Julian's Audacious Reticence: Perichoresis and the Showings

Anglican Theological Review, Fall 2006 by Pinti, Daniel

As the very "homeliness" of the hazelnut reference implies, Julian's concern is ever for her "evyn Christen" ("fellow Christians"), and she describes the motive force behind her writing in terms of love and sharing: "In alle this I was much steryde in cheryte to myne evyn Christen that they myght alle see and know the same that I sawe."27 Union with Cod for Julian, it seems, necessarily entails union with her fellow Christians, the Body of Christ. This authorial sharing can become rhetorically problematic, however, to the point of Julian's almost seeming to want to disavow the necessary first-person pronouns in her autobiographical text:

Alle that I say of me I mene in person of alle my evyn Cristen, for I am lernyd in the gostly shewyng of our Lord God that he meneth so. And therefore I pray yow alle for God's sake and counceyle yow for yowre awne profyght, that ye leve the beholdyng of a wrech that it was shewde to and myghtely, wysely, and meekly behold in God. that of his curteyse love and endlesse goodnesse wolld shew it generally in comfort of us alle. For it is Goddes wylle that ye take it with a grete joy and lykyng as Jhesu hath shewde it to vow.28

Julian's efforts at self-effacement represent something other than conventional (or even particularly medieval female) modesty. Even as she implores her reader to turn his or her attention away from her, Julian does maintain the role of "counselor." The experience and the text which grows from it are ultimately hers for all. Received "with a grete joy and lykyng," the text will find itself and Julian in accord with "Goddes wylle." The paradox in question here is localized in Julians use of "leve" ("I pray yow . . . that ye leve the beholdyng of a wreche"), a word which can mean "believe" or "leave." The ambiguity allows Julian to direct her audience to her and at the same time away from her; the reader is simultaneously to believe her and leave her behind. In fact, Julian's articulation of the very humility which enables her self-effacement is an invitation itself to readerly communion: "For I am suer ther be meny that never hath shewying ne syght but of the comyn techyng of holy chyrch that love God better than I. For yf I looke svngulery to my selfe, I am ryght nought. But in generall I am, I hope, in onehede of cheryte with alle my evyn Cristen."29 Not only do we see Julian insisting that the mystical way is not necessarily the only or best way to loving God; we also hear Julian implicitly finding her true (personal) self in that unity ("onehede") of love with her fellow Christians, including her audience. It is as if that very "onehede" is what saves her (or anyone) from being "ryght nought."

It is this commitment to communion with her fellow Christians and with God that motivates her theological reticence. A good example may be found in Julian's threefold description of how her revelations came to her. In her final comments on her first vision of the crucified Christ's crown of thorns, Julian writes, "All this was shewde by thre partes [in three ways], that is to sey, by bodily syght [vision], and by worde formyde in my understondyng [intellect], and by goostely syght [ spirit]."30 Julian insists on a degree of ineffability to the spiritual sight she received, but even as she insists on her limitations as an intermediary between her experience and her audience, she trusts in God's intermediary role. As Julian puts it, "the goostely syght I can nott ne may shew it as openly ne as fully as I would, but I trust in our Lord Cod almightie that he shall of his godnes and for iour love make yow to take it more ghostely and more sweetly then I can or may tell it."31 God's mediation can lift the reader to an even higher level of spiritual understanding than the mystical text alone makes possible. The text becomes a site for, its reading an experience of, a communal encounter between mystic, reader, and God. This mutual indwelling of Christians and God as an outgrowth of this specifically incarnatioual vision is quite natural for Julian since, as she has already written, "where Jhesu appireth the blessed Trinitie is understand as to my sight."32 As Brant Pelphrey remarks in his discussion of the Eastern Orthodox dimensions of Julians perichoretic theology, "While the perichoresis of the Trinity defies ordinary logic, it is revealed in the incarnation. In the incarnational perichoresis, the eternal Logos is located 'in' humanity and human nature is now located permanently 'in' God."33 The unity between humanity and Christ is perceptible-for Julian, capable of being experienced-in the Crucifixion ("Here saw I a greet onyng [uniting] betwene Grist and us to my understondyng. For when he was in payne, we ware in payne").34 This unity at once signifies and is taken in by the perichoretic unity of the Trinity.