{"title":"Thomas Aquinas and Contemplation","authors":"Luke Penkett","doi":"10.1080/20465726.2022.2084844","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"process through which the subject is unified and transformed by Christ. However, Nelstrop qualifies her claim. Although she argues that Julian ‘accepted the idea of deification,’ for her, ‘this did not entail either the possibility of a this-worldly perfection or absorption into the Trinity’ (p. 127). Nelstrop wants to thus maintain the integrity of deification as a theme tied to Christ’s incarnation and the subject’s participation with that incarnational reality, without tying Julian to an account of deification which negates the boundary between creature and creator (p. 127). Following Jean Leclercq, Nelstrop argues that Julian echoes the monastic theological tradition which placed value on noting the aesthetic and emotional affects of a text (p. 131). This approach of intimately engaging the text gives rise to an awareness in the subject of an ‘inseparable independence on Christ’ (p. 146) and a growing understanding that God ‘is the ground of all that is’ (p. 155), the consequence of which is a subject transformed in the light of the knowledge of this intimate divine connection. Clarification of these claims and their link to lectio divina are given further account in chapter six. Nelstrop argues there, through an analysis of memory and biblical imagery, that Julian’s words and images can be understood as ‘the words and images of the Word’ (p. 238). Unity between the subject and God occurs here by developing practices which stress intimate engagement with the word itself. Nelstrop’s study, in conclusion, reveals that our grasp of medieval western notions of deification is granted greater clarity when classificatory models like those advocated by Russell are deployed. In doing so, we see that Julian and Rolle’s strategies of reading and techniques of writing suggest productive comparison with classical understandings of deification. Though, to be sure, further work on this topic is required to lend additional credibility to her thesis. Nelstrop’s text is a critical, thought-provoking, and important addition to our understanding of mysticism and deification in their medieval context.","PeriodicalId":40432,"journal":{"name":"Medieval Mystical Theology","volume":"31 1","pages":"59 - 60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medieval Mystical Theology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20465726.2022.2084844","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
process through which the subject is unified and transformed by Christ. However, Nelstrop qualifies her claim. Although she argues that Julian ‘accepted the idea of deification,’ for her, ‘this did not entail either the possibility of a this-worldly perfection or absorption into the Trinity’ (p. 127). Nelstrop wants to thus maintain the integrity of deification as a theme tied to Christ’s incarnation and the subject’s participation with that incarnational reality, without tying Julian to an account of deification which negates the boundary between creature and creator (p. 127). Following Jean Leclercq, Nelstrop argues that Julian echoes the monastic theological tradition which placed value on noting the aesthetic and emotional affects of a text (p. 131). This approach of intimately engaging the text gives rise to an awareness in the subject of an ‘inseparable independence on Christ’ (p. 146) and a growing understanding that God ‘is the ground of all that is’ (p. 155), the consequence of which is a subject transformed in the light of the knowledge of this intimate divine connection. Clarification of these claims and their link to lectio divina are given further account in chapter six. Nelstrop argues there, through an analysis of memory and biblical imagery, that Julian’s words and images can be understood as ‘the words and images of the Word’ (p. 238). Unity between the subject and God occurs here by developing practices which stress intimate engagement with the word itself. Nelstrop’s study, in conclusion, reveals that our grasp of medieval western notions of deification is granted greater clarity when classificatory models like those advocated by Russell are deployed. In doing so, we see that Julian and Rolle’s strategies of reading and techniques of writing suggest productive comparison with classical understandings of deification. Though, to be sure, further work on this topic is required to lend additional credibility to her thesis. Nelstrop’s text is a critical, thought-provoking, and important addition to our understanding of mysticism and deification in their medieval context.