Five Discourses on Desire: Sexuality and Gender in Northern
France around 1200
John W. Baldwin’s article, “Five Discourses on Desire: Sexuality and Gender in
Northern France around 1200” asserts that sexual desires was a an intellectual
concern for medieval thinkers despite their abhor to the subject of flesh and sex.
Baldwin’s central focus is geared towards northern France in the year 1200. It was
at this time, medieval society was struggling with sexual desire. Using five individual
perspectives; theologians, medical and clerical, Baldwin highlights the importance of
each voice discussing sexuality and desires. Baldwin seeks to examine the five
discourses and their effect on the study and controversy of sex and sexual desire
that plagues the Middle Ages.
Peter the Chanter, along with students, Robert of Courson and Thomas of Chobham
collaborated and created Summa confessorum. The Summa confessorum instructed
clergy and the entire body of faithful followers on aspects of Christian morality and
sexual desire (Baldwin 797). The article goes further to address the four other
spokesmen; an anonymous physician, Jean Bodel of Arras, Andreas Capellanus and
Jean Renart from northeastern France. Each spokesperson was chosen to allow for
diversity as well as to interact with a varied audience. Most commonly, the clergy,
aristocrats and the laity were considered in the varied audience.
The five, dissolve and make sense of the sexual matters held by monastic and
clerical voices of the middle ages. Baldwin chooses the year of 1200 since the
laypeople were just as confused on the subject as clergy. As well, the time lends
itself to after the Gregorian reformers who put much of the practices on morality
and sexuality into place prior to the 1200’s. It should be noted that Baldwin does
mention that the voices of women and homophiles are not part of this discourse.
Each spokesperson’s discourse is purely masculine and speaks to only the masculine
with very little reference to the feminine.
Each spokesperson discusses what is considered and constructs sexual desire and
its relation to gender. The first begins with Peter the Chanter. He describes sexual
desire as concupiscentia. Peter’s concupiscent derives from the era of Augustine.
Augustine rejected contemporary views that attributed the origins of sexuality to
sin. The Chanter’s work expressed that all things corrupt in human nature were
transmitted sexually, thus infecting the entire human race (Baldwin 801). The relief
for the laity struggling with sexual desire found comfort in the institution of
marriage. According to Augustine, God had ordained marriage and was considered
one of the seven sacraments. Augustine era defended marriage against the attacks of
the contemporaries who condemned marriage, procreation and sexuality as evil
(Baldwin 802). Peter the Chanter concentrated his discourse that there is no sin in
sex, while in marriage. In the conclusion of concupiscentia which was finished by
Peter’s faithful student Robert Courson, added that the causes for marriage and
sexuality without sin fell under four categories of marriage: marital debt between
spouses, sake of offspring avoiding fornication and fulfilling one’s desire. Chanter’s
alleviated the oppressive burden imposed upon the laity in early traditions
(Baldwin 804).
The unidentified physicians stance was more psychologically based than medically.
The central focus of the physician was to explain the attributes of the brain in its
reaction to pleasure. The reference to sexual desires was called coitus. The work of
the physician was embodied in apiece called the Salinity Question. The questions
focused on the foundations for desires rather than the diagnosis or cure for sexual
dysfunction (Baldwin 805). The third discourse depicts a world of sexual energy.
Jean Bodel’s account and stories dealt more with the act than the expression of
sexuality. Far removed from the consupiscent and medical explanations, Bodel was
fascinated with lust and justifying relations with out without marriage. He does very
little to justify sexual desire from mortal guilt and religion. Jean Arrars books
expressed the beauty of religion and romance linking both as dependent upon one
another and should be freely expressed by humans. Mortally, it was laughable to
separate the two. Linking sex or sexual desires had very little to do with sin. Andreas
Capellanus was ambivalent about sexual desires (Baldwin 807). He saw the origin of
sex and desire to be cause of all good and that sexual desires could bring supreme
joy. He compared that the lack thereof would only result in hastened illness,
insanity, senility and death (Baldwin 808).
Essentially, Baldwin’s article reveals that each spokesperson had very differing
views of sex and sexual desire. Each interpretation lent itself to the disillusionment
and confusion to the layperson wishing to acquire religious excellence. Although
each discourse does very little to lay claim to a concrete way of the life for sexuality
and desire, it does show the complexity and discourse of the subject. It reveals that
many questions needed to be answered and no one answer would or could justify
the subject and its relationship to Christianity.
Reference: Baldwin, John W. “Five Discourses on Desire: Sexuality and Gender in
Northern France around 1200.” Speculum Vol. 66 (1991).
Clerical Celibacy and The Laity
Andre Vauchez’s Clerical Celibacy and The Laity reduce the idea that sexuality and
sexual desire were issues that solely dealt with church clerics and hierarchy. In fact,
Vauchez’s article addresses interesting facts about the disregard by some church
officials and the laity’s approach to the subjects. The subjects presented in Vauchez’s
article might suggest that the idea of sex, marriage may have lead to more than
configuring the sexuality of Christian followers.
Nicolaitism was a term to identify men of the faith who gave themselves to impure
acts. The history of Nicolaitism derives from a sixth century deacon named Nicholas
Antioch. Nicohals took part in prostituting his wife and partaking in sexual acts. His
name was further smeared when he was accused of allowing laity and priests to act
within the same manner (Medieval Christianity, 179). By the eleventh and twelfth
century the term Nicolaite disappeared and was replaced with the controversy of
clerical marriage, fornication and sexual sin. Leading up to the eleventh century
controversy, the cannon law did not prevent bishops, priests and clerics from
marrying. However, the rules suggested loving one’s wife like a sister and remaining
in separate bedrooms for the sanctity of Christianity? The father’s of the Latin
Church St. Augustine and St. Jerome emphasized that impurity results from sexual
acts. Therefore, St. Augustine felt that an unclean priest could not do mass, which
was celebrated everyday. The same feeling was met by Pope Siricius who voiced
Paul’s proclamation “those who are in the flesh, cannot please God-Romans 8:8”
(Medieval Christianity, 182). The lines for sexuality and desires remained a constant
conflict of biblical terms and the mortal capabilities of men and women. The article
points out that the practice of priests not marrying was ignored by most. Many were
not punished and punishment depended on the papal structure in certain countries
and areas. In the end of the twelfth century most parish priests in England lived
with a focaria (hearth-mate). A woman who served as servant, but also served as
concubine at night (Medieval Christianity, 191). In Scandinavia, it wasn’t until the
thirteenth century that clerical celibacy was introduced. The controversy had not
affected Scandinavia until then. The article shows the importance of the longevity of
such practices by support from laity. A Dominican chronicler in the thirteenth
century wrote; “the peasants say that a priest cannot live alone…preferable he have
a wife of his own, since otherwise he would chase after other men’s wives and sleep
with them (Medieval Christianity, 192). The significance of such a statement shows
that the laity was concerned with the social order of their parish. They were in fear
that clergy would go after the women and wives of the parish.
Vauchez goes further in his essay to point out clerical celibacy and its controversial
nature during the medieval times. The need for clerical celibacy had very little to do
with the religious order of things, but rather, a denouncement of clergies sexual
desires would draw the lines between clergy and laity. Clergy would be elevated
purely and solely through the abstinence of sex and having sexual desires. If not,
clergy could be seen as any other man.
Reference:
Vauchez, Andre. Medieval Christianity: A People’s History of Christianity. “Clerical
Celibacy And The Laity”. Volume 4. 2009.