Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Christ's Nakedness and Bridget's Motherhood

For this post, I am going to take Professor Fulton Brown’s bait and write about the importance or lack thereof of St. Bridget’s experience as a mother in her Revelations. It seems clear to me that her experience as a laywoman and a mother is a contributing factor in some of what makes her Revelations unique. Her nativity scene seemed unique to me not because of its tenderness but because of its detail and physicality. Her description of the birth of Jesus is extremely vivid. She describes practical and physical details of birth that seem unlikely to come from anyone without firsthand experience of a birth. Joseph prepares necessities like a lighted torch. Joseph leaves the scene and Mary undresses to her tunic. Bridget describes the cloths Mary had brought with her in which to wrap the child (25). It seems that many or most other authors do not think to include such details, and it stands to reason that Bridget’s familiarity with the process of giving birth partially explains this choice on her part.

Most remarkably, she includes a very physical description of the baby—“I immediately beheld that glorious Babe lying naked and most pure on the ground, His flesh most clean from all filth or impurity….” (26). What struck me about this was that the account did not skim over the immediate aftermath of the birth. Bridget describes every moment, from when Mary is still pregnant to the parents and the shepherds adoring the child. This includes vivid descriptions all the intermediate moments of this story that are often glossed over: the time between when Jesus is born and when Mary picks him up as he lays naked on the ground and his mother kneels in her tunic, the time between when Mary picks him up and when he is wrapped in cloths as she clasps his newborn naked body to her heart (26). Bridget also points out the comparison between Mary’s painless birth and the experience of other women that usually causes them to “lose color or strength” after giving birth (27). Once again, other authors with less experience of motherhood might have been able to imagine such details, but the inclusion of them in her account still seems to set Bridget apart. Her experience of motherhood probably was a significant factor in her concern with these details.

However, the fact that her experience may have prompted her to consider these details does not negate the other reasons she may have wanted to include them. So what do they do in her narrative and how do they interplay with her other authorial concerns? I would suggest they do two things. Firstly, staying with the nativity scene, they serve to simultaneously humanize Jesus and Mary in some ways and glorify them in others. The physicality of the description of the birth emphasizes their humanity, especially Jesus’s. The inclusion of mundane details such as the need for a torch makes them relatable. At the same time, though, the inclusion of those very details also highlights the absence of other details that would normally be present in a human birth—the fluids, the sweating mother, the umbilical cord. Her narrative depiction of the nativity emphasizes the fact that Jesus “was born as I tell thee and thou hast seen” and not “in the usual way” as some would have it (28). Bridget uses minute details and vivid descriptions to emphasize both the human aspects of Mary and Jesus and the divine or supernatural.

Another aspect of Bridget’s description of the nativity comes out when one compares it with her descriptions of the passion. While Bridget’s descriptions of the passion are similar to other descriptions in their physicality and gruesomeness, it seemed to me that their connection with the physicality of Bridget’s description of the nativity produced a new emphasis and an unusually holistic view of the Christian story. At a few points, Bridget emphasizes “the shame of His nakedness” during the torments before the crucifixion (43). Bridget even explicitly connects this to Jesus’s nakedness at birth (which she describes more vividly than many authors), saying “while my Son stood as naked as when He was born, one, running up, handed Him a cloth with which, exulting inwardly, he covered Him,” (45). This connection and similarity (or identity) in the physicality of Christ’s naked body emphasizes the already great contrast between the scenes of the nativity and the passion because the meaning of his nakedness is so different in the two contexts. At the nativity Jesus’s naked body is “most pure,” the natural and human state of a newborn infant. The emphasis on nakedness in the passion as well emphasizes how this scene is the polar opposite of the glorious birth—how else could the very same nakedness come to represent the height of humiliation?

Simultaneously, though, the emphasis on Christ’s physicality (both nakedness and more generally) throughout much of Bridget’s narrative also functions to connect both of these scenes in a larger Christian narrative. The idea that at his passion Jesus was “as naked as when He was born” emphasizes that this is the same human body that we have been learning about throughout Bridget’s account. One would be unlikely to forget this, since Bridget’s continual use of very physical and human imagery for Mary and especially Jesus throughout the narrative similarly serves to continually remind the reader of the humanity of these characters and the temporal and physical continuity of their lives through their bodies. The way Christ’s physicality functions in Bridget’s narrative in the comparison between the nativity and the passion is similar to the way it functions within the nativity itself. In both cases, it serves simultaneously to emphasize the humanity of Jesus through his physicality while also emphasizing the unexpected, paradoxical, or godly aspects of the story (in the nativity, the lack of pain in the birth; in the passion, the humiliation of God itself). It also connects both scenes to the overall arc of the story through the continuity of the physical bodies.

It seems to me that Bridget’s experience as a mother comes out in her writing and, in a sense, she capitalizes on it. This does not explain away her individuality as an author and religious person with particular theological concerns and interests. Rather, she uses her knowledge and understanding as a mother to describe Mary’s experience in a way that resonates with her own interests, concerns, and ideas regarding the humanity of Mary and Christ. Her identity as a mother makes her unique among these authors but does not prevent her from also being unique in other ways.

ELM

7 comments:

  1. You do an excellent job pinpointing the details of Bridget's nativity description that would seem to reflect her experience of motherhood. Yet what struck me about Bridget's vision of the nativity as I was reading your post were the elements of birth-giving that are conspicuously absent from the account. The labor, the blood, the afterbirth. The elements that make giving birth a harrowing experience, that Bridget went through *eight* times. These details are missing, which suggests to me that Bridget is not really describing from her experience of birth--or at least, she's not following it that closely and it's far from her focus.

    On the other hand, there are clear theological motivations for her description of a miraculous, painless birth and a perfectly clean infant. And as I considered these theological motivations, and considered Mary, in "white mantle and tunic," laying out cloth, facing east, and raising her arms in prayer, the image that came to mind was of a priest consecrating the Host. I wonder if Bridget's vision of the nativity couldn't be read as a Eucharistic moment, as Mary presents the divine in human flesh to the world for the first time.

    R.C.H.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, that idea about the Eucharist in that scene is really really interesting. I will definitely have to think about that more.

      As for the absence of labor pains, etc., I totally agree that Bridget leaves out many details that would have been present in her own experience which is, as you point out, because she is trying to describe a miraculous event and not a normal human birth. I guess what I was thinking was that the fact that the rest of her description is so detailed and physical draws more attention to the absence of these details than would a less detailed account. The way Bridget sees this miracle, one of the miraculous parts is that Jesus is not born normally--Bridget does not see exactly how he leaves Mary's body because the event is obscured by the miraculous glory and light, but however it happens, it seems like he is one moment inside of her and the next moment on the ground. In Bridget's detailed moment-to-moment description (assisted by her understanding of the normal birthing process) this strange miracle really stands out whereas in less detailed descriptions like Mechthild's or others, it isn't highlighted as much because there are many details that are not included, not only those of the labor. That is what I was trying to get at--that Bridget does focus on the details and draws on her experience, which highlights the absence of those details of a normal birth that make the event miraculous.

      ELM

      Delete
  2. A provocative post! I agree with RCH: I find it extremely odd how much Birgitta leaves out of her description of the birth, particularly given how much she puts into her description of the torture and death. Given the latter, it is difficult to say that she was squeamish about blood or pain, so why gloss over the blood and pain of childbirth in this way? Of course, she is writing (if we assume, for the sake of argument, that she, not Mary is the author of her visions) in a tradition that insists Mary experienced none of the things that other mothers do in giving birth, but doesn't this make it all the stranger that a woman who had given birth should not make more of the contrast simply so as to make her point? I think, in fact, that this is where you are going with your argument, in suggesting that she does go further in providing the kinds of details that someone who had given birth herself would give, but what strikes me is still how restrained her depiction of the event is, particularly in comparison with the suffering that she details for both Mary and Christ at his passion. It is an aspect of the tradition that I myself have been struggling with: why, if Mary suffered SO MUCH at the crucifixion, was it theologically (and, therefore, devotionally) necessary for her to suffer SO LITTLE in giving birth? Because it would detract from Christ's "birth pangs" in giving birth to the Church (a common image in the period)? I don't know. Suggestions welcome!

    RLFB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reason Mary did not suffer during the birth of Christ was because she needed to preserve her Virginal integrity. Eve was told in Genesis: "In sorrow shall thout forth bring children." Mary, as we know, is the new Eve and in order to rightfully preserve her virginity and give birth to Christ as the new Eve, she NEEDED to give birth to Christ in a way that is completely unnatural, that is, without pain. If Eve were to have given birth before contracting original sin as a result of eating from the wrong tree, the birth would not have been painful. This is also supports why Mary was born without original sin. With original sin, Mary could not give birth without pain, and thus if she gave birth in pain, she would have tampered her virginity. Regarding the crucifixion: it had no affect on Mary's virginity in any way, thus she suffered as every other human being would. Another thought (though I am not sure of this one Theologically) is the idea of Christ's Passion and its effects occurring at its rightful time. Christ said repeatedly: "My hour has not yet come" before his Passion. Perhaps this point supports Mary's clean birth as well because of the idea that any sort of suffering surrounding Jesus was not yet meant to occur until his Passion began.

      - AM

      Delete
  3. P.S. Very nicely observed on the significance of Christ's nakedness.

    RLFB

    ReplyDelete
  4. ELM: Great drawing out of the different meanings and effects of the physicality of Jesus in Bridget–both as representation of the tone of situations like the birth or the Passion (His nakedness), and as continued arguments for Christ’s humanity. I think this is a very solid post linking important themes in Bridget’s writing.

    Among the many interesting threads that your post brings up is the relationship between personal experience and vision or revelation. That is, if Bridget brings her experience of childbirth to her revelations, and “other authors with less experience of motherhood *might* have been able to *imagine* such details” only (emphases mine), we are presented with an interesting triad of lived events, personal imagination, and revelation. It is one with which I am comfortable. But, when in your conclusion you mention Bridget’s motherhood, “individuality as an author and as a religious person with particular theological concerns and interests,” I wondered if Bridget or others might chime in that these were also “revelations” (that is, *given* to her). As mentioned, I do not think these are mutually exclusive, but your post allows us to think about how they might work together in the kinds of visions in this week’s readings.
    ~TA

    ReplyDelete
  5. I just want to respond to both ELM’s post and comments on this post.

    First, in response to Zach’s above post, I wonder what the relationship between interpretation and revelation is in Bridget’s work. Even if she was ‘given’ the visions, would she still feel comfortable with a conclusion that her experience in labor and as a mother colored her descriptions?

    Second, I asked that same as Professor Fulton Brown as to why Mary suffers at the death and not the birth of Christ in Bridget’s meditation. I appreciated AM’s point that as the New Eve and in the absence of original sin, Mary would not experience birth pangs.
    ELM pointed out that Bridget visualizes Mary’s painless childbirth though includes details that others who have not experience birth ‘might’ not have. It has already been pointed out that this disconnection leaves space for meditation for Bridget on Christ’s sinless at birth. Bridget then contemplates a painless childbirth in order to contemplate Mary’s experience with the divine. Ok. Though it does remain a question, if this was her aim, why she did not outline the sufferings that women have in labor that Mary did not experience.

    However, though she has experience childbirth, Bridget has not witnessed her child die on the cross. Maybe then, her contemplation of Christ’s death and Mary’s suffering at his death needs to be more graphic because she needs the details of their pain in order to understand?

    ReplyDelete