Jon,
Thanks for your response, but I respectfully disagree with you. Geoffrey
condemned Robert especially for sleeping with certain female followers:
"inter ipsas noctu frequenter cubare non erubescis. Hinc tibi videris, ut
asseris, Domini Salvatoris digne bajulare crucem, cum exstinguere conaris
male accensum carnis adorem. Hoc si modo agis, vel aliquando egisti, novum
et inauditum, sed infructuousum genus martyrii invenisti." (Certain Irish
saints are reputed to have practiced such extreme forms of syneisaktism as
well.) I am not suggesting that Herve and Eve carried their practice to
this extreme, this 'new and unheard of, but barren type of marytrdom', but I
prefer not to conclude that they necessarily lived in separate cells.
Hilary does acknowledge that Eve and Herve's relationship could easily give
rise to scandal: "I feel that you are troubled, you who hear such talk.
Brother, avoid all suspicious thought, let this not be the cause. Such love
was not in the world but in Christ."
Christina's cell, adjacent to Roger's, was not a standard set-up. It had no
communicating window, grilled or otherwise. Roger placed a log over the
door (the only opening) to her tiny cell, which he would remove each night
to let her out to tend to her basic necessities and to join him at prayer.
Christina's biographer states clearly that they were at each other's side
during their prayers, and "Nulla dies preteriit, quo non illam ob hoc in
oratorium suum conduxit" (Talbot, 106). I feel that if they had done all
this without so much as a glance in each other's direction, her biographer
would have told us so. Since he does not, and considering the relative
freedom in the interaction between men and women that the author describes
(he himself dined with Christina and her female companions), I think it
unlikely that the two saw each other only once. Granted Roger had intended
never to look at Christina when he agreed to help her, but that resolution
didn't survive even the first day of her presence. Here the author says
that while Christina was prostrate in prayer, Roger stepped over her "averso
vultu ne videret eam" (100). He then looked back, she looked up, and ecce!
spiritual love at first sight. Since the author specifically mentions
Roger's original intention to avoid looking at her, and his initial attempt
to do so 'averso vultu', but never again refers to such an effort, either
failed or successful, I find it improbable that their first gaze was their last.
Most of the evidence for syneisaktism arises from those hostile to the
practice (one of my favorite sources is Bernard of Clairvaux's Sermo 65),
which makes the information we have about Eve of Wilton and Christina of
Markyate all the more valuable. And thanks very much for the additional
references. This topic fascinates me, and I'm always eager to learn more
about it.
Slan,
Maeve
At 11:58 AM 4/3/97 GMT0BST, you wrote:
>Maeve,
>
>I based my conclusion that Eve and Herve lived in separate cells on
>Geoffrey's praise for their way of life and his condemnation of
>Robert's clearly syneisatistic way of life with his followers. It
>would have created incredible scandal if they had shared a cell --
>and if they had shared a cell and remained celibate, we would have
>been told about this great miracle by Geoffrey, Hilary, or somebody.
>
>On Roger seeing Christina only once, I am dependant on Fr Jean; you
>suggest that "it is improbable that Roger avoided looking at her (or
>Christina at him) in the intimate interaction described by the
>author, and, if he did, the author would most likely mention it as
>further testament to his discipline." Assuming they had separate,
>adjoining, cells with a communicationg window, I believe that that
>window would have been heavily grilled, as at Fontevrault,
>Sempringham, and many pre-Vatican II nunneries, which would allow
>Roger to speak with, but not see, Christina (and Herve, Eve).
>
>I agree with you that Eve and Hervey's relationship, and Christina's
>with Roger, are good examples of medieval syneisaktism. For some
>others, see Jaqueline Smith's "Procurator mulierum" in Rosalind
>Hill's festschrift. Dominique Iogna-Prat (sp?) has written about this
>as well; I don't have the exact reference to hand, but it is cited by
>Smith (and I have a copy at home which I could send you if -- like us -
>- your ILL allowance is rationed like wartime petrol...).
>
>tot straks,
>
>j
>
>
> JON PORTER
>Department of History
>University of Nottingham
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|