that it was necessary to recognize the doctor’s charity and patience (45).
Should it be true, justice would also order to admire the patience and charity of the doctor, of Father Limberg and Bretano, in whose arms Katharina Emmerick sleeps, sometimes: “She slept in my arms like a child (…)” wrote Brentano to Luise Hensel, in the Diary of Dülmen (46).
The General Vicar of Münster immediately prohibited any ecclesiastical attendance to the Prussian commission of inquiry. Both the fathers Roseri and Niesert, then left Dülmen (47).
While Katharina Emmerick stayed available to the Inquire Commission, she was kept in a bed placed in the centre of a room, becoming easy to be watched. Two people stayed in duty, besides Ms. Wietner, who was in charge of serving and watching her. During the 20 days that last the Inquire, Katharina Emmerick was submmited several times to questioning sessions, and her body examined, with no care or respect. According to Schmoeger:
“In their wild brutality , they did not allow the shy virgin, consecrated to God, at least to cover her breast: each time she covered herself, shaking, they uncovered her brutally and rudely replied her requests with cynic jokes” (48).
Obviously, the hostile behaviors of the inquisitors is disapproved, but it seems to us that Father Schmoeger romanticize somehow the situation, once the “shy virgin” allowed to be undressed many times by the priests who watched her, once it became one of the "Animadversiones”, brought about by Devil’s Advocate against her canonization (49), and the priests continued to undress her and dress her up, even after the General Vicar of Münster determined this to be done by a woman only.
In August 13th 1819, Friday, Katharina Emmerick had a little blood effusion on the front, and the inquisitors quickly accused her to make it happen, scratching the front with the hands in the moment that the nurse went away. Another blood spot was supposed to be found in her night-gown, coming from her side wound. In short, the members of the commission were so prevented, and acted with such a prejudice, that her final report cannot be taken into serious consideration, which does not necessarily mean that the phenomena that happened with Katharina Emmerick were of supernatural order.
Anyway, starting from these investigations, the Dean of Dülmen, Bernard Rensing, who was previously favorable to Katharina Emmerick, became against her, questioning her stigmas, which he firstly suspected to be of natural origin, afterwards artificial, and yet, diabolic. Katharina Emmerick was, then, set free on 28 of July, 1819, and taken back to her house. The investigation ended up proving nothing against her, although some doubts were left behind:
1st. The fact that Katharina Emmerick confessed to take the crusts of dry blood from her wounds;
2nd. The fact that her bleedings had suddenly stopped, a little before the investigations of 1819 started.
The “paranormal" phenomena of Katharina Emmerick: stigmata, ecstasies, visions
Katharina Emmerick’s doctor, Dr. Franz Wilhelm Wesener (1782-1832), was Schelling’s follower. He studied in many German Universities, among which was Halle, where he learned something about magnetism with Dr. Reil (50). He met Katharina Emmerick in 1807 when she still was in the convent, and he was called for a visit by the nuns’ doctor, Dr. Krauthausen, and he saw her again only on March 23rd ,1813, when her stigmas were already of public knowledge. By this time, he still was a man without faith.
As soon as he started to treat the stigmatized nun, Wesener began a diary of the facts that occurred with her, which goes from March 23rd,1813 until November 3rd,1819, when he suddenly stops. Besides the diary, Wesener wrote a short biography of his patient.
Wesener’s diary is a document of extraordinary value to elucidate the Emmerick question, since it is well more objective and sincere than Brentano’s. See what he tells about his first visit to Katharina Emmerick:
"After I entered her room, the ex-Dominican Priest Limberg raised (Katharina Emmerick) from the bed, and he placed her at her sister’s lap. She remained in a fainted state. Before that, they had changed her clothes which were soaked wet as if she had been put in water. In a similar way, the sheets were wet. Also, the pillows and the floor under the bed were wet.
"Ordered by Priest Limberg I touched her shoulders with my hands. She quiveredsoftly and later she was calm again. Then Priest Limberg touched her with the two consecrated fingers. She sketched a smile, and her shoulders started to have a convulsive movement.
"We made this experience many times, with the same result. Still more frequently did we make the following experience: Priest Limberg put into motion his two consecrated fingers until about two inches from her lips. Soon, her stiff body, like iron attracted by magnet, would bend at the direction of his fingers. And when she reached his fingers with her lips, she kissed and sucked his index finger. Mr. Priest Limberg insisted to make her bite a piece of his finger, but she said that she could not do this, and as Mr. Limberg asked her why she sucked the finger, she said: ' Because it is so sweet '! After this, by order of Priest Limberg, I placed my finger in her mouth, but she remained in her fainted state, and no longer put into motion.
"Everything happened while she was stiff and in a fainted state, with very closed eyes".
“While she was fainted, Priest Limberg bent his head slowly in her direction. When he was about three inches far from her face, the body, as if dead, rose to Priest Limberg’s skull, and she touched her mouth on his head. When Priest Limberg placed her again on the pillow, her body all was as stiff as a piece of wood, so much that, if I held her by her head, perhaps I could straighten her whole body. Priest Limberg closed the curtain of the bed, the Frenchman Lambert placed a double woolen blanket, and then Priest Limberg made his way to the middle of the room and made a cross with the hand and said smoothly: God bless you the Priest, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Immediately, the mortally weak hand moved slowly under the sheet, and made the sign of the cross" (51).
The scene is absolutely strange, and, as for this, Erika Tunner states: "The priests have an absolute power upon her (Katharina Emmerick), her devotion for the consecrated fingers are in the limit of pathological"(52).
Far from wishing to give an opinion about an issue about which we are not experts, it is necessary, however, to call attention to the fact that the scene described by Dr. Wesener has, even for a layperson, strong sexual connotation.
On the other hand, Priest Limberg’s actions over the patient and her reactions fits perfectly what the followers of the magnetism practiced, which proves that even before the contact with the Dr. Wesener, Priest Limberg had applied his knowledge of magnetism on Katharina Emmerick.
Dr. Wesener’s diary says that Priest Limberg often cured Katharina Emmerick’s headaches or toothaches by giving her his consecrated fingers to suck (53). It is clear that scenes like these could not appear in "pious" biographies of Katharina Emmerick made by Brentano or Priest Schmoeger.
The clairvoyant felt, besides, an attraction for consecrated fingers of any priest. While priest Bernhard Overberg, famous pedagogyst and reformerof the clergy of the Westfallia, was visiting her in 1815, when he gave her his hand, Katharina Emmerick held only the priest’s thumb and his index finger of the priest saying: "These are the ones that feed me" (54).
Before moving on to the practiced actions of magnetism on Katharina Emmerick by Priest Limberg, Dr. Wesener and Brentano brothers, it is worthwhile saying a few things about the different types of ecstasy which occurred with her.
Dr. Wesener distinguished the three different "ecstatic" states on her:
1. A state that the doctor names "allgemeine Tetanus" in which the nun’s body was as rigid as a statue and heavier than it used to be. In this state, she had allegorical, moral and religious visions, she would see images or pictures regarding the relations between men and God, or she was led, in spirit, to distant places;
2. A second type, called by Wesener "spiritual absence", "geistesabwesenheit", which, under certain aspects, was the opposite of the previous one. It seemed then that the clairvoyant’s soul was in heaven. Her body became lighter, and her members were so soft and flexible that seemed to wish to disjoint. When she was like that, she would only obey or hear what the priests used to tell her on behalf of obedience. She was sensitive to all sacerdotal blessings because she made the sign of the Cross when the priest used to bless her;
3. Dreams: she had them only at night.
While she dreamed, she spoke nonsense things. In general, her dreams were only about life of Christ (55).
As we said, since she received the stigmata, Katharina Emmerick stopped eating, but in January 3rd of 1817, Wesener gave her a little milk and water, which she had without vomiting afterwards, as it would generally happen when she had something. In October 17th of 1817, in view of the extreme weakness of the sick, Dr. Wesener decided to give her human milk.
"We now had the idea of feeding the patient with milk of a wet nurse, and since I was healing a lady’s wounded nipple, Priest Limberg’s relative, a lady who had given birth six weeks before, I went after her to, some times per day, give her breast to the patient, because she had milk in abundance, and her son could not suckle it in the wounded nipple. The lady got that with joy, and thus, in day 18 of October, Saturday, we began to give her the nurse’s milk". The sick nun, due to her weakness, could not suck a lot. She held back the milk, complaining, however, at night, of stomachache" (56).
In 9 of November, Wesener registers that Katharina Emmerick told him that, when she was still in the convent, very sick, she had a vision of a beautiful young woman who offered her the breast full of milk. In the beginning, the seer felt repulsion, but, later, she accepted the breast (57). On Friday, 28-XI-1817, Dr. Wesener wrote: "the sick nun, last week, was feeling well during most of the time. She is breastfed three times a day "(58).
Well, even if the romantic medicine of those times recommended to certain sick people human milk, it is difficult to imagine that it also recommended, if necessary, that the patient gets the milk straight from the wet nurse’s breast. Evidently, Priest Schmoeger, as well as other pious biographers of Katharina Emmerick, has never said a word about such strange therapeutic method.
(In case one day Katharina Emmerick be canonized, it would be very hard to explain to the public how it could it be possible to consider saint, practitioner of heroic virtues, a nun that used to suckle a woman’s breast three times a day.)
Ideas manifested by Katharina Emmerick before Brentano’s arrival
Her biographers portray her as an uncultured peasant that has read very little. Brentano claims that she had never read the Old, not even the New Testament. What were her ideas? Would she agree with the opinions expressed in Visions as they were written by Brentano?
The thesis concerning the entire objectivity of Brentano’s notes, defended by Father Schmoeger, made Katharina Emmerick responsible for every word written in Visions. Well, as it has many affirmations contrary to the Catholic Faith, she could never be canonized. When such Katharina Emmerick’s writings were examined in her canonization process in 1817, they concluded that the text of Visions, and what was said there, were Brentano’s responsibility, and not the seer’s, and because of this, the process could go on.
It was determined, then, new studies of the problem, and Father Winifrid Hümpfner was put in charge, submitted his work Glaubewürdigkeit to the Sacred Congregation of the Rites in 1924. The official position of the Church is, until now, as we saw previously, the same of Father Hümpfner: the ideas expressed in the texts of Visions are Brentano’s ideas and not the clairvoyant’s. Joseph Adams diverges a little from this thesis. To him, although the texts of Visions, noted by Brentano, cannot be completely attributed to Katharina Emmerick, even before Brentano arrives, she expressed ideas similar to his, to Dr. Wesener’s and to Overberg’s (59).
"In the same way, it is worth noticing that the seer, in frequent conversations, which could sometimes last hours, with the doctor about theological, biblical and political contemporary problems, has manifested a great originality of ideas and autonomy of judgment" (60).
It is interesting to see that these “original” and “autonomous” ideas will present themselves very close to Brentano’s ideas. And the first prove of this is the issue of magnetism.
The magnetism issue is dealt with very ambiguously by Katharina Emmerick and by her biographers. We saw that, already at the first visit of Dr. Wesener to the patient, Father Limberg made a true magnetism demonstration. Dr Wesener restarted dealing with the issue on April 14, 1815. This day, he tells that he talked with Father Limberg about animal magnetism and the similarities with the phenomena that happens with Katharina Emmerick. To Wesener, what happened with the seer wasn’t magnetism phenomena, but a “clairvoyance” of a completely different kind" (61). In that occasion, Father Limberg said that, in a given night, when he was alone with the patient, he did several magnetic experiences on her, but without any result (62).
Few days later, on April 27, 1815, the doctor tells that he had done magnetic experiences with Katharina Emmerick, while she was in ecstasy, but without any result. However, when Father Limberg said: "Hello! Obey! Where are you? The seer awoke immediately, saying that she heard somebody calling her”.
On January 26, 1816, there is a new description of a magnetic experience, made by Father Limberg, which Dr. Wesener has described this way:
"At nine o’clock she had an ecstasy. I asked then to Mr. Limberg to do an animal magnetism experience, which means, to ask her what was her disease, and where was its central point, and mainly where it was located. He did this several times, insistently, but the sick didn’t answer” (63).
On April 5, 1817, Katharina Emmerick was for the first time visited by Christian Brentano, who came to see her with the license of the General Vicar of Münster, Clement Auguste Von Droste-Vischering. As we saw, Christian was a doctor, and very favorable to the magnetism, and the nun showed herself very kind with him, even praising his excellent moral and religious principles. The Christian’s ideas about magnetism received a welcome from Father Limberg and Dr. Wesener, and already on April 16, 1817, the doctor’s diary registered an extraordinary magnetic experience:
"Father Limberg made her slept by putting his forehand over her heart’s place, and inclined his head toward her head.
"Her heartbeat was filiform and spaced: her breath was short and weak; the patient showed features of extreme weakness.
"In the previous day, Mr. Limberg and I, by means of an instructive conversation with Dr. Brentano, became more confident with the essence of the visions produced by magnetism. And we ended up understanding that magnetism is nothing but the spilling of plenitude of health and of life that, through religion and her main pillar will fire the love towards God, towards the Redeemer and towards our neighbors. Then, Father Limberg, full of confidence, directed his mouth against the opened mouth of the patient, prompting in her his living breath. After three or four repetitions of this act, the diseased breathed deeper and more anxiously, and finally, awoke with such a great force and sensation of well-being that she herself was extremely surprised.
"Even the unpleasant sensation of weakness and emptiness in the region of the stomach disappeared completely, and the patient in no way understood from where did her quickly improvement come.”
"I think I must express myself briefly, here, about the manipulation through which the patient is leaded to the calm sleep. Given that just now such phenomenon is clear to me by the conception of magnetism, which I have just been thought. Since long ago, and frequently, father Limberg has had the power of making the patient sleep, so, through the mentioned maneuver, and with no explanation to this phenomenon: he puts his hands over her precordion, and inclines his head towards her head. It has always worked out so well that the Father wanted to bet with the patient that, in two or three minutes, he would make her sleep" (64).
It is interesting to compare this text with Schmoeger’s version of the facts:
"Thanks to the instructive conversation among Mr. Dr. N..(it is Christian Brentano), Mr. Limberg and I, we became even more familiar with magnetism, and we recognized that it is nothing but the “spilling of a vital spirit acting over the diseased".
“This spirit, which is spread all over nature, is received by the patient through a spiritual, or even bodily, communication. It acts, then, in the person who receives it, according the nature of its principle, lighting in him a flame that belongs, either to the earth, or to the superior regions, or even to the inferior regions, and does, according to its origin, salutary or harmful effects. Such vital spirit, may and should Christians inflame through religion and through love of God and of their neighbors, in order to make it nourishing to the body and to the soul”. (65)
Katharina Emmerick’s personal position regarding magnetism, even before Brentano’s arrival, was hesitating and ambiguous. After the coming of Christian Brentano, which gave new impulse to Father Limberg and Dr Wesener’s magnetic experiences that used to be done with the nun, she told Dr. Wesener -- on April 20, 1817 that she initially accepted with indifference what he, Father Limberg and Dr. Christian Brentano had said to her about magnetism. But that, after she meditated about the matter, she had a vision that revealed that Magnetism wasn’t good, and that “the main part of it is devil’s illusion”. She told, however, that she hadn’t made up her mind totally, but that “if we wanted to do what the prophets and the apostles did, we also need to be like them, and then, we should not need any artificial manipulation”. And yet: "letting people make effort to cure the diseased through something that passes from a person in good state to the sick isn’t bad, but all magic in this case is ridiculous and illicit. The magnetic sleep and the contemplation of the future things, if far away, are devil’s illusions, under appearance of devotion." (66).
By hearing this, Dr. Wesener had a wake-up of conscience, for he was curing the arm of a peasant through magnetic means. Katharina Emmerick asked, then, what he did to cure the peasant. After she listened to what he told, she said:
"To warm the limb of the patient with the hand of a health person, I think is valid as a natural medicine, but the blessings and the pulling with the hands are absurd and lead to the superstition (she meant mysticism)" (67).
The nun said yet that it was necessary to be prudent when dealing with Christian Brentano over this matter, who would have good intentions, although being wrong. The physician talked, then, with Brentano, who dealt with this matter with Katharina Emmerick:
"Mr. Brentano told me that he had talked with the sick about magnetism, and mainly over the questioned visions caused by it. He ensured to me that he was happy with her declarations, when he got convinced that she had just seen the magnetism on its dark and devilish side. But the patient looked a little ashamed about her declaration during my visit, for she confessed believing she was a little precipitated. I have tranquilized her about this." (68).
We can see, through this account, that Katharina Emmerick, either because of the fear of displeasing Christian Brentano, or because she wasn’t sure, hesitated. She admitted, at least, that magnetism had a good and a bad side. This hesitation is confirmed by the fact that she allowed Father Limberg to cure her toothaches and headaches through magnetism. This happened six days after she talked with Brentano, between April 25and 28 (69).
Some days later, on May 2, 1817, Katharina Emmerick told Dr. Wesener that she had had a vision about Dr. Brentano and magnetism:
"I have received now, also, the correct instruction regarding the imposing of the hands, and the cure of my aches. I must renounce to this. I must stand my aches with patience, and Father cannot do to me anything but what he used to do.”
"So I asked her then what she counseled me regarding the use of magnetism to myself”.
"You can, however, use it when you make sure that you have not placed yourself, nor other people, in temptation or in danger." (70).
One can see, through this text, that the ambiguity continues. First, the magnetism is condemned. After, Father can continue to do what he used to. But, something he used to do was typically magnetizing actions. And also Dr. Wesener could continue to do magnetic cures, since there was no danger. Therefore she makes out a diabolic and illicit magnetism, from a good and allowed. Clemens Brentano will follow the same directive, along with Windischman, an animal and devilish magnetism, and on the other hand, a spiritual and divine (71). Through animal magnetism, Katharina Emmerick will manifest total repulse, and will compare it with magic:
«The practice of magnetism ends in magic; the devil is not summoned, but it comes from him. Everybody that gets into it takes from nature something that cannot be legally acquired except inside the Church of Jesus Christ. And it cannot preserve itself with the power of curing and sanctifying, unless inside the Church; for nature, to everybody that aren’t and living union with Jesus Christ, through the true faith and through the sanctifying grace, is full of Satan’s influence». (...) (71)
« I see the very essence of magnetism as truthful; but there is a robber that is released, inside this veiled light».
« (...) One of faculties of the man before his fall, faculty that is not completely dead, is resurrected in a certain way, to put him unaware and in a more mysterious state, exposed inside to the devil’s attacks. This state is real, it exists, but is covered by a veil, because it is a poisoned fountain to everybody, except to the saints».
« I feel that the state of these people (magnetized ones) follows, in certain aspects, a way parallel to mine, but they are going to another place, and with consequences» (72).
Then, they continued to do magnetic experiences with the seer, possibly with her allowance:
"Tonight, her weaknesses were greater. When she was elevated, she fell in a mortal fading. Father Limberg placed his mouth over her mouth, and have prompted strongly, After he repeated this three or four times, the pulse and the breathing of the patient came back, and she awoke" (73).
Wesener registers on November 1st:
"At night, there was a mortal unconsciousness at the minimal move. Father makes her awake, again, through the blow. The patient has shed light on fact that the Father’s blowing was, to her, like a tepid wind that runs through her body until the extremity of her fingers and ankles". (74).
In these visions of Katharina Emmerick texts, already at the time when Brentano was by her side, it is summarized the thesis of the so-called Brentano’s “magic Catholicism”, which means a Catholicism that accepted a good Magnetism, of divine origin, distinctive from the animal Magnetism, even though like it.
Katharina Emmerick and Brentano’s ideas about magnetism are, therefore:
1. The essence of the Magnetism is truthful.
2. It takes advantage of a power that exists in nature.
3. Man, before his fall, had the ability of controlling and using this force.
4. After the fall, this capacity was partially lost.
5. Those that are united to Christ and his Church, the saints, can use this power, without danger, and cure.
6. Those that aren’t united to Christ can only use the magnetic power with devil’s help, which turns their practices into magic, and have severe consequences.
7. It is hard to distinguish the phenomena of the two kinds of magnetism. One can distinguish them just formally. Then the similarities between the occurrence of animal magnetism and the one that used to happen with Katharina Emmerick.
Coherently with these theses, they affirmed that the thaumaturgy power and the charisma of the saints consisted in using natural power, united with God, which leads them to mix up natural with supernatural, grace with nature. The identification of the supernatural with the natural – a so dear thesis to Romanticism – will become clearer when Katharina Emmerick describes Christ’s Miracles. This identification is heterodox from a Catholic perspective, but it completely agrees with the esoteric and gnostic thought: it is in man himself, and in the nature itself that one can find the powers capable of redeeming man. Man is his own Savior, which is a typical Gnostic affirmation.
A second interesting point is Katharina Emmerick’s opinion about Jakob Boehme, which appears in Wesener’s journal in January 15, 1818:
"When, last night, I read to her a verse of the “Aurora awakening”, of Jakob Boehme and asked her opinion about this remarkable man, she told me that what he wrote about the being of God could be true, but that one must be careful regarding his explanation of the natural things. Moreover, she said, there is a kind of interior life and a conception n of being of the thing that don’t come from the Holy Ghost, but eventually comes from other powers. If I could write, she said, I would write a great book about this" 75).
Adams, based in this text, could say:
"Regarding Jakob Boehme’s conception of God and his “explanation of the natural things”, as well as magnetism theory and practice, she has her own opinion" (76).
Her attitude towards Jakob Boehme doesn’t look as if she had just had her first contact with his pieces of work, once she gives her own opinion about the man, Jakob Boheme, and about his work, and not about the text read. Anyway, if she hadn’t read Boehme, at least Dr. Wesener had, and he commented the theosopher’s works with her. And she has not rejected Boehme’s doctrines regarding God. Because of this, Humpfner’s defense of Katharina Emmerick is not convincing in this point.
So Adams could still write:
"Moreover the symbolism, rich in mystical interpretation of Jakob Boehme, or from the “German Theology”, weren’t unknown in Dülmen, and it had had its influence" (77).
A third point that the seer dealt with, even before Brentano’s arrival, is astrology.
"’I thought that each light, each star, was a celestial body like our Earth, probably inhabited by beings like us’. She thought that the moon was exactly this way, but not the stars, for they would contain the destiny of the humans. There would be the benefic stars and malefic ones, and each man would have his good star and his bad star. The bad stars would be behind the good ones, and would not be able to act so directly on men. If they could, nobody on Earth would survive " (78).
The fourth point, which is convenient to recall, is Katharina Emmerick’s opinion about purgatory and hell’s fire, which she expressed before Brentano’s arriving at Dülmen. On April 9, 1814, talking with Dr. Wesener about this matter, she told him:
"At least, one cannot think that the unfortunate ones, in hell or in purgatory, are chastised by real fire; this is just a symbolic representation. The sole and terrible source of chastisement, for the unfortunate ones, is God’s ire." (79).
What is a very modern opinion, but not in agreement with the orthodoxy and, therefore, very estrange in the mouth of a person on a canonization process.
Finally, the last point: the one of Grace.
"In a conversation that I had with Mr. Limberg about the work of Saint Augustine, De Gratia, I affirmed that all of us would have equal participation in the divine grace. And the only thing really necessary to this is that we must be morally good. This should be enough for us to become partakers of divine grace.
But Father Limberg used to say that the grace is a voluntary gift of the Highest which He spread according to His Saint Will, his opinion being based on Saint Paul’s sentence (II Tim I, 29), and in the conversion of the two thieves, at the cross. The patient became vividly interested by my statement, and manifested the opinion that it wouldn’t agree with God’s infinite justice if a man looked for the grace correctly, and could achieve it. Father Limberg remained with his opinion, and based himself in the letter of the Sacred Scripture. The patient got visibly afflicted with this" (80).
Well, although God gives enough grace to everybody, He doesn’t distribute equal graces to all men. This egalitarian concept regarding the distribution of the grace, which Katharina Emmerick manifested, is truly against the Scripture, as reminded by Father Limberg, but is in great agreement with the romantic German’s philosophy and thinking.
Defense of Christian magnetism, sympathy towards Boehme, ideas favorable to astrology, egalitarian concept of the economy of grace, denial of hell and purgatory fire. Such ideas are points of a thinking structure very common at the time of Romanticism, and the question that remains it where, or with whom,has Katharina learned all this.
It is very hard to find an answer to this question. The only clue that we found was a declaration of the dean Bernard Rensing included in the "Positio". According to him, when he told about the supposed illumination of Katharina Emmerick to the cartouche Father Anselmo Kroutz, the last smiled and said:
“Many things that she knows about religion and spiritual life she has probably learnt with me, because, in this matter, she was very willing to know. With this purpose, she frequently came to my bedroom, in her free time, to talk about spiritual things, and I explained to her about both one and the other point” (81).
Evidently, just this will not prove many things, but it is a hint that the thesis that says Katharina Emmerick was an absolutely ignorant peasant cannot be so easily sustained. Talking about her readings to the dean Bernard Overberg, Katharina Emmerick would have said that she had read very little during her life, and with difficulties, for she would soon fall in static contemplation, and cited, for example, the reading the Imitation of Christ by Thomas Kempis(82): "Taulerus is the first and only book which I can entertain myself with. I understand all its content, I am ok with it" (83).
As we saw, Brentano used to read mystic books to her in order to induce her to become in ecstasy.
"Many times, when I read Tauler preaches, or a spiritual books, during some minutes, or when I talked about religion with her confessor or her doctor, if she was present, she would enter in ecstatic sleep. It looked like her soul departed from her body, which looked abandoned, without sense, as if she was dead, becoming so rigid that we could take her by her head, as if she were petrified " (84).
[To her were already read]: “Tauler, Teerstegen, old devotion books, some “Dialogue of the Little Monastery of the Cross between Jesus and a soul, extracted from some old prayer book”, the life of saints, "The City of God", by Maria de Ágreda. On May 4, 1819 he said: "The Cherubish Pilgrim" (by Angelus Silesius) is, to her, a complete and very pleasant entertainment... The reading of "German Theology" made her extraordinarily happy, and she slept. "Not just the pilgrim (Brentano), but also the clairvoyant showed a great knowledge of the mystical visions literature. “She indicates now: Theresa, Catherine of Siena, Clare of Montefalco, Brigid, Hildegard, Veronica Giuliani, Mary of Jesus, etc. whose visions, the pilgrim observes, she just had an inner knowledge" (85).
All this shows us that Katharina Emmerick wasn’t exactly the illiterate and absolutely uncultured peasant, as some people intend to present her. Notice that, the list of the mystical books related is a mix of saints and of authors whose doctrine and terminology can be easily understood in a gnostic or esoteric way, as is the case of Angelus Silesius.
Clemens Brentano and Katharina Emmerick
Clemens Brentano arrived in Dülmen on September 24th 1818 in order to know Katharina Emmerick, about whom Christian Stolberg, Ludwig von Gerlach, and his brother, Christian Brentano had talked to him.
Count F.L. von Stolberg, old "Bavarian Illuminated", had converted to Catholicism, and kept on having contact with the so-called "Holy Family" of Münster, a catholic group that encircled the family Droste Vischering. In 1813, a little after becoming public the fact that there was a stigmatized nun in Dülmen, Count von Stolberg went to see her with the license of his old friend the general-vicar Dröste Vischering, with the dean Bernard Overberg. Stolberg wrote a letter relating what he saw in Dülmen. This letter was published and his son Christian showed it to Brentano. In 1815, Christian von Stolberg and Ludwig von Gerlach went to Dülmen, and then they came back to Berlin and told Clemens Brentano and the other companions of the "Tischgesellschaft" [Table Society] which they had seen.
As we saw in the chapter II of this work, Christian Brentano was in Dülmen, in intimate contact with Katharina Emmerick, from April 5th to July 4th 1817. Then, he went to Berlin in order to try to convince his brother Clemens to go see Katharina Emmerick. Because of magnetism, Christian, doctor and magnetizer, got interested in Emmerick’s case. Clemens Brentano, however, was at this time in love with Luise Hensel, and by no means would he stay far away from her.
In 1818, Christian Brentano prepared a new visit to Dülmen, this time in company of priest Sailer, who had a great influence over Clemens, and both begged the poet to follow them in the visit to the stigmatized. Luise Hensel, who was likely to convert to Catholicism, also pressured her beloved Clemens to take the trip, having on this a double interest: the religious and the personal, because she wanted to get rid of Brentano, at least during some time, since he was exceeding on his manifestations of love by her:
"The pilgrim [nickname to designate Clemens Brentano] turned into a horrible burden to her; he would sit down at her bed all nights while she was sick!... He persecuted her all around the streets, and he spied her in the corners; if she chatted with others, he went boldly to her encounter. He threw himself to the ground and asked her to step on him, which she actually did with disgust. Then he wandered without direction as a crazy, saying that he deserved that" (86).
On September 14th 1818, Brentano left Berlin to meet Sailer in the Stolberg castle in Sondermühlen. The following day, he arrived in Münster, where he captivated Overberg's friendship, who was Katharina Emmerick’s confessor. On September 24th 1818, he was in Dülmen, where he stayed with small intervals up to 1824.
Brentano arrived Dülmen amid a serious religious and sentimental crisis. He had fallen in love by Luise Hensel to the point of becoming Protestant to marry her - his second wife, Augustine Busman, was still alive - and finding himself rejected in his aspirations, by influence of Luise, he ended up converting himself, making a general confession. By that time, he still lived the "novice's fervor". Besides, some time before he had been excessively interested by the Bavarian Erwekten [Awoken of Bavaria, a kind of charismatic sect] and by the theories of Hermes, a pietistic pastor, and we have already seen, also, that at that time his interest in the esoteric and mystics themes grew, because he used to read Böehme, Swedenborg, Saint-Martin, Deutsche Theologie and works on Cabala. His brother Christian had drawn him near magnetism.
In the previous years, 1815-1816, art had been to Clemens Brentano a kind of religion:
“Through poetry, through love, he always expected to satisfy his commanding need of reestablishing the unit corrupted by the original sin. Later, he comprehended he wanted an impossible return to a world in which there wouldn't exist division and rupture, nor sexes, nor wishes, nor sin” (87).
According to J. Adams, from the Brentano's diary one concludes that he thought to find in Dülmen, with Katharina Emmerick, three things he had searched during his whole life:
1. A female mediator of salvation;
2. To insert himself, through this woman, in a larger wholeness, in the Church body, in a living reality of the communion of the saints, in the grace treasure;
3. A mission, the mission of his life: to write everything that the stigmatized would tell about the supernatural world (88).
The whole report by Brentano about his arrival in Dülmen, the description of the people from the region, and his first contacts with Katharina Emmerick, is filled of a great romantic and dreamy distortion. He described what wanted to see, for example, that he found Katharina Emmerick awfully similar to Luise Hensel, of whom he didn't forget (89). Writing to her a diary of everything that he saw, and of what he didn't see; then sending her the visions that Katharina Emmerick would have had about her, Luise, and about the spiritual dangers that she ran in Berlin, he strove, thus, to bring Luise to Dülmen. Later he confessed to her that such visions had been his invention: "pure products of an overjoyed and morbid poet's imagination” (90).
In 1842, Luise asked the young Van der Meulen to inquire Clemens Brentano about what Katharina Emmerick had actually predicted about her, since she used to think of becoming religious, for, in a supposed vision, Katharina had related her to a convent. As for this, Clemens Bretano then answered that Katharina Emmerick hadn't seen anything about Louise (91).
Soon, between Clemens Brentano and the stigmatized nun was established close intimacy. He got her room’s key and he spent whole nights there, which had caused a wave of cursing murmurs in Dülmen (92) and he himself, in his diary to Luise Hensel, told that, in their dreams, the nun was told that Brentano's charity was just a mask of the "very violent passion that he felt by the seer " (93).
On other hand, Bernard Gajek showed, through the poetries analysis that Brentano did what he looked for during his permanence in Dülmen: sublimated the attraction that he felt by the clairvoyant:
"Brentano's relationship with her (Katharina Emmerick) had erotic tinge; this is what became evident in his reports" (94).
We saw [in the chapter II] that also J. Adams had come to a similar conclusion, when saying that, regardless the different levels, Brentano's relationships with Katharina Emmerick and with Sophie Mereau are very alike in structure" (95).
To have an idea of the intimacy that the poet had with the nun, check the following text:
"Strange movement in the body. Last night, around 6 am, the Pilgrim [Clemens Brentano] sat down close to her bed, and placed the left hand, on the blanket, about two inches near the middle of her left thigh, and talked with her. Suddenly, they heard a threatening sound, getting close to his hand, and, at the same time, entering by the hip of the sick, where he had placed his hand, and then passed through his hand underneath the thick quilt, and went down to the foot, on the body that would shake. He asked the patient what that would be, and she said: “now it is in the heel”. She felt that running; that had been happening for a few days. Soon afterwards it was in her left cheek, but when she put a hand on the cheek, it passed to the left breast, and after to the left side of the womb, and then it ran downwards. Frequently it is everywhere in the body. It doesn't hurt. It is like a pull. Recently, it walked a lot on her body, so much which could then urinate. The Pilgrim [Clemens Brentano] wetted his left hand with holy water, and he caught her left heel, that was shaking a little. About two minutes later, she said: "It is again in the body", in which there was a special noise. The Pilgrim felt as if someone was pulling a long and strong stick, of more or less two inches, along the thigh" (96).
In this text, Adams mark Brentano's preoccupation of being objective, making a cold diagnosis, stating, however, that the main point is in another level, totally different: a sinister and mysterious happening which evokes a scary and demonic atmosphere. Well, to us, the fact described with so many details seems to situate "in totally different level": a false erotic mysticism, because it impresses the normality with which Brentano tells that, when chatting with the nun, he put a hand on the middle of her left thigh. It isn't an attitude that a lady would usually allow, even worse a nun, even worse a stigmatized, which proves Brentano's incredible intimacy with the clairvoyant, as well as the freedom with which she would allow him to touch her.
On October 9th 1818, Brentano registers in his diary that he saw for the first time Katharina Emmerick’s stigmas:
“Her confessor had wished that I saw the stigmas, to give a truthful testimony on them. The lance mark in the right side gives a worrying impression. It seems to have two inches and a half of length, and it caused me an impression of a pure and silent mouth, with the lips slightly separated. Besides the double cross in fork form on the breastbone [sternum], she has in the stomach region a Latin cross, an inch wide, which doesn't pour blood, but instead, water” (97).
In the diary [of Brentano] to Luise Hensel, the stigmas description appears on December 4th, 1818:
"The chest cross, the flank wound, the cross on the stomach.”
“She showed me these stigmas today following her confessor's order, under spiritual obedience. I will describe all these stigmas in the occasion when I’ll have to relate the stigmatization. The double Greek cross, on the chest bone [the breastbone], a hand wide, appeared, today, as a slight skin irritation, with no blood color not even in the crossing lines. However, all around it appeared, underneath the skin, a red blood-like coloring, whose shade gets lighter as we get away from the cross. This cross moves with the skin. Many times this blood–like red spot changes its red color from light into intense red. The blood spilling of the cross line ceased some years ago, however, sometimes sweats a blood-like red sweat in the region of this line. The Latin cross in the chest, under the heart region, which frequently spills water, I saw it today as having a light brown color. The wound region under the fourth rib, counting upwards, on the right side of that miserable body, causes such a great impression that is almost impossible to see it without tears. It hasn’t spill dark red blood for some time, however, many times, it spills serum, and other times is more or less reddish and sore. It isn't properly a wound with separated lips, but it appeared today as the chest cross, as a fine fissure in the skin, with slightly reddish and pure borders. I saw this wound today with 2.5 inches length, giving the impression of a silently pure mouth, with the lips very slightly separated" (98).
In both texts, the chest wound comparison of Katharina Emmerick with a half-open lips mouth is revealing: it has relation with Brentano's idea, inspired in Böehme, that, primitively, before the original sin, in Eva, the human breeding would give itself by means of the human word, and not by sex. The child generated under the mother's heart would be born by means of a “mouth”, which would have been opened in the mother's chest, at the time of this strange birth. Among pietists, admirers of Jakob Böehme, it gave origin to a cult to Christ's wound, wound which Jesus would have received to reestablish the original procreation and birth of man, according to Böehme.
It is evident that all these Böehme and Brentano's ideas have a Gnostic nature, because they manifest a profound repulse, and same repugnance by the human reproduction just as it was established by God, by sexual means.
Soon, Brentano got enthusiastic with the magnetic-magic experiences that the confessor did with the patient: how she sucked the priest's consecrate finger, how she attended to the orders on behalf of the obedience when she was in ecstasy etc.
Afterwards, he asked the priest to write the order: "Be obedient. Stand up ", in a paper and, when the confessor placed the note on clairvoyant's head in ecstasy, immediately she rose, asking what they wanted from her. Withdrawing the note, she felt down again in ecstasy. And Brentano adds: “I keep this note and I want to know if, in the confessor absence, I can also use this note to raise her up” (99).
Some days after that, Brentano says:
“This afternoon, she was in ecstasy and during the confessor's absence and as there wasn't anybody that could raise her, I caught the written order and I just placed it on her breast; she came round, as usual.” (100).
The narrated fact perfectly fits magnetism experiences or the "magic Catholicism", because we can deduce that the force to awaken Katharina Emmerick would have passed from the priest's to the note that contained the written order. Another phenomenon, that fascinated Brentano in Katharina Emmerick, was her capacity of recognizing the relics of the saints. Brentano placed relics of saints on the wounds of Katharina Emmerick, and she, falling into ecstasy, had visions about the life of the saint to whom the relics belonged (101).
The following step was to put false relics on the clairvoyant's wounds, so that she would identify them, or old objects - an animal fossil, or an object from the Roman Empire – then she could have visions from the past. Afterwards, he started to place Luise Hensel’s hair on the nun's wounds in order to obtain from the clairvoyant information about her life and the feelings of his beloved. He did the same with Sophie Méreau’s hair. Finally, he put the clairvoyant’s own nails on the wounds, so she could have visions of herself, as if she were another person.
Another way used by the poet to provoke visions in the nun, making her fall into ecstasy, consisted in reading to her mystic books, especially by Tauler.
"A very efficient means are all kinds of spiritual chat, and mostly spiritual reading, where she showed a declared preference by the works of Tauler: "I read them in ecstasy", she used to say (102).
After all, Brentano dominated Katharina Emmerick in such a way that Dr. Wesener complained, saying that now she would only get into ecstasy when having a physicist-magnetic relation with the poet.
"Up to now, it is fine. However, it worries me the strange contact through which Mr. Brentano approached the patient, and his physicist-magnetic relation which her - and now I –can produce this way reactions and ecstasy immobility, once this would only happen – although it is still like this - through interior visions, obtained by the Church blessing" (103).
Brentano used to tell he managed to keep telepathic communications with the nun.
“Some days after, Mr. Brentano also discovered a language conveyed through the thoughts on her: he entertained himself with her, in thought, and she usually answered his questions, in thought, when he caught her hand” (104).
Brentano, tells Érica Tunner, found in Katharina Emmerick three essential elements for him: the mediator woman, with which he always had dreamt; the innocent woman, who "sleeps in his arms, as a child”; the maternal woman, who understands and protects him, who guides him in the way of perfection, promising him peace, calmness and consolation.
"I became her son", he writes to Luise Hensel in November 1st, 1818 (105). We will add to these elements a fourth item: she is also the "spiritual medium" that allows the poet to reach the supernatural world, the dream world, and whose information will feed his fantasy, and will confirm their theories.
In these conditions, it was natural that a man like Brentano, with strong and overbearing personality, would try to have Katharina Emmerick just for himself. Having arrived Dülmen in September, three months after this, he was already in conflict with all the people that formed the clairvoyant's entourage. He envied the priests by the intimacy that Katharina Emmerick had with them, revealing them the interior of her soul. Besides, Brentano envied the attraction that the clairvoyant had by the priests' consecrated fingers. Soon he thought about also becoming a priest (106). But his situation of a married man (Agustine Busman had just will kill herself in 1832) didn't allow him to accomplish this intention.
He criticized all people around her, because they would make Katharina Emmerick lose time: Wesener, talking to her of his sick; the priests and her relatives, talking about trifles. But he himself, however, exhausted the nun's patience, because of his detailed insatiable demands about what she would see in ecstasy.
On January 1819, Brentano traveled to Berlin, alleging he was to sell his library, but, actually, he traveled because he was jealous of Luise Hensel. In effect, Luise had not long ago converted to Catholicism, while Katharina Emmerick and Brentano keep praying for this conversion to happen. Luise gave the poet her diary, in which he could verify her passion by Ludwig von Gerlach and, at the same time - contradictorily - her wish to enter in a convent. Brentano, then, didn't rest until he kept Luise away from Berlin and from his rival, and he placed her as a governess, in Münster, at the princess of Salm home, Amélia Gallitzin.
He sold his library, rich in rare books and precious manuscripts, and he just conserved the theology books, lives of saints, and rare editions of Basilide and of Spee, in addition to exorcism and Cabala books (107).
As soon as Brentano left Dülmen, a small conspiracy was created there, willing for Brentano's removal. Priest Lambert pleaded Katharina Emmerick not to allow his return, and Dr. Wesener supported his request. They wrote letters to Brentano, telling him not to return to Dülmen, because it would bring more disadvantages than advantages to the clairvoyant. After everybody exchanged letters with Overberg, and to Brentano's regret, it was consented that he returned, mostly thanks to the support that Overberg gave him. It is important to note, however, that Hümpfner proved Wesener's and Lambert’s letters to Brentano, published by Schmoeger, were forged by the poet (108).
On May 1819, Brentano returned to Dülmen, where he stayed up to 1824. However, his relations with Katharina Emmerick were, slowly, deteriorating. As soon as Brentano came back, he complained that Katharina Emmerick forgot all the profound communications that she received from the beyond, and that she was almost abandoning them (109).
“She is always in bad mood”, gets “impatient to prude questions”, she is “easily laconic”, “very complicated to get together with”, “many times shrewd”; “search causes for displeasure, she herself trams groundless accusations”; “stubborn, impatient and unappreciative, and taking everything wrong, as a very capricious person” (110). These were Brentano's complaints against the nun.
So continues him in the merciless criticism to his “saint”:
"She is lazy for spiritual conversations", and, however, drives "the conversations very nimbly, when it is about gossips" (111). Brentano kept on giving her some importance just as clairvoyant, and he only interests by the information that she supplies in ecstasy state, because "to their conversations, when awake, just a little importance is given ". And she, in general in this state, is "very weak, very boring and without wisdom" (112). Going further, adds: "Her ‘weak humanity, however, is only the crossing location, disinterested and unconscious, of the "grace's chain", "from which there is no wisdom left to us", and in no way "consolation or understanding" (113).
Brentano accuses her of having a little interest in her own visions, because "with total indifference she forgets completely the most important communications, and puts it in a second plan, yes, she likes to forget (114). She seems, else, not to understand anything of such images (that she sees); at least she acts like that (115)... this is because her words, when awake, deserve little or no confidence” (116).
"It is noteworthy her bad understanding, and her habit of giving advice on everything, before people ask her. Without comprehending, she takes the words totally inside out and is headstrong in her answer. She rarely knows what she says, and rarely says what she knows".
It couldn't be crueler and ravaging. It is Brentano's style (117).
He has no mercy, also, for the environment where she lives, "their hopelessly repugnant companies", the "monstrous confusion" and "the total confusion and filth around her" (118).
Yet, in the property "Positio", there is Rensing's testimony, that Katharina Emmerick" she uses of the popular vocabulary, words that offend people's educated ear” (119).
This means that she was not little shy in the words, using prosaic and rude words.
How could a person like this nun, be one day, God’s servant, with a beatification process in Rome?
Katharina Emmerick’s visions and Brentano’s notes
It is not the aim of this thesis the discussion about the authenticity Katharina Emmerick’s vision and about the fidelity of Brentano, as a propagator of the already mentioned visions. It is our interest, as we said before, to prove the existence of cabalistic and esoteric features in her visions.
However, firstly we wish to emphasize some points:
1. Some time before Brentano‘s arrival, Katharina Emmerick had visions, extraordinary dreams and ecstasies;
2. Katharina Emmerick – as we have already demonstrated - used to have, even before Brentano’s arrival, many ideas which will appear in Brentano’s notes of the visions;
3. We will not discuss in this thesis the nature of Katharina Emmerick’s visions nor their origin.
When Brentano arrived at Dülmen, he got exited with the weird phenomena performed in the nun, and these phenomena were to him the evidence that her visions were authentic. As Adams says:”…to the eyes of Brentano, Katharina Emmerick is an augur and is chosen by God, ”perhaps the most allegorical and historical clairvoyant ever alive since Isis (Sic)” (120). Emmerick also finds herself included, by Brentano, among humanity’s greatest wisemen and clairvoyants”(121). And the poet does not hesitate in comparing her to the Old Testament prophets, to Saint John and Zoroaster (Sic), saying that, like them, she received the book of mysterious prophecies: “Prophet’s Mountains”, which we will latter comment would be identified even with the Cathars’ Mont Ségur, or with Shiite Gnosis of Mont Alborz, as discloses Henry Corbin. Brentano does not hesitate and gives Katharina Emmerick the mission of being the great intermediate between God and Nature, like the Redeemer or Nature’s Messiah, as the romantic authors would wish.
“Thus, the clairvoyant is properly considered as a mediator between God and the Nature. To her was granted the power to raise the creatures to God, and conduct them to their eternal determination in Him” (122).
Katharina Emmerick’s revelations and mission, therefore, would be above the acts done by the other prophets, and would prepare a New Kingdom of Love, which Brentano would be, by divine vocation, the announcer, since he was appointed by God to take down and publish such revelations.
The “poetry”, which encompasses Emmerick’s visions, is not just a “fragment”, but the “totality” revealed by God to His elected, to the reestablishement of the lost “unity”, and salvation of the torned-into-pieces and totally blind times” and that would be given to him (Brentano), as a presdestined spokesman, for the announcing, preparation and foundation of a new age of faith which was to come:
“I received it, a piece of Apocalipsis was given to me to which, so far, the men were not mature yet, and they did not know that they had received these rays, which are John’s and of all the light that falls upon the Church. What happens is that the Church has not had, lately, any capacity to receive this light” (123).
As we can see, it was a kind of new Pentecost, a new revelation, a renewal of the Church, which would make it more perfect than ever, and which would start up a New Age of Love.
And how familiar are the echoes of these words nowadays!…
By the time, and facing the verification of Katharina Emmerick’s endless defects, which according to Brentano, made her not worthy of her mission, the poet began to consider her only as a carrier of Deity manifestation, who would not comprehend a thing about her own visions. Therefore, only to Brentano, the great burden to communicate such revelations to the public would fit. Thus the easiness with which he treated the “visions” of Dülmen’s nun.
When Brentano returned to Dülmen on May 1819, he used to visit the nun all mornings, to take down what she had seen, in dreams, at night. In the afternoons, he would make a fair copy, and finally, at night, read the text to the nun, who used to correct what was not well expressed. This, at least, is what the poet says he used to do. Nowadays, however, the controversy on the authorship of Katharina Emmerick’s visions, seems to be already solved, and the position of priest Schmoeger that Brentano was direct regarding the notes about what was said by the clairvoyant, seems unsustainable, thanks to the studies made, as well as to the publication of the poet’s originals. Before, Diel and Kreiten had placed in doubt Brentano’s truthfulness in the reproduction of Katharina Emmerick’s visions, due to the well-known fantasistic character of the poet. The censors of the “clairvoyant”’s writings, in the canonization process which was restored in 1892-1894, had come to the conclusion that Brentano is the one who should be responsable for the writings.
Priest Winfried Hümpfner, in his work to the Congregation of the Rites, considering the same process, concluded that the writings attributed to Katharina Emmerick were Brentano’s “conscious and premeditated scientific mystification“.(124).
On the other hand, the new studies ordered by the "Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints" to the professors Erwin Iserloh and Ildefonz Maria Dietz confirmed the opinion of the censors and of priest Hümpfer, as well as the works of Hans Stahl, Cardauns e Oehl which also contributed to prove that Brentano was not a faithful reporter.
To Joseph Adams, finally, it is obvious that Brentano manipulated the data supplied by Katharina Emmrick, which is proved by the easiness, accuracy and ability of the style (125).
The general conclusion reached was that the texts of Anna Katharina Emmerick’s visions were by Clemens Brentano, which it does not exempts her having had visions, and that something of what she said is, in fact, Brentano’s texts, although adorned and full of comments by this poet and unfaithful reporter.
We get to the point, from we have seen so far, that there was a deep relation between Romanticism, esoterism and Cabbala.
We have also noticed how Brentano’s life, mentality, readings and ideas were influenced by the esoteric and cabalistic doctrines.
Finally, we prove how Anna Katharina Emmerick, as well as the ones close to her, was not unsuspected of esoteric, theosophical, gnostic and cabalistic influences.
We will see how such doctrines and ideas, which infested Germany’s religious and cultural environments of the Romantic period, echoed in the texts of Anna Katharina Emmerick‘s visions written by Clemens Brentano.
(1) K.E. SCHOMOEGER, Das Leben der Gottseligen Anna Kathari Emmerick, Herder, Freiburg im Brisgau, 2 vol., 1987-1870.
(2) K.E.Scihmoeger, Vie d'Anna Catherine Emmerick, 3 vol., Téquí, Paris, reproduction offset d'après l'édition originale de 1868 de Bray et Retaux, 1981.
(3) DIEL-KREITEN Clemens Brentano, Ein Lebensbild, 2 vol. Herder'sche Verlage Freiburg im Brísgau, 1877.
(4) T. WEGENER, Das inner und äussere Leben der Gottseligen Dienerin Gottes Anna Katharina Emmerick aus dem Augustinerordens, Paulttloch Verlag, Aschaffenburg, 1974, 2nd edition.
(5) POSITIO, pg.2. Documment of SACRA CONGREGATINIS PRO CAUSA SANCTORUM.
(6) WINFRIED HÜMPFNER, Clemens Brentano Glaubewurdigkeit in seínem Emmerick Aufzeichnungen, St. Ritua Verlag und Druckerei Wurzburg, 1923.
(7) Apud Relatio et Vota, voto V. - "Relatio et vota do Congressus peculiarís" - Rome, February 2nd 1982, documment of Sacra Congregationis Pro Causa Sanctorum, p.n. 1225, signed by Priest Agostino Amore O.F.M., General,Writer, with the ok of Giuseppe Casoria, secretary; this documment’s title is "An causam eius íntroducenda sit" ("If her cause may be introduced ").
(8) Relatio et vota Voto VI.
(9) J. ADAMS - Clemens Brentanos Emmerick - Erlebnis, Verlag Herder, Freiburg, 1956.
(10) A. BRIEGER - Der Gotteskreiss, Manz Verlag, München1966, Anna Katharina Emmerick Visionem und Leben, Erich WewelVerlag, München / Freiburg, 1974.
(11) Cfr. CB - Tgb apud "Anton BRIEGER, Anna Katharina Emmerick Visionem und Leben, Erich Wewel Verlag, München - Freiburg -1974.
(12) Tagebuch de Clemens Brentano-apud e, ADAM S, cit., p. 176.
(13) Apud J. ADAMS, op. cit., p. 176, footnote 345)
(14) Clemens BRENTANO apud SCHMOEGER Anne Catherine Emmerick, Tégui - París, 1981, vol 1. pg. 9.
(15) SCHMOEGER - op. cit. vol. 1, pp. 13 e 55.
(16) WESENER., Tagebuch Kurzedrangten Geschichte, p. 254.
(17) Cfr. ERIKA TUNNER, Clemens Brentano (1778-1842), Thesis presented at University of Paris - 10- IV-1976, Librairie Honoré Champíon, Paris, 1977, 2 vol.
(18) Cfr. SCHMOEGER, op. Cit. vol. I. p.p. 38-40.
(19) Cfr. M.T. LOUTREL - Anne Catherine Emmerick racontée par elle-même et par ses contemporains - Tequi, Paris, 1980, p. 28.
(20) Cfr. A. BRIEGER - Anna Katherina Emmerick, Visionen und Leben, ed. cit. p. 20.
(21) Cfr. LOUTREL, op. cit. p. 46.
(22) WESENER, Tagebuch, ed. cit., p. 246.
(23) C. B. Tgb. apud. A. BRIEGER, op. cit., L.
(24) Cfr. SCHMOEGER, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 151-152.
(25) WESENER, op. cit.., p. 245.
(26) C. B.Tgb, apud A. BRIEIGER, op. p. 224.
(27)WESENER, op. cit., p. 248.
(28) Cfr. SCHMOEGER, op. cit., pp. 282-283.
(29) Cfr. C.B., Tgb. apud A. BRIEGER - op. cit., p. 224.
(30) Cfr. WESENER, op.cit., p. 251.
(31) Cfr. SCHMOEGER - op. cit., pp. 265-269.
(32) Cfr. SCHMOEGER - op. cit., p. 268.
(33) Schmoeger, op. cit., pp. 270-271.
(34) Cfr. WESENER, op. cit., p. 2b2.
(35) Cfr. SCHMOEGER - op. cit., vol. I, pp. 272-273
(36) Cfr. SCHMOEGER - op. cit., vol. I, p. 274.
(37) Cfr. SCHMOEGER - op. cit., vol. I, p. 282.
(38) Cfr. SCHMOEGER - Vol. I, PP. 309~316 - desenhos p. 641.
(39) Cfr. SCHMOEGER - op. cit., vol. I, p. 373.
(40) Cfr. SCHMOEGER - op. cít., Vol. I, pp. 382-383.
(41) Cfr. E.TUNNER, op. cit., vol. 11, p. 830.
(42).Cfr. E. TUNNER, op. cit. vol.II, p. 832.
(43) SCHMOEGER, -- op. cit. p. 69
(44) Cfr. WESENER - op. cit. p. 194
(45) POSITIO – Documment of SACRA CONGREGATIONIS PRO CAUSA SANCTORUM 10/VI/1928.
(46) ADAMS -- op. cit. p. 81.
(47) SCHMOEGER - op. cit. Vol. II, p. 59
(48) SCHMOEGER - ob. cit., vol. II, p. 73
(49) Cfr. POSITIO - Animadversionnes
(50) Cfr. WESENER - Kurzgedrangte Geschichte-, p. 248
(51) WESENER, Tagebuch 23-111-1813 - Paul Pattloch Verlag Aschaffenburg, 1973, pp. 3 e 4
(52) E. TUNNER, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 841
(53) Cfr. WESENER, Tagebuch, pp. 159-160
(54) WESENER, Tagebuch, p. 102.
(55) Cfr. WESENER, op. cit.,256
(56)WESENER, op. cit., p. 170.
(57) Cfr. WESENER, op. cit., p. 176.
(58) WESENER, op. cit., p. 177.
(59) Cfr. J. ADAMS, op. cit., p. 157
(60) ADAMS, OP. cit., p. 158.
(61) Cfr. WESENER, op. cit., p. 286.
(62) WESENER, op. cit., p. 98.
(63) WESENER, op. cit., p. 127.
(64) WESENER, op. cit., p. 1b6.
(65) SCHMOEGER - op. cit., p. 478.
(66) Cf. WESENER - op. cit., pp. 157-158
(67) WESENER - op. cit., p. 158'
(68) WESENER op. cit., p. 159.
(69) WESENER - op. cit., p. 159
(70) WESENER op. cit. p. 161.
(71) Cfr. cap. II, supra.
(72) Cfr. SCHMOEGER, gp. cit ^ voZ. I, pp. 485-486.
(73) WESENER - op. cit., p, 175.
(74) WESENER - pp. cit., p. 173,
(75) WESENER – op. cit. p.178.
(76) J. ADAMS - op. cit. p. 158.
(77) J. ADAMS, op. cit. p. 151.
(78) WESENER, op. cit. pp. 24-25
(79) WESENER op. cit. p. 58.
(80) WESENER, op. cit. 142
(81) Positio, Animadversiones
(82) HÜMPFNER, op. cit. p. 122
(83) HÜMPFNER, op. cit. p. 123
(84) Apud JURG MATHES – "Ein Tagebuch Clemens Brentanos für Luise Hensel" – Jahrbuch des Freien Deutschen Hochstifts – 1971 - Sonderbuch – Max Niemayer Verlag – Tübingen – pp. 213-214.
(85) J. ADAMS, op. cit. pp. 161-162.
(86) C.B.Tgb. apud ADAMS op. cit. p. 65
(87) TUNNER, op. cit. vol. II, p. 795
(88) ADAMS op. cit. p. 68
(89) CB-Tgb - apud ADAMS op. cit. p. 80
(90) Luise Hensel ao Pe. Sohnoegey, 4 Outubro 1870, apud TUNNER, op..cit. vol. II, p. 808
(91) HUMPFNER Glaubwürdigkeit, p. 55
(92) TUNNER, op. cit. vol. II p. 813
(93) C.B. - Jahrbuch - FDH 1971, p. 249 apud TUNNER op. cit., vol. II. p. 813.
(94) GAJEK, Homo Poeta pp. 460-470}
(95) ADAMS, op. cit. p. 24.
(96) CB. Tgb., apud J. ADAMS, op. cit., p. 263
(97) CB – Tgb. apud SCHMOEGER, op. cit. vol. I, p. 517
(98) Apud JURG MATHES " Ein Tagebuch Clemens Brentanos füe Luise Hensel". Jahrbuch des Freien Deutschen Hoschtifts – 1971 – Sonderdruck, Max niemayer Verlag – Tübingen, pp. 253-254
(99) SCHOEMEGER, op. cit. vol. I, p. 520.; cfr. WESENER, op. cit. pp. 184-185.
(100) SCOEMEGER, op. cit. vol. I, p. 520.
(101) J. ADAMS, op. cit. p. 84.
(102) C. B. – apud |ADAMS, op. cit. p. 90.
(103) WESENER, op. cit. p. 187.
(104) Processo, vol. Ill fol. 189 terg 190 apud Poisitio38.
(105) Cfr. C.B. GS, VIII p. 300.
(106) Cfr. DIEL-KREITEN, op. cit. vol. II, p. 156.
(107) Cfr. TUNNER, op. cit. vol. II, p. 824.
(108) Cfr. HÜMPFNER, op. cit.., p. 103.
(109) Cfr. ADAMS, op. cit. pp. 137-138.
(110) CB. Tgb., apud ADAMS, op. cit. p.139.
(111) CB. Tgb., apud ADAMS, . op. cit. p. 141.
(112) CB. Tgb., apud ADAMS, . op. cit. p. 143.
(113) CB. Tgb., apud ADAMS, . op. cit. p. 144.
(114) CB. Tgb., apud ADAMS, . op. cit. p. 145.
(115) CB. Tgb., apud ADAMS, . op. cit. p. 149.
(116) CB. Tgb., apud ADAMS, . op. cit. p. 150.
(117) CB. Tgb., apud ADAMS, . op. cit. p. 163.
(118) CB. Tgb., apud ADAMS, . op. cit. p. 139
(119) Positio, pp. 48-49..
(120) ADAMS, . op. cit. p. 175
(121) ADAMS, . op. cit. p. 175.
(122) ADAMS, . op. cit. p. 229.
(123) ADAMS, . op. cit. p. 261.
(124) Cfr. HÜMPFNER. op. cit., p. 364.
(125) J. ADAMS, op. cit. pp. 289-290 e 305.