VIII or XIII?

We know so little about Julian that we don't even know the date of her showings. Can it get any more mystical?

Julian of Norwich is one of the great mystics of the Christian tradition — or any tradition. Her lyrical, poetic prose functions as an extended love letter to the Spirit whom she encounters as infinite, vast, unlimited, all-pervasive love. Julian is so in love with Love that she doesn’t bother to tell us very much about herself. We don’t know her real name (“Julian of Norwich” is actually the name of her church, dedicated to an obscure French bishop), her date of birth or death, and even the date of her mystical “showings” (visions) is up for grabs. We don’t have the original text of Julian’s, written in her own hand; we just have a small number of manuscript copies that were copies of copies, the ones still in existence having been copied a century or more after Julian’s lifetime.

Like all handwritten manuscripts, there are minor errors/discrepancies that crop up between the different manuscripts. Take for example Julian’s comment on the date of her showings. One manuscript that is now housed in a library in Paris says:

This revelation was made to a simple unlettered creature living in deadly flesh, the year of our Lord a thousand and three hundred and lxxiii, the xiii day of May.

In today’s English that would read: “This revelation was made to a simple, unlearned creature, living in mortal flesh A.D. 1373, on the 13th of May.”

But compare that to another early manuscript of Julian’s, now in the collection of the British library:

These revelations were shown to a simple creature that could (write) no letter, the year of our Lord 1373 the viiith day of May.

Again, in today’s English: “These revelations were shown to a simple, illiterate creature on May 8th, 1373.”

So when did Julian receive her showings: May 8, or May 13?

The discrepancy makes sense when we consider how the dates were written using Roman numbers: May viii (8) or May xiii (13). A scribe somewhere along the way changed an x to a v (or vice versa), giving his copy (and copies made from it) an erroneous date.

What are we to make of this?

For me, it’s a reminder that history is filled with mysteries, even something as mundane as getting a date right. Mysticism is about “big” mysteries like the mystery of God, the mystery of eternal life, the mystery of spiritual experiences. But Julian reminds us that even humble mysteries can show up in the spiritual life.

It’s been said, “Don’t sweat the small stuff (and it’s all small stuff).” The mystery of Julian’s day is a reminder that we can get lost when we’re caught up in getting all the little details just right. I’m all for solid scholarship, keeping careful records, that sort of thing. But Julian’s manuscripts remind us that there’s some things that are more important than just getting all our historical ducks in a row.

God made us, God loves us, God keeps us. All shall we bell. The fullness of joy is the behold God in all. These are the things that matter to Julian, and are the kinds of teachings that make mysticism “real.” Let’s keep our eyes on wisdom like this. And we can worry about the difference between viii and xiii when we get to heaven.

Images of Julian’s manuscripts come from the book Julian of Norwich: Showing of Love, Extant Texts and Translation, edited by Sr. Anna Maria Reynolds CP and Julia Bolton Holloway. Published by SISMEL Edizioni del Galluzzo in Italy.