Medieval Masculinity

1094 Words5 Pages
Bullough believes that medieval ideas of what masculinity consisted of were mostly adopted from the Classical period. Aristotle understood men to be superior in both intellect and morals. He concluded that “male domination was the will of nature” and this should not be challenged. Note how in the Middle Ages, males were dominant, and had to prove their dominance again and again to be considered masculine. The most recognised evidence that males were superior came from the Bible. The idea that women had always been flesh, but men had developed from clay to flesh demonstrated the superiority of men. Galen believed that due to their warmer body temperature leading to the male sex organs growing outside of the body, men were superior, as women’s…show more content…
Medieval etymology reinforces this; “Man was the complete being who drew his name (vir) from his force (vis)”. Both Galen and Aristotle believed that males were the active partner in sexual activity, a theory that was certainly adopted in medieval times, demonstrated by Hanawalt: “Women’s role is passive…women’s value is sexual”. In fact, women’s passivity was established by Aristotle’s theory that accepted the existence of only male sperm, which became a prominent theory in the late 1100s , although this may not have been a universally accepted theory. This also relates to medieval sodomy, and the passive partner being regarded as feminine regardless of gender. There were many things that made masculinity particularly medieval. First of all, Galen’s theory about men having warmer body temperatures was developed into the theory of the four humours; the sanguine (hot and moist), the choleric (hot and dry), the phlegmatic (cold and moist) and the melancholic (cold and dry). The four…show more content…
Most literature from the time reiterates that to have a family and be economically independent is the most masculine thing a man can do. Hadley seems to agree with Bullough’s statement, although she goes into more detail: “they were expected to provide for their wives and families; to look after their wife’s dowry…to perform sexually; and to beget children’. Hadley suggests that economic independence or dominance was also a part of the male role and that “Failure in any of these marital responsibilities might indicate that ‘he had failed as a man’.” Karras also supports Bullough by stating that marriage and becoming head of a household was a symbol of complete manhood in a lay man. Goldberg also supports Bullough’s claim by implying that Masters in the craft trade fulfilled the tripartite definition; they were very likely to be married and have a family, additionally apprentices would be dependent on them too, and they would have their own household. However both Goldberg’s and Karras’ statements beg the question; does Bullough’s definition apply to all men? Cullum suggests that fornication and violence were two major signs of lay masculinity, indicating that there were other signs for other masculinities. Thibodeaux develops Bullough’s declaration by saying that marriage and reproduction were conventional models of manhood. Karras supports all of
Open Document