February 10, 2005
-
Hildegard of Bingen’s Scivias is considered, classified as, read as, and assumed to be a work of mysticism or spirituality. (NB: it is published in the “Classics of Western Spirituality” series–a series which includes primarily works on mysticism and prayer.) I was deeply surprised to read it and find that it is not a mystical work at all. It is a systematics.
What, you ask, is the difference? Well, a work of mysticism/spirituality certainly has an internal logic and system of organization. Take Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle. The image of entering a location and penetrating deeper in, finding surprises as you go, overcoming challenges to progress, etc, provides the structure for what is essentially an extended reflection on meditative prayer. Catherine of Siena’s Dialogue puts one in mind of a spiral–she’ll say one thing, move on to several others, come back to the first and expand, develop, or interpret it, and then move on to something else she’s said and expand it, and so on. In this way she moves from a woman in her monastic cell (which is actually self-knowledge or reflective prayer) through the individual’s obligations in the Church community, to a stinging condemnation of sinful, ineffective, or indifferent priests and popes (!!!), and into the very divine life itself. Great stuff, that. Other mystics use a largely autobiographical structure–first I did this, and it taught me that; then I saw that vision, and I understood this.
A systematics, on the other hand, is a work that intends to cover, in an orderly fashion, most of the major doctrines, practices, issues, and problems of Christianity–individual and ecclesial, personal and political, human and divine. It usually has an organizing structure that allows for this orderly coverage of the full range of theology: one might use the Creed, as Karl Barth did, or salvation history (Creator/creation-Christ/redemption-Church/Ethics-Eschaton) like Sergei Bulgakov. Thomas Aquinas (in)famously moved from “what can be known apart from revelation” to “what is special to revelation” in the Summa (often considered the paradigmatic systematics).
Hildegard’s work puts me in mind of a systematics dressed up in a mystic’s robe. Yes, she begins (like Catherine of Siena) with a mystical revelation authorizing what follows; yes there are spectacular and allegorical images throughout; yes, the “voice” is divine rather than human (God is saying this–I’m just the gal with the quill!). For all these marks of a work of spirituality, however, it is structured like a systematics, and it covers the full range of Christian theology, from salvation history to ethics. She begins, in essence, with creation and Judaism, moves to salvation and the church, and ends with eschatology. Even her initial vision is presented as a moment wherein she understands, suddenly, the Scriptures and is ordered to teach them rightly (in contrast, she hints, to all those lazy and sinful priests running around who are too busy worrying about shutting her up to teach Scripture). Each of her visions is a tightly constructed allegory of a precisely theological teaching or doctrine. Without casting aspersions on her actual mystical experiences, I would almost suggest that the systematics drives the visions, rather than the other way around.
Why, then, is she always read as a mystic, rather than a theologian? Despite her increased popularity in liturgical, mystical, and frankly pagan circles, she doesn’t appear on anyone’s list of “systematics through history.” Does the visionary framework confuse people? Does her gender make it easier to classify her that way? Is her systematics off? (I don’t think so–there’s little or nothing in there that couldn’t come straight out of Augustine or Aquinas.) Why was she never made a saint or Doctor of the Church (like, oddly enough, Catherine of Siena and Teresa of Avila–who didn’t write systematics!!)? The next time you take a course in systematics, ask the professor, “Why are we reading Aquinas and not Hildegard?” (But only if you are REALLY secure in your GPA!)
