![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I've been reading the most fascinating book - in fact, it was so fascinating that I felt compelled to go and buy it, even though there's a perfectly good library copy out in my name at the moment. But I know it's something I'm going to keep wanting to come back to. It's God and the Goddesses, by Barbara Newman, and deals with the proliferation of mostly allegorical figures that are called 'goddesses' in religious mediaeval writings, and also about the divinized Mary and the feminized Christ.
It's all very fascinating stuff, either from a literary or from a theological/ history of ideas point of view, but the aspect that particularly got my attention was the parts which dealt with 'God as goddess'. (I suspect this will be of interest to some of the people on the flist at least, remembering recent discussions on
castalys's journal.
The most obvious aspect of this is the Christian reading of the Wisdom literature in the Old Testament. Interestingly, Newman argues that it was the existence of the Jewish concept of Wisdom as the daughter of God, which allowed a more ready acceptance of Christ as the child of God, even if the child in this case happened to be a boy... not an idea which had occurred to me, but one which does make a good deal of sense, especially in the light of the beginning of John's gospel and certain passages in Paul (and deutero-Paul). She also has some good analysis of Seuse in particular, who presents himself as the Bridegroom of Wisdom - i.e. Christ in a femine guise - one of the manuscripts has the most incredible picture of Seuse kneeling in front of Wisdom with his head in her lap.† I would say 'the subtext is rapidly becoming text', but in fact Seuse's eroticism is quite upfront, and seems to be aimed at offering a model of bridal mysticism - that is, conceiving of the search for closeness to or oneness with God in erotic metaphor - that didn't require men to 'cross-dress' as women (or succumb to Teh Gay).•
She's also good on Julian of Norwich and God-as-mother, especially the usually omitted passage which talks about defecation as evidence of God's care for us. Newman comments: “What is so extraordinary is not just the lack of bodily shame – although that itself is rare enough – but Julian’s assertion that God personally ‘hath no disdeyne to serue vs at the simplest office that to oure body longyth in kynde.” There is nothing remotely comparable to this in all theology, for the good reason that few other theologians before our generation have ever changed a diaper.”
The really mindblowing thing, though, was a discussion of the question 'is God masculine'? Generally, of course, Christian writers say 'yes'. However, there are a couple of not insignificant exceptions. Thierry of Chartres (teacher of Bernard Silvestris) remarks that “the Divine Persons could just as well have been designated by the names of Mother, Daughter and Gift (f. Donatio), since the attributes they represent (power, wisdom and goodness) are feminine nouns.” More significantly, Alcuin of Canterbury, a much more mainstream figure, considered an argument along these lines, rejecting it solely because of Aristotelean teaching about the greater perfection of the masculine. (Bloody Aristotle!)
I leave you with a few interesting quotes:
Christine Pizan, paraphrazing Boethius: just as those who have justice are just, and those who have wisdom are wise, so those who possess divinity are gods, and one who has felicity is a god. Thus all the blessed are gods: although by nature there is only one God, by participation there are many.
And Newman herself, for no other reason than I found it illuminating and useful in tying up the doctrine of the Church as Christ's body with the allegorical figure of lady Ecclesia, something I've been having dissertation-related problems with: If Lady Wisdom is a feminine double for the logos (Christ’s divine nature), the personified Church is a feminine double for his mystical body (the extension of his human nature). To participate in God through this ubiquitous personification is to approach him in the most ordinary and accessible ways, through the mediation of the Church’s doctrine and sacraments.
† None the less, this is the closest thing to a depiction of oral sex I ever expect to see in a Christian work, not least one which isn't on the Index.
• It's important to point out that Seuse was not off the wall or considered dodgy in anyway; the work referred to, the Horologium Sapiaentia was a 'best seller' of its day and is second only to the Imitation of Christ (largely a knock-off of Seuse anyway) in the number of surviving manuscripts. Seuse was as mainstream as you get.
It's all very fascinating stuff, either from a literary or from a theological/ history of ideas point of view, but the aspect that particularly got my attention was the parts which dealt with 'God as goddess'. (I suspect this will be of interest to some of the people on the flist at least, remembering recent discussions on
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
The most obvious aspect of this is the Christian reading of the Wisdom literature in the Old Testament. Interestingly, Newman argues that it was the existence of the Jewish concept of Wisdom as the daughter of God, which allowed a more ready acceptance of Christ as the child of God, even if the child in this case happened to be a boy... not an idea which had occurred to me, but one which does make a good deal of sense, especially in the light of the beginning of John's gospel and certain passages in Paul (and deutero-Paul). She also has some good analysis of Seuse in particular, who presents himself as the Bridegroom of Wisdom - i.e. Christ in a femine guise - one of the manuscripts has the most incredible picture of Seuse kneeling in front of Wisdom with his head in her lap.† I would say 'the subtext is rapidly becoming text', but in fact Seuse's eroticism is quite upfront, and seems to be aimed at offering a model of bridal mysticism - that is, conceiving of the search for closeness to or oneness with God in erotic metaphor - that didn't require men to 'cross-dress' as women (or succumb to Teh Gay).•
She's also good on Julian of Norwich and God-as-mother, especially the usually omitted passage which talks about defecation as evidence of God's care for us. Newman comments: “What is so extraordinary is not just the lack of bodily shame – although that itself is rare enough – but Julian’s assertion that God personally ‘hath no disdeyne to serue vs at the simplest office that to oure body longyth in kynde.” There is nothing remotely comparable to this in all theology, for the good reason that few other theologians before our generation have ever changed a diaper.”
The really mindblowing thing, though, was a discussion of the question 'is God masculine'? Generally, of course, Christian writers say 'yes'. However, there are a couple of not insignificant exceptions. Thierry of Chartres (teacher of Bernard Silvestris) remarks that “the Divine Persons could just as well have been designated by the names of Mother, Daughter and Gift (f. Donatio), since the attributes they represent (power, wisdom and goodness) are feminine nouns.” More significantly, Alcuin of Canterbury, a much more mainstream figure, considered an argument along these lines, rejecting it solely because of Aristotelean teaching about the greater perfection of the masculine. (Bloody Aristotle!)
I leave you with a few interesting quotes:
Christine Pizan, paraphrazing Boethius: just as those who have justice are just, and those who have wisdom are wise, so those who possess divinity are gods, and one who has felicity is a god. Thus all the blessed are gods: although by nature there is only one God, by participation there are many.
And Newman herself, for no other reason than I found it illuminating and useful in tying up the doctrine of the Church as Christ's body with the allegorical figure of lady Ecclesia, something I've been having dissertation-related problems with: If Lady Wisdom is a feminine double for the logos (Christ’s divine nature), the personified Church is a feminine double for his mystical body (the extension of his human nature). To participate in God through this ubiquitous personification is to approach him in the most ordinary and accessible ways, through the mediation of the Church’s doctrine and sacraments.
† None the less, this is the closest thing to a depiction of oral sex I ever expect to see in a Christian work, not least one which isn't on the Index.
• It's important to point out that Seuse was not off the wall or considered dodgy in anyway; the work referred to, the Horologium Sapiaentia was a 'best seller' of its day and is second only to the Imitation of Christ (largely a knock-off of Seuse anyway) in the number of surviving manuscripts. Seuse was as mainstream as you get.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-19 11:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-20 08:43 am (UTC)Have fun with the Missals! I always find them difficult, though, because there is just such a crazy amount of regional variation. Makes it more interesting, though?
Have you seen the Bod's "My first Psalter' - the one with the text in different colours on alternate lines, to aid the young reader?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-20 03:56 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-20 04:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-20 04:12 am (UTC)It is of course much much much later, but have you read Aemilia Lanyer's Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum? It's a really interesting text for feminine presentations of Christ.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-20 04:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-20 07:20 pm (UTC)I wonder if there has ever been a theological movement that said Christ was a woman?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-30 03:35 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-30 08:38 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-30 04:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-30 04:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-30 08:02 pm (UTC)Can you point me to any sources?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-30 08:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-20 08:34 pm (UTC)