This brief post is part of a series of posts relating to medieval gender. In this article, we briefly discuss monks and medieval masculinity. It is often argued that given their vow of chastity, medieval monks did not adhere to conventional precepts of masculinity and were therefore unmanly. However, this post will demonstrate that monks embodied a different kind of masculinity to laymen.
Gender is a social construct; the definition of what it means to be masculine or feminine changes throughout time and place[1]. Throughout the medieval period, there were two basic models of masculinity, a lay model and a clerical model. The lay model encouraged male dominance over women in all aspects of life, he should be active in the world as well as in sexual relationships, and he should be brave, loyal and face hardships. Whereas the clerical model of masculinity which applied to members of the clergy and monks rejected many aspects of lay masculinity, such as sexual aggression, dominance, and the role as a provider and a figure of authority over a household. The followers of the clerical model still remained masculine and retained some aspects of lay masculinity; they turned their whole lives into a battle.
Masculinity and Sexual Activity
Swanson claims that medieval monks and the medieval religious possessed a ‘third gender’[2]; they were neither masculine nor feminine, they were ‘emasculine’. The basis of Swanson’s third gender theory is that masculinity was defined by a man’s sexual activity, if a man did not participate in sex; he was therefore not masculine. The link between sexual activity and gender is also supported by McNamara[3]; she discusses the Gregorian Reforms which were taking place in the twelfth century, which demanded that the clergy be celibate. When discussing celibate clergy, McNamara claims;
Men without women, if deprived of sexuality, came dangerously close to traditional visions of femininity. Celibacy deprived its practitioners of the necessary “other” upon which to construct a gender persona.[4].
The basis of McNamara’s theory is that chaste men were not masculine, as they did not engage in sexual activity. Therefore, they had no ‘other’ in which to base their masculinity upon, they had no female to dominate, a marker of lay masculinity. Cullum argues that fighting and fornication were the two major markers of lay masculinity[5]. These were two activities in which the medieval monk could not participate in. However, monks constructed their masculinity in different ways to laymen; medieval monks followed a ‘clerical model’ of masculinity[6].
Chastity as a Marker of Masculinity
Fundamentally, the clerical model of masculinity required a battle against lust rather than engaging in sexual activity. Mazo Karras argues, ‘Both those desires and the successful struggle to overcome them were signs of masculinity’[7]. Experiencing sexual desire was masculine; overcoming the temptation was a hardship. Medieval monks were fighting a battle with their own bodies, to overcome the temptations of the flesh, they demonstrated their masculinity by remaining chaste. In this way, monks retained one aspect of lay masculinity, which was to endure hardship.
From early Christianity, sex was viewed by Churchmen as a barrier to salvation. St Paul considered sex a major source of sin and a frequent impediment to the Christian life[8]. St Augustine believed that sex was dangerous because it could overcome free will and reason altogether[9]. There was a growing sentiment in the medieval period that communion with God was best achieved by the sexually pure[10]. Sex was a distraction; it distracted practitioners from God and made the body bound to lust. By emphasising the notion of the battle against the will of the flesh, the religious who were celibate were more masculine than the laity, if they overcame these desires.
The emphasis on the battle against the flesh began with the writings of the desert fathers, St Anthony was tempted by the devil, in the form of a woman, but Anthony managed to resist her advances with prayer, faith and fasting[11]. St Benedict was tortured by sexual thoughts of a woman he knew, in order to be victorious in his battle for chastity:
…assisted with God’s grace, he came to himself; and seeing many thick briers and nettlebushes to grow hard by, off he cast his apparel, and threw himself into the midst of them…and so by the wounds of his body, he cured the wounds of his soul[12].
Were Medieval Monks Masculine?
These stories demonstrate that chastity was a battle; the will of the body could condemn the soul. By experiencing sexual desire, the saints were masculine, it was easier to give into these temptations than to resist them, the battle was to fight these desires.
Medieval monks used masculine words, such as the ‘battle’ and ‘fight’ for chastity to remain associated with lay masculinity[13]. The medieval religious man did not have a presumed masculinity that the medieval knight possessed; the monk had to prove his masculinity. By emphasizing the point that men who ‘fought’ lust were more masculine, the monks became more masculine than their lay contemporaries.
Women were perceived as being tied to the material world and nature and therefore more subject to their bodies, and to lust[14]. Benedict had to fight the temptations of the flesh, if he was bound to the body rather than the soul, he would become effeminate[15]. According to the Saint’s lives, St Benedict and St Anthony only remained chaste with the help of God, thereby proving that chastity is the right course of action. The monks who kept their vows of chastity, were more masculine than laymen who gave into lust, monks. They chose to train their bodies to submit to the spirit’s will, this was viewed as more masculine than giving into the temptations of the flesh.
Although by following a lay model of masculinity, a lay man could become masculine, to follow the clerical model was even more masculine. The monk had to battle with lust whereas a lay man could enhance his masculinity by giving into these desires. The vows of poverty, obedience and chastity were all part of renouncing the trappings of the world which were often associated with femininity.
For a similar post, see Gender as a Weapon – The Case of the Emperor Elagabalus.
[1]R. Mazo Karras, From Boys to Men, Formations of Masculinity in Late Medieval Europe, (Philadelphia, 2003), p. 7.
[2] R.N. Swanson, ‘Angels Incarnate: Clergy and Masculinity from Gregorian Reform to Reformation’, in D.M. Hadley (ed.), Masculinity in Medieval Europe, (London, 1999), p.p. 160-177.
[3] J. McNamara, ‘The Herrenfrage the reconstructing of the Gender system, 1050-1150’, in C.A. Less (ed.), Medieval Masculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages, (Minneapolis, 1994), p.p. 3-30.
[4] Ibid, p.8.
[5] P. H. Cullum, ‘Clergy, Masculinity and Transgression in Late Medieval England’, in D.M. Hadley (ed.) Masculinity in Medieval Europe, (London, 1999), p. 186.
[6] R. Mazo Karras, ‘Thomas Aquinas’ Chastity Belt: Clerical Masculinity in Medieval Europe’ in L.M. Bitel and F. Lifshitz (ed.), Gender and Christianity in Medieval Europe New Perspectives, (Pennsylvania, 2008), p.53.
[7] R. Mazo Karras, Sexuality in Medieval Europe, Doing Unto Others, (London, 2005), p. 43.
[8] J.A. Brundage, Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe, (London, 1987), p.p. 59-62.
[9] Ibid, p. 81.
[10] V.L. Bullough ‘Postscript: Heresy, Witchcraft, and Sexuality’, in V.L. Bullough and J. Brundage (ed.) Sexual Practices and the Medieval Church, (New York, 1982), p. 208.
[11] ‘The Life of St Anthony [of Egypt]’, The Golden Legend, at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/goldenlegend/GoldenLegend-Volume2.htm#Anthony.
[12] ‘Life of St Benedict’, The Golden Legend, at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/g1-benedict1.html
[13] J. Murray, ‘Masculinizing the Religious Life’, in P.H. Cullum and K.J. Lewis (ed.), Holiness and Masculinity in the Middle Ages, (Cardiff, 2004), p. 27.
[14] J. Murray, ‘Hiding Behind the Universal Man: Male Sexuality in the Middle Ages’, in V.L. Bullough and J. A. Brundage (ed.), The Handbook of Medieval Sexuality, (New York, 2000), p. 126.
[15] R. Mazo Karras, Sexuality in Medieval Europe: Doing Unto Others, p. 29.
