As the opening quote suggests, stories of prostitution were plentiful in medieval literature. Chaucer also gave numerous examples of philandering clergy members, in The Shipman’s Tale, The Friar’s Tale, and The Nun’s Priest’s Tale, for example, and contemporary readers were not shocked to read about priests and monks tapping a whore. Despite the vows of chastity, this was seen as a far lesser evil than the alternatives: rape, seducing innocent congregation members, jerking their own chains, or playing for the other side. Even shacking up with a kept-woman was seen as far worse than stopping by the local whorehouse for a quickie.
The need for sex caused men of the cloth and men of the crown to distort moral attitudes and rethink religious beliefs. Most scholars today chose to examine how the world’s oldest profession conformed to fit into the prevailing medieval views about sex, but we feel it makes for a much more entertaining lesson to look at how the church changed its stance on sex to rationalize their own sexual deviance and shattered vows of celibacy. In this way, we can argue that the vagina altered religious and moral beliefs. You go, vagina!
Girl on Girclass="underline" Lesbianism, Medieval Style
“…as the turtle-dove, having lost its mate, perches forever on its little dried up branch, so I lament endlessly… you are the only woman I have chosen according to my heart.”
The biggest obstacle to researching medieval lesbianism is that little was written — or little remains — about the topic. And the reason for that: it wasn’t penis-centric. Seriously… since lesbianism didn’t pertain to the penis, it wasn’t important to the male-dominated world of the Middle Ages. In the penis-vagina binary, the penis was king. The vagina was the ugly step-child of the sex organs. But that is not to say female same-sex relationships were non-existent in this time period. Indeed, they flourished. And enough information remains for us to paint a quasi-realistic view of medieval lesbianism.
First, we should define lesbianism, a task that we know is darn near impossible. Modern society is still grappling with the various aspects of sexual identity and, centuries ago, terms like homosexual, lesbian, transgendered, and bisexual hadn’t yet been coined. To clarify, these words were non-existent, not the people, for there were certainly plenty of medieval individuals we could now classify into one of these areas.
Take the Pardoner, in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, for example. This male character was described as having feminine features, such as a beardless chin and a high singing voice. In the description of this character, Chaucer writes, “I thought he were a gelding or a mare.” Was the Pardoner a gay man? A natural eunuch? A hermaphrodite? A transgender? It is clear that even someone as well-travelled and well-read as good old Geoffrey could not definitively label the Pardoner’s gender. But he was curious enough about the idea of human sexuality and gender, especially when the line between a man and a woman was blurred, that he included the Pardoner in his most famous literary work. For our purposes though, and keeping the title of this book in mind, we will focus this chapter on medieval lesbianism primarily on girl-on-girl sexual relationship and only touch briefly on other lesbian-like, non-normative behaviors, like same-sex communal living (such as nuns living in convents) and cross-dressing (for example, Joan of Arc). In doing so, we will see a glimpse of how sexual practices, even taboo ones, were still viewed through the male perspective.
An important distinction to keep in mind is that, in the Middle Ages, a person was not labeled based on their sexual practices or preferences. A man was categorized by status and profession, such as tailor, monk, squire or earl, and a woman was ranked according to her connection to a man, for example, daughter, wife, mother, maiden or widow. The Pardoner was still identified as a pardoner — a granter of religious pardons — even as his sexuality was questioned.
Conversely, another of Chaucer’s characters, the Wife of Bath, is identified by her marital status — wife — even though she also has a career, that of a weaver. Rather than identifying as a homosexual or a lesbian, the focus was on the individual sexual act itself. Sodomy, in particular. So a person could be considered, for example, a squire who committed sodomy.
We bring up these two Chaucerian characters because both have ambiguous sexuality. As we stated earlier, scholars debate labeling the Pardoner as effeminate, gay, and transgendered based on textual clues Chaucer gives us. As for the Wife of Bath, well she clearly exhibits man-like behavior. She is single, but not under the control of a father or brother. She is a working-woman and business owner. She is independent (after all, she is on a pilgrimage). And she is a sexual aggressor, actively pursuing and seducing her lovers. These actions are not typical of the common medieval lady.
As mentioned earlier, the medieval world is rather quiet about actual lesbian activity and we jokingly blamed the penis-centric society of the time. There is more to this idea. According to contemporary thought, sex was for the purpose of procreation. Husband + wife = legitimate heirs. Period. It is a simple equation. But humans often gave into lust and got their jollies from a third party. That became a problem if it changed the outcome of the equation; that is, if a bastard baby was conceived. Inheritance laws being what they were and DNA paternity testing still centuries away, medieval men sought to keep other men’s penises away from their wives’ vaginas to ensure that the nursery cradle wouldn’t end up rocking an illegitimate infant. No one wanted this equation: wife - husband + random male lover = bastard. The common denominator in both of these equations is semen. Seed-laden cum, after all, is a compulsory part of the baby-making recipe. Without semen, the equation could look like this: wife + female lover = a fun time had by all.
Lesbian activity ensures no resulting bastard child and no cause for concern on the part of the husband. “It doesn’t affect me,” so thought many medieval men. As long as the vagina was available when he needed it and it wasn’t an escape route for another man’s baby, girl-on-girl action was viewed as significantly less important than male homosexual activity, therefore accounts of these instances were not important enough to record for posterity.
Although it was deemed a lesser offense than man-on-man sex, lesbian sex was still frowned upon in the Middle Ages. It was that whole “sex for babies only” thing, coupled with that whole “sin against nature” thing. Two women could not conceive a child together; therefore their sexual play was for pleasure only, and it was the pleasure that made it sinful. And women could be punished for their lady-loving ways.
Take, for example, the love affair between Jehanne and Laurence in 1405 France. We have record that Laurence appealed her guilty verdict on the charge of lesbianism because, she claimed, Jehanne was the aggressor who lured her into a meadow then she laid upon her and, in a manly way, made love to her. So seduced by the experience, the bewildered and somewhat gullible Laurance agreed to meet Jehanne… again and again until the love affair grew cold… and violent. Jehanne physically attacked Laurance when the latter tried to end the romance and it was this assault that drew the attention of the authorities. The lesbian affair was secondary. Jehanne was ultimately arrested, tried and executed for her criminal behavior, but it seems that it was the physical assault that got her in trouble, not the girl-on-girl action.
Many scholars view all-girl living arrangements as akin to lesbianism because it was outside the accepted norms of the medieval society. This included, to some extent, nuns housed in convents. Living in close proximity to other females — plus that whole vow of chastity/swearing off penises clause — led many nuns to explore sexual interaction with each other.