Meister Eckhart

First published Wed Jan 4, 2006; substantive revision Mon Apr 25, 2011

Education and culture were the two driving forces behind European urban development in the 13th and 14th centuries. Among the mendicant orders that had settled in the cities were the Dominicans (ordo fratrum praedicatorum), dedicated to promoting in their teaching, way of life, and preaching the ideal of man’s self-discovery—self-cultivation—as a singular cultural value. The dynamics of this self-discovery can be said to be two-fold. For, on one hand, man discovers himself by liberating himself from himself and therewith finding—in himself—what transcends him. On the other hand, what man finds in himself displays its own movement as all that remains when his self-discovery has reached its end. In this developmental context, Meister Eckhart directed his theoretical analysis towards elucidating the self-movement of intellect as such, in its differentiation, as a movement representing in practical terms the only possible form of life. Indeed, in this era of radical social upheaval, Eckhart put forward the dynamics of intellect (reason, rationality) as the genuine wealth possessed by those who are poor in spirit. His philosophical formulations and theological statements served, in their reciprocal convergence, to unfold in theoretical terms the dynamics of intellect with a view to recommending the practice of processive reason as the exemplary form of life. Eckhart explained these dynamics mostly on the basis of texts from the Holy Scriptures, whose philosophical content he set out through philosophical arguments—something he was able to do because he regarded the Holy Scriptures as a work of philosophy (cf. Echardus, In Ioh. n. 444; LW III, 380, 12–14: “evangelium contemplatur ens in quantum ens”: “the Gospel treats of being insofar as it is being”—Aristotle, as was well known, having defined the object of metaphysics in precisely this manner). Yet Eckhart’s explanations of these dynamics were also based on philosophical theses closely linked to notions from the Holy Scriptures. In both cases, he claimed to give unreserved expression to the new and rare (nova et rara) in propagating what was for him the only possible form of life: that of processive reason or of processes directed by reason. In so doing, Meister Eckhart dedicated his life to philosophy: as a philosopher holding a chair of theology at the University of Paris, as a philosopher leading the Dominican Order, and as a philosopher occupying the preacher’s pulpit.

1. Life of Meister Eckhart

Eckhart was born in 1260 in Hochheim (Thuringia). He entered the Dominican Order quite early, and received most of his education in the Studium Generale in Cologne that Albert the Great had founded in 1248. In 1286 Eckhart went to Paris to study. From 1294 until 1298, he was Prior of the Convent of Erfurt, at the same time carrying out the office of Vicar of Thuringia. Eckhart was promoted to Master of Theology at Paris in 1302 and taught as Professor there in the academic year 1302/1303. He was elected Provincial of the newly founded Province of Saxony in 1303, and held this office until 1311. In 1307 Eckhart also took over the administration of the Province of Bohemia as Vicar General. When the Provincial Chapter of the Province of Teutonia elected him Provincial in 1310, the election was not accepted by the General Chapter in Naples (1311). Instead, Eckhart was sent once more to Paris. After teaching there for a second period, Eckhart went to Strasbourg in 1313, where from 1314 to 1322 he was increasingly active as a preacher caring for Dominican convents there. From 1323 on, Eckhart resided in Cologne, most likely at the Studium Generale, and probably as Lecturer. During this time, the campaigns against him began that led, in 1326, to the opening of an inquisitional proceeding. In its course Eckhart submitted a reply to the syllabus of errors attributed to him, protesting as well against the proceeding itself, which was then continued at the Papal Court in Avignon. It resulted in the papal bull In agro dominico from Pope John XXII, issued on March 27, 1329, condemning 17 articles from this syllabus as heretical and 11 more as suspect of heresy. Eckhart, however, did not live to see his condemnation; he died sometime before April 30, 1328—probably on January 28, 1328, possibly in Avignon.

2. Works

At the beginning of the academic year 1293/94 Eckhart held an inaugural lecture (Collatio in libros Sententiarum) that has been preserved. An academic sermon, the Sermo Paschalis a. 1294 Parisius habitus and the Tractatus super oratione dominica date from the same time. Between 1294 and 1298 Eckhart composed his Instructional Talks (Die rede der underscheidunge), table-talks for his confratres in the Erfurt monastery. From his first teaching period in Paris (1302/03) come the Quaestiones (Quaestio Parisiensis I, II and the rationes Equardi from one of the disputed questions of Gonsalvus Hispanus), as well as the Sermo die beati Augustini Parisius habitus, a feast-day sermon in honor of Augustine (August 18, 1302 or February 28, 1303), and perhaps two other Quaestiones. Between 1303 and 1310, during a General Chapter, Eckhart held the Sermones on Ecclesiastics 24: 23–27a and 24: 27b–31. In 1305 he began composing the Opus tripartitum, his major work, comprising three parts: the Opus propositionum (Work of Theses), with over 1,000 theses in 14 treatises, the Opus quaestionum (Work of Problems) and the Opus expositionum (Work of Interpretations). Much of the Opus tripartitum remained incomplete. What we have are the Prologus generalis in opus tripartitum, the Prologus in opus propositionum, the Prologus in opus expositionum I and II, and various commentaries (above all the Expositio sancti evangelii secundum Iohannem). Also preserved is an Opus sermonum containing drafts of Latin sermons. From the Strasbourg and Cologne period come the treatise Daz buoch der goetlîchen troestunge and the sermon Von dem edeln menschen. (The authenticity of the treatise Von abegescheidenheit has been disputed in the past, but it has been recently accepted once more as a work of Eckhart.) The most important German sermons also go back to this last period. Among these is Predigt 52, which due to its extremely innovative content was later translated from Middle High German into Latin.

3. Dietrich of Freiberg and Meister Eckhart

Of all those following in the tradition of Albert the Great who developed theories of the intellect in the 13th and 14th centuries, Dietrich of Freiberg went the furthest. In treating of the active intellect (intellectus agens), Dietrich identified a three-fold object, which, however, the intellect knows in a single intuition (uno intuitu): its principle (deus), its essence (essentia) and the totality of beings (universitas entium). According to Dietrich, the intellect knows its essence and all beings not only according to its essence, but also “in its principle, according to the mode of this very principle” (in suo principio secundum modum ipsius principii; cf. Dietrich of Freiberg, De intellectu et intelligibili II 37–40, ed. Mojsisch, 1977, pp. 175–77). This mode of knowing is the highest that we can identify. Before Dietrich, no one had formulated this mode of knowing in such a progressive manner by making such a radical claim. Nevertheless, Dietrich did not further elaborate how to think this mode of knowing in its individual moments, that is, the way the intellect actually knows “in its principle, according to the mode of this very principle”.

Meister Eckhart begins where Dietrich of Freiberg leaves off. Nowhere in his writings does Eckhart mention Dietrich by name, although they were personally acquainted, and although Dietrich used his influence to see that Eckhart received significant posts within the Dominican Order. Yet Eckhart goes a step beyond Dietrich by expanding upon what Dietrich had given only general expression to, unfolding how the intellect actually moves in itself and therewith demonstrating what it means for the intellect to know “according to the mode of this very principle”. Briefly put, understanding how the intellect returns to its principle, where it might know “according to the mode of its principle”, requires that we first identify the way in which this principle itself knows, so that we might then grasp how the intellect comes to know there.

4. The Absolute Principle as Intellect without Being

In the initial stage of his career, Meister Eckhart composed some not very exciting table-talks for his confratres and, in his lost Commentary on the Sentences (Goris/Pikavé, 2001), most likely advocated doctrines based on the theology of Thomas Aquinas. Once back in Paris, however, Eckhart inaugurated his teaching with a bombshell. With a new thesis directed against Thomas Aquinas, as well as against his own Thomistic thinking prior to 1302, Eckhart contends that the absolute principle (or the absolute cause: God) is pure intellect and not being. According to this view, being (esse) is always caused and thus presupposes intellect, itself without being, as the cause of being. In line with Neoplatonic modes of thinking (cf. Liber de causis, cap. XI; Fidora/Niederberger, 2001, 76: “Causatum ergo in causa est per modum causae …”: “What is caused is in the cause in the mode of the cause …”), Eckhart holds that being is, in intellect, nothing other than intellect and, therefore, not simply being, but instead being that has been elevated to intellect. If someone should nonetheless object that in God knowing or anything else might be described as ‘being’, the proper response for Eckhart is that this ‘being’ still presupposes the knowing of intellect (“Et si tu intelligere velis vocare esse, placet mihi. Dico nihilominus, quod, si in deo est aliquid, quod velis vocare esse, sibi competit per intelligere”: “And if you wish to call intelligizing being, that is all right with me. Nonetheless, I say that if there is something in God that you wish to call being, it suits him through intelligizing”; cf. Echardus de Hochheim, Utrum in deo sit idem esse et intelligere n. 24, ed. Mojsisch, 1999, 192, 103–105). As the absolute cause, intellect is thought of as absolutely unlimited only if it is thought of as wholly without being. As such, intellect becomes the principle for absolute as well as contingent being. The alternative view—that knowing is simply identical with being (a position advanced by Sturlese, 1993a and von Perger, 1997 and again, with new argumentation, by Grotz, 2002)—disregards the more sweeping contention in Eckhart’s thesis that knowing is presupposed in every case of being. (Later, Nicholas of Cusa maintains accordingly that the maximum is without being, yet can be contracted to being; cf. Nicholas of Cusa, De docta ignorantia I, 6, ed. Hoffmann/Klibansky, 1932a, p. 14, 1: “Praeterea, contrahamus maximum ad esse et dicamus …”: “Besides, we might contract the maximum to being and say …”) Scholars such as Klibansky, however, as well as Imbach, 1976 have drawn attention to parallel passages in the German sermons that make it clear that for Eckhart absolute knowing is without being, indeed, that intellection is prior to being.

5. Univocal Causality

Between the uncreated and the created the predominant relationship is one of analogy, a relationship involving as well the disjunction of the two terms. Insofar as Eckhart in 1305 again takes up the theme of absolute being in its identity with God (esse est deus), he likewise gives expression to relationships of analogical causality, teaching that being as such, or absolute being (esse absolute), is what becomes restricted to determinate being (esse hoc et hoc), while determinate being is what brings it about that a this or a that (hoc et hoc) actually exists. Eckhart says ever again that the created is of itself pure nothing, indeed, even nothingness or nullity (nihileitas, nulleitas). The created is only because absolute being communicates itself to it—through determinate being—whereby determinate being, of course, is not in any position to communicate being as such, but only determinacy. That all of this is so, of course, is something that can be easily stated. Indeed, the metaphysics of being has always thrived on describing such structures, whether this being be absolute or determinate in nature.

Eckhart, however, breaks through that metaphysics of being with its analogical base by thinking through the relation of causality informing absolute being. We can assume at least hypothetically that a cause causes not only something dependent on it, but also something equal to it, namely that the cause causes in such a manner that it causes itself. But if it causes itself, it causes something which is itself also cause and at the same time cause of its cause. Such a mode of causality is called ‘univocal causality’. Our hypothesis of what could be thought in these terms turns into a certainty when we explore the structures of intellectual causality, for example, the relation between the act of thinking and what is thought, or between an ethical principle and an ethical principiate. Their relation is precisely what Eckhart takes advantage of in developing his theory of univocal causality. In these cases, it holds that the principle causes its principiate, and the principiate causes its principle. Even more: The principiate is in its principle nothing other than its principle. This means that the active (principle) is at the same time active and passive, being affected in the course of its activity (as principle). In turn, the passive (principiate) is at the same time passive  and active, being active in the course of its passivity (as principiate). Accordingly, a central proposition of Eckhart reads as follows: “[Principium et principiatum] … opponuntur relative: in quantum opponuntur, distinguuntur, sed in quantum relative, mutuo se ponunt …” (Echardus, In Ioh. n. 197; LW III, 166, 10–12: “[The principle and the principiate] … are opposed to one another relatively: Insofar as they are opposed, they are distinguished, but insofar as they are relative, they reciprocally posit themselves …”).

The breakthrough that Eckhart attains through his theory of univocal causality is exemplified by the relation between thinking and thought. For Eckhart, thinking presupposes no origin because a presupposed origin could only be thought by thinking and hence would be a thought of thinking, that is, itself thinking. Thinking is, then, for itself a presuppositionless origin, that is, it is its own principle: principium (Echardus, In Ioh. n. 38; LW III, 32, 11: “… ipsum principium semper est intellectus purus …”: “The principle itself is always pure intellect …”). Any thinking without act, however, is no thinking at all. Consequently, its own originative activity accrues to thinking, that is, insofar as it is a principle, the dynamics of its principiating: principiare. In this activity, however, thinking directs itself towards a thought that it has originated, that is, towards the product that is its principiate: principiatum. But since this thought is a thought of thinking, it is itself nothing other than thinking. The act of this thinking that has been thought is, then, retrograde. This thought, as thinking, is in turn principle, principiating and principiate, whereby this last is the original thinking. In this way, thinking thinks itself as thought and is therewith active thinking, while thought, insofar as it thinks its thinking, is itself thinking, and its thinking now thought. Consequently, both thinking and thought are at the same time active and passive.

Another example of univocal causality as conceived by Eckhart is found in the relation between justice and the just man. In the same vein as that sketched out with regard to the dynamics of thinking, justice is in the just man, and the just man is in justice. The just man is his just action, and this just action is likewise justice. Between the just man and justice, there is difference on account of the opposition between them, but because of their relationality they reciprocally include each other. Just as thought is the thought of thinking and therewith itself thinking, so, too, is what is just for Eckhart what is just of justice and therewith justice itself. From this we can draw, following Eckhart, a number of important conclusions.

A. For the just man, there is no why to his just action, no purpose or goal of this action. For the action of the just man has justice as its goal, and this goal is identical with the just man. Therefore, the just man has no goal external to himself. Instead, as justice, he is his own goal.

B. With the just man and with justice, there is no multiplicity. Justice is one, and the just man is one; thus, justice and the just man are one. Even if there are many just men: As just men, the many just men are one (Echardus, In Sap. n. 44; LW II, 366, 6–7: “… omnes iusti, in quantum iusti, unum sunt …”), indeed, they are even justice itself.

C. Justice, which is the just man, knows neither where nor when, that is, it knows neither space nor time, neither size nor quality, neither inside nor outside, neither over nor under, neither this side nor that side, neither above nor below, neither the activity of effecting nor the passivity of being effected. Hence, justice is indeterminate and does not accrue to anything else as an accident. Justice is something whose purpose lies in itself.

D. Consequently, the just man is in justice, which means: The just man is justice. This implies a reversal of the usual way of looking at things. Normally, a quality (qualitas) is what is found in an underlying subject (subiectum). With the spiritual perfections (perfectiones spirituales), however, the situation is different: The subjects are in the perfections, the just man is in justice. But in the realm of the spirit, being-in is nothing other than being-one. Hence, the just man, who is in justice, is justice itself. The just man does not possess justice, but rather is justice. Similarly, he who is free is freedom itself (Echardus, Predigt 28; DW II, 62, 3–5; cf. Predigt 10; DW I, 165, 2: “… und ich diu wîsheit selber bin, sô bin ich ein wîser mensche”; what applies in the cases of freedom and justice also applies in the case of wisdom). If he who is free merely possessed freedom, then this freedom would be something external to him, and he would never be freedom itself.

What is key is that by freedom Eckhart understands nothing other than self-consciousness or the I. It is never the case that the I wants something other, rather it wants only itself; the I never knows something other, rather it knows only itself; the I is never open for anything other, rather it is open for itself alone. Thus, the I is both cause of itself and conceives itself alone in itself. The itself known and wanted by the I, as well as defining its fundamental openness, is the other I—that is, the moment of self-relationality constitutive for the realm of the spirit.

E. In summary, Eckhart can say: “… in spiritualibus conceptio est ipsa parturitio sive partus” (Echardus, In Exod. n. 207; LW II, 174, 3–4): In the realm of the spirit, conceiving is bearing or giving birth—and therefore (passive) suffering is (active) production. It should be noted that the motif of birth is one of Eckhart’s favorites, for example, when he holds that the divine Father bears his Son in the soul, more precisely: in the ground of the soul, and in this way he bears me as himself and himself as me. This motif, however, is not limited to theological contexts. It also finds application as a philosophical motif. Here, again, it is necessary to become accustomed to Eckhart’s usage. Where others speak of “causing” or “principiating”, Eckhart speaks of “bearing”. This kind of language must be approached carefully, however, and demands close scrutiny now more than ever. Such a hermeneutical approach is currently favored especially by Largier, Hasebrink and Köbele.

F. “Swer underscheit verstât von gerehticheit und von gerehtem, der verstât allez, daz ich sage” (Echardus, Predigt 6; DW I, 105, 2–3): “Whoever understands the theory of justice and the just man understands everything that I am saying.” With this statement, Eckhart commends to our attention the paradigm of univocal co-relationality in the just man and justice. On one hand, this paradigm composes the precondition for that analogical thinking that informs, among other things, the relation of the uncreated and the created. While Wilde, 2000 asserts, then, that univocal causality is subsumed in analogical causality, Eckhart’s theory is exactly the opposite. On the other hand, however, the paradigm of univocal causality refers to what, in line with Eckhart, must still be made thematic because, as what is first, it cannot be put into question: the one as unity.

6. One as Unity

The goal of the rational form of life—of living in and with the spiritual perfections at the level of that transcendental being or being (esse, ens) convertible with the termini transcendentes (the one, the true, and the good)—is living in and from the absolute one (in and from the divine nature as presuppositionless unity). If the ground of the soul, as something uncreated and uncreatable—attributes which Meister Eckhart’s contemporary Eckhart von Gründig explicitly ascribes to the ground or ‘little spark’ of the soul that Meister Eckhart often invokes (cf. Winkler, 1999), thus indicating that he in fact employed these attributes—if human reason—not as human, but as reason—is one with the divine nature or ground (Echardus, Predigt 5b; DW I, 90, 8: “Hie ist gotes grunt mîn grunt und mîn grunt gotes grunt”: “Here, God’s ground is my ground and my ground God’s ground”), then man is no longer simply on the way towards unity (unio). Instead, unity is something that has always already been achieved. This being-unified is alone what matters (Echardus, Predigt 12; DW I, 197, 8–9; Predigt 39; DW II, 265, 6–266, 2), because man as reason has left behind everything that stands in the way of his living in and from unity, and because the ground of the soul is more interior in this unity than it is in itself (Mojsisch 1983a, 140–141; 2001, 163–165). This is true equanimity—letting-go (Gelâzenheit)—as the goal of human life.

Living in and from unity in the manner envisioned by Eckhart as the end of self-discovery becomes possible through a change (metabole) in intellectual disposition. The possible intellect—which, as defined by Aristotle, can become all things (cf. De anima III 5, 430a14–15)—is able to know either as ordinary consciousness (in images, species of things) or as self-consciousness through self-knowledge (without images, free from images). The conversion in disposition—Plato speaks of a peristrophe of the soul (cf. Res publica VII, 521c5)—leads the possible intellect to the uncreated and uncreatable ground of the soul, whose movement, as a process of reason, reaches its goal in the absolute one (unialiter unum, a combination suggested by Proclus; Eckhart speaks of the luter pur clar Ein or indistinctum, the undifferentiated). This goal, however, is itself nothing other than the ground of the soul. The ground of the soul in the absolute one is its own goal because self-consciousness is nothing other than one and the one, because freedom is nothing other than one and the one, because moral responsibility for oneself and others—Eckhart speaks of justice—is nothing other than one and the one. Self-consciousness, freedom and justice are always and everywhere only themselves, having nothing ‘outside’ of, additional or foreign to them.

For Eckhart, this means that whoever is justice is always justice, because the I that would stand out from justice would no longer be an I. The I always already knows that it is justice, however, because in knowing itself as just, it knows itself as justice; for the just man is justice. The I knows that it is just, however, because otherwise it does not know at all and is not even an I at all. The I is what it is only as rationality, as a knowing which knows that it is and knows what it is. This I is not only cause of itself (causa sui; Eckhart, deepening the tradition of this concept, says sache mîn selbes: “cause of myself”; cf. Summerell, 2002). It is moreover the cause for God, insofar as God stands in relation to his creatures. For only the uncreated and uncreateable ground of the soul stands not in relation to creatures, but instead only in relation to itself (cf. Echardus, Predigt 52). The I that knows itself, wills itself, and is its own abode, and therewith the I that is, in univocal causality, cause of itself and yet, in this unity, the one rationality, is, according to Eckhart, what man ought to become and what man can become in taking on the true poverty of spirit. This is so since man has always been this I, is now this I, and always will be this I, even if he knows nothing of himself as this I.

Consequently, the movement of reason, as Eckhart presents it, takes its point of departure from absolute unity and, as a principle, takes on being. This principle knows itself and wills itself, thinking thought in this way as its principiate, the ground of the soul in its uncreatedness and uncreatability. Since this thought is a thought of thinking, however, and thus itself thinking, this thinking that has been thought principiates its own principle in retrograde fashion. (As Eckhart puts it, the Son is reborn in the Father.) This movement of reason, as one of self-discovery and self-cultivation, ends there, where it began, in presuppositionless unity, where it might begin anew. This is the fundamental process—taking place in and from unity—inherent to the self-knowing and self-willing I. Insofar as it knows itself and wills itself, this I is nothing other than what man is when he has transcended himself as a creature fraught with nothingness and entrusted himself to the movement of the ground of the soul, acknowledging this movement as the sole form of life: that of self-consciousness, freedom, and moral responsibility. 

7. Conclusion

Nicholas of Cusa, when asked what he had to say about Eckhart, remarked that he had never read in Eckhart that the creature was identical with the creator. At the same time, he praised Eckhart’s talent (ingenium) as well as his ardor (studium). Yet Nicholas also suggested that Eckhart’s books should be removed from the public sphere, since they contained much that was astute and useful (subtilita et utilia) for those who understood them, but the people were not ready for what, in Eckhart, contradicted the traditional doctrines of the learned world.

Aiebat tamen praeceptor se numquam legisse ipsum sensisse creaturam esse creatorem, laudans ingenium et studium ipsius; sed optavit, quod libri sui amoverentur de locis publicis, quia vulgus non est aptus ad ea, quae praeter consuetudinem aliorum doctorum ipse saepe intermiscet, licet per intelligentes multa subtilia et utilia in ipsis reperiantur. (Nicholas of Cusa, Apologia doctae ignorantiae, ed. Klibansky, 1932b, p. 25, 7–12)

Still, the teacher said that he had never read that he [Eckhart] thought that the creature was the creator, and praised his [Eckhart's] talent and ardor. Yet he wished that his [Eckhart's] books would be removed from public places; for the people are not ready for what he [Eckhart] often intersperses, contrary to the custom of other learned men, even though the intelligent find in them many astute and useful things.

What Nicholas gave voice to is not simply the divide between medieval and modern thought, as well as that between orthodoxy and unconventionality, that he himself most remarkably straddled. In fact, it remains a challenge even today to properly understand the Eckhartian thought that man is free only if he (not merely possesses but instead) is freedom. This is so, in part, because even scholarly language runs up against its limits in Eckhart. For we still cannot give adequate expression to the real meaning of the statement: “The free man is, if he is really free, freedom itself, yet only insofar as he is free.” For this very reason, however, it is all the more necessary to engage ourselves in Eckhart’s thinking instead of banning his writings from the public sphere. For if our thought counsels it, our language must change, indeed, not only the language of scholars, but that of the people as well.


A. Works by Meister Eckhart (Echardus de Hochheim)

  • Meister Eckhart, Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke, hrsg. im Auftrage der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft, Stuttgart 1936 sqq. (DW = Deutsche Werke; LW = Lateinische Werke).
  • Meister Eckhart, Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke. Die lateinischen Werke, Bd. I,2: Prologi in Opus tripartitum et Expositio Libri Genesis (Recensio L), hrsg. von Loris Sturlese, Stuttgart 1987, pp. 1–128.
  • Meister Eckhart, Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke. Die lateinischen Werke, Bd. II: Indices, hrsg. von Loris Sturlese, Stuttgart 1992, pp. 641–691.
  • Meister Eckhart, Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke. Die lateinischen Werke, Bd. III: Indices, hrsg. von Loris Sturlese, Stuttgart 1994, pp. 713–763.
  • Meister Eckhart, Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke. Die deutschen Werke, Bd. IV,1: Meister Eckharts Predigten (Pr. 87–105), hrsg. und übers. von Georg Steer unter Mitarb. von Wolfgang Klimanek und Freimut Löser, Stuttgart 2003.
  • Meister Eckhart, Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke. Die deutschen Werke, Bd. IV,2: Meister Eckharts Predigten (Pr. 106–117), hrsg. und übers. von Georg Steer unter Mitarb. von Wolfgang Klimanek und Heidemarie Vogl, Stuttgart 2003.
  • Meister Eckhart, Die deutschen und lateinischen Werke. Die lateinischen Werke, Bd. V: Sermo Paschalis a. 1294 Parisius habitus. Acta Echardiana, hrsg. von Loris Sturlese, Stuttgart 1988, pp. 129–240; Bd. V: Acta Echardiana. Mag. Echardi Responsio ad Articulos sibi impositos de Scriptis et Dictis suis, hrsg. von Loris Sturlese, Stuttgart 2000, pp. 241–520.
  • Meister Eckhart, Werke I: Texte und Übersetzungen von Josef Quint, hrsg. und kommentiert von Niklaus Largier, (Bibliothek des Mittelalters. Texte und Übersetzungen, Bd. 20) Frankfurt a. M. 1993.
  • Meister Eckhart, Werke II: Texte und Übersetzungen von Ernst Benz, Karl Christ, Bruno Decker, Heribert Fischer, Bernhard Geyer, Josef Koch, Josef Quint, Konrad Weiß und Albert Zimmermann, hrsg. und kommentiert von Niklaus Largier, (Bibliothek des Mittelalters. Texte und Übersetzungen, Bd. 21) Frankfurt a. M. 1993.
  • Eckhart von Hochheim, Utrum in deo sit idem esse et intelligere? Sind in Gott Sein und Erkennen miteinander identisch?, hrsg., übersetzt und mit einer Einleitung versehen von Burkhard Mojsisch, in Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter 4/1999 (2000), pp. 179–197.
  • Deutsche Mystiker des vierzehnten Jahrhunderts, hrsg. von Franz Pfeiffer, Leipzig 1857 (repr. Aalen 1962).
  • Magistri Eckardi Opera Latina, I: Super oratione dominica, ed. Raymundus Klibansky, Lipsiae 1934.
  • Magistri Eckardi Opera Latina, II: Opus tripartitum: Prologi, ed. Hildebrandus Bascour O.S.B., Lipsiae 1935.
  • Magistri Eckardi Opera Latina, XIII: Quaestiones Parisienses, ed. Antonius Dondaine O.P., Commentariolum de Eckardi Magisterio adiunxit Raymundus Klibansky, Lipsiae 1936.
  • Kaeppeli, Thomas, Praedicator Monoculus. Sermons Parisiens de la Fin du XIIIe Siècle, in Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 27 (1957), pp. 120–167.
  • Meister Eckehart, Deutsche Predigten und Traktate, hrsg. und übersetzt von Josef Quint, 3. Aufl., München 1969.
  • Master Eckhart, Parisian Questions and Prologues, transl. with an Introduction and Notes by Armand A. Maurer, Toronto 1974.
  • Meister Eckhart, Opere Tedesche, introduzione, traduzione e note di Marco Vannini, (Classici della Filosofia, Bd. 14) Firenze 1982.
  • Brunner, Fernand/Libera, Alain de/Wéber, Édouard /Zum Brunn, Émilie, L’œuvre latine de Maître Eckhart, 1: Le Commentaire de la Genèse précédé des Prologues, texte latin, introduction, traduction et notes, Paris 1984.
  • Zum Brunn, Émilie/Libera, Alain de/Wéber, Édouard, L’œuvre latine de Maître Eckhart, 6: Le Commentaire de l’évangile selon Jean: Le Prologue (chap. 1, 1–18), texte latin, avant-propos, traduction et notes, Paris 1989.
  • Maître Eckhart, Traités et Sermons, traduction, introduction, notes et index par Alain de Libera, (Publié avec le concours du Centre national des Lettres) Paris 1993.
  • Mojster Eckhart, Pridige in traktati, v slovenščino prevedli Milica Kač, Gorazd Kocijančič, Vid Snoj, Jani Virk, Janez Zupet, uredil Goradz Kocijančič, Celje 1995.
  • Magistri Echardi, Opera Latina I, ed. and transl. (in Japanese) Yoshiki Nakayama, Tokyo 2005; II, Tokyo 2004; Sermones, Tokyo 1999.
  • Meister Eckhart, Das Buch der göttlichen Tröstung. Vom edlen Menschen, mittelhochdeutsch/neuhochdeutsch, übers. und mit einem Nachwort von K. Flasch, München 2007.

Secondary Sources

  • Aertsen, J. A., 1992, “Ontology and Henology in Medieval Philosophy (Thomas Aquinas, Master Eckhart and Berthold of Moosburg)”, in E. P. Bos/P. A. Meijer (eds.), On Proclus and his Influence in Medieval Philosophy, (Philosophia Antiqua. A Series of Studies on Ancient Philosophy, Bd. 53) Leiden/New York/Köln, 1992, pp. 120–140.
  • Albert, K., 1976, Meister Eckharts These vom Sein. Untersuchungen zur Metaphysik des Opus Tripartitum, Saarbrücken/Kastellaun.
  • Altmeyer, Cl., 2005, Grund und Erkennen in deutschen Predigten von Meister Eckhart, Würzburg.
  • Asmuth, Chr., 1995, “Meister Eckharts Buch der göttlichen Tröstung”, in M. J. F. M. Hoenen/A. de Libera (eds.), Albertus Magnus und der Albertismus. Deutsche philosophische Kultur des Mittelalters, Leiden/New York/Köln, 1995, pp. 189–205.
  • –––, 2011, Bilder über Bilder, Bilder ohne Bilder. Eine Neue Theorie der Bildlichkeit, Darmstadt.
  • Beccarisi, A., 2003, “Predigt 1: Intravit Iesus in templum”, in Steer/Sturlese, 2003, pp. 1–27.
  • Beierwaltes, W., 1994, “‹Primum est dives per se›. Maître Eckhart et le Liber de causis”, in Zum Brunn, 1994, pp. 285–300.
  • –––, 1998, Platonismus und Christentum, (Philosophische Abhandlungen, Bd. 73) Frankfurt a. M.
  • Beriaschwili, M., 2001, “Das einfache Eins-Werden des Menschen und Gottes bei Meister Eckhart und Hegel”, in Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter 5/2000, pp. 71–95.
  • Bray, N., 2004, Meister Eckhart e Dietrich di Freiberg nell' Opus Ior di Giordano di Quedlinburg, in Giornale Critico della Filosofia Italiana 24, 1, pp. 37–52.
  • –––, 2008, Auctoritates bibliche e Quaestiones dottrinali nell' Opus Tripartitum di Eckhart e nella Summa theologiae di Tommaso d'Aquino, in A. Beccarisi/R. Imbach/P. Porro (eds.), Per perscrutationem philosophicam. Neue Perspektiven der mittelalterlichen Forschung, Loris Sturlese zum 60. Geburtstag gewidmet, Hamburg 2008, pp. 156–183.
  • Caputo, J. D., 1975, “The Nothingness of the Intellect in Meister Eckhart’s Parisian Questions”, in The Thomist 39, pp. 85–115.
  • Casteigt, J., 2006, Connaissance et vérité chez Maître Eckhart. Seul le juste connaît la justice, (Études de philosophie médiévale, Bd. 91) Paris.
  • Davies, O., 1990, “Why were Eckhart’s Propositions Condemned?”, in New Blackfriars 71, pp. 433–444.
  • –––, 1988, God Within. The Mystical Tradition of Northern Europe, London.
  • –––, 1991, Meister Eckhart. Mystical Theologian, London.
  • Degenhardt, I., 1967, Studien zum Wandel des Eckhartbildes, (Studien zur Problemgeschichte der antiken und mittelalterlichen Philosophie, Bd. III) Leiden.
  • Dietrich of Freiberg, 1977, De intellectu et intelligibili, in Opera omnia I, ed. B. Mojsisch, Hamburg.
  • Enders, M., 1997, “Die Reden der Unterweisung: eine Lehre vom richtigen Leben durch einen guten und vollkommenen Willen”, in Jacobi, 1997, pp. 69–92.
  • Fidora, A. and Niederberger, A., 2001, Von Bagdad nach Toledo. Das ‹Buch der Ursachen› und seine Rezeption im Mittelalter, lat.-deutscher Text, Kommentar und Wirkungsgeschichte des Liber de causis. Mit einem Geleitwort von M. Lutz-Bachmann, (excerpta classica 20) Mainz, 2001.
  • Flasch, K., 1974, “Die Intention Meister Eckharts”, in H. Röttges/Br. Scheer/J. Simon (eds.), Sprache und Begriff. Festschrift für Br. Liebrucks, Meisenheim a. Gl., 1974, pp. 292–318.
  • ––– (ed.), 1984, Von Meister Dietrich zu Meister Eckhart, (Corpus Philosophorum Teutonicorum Medii Aevi. Beihefte, Bd. 2) Hamburg.
  • –––, 1986, Das philosophische Denken im Mittelalter. Von Augustin zu Machiavelli, Stuttgart.
  • –––, 1987, Einführung in die Philosophie des Mittelalters, Darmstadt.
  • –––, 1988a, “Meister Eckhart und die ‹Deutsche Mystik› – Zur Kritik eines historiographischen Schemas”, in O. Pluta (ed.), Die Philosophie im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. In memoriam Konstanty Michalski (1879–1947), (Bochumer Studien zur Philosophie, Bd. 10) Amsterdam, 1988, pp. 439–463.
  • –––, 1988b, “Meister Eckhart – Versuch, ihn aus dem mystischen Strom zu retten”, in P. Koslowski (ed.), Gnosis und Mystik in der Geschichte der Philosophie, Darmstadt, 1988, pp. 94–110.
  • –––, 1998, “Predigt 52: Beati pauperes spiritu”, in Steer/Sturlese, 1998, pp. 163–199.
  • –––, 2003, “Predigt 6: Iusti vivent in aeternum”, in Steer/Sturlese, 2003, pp. 29–51.
  • –––, 2006, Meister Eckhart. Die Geburt der «Deutschen Mystik» aus dem Geist der arabischen Philosophie, München.
  • –––, 2010, Meister Eckhart. Philosoph des Christentums, München.
  • Führer, M. L., 1999, “The Agent Intellect in the Writings of Meister Dietrich of Freiberg and its Influence on the Cologne School”, in Kandler/Mojsisch/Stammkötter, 1999, pp. 69–88.
  • Frost, St., 2006, Nikolaus von Kues und Meister Eckhart. Rezeption im Spiegel der Marginalien zum Opus tripartitum Meister Eckharts, (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters. Neue Folge, Bd. 69) Münster.
  • Goris, W., 1997, Einheit als Prinzip und Ziel. Versuch über die Einheitsmetaphysik des Opus Tripartitum Meister Eckharts, (Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters, Bd. LIX) Leiden/New York/Köln.
  • –––, 1999, “Dietrich von Freiberg und Meister Eckhart über das Gute”, in Kandler/Mojsisch/Stammkötter, 1999, pp. 169–188.
  • –––, 2002, “Der Mensch im Kreislauf des Seins. Vom ‚Neuplatonismus’ zur ‚Subjektivität’ bei Meister Eckhart”, in Th. Kobusch/B. Mojsisch/O. F. Summerell (eds.), Selbst – SingularitätSubjektivität. Vom Neuplatonismus zum Deutschen Idealismus, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 2002, pp. 185–201.
  • –––, and Pickavé, M., 2001, “Von der Erkenntnis der Engel. Der Streit um die species intelligibilis und eine quaestio aus dem anonymen Sentenzenkommentar in ms. Brügge, Stadsbibliotheek 491”, in Miscellanea Mediaevalia 28, pp. 125–177.
  • Grotz, St., 2002, “Meister Eckharts Pariser Quaestio I: Sein oder Nichtsein – ist das hier die Frage?”, in Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 49, pp. 370–398.
  • –––, 2009, Negationen des Absoluten: Meister Eckhart, Cusanus, Hegel, Hamburg.
  • Guerizoli, R., 2006, Die Verinnerlichung des Göttlichen. Eine Studie über den Gottesgeburtszyklus und die Armutspredigt Meister Eckharts, (Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters, Bd. 88) Leiden.
  • Haas, A. M., 1979, Sermo mysticus. Studien zu Theologie und Sprache der deutschen Mystik, (Dokimion, Bd. 4) Freiburg/Schweiz.
  • –––, 2010, Der wise meister Eckhart. Zum 750. Geburtsjahr Meister Eckharts, in Philotheos 10, pp. 170–179.
  • Hackett, J. M., 1981, “Verbum mentalis conceptio”, in Miscellanea Mediaevalia 13, pp. 1003–1011.
  • Halfwassen, J., 1997, Gibt es eine Philosophie der Subjektivität im Mittelalter? Zur Theorie des Intellekts bei Meister Eckhart und Dietrich von Freiberg, in Theologie und Philosophie 72, pp. 338–360.
  • Hart, R. L., 1998, “God and Creature in the Eternity and Time of Nonbeing (or Nothing): Afterthinking Meister Eckhart”, in O. F. Summerell (ed.), The Otherness of God, (Studies in Religion and Culture) Charlottesville/London, 1998, pp. 35–59.
  • Hasebrink, B., 1992a, Formen inzitativer Rede bei Meister Eckhart. Untersuchungen zur literarischen Konzeption der deutschen Predigt, (Texte und Textgeschichte, Bd. 32) Tübingen.
  • –––, 1992b, “Grenzverschiebung. Zu Kongruenz und Differenz von Latein und Deutsch bei Meister Eckhart”, in Zeitschrift für Deutsches Altertum 121, pp. 369–398.
  • –––, 1994, “Der Rebdorfer Eckhartkommentar. Überlieferung und Kommentierung der Armutspredigt Meister Eckharts in der Rebdorfer Handschrift Cgm 455”, in Zeitschrift für Deutsche Philologie 113, pp. 207–222.
  • –––, 1997, Meister Eckhart. Eine Skizze zu Leben und Werk, München.
  • Haug, W., 2004, “Das platonische Erbe bei Meister Eckhart”, in O. Hildebrand/Th. Pittrof (eds.), ›… auf klassischem Boden begeistert‹. Antike-Rezeptionen in der deutschen Literatur. Festschrift für J. Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag, (Rombach Wissenschaften – Reihe Paradeigmata, Bd. 1) Freiburg i. Br., 2004, pp. 17–35.
  • Hauke, R., 1986, Trinität und Denken. Die Unterscheidung der Einheit von Gott und Mensch bei Meister Eckhart, (Kontexte. Neue Beiträge zur Historischen und Systematischen Theologie, Bd. 3) Frankfurt a. M./Bern/New York.
  • Imbach, R., 1976, DEUS EST INTELLIGERE. Das Verhältnis von Sein und Denken in seiner Bedeutung für das Gottesverständnis bei Thomas von Aquin und in den Pariser Quaestionen Meister Eckharts, (Studia Friburgensia, Neue Folge, Bd. 53) Freiburg/Schweiz.
  • Ivánka, E. von, 1950, “Apex mentis. Wanderung und Wandlung eines stoischen Terminus”, in Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie 72, pp. 129–176.
  • Jacobi, Kl. (ed.), 1997, Meister Eckhart: Lebensstationen – Redesituationen, (Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Dominikanerordens. Neue Folge, Bd. 7) Berlin.
  • Kampmann, I., 1996, ‘Ihr sollt der Sohn selber sein!’ Eine fundamentaltheologische Studie zur Soteriologie Meister Eckharts, (Europäische Hochschulschriften: Reihe 23, Theologie, Bd. 579) Frankfurt a. M./Berlin/Bern/New York/Paris/Wien.
  • Kandler, K.-H., Mojsisch, B., and Stammkötter, Fr.-B. (eds.), 1999, Dietrich von Freiberg. Neue Perspektiven seiner Philosophie, Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, (Bochumer Studien zur Philosophie, Bd. 28) Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
  • Kern, U., 2003, “Gottes Sein ist mein Leben.” Philosophische Brocken bei Meister Eckhart, (Theologische Bibliothek Töpelmann, Bd. 121) Berlin/New York.
  • Kobusch, Th., 1986, “ Mystik als Metaphysik des moralischen Seins. Bemerkungen zur spekulativen Ethik Meister Eckharts”, in Ruh, 1986, pp. 49–62.
  • Koch, J., 1973a, “Kritische Studien zum Leben Meister Eckharts”, in J. Koch, Kleine Schriften, Bd. I, (Storia e Letteratura. Raccolta di Studi e Testi, Bd. 127) Roma, pp. 247–347.
  • –––, 1973b, “Zur Analogielehre Meister Eckharts”, in Koch, 1973a, pp. 367–397.
  • Köbele, S., 1994, “Bîwort sîn. ‘Absolute’ Grammatik bei Meister Eckhart”, in Zeitschrift für Deutsche Philologie 123, pp. 190–206.
  • –––, 1998, “Predigt 16b: Quasi vas auri solidum”, in Steer/Sturlese, 1998, pp. 43–74.
  • Langer, O., 1987, Mystische Erfahrung und spirituelle Theologie. Zu Meister Eckharts Auseinandersetzung mit der Frauenfrömmigkeit seiner Zeit, (Münchener Texte und Untersuchungen zur Deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters, Bd. 91) München/Zürich.
  • Largier, N., 1989a, Bibliographie zu Meister Eckhart, Freiburg/Schweiz.
  • –––, 1989b, Zeit, Zeitlichkeit, Ewigkeit. Ein Aufriss des Zeitproblems bei Dietrich von Freiberg und Meister Eckhart, (Deutsche Literatur von den Anfängen bis 1700) Bern/Frankfurt a. M./New York/Paris.
  • –––, 1995a, “intellectus in deum ascensus. Intellekttheoretische Auseinandersetzungen in Texten der deutschen Mystik”, in Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 69, pp. 423–471.
  • –––, 1995b, “Meister Eckhart. Perspektiven der Forschung, 1980–1993”, in Zeitschrift für Deutsche Philologie 114, pp. 29–98.
  • –––, 1997, “Figurata Locutio. Hermeneutik und Philosophie bei Eckhart von Hochheim und Heinrich Seuse”, in Jacobi, 1997, pp. 303–332.
  • –––, 1998a, “Intellekttheorie, Hermeneutik und Allegorie. Subjekt und Subjektivität bei Meister Eckhart”, in R. L. Fetz/R. Hagenbüchle/P. Schulz (eds.), Geschichte und Vorgeschichte der modernen Subjektivität, Berlin/New York, 1998, pp. 460–486.
  • –––, 1998b, “Recent Work on Meister Eckhart. Positions, Problems, New Perspectives, 1990–1997”,  in Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales 65, 1, pp. 147–167.
  • –––, 2003, “Sermo XXV: Gratia dei sum id quod sum”, in Steer/Sturlese, 2003, pp. 177–203. 
  • Leppin, V., and Schiewer, H.-J. (eds.), 2007, Meister Eckhart aus theologischer Sicht, (Meister-Eckhart-Jahrbuch, Bd. 1) Stuttgart.
  • Lerner, R. E., 1997,  “New Evidence for the Condemnation of Meister Eckhart”, in Speculum. A Journal of Medieval Studies 72, pp. 347–366.
  • Libera, A. de, 1984, Introduction à la Mystique Rhénane. D’Albert le Grand à Maître Eckhart, Paris.
  • –––, 1993, La philosophie médiévale, Paris.
  • –––, 1998, “On some Philosophical Aspects of Master Eckhart’s Theology”, in Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 45, pp. 151–168.
  • Löser, Fr., 1995, “Der niht enwil und niht enweiz und niht enhât. Drei übersehene Texte Meister Eckharts zur Armutslehre”, in Cl. Brinker/U. Herzog/N. Largier/P. Michel (eds.), Contemplata aliis tradere. Studien zum Verhältnis von Literatur und Spiritualität. Festschrift für A. M. Haas, Bern/Berlin/Frankfurt a. M./New York, 1995, pp. 391–440.
  • –––, 1998, “Predigt 19: Sta in porta domus domini”, in Steer/Sturlese, 1998, pp. 117–149.
  • Löser, Fr., 1999, Meister Eckhart in Melk. Studien zum Redaktor Lienhart Peuger. Mit einer Edition des Traktats Von der sel wirdichait vnd aigenschafft, (Texte und Textgeschichte, Bd. 48) Tübingen.
  • Manstetten, R., 1993, Esse est Deus. Meister Eckharts christologische Versöhnung von Philosophie und Religion und ihre Ursprünge in der Tradition des Abendlandes, Freiburg/München.
  • Margreiter, R., 1997, “Mystik zwischen Literalität und Oralität. Meister Eckhart und die Theorie medialer Noetik”, in Jacobi, 1997, pp. 15–42.
  • McGinn, B., 1994, Meister Eckhart and the Beguine Mystics: Hadewijch of Brabant, Mechthild of Magdeburg and Marguerite Porete, New York.
  • –––, 2001, The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart. The Man from Whom God Hid Nothing, New York.
  • –––, 2003, “Sermo XXIX: Deus unus est”, in Steer/Sturlese, 2003, pp. 205–232.
  • Mieth, D., 1969, Die Einheit von Vita activa und Vita contemplativa in den deutschen Predigten und Traktaten Meister Eckharts und bei Johannes Tauler. Untersuchungen zur Struktur christlichen Lebens, (Studien zur Geschichte der katholischen Moraltheologie, Bd. 15) Regensburg.
  • –––, 2004, Meister Eckhart – Mystik und Lebenskunst, Düsseldorf.
  • Miethke, J., 2009, Der Eckhartprozess in Köln und Avignon, in A. Rigon/F. Veronese (eds.), L'età dei processi, inchieste e condanne tra politica e ideologia nel '300 , Roma, 2009, pp. 119–143.
  • Mojsisch, B., 1983a, Meister Eckhart. Analogie, Univozität und Einheit, Hamburg.
  • –––, 1983b, “Meister Eckharts Kritik der teleologisch-theokratischen Ethik Augustins”, in Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medievale 9, pp. 43–59.
  • –––, 1986, “›Dynamik der Vernunft‹ bei Dietrich von Freiberg und Meister Eckhart”, in Ruh, 1986, pp. 135–144.
  • –––, 1987, “›Causa essentialis‹ bei Dietrich von Freiberg und Meister Eckhart”, in Flasch, 1987, pp. 106–114.
  • –––, 1991, “Nichts und Negation. Meister Eckhart und Nikolaus von Kues”, in B. Mojsisch/O. Pluta (eds.), Historia Philosophiae Medii Aevi. Studien zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters. Festschrift für K. Flasch zum 60. Geburtstag, Bd. II, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1991, pp. 675–693.
  • –––, 1996,  “Ce moi: la conception du moi de maître Eckhart. Une contribution aux Lumières du Moyen-Age”, in Revue des sciences religieuses 70, pp. 18–30.
  • –––, 1997, “Die neuplatonische Theorie der Selbstverursächlichung (causa sui) in der Philosophie des Mittelalters”, in L. G. Benakis (ed.), Néoplatonisme et philosophie médiévale, Turnhout, 1997, pp. 25–33.
  • –––, 2001a, Meister Eckhart. Analogy, Univocity and Unity, transl. with a preface and an appendix by O. F. Summerell, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
  • –––, 2001b, “Notiz ›Eckhart von Hochheim‹”, in Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter 6/2000, p. 239.
  • –––, 2003a, “Der Grund der Seele. Das Ich als Ursache seiner selbst und Gottes in der Philosophie Meister Eckharts”, in G. Binder/B. Effe/R. F. Glei (eds.), Gottmenschen. Konzepte existentieller Grenzüberschreitung im Altertum, (Bochumer Altertumswissenschaftliches Colloquium, Bd. 55) Trier, 2003, pp. 181–203.
  • –––, 2003b, “Perfectiones spirituales – Meister Eckharts Theorie der geistigen Vollkommenheiten. Mit possibilitätsphilosophischen Reflexionen”, in M. Pickavé (ed.), Die Logik des Transzendentalen, Festschrift für Jan A. Aertsen zum 65. Geburtstag, (Miscellanea Mediaevalia, Bd. 30) Berlin/New York, 2003, pp. 511–524.
  • –––, 2009, Nulla e negazione. Meister Eckhart e Niccolò Cusano, in M. Lenzi/A. Maierù (eds.), Discussioni sul nulla tra medioevo ed età moderna, (Lessico Intellettuale Europeo, Bd. CIV) Firenze 2009, pp. 195–210.
  • –––, 2010, Meister Eckhart. Analogie, Univozität und Einheit, transl. (in Korean) by Sang-Sup Lee, Seoul.
  • Nicholas of Cusa, 1932a, De docta ignorantia, ed. E. Hoffmann/R. Klibansky, Leipzig.
  • –––, 1932b, Apologia doctae ignorantiae, ed. R. Klibansky, Leipzig.
  • Panzig, E. A., 2005, Gelâzenheit und abegescheidenheit. Eine Einführung in das theologische Denken des Meister Eckhart, Leipzig.
  • Pektaş, V., 2006, Mystique et Philosophie. Grunt, abgrunt et Ungrund chez Maître Eckhart et Jacob Böhme, (Bochumer Studien zur Philosophie, Bd. 45) Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
  • Perger, M. von, 1997, “Disputatio in Eckharts frühen Pariser Quästionen und als Predigtmotiv”, in Jacobi, 1997, pp. 115–148.
  • Quero-Sánchez, A., 2004, Sein als Freiheit: Die idealistische Metaphysik Meister Eckharts und Johann Gottlieb Fichtes, (Symposion. Philosophische Schriftenreihe, Bd. 121) Freiburg/München.
  • –––, and Steer, G. (eds.), 2008, Meister Eckharts Straßburger Jahrzehnt, (Meister-Eckhart-Jahrbuch, Bd. 2) Stuttgart.
  • Reiter, P., 1993, Der Seele Grund. Meister Eckhart und die Tradition der Seelenlehre, Würzburg.
  • Ruh, K. (ed.), 1985, Meister Eckhart. Theologe, Prediger, Mystiker, München.
  • –––, 1986, Abendländische Mystik im Mittelalter. Symposion Kloster Engelberg 1984, (Germanistische Symposien. Berichtsbände, Bd. VII) Stuttgart.
  • –––, 1996, Geschichte der abendländischen Mystik, Bd. III: Die Mystik des deutschen Predigerordens und ihre Grundlegung durch die Hochscholastik, München.
  • Schirpenbach, M. P., 2004, Wirklichkeit als Beziehung. Das strukturontologische Schema der Termini generales im Opus Tripartitum Meister Eckharts, (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters. Neue Folge, Bd. 66) Münster.
  • Schoeller, D., 1992, Gottesgeburt und Selbstbewusstsein. Denken der Einheit bei Meister Eckhart und G. W. F. Hegel, (Philosophie und Religion. Schriftenreihe des Forschungsinstituts für Philosophie Hannover, Bd. 4) Hildesheim/Berlin.
  • Schönberger, R., 2000, “Meister Eckhart. Denken und Innewerden des Einen”, in Th. Kobusch (ed.), Philosophen des Mittelalters. Eine Einführung, Darmstadt, pp. 202–219.
  • Schürmann, R., 1978, Meister Eckhart. Mystic and Philosopher, Bloomington/London.
  • Schwaetzer, H., and Steer, G. (eds.), 2011, Meister Eckhart und Nikolaus von Kues, (Meister-Eckhart-Jahrbuch, Bd. 4) Stuttgart.
  • Schweitzer, Fr.-J., 1981, Der Freiheitsbegriff der deutschen Mystik. Seine Beziehung zur Ketzerei der Brüder und Schwestern vom Freien Geist, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des pseudoeckartischen Traktates “Schwester Katrei” (Edition), (Arbeiten zur Mittleren deutschen Literatur und Sprache, Bd. 10) Frankfurt a. M./Berlin.
  • –––, 1997, Meister Eckhart und der Laie. Ein antihierarchischer Dialog des 14. Jahrhunderts aus den Niederlanden, (Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Dominikanerordens. Neue Folge, Bd. 6) Berlin.
  • Senner, W., 1997, “Eckhart in Köln”, in Jacobi, 1997, pp. 207–237.
  • Spamer, A. (ed.), 1912, Texte aus der deutschen Mystik des 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts, Jena.
  • Speer, A., and Wegener, L. (eds.), 2005, Meister Eckhart in Erfurt, Berlin/New York.
  • Steer, G., 1992, “Zur Authentizität der deutschen Predigten Meister Eckharts”, in Stirnimann/Imbach, 1992, pp. 127–168.
  • –––, 1998, Meister Eckhart. Beiträge zur Diskussion seiner Mystik, Würzburg.
  • –––, 2008, Die Interpretation der deutschen und lateinischen Predigten Meister Eckharts – eine unendliche Aufgabe, in Beccarisi/Imbach/Porro, 2008, pp. 184–203.
  • –––, 2010, Der Aufbruch Meister Eckharts ins 21. Jahrhundert, in Theologische Revue 106, pp. 90–99.
  • –––, and Sturlese, L. (eds.), 1998, 2003, 2008, Lectura Eckhardi. Predigten Meister Eckharts, von Fachgelehrten gelesen und gedeutet, Bd. I: Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln; Bd. II: Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln; Bd. III: Stuttgart.
  • Stirnimann, H., and Imbach, R. (eds.), 1992, Eckardus Theutonicus, homo doctus et sanctus. Nachweise und Berichte zum Prozess gegen Meister Eckhart, (Dokimion, Bd. 11) Freiburg/Schweiz.
  • Sturlese, L., 1989, “Die Kölner Eckhartisten. Das Studium generale der deutschen Dominikaner und die Verurteilung der Thesen Meister Eckharts”, in Miscellanea Mediaevalia 20, pp. 192–211.
  • –––, 1992, “Meister Eckharts Weiterwirken. Versuch einer Bilanz”, in Stirnimann/Imbach, 1992, pp. 169–183.
  • –––, 1993a, Meister Eckhart. Ein Porträt, (Eichstätter Hochschulreden, Bd. 90) Regensburg.
  • –––, 1993b, “Mysticism and Theology in Meister Eckhart’s Theory of the Image”, in Eckhart Review 2, pp. 18–31.
  • –––, 1995, “Meister Eckhart in der Bibliotheca Amploniana. Neues zur Datierung des ‘Opus Tripartitum’”, in Miscellanea Mediaevalia 23, pp. 434–446.
  • –––, 2007, Homo divinus. Philosophische Projekte in Deutschland zwischen Meister Eckhart und Heinrich Seuse, Stuttgart.
  • ––– (ed.), 2008, Studi sulle fonti di Meister Eckhart, (Dokimion, Bd. 34) Freiburg/Schweiz.
  • –––, 2009, Hat Meister Eckhart Dietrich von Freiberg gelesen? Die Lehre vom Bild und von den göttlichen Vollkommenheiten in Eckharts Expositio libri Genesis und Dietrichs De visione beatifica, in J. Biard/Dr. Calma/R. Imbach (eds.), Recherches sur Dietrich de Freiberg, (Studia Artistarum, Bd. 19) Turnhout, 2009, pp. 193–219.
  • –––, 2010, Eckhart, Tauler, Suso. Filosofi e mistici nella Germania medievale, (Giornale Critico della Filosofia Italiana. Quaderni, Bd. 17) Firenze.
  • Summerell, O. F., 2002, “Self-causality from Plotinus to Eckhart and from Descartes to Kant”, in Quaestio. Annuario di storia della metafisica 2, pp. 493–518.
  • Tobin, Fr. J., 1986, Meister Eckhart. Thought and Language, Philadelphia.
  • Trusen, W., 1988, Der Prozeß gegen Meister Eckhart. Vorgeschichte, Verlauf und Folgen, (Rechts- und Staatswissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Görres-Gesellschaft. Neue Folge, Heft 54) Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich.
  • Ueda, Sh., 1965, Die Gottesgeburt in der Seele und der Durchbruch zur Gottheit. Die mystische Anthropologie Meister Eckharts und ihre Konfrontation mit der Mystik des Zen-Buddhismus, (Studien zur Religion, Geschichte und Geisteswissenschaft, Bd. 3) Gütersloh.
  • Vannier, M.-A., 1996, “Déconstruction de l’individualité ou assomption de la personne chez Eckhart?”, in Miscellanea Mediaevalia 24, pp. 622–641.
  • Wackernagel, W., 1991, Ymagine denudari. Éthique de l’image et métaphysique de l’abstraction chez Maître Eckhart, (Études de philosophie médiévale, Bd. 68) Paris.
  • Wackerzapp, H., 1962, Der Einfluß Meister Eckharts auf die ersten philosophischen Schriften des Nikolaus von Kues (1440–1450), ed. J. Koch, (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters. Texte und Untersuchungen, Bd. 39, Heft 3) Münster/Westf.
  • Waldschütz, E., 1978, Meister Eckhart. Eine philosophische Interpretation der Traktate, (Studien zur Germanistik, Anglistik und Komparatistik, Bd. 71) Bonn.
  • –––, 1989, Denken und Erfahren des Grundes. Zur philosophischen Deutung Meister Eckharts, Wien.
  • Weber, R. K., 1978, “The Search for Identity and Community in the Fourteenth Century”, in The Thomist 42, pp. 182–196.
  • Weigand, R. K., and Schiewer, R. D. (eds.), 2011, Meister Eckhart und Augustinus, (Meister-Eckhart-Jahrbuch, Bd. 3) Stuttgart.
  • Welte, B., 1979, Meister Eckhart. Gedanken zu seinen Gedanken, Freiburg i. Br./Basel/Wien.
  • Wendel, S., 2002, Affektiv und inkarniert. Ansätze Deutscher Mystik als subjekttheoretische Herausforderung, (ratio fidei. Beiträge zur philosophischen Rechenschaft der Theologie, Bd. 15) Regensburg.
  • Wilde, M., 2000, Das neue Bild vom Gottesbild. Bild und Theologie bei Meister Eckhart, (Dokimion 24) Freiburg/Schweiz.
  • Winkler, E., 1965, Exegetische Methoden bei Meister Eckhart, (Beiträge zur Geschichte der biblischen Hermeneutik, Bd. 6) Tübingen.
  • Winkler, N., 1993, “Normativität und Reflexion. Meister Eckharts Metaphysik des entobjektivierten Guten”, in Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 41, pp. 217–235.
  • –––, 1996, “Zwischen strukturalistischer und intentionalistischer Interpretation – Fallbeispiel: Meister Eckharts Quaestio Parisiensis I”, in V. Caysa/K.-D. Eichler (eds.), Philosophiegeschichte und Hermeneutik, (Leipziger Schriften zur Philosophie, Bd. 5) Leipzig, 1996, pp. 218–237.
  • –––, 1997, Meister Eckhart zur Einführung, Hamburg.
  • –––, 1999, “Dietrich von Freiberg und Meister Eckhart in der Kontroverse mit Thomas von Aquin. Intellektnatur und Gnade in der Schrift Von der wirkenden und der vermögenden Vernunft, die Eckhart von Gründig zugeschrieben wird”, in Kandler/Mojsisch/Stammkötter, 1999, pp. 189–266.
  • Woods, R., 1990, “Meister Eckhart and the Neoplatonic Heritage: The Thinker’s Way to God”,  in The Thomist 54, pp. 609–639.
  • Witte, E., 2003, “Bilder an den Grenzen der Philosophie: Selbstthematisierung – Absolutes – Als ob”, in D. Rustemeyer (ed.), Bildlichkeit. Aspekte einer Theorie der Darstellung, (Wittener Kulturwissenschaftliche Studien, Bd. 2) Würzburg, 2003, pp. 225–257.
  • Wulf, E., 1972, Das Aufkommen neuzeitlicher Subjektivität im Vernunftbegriff Meister Eckharts, Tübingen.
  • Zum Brunn, E. (ed.), 1994, Voici Maître Eckhart. Textes et études réunis, Grenoble (repr. 1998).
  • –––, and Libera, A. de, 1984, Maître Eckhart. Métaphysique du Verbe et théologie négative, Paris.
  • –––, Kaluza, Z., Libera, A. de, Vignaux, P., and Wéber, E., 1984, Maître Eckhart à Paris. Une critique médiévale de l’ontothéologie. Les Questions parisiennes n° 1 et n° 2 d’Eckhart, études, textes et traductions, (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études. Section des Sciences religieuses, Bd. 86) Paris.

Copyright © 2011 by
Burkhard Mojsisch
Orrin F. Summerell

Open access to the SEP is made possible by a world-wide funding initiative.
The Encyclopedia Now Needs Your Support
Please Read How You Can Help Keep the Encyclopedia Free