University of Virginia Library

I

A comparison between the short and the two longer texts in passages common to both show that on the occasions where P and S1 differ from each other, one or other may agree with A. Where A and S1 agree against P it is usually in the use of an older form of a word, e.g.:

• A (c.I, p.40, l.20) Lorde, thowe woote whate I wolde etc.
• S1 (c.2, p.3) Lord, thou wotith what I would etc.
• P (c.2, p.288, l.36) Lord thou knowest what I would etc.

or again:

• A (c.X, p.55, l.4) the mykillehede of hir payne etc.
• S1 (c.18, p.20) mekylhede of hyr payne etc.
• P (c.18, p.366, l.4) the grettnes of her peyne etc.

Where A and P agree against S1 it is often in the coincidence of a passage omitted from S1, e.g.:

• A (c.XXII, p.73, l.22) He sittes in the saule euen ryght in pees & reste, and he rewles & ʒemez heuen & erth and alle that is. The manhede with the godhede sittis in reste, and the godhede rewles and ʒemes withowtyn any instrumente or besynes; and my saule is blisfullye occupyed with the godhede that is sufferayn might, sufferayne wisdome etc.
• S1 (c.67, p.82) He sitteth in the soule even ryte in peace and rest. And the Godhede ruleth and gemeth hevyn and erth and all that is; sovereyn myte etc.
• P (c.68, p.640, l.9) He syttyth in þe soule evyn ryghte in peas and rest, and he rulyth and ʒevyth hevyn and erth and all that is. The manhode with the godhed syttyth in rest, the godhed rulyth and ʒeveth withoutyn ony instrument or besynesse. And þe soule is alle occupyed with the blessyd godhed þat is souereyne myghte etc.

On the other hand there is no absolute consistency about this phenomenon: thus P sometimes adds a passage which interrupts the sequence common to S1 and A:

• A (c.XXI, p.72, l.20) Bot I couth telle it na preste, for I thoght, 'Howe schulde a preste leue me? I leued nought oure lorde god'. This I leued sothfastlye etc.
• S1 (c.66, p.81) . . . but at that tyme I cowde tell it no priest, for I thowte: 'How should a priest levyn me? I leve not our lord God'. This I levid sothfastly etc.
• P (c.66, p.633, l.24) But I cowlde telle it to no prest, for I thought, how shulde a preste belieue me when I by seaying I raved, I shewed my selfe nott to belyue oure lorde god? Nott withstanding I beleft hym truly etc.

It is also clear that there are intermediary versions of the long text between S1 and P and the original extension of the shorter version of the showings. Thus for instance:

• A (c.XVII, p.65, l.22) . . . and than com verrayly to my mynde, David, Peter & Paule, Thomos of Inde and the Maudelayn etc.
• S1 (c.38, p.39) . . . God browte merily to my minde David and other in the old law without numbre, and in the new law he browte to my mynd first Mary Magdalen, Peter and Paul, and those of Inde and Seynt Iohn of Beverley etc.
• P (c.38, p.446, l.13) . . . and then god brought merely to my mynde David and other in the olde lawe with hym with ouʒt nomber; and in the new lawe he brought to my mynde furst Magdaleyne, Peter and Paule, Thomas and Jude, Sent John of Beverley etc.

Here it looks as if the original expansion of the short text to distinguish between the old law and the new has been misread in various ways by the scribes in both the P and S1 traditions. Although in this particular case it is obvious that the reading should be Thomas of Inde in both S1 and P, since all the texts are distanced from Julian herself in time there are no clearly consistent lines of procedure for establishing preferred readings in the long texts. However, S1's consistency in preserving an older syntax and vocabulary is something which has to be given serious weight.

More fundamental questions arise when the differences between P and S1 lead to theological differences in interpretation. There are occasions when this happens and the coincidence of the passage with A gives some control on the situation. For instance a straightforward example can be seen in the following where the sentence is referring back to a showing of Christ sitting in the midst of man's soul:

• A (c.XXII, p.73, l.31) This was a delectabille syght & a restefulle, for it is so in trowth withowten ende, and the behaldynge of this whiles we ere here es fulle plesande to god etc.
• S1 (c.68, p.83) This was a delectable syte and a restfull shewying: that it is so withouten end etc.
• P (c.68, p.644, l.46) This was a delectable syghte and a restfulle shewyng that is without ende etc.

The phraseology in A and S1 make it clear that it is Jesus' presence in the soul which is without end whereas P implies that it is the showing that is without end. Similarly:

• A (c.XXIII, p.75, l.11 (. . . my bodeleye eyʒen I sette on the same crosse that I hadde sene comforth in before that tyme etc.
• S1 (c.69, p.84) My bodily eye I sett in the same cross wher I had ben in comfort aforn that tyme etc.
• P (c.70, p.650, l.2) Mi bodely eye I sett in the same crosse there I had seen in comforte afore that tyme etc.

A and S signify that it is her beholding of the cross which provided comfort whereas the inference in P is that she had been in comfort when she saw it. In the light of the context S1 is the preferred reading, but matters are seldom so straightforward. In A Julian sees three essential qualities in her vision of a nut-sized world in the first showing—that God made it, loves it and preserves it. She then appears to ask how that relates to her and gives the answer that it means that God is her maker, lover and keeper and that she will have no true fulfillment until she is united with him.

• A (c.IV, p.44, l.12) In this lytille thynge I sawe thre partyes. The fyrste is that god made it, the seconde ys that he loves it, the thyrde ys that god kepes it. Botte whate is that to me? Sothelye the makere, the lovere, the kepere. For to I am substancyallye aned to hym I may nevere have love, reste ne varray blysse: that is to saye that I be so festenede to hym that thare be ryght nought that is made betwyxe my god & me.
• P reads (c.5, p.300, l.17) In this little thing I saw iij properties. The first is þat god made it, the secund that god loueth it, the thirde that god kepyth it. But what behyld I ther in? Verely the maker, the keper, the louer. For till I am substantially vnyted to him I may never haue full reste ne verie blisse; þat is to say that I be so fastned to him that ther be right nought that is made betweene my god and me.

This reading is obviously similar to that of A but the use of the verb behyld is less precise than the question and answer sequence of A, for whereas that clearly links visual showing with its more abstract significance the verb behyld blurs this to no good purpose. It seems superfluous after 'I saw iij properties' and the sentence which follows ('for till . . . me') does not relate very obviously to this assertion. The Westminster manuscript follows A (f.74v): S1 is subtly different: Although Colledge and Walsh remark on the differences between the manuscripts in their footnote to the Paris reading thus (p.300, n.18): ". . . SS and W have retained A's reading. It is not that Julian saw her creator—she saw a small spherical object—but that the object's spiritual significance for her is the Trinitarian work of creation, love and preservation. The P scribe's lapse of the pen suggests that the variant was created in this manuscript', and although they note S1's inclusion of 'I canot tell' in their textual variants, they make no mention of the fact that this variant changes the meaning. S1's 'But what is to me sothely the maker' etc. could well be accounted for as simply scribal error leaving out the 'that' in A, but the addition of the phrase 'I cannot tell' involves a change of meaning. Although she can see three characteristics peculiar to the nut-world—that God made it, loves it and preserves it—she cannot tell truly what the reality of this is for her until she is one with him. She lacks experience of complete fulfillment and is partially cut off from God by her very creatureliness. In S1 the rest of the sentence follows on sensibly from this caveat. S1's reading also chimes with the development of thought in both long versions, but further difficulties arise here. P continues:

In S1 'It needyth . . . creatures' replaces P 'This little thing . . . littlenes' which is found in A further on in chapter IV of that text:

In the face of textual differences of this order it is no easy matter to establish a text without a high degree of subjective interpretation. All that can be said about the texts themselves is that where A, S1 and P coincide, S1 and P may each on occasion agree with A against the other. Sometimes there may be grounds for emendation, for example:

• S1 (c.11, p.13) And I saw truly that nothing is done be happe ne be aventure, but althing be the foreseing wisedome of God.
• P (c.11, p.337, l.1) . . . alle by the forsayde wysdom of god.

---

110




• A (c.VIII, p.49, l.31) has: forluke of the wysdome etc.
• W (82v) follows S1 with foreseeng etc.

Since this is the first introduction of the subject there would be grounds for keeping the reading of S1 (Colledge and Walsh have emended their text of P accordingly). However, there can be no general rule about emending either S1 or P to agree with A since there can be no certainty of how Julian expanded her short text.

Interestingly, however, it may be observed that where there are discrepancies P frequently not only modernises but is theologically less subtle. For instance:

• A (c.XIV, p.62, l.3) reads: In this wille oure lorde that we be occupyed, enioyande in hym, for he enioyes in vs. And þe mare plentyuouslye that we take of this with reuerence and mekenesse, the mare we deserve thanke of hym and the mare spede to ourselfe. And thus maye we saye, enioyande, Oure parte is oure lorde.
• S1 (c.30, p.31) has: . . . and thus, may we sey, enioyeng our part is our lord.
• P (c.30, p.414, l.11) And thus may see and enjoye our parte is oure lorde.

The Upholland manuscript reading (f.116) is interesting here; it follows P but modernises it: In both S and A there is an ambiguity: we see with joy that we share the work of salvation with Christ and Christ joys in it too. This sense is in keeping not only with other parts of the text (e.g. c.22 of the long version) but it echoes a sentence just before which is present in all the texts, I quote here from A: 'In this wille oure lorde that we be occupyed, enioyande in hym, for he enioyes in vs'. However, P (and U) take out this identification of joy—highly appropriate to a text which identifies Christ and the saved (c.51, p.59 'for Iesus is al that shal be savid and al that shal be savid is Iesus') in favour of 'And thus may we see and enjoye our parte is oure lorde'. Since we know that the Upholland manuscript was modernised and glossed in the main body of the text it is possible that something similar has occurred in P.