Sini Mikkola “In Our Body the Scripture Becomes Fulflled” Gendered Bodiliness and the Making of the Gender System in Martn Luther’s Anthropology (1520–1530) AcAdeMIc dISSertAtIOn to be publicly discussed, by due permission of Faculty of theology at the University of Helsinki in Auditorium XIII, University main building on the 16th of december 2017 at 12 noon. Helsinki 2017 Sini Mikkola “In Our Body the Scripture Becomes Fulflled” Gendered Bodiliness and the Making of the Gender System in Martn Luther’s Anthropology (1520–1530) Helsinki 2017 ISBN 978-951-51-3881-1 (Paperback) ISBN 978-951-51-3882-8 (PDF) Unigrafa Helsinki 2017 AbstrAct “In Our Body the Scripture Becomes Fulflled”: Gendered Bodiliness and the Making of the Gender System in Martin Luther’s Anthropology (1520–1530) Tis doctoral dissertation examines Martin Luther’s view of the human being du- ring a decade of ecclesiastical, social, and political turmoil. Te vital perspectives in scrutinizing Luther’s anthropology are gender, bodiliness, sexuality, and power. Te study frst asks how gendered bodiliness was treated in Luther’s discussions on femininity and masculinity, and, consequently, in what way he constructed proper feminine and masculine ways of being and developed the gender system. Under scrutiny are the ideals, norms, and expectations that he framed on the grounds of the gendered body. Tirdly, it is asked whether Luther’s views varied according to historical and textual context, and especially if there are diferences between his views of female and male ways of being that are presented in theory, on the one hand, and in practical situations, on the other. Te most important contextual factors that set the background for analyzing Luther’s viewpoints are, by and large, the debate on the proper kind of Christian life—whether it should be lived in the cloister or in matrimony—and Luther’s changing personal situation from Augustinian friar to husband and father. Te time frame of the study is set from 1520 to 1530—a decade that is less studied in modern research from the viewpoint of gender than, for example, the following one. Te structure of the study is thematic, yet it follows a loose chronology. It is thus easier to explore a possible chronological shif in Luther’s language and thin- king, and especially whether changes in his personal life or in church and society somehow afected his views concerning the body, gendered ways of being, and the gender system. Many of the key concepts of the study—such as gender and the gender sys- tem, power, authority, and otherness—have been adopted from gender studies. Methodologically, the texts are examined through a close critical reading and con- tent analysis of the sources to discuss both the explicit and the implicit dimensi- ons of Luther’s discussion. Texts from the Weimarer Ausgabe (D. Martin Luther’s Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe) are used as the source material. Luther’s texts from the time period of 1520 to 1530 have been read and systematically searched from the viewpoint of themes of bodiliness and gender. Te guiding principles in choosing the texts under scrutiny have been: frst, that they ofer a representative and, second, that they provide a versatile sample of Luther’s views on the topic of the dissertation within the chosen time period. iii Te study shows that Luther formulated his views on gender and the gen- der system frmly on the basis of human bodiliness. Te penetrable theoretical idea that Luther deducted from gendered bodiliness was gender hierarchy: the woman’s subordination and otherness, and the man’s normativity and dominion. Luther participated in the reconstruction of femininity and masculinity in close interaction with the past and the present: he was in several ways afected by and bound to his medieval heritage and to the views of his contemporaries. Further- more, the study proves that overall, Luther’s thinking concerning the gender sys- tem did not undergo major changes during the 1520s, but instead involved smaller adjustments. Te analyses of real-life situations reveal that Luther could in practice be fexible in his viewpoints concerning the limits that one’s gender constituted—he allowed diferent rules especially for himself, for instance. However, in many ca- ses regarding his fellow men and women he applied his theoretical views in prac- tice in a very strict sense. Terefore, it is not the diference between theory and practice per se that is pervasive in Luther’s texts. Whether there is continuity or discontinuity between Luther’s overall theoretical views and his practical advice, for example, is most profoundly dictated by the context and the overall situation. Te study proves that the diference between Luther’s practical views and theory is chiefy dictated by subsidiarity. Te two core ideas are: (1) the closer to Luther, the more special the case, and (2) the more strategically important for Luther, the more special the case. iv Acknowledgements Producing a doctoral thesis is much like giving birth to a baby. I have delivered two of the latter, so I know what I am talking about. First, the dissertation, in the same way as labor, demands very hard, even body-aching work. Second, you cannot cope without the help of others. I owe a great debt of gratitude to several people who have helped me along the way. First of all, I want to thank my supervisors Professor Kaarlo Arfman and Adjunct Professor Päivi Salmesvuori from the Department of Church His- tory, University of Helsinki. Tey both have been extraordinary in their support throughout the whole process. Kaarlo, you have been, in biblical terms, my rock on which I have been able to count. Your extensive knowledge of the Reformation era and of Luther’s writings has indeed been an invaluable source for me as your student. Te critical yet at the same time polite and kind manner in which you discuss my work has been a real delight. Päivi, you are my Church Mother. It was you in the frst place who introduced to me the idea of applying for the position of PhD student. You have ofered me constant inspiration and guidance: what comes to research questions, methods, theories, or anything else one can think of, you are endlessly resourceful. Academically, you have been the force who has always pushed me forward. In this context, I also want to thank my other Church Mother, University Lecturer Marjo-Riitta Antikainen a.k.a. Mallo, who, together with Päi- vi, worked with me and Luther when I was still an undergraduate student. It was your Master’s seminar, Päivi and Mallo, that made me think for the frst time that I could become a doctor of theology one day. Vivamus in spe—for still a little while. Professor Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks and Associate Professor Else Marie Wi- berg Pedersen have kindly served as the preliminary assessors of the dissertation. I thank them both for giving detailed and well-considered remarks in their reports, which helped me sharpen my arguments and consider both the content and the structure of the work from new viewpoints during the last phase of revisions. I am under a deep debt of gratitude specially to Associate Professor Wiberg Pedersen, who has promised to act as my opponent in the public examination. Several friends and colleagues at the University of Helsinki have shared their time and thoughts with me during the years. I want to thank Adjunct Profes- sor Päivi Räisänen-Schröder for sharing my passion for the Reformation era, and particularly for the margins of the Reformation. Working with you, Päivi, has al- most felt like not working at all. We have had such a fantastic time doing research, teaching, blogging, and planning new projects! Your brilliance and great sense of v humor are among the many things I admire in you. Code name: Luther’s poop. You know what I mean. Professor Risto Saarinen and University Lecturer Pekka Kärkkäinen I thank sincerely for their willingness to consider aspects of Luther’s anthropology with me—be that in their ofces, at the airport, or in a Bierstube in Wittenberg, for example. Teir systematic theological approach has added to my historical view- point by giving invaluable ideas, and thus improved my thinking. Te exchange of thoughts I have had the pleasure to engage in with them has made me wonder whether there is, afer all, a little systematic theologian inside me. Other Luther scholars whom I wish to thank for discussions on Luther’s theology are, among many, Bishop Jari Jolkkonen, Adjunct Professor Kari Kopperi, and Doctor Sasja Emilie Mathiasen Stopa. Professor Kirsi Stjerna I want to thank for arranging multidisciplinary se- minars and conference meetings together with Associate Professor Wiberg Peder- sen. Tese seminars have focused on analyzing Luther from multiple, gendered perspectives. Te contribution of Professor Stjerna and Associate Professor Wiberg Pedersen to the International Luther Congresses and especially to the arranging of the series of international seminars on Alternative Luther have truly given me fresh scholarly input. In these wonderful gatherings of scholars doing gender-sensitive research I have had the privilege to meet and exchange thoughts with several fas- cinating researchers. I wish to particularly mention Professors Marit Trelstad, Jone Salomonsen, and Elisabeth Gerle, as well as Doctor Mary Streufert. Further, I am indebted to the post-graduate seminar, led by Professors Arf- fman and Tuija Laine, which has allowed me to mature as a scholar. Doctoral stu- dents Leena Enqvist and Olli Lampinen-Enqvist have been my closest colleagues, whose feedback has been of utmost value. Doctor Rose-Marie Peake I want to thank for interdisciplinary, ecumenical collaboration, as it were, that has ofered me new insights into Catholicism of the Early Modern period.