TO HAVE AUTHORITY OVER A BODY:
1 CORINTHIANS 7:3-4 AND THE CONJUGAL DEBT
Lisa Kristin Gilbert
Faculty of Religious Studies McGill University, Montreal July 2007
A thesis subtnitted to McGill University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts
© Lisa Kristin Gilbert, 2007 Libraryand Bibliothèque et 1+1 Archives Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de l'édition
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada
Your file Votre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-38450-3 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-38450-3
NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives and Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans loan, distribute and sell theses le monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, worldwide, for commercial or non sur support microforme, papier, électronique commercial purposes, in microform, eUou autres formats. paper, electranic and/or any other formats.
The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation. reproduced without the author's permission.
ln compliance with the Canadian Conformément à la loi canadienne Privacy Act some supporting sur la protection de la vie privée, forms may have been removed quelques formulaires secondaires from this thesis. ont été enlevés de cette thèse.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires in the document page count, aient inclus dans la pagination, their removal does not represent il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. any loss of content fram the thesis. ••• Canada Gilbert 2
Table of Contents
.A.bstract/Résumé ...... 3
Acknowledgements ...... 4
Introduction ...... 5
Chapter One: Ch is not l who say this, but the Apostle': Tracing Paul's Words through Gratian and rus Sources ...... '" ...... 11 Gratian ...... 11 Paul ...... 19 Ambrose ...... 27 Jerome ...... 34 Augustine ...... 41 Conclusion ...... 52
Chapter Two: Unequal Bodies, Unequal Debts ...... 54 Gender and Cosmology ...... 56 Reproductive Roles ...... 60 In Sickness and in Health ...... 65 Conclusion ...... 70
Chapter Three: Blurring Consent and Coercion ...... 72 Legal Debates ...... 72 Freely Given Consent? ...... 76 Coerced Consummation ...... 82 Conclusion ...... 88
Afterword...... 90
Bibliography ...... 93
Primary Sources ...... 93
Secondary Sources ...... 95 Gilbert 3
Abstract/Résumé
Commentaries on the medieval notion of the "conjugal debt" have often emphasized its reciprocal nature, but its inequality becomes apparent when re-embedded into its theological, medical, and legal contexts. By tracing the theology that accompanied 1 Cor 7:3-4 through selected theologians, l will demonstrate that Paul's words did not function in equivalent ways for both spouses. By examining medieval medical understandings of human physiology, l will ask what it means to 'have authority over a body' when the bodies themselves are not equal. Finally, by demonstrating ways in which consent and coercion blurred together in twelfth-century legal debates, l will ask how meaningful it is to grant spouses equal rights to sex when their marnage may have been coerced. The topic will serve as a broader meditation on what it means to 'have authority over a body' and to conceive of marital sexuality as a system of debt.
Alors que certains commentaires modernes sur la notion médiévale de la « dette conjugale» mettent souvent l'emphase sur la nature dite réciproque de celle-ci, son inégalité devient apparente quand elle est replacée dans son contexte théologique, médical, et juridique. En examinant la théologie entourant 1 Co 7, 3-4 dans les œuvres de certains théologiens, je montrerai que les mots de Paul n'imposent pas un fardeau équitable aux deux conjoints. En regardant les théories médicales médiévales de la physiologie humaine, j'aborderai la question de ce qu'il veut dire d' « avoir autorité sur un corpS» lorsque les deux corps ne sont pas égaux. Finalement, en démontrant le peu de différence qui existait entre les concepts du consentement et de la coercition dans des débats juridiques du 12ème siècle, je mettrai en doute la valeur d'accorder aux conjoints un accès égal aux relations sexuelles quand leur consentement au mariage aurait pu être compromis. Ce sujet servira aussi de méditation sur la signification d' « avoir autorité sur un corpS» et de concevoir de la sexualité matrimoniale comme système de dette. Gilbert 4
Acknowledgements
When two go together, one ofthem at lea.rt lookJ10rward to see what iJ beJt; a man lry himJe!/ though he be car~fùl j-till haJ leJJ mind in him than two, and hiJ witj- have le.Lr weight. Homer's I1iad 10.224-10.226
Here, at least, what Homer wrote about men applies equally well to women. In writing this thesis, 1 have had the distinct privilege of going together with many individuals, without whom my work may have been careful but would certainly have carried less wit and weight.
In the McGill community, 1 have benefited from the forward-looking advice of many. 1 am grateful to my supervisors, Dr. Ellen Aitken and Dr. Torrance Kirby, for convincing me of the continued need of gender-aware work and supporting my pursuit of this tapic. Within the Faculty of Religious Studies, Drs. Daniel Cere and Douglas Farrow generously shared their time with me to offer alternate perspectives on patristic authors. In the Department of History, Dr. Faith Wallis encouraged my interest in the body and helped me to refine my questions, and Dr. Nancy Partner helped me with the sociopolitical backdrop for Gratian's work. Countless librarians helped me along the way, induding Daniel Boyer of the Gelber Law Ubrary and the fine individuals who manage interlibrary loans. Throughout the year, Dr. Robert Myles offered me many chances to growas a teaching assistant under his supervision. Finally, fellow graduate students have offered their support in many ways, and 1 have been fortunate to work among them in our community of learning.
Others outside of McGill have helped me to look forward to see what is best. Dr. Marcia Colish of Yale University graciously responded to my inquiries regarding her work on Ambrose. Joan Spiegel, attorney at the Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc., invited me to spend a day shadowing work with survivors of domestic violence and introduced me to Marcy Jacobs, Client Services Team Coordinator at the Oasis Women's Center in Aiton, Illinois; both women contributed greatly to my understanding of related contemporary situations and encouraged my passion for relevant work. Dr. Patricia Burton, my Pershing mentor and academic advisor at Truman State University, has remained my paradigm for what an academic career should be; the above quotation was posted on the door to her office, and crossing that threshold meant accepting her steadfast belief that we might one day become 'philosopher queens' so long as we work diligently and support our colleagues. In that vein,I am indebted to Kyle Rader, MDiv. candidate at the University of Chicago, for his feedback and continuaI dedication to finding ways Christian traditions can speak to us today while still maintaining an awareness of the ways those same traditions have both instituted and perpetuated injustices.
Most importantly, 1 am deeply grateful to my parents for their support no matter where 1 go, my grandmothers who are both a tremendous source of inspiration on many levels, and to my friends who remain present in my heart despite being scattered across the globe. Finally, 1 cannot imagine the past two years without Nicholas Marc Dion, whose partnership taught me more about mutuality and relational ethics than a thousand manuscripts ever could, no matter how beautifully illurninated or divinely inspired. Gilbert 5
Introduction
The husband Jhould give 10 hiJ wffè her co,!/ugal r'{ghls, and likewiJe the wfjè to her hUJband For Ihe wijè doeJ 1101 have aulhority over her own bocfy, but the hUJband doeJ; likewiJe the hUJband doeJ nol have aulhority over hiJ own botjy, bul the wijè does. 1 Corinthians 7 :3-4 (NRSV)
When medieval canonists encountered Paul's words to the Corinthians, they placed them in the context of Roman law of obligations. The result was a "complex doctrine of marital debt in order to specify quite precisely the sexual rights and duties of married couples,,1 - one which stated, simply put, that sexual intercourse was owed from one spouse to another as an inherent part of marriage. By consenting to marry, each spouse gained authority over the other's body and was able to request and receive their 'conjugal rights' at any cime, a principle known as the conjugal debt. Many have been struck by the apparent equality ofboth Paul's words and the medieval concept of the conjugal debt. Discussing Paul's words, Bassler writes that Paul "insists on the two-sidedness, the mutuality of sexual relations within marriage,,,2 and Hays finds a Paul who idealistically subverts patriarchal norms through an ethic of 'mutuai submission.,3 Discussing medievai canon Iaw, Brundage asserts that the conjugal debt was Gratian's "most emphatic venture in the direction of a doctrine of equality between the sexes,'>4 d'Avray writes that it was "positive in terms of the values of the early twenty-first century,"s Baldwin sees an "unequivocai
1 James A. Brundage, "Implied Consent to Intercourse," in Consent and Coercion to Sex and Marnage in Ancient and Medieval Societies, ed. Angeliki E. Laiou (Washington, ne.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1993). p. 249. 2 Jouette M. Bassler, "1 Corinthians," in Womcn's Bible Commentary (Expanded Edition), edited by Carol Newsom (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998). p. 413. 3 Richard B. Hays, "Paul on the Relation betwcen l\1en and Worncn," in A Fcminist Companion to Paul, edited by Amy-Jill Levine with Marianne Blickenstaff (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2004). p.140. 4 James A. Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Sociery in Medieval Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987). p. 242. 5 D. L. d'"-\vray, Medieval Marnage Sermons: Mass Communication in a Culture without Print (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). pp. 133-134. Gilbert 6
gender symmetry,,,6 and Makowski emphasizes the equal nature of the spouses throughout her lengthy overview of glosses.ï Yet to preserve their idealism, all of these must make certain compromises. Some choose to work against the cultural context of the authors, giving Paul and Gratian a privileged place in history; Bassler writes that Paul's "sense of mutuality in at least this area of married life is exceptional for a man of his cime and culture,,,8 and Brundage concludes that "the medieval canonists were a shade more civilized than the mass of society in which they lived.,,9 Others read selectively; d'Avray quotes a manuscript that contains only the fust half of 1 Cor 7:4 (the woman has no power over her body) and supplies the missing second half of his own accord.JO Makowski ignores the way in which canonists assumed the sex of the parmer in question differendy according to different situations, thus presenting gender-specific texts as gender-blind. Similarly Baldwin allows the Aristotelian theory of reproduction to serve as the negative influence which corrupted an originaily pure doctrine while ailowing contemporary notions of sexuality to penneate corresponding Hippocratic Galenic notions. Still others promote rather odd things as positive; Hays confuses mutuality with mutual submission, ailowing the slavery-ridden overtones of 'having authority over a body' to rest silent. None of these compromises is acceptable. As Elliot writes, "the rhetoric of equality that surrounds medieval and modem discussions of the debt is only convincing if ail awareness of social mores and biological differences is suspended. It is impossible that the debt alone should be Eree from ail inequities built into the gender system."l1 In this thesis, l will seek to re-embed the conjugal debt into its
6 John W. Baldwin, "Consent and the Marital Debt: Five Discourses in Northem France around 1200.," in Consent and Coercion to Sex and Marnage in Ancient and Medieval Societies, ed. Angeliki E. Laiou (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1993). See especially pp. 260- 261. 7 Elizabeth M. Makowski, "The Conjugal Debt and Medieval Canon Law," Journal of Medieval History 3 (1977). 8 Jouette M. Bassler, 111 Corinthians," in Women's Bible Commentary (Expanded Edition), edited by Carol Newsom (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998). p. 413. Emphasis in original. 9 Brundage, Camai Delight: Canonistic Theories of Sexuali!J, pp. 380-381 10 d'Avray, Medieval Marnage Sermons: Mass Communication in a Culture without Print. p. 133. d'Avray does not comment on the appropriateness of such an addition. Further, the paragraph that follows this is incoherent in its misrepresentation of Dyan Elliott's work and in its self-contradiction regarding medieval beliefs on the 'sexual insatiability' ofwomen. 11 Dyan Elliott, Spiritual Marnage: Sexual Abstinence in Medieval WedJock (princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). p. 148. Gilbert 7
theological, medical, and legal contexts. My goal is to problematize simplistic understandings of the conjugal debt by asking what it means to 'have authority over a body.' In the fnst chapter, Trating Paury Word.r through Gratian and hù Sourm, I will trace the theology that accompanied 1 Cor 7:3-4, starting with Paul and moving through Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine before reaching the Middle Ages. By reading these texts, whose authors were cited by Gratian in his formulation of the conjugal debt, 1 will demonstrate that at no point did the concepts of 'female' and 'male' function in equivalent or equal ways, even when 1 Cor 7:3-4 was the central focus of the discussion. In the second chapter, Unequal Bodie.r, Unequal Debt.r, I question the nature of the bodies discussed in 1 Cor 7:4. For medieval thinkers, female and male bodies did not simply differ from each other; rather, their differences were evidence of the divine ordering of the universe, inscribed in the flesh. T 0 explore this hierarchical worldview, I will examine gender and cosmology, reproductive roles, and theories of health and illness in medieval medical understandings of human physiology. Ultimately my question will be the following: what does it mean to 'have authority over a body' when the bodies themselves are not equal? Simply put, unequal bodies imply unequal debts, and the paired statements in 1 Cor 7:4 are not found to be parallel but rather lopsided. In the third and final chapter, Blurring Consent and Coertion, I will place the conjugal debt in the context of the fierce debates that occurred in the twelfth century regarding the formation of a valid marriage. When Gratian and Pope Alexander III supported the idea, consent became the defining feature of what created the bond of marriage; however, what constituted that 'consent' was a debate that 1eft women at a profound disadvantage. 1 will thus challenge the supposed equality of the conjugal debt by asking how meaningful it is to grant equal rights to sex within marriage when one partner may have been bound to the marriage against her will and yet still be considered to have consented. Laws regulating marnage and sexuality are a particularly focused point at which one can find the subjection of women in high relief. The connection between the two is intimate. First, sexual expressions dominate legal terms for married Gilbert 8
women: the Latin term JNb virga ("under the rod") had a double entendre with "un der the penis," and the English common law term jéme covene which expressed the wife's legal disability had an explicitly sexual derivation.12 An obligation to (hetero)sexual intercourse in Christian marriage must be read with these terms in mind. The issue is taken to a higher level with canon law. Gratian's DecretNm provides a meeting point between theology and law, a dynamic example of received Paul, Augustine, and others influencing theology and social practice. The theoretical and ideological nature of canon law makes it an important part of intellectual history, while its practical authority renders it a vehicle to cross over from the realm of ideas to that of lived experience - in effect, canon law is simultaneously a reflection of its society and the origin of that reflection itself. 1 will thus aim to work in a way that respects this complex dialectic. Although 1 set out to write a work on women's history, in the process of working with these texts it became evident to me that 1 could not be sure to what degree such a project could reflect the lived experiences of actual women. The authors whose works 1 engaged were interested in 'woman' as a category to be contained and/or explained; except in exceedingly rare cases, we do not have access to the ways in which women in their congregations described themselves and understood what they were doing.13 ln contrast, the authors to whose works we do have access represent a dominant voice, both in the sense of being louder (having been recorded and preserved centuries and even millennia) and of being stronger (having been granted positions of authority).14 This work is thus not one of women's
12 Ibid. p. 157. Elliott comments, "everywhere - embedded in language, in law, and in practice - is the association between heterosexual intercourse and the subordination of women." 13 Taking the example of ..Augustine, sorne might argue that Monica stands as an exception to this general principle. However, it is important to remember that we do not have access to Monica herself but rather to a character in the Confissions. We may thus only say something about Augustine's representation of her at best. This point holds whether discussing treatises or correspondence in wmch only one side is extant; we may reconstruct their experiences, but must do so with awareness of the nature of our access to them. For more on approaches to thîs, see Jo .Ann l\1cNamara, "De Quibusdam Mulieribus: Reading Wo~en's History from Hostile Sources," in Medieval Women and the Sources !if Medieval His/ory, ed. Joel T. Rosenthal (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1990). 14 On the subject of the se texts' authorsmp, Jacqueline Murray writes, "Most medievalliterature was, of course, written by men for men and not just any men but an elite caste of celibate males who occupied a privileged place in the social order: the clergy." Jacqueline Murray, "Thinking About Gender: The Diversity of Medieval Perspectives," in Power !if the Weak: Studies on Medieval Women, ed. Jennifer Carpenter and Sally-Beth MacLean (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995). p. 2. In the twelfth century in particular, the clergy had recently become celibate, a change wmch many scholars have argued threw their perception of masculinity into disarray in such a way that women became Gilbert 9
history proper, but rather one of the history of male (de/pre)scriptions for and about women. Thus it should not be surprising - indeed, it should be expected - that my use of the terms 'woman' and 'man' are intended to be as akin to the author's intent as possible. The equation of 'sexual intercourse' with 'heterosexual coitus' is a similar compromise. If a biologically based, binary view of sex difference is present in this work, it is not out of a desire to perpetuate the obscuring of transgender individuals, nor is it a statement in response to contemporary debates of the natures of 'sex' and 'gender.' Rather, my goal has been to meld with the author's worldview as much as possible; in the end, it is my hope that such efforts will reveal nuances in past approaches to sex and gender. Many commentators have chosen to read these gendered texts in an artificial, gender-neutral way; by drawing attention to the authors' use of sex and gender, 1 will demonstrate that such a practice obscures important differences, blending together what should be distinct.15 Similarly, homogenized understandings of medievallife and personhood tend to favor certain groups while obscuring others. It is true that much work in medieval studies has taken prescriptions for noble Christian women as the paradigmatic experience of medieval womanhood.16 This parallels the danger into which much
dangerous enemies. See, for example, Jacqueline Murray, "Masculinizing Religious Life: Sexual Prowess, the Battle for Chastity and Monastic Identity," in Ho/iness and Mascu/inity in the Middle Ages, ed. P.H. Cullum and Katherine J. Lewis (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2004). Yern L. Bullough, "On Being a Male in the 11iddle Ages," in Medieval Masculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages, ed. Clare A Lees (Minneapolis: University of .Minneapolis Press, 1994). Jeffrey Jerome Cohen and Bonnie Wheeler, eds., Becoming Male in the Middle Ages, voL 4, The New 11iddle Ages (Garland Reference Library of the Humanities) (New York: Garland Publishing, Ine., 1997). 15 Thus it should come as no surprise that my language, too, is gender-aware throughout; in no case is a pronoun accidentaI. 11y readers may be struck by the use of 'they' as a neutral 3rd person singular; for more on this term's consistent usage throughout the recorded history of the English language, see .Ann Bodine, "Androcentrism in Prescriptive Grammar: Singular 'They', Sex-Indefinite 'He', and 'He or She'," Language in Society 4 (1975). 16 In writing about studies in medieval history, Steven Kruger writes, "As we construct 'medieval sexuality,' reading sexual otherness back into texts where it has been obscured, pushed aside, or made to speak only as that which must be disavowed, we need to be careful not to (re)construct a sexual system that leaves unquestioned and in place other systems of (often violent) differentiation and opposition. In exploring the boundaries of 'normal' sexual behavior and positioning, in excavating oppositional or resistant medieval sexualities, we need to think about how both norms and possible means of opposing these are not universal; how medieval thinking about the sexuality of Christians is crucially different from, and yet intimately intertwined with, medieval constructions of the sexuality of Jews, lvIuslims, 'heretics'; how excluded sexualities are constructed in relation to other excluded or disfavored identity positions - femaleness, religious and class difference, and disease (most notably 'leprosy')." Steven F. Kruger, "Conversion and Medieval Sexual, Religious, and Racial Categories," in Gilbert 10
Second-Wave feminist wntillg feH, that of homogenizing 'woman' such that the dominant group's experience (here, often white, middle-class, American women) was taken as 'the' experience of womanhood itself.lï l have endeavored to avoid this trap by reading with gender- and class-aware eyes; whiIe the scope of the project is limited to working with Christian law and theology, it has also indicated the possibilities inherent in opening this thesis up to encompass a broader group for my doctoral dissertation. FinaHy, because ideas exist in a complexly intertwined manner with their contexts and results, a hermeneutic which does not insist on the situatedness of the text will result in misinterpretation, while a historicaHy sensitive reading is essential to an accurate representation. l will thus seek out the conjugal debt's theological, social, and medical contexts. Furthermore, not only the text but also the interpreter must also be so situated; l will thus endeavor to become aware of my own context and write with sensitivity to the ways in which it differs From that of Gratian.18 This project will extend throughout the length of the work.
Constmcting Medieval Sexualiry, ed. Karma Lochrie, Peggy McCracken, and James A. Schultz (Minneapolis: University of 1vIinnesota Press, 1997). p. 159. 17 Classic texts for this include bel! hooks, "Ain't 1 a Woman: Black Women and Feminism," (Boston: South End Press, 1981), Maria Lugones, Pilgrimages/Peregrin?!ies: Theori:(jng Coalition against Multiple Oppressions (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Ine., 2003), Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Peminism and the Subversion ofldentiry 10th Anniversary ed. (New York: Routledge, 1999). 18 My use of the first person is thus not merely a stylistic choice but rather a conscious decision which reflects this methodology. Gilbert 11
CHAPTERONE
'1 t is not 1 who say this, but the Apostle': Tracing Paul's Words through Gratian and bis Sources
When Gratian codified 1 Cor 7:3-5 into canon law as the conjugal debt, he likely believed that he was simply compiling sources which themselves were links in an unbroken chain of tradition. In this way, the notion of the conjugal debt was granted apostolic authority, which itself was underwritten by Christ. Many contemporary readings of the conjugal debt have been quick to grant this premise. However, rather than charting a genealogy of the idea, this chapter will provide a partial map of its history, offering windows into the functioning of 1 Cor 7:3-5 in Gratian and his pnmary sources (paul, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine). l will give special attention to issues of gender and authority in these sources, ultimately demonstrating that for al1 its apparent reciprocity, the paired statements of 1 Cor 7:3-5 were not granted equal weight in any of these texts.
Gratian For Gratian,l the key biblical passage that formed the basis for the conjugal debt was 1 Cor 7:3-4, which in the Vulgate reads as fol1ows:
3 uxori vir debitum reddat similiter autem et uxor viro 4 mulier sui corporis potestatem non habet sed vir similiter autem et vir sui corporis potestatem non habet sed mulier2
For twelfth-century canonists and theologians, the key word in this passage was debitum, usual1y translated as 'obligation' or 'debt'.3 Using this passage, they argued that marriage created a state of reciprocal debt between the spouses. In his
1 l am using 'Gratian' as a name for the author(s) of the Corpus Iuris Canonici; the considerable debates about the authorship of rust and second recensions are not at issue here, but rather what in fact made it into canon law. For more on these debates, and on the historical context of the textes) that came to be known as the Decretum, see Anders Winroth, The Making of Gratian's Decretum (Cambridge: Cambridge University ~ress, 2000). 2 "Let the husband render the debt to his wife: and the wife also in like manner to the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body: but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body: but the wife." (Douay-Rheims) Note that in the Latin the verse shifts from 'wife' (uxor) to 'woman' (mulier) while the male figure is simply designated as 'man' (viry. 3 Whereas Roman law made a distinction between debitum and obligatio, medievallaw tended to blend the two concepts. Recent scholarship has questioned past attempts at drawing parallels between Roman and medievallaw, instead emphasizing the need to see each as a distinct, separate entity. See Winroth, The Making of Gratian's Decretum. Gilbert 12
Decretllm, Gratian consistently refers ta sexual intercourse "';thin marnage as 'the debt' and frequently cites 1 Cor 7 in support of this principle. In one su ch passage, Gratian is concemed with the relationship between marriage and sexual intercourse. He writes:
So the 1\postle, writing in [1] Corinthians [7:2], says, "For fear of fornication, let man each have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband." This is why spouses owe the marriage debt to each other, and cannot refuse it. The Apostle says [1 Cor. 7:5], "Do not depnve each other, except perhaps by consent, for a rime, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again lest Satan tempt you because you lack self-contro!." Since he wams them to take up their normal relations again for fear of incontinence, it is clear that intercourse has not been ordered merely for the procreation of children.4
As Gratian understood Paul, then, marriage was contracted to provide an appropriate place for sexuality, with dual goals of appropriate sexual conduct and (to a lesser extent) procreation;5 in other words, marnage created a situation of sexual obligation for both spouses. This concept of sexuality as a debt in marriage is a place in which canonists and theologians attempted to fit Paul's words into the framework of Roman law of obligations.6 Brundage explains the basic way the debt functioned as follows: after the consurnmation of a marriage, a "mutual obligation of continuing sexual setvlce sprang into being. Thenceforth each spouse was bound to render sexual servIce to the other upon demand. This obligation, Gratian believed, was absolute: it made no difference, at least in principle, where, when, or under what circurnstances the demand was made - the spouse from whom the debt was required
4 Gratian's Decretum, Causa 32, Question 2. This translation is by John T. Noonan, Jr., in an edition edited by Augustine Thompson, O.P. Accessed http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Canon%20Law/marnagelaw.htm. 14 March 2006. 5 While he strikes a balance between these two, Gratian is explicit that sexual intercourse undertaken for reasons other than procreation is sinfu!. In one such discussion, in which he makes extensive use of Ambrose and Jerome, Gratian writes: "It seems evident that a woman taken merely to have sex is hot a wife, because God instituted marnage for propagation, not merely for satisfying lust... anyone who joins himself to another, not for the sake of procreating offspring, but rather to satisfy lust is less a spouse than a fornicator." Decrctum, C.32, q.2, c.1-2. Noonan translation. 6 Brundage, "Implied Consent to Intercourse." p. 249. Such a statement must be nuanced, however, with the awareness that the discourses in the Middle Ages and in Ancient Rome were aimed at different ends. As Clark notes, the Roman debate over consensus does not seem to be based in a wish to define the 'essence' of marnage, but rather the ease with which sine manu can be concluded; it may also have been a way of distinguishing concubinage from marnage, though there is no evidence that they wished to "champion consent without sexual consummation." Elizabeth A. Clark, '''Adam's Only Companion': Augustine and the Early Christian Debate on Marriage.," in The Olde Daunce: Love, Frimdship, Sex & Marriage in the Medieval World, ed. Robert R. Edwards and Stephen Spector (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991). p. 30. Gilbert 13
had to comply."1 Furthermore, the debt was permanent, able to be rendered invalid only in cases of adultery - and even then, its terms were merely changed: the guilty partner was required to render the debt when asked but could no longer exact payment.8 Simply put, to 'have authority over a body' meant that the husband owed the wife his sexual favors, and likewise the wife owed the husband hers. Sexual relations were thus phrased in terms of debt: one spouse could ask or demand that the other pay the debt (petere debitum, exigere debitum) and the other was under an obligation to render it (reddere debitum).9 This language was legal in nature. While there was already rich vocabulary to discuss sexual intercourse in the vernacular, medical, and theological vocabularies (both copulatio [joining] and the substitution of camalis [fleshly] for the pagan venereus come from theological use), the word debitum (debt) was added expressly because of 1 Cor 7:3.10 Using this language of debt, the canonists thus drew a distinction between the spouse who asked and the spouse who rendered.11 This was of particular importance in determining fault when sexual intercourse occurred in a situation in which it was normaIly proscribed, such as during certain cimes of the year, such as on fast days or during Lent,12 or in certain
7 Brundage, "Implied Consent to Intercourse." pp. 249-250. 8 While huther discussion of specifie legal and social inequities will be given in what follows, particularly in Chapter Three, it might be noted here that Gratian himself wonders why a man's adultery is frequently tolerated while a woman's is not. Raymond of Peii.afort refines the procedure such that a wife is bound to render the debt to an adulterous husband until the case is tried in an ecclesiastical court, whereas if the situation were reversed, the adulterous wife who demands payment is likely to be committing a mortal sin. Elliott, Spiritual Marriage: SexualAbstinence in Medieval Wedlock. pp. 148-149. 9 Pierre J. Payer, The Bridling of Desire: Views of Sex in the Later Middle Ages (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993). p. 89. 10 John W. Baldwin, The Language of Sex: Five Voices from Northem France around 1200 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). p. 188. Note that reddere debitum is in the Vulgate text of verse 3 as vir debitum reddat. 11 Payer, The Bridling of Desire: Views of Sex in the Later Middle Ages. p.90. It should be added, however, that while Roman jurists drew a distinction between debitum and obligato, medieval canonists did not distinguish between the two. See Brundage, "Im.pIied Consent to Intercourse." p.249f. 12Such circumscription in reference to the liturgical calendar stems from 1 Corinthians 7:5 (payer, The Bridling of Desire: Views of Sex in the Later Middle Ages. p. 98.) It should also he noted that sexual intercourse was forhidden during the wife's menstrual cycle, but should one spouse demand payment of the debt, the other was required to render it. The exacting partner sinned, while the rendering partner was innocent. See Makowski, "The Conjugal Debt and Medieval Canon Law." p. 109. Intercourse was also forbidden following childbirth, before weaning the child, and before the mother was purified; Payer notes that there is only one passing reference in Gratian to such circumstances and ascribes this to religious and medical heliefs that made such restrictions common-sense. Payer, The Bridling of Desire: Views of S ex in the Later Middle Ages. pp. 105-106. Gilbert 14
places, su ch as a church.l1 Should one spouse demand payment of the debt in one of these prohibited situations, the other spouse was bound to render the debt. In this case, the spouse rendering the debt was blameless while the spouse who demanded it
· 14 was guil ty 0 f Slu. 1 Cor 7:5 played a role as weil, allowing both partners to agree to vow themselves to lives of chastity and enter a monastery. In this case, both partners had to agree; in reference to this, Gratian makes his interpretation of Paul's words explicit in the second question of causa 27:
Also, the 1\postle [1 Cor. 7:3] commands that a wife render the debt to her husband and the husband to his wife, except for short periods by mutual consent, so that they more appropriately engage in prayer. Hence it is understood that, without the consent of one, it is unlawful for the other to go off and pray. /11so, the husband cannot make a vow of celibate life without his wife's consent, and vice versa.!5
Both partners were thus required to agree; because of 1 Cor 7:5, a partner could not unilateraily vow chastity once married.16 This vow was permanent; even after the death of one partner, Innocent IV held that the other remained bound to monastic life and could not leave.17 Should a spouse attempt to flee by entering a monastery, s/he was to be returned to her or his partner;18 like the adulterous spouse, the fleeing spouse no longer had the right to demand payment of the debt, but was obligated to return it if asked.19 Studies indicate that abandonment of a spouse, whether to remarry or enter religious life, was not an infrequent occurrence; Makowski suggests that explains why this area of law was so detailed.20 While court records do show that both women and men had access to sue in a church court for the return of a
13 ~i\lthough at mst it seems an almost comical example to us, this could become an issue during times of war, when townspeople might take refuge in a church building for months at a rime. Payer, The Bridling of Desire: Views of S ex in the Later Middle Ages. p. 102. 14 Makowski, "The Conjugal Debt and Medieval Canon Law." p. 109. 15 Gratian's Decretum, Causa 27, Question 2. 16 The only circumstances under which a partner could unilaterally vow chastity were if the marriage had been contracted with words of consent spoken in the future tense and if it remained unconsummated. In this case, one partner couid Ieave, but only to irrevocably vow chastity and enter monastic life; such a provision was a nod to the reference to prayer in 1 Corinthians 7:5. 17 Makowski, "The Conjugal Debt and Medieval Canon Law." p. 109. 18 Ibid. p. 101. 19 This kind of une quai obligation was not uncommon following certain events, such as adultery (the adulterous spouse could no longer demand the debt but was obligated to pay it, and the innocent spouse was not under any obligation to pay it) or presumed death Ca remarried spouse who found the first spouse still alive was required to return to the mst, unable to exact the debt but required to pay it). See Ibid. p. 109. 20 Ibid. p. 110. Gilbert 15
spouse,21 Elliott notes that many obstacles stood in the way of the wife who wished to take her husband to court.22 Such cases demonstrate that 1 Cor 7:5 could have an unequally coercive effect on the lives of women and men. A t the beginning, this system sounds equal, designed to work the same way for either spouse. Yet Gratian's beliefs about women and the way that he constructed their legal position indicate that the system is far from being set up equally. In C.33 q.5 c.ll and 20, Gratian writes ''Vir est caput muliers, mulier est corpus viri" ("The husband is the head of the wife, and the wife is the body of the husband").23 Written in this way, it appears to be two ways of expressing the same thing: the man holds authority and the woman follows. However, what he presents as one unified thought is in fact taken from two Pauline epistles: the fust is from 1 Cor 11:3/4 and the second from Eph 5:28_29.25 Metz analyses this subtle stringing together as follows:
Mais telle qu'elle est conçue la formule ne traduit pas, de manière exacte, la pensée paulinienne; elle fait dire au texte plus que saint Paul n'y a mis en réalité. Elle interprète sa pensée, en tirant, pour ainsi dire, la conclusion de ses reflexions; conclusion qui dépasse les prémisses. Là où saint Paul emploie l'expression corpora sua pour insister sur la proximité, la quasi identité (sieut seipsum) de la femme par rapport à son époux (carnem suam) avec l'obligation d'absolu dévouement qui en découle, Gratien met un élément d'inferiorité à l'égard de l'homme ... Bref, sous la plume de Gratien, l'expression Mulier (est) corpus viri, devient un argument en faveur de la supériorité de l'homme sur la femme; de la manière dont elle est présentée, elle renforce l'affirmation de saint Paul: Vir est caput mulieris. 26
This head/body relationship meant that the woman was characterized by servitude and obedience; Gratian describes her condition as one of servitude, a condicio servitutis,
21 Ibid. p. 111. 22 Elliott, Spiritual Marriage: SexualAbstinence in MedievalWedlock. pp. 153-154. 23 Gratian, C.33 q.5 c.ll and 20. Pennington translation. For more on trus common "head/body" characterization, see Alcuin Blamires, "Paradox in the Medieval Gender Doctrine of Head and Body," in Medieval Theology and the Natural Bocfy, ed. Peter Biller and A. J.. Mincis (Suffolk: York Medieval Press, 1997). 24 ''But 1 want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of bis wife, and God is the head of Christ." (NRSV) 25 "In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves rus wife loves himself. For no one ever hates rus own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church... [continues in v 29]" (NRSV). For an analysis of the household codes in Ephesians and discussion of the ways that the analogous relationships of wife:husband::Church:Christ are not parallel nor reciprocal (much like the 1 Cor 7:3-4 and the conjugal debt), see Sarah J. Tanzer, "Ephesians," in Searching the Scriptures, ed. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1994). pp.333-335. Z6 René Metz, La Femme Et L'e1ifant Dans Le Droit Canonique Médiéval (London: Variorum Reprints, 1985). pp. 381-382. Gilbert 16
T and the 'natural' object of that servitude is the man to whom she is attached. T 0 support the idea that the submission of wife to husband was in accordance with nature, Gratian invokes Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine.28 Elliott analyzes his use of this hierarchy as follows:
The husband's position is powerfully bolstered by references to natural order, building particularly on the order of creation (man in God's image) and the order of govemance (man as the head of woman) (C33 q.5 c.12-20). In short, the husband was presented as God's vicar: God prefened female obedience to her husband over the fulfillment of swom acts of devotion. Furthermore, the husband was permitted to enforce his will physically, as elsewhere in the same causa Gratian upholds his right of correction (C33 q.2 c.IO).29
The woman's condicio feroitutis did not only mean that she was bound to obey her husband; she was also legally incapable of many acts of which the man was capable.30 Some of these - the inability to be a priest or judge, to speak or teach in public - are
31 familiar, but others may not be, such as her inability to bear witness or make VOWS. Serving as a witness was only possible for women if the case involved was a not civil one, and even then they could only do so to seek reparation for damages, not sanctions against a guilty party. This has clear implications for a system which conceived of sexual intercourse as a legal obligation. Further, women could not make vows without the authorization of theu husbands.32 While this in itself was not new, Gratian sttengthened its hold in law, and extended it such that the husband could revoke vows which he had previously authorized.33 Such a possibility is an important one when taken in the context of the conjugal debt and 1 Cor 7:5, as the husband was able to renege on mutual vows of chastity.34 Such legal disabilities
27 Gratian, C33 q.5 c.11. Ibid. pp. 382-383. 28 The references for this in the Decretum are as follows: Ambrose (C30, q.5, c.8; C31, q.2; C32, q.2, c.13-14; C33,q.5),]erome (C 33, q.5, c.15), and Augustine CC 33, q. 5, c.11, 12, 16). 29 Elliott, Spiritual Marriage: Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock. pp. 156-157. Note too that this authority extended into spiritual practice; the husband could order his wife to cease fasting if it made her unfit to render the debt, but she had no like authority over his body should his penitential practices render him unfit to render the debt. p.154. 30 «Selon l'auteur du Décret, la femme se trouve dans une condition telle qu'en tout elle doit être sownise à l'hotntne. Toutes les incapacités juridiques dont elle peut faire l'objet s'expliquent en raison de son état de sujétion: Propter conditionem servitutis, qua (mulier) viro in omnibus debet subesse. » quotes from C 33 q. 5 c.ll. Gratian uses Augustine primarily for this, but supplements with Ambrose and]erome. Metz, La Femme Et L'e!ifant Dans Le Droit Canonique Médiéval. pp. 74-75. 31 Ibid. pp. 97-108. 32 Gratian, C33 q.5 c.ll 33 To do so might be a sin, but the wife nevertheless must obey. Elliott, Spiritual Marriage: Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock. p. 155. 34 "Le devoir d'obéissance va jusqu'à interdire à la femme d'exécuter le voeu d'abstinence émis avec l'assentiment du mari, si celui-ci revient sur sa décision.» Metz, La Femme Et L'e!ifant Dans Le Droit Gilbert 17
make it clear that women were not on equal footing with men, in religion or ill matters of marriage and sexuality, and serve as a powerful example of the need for the supposed equality of the conjugal debt to be reevaluated. Given that aIl this is present in Gratian, it should come as no surprise that his later commentators had ample material with which to ensure the system would be
35 unequal. For one representation of this, 1 will turn to Thomas Aquinas. In Question 64 of the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas is clearly troubled that the conjugal debt might be read as giving a woman authority over a man.36 His writing in Question 64 is in fact a project of building a structure in which Paul's words (via Gratian's interpretation) are given proper authority as part of scripture but which hedges those words with several safety valves which give the man an out if he needs it. The fu-st way he do es this is by limiting the purpose of sex to procreation; the wife is able to demand payment of the debt only in order to conceive:
... since the wife has power of her husband only in relation to the generative power and not in relation to things directed to the preservation of the individual, the husband is bound to pay the debt to his wife, in matters pertaining to the begetting of children, with due regard however to his own welfare.37
The husband, however, is able to refuse out of concern for his own welfare;38 as 1 will show in chapter two, the wife has no such option.39
Canonique MédiévaL p. 395. See also Elliott, Spiritual Marriage: S exual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlo.k. pp. 163-164. 35 As Elliott writes, Gratian's work "rapidly advanced ... women's legal impoverishment in this period." Elliott, Spiritual Marriage: S exual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock. p. 156. 36 Aquinas' belief in the inferiority of women, intellectually and otherwise, stands behind this concem. Summarizing Aquinas' beliefs, René Metz writes, " ... il déniera, dans un certain sens, à la femme la gloire d'être créée à l'image de Dieu, comme l'avait déjà fait saint Augustin: Imago Dei invenitur in viro ... , non invenitur in muliere. Le véritable roi de la création, c'est l'homme (vir) ; la femme est née de l'homme et pour l'homme: Vir est principium mulieris et finis, sieu! Deus est principium et finis totius creatume. Cette phrase résume bien la pensée de saint Thomas ... » Metz, La Femme Et L'eifant Dans Le Droit Canonique MédiévaL pp. 77-78. 37 Aquinas, "Summa Theologica," (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947-1948). III, Q64, Art. 1. (pp. 2800-2801.) 38 Albertus NIagnus says sOlnething similar; Salisbury contrasts dus with the belief that women's sexuality was "always ready if not insatiable." Joyce E. Salisbury, "Gendered Sexuality," in Handbook of Medieval S exualiry, ed. Vern L. Bullough and James A Brundage (N ew York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1996). p. 94. Dyan Elliott asserts that the tendency to emphasize women's sexual appetite as insatiable was part of a concerted effort which began in the eleventh century to downplay the old notions that women had an innate gift for chastity in order to give the newly celibate clergy its élite status. Elliott, Spiritual Marriage: S exual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock. p. 141. 39 Payer too notes this, saying "the condition is usually worded in an androcentric manner, envisaging danger to the husband's health should he pay the debt." Payer, The Bridling of Desire: Views of Sex in the Later Middle Ages. p. 95. Gilbert 18
Another way Aquinas protects the husband From the ",':ife (but not VIce versa) is by limiting the conjugal debt to Christian marriage: if two unbelievers marry and the husband converts to Christianity, he is no longer under any obligation to pay the debt because the marriage was made in an old life which has died away to be replaced by a new life in Christ. Aquinas is not at ail concemed that this ailows the marriage to fail outside the parameters for Christian marriage; as an aside, he adds that "it is through her own fault in refusing to be converted that the wife suffers prejudice."40 There is no corresponding question for the same situation with the wife converting;41 the discussion is thoroughly male-normative.42 This is consistent throughout the discussion of marriage; questions on forming and dissolving marriages are consistently framed From the man's perspective and the wife is regarded as thoroughly passive. In creating this system, Gratian and his cornrnentators understood themselves to be working within a solid, continuous Christian tradition that connected them seamlessly From the patristic writers to the Apostle back to Christ. In his consideration of marriage, Gratian compiles quotations From Paul, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine.43 However, it is not at ail clear that what Gratian understood
40 Aquinas, "Summa Theologica." III, Q59, Art. 4. (pp. 2786-2787.) Aquinas says something similar in III, Q59, "\rt.5, in which he says that a husband can leave his unbelieving wife and remarry, and should he do so, it is the wife's fault for "making use of blasphemous words and refusing to hear Christ' s name." 41 Indeed, the recommendation in this case would likely have been for the Christian wife to attempt to win her husband over to conversion. Pope Boniface IV's advice was as follows: « Courage donc, glorieuse fille, ne cessez pas d'implorer de la miséricorde divine le bienfait d'une union parfaite entre vous et votre époux, afIn que par l'unité de la foi vous ne fassiez plus qu'une âme, comme vous ne faites plus qu'un corps qu'après cette vie votre union se maintienne éternelle dans l'autre. Faites tous vos efforts pour attendrir la dureté de ce cœur en y faisant pénétrer les préceptes divins; faites lui comprendre combien est sublime le mystère de la foi que vous professez, et ce que vaut le bienfait de la régénération que vous avez mérité. Il faut que par vous se vérifIe d'une manière. éclatante le témoignage de l'Ecriture Sainte qui dit: « L'homme infIdèle sera sauvé par la femme qui a la foi ». Quoted in Dom Jean Leclercq, "Rôle Et Pouvoir Des Épouses Au Moyen Âge," in La Femme Au Mqyen Age, ed ..Michel Rouche and Jean Heuclin (Ville de Maubeuge: Jean Touzot, 1990). p. 90. Leclerq notes that although Paul's words in 1 Cor 7 :14-16 address both spouses, medieval uses ofthis verse were most definitely applied to women rather than to men. Leclercq, "Rôle Et Pouvoir Des Épouses Au Moyen Âge." pp. 94-95. 42 This assertion is an understatement. Note that Aquinas also seriously entertains questions such as whether a believing husband can put away his unbelieving wife and take another (the answer is yes - see Summa Theologica III, Q.59), or even whether a husband is entitled to kill his wife (again, the answer is yes, though this rime he needs to gain permission Fust from a higher authority - see S umma Theologica III, Q.60). Further proof of Aquinas' misogyny hardly seems necessary - though it is certainly able to be found in abundance. 43 Gratian uses Ambrose to discuss the creation of marriage (C27, q.2, c.5; C27, q.2, c.35-36), the marriage of Mary and Joseph (C27, q.2, c.29), separation (C32, q.7, c.17; C32, q.2, c.2; C32, q.5, Gilbert 19
these writers to be saying was what they themselves likely meant. 1 will thus turn back the pages to trace 1 Cor 7:3-4 through Paul, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine, inquiring as to their views on marital sexuality and questioning whether Gratian's interpretation matched up to their likely intentions. Throughout, issues of gender, reciprocity, and authority will be at hand.
Paul We might begin our consideration of 1 Cor 7:1-6 by seeking the purpose of marriage. In verse 2, Paul writes, "but because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.,,44 As we have seen, in the twelfth century Gratian interpreted this verse as justification for the conjugal debt, which itself was justified by the dual needs of purity and procreation.
Such a reading of this verse in 1st century Corinth would be anachronistic, however. In this section, rather than seeking the junetion of sexuality within marriage, 1 will seek the pupose of marriage with regard to sexuality. Contemporary scholarship offers two main interpretations of the nature of marnage and sexuality in this verse. The [11:st asserts that 1 Cor seems to be concemed not with the choice between celibacy and sexual activity, but rather with the distinction between purity and immorality. This is significant because it means that the verse Îs not so much about sexual ethics in marriage as it is about the proper use of sexuality on the whole. This dichotomy between the pure and the impure at
c.17), marriage between unbelievers (C.28, q.1, c.l, 7,14,15), sexuality and marriage (C.32, q.l, c.8-13; C.32, q.2, c.l; C.32, q.4, c.3; C.32, q.5, c.1; C.32, q.7, c.12), abduction (C.36, q.2, c.9), and the submission of wives (C.30, q.5, c.8; C.31, q.2; C.32, q.2, c.13-14; C.33, q.5). Gratian uses Jerome to discuss the creation of marriage (C.27, q.2, c.26, 37, 40), marriage with unbelievers (C.28, q.l, c.14; C.28, q.3, c.l; C.29, q.l), marriage with a prostitute (C.32, q.l, c.14), multiple marriages (C.27, q.2, c.13; C.31, q.l, c.10, Il; C.32, q.7, c.7), sexuality and marriage (C.32, q.2, c.l,4; C.32, q.4, c.5-6, 12,14; C.32, q.5, c.11; C.33, q.4, c.1; C.33, q.5, c.7), adultery (C.32, q.5, c.6), abduction (C.34, q.l and 2, c.3; C. 36, q.2, c.8), abortion (C.32, q.2, c.10), dismissal of a wife (C.32, q.l, c.2; C.32, q.5, c.19), and the submission of wives (C.33, q.5, c.15). Gratian uses Augustine to discuss the creation of marriage (C.27, q.2, c.9; C.27, q.2, c.16, 28, 39-40, 51; C.32, q.l, c.ll), adultery (C.31, q.l, c.1-2, 12; C.32, q.l,c.7; C.32, q.4, c.1-c.4, c.7-8, c.10-c11; C.32, q.5, c.14,16,18; C. 2, q.7, c.6, 11), marriage between unbelievers (C.28, q.l, c.8); sexuality and marriage (C.32, q.2, c.3, 6; C.32, q.5, c.3, 6, 9, 12; C.32, q.7, c.l, 13; C.33, q.4, c.2, 5; C.35, q.l); mutual vows of continence (C.27, q.l, c.41, 43; C.27, q. 2, c.24; C.32, q.8, c.l; C.33, q.4, c.12; C.33, q.5, c.l,4), the marriage of Mary and Joseph (C.27, q.2, c.3, 10), multiple marriages (C.27, q.l, c.33; C.28, q.3, c.l; C.32, q.2, c.5), consanguinity (C.35, q.2and 3, c.15), the (il)legitimacy of children (C.35, q.7, c.1), abortion (C.32, q.2, c.S), abandonment of a wife (C.28, q.l, c.4; C.32, q.6, c.l; C.32, q.7, c.24, 27), killing an adulterous wife (C. 33, q.2, c.9), and the submission of wives (C.33, q.5, c.l1, 12, 16). 44 1 Corinthians 7.2, NRSV. Gilbert 20
work in 1 Cor 7 is suggested by its place in the letter; chapters 5 and 6 suggest that the immorality in question involves prostitution. 45 Under this reading, Paul is understood to promote either celibacy or marriage as both are antidotes to the problem of sexual immorality. Although Paul states his preference of the celibate, unmarried state (see 1 Cor 7:7), marriage is an option (see 1 Cor 7.2). Marriage without sexuality is not permissible; when sexuality is practiced correcrly within marriage, it guards against sexual immorality.46 Although medieval canomsts might have agreed that sexuality outside of marriage was immoral, reading 7:2 as promoting marriage as protection against immoral practices does not match with views espoused in their writings. Rather, Gratian seems to read marriage in 7:2 as a remedy to an immorality that was constant, pre-existing, and inherent within humamty.47 He further correlates procreation and sexual intercourse in a teleological fasmon not found in the Pauline text. The second interpretation of 7:2 asserts that, rather than guarding against sexual immorality, marriage protects spouses from the experience of sexual desire itself. Caragoums notes that rropvE'Îa (usually translated as 'sexual immorality') is more likely to mean 'legitimate sexual urges' than to refer to prostitution.48 In this case, sexual urges are an impetus to marriage. Martin, noting that 'burning' was a common allusion to (sexual) desire, raises the possibility that Paul is not recommending marriage as an acceptable ourlet for sexual urges, but rather a guard against experiencing them in the fust place:
Paul seems to be suggesting that marriage functions not as a legitimate avenue for the expression of desire but as what will preclude it altogether. Paul does not say that persons should marry so that they will bum only moderately (as if it were
45 For two such arguments, see Antoinette Clark Wire, The Connthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul's Rhetone (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990). p. 79, and Margaret Y. MacDonald, "Women Holy in Body and Spirit: The Social Setting of 1 Corinthians 7," in Chnstianiry al Connlh: The Quest for the Pauline Church, ed. Edward Adams and David G. Horrell (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004). pp. 162-163. Originally published in New Testament Studies 36 (1990): 161-181. 46 See MacDonald, "WOtnen Holy in Body and Spirit: The Social Setting of 1 Corinthians 7." p. 163. MacDonald notes that the key question for Paul is not 'marriage vs. celibacy' but rather 'celibacy and/or marriage vs. immorality'. 47 See Gratian's Decretum, C. 32, q.2. ''Later [cf. Gen. 2J, outside of paradise, [matrimonyJ existed for the sake of preventing illicit liaisons, so that human weakness, which is prone to immoral ruin, might be remedied by honest marriage. So the Apostle, writing in [1J Corinthians [7:2J, says, "For fear of fornication, let man each have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband." (.pennington translation.) The reference here is likely to Augustine's conception of original sin. 48 Chrys C. Caragounis, '''Fornication' and 'Concession? Interpreting 1 Cor 7,1-7.," in The Connthian Correspondence, ed. R. Bieringer (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996). pp. 549-551. Gilbert 21
acceptable for Them ta 'simmer'). He presents a clear either/ or: marriage is the prophylaxis against 'burning'; that is, marriage guards against the experience of desire.~9
Again, this differs From the V1SlOn of marital sexuality put Forth in canon law. Although sexual desire and pleasure were often highly problematic in medieval conceptions of sexuality, They were merely problems associated with sexual intercourse, not its def111Îng characteristic or purpose. As we have seen, the verses at the root of the medieval notion of the conjugal debt are vv3-5; in Paul's rime, whether he viewed the purpose of marriage as guarding against sexual immorality or sexual desire, these verses would seem to outline the principles by which sexuality should be used within marnage. BOth spouses are to give each other their 'conjugal rights' in the knowledge that their spouse has authority over their bodies.50 The couple may mutually agree to abstain from sexual activity for a set period of rime, but must come back together again.51 Such an arrangement is not comparable to the option by which medieval spouses separated from each other permanendy in order to enter religious life. It may be further noted that although the distinction between clerical and lay populations is frequendy read into this text, both by medieval commentators and contemporary writers, such a distinction was not present in Paul's rime and is thus wholly' absent from the text. This passage is often noted for its reciprocal language, particularly in vv3-4. The sentences are paired and carefully switch the sexes. In a typical remark in discussions of the verses' grammar and rhetoric, Wire writes that "there is no question that Paul is rhetorically accentuating the equal and reciprocal nature of
49 Dale B. Martin, The Connthian Bocfy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995). p. 214. 50 There is question as to whether This verse means that the individual has no authority whatsoever over their own body or that both the individual and the individual's spouse have joint authority over that body. See Will Deming, Paul on Marnage and Celibary: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Connthians 7 (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004). p. 119. Either way, it is c1ear that an individual does not have exclusive authority over their own body. 5! The Corinthian ascetics may have drawn a connection between abstinence from sexual activity and an increased capacity for prayer. Sorne suggest that Paul here follows their lead. See, for example, Judith M. Gundry-Volf, "Controlling the Bodies: A Theological Profile of the Corinthian Sexual Ascetics (1 Cor 7)," in The Connthian Correspondence, ed. R. Bieringer (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996). p.533. Wire notes that abstinence and a connection with the divine were highly correlated for women in Greek cuits. Wire, The Connthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Pau/'s Rhetonc. p. 83. Gilbert 22
sexual responsibilities.,,52 Commentators are often taken by this reciprocallanguage and say that it illustrates an oasis of mutuality in an otherwise patriarchal society; their sentiments often echo those in praise of the conjugal debt's supposed 'mutuality,' and we might criticize them along much the same lines. In one su ch commentary, Bassler comments that while 1 Cor 7:1 presents the issue from a male viewpoint, Paul's discussion
not only contradicts the premise of this statement but in both the content and balanced format of his response insists on the two-sidedness, the mutuality of sexual relations within marriage. Whether one can extrapolate from this to conclude that Paul viewed the entire marriage relationship as one of equality and mutuality is difficult to answer in light of his comments in chap. 11 ... nevertheless, the sense of mutuality in at least this area of married life is exceptional for a man of rus time and culture. 53
Hays, too, emphasizes that Paul prescribes 'mutual submission' between husbands and wives, quite idealistically and in contrast with patriarchal norms.54 However, we might ask whether our own assumptions cloud our judgment in this case. Such commentaries read love and mutuality into a passage whose language is legal, even financial in nature; if we search 1 Cor 7 for a reference to love between spouses, we will simply not fllld it. Sexuality in 1 Cor 7 is not about love (nor procreation, another goal which is commonly read into this passage), and thus vv3-4 are not about mutuality, but rather reciprocity. Stated another way, our contemporary ideal of mutual caring in a relationship is not the same as the ethic of mutual submission described in these verses; that we confound the two suggests that our twenty-first century ears simply hear something that is not present in the original text. Furthermore, our twenty-first century lives are characterized by a construction of gender that is profoundly different from that found in first-century Corinth.55 Iflife in Greco-Roman society was strongly influenced by gender - and it seems impossible to argue to the contrary - then life in Corinth would be so as well.
This remains true even within a Pauline/Jesus-movement community which baptized
52 Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Pauls Rhetoric. p. 80. 53 Jouette M. Bassler, "1 Corinthians," in Women's Bible Commentary (Expanded Edition), ed. Carol Newsom (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998). p. 413. 54 Richard B. Hays, "Paul on the Relation between Men and Women," in A Feminist Companion to Paul, ed. Amy-Jill Levine and Marianne Blickenstaff (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2004). p.140. 55 To say this is not to say that we can know exactfy what gender meant in first-century Corinth - only that it was certainly not the same as what it means to us. Gilbert 23
with the formula found in Galatians 3:28.56 Even if there was no male nor female in Christ Jesus, there were differences in gender before Christ Jesus (and, as Paul might argue with regard to head-coverings, there were differences after baptism and before the Eschaton). In other words, baptism was not a cleansing of aIl social context - and certainly not as effective a one as we achieve by reading from our situation today, far away from the culture of rust-century Corinth. What, then, might we find when we attempt to hear these verses in the way they might have fallen on Corinthian ears? To answer this question, we must rust inquire as to the situation in Corinth. Regardless of common assertions, Corinth was no! a hotbed of sexual vice.57 Rather, most scholarship on Corinth agrees that there were two competing ideologies at Corinth regarding sexual morality.58 Questions of authority were important for both.59 The rust group would interpret authority to mean that in Christ they were free to do as they pleased; this is supported by the incest case described in 1 Cor 5 and the discussion of members of Christ and members of a prostitute in 1 Cor 6:15-20. The second group would understand its life in Christ to grant it the authority to lead ascetic lives, abstaining from both sexual intercourse and marriage.60 Reading 1 Cor is thus problematized, as the interpreter must disentangle Paul's rhetoric to identify in which places Paul is likely to be referring to each group. In conttast, both medieval interpretations and interpretations of medieval thought take Paul to be speaking on an absttact level,
56 For more on Gal 3:28 as a baptismal formula with strong resonances of gender equality, see Sheila Briggs, "Galatians," in Searching the Scriptures, ed. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1994). See also Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identiry (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994). For its use in Corinth, see Antoinette Wire, "1 Corinthians," in Searching the Scriptures, ed. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1994). p. 178. 57 The daim that Corinth was a "seat of sacred prostitution in the service of Aphrodite" does not have any basis in historical evidence. Rather, Corinth's reputation for vice was an Athenian slander - see, for example, Plato, Aristophanes, and Strabo the Geographer. See Hans. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, ed. George W. MacRae, trans. James W. Leich (philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975). p. 12. Furthermore, the assertion that 'a Corinthian girl' rneant 'a prostitute' and 'to corinthianize' meant 'to fornicate' is also false and originates with Strabo. See Delbert Royce Burkett, An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianiry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). p. 328. 58 For support, see Margaret Y. MacDonald, "Virgins, Widows, and Wives: The Women of 1 Corinthians 7," in A Feminist Companion to Paul, ed. Amy-Jill Levine and Marianne Blickenstaff (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2004). For an important dissenting view, see Martin, The Corinthian Borfy. 59 Gundry-Volf, "Controlling the Bodies: A Theological Profile of the Corinthian Sexual Ascetics (1 Cor 7)." pp.524-525. 60 MacDonald, "Women Holy in Body and Spirit: The Social Setting of 1 Corinthians 7." pp.162-163. Gilbert 24
laying down uniyersal principles rather than responding to a specific and complex situation. One such place where reading is problematized is the second clause of 1 Cor 7:1: 61 1 Corinthians 7:1, NRSV. 'Touch' was a euphemism for 'have sexual intercourse with'. Note that the verse is written from a male perspective. 62 For an example of this argument, see Hays, "Paul on the Relation between "Men and Women." pp.137-138. The NRSV has changed its text to include quotation marks in an attempt to indicate this more clearly. For an opposing viewpoint on vi, see Caragounis, '''Fornication' and 'Concession'? Interpreting 1 Cor 7,1-7.. " p. 559. She suggests that the typical citation markers one would expect in a Greek text are missing, thus suggesting that Paul is not quoting the Corinthians. Her suggested translation, however, is "(Now) with regard to the things you wrote (to me) about, it is better for a man not to touch a woman. However, on account of... " (Caragounis, '''Fornication' and 'Concession'? Interpreting 1 Cor 7,1-7.. " p.559). Although l am not qualified to analyze the Greek to compare it with her tt"anslation, l do not see that the outcome makes much difference either way - Paul clearly endorses celibacy as the better option (see 1 Cor 7:7,9, etc.). Paul does not need to be cither introducing something new or repeating something he read in a letter - he could also be agreeing with the ascetic Corinthians insofar as their basic idea of sexuality is concemed while disagreeing with them as to the situations in which celibacy may be practiced. 63 Conzelmann, 1 Connthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Connthians. p. 7. 64 MacDonald identifies ncxQeêvoç as 'virgin' and notes that the first cime it is used in 1 Corinthians 7 (v25) it has no gender, but its other uses refer to women (v28, v34, vv36-38). See MacDonald, "Virgins, Widows, and Wives: The Women of 1 Corinthians 7." p. 150. Gilbert 25 The relation between marriage and sexuality seems to be at the heart of the nature of the conflict in 1 Cor 7: whereas certain Corinthians desired to transform their marriages into celibate partnerships,65 Paul intends to fmnly reinstate sexual relations as a necessary part of marriage. T 0 indicate that celibacy is not a valid option within marriage, vv3-4 use a language of 'authority' (è~ouciîcx):66 each spouse has authority over the other's body. This rhetoric created a situation of rights and duties within marriage; there is thus a possible point of overlap between Paul's words to the Corinthians and the legal framework of the conjugal debt.67 In both 7:2 and 7:5, Paul indicate.s that an ascetic spouse puts the other spouse in danger of immorality.68 Conjugal relations within marriage are thus a right; "if the nonascetic spouse has a right, it follows that the ascetic spouse has a dUty."69 Stated another way, the believer's obligation to the other spouse takes priority over the believer's own freedom. 70 Rather than speaking of 'deprivation' in 7:5, then, the word might be better ttanslated as 'rob';71 if the nonascetic spouse has a right to sexual relations, then the ascetic spouse's withholding is more accurately characterized as robbery.72 Thus, whereas the ascetic Corinthians saw è~oua'îcx as support for their abstinence, Paul uses it to finnly reinstate sexual relations within marriage. This 65 While such partnerships are sometlmes compared to the medieval notion of chaste marriages (see, for example, Margaret McGlynn and Richard J. Moll, "Chaste Marriage in the Nliddle Ages: It Were to Hire a Greet Merite," in Handbook tif Medieval Sexualiry, ed. Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage (New York: Garland Publishing, Ine., 1996).) such comparisons should not be made as quickly as they often are. For more on the properly medieval notion of chaste marriges, see Elliott, Spiritual Marnage: S exual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock. 66 Gundry-Volf identifies Èçouota as 'right, freedom' (Gundry-Volf, "Controlling the Bodies: A Theological Profile of the Corinthian Sexual Ascetics (1 Cor 7)." p. 524). She notes that the Corinthians used ÈçouoÎa to support both libertinism and asceticism (Gundry-Volf, "Controlling the Bodies: A Theological Profile of the Corinthian Sexual Ascetics (1 Cor 7)." pp. 524-525). In this case, Paul is tuming the Corinthians' own rhetoric back on them to support his goals. 67 Such a comparison must obviously be himdled gingerly; while it is possible that the 'obligation' underlying the conjugal debt has its roots in Paul's concept of 'authority', such assertions cannot be trusted Without being put in a broader Roman legal framework and followed throughout a millennium of exegesis. As such a project is dearly outside the scope of this paper, l will indicate it here only to draw a comparison and sketch out a path for future research. 68 Gundry-Volf, "Controlling the Bodies: A Theological Profile of the Corinthian Sexual Ascetics (1 Cor 7)." p. 526. 69 Ibid. p. 526. She identifies o4>EIÀTî in 7.3 as 'duty' and defmes it contextually as "Christian obligation which stands in tension with the daim to Christian freedom." 70 Ibid. p. 526. 71 Gundry-Volf notes that both words are possible in usual Greek-English translation (Ibid. p. 527). Deming translates the verse this way as well (see Deming, Paul on Marnage and Celibary: The Hellenistic Background tif 1 Corinthians 7. p. 119). 72 Gundry-Volf, "Controlling the Bodies: A Theological Profile of the Corinthian Sexual Ascetics (1 Cor 7)." p.527. Gilbert 26 would not negate the supposed reciprocity and mutuality of the verse on a universal leve1 (though it would indicate coercion in some fonn), save that we have hitherto left unasked the question of the identity of the Corintman ascetics. Recent scholarship has pointed toward evidence that asceticism may have especially appealed to women.73 This is supported by textual evidence within 1 Cor; th~ rhetoric of the 'virgins' passage in vv.25-38 gives the man authority, and women may have been the primary instigators of divorce as described in vv.l0-16.74 Furthennore, the realities of life for women in the ftrst century would have made attractive an escape from the risks associated with childbirth; the survival rate was low, and the problem was compounded by the practice of infanticide of female babies, wmch made for a shortage of wives and increased pressure on the remaining women to marry and produce children.75 If the primary proponents of the ascetic movement at Corinth were women, then Paul's reasoning was directed primarily at them. In this case, it is clear that Paul's rhetoric would seem no! to argue for reciprocity in the sense of mutuality in a loving relationship. As we have aIready seen, his argument has nothing to do with love. Rather, v3-4 impose sexual relations between spouses in order to protect them from TTopve·Îa. If asceticism indeed appealed to women more than men, then a wife who had decided to dedicate herself to chastity was told that, being in a married state, she had no right to this decision.76 Likewise, a 'virgin' was not offered any choice of her own - if the man to whom she was connected 'lacked authority over ms desire', she would be married and thus sexually bound to him, regardless of her will or her authority over her desire.77 That Paul's rhetoric in this passage addresses only the man and not the 'virgin' only serves to reinforce this interpretation.78 When 73 The sttongest defenses of tlùs claim are given by Wire and MacDonald. 74 MacDonald writes, "if women were especially attracted to the false teaching, they may have sought to dissolve unions with their believing husbands on the basis of the fact that sex desecrated their holiness." (M:acDonald, "W01nen Holy in Body and Spirit: The Social Sctting of 1 Corinthians 7." p.169.) She notes that Murphy-O'Connor disagrees with her here (see Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "The Divorced Woman in 1 Corintlùans 7:10-11," Journal tifBiblica/Literaturc100 (1981).). 75 Wire, The Connthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Pau/'s Rhe/one. pp. 91-92. 76 Ibid. p. 84. 77 Ibid. pp. 89-90. In understanding this, it is important to recall the controversy over the nature of the relationship between the 'virgin' and the man to whom she was connected; see my discussion of tlùs earlier in the chapter. 78 See, for example, Martin, who notes that virgins are spoken about and not to. "Paul's exclusive address to the young man thus reveals his assumption of the male-female hierarchy of strength. He Gilbert 27 1 Cor 7:3-5 is read as the necessary lynchpin to Paul's intentions toward the 'virgins', what was formerly seen as an unusual instance of mutuality in a patriarchal society is perceived more rightfully as an instance of coercion. Thus, while some comparisons may be made between Paul's probable intentions in 1 Cor 7:3-5 and the medieval notion of the conjugal debt, such parallels must be drawn gingerly and with an awareness of the difference between seeing a similarity and charting a genealogy of ideas. In the thousand years that separate the two discours es, Paul's words were heard in numerous cultural contexts, picking up interpretations, glosses, and different ascribed significances along the way; while we may be sure from Gratian's own words that 1 Cor 7:3-5 is at the root of the conjugal debt, the idea's family tree must be mapped before we accept that Gratian's interpretation matched Paul's intention. In the end, it is likely that the idea's long evolution will belie such a facile daim; the many steps along the way are aImost sure to be more complicated and more fascinating than a simple (albeit convenient) correspondence. For the next step, we will turn to Ambrose. Ambrose By tracing 1 Cor 7:3-5 through Ambrose's extant works, we will find that for Ambrose, for spouses to have authority over each other's botjy means something doser to having aUthority over the spouse's whole person: Lest we read this in overly general terms, however, Ambrose's image of wifehood as slavery offers a vivid illustration of the specificity of this authority. addresses the one who has power, the man, and delegates to him the responsibility of doing what needs to be done in the woman's best interest Cat least according to Paul's point of view). The weaker of the two, the woman, cannot be relied upon to make a decision for herself. Paul is here following the same rhetorical strategy pursued so many cimes elsewhere in 1 Corinthians: he addresses the one presumed to be stronger - here, the man - and urges him to modify rus behavior for the benefit of the weaker, the w01Ilan" (Martin, The Corinthian Bo&. p. 227). See also Wire, who writes, "it is in such rhetoric, congenial to the virgin, that Paulleaves the marnage decision up to the man. This disguises the fact that the rhetoric of equality does not reappear at the critical point to give the woman a corresponding challenge to decide whether she has control of her desire. At the end Paul has replaced the balance of male and female with the balance of two options facing the man (7:38-38). Only at the end of the chapter does the woman receive corresponding options. If her husband dies, she may marry whom she wants or stay single. But to reach this option requires a marnage and a death. The poignant reality is the virgin bound sexually against her decision to the man for rus lifecime if he lacks 'authority over his own desire' (7.37)" (Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Pau/'s Rhetoric., p. 89). Gilbert 28 In his writings, j\mbrose takes up Paul's categories in 1 Cor 7, conceiving women as virgins, wives, and widows. These he correlates with the biblical characters Mary (who~ he identifies as "the virgin in her secret chamber"), Susanna (whom he describes as "married in the garden"), and Anna (whom he calls the "widow in the temple").79 To two of these he dedicates large works, De virginibus (Concerning Virgins) and De vidua (Concerning Widows). Unfortunately, perhaps owing to his marked preference for celibacy, there is no equivalent De uxoribus, Concerning Wives. We must therefore look at the periphery of Ambrose's vision to discem his contours of marriage and sexuality, seeking that which is in the margins or left unsaid. First, while Ambrose clearly de fends marriage,SO chastity is a higher calling.S1 One might say that Ambrose envisions the ideal female life cycle as abstinence normative: a woman's life begins with the purity of maidenhood and then resolves in chastity, either immediately by consecration to virginity, or eventually once she is 'liberated' into widowhood. Wifehood is a temporary, transient state, a concession to the weakness of youth,82 and the least valued of the three paths. Just as Paul had written that it was "better to marry than to be aflame with passion,,,83 for Ambrose marriage created a context for those unable to abstain in which sexual relations were permissible. T 0 this end, Ambrose describes marnage as a bond: the two spouses are literally bonded in servitude to each other. In a passage in which he explicidy makes use of 1 Cor 7:4, a rarity in Ambrose's writings and worthy of being quoted in full, Ambrose describes the bonds of marriage thus: It is then lawful to marry, but it is more seemly to abstain, for there are bonds in marriage. Do you ask what bonds? 'The woman who is under a husband is bound by the law so long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead she is loosed from the law ofher husband.' [Rom 7:2] It is then proved that marriage is a bond by which the woman is bound and from which she is loosed. Beautiful is the grace of mutuallove, but the bondage is more constant. 'The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband.' [1 Cor 7:4] And lest this bondage should seem to be 79 De viduis IV.21-26 (pp. 394-395). .Ambrose reads these allegorically as weil: "Ali, then, have an example to imita te, virgins, married women, and widows. And perchance is the Church therefore a virgin, married, and a widow, because theyare one body in Christ." (De viduis III.16 (p. 394)) 80 See, for example, De virginibus, p. 368, where he cites Sarah, Rebecca, and Rachel, and notes the need for procreation. 81 See, for example, De vidua, XII.72 (p. 403), where he quotes 1 Cor 7:28 in support of this principle. 82 De vidua, XIII.80 (p. 405). 83 l Cor 7:9. Gilbert 29 rather one of sex th an of marriage, there follows: 'Likewise, also, the husband hath not power of his own body, but the \"!.rife.' [1 Cor 7:4] How great, then, is the constraint in marriage, which subjects even the stronger to the other; for by mu tuaI constraint each is bound to serve. Nor if one wishes to refrain can he [sic] withdraw bis neck from the yoke, for he is subject to the incontinence of the other. It is said: 'Ye are bought with a price, be not ye servants of men.' [1 Cor 7:23] You see how plainly the servitude of marriage is defined. It is not 1 who say this, but the 1\postle; or, rather, it is not he, but Christ, who spoke in him. And he spoke of this servitude in the case of good married people ... 84 Three aspects of this passage are relevant here. Firsdy, for Ambrose, marriage is inherendy characterized by servitude. To support this, he makes use of 1 Cor 7:4 and strengthens it with Rom 7:2. Secondly, he cautions us against reading 1 Cor 7:4 as referring exclusively to sex rather than to marriage as a whole. In effect, he downplays the sexual aspect of the servitude (though aŒrming its presence) while extending the mutual authority of spouses over each other's body to a broader application. Finally, Ambrose asserts that 1 Cor 7 does not spring from Paul but rather represents Christ speaking through Paul. In so doing, he heightens the authority of (his interpretation of) the text. These points may represent important shifts in the history of creating the notion of the conjugal debt. T 0 be sure, in places Ambrose does discuss marital servitude as a mutual obligation. Yet these are few and far between, and in cases such as this one, the words are aimed at women rather than a general audience. The nature of the husband's servitude to the wife is al10wed to remain vague. But Ambrose dedicates a significant amount of rime to establishing and explaining the nature of the wife's servitude to the husband: to be precise, he sees the wife as enslaved to the husband. By examining Ambrose's notions of the husband's lordship over the wife and wifehood as slavery, we can see that the concepts of wife/female and husband/male function in profoundly unequal ways in Ambrose's thought, casting serious doubt on interpretations of Ambrose's writings which suggest that the servitude of marriage was intended as or functioned as an equal princip le. In the Genesis narrative of the Garden, Ambrose believed that he had found the primordial 'relationship between the sexes that would explain how marital relations should function in his own rime.8S For Ambrose, the fault for the Fall 84 De vidua, XI.69. Indeed, this was the on!J direct reference to 1 Cor 7:4 1 was able to find. 85 As Moorhead writes, "Much of Ambrose's view of women is concentrated in ms understanding of the FaIl: the service a wife renders her husband and the association of women with enjoyment and Gilbert 30 rested squarely on Eve's shoulders: in ParadiJe, he \\-Tites, "the woman is responsible for the man's error and not yice-yersa.,,86 Eye had realized the sin inherent in eating the fruit after the flrst bite, but fearing that she alone would be expelled from the garden, deliberately repeated the sin. By giving the apple to Adam, she was deliberately trying to ensnare him in the same trap she found herself in; Adam thus stands innocent, at least in intent. Noting that the Genesis text does not describe Adam's bite into the fruit, Ambrose writes, "omission is made, and rightly so, of the deception of Adam, since he fell by his wife's fault and not because of his own.,,87 Eve's punishment reflected the nature of her crime, placing her in a sort of protective custody in which she would be restrained from doing further harm, either through independent action or by deceiving her husband: "Because Eve has admitted her crime, she is given a milder and more salutary sentence, which condemned her wrong-doing and did not refuse pardon. She was to serve under her husband's power, flrst, that she might not be inclined to do wrong, and, secondly, that, being in a position subject to a stronger vessel, she might not dishonor her husband, but on the contrary, might be governed by his counseL,,88 As it happened in the beginning, so should present society reflect the new order. Writing on marital ethics for his own rime, Ambrose combined Gen 3:16 (" ... your desire shall be for your husband, and he shal1 rule over you") with 1 Pet 3:1 (''Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of your husbands ... "), but took the concepts of submission and rule and inserted language referring to 'lordship'.89 That husbands were to be lords over their wives meant that wives were to be slaves to their husbands. Across his works, Ambrose clearly uses the language of slavery to describe the wife. Moorhead translates De virginibus 1.6.27 as "Need 1 remind you of the burdensome condition of slavery to which women are subjected and the servile obligations they render to men? God ordered them to act as slaves before there were slaves" and notes, "the idea is powerful, and los es nothing by the language in delight, and of men with counsel." John Moorhead, Ambrose: Church and Sociery in the Late Roman World (London: Longman, 1999). p.47. 86 Paradise 56. 87 Paradise 62. 88 Paradise 72. Ambrose interprets this allegorically as well, saying that it mirrors the relationship between Christ and the Church. 89 Moorhead, Ambrose: Church and Sociery in the Late Roman World. p. 45. Gilbert 31 which it is expressed. Ambrose depicts the standing of the \vife in the technical vocabulary applied to slaver;' in ancient times and emphasizes the point by forceful repetition (J-ervitia ... servire ... serooJ)."90 Further, Moorhead notes that Ambrose uses the words addictuJ- and jàmlilatus to describe the relationship of the wife to the husband; he explains that addictus described a person who had been enslaved as a punishment, and notes that Ambrose used famulatus in De Cain et Abel to describe the relationship of an anima1.to its master.91 Ambrose puts this technical vocabulary to work in weaving a compelling image of wifehood as slavery. (Aristocratic) wives might seem to be well-cared for and offered riches, but Ambrose likens their physical omaments to wounds and fetters: "Look at the ears pierced with wounds, and pity the neck weighed down with burdens. That the metals are different does not lighten the suffering. In one case a chain binds the neck, in another a fetter encloses the foot. It makes no difference whether the body be loaded with gold or with iron.,,92 The message is clear: wives who believe themselves to be free are on1y fooling themselves.93 In De virginibus Ambrose paints the virgin bride as being lower than a slave: "But how wretched a position, that she who is marriageable is in a species of sale put up as it were to auction to be bid for, so that he who offers the highest price purchases her. Slaves are sold on more tolerable conditions, for they often choose their masters; if a maiden chooses it is an offence, if not it is an insult.,,94 In De vidua, Ambrose cites 1 Cor 7:39-40 to say that a wife is bound to her husband but a widow is free;95 throughout the work, wedlock is equated with bondage, and the widows to whotrt Ambrose speaks are to understand their widowhood as a state of liberation. These examples are only the most compelling out of a long inventory of such equations. Although this equation of wifehood with slavery is significant, it is important to prevent it from eclipsing certain nuances in Ambrose's writings for two reasons. First, in places Ambrose argues against abject servitude, such as in a letter to the 90 Ibid. p. 49, responding to De vùginibus 1.6.27 91 Ibid. p. 49f. 92 De virginibus X.35 (p. 372). 93 .i\mbrose makes this point explicit in Exh. virg. See the summary and analysis in Moorhead, Ambrose: Church and Society in the Late Roman World. pp. 51-52. 94 De virginibus X.56 (p. 372). 95 De vidua 1.2 (p. 391). Gilbert 32 church at Vercellae, where he writes, "Let a wife show deference, not be a slaye to her husband; let her show herself to be ruled not coerced. She is not wonhy of wedlock who deserves chiding. Let a husband also guide his wife like a steersman, honour her as the panner of his life, share with her as a joint heir of grace.,,96 Such a concept of 'gentle' dominance is not foreign to Christian ideas of power relations; indeed, it would seem to be present in the parallel structures of 1 Pet 3:1 and 1 Pet 3:7, where the exhortation to women that they must submit to their husbands is followed by a reminder to husbands of the consideration they should show their wives. Yet few are satisfied with this fotm of reciprocity, and we must be careful with it in Ambrose's writings as weIl. In De Isaac veZ anima, Ambrose enjoins husbands to be wary of their wives: "A woman is a delight, an allurement of the body. And so watch out that the fltlUness of your mind not be bent and softened by the bodily pleasure of intercourse and thus dissolve into all her embraces and open up her fountain, that ought to have been shut and closed in by zealous intent and reasoned consideration."97 What kind of lordsmp would be engendered by such mistrust? If it is even possible to imagine a system of dominance wmch respects the full humanity of aIl involved parties, certainly a necessary condition is the lack of misogyny - and Ambrose's texts do not even begin to meet this criterion. Secondly, the nature of Ambrose's writings must be taken into account: the vast majority of texts to which we have access were wtÏtten to promote consecrated virginity, and this intent may have affected the way Ambrose presented the married life. Indeed, Colish laments that "the ascetic morality that Ambrose deems appropriate to consecrated virgins has been extended uncritically to his ethics in general.,,98 Ambrose's special place in the debates over consecrated virginity taking 96 I\rnbrose, Epis!. LXIII (p. 107). 97 De Isaac vel anima, pp. 11-12. Such a text is a strong demonstration of the caution that women should take to Neoplatonism; the opposition of body and mind, with its hierarchical structure and association of female and male, respectively, have not only played a strong role in the exclusion of women from intellectual pursuits but also (as we see here) set husbands against wives. 98 Marcia L. Colish, Ambroses Patriarchs: Ethics for the Common Man. (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005). p. 88f. In our email correspondence, Colish suggested that a symbolic reading of de Patriarchis might provide a further route into Ambrose's prescriptions for married women. Unfortunately, such a project would involve an elaborate reconstruction of the material, and is hence outside of the scope of this the sis - though it would make a fascinating course for future research. Gilbert 33 place is of note.99 The treatises on virginity were written as part of this debate, and it is important that Ambrose was often on the defensive in his need to persuade aristocratic families to give their daughters (and hence a portion of their wealth and continued power of the family) to the church while reassuring them that such an action would not subvert the morals of Roman society that valued family and fertility. His interpretation of 1IClQ8ÊvoÇ in 1 Cor 7:25-38 as a maiden whom a father could give to the church to become a consecrated virgin100 and bis pointed question to these fathers, "was she bome so long in her mother's womb in order that she might pass under the power of another?,,101, demonstrate that Ambrose was intending bis words for a specific audience and that images of slavery were part of crafting bis message for this intent. As long as this caveat is kept in mind, however, Ambrose's equation of wifehood with slavery remains significant. First, Ambrose consistently gives the wife's position in marriage a negative evaluation, across multiple types of texts. Secondly, the fact that these texts are the ones that were accepted as orthodox and used by developing theological tradition throughout the centuries makes them significant. In places, their use might have served the needs of the cime rather than being read in their own right; in this case, the emphasis on wifehood as slavery would not have been blunted by contextual nuance, and could have served as a foothold for inequality and misogyny. Thus, although the context of debates on consecrated virginity may help explain the extremity of Ambrose's language and nuance our understanding of bis thought, the ways that the images may have influenced later tradition nevertheless make them relevant. Finally, what Ambrose does not say is as important as what he does say. In contrast with Paul and Augustine, Ambrose is not particularly concemed with sexual duties in marriage. On the whole, references to sex within marriage are scarcely mentioned, and in the place(s) where we do find an explicit reference, they merely serve as an example in a greater theme. For Ambrose, for spouses to have authority over each other's body means something closer to having authority over the spouse's 99 For more on this, see Peter Brown, The Bocfy and Society: Men, Women, and Sexua/ Renunciation in EarIY Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988). See also Moorhead, Ambrose: Church and Society in the Late Roman World. 100 De virginibus, pp. 367-368. 101 De vù;ginibus, p. 368. Gilbert 34 whole person, and lest we read this in too general of terms, his image of \vifehood as slavery offers a vivid illustration of the specificity of this authorit}'. Were we to read Ambrose with an expectation that sex in marriage worked according to the dictates of Paul and later Augustine, we would be disappointed. In places, Ambrose goes directly against what one would expect from other patristic writers; for example, Ambrose interprets Thecla as a married woman who refused intercourse with her husband after hearing Paul preach (this stands in contrast to the original, in which Thecla is betrothed).lOz Rather than pointing to 1 Cor 7: 3-4 to blame her for refusing the servitude which she should rightfully show her husband, Ambrose praises Thecla greatly.103 Such an example shows that the concept of the conjugal debt did not by any means come fully formed in Paul and continue unchanged through the centuries. For the next step in the chain connecting Paul to Gratian, we tum to Jerome. Jerome By tracing 1 Cor 7:3-5 through Jerome's extant works, we will find that Jerome interpreted these verses as a warning against marriage, which was characterized as a dangerous bond of slavery which separated the Christian from God. By and large, his words regarding 1 Cor 7 are aimed at men, warning them of the dangers posed by feminine flesh, though in his correspondence with women he encourages them toward abstinence and virginity as well. In places Jerome would indeed seem to condemn fust marnages. Commenting on 1 Cor 7:9, that "it is better to marry than to bum," Jerome writes, "If marnage in itself be good, do not compare it with fue, but simply say, 'It is good to marry.' 1 suspect the goodness of that thing which is forced into the position of being only the lesser of two evils. What 1 want is not a smaller evil, but a thing absolutely goOd.,,104 When these are paired with his more vituperative charactenzatlons of married life (many of which will follow) and ultimately ways in which marnage would seem antithetical to Christian practice, it is not difficult to see 102 For more on the Acts of Paul and Thecla in its own right, see Sheila E. McGinn, "The Acts of Thecla," in Searching the Scriptures, ed. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1994). 103 De virginibus III.19-21. 104 Adversusjovinianum, 1.9 (p. 352). Gilbert 35 wh)' Jerome's contemporanes believed him to be condemning aIl marnages, even fust ones. It would not be entirely fair to accept his contemporaries' charges that he was condemning tirst marriages, however. Although Adversus jovinianum does contain many strident passages which would seem to indicate this, Jerome argues to the contrary in numerous other works, saying that he did not mean to condemn marriage but merely illustrate that virginity was the superlatively better choice.105 Again and again Jerome insists that his words must be taken in their proper context, which is a comparison of virtues. For Jerome, as for Ambrose and Augustine, virtues could be classed in a hierarchy, with sorne meritorious acts or states ranking above others. When 1 Cor 7 was read in this way, the three categories available to women were placed into a hierarchy that privileged chastity, so virgins were the most virtuous, followed by widows, then wives.106 Thus when Agemchia, an aristocratic widow, wrote to Jerome for counsel on whether to take a second marriage, he replied, "You set before me the joys of wedlock. l for my part will remind you of Dido's sword and pyre and funeral flames. In marriage there is not so much good to be hoped for as there is evil which may happen and must be feared.,,107 For Jerome, the 'evil which may happen and must be feared' in marnage resulted from two problems: fust, sexuality posed a great threat to Christian salvation, and secondly, the everyday involvements of married life were a distraction from devotion to God. In both of these, 1 Cor 7 stands at the base of his reasoning. Jerome had a deep mistrust of the body and pleasure and frequently made arguments according to nature to support his positions. In Adversus jovinianum, he insists, "it is a violation of nature to revel in pleasure,,,108 and even writes that the lOS See, for example, Epist. XLVIII ta Pammachius, especially 12, where he summarizes bis clarification that Against Jovinian was written not ta defame marriage but rather ta praise virginity; Epist.CXXIII to Ageruchia, 9, where he c01ll1llends ftrst lllarriagcs outright and allows sorne space for second marriages; Epist.XXII ta Eustochium, especially 19-20, where he insists he is not trying ta detract from wedlock; a~d finaIly Adversus helvidium, 22, in which he writes, "1 beseech my readers not ta suppose that in praising virginity 1 have in the least rusparaged marnage." In the interest of reading with a hermeneutic of generosity rather than suspicion, we will- for now - take Jerome at his ward. 106 This virgin-widow-wife hierarchy is very much present in merueval canon law as weIl. For more on this, see Metz, La Femme Et L'enfant Dans Le Droit Canoniquè Médiéval. p. 95. 107 Jerome, Epist.CXXIII ta Ageruchia, 14, p. 235. He goes on ta reference the insatiability of passlOn. 108 Adversusjovinianum, II.9 (p. 395). Gilbert 36 mere recoUection of having had sex is sinfu1. 1119 In an argument that his contemporaries would have immediately recognized as being according to nature, at the end of Adverslls joviniantlm Jerome draws an elaborate sketch of human history to assert that in aU times and in aU cultures virginity was more highly valued than sexual 0 practice. 11 If it was problematic for any human being to be sexuaUy active, the act posed special dangers for Christians. In some sense, for Jerome prayer and sex were antithetical; where there was sex, prayer could not be present. Coupling this principle with Paul's injunction in 1 Thess 5:17 to pray without ceasing and the injunction in 1 Cor 7:3-4 that kept spouses sexuaUy active with each other, Jerome saw a great flaw in the marital bond. "So long as the debt of marriage is paid, earnest prayer is neglected,,,lll Jerome asserted in AdverslIs helvidillm. In Adversus jovinianum, his words show the direct reflection of 1 Cor 7:3-4: "If we are to pray always, it foUows that we must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as 1 render my wife her due, 1 cannot pray.,,112 And when he wrote to Eustochius, he wrote, "the apostle bids us pray without ceasing, and that he who in the married state renders his wife her due cannot so pray. Either we pray always and are virgins, or we cease to pray that we may fulfù the daims of marriage."l13 The second great flaw of marriage was that it demanded attention and detracted from God. Here, drawing on the words in 1 Cor 7:34, that the "unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband," Jerome tended to address his reasoning toward women. In AdverslIs helvidium, Jerome paints a vivid picture of the aristocratic wife: she is anxious about her appearance and ever seeks to improve upon God's handiwork with cosmetics, and wears herself out overseeing cooks, weavers, and 109 Adversus jovinianum, 1.33 (pp. 370-371). 110 Adversus jovinianum, 1.41. Such argwnents ("in all titnes and in aIl cultures") are argwnents according to nature; for more on this and other types of arguments according to nature in antiquity, see Bernadette J. Brooten, "Nature, Law, and Custom in Augustine's on the Good of Marriage," in Walk in the Wqys ofWisdom: Essqys in Honor ofElisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, ed. Shelly Matthews, Cynthia Briggs Kittredge, and Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003). pp. 182-184. 111 Advenus helvidium, 22 (p.344). 112 Adversusjovinianum, 1.7 (p. 351). 113 Jerome, Epist.XXII to Eustochium, 22 (p.31). Note that Gratian quotes this letter in the Decretum at C32.qS.c11. Gilbert 37 maids, all part of managing the affairs of the household. "The wife, like a swallow, flies all over the house ... .Tell me, pray, where amid all this is there room for God?,,114 This anxiety is all-pervasive within marriage, Jerome asserts: even when there is no marital discord per se, the work inyolyed in being a wife takes away from attention to God. "The very management of the household, the education of the children, the wants of the husband, the correction of the servants, cannot fail to call away the mind from the thought of God.,,115 Writing to Eustochius, he states that his objective is not "to recount the drawbacks of marriage, such as pregnancy, the crying of infants, the torture caused by a rival, the cares of household management, and all those fancied blessings which death at last cuts short,,116 - but succeeds in reminding her quite well all the same. Thus by distracting from God and taking attention away from prayer, marriage tended to distance individual Christians from God. Yet more than this, marriage subjugated spouses to each other in a fotm of slavery. Jerome reminds Ageruchia of this, f:trst citing 1 Cor 7:38-40 and then alluding to 1 Cor 7:3-4 to remind her that she is now free where she once had been bound: "Marriage then is a bond, and widowhood is the loosing of it. The wife is bound to the husband and the husband to the wife; and so close is the tie that they have no power over their own bodies, but each stands indebted to the other. They who are under the yoke of · f h' . ,,117 wedl oc k h ave not the ophon 0 c OOSlng contlnence. Jerome saw three main dichotomies at work ln 1 Cor 7: free/slave, uncircumcised/ circumcised, and caring for the things of God/ caring for the things of a wife. All of these were metaphors for virginity and marriage, respectively. 118 When 1 Cor 7 is read through such a lens, passages that contemporary scholars read as digressions stand out as central to a unif:ted and coherent whole.ll9 Thus for 114 Adversus helvidium, 22 (p.344). 115 Adversus helvidium, 22 (p.344). Note again the aristocratie normativity of the passage. 116 Jerome, Epist.XXlI to Eustochium, 2 (p. 23). 117 Jerome, Epist.CXXlII to Ageruchia, 5 (p. 231). 118 The first two he cites in Adversusjovinianum 1.11; the last he added to the list in his Epist.CXXIII to Ageruchia 5 (p. 231). 119 Elizabeth A. Clark, Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and S cripture in Ear!J Christianiry (princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999). Gilbert 38 Jerome, 1 Cor 7:21-24 demonstrated that marri age was a form of slavery120 by Paul's own admission, and gave instruction to those men who were married before conversion.12l Thus when Jerome read, "Were you a slave when caIled? Do not be concemed about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever,,,122 he interpreted it as, "Men: were you husbands at the cime of your conversion? Do not free yourself from your wife." In Advcrsus jovinianum Jerome supports this with 1 Cor 7:2, which he interprets as permission to stay with a wife, though on account of 1 Cor 7:1 it really would have been better had the man never married (and thus touched a woman) to begin with.123 By Jerome's own words,124 gender cannot be ignored in these areas, one sex substituted for another. These principles did not work the s,ame way. After aIl, 1 Cor 7:1 did not indicate that it was good for spouses to refrain from touching each other, but rather that it was good not to touch a woman. For Jerome, this verse served as a waming of the grave danger posed by feminine flesh: "He [the Aposde] did not say, it is good not to have a wife: but, it is good not to touch a woman: as though there were danger in even in her touch: as though he who touched her, would not escape from her who 'hunteth for the precious life,' who causeth the young man's understanding to fly away.,,125 Jerome further asserts that Joseph fled Potiphar's wife because she had touched him: "and, as if he had been bitten by a 120 As with Ambrose, it would be a mistake to aUow this principle to become more caricature than charactenzation. In Adversus jovinianum, Jerome wams, "And that the lot of a woman might not seem like a hard one, reducing her to the condition of a slave to her husband, the Aposde recalls the ancient law and goes back to the first example." (Adversus jovinianum, 1.27 (pp.366-367) Citing Adam and Eve, he seems to argue that the subservience of a wife to her husband is naturaUy embedded in the conditions of the FaU: as Eve seduced Adam into eating the fruit, a sort of unnatural leadership in which the man foUowed the woman, her punishment was to be subjected to him, thus setting the natural order aright. This example is the exception, however; by and large, he uses a language of slavery to describe the marital relationship. 121 In Adversus jovinianum, 1.7, he asserts that this was the original situation at Corinth. Note the gendered aspect of this principle: Jerome also castigated Christian women who remained married to unbelieving husbands, in sharp contra st with 1 Cor 7:13 (which he omits from his citation of the passage) and at variance with other patristic rules which insisted on the permanence of the marital bond. SeeAdversusjovinianum 1.10 (p.353). 122 1 Cor 7:21 (NRSV) 123 Adversus jovinianum, 1.7 (p. 351). 124 Giving his exegesis of 1 Cor 7:1-9 (''But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." (NRSV), Jerome writes, "the whole question here concems those who are married men." Adversusjovinianum, 1.7 (p. 351). 125 Adversus jovinianum, 1.7 (p. 350). The danger of the touch seems to be in its transmission of the knowledge of sex difference, something akin to the Fall in the Garden: "As then he who touches fire is instandy burned, so by the mere touch the peculiar nature of man and woman is perceived, and the difference of sex is understood." (Adversus jovinianum, 1.7 (p. 350) Gilbert 39 mad dog and feared the spreading poison, threw away the cloak which she had touched.,,126 Starting with this verse, Jerome also equates women and Wlves, compounding the danger which could ensnare good Christian men. In Adversus jovinianum, Jerome quotes Proverbs 9:13, "The foolish and bold woman comes to want bread" and equates it with bread From heaven," foIlowing this up with the saying, "Like a worm in wood, so a wicked woman desttoyeth her husband.,,127 He then quotes Proverbs 25:24 as "it is better to dweIl in the corner of the housetop, than with a contentious woman ID a house in common," and remarks that "'A continuaI dropping on a wintty day' tutns a man out of doors, and so will a contentious woman drive a man From his own house. She floods his house with her constant nagging and daily chatter, and ousts him From his own home, that is the Church.,,128 With a deft sttoke, the danger of touching a woman in 1 Cor 7:1 is joined to a more general fear of woman as an impediment to salvation. Jerome continues, quoting Proverbs 30: 15-16 and explaining, "It is not the harlot, or the adulteress who is spoken of; but woman's love in general is accused of ever being insatiable; put it out, it bursts into flame; give it plenty, it is again in need; it enervates a man's mind, and engrosses ail thought except the passion which it feeds.,,129 Just as the wife is anxious about pleasing her husband rather than pleasing God, her insatiable sexuality will make the husband anxious as weil, again taking cime away From prayer and attention From God. And lest we think that Jerome is referring only to bad wives, he makes it clear that he is referring to any and ail women: "See how a wife is classed with the greatest evils. But if you reply that it is an odious wife, 1 will give you the same answer as before - the mere possibility of such danger is in itself no light matter. For he who marries a wife is uncertain whether he is marrying an odious woman or one worthy of his love. If she be odious, she is intolerable. If worthy of love, her love is compared to the grave, to the parched earth, and to ftte.,,130 126 Adversus jovinianum, 1.7 (pp. 350-351). 127 Adversusjovinianum, 1.28 (pp. 367-368). 128 Adversus jovinianum, 1.28 (pp. 367-368). 129 Adversusjovinianum, 1.28 (p. 367). 130 Adversus jovinianum, 1.28 (pp. 367-368). Gilbert 40 In these words we might find a hint of the real tragedy of flfst marriages: that a man who had freedom chose to enslave himself to a woman, and thus inherently but unnecessarily placed himself in a precarious position. In discussing the bond of marriage as described in 1 Cor 7:3-4, Jerome differs From Ambrose in that he aImost exclusively refers to the husband being bound to the wife, and immediately follows this with reminders of the treachery of women, their allures, and the dangers of their touch. Marriage poses an unnecessary risk to the man: why choose slavery when freedom is already hiS?131 One can aImost hear a note of woe in Jerome's words when he writes, "But inasmuch as he who is once mamed has no power to abstain except by mutual consent, and may not reject an unoffending partner, let the husband render unto the wife her due. He bound himself voluntarily that he might b e un d er compul Sion . to rend' er lt. ,,132 Yet did Jerome always requite the husband to render the debt? Several passages seem to hint that another option was available, inspired by 1 Cor 7:5 but in no way strictly adhering to it. First, in some sense, it must be possible for husbands to free themselves From wives: in Adversus jovinianum, Jerome quotes Luke 18:29-30 to assert that the disciples left their wives behind to follow J esus.133 Although Jesus' prohibition against divorce seems important to him in other places, here Jerome leaves it in silence. Secondly, Jerome would clearly pre fer that no sex happen in marriage: "If we abstain from intercourse, we give honour to our wives: if we do not abstain, it is clear that insult is the opposite of honour";134 he also writes, "If Christ loves the Church holily, chastely, and without spot, let husbands also love their wives and chastity."135 Finally, in Adversusjovinianum, Jerome cites Gal 6:78 and then writes, "1 think that he who has a wiEe, so long as he reverts to the practice in question, that Satan may not tempt him, is sowing to the flesh and not to the Spirit. And he who 131 See particruarlyAdversusjovinianum, L28 (pp.367-368). 132 Adversusjovinianum, 1.7 (p. 351). 133 Adversus jovinianum, 1.26 (p. 365). Jerome shows no concem for what became of those women, an insensitivity echoed in places where he upbraids Christian women who have not left their husbands while giving no suggestion for how they might do so under the system who se creation he himself was a part of, and in Epist.LV to Amand, 4, where he seems unable to imagine how a woman might ever be coerced to marry. Gratian himself quotes this passage in the Decre!um at C32.q7.c7. 134 Adversusjovinianum, l, 7 (p. 351). 135 Adversusjovinianum, 1,16 (p. 359). Gilbert 41 sows to the flesh (the words are not mine but the Apostle's) reaps corruption.,,136 Here Jerome makes an allusion to 1 Cor 7:5 and then pits Paul against Paul; he clearly is not enamored of the second half of 1 Cor 7:5, which would require the husband to 'revert to the practice in question.' The way that these verses work together for Jerome is not entirely clear, but his letter to Rusticus may preserve an instance of Jerome's understanding of 1 Cor 7:5 at work. Rusticus and bis wife Artemia made a vow of continence and broke it; aithough she traveled away to do penance, Rusticus remained behind. Jerome writes to convince him to make good on bis promise and follow in contrition. 137 Describing what happened, Jerome implicitly gives his interpretation of 1 Cor 7:5: ''Your former wife, who is now your sis ter and fellow-servant, has toid me that, acting on the apostolic precept, you and she lived apart by consent that you might give yourselves to prayer; but that after a cime your feet sank beneath you as if resting on water and indeed - to speak plainly - gave way altogether.,,138 Here it would seem that to Jerome at least, 1 Cor 7:5 indicated that spouses who mutually vowed chastity did so in a permanent way, extending their promise into eternity. Tbis strengthens the impression from above that 'reverting to the practice in question' was not an emphasized (or even accepted) aspect of 1 Cor 7:5. Intriguingly, Jerome also writes that by their vow of continence, Rusticus should understand that Artemia is "no longer your wife, but sister and fellow servant.,,139 The full implication of these words is not clear, but may provide a promising Iead for further research into the variety of ascetic renunciation between married couples in 140 the patristic age. For now, we turn to Augustine. Augustine By tracing 1 Cor 7:3-5 through Augustine's treatises, letters, and sennons, we will fmd that Augustine interpreted the 'authority' of 1 Cor 7:4 in dramatically 136 Adversus jovinianum, l, 38. 137 Thus unlike Augustine, from] erome we do have an instance of bis writing to a man to encourage him to make good on bis half in a situation reminiscent of 1 Cor 7:3-5. However, in this case,]erome employs Paul's words only indirecdy; bis concem that Rusticus was bound to .Artemia comes across much louder. 138 Jerome, Epist.CXXII to Rusticus, 4 (p. 229). From the letter it is clear that Jerome blames Rusticus for this lapse much more than he blames Artemia. 139 Jerome, Epist.CXXII to Rusticus, 1 (p. 225). 140 Such a project is unfortunately outside the scope of this thesis. Gilbert 42 different ways for women and men: for women, it means respecting the lordship of their husbands in matters both social and sexual, but for men, it means avoiding the sexual sin inherent to adultery. Augustine's theology of marriage141 is most clearly outlined in De bono coniugali, in which Augustine identifies three goods of marriage: proIes, the bonding of society in the procreation of children, fides, the mutual fidelity of spouses, and sacramentum, the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage. Of these three, fides is the most relevant to our purposes here, being rooted in 1 Cor 7:3-4 and concemed with the sexual access of one spouse to another. If marriage is rooted in the bonding of society that procreation brings about, as he writes in the beginning of De bono coniugali,142 Augustine considers that spouses have a "duty of fidelity" to each other in this matter, and connects it with Paul's use of "authority" in 1 Cor 7:4.143 In discussingfides, Augustine's first focus is not on sex within marriage, but rather adultery. Indeed, the question of adultery caused the bishop considerable concem, and much offides rests on the firm foundation of this concem. Augustine is clear that a breach of this fidelity by either partner constitutes adultery. 144 Thus, within marriage, spouses owe each other their sexual favors to help each other avoid adultery: "in a certain way they owe each other a mutual service to relieve each other's weakness, and thereby avoid illicit unions.,,145 And fmally, because this ourlet is so important, spouses may not vow themselves to chastity without the other's consent. Augustine envisions a permanent vow of chastity, contrary to Paul's instructions in 1 Cor 7:5, and thus advises that such a vow be made in aIl seriousness. Should one spouse wish to be abstinent but the other be unwilling, Augustine reassures the willing spouse that rendering sexual services upon a spouse's demand is 141Note that these instructions are aimed at persons of a high enough class to be legally married. For a discussion of Augustine's views on concubinage, see Kim Power, "Sed Unam Tamen: Augustine and His Concubine," Augustinian Studies 23 (1992). 142 It could be said that for Augustine lllarriage contains the sinfulness of sex; the "one honorable fruit"· of the "sexual conjunction" of husband and wife is "the bonding of society in its children." (De bono coniugali, 1 (p. 33)) Sex was to be used strictly within marriage and strictly for the purpose of procreation. However, should a spouse wish to have intercourse more cimes than was strictly necessary for procreation, the bond of marriage would be enough to reduce the sin to a venial level. [De bono coniugali, 6 (p.37)] Sex should always be of a 'natural' sort, however, and Augustine spoke often of the 'natural use of a woman', a phrase to which we will return later. 143 De bono coniugali, (p. 35). 144 De bono coniugali, 4 (p. 35). 145 De bono coniugali, 6 (p. 37). Gilbert 43 an act of charity, a point he states most concisely in Sermon 354A: "You are not demanding payment of the debt; pay it yourself. And insofar as you are paying what · r' k f ,,146 you are not a1 50 d eman dmg, you are penormtng a wot 0 mercy. Finally, remarriage while the ex-spouse was still alive constituted adultery, as the authority over a body created by the bonds of marnage lasted a lifetime.147 At this point,fides would appear to function equally for either partner. Yet it is impossible to fully understand fides without understanding that for Augustine the marital bond was inherendy an unequal one, tied to questions of status and inequality. Augustine seems to be unable to envision an equal relationship between two individuals, whether it be between two men or a woman and a man. Despite places in which he hints at a comparuonate theory of marriage, he is unable to rid himself of questions of status.148 In the Brst paragraph of De bono coniugali, Augustine considers the possibility of marriage without sexuality, and concludes that there would still be an honorable way for the sexes to have a kind of union, "for those who walk together, and look ahead together to where they are walking, do so at each other's side.,,149 Couched within this beautiful image is a certain inequality, though: had the Fall not disturbed human sexuality, "there could have been between the two sexes a certain relationship of friendship and kinship where one is in charge and the o ther compli ant. ,,150 Al·re atlons hi p b etween equa1 s dA'oes not occur to ugustlne. 151 If the relationship cannot be equal, in what way is it unequal? In De bono coniugali, Augustine postulates a "secret law of nature,,152 that states that "dominant 146 Augustine, Sermones 354A, Dolbeau 12, Mainz 41 (p. 328). 147 De bono coniugali, 4 (p. 35). Augustine directIy cites 1 Cor 7:4 in support of This. By forbidding remarriage, Augustine privileges sexual concems and ignores the companionate aspect ofhis theory. 148 In sorne senses, the insistence that companionate marriage must entail equality between partners is a contemporary one. In other senses, This issue creates tension Augustine's own writings: hints at companionship must be buttressed with reassurances of the husband's lordship over the wife, and in places we are forced to ask what recourse a wife has when her husband is not leading her down a good, healthy, or even safe path - a point to be developed at greater length in what foilows. 149 De genesi ad litteram, p. 33. 150 De genesi ad litteram, p. 33. 151 This is true as regards male-male relationships as weil; in De genesi ad litteram, Augustine asserts that, had a second man been created instead of a woman, their order of creation would have detenniued their status. p.75. Note, too, that in response to Paul's injunction to serve one another through love, Augustine writes, "Hence married persons through love can serve one another, but St. Paul does not allow a woman to rule over a man." Quoted in Margaret R. l\fiJ.es, Camai Knowing: Female Nakedness and Religious Meaning in the Christian West (New York: Vintage Books, 1991). p. 96. 152 De bono coniugali, 17, 20 (p. 48). For more on This, see Brooten, "Nature, Law, and Custom in Augustine's on the Good ofJlvfarriage." Gilbert 44 forces love singularity; but in the case of subordinate ones it is appropriate not only for each to be subject to one superior, but, if natural or social considerations allow it, even for several to be subject to the same superior.,,153 Masters and slaves are an example of this: one master might have many slaves, but how might a slave serve many masters?154 Likewise, given the example of pregnancy, a man may impregnate several women, but a woman can only be made pregnant by one man.155 In De nuptiis et concupiscentia, Augustine reprises this theme, stating that "nature loves singleness in her dominations.,,156 Citing 1 Cor 6:3, Col 3:18, and 1 Pet 3:6, Augustine concludes that "it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men.,,157 By nature itself, Augustine reasons, the relationship between husband and wife is 'naturally' one of lordship, a term charged W1·th tones 0 f s1 avery. 158 The Genesis narrative in book 2:4-25 lends further support for Augustine's argument that both God and nature ordain the domination of women by men. In Book Nine of De Genesi ad litteram,159 Augustine turns his attention to Eve's creation. In creating Eve, God had set out to create a helper for Adam; considering the various possibilities, Augustine concludes that help was to be in procreation, for a male comparuon could have better tilled the soil and kept intellectual company.160 In short, because Augustine believes that fertility is the only realm in which women exceed men, he fmds it necessary to conclude that the woman was created to bear children:161 "For what other purpose, then, was a female helper similar to the man unless it was to have the female sex assist in the sowing of the human race, as the 153 De bono coniugali, 17,20 (p. 48). 154 De bono coniugali, 17,20 (p. 48). 155 De bono coniugali, 17, 20 (p. 48). 156 De nuptiis et concupiscentia, p. 268. Part of bis concem here is explaining why the Old Testament patriarchs could have had numerous wives, while in no instance did a woman have many husbands. 157 De nuptiis et concupiscentia, p. 267. As Metz writes, «Augustin invoke [sic] l'ordo naturalis; mais tout porte à croire que pour l'évêque d'.Hippone J'ordo naturaJis signifie, en l'occurrence, tout sitnplelllent la situation de fait dans laquelle se trouvait la femme à l'époque.)} Metz, La Femme Et L'enfant Dans Le Droit Canonique Médiéval. p. 383. 158 :Nliles writes that "[Augustine's] agenda for bis own society was clearly to counsel maintenance of gender relations that can, without exaggeration, be simply designated as slavery." lVliles, CamaI Knowing: Female Nakedness and Religious Meaning in the Christian West. pp. 96-97. 159 Augustine worked extensively with Genesis over the course of bis lifetime. This work has been chosen because it represents Augustine's most mature formulations of its meaning. 160 De genesi ad lit/eram, p. 75. 161 De genesi ad littcram, p. 75. Gilbert 45 fertility of the earth does in the sowing of the crops?,,162 Because Eve stands for all women, her creation will indicate most fully the natural and divinely ordained place of women in Creation: a secondary place, both in the literaI sense of having been created second,163 and in the figurative sense ofbeing passive soil in which the man's active seed can work,l64 "made for the man, from the man.,,165 To be sure, their procreative abilities are an integral part of Augustine's plan to redeem marnage through its offspring: "tbis is what may be called the rule of marriage: by it the fertility of nature is made honorable and the disorder of concupiscence is regulated.,,166 But to grant them an equal place in this endeavor is against what Augustine has in mind; Eve is a helper to Adam, and women are to be under their husbands' lordsbip. To be sure, whenever Augustine discusses the lordsbip of men over women, he is clear that husbands should be considerate toward their wives. In De adulterinis coniugiis, he writes that men guilty of adultery should be punished more severely than women, since "it is their role to surpass women in virtue and lead them by example. 1 am speaking, of course, to Christian men, who listen with faith to the words, The man is the head rif the woman (Eph. 5:23), and so acknowledge that they are the leaders, and women their companions. It follows that in the way he lives a man must be careful not to go down any path where he is frightened bis wife might follow by imitating him.,,167 Augustine expounded on this version of the Golden Rule in bis sermons as well: "If you're the head, lead, and let her follow; but see where you are leading her. Y ou're the head; lead her where she should follow; and don't go where you wouldn't like her to follow. In order not to tumble over a precipice, take care you walk a1 ong t h e sttalg. h t path .,,168 162 De genesi ad litteram, p. 80. 163 Augustine states that, had a man been created as a helper instead, their order of creaùon would have determined their standing. De genesi ad litteram, p. 75. 164 Note the similarity with Aristotle's theory of conception (treated in Chapter Three). 165 De genesi ad lit/eram, p. 82. 166 De genesi ad lit/eram, p. 78. 167 De adu/terinis coniugiis, pp. 170-171. 168 Augustine, Sermones 332, p. 196. See also Sermones 392, pp.423-424 for a similar statement. Note that both are in the context of adultery; in the aim of reading with a henneneutic of sympathy rather than suspicion, 1 have taken the statements to apply more generally, though my reader should decide for herself whether or not they can be expanded in this way. Gilbert 46 Thus while it would be unfair to cast Augustine as a stem patriarch demanding the absolute submission of a wife to her husband's unjust whims, the question begs itself: what recourse does a wife have if her husband does not lead her down a good path? Augustine is silent on the matter. In De bono coniuga/i, Augustine writes that when a husband wishes to "use a part of the woman's body that was not 169 given for this purpose" - in short, engage in anal sex - "the wife is more shameful if she ailows this to be done to herself than if she ailows it to be done to sorne other woman.,,170 Augustine does not indicate how the wife would protest, nor do es he use his authority as bishop to grant women the authority to deny their husbands' authority over their bodies in this matter, nor does he show the least concem for the woman who would be handed over in the wife's stead.l7l To say that Augustine's silence here is troubling is to put it mildly. Augustine would seem to offer a solution to at least this example, at least initiaily. In Sermon 354A, an exegesis on 1 Cor 7:1-11, he writes: "The woman, after ail, is subordinate to the man, and making decisions is the man's job, complying with them the woman's. However, in this matter in which both sexes come together, while in ail others the woman should be the man's servant, in this matter, l'm telling you, their status is equal.,,172 But what did Augustine mean by equality? By examining places in the Augustinean corpus that touch on this principle, we can discover that this equal status meant different things for either sex: for women, it meant being faithful to their husbands and respecting the proper order of man over woman, while for men it meant avoiding the sexual sin incurred in adultery. For Augustine, 1 Cor 7 means that wives should be faithful to husbands and respect the proper order. Nowhere is this brought into as sharp relief as it is in Augustine's letter to Ecdicia. Perhaps inspired by ascetic movements which ailowed 169 ~A.ugustine is more frank in De nuptiis et contupiscentia, where he states that the "natural use of a ",oman" is airned solely at reproduction, and that "unnatural use" is that ",hich uses any non reproductive part of the woman's body (p. 297). For more on this interpretation of Augustine's words, see also Brooten, "Nature, Law, and Custom in Augustine's on the Good of l\1arriage." 170 De bono coniuga/i, 11, 12 (p. 43). 171 In her lecture at McGill University in the spring of 2006, Brooten emphasized the common nature of this unconcern in both theology and law. Bernadette Brooten, "Slavery's Long Shadow over the Lives of Girls and Women" (paper presented at the Annual Birks Lecture Series (''Women, Slavery, and Early Christianity"), McGill University Faculty of Religious Studies, Montreal, QC., 2006). 172 Augustine, Sermones 354A, Dolbeau 12, Mainz 41, pp. 323-333. Again, anci/Ia is better rendered as 'slave.' Gilbert 47 women greater autonomy,m Ecdicia had dedicated herself to abstinence, begun to dress as a widow, and gave away her property as alms ta a pair of wandering monks. Her husband initiaily resisted the arrangement but reluctandy vowed himself to chastity after seeing her determination. His resolve was not as strong as hers, though, and he eventuaily found a mistress. Augustine was deeply troubled by Ecdicia's actions, which he felt had created a 'scandal of discord' in her husband's house.174 In his letter to Ecdicia, Augustine frequendy makes use of 1 Cor 7:3-4 to urge Ecdicia back into the form of marriage which he believes will create the greatest concord in society - namely, one in which the 'secret law of nature' that ensures a husband's lordship is foilowed. Augustine begins by emphasizing the importance of joint agreement in vows of continence. He is deeply aggrieved that her husband had "plunged into a deeper destruction,,175 and places the blame of this loss squarely on Ecdicia's shoulders: "1 was deeply saddened that you chose to act with your husband in such a way that the edifice of continence that had already begun to be built in him feil wretchedly into the ruin of adultery once he lost his perseverance.,,176 Augustine seems to feel that Ecdicia had pressured her husband into vowing chastity and, quoting 1 Cor 7:1-5, reminds her that such vows must be made by both spouses together, and that if the situation had been reversed, that her husband should have paid the debt he owed her in order to prevent her from being tempted by sexual sin and incontinence.J77 "But, as 1 said, 1 omit this," Augustine says after expounding upon this point at length, and adds seemingly as an afterthought that her husband had indeed agreed to abstain ftom "what, with licit authority, he could have demanded concerning your body."178 Thus after two paragraphs of possibilities and the ory, he essentiaily drops the subject. Augustine does this because sexual intercourse and vows of chastity are not the true issue at hand here. Rather, what troubles Augustine is the 'scandal of 173 For more on the se movements, see Virginia Burrus, Chastity as Autonomy: Women in the Stones of the ApocryphalActs, Studies in Women and Religion (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1987). 174 Augustine, Epist.262 to Ecdicia, 9 (p. 207). 175 Ibid., 1 (p. 203). 176 Ibid., 1 (p. 203). 177 Ibid., 2 (p. 204). This is a consistent position; see also Sermones 354A, Dolbeau 12, Mainz 41, pp.323-324. 178 Ibid., 4 (p. 205). Gilbert 48 discord,179 that Ecdicia has created in her husband's house by acting as his equal. That her husband had agreed to abstain From exercising his authority over her in matters of sexuality did not mean that his lordship over her was in any way diminished. Augustine is quite dear that joint agreement to chastity, while it does raise the marriage to a higher state, does not dissolve those other ties between husband and wife that bind them in an unequal situation. Rather, Augustine says, recognizing his sacrifice, Ecdicia should have been ail the more submissive to him. 180 Even if he had wanted her to wear the garb of a married woman, his requirements would not have been so terrible - "he would not, after ail, have forced you into an indecent manner of dressing," Augustine assures her, though adds as an afterthought that, like Queen Esther, she could have still had "a humble heart in your proud attire.,,181 But by dressing as a widow, Ecdicia was publidy elevating herself to a position to which she had no daim. Augustine thus rebukes her for changing her dress and so scandalizing and holding in contempt the man to whom she was bound.182 In Augustine's mind, this 'unnatural' subversion of the hierarchy escalates in Ecdicia's decision to give away her property herself: this is the last straw that pushed her husband to commit adultery, he says, and rues the fact that she took on this action single-handedly without fust going to her husband to gain his permission. Proper channels were not followed, he says: even if at flrst her husband did not want to give away the property, he could have learned greater generosity "if he had not been stung by your unexpected outlays but had been coaxed to do so by the docility expected of yoU.,,183 Augustine raises doubts that the mendicant men were in fact monks, questioning wh ether men of God would take property From a woman without fltst gaining the approval of the man to whom she was tied.184 Invoking her maternaI role, Augustine questions what will become of her son, who might have beneflted From this inheritance.185 By far the worst result, though, was her husband's 179 Ibid., 9 (p. 207). 180 Ibid., 4 (p. 205). 181 Ibid., 10 (p. 207). 182 Ibid., 4 (p. 205) and 9-10 (pp. 207-208). 183 Ibid., 5 (p. 205). 184 Ibid., 6 (p. 206). 185 Ibid., 8 (pp. 206-207). Gilbert 49 adultery, brought about because of Ecdicia's 'thoughdessness'; in his anger over this, Augustine states that sexual mercy given to a person about to be snatched by the devil is of greater ment than bread given to a poor person starving to death186 - a pointed comment to a person who had just given the encirety of her earthly belongings as alms to the poor. Augustine's closing words provide us with the key to the encire affair: "1 have written these things to you not in order that l might break your holy commitment by my words but because l was in sorrow over what your husband did on account of your disorderly and thoughdess action. Y ou ought to think most seriously about how to undo the damage to him, if you truly want to belong to Christ.,,187 Interestingly - and in sharp contrast with Paul - Augustine is quite willing to aIlow Ecdicia to remain perpetuaIly abstinent. Though in 1 Cor 7:5 Paul would have wished for the couple to come back together, Augustine's pervasive distrust of sexual desire and practice would seem to cause him to overlook this clause. It is also not insignificant that we lack a letter to Ecdicia's husband. Despite Augustine's concem for his etemal soul and sorrow over her husband's behavior, nowhere does Augustine address him to calI him back to proper Christian behavior. This silence speaks volumes: the real issue is Ecdicia's "disorderly and thoughdess action,"188 the ways in which she rejected her husband's lordship over her. Augustine's response to Ecdicia demonstrates that when asked about women, Augustine will respond that the heart of 1 Cor 7:3-4 is the proper lordship of the husband over the wife. But what of the wife's authority over her husband? Augustine does invoke this as weIl, but with significandy different means and aims. He gives his explicit formulation of this in Sermon 332, where he fltst reads out 1 Cor 7:4 to demonstrate the authority of a husband over a wife: "It's true; the bishop has put his signature to these matrimonial tablets; YOur wives are your servants, you are the lords and masters of your wives. But when it comes to that business in which the sexes are distinguished, and each sex is mated with the other, the wifi does not have authon!) over her own bo4J, but the husband does."189 The husband's lordship over his wife is 186 Ibid., 6 (p. 206). 187 Ibid., 11 (p. 208). 188 Ibid., 11 (p. 208). 189 Augustine, S ermones 332, p. 196, citation from 1 Cor 7 italicized. Gilbert 50 reinforced, both in sexual matters and in a broader sense; further down, Augustine reas sure s h1S· ma l e audi ence, saymg.", you re t h e master, sesh' t h e servant. ,,190 Yet Augustine interprets 'authority' in a profoundly different manner when he turns to the second part of the verse. Reading aloud the statement that gives the wife authority over the husband's body, Augustine tells the men in his congregation, "Be happy to listen to that. It's vice, not authoriry, that's being taken away From you. It's your adulteries that are being forbidden, not women that arc bcing raiscd up to cqualiry."191 While the husband's authority over the wife's body reaches into many reahns, the authority of a wife over a husband is limited to the sexual reahn, translating to a forbidding of adultery. This sermon shows quite plainly that for Augustine the twin 'authorities' in 1 Cor 7:3 were neither equal nor of the same sort. Whereas a husband's authority over his wife was all-pervasive, a foundation on which to establish a hierarchical relationship, the wife's authority over her husband is invoked to protect him From sexual sin. Such a mismatch in range and meaning predudes the idea of 'mutual' authorities, as does the way in which both ultimately serve the husband. In another sermon, Augustine again couches his challenge to male adultery in terms of the wife's authority according to 1 Cor 7:4 while continuing to assert the husband's authority in all other reahns. Speaking to the women of the congregation, Augustine says, "Don't let any impertinence be found in you, any pride, any shrewish answering back, any dis obedience; be in all respects at their service, at their beck and call."l92 But in the reahn of the sexual - "the business in which the blessed aposde made you their equals,,193 - Augustine exhorts the wives to speak up: "When it comes to this matter, daim your rights and insist on them.,,194 Augustine did not want Christian wives to show that sort of patience by which married women calmly tolerated their husband's shameless infidelities.195 Rather, he commended husbands to the custody of their wives/96 and although those wives should submissively 190 Augustine, S ermones 332, p. 196 Again, anci/Ia is better rendered 'slave'. 191 Augustine, Sermones 332, p. 196. Emphases added. 192 Augustine, Sermones 392, p. 423 193 Augustine, Sermones 392, p. 423 - here again he cites 1 Cor 7:3-4. 194 Augustine, Sermones 392, p. 423 195 My words here are a close paraphrase of Augustine, Sermones 392, pp. 422-423. 196 Augustine, Sermones 392, p. 422 Gilbert 51 tolerate any other vice in their husbands, they had a responsibility to speak up, "not lor1: th· elr b 0 d·'les sak e, b ut lor1: t h·err soul s ,,,19ï. Speaking to the women in his congregation, Augustine said, "Treat everything as of no account, for love of your husband. But require him to be chaste, fight with him over chastity. Accept the 10ss of your country cottage calmly and patiendy; but don't be calmly patient while your husband loses his SOul.,,198 In a culture where adultery was a 'female' crime and husbands were tacidy allowed if not expected to do as they liked sexually regardless of their wives, is both unusual and significant that Augustine should look to women and In· a sense grant them auth· ottty. 199 In his vehemence against male adultery, Augustine subverts the dominant paradigm of masculinity in his culture. In one sermon, after citing 1 Cor 7:3-4, he says, "Which of you would ever put up with an adulterous wife? And you bid women put up with adulterous husbands? There's justice for you! Why, l ask you, why? 'Because l, of course, am a man.' You're a man, are you? Let's prove that you're a man, in the matter of courage and strength. So you are a man, eh? Conquer lust. How are you a man, when your wife is the stronger, the braver of the two?"ZOO These words are followed inunediately with a reminder of the importance of the husband leading the wife along good paths. To be sure, Augustine is unusual in his vehemence that husbands should be faithful to their wives. Roman law did, after all, generally envision adultery as a 'female' crime. But we must not be too quick to read contemporary values of relational mutuality into his intentions. Not once does he speak regarding the emotional impact a betrayal would have on a wife.zo1 He is quite consistent, 197 Augustine, Sermones 392, p. 423 198 Augustine, Sermones 392, p. 423. .Augustine envisions other scenarios - the husband taking the woman's gold coins (dowry money?) for his own needs, selling her slave, or her cottage - and instructs the women to endure the se losses without complaint. There is a contra st with the Confossiones here, as in IX 9, 19 Augustine glorifies and sanctifies Moruca's silent and patient suffering both in terms of everyday matters and sexual infidelities. 199 Whether or not they were likely or even able to exercise it is another question. Regardless, Kim Power's criticism that Augustine is here blaming husband's adulteries on their wives is too resonant with contemporary discourses of 'blaming the victim' and too seemingly unaware of prevailing cultural standards to not be anachronistic. See Kim Power, Veiled Desire: Augustine on Women (New York: Continuum, 1996). 200 Augustine, Sermones 392, p. 423 201 Although it is often speculated that Patricius' infidelities to Monica are at the root of Augustine's insistence that husbands be faîthful to theîr wives, neither here, nor in the Confossiones, nor in other Gilbert 52 however, in warning against the dangers of sexual sin when speaking of adultery. Thus for a wife to have authority over her husband's body meant that he would avoid the sexual sin inherent to adultery (which ultimately was to his benefit rather than hers), while for a husband to have authority over his wife's body meant that she respected ms lordsmp in all realms, both sexual and social. For Augustine, the authorities of 1 Cor 7:4 were not twills but rather parts of a pair wmch ultimately served the man's interests. Conclusion Whether it 1S read in the works of Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, in its original form by Paul himself, or as set down in canon law by Gratian, there is significant evidence that 1 Cor 7:3-5 did not function in an equal manner but rather favored husbands over wives. Issues of power and submission doroinate these discours es. In Paul, the 'virgin' bound to a man who lacked authority over ms desire was told to submit to him, regardless of her wishes; whatever constituted her authority over ms body, it was not sufficient to ensure that she would be able to follow her vocation to asccticism. For Ambrose, wives were quite literally slaves whose husbands had authority over their whole persons, while Jerome saw husbands as slaves to sexual wives who separated the Christian man from God. Finally, Augustine viewed the husband's authority over the wife as all-encompassing while the wife's 'authority' did not strengthen her position but rather put her at her husband's disposal to protect him from sexual sin. Throughout these writings, the emphasis is not on mutuality or even mutual submission. Rather, the slavery-ridden overtones of 'authority over a body' are brought to the center. Indeed, if their asymmetrical use in these patristic sources is any indication, it would appear that the paired 'authorities' in 1 Cor 7:3-4 are ideal for institutionalizing the subordination of wives to husbands. Gratian's use of 1 Cor 7:3-4, strengthened with the sources investigated in this chapter, worked toward this end. As Elliott wntes, Gratian did not invent fema1e subordination. And yet he was responsib1e for assembling a devastating array of sources that had the effect of consolidating the husband's authority over his wife and ensuring the wife's consequent submission. The wife's 10ss was the husband's gain.202 works does Augustine so much as hint at the pain such betraya1s would cost wives. Rather, the issue is consistently one of sexual purity. 202 Elliott, Spiritual Marnage: S exual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock. p. 155. Gilbert 53 1I At flrst, this scem.s paradoxical for m.any.2 l l'et wc m.ight weil question wh eth cr a text which does not em.phasize the free will and devotion of partners to each other but chooses instead to codify their authority over each other's body is one which can in fact be positive. lndeed, such a notion is inherently unlikely to prom.ote mutuality and equality, but rather is more likely to breed concem over power, authority, and lack of choice. Whether the woman in question is a Corinthian ascetic or a medieval serf, the advice given is likely to parallel that to Ecdicia: recognize his authority over your body and avoid scandaIs of discord - advice weighted with the authority of the apostle (and ultimately Christ through him), and enforced with legal sanctions which were never applied to men. Read in its context, 'authority over a body' takes on an ominous tone indeed. 203 Metz himself puzzles over the ways that the church fathers took what appeared to him as an equality-driven tradition (he refers especially to Gal 3:28) and tumed it into an institutionalized fonu of misogyny. He is only able to conclude that "l'imagination de l'homme est féconde, quand la défense de ses intérêts est en jeu." Metz, La Femme Et L'enfant Dans Le Droit Canonique Médiéval. p. 65. Gilbert 54 CHAPTERTWO U nequal Bodies, U nequal Debts The very wording of 1 Cor 7:4 raises questions as to the nature of the body: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." Just as we questioned the meanings of 'authority' (È~oudîa, potestas) earlier in discussing Paul's words, we might identify the concept of 'body' (ac;)Jla,l corpus) as a specialized tetm needing attention. l propose that for the authority of each spouse to be equal to that of the other, in extent and power, at a minimum their bodies must be of equal value. In this chapter, however, l will demonstrate that the female and male bodies differed in significant ways, both physically and symbolically, for medieval thinkers. Once this is established, the question will sound more insistent than ever: what does it mean for spouses to have authority over each other's body when the bodies themselves are not equal? Three points direct my method here. The first is in the selection of sources. As Bynum writes, "Like the modern world, the Middle Ages was characterized by a cacophony of discourses."z Making sense out of this din has necessitated a sort of selective listening, particularly given the scope of this work. Isidore of Seville was a natural choice, given the extent to which Gratian quotes his work in the Decretum. 3 The other voices l have chosen to emphasize here - those of Aristotle and the Hippocratic-Galenic corpus - were chosen for their broad influence. Even so, l must include the caveat that this chapter could easily fotm an encire study itself. So that this streamlining will not render the work too abstract, in appropriate places l will indicate trajectories for further study. Secondly, a certain breadth has been required in tetms of cime span, as it would have been both unrealistic and artificial to have required the publication of 1 Here l am using Strong's New Testament Greek Lexicon (entry number 4983, 'soma') which identifies this word as being used for 'body' in 1 Cor 7:4. 2 Caroline Bynum, "Why AlI the Fuss About the Body?: A Medievalist's Perspective," Criticallnquiry 22, no. 1 (1995). p. 7. 3 -l\mong the many references, Gratian uses Isidore to discuss abduction (C.27, q.2, c.48), formation of marriage (betrothal is discussed at C.27, q.2, c.5 and consent at C.28, q.2, c.l), the veiling of brides (C.30, q.5, c.7), inheritance of status (C.32, q.4, c.15), and consanguinity (throughout C.35). Gilbert 55 medical texts to match up with the publication of the Decretum. The process of trans1ating ancient Roman and Greek texts from Arabic to Latin gave Western intellectuals their ftrst chance to read sources ftrsthand which in many cases they had previous1y only known secondhand; trus is certainly the case of Aristotle's On Animais Ca compilation of History rif Animais, Parts rif Animais, and On the Generation rif Animais), wruch Constantine translated into Latin in the 13th century, but whose ideas had never really 1eft the intellectual air, as it were. Furthermore, in many ways Gratian sounded the starting-gun for an immense amount of debate and development in canon law; Gratian's work was not done and over with by the time that On Animais was required reading at the universities in the late 13th century.4 A broader conception of time period is thus indicated.5 Finally, there is a difference between Aristotle as he was read in ancient Greece and Aristotle as he was read in the medieva1 West; as Cadden writes, presenting medieval thought as 'simply derivative' of classical thought is too simplistic.6 In presenting Aristotle and HippocratesjGa1en, l will endeavor to be sensitive to the difference between the texts in themselves and as received texts - a project wruch is complicated by the fact that medieva1 authors often did not cite or even know their sources.7 l will thus follow Cadden's lead, presenting Aristotle and HippocratesjGalen somewhat as they would have appeared in the Middle Ages, downplaying their original contexts and buttressing my interpretation of them with select medieval authors. In this way, it will be possible to provide a map to medieval ideas about the body without exhaustively charting a genealogy of beliefs regarding human physiology across more than a millennia of writings. 4 Joan Cadden, The Meanings ofS ex Difference in the Middle Ages (Catllbridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). p. 109. 5 The main authors that will be examined in this chapter include Aristode (b.384-d.322 BCE), 'Hippocrate s' (corpus of varying authorship assembled over centuries, perhaps completed by the 3rd century BCE), Galen (b.129-d.200/216 CE), Isidore of Seville (b.560-d.636 CE), Hildegard of Bingen (b.1098-d.1179 CE), and Thomas Aquinas (b.1225-d.1274 CE). A caveat must be included that their dates of birth and death are not as important as are the rimes their works were available to medieval European readers. 6 Cadden, The Meanings of S ex Difference in the Middle Ages. p. 11. 7 Ibid. p. 13. Gilbert 56 Gender and Cosmology In contemporary North American society, we make certain assumpuons about the body which allow us to accept 1 Cor 7:4 as an evenly weighted, reciprocal ethic. For instance, we see a distinction between the mind and body, and similarly tend to hold that 'gender' is culturally constructed while 'sex' is biologically based, set in stone.8 'Female' and 'male' constitute two fundamentally opposed sexes; we have little understanding for those who are born with 'ambiguous' genitalia and seek to 'normalize' them at any cost.9 Similarly, despite calls for recognition of ttansgender, we remain resistant to the notion that sex might be changed.lO Sex is primarily a difference of type; human bodies come in two sorts, determined by distinctly different reproductive systems, and to heal them we rely on our belief that they work in an inherently mechanistic way. Officially, at least, we hold that neither sex is superior to the other; while it is popular to daim that one sex is 'natutally' better or worse at certrun activities, the suggestion that such difference is meaningful in terms of intrinsic worth would be met with sttong resistance in most cirdes. We are, however, easily swayed by daims about human nature if they are based in evolutionary biology, the 'objective' science of our origins. Although l have been painting with a broad brush, none of these concepts should seem terribly out of the ordinary. These notions are quite foreign to medieval views on the body, however. A common underlying assumption in medieval texts is that human bodies do not merely differ according to sex, but that these are bodies whose differences are inscriptions of the natural and divine order in the flesh. In his Erymologies, Isidore of Seville offers deflnitions of 'woman' and 'man' that demonsttate this point: A man (vir) is so called, because in him resides greater power (vis) than in a woman - hence also 'strength' (virtus) received its names - or else beeause he deals with a woman by force (vis). But the word woman (mulier) cornes from softness (mol/ities), as if mol/ier (cf. mollior, "softer"), after a letter has been eut and a letter changed, is now called mu/ier. These two are differentiated by the respective strength and 8 Judith Butler nuances this in important ways. See Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion 0/ Identi(y . , For more on this, see the Intersex Society of North America (accessible at http://www.isna.org/). 10 A search through newspaper archives (such as those of the New York Times) will tum up articles in abundance detailing the challenges faced by individuals who live as a sex other than that with which they were eoded at birth (whether undergoing surgery or not). See, for example, http://topics.nyrimes.com/ top1 news Ihealthl diseasesconditionsandhealthtopicsl transsexuals 1index. html?8qa (accessed 8 June 2007). Gilbert 57 weakness of their bodies. But strength is great in a man, lesser in a woman, 50 that she will submit to the power of the man; evidently this is so lest, if women were to resist, lust should drive men to seek out something else or throw themselves upon the male sex. As l was saying, woman (mu/ier) is named for her feminine sex, not for a corruption of her innocence, and This according to the word of Sacred S<.:riplure, for Eve was <.:alled woman as soon as she was made from the side of her man, when she had not yet had any contact with a man, as it is said in the Bible (cf. Gen. 2:22): "And he formed her into a woman (mulier).ll Isidore's project in seeking etymologies was based on the idea that words reflect the truth of the things They describe; in this sense, tracing back the taot of a word might be likened to appealing to 'nature' to strengthen an argument. Here, the strength or weakness of a body detetmines its sex; hence, the word 'man' is associated with strength or domination, while the word 'woman' is associated with softness and submission. The relationship between man and woman is then 'naturally' one of domination: the use of force in a relationship is no mere possibility but rather an inherent, pervasive, shaping structure of human relations. The very nature of 'woman' and 'man' is unable to be defmed without reference to their status in this power structure. Isidore strengthens this defmition with recourse to the story of Creation. Eve was called mu/ier at her making; from the beginning, God created women to be soft and hence submissive. A threat underlies This defmition: should a woman go against her nature and refuse to submit to a man, he will inevitably seek out unacceptabIe sexuaI outlets, such as animaIs or other men. A burden is thus pIaced on the woman which requites her to be submissive. In his definition of 'marriage' (coniugium), Isidore cites 1 Cor 7:9, which he quotes as "Let the man who cannot contain himself marry"; Isidore interprets This as referring to a Iack of self restraint on the part of the man, and counts it among his three reasons for a man to marry.12 In so doing, he hoIds the woman responsible for the man's sexual purity, and supports his position with apostolic authority. When this is put in the context of 1 Cor 7:4, we fmd that the woman's 'soft' body demonstrates her 'natural' submission; that the man has authority over this body extends to her disposition and actions while guaranteeing physicaI use of the body to preserve his own purity. The parallelism of 1 Cor 7:4 breaks down when the positions are reversed, however; the 11 Isidore of Seville Erymologies XI.ii.17 -ii.20. (p. 242). Note that Gratian invokes Isidore's Etymologies at key places in the Decretum. 12 Isidore of Seville Erymologies IX. vii.28. (p. 212) The other two reasons are for the sake of offspring and to gain a helper; both of the se are strengthened with Genesis 1:28 and 2:18. Gilbert 58 man's body demonsttates his power through its strength, and there is no place for the woman to exercise authorit:y over him. Today we are apt to read Isidore's deftnitions of 'woman' and 'man' as medieval constructions of gender rather than sex. However, to interpret him this way depends on our contemporary assumption that sex difference is fundamentally a difference of physical type; in applying this assumption uncritically to Isidore, we blur the boundaries between our worlds. T 0 escape this trap, 1 propose that we look to Laqueur, who demonsttates that until the Enlightenment sex difference was seen as a difference of degree rather than of rype.13 Pre-Enlightenment, he writes, our division between sex and gender was flipped, with sex being secondary while gender was primary or 'real': "to be a man or a woman was to hold a social rank, a place in society, to assume a cultural role, not to be organically one or the other of two incommensurable sexes.,,14 In other words, social roles were not justifted by nature - they were nature, and functioned in much the same way as biology do es today.1S The hierarchical universe in which men domÎllated women was not a social accident but rather the state of nature itself. When this is applied to Aristotle, we see that the human body was "one flesh that could be ranked, ordered, and distinguished as particular cÏtcumstances reqmre. d .,,16 We must adjust our understanding of Aristotle such that we leam to read assertions that the male was active and the female passive not as culturally assigned roles but rather as observations of 'natural' truths; likewise, what we would consider to be scientiftc observations of physical difference, such as the difference between sex organs, need to be understood in Aristotle as "contingent and philosophically not very interesting observations about particular species under certain conditions.,,17 Put in this context, Aristotle's infamous de finition of the female as TC apaev rrErrTJPWJ.lÊvov18 (the male who is 'Ïmpotent,,19 'mutilated,,20 or 'deformed'21) is better understood. 13 Thomas Laqueur, Making S ex: Bo4J and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990). 14 Ibid. p. 8. 15 Ibid. p. 29. 16 Ibid. p. 28. 17 Ibid. p. 28. 18 This term is identified by Rebecca Fleming, Medicine and the Making of Roman Women: Gender, Nature, andAuthori(yfrom Celsus to Ga/en (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). p. 119. Gilbert 59 What, then, was made of anatomical differences? Although we tend to look to genitalia as the defming difference between the sexes, this approach would not have been the ftrst choice for most medieval thinkers. Instead, bodily differences could be grouped into three categories: complexion, disposition, and shape.22 Complexion was understood as a balance of qualities such as hot/cold and moist/dry.23 Women were colder and mois ter, whereas men were hotter and drier. As Cadden writes, this allowed men to "grow to a higher stage of completion and perfection than women,,,Z4 most vibrantly illustrated in Aristotle's assertion that men's greater heat allowed them to refme blood into its most pure state, that of sperm.Z5 Women were characterized by an essential disability. Furthermore, in terms of disposition, the association of women with coldness and moisture put them in the same group with phlegmatics and melancholics.Z6 Here sexual difference is intrinsically tied to disposition, representing a blurring of a line which we today easily misread as sharp; as Cadden writes, "If women have, as they do a characteristic complexion or constitution - colder than men - then it is natural for them to differ from men in their patterns of conduct and natural for them to be assigned specific roles.,,27 The high regard which physiognomy ("the science of disceming disposition and mores from the build, especially the head and face, of an individual")28 held in the medieval natural sciences further blurs this line; as Cadden writes, it "encourages the belief in a correspondence between physique and mores and therefore supports the assumption that gender roles and sex are bound together by nature.,,29 Physical shape did matter, but not in the way we might assume today. If there was one human body, then it followed that there was one set of genitalia; the question was not of type, but rather of placement. For Galen, female genitalia were not distinct but rather internal versions of the male organs: the penile shaft and the vaginal canal 19 Bames translation 20 Platt translation 21 Fleming translation 22 See Cadden, The Meanings ofS ex Diffèrence in the Middle Ages. p. 171-188. 23 Ibid. p. 171. 24 Ibid. p. 171. 25 Ibid. p. 172. 26 Ibid. p. 184. 27 Ibid. p. 184. 28Jbid. p. 186. 29 Ibid. p. 187. Gilbert 60 were essentially the same thing, as were the scrotum and the uterus.30 'The' human genitalia were essentially one and the same, simply placed extemal to the body for males and intemally for females.31 This is reflected in the imprecision of vocabulary related to anatomy, as Laqueur writes: ... when the experts in the field sat down to write about the basis of sexual difference, they saw no need to develop a precise vocabulary of genital anatomy because if the female body was a less hot, less perfect, and hence less potent version of the canonical body, then distinct organic, much less genital, landmarks mattered far less than the metaphysical hierarchies they illustrated. Claims that the vagina was an internaI penis or that the womb was a female scrotum should therefore be understood as images in the flesh of truths far better secured elsewhere.32 This model of human anatomy dominated medieval thought/3 rein forcing the idea that female and male were 'naturally' in a hierarchy - a hierarchy that touched everything From authority to salvation to sexuality. That these bodies were unequal in the sense of being different necessarily implied that they were unequal in the hierarchy. The woman's body, with its imperfectly balanced humors and intemal genitals, reflected her inferiority, while the man's body, with heat sufficient to refme blood to the perfect purity of sperm, asserted his superior place in the hierarchy. The apparent reciprocity of 1 Cor 7:4 thus called for compromises to resolve what would have seemed paradoxical in the medieval mind. One area which offered particularly potent possibilities was that of reproduction, the realm to which we now tum. Reproductive Roles In writings on the conjugal debt, medical theories of reproduction are often invoked to demonstrate the divergent roles assigned to each sex. In these contemporary evaluations, Aristotelian physiology is nearly always taken as a negative force which corrupted the simple equality of the conjugal debt, while Hippocratic Galenic physiology is taken as a sex-positive, female-empowering doctrine which granted medieval women their frrst taste of sexual equality. Neither of these 30 Laqueur, Making Sex: Borfy and Gcnder from the Greeks to Freud. pp. 25-26. 31 Cadden, The Meanings ofSex Difference in the Middle Ages. p.l77. 32 Laqueur, Making Sex: Borfy and Gcnder from the Grecks to Freud. pp. 34-35. 33 Bullough emphasizes this point and turns to Galen's On the Usefulness of/he Parts in demonstration. See Vern Bullough, "Medieval Medical and Scientific Views ofWomen," Viator4 (1973). p. 492. Gilbert 61 caricatures lS qUlte right, however; in this sectlon, I will exarrune these theories critically and consider their relevance to the conjugal debt. In Aristotle's theory o [ repro ductlon,· 34 the female and male play complementary roles and give analogous contributions to the process. T 0 say that these roles are complementary is not to say that they are equal, however. Both semen and katamënia (menstrual fluid)35 are essentially refined blood, but the greater heat of the male is able to reflne it to its full potential, whereas katamenia is in some sense unflnished and impure. The semen, furthermore, contains the active principle, whereas the katamënia plays a passive role, waiting for the semen to act upon it - the process is rather like milk curdled by rennet to form cheese.36 To illustrate the female and male roles in reproduction, Aristotle likens the male to a carpenter. The art of carpentry does not reside in the final product, he says, but rather in the skill and craft which transforms the raw material.37 In other words, the art of reproduction does not rest with the mother, who provides the material in the [orm of katamënia and who brings forth the flnished product, but rather with the father, who creates the child, giving it form through his semen. Aristotle exphcitly laces these contributions with value statements: Agam, as the ftrst efficient or moving cause, to wruch belong the definition and the form, is better and more divine in its nature than the material on wruch it works, it is better that the superior principle should be separated from the inferior. Therefore, wherever it is possible and so far as it is possible, the male is separated from the female. For the first principle of the movement, whereby that which cornes into being is male, is better and more divine, and the female is the matter. The male, however, cornes together and mingles with the female for the work of generation, because this is common to both.38 Though such passages would seem to leave httle room for doubt, recent studies have demonstrated that Aristotle's valuation of the female role did not match up with Cline Horowitz's scathing assessment of him as "denying maternity";39 Dean-Jones 34 Note. that Aristotle was looking at reproduction as a whole, across many species, whereas the Hippocratics were concemed specifically with human physiology. 35 Dean-Jones translates katamënia as 'monthly coming-downs' and associates it with menstruation. Lesley Dean-Jones, WomenJ- Bodies in ClassicalGreek Science (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). p.4. 36 Aristotle, GA 739b 20-33. 37 Aristotle, GA 730b 9-24. 38 Aristotle, GA 732a 3-11. 39 Maryanne Cline Horowitz, "Aristotle and Woman," Journal rf the History rf Biology 9, no. 2 (1976). p. 186f. Gilbert 62 ln particular cautlOns agamst characterizing Aristotle as sexist,411 noung that the mother played an essential raIe in that "the woman was not simply the earth in which the seed planted by the male grew. Any seed which is planted is already a mixture of male and female [i.e. semen and katamenia); the function of the earth [i.e., the womb) is to provide nOurlshment for its growth.,,41 However, such nuances do not seem to present themselves in medieval texts, where thinkers did seem to agree that the association of the female raIe with the material cause indicated that the woman was passive, merely receiving the father's sperm, and unable to transmit much of worth to the child. Such devaluing is done to the extent that Aquinas writes that the father is to be loved more, as it is he who gives the child its soul: The father is principle in a more excellent way than the mother, because he is the active principle, while the mother is a passive and material principle. Consequently, strictly speaking, the father is to be loved more ... The mother supplies the formless matter of the body; and the latter receives its form through the formative power that is in the semen of the father. And though this power cannot create the rational soul, yet it disposes the matter of the body to receive that form. 42 Faced with such evidence, many medievalists have concluded that when Aristotelian notions of biology were applied to human physiology, women were placed at stark disadvantage to men. Further, the association of women with passivity and men with action led to a belief that direct demands for sex were 'naturally' limited to the male sphere; women were considered to be too shy for this and instead 'signaled' theit desite.43 As Salisbury writes, this created a system in which husbands could pay the debt 'in response to theit wives' even if she had not asked for sexual intercourse - thus creating another line of legal defense for the husband who had sex with his 40 Dean-Jones, Women~ Bodies in ClassicalGreek Science. p. 183. 41 Ibid. p. 199. Note the way in which our associations with the uterine lining and ancient associations with katamënia do not match up. 42 Aquinas, Summa The%gica, 2.2, Q. 26, a.l0. Quoted in Bullough, ":Mcdievall\{edical and Scientific Views ofWomen." p.500. There can be little doubt that it was indeed Aristotle who stood behind this view of reproduction because Aquinas frequently cites Aristotelian texts (especially GA, HA, and PA) as an authority on human physiology. Murray writes that Aquinas' "reconciliation of Aristotelian philosophy and Christian theology" had the result of 'firmly grounding women's inferiority and subordination on both the theoretical and practical levels.' Murray, "Thinking About Gender: The Diversity of Medieval Perspectives." p. 5. 43 Aquinas and John of Freiburg both present this principle. See also Elliott, Spiritual Marnage: Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock. pp. 154-155, and Payer, The Bridling of Desire: Views of Sex in the Later Middle Ages. p. 94. Gilbert 63 wife regardless of her wishes.44 Such uses of physiology are striking examples of the way the unequal bodies of women and men led to inequality under canon law. In contrast, many medievalists have tended to look to the Hippocratic Galerne two-seed theory as a refuge, a place in which both sexes contribute equally to the conception of the child and in which female pleasure was emphasized. However, upon closer examination it is not at ail clear that this praise is warranted. My criticism here will take two points: first, that the two-seed theory was aimed at providing solutions to certain dilemmas rather than establishing equality, and second, that 'pleasure' was not construed in the same way we understand it today. When taken in the context of the conjugal debt, it is clear that the two-seed theory is just as hierarchical as the one-seed theory; when reading 1 Cor 7:4 in this light, we would do well to ask again how equal their authorities over each other's body could be when the bodies in question were profoundly unequal. The ancient debate over whether conception involved one or two seeds was not over equality of sexual roles, but rather over questions of family resemblance. If the mother did not contribute anything to the child's form, then why could it sometimes resemble her? Positing the existence of two seeds, both of which contributed something to the child's form, was a solution to this vexing problem, and one which Aristotle never fully resolved.45 Thus both father and mother contributed seed, and when these seeds intermingled, the child received something from each parent. Thanks to the two-seed theory, the child who resembled its mother more than its father was no longer a perplexing matter. But which parent 'contributed' the child's sex? The question was urgent because of social pressure to produce sons, and the answer was complex. Because masculinity was associated with strength, a child's maleness was associated with strong sperm. Writers agreed that male sperm was to be stronger than the female sperm, able to overpower it when they mixed. If this happened properly, the result was a son who resembled his father; if, however, the female force was stronger, the child would be a daughter who resembled her mother.46 The implicit value 44 Salisbury, "Gendered Sexuality." p. 95. 45 Cline Horowitz, "Aristode and Woman." pp. 200-203. 46 Bullough, "On Being a Male in the iYIiddle Ages." p. 31. This notion would be promoted by Avicenna, Albertus Magnus, and Thomas Aquinas. One might have an idea for what was likely to Gilbert 64 statements associated with the result place doubt on contemporary assertions that the Hippocratic-Galenic theory offered women a refuge of equality in an otherwise hierarchical world. Try as we might, the presence of two seeds in a theory of reproduction will not allow us to place the partners in 1 Cor 7:4 on equal footing. Still, the presence of references to female pleasure in Hippocratic texts has offered a certain counterpoint to the Aristotelian association of passivity with femininity. Those who create a refuge of equality in the two-seed the ory are quick to say that the woman is not relegated to being an inert receptacle but has been transformed into a fully enfle shed sexual being. But while much has been made of the valuation of female pleasure in Hippocratic-Galenic texts, it is not clear that such praise is warranted. A fust clue that contemporary notions of female sexual fulfillment are not the issue here is found in the observation that there is no mention of the clitoris in Hippocratic texts.47 Descriptions of female 'pleasure' in Hippocratic texts confltm this suspicion. As Dean-Jones writes, "the description of a woman's pleasure in Genit. 4 (vii.474.14-476.8), however, hardly shows an intimate knowledge of feminine experience.,,48 She summarizes: A woman's pleasure is said to be produced by the friction of the penis in her vagina, just as a man's is produced by friction on rus penis, and to last from the moment intercourse begins for as long as the penis remains in her vagin a until the man ejaculates, when her desÎte flames up to greet rus semen and is then completely doused, like a candIe flame that has had wine thrown on it. Occasionally a woman could reach orgasm before a man and her pleasure was then somewhat less durîng the remainder of the intercourse, but no matter to what extent she was or was not aroused durîng the act, her pleasure always termÎllated along with the man's.49 Such an unage resonates well with Hildegard's description of the woman's experience during intercourse: she lis] like a threshing-floor pounded by rus many strokes and brought to heat whîle the grains are threshed inside her50 happen ahead of rime: Constantine the African would indicate in de Coitu that testicular size was an indication of a man's capacity to father male children; furthermore, he added, effemÎllate sons were the result of spenu which issued only frOlu the right testicle. Danielle Jacquart and Claude Thomasset, Sexualité Et Savoir Médical Au M'!}en Age (paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1985). pp. 164-5. 47 Dean-Jones, Women's Bodies in Classical Greek Science. p. 78-79. Aristode, on the other hand, identified the clitoris as the place women feel pleasure in GA 728a32-4. (Dean-Jones, Women's Bodies in C/assicalGreek Science. p. 31, p. 79.) 48 Dean-Jones, Women's Bodies in ClassicalGreek Science. p. 157. 49 Quoted in Ibid. p. 157. 50 Hildegard as translated in Peter Dronke, Women Writers ofthe Middle Ages: A Critical Stu4J ofTexts from Pepetua to Marguerite Porete. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984). p. 176. Gilbert 65 Again, hcrc fcmale pleasure is dependent on the motion of the penis within the vagina; as Miles writes, "Hildegard's image of woman as thresrung-floor, passively pounded by the man's repeated thrusts, paints a bleak picture of the prospect of female pleasure in failen heterosexual sexuality."Sl The notion that Hippocratic Galenic theories of reproduction favored a women's 'right' to pleasure in intercourse is on shaky ground - and another area taken as a haven of equality in the conjugal debt can no longer stand. In Sickness and in Health Once the ruerarchy of gender and inequality of reproductive roles have been understood, we may still tum to theories of health and illness to build our understanding of the bodies in 1 Cor 7:4. Once again, these will demonstrate the unequal nature of female and male bodies. Our job is complicated, however, because treatises on health and illness were written from a male-normative perspective.52 One such text is Constantine the African's widely circulated treatise de Coitu, wruch despite its name discusses the subject entitely as it relates to male health. U sing Galen and Hippocrates in a way relevant to rus medieval audience, Constantine evidences concems over male pleasure, erection, the nature of (male) semen and what makes a man good at producing it, the ability to engender sons rather than daughters, and the proper way to have intercourse. Certain conditions need to be met for sex to be good for the man. Intercourse must be performed at the "proper hour", "when the body is in complete outward harmony i.e. neither replete nor fasting, neither cold nor hot, dry nor wet, but weil tempered";53 Constantine wams that if intercourse is attempted at the wrong hour or when food is still being digested, the man is in danger of bodily harro.54 Further, the man who performs weil will engender male children. Although Constantine ultimately concludes that the Creator can grant whatever sex he chooses 51 1'Iiles, CamaI Knowing: Pemale Nakedness and Religious Meaning in the Christian West. p. 104. 52 'lhe male body was the paradigmatic human body for aIl general health issues. Hippocratic treatises assumed a male patient unless writing on gynecology. Dean-Jones, Womens Bodies in Classical Greek Science. p. 114. (Note that Aristotle's writings were not aimed at detailing the practice of medicine for human beings but rather explaining phenomena in the broader natural world.) 53 Constantine, De coitu, p. 59. 54 Constantine, De coitu, p. 59. Gilbert 66 ta a couple's child, he makes numerous references to the conditions ,vhich determÎne the sex of the child, and thoroughly places the responsibility for the child's sex in the father. Citing Hippocrates, Constantine notes that a man with a larger right testic1e will have sons but a larger left testic1e will have daughters; further, he adds that if the semen falls on the left side of the cervix, there will be a girl, but if it 'reaches' the right side there will be a boy.55 Strong, masculine semen is thus needed for the optimal result; for the man to have this, he must have the proper balance of humors, which means being both warm and dry, rather than cold and moist. Constantine explains that "warmth increases desire and masculinity, whereas cold reduces desire and renders effeminate.,,56 The warm, dry man will have great pleasure and conceive many sons, but the cold, moist man will be effeminate and weak, have daughters, and experience less pleasure but many nocturnal pollutions.57 Thus, over the course of the treatise it becomes c1ear that (male) reproductive health means enjoying sex, producing good semen, and engendering male children. For men who do not possess the ideal, virile balance of humors necessary for this optimal reproductive health, Constantine offers numerous recipes for medications designed to banish impotence, prolong intercourse, increase semen, and improve performance.58 This focus on improving the male sex life might be explained in part by the threat of divorce in the case of impotency;59 and efforts have been made to ground it in concern over women's health.60 Yet these answers are incomplete and unsatisfying, particularly because the same texts which focus so dearly on aphrodisiacs for male pleasure remain silent on the issue of female pain. Although Constantine warns of dangers to the man by intercourse,61 it is not a stretch at all to say that it is impossible to conceive of ftmale pain during intercourse 55 Constantine, De coitu, pp. 58-59. 56 Constantine, De coitu, p. 57. 57 Constantine, De coitu, p. 58. 58 These concems are reflected in other treatments known to medieval physicians, which would physically alter the penis through enlargetnent, reduction, or firtnÎng. Scc Jacquart and Thotnasset, Sexualité Et Savoir Médica! Au Mqyen Age. p. 180. 59 See chapter three, "Coerced Consummation." 60 Bullough, for example, references Avicenna for the necessity of female pleasure and asserts that the man had a moral responsibility to satisfy his wife because her health depended on regular orgasms to prevent the onset of hysteria. (Bullough, "On Being a Male in the Middle Ages." p. 39.) Note, however, that 'hysteria' or the 'wandering womb' was rejected by medieval authors, following Galen. See Cadden, The Meanings of S ex Difference in the Middle Ages. pp. 14-15. 61 Constantine, De coitu, p. 61. Problems envisioned include stiffness, depression, a bad smell, and windiness; these generally relate back to an imbalance of the humoIs. Gilbert 67 with the toois he offers us, nor with those from Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galen, Avicenna, or their commentators. This is a strange oversight, given the plethora of ways for women to experience pain at penetration or during intercourse:62 among the many possibilities are infection, insufficient arousaI, incomplete rupture of the hymen, and chronic pain conditions such as vulvar vestibulitis syndrome, vulvodynia, and vaginismus.63 It is highly unlikely that women did not experience pain during intercourse at sorne point, and yet the question does not arise in medical texts and remains absent from disputes over canon law.64 The male-normative envisioning of sexual experience in medical texts thus had a coercive edge: the man's authority over the woman's body obligated women ta continue 'paying' when their husbands asked, whether or not the experience would cause them considerable pain.65 The issue is an the more damning because the reverse was not true. In the Summa theologiae, Aquinas raises the concern that physical harm could be done to the man in rendering the debt.66 He concludes that 62 Questions of how contemporary models of physiology correspond to ancient models are by no means settled in scholarship. W'hile l do not wish to comprehensively engage these in this thesis, here at least l will foliow the line of thought which accepts certain underlying constants regardless of interpretation: the shedding of the uterine lining occurs whether we call it the menstrual cycle or katamënia, whether we believe that its regulation holds the key for reproductive health or that it is unnecessary to the point of suppressing it completely with contraceptive pills, whether we symbolically associate it with the Fall of Eve or reject such notions as misogynous. In this sense, l do not wish to see the physical 'stuff of the body disappear completely into postmodem discourse, as Bynum writes (Bynum, "Why Ali the Fuss About the Body?: A Medievalist's Perspective."). Likewise l do not find it productive to seriously entertain notions that women's bodies did not feel pain simply because medical wrÏters did not write about the subject - especially given the broader cultural conditions under which those texts were written. 63 W'hile these concems might seem to be of peripheral importance, by contemporary epidemiological standards they are certainly not: 21 % of women in the US under the age of 30 report experiencing dyspareunia (painful intercourse), and the rate for YYS, for example, may be as high as 15%. See E. O. Laumann, A Palk, and R. C. Rosen, "Sexual Dysfunction in the United States: Prevalence, Predictors and Outcomes," Journa/ r1 the American Medica/Association 281 (1999). pp. 537-545. 64 There are several possible reasons for this omission. For instance, the se texts were written by men for a male audience; in ancient Greece doctors were not expected to look to their patients for information on their condition, precluding male doctors from leaming about female experience (see Dean-Jones, Women's Bodies in C/assica/ Greek Science. p.26), and quite simply, because sexual intercourse is consistently envisioned in a male-normative fashion, fcmale expcnencc in sex is simply not discussed. 65 .A.ttempts to refute this must be based in conjecture over the (highly disputed) definition of marita/is qlftctio or in speculation on the sensibilities of common people. W'hile the se might give a sort of hope, they are still far from carrying the weight of law - which my argument has fully on its side. For more on the disputed meaning of marita/is qlftctio, see Michael M. Sheehan, "Marita/is Affectio Revisited," in The O/de Daunce: Love, Friendship, Sex & Marnage in the Medieva/ Wor/d, ed. Robert R. Edwards and Stephen Spector (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991). 66 This stands in contra st with Peter the Chanter, who considered whether a woman had the right to refuse the debt to a husband who asked despite the fact she had been damaged by a recent birth snch Gilbert 68 The wife has no power over the husband's body, except as is consistent with the welfare of his person, as stated above. \-X.'herefore if she go beyond this in her demands, it is not a request for the debt, but an unjust exaction, and for trus reason the husband is not bound to satisfy her.6~ The woman's authority over the man's body is limited at best. Indeed, throughout Question 64, Aquinas is concemed with protecting the husband from the dangers of his wife. This is a natural enough concem, given that women's sexuality was considered to be ever-present, ever-ready, and ever-insatiable. Aquinas shows (t)his fear clearly in Question 64 when he worries that a man might be forced into astate of sin by an insatiable wife who immediately demands the debt again right after he fmished paying it.68 Aquinas assures his reader that the man is absolved of his obligation to the debt in this instance, and adds that "the wife has no right to ask again, and in doing so she behaves as a harlot rather than as a wife.,,69 The woman's authority over the man's body had to be limited because female sexuality was always present, always insatiable, and always dangerous. This fear continues in the prohibition against sex during menstruation.70 Again in the Summa theologiae, Aquinas asks whether a menstruating woman can ask for the debt. He decides that if the menstruation is 'natural' then she is forbidden to ask because of the impurity it connotes, but that if it is 'unnatural' (ongoing or from a sickness) then it would be too difficult for the man to perpetually abstain, and thus the man is justified in having sex with her.71 The unparallel wording here is telling; by not fmishing the syllogism to say that the wife may ask, Aquinas shows that the question is clearly one of male prerogative. This continues in further discussion: if that giving birth again would certainIy kill her. He tentatively posits that she does not, but is "by no means certain." Commenting on this, Elliott writes, "Once the debt is established, the individual's right of sexual refusaI in Iife-threatening situations does not seem to have been clearly articulated by canonistic or pastoral sources until the fifteenth century." Elliott, Spiritual Marnage: S exual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock. p. 149. 67 Aquinas, Summa theologiae, III, Q64,I\rt. 1, pp. 2800-2801. 68 In other words, if the man has just ejaculated and is incapable of immediately ejaculating again, he would be unable to render the debt in a system that requires 'sexual intercourse' to mean 'heterosexual vaginal-penile intercourse.' For an overview of lirrùtations to sexual intercourse, see James .A.. Brundage, "Let Me Count the Ways: Canonists and Theologians Contemplate the Coital Positions," Journal tif Medieval History 10 (1984). Such limitations demonstrate another way in wruch contemporary ideas of mutuality are absent from medieval Christian prescriptions for intercourse. 69 Aquinas, Summa theologiae, III, Q. 64, pp. 2800-2801. 70 For more on menstrual taboos, see Charles Y. Wood, "The Doctor's Dilemma: Sin, Salvation and the Menstrual Cycle in Medieval Thought," Speculum 56 (1981). See also Ronald O. Valdiserri MD., "Menstruation and Medical Theory: An Historical Overview," Journal tif the American Medical Women's Association 38, no. 3 (1983). 71 j\quinas, Summa theologiae, III, Q. 64, Art. 3. pp. 2802. Gilbert 69 the husband asks for the debt while the woman is menstruating, the woman should try to dissuade him but ultimately must render the debt to saye him from seeking out another ouclet that would sully his purity.72 Again, such recommendations protect the man, either from his wife's impurity or from the gra\'ity of sexuaI sin. The woman, however, is offered no such protection. This inequality of authorities is illustrated again by Thomas of Chobham, who said that a woman who allowed her husband to have sex with her after childbirth sinned mortally - unless she went to the church for purification fust. As Elliott writes, this was a "painful and even dangerous solution for the woman,,73 - but the man's authority over the woman's body was sufficient to command it. If the female body posed routine dangers to the man in the form of menstrual impurity, it also posed exceptional dangers for its believed ability to carry and transmit disease.74 Theories of illness held that women transmitted disease to men more easily than the reverse;75 in the realm of sexuality, this meant that men were exposed to certain dangers from having intercourse with women than the reverse. Because of this, as Salisbury writes, "scholastics believed that men had more right to refuse the marital debt in such circumstances as the wife having leprosy than women did in the reverse instance.,,76 Thus although Alexander III ordered women to visit their leprosy-stricken husbands and provide them with 'marital affection' 72 .Aquinas, Summa theologiae, III, Q. 64, .Art. 4. pp. 2802-2803. 73 Elliott, Spiritual Marnage: SexualAbstinence in Medieval Wedlock. p. 151. 74 The two are connected, as menstruation itself posed special dangers for leprosy. Ibid. pp. 151-153 75 Salisbury, "Gendered Sexuality." p. 95. She offers a summary from William of Conches and cites Jacquart and Thomasset, Sexualité Et Savoir Médical Au Ml!Yen Age. 76 Salisbury, "Gendered Sexuality." p. 95. Here she cites Payer, The Bridling ojDesire: Views of" Sex in the Laler Middle Ages. p. 110. Gilbert 70 (which included sexual solace),ÎÎ the belief that sick women posed to men meant that the reverse scenario would not always be met with the same command.;s Thus, theories of reproductive health and illness provide an ex ample of the male normativity that undergirded medical theories of the body. These illustrate Simone de Beauvoir's famous statement that the Feminine is diagonal, unable to be conceived of without the straight line of the male. Or, as Laqueur writes, In a public world that was overwhelmingly male, the one-sex modd displayed what was already massivdy evident in cultural more generally: man is the measure of all things, and woman does not exist as an ontologically distinct category... the standard of the human body and its representations is the male bodyJ9 This is what medieval authors found when they looked back to the ancient Greek treatises on human physiology and health: the male body was the paradigmatic body wmch experienced a full range of states From health to illness, whereas the female body experienced only reproductive disorders - and even then, the female body could not experience pain, but only fail at producing children. Once again, the female and male bodies are not equal, and this inequality of bodies resulted in an inequality of debts. Conclusion What does it mean for spouses to have authority over each other's body when the bodies themselves are not equal? The question is all too often ignored through inattention or even ignorance of significant differences in contemporary and ancient beliefs about the nature of the body itself. When it is addressed, it is ail too often handled in a cursory way, ailowing caricatures of Aristotelian and Hippocratic Galernc theories to parailel contemporary sexual values, rather than critically addressing them on their own terms. FinaIly, most often any awareness of the male- 77 Brundage, "Implied Consent to Intercourse." p.249; Makowski, "The Conjugal Debt and Medieval Canon Law." p. 111. Note that 'marital affection' (maritalis qfJectio) included sexual favors, but also indicated a broader range of care and affection. Pope Innocent III carried the notion further than it had been before, strongly insisting on marita/is ciffoctio without giving a precise definition. The term is often employed in terms of negatives (excessive correction or mistreatment of a spouse), though it was also seen positively as husbands providing suitable dress and nourishment to wives. However, this must not be taken too far in defining medieval spousal dynamics; as Sheenan notes, the canons were concemed with what was enforceable, not intangibles (Sheehan, "Maritalis Affictio Revisited." p. 38). 78 Elliott, Spiritual Marnage: Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock. p. 151. Menstruation was considered to pose special dangers for leprosy and other illnesses; Elliott notes that such beliefs justified certain conditions in the conjugal debt to which women only were subject. pp. 151-152. 79 Laqueur, Making Sex: Bo4J; and Gender jrom the Greeks to Freud. p. 62. Gilbert 71 nonnat1\'e guality of issues of sickness and hcalth is brushed aside, and senous attention is not given to the ways that these beliefs influenced legal and theological codes for the behavior of spouses with regard to the conjugal debt. In short, further work is needed in aU these areas. If we do wish for it to be possible to read 1 Cor 7 :3-4 and the conjugal debt as positive in light of contemporary values (as d'Avray and others suggest), such a project surely entails demonstrating that the authority of each spouse is equal to that of the other, and this in tum rests on the presupposition that the body of each spouse is of equal value to that of their partner. Yet no such assertion can be made on the basis of the texts available; instead, it is clear that female and male bodies differed in significant ways, both physically and symbolically, for medieval thinkers. With this realization, another refuge for the supposed equality of the conjugal debt vanÎshes. Gilbert 72 CHAPTER THREE Blurring Consent and Coercion Yet even after inequalities in theology and physiology are better understood, one could still object that those living in a misogynous theological and physiological context could still consent to marry. After ail, the twelfth century has been heralded as the rime that freely given consent was championed as the sole condition that formed a valid marnage. However, while Gratian's work marked a significant shift in law regarding the formation of marriage, the nature of that shift has ail too often been obscured by interpretations which uncriticaily read contemporary values into the twelfth-century notion of consent. Just as 'authority' and 'body' were terms which deserved close attention in 1 Cor 7:3-4, the notion of 'consent' is an important one to examine. In this chapter, I will problematize the notion of 'freely given consent' through debates in canon law wmch indicate that our contemporary definitions of 'consent' are a far cry from what the canonists intended. Legal Debates The twelfth century was a rime of dramatic societal change in matters of marnage and sexuality. Studies regarding the development of Western concepts of marnage have underlined the pivotaI nature of this century, a rime when fierce debate over the nature of marriage gave rise to a legal definition that would endure for centuries to foilow. Put simply, understanding the mstory of marnage in the West entails understanding the history of canon law in the twelfth century. To enter into this period in ms tory, I will flrst explain how the social structures related to sexuality and marnage underwent changes over the course of the century. These changes both influenced and were in response to pressures on Church hierarchy and structure; by examining this point of overlap, l will set the stage for the debates surrounding marriage in developing canon law. In this discussion, 1 will seek out echoes ofPaul's words in 1 Cor 7, paying special attention to the themes of consent and coercion and places where the lines separating them blur. Gilbert 73 While the tendency may be to make simplistic and uniyersal statements regarding sexuality in the Middle Ages, the twelfth century was a time of considerable diyersity in sexual and social mores. In the early half of the twelfth century, celibacy was associated with equality. In the time leading up to this point, the traditionally feminine virtue of chastity was embodied by virgin kings such as Henry II and Cunegard or Edward the Confessor. In this spirit, sorne men and women found freedom in renouncing their sexuality to live together in syneisactic arrangements, defmed as communities "where women and men mingle and relate to one another without reference to accepted sex roles."! The popularity of these communities following the fttst crusade was such that they constituted a real threat to the established gender system followed by the broader populace.2 For this reason, they would be heavily criticized by reformers who sought to establish a society based in hierarchy with clearly defiued lines of power. For those men and women in the broader populace who did not renounce their sexuality, the Church maintained the right to control sexual practices. Although not as stringendy as had the penitentials a century or two earlier, the Church established norms for the sexual activities of married persons.3 Nonmarital sex was criminal and subject to punishment, but enforcement was rudimentary and therefore limited; this led to a society whose mores were more permissive than we would usually conceive of in the Middle Ages.4 One strong example of this is found in the elevated rate of prostitution. The population was more female than male; this surplus of women allowed men to be more cautious in choosing a wife than before, and as a result many women were forced into sex work.5 Surprisingly, they were not heavily criticized and would even receive sympathy From sorne moralists and canon lawyers - as would the priests who would occasionally visit them.6 These conditions would not be allowed to stand. A reforming movement within the Church had the abolition of simony (thus preventing lay interference in 1 Jo Ann MeNamara, "The Herrenfrage: The Restrueturing of the Gender System, 1050-1150," in Medieval Masculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages, ed. Clare A. Lees (Minneapolis: University of lvlinnesota Press, 1994). p. 14. 2 Ibid. p. 15. 3 Brundage, Law, 5 ex, and Christian Socie!J in Medieval Europe. p. 225. 4 Ibid. pp. 225-226. 5 Ibid. p. 227. 6 MeN amara, "The Herre,grage: The Restrueturing of the Gender System, 1050-1150." p. 15. Gilbert 74 the governance of the Church), the establishment of the papal monarchy (thus giving the Holy See practical supremacy), and the establishment of clerical celibacy as its goals. 7 The greatest pressure would be put on the celibacy of the clergy. At the beginrung of the twelfth century, the majority of priests were married or living in stable forms of concubinage. In 1123, the First Lateran Council invalidated priests' marnages; the reformers labeled the former wives 'prostitutes' and put immense pressure on the clergy, especially at the highest levels.8 The Second Lateran Council would strengthen this position, issuing a condemnation and repression of marnage among the clergy. In 1124, Guibert of Nogent gave wamings against false monks practicing the vita aposto/ica; Peter the Venerable followed suit in 1130, and in 1136 Bernard of Clairvaux equated syneisactism with heresy.9 Such changes in the structure of the Church and its theology would play a major role in the development of canon law. Gratian completed his systematic study of canon law, the Decretum, in 1140. This work, which in its marital discourses frequently cited 1 Cor 7 along with Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine's interpretations of 1 Cor 7, would revolutioruze the study of canon law.lO Of interest here are the developing laws goveming marriage, sexuality, and familial structure. Marriage was made aImost indissoluble, able to be annulled only through lack of consummation, discovered consanguity, or proof of adultery. Sexuality was highly regulated; theologians and canorusts wrote extensively on such matters as coital positions and the role of pleasure in intercourse. Finally, the family was to be defmed by paternal lineage, marginalizing wives and daughters who could no longer transmit their legal identity on to the next generation.ll Coupled with the population increase, the move towards urbanization, the sharp increase in monastic population (up seven- or eightfold since the Norman Conquest of 1066),12 and the increasing emphasis on consent in the formation of the marital bond, the marriage market was more restricted for women, and men were able to be more prudent in their choice of 7 Christopher N. L. Brooke, The Medieval Idea 0/ Marnage (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). p. 68. B Brundage, Law, S ex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe. p. 226. 9 MeN amara, "The HefTCJifi"age: The Restrueturing of the Gender System, 1050-1150." p. 17. 10 Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe. p.229. 11 Ibid. p. 227. 12 Brooke, The Medieval Idea o/Marnage. p.74. Gilbert 75 a wife. 13 AIl of these played a strang raIe in the restructuring of marnage that took place over the course of the twelfth century. Both theologians and canon lawyers engaged in the considerable debate that erupted regarding the definition of marnage. T 0 define what constituted a valid marnage, they looked to its formation. Two main schools of thought developed to answer this question.14 The ftrst was the Bolognese or Italian school, which held that marnage began with consent and was completed with physical consummation. This was the position held by Gratian. The second was the Pansian or French school, which downplayed sexual relations altogether and held that consent alone created a state of marnage. This position was advocated by Lombard. At the end of the twelfth century, Pope Alexander III attempted to synthesize these debates into a coherent doctrine through a senes of decretals, the most famous of which was Veniens ad nos. 15 According to his system, there were two ways for a couple to be marned. The first was through verba de presenti, words of present consent ("1 take thee as wife/husband") which were freely given by both parties. Upon uttering these words, the couple was legally wed in a binding marnage which was indissoluble throughout their lives, save in very exceptional cÎrcumstances. The second was through verba de futuro, words of future consent ("1 promise to take thee as wife/husband") that were ftrst freely given by both parties and later ratified into an indissoluble bond when sexually consummated by the couple. In each of these ways, the couple had to meet certain conditions: both were Christian, unrelated, of the minimum age of consent (in the case of present consent, this was set at fOillteen for the man and twelve for the woman; for future consent, this was set at seven for both), unmarned (though an exception was made for widows and widowers), and not engaged in vows of chastity. Alexander IIrs position would become the "ruling authority" until the Council of Trent in 1563.16 Yet because it effectively gave papal approval to both 13 Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Socie!} in Medieval Europe. p.227. 14 A third, in which marnage was created by the physical dehvery of the bride to the groom, was promoted by Master Vacarius and the anonymous author of the Summa coloniensis. However, it quickly faded from the discussion and is rarely discussed today due to its lack of influence. See Brundage, "Imphed Consent to Intercourse." pp. 246-247. 15 My summary here follows Charles Donahue Jr., "The Canon Law on the Formation of Marriage and Social Practice in the Later 1vIiddle Ages," Journal rifPamizY History (Surnmer 1983). p. 144. 16 Brundage, "Imphed Consent to Intercourse." p. 248. Gilbert 76 sides of the debate, favoring consent but still requiring consummation, it le ft many questions unanswered. In other decretals, Alexander III would rule that incapacity to consummate rendered marital consent null and void;17 church courts would sometimes annul contracted but unconsummated marriages.18 These variances illustrate the messiness of the debate, which would take nearly three and a half centuries to settle.19 Freely Given Consent? The twelfth century is often taken as the time that consent was heralded as the defming quality of marriage, and in wmch the church took power away from parents and into its own hands. Yet a twelfth-century vita suggests a different story; by examining the story of Christina of Markyate, l will provide an entry-point into ways that twelfth-century consent would often be read as coercion by twenty-first century eyes. Christina of Markyate was known for her dedication to chastity. Part of the rhetorical intent of the vita is to emphasize that her dedication had to overcome many seemingly impossible obstacles. The story of her escape from marriage is part of this project, and the challenges she faced along the way will illustrate some of the ways that coercion could still pass for consent. As members of the aristocracy, Christina's parents would have viewed her marriage as a way to solidify their own power and advantageously link themselves to another family. Thus when she reached the right age, Autti and Beatrix decided to betroth her to Burthred, a rich man whose fortune was enough to afford several houses and the building of a new one to his soon-to-be father-in-Iaw's.2o Moneyand status are clearly at stake in this wedding, and the betrothal would happen with or without Christina's consent. She manages to evade it for a time, but eventually, as her hagiographer reports: ... when they were aIl gathered together in the church, they made a concerted and sudden attack on her. To be brief, how it happened l cannot tell. AIl l know is 17 Ibid. p. 253. 18 Ibid. p. 248. 19 Ibid. p.251. 20 The Lift of Christina of Markyate: A Twe!fth Century Recluse, ed. CH. Talbot, trans. CH. Talbot (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997). p. 47. Gilbert 77 that by God's will, with so many exerting pressure on her from ail sides, she yielded (at least in wOHI), and on that very day Bunhred was beu-othed to her21 Despite a 'concerted and sudden attack,' Christina was considered to have given her consent to the maniage, and the 'authority over a body' of 1 Cor 7:3-4 was in place. The betrothal was a serious obstacle, as words of consent had been spoken, and thus canon law held that it was already in an indissoluble state of marriage that merely needed to be completed by consummation. In spite of this setback, Christina resolves to resist the marriage. To break down her resistance, her parents deny her the things that sus tain her belief, preventing her From speaking with holy men or visiting the monastery and chapel where she would go to pray.Z2 She persists, though, wmch only infuriates her parents further: The more her parents became aware of her persistence in this frame of mind, the more they tried to break down her resistance, first by flattery, then by reproaches, sometimes by presents and grand promises, and even by threats and punishments.23 The whole family participates in the project of forcing the marriage to take place; their attempts to force the. consummation will be discussed in the following section. After multiple attempts, the second seemingly impossible obstacle cornes about: Autti and Beatrix bring Christina before a council of religious men to explain herself. Here her author writes that when Autti goes out, "with him went the most noble citizens of the town, who thought that, as the marriage had already been performed, the bishop would immediately order the betrothed woman to submit to the authority of her husband."Z4 Such an expectation was reasonable given the cultural beliefs regarding authority and gender which have been outlined in the fust two chapters, and our hint that consent need not be given as freely as contemporary interpretations would have it may be found in Autti's presentation of the case to the bishop. He is clear that the marnage was forced: 1 know, my fathers, 1 know, and 1 admit to my daughter, that 1 and her mother have forced her against her will into this marriage and that against her better judgment she has received this sacramento Yet, no matter how she was led into it, if she resists our authority and rejects it, we shall be the laughing-stock of our neighbours, a mockery and derision to those who are round about. Wherefore, 1 beseech you, plead with her to have pity on us: let her marry in the Lord and take 21 Ibid. p. 47. 22 Ibid. pp. 47-49. 23 Ibid. p. 47. 24 Ibid. p. 65. Gilbert 78 away our reproach. \X'hy must she depart From tradition? W'hy should she bnng this dishonour on her father? l ler life of poverry will bnng the whole of the nobility into disrepute. Let her do now what we wish and she can have aIl that we possess.25 The aristocratic father's prerogative to control the marnages of his daughters is clearly at stake, and the gravity of the challenge that Christina is posing cornes across. In response, Fredebert, the reverend prior, reminds Christina that betrothal was an indissoluble state and cites numerous verses, among them 1 Cor 7: 3-4: We are surpnsed... at your obstinacy, or rather we should say, your madness. We know that you have been betrothed according to ecc1esiastical custom. We know that the sacrament of marnage, wruch has been sanctioned by divine law, cannot be dissolved, because what God has joined together, no man should put asunder. For trus a man willleave rus father and mother and cleave to his wife. And they shall be two in one flesh. And the Apostle says: let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The woman has no power over her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband has not power over his own body, but the wife. Unto the marned 1 command, yet not 1, but the Lord, let not the wife depart From her husband and let not the husband put away rus wife. And we know the commandment given to children: obey your parents and show them respect. These two commandments, about obedience to parents and faithfulness in marnage, are great, much commended in the Old and New Testaments. Yet the bond of marnage is so much more important than the authority of parents that if they commanded you to break off the marnage you should not listen to them. Now, however, that they order you to do something wruch we know on divine authority to be more important than obedience itself, and you do not listen to them, you are doubly at fault. Nor should you think that only virgins are saved: for whilst many virgins perish, many mothers of families are saved, as we weIl know. And since trus is so, nothing remains but that you accept our advice and teaching and submit yourself to the lawful embraces of the man to whom you have been legally joined in marnage.26 Fredebert's speech surrounds 1 Cor 7:3-4 with a potent mix of verses designed to undermine Christina's resolve and cause her to recognize the authority Burthred has over her body by 'submitting' to ms 'lawful embraces.' In response, Christina replies that she had not given consent to the marriage but had rather been coerced into it, explaining that she had chosen chastity since childhood.Z7 Here Christina is given her opportumty: Fredebert says that if she was betrothed to Christ since childhood, she could not also be betrothed to Burthred.Z8 The language he uses, that Christina is a sponsa Christi Of bride of Christ, is quite specific; as Thomas Head explains, 25 Ibid. p. 59. 26 Ibid. pp. 59-61. The other verses are Mark 10:7-9, Eph 5:31 (itself a quotation of Gen 2:24), Eph 6:1, and 1 Cor 7:10-11. Note that while Talbot translates 1 Cor 7:3 as rendering 'due benevolence,' the Latin states 'debt' (debitum). 27 Ibid. p. 62. 28 Ibid. p. 63. Gilbert 79 "Bcing the bride of Christ was not a metaphorical expresslOn of her spiritual intimacy with her saviour, rather it was a contractual relationship involving mutual privileges and obligations which bound her to him, and him to her." 29 Such astate was a legal description, not a mystical one,") and if proven would be able to serve as the basis for court action to annul the original betrothal. At this point, warning her that such a designation would mean that she could not accept any other marriage, even to a prince, Fredebert returns to her parents and says that, although they have been unsuccessful in bending Christina to their will, they might try with bishop Robert, who was soon to visit. He initially reaffmns Fredebert's opinion but later changes his mind after receiving a bribe - another obstacle for Christina.31 Burthred hears about the bishop's initial pronouncement and agrees to release her from the agreement, even offering to pay for her to enter a monastery; when Autti and Beatrix hear about this, they force him to change bis mind through threats and bribery.32 Christina's parents continue to increase the pressure. Autti rips Christina's clothes from her body and tries to drive her from the house; he is stopped only by a guest who intercedes for her.33 Another night, when they were hosting a banquet, Beatrix fmds Christina and takes her to a back room, where she beats her "until she was weary of it" and then returns her, bruised and battered, to the banquet to face the guests.34 The obstacles mount, and in the end Christina is able to escape only by running away. Although many contemporary interpretations of the Church's emphasis on 'consent' would cause us to expect otherwise, it is telling that the clergy in Christina's 29 Thomas Head, "The Marnages of Christina of Markyate," in Christina of Markyate: A Twe!fth-Century Ho/y Woman, ed. Samuel Fanous and Henrietta Leyser (London: Routledge, 2005). p. 117. 30 Head explains this point: "The use of the term sponsa Christi was thus of a different order from those works which modeled the marriage of humans to Christ on language derived from the Song of Songs. Whereas the monk of St _Albans [Christina's biographer] never cited that biblical text, even indirectly, he frequently used the legal and liturgical language of contemporary marnage practice_ While medieval marriage rituals themselves, like ail Christian liturgies, used much biblicaily inspired language, it is interesting ta note that no such ritual etnployed language frotn the Song 0/ S ongs." Ibid. p. 118. This fits in weil with d'.t\vray's observation social realities shaped the messages in medieval marnage sermons more than did élite, mystical discourses; he writes that the more we understand the symbolism used in marnage sermons, "the more different it looks from the marnage symbolism of monastic commentaries on the Song of Songs." d'Avray, Medieval Marriage Sermons: Mass Communication in a Culture withou! Prin!. pp. 2-3. 31 The Lift of Christina ofMarkyate: A Twe!fth Cm/ury Recluse. pp. 65-67_ 32 Ibid. p.o 71. 33 Ibid. p. 73. 34 Ibid. p. 75. Gilbert 80 narrauye serye not as guardians of freel)' given consent but rather as a scemingly impossible obstacle for the heroine to overcome. When consulte d, the bishops are wholly unconcerned that Christina's consent had originally been obtained through coercive measures, and indicate that the marriage is quite valid enough to establish sufficient authority over her body to justify the use of force in consummation (as we will see in the following section). They work with Christina's parents, attempting to bend her to their will (hence forcing her consent) and offering other options when the fust fail. 'Consent' is able to be bought with bribes, as Burthred and bishop Robert show. It is no wonder that Christina's biographer laments that "there can be no hesitation in believing that parents can behave in this way against their own flesh and blood,"35 referencing the broader social concerns of the family to which Christina was expected to bOW.36 Christina's story thus illustrates some of the pressures that would have been conceivable or even common when it came to forcing daughters to consent to marriage. These pressures were part and parcel of the social realities of the 12th century. As Donahue summarizes: In the late twelfth century, marnage as a matter of customary law, and also as a matter of social fact, was not the exhaustive concem of the marnage parrners. At alllevels of society, family, fmancial, and feudal concems, and at the upper levels of society, political and military concems as weil, dictated marnage choice in many instances. There is evidence that the choice of the parties, particlùarly that of the woman, was hardly considered in many marriage dealings.37 While today we see mutually given consent as part of the equality of marriage, the direct evidence regarding consent to marriage in the Middle Ages tends to disfavor women. With so much at stake, marriage could not be left to the individual 'whims' of daughters. Thus canonists would accept compromises which tended to blur consent and coercion. One such compromise was defming consent for daughters as her mere physical presence. Resnick writes, "medieval churchmen often quoted the judgment of classical Roman jurists that every daughter is presumed to consent to her father's will in a marriage arrangement, unless her disagreement is clearly made 35 Ibid. p. 67. 36 Ibid. pp. 67-69. 37 Donahue Jr., "The Canon Law on the Formation of Marriage and Social Practice in the Later :NIiddle Ages." pp. 145-146. Given these social realities, Donahue writes that "Alexander's rules were more than a synthesis of previous views of marnage; they represented a vision of what marnage ought to be." p. 145. Gilbert 81 evident (nijj evidenter diJJentiat)."3R This \Vas particularly strong in the case of aristocratic marriages, where, as Resnick explains, "a bride's mere presence at the deJpOllJatio or betrothal was construed as a form of implied consent. Her explicit consent was useful but, in its absence, authorities simply assumed her obedience to patemal command.,,39 Under such a framework, a daughter's 'consent' to marnage does not carry the same meaning as we might attribute to it today - and when we consider that consent to marriage necessarily implied consent to sexual relations, the words of 1 Cor 7:3-4 take on an ominous tone. A parallel discussion provides indirect evidence as to the idea of consent. In the 13th century, Innocent III was asked to rule on the cases of Jews who were forcibly baptized. Consent to baptism was a necessary condition for its validity; what, then, constituted consent to baptism? Non-consent was indicated through repeated, vocal refusaI; however, those who were baptized at the tip of a sword were more hesitant to voice their objections. Did the presence of force change the conditions? To answer this question, Innocent III distinguished between two types of consent. The Brst was abJolute, clearly given and uncontested. The second was conditionaliter, given only under certain conditions. Both types of consent were valid. In the case of the Jew baptized at sword-point, Innocent concluded that the baptism had occurred with consent conditionaliter as it had been accepted on the condition of not being harmed. The baptism was thus a valid one.40 As Resnick notes, this example demonstrates that "consent could be interpreted very broadly, or, when it suited some purpose, very narrowly.,,41 Such parallel discourses show the ways in which consent was blurred with what we would today consider clear evidence of coercion. Notions of physiology were relevant here as well. F ollowing the Hippocratic-Galenic theory, if female pleasure was necessary for conception, it followed that a woman who conceived had enjoyed the experience; in the eyes of many canonists, this 'objectively' established her consent.42 Referring to cases of 38 Irven M. Resnick, "Marnage in Medieval Culture: Consent Theory and the Case of Joseph and Mary," Church His/ory 69, no. 2 (2000). p. 359. Here he quotes Ivo of Chartres and Peter Lombard. 39 Ibid. p. 352. 40 This discussion cornes from Ibid. p. 366. Resnick notes that only Jews who shouted their refusaI even in the presence of force (and often died as a result) were not baptized. 41 Ibid. p. 367. 42 Ibid. pp. 361-362. Gilbert 82 rape, William of Conches drew a distinction bet\yeen natural v:ill and camaI will, saying that "although raped women dislike the act in the beginning, in the end, however, from the weakness of the flesh, they like it.,,43 If a raped woman conceived, then, it was proof she had enjoyed it; her consent might not be rational, but the physical proof was there nonetheless.44 Similarly, even if a couple were known to be married under conditions of coercion, consent could still be established if a pregnancy occurred.45 In the eyes of historians such as Resmck, such discourses demonsttate that canomsts were seeking to fmd ways to establish consent after it was clear that there had been coercion in the fonnation of the marriage.46 These examples show that 'freely given consent' could be construed in a multiplicity of ways, none of which paraUel contemporary conceptions: physical presence, submission in the face of lethal force, and even the later conception of a child were aUlegaUy admissible 'prooE' that consent had been freely offered. We are quick to assume that 'freely given consent' meant the same thing in the Middle Ages as it means today, and part of the conjugal debt's sheen of equality cornes from this mistaken assumption. But upon closer examination, the sheen fades, and we are left with troubling evidence that consent and coercion could blur together quite closely at cimes. Coerced Consummation If consent blurred with coercion at the initial betrothal, it should come as no surprise that coercion was an accepted part of consummation as wen. Once again, Christina of Markyate's story illustrates several dynamics at work. After her initial betrothal to Burthred, her parents knew that they needed to get the marriage consummated for it to be complete. They were willing to go to 43 Quoted in Ibid. pp. 362-363. 44 Ibid. pp. 362-363. 45 Ibid. p. 363. Lotllbard even argues that no pregnancy is needed: "Truly those who were united unwillingly and by compulsion are viewed as having offered their consent if, having had an opportunity to escape or offer their objection, they have lived together without complaint or contradiction for a period of time. 11ùs subsequent consent supplies what prior compulsion had been removed." Quoted in Resnick, "Marriage in Medieval Culture: Consent Theory and the Case of Joseph and Mary." p. 361. 46 Resnick, "Marriage in Medieval Culture: Consent Theory and the Case of Joseph and Mary." p. 363. Lombard urged caution with certain cases, noting that sometimes consent could be established after the facto See Resnick, "Marriage in Medieval Culture: Consent Theory and the Case of Joseph and Mary." p.361. Gilbert 83 great lengths to do so, and are quick to suggest rape as a viable option. On the ftrst attempt, they secretly let Burthred into her bedroom at night, "in order that, if he found the maiden asleep, he might suddenly take her by surprise and overcome her.,,4ï By the grace of God, however, Christina is found awake and fully dressed. She exhorts him to chastity, \Vith 1 Cor 7:5 clearly functioning in the background of herwords: Do not take it amiss that 1 have declined your embraces. In order that your friends may not reproach you with being rejected by me, 1 will go home with you: and let us live together there for sorne time, ostensibly as husband and wife, but in reality living chastely in the sight of the Lord. But first let us join hands in a compact that neither meanwhile will touch the other unchastely, neither will look upon the other except with a pure and angelic gaze, making a promise that in three or four years' rime we will receive the religious habit and offer ourselves ... to sorne monastery which providence shall appoint.48 Christina's plan builds upon the principle of the Decretum in C. 27 q.2 (itself based in 1 Cor 7:5)49 that allowed spouses to mutually vow continence: she proposes a period of chaste marriage followed by entrance at a monastery.so This idea was a compromise which presented no challenge to the validity of the original betrothal but which also saved her dedication to chastity. A compromise, however, would not be enough to surmount this obstacle. Although the text does not record Burthred's response, it does suggest that he is temporarily dissuaded from the original plan - an element which serves to emphasize Christina's extraordinary nature. This reprieve is only temporary, however; when Burthred eventually leaves the room, he is taunted by revelers who question his virility and waro him of her "deceitful trickS.,,51 They chase him back into the room, ready to help him achieve the act if needed: "Either by force or entreaty he was to gain his end. And if neither of these sufficed, he was to know that they were at hand to help him: aIl he had to mind was to act the man."S2 Again, a seemingly impossible obstacle has been placed in Christina's way. She escapes through a series of daring exploits characteristic of medieval 47 The lift of Christina ofMarkyate: A Twelflh Century Recluse. p. 51. 48 Ibid. p. 51. 49 See Chapter One, "Gratian" for more on this. 50 For more on how chaste marriage was at work in this narrative, see Dyan Elliott, "Alternative Intimacies: Men, Women and Spiritual Direction in the Twelfth Century," in Christina of Markyate: A Twelflh-Century Ho!J Woman, ed. Samuel Fanous and Henrietta Leyser (London: Roudedge, 2005). 51 The Lift of Christina ofMarkyate: A Twelflh Century Recluse. p. SI. 52 Ibid. p. 53. Gilbert 84 hagiography:S' she hides by grasping a nail in the wall and hanging there behind a curtain. When Burthred comes in, he fails to find her and goes back out, only to reenter accompanied by the revelers, one of whom unknowingly puts his hand on Christina's leg through the curtain. Christina prays and they leave; she takes advantage of the moment to escape the room. Burthred comes in at that moment, and as he comes through the door she dashes out another. Once outside, she faces a steep fence with sharp spikes on top if it. Again faced with a seemingly impossible obstacle, Christina jumps over the fence with "amazing ease" (incredibili jacilitate) and leaves Burthred behind, unable to follow. After this initial encounter, her parents keep setting up new wedding nights for her, but a series of miracles save her: ftrst there is a fixe that burns all the preparations, and another rime Christina was sttuck with a high fever. In frusttation, her parents subject her to a sort of torture, alternately thmsting her into cold water and then blistering her.54 Beatrix is exasperated: "In the end she swore that she would not care who deflowered her daughter, provided that some way of deflowering her could be found."s5 AlI of these demonsttate the special favor that Christina has found with God; that she eventually escapes her coerced bettothal should be taken as no less of a miracle. The genre of the text implies that the fate of lesser women would have been different. Violence reigns supreme in these episodes, both as a threat (Beatrix's oath) and as an actual experience (the crowd of revelers ready to help Burthred 'act the man'). Christina's parents are detetmined to see the full marriage completed; their actions may be reprehensible to us, but as l will demonsttate in the following section, they were not illegal or even uncommon. Further, Burthred is quite willing to go along with her parents' plan; had he indeed found her laying there asleep, he likely would have raped her, and when he re-enters the room he comes back with a crowd of people there to back up with force his demonsttation of authority over Christina's body. Yet Christina lacks any authority over Burthred's body to cause him to desist. Christina's story illusttates the importance of consummation and the lengths to which husbands and parents could go in the quest to solidify the marnage bond. 53 The following cornes from Ibid. p. 53. 54 Ibid. p. 55. 55 Ibid. pp. 73-75. Gilbert 85 If commcntary by mcdicval theologians and canonists is any indication, the violence of Christina's story was neither unknown nor unacceptable. William of Rennes argued that "a woman ought to be able to sustain a certain amount of violence in consummation.,,56 In one miracle of the Virgin Mary, she cures a young woman who had been mortally wounded by her husband, who had thrust a knife into her vagina after half a year of attempts to penetrate her hymen.57 Had the Virgin not cured her, however, the husband would have suffered no loss; Peter the Chanter reports that Alexander III "permitted a man to remarry after he had damaged his wife on his wedding night so that neither he nor anyone else could have intercourse with her.,,58 Consummation was ail-important; just as Christina's mother did not care how her daughter was deflowered as long as it was done, canon law did not draw a distinction between consensual and forced consummation. What happened, however, in cases wherein the man was incapable of consummating the marriage? Should a man have difficulty consummating, the onus was fust placed on the woman. Albert the Great wrote, "if a man has difficulty consummating his marriage, the woman should be wamed to dress more provocatively, while the man should be instructed on how a more lovable woman can be fashioned.,,59 Should the man ultimately be incapable, however, legal action could be taken.60 In theory, just as consummation (whether forced or not) formed the indissolubility of the marriage bond, lack of consummation was grounds for annulment. Both canon law and theology61 treated the question of impotence;62 the 56 Elliott, Spiritual Marriage: S exual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock. p. 146. 57 Ibid. p. 147. 58 Ibid. p. 146. 59 Ibid. p. 153. Elliot sees this as an instance of the increasing pressure on women to make themselves appealing to their husbands so that they will not be tempted to seek other women; this functioned in a manner similar to the idea expressed in 1 Cor 7:2, wherein the danger of 'sexual immoraIity' is contained by the availability of an appropriate sexual ourlet. This principle functioned in a gender-specific way: Thomas of Chobham S'lys that the wife has the "singular responsibility of appearing attractive for rendering the debt. lndeed she ought to nourish and cherish [her body] so it is suitable for manly uses" (quoted p. 152). However, as Elliott writes, "no like requirement is ever placed on the husband." p. 152. 60 This only applied, however, if no consummation had ever been possible. If a man were to become impotent after the union had been consummated, or if the couple were aware of the problem before marrying, there were no grounds for separation. 61In fact, theology so dictated the concems of medical studies in this regard that it was theologians, not physicians, who came up with the terms impotentia respectiva, natum/is, accidenta/is, cerlia, and dubia. Jacquart and Thomasset, S exua/ité Et Savoir Médica/ Au Ml!)len Age. p. 231. Gilhert 86 1egal mcchanism for annulling a marriage based on impotence is given in the frrst question of causa 33 in the Decretum. 63 Should a couple marry and find themselves unable to consummate their union, they might petition to separate in a timely manner (usually defined as two months). While attempts should frrst be made to persuade them to live together like brother and sister, the couple was to be separated should the woman insist she wanted children. In this case, the woman would be allowed to remarry, but the man would not. Much attention has been paid to this principle, and it is often heralded as an example of each spouse having coercive authority over the other's body. However, it is rarely contextualized with other principles in the Decretum which delineate legal status and incapacity of women. Because the husband was his wife's lord, if he denied that he was incapable, his word would hold; a non-virgin wife might be able to ask seven witnesses to swear otherwise, but the husband had the option of swearing &st.64 Finaily, while examinations by midwives or prostitutes did exist,65 whether the husband would be 66 obliged to submit to the examination depended on the whim of the COurt. Thus, for ail the discussion of ways the requirement to consummate may have put pressure on male virility, one rarely hears of other influences it might have had; in particular, Elliot writes that "the rhetoric of consummation placed additional pressures on male virility, and this, in turn, seems to have fostered a climate of sexual violence.,,67 Such a possibility turns the ide a that these legal procedures favored women on its head and opens up the idea that the darker side of these texts may have been obscured. Further research here is indicated. The husband's authority over his wife's body extended to cover these acts of violence; as was true in Christina's story, rape was not an issue, as forced 6ZWhile these laws stemmed from theologians, it is worth noting two exceptions among their ranks: Popes Alexander III (1159-1181) and Clement III (1187-1191). These russented, preferring couples to remain together even if intercourse was not possible Oames Brundage, "The Problem of Itnpotence," in Sexual Practices and the Medieval Church, ed. Vern L Bullough and James Brundage (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1982). p. 136.). Clement III would go so far as to say that the couple should remain together even if the wife's life was endangered. However, the se positions were not adopted as normative. 63 My summary here will follow Ibid. p. 136. 64 Elliott, Spintual Martiage: S exual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock. pp. 153-154. 65 See Brundage, "The Problem of Impotence." p. 136. See also Bullough, "On Being a Male in the lvliddle Ages." pp. 41-42. 66 Elliott, Spintual Martiage: SexualAbstinence in Medieval Wedlock. pp. 153-154. 67 Ibid. p. 146. Gilbert 87 consummatlOn was still consummatlon. The medieval casUlstry that follows this question assumes that the coerced partner was female. A common question was as follows: after speaking words of future consent, a woman decides to enter the religious life. If her husband consummated the marriage by force, could she still enter religious life without his consent? Bonaventure said that consent was given voluntarily at the cime of marriage, making aIl intercourse after that point consensual. Alexander of Hales responded that the marriage had been consummated and the husband should not be thought of as having raped his wife; William of Rennes noted that the wife cannot contradict her husband. None would allow the wife to enter the monastery.68 Thus, as Payer notes, "in the case of force these authors acknowledge the priority of the rights and obligations attached to the marital debt over the right to · ,,69 enter reli gton. Further, the husband was not considered to have acted inappropriately; as Elliott writes, "Most of the authorities agreed that if a woman was intercepted and violently penetrated by her husband while en route to the convent, she must by necessity adhere to him. The husband was only acting in accordance with his rightS.,,70 Once words of consent had been spoken, a spouse could not revoke the authority over theu body which had been created. Sexual access and authority over the body are in some sense synonymous here. This applied to the ftrst act as much as any subsequent act, regardless of the fact that the fust act was a deftnite moment that marked the complete formation of the marriage bond. That coercion and consent should blur together here is grounds for a reevaluation of the assertion that the conjugal debt operated in an equal manner. In conclusion, the willingness to tolerate coercion ln the realm of consummation casts serious doubt on claims that the conjugal debt operated in such a way as to encourage mutuality between spouses, as weIl as the idea that the twelfth century was a cime when consent to marriage was championed. Consummation was the second step in the formation of the marriage bond, that which solidifted its indissolubility. Yet coercion was accepted to the point that violence was not unthinkable; indeed, a resistant hymen might be broken by a knife's tip, leaving the 68 .AlI three responses are taken from Payer, The Bridling 0/ Desire: Vicws 0/ S ex in the Later Middle Ages. pp. 91-92. 69 Ibid. p. 92. 70 Elliott, Spin/ual Marriage: Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock. p. 145. In saying this, she references Hortiensis and John of Freiburg in addition to William of Rennes. Gilbert 88 woman's body damaged so badly as ta preclude her ever being capable of sexual intercourse,' and Christian theologians remained nonplussed. The refusaI to condemn the use of violence in consummation casts doubt on the church's sincerity in discussions of consent to marriage; as Elliott concludes, "although the church championed the freedom of consent, its tolerance of forced consummation would suggest that this professed freedom was, in many ways, nominal.,,71 And lest we believe that the authority over a body in matters of consummation meant authority over any body, the consistency of the medieval casuistry's use of gender in these discussions indicates otherwise. Conclusion The ways in wbich consent and coercion blur together in medieval debates regarding the formation of marriage are perhaps some of the most unsettling aspects of the conjugal debt. A woman might enter into a marriage unwillingly, and yet her husband's authority over her body that was formed in that initial moment was sufficient to al10w him to rape her in order to complete the marriage bond. Her authority over bis body, however, was limited at best. In rare cases, she might be able to take him to court for being unable to consummate; but this would face numerous legal obstacles even if it was done within the proper timeframe. In contrast, bis access to her body is unrelenting, from the beginning of the marriage and on; indeed, given the blurring of consent and coercion in matters of marriage and sexuality, 'authority over a body' seems to mean 'unlimited free access to that body for sexual use.' The wording of 1 Cor 7:3-4 implicitly supports this: the concept of love is absent from 1 Cor 7, but the verses do emphasize questions of authority. Such a conceptual framework tends to lead to questions about the nature and extent of that authority rather than prompting reflection on mutual devotion. It should be no surprise, then, that when Gratian codifi.ed this principle into canon law, the result should be a casuistry which allowed the use of violence and force, even in a century known for its emphasis on 'consent.' In short, there is much evidence to concur with Donahue that our contemporary romantic notion of marriage and consent are both "a story of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, not of the later 71 Ibid. pp. 147-148. Gilbert 89 l'vfiddle Ages.,,/2 Instead, the story which the medieval texts tell is one in which notions of consent are a far cry from what we hear today, and the supposed equality of the conjugal debt los es another line of defense. 72 Donahue Jr., "The Canon Law on the Formation of Marnage and Social Practice in the Later "Nfiddle Ages." p. 157. Gilbert 90 Mterword Gratian and l are, in an important sense, aliens to each other. But despite our differences, the past year has taught me that l am not so far removed from the ide a of the conjugal debt. While writing this thesis, 1 was diagnosed with vulvar vestibulitis syndrome, a chronic pain condition that severely limits sexual function. Reading theological, legal, and medical texts nonstop about an obligation to sexual intercourse while undergoing months of intensive physical therapy has made me aware of the ways that Paul's wotds reverberate, however unconsciously, in my own beliefs about the place of sexuality in a partnership. What is true for me would seem to be true for broader society as weil; a survey provided by the Ropet Center for Public Opinion Research repotted that a full 31 % of Americans believed that a husband who had sex with his wife without her consent was not committing tape.1 Thus while the conjugal debt might seem to be an abstract inteilectual artifact, its spirit lives on. In his comprehensive study Law, Sex, and Christian Sociery in Medieval Europe, James Brundage demonstrates that medieval canon law was foundational to the formation of modem sex law and remains at the base of modem assumptions about morality.2 Although today many of us make a clear distinction between consent to marriage and consent to sexual intercourse within marriage, our own laws are not always as distinct because they stem from this blurred heritage. 1 Cor 7:3-4 may be heard resounding as far as the present day in contempotary American law regarding spousal rape.3 In the United States,4 until very recentll a 1 Surory I:Y The Star Tribune, August 6-August 25, 1991. Retrieved June 15, 2007 from the iPOLL Databank, The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut. wife who was raped by her husband had little or even no legal recourse; his actions were protected by the 'marital exemption' clause.6 Although today aIl fifty states have removed their exemption clauses, the situation is far from rectified; many states impose extra requirements on victims of spousal rape that are not required for other rape cases in the same state, thus limiting prosecution.7 The seriousness of the situation is underlined by the National Violence Against Women survey sponsored by the National Institutes of Justice, which found that 61% ofwomen who reported being raped were raped by a CUITent or former spouse, partner, boyfriend, or date, and 7.7% by an intimate partner.8 Thus despite the many and significant ways in which our mores· differ from those of the Middle Ages, there seems to be confusion present in our own age regarding the limits of authority when a romantic relationship is at hand. Consent and coercion blurred further in a recent case in Maryland in which a woman asked her parmer to stop once intercourse had begun; although he was initially convicted of rape, the appellate court concluded that "it was the act of penetration that was the essence of the crime of rape; after this initial infringement... any further injury was considered to be less consequential.,,9 Analysis following this case has demonstrated that American law is unc1ear as to whether a woman's consent can be revoked once given, even in situations where she begins to feel pain or discovers that her parmer is not using a condom or is HIV-positive.10 2005, forcible sodomy and object penetration were protected by exemption clauses which reduced the charge to marital sexual assault (a much lesser charge). Even once laws are change d, however, educating the public becomes the next challenge. TIùs information is from How Can It Be S exual Assau!t If We're Mamed? (Brochure), (Radford: Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance 2007). More information is accessible at www.vdsalliance.org. 6 Note that the traditional legal deftnition of rape was "camaI knowledge, without consent, of a woman not [one' s1 wife." Mary Welek A twell, Equa! Protection of the Law? Gender and Justice in the United States (New York: Peter Lang, 2002). p. 61. 7 Examples of these extra requirements include an added element of force (i.e., the presence of a deadly weapon) or cime limits for reporting the crime. For a recent study on the contemporary American situation, see Anne Rousseve, "Domestic Violence and the States," Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law (2005). p. 432. 8 Welek Atwell, Equal Protection of the Law? Gender and Justice in the United States. pp. 58-59. The survey provides evidence, too, that rape is a gendered crime, as women were 10 cimes more likely than men to be raped. Note too that indigenous women are far more likely to be raped than their white counterparts; the rate is as high as 1 in 3 women. See Amnesty International, "Maze of Injustice: The Failure to Protect lndigenous Women from Sexual Violence in the USA," http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/EN GA1vIR51 0352007. 9 Court decision quoted in Jeninne Lee-St.John, "A Time Limit on Rape," TIME in partnership with CNN, http://www.time.com/cime/printout/0.8816.15847686.00.html. 10 Ibid. Gilbert 92 FinaIly, even for those of us who will never expericnce chronic sexual pain nor the horror of sexual assault firsthand, the conjugal debt stands as a strong example of how carefully studying the past with open eyes is important to pointing the way for the future. Those of us interested in crafting sexual ethics "based on consent and mutuality and that thereby respect the full human dignity of ail persons" (to take Brooten's phraset should be wary of daims that praise 1 Cor 7:3-4 or the conjugal debt. Granting authority over another's body - with ail its overtones of slavery - is an odd choice to promote as an affirmative ethic for human relations. Even if the conjugal debt were to have offered equal rights to each spouse over the other's body, such a slavery-ridden ethic would not be positive, for joint authority and mutuality are not the same. The conjugal debt thus stands not as an instance of Christian teaching promoting mutuality in sexual relationships (despite oft-made daims to this effect), but rather as an example of how the Church has codified inequality, supported it with reference to apostolic authority, and perpetuated power structures which aIlowed and even encouraged violence. Rather than waxing nostalgic for a past that never was, we should regard the conjugal debt with open eyes and heed its warning if we are ever to create a better future for ourselves and our daughters. Il Brooten, "Nature, Law, and Custom in Augustine' s on the Good of Marriage." p. 182. Gilbert 93 Bibliography Primary Sources "Acts of Paul and Thecla." In Anthology r!f Ancient Greek Popular Literature, edited by William Hansen. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998. The Harpercollins Stucfy Bible: New Revised Standard Version, with the Apocraphalf Deuterocanonical Books. Edited by Wayne A. Meeks, Jouette M. Bassler and Society of Biblical Literature. New York City: HarperCollins, 1993. The Lift r!f Christina r!f Mar~ate: A Twe!fth Century Recluse. Translated by CH. Talbot. Edited by CH. Talbot. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997. "The Prose Salernitan Questions: Edited from a Bodleian Manuscript (Auct. F. 3. 10)." edited by Brian Lawn. London: The British Academy via the Oxford University Press, 1979. Vulgate (Biblia Sacra: Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem). 4 ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. African, Constantine the. "Constantinus A fricanus , De Coitu: A Translation. By Paul Delany." The Chaucer Review4 (1971): 55-65. Ambrose. "Cain and Abel (=Càin Et Abe~." In The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1947. ---,. "Concerning Virgins (=De Vir;ginibus)." In A Select Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890. ---,. "Concerning Widows (=De Vidua)." In A Select Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890. ---,. De Ojjiciis. Edited by Ivor J. Davidson. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. ---. "Hexameron (= Hexameron)." In The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1947. ---. "Letters (=Epistles)." In The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1947. ---. "On Isaac, or the Soul (=De Isaac VeIAnima)." In The Fathers of the Church:A New Translation. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1947. ---. "Paradise (=Paradise)." In The Fathers r!f the Church: A New Translation. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1947. ---. "The Patriarchs (=De Patriarchis)." In The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1947. Gilbert 94 ---. "Traité Sur L'évangile De S. Luc." Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1956-1958. Aquinas. "Summa Theologica." New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947-1948. Aristotle. "Generation of Animals (=Ga)." In The Complete Works 0/ Aristotle: The Revùed Oxford Transla/ion, edited by Jonathan Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. ---. "History of Animals (=Ha)." In The Comple/e Works ifAris/o/le: The Revised O)<Çford Translation, edited by Jonathan Bames. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. ---. "Parts of Animals (=Pa)." In The Complete Works if Aristotle: The Revised O:iford Translation, edited by Jonathan Bames. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Augustine. "The Confessions (=Conftssiones)." In The Works if Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21 st Century, edited by John E. Rotelle: Brooklyn: New City Press, 1990. ---. "The Excellence of Marriage (=De Bono Coniugah)." In The Works if Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21 s/ Cen/ury, edited by John E. Rotelle. Brooklyn: New City Press, 1990. ---. "The Excellence ofWidowhood (=De Bono Viduitatis)." In The Works ifSaint Augustine: A Translation for the 21 st Century, edited by John E. Rotelle. Brooklyn: New City Press, 1990. ---. "Holy Virginity (=De Sancta Virginate)." In The Works if Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21 st Century, edited by John E. Rotelle. Brooklyn: New City Press, 1990. ---. "Letters (=Epistles)." In The Works if Saint Augustine: A Translationfor the 21st Century, edited by John E. Rotelle. Brooklyn: New City Press, 1990. ---,. The literai Meaning ifGenesis (=De Genesi Ad Lit/eram). Translated by John H. Taylor SJ. 2 vols. New York: Newman Press, 1982. ---,. "On Adulterous Marriages (=De Adultennis Coniugiis)." In The Works if Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Cen/ury, edited by John E. Rotelle. Brooklyn: New City Press, 1990. ---. "On Marriage and Concupiscence (=De Nuptiis Et Concupiscentia)." In A S elert Library ifNicene and Post-Nicene Fathers if the Christian Church. First Series., edited by Philip Schaff. Buffalo: Christian Literature Company, 1886. ---. "Sermons (=Sermones)." In The Works if Sain/ Augustine: A Translation for the 21s/ Cen/ury, edited by John E. Rotelle. Brooklyn: New City Press, 1990. Avicenna. Qdniin Fi Al-Tibb. Canon if Medicine. Critical edition prepared under the auspices of Institute of History of Medicine and Medical Research ed. 5 vols. New Delhi: Vikas, 1982. Galen. On the Usefulness ifthe Parts ifthe Bocfy. Translated by Margaret Tallmadge May. lthaca: Comell University Press, 1968. Gratian. "Corpus luris Canonici." Lugduni 1. A. Huguetan, & G. Barbier, 1671. Gilbert 95 ---. Gratiani Decretum: La Traduction En Ancien FranfaiJ Du Décret De Gratien. 5 vols. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1992-2001. ---. Maniage Canon.rfrom the Decretum of Gratian and the DecretaÙ, Sext., Clementines and ExtravaganteJ·. Translated by John T. Noonan Jr. Edited by Augustine Thompson O.P.: http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Canon%20Law/marriagelaw.htm. Accessed 14 March 2006. Hippocrates. "The Aphorisms of Hippocrates : With a Translation into Latin and English." edited by Thomas Coat. Birmingham: Classics of Medicine Library, 1982. Jerome. "Against Helvidius, or on the PerpetuaI Virginity ofBlessed Mary (=Adversus Helvidium)." In A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890. ---. "Against Jovinian 1 and 1 1 (=Adversus jovinianum)." In A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series. New York: Christian Literatute Company, 1890. ---. "Against the Pelagians (=Dialogi Contra Pelagianos)." In A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene F athers of the Christian Church. Second Series. New York: Christian Lteratute Company, 1890. ---. "Homilies (=Sermones)." In The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1947. ---. "Letters (= Epistles)." In A Select Library ofNicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second Series. New York: Christian Lterature Company, 1890. Seville, Isidore of. Etymologies. Translated by Stephen A. Barney, W.J. Lewis, JA. Beach and Oliver Berghof, The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Secondary Sources Augustine through the Ages: An Enryclopedia. Edited by Allan D. Fitzgerald. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishers, 1999. How Can It Be Sexual Assault lfWe're Manied? (Brochure). Radford: Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance 2007. St. Augustine on Maniage and Sexuality. Edited by Elizabeth Clark. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1996. Wortkonkordanz Zum Decretum Gratiani. Edited by Timothy Reuter and Gabriel Silagi. 5 vols. München: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, 1990. Allen R.S.M., Sister Prudence. The Concept ofWoman: The Aristote/ian Revolution, 750 Bc - Ad 1250. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: William B. Eeerdmans Publishing Company, 1997. Allen, Suzanne. "Plus Oultre." Revue des Sciences Humaines 44, no. 168 (1977): 503-15. Gilbert 96 Atkinson, Clarissa W. '''Precious Balsam in a Fragile Glass': The Ideology ofVirginiry in the Later Middle Ages." .Tournai o/ràmi!J History (Summer 1983): 131-43. Baldwin, John W. . "Consent and the Marital Debt: Five Discourses in Northem France around 1200." In Coment and Comion to Sex and Marnage in Ancient and Medieval Societies, edited by Angeliki E. Laiou, 257-70. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1993. Baldwin, John W. The Language if Sex: Five Voices from Northern France around 1200. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Barclay, John. "1 Corinthians." In OYjord Bible Commentary, edited by John Barton and John Muddiman, 1108-33. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Bassler, Jouette M. "1 Corinthians." In Women's Bible Commentary (Expanded Edition), edited by Carol Newsom, 411-19. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998. Benedek, Thomas G. " Beliefs About Human Sexual Function in the Middle Ages and Renaissance." In Human Sexuality in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, edited by Douglas Radcliff-Umstaed, 97-119. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1978. Berman, Constance H. "Men's Houses, Women's Houses: The Relationship between the Sexes in Twelfth-Century Monasticism." In The Medieval Monastery, edited by Andrew MacLeish, 43-52. St. Cloud: North Star Press of Saint Cloud, Inc., 1988. Biller, Peter, and A. J. Minnis, eds. Medieval Theology and the Natural Bo4J, York Studies in Medieval Theology 1. Y ork: York Medieval Press, 1997. Blamires, Alcuin. "Paradox in the Medieval Gender Doctrine of Head and Body." In Medieval Theology and the Natural Borfy, edited by Peter Biller and A. J. Minnis, 13-29. Suffolk: York Medieval Press, 1997. Bodine, Ann. "Androcentrism in Prescriptive Grammar: Singular 'They', Sex Indefinite 'He', and 'He or She'." Language in Society 4 (1975): 129-46. Bonnet-Cadilhac, Christine. "Problèmes Méthodologiques De L'anatomo Physiologie De Galien: L'example De La Formation De La Semance Féminine." In Maladies, Médecines Et Sociétés : Approches Historiques Pour Le Présent. Actes Du Vie Colloque D'histoire Au Présent., 136-43. Paris: l'Harmattan & Histoire au Présent, 1990. B0rrensen, Kari Elisabeth. Subordination Et Equivalence: Nature Et Rôle De La Femme D'après Augustin Et Thomas D'aquin. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1968. Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics if Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Boylan, Michael. "The Galenic and Hippocratic Challenges to Aristotle's Conception Theory." Journal ifthe History ifBiology 17 (1984): 83-112. Briggs, Sheila. "Galatians." In Searching the Scriptures, edited by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, 218-36. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1994. Gilbert 97 Brooke, Christopher N. L Tbe Aledieval ldea ofAlarriage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Brooten, Bernadette. l~ve between Women: Early Christian Responses to tèmale Homoervtitism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. ---. "Slavery's Long Shadow over the Lives of Girls and Women." Paper presented at the Annual Birks Lecture Series (''Women, Slavery, and Early Christianity"), McGill University Faculty of Religious Studies, Montreal, QC. 2006. Brooten, Bernadette J. "Nature, Law, and Custom in Augustine's on the Good of Marriage." In Walk in the W~s rifWisdom: Ess~s in Honor rifElisabeth Sehüssler Fiorenza, edited by Shelly Matthews, Cynthia Briggs Kittredge and Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre, 181-93. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003. Brown, Peter. Augustine and Sexualiry. Protoeol rifthe Forry Sixth Colloql9': 22 M~ 1983. Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union and the University of Califorrua, 1983. ---. Augustine rifHippo: A Biograpf!J. London: Faber and Faber, 2000. ---. The Bocfy and Sociery: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianiry. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. Brundage, James. "CamaI Delight: Canonistic Theories of Sexuality." ---. "The Problem of Impotence." In S exual Praetiees and the Medieval Chureh, edited by Vern L Bullough and James Brundage, 135-40. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1982. Brundage, James A. "Implied Consent to Intercourse." In Consent and Coenion to Sex and Martiage in Ancient and Medieval Societies, edited by Angeliki E. Laiou, 245- 56. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1993. ---,. Law, Sex, and Christian Sociery in Medieval Eurvpe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. ---,. "Let Me Count the Ways: Canonists and Theologians Contemplate the Coital Positions." Journal rifMedieval History 10 (1984): 81-93. ---. "Sex and Canon Law." In Handbook rif Medieval S exualiry, edited by Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, 33-50. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1996. ---. "Sexual Equality in Medieval Canon Law." In Medieval Women and the Sources if Medieval His/ory, cdited by Joel T. Rosenthal, 66-79. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1990. Buckland, W.W. A Text-Book rifRoman Law frvm Augustus to Justinian. Edited by Peter Stein. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966. Bullough, Vern. "Medieval Medical and Scientific Views ofWomen." Viator4 (1973): 485-501. Gilbert 98 Bullough, Vern L. "Fornlation of Medieval Ideals: Christian Theory and Practiee." In Je.'\.7Ial Pradices and the Medieval CIJNrch, edited by Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, 14-21. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1982. Bullough, Vern L. "On Being a Male in the Middle Ages." In Medieval MasculinitieJ: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages, edited by Clare A. Lees, 31-45. Minneapolis: University of 1'vlinneapolis Press, 1994. ---. "Sex Education in Medieval Christianity." The Journal ifSex Research 13, no. 3 (1977): 185-96. Bullough, Vern L. "The Sin against Nature and Homosexuality." In Sexual Practices and the Medieval Church, edited by Vern L Bullough and James Brundage, 55- 71. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1982. Bullough, Vern L, and James Brundage. Sexual Practices and the Medieval Church. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1982. Burkett, Delbert Royee. An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins if Christianiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Burrus, Virginia. Chastiry as Autonomy: Women in the Stories if the Apocryphal Acts, Studies in Women and Religion. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1987. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion if Identiry 10th Anniversary ed. New York: Routledge, 1999. Bynum, Caroline. "Why All the Fuss About the Body?: A Medievalist's Perspective." CriticalInquiry 22, no. 1 (1995): 1-33. Bynum, Caroline Walker. Fragmentation and Redemption: Essqys on Gender and the Human Bocfy in Medieval Religion. New York: Zone Books, 1992. Cadden, Joan. The Meanings ifSex Difference in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. ---. "Medieval Scientific and Medical Views of Sexuality: Questions of Propriety." Medievalia et Humanistica 14 (1986): 157-71. ---. "Western Medicine and Natural Philosophy." In Handbook if Medieval Sexualiry, edited by Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, 51-80. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1996. Camille, Michael. "Manuscript Illumination and the Art of Copulation." In Constructing Medieval Sexualiry, edited by Karma Lochrie, Peggy McCracken and James A. Schultz, 58-90. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. Caragounis, Chrys C. '''Fornication' and 'Concession'? Interpreting 1 Cor 7, 1-7." In The Corinthian Correspondence, edited by R. Bieringer, 543-60. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. Caron, Marie-Thérèse. "Mariage Et Mesalliance: La Difficulté D'être Femme Dans La Société Nobiliaire Française À La Fin Du Moyen Âge." In La Femme Au Mqyen Âge, edited by Michel Rouche and Jean Houclin, 315-22. Ville de Maubeuge: Jean Touzot, 1990. Gilbert 99 Chieffo Raguin, Virginia, and Sarah Stanbury, eds. Women's Space: Patronage, Place, and Gender in the A1edieval Church. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005. Chodorow, Stanley. Ch,ùlian Polilical Theory and Church Politics in the Mid-Twelfth Cmtury: The Ecdesiology ~l Gratiall's Decretum. Berkeley: University of Califomia Press, 1972. ---,. "DecretaIs." In Dictionary of the Middle Ages, edited by Joseph R. Strayer, 122- 24. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1984. ---,. "Decretists." In Dictionary of the Middle Ages, edited by Joseph R. Strayer, 127- 28. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1984. ---,. "Decretum." In Dictionary of the Middle Ages, edited by Joseph R. Strayer, 128- 30. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1984. Clark, Elizabeth A. '''Adam's Only Companion': Augustine and the Early Christian Debate on Marnage." In The Gide Daunce: Love, Friendship, Sex & Marnage in the Medieval World, edited by Robert R. Edwards and Stephen Spector, 15-31. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991. ---. Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and 5 cripture in EarIY Christianiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. Cline Horowitz, Maryanne. "Aristotle and Woman." Journal of the History of Biology 9, no. 2 (1976): 183-213. Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome, and Bonnie Wheeler, eds. Becoming Male in the Middle Ages. Edited by Bonnie Wheeler. Vol. 4, The New Middle Ages (Garland Reference Library of the Humanities). New York: Garland Publishing, Ine, 1997. Colish, Marcia L. Ambrose's Patriarchs: Ethics for the Common Man. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005. ---. Personal Correspondence. 2007. Commo McLaughlin, Eleanor. "Equality of Souls, Inequality of Sexes: Woman in Medieval Theology." In Religion and Sexism: Images of Woman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, edited by Rosemary Radford Ruether, 213-66. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974. Conybeare, Catherine. "Spaces between Letters: Augustine's Correspondence with Women." In Voices in Dialogue: Reading Women in the Middle Ages, edited by Linda OIson and Kathryn Kerby-Fulton, 57-72. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005. Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Translated by James W. Leich. Edited by George W. MacRae. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975. Cooper, Kate. The Vù;gin and the Bride: Idealized Womanhood in Late Antiquiry. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996. Gilbert 100 d'Avray, D. L. Aledieval Marnage Sermom: Mass Communication in a Culture without Print. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. de Ghellinck, J. Le Mouvement Théologique Du Xiie Siècle, Sa Préparation Lointaine Avant Et Autour De Pierre Lombard, Ses Rapports Avec Les lnitiatives Des Canonistes: Études, Recherches Et Documents. 2. éd. considérablement augm. ed. Bruges: Éditions "De T empel", 1948. Dean-Jones, Lesley. Women's Bodies in Classical Greek Science. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Deming, Will. Paul on Marnage and Celibary: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthiam 7. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004. Donahue Jr., Charles. "The Canon Law on the Formation of Marriage and Social Practice in the Later Middle Ages." Journal of Famify History (Summer 1983): 144-58. Dronke, Peter. Women Writers of the Middle Ages: A Critical Stucfy ofTexts from Perpetua to Marguerite Porete. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Duby, Georges. Le Chevalier, La Femme, Et Le Prêtre: Le Mariage Dam La France Féodale: Hachette, 1981. ---. Mâle Mqyen Age: De L'amour Et Autres Essais: Flammarion, 1988. ---. Medieval Marnage: Two Models from Twe!fth-Century France. Translated by Elborg Forster. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978. ---. Que Sait-on De L'amour En France Au Xiie Siècle? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. East, W. G. "This Body of Death: Abelard, Heloise and the Religious Life." In Medieval Theology and the Natural Bocfy, edited by Peter Biller and A. J. Minnis, 43-60. Rochester: York Medieval Press, 1997. Elliott, Dyan. "Alternative Intimacies: Men, Women and Spiritual Direction in the Twelfth Century." In Christina of Markyate: A Twe!fth-Century Hofy Woman, edited by Samuel Fanous and Henrietta Leyser, 160-83. London: Roudedge, 2005. ---. Fallen Bodies: Pollution, Sexualiry, and Demonology in the Middle Ages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999. ---. "Pollution, Illusion, and Masculine Disarray: Nocturnal Emissions and the Sexuality of the Clergy." In Constructing Medieval Sexualiry, edited by Karma Lochrie, Peggy McCracken and James A. Schultz, 1-23. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. ---. Spiritual Marnage: Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Engen, John Van. "Decretals, False." In Dictionary ofthe Middle Ages, edited by Joseph R. Strayer, 124-27. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1984. Gilbert 101 Flandrin, Jean-Lo.uis. "La Vie Sexuelle Des Gens Mariés Dans L'ancienne So.ciété: De La Do.ctrine De L'église A La Réalité Des Co.mpo.rtements." Communi((Jtions (thème "sexualitéJ occidentale/') 35 (1982): 102-15. ---. Un Temps Pour Embraner: Aux Origines De La Morale Sexuelle Occidentale (Xie Xie Siècle). Paris: Éditio.ns du Seuil, 1983. Fleming, Rebecca. Medicine and the Making if Roman Women: Gender, Nature, and Authoriry from Celsus fo Galen. Oxfo.rd: Oxfo.rd University Press, 2000. Frier, Bruce W. , and Tho.mas A.J. McGinn. A Casebook on Roman Famify Law. Oxfo.rd: Oxfo.rd University Press, 2004. Gardner, Jane E .. Women in Roman Law and Sociery. Lo.ndo.n: Croo.m Helm, 1986. Gamsey, Peter. Ideas if Siavery from Aristotle to Augustine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Go.ff, Jacques Le. "Corps Et Idéo.lo.gie Dans L'o.ccident Médiéval." In L'imaginaire Médiéval, 123-26. Paris: Gallimard, 1985. Go.ff, Jacques Le, and Nico.las Truo.ng. Une Histoire Du Corps Au Mqyen Age. Paris: Liana Levi, 2003. Go.o.dich, Michael, ed. Other Middle Ages: Witnesses at the Mat-gins if Medieval Sociery. Philadelphia: University o.f Pennsylvania Press, 1998. Grubbs, Judith Evans. Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marnage, Divorce, and Widowhood. Lo.ndo.n: Ro.utledge, 2002. Gundry-Vo.lf, Judith M. "Co.ntro.lling the Bo.dies: A Theo.lo.gical Profile o.f the Co.rinthian Sexual Ascetics (1 Co.r 7)." In The Corinthian Correspondence, edited by R. Bieringer, 519-41. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. Hampl, Patricia. "Preface." In The Conjèssions, Transl Maria Boulding, O.S.B., xiii-xxvi. New Yo.rk: Vintage Bo.o.ks, 1998. Hanning, R.W. "Lo.ve and Po.wer in the Twelfth Century, with Special Reference to. Chrétien De Tro.yes and Marie De France." In Love, Friendship, Sex & Marnage in the Medieval World, edited by Ro.bert R. Edwards and Stephen Specto.r, 87-103. Albany: State University o.fNew Yo.rk Press, 1990. Hays, Richard B. "Paul o.n the Relatio.n between Men and Wo.men." In A Feminist Companion to Paul, edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marianne Blickenstaff, 137- 47. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2004. Head, Tho.mas. "The Marriages o.f Christina o.f Markyate." In Christina qf Mark:Jate: A Twe!fth-Century Hofy Woman, edited bySamuel Fano.us and Henrietta Leyser, 116-37. Lo.ndo.n: Ro.utledge, 2005. Henning, Clara Maria. "Cano.n Law and the Battle o.f the Sexes. Il In Religion and Sexism: Images if Woman in the Jewi.rh and Christian Traditions, edited by Ro.semary Radfo.rd Ruether, 267-91. New Yo.rk: Simo.n and Schuster, 1974. Hergemoller, B. u., E. Kislinger, R. Schmitz, and D. Jacquart. "Sexualitat." In Lexikon des Mittelalfers, edited by Liselo.tte Lutz and Ro.bert Auty, 1812-19. München: Lexma Verlag, 1978-1998. Gilbert 102 hooks, bell. "Ain't l a Woman: Black \X'omen and FetnÏnism." Boston: South End Press, 1981. Horrell, Da\Tid G., and Edward Adams. "The Scholarly Quest for Paul's Church at Corinth: A Critical Survey." In Christianiry at Corinth: The Questfor the Pauline Cilurch, edited by Edward Adams and David G. Horrell, 1-43. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004. International, Amnesty. "Maze of Injustice: The Failure to Protect Indigenous Women from Sexual Violence in the USA." http://web.amnesty.org/library /Index/ENGAMR51 0352007. Irvine, Martin. "Abelard and (Re)Writing the Male Body: Castration, Identity, and Remasculinization." In Becoming Male in the Middle Ages, edited by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen and Bonnie Wheeler, 87-106. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997. J acquart, Danielle, and Claude Thomasset. Sexualité Et Savoir Médical Au Moyen Age. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1985. Johansson, Warren, and William A. Percy. "Homosexuality." In Handbook rif Medieval Sexualiry, edited by Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, 155-89. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1996. Jones, Peter Murray. Medieval Medicine in Illuminated Manuscripts. London: The British Library, 1998. Kelly, Joan. Women, History & Theory: The Es.rq)ls rif Joan Kel!J;. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Kelsey Staples, Kathryn, and Ruth Mazo Karras. "Christina's Tempting: Sexual Desire and Women's Sanctity." In Christina rifMarkyate: A Twelfth-Century Ho!J; Woman, edited by Samuel Fanous and Henrietta Leyser, 184-96. London: Routledge, 2005. King, Helen. Hippocrates' Woman: Reading the Female Boc!J in Ancient Greece. London: Routledge, 1998. Kooper, Erik. "Loving the Unequal Equal: Medieval Theologians and Marital Affection." In The Olde Daunce: Love, Friendship, Sex & Marnage in the Medieval World, edited by Robert R. Edwards and Stephen Spector, 44-56. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991. Kruger, Steven F. "Becoming Christian, Becoming Male?" In Becoming Male in the Middle Ages, edited by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen and Bonnie Wheeler, 21-42. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997. ---. "Conversion and Medieval Sexual, Religious, and Racial Categories." In Constructing Medieval Sexualiry, edited by Karma Lochrie, Peggy McCracken and James A. Schultz, 158-79. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. Laqueur, Thomas. Making 5 ex: Boc!J and Gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. Gilbert 103 Laumann, E. O., A. Paik, and R. C. Rosen. "Sexual Dysfunction in the United States: Prevalence, Predictors and Outcomes." Journal ~l the American l'vledical A.fsoàation 281 (1999): 537-45. Leclercq, Dom Jean. "Rôle Et Pouvoir Des tpouses A.u Moyen Âge." In La femme Au l'vl~yen Âge, edited by Michel Rouche and Jean Heuclin, 87-97. Ville de Maubeuge: Jean T ouzot, 1990. Lee-St.John, Jeninne. "A Time Limit on Rape." TIME in partnership with CNN, http://www.time.com/time/printout/0.8816.15847686.00.html. Lemay, Helen. "Women and the Literature of Obstetrics and Gynecology." In Medieval Women and the Sources of Medieval HiJtory, edited by Joel T. Rosenthal, 189-209. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1990. Leyser, Conrad. Authoriry and AsceticiJm from Augustine to Gregory the Great. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. Leyser, C. "Masculinity in Flux: Nocturnal Emission and the Limits of Celibacy in the Early Middle Ages." In Masculiniry in Medieval Europe, edited by D.M. Hadley, 103-20. London: Longman, 1998. Lugones, Maria. Pilgrimages/Peregrinqjes: Theori;;dng Coalition against Multiple Oppressions. Lanham: Rowman & Litdefield Publishers, Inc., 2003. Luscombe, D.E. PeterAbelard's Ethic.f. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. MacDonald, Margaret Y. "Virgins, Widows, and Wives: The Women of 1 Corinthians 7." In A FeminiJt Companion to Paul, edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marianne Blickenstaff, 148-68. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2004. ---. "Women Holy in Body and Spirit: The Social Setting of 1 Corinthians 7." In Christianiry at Corinth: The Quest for the Pauline Church, edited by Edward Adams and David G. Horrell, 161-72. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004. Makowski, Elizabeth M. "The Conjugal Debt and Medieval Canon Law." Journal of Medieval History 3 (1977): 99-114. Manselli, Raoul. "Vie Familiale Et Éthique Sexuelle Dans Les Pénitentiels." In Famille Et Parenté Dans L'occident Médiéval, edited by Georges Duby and Jacques Le Goff, 363-78. Rome: École française de Rome, 1977. Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Bocfy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. McCarthy, Conor, ed. Love, Sex, and Marnage in the Middle Ages: A Sourcebook. London: Roudedge, 2004. McGinn, Sheila E. "The Acts of Thecla." In Searching the Scriptures, edited by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, 800-28. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1994. McGlynn, Margaret, and Richard J. Moll. "Chaste Marriage in the Middle Ages: It Were to Hire a Greet Merite." In Handbook of Medieval 5 exualiry, edited by Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, 103-22. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1996. Gilbert 104 McNamara, Jo Ann. "De Quibusdam Mulieribus: Reading Womcn's History from Hostile Sources." In Alediel/al Women and the SOHTeeS ~/Medieval j-iiJtory, edited by Joel T. Rosenthal, 237-58. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1990. ---. "The Herrenfrage: The Restructuring of the Gender System, 1050-1150." In Medieval MaJculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages, edited by Clare A. Lees, 3-29. J'vlinneapolis: Uruversity of Minnesota Press, 1994. ---,. "Women and Power through the Family Revisited." In Gendering the Master Narrative: Women and Power in the Middle Ages, edited by Mary C. Erler and Maryanne Kowaleski, 17-30. London: Cornell University Press, 2003. Metz, René. La Femme Et L'eifant Dans Le Droit Canonique Médiéval London: Variornm Reprints, 1985. Miles, Margaret R. CamaI Knowing: Female Nakedness and Religious Meaning in the Christian West. New York: Vintage Books, 1991. Minnis, A. J. "De Impedimento Sexus: Women's Bodies and Medieval Impediments to Female Ordination." In Medieval Theology and the Natural Bo4J, edited by Peter Biller and A. J. Minnis, 110-39. Suffolk: York Medieval Press, 1997. Moorhead, John. Ambrose: Church and Society in the Late Roman World. London: Longman, 1999. Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome. "The Divorced Woman in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11." JournalrifBiblicalLiterature 100 (1981): 601-06. Murray, Jacqueline, ed. Coriflicted Identities and Multiple MasculinitieJ: Men in the Medieval West. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999. ---. "Hiding Behind the Univers al Man: Male SexuaIity in the Middle Ages." In Handbook rif Medieval Sexuality, edited by Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, 123-52. N ew York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1996. ---. "'the Law of Sin That Is in My Members': The Problem of Male Embodiment." In Gender and Holiness: Men, Women and Saints in Late Medieval Europe, edited by Samantha J .E. Riches and Sarah Salih, 9-22. London: Routledge, 2002. ---. "MascuIinizing Religious Life: Sexual Prowess, the Battle for Chastity and Monastic Identity." In Holiness and Masculinity in the Middle Ages, edited by P.H. Cullum and Katherine J. Lewis, 24-42. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2004. ---,. "On the Origins and Role of 'Wise Women' in Causes for Annulment on the Grounds of Male Impotence." Journal rif Medieval History 16 (1990): 235- 49. ---,. "Thinking About Gender: The Diversity of Medieval Perspectives." In Power rifthe Weak: Studies on Medieval Women, edited by Jennifer Carpenter and Sally Beth MacLean, 1-26. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995. Gilbert 105 ---. "T",;ce Marginal and Twice Invisible: Lesbians in the Middle Ages." In l-/andbook of }vledieval Se:>,:uality, edited by Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, 191-222. New York: GarIand Publishing, Inc., 1996. NichoIs, Barry. An Introduction to Roman I---t/w. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. Noonan Jr., John T. "Gratian Slept Here: The Changing Identity of the Father of the Systematic Study of Canon Law." Traditio 35 (1979): 145-72. O'Connell S.]., Robert J. "Sexuality in Saint Augustine." In Augustine Todt!JI, edited by Richard John Neuhaus, 60-87. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993. O'Donnell, James J. Augustine: A New Biograpry. New York: Ecco, 2005. Owen, Dorothy M. The Medieval Canon Law: Teaching, Literature and Transmission. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Pagels, Elaine. Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. New York: Random House, 1988. Pagels, Elaine H. "Paul and Women: A Response to Recent Discussion." Journal rfthe American Academy rfReligion 42, no. 3 (Sep. 1974): 538-49. Payer, Pierre J. The Bridling rif Desire: Views rif Sex in the Later Middle Ages. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993. ---,. Sex and the Penitentials: The Development rf a Sexual Code, 550-1150. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984. Pennington, Kenneth. "Medieval Law." In Medieval Studies: An Introdudion, edited by James M. Powell, 333-52. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1992. Pernoud, Régine. "La Femme Et La Médicine Au Moyen Âge." In Colloque international d'histoire de la médecine médiévale, 38-43. Orléans: Société orléanaise d'histoire de la médecine, 1985. Phipps, William E. Clerical Celibaçy: The Heritage. New York: Continuum, 2004. Power, Kim. "Sed Unam Tamen: 'Augustine and His Concubine." Augustinian Studies 23 (1992): 49-76. ---. Veiled Desire: Augustine on Women. New York: Continuum, 1996. Preus, Anthony. "Galen's Criticism of Aristotle's Conception Theory." Journal rf the History rifBiology 10, no. 1 (1977): 65-85. Radford Ruether, Rosemary. "Misogynism and Virginal Feminism in the Fathers of the Church." In Religion and Sexism: Images rifWoman in the Jewish and Christian Traditions, edited by Rosemary Radford Ruether, 150-83. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974. ---. Women and Redemption: A Theological History. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998. Ramsey, Boniface, O.P. Ambrose. London: Routledge, 1997. Rawson, Beryl. "Roman Concubinage and Other De Facto Marriages." Transadions rif the American PhilologicalAssociation 104 (1974): 279-305. Gilbert 106 Resnick, Irven M. "Marnage in Ivfedieval Culture: Consent Theory and the Case of Joseph and Mary." Chtmh l-1ù/ory 69, no. 2 (2000): 350-71. Richards, Jeffrey. Sex, DiHidenœ and Damna/ion: Minority Croups in the Middle AgeJ. London: Routledge, 1994. Riches, Samantha J.E., and Sarah Salih, eds. Cender alld HolineH: Men, Women alld Saillts in Late Medieval Europe, Routledge Series in Medieval Religion and Culture. London: Routledge, 2002. ---. "Introduction. Gender and Holiness: Performance and Representation in the Later Middle Ages." In Cender alld Holilless: Men, Women and Saints ill Late Medieval Europe, edited by Samantha J.E. Riches and Sarah Salih, NEEDS PAGES. London: Routledge, 2002. Rider, Catherine. Magic and Impotence in the Middle Ages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Rousseve, Anne. "Domestic Violence and the States." Ceot:getown Journal ifCender and the Law (2005): 431-58. Salisbury, Joyce E. "Gendered Sexuality." In Handbook ifMedieval Sexuality, edited by Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, 81-102. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1996. Schipperges, Heinrich. Die Krallken lm Mittelalter. München: Verlag CH. Beck, 1990. ---,. "Historische Aspekte Einer Symbolik Des Leibes." Alltaios 9 (1968): 166-80. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. "Rhetorical Situation and Historical Reconstruction in 1 Corinthians." In Christiallity at Corillth: The Quest for the Pauline Church, edited by Edward Adams and David G. Horrell, 145-60. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004. Scroggs, Robin. "Paul and the Eschatological Woman." Journal if the American Academy ifReligion 40, no. 3 (Sept. 1972): 283-303. Shaw, Brent D. "The Family in Late Antiquity: The Experience of Augustine." Past and Present 115 (May 1987): 3-51. Sheehan, Michael M. "Maritalis Affectio Revisited." In The Olde Daullce: Love, Friendship, Sex & Marnage ill the Medieval World, edited by Robert R. Edwards and Stephen Spector, 32-43. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991. Sigerist, Henry E. "Impotence as a Result of Witchcraft." In Henry E. Sigerist Oll the History ifMedicille, edited by M.D. Felix Marti-Ibanenez, 146-52. New York: MD Publications, 1960. Smith, D. Vance. "Body Doubles: Producing the Masculine Corpus." In Becoming Male in the Middle Ages, edited by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen and Bonnie Wheeler, 3-19. New York: Garland Publishing, 2000. Sot, Michel. "Mépris Du Monde Et Résistance Des Corps Aux Xie Et Xiie Siècles." Médiévales 8 (1985): 6-17. T anzer, Sarah J. "Ephesians." In S earching the S criptures, edited by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, 325-48. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1994. Gilbert 107 Thompson, Christopher J. Cb'7Jlian Doctnne, Chns/ian Identiry: AuguJtine and the NatTativeJ qfébaracter. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1999. Valdiserri M.D., Ronald O. "Menstruation and Medical Theot·y: An Historical Overview." ]ournal oftbe Amencan Medical Women'J- AJJoda/ion 38, no. 3 (1983): 66-70. van Bavel, Tarsicius J., O.S.A. "Augustine's View on Women." AuguJtiniana 39 (1989): 1-53. van der Lugt, Maaike. Le Ver, Le Démon Et La Vinge: LeJ ThéoneJ MédiévaleJ De La Génération Extraordinaire: Une Étude Sur LeJ RapportJ Entre Théologie, PhiloJophie Naturelle Et Médedne. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2004. Vance, Eugene. "The Functions and Limits of Autobiography in Augustine's "Confessions"." PoeticJ Today 5, no. 2 (1984): 399-409. Vessey, Mark. "Response to Catherine Conybeare: Women of Letters?" In Voices in Dialogue: Reading Women in the Middle Ages, edited by Linda OIson and Kathryn Kerby-Fulton, 73-96. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005. Welek Atwell, Mary. Equal Protection rif the Law? Gender and Justice in the United States.. New York: Peter Lang, 2002. Werner, Karl Ferdinand. "Les Femmes, Le Pouvoir Et La Transmission Du Pouvoir." In La Femme Au Mqyen Age, edited by Michel Rouche and Jean Heuclin, 365-79. Ville de Maubeuge: Jean Touzot, 1990. Wheeler, Bonnie. "Origenary Fantasies: Abelard's Castration and Confession." In Becoming Male in the Middle Ages, edited by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen and Bonnie Wheeler, 107-28. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997. Winroth, Anders. "Gratian (Mid-12th Century)." In Kry Figures in Medieval Europe: An Enrydopedia, edited by Richard K. Emmerson, 269-70. New York: Routledge, 2006. ---. The Making rif Gratian's Decretum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Wire, Antoinette. "1 Corinthians." In Searching the Scliptures, edited by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, 153-95. New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1994. Wire, Antoinette Clark. The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Paul's Rhetonc. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Wood, Charles Y. "The Doctor's Dilemma: Sin, Salvation and the Menstrual Cycle in Medieval Thought." Speculum 56 (1981): 710-27. Wouters, Annelies. "'Abner Fidelissime': Abelard's Version of a Biblical Lament." In The Poetie and Musical Legary rif Heloise and Abelard· An Anthology rif Essays f?y Vanous Authors, edited by Marc Steward and David Wulstan, 60-66. Ottawa: The Institute of Mediaeval Music, 2003.