B. Orlova, Mg. hist., master’s student at the Faculty of Theology, University of Latvia
Today, women’s activity and experience has become a popular subject of research in history, theology, and other related fields. One such group of women that receives broad scholarly attention is the medieval women mystics – women who experienced visions of religious content and, inspired by their content, undertook public activity in the religious sphere. In the research literature and in society’s perceptions of medieval women and of the period as a whole, a frequently encountered tendency is generalization. Thus, for example, one encounters sweeping claims that the mystics were the group of women who enjoyed the greatest respect in medieval Europe.[1] Conversely, the phrase “the Dark Ages” is often heard in public discourse, perceived as a time in which women had no means of self-expression whatsoever. The real experiences of women mystics were far more complex, and their life stories are to be discovered somewhere between these two extremes.
The tendency to generalize that prevails in research is also noted by the historian Amelia Barker in her master’s thesis,[2] who points to the need for an individual approach in studying the activity of women mystics.[3] Only by evaluating each particular case is it possible to obtain a detailed picture of a woman’s status in medieval European society.
The aim of this article is to clarify the multifaceted religious, political, and social factors that shaped the attitude of the Church and of wider society toward women in medieval Europe who wished to be active in the spiritual sphere, to publicly express their religious views, and to follow their convictions. Continuing the methodology grounded in A. Barker’s study, the article uses a case-study approach to examine the examples of St. Bridget, Margery Kempe, and Marguerite Porete. Each of the women represents a different type of societal attitude: St. Bridget was regarded as holy already during her lifetime and eventually became patron saint of all Europe. Margery Kempe, who in the physical manifestations of her mystical experiences has often been likened to St. Bridget, faced incomprehension and condemnation from those around her, yet was able to continue her activity. Marguerite Porete, by contrast, is an example of the extreme of the negative attitude – the punishment of a mystic by death. Even from a concise description of these women’s lives, it is evident that these experiences cannot be generalized merely on the basis that all of them belonged to a particular sex and that the Church and society therefore treated them with a uniform attitude. On the contrary, placing these women side by side reveals entirely different fates, which prompts the question – why were the outcomes of their public activity so different? Why did some of the medieval women mystics become venerated saints, some were declared irredeemable heretics, while still others remained on the border between these two statuses?
St. Bridget: God’s chosen bride
The life of St. Bridget (1303–1373) demonstrates the breadth of the boundaries within which, theoretically, women in the Middle Ages were able to operate. The mystic compiled in writing the visions she had experienced, became an influential adviser to rulers, founded her own religious order, was canonized shortly after her death, and at the end of the 20th century was even elevated to the rank of patron saints of Europe alongside Benedict of Nursia, St. Cyril and Methodius, Catherine of Siena, and Edith Stein.[4] It is possible that precisely such examples of large-scale activity create the desire to generalize, claiming that all women mystics were granted a special status in medieval society. The professor of Church history and gender studies Päivi Salmesvuori notes that St. Bridget’s successfully acquired authority was nonetheless atypical for women of that period.[5]
In contemporary scholarship, St. Bridget is assigned to the category of “living saints.”[6] The belief of those around them in the ability of “living saints” to communicate with God and to provide direct access to the divine gave these persons considerable political and social influence.[7] However, respect in the eyes of society is not something that “simply happened” to the mystics – consolidating authority on theological matters required hard and purposeful work, and St. Bridget’s example reveals this as well.
St. Bridget came from a privileged and wealthy social class – her family belonged to the highest Swedish aristocracy. Her husband, too, came from a family belonging to the knightly class, and he himself later held high political offices. He was a frequent guest at the court of the King of Sweden, and eventually Bridget also became a close companion and adviser to the ruler’s wife.[8] Thus, from childhood Bridget had access to education, resources, and a wide circle of contacts in religious and political institutions. Access to the highest ranks of society promoted Bridget’s recognition and evidently provided extensive opportunities for publicity – the mystic’s visions were included in church sermons and circulated in writing.[9]
It is important to note that, although she experienced her first visions already at the age of ten, Bridget began active public activity in the religious field after the death of her husband, at the age of 41. The status of widow could give a woman greater independence, especially if she was regarded as having passed reproductive age and the bearing of offspring was no longer of significance.[10] As Margery Kempe’s example will later illustrate, a married woman’s desire to devote herself entirely to a spiritual life set apart from the secular world was not met with understanding in medieval European society, since a wife and mother was expected to fulfill the duties appropriate to those roles. Bridget’s recorded visions attest that she was aware of the theological tendency of the period to glorify virginity as the most characteristic feature of a pious woman. In a prayer composed during her marriage, Bridget asks God to remove from her heart the “thorn” – physical love for her husband, children, and family – and to replace it with divine love for her brothers and sisters in Christ.[11] This particular prayer reveals a woman who feels her belonging to two worlds and seeks to reconcile her responsibility toward her family with the calling to renounce worldly life and follow God. The severing of the marriage bond was an opportunity to free herself from this dilemma and to begin the work of reconstructing her public image.
Mystics had to construct their image in accordance with specific standards in order to convince both the clergy and wider society of the authenticity of their visions, and thereby to gain the critically important support. Above all, a woman had to be able to prove that through her God was proclaiming His will to the world. In St. Bridget’s recorded visions, such self-positioning is visible, for example, in the so-called “revelation of the calling,” in which, shortly after her husband’s death, God addresses Bridget and reveals that He has chosen her as the proclaimer of His will in the world and as the bride of Christ:
“[..] After some days, during prayer, she was caught up in spirit and again saw a bright cloud, and within it the likeness of a human figure, which said thus: ‘Woman, hear me; I am your God, who wishes to speak with you.’ Frightened, and thinking that it was an illusion, she heard once more: ‘Do not be afraid,’ He said, ‘for I am the Creator of all, not a deceiver. I do not speak with you for your sake alone, but for the salvation of others. [..] You shall be my bride, and through you I will speak, and you will see and hear things of the spirit, and my Spirit shall remain with you until your very death.'”[12]
Thereafter, too, Bridget always emphasized that she was the mediator chosen by God for the manifestation of His word in the world – God speaks through her in order to grant salvation to a society and a Church sinking in sin. Bridget also demonstrated the change in her status, from a woman wearied by worldly cares into a pure bride of God, by removing her wedding ring. This act of Bridget’s became well known and widely discussed in the surrounding society. Some blamed her for a lack of love toward her husband, but Bridget herself used the attention drawn to the event as an opportunity to reaffirm her calling to follow God.[13]
An essential factor in the activity of any mystic was the support of influential clergy and theologians. One such figure of authority in the life of almost every mystic was a regularly visited and trusted confessor.[14] A motif that frequently recurs in the works of mystics is the need to test the source of the visions experienced. Visions were discussed during confession, with a confessor well educated in theology deciding whether the visions came from God or from an evil spirit. Thus the confessor played an essential role in evaluating any mystic’s activity: his decision about the origin of the visions influenced whether the mystic would be perceived as a proclaimer of God’s will or as a heretic deceived by an evil spirit. In close cooperation with the mystics, confessors also carried out the written recording of the visions, served as advisers and supporters, and, when necessary, as defenders.
St. Bridget’s public activity, which included preaching, exorcisms, intercessions, and similar activities, was supported by several clergymen who took on the role of the mystic’s confessor. It is known that in confession Bridget regularly set out the visions she received in order to obtain confirmation of their divine origin. Thus, by evidently submitting to the authority of theologically educated clergy, Bridget fostered a positive image of herself as an obedient, rational person.[15]
One of these closest supporters of the mystic was the man who was at the time the most prominent theologian in Sweden, Mathias of Linköping (Mathias Lincopensis). Mathias had studied for a long time in Paris, was well versed in the most current theological debates, and accounts of women receiving visions from God were not unfamiliar to him either. Thus it is not surprising that a long-standing and successful cooperation developed between the two – the theologian was interested in meeting the especially pious woman who was already at that time well known in Swedish society, while Bridget needed a confessor with a high reputation and extensive knowledge of theology who would help confirm her visions and disseminate them to wider society. Mathias wrote an introduction to one of the editions of Bridget’s visions, in which the theologian affirms his conviction of the truth and divine origin of the mystic’s visions. He emphasizes that Christ chose Bridget as His bride, and praises the pure and modest way of life that Bridget maintained while she was still bound by the ties of worldly marriage.[16]
A particularly significant role in the shaping of Bridget’s public image was also played by Alfonso Pecha, bishop of Jaén (Spain), who took on this duty during the period of her activity in Rome. The mystic entrusted to him the arrangement of her recorded visions, the editing of the texts, and their translation. Pecha continued to advocate for Bridget after her death as well, actively working to secure her canonization. The clergyman produced compilations of Bridget’s visions, adapting her visions and the portrayals of her personality to the traditions of hagiography and depicting the mystic as especially pious, humble, and otherwise befitting the status of a saint. In the materials he produced, Pecha emphasized Bridget’s submission to spiritual authorities, her anxiety about the origin of the visions she experienced, and her reliance on the interpretations provided by theologians; however, as P. Salmesvuori points out, the real Bridget was far more self-assured about her ability to interpret her own visions.[17] But a self-sufficient woman independent of the structures of the Church would not be such “grateful” material for initiating a canonization process.
It should be noted that, although Bridget gathered around herself a circle of devoted supporters and undoubtedly gained respect among broad layers of society, her activity nonetheless did not pass without criticism. In the collections of the mystic’s visions there are occasional descriptions of conflict situations. For example, a certain knight felt aversion toward Bridget, considering that her growing popularity might become a threat. Therefore, not being brave enough to confront the mystic personally, he persuaded one of his acquaintances to pretend to be drunk and to say to Bridget the following words: “Madam, you dream too much. You spend too much time in prayer. It would be better if you drank and slept more. Has God abandoned those who lead a spiritual life and now converses with the worldly and the proud? It is futile to listen to what you say.” In the situation depicted, Bridget answers by saying that this is the truth, and she repents of her former striving after worldly gratification. The mystic’s humble reply moves the said knight, and he becomes a follower of Bridget.[18]
It should be borne in mind that the sudden repentance of opponents and their belief in the mystic’s words is a motif characteristic of hagiographies – it was also widely used in her book by Margery Kempe, discussed later in the article. By portraying the transformation of critics into supporters, the mystics reinforced their positions as those chosen by God. However, hagiographic motifs were rooted in real situations and thus reveal the reproaches that Bridget most likely did in fact have to face. The mystic was reproached both for the erroneousness of her visions (claiming that they came from evil spirits or were simply an invention of her confessors[19]) and for turning away from the duties intended for a woman and operating in spheres intended for men.
Bridget had gained the reputation of a pious woman which, combined with her submission to religious authorities and the mystic’s ability to position herself as the proclaimer of God’s word in the world, prompted influential clergy to support her. The active popularization of Bridget’s image by several prominent theologians also promoted a favorable attitude toward the mystic among wider society. Bridget gained even greater recognition after 1349, when she set out for Rome with the initial aim of obtaining confirmation of the rule of her religious order. In Rome Bridget spent the rest of her life, reinforcing her reputation as a holy woman through charity, care for the poor, and the undertaking of pilgrimages.
After Bridget’s death in 1373, work on her canonization was begun almost immediately. Only eighteen years later (typically the canonization process could last several decades or even centuries) – in 1391 – Bridget was declared a saint.[20]
Margery Kempe: in the borderland between heresy and holiness
Margery Kempe (c. 1373 – after 1438) is best known as the author of the first known autobiography in the English language.[21] In it Kempe recounts visions of religious content, which she began to experience after the birth of her first child, her pilgrimages, and her everyday experience, seeking to practice her faith according to her own understanding. The mystical experiences Kempe describes stand out for their marked intensity. Under their influence, Kempe often wept loudly, screamed, and fell to the ground. These public manifestations of her mystical experiences (or, in the eyes of those around her – disturbances of the public peace) were one of the reasons why the local community looked upon the woman with condemnation and even fear. Kempe’s public preaching also made the religious authorities wary. The mystic faced both accusations of heresy and a brief arrest, but on the whole she was able to continue her activity undisturbed. Today Kempe is venerated by the Anglican Church, while in the Roman Catholic tradition she was never declared a saint.
Margery Kempe spent several decades living within the bounds of society’s accepted social norms – she was a wife, a mother, a faithful and obedient partner to her husband in the family’s business dealings. Only when Kempe, following the conviction gained in her mystical visions, acted contrary to society’s expectations of a woman occupying the roles of wife and mother did the surrounding community become condemnatory toward her. Eventually she persuaded her husband to take a vow of chastity, and thereafter, while formally maintaining the marriage, they slept and took their meals in separate rooms.
Likewise, Kempe believed that God commanded her to wear white clothing, and this was precisely one of those aspects of Kempe’s public religiosity to which those around her reacted most sharply. The autobiography reveals that wearing entirely white clothing was a symbol of chastity permitted only to virgins. Therefore, when a wife and mother of fourteen children dressed in this way, Kempe was accused of blasphemy. The autobiography attests that the woman was aware of the consequences of visually differing from other women of her age and status: in a conversation with God in which she is given the instruction to wear white clothing, she confesses to a fear of the mockery of those around her.[22]
Marriage was not the only social relationship that constrained Margery Kempe’s freedom to express her views. Her father was a wealthy merchant who actively participated in local political life and held high offices in the administration of the eastern English town of Lynn. Researchers of the social and political processes of medieval England point out that membership in the wealthy class of merchants and officials allotted women a more passive role compared with women who belonged to a lower social class.[23] Thus it is presumed that membership in this particular social class required conformity to expectations that Kempe no longer wished to fulfill. At the same time, Kempe repeatedly used the family’s status to protect herself – for example, upon being taken into custody, she asks to stay apart from groups of men because she is married. Kempe’s reflections at this moment reveal that she is worried about possible sexual violence directed against her, and therefore she emphasizes the existence of a husband.[24]
As noted, one of the most characteristic of Kempe’s public manifestations was loud weeping, screaming, and bodily spasms. The powerful surges of emotion overtook the mystic during church services, on pilgrimages, and in various everyday situations. Eyewitnesses tried to find explanations for Kempe’s physical manifestations. Many believed that Kempe displayed her emotions in a feigned and overly demonstrative manner in order to thereby arouse the pity of those around her.[25] Others were convinced that the woman was possessed by the devil.[26] In the 20th-century research literature, attempts to assign Kempe some psychological or medical diagnosis were current, but this was nothing new – many of Kempe’s contemporaries did the same. One of the illnesses attributed to her already during her lifetime was epilepsy. The signs characteristic of epileptic seizures and the physical manifestations of other illnesses were often interpreted in medieval Europe as the embodiment of an unclean spirit in a person, finding a religious justification for ailments that were otherwise inexplicable at the time.[27] Kempe’s autobiography, too, attests that those around her who were convinced that she was ill behaved aggressively out of fear and ordered her not to come near.[28]
Not only the loud surges of emotion, but also certain facets of Kempe’s personality seemingly tended to irritate those around her. Although in the text of the autobiography the woman deliberately tries to present herself as pious, modest, and unworthy of God’s grace, at times, most likely unconsciously, she nonetheless presents herself as a rather self-righteous person, clearly drawing boundaries between herself as a morally superior person and the rest of society. Thus, for example, her sense of superiority is discernible in her communication with her companions on pilgrimages – they are most often described as simple people, preoccupied with worldly matters, and also poor. Kempe claims that her traveling companions were intolerant of her wish to discuss various theological questions, while they themselves were interested only in worldly amusements. On one occasion a group of pilgrims even made Kempe promise that during the journey she would not speak about the Gospel, otherwise they would not allow the mystic to continue the journey together with them.[29]
A frequently encountered motif in the autobiography is the mystic’s contacts with representatives of the clergy at various levels. Kempe’s conversations with monks, bishops, and theologians reveal a wide spectrum of attitudes toward a woman’s place in the Church: she encounters both an automatically dismissive attitude based on her belonging to the female sex, and respect for the mystic as a powerful mediator between God and people.
Although Kempe does not shy away from also portraying her critics in the text of the autobiography, it was important for her, as for other medieval mystics, to demonstrate precisely the support of influential clergy in order to justify the truth of her religious views. The text repeatedly contains God’s commands to write down Kempe’s experience and praise expressed by bishops for her intention to write a book inspired by the Holy Spirit.[30] To the clergymen she meets, Kempe sets out her views on various religious questions which, as she herself claims, she gained in conversations with God. Most of the clergy are portrayed as supportive of Kempe’s theological positions.
Kempe is often portrayed as an adviser and, thanks to the presence of the Holy Spirit, also a skilled interpreter of the Holy Scriptures. For example, in one episode at an unnamed monastery, Kempe encounters a generally accommodating community, but one of the monks is skeptical of the mystic. During supper, on hearing Kempe’s conversations with the monastery’s abbot, the monk changes his stance and becomes convinced that she truly hears the voice of God. The monk then asks Kempe to reveal whether his soul will be saved and with what sins he has angered God. Kempe turns to God and receives advice on how to answer the monk and set him on the path toward the remission of sins.[31] Similar incidents are encountered several times in the text, and it is always emphasized that Kempe receives the answers to people’s requests in direct communication with God.
Kempe’s encounter with the vicar of Norwich shows the medieval Church as a structure that does not automatically allow a place for women who act outside the bounds of accepted social norms. In this episode Kempe asks the vicar for an hour of his time in order to discuss with him the theme of God’s love. The vicar exclaims that surely a woman cannot have anything to say on this matter worthy of note enough for a conversation to take a whole hour. It was not aversion to Kempe as a person that initially made the vicar decline the invitation to a conversation, but rather a systemic conviction about the limited ability of women to reason about theological questions. In a manner quite characteristic of the autobiography’s narrative, Kempe manages to persuade the vicar to devote time to the conversation, and after it the clergyman becomes convinced of the truth of her words and of her ability to heed God’s will.[32]
The vicar of Norwich’s initially dismissive attitude toward a woman’s ability to speak about theology is only one such example, provided by Kempe’s autobiography, of the perceptions of the era regarding a woman’s role. The text contains several episodes that reveal incomprehension of the mystic’s unwillingness to fit within the bounds of social norms. Thus, for example, some people met along the way advise Kempe to give up what she has begun, to “go spin and card wool, as other women do, and not suffer so many trials and misfortunes.”[33] Society’s attitude was also based on the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures: as justification for the prohibition on women preaching, the scriptural passage 1 Tim 2:12 was used: “And I do not permit a woman to teach a man or to have authority over a man, but she is to remain silent.”[34]
The way English society reacted to Margery Kempe was significantly influenced by the politics of the time and developments in the Church. The mystic was repeatedly accused of belonging to the Lollard[35] movement. The rulers and religious authorities of England acted harshly against the Lollards, introducing various regulations. In 1401 the English Parliament passed a statute that provided for the death penalty for Lollards – burning at the stake. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Arundel, in 1408 issued a decree that provided for several restrictions, including a prohibition on preaching without special permission, and limited the possibilities of discussing theological questions outside the universities.[36] It is not surprising that in such an atmosphere restricting freedom of belief, Kempe’s activities, too, were regarded with suspicion. Kempe was accused of belonging to the Lollard movement both by high-ranking clergy and by various people met along the way. For example, Kempe repeatedly notes arriving in English towns or villages where the local inhabitants recognize the mystic and shout out calls to burn her as a heretic or Lollard.[37]
Thomas Arundel himself, the active opponent of the Lollards, is also one of the clergymen with whom a meeting of Kempe’s is portrayed in the autobiography. Upon arriving at the archbishop’s residence, Kempe came into conflict with the people she met there. She did not hesitate to admonish everyone whose behavior did not conform to her ethical norms – the archbishop’s people “bandied about thoughtless words” and behaved rudely. A certain local woman, unable to restrain her anger toward the mystic, wished her dead. Arundel himself, however, is portrayed as sympathetic and in every respect supportive of Kempe, affirming that her way of life is correct.[38] Support from the most influential representative of the Church in England, who was moreover an opponent of the movement attributed to Kempe, was critically important for her defense against the various accusations.
Kempe’s case raises not only questions about women’s place in the hierarchy of a masculine society, but also prompts attention to the evaluation of relationships among women. Margery deliberately associates herself with two well-known medieval mystics – St. Bridget, already discussed in this article, and Julian of Norwich. Kempe tries to model a narrative of herself as similar to (and thus equal to) both women. In St. Bridget, Kempe saw many similarities to herself. Both women began their public activity in the religious field at around the age of 40; both had to overcome the contradictions caused by belonging at once to the secular and the spiritual world, by the need to care for a family, and by the intense desire to follow God in purity.
In 1414 Kempe went on a pilgrimage to Rome. The historian Einat Klafter points out that during her stay, which in total spanned 9 months, Kempe modeled her daily routine on the example of St. Bridget, seeking to put herself in the experience of the holy woman.[39] Instead of visiting the holy sites and relics that pilgrims in Rome typically visited, Kempe followed in St. Bridget’s footsteps. A visit to a church dedicated to St. Bridget is described in especially great detail, highlighting that she knelt on the very stone in the floor on which St. Bridget had received visions from God and had been in the room where the holy woman died.[40] During her stay in Rome, Kempe imitated the deeds by which St. Bridget became especially well known in this city – she cared for the poor and the sick, lived ascetically, and obtained her livelihood by begging.
In the course of her travels, Kempe visited the mystic Julian of Norwich, well known and respected in England, in order to set out her visions to her and to gain confirmation that they were true.[41] Julian, by confirming that Kempe’s visions truly came from God, in this case fulfills the confessor’s function typically reserved for men.
In some cases Kempe not only admires her models of holiness, but also places her own experience above her predecessors’ relationships with God. The love that she received from God and felt toward God, Kempe describes as “stronger than anything she had heard from St. Bridget, Walter Hilton,[42] or other books.”[43] Likewise, in the autobiography’s account, God reveals to the mystic in private conversations that He spoke with Bridget just as He did with Kempe, but showed Kempe such visions as “Bridget had never seen.”[44]
An essential question still debated by researchers is how great Kempe’s influence on the religiosity of society was in the Middle Ages. The veneration of the mystic in the Anglican tradition is the most visible expression of her lasting influence and significance in a religious context. The information provided in the autobiography allows one to conclude that over time Kempe acquired a certain renown in particular regions of England. Thus, for example, a man met along the way notes that in Boston Kempe is known as a holy woman.[45] The mystic’s conversation with the Archbishop of York also reveals that the clergy considered Kempe dangerous enough, attributing to her the ability to influence (in the words of one of the Archbishop of York’s companions – to “corrupt”) the views of the people around her through her sermons.[46] Thus a sufficiently large part of society listened to Kempe and took what she said seriously.
However, the status of “living saint” is not applied to Kempe, nor can the establishment of a cult after her death be ascertained. Although her autobiography’s account does not lack support expressed by influential clergy, unlike in St. Bridget’s case, none of them took on the initiation of a canonization process or the creation of a hagiographic account and the fostering of a cult. Likewise, although Kempe successfully fended off the most serious accusations of heresy, and a wide circle of people believed in her ability to communicate with God, the mystic was nonetheless unable to convince an equally large part of society. The reason for this, as her autobiography reveals, was to a large extent the fear of the unknown and the incomprehensible that prevailed in society, as well as deeply rooted notions about a woman’s role, assuming that devotion to one’s family was almost the only permissible means of self-realization.
Marguerite Porete: in the crossfire of political interests
Marguerite Porete (?–1310) stands out among the women mystics of medieval Europe for the especially sharp action taken against her activity by religious and secular authorities. Porete was a preacher active in the territory of present-day France and the author of a text devoted to the theme of divine love, “The Mirror of Simple Souls” (Fr. Le Mirouer des simples âmes). As a result of a lengthy trial, in 1310 she was declared a heretic and burned at the stake, thereby becoming the first Christian woman mystic to be punished by death.[47]
Researchers note that in that particular geographical territory and period, the imposition of the death penalty on those declared heretics was not a customary practice. The outcome desired by the spiritual and secular authorities was to secure a heretic’s public confession, repentance of sins, and renunciation of erroneous views.[48] This is also reflected in the documents of Porete’s trial. At times, in the formal texts there even creeps in the inquisitors’ despair and uncertainty about how to proceed, with Porete firmly holding her position and refusing any cooperation with the authorities. The woman was repeatedly offered the opportunity to renounce the views she had previously expressed, to “voluntarily return to the unity of the Catholic faith,” and thereby to avoid punishment, but she did not accept it.[49]
The Church historian Sean Field, representing the position most popular in contemporary scholarly literature regarding the conformity of Porete’s texts to the dogmatics of Christianity, points out that Porete’s theological notions were not heretical. They may have been provocative, but they did not differ substantially from the works of other mystics of the era. The publication of a theologically controversial text alone was not enough to end up in the custody of the inquisitors and to receive the death penalty.[50] Thus the death sentence handed down by the secular authorities in Porete’s case is rather difficult to explain.
Marguerite Porete’s name fell into oblivion in the centuries after her execution, and therefore even today relatively little is known about the mystic’s biography. Researchers of Porete’s activity have tried to make conjectures about her social origin based on background information that can be obtained from the text she produced. For example, it is assumed that Marguerite Porete had the means to acquire the materials necessary for writing, and so one might consider that she came from a relatively wealthy family.[51] In the cases of St. Bridget and Margery Kempe we see that family ties or the lack of them were an essential factor that determined how society would perceive a woman’s desire to follow a religious calling; however, the lack of specific facts does not allow similar conclusions to be drawn regarding Porete.
It is possible to judge more precisely Porete’s affiliation with religious and secular institutions, which is a no less important factor. Namely, Porete simply had no such affiliation, and thus she was considerably more socially vulnerable than women who operated within the framework of religious organizations. Researchers of Porete’s biography have tried to investigate her possible connection with the Beguine communities in the vicinity of Valenciennes, possibly her birthplace, but they have concluded that the mystic more likely operated independently of them.[52] Likewise, there is no specific information that Porete actively cooperated with any clergyman who would take on the role of the mystic’s confessor and help with the compilation of her book.
In Porete’s case, particular significance was held by the factor of the political situation of the time and territory, the mutual relations between the ruling power and religious institutions. Many researchers of the mystic’s biography acknowledge that Porete’s activity did not differ substantially from that of other mystics, and that it was precisely the unfavorable political climate that played the decisive role in determining her fate.[53] The relations between the King of France of that time, Philip IV (1285–1314), and the Roman popes were markedly strained. In 1307 the king launched a campaign against the Templars in the territory of France: the brothers of the order were accused of what were most likely fabricated offenses, a large number of them were arrested, tortured, and publicly burned at the stake. The cruel and rapid suppression of the order shocked French society and deepened the rift in the relations between Philip IV and Pope Clement V.
Several researchers connect these events with the persistence of the French religious authorities in imposing the death penalty on Porete in 1310. The last inquisitor who oversaw Porete’s trial was William of Paris, the king’s confessor and an active leader of the campaign against the Templars. The researcher Suzanne Kocher allows for the possibility that the declaration of the mystic as a heretic and the condemning of her to death were the efforts of Philip IV and his closest clergy to improve relations with the pope by demonstrating that they were prepared to submit to the authority and laws of the Church.[54] S. Field, for his part, points to Philip IV’s understanding of the monarchy as a sacred institution – in the France he ruled, a crime against the Christian faith was equated with a crime against the ruler, and consequently action against heretics was especially harsh.[55]
Another essential factor is the growing wariness toward heresies in Europe at that time. Consequently, the likelihood also increased that women who publicly expressed their theological views during this period would be regarded rather with caution, fear, and even aggression.[56] Porete’s punishment by death became one of the first cases in the long-lasting campaign of the Church against the Beguines, who were accused of cooperating with the “Free Spirit” movement[57] and underwent regular inspections by the inquisitors.[58]
The official reason for Porete’s eventual punishment by death, as it is reflected in the trial documents, is her publicly expressed theological views. In the sentence issued in April 1310, the mystic’s teaching is likened to a disease with which, if it were not stopped, she would infect other “weak” persons.[59] The personal relationship between a human being and God that Porete preached was interpreted as a threat to the existing order of the Church and to the role of the clergy as mediators between God and human beings. Porete came into conflict with the authorities for the first time four years earlier – in 1306 – when her book was declared heretical and all its copies were condemned to destruction. The mystic herself was forbidden henceforth to disseminate “The Mirror of Simple Souls” or the theological views contained in it; however, it is interesting to note that at this time it was only the text itself that earned official condemnation, not its author.[60]
The cases examined earlier revealed how the involvement of a male clergyman in a mystic’s activity could help legitimize a woman’s activity in the public sphere. After the first conflict with the religious authorities, Porete actively sought the support of influential clergy, sending copies of her text to several representatives of religious orders, bishops, and theologians. In the expanded edition of “The Mirror of Simple Souls,” Porete included the approval of her writing expressed by some of these clergymen. Thus, for example, she cites the Franciscan John of Quaregnon, who is said to have believed that Porete’s book was inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself.[61] The most notable theologian whom Porete managed to attract was Godfrey of Fontaines – a highly respected doctor of the University of Paris. Godfrey expressed support for the content of Porete’s book, but with one reservation: in his opinion, the book was suitable reading for those who were strong enough in spirit to understand its message. Weaker people, in the theologian’s judgment, reading the book on their own, might misunderstand it and harm themselves.[62]
Although initially only the text she had produced was condemned, Porete as a person fell into the disfavor of the authorities when she refused to observe the established prohibition on disseminating her book. It is possible that the support expressed by some clergymen, which the mystic cited in the expanded editions of her book, gave Porete additional conviction that her conviction was correct. The mystic continued to expand “The Mirror of Simple Souls,” seeking to explain her theological positions in a simplified way to a wider audience and writing in a much more authoritative tone. A. Barker aptly notes that Porete’s attitude, in not submitting to the authorities, influenced the mystic’s subsequent fate to a greater degree than her possibly unconventional religious views.[63] The theology professor Mary Frohlich, too, has called Porete’s attitude and her complete refusal to cooperate with the structures of power her “fatal decision.”[64] In 1308 Porete, refusing to submit to the previous court decisions and disseminating her book with growing conviction, once again came into the authorities’ field of view and this time was arrested.
The documents of the trial begun in 1308 reveal that only one male supporter was prepared to defend Porete in the long term, risking even his reputation and his very life. But the association with the Beghard Guiard de Cressonessart, who himself did not represent the structures of the orthodox church, did not benefit her chances of being acquitted. There is just as little biographical information about Guiard de Cressonessart as there is about Marguerite Porete. The trial documents note that he “publicly and demonstratively” tried to defend Porete, but as a result he himself came into the field of view of the Church authorities and was held under suspicion of disseminating heretical ideas.[65]
Since a large part of the information about Marguerite Porete that has survived to the present day can be obtained precisely from the trial documentation, it is chiefly possible to analyze the attitude of spiritual and secular power toward the mystic. Far less direct information can be obtained about how the surrounding society looked upon her activity. Given Porete’s ability to obtain a large number of copies of her book in a relatively short time, S. Field allows that she had been able to gather a sufficiently wide circle of supporters who could help both by physically transcribing the text and by supporting the work of its publication financially.[66] Porete’s enthusiasm in expanding “The Mirror of Simple Souls” and explaining her theological views also seems motivated by the encouragement of those close to her. But at the decisive moments, with Porete repeatedly standing before the court, the majority of these supporters are no longer to be seen. Beside Porete there remained only one person – Guiard de Cressonessart – who himself evidently did not occupy a sufficiently authoritative role in the structures of the Church to positively influence the outcome of the trial.
While Porete’s name was forgotten after her death, the book she produced proved surprisingly viable, thus giving grounds for the view that the mystic’s views were essentially not heretical or unacceptable to Christians. Despite the burning of many copies, several dozen anonymous copies of “The Mirror of Simple Souls” in various translations were in circulation in late medieval Europe. For a long time it was assumed that the author of the text was a man. As M. Frohlich ironically notes, once the text was “freed” from its association with a woman defiant of the Church’s authority, its content no longer seemed heretical to anyone. Thus “The Mirror of Simple Souls” continued in circulation as a favored text of mysticism. Only in 1946 was a manuscript in French discovered that made it possible to “return” the text to its true author.[68]
In conclusion
The attitude toward women mystics in medieval European society was formed as a result of the interplay of several factors. It was determined both by external circumstances and by the women’s own deliberate efforts to substantiate their authority. The examined cases of St. Bridget, Margery Kempe, and Marguerite Porete indicate that across the various regions of medieval Europe there existed similar societal expectations of women and a similar understanding of their place in social, political, and religious structures. Women who wished to operate outside these boundaries had to act purposefully in order to justify their conduct at every step and to prove their right to be present in fields of activity intended chiefly for men.
Whether mystics would be venerated as saints or declared heretics depended to a large extent on their ability to act authoritatively in the public sphere while at the same time fitting into certain norms of behavior and conforming to the era’s notions of the ideal image of a woman. Thus St. Bridget and Margery Kempe had to be able to substantiate their holiness, their chosenness, and their fitness for the status of a pure bride of God, even though both had already become wives and mothers in worldly life. To prove that the visions they received, which were the basis of the mystics’ public activity, came from God was the most important task.
To gain society’s respect and support for public religious activity while acting alone was practically impossible for a medieval mystic. Only a strong circle of supporters provided the necessary resources and protection. To all three mystics examined in the article it was clear that the participation of male clergy was vitally important in legitimizing their activity and their theological views. Thus the acquisition of authority was a multi-stage task – first to persuade a circle of close supporters, and then, with their help, to persuade wider society. Each of them succeeded in this with a different degree of success. St. Bridget successfully gathered around herself a circle of influential theologians who were devoted supporters during her lifetime and continued to work actively for the mystic to be venerated among the saints after her death. Margery Kempe, as her autobiography portrays, managed to gain the verbal support of many prominent clergy during her lifetime, but there is no information that any of them acted to foster a cult of Kempe as a saint after her death. Marguerite Porete experienced the greatest failure in this respect, evidently being unable to secure long-lasting support from clergy.
Margery Kempe’s case reveals that mystics could strengthen their authority not only with the help of male theologians, but also by referring to women already respected in society who were active in the religious sphere. Thus Kempe demonstrates the affirmation of her visions as divinely inspired by the “living saint” of her time – Julian of Norwich – and deliberately constructs her image on the model of St. Bridget, in some cases even portraying herself as especially chosen.
However, not everything was in the mystics’ own hands. In shaping society’s attitude and determining a mystic’s fate, a role was also played by such aspects beyond the control of any single person as the notions of a woman’s role in society rooted in the public consciousness and the all-encompassing political situation in which the particular person had to operate. Margery Kempe’s autobiography reveals especially clearly the everyday prejudices in the public consciousness of the era. In cases where those around her avoided Kempe, believing that her visions were seizures caused by illness or demonic possession, people’s fear of the unknown, the inexplicable, or the supernatural is clearly discernible. Likewise, on those occasions when someone advised St. Bridget or Kempe to give up preaching, not to bring trouble upon themselves, and to return to occupations more befitting a woman, the notions about a woman’s role in the family and in wider society are vividly revealed, which inevitably influenced the attitude toward the mystics’ attempts at public activity.
The influence of the political situation on a mystic’s fate, in turn, is most vividly revealed by the case of Marguerite Porete. Both the approval of the theologians within her circle of contacts and the viability of “The Mirror of Simple Souls” independent of its author indicate that the mystic’s theological views were not the primary reason why she was punished by death. A far greater role was played by Porete’s own relations with the structures of power.
Bibliography
Sources used:
- Porete, M. The Mirror of Simple and Annihilated Souls, trans. Carolyn G. Behnke (PhD dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1996).
- Collijn, I. (ed.), Acta et processus canonizacionis Beate Birgitte (Stockholm: Almquist&Wiksell, 1924-1931).
- Morris, B., Searby, D., The Revelations of St. Birgitta of Sweden. Volume I, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
- Moriss, B., Searby, D., The Revelations of St. Birgitta of Sweden. Volume II. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
- Pope John Paul II, “Apostolic Letter Issued Motu Proprio proclaiming Saint Bridget of Sweden, Saint Catherine of Siena and Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross Co-Patronesses of Europe”, The Holy See, 1999.
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_01101999_co-patronesses-europe.html [viewed 14.04.2021.]
6. The Book of Margery Kempe, trans. Anthony Bale (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).
7. “Translations of the Trial Documents”, in Sean L. Field, The Beguine, the Angel and the Inquisitor. The Trials of Marguerite Porete and Guirard Cressonessart. Notre Dame, Indiana: Notre Dame University Press, 2012.
Literature used:
- Andersen, E. Birgitta of Sweden in Northern Germany: Translation, Transmission and Reception. In: Elisabeth Andersen et. al. (eds.). A Companion to Mysticism and Devotion in Northern Germany in the Late Middle Ages. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2014. 205.-230.
- Bale, A., “Introduction,” in The Book of Margery Kempe, trans. Anthony Bale. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015, ix-xxxiii.
- Barker, A., “The Saint, the Beguine and the Heretic: Laywomen and Authority in the Late Medieval Church, c. 1200.-1400” (MA thesis, Massey University, 2019).
- Babinsky, E., L., “A Beguine in the Court of the King: The Relation of Love and Knowledge in the Mirror of Simple Souls by Marguerite Porete” (PhD thesis, University of Chicago, 1991).
- Espi Forcen, C., Espi Forcen, F., “Demonic Possessions and Mental Illness: Discussion of selected cases in Late Medieval Hagiographical Literature”, Early Science and Medicine, 9 (2014): 258.-279.
- Field, S., L. The Beguine, the Angel and the Inquisitor. The Trials of Marguerite Porete and Guirard Cressonessart. Notre Dame, Indiana: Notre Dame University Press, 2012.
- Frohlich, M., “Authority,” in: Patricia Z. Beckman and Amy Hollywood (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Mysticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. 305-314.
- Klafter, E., “The Feminine Mystic: Margery Kempe’s Pilgrimage to Rome as an Imitatio Birgittae,” in: Victoria Blud et. al. (eds.) Gender in Medieval Places, Spaces and Thresholds. London: University of London Press, 2019. 123.-135.
- Kocher, S., A., “Gender and Power in Marguerite Porete’s Mirouer des Simples Ames” (PhD Dissertation, University of Oregon, 1999).
- Neaman, J., S. “Potentation, Elevation, Acceleration: Prerogatives of Women Mystics,” Mystics Quarterly, 14 (March 1988): 22-31.
- Newman, B, “Annihilation and Autorship: Three Women Mystics of the 1290s,” Speculum, 91 (July 2016): 591-630.
- Salmesvuori, P., Power and Sainthood. The Case of Birgitta of Sweden. New York: Palgrave McMilllan, 2014.
- Simons, W., Cities of Ladies: Beguine Communities in the Medieval Low Countries, 1200-1565. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.
- Slade, C., “Alterity in Union: The Mystical Experience of Angela of Foligno and Margery Kempe,” Religion & Literature 23 (Autumn 1991): 109.-126.
- Zarri, G., “Le sante vive: Per una tipologia della santita femminile nel primo Cinquecento,” Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento, 6(1980): 371-446.
Zarri, G., “Living Saints: A Typology of Female Sanctity in the Early Sixteenth Century,” in: Women and Religion in Medieval and Renaissance Italy, ed. Daniel Bornstein and Roberto Rusconi. Chicago, London: University
[1] For example: Judith S. Neaman, “Potentation, Elevation, Acceleration: Prerogatives of Women Mystics,” Mystics Quarterly, 14 (March 1988), 22.
[2] Amelia Barker, “The Saint, the Beguine and the Heretic: Laywomen and Authority in the Late Medieval Church, c. 1200-1400” (MA thesis, Massey University, New Zealand, 2019).
[3] Ibid., 3.
[4] Pope John Paul II, “Apostolic Letter Issued Motu Proprio proclaiming Saint Bridget of Sweden, Saint Catherine of Siena and Saint Teresa Benedicta of the Cross Co-Patronesses of Europe”, The Holy See, 1999. http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_01101999_co-patronesses-europe.html [viewed 14.04.2021.]
[5] Päivi Salmesvuori, Power and Sainthood. The Case of Birgitta of Sweden (New York: Palgrave McMilllan, 2014), 1.
[6] “Living saint” – a term first defined in 1980 by the Italian historian Gabriella Zarri in the publication “Le sante vive: Per una tipologia della santita femminile nel primo Cinquecento.” The term denotes a person whom the surrounding community or wider society regarded during their lifetime as holy and especially venerable. An essential feature of “living saints” is that these persons, while still alive, had not yet been officially canonized. The status of a “living saint” could be changeable; it required constant interaction between the saint and their audience.
Gabriella Zarri, “Le sante vive: Per una tipologia della santita femminile nel primo Cinquecento,” Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento, 6(1980).
[7] Gabriella Zarri, “Living Saints: A Typology of Female Sanctity in the Early Sixteenth Century,” in: Women and Religion in Medieval and Renaissance Italy, ed. Daniel Bornstein and Roberto Rusconi (Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 221.
[8] Päivi Salmesvuori, 26., 28.
[9] Ibid., 131.
[10] Ibid., 4.
[11]Bridget Morris and Denis Searby, The Revelations of St. Birgitta of Sweden. Volume I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 7.
[12] Isak Collijn (ed.), Acta et processus canonizacionis Beate Birgitte (Stockholm: Almquist&Wiksell, 1924-1931), 80.-81.
[13] Päivi Salmesvuori, op. cit., 75.
[14] Ibid., 14.
[15] Päivi Salmesvuori, op. cit., 89.
[16] Bridget Morris and Denis Searby, op. cit.,49.
[17] Päivi Salmesvuori, op. cit., 131.
[18] Bridget Moriss and Denis Searby, The Revelations of St. Birgitta of Sweden. Volume II. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 198.-199.
[19] Bridget Moriss and Denis Searby, 2006, op. cit., 42.
[20] Elizabeth Andersen, Birgitta of Sweden in Northern Germany: Translation, Transmission and Reception. In: Elisabeth Andersen et. al. (eds.). A Companion to Mysticism and Devotion in Northern Germany in the Late Middle Ages (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2014), 206.
[21] According to the information included in the text itself, Kempe dictated the content of the book, and, similarly to the case of the compilations of St. Bridget’s visions, it was recorded by confessors devoted to the mystic.
[22] The Book of Margery Kempe, trans. Anthony Bale (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 33.
[23] Carole Slade, “Alterity in Union: The Mystical Experience of Angela of Foligno and Margery Kempe,” Religion & Literature 23 (Autumn 1991), 116.
[24] The Book of Margery Kempe, 121.
[25] Ibid., 17.
[26] Ibid., 96.
[27] Carlos Espi Forcen and Fernando Espi Forcen, “Demonic Possessions and Mental Illness: Discussion of selected cases in Late Medieval Hagiographical Literature”, Early Science and Medicine, 9 (2014), 265.
[28] The Book of Margery Kempe, 96.
[29] The Book of Margery Kempe, 62.
[30] Ibid., 5.
[31] Ibid., 28.
[32] The Book of Margery Kempe, 39.
[33] Ibid., 118.
[34] Ibid., 115.
[35] A religious movement in 14th–16th-century Western Europe, today regarded as a precursor of the Reformation. The movement’s participants opposed practices characteristic of Catholicism, for example by advocating for the translation of the Bible into the local languages. In the mid-15th century in Europe, the term “Lollards” came to denote not only members of the original movement, but heretics in a broader context.
[36] Anthony Bale, “Introduction”, in The Book of Margery Kempe, trans. Anthony Bale (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), xvi.
[37] The Book of Margery Kempe, 30., 118.
[38] The Book of Margery Kempe, 37.
[39] Einat Klafter, “The Feminine Mystic: Margery Kempe’s Pilgrimage to Rome as an Imitatio Birgittae,” in: Victoria Blud et. al. (eds.) Gender in Medieval Places, Spaces and Thresholds (London: University of London Press, 2019), 124.
[40] The Book of Margery Kempe, 87.
[41] The Book of Margery Kempe, 41.
[42] Walter Hilton (c. 1340–1396) – an Augustinian mystic, author of several treatises devoted to the love of God.
[43] The Book of Margery Kempe, 39.
[44] Ibid., 46.
[45] Ibid., 102.
[46] Ibid., 114.
[47] Sean L. Field, The Beguine, the Angel and the Inquisitor. The Trials of Marguerite Porete and Guirard Cressonessart (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2012), 3.
[48] Sean L. Field, op. cit., 21.
[49] “Translations of the Trial Documents”, in Sean L. Field, The Beguine, the Angel and the Inquisitor. The Trials of Marguerite Porete and Guirard Cressonessart (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2012), 218.
[50] Sean L. Field, op. cit., 6.
[51] Sean L. Field, op. cit., 29.
[52] Walter Simons, Cities of Ladies: Beguine Communities in the Medieval Low Countries, 1200-1565. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001), 135.
[53] Amelia Barker, op. cit., 55.
[54] Suzanne Aleta Kocher, “Gender and Power in Marguerite Porete’s Mirouer des Simples Ames” (PhD Dissertation, University of Oregon, 1999), 32.
[55] Sean L. Field, op. cit., 17.
[56] Amelia Barker, op. cit., 12.
[57] The “Free Spirit” movement – a religious movement declared heretical in 1311–1312 in Central Europe.
[58] Walter Simons, op. cit., 120.
[59] Translations of the Trial Documents, 218.
[60] Barbara Newman, “Annihilation and Autorship: Three Women Mystics of the 1290s,” Speculum, 91(July 2016), 615.
[61] Marguerite Porete, The Mirror of Simple and Annihilated Souls. trans. Carolyn G. Behnke (PhD dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1996), 85.
[62] Ellen L. Babinsky, “A Beguine in the Court of the King: The Relation of Love and Knowledge in the Mirror of Simple Souls by Marguerite Porete” (PhD thesis, University of Chicago, 1991), 65.
[63] Amelia Barker, op. cit., 62.
[64] Mary Frohlich, “Authority,” in The Cambridge Companion to Christian Mysticism, eds. Patricia Z. Beckman and Amy Hollywood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 311.
[65] Translations of the Trial Documents, 212.
[66] Sean L. Field, op. cit., 55.
[67] Mary Frohlich, op. cit., 332.
[68] Amelia Barker, op. cit., 52.