Metaphors as Knowledge in Mystical Writings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article “Metaphors as Knowledge in Mystical Writings,” is an excellent scholarly analysis of the function of metaphors in the canonical Christian mystical tradition. I especially appreciated the author’s insight that the metaphors that appear so commonly in mystical texts come from distinct places (some are handed down from the tradition, widely shared) and others emerge from images circulating in the culture and context of the mystical author, and others are simply personal preferences. Secondly, and more significantly, the author successfully establishes that metaphors in mystical language belong to the realm of experiential knowledge and do far more substantive work than pointing out similarities between ineffable experience and “ready-made” things of the world. The metaphors deployed in mystical texts create new meanings and define and shape realities in new ways – they act in the world rather than merely reflect the world.

This is a really high quality piece and I highly recommend publication! The only suggestion I would make is that the literature the author draws upon is a bit dated. The author should incorporate some newer materials on language and mysticism in the footnotes and have these arguments woven into the framing a bit more. For instance, the newer volume of the Cambridge Companion to Christian Mysticism edited by Amy Hollywood has some excellent essays that would deepen the scholarly conversation and analysis here. Amy Hollywood’s introduction to the volume, for instance, makes the point that the paradox of ineffability and language (esp the language of metaphor) is a *debate* central to Christian mystical authors not a settled theological topic. Mystical writers, for instance, all insist on language’s inability to convey the ineffable, but at the same time, paradoxically, use language – poetically, metaphorically, beautifully, centrally – to convey and share and teach.  She insists that different authors handle this paradox differently, all come land in different places on the imperfection of language for mystical expeirnce. And the volume’s essays on writing (by Charlie Stang) and the predominance of sexual/erotic metaphors (by Constance Furey) also advance arguments that would be helpful. These essays would make it harder to describe “the Christian mystical” tradition in any unform way because authors come down on the metaphor/ineffability issue slightly differently. The author may want to consider referring to specific writers (Ignatius, Teresa etc) rather than making bigger claims about “the Christian mystical tradition.” OR, alternatively, defend this rather dated practice (which could certainly be defended!) of speaking of the tradition more generally rather than the specifics of an author. But either way, it must be contended with. The essays in Hollywood’s Cambridge Companion volume would help make these arguments and update the references. But I think these would be incorporated fairly simply without majorly re-working just adding a bit.

Two small things – the early introduction of Hobbes/Locke in the first paragraphs is distracting and confusing. Relegate to footnotes.

In English, typically “Augustine” rather than “Augustin” is used.

Other than that, it is great and I highly recommend!

Author Response

1. Many thanks for suggesting to introduce references to the Cambridge Companion of Christian Mysticism, which I had in hand and should have quoted from. This helps me to correct the obvious mistake you point out: I should have specified from the start that my writing mainly deals with early modern mysticism and have located this specific time and school vis-à-vis other currents. References to A. Hollywood’s introduction, developed in an explanatory footnote, has helped me to better specify my field of investigation (I still consider that the field of “mysticism” as a whole is characterized by a common “epistemological concern” – see introduction and conclusion). Besides, a reference to an insight by Stang in the same volume has enabled me to reformulate the second part of my introduction so as to answer some of your concerns.

2. Hobbes and Locke are now in a footnote.

3. “Augustin” has been corrected in “Augustine”.

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has contributed with a good article on the power of metaphors in spatial/temporal narratives and the value of their noetic quality/cognitive process between the mystical experience and its interpretation. Clearly, one of the major writers on the power of myth was Joseph Campbell. I recommend the author to quote from any of his books on this topic to argue with her/his own thesis. So, if metaphors are not approximate expressions of an ineffable experience which is what most mystics claim they are, what sort of cognitive validity does the author claim and why is it relevant in this article? In other words, make the argument clearer and explain in your Conclusion why is it relevant to see metaphors more than approximations to ultimate reality? In regards to the format type a period after the in-text citation in parenthesis (76). Typos found in spelling Augustin. Instead, it should read Augustine (118 and 122). The fire metaphor can be found in many mystical and philosophical traditions going back to Heraclitus in the Pre-Socratic tradition. Thomas Merton wrote about the Heraclitean fire in one of his writings (see 218). Many mystics use pagan sources as much as Christian ones. When using . . . leave one space in between (see 238). Is William James an empiricist mysticism or a pragmatic one? (310). Type Western vs. western spiritual literature (325). St. John of the Cross never used the phrase "dark night of the soul" (331). Better usage of the Sanjuanist phrase is dark night as noche oscura. Why the image of the castle is coming from Teresa's unconscious? (388-389) No evidence to back it up. I recommend to change it and see the work of Luce Lopez-Baralt on the influences of the Sufi mystical imagery of the castle in Teresa. Also, see the special issue of Spanish Mysticism published in Religions. There are good articles on Teresa, John, and other Spanish mystics that you can quote from as examples of more recent scholarly articles published in 2021. Perhaps use road maps of the spiritual life in John of the Cross's itinerary (428-429). In your last line, explain what does it mean to create new metaphors as spaces where to encounter God. It is too vague (630). Overall, this article can be improved for the sake of clarity but it does a good job bringing a new perspective on the power of myths in everyday life. In the References the author cites a good number of sources in the study of Christian mysticism and philosophy. 

Author Response

1. Thank you very much for pointing out a number of editorial and formatting issues. They have bene corrected, including what refers to the vocabulary of John of the Cross.

2. Reference to Heraclitus introduced.

3. Position of James as to Empiricism and Pragmatism briefly specified.

4. I have introduced cautious reference to Joseph Campbell, while stressing in a footnote the difference between his research and my field of investigation. For instance: the “knowledge” that Myth is supposed to bring in does not correspond exactly to the one spoken of by the texts I study. Or yet, the “metaphor of the castle” is not “the myth of the castle.” (This distinction may clarify what I say about metaphors, which does not seem to be entirely clear to you. I think what I say in my last part as to the way metaphors, by changing our perception, also change the world and the way we relate to the divine within this world, may be helpful in this regard.)

5. I have introduced reference to the work of Luce Lopez-Baralt and discussed it briefly, quoting also the cautious assessment of McGinn on this.

6. I have not introduced references to the Special Issue on Spanish mysticism in Religions for it seems to me that it would make my argument more scattered, and that it is better that I stick to my main point, which has more to see with “theological epistemology” (i.e., with the possibility to acquire and express a knowledge of things divine).

7. Finally, I hope that the reformulations in my introduction and conclusion (notably as to “new metaphors as spaces where to encounter God “) make my intent clearer and thus answer your questions on this point.