University of Virginia Library

Visions and Revisions: A Further Look at the Manuscripts of Julian of Norwich
by
Marion Glasscoe

The Showings of Julian of Norwich is one of the most remarkable texts of the Middle Ages. The personal experience of God which underlies the exposition of ways of living in Rolle, Hilton and the Cloud-author, is right at the centre of Julian's reason for writing. It was a visionary experience where visual imagery and language serve an awareness of God as a living reality and a transforming dynamic. This is manifested in Julian's own personal circumstances which encapsulate the visionary experience. In the early 1370s at the critical point of an illness which she desired in order to understand more deeply the sufferings of Christ, she felt herself dying. It was about four o'clock in the morning and a priest was called who set a crucifix before her face which, she says, was a source of light in surroundings which were dark to her. Suddenly her experience of pain was miraculously transformed to one of well-being and she had a series of visions on the nature of redemption which lasted until noon. They started with Christ crucified and ended with a visionary assurance of the metaphysical reality behind her own experience of release from sickness and pain: that ultimately she would be released from the process of suffering in time to a complete and lasting joy. She then experienced another return to and remission of her sickness before the final sixteenth showing of Christ ruling endlessly in the soul which appeared to her as having immense space—that of a kingdom. It is as if her experience in physical sickness of suffering and relief is both the initial condition for the understanding of the redemptive process and emblematic of it. Her visionary experience swings between two manifestations: that of God and sin: God as the ground of all things 'ther is no doer but he' (c.11, p. 14),[1] and sin as the ultimate in negation 'for I beleve it hath no maner of substance ne party of being, ne it myght not be knowin but by the peyne that it is cause of' (c.27, p.29). This experience, through the image of Christ's passion, illuminates for her the reality of a love which works by the means of time, suffering and failure to prove itself.[2] Her own suffering and deliverance from it stands as a witness to this process. Indeed, her sickness, which she experiences not only as physical pain but as alienation and self-doubt (c.66), is just part of a cosmological process:

But this failing process does not run its course: Julian recounts that as she contemplated the ebbing of the life-giving processes in Christ's passion:

For Julian the most crucial element in her visionary experience is her identification with the reality of pain and sin (witnessed to in c.19, p. 21, where she refuses to raise her eyes from the cross and chooses 'Iesus to my hevyn, . . . in al this tyme of passion and sorow') and her growth during this experience in assurance that, notwithstanding appearances to the contrary, 'al shal be wel' all shall be redeemed: "than shall non of us be stirid to sey in ony wise 'Lord, if it had ben thus, than it had bene full wele', but we shall seyn al without voice 'Lord, blissid mot thou ben! For it is thus, it is wele'" (c.85, p.101).

Our understanding of this remarkable account is circumscribed by factors concerning both the history of its transmission and the present state of scholarship. An examination of the evidence provided by the extant manuscript sources points to problems in establishing a Julian text of which perhaps those who love to read her are insufficiently aware. The aim of this paper is to highlight these difficulties by presenting some conclusions which follow from further study of the nature of the extant manuscripts and an analysis of significant variant readings they provide.

There exist two basic accounts of her experience, one very much more extended than the other. The shorter version is extant in a single manuscript copy, British Library Additional MS.37790(A). The fuller text is complete in three manuscripts: 1. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds Anglais No. 40(P); 2. British Library Sloane MS.2499(S1); 3. British Library Sloane MS. 3705(S2). Since Julian tells us in the longer text that she had inward teaching for twenty years save three months after the original experience (c.32 p.56), and since in the chapter headings recorded in the Sloane versions that for 86 says 'the good lord shewid this booke shuld be otherwise performid than at the first writing',[3] it is generally assumed that A represents an early version of Julian's experience and that the other longer manuscripts contain an account which includes the insights and understanding accumulated over the twenty odd years she speaks of. There is no external evidence to prove that the short version is not in fact excerpts from a longer account—indeed it occurs in a manuscript where such excerpts from other works appear—but the passages in A which do not occur in the long version are of such a kind as to render it unlikely that they would have been either added to excerpts, or extrapolated from the longer text like a précis. Some of these passages are

concerned with personal details—for instance that her mother was present at her sick bed (c.X, p.54)[4] or that the priest who brought the crucifix had a child with him (c.II, p.41). It is reasonable to suppose that the long version represents Julian's enlarged understanding of her original experience which she is now anxious to make more available to her fellow Christians and in which personal details are no longer necessary. The longer version is also much more confident in tone than A, for example, she leaves out her protestations about her wish to declare what she has been shown despite the fact that she is a woman (c.VI, p.48), leaving in only those experiences of weakness which are integral to the visionary experience.

There are, however, differences between the manuscript copies of the longer version which raise further questions. Of the three complete versions, since S2 is simply an eighteenth-century modernisation of S1 it is not generally germane to these considerations. But between Paris and S1 there are differences which need to be taken account of. These need to be seen not only in relation to each other, but to A, where the short and long versions coincide, and also to two other early manuscript copies of excerpts from the extended version. The first of these is Westminster Treasury 4 (W), a collection of devotional pieces to promote meditation—commentaries on Psalms 90 and 91, extracts from Hilton's Scale and the pieces from Julian. It is written throughout in a very legible secretary hand of the early sixteenth century and the excerpts, which are taken from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 9th, 10th and 15th showings and Julian's understanding of them, seem chosen to illustrate the intimately close relationship between man and God both in man's very being and in the work of redemption. This relationship is a source of joy to man and God: it is accessible to man through prayer, and can be expressed and understood in terms of God as a mother who nurtures a child to maturity, which signifies for man his fulfillment in heaven.

The second collection of excerpts is very short and comes from the 12th and 13th showings, chapters, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 32. They are concerned with God as the fullness of glory and with the barrier between us and this glory formed by sin which will itself ultimately be transformed through the work of redemption when 'al shal be wel' through the compassion of Christ. They occupy folios 114-117 of a seventeenth-century manuscript from the Upholland Northern Institute (formerly St Joseph's College) in Lancashire (U).

Of the two earlier manuscripts of the complete account, S1 is rather messily written in an early seventeenth-century cursive hand; it contains only Julian's showings and preserves linguistic forms which are closer to Julian's own time (late fourteenth century) than those in P. It also contains chapter contents at the heading of each chapter which are not present in P; furthermore not all the chapter divisions in S1 entirely correspond with those in P. P itself also contains only Julian's text. It is deliberately calligraphic, written in a simplified bastard hand with some elements of italic style, and belongs to the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century. Its language is modernised—it also contains occasional passages omitted from S1

which itself contains a few passages not in P. Many of these passages in both manuscripts may be attributed to scribal carelessness but there is a residue which cannot be thus accounted for. In the main W and U follow P. U, however, is modernised and glossed in the body of the text which lessens its value as a contributor to establishing Julian's text. Interestingly, though, W occasionally agrees with S1 in preserving earlier, medieval word forms.

The following section concentrates on an analysis of representative variations, whether by commission or omission, between S1 and P in order to illustrate the pitfalls in presenting a clearly conclusive case for either: (1) adopting either S1 or P as preferred copy-text for Julian's work; or (2) arguing the validity of establishing a text eclectically. At the same time a case will be made for recognising qualities peculiar to S1 which have been overlooked by those who concentrate on the rhetorical superiority of P.[5] For the sake of the reader all references for quotations from P will be to the critical edition of Julian's showings by E. Colledge and J. Walsh.[6] The readings have been compared with the manuscript to which on occasions it will be necessary to refer directly. All italicised emphasis in the presentation of specific examples is mine to clarify the issues under discussion. Since substantiation of the argument depends on the presentation of a rather dense mass of textual detail it may be helpful to outline its main stages in advance.

It falls into three parts. The first will compare variants between P and S1 in those passages of the text which the short and long versions have in common so that comparison can be made with A in any attempt to determine their significance. The second will analyse different kinds of variation between P and S1 chiefly in passages peculiar to the long text. In both of these sections reference will be made to the relationship between the evidence afforded by the manuscripts and its availability to the reader in the text and annotations provided by Colledge and Walsh. The third section will concentrate on examples which develop this aspect of the investigation.

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.

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.

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.

The whole chapter is concerned with the light of God which operates in man through his reason and his faith which can light him through night to God's endless day. P implies that then, as we see clearly, our light will no longer be partial in darkness but total, perhaps an analogy to our seeing 'through a glass darkly' in this life as opposed to 'face to face' in heaven (1 Corinthians 13:12). S1 infers that we shall only see (understand) fully in the light of God, the contrast being between that state and our 'blindhede here' (c.85). There is a case for preferring S1 because it seems more consistent with the imagery in c.83 where Julian says that the light of God is only partially and fitfully seen in this life—hence our clouded reason and the need for faith—but that it will become fully revealed: 'at the end of wo, sodenly our eye shal ben openyd' and we shall see fully [understand] in clarity of 'light'; it would, however, be hard to argue that P is not also in keeping with the thought of a contrast between partial light here and full light hereafter but it conveys less coherently the depending of our seeing [understanding] on the light of God.

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.

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: 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: whereas P has what seems to be a happier reading: Conversely, in the following variants from c.13 the scribe of S1 seems to be more intelligent:

• 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.

S1's use of Cristes passion is superior to P's use of the genitive pronoun his which obscures the distinction between Christ and the devil. Even the sent of salvation is not so awkward as it appears. Sent, here, is used in a common medieval context of divine dispensation and refers to those ordained by God to salvation. In this case though, there is no way of establishing which is closer to any original, it is simply that S1 provides a better text at this point. Similarly in c.75 (p.91) S1 reads: 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.

Colledge and Walsh are so confident of this reading that they emend savyoure to savoure in the text and comment (p.473, n.58): 'the emendation is self-evident, as we see from this sentence's opening, Saworyng or seyng; and it is surprising that . . . the SS scribes copied such an error'. But it is not of course surprising that the scribe of S1 copied savior since his sentence did not begin 'saworyng or seyng'; and is it so evident that the reading of P is correct? It is true that such a reading follows on from the previous sentence: 'For prayer is a ryʒtwyss vnderstandyng of that fulhed of joy that is for to come, with tru [S1 wel] longyng and very [S1 sekir] trust', and so it would be understood that seeing this joy that we are created for makes us to long for it. But at the heart of Julian's showings is an experience not just of fulfillment and certainty in a joy that 'passyth al that herte may willen and soule may desire' (c.26, p.28) but of a feeling of grief and loss. 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: 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: whereas 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): 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.

The verbal formulation in S1 conveys a greater sense of participation in the 'knowyng' of God's immanence and transcendence. This ability to convey the psychological reality of theological statements can also be seen in another variant between S1 and P. In c.44 (p.47) S1 reads: 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.

S1 by putting love-longing to have us al togeder hole in him to his blis in apposition to Christ's thirst again gives a reading which is all of a piece with the rest of the work which stresses Christ's joy in the work of salvation[10] and also the fact that his longing to have us 'al togeder hole in him', and our longing for him (which comes from 'fayling of our blis'), are part of one continuum, 'and thow some of us fele it seldam, it passith never fro Criste till what tyme he hath browte us out of all our wo' (c.80, p.97). Colledge and Walsh render P's reading as 'Therefore this is his thirst and his love-longing for us, to gather us all here into him, to our endless joy' (n.19) and rightly refer the reader back to c.28 'I shal togeder [omitted P] gader you and make you mylde and meke, clene and holy, by onyng to me' (reading from S1, p.30), to which they footnote a scriptural parallel from Matthew 23:27 (p.410, n.19): 'How often would I have gathered together your children'. This example is argued here not to discredit P but to point to the particular qualities in S1 which P seems to dilute. It is interesting in this case to note that although there is no exact corresponding passage in A, there is in its c.XV (p.63) a definition of Christ's thirst which favours S1 in this case: 'Therefore this is the thyrste, the fayling of his blysse, þat he has vs nought in hym als haelye as he schalle thanne haffe' [i.e. at domesdaye]. In the edition by Colledge and Walsh, the scriptural, theological or editorial authority with which they buttress readings in P are interesting and unarguable but they do not therefore prove the inadequacy of S1. Examination of further examples will also point to the validity of S1.

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):

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: At the end of c.71 (p.86) she writes concerning this, what she would call, chere of our lord: 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 God to which he was born. P's reading is perhaps the most immediately acceptable in this instance but one must not reject S1 too lightly.

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):

P, however, reads (c.51, p.519, l.71): 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'.

III

The above examples argue for greater attention and respect to be paid to S1 and it might be argued that the variant readings provided in Colledge and Walsh enable the reader to do this and to make his/her own text. However,

whilst in no way wishing to appear curmudgeonly about a text produced with so much erudition, it has to be said that it is very difficult to use and in the absence of access to copies of the original manuscripts it would not be easy to be sure of readings in S1 from the footnotes provided by Colledge and Walsh. The last group of examples to be analysed demonstrate this difficulty.

a). In c.34 Julian is talking about the identification between Christ as teacher and Christ as the wisdom which is taught, one way, and that a traditional one,[12] of expressing understanding of the full process of growth in Christian spiritual life to an experience of union or 'onyng' with God. S1 (p.35) reads:

P (c.34, p.431, l.18) has ende instead of leryd. S1 thus not only identifies teacher and teaching, means and end, but taught, teacher and teaching. This is theologically consonant with Julian's identification of Christ and Adam in the example in c.51 which is formulated (p.59) 'Iesus is al that shal be savid and al that shal be savid is Iesus'. Such a reading is in keeping with S1's dynamic sense of theological understanding and an important variant. In their variant readings for l.18 (p.431) Colledge and Walsh suggest that S1 reads 'lend' altered by the scribe from 'leng' without any suggestion that this is at all ambiguous and despite the fact that, as they note, S2 has leryd in the text with 'lend' in the margin. In fact, a very careful comparative study of the letters of this word, which is not clearly written in S1 shows that although an r and an n are similar in this scribe's hand, the down stroke of the n is longer than that on the r. This fact, combined with a study of other instances of y d and g individually and the combinations ng ry yd elsewhere in the text, together with close scrutiny of the pen strokes in the disputed reading lead me to conclude that leryd is a reading which I would prefer to see and which certainly ought at least to be offered as a possibility.

b). In c.36 Julian talks about her perception of how finally the work of redemption is to be accomplished. She sees that it is begun here and will continue until the end of time, but that then another act will take place with regard to the judgement of sin which it is not yet given to man to understand. She says that when we are tempted to speculate about this God responds:

• S1 (p.38): 'Lete be al thi love my dereworthy child. Entend to me, I am enow to the etc.
• P (p.439, l.47): Lett me aloone etc.
• S2 follows S1 but has me added in the margin to denote let me be all thy love etc.

P's reading is easier with the implication of 'leave it to me in this matter'. S1's reading looks forward to the following 'I am enow to the' and implies that all other concerns are secondary to this trust. Colledge and Walsh register that for me aloone S1 has be al thi love but in the notes to that line (47) they comment: 'Lette me aloone, suggests the superiority of P to SS's "me be all thy love" which seems to derive from a misdivided and misread allone'. But this is not the reading of S1 and the me in the margin of S2 may simply be the emendation of a puzzled scribe, it is not grounds for emending S1 or for suggesting that this is its reading.

c). In c.43 Julian talks about the experience of prayer where God is experienced as a living reality—what in conventional terms might be described as the contemplative experience of illumination;

• S1 (p.46): and than we can do no more but behold hym, enioyeng, with an hey migty desire to be al onyd into hym, centred to his wonyng, and enioy in hys lovyng and deliten in his godeness.
• P (p.480, l.42) has: . . . to be alle onyd in to hym, and entende to his motion etc.

Colledge and Walsh register the variant reading in S1 as entred to his wowyng. It is easy to see in the manuscript how the third letter of wonyng might possibly be read as a w even though it is certainly not altogether like w used medially elsewhere in this text. Interestingly the Westminster manuscript reads and entende to his wowyng but the second w has been underlined and corrected above the line to n to indicate the reading wonyng.[13] This Westminster correction confirms the reading wonyng in S1 and certainly it ought at the very least to be registered as a strong possibility especially as Julian does not use the imagery of wooing or sexual love in her text. The Colledge and Walsh reading of and entred for centred depends on interpreting the more than usually open c in this scribe's hand as a very small and untypical ampersand which actually joins up with entred—the P and W readings of and entende would encourage this. In fact either entred or centred to his wonyng is consonant with Julian's understanding of the relationship between man's soul and God; thus in c.54 (p.65) she says: "Our soule is made to be Gods wonyng place, and the wonyng place of the soule is God, which is onmade". The full experience of this is the height of contemplative prayer. Colledge and Walsh (p.480, n.42) dismiss the attempt made by some commentators to interpret the reading of S1 entred to his wowyng as a reference to Julian's teaching on 'our dwelling in God' because they argue that it is tautological after 'onyd in to hym' whereas wowyng reflects the promptings of the holy spirit referred to a line or two later as 'privy tuchyngs'. But the interpretation they dismiss is at the heart of the reading of S1 as centred to his wonyng and is no more tautological than other readings in the text common to both S1 and P:

• S1 (c.42, p.44): . . . and in this grownd he will that we taken our stede and our wonynge [P dwellyng] etc.
• S1 (c.44, p.47): . . . man werkyth everymore his will and his wership lestyngly [P duryngly] withoute ony styntyng.

d). In c.79 (p.96) Julian says that when we fall through weakness: "our curtes lord touchith us, stireth us and clepith us etc." P (c.79, p.705, l.32) has: ". . . steryth vs and kepyth vs." Colledge and Walsh list the variant clepyth for S2 only.

In c.80 (p.97) Julian talks of man's reason and the teaching of the church

and the inward processes of the holy spirit as all from God and in S1 it is formulated that they 'werkyn in us continualy all to God'. P (p.708, l.9) has 'alle te geder'. There is another occasion on which P has to geder for S1 to God in c.72 (S1 p.87, P p.659, l.4). The implications of this last variant will not be examined here; it has been raised because on both occasions Colledge and Walsh list the variant for S1 as god yet on both occasions the manuscript capitalises the G as it does when meaning 'God' as distinct to 'good'. In c.80 the reading to God in S1 is in keeping with the sense of the constant activity of redemption at the heart of Julian's mystical understanding of Jesus being 'al that shal be savid' (c.51, p.59). The reading from P, although it is in itself unexceptionable, dilutes this sense and Colledge and Walsh deny the unwary reader the opportunity to understand what is actually written in S1.

In conclusion, it would thus seem to be the case that the present state of scholarship encourages commentaries on Julian's long text which scarcely begin to recognise, if at all, that there are interpretative differences depending on which version is referred to. It is also the case that the critical edition based on P does not provide clear information about alternative readings.

The lateness of the manuscripts and also the evidence provided by their collated readings together point to the unviability of any eclectic text because such an exercise involves too great a degree of subjective editorial interpretation. In accordance with the long-proven tradition of textual scholarship the conservatism and lack of concern for appearances on the part of the S1 scribe suggest that his copy may well be more reliable as a copy-text than the carefully worked over and modernised P. The more conventionally correct rhetorical structures in P may also even be attributable to scribal editing.[14] S1 bears all the evidence of a scribe trying to make a quick and straightforward copy of his source, the odd unsatisfactory reading being simply attributable to human error.

Clearly there is a strong case to be made for greater recognition of the variant readings in the Julian manuscripts and for more serious attention being paid to the readings of S1 which so often convey a greater sense of theology as a live issue at the heart of human creativity. After all, this is a sense which should not be wholly unexpected in a writer seeking to directly convey her mystical experience, though it might easily have become blunted at the hands of scribes, early or late, with theologically oriented editorial ideals.

Notes