On February 23, 2024, The Other Sister held a thematic meeting on the topic of book culture among non-cloistered religious women. Works from the invited speakers had been circulated prior to the meeting.
John Van Engen (University of Notre Dame) gave a short introduction.
Barbara Newman (Northwestern University), “Mechthild of Magdeburg at Helfta: A Study in Literary Influence,” in Women Intellectuals and Leaders in the Middle Ages, ed. Kathryn Kerby-Fulton, Katie Bugyis and John Van Engen, Cambridge, MA: D.S. Brewer, 2020, p. 383–95.
Diana Denissen (Université de Lausanne), “Literacies, Learning, and Communal Reform: The Case of Alijt Bake,” in Medieval Women Religious, c. 800–c. 1500. New Perspectives, ed. Kimm Curran and Janet Burton. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell & Brewer, 2023, p. 137–51.
As is customary, the four speakers first spoke for a few minutes.
John Van Engen (University of Notre Dame) discussed his 2020 publication, Women Intellectuals and Leaders in the Middle Ages (co-edited with Kathryn Kerby-Fulton and Katie Ann-Marie Bugyis). He explained that the recent turn to inclusion in the history of women and a significant emphasis on the struggles of women inspired the editors to consider the roles of all women in religious history – those who struggled and those who did not. He highlighted the theme of “belonging” within religious communities as central to the study of women religious, emphasizing cultural, social, and religious inclusion. He concluded his introduction by sharing that Women Intellectuals focuses on this narrative of inclusion and development of community over time. Some similar themes have been highlighted in a recent review of the volume by Annette Volfing, in Speculum (2023), 898-899.
Barbara Newman (Northwestern University), discussed how the perspective explored in the volume Women Intellectuals focuses on the intellect of women religious. Her presentation emphasized how much fantastic research has come from approaching women religious in this way. Her chapter employs this lens to study Mechthild of Magdeburg, who, going blind, was invited to enter the Helfta monastery to complete the last book of her magnum opus, The Flowing Light of the Godhead, in dictation. Newman suggested that to be a writer was to work within a literary tradition. How, then, she asked, did women use their sources? What were their influences, how did they rebel, how did they influence others, and how did they understand and work within genres? Such questions are now givens serious consideration and new insights can come from an examination of how women writers responded to each other and to their predecessors: for example, Elizabeth of Schönau and Hildegard of Bingen, Hadewijch of Antwerp and her unnamed disciple, “Hadewijch II,” and Birgitta of Sweden and Margery Kempe have recently been studied. Newman’s chapter considers the “Two Mechthilds”: the visionary Mechthild of Magdeburg and her younger contemporary, Mechthild of Hackeborn, whom the elder Mechthild’s writing had inspired. Their cases are important because we rarely know so much about the contexts and conditions for medieval women’s writing. Newman explained that Low and High German are complex and that it can be difficult to trace discernible influences, such as remnants of court poetry, between texts written in the vernacular. For example, Mechthild of Magdeburg used the Goddess figure in her writing. While Mechthild of Hackeborn also used the same figure, she employed it via Latin masculine conventions, as with “love (amor) in the figure of a beautiful virgin,” thus obfuscating a direct link to the Goddess. Newman also referenced the possible influences of bridal mysticism, which has a long history of use and is significantly different from men’s mysticism, in Mechthild of Magdeburg’s texts. Differences are apparent between what Newman terms “servile-filial-bridal love” used in men’s mystic writing, in which God remains stable, and bridal mysticism in Mechthild of Magdeburg’s and Mechthild of Hackeborn’s texts, which depict God as filled with fierce desire. Mechthild of Magdeburg had to be moderated by the Helfta nuns due to her perceived excessive, erotic, and heterodox language. Her mysticism is very individual; theirs is communal. Newman also problematized the question of external virtues – while Mechthild of Magdeburg sheds them, the nuns of Helfta do not. Finally, Newman made a comparison between Mechthild of Magdeburg and Alijt Bake, the subject of the second speaker’s research. Both women lived extra-religious lives prior to entering nunneries. While Mechthild of Magdeburg did not know Latin and functioned exclusively in the vernacular, however, Bake was rebellious against the prospect of institutional learning and favoured prophetic revelation and book learning. Mechthild of Magdeburg needed assisted living; Bake was younger and drew concern about heresy, which she met with ferocity.
Diana Denissen (Université de Lausanne) discussed how her ideas since writing “Literacies, Learning, and Communal Reform: The Case of Alijt Bake” have evolved with her current research. She explored plural literacy as a continuum (e.g. oral vs. written, vernacular vs. Latin) and suggested that it is difficult to discuss literacy within women’s communities because of its many forms. The sister-books of Engelthal and Diepenveen contain evidence about how female religious translated or interpreted Latin texts during table readings, making texts available to all, regardless of levels of literacy. Alijt Bake’s life further problematizes the concept of literacy and expresses a paradox about learning related to the tension between her intellectual skepticism/anti-intellectuality and her desire to read specific titles quickly to absorb as much information as possible. Denissen further considered the question of how books entered and left the convent, stating that both women religious and lay women moved books between communities. Her book chapter has become part of a broader project on spiritual autobiographies and biographical sketches incorporating interesting aspects of hagiography in sister books, and particularly on the relationship between social and intellectual networks that cross linguistic boundaries.
Patricia Stoop (Universiteit Antwerp) reiterated the previous speakers’ emphasis on collective and diverse forms of literacy and then discussed her co-authored article (with Anna Dlabačová), which grew out of Dlabačová’s research on ownership inscriptions from a printer in the Low Countries and Stoop’s similar work in Brussels. She contextualized their research by relating that, at the end of the eighteenth century, when the convent of Jericho was dissolved, a huge collection of books was discovered. Several incunabula were sold to other women, as mentioned in other contemporary archival documents. Yet, there is a massive gap between the claimed number of books and what remains. Early-modern book ownership needs to be studied as it is not as clear-cut as in the modern era. Certain Dutch lists of book ownership, copying, and transmission exist, but not for early printed books or manuscripts. The Devotio moderna movement had a huge impact on book production in the Low Countries. How did books come into convents? Were they purchased, bequeathed, or borrowed? What kind of texts were included? Were they new texts or copies? Stoop stated that the issue with this kind of research is that books are not systematically inventoried with ownership marks. She has begun to inventory books related to women religious in the Low Countries in the 1600s and researches how women were involved in the circulation of books, whether as authors, illuminators, or in other roles. She hopes that this will eventually lead to a broader understanding of intellectual culture across convents and institutions.
Q&A
Joseph Akl moderated the Q&A period. The first question was from Isabelle Cochelin, who asked Newman and Denissen whether the women whom they study seem to have been sensitive to the issue of enclosure vs. non-enclosure. Newman answered that women often transitioned between groups (e.g. from being beguines or anchoresses to cloistered nuns). “We tend to build walls between orders,” she stated, “based on history written by religious men, but women tended to be more fluid and moved around much more than men or what men expected, but where you placed them wasn’t the question that mattered the most to these women.” Denissen added that Alijt Bake had a full life before entering a convent, and there seems to have been a text about her life before this point. She had friends among other groups, and Denissen wonders if she could have been an anchoress if she had been advised differently. Bake also appears to have experienced anxiety related to which convent would have suited her best – how did she want to express and live her spirituality? These tensions, preserved in her writing, reveal choice in the different paths for women religious.
Van Engen offered some additional contextual information about Bake’s life. She came from a privileged family and, after experiencing a deeply unpleasant unknown event in Utrecht, was directed to start over in a religious community further to the South. The section of her writing describing the event is missing (and was possibly confiscated from her at some point), but contextual information suggests that she wanted to teach, preach, and write and had already started doing this, potentially without permission. These threads are picked up in later sections of her writing as she explains how she became a woman religious, and she is reprimanded repeatedly for engaging in certain kinds of reading. Bake asserted herself as an intellectual figure whose writing could not be understood by some of her superiors. Van Engen suggested that it is possible she was deposed and exiled from Utrecht – letters written to friends ask for suggestions for her defence and bring up the possibility of an exile to Antwerp. Denissen asked Van Engen why Bake chose to relocate to Ghent and why she settled on this particular convent. Van Engen answered that Johannes Eckhart’s house was turned into a convent and that they offered to take Bake in. In fact, she was eventually made prioress (possibly by Eckhart himself) at a young age. Her removal from the position most likely occurred after his death. Stoop added that Bake suggests that she is unconvinced of the importance of texts and that spirituality should be learned elsewhere. Denissen responded that, on the contrary, texts were quite important to Bake. She also suggested that Bake’s commentary was a rebellion against certain forms of authority and possibly perceived as dangerous due to her visionary nature of textual production and drive to share knowledge with others, whether acceptable or not. Yet, she also had non-textual visionary experiences.
Next, Renate Blumenfeld-Kosinski discussed the trajectory of Colette of Corbie’s vocational shift from anchoress to Observant Clarissan. She also considered the process of transition between manuscripts, incunabula, and early printed books, when texts were sometimes transcribed back into manuscripts. She asked Stoop’s opinion of this phenomenon. Stoop responded by considering why people began to copy printed books in manuscript forms. As an example, she brought up copying for annotation and as a spiritual exercise, also noting that some people might not have been able to afford a printed book, though she thinks that this is unlikely. Anna Dlabačová added other possibilities for manual transcription, such as the desire for a luxurious manuscript copy. She suggested that scholarship is only beginning to form understandings of these transitions since the trajectory from manuscript to printed book is often (wrongly) perceived as linear. Newman reiterated what other speakers had responded, focusing on what is lost in the transition from manuscript to printed book: hand-copying books is useful for intellectual and spiritual growth and to deeply internalize texts.
Bruce Venarde asked Newman about her evocation of a sanitization of Mechthild of Magdeburg’s writing. Who did Mechthild think would be reading her novel ideas, which incorporated so much originality? Newman responded that there was certainly an element of subversion at work since Helfta nuns were known to be proponents of the cult of the Sacred Heart. Newman suggested that Mechthild of Magdeburg’s book was for internal consumption since writing was a communal process. Dominican confessors also had a huge network, and Newman thinks that this is how the book was circulated, primarily in an abridged, Latin form, which allowed it to spread early beyond regional locations and outside purely religious contexts.
Akl asked, related to Venarde’s question, whether the symbolism of the heart as a door was used in the two Mechthilds’ texts. Newman responded that the cult of the Sacred Heart spread widely and that piety centred around the heart as a symbol of the interiority of Jesus and the Trinity, but she is unsure of whether illustrated copies exist and whether they are directly connected to the Helfta texts.
Michael Hahn asked Newman whether the shifts in bridal mysticism were part of a broader trend or specific to Helfta. Newman answered that the Helfta texts were particularly visible due to how prolific the nuns were in their writing. There was also a crossover between secular and religious ways of perceiving love and significant influence from courtly romance and troubadour poetry. This is shown in the notion of both parties as desiring love and becoming enmeshed in a turbulent relationship instead of as the soul making progress towards a stable and immovable God. John Arblaster evoked William of Saint-Thierry’s exposition on the Song of Songs: the mutuality between the heavenly bride and bridegroom, such as in the passage about the flowery bed, does not discuss desire, but points to a significant mutual passion expressed as kisses and joy. He also noted that the copying of texts was a devotional practice in itself and not only to familiarize oneself with the text.
Next, Cochelin returned to the issue of different denominations for women, suggesting that thinking in terms of orders is too limiting for women religious. Newman added the example of Juliana of Cornillon, who spent time in a leprosarium, which she tried to turn into an Augustinian priory, was exiled and moved between Cistercian monasteries without taking vows, then ended her life as an anchoress, suggesting that these transitions were more common than we might think. Stoop also specified that texts circulated easily across religious orders.
Stoop then asked Newman how far Mechthild of Magdeburg’s texts had circulated. Newman answered that her texts circulated much less than others at the time and that they mainly circulated in translation, reiterating that Latin texts enabled wider circulation.
Mercedes Pérez Vidal added an example to Stoop’s discussion of the circulation of texts between different religious communities. She mentioned a particular manuscript, a book on the Passion, copied by (and for) a Portuguese nun, which can be compared with manuscript copies of the Tleven ons Heren Ihesu Cristi, which circulated widely among communities of religious women in the Netherlands. As was the case in these communities, the Cistercian nuns of Lorvão also used incunabula alongside manuscripts.
Barbara Walters thanked Newman for her work and help with others’ research and mentioned Anneke Mulder-Bakker whose work was also instrumental.
On Friday, December 15th, The Other Sister met for a discussion of Medieval Religious Women, c. 800-1500, ed. Kimm Curran and Janet Burton (Boydell, 2023). Kimm Curran, Janet Burton, Cate Gunn, and Alison More joined us to discuss their contributions (listed below) to this exciting new publication. The thematic session was organized by Delfi Nieto-Isabel and Mary Doyno.
Kimm Curran and Janet Burton, “Introduction,” p. 1-21.
Alison More, “Change and Renewal: Mendicants and Tertiaries in Later Medieval Europe,” p. 61-75.
Cate Gunn, “On the Fringes: Anchorites,” p. 76-89.
Janet Burton, Professor of Medieval History at University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, and co-editor of the volume, was the first speaker. She recalled how she and Kimm Curran commissioned essays for the volume after the initial rejection of their proposed volume topic. This disappointment galvanized them and allowed them to rethink traditional narratives as they pertain to medieval religious women. The texts themselves includes an extensive temporal range, beginning with the councils of Aachen (816-17), and ending c. 1500. Burton points out, however, that movements differed regionally and that the same thematic approaches cannot be applied to all geographic regions in the same way.
Next, Kimm Curran, an independent researcher based in Scotland, and co-editor of the volume, echoed Burton in sharing their desire to produce a book that would break down barriers between those in formal institutional communities and those who existed outside of them but who still lived a religious lifestyle. She noted commonalities between the two groups in addition to acknowledging women’s search for identity within the environments of new orders and transition between groups, illustrating the issues inherent in anachronistic categorization. Decisions about the choice of words were at the forefront of their minds as they worked on the volume, with a preference for ‘women religious’ or ‘sister’ over ‘nun’. Similarly, Curran emphasized their avoidance of the term ‘nunnery’. Alongside their contributors, they navigated the challenging issue of language and adjusted to more inclusive terminology. In its final form, the multi-disciplinary book represents topics such as women’s agency, authority, identities, literacies, and materialities, and reflects the diversity of its multi-disciplinary contributors.
Alison More, Associate Professor of Medieval Studies at the University of St Michael’s College, University of Toronto, added to the discussion on terminology. She pointed out that terms themselves do not mean anything other than what you choose them to mean. Her chapter discusses the emergence of a spiritual revolution, which people sought out and participated in with fervor. She highlighted the diversity of religious women, even within the category of ‘tertiary’, a label that she suggested warrants further investigation. Finally, Professor More spoke about the fact that many of the women in her study do not fit neatly into institutional parameters; rather, they sought out ‘do-it-yourself religion’.
Next, Cate Gunn, an independent researcher with a focus on medieval English literature, religious literature, and medieval devotional culture, spoke. She explained that the question, ‘how do we talk about female anchorites?’ guided her study. She sought to question their marginality and explore where and how they lived. During her talk, she, too, returned to the issue of medieval categorization and specific identity. She paints the anchorites that she studies as spiritually, textually, and physically impactful to their landscapes, even given the extreme form of religious life carried out in such as small cell. Serving this role, anchorites were necessary to their communities since they served as proxies for spiritual matters and carried out meaningful functions through prayer while also generally reflecting the values of medieval society by means of anchoritic life.
The Q&A period touched upon a number of themes including further inquiry into the classification, organization, and self-identification of specific groups, the problematization of terminology as related to translation in different languages, evidence of cultural exchange and similarities between disparate groups, and transitions between groups over time. Furthermore, speakers and participants discussed relationships within and between groups, leading to a broader discussion about the social practices of anchorites and different experiences of liminality and marginality. In addition, the speakers answered several questions specific to their contributions, providing essential context for ongoing discussions about the experiences of women religious in a variety of geographical regions.
Mary Doyno posed the first question to Alison More, asking if she felt that there is use in employing terminology used by the historical women that she studies. More expressed similar sentiment as to wanting to use these terms, but explained the jigsaw-like puzzle of sources that her work has drawn from can make it difficult. Rather, she explained, women seemed to focus more on what needed to be done than issues of self-identification and classification. Cate Gunn also responded, pointing out that some women felt anxiety associated with the uncertain status of not being under a rule, and therefore adopted a rule to quash this anxiety.
Remaining on the topic of terminology, Renate Blumfield-Kosinski then brought up the challenge posed by different languages both in sources and in modern scholarship. She pointed out that as much scholarship has been focused on Italy and England, many of these terms are familiar, but that a multitude of terms exist in other languages. This poses the question; do we define every term when we use it? Agreeing, Cate Gunn echoed that definitions can be very different, even between scholars working in the same field.
Devon Sherwood wonderedunder if there is evidence of women shifting between different groups over time. This question brought to mind a common misconception for Cate Gunn, who shared that many think that anchorites ended up transitioning to communal living, but that this is not true. Rather, anchorites connected through their beliefs and lifestyles but did not live communally. Instead, they would transition from communities to the more isolated lifestyle that an anchorhold provided.
Kimm Curran returned to the anxiety over terminology that she had as an editor: she felt trapped by publishing norms that focused on certain categories of religious women and sought a broader and more inclusive category for women religious. For Curran, this issue was embodied in the complex identity of Saint Hedwig, who graces the cover of the volume. Curran also discussed the issue of male authors writing about these women, making it difficult at times to find the voices of the women directly. Alison More brought up transitions of religious life, whether reforming or moving to a stricter form of life. The associations of women religious with a specific order poses challenges for perceived identity, which could either change or simply appear to have changed from the sources based on who was providing pastoral care. Within this topic, she concluded, there is much to explore.
Lucy Barnhouse returned to Alison More’s chapter, wondering how women were in part defined by their relationships (with other women, bishops, confessors). Janet Burton agreed as to the centrality of women’s relationships, highlighting the importance of locating women within their wider communities. This included their relationships with their orders, the secular community, patrons, and others. Delfi Nieto-Isabel pointed out that often the locality of the women studied lies in different terminologies, an issue of the modern day, not the sources. Turning back to Cate Gunn’s chapter, she then asked about the difference between liminality and marginality, claiming that what was liminal in the period under study has only been made marginal through modern study. Though Gunn pointed out that the anchorites in her chapter did not use either term, their position on the threshold between life and death posed a serious challenge, but the value in their role made it easier. Alison More agreed, stating that women did not choose to be liminal, but rather filled the positions that they saw as necessary, waiting for their institutions to catch up with them. Janet Burton added that being liminal did not mean one was unimportant. Bruce Venarde agreed that liminal, marginal, and identity are our modern words and shared Rogers Brubaker and Frederick Cooper’s 2000 article, “Beyond ‘Identity’”.
Sister Carla Thomas sought clarification from Cate Gunn on her mention of vows, wishing to know who received the vows of the women in her study. For lay anchorites, Gunn answered, they made vows to a bishop and were usually linked to a specific church not living under a rule. There was, however, an earlier practice of women transitioning from a monastic community to an anchorhold. Making an oath to a bishop was part of an attempt to control this practice (of lay women becoming anchorites) but was also practical as it allowed the church to check that the women had the financial means to support themselves and were connected toa church that could administer the sacraments. Kimm Curran agreed, giving a Scottish example of a nun moving from an enclosed community to an anchorhold.
Next, Letha Böhringer connected the ongoing discussion of terminology to the context of practices and social spaces. She asked Cate Gunn about her experience regarding the social practices of anchorites as opposed to those of other women. Gunn answered that the main difference was that anchorites lived in isolation, enclosed on their own, even when connected to others via letters. Isabelle Cochelin commented that recluses in England were perhaps more solitary, but those on the continent were very social and played a vital role in society. Some women even applied for the job of recluse through their local government. Gunn agreed that though a recluse’s life was solitary, they played an important role in their communities.
Barbara R. Walters Doehrman brought up the impacts of geographical and economic milieu on the practices of anchoresses, even though daily practices could be quite similar place to place. Cate Gunn responded that work in this area is beginning to be done, highlighting the similar nature of the spirituality of women in different regions.
Minlib Dahl posed the final question, asking Alison More to explain Raymond of Capua’s influence on and relationship with Catherine of Siena. More explained that he wrote in a way that sought to highlight the links she had with the Dominican Order as a tertiary.
Concluding a fruitful and lively discussion, the chat continued with encouraging and complimentary messages for the speakers from participants until the very end of the meeting. The important themes of terminology (both that in sources and modern scholarship), identities of religious women, and the ties that they had with each other and their wider community drove the conversation. Thank you to all contributors and those who posed thoughtful questions and comments.
The Other Sister will soon be introduced to a wider audience at this year’s annual meeting of the Medieval Academy of America, which will take place March 14–16 at the University of Notre Dame.
A panel entitled The Other Sister: Recognizing Non-Cloistered Religious Women in the Middle Ages will occur on Friday, March 15 at 8:30–10 am in DeBartolo Hall 217.
Fiona Griffiths (Stanford University) will serve as chair, and the following papers will be presented:
Tanya Stabler Miller (Loyola University Chicago): “Mary and/or Martha: Framing Beguine Labor in Medieval France”
Meghan Lescault (University of Toronto): “Subject to Interpretation: The Ambiguous Position of the Chapter of Nivelles in Canon Law”
Ashley Tickle Odebiyi (Arizona State University): “Beyond Clare and Catherine: Lay Penitents in Late Medieval Italy”
It is with great sadness that we must announce the passing of Michael W. Blastic, OFM, a valued member of our community.
A renowned scholar of the Franciscan tradition, Fr. Blastic (1949-2023), Mike for most, served as colleague, mentor, confrère, and teacher, and was thought of with both affection and admiration. For his 70th birthday, Fr. Blastic’s confrères edited a volume, “Non enim fuerat Evangelii surdus auditor…” The title was chosen as it reflected Fr. Blastic’s commitment to living the gospel, as illustrated by his scholarship and pastoral ministry.
Mike attended many of our Other Sister virtual meetings including the last one (Dec. 2023). He saw women, particularly Clare of Assisi, as active participants in intellectual, theological and social history, and his work did much for bringing this into mainstream Franciscan dialogue.
A celebration of Fr. Blastic’s life will take place at the Church of the Immaculate Conception in San Diego on January 8, 2024. It is also possible to attend online.
On October 27, 2023, The Other Sister held a thematic meeting on the topic of dissent among non-cloistered religious women. The following works from the four invited speakers had been circulated prior to the meeting:
Justine L. Trombley, “‘Against the Foundation of the Faith’: Theological Refutation in MS Vat. lat. 4953” and “Conclusion,” in A Diabolical Voice: Heresy and Reception of the Latin “Mirror of Simple Souls” in Late Medieval Europe (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2023), 93–124 and 170–178.
Huanan Lu, “Marguerite Porete et l’enquête de 1323 sur le béguinage Sainte-Élisabeth de Valenciennes,” Revue du Nord 440 (2021): 451–485. The English summary of the article can be found here.
Sean L. Field, “Clare of Rimini: A Case Study in the Circulation of Controversial Religious Claims” (work in progress to be published in a volume edited by Delfi Nieto-Isabel and Justine L. Trombley for the Routledge series Religious Dissent and Persecution in the Pre-Modern World).
Delfi I. Nieto-Isabel, “Beguines, Free Spirits, and the Inquisitorial Network Conundrum,” Oliviana 7 (2023). The open access article can be found here.
The meeting commenced with the four speakers presenting their research.
Justine Trombley, Lecturer in European History, 1300–1500 at Durham University, discussed the traditional tendency to label women as spiritual and mystical, but not intellectual. In her own work she strove to emphasize that Marguerite Porete was in fact treated as an intellectual, even if anonymously, as theologians, canons, and preachers assumed the Latin Mirror of Simple Souls to be the work of a man and engaged with it on a serious intellectual level in their attacks and condemnations of it. Not only these critics, but also the supporters of the work ascribed an intellectual character to it. Trombley tied the works of all four speakers together, noting the importance of networks as a major theme and their ability to impact, both positively and negatively, the lives of intellectual women. While a figure such as Clare of Rimini could benefit from a strong network, such networks could also attract the negative attention of inquisitors.
Huanan Lu, Assistant Professor of History at Nanjing University, explained that while she was sifting through archival documents for her PhD studies, she came across the inquisitorial record of 1323 of the beguinage of Saint Elizabeth in Valenciennes. This record mentioned a beguine by the name of Marghoneta, whom she was able to identify as Marguerite Porete. Lu discussed the effect of Marguerite’s inquisitorial trial on the beguine communities at the Council of Vienne, including her own community in Valenciennes, which was the first to be investigated in the diocese of Cambrai following the council. She explained that this investigation turned out to be rehabilitative, as everyone involved identified Marguerite as an exceptional figure with no followers in the community. The beguines of Saint Elizabeth were deemed innocent and orthodox, placed under the protection of religious and secular powers, and granted a high degree of autonomy.
Sean L. Field, Professor of History at the University of Vermont, introduced his paper as a result of a larger project of an English translation of and commentary on the vita of Clare of Rimini (Jacques Dalarun, Sean L. Field, and Valerio Cappozzo, A Female Apostle in Medieval Italy: The Life of Clare of Rimini [Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2022]). He explained that by being asked by Delfi Nieto-Isabel to think about the flow of controversial ideas in the text, he saw the clear trajectory of Clare’s life from a solitary penitent woman to the leader of an informal community. Moreover, by being asked to think about moments in the text in which Clare is a recipient and dispenser of ideas, he was able to notice the rhetorical machinations by which the author of the text protects her from accusations of heresy. Field noted that Clare is a good example of an understudied figure who could help shed light on important themes related to non-cloistered women.
Delfi Nieto-Isabel, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow, Lecturer in History, and Institute for the Humanities and Social Sciences Fellow at Queen Mary University of London, focused on the perennial problem of categorization, which she finds to be particularly relevant to the discussion of late medieval lay religiosity, especially in the case of women. She explained that this struggle goes back to the inquisitors themselves, who attempted to rely on categories for their detection of heresy. When they tried to fit a vast array of expressions of penitential lay religiosity into a small hole of orthodoxy, they inevitably met with failure. Nieto-Isabel noted that modern scholars still easily fall into this same mistake, and she challenged the group to move away from this tendency. Recalling the late medieval religious women who readily identified themselves both as beguines and as members of the Third Order of St. Francis, she asked why we would have a problem acknowledging this double identity if the women themselves embraced it.
As usual, a robust discussion began after the conclusion of these presentations. The theme that clearly dominated the discussion was that of networks. Emma Gabe turned the group’s attention to Trombley’s earlier point about the strong influence that networks could have on whether someone would be deemed heretical or orthodox. Nieto-Isabel elaborated on this point, illustrating the importance of networks by explaining that Na Prous Boneta (a beguine from Languedoc who was burnt at the stake in 1328) was not judged as a beguine by the inquisitors, but as a very specific type of heretic, entirely because of her network and the people in it with whom she was associated. Networks were so important that they could define boundaries and determine the categories into which people were placed. Trombley applied these ideas to Marguerite Porete and The Mirror of Simple Souls, showing how networks could either bring support or ruin depending upon the circumstances. She pointed to the ultimate failure of the networks around Marguerite to provide protection for her. In the case of The Mirror, she noted that its reception depended upon not only who was reading and interpreting it, but also the milieu in which it was being read. For example, its circulation in the Tuscan monastery of the Camaldolese Order seemed to be free from problems, while its circulation in a network in Venice resulted in trouble for those who were reading it. Courtney Barter-Colcord introduced the figure of Guglielma of Milan (d. 1282) into the discussion, remarking upon the fact that unlike Na Prous Boneta, Guglielma was already dead at the time of her inquisition (c. 1300) and that unlike Marguerite, she had a great deal of support, albeit the wrong kind of support as far as the inquisitors were concerned. Barter-Colcord posed the question of whether there were many other cases in which a network was built up around an individual who was no longer present. Nieto-Isabel discussed the persistence of social capital beyond death and tied this question to the idea of martyrdom and sainthood, explaining that in most cases of these, the individual being venerated is not living. She also demonstrated the importance of networks, discussing how Guglielma herself was never deemed suspect in her lifetime but only after her death when her network made dramatic claims about her, whereas Na Prous was considered problematic while alive.
In addition to a more general discussion of networks, closer examination of the networks specific to Marguerite took place. Isabelle Cochelin mentioned Lu’s assertion that Marguerite had no support in her own beguinage. Lu elaborated on this point, explaining that the beguines were largely responsible for their own protection. In response, Nieto-Isabel questioned whether we can truly know the nature of the relationship between Marguerite and the other beguines of Saint Elizabeth before 1310 given their obvious desire to present themselves as orthodox during the inquisition occurring after Marguerite’s execution. Lu responded by appealing to the text of The Mirror itself in which Marguerite claims that the beguines held her views to be wrong, suggesting their rejection of her. She also cited the dearth of archival documents mentioning Marguerite/Marghoneta, perhaps implying by their silence that Marguerite was poor and lacked strong social support. Field took up this particular line of discussion to emphasize the many possible interpretations of these situations for which we have no definite answer. John Arblaster moved from discussion of support for Marguerite in the beguinage to that of support for The Mirror. He noted that the three approbations given to the work by clerics must indicate a geographically wide network. To this point, Nieto-Isabel responded that the circulation of a manuscript requires a network and that Marguerite’s book would have had to be circulated in other networks before reaching those of the ecclesiastical authorities. Trombley elaborated on this, explaining that the rapid early appearance of the Latin translation of The Mirror suggests that Marguerite had introduced her original vernacular text into circulation very early. Field clarified that the words “approbation” and “approval” are not quite right here, because the clerics who commented on The Mirror did not give their full approval to it, but rather tentative praise that could be withdrawn if the work met with trouble, as happened in this case.
The networks of Clare of Rimini also arose as a topic of discussion. Mary Harvey Doyno introduced this topic by asking if there is a relationship between the idea of networks and the fact that Clare’s vita was begun while she was still alive. Field noted that a network that was physically gathered around a dying person, as in the case of Clare, would function differently from a posthumous canonization inquiry. He surmised that the former might have a stronger value in that the individuals around Clare would have to be gathered there of their own accord in a free exchange of ideas. Nieto-Isabel agreed that it is a question of the strength of the network and that the organic accompaniment of Clare in her dying moments would suggest a strength not available to a network built around an individual who had already died.
At the conclusion of this substantial conversation, Nieto-Isabel pointed out that in citing each other in their papers, the speakers had created their own network about networks. While the participants were discussing the importance of medieval networks, they were demonstrating in real time the necessity of a modern network such as The Other Sister.
On September 29th, 2023, The Other Sister research group held a seminar on the topic of varieties of religious life on the Italian peninsula. Four invited speakers presented some of their work on the subject, which had been circulated to all 44 participants prior to the online meeting:
Mary Harvey Doyno, “Roman Women: Female Religious, the Papacy, and a Growing Dominican Order,” Speculum 97, no. 4 (2022): 1040–72.
Thomas Luongo, “Catherine of Siena’s Advice to Religious Women,” Specula 3 (2022): 99–124.
Ashley Tickle Odebiyi, “Betwixt and Between: The Formation of Non-Cloistered Religious Women’s Identities in Rome, 1400-1600,” 2–31. This unpublished chapter is from an upcoming monograph.
Thérèse Peeters, “To Overcome Distrust: Three Religious Initiatives by Genoese Women,” in Trust in the Catholic Reformation, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions 231 (Leiden: Brill, 2022), 182–229.
The introduction from this publication (pages 1-36) was also circulated for additional context.
Each paper focused on the question of identity using the Italian peninsula as a case study. As is often the case with non-cloistered religious women, the issue around nomenclature was central. However, the aim of the discussion was not to box-in (or, in a manner, cloister!) these women, but to uncover their multifold identities and find non-cloistered religious women in sources where they have been overlooked.
Mary Harvey Doyno, associate professor in the Department of Humanities and Religious Studies at Sacramento State University, centered her discussion on the growth of the universal convent of San Sisto envisioned by Pope Innocent III and achieved by Honorius III (with the help of Dominic of Caleruega). She argued that, by considering Cecilia of Rome’s Miracula beati Dominici alongside the extant charter evidence from Santa Maria in Tempuli, she was able to give more visibility to Roman women religious and Dominicans, albeit one that was tied to the attempt to cloister all of Rome’s women religious.
Thomas Luongo, associate professor of history and the director of Medieval and Early Modern Studies at Tulane University, focused his short presentation on the loaded question of Catherine of Siena’s identity as a woman religious. He asked what Catherine’s conception of her life and vocation was, and if we can even speak of a formal vocation when discussing Catherine’s identity – one that is completely idiosyncratic. Lunogo argued that Raymond of Capua’s life of Catherine positions her as following the Dominican order, even suggesting her as a friar, an identity that fits into Catherine’s advice of claustration to some women while never cloistering herself. Catherine’s lifestyle was an impossible one and Luongo added that if we try to make it work, pushing Catherine into the box of laity or of religious life, we ignore the tension at play.
Next, Ashley Tickle Odebiyi, assistant professor of history at Arizona State University, focused her discussion on the bizzoche of Rome and how, though each bizzoche house was associated with a different order, such as the Benedictines, Franciscans, or Dominicans, these women had networks and identities that crossed the borders of the male orders. Despite the limited extant documentation for some of these houses, Odebiyi has found commonalities between the Roman bizzoche in their clothing, affective piety, and service to the poor – a lens she believes is important to apply to the study of non-cloistered religious women in general, drawing on similarities between beguines, beatas, bizzoche and others.
Finally, Thérèse Peeters, author of Trust in the Catholic Reformation, asked what role did trust play in the post-Tridentine Church in general, a period characterised by distrust, especially of female religious. This distrust was exemplified by Genoa’s seventeenth-century magistrato delle monache which supervised and controlled female religious life in the city. Peeters examined three religious groups, the Turchine, Medee, and Brignoline, that, despite this climate, arose during the period in Genoa. She discussed the interplay between trust and freedom, with the freedom of choice, spirituality and movement increasing the women’s view of the trustworthiness of their own religious project, while similarly increasing the distrust of those whose support they needed. Peeters found that a higher level of trust was necessary for the women religious who acted publicly, while lower levels of trust were needed for religious groups who kept a lower profile.
The discussion began with Alison More asking about the interplay between identity and order. Mary Harvey Doyno answered that she is trying to understand this very thing. San Sisto is associated with the Dominican Order but it is clear that the friars did not think of it as theirs, at least not in the modern understanding of affiliation. At opportune times the friars point to San Sisto as an example of women in their order, but the relationship is never fully clear. Thomas Luongo also answered saying that, of course, Raymond of Capua did not wish to make Catherine a friar, this is impossible, but just as Mary Magdalene was a model for some, Catherine was made into a model for the friars. Luongo wished to underscore the difficulty (or the missing-the-point) of trying to clarify identities with labels.
Adrian Kammerer next asked two questions. First, he wanted more information on Amata from Cecilia’s Miracula who had spirits expelled from her by Dominic of Caleruega, as she does not seem to be cloistered even later in the writings. Second, he wondered if the charters from Santa Maria in Tempuli discussed by Doyno complicated not only the distinction between nuns and other sisters, but also the one between conversae and other sisters. Doyno answered that though she wished she had more information on Amata, it is not clear what becomes of her from the documentation. As for the second statement, she agreed that this understanding can be broadened to include semi-religious women, and how she was interested by the abbesses’ attempts to nod to a larger community of women, outside of the smaller community of nuns. The fact that this larger community was involved in guarding the convent’s patrimony is understood by Doyno as a red flag for Innocent III or Honorius III, aiding the idea of a universal convent.
Maiju Lehmijoki Wetzel asked if it was too radical to assert that the Dominican Order did not exist before women were involved. Doyno answered that, though radical, the statement identifies that the institution, and therefore perhaps the identity, is formed around a process of including everybody but giving women a clear, contained space. Luongo specified that even during Catherine of Siena’s life, the identity of the order was still being articulated. There is a clarity organisationally for men that does not exist for women. It is this lack of organisation for the women that brings these questions. However, Luongo added that if one digs deeper, there is a variety in the friars’ identities as well, which could also bring a (diverse) range of issues.
Michèle Mulchahey stated that in the discussion on the tension between the cura monialium and mendicancy, scholarship focuses on the friars’ relationships with women, but, with women being cloistered, there were also the problems linked with property and ownership. Would this not be a real stumbling block to including women into the order? Doyno agreed but added that in her reading of the situation, the convent of San Sisto really remained under the control of the papacy, who had asked Dominic for assistance. So there were no real issue of the properties of women creating a problem with the friars’ mendicancy during the thirteenth century. Luongo wondered if, by Catherine’s time, there is a sense that this concern has folded into the situation concerning the Dominican Reform. He added that it is often forgotten that during Catherine life there was a female Dominican community in Sienna that interacted with Catherine and the mantellate.
Sioban Nelson asked Doyno to explain her comment that the Church needed this universal convent to grow. Doyno responded that though there was a resource element to this need, Innocent III had the idea to create a Church for the entirety of Christendom and to be able to articulate authority in this way. This amorphous growth is what she conceptualised when stating that this was needed for the Church to grow.
Carla Thomas asked if we should think of Catherine having a vocation in her time or are we projecting a modern notion onto her when saying this. Dr. Luongo suggested that “vocation” is probably a term we are using with a modern sense and that it is not entirely applicable.
Isabelle Cochelin asked if these women were allowed to choose their confessors or spiritual advisors. Peeters answered that the smaller of the three female groups in Genoa, the Medee, had this choice and they often picked the Jesuits. The cloistered women in Genoa had this decision made for them. Odebiyi gave the example of Santa Francesca who chose two confessors in her life, neither one coming from the Benedictines of Mount Olivet with whom her house of bizzoche was affiliated. Doyno was unsure and said that the sources seem to suggest that Dominic was selected for the women rather than the other way around. Luongo answered that even though Catherine made everything seem like a choice, the choice of confessor was made for her. However, she had a close relationship to Raymond of Capua, who berated Catherine’s early confessors in his work.
Michael Hahn enquired as to when the term “Dominican” is first used as well as asking if we are perhaps imposing a modern identity onto the period when using the terms “Dominican” or “Franciscan” to speak of the orders. Doyno answered that the appellation “Order of Preachers” was used during Innocent III’s reign and that Amanda Power has dealt with this historiographical issue for the Franciscans. She answered that thinking about the historical narrative being fabricated when we connect these non-cloistered religious women to the mendicant orders is important, as Alison More has written, but this fabricated narrative also gives us the false sense that there is a coherent identity for the mendicants earlier than there was. Odebiyi added that her sources use the terms Third Order of Saint Francis and then pinzochere in the same documents, which complicates the understanding of these women’s identity. This is why she has opted to simply use the term bizzoche instead of tertiaries. Michèle Mulchahey added that the earliest use of the term ordo in relation to the Dominicans was to designate their propositum and refered to their preaching.
Delfi Nieto-Isabel summarised the major themes of this meeting’s discussion asking if we are boxing in the non-cloistered religious women when trying to categorise them and impose identities onto them. She asked if this was a heritage handed down to us by the Church authorities of the period and if, ultimately, these are useless categories, even when thinking across the north-south European border. Doyno agreed and brought to light the fact that this confusion does not happen with male groups, and Odebiyi added that this categorisation comes from the sources, which can obscure real commonalities between groups. Peeters specified that for the women she studied, categorisation depends on the type of project the women were trying to set up. Sometimes a fluid identity can serve a group. Luongo added that not all had access to Latin, through which many ideas were spread, which can lead to some of the regional divides
Huanan Lu, “Marguerite Porete et l’enquête de 1323 sur le béguinage Sainte-Élisabeth de Valenciennes,” Revue du Nord 3, no. 440 (2021): 451–85.
Summarised in English by Joseph George Akl.
There have long been hypotheses on Marguerite Porete’s origins. Called a beguina de Hannonia in the inquisitional records, Marguerite is often held by historians, without prior evidence, to have had contacts with the beguinage of Sainte-Élisabeth in Valenciennes. It is in Valenciennes where Marguerite first appears when her book is burned in the autumn of 1305 or 1306 by Gui de Collemezzo, bishop of Cambrai. This article uses a fourteenth-century inquisition held at Sainte-Élisabeth to substantiate the claim that Marguerite Porete was indeed once member of this community.
The Inquisitions of Beguinal Life
The Clementine Decrees (Cum de quibusdam mulieribus and Ad nostrum), published formally by John XXII in 1317, condemned the beguinal life (status beguinarum) and call for the suppression of this lifestyle, but not where these women lived “honestly in their convents” (honeste in suis conversantes hospitiis). It appears that the investigations that resulted from these bulls were less intense in northern Europe, particularly in the southern Low Countries, than in the north-east of the Empire. Moreover, contrary to the individual nature of the German inquisitions, northern European investigations focused on entire beguinal communities. To clarify the bulls, in 1320, John XXII began sending the bull Cum de mulieribus to various bishops, in which he requested that they undertake investigations of the beguines in their jurisdictions without troubling the good beguines. In this letter he also specified that honest beguines were to be protected from harassment.
The inquisitorial records of Cambrai are more complete than those of the surrounding bishoprics. Pierre de Lévis-Mirepoix, bishop of Cambrai, received the bull Cum de mulieribus on December 30th, 1320, however he did not undertake any investigation until 1323. On the 28th of July of that year, he appointed the Premonstratensian Godefroy II de Bavay, abbot of Vicoigne as the sole investigator. Godefroy then began his investigatio on the 4th of August 1323 and then, the beguines are officially pronounced to be orthodox.
The Beguinage of Sainte-Élisabeth of Valenciennes
The beguinage was founded in 1239 and had grown steadily throughout the thirteenth century to become its own parish in 1254 with a hospital, church, convent, houses, mill, and a school. Unlike what has been claimed by Walter Simons, it does not seem that the beguines of Sainte-Élisabeth were in decline following the Clementine Decrees; They continued to call themselves “beguines” and had an increasing amount of communication with other religious and lay institutions in the city during this period. Furthermore, the count of Hainaut’s family continued to protect the community and the countess, Jeanne de Valois, reconfirmed the donation of a house to the community made by a previous countess in 1269.
The Inquisitional Records
All our information concerning the investigatio of 1323 is provided to us through one document, numbered as 40 H 552/1336, and held in the Archives départementales du Nord in Lille. The document lists all the actors and witnesses in the investigation and demonstrates the protection from which the beguinage benefitted. Moreover, all of these are local. Amongst the many named are the countess Jeanne de Valois and her two daughters, six Dominicans, four Franciscans, and the priests of the beguinage. The choice of Godefroy, the abbot of Vicoigne, as the sole prosecutor or inquisitor, is also of note as he was already the protector of the beguines of Valenciennes. This willingness to protect the beguines of Sainte-Élisabeth comes through in the rapidity of the process — he begins the investigation only a week after being told to do so by the bishop –, and through the manner in which he investigates. No individual examinations are held; instead the process seems to be more of a public meeting, in the presence of important figures, to reaffirm the orthodoxy of the beguinage. After speaking with the Dominicans and Franciscans who asserted the community’s obedience, humility, and chastity, Godefroy spoke with tres honestas mulieres (perhaps the sovereign and two mistresses of the community), duodecim alias mulieres of good reputation and then another alias viginti chosen by the former twelve. It is noteworthy that all the beguines were present at the investigatio even if not called upon.
The Mention of Marghoneta
These beguines were asked if they had ever discoursed on the Holy Trinity or on the divine essence, or if they had promulgated any beliefs contrary to the Catholic faith. They replied that there was once a certain Marghoneta, who had been executed for her beliefs, however, when she was with them, she never had the slightest follower in her beliefs.
Responderunt unanimi et supplici devotione quod non nisi solummodo de quadam que dum vivebat fuit nominata Marghoneta que ob sue culpe demerita deleta dicebatur, justicia exigente, adtamen inter ipsas illa Marghoneta nullam unquam prorsus habuit suarum sectatricem errorum.
This Marghoneta must in fact be Marguerite, which further advances the idea that the inquisition was simply a piece of theatre used to distance the beguinage from Marguerite Porete.
The name Marghoneta is not attested in contemporary sources from the Hainaut. Marguerite, however, is the name of some of the countesses of Hainaut and is very common in the region, with its variants (Margareta in Latin, or Margherite in Middle French which can be written Margrite). Marghoneta, might therefore be a diminutive of Marguerite, reserved for a woman of modest standing, while Marguerite was reserved for the beguines of higher social rank. This hypocorism adds an important element to the discussion of Marguerite’s social background.
While Marguerite’s social background may remain a mystery, what does not is Marguerite’s unwelcomeness in Valenciennes. No trace of her exists in the city archives, meaning she might have had a subaltern presence in the community and was never called upon to witness legal deeds. Furthermore, the beguines during the investigation call her “a certain woman named Marghoneta.” The absence of a family name and the phrasing place distance between the community and Marguerite. The beguines also speak about this unanimously, implying that is a commonly known fact. While we do not know how many beguines present at the investigation in 1323 would have been in the beguinage during Marguerite’s stay at the start of the fourteenth century, it is highly likely that some would have known her, such as Jeanne de Bavay, who lived in the community prior to 1299 and until 1350. Lastly, during Marguerite’s trials, her community is never by her side.
Godefroy’s Double Roles
Godefroy was not only the protector of the beguines in Valenciennes, he was also highly respected by both lay and religious institutions. He was advisor to Willliam I and William II, successive counts of Hainaut, a theologian, student of John of Tongres, represented the count in papal matters, and was called to the council of Vienne. He appears to have been sympathetic to the beguines’ cause.
Very shortly after the publication of the Clementine Decrees, prior to the investigation, the beguines of Sainte-Élisabeth elected new leaders, probably all new save Godefroy and Marie de Saint-Élier, respectively procurator and Grand Mistress. This choice demonstrates firstly that the beguines were shrewdly aware of the problems that could arise due to the decrees and hoped to stay ahead of any issues by choosing new leaders. Secondly, the choice of Godefroy, was foresighted due to his presence at the Council of Vienne.
The bishop of Cambrai also had his reasons to select Godefroy to execute the mission requested by the papacy. Cum de mulieribus speaks to rooting out bad beguines but also to protecting good beguines from any harassment. This proved to be challenging as it was not entirely clear precisely what the pope meant in the bull. The bishop was aware of the delicate situation on his hands as Marguerite’s previous presence could be an issue. He chose Sainte-Élisabeth as the first beguinage to investigate in his bishopric, three months before Brussels or Antwerp. This haste demonstrates his eagerness to settle the issue quickly. Furthermore, his choice of Godefroy as the sole investigator is also telling as in Brussels and Antwerp he relied on multiple officials from various religious institutions. Be it to please the count or the bishop, or out of sympathy for the beguines, Godefroy had no reason not to defend the beguines.
This investigation of Sainte-Élisabeth in 1323 in which over fifty people intervened, including all the beguines, their priests, members of the mendicant orders nearby, the countess and her daughters, provides us with not only a detailed model of a beguinal investigation. It also gives us the first trace of Marguerite Porete at Sainte-Élisabeth of Valenciennes, who was still being called Marghoneta.
Scintillating conversation from morning until night, high levels of intellectual synergy, and an aura of enthusiastic camaraderie. While this may sound like a scholarly daydream rather than an ordinary academic conference, this was in fact the reality of The Other Sister’s 2023 first international conference, which took place on the campus of the University of St. Michael’s College at the University of Toronto from May 18 to 20. The conference entitled “The Other Sister: New Research on Non-Cloistered Religious Women (1100–1800)” was organized by Prof. Isabelle Cochelin (University of Toronto), Prof. Alison More (University of St. Michael’s College and University of Toronto), Prof. Mary Harvey Doyno (California State University, Sacramento), Dr. Patricia Stoop (Universiteit Antwerpen), and graduate students Joseph Akl, Emma Gabe, Meghan Lescault, and Laura Moncion (University of Toronto). It showcased important research about the many groups of women and individual women who have traditionally received far too little scholarly attention despite their prominence in the medieval and early modern worlds. The need for greater emphasis on this topic was made evident by the numbers of eager participants. Between attendance in person and on Zoom, there were somewhere from 50 to 100+ people present at all times, with the number usually falling on the higher end of the spectrum.
Over the course of the three days, 25 scholars from 9 different countries and all levels of academia, from MA students to professors emeriti, presented papers concerning non-cloistered religious women. The speakers offered precise insights into specific aspects of these women’s lives, while the papers taken together provided a broad thematic perspective that transcended geographic and temporal boundaries. Through the papers, both individually and together, participants were invited into a deeper understanding of non-cloistered religious women and their many important religious and social roles. In the final session of the conference, Prof. John Van Engen (University of Notre Dame) tied together the major themes of the papers and challenged participants to continue to ponder the broad questions that had arisen.
Most of the speakers and some in-person attendees of The Other Sister 2023 conference
Each session was followed by a robust discussion in which connections were made, collaborations were forged, and even friendly debate was held. While the participants specialize in different non-cloistered women and can often find themselves working on their separate topics in isolation, this conference provided the opportunity to exchange ideas, resources, and methodologies related to a shared interest. At least two speakers described their sessions as a unique chance to speak to their bibliographies. This palpable synergy powered the conference and did not stop even when the clock did. Outside of the formal sessions, participants eagerly conversed during meals and coffee breaks. Even when there was no official dinner organized, the attendees formed plans to go out together and extend the conversations for hours.
Between the fascinating academic presentations and the lively spirit of collaboration, it is no wonder why at least five speakers have reported this to be the best conference of their careers. As the many “networks” of the other sisters were a recurring theme of the conference, it is only fitting that there exists an academic network devoted entirely to them. This network’s conference was a great success and hopefully only the first of many more to come.
Participants eagerly discussing research on non-cloistered religious women
Mary and other young women in the Temple (1325-1350), Johannes de Caulibus, Meditatione de la uita del nostro Signore Ihesu Christo, Paris, BnF, Ital 115, f.7v.
Throughout Christian history, there have been groups of women who lived recognizably religious lives but outside of traditional monastic structures. Despite leaving a substantial documentary and (in some cases) visual record, they are conspicuously absent from the dominant scholarly tradition. By defining and contextualizing the experiences of these women, we can begin to understand the ways they fit into the ecclesiastical and lay landscape of the worlds in which they lived. Our conference focuses on new research on non-cloistered women religious including (but not limited to) beguines, bizzoche, tertiaries, pinzochere, canonesses, and house ascetics. By looking beyond the limitations generally imposed by geography or time period, we can begin to think of the connections that existed between these women and society, cloistered nuns, or clerics.
This conference is a collaborative and international endeavour with, besides the University of Toronto team of The Other Sister (Isabelle Cochelin, Alison More and graduate students Joseph Akl, Emma Gabe, Meghan Lescault and Laura Moncion), Professors Mary Doyno (California State University Sacramento) and Patricia Stoop (University of Antwerp).
The conference will take place at the University of Toronto, in person, May 18–20, 2023. Those who cannot be present in Toronto on these days may attend the conference virtually and ask questions through chat. In order to attend the conference via Zoom or in person, please email us at tos2023conference@gmail.com.
May 18th
10:30 am Welcome
Augustine Thompson, PIMS Praeses
Alison More (St Michael’s College, University of Toronto) and Isabelle Cochelin (University of Toronto)
11am-12:30pm Interactions with the Church I – Session 1: the Frederick Charles Furlong Memorial Lecture
Melissa Moreton (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton), Romite del Ponte: Pinzochere, Anchorites, and Spiritual Women on Florence’s Ponte alle Grazie
Tanya Stabler Miller (Loyola University, Chicago), The Beguinage of Cantimpré: A Sponsored Emergence
Meghan Lescault (University of Toronto), Appealing to a Higher Power: Episcopal Interventions in the Conflicts of Nivelles
Lunch 12:30-2pm
2-3pm Interactions with the Church II – Session 2
Ashley Tickle Odebiyi (Arizona State University), Partners not Servants: The Religious Networks of Fifteenth-Century Roman Bizzoche
Sarah Joan Moran (independent scholar), Reforming the Low Countries: The Beguines, the Clerics, and the Archduchess Isabella
Coffee 3-3:30pm
3:30-5pm Their Voices – Session 3
Michael Hahn (Sarum College, Salisbury), Angela of Foligno within Franciscan (mystical-)theological genealogies
Mary Harvey Doyno (California State University, Sacramento), Shout-Outs to the Friars: Catherine of Siena’s Daughters and the Search for Institutional Identity
Courtney Barter-Colcord (Princeton University), Woman as Savior: Guglielma of Milan, Na Prous Boneta, and the Holy Spirit Incarnate
Delfi Nieto-Isabel (Queen Mary University, London), Central Outliers: Women, Intellectual Contributions and Beguinal Dissident Networks in the Fourteenth-Century Mediterranean
Joseph George Akl and Isabelle Cochelin (University of Toronto), Sisters to Sister: New Perspectives on the Painting Mechelen’s Beguines at Work (Museum Hof van Busleyden, Mechelen, 17th Century)
11-11:30am Coffee
11:30am-12:30pm Liturgy – Session 5
Samantha Slaubaugh (University of Notre Dame), Teaching the Liturgy through Ecstasy: Douceline of Digne’s Vida as Liturgical Source
Katherine Clark Walter (SUNY Brockport), Pious Widowhood in Text and Image: Widows’ Consecrations in Illuminated Pontificals of the Later Middle Ages
Lunch 12:30-2pm
2-3pm The Lower-Status Ones – Session 6
Kate Bush (College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA), Ut pedissequa ministrare: Service and Serving Sisters in Early Clarissan Hagiography
Kim Main (University of Toronto), “Among the Number of His Spouses”: Ursuline Converse Nuns in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Quebec
Coffee 3-3:30pm
3:30-5pm Production and Transmission of Knowledge – Session 7
Patricia Stoop (Universiteit Antwerpen), Non-Cloistered Religious Women and their Contributions to Literary Culture in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Low Countries
Kathryn Kerby-Fulton (University of Notre Dame), Not So Silent After All: Anchoresses and Other Sisters in the Virtual Intellectual Communities of Medieval Oxford
Sergi Sancho Fibla (Università degli Studi di Padova), Women, religion and education: types of sources and perspectives of study (Southern Europe, 14th-15th Centuries)
Alicia Smith (Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Toronto), Harlots and Hermits: Thais as Intertext for Twelfth-Century Eremitic Experiments
Laura Moncion (University of Toronto), A Recluse in New France: The Life of Jeanne Le Ber (1662-1714)
Coffee 11-11:30am
11:30am-12:30pm Problems of Definition, Questions of identity – Session 9
Fiona Griffiths (Stanford University), Clerics’ Wives as “Other” Sisters
Michelle M. Sauer (University of North Dakota), Noble Women Attached to the Minoresses in England
Lunch 12:30-2pm
2-3:30pm (Non-)Enclosing – Session 10
Alison Beach (University of Saint Andrew’s), Hermits, Inclusae, and Other Freelancers: Women in Germany’s Apostolic Awakening (11th-12th Centuries)
Letha Böhringer (Universität zu Köln), The Beguines of Cologne, a Social History
Adrian Kammerer (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen), An Order and its Consequences: Effects of the Dominican Third Rule on Non-Cloistered Religious Women
Coffee 3:30-4pm
4-5pm Conclusion by John Van Engen (University of Notre Dame)
It is with great sadness that we must announce the passing of Michael W. Blastic, OFM, a valued member of our community.
