Writing the Mystic Body: Sexuality and Textuality in the ecriture-feminine of Saint

Catherine of Genoa
Author(s): Anna Antonopoulos
Source: Hypatia, Vol. 6, No. 3, Feminism and the Body (Autumn, 1991), pp. 185-207
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3809847
Accessed: 13/03/2009 21:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iupress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hypatia.

http://www.jstor.org
Writingthe MysticBody:Sexualityand
Textualityin the ecriture-feminine
of
SaintCatherineof Genoa
ANNA ANTONOPOULOS

Thispaperlooksto evolvea discourse aboutthebodyinmedievalwomen'smystical

experience via an understandingof lifeandworkof SaintCatherineof Genoaas
the
ecriture-feminine.DrawinguponCatherine'sresolutionof binarismthroughthe
articulation of sexualityandtextuality,I arguethatthefemalemystic'sexperience
of
the bodyas site of strugglehelpsmovebeyondanalysisof a binaryexperienceto a
politicsof speakingthebodydirectly.

And perhapsHe has chosen herbody to inscribeHis will, even

if she is less able to read the inscription,poorer in language,
"crazier"in her speech ...
(Irigaray1985a, 198)
The body,in particularthe sexuallyspecific body,has recently emergedas
a viable and important pathway into understandingwomen's attempts to
transformand transfigurehistoricalconditionsof confinement and constraint
(Bynum 1987, 1990; Bell 1985; Bordo 1989). In theories of ecriture-feminine
feministshave sought to rethink the female body outside its binaryrepresen-
tation and to develop textual alternatives to the traditional oppositions
dividing mind from body, reason from passion, culturefrom nature, and self
from other (Moi 1985; Irigaray1985a). It is with these two axes of feminist
philosophyin mind that I proposeto discussthe ecriture-feminineof Catherine
of Genoa-a medievalfemalemysticfor whom the circumstanceof "holding"
a female body meant no less than corporealdeath itself. I will argue that
locating Catherine'smysticismwithin notions of ecriture-feminine not only
pushestheoriesof ecriture-feminine
towarda historicopoliticaldiscourseof the

Hypatiavol. 6, no. 3 (Fall 1991) ? by Anna Antonopoulos

186 Hypatia

body but also articulatesher experiencewith the contemporarypoliticization

of discoursetheory.

I. Introduction

Catherineof Genoa lived and died at the turn of the fifteenth century.At
the time when men were burning women at the stake for witchcraft, the
testimony of Catherine'slife story is that of a woman burningherself up for
God. Struckby what is referredto as a "supernatural malady,"and showingno
other, visible of
signs illness, Catherine lay spent and consumed,cauterizedto
the bone by a fireof which therewasno outwardsign. Herbody,retrievedfrom
the tomb eight months afterher death, was found "yellowas saffron"except
aroundthe heart, "wherethe skin was red, a sign of the love it had borne"
(Catherine 1979, 147).
Charged with its own peculiar blend of awe and fear, the image of the
burningwoman characteristicof medieval witch burningsand female perse-
cutionsexpressesthe idea of the femalebodyas locusof demonicpower.In the
worksof Catherineof Genoa, however,the imageof fire is used to expressthe
opposite-that is, the burningfemalebody as locus of the divine. Catherine's
life and especially her death find expression in the text of a "spiritual
psychology"passeddown to us in the formof two works,Purgatory andPurgation
andTheSpiritualDialogue.Transcribedby friendsand followers,this text of self
standsout as the living testimonyof consummationin God, as a woman'sbody
becomesthe symbolicpyreof transcendenceand union with the divine.
In the context of a feminist critique of medieval asceticism as world
rejection, the veneration of Catherine'speculiarannihilation could be con-
struedas the discursivefoil for the abominationand obliterationof the female
body by a dualistic and misogynousreligious tradition. According to this
argument,the apparentloss of subjecthoodand dissolutionof the mind/body,
subject/objectoppositions characteristicof the mystical experience hold a
peculiarappealfor women, whose verysubjecthood(both textual and sexual)
has been denied and repressed.However,my argumentis different.In keeping
with a current move to refute the standardpicture of medieval women as
constrainedon every side by a misogynythat they internalizedas self-hatred
or masochism, I want to locate Catherine's image-laden death within a
theoreticalframeworkthat looksuponmedievalasceticismas "thepossibilities
providedby fleshliness"andthe body,ratherthan a flightfromit (Bynum1987,
6). For Catherine was not the only one in her time to experience transcen-
dence in and throughbodily metaphors.A characteristicspiritualityemerged
in the Middle Ages in which bodily manipulationand its symbolismbecame
a standardpart of what Foucaultcalls a religious "technologyof the flesh"
(Foucault 1980, 121), one in which the uses of the flesh, its pleasuresand
displeasures,were aimedat communionwith and fulfillmentin God.1Indeed,
 Anna Antonopoulos 187

medievalpracticesof sexual abstinenceand starvationhave made the experi-

ence of bodily fire, along with hunger,into two of the most pervasiveimages
andvehicles of mysticalexperience(Bynum1987, 184). Yet,while by now our
understandingof the significanceof food in the religiousregulationof the body
has been greatlyadvancedby medievalscholarship(Bell 1985;Bynum 1987),
there is still relatively little work on the images of fire. Consequently,the
singularityof Catherine'sdeath is left unnoticed.2
Although the imagesof fire and hungerareboth presentin representations
of Catherine'sasceticpractices,it is the imageof the bodyon fire,as the above
descriptionof Catherine'smysticalcauterizationsuggests,that constitutesthe
chief symbol through which her own spiritualityis forged. Alongside the
"flamingheart"of Saint Teresaof Avila (Irigaray1985a, 201) and the "living
flame of love" of Saint John of the Cross (John 1962), Catherine'sburning
flesh becomes the dominantmotif for the medievalmystic'sdesireand fulfill-
ment in the encounter with God.2I will arguethat Catherine, a lay saint in
her own right,claims a centralplace in termsof the productionand reproduc-
tion of the image of fire in religiouswomen'sdiscourse.In raisingpyro-rather
than gastro-centeredsymbolismof spiritualexpression, her death and the
discoursesurroundingit admitto a prototypeof (female) religiousexperience
that cannot usefullybe absorbedby a discussionof the motif of food. Nor can
it be unproblematicallyabsorbedinto a discussionof the transformativevalue
of the body and bodily experience in women's(and men's) spirituality,or of
the unambiguoususes of the body in the manipulationand control of social
and religiousconditions. Like the symbolicpractice of eating Christ'sflesh,
that of absorbingit sexually expressesthe symbolic significance of divine
penetrationin bodily experience.However,nobody is known to have died of
taking the Eucharist.If starvationpracticesled to death, it would not be in
such direct articulationof religiousprinciples.The experienceof eating God's
flesh is symbolicallymediated; experiencing his love is not. In the latter,
woman'sbody becomes the site of an articulationthat fails to blend into a
discussion of the former. As a discourse of spirituality,the discourse of
Catherine'sbizarreself-immolationadmitsto a dual articulationof sexual and
textual considerations,a disturbingconfluence of discourseand deed. Thus
Catherine'scase remainsenigmaticand begselucidation-as exemplaryof not
only the eroticizationof piety but also of its sometimesunequivocallyfinal,
irreversible,and apparentlymurderousresults.
In what follows, therefore,my approachis two-pronged:first, I want to
examine the significanceof the burningfemale body in termsof the mystical
psychologyof Catherineof Genoa, andsecond,I wantto look at its significance
in terms of what it meant to medieval women to experience their bodies as
erotic symbolsof transcendence.Thus I will use a rathercircuitousroute to
argue that Catherine'sexperience of her body, preservedin the image of a
consumingfire of love, also servesto unmaskand explorean alternativeto the
188 Hypatia

traditionalconceptions of the (female) body in Westernreligiosity-one in

which the body is experienced not in dualistic terms but as the site of a
transformationof meaning.3Furthermore,I want to show how this transfor-
mation is present in both the religiousas well as the domestic and sexual
domains.Without overlookingthe fact that the regulationof the femalebody
is historicallyboundup with the control of femalesexuality(Turner1984, 3),
I want to show how in the service of a technology of the self this experience
of the bodyfunctionsboth in resistanceto and in collusionwith conditionsof
constraint.
There are, however, two methodological difficultiesencountered at the
outset. The first is that Catherine'stext, the theoreticaland discursiveback-
drop of her self-annihilation,has essentiallybeen committed to writing by
others.4While individualizedreligiousexperiencegains political significance
in the context of a historicalsetting, here the roles of community,confessor,
and reporterare so entwined that the female body becomes a site of struggle
for competingdiscourses.5Thus an effective sortingenterpriseis farfromeasy
and presents its own cluster of methodologicalcomplexities (Bynum 1987,
7-8). The second methodologicaldifficultyis that in Catherine'scase her body
becomes the site of an inscriptionin which the liberationof the body meets
with its annihilation. Given a male tradition of hagiographicwriting, it
becomes increasinglydifficult to distinguishmale and female vantage points
when it comes to a case as radicalin its metaphorsas this-a case in which the
imageand the imagedno longerclaim a separatestake.Steeped as it is in the
languageof "possession"andthe "supernatural," Catherine'sdeathcouldeasily
be construed as either the target of a misogynistclerical tradition6or the
feminine internalizationof that tradition.While recent feminist scholarship
has done much to retrievestoriesaboutwomen and to describewomen'spiety,
it has concentratedon the negativestereotypingof women'ssexualityandtheir
lack of sacerdotalauthority(Bynum 1987, 29; Bell 1985, 86). Thus the male
theologizationof femalemysticismthat investsthe femalebodywith the status
of the divine takes on the sinister aspect of a reverse formation in which
burningwitches and burningsaintsareinterchangeable(Bell 1985, 211, n. 19;
Bynum 1987, 23).
It is to this degreethat the applicationof theoriesof ecriture-feminineto the
life and death of Catherineof Genoa can be doublyproductive.As a discourse
and a voice,7ecriture-femininepresentsa veryfruitfulperspectiveforsortingout
the imagesof woman and the body from the experiencesby women of their
bodies,for it does so not only in referenceto the differingvantagepoints from
which men and womenviewed these mattersin late medievalreligionbut also
in referenceto their particulareconomiesof desire.While at this stage it may
appearsomewhatarbitraryand methodologicallypresupposedto applynotions
of ecriture-feminineto a discourseandan oraltraditionthat has been committed
to writingby others,my object is to rescuethe problematicsof religiouswomen
 Anna Antonopoulos 189

achieving meaning throughbodily experiencefrom a hagiographictradition

constructed almost entirely by males.8Thus my appeal to ecriture-feminine
allowsus to "payattention to what women saidand did, avoidingthe assump-
tion that they simply internalizedthe rhetoricof theologians, confessors,or
husbands"(Bynum 1987, 29). Foras "theonly place in the historyof the West
in which womanspeaksand acts so publicly"(Irigaray1985a, 191), the female
mystic's discourse demonstrateswhat in a different context Jane Gallop
describesas "a surprising,vulgarpolitical efficacy"(Gallop 1988, 95).
Catherine'smysticalpsychologyis expressedin what can be characterized
as three majortenets: a tripartiteconcept of self, the self's dualisticmode of
being in the world, and its transcendentalform of being in God. Weaving
togethersoul-bodydialoguewith themes of self-love, self-hate,and transcen-
dence andfulfillmentin God, these tenets formthe basisof an ecriturein which
the imageof the burningfemalebodygainssignificanceas an effectivepolitical
discourse.Read in the context of historicalconditions, Catherine'sindividu-
alized experience of the body can be seen to mediate between conflictual
tendencieswithin religiousas well as domesticconditions. In the articulation
of the textual and the sexual body, the corporealsignification of her death
enacts the female mystic'sattemptsto transformconditions of social, sexual,
and religiousconstraint.Thus Catherine'secrituredemonstratesthe sense in
which the mystic'sexperience of the body helps move beyond analysisof a
binaryexperience to a politics that speaksthe body directly.As the gateway
to investigation of the historical and political articulationsof desire in lan-
guage,her ecritureanswersto the call within feminist theoreticalpracticefor
an "effectivepolitical discourse"about the body.In providingalternativesfor
reconceptualizingthe alleged"mysticismof the body"that Beauvoirandothers
(Dallery 1989, 53) have attributedto Frenchfeminist theories, it also raises
questions about the politics of ecriture-fiminine in contemporaryfeminist
reconceptualizationsof the body.9
In the first two sections that follow I will look at each of these tenets
individuallythrougha close readingof the texts of Purgatory andPurgationand
The SpiritualDialogue.I will then discusshow Catherine'sexperience of the
body as site of strugglehelps move beyond analysisof binaryexperience. By
way of conclusion I will discuss the implications of this in terms of the
problematicof speakingthe bodydirectlywithin contemporaryfeministtheory
and criticism.

II. A SpiritualText of Self: God, Soul, Body

Catherine'sconcept of self is developedin both Purgatory andPurgationand

The SpiritualDialogue.It is a tripartiteconcept composedof God (the self as
God), the Soul (the self assoul), and the Body(the self as body). In this section
I will examine each of these independently;in the following section I will
190 Hypatia

examine their relationshipin Catherine'srepresentationof the self'sbeing in

the worldand its being in God.

God

The self as God is a notion primarilydeveloped in Purgatoryand Purgation

(PP) and echoed in parts 1 and 2 of The SpiritualDialogue(SD). God, in
Catherine'sview, is the elemental and primarysourceof self, "the pure state
fromwhich it firstissued"(PP 79), as well as the state to which it will return:
"Once strippedof all its imperfections,the soul rests in God, and with no
characteristicsof its own" (PP 80). Followinga processof purgationand the
strippingaway of the lower self in us, "ourbeing is thenGod" (PP 80; italics
added).
This God, a "divine essence so pure and light-filled" (PP 78), has in
Catherine'stext three outstandingproperties.Two of these are Goodnessand
Joy: "The briefestvision of God far surpassesany human joy" (PP 78), and
'when a soul is close to its first creation . . . the instinct for beatitudeasserts
itself"(PP 73). In addition,God has the thirdpropertyof Love. God's"flaming
love" is a theme that runsthroughall of Catherine'sworks/textas well as her
life. The "pure"Love of God, "intense and fiery,"is not only that through
which the other partshave issued(SD 108) but also that throughwhich they
will be left behind:"And I see raysof lighming dartingfromthat divine love
to the creatureso intense and fiery as to annihilate not the body alone but,
were it possible, the soul" (PP 79). But beforethat happens,they must come
to be, and so I turnnow to a discussionof the two other partsof the self in the
text of Catherine'smysticalpsychology-the Soul and the Body.

The Soul

The nature of the Soul, or Spirit, is primarilydeveloped in the first and

secondpartsof the SpiritualDialogue,whereit appearsunderthe title of "Spirit"
in the latter.It has three attributesor propertiesin the formof instinct, need,
and free agency.These are an instinct for God, a need for spiritualactivities,
and volition, or powerof the will.
The "instinct for God" is one that, accordingto the text of Purgatoryand
Purgation,is implantedin the Soul upon its creation (PP 76): "The soul in its
creation is pureand simple ... and endowedwith a certain instinct for God"
(PP 73). This, the text of TheSpiritualDialogueadds,is the "instinctforinfinite
joy"(SD 103). However,as the "distancebetweenthe soulandGod"increases,
God, once the subjectof self, now becomesits object. Thus a second property
of the Soul is its need for the contemplationof things divine. In The Spiritual
Dialoguethe object of the Soul'sneed is the spiritualequivalentto the material
objects of the Body'sneeds. Describingitself as "invisible,"its joy, a joy in
 Anna Antonopoulos 191

"thingsinvisible,"the Soul resolvesto spend time in contemplationof God's

gifts,contemplatingthings like "itscreation,""allthe benefitsGod has given
it," and "how it had been createdfor eternalbliss"(SD 94).
In addition to the Soul's instinct for God and its need for contemplative
spiritualactivity, however, there is the third attributeof the Soul that dis-
tinguishesit fromthe Body,and namely,its agency-freedom, or power,of the
will. Developing this idea largelyin the second part of The SpiritualDialogue
in the Spirit'sdialoguewith "HumanFrailty"(the Body), the text underscores
the sense in which "reason,power,will, . . memory... are attributesof the
Spiritor Soul" (SD 125). In a laterpassageon freedomand responsibility,the
followingwordsare assignedto the speakerfor the Soul:
I was the firstto sin and do so freely.The responsibilityfalls on
me. In doing good, heaven and earth will come to my aid and
neitherthe devil, the flesh,or the worldcan standin my way.If I
commitevil, then I too will have no shortageof those willingto
help me ... demons,the world,... the instinctto evil. (SD 126)
It is thus that in the fight for supremacywagedbetween the Soul and the Body
that TheSpiritualDialoguedescribes,it is agreedat the outset by Bodyand Soul
together that it is the Soul that is "the strongerof the two" (SD 92). What
remainsin favorof the Bodyis not "strength"of will andpower,butworldliness:
"Iam at home here,"saysthe Bodyto the Soul, thus establishingits principal
attribute,that of being in the world (SD 92).

The Body

Catherine'stext on the natureof the Body is largelydeveloped in the first

part of The SpiritualDialogue,in which three attributesof the Body emerge.
These are the terrestrialnatureof its needs, its "being-at-homein the world,"
and its "instinct"for terrestrialpleasures.
Insofaras the terrestrialnatureof the Body'sbasicneeds is concerned,these
comprisethe basic requirementsfor survival-food, drink, sleep, protection
(SD 106)-and aredistinguishedfromthe Soul'sneeds forspiritualsustenance
through contemplation. Together they reflect the second propertyof the
natureof the Body,its being-at-homein the world,which standsagainstthe
Soul'sbid for supremacyon the groundsof its propertyof volition. "Trueyou
are the strongerof the two," says the Body to the Soul, "but I am at home
here."The significanceand powerof this affirmationaremademanifestin the
opening lines of The SpiritualDialogue,in which the very termsof a relation
betweenSoul and Bodyareset by the primacyof the latter'sphysical/terrestrial
grounds:"Since I am subject to you," says the Body, "I will do as you wish;
rememberthough, that without me, you cannot do as you wish" (SD 91). In
192 Hypatia

other words,the Body may be just "an animal body, without reason,power,
will or memory"(SD 125), but the Soul cannot live in the worldwithout it.
In addition to the terrestrialnature of its needs and its characteristicof
being-at-homein the world,the Bodyin these texts has one other character-
istic that distinguishes it from the Soul, what Catherine often calls an
"instinct"for terrestrialjoys. This so-called instinct is distinguishablefrom
terrestrial"needs"and "appetites."Catherinewrites:"The Body'sneeds ...
can be satisfied but its appetites are constantly renewed because . . . the
capacityof the Bodyis forfinite things"(SD 103). In this regard,the "instinct"
for terrestrialjoys in the Body is comparableto the "instinct"for God in the
Soul, except that whereasthe formeris an "instinct"forthingsfinite, the latter
is one for things infinite (SD 139). It is ultimatelythe conflict between these
two "instinctual"tendenciesthat leadsthe self'sdualisticmode of being in the
world. In the face of the ensuing strugglebetween these two modes of being
in the world,the resolutionthat Catherinegives to this conflict is in the form
of a transcendenceof binarismaltogether.The inscriptionof love upon the
self'sbeing in God becomesthe carnalexpressionthat Catherinegives to her
mystic body.Her body'smetamorphosisthroughfire and flamesbecomes the
avatarof her transcendenceas she moves fromthe dualisticmode of being in
the worldto the transcendentalbeing in God.

III.The Mystic Body:Self-Love,Self-Hate, Transcendence

We can discern two alternativeformsof being in the world in the text of

Catherine'smysticalpsychologyof the self. Developed in the firstand second
half of The SpiritualDialogue,respectively,these are what I call self-love and
self-hate. Before turning to Catherine'sunusual experience of "transcen-
dence," I will firstexamine her concept of the self'sdualisticformof being in
the worldthat emergesfromher text.

Self-Love

In part one of The SpiritualDialogue,self-love is introducedto harmonize

Body and Soul in the interestsof longevity and health. "Ifwe live according
to ourneeds we can live happilytogether,"saysthe Bodyto the Soul (SD 97).
For,the Body argues,"When the body is healthy, the powersof the soul are
apt... when the body is sick, these powersare wanting"(SD 113). Thus, of
each of the three component partsof the self, it is the Body,by virtue of its
being-at-homein the world, that is given primacyin self-love. In the Body's
affirmationof life, the Soul is also served:"When I, the Body,die, you will
have no meansof addingto yourglory,"saysthe Bodyto the Soul in the interest
of self-love (SD 113). But God is also served:"The preceptfollowing that of
loving God... is that of loving ourneighbor.This love, in the temporalorder,
 Anna Antonopoulos 193

begins with loving your body which you are to maintain alive and healthy
underpain of sin" (SD 112).
However,if throughself-love harmonyis achieved, it is achieved at a cost.
And the cost is that of the atemporalorder,which is just as much a partof the
self in Catherine'spsychologyas is the temporalone. In this respect,the second
form of the self's being in the world must be understoodas a step in the
resolutionof that conflict/tensionin the ultimateformof its being in God. But
until that resolutionis achieved,this secondbeing in the world,which appears
in the formof an asceticismand brutalworld-rejection,remainsan extremely
negative portrayalof life on earth-one that, were it not constructedas part
of a largermysticalpsychologyof the self, would stand out as the singly most
undesirablestate (of being in the world) imaginable,and one, moreover,that
has not exactly been sparedthe lot of womankindunderpatriarchy-that of
self-hate.

Self-Hate

Self-hate as a mode of being in the world is described in the text of

Catherine'sown life story,transcribedinto wordsin part two of The Spiritual
Dialogue.Here Catherine begins her diatribeof apparent"despairand self-
loathing"manifestedby a total and absoluterepudiationof the Body in all its
facets. Passagessuch as "Do you not see that you are not beautiful,but are all
spatteredwith mud?"(SD 115), "Ifindmyselfunbearable(SD 117), "Iamvile!
Of what worth am I?"(SD 116), and an "obstinate,sensual soul" (SD 116)
color the greaterpartof this self-portrait.
The result is that Catherine becomes, in the words of her friends and
followers,"anenemy of herself,"waging"waron the self-love that survivedin
her" (SD 118). Denying herself the bare necessities of life, she does not eat,
sleep or talk. She lies on a bed of thornsto cut down her hoursof sleep, seasons
food that she likes with hepatic oil and groundagracio,and loses all taste for
things either spiritual or earthly. Seeking only her own company, she is
reportedto have "lookedconstantlyat the ground,never laughedor smiledor
glanced at passersby"(SD 120). In a move to finally "crushall disordered
pleasures"and "takeawayall things that gave ... [her]comfort"(SD 128-29],
Catherinebeginsto administerto the poorandsick. Ifthe lice makehervomit,
she takes handfuls of them in her mouth; if she reacts similarly to any
foul-smellingsores, she rubsher nose in their pus (SD 131). Laterjoining a
hospitalwhere"shebecamesubjectto those who runthe hospitalas if she were
a servant,"Catherine,"emptyof any supportor refreshmentwithin,"becomes
"completelyalienated"(SD 132) and can hope only "fora speedydeath"(SD
131)-a death that will releaseher fromthis abhorrentbeing in the worldand
permither to find (being in) God. Forthis "self-hate",I will now argue,is the
manifestationof only one wayof being-that is, a being in the temporalorder.
194 Hypatia

According to Catherine'smysticalpsychology,however, this is not the only

way of being. As I have alreadyshown, there is also the atemporalorderand
its transcendentalbeing in God. Within that order,this displayof "self-hatred"
is a maskeddisplayof Love-the pureLove of God.

Trancendence

As shown in my discussionof Catherine'sconcept of self, God is one of the

self'svery forms:"Once strippedof all its imperfections,the soul restsin God,
and with no characteristicsof its own.... Ourbeing is then God" (PP 80). In
this state, in which both Body and Soul are transcendedin a motion "to
annihilatenot the body alone, but... the soul"(PP 79), the Soul "transforms
itself into God"and returns"to the pristinestateof its creation"(PP 81). I will
now tur to the last of the majortenets of Catherine'smysticalpsychology,the
self's transcendentalbeing in God, which also finds expression in her own
unusualexperienceof the burningbody.
In a mannerreminiscentof the harmonyachieved between the partsof the
self in the form of being that is self-love, here too there is harmonyin what
Catherinecalls the "the peace and restthat is God" (SD 103). Here, however,
it is not self-love but what Catherinedescribesas the "pureLove of God"that
promptsthe self not only to renouncethe temporalorderof the Bodybut also
to seek the infinite one of God. "Illumined"by God'slove and its own instinct
for God, the Soul recognizesthe inadequacyof the temporalorder,however
harmoniouslythe partsof the self mayhave lived within it. Forthe finitudeof
the (body in the) temporalorderis death, inevitable death in all partsof the
self. In conjunction with the Soul'sultimate renunciationof self-love in part
one of TheSpiritualDialogue,Catherinewrites:"... underthe guiseof the good
and the necessaryyou [self-loveand the Body]led me to the brinkof eternal
death" (SD 110). The inevitabilityof corporealdeath, maskedby the Body's
discourseof longevity and health, is not the only factorin the renunciationof
self-love.There is also the spiritualdeath that goeswith it. Reducedto "athing
of this world,"losing its valued"instinctforGod"(SD 106), the Soul becomes
"likean animalwillinglyled to slaughter"but is "fullyconsciousof the bodily
and spiritualdeath confrontingit" (SD 107).
In part three of The SpiritualDialogue,the death of Catherine herself is a
testimonyof the route to this formof transcendentalbeing in God as well as
of its final accomplishment.Compiledbyherfriendsandfollowers,this section
describesCatherineherself,consumedto the last by the clinging flamesof the
purelove of God as by "asupernaturalmalady.""No greatersufferingwas ever
witnessed in a body to all appearancesso healthy" (SD 143). "Like the
seraphim"Catherine'ssoul, the inscriptiongoes,"hadpenetratedinto essential
fire"(SD 132-33). But the questionremains:"Ifthe firewe know convertsthe
 Anna Antonopoulos 195

consumedthing into itself, leavingnothing but ashesbehind at the end, what

shall we say of that essentialfire?"(SD 132-33).
Indeed,what?

IV.Sexuality and Textualityin Catherine'secriture-feminine

In his introductionto the 1979 edition of The SpiritualDialogue,BenedictJ.

Groeschelstates that "thereis no evidence to suggestthat CatherineAdorna
waspsychotic"(Catherine 1979, 9). Citing Friedrichvon Hiigel'sTheMystical
Elementof Religionas Studiedin SaintCatherineofGenoaandHerFriends(1908),
a massivetwo-tome celebrationof the theological implicationsof Catherine's
mysticalpsychology,Groeschel maintainsthat she was "a person strivingfor
adjustmentof profoundinnerforces"(Catherine 1979, 9). Nevertheless,if we
considerCatherine'smysticalpsychologyin the light of contemporarytheories
of the psychopathologyof woman,we cannot help butbe struckby the parallels
between this mysticalpsychologyand the negative self-imagesthat according
to Mary Daly have "spawnedself-loathing and self-punishmentin women
underpatriarchy"(Daly 1984, 57). While Daly has theorizedfemale masoch-
ism in termsof the requirementsof a male Judeo-ChristianGod (Daly 1984,
57-59), others (e.g., Beauvoir1965, 33) have gone furtherto touch upon its
relation to the entire philosophical, sociocultural,and economic context
within which the Westernfeminine condition unfolds.

Transcendence,Erotomania,and Femininity

In The SecondSex Simone de Beauvoir addressesthe "erotomania"that

penetrates and permeates the mystic's discourse on God (Beauvoir 1965,
630-38). Assumingthat it is "the povertyof languagethat compelsthe mystic
to borrowthis erotic vocabulary,"Beauvoirgoes on to suggestthat the mystic,
borrowingthe wordsandphysicalattitudesof heterosexuallove, has "thesame
behavior to offer God as what she displayswhen she offersherself to man"
(Beauvoir 1965, 633). Nevertheless, Beauvoir would have us distinguish
between the quest for "transcendence" and that for a "redemption of
femininity"in mysticalerotomania(Beauvoir1965,634). "Whatdegradesthe
hysteric,"she writes, "is not the fact that her body actively expressesher
obsessions,but that she is obsessed"(Beauvoir1965, 633). In this way,it would
theoreticallybe possibleto distinguishthe ecstatic phenomena of the eroto-
mania of Saint Teresa(or of Saint John of the Cross) from that of secondary
mystics,such as MarieAlacoque,Angela of Foligno,and CatherineEmmerich
(Beauvoir1965, 634). In the lattercases, the mystics'practicesof self-annihi-
lation and destructionof the flesh in the name of God'seternal love are, for
Beauvoir,the expressionof woman'sambiguousrelation to the body, which
requireshumiliation and sufferingin orderto transformthe body into glory:
196 Hypatia

"The mystic will tortureher flesh to have the right to claim it; reducingit to
abjection,she exalts it as the instrumentof salvation"(Beauvoir1965, 635).
Thus what the majorityof female mystics,Saint Teresa's"minorsisters,"give
us is "an essentiallyfeminine vision of the world and of salvation."For,she
goes on, "it is not a transcendencethat they seek;it is the redemptionof their
femininity"(Beauvoir1965, 634).
But what about Catherine of Genoa? In Catherine'smysticalerotomania,
transcendenceand femininity are united in death itself. Sharing with Saint
Teresaof Avila and others in the imageryof God'sembraceof fire and flame,
Catherine'sbody becomes the very text of this consummation.Unlike the
stigmatathat appearon mystics'bodiesas the signsof a divine inscription,the
annihilation of her body'slife on earth becomesboth the enactment and the
vehicle of liberation.Thus what meansdo we have fordecidingwhetherit was
transcendenceshe was seeking or the redemptionof her femininity?Are we
to reject Catherine'spsychologyas the neuroticexpressionof woman'sambig-
uous relation to her body,or are we to accept it? And if so, as what?What is
the concept of woman and of the body that her life and work,and especially
her death, have to offerus?
I would like to take the time to suggestsome possibilities.Forwe need not
stay with Beauvoir'sdesexualizationof transcendencenor with Daly's neu-
roticizationof femininity.Eachof these positionsin its own wayparadoxically
erasesand obliteratesboth the political and the historicalsignificanceof the
femalemysticalexperience.While certainlyno othersareknown to have been
consumed unto death by fire,10an adequate political discourse about
Catherine's life and death would move beyond the sexual binarism of a
redemptionof femininity.In so doing it wouldbringnew insightsto the rather
extensive numberof mundanecases of medievalfemale "erotomania."

Pathologyor Protest?

In the context of the contemporaryquest for a historicopoliticaldiscourse

aboutthe femalebody,a discourseadequateto what Bordocalls "the insidious
and often contradictorypathwaysof modem social control" (Bordo 1989,
14-15), one might be tempted to align Catherine'smysticalexperience with
what Bordodescribesas the "disciplineandnormalization"of the femalebody.
In this respecta new axis emerges.In lieu of transcendenceand femininitywe
have the axis of pathologyand protest.Accordingly,one might drawupon its
connection with such gender-relatedandhistoricallylocalizeddisordersof the
body ("female maladies")as neurasthenia,hysteria, anorexia nervosa, and
agoraphobia(Bordo 1988; 1989, 14; 1990b,85)-all of which arecompatible
with Catherine'ssymptomatology.Thus one might look upon the mystic's
self-inflictedsubjectionas the social condition of "women's'docile bodies' "
 Anna Antonopoulos 197

(Bordo 1990b, 95), a condition that workson behalf of the maintenanceand

reproductionof patriarchalpowerrelations.
However,where it is "muteness"that is the silent condition of existence of
most other feminine pathologiesof the body (Bordo 1989, 21), in the case of
the mystic it is ratherthe contrary.As Irigarayremindsus, "this is the only
place in the historyof the West in which woman speaksand acts so publicly"
(Irigaray1985a, 191). Thus the tension between the "psychologicalmeaning
of the disorder,"which, to use Bordo'sanalysis,enacts fantasiesof protest,and
the practical life of the disorderedbody that defeats rebellion and subverts
protest (Bordo 1989, 25) finds a rather unique expression in the mystic's
discourse.Without obviating the problematicof a "subversionof potential
rebellion" (Bordo 1989, 15), I want nonetheless to use the instance of
Catherine's ecritureto advance discussions about the "mechanism"that
involves what Bordo insightfullydescribesas "a transformationof meaning
throughwhich conditions that are 'objectively'constraining,enslaving, and
even murderous,come to be experienced as liberating, transforming,life-
giving" (Bordo 1989, 15). This, Bordo explains, is often a mechanism that
leadsto the "sufferer's" ideologicalconstructionof the femininityemblematic
of the period in question, the symptomatologyhaving political meaning
"within the varyingrules governingthe historicconstructionof gender,"and
the symptomscharacteristicof the "normativefemininityof the era"(Bordo
1989, 16-17). Thus Catherine'scase allows us to study the culturalrepresen-
tation of femininity in relation to the lives of bodies within a particular
historicalperiod. Throughthe symptomatologyof its textual corps/corpus,it
permitspolitical theorizationsabout"erotomania,"the mundanecounterpart
of female mysticism,as a "pathologyof 'protest'" (Bordo 1988, 105). In the
approximationof the textual body'snarrativeto that of the sexual body, a
unique and historic expression of (writing) the female body emerges that
anticipatesthe discourseof Irigarayand others.12
With these reflections in mind, I now want to brieflyoutline how in the
case of the ecriture-feminineof Catherineof Genoa, a political discourseof the
body is achieved. I will do so by firstconsideringthis discoursein the context
of two historicalfactors:the patriarchaltheologizationof (female) mysticism
on the one hand and the domesticationof piety on the other.While both these
factorsrefer to the religiousuniverse of the Middle Ages, they nonetheless
ouline two contexts within which Catherine'smysticismachieves a political
dimension-the religious(proper)and the domestic.Thus I will argue,follow-
ing Irigaray,that by accepting to live/writeher female sexuality in the auto-
erotic text of the mystical body through corporealdeath itself, Catherine's
work/ecriture eludes the speculareconomy of a "hom(m)osexualGod" (Moi
1985, 137) and therebyachieves a "feminization"of transcendenceproper,a
transcendencethat is specific to her own libidinaldrivesand one that opens
up a transient (and domestic) spacewherein her own pleasurecan unfold.13
198 Hypatia

Writingthe Mystic Body:The ReligiousContext

If we consider Catherine'swork (ecriture) in the context of the Christian

community'sglorificationof femininity in which individualmales would put
themselvesin the role of the "bride,"Catherine'stranscendencecontests her
era'sphallomorphic"feminization"of piety. With the imageryof the female
recipient of God's caressing love, the relation between the transcendent
creatorand his mortalcreation is portrayedby the religious/eroticmysticism
of medieval piety in terms derived originallyfrom erotic poetry (Clark and
Richardson1977, 9). However,becauseit is Catherine'sexperience and not
only her symbols14that are female, a unity of discourseis achieved between
the textual and the sexualbody.Femininity,or the "holding"of a femalebody,
becomes a preconditionof transcendencein Catherine'smysticalpsychology
and its resolution.Thus the famousand emphaticaffirmation"in Dio e il mio
essere, il mio ME" (Catherine 1962, 171), translatedas "my ME is God"
(Nugent 1984, 185), is a statementaccordedto Catherineherself (Catherine
1979, 30). Read alongside other statements such as "the proper center of
everyone is God himself" and "mybeing is God not by simple participation
butby truetransformationof mybeing,"it suggeststhat femininityin this sense
is achieved in its fullestonly with her death.Figurativelyexpressingthe death
of patriarchaldualisms,it is a deathin which resolutionis codedin the language
of burningsexual ecstasy.For it is necessarilyher own sexual experience and
its historicconditionsof existence that culminatedhere, in this firesymbolized
not by a male religious deity as much as by the imageryof female sexual
response.
Farfrombeing "obsessed,"Catherinenot only expressesher obsessionsbut
gives them transcendentalmeaning; that is, she constructs her own non-
dualistictext of that transcendence.In the inscriptionof femalesexuality,and
female autoeroticism,onto the logic of "being-in-God,"her sex/textuality
offersa respite from just those constraintsthat within her own era Western
patriarchalmysticism(as much aspatriarchalsocial life) imposed.On the basis
of a concept of the desiringbody as divine, the female body becomes the site
of a "vulvomorphic"logic (Gallop 1988, 96). Its inscriptionof death in the
languageof female desire eludes the symbolicdichotomies of the dominant
theological tradition in accordancewith which notions of God, mind, and
power are male whereassoul, flesh, and weaknessare female.15In this way it
also dislodges the theologization of (female) mysticism from its privileged
station as the teleological economy of a masculineGod desiringhis Son and
defeats the "hom(m)osexualeconomy" (Moi 1985, 137) of medieval mysti-
cism.
In this respect the emblematic maleness of her God in no way weakens
Catherine'sachievement;on the contrary,in giving it a concrete formwithin
the rulesgoverningthe historicalconstructionof gender,it is only reaffirmed.
 Anna Antonopoulos 199

In the ideological construction of the characteristicsof normative sexual

relations, the symptomatologyof a consumingfire of love lends itself to the
possibilityof transformingsexual, domestic, as well as religiousconditions of
constraint.

The Politics of Sexuality and Textuality:The Domestic Context

In herspiritualpsychology,Catherinereiteratesthemesof mind-bodydialogue,
self-love and self-hate,and fulfillmentin God that typify medieval women's
"characteristic"spiritualityand its discourse.Althoughperhapsalone in givingit
such systematicvoice, her discourseis also representativeof the (Neoplatonic)
spiritualtraditionof her times.However,what is distinctiveaboutCatherineis
the unusualcircumstances of herdeathanditspositionin the particulardiscursive
context of her work.In the domesticcontext,this makesit difficultto reasonas
an effective meansof takingcontrol. It is here that the paradigmof writingthe
body expressedin Catherine'secriture-femininesuggestsnew possibilitiesfor
developinga theoreticaldiscourseaboutfemalemysticism.Forit addressesthe
eroticdimensionof women'sspiritualityasnot only a meansof controlbut also
as an experience.16In this way it rescuesthe eroticizationof the female body
froma presumedposition of ambivalenceandcontextualizeswomen'smystical
experiencehistoricallyand politicallywithin a new mechanismof subversion
and protest.
Insofaras Catherine'smysticism(her life, her works,and her death) renders
the imageof bodily fire into the distinctive motif of the desirefor consumma-
tion in God, the particularpathologyof protestthat it expressesextends into
the articulation of female desire itself. Thus her experience suggests the
existence of a "mechanism"through which changes were rung upon the
possibilitiesprovidedbythe bodyin termsof sexualaswell asreligiousconstraints.
If we considerthe conflictbetweenself-loveand self-hateto which Catherine's
mysticalpsychologygives voice, we can detect how this mechanismbecomes
inextricablylinked with what Bordocalls "dilemmasconcerning the manage-
ment of desire"(Bordo 1990b, 105).
The female mysticalexperience of the eroticizedbody on fire unfolds for
Catherinein the context of an Italianclimateof reformin which issuesof piety
become inextricablylinked with domesticity and sexuality.As theologians
werebusyexpandingthe notions of Christianroleswithin society and making
a religiousplace for the laity, Catherine, along with other medieval women,
could pursuea religiouslife without ever leaving home (Bynum 1987, 222).
In this way women could find in spiritualitythe means to affect not only
religiousbut also domesticand sexual conditions of constraint(Bynum 1987,
237-39). Thus for women of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries "lay
spirituality"became the standardmeans of escapingmaritalconditions they
did not desire. The number of marriedsaints suggeststhat it was not the
200 Hypatia

absence but the presence of a prospective bridegroom(or husband) that

activatedthe desireforperpetualchastity.While there is considerablecontro-
versyabout the chronologicaldetails of Catherine'slife (Bynum 1987, 181),
scholarsagreethat a forcedmarriageat age sixteen to a wastefuland dissolute
noblemanbroughtCatherineto a stateof severeaccidiaand withdrawalwithin
five years.It was followingher husband'sbankruptcyand upon learningabout
his mistressand illegitimate child that she threw herself into the care of the
sick and into identification with their suffering.However, besides being an
effectivemeansof escapefromfamily,enforcedvirginityandsexualabstinence
were also a positive religiousideal as women became models of piety in their
own right (Bynum 1987, 277). This double articulationof female desire is
particularlytrue of Catherine herself, for the spirituallife offered both an
escape from marriageas well as its redefinition. Like other husbandswho
followed their wife's lead in spiritual issues (Bynum 1987, 220, 221),
Catherine'shusbandagreedto a chaste marriageand eventuallyjoined her in
voluntarypovertyand the hospitalworkin which they spent the rest of their
lives (Bynum 1987, 181).
Read in conjunction with the text of her spiritualpsychology,Catherine's
individualizedexperience of the body can be seen to mediate between the
conflictual tendencies that medieval women experienced in their domestic
lives. The conflict between Catherine's"self-love"and "self-hate,"far from
reflectinga mind/bodydualism,expressesthe social and historicaldimension
of dilemmasin the domestic managementof medieval women'sdesire. The
conflicting"instinctualtendencies"betweenthe desiresof the mind and those
of the body that permeateCatherine'stext of self enact the historicalcondi-
tions that bring women to choose between rejecting the world orderthat is
given and therebyshapingtheir own experiencesor submittingto the ones at
hand. While these competingpossibilitiesand their opposingdiscourses"fit"
the discursivemold of a dualisticmysticaltradition,they equallyelude it. In
the tripartiteorderof the self that Catherine'sspiritualtext provides,the face
of God becomes the palimpsestupon which resolutionis inscribed.
Thus if Catherine'slife expressesa "dilemma"concerningthe management
of desire, Catherine's death, the complete corporeal embodiment of her
consummation,becomes the site at which this dilemma is resolved. Via a
transformationof meaning in which death itself is experiencedas life-giving,
the ecstatic consummationof Catherine'sbody in God expressesthe sense in
which her symbolism defeats the equation of sexual ecstasy with sexual
dualism. In this way, it also expressesthe sense in which female mystical
self-annihilation (along with less radicalforms of self-abnegation)effects a
politicsof experiencingthe bodydirectly(since in no waycan we presumethat
in this case it is a questionof controllingit).
Catherine'secrituremustbe lookedupon in the context of a periodin which
the religiousmotif of bodily states induced by the deprivationof coitus and
 Anna Antonopoulos 201

experiencedas burningflashesandhot sensationsof the eroticizedfemaleflesh

was widespread.In this context, it suggeststhat a new ambivalence about
marriageand sexuality had emergedin the fifteenth century (Bynum 1987,
20-21).17In a less extreme way, the radiantexultation that medieval women
arereported,in their own as well as others'accounts(Beauvoir1965, 559-560,
632), to have experiencedby the presumedlove of an imaginarylover func-
tions both in collusion with and in oppositionto the culturalconditions that
producethem. Togetherwith attacks on the body and persistentself-abase-
ments, these erotic sensationsand ecstaticpeaksappearnot as the internaliza-
tion of a dualistic and misogynousreligioustradition.Rather,these various
corporealexpressionsof women'sreligiosityreflect the contradictoryexperi-
ences of their social and their sexual bodies. Whether in resistanceto or in
collusion with the circumstancesof constraint,the body and corporealsigni-
fication become the site at which medievalwomen transformedtheir condi-
tions and liberated,even if momentarily,their desires.
Chartingthe stagesof woman'scoming into her own, the psychologyand
ecriture of Catherine of Genoa must also be looked upon as a milestone in
writing the autoeroticismof the female body. In the spirit of a speech that
would speak the female body directly,the ecriture-f6minine of Catherine of
Genoa is not just the writing of a nonphallomorphicspiritualtext; it is also
perhapsone of the firstto constructa sexuality,one that is not predicatedupon
the embodimentof a "hom(m)osexualeconomy"of desire-an economy that,
certainlyuntil the end of the Enlightenment,continued to identify concep-
tion/coitus as the only avenue of feminine pleasureand sexual desire.18
While in no way looking to essentialize,neither do we want to marginalize
what stands out in the annals of religiouswriting as one of perhapsmany
undiscoveredretreatsfrom the imperialeconomy of patriarchalwriting and
culture.Given the place of female mysticismin the historicalcontext of her
own era, the case of Catherineoffersup a lot more than the call to "speakthe
body"in answerto a socialpoliticsof control.Forasa decadeof feministtheory
of the body has amplydemonstrated,this is no unproblematiccall.

V. Mysticismof the Bodyand the Mystic Body

In the grassrootspolitics of today'sstakes, the body has emerged as a

recurrenttheme in feminist writing.Contemporaryfeminists have begun to
explorealternativesto traditionalmind-centeredapproaches,envisioningthe
body'srole in intellectual insight and insistingupon the centralityof the body
in the reproductionand transformationof culture. Much of this feminist
attemptto revisionand (re)writethe bodycenterson a move to emphasizethe
potentialalterityof woman'ssexualityas a sourceofnonphallic metaphorsthat
challenge the binaryoppositionsdividing mind from body, reasonfrom pas-
sion, cultureform nature,and self from other, forgingthe programmaticcall
202 Hypatia

to rethink the body outside its binaryrepresentation(Lloyd 1984; Jacobus,

Keller,andShuttleworth1990;BordoandJaggar1989). It is within the context
of this contemporarymove to rethink and rewritethe body that writing the
mysticbody gains particularvalue and importance.As "the only place in the
historyof the West in which womanspeaksand acts so publicly"the mystic's
discoursepresentsone of themost fully realizedinstancesof ecriture-feminine.
In the case of Catherine of Genoa, the particulararticulationof the lived
conditions of the body and its representationin the text of her mystical
psychologyallow us to move beyond a simple and essentialistcelebrationof
the bodyas the locusprincipusof woman'ssexual/textualsubjecthood19-what
has been termedby the denouncersof ecriture-feminine as a "mysticismof the
body"(Dallery 1989, 53). It allows us instead to view it in the context of its
particular historical conditions of emergence. Thus, for example, we might
usefullycompare Catherine's writingof the mysticbody with ecriture-feminine's
alleged"mysticismof the body,"which no longerprojectsa male sexualOther
but subsumespluralityand differencewithin its vulvomorphiclogic.
In this way,the mystic'sdiscoursecan suturethe gapsbetween the cultural
representationsof an dcriture-feminine and the lived conditions of the body;in
other words,it can allow us to see how the body might be reconceptualized
from within feminist practice as the site of an ongoing strugglebetween the
possibilityof self-representation(fromwithin the discourseof a femalesexual
economy) and the phallomorphicpowersof social control that exclude and/or
suppressit. This, it seems to me, can answerthe presentneed for what Susan
Bordocalls an "effectivepolitical discourseabout the body,"one that is not
only adequate to the analysis of paradoxicalpatterns of social control of
women'sbodies,but is alsopossiblefromwithin a feministintellectualperspec-
tive, inhabiting those spaces and "repealingthe silences" that accordingto
Dalleryemergewithin feministtheoryitself as we discoverthat there exists no
such"fixed,univocal,ahistoricalwoman'sbodyasreferent"(Dallery1989, 63).
To look, therefore,uponCatherine'sdeathassignificantonly bywayof analogy
with "thedeath of womanunderpatriarchy"wouldbe a mistake.So too would
it be to look upon it as the "birthof woman"outside of it. As Jane Gallop
ruefullyremindsus, "the politics of experience is inevitably a conservative
politics,for it cannot help but conservetraditionalideologicalconstructswhich
arenot recognizedas suchbut aretakenforthe 'real'" (Gallop 1988,99).
What I have proposedhere is something quite different.As an ecriture-
feminineand a politics of ecriture-feminine,Catherine'sgeographyof the mys-
tical imaginarytracesitself againstthe contoursof sexualbarriers,constructed
as it is within a tradition that excludes, represses,oppresses,but even more
importantlyconditions, women'ssexual response.In the context of its own
era, it nonetheless reflects the need to disturb,even partiallyor temporarily,
those fronts, to push against the establishedbounds while questioning the
llusionsof its referentialdefinitionsfromwithin as well as fromwithout that
 Anna Antonopoulos 203

tradition.20Forwhile the mystic'sexperienceno longerformsthe foundations

upon which today'sconstructionof genderdepends,its political meaning,as
a discoursethat tracesthe boundariesbetweentextualityand sexuality,"lived"
experienceand representation,upon the face of the femalebody,it is as much
symptomatologicalas it is characteristicof the worldthat women today wish
to review,understand,rethink,remake.

NOTES

A shorterversion of this paperwas presentedin a session entitled "Sacrificeand

Critique:Postmodemityand its ReligiousSubtext,"jointly sponsoredby the Canadian
Society for Hermeneuticsand Postmoder Thought and the PostmodemTheory and
Religion InterestGroup,LearnedSocieties Conference,Queen'sUniversity,Kingston,
Ontario, May 1991. The paper owes its formationto a series of circumstancesand
scholarlyinputs.Mythanksto Sr.PrudenceAllen, R.S.M.,who engagedmyphilosophical
interestin medievalfemalemysticsandguidedme in myfirstencounterwith Catherine's
life and works.Thanks also to the Hypatiarefereesfor insightfulcommentsthat have
helped develop the historical dimension of the paper and to its editors who have
contributedthoughtfulimprovementsof style. FinallyI wish to thank David Allison,
whoseenthusiasmand supportforthe paperhave shown me waysto take it further.
1. Michel Foucaultdiscussesthe sense in which a "technologyof the self" and
"practicesof the self" placedthe body in the serviceof the moralidealsof self-mastery
in Greekand Romanantiquity(Foucault1986, 11, 13). With the rise of a discourseon
sexualityitself,a "technologyof sex"laterdevelopsin which the body is partof a more
complexsystemof subjugationand resistance(Foucault1980, 115).
2. Both Bynum's(1987) andBell's(1985) studiesof the religioussignificanceof food
contain sections on Catherine.While Bynumnotes that fire, as well as hunger,is a
dominantimagefor desireand encounterwith God in Catherine'scase (Bynum 1987,
184), no attempt is made to disentanglethese two images.Consequently,the imageof
fire is collapsedwith that of food, and the significanceof Catherine'sindividualized
experienceis blurred.
3. JacquesLacan(1982) discussesat greatlength the significanceof sexualecstasy
in Bemini'sstatueof SaintTeresain termsof psychoanalyticaccountsof femalesexuality.
He writes:"youonly have to go and look at Bernini'sstatuein Rome to understandthat
she is coming" (Lacan 1982, 147). In interpretingthis "God face" as supportedby
femininejouissance(sexual ecstasy),Lacanlays the foundationfor a theory of female
sexualitythat is "beyondthe phallus"(Lacan 1982, 145) and therebyanticipatessome
of the moreprovocativethesesof 6criture-feminine.
4. In HolyFeastandHolyFast:TheReligious Significanceof Foodto MedievalWomen,
Bynumdiscussesthe transformative valueof food imagesin medievalwomen'sspirituality
(Bynum1987, 25ff).
5. There remainsconsiderablescholarlycontroversyover the authorshipof the
spiritualworksattributedto Catherineof Genoa (Bell 1985, 161;Bynum1987).
6. Male biographersromanticizedand sentimentalizedfemalevirtueby describing
it in heightenedand erotic imagery(Bynum1987, 29). Accordingto Bynum,if we wish
to understandwhat it meantto medievalwomento be symbolsof transcendencewe must
204 Hypatia

"payattention to what women said and did, avoidingthe assumptionthat they simply
internalizedthe rhetoricof theologians,confessors,or husbands"(Bynum1987, 29).
7. By 1500 the modelof the femalesaint,expressedboth in popularvenerationand
in officialcanonization,wasthe mirrorimageof society'snotion of the witch, as each was
thought to be "possessed"be it by God or the Devil (Bynum 1987, 23). Accordingto
Bynum, the similarityof witch and saint in the eyes of the theologians and male
hagiographers suggeststhat the saintwasas threateningas the witchto clericalauthorities
(Bynum 1987, 23). In this context the veneration of woman can be interpretedas
evidence of a clericaltraditionthat looks upon womanas a threateningbeing-a being
whosesignificanceis to be obliterated.
8. TorilMoi theorizesthe relationof writingandvoice in theoriesof ecriture-feminine.
She arguesthat the speakingwomanis her voice by way of corporealsignificationthat
becomesthe "enactmentof liberation"ratherthan its merevehicle (Moi 1985, 114, 125).
9. CarolineBynumdiscussesthe significancefor feministresearchof the fact that
most of our informationon late medievalwomen'sreligiositycomes frommale biogra-
phersand chroniclersin termsof its effect on our understandingof the significanceof
late medievalwomen'spiety and religiousexperience(Bynum1987, 28ff.).
10. The problematicnatureof such a simple,ahistoricalcelebrationand the dangers
of fallingwithin the "essentialisttrap"have been amplydemonstratedby Bordo(1989),
Moi (1985), and Dallery(1989).
11. The closest to have come to this is Saint Teresaof Avila, whose vision of the
flamingheart(quotedin Irigaray1985a,201, n. 2), togetherwith SaintJohnof the Cross
(TheLivingFlameof Love)describesthe mystic'slove of God in imagesof fireandflames.
12. The notion of ecriture-fiminine
as the submergedtext of femalesubjectivityand
sexuality is developed primarilyby Luce Irigaray(1981, 1985b) and Helene Cixous
(CixouxandClement 1988) as "aspeechanalogousto the femalebody,that wouldspeak
the femalebodydirectly"(Gallop 1988,93). It takesas its inspirationthe synechdochical
connection betweenthe vulvulareconomyof the femalegenitaliaand the speakinglips,
therebydisplacingnot only the phallomorphiceconomy of male genitaliabut also its
concomitantbinarismbetweenthe clitoris(as supposedsite of femaleautoeroticism)and
the female vagina (site of reproductivesexuality).As an alternativeto binarythought
and a figurativereconceptualizationof the femalebody,women'sspeakinglips/ecriture-
femininemetonymicallysuggestplurality,multiplicity,and the dissolutionof bounds.
13. In her essay "La mysterique,"in whose neologistic title are fused the female
mystic/hysteric/mystery, LuceIrigaray(1985a) presentsa powerfulargumentfor looking
uponthe mystic'sself-abasementand surrender, her utterabjectionbeforethe divine as
partand parcelof the femininecondition in which she wasbroughtup (Moi 1985, 137).
Herargumentis that this perspectiveallowsfemininityto discoveritselfpreciselythrough
the deepestacceptanceof patriarchalsubjection.Put differently,femalemysticism,like
femalehysteria,offerswomana real, if limited,possibilityof discoveringaspectsof her
pleasurethat cannot be subsumedundera malelibidinaleconomybut arespecificto her
own libidinaldrives. Irigaray'sexampledoes not extend beyond the instance of Saint
Teresa'svision of the flamingheart (Irigaray1985a,201, n. 2). While a discourseon the
bodyis presentin the workofTeresaof Avila(Allen 1987)thatcontrastswith the classical
Platonic/Augustinian/Cartesian binaryprinciples,that discourseis not elaboratedby
Irigaraywithin the frameworkof a specificallymysticalpsychology.Consequently,no
reallyhistoricalinstanceof writingthe mysticbodyhas been presentedin keepingwith
Irigaray's perspective.
 Anna Antonopoulos 205

14. Consider,for instance, the female symbolismthat pervadesSaint John of the

Cross'seroticizationof piety (John1962). Predatinghim by at leasta centuryin time, the
mysticalpsychologyof Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510) is believed to have been a
decidedinfluence(alongwith the Song of Songs)on the worksof SaintJohnof the Cross
(1541-1591). His work The LivingFlameof Love,consideredto be the most profound
expositionof spirituallife in the historyof mysticism,is a workthat finds inspirationin
Catherine'sPurgatory andPurgation and TheSpiritualDialogue(Catherine1979, 38).
15. Bynum correctlynotes that while women'sspiritualityand sense of self were
influencedby the symbolicdichotomiesof the dominanttheologicaltradition,women's
imagesand metaphorstook a shapeof theirown "obliqueto a maletraditionof spiritual
writingin which the male/femaledichotomywas a symbolfor manyother oppositions"
(Bynum1987, 294).
16. Bynumarguesthat medievalreligiositywasa nondualisticone in which corporeal
privationis a markof the desireto experienceratherthan to control the body (Bynum
1987,216,245).
17. The dangersof childbirthandthe medievaldiscourseon the brutalityof marriage
notwithstanding,the fact that marriagewasa "life-threatening" undertakingin the eyes
of medievalwomen is not a considerationto be underestimated(Bynum1987, 266).
18. ThomasLaqueur(1986, 1), cited in Jacobus(1990, 26, n. 1) maintainsthat it was
not beforethe end of the centuryof Enlightenmentthat female orgasmwas medically
disjoinedfromgeneration.Jacobus(1990) presentsan argumentfor looking upon this
disjunctionas symptomaticof the "disordering" of conceptionsof a unified,coherent,
femininesubject.She arguesthat this is antitheticalto the theologicalimperativethat
in contemporarydebateson artificialfertilizationandreproductionwishesto reappropri-
ate femininityunderthe aspectof maternity.
19.SusanSuleiman'sessay"(Re)Writingthe Body:The PoliticsandPoeticsof Female
Eroticism"(Suleiman 1986) has been addressedby Bordo (1989) in particularas an
instanceof this typeof oversimplification.However,Bordodoesnot fullyclarifythe sense
in which we might still retain a valuation of the representationsof a female textual
imaginarywithin historical conditions of emergence.Indeed, her focus on woman's
textualmutenessin manifestationsof disordersof the bodyprecludessuchan evaluation.
Instead,one mightturnto the essayby Arleen Dallery"ThePoliticsof Writingthe Body:
ecriture-feminine"(Dallery1989) in which the attemptto rescuethe politics of ecriture-
femininefrom some of the oftentimesexcessive rhetoricagainstessentialism(see also
Bordo1990a) offersup new venuesfor politicalredress.
20. JaneGalloppresentsan interestingtheorizationof criture-feminineasthe antidote
to the phallomorphic"referentialillusion"in heressay"LipService"(Gallop 1988).This
essay has also appearedunder the title "Quandnos levres s'ecrivent:Irigaray'sBody
Politic" (Gallop 1983) and worksagainst any unproblematicnotion of the "real"in
alternativeas much as traditionalnotions of woman'ssexualbody.

REFERENCES

Allen, Prudence.1987.Soul, bodyand transcendencein Teresaof Avila. TorontoJournal

of Theology3(2): 252-66.
Beauvoir,Simone de. 1965. Thesecondsex.H. M. Parshley,trans.New York:Bantam.
Bell, RudolphM. 1985. Holyanorexia.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
206 Hypatia

Bordo, Susan R. 1988. Anorexia nervosa:Psychopathologyas the crystallizationof

culture.In FeminismandFoucault:Reflections on resistance.IreneDiamondand Lee
Quinby,eds. Boston:NortheasternUniversityPress.
. 1989. The bodyand the representationof femininity:A feministappropriation
of Foucault.In Gender/body/knowledge: Feministreconstructions of beingandknowing.
SusanBordoand Allison Jaggar,eds. New BrunswickNJ:RutgersUniversityPress.
. 1990a. Feminism, postmodernism, and gender-scepticism. In Feminism/
postmodernism. LindaJ. Nicholson, ed. LondonandNew York:Routledge.
.1990b. Readingthe slenderbody.In Body/politics: Womenand thediscoursesof
science.MaryJacobus,EvelynFox Keller,and Sally Shuttleworth,eds. Londonand
New York:Routledge.
Bordo,SusanR. andAlisonJaggar,eds. 1989.Gender/body/knowledge: Feministreconstruc-
tionsof beingandknowing.New Brunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress.
Bynum,CarolineWalker.1987.Holyfeastandholyfast: Thereligious significanceoffoodto
medievalwomen.Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
. 1990. Fragmentation and redemption: Essayson genderand the humanbodyin
medievalreligion.Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Catherineof Genoa, Saint. 1962. Vita. In Edizionecriticadei manoscritti cateriniani,S.
CaterinaFieschiAdomo.Vol. 2. Umile Bonzeda Genova, ed. Turin:Marietti.
1979. Purgatory andpurgation; The spiritualdialogue.Serge Hughes,trans.New
York:PaulistPress.
Cixous,Helene andCatherineClement. 1988.Thenewlybor woman.BetsyWing,trans.
Minneapolis:Universityof MinnesotaPress.
Clark,Elizabeth,andHerbertRichardson.1977.Womenandreligion:Afeministsourcebook
of Christianthought.New York:Harperand Row.
Dallery,Arleen B. 1989. The politics of writingthe body:Ecriture-feminine. In Gender/
body/knowledge: ofbeingandknowing.SusanBordoandAlison
Feministreconstructions
Jaggar,eds. New Brunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityPress.
Daly,Mary.1984. Purelust:Elemental feministphilosophy.Boston:BeaconPress.
Foucault,Michel. 1980.Thehistoryofsexuality. Vol. 1,An Introduction.New York:Vintage.
.1986. The useof pleasure.New York:RandomHouse.
Gallop,Jane. 1983. Quandnos levress'ecrivent:Irigaray's bodypolitic. RomanticReview
74: 77-83.
1988. Lip service.In Thinkingthrough thebody.New York:ColumbiaUniversity
Press.
Hiigel, FriedrichFreiherrvon. 1908. The mysticalelementof religionas studiedin Saint
Catherineof Genoaandherfriends.New York:E. P. Dutton.
Irigaray,Luce. 1981. This sex which is not one. C. Reeder,trans.New Frenchfeminisms:
An anthology.ElaineMarksand Isabellede Courtivron,eds. New York:Schocken.
1985a. La mystrique. In Speculumof theotherwoman.Gillian C. Gill, trans.
Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.
.1985b. Thissexwhichis notone.C. Porter,trans.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversity
Press.
Jacobus,Mary. 1990. In parenthesis:Immaculateconceptions and female desire."In
Body/politics:Womenand thediscourses of science.MaryJacobus,EvelynFox Keller,
and Sally Shuttleworth,eds. London:Routledge.
Jacobus,Mary,EvelynFoxKeller,andSallyShuttleworth,eds. 1990.Body/politics: Women
andthediscourses of science.LondonandNew York:Routledge.
 Anna Antonopoulos 207

Johnof the Cross,Saint. 1962. Thelivingflameof love.E. Allison Peers,trans.New York:

Doubleday.
Lacan,Jacques.1982. God and the jouissanceof woman."In Femininesexuality:Jacques
Lacanand the ecolefreudienne.Juliet Mitchell and JacquelineRose, eds. London:
Macmillan;New York:Norton:PantheonBooks.
Laqueur,Thomas. 1986. Orgasm,generation,and the politics of reproductivebiology.
Representations 14: 1.
Lloyd,Genevieve. 1984. The manof reason:"Male"and "female"in Westernphilosophy.
Minneapolis:Universityof MinnesotaPress.
Moi, Toril. 1985. Sexual/textual
politics:Feministliterarytheory.Londonand New York:
Methuen.
Nugent, D.C. 1984.The annihilationof St. Catherineof Genoa. MysticsQuarterly10, 4
(Dec): 182-88.
Suleiman, Susan. 1986. (Re)Writing the body: The politics and poetics of female
eroticism.In The femalebodyin Westernculture.Susan Suleiman,ed. Cambridge:
HarvardUniversityPress.
Turner,BryanS. 1984. TheBodyandsociety:Explorations in socialtheory.New York:Basil
Blackwell.