 | |  |
II
We should now look at some examples of differences between the two long versions in passages peculiar to them. There, the criteria for establishing preferred readings are even less certain. One method—and that often used by Colledge and Walsh—is to rely on scriptural echoes or the formulations of dogmatic theology to determine readings, but this may be at the expense of the integrity of the text itself. A comparison between a selection of variant readings will highlight the kinds of considerations that need to be taken into account in editing Julian's text.
111
Sometimes it is the case that readings from either manuscript are justifiable without a great deal of remark, for example:
- S1 (c.83, p.100) reads: . . . and in clerte of light our sight shall be full; which light is God etc.
- P (c.83, p.725, l.24) has: . . . and in clernes of syght our lyght shalle be fulle, which light is god etc.
On some occasions where the texts differ it is the case that either S1 or P are obviously superior. Thus in the following example from c.46 P obviously has the edge.
S1 (c.46, p.48) But our passand lif that we have here in our sensualite
knowith not what ourself is; than shal we verily and clerly sen and knowen
our lord God in fulhede of ioy.
Here there seems to be something missing between 'ourself is' and 'than
shal we verily' etc. The sense has to be inferred. P, however, reads:
(c.46, p.490, l.1) . . . knowyth nott what our selfe is but in
our
feyth. And whan we know and see verely and clerely what oure
selfe
is, than shalle we verely and clerly see etc.
The awkward reading in S1 looks like scribal carelessness mistaking the
first 'ourself is' for the second. Again, in c.12 where Julian sees Christ's
blood overflowing the earth and descending to hell in the work of
redemption S1 continues:
(p.15) his dereworthy blode ascendid up into hevyn to
the
blissid body of our lord Iesus Christe etc.
whereas P has what seems to be a happier reading:
P (c.12, p.344, l.27): . . . ascendyth vp into hevyn in
the
blessed body etc.
Conversely, in the following variants from c.13 the scribe of S1 seems to
be more intelligent:
112
- S1 (p.15) God shewid that the fend hath now the same malice that he had aforn the incarnation; and as sore he travilith and as continually he seeth that all sent of salvation ascappyn him worshipply be the vertue of Cristes pretious passion; and that is his sorrow etc.
- P (c.13, p.347, l.13) . . . all sowles of saluacion eskape hym worshyppfully by the vertue of his precious passion. And that is his sorow etc.
I saw iii maner of longing in God, and al to one end; of which
we have the same in us, and of the same vertue, and for the same
end. The ist is for etc.
P (c.75, p.679, l.9) stops after one end and continues on,
The furst etc. This looks like scribal carelessness on the part
of
P.
This example also serves to develop further the discussion of the theological implications of P's variations. Here the reading in P blunts the sense of a theological dynamic which is one of the distinguishing features of Julian's text and which S1 often conveys more trenchantly. In this passage S1 articulates a sense of spiritual activity common to God and man: the longing in God to have us secure in his love and our longing to reach this state—a spiritual energy which Julian explores in her development of her showing on prayer. It is this aspect which renders S1 superior here, not the fact that its reading provides greater rhetorical sophistication so often found in P.[7] This kind of sensitivity to a continuum of active being between God and man which, rightly entered into, can redeem the consequences of the fall is also evident in the following passage where P and S1 offer differing readings. Julian is talking about her showing on prayer and says:
- S1 (c.42, p.45) Fayling of our bliss that we ben kyndly ordeynid to makyth us for to longen; trew vnderstondyng and love, with swete mynd in our savior, graciously makyth us for to trosten.
- P (c.42, p.473, l.56) Saworyng or seyng oure blysse that we be ordeyned to, kyndely makyth vs for to longe; trew vunderstondyng and loue with swete menyng in oure savyoure graciously makyth vs to trust.
113
(c.15, p.17) And in the same tyme of ioy I migte have seid with
Seynt Paul: 'Nothing shal depart me fro the charite of Criste'. And in the
peyne I migte have seid with Peter 'Lord, save me, I perish'.
She understands that what separates her from the joy is sin (c.27). The end
of chapter 42 (p.45) shortly following this disputed reading, has:
But do we as we may, and sothly aske mercy and grace, al that us
faylyth we shal fynd in hym; and thus menyth he wher he seith; 'I am
grounde of thy besekyng'. And thus in this blisful word, with the shewing,
I saw a full overcomyng agens al our wekenes and al our douteful
dredis.
Later, in c.43 (p.46), she says: 'And wel I wote the more the soule seeth
of God, the more it desyrith hym be his grace' (which would buttress P's
reading); but she continues: 'But whan we sen hym not so, than fele we
nede and cause to pray—for fayling—. . .'. In the light of this
evidence
it does not seem clear beyond doubt that S1's 'fayling of our bliss' is an
error. Further confirmation of the validity of S1 comes from a study of the
continuation of this passage in both texts. S1 has:
. . . than fele we nede and cause to pray—for
fayling—for
ablyng of ourselfe to Iesus etc.
whereas
P (p.478, l.29) reads: . . . for feyling and for vnablenes of
oure
selfe to Jhesu etc.
It is interesting that in this case S1's reading is confirmed by A (c.XIX,
p.69, l.19) and W (95r), which coincide with the long
version in this
passage. In addition to the fact that the reading in S1, praying out of a
sense of separation from God, to close this gap, balances the opposites that
follow in both texts (here quoted from S1 p.46):
. . . for whan the soule is tempested troublid and left to hymself be
onrest, than it is tyme to prayen to maken hymselfe supple and buxum to
God etc.
it continues the preoccupation with working to close the gap between God
and man opened by the wedge of sin, which work is the work of
redemption.
Another example where S1's reading conveys a greater sense of religious experience as a dynamic reality is in c.11:
- (p.14): . . . me behovyd nedis to assenten with gret reverens, enioyand in God.
- P (c.11, p.341, l.57) reads: . . . my behovyth nedys to assent with great reverence and joy in God.
114
God shewid in al the revelations oftentymes that man werkyth
evermore his will and his wership lestyngly withoute ony styntyng. And
what this worke is was shewid in the first, and that in a mervelous grounde,
for it was shewid in the werkyng of the soule of our blisfull
lady Seynt Mary, treuth and wisdam etc.
P has (c.44, p.483, l.5): 'werkyng of the blessydfull soule of our lady sent
Mary by truth and wysedom' etc. By placing 'treuth and
wisdam' in apposition to what was showed in the working S1 implies that
the working that God will show in Mary's soul is that of truth and wisdom;
P, by the use of the preposition 'by' implies that the working was shown
by truth and wisdom. Working is a key word in Julian's text
running a whole gamut of shades of meaning, from labour necessary in the
effort to discipline the self in spiritual life (c.41) to a working which, like
that of yeast in dough, is a transforming, a rising agent: 'mercy werkyth
turnyng to us althyng to good' (c.48, p.51).[8] In the first reference to the
showing of
Mary in c.4 of both texts Julian says that she saw that: (p.5) 'God shewid
in party the wisedam and trueth of hir soule' and this was manifested in her
loving relationship to God and her acceptance of his will which enabled
the Incarnation.[9] The attitude of
Mary at the Annunciation becomes the pattern for all men: they are the
vehicles through whom the transforming dynamic of love can work, and
that in man which activates this process is his truth and wisdom which is
God-given and naturally beholds its source with love. This is the working
of the soul (both in the sense of the way it is created and of its activity) of
'our blisfull lady Seynt Mary'. P is theologically innocuous but far less
trenchant.
A very similar example of a textual variant which alters emphasis can be found in c.31:
- S1 (p.32) reads: . . . this is his [Christ's] thirst: a love longyng to have us al togeder hole in him to his blis etc.
- P (c.31, p.418, l.18) has: . . . this is his thurste and loue longyng of vs, all to geder here in hym to oure endlesse blysse etc.
115
In c.72 (p.87) Julian speaks of man cut off from the bliss of fully knowing God in 'cleerty of endless life'; P (p.659, l.7) reads lyght. This is a more predictable coupling with cleerty, but clarity of endless life, especially as glossed in the text as a fullness of experience 'him verily seand, him swetely feland, all perfectly haveand in fulhede of ioy' has a sharper metaphorical edge to it. She continues (S1, p.87):
And thus was the blisfull cheere of our lord shewid in
pite; in which shewing I saw that synne is most contrarie, so
ferforth
that as long as we be medled with only part of synne we shall never see
cleerly the blisfull cheere of our lord.
P on the other hand reads (p.660, l.8): 'and thus was þe blessydfulle
chere of oure lorde god shewde in perty'. Colledge and
Walsh
comment (p.660, n.9) that the reading of Sloane is attractive; 'but it is clear
that Julian is making again the point she explains in the previous chapter:
his blessyd chere lyke in perty as it shalle be in hevyn' (c.71,
p.658, l.37). Here (in c.71) Julian distinguishes between three ways in
which Christ bears himself to us: 1, his passion which is relevant to us in
our suffering; 2, his pity and compassion which is relevant to us in our sin;
3, his bliss that we have in part here: it is the light that informs our faith
and love. She then goes on (in c.72) to talk about the mutually exclusive
states of God's bliss and of sin and continues with the statement in the
extract above. P's reading is unexceptionable: the fullness of bliss is only
partly seen here and this prompts the realisation that sin prevents us from
clearness of sight. On
the other hand it is a perfectly acceptable reading that what is shown of
God's bliss is shown to us in pity. Julian says (c.71, p.86) that the 'chere'
of pity which preserves us in our sin is mingled with the 'chere' of bliss
that informs our faith. Earlier in the text (c.28, p.29) she says:
. . . I saw that our lord ioyth of the tribulations of his servants with
reuth and compassion etc.
At the end of c.71 (p.86) she writes concerning this, what she would call,
chere of our lord:
. . . that is a gracious touchyng and swete lyteyng of the gostly lefe
wherby that we arn kept in sekir feith, hope and charite, with contrition and
devotion and also with contemplation and [alle manner][11] of true solace and swete comforts.
The
blisfull chere of our lord God werkith it in us be grace.
It is the full creative joy of God which longs 'to have us al togeder hole in
him' (c.31, p.32) which works in man through the Incarnation by means of
compassion enabling him to work through suffering and sin to the bliss of
116
A more clear-cut example is in c.51, in the long account of the lord and the servant which does not appear in the short version. She tells us that she did not at first understand it 'and yet cowth I not taken therin ful vnderstondyng to myn ese at that tyme' (p.55) but that some meanings within it gradually unfolded for her although she still feels at the time of writing that she has not yet plumbed them all. At the point of the variant reading to be discussed she has just given an account of the basic elements of the showing and before going on to elaborate on the meanings she has understood from it she says that three things were significant in connection with these (p.55): 'and therefore me behovith now to tellen iii propertes in which I am sumdele esyd': the first is what she understood at the time; the second what she has understood since; the third the fact that this is inextricably linked with all the showings which are essentially part of one revelation. Having described the showing she says that it vanished but that she could not get it out of her mind although she could not fully understand it. She then continues in S1 (p.55):
And thus in that tyme I stode mekyl in onknowing; for
the
full vnderstondyng of this mervelous example was not goven me in that
tyme; in which mystye example iii propertes of the revelation
be yet mekyl hidde etc.
P, however, reads (c.51, p.519, l.71):
. . . and thus in that tyme I stode mykylle in thre
knowynges, for the full vnderstandyng of this mervelouse example
was not gevyn me in that tyme. In whych mysty example the
pryvytes of the reuelacyon be yet moch hyd etc.
Colledge and Walsh (p.519, n.70) comment that the reading thre
knowynges is 'a clear example of P's superiority to SS'. It is,
however, difficult to be so assured when one looks at the text. If in P the
thre knowynges is referring forward to the three elements in
her
understanding which she then elaborates, there is an inconsistency to be
noted in what she reports. She says in P that she 'stode mykylle in thre
knowynges' in 'that tyme' referring to the time of her original showing. She
then continues with the three things concerning her understanding of it the
second of which is 'the inwarde lernyng that I have vnderstonde there in
sythen'. Surely she would not in this case refer to thre
knowynges at the time of the showing ('in that tyme') before the
'inwarde lernyng' had developed. The reading in S1 'mekyl in onknowyng'
is more consistent with what she is saying about her original experience and
the clause which follows 'for the full vnderstondyng of this
mervelous example was not goven me in that tyme'.
| | |