A critique of Jane Tibbetts Schulenburgs essay The Heroics of Virginity: Brides of Christ and Sacrificial Mutilation

Michael John Di Martino

Disfiguration of Beauty and Virginity

The epigram, Male ulciscitur dedecus sibi illatum, qui amputat nasum suum, fits figuratively well in Jane Tibbetts Schulenburgs essay, The Heroics of Virginity. However, the Latin emphasizes facial disfiguration more as chastisement rather than prevention since it roughly translates as He who cuts off his own nose, poorly avenges the disgrace brought upon him. Schulenburg affirms that self inflicted facial mutilations helped nuns stay chaste since male sexual aggressors found them revolting; such mangling also protected women from forced marriages and the dangers of childbirth. While joining a convent could not guarantee perpetual chastity, in most cases it would have rendered one ineligible for marriage. In discussing the twelfth and thirteenth century, a period when there is the greatest rise of both single and married female saints, Schulenburg blames patristic writings for disparately stressing the value of virginity. She does not consider the possibility that some individuals chose to stay chaste to avoid heterosexual relations and preferred living in a closed community among members of the same sex. Instead, patristic tracts are examined to show how masculine language distorted perception of women and contributed to females own denial of sexuality. The negation of ones sexual nature is not a value placed strictly on women. The very suggestion that the female body Although deceptively attractive, it was to be shunned as an ugly, repulsive receptacle indicates conflicts of desire. The anxiety associated with females attractiveness is as valid a concern to remain celibate as the females fear of male sexual aggression. The sacred vessel to be cherished became repulsive only when defiled by man. This implies that the dichotomized view attributed to the male religious writings also encouraged the negation of males sexual instincts and dislike for ones body. It cannot be denied that a double standard of purity was adopted in the monastic environment,
2

From the beginning, virginity for men was not emphasized in the same way as it was for women. It never dominated the total mode of perception of the male religious, nor defined the parameters for the state of masculine perfection as it did for women (31). Beginning with the biblical tradition, the virginity of man was offered to God symbolically through circumcision, which replaced an ancient ritual of sacrificing the first offspring, male or female, and also became emblematic of the covenant made to God. As part of this tradition, only the most perfect gifts and sacrifices were to be offered to the Lord. It follows that, in a professed marriage to Christ, great importance was placed on the virginity of the eternal bride to be. Medieval holy women also conceptualized this marriage with physicality, though, some modern feminists claim that the erotic and sensual overtones used to describe a physical union with Christ are a way of being taken into his divinity. If the biblical ancestors had adapted a ritual by which the purity of all infants was offered to God, total virginity would not have been a problem more integral to females, and a spiritual equality not contingent on virginity might have been possible. But unfortunately, the patriarchal appreciation of chastity was projected on Christ, and some advocates such as Sts Jerome and Ambrose went against Christian laws to justify even suicide in defense of virginity. On the other hand, Saint Augustine questions whether Christ would accept a woman who sacrificed her life to remain chaste, and not one who is spiritually pure even if sexually violated. As a product of his age, he did not exactly share the views of his contemporaries by stressing spiritual purity. Why should we accept, as Schulenburg suggests, that women like the German nun Hrotswitha of Gandersheim were manipulated to share the values of male ecclesiastical writers. More so, since the value of sexual purity for women, handed down through the Germanic tradition, was possibly already instilled in her. Besides, in the tenth century there were other writings available. Schulenburg mentions the exemplary Old English poem, Judith, to explain virginity as heroic strength. But contrary to her convictions, in the poem, God is the source of extraordinary power and not physical purity:
3

The famous prince Of cities then exulted in his heart, Planned to pollute the lady fair with sin And foulness; but the Guardian of might, The Judge of glory would not let it be, The King of hosts retrained him from the deed. (54-55, 139) Another poem available during the same period was Wulf and Eadwacer, in which we find reverberations of St. Augustines concept that real sin would require physical pleasure and consent of the mind:

Then was it rainy weather, and I sad, When the bold warrior laid his arms about me. I took delight in that and also pain. O Wulf, my Wulf, my longing for your coming Has made me ill, the rareness of your visits, My grieving spirit, not the lack of food. (10-15, 85) Hrotswitha was certainly in a better position than men were to present a less distorted perception of women, but she preferred to encourage heroics of happy deaths to preserve virginity. In her legend of Pelagius, which suggests she was aware of other literary traditions, Hrotswitha presents a new virgin martyr: A Christian boy who defends his purity from an infidel pederast. By introducing homosexuality, Hrotswitha alludes that physical purity does not strictly imply vaginal intactness; she equates sodomy or any sexual contact with the loss of purity. As a nun she had to remain spotless to be worthy of the virgins crown, but her adherence to extreme principles of integritas can also suggest the belief that the corruption of the body can indeed corrupt the soul. Undoubtedly, in a world where virginity required to be defended as much from personal
4

desires and fantasies as from any form of sexual aggression, the very decision to be consecrated to God is an act of heroism. Some Church Fathers, like Saint Augustine, did not stress physical punishment even after the violation of chastity. The futility of chastisement can also be seen in the Latin epigram that Jane Tibbet Schulenburg uses to speculate on the heroics of virginity if it is translated more faithfully as follows: He who cuts his own nose, poorly avenges the disgrace brought upon him. Self-mutilation can be clearly understood as means to negate ones physical beauty, but it becomes too unpalatable as a tact aimed solely at maintaining virginity.

________________________________ Hamer, Richard. A Choice of Anglo-Saxon Verse. London: Faber and Faber, 1970.