Hey /r/askhistorians
So recently for a class focusing on sexuality in the Middle Ages, we've had to read a few chapters from Ruth Mazo Karras's book Sexuality in Medieval Europe: Doing Unto Others. In her book, Karras presents the following arguments:
People in the Medieval era weren't as sexually repressed as we believe them to be. This perception can mainly be blamed on the Victorians. She supports this claim by bringing up how writing or images from the Medieval era can either reflect a very religious, and sexually repressed view, or a more liberal view of sex (I am not sure how to phrases that well, but she does bring up peasants having sex in the hedges, more of an example than evidence)
Sexuality, again, is a Victorian invention. When we talk about someone being homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, we re using words that were invented by the Victorians. In terms of language, the Medieval era was sexually ambiguous. The most interesting claim she makes in regards to language and sexuality is that a man or woman was judged to be more feminine or masculine based on the role that they played during intercourse. This role was either dominant/aggressive, or submissive/passive. Alternately, she mentions that the translation of certain Old/Middle French words reveals a penetrator/penetrated relationship. Karras' is essentially suggesting that Medieval views on sexuality might resemble earlier Roman or Greek views on sexuality (although Medieval views obviously differ in some aspects).
What do you think of this idea? Can it be supported? I think it adds an interning dimension when viewing, or thinking about Medieval sexuality. Also, I read that Jesus' sexuality wasn't set in stone until the fourth or fifth century, which leads me to wonder just how much we can apply the idea of sexuality to different eras, especially those eras that different religious texts are based on, and the events they portray. How far do you think we can go in regards to applying this idea?
In a word, yes, (mostly).
People in the Medieval era weren't as sexually repressed as we believe them to be.
This is totally true. Here's an example. In later medieval Europe, a devotional cult grew up around the five wounds of Christ (hands, feet, side). The usual iconography for this looked like this. Typically on the appropriate feast day, an icon or model of this would be carried through the streets on parade.
Some modern art historians have suggested that the central wound, depicting the side wound of Christ, looks more than a bit like a vagina. It is very tempting to dismiss this as some sort of modern post-Freudian over-analysis, except for the fact that there's this.
The second image is of a pewter badge, made to resemble a pilgrim's token. What you see is four penises carrying the Holy Vagina in parade. This is clear evidence of people playing around with sexual imagery at the expense of an object of solemn and holy devotion.
If there is one universal truth I can draw from over a decade of historical study, it is this: drawings of dicks are funny.
Sexuality, again, is a Victorian invention. When we talk about someone being homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, we re using words that were invented by the Victorians.
This is a fairly tenable claim.
In terms of language, the Medieval era was sexually ambiguous.
This is less so. Gender roles were well defined, and constrained by social understandings. Essentially, the claims which are made stem from an exaggeration of existing evidence which cannot be sustained under close scrutiny. Gender and ideas of masculine/feminine or dominant/submissive are all things which could be played with, but this did not disrupt the fundamental understanding of the gender binary.
I read that Jesus' sexuality wasn't set in stone until the fourth or fifth century
Not much about Jesus was set in stone before the fourth century, but the question was more one of "did he or didn't he" rather than "with whom."
Medieval people liked to get it on! Things like population boom from the 11th to 13th century prove it (the Black Death did put a big hamper on doin' it). In addition, many illuminated manuscripts have erotic illustrations in margins. Look in Chaucer and Boccaccio, there are stories about cuckolding, sex, and cheating spouses. The Wife of Bath was a legitimate hooker. The Book of Good Love has some juicy bits in it. England and Italy, among other places, regulated prostitution. Women's sexuality was oftentimes forcibly repressed since chastity and virginity was both a desirable virtue and a lucrative, tradable commodity, especially if one had a hot daughter. Though works like Judith Brown's Immodest Acts: The Life of a Lesbian Nun in Renaissance Italy show that there were always methods around chastity.
Some of the post below are very good, but after the briefest of searches, JSTOR turns up a couple of reviews, and a couple of more I found here:
(1) Vern Bullough - with a response by the author!
(2) Catherine Cox
(3) Emma Campbell
(4) Ruth Mazo Karras podcast interview about her book on a related topic!
(5) Link to her publications and CV. Based on her resume alone, I would give her arguments a serious consideration (though thin arguments can certainly be made even by veteran scholars)
Here are a few more works on medieval "love"
(1) Karras, Ruth Mazo. Unmarriages: Women, Men, and Sexual Unions in Medieval Europe. (2012)
(2) April Harper. Medieval Sexuality: A Casebook (2008)
(3) Jacques Rossiaud. Medieval Prostitution (1988)
(4) Dana Oswald. Monsters, gender and sexuality in medieval English literature (2010)
(5) Ruth Evans. Medieval virginities (2003)
(6) Caroline Walker Bynum. Jesus as Mother (1982) - classic work that may answer some of your Jesus questions.
Hope this helps a little. Happy Reading!
You might also find Foucault's work to be interesting. He presents a similar analysis of a "sexuality" as a created idea in his "History of Sexuality"^1. He also supports the idea you've presented that medieval sexuality was more complicated than we might believe.
1 - Foucault, Michel. History of Sexuality I, The Will to Knowledge. [It's on loan, so I don't have a page number for you].
Just to chime in late, I always see value in referring to voices from the era whenever possible. In many ways, popular culture is a mirror of society, even its a somewhat exaggerated reflection.
Geoffrey Chaucer was a widely loved author in the 14th century. His 'Wife of Bath', while in some ways reflecting everything that woman should not be, was quite bawdy. She is pretty open about sexuality, sex and gender roles in the bedroom. Again, she is an example of an exaggerated character, but I think its safe to say that a certain amount of cultural acceptance of her 'dirty talk' can be assumed.
