Interesting to see that Margery Kempe is still annoying
people in her afterlife. I've been visiting sites
connected with her recently, and compared to say, Julian
of Norwich, there's a certain anxiety about how best to
remember her, analogous to the kind of anxiety she
describes in the Book. As to whether she's a mystic:
according to a good deal of modern scholarship she is, in
the sense that if you look in the index of a book called
something like Medieval English Mystics, she'll be there.
I suppose different criteria and disciplinary affiliations
are producing different canons of mystics. Personally, I
am delighted that the book has survived.
Sarah Salih
On Sat, 4 Dec 1999 20:34:18 -0000 John A W Lock
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> how did he work that out wrt Margery Kempe? Surely she's the definitive
> hysteric? I always thought that the lesson to be learnt from MK was that
> fate is not always kind to historians in what it preserves. I once visited
> the National Portrait Gallery in London and it was infested with children on
> educational visits filling in the little questionnaires, It struck me that
> it was perfectly possible than in 400 years time the only surviving
> reference to the NPG would be one of these forms and it would either be
> blank or filled out incorrectly. MK is the fifteenth century equivalent.
> Sadly her account contains more than one sheet of paper and it isn't blank.
>
> regards
>
>
> John A.W. Lock
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steve Fanning <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 4:14 PM
> Subject: Re: Reading list
>
>
> > Thomas Merton explained why in his book Mystics and Zen Masters.
> >
> > Steve Fanning
> >
> > At 12:59 PM 12/4/99 +0000, you wrote:
> >
> > >And why would anyone think that Margery Kempe was a mystic? Or, for
> > >that matter, Richard Rolle?
> >
> >
> >
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|