While
reflecting on Monday’s discussion of Hildegard’s Scivias, I became interested in exploring my classmates’ questions concerning
whether we can believe Hildegard and her claims that she had the visions described
in Scivias. Specifically, I am
interested in the fact that questioning her validity is deeply connected to
whether or not the Bible itself can be deemed reliable. I’ll be honest, before
our class discussion, I hadn’t considered the possibility that questioning
Hildegard’s authority and truthfulness had any connection to questioning the
visions and descriptions in the Bible. For me, I initially attributed Hildegard’s
work to being part of a larger tradition of authors claiming to have spoken to or
seen God, and that divine communication subsequently serving as their
inspiration and source for their written works (examples: epic poets speaking
to the muses, dream visions, and Milton later in the 17th century). And
as someone who was raised Catholic, but now self-identifies as a non-believer
of Christianity, I was fascinated with the implication that not believing
Hildegard’s accounts of her visions could bring into question the believability
of the Bible. In order to explore the connection between Hildegard’s Scivias and scripture, I want to center
this blog on comparing Hildegard’s revelations to the Revelation found in the
Bible.
It
seems appropriate to begin with the Bible’s Revelation that is attributed to
St. John, and how he describes his vision of God in Revelation 1. He claims
that he hears a voice speaking to him, and as he turns to see the source of the
voice he sees “seven golden candlesticks” and an individual that he likens to “the
Son of man” wearing clothing down to his feet with white hair and eyes that “were
as a flame of fire” (Revelation, 1:13-14, Douay Rheims Ver.). The speaker of
Revelation provides a confident and firm description of their vision, and does
not struggle to give an account of what they claim to have witnessed. The
speaker’s vision does not appear to be obscured in any way, and instead, they
can clearly see the image of a man they believe to be “the Son of man.”
However, a sense of uncertainty can be found in the fact that the speaker initially
refers to the individual they see as “one like to the Son of man,” which may
suggest they were not entirely sure that the image they saw was Jesus Christ
until the figure says, “Fear not. I am the First and the Last” (Revelation,
1:17, Douay Rheims Ver.). Even though the speaker falls at the figure’s feet in
an act of devotion and worship, they cannot refer to the image as Jesus Christ
until they recount that the figure claims to be the Son of God.
For
me, it is also important to acknowledge that Jesus Christ instructs the speaker
to “Write therefore the things which thou hast seen, and which must be done
hereafter” after claiming to be Jesus Christ (Revelation, 1:19, Douay Rheims
Ver.). It seems important that the instructions to write down and relay what
the speaker hears comes after the figure solidifies that he is Jesus Christ. My
interpretation of this moment lies in a need for emphasizing that the figure is
Jesus Christ, and not some other divine entity, because otherwise the
instructions would have less weight behind them. There’s an inherent difference
between an angel telling someone to write something down and spread the message
across humanity, and having Jesus Christ present himself to a human being and
giving direct instructions. In this way, the speaker of Revelation has to
reaffirm that the figure he claims to see is in fact Jesus Christ, otherwise,
anything they say before or after their description of the figure does not have
the same weight or strength. As I read the first book of Revelation, this need
to emphasize the figure as Jesus Christ felt especially important given the
speaker’s initial hesitation to call their vision the embodiment of Jesus
Christ until the vision itself says “I am the First and the Last.”
“I saw a great
mountain the color of iron, and enthroned on it One of such great glory that it
blinded my sight. One each side of him there extended a soft shadow, like a
wing of wondrous breadth and length. Before him, at the foot of the mountain,
stood an image full of eyes on all sides, in which, because of those eyes, I
could discern no human form” (Hildegard, 67), The photo above, and its
accompanying quote, comes from Hildegard’s account of her vision of God. Similar
to the description that the speaker of Revelation offers, Hildegard provides a
detailed description of the figure she sees. However, unlike the Revelation in
the Bible, Hildegard’s vision is blurred or obscured in the blindness she
experiences at the sight of “such great glory.” Her account of viewing God
feels overwhelming, to the extent that she cannot clearly view the image before
her. The fact that she describes her sight as being “blinded” by the glory in
front of her raises questions concerning whether or not readers can fully trust
the description of God that she provides. If Hildegard herself feels “blinded,”
how are we supposed to trust and believe the vivid image she provides? Additionally,
the image of God is surrounded by a “soft shadow” that extends on either side
of it. The inclusion of a shadow seems to signal another layer of obscurity in
regards to the image in front of Hildegard.
In going through this close reading
of the revelations found in the Bible and Hildegard’s Scivias, I found myself developing a stronger sense of uncertainty
in being able to believe either account. I don’t find either claim particularly
convincing; the speaker of Revelation isn’t entirely sure who they are seeing
until the image names itself and Hildegard’s first vision is filled with
obscuring images. Additionally, both speakers use similes and other forms of
comparative language to describe their visions, rather than being able to
provide purely straightforward descriptions. In Revelation, the speaker says
Jesus Christ has eyes that are like flames, while Hildegard says the shadow
surrounding her vision is “like a wing.” I’ll admit that sometimes comparative
language can be used to strengthen a description and make it more colorful and
beautiful, but that effect does not happen for me here. Instead, I feel like
the comparative language complicates the visions and raises my uncertainty in
being able to place any faith in their truthfulness.
-AC
Sources:
Nicely observed comparison—now, how do we test the truthfulness and/or reliability of revelation? I like that you point out how the author of Revelation does not initially know who the figure among the candlesticks is: vision of itself is not probative. Likewise, Hildegard's vision requires interpretation. Simply seeing the figure on the mountain of iron proves nothing. And yet, would the interpretation be probative without the visions? Somehow revelation depends on interpretation—while interpretation needs something to interpret? A tautology, or the ground of the problem of revelation? RLFB
ReplyDelete