with a young woman as a sexual companion. Perhaps for concealment, Anacletus tonsured her head, dressed her as a man, so that “both sexes seemed to be set forth in the same body.” Yet Arnulf’s description suggests that this was more than an attempt at secrecy; the antipope had perverse sexual inclinations.87 Sexual control and manly demeanor were crucial elements of religious leadership. Religious writers used accusations such as these to emphasize the effeminate nature of these clerics, their lack of sexual self-control, and inability to govern.
Sexualizing Chastity
How did one avoid effeminacy? How might a cleric render himself more manly? Promoters of religious manliness had one answer: sexualized chastity. During the reform era, religious writers masculinized celibacy and the celibate male body in their presentation of chastity and holy virginity. If monastic writers from this period believed that the extension of the celibacy mandate to all clerics in major orders lessened their own special spiritual condition of holy virginity, the sources speak to the contrary. Nor did Anglo-Norman writers, in their promotion of chastity, suggest that there was an “ontological asexuality” that centrally defined monastic life.88 In fact, sexualized chastity, the sexual struggle for abstinence, served a useful purpose in the gender paradigm of the reform movement. Writers remasculinized the male body through performance of the struggle against the flesh. In short, they compensated the loss of coitus with another performance of manliness, one that demonstrated that the male body was still functional but did not jeopardize the health of the soul. To renounce sex, to fight sexual desire, one needed to experience the sexualized body.
Beginning around 1050, many of the themes found in ancient and patristic sources on the issue of bodily purity and celibacy reappeared in monastic discourse. Those who favored celibacy for the priesthood made use of these older rhetorical devices to convince the priesthood that life-long chastity was the key to religious manliness. This rhetoric presented chastity as a notable military-style struggle, performed only by physically intact men, and suggested that the sexual relations of the priest polluted the altar and sacrament. Such behavior also polluted the priestly body, rendering it disorderly and dysfunctional.
Christian writers of the late Roman period had struggled with effective ways to resolve sexual urges, which they believed had the potential to corrupt the body. This denial of the flesh was key to spiritual salvation but could not include physical castration, which was the cowardly solution to the battle against the flesh. Instead, they urged a spiritual castration for those who wanted to meet Christ’s appeal to become “eunuchs for heaven.” The discomfort over physical castration was related to the gender ambiguity that ensued. Castrated men were not physically male, yet they were not women either. This collective sentiment was first expressed at the Council of Nicea (325), where religious authorities asserted their disapproval of those who maimed themselves; the council decreed that clerical eunuchs must be removed from their benefices. Ambrose of Milan and Jerome both expressed similar beliefs that there was manliness found in spiritual castration, but not in actual physical castration. They reasoned that those who castrated themselves spiritually were able to abstain from sexual relations by choice, whereas those physically castrated were unable to choose. The man who chose spiritual castration was able to abstain by sheer will. He fought constantly against sexual temptation, which made him stronger and more manly than those who never experienced sexual desires. The “manly eunuch,” thus, became the monk who embodied the ideal of spiritual castration.89
The Anglo-Norman reform-era position on physical castration remained consistent with ancient doctrines, although it was likely more influenced by the Norman practice of castrating political enemies. The significance of castration as a political punishment exemplifies this perception of manliness and physical potency. Klaus van Eickels has noted that, when William the Conqueror set castration as a penalty for treason, he established the precedent for later Anglo-Norman rulers to destroy the manhood of their enemies.90 This measure reflected the underlying cultural emphasis on masculinity: castration removed a man’s procreative function and deprived him of his ability to participate in the kinship network that was so profoundly important to Normans.91 The Norman use of castration on political enemies reflected the culture’s emphasis on manhood, governance, and political power; when castration was used elsewhere in medieval Europe, it was generally only employed as punishment for sexual offenses.92 Castration spelled dishonor for Normans, for it deprived them of their key social identity: being a man.
Norman rulers applied this form of dishonor to religious men, vowed celibates who, theoretically, did not engage in sexual intercourse. Geoffrey of Anjou asserted his political power over the church of Sées by castrating the bishop-elect Gerard and his clerics; he did so to punish the clerics for failing to consult him on the episcopal election.93 Geoffrey’s act recognized Gerard’s potency, as a religious leader and as a man. Although Gerard was presumably celibate, this factor meant little to the duke. His violent action showed that he, like other laymen, viewed clerics as men and viewed physical emasculation as a viable form of retribution. The entire castration narrative underscores that Geoffrey of Anjou, and his social equals (warrior elites), saw male genitalia as the seat of power. The removal of these genitalia signified, to Geoffrey at least, the loss of male potency.
Since the temptation of the flesh presented a constant battle for the celibate, it was a necessary aspect of proving religious manliness, whether the spiritual warrior was a priest, monk, or bishop. Preventing this battle through castration removed the potential for manhood. William of Malmesbury presented an anecdote in his Gesta Pontificum Anglorum that underscored that even religious men could not tolerate castration. Hugh d’Orvial was appointed bishop of London but, after ordination, fell ill with blisters all over his body; to quell this illness, he had his testicles removed. Due to this “shameful remedy,” William writes, Hugh had to endure “the slur (obprobrium) of being a eunuch.”94 By castration, Hugh put an end to one crucial masculine performance: conquering sexual desires over and over again. Rather than castration, physicians frequently advocated sexual intercourse as a remedy for certain kinds of illness. This in part illustrates that Anglo-Norman society, like others, viewed sex as a necessity for a balance of the humors, a view that could be problematic for religious celibates.95 Maurice, bishop of London, was advised by physicians to relieve his illness by “the emission of humours.” Maurice, known for “self-indulgent love of women,” was criticized by William of Malmesbury, for “he was indeed unlucky to have to safeguard the flesh by endangering his soul.”96
William’s condemnation of castration and sexual intercourse illustrates that the only course available to religious celibates, eager to guard their chastity, was to fight the desires of the flesh, even to the point of death. Thomas II, archbishop of York (d.1114), died from his refusal to accept a sexual remedy for his illness. Although he first consented to the treatment, which involved sex with a beautiful woman, his physicians later discovered he had remained chaste. Thomas defended his actions by saying “woe upon a remedy which requires lust (luxuriae) for its cure.”97 Then he died. In a similar case, the archdeacon of Louvain was elected to the episcopal see of that city, although he desired to remain in his present position. He initially refused the position because he questioned his own commitment to lifelong chastity. He proclaimed that, if he could not be chaste, “he would be far more tolerable and less likely to be damned in his archdeacon’s post” than he would as bishop. Nonetheless, after his episcopal consecration, the archdeacon began to experience genital swelling, “with immeasurable flatulence” (it was believed that excessive gas could cause erections!).98 Believing the cause of his illness to be sexual abstinence, those around him advised him to have intercourse. The cleric, wary of his failure to be continent as an archdeacon, refused to stain the dignity of his episcopal office with sexual activity. He later died, after “he resisted temptation manfully (viriliter) and, although conquered in the body, emerged victorious in the spirit for Christ.”99
Remedies other than sexual intercourse could quell carnal desire. Gerald of Wales preached that priests should not only avoid dining in the presence of women but
