SOURCE: "Margery Kempe and Dame Julian" in The English Mystics, Burns Oates & Washbourne Ltd., 1927, pp. 128-49.

[In the following excerpt, Knowles examines Julian's work in order to characterize her qualities as a writer and as a mystic. In both capacities, he contends, her sincerity of feeling and natural style set her apart from her contemporaries.]

We have already in an earlier chapter considered a spiritual writing which had for its end the direction of ancresses. We havenow to examine the writings of two holy women who followed this life of solitude, Margery Kempe of Lynn and Dame Julian of Norwich; and though we have only a few pages to tell us of the first, whereas the second has left us a book of considerable length, there is a very striking agreement of spirit between them.

Of Margery Kempe little need be said. All that survives of her "Book" is a small number of selections, preserved for us in one of Wynkyn de Worde's printed books, and we know nothing of her besides. It is, however, usually assumed that she lived early in the fourteenth century. Her little treatise for the most part takes the form of a dialogue between herself and our Lord speaking "in her mind." Several passages remind us of Dame Julian.

"I assure thee in thy mind," says our Lord, "if it were possible for me to suffer pain again, as I have done before, me were lever to suffer as much pain as ever I did for thy soul alone, rather than thou shouldest depart from me everlastingly."¹

And it is clear from others that she was advanced in contemplative prayer.

Daughter, for to bid many beads, it is good to them that can not better do, and yet it is not perfection… I have often told thee, daughter, that thinking, weeping, and high contemplation is the best life in earth, and thou shalt have more merit in heaven for one year thinking in thy mind than for an hundred year of praying with thy mouth.²

In her devotion to the Passion of our Lord she is a true daughter of her century.

When she saw the Crucifix, or if she saw a man had a wound, or a beast, or if a man beat a child before her, or smote a horse or another beast with a whip … she thought she saw our Lord beaten or wounded.³

We are more fortunate in possessing the whole book of her sister in East Anglia, for Dame Julian of Norwich reveals herself to us as a singularly lovable personality. As we shall see, besides her eloquent presentation of the divine goodness, she has much to say on moral questions, and her thoughts on the problems of predestination and the nature of evil show a depth of speculation greater than is found in any other English mystical writer before the Reformation. Nevertheless, the impression she leaves with us is not that of a powerful mind, nor of an original and elusive personality, but of a heart that has loved much and that has succeeded well in the hard task of showing to others fresh beauty in the object of its love.

At the outset of any examination of Dame Julian's Revelations, the reader has to make up his mind upon a very important point of interpretation. The other English mystics of our review, though they treat of unusual ways in the spiritual life, do not speak of their experiences as having any source outside themselves beyond the invisible and inaudible touching of the soul by the grace of God. Dame Julian, on the other hand, clearly reveals a type of sanctity which has probably always existed in the Church, and which has attracted a great deal of attention among devotional writers and hostile critics. The characteristics of this type, which perhaps is more common among women than men, are certain morbid conditions of body combined with a claim to have heard or seen supernatural manifestations. In the words of Catholic practice, they have seen visions, heard locutions, and fallen into ecstasies quite distinct from the alienatio mentis of such a mystical experience as is hinted at by the author of the Cloud.

As we have seen, once granted the possibility of such supernatural manifestation, there still remains the task of judging in each particular case whether the individual is to be believed in his assertion that he has experienced this touch of the finger of God. In the case of many of the saints, the Church, in the person of her rulers and theologians, has pronounced a verdict of credibility, but her decisions can be based on nothing but an estimate of the character of the subject, the purport of the communications, and their moral effect on the soul. For this purpose, the testimony of contemporaries is of the highest value. Consequently, Dame Julian can never hope to be erected to a place beside her great sisters, the two St Catherines, of Siena and of Genoa, and St Teresa. Their actions, their conversation, their prayer even, was watched and judged by competent witnesses who were often the chief authorities of the Church; they themselves have received the supreme stamp of the Church's approval, and their doctrine has passed into common use. In the case of Dame Julian, we have nothing on which to base a judgement save her one piece of writing.

Yet probably all who read the Revelations will be convinced, not only of the virtue and sincerity of their author, but of her sanity and orthodox faith. Even if we allow, as most of her editors are unwilling to allow, that she was possessed of considerable culture, she was certainly no professional theologian, nor is there any reason to suppose her well read in theology; yet she passes with a step that is almost always unerring through some of the most pathless tracts of thought, and while she is as original as a Christian writer well can be, yet she is entirely without a touch of that self-assertive and rebellious spirit which is so common in those who claim to be seers of visions when in reality they are but dreamers of dreams. Her Revelations do not present new truths to a chosen few; they impress the truth and meaning of old teaching upon her mind and heart and, through her, on the minds and hearts ofothers.

We know nothing of Dame Julian beyond what she tells us herself and what the early copyists of her manuscript tell us. From the latter we learn her name and dwelling-place and condition of life (which is also apparent from her writing), and the interesting fact that she was still alive when an unknown scribe was writing in 1413.⁴ From herself we learn that on the eighth day of May, 1373,5 she was thirty and a half years old, thus giving the date of her birth as 1342. Of her station in life we know nothing directly, but it is surely not absurd to conjecture that she was born of prosperous, if not gentle, parents. Ancresses, and in particular those, like her, who entered upon the life when still young, were in general girls of the upper class, for only these could easily obtain the permission, promise of support, and lodging which were necessary. Besides this, in spite of her self-depreciation the book is not that of a totally uneducated mind. The cell in which she lived was built against the Church of St Julian in Norwich; its foundations may still be seen, and the window through which she could watch the priest at Mass. This anchorage was in the gift, so to say, of the neighbouring Benedictine nunnery of Carrow, and this fact has given rise to a suggestion that Dame Julian was originally a nun of that convent. Such a suggestion is, of course, based on no positive evidence, but it is worth remarking that the only clear citation of a known author by Dame Julian is a passage from St Gregory's Life of St Benedict.

Her motive in writing was to relate a spiritual experience which she clearly regarded as a crisis of her life. This experience was not primarily a union of her will with God, but the communication of knowledge on certain spiritual matters. The communication took three forms, as Dame Julian herself tells us.⁶ First, there was bodily—that is, sensible or seemingly sensible—sight; secondly, there were comprehensible words spoken, as if to her ears; thirdly, there was a formless intellectual enlightenment.⁷ This last is very similar to that described by St Teresa and other contemplatives, and took the form of an illumination on some deep point of doctrine which is made clear to the recipient, but which cannot readily be comprehended in words, and which therefore may be more fully explained according as fresh grace or natural acquisition of knowledge assists. In Dame Julian's case, the visions and locutions took place on a single day, but her meditation on them lasted for many years—twenty at least⁸—and in some cases was assisted by lights and locutions similar to the original ones. Her book in its fullest form was written at least twenty years after her great experience, but a shorter form exists containing little but an account of the first visions. This latter has been taken to be either an abbreviation from the longer account, or an earlier version written before she had evolved her final thoughts. The latter alternative was chosen by the first editor of this manuscript,9 and he is surely right. All the "showings" except one are in the shorter version, and that one may most probably have been omitted for reasons to be suggested below. This version stops at points where no abbreviator could have had any reason for stopping; there is no mention of the exceedingly beautiful "word" which would surely have commended itself to an anthologist, but which we know to have been spoken fifteen years after the great day of revelation. The long and complicated Fourteenth Revelation is omitted altogether, and on the supposition that the short version is the earlier this can easily be explained. This particular revelation, as Dame Julian tells us, was not understood by her till supplemented twenty years after; it would therefore be natural to omit it when writing before the further revelation had been received. Finally, there are several minute personal details in the shorter version which do not occur in the longer. We are told that the priest who came to assist Dame Julian was accompanied by a "child," and that Dame Julian's mother was present in the cell with her.¹⁰

The experience of the eighth of May is told at some length. Dame Julian had some years before desired three things—a "bodilie sight" of our Lord's sufferings, that her compassion might be the greater; a painful bodily sickness, even unto death, which might help her to realize the last truths and act upon them afterwards; and "a wilful longing to God." The first two, as she tells us with extreme sanity, she asked for "with a condition" that they might be the will of God. The third she asked "mightilie without any condition." She also tells us, and we must believe her, that the two first desires passed from her mind.¹¹

At the age of thirty she was visited by a sickness of the kind she desired. Some of the most sympathetic of her admirers have taken this as a proof that the illness was produced by auto-suggestion. Such a line of argument is clearly based, not on any critical reasoning, but on an assumption that the supernatural or rather the miraculous, in the Christian sense, does not exist. Dame Julian's original prayer had been strictly conditional; it was not the whole-hearted persuasion of suggestion. During her illness she had no refuge against the fear of death in the thought that her illness would pass. She even seems to have forgotten that she had ever prayed for an illness. It is useless to speculate on the nature of her disease. Those who attribute it to suggestion have set it down as primarily mental, whereas Julian herself, almost significantly, always alludes to her "bodilie sickness." Whatever its nature, it lasted a week, and both herself and her attendants thought her on the point of death. She says:

On the fourth night, I tooke all my Rites of Holy Church, and weened not to have liven till daie. And after this I lingered on two daies and two nights, and on the third night I weened oftentimes to have passed, and so weened they that were with me." … And they that were with me sent for the parson my curate to be at mine ending. He came, and a child with him, and brought a cross.¹³

She looked upon the cross, but for the moment there was no change in her state. The first unusual symptom was a sudden feeling of ease, and it occurred to her to desire the wound of compassion for our Lord's sufferings. She expressly tells us that she desired no vision, but suddenly the crucifix held before her eyes changed.

And in this, sodeinlie I saw the red blood trickling down from under the garland [of thorns] hott and freshly and right plenteouslie … like to the drops of water that fall off the eaves of an house after a great shower of rain … and for the roundness, they were like to the scale of herring.¹⁴

Henceforth, the "showings" succeeded one another; as far as we can gather from her words, the sight of our Lord's head on the crucifix was present to her all the time, while to her mind came "words" and "ghostly showings" or illuminations. These revelations took a considerable time.

The first began early in the morning about the hour of four; and it lasted showing by process full fair and steadily, each following other till it was nine of the day overpassed.¹⁵

The last revelation took place in the following night, and when it ended her feeling of illness returned. The return of pain weakened her mind, and for a moment she lost faith in the reality of what she had seen.

Then came a religious person to me, and asked me how I fared. I said I had raved that day.¹⁶

She fell asleep, and while asleep saw, or dreamed, that she was assaulted by the devil. It is noticeable that she distinguishes the manner of this from the other visions.

And in my sleep methought the fiend, etc.… This ugly showing was made sleeping, and so was none other.¹⁷

We might put this down as a dream, were it not for what follows. After she waked,

Anon a light smoke came in the door, with a great heat and a foul stench; I said, "Benedicite Dominus, it is all on fire that is here!" And I weened it had been a bodily fire. I asked them that were with me if they felt any stench; they said nay, they felt none; I said, "Blessed be God," for that I wist well it was the fiend that was come.'"

This also, it is to be noticed, she saw in a different way from the showings. Though invisible to others, it appeared to her as visible smoke, whereas the showings impressed themselves upon her mind at once as supernatural. Needless to say, this diabolical visitation is not to the taste of modem non-Catholic writers. It has been explained as a valueless working of auto-suggestion, and as the emergence of old desires into the mind's consciousness, clothed in terrifying images.¹⁹ Yet it is hard to see how Dame Julian could have been clearer in her account, and if we distrust her testimony here, there seems no valid reason for trusting it elsewhere.

Immediately after this visitation she made an act of faith in the revelations which had been made to her, and which she had for a time doubted. On the same evening she had the final vision, and it was followed by more diabolical assaults, which lasted for most of the night and till about nine in the morning. Then the supernatural showings ceased, though she was confirmed in the truth of what she had seen.

On the same day that it was showed … as a wretch I forsook it.… Then our Lord Jesu of his mercy … showed it all again within my soul with more fulness, saying …"Wit it now well, it was no raving that thou sawest this day."²⁰

As far as we can gather from her writing, Dame Julian had no further visions. We are, however, told that her questioning as to the meaning of one of the showings was answered fifteen years later "in ghostly understanding," and one of the visions, the fourteenth and hardest, was made clear to her twenty years less three months from the original revelation. These two passing references show that the happenings of the eighth of May were for her an abiding and unreplaced source of meditation—one more indication of their external and non-subjective nature. She herself says:

As for the bodily sight, I have said as I saw, as truly as I can. And as for the words formed, I have said them right, as our Lord showed me them. And as for the ghostly sight, I have said somewhat; but I may never fully tell it.²¹

When we are thus addressed by one who claims to have had communications from another world, it is natural for us to ask what was the content of those communications, and to judge the genuineness of the revelation by the weight of what has been revealed. We cannot at times banish a feeling that even the greatest seers of things hidden—St Teresa or St Catherine—have told us nothing new, nothing that we might not have discovered by the light of ordinary reason assisted by grace and working on thecontent of the revelation. It is only a step further to debate the need for such useless revelations. Yet perhaps such a method of argument is unsound. It would undoubtedly be a cogent method in certain circumstances, as, for instance, when the claims of spiritualism or other occult religious practices were being canvassed. The supporters of such practices claim that they are worthy to supplant or supplement Christianity; Christians are therefore justified in asking what the new teaching may be that is derived from such sources. If it is occupied entirely with trivialities, or contains nothing that was not previously known and realized, we may reasonably doubt both the value and the authenticity of the revelation. The case is different with revelations within the Christian body. Even if it were lawful for Christians to look for a further revelation than that given in the New Testament, it would not seem a priori likely that the Divine Founder, who so copiously taught his apostles and who has spoken at such length by the Holy Spirit, would reserve a momentous pronouncement for centuries, and then make it to a private person. There are, indeed, many speculative points of theology of which the human mind has always longed for a fuller knowledge, but they are precisely the points upon which the silence of revelation and tradition is most significant of the divine will. Further, if it be objected that the words of our Lord to St Teresa or Dame Julian are moral exhortations, conveying little or nothing that is new, the objection may be returned by pointing out that by far the greater part of our Lord's words, recorded or unrecorded, taken merely as so many words, are neither new nor methodical. Their value lies in the unique force and spirit which they convey, not as isolated sayings, but as a body of teaching of a unique personality, and just as they have exerted a boundless influence over the world, so the kindred words spoken to saints have had a great influence for good over fields very varying in extent. Once again, if a "revelation" be considered as a development of the touch of grace in the soul, many of the difficulties which the common view of its nature causes will disappear.²²

The revelations of Dame Julian may be divided into two classes. In the one she saw the sufferings of our Lord on the Cross, and occasionally heard words, and the result of these was to deepen her realization of our Lord's sufferings.²³ As the passages about to be quoted show, the "bodily showing" in these cases was very vivid, and she is perfectly clear that the words were not her own. She says:

This showing was quick and lively, and hideous and dreadful, sweet, and lovely.²⁴ … I saw his sweet face as it were dry and bloodless, with pale dying, and later more pale, dead, languoring, and then turned more dead unto blue … also his nose clogged and dried to my sight.²⁵ And St John of Beverley our Lord showed him full highly in comfort to us for homeliness and countrey sake: andbrought to my mind how he is a kind neighbour, and of our knowing: and God called him plainly St John of Beverley, as we do.²⁶

At the same time, the vision does not seem to have conveyed to Dame Julian the impression that she was watching the Crucifixion.

The hot blood ran out so plenteously … and when it came where it should have fallen down, then it vanished.²⁷

In this respect—and it is an important one—she differs from many medieval and modern ecstatics, such as Catherine Emmerich. Their visions derive what value they may possess from their claim to be glimpses of the Crucifixion; with Dame Julian the material showing is no more than a taking-off point for the words and meditations.

The other class of vision is different.²⁸ In these the showing was concerned with some abstract point of theology, and was often far more inexpressible. Thus she relates:

And after this, I saw God in a point; that is to say, in my understanding: by which sight I saw that he is in all thing.²⁹ …

Occasionally we are told the three stages of a vision.

And in this he showed a little thing, the quantitie of a hazel-nutt, lying in the palme of my hand… I thought, "What may this be?" and it was answered …"It is all that is made!" In this little thing I saw three properties. The first is that God made it: the second, is that God loveth it: the third is that God keepeth it.³⁰

It was for visions such as these that the meditation of years was employed to draw out their meaning, and it is these that constitute for many the chief interest of the book. We may, indeed, wonder at the deep things that filled the mind of this secluded woman, and at the strength of intellect which strives to explain them.

Among the speculative problems that have occupied the minds of thinkers in the Christian centuries, perhaps none has caused greater difficulty than the problem of the existence of evil. It has always pressed peculiarly hard on mystics, for the mystical temperament naturally desires to see unity and goodness in all things. Consequently, mystics both within and without the Church have tended towards Monism, and have ignored evil or considered it a quality of an inferior state of being. In the case of Dame Julian, we can see this tendency at work, though it is checked both by her extreme deference to orthodox teaching and by her strong practical sense. She is throughout a strong optimist, and passages such as the following abound:

And then [in heaven] shall verily be made known to us his meaning in those sweet words, where he saith, "All shall be well; and thou shalt see thyself that all manner thing shall be well." … Then shall none of us be stirred to say in any wise, "Lord, if it had been thus, it had been full well." But we shall say all with one voice, "Lord, blessed mote thou be, for it is thus: thus it is well."³¹

In the face of this belief in the ultimate goodness of all that is, there rises up the problem of the existence of sin, which may at the last resort be taken as the origin of all evil. She puts this problem herself.

Methought, if sin had not been, we should all have been clean and like to our Lord as he made us. And thus, in my folly … often I wondered why, by the great foreseeing wisdom of God, the beginning of sin was not letted, for then methought all should have been well.³²

Her answer to it is as follows, in part an insistence on sin as being nothing positive, in part a submission to God's wisdom.

But I saw not sin; for I believe it had no manner of substance, nor no part of being, nor could it be known but by the pain that it is cause of. Jesu … answered … and said, "Sin is behovely, but all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well."³³

But there remains the further difficulty of the origin of sin. She says:

"Ah, good Lord, how might all be well for the great hurt that is come by sin?" … To this our blessed Lord answered … that Adam's sin was the most harm that ever was done, or ever shall be… [and said] "sithen that I have made well the most harm; then it is my will that thou know thereby that I shall make well all that is less."³⁴

That is to say, the power and goodness of God could not be shown to better effect than by his ability to take Adam's sin as an occasion for bringing about a greater good. That he did this in the Incarnation and Passion of his Son is generally taught by theologians, and the Church exclaims in her liturgy, "O felix culpa!"

This atonement-making is more pleasing to God, and moreworshipful, without comparison, than ever was the sin of Adam harmful.³⁵

So far, Dame Julian stands in the common way. More original is her mystical identification, somewhat after the manner of St Paul, of our Lord with Adam, and her vision that our Lord's suffering is so closely bound up with Adam's sin, that the latter is lost sight of in the joy with which God regards the former. This part of the Revelations is exceedingly deep, and may be reconmmended to a most careful meditation. Beyond this, Dame Julian goes perhaps as far as human thought may in explaining the anger of God at sin, and how a parte Dei there is not, and cannot be, change. It is we who change, and depart from him.

Having thus dealt with the metaphysical aspect of sin, she proceeds to examine the process of sin. Here it should be noted that Dame Julian holds—in common with some other mystics³⁶—a view which is, at least as it stands and if words are to have their usual meaning, unorthodox. This is the opinion that there is a supreme point in the soul that never sins, or, as Dame Julian puts it, that the predestined never really sin.³⁷ Her utterance on this subject is not very clear. Thus she says once, recording a vision,

In which showing I saw and understood full surely, that in every soul that shall be saved is a godly will that never assented to sin, nor ever shall.³⁸

This is dangerous doctrine, and it is interesting to see that when she is giving her own reflections she modifies it.

We shall verily see in heaven without end, that we have grievously sinned in this life. And notwithstanding this, we shall see that we were never hurt in his love, nor were never the less of price in his sight.³⁹

Later, this is still further explained.

And thus [in sin] we are dead for the time from the very sight of our blissful life. But in all this I saw soothfastly that we be not dead in the sight of God … but he shall never have his full bliss in us till we have our full bliss in him.… Thus I saw how sin is deadly for a short time in the blessed creatures of endless life.⁴⁰

Akin to this is her manner of speaking of sin as if it were an accident; thus St John of Beverley is spoken of as having more joys in heaven than if he had never sinned; and in the "showing" of Adam,

The servant not only he goeth, but suddenly he starteth, andrunneth in great haste for love to do his lord's will. And anon he falleth in a slade, and taketh full great hurt … then saith this courteous lord …"Lo, lo, my beloved servant, what harm and disease he hath taken in my service for my love, yea, and for his good will. Is it not reason that I reward him, his frey and his dread, his hurt and his maim, and all his woe?⁴¹

Of such language it may be remarked, first, that such words should probably not be taken au pied de la lettre, but as the words of love welcoming back the Prodigal, or the greater joy in heaven for one sinner doing penance; and secondly, that even if from the sinner's point of view a mortal sin in St Mary Magdalen is the same as one in Judas, yet from the point of view of God, so to speak, there is all the difference between a sin that will be caticelled and one that will remain for ever. Further than this we cannot go, nor can we admit that, all else being equal, a sinner will be more rewarded than one who has preserved his innocence, as a wounded man might be rewarded more than his fellow who had fought the campaign without a scratch. This Dame Julian herself realizes elsewhere.

If any man think, "If this be true, then were it good to sin, to have more meed" … beware of this stirring, for truly, if it come, it is untrue, and of the enemy.⁴²

So far optimism has been triumphant, even if at times strict theological accuracy has suffered. Sin is merely the absence of God; Adam's sin brought a greater good into the world; the sins of the predestined are not fully sins. There remains the supreme problem of the eternally lost. How can they be all well? Here at last Dame Julian is silent. She never doubts the existence of evil spirits, but she does not explain it. The damned she has tried to compass, but in vain.

What time that we by our folly tum us to the beholding of the reproved, tenderly our Lord toucheth us, and blissedfully calleth us, saying in our soul, "Let me alone, my dear worthy child; intend to me, I am enough to thee."⁴³ And yet in this I desired as I durst, that I might have full sight of hell and purgatory.… And for aught that I could desire, I could see of this right naught⁴⁴

It has been suggested that some inaccuracies of language in the Revelations may be explained by reading Dame Julian's words as the language of love. This is, indeed, the ground of all her words, and in her eager, almost passionate response to the divine love, and in the extraordinary delicacy of her perception of the depths and shades of feeling, she is unique among English spiritual writers. Probably some who have little sympathy with her faith, and little interest in her perplexities, will have been moved almost to tears by the tender grace of her words, fragrant as ointment poured out.

What? wouldest thou wit thy Lord's meaning in this thing? Wit it well: love was his meaning. Who showeth it thee? Love. What showed he thee? Love. Wherefore showeth he it thee? For love.⁴⁵

These words she heard "in ghostly understanding" fifteen years after her great vision, but they told her nothing new. In the first revelation she had said:

There is no creature that is made, that may wit how much, and how sweetly, and how tenderly our Maker loveth us.⁴⁶

And already she returned the love.

Then had I a proffer in my reason.… "Look up to heaven" [away from the crucifix].… I answered inwardly with all the might of my soul, and said, "Nay, I may not; for thou art my heaven."⁴⁷

Indeed, many of the words of our Lord which she records are of an exquisite and piercing beauty.

Then said our good Lord Jesus Christ, "Art thou well apaid that I suffered for thee?" I said, "Yea, good Lord, gramercy; yea, good Lord, blessed mote thou be." Then said Jesu our kind Lord, "If thou art apaid, I am apaid: it is a joy, a bliss, an endless liking to me, that ever I suffered passion for thee: and if I might suffer more, I would suffer more."⁴⁸

And again:

"My dear darling, I am glad thou art come to me in all thy woe; I have ever been with thee, and now seest thou me loving, and we be oned in bliss."⁴⁹

These passages may have served to show not only the warmth of Dame Julian's love, but also the simplicity and absence of all that is false or artificial in her expression of it. It is also worth remarking, that her solitary life, her lonely meditations, and the closeness of her communion with God in no way emancipate her either from obedience to the Church or from an abiding sympathy with her neighbour. Her submission to the Church is apparent throughout. The Church is the test of her revelations and must be believed where private revelation ceases. The sacraments and devotion to our Lady and the saints' are taken for granted. Still more clear is her love for her neighbour, and here she is at one with the apostles and early Christians in feeling that the whole Church is the body of Christ, and we, members of each other.

If any man or woman depart his love from any of his even-Christians, he loves right naught, for he loves not all. And so at that time he is not safe, for he is not in peace.⁵⁰

What may make me more to love mine even-Christian, than to see in God that he loveth all that shall be saved, as it were all one soul?⁵¹

For if I look singularly to myself, I am right naught; but in general I am in hope, in one-head of charity with all my even-Christians; for in this one-head standeth the life of all manking that shall be saved.⁵²

The extracts given in this chapter have, perhaps, sufficiently illustrated the style of the Revelations. Two passages may be added to show Dame Julian's command of words; the one is from her vision of God and Adam, the other her conclusion.

[The Lord's] clothing was wide and side, and full seemly, as falleth to a lord: the colour of the clothing was blue as azure, most sad and fair: his cheer was merciful; the colour of his face was fair, brown, white, with full seemly countenance; his eyes were black, most fair and seemly showing, full of lovely pity … [The servant's] clothing was a white kirtle, single, old, and all defaced, dyed with sweat of his body; strait-sitting to him, and short as it were an handful beneath the knee; bare, seeming as it should soon be worn out, ready to be ragged and rent.⁵³

And I saw full surely in this and in all, that ere God made us, he loved us; which love was never slacked, nor ever shall be. And in this love he hath done all his works: and in this love he hath made all things profitable to us; and in this love our life is everlasting; in our making we had beginning: but the love wherein he made us was in him from without beginning. In which love we have our beginning. And all this shall we see in God without end. Which may Jesus grant us.⁵⁴

Notes

¹Cell of Self Knowledge, ed. Gardner, p. 51.

²Cell of Self Knowledge, ed. Gardner, p. 52.

³Ibid., p. 54.

⁴ Introduction to Amherst MS.

⁵ The MSS. disagree as to the date of the month. Dom Meunier (Revelations de l'Amour Divin, footnote, p. 6) points out that the Feast of St John of Beverley fell on the seventh of the month. Thismakes the eighth the most likely date.

⁶Dame Julian, ed. Dom Hudleston, ch. ix: Bums Oates and Washbourne. The references throughout this chapter are to this edition. The division of chapters is not entirely in agreement with previous editions.

⁷ It is perhaps worth noting that this third kind of vision usually accompanies a very high degree of mystical prayer. We have thus indirect evidence that Dame Julian's visions were not isolated favours, but were intimately bound up with her spiritual progress.

⁸Revelations, ch. li, p. 135.

⁹Comfortable Words for Christ's Lovers, ed. Rev. D. Harford, 1911.

¹⁰Comfortable Words, ch. x.

¹¹Revelations, ch. ii.

¹²Revelations, ch. iii.

¹³Comfortable Words, ch. ii.

¹⁴Revelations, chs. iv and vii.

¹⁵ Ch. lxv.

¹⁶ Ch. lxvi.

¹⁷Ibid.

¹⁸Ibid.

¹⁹ So Thouless, The Lady Julian.

²⁰ Ch. lxx.

²¹Comfortable Words, ch. xxiii.

²² We must remember that mystics insist that what has been revealed is ineffable. Their words are pale shadows of reality.

²³ I have here treated together the corporeal and imaginative visions of theologians.

²⁴Revelations, ch. vii.

²⁵ Ch. xvi.

²⁶ Ch. xxxviii. Dame Julian was picturing heaven to herself before this showing, and it was natural that she should think of St John, whose feast had fallen on the previous day.

²⁷ Ch. xii.

²⁸ This is the class of vision known to theologians as intellectual—i.e., not produced in the senses, but by an infusion into the intellect.

²⁹ Ch. xi.

³⁰ Ch. v

³¹ Ghs. Ixiii and lxxxv.

³² Ch. xxvii.

³³ Ch. xxvii. Behovely=it behoved there should be sin.

³⁴ Ch. xxix.

³⁵Ibid.

³⁶ Above all, the great Eckhart (1260-1327). It is hard to believe that this passage does not reflect his teaching.

³⁷ Dom Hudleston, op. cit., pp. xxxiii and 251, has excellent notes on this passage, in which he asserts Dame Julian's fundamental orthodoxy. He quotes a striking parallel from St Bernard, which I had not seen when I wrote my chapter on Dame Julian.

³⁸ Ch. Iiii.

³⁹ Ch. Ixi.

⁴⁰ Ch. lxxii.

⁴¹ Ch. Ii (slade=ravine; frey=fright).

⁴² Ch. xl.

⁴³ Ch. xxxvi. I here follow Father Cressy's reading.

⁴⁴ Ch. xxxiii.

⁴⁵ Ch. lxxxvi.

⁴⁶ Ch. vi.

⁴⁷ Ch. xix.

⁴⁸ Ch. xxii.

⁴⁹ Ch. xl (quoted from Cressy's version).

⁵⁰Comfortable Words, ch. vi.

⁵¹Revelations, ch. xxxvii.

⁵² Ch. ix.

⁵³ Ch. li.

⁵⁴ Ch. lxxxvi.