11. Cited from the unpublished paper, “The ‘Degenerate Morals and Fashions’ of Anglo-Norman Clerical and Lay Society at the Turn of the Eleventh Century: Interpreting the Sources,” delivered at the “Queer Middle Ages” conference at New York University, November 7, 1998.
12. Jo Ann McNamara (“The Herrenfrage,” p. 8) contends that “clerical misogyny reached a crescendo between the mid-eleventh and the mid-twelfth centuries”; not surprisingly, the very period during which sodomy came to play a major role in disciplinary discourse.
13. William Stubbs and Helen J. Nicholson, Chronicle of the Third Crusade: A Transla- tion of the Itinerarium peregrinorum et gesta Regis Ricardi (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), pp. 369–370.
14. Barlow, William Rufus, p. 104.
15. “Inter haec impune procedebat petulans illecebra molles flammisque creman- dos turpiter fedebat uenus sodomestica maritalem thorum publice polluebant adulteria. . . . Tunc effeminati passim in orbe dominabantur indisciplinate debachabantur sodomiticisque spurciis foedi catamitae flammis urendi turpiterabutebantur . . . hortamenta sacerdotum deridebant; barbaricumque morem in habitu et uita tenebant” (Marjorie Chibnall, ed. and trans., The Ecclesiastical His- tory of Ordericus Vitalis, 6 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969–80), IV, pp. 186,
188; cited in Fennell, “Degenerate.”
16. “Femineam mollitiem petulans iuuentus amplectitur; feminisque uiri curiales in omni lasciuia sumnopere adulantur. Pedum articulis ubi finis est corporis colubri- narum similitudinem caudarum imponunt . . . Humum quoque puluerulentam inerularum et palliorum superfluo sirmate uerrunt: longis latisque maicis ad omnia facienda manus operiunt, et his superflutiatibus onusti celeriter ambulare uel aliq- uid utiliter operari uix possunt . . . Vix aliquis militarium procedit in publicum capite discooperto; legitimeque secundum apostoli preceptum tonso” (Chibnall, Ecclesiastical History, IV, pp. 188, 190; cited in Fennell, “Degenerate,” p. 1998).
17. Barlow’s summary is useful: “Nobles grew little beards, wore their hair long at the back like whores, and with a centre parting bared their foreheads like thieves. Their abundant locks were carefully tended, sometimes curled with tongs and either caught back in a headband or covered with a cap. Hardly a knight now went uncovered indoors. These fashions were set by effeminates; and catamites practised sodomy. They spent the night in revelry and dicing, and slept all day. Their fashions proclaimed that like stinking goats they delighted in the filth of lust” (William Rufus, p. 104).
18. “Postremo, quicquid Deo Deumque diligentibus displicebat, hoc regi regemque diligentibus placebat. Nec luxuriae scelus tacendum exercebant occulte, sed ex impudentia coram sole” (Arnold, 233). Translation from Fennell, “Degenerate,” except for inclusion of the untranslatable “luxuria” in place of “unmentionable sexual crime.”
19. Eadmer wrote a biography of Anselm after his death.
20. Barlow, William Rufus, p. 103.
21. Ibid., p. 409.
22. The actual words used are “nebulones [‘good-for-nothing,’ glossed as lecatores] ac vulgaria scorta” (whores, prostitutes). As Barlow notes (William Rufus, p. 429 n.81) none of the words is specific only to Orderic’s account.
23. Wace, Le Roman de rou de Wace, ed. A. J. Holden, 3 vols. (Paris: Champion, 1970–
73), II, l. 9873.
24. William M. Aird offers another very plausible explanation for the fact that William was unmarried: “It is significant that none of William’s [the Conqueror] sons married early and perhaps his main strategy in seeking to maintain his own power was to prolong the youth of his sons and, in so doing, deny them the status of manhood” (“Frustrated Masculinity: The Relationship between William the Conqueror and his Eldest Son,” in Hadley, ed., Masculinity, p. 55). As intriguing as I find this analysis, it should not be read as somehow invalidating the equally plausible and not inconsistent conclusion that William Rufus had little desire for women, other than, perhaps, as a means of asserting his power. That sort of “either/or” reading is responsible for many of the skewed interpretations of medieval sexuality one finds in mid-twentieth-century historiography.25. To support that contention, Boswell, Christianity, cites the “sensible” comments made by Christopher Brooke in The Saxon and Norman Kings (London: Batsford,
1963).
26. Boswell, Christianity, p. 230.
27. Barlow, William Rufus, p. 230.
28. Of course sodomy could also be performed on members of the opposite sex but it is quite clear that the chroniclers are referring almost exclusively to same-sex acts when they level these charges. Peter’s four acts include masturbation, mutual masturbation, intercourse between the thighs, and anal intercourse.
29. Barlow, William Rufus, p. 436.
30. When the Order of the Knights Templar was suppressed in 1312, sodomy and heresy were among the official charges of which they were found guilty.
31. Owen J. Blum, OFM, St. Peter Damian: His Teaching on the Spiritual Life
(Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1947), p. 52.
32. Ibid., p. 36.
33. Ibid., p. 32. For more on the scapegoat and collective identity, see Rene´ Girard, The Scapegoat, trans. Y. Freccero (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986). Originally published as Le Bouc ´emissaire (Paris: Bernard Grasset,
1982).
34. On Peter Damian see especially Boyd “Disrupting the Norm: Sodomy, Culture and the Male Body in Peter Damian’s Liber Gomorrhianus,” Essays in Medieval Studies 11 (1994), pp. 63–73; Boswell Christianity, pp. 210–213 and 365–366; Jordan, Invention of Sodomy; Scanlon, “Unmanned Men”; and Leyser “Cities of the Plain.”
35. Blum, St. Peter Damian, pp. 6–7.
36. Pope Leo’s letter precedes the Liber Gomorrhianus in many, but not all, of the extant manuscripts (Blum, St. Peter Damian, p. 3 n.3).
37. Blum, St. Peter Damian, p. 5.
38. Peter was a prolific writer and preacher. His first work was the Vita Romualdi, dated to 1042, followed over the next twenty years by several volumes of letters, ser- mons, and some fifty-three treatises on such subjects as flagellation and sodomites, penance, the monastic life, grace, wisdom, and happiness. An inveterate reformer, he has been seen by scholars as either just a very stern saint or an unhappy neurotic who coped through writing and the acting out of personal grief and grievances. See Lester K. Little, “The Personal Development of Peter Damian,” in William C. Jordan, Bruce McNab, and Teofilo F. Ruiz, eds., Order and Innovation in the Middle Ages: Essays in Honor of Joseph R. Strayer (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), pp. 317–341.
39. “Quoddam autem nefandissimum et ignominiosum valde vitium in nostris part- ibus inholevit, cui nisi districtae animadversionis manus quantocius obviet, cer- tum est, quod divini furoris gladius in multorum perniciem immaniter crassaturus impendent” (Kurt Reindel, ed., Die Briefe der Petrus Damiani, vol. 1, Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Die Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit, 4 vols. [Munich: MGH,
1983], pp. 287, 1–4; hereafter cited by page and line reference). All translations arefrom Otto J. Blum, trans., The Letters of Peter Damian, 31–60, vol. 2 in The Fathers of the Church: Medieval Continuation Washington DC: Catholic University Press,
1990, here p. 6; further citations are given in the text.
40. “Dic ergo, quisquis es qui Christi passionem superbus irrides, qui, cum eo nudari flagellarique despiciens, nuditatem ejus et cuncta supplicia tanquam nugas ac nae- nias et quaedam somniorum deliramenta subsannas; quid facies cum eum, qui pub- lice nudatus est et in cruce suspensus, videris in majestatis suae decore conspicuum, angelicis agminibus undique constipatum, incomparabilis spendoris immensitate circumdatum, et super omnia visibilia et invisibilia ineffabiliter gloriosum? Quis, inquam, facies, cum eum, cujus nunc ignominiam despicis, aspexeris in igneo tribunalis exceis solio praesidentem, et omne genus humanum rescto acquitatis examine terribiliter judicantem?... Qua fronte, qua praesumptionis audacia illius gloriam participare sperabis, cujus portare contumeliam e
t ignominiam despexisti?” (Opusc. 43, 4 in PL 145, cols. 682–683, cited in Patricia McNulty, trans. and intro, Peter Damian: Selected Writings on the Spiritual Life [London: Faber & Faber, 1959], p. 38).
41. “Nunc autem ad te, papa beatissime” (Reindel 329, 6); “Sed iam te ore ad os quisquis es, sodomita, convenio” (298, 8); “Ego, ego te, infelix anima” (311, 20); “Ecce, o bone vir sodomita” (301, 20); “O miserabilis anima” (314, 1).
42. Mark Jordan calls attention to this same technique in his excellent discussion of the text in Invention of Sodomy.
43. “Qualiter enim proximum meum sicut meipsum diligo, si vulnus, quo eum non ambigo crudeliter mori, neglegenter fero in eius corde crassari, videns ergo vulnera mentium, curare neglegam sectione verborum” (326, 17–20)?
44. “Hoc nempe flagitium in cetera crimina non immerito deterrimum creditur, quan- doquidem illud omnipotens Deus semper uno modo exosum habuisse legatur, et cum reliquis viciis necdum per legale praeceptum frena posuerat, iam hoc districtae ultionis animadversione damnabat” (289, 6–10).
45. Peter also relies on Pauline texts to amplify this message of violent retribution.
Twice he cites Romans 1.32: “Those who do such things deserve to die, not only they who do them, but they also who approve those who practice them” (14).
46. Blum’s footnotes to the 1990 translation of Reindel’s 1983 critical edition note several such variations, and many more are outlined in his earlier book, St. Peter Damian.
47. Harvey Whitehouse discusses the differences between doctrinal and the imagistic modes of religiosity in Arguments and Icons: Divergent Modes of Religiosity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
48. There follows the Latin text for this citation and the two following: “quid rogo, dixisset, si loetale hoc vulnus in ipso corpore sanctae ecclesiae foetere conspiceret” (294, 13–14); “Hoc est enim, quod sobrietatem violat, pudicitiam necat, castitatem iugulat, virginitatem spurcissime contagionis mucrone trucidat” (310, 2–3); “Omnia foedat, omnia maculat, omnia polluit et quantum ad se nichil putum, nichil a sordibus alienum, nichil mundum esse permittit” (310, 3–5).
49. “ubi non de corruptis sed de pollutis exorsum est” (307, 4–5).50. “Haec pestilentissima sodomorum regina suae tyrannidis legibus obsequentem hominibus turpem Deo reddit odibilem. Adversus Deum nefanda bella conserere, nequissimi spiritus imperat militiam baiulare, ab angelorum consortio separat et infelicem animam sub propriae dominationis iugo a sua nobilitate captivat. Virtutum armis suos milites exuit omniumque vitiorum iaculis, ut confodiantur, exponit. In ecclesia humiliat, in foro condempnat, foedat in secreto, dehonestat in publico, conscientiam rodit ut vernis, carnem exurit ut ignis, anhelat, ut volup- tatem expleat, at contra timet, ne ad medium veniat, ne in publicum exeat, ne hominibus innotescat” (310, 9–17).
51. “Filia quippe populi mei pessima plaga contrita est, quia anima, quae sanctae ecclesiae fuerat filia, ab hoste humani generis telo inmunditiae est crudeliter sauciata et auqe in aula regis aeterni lacte sacri eloquii tenerre ac molliter educabatur, nunc veneno libidinis pestilenter infecta in sulphureis Gomorrae cineribus tumefacta ac rigida iacere conspicitur” (312, 10–14).
52. “Hinc etiam, dilectissimi, considerandum est quanta sit dignitas nostra, quantaque imbis sit proportio cum Maria. Concepit Maria Christum in vulva cannis deferimus et nos in visceribus mentis. Reficiebat Maria Christum, cum teneris labris lac exprimeres uberum; reficimus et nos raviis honorum deliciis operum” (Sermo 45, PL 144, col. 747B; cited in Blum, St. Peter Damian, p. 150).
53. “Hoc ille hermita suo facto probat, qui cum ultis virtutibus cum quodam suo collega deservisset, haec ili per diabolum iniecta cogitatio est, ut quandocumque libidine titillaretur, sic semen detritu genitalis membri egerere deberet, tanquam flegma de naribus proiceret . . .” (319, 3–7).
54. “Cogita, quam miserum sit, quod per unum membrum, cuius nunc voluptas exple- tur, totum postmodum corpus simul cum anima atrocissimis flammarum incendiis perpetuao cruciatur” (324, 1–3). This follows from the conclusions Damian draws in his Liber gratissimus (Cap. xv; PL 145, col. 119 C) and his Dominus vobiscum (cap. x; PL 145, col. 239 D) that the particular individual is what it is through its participation in the universal, as in the metaphor of the micro and macrocosm (cited in Blum, St. Peter Damian, p. 144).
55. “it is more excusable to indulge in lustful acts with an animal than with a man for one should be judged less severely for losing his own soul than for dragging another with him to destruction” (16).
[“Et, ut michi videtur, toerabilius est cum pecude quam cum viro in luxuriae flagitium labi. Quanto videlicet levius iudicatur quemlibet solum perire, quam secum quoque alium ad interitus perniciem trahere”] (296–7, 7–8 and 1).
56. “quod uterque iste licet incestuose naturaliter tamen, quia cum muliere peccavit, ille in clericum turpitudinem operans sacrilegium commisit in filium, incestus crimen incurrit, in masculum naturae iura dissolvit” (296, 4–7).
57. Blum, St. Peter Damian, p. 16.
58. There follows the Latin text of these and the following two citations: “Qui enim non per humilitatis iter, sed per arrogantiae et tumoris anfractus ad Deum accedere gestiunt, patet profecto, quia unde ingressionis aditus pateat, non agnoscunt, vel quia ostium Christus est, sicut ipse dicit: Ego sum ostium” (293,14–17); “Sodomitae ergo ad angelos conantur violenter irrumpere, cum immundi homines ad Deum temptant per sacri ordinis officia propinquare” (293, 10–11); “Qui enim indignus ordine ad sacri altaris officium conatur irrumpere, quid aliud quam relicto ianuae limine per immeabilem parietis obicem nititur introire” (293,
27–29).
59. “Post hec aliis sex mensibus sub senioris spiritalis custodia segregata in curtic- ula degens operi manuum et orationi sit intentus, vigiliis et orationibus subiectus et sub custodia semper duorum fratrum spiritalium ambulet, nulla prava locu- tione vel consilio deinceps iuvenibus coniungendus” (308, 7–11). Peter clearly thinks that sexual relations are only likely to occur between younger and older members of the community, or younger and younger together. Otherwise, his solution is no solution at all. This is one of the most intriguing implications of his prescribed penance: there is no way to extirpate the possibility of sexual attraction between men other than to choose, somewhat arbitrarily, that it can only be occur under pre-ordained conditions and that it can only be contained by the penance he proffers. As Foucault might say, this disciplinary practice is then eroticized both as it defines erotic pathways and points toward transgressive possibilities.
60. “quatinus si sodomite ex semetipsis nesciunt pensare quod sunt, ab ipsis saltim valeant edoceri, cum quibus sunt communi orationis ergastulo deputati” (307,
7–9).
61. Leo Bersani, Homos (Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press,
1995), p. 97.
62. For a fuller discussion of this Foucauldian notion as it relates to theology, see chapter
4, “Male Theology in the Bedroom,” in Jeremy R. Carrette’s Foucault and Religion
(New York and London: Routledge, 2000).
63. “O quam jucundum! O quam insigne spectaculum! Cum Supernus Judex de coelo prospectat, et homo semetipsum in inferioribus pro suis delictis mittat! Ubi reus ipse, in pectoris sui tribunalibus praesidens, trifarium tenet officium; in corde se constituit judicem, reum in corpore, manibus se gaudet exhibere tortorem; ac si Deo sanctus poenitens dicat: Non opus est, Domine, ut officio tuo me punire praecipias; ipse mihi manus injicio, ipse de me vindictam capio, vicemque meis peccatis reddo . . . Huic econtra spectaculo assistunt angeli, qui gaudent de peccatore converso; et hoc Deo gaudentes annuntiant, cum jam invisibilis Judex id ipsum per se delectabiliter cernat. Haec est hostia quae viva mactatur, ad Deum per angelos oblata defertur; et sic humani corporis victima ili unico sacrificio quod in ara crucis oblatum est, invisibiliter permiscetur; et sic in uno thesauro sacrificium omne reconditur, videlicet et quod unumquodque membrum, et quod caput omnium obtulit electorum” (Opusc. 43: De laude flag
ellum, PL 145, cols. 679–685; cited in Blum, St. Peter Damian, p. 117).
64. “Dic, vir evirate, responde, homo effeminate, quid in viro quaeris, quod in temetipso invenire non possis? Quam diversitatem sexuum, quae varia liniamenta membrorum, quam mollitiem, quam carnalis illecebrae teneritudinem, quam lubrici vultus iocunditatem? Terreat te, quaeso, vigor masculini aspectus, abhorreatmens tua viriles artus. Naturalis quippe appetitus officium est, ut hoc unusquisque extrinsecus quaerat, quod intra suae facultatis claustra reperire non valeat. Si ergo te contrectatio masculine carnis oblectat, verte manus in te et scito, quia quicquid apud te non invenis, in alieno corpore in vacuum quaeris” (313, 13–22).
65. Bersani, Homos, pp. 149–150.
66. Leo Bersani, “Is the Rectum a Grave?” in Jonathan Goldberg, ed., Reclaiming Sodom
(New York and London: Routledge, 1994), p. 257.
67. Peter alludes to such a moment of forgetting of the self in this citation from the Liber Gomorrhianus: “Once this poisonous serpent has sunk its fangs into this unfortunate man, he is deprived of all moral sense, his memory fails, and the mind’s vision is darkened. Unmindful of God, he also forgets his own identity. This disease erodes the foundations of faith, saps the vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love” (31).
Sodomy, Masculinity, and Law in Medieval Literature Page 30