NOTES

PROLOGUE

1. 1. Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales; ed. Benson, 26.

2. 2. For a detailed discussion of the spiritual enthusiasm and religious renewal that marked the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, see Constable, Reformation. On clerical celibacy, see Parish, Clerical Celibacy; Barstow, Married Priests; Thibodeaux, Manly Priest; and the essays in Frassetto, ed., Medieval Purity and Piety.

3. 3. Brooke, “Gregorian Reform in Action,” 18.

4. 4. For the effects of the celibacy campaign on the families of priests, see van Houts, “The Fate of the Priests’ Sons”; Thibodeaux, Manly Priest, 64–85; Taglia, “ ‘On Account of Scandal …’ ”; and Elliott, “The Priest’s Wife.”

5. 5. Oliva, “The Nun’s Priest,” 115.

6. 6. For discussion of the term domina, and its semantic range, see Chapter 1, n. 58.

7. 7. Bynum, Holy Feast, 229.

8. 8. Blamires, Case, 1. Blamires describes the “case for women” as “a corpus of ideas about how to fashion a commendation of women explicitly or implicitly retaliating against misogyny.” Blamires, Case, 2.

9. 9. Blamires, Case, 230.

CHAPTER 1

Notes to epigraphs: Marbode, Epistola ad Robertum, 14; Deux vies, 538–539.

Abelard, Institutio, 40; The Letter Collection, 406–407.

1. 1. Bernold of Constance (d. 1100) commented specifically on the numbers of women adopting the religious life, writing in 1091 that “an innumerable multitude not only of men, but even of women, adopted such a life in these times, in order to live in obedience to clerics or monks.” Bernold of Constance, Chronicon; ed. Robinson, 382–384. Guibert of Nogent (d. c. 1124) commented on the “crowds” of converts—both women and men—joining those who “ushered in a new season of religious conversion.” Guibert of Nogent, Monodiae, I, 11; ed. Labande, 72; trans. Archambault, 33. Herman of Tournai (d. c. 1147) wrote of a similar scene, noting the “youths and maidens, old men and youngsters, abandoning the world and coming from all over the province to convert.” Herman explicitly linked the conversions to the apostolic example, commenting that “it was like that which one reads in the Acts of the Apostles.” Herman of Tournai, Liber de restauratione, 66; ed. Waitz, MGH SS 14, 305; trans. Nelson, 96. The life of Stephen of Obazine (d. 1159), too, reports on the striking conversions of women. Noting that “nobles and lowborn persons, men as well as women, began to leave the world,” the life particularly emphasized the “wondrous change” embraced by noblewomen, who “converted to this poverty and humility.” Vita S. Stephani Obazinensis, I, 29 and I, 30; ed. Aubrun, 86–88; trans. Feiss, O’Brien, and Pepin, 158, 159.

2. 2. Gary Macy has shown that abbesses (like abbots) were “ordained” to their ministry in the early Middle Ages, and were recognized as such by their contemporaries. It was only toward the end of the twelfth century that “the concentration of sacramental power into the hands of the priest” took place, and with it the redefinition of ordination to focus on “the power to consecrate the bread and wine during the liturgy of the Mass.” Macy, Hidden History, 47, 110. On the ordination rites and significant liturgical roles of abbesses in the early medieval period, see Macy, Hidden History, 80–86. For the exclusion of women from all forms of ordination during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, see Macy, Hidden History, 89–110. For the continued involvement of religious women in various forms of ministry, see Bugyis, In Christ’s Stead.

3. 3. On the variety of arrangements between women’s monasteries and their priests, see the essays in Griffiths and Hotchin, eds., Partners in Spirit. On men’s provision of pastoral care for women, see Griffiths and Hotchin, “Women and Men in the Medieval Religious Landscape”; Schreiner, “Seelsorge in Frauenklöstern”; Bouter, ed., Les religieuses dans le cloître et dans le monde, 331–391; Johnson, Equal in Monastic Profession, 180–191; Parisse, Les nonnes au Moyen Age, 134–140; Golding, Gilbert, 71–137; and, focusing on Fontevraud, Gold, The Lady and the Virgin, 76–115. For women’s perspectives on pastoral care, see Griffiths, “ ‘Men’s Duty,’ ” 15–19; Lewis, By Women, 176–199; and Hotchin, “Abbot as Guardian,” 59–63.

4. 4. From the ninth century on, monks in many communities were ordained. On the increasing ordination of monks, see Constable, “Religious Communities, 1024–1215,” 351–352.

5. 5. Seguin served some twenty-five years as prior at Marcigny during the early twelfth century. Wollasch, “Frauen in der Cluniacensis ecclesia,” 105; and Wischermann, Marcigny-sur-Loire, 98–102. Gunther served as provost of Lippoldsberg for some twenty years, from c. 1138/9 until 1161. Hotchin, “Women’s Reading and Monastic Reform,” 148. The chaplain Walter is listed as a witness in charters from the English community of Godstow for some 15 years. Elkins, Holy Women of Twelfth-Century England, 64. Similarly long service can be seen in the fourteenth century. Peter, the chaplain at Kirschgarten in Worms, served from 1315–1331. Kleinjung, Frauenklöster als Kommunikationszentren, 91.

6. 6. For the increasing emphasis on the Mass in monastic life from c. 400-c. 1200, with particular attention to relations between nuns and ordained men, see Griffiths, “The Mass in Monastic Practice.” As Gisela Muschiol has shown, early medieval nuns were less reliant on ordained men than religious women in the later period, a function of the more frequent celebration of the Mass in monastic communities after the eighth century. Muschiol, “Zeit und Raum”; and Muschiol, “Men, Women, and Liturgical Practice.” By the early thirteenth century, ordained men were required not only to consecrate the Mass, but for a variety of pastoral tasks, as abbesses were prohibited from hearing their nuns’ confessions, blessing them, and preaching within their own communities. Macy, Hidden History, 102–103. Despite women’s exclusion from ordination, nuns could sometimes communicate in the absence of a priest, distributing the eulogia or bread that had already been blessed. See Macy, Hidden History, 63–64; Leclercq, “Eucharistic Celebrations Without Priests”; Leclercq, “Prières médiévales pour recevoir l’Eucharistie,” 329–331; and Lauwers, “Les femmes et l’eucharistie.”

7. 7. Venarde, Women’s Monasticism, 54. For the expansion of women’s monasticism in Germany, see Felten, “Frauenklöster”; Bönnen, Haverkamp, and Hirschmann, “Religiöse Frauengemeinschaften,” 412–414; Röckelein, “Frauen im Umkreis der benediktinischen Reformen”; Parisse, Religieux et religieuses; and Wilms, Amatrices ecclesiarum, 21–24, 54–55. For expansion in England, see Elkins; and Thompson, Women Religious. Urban Küsters showed that women’s religious enthusiasm and conversion at this time prompted developments in men’s provision of spiritual care for them; Küsters focuses on the St. Trudperter Hohelied, a vernacular text written for nuns in the second quarter of the twelfth century. Küsters, Der verschlossene Garten.

8. 8. Some priests came from male communities, to which they would return after a period of service among women. Others were permanently attached to women’s communities, living in houses founded by powerful nuns to ensure their access to spiritual care as, for instance, at St. Gorgon and Truttenhausen (founded in 1178 and 1180, respectively, by Herrad, abbess of Hohenbourg). Griffiths, Garden of Delights, 43–47.

9. 9. Canons at Sainte-Radegonde in Poitiers, a community dependent on the abbey of Sainte-Croix, vowed obedience to the abbess and were required to perform regular sacramental services for the women. A ninth-century capitulary of Louis the Pious reports that the clerics were to be obedient to the women in all things. “Ipsi per omnia ad dictam congregationem sanctae crucis honeste et perfecte obedientes sint atque subiecti.” Capitulare de monasterio S. Crucis Pictavensi (822–824), cap. 7; ed. Boretius, MGH Capit. 1, 302. For a discussion of relations between the canons at Sainte-Radegonde and the abbess of Sainte-Croix from the sixth to the fifteenth century, see Edwards, “ ‘Man Can be Subject to Woman’ ”; and (although in less detail) Favreau, “Le culte de Sainte Radegonde à Poitiers.”

10. 10. Although the choice of a priest was not official until it had been confirmed by the bishop, nuns and canonesses could often secure the right to choose their priest, as Caesarius of Arles advocated for the women at Arles during the early sixth century: Caesarius of Arles, Testamentum, 5; ed. and trans. de Vogüé and Courreau, 387; trans. Klingshirn, 73. Augustine assumed that monastic women could request the “transfer” of their male praepositus if he was not satisfactory. Augustine of Hippo, Epist. 211 (Obiurgatio, 4); trans. Lawless, 106. During the central Middle Ages, the right to choose a priest or provost was often negotiated by the women, and confirmed in foundation charters. At Ichtershausen, the earliest Cistercian house for women in northern Germany, the nuns secured a charter in 1147 from Bishop Heinrich of Metz stipulating that any provost who lived “freely and reprehensibly,” or who misappropriated the monastery’s property, should be dismissed from his position. Mainzer Urkundenbuch. II, ed. Acht, no. 98.

11. 11. For discussion of the provost and his role in women’s monasteries, see Schlotheuber, “The ‘Freedom of Their Own Rule.’ ” In Parisse’s view, the office of the provost enabled male control and surveillance over nuns in reformed communities. Parisse, Religieux et religieuses, 167.

12. 12. Idung of Prüfening, Argumentum super quatuor questionibus, 7; ed. Huygens, 75; trans. Leahey, 176.

13. 13. The Desert Fathers, trans. Ward, 31. In his life of Gregory VII (c. 1128), Paul of Bernried reports how Gregory had touched his niece’s necklace while discussing her desire to practice a life of chastity—a transgression for which he was punished. As Paul wrote, “This reminds us of the saying, ‘It is well for a man not to touch a woman.’ ” Paul of Bernried, Vita Gregorii, 32; trans. Robinson, 280–281.

14. 14. Basil of Caesarea, The Longer Responses, 33; trans. Silvas, 236. Jerome wrote to Eustochium that she should “ask one whose life commends him, whose age puts him above suspicion, whose reputation does not belie him.” Jerome, Epist. 22.29; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 187; trans. Fremantle, 34. In the twelfth century, Aelred of Rievaulx advised his sister that the priest provided for her should be “an elderly man of mature character and good reputation.” Aelred of Rievaulx, De institutione inclusarum, 6; ed. Hoste and Talbot, 642; trans. Macpherson, 51.

15. 15. Aelred of Rievaulx warned that “the evil in our very bodies is always to be feared; it can … arouse and unman even the oldest.” Aelred of Rievaulx, De institutione inclusarum, 6; ed. Hoste and Talbot, 642; trans. Macpherson, 52.

16. 16. In his Dialogues, Gregory the Great reported that, as Equitius was praying one night, he saw himself made a eunuch “while an angel stood by”; thereafter, he felt secure enough in his God-given virtue to take on the care of women, although he warned others “not to be too eager to follow his example.” Gregory the Great, Dialogues, I, 4, 1–2; ed. de Vogüé, II, 38; trans. Zimmerman, 16. Gerald of Wales reported the story of a late antique monk named Eliah, who acted as chaplain and steward for some three hundred women. Experiencing “carnal desires,” Eliah withdrew into the desert and was visited by angels, who delivered him from temptation: one “held him by the hands and another by the feet; the third hastily seized a sharp knife and cut off his testicles.” (As Gerald clarified, “he did not really do so; it only seemed that he did”). Gerald of Wales, Gemma ecclesiastica, II, 17; ed. Brewer, 246; trans. Hagen, 187. For discussion, see Murray, “Sexual Mutilation and Castration Anxiety”; Kuefler, “Castration and Eunuchism in the Middle Ages”; and the essays in Tracy, ed., Castration and Culture. Origen’s auto-castration is reported by Eusebius: Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 6.8.1–2; trans. Oulton and Lake, II, 28–29. For “physical and spiritual castration” among early Christians, see Kuefler, Manly Eunuch, 260–273. On Origen’s context and legacy, see Finn, Asceticism in the Graeco-Roman World, 100–130.

17. 17. Penalties for infractions could be severe: Fructuosus of Braga (d. 665) declared that any monk speaking to a nun alone “shall be publicly stretched out and flogged with one hundred blows of the lash.” Fructuosus of Braga, Regula monastica communis, 15; PL 87: 1123; trans. Barlow, 199.

18. 18. Second Council of Seville (619), canon 11; ed. Mansi, 10: 560–561. This ruling was well known: Gratian cited it in his Decretum: Gratian, Decretum, C.18 q.2 c.24; ed. Friedberg, 1, 835–836. Abelard referred to it in his Rule for the Paraclete: Abelard, Institutio, 42; The Letter Collection, 408–409.

19. 19. Institutio sanctimonialium, 27; ed. Werminghoff, MGH Conc. 2.1, 455. For discussion, see Schilp, Norm und Wirklichkeit; Muschiol, “Liturgie und Klausur,“ 129–135; and Muschiol, “Das ‘gebrechlichere Geschlecht,’ ” 24–27. As a further precaution, the Institutio required that the women make their confession in church and in view of the other sisters.

20. 20. An early ninth-century capitulary noted that no man could enter the female monastery except the priest, who was permitted to enter with a witness to visit the sick or to say Mass for the nuns; he was to leave immediately having fulfilled his spiritual purpose. Capitulare ecclestiastica ad Salz data a. 803–4, c. 5; ed. Boretius, MGH Capit. 1, 119. See also Capitulare missorum generale, c. 18; ed. Boretius, MGH Capit. 1, 95.

21. 21. Speculum virginum, 2.260–302; ed. Seyfarth, 50–51; trans. Newman, 276–277. For discussion of the Speculum, see the essays in Mews, ed., Listen Daughter; and Powell, “The Mirror and the Woman.” The life of Christina of Markyate tells of a cleric who took Christina into his care, only to be tormented by desire until he was driven to present himself naked before her. De S. Theodora, 43; ed. Talbot, 114; rev. trans. Fanous and Leyser, 46. Women, too, could fall in love with their priests, as Ivo of Chartres (d. 1115/16) recognized, reminding the nuns at St. Avit that they had vowed to marry Christ, not clerics. Ivo of Chartres, Epist. 10; ed. Leclercq, 42–43. Gerald of Wales reported the story of a Gilbertine nun who became infatuated with Gilbert of Sempringham. To quell the woman’s desire, Gilbert allegedly presented himself naked at the chapter meeting—a “horrid sight” as Gerald commented. Gerald of Wales, Gemma ecclesiastica, II, 17; ed. Brewer, 247–248; trans. Hagen, 188. For a discussion of love between nuns and monks, see Schmidt, “Amor in claustro.”

22. 22. Aelred of Rievaulx, Speculum caritatis, 3.66–68; ed. Hoste and Talbot, 136–137; trans. Connor, 266–267. Aelred’s fear that temptation could strike even the most pious was confirmed in Jacques de Vitry’s (d. 1240) report of a man (possibly Jacques himself), who grasped a holy woman’s hand “from an excess of spiritual affection” and became sexually aroused: the man “felt the first masculine stirrings rising in him.” The woman, Marie d’Oignies, knew nothing of the priest’s arousal, but heard a voice from heaven, commanding, “Do not touch me.” Jacques de Vitry, Vita B. Mariae Oigniacensis, VIII, 75; AA SS, June, 4: 656; trans. King, 102. This episode is discussed in Brown, “The Chaste Erotics.” The life of Abundus (d. 1239) also reported that temptation befell a “certain devout man” who “had a caring love for a girl living a dedicated religious life.” As Abundus’s biographer Goswin of Bossut commented, “the spiritual love he had been showing the girl turned into a fleshly love.” Goswin of Bossut, Vita Abundi, 17; ed. Frenken, 29; trans. Cawley, 239. Similarly, Thomas of Cantimpré bemoaned the fact that “religious men are copulating with religious women,” commenting that “what certain men began in the spirit is consummated in the flesh.” Thomas of Cantimpré, Bonum de universale de apibus, 2.30.19; cited in Elliott, Bride, 174.

23. 23. For a discussion of the historiography of “reform” as it relates to women, see Griffiths, “Women and Reform”; and Griffiths, “The Cross and the Cura monialium.” Beatrix Wilms offered an early corrective to the tendency to focus on women as objects of male control in studies of the reform period. As she showed, women were actively involved in reform and were often reformers themselves; they were, moreover, often admired by religious men, whose spiritual lives were re-energized through them. Wilms, 204.

24. 24. Moore, “Family, Community, and Cult.”

25. 25. On clerical celibacy and reform, see the essays in Frassetto, ed., Medieval Purity and Piety; Barstow, 47–104; McLaughlin, Sex, Gender, and Episcopal Authority, 31–36; Thomas, The Secular Clergy, 154–189. Jennifer Thibodeaux explores the implications for clerical masculinity of the imposition of celibacy on the clergy: Thibodeaux, Manly Priest (see also n. 54, below). For medieval arguments in defense of clerical marriage, see Frauenknecht, Der Verteidigung der Priesterehe; Barstow, 105–73; Melve, “The Public Debate on Clerical Marriage”; Thibodeaux, Manly Priest, 86–111; van Houts, “The Fate of the Priests’ Sons”; and Meijns, “Opposition to Clerical Continence.”

26. 26. Peter Damian, Epist. 112.34; ed. Reindel, MGH Briefe d. dt. Kaiserzeit 4.3, 278; trans. Blum, 4, 276. See Leclercq, “S. Pierre Damien et les femmes;” Elliott, “The Priest’s Wife,” 100–106. On the concern of reformers like Peter Damian to ensure the purity of the priesthood as an order “set apart” from secular society, see Fulton, From Judgment to Passion, 106–118. Fulton notes that “Peter was afraid, not of women, or money, or food as such, but of hell” (114).

27. 27. McNamara, “Herrenfrage”; Elliott, “The Priest’s Wife,” 81–85. For a similar interpretation, see Macy, Hidden History, 111–127. Other scholars, notably Conrad Leyser and Maureen Miller, have cautioned against a literal interpretation of reforming rhetoric, arguing that “woman” served a symbolic function for reformers, providing a means for elite men to discuss and negotiate power among themselves. As Leyser and Miller argue, reformers were more concerned with notions of masculinity, and its gradations among ordained and secular men, than with vilifying women. Leyser, “Custom, Truth, and Gender”; Miller, “Masculinity, Reform, and Clerical Culture.” See also McLaughlin, Sex, Gender, and Episcopal Authority. Drawing attention to the sexualized language of reform, McLaughlin argues that institutions, and not individuals, were the primary focus of reforming concerns.

28. 28. “Sorores quidem amplius periculosum est coadunare, quia antiquus hostis femineo consorcio complures expulit a recto tramite Paradisi.” La règle du temple, 70; ed. Curzon, 69; trans. Upton-Ward, 36. For discussion, see Bom, Women in the Military Orders of the Crusades, 23–27; Nicholson, “Templar Attitudes”; and Forey, “Women and the Military Orders.” Bom and Nicholson note that women continued to be accepted to the Temple even after 1129.

29. 29. “Si David mansuetissimus, Salomon sapientissimus, Samson quoque fortissimus, muliebri laqueo capti sunt, quis eius blanditiis non cedet?” Stephen of Muret, Regula, 39; ed. Becquet, 86. For discussion of the Rule, see Becquet, “La règle.” The inevitability of sexual temptation was underscored, too, by the Cistercian abbot Bernard of Clairvaux, who cautioned his monks against contact with women, noting that “To be always in a woman’s company without having carnal knowledge of her .. [is] .. a greater miracle than raising the dead.” Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermo 65.4; ed. Leclercq, Talbot, and Rochais, Sancti Bernardi Opera, 2, 175; trans. Walsh and Edmonds, On the Song of Songs, 3, 184. See Berman’s interpretation of this sermon as dealing with “heretics, not syneisacticism.” Berman, “Were There Twelfth-Century Cistercian Nuns?” 847, n. 60.

30. 30. The Mass was not a central focus of monastic life (either for men or for women) when Benedict wrote his Rule. He therefore offered no explicit guidance concerning celebration of the Mass, and envisioned a monastic community of laymen (indeed, he advised caution regarding the acceptance of priests into the community). Griffiths, “The Mass in Monastic Practice.”

31. 31. Heloise criticized Benedict’s inattention to the needs of women in the monastic life. Heloise, Epist. 6.4; The Letter Collection, 220–221. See Georgianna, “In Any Corner of Heaven.” According to Idung of Prüfening, Benedict’s silence on the topic of women indicated not that monasticism was a male phenomenon, but that religious women needed no rule of their own, since men routinely exercised spiritual oversight over them (“in those times monasteries of virgins existed only under the guardianship of abbots”). Idung of Prüfening, Argumentum super quatuor questionibus, 7; ed. Huygens, 75; trans. Leahey, 176. In his Dialogus duorum monachorum, Idung noted Benedict’s failure to discuss male supervision of female religious life, concluding that, since Basil had addressed the question, “abbots may, if they wish, act as spiritual guides to nuns.” Idung of Prüfening, Dialogus duorum monachorum, 3, 12; ed. Huygens, 159; trans. O’Sullivan, 107.

32. 32. Gerald of Wales reports, for instance, the refusal of a group of male hermits to allow women access to the island on which they lived. Gerald of Wales, Itinerarium Kambriae, II, 7; ed. Dimock, 131; trans. Thorpe, 190. For spatial restrictions on women’s access to male saints’ shrines, or monastic churches, see Schulenburg, “Gender, Celibacy, and Proscriptions of Sacred Space.”

33. 33. As Jo Ann McNamara writes, “It is probable that there were establishments of men which effectively barred all women from the cloistered precincts. But there was no known community of nuns without some considerable detachment of men who came and went freely and their regulation was one of the problems confronting every abbess and her subordinate officials.” McNamara, Ordeal of Community, 10. Bönnen, Haverkamp, and Hirschmann similarly observed that: “ausschließlich von Frauen bewohnte Klöster hat es wohl nie gegeben.” Bönnen, Haverkamp, and Hirschmann, 379. On the challenges to female enclosure posed by male staff in women’s houses, see Hicks, Religious Life in Normandy, 122–126.

34. 34. The sixth-century Rule of Caesarius of Arles allowed that churchmen were permitted to enter the “cloistered part of the monastery and the oratories.” Skilled workmen were also allowed occasional admittance, to perform necessary repairs. Caesarius of Arles, Regula sanctarum virginum, 36; ed. de Vogüé and Courreau, 218–219; trans. McCarthy, 182–183.

35. 35. Schäfer, Die Kanonissenstifter, 95–114. On arrangements between canons and canonesses, see Schilp, “… sorores et fratres”; Schilp, “Der Kanonikerkonvent”; Klapp, “Negotiating Autonomy”; and Andermann, “Zur Erforschung mittelalterlicher Kanonissenstifte,” 26–29. Penny Gold explores the charters from Le Ronceray d’Angers for evidence of relations between the nuns and their male personnel. As she comments, “the canons were not just ‘employees’ but members of the community—not in the same way the nuns were, yet they were more integrally involved in community identity and community affairs than one might suspect.” Gold, “The Charters of Le Ronceray d’Angers,” 127.

36. 36. Capitulare de monasterio S. Crucis Pictavensi (822–824), cap. 6–7; ed. Boretius, MGH Capit. 1, 302. Gerbstedt, founded in 985, housed an abbess and twenty-four sisters, and had income sufficient to allow for six priests, a deacon, and a subdeacon. Urkundenbuch der Klöster der Grafschaft Mansfeld, ed. Krühne, 9. The community of St. Stephan in Strasbourg, founded in the eighth century, included some 30 women, 4 canons or priests, and (during the later Middle Ages) as many as 18 other clerics. Klapp, “Negotiating Autonomy,” 376. The size of male communities at select women’s houses can be found in Parisse, Les nonnes, 136–137; and Schäfer, Die Kanonissenstifter, 97–100.

37. 37. Koebner, Venantius Fortunatus, 39–66. Fortunatus wrote a biography of the Frankish queen and nun, Radegund (De vita sanctae Radegundis), as well as several poems for women at Sainte-Croix, in which he thanked them for gifts and expressed his affection: Venantius Fortunatus: Personal and Political Poems, trans. George. On Fortunatus’s poems to Radegund and Agnes, see George, Venantius Fortunatus, 161–177. On his relationships with these women against the frame of “ennobling love,” see Jaeger, Ennobling Love, 34–35; and, with reference to the medieval tradition of courtoisie, see Dronke, Medieval Latin, I, 200–209. Fortunatus’s background and biography are discussed in George, Venantius Fortunatus, 18–34 (see 212–214 for evidence concerning the date of his ordination as priest).

38. 38. Obermünster necrology, BayHStA, KL Regensburg-Obermünster 1, fol. 67v. On the Obermünster necrology, see Edwards, Noblewomen of Prayer, 160–165. Edwards comments that “the nuns are described in exactly these terms, merely substituting ‘sororum.’ ” (164, n. 309)

39. 39. For the size of the men’s community, see Wischermann, Marcigny-sur-Loire, 143. See also Wollasch, “Frauen in der Cluniacensis ecclesia,” 102–103; and Röckelein, “Die Auswirkung der Kanonikerreform des 12. Jahrhunderts,” 282–291.

40. 40. Gilo, Vita sancti Hugonis abbatis, I, 12; ed. Cowdrey, 61–63. For discussion of pastoral care at Marcigny, see Hunt, Cluny, 186–194. For the priors of Marcigny, see Wischermann, Marcigny-sur-Loire, 93–110. Wollasch comments that the monks Hugh sent to Marcigny were old and sick. Wollasch, “Frauen in der Cluniacensis ecclesia,” 102. On Cluniac monasteries for women in England, and their ties to men’s houses, see Thompson, Women Religious, 83–93.

41. 41. Le cartulaire de Marcigny-sur-Loire, I, nos. 13, 31, 72, and II, no. 164; ed. Richard, 13, 29, 54, 97. On men at Marcigny, see Wischermann, Marcigny-sur-Loire, 83–87, 93–110, 139–143.

42. 42. Sharon Elkins comments that “approximately one quarter of all the new foundations for women were actually for women and men.” Elkins, xvii. Penny Johnson notes that there were “variations” on the “theme of isolation of one sex within the cloister.” Johnson, 30.

43. 43. Thompson, Women Religious, 70–73. As Thompson noted, “the association of men and women following a religious life was more prevalent than has hitherto been recognized.” Thompson, Women Religious, 72–73. See also Bönnen, Haverkamp, and Hirschmann, 374.

44. 44. The literature on Fontevraud is extensive. Parisse, “Fontevraud, monastère double” (on the question of Fontevraud as a “double” monastery); Dalarun, “Pouvoir et autorité”; Kerr, Religious Life for Women; Müller, Forming and Re-Forming Fontevraud; and Venarde, Women’s Monasticism, 57–66. With particular attention to relations between the women and men (which, as Bienvenu and Simmons note, could be problematic), see Bienvenu, “Origines et évolution”; Gold, “Male/Female Cooperation”; Simmons, “The Abbey Church at Fontevraud;” and Thompson, Women Religious, 113–132. The desertion of men from Fontevraud is attested in sources from the mid-twelfth century: Bienvenu, “Origines et évolution,” 73–75.

45. 45. For Sigena, see García-Guijarro Ramos, “The Aragonese Hospitaller Monastery of Sigena”; and Bom, 82–85. For Füssenich, see Wolbrink, “Necessary Priests and Brothers.” Men in “women’s” houses of the Premonstratensian order in Cologne are listed in Ehlers-Kisseler, Die Anfänge der Prämonstratenser, 519–565.

46. 46. Hildegard of Bingen expressed the real concern that, without a priest to serve at Rupertsberg, “spiritual religion will be totally destroyed among us.” Hildegard of Bingen, Epist. 10; ed. Van Acker, CCCM 91, 24; trans. Baird and Ehrman, I, 45–46. For discussion, see Griffiths, “Monks and Nuns at Rupertsberg” and this book’s Conclusion.

47. 47. Jerome, Epist. 52; ed. and trans. Cain, 40–41. Marbode, Epistola ad Robertum, 9; Deux vies, 532–533.

48. 48. On the characterization of religious women as brides of Christ, see Elliott, Bride. Elliott traces the metaphor of marriage to Christ in the lives of religious women across more than a millennium—from late antiquity, when the bridal metaphor was first applied to the individual female virgin, to the fifteenth century, when anxieties concerning the bride’s potential for adultery coincided with gendered and erotically inflected charges of witchcraft.

49. 49. Grundmann, Religious Movements in the Middle Ages, 91 (referring here to the order of Cîteaux). Grundmann outlined Franciscan and Dominican efforts to avoid the pastoral care of women during the thirteenth century, establishing a model of male opposition to the care of women that has been widely accepted. Grundmann, 89–137. Sally Thompson, too, sees the “provision of masculine support” as a significant problem for religious women, with the new orders ultimately rejecting female members. Thompson, Women Religious, 212–213. The assumption that male monastic and mendicant orders rejected female members, and the pastoral obligations they represented, was based largely on Cistercian and Premonstratensian examples. Joseph Greven highlighted the supposed Premonstratensian rejection of women in Greven, Die Anfänge der Beginen. For a revision of Greven’s thesis, see Freed, “Urban Development and the ‘Cura monialium.’ ” Bruno Krings and Shelley Amiste Wolbrink offer revised accounts of women’s involvement with the Premonstratensian Order: Krings, “Die Prämonstratenser und ihr weiblicher Zweig”; and Wolbrink, “Women in the Premonstratensian Order.” Concerning the Cistercian response to women, see Thompson, “The Problem of the Cistercian Nuns”; and the revision of early Cistercian women’s history provided by Berman, “Were There Twelfth–Century Cistercian Nuns?”; Berman, Cistercian Evolution, 39–45; Felten, “Der Zisterzienserorden und die Frauen”; and Felten, “Zisterzienserinnen in Deutschland.” See also Barrière and Henneau, eds., Cîteaux et les femmes; Lester, Creating Cistercian Nuns; and Freeman, “Nuns.” Martha Newman explores the “anxieties and contradictions” for some Cistercian monks in response to the spiritual proximity of women: Newman, “Real Men and Imaginary Women.”

50. 50. On men’s attraction to holy women, see McGuire, “Holy Women and Monks”; Coakley, Women, Men, and Spiritual Power; and the essays in Mooney, ed., Gendered Voices. See also below, n. 161. For the contrary argument that women were more emotionally and spiritually invested in their male spiritual guides than these men were in them, see Elliott, Bride, 163–164.

51. 51. McGuire, “Holy Women and Monks,” 347–348.

52. 52. McNamara, Sisters in Arms, 220. In his discussion of the cura monialium, Brian Golding comments that “the authority exercised over female communities by male clerics … was often autocratic and often resented, both by the nuns themselves and also by those who exercised it, as inappropriate activity.” Golding, “Bishops and Nuns,” 97. For a brief discussion of the historiography of the pastoral care of nuns, see Griffiths, “ ‘Men’s Duty.’ ” For a significant exception to the assumption that the care of women was a “burden” for men, see Hotchin, “Female Religious Life and the Cura monialium”; and Hotchin, “Abbot as Guardian.” Hotchin comments that the presence of women alongside religious men “could provide a significant outlet for male spiritual expression.” Hotchin, “Abbot as Guardian,” 59. For a similar view, see Wilms. Barbara Newman notes how “close spiritual bonds between male and female religious, coupled with increasing demands for physical distance, gave rise to the problem (and opportunity) of the cura monialium.” Newman, “Liminalities,” 380.

53. 53. Toby Ditz draws attention to the pitfalls of men’s history as a unilateral enterprise from which women—and the effects of men’s gendered power—are absent. Ditz, “The New Men’s History,” 2.

54. 54. The literature on medieval masculinity as it relates to clerical celibacy is large. See McNamara, “Herrenfrage”; Thibodeaux, Manly Priest; Arnold, “The Labour of Continence”; Miller, “Masculinity, Reform, and Clerical Culture”; Swanson, “Angels Incarnate”; Elliott, “Pollution, Illusion, and Masculine Disarray”; and the essays in Cullum and Lewis, eds., Religious Men and Masculine Identity and Thibodeaux, ed., Negotiating Clerical Identities (especially Part II, “Priestly Masculinity: Reconciling Celibacy and Sexuality”).

55. 55. I have benefited enormously in my thinking on this issue from the work of John Coakley, Julie Hotchin, Constant Mews, and Bruce Venarde.

56. 56. Gundulf was loved by both men and women, according to his biographer, who reports that he devoted himself to the religious lives of both sexes: Vita Gundulfi, 34; ed. Thomson, 58. Gundulf was especially revered by Matilda of Scotland, who sought his guidance. Vita Gundulfi, 37; ed. Thomson, 61. For a discussion of Gundulf’s foundation in light of episcopal oversight of nuns in twelfth- and thirteenth-century England, see Golding, “Bishops and Nuns,” 100–102. Concerning the historical context of the Vita Gundulfi, see Potter, “The Vita Gundulfi in its Historical Context.”

57. 57. As Brian Golding observes, “everything, including gold and silver and all receipts from lands and sales of produce, was in the custody of the nuns.” Golding, Gilbert, 110.

58. 58. Sean Gilsdorf argues for a translation of domina that maintains the origins of the word in the Latin verb, dominare, to rule. “Lady” is not an accurate translation, he contends, since that word refers not to a female ruler, but to the consort of a male lord. Gilsdorf, Queenship and Sanctity, 66. Barbara Newman comments that domina was “the most common devotional title” for the Virgin Mary. Newman, Frauenlob’s Song of Songs, 176. In the context of men’s spiritual care for women, the title domina implied the superior status of the religious woman, by virtue of her spousal relationship to Christ. As Jerome wrote to Eustochium, whom he addressed as “mi domina Eustochium”, “I am bound to call my Lord’s bride ‘Lady.’ ” Jerome, Epist. 22.2; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 145; trans. Fremantle, 23. For the influence of Jerome’s model of religious women as dominae, see Chapter 3. Gerald Bond identifies a “nexus of ritual praise, feminine image, and ideology,” which he calls “dominism,” and which shaped “the various cults of the lady as a being of superior goodness and beauty.” Bond’s focus is primarily on secular women; however, his comments are relevant, too, for the religious context. Bond, Loving Subject, 136. For the construct of the domina in Roman elegy, see Fulkerson, “Servitium amoris,” 182–188. Fulkerson, too, notes that domina is the “female version of ‘master.’ ” (180).

59. 59. “Immo vero in feminis ea maxima inventa perfectio est.” Wolfger of Prüfening, Vita Theogeri, I, 25; ed. Jaffé, MGH SS 12, 459. A number of men identified an immediacy and simplicity in women’s spirituality that they feared was lacking among male religious: as Osbert of Clare wrote to Matilda of Darenth: “holy men wish to enjoy in this world the intimacy of your sanctity.” Matilda was probably a nun at Malling. Osbert of Clare, Epist. 41; ed. Williamson, 140–153. On men who defended the spiritual strength of women, see Wilms, 201–217.

60. 60. Gregory the Great, Dialogues, II, 2, 1–3; ed. de Vogüé, II, 136–139; trans. Zimmerman, 59–60.

61. 61. “Quod si adhuc aculeus ardentis libidinis desaeviret, nudum corpus inter spinarum et veprium hirsuta acumina solebat ingerere; et sic toto dilaceratus corpore, ex vulnerum multitudine voluptatem in dolorem convertere. Nec tamen sic antiquus hostis exsuperari potuit, sed species mulierum quandoque visibiles, modo spirituales, ei frequenter opposuit. Quae omnia tyrunculus Christi constanter respuit, et omnes suggestionum illius versutias vel illecebras viriliter edomando calcavit.” Reginald of Durham, Libellus de vita et miraculis S. Godrici, 27; ed. Stevenson, 76. Despite avoiding women, Godric nevertheless oversaw the spiritual life of his sister, Burchwine. Reginald of Durham, Libellus de vita et miraculis S. Godrici, 61–63; ed. Stevenson, 140–145. Gerald of Wales reported both the story of Benedict’s temptation and that of Godric’s in his Gemma ecclesiastica: Gerald of Wales, Gemma ecclesiastica, II, 10; ed. Brewer, 212–216; trans. Hagen, 163–164.

62. 62. “Sancta vero Dei Genitrix Virgo illico in forma pulcherrimæ mulieris, cum multitudine puellarum inferioris staturæ, per visum, Dei famulo apparuit: quas cum vidisset, visus est dixisse: Si pridem feminas in claustro vidissem, utique eas inde expulissem, Quare igitur huc accedere præsumpsistis? Ad hæc Virgo sancta: Tace, Frater, ego sum Virgo Maria, quam tam dulciter invocasti.” Robert of Ostrevand, Vita s. Ayberti, 12; AA SS, April, 1: 676. Caesarius of Heisterbach told a parallel story of a nun who came across a man in the cloister (actually a demon in disguise); she fainted from the shock. Caesarius of Heisterbach, Dialogus miraculorum, 5.45; ed. Strange, I, 330–331; trans. Scott and Bland, I, 380. Cited in McGuire, “Friends and Tales,” 237.

63. 63. Guibert of Nogent wrote of mixed communities as being potentially heretical. Guibert of Nogent, Monodiae, 3.17; ed. Labande, 428–434; trans. Archambault, 195–198. See the edition and interpretation of this passage offered by Mews, “Guibert of Nogent’s Monodiae.” For male-female spiritual engagement as a possible sign of heresy, see Simons, Cities of Ladies, 19–24; Berman, “Were There Twelfth-Century Cistercian Nuns?” 847, n. 60; and Chapter 2, n. 181.

64. 64. Geoffrey of Vendôme, Epistola ad Robertum, 4; Deux vies, 570–571. For Robert’s habit of sleeping among women, see Jaeger, Ennobling Love, 129–130. Iogna-Prat argues that contact with women (and intentional exposure to sexual temptation) could serve as a form of “ordeal” in male penitential spirituality: Iogna-Prat, “La femme dans la perspective pénitentielle.” Geoffrey’s opposition to Robert’s practices did not mean that he opposed all close friendships between the sexes: he wrote to the hermit Hervé of Vendôme and the recluse Eve of Wilton (“servo et ancillae Dei Herveo et Evae”), making no mention of the scandals that their friendship might provoke. Geoffroy de Vendôme, Epist. 27; ed. Giordanengo, 46–51.

65. 65. “Demum temptationibus succumbens, plures illic praegnantes effecit. Demumque cum una habitu rejecto joculariter discurrens, aufugit.” Gerald of Wales, Gemma ecclesiastica, II, 17; ed. Brewer, 248; trans. Hagen, 188–189.

66. 66. Gerald reported Enoc’s misdeeds in no less than three separate works. For discussion, see Cartwright, Feminine Sanctity, 178–181.

67. 67. See above, n. 21, for Gerald’s report of a nun, who became infatuated with Gilbert of Sempringham.

68. 68. For a brief overview of women’s involvement in the religious life of the period, alongside men and with their encouragement, see Constable, Reformation, 65–74. Constance Berman has challenged the presumption of sex-segregation within the medieval monastic life, highlighting the deep ties that bound reform houses for women and for men. Berman, “Men’s Houses, Women’s Houses.” In an important essay on twelfth-century women as “readers, writers, and participants in literate culture,” Barbara Newman argues that “twelfth-century reform fostered new styles of relations between religious men and women.” These relations, as she shows, were frequently collaborative and mutually beneficial. Newman, “Liminalities,” 354. Constant Mews surveys the implications of this culture for women and men in religious life in: Mews, “Negotiating the Boundaries of Gender.”

69. 69. Goscelin of St. Bertin, Liber confortatorius, prologus; ed. Talbot, 26; trans. Otter, 19. For discussion of Goscelin’s relationship with Eve as “deep, intimate, and mutually beneficial,” see Canatella, “Long-Distance Love” (here 36). See also O’Brien O’Keeffe, “Goscelin and the Consecration of Eve”; and Hayward, “Spiritual Friendship and Gender Difference.” For Goscelin’s activities at Wilton, see Bugyis, “Recovering the Histories of Women Religious.”

70. 70. De S. Theodora, 76; ed. Talbot, 174; rev. trans. Fanous and Leyser, 79. For discussion of Christina’s life and context, including her relationship with Geoffrey, see Chapter 5.

71. 71. According to a biography written by Baudri of Bourgueil, Robert sought a place where women and men “could live and share communal life without concern for scandal.” Baudri of Bourgueil, Historia magistri Roberti, 3; Deux vies, 160–161. Robert’s life is reported in two vitae: the first, written by Baudri (who was abbot of Bourgueil until 1107, when he became bishop of Dol), is traditionally known as the Vita prima, but appears in the manuscript sources as Historia magistri Roberti fundatoris Fontis-Ebraudi; a second anonymous text, most likely written by Robert’s chaplain, Andrew, is often known as the Vita altera but was designated in the earliest manuscript as the Supplementum historiae vitae Roberti. For an edition and translation of both lives, see Deux vies, 125–300. Concerning Robert, see Dalarun, Robert of Arbrissel; Bienvenu, L’étonnant fondateur de Fontevraud; and the essays in Dalarun, ed., Robert d’Arbrissel et la vie religieuse. Bruce Venarde surveys scholarly interpretations of Robert and his legacy: Venarde, “Robert of Arbrissel and his Historians.” Concerning Robert’s spiritual care for women, see Griffiths, “The Cross and the Cura monialium.”

72. 72. Felten, “Norbert von Xanten.” On the Premonstratensians and women, see Wolbrink, “Women in the Premonstratensian Order”; Wolbrink, “Necessary Priests and Lay Brothers”; Krings, “Die Prämonstratenser und ihr weiblicher Zweig”; and Ehlers-Kisseler, 249–279. Although earlier scholarship assumed that Premonstratensians rejected the incorporation of women within a generation of Norbert’s death (based on a Chapter decision c. 1198 for which no document is now extant), more recent accounts have shown that women continued to be accepted in Premonstratensian communities. See above, n. 49. On Premonstratensian houses for women in England, see Thompson, Women Religious, 133–145.

73. 73. The Book of St. Gilbert, 9; ed. and trans. Foreville and Keir, 30–35. Gerald of Wales, Gemma ecclesiastica, II, 17; ed. Brewer, 247; trans. Hagen, 188. Brian Golding’s study of Gilbert and his order is essential reading: Golding, Gilbert. For discussion of contemporary perceptions of Sempringham as “double”, see Sykes, “Canonici Albi et Moniales.” For debates concerning Gilbert’s intentions regarding women, see below n. 106. The Book of St. Gilbert (presenting an “argument against detractors”) commented that “this devising of a new type of religious life does not damage the Universal Church,” observing that the order was both accepted by bishops and confirmed by the papacy. The Book of St. Gilbert, 20; ed. and trans. Foreville and Keir, 56–57.

74. 74. “Quare ex utroque pariete, virorum scilicet ac mulierum, celestem nitens edificare Iehrusalem, quantum iactus est lapidis a cella sua habitaculum feminarum construxerat.” Vita S. Gaucherii, 12; ed. Becquet, 52. The women’s house was at Bos-las-Mongeas. Gaucher’s vita included a section, now lost, entitled De institutione sanctimonialium. Vita S. Gaucherii, prologus; ed. Becquet, 44. Gaucher’s promotion of female religious life was not universally welcomed: one of his disciples, Stephen of Muret (d. 1124), chose to move away from the community, fearing that contact with women posed a danger to his soul. After his death, Stephen’s followers founded the Order of Grandmont.

75. 75. Westminster Abbey Charters, ed. Mason, no. 249. Discussed in Thompson, Women Religious, 25; and Elkins, 48. For other examples of spiritual friendships between eremitic women and men in twelfth-century England, see Elkins, 38–42.

76. 76. “Eodem anno Burchardus Halberstadensis episcopus, animarum cure deditus, quandam Dei famulam nomine Biam, enutritam in monasterio a Dei genitricis quod situm est ad occidentem civitatis Quidelingeburh, solitariam vitam desiderare intelligens, in loco competenti Huiusburh nomine fecit includi. Cui ne divinum servicium deesset, Ekkehardum canonicum Sancti Stephani in Halberstad, quem ipsa secreti sui desiderii antea conscium fecerat, presbiterum ibidem constituit.” Annalista Saxo, a. 1070; ed. Waitz MGH SS 6, 697–698. The women were removed from Huysburg in 1156, but returned some thirty years later. Huysburg continued to include both men and women until 1411. Bogumil, Das Bistum Halberstadt im 12. Jahrhundert, 67–69. See also Parisse, Religieux et religieuses, 162.

77. 77. “Casto sanctarum virginum viduarumque amore devinctus.” Chronicon Lippoldesbergense, 5; ed. Arndt, MGH SS 20, 548. Julie Hotchin explores the history of Lippoldsberg, the women’s ties to their male spiritual directors, and the intellectual climate of the community, as reflected in its library catalogue: Hotchin, “Women’s Reading and Monastic Reform.” On Lippoldsberg within the context of female monasticism in Saxony (with particular attention to the role of “spiritual father”), see Parisse, Religieux et religieuses, 158–162; and Schlotheuber, “The ‘Freedom of Their Own Rule.’ ” Nuns at Lippoldsberg maintained warm relations with monks at nearby Reinhardsbrunn; Sindold, the librarian at Reinhardsbrunn, described the prioress Margaret as his “spiritual mother.” Die Reinhardsbrunner Briefsammlung, 35; ed. Peeck, MGH Epp. sel. 5, 35. See the important essay on Reinhardsbrunn and the cura monialium by Julie Hotchin: Hotchin, “Abbot as Guardian.”

78. 78. Wolfger of Prüfening, Vita Theogeri, I, 25–26; ed. Jaffé, MGH SS 12, 459–462. Theoger also served as an advisor to Herluca of Epfach. Paul of Bernried, Vita b. Herlucae, 11; AA SS, April, 2: 553. See Küsters, Der verschlossene Garten, 147–150; and, on St. Georgen, Bauerreiß, “St. Georgen im Schwarzwald.”

79. 79. Anselm of Canterbury, Epist. 414; ed. Schmitt, Opera, V, 361–362; trans. Fröhlich, 3, 186. Cf. Anselm of Canterbury, Epist. 230; ed. Schmitt, Opera, IV, 134–135; trans. Fröhlich, 3, 199–200.

80. 80. Fundatio monasterii sanctae Mariae Andernacensis; ed. Holder-Egger, MGH SS 15.2, 968–970. Andernach was founded in 1128 by Richard and Tenxwind, and settled with women who had previously been living at Springiersbach—a community founded by their mother, Benigna. Springiersbach included numerous double monasteries and women’s houses in its ambit. Speculum virginum, ed. Seyfarth, 45*-48*; Haverkamp, “Tenxwind von Andernach und Hildegard von Bingen.” Men, as well as women, lived at Andernach until at least 1197. Bönnen, Haverkamp, and Hirschmann, 397.

81. 81. On double monasteries, see Hilpisch, Die Doppelklöster; Elm and Parisse, eds., Doppelklöster; Peyroux, “Abbess and Cloister”; Haarländer, “ ‘Schlangen unter den Fischen’ ”; Marti, “Einleitung: Doppelklöster”; de Kegel, “ ‘Vom ordnungswidrigen Übelstand’?” and Küsters, Der verschlossene Garten, 142–155 (with double houses grouped according to congregation). On the difficulties associated with identifying double houses, see Haarländer, “Doppelklöster und ihre Forschungsgeschichte”; Gilomen-Schenkel, “Das Doppelkloster–eine verschwiegene Institution”; and Gilomen-Schenkel, “Engelberg, Interlaken und andere autonome Doppelklöster.” Although Sharon Elkins rejected the term “double monastery” as inaccurate (as she argued, all women’s houses included a male element to some extent, and so were implicitly “double” houses), other scholars have defended its usefulness. Katharine Sykes has shown that the perception of some houses as “double” was indeed medieval. Elkins, xvii-xviii; Sykes, “Canonici Albi et Moniales.” Gratian referred to the “duplex monasterium”: Gratian, Decretum, C.18 q.2 c.21; ed. Friedberg, 1, 834. For Gerald of Wales’s description of the Gilbertine Order as a “monasteria duplicia”, see above, n. 73.

82. 82. Stephanie Haarländer identifies double houses as a feature of Augustinian reform communities (including Prémontré (1120/1121), Klosterrath/Rolduc (1104), and Springiersbach (c. 1107)), Benedictine reform communities (among them those founded by Vital of Savigny (d. 1122), Stephen of Obazine (d. 1159), Gilbert of Sempringham (d. 1189), and Robert of Arbrissel (d. 1116)), military and hospital orders, and charismatic groups. Haarländer, “ ‘Schlangen unter den Fischen,’ ” 58–59. Hedwig Röckelein highlights the involvement of women in reform during the twelfth century, noting the emergence of close ties with men’s houses and the “rich spiritual and cultural fruit” that resulted. Röckelein, “Die Auswirkung der Kanonikerreform des 12. Jahrhunderts,” 65.

83. 83. “Eius irreprehensibilis vita non solum feminis, set etiam viris possit exemplo fore.” Ortlieb, De fundatione monasterii Zwivildensis, 20; ed. Abel, MGH SS 10, 85. Ortlieb mentioned 67 monks, 130 lay brothers, and 60 sisters at Zwiefalten. Ortlieb, De fundatione monasterii Zwivildensis, 18; ed. Abel, MGH SS 10, 83. Founded as a daughter house of Hirsau in 1089, Zwiefalten had established a female community by 1100. The women were separated from the men and settled in their own house east of the men’s house, encircled by a wall. Constable, Reformation, 69–70. On Hirsau and women, see Küsters, Der verschlossene Garten; Küsters, “Formen und Modelle religiöser Frauengemeinschaften”; Röckelein, “Die Auswirkung der Kanonikerreform des 12. Jahrhunderts,” 292–296; and Roitner, “Sorores inclusae,” 73–77. For the dedication of Hirsau monks to the spiritual care of women, see Hotchin, “Female Religious Life and the Cura monialium”; and Hotchin, “Abbot as Guardian.” Elsanne Gilomen-Schenkel emphasizes the involvement of Hirsau communities with women in her study of Benedictine houses in the diocese of Constance: Gilomen-Schenkel, “ ‘Officium paterne providentie’ ou ‘Supercilium noxie dominationis,’ ” 368. On reformed monks and women, see Schreiner, “Mönchtum zwischen asketischem Anspruch und gesellschaftlicher Wirklichkeit,” 273–277.

84. 84. Foot, Veiled Women, I, 172–179; Magnani, “L’ascétisme domestique féminin (IVe-XIIe siècle)”; Signori, “Anchorites in German-Speaking Regions”; Bönnen, Haverkamp, and Hirschmann, 376–379; Huyghebaert, “Les femmes laïques dans la vie religieuse”; and Lutter, Geschlecht und Wissen, 55. Küsters notes that female recluses living alongside men’s houses often formed the nucleus of emerging women’s communities. Küsters, “Formen und Modelle religiöser Frauengemeinschaften,” 209.

85. 85. Foot, Veiled Women, II, 49–50. For a more detailed discussion of “nonnae” at Bury St. Edmunds, see van Houts, “The Women of Bury St. Edmunds,” 62–69. Women also lived near or at St. Albans and Evesham. Thompson, Women Religious, 47; and Hollis and Wogan-Browne, “St. Albans and Women’s Monasticism.” See also L’Hermite-Leclercq, “Incertitudes et contingences aux origines des monastères féminins,” 125–128.

86. 86. On one occasion Seitha remained in the monastic church after Matins to pray; on another, she found relief from a sore finger by touching the shrine of St. Edmund. Seitha was the source for four miracles that were added to Herman the Archdeacon’s Miracula sancti Eadmundi by Goscelin of St. Bertin sometime around the turn of the twelfth century. For discussion, see van Houts, “The Women of Bury St. Edmunds,” 64–66; and Licence, “History and Hagiography,” 526–531.

87. 87. For women at Bec, see Vaughn, St. Anselm and the Handmaidens of God, 67–115.

88. 88. Gilbert Crispin noted that Heloise “performed the duty of a handmaid, washing the garments of God’s servants and doing most scrupulously all the extremely hard work imposed upon her.” Gilbert Crispin, Vita Herluini, 42; ed. Abulafia and Evans, 193; trans. Vaughn, 73. On women (particularly widows) in men’s monasteries, see Hicks, 136–140. Women were also accommodated at Tiron. According to Bernard of Tiron’s biographer, Beatrix, countess of Perche, “lived at Tiron … and built the large basilica church with many cash outlays.” Geoffrey Grossus, Vita Beati Bernardi Fundatoris Congregationis de Tironio, 81; PL 172: 1416; trans. Cline, 87.

89. 89. Thomas of Cantimpré, Vita Ioannis Cantipratensis, I, 6 and II, 3; ed. Godding, 262, 279; trans. Newman, 63 and 82. The prioress of Prémy, Iueta, was a widow of Douai, who had “abandoned her worldly goods because of the blessed John’s teaching.” Thomas of Cantimpré, Vita Ioannis Cantipratensis, I, 12; ed. Godding, 266; trans. Newman, 67. On Prémy, see Felten, “Verbandsbildung von Frauenklöstern,” 302–306. A number of men who engaged spiritually with women died and were buried in female houses. For further discussion, see Chapter 5.

90. 90. Guibert of Nogent, Monodiae, 1.14; ed. Labande, 102; trans. Archambault, 46. Constant Mews comments that “such arrangements did not necessarily provoke controversy.” Mews, “Negotiating the Boundaries of Gender,” 120. For the identification of the “old woman” as Suger’s sister, see Guibert of Nogent, Monodiae 1.20; ed. Labande, 170; trans. Archambault, 74. On Guibert’s mother, and her spiritual ambitions, see Mulder-Bakker, Lives of the Anchoresses, 24–50; and Elliott, Bride, 121–125.

91. 91. Wollasch, “Parenté noble,” 7. Wollasch comments that women lived at an oratorium near Cluny in the first half of the tenth century. Wollasch, “Frauen in der Cluniacensis ecclesia,” 97.

92. 92. Vita domnae Juttae inclusae; ed. Staab; trans. Silvas. For discussion, see Felten, “What Do We Know About the Life of Jutta and Hildegard”; Felten, “Hildegard von Bingen zwischen Reformaufbruch und Bewahrung des Althergebrachten,” 143–149; Felten, “Noui esse volunt … deserentes bene contritam uiam … ,” 37–51; Nikitsch, “Wo lebte die heilige Hildegard wirklich?”; and Mews, “Hildegard of Bingen and the Hirsau Reform.”

93. 93. Beach, Women as Scribes, 32–64.

94. 94. Herluca may have been drawn to Bernried when her friend, Sigeboto, a priest at Epfach where she lived for 36 years, became provost at the community. Robinson, “Conversio and conversatio,” 185–187. Herluca’s vita, composed by her friend Paul of Bernried, was dedicated to the canons at Bernried who had accepted and clearly admired her. Paul describes the circumstances under which Herluca came to Bernried: Paul of Bernried, Vita b. Herlucae, 44; AA SS, April, 2: 556. On Herluca, see Maier, “Ein schwäbisch-bayerischer Freundskreis Gregors VII”; Schnitzer, Die Vita B. Herlucae Pauls von Bernried; Küsters, Der verschlossene Garten, 114–121; Robinson, “Conversio and conversatio”; Griffiths, “Women and Reform”; Küsters, “Formen und Modelle religiöser Frauengemeinschaften,” 197–200; and Signori, “Eine Biographie als Freundschaftsbeweis.” Evidence that Herluca and Diemut of Wessobrunn were known to each other, and indeed corresponded, is presented in Bodarwé, “Verlorene Zeugnisse einer Frauenfreundschaft.” Herluca was encouraged in her religious life by the abbot William of Hirsau (d. 1091), as well as Theoger of St. Georgen: Paul of Bernried, Vita b. Herlucae, 11; AA SS, April, 2: 553. William’s support for all those seeking the religious life (including rich and poor, men and women) is reported in Haimo, Vita Willihelmi, 6; ed. Wattenbach, MGH SS 12, 213.

95. 95. Of course, even in cases where we know that women lived in or alongside men’s houses, the sources are often silent. The Annales of Disibodenberg, to give one example, first acknowledged the presence of women only at the death of the magistra Jutta—who was revered as a local holy person and had, by the time she died, lived for almost a quarter century at the “men’s” house. “Ianuarii obiit divae memoriae domna Iudda, 24 annis in monte sancti Dysibodi inclusa, soror Megenhardi comitis de Spanheim. Haec sancta mulier inclusa est Kalend. Novembris, et aliae tres cum ea, scilicet Hyldegardis et suimet vocabuli duae; quas etiam, quoad vixit, sanctis virtutibus imbuere studuit.” Annales Sancti Disibodi, a. 1136; ed. Waitz, MGH SS 17, 25. The silence of the sources regarding the presence of women at Disibodenberg is discussed in Felten “Frauenklöster,” 213. For further discussion of the challenges involved in “finding” women in monastic sources, see below, n. 152.

96. 96. Jennifer Harris explores the language of the heavenly Jerusalem in liturgies for church dedications, focusing on Cluny as a “locus sanctissimus.” Harris, “Building Heaven on Earth.”

97. 97. The Book of St. Gilbert, 19; ed. and trans. Foreville and Keir, 50–53. Burton explores the metaphor of the “chariot” in the context of the female priory of Swine during the later Middle Ages: Burton, “The ‘Chariot of Aminadab.’ ”

98. 98. The Royal Abbey of Saint-Denis in the Time of Abbot Suger, ed. Crosby, Hayward, Little, and Wixom, no. 16, p. 86.

99. 99. Gilo, Vita sancti Hugonis abbatis, I, 12; ed. Cowdrey, 62–63.

100. 100. “Visum est nobis Deo non displicere, imo eius voluntati obedire.” Hugh of Cluny, Scriptum quoddam commonitorium sive deprecatorium ad successores suos pro sanctimonialibus Marciniacensibus; ed. Cowdrey, 171.

101. 101. “Ubi hoc quoque notandum, quod devote mulieres pariter cum sanctis discipulis Deo militabant, et ideo hoc exemplo non est vituperabile, set magis laudabile, si sanctimoniales feminae in servorum Dei monasteriis recipiantur, ut uterque sexus, ab invicem tamen sequestratus, uno in loco salvetur.” Casus monasterii Petrishusensis, 9; ed. Pertz, MGH SS, 20, 625. Gilomen-Schenkel stresses the importance of the Petershausen chronicle, which presents the only “programmatic” defense of the double monastery known to her: Gilomen-Schenkel, “Engelberg, Interlaken und andere autonome Doppelklöster,” 123. On Petershausen in the context of Hirsau reform, see Küsters, Der verschlossene Garten, 150–151; Küsters, “Formen und Modelle religiöser Frauengemeinschaften,” 210. See also Schreiner, “Mönchtum zwischen asketischem Anspruch und gesellschaftlicher Wirklichkeit,” 273–277. Monasteries founded or reformed by Petershausen frequently adopted the double house organization. Gilomen-Schenkel, “Double Monasteries in the South-Western Empire,” 53–54. For Premonstratensian double monasteries in western Switzerland in the twelfth century, see Tremp, “Chorfrauen im Schatten der Männer.”

102. 102. “Nobis est exemplum vita sanctorum patrum, qui et ipsi feminas congregaverunt ob amorem Dei.” Acta Murensia; ed. Kiem, 60–61. The “fathers” were also invoked as an example in the migravit of Robert of Arbrissel, which noted that Robert joined women with men in his communities “with God’s inspiration” and “according to the example, rules, and all sound teaching of the holy Fathers.” Migravit, 2; Deux vies, 636–637.

103. 103. “Arbitrabatur Erpo, qui illius subrogatus est loco, aliquas hic esse recipiendas, ad vestes universorum conficiendas, et quod eodem et diverso illarum ministerio non posset aecclesia carere, cum etiam in apostolorum obsequio religiosae secundi sexus personae legantur ministrasse.” Annales Rodenses, a. 1141; ed. Pertz, MGH SS 16, 715. Rolduc (Klosterrath) had been founded in 1104 by Ailbert (d. 1122), together with two of his brothers, seeking the vita apostolica. Other men, and women, soon joined them. However, the presence of women was a point of contention, and Ailbert left in 1111. The women remained, but were relocated to Kerkrade in 1126. The Annales Rodenses, which report on the community’s early years and on the presence of women, were written c. 1155/60. Dereine, Les Chanoines, 169–217; Deutz, “Die Frauen im Regularkanonikerstift Klosterrath”; Deutz, Geistliches und geistiges Leben; Gärtner, “Das Chorherrenstift Klosterrath”; and Felten, “Frauenklöster,” 243–244.

104. 104. Libellus de diversis ordinibus et professionibus qui sunt in aecclesia; ed. Constable and Smith, 4–5.

105. 105. Anselm of Canterbury, Epist. 230; ed. Schmitt, Opera, IV, 134–135; trans. Fröhlich, 2: 199–200. As Anselm advised Robert, Seitha, and Edith, “take the example for your lives from the angels in heaven.”

106. 106. The Book of St. Gilbert presented Gilbert’s involvement with women as a derivative interest: when Gilbert could not find men “willing to lead such strict lives for God’s sake,” he gave his attention to women instead. The Book of St. Gilbert, 9; ed. and trans. Foreville and Keir, 30–31. Golding cautions that empathy for women was “not apparent” in Gilbert, who gave little indication that he “believed himself to have a vocation for the cura monialium.” Golding, “Authority and Discipline,” 110. Sykes maintains that Gilbert’s intention had been to found a house for men, not women. Sykes, Inventing Sempringham, 46–47. The common explanation that men’s involvement with women was accidental rather than intentional is addressed in n. 181 below.

107. 107. The Book of St. Gilbert, 15; ed. and trans. Foreville and Keir, 46–47.

108. 108. The Book of St. Gilbert, 9; ed. and trans. Foreville and Keir, 30–31. The assumption that men serving women would receive a reward was shared by the men at Fontevraud; see Chapter 2, n. 58.

109. 109. Anselm of Canterbury, Epist. 414; ed. Schmitt, Opera, V, 361–362; trans. Fröhlich, 3, 186. The vita Theogeri comments that Theoger of St. Georgen “turned the convent of women to his profit (in suum verterit lucrum),” suggesting that attention to religious women was perceived to be spiritually advantageous to men. Wolfger of Prüfening, Vita Theogeri, I, 25; ed. Jaffé, MGH SS 12, 459. Robert of Arbrissel noted that “he alone had gotten praise” for the religious life of the women at Fontevraud. Andrew, Supplementum, 41; Deux vies, 266–267.

110. 110. Idung of Prüfening, Dialogus duorum monachorum, 3, 13; ed. Huygens, 159; trans. O’Sullivan, 107. In Idung’s dialogue, the Cistercian remarked that “not insignificant spiritual injury” can also result from the spiritual direction of nuns.

111. 111. Foundation Charter for Las Huelgas (June 1, 1187); trans. Berman in Women and Monasticism, 21.

112. 112. “Si ergo nihil aliud domnus Norbertus fecisset, sed, omissa conversione virorum, tot feminas servitio divino sua exhortatione attraxisset, nonne maxima laude dignus fuisset? … Mihi videtur verum esse, quod plurimi asserunt, a tempore apostolorum nullum fuisse qui tam brevi temporis spatio sua institutione tot perfectae vitae imitatores Christo acquisierit.” Herman of Tournai, De miraculis S. Mariae Laudunensis, III, 7; PL 156: 996–997; trans. Antry and Neel, 80. Herman was nevertheless clear that the women accepted at Premonstratensian monasteries were strictly cloistered and separated from worldly influences.

113. 113. The Book of St. Gilbert, 11; ed. and trans. Foreville and Keir, 36–37.

114. 114. Submission could be a spiritual goal, as Jacques Dalarun observed in his study of Fontevraud. Dalarun, “Pouvoir et autorité,” 346; and Dalarun, “Robert d’Arbrissel et les femmes,” 1149. The spiritual appeal of submission and the paradox of Christian inversions of power are the subjects of Dalarun’s study, Gouverner c’est servir, in which he revisits the organizational structure of Fontevraud and the Paraclete: Dalarun, Gouverner c’est servir, 139–173.

115. 115. Abelard, Institutio, 50; The Letter Collection, 414–415.

116. 116. Hildegard’s difficulties in securing pastoral care at Rupertsberg are a case in point. See above, n. 46, and this book’s Conclusion. Wolbrink discusses “controversies” between men and women in Premonstratensian monasteries: Wolbrink, “Women in the Premonstratensian Order,” 400–405. See also the challenges faced by women at Steinbach: Griffiths, “Brides and dominae,” 68.

117. 117. Griffiths, Garden of Delights, 40–42. Conflict over resources is evident, too, in the case of Le Ronceray d’Angers: Gold, “The Charters of Le Ronceray d’Angers,” 128–129.

118. 118. Medieval nuns often complained when priestly behavior was found wanting. See, for instance, the efforts of Ivetta of Huy (d. 1228) to have unworthy priests removed and replaced by those more acceptable to the women. Mulder-Bakker, “Ivetta of Huy,” 241. Canonesses in Strasbourg also complained about abusive and predatory priests: Hirbodian, “Pastors and Seducers.”

119. 119. “Woe is me!” the Speculum author writes, “how many monasteries of virgins in our times do we see plagued by this evil.… Holy virgins … win everlasting reproach and punishment through the very men whose teaching and example should have given them hope of gracious light and glory.” Speculum virginum, 5.1029–1031 and 5.1057–1062; ed. Seyfarth, 149–150; trans. Newman, 291–292. The late twelfth-century female-authored Hortus deliciarum, too, acknowledged the dangers to women of immoral priests, offering its female audience the image of a priest tempting a nun—with the promise of money—away from her pursuit of the “crown of life” (Hortus deliciarum, fol. 215v). Hortus deliciarum, ed. Green, Evans, Bischoff, and Curschmann, II, Pl. 124.

120. 120. Thomas of Cantimpré, Vita Lutgardis Aquiriensis, 1.21; AA SS, June, 3: 241; trans. King and Newman, 236. On Thomas’s concerns regarding the dangers of intimacy between nuns and their male spiritual guides, see Elliott, Bride, 204–213.

121. 121. Jo Ann McNamara describes the pastoral care of women, the cura mulierum, as the “care (and control) of women.” McNamara, Sisters in Arms, 5.

122. 122. On Admont, see Lutter, 52–125; Beach, Women as Scribes, 65–103; Roitner, “Das Admonter Frauenkloster im zwölften Jahrhundert”; Seeberg, “Spuren der Nonnen”; Seeberg, Die Illustrationen im Admonter Nonnenbrevier von 1180; and Hamburger, “Art, Enclosure, and the Pastoral Care of Nuns.”

123. 123. Tomaschek, “Carinthischer Sommer 1151”; Lutter, 59, 69–75. Tomaschek considers the significance of Irimbert’s commentaries for nuns.

124. 124. On Irimbert’s collaboration with female scribes, see Marti, “Double Monasteries in Images,” 82–86; Beach, Women as Scribes, 85–103; and Beach, “Claustration and Collaboration Between the Sexes,” 60–67.

125. 125. Irimbert of Admont, De incendio monasterii sui. For discussion of the fire and its implications for women’s religious life at Admont, see Lutter, 69–71; and Roitner, “Sorores inclusae,” 88–94.

126. 126. Irimbert reports that the door was locked with three locks (“clavibus tribus obseratur”). Irimbert of Admont, De incendio monasterii sui; in Lutter, 224. According to the vita Theogeri, professed women did not exit the cloister except when they were “carried out dead for burial”: “A viris tanta separatio fuit, ut monasterium quae semel fuisset ingressa, raro ulterius, nisi mortua efferretur, exiret.” Wolfger of Prüfening, Vita Theogeri, I, 25; ed. Jaffé, MGH SS 12, 460. For the rather different circumstances in which the door between the men’s and the women’s communities in Salzburg was periodically opened, see Klueting, “Die Petersfrauen im Doppelkonvent an St. Peter in Salzburg.”

127. 127. Jeffrey Hamburger cautions that “Irimbert’s account offers not so much a description as an exemplum of enclosure.” Hamburger, “Art, Enclosure, and the Pastoral Care of Nuns,” 38. Christine Lutter, too, concludes that Irimbert’s account of the fire at Admont may have been a topos. Lutter, 86. Beach comments that, “Irimbert may well have exaggerated the drama of the rescue or the confusion of the released nuns in the interest of emphasizing the separateness of the sexes.” However, she maintains that “the monastery’s nuns and monks did not interact freely.” Beach, Women as Scribes, 69.

128. 128. Stephen of Obazine’s biographer commented on the tremendous care that he took to ensure the security of the women, writing of a system of double doors that allowed the women to receive goods without being seen by the monks, or seeing them. Vita S. Stephani Obazinensis, II, 3; ed. Aubrun, 98–101; trans. Feiss, O’Brien, Pepin, 165–166. Coyroux and Obazine were separated by a distance of about 600 to 700 meters. For discussion, see Barrière, “The Cistercian Convent of Coyroux.” The Book of St. Gilbert comments that “the canons lived a long way distant from the women and had no access to them except for administering some divine sacrament when there were many witnesses present. Only the church where divine service is celebrated is common to all, but then only for the solemn rite of the Mass, once or twice a day, and there is a wall which blocks it throughout so that the men cannot be seen or the women heard.” The Book of St. Gilbert, 16; ed. and trans. Foreville, 46–47. For discussion of the liturgical implications of the presence of both women and men at Gilbertine houses, see Sorrentino, “ ‘In Houses of Nuns, in Houses of Canons’ ”; and Golding, Gilbert, 126–132. At Fontevraud, Loraine Simmons identifies a pervasive “proximity anxiety” that “test[ed] and strengthen[ed] resistance to the temptations of sex.” Simmons, 106.

129. 129. Guta-Sintram Codex, Bibliothèque du Grand Séminaire de Strasbourg, MS 37. See the facsimile and commentary: Le Codex Guta-Sintram, ed. Weis. On p. 4 of the Codex, hand A (which belonged to Guta) was replaced by hand B (which most likely belonged to Sintram) in the middle of a line. After switching, hand B continued to write until p. 9, at which point hand A appeared again. On the possibilities for collaboration between religious men and women within the scriptorium, see Beach, “Claustration and Collaboration Between the Sexes.” Where paleographical evidence points to the presence of both men’s and women’s hands within the same folio, and even within a single line, Beach assumes collaboration within a single scriptorium. On the Guta-Sintram Codex as evidence for the spiritual and practical involvement of religious men with women, see Griffiths, “Brides and dominae.” Gilomen-Schenkel considers the Guta-Sintram Codex as evidence for the dissolution of a double monastery: Gilomen-Schenkel, “Der Guta-Sintram-Codex als Zeugnis eines Doppelklosters.”

130. 130. Herman of Tournai, Liber de restauratione, 69; ed. Waitz, MGH SS 14, 307; trans. Nelson, 101. For an important discussion of conversation between the sexes in the religious life, see van Houts, “Conversations”; and, in the early thirteenth-century Cistercian milieu, McGuire, “Friends and Tales,” 200. Wolbrink shows that “practical interaction between male and female Premonstratensians was a part of daily monastic life in northwestern Germany.” Wolbrink, “Women in the Premonstratensian Order.”

131. 131. Hollis, “Goscelin’s Writings and the Wilton Women,” 219–220. On Goscelin’s reference to priests at Wilton during the time of Abbess Wulfthryth, see Hollis, “Goscelin’s Writings and the Wilton Women,” 226. On the spiritual and textual context within which Goscelin was active, see Bugyis, “Recovering the Histories of Women Religious”; and Leyser, “C. 1080–1215: Texts.”

132. 132. Goscelin described Eve as his “lady” (domina mea): Goscelin of St. Bertin, Liber confortatorius, I; ed. Talbot, 33; trans. Otter, 31. O’Brien O’Keeffe argues that Eve was not a nun at Wilton (although she had been consecrated there), and proposes that she was older when she met Goscelin than previous scholars assumed. O’Brien O’Keeffe, “Goscelin and the Consecration of Eve.” Christina of Markyate’s biographer also reports “sitting at table with the handmaid of Christ.” For discussion, see Koopmans, “Dining at Markyate.”

133. 133. Goscelin of St. Bertin, Liber confortatorius, I; ed. Talbot, 28; trans. Otter, 25. The episode is discussed in van Houts, “Conversations,” 278–279.

134. 134. Goscelin of St. Bertin, Liber confortatorius, I; ed. Talbot, 27; trans. Otter, 21–22. On Goscelin as Eve’s teacher, see Hollis, “Wilton as a Centre of Learning.”

135. 135. Aelred warned his sister against the giving of such gifts as “a belt [or] a gaily embroidered purse” to young monks or priests. Aelred of Rievaulx, De institutione inclusarum, 7; ed. Hoste and Talbot, 643; trans. Macpherson, 53. Christina of Markyate gave gifts to the abbot Geoffrey of St. Albans (“two undergarments”, which he requested “not for pleasure”). De S. Theodora, 71; ed. Talbot, 160; rev. trans Fanous and Leyser, 71. Geoffrey is often credited with giving Christina a magnificent illuminated psalter. See Chapter 5 for discussion.

136. 136. O’Brien O’Keeffe, “Goscelin and the Consecration of Eve,” 263–264.

137. 137. Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 38, l. 35; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 368; trans. Silvas in Jutta and Hildegard, 100. Guibert’s letters to and from Gertrude appear in his letter collection: Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 34–5, 37; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 346–351, 360–365. For discussion, see Griffiths, “Monks and Nuns at Rupertsberg.” Although Guibert reports his own close ties to the Rupertsberg nuns, he nevertheless emphasized the strict enclosure of Hildegard and Jutta at Disibodenberg, perhaps in response to increasing anxieties concerning contact between the sexes, as Felten suggests. Felten, “What Do We Know About the Life of Jutta and Hildegard,” 30–32.

138. 138. Speculum virginum 2.256–257 and 2.461; ed. Seyfarth, 50, 57; trans. Newman, 276, 280. The expectation that nuns would meet with men for spiritual conversation is evident, too, in the statutes from Fontevraud: “Sisters should never speak to any man without a guardian who should sit between them, hearing what is said and if it is useful.” Additions to the Statutes, 4; Deux vies, 428–429.

139. 139. Mews, “Virginity, Theology, and Pedagogy”; Powell, “The Speculum virginum”; and Powell, “The Mirror and the Woman,” 133–173. Latin manuscripts of the Speculum virginum survive predominantly from male rather than female religious houses, a fact that has sometimes been interpreted as evidence that men, like women, read it for spiritual formation. Newman, “Flaws in the Golden Bowl,” 22.

140. 140. Aelred of Rievaulx, De Sanctimoniali de Wattun; PL 195: 789–796. For discussion of this incident, see Golding, Gilbert, 33–38; Constable, “Aelred of Rievaulx and the Nun of Watton”; Freeman, “Nuns in the Public Sphere”; and Sykes, Inventing Sempringham, 51–57. In fact, contemporary criticism of the Gilbertines was fairly minimal, even in the wake of the scandal at Watton. Golding, Gilbert, 168–170. Letters of support for the order, following the lay brothers’ revolt, are included in the Book of St. Gilbert; ed. and trans. Foreville and Keir, 134–167. The bishop of Winchester wrote to the pope that “The whole kingdom of England approves and admires the fact that the virgins are enclosed on their own, while the canons who administer the sacraments to them live apart, and that access to the nuns is not allowed except under the pressure of extreme need and then only when witnessed by both sexes.” The Book of St. Gilbert, Epist. 4; ed. and trans. Foreville and Keir, 146–147.

141. 141. De Kegel identifies various phases in the development of double monasteries, in which dissolution is the presumed end point. De Kegel, “ ‘Vom ordnungswidrigen Übelstand’?” Elkins commented that although double monasteries appear in scholarly discussion, they are typically treated as a “peripheral phenomenon.” Elkins, xvii.

142. 142. McNamara, “Herrenfrage,” 11. Elliott, Bride, 150–171; and Elliott, “Alternative Intimacies.” Writing from the perspective of monastic history (rather than women’s history), Giles Constable noted that “openness to women” was “one of the most striking features of religious life in the eleventh and twelfth centuries”; however, he cautioned that it emerged “against a background of general suspicion and distrust” and ultimately gave way to “the old dislike and fear of women.” Constable, “Religious Communities,” 344, 347; and Constable, Reformation, 73. Brian Golding locates Gilbert of Sempringham’s foundation for women within a “framework of experimentation and radical reform, which paradoxically both appealed to women and sought to distance itself from them.” Golding, Gilbert, 77.

143. 143. McNamara, “Herrenfrage,” 12. In Elliott’s view, the intimate spiritual and emotional bonds that could develop between holy women and clerics were not disruptive of gender roles, but were quasi-conjugal (and ultimately temporary). Elliott, Bride, 155.

144. 144. On the practice of syneisaktism (close ties between a celibate man and an unmarried woman, a syneisaktes) in early Christianity, see Achelis, Virgines subintroductae; Clark, “John Chrysostom and the ‘Subintroductae’ ”; Elm, “Virgins of God”, 47–51; and Elliott, Spiritual Marriage, 32–38. Syneisaktism was condemned at the Council of Nicaea (325), although it continued in various forms.

145. 145. McNamara, “Herrenfrage,” 18.

146. 146. Elm, “Le personnel masculin,” 331.

147. 147. Second Lateran Council (1139), canon 27; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. and trans. Tanner, I, 203.

148. 148. Engelberg remained a double community until the early seventeenth century. De Kegel, “ ‘Monasterium, quod duplices […] habet conventus,’ ” 201; Gilomen-Schenkel, “Engelberg, Interlaken und andere autonome Doppelklöster.” Marti discusses manuscript production within the double monastery at Engelberg: Marti, Malen, Schreiben und Beten.

149. 149. Registerbook of Abbot Otto II (1375–1414), Salzburg, Stiftsarchiv der Erzabtei St. Peter, Hs. A 7, fol. 1r. For discussion, see Klueting, 414. The women’s house at the Frauenberg existed until 1583. At Schiffenberg (founded c. 1129), too, men and women continued to live in close association until the end of the Middle Ages. Bönnen, Haverkamp, and Hirschmann, 398. The women at Zwiefalten were not moved to Mariaberg until 1349. Küsters, “Formen und Modelle religiöser Frauengemeinschaften,” 214.

150. 150. For Schönau, see Kemper, “Das benediktinische Doppelkloster Schönau,” 56; for Sempringham, see Sykes, “Canonici Albi et Moniales,” 245. Sykes comments that “arrangements at the houses of Sempringham persisted until the Dissolution.” Golding takes a dimmer view, declaring that “by 1300 the Gilbertine experiment was largely dead.” Golding, Gilbert, 4. In his view, the status of the Gilbertine women deteriorated relative to that of the canons during the thirteenth century. Golding, Gilbert, 133–135.

151. 151. For monastic foundations of the Brigittine order, see Nyberg, Birgittinische Klostergründungen. Nyberg prefers to describe the Brigittine monastery as a “Gesamtkloster” rather than a “double monastery.”

152. 152. Separation itself requires careful interpretation, since many double communities appear in the sources only at the moment of separation, giving a false sense of the frequency with which double monasteries separated. Double communities that did not separate may be more difficult to detect in narrative or other written sources, since even male monasteries that welcomed women tended not to highlight their presence. Bönner, Haverkamp, and Hirschmann, 377–378. Stephanie Haarländer and Franz Felten have both observed that narrative sources tend to engage in “circumlocution” where the presence of women is concerned. Haarländer, “Doppelklöster und ihre Forschungsgeschichte,” 35–40; Felten, “Frauenklöster.” For the silences of the sources concerning the presence of women alongside men in the religious life, see also Gilomen-Schenkel, “Das Doppelkloster.”

153. 153. Herman of Tournai, Liber de restauratione, 69; ed. Waitz, MGH SS 14, 307; trans. Nelson, 99.

154. 154. Hildegard of Bingen, Epist. 78; ed. Van Acker, CCCM 91, 175; trans. Baird and Ehrman, I, 173. For discussion, see Griffiths, “Monks and Nuns at Rupertsberg.”

155. 155. 117 monks and 144 nuns are listed in the necrology in the sixty years after the women’s relocation (between 1200 and 1260). Gilomen-Schenkel, “Double Monasteries in the South-western Empire,” 62. Necrologies are rich sources for monastic community and often reveal the existence of a double monastery when other sources are silent. See Gilomen-Schenkel, “Nekrologien als Quellen für Doppelklöster”; Gilomen-Schenkel, “Das Doppelkloster,” 204–206; and Gilomen-Schenkel, “Engelberg, Interlaken und andere autonome Doppelklöster,” 123–127. Axel Müssigbrod cautions that not all women named in necrologies from men’s houses—even in terms suggestive of a religious profession (sanctimonialis, devota, or monacha)—were members of the male house or professed women at all. Müssigbrod, “Frauenkonversionen in Moissac.”

156. 156. Vita S. Stephani Obazinensis, II, 3; ed. Aubrun, 98–99; trans. Feiss, O’Brien, and Pepin, 165. Nevertheless, the author of the life noted that the women’s move was prompted by Stephen’s realization that “women could not long dwell virtuously among men.” Vita S. Stephani Obazinensis, I, 30; ed. Aubrun, 90–91; trans. Feiss, O’Brien, and Pepin, 160

157. 157. Felten, “Frauenklöster,“ 264–5; Bönnen, Haverkamp, and Hirschmann, 402–403. Krings notes that Maisental was separated from Weißenau by 500 meters. Krings, “Die Prämonstratenser und ihr weiblicher Zweig,” 98.

158. 158. Bond; Jaeger, Ennobling Love. Essential reading is provided in Dronke, Medieval Latin, I, 210–238.

159. 159. On Bond’s concept of “dominism”, see Bond, 136–137.

160. 160. Jaeger, Ennobling Love, 90, 105. In fact, as we shall see, Jerome and other religious men of the late antique and early medieval centuries were equally capable of admiring and exalting individual women.

161. 161. Coakley, Women, Men, and Spiritual Power; Coakley, “Friars, Sanctity, and Gender”; Coakley, “Gender and the Authority of Friars.” For the related argument that holy women “had something that devout men sought and needed: the immediacy of contact with the divine, as well as the language in which to convey this presence,” see McGuire, “Holy Women and Monks,” 357. McGuire commented on the potential mutuality of the relationship between holy women and monks, observing that “just as much as the women were made to need them in economic and social terms, they as men needed women in personal and emotional terms.” (352)

162. 162. The attention to “exceptional” religious women in much existing scholarship is discussed in Griffiths and Hotchin, “Women and Men”; and Coakley, “Afterword.” Barbara Newman makes a case for the importance of studying “the ordinary religious woman” in Newman, “Flaws in the Golden Bowl,” 20.

163. 163. Evidence for men’s spiritual attention to women can be found in the “literature of formation” examined by Newman. Of forty-five texts that she identifies as having been composed between 1075 and 1225, fourteen were addressed to women (although not necessarily by their priests). Newman, “Flaws in the Golden Bowl,” 21.

164. 164. Some female saints’ vitae were written by men who knew their female subjects as members of the same monastic order, as founders of the man’s monastery, or as recluses living close to his community. Wilms, 202–204, and 29–30 (for a listing of twelfth-century female saints).

165. 165. The literature on Abelard is vast, and growing. See, in particular, Mews, Abelard and Heloise; Mews, Abelard and his Legacy; Clanchy, Abelard; Marenbon, Abelard in Four Dimensions; Marenbon, The Philosophy of Peter Abelard; and Ruys, The Repentant Abelard. New approaches to Abelard’s life and legacy appear in the essays gathered in Brower and Guilfoy, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Abelard; and Hellemans, ed., Rethinking Abelard. Still foundational are the essays in Pierre Abélard - Pierre le Vénérable; Thomas, ed., Petrus Abaelardus; and Jolivet and Habrias, eds., Pierre Abélard. Debate concerning the “lost love letters” of Abelard and Heloise has generated a tremendous body of scholarship in recent years. For attribution of the Epistolae duorum amantium to Abelard and Heloise, see Mews, Lost Love Letters; and Newman, Making Love (with an important review of the debate).

166. 166. As Clanchy observes, “Abelard was the greatest provider of devotional literature for nuns in the twelfth century.” Clanchy, Abelard, 153. Mary Martin McLaughlin commented that Abelard’s writings for the Paraclete comprised “the most comprehensive response of the early twelfth century to the problems of women and their religious life.” McLaughlin, “Peter Abelard and the Dignity of Women,” 292–293.

167. 167. Abelard wrote that “my detractors, with their usual perverseness, had the effrontery to accuse me of most shamefully doing what genuine charity prompted; they said that I was still in the grip of the pleasures of carnal concupiscence and could rarely or never bear the absence of the woman I had once loved.” Abelard, Epist. 1.65; The Letter Collection, 102–103. On Abelard’s involvement at the Paraclete, see Mews, Abelard and Heloise, 145–173. On Heloise, see Bourgain, “Héloïse, vie et œuvres”; Mews, “Heloise”; and the essays in Wheeler, ed., Listening to Heloise. On the expulsion of the nuns from Argenteuil, which prompted the establishment of the women’s community at the Paraclete, see Waldman, “Abbot Suger and the Nuns of Argenteuil.”

168. 168. Abelard praised Robert in a letter to the bishop of Paris as an “outstanding herald of Christ.” Abelard, Epist. 14; ed. Smits, 280; trans. Ziolkowski, 195. For Abelard as a monastic reformer and founder, see Luscombe, “Monasticism in the Lives and Writings of Heloise and Abelard”; Marenbon, “Life, Milieu, and Intellectual Contexts,” 25–26; and von Moos, “Abaelard, Heloise und ihr Paraklet.” For similarities between Abelard and Robert, see below, n. 172. Mary Martin McLaughlin highlights Abelard’s role as monastic reformer, noting that “by replacing his deserted students with Heloise and her nuns, he joined the company of monastic founders and reformers, becoming himself one of the ‘new apostles’ who were in this period reinvigorating the spiritual life of Christendom.” McLaughlin, “Abelard as Autobiographer,” 480.

169. 169. Abelard, Institutio, 43; The Letter Collection, 410–411.

170. 170. Abelard, Institutio, 44; The Letter Collection, 410–411. McLaughlin noted that Abelard’s Rule emphasized “masculine supervision rather than feminine subordination.” McLaughlin, “Peter Abelard and the Dignity of Women,” 324. Despite Abelard’s plan for ultimate male authority at the Paraclete, in the Institutiones nostrae, as Golding observed, “the abbot/provost has disappeared”, leaving the abbess in complete authority over the community. Golding, “Authority and Discipline,” 97. See below, n. 178.

171. 171. Abelard, Institutio, 40; The Letter Collection, 406–407. For discussion, see Griffiths, “ ‘Men’s Duty’ ”; and, on structures of authority at the Paraclete (with reference to those at Fontevraud and Sempringham), Golding, “Authority and Discipline,” 93–98. On Abelard’s model for relations between monastic women and men, see McLaughlin, “Peter Abelard and the Dignity of Women,” 322–327. In his earlier writings, Abelard had argued for men’s care for women on the basis that “the weaker sex needs the help of the stronger.” Abelard, Epist. 1.68; The Letter Collection, 110–111.

172. 172. McLaughlin, “Peter Abelard and the Dignity of Women.” For discussions of Abelard’s defense of women, see also Blamires, “Caput a femina, membra a viris”; Blamires, Case, 199–207; and Griffiths, “ ‘Men’s Duty.’ ” Similarities between Abelard and Robert have been noted by a number of scholars, notably: Mews, “Negotiating the Boundaries of Gender,” 143–146; Venarde, “Robert of Arbrissel and Women’s Vita religiosa”; Dalarun, “Capitula regularia magistri Roberti”; Dalarun, “Nouveaux aperçus”; Felten, “Verbandsbildung von Frauenklöstern”; Golding, “Authority and Discipline”; and Elliott, Bride, 154. For the identification of Hersende as Heloise’s mother, see Robl, Heloisas Herkunft. Mews describes the identification as “quite plausible”: Mews, “Negotiating the Boundaries of Gender,” 147, 125–129. In a later essay, he suggests that Heloise’s father may have died in the First Crusade, leaving her widowed mother to enter a monastery. Mews, “Heloise,” 269.

173. 173. Bruce Venarde discussed the idea of Robert’s “strangeness or marginality” in an important essay: Venarde, “Robert of Arbrissel and Women’s Vita religiosa,” 329.

174. 174. Mews comments that Abelard “is often perceived as a quintessential rebel.” As he writes, “there is a long tradition of bracketing together both Abelard and Heloise as fundamentally secular figures, at odds with the dominant religious traditions of their day, as represented by Bernard of Clairvaux.” Mews, Abelard and Heloise, 19. On Abelard’s self-conscious self-representation, see Verbaal, “Trapping the Future”; and McLaughlin, “Abelard as Autobiographer.”

175. 175. Blamires, “Caput a femina, membra a viris,” 56. Elsewhere, Blamires refers to it as a “zealously pugnacious piece.” Blamires, Case, 202. Mary Martin McLaughlin described On the Origin of Nuns as the “most lavish encomium of holy women.” McLaughlin, “Peter Abelard and the Dignity of Women,” 295. Abelard’s letter On the Origin of Nuns is Epist. 7; The Letter Collection, 260–351.

176. 176. Blamires, Case, 199, 207.

177. 177. At the Augustinian community of Marbach/Schwarzenthann, Abelard’s writings directly affected male monastic attitudes toward religious women and men’s role in providing for their needs. See Griffiths, “Brides and dominae”; and below, Chapter 3. For Abelard’s sermons at Einsiedeln and Engelberg, see de Santis, I Sermoni, 54–55. Further attention to manuscripts of Abelard’s writings may yield other instances in which Abelard’s readership and impact can more clearly be traced. Luscombe draws particular attention to T, which he notes “is unique among the surviving MSS of the letter collection and best among them reflects the history and aims of the founders and the foundation of the Paraclete, for T alone presents the entire collection with the full text of the Rule.” Luscombe, The Letter Collection, lxxxi. See also McLaughlin and Wheeler, “MS T (Troyes Bibliothèque Municipale, MS 802)”; and Dalarun, “Nouveaux aperçus.”

178. 178. Most striking is Heloise’s decision to ignore Abelard’s requirement of male authority at the Paraclete. The Institutiones nostrae neglect the position of the male abbot and declare instead, “soli abbatisse et priorisse debitum exhibetur obedientie.” Institutiones nostrae “De obedientia,” VI; The Paraclete Statutes: Institutiones nostrae, ed. Waddell, 10 (and Waddell’s discussion, pp. 99–102). As David Luscombe observes, the Institutiones “set Abelard aright on matters of diet and authority: his most unconventional ideas, such as the allowance of meat and the provision of a male superior, are not taken up.” Luscombe, “From Paris to the Paraclete,” 272. On the failure of the Paraclete to adopt Abelard’s Rule, see The Paraclete Statutes. Institutiones nostrae, ed. Waddell, 28–61; and Waddell, “Heloise and the Abbey of the Paraclete,” 111–115. Luscombe argues that failure to adopt Abelard’s Rule was no sign of disrespect to Abelard: Luscombe, “Pierre Abélard et l’abbaye du Paraclet.”

179. 179. Southern, Medieval Humanism, 101. Mary Martin McLaughlin challenged Southern’s assumption that Abelard found his work “dreary,” arguing that he forged a spiritual role for himself through his spiritual direction of nuns. McLaughlin, “Peter Abelard and the Dignity of Women,” 331, 316–317. Blamires, too, defended Abelard’s letter against charges that it was “conscientious hack work”, arguing that it was “not drudgery but committed polemic.” Blamires, “Caput a femina, membra a viris,” 62. Arguments for the integrity of the letter collection and its relevance to the entire Paraclete community have been widely accepted. See, for instance, Powell, “Listening to Heloise.”

180. 180. Mary Martin McLaughlin commented that Abelard “was far from unique among his contemporaries in his concern for women, and particularly for their religious life,” even though no other contemporary figure wrote as much for, or about, women as he did. His fellow reformers were “similarly, if not so articulately” concerned with problems relating to female religious life. McLaughlin, “Peter Abelard and the Dignity of Women,” 291, 332.

181. 181. On Guibert, see Coakley, Women, Men, and Spiritual Power, 45–67; and Griffiths, “Monks and Nuns at Rupertsberg.” Like Abelard, Guibert reported that he had adopted the spiritual care of nuns by chance, rather than design: he first came to Rupertsberg, so he wrote, only to serve Hildegard, but soon found himself as the sole priest for all the nuns. For the circumstances that led to Guibert’s installation as priest at Rupertsberg, see Griffiths, “Monks and Nuns at Rupertsberg,” 157–160. Priests serving among nuns often described their spiritual involvement with women as an unintentional or chance development, a rhetorical strategy likely intended to deflect criticism. Accounts of Norbert, Gilbert, Abelard, and Guibert all present their attention to women as the result of circumstances, rather than volition. See above, n. 106; for the idea that “a number of the celebrated founders of various female communities … stumbled upon their destinies by accident,” see Elliott, Bride, 163.

182. 182. Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 38, ll. 16–18; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 367; trans. Silvas in Jutta and Hildegard, 99. Abelard, too, had preferred life among religious women to that among men: while he had experienced suffering and persecution at his home monastery of St. Gildas, Abelard reports that he found in the Paraclete “a haven of peace away from raging storms.” Abelard, Epist. 1.70; The Letter Collection, 112–113.

183. 183. Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 26, ll. 470–74; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 283; trans. Coakley in Women, Men, and Spiritual Power, 60. Coakley suggests that Guibert may be quoting from his attackers here.

184. 184. Guibert’s most sustained discussion of the spiritual involvement of men with women appears in a letter that he wrote sometime in 1178 or 1179 and addressed to his friend Ralph, a monk at the Cistercian monastery of Villers in Brabant. Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 26; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 270–294. See also Guibert’s letter to Bovo: Epist. 38; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 366–379; trans. Silvas in Jutta and Hildegard, 99–117.

185. 185. Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 26, ll. 553–554; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 285.

186. 186. “Sunt membra Christi, et matres Domini; et per virginem nos redemit Christus.” Regula cujusdam patris, 18; PL 66: 991.

187. 187. “Licenter igitur dicam: Ecce quam bonum et quam iocundum habitare fratres, habitare etiam sorores in unum.” Die Ältere Wormser Briefsammlung, 45; ed. Bulst, MGH Briefe d. dt. Kaiserzeit 3, 82 [emphasis mine]. Azecho showed particular kindness to Gunnhild of Denmark (the daughter of Cnut and Emma), when she arrived as a young girl to marry Conrad II’s son, Henry (later Henry III). Azecho would visit Gunnhild, bringing her almonds and offering kind words to comfort her. Tyler, “Crossing Conquests,” 181. Gunnhild’s daughter, Beatrix (d. 1061), became abbess at Gandersheim and Quedlinburg.

188. 188. Thomas of Cantimpré, Vita Ioannis Cantipratensis, II, 3; ed. Godding, 279; trans. Newman, 81 [emphasis mine]. By contrast, the Book of St. Gilbert explained the peacefulness with which different groups—including women and men—could coexist within the religious life, citing the Psalm: “charity overcomes envy and a delight in their fellowship makes them live in unity as brothers.” The Book of St. Gilbert, 19; ed. and trans. Foreville and Keir, 52–53.

189. 189. For a selection of medieval texts, both celebrating and denigrating women, see Woman Defamed and Woman Defended, ed. Blamires. Jaeger traces the “double image of women,” contrasting medieval ideas of “bad and dangerous” women with “virtuous women”: Jaeger, Ennobling Love, 83–101.

190. 190. Marbode advised his male audience to “beware the honied poisons, the sweet songs, and the pull of the dark depths,” counseling flight from the attractions of women: Marbode of Rennes, Liber decem capitulorum, 3, ll. 71–72; ed. Leotta, 108; trans. Blamires in Woman Defamed, 102.

191. 191. Guibert cited Equitius as an example of spiritual castration parallel to his own, claiming to have been delivered from what he described as “the tearing to pieces of unclean spirits” (a dilaceratione tamen spirituum immundorum) or, more graphically, as “the furnace of foul smelling and sulphureous wanton flesh” (a camino fetentis et sulphuree carnalis petulantie). Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 26, ll. 424–425 and 428; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 282. Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 26, ll. 492–498, 614–616; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 284, 287.

192. 192. Marbode and Baudri of Bourgueil engaged in playful literary friendships with women in which they sometimes explored the idea of women’s virtue and potential moral superiority. On these friendships, see Bond; Jaeger, Ennobling Love, 91–101; and Newman, Making Love, 4–24. Because these men did not support female religious life generally, or serve women in a spiritual capacity, I have not focused on them in this study.

193. 193. Brian Golding acknowledged instances in which men engaged spiritually with women, yet cautioned that “it remains to be demonstrated that these [examples—like Abelard’s—of men’s care for women] were the norm, rather than the exceptions.” Golding, “Authority and Discipline,” 109.

194. 194. Venarde, “Robert of Arbrissel and Women’s Vita religiosa,” 329. As Venarde notes, “Despite Robert’s reputation for eccentricity, his activities were not unique and he was never an isolated figure.” Venarde, “Introduction: Robert of Arbrissel’s World,” xxiv. Fontevraud received significant support from contemporaries and was much admired: the archbishop of Bourges vied to have a monastery of Fontevraud nuns within his province. Andrew, Supplementum, 31; Deux vies, 248–249. Constant Mews argues for the need to situate both Abelard and Robert in their spiritual and historical context. As he writes, “While Robert and Abelard have both tended to attract attention as charismatic personalities, it may be more useful to see their lives within the context of a broader questioning of roles of both women and men in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries.” Mews, “Negotiating the Boundaries of Gender,” 113.

CHAPTER 2

Note to epigraph: Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 26, ll. 521–522; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 285.

1. 1. Constable, Reformation, 153.

2. 2. Constable, “Renewal and Reform”; Constable, Reformation, 125–167; McDonnell, “The ‘Vita apostolica’ ”; Constable, Three Studies, 143–248; Olsen, “The Idea of the Ecclesia primitiva”; Dereine, “La ‘Vita Apostolica.’ ” On the varieties of medieval reform, and the language used to describe it, see Barrow, “Ideas and Applications.”

3. 3. On the complicated textual history of the pericope adulterae, see Knust, “Early Christian Re-Writing.”

4. 4. For the medieval identification of Mary Magdalene with the sinful woman who “loved much” and with Mary of Bethany, who anointed Jesus’s head and was credited by him with having chosen “the better part,” see Jansen, Making of the Magdalen, 18–46; and Mulder-Bakker, “Was Mary Magdalen a Magdalen?” Devotion to the cult of Mary Magdalene intensified in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, as Victor Saxer has shown: Saxer, Le culte de Marie Madeleine en Occident.

5. 5. On the trope of pious women shaming men, see Clark, “Sex, Shame, and Rhetoric”; and Brakke, “The Lady Appears.” In his Life and Passion of Christina (composed for a male audience), Alfanus of Salerno (d. 1085) commented that “The Lord has offered us a model in the feminine sex, so that, challenged by the virtue of women, we may regain the toughness of the virile soul which we have lost through sinful living.” Discussed in McLaughlin, Sex, Gender, and Episcopal Authority, 170.

6. 6. Abelard, Epist. 7.31; The Letter Collection, 318–319.

7. 7. Blamires calls this letter Abelard’s most “zealously pugnacious piece.” Blamires, Case, 202. On Abelard’s “gender polemic” in this letter, see Blamires, “Caput a femina, membra a viris”. Abelard argued that the ordo of holy women was part of the original church, established by Jesus himself, as Gary Macy observes. Macy, Hidden History, 93–96.

8. 8. Abelard, Epist. 7.3; The Letter Collection, 262–263.

9. 9. Abelard, Epist. 7.4; The Letter Collection, 264–265. Referring to the anointing of medieval kings and priests, Abelard drew a clear, and spiritually meaningful, distinction: “Christ himself was anointed by a woman as Christians by men; that is to say, the head itself by a woman, the members by men.” Abelard, Epist. 7.5; The Letter Collection, 266–267. Cf. Abelard, Sic et non, 105; PL 178: 1494–1495 and Abelard, Sermo 11 (De Rebus Gestis in Diebus Passionis); PL 178: 455. For discussion, see Blamires, “Caput a femina, membra a viris,” 64–65.

10. 10. Abelard, Epist. 7.6; The Letter Collection, 268–269.

11. 11. Abelard, Epist. 7.31; The Letter Collection, 318–319. On the paradox of Christ’s birth from a woman, and gender paradox in Christianity generally, see McLaughlin, “Gender Paradox.”

12. 12. Goscelin of St. Bertin, Liber confortatorius, II; ed. Talbot, 64; trans. Otter, 74.

13. 13. “Quod autem de femina nasci voluit, magnum nobis benignitatis suae beneficium ostendit et immensum humilitatis exemplum.” Hugh of Fleury, Ex historia ecclesiastica; ed. Waitz, MGH SS 9, 350. On Adela, see LoPrete, Adela of Blois; and Bond, 129–157.

14. 14. Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 26, ll. 706–707; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 290.

15. 15. Jerome, Vita Hilarionis, 7.2; ed. Morales, 232–233; trans. Fremantle, 305. Cf. Abelard, Epist. 7.31; The Letter Collection, 318–319.

16. 16. Blamires, Case, 206.

17. 17. Abelard, Epist. 1.67; The Letter Collection, 106–107.

18. 18. Augustine of Hippo, De opera monachorum, 5.6; ed. Zycha, CSEL 41, 539; trans. Muldowney, 338. Augustine commented that “faithful women, possessing the goods of this world, went along with the Apostles and ministered to them from their own supplies so that the servants of God might lack none of those commodities which constitute the necessities of life.” Augustine, De opere monachorum, 4.5; ed. Zycha, CSEL 41, 538–9; trans. Muldowney, 338.

19. 19. Sigeboto, Vita Paulinae, prefatio; ed. Dieterich, MGH SS 30.2, 911; trans. Badstübner-Kizik, 92. On Sigeboto’s life of Paulina in the context of the Hirsau reform, see Badstübner-Kizik, Die Gründungs- und Frühgeschichte des Klosters Paulinzella und die Lebensbeschreibung der Stifterin Paulina; Küsters, “Formen und Modelle religiöser Frauengemeinschaften,” 200–203; and Küsters, Der verschlossene Garten, 121–130.

20. 20. Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 26, ll. 521–529; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 285.

21. 21. Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 26, ll. 544–546; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 285.

22. 22. Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 26, ll. 550–552; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 285.

23. 23. Abelard, Epist. 1.67; The Letter Collection, 106–107. Mary Martin McLaughin highlighted the importance of Christ’s “teachings and actions” in Abelard’s conception of women’s “dignity” in the religious life. McLaughlin, “Peter Abelard and the Dignity of Women,” 301–303.

24. 24. Abelard, Epist. 7.12; The Letter Collection, 280–281. My reading here differs from that of Luscombe.

25. 25. Abelard, Epist. 5.23; The Letter Collection, 202–203. Abelard employed the concept of the “inseparable companion” in certain other contexts, too. In his Introductio ad Theologiam, he wrote that the soul is the “inseparable companion of corporal entities” (anima inseparabilis comes est corporum). Abelard, Introductio ad Theologiam, I, 17; PL 178: 1014. In his sermon 26, De Sancto Iohanne Evangelista, Abelard described Peter, James, and John as “inseparabiles comites.” Abelard, Sermo 26 (De Sancto Iohanne Evangelista), ll. 12–13; ed. de Santis, 235. Finally, in his answer to one of Heloise’s questions about the Beatitudes in the Problemata, Abelard described justice and mercy as the “inseparable companions” of Jesus. Heloise and Abelard, Problemata, 14; PL 178: 701; trans. McLaughlin with Wheeler, 237. On Christ as a model for Abelard, see Frank, “Abelard as Imitator of Christ.” On the language of “inseparable” companionship, see Valentine, “ ‘Inseparable Companions.’ ”

26. 26. See my discussion of John’s exemplarity in Griffiths, “The Cross and the Cura monialium.”

27. 27. Concerning Mary’s role at the crucifixion, see Neff, “The Pain of Compassio.”

28. 28. For the importance of John’s status as Mary’s adopted son, see Hamburger, St. John the Divine, 165–178.

29. 29. The commendation contributed to the growing cult of St. John the Evangelist, offering further proof of John’s status as the most beloved of the disciples. Together with the favor shown John when he rested on the breast of Christ, the care of Christ’s mother was one of the principal privileges accorded him, solidifying his place in medieval theology and art. For John’s presumed virginity, see Hamburger, “Brother, Bride, and alter Christus.” According to early legends, John had intended to marry, but had been called away by Christ from the actual wedding. Some medieval commentators identified John with the bridegroom at the wedding at Cana, and Mary Magdalene as the bride whom he had abandoned. Volfing, John the Evangelist, 27–31.

30. 30. Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum, I, 26; PL 23: 248; trans. Fremantle, 366. Volfing observes that some commentators, among them Rupert of Deutz, characterized John as a “eunuch” on the basis of his celibacy. Volfing, 33–36.

31. 31. Abelard, Epist. 1.67; The Letter Collection, 108–109.

32. 32. For late antique and medieval interpretations of the commendation to John, see Koehler, “Les principales interprétations traditionnelles de Jn. 19, 25–27”; and Kneller, “Joh 19, 26–27 bei den Kirchenvätern.”

33. 33. Epiphanius of Salamis, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis; trans. Williams, II, 609.

34. 34. Ambrose, Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, 10.134; ed. Adriaen, CCSL 14, 384; trans. Ní Riain, 353. Ambrose warned that no woman should interpret the commendation as license to “live at her ease” or to leave an old husband in order to marry a younger one. Instead, as he noted, “what we have here is a mystery of the Church.”

35. 35. Ambrose, Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, 10.132; ed. Adriaen, CCSL 14, 383–384; trans. Ní Riain, 353.

36. 36. Athanasius made this argument. Brakke, Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism, 277.

37. 37. Jerome, Adversus Vigilantium, 12; ed. Feiertag, CCSL 79C, 24; trans. Fremantle, 422.

38. 38. Lifshitz notes that, already in the eighth century, John’s cult was used as a “prop to syneisactism.” However, in the area of Lifshitz’s study, it was not the Virgin who was imagined as John’s companion, but rather his female follower, Drusiana. Lifshitz, Religious Women, 117.

39. 39. Rudolf of Fulda, Vita Leobae abbatissae Biscofesheimensis, 17; ed. Waitz, MGH SS 15.1, 129; trans. Talbot, 221–222.

40. 40. Goscelin of St. Bertin, Vita s. Edithae, 21; ed. Wilmart, 88; trans. Wright and Loncar, 53–54. For discussion of Goscelin’s Vita s. Edithae, its composition, and its reception at Wilton, see Bugyis, “Recovering the Histories of Women Religious.” See also O’Brien O’Keeffe, “Edith’s Choice.”

41. 41. “Iohannis certe et Marię in spiritalis contemplacionis dilectione cohabitatio magna fuit et mirifica.” Die Ältere Wormser Briefsammlung, 45; ed. Bulst, MGH Briefe d. dt. Kaiserzeit 3, 82.

42. 42. Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 301. On Mary and Martha in medieval thought, see Constable, Three Studies, 1–141. For a reevaluation of Gregory’s role in the campaign for clerical celibacy, see Cowdrey, “Pope Gregory VII and the Chastity of the Clergy”; and Blumenthal, “Pope Gregory VII and the Prohibition of Nicolaitism.”

43. 43. Cowdrey discusses Gregory’s relationship with Matilda, and the scandal it provoked: Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 300–301.

44. 44. “Sicut in cruce Christus matrem virginem virgini discipulo commendavit: Mater, inquiens, ecce filius tuus; ad discipulum autem: Ecce mater tua.” Vita Anselmi episcopi Lucensis, 12; ed. Wilmans, MGH SS 12, 17.

45. 45. Gregorius presul Romanus, ut aegit Iesus

In cruce qui moriens dat discipulo genitricem,

Commisit dominam sic Anselmo Comitissam

Donizone, Vita Mathildis, II, 2, ll. 284–286; ed. Golinelli, 144–146.

1. 46. De S. Theodora, 79; ed. Talbot, 180–182; rev. trans. Fanous and Leyser, 82–83. Concerning Christina’s relationships with men, see Elliott, “Alternative Intimacies”; and Jaeger, Ennobling Love, 174–183. Christina’s relationship to Geoffrey is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.

2. 47. Koopmans, “Dining at Markyate”; and Koopmans, “The Conclusion of Christina of Markyate’s Vita.”

3. 48. Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 26, ll. 579–81; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 286. For discussion of Guibert’s service among women, see Griffiths, “Monks and Nuns at Rupertsberg.”

4. 49. The Book of St. Gilbert, 53; ed. and trans. Foreville and Keir, 124–125.

5. 50. Thomas of Cantimpré, Vita Ioannis Cantipratensis, I, 6; ed. Godding, 262; trans. Newman, 63. Similarly suggestive language had already appeared in the twelfth-century life of Christina of Markyate, to describe the patronage that Christina received from Archbishop Thurstan of York (ex illa hora accepit eam in sua). De S. Theodora, 43; ed. Talbot, 112; rev. trans. Fanous and Leyser, 45.

6. 51. Thomas of Cantimpré, Vita Ioannis Cantipratensis, II, 5; ed. Godding, 281; trans Newman, 83.

7. 52. Gregory of Tours, Decem libri Historiarum, 9.42; ed. Krusch and Levison, MGH SS rer. Merov. 1.1, 474; trans. Thorpe, 538.

8. 53. Heloise, Epist. 6.28; The Letter Collection, 254–255.

9. 54. See above, n. 49.

10. 55. Herrad of Hohenbourg, Hortus deliciarum, ed. Green, Evans, Bischoff, and Curschmann, I, Nos. 212, 235. On the spiritual and intellectual contexts of the Hortus deliciarum, see Griffiths, Garden of Delights.

11. 56. It may have been with a well-developed sense of irony, then, that Judith, wife of Earl Tostig, commissioned a crucifix together with representations of John and Mary for the cathedral at Durham. Simeon of Durham records that she arranged for the gift in an attempt to atone for her unsuccessful attempt to enter St. Cuthbert’s church, from which women were barred entry. Judith’s gift may in fact have been intended as a rebuke to the monks of Durham, who upheld the prohibition on women’s entry into the church in direct opposition to the evangelist’s example. Simeon of Durham, History of the Church of Durham, 46; trans. Stevenson, 682–683; discussed in Schulenburg, “Gender, Celibacy, and Proscriptions of Sacred Space,” 190.

12. 57. At Fontevraud, the abbess held ultimate authority—both spiritual and material—over the entire community. Dalarun, “Pouvoir et autorité”; and Golding, “Authority and Discipline.” Robert’s emphasis on the spiritual and material priority of the women is reflected in the popular understanding of the community not as a double monastery, but as a female monastery, with a staff of priests and laybrothers attached. Parisse, “Fontevraud, monastère double.” At St-Sulpice la Forêt, too, the abbess held authority over both the women and the men of the community. Guillotel, “Les premiers temps de l’abbaye de St-Sulpice la Forêt”; and Everard, “The Abbey of Saint-Sulpice la Forêt,” 110.

13. 58. Andrew, Supplementum, 3; Deux vies, 192–195. The men’s oath to serve the women was also recorded in the earliest statutes of Fontevraud. A text of these statutes, dating from the period 1106–1112, has been identified by Dalarun in a manuscript from the sixteenth century: The Original Statutes; Deux vies, 388–405. For discussion, see Dalarun, “Les plus anciens statuts”; and Deux vies, 329–387. See also Dalarun, “Capitula regularia magistri Roberti.” Annalena Müller cautions that aristocratic abbesses of Fontevraud during the early modern period manipulated existing documents and authorized the writing of new histories in order to further their claims to female abbatial power over ordained men within the order. Müller, Forming and Re-Forming Fontevraud.

14. 59. For these numbers, see Baudri of Bourgueil, Historia, 23; Deux vies, 180–181.

15. 60. Andrew, Supplementum, 11; Deux vies, 210–211. Andrew commented that when Robert founded a new house for women, he appointed brothers to “serve” them (“ad earum servitium”).

16. 61. The care for women that was provided by men at Fontevraud continued to be associated with the commendation scene long after Robert’s death. A Latin libellus devoted to St. John and St. James the Greater connects Robert of Arbrissel’s foundation at Fontevraud to the commendation scene: Gotha, Universitäts- und Forschungsbibliothek Erfurt-Gotha, MS Membr. I 68, fol. 123v. In the same way, a Middle High German libellus (Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek, Cod. hist. 153, fols. 134r–135r) commented that the community was “founded in the memory and in the love of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ who on the Holy Cross commended his beloved mother to the apostle and disciple St. John.” However, the libellus inverted the structure of authority established by Robert, noting that “the canons should come before the three hundred women”: cited in Hamburger, St. John the Divine, 166.

17. 62. Abelard, Institutio, 40; The Letter Collection, 406–407.

18. 63. On the centrality of the commendation to John to medieval conceptions of John’s deification, see Hamburger, St. John the Divine, 165–178. In his sermon 26, Abelard cited the commendation of Mary to John as evidence of John’s preeminence among the disciples. Abelard, Sermo 26 (De Sancto Iohanne Evangelista), ll. 23–33; ed. de Santis, 236.

19. 64. Abelard, Sermo 26 (De Sancto Iohanne Evangelista), ll. 56–7; ed. de Santis, 237. As Anselm wrote:

Mary, how much we owe you, Mother and Lady,

by whom we have such a brother!

What thanks and praise can we return to you?

Anselm of Canterbury, Oratio 7; ed. Schmitt, Opera, III, 24; trans. Ward, 124.

1. 65. Dyan Elliott offers a different interpretation, in which women and their priests engaged in a form of “heteroasceticism” that was “quasi-conjugal,” and in which priests ultimately came to serve as a “proxy” for women’s affection for Christ, the heavenly bridegroom. Elliott, Bride, 150, 155, 167–171. In her view, Robert of Arbrissel was assuming the persona of the celestial bridegroom through his controversial practice of sleeping (chastely) among women. Elliott, Bride, 170.

2. 66. The paranymphus assisted at weddings in the ancient world, serving as a go-between between the bride and bridegroom before the wedding, and bringing the bride to the groom for the wedding ceremony. According to the Hortus deliciarum, care for the bride was explicitly part of the paranymphus’s job: “paranimphus amicus sponsi et sponse, vel brutebote. Item paranimphi custodes sive servatores sponse.” Herrad of Hohenbourg, Hortus deliciarum, ed. Green, Evans, Bischoff, and Curschmann, II, No. 791 n. 21, marginal note. For Aelred of Rievaulx, the angel Gabriel served as a paranymphus at the annunciation, which Aelred described as the marriage of the Virgin to God. Aelred of Rievaulx, Sermo 9, 15; ed. Raciti, CCCM 2A, 74. As Megan McLaughlin notes, male ecclesiastics had long imagined themselves as serving as paranymphus at the mystical marriage of Christ and the Church. In this marriage, bishops could play the role of bridegroom, being joined to their churches in unions governed by sacred laws. McLaughlin, Sex, Gender, and Episcopal Authority, 56–57.

3. 67. Goscelin of St. Bertin, Vita sancti Wlsini, 25; ed. Talbot, 85.

4. 68. The text of the sermon is reproduced in: Goering, William de Montibus, 225–226.

5. 69. Andrew, Supplementum, 51; Deux vies, 278–279.

6. 70. Becquet, ed., “La vie de Saint Gaucher,” 42–43.

7. 71. “Fecit unam construi in honore sanctae Dei genetricis et eius sanctissimi tutoris apostoli Iohannis capellam.” Ortlieb, De fundatione monasterii Zwivildensis, 18; ed. Abel, MGH SS 10, 83. The high altar at Marcigny was dedicated to the Trinity, Mary, and John the Evangelist. Wollasch, “Frauen in der Cluniacensis ecclesia,” 103.

8. 72. Schreiber, “Die Prämonstratenser und der Kult,“ 9, 7.

9. 73. Schreiber, 8.

10. 74. Schreiber, 7, 9.

11. 75. It may have been in his role as guardian of virgins that John appeared at Jutta’s side as she died, protecting her from the assaults of demons. Vita domnae Juttae inclusae, 9; ed. Staab, 186; trans. Silvas, 82.

12. 76. Sigeboto, Vita Paulinae, 12; ed. Dieterich, MGH SS 30.2, 916; trans. Badstübner-Kizik, 104.

13. 77. Sigeboto, Vita Paulinae, 27; ed. Dieterich, MGH SS 30.2, 922; trans. Badstübner-Kizik, 117.

14. 78. On the history of Schwarzrheindorf, see Frizen, Die Geschichte des Klosters Schwarzrheindorf; and Kunisch, Konrad III., Arnold von Wied und der Kapellenbau von Schwarzrheindorf.

15. 79. In 1172, Sophia von Wied issued a charter referring to herself as abbess of “Rindorf.” Lacomblet, I, no. 444. Semmler argues that an informal women’s community was established at Schwarzrheindorf from the church’s foundation, although he admits that the monastic history of Schwarzrheindorf is a “puzzle.” Semmler, Die Klosterreform von Siegburg, 163–165. On Schwarzrheindorf in the context of monastic expansion for women in the twelfth century, see Felten, “Frauenklöster,” 249–250.

16. 80. The literature related to the Schwarzrheindorf frescoes is extensive. For a general overview, see Kern, “Das Bildprogramm der Doppelkirche von Schwarzrheindorf”; and Verbeek, Schwarzrheindorf. On specific aspects of the visual program, see Odell, “Reading Ezekiel, Seeing Christ”; Esmeijer, “Open Door and the Heavenly Vision”; and Derbes, “The Frescoes of Schwarzrheindorf, Arnold of Wied, and the Second Crusade.”

17. 81. An inscription in the church records the 1151 dedication: Ilgen, “Die Weiheinschrift vom Jahre 1151,” 36–37. Present at the dedication were Conrad III, Otto of Freising, and Wibald of Stavelot, as well as bishops and churchmen from Cologne and Bonn, the abbot Nicholas of Siegburg, and various nobles and ministerials.

18. 82. On Arnold’s career, see Wolter, Arnold von Wied. Before being made archbishop, Arnold had served as provost at St. Georg in Limburg an der Lahn, at St. Servatius in Maastricht, and at the cathedral in Cologne (from 1127). Concerning the political role of the archbishopric of Cologne, see Georgi, “Legatio virum sapientem requirat.”

19. 83. “Arnaldus Coloniensis archiepiscopus, vir honestus suaeque ecclesiae reparator.” Otto of Freising and Rahewin, Gesta Friderici I. imperatoris, 29; ed. Wilmans, MGH SS 20, 412. Frederick refers to Arnold’s “preclara merita.” Die Urkunden Friedrichs I, no. 150; ed. Appelt, MGH DD F I, 254.

20. 84. Archbishop Philip I of Cologne recorded in an 1176 charter that Arnold had handed the church over to Hadwig while he was still alive. “Soror eius domna Hedewigis Esnidensis abbatissa, cui predictus archiepiscopus, quia nulli post deum melius confidebat, adhuc vivens eandem ecclesiam commiserat.” Lacomblet, I, no. 460. Cf. Lacomblet, I, no. 445. On Hadwig, see Buhlmann, “Die Essener Äbtissin Hadwig von Wied.”

21. 85. In 1176, Archbishop Philip I of Cologne commented that Arnold trusted Hadwig more than anyone else (“quia nulli post deum melius confidebat”). Lacomblet, I, no. 460. His 1173 charter noted that “Predicto itaque viro a mundi laboribus erepto prenominata soror eius ut mulier fortis operi sibi commisso impigre se succinxit et fratrem a desiderio suo non fraudavit.” Lacomblet, I, no. 445. Arnold had trusted Hadwig as his representative some years earlier, leaving her to manage his affairs during his absence on the Second Crusade (1147–1149). Since work on the church at Schwarzrheindorf was likely under way at this time, it is probable that Hadwig’s responsibilities during Arnold’s absence included oversight of the building project. Frizen, 25–26; Buhlmann, 51.

22. 86. Archbishop Philip I of Cologne notes that Hadwig enlarged the church (“predictam ecclesiam cum magno sumptu amplificavit”) and that she built a cloister (“claustrum quoque propriis expensis construxit”). Lacomblet, I, no. 460. Frizen assumes that Hadwig carried out Arnold’s wishes in the establishment of the women’s community (although she argues that the structural changes that were required indicate that Schwarzrheindorf may not originally have been intended as a monastery). Frizen, 28. As Ilgen notes, there is no reference in the dedication inscription to the church’s purpose as a religious community. Ilgen, 38.

23. 87. The painting of the upper church is typically dated to the period after Arnold’s death in 1156, while wall paintings in the lower church are generally dated to period before the dedication in 1151. Verbeek associates the upper church paintings with the monastic life at Schwarzrheindorf, suggesting that their visual program was developed in conjunction with the monastic foundation. Verbeek, 55–59. Kern agrees that the upper church was painted some 20 years after the lower church, although he argues that both parts were planned together: Kern, 355, 371. Esmeijer agrees, commenting that the visual program of both parts “must have been planned from the beginning as a whole.” Esmeijer, “The Open Door and the Heavenly Vision,” 53. Andrea Worm revisits the dating of the wall paintings, suggesting that the upper church was painted between 1166 and 1173, and the lower church “not … much earlier”: Worm, “A Gospel Book in Cambridge,” 24–25.

24. 88. For the iconography of the crucifixion in Western art, see Schiller, Iconography, II, 99–117.

25. 89. Neff highlights the salvific implications of Mary’s suffering at the foot of the cross: Neff, “The Pain of Compassio,” 257.

26. 90. Ilgen, “Die Weiheinschrift.” This altar, located in what became the nuns’ choir, formed the focal point for women’s worship at Schwarzrheindorf. At the dedication in 1151, the church had four altars.

27. 91. Hildegard of Bingen, Epist. 14; ed. van Acker, CCCM 91, 31; trans. Baird and Ehrman, I, 52. On Hildegard’s visionary reputation, see Newman, “ ‘Sibyl of the Rhine’ ”; and the essays in Newman, ed., Voice of the Living Light. Arnold did visit Hohenbourg, the women’s monastery in Alsace in which women’s intellectual and spiritual life flourished in the last decades of the twelfth century. His visit in 1153, as part of the entourage of Frederick Barbarossa, predated work on the Hortus deliciarum, but may have been linked to the reform of the community, which was later credited to Frederick’s support. Griffiths, Garden of Delights, 24–25.

28. 92. See below, Chapter 4.

29. 93. Bishop Ekbert of Münster had formerly been provost at Saint Cassius and knew both Arnold of Wied and Rainald of Dassel (who became archbishop of Cologne in 1159). Kunisch assumes that Ekbert of Schönau’s criticisms of worldly bishops, with their building projects and monuments, were directed at least in part at Arnold von Wied. Kunisch, 60–61.

30. 94. Arnold’s siblings and their families are listed in: Frizen, 10–12. One of Arnold’s nieces, Irmgard, was magistra at Andernach.

31. 95. A charter from 1173 notes that Hadwig had brought Sophia and Siburgis to Schwarzrheindorf: “in locum predictum duas sorores suas Sophiam er Siburgim devotas deo feminas induxit.” Lacomblet, I, no. 445. On the origins of other nuns at Schwarzrheindorf, see Frizen, 48–50.

32. 96. Arnold’s burial at Schwarzrheindorf is recorded in a diploma of Frederick Barbarossa from September 17, 1156: Die Urkunden Friedrichs I, 150; ed. Appelt, MGH DD F I, 253–254. Kern assumes that Arnold had intended the church as his burial chapel from the outset, although the sources are silent on this point (beyond noting that Arnold built the church “ut anime sue … esset remedium”): Kern, 353. Archbishop Philip I of Cologne notes the memorial function of the chapel in his 1173 charter: Lacomblet, I, no. 445.

33. 97. For details concerning burial and memorial practices at Schwarzrheindorf, see Archbishop Philip I of Cologne’s 1176 charter: Lacomblet, I, no. 460. The charter indicates that Schwarzrheindorf exercised limited parish rights, including the right to bury and baptize. Canons were present at Schwarzrheindorf from the outset and appear as witnesses in the earliest charter issued by Sophia as abbess in 1172: “Godefridus, Heroldus, Herimannus, sacerdotes et canonici in Rindorf.” Lacomblet, I, no. 444. Concerning female monasteries and parish churches, see Röckelein, ed., Frauenstifte, Frauenklöster und ihre Pfarreien.

34. 98. For the increase in monasteries for women in the Cologne archdiocese from the ninth through the twelfth century, see Felten, “Frauenklöster,” 207–209; and Stein, Religious Women of Cologne. On Premonstratensian expansion in Cologne, see Ehlers-Kisseler. The reform congregation associated with Siegburg, a male monastery not far from Bonn, included many new houses for women in Cologne. For female communities associated with Siegburg, see Semmler, 151–169; and Röckelein, “Frauen im Umkreis der benediktinischen Reformen,” 299–302.

35. 99. Clark, “Claims on the Bones of Saint Stephen.” On the gender politics of early martyr cults, see Lifshitz, “The Martyr, the Tomb, and the Matron,” 313.

36. 100. Augustine of Hippo, De civitate Dei, 22, 8; ed. Dombart and Kalb, CCSL 48, 821–824; trans. Bettenson, 1041–1043. Orosius brought some relics of Stephen with him from Palestine. See Hunt, Holy Land Pilgrimage, 212–220.

37. 101. Abelard, Sermo 32 (De Laude Sancti Stephani Protomartyris); PL 178: 574. In his letter On the Origin of Nuns Abelard referred to Stephen as having been appointed to “wait on” women (ad ministrandum eis), and for “the ministry and service of holy women” (ministerio atque obsequio sanctarum feminarum). Abelard, Epist. 7.12; The Letter Collection, 278–281. In a related sermon (Sermon 31), addressed first to “brothers,” Abelard spoke of the women who had joined the apostles and been embraced by them, and of the selection of deacons who had been chosen to care for the material needs of the women, freeing them to delight in the calm of the spiritual marriage bed. Abelard, Sermo 31 (In Natali Sancti Stephani); PL 178: 570.

38. 102. In his Rule, Abelard linked his decision to require monks and lay brothers to provide for the external needs of the nuns, invoking the appointment of the seven deacons in Acts as his “authority.” Abelard, Institutio, 40; The Letter Collection, 406–407. Cf. Abelard, Epist. 1.68; The Letter Collection, 110–111. See also Abelard, Epist. 7.12; The Letter Collection, 278–279; and Sermo 31; PL 178: 569–573.

39. 103. For discussion of this passage, see Cook, “1 Cor 9,5: The Women of the Apostles.”

40. 104. Eastern theologians, by contrast, who accepted the idea of apostolic marriage, cited Paul as their authority. As Eusebius wrote, “Paul himself does not hesitate in one of his letters to address his wife, whom he did not take about with him in order to facilitate his mission.” Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 3.30.1–2; trans. Oulton and Lake, I, 268–269. In the twelfth century, Guibert of Nogent reported Eusebius’s contention that Paul had been married, reporting that Eusebius “most absurdly called the sister of Paul a wife” (sororem absurdissime Pauli dixit uxorem). Guibert of Nogent, De virginitate, 5; PL 156: 587.

41. 105. Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum, I, 26; PL 23: 245; trans. Fremantle, 365.

42. 106. Augustine, De opere monachorum, 4.5; ed. Zycha, CSEL 41, 539; trans. Muldowney, 338.

43. 107. Augustine, De opere monachorum, 5.6; ed. Zycha, CSEL 41, 539; trans. Muldowney, 338. Abelard cited this passage twice: Abelard, Epist. 1.67; The Letter Collection, 106–107. Abelard, Epist. 7.12; The Letter Collection, 280–281.

44. 108. Cited in First Corinthians, trans. Fitzmyer, 358.

45. 109. Cook, “1 Cor 9, 5: The Women of the Apostles,” 363.

46. 110. “Dominus in comitatu suo mulieres habuit ne viderentur alienae a salute.” Walafrid Strabo acknowledged the traditional, material interpretation, noting that “the women also ministered to him; thus also the apostles.” Walafrid Strabo, Glossa ordinaria: Epistola I Ad Corinthios, 10; PL 114: 533.

47. 111. “Quidam non intelligentes proprietatem Graecae linguae, fefellit eos ambiguitas verbi Graeci, in hoc quod dicit sororem mulierem, quasi uxores habuerint apostoli quas secum ducerent, nam gyne utrumque significat et uxorem et mulierem.” Haimo of Auxerre, In Epistolam I Ad Corinthios; PL 117: 552.

48. 112. Hervé de Bourg-Dieu, Commentaria in Epistolas divi Pauli: In Epistolam I ad Corinthios, 9; PL 181: 897.

49. 113. Many theologians stressed Paul’s decision not to have a sister woman to avoid scandal, suggesting that it was the potential for scandal rather than involvement with women per se that posed a problem. For Jerome, the key point of Paul’s text was not so much the presence of “sister women” among the apostles (whatever their capacity) as Paul’s decision not to have a sister woman himself. In his Epist. 123 to the widow Ageruchia, Jerome cited Paul’s self-sacrifice as he encouraged Ageruchia to avoid the company of young women, whose behavior could prove a source of temptation. Jerome, Epist. 123.14; ed. Hilberg, III, CSEL 56/1, 89; trans. Fremantle, 236.

50. 114. De S. Theodora, 76; ed. Talbot, 172; rev. trans. Fanous and Leyser, 78.

51. 115. Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 26, ll. 564–565, 573–575; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 286. Guibert went on to note Paul’s dedication in writing to women, commenting on the zeal with which he corresponded with women and commended them, although they were separated from him. Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 26, ll. 576–578; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 286.

52. 116. Sigeboto, Vita Paulinae, prefatio; ed. Dieterich, MGH SS 30.2, 911; trans. Badstübner-Kizik, 92.

53. 117. Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job, 49, 57; ed. Adriaen, CCSL 143A, 732. For discussion, see Blamires, Case, 146–148.

54. 118. Claudia Setzer argues that the gospel authors were ambivalent about the women’s presence at the empty tomb, even as they all reported the women’s priority. Setzer, “Excellent Women.”

55. 119. Abelard, Epist. 7.7; The Letter Collection, 274–275.

56. 120. Origen, Contra Celsum 2, 55; trans. Chadwick, 109. For discussion, see MacDonald, “Was Celsus Right? The Role of Women in the Expansion of Early Christianity.”

57. 121. Dommuseum Hildesheim, Domschatz Nr. 18, fol. 175r.

58. 122. Morgan Library, MS G.44, fol. 86r.

59. 123. The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, Ms. Ludwig VII 1, fol. 40v.

60. 124. St. Albans Psalter. Dombibliothek Hildesheim, HS St. God. 1 (Property of the Basilica of St. Godehard, Hildesheim), p. 50. The Psalter was paginated rather than foliated.

61. 125. Bjork, “On the Dissemination of Quem quaeritis and the Visitatio sepulchri.”

62. 126. Interrogatio:

Quem quaeritis in sepulchro, Christicolae?

Responsio:

Iesum Nazarenum crucifixum, o caelicolae.

Non est hic, surrexit sicut predixerat; ite, nuntiate quia surrexit de sepulchro.

Young, The Drama of the Medieval Church, I, 201.

1. 127. The foundational study is: Young, Drama, I, 201–238. Scholarship on the visitatio is extensive; for a recent account of the visitatio in the Anglo-Saxon context, see Bedingfield, The Dramatic Liturgy, 156–170. Carol Symes critiques Young’s argument that the tenth-century visitatio is “the earliest instance of medieval drama,” proposing an earlier and often spontaneous culture of performance that reformers sought to restrain. Symes, “The Medieval Archive and the History of Theatre,” 30–34.

2. 128. Although the Regularis Concordia was directed to monks and nuns alike, it assumed an exclusively male vocabulary. Joyce Hill examines an eleventh-century adaptation of the Regularis Concordia, made for a female audience: Hill, “Making Women Visible.”

3. 129. Regularis Concordia, 51; ed. and trans. Symons, 50.

4. 130. Favreau, “Heurs et malheurs de l’abbaye,” 139–140.

5. 131. The ordinal has survived in a single manuscript: University College, Oxford, MS 169. The liturgical dramas for Easter week are edited and translated in Yardley and Mann, eds. and trans., “The Liturgical Dramas for Holy Week at Barking Abbey.” At Notre-Dame-aux-Nonnains, the performance involved the entire community—nuns and clerics, as well as altar boys (who played the angels). For discussion, see Johnson, 139. Pappano comments on the particular spiritual appeal to nuns of the resurrection narrative, in which holy women had played such a central role. As she writes, women’s liturgical drama reflects “traditions that contested the male, clerical monopoly of Christ’s body.” Pappano, “Sister Acts,” 48.

6. 132. Yardley and Mann, eds. and trans., “The Liturgical Dramas for Holy Week at Barking Abbey,” 31.

7. 133. Abelard, Epist. 7.10; The Letter Collection, 274–275.

8. 134. Thomas Becket, Epist. 289; ed. and trans. Duggan, II, 1232–1233. Duggan proposes that “Idonea” may have been Mary of Blois, daughter of King Stephen.

9. 135. According to Abelard, women “were judged worthy to be the first to see the glory of the risen Lord,” precisely because of their faithfulness at the cross. Abelard, Epist. 7.10; The Letter Collection, 274–275.

10. 136. “Et si discipuli ideo apostoli vocati, quia missi sunt ab ipso ad praedicandum Evangelium omni creaturae, nec minus beata Maria Magdalene ab ipso Domino destinata est ad apostolos, quatenus dubietatem et incredulitatem suae Resurrectionis, ab illorum cordibus removeret.” Sermo in veneratione sanctae Mariae Magdalenae; PL 133: 721; trans. in Blamires, Case, 110.

11. 137. Jansen, “Maria Magdalena,” 58.

12. 138. “Mihi tantum, quia aliud operis incumbit, in fine prologi dixisse sufficiat, Dominum resurgentem primum apparuisse mulieribus, et apostolorum illas fuisse apostolas, ut erubescerent viri non quaerere, quem iam fragilior sexus invenerat.” Jerome, Commentariorum in Sophoniam prophetam, prologus; ed. Adriaen, CCSL 76A, 655.

13. 139. Goscelin of St. Bertin, Liber confortatorius, IV; ed. Talbot, 101; trans. Otter, 126. Victor Saxer identified the eleventh and twelfth centuries as a period of “Magdalenian fermentation.” Saxer, “Maria Maddalena,” 1089.

14. 140. Discussed in Ortenberg, “Le culte de sainte Marie Madeleine,” 27. The idea that Mary had been the “the first one to see the resurrected Lord,” as Goscelin of St. Bertin also noted, was not universally accepted. In the fourth century, Jerome had commented that Mary Magdalene “was privileged to see the rising Christ first of all before the very apostles.” However, Abelard noted opposing views on the question of Mary’s priority in his Sic et non: “Quod Dominus resurgens primo apparuerit Mariae Magdalenae, et non.” Goscelin of St. Bertin, Liber confortatorius, III; ed. Talbot, 85; trans. Otter, 103. Jerome, Epist. 127.5; ed. Hilberg, III, CSEL 56/1, 149; trans. Fremantle, 255. Abelard, Sic et non, 86; PL 178: 1472.

15. 141. Jansen observes that “the image of the apostolorum apostola was ubiquitous, indeed almost inescapable in the Middle Ages.” Jansen, “Maria Magdalena,” 77. For Bernard of Clairvaux, who deployed the term in the plural—apostolae apostolorum—it was not simply the Magdalene, but with her the other women at the tomb, who were deservedly apostles. Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermo 75.8; ed. Leclercq, Talbot, and Rochais, Sancti Bernardi Opera, 1, 251–252.

16. 142. De vita beatae Mariae Magdalenae et sororis ejus sanctae Marthae, 29; PL 112: 1479; trans. Mycoff, 79. The vita noted Mary’s presence at both the resurrection and ascension: “Just as before he had made her the evangelist of his resurrection, so now he made her the apostle of his ascension to the apostles—a worthy recompense of grace and glory, the first and greatest honor, and a reward commensurate with all her services.” De vita beatae Mariae Magdalenae, 27; PL 112: 1474; trans. Mycoff, 73.

17. 143. St. Albans Psalter. Dombibliothek Hildesheim, HS St. God. 1 (Property of the Basilica of St. Godehard, Hildesheim), p. 51. Carrasco comments that depictions of Mary Magdalen announcing the resurrection are “so rare as to be almost unique”: Carrasco, “The Imagery of the Magdalen in Christina of Markyate’s Psalter (St. Albans Psalter),” 69. A further manuscript, the Gospels of Henry the Lion and Matilda, also featured Mary Magdalene as the “apostola.” For discussion, see Monroe, “Mary Magdalene as a Model of Devotion,” 100.

18. 144. On the creation and ownership of the psalter, see Chapter 5.

19. 145. Hugh of Cluny, Commonitorium ad successores suos pro sanctimonialibus Marciniacensibus; PL 159: 952. Ortenberg comments on the attention to Mary Magdalene in relation to contemporary women: Ortenberg, 32–34.

20. 146. Abelard, Sermo 13; PL 178: 485. On Abelard’s devotion to the Magdalene, see Mews, “Heloise, the Paraclete Liturgy, and Mary Magdalen”; Valentine, 155–163; and Mulder-Bakker, “Was Mary Magdalen a Magdalen?” According to Constant Mews, Heloise may have influenced Abelard’s thinking concerning Mary’s apostolate, since he had not referred to her as “apostola” in the 1120s. Mews, “Heloise and Liturgical Experience,” 33.

21. 147. “Maria Magdalena saecularis fuit, sed tamen Christum resurgentem vidit et Apostolorum apostola esse meruit.” Liber de modo bene vivendi, ad sororem, 65; PL 184: 1240.

22. 148. “Quae ergo fuerat in civitate peccatrix, dilectione et lacrymis, non solum liberari meruit a peccatis, sed fieri apostola et evangelista, imo (quod majus est), apostolorum apostola, festinans ad annuntiandum apostolis resurrectionem Domini.” Peter of Blois, Epist. 234; PL 237: 507. On Peter’s letters to individual women, see Markowski, “Treatment of Women in Peter of Blois’ Letter Collection.”

23. 149. Many of these communities were linked to female religious life. The first daughter house of the Paraclete, at Trainel, was dedicated to Mary Magdalene in 1142. Mews, “Heloise, the Paraclete Liturgy, and Mary Magdalene,” 103. A house for women at Fontevraud was dedicated to Mary Magdalene (La Madeleine). Paulina’s biographer Sigeboto reports that she dedicated a chapel to Mary Magdalene. Sigeboto, Vita Paulinae, 18; ed. Dieterich, MGH SS 30.2, 918; trans. Badstübner-Kizik, 108.

24. 150. “Petrus negat quem mulier praedicat.” Geoffrey of Vendôme, Sermo 9; ed. Giordanengo, 136. Kienzle explores the idea of Magdalene’s spiritual priority, particularly in comparison to Peter: Kienzle, “Penitents and Preachers.” On the positive potential for women in the cult of Mary Magdalene, see Taylor, “Apostle to the Apostles: The Complexity of Medieval Preaching About Mary Magdalene.”

25. 151. “Arctius et ferventius.” Sermo in veneratione sanctae Mariae Magdalenae; PL 133: 718. On this sermon, see Iogna-Prat, “La Madeleine du Sermo in veneratione sanctae Mariae Magdalenae.” Iogna-Prat rejects the traditional attribution of the sermon with Odo of Cluny, proposing instead that it may have been composed at Vézelay. Nelson comments on the importance in this sermon of Mary as a woman that was “good to think” for its male contemplative audience. Nelson, “Women and the Word,” 59.

26. 152. “Christus eam sibi consociat.” Peter the Venerable, In honore sanctae Mariae Magdalenae hymnus; PL 189: 1019.

27. 153. “Et quia ab inquisitione non cessavit, prima videre meruit.” Sermo in veneratione sanctae Mariae Magdalenae; PL 133: 719.

28. 154. Mews and Renkin, “Legacy of Gregory the Great,” 329–330. In the late twelfth-century Gospels of Henry the Lion and Matilda, the connection between Mary Magdalene and the bride of the Song of Songs is made visually manifest. Monroe, “Mary Magdalene as a Model of Devotion,” 108.

29. 155. The Epithalamica has been attributed variously to Abelard, to a Paraclete nun, and to Heloise. For the ascription to Abelard, see Waddell, “ ‘Epithalamica’ ”; and Bell, Peter Abelard After Marriage. For arguments in favor of Heloise as the probable author, see Wulstan, “Heloise at Argenteuil and the Paraclete”; Wulstan, “Novi modulaminis melos: The Music of Heloise and Abelard”; and Mews, “Heloise and Liturgical Experience at the Paraclete.” Barbara Newman writes that the Easter sequence seems “more likely” to be the work of Heloise than of Abelard. Newman, “Liminalities,” 375. For a more cautious assessment, see Dronke and Orlandi, “New Works by Abelard and Heloise?” Abelard’s argument that female monasticism had its origins in women’s ministry to Christ made the Easter liturgy especially relevant to the Paraclete nuns, as Flynn observes: Flynn, “Letters, Liturgy, and Identity,” 331. See also Flynn, “Ductus figuratus et subtilis.”

30. 156. Waddell, “ ‘Epithalamica,’ ” 247. On Abelard’s liturgical corpus, see Waddell, “Peter Abelard as Creator of Liturgical Texts.”

31. 157. On Bernard’s use of the image of the Bride in his sermons, see Engh, Gendered Identities; Krahmer, “The Virile Bride” and Moore, “The Song of Songs in the History of Sexuality.” For the appeal of the Song within the male monastic context, see Turner, Eros and Allegory. According to Sarah McNamer, who stresses the legal and literal aspects of bridal status for religious women, the bride was merely a “provisional persona” for monks, and never a central identification. McNamer, 28. In her view, marriage to Christ (in a legal, ritualized sense) directly and powerfully influenced women’s devotional practice, giving them a “strong legal incentive to cultivate compassion for Christ.” McNamer, 16. While I do not find evidence in women’s own writings for their strong spiritual identification with the bride (which was more often encouraged for them by male advisors), I agree with Barbara Newman that “playing the bride’s role was probably never as easy or straightforward for monks as for religious women.” Newman, “Gender,” 46.

32. 158. Anselm of Canterbury, Oratio 2; ed. Schmitt, Opera, III, 8; trans. Ward, 96.

33. 159. McNamer writes that these prayers were scripts to guide prayer and to “elicit feelings,” rather than indications of the author’s own spiritual state of mind. McNamer, 68–71. As Newman commented in a review of McNamer’s book: “I must also ask whether it is possible to script such powerfully moving prayers, so novel in genre and feeling, if one cannot oneself pray in that mode.” Newman, Review of Affective Meditation, 524.

34. 160. Abelard, Epist. 5.28; The Letter Collection, 206–209.

35. 161. Aelred of Rievaulx, De institutione inclusarum, 31; ed. Hoste and Talbot, 664–673; trans. Macpherson, 82–92.

36. 162. “Nam sicut ille pre cunctis discipulis ad sepulchrum Domini miro caritatis ardore venerunt, ita vos ecclesiam Christi quasi in sepulchro afflictionis positam pre multis immo pene pre omnibus terrarum principibus pio amore visitatis.” Das Register Gregors VII, I, 85; ed. Caspar, MGH Epp. sel. 2.1, 122.

37. 163. Peter Damian, Epist. 104.2; ed. Reindel, MGH Briefe d. dt. Kaiserzeit 4.3, 142; trans. Blum, 4, 146. On Peter’s involvement with women, see Leclercq, “S. Pierre Damien et les Femmes.”

38. 164. “Ad crucem cum lacrymis,” “ad monumentum cum aromatibus.” Hildebert of Lavardin, Epist. I, 9; PL 171: 161.

39. 165. See, for example, Jerome, Adversus Vigilantium, 12; ed. Feiertag, 24; trans. Fremantle, 422. As Jerome wrote, “I am not ashamed of having a faith like that of those who were the first to see the risen Lord; who were sent to the Apostles; who, in the person of the mother of our Lord and Saviour, were commended to the holy Apostles. Belch out your shame, if you will, with men of the world, I will fast with women.” Mary Martin McLaughlin noted that Abelard’s praise for women also served to “defend and dignify his own role as the founder and guide of a community of women.” McLaughlin, “Peter Abelard and the Dignity of Women,” 303.

40. 166. Abelard, Epist. 7.11; The Letter Collection, 276–277.

41. 167. Cited in Jansen, “Maria Magdalena,” 58. Dominique Iogna-Prat comments that Mary Magdalene functioned as a “bridge” between the Virgin and Eve. Iogna-Prat, “La Madeleine,” 60.

42. 168. De vita beatae Mariae Magdalenae, 27; PL 112: 1475; trans. Mycoff, 73.

43. 169. “Sed et mulier secus pedes Domini sedens audiebat verba oris eius, tanto Phariseis et Saduceis non solummodo sed et ipsis Christi ministris melior. quanto devotior. Sexus enim femineus non privatur rerum profundarum intelligentia, verum, ut in sequenti lectione lucide declarabimus, solet aliquando feminis inesse magna mentis industria et morum probatissimorum elegantia.” Hugh of Fleury, Ex historia ecclesiastica; ed. Waitz, MGH SS 9, 350; trans. Bond in Loving Subject, 155. Bond highlights Hugh’s “redemption” of the domina in his dedicatory letter to Adela. Bond, 154.

44. 170. Jerome, Epist. 127.5; ed. Hilberg, III, CSEL 56/1, 149; trans. Fremantle, 255.

45. 171. In each of the gospel accounts, those present criticized the woman, either for her sinfulness or for her wastefulness. Yet Jesus defended her, drawing attention to her love for him (Luke), or linking the perfume with preparations for his death and burial (Mark, Matthew, and John).

46. 172. Anselm of Canterbury, Oratio 16; ed. Schmitt, Opera, III, 65; trans. Ward, 202.

47. 173. Aelred of Rievaulx, De institutione inclusarum, 31; ed. Hoste and Talbot, 667; trans. Macpherson, 86.

48. 174. Abelard, Epist. 7.6; The Letter Collection, 268–269. Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 26, ll. 526–527; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 285.

49. 175. St. Albans Psalter. Dombibliothek Hildesheim, HS St. God. 1 (Property of the Basilica of St. Godehard, Hildesheim), p. 36.

50. 176. Andrew, Supplementum, 71–72; Deux vies, 294–295.

51. 177. Dalarun, “Robert d’Arbrissel et les femmes,” 1152–1154; and Dalarun, “La Madeleine dans l’Ouest de la France,” 117–118. For a broader discussion of the ways in which religion “became feminine” in the period between the eleventh and the fifteenth centuries, see the essays in Dalarun, Dieu changea de sexe (comprising twelve articles originally published between 1985 and 2007).

52. 178. As Goscelin commented, “There is an alb which she made out of the whitest linen (ex bisso candidissimo albam), a symbol of her innocence, very striking in its gold, gems, pearls, and little English pearls, woven around the yoke in keeping with her golden faith and gem-like sincerity; around the feet, the golden images of the Apostles surrounding the Lord, the Lord sitting in the midst, and Edith herself prostrated in the place of Mary the supplicant, kissing the Lord’s footprints.” Goscelin of St. Bertin, Vita s. Edithae, 16; ed. Wilmart, 79; trans. Wright and Loncar, 48 (Wright and Loncar translate “bisso” as “cotton”).

53. 179. For discussion, see Griffiths, “ ‘Like the Sister of Aaron’ ”; Bugyis, “Recovering the Histories of Women Religious,” 292. Bugyis argues that Edith embroidered the alb for herself, at the point at which she was made abbess. Goscelin included the account of Edith’s alb in the recension of her vita that he produced for the Wilton women; he offered another version to Lanfranc. On the two versions of the vita, see Hollis, “Goscelin and the Wilton Women,” 237–241.

54. 180. “Isti apostolici Satanae habent inter se feminas (ut dicunt) continentes, viduas, virgines, uxores suas, quasdam inter electas, quasdam inter credentes; quasi ad formam apostolorum, quibus concessa fuit potestas circumducendi mulieres.” Eberwin of Steinfeld, Epistola ad S. Bernardum (Epist. 472.6); PL 182: 679–680.

55. 181. “Dicunt se communem in domiciliis suis vitam ducere, et more apostolico secum mulieres habere.” Hugh of Rouen, Contra Haereticos, 3.4; PL 192: 1289; cited in Constable, Reformation, 158–159.

CHAPTER 3

Note to epigraph: Hugh of Fleury, Ex historia ecclesiastica, praefatio; ed. Waitz, MGH SS 9, 350.

1. 1. See Chapter 2, n. 13.

2. 2. For accounts of Jerome’s life, see Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle, 259–288; Rebenich, Hieronymus und sein Kreis; Williams, The Monk and the Book; and Rice, Saint Jerome in the Renaissance, 1–22.

3. 3. Reginald wrote his Life sometime between 1082-c.1095/1107. The Vita sancti Malchi of Reginald of Canterbury, ed. Lind, 9–11. For discussion of Reginald’s method and intention in the life, see Heffernan, 132–136. For Jerome’s life of Malchus, which he wrote in Bethlehem at the end of the fourth century, see Jerome, Vita Malchi; ed. and trans. Gray. Manuscripts of Jerome’s Vita Malchi are listed in Lambert, II, no. 263. See also Jerome, Vita Malchi, ed. and trans. Gray, 68–76.

4. 4. In Jerome’s account, Malchus explains: “the woman I handed over to the virgins, loving her as a sister but not entrusting myself to her as to a sister.” Jerome, Vita Malchi, 10.3; ed. and trans. Gray, 90–91.

5. 5. Jerome, Vita Malchi, 2.2; ed. and trans. Gray, 80–81. Although the Life began with Jerome’s claim to have seen a pious old couple living together, he reported later in the text (Vita Malchi, 10.3) that Malchus had delivered his “wife” into the care of virgins once he returned to the male religious life, implying that the two separated fairly quickly and seemingly contradicting his earlier claim to have met them as an elderly couple. For discussion of this point, see Burrus, “Queer Lives of Saints,” 465. For chaste marriage in the medieval spiritual life, see Elliott, Spiritual Marriage.

6. 6. Malchus’s wife continues: “Let the masters think you my husband, Christ will know that you are my brother.” Jerome, Vita Malchi, 6.7; ed. and trans. Gray, 84–87.

7. 7. Horreo carnalem, desidero spiritualem

Iuncturam tecum sine sordibus et lue fęcum.

Reginald of Canterbury, Vita sancti Malchi, III, ll. 442–443; ed. Lind, 92.

1. 8. By contrast, in Aldhelm’s account of Malchus, Malchus acts without his wife to embrace chastity. Aldhelm, Prosa de virginitate, 31; ed. Gwara and Ehwald, CCSL 124A, 393–399; trans. Lapidge and Herren, 91. Jerome’s life of Malchus was evidently known in Anglo-Saxon England, although no manuscript witness has survived. An Old English version of the life was copied at Worcester in the mid-eleventh century. See Beckett, “Worcester Sauce”; and Dendle, “The Old English ‘Life of Malchus’ ” (Part 1 and Part 2).

2. 9. O mulier lęta, ratio tua, lingua faceta,

Me tibi salvavit sociumque virumque paravit.

O me felicem puto teque meam genitricem,

Tu mea salvatrix, tu spes, tu vivificatrix,

Tu soror et mater, coniunx, coniunx ego frater.

Reginald of Canterbury, Vita sancti Malchi, III, ll. 467–471; ed. Lind, 93.

1. 10. Christe, tibi grates per tot mihi commoditates

Quas misero dederis meritis huius mulieris.

Reginald of Canterbury, Vita sancti Malchi, III, ll. 480–481; ed. Lind, 93.

1. 11. For Malcha as a nun, see Reginald of Canterbury, Vita sancti Malchi, III, l. 497; ed. Lind, 94.

2. 12. “Cum monacha monachus non horret vivere Malchus.” Reginald of Canterbury, Vita sancti Malchi, III, l. 497; ed. Lind, 94.

3. 13. Vita sancti Malchi of Reginald of Canterbury, ed. Lind, 11.

4. 14. The appearance of Latin nouns like salvatrix and vivificatrix in the twelfth century (primarily, although not exclusively, with reference to the Virgin Mary) is an index of the spiritual opening toward women that this book seeks to chart.

5. 15. Goscelin of St. Bertin, Liber confortatorius, I; ed, Talbot, 35; trans. Otter, 34. Reginald praised Goscelin in two poems: Liebermann, “Raginald von Canterbury,” 542–546.

6. 16. Among Hildebert’s female addressees were Cäcilie, abbess of Caen (Poem 46), Muriel of Wilton (Poem 26), Adela of Blois (who became a nun at Marcigny) (Poems 15 and 10, as well as several letters). Hildebert of Lavardin, Carmina minora; ed. Scott, 37 (Poem 46), 17–18 (Poem 26), 5 (Poem 15), 4 (Poem 10). Hildebert also wrote to secular women, including Matilda of Scotland and the Empress Matilda. See Dalarun, “Hagiographe et métaphore,” 44–46; von Moos, Hildebert, 370–371. He may have been the author of an epitaph for Robert of Arbrissel (described as the “sower of God”), although the epitaph does not mention Robert’s involvement with women. Epitaphium Roberti de Arbrissel; Deux vies, 579–607. On Hildebert’s exile in England, see von Moos, 8–9. Hildebert’s ties to the so-called “Loire Valley school” are discussed in Newman, Making Love, 5–10. On the poets of the “Loire school,” see also Dalarun, “La Madeleine”; Tilliette, “Hermès amoureux”; Mews, Lost Love Letters, 87–101; and Signori, “Muriel und die anderen.”

7. 17. “Quam volo, quam quero, cuius prece celica spero.” Hildebert of Lavardin, Vita beate Marie Egiptiace, l. 799; ed. Larsen, 290; trans. Pepin and Feiss, 109. For the literary influence of Reginald’s Vita Malchi on Hildebert’s Vita Marie, see Hildebert of Lavardin, Vita beate Marie Egiptiace; ed. Larsen, 323.

8. 18. Vaughn explores Anselm’s correspondence with women, noting his attention particularly to “powerful aristocratic married women.” Vaughn, St. Anselm and the Handmaidens of God, 2. For Anselm’s letters to abbesses and nuns, see Vaughn, St. Anselm and the Handmaidens of God, 160–202. On Anselm’s attention to women, see also Golding, “Bishops and Nuns,” 102–108.

9. 19. See Chapter 1, n. 109.

10. 20. For Jerome’s reputation and influence in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, see Uttenweiler, “Zur Stellung des hl. Hieronymus im Mittelalter”; Laistner, “The Study of St. Jerome in the Early Middle Ages”; and Rice.

11. 21. On Jerome’s relations with women, see Feichtinger, Apostolae apostolorum; Krumeich, Hieronymus und die christlichen feminae clarissimae; Kelly, Jerome, 91–103; and McNamara, “Cornelia’s Daughters.” Elizabeth Clark examines Jerome’s relations with women in the context of classical and Christian approaches to friendship: Clark, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Friends, 35–79. See also Clark, “Theory and Practice.”

12. 22. Jerome’s writings on female piety are addressed in: Laurence, Jérôme et le nouveau modèle féminin; and Steininger, Die ideale christliche Frau, 65–163. Wiesen explores Jerome’s writings on women in his letters, polemical writings, and exegetical works. Wiesen, St. Jerome as a Satirist, 113–165.

13. 23. LeMoine, “Jerome’s Gift to Women Readers,” 231. LeMoine underscores the ambiguity of Jerome’s textual “gifts” to women readers, noting his simultaneous praise for women and his denunciation of them. He was, she concludes, an “almost unbelievable paradox” (239).

14. 24. Harvey, “Jerome Dedicates his Vita Hilarionis.”

15. 25. For discussion, see Cain, “Defending Hedibia.”

16. 26. Jerome, Epist. 28.1; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 227. Clark calls Marcella “Jerome’s most scholarly female friend.” Clark, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Friends, 65. See also Hinson, “Women Biblical Scholars in the Late Fourth Century.”

17. 27. The preface is translated in Jerome: Letters and Select Works, trans. Fremantle, 496.

18. 28. Jerome’s extant letters, totaling 123, include some forty letters to women. The collection includes only one letter from women: Epist. 46, purportedly from Paula and Eustochium to Marcella, but more likely by Jerome. Adkin, “The Letter of Paula and Eustochium to Marcella.” Cain identifies Jerome’s 123 extant letters and classifies them by type: Cain, Letters of Jerome, 207–219. Elizabeth Clark shows that Jerome wrote more letters to women, as a percentage of his total epistolary output, than either Chrysostom or Augustine. Clark, “Theory and Practice in Late Ancient Asceticism,” 34.

19. 29. “Epistolarum autem ad Paulam et Eustochium, quia quotidie scribuntur, incertus est numerus.” Jerome, De viris illustribus, 135; PL 23: 719. As Cain notes, only five letters survive from Jerome’s early years in Bethlehem (386–93). Cain, Letters of Jerome, 220–222.

20. 30. “Ad Marcellam epistularum librum unum.” Jerome, De viris illustribus, 135; PL 23: 717. For Jerome’s letters to Marcella, see Lambert, IA, p. 78. Cain discusses the likely content and intended purpose of the liber: Cain, Letters of Jerome, 68–98.

21. 31. Jerome, Epist. 22; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 143–211; trans. Fremantle, 22–41.

22. 32. Jerome, Epitaphium Sanctae Paulae; ed. and trans. Cain. For discussion of Jerome’s purpose in this text, see Cain, “Jerome’s Epitaphium Paulae.” On Paula, see Krumeich, Paula von Rom. Jerome’s portrayal of Paula served as a major source for Geoffrey Grossus’s life of Bernard of Tiron. Cline, “Literary Borrowing from Jerome’s Letter.” The letter also served as the basis for portions of the life of Theoger of St. Georgen: Wolfger of Prüfening, Vita Theogeri, I, 25; ed. Jaffé, MGH SS 12, 459–460. Cf. Jerome, Epitaphium Sanctae Paulae, 20; ed. and trans. Cain, 74–79.

23. 33. On letters 127 and 24 (accounts of Marcella and Asella), see Cain, “Rethinking Jerome’s Portraits.”

24. 34. Cain, “Rethinking Jerome’s Portraits,” 57; and Cain, Letters of Jerome, 89–92. In an autobiographical section of De viris illustribus, Jerome emphasized his writings for women, intentionally and explicitly promoting his reputation as a spiritual guide for women. Jerome, De viris illustribus, 135; PL 23: 715–719. While Cain argues for the centrality of women to Jerome’s presentation of himself as a spiritual guide and exegete, Peter Brown offers a dissenting view, arguing that Jerome “may have approached Paula and other devout ladies as a fallback to his main career in the service of Damasus.” Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle, 262. See also Brown, Body and Society, 366–386.

25. 35. Palladius, Lausiac History, 41.2 and 36.6; trans. Meyer, 118, 104.

26. 36. Vita Sadalbergae, 25; ed. Krusch, MGH SS rer. Merov. 5, 64; trans. McNamara and Halborg, 192.

27. 37. Caesarius of Arles and Leander of Seville, both authors of monastic rules composed for their sisters, echoed Jerome in their writings for women, but did not explicitly cite him in that context. For details, see Antin, “Jérôme antique et chrétien,” 39–40.

28. 38. Aldhelm, Prosa de virginitate, 49; ed. Gwara and Ehwald, CCSL 124A, 659–661; trans. Lapidge and Herren, 116. For the image of Aldhelm presenting De virginitate to women, see London, Lambeth Palace Library, MS 200, fol. 68v. The Lambeth Palace manuscript is discussed in Kiff-Hooper, “Class Books or Works of Art?” Hollis discusses Aldhelm’s writings for the Barking community: Hollis, Anglo-Saxon Women, 75–112. Aldhelm praised Eustochium in his Carmen de virginitate and mentioned Jerome’s writing for her. Aldhelm, Carmen de virginitate; ed. Ehwald, MGH Auct. ant. 15, 440; trans. Lapidge and Rosier, 150.

29. 39. “Dum ille huic alterum exhibebat Jheronimum, haec illi alteram Eustochium.” Vita S. Hiltrudis virginis; AA SS, September, 7: 494.

30. 40. For discussion of the vitae of Jerome, see Vaccari, “Le antiche vite di S. Girolamo”; and Rice, 23–48. Plerosque nimirum appears in two recensions: BHL 3870 and BHL 3871 (PL 22: 201–214). For manuscripts of Plerosque nimirum, see Lambert, IIIB, no. 900. Cavallera dates Plerosque nimirum to the second half of the sixth century. Cavallera, II, 142. The dating of Hieronymus noster (BHL 3869; PL 22: 175–184) is contested. Vaccari dates it to the second half of the eighth century, while Cavallera proposes a broader range, between the sixth and the eighth centuries. Vaccari, 5–7; Cavallera, II, 140. For manuscripts of Hieronymus noster, see Lambert, IIIB, no. 901.

31. 41. Images of Jerome are listed in Lambert, IVA, no. 995. For traditional depictions of Jerome, see Conrads, Hieronymus; Jungblut, Hieronymus; and “Saint Jérôme dans l’art de l’enluminure,” in Lambert, IVA, pp. 69–76.

32. 42. From her study of manuscript production at St. Gall from the middle of the eighth century until the early decades of the tenth century, Bernice Kaczynski has shown that Jerome was the most frequently copied patristic author before 840. Kaczynski, “The Authority of the Fathers,” 9–11. On Jerome’s popularity during the Carolingian renaissance, see also Kaczynski, “Edition, Translation, and Exegesis.”

33. 43. Institutio sanctimonialium; ed. Werminghoff, MGH Conc. 2.1, 421–456. Gisela Muschiol notes the strong influence of Jerome on the Institutio sanctimonialium (above all in his Epist. 22), especially in comparison with the Institutio Canonicorum, which drew from a wider range of sources. Muschiol, “Hoc dixit Ieronimus,“ 113–114. Concerning the Institutio, see Schilp, Norm und Wirklichkeit.

34. 44. Mainzer Urkundenbuch. I, ed. Stimming, no. 405. Similarly, Adelheid of Vilich (d. 1015) was described as having lived in a community in Cologne “secundum regularem institutionem sancti Iheronimi.” Bertha of Vilich, Vita Adelheidis abbatissae Vilicensis, 3; ed. Holder-Egger, MGH SS 15.2, 757.

35. 45. Paschasius Radbertus, De assumptione sanctae Mariae, 1; ed. Ripberger, CCCM 56C, 109. On the sermon, see Ripberger, Der Pseudo-Hieronymus-Brief; and Muehlberger, Cogitis Me: A Medieval Sermon on the Assumption. For manuscripts of this work, see Lambert, IIIA, no. 309; and Ripberger, 49–55. Mayke de Jong discusses the difficult political circumstances in which Paschasius became abbot of Corbie, and his retirement sometime between 849 and 853. De Jong, “Jeremiah, Job, Terence.”

36. 46. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Lat. 1, fol. 3v. On this manuscript, see Dutton and Kessler, The Poetry and Paintings of the First Bible of Charles the Bald. For discussion of the image, see Kessler, The Illustrated Bibles from Tours, 84–95; Ganz, “The Vatican Vergil and the Jerome Page”; and McKitterick, “Women in the Ottonian Church,” 82–85.

37. 47. Eustachio nec non Paulae divina salutis

38. Iura dat altithrono fultus ubique deo.

39. 48. Rome, Abbazia di San Paolo fuori le mura, s.n., fol 3v. For discussion, see Kessler, Illustrated Bibles, 84–95; and Gaehde, “The Turonian Sources,” 361–365.

40. 49. On the possible identity of this woman, see McKitterick, “Women in the Ottonian Church,” 82; and Kessler, Illustrated Bibles, 90.

41. 50. Kessler, Illustrated Bibles, 84.

42. 51. Kessler (following Nordenfalk) posits a lost fifth-century Italian model, a theory (and approach) that Rosamond McKitterick dismisses. Kessler, Illustrated Bibles, 95; McKitterick, “Women in the Ottonian Church,” 81, n. 7. Renate Jungblut suggests that inspiration for the images may have come from a lost illustration of Jerome’s vita, an unlikely scenario given that the earliest vitae pass largely in silence over Jerome’s relations with women. Jungblut, 8.

43. 52. McKitterick, “Women in the Ottonian Church,” 85–86. On the spiritual and intellectual lives of Carolingian women, see Garver, Women and Aristocratic Culture, 122–169. The fact that Jerome’s reputation for care of women was forged during the ninth century is striking, given that this period is generally thought to have witnessed creeping limitations and restrictions on men’s spiritual involvement with women. The willingness of ninth-century men to imagine and celebrate Jerome’s relations with women directly contradicts perceptions of the Carolingian reforms as having been deleterious for women, demonstrating how positive assessments of women’s religious life, and men’s involvement with them, could coexist with other, less positive judgments.

44. 53. On Alcuin, see Bullough, Alcuin; Depreux and Judic, eds., Alcuin: De York à Tours; Houwen and MacDonald, eds., Alcuin of York; and Bullough, “Charlemagne’s ‘Men of God.’ ”

45. 54. Garrison, “The Social World of Alcuin”; and Garrison, “Les correspondants d’Alcuin.”

46. 55. Gisela held the abbacy of Notre Dame in Soissons at the same time as that of Chelles. On the early history of Chelles, see Berthelier-Ajot, “Chelles à l’époque mérovingienne”; Bateson, “Origin and Early History of Double Monasteries,” 155–156; Hilpisch, 38–39; and McKitterick, “Nuns’ Scriptoria,” 4.

47. 56. Bischoff, “Die Kölner Nonnenhandschriften und das Skriptorium von Chelles”; McKitterick, “Nuns’ Scriptoria,” 1–22; and Nelson, “Gender and Genre,” 191–194. McKitterick notes that “the role of the convent of Chelles … as an alternative sphere of activity and location of female royal presence, and even power, is an intriguing element about which we have only the merest hints.” McKitterick, Charlemagne, 91.

48. 57. “adversae fortunae malignitatem expertus est.” Einhard, Vita Karoli Magni, 19; ed. Holder-Egger, MGH SS rer. Germ. 25, 25; trans. Noble, 39. Rotrude had been betrothed as a child to the Byzantine emperor Constantine VI, although no marriage took place. On Charlemagne’s relations with his daughters, see Nelson, “Women at the Court of Charlemagne”; and Scharer, “Charlemagne’s Daughters.” On Rotrude, see Nelson, “La cour impériale de Charlemagne,” 185–187.

49. 58. Rotrude had a son, Louis, with Count Rorigo; Louis later became abbot of St. Denis and archchancellor to Charles the Bald. Bertha had two sons, Nithard and Hartnid, with Angilbert, lay abbot of St-Riquier. McKitterick, Charlemagne, 92 (Table 4).

50. 59. On the importance of social distinctions in Jerome’s friendships with women, see Clark, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Friends, 60–70. Clark suggests that Jerome was attracted by the noble lineage and wealth of his female friends, noting that class distinctions were preserved at Paula’s monastery in Bethlehem (67). Cain emphasizes Paula’s financial support for Jerome’s projects: Cain, “Jerome’s Epitaphium Paulae.”

51. 60. Jerome, Epist. 108.26 (Epitaphium Sanctae Paulae); ed. and trans. Cain, 88–89. On Paula’s trilinguism, see Cain, “Jerome’s Epitaphium Paulae,” 122–123.

52. 61. Jerome, Commentariorum in Esaiam, 16, prol.; ed. Adriaen, CCSL 73A, 641.

53. 62. Alcuin, Carmen 12; ed. Dümmler, MGH Poetae 1, 237. For discussion of Alcuin’s correspondence, see Garrison, “Les correspondants d’Alcuin.” As with the letters of Paula and Eustochium, the bulk of the women’s letters to Alcuin have not survived. On Gisela as a femina verbipotens, see Nelson, “Women and the Word,” 64–65.

54. 63. On the Vulgate during the medieval period, see Loewe, “The Medieval History of the Latin Vulgate”; and Linde, How to Correct the Sacra Scriptura?. On Carolingian reforms of the biblical text, see Fischer, “Bibeltext und Bibelreform“; and Kaczynski, “Edition, Translation, and Exegesis.” On the place of Tours in Carolingian bible production, with a cautious assessment of the influence of Alcuin’s bible, see McKitterick, “Carolingian Bible Production.”

55. 64. “In servitute Christi nequaquam differentiam sexuum valere, sed mentium.” Jerome, Commentariorum in Esaiam, 12, prol.; ed. Adriaen, CCSL 73A, 466. In letter 127 to Principia, Jerome made a similar comment. See Chapter 2, n. 170. For a listing of manuscripts of Jerome from St-Martin, Tours, see Lambert IVB, pp. 217–218. See also Rand, A Survey of the Manuscripts of Tours.

56. 65. For Jerome as an epistolary model for Alcuin, see Veyrard-Cosme, “Saint Jérôme dans les lettres d’Alcuin.”

57. 66. As Jerome wrote, Blesilla “asked me to throw my remarks upon all the more obscure passages into the form of a short commentary, so that, when I was absent, she might still understand what she read.” Jerome, Commentarius in Ecclesiasten, praefatio; ed. Adriaen, CCSL 72, 249; trans. Fremantle, 487. LeMoine draws attention to the misogynist elements in the Commentary on Ecclesiastes: LeMoine, 238.

58. 67. “Beatissimum siquidem Hieronimum, nobilium nullatenus spernere feminarum preces, sed plurima illarum nominibus … dedicasse opuscula.” Epistola famularum Gislae et Rectrudis ad Alcuinum (Epist. 196); ed. Dümmler, MGH Epp. 4, 323–325. For knowledge of Jerome’s works in female monastic communities from the eighth to the thirteenth century, see El Kholi, Lektüre in Frauenkonventen, 121–129.

59. 68. Alcuin, Epistola ad Gislam et Rectrudem (Epist. 213); ed. Dümmler, MGH Epp. 4, 354–357.

60. 69. “Liudo dedit.” Düsseldorf, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, MS B 4, fol. 2r. The manuscript is described in Bodarwé, Sanctimoniales litteratae, 383–384. See also Krone und Schleier, cat. no. 97. Bodarwé argues that Liudo (who has not been identified) gave the manuscript sometime before the middle of the tenth century. Bodarwé, Sanctimoniales litteratae, 206, n. 76.

61. 70. On men at Essen, see Schilp, “..sorores et fratres”; and Schilp, “Der Kanonikerkonvent.”

62. 71. Halle, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Qu. Cod. 74. The manuscript is described in Bodarwé, Sanctimoniales litteratae, 419–421; and Fliege, Die Handschriften der ehemaligen Stifts- und Gymnasialbibliothek Quedlinburg, 33–38. See also Krone und Schleier, cat. no. 104. A tenth-century manuscript from Regensburg (most likely from the female house of Niedermünster) also included several of Jerome’s letters to women: Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, 18. 4. Aug. 2º (2210). For discussion, see El Kholi, 123–124. Jerome’s letters did not circulate as a single collection during the medieval period. For the transmission history of Jerome’s letters, see Cain, Letters of Jerome, 223–228.

63. 72. On evidence for women’s reading practices in Quedlinburg Codex 74, see Scheck, “Reading Women at the Margins of Quedlinburg Codex 74.”

64. 73. Engelmodus wrote that Paschasius had been abandoned as a baby, but was taken in by the nuns of Notre Dame. Engelmodus of Soissons, Ad Ratbertum Abbatem; ed. Traube, MGH Poetae 3, 62–66. Paschasius grew up at Soissons (which, like many women’s houses, included ordained as well as lay men), gained his early education among the women, and was even tonsured there, before entering Corbie. In the prologue to De partu virginis, Paschasius addressed the nuns directly and acknowledged his debt to them. Paschasius Radbertus, De partu virginis, praefatio; ed. Matter, CCCM 56C, 47. On Paschasius in his monastic context, see Peltier, Pascase Radbert. On Paschasius’s relations with Notre Dame du Soissons, see Ripberger, 14–17. At Soissons at this time, 216 nuns were joined by some seventy external sisters and maidservants, 130 men, and 25 priests, deacons, and other clerics. Ripberger, 3, n. 6.

65. 74. Ripberger, 21–22.

66. 75. Theodrada was a cousin of Charlemagne and the sister of Adalard and Wala, half-brothers who had served as abbots of Corbie and for whom Paschasius composed vitae. See Paschasius Radbertus, Charlemagne’s Cousins, trans. Cabaniss.

67. 76. On Paschasius’s patristic sources, see Peltier, 132–147; and Ripberger, 30–36. For the influence of Jerome’s writings on Paschasius, see Ripberger, 30–31. For manuscripts of Jerome at Corbie, see Lambert IVB, p. 179; and Ganz, Corbie in the Carolingian Renaissance, passim.

68. 77. Jerome, Commentariorum in Esaiam, prol.; ed. Adriaen, CCSL 73, 1.

69. 78. Paschasius Radbertus, De assumptione sanctae Mariae, 101; ed. Ripberger, CCCM 56C, 155. Paschasius’s emphasis on Mary as a model for nuns is discussed in: Appleby, “ ‘Beautiful on the Cross, Beautiful in his Torments,’ ” 34–39. Paschasius also produced a commentary on Psalm 44 for the nuns of Soissons, and a treatise on Mary’s virginity, De partu virginis, which he dedicated to Imma. Paschasius Radbertus, Expositio in Psalmum XLIV; ed. Paulus CCCM 94. Paschasius Radbertus, De partu virginis, ed. Matter CCCM 56C. Jerome had written a commentary on Psalm 44, for Principia (Epist. 65), and had addressed the subject of Mary’s virginity in his tract against Helvidius. Paschasius may have written a further three sermons on Mary’s assumption as well as De nativitate s. Mariae, a pseudo-Jeromian letter addressed to “Paula” (Epist. 50; PL 30: 297–305). The sermons on Mary’s assumption circulated as the work of Ildefons of Toledo (Sermo 1–3; PL 96: 239–257). On these works, see Peltier, 111–115.

70. 79. Ripberger, 36.

71. 80. Lambot, “L’homélie du Pseudo-Jérôme;” and Barré, “La Lettre du Pseudo-Jérôme sur l’assomption.” On contemporary hesitations concerning Jerome’s authorship of the letter, see Ripberger, 8–9. As Barré notes, Paschasius was not trying to fool anyone, least of all at Corbie, where his authorship was known. Barré, 224, n. 4.

72. 81. For the incorporation of the sermon into the liturgy, see Ripberger, 36–43; Fulton “Quae est ista,” 90–100; and Matter, Voice, 152–155.

73. 82. “ad nocturnos legitur sermo sancti Hieronymi, Cogitis me, o Paula, qui cum tantae sit excellentiae, ad nonam lectionem nequaquam pronuntiatur Evangelium, sed omnes lectiones de eodem sermone fiunt.” Consuetudines cluniacensis, 36 (“De Assumptione S. Mariae”); PL 149: 683.

74. 83. “Qui ad plenum vult cognoscere gloriam solemnitatis hodiernae, legat sermonem quem supradictus Pater Hieronymus edidit, et ad sanctam Paulam, et ad Eustochium filiam ejus virginem, et ad caeteras virgines non solum praesentes, sed etiam ad superventuras transmisit.” Odilo of Cluny, Sermo 12. De Assumptione Dei genitricis Mariae; PL 142: 1028.

75. 84. Ripberger, 39–40.

76. 85. References to “Cogitis me” as the work of Jerome in the writings of William and Rupert are provided in Fulton, From Judgment to Passion, 346, 301.

77. 86. The letter is reproduced in Lutter, 230–234. For discussion of the letter, and questions concerning the identification of the women, see Lutter, 115–119; and El Kholi, 96–98. For Gerhoch’s other letters to women, see Lutter, 108–115.

78. 87. “Lege Hieronymum ad Paulam et Eustochium de assumptione sanctae Mariae.” Gerhoch of Reichersberg, Commentarius aureus in psalmos et cantica ferialia; PL 193: 645.

79. 88. Abelard, Epist. 7.48; The Letter Collection, 344–345.

80. 89. Cain, Letters of Jerome, 102–105.

81. 90. Writing to Demitrias, Jerome claimed that this letter had led to his unpopularity: Jerome, Epist. 130.19; ed. Hilberg, III, CSEL 56/1, 200; trans. Fremantle, 271.

82. 91. Jerome, Epist. 27.2; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 225; trans. Fremantle, 44.

83. 92. Jerome, Epist. 22.28; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 185; trans. Fremantle, 34. I have altered Fremantle’s translation of “clericos.”

84. 93. Jerome wrote to Asella that he had never seen Paula at the dinner table. Jerome, Epist. 45.3; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 325; trans. Fremantle, 59.

85. 94. For the circumstances of Jerome’s departure from Rome, see Cain, Letters of Jerome, 99–128. Cain proposes a situation in which Jerome was convicted in an ecclesiastical court of unethical conduct stemming from his relationship to Paula. He notes that Jerome was evasive when discussing the trial and its outcome, both in his letter to Asella (Epist. 45) and in the preface to his translation of Didymus’s On the Holy Spirit, where he described having been examined by a “senate of Pharisees.” If Jerome had sworn not to take Paula with him, then her separate departure for the East allowed him to maintain the letter, if not the spirit, of his oath (allowing him to avoid perjury, as Rufinus reportedly commented). Cain, Letters of Jerome, 121–122. For an interpretation of Jerome’s removal from Rome emphasizing financial matters rather than sexual scandal, see Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle, 262–263.

86. 95. Jerome, Epist. 45.6; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 328; trans. Fremantle, 60.

87. 96. Jerome, Epist. 45.2; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 324; trans. Fremantle, 59. In his letter to Furia, Jerome seems to expect that he might be called a seducer: Jerome, Epist. 54.2; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 467; trans. Fremantle, 103.

88. 97. Harvey notes similarities between Jerome’s relationship with Paula and Malchus’s chaste relationship with his wife. Harvey, 287–288.

89. 98. Jerome, Epist. 45.3; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 325; trans. Fremantle, 59. Abelard cited this passage: Abelard, Epist. 7.49; The Letter Collection, 348–349.

90. 99. Jerome, Epist. 45.3; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 325; trans. Fremantle, 59. Years later, Jerome wrote to Eustochium praising Paula’s saintly behavior and bemoaning his own inability adequately to record her virtues: “If all the members of my body were transformed into tongues, and if each and every one of my limbs were to resound in a human voice, I could say nothing worthy of the virtues of the holy and venerable Paula.” Jerome, Epist. 108.1 (Epitaphium Sanctae Paulae); ed. and trans. Cain, 42–43.

91. 100. Jerome reported that Paula left Rome to follow him, leaving behind her young son Toxotius weeping at the pier. Jerome, Epist. 108.6 (Epitaphium Sanctae Paulae); ed. and trans. Cain, 48–49. For discussion of the monastic foundation at Bethlehem, which Jerome established for women and men, with Paula’s money, see Cain, “Jerome’s Epitaphium Paulae,” 111–112.

92. 101. On Jerome’s decision to bury Paula beneath the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, see Cain, “Jerome’s Epitaphium Paulae,” 128–129; and Engelbrecht, “S. Paulas Grab.”

93. 102. Kelly, 332.

94. 103. For discussion of the mosaic, see Tosti-Croce, “La Basilica tra due e trecento.”

95. 104. “Quidam ex Clericorum Monachorum ordinibus pro petulantia proque ingluvie discursantes, ad effugandum Urbe Hieronymum, qui utrorumque eorum vitia scribens deprehenderat, insidias paraverunt.” Hieronymus noster; PL 22: 178.

96. 105. “Unde cum Romanos de avaritia reprehenderet, derisus est ab eis per vestem muliebrem.” Johannes Beleth, Summa de ecclesiasticis officiis, 157i; ed. Douteil, CCCM 41A, 301.

97. 106. The Belles Heures of Jean de France, Duc de Berry. The Cloisters Collection, 1954 (54.1.1), fol. 184v.

98. 107. Jacobus de Voragine, Legenda Aurea; trans. Ryan, 598.

99. 108. Jerome, Epist. 45.6; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 327; trans. Fremantle, 60.

100. 109. Jerome, Epist. 54.2; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 467; trans. Fremantle, 103. Cain comments that Jerome “masterfully recast his shameful condemnation after the fact as the exile of a divinely ordained prophet.” Cain, Letters of Jerome, 10.

101. 110. Constant Mews notes Jerome’s significance for reform communities during the period, commenting on the increased textual transmission of his writings at this time, above all among reformers. Mews, “Un lecteur de Jérôme.” Gisela Muschiol, too, notes Jerome’s importance within the religious life, tracing the monastic reception of his ascetic writings. Muschiol, “Hoc dixit Ieronimus.”

102. 111. Guigues de Châtel, Ad Durbonenses fratres; ed. Laporte, 214–219.

103. 112. BHL 3873. “Unde quidam pseudoclerici ac monachi, quorum scribens vitam deprehenderat, occasione delatrandi accepta, eum infamia subnotare miserrimi homines conabantur. Et quia ipsi vitiis subjacebant carnalibus, ad excusandas excusationes in peccatis, id ipsum Hieronymo imponebant. Denique isti vestem muliebrem prope lectum, qua se indueret surrecturus ad matutinas, imposuerunt.” Nicolò Maniacutia, Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi vita; PL 22: 186. See Cavallera, II, 143–144; Wilmart, “Nicolas Manjacoria”; Chiesa, “Maniacutia, Nicolò”; and Linde. For manuscripts of Maniacutia’s vita, see Lambert, IIIB, no. 904.

104. 113. Beach, Women as Scribes, 40–42 (# 36, 40, and 43). The manuscripts that Diemut copied formed the basis for the library at Wessobrunn. Beach, Women as Scribes, 63–64.

105. 114. On Zwiefalten, see Chapter 1, n. 83. Of the 285 manuscripts that have been identified with the community, some one hundred date from the twelfth century. See the discussion in Mews, “Monastic Educational Culture Revisited.” For the activity of female scribes at Zwiefalten (of whom only one, Mathilde von Neuffen, is known by name), see Beach, “ ‘Mathild de Niphin’ and the Female Scribes of Twelfth-Century Zwiefalten.”

106. 115. Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Cod. Theol. 4°, 232. Mews, “Monastic Educational Culture Revisited,” 188.

107. 116. Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Cod. Guelf. 1030 Helmst., fols. 129r-147v. For a description of the manuscript and its contents, see Geschrieben und gemalt, ed. Härtel, 93–94.

108. 117. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Lat. 12298, fol. 177v.

109. 118. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Lat. 13350, fol. Bv.

110. 119. Doctor amore tui celebris Hieronime librum

Fecit frater Ivo fieri servus tuus istum.

Sub pedibus doctoris iners ego presbiter Ivo

Decubo, qui meritis clarus coniungitur astris.

1. 120. Odilo of Cluny, Epitaphium Adalheide Imperatricis; PL 142: 970; trans. Gilsdorf, 129. The Warenne Chronicle (c. 1157) equally invoked Jerome’s praise of holy women in reference to Matilda of Scotland’s epitaph. The Warenne (Hyde) Chronicle, 31; ed. and trans. van Houts and Love, 64–65.

2. 121. For Azecho of Worms, see Die Ältere Wormser Briefsammlung, 45; ed. Bulst, MGH Briefe d. dt. Kaiserzeit 3, 82.

3. 122. Abelard, Epist. 7.49; The Letter Collection, 346–347. The idea that Jerome ignored Augustine’s letter was widespread.

4. 123. “His autem qui sinistrorsum suscepturi sunt, quod hoc opus vobis dedicavi, respondeo: beatum Hieronymum presbyterum sanctam Paulam et eius filiam Eustochiam multis scriptis honorasse saepe.” Hugh of Fleury, Ex historia ecclesiastica, praefatio; ed. Waitz, MGH SS 9, 350. For discussion, see Ferrante, To the Glory, 96–98.

5. 124. “Despondi enim vos uni viro virginem castam exhibere Christo, sicut vir illustris Paulam et Eustochium desponderat eidem.” Gerhoch of Reichersberg. Epistola Gerhohi ad quasdam sanctimoniales; in Lutter, 232.

6. 125. “Scio me, Principia, in Christo filia, a plerisque reprehendi, quod interdum scribam ad mulieres, et fragiliorem sexum maribus praeferam.” Jerome, Epist. 65.1; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 616. Abelard cited this defense in his Epist. 9; ed. Smits, 225; trans. Ziolkowski, 18.

7. 126. “Si doceri a femina non fuit turpe apostolo, mihi quare turpe sit post viros docere et feminas?” Jerome, Epist. 65.1; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 618. On Jerome’s letter to Principia, and his application of bridal imagery to celibate (not necessarily virginal) women, see Hunter, “The Virgin, the Bride, and the Church.”

8. 127. See above, n. 64.

9. 128. Jerome, Commentariorum in Sophoniam prophetam, prologus; ed. Adriaen, CCSL 76A, 655; trans. Ferrante, To the Glory, 48.

10. 129. Jerome, Epist. 127.5; ed. Hilberg, III, CSEL 56/1, 149; trans. Fremantle, 255.

11. 130. Abelard, Institutio, 123; The Letter Collection, 508–9. For Abelard’s identification with Jerome, see Mews, “Un lecteur de Jérôme”; Blamires, “No Outlet for Incontinence”; and Muschiol, “Hoc dixit Ieronimus,” 116–120. Mary Martin McLaughlin identified Abelard as “in certain respects a ‘second Jerome.’ ” However, as she comments, “the Jerome whom Abelard admired and emulated was not the merciless castigator of feminine uselessness and corruption, but the more benevolent Jerome whose personal life and loyalties centered upon the noble ladies of the Aventine.” McLaughlin, “Peter Abelard and the Dignity of Women,” 309–310.

12. 131. Leclercq, “ ‘Ad ipsam sophiam Christum,’ ” 177. Ziolkowski comments that “this denigration of the letter misses the point, since its imposition of Jerome and Marcella upon Abelard and Heloise was deliberate and sophisticated.” Letters of Peter Abelard, ed. Ziolkowski, 7.

13. 132. Abelard, Epist. 7.48; The Letter Collection, 344–5. Elsewhere Abelard noted that it was “mainly at their request that this doctor with so many volumes lit up the Church.” Abelard, Institutio, 128; The Letter Collection, 516–517.

14. 133. Abelard, Epist. 1.70; The Letter Collection, 112–113.

15. 134. Abelard, Epist. 1.65; The Letter Collection, 102–103.

16. 135. Abelard, Epist. 1.74; The Letter Collection, 118–119. Elsewhere Abelard commented that, “When … I recalled the injustice of such a calumny against so great a man, I took no small comfort from it.” Abelard, Epist. 1.65; The Letter Collection, 102–103. Abelard likened his move to St. Gildas to Jerome’s exile from Rome: “the jealousy of the French drove me West as that of the Romans drove Jerome East.” Epist. 1.60; The Letter Collection, 94–95.

17. 136. Abelard, Epist. 1.65; The Letter Collection, 102–103. Cf. Abelard, Epist. 7.49; The Letter Collection, 348–349. For a similar evocation of Jerome’s complaint to Asella, see the life of Christina of Markyate: De S. Theodora, 76; ed. Talbot, 174; rev. trans. Fanous and Leyser, 79.

18. 137. Abelard, Epist. 1.74; The Letter Collection, 118–119.

19. 138. Abelard, Epist. 1.68; The Letter Collection, 108–109. Wim Verbaal draws attention to stylistic parallels between Abelard’s Historia calamitatum and Jerome’s life of Malchus, arguing that Abelard framed his own history through Jerome’s Malchus. Verbaal, 195–196, 200–203.

20. 139. Vita s. Edithae, 14; ed. Wilmart, 73; trans. Wright and Loncar, 45.

21. 140. Goscelin of St. Bertin, Liber confortatorius, III; ed. Talbot, 81; trans. Otter, 97.

22. 141. De S. Theodora, 76; ed. Talbot, 175; rev. trans. Fanous and Leyser, 79.

23. 142. De S. Theodora, 76; ed. Talbot, 175; rev. trans. Fanous and Leyser, 79.

24. 143. Elliott “Alternative Intimacies,” 173. As Elliott remarks elsewhere, Jerome’s relationship with Paula was invoked most often as a model for “transhistorical commiseration over unwarranted slander.” Elliott, Bride, 156.

25. 144. Elliott, Bride, 14–29.

26. 145. “Dominam quippe debeo vocare sponsam domini mei.” Jerome, Epist. 22.2; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 145; trans. Fremantle, 23.

27. 146. “Mi Eustochia, filia, domina, conserva, germana—aliud enim aetatis, aliud meriti, illud religionis, hoc caritatis est nomen.” Jerome, Epist. 22.26; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 181; trans. Fremantle, 33.

28. 147. Barbara Newman notes that within the religious context, the “ennobling love” of the twelfth century, so elegantly discussed by C. Stephen Jaeger, “becomes the dynamic of a new kind of triangle, binding a man and a woman in God in precarious caritas.” Newman, “Liminalities,” 362. Goscelin of St. Bertin was explicit in referencing Christ’s role in his relationship with Eve of Wilton, describing his letter to her as “sealed with Christ as mediator.” Goscelin of St. Bertin, Liber confortatorius, prologus; ed. Talbot, 26; trans. Otter, 19.

29. 148. “Domina, inquam, mea, immo et regina, Domino meo caelesti scilicet regi … desponsata.” Peter Damian, Epist. 66.16; ed. Reindel, MGH Briefe d. dt. Kaiserzeit 4.2, 266; trans. Blum, 3, 57. Peter Damian’s adoption of Jerome’s language of spiritual “lordship” for women devoted to Christ neatly side-stepped the question of virginity—the context of Jerome’s initial use of the bridal motif. Eustochium was Jerome’s domina because she was a bride of Christ, and a virgin.

30. 149. “Sponsa domini mei domina mea est.” Hildebert of Lavardin, Epist. I, 6; PL 171: 149. Jacques Dalarun notes, too, that Hildebert’s letter to the recluse Athalise was inspired by Jerome’s letter to Eustochium. Dalarun, “Hagiographe et métaphore,” 44.

31. 150. Goscelin of St. Bertin, Liber confortatorius, I; ed. Talbot, 33; trans. Otter, 31. Robert of Arbrissel addressed Agnes, prioress of Orsan, as “my lady, my daughter, and my disciple” (dominae meae, filiae atque discipulae). Andrew, Supplementum, 36; Deux vies, 258–259.

32. 151. Abelard, Epist. 5.3; The Letter Collection, 180–181.

33. 152. Abelard, Epist. 7.23; The Letter Collection, 306–307.

34. 153. Abelard, Sermo 30; ed. Granata. Sermon 30 was composed after Heloise’s move from Argenteuil in 1129, but before Abelard wrote the Historia calamitatum, in about 1132. For discussion of the sermon in the context of both monastic prayer and the spiritual involvement of women with men, see Schmid, “Bemerkungen zur Personen- und Memorialforschung,” 105–110.

35. 154. “Iste, cum terrenis coniugiis vel carnalium voluptatum illecebris spretis sponso immortali se copulant, summi regis sponse effecte, omnium eius servorum efficiuntur domine.” Abelard, Sermo 30.4; ed. Granata, 58. “Ut illic per eas percipiatis eterna que hic a vobis suscipiunt temporalia, prestante ipso earum sponso Domino Iesu Christo.” Abelard, Sermo 30.4; ed. Granata, 59.

36. 155. Abelard, Epist. 5.34; The Letter Collection, 212–213.

37. 156. On this point, and for further discussion, see Griffiths, “Brides and dominae.”

38. 157. For a description of the manuscript, see de Santis, I Sermoni, 12–20. Colmar, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 128 offers an important textual witness to Abelard’s sermon corpus: it contains four of the nine Abelardian sermons that have survived in manuscript form (a total of thirty-six sermons have been attributed to him and are known from early published editions). In addition to sermon 30, the manuscript contains sermons 2, 4, and a sermon not included in the 1616 Editio princeps, the “Adtendite a falsis prophetis,” which was identified by L. J. Engels as the work of Abelard. Engels, “Adtendite a falsis prophetis.” On Abelard’s sermon collection and the manuscript witnesses, see de Santis, I Sermoni, 1–29.

39. 158. Inscriptions in the arches over their heads identify the two as Guta: “Per te, strips [sic] Jesse, quod dicor deprecor esse” and Sintram: “Sintrammi, Virgo, memor, huius pauperis esto.” Le Codex Guta-Sintram, ed. Weis, I, p. 9. See Marti, “Double Monasteries in Images,” 79–82. Discussion of the codex’s miniatures is provided in Walter, “Les miniatures du Codex Guta-Sintram.”

40. 159. Guta writes, “Presentium utilitati ac animarum saluti provide consulere volens, ego peccatrix et utinam ultima mecum depascentis gregis ovicula, GUTA, ut in libro vitę scribi, ac in pascuis virentibus depasci mererer, hunc librum famulante calamo manui summaque devotione suppeditante animi scribendo explicui.” She further tells us that “Miniatum vero sive illuminatum a quodam humili canonico Marbacensi et indigno presbitero nomine SINTRAMMO et ad finem usque perductum.” Le Codex Guta-Sintram, ed. Weis, I, p. 9–10.

41. 160. See Chapter 1, n. 129.

42. 161. For the text of Beati pauperes, see the Appendix. For the identification of Beati pauperes as an excerpt from Abelard’s sermon, see Griffiths, “Brides and dominae.” Beati pauperes seems to have been added at some point after the completion of the manuscript in 1154, but nonetheless still during Sintram’s lifetime. The text was written in fairly large letters and was evidently to be further distinguished by two capital letters, a “B” for “beati” and an “I” for the “inter hos” of its second sentence. These capitals are unfinished, adding weight to the hypothesis that the text was a later addition to the manuscript and did not form part of the original plan for the codex. Le Codex Guta-Sintram, ed. Weis, I, p. 8; and Le Codex Guta-Sintram, ed. Weis, II, 54–55. See also Weis, “La prière dans un monastère de femmes.”

43. 162. Baudri of Bourgueil, Carmen 200, l. 137; ed. Tilliette, II, 129; trans. Bond in Loving Subject, 176–177. On Baudri’s correspondence with Constance, see Kong, Lettering the Self, 15–54.

44. 163. Baudri of Bourgueil, Carmen 201, ll. 116–120; ed. Tilliette, 133; trans. Bond in Loving Subject, 188–189. For discussion, see Tilliette, “Hermès amoureux.” On Baudri and his context, with attention to his correspondence with women, see Tilliette, “La vie culturelle dans l’Ouest de la France au temps de Baudri de Bourgueil.”

45. 164. While Dronke attributes the poem to Constance, Tilliette claims Baudri as its author, and Newman agrees. Dronke, Women Writers, 84–85; Tilliette, “Hermès amoureux,” 140; Newman, Making Love, 7–8. Katherine Kong argues that “there is no compelling reason to question Constance’s authorship.” For her analysis, the presentation of the “female voice” is more significant than the “actual authorship” of the piece (a position that Newman acknowledges, too). Kong, Lettering the Self, 28.

46. 165. As Joan Ferrante noted, “Jerome’s letters, like his commentaries, so many of them addressed to women, were known and read, and they provided an unimpeachable model for male-female friendship among religious.” Ferrante, To the Glory, 26. Dyan Elliott identifies Jerome’s relationship with Paula as “the orthodox prototype for a type of spiritualized heterosexual intimacy.” Elliott, “Alternative Intimacies,” 175–176. Jacques Dalarun writes that Jerome’s letter to Eustochium was the “modèle obligé de tout clerc s’adressant à une femme.” Dalarun, “Hagiographe et métaphore,” 44. Jocelyn Wogan-Browne, too, observes that Jerome was “a well-known and often consciously deployed prototype for the relations between clerics and their female patrons and audiences.” Wogan-Browne “ ‘Our Steward, St. Jerome’ ” 139.

47. 166. Heloise, Epist. 6.3; The Letter Collection, 218–221.

48. 167. Abelard, Institutio, 128; The Letter Collection, 516–517.

49. 168. On Heloise’s affinity for Marcella, see Dronke, Women Writers, 135; Ferrante, To the Glory, 59–60; and Blamires, “No Outlet for Incontinence.”

50. 169. Jerome, Epist. 127.7; ed. Hilberg, III, CSEL 56/1, 151; trans. Fremantle, 255.

51. 170. Jerome, Epist. 27.2; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 224–225; trans. Fremantle, 44.

52. 171. Abelard, Epist. 9; ed. Smits, 227; trans. Ziolkowski, 20. For Abelard’s consideration of letter writing in his relationship with Heloise, see Abelard, Epist. 1.16; The Letter Collection, 26–27. In his letter to Principia, Jerome remembered the solace he took in his correspondence with Marcella: “Not much was lost by a separation thus effectually bridged by a constant correspondence.” Jerome, Epist. 127.8; ed. Hilberg, III, CSEL 56/1, 152; trans. Fremantle, 256.

53. 172. Abelard, Epist. 9; ed. Smits, 227; trans. Ziolkowski, 20. Abelard quotes here from Jerome’s Epist. 127.7 (ed. Hilberg, III, CSEL 56/1, 151; trans. Fremantle, 255): “When she answered questions she gave her opinion not as her own but as from me or some one else.”

54. 173. Heloise and Abelard, Problemata; PL 178: 677; trans. McLaughlin with Wheeler, 213. On Heloise’s learning, as reflected in the Problemata, see Mews and Perry, “Peter Abelard, Heloise and Jewish Biblical Exegesis.” See also Dronke, “Heloise’s Problemata and Letters.”

55. 174. Heloise and Abelard, Problemata; PL 178: 677; trans. McLaughlin with Wheeler, 213.

56. 175. Heloise and Abelard, Problemata; PL 178: 678; trans. McLaughlin with Wheeler, 213.

CHAPTER 4

Notes to epigraph: Leander of Seville, De institutione virginum; PL 72: 878; trans. Barlow, 189; and Ekbert of Schönau, De obitu; ed. Roth, 263; trans. Clark, 255.

1. 1. According to Elizabeth Clark, the rise of Christianity was accompanied by a “blow to ‘family values,’ ” as church fathers extolled the ascetic renunciation of both marriage and family. Clark, “Antifamilial Tendencies in Ancient Christianity,” 358. For the argument that late antique Christian discourse was not entirely anti-family, see Jacobs, “ ‘Let Him Guard Pietas’ ”; and Krawiec, “ ‘From the Womb of the Church.’ ” On the centrality of the family to early monasticism, see also Elm, “Formen des Zusammenlebens männlicher und weiblicher Asketen.”

2. 2. Germana was sometimes used metaphorically among Christians to refer to spiritual kinship, but it more usually referred to blood ties. Oxford Latin Dictionary, ed. Glare, sv germana.

3. 3. On the importance of sibling relations in the religious life, see Schulenburg, Forgetful of Their Sex, 271–305; and Griffiths, “Siblings and the Sexes.” For pious brothers and sisters in later periods, see Ray, “Brothers and Sisters in Christ, Brothers and Sisters Indeed”; and Laningham, “Making a Saint out of a Sibling.” On ties between brothers and sisters generally, see Larrington, Brothers and Sisters; and Lyon, Princely Brothers and Sisters.

4. 4. The role of secular brothers (often bishops) in founding monastic houses for their religious sisters has been noted by Hasdenteufel-Röding: Hasdenteufel-Röding, Studien zur Gründung von Frauenklöstern, 62–76. As she shows, it was not unusual for sisters to serve as abbesses of houses founded by their brothers.

5. 5. See Chapter 1, n. 90.

6. 6. For Mechthild, see Silvas, Jutta and Hildegard, 60, n. 19. Ludolf reported that “electus in abbatem et vocatus a Flandria veni ad locum presentem mecum adducens sororem meam uterinam sed Deo desponsatam, quam in ecclesia nostra sub habitu regulari de consilio fratrum nobiscum habitare permisimus.” Ludolf went on to describe how a women’s community gathered at Oostbroek, and was eventually settled at the “Nova Curia.” Van Heussen, Historia episcopatuum foederati Belgii, I, 130.

7. 7. Reginald of Durham, Libellus de vita et miraculis S. Godrici, 61–63; ed. Stevenson, 140–145. Aelred of Rievaulx, De institutione inclusarum; ed. Hoste and Talbot; trans. Macpherson. Paul of Bernried reported, too, how the hermit Konrad of Beuerberg (founder of the cell at Beuerberg) had a sister, Gepa, with him in the religious life. Paul of Bernried, Vita b. Herlucae, 37; AA SS, April, 2: 555.

8. 8. On Elisabeth’s life and revelations, see Clark, Elisabeth of Schönau. Elisabeth’s visions are edited in Die Visionen der hl. Elisabeth, ed. Roth; trans. Clark, Elisabeth of Schönau: The Complete Works. On the specific revelations discussed here, the Revelatio de sacro exercitu virginum Coloniensium, see Clark, Elisabeth of Schönau, 37–40. This work, transmitted in seventy medieval manuscripts, was Elisabeth’s most popular text.

9. 9. An inscription (c. 400) on the south wall of the church of St. Ursula in Cologne offered the earliest evidence for the cult, referring simply to virgins who had “poured out their blood for Christ.” Montgomery, St. Ursula and the Eleven Thousand Virgins, 9–12; and Cusack, “Hagiography and History.”

10. 10. Elisabeth of Schönau, Liber revelationum, 3; ed. Roth, 124; trans. Clark, 215.

11. 11. Elisabeth of Schönau, Liber revelationum, 15; ed. Roth, 131; trans. Clark, 223. On witness testimony in the Revelations in the context of twelfth-century legal practice, see Campbell, “Sanctity and Identity: The Authentication of the Ursuline Relics and Legal Discourse in Elisabeth von Schönau’s Liber Revelationum.”

12. 12. Elisabeth of Schönau, Liber revelationum, 9, 10, 14; ed. Roth, 128, 128, 130; trans. Clark, 218, 219, 221–222.

13. 13. On the concept of fictive, or spiritual, kinship within early Christianity, see the essays in Moxnes, ed., Constructing Early Christian Families.

14. 14. As several of the gospels report, Jesus had refused to acknowledge the kinship claims of his mother as she waited on one occasion to speak with him. “Who is my mother?” he asked, declaring that “whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother” (Matt. 12:46–50; cf. Mark 3:31–35; Luke 8:19–21).

15. 15. Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, 3.11.81; ed. Mondésert and Matray, 156–157; cited in Penn, Kissing Christians, 1. That the fraternity of unrelated “brothers” and “sisters” could be perceived as “promiscuous” is discussed by Brown, Body and Society, 140–159. At Fontevraud in the twelfth century, the kiss of peace was given indirectly. According to the community’s statutes, “They should never give each other the kiss of peace, but instead all kiss the marble passed to them through the window under the supervision of the sacristan.” The Revised Statutes, 25; Deux vies, 412–413.

16. 16. The Shepherd of Hermas, vis. 2.2.3; trans. Lake in The Apostolic Fathers, II, 19. Jerome expressed a similar idea, writing that a chaste wife was her husband’s “sister,” an idea that also appears in the writings of Paulinus of Nola and in Gregory of Tours’s account of Riticius, who was buried alongside his virginal spouse. Jerome, Epist. 71.3; ed. Hilberg, II, CSEL 55, 4; trans. Fremantle, 153. Paulinus of Nola, Carmen 25; trans. Walsh, 245–253. Gregory of Tours, Liber in gloria confessorum, 74; ed. Krusch, MGH SS rer. Merov. 1.2, 341–342.

17. 17. Gregory the Great, Dialogues, IV, 12, 2; ed. de Vogüé, III, 48–49; trans. Zimmerman, 203.

18. 18. Jerome, Vita Malchi, 6.7; ed. and trans. Gray, 86–87.

19. 19. Council of Ancyra (314), canon 19; ed. Mansi, 2: 519. On the conflation between metaphorical kinship (which was not necessarily chaste) and biological kinship, see Boswell, Same-sex Unions, 131–135.

20. 20. Jerome, Vita Malchi, 10.3; ed. and trans. Gray, 90–91. On the ambiguity in Jerome’s account concerning the length of Malchus’s cohabitation with his wife, see Chapter 3, n. 5.

21. 21. Synod of Elvira (305), canon 27; ed. Mansi, 2: 10. For discussion of these rulings and their context, see Elm, “Virgins of God,” 25–59.

22. 22. First Council of Nicaea (325), canon 3; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. and trans. Tanner, I, 7. The catalogue of “acceptable” kinswomen published at Nicaea was repeated by many other church councils—East and West—in subsequent years. For a list of councils forbidding clerics to live with women unrelated to them, see de Labriolle, “Le ‘mariage spirituel,’ ” 222.

23. 23. “Non timui mortem caelum quod liber adiret / sed dolui, fateor, consortia perdere vitae.” Epitaphius sororis: Epigrammata Damasiana, ed. Ferrua, 109.

24. 24. Liber pontificalis, 39; ed. Mommsen, MGH Gesta pontificum Romanorum 1, 84; trans. Davis, 29.

25. 25. Ambrose of Milan, De virginibus; ed. Gori; trans. Ramsey.

26. 26. Ambrose of Milan, De excessu fratris sui Satyri, I, 76; PL 16: 1313–1314; trans. Bonnot, 53.

27. 27. Paulinus of Milan, Vita Ambrosii, 1, 4; PL 14: 27, 28; trans. Ramsey, 196, 197.

28. 28. Augustine of Hippo, Epist. 211; trans. Lawless, 104–118. Lawless presents the letter in two parts: the Reprimand for Quarrelling Nuns (Obiurgatio) and the Rule. Augustine refers to his sister in Obiurgatio, 4; trans. Lawless, 107. Medieval evidence for Augustine’s authorship of a monastic rule is discussed in Leyser, “Augustine in the Latin West,” 460–464. Despite Augustine’s involvement in the religious life of his sister’s community, he did not mention his sister in his Confessions, as Clark notes. Clark, “Theory and Practice in Late Ancient Asceticism,” 28.

29. 29. For references to Jerome’s own sister, see Jerome, Epist. 6.2 and 7.4; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 25, 29; trans. Fremantle, 8, 9. Jerome credits the deacon Julian with his sister’s conversion; in a letter to Julian, he describes his sister as your “daughter in Christ” (sororem meam, filiam in Christo tuam). Jerome, Epist. 6.2; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 25. On Jerome’s relations with his younger brother Paulinian, see Kim, “Jerome and Paulinian, Brothers.”

30. 30. Cain argues that the letter was fictional, but nevertheless occupied a “vital place” in Jerome’s oeuvre. Cain, “Jerome’s Epistula CXVII on the Subintroductae.”

31. 31. Jerome, Epist. 117.1; ed. Hilberg, II, CSEL 55, 422–423; trans. Fremantle, 215.

32. 32. Jerome, Epist. 117.2; ed. Hilberg, II, CSEL 55, 424; trans. Fremantle, 216.

33. 33. Jerome, Epist. 117.5; ed. Hilberg, II, CSEL 55, 428; trans. Fremantle, 217.

34. 34. Jerome’s orientation toward biological family is reinforced by his characterization of the daughter’s clerical friend, whom he denigrated in terms of failed kinship as “a man who perhaps has left behind him a sister and mother of his own.” Jerome, Epist. 117.4; ed. Hilberg, II, CSEL 55, 426; trans. Fremantle, 217. For Jerome’s stance on family, see also Epist. 125 to Rusticus; and Epist. 54 to Furia. In his letter 125 to Rusticus, Jerome reinforced his criticisms of priests who sought women’s companionship, writing that, “you must not imitate those who leave their own relations and pay court to strange women.” Jerome was critical, too, of women who become “spiritual mothers” to younger men: “I know some women of riper years, indeed a good many, who, finding pleasure in their young freedmen, make them their spiritual children and thus, pretending to be mothers to them, gradually overcome their own sense of shame and allow themselves in the licence of marriage.” Jerome, Epist. 125.6; ed. Hilberg, III, CSEL 56/1, 123; trans. Fremantle, 246. To Furia, Jerome wrote, “ ‘Honour thy father,’ the commandment says, but only if he does not separate you from your true Father. Recognize the tie of blood but only so long as your parent recognizes his Creator.” Jerome, Epist. 54.3; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 468; trans. Fremantle, 103.

35. 35. Jerome, Epist. 117.11; ed. Hilberg, II, CSEL 55, 433; trans. Fremantle, 219.

36. 36. Elm, “Virgins of God”; and Elm, “Formen des Zusammenlebens männlicher und weiblicher Asketen.” As Elm comments, “A sizeable proportion of the male ascetics were clerics and lived together with their own sisters of other female relatives.” Elm, “Virgins of God,” 161–162. On late antique household monasticism, see also Brown, The Body and Society, 263–265; and, with a particular focus on women, the essays by Kate Cooper in Mulder-Bakker and Wogan-Browne, eds., Household, Women, and Christianities.

37. 37. Silvas refers to early monasticism as a “domestic ascetic movement.” Silvas, Macrina the Younger, 3. According to Rousseau, the community was primarily an “extended family.” Rousseau, “The Pious Household and the Virgin Chorus.”

38. 38. Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Macrina, 12; ed. and trans. Maraval, 182–183; trans. Petersen, 61.

39. 39. Peter later became head of the male portion of the double community. Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Macrina, 37; ed. and trans. Maraval, 258–259; trans. Petersen, 80.

40. 40. Silvas, Asketikon, 20–22.

41. 41. Silvas, Asketikon, 23–25. Silvas writes that the example of Macrina’s religious life “cannot but have been a material factor in Basil’s own turn, or preferably re-turn, to Scripture and in the resultant ‘Christianization’ of his ascetic discourse” (92). Susanna Elm writes that “it is reasonable to suggest that Basil and Macrina developed their ideas in continuous exchanges, although we do not possess a single source by her alone.” Indeed, she notes that Basil “seems to have considered Macrina’s community as model.” Elm, “Virgins of God,” 102, 104, n. 90. Nevertheless, Basil’s rule for monks warns against entanglement with family members who remain in the world and sets forth strict guidelines concerning contact between consecrated men and women. Basil of Caesarea, The Longer Responses, 32–33; trans. Silvas, 233–236.

42. 42. Silvas, Asketikon, 147–148. For a sketch of Basil’s career and thought, see Sterk, Renouncing the World, 13–92. See also Stramara, “Double Monasticism in the Greek East.”

43. 43. Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Macrina, 6; ed. and trans. Maraval, 162–163; trans. Petersen, 56. Basil does not discuss Macrina’s possible influence on him. For one hypothesis concerning the family dynamics, see Meredith, “Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa on Basil.”

44. 44. Athanasius of Alexandria, The Life of Antony, 3; ed. and trans. Bartelink, 134–5; trans. Vivian and Athanassakis, 61.

45. 45. Pachomian Koinonia, trans. Veilleux, I, 49–51 (The Bohairic Life of Pachomius, 27). On Pachomian foundations for women, see Elm, “Virgins of God,” 289–296. For a discussion of women’s involvement in the early monastic life, see Hasdenteufel-Röding, 30–41; McNamara, Sisters in Arms, 61–88.

46. 46. Despite his support for his sister’s religious life, Pachomius’s rule established that no monk should visit the women’s community “unless he has there a mother, sister, or daughter, some relatives or cousins, or the mother of his own children” (Pachomian Rule, 143). Pachomian Koinonia, trans. Veilleux, II, 166. The Bohairic Life further notes that only brothers “who had not yet attained perfection” could visit a relative in the women’s community (The Bohairic Life of Pachomius, 27). Pachomian Koinonia, trans. Veilleux, I, 50.

47. 47. Palladius, Lausiac History, 33.1; trans. Meyer, 95. The Bohairic Life offers a different account, in which the deceased sister was “carried to the mountain” for burial (The Bohairic Life of Pachomius, 27). Pachomian Koinonia, trans. Veilleux, I, 51.

48. 48. Gennadius of Marseilles noted that Cassian founded two monasteries “id est virorum et mulierum.” Gennadius of Marseilles, De viris inlustribus, 62; ed. Richardson, 82. Cassian’s relationship with his sister is somewhat obscure; Columba Stewart writes that “of family members he mentions only a sister who remained somehow a part of his monastic life.” Stewart, Cassian the Monk, 4–5. Although Cassian recognized the tradition that monks were to shun women and bishops, he admits that he had been unable to avoid (vitare) his sister. Cassian, De institutis coenobiorum, 11.18; ed. and trans. Guy, 444–445.

49. 49. Caesarius initially sent his sister to a monastery in Marseille (presumably Cassian’s foundation for women) in order that she might be “a pupil before becoming a teacher.” Vita Caesarii, I, 35; ed. Morin, 196–197; trans. Klingshirn, 27. On Caesarius, see Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles.

50. 50. Caesarius of Arles, Vereor (Epist. 21); ed. de Vogüé and Courreau; trans. Klingshirn. Caesarius of Arles, Regula sanctarum virginum; ed. de Vogüé and Courreau; trans. McCarthy.

51. 51. The separation of the two communities was in keeping with canon 28 of the early sixth-century Council of Agde. Council of Agde (506), canon 28; ed. Mansi, 8: 329. Caesarius warned his sister and her companions against the dangers of contact with the opposite sex. Caesarius of Arles, Vereor (Epist. 21), 3; ed. de Vogüé and Courreau, 302–311; trans. Klingshirn, 131–133.

52. 52. Caesaria’s death and burial are discussed in: Vita Caesarii, I, 58; ed. Morin, 228; trans. Klingshirn, 39. Caesarius’s death and burial in the basilica of St. Mary are described in: Vita Caesarii II, 50; ed. Morin, 308; trans. Klingshirn, 65.

53. 53. Leander of Seville, De institutione virginum; PL 72: 873–894; trans. Barlow, 183–228. Isidore of Seville, De fide catholica contra Judaeos; PL 83: 449–538.

54. 54. “Soror mea Florentina accipe codicem quem tibi composui feliciter amen.” Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cod. lat. 13396, fol. 1v.

55. 55. Williams, “León: The Iconography of a Capital,” 242.

56. 56. Mary and Martha, with their brother Lazarus, offer one example of New Testament siblings; however, it was the relationship between the sisters that preoccupied medieval exegetes, rather than the sisters’ relationship with Lazarus. Constable, Three Studies, 1–141.

57. 57. Brother-sister relationships are so prominent within the texts of early monasticism that one scholar remarked: “It was almost as important for these mythological heroes of medieval hagiography to have a sister as it is for the President of the United States to have a wife.” Cusack, “St. Scholastica: Myth or Real Person?” 148.

58. 58. Chapter 1, n. 13.

59. 59. Albrecht Diem assumes that these female figures were fabricated. “One of the most persistent (but also misleading) topoi in monastic origin myths is that of the ‘little sister,’ or sometimes niece or cousin,” he comments, observing that “if a great monastic founder did not have a ‘little sister,’ tradition needed to invent one.” Diem, “The Gender of the Religious,” 435.

60. 60. For various interpretations of Scholastica’s significance in the life, see Wansbrough, “St. Gregory’s Intention”; de Vogüé, “The Meeting of Benedict and Scholastica”; and Cusack, “St. Scholastica: Myth or Real Person?” For a survey of scholarship on Scholastica’s identity, see Boo and Braun, “Emerging from the Shadows.”

61. 61. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 1202.

62. 62. Gregory the Great, Dialogues, II, 33, 4, II, 34, 2; ed. de Vogüé, II, 232–233, 234–235; trans. Zimmermann, 103, 104.

63. 63. This is Cusack’s conclusion. Cusack, “St. Scholastica: Myth or Real Person?” 159.

64. 64. Gregory’s account implied a biological bond, but eschewed the most explicit language of kinship, describing Scholastica as Benedict’s soror, rather than his germana or soror uterina.

65. 65. Gregory the Great, Epist. I. 50; ed. Norberg, I, 64; trans. Martyn, I, 175.

66. 66. Schulenburg, Forgetful of Their Sex, 283.

67. 67. Gregory the Great (c. 540–604); Leander of Seville (c. 542–600). According to John Martyn, the “longest and by far the most autobiographical” of Gregory’s letters was written to Leander. Martyn, Gregory and Leander, vii.

68. 68. Walter Goffart cautions that the monks at Fleury and Le Mans were less concerned with Scholastica than with Benedict, whose importance was “overshadowing.” Goffart, “Le Mans, St. Scholastica, and the Literary Tradition,” 129.

69. 69. Adrevald reports that Scholastica’s bones were separated from Benedict’s through the prayers of the people. Adrevald of Fleury, Historia translationis s. Benedicti, 12–13; ed. de Certain, 10–13.

70. 70. Carruthers, Craft of Thought, 184.

71. 71. The paradox between Benedict’s silence concerning women in his Rule and his famously close relationship with Scholastica was tacitly acknowledged in the late twelfth-century Exordium magnum of Conrad of Eberbach. Conrad observed that the Cistercians followed Benedict’s example in everything, refusing contact with women and allowing no burials in their monasteries (although he commented that Benedict had allowed his sister to be buried at Monte Cassino). Conrad of Eberbach, Exordium magnum cisterciense, I, 20; ed. Griesser, CCCM 138, 42; trans. Ward, 93.

72. 72. Aldhelm, Carmen de virginitate; ed. Ehwald, MGH Auct. ant. 15, 436–437; trans. Lapidge and Rosier, 147–148. Bede, In die festo sanctae Scholasticae virginis; PL 94: 480–489. Bertharius of Monte Cassino, Vita s. Scholasticae Virginis; PL 126: 979–988. Alberic of Monte Cassino, “The Homily of Alberic the Deacon on Saint Scholastica,” trans. Coffey. See also Forman, “Three Songs About St. Scholastica by Aldhelm and Paul the Deacon.” Although both Bertharius and Alberic celebrated Scholastica, they hesitated to accept that her prayers had been more powerful than Benedict’s. See Chapter 5 for discussion.

73. 73. Aldhelm mentions a nun named Scholastica among the women at Barking in his preface to the De virginitate. Aldhelm, Prosa de virginitate, prologus; eds. Gwara and Ehwald, CCSL 124A, 27; trans. Lapidge and Herren, 59.

74. 74. “The Life of St. Scholastica in the South English Legendary,” ed. Whatley.

75. 75. “Quasi alter alteri Scholasticae eructabat Benedictus.” Vita S. Hiltrudis virginis; AA SS, September, 7: 494.

76. 76. As Abelard observed, “the convent of St. Scholastica, which was situated on land belonging to the brethren of a monastery, was also under the supervision of one of the brothers, and was given both direction and comfort through frequent visits by him or the other brothers.” Abelard, Institutio, 41; 406–407.

77. 77. First Lateran Council (1123), canon 7; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. and trans. Tanner, I, 191.

78. 78. For a discussion of Ekbert’s role and his influence in Elisabeth’s life and visions, see Coakley, Women, Men, and Spiritual Power, 25–44; Clark, “Repression or Collaboration?”; Clark, Elisabeth of Schönau, 130–133; and Clark, “Holy Woman or Unworthy Vessel?” Ekbert was at Elisabeth’s side when she died, and recorded the details of her death in a quasi-hagiographic text, De obitu domine Elisabeth, which he composed for female relatives at the Augustinian community of Andernach. See below n. 118.

79. 79. Coakley, Women, Men, and Spiritual Power, 36–38.

80. 80. Bishop Ekbert of Münster, a supporter of the church reform movement, is best known as the bishop at whose court “Herman the Jew” first encountered Christianity and debated the faith with Rupert of Deutz. Clark, Elisabeth of Schönau, 11–12.

81. 81. Schulenburg underscores the prevalence of early medieval brother-sister saints and notes, too, the many monastic houses that were established as “cooperative ventures” between siblings. Schulenburg, Forgetful of Their Sex, 276. Schulenburg assumes that such opposite-sex sibling relationships fell out of favor as a result of church reforms; however, as I show, evidence for the continued importance of family ties in the religious life during the twelfth century is strong.

82. 82. Barbara Newman writes that Elisabeth’s revelations present a “vision of religious life as a glorious, equal-opportunity venture in which women and men could provide mutual aid and comfort.” Newman, “Preface,” xvii. Franz Felten notes the importance of Elisabeth’s visions for the light they shed on life within the double monastery at Schönau: Felten, “Frauenklöster,” 269–270. For a study of Elisabeth’s visions against the backdrop of the double monastery, see Kemper, “Das benediktinische Doppelkloster Schönau.”

83. 83. According to one explanation, Ursula’s father had arranged that bishops from Britain accompany the women on their initial journey in order to provide “comfort” for them. Elisabeth of Schönau, Liber revelationum, 6; ed. Roth, 126; trans. Clark, 217. Hildegard also assumed that the presence of “religious and learned” men among the women was due to the need for men’s protection and service. Hildegard of Bingen, In matutinis laudibus, 3–4; ed. and trans. Newman, Symphonia, 236–239.

84. 84. Elisabeth of Schönau, Liber revelationum, 3; ed. Roth, 124; trans. Clark, 214.

85. 85. Pachomian Koinonia, trans. Veilleux, I, 50. (The Bohairic Life of Pachomius, 27).

86. 86. Coakley notes that Ekbert was neither Elisabeth’s confessor nor her spiritual adviser; nevertheless, he celebrated Mass for the women on occasion. Coakley, Women, Men, and Spiritual Power, 35, 30.

87. 87. For Hildegard’s nephew, see Hildegard of Bingen, Epist. 10-10r; ed. Van Acker, CCCM 91, 23–25; trans. Baird and Ehrman, I, 45–47.

88. 88. Guibert of Gembloux reports the presence of Hildegard’s brother, Hugo, at Rupertsberg. Guibert of Gembloux, Epist. 26, ll. 307–308; ed. Derolez, CCCM 66A, 279. Silvas provides a genealogical table listing Hildegard’s siblings: Silvas, Jutta and Hildegard, 279.

89. 89. In his treatise De anima et resurrectione, Gregory referred to Macrina explicitly as “the teacher.” Gregory of Nyssa, De anima et resurrectione; trans. Moore and Wilson, 430. Elizabeth Clark cautions that accounts of early Christian women were “literary constructions, some of a high rhetorical order.” In her view, Macrina was a “tool” that Gregory used to “think through various troubling intellectual and theological problems.” Clark, “The Lady Vanishes,” 15, 27.

90. 90. Leander of Seville, De institutione virginum; PL 72: 878; trans. Barlow, 189–190. The author of the Liber de modo bene vivendi, ad sororem (long thought to be the work of Bernard of Clairvaux) makes the same argument, drawing directly on Leander’s text, although he removes all reference to biological brotherhood. Liber de modo bene vivendi, ad sororem, 73; PL 184: 1306. On the Liber and its Middle English translation, see McGovern-Mouron, “ ‘Listen to Me, Daughter, Listen to a Faithful Counsel.’ ”

91. 91. Coakley writes that Ekbert approached Elisabeth as a “kind of a research assistant,” using her to find answers to the questions that interested him. Coakley, Women, Men, and Spiritual Power, 28.

92. 92. Ekbert of Schönau, De obitu, 2; ed. Roth, 271; trans. Clark, 265. Coakley cautions that Ekbert was hesitant to admit his spiritual attraction to Elisabeth, noting that he did not want to present himself as other than her supervisor. Coakley, Women, Men, and Spiritual Power, 35. Still, he did sometimes appear, as Coakley notes, as the “recipient of her graces” (44).

93. 93. Elisabeth of Schönau, Libri visionum, 1.59; ed. Roth, 29; trans. Clark, 81. Here Elisabeth records that she prayed to the Virgin “especially” for a certain friend, likely Ekbert, who was a deacon, but whom she had encouraged to seek priestly ordination. See also Emecho of Schönau’s record of the event: Vita Eckeberti, ed. Widmann, 449–450. I am not persuaded by Coakley’s judgment that Ekbert viewed Elisabeth as “naturally subordinate to himself.” Coakley, Women, Men, and Spiritual Power, 44.

94. 94. Elisabeth of Schönau, Libri visionum, 2.25–26; ed. Roth, 51–52; trans. Clark, 113–114.

95. 95. Ekbert of Schönau, De obitu; ed. Roth, 263; trans. Clark, 255.

96. 96. Aelred of Rievaulx, De institutione inclusarum, 32; ed. Hoste and Talbot, 674; trans. Macpherson, 94.

97. 97. Aelred of Rievaulx, De institutione inclusarum, 32; ed. Hoste and Talbot, 673–674; trans. Macpherson, 93–94.

98. 98. Aelred of Rievaulx, De institutione inclusarum, 32; ed. Hoste and Talbot, 675; trans. Macpherson, 95.

99. 99. Peter Damian, Epist. 94.27; ed. Reindel, MGH Briefe d. dt. Kaiserzeit 4.3, 41; trans. Blum, 4, 45. Concerning Peter’s affection for his sister, Rodelinda, “who had been a second mother” to him, see Peter Damian, Epist. 149.14; ed. Reindel, MGH Briefe d. dt. Kaiserzeit 4.3, 552; trans. Blum, 4, 178. Peter Damian also instructed one of his sisters in theological matters, writing a letter (Epist. 93) about the Last Judgment, at her request. Ferrante describes this letter as a “theological tract,” in which he encouraged his sister’s “intellectual investigation.” Ferrante, To the Glory, 27, and 228 n. 43.

100. 100. De S. Theodora, 70; ed. Talbot, 156; rev. trans. Fanous and Leyser, 70.

101. 101. Gregory’s obit appears on the calendar for February and Simon’s for November. Der Albani-Psalter, pp. 4, 13.

102. 102. Vita Burchardi episcopi, 12; ed. Waitz, MGH SS 4, 837. Burchard directed his sister’s education in the religious life, “consecrated” her to the service of God, and later supported her in her role as abbess.

103. 103. The two women appear first in the community’s entry list. Wischermann, 39. Two other sisters, Mathilda and Adelheid, subsequently entered the community as well, as did two of Hugh’s nieces, Ermengardis and Lucia. Wollasch, “Frauen in der Cluniacensis ecclesia,” 99. Other monks at Cluny arranged for their own sisters to enter Marcigny, as did a certain Bernard, who coordinated the transfer of his sister, Anna, from St. Jean, Autun, to Marcigny. Le cartulaire de Marcigny-sur-Loire, II, no. 175; ed. Richard, 103–104. Some men, like Peter the Venerable, even had mothers who were “sisters” at Marcigny.

104. 104. Mews, Lost Love Letters, 162.

105. 105. Promising his nephew that he would care for Richeza, Anselm wrote, “As far as I am able, I shall not cease to help her in every way as long as I live.” Anselm of Canterbury, Epist. 328; ed. Schmitt, Opera, II, 260; trans. Fröhlich, III, 45. For Anselm’s relations with Richeza, see Vaughn, St. Anselm and the Handmaidens of God, 118–124.

106. 106. According to Bernard’s biographer, Humbeline came one day to see her brother, magnificently attired and accompanied by a large retinue. Bernard “reviled and cursed her” and refused to see her. Humbeline, struck to the core, called on Bernard to speak with her, lamenting that “if my own brother spurns my body and its appearance, as a servant of God he should not refuse to help my soul.” Promising to obey his advice, Humbeline was ultimately received by Bernard, who (in the tradition of Pachomius and Maria) encouraged her to reject worldly enticements. Some years later, she entered the monastery at Jully and was made prioress, succeeding her sister-in-law, Elisabeth. William of St. Thierry, Vita prima Bernardi, 6; PL 185: 244; trans. Webb and Walker, 51. The spiritual importance of the sibling bond is emphasized once more in Bernard’s Life of St. Malachy, where he records that Malachy encouraged his sister to adopt a more religious life, although in vain. When she died, without having been reconciled to the faith, Malachy’s prayers on her behalf secured God’s forgiveness for her. Bernard of Clairvaux, Vita sancti Malachiae, 5; eds. Leclercq, Talbot, and Rochais, Sancti Bernardi Opera, 3, 320.

107. 107. Felten, “Frauenklöster,” 257–260. See Chapter 1, n. 80.

108. 108. Elkins, 55–56.

109. 109. Peter of Blois, Epist. 306; PL 207: 114–116. “Charissimae sorori suae Christianae.”

110. 110. Bönnen, Haverkamp, and Hirschmann, 377, n. 32. For charters recording the entrance of women at Molesme, see Women and Monasticism, trans. Berman, 90–91.

111. 111. See Chapter 1, n. 88. Other mothers who joined communities associated with their sons include Peter the Venerable’s mother, who became a nun at Marcigny, and Ediva, founder of Godstow, who moved to Oxford likely to be close to her son, the abbot of Abingdon (possibly Walkelin, formerly a monk at Evesham, as Emilie Amt suggests). Amt, “The Foundation Legend of Godstow Abbey.” By contrast, Paulina, founder of Paulinzella, withdrew from her foundation after her son, Werner, converted and joined her. She noted that it was permissible for her to live with Werner (as his mother), but that not all the monks were her biological sons. Citing I Cor. 13:2, Paulina noted that even if their holiness could move mountains, women and men mixing together would attract criticisms. Sigeboto, Vita Paulinae, 26; ed. Dieterich, MGH SS 30.2, 922; trans. Badstübner-Kizik, 116. Cf. Speculum virginum, 5.1243–1248; ed. Seyfarth, 156.

112. 112. Chronicon Beccensis; PL 150: 648; cited in Vaughn, St. Anselm and the Handmaidens of God, 91.

113. 113. Herman of Tournai, Liber de restauratione, 62–63; ed. Waitz, MGH SS 14, 302–305; trans. Nelson, 89–94.

114. 114. Herman of Tournai, Liber de restauratione, 65; ed. Waitz, MGH SS 14, 305; trans. Nelson, 95. The conversion of an entire household is also recounted in the life of Stephen of Obazine: Vita S. Stephani Obazinensis, I, 29; ed. Aubrun, 86–89; trans. Feiss, O’Brien, and Pepin, 158–159. For other examples of conversions involving entire families, see documents from Coyroux/Obazine in Women and Monasticism, trans. Berman, 79–80. Berman describes such communities as “double-houses or family monasteries,” underscoring the extent to which family ties dictated the mixed-sex character of much monastic life in the twelfth century. Berman, Cistercian Evolution, 123.

115. 115. Herman of Tournai, Liber de restauratione, 69; ed. Waitz, MGH SS 14, 307; trans. Nelson, 99.

116. 116. Even in the early Middle Ages, the entrance of entire family groups was not uncommon. Fructuosus of Braga’s seventh-century “General Rule for Monasteries” notes some of the problems that the entrance of families could pose, cautioning that families “may not hold converse together, except with the permission of the prior.” Demonstrating that the entrance even of small children was not unusual, Fructuosus nevertheless allowed that exceptions should be made for the “tiniest children … who are still in the cradle,” who were allowed to go “to their father or mother when they wish.” Fructuosus of Braga, Regula monastica communis, 6; PL 87: 1115; trans. Barlow, 186.

117. 117. Even so, the incidence of “saintly siblings” declined at this time, as Schulenburg observes: Schulenburg, Forgetful of Their Sex, 305.

118. 118. Ekbert reports having summoned Elisabeth’s sister to her deathbed, describing her as “a God-fearing woman whom I had called from afar for Elisabeth’s funeral.” Ekbert of Schönau, De obitu, 2; ed. Roth, 273; trans. Clark, 268. For the arrival of Elisabeth’s brother, see De obitu, 2; ed. Roth, 276; trans. Clark, 272. Schulenburg notes that saintly siblings were often present at a brother’s or sister’s death, and often took a leading role in preparing for the burial: Schulenburg, Forgetful of Their Sex, 297–303.

119. 119. De S. Theodora, 70; ed. Talbot, 160; rev. trans. Fanous and Leyser, 71. Christina nevertheless cited Jesus’s exhortation to reject family (Matt. 19:29) in defending her decision to refuse her parents’ plan for her marriage. De S. Theodora, 16; ed. Talbot, 62; rev. trans. Fanous and Leyser, 18.

120. 120. Elkins, 99.

121. 121. Oliva, “All in the Family?,” 164.

122. 122. “Non minus animo quam carne illorum probaretur virorum Dei esse germana.” William of St. Thierry, Vita prima Bernardi, 6; PL 185: 245; trans. Webb and Walker, 52. Although Humbeline played a relatively small role in Bernard’s life, she was memorialized alongside him as the founder of the Cistercian tradition for women. For discussion of Humbeline’s depiction in art, see France, “The Iconography of Bernard of Clairvaux and his Sister Humbeline”; and France, “Nuns and the Iconography of Bernard,” 160–165. France notes that Humbeline is depicted alongside Bernard in a fifteenth-century manuscript of the Miroir Historial of Vincent of Beauvais, giving the erroneous impression that she had entered the religious life with him. France, “The Iconography of Bernard of Clairvaux and his Sister Humbeline,” 10–12.

123. 123. “Carnis et spiritus germana.” Fundatio monasterii sanctae Mariae Andernacensis; eds. Holder-Egger, MGH SS 15.2, 969.

124. 124. Peter the Venerable, Epist. 185; ed. Constable, I, 427–434; trans. Morton in Guidance for Women, 98–108. Osbert of Clare, Epist. 21–22; ed. Williamson, 89–96; trans. Morton in Guidance for Women, 111–120. Osbert was involved in the foundation for women at Kilburn, in his role as prior of Westminster.

125. 125. Peter the Venerable, Epist. 185; ed. Constable, I, 433; trans. Morton in Guidance for Women, 106.

126. 126. Heloise, Epist. 2.7; 128–131.

127. 127. Abelard, Institutio, 43; 410–411. In fact, as Abelard likely knew, the practice of pairing male and female monasteries had its origins in the very real concern that male monastic founders like Pachomius and Caesarius had in ensuring the spiritual welfare of their kinswomen.

128. 128. Gilo, Vita sancti Hugonis abbatis, I, 12; ed. Cowdrey, 63.

129. 129. On Eckenbert, see Schulz, “Das Leben des hl. Eckenbert.”

130. 130. Eckenbert’s wife had been his former concubine. Vita S. Eckenberti, 5, 7; ed. Boos, 132, 133–134; trans. Bachrach, 65, 67. On the separation of married partners and their conversion to the monastic life, see Birkmeyer, Ehetrennung und monastische Konversion.

131. 131. Vita S. Eckenberti, 10; ed. Boos, 135; trans. Bachrach, 70.

132. 132. Vita S. Eckenberti, 11; ed. Boos, 136; trans. Bachrach, 71.

133. 133. On this point, see Wollasch, “Parenté noble.”

134. 134. Krings, Das Prämonstratenserstift Arnstein, 48–65, 98–101.

135. 135. Wollasch, “Parenté noble,” 10. See Le cartulaire de Marcigny-sur-Loire; ed. Richard, 240–241 (tableau généalogique); and Wischermann, 355.

136. 136. Elisabeth of Schönau, Liber revelationum, 10; ed. Roth, 128; trans. Clark, 219.

137. 137. Felix, Vita Sancti Guthlaci, 50; ed. and trans. Colgrave, 154–155.

138. 138. British Library, Harley Roll Y.6, Roundel 16.

139. 139. Discussed in McGuire, “Late Medieval Care and Control of Women,” 33, n. 98.

140. 140. Jerome, Epist. 22.12; ed. Hilberg, I, CSEL 54, 159–160; trans. Fremantle, 26–27.

141. 141. Fructuosus of Braga, Regula monastica communis, 17; PL 87: 1124; trans. Barlow, 201.

142. 142. “For where a man lives together with a woman, it is difficult for the snares of the ancient enemy to be lacking, snares which, without doubt, were not lacking in that place where a brother and a sister, namely Ammon and Thamar, lived alone together for the briefest of times.” Pope Nicholas I, Epist. 99.50; ed. Perels, MGH Epp. 6, 586.

143. 143. Gerald of Wales, Gemma ecclesiastica, II, 15; ed. Brewer, 236; trans. Hagen, 180.

144. 144. Referring to instances of priests who had apparently impregnated their sisters, the ninth-century Council of Mainz ruled that women who were blood relations should not be allowed to live with clerics. Council of Mainz (888), 10; ed. Mansi, 18: 67.

145. 145. Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Codex Vindobonensis 2554, fols. 46r-46v. See Bible moralisée, ed. Guest. On the basis of internal evidence, Tracy Chapman Hamilton argues that the manuscript was produced for Blanche of Castile: Hamilton, “Queenship and Kinship.” On the depiction of Amnon and Thamar in the manuscript, see Guest, “ ‘The Darkness and the Obscurity of Sins,’ ” 91–95.

146. 146. Trans. in Bible moralisée, ed. Guest, 124–125.

147. 147. Peter Damian, Epist. 61.11; ed. Reindel, MGH Briefe d. dt. Kaiserzeit 4.2, 215; trans. Blum, 3, 10. Discussed in McLaughlin, “The Bishop as Bridegroom,” 223.

148. 148. On Augustine’s deep love and respect for Monica, see Cooper, “Augustine and Monnica.” Concerning Augustine’s caution regarding his own sister and nieces, Possidius writes: