Spiritual Economies. Nancy Bradley Warren

to the Rule of St. Augustine rather than as an independent monastic rule. Anxieties about the status of the vernacular, and related anxieties about the status of female learning and women’s place in religious life, are not, however, entirely mitigated by the officially subordinate status of the Brigittine Rule. The translation practices evident in The Myroure of Oure Ladye do at times reveal the translator’s nervousness about the status of the feminine and the vernacular, anxieties consistent with a desire to save the market. This desire is at odds with, and perhaps even prompted by, the content of the Brigittine texts being translated.

      Various candidates for authorship of the Myroure have been proposed. John Henry Blunt, who edited the Myroure, suggests Thomas Gascoigne (1403–58) of Merton College, Oxford, later vice-chancellor of Oxford, who was a lifelong devotee and scholar of St. Birgitta. A. Jeffries Collins finds Gascoigne an unlikely candidate since Gascoigne was not a professed member of the Brigittine Order and probably could not have acquired the “masterly knowledge of the Bridgettine rite and ceremonial displayed throughout the book” at Oxford.⁸¹ Collins suggests two possibilities—Thomas Fishbourne (d. 1428), the first confessor general at Syon, and Symon Wynter, Fishbourne’s contemporary in the order (d. 1448)—finding Fishbourne the more likely possibility.⁸² In any case, the Myroure was created by a cleric in the first half, and likely some time in the second quarter, of the fifteenth century, squarely in the period in which vernacular translation was such a vexed issue.

      The Myroure, like the verse translation and Fox’s version of the Benedictine Rule, is specifically designated for women religious without knowledge of Latin in order that they “shulde haue sume maner of vnderstondynge of [their] seruyce” (Myroure 49). It is clear that the translator of the Myroure is concerned about the cultural status of the vernacular. Part II of the prologue ends with assurance that the translation of Scripture passages has been licensed by the bishop in accordance with Arundel’s Constitutions. The translator writes, “And for as moche as yt is forboden vnder payne of cursynge, that no man shulde haue be drawe eny texte of holy scrypture in to englysshe wythout lycense of the bysshop dyocesan. And in dyuerse places of youre seruyce ar suche textes of holy scrypture; therfore I asked & haue lysence of oure bysshop to drawe suche thinges in to englysshe to your gostly comforte and profyt” (Myroure 71). The translator, who has already recounted the divine authorization of the vernacular text’s translation into Latin through Mary and Birgitta, returns to episcopal authorization of translation of Latin into English. This movement works to reassert masculine control of the mother tongue and to recuperate ecclesiastical authority.

      Leading up to the statement of license for translation is a complex negotiation of the relationship between Latin and English in the text of the Myroure, the general thrust of which is to reassert the primacy of Latin. The translator explains the physical layout of the translation, saying that the first word of each hymn, response, verse, etc. “is writen in latyn with Romeyne letter that ye may know therby where yt begynneth” (Myroure 70). These Latin lines do more than merely help the nuns keep their place. The Latin openings perform a function similar to that performed by the figure of St. Benedict or the Latin lines in the Benedictine translations; they remind the women of the preeminence of Latin over the vernacular, reinforcing simultaneously the inferiority inherent in the nuns’ inability to access the language of divine knowledge and their necessary dependence on clerical authorities. Following the Latin opening lines is the “selfe englyshe” of the Latin “imprynted wyth a smaller letter” (Myroure 70). Even in the text’s physical appearance, Latin is superior to and prior to the vernacular. That this reassertion of Latin’s authoritative superiorty is emphasized in the layout of the printed edition, produced in 1530 by Richard Fawkes, indicates, as do elements of Fox’s translation of the Benedictine Rule, the strength of clerical market-saving desires over 120 years after Arundel’s Constitutions were promulgated.

      That there is more at stake than convenience in the layout of the text emerges even more clearly when the translator discusses how the Myroure should be read aloud. He says that, depending on the nature of the passage, either the opening words of the Latin or the Latin at the beginning of each clause should be read so “that ye shulde redely knowe. when ye haue the latyn before you. what englysshe longeth to eche clause by yt selfe” (Myroure 71). The translator continues to specify the correct use of the translation in divine services, offering the following caveat: “This lokeynge on the englyshe whyle the latyn ys redde. ys to be vnderstonde of them that haue sayde theyre mattyns or redde theyr legende before. For else I wolde not counsell them to leue the herynge of the latyn. for the entendaunce of the englysshe” (Myroure 71). Hearing the Latin, even if one does not understand it, is more important in divine service than reading the English.

      The extended efforts to ensure that the audience comprehend the hierarchical relationship between the vernacular and the Latin are “strategic” in Michel de Certeau’s sense of the term—that is, by ensuring the place of Latin, the cleric seeks to distinguish his own place, the place of his power and will.⁸³ Placing controls on the vernacular works by extension to place controls on the female readers of the vernacular with whom it is so strongly associated and who might, like the women in apocalyptic antitranslation materials, gain independence and power from the access to knowledge enabled by the vernacular text.

      It is significant that the efforts to reiterate the hierarchical relationship of Latin and vernacular come in a section prescribing reading methods which themselves seek to contain the potentially threatening female learning that is, according to the Rule, so fundamental to Brigittine spiritual life. The section concerning “how ye shall be gouerned in redyng of this Boke and of all other bokes” (Myroure 65) serves a disciplinary function, striving to limit possibilities for interpretation, for participation in the sorts of textual exchanges demonized by the antitranslation faction. In discussing Fox’s translation of the Benedictine Rule, Wogan-Browne et al. observe that it envisions reading taking place in an all-female group, without clerical supervision or participation.⁸⁴ Such a context for nuns’ reading may help explain Fox’s desire, as well as that of the translator of the Myroure, to insert a guiding clerical “presence” into the text—for Fox, the speaking figure of St. Benedict whose voice merges with his, for the Brigittine translator, a detailed methodology of correct reading.

      The translator first specifies what types of books are to be read—“no worldely matters. ne worldely bokes. namely suche as ar wythout reason of gostly edyfycacyon” (Myroure 66). He sets out the purposes of particular kinds of books, and he describes the proper “disposition” for reading—“with meke reuerence and deuocyon” (Myroure 66). Finally, he puts forth a program for ensuring proper comprehension, admonishing, “ye oughte not to be hasty to rede moche at ones. but ye oughte to abyde thervpon. & som tyme rede a thynge ageyne twyes. or thryes. or oftener tyl ye understonde yt clerely” (Myroure 67).

      The directive to read slowly in order to ensure clear understanding resembles directives to monks to read “ruminatively,” and so is not necessarily or entirely a restriction on women’s reading.⁸⁵ The translator, however, further constrains the reading process by his explanation of what texts are and his specification of the correct motivation for reading them. The translator conceives of books for the nuns in terms of a regulatory and corrective specularity appropriate to his title, of which he says, “And for as muche as ye may se in this boke as in a myrroure, the praysynges and worthines of oure moste excellente lady therfore I name it. Oure ladyes myroure. Not that oure lady shulde se herselfe therin, but that ye shulde se her therin as in a myroure, and so be styred the more deuoutly to prayse her, & to knowe where ye fayle in her praysinges, and to amende” (Myroure 4). Books provide mirrors for examining one’s conduct; the nuns are exhorted, in reading the Myroure and other texts, to “beholde in yourselfe sadly whether ye lyue & do as ye rede or no” (Myroure 68). If the reader does not see her life “rewled in verteu” but feels that she lacks “suche verteows gouernaunce as [she] rede[s] of,” she is directed, “kepe in mynde that lesson that so sheweth you to youre selfe & ofte to rede yt ageyne. & to loke theron. & on your selfe. with full purpose & wyll to amende you & to dresse youre