Visiting typical stigmatics in their homes became a diversified practice in early nineteenth-century Europe. The phenomenon seemed to proliferate following the fame achieved by the stigmatics of the South Tyrol in the 1830s and 1840s and, as a consequence, the capacity that the stigmatics had to attract visitors has also drawn the attention of historians in recent years. Nicole Priesching has examined the pilgrim practices that formed around and in the houses of the Tyrolean stigmatics;1 while Kristof Smeyers and Leonardo Rossi have traced the transcultural significance of international visitors to Maria von Mörl and Maria Domenica Lazzeri, as well as the impact of devotional tourism on the identity of local communities.2 In addition, Paula Kane has reflected on the socio-cultural meaning of these âspiritual journeysâ and the transformation of the homes of female âliving saintsâ into semi-public spaces of faith;3 while Sofie Lachapelle has shown how religious celebrities themselves functioned in the rise of religious tourism.4 This chapter can therefore build on a vibrant historiography to analyse the role of stigmatics and their visitors in the French Third Republic (1870â1940), taking a longue durée perspective.
Although the Catholic Church is opposed to the worship of living individuals, popular enthusiasm turned many stigmatics into âliving saintsâ long before or without the recognition of the ecclesiastical authorities. Indeed, those who visited stigmatics and were persuaded of the authenticity of the facts became their greatest advocates: they convinced other people to visit them, pleaded their case before the episcopate and sometimes organized themselves to defend the stigmatic from scepticism, accusations of fraud or lack of Church interest. With their promotion, moreover, these visitors were not only helping to spread the fame of a particular stigmatic, but also justifying a certain âtypicalâ profile of the stigmatic.
In this chapter, we focus on the ground-up construction of unofficial stigmatic cults during the French Third Republic, and show how this also shaped and defended an image of the prototypical stigmatic, both among the common people and before the diocesan authorities. This period is frequently remembered for the rise of anticlericalism and the positivist and secularist offensive against religion.5 Nevertheless, it was also a time of Catholic revival within popular faith, in which stigmatic cults played a part. In the early decades of the Republic several typical French stigmatics began to appear, some carrying their wounds into the mid-twentieth century. At the start of their stigmatization, they were primarily influenced by prototypical cases such as Louise Lateau, whose fame helped spread the practice of visiting French stigmatics in their homes. As we will see, the experience that many visitors had during a âtypicalâ Friday of Passion helped nourish ideas of what a stigmatisée looked like and what one might gain from such a visit â from recommendations to ârelics.â
In France as well as in other European countries, the practice of visiting stigmatics was influenced by the development of transport and the media. From the mid-nineteenth century onwards, visiting a stigmatic had become much easier, with the improvement of the railway system and the availability of tickets at reasonable prices; a change that also had a general effect on the number of pilgrimages within Europe.6 âSacredâ places that used to be quite remote, such as the houses of many typical stigmatics, became more accessible for less wealthy people. In the French cases we will examine, one fact that contributed to the visits was the relative accessibility of the villages where they lived, which were not very far from significant towns such as Lyon, Bordeaux, Rouen or Nantes. This meant that visitors could get reasonably close by train.7 All in all, easier and cheaper access to relatively remote stigmatics meant that regional cults could be more easily transformed into a national or even international phenomenon.
The evolution of the media also had an effect on the growth in visits and the promotion of stigmatics. The reduction in printing costs and progress in education allowed different kinds of people to publish promotional brochures or travelogues about their visit. In the nineteenth century, these types of publications were still in the hands of a highly educated class, or the clergymen who supported a particular stigmatic. Such personalities became the authors of the main publications on stigmatics such as Anna Katharina Emmerick and those of the South Tyrol.8 In France, the aristocratic and legitimist milieu was behind a few promotional works on some stigmatics (and their royalist prophecies).9 Aristocratic, upper-bourgeois or clerical support contributed to the fame of stigmatics in ways that were unavailable to visitors from more humble classes, for whom the main means of promotion, especially in the nineteenth century, were private correspondence and word-of-mouth. This type of promotion, which was occurring through all layers of society, was very important in developing and sustaining the cults. As we will see below, personal communications, letters and journals of those who had witnessed the Fridays of Passion undergone by French stigmatics helped convince many others to visit the women.
In these and other cases, the visitorsâ experiences were fundamental to the development of a cult that went beyond individual expectations, and which could potentially create more or less cohesive interclass movements around the stigmatic. It was indeed after a visit to the German Therese Neumann that many joined what became known as the âKonnersreuth circle.â10 Similar associations of âfriendsâ developed around the French stigmatics that we will examine below. Paula Kane refers to the notion of communitas or unstructured community, as used by the anthropologist Victor Turner, to analyse some of the cults surrounding stigmatics such as Lateau and Neumann â a communitas that could eventually be routinized by the Church, as occurred, for example, with the cults of canonized stigmatics such as Catherine of Siena and Padre Pio.11 According to Ralph Gibson, the clergy in France were successful in absorbing and shaping different forms of popular religion emerging from the Catholic revival, such as the Lourdes apparitions.12 The stigmatic cults of the period discussed here, however, remained autonomous and unrecognized. As we will see, during the lifetime of some stigmatics, groups of lay visitors banded together to produce written records of the Way of the Cross in order to obtain (in vain) diocesan approval for âtheirâ stigmatic. In defending their case, however, they were also attempting to vindicate the specific profile of a stigmatic that the woman incarnated.
In the following pages we begin by introducing âtypicalâ French stigmatics of the period, the expectations of many of those who visited them, and how their experience during a Friday of Passion contributed to the shaping and spreading of the idea of the stigmatic type. Finally, we will examine the diocesan response to this grass-roots enthusiasm for stigmatics, and how this could trigger the formation of unofficial movements of visitors to defend the women.
1 French Stigmatics and Visitorsâ Expectations
Paula Kane has examined the visits to typical stigmatics in their homes, with the three famous examples from the early nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century already mentioned in previous chapters: Anna Katharina Emmerick, Louise Lateau and Therese Neumann. Using these cases, Kane described the different dynamics of the visits: from an intimate spectacle, where only small groups of select visitors met Emmerick; to a âscientific specimen,â where Lateau was surrounded by doctors; to the âcrowd spectaclesâ of 5,000 people, including journalists, at Neumannâs place in Konnersreuth after the Second World War.13 These differences suggest that various types of visitors met the stigmatics at their homes and that the latter could thus also have a different impact on the former.
To understand the type of visitors that a stigmatic received, as well as the response that was triggered in the visitors, stigmatics need to be placed in their particular context. For example, the scientific interest in Louise Lateau was influenced both by the context of the pathologizing of religion in the nineteenth century and by the Churchâs reliance on doctors to attest to modern miracles;14 while Neumannâs sensationalism after the 1940s was part of the mass consumption and mass media developments of the mid-twentieth century.15 The stigmatics of the French Third Republic lie between Lateauâs rise to fame and Neumannâs mass spectacle. Although they became relatively famous, with some also attracting scientific attention, they never became a mass phenomenon. In addition, unlike the cases which Kane examined, they did not receive diocesan support and their cults remained unofficial, propagated by regional groups of lay men and women who believed in them. As we will see in the section on the episcopal response below, the negative attitude of the diocese ultimately prevented clergymen from visiting these women, some of whom were thus denied a confessor, leaving them in the hands of lay believers.
The French Third Republic was both a period of defiance and of revitalization of religion. The traumatic events that inaugurated this period, such as Franceâs defeat in the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune, left Catholics with the feeling that their nation was being punished. The rise of pilgrimages and Marian apparitions, and the popularity of redemptive devotions such as the Sacred Heart and the Via Crucis, were related to these national concerns.16 The Catholic hopes, especially of the ultramontanes, relied on the restoration of the monarchy. A Royalist prophetic tradition developed, which spoke about the return of a âgreat kingâ who would save France.17 It is within the context of these national concerns that several âtypicalâ stigmatics began to have an effect.18
The first and most popular was Marie-Julie Jahenny (1850â1941, stigmata 1873â1941) from Brittany, who, according to scholars such as Jacques Marx, was regarded as a leading figure or role model for those who followed.19 Among them we find Marie Bergadieu, alias Berguille (1829â1904, stigmata 1874âc. 1880), from Aquitaine, who was said to relive the Passion at the same time as Jahenny, the two being considered âsisters in suffering.â20 In the 1880s, Laurentine Billoquet (1862â1936, stigmata 1881â1936) from the north, and Marie-Louise Nerbollier (1859â1908, stigmata 1885â1908) from the Rhône, also started bearing the wounds.21 In line with the ultramontane prophetic tradition dominant in the nineteenth century, the women also became Royalist prophetesses advocating the monarchic restoration of France.22 Later French stigmatics, such as Symphorose Chopin (1924â1983), would continue this prophetic tradition.
We must note that by the time these French stigmatics appeared, the fame of Louise Lateau, probably the most renowned stigmatic of the period, had spread across France, thus establishing an idea of the stigmatic type that these women probably attempt to emulate.23 French stigmatics such as Jahenny and Bergadieu were often seen as successors of Lateau, especially after her death in 1883, and were frequently compared to her.24 A visit to them was a way of meeting a French national version of the famous Belgian stigmatic and gaining direct experience of a stigmatisée. This was not in vain as the women incarnated the characteristics of typical stigmatics of the time: they were young laywomen from a humble background reliving the Passion in their small villages, usually in their bedroom in a farmhouse or thatched cottage.
This display of the holy wounds occurred especially during the period between 1870 and 1900. Of the cases mentioned, only Laurentine Billoquet and Marie-Julie Jahenny (who both lived longer) continued to relive the Passion until the mid-twentieth century, by which time they were attracting less attention than in the previous era, in which the interest in visiting typical stigmatics had reached its height.25
Despite similarities in their profiles, the response to the stigmatics mentioned above was not always the same, with each achieving different levels of fame that could fluctuate over time. For example, only Marie-Julie Jahenny and Berguille Bergadieu became renowned outside France. The trigger for their fame was, it seems, a few promotional books that became known abroad,26 including those by the savant and chevalier, Adrien Péladan, as well as Imbert-Gourbeyreâs famous La stigmatisation (1894), in which he wrote about Jahenny.27 The response to Laurentine Billoquet and Marie-Louise Nerbollier, on the contrary, was only on a national scale. They attracted some press attention at the beginning of their stigmatization.28 Achieving a greater impact during their lifetime, however, did not mean that the likelihood of the survival of their cult was enhanced. For example, while the cult of Marie-Louise Nerbollier still attracts a small number of local supporters today,29 those of Bergadieu disappeared before she passed away in 1904, probably as a consequence of diocesan restrictions, which we will discuss below.
During the lifetime of the stigmatics, the visitors were fundamental for the development of their cult. In many cases, the practice of visiting these women started as a regional and pious phenomenon. In France, it initially attracted Catholics of various social classes: from devout peasants to white-collar workers as well as the higher classes. In diocesan archives we find traces of professionals, such as lawyers, pharmacists and teachers, instances of peasants or farmers, as well as testimonies from barons and marquises.30 Aristocrats in particular appeared to be instantly attracted to these women because they nourished their hope for a monarchic and Catholic restoration. As mentioned above, the support of the aristocracy increased the visibility of some of these cases; for example, by publishing the promotional books on Jahenny and Bergadieu, which enhanced their fame. Visiting one of the stigmatics sometimes aroused interest or inspired visits to others. In this way, a married woman from the village of Bar in the east, planned to visit both Bergadieu and Jahenny, while Thérèse Durnerin, a mystic and founder of a society of lay apostolate in Paris, decided to visit Nerbollier after witnessing Jahennyâs Friday ecstasy in 1890.31
As these cults began to develop, the expectations of many visitors varied, although they appeared to follow similar lines, embedded within their personal histories and backgrounds. In the case of the stigmatics of the Third Republic, these expectations can be found in letters sent by several men and women from different social classes to the stigmatic or her spiritual director, and in the personal accounts they wrote about their visits. These records show that many visitors expressed their wish to witness the extraordinary events which they had heard of or read about.32 Some had been encouraged by other visitors who had been persuaded of the authenticity of the events. For example, a shoemaker said he had been told to visit Jahenny on a Friday if he wished to be convinced of the miraculous, and a baron had been advised to witness the stigmaticâs ecstasy because it was âsuch a dreadful, extraordinary spiritual and physical state.â33 In their cases, an idea of the âtypicalâ stigmatic had been building in the back of their minds, as they had been told of a humble laywoman reliving the Passion in her bedroom on Fridays, and it was precisely for this reason that they, in turn, visited her on that particular day.
Other faithful visited stigmatics searching in particular for spiritual advice or to obtain grace, most frequently seeking recovery from an illness or the conversion of a non-believer, usually a family member.34 Some visitors were allegedly successful in obtaining grace, which contributed to the fame of the woman and attracted more people.35 Similar requests were made of other âtypicalâ stigmatics of the twentieth century; for example, from the 1930s, Therese Neumann and Marthe Robin (1902â1981), the famous stigmatisée de la Drôme, acted as spiritual counsellors and healers.36 Many visitors also expected to be included in the stigmaticâs prayers, hoping to gain Godâs compassion through their recommendation.37 In line with the parallels between typical French stigmatics and Louise Lateau, in 1880, a woman asked Jahenny to recommend her to the Belgian stigmatic, because she had been told the two were in spiritual contact.38 This suggests that many regarded these women as âliving saintsâ capable of interceding in different matters.
Of course, not all visitors had the same expectations or visited stigmatics for the above-mentioned purposes. Medical visitors, in particular, had their own agenda. That doctors examined stigmatics and published on them is well studied.39 Our interest here lies in the fact that attention from the medical profession could contribute to the visibility of a stigmatic and increase their potential to attract visitors. Many physicians reported on the charismata attributed to these women, and mentioned the house or the family; that is, elements that many other people were expecting to see during their own visit. For example, it appears that the number of visitors to Laurentine Billoquet began to grow after a committee of physicians examined her in 1881, including the famous Salpêtrière neurologist Benjamin Ball. They concluded that she was a hysteric who took pleasure in simulating her ecstasies and in being admired. The medical report did not mention her name; however, being the only known stigmatic in the region, she was easily identified.40 Apart from Billoquet, some other French stigmatics attracted scientific attention, although to a much smaller degree than that shown in the case of Louise Lateau. For example, Sofie Lachapelle has mentioned the medical interest in Berguille Bergadieu, which had already commenced when she was an âecstatic mysticâ (extatique), before she started bearing the holy wounds.41
As shown by scholars such as Jacques Maître and Hervé Guillemain, in the context of the pathologizing of religion in which these examinations took place, many physicians subscribed to the approach of the Salpêtrière and to that of rationalist doctors such as Alfred Maury, who, in 1855, after the fervour produced by the stigmatics of Tyrol, published an essay debunking religious stigmatization after St Francis.42 In addition to hysteria, theories of hallucination, suggestion and dermatological disease were the most common medical explanations.43 Catholic doctors such as Antoine Imbert-Gourbeyre counteracted this pathological approach with his own publications.44 The pious doctor submitted stigmatics such as Louise Lateau and Marie-Julie Jahenny to his own medical examinations, as did other doctors in the context of a diocesan inquiry (see the section on the diocesan response below). Ultimately, Imbert-Gourbeyre concluded they were not frauds. The medical tests did not essentially differ from those that were practised on Billoquet and others: the wounds were scrutinized to see if they were natural or self-inflicted, the pulse and breathing were measured during ecstasy, and the general physical and mental health of the stigmatic was determined.
In this and other medical cases, however, the examinations usually occurred without the presence of other visitors, as agreed with the stigmaticâs family or the spiritual director, so as not to disturb the investigation.45 Thus, medical visits usually differed from the more typical visits we will be examining below, which were the main arena for the formation of stigmatic cults. Imbert-Gourbeyre, for example, examined Jahenny on several occasions, but also attended around fifteen occurrences of ecstasy during more âtypicalâ visits to her in the company of others. This included his daughter, who would also become a devotee and join Jahennyâs unofficial movement in the early twentieth century, participating in the transcription of her ecstasies.46 As we will see in the next section, the experience many people gained from their visit contributed to both reshaping their expectations about seeing a stigmatisée, and to spreading an informed idea of the appearance of the stigmatic type.
2 Inside the Fridays of Passion
Many of the expectations of the visitors were confirmed during visits on Fridays. Upon arrival at the stigmaticâs village, many people simply asked for the house of âthe saint,â which demonstrates the reputation some of these women had achieved during their lifetime.47 In many cases, the houses were âtypicalâ thatched cottages (chaumières), where one could find stigmatics such as Louise Lateau or, early on, the Tyrolean stigmatics, and that would later be associated with cases such as Marthe Robin. Family, friends and, occasionally, a spiritual director â in the cases where he supported the woman â welcomed the visitors and chatted with them in the living room while the stigmatic remained in her bedroom waiting for the Way of the Cross to begin. The family or friends did not charge an admission fee and, allegedly, refused money.48 Other famous stigmatics of the time, such as Palma Matarrelli in Italy, were also said to refuse donations.49 Some people, however, accused stigmatics and their entourage of making a profit out of the âmiraculous.â For example, some locals noted that Jahennyâs family had better clothes or that Bergadieu had bought a property using donations.50
In general, visitors were only allowed into the stigmaticâs bedroom after the ecstasy had commenced.51 This situation applied for other typical stigmatics in Europe generally, before and after these cases in France.52 This means that few visitors were given the chance to witness the start of the event. Many of the bedrooms were reported to be filled with crosses, devotional images and statues of the Passion, thus setting the mood for what visitors were about to witness (Figure 4.1).53 As Paula Kane remarked, in accessing the bedroom of a stigmatic, visitors broke the barrier between the public and private domains.54 Indeed, while welcoming visitors, stigmatics and their close assistants rendered this intimate, almost secret space, usually of a humble character, visible and communal; but this was accepted because the domestic spaces were believed to contain the presence of the divine, becoming the âtheatre of so many wondersâ â to quote one visitor.55 Once the visitors had been admitted to the ecstasy, no one else was allowed into the room. In a letter of 1879, one woman wrote that she had been late for the âFriday ecstasyâ and the family would not let her enter. Very disappointed, the woman asked to be included in the stigmaticâs prayers during her âinterview with God.â56
Marie-Julie Jahennyâs bedroom in La Fraudais
Archives Historiques du Diocèse de Nantes, 5F2/45
The handwritten accounts of the visits to French stigmatics frequently describe the number of visitors present on the day of the stigmatization, which could range from two or three to around 30, depending on the day as well as on the size of the stigmaticâs room.57 In Europe, anyone was permitted to witness the reliving of the Passion, including children and adolescents, as we can see in pictures and records of visitors to Jahenny, as well as in the accounts of visitors to other stigmatics not discussed here (Figure 4.2). For example, in the case of Marthe Robin, a woman recalled visiting her at the age of 16 during the Good Friday of 1946.58 On specific occasions, such as Good Friday, larger crowds could appear, from a few hundred up to a few thousand; for example, on Good Friday in 1896, when Marie-Louise Nerbollier was expected to bleed more than on other Fridays, around 400 people attended.59
Visitors Waiting in the living room of Marie-Julie Jahennyâs thatched cottage, and inside her bedroom
Archives Historiques du Diocèse de Nantes, 5F2/45, 48
The increase in the number of visitors on these particular days clearly shows the expectations of witnessing the reliving of the Passion and the bleeding of the wounds. In the French cases, however, days with large crowds appeared to be exceptional and usually only small groups of people on a weekly basis were reported. This means that visitors rarely left the village without attending the stigmaticâs ecstasy, thus gaining a full experience of the phenomenon. These Friday events thus never took the form of the âcrowd spectaclesâ described by Paula Kane in the case of Therese Neumann after the Second World War, where weekly crowds of around 5,000 people were reported and each visitor was only allowed to view the stigmatic for 30 to 45 seconds.60
An anonymous manuscript journal entitled Souvenirs de La Fraudais (1878â1879) describes how events developed on a typical Friday chez Jahenny â a description that can also be applied to other cases:
The Way of the Cross began as usual. The three falls followed one another as in the past. The stigmata of the head, which before the ecstasy were not very prominent, are swollen, some of them bleed profusely. Those of the hands bleed too, but less. The blood, instead of following the common law, rises along the palm and falls on the back of the hand.
At each fall she lies with her face on the ground, and in a loud and singularly resonant voice, she addresses admirable prayers to God.61
Inside the stigmaticâs bedroom, visitors observed the events and frequently remained in silence, especially if she was receiving a revelation, as occurred in many of the Third Republic cases. On other occasions, however, visitors would recite prayers during the stigmaticâs ecstasy, with the atmosphere approaching that of a church and contributing to a feeling of community. Berguille Bergadieuâs bedroom in Fontet was reported to be transformed every Friday âinto a real sanctuary. Candles are burned, psalms and hymns are sung, just like in a church.â62 As we will see in the next section, the âsacralizationâ of otherwise non-sacred spaces was problematic in the eyes of the episcopates. Although the visitors were usually not given any indication of what they were perceiving or how they should interpret it, occasionally the stigmaticâs spiritual director, if present and supporting her, mediated the visitorâs experience; for example, explaining the different stages of the Cross that the stigmatic represented or emphasizing the rigidity of her arms and suffering.63 This mediated experience attempted to influence the visitorsâ perceptions and understanding of the events and has also been reported in cases occurring at later times, such as that of Therese Neumann.64
The gatherings and rituals around the French stigmatics reflect the diversity of their cults: the social classes and genders were mixed, with aristocrats standing beside peasants and white-collar workers. The meetings contributed to overcoming some class barriers, with conversations between well-off families and the non-privileged reported to take place before and after witnessing the ecstasy.65 In the French cases, this alliance crystalized in unofficial movements, which also occurred elsewhere, as William Christian has mentioned in the case of the apparitions of Ezkioga (Spain, 1931), where a mixing of classes also occurred. In fact, this mixing of classes was an incentive for seers and believers, with religion forging âan interclass alliance of the devout peasantry, the regional bourgeoisie, and the monarchist aristocracy.â66 The mix of social classes is also found in other typical stigmatic cases outside France; for example, the bourgeoisie and peasants gathered around Margalida Amengual (1888â1919), the stigmatic from Mallorca, every Friday, and when she died they carried her coffin together.67
The moment when the holy wounds bled was awaited with great expectation, as this was the main reason for people visiting on Fridays, the day of the stigmatization. In the previous chapter, we saw how the bleeding and suffering of stigmatics was deemed edifying according to the accounts of visitors to German and Belgian stigmatics of the nineteenth century. This was also the case for typical stigmatics in France, with many experiencing a sense of spiritual relief when they were with the women, and being convinced about the beneficial effects of seeing the bleeding wounds.68 For example, one woman from Dijon is said to have been âedifiedâ by the way that Laurentine Billoquet submitted to the âgreat sufferings she has endured with admirable courage.â69 In Diémoz, the parish priest wrote of the visitors to Nerbollier: âseeing the blood from the young girlâs stigmata, and her painful ecstasies, they feel the need to become better people, and to return to the fulfilment of their duties too long forgottenâ70 (Figure 4.3).
Marie-Louise Nerbollier reliving the Passion
Archives Diocésaines de Lyon, I.1911
When the bleeding of the stigmata began, those present attempted to touch the blood with all sorts of objects, including letters from family members who could not be there, a cross, rosaries, pious images and handkerchiefs. The objects would have been carefully selected before their visit and taken there with the explicit intention of staining them with the stigmaticâs blood. In an account of her trip, an anonymous young woman who was visiting alone but carrying objects from all of her family members, explained how she was able to transform her motherâs cross into a relic during Jahennyâs stigmatization:
Ah! She is bleeding ⦠Suddenly, her figure was transformed due to pain. Then on these poor hands, which had fallen down along her body, I press the base [of the cross], and blessed, [it] collects some drops of this precious blood; the feet also bleed. Then everyone comes in. They wipe her hands with images, but [the blood] has already dried out.71
Many visitors to typical stigmatics especially intended to obtain such ârelics.â The devotees would later use the objects to feel spiritually connected with the âliving saintâ or to obtain grace â in the next chapter we will discuss the healing power attributed to the bloody relics of Louise Lateau.72 Furthermore, the relics were sometimes used to argue for the reality of the phenomena before the episcopate; for example, a few years after the death of Laurentine Billoquet in 1936, some devotees sent handkerchiefs imprinted with the stigmata to the Bishop of Rouen, hoping, without success, to start her cause of beatification.73 In this case, the relics had been passed down over generations (Figure 4.4). In sharing or showing them to their relatives and peers, devotees contributed to the peopleâs expectations as to what one could gain from visiting a typical stigmatic.
Handmade âreliquaryâ from a devotee of Laurentine Billoquet, containing a handkerchief imprinted with the blood of a heart-shaped holy wound
Archives Diocésaines de Rouen, Box 791
In addition to collecting the stigmaticâs blood on various objects, many visitors presented pious images to the stigmatic. The latter would bless them during their ecstasy, through the intercession of the Virgin or a saint. Berguille Bergadieu, for example, allegedly blessed images of the Sacred Heart with the intervention of Marguerite-Marie Alacoque, the Visitandine nun whose visions promoted the modern Sacred Heart devotion. Those visiting Jahenny frequently received a âblessedâ image of the Virgin or one about the crucifixion.74 This practice was controversial as it was a laywoman and not a priest who was in charge. However, the visitors did not seem to find these or other rituals taking place in the stigmaticâs bedroom problematic. On the contrary, many were convinced of the effectiveness of a visit to a stigmatic as a means to convert people or fortify their religious belief.75 This is in line with Alphonse Duprontâs understanding of popular religion, where the lines between the sacred and the profane are blurred.76
On leaving a stigmaticâs house, visitors shared their experience with their family and friends, as we can see in their private correspondence: âMy dear cousin,â wrote a woman named Amélie in 1879, âI arrived barely an hour ago from my trip to Blain very moved and impressed by what I saw thereâ; âWhat a sublime ecstasy!â was another comment; âThe more we go there, the more we have the desire to return,â explained one woman in a letter of 1880.77 Some recorded their visits in writing, not in order to publish them but as a personal memory of the events. They would share these with their peers as proof of what they had witnessed.78 Thus, even if a great majority of visitors never published an account of their experience, their letters and personal communications contributed to the spread of the idea of the typical stigmatic and what a visit to these women would be like. As mentioned above, this type of private promotion was particularly important for the development of stigmatic cults, and it nourished the belief in stigmatics for decades, sometimes even after their death, as we have seen with the example of Billoquetâs relics. The success of such forms of promotion, however, was not without consequences. In the following section, we examine how such visits could become a problem in the diocese, and the ways the episcopate dealt with them.
3 The Diocesan Response to the Visits
Generally, the policy of the French dioceses dealing with stigmatics was to isolate and control the cases, rather than to open an official diocesan investigation.79 Bishops attempted to stay informed about stigmatics through parish priests. For example, the priest of Diémoz sent an annual report to the Bishop of Grenoble explaining the events concerning Marie-Louise Nerbollier: from her stigmatization to her prophecies; while in Sauchay, the priest kept a journal on Lauretine Billoquet for three years (1883â1886).80 One main concern of the priests was that with their Friday rituals and their admiration of a living person, visitors to stigmatics were contributing to the creation of alternative spaces for the sacred that challenged the official sites and practices of established religion. When reporting to the Cardinal of Bordeaux about the events concerning Berguille Bergadieu, the parish priest of Fontet wrote that the stigmaticâs home had been âtransformed into a true temple, where worship is regularly celebrated every Friday. And to think that all these things happen while the bell calls the faithful to the Church for Lenten exercises!â81
Faced with this, the episcopates decided to censor publications on the women and restrict visits in order to control the growth of the religious cult. At least three works on Jahenny were censored in the diocese of Nantes, and in 1878 the archbishopric of Bordeaux launched âa formal prohibition on anything to be published on Berguille [Bergadieu].â82 Concerning the visits, French episcopates preferred to speak about restrictions rather than prohibitions because visits to stigmatics could not be officially banned since the women lived in lay society and not under the rules of a religious community. However, the stigmatics and their families and friends, as well as their spiritual director, were strongly advised not to allow people into the house.83
Furthermore, it was either indicated to clergymen that it was the bishopâs âdesireâ that they, in particular, should not visit stigmatics, such as the cases mentioned here, or they were directly prevented from doing so.84 This probably explains why the clergy appeared to be a minority among the visitors to French stigmatics, while they were quite numerous in relation to stigmatics who had received some form of acknowledgment from a bishop, such as Louise Lateau. In France, however, those who supported a stigmatic found themselves in conflict with the bishop, as occurred to Father Daurelle, who wrote a non-commercial book about Bergadieu despite not obtaining ecclesiastical permission.85
Similar decisions to restrict visits were taken in relation to stigmatics outside France, which means that it was common practice to attempt to control the emergence of these cults. For example, in Spain, the local bishop restricted all visitors to Margalida Amengual in 1918, including the clergy, and in the 1870s in Italy, visitors such as Imbert-Gourbeyre needed to obtain the permission of the Vicar General to visit Palma Matarrelli.86
In the French cases we are examining, the lay devotees and stigmatics did not obey the restrictions. In Fontet, Berguille Bergadieu disregarded the episcopal advice and continued to allow visitors into her home. In his reports to the Vicar of Bordeaux, the parish priest of Fontet argued that Bergadieu went as far as re-scheduling the Friday ecstasy to coincide with the arrival of visitors â for example, if she knew that people were coming and the train to La Réole was late, the ecstasy would also be late.87 In some cases, non-compliance with the restrictions obliged the episcopate to make its opinion public. In 1881, the diocese of Rouen released a statement in La Semaine Religieuse warning the faithful that visiting Laurentine Billoquet meant âobeying an unhealthy curiosity of which religion disapproves.â88 Again, this was not an official ban, but it certainly put pressure on potential visitors who may have known about the stigmatic and were planning a trip.
Following an episcopal restriction, parish priests would receive letters from laypeople and other priests asking for information or their authorization to visit the stigmatic. This created confusion, as there was no official policy for authorizing visits and some people were simply asking permission of the family or of spiritual directors favourable to the stigmatic, such as Father Germanet in Diémoz, who allowed people to come.89 In a letter to the Cardinal of Bordeaux, one woman from Fontet complained that she had seen her neighbour attend Bergadieuâs ecstasy on the previous Friday: âWhy, if she has your permission Monsignor, can I not also obtain your support?â90 Father Audrian, the priest of Blain and a Jahenny detractor, received many such letters and always answered that he could neither authorize nor forbid their visit. However, he did attempt to discourage them by suggesting that Jahenny should not receive visitors so as to avoid falling prey to the temptation of pride.91
With regard to other clergymen, the attitude was more severe. In a letter of 1889, a priest wrote to Father Audrian that his parishioners continued to enquire about Jahenny and, not knowing how to respond, he wanted to find out more about her. Father Audrian wrote his draft response in the letter received, which allows us to see the words he changed to moderate his tone: âI donât understand, unless you have been charged with it officially, why you need to satisfy the more or less supernatural curiosity of the people who consult you on this subject. You would do much better, in my humble opinion, to concentrate on their affairs less on the seer (voyante) of Blain.â92 His response was in line with the diocesan policy of isolation and control.
To overcome the episcopal restriction, stigmatics and their supporters attempted to convince the dioceses of the benefits of welcoming visitors. Arguments about Catholic conversion and an increase in religious practice and belief were among the most used. In the case of Bergadieu, a supporter wrote to the vicar saying that he was âconvinced that the more visits there are to Fontet, the more religion will gain from it.â93 In a similar way, a female devotee of Jahenny told the parish priest that all non-believers should be given the means to visit âour victim,â because she was confident that on witnessing the extraordinary phenomena they would be converted.94 Some devotees went as far as requesting a formal investigation of the events, convinced that this would change the attitude of the diocesan authorities.95
The only official diocesan investigation of a typical stigmatic of the Third Republic was that of Jahenny. It took place in 1873, shortly after she started displaying the stigmata. As Hervé Guillemain has shown, the investigation followed that of Louise Lateau in 1868 and was probably inspired by it, especially as Jahenny and Lateau were considered to be part of the same phenomenon.96 Similarly to other diocesan inquiries involving the stigmata, the investigation was entrusted to Catholic doctors and theologians. In the case of Lateau, who had diocesan support, several priests concluded that the phenomena could be divine, and Doctor Ferdinand Lefèbvre, from the Catholic University of Louvain, considered that science may not be able to explain the stigmata. The Royal Academy of Belgium, which examined the stigmatic on its own initiative, refuted this thesis and advanced several scientific explanations: from it being the result of fasting to it being a possible effect of a neurosis.97
For Jahenny, on the contrary, the diocesan medical experts were negative and argued that she simulated the phenomena and suffered from a ânervous crisis,â an argument in line with the dominant pathologizing discourse of the time. The clergy supported the medical conclusion and deemed the diocesan investigation closed.98 Similar conclusions were arrived at in the cases of other typical stigmatics in later periods, such as the Belgian Rosalie Put (1868â1919), who was dismissed by the Belgian and German episcopal authorities after a medical examination.99 In the case of Jahenny, the report was never made public. A few months later, Imbert-Gourbeyre, who had just published his book, Les stigmatisées (1873), examined the case with the permission of the bishop, Monsignor Fournier. He concluded that the stigmata were supernatural and became a fervent devotee of Jahenny. It seems that Imbert-Gourbeyre was successful in convincing the bishop; however, Monsignor Fournier died shortly afterwards and was replaced by Monsignor Le Coq. This new bishop stuck to the initial report and Jahenny was never acknowledged.100
Jahennyâs example shows that the politics of the episcopate, in line with the ideas of the ruling bishop, affected the way that a stigmatic was perceived at the diocesan level. In the cases of stigmatics in the Third Republic, none were recognized by their diocese.101 In accordance with their policy of isolation, which we have seen reflected in the restrictions on visitors, some bishops replaced spiritual directors who were favourable to a stigmatic with those who were detractors. This was indeed the case for the confessors of Jahenny, Billoquet and Bergadieu. In addition, in an attempt to redress their behaviour, the stigmatics were not allowed to receive the daily Communion, or were not allowed to receive it at home â in cases where they were bedridden â and âmiraculousâ Communions took place. All these measures had a deep effect on the women, who felt abandoned by their diocese.102
We must note that the diocesan attitude towards stigmatics, in France as well as in other European countries, was generally cautious but not always that hostile, varying within particular contexts and sometimes evolving over time. For example, the Spanish stigmatic, Margalida Amengual, mentioned several times above, received the support of the Bishop of Mallorca and when she died in 1919 the episcopate decided to bury her with a certificate in Latin attesting to her charismata. The diocesan authorities today, however, do not seem interested in her case, even though she was declared Venerable in 2008.103
Furthermore, a favourable attitude of the diocese towards a stigmatic did not mean that they were willing to allow visits or promote her case during her lifetime. As mentioned above, visits to Amengual were restricted, while in other cases where the bishop was supportive, such as that of Marthe Robin (who was declared Venerable in 2014), after 1943, visitors were required to obtain the bishopâs authorization and were requested to remain silent about what they witnessed.104
Finally, not all alleged stigmatics who underwent a diocesan investigation were examined for their reliving the Passion. For example, in 1880, Ãdith Royer (1841â1924), née Challan-Belval and known as Madame Royer, underwent a diocesan inquiry in Dijon, but only for her alleged revelations of the Sacred Heart, which were deemed to be true.105 Royer, however, was not a âtypicalâ stigmatic as the wounds were invisible and, although she was deemed a âvictim soul,â this was not her main feature. The ecclesiastical support, therefore, did not contribute to her reputation as a stigmatic.
With regard to more typical cases, such as those we have been examining, a hostile attitude from the diocese certainly had an effect. Jacques Maître has shown how, in part as a result of how the ecclesiastical hierarchy of Rouen negatively regarded Laurentine Billoquet, the stigmatic decided to move to Dijon around 1904, where she lived under a different identity.106 As we will see in the next section, despite the attitude of the French episcopates, groups of visitors began to organize themselves in order to defend âtheirâ stigmatic. In doing so, they were also defending the type of stigmatic that the women represented.
4 The Visitorsâ Unofficial Movements
Those who visited stigmatics and were convinced about the supernatural origin of the phenomenon became their greatest advocates. Many wrote to the diocesan authorities under their own initiative to plead their case.107 Sometimes visitors organized themselves into more formal groups or movements, usually called âfriends of,â as with many lay associations today. As Pierre Roberdel noted in the case of Jahenny, these groups were not formal associations in the sense that they formally registered and drafted a statute.108 On the contrary, the movements were horizontal, more or less being spontaneously formed and organized, with people taking on different responsibilities according to the time they had available. The men and women collaborating were united in their belief in the stigmatic. Occasionally, they received the support of the spiritual director of the stigmatic and of other priests from other parishes.109 Many came from the surrounding areas and visited the stigmatic frequently, thus often seeing each other on Fridays. It is probable that they decided to organize themselves as a result of these encounters. In this sense, even if the reputation of stigmatics such as Jahenny was international, the core of their cult remained regional.
The main goal of these unofficial movements was to promote and help acknowledge the stigmatic, above all to the episcopal authority, in order to acknowledge her sanctity. While some groups were founded after the death of a stigmatic, here we only analyse those that were already active during their lifetime. In France, this was an especially delicate time to promote stigmatics given the policy adopted by the dioceses. In the case of Marie-Julie Jahenny, she received the support of a group of visitors named the Amis de la Croix (Friends of the Cross). Some of the members liked to call themselves the âservants of the Crossâ and referred to Jahennyâs house as the âSanctuary of the Cross.â110 The group was founded in 1873, shortly after Jahennyâs stigmatization. In the early years, the brothers Adolphe and Auguste Charbonnier, two white-collar workers from Nantes and Fontenay, were the leaders of the group. In the 1880s, Madame Grégoire from Blain became secretary to the stigmatic. She managed Jahennyâs abundant correspondence â between 20 and 30 letters a week â transcribing Jahennyâs dictated replies.111 Imbert-Gourbeyre was in contact with Madame Grégoire and received many transcriptions describing Jahennyâs ecstasies. In addition, as mentioned above, his daughter became part of the Amis de la Croix in the early twentieth century.112
A similar thing occurred with the groups of amis of Berguille Bergadieu and Marie-Louise Nerbollier in Fontet and Diémoz. Although the information is scarce in these cases, it seems that Nerbollierâs group was led by Madame Piellat, an aristocrat, and Madame Abric, a merchant of Church ornaments and Nerbollierâs old boss. They received the support of Father Germanet, the parish priest of Diémoz.113 In the case of Bergadieu, the parish priest of Fontet, a detractor, identified three men and one woman as those leading the movement, of which we can identify Henri Legras, a lawyer (it seems) from Bordeaux, Mr Boué, a veterinary who was there every Friday, and Mademoiselle Sylva, a 50-year-old woman from La Réole, whom the curate described to the Canon of Bordeaux as follows: âimagine the most ridiculous and eccentric person that you can meet.â114 Lauretine Billoquet does not appear to have received any organized support from visitors, probably because she left for Dijon before a movement could be formed.
We have previously mentioned that some supporters published on stigmatics during their lifetime. The groups of amis, however, were aware of the attitude of the French episcopate and, given the restrictions and censorship applied when the cults became popular, they preferred to operate cautiously. The strategy was a logical choice because, ultimately, their objective was to have their âownâ stigmatic recognized in the diocese, with the hope that one day she would become an official saint. While the stigmatic was alive, the main task of the devotees involved in these groups was to collect material to prove her authenticity before the episcopate. In cases where they were successful, this material might eventually be helpful in opening a cause of canonization â although this never took place in the cases of the French stigmatics discussed here.
To convince the ecclesiastical authority, the emphasis of the groups was on the comprehensive manner in which the stigmatic relived the Passion. To this end, the groups generated written records of the Way of the Cross, which they considered to be proof of the stigmaticâs sanctity and divine gifts. The records were written in situ and sometimes copied in more legible form. They followed a similar structure and style, which consisted of describing the different phases of the stigmaticâs ecstasy hour by hour, following the different stages of the Cross, and sometimes using titles such as âCarrying of the Crossâ and âCrucifixionâ for the purpose of clarity.115
If the stigmatic had revelations, as was usually the case with the Third Republic stigmatics, the groups would transcribe the âdivine messagesâ as quickly as they could, attempting to include everything. Some records signalled missing words with elipses (ââ¦â).116 Many of these records produced by the Amis de la Croix for Jahenny are stored in the diocesan archives of Nantes; while, for Bergadieu, a few transcriptions have been preserved under suggestive titles such as, âSpoken words recorded during the ecstasy with a very rigorous accuracy,â117 with the authors insisting on the âaccuracyâ of the accounts in an attempt to convince the ecclesiastical authority they had not falsified or added their own impressions.
It is important to note that even if the groups were defending a particular case, their emphasis on the reliving of the Passion by these laywomen in their own homes meant they were nevertheless advocating a specific stigmatic type. The implicit message of their records, and the general task of collecting proof of the ecstasies, was that these mystics in particular were worthy of diocesan attention, as they could potentially be saints. In this way, they felt they were justifying the importance of these women to the Church, and did not consider their task to be against ecclesiastical interests, as the reluctant episcopates seemed to think.
As an example of this type of material, we can cite the extensive records produced by a woman named Marie des Brulais, a teacher from Nantes and one of Jahennyâs amis. One record of 1874 entitled, âThe Passion of Marie-Julie,â is particularly comprehensive, with 67 manuscript pages re-transcribed into a notebook. Des Brulais described Jahennyâs reliving of the Passion in two columns, one recording Jahennyâs words, the other describing her actions. She remarked that many other attendees, including well-off people, were âwriting in a hurryâ during the Way of the Cross and they compared their accounts at the end to ensure nothing was missing.118 The task was thus a collective one even if one person was in charge of the final transcription.
We must note, however, that the majority of the records were not so comprehensive. For example, those produced by Henri Legras and other friends of Bergadieu were between five and ten pages long. They usually only transcribed some of Bergadieuâs words during the Way of the Cross, noting the time and providing some descriptions of the stigmaticâs actions â for example: âher arms fall back in a cross. Always the same rigidity. Breathing is difficult. Always looking up to the sky. Her lips are moving again. [Transcription of her words].â119
The records sometimes mention those who were present on a particular Friday.120 The idea was to gather as much support as possible. On several occasions, the attendees were asked to sign a statement acknowledging the facts, which would later be included as part of the transcript. As an example, we can cite the testimony of a pharmacist from Rennes involved in various lay Catholic movements, including the Comité Catholique and the Société de Saint Vincent de Paul, who visited Jahenny in 1877 and, upon his return, wrote to the Bishop of Nantes:
I attended the Way of the Cross, in all similar to the first 3 I had seen and I signed the minutes (procès-verbal), drawn up during the meeting, [about] the persistence of the phenomena of La Fraudais. This seemed necessary to me; since the ecclesiastical authority of the diocese was not represented there.121
The quote above points to the previously mentioned fact that Jahenny, as well as the other stigmatics, had been abandoned by the diocese, leaving their cases in the hands of their supporters. The groups would later send copies of their transcripts to the episcopate, attempting to convince the ecclesiastical authority to acknowledge the stigmatic. For example, in 1874, Henri Legras sent a copy of a record of Bergadieuâs Way of the Cross to the Cardinal of Bordeaux, adding that he had attended 22 other ecstasies and that he was convinced of the events.122 In the case of Jahenny, the Charbonnier brothers argued that they considered the records as a mere âdepositâ from the stigmatic that belonged, above all, to the bishop.123 As we can see from these examples, the groups contacted the episcopal authorities directly, without the intercession of the parish priest. The Amis de la Croix, in particular, refused to give their records to the curate (a detractor) because they did not trust him.124
Jahennyâs group would continue to produce similar records of her undergoing of the Way of the Cross until her death in 1941. While some transcriptions were still handwritten, others benefited from technological developments and were transcribed using a typewriter. The reports still mention small groups of attendees, usually around ten people, notable lay men and women of the region, including the names of aristocratic families who had been following the stigmatic from the beginning; thus, it seems that the composition of her unofficial movement remained quite stable.125 Unfortunately, we do not know how the episcopal authorities responded, if at all, to the presentation of these and other records of the stigmaticsâ ecstasies, but the fact that the material has been preserved in the diocese shows that it was deemed important enough to be kept, although not necessarily examined.
Not all of these unofficial cults survived, at least not with the same intensity. Nevertheless, some devotees continued to make claims concerning their case after the stigmaticâs death. We have previously mentioned how visitors to Billoquet sent the ârelicsâ obtained during Fridays to the episcopate after she had passed away in 1936. Furthermore, when Nerbollier was exhumed in 1939 because no one had renewed the grave concession, her body appeared to be uncorrupted. The parish priest and seven other people, old âfriendsâ of Nerbollier, made a statement concerning the exhumation for the episcopate of Grenoble as proof of the stigmaticâs sanctity.126
In the case of Jahenny, after her death, the Amis de la Croix became a society called the Association Le Sanctuarie de Marie-Julie et de la Fraudais, which bought the stigmaticâs house to preserve her bedroom intact and built a shrine in the living room without the approval of the diocese.127 To collect donations to buy the house, they encouraged those who had visited not to allow âthis endearing relicâ to disappear.128 Today, Jahennyâs association is still active, and some devotees of Nerbollier continue to plead her case. They have embraced the internet as a new way to promote them, and without abandoning their claims before the episcopate.129
Before concluding, it is worth mentioning that other typical stigmatics of the twentieth century also received the support of groups of lay visitors. For example, Marthe Robin received support from an association called Foyers de charité, which she and her spiritual confessor founded in 1936 after the stigmatic received a âdivine mission.â However, unlike the unofficial movements we have examined, Robinâs association was much more than a group attempting to promote her. The Foyers de charité survive to this day. They are houses (today, there are still more than 76 worldwide) where men and women undertake six-day spiritual retreats, sharing their material possessions and engaging in a silent prayer with the help of a preacher named âthe Fatherâ of the foyer, who may be a lay man or woman. Although the movement remained unacknowledged during the lifetime of the stigmatic, it nevertheless received some diocesan support. After Robinâs death, and coinciding with the start of her cause of beatification in 1986, it was recognized by the Church as an âAssociation of the Faithful.â130 The cult of Robin was thus authorized, unlike the stigmatics we have examined, who remained unacknowledged.
5 Conclusions
Examining the visitorsâ encounters with stigmatics in the French Third Republic, as expressed in their personal accounts and correspondence, has allowed us to see how stigmatic cults could be created from the ground up and be actively sustained by the men and women who believed in them, even in opposition to an episcopal policy that aimed to isolate and control these cases. It was during the visits that these cults began to develop, when people from different backgrounds and with different ideas were confronted with the actual stigmatic, as opposed to an image of a typical stigmatic that many had already heard or read about. In France, their image had been spreading due to popular cases such as Louise Lateau and the French stigmatics who followed her, notably Marie-Julie Jahenny, who also seemed to âinspireâ other French cases.
The extraordinary capacities attributed to these laywomen: from their reliving of the Passion to the possibility of obtaining recommendations, âbloody relicsâ and grace from them, was a strong focus of attraction. Many of these expectations were confirmed during the visits, where further elements related to typical stigmatics took actual form: from the humble houses and pious bedrooms, through to the family or friends receiving those visiting, and to the ecstasy of the Passion transmitted from the bed every Friday. Witnessing such events confirmed a growing imaginary about stigmatics, which was also contributed to by doctors who, while organizing their visits as medical investigations, would often refer to the events in their reports. After their visits, many people would share their experience with their peers, thus not only contributing to the fame of a particular stigmatic, but also spreading this imaginary about the stigmatic type. Interest in this particular profile would then increase, with others expressing their wish to witness the events of which they had been told.
The dioceses were not unaware of this phenomenon, as parish priests or the stigmaticâs spiritual director would inform the bishops. The grass-roots enthusiasm for stigmatics, represented in the weekly Friday meeting around the women, was contrary to the Churchâs position on the admiration of a living person. In France, typical stigmatics faced diocesan hostility the moment the cults, with their Friday rituals and their unauthorized worship, began to challenge official spaces and the practice of established religion. As in other cases, measures were taken, such as the restriction of visits and the removal of spiritual directors who were sympathetic to the stigmatic. However, the ecclesiastical abandonment of stigmatics contributed to the formation of more or less organized and unofficial movements of believers, some surviving after the death of the stigmatic and becoming formal associations. While their claims were related to particular cases, they were also based on the idea that these types of mystics were worthy of the Churchâs attention, as they were potential saints. The records of the Way of the Cross they produced, however, did not serve to convince the episcopates.
While it was not the aim of this chapter, we should note that other devotee associations were founded years after the deaths of other âtypicalâ stigmatics, usually with the aim of initiating a cause of canonization or to assist in its progression.131 Among these, we can name the Association Symphorose, which supports the French stigmatic Symphorose Chopin (1924â1983);132 the Amici della Meneghina (Friends of the Meneghina), supporting Maria Domenica Lazzeri (1815â1848); and the Association des amis dâEphèse et dâAnne Catherine Emmerick, which included members from 18 different countries and had the scholar Louis Massignon (1883â1962) as the secretary-general.133 These groups were mainly the initiatives of lay believers rather than priests, some of whom had visited the stigmatic during her lifetime, which again reveals the role of the faithful in nourishing and sustaining the cults. As seen in the case of Marie-Julie Jahenny, in addition to preserving the spiritual heritage of a stigmatic, these associations also aimed to preserve their material heritage. In the following chapter, we will examine the importance of this material culture for stigmatics.
Priesching, Maria von Mörl.
Smeyers and Rossi, âTyrolean stigmata.â
Kane, âStigmatic Cults.â
Lachapelle, âTouring a once pious nation.â
See, e.g., Edelman, Les métamorphoses, 208â24; Goldstein, âThe hysteria diagnosis,â 221â237; Lalouette, âDimensions anticléricales,â 138â140.
Meldolesi, âLe chemin de fer;â Alison, âThe pleasant,â 181.
For example, in the case of Marie-Julie Jahenny, most visitors went to Nantes by train, then took a cart or walked to the nearby village of Blain, and then walked three kilometres to the hamlet of La Fraudais, finally reaching Jahennyâs house. In the twentieth century, visitors to Jahenny and other stigmatics would also use their own car or buses. A bus driver recalled driving many people on their way to La Fraudais before the Second World War, some allegedly coming from Britain and Belgium, Graus, âA visit to remember,â 60.
Among the most renowned accounts are those of the German poet Clemens Brentano on Emmerick, and those of Joseph von Görres and the Earl of Shrewsbury on the Tyrol stigmatics. On the visits to the stigmatics of the South Tyrol, especially von Mörl and Lazzeri, see, e.g., Priesching, Maria von Mörl; Rossi, âReligious virtuosi;â Rossi and Smeyers, âInto the land of the living saints.â
See, e.g., Péladan, Ma retraite du châtiment (1874), 14â15; Péladan, Ãvénements miraculeux de Fontet (1878), 21â22; Péladan, Dernier mot des prophéties (1881), 85â100. On Péladan see Drouin, âUn légitimiste mystique.â
OâSullivan, âDisruptive potential,â 69.
Kane, âStigmatic cults,â 107 and 124. On the formation and routinization of Catherine of Sienaâs cult, see Parsons, The cult, Chapter 1.
Gibson, A social history, 156â157.
Kane, âStigmatic cults,â 111, 114, 121.
In this way, she was turned into both an example of hysteria for positivist neurologists such as Désiré-Magloire Bourneville, as well as proof of the divine origin of stigmata for the Catholic doctor Antoine Imbert-Gourbeyre. See, e.g., Lachapelle, âBetween miracle and Sickness,â 102.
Kane, âStigmatic cults,â 124.
Albert, âSaintes et héroïnes,â 115â116; Kselman, Miracles, 113â120.
Chantin, Les marges; Multon, âProphétesses;â Sandoni, âPolitical mobilizations,â 20â24.
On this topic we must mention the work that Elisabetta Lurgo is doing on another famous case of stigmatization â Théotiste Covarel (1836â1908), who was a political and symbolic figure in France at the time. Elisabetta presented her work, âPazzie e più che pazzieâ: il sogno mistico di Cantianille Bourdois, âsorella di Gesùâ, e Théotiste Covarel, la stigmatizzata della Maurienneâ, during the international conference, AISSCA (Sapienza Università di Roma and Pontificia Università Antonianum), Cantieri dellâAgiografia, 3rd edition, Rome 16â18 January 2019. As her monograph is forthcoming (2019), we will not discuss the Covarel case in this chapter. For a general overview of the case, see Multon, âCatholicisme,â 125â132.
Marx, Le péché, 341.
V. de Portets (pseudonym of Victor Lac de Bosredon), La résurrection de Berguille (1875), 28â29.
Billoquet was also said to be in spiritual contact with Jahenny, Maître, Les stigmates, 205.
Lachapelle, âProphecies,â 57â61; Roberdel, Marie-Julie Jahenny, 37â52.
The press, the medical debate about her, as well as Imbert-Gourbeyreâs bestseller, Les stigmatisées (1873), all contributed to the fame of Lateau in France. Imbert-Gourbyere called Louise Lateau and Palma Matarrelli âhis stigmatics.â Letter from Antoine Imbert-Gourbeyre to Louis Veuillot, 11 March 1872, Correspondance et papiers de Louis Veuillot (1re série), NAF 24230, fol. 161â162, Bibliothèque Nationale de France (Richelieu) (BNF).
For example, a book of 1874 compared Berguille Bergadieu with Louise Lateau, see Charles Clauchai-Larsenal (pseudonym of Charles Chaulliac), Berguille et Louise Lateau. Ãtude comparative.
In Dijon, in the twentieth century, Billoquet also acted as a seer called Estelle Mary. Maître, Les stigmates, 227â228. Pierre Roberdel notes that Marie-Julie Jahennyâs stigmata became invisible when she turned 80. In: Roberdel, Marie-Julie Jahenny, 274.
Sofie Lachapelle analysed the public debate concerning Berguille Bergadieu, about whom several brochures and books appeared at the start of the events in 1873. See Lachapelle, âProphecies,â 57â68. Some of these brochures were internationally received, according to the authors V. de Portets (pseudonym of Victor Lac de Bosredon) and Joseph Barrère. See, letter of Joseph Barrère, 5 January 1876; letter of Victor Lac de Bosredon, Verdelais, 23 July 1875, dossier Berguille Bergadieu, Archives diocésaines de Bordeaux (ADB); Barrère, Berguille (1875).
Imbert-Gourbeyre, La stigmatisation, II, 173â182.
On Nerbollier see, e.g., âLa stigmatisée de Diémoz,â Le XIXe Siècle, April 19, 1886, 4; âLe miracle de Diémoz,â Le Franc-Maçon, April 24, 1886, 1â2; âMiracle ! Miracle !â Le Républicain de la Loire et de la Haute-Loire, April 23, 1886, 3; Adrien Péladan [A.P.] and S.B. Une nouvelle voyante (1886). In the case of Billoquet, see especially, Maître, Les stigmates, 43â50.
In recent years, a devotee of Nerbollier collected a dossier of documents related to the stigmatic that she deposited in different diocesan archives. See Dossier Marie-Louise Nerbollier, I.1911, Archives diocésaines de Lyon (ADL).
In the case of Jahenny, where archival sources are richer, we find many accounts signed by marquises and barons. There are also instances in the archives of Billoquet and Bergadieu; for example, in one letter, a baroness asked Bergadieu to pray to help her family overcome their difficult situation, and in Rouen a marquise wanted to take Billoquet, who was bedridden, to Lourdes. For accounts by members of the humble classes, we find some letters concerning Jahenny and Bergadieu in very poor handwriting and full of grammatical mistakes. They also do not follow the French formalities used in particular forms of correspondence, especially those addressed to ecclesiastical figures. See, e.g. Letter from the baroness of LâÃpine (?) to the parish priest of Fontet, 30 June 1879, dossier Berguille Bergadieu, ADB. Letter from Father Hermier to the Vicar of Rouen, 24 July 1885, affair Laurentine Billoquet, box 791, Archives diocésaines de Rouen (ADR), âMadame la marquise de Senarport nourrit depuis un an au moins le projet de conduire Laurentine à Lourdes.â For the peasants see, e.g., undated letter (c. 1875) from a woman (illegible name) from Fontet, probably a peasant, to the Cardinal of Bordeaux, ADB.
Letter from A. Babin (?) to the Bishop of Bordeaux, Bar-le-duc 18 September 1880, dossier Berguille Bergadieu, ADB. Hamez, Une hostie vivante (1908), 420â426. Durnerin bore the invisible wounds from 1894; however, her stigmatization remained unknown to almost everyone. On her case and the society she founded, see Graus, âA âdivine missionâ to sanctify the laity.â
For example, a man named Pierre Dutour had read about Bergadieu in one of the promotional brochures cited and wanted to visit her; as did a married woman who had heard there was a âsaintly personâ not far from Bordeaux; and another in La Fraudais (Jahenny), Letter of Pierre Dutour, Trojan, 16 September 1877; Letter from A. Babin, 18 September 1880, dossier Berguille Bergadieu, ADB.
Letter from Michel Lequex to the parish priest of Blain, 23 June 1881, Pin, Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, 5F2/100, Archives historiques du diocèse de Nantes (AHDN). Letter from the Baron de Baye to Father Audrian, 24 September 1880, 5F2/100, AHDN, âOn me lâa conseillé et il sâagit dâun état spirituel et physique tellement affreux, tellement extraordinaire.â Emphasis in the original.
For example, one woman asked Bergadieu to inspire the conversion of her husband, and others asked her to pray for a sick person, undated letter (c. 1879) from Catherine Bacquelin and letter from Joséphine Manson to the parish priest of Fontet, 6 June 1879, Calvados, Dossier Berguille Bergadieu, ADB.
Several miraculous cures were attributed to Bergadieu during her lifetime, Portets, La réssurection de Berguille (1875), VI. One visitor (unknown gender) to Jahenny confirmed to the parish priest that he had obtained grace from the stigmatic and asked her to inspire the conversion of his sick brother, âles grâces que jâavais sollicitées par lâentremise de Marie Julie mâont été accordées,â letter from (?) Loquin to Father David, 14 September 1879, Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, 5F2/100, AHDN.
Peyrous, âConseils spirituels;â Wiethaus, âBloody bodies,â 194â195.
Letter from Victoire Olivier (56 years old) to Marie-Julie Jahenny, 1880, âchère sÅur priez beaucoup pour ma délivrance,â Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, AHDN, 5F2/100. One baroness wrote to the parish priest of Fontet asking to be included in Bergadieuâs recommendations, letter of the Baroness de lâÃpine (unclear name), 30 June 1879, Dossier Berguille Bergadieu, ADB.
Letter from a woman (illegible name) to Marie-Julie Jahenny, Issoudun, 19 April 1880, 5F2/100, AHDN. Jahenny allegedly predicted the time that Lateau would die, and Lateau supposedly announced that Jahenny would take her place and continue her mission. Other famous female mystics, such as Mélanie Calvat, Marguerite-Marie Alacoque and Thérèse de Lisieux, sometimes appeared in Jahennyâs prophecies. Bourcier, Marie-Julie Jahenny, 297â312; Roberdel, Marie-Julie Jahenny, 20 and 134.
For example, Sofie Lachapelle and Gábor Klaniczay analysed the medical visits and debate about Louise Lateau; Hervé Guillemain examined those especially concerning Marie-Julie Jahenny; and Jacques Maître analysed the case of the stigmatic of the Salpêtrière, Madeleine Lebouc. Guillemain, Diriger les consciences, 137â154; Klaniczay, âLouise Lateau,â 296â302; Lachapelle, âBetween Miracle and Sickness,â 87â100; Maître, Une inconnue célèbre.
Benjamin Ball, âLa stigmatisée de S.,â LâEncéphale 1 (1881): 361â368.
Lachapelle, âProphecies,â 63â68. See several reports on Bergadieu, where the ecstasy and stigmata are interpreted as a nervous condition, Mauriac and Verdalle, Ãtude médicale sur lâextatique de Fontet (1875); Dr. Desmaisons, âObservations lues à la Société de médecine et de chirurgie de Bordeaux,â Gazette médicale de Bordeaux 5, n. 4 (1876): 61â71; A. Girard, âRapport sur lâextatique de Fontet,â Union médicale de la Seine-Inférieure 15 (1876): 84â87.
He later developed his ârationalist theoryâ on stigmata and the imagination in a chapter of his book, La magie et lâastrologie (1860). According to Maury, stigmatics lived surrounded by images of the Crucified Christ and had long meditations about the Passion. Fixing oneâs imagination on such images was sufficient to provoke the bleeding, especially in women, he said, who due to menstruation were naturally predisposed to bleed with frequency, Alfred Maury, âLes mystiques extatiques et les stigmatisés,â Annales médico-psychologiques, 1.2 (1855): 181â232; Maury, La magie et lâastrologie (1860), 339â414. On Maury see Carroy and Richard, Alfred Maury.
Maître, âDe Bourneville à nos jours,â 765â768. This pathologizing of the religious experience continued well into the twentieth century, by psychiatrists such as Jean Lhermitte and his book Mystiques et faux mystiques (1952), in which he wrote about stigmatics such as Jahenny.
Especially in books such as the famous La stigmatisation (1894) and the lesser known LâHypnotisme et la stigmatisation (1899), written as an attack on physicians provoking stigmata and âblood sweatsâ through suggestion. At the fin de siècle, the heyday of hypnotism, most physicians acknowledged the power of suggestion to provoke bleeding and âholyâ wounds. Many stigmatics, however, refused to be hypnotized. Moreover, the Catholic Church warned about the loss of free will during hypnosis, a practice it deemed dangerous and for some time diabolic. Imbert-Gourbeyre, LâHypnotisme et la stigmatisation (1908).
This was indeed the case for the medical examinations of Billoquet and Jahenny, as well as those practised by, for example, Lefèbvre and other doctors of Louise Lateau. Ball, âLa stigmatisée de S.,â 363; Roberdel, Marie-Julie Jahenny, 66; Klaniczay, âLouise Lateau,â 296â297.
Bouflet, âAvant-propos,â in Imbert-Gourbeyre, La stigmatisation, ed. Joachim Bouflet (1996), 7â18, esp. 17; Bruno, Quelques souvenirs sur Marie-Julie (1941), 13.
âTu connais point la sainte the Blain ?â in Bouchet, âMarie-Julie Jahenny,â 1. âLa âSainteâ, câest le nom quâelle [Nerbollier] a laissé à Diémoz,â Letter from J. Micon to the Vicar of Grenoble, 16 May 1940, Dossier Marie Louise Nerbollier, I.1911, ADL. âLa stigmatisée de Diémoz,â Le XIXe Siècle, April 19, 1886, 4. âEst-ce ici quâhabite la Sainte de Blain,â visitor cited in Roberdel, Marie-Julie Jahenny, 295.
For example, a family man from Médoc gave a silver coin to Berguille Bergadieu who threw it away. E. Fillastre, âVisite faite à Berguille le 9 Avril 1875,â ADB.
Imbert-Gourbeyre, Les Stigmatisées, II, 97.
Roberdel, Marie-Julie Jahenny, 138. Letter from the parish priest to the Canon of Bordeaux, 17 January 1878, dossier Berguille Bergadieu, ADB.
âEn favorisant lâentrée de certains pèlerins avant lâextase,â letter from Amélie du (?) to a mademoiselle, Vitré, 28 June 1879, 5F2/63, AHDN. Marie des Brulais (teacher), âUn second voyage à Blain et à la Fraudais, 2 et 3 Septembre 1875,â 49, 5F2/88, AHDN. Anonymous, âSouvenirs de La Fraudais. 4e volume. 1878 à 1879,â 5F2/91, AHDN.
Kane, âStigmatics Cults,â 121.
For Jahenny, see the picture of her bedroom (Figure 4.1); for Nerbollier, see Hamez, Une hostie vivante, 425.
Kane, âStigmatic Cults,â 123.
On this issue, see also Chapter 3. Diary of an anonymous woman, 1881, â3ème et 4ème visite à la Fraudais à Marie Julie lâextatique de Blain,â Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, AHDN, 5F2/92, âThéâtre de tant de merveilles.â
Amélie du (?), 19 July 1879, Vitré, 5F2/63, AHDN, âle moment où elle sâentretiendrait avec Notre Seigneur.â
A visitor to La Fraudais recalls there were 25 to 30 people in Jahennyâs bedroom. See âUne visite à la Fraudais le Vendredi 16 septembre 1877,â 5F2/87, AHDN. Henri Legras, âExtase de Berguille du 16 juillet 1875,â dossier Berguille Bergadieu, ADB, âseize personnes.â See also the section on the visitorsâ movements below.
Cited in Peyret, Marthe Robin, 187â188. For Jahenny, see the picture in Bruno, Quelques souvenirs sur Marie-Julie, 12; and a journal of a nine-year-old girl from Blain, transcribed in Roberdel, Marie-Julie Jahenny, 327â330.
Report of Father Germanet, spiritual director, Diémoz, 4 July 1896, Dossier Marie-Louise Nerbollier, I.1911, ADL.
Kane, âStigmatic Cults,â 121.
âSouvenirs de La Fraudais. 4e volume. 1878 à 1879,â Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, 5F2/91, AHDN, âLe chemin de croix commença comme dâhabitude. Les trois chutes se succédèrent comme par le passé. Les stigmates de la tête qui, avant lâextase, étaient peu saillants, se boursoufflent, quelques-uns saignent abondamment. Ceux des mains saignent aussi, mais moins. Le sang, au lieu de suivre la loi commune, monte le long de la paume et vient retomber sur le dos de la main. à chaque chute elle reste posternée le visage contre terre, et dâune voix forte et singulièrement timbrée, elle adresse à Dieu des prières admirables.â
Letter from J.B. Miramont to the Vicar General, 19 March 1877, Dossier of Berguille Bergadieu, AHDB. âChaque vendredi sa chambre se transforme en un véritable sanctuaire. On y voit brûler des cierges, on y entend chanter des psaumes et des cantiques, ni plus ni moins que dans une Ãglise.â Louise Lateau was another stigmatic where visitors recited prayers during the ecstasy, see Van Osselaer, âThe affair,â 790.
Marie des Brulais, âUn second voyage à Blain et à la Fraudais, 2 et 3 Septembre 1875,â 49, Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, 5F2/88, AHDN.
Kane, âStigmatics Cults,â 121.
A teacher from Nantes recalls speaking with the aristocratic family of Lautrec during her visits. See âUn second voyage à Blain et à la Fraudais, 2 et 3 Septembre 1875,â 49, Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, 5F2/88, AHDN.
Christian, Visionaries, 260â261.
Graus, âA visit to remember,â 65. There is archival material on Amengual in: Arxiu diocesà de Mallorca (ADM), Margalida Amengual, 13.1.
See e.g., âPélérinage à La Fraudais,â Baron and Mademoiselle de la Tour du Pin, 25 June 1875, Fonds Marie-Julie, AHDN, 5F2/87.
Letter from J. Jobard to the Vicar General of Rouen, 17 March 1938, Dijon, Affaire Laurentine Billoquet, box 791, ADR, âGrandes souffrances quâelle a supportées avec un courage admirable.â
Letter from Father Germanet to the Monsignor of Grenoble, July 4, 1896. Dossier Marie-Louise Nerbollier, I.1911, ADL, âEn voyant le sang des stigmates de la jeune fille, et ses extases douloureses, ils sentent tout le besoin de devenir meilleurs, et de reveneir à lâaccomplissement de leurs devoirs trop longtemps oubliés.â
Diary of an anonymous woman, 1881, â3ème et 4ème visite à la Fraudais à Marie Julie lâextatique de Blain,â Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, 5F2/92, AHDN, âAh ! elle saigne ⦠sa figure dans lâespace de quelques instants sâétait transformée sous lâaction de la souffrance. Alors sur ces pauvres mains, qui étaient tombées le long de son corps, jâappuie mon petit morceau de socle, et béni, recueille quelques gouttes de ce sang précieux ; les pieds saignent également. Alors tout le monde entre. On essuie ses mains avec des images, mais il a déjà séché.â
On this matter, see also Chapter 5.
Several had been passed from one generation to the next. On relics, see Affaire Laurentine Billoquet, box 791, ADR.
On the blessing of objects during Bergadieuâs ecstasy, see E. Fillastre, âParoles recueillies pendant lâextase avec une exactitude très rigoureuse,â 9 April 1875, Fonds Jacques Maître, Archives Nationales (AN), EHESS/PR/750. Example of blessed pious image obtained from Jahenny in âSouvenirs de La Fraudais. 4e volume. 1878 à 1879,â Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, AHDN, 5F2/91.
Letter of J. Michel-de-Rienfret, 9 August 1876, dossier of Berguille Bergadieu, ADB; letter of a woman (illegible name), Tours, 5 August 1880, Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, AHDN, 5F2/63.
Dupront, Du sacré, 463.
Amélie du (?), 19 July 1879, âMa chère cousine, jâarrive il y a à peine une heure de mon voyage de Blain toute émue et toute impressionée de ce que jây ai vu.â Illegible name (man), 10 February 1880, âQuelle sublime exstase!â Illegible name (woman), Tours, 5 August 1880, âplus nous y allons, plus nous avons le désir dây retourner.â All in Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, AHDN, 5F2/59â70.
We have cited several such accounts, for example, âVisite faite à Berguille le 9 Avril 1875,â Fonds Jacques Maître, AN, EHESS/PR/750; âVisite à La Fraudais,â 16 July 1885, Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, AHDN, 5F2/66.
On the response of the French clergy to different forms of popular religion in nineteenth-century France, such as the cult of saints and Marian devotions, see Gibson, A Social History, 134â157.
Report of Father Germanet, Diémoz, 4 July 1896, Dossier Marie-Louise Nerbollier, I.1911, ADL; Journal of Father Hermier, 1883â1886, Affaire Lauretine Billoquet, box 791, ADR.
Letter from J.B. Miramont to the Cardinal of Bordeaux, 19 March 1877, Dossier of Marie Bergadieu, AHDB, âest transformée en veritable temple, où le culte se célèbre régulièrement tous les vendredis. Et dire que toutes ces choses se passent pendant que la cloche appelle les fidèles à lâÃglise, pour les exercices du carême!â
âDéfense formelle de publier quoique ce soit sur Berguille,â 1 August 1878, Dossier Berguille Bergadieu, ADB. See the censored manuscript La Stigmatisée de Blain by Eugène Penel, 1876â1878, Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, 5F2/89, AHDN. Another censored book was that of a journalist writing for Le Courrier de Saint-Nazare, Jacqueline Bruno, entitled, Quelques souvenirs sur Marie-Julie, la stigmatisée de Blain. A copy of the censored book can be found in the AHDN, 5F2/48. On Church censorship, see also Chapter 5.
Daurelle, Les événements de Fontet (1878), 113. Response of Father Audrian to a letter from a priest from Laval, 7 June 1895, 5F2/100, AHDN.
For Bergadieu and Billoquet there was a formal ban. Daurelle, Les événements de Fontet, 113; Maître, Les stigmates, 50. On Jahenny, see letter from the parish priest of Blain to Father P. Esbach, drafted in Esbachâs letter, 31 August 1885, Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, 5F2/100, AHDN.
A book by Father Daurelle, Les événements de Fontet (1878), also mentioned Jahenny and was censored. The clergy from Bergadieuâs parish was openly against him. Letter from the parish priest of Fontet to the Canon Mourra, 17 January 1877, Dossier Berguille Bergadieu, ADB.
Munar, Margarita de Costitx, 143; Imbert-Gourbeyre, Les stigmatisées, Vol. II, 50. Imbert-Gourbeyreâs work on Matarrelli, the second volume of Les stigmatisées, was not reprinted because the doctor was admonished by the Vatican, which did not support the stigmatic. Louis Veuillot from LâUnivers warned him that âthe Pope is not a Palmaist (Palmaïste).â Letter from Louis Veuillot to Antoine Imbert-Gourbeyre, 10 June 1872, emphasis on the original, Correspondance et papiers de Louis Veuillot (1re série), NAF 24222, fol. 300â301, BNF (Richelieu). On these issues, see Chapter 7, as well as Klaniczay, âThe stigmatized Italian visionary.â
Letter from Father Miramont to the Vicar General, 18 July 1877, Dossier Berguille Bergadieu, ADB.
âDiocèse de Rouen,â La Semaine religieuse du diocèse de Rouen, October 15, 1881, 1007, âchercher en être témoin, câest obéir à une curiosité malsaine que la religion réprouve.â
Report of Father Germanet, Diémoz, 4 July 1896, Dossier Marie-Louise Nerbollier, I.1911, ADL. One woman asked permission from the family of Jahenny. See illegible name (woman), Tours, 5 August 1880, Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, AHDN, 5F2/63.
Undated letter from a woman (illegible name) from Fontet, probably a peasant, to the Cardinal of Bordeaux, ADB. âPourquoi, si elle a la permission de vous Monseigneur, ne puis-je pas lâobtenir aussi votre soutien?â
Response of Father Audrian to the letter from the Baron de Baye, 24 September 1880, and to the letter from a woman (illegible name), 6 July 1891, Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, 5F2/100, AHDN.
Letter of the priest of Port-du-Salut and answer of Father Audrian, November 1, 1889, Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, AHDN, 5F2/100, âJe ne comprends pas, à moins que vous nâen soyez chargé officiellement, que vous ayez de satisfaire la curiosité plus ou moins surnaturelle des personnes qui vous consultent à ce sujet. Vous feriez beaucoup mieux, à mon humble avis, de sâoccuper de leurs affaires moins de la voyante de Blain.â
Letter of J. Michel-de-Rienfret, 9 August 1876, Dossier of Berguille Bergadieu, ADB, âJe suis persuadé que plus y aura de visites à Fontet, plus la religion y gagnera.â
Letter of a woman (illegible name), Tours, 5 August 1880, Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, 5F2/63, AHDN.
E. Fillastre, âVisite faite à Berguille le 9 Avril 1875,â Fonds Jacques Maître, AN, EHESS/PR/750.
Guillemain, Diriger les consciences, 137â154.
Lachapelle, âBetween miracle and sickness,â 77â105; Klaniczay, âLouise Lateau,â 296â303.
âCrise nerveuse,â Report of Dr Jouon and Dr Vignaux, 29 March, 1873, Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, 5F2/27. Report of Father Audrian, 1873, Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, 5F2/27.
See Putâs biography in the Stigmatics database and the appendix; OâSullivan, Disruptive power, 31â32.
Reports by Imbert-Gourbeyre, 5F2/37, AHDN. Imbert-Gourbeyre was mistakenly persuaded that he would only die after Jahenny. Letter of Elie Jalloustre, Clermont, 8 March 1912, Fonds Paul LeBlanc, Bibliothèque du Patrimoine (BP), Clermont-Ferrand. We are grateful to Gábor Klaniczay for this document. Roberdel, Marie-Julie Jahenny, 98â100.
It seems that Nerbollier initially obtained the support of Monsignor Fava, from Grenoble, but when he died in 1899, the new bishop, as well as the new parish priest, were not favourable to the stigmatic and denied her the sacraments, Hamez, Une hostie vivante, 424â426.
For example, âElle [Bergadieu] est bien contrarié de lâétat dâabandone dans lequel on lâa laissé,â in E. Fillastre, âVisite faite à Berguille le 9 Avril 1875,â Fonds Jacques Maître, AN, EHESS/PR/750. On the miraculous Communions see, Maître, Les stigmates de lâhystérique, 9 and 54; Roberdel, Marie-Julie, 97 and 107.
Graus, âA visit to remember,â 67. On the Vatican response to stigmatics see Chapter 7.
Muizon, Marthe Robin, 173.
Graus, âA âdivine missionâ to sanctify the laity.â
Maître, Les stigmates, 8â9.
For example, in one letter, a visitor (a man) asked the Cardinal of Bordeaux to visit Berguille Bergadieu once to be convinced about the events, âvous serez si convaincu quâil vous sera impossible de resister plus longtemps,â Henri Legras to the cardinal of Bordeaux, 15 June 1876, Dossier Berguille Bergadieu, ADB.
Roberdel, Marie-Julie Jahenny, 95.
As mentioned above, Father Daurelle, author of Les événements de Fontet, supported Bergadieuâs group.
Roberdel, Marie-Julie Jahenny, 95â96.
Corresponding with devotees was a daily activity for many stigmatics. During the 50 years Marthe Robin (1902â1981) bore the stigmata, she also received dozens of letters a week and had the help of a secretary to reply to them. Among her âpen palsâ there were many prisoners, to whom she sent cigarettes, rosaries, the Bible and books. See Anonymous. Marthe Robin, 64.
Correspondence Madame Grégoire and Imbert-Gourbeyre, 5F2/98, AHDN.
Report of Father Germanet, Diémoz, 4 July 1896, Dossier Marie-Louise Nerbollier, I.1911, ADL. See also, âMiracle ! Miracle !,â Le Républican de la Loire et de la Haute-Loire, April 23, 1886, 3.
Letter from the parish priest of Fontet to the Canon of Bordeaux, 17 January 1877, ADB, âfigurez vous la personne la plus ridicule et la plus excentrique quâon puisse rencontrer.â See also, Letter from the parish priest of Fontet to the Cardinal of Bordeaux, 19 March 1877, ADB.
See, e.g., Henri Legras, âExtase de Berguille du 16 juillet 1875,â dossier Berguille Bergadieu, ADB. âLa Passion de Marie Julieâ by Marie des Brulais, in âVoyage a Blain le 7 août 1874,â Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, 5F2/86, AHDN.
Letter from A. Charbonnier to the Bishop of Nantes, 1877, Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, 5F2/103, AHDN. âJe ne me contentais pas dâécouter Marie Julie, jâécrivais aussi rapidement que possible ses paroles.â
E. Fillastre, âParoles recueillies pendant lâextase avec une exactitude très rigoureuse,â 9 April 1875, Fonds Jacques Maître, AN, EHESS/PR/750.
âLa Passion de Marie Julieâ by Marie des Brulais, in âVoyage a Blain le 7 août 1874,â Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, 5F2/86, AHDN. Des Brulais produced a similar record in, âUn second voyage à Blain et à la Fraudais, 2 et 3 Septembre 1875,â 5F2/88, AHDN.
âSes bras retombent en croix. Toujours la même rigidité. Respiration pénible. Toujours les yeux vers le ciel. Ses lèvres sâagissent de nouveau,â in âParoles recueillies pendant lâextase avec une exactitude très rigoureuse,â 9 April 1875, E. Fillastre, Fonds Jacques Maître, AN, EHESS/PR/750.
A priest visiting La Fraudais recalls being asked to be inscribed by the Charbonnier brothers, âUne visite à la Fraudais le Vendredi 16 septembre 1877,â 5F2/87.
Statement by G. Lebesconte (pharmacist) to Monsignor Lecoq, Bishop of Nantes, 7 August 1877, Rennes, Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, AHDN, 5F2/100, âJâai assisté au chemin de croix, en tout semblable aux 3 premiers que jâavais vu et jâai signé dans un procès-verbal, dressé séance tenante, la persistance des phénomènes de la Fraudais. Cela me semblait nécessaire ; puisque lâautorité ecclésiastique du diocèse nây était pas représentée.â
Henri Legras to the Cardinal of Bordeaux, 17 June 1876, Bordeaux, Dossier Berguille Bergadieu, ADB.
âJâen ai formé un volumineux manuscrit que je ne regarde que comme un dépôt entre mes mains et appartient de droit à votre Grandeur.â Letter from A. Charbonnier to the Bishop of Nantes, 1877, Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, AHDN, 5F2/103.
Roberdel, Marie-Julie, 126â127.
âRapport de lâextase de Marie-Julie à la Fraudais le 14 Juin 1932,â and âTémoignages de la famille de Maurice Lucasâ Fonds Marie-Julie Jahenny, AHDN, 5F2/70 and 5F2/44.
See minutes on Nerbollier exhumation in 1939, dossier Marie-Louise Nerbollier, I.1911, ADL.
Graus, âA visit to remember,â 62. On the houses of stigmatics see Van Osselaer, âValued most highly,â 94â101.
For documents on lay associations founded after Jahennyâs death, see AHDN, 5F2/49.
The website of Jahennyâs association can be found at: http://www.marie-julie-jahenny.fr (accessed February 13, 2019).
Clément, Pour entrer chez Marthe, 274â278; Donneaud, âMarthe Robin;â Graus, âA âdivine missionâ to sanctify the laity.â On the Vatican response to stigmatics, see Chapter 7.
On the Vatican response to stigmatics, see Chapter 7.
Symphorose Chopin was miraculously healed in Lourdes around 1958. She received many graces, including the stigmata. She died alone in a hospital with a reputation of sanctity. Her cause of beatification began in 2012, thanks in part to the Association Symphorose (Paris). Bouflet, Peyrous and Pompignoli, Des saints.
Around 1952, the year of its foundation, it had about 183 adherents from France, Belgium, Italy, England, the United States, Morocco, Turkey, Switzerland, Portugal, Algeria, Afghanistan, Senegal, Austria, Canada, Australia, Egypt, India and Japan. In 1913, Massignon made a pilgrimage to Emmerickâs grave in Dülmen, where he decided to marry his partner, and in 1926 he visited a lesser known stigmatic named Philomène Bertho from Binic (Côtes-dâArmor), who started bearing the wounds around the same time as Jahenny. See Fonds Louis Massignon, NAF 28658, box 119 and 120, BNF (Richelieu) (BNF).