Those who have read Hild and/or Menewood know that the two chief influences on my fictional Hild’s understanding of Christianity and in particular the nature of God (and of sin), are Fursey and James the Deacon. Both were real figures of history—though if they left writing I haven’t seen it. In my fictional incarnations of these real-life figures, Fursey is a worldly man, originally from Ireland, highborn and high-achieving; James, though originally from Italy, is much less traditional. It is James in particular who helps Hild wrestle with and reach an understanding of the difference between Church orthodoxy and God’s nature and will.
My James, a seventh-century Latin-speaking Deacon, would have no problem with (some of—I don’t claim to really know her work) the teachings of Julian of Norwich, a 14th century anchoress who wrote in Middle English and whose Revelations of Divine Love had a powerful impact on her contemporaries. Julian’s basic message—God is love and He will be merciful to those who atone—is similar to James’s, which is that God is love and He will forgive any sin committed from a basis of love as long as it’s confessed.1 ETA: Though in Hild, James basically suggests to Hild without actually saying so that ‘sins’ in the Church’s eyes involving physical love, e.g. sex between two women, don’t really need to be confessed because the Church is fallible, and in this instance wrong: God is love, he understands love, love can’t be a sin. And then in Menewood he seems to argue both sides of his own equation when it comes to killing.
I’m not yet at the stage where I can say definitively what Hild’s own basic understanding of god and sin will be as she becomes an abbess, but I do think it will be simpler than that of either James or Julian. That is, ‘The pattern is god, and god is love.’ And I’m pretty sure she won’t give a flying fig for the rules and regulations various bishops will try to impose upon her—though of course she will have to find ways to work with and/or around them, as well as repurposing Gospel stories to suit her own agenda.
What brought all this up? Well, a post on Bluesky (that I won’t link to because the poster didn’t use alt-text, and I won’t boost that kind of behaviour) showing an image of a manuscript of the text of Revelations… and then a fresh, forearm tattoo of part of one of its most famous quotes, “All shall be well…” And I went off into a reverie about subtle connotations and misquotations. Let me explain.
In Julian of Norwich’s Revelations of Divine Love, part of the 13th Revelation (which in itself is several chapters long) is this passage (this is a modern English translation of the original):
Jesus answered with these words, saying: ‘All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.’ … This was said so tenderly, without blame of any kind toward me or anybody else.
A lot of people misquote Jesus’ words as “All will be well…” and frankly I like that version better. Because ‘shall’ back in the day was prescriptive, almost imperative: ‘all must be well.’ ETA: According to etymonline, shall is from Old English sceal, Northumbrian scule “I owe/he owes, will have to, ought to, must.” Hild is Northumbrian; this is how she would have used the word. Then at some point centuries later, during the Middle English phase, the meaning “shifted from obligation to include futurity.” But I always hear it through the language of the Old Testament: Thou shalt not.
So to me ‘shall’ from a nondeity has always seemed a bit desperate, suggesting flying in the face of the odds, that is, “Oh hell I really, really hope all will be well but I’m guessing it won’t…”. Whereas ‘all will be well’ feels much more promissory, and therefore reassuring, almost soothing. Which is much more like the kind of god Hild could get behind and promote in her teachings. So when Hild III finally appears, don’t be surprised if she pre-quotes/misquotes a certain Medieval Mystic.
As a result, I will prepare for a barrage of indignant letters, emails, social media post and DMs after publication, but, hey, the author is god of her book and, like Hild, I don’t really give a fig when others can’t or won’t get the point.2
Having said that, up until publication—and especially now as I’m just trying to figure this out without having written any of it yet—I would love to hear from those who have thought about such things. All opinions welcome!
- Perhaps only superficially similar? I suspect so but admit frankly that I don’t know. I’m not a theological and am not used to parsing such things. ↩︎
- See, for example, the endless wittering about the Atwood-influenced paraphrase in Hild ↩︎
Gemæcce 
The (mis) quote from Julian of Norwich which I’ve always liked is that God never forgives us because there is never a time when God has not forgiven us. God’s love is eternal and unchanging. It is us frail mortals that move ourselves away from or closer to God.
Now that is something Hild could get behind! If you have a citation handy that would be great, otherwise I can do my own search.
chapter 49 in Revelations of Divine Love I believe – I’ve chased down a reference in this blog. https://richardbeck.substack.com/p/god-cannot-forgive-us
Lovely! Thank you.
On parsing the similarity: these two do strike me as a bit different:
“Julian’s basic message—God is love and He will be merciful to those who atone—is similar to James’s, which is that God is love and He will forgive any sin committed from a basis of love as long as it’s confessed.1”
(1) James’s is more restricted, the sin has to be “from a basis of love”, and Julian’s isn’t restricted that way (so you could be forgiven for a sin that had a frankly awful motivation);
(2) I assume “atone for” and “confess” should be very similar, but it’s not obvious that they are the very same. Could someone confess something and fail to atone for it (or vice versa)?
I hope I’m not being obtuse here. Super interested in what Hild’s thinking will be!!!
I’m guessing in Hild’s time ‘atone’ might be more connected to reparation—e.g. weregild to prevent blood feud—than to admission of fault or believing you did something wrong
I love the character of Hild because she manifests Beowulf: an origin in heroic Anglo-Saxon culture but with improved through and remembered for her Christianity.
I always took shall as just future (that’s now not, it’s later), and will as expressing intention to make sure it happens, but that may be a mistake based on how future tense works in German.
It’s co me to mean that, yes—at least to most people. But I’ve edited to add a little clarity
You know Hild better than we do, of course, but it seems to me that in her formative years, before Christianity became a presence, she was a pagan, or at the very least had intense exposure to pagan culture and practice. One might say a “native speaker”. So I would think that in Hild’s consideration of Christianity, the contrast with what came before would loom large.
Another issue would be Hild’s gift of prophecy. Prophecy really has an Old-Testament flavor and Jesus is a Savior and a Deity not a prophet. On the other hand, prophecy is a pretty mainstream pagan practice.
Fun question!
Ah, but Hild *isn’t* a prophet, she just plays one at court—mainly because being seen to be uncannily useful protected her and her family as child