Julian's Audacious Reticence: Perichoresis and the Showings

Julian's reticence before the profundity of her vision sets the tone for the remainder of her reflections on this parable. She admits to being unable to understand it fully at the time of receiving it, in no small part because even though she realizes the servant represents Adam, there were many aspects of the vision that did not relate to Adam alone. Julian's comfort comes from the insight she does receive, but she recognizes that the "mysty example of pryvytes [secrets] of the revelacyon" remained, and perhaps yet remain, "moch hyd." Indeed, as she insists, "every shewying is full of pryvytes."36 Eventually however-"twenty yere after the tyme of the shewyng save thre monyths"-Julian receives "techyng inwardly" regarding the vision. Adam, she discovers, represents all humanity, not just one person, "For in the syghte of God alle man is oone man, and oone man is alle man."37 In fact, the servant is to he understood as Christ as well. It is important to note, however, that Julian does not construct a linear allegory in which the servant is to be replaced by Adam who is subsequently replaced by Christ. Rather, the unity of meaning is dialogic, mutually responsive, even circulatory:

In the servant is comprehended the Seconde Person of the Trynyte, and in the servaunt is comprehendyd Adam, that is to sey, all men. And, therfore, whan I sey the Sonne, it menyth the Godhed, which is evyn with the Fader. And whan I sey the servaunt, it nienyth Crystes manhode, whych is ryghtfull Adam. By the nerehede of the servaunt [to the lord in the initial vision] is understand the Sonne, and by the stondyng of the lyft side is understond Adam. The lorde is God the Father, the servant is the Sonne Jesu Cryst, the Holy Gost is the evyn love whych is in them both.

When Adam felle, Godes Sonne fell. For the ryght onyng whych was made in hevyn, Goddys Sonne myght nott be separath from Adam, for by Adam I understand alle man.38

As many critics have noted, Julian's story functions as a distinctive and perhaps deliberately anti-Angustinian exegesis of Genesis 3, one that responds to the persistent dualism of dominant medieval interpretations of the Fall. Sandra McEntire reminds us, "It is instructive that she never mentions Eve or her role in the Fall, nor does she assign blame to either party. . . . The post-lapsarian Adam has a dual identity of substance and sensuality. And in the new Adam, the sensuality is redeemed."39

On the one hand, Julian continues to view the experience of revelation as a starting rather than an ending point, and theological reflection, speculation, and insight seem to he always provisional: "Also in thys merveylous example I have techyng with in me, as it were the begynnyng of an A B C, wher by I may have some understondyng of oure Lordys menyng."40 On the other hand, Julian does not refrain from probing for deeper understanding and insight, often with a startling confidence. We might consider her explanation of the ontological and substantial union of God and human beings, triggered by the lord/servant parable discussed above: