https://ebookmass.com/product/oxford-studies-in-medievalphilosophy-volume-10-robert-pasnau/
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
Oxford Studies in Medieval Philosophy Volume 9 Robert Pasnau (Editor)
https://ebookmass.com/product/oxford-studies-in-medieval-philosophyvolume-9-robert-pasnau-editor/
ebookmass.com
Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Volume LVI Caston
https://ebookmass.com/product/oxford-studies-in-ancient-philosophyvolume-lvi-caston/
ebookmass.com
Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Language Volume 3 Lepore
https://ebookmass.com/product/oxford-studies-in-philosophy-oflanguage-volume-3-lepore/
ebookmass.com
Einstein's Unfinished Dream: Practical Progress Towards a Theory of Everything 1st Edition Don Lincoln
https://ebookmass.com/product/einsteins-unfinished-dream-practicalprogress-towards-a-theory-of-everything-1st-edition-don-lincoln/
ebookmass.com
Larkin’s Travelling Spirit: The Place, Space and Journeys of Philip Larkin 1st ed. Edition Alex Howard
https://ebookmass.com/product/larkins-travelling-spirit-the-placespace-and-journeys-of-philip-larkin-1st-ed-edition-alex-howard/
ebookmass.com
A Simple Truth: Book 2 in the Freckled Fate Trilogy Tetyana Walker
https://ebookmass.com/product/a-simple-truth-book-2-in-the-freckledfate-trilogy-tetyana-walker/
ebookmass.com
Fermentation Processes: Emerging and Conventional Technologies Mohamed Koubaa
https://ebookmass.com/product/fermentation-processes-emerging-andconventional-technologies-mohamed-koubaa/
ebookmass.com
Ghost Dick; A Port Canyon Chronicle Kincaid
https://ebookmass.com/product/ghost-dick-a-port-canyon-chroniclekincaid/
ebookmass.com
En avant!: beginning French Second Edition Anderson
https://ebookmass.com/product/en-avant-beginning-french-secondedition-anderson/
ebookmass.com
Matematika: https://ebookmass.com/product/matematika-jalan-kesejahteraan-1stedition-sudi-mungkasi/
ebookmass.com
OxfordStudiesinMedievalPhilosophy ADVISORYBOARD PeterAdamson, Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversity,Munich
DeborahBlack, UniversityofToronto
PeterKing, UniversityofToronto
HenrikLagerlund, StockholmUniversity
JohnMarenbon, TrinityCollege,Cambridge
CalvinNormore, UCLA
DominikPerler, HumboldtUniversity,Berlin
EleonoreStump, St.LouisUniversity
EditorialAssistant
DawnJacob, UniversityofColorado
OxfordStudiesin MedievalPhilosophy Volume10 Editedby ROBERTPASNAU
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©theseveralcontibutors2022
Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2022
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2022945889
ISBN978–0–19–287124–4 DOI:10.1093/oso/9780192871244.001.0001
PrintedandboundintheUKby TJBooksLimited
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Contents Articles “Lewd,Feeble,andFrail”:HumilityFormulae,Medieval Women,andAuthority1
ChristinaVanDyke
Al-Fārābī’sCommentaryontheEighthBookofAristotle’ s Topics in Todros Todrosi’ s PhilosophicalAnthology (Introduction,EditionoftheText,andAnnotated Translation)24
DanielDaviesandAlexanderLamprakis
Aquinas,AnalogyandtheTrinity89 ReginaldMaryChua
Super-Causes,Super-Grounds,andtheFlowofPowers: ThreeMedievalViewsonNaturalKindsand Kind-SpecificPowers118 CanLaurensLöwe
ThreeMedievalAristoteliansonNumericalIdentity andTime153 JohnMorrison
MultipleGeneralityinScholasticLogic195 BoazFaradaySchuman
CriticalNotices
AReviewofDavidPiché, Épistémologieetpsychologiedela foidanslapenséescolastique(1250–1350) 263 NicolasFaucher
“Lewd,Feeble,andFrail” HumilityFormulae,Medieval Women,andAuthority ChristinaVanDyke
Thehumilitytopos initsmostbasicform,arhetoricalstrategyusedto positionaspeakerandtheirprojectrespectfullyinrelationtotheir audience appearsinawidevarietyofphilosophicalliterature. Socrates,forinstance,beginsthe Apology byclaimingthatheneedsto defendhimselfinhisusual “rough” mannerbecauseheisignorantofthe polishedrhetoricofthelawcourt,whilethededicatoryletterof Descartes’ s Meditations contraststheSorbonne’sposition(“noinstitutioncarriesmoreweightthanyoursinmattersoffaith;whileasregards humanphilosophy,youarethoughtofassecondtonone”)with Descartes’ sown: “whenIremembernotonlythatIamahumanbeing, butaboveallthatIamanignorantone,Icannotclaimthat[thiswork]is freeofmistakes” (CSMII:5).Theuseofhumilitytopoiisparticularly commonincontemplativephilosophy,withitsemphasisonselfexaminationandmoralandspiritualdevelopment.AsJulianof Norwichwritesinher Revelations: “Godforbidthatyoushouldsayor takeitsothatIamateacher,forIdon’tmeanthatnorhaveInever meantthat;forIamawoman,lewd[uneducated],feeble,andfrail.”¹Yet whilephilosopherstypicallyreadSocrates’sclaimasironicand Descartes’sasdisingenuous flattery,evenscholarsofmedieval
¹ShortText,section6,myrenderingintomodernEnglishfromthetextin TheWritingsof JulianofNorwich:AVisionShowedtoaDevoutWomanandARevelationofLove,ed.N.Watson andJ.Jenkins(UniversityPark,PA:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,2006),75.
ChristinaVanDyke, “Lewd,Feeble,andFrail”:HumilityFormulae,MedievalWomen,andAuthority In: OxfordStudies inMedievalPhilosophyVolume10.Editedby:RobertPasnau,OxfordUniversityPress.©ChristinaVanDyke2022. DOI:10.1093/oso/9780192871244.003.0001
philosophytendtoacceptclaimslikeJulian’ s thatis,claimsby medievalwomen atfacevalue.WhenHildegardofBingenwritesin her Scivias,forinstance,thatsheis “timidinspeaking,andsimplein expounding,anduntaughtinwriting,” wetakethisasasadtestamentto medievalwomen’srelativelackofeducationandscholarlyacumen.We ignore(orareignorantof)thefactthatthe “timidinspeaking” Hildegard conductednofewerthanfourmajorpreachingtoursthroughout Germany,thatthewomanwhoclaimstobe “simpleinexpounding” wroteanextensivediscussionontheprologuetothebookofJohn(inthe LiberDivinorumOperum),andthatthe “untaughtinwriting” Hildegard composedthreemajorworksinphilosophicaltheologyandtwomedical textbooks,inadditiontohernumerouschoralworks(manyofwhichare stillperformedtoday).²
Theprimarygoalofthispaperisverysimple.Itistoprovide “ one weirdtrick” forreadingmedievalChristianwomen’suseofhumility topoi,sothatcontemporaryscholarsofmedievalphilosophycanappreciatehowthesewomenusethemnottoexpresslackofeducation,selfloathing,and/orinternalizedmisogynybutrathertoestablishthemselves asauthoritieswithinexistingdiscourses.Insodoing,Ihopetoremove oneofthemainobstaclesthatcontinuestoblocktheintegrationof women ’sworksintodiscussionsofmedievalphilosophy:theimpression thattheseself-professed “unlettered” womenlackedintellectualsophisticationanddidnotconsciouslyengagethephilosophicalandtheological debatesoftheirday.
Tothatend,therestofthispaperproceedsasfollows.First,Iexplain howhumilitytopoigenerallyfunctionintheMiddleAges,showingthat theirusewasubiquitousincontemplativeliteraturebybothmaleand
²Hildegard’sdownplayingofhereducationhasotherfunctionsaswell.In “Hildegardand HerHagiographers:TheRemakingofFemaleSainthood” (in GenderedVoices:MedievalSaints andTheirInterpreters,ed.C.Mooney(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1999)), BarbaraNewmansuggeststhatanotherreasonHildegarddoesthisis “inordertoauthenticate herpropheticcall.” Newmanimmediatelygoeson,however,toobserve: “[Yet]arecently discoveredvitaofherteacherJuttaofSponheim(d.1136),commissionedbyHildegardand possiblywrittenbyVolmar[themonkwhowasmeanttowriteHildegard’sownvitauntilshe outlivedhim],describesthearistocraticrecluseasliterate,intelligent,andaskillfulteacher;it characterizesherrepeatedlyasa magistra,hernunsas discipulae,andtheirmonasteryasa schola” (197,fn.18).Inotherwords,Hildegarddid,infact,receiveaformaleducationonthe modelofthe schola
femaleauthors,andthatsuchstatementsofteninclude(1)anexplanation ofthetext’slargerpurposeand(2)adefenseoftheauthor’sclaimto writeit.Second,Iaddressthecentralityofhumilityasavirtueinthe LatinChristiancontemplativetradition,forinordertounderstandhow humilityformulaewouldhavebeenreadinthisperiod,weneedto appreciatehowhumilityisheldupasnotjust an idealbut the moral idealforlayfolkaswellasmembersofreligiousorders.Finally,Iaddress medievalwomen’sparticularuseofhumilitytopoiinlightofthisbroader context,whichallowsustoseehowwomenwritersinthisperiodoften usetheseformulaeto “front” objectionstotheirrighttowriteonthese subjects,andthentoexplicitlyaddressthoseobjectionsinthevoiceof theonlyuniversallyrecognizedmedievalauthority:God.
1.MedievalHumilityTopoiasRhetoricalTrope “Cananythingbereclaimedfromtheself-denigratingrhetoricofmedievalwomenintheChristiantradition?” asksMichelleVossRoberts.³ Althoughshegoesontoanswerinaqualifiedaffirmative,VossRobertsis hardlyaloneincharacterizingthemedievaluseofself-descriptorslike “ignorant” and “filthypuddle” asaparticularlyfeminineproblem;⁴ she goesontostatethat, “Duetothefrequencyofsuchstatementsin medievalEuropeanwomen’swriting,scholarshavebestowedupon themthestatusofatrope,thehumilitytopos.”⁵ Yettheuseofthe humilitytoposishardlyuniquetomedievalwomen itappears throughoutcontemplativeanddevotionalliteratureinthemedieval LatinChristiantradition,crossinggeographicregions,religiousorders, andgender.WhenClareofAssisicallsherselfa “uselessandunworthy servant” inalettertoAgnesofPrague,forinstance,sheisdirectly
³ “RetrievingHumility:Rhetoric,Authority,andDivinizationinMechthildofMagdeburg,” FeministTheology 18(2009),50–73,at50.
⁴ SeealsoGraceJantzen, Power,Gender,andChristianMysticism (Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,1995);SarahCoakley, PowersandSubmissions:Spirituality,Philosophy,and Gender (Oxford:Blackwell,2002);andLoganDaleGreene, TheDiscourseofHysteria:TheTopoi ofHumility,Physicality,andAuthorityinWomen’sRhetoric (NewYork:EdwinMellenPress, 2009).
⁵“RetrievingHumility,” 51.
quotingthefounderofherorder,FrancisofAssisi,whorefersto himselfas “auselessmanandunworthycreature” inaletterwrittento hisentireorder.⁶
Thereareatleastthreereasonswhyhumilityformulaebecome especiallycommonintheRome-basedChristiantradition.First,once prideislabeledthe “deadliest” ofthe “deadlysins” identifiedbyGregory theGreatinthesixthcentury(andpopularlyportrayedastherootofthe othervicesinmoralityplays,literature,andart),pride’sconverse,humility,isinturnupheldasnotjust a butrather the moralidealfromwhich spiritualprogressbeginsandinwhichitculminates,andrepresentedas themotherorrootofthevirtues.⁷ Second,becausemedievalcontemplativeliteraturehasasitsprimarygoalmoralandspiritualdevelopmentin theformofincreaseddevotionandclosenesstoGod,theauthorsofsuch literatureremainformallyconsciousoftheirstatusascreaturesinrelationtoCreatorregardlessofwhethertheyareaddressingGod(asin Anselm’ s Proslogion andCatherineofSiena’ s Dialogue)orfellowcreatures(asinMarguerited’Oingt’ s Mirror andtheanonymous Cloudof Unknowing).⁸ Finally,languagedescribinghumanbeingsasservantsof GodpermeatesScriptureandformsoneofthecentralmodelsforrelating toGodintheMiddleAges;David’sandPaul’sconfessionsofweakness andhumbleservanthoodinthePsalmsandepistlesareoftencitedin medievaltextsalongsideMary’sdescriptionofherselfasthehandmaidof GodintheMagnificatasexamplesofthismodel.⁹
Medievalhumilityformulaetypicallyincludeprofessionsofunworthiness,lowvaluerelativetoothersaswellasGod,andaninabilityto expressproperlywhatshouldbesaidduetolackofknowledgeand/or education.Theyalsooftencontainpleasforilluminationand/ornote
⁶ CompleteWorks,tr.R.J.ArmstrongandI.Brady(Mahwah,NJ:PaulistPress,1986),195 (Clare)and60(Francis).Itisworthnotingthattheeditorsofthisvolumemissthis,attributing Clare’sphrasingheretoMary’sMagnificatratherthanseeingthatreferenceasmediated throughFrancis.
⁷ CatherineofSienausesthemetaphorofatreetoexplaintheimportanceandeffectsof humilityandthedeadlyeffectsofprideandsininher Dialogue.See,e.g.,chapter10,pp.32–33.
⁸ AsJuliusSchwieteringwrites, “thehumilityformulaisagesturetowardGodevenwhenitis theaudiencethatisaddressed,” in “TheOriginsoftheMedievalHumilityFormula,” PMLA 69 (1954),1279–91,at1283.
⁹ See,forexample,BernardofClairvaux’sSermon30in SermonesinCanticaCanticorum,in PatrologiaeCursusCompletus,vol.183,ed.J.P.Migne(Turnhout:Brepols,1969).
thatanythingofvalueinthefollowingworkshouldbeattributedentirely toGod’sgrace.Althoughexpressionsofhumilityonthepartofthe authorcanappearanywhereincontemplativeliterature,humilitytopoi themselvestypicallyappeartowardtheverybeginning(or,inthecaseof letters,sometimestheveryend)ofthework,andtheyservetheimportantfunctionofsettingoutthetext’smotivationandlargerpurpose,as wellasprovidingajustificationforwhytheprojectisbeingtackledby thisparticularauthor.
Toseehowthistropeworks,Iwantnowtopresenthowitappearsin textscomposedby figuresforwhomlackofearthlyauthoritywasnotan issue:AnselmandBonaventure.Anselm,forinstance,writesthefollowingtowardtheopeningofhis OntheProcessionoftheHolySpirit, composedwhilehewasservingasarchbishopofCanterbury(thatis, theheadoftheRomanCatholicChurchinEngland):
Thereare,tobesure,manywhocouldaccomplishthisbetterthan Ican;butmanypeoplehavelaidthisburdenuponme,andbecauseof whatIowetotheloveoftruth,andforthesakeoftheircharityand devoutwill,Idarenotrefusetheirrequest.Ithereforecalluponthe HolySpirithimselftobegraciousindirectingmetothisend.Andso, havingthishope,onaccountofthelowlinessofmyknowledgeIleave higherthingstothosewhoknowmorethanIdo,andIshallattempt whattheyareaskingmetodo:employingthefaithoftheGreeks,and thethingstheyunwaveringlybelieveandprofess,toprovebyutterly solidargumentswhattheydonotbelieve[viz.thattheHolySpirit proceedsfromtheSonaswellasfromtheFather].¹
Herewe findallthehallmarksofthemedievalhumilitytopos:confession ofunworthiness,lackofrelativevalueincomparisontootherswhocould undertakethetask,disavowalofknowledge,andanappealtoGodfor graceandillumination.Wealso findthereasonAnselmiswritingthe treatiseandadescriptionoftheprojectAnselmisundertaking namely, topresentarationalargumentthatemployspointsofdoctrinetowhich
¹⁰ AllAnselmquotationsarefrom TheCompleteTreatises,translatedbyThomasWilliams (Indianapolis:Hackett,2022).
theGreekChristiansarecommittedtoprovethattheyarewrongabout thenatureoftheTrinity.
Inpart because theyhitallthemarksthatcharacterizehumility formulae,wedon’treadthesewordsasAnselm’sexpressingactualselfdoubtorgenuinelackofknowledge.Rather,wetakeitashispayinghis duestotheconventionsofthegenre(anddoingsowithenough flairto makeonedoubthissincerity it’sabitrich,afterall,toclaimnottohave knowledgeof “higherthings” rightbeforetacklingthemysteryofthe relationbetweenthepersonsoftheTrinity).Hemakesthesamemoves inthe firstchapterof OntheIncarnationoftheWord (wherehecalls himself “atrivialandinconsiderablefellow”),inhiscommendationof CurDeusHomo toPopeUrbanII(inwhichhewrites “AlthoughIama manofverylittleknowledge,theseconsiderationsgivemesuchgreat strengththatIwillendeavortoraisemyselfupjustalittle ...sofaras heavenlygracesees fittograntittome”),andintheprefaceofthe Monologion (whichhedescribeshimselfasunwillingtowrite “becauseof thedifficultyofthetaskandtheweaknessofmyowntalent”).That Anselmdoesnotmeansuchstatementstobetakenliterallyisfurther supportedbyhisbehavior:whensendingthe Monologion toLanfranc, forinstance,AnselmwritesthatifLanfrancdoesnotapproveofit, “then letthecopythatIamsendingtoyounotbereturnedtomeortothe aforementionedbrother;rather,letitbebanishedbyoneoftheelements: buried,sunk,burnedup,orscattered.” Lanfrancdoesnotapproveofthe work,butAnselmpublishesitanyway.
Bonaventure,whopresidedovertheFranciscanorderasMinister Generalforalmosttwodecades,usessimilarformulaeinhiscontemplative(asopposedtoscholastic)worksaswell.¹¹Take,forexample,the beginningofhisvitaofFrancisofAssisi,inwhichBonaventurewrites:
¹¹Humilityformulaearenotcommonlyfoundinthescholasticgenreofdisputedquestions, mostlikelybecausedisputedquestionsdevelopedfromateachingcontext,inwhichdifferent groupsofstudentswereassignedtopresentargumentseither “for” or “against” aparticular propositioninaquestion,whichthemasterinchargeoftheclassthen “settled.” Inthissetting, thepurposeofthediscourseisclear,andwhatismostrelevantisthemaster’sauthority(andthe authoritiesonwhichthemasterdraws Augustine,Avicenna,etc.),asopposedtohishumility. Thatthis,ratherthananyunderlyingdifferenceinattitudetowardshumility,iswhatinfluences theuseofhumilityformulaeisclearfromalookatscholastic figureswhoalsowrotecontemplativeworks,suchasBonaventureandMeisterEckhart.
IfeelthatIamunworthyandunequaltothetaskofwritingthelifeofa mansovenerableandworthyofimitation.Iwouldneverhave attempteditiftheferventdesireofthefriarshadnotarousedme,the unanimousurgingoftheGeneralChapterhadnotinducedme,andthe devotionwhichIamobligedtohavetowardourholyfatherhadnot compelledme.ForwhenIwasaboy,asIstillvividlyrecall,Iwas snatchedfromthejawsofdeathbyhisinvocationandhismerits.Soif Iremainedsilentanddidnotsinghispraises,IfearthatIwouldrightly beaccusedofthecrimeofingratitude.IrecognizethatGodsavedmy lifethroughhim,andIrealizethatIhaveexperiencedhispowerin myveryperson.This,then,ismyprincipalreasonforundertaking thistask,thatImaygathertogethertheaccountsofhisvirtue,his actions,andhiswords likesomanyfragments,partlyforgotten andpartlyscattered althoughIcannotaccomplishthisfully,sothat theymaynotbelostwhenthosewholivedwiththisservantof Goddie.¹²
Hereagainweseeallthehallmarksofthehumilitytopos,includingthe reasonwhyBonaventureinparticulariswritingthistextandthepurpose forhisundertakingthistask(namely,sothatFrancis’svirtue,actions, andwordscancontinuetoinspirefuturegenerations).LikeAnselm, Bonaventureis firmlyestablishedatthetopofhisinstitutionalhierarchy; hisprotestationsofignoranceorlackofworthcannotbetaken,then,as duetointernalizednormsofsubordination otherthantheprevailing normofsubordinationtoGod,whicheveryoneintheLatinChristian traditionacknowledged.(Eventhemostworldlyofpopesinthisperiod refertothemselvesasthe “humbleservants” ofGodinlettersandother documents.)
The finalexampleofthegeneraluseofhumilityformulaeIwantto considercomesfromthe MeditationsontheLifeofChrist,alate thirteenth-centurysetofspiritualexercisesthatbecameoneofthe
¹²TranslationbyEwertCousins,182–83.Bonaventurealsogoesontosayinthissame passagethat “IdecidedthatIshouldavoidacultivatedliterarystyle,sincethereader’sdevotion profitsmorefromsimpleratherthanornateexpression.”
mostwidelyreadpiecesofliteratureinthelaterMiddleAges,particularly amongwomen.Initsprologue,theanonymousauthorstates:
Ididwishyouwouldreceivethisintroductionfromsomeonemore experiencedandlearned,becauseIamquiteinadequateforsuch things.Nevertheless,judgingthatitwouldbebettertosaysomething suitableratherthanremainsilententirely,Ishallputmyinexperience tothetestandspeakonfamiliartermswithyou,inaroughand unrefinedmannerofspeaking:ontheonehandsothatyouareable tounderstandbetterwhatissaid,andontheother,thatyoucanstrive therebytorefreshnotyourearbutyourmind. ...I hopealsothatmy lackofexpertisemightsupplysomethingtoyourlackoferudition;but inthisendeavorIamevenmorehopefulthat,providedyouwishto exertyourselfbyassiduousmeditation,youwillhaveasvirtualteacher thesameLordJesusofwhomwespeak.¹³
Hereweseeanotherclassicuseofthehumilitytoposinawidely circulatedandreadtext.Thisstatementappearsimmediatelyfollowing anexplanationofhowthemeditationsrecommendedinthisworkwill preparetheirpractitionerforcontemplationofGodinitshighestform;it includesthestandarddisavowalsofworth,knowledge,andliterary expertise,andanappealtoilluminationfromGod.
Thisappeal,moreover,invokesthepopularAugustiniantropeofGod astheonlytrueteacher amovethatlevelstheintellectualplaying field aswellasacknowledgesGodastheultimatesourceoftruth.Insofaras Godaloneisresponsibleforgrantinghumanbeingsunderstandingand wisdom,theFranciscannuntowhomthe Meditations waswrittenisin asgoodapositionforreceivingilluminationascardinalsanduniversity masters.Infact,theimportanceofhumilityasavirtueinthelaterMiddle AgesentailsthatGodisseenasperhaps more likelytoilluminatethe “leastofthese.” Tofurtherilluminatetheuseofhumilityformulaeinthis period,then,Iturnnowtoadiscussionofhumilityasmoralideal, modeledbyChristhimself.
¹³ MeditationsontheLifeofChrist,tr.F.X.Taney,AnneMiller,andC.MaryStallings-Taney (Asheville,NC:PegasusPress,2000),3–4.
2.HumilityasContemplativeVirtue Asmentionedinsection1,afterGregorytheGreat’sdelineationof the “deadlysins” inthesixthcentury,thevirtueofhumilitygains specialemphasisinmonasticcommunitiesastheconverseofpride. AftertheGregorianreformsoftheeleventhcenturyandtheriseofthe universitysysteminthetwelfthandthirteenthcenturies,growingfrustrationwithbothrigidecclesiasticalhierarchiesandintellectualelitism contributestoawidespreadculturalemphasisontheimportanceof humility.Inthemendicantordersandinthelaydevotionalmovements thatspreadlikewildfireinthethirteenthto fifteenthcenturies,humility isupheldasavirtuecentralnotjusttomoralandreligiouslife,butto intellectuallifeaswell:truewisdomisagiftfromGod,andcontemplationofthedivineisinherentlyhumbling.Furthermore,theprimeexemplarofhumilitythroughouttheMiddleAgeswastakentobeChrist himself.AlthoughtheSecondPersonoftheTrinity,Christ “emptied himselfandtookontheformofaservant” viatheIncarnation,presentingamodelofhumilitywithuniversalapplicability ifGodcanbe humble,theneveryoneshouldbehumble:popeorpeasant,bishopor beguine.Thisconceptionofhumilityasmoralidealformsthebackgroundagainstwhichmedievalexpressionsofunworthinessandignorancewereutteredandinterpreted.Suchpronouncementsrepresent comparative ratherthanabsoluteassessmentsofworth,wheretheultimateobjectofanycomparisonisalwaysGod.Becausefallenhumannature tendstowardprideandaninflatedsenseofself-worth,thefunctionof thiscomparisonistoremindbothauthorandreaderthatanyhuman accomplishmentpalestoinsignificancenexttoGod’sinfiniteactuality.
ThepoemwithwhichMargueriteofPoreteopensher MirrorofSimple Souls neatlycaptureshowhumilitywasportrayedasanideal anda cautionagainstpride intheearlyfourteenthcentury.Introducingher treatisetoitsreaders,shewrites:
Humility,whoiskeeperofthetreasuryofKnowledge AndthemotheroftheotherVirtues Mustovertakeyou. [...]
Theologiansandotherclerks, Youwillnothavetheintellectforit, Nomatterhowbrilliantyourabilities, Ifyoudonotproceedhumbly.
(79)
HereMargueritedrawsonhumility’sstatusasboththesourceofthe othervirtuesandapreconditionforwisdom.Theexplicitmentionofthe needforhumilityintheologiansandclerks(whorepresentedthepinnacleofthehierarchyofintelligentsia,andwhowouldburnMargueriteat thestakeasahereticin1310)underscorestheideathatintellectualpride isanobstacletoillumination.
Ihavewritteninmoredetailelsewhereaboutthevitalrolehumility playsinthemedievalChristiancontemplativetradition;¹⁴ forthepurposesofthispaper,whatprovesmostimportantisitsstatusasamoral, epistemic,andspiritualideal,andChrist’smodelingofthatideal. Acentralthemeofthemedievalmeditationgenre,forinstance,isthat theIncarnationhascreatedanunbreakablelinkbetweenhumanityand divinity.¹⁵ AstheEnglishhermitRichardRollewritesinoneofhiswidely readfourteenth-centurymeditationsonthelifeofChrist:
Lordwhocamedownfromheaventoearthforloveofthehumanrace, fromsohightosolow,fromsuchdominiontosuchlowpoverty,from suchhighsplendortosuchlowmisery,fromsuchhighmagnificenceto suchlowsorrow,fromsuchapleasurablelifetosuchapainfuldeath, now,Lordforallthatlovewhichyourevealedtomankindinyour incarnationandinyourpassion,Iimploreyouformercyandhelp.¹⁶
¹⁴ See,forinstance, “‘ManyKnowMuch,butDoNotKnowThemselves’:Self-Knowledge, Humility,andPerfectionintheMedievalAffectiveContemplativeTradition,” inG.Klimaand A.Hall(eds.), ConsciousnessandSelf-KnowledgeinMedievalPhilosophy (NewcastleuponTyne: CambridgeScholarsPublishing,2018),89–106.
¹⁵ Formoreonthemedievalmeditativetradition,andparticularlyitsrelationtotheactivity ofcontemplation,seeMichelleKarnes, Imagination,Meditation,andCognitionintheMiddle Ages (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2011),andmy “FromMeditationto Contemplation:BroadeningtheBordersofPhilosophyinthe13th–15thCenturies,” in A.GriffioenandM.Backmann(eds.), PluralizingPhilosophy’sPast:NewReflectionsinthe HistoryofPhilosophy (London:PalgraveMacmillan,forthcoming).
¹⁶ TheEnglishWritings,ed.andtr.R.Allen(Mahwah,NJ:PaulistPress,1988),107.
OnereasonChrist’sexampleofhumilityprovessoinformativeforour purposesisthatitrepresentsa perfect modelofhumility:humilityinits purestform,devoidofpretenseorsin.Paradoxically butcrucially Christ’smodelteachesthathumilityisintrinsicallylinkedwithdignity andsublimity.Indeed,acommonScripturaltropethroughoutboththe OldandNewTestamentisthehighbeingbroughtlowandthelowbeing raisedup;thePassionandResurrectionpresenttheultimateexample bothofhowthehighshouldhumblethemselvesandalsoofhowthe humblewillbeliftedhigh.Anynumberofmedievalauthorshighlight Christ’sexampleasbothanimitablemodelofhumilityandanassurance thatsuchhumilitywillresultinacloserunionwithGod.WhenmeditatingonChrist’spresenceintheEucharist,forinstance,FrancisofAssisi writes:
Osublimehumility! Ohumblesublimity!
Look,brothers,atthehumilityofGod Andpouroutyourheartsbeforehim! Humbleyourselves,aswell, ThatyoumaybeexaltedbyHim.¹⁷
Themedievalcalltohumilityisalwaysbalancedwiththisassurance (sometimesimplicit;oftenexplicit)thatGodwillexaltthosewhoanswer thiscall.
Finally,professionsofinsignificanceandlowlinessinthisperiodmust alsobereadinlightofthefactthataccordingtothistradition,unionwith Godisunderstoodtobethe finalendofhumannature thatis,human beingsaremeanttoaimalltheiractionsultimatelyatbecomingonewith theperfectsourceofallgoodness.¹⁸ Obviously,thecontrastbetweenthat perfectsourceandfallenhumannatureisextreme.Regardless,human
¹⁷“ALettertotheEntireOrder,” in TheCompleteWorks,55.
¹⁸ Formoreondifferingconceptionsofwhat,exactly,that finalendmightlooklike,seemy “ThePhenomenologyofImmortality(1200–1400),” inM.Cameron(ed.), TheHistoryofthe PhilosophyofMind,vol.2:PhilosophyofMindintheEarlyandHighMiddleAges (London: Routledge,2019),219–39.
beingswereunderstoodtobecreatedinGod’simagebytheirpossession ofintellectandwill,andwereencouragedtodevelopthosecapacitiesin ordertogrowclosertoGod.Medievalacknowledgementsoftheextentto whichhumanbeingsfallshortofthisgoaldon’tindicateastaticsenseof worthlessness;rather,theyacknowledgetheimportanceofhumilityasa dynamiccomponentofmoralandspiritualgrowth thegroundin whichothervirtuesrootthemselvesandbegintobearfruit.
3.Re-readingMedievalWomen’s UseofHumilityFormulae Itisagainst this backgroundthatweneedtoreadmedievalwomen’ suse ofhumilityformulae: first,thecarefuluseofhumilityformulaethroughoutthisperiodasawayofintroducingthetext’scontentandexplaining/ defendingtheclaimofthisparticularauthortowriteit;second,the centralityofhumilityasmoral,intellectual,andspiritualideal,takento applyequallytoall,andintrinsicallylinkedwithdignityanddivinity. Understandingthisbroadercontextallowsustoappreciatehowmany medievalwomenusetheseformulaenotonlytosituatethemselvesas authoritiesbutalsotoexplicitlyrespondtotheobjectionthatwomen havenobusinessspeakingontheologicalandphilosophicaltopics.
We findanearlyuseofthistropeinHrotsvitofGandersheim’sletter tothepatronsofherdramas.Asshewritesinverse:
IdonotdenythatbythegiftoftheCreator’sgraceIamableto graspcertainconceptstheartsconcerning becauseIamacreaturecapableoflearning, butIalsoknowthatthroughmyownpowers,Iknownothing. [...]
Therefore,inordertopreventGod’sgiftinmefromdyingby myneglect,IhavetriedwheneverIcouldprobe, toripsmallpatchesfromPhilosophy’srobe andweavethemintothislittleworkofmine, sothattheworthlessnessofmyownignorancemaybeennobled bytheirinterweavingofthisnoblermaterial’sshine,
andthat,thus,theGiverofmytalentallthemorejustlybe praisedthroughme, themorelimitedthefemaleintellectisbelievedtobe.¹⁹
Here,thelatetenth-centuryBenedictinenunincludesalltheclassic featuresofthemedievalhumilityformula,includinganodtowardthe overtlyBoethiancontentofherdramas(particularlythe Sapientia);the referencetorippingpiecesfromPhilosophy’srobeisadirectreferenceto theopeningbookofBoethius’ s ConsolationofPhilosophy,anditimplies thatHrotsvitseesherselfasaphilosopher.²⁰ Wealsoseeherethemain modificationtothegeneralhumilitytoposthatcharacterizesitsuseby femaleauthors namely,(1)explicitmentionofthesexofthewriter,(2) referencetocommonbeliefsaboutfemaleweakness(inintellectual, physical,moral,andspiritualform),and(3)anassurancethatthese perceivedlimitationsposenobarriertothetext’sabilitytoconveydivine Truth(andmay,infact,enhanceitsabilitytodoso).²¹
IhavealreadyreferencedHildegardofBingen’stwelfth-centuryuseof thehumilityformulaintheintroduction;withthevirtualexplosionof contemplativeliteratureinthethirteenthto fifteenthcenturies,thereare anynumberoflaterexamplestochoosefrom.Tohighlightthebreadth ofthistrope,then,letusconsideritsusebyMechthildofMagdeburg(a GermanbeguinewhowritesinMiddleLowGerman),Marguerite d’Oingt(aFrenchCarthusiannunwhowritesinbothLatinand Franco-Provençal),MechthildofHackeborn(anunatHelftawhose bookiscomposedinLatin),andJulianofNorwich(anEnglishanchorite whowritesinMiddleEnglish).Aswewillsee,despitedifferencesinstyle andemphasis,thegeneralformandfunctionoftheirhumilitytopoi remainremarkablysimilar.
¹⁹ FlorilegiumofHerWorks,ed.andtr.K.Wilson(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,1998),44.
²⁰ ThisisfurthersupportedbyHrotsvit’ssubsequentclaimthat “Idonotboasttopossess knowledgenordoIpretendnottobeignorant;but,asfarasIamconcerned,theonlything IknowisthatIknownaught” (44) adirectechoofSocrates’scontentioninthe Apology that theonlythingheknowsisthatheknowsnothing,andthisaloneistherespectinwhichhe shouldbeconsideredwisest.
²¹Hrotsvitregularlymentionshersexanditsperceivedlimitationsinherauthor’sprologues ordedicatoryletters,ofteninamannerobviouslymeanttobeironic,aswhensheusescomplex metertoexpressthedifficultyofwritinginversefor “thefragilefemalesex” (19).
LittleisknownofMechthildofMagdeburg’searlylifeoreducation; whatwedoknowisthatshewasabeguine thatis,alaywomanwho dedicatedherselftoalifeofreligiousdevotionandservicewithout enteringaconvent andthatshecomposesthemajorityofherbook, TheFlowingLightoftheGodhead,beforetakingrefugeatthenunneryat Helfta(famousforitsintellectualcommunity)laterinlife.Muchhas beenmadeinrecentdiscussionsabouthowMechthild’sexpressionsof humilityandanxietyconcerninghowherbookwillbereadandreceived shouldbeunderstood;²²MichelleVossRoberts,forinstance,claimsthat Mechthild’sworriesplayan “authorizingfunction” bydintofproviding “constantiterationsoflowlinessthatsubtlypersuadedhermalesupporters” thatsheposesnothreattoestablishedauthority.²³Inlightofthe evidenceIhavepresentedintheprevioustwosectionsofthispaper, however,Ibelievethattheseexpressionsareactuallymeanttoestablish theauthorityoftheirtextsinamuchmorestraightforwardway namely,toexplicitlyaddressthequestionoftheirstatusaswomen writingabouttheologicalandphilosophicalmattersandtoestablish theirrighttospeakauthoritativelyaboutGodandGod’swillfortheir fellowhumanbeings.
Takeforinstance,thismemorablepassageattheoutsetofBookII,in whichMechthildreferstoherselfas “filthyooze” insharingwithGodthe worrythatherbookwillnotbereadorproperlyappreciated:
Ah,Lord,ifIwerealearnedreligiousman, Andifyouhadperformedthisuniquegreatmiracleusinghim, Youwouldreceiveeverlastinghonorforit.
Buthowisonesupposedtobelieve Thatyouhavebuiltagoldenhouseon filthyooze Andreallyliveinitwithyourmother,withallcreatures,and withyourheavenlycourt?
Lord,earthlywisdomwillnotbeableto findyouthere.
²²See,e.g.,SaraPoor, MechthildofMagdeburgandHerBook:GenderandtheMakingof TextualAuthority (Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2004)andVossRoberts, “RetrievingHumility.”
²³ “RetrievingHumility,” 68.
HereMechthildpurposefullycontrastsherstatusandknowledgeasa laywomanwiththatofauniversity-educatedman.Atthesametime,she referstoherbookasnotjusta “uniquegreatmiracle” butalsoa “golden house” inhabitednotjustbyChristbutalsobyMaryandtheheavenly hosts.Nowlookattheresponseshereceivesfromnolesseranauthority thanGod:
Daughter,manyawiseman,becauseofnegligence Onabighighway,haslosthispreciousgold Withwhichhewashopingtogotoafamousschool. Someoneisgoingto findit.
BynatureIhaveactedaccordinglymanyaday. WheneverIbestowedspecialfavors, Ialwayssoughtoutthelowest,mostinsigni ficant,andmost unknownplaceforthem.
Thehighestmountainsonearthcannotreceivetherevelations ofmyfavors
BecausethecourseoftheHolySpirit flowsbynaturedownhill. One findsmanyaprofessorlearnedinscripturewhois actuallyafoolinmyeyes.
AndI’lltellyousomethingelse: Itisagreathonorformewithregardtothem,anditvery muchstrengthensHolyChristianity Thattheunlearnedmouth,aidedbymyHolySpirit,teaches thelearnedtongue.²⁴
ThisassurancethatMechthild’stextisinspiredbytheHolySpirit,that earthlywisdomisoftenfoolishness,andthatwhatshehastosaywill actuallybenefitthoselearnedmenisfurthersupportedbyherappealto themedievalidealofhumilitydiscussedinsection2.Itisthe “leastof these” whoaremostopentoGod’steaching,andwhosework “strengthensHolyChristianity.”
We findanotherexampleofthissortofuseofthehumilitytoposinthe workofMarguerited’Oingt,aCarthusiannunwhoseworks(although
²⁴ TheFlowingLightoftheGodhead,tr.F.Tobin(Mahwah,NJ:PaulistPress,1980),97.
littleknowntoday)werewidelyreadandwellrespectedinbothherown timeandinfollowingcenturies.Towardtheoutsetofher Pageof Meditations,alatethirteenth-centurysetofmeditationsonthelifeof Christ,Margueriteofferswhatat firstlookslikea flurryofjustifications andself-effacinganxiety:
Ibegantothinkaboutandtocontemplatethesweetnessandgoodness whichisinHim,andthegreatgoodHehaddonemeandallof humanity[viahisIncarnation].Iwassofullofthesethoughtsthat Ilostmyappetiteandmysleep.[...]Ithoughtthattheheartsofmen andwomenareso flightythattheycanhardlyeverremaininoneplace, andbecauseofthatI fixedinwritingthethoughtsthatGodhad orderedintomyheartsothatIwouldnotlosethemwhenIremoved themfrommyheart,andsothatIcouldthinkoverthemlittlebylittle wheneverGodwouldgivemeHisgrace.AndforthatreasonIaskall thosewhoreadthistextnottothinkbadly[ofme]becauseIhadthe presumptiontowritethis,sinceyoumustbelievethatIhavenosense orlearningwithwhichIwouldknowhowtotakethesethingsfrommy heart,norcouldIwritethisdownwithoutanyothermodelthanthe graceofGodwhichisworkingwithinme.²
Ifwelookatthispassageagain,however,inlightofthegeneraluseof humilityformulae(notice,forinstance,howMargueriteimmediately makesitclearthatthecontentoftheworkwillbethoughtsonthelife ofChrist),andhumilityasmoralideal,wecanreaditmoreasitwould haveoriginallybeenmeantandunderstood.FirstMarguerite,whois proficientinseverallanguages,obviouslydoesnotlackeither “ senseor learning”;infact,shewritesthesewordsinLatin thelanguageof scholarshipandtheChurch.Second,theCarthusianorder,whichtook strictvowsofsilenceandsolitude,usedtheactofwritingandtranscribingasaspiritualdisciplineandhadasoneoftheircentralspiritual metaphorstheimageofGodinscribingwordsdirectlyintotheir
²⁵ TheWritingsofMargaretofOingt,MedievalPrioressandMystic(d.1310),tr. R.Blumenfeld-Kosinski(Cambridge:D.S.Brewer,1990),26.
hearts.²⁶ Thus,Marguerite’sclaimthatGodorderedthesethoughts “into herheart” andthatsheisinturntranscribingthosethoughtsdirectly fromherheartisextremelysignificant.Third,Margueriteattributesher abilitytocomposethistexttonothinglessthanthemodelofGod’ sown gracemovingwithinher,givingboththeoriginandthemeansofher writingadivinesource.Finally,notethatalthoughsheinitiallyframes thecompositionofthistextintermsofanaidtoherownfuture meditation,sheassumesawiderreadershipinaskingforkindness from “allthosewhoreadthistext.” Takenasawhole,thisstatement actuallypositionswhatMargueriteisabouttosayasanimportant contributiontotheteachingsofherreligiousorder.
Anothermedievalcontemplativewhowasinfluentialinherowntime butremainslittleknowntodayisMechthildofHackeborn,describedby RosalynnVoadenas “oneofthebestknownandmostwidelyread visionariesinlatemedievalandearlymodernEurope.”²⁷ ThecompositionofMechthild’ s BookofSpecialGrace wasacollectiveeffort; althoughMechthildapparentlyregularlysharedhervisionsandrevelationswithherfellownunsatHelfta,sheisdescribedasinitiallyunaware andthenhorrifiedtodiscoverthattheseexperienceswerebeingwritten downandcollectedbysomeofhersisters(includingGertrudethe Great anequallynotablecontemplativeandauthor).Whenshegoes toGodwithherworries,however,Godexplainstoherthat “Truthitself ” isspeakingthroughher:
Iamintheheartsofthosewhodesiretolistentoyou,stirringupthat desireinthem.Iamtheunderstandingintheearsofthosewhohear you;itisthroughmethattheyunderstandwhattheyhear.Iamalsoin themouthsofthosewhospeakofthesethings.AndIaminthe handsofthewritersastheirhelperandcollaboratorineveryway.
²⁶ AsBennettGilbertwrites, “Transcription, fillingthemonk’smindwithtruthfulwords, wasthe firststepina[Carthusian’s]spiritualreflection,” in “EarlyCarthusianScriptand Silence,” CistercianStudiesQuarterly 49(2014),367–97,at372.
²⁷ AsVoadengoesontowrite: “Hundredsofcopiesof[Mechthild’s]bookofrevelations,the Liberspecialisgratiae,wereincirculationinbothcompleteandexcerptedforms,inLatin,and translationsintoatleast fivedifferentvernaculars” (“MechthildofHackeborn,” inA.Minnis andR.Voaden(eds.), MedievalHolyWomenintheChristianTraditionc.1100–c.1500 (Turnhout:Brepols,2010),431–51,at431).
Thus,allthattheycomposeandwriteinandthroughmeistrue,for IamTruthitself.²⁸
AfterbeingassuredthatGodwasinfavorofthebook’scomposition, Mechthildisreportedasparticipatingenthusiasticallyinitsproduction. Again,weseeherehowaprofessionofhumility(intheformof Mechthild’sstatedalarmatlearninghervisionsarebeingpreservedfor dissemination)ismetbyGod’sexplicitendorsementofthetext’sproject. Aswiththeprologuetothe MeditationsontheLifeofChrist,theappeal totheAugustiniantropeofGodastheonlytrueteachergiveswhat followsthestampnotjustofdivineapprovalbutalsoofdivine authority.²⁹
LetmeclosethissectionwithapassagefromtheShortTextofJulian ofNorwich’ s Revelations (writtentowardtheendofthefourteenth century).Julianbeginswithaclassicuseofthehumilityformula,going ontoaddressobjectionstoawoman’swritingontheologicalmatters:
GodforbidthatyoushouldsayortakeitsothatIamateacher,for Idon’tmeanthatnorhaveInevermeantthat.ForIamawoman,lewd [uneducated],feeble,andfrail.ButIknowwellthatwhatIsayIhave receivedfromtheshowingofhimwhoissovereignteacher.Indeed, charitystirsmetotellyouit.ForIwishthatGodwereknownandmy fellowChristianshelped,asIwishtobemyself,tothegreaterhatredof sinandlovingofGod.ButbecauseIamawoman,shouldItherefore believethatIshouldnottellyouthegoodnessofGod,sinceIsawin thatsametime[thatis,duringhervisions]thatitishiswillthatitbe known?Andthatyoushallwellseeinwhatfollows,ifitbewelland trulyunderstood.Thenshallyousoonforgetmewhoisawretch,and
²⁸ TheBookofSpecialGrace,tr.B.Newman(Mahwah,NJ:PaulistPress,2017),242–3. ²⁹ Thisisarecurringtheme.See,forinstance,5.31whereGodassuresMechthild: “Justas trulyasyoureceiveditfrommySpirit,sotrulymySpiritcompelledthemtowriteitdownand elaborateit” (245).We findasimilaremphasisonhumility’sconnectionwithGod’sgracein Mechthild’sscribeandsisternun,GertrudetheGreat: “NowGertrudewasledbyhervery humilitytoconsiderherselfsounworthyofGod’sgiftsthatshecouldnotbeinducedtobelieve thattheyweregivenherforherownadvantage.Shesawherselfasachannelthroughwhich,by somemysteriousdispositionofGod,hisgrace flowedtohiselect,sincesheherselfwasso unworthyandreceivedallGod’sgifts,smallorgreat(soshethought),inthemostinadequate andunfruitfulfashion,saveonlythatshetookthetroubletodistributethemtoothersinspeech orwriting” (TheHeraldofDivineLove,ed.andtr.M.Winkworth(Mahwah,NJ:PaulistPress, 1993)).
dosothatInotinterferewithyourlearning,andbeholdJesuswhois theteacherofall.³⁰
HereJuliancombinesthecommontropesofhumilityformulae (disavowalofknowledgeandworth)withthetropesmorespecificto women(frailtyandweakness)intoonepithysentence.Sheappealsto divineloveandGod’swill(alsothemainsubjectmatterofher Showings) toexplainwhyshewrites,andalsotoexplicitlyaddressherstatusasa woman.Hercommentaboutbeingawretchfunctionsinthiscontext primarilytodrawattentiontohowallarewretchesincomparisonto God.Finally,theAugustiniananchoriteremindsherreadersthatthe onlyrealteacherisGod,fromwhomallauthoritycomes.
4.Conclusion Althougheventhemostbrilliantwomeninthisperiodfacedsignificant obstaclestobeingheard particularlyinsofarastheywerebarredfrom holdingprominentpositionsinecclesiasticalanduniversityhierarchies thisdoesnotmeanthattheirself-descriptionsasuneducatedandignorant shouldbetakenatfacevalue.Aswesawinsection2, anyone inthisperiod whoclaimedauthorityontheirownmeritwouldbedismissedoutofhand; inthiscontext,women’sstressingtheirgreaterclaimtohumilityviatheir “naturally” subordinatedpositionfunctionedsimultaneouslytoemphasize theirclaimtoacloserconnectiontothedivine.
Furthermore,thewomenwhowrotethepassagesdiscussedinsection3 werefamiliarnotonlywiththegeneralformandfunctionofmedieval humilityformulaebutalsowithmanyoftheactualtextsinwhichthey werefound.Ratherthanbeingforbidden,theactivitiesofreadingand writingwerewidelyportrayedassignsofholinessandreligiousdevotion forwomeninthethirteenthto fifteenthcenturies.³¹Inadditiontothe
³⁰ ShortText,section6,myrenderingintomodernEnglishfromthetextin TheWritingsof JulianofNorwich,ed.WatsonandJenkins,75.
³¹AsRichardKieckhefernotes, “Weknowthatcertainwomensaintswereenthusiastic readers,andweknowthatdevotionalreading figuredprominentlyintheurbanreligious cultureoftheera....Thisisnottosuggestthatpiouswomenreadmorethanmendid,orthat thecontentofthebookswaslessimportantformenthanforwomen.Rather,itmaybethat the activity ofreadingwasincloseraccordwiththecentralthemesofwomen’ spietythan
