Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects The rC eation of Heaven in the Middle Ages William Storm Marquette University Recommended Citation Storm, William, "The rC eation of Heaven in the Middle Ages" (2014). Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 420. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/420 THE CREATION OF HEAVEN IN THE MIDDLE AGES by William M. Storm, B.A., M.A. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin December 2014 ABSTRACT THE CREATION OF HEAVEN IN THE MIDDLE AGES William M. Storm, B.A., M.A. Marquette University, 2014 My dissertation focuses on the intersection of the discourses of space and place, art, religion, and politics in poetical accounts of heaven. My study investigates how authors deploy these various traditions to create a heaven that accommodates the needs of a particular audience. Heaven is, according to Yi-Fu Tuan, a “mythical place,” which cannot be located. To avoid the problems of a “mythical place,” we represent that location with slightly-blurred experiential knowledge or communally-sanctioned practices. The creation of heaven, I argue, does not occur ex nihilo but through a refashioning of knowledge and practices to engage audiences with descriptions of heaven. To examine this concept, I primarily analyze the descriptions of place in Pearl and Piers Plowman, while providing discussion of Paradiso, The Vision of Tnugdal, and episodes from the writings of Hadewijch that offer competing and complementing visions. This study offers an opportunity to view heaven not as simply a consistent and monolithic feature of society but as a created site. Rather than examining heaven solely as art, or only through doctrinal concerns, heaven must be considered in terms of a variety of discourses. The layering of art, politics, religion, and space and place remind readers of the medieval religious project. God, for the medieval, was not an abstract ideal but an ever-present quality of their daily existences; as God could be seen in all facets of life, so too can heaven be seen through aspects of life that seem mundane and removed from ethereal experience. The first chapter of The Creation of Heaven in the Middle Ages outlines the problem of considering heaven as a monolithic entity. By tracing the history of heaven, the chapter demonstrates that we cannot view heaven as outside of time and place; heaven responds to the needs of particular audiences. As such, heaven cannot be considered only a religious place; heaven is a place that depends upon the engagement of multiple ideas, including theories of space and place, art history, and politics. The second chapter investigates the places of the afterlife in Pearl and Piers Plowman. While similarities exist between the two, each text offers a striking vision of the afterlife; and while a cityscape, and a besieged church and tower evoke distinct impressions of heaven, the chapter examines how each of these visions forces the reader to wonder if heaven might be a viable end. The third chapter engages in how the aesthetic choices of heaven work to create meaning within the mind of the reader. The larger goals of medieval aesthetics, embodied in stained-glass windows, reflect the projects of Pearl and Piers Plowman, namely to teach through a series of highly colored and instructive scenes. The final chapter offers a view of heaven through the political atmospheres of Ricardian England, reflecting the various choices of that monarch that impacts not only earth but also the heavenly retinue. A brief postscript closes out the dissertation that asks how these medieval visions might allow us to view the current interest of heaven, which can be seen in the popularity and success of life after death accounts i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Much like the conception of heaven that I argue in this dissertation, this work was directed for the wants and needs of a particular audience. It was also a work that depended upon the input of many kind and thoughtful individuals, and so I would like to take the opportunity to thank as many of them as possible. While I attempt to thank many of them here, I may forget certain people and moments that contributed to this study. But much like Geoffrey Chaucer in his “Retraction,” ascribe all the fault to my ignorance, for I would have written better if I had the knowledge. First, I would like to thank my committee for their enthusiasm for and criticism of this project. In particular, I owe a great debt to Dr. John Curran, my dissertation director. I met Dr. Curran in the fall of 2003 in his Shakespeare class, and since that time he has challenged me to be a better scholar, teacher, and man with every meeting. That same semester, I stumbled into an undergraduate Chaucer course; I can trace my interest in Medieval Literature to that course. I would not be here without that class, so thank you to Dr. M.C. Bodden. I count myself fortunate to consider her a friend and mentor these many years later. Thanks are owed, in addition, to Dr. Albert Rivero for his thoughtful commentary on my project, and for allowing me to see the image of the consummate professional and critic. Many professors have encouraged me along the way, both here at Marquette University and the University of Mississippi. So I would like to thank Drs. Gregory Heyworth and Mary Hayes for their guidance when I began my graduate career. Though he is no longer an active presence in this work, Dr. Tim Machan’s influence can be seen in each page of this work, and I hope that one day I can become a scholar that he will be proud to count as one of his former charges. I owe Brandon Chitwood and Eric Dunnum, the other two legs of the Tri-Pod, thanks for their friendship and advice during my time here at Marquette. To say the least, our conversations and adventures opened my work up to new possibilities, and (you know the tone) I am forever grateful to them. To my other friends, thank you for your support over the course of this project. To Benjamin and Jacqueline Wydra, you are great friends and better listeners. To Michael and Emily Keller, Gabrielle Lee, Myles Bergeron, Michael Silva, Jesse Wentworth, and Margaret Michalski—your friendships make life better. I would literally not be here without my parents David Storm and Kathleen Entes, making this a ghost story and not a dissertation on heaven. Thank you for your support and love when it would have been easier not to offer either. Thank you to my sisters— Kristina, Kimberly, and Maeve—for never telling me to stop talking about my work. I owe thanks to my grandparents, Rudolph and Diane Timm, for their love and support; such sentiments are also owed to my stepmother, Cathy Storm. Then, there is Theresa Mire, Mama T—no one could be prouder of my accomplishments. As this is a dissertation on heaven, I think often of the people I have loved and lost over my life. To my grandparents William and Barbara Storm, and Dorothy Timm, I hope I got the picture right. To my stepfather, Kenneth Entes, you laughed at my ideas on “spot,” but I think I know the spot where you can now be found. Then there is Sarah ii Mayville, the fiercest scholar I will ever know—I hope your heaven allows you to argue to your heart’s content. But all of these words, however good or bad, however correct or wrong, however skilled or lacking, would be nothing without the love of Anna Storm, my wife (it still feels strange to type those words). My heaven is wherever you are. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………………………………i CHAPTER I. FOREGROUNDING THE RECREATION OF HEAVEN……………….........1 II. FINDING THE PLACES OF HEAVEN……………………………………..42 III. THE AESTHETICS OF HEAVEN………………………………………...100 IV. THE POLITICS OF SALVATION………..……………………………….161 POSTSCRIPT: HEAVEN’S MODERN AFTERLIFE………………..………………..210 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY………..……………………………………………….216 1 I Foregrounding the Re-Creation of Heaven “That damned argument: something cannot become nothing, there’s the misery. Creation has become so broad, there’s no emptiness. Everything is packed and swarming. The void has destroyed itself; creation is its wound.”1 Heaven exists outside the scopes of human experience and memory in a conception that Yi-Fu Tuan calls “mythical space.” Tuan argues that mythical space can be divided into two categories. The first is a “fuzzy area of defective knowledge surrounding the empirically known,” and the second is a “conception of localized values within which people carry on their practical activities.”2 Because of an inability to locate mythical space, our options are to blur the distinctions of experiential knowledge or to populate that location around communally sanctioned practices. Heaven, to medieval exegetes, conforms to both these categories. Time and space bind humanity to certain aspects of life. And yet, heaven as it comes through the writings of early Church fathers and theologians exists outside of the normal categories of human existence. It is a place beyond time, and yet, heaven is still a place. There is no death, and there is no ageing. One remains at a perfect age, in a state of joy that cannot be expressed in human language. Difficulties arise with both the contemplation of heaven and God because of the limitations of human language, and yet, language is the means by which we most often approach the divine. 1 George Buchner, Danton’s Death, Leonce and Lena, Woyzeck, trans.