Catholic Thought discussion
Revelations of Divine Love
>
Reading Schedule and Introduction
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
That sounds ok to me, Manny. I already ran into a stumbling block with this book. I started reading a few pages and was irritated at the archaic language. Luckily Amazon let me return it and I downloaded a different edition. It's much more clear, so far as the language goes, and the formatting is way better than the previous edition.
Thank you, Manny. You make it seem so effortless, yet a lot of thought must go into each proposal.
Mod
Yes, that happened to me too. I had a cheap version on my kindle and it was archaic, and so I knew it wouldn't do. So I bought this one:
https://www.amazon.com/All-Shall-Well...
I did look through it earlier this evening. The language has been updated and it is clear but I'm not sure I like the commentary that is sprinkled throughout but I can ignore that.
Mod
A little. I went though the page numbers for each section and divided it into something even.
Thanks a lot, Manny. I will get the book you suggested on Amazon.
I might be a little behind, since I ordered a physical copy and it hasn't arrived yet, but I'll make sure to catch up!
Mod
You can find it online by the way. But it won’t be a modern English translation.
Ellie wrote: "I might be a little behind, since I ordered a physical copy and it hasn't arrived yet, but I'll make sure to catch up!"Yeah, me too!
Mod
I started reading the edition Manny suggested and I have my doubts about it. From what I've read so far it is a very modern, and moving toward a secular, translation. They go into it in the latter part of the introduction and in the short comment to the first chapter they state that they are replacing the the word "Savior" with "Rescuer". Well, that's a little much for me.
I've looked for other edtions and settled on this one: Revelations of Divine Love
Unlike many other samples I've looked at, here one gets to actually read the translation of Julian's words, not just copious introductions and commentary before the actual text one is primarily interested in.
Let me give you a comparison of the beginning lines of the first chapter so everyone gets a taste of what I'm talking about. First from the modern 'All Shall Be Well':
This is a revelation of love that Jesus Christ, our endless joy, made in sixteen showings (sixteen particular and unique revelations). The first of these showed me that His crown of thorns was precious and valuable, and along with this image came a unique understanding of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the unity that exists between God and human beings. This showing and all the others that followed contained many lovely perspectives and lessons on God’s wisdom and love; all sixteen showings are grounded and unified by this same viewpoint.
Sanna, Ellyn. All Shall Be Well: A Modern-Language Version of the Revelation of Julian of Norwich (p. 20). Anamchara Books. Kindle Edition.
Second from 'Revelations of Divine Love':
THIS is a Revelation of Love that Jesus Christ, our endless happiness, made in sixteen particular revelations. The First concerns the precious crowning of our Lord with thorns, which contains and reveals both the Trinity and the incarnation, and unity between God and the human soul, with many fair showings of endless wisdom and teachings of love; and in which all the showings that follow are grounded and oned.
Norwich, Julian of. Revelations of Divine Love (p. 15). White Crow Books. Kindle Edition.
Notice the words I have highlighted, in the first translation the word 'soul' is omitted and in its stead we have the word 'beings'.
I will return the ultra modern translation and continue with the other.
Welcome back, Kerstin! I thought it was just me, although I had difficulty with two previous versions. The language used in those was very difficult! For example, the word "shewing" in place of "showing" (vision), etc. But I, too, found "Savior" vs. "Rescuer" very odd. I'm going to stick with this modern version for now because the language is so clear.It should be interesting seeing the differences among all of our versions as we go along! And how is your mother?
I have the Penguin Classics version (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Revelations-...) but since I'm coming back from uni tomorrow and it's waiting for me there, I downloaded it online as well and looked at it briefly. There is both a short and long version of the text of the revelations themselves, so I will read both and see which one is better. I really like the Penguin classics, since they seem to be the most academic versions of classics, with a ton of research put into them. I have a few books by them in my library and they never disappointed me. And they also have a bunch of extra material in them! So I, too, am interested in the comparison between the versions.What I just now remembered was reading a wonderful book some time ago called For Thy Great Pain Have Mercy On My Little Pain, which is a fiction book about Julian and Margery Kempe, their visions and meeting. I really recommend it, it was deeply spiritual and I definitely need to reread it. It's where I heard about these women for the first time!
Mod
Older versions of English are not easily read. It is almost like a foreign language. Though often it helps just sounding the words out and one gets the gist of it. Still, it is very laborious reading, and for our purposes there should be easy comprehension. The ideas and concepts conveyed are sometimes hard enough to wrap one's head around.
My Mom is stable right now and in good spirits. Thanks for asking!
Mod
I have quite a few Penguin Classics and was toying with this version as well. Alas, Amazon's sample wasn't long enough to give me a taste of Julian's writings, and the one I ultimately chose did, so that made my decision for me.
Mod
I am sorry I got that edition. I don't recommend it. But it's not the end of the world. I just compared word for word Chapter II in the version I bought with the online version which I assume is what everyone else has and the difference is small but noticeable. There are some word differences and it seems like the version I bought is more for a secular audience. Actually I don't know if that's true. There are plenty of religious words the translator kept, but she did make some unusual choices. It reads easy, but I wish I had not bought it.
I doubt any of your books are in Julian's original Middle English. Wikipedia gives a nice history of the translations over the years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelat...
Could everyone tell me who is listed as the translator for your book? The online translations seem to be the 1901 Grace Warrack translation.
Mod
Mod
Mod
Never mind. I just looked at my orders and my return window was two days ago. I'm still going to buy the Oxford Press edition. It provides both the short and long texts, has updated language, and a wealth of scholarly information.
I was thinking about the Oxford Press edition too, Manny. I really like those - I read War and Peace, Emma and Moby Dick from this edition so I wholly recommend. The Penguin Classics one is translated by Elizabeth Spearing, from what I could glean she did a bunch of medieval texts!
Mod
It only states "with Simon Parke". He seems to be an author. Published 2011 by White Crow Books out the the UK.
I don't mind switching to whatever edition we settle on.
Both of the previous editions I tried were translated by by Grace Warrack. Why one was even harder than the other to read is anyone's guess.
Mod
Kerstin - Thanks. When I looked up Simon Parke I found he was a former priest in the Church of England and a prolific author. If it's the same Simon Parke.
Milchelle - Could be the font or spelling wasn't updated for one edition.
Mod
I guess the best place to start is with Julian’s life. We don’t know that much about her actually. We’re not even sure if Julian was her real name. We know her as Julian because she was an anchoress attached to the St. Julian’s Church in Norwich, England. We know she was born at the end of 1342. We know this because she tells us that she was thirty and a half years old when she had this mystical experience in May of 1373. We don’t know exactly when she died but we know it was after 1416 because she was dated to be alive in a document on the 26th of September of that year. She lived over 74 years, which was quite a long life in that time. She lived through the Great Plague which ran rampant in her lifetime. She lived at the same time as Chaucer and St. Catherine of Siena.
Norwich at the time was the second largest city in England, second to London. It was a port city and judging by the number of churches and convents a very religious city. The Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham, the location of England’s most famous Marian apparition and perhaps the most significant Catholic pilgrimage destination in Medieval England, is just over thirty miles away. Norwich was a bustling city with a strong religious core.
There are two speculations about Julian’s life. One that before she had been an anchoress she had been married and had children. This speculation is based on the fact she uses motherly and wifely images in her work. If true, one would assume her husband and children died in the plague or some other unnatural way. The other speculation is that she had not been married, and that she may have been a Benedictine Nun. This is based on the fact that there was a Benedictine convent nearby and that she obviously knew how to read and write, which was not very common for a woman in the fourteenth century. Most women who knew how to write were usually in religious life.
We know that Julian was an anchoress. An anchoress (or anchorite for male or generic gender) was a consecrated religious who was bound to an attachment to a church for the rest of their life. The enclosure, which might have been one or two small rooms, was fixed to the church. It would have a window looking into the church so that the anchorite could attend Mass and receive the sacraments, and at least another window to the outside world so that food, books, necessities, and disposal of waste could be exchanged. The window also was so she could converse with people seeking prayers and advice. Barry Windeatt, the translator and editor of the Oxford edition, mentions that Julian had three windows in her anchorhold, which I imagine was quite a luxury.
An anchorite was not exactly a hermit. Besides the contact with the outside world through the window, some were allowed to have housekeepers who came by regularly. Julian had a housekeeper for at least some of the time. She may have also been allowed a cat. But the enclosure into the anchorhold was an entombment, a dying to the world. The ceremony consecrating this was a Mass for the dead. I became familiar with the life of an anchoress when I read the life of St. Hildegard of Bingen. Hildegard’s parents but her under the charge of an anchoress, Jutta, when Hildegard was eight years old. So it was quite possible for anchoress’s to not live alone. I don’t think it’s exactly known when Julian became an anchoress but it’s suspected in the 1390s. This would be some twenty years after the experience. So it would seem that Julian wrote the Short Text when not an anchoress but maybe the Long Text as an anchoress.
Julian tells us that her book is based on a mystical experience she had on either May 8th or 13th (manuscripts differ) in 1373. Some sort of life threatening illness struck her. She was nursed by her mother, and in the course of two days she had what she refers to as a series of “showings,” some sort of visions while unconscious, mystical state. She had the wherewithal to distinguish sixteen separate visions, fifteen of which were on the first day of her illness and the sixteenth on the second day. She initially wrote down the visions in what has become known as the “Short Text.” She would spend the next several decades contemplating the experience, understanding the visions, and expanding on her text. The latter, more comprehensive text is referred to as the “Longer Text.” Windeatt has a section in his introduction on the relationship of the Shorter Text to the Longer. He summarizes the relationship this way: “What had started in the short text as the story of Julian’s visions becomes in the long version the history of how she comes to understand them” (p. xxiv).
Mod
Manny wrote: "Does anyone know how I can return to Amazon the kindle edition I don't like with the one I prefer?"I returned the Amazon kindle edition I downloaded without a problem. They removed it from your reader as soon as I I request it two days after I bought it.
Mod
I returned the Amazon kindle edition I downloaded without a problem. They removed ..."
Thanks Galicius. Mine had passed the date for returns. It's only $6.
Mod
Julian never titled her work. It was titled posthumously, Revelations of Divine Love. “Revelations” is not even her own word. She preferred to use the word “showings” which may have been the word in Middle English for revelations. Her text or texts—there might have been more than one text—may have been preserved by the nearby convent, reproduced and sent off to Europe. It was her only work. Its focus is just on her one mystical experience. Unlike many other mystics who have a series or even a lifetime of mystical experiences, Julian only has this one that we know of, and except for two consecutive days in May of 1373, she would have been a common woman of her day, albeit she chose to become an anchoress. Since the mystical experience occurred some twenty years before she became an anchoress, one wonders if the experience contributed to her decision.
The language of Julian’s day was Middle English. Wikipedia has a very good section on her prose style. “Julian's style of English appears simple in form and lacks more complicated sounding words, but she expresses complex ideas and deep emotions.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelat... I wanted to see how hard the original is to read. Chaucer’s English is not too difficult, and I remember having to read selections of The Canterbury Tales in the original language. The spelling differences drove me nuts. The grammar is similar but one definitely needed annotations on the diction because meanings of words change over time, and though you think you might have the same understanding of a word, you might not. Look at the difference of the word “showings” and “revelations.” Revelation has a very Biblical connotation, In today’s English “showings” does not. Clothing designers have showings of their new outfits. One would not say that they have revelations of their new outfits. One would have to trust the translator here that revelation is a more precise word given Julian’s time and context than her actual word of “showings.” And of course this goes for all the diction.
The Wikipedia entry on her writing has an example of one of her original passages and three different translations, including the 1901 translation by Grace Warrack, and the 2015 translation by Barry Windeaff which as I’ve said is the translation I’m using. But I found online a copy of Julian’s original prose. Let me give you a sample. This from the beginning of Chapter 4.
In this sodenly I saw the rede blode trekelyn downe fro under the garlande hote
and freisly and ryth plenteously, as it were in the time of His passion that the
garlande of thornys was pressid on His blissid hede. Ryte so, both God and man,
the same that sufferd thus for me, I conceived treuly and mightily that it was
Himselfe shewed it me without ony mene.
And in the same sheweing sodenly the Trinite fullfilled the herte most of joy;
and so, I understood, it shall be in Hevyn withoute end to all that shall come
there. For the Trinite is God, God is the Trinite. The Trinite is our maker and
keeper, the Trinite is our everlasting lover, everlasting joy and blisse, be our
Lord Jesus Christ; and this was shewed in the first and in all, for where Jesus
appereith the blissid Trinite is understond, as to my sight. And I said, "Bene-
dicite, Domine." This I said for reverence in my meneing with a mighty voice,
and full gretly was astonyed for wonder and mervel that I had, that He that is so
reverend and dredfull will be so homley with a synfull creture liveing in wretched
flesh. This I tooke for the time of my temptation, for methowte by the sufferance
of God I should be tempted of fends or I dyed. With this sight of the blissid pass-
sion, with the Godhede that I saw in myne understonding, I knew wele that it
was strength enow to me, ya, and to all creturers leving, ageyn all the fends of
Hell and ghostly temptation.
https://metseditions.org/read/KGdR4GB...
It’s very similar to reading Chaucer. Here is how Windeatt translates those two paragraphs.
AT this I suddenly saw the red blood trickling down* from under the crown of thorns, hot and fresh, plentiful and lifelike, just as though it were the moment in his Passion when the crown of thorns was pressed on to his blessed head, he who was both God and man, the same who suffered for me in this way. I had a true and powerful perception that it was he himself who showed this to me without any intermediary.
And in the same revelation the Trinity suddenly filled my heart full of the utmost joy, and I understood that it will be like that in heaven forever for all those who will come there. For the Trinity is God, and God is the Trinity; and the Trinity is our maker, the Trinity is our protector, the Trinity is our everlasting lover, the Trinity is our unending joy and bliss, through our Lord Jesus Christ and in our Lord Jesu Christ. And this was shown in the first revelation and in them all; for where Jesus appears, the blessed Trinity is to be understood, as it seems to me.*
And I said, ‘Blessed be thou, Lord!’* I said this with a reverent intention in a loud voice; and I was much astounded at the wonder and amazement I felt, that he who is so much to be revered and so awesome was willing to be so friendly* to a sinful being, living in this wretched flesh. So I took it that at that time our Lord Jesus, out of his courteous love, would show me comfort before the time of my temptation, for it seemed to me that by God’s permission and with his safekeeping I might well be tempted by devils before I died. With this vision of his blessed Passion, along with the Godhead that I saw in my understanding, I well knew that this was strength enough for me—yes, and for every creature living who is to be saved—against all the devils of hell and against all spiritual enemies.
First if you struggle hard enough with the spelling, I do believe you will understand the gist of meaning. But look at this phrase, “for methowte by the sufferance of God I should be tempted of fends or I dyed.” Windeatt translates that as “for it seemed to me that by God’s permission and with his safekeeping I might well be tempted by devils before I died.” One could surmise “it seemed to me” for “methowte” but I would not have gotten “by God’s permission and with his safekeeping” from “by the sufferance
of God.” Does “sufferance” imply the combination of permission and safekeeping? I certainly don’t know but Windeatt is an expert on the language of the period. Also notice that Windeatt turned two paragraphs into three. Earlier English did not break paragraphs up as regularly as we do today. I’m surprised Julian even had two paragraphs. I would have expected one long running paragraph for the chapter. In all Julian used 270 words to express to communicate that passage. Windeatt used 344 words, 27% more words. That is not too unusual in translations because an earlier diction might have a word that implies more than a single word in a different language, and so requires a matrix of words to convey the full meaning. Windeatt also has asterisks to footnote a more complete understanding of an idea or thought.
Finally, concerning the work itself, we may find there are ideas which may not fit into traditional Catholicism. I have not read the work yet, so I can’t speak from direct knowledge, but I have absorbed some commentary. It should be pointed out that Julian, unlike St. Catherine of Siena, a direct contemporary, is not a saint in the Catholic Church. Even the titled of “Blessed” is labeled from common consensus rather than some formal beatification. Catherine is also a Doctor of the Church, so her writings have been reviewed to be theologically sound and worthy of teaching. Julian’s has not. She is, however, a saint in the Anglican Church, and a highly revered one. Mystics may go outside doctrine. Julian was not a learned theologian. It would not surprise me if Julian does. On the other hand, both Popes Benedict XVI and Francis have lauded her in recent years. You could find it with a Google search.
I suspect that Julian’s theology pushes the envelope of doctrine, since she is revered today by the more liberal Christians, and revered even by secularists. I state this because translations will have all these dimensions to them. In addition to the obstacles of Middle English to contemporary, your translation might have a Protestant biased, a Catholic bias, a liberal biased, a conservative bias, or a secularist biased. It does not mean the translator is being unfaithful or dishonest. They are looking at the text through their experience. A lot depends on their knowledge and emersion of Middle English. This is why I moved off the book I first bought to the Windeatt translation. From what I gathered online, Barry Windeatt is a well-known scholar of the period from a prestigious university. His translation is recent, published in 2015, so he has read other translations, and, though I can’t say for certain, from these facts his translation I would surmise is the most precise to our language today.
With that, let’s get into the book!
You really put a lot of work into this, and it's only the introduction! Thank you, Manny.
Mod
I think this is an important distinction to make. Reading texts like these we need to be aware where the author stands in relation to other Catholic writings and Catholic teaching.
I have read the first revelation and it seems that Julian is keen on asserting that everything that was revealed to her agreed with the Church's teaching - now whether this was because she was scared of persecution or because she genuinely believed it, I don't know. Like Manny said, the mystics sometimes go outside of doctrine. The Introduction in my version also highlighted this, it seems like it doesn't really fit into the overall text of the revelations, and from what I could glean it is missing in the short text, so it is something she added later.
Mod
Also, I'm not sure how scared of persecution she would have been. I don't believe the text was published or deseminated in any way during her lifetime. For the most part I think these were her private writings. Without having read the work yet, I would speculate there is nothing in the work that is persecutable. The worst I would imagine is that the Church would consider it in error. And besides, she's not a theologian or a teacher. That would carry a different weight of responsibility.
By the way, when Thomas Aquinas died, the Church declared some half dozen or so of his ideas to be heretical. His whole underlying foundation of Aristotilian philosophy was not welcomed or condoned in most circles. It was revolutionary. In today's language Aquinas might have been considered the Liberal and certainly at odds with the Rad Trads of his day! LOL.
Manny wrote: "Ellie, what doesn't fit into the overall texts? The first revelation?No, I mean the parts when she mentions how her revelations agree with what the Church teaches - I don't want to go into details in case anybody hasn't read the first revelation yet, but it seemed to me like she kept repeating it, to prove her point and it kind of stood out. But maybe I'm reading too much into it! It does seem like her texts were used rather for private devotions, than being published.
Is the hazelnut analogy in the first revelation for the editions all of you are reading?
Mod
Yes. It's in chapter 5. Michelle, this looks like a good online translation.
https://safe.menlosecurity.com/doc/do...
It doesn't say who the translator is though.
Manny wrote: "Michelle wrote: "Is the hazelnut analogy in the first revelation for the editions all of you are reading?"Yes. It's in chapter 5. Michelle, this looks like a good online translation.
https://sa..."
I can't open that, Manny, but thanks for trying!
I did like that hazelnut imagery. Ok then, I haven't started chapter 7 yet, but at least now I know that I'm in the same area the rest of you are in. I did like chapter 6, which surprised me if the truth is known.
Manny, I come at this work from a somewhat different perspective, having loved Julian and studied her revelations in a theology class. Please tell me if I am overstepping at any point. That said, Catholic theologians have said that of all the contributions she made, her insight into referring to God as Mother is the most elevated. She didn’t invent the theme, but she developed it. The Motherhood of God is not separate from his Fatherhood; instead, Julian unites the qualities. She grasps “the total mystery of God, as far as this is possible in this life, and she wants to communicate to us a glimpse of it.”
(Preface, Showings, Julian of Norwich, Paulist Press, p. 11)
What I wanted to address is the concern that Julian in some way stands outside of Catholic teaching. As we’ll see, she doesn’t. She wrote about the traditional, timeless problems of the spiritual life, especially those relating to the encounter between the soul and God.
Mod
That said,..."
Actually, if I read my introduction correctly, Windeatt says more specifically that Jesus Christ is mother. The image may be - I say may because I have not read it first hand yet - that people are nursing at Christ's breast.
Mod
As far as I can tell, there are two criticisms I think I've picked up about her work. One is the Christ as nursing mother image. Frankly I don't find that heretical, but you can see how feminists can pick up on that. But we'll see when we actually get to it. The other I'll just leave off for now, unless people really want me to say.
To help clarify: ‘’What Julian develops is not the idea of femininity as opposed to or distinct from that of masculinity, but that of the motherhood of God as complement to that of his fatherhood. . . She conceives the quality of a mother as present in the Trinity, as well as that of a Father, a Son and their Spirit. It is the plenitude of life, of love, which is proper to each of them and common to the three of them. . .” (Jean Leclercq, O.S.B.)I think the richness and depth of Julian’s insight elevates the human understanding of God.
Mod
Like I said, I don't think there is anything heretical in that.
Week 1: Introduction thru 1st Rev
Week 2: Revelations 2, 3, 4, and 5
Week 3: Revelations 6, 7, and 8
Week 4: Revelations 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
Week 5: First Half of Rev 14
Week 6: Second Half of Rev 14
Week 7: Rev 15 & First Half of Rev 16
Week 8: Second Half of Rev 16
We can adjust this as we go along of course. First week will start this upcoming Sunday.
How does that sound?
I'll put together an introduction in a day or two.