No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 March 2016
The presence of a malodorous taint of misogyny in Christian literature, both ancient and medieval, is a familiar fact that feminist writers, more than male chauvinists, have been keen to push under our noses. What is its explanation? The inferiority of women is a standard theme in male-dominated cultures. Christian literature, for so long the virtual preserve of male celibates, inevitably reflected their anxieties and their need for reassurance. But was there also a genuine theological component, however misconceived, arising from basic Christian convictions about human nature and the moral law?
1 Legenda aurea, ed. Graesse, T. (Leipzig, 1850)Google Scholar, ch. XXXVII, pp. 158–9. This edifying passage was lacking from the text translated by Caxton. My own version makes use of that of Ryan, T., The Golden Legend, 2 vols (Princeton, NJ, 1993), 1, pp. 143–4.Google Scholar
2 Newson, A. and Ringe, S. H., eds, The Woman’s Bible Commentary (London, 1992), p. 40 Google Scholar. Rupert of Deutz (d. 1129) linked the greater length of purification in the case of a girl to a greater flow of blood from the mother (PL 167, col. 802), following a long tradition going back to Hippocrates and Aristotle (Historia animalium, 583a) and paralleled in Rabbinic sources. Similar discrimination between male and female births is to be found in many cultures. See Macht, D. I., ‘A scientific appreciation of Leviticus 12:1-5’, Journal of Biblical Literature, 52 (1933), pp. 253–60.Google Scholar
3 The linking of the Aristotelian and Levitical figures occurs already in Hrabanus Maurus (d. 856), who followed the fifth-century Hesychius of Jerusalem (PL 108, cols 368-70). This link was so well established by the early modern period that the Leviticus text was used as evidence in support of the Aristotelian tradition on the time of animation: see Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, i (Paris 1909), col. 1309.
4 In Leviticum, II.16, PL 167, col. 802. For this commentary see van Eugen, John H., Rupert of Deutz (Berkeley, CA, 1983), pp. 263–5.Google Scholar
5 E.g., Margaret Miles, Margaret, Carnal Knowing (Tunbridge Wells, 1992), ch. 4.Google Scholar
6 De Genesi ad litteram XI.42.
7 PL 164, cols 419–20. Compare St Ambrose, ‘She who does not believe is “woman”’ (Commentary on Luke X.161, with reference to Christ’s address to Mary Magdalene at John 20.15).
8 This becomes still more grossly sexist in W. G. Ryan’s version (n.r, above): Christ ‘willed to endow it [the male sex] with more grace’. But in the Latin (‘ut ampliorem sibi gratiam faceret’) it is Christ, not the male sex as a whole, that receives more grace.
9 Augustine, De diversis auaestionibus LXXXIII, 1.10, cited by Aquinas at Summa Theologica, 3 a., 31.4.
10 Power, Kim, Veiled Desire: Augustine’s Writing on Woman (London, 1995), pp. 131–57.Google Scholar
11 Summa Theologica, la., 93.4.
12 A. Carson, Tutting her in her place: woman, dirt and desire’, in Halperin, D. M, Winkler, J. J., and Zeitlin, F. I., eds, Before Sexuality (Princeton, NJ, 1990), pp. 135–69.Google Scholar
13 De generatione animalium, 775a.
14 Claude Thomasset, The nature of woman’, in Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, ed., A History of Women in the West, U: Silences of the Middle Ages (Cambridge, MA, 1992), pp. 43–69.
15 Alcuin Blamires, Woman Defamed and Woman Defended: An Anthology of Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1992), p. 48.
16 Ibid., p. 120.
17 Ibid., pp. 173–5.
18 Summa Theologica, 1a., 92, 1.
19 B. W. Scholz, ‘Hildegard von Bingen on the nature of woman’, American Benedictine Review, 31 (1980), pp. 361–83.
20 Cadden, Joan, Meanings of Sex Difference in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 202–9.Google Scholar
21 Ibid, pp. 209–27.
22 Chaucer, Canterbury Tales: The Man of Law’s Tale, II.3 59–64.
23 The fashionable holistic interpretation of St Paul was refuted by Gundry, R. H., Soma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge, 1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Rabbi Simai (sixth century), quoted in Montefiore, C. G. and Loewe, H., A Rabbinic Anthology (London, 1938), p. 314.Google Scholar
25 ‘Feminine unreason usually meant the inability of the higher faculties to control the passions of the flesh’: Cadden, Meanings of Sex Difference, p. 207.
26 The Ancrene Riwle, trans. Salu, M B. (London, 1955), p. 121.Google Scholar
27 Houghton, W. E., The Victorian Frame of Mind (New Haven, CT, and London, 1957), pp. 348–53.Google Scholar
28 Ste Croix, G. E. M. de, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (London, 1981), pp. 103–11, 418–25.Google Scholar