Susan Pritchard
September 28, 2004
Word count - 1550
HRS 220/Dubois
Outline
Caroline Walker Bynum: Jesus as Mother, Chapter 1 & 2
#1. Selective summary:
Topic: Medieval literature states spirituality was changing itsÕ focus.
Bynum argues that literature on medieval spirituality put a different aspect on the responsibility to love and serve oneÕs neighbor and is different than the reality of what really transpired. The literature leads one to believe Christ wanted those of us that chose to follow in his footsteps to care for all of humanity, not just to worship him and avoid transgressions. Although historians are not sure that this is what medieval spirituality really practiced, so the theory is much debated.
Where then do things stand with historians who study the question?
General works on medieval spirituality, reflecting the research of
Dereine, Schreiber, Petit, and others, continue to assume that regular
canons formed a separate movement within the religious ferment of
the twelfth century, a separate movement that wedded service of others
to a life of monastic withdrawal and thereby foreshadowed the friarsÕ
concern with love of neighbor. (Bynum 24)
BynumÕs cornerstone for this theory lies in studying how the canons and monks really lived and what they practiced. Did they really believe in taking care of all humanity versus living a cloistered life? She states that there was much division between different groups as to what path to follow. Most stayed within the same realms that they always had, living a life of silence and staying within the walls of their churches, while a few groups did venture out and establish houses or hostels that helped the people in need.
The major historians of the canonical movement agree that pastoral
work Ð that is, service of parish churches and preaching to those
outside the cloister Ð was not an essential element in all canonical life,
whereas it was not uncommon in the same period for monks to exercise
the cura animarum, including preaching.Ó (28)
The canons wanted to keep a separation between themselves and the monks. Most canons felt their order was superior and older than the monksÕ order so they had to stay more cloistered because to them it was the most important work.
Bynum investigates the difference and the similarities in the life of the regular canons to that of the monks in medieval times.
The difference is subtle; often we feel, in readying these treatises, that it is more implicit than explicit. Regular canons and monks seem to be interested is slightly different things about themselves. Although ostensibly discussing the same topic Ð the life of the cloister Ð they shift the focus in different directions. (46)
In her studies she found most scholars stated the canonÕs life and the monkÕs life were quite different, but that there was no evidence to support those facts. The monks themselves were often confused about what they should be doing Ð was it living the cloistered life or out serving the people?
In chapter two Bynum states historians studying this period of the eleventh and twelfth centuries believe there was a Òcrisis of cenobitismÓ: Òthe religious upheaval of the later eleventh and twelfth centuries as a Ôcrisis of cenobitismÕ Ð a reform movement within monasticism that turned away from communal life and liturgy towards eremiticism.Ó (60) Not all groups within the monastic life followed this movement, but the one group that did was the Cistercian Monks. The black monks tended to still be following compliance to their order rather than going out in the world and saving mankind. Canons viewed their duty as living a life of seclusion to search for salvation and to serve God. It was up to others to go out into the world and help mankind. Ò. . . canons drew on the traditional conception of the preacherÕs obligation to teach verbo et exemplo . . .Ó (67) Bynum states the Cistercians did not actually believe in going out and preaching to mankind as it shows in their literature in this time period. She suggests that the literature of the eleventh and twelfth centuries and the actual practices were quite contradictory.
Once we understand the ways in which twelfth-century monks
Ð white and black Ð agreed about what lay at the heart of the
monastic vocation, we see that even the occasional references to edification found in Cistercian treatises usually occur within
broader discussions that see the community as a setting for
individual growth, not as an opportunity for service. (74)
Bynum investigates who was allowed to go out and sermonize in public and who was not. It seems there was much controversy in this arena even among the clerics.
to preach . . . Some regular canons felt that members of their
own order would be wise not to practice the right, even though
they possessed it by definition. Moreover, the apostolic life that
regular canons claimed to practice meant ÔpovertyÕ to them (as
it did to monks) far more frequently than it meant baptizing or
preaching. (31)
Conclusion:
Bynum insists there needs to be more careful study of texts regarding the life of canons and monks. ÒNo historian has shown what the ideal was, and it seems unlikely that further investigation of practice or polemic will reveal a clear distinction between monks and canons.Ó (35) Bynum suggests that much of the material written has been abridged to a certain slant the author wants to show, which may change the import of what really transpired.
I felt that Bynum did an excellent job supporting her claim. She conveys her idea that the literature and the actual life of the clerics in the eleventh and twelfth centuries differed greatly. She shows that one must look at not only what was said, but also how it was interpreted at the time and what it really meant to them. Bynum suggests that the reader must certainly investigate where the information came from: was it taken out of context and is it in fact what transpired at that time in history.
Many historians have noted the deep psychological sensitivity
that characterizes Cistercian treatises. . . The canonsÕ conception
of community, which emphasizes reciprocity in relations, leads
to a concentration on the external effects of speech and behavior.
We can see this clearly in references by regular canons to the
impact of example, which tend to focus on literal imitation. In
contrast, when an individual feels that an obligation to serve
others cannot be an integral part of his vocation, an interest in
human relationships has to become an arena for self-exploration.
Thus Cistercians see human love as an opportunity for personal
emotional expansion, as ÒaffectiveÓ more than ÒeffectiveÓ charity.
When they deal at length with the impact of example, they tend
not only to refer to it as changing conduct but also to explore the
way in which it stimulates desire in the learner. (78-79)
I felt Bynum believes that the eleventh and twelfth century clerics started a change in the meaning of spirituality with going out into the world to teach, but the clerics did not totally do that at this time. A lot of ideas were tossed out in the open arena that changed the ways in which they practiced, and as always, that took some time.
3. Wider Relevance: In chapters one and two Bynum does not discuss women very much at all. There is only a brief mention of women being included, and that the canons did not think this was correct behavior. Are men mentioned mostly because there is no other literature regarding women?
Even nuns like Hildegard of Bingen occasionally preached,
although canonists in the twelfth century were already
objecting that women, however learned and holy, were
disqualified from instructing men. (31)
One would theorize that women were not an integral part of the clerics. They may have been tolerated, but only to a certain point. In their view it was felt that women were inferior and were not qualified to teach men.
********************
Erica Tranchina
HRS 220/DuBois
September 26, 2004
Total Word Count:1241
Outline for Reading Analysis
Caroline Walker Bynum
Chapter 4
#1 Selective
Summary
¥
The question Ð Why is feminine imagery and language so prevalent in
medieval spirituality?
1. Due to broad changes of the time
2. Due to specific concerns and themes within
the Cistercians
¥ Deeper
meaning and greater relevance
#2 Evaluation
¥ Indisputable
use of primary source materials
¥ Why
women were largely uninvolved in the movement
¥ Sound
theories of menÕs motivations
#3 Wider relevance
¥ The
reason for what men do largely returns to themselves
In her chapter entitled, ÒJesus as Mother and Abbot as Mother: Some Themes in Twelfth-Century Cistercian
Writing,Ó Bynum discusses the medieval Òdevotion to Jesus our Mother.Ó (p.
110) She states that this concentration of feminine imagery and language has
been assumed to be a development by and for women. However, a group of monks writing in the
twelfth century actually began this movement to expound on Jesus as mother
figure. This feminine imagery was also applied to abbots and other high-ranking
church officials, in addition to the Church as a whole, God, and Jesus, although
usage of feminine imagery was present prior to medieval times. Her main question
is:
Why the
use of explicit and elaborate female imagery to describe God and Christ, who
are usually described as male, is so popular with twelfth-century Cistercian
monks? (112)
The
answers she provides for this question are of two different types. She argues that the language usage
comes at a time of broad changes in religious imagery, devotion, and theology
in the Middle Ages, and in her specialized study of Cistercian monks, the
imagery comes due to specific concerns and themes of their monastic lives.
The
actuality of the feminine references is indisputable. Throughout the chapter, there are countless examples of
monks using the physiology of a female as metaphor for God, Jesus or the
Church. In fact, the examples are
far too numerous for this brief summary.
Suffice it to say that common themes run from Jesus mothering through
compassion, to providing life to the soul as a baby receives milk from the
breast, and maternity by Jesus or God regarding the birth of the soul.
Although
great description of the imagery is provided, the reasons for the use of feminine descriptions
struck me as more important.
Feminine metaphors for God can be found in the Old Testament and were
not a new phenomenon, but the usage by these particular monks signaled not a
regurgitation of patristic ideas, but two brand new trends Ð the rise of
affective spirituality and the feminization of religious language. (129) Bynum
provides several possibilities and reasons for these trends. First, the use of
female physiological traits and emotions provides a humanization of and
approachability to the divine. She
argues that an increasing sense of being created from GodÕs image and the belief
in a link between the human and divine through Christ influenced the rise in
affective piety in the High Middle Ages.
Regarding the rise in feminization of language, the most interesting
explanation by Bynum indicates that men writing in the time had to speak of a
female divinity when discussing the metaphor of sexual union, or refer to
themselves as female. Clearly,
referring to themselves as females was the less popular choice. In addition, monks and abbots felt that
their positions provided a maternal relationship of authority that stood on emotional
and nurturing foundations, hence the reflection of those ideas and metaphors
were assumed into their writings.
Bynum
proposes in this essay several intriguing theories regarding why Cistercian
monks found it necessary to write about God, Jesus and the church in terms of
the feminine metaphors of physiology, maternity, and care.
The
documentation regarding the use of feminine imagery by monks, both Cistercian
and other, is indisputable. Bynum
quotes works by Cistercians Bernard of Clairvaux, Aelred of Rievaulx, Guerric
of Igny, Isaac of Stella and others, as well as William of St. Thierry and
Anselm of Canterbury, both Benedictine monks. The sheer number of quotations and examples of men writing
about God with feminine physiology becomes almost too much. Since her point is not proving that
they did in fact develop this movement towards feminine characteristics of the
divine, but why, it seemed to me unnecessary to discuss in such detail the occurrences.
Throughout this article, Bynum stresses
that this movement was almost entirely developed by men, and that women had
almost no interest in writing feminine metaphors into their prose. (141) Of
course to women, Jesus or God would have been the bridegroom, the religious
passion withstanding the sexual metaphor without trouble. Indeed in a truly feminist book one
could have located all the women writers who did happen to use similar imagery
and make a case for women clerics propelling this movement. To me it proves her integrity that she
largely ignores the few females who did write in this way.
The reasons Bynum gave for this movement I
felt were sound. She did not layer
the use of feminine imagery on to a change in the perception of females. She
certainly could have gone in that direction, but chose to examine these issues
deeper. For a religion that was
founded on patriarchy, has refused to allow women to hold the highest offices,
and has chosen little more than a quarter of all saints to be women, it is
truly amazing that the men most devoted spiritually chose to instill female
aspects into their all-powerful Lord.
It is clear to me that God can be all things to those with faith, but
for this religion, who believe so blindly that women are Òphysiologically and
spiritually weaker, defective in body and moral fortitude,Ó (135) it is almost
too unbelievable that they resort to feminine imagery to describe God, or
Jesus, or the church as a whole.
Unfortunately, this movement had little to do with a rise in the
opinions of these men for women in general, only for their maternal
capabilities. For example, in
GuerricÕs writings, engendering and authority are associated with the father,
while nursing and loving belong to the mother. (122) It is nothing to do with
the feminine psyche that these men want to empower God with, only their
physical abilities to birth, and feed a child with their milk. It is the nursing and providing aspect
that they feel God has, which must necessarily come from the female body since
the male cannot provide these things.
This delineation between change in outlook versus necessities of
description are clear in BynumÕs article.
The
Cistercian conception of Jesus as Mother and abbot as mother reveals not an
attitude toward women but a sense of a need and obligation to nurture other
men, a need and obligation to achieve intimate dependence on God. (168)
BynumÕs discussion of this topic, while on the surface throughout the reading may appear very liberating and appreciative of women and their nurturing and birthing capabilities. However, at the end of this chapter, this sentence reveals that menÕs drives return very often to themselves, even if they use feminine words to discuss a subject. Once again, what men think reveals more about themselves and their needs. The references to feminine imagery are simply another way to talk about themselves, their needs, and how to take care of each other.