63 of 63 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Wonderful Revelation, May 4, 2001
This review is from: Revelation of Love (Paperback)
If you have never read Julian of Norwich before, this is the place to start. If you've read other editions, I think you'll like this translation.
Julian of Norwich wrote her revelations in Middle English, and is perhaps the first woman ever to write a book in the English language. Because Middle English is fairly accessible, what is needed is not so much a translation as a re-casting into modern English. John Skinner does a masterful job of retaining Julian's voice and brings many of her terms over into modern English. Rather than supply the Latinized "union with God" (or even more abstract sounding "divine union") he keeps Julian's own words "our oneing with God," as he does with words such as "again-making" and "dear-worthy" giving a strong sense of actually hearing Julian's own voice.
And what a lovely voice it is. Her language is, as she would say, "homely and courteous," simple yet refined and elegant. Her mind is clear, honest, intelligent, and wise. Although she is often termed a "visionary," the visions that she spent her life pondering happened in a single day. In fact, what she experienced is what modern people would call a "near-death experience." As she lay in a state somewhere between life and death, she saw a series of visions, beginning with an image of Jesus dying slowly on the cross. In my first approach to her writings, I was somewhat put off by the Medieval-ness of what she saw. But, like Julian herself, I needed to press through the first impression, and seek for the meaning that she drew from what she saw.
What most endears Julian to me is that she thinks. First of all, she admits that after regaining normal consciousness, she said of her visions, "I raved," meaning that she dismissed what she had seen as merely delirium. But in some manner the visions were repeated, and she realized that she was in danger of dismissing a spiritual experience of great depth and meaning. Julian then reflected on the meaning of what she had seen for the rest of her life. These "showings" became the basis for continuing spiritual insight, as she wrestled with the symbolism, the conflict they presented to accepted doctrine, and the need to understand what she had experienced so vividly.
Julian goes back to God again and again, asking questions, asking for understanding, wanting "with all her might" as she says, to know the truth. And God most courteously deepens her understanding. But not everything can be known or said.
Her parable of the lord and the servant opens up a view of Original Sin that turns that doctrine from a stumbling block to a source of comfort. She also sees the Trinity as ultimately including "all who will be saved," which is her way of saying (without quite saying) all of humanity.
It is fascinating to see Julians's mind and spirit deal with the fact that when she was face to face with God, she could not see the existence of sin. She debates within herself, and with God, asking, Is it not a fact that we are all sinners? The church teaches it and experience proves it. She feels torn between what she believes, and what God now showed her. And with all her mind and all her spirit, she seeks a way to reconcile the conflict. In the end, she comes to a view of sin that, if we could all catch her vision, would be the means of making all things well, as God promised her.
God's love for humanity pervades Julian's thought and her very words seem to me to be full of light and grace.
Skinner uses footnotes sparingly, although some of the footnotes he does include are cryptic and confusing. His glossary is very helpful in understanding Julian's language and thought. But in one key term, there is, I believe a punctuation mistake which alters the meaning that I think the translator intends: "sensuality: the sinful side of kind, that is, being transformed by the workings of mercy and grace." If we remove the two commas, the definition makes more sense. But I question whether Julian sees our "sensuality" (our sense-knowledge of ourselves, I think she means) as the sinful side of our nature (kind = nature, as in mankind.) Sensual knowledge is inadequate, true; but to read "sinful" into it, after all she has said about God not seeing sin in us, strikes me as wrong. This term "sensuality" is significant in understanding her work, so I would ask other readers to consider for yourself what she means by it.
But I cannot end this review on a negative note, so I will end by quoting her own conclusion:
"I often desired to know our Lord's meaning (in giving me these showings. ) And fifteen years and more after, I was answered in spiritual understanding, with this saying: 'Would you know your Lord's meaning in this thing? Know it well:love was his meaning. Who showed you? Love. What did he show you? Love. Wherefore did he show it you? For love. Hold yourself therein and you shall know and learn more in the same; but you will never know nor learn another thing therein without end.' Thus was I taught that love was our Lord's meaning. And I saw full surely in this and in all that before God made us he loved us; which love was never slaked, nor never shall be."
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
