Modern Language Studies

Marguerite Porete's Heretical Discourse; or, Deviating from the Model Author(s): Robert D. Cottrell Reviewed work(s): Source: Modern Language Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Winter, 1991), pp. 16-21 Published by: Modern Language Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3195114 . Accessed: 04/03/2012 11:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Modern Language Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Modern Language Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

Porete's Heretical Discourse; or, Marguerite From Model The Deviating

D. Robert Cottrell in authorities thenorthern Around year1300,ecclesiastical the Le a entitled as condemned heretical work French ofValenciennes city en demourent et Mirouer simplesames anienties qui seulement des in it that be burned and ordered et vouloir desird'amour publicly the Porete.'For thenext the of Marguerite presence theauthor, Beguine her to severalyears,the Churchsought compelPoreteto renounce from viewsshehadexpressed herself and the convictions todisassociate to in Le Mirouer simples ames.She notonlyrefused do so, butin des of of her fact reaffirmed views.Attheinstigation thearchbishop Paris, to declined Porete the and shewas imprisoned tried. Throughout trial, and answer ofthequestions toher.Shewas condemned burned put any threat under TheChurch in on atthestake Paris June 1310. demanded, 1, No be that of excommunication, all copies of Le Mirouer destroyed. later three copyhas come down to us. However, manuscript original has havesurvived, one ofwhich everbeen made versions French only one availableFrench to In availableto scholars.2 addition this version, are there numerous which as closeas we can getto an original is text, as Latin fifteenth-century and Italianversions well as threeMiddle versions. English fromLe Porete'saccusersextracted At the timeof the trial, This a Mirouer listof propositions judgedto be heretical. listhas they can that scholars notcomedownto us. Modern however, they believe, the reconstruct listby readingwithcare one of the medievalLatin a In translations. 1491, RichardMethley, monk of Mount Grace Porete'sMirouerfrom translated in Charterhouse NorthYorkshire, These to into MiddleEnglish Latinand added lengthy glosses thetext. raisedin matters to thorny speakso specifically thedoctrinally glosses two the textthatEdmundColledge and RomanaGuarnieri, recent that on commentators Methley's havesuggested Methley well may text, condemnation.3 of him havehad before thearticles theParis clearlybelieved thatPoretewas a genuinemystic Methley each he In illuminated God andnota heretic. hisglosses, interpreted by inthis oftheobjectionable demonstrating waythat figuratively, passages to level literal topoint a heretical seematthe the eventhough words might that level at disclose thefigurative a meaning isinperfect they meaning, succeed in Whether accord withdoctrine. interpretations Methley's and intothe foldof of the from brink heresy the pulling textaway text of on of perception Porete's orthodoxy depends course eachreader's for Edmund and ofMethley's Colledgeand RomanaGuarnieri, glosses. correct. that are They example, notconvinced Poretewas doctrinally that of their conclude by glosses noting "ithasnotbeen study Methley's the to this in writing article, suppress opinionthat alwayspossible, of is the and did judgesoundly, that Mirror a work heresy, ... Methley not her skilledin concealing unof written a teacher falsedoctrine by
16

behind and orthodoxy ambiguity imprecision" out, (381-82). Theypoint that eminent scholars with and that however, many disagree them believe Porete a genuinely was inspired mystic. that at text, leaston theliteral Methley acknowledges Porete's of and doctrinal issues. level,raisesa number difficult controversial Porete for that has claims, instance, theFreedSoul(Ameenfranchie) no need ofScripture understandingorder attain full or in to to knowledge of God; thattheFreed Soul neither desires rejects Eucharist, nor the Massesorsermons, or that without fasting prayers; itsavesitself faith by thatis is in no dangerof sinning; thosewho love Christ's that works; no love His humanity; FreedSoulsconstitute that what divinity longer shecalls"Saincte la Grande" the which Eglise ("HolyChurch Great"), is distinct from "Saincte the that Eglisela Petite" ("HolyChurch Little"), is to say,theChurch an institution; thespiritual belonging as that elite to "HolyChurch Great" the haveno need of "HolyChurch Little" the sincethedogmaand ritual "HolyChurch Little" of the derive from "la doctrine hommes" des thanfrom rather Christ's doctrine; and,finally, thattheFreedSoul can have a constant vision thedivine of in nature this wouldsay"Holy life, present a belief opposedbytheChurch (Porete Church Little"), the which insisted has from earliest its the daysthat soul on earth haveonly can transient moments illumination.4 of that Methley's glossesdemonstrate the disputedpassages in textcan, forthe mostpart,be made doctrinally Porete's acceptable a fromthe timeof through figurative reading, practiceencouraged Ambrose Augustine.5 and that is Itwouldappear, then, what unorthodox inLe Mirouer notnecessarily is in inscribed themanifest content the of contested I Porete's text, suggest, haveseemedheretical passages. may notprimarily becauseit enunciates or that this but proposition, rather in itdeviates from what cancall we because, itsdiscursive performance, the"model" paradigmatic generated or text within Christian the mystical tradition. The term has T. "model" beenusedby Steven Katztodefine the normative schemaoperative the mystical in textsof any particular Katz recent commentators mysticism on religious community.6 andother have pointedout thatmystical are from all experiences no different in are and are experiences that they determined beliefs valuesthat by in to These mindprior themystical operative themystic's experience. beliefs valuesconstitute ontological that and the fixes grid expectations from outset the at the while, thesametime, circumscribing parameters of theexperience itself. Thatis to say,themystical is experience not somehow unmediated that in pure, undifferentiated, experience is then, itsretelling, fashioned a textual into The is performance. experience itself textual that discourses trace shaped previous by performances, verbal by thecontours within which experience the unfolds. The "model"producedin the Christian tradition is mystical marked two signifying the desireto by imagesthattranslate mystic's imitate Christ the the (Katz, 46-47). First, imageofChrist "Bridegroom," a metaphor is developed theSongofSongs, Paul'sepistles, that in in and in theApocalypse, wellas in theworkof Bernard, as who,morethan madetheconcept Christ Bridegroom of the anyother writer, central to
17

theChristian The mystical experience. secondsignifying imagein the is of an as "model" that thecrucified Christ, imagemystics introjected to in of is they yearned share Christ's suffering. Julian Norwich typical in this to she when, regard closely the"model," writes: adhering " I saw thered blood trickling downfrom undertheGarland suddenly hotandfreshly right and as of plenteously,itwereinthetime hisPassion whentheGarland thorns pressed hisblessedhead that of was on was bothGod and Man,thesamethat suffered for thus me."'7 do Rarely we in find theChristian traditionmystical that a text doesnotat somepoint focus attention thesuffering thehuman our on of on creature thecross, a suffering seek in ownflesh. mystics to experience their the the Neither image of Christ Bridegroom thatof the nor in crucified Christ are Thesetwoimages so central appears Le Mirouer. to the"model"thatby omitting themPorete's textasserts striking a the from christological to independence By paradigm. refusing organize itsperformance around these twoimages, text Porete's laysitself open to theaccusation recounting experience to many of an that has readers and still comments seemed-and,as Colledge's Guarnieri's indicate, does of seem-to falloutside parameters theChristian the experience. is inscribed feature theexperience of What, then, thedistinctive in Le Mirouer? answer this to on The maybe found thefirst question a is page of the text.Le Mirouer essentially debate betweentwo Reason Love,eachofwhom and that argues shealone allegorical figures, to wins can lead Soul,another figure, God. Love,ofcourse, allegorical "for Love is God, that out,declaring sheis God. "I am God,"shesays, in is and God is Love."' Preceding debateproper a prologue which the the of she Loverelates fable illustrates, suggests, mechanics human a that with that love and,by analogy, of love forGod. "Now listen humility that and fableof love as itis in theworld, understand divine to a little loveis similar."9 whoheard there a maiden was Onceupona time, fable the begins, him. in of that peoplespeakso highly KingAlexander shefell lovewith she seenhimand had no wayto approach Becauseshehad never him, to how was often to she herself, tried imagine unhappy. Seeking console he looked. "Then she had an image painted,which represented the of [representoit] likeness thekingshe loved,as close as she could of the topresenting wayshelovedhimandintheaffection thelove get with and of that taken bysurprise; bymeans this had her image, together himself ... songeale roy the herother she [elle practices, dreamed king mesmes.]"1o that Soulresponds saying she,too,hadheard peoplespeakso by him.Becausehe lived she of kingthat fellin love with highly a great her the sad. faraway,she,too,was often To console her, Belovedsent to text has is this book,that to say,thevery thereader juststarted read, of Thebookwe havebefore Soul be she so that might reminded him. us, wholovedAlexander Now themaiden is says, theimageoftheBeloved. not is which really at the himself" looking hisimage, "dreamed king by hisimageat all buttheimageof herlove forhim;theimageshehad In "thewayshelovedhim." thesame the had painted represented king the dreams sonofGod Himself looking the lovesChrist by way, Soulthat
18

that at His image, here presented as a text hasbeengenerated Love, by this who in factdeclares that wrote book,fashioning imageof she the her theBelovedinaccordwith ownneedsand desires." an By callingthe fable thatbegins the text'sperformance Porete underlines paradigmatic its "exemple,"i.e., an exemplum, function. wholeofLe Mirouer be readas a reflection The can of-and a reflexion meditation) thatis thetext's on-the paradigm (or primal the scene.The BelovedHimself remains invisible, beyond conresiding fines thetext, of which the represents metonymically worldof matter. to that his the Only theextent theLoverrecalls Beloved seeing image, by which herself had painted had to of she according thedictates herown can Eventhen ispresent, intheworld he not desire, he becomepresent. of the"letter" Corinthians butonlyin theheart that, loving (II 3.6), by him.Relating experience a Christ the of whois theprohim, produces of outside heart the that jection herownloveand whohasno existence in Christ thetwoimages to refuses represent that Him,Porete generates characterize "model"text(Christ Bridegroom Christ the the and the His of His crucified both which body), foreground humanity, physicality, His fleshiness. in to Christ His creatureliness, Porete By declining figure rejects whatSarahBeckwith recently has calledthemost of distinctive feature in female "Fromthe writes: mysticism thelateMiddleAges.Beckwith thirteenththefifteenth to it centuries was women whoweremore likely to be mystics thanmen,and it was womenwho encouraged and the distinctive of propagated most aspects latemedieval piety-devotion to the humanChrist lover,husbandand infant, as to devotion the in Eucharist a form piety of which insists thephysical a legitimate on as meansof accessto thespiritual."'2 Walker too, Carolyn Bynum, in her bookJesus Mother: as in Studies theSpiritualitythe of HighMiddle Ages, notesthat particular of religious a kind arosein theperiodfrom, piety the to centuries that was more and it roughly, thirteenth thefifteenth common to Central thisexperience the is amongwomenthanmen.'3 of and to figure thesuffering humiliated Christ, who,by submittingthe will of the Father-or,to say thesame thing another in register, by to patriarchal discourse-offers His body as thesiteon submitting up which desire, power,of theOther projected. thefemale the the is For Christ's inscribed His body as specular, on mystic, subjection, public, the of corporalpain, represented subjection her own body under As vastliterature courtly amply of love the patriarchy. the demonstrates, female wasconsistently intheMiddle as theobject body presented Ages of themasculine the locus gaze,thesiteof masculine desire, privileged ofmasculine as herself patriarchial power.The female mystic, defining discourse taught to define had her that of herself, is to say,in terms of creatureliness,willing of to saw carnality, subjection theOther, her ownimageinthetortured debasedflesh thecross. and on Thereis a heavyideological in investment theidentification of womenwithcarnality, withthe objectified, visiblebody, withthe
debased matterof the flesh,withsubmission. R. Marguerite Miles has observed that medieval patriarchalsociety tended to link physical existence with women, and subjective consciousness with men.'4 19

Patriarchal discourse of In consciousness. privileged, course, subjective in in or, society, to saythesamething a Lacanian register, theworldof theSymbolic, whichis shapedby patriarchal the and discourse, flesh women were marginalized. identifying with the consequently By crucified of submitted the Fatherand to figure Him who willingly allowedHis bodytobecomethesiteofspectacular, humiliation, public femalemystics embracedthe veryorderthatassuredthe jubilantly orsubjection, women. of marginalization, to Porete declines embrace order. refuses portray that She to the femaleself as Christ's bride. Nor does she experience Christby with form withtheChrist who identifying thesuffering on thecross, and The withwhomshe is figures physicality creatureliness. Christ to a from of is her "oned," borrow phrase Julian Norwich,15 theChrist ownlovehasproduced. hertext, In Porete traces Christ's out that image, is to say,theimageofherloveforHim,interms whoselogicis that of She consciousness. presents female notas a passive the self subjective that consciousness shapes objectoftheOther's gaze butas a subjective in and controls vision accordwith demands herowndesire. her of the that the mandate consigns to women fleshiness, Invalidating patriarchal Poretedisregards bar of gender and inserts female in the the the self of and In she registers subjectivity power. short, appropriates patriarchal discourse. Now patriarchal is discourse the linguistic of representation a socialorderthatguarantees and masculine supremacy dominance. By of the self and Porete inserting female inthe registers subjectivity power, in calls question social a order which female inscribed the is implicitly into as whatis seenand themaleas theeye (I) that sees,theeye (I) that, from position preeminence, a of "commands" whatfalls within gaze. its of The male clerics, who judgedand discourse, guardians patriarchal in condemned Porete heresy hertext. saw Theyweresurely right. Right, in with not necessarily the sense thather textcannotbe reconciled it in the that can. Right, however, doctrine; Methley's reading suggests of the sensethatby usurping prerogatives patriarchal discourse, by in of from "model," the Porete factsubverts socialorder the deviating that is which discourse a sign. The OhioStateUniversity NOTES
in del 1. On Porete,see RomanaGuarnieri, Movimento liberospirito, II e 4 italiano la storiadella pietd, (Rome: Edizionidi storia Archivio per of book is devotedto a study the letteratura, 1965).PartI of Guarnieri's of is Part movement. II (pp. 513-635) an edition theearliest Free Spirit Women Writers of work.See also PeterDronke, version Porete's French Press,1984); of the Middle Ages (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity in Heretic "The French Porete," Marguerite Beguine: Gwendolyn Bryant, of M. ed. Women Medieval University Writers, Katharina Wilson (Athens: Le des Porete: miroir acmes Press, Marguerite 1984),pp. 204-226; Georgia Albin trans. ed. MaxHuotde Longchamp and et (Paris: simples andanties, des "'Le ames'andthe G. Michel, 1984);Michael Sargent, Mirouer simples im in ed. Tradition," Abendlindische Mystik Mittelalter, Mystical English 20

KurtRuh (Stuttgart, B. Metzlersche, 1986),pp. 443-65;RobertD. Cottrell, J. "MargueritePorete's Le Mirouer des simples ames and the Problematics of the Written Word," in Medieval Perspectives,vol. 1, no. 1, ed. Pedro Medieval F. Campa, Charles W. Connell, Robert J. Vallier (Southeastern Association, SEMA XI Proceedings, 1987), pp. 151-58. For additional on de commentson Porete,especiallyon herinfluence Marguerite Navarre, de see JeanDagens, "Le Mirouerdes simplesames et Marguerite Navarre," de in La Mystiquerhinane (Paris: Pressesuniversitaires France, 1963), pp. 281-89. 2. The manuscript versionon whichmoderneditionsare based is intheMus(e Conde at Chantilly.Accordingto Sargent,duringthe seventeenth century another manuscriptcopy was sent from Bourges to the Bibliothbque Nationale in Paris. All tracesof thismanuscript have disappeared. Sargent that notesfurther an unnamedFrench-speaking community contemplative of livingoutsideFrance possesses a fourteenth-century manuscript Porete's is not text.This community said to wish thatits identity be revealed and thatthe manuscript remainunexaminedby scholars. 3. The translator the Middle English version of Porete's text identified of in "M. N." Scholarsare not certain himself his prologue onlyby his initials, who M. N. was. For a moderneditionof M. N.'s translation, Marguerite see Porete,The Mirror Simple Souls,ed. Marilyn Dorion,inArchivioitaliano of 1986), per la storia della pietd,5 (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, is pp. 243-355.In thisedition,M. N.'s translation followed by Colledge's and Guarnieri'sstudyof the glosses by M. N. and Methley:"The Glosses of 'M. N.' and Richard Methleyto 'The Mirror Simple Souls,"' pp. 357of 4. Colledge and Guarnieri, p. 372, discuss Porete statementsthat were probably considered heretical. 5. For a listof worksthatdeal withAugustinian hermeneutics and figurative reading, see Robert D. Cottrell,The Grammarof Silence: A Reading of Marguerite de Navarre's Poetry (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic of University AmericaPress, 1986), pp. 12-15. 6. "The 'Conservative'Characterof MysticalExperience,"in Mysticism and Religious Traditions,ed. Steven T. Katz (New York: Oxford University Press,1983), pp. 3-60. 7. Revelations of Divine Love, ed. Dom Roger Hudleston (London: Burns Oates, 1952), p. 7. 8. "Je suis Dieu, dit Amour,car Amourest Dieu, et Dieu est amour," p. 541. All citations are from Guarnieri'sedition of Le Mirouer. The English translations my own. are 9. "Or entendez par humiliteung petit exemple de l'amour du monde, et de I'entendezaussi pareillement la divine amour,"p. 521. 10. "Adonc fistelle paindre ung ymage qui representoit semblance du roy la qu'elle amoit,au plus pres qu'elle peut de la presentaciondont elle l'amoit et en I'affection l'amour dont elle estoitsourprinse; par le moyen de de et ceste ymage avec ses autresusages songa le roymesmes,"p. 521. 12. "A VeryMaterialMysticism: The Medieval Mysticism Margery of Kempe," Sussex: HarvesterPress,1986), p. 36. (Brighton,

82.

11. Le Mirouer, 522. p.

in MedievalLiterature: ed. Criticism, Ideologyand History, David Aers

of (Berkeley:University CaliforniaPress,1982), p. 172.

13. Jesusas Mother:Studiesin the Spirituality the High Middle Ages of 14. Imageas Insight: VisualUnderstandingWestern in and Christianity Secular 15. Revelations DivineLove,p. 36. of
Culture (Boston: Beacon Press,1985), esp. ch. 4.

21