Research Portfolio 1
Bullough, Vern L.“Medieval Concepts of Adultry.” Arthuriana 7.4, Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press, 1997: p. 5-15
The courtly tradition in literature is an area of study defined by a specific set of characterized themes. These reoccurring trends focus on the identity created by the chivalric knight and the definition of the courtly lady as well as the role each occupies in the court and during courtship. As lovers intermingle, many adulterous relationships develop and if unfamiliar with the medieval definition of adultery, the stories of courtly literature may handle the subject in a confusing manner. In the article “Medieval Concepts of Adultery,” Vern L. Bullough presents a background of traditional meanings of adultery as well as provides examples of punishment for offending parties. He provides the interested reader with information that helps one further understand the basis of adulterous punishments in the traditional medieval writing. Seeing as I had no real experience in understanding adultery during this time, I was to learn the cultural setting that helps to explain the attitude towards adultery in the courtly style of writing.
Vern L. Bullough breaks down the article into six influences on the medieval understandings of adultery. Each section features a definition and examples that show the punishments for such a crime. Bullough describes the Germanic tradition as one where women “were not so much persons…as they were property” (Bullough 6). Savage punishments were inflicted upon women who were caught in adulterous relationships. Her head was to be shaven, she was publicly humiliated in front of her family and her husband was free to beat her and even kill her and the offending man at his own discretion. However, men were able to have sex with whomever they desired, as long as it was not another man’s wife. This double-standard, Bullough said, can be linked to the fact that women are seen as property and if their virtue or purity was tainted the value of the woman would decrease, so the husband, brother or related “owning” male could distribute punishment as was fitting. Similarly, the Roman tradition that Bullough describes also emphasizes women as a piece of property. The Sabine women and the rape of Lucretia are given as examples of the necessity for a man to find a virtuous wife as only such women are worthy of being possessed. Again, men were allowed to have as many extramarital affairs as they desired as long as the woman was unmarried.
Bullough addresses one difference in the laws of adultery between the Germanic tribes and the Roman tradition. Until Augustus created the Lex Julia de adulteries coercendis, death was not the punishment if two lovers were caught in the act. Instead it was “confiscation of parts of the property of the male, and the loss of half of the woman’s dowry” (Bullough 7). However, with the introduction of the Lex Julia, Bullough confirms that an accusation of adultery against a woman would result in an immediate divorce from her husband as well as an allowance for the husband to kill the adulterer, but not his wife (Bullough 7). Later, Constantine and Justinian introduced and confirmed the death penalty and the ability of a husband to kill his wife as punishment for the adulteress.
Bullough also mentions biblical references. Again, because women were the possession of men, any act in which violated his exclusive right to his wife was a violation of his property. The woman did not own her man and thus, the affairs of the wife were adulterous, but those of the husband were not. Introduced by the Bible was the idea that “even to be found alone with an unidentified man was sufficient reason to receive the death penalty [usually by stoning] as the story of Susannah would indicate” (Bullough 8). The New Testament brought about changes to the idea of adultery. Jesus Christ extended adultery to include thoughts as well as actions and the adulterous wife was not to be killed, but forgiven for her crime. Finally, divorce was redefined, as it no longer broke the eternal bonds of marriage. Instead, if divorce was granted and the wife was to remarry it was to be considered adultery as well.
The rising Christian presence in the medieval experience created a world where sex was no longer a private affair. Bullough explains that, by ranking “unapproved sexual activity [as one of] the three capital sins, along with idolatry… and paganism,” the church was able to pry into the lives of its parishioners (Bullough 9). Strict penances were given to prevent adulterous practices. If a man was caught with another woman he had to do penance as well as refrain from sex with his own wife for an extended period of time. Adulterous individuals were to be excluded from the rest of the community and could only return to the church after strict public penance. Bullough includes in his article a brief section about canon law (or the law of the Church). Here he examines the elimination of the double standard between the sexes. Suddenly, both parties were held responsible—in some cases the man even more so because he was the head of the family (Bullough 10).
Bullough’s final discussion on the non-legal aspects of adultery focus on those evils that are a result of wrongful sex that have nothing to do with the law of the land. Here, he mentions myths such as how extramarital sex robs men of their courage as it drains their soul or affairs cause women to masturbate, a crime worse than adultery. His final reference is to the work of Dante. Bullough comments how even Dante placed adulterers on the second level of hell, where storms and winds were “whirling and smiting them for all eternity. [This fate was regarded as] a fitting punishment since in life they were seen as having been pushed and pulled by the winds of passion and death” (Bullough 12). Bullough’s closing remarks focus on the strong negative emotions adultery provoked during the medieval period. His final comment is that the saving grace of confession and secrecy of affairs was that it allowed for those hearing adulterous confessions to work towards the preserving of the marriage and a lesser punishment.
After only one reading on this article, I was fascinated by all the information that I was previously unaware of. It provided a chronological evolution of adultery and the punishments distributed as a result of such affairs. By breaking down the basics of each cultural shift in relation to adultery, Bullough was able to create a clearly articulate and concise summery that was easily understood by the reader. The basic structure was helpful as I was referencing this article for another reading. In reading various works by Chaucer or Marie de France, I have noticed many slight innuendoes about other cultures in the stories, whether it is the setting for the piece itself or a reference to an event that has taken place in a foreign land. This article has become a guide a bit of the cultural background relating to extramarital affairs that has helped to make evident the ironic lines against the “heathens” of another culture.
Unfortunately, this article did not directly study a specific work written during the medieval period so the application of this article to said readings are purely my own speculation. Had the article applied different approaches to adultery on a specific piece, it would have been beneficial to see how different groups would have read or interpreted the same piece of literature. Also, a breakdown by country would have also been interesting as authors like Marie de France and Chaucer could have written completely different texts mocking adulterous attitudes of another country as well as their own. It is difficult to compare an article that is mostly based on historical research to articles of opinion and citation because there are no countering opinions to argue.
Vern L. Bullough contends that the definition of adultery is constantly evolving. Such an idea insinuates that though the article may have been enhanced by an analysis of a different piece as mentioned above, it is impossible to interpret a body of work based on the “ideals” of another culture. This is a result of the inability to understand or accept the basic societal laws that have been established in another time and place. It is suggested by the article that adultery turned from a physical “rape and blame” of the women into an disgraceful action or unfaithful thought that had equally demoralizing consequences for both men and women. Though it is a provoking thought, adultery in twentieth century society seems to be as commonplace as marriage and, therefore, it is difficult to relate to the article on the level that Christian values are prevalent enough to ostracize a member of the community for such an act. Similarly, while there is a mention in the article that men and women are equally responsible for an adulterous act, there is no real representation of that on a personal level because the double standard is so prevalent in today’s society. Adulterous women are degraded and slandered with horrific names, while adulterous men seem to escape blame completely. However, the article was an interesting introduction to the various punishments and cultural discriminations of adultery as well as a good resource to be compared with other articles and texts to better understand the origins of societal judgment.
Meredith Marconi
University of Mary Washington
