The Roman Catholic Community Of St Bernard Of Clairvaux: Fill & Download for Free

There’s quite a few who don’t meet societies usual gender norms.The subject of Joan of Arc’s sexuality and gender identity is a well-known ongoing example. It’s undeniable that she deviated from the gender norms and expectations of her era. While she took a distinctly female name, her gender-bending life became a major part of her trial for heresy:Bernard of Clairvaux, an abbot in medieval France, apparently maintained a lengthy ‘personal relationship’ with the Irish archbishop, Malachy. After Malachy died, Bernard wore his friend’s habit for the remainder of his life. Upon his own death, Bernard was buried alongside Malachy on church grounds.My favourite miracle however, is known as the Lactation of St Bernard and is based on a vision where the Virgin Mary spurted a taste of her breast milk into his mouth:Never to be accused of gender prejudice, Bernard is seen here receiving milk from the maidenly breast of the Virgin Mary.The eighteenth century priest Bernardo Francisco de Hoyos y de Sena was beatified in 2010. This Bernard considered himself married not just to the Catholic Church but to Christ himself:Bernard undergoing his mystical same-sex marriage. Apparently, Jesus told him: ‘Consider my glory that of a Spouse. All Mine is yours, and all yours is Mine. What I am by nature you share by grace.’Saint Francis of Assisi seems to have defied plenty of social norms, not least those concerning gender. He did once allow a woman to join a monastery - but only after cutting her hair to let her look like a man and live as Brother Jacoba.On his deathbed, Francis, welcomed ‘Brother’ Jacoba in the cloister where he was dying, imploring: ‘Bring me the delicious almond cookies that you prepared for me when I was ill in Rome.’Madre Juana de la Cruz, a sixteenth century Mexican abbess, insisted that God had changed her gender in the womb from male to female. Her gender-bending version of Christ and God were apparently so controversial in her time that the church would cut short her beatification.Madre Juana is still an important figure in modern times. The Juana Inés Services for Abused Women was established in 1993, and she has also become celebrated and revered by the trans community. In 2015, Pope Francis restored her Venerable status.Sergius and Bacchus were a Roman Christians couple who were described in Greek text as ‘erastai’. We don’t really know much about the relationship, but erastai is the plural form of the term erastēs, which refers to an adult male in a relationship with a younger male.Saints Sergius and Bacchus in a seventh century icon. Any suggestions of pederasty are mostly underplayed, and the bond between Sergius and Bacchus is today celebrated as an ‘equal opportunities partnership’.Finally, a personal favourite of mine.I don’t know if she counts as non-binary, but Wilgefortis is a female saint of the Catholic Church whose distinguishing feature is a large beard. Although the cult was vigorously debunked in the Gothic period, several famous representations still exist—and she is, after all, a distinctive figure:Wilgefortis is described as a young, Christian princess who, rather than marry a pagan against her will, prayed for disfigurement. Her father, furious that she had disobeyed his will, ordered her to be crucified.In England, Wilgefortis (from the old Latin 'virgo fortis', meaning 'strong virgin') was known by the equally splendid name of Uncumber; she was venerated by people seeking relief from tribulations, in particular by women who wished to be liberated, or ‘disencumbered’ from abusive husbands:St Uncumber appears on the Rood screen at St Mary's church, Worstead in Norfolk (above right). She’s also known as Ontkommer (Dutch for escaper), and Debarras (French meaning good riddance).Definitely my kind of saint.

There are several monastic orders within the Church, I will stick to the Latin Rite, and only the major ones.What is a monk? CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: MonkBenedictines (multiple under this)Order of Saint Benedict (O.S.B.)These are loosely aligned congregations of monasteries around the world. They originate from St Benedict (hence the name) and his rule for monks: Rule of St Benedict. These monks trace their heritage back to the founding father of Western Monasticism in the 600s AD. They wear a black habit with black scapular (pictured), but not always—in summer, and in certain areas, they may wear white. They also have a work habit which tends to be blue.These were the first majorly organized group of monks in the West, and their day is strictly regimented. Most monasteries “rule” themselves and are able to have different aspects to it (e.g., one may be very active with an apostolate while another is very cloistered).One of the main unifying elements for all of monastic orders is the Divine Office, now called Liturgy of the Hours. Most know this as Chant, or more precisely Gregorian chant. These are the set prayers of the Church. There are 7 (though some do an 8th called “Prime” in Latin liturgy) that are spread throughout the day. They involve him, the psalms (usually 3 per prayer time) a reading from the Bible, intercessory prayer, and other prayers.The unique charism of Benedictine spirituality is Ora et labora: work and prayer. The day is broken between times of prayer (majority of time) which comprises the Divine Office, Lectio Divina, and personal meditation and contemplation. Lectio Divina is a way of praying (meditating) over sacred writings, especially Scripture. What is Lectio Divina? Work can range from the daily upkeep, to academic work (monks preserved, translated, and produced a lot of intellectual work during 'Dark Ages'), writing, farming, and in the US they became teachers due to a desperate need. Teaching requires leaving the cloister and interacting with the world.Another general trademark of Benedictines is their hospitality; I don't think they're allowed to turn someone away seeking hospitality, though it's definitely not in their nature.Of the monastic orders, OSBs are the most independent and therefore can range from strict to lenient, traditional to progressive, etc.Link for more: The Benedictine OrderTraditional monastery:—————————————————————Order of Cistercians (O. Cist)Like many things, especially human organizations, the loosely congregated communities of Benedictine monasteries (called convents for women) became scandalous. Many monks and nuns were living lavish lifestyles and weren't there for holy reasons, or at least not willing to sacrifice for them. From this deplorable situation—which was Church wide—came a group of monks (many from Cluny Abbey, a very large and wealthy monastery) who founded a monastery near the French town of Cîteaux (Latin: "Cistercium", hence their name) in 1098 AD.These monks devoted themselves to a rigorous and strict lifestyle that was in keeping with the ideals of the Church and St Benedict's teachings. From here came numerous Church reformers and leaders, most notably St Bernard of Clairvaux.The success of the reform was enormous and quickly the Church followed suit. Much of this time period was influenced by these reformers (the Dominicans and Franciscans didn't become Orders until 1216 and 1209, respectfully).One of the standouts of the O.Cist. are that the communities are semi-autonomous, there is a General Council and more order and structure. Another would be the return to utter poverty and simplicity, as well as a return to self-sufficiency and more cloistered regimine. They are still Benedictine in the fact that the follow the Rule of Saint Benedict and they chant the Office (albeit in simplified chant), and they hold to the ora et labora spirituality. They are most notable for their 'Cistercian architecture'.Their habit is different as they moved to a white “robe”, but they kept the black scapular, though they took off the hoodLink to learn more: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: CisterciansThe Cistercians still exist today, but a lot has happened since, like…—————————————————————Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance (O.C.S.O., aka Trappists)This is my favorite monastic Order. They are still under the umbrella of Benedictine, and even under the umbrella of Cistercians, though the latter has been a difficult relationship at times.Like the previous Order—the Cistercians- -the Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance, or Trappists, came about due to scandalous and corrupt behavior of the parent Order. The same reasons and similar circumstances caused the monks at the O.Cist. abbey of La Trappe to start reforms. As the name—the official, not the nickname of “Trappists”—implies, the sought to bring back the original way of life of the first Cistercians, and therefore a return to a strict adherence to the tough life prescribed by St Benedict. These reforms started happening in late 17th century.Make no mistake, this Order is one of the toughest and most strict, even after the loosening that occured after Vatican II. They are vegetarian, they wake up at 3 or 4, they are well known for their incredible work ethic, their amazing spiritual accomplishments, and their silence. That last part has so well defined them that people often mistake that they have to take a vow of silence, which they don't, but they don't like you talking hardly at all (depending on community).Speaking of structure, they are the most highly structured of the Benedictine family. Their habit is the same as O.Cist. except they put back the hood on the scapular and replaced the fabric belt with simple and cheap leather.Link for more: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: TrappistsIn their own words: Becoming a Trappist Monk or NunTraditional Trappists:—————————————————————CarthusiansThis is the most hardcore and strict Order in the entire Western Church. The Carthusians are not affiliated with the Benedictine family. They were created by a tremendous saint of both high spiritual and intellectual capability; his name was St Bruno of Cologne. He wanted to get away from a lot of the issues happening at the turn of the 1st millennium, and was granted land in the French Alps in the Chartreuse Mountains. This is where their name originates, and where the English “charterhouse” comes from as well.The organization of the monastery under St Bruno is both similar and different than that of St Benedict. While both were made of a community of monks (or nuns) who participated in community events like Mass, the Divine Office, etc, the Carthusians spend majority of their time in their “hermitage”. I call them semi-hermits because they spend most of their time in hermitages, by themselves, but they join in community activities. This is only for priests and those training to be priests, though, the others (2 types of brothers) are out and about taking care of what needs to be done so that the priests can focus on their charism: prayer. Like the Trappists they are also strict vegaterians and like silence (watch the documentary “Into Great Silence”, link below).Their structure is loose, but they meet in general Councils.Their habit is all white and resembles the Dominicans, except that the scapular is held together to make cross.Link: The Carthusian OrderTheir main site: WelcomeInto Great Silence:EDITI hope to add a section on the famed Carmelites, but I need to do more research first. Some consider them mendicants not monastic, but their status as some of the greatest contemplative and mystics, especially amongst the women, and given that those women are strictly cloistered, I think the case can be made to have them under monastic.These, and the Carmelites when added, are the major monastic orders of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. I hope I gave some help in delving into this rich, though sadly fading from many people's thought, history. I find it sad when so many Westerners turn to other sources (e.g., Buddhism, Native American, New Age, etc) for mystic contemplation and have no idea of the rich history of Christian mysticism. To reject an idea because of reason is one thing, to reject it out of ignorance is another. I shall end by quoting one of the greatest Christian mystics, St John of the Cross (Carmelite):The Father spoke one Word, which was His Son, and this Word He always speaks in eternal silence, and in silence must It be heard by the soul.

Well, that would depend on the books and on the period they purportedly describe. I can only speak to common misconceptions about women in my period of expertise, the High Middle Ages, particularly in England, France and the Crusader States.Let me debunk just four of the most common myths about women in the Middle Ages.Myth 1: Women were ChattelsThe persistence of this notion is incomprehensible to me as it was very patently NOT true. Indeed, as the noted French historian Regine Pernoud makes exquisitely clear in her comprehensive book on the subject, Women in the Days of the Cathedrals (Ignatius, 1969) women in the Middle Ages enjoyed substantially more status and legal rights than women in the so-called Renaissance and Early Modern periods -- indeed until the 20th century.It is true that they did not enjoy the same rights and privileges as 21st-century women in advanced, post-industrial, Western societies, but they were not at any time in medieval Europe (500 – 1500 AD) “chattels.”Let me start by reminding you what the word chattel means. Webster’s Dictionary, Second College Edition, states that a chattel is: “a movable item of personal property, as a piece of furniture, an automobile, a head of livestock.” In short, a chattel is by definition property, an object without rights. It is something that can be disposed of, sold, or destroyed by the owner. Humans who are property are called slaves. Women in Medieval Europe were not slaves—of their husbands or anyone else. Period.These women -- sold at auction by ISIS -- are "chattels." This was unimaginable in the Christian Middle Ages!Myth 2: Women in the Middle Ages had no Political PowerNon-historians are inclined to assume that progress is linear. Since women did not obtain the right to vote in major democracies until the early 20th century, the assumption is that before the 20th century women had no rights. This is simply false.Women in the Middle Ages enjoyed higher status and power compared to antiquity and the renaissance and early modern periods because of two factors that formed the very basis of medieval society: 1) Christianity and 2) Feudalism.Christianity accorded women unprecedented status because it eliminated polygamy and divorce, while elevating women from sexual objects to spiritual beings. It also recognized women as souls — equal in the eyes of God.Women nowadays are far too quick to scream “misogyny” at the Catholic church without looking at the context. Obviously, medieval women did not instantly gain “equal rights,” but — as should be obvious today — it is a long, hard struggle for oppressed people to improve their status, and most improvements come incrementally.It is a fundamental fact that nothing degrades or devalues women more than polygamy. Fatima Mernisse (a Muslim Professor of Sociology) noted that: “Polygamy…enhances men’s perception of themselves as primarily sexual beings and emphasizes the sexual nature of the conjugal unit. Moreover, polygamy is a way for the man to humiliate the woman…. ‘Debase a woman by bringing in another one in [to the house].’” (Mernissi, p. 48) The Christian Church diligently opposed polygamy and succeeded in eliminating it from Christian society before the start of the Middle Ages.Likewise, divorce in pre-industrial societies disproportionately benefits men and harms women. It was (and still is) used overwhelmingly by men, almost never by women. Divorce in ancient societies enabled men (but not women) to discard partners who had grown old, fat, less attractive or simply failed to produce children. In the absence of polygamy, which allows men to add another wife to replace the one they’ve grown tired of, divorce was the best way for men to ensure their personal satisfaction with their sexual partner at little personal cost.The fate of most repudiated wives, on the other hand, was (and still is) dismal. The Church’s stand against divorce forced men to start looking at women not as disposable sexual objects but as life-long partners — for better and for worse, for richer and for poorer….Feudalism raised the status of women because power derived through hereditary titles to land. Simplified: in feudalism class was more important than gender.What this meant in practical terms was that although the society often gave precedence to the firstborn son over his brothers, and to sons before the daughters, it nevertheless gave the daughters precedence over cousins and illegitimate children of either sex, much less individuals without any blood relationship to the hereditary lord.Bonds of marriage, furthermore, were considered “blood-ties,” meaning that wives were given very powerful rights over property, which in turn gave them control over the vassals, tenants, servants and serfs that went with the land. In practice, the feudal focus on blood-ties and land meant that in the absence of a male, whether temporarily or permanently, females exercised the same authority as the absent male. In other words, in a hierarchical society such as feudalism, class trumped gender. Thus, while women were to a degree subject to men of their own class, they nevertheless had a higher standing and more power than men of any lower class.At the pinnacle of feudal society, queens were anointed and crowned because they were expected to exercise authority over the entire kingdom, and so the blessings of the Divine were deemed essential. This was not a nominal nor ceremonial power. When a king died leaving a minor child as his heir, it was normal for the child’s mother to act as regent.Even more significant, across most of Europe women could be barons in the sense that they could both give and receive feudal oaths. The importance of this cannot be over stated: feudal oaths were the very basis of feudal society, they were the mortar that held society together, the social contract that made feudalism function. The recognition of a woman as a vassal and a lord ― not in her capacity as a man’s wife or daughter but in her own right ― entailed recognizing her as a fully independent legal entity. This was unthinkable under Roman or Athenian law, and, sadly, was not the case in the France from the 16th to the 20th century!As noted above, women were lords in the absence of males capable of representing their particular barony/fiefdom, but the essential point is that they were recognized as being capable of holding a title and the lands that went with it. Eleanor of Aquitaine held the Duchy of Aquitaine in her own right, and her vassals (powerful and militant barons for the most part) paid homage to her ― not to either of her royal husbands. The same is true of countless other women in the Middle Ages from Countesses of Flanders and Burgundy in France to Joan, Countess of Kent, in England. There were many, many others. In depth studies of specific lordships in France such as Troyes in the Champagne, for example, show that women held 58 of a total of 160 fiefs held directly (as opposed to being property of a higher lord, administrated by an appointee). (Pernoud, p. 180.) This suggests that women inherited at a rate of slightly better than one out of three.Not only did women hold the titles, they controlled the lands and commanded the men and women that went with them. One of my favorite stories in that of the “Keeper of the King’s Forrest” and Constable of Lincoln in 1217 ― a certain Nicholaa, who Austin Hernon has brought wonderfully to life in his well-researched novel The Women Who Saved England. She defended the castle of Lincoln against forces attempting to put the King of France on England’s throne during the minority of Henry III. She withstood multiple assaults, commanding the men of the garrison in person. But there are literally countless cases of women holding and defending castles against siege and storm.Last but not least, no description of political power in the Middle Ages would be complete without noting that the emergence of nuns and convents in the 5th century AD opened completely new opportunities for women. Convents were centers of learning, music, and illumination. The Order of the Hospital also offered women careers in social work and medical care ― not to mention an opportunity to travel to the Holy Land.Critical to understanding these institutions is to note that they were self-governing, so that women were not subject to any men inside the community, and ― often completely overlooked ― in many double foundations (monastery and convent side-by-side) the Abbess ruled over the men as well as the women. What this means is that monks entering the monastery took their vows to the abbess ― not the abbot. Finally, although such power is indirect, many abbesses enjoyed great influence outside the walls of the convent. As women of recognized learning and wisdom, some of the greater abbesses such as Agnes of Poitiers, Mathilda of Fontevrault, or Hildegard von Bingen, corresponded with popes, emperors and kings.Myth 3: Women had no control over wealth and could not have professions, businesses or careersNothing gives women more power and status than wealth. In societies where women cannot own property (e.g. ancient Athens) they are not only powerless to take their fate into their own hands in an emergency, they are also generally viewed by men as worthless. Where women can possess, pass-on, and control wealth, they enjoy independence, respect and are viewed (and coveted) not only as sexual objects but as contributors to a man’s status and fortune (e.g. ancient Sparta).Medieval women across Europe could inherit, own and dispose of property. The laws obviously varied from realm to realm and over time, but the fundamental right of women to inherit was widespread and reached from the top of society (women could in many but not all realms bequeath kingdoms) to the bottom, where peasant women could also inherit and transmit the hereditary rights to their father’s lands, mill or shop.Significantly, it was not only heiresses that enjoyed property and the benefits thereof. On the contrary, every noblewoman received land from her husband’s estate at marriage called a “dower.”A dower is not to be confused with the dowry. A dowry was not an inheritance. It was property that a maiden took with her into her marriage. Negotiated between families before a marriage, dowries were usually land. Royal brides brought entire lordships into their marriage (e.g. the Vexin), but the lesser lords might bestow a manor or two and the daughters of gentry might bring a mill or the like to their husbands. Even peasant girls might call a pasture or orchard their dowry. The key thing to remember about dowries, however, is that they were not the property of the bride. They passed from her guardian to her husband.Dowers, on the other hand, were women’s property. In the early Middle Ages, dowers were inalienable land bestowed on a wife at the time of her marriage. A woman owned and controlled her dower property, and she retained complete control of this property not only after her husband’s death, but even if her husband were to fall foul of the king, be attained for treason, and forfeit his own land and titles.Whatever the source of a woman's wealth, in Medieval France, England and Outremer, women did not need their husband’s permission or consent to dispose over their own property. There are thousands of medieval deeds that make this point. While it was common to include spouses and children on deeds, this was a courtesy that increased the value of the deed rather than a legal necessity ― and that principle applied to men as well as women. Thus many deeds issued by kings and lords included wives and children as witnesses as a means of demonstrating that the grant or sale was known to their co-owners/heirs.Middle-class women could inherit whole businesses, and as widows they ran these businesses, representing them in the respective guilds. Indeed, most wives were active in their husband's business while he was still alive. Manuscript illustrations show, for example, a women bankers (collecting loans, while the husband gives them out), and "alewives" -- including women in helmets bringing refreshment to archers engaged in a battle!More important, however, women could learn and engage in trades and business on their own. They could do this as widows, as single, unmarried women (femme sole) or as married women, running a separate business from that of their husbands. The skills acquired, even more than property, fostered economic independence and empowerment because property can be lost — in a fire, an invasion, from imprudence and debt — but skills are mobile and enduring, as long as one remains healthy enough to pursue one’s profession. Furthermore, once qualified in a trade, women took part in the administration of their respective profession, both as guild-members and on industrial tribunals that investigated allegations of fraud, malpractice and the like. In short, there was no discrimination against qualified women engaged in a specific trade.Furthermore, women in the Middle Ages could learn a variety of trades. Some trades were dominated by women, for example, in England brewing, in France baking, and almost everywhere silk-making. However, women were also very frequently shopkeepers, selling everything from fruit and vegetables (not very lucrative) to spices and books. In addition, women could be, among other things, confectioners, candle-makers, cobblers, and buckle-makers. Women could also be musicians, copiers, illuminators, and painters, though I have not come across references to women sculptors. More surprising to modern readers, medieval records (usually tax rolls) also list women coppersmiths, goldsmiths, locksmiths, and armorers. A survey of registered trades in Frankfurt for the period from 1320 to 1500 shows that of a total 154 trades, 35 were reserved for women, but the remainder were practiced by both men and women, although men dominated in 81 of these.Notably, in the early Middle Ages women could be medical practitioners. All midwives were women, of course, and sisters of the Hospital provided most of the care for women patients, but women could also be barbers (who performed many medical procedures such as blood-letting), apothecaries, surgeons, and physicians. A female doctor, for example, accompanied King Louis IX on crusade in the mid-13th century. Women learned these trades in the traditional way, by apprenticing with someone already practicing the profession, who was willing to take them on. It wasn't until the 14th century that universities imposed the exclusive right to certify physicians -- while excluding women from universities.Myth 4: Women in the Middle Ages were Illiterate or only Poorly EducatedAfter wealth, education is arguably the most powerful means of empowerment. As noted above, professional skills were mobile and endowed women with independence and self-respect. Turning to “book-learning” rather than practical, professional skills, it is still common to impute ignorance to people in the Middle Ages generally, and even more common to assume that women were not generally literate.Certainly, literacy was not as widespread or common in the Middle Ages as it is today. There was no requirement to attend school, and for the poor, the need to work from a very early age made schooling a luxury. It was possible to learn a trade by watching and listening to a master, rather than reading texts. Thus for a significant portion of society at the lower end of the social scale, reading and writing was neither a necessity nor particularly valuable.Yet, as with everything in feudal society, class more than gender determined whether a person was likely to be literate or not. Among the classes that valued and required higher levels of education, women were as likely to be educated as their brothers and husbands. In the early Middle Ages among the upper classes, some historians argue, women were more likely to read and write than their husbands and brothers, simply because their men were too busy fighting. Women, on the other hand, were expected to provide a basic education to children and maintain control of the estates by doing the book-keeping and correspondence.For merchants or skilled craftsmen running a business, the support of wives in keeping the books, conducting correspondence, collecting arrears, etc. was vital. Recognizing this, burghers ensured that their daughters were sufficiently literate and numerate to carry out these tasks ― or they risked having unmarriageable daughters.Noblewomen, likewise, needed to be literate and numerate in order to manage their own and their husband’s property. In fact, even in the later Middle Ages the everyday management of a household and estate generally fell to the lady of the house, since men were often engaged in warfare and politics, activities that took them away from their estates, sometimes for extended periods. The higher their status, the higher the level of education expected. Noblewomen could usually correspond in both their own language and Latin. They were frequent patrons of the arts, owners of books, and in some cases authors as well. It is no coincidence that Eleanor of Aquitaine’s tomb shows her reading a book, while her daughter Marie of Champagne was the patroness of Chrétien de Troyes and it was to her that he dedicated some of his greatest works such as Yvain, or The Knight with the Lion.Finally, women who chose a religious vocation chose a lifestyle that revolved around reading, writing, copying and illustrating Holy Scripture and more. The most highly educated women of the Middle Ages were, therefore, often found inside convents. Furthermore, by their work copying and illuminating manuscripts, nuns played a key role (along with monks) in preserving knowledge both sacred and secular, and in their role as educators, they were instrumental in spreading literacy to others.The latter point is particularly important because it was only the wealthy that could afford to retain tutors for the education of their young. (Household accounts, incidentally, sometimes list women as tutors.) Thus education often fell to parents, who might not have the necessary time, inclination or talent for the task. Yet, it is evident that starting at least by the 6th century AD convents and monasteries across Europe offered education to children. Interestingly, the sexes were not always segregated when very young; little boys were often entrusted to the care of nuns and only later sent to monasteries or given secular education as pages and squires. Alternatively, particularly bright girls might be sent to monasteries to learn more or be trained in particular skills such as singing or illumination. Also notable is anecdotal evidence of education in the convents being affordable as there are references to poor children attending them.The most dramatic evidence of female education in the Middle Ages, however, is provided by the large number of women who were authors of important works. A certain noblewoman, Dhuoda, for example, wrote an extensive and erudite treatise on education in or about 842; the book is full of biblical and other references that indicate this “ordinary” noblewoman was herself very well read (and incidentally very busy). In 965, a certain Hroswitha composed a long epic poem of Otto I. In the 12th century, there was Heloise, famous, unfortunately, more for her affair with Abelard than the fact that she was accounted a brilliant scholar in Latin, Greek and Hebrew before she even met him. In the 15th century, there was the poet Christine de Pisan who in the early 15th century took on the University of Paris, mocking their misogyny.Above Christine de Pisan with her SonMy personal favorite among the women of letters of the Middle Ages was Hildegard von Bingen. She was born in 1098 and died in 1179. She joined a convent at eight, took the veil at 15 and was abbess from 1136 onwards. She had visions, as she describes them:Through God’s goodness, my soul sometimes surges up to the heights of the heavens and the air and sometimes wanders among different peoples, although they live in far regions and unknown places…I see them only in my soul, and the eyes of my body remain open, for I have never fainted in ecstasy. I see them awake night and day…The light that I see is not local, but infinitely more brilliant than the light that surrounds the sun.” (Cited in Pernoud, p. 43)Yet for all her mystical visions, she remained a highly practical woman who wrote books on “simple” and “composite” medicine, books on linguistics, and also composed music (which can be found on the internet today.)Furthermore, returning to my thesis on women wielding political power (See above), she corresponded with all the important rulers of her day from Pope Eugene III to Friedrich Barbarossa and St. Bernard of Clairvaux. Hildegard, in short, was recognized as an intellectual and spiritual giant even by individuals themselves revered for their learning, power, and spirituality.The female characters in my novels set in the Middle Ages reflect the above realities. For more about my award-winning novels see: Helena P. Schrader, Historian and Novelist