Julian of Norwich

Disclaimer first. I'm agnostic, I do not believe in God. I read this as a work of literature, not as a spiritual text.
From what I knew of Julian before I started this, this was not what I expected. She's very ill, received the last rights and experiences a set of vision or "shewings" (I like that the text retained this spelling). So I was expecting something by way of a fever dream or hallucination, highly visual and coloured. and it isn't that. There are maybe 4 distinct passages where she show more describes a visual image, the rest is far more philosophical.
And it seems rather revolutionary, even to me. There is no mention of Hell. The Devil gets a walk on part by way of tempting us poor humans, but as she clearly believes in predestination, even that is part of God's plan. Any sinner will be accepted into God's love by turning to God (this translation does not use the term repentance). Set against the doom paintings of the era, that seems quite unusual.
In one section she described God as the Father & Jesus as taking on the role of Mother, which makes for some very oddly gendered sentences. That came as quite a surprise and strikes a rather feminist note that has resonance.
In a couple of passages she's not entirely complimentary about the Church, which make me wonder how this survived. she comments on the teaching of the Church not matching the shewing.
And the most striking aspect of this is how gentle it all is. It is doused in love. There is no divine retribution, no crusader ethic, nothing like that, just that God loves us, always has, always will and we should love him. At one level it seems a simple philosophy, but it is clearly more complex than that.
In terms of the writing, it was most likely told to a scribe who wrote it down and that is reflected in the conversational nature. I'd guess that one sentence in 4 starts with And, as a thought runs on. It also uses a number of verbal tricks, lists feature a fair amount, as does a thing being in 3 elements. There's also repetition but with different words to alter the emphasis or meaning. At one point the "All shall be well" is rendered as "I may make all things well, I can make all things well, I will make all things well, I shall make all things well; and you shall see, yourself, that all manner of thing shall be well". These often appear in 3s reflecting the different natures of the trinity, or 4 with the 4th being either the combined trinity or the soul's response to it.
As the oldest piece of writing by a woman in English that has come down to us it is worth visiting, even if the faith itself does not speak to you. It's a window into a mind that is form a very different time but seem s quite original. show less

This medieval devotional classic gained new readers in the twentieth century through the combination of modern renderings of the Chaucer-era English and a boost from T.S. Eliot.
It’s uncanny how the meditations and visions (“showings”) recorded here, which reflect a medieval form of spirituality and belief, nevertheless speak across the six-century gap between the author’s time and ours.
I think this has to do with the honesty and simplicity with which the author writes. She is show more self-effacing, yet she saw what she saw. The dogma of her time expected the condemnation and suffering of countless souls. Julian doesn’t deny this; she simply states she saw no trace of condemnation in the “showings” vouchsafed her.
The ultimate expression of the view of reconciliation is the single most famous sentence of the book: “But all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.” It’s no wonder that we respond to this encouraging message. Yet perhaps we do her injustice when we focus on this statement alone. Indeed, she warns against this: “Beware that you do not take one thing according to your taste and fancy and leave another, for that is what heretics do.”
So while the author plainly yet discretely distances herself from some of the teachings of what she calls “Holy Church,” she only welcomes readers who take her message in its entirety. So I’m in a quandary. If I wanted to engage this text on a theological level, there are several things I’d differ on. But it’s clear she wrote in a simple, reverent spirit, so is it wrong for me to read the text in the same way without discarding the points on which my belief differs from the medieval church? I may not be the reader the author would have approved of, but I remain confident that all will be well. show less

This was a more difficult read than I had anticipated, but I'm glad I plowed through it, little by little. My edition (Penguin 1966) was translated and introduced by Clifton Wolters, who is rather patronizing toward Julian . . . thus I made the right decision when I skipped the 45 page introduction until after I had read Julian's revelations. I was a bit disappointed that he chose to translate her most famous passage as "it is all going to be all right; it is all going to be all right; show more everything is going to be all right" rather than the more traditional/familiar/resonant "All shall be well and all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well." (Chapter 27)

I terms of Julian's actual revelations, the beginning was a rather bloody account of Christ's Passion, thus rather difficult reading. Her later revelations and discussions of God's Love help put the earlier gruesomeness in context. And for those not willing/able to wade through all the revelations, know that the final passage sums them up nicely: "Love was his meaning. Who showed it you? Love. What did he show you? Love. Why did he show it? For love." Amen. show less

These mystical revelations (or shewings = showings as the anchorite writes in Middle English) might be termed a near-death experience if they had occurred during the late twentieth or early twenty-first centuries instead of May 8, 1373. They were shown or revealed to a woman living in England. Her name is lost to history; she’s known to posterity by the name of the church where she lived out the rest of her life in a cell: Saint Julian’s in Norwich. As a devout Christian she writes that show more she had previously prayed for three “gifts:” an active understanding of Jesus’s passion as if she were present at the crucifixion standing beside Mary Magdalen and his mother, a bodily sickness that would bring her to the point of death, but only if these two were in accordance with God’s will, and three “wounds” of “very contrition, the wound of kinde compassion, and the wound of willfull longing to God.” The first two she writes, passed from my mind, but the third dwelled with me continually. Chapter II lines 68-70 (page 40)

In the middle of her thirty-first year she began to receive all three of the “gifts” beginning with the second, three days and nights of a devastating illness. On the fourth night she received the last rites in preparation for her death. A crucifix was placed before her face, and the first gift began. She saw blood dripping down from the crown of thorns on Jesus’s head. She sees his mother. She sees a little round thing in her own hand, the size of hazel nut, and realizes that it is the entire creation. It’s revealed to her that it is everlasting because God loves it, “and so all thing hath the being be [by] the love of God.” Chapter V lines 153-154 (page 43)

Over the course of three Lents (2018-2020) I read this edition of the anchorite’s Long Text in Middle English as part of my Lenten discipline. I was struck by the visceral and gory vision of Christ’s blood eventually pouring over the creation and her vision of this outpouring seen as redemption and security. I was also reminded of her vision of the universe as a small hazel nut that God had created, loved, and would sustain, and how a longing for God is a part of human nature. And most importantly God’s assurance to her that in spite of sin, all will be well. “Al thing shal be wele, and thou shalt sen thiself that al manner thyng shal be wele.” Chapter LXIII lines 2655-2656 (page 129) show less