The Anglo-Norman reform-era position on physical castration remained consistent with ancient doctrines, although it was likely more influenced by the Norman practice of castrating political enemies. The significance of castration as a political punishment exemplifies this perception of manliness and physical potency. Klaus van Eickels has noted that, when William the Conqueror set castration as a penalty for treason, he established the precedent for later Anglo-Norman rulers to destroy the manhood of their enemies.90 This measure reflected the underlying cultural emphasis on masculinity: castration removed a man’s procreative function and deprived him of his ability to participate in the kinship network that was so profoundly important to Normans.91 The Norman use of castration on political enemies reflected the culture’s emphasis on manhood, governance, and political power; when castration was used elsewhere in medieval Europe, it was generally only employed as punishment for sexual offenses.92 Castration spelled dishonor for Normans, for it deprived them of their key social identity: being a man.
Norman rulers applied this form of dishonor to religious men, vowed celibates who, theoretically, did not engage in sexual intercourse. Geoffrey of Anjou asserted his political power over the church of Sées by castrating the bishop-elect Gerard and his clerics; he did so to punish the clerics for failing to consult him on the episcopal election.93 Geoffrey’s act recognized Gerard’s potency, as a religious leader and as a man. Although Gerard was presumably celibate, this factor meant little to the duke. His violent action showed that he, like other laymen, viewed clerics as men and viewed physical emasculation as a viable form of retribution. The entire castration narrative underscores that Geoffrey of Anjou, and his social equals (warrior elites), saw male genitalia as the seat of power. The removal of these genitalia signified, to Geoffrey at least, the loss of male potency.
Since the temptation of the flesh presented a constant battle for the celibate, it was a necessary aspect of proving religious manliness, whether the spiritual warrior was a priest, monk, or bishop. Preventing this battle through castration removed the potential for manhood. William of Malmesbury presented an anecdote in his Gesta Pontificum Anglorum that underscored that even religious men could not tolerate castration. Hugh d’Orvial was appointed bishop of London but, after ordination, fell ill with blisters all over his body; to quell this illness, he had his testicles removed. Due to this “shameful remedy,” William writes, Hugh had to endure “the slur (obprobrium) of being a eunuch.”94 By castration, Hugh put an end to one crucial masculine performance: conquering sexual desires over and over again. Rather than castration, physicians frequently advocated sexual intercourse as a remedy for certain kinds of illness. This in part illustrates that Anglo-Norman society, like others, viewed sex as a necessity for a balance of the humors, a view that could be problematic for religious celibates.95 Maurice, bishop of London, was advised by physicians to relieve his illness by “the emission of humours.” Maurice, known for “self-indulgent love of women,” was criticized by William of Malmesbury, for “he was indeed unlucky to have to safeguard the flesh by endangering his soul.”96
William’s condemnation of castration and sexual intercourse illustrates that the only course available to religious celibates, eager to guard their chastity, was to fight the desires of the flesh, even to the point of death. Thomas II, archbishop of York (d.1114), died from his refusal to accept a sexual remedy for his illness. Although he first consented to the treatment, which involved sex with a beautiful woman, his physicians later discovered he had remained chaste. Thomas defended his actions by saying “woe upon a remedy which requires lust (luxuriae) for its cure.”97 Then he died. In a similar case, the archdeacon of Louvain was elected to the episcopal see of that city, although he desired to remain in his present position. He initially refused the position because he questioned his own commitment to lifelong chastity. He proclaimed that, if he could not be chaste, “he would be far more tolerable and less likely to be damned in his archdeacon’s post” than he would as bishop. Nonetheless, after his episcopal consecration, the archdeacon began to experience genital swelling, “with immeasurable flatulence” (it was believed that excessive gas could cause erections!).98 Believing the cause of his illness to be sexual abstinence, those around him advised him to have intercourse. The cleric, wary of his failure to be continent as an archdeacon, refused to stain the dignity of his episcopal office with sexual activity. He later died, after “he resisted temptation manfully (viriliter) and, although conquered in the body, emerged victorious in the spirit for Christ.”99
Remedies other than sexual intercourse could quell carnal desire. Gerald of Wales preached that priests should not only avoid dining in the presence of women but that they should mortify the stomach and genitals through abstinence, due to the close proximity of these organs. Sometimes more extreme measures were warranted. In retelling the story of the hermit Godric, Gerald explained that the saint was overcome by lust and abstained for a full week to quell his “illicit urgings.” But, unable to stifle his passions and subjected to involuntary ejaculation, he finally threw himself into a thorny briar patch like St. Benedict. When this too failed to produce the intended result, he immersed himself in icy, cold water; at last, he “extinguished the passion which frequently raged in him.”100 This story brings to the forefront what Jacqueline Murray called the “problem of male embodiment.”101
The conflict present within the religious male body provoked some monastic writers to offer an alternative possibility: mystical castration. Gerald of Wales presents a story from the patristic era, when a monk by the name of Eliah created a monastery for women. After two years of ministering to the nuns, he suddenly began to experience carnal temptation. Terribly disturbed by his own thoughts, he fled to the wilderness to fast for two days and pray for an end to this temptation. One night in his sleep, Eliah was visited by three angels, who seized him, held him down, and “mystically” cut off his testicles with a knife. Afterward, Eliah reported feeling that a great burden had been lifted from him. He was able to lead this community of women as a fully intact male, without ever experiencing carnal temptation again.102
Religious writers underscored that choosing chastity was not the same as choosing impotence, physical or social. The chaste, celibate body was still sexually functional, so long as it had not been physically castrated. Various episodes narrated in these texts clearly demonstrate that the male celibate still experienced sexual desires, manifested by his erections and ejaculations; his body was still responsive. The celibate male’s struggle was to fight his own nature, his sexual desires, and, in that moment, become remasculinized. Gerald of Wales was an advocate of celibacy, and his numerous discussions of sexual behavior created a discourse on sexuality that served to incite desire. His recollection of stories could be seen as discursive reenactments of the war against the flesh, his flesh certainly and those of his readers.103 He stands as an example of how religious writers transformed clerical sexuality from the site of practice to the site of the imagination, all the while maintaining their chaste bodies.
Gerald was aware that young monks may have experienced sexual temptation more frequently, due to their youthful vigor. In his Gemma, he presents a letter written from Hildebert, bishop of Le Mans, to an abbot, who reported a curious problem with one of his young monks.