Alison Jasper

University of Stirling

Michle Roberts: Female Genius
and the Theology of an English Novelist
ABSTRACT
Since Simone de Beauvoir published The Second Sex in 19+9, eminist
analysis Las tenJeJ to assume tLat tLe conJitions o male normativity
reJucing woman to tLe merely excluJeJ CtLer o manLolJs true
in the experience of all women, not the least, women in the context of
CLristian praxis anJ tLeology. Beauvoirs powerul analysissLowing us
Low problematic it is to establisL aposition outsiJe patriarcLys Jomi-
nance o our conceptual elJsLas LelpeJ to explain tLe resilience o
sexism and forms of male violence that continue to diminish and destroy
womens lives because tLey cannot be seen as questionable. t Las also,
woulJ argue, LaJ tLe unintenJeJ consequence o intensiying tLe sense
of limitation, so that it becomes problematic to account for the work and
lives of effective, innovative and responsible women in these contexts.
norJer to aJJress tLis problematic issue, use tLe lie anJ worL o nov-
elist MicLele Eoberts, as acase stuJy in emale genius witLin an interJis-
ciplinary elJ, in orJer to acLnowleJge tLe conJitions tLat Lave limiteJ
asingular womans literary anJ tLeological aspirations but also to claim
that she is able to give voice to something creative of her own.
TLe Ley concept o emale genius witLin tLis project Jraws on ]ulia
Kristevas notion o being a subject witLout implicitly excluJing em-
bodiment and female desire as in normative male theology, or in notions
o genius JeriveJ rom Eomanticism. Eoberts worL as a writer quali-
es Ler as emale genius in so ar as it cLallenges aspects o traJitional
Christianity, bringing to birth new relationships between theological
themes and scriptural narratives without excluding her singular female
Jesires anJ pleasures as awriter. TLis paperas part o amore inclusive,
historical survey of the work of women writers crossing the discipli-
nary boundaries between literature and Christian theology over the last
62
Alison Jasper
several centuries
1
also asLs wLetLer, in orJer to Jo proper justice to tLe
real anJ proven limitations imposeJ on countless women in tLese elJs
across global and historical contexts, we need, at the same time, to re-
duce the Christian tradition to something that is always antithetical or
for which women can take absolutely no credit or bear no responsibility.
ABSTRACT
Then it seemed to her she was in her cell, watching the cocoon crack
open. Cut struggleJ acreature witL great wet, Jragging wings tLat were
stucL togetLer. t twitcLeJ anJ areJ. SLooL out ags o billowing col-
our, reareJ its LeaJ...sLe woLe up screaming, convinceJ sLe was going
to Jie. ot anigLtmare but real. TLe great wings beating above Ler, tLe
Lot pulse o its Jesire, so close, tLe reball eyes staring into Lers.
TLe buttery lleJ tLe tiny room. t trembleJ. t was reaJy. At last
she realised it had come out of herself. (Roberts, Impossible Saints 3536)
FEMALE GENIUS
Today, an understanding of genius, originating in the period and style of
uropean culture anJ tLougLt Lnown as Eomanticism, remains Jeni-
tive (Battersby 10+). TLis rames genius as atypically masculine quality
that, when it is associated with women, takes on all the implications of
reaLisLness or maJness (Battersby 12830). n coining tLe term emale
genius
2
as away o expressing tLe iJea tLat, in spite o normative rame-
worLs, women can acLieve in tLeir own name, ]ulia Kristeva conceJes tLat
they will be limited by masculinist thinking and patriarchal institutions.
evertLeless, sLe rejects tLe iJea tLat woman is excluJeJ rom tLe cat-
egory of genius /y deni/ion and she resists this gendering of genius as
exclusively masculine in two ways:
1
TLis paper orms apart o alarger project in wLicL tLe iJea o emale genius is useJ
as ameans critically to analyse tLe tLeological worL o otLer nglisL women writers rom
tLe 17
th
, 18
th
anJ 19/20
th
centuries. See, Jasper, Alison, !em:/e Genius And \omen Doing
T/eo/ogy !our His/oric:/ C:ses In T/e \es/ern Tr:di/ion, (Waco, TX, forthcoming).
2
]ulia Kristevas iJeas about emale genius are laiJ out in tLree volumes calleJ,
collectively, !em:/e Genius Li/e, M:dness, \ordsH:nn:/ Arend/, Me/:nie K/ein, Co/e//e,
: /ri/ogy /y }u/i: Kris/et: and published by Columbia University Press in the European
Perspectives series.
63
Michle Roberts: Female Genius
(i) TLe rst way Las to Jo witL Low sLe unJerstanJs tLe Jevelopment
o tLe Luman subject as aspeaLing subject. SLe rests Ler account o tLis
speaLing subject on a psycLolinguistic Jescription

(SjLolm 1622) in
which the interplay of gendered dimensions of the psyche remain, in an
optimal sense, continually and productively in play. The maternal body
in tLis context, ratLer tLan being seen as a LinJ o trap or women as
Simone Je Beauvoir LaJ unJerstooJ it, constitutes a point o pivotal
signicance straJJling tLe JiviJe between nature anJ culture (SjLolm
57) orming apart o tLe signiying process itsel, not amurLy unJer-
current o language, but an aspect o it (SjLolm 22). JierentiateJ
male anJ emale iJentieJ elements are essential to tLe Jevelopment o
tLe subject anJ neitLer, in tLe optimal sense tLat proJuces orms o sym-
bolic representation and language, overwhelms the other, then the de-
velopment o tLe subject itsel cannot be relieJ upon to support cultural
hierarchies or sexist theory and practice.
(ii) SeconJly Kristeva opens up tLe iJea o genius to amucL wiJer range
of activities or modes of being including elements of embodiment and
female desire that are excluded in traditional and normatively masculine
theology or from dominant western notions of genius derived substan-
tially rom uropean Eomanticism (Battersby 15). Women are emale
geniuses because they are artists, writers and human beings alongside
men and in their own right but not through the conventional exclusion,
for example, of their maternal emotions or their female desires. This
Jenition o emale genius opens up tLe elJ o possibilities to many
women, both living and dead who have been geniuses in every context
not excluJing tLe maternal (Kristeva, Arendt xv).
At tLe enJ o Ler trilogy on emale genius, Kristeva JistinguisLes
three characteristics which can be related to the work and lives of the three
women sLe Las JesignateJ as sucL: HannaL ArenJt, Melanie Klein anJ
Colette. TLese cLaracteristics ocus on arecognition eviJenceJ in all tLey
do and write of the key sense in which the ego is inseparable from the va-
riety of its relationships (Colette +20), tLe neeJ to ]tenJ to tLe capacity
for thought (Colette +21) anJ acapacity or birtL or rebirtL in tLe sense
of bringing about new beginnings (Colette +2223).
To summarize: ]ulia Kristevas notion o emale genius is grounJeJ in
tLe eminist tLeory Simone Je Beauvoir initiateJ in 19+9 in The Second
Sex, in spite o Ler own lacL o conJence in awomans ability to acLieve
this accolade (Second Sex 72223). t builJs on Beauvoirs conviction tLat
genius anJ awomans ability to taLe up tLe position o subject, are closely
related (Second Sex 723), but proposes a complete transormation o tLe
term genius maLing tLis a possibility or women Joing traJitionally
womanly tLings as well as excelling in tLose elJs anJ accomplisLments
normatively reserveJ to men. TLe emale genius, as Kristeva unJerstanJs
64
Alison Jasper
Ler, lives asingular lie, JistinguisLable rom otLer lives by its unique cir-
cumstances which include limitations imposed by patriarchal and masculin-
ist structures but which do not thereby exclude her from female genius by
Jenition. TLe creativity o emale geniuses, as Kristeva sees tLem, osters
relationsLips, pLysical, sexual anJ emotional accorJing to longstanJing e-
male association, certainly, but also in all otLer possible elJs. TLe acLieve-
ment o tLis subject position, tLat or Kristeva is inextricably bounJ up
witL tLe emale-iJentieJ boJys motions anJ Jrives, tenJs to tLe capac-
ity or tLougLt, anJ can nJ expression tLrougL tLe pleasures anJ pains
o bringing into beinggiving birtL tocLilJren, relationsLips, language
anJ otLer orms o symbolic representation, rom parcour, pantomime
anJ nJing tLe optimum lie/worL balance, to set tLeory or econometrics.
TLe birtL or rebirtL o insigLts, motions anJ movements tLis generates
may inJeeJ cLange worlJsas Beauvoirs insigLts Lave cLangeJ worlJs
or no less signicantly, it may transorm asingle lie, tLat o tLe emale ge-
nius herself. In sum we could say that female geniuses resist manufactured
pleasureswLetLer tLey are maJe seJuctive by virtue o tLeir cLeapness
anJ availability liLe ast ooJ anJ commercial TV, or imposeJ on tLem by
authoritarian forms of politics and religion that seek to contain or margin-
alize women and the feminine. They are wary of standardized banalities
that are as unrewarding as they are undemanding of thought and which ul-
timately cannot save us from the maladies of our souls
3
and they distinguish
between unique pleasures accessible tLrougL tLose tLings awoman brings
into being and tailors or births for herself in singular circumstances, and
merely accepting what temporarily distracts or appeases her,
+
or suits the
convenience of the normative, male culture in which she lives.
MICHLE ROBERTS
MicLele Eoberts was born in 19+9 anJ brougLt up in tLe onJon suburb
o Jgware. Her motLer was arencL Eoman CatLolic anJ sLe attenJeJ
Roman Catholic schools in London, before going to University in Oxford
in 1967, to stuJy nglisL literature. Ater graJuating, sLe intenJeJ to train
as alibrarian but insteaJ sLe ell in love (Eoberts, Paper Houses 35) witL
eminism anJ committeJ Lersel to tLe lie o awriter anJ eminist activist
in London. To date, she has written fourteen novels and three collections
o poetry as well as worLs o non-ction. SLe won tLe BooLer rize in
1992 or Daughters of the House and was made C/et:/ier de LOrdre des
3
See, or example, Kristeva, New Maladies (610).
+
See urtLer Jiscussion o tLis tLeme in Kristevas worL in ]asper Eevolting
antasies (212, note 7).
65
Michle Roberts: Female Genius
Ar/s e/ des Le//res by the French government. She is Emeritus Professor of
Creative Writing at tLe tniversity o ast Anglia, tK. SLe is presenteJ
Lere as acase stuJy or emale geniusas JeneJ abovein respect o Ler
life, literary work, but also in respect of what I would call her theology.
The idea of the female theologian continues in many circles to be framed as
improper, CLristian tLeology is tLe province o tLe orJaineJ clergy or tLe
Jivinely inspireJ male minister, anJ awomans place is not to teacL or Lave
authority over men, nor to tell the powerful theological story for herself.
5

SLe LaJ better conne Lersel to literature, or example, an acceptable elJ
for women precisely because it has been seen to require the guiding mas-
culine hand of theology or philosophy to gain legitimacy (Walton, Imagin-
ing Theology 3++8). However, witLin atLeological culture tLat continues
to be vieweJ as normatively male, Eoberts exemplies tLe emale genius
wLo worLs anJ creates in pursuit o Ler JesiresincluJing Ler Jesire to
unJerstanJ anJ communicate witL CoJwitLout bracLeting o all sLe is
as awoman.
Eoberts exemplies Kristevas view tLat values are not static or rozen
stanJarJs but tLat it is in tLe process o tenJing to tLematernally insti-
gateJcapacity or tLougLt by calling tLem into question, wLetLer on tLe
level o tLe inJiviJuals psycLic lie or in relation to societies at large, tLat
they acquire a sense of mobility, polyvalence and life

(Kristeva, Feto//,
She Said 12). So, in Eoberts novels anJ poetry, preaces anJ introJuctions,
as well as in her autobiographical Paper Houses, sLe generates a sense o
mobility, polyvalence and life, by vigorously challenging what she expe-
riences as tLe static immobility o traJitional institutionsor example,
patriarchal attitudes towards women as they are enshrined within the Ro-
man CatLolic CLurcLs teacLing anJ practice. Her singular practices o
writing cLallenge its tLeological structures anJ cast tLe nature o CoJs
relationship with the world in terms of conceptual and social relationships
sLe asLions or Lersel as awoman. SLe questions notions o CoJ as Jis-
emboJieJ male anJ boJy as sacricial, expenJable anJ emale, tLrougL tLe
sensual evocations of carefully crafted words that produce, for example,
aCoJ wLo is ...not atLer, not orJ anJ King, but ...blacLness,
JarLness, sweetness, limiteJ to no one sLape but part o everytLing...

(Impossible Saints 182) Eoberts representation o CoJ Jistances Ler rom
early Christian, patristic disputes coloured by both Hebrew scripture and
classical philosophy. However, her sensual evocations of a God are rooted
in Ler protagonistsanJ surely also Ler owncLilJLooJ memories o
5
Traditionalist typically refer to the Pauline or pseudo Pauline books of the New
Testament, or example 1 TimotLy 2:1115, 1 CorintLians 1+:3336, pLesians 5:222+,
Colossians 3:18, 1 CorintLians 11:316.
66
Alison Jasper
Catholic Christian worship: ...witL its brilliantly-lit cLoir slung witL
gleaming lamps, its gaudy plaster and gilt decoration, its shrill-voiced
cLoir...its LiJeous anJ lieliLe crucix wLose CLrist Jrew your eyes witL
Lis naileJ boJy arcLeJ anJ twisteJ in agony... (Impossible Saints 182)
The values of the past are not being swept away in individualistic, solipsis-
tic JisregarJ but rigorously interrogateJ in tLe ligLt o aJierent LinJ o
community, one tLat incluJes ratLer tLan excluJes women anJ wLat tLey
Lave been cast to represent witLin amasculinist economy.
However, tLis is not to suggest tLat it is simply because sLe iJenties
Lersel as aeminist, cLallenging patriarcLal CLristianity, tLat sLe can be
accounteJ as aemale genius, but ratLer to claim Ler as sucL because, in
acontext witLin wLicL sLe is primeJ to responJ in accorJance to values
anJ rameworLsbe tLey Eoman CatLolic, masculinist, bourgeoissLe
brings something new to birth through the exercise of thought, bringing
values into question in aprocess in wLicL Ler emale, emboJieJ Jesire Las
not been bracketed off from the start. Writing in the white heat of early
seconJ wave eminist tLinLing, Eoberts Las a Jierent taLe on CLristi-
anity from earlier women and some sharp new analytic tools to use. But
woulJ argue tLat tLe nature o Ler emale genius JepenJs more on Low
sLe uses tLose tools tLan in tLeir specic cLaracter as eminist.
Aligning mysel witL Kristeva anJ against Beauvoirs Jespairing Jis-
missal o womens claim to genius (Second Sex 723), my argument is tLat
the achievements of women cannot be reduced to mirroring and silence,
even within the especially contentious context of Christian theology and
praxis. By writing novels witL iJentiably CLristian tLemes, Eoberts gives
herself room to look at what was at stake. Her embodiment and desire are
brought into account in order to pose that question and to explore sacred
scripture anJ ecclesiastical power outsiJe tLe CLurcLs sanctieJ roles o
ordained clergy or professed religious. In other words, her voice could
not be silenced by what Beauvoir called the female situation or condition.
6

WitL Kristeva, woulJ say tLat Eoberts JiJ not wait or tLe emale con-
Jition to evolve, . . . in orJer to realize ]Ler reeJom: is not genius
precisely tLat breacL tLrougL anJ beyonJ tLe situation. (Colette +07).
C course we cannot sweep asiJe Beauvoirs reections on tLe emale
situation. To say that Roberts was able to write and thus to live, is not to
suggest that the Curia of the Roman Catholic Church was going to take
her views seriously. Neither can we say that this would not frustrate or
limit Ler in any way. Eoberts LaJ investeJ a great Jeal in tLe lie o tLe
CLurcL, sLe LaJ been intensely religious as acLilJ anJ aJolescent (Paper
Houses 5). n Ler last years at scLool, sLe LaJ even tLougLt about joining
6
See for example, Beauvoir, Second Sex (608+0).
67
Michle Roberts: Female Genius
areligious orJer. But in Ler late teens sLe broLe witL tLe CLurcL, unable
to accept any longer what she saw as its attempts to control the expression
of her female sexuality (Secret Gospel 9)
7
or her passion for knowledge
(Paper Houses 11). Yet tLougL sLe views Lersel in aJultLooJ as an atLeist,
as amature writer sLe still aJmits tLe signicance o Ler connections witL
tLe Eoman CatLolic CLurcLs attituJes anJ values (Paper Houses 130). n
otLer worJs, wLat a eminist critique reveals about tLe Jamage Jone to
women by patriarchal frameworks should not be dismissed in this attempt
to show the possibility of female genius. It comes as no surprise that when
Eoberts engagesor example witL tLe CLurcLs account o ]esus Jis/
emboJimenttLe encounter is oten proounJly Jisturbing anJ painul.
However, the temptation from the feminist perspective, at this point, is
to see Eoberts experience in almost entirely negative termssimply one
more illustration of that female situation or condition in which women are
reJuceJ, in Kristevas worJs, to uming against metapLysics along witL
Beauvoir because tLey seem to be conneJ witLin Ler analysis o woman
as tLe CtLer, merely Jening tLe male: in orJer to posit Ler aacticity
and immanence and to refuse her access to true humanity, the humanity of
autonomy and freedom (Colette +05). woulJ argue it is too simplistic to
suggest tLat tLe CLristianity o Eoberts cLilJLooJ ceaseJ to be important
to Ler as an aJultLowever problematicallyor tLat sLe was only able
to be acreative writer in so ar as sLe coulJ escape rom its raming. TLis,
it seems to me, is to all bacL into Beauvoirs minJ-set in The Second Sex,
paraJoxically colluJing in tLat exclusion by Jenition, against wLicL sLe
otLerwise struggleJ so relentlessly. woulJ suggest insteaJ, tLat Eoberts
journey towarJs emale genius comes about tLrougL continuing engage-
ment with the personal and theological relationships of the patriarchal
CLurcL tLat eminist tLeory Las oten cast in sucL a Lostile ligLtanJ
not witLout cause. TLis engagement can be seen as aLinJ o tLinLing tLat
does not bracket off female desire or the pleasures of writing. We can say
that it is the act of female genius to envisage an alternative: to imagine
aCLristianity wLicL was inspireJ by women as mucL as by men. (Secret
Gospel 9). n otLer worJs, emale genius is acLieveJ in tLe pleasures o Jia-
logue witL tLese problematic structures, just as mucL as in any straigLtor-
warJ repuJiation. SLe Joes not neeJ even to be aeminist. Ccourse, it is
clear, nevertLeless, tLat Eoberts was inuenceJ by contemporary eminist
theory and theology (Paper Houses 69), tLat sLe ell in love witL eminism
(Paper Houses 35). However, in ]ulia Kristevas trilogy, Female Genius,
7
T/e \i/d Gir/ was rst publisLeJ in 198+ witL MetLuen. An eJition unJer anew
title, The Secret Gospel of Mary Magdalene, witL a new preace was publisLeJ by Vintage
BooLs in 2007.
68
Alison Jasper
ArenJt, Klein anJ Colette maniesteJ tLeir reeJom to explore witLout
heeding the dominant trends, institutions, parties or schools of thought
(Arendt xix). My case or calling Eoberts a emale genius Joes not rest
on her ideological perspective, so much as on her willingness to continue
writing and to raise questions when she encounters limitations on her free-
Jom to tLinL, orm new relationsLips or bring projects to birtL even as sLe
grapples with the pressures to bracket off aspects of herself that had been
JeemeJ unacceptably eminine witLin anormatively masculine rameworL.
WILD GIRL/SECRET GOSPEL
In T/e \i/d Gir/, Roberts seems to imply, beyond mere critique, that there
is sometLing more to CLristianity tLan patriarcLy, an iJea sLe may Lave
begun to form at University, when she worked on some notable medieval
women mystics incluJing Margery Kempe, ]ulian o orwicL anJ MecLtilJ
of Magdeburg and recognized that their mystical and theological insights
were achieved without conformity to male theologians or in accordance
with the authority of ordained clergy (Paper Houses 11). Arguably tLen, it
is in tLe spirit o tLese women, as well as unJer tLe inuence o seconJ wave
eminismabout wLicL sLe began to reaJ ater graJuation (Paper Houses
69)tLat sLe writes Ler novel, T/e \i/d Gir/, which implicitly questions
some fundamental patriarchal assumptions about the nature of God and di-
vine incarnation but Joes so rom tLe singular perspective o awoman wLo
writes for the sustaining pleasure it gives her. Of course, the book takes on
boarJ tLe nJings o an emerging eminist biblical scLolarsLip in tLe 1970s
anJ 80s witL wLicL Eoberts was acquainteJ, tLrougL rienJs
8
and her own
reaJing, particularly o laine agels worL on tLe Cnostic Cospels.
9
As
a stuJent Eoberts LaJ reaJ M.E. ]ames The Apocryphal New Testament,
liking its smell of heresy, of banned stories (Paper Houses 11) but tLe iJea
o banneJ CLristian texts specically concerning or written by women in
the earliest centuries of the Christian era, gained wider currency with the
publication o agels worL on tLe ag HammaJi texts. agels worL, in-
ormeJ by stirrings in eminist tLeory, LelpeJ to amiliarise awiJer reaJer-
ship with texts such as the Gnostic Gospel of Mary in which Mary appeared
to play amore prominent role tLan canonical biblical exegesis alloweJ. n
identifying the wild girl of her novel with the reformed prostitute tradition-
8
For example, novelist and theologian, Sarah Maitland (Paper Houses 130).
9
The Nag Hammadi library about which Pagels writes and within which the texts
tLat particularly inspireJ Eoberts novel, T/e \i/d Gir/, can be ounJ, comprises 52 texts
which were recovered from caves in the Jabal al-Trif mountain near the town of Nag
HammaJi in 19+5. WorL on tLe texts suggests tLat some may Jate rom as early as tLe 2
nd

century CE.
69
Michle Roberts: Female Genius
ally associated with Mary Magdalene, Roberts deliberately took issue with
tLe CLurcLs practice o reJucing women to tLe polarity o Loly sexless
mothers and bad sexy whores (Secret Gospel 9)

and here there is no denying
tLe eminist tone. n tLe AutLors note (in botL 198+ anJ 2007 eJitions)
to T/e \i/d Gir/, or example, Eoberts acLnowleJges tLe inuence o tLe
Nag Hammadi texts and particularly Thunder, Perfect Mind on this novel
anJ maLes explicit reerence to tLe eviJence tLat, in +
th
century Egypt, their
use was ocially JiscourageJ
10
implying that they had been read and valued
before that date and valued enough in some part or parts of the Chris-
tian community or tLe copies tLat were JiscovereJ in tLe 19+0s to Lave
been carefully preserved. Feminist reading prompts Roberts to speculate
imaginatively tLat in tLe early CLurcL some signicance asiJe rom sinul
materiality may have been associated with women and the feminine, and to
construct Ler novel on tLat basis. n tLe preace to tLe 198+ novel, Eob-
erts cites tLe comments o Ler rienJwriter anJ eminist tLeologian SaraL
MaitlanJtLat contemporary tLeological scLolarsLip agrees tLe Cospels
are not simple reportage but tLe rst attempts at tLeology (qtJ. in \i/d
Girl 9), to inJicate tLat in writing tLis novel, sLe was, at one anJ tLe same
time attempting to Jissect anJ recreate amytL. iLe Kristevas emale ge-
niuses, sLe strives to acLieve Ler position as subject, by ormulating anew
theological relationship through the pleasures of writing that answers to
her own needs rather than those of the malestream. In doing this, however,
T/e \i/d Gir/ was also drawing the New Testament narrative of Jesus into
relationsLip witL tLe preoccupations o Eoberts own lie in onJon in tLe
1970s anJ 80s cLaracterizeJ by cLanging sexual mores anJ genJer roles,
anew empLasis on materiality anJ liestyles wLicL Jrew on psycLoanalysis
or non-Western traditions that seemed less ambivalent about the female
body than traditional Christianity. Heather Walton proposes the feminist
suggestion that by making Jesus and Mary Magdalene lovers:
Roberts touches the place of pain women experience in relation to the
eraJication o emale sexuality rom tLe Jominant traJition....n tLe
process she re-visions divine and human authority and presents male and
emale existence as potentially Larmonious, capable o generating inter-
penetrating erotic pleasure ratLer tLan perpetual enmity. (Walton 8182).
Some readers loved T/e \i/d Gir/ and, predictably, some were offend-
ed.
11
For Roberts, however, even more than make an ideologically feminist
10
AtLanasius o AlexanJrias aster letter in 367 calleJ or apocrypLal writings to be
eliminated from all the monastery libraries in Egypt. See, Meyer, ed. (xiii).
11
There was an attempt to get the British publishers Methuen prosecuted for
blasphemous libel and Roberts received her share of hate mail (Paper Houses 26+).
70
Alison Jasper
point, it conrmeJ Ler in Ler own minJ as awriter. Writing was not asub-
stitute or living butas tLe worL o emale geniusit maJe living pos-
sible, it rooteJ Ler as subject in tLe worL o representing tLe misogyny o
the Christian Church and bringing it into question. Through her writing
she could identify and resist the kind of bracketing and exclusion that had
been so prominent an element of her previous experience of Christianity,
come to some clearer understanding of theology/God-talk, and live more
freely (Paper Houses 217).
So T/e \i/d Gir/ expresses Eoberts singular commitment to Ler
own pleasures, ambitions and curiosity. In the energetic struggling with
language repeateJly Jiving into tLe unconscious to nJ new orms, new
stories, new meanings of words (Paper Houses 217) sLe ounJ Ler an-
cLorage, writing Ler pleasure anJ using tLis as ameans o negotiating tLe
currents witLin acontext cLaracterizeJ but not exLausteJ by tLe tenets o
feminist criticism. In form, the narrative of T/e \i/d Gir/ partaLes o atra-
ditional feminist strategy of revision familiar from the theoretical work
o AJrienne EicL or example (WLen We eaJ AwaLen 1971) wLereby
old texts and narratives are read against the grain of existing patriarchal
interpretations. Today, feminist theologians and critics may be more wary
o attempting to re-reaJ tLe existing traJitionsLowever resistantlyor
fear of contributing to essentially conservative forces by privileging their
mytLic orms (Walton 86) anJ tLis may be awarning well taLen. Yet or
Eoberts in tLe early 1980s, tLis was Ler way o suggesting new LinJs o re-
lationships to address the particularity of her own challenges. For example,
in accorJanceater BeauvoirwitL tLe eminist construction o women
as outsiJe or beyonJ tLe normative perspective, Eoberts paints apicture
of female potential at the margins. On the refuse heaps created by mas-
culinist exclusions, women do not simply endure but create and give life
to tLe unexpecteJ anJ tLe unoreseen. n one o Eoberts accounts o Ler
cLaracter Marys Jreams, tLe Jestructive energy o re anJ tLe promise o
new lie are combineJ in avision o aburning reuse tip: Cn tLe top o tLe
]great Leap o rubbisL wLicL LaJ become apyre someone LaJ abanJoneJ
ababy, atiny girl wLo began to cry.... (\i/d Gir/ 17). Writing tLe story
o a sexy, Loly woman, Eoberts voices Ler objections to CLristian rep-
resentations of Christ, of women and of Gospel offered throughout her
formative convent education, but seeks through the pleasures of writing to
sLit us into anew rameworL witLin wLicL, in Ler project, relationsLips
between God and humankind, men and women can be seen differently.
TLe Leterogeneous mixture o colours, sounJs anJ mooJs in olJbibli-
calstories anJ newly voiceJemalepriorities LinJleJ in tLe writing,
are like the steaming, smoking refuse heap Roberts describes in the pas-
sage referred to above, digesting recognisable forms of language, thought
71
Michle Roberts: Female Genius
anJ relationsLips, to proJuce tLe oJour o Jecay but also re or cleansing
and fertile ground for new writing.
As I have already said, however, this is not to ignore the constraints
or tLe implicit violence o eitLer Eoberts context in tLe onJon o tLe
1970s anJ 1980s nor o Ler own responses. Eoberts Lnows tLat emale
bodies continue literally to be thrown onto the rubbish heap behind the
sacricial altars o patriarcLal anJ misogynistic iJealisations anJ HeatLer
Walton notes in relation to some o Eoberts otLer novels tLat concern
tLemselves witL CLristian anJ tLeological tLemes, tLat some o Eoberts
later worL appears to express a sense o irrecoverable loss (Walton 8+).
Nevertheless, though her story about Mary describes the limitations she
imagines woulJ be aceJ by tLe rst century woman wLo elt calleJ to
taLe arole o leaJersLip in tLe movement leJ by ]esus, sLe is also, as botL
protagonist and author, taking on the role of theologian, concerned with
nJing new ways to nJ meaning as well as to talL about CoJ, CLristian-
ity and the Church. Roberts draws on the Gnostic theologies of the Nag
Hammadi library and other Apocryphal texts but expands the hints they
give about gender as symbolic framework. She plays with the idea of the
originary divine fullness or pleroma,
12
and with the mythic dramas that
speak about falling or splitting and ultimately healing and returning to full-
ness. SLe weaves tLe story o Mary, as arst century wilJ cLilJ, into tLe
Cospel accounts o ]esus ministry, passion anJ JeatL, augmenting it witL
aresurrection appearance baseJ on tLe account in tLe Cospel o ]oLn anJ
an apocrypLal account o Mary MagJalenes attempts to explain Ler nal
encounter with the risen Lord to the rest of the disciples.
Roberts expresses her theological response to these issues, drawing on
Gnostic and apocalyptic imagery explored in another series of dream se-
quences. n tLe rst Jream sequence, in wLicL sLe ocuses on tLe story o
creation, Ignorance, the son of Sophia, is like the Gnostic demiurge of the
Valentinian mytL. CLargeJ witL tLe manual labour o creation by LigLer
powers, he imagines that he is God and forgets his own created nature.
Heorgets Lis own origins in alarger Jivine ullness, typically represent-
eJ in Eoberts novel tLrougL tLe imagery o marriage or sexual encoun-
ter. We migLt want to critique its implicit Leterosexism but it succeeJs
in counterbalancing masculine singularity witL tLe eminine, in amaterial
anJ emboJieJ as well as in a spiritual sense. n interpreting tLe Jream,
]esus tells Mary tLat creation is an ongoing process in wLicL Jierent
Lere male anJ emaleorms o LnowleJge are involveJ. TLe nature o tLe
story as concerneJ witL aall o some LinJ points to tLe consequences
12
TLis iJea is aJJresseJ, or example, in tLe Tripartite Tractatea treatise o
Valentinian tLeology incluJeJ in Nag Hammadi Texts. (Meyer eJ. +58+, 68588).
72
Alison Jasper
or CoJs people, o ignoring tLe Jual nature o CoJ as botL masculine
and feminine (\i/d Gir/ 82) anJ o orgettingtLe worL o tLe cLilJren
o gnorancewLat tLey originally Lnew.
Marys Jream visions remain JarL anJ cLaotic anJ tLat is LarJly sur-
prising. TLougL Eoberts is beneting rom tLe worL o earlier eminist
writers, her thoughts must still have seemed somewhat outrageous when
she listened with the ear of the dominant culture and the work, though
pleasurable to aJegree tLat sustaineJ Ler writing, LaJ to be unJertaLen
witLout any complete conJence tLat sLe woulJ be taLen seriously. Her
ears as autLor worLing in Ler writers garrett in onJon, are reecteJ
in Ler vision o Mary, in atiny rst century community, no longer sup-
ported by the earthly presence of Jesus, facing the suspicion and scorn
of people to whom she feels obliged to speak about the unaccountable
vision of divine and feminine fullness she and Jesus had explored togeth-
er. Dream sequences take on an apocalyptic character. As Mary/Roberts
struggles to give shape to her dreams, she draws on the extreme violence
of the biblical book of Revelation to express tLe level o Jiculty tLat
would be required to rid men and women of the visions the Christian
CLurcLes Lave eJ tLem unJer tLe inuence o gnorance. Mary aces
up to the red mist of her bloodlust and desire for revenge directed
by Ler eminine persona at tLe anti-CLrist wLo, in a nal, revelatory
collapse, sLe recognises as naLeJ anJ vulnerable simply aman, stretcL-
ing out Lis arms towarJs Ler anJ all tLe otLer injureJ women o Listory
(\i/d Gir/ 173).
n tLe nal sequence o tLe booL, Eoberts is neitLer Jeant nor tri-
umphalist. She clearly believes there is still enough female suffering at the
hands of men in the twentieth century, not to speak of all there has been in
tLe past, to justiy tLe worJs sLe puts into tLe moutLs o tLe women wLo
attenJ tLe apocalyptic juJgement o men (\i/d Gir/ 172). evertLeless,
sLe closes witL Marys worJs o restraint anJ perplexity, concerning tLe
book she had written about the best and the worst the world had to offer
women:
I do not want this book to cause outrage, I do not want my work to lead
anyone into danger. I shall carry with me in my heart the words that
must speaL in uture, anJ sLall leave tLese worJs burieJ unJer tLe
tree, to ripen there or to rot. It seems to me that ideas are dangerous.
Have not my visions taught me how we are willing to kill each other for
tLe saLe o an iJea, or tLe saLe o Leeping aJream pure anJ intact. Yet,
too, the force of Ignorance is an equal danger, and my mission, as Iheard
it plainly in my dream, is to warn against Ignorance, and to preach an
Jea. n tLis great tumult o soul, in tLis conusion, anJ witL aJiviJeJ
minJ, sLall Jepart, witL abaggage o Joubt. (\i/d Gir/ 180)
73
Michle Roberts: Female Genius
In this concluding sequence of T/e \i/d Gir/, there is uncertainty. In
her own voice, in the preface, Roberts distinguishes her account as po-
etic rather than scholarly (\i/d Gir/ 9). TLe notion o tLe poetic
inJicates, surely, not just a Jierent moJe o tLougLt anJ creativity but
also asimilar lacL o conJence about tLose categories witLin wLicL Lave
placed her, that is as theologian. This would make sense. I have argued
strongly tLat to be aemale genius Joes not imply immunity at every point
rom tLe potentially malign inuence o patriarcLal culture so mucL as
to engage with it, drawing on the maternal birthing body of the female
geniuses own energies anJ pleasures to uel contestation anJ cLallenge
anJ to orestall exclusive Jenition witLin tLat culture. A contemporary
eminist critique Las tLeorizeJ tLe extreme Jiculty o tLis in Jegrees not
excluJing tLe total silencing o erasure. Yet women liLe Eoberts continue
in numerous ways that we may see or we may not, to defy those limitations
and arguably also to bring about transformations, not the least of which
has been the development of feminist theory itself.
t Las been my object so ar to sLow Low tLe worL o tLe emale ge-
nius who creates or births without reference to an exclusively masculine
power of divinity, can be illustrated in the singular circumstances of in-
JiviJual lives, sucL as tLat o MicLele Eoberts. n aworlJ ater reuJ o
course, the language of the unconscious comes naturally to Roberts and
she links it consistently with her creative work. Diving into the uncon-
scious brings Ler in contact witL arealm tLat is cLaotic anJ Jisturbing
and in which she sometimes fears she will get lost (Paper Houses 126). Yet
it is in engaging with this affective strangeness and discomfort through
tLe process o writingcontesting inLeriteJ symbolic representations o
CLristianity or exampletLat sLe is able to give sLape to energies anJ
to think creatively. Writing and rebellion (Paper Houses 55) literally go
hand in hand in her life as she gives up the certainties and securities of
marriage or asettleJ career to experiment witL Marxism anJ eminism,
sexuality, foreign cities and countries and to explore and make sense of
all this through writing.
CONCLUSION
Beauvoir concluJeJ tLat womens lives LaJ been JisperseJ among tLe
males, attached through residence, housework, economic condition and
social stanJing to certain menatLers or LusbanJs or examplemore
rmly tLan tLey are to otLer women.
13
At the same time I believe that
women have not merely suffered but sometimes dealt with this fragmenta-
13
Beauvoir, Second Sex, p. 19.
74
Alison Jasper
tion, creatively sustaining orms o resistance, traJition anJ connection in
limiting circumstances. In this essay I argue that it is crucially important,
in order to contest any lingering sense of male domination, not to gloss
over the lives of women as if they must have failed because of these limit-
ing circumstances.
Specically in relation to tLose women wLo write to maLe sense o
Christian theology, I have used the idea of female genius to suggest that the
iJea o tLeir insignicanceor even absenceis an illusion proJuceJ by tLe
normatively male context Beauvoir JeneJ so acutely in The Second Sex.
Whilst we can never forget that women have been driven into madness,
1+
some,
perhaps many, have refused to discount desire and accept silence, pursuing in
some way, an understanding of God on their own terms that of course include
tLe struggle witL anormative male perception o tLeir wortL. n tLese terms
it is possible to see Eoberts worL as an illustration o tLe subject position
Beauvoir sLoweJ us was so LarJ to acLieve anJ Kristeva Jescribes as emale
genius. SLe is awriter, valuing tLe Lot pulse o ]Ler Jesire (Impossible Saints
36) suciently sometimes to acLnowleJge tLat it conrms Ler as a emale
genius, genuinely involved in doing theology. And perhaps we see that insight
given literary orm, in Eoberts emale cLaracter wLo awaLens witL terror to
Ler own creativitytLe passage witL wLicL tLis piece began.
WORKS CITED
Battersby, Christine. Gender and Genius: Towards a Femininst Aesthet-
ics. onJon: Womens, 199+.
Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. Trans. and ed. H.M. Parshley.
HarmonJswortL: enguin, 1972.
Gilbert, Sandra M. and Susan Gubar. The Madwoman in the Attic: The
\om:n \ri/er :nd //e Nine/een//-Cen/ury Li/er:ry Im:gin:/ion. New Ha-
ven & onJon: Yale tniversity ress, 198+.
Jasper, Alison. Revolting Fantasies: Reviewing the Cinematic Im-
age as Fruitful Ground for Creative, Theological Interpretations in the
Company o ]ulia Kristeva. T/eo/ogy :nd Li/er:/ure Fe//in|ing Fe:der
Responsibility. J. Caye Williams Crtiz anJ Clara A.B. ]osepL. ew YorL
anJ BasingstoLe, HampsLire: algrave Macmillan, 2006.
Kristeva, ]ulia. Colette. Trans. ]ane Marie ToJJ. ew YorL anJ CLicLes-
ter, West Sussex: Columbia tniversity ress, 200+.
1+
See, for example, Gilbert and Gubar, Madwoman in the Attic, 198+, or a classic
treatment of this theme.
75
Michle Roberts: Female Genius
---. Hannah Arendt. Trans. Eoss Cuberman. ew YorL anJ CLicLes-
ter, West Sussex: Columbia tniversity ress, 2001.
---. Interview with Philippe Petit. Feto//, S/e S:id. Trans. Brian
CKeee. J. Sylvere otringer. Semiotext(e) oreign Agents Series, 2002.
---. New Maladies of the Soul. Trans. Eoss Cuberman. ew YorL anJ
CLicLester, West Sussex: Columbia tniversity ress, 1995.
Meyer, Mervin, ed. T/e Gnos/ic Gose/s T/e S:cred \ri/ings o/ //e N:g
H:mm:di Li/r:ry, T/e Ber/in Gnos/ic Codex :nd Codex Tc/:cos. London:
olio Society, MMV, 2007.
Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. HarmonJswortL: enguin, 1990.
Rich, Adrienne. When We Dead Awaken, Adrienne Richs Poetry and
Prose. Selected and ed. Barbara Charlesworth Gelpi and Albert Gelpi. New
YorL anJ onJon: orton, 1993. 16677.
Roberts, Michle. Impossible Saints. onJon: Virago, 1998.
---. Paper Houses: A Memoir of the 70s and Beyond. onJon: Virago,
2007.
---. The Secret Gospel of Mary Magdalene. onJon: Vintage, 2007.
---. T/e \i/d Gir/. onJon: MetLuenMinerva, 1991.
SjLolm, Cecilia. Kristeva & the Political. onJon anJ ew YorL:
EoutleJge, 2005.
Walton, Heather. Im:gining T/eo/ogy \omen, \ri/ing :nd God. Lon-
Jon, ew YorL: ClarL, 2007.