Thinking Outside the Box

Exception to the rule, or proof that there was none?

A society may have an ideological structure, and the stronghold of that structure may vary however it can never be without exception. In order to produce an individual such as Margery Kempe I conceive a large amount of the population at the start of the fifteenth century must have felt more of a tolerance towards than an agreement with women’s given role in medieval society. She was a deviation not from the common understanding, but from the common tolerance.

If this might be so, then why is there in the written word not more evidence of similar action?

It is true that history is written by the victors, but also those with the power to make themselves heard. Where an element of history concerns a demographic who’s powers are restricted it is likely that the disposition of said demographic, much like that of the defeated, is not communicated by the oppressor.

The result is a gap in our knowledge and it seems as though often where this gap is left we impose upon an entire population the expressed feelings of a few. It is individuals such as Margery Kempe who help to break from such assumptions. Where Kempe met conflict in her life it was not because she spoke boldly about women’s rights. Instead it was because she spoke and acted as was considered lollardy, and it seems to me that her sex played a surprisingly small role in the issues she met.

When Kempe’s work was published in 1940 after having been thought lost for 500 years the public reaction was in keeping with the stigma which we learn from the book that Kempe encountered when wandering England. Interestingly the difference seems to be that in 1940 the controversy over Kempe’s work was directed towards a woman who had overstepped her role, not a person who had committed acts of lollardy. Yet we know that by the 1940s women’s rights were a topic of discussion; the suffragettes had well begun their fight for the women’s vote. There was a conflict in popular opinion however the reaction to The Book of Margery Kemp is recorded as having been largely negative.

This is not to say that views such as hers were widespread in her time however I believe the presence of Lollardy alone is evidence of a free-er form of thought than is often presumed. More modern criticisms of Kempe’s work have been far more complimentary, however Roberta Bux Bosse in her essay ‘Margery Kempe’s tarnished reputation: a reassessment’ (1979, Penn State University Press) calls for a reading which acknowledges the text’s issues and also appreciates its value.

Subsequently I believe there are two main issues highlighted by Kempe’s work: sexual equality and acceptable devotion. It becomes clear that the latter was the greater issues which Kempe met; certain divergences from the normal attitude towards religion are attributed to holy speech rather than Kempe’s:

‘And I have oftyn-tymes dowtyr, told the that thynkyng, wepyng and hy contemplacyon is the best lyfe in erthe. And thu schalt have mor meryte in hevyn for o yer of thynkyng in thi mende than for a hundryd yer of preyng wyth thi mowth-’

Meditating without verbal prayer was often considered a trait of lollardy, and so by attributing this to Jesus here, Kempe escapes any blame for such actions. Similarly the reluctance, or perhaps inability to confess every one of her sins to the priest is given reasoning:

‘And whan sche cam to the poynt for to seyn that thing whech sche had so long conselyd, hir confessour was a lytyl to hastye and gan scharply to undyrnemyn hir er than sche had fully seyd hir entent, and so sche wold no mor seyn for nowt he myght do.’

Following this statement her inability to confess is the fault of the priest’s haste to condemn rather than her own shortcoming. Kempe would, whatever the sin was, rather suffer damnation than the embarrassment of having the clergy know. As to the nature of the sin which weighted Kempe’s conscience so, Victoria Miller in ‘The Life and Pilgrimages of Margery Kempe’ suggests that this was a sexual sin. Whatever it was, the extent of the fear portrayed by Kempe regarding its confession is enough to deter anyone from committing such a sin in the first place.

A moral issue within this religious order is highlighted in the element of being trapped; despite the possibility of confession and absolving, the thought of being exposed is paralysing, the extent of which is shown by the lack of detail given of the sin. If Kempe had let us know what it was she would have confessed it and there would remain no moral issue, yet by mentioning it without specifying she is making a sort of confession through the text. Possibly this might be interpreted as a final attempt to be rid.

In the extracts within ‘Chaucer to Spenser’ an interesting footnote suggests that within Kempe’s speech attributed to Christ there is implied eroticism which was not uncommon among women’s devotional literature at this time. Perhaps this assertion might be contested with the following quote:

‘-for I wyl be lovyd as a sone schuld be lovyd wyth the modyr’

This also is attributed to Christ and speaks of an entirely different mode of relationship is implied here. Not only such, but this quotation might uphold the interpretation that Kempe saw herself as a divine being in some ways. It puts her in the place of the virgin Mary and so possibly creates an interesting element of personal importance which can be drawn again from the following extract:

‘The clerkys seyden, “We knowyn wel that sche can the Articles of the feith, but we wil not suffyr hir to dwellyn among is for the pepil hath gret feyth in hir dalyawnce, and peraventur sche myght pervertyn summe of hem.”’

This references in a not very subtle manner, the Pharisees of the New Testament who conspired Jesus’ destruction after Him having spoken against them in the temple, drawing a direct parallel between the life of Christ and that of Kempe.

It may also be worth noting that by making such parallels with the New Testament Kempe is referencing a book of religious reform, which might be what Kempe was asking for. A re-evaluation of what was considered acceptable devotion.