Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Disputatio Nova Contra Mulieres PDF
Disputatio Nova Contra Mulieres PDF
LAW UBRARt
Nova Contra Mulieres/
Disputatio
A New Argument Against Women
MELLEN CRITICAL EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS
Editorial Director
Maurice Hindle
scholarly specialists.
EDITORIAL POUCY
Proposals for volumes in this series, which are invited from scholars
working in any field of the humanities and the human sciences, should be
submitted for consideration to: Dr Maurice Hindle c/o The Edwin MeUen
Press, Mellen House, Unit 17 Llambed Ind. Est, Lampeter, Ceredigion,
I99i
Clive Hart
A CIP catalog record for this book is available from the British Library.
Governesses force them to exclude you from any hopes ever more to be
CONTENTS
page
Foreword ix
Preface xi
Acknowledgements xiii
reception 2
Bibliography 179
Index 189
A NEW ARGUMENT AGAINST WOMEN (1595)
A CRITICAL EDITION
Foreword
This book explores a controversy about the nature of women which surfaced
from time to time during the middle ages, came to a head in the late sixteenth
century, and was still being discussed in the late nineteenth century. The issues
were succinctly expressed in a little tract with the paradoxical title Disputatio
nova contra mulieres, qua probatur eas homines non esse (A new argument
against women, in which it is demonstrated that they are not human beings).
The Disputatio caused a stir out of proportion both to its size and to the cogency
or originality of its arguments. It was reprinted many times, translated into
inferior quality. This book offers a complete translation of the Disputatio nova
have added a complete translation of an essay published two and a half centuries
the tract. Chapter 6 includes the Latin text of the Disputatio, edited from a
copy of the first edition partially collated with the first two reprints and a
manuscript now in the Library of Congress.
Xll
Clive Hart s insightful, provocative, and often amusing book, the product of
careful research backed by sensitive awareness of the issues and sound linguistic
knowledge, will enable modern readers
to understand more clearly what lay
behind the many feminist and antifeminist disputes of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries.
Brian Willis
Acknowledgements
University of Essex, for grants towards the cost of research; to Denison Beach,
Oxford, for assistance with access to materials. The courteous staff of the Rare
Books Room, Library of Congress, took great care to ensure that their
For permission to quote a passage from Luis Diez Merino, Targum de Salmos,
For permission to quote from my transcription of MS Rawl. 421, ff. 2^-4^ and
65'-66'', I am grateful to the Bodleian Library, Oxford.
interest"), have been kind enough to recommend this book for publication.
<1
i
-?
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction: do women have souls? Opinions from the middle
ages to the nineteenth century
The Disputatio nova contra mulieres, qua probatur eas homines non esse
when the quarrel about women was well advanced.' Christian teaching had long
status. On the one hand it commonly stressed that in the eyes of heaven there
was no inherent difference between men and women: "there is neither male nor
female" (Gal. 3.28); male and female saints were equally worthy of veneration,
while in heaven men and women would enjoy complete equality. On the other
hand, women must in their earthly life accept the submissive status ordained for
them by Saint Paul. The distinction between the proper attitudes to physical and
heavenly life was far from clear. Saint Paul had elsewhere contradicted himself
'
For furtlier comment on dating, see chapter 6.
2
are identical to those of men. What is meant by the image of God? "So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him" (Gen.
1.27). Who, or what, is created in the image of God? Does the concept of
image refer to the visible body— in which case should we think of God as having
question, in which case womankind was not made in the image of God?^ Or
does the image rather inhere in the soul which, unlike the body— and assuming
that women are indeed blessed with souls— may be free from sexual
differentiation? This last solution, normal after the high middle ages, was
clearly enunciated by Saint Augustine (354-430) and further clarified by Saint
Thomas (c. 1225-74), who stressed that the image of God was to be found in the
rational soul: tarn in viro, quam in muliere invenitur Dei imago, quantum ad id,
which the quality of the image mainly consists, that is to say in respect of
intellectual nature); imago Dei utrique sexui est communis, cum sit secundum
mentem, in qua non est distinctio sexuum (the image of God is common to both
of his Decretum that woman is not made in the image of God.^ Although
Gratian’s canons were never officially adopted, they were highly influential.
more difficult since Aristotle had insisted that women were inherently inferior
beings. Giving his attention more to their physical structure and function than
to their moral or spiritual nature, he had gone so far as to call them monsters,
mistakes of nature, and had implied that they were more akin to the higher
animals than to men. In De generatione animalium he says that "the female is,
Thomas, but with the qualification that a lesser, passive creature responding to
the active principle of the male is a necessary part of creation. Since her
existence is required by the order of nature she can be rescued from the category
As only her corporeal nature is inferior, can woman therefore expect total
what will the redeemed look like when clothed first in their celestial bodies and,
later, when they recover their physical bodies at the resurrection of the flesh?
vicar— for any king has die image of God; and therefore woman is not made in the image of
God.)
‘ Summa theologica 1.92. 1.
’ Although Aristotle's opinion was frequently reiterated by physiologists and doctors of the
renaissance, it was often called into question. Dr Helkiah Crooke, notorious for his copious
description of sexual matters in the vernacular, deplored the Aristotelian belittling of women:
. . . the female sexe as well as the male is a perfection of mankinde; some diere bee that
call a woman Animal occasionatum, or Accessiorum, barbarous words to expresse a
barbarous conceit; as if diey should say, A Creamre by the way, or made by mischance;
yea some have growne to that impudencie, that they have denied a woman to have a
soule as man hath. The truth is, that as the soule of a woman is the same divine nature
with a mans, so is her body a necessary' being, z first and not a second intention of
Nature, her proper and absolute worke not her error or prevarication. The difference is
by the Ancients in few words elegantly set downe when they define a man, to be a
creature begetting in another, a woman a Creature begetting in her self.
Will all signs of sexual differentiation be expunged? Or, if the male body is
superior to the female, will everyone in heaven be male?* This last possibility
difference from the time of the creation of the angels. The angels, says Dupont,
were, and still are, all masculine; woman's inferiority makes the idea of a
point proves less than helpful. Since the devils in hell are fallen angels they
also are all male. Dupont resorts to sophistry. Although they have nothing to
do with angels, fallen or otherwise, women may appropriately be called
diablesses because, like true demons, they are placed on earth to torment and
punish men (ff. 12'^'- 14''). At best women are no more than beautiful animals
created to give pleasure to men and to serve them with their bodies and goods
(39'^). As for life in heaven, Dupont invokes the biblical assurance that after
raised in incorruption” (see 1 Cor. 15.35-58). It follows that the rib that Adam
lost when Eve was created will be restored to him, as will its equivalent in all
other men.'® Women will therefore disappear entirely, leaving only men in
heaven:
* These questions were endlessly discussed. See chapter 2, commentary on die Disputatio. See
also Clive Hart and Kay Gilliland Stevenson, Heaven and the flesh (Cambridge 1995) 109-26.
In his The renaissance notion of woman (Cambridge 1980), Ian Maclean misleadingly states that
"Renaissance commentators . . . seem unanimously to agree that woman will be resurrected as a
woman" (14). Statements that in heaven women will become as men or that all sexual
differention will disappear remained frequent.
’ Gratien Dupont, Les controversses des sexes masculin etfemenin (Tholose 1534).
Two clauses of die Gospel of Philip (third century, but little known until the twentieth), make
similar points: "In the days when Eve was was no death.
in After she was
Adam, diere
separated from him, death followed. If she enters again into him and if he takes her into
himself, there will be no more death" (clause 71). "If woman had not separated from man, she
would not have died with the man. Her separation was the origin of deadi. That is why Christ
came to put right once more the separation which had existed since the beginning, to reunite
them two by two, and to give life to those who died in the separation, and to unite them" (clause
78). See Jacques-E. Menard, L'evangile selon Philippe (Montreal and Paris 1964) 88, 90.
5
(In this way woman must return to the terrestrial world. Poor woman
will thus, in consequence, be nothing. If you think about it, there will
Might a case for women's lower status be based less on bodily inferiority than
on the premise that, although she may have a vegetable and a sensitive soul, she
altogether lacks a rational soul? Although the early fathers seem usually to have
assumed that women had souls, the origin and status of those souls generated
much commentary. While the Bible's accounts of the creation of Adam and Eve
are barely distinguished in the first version (Gen. 1.26-27), they differ markedly
in the second. In Gen. 2.7 God forms man from the dust of the ground and
then breathes a soul— "the breath of life"— into his nostrils. In Gen. 2.21-23,
where Eve is created from Adam's rib, there is mention neither of the breath of
life nor of anything else that could reasonably be thought to refer to a soul. If,
despite the absence of explicit testimony, she has a soul, what is its origin?
2 but individual souls for the first man and woman, and that perhaps at the same
moment he also created— at least in potential— the souls of the whole human race
to come (an interpretation commonly known as "preexistence"); (2) that Eve's
soul was derived from that of Adam, as was her body, a process repeated in all
divine intervention ("traductionism"); (3) that Eve's soul was created by God at
the moment of the creation of the body and that the same is true of everyone
" Although the doctrinal point has never been unambiguously formulated, this last is the view
adopted by the modem catholic church.
6
opened the way for the heretical view that the silence of scripture might be
interpreted to mean that in fact women had no souls at all. This doubt was
further increased by the different verbs used in Hebrew for the creation of
Adam (Gen. 1.27) and for the making of Eve (Gen. 2.22), where the first verb
implies creation ex nihilo while the second means built from physical materials
in the same sense as that in which one builds a house.'’ A woman might after
See, especially, Augustine’s De genesi ad litteram X, in which he takes issue with the views
of Tertullian; Augustine, De genesi ad litteram 2 vols, text witli French trans, by P. Agaesse
and A. Solignac (Paris 1972) vol. 1, 110-14, 530-41; Tertullian, De anima ed. J. H. Waszink
(Amsterdam 1947) 52, 419-22.
'’
See Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs 23; see also chapter 4, commentary on thesis 12.
7
Lewis's use of the word "saying" both indicates that the belief was a
commonplace and, by implying that Infidelitie’s argument depends on popular
lore, subtly undermines the attempted seduction.
The development of neoplatonism in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries
offered a more attractive point of view encompassing both body and soul: in
addition to being the spiritual equals of men, women in their mortal life reflect
through their physical beauty the beauty of divinity. Men may appropriately
seek heaven through loving relationships with them. Several of the women's
advocates explicitly defended their right to be thought of as in all respects
complete human beings. Having asserted early in his La nobilta delle dome
(1549) that the word huomo includes the feminine (f. S'^), Lodovico Domenichi
goes on to write:
whatever substance a thing is made from does not admit of being "more"
wood than another; so a man [huomo] cannot be more entirely man than
another, and in consequence the male will not be more perfect than the
female in respect of their formative substance because both the one and
the other are made under the species man and the difference between the
one and the other is an accidental not an essential matter, (f. IS'')
Participants in the querelle des femmes often went further, advancing the more
extreme argument that women are not merely the equals of men but their
superiors in both body and soul. In the year before the Disputatio appeared, the
Lewis Wager, The life and repentaunce of Marie Magdalene (1566) (London 1567) Eiv'’ ( =
lines 1173-88).
8
femme est beaucoup plus parfaite que I'homme en toute action de vertu.
influence thereof her soule: even so, the body of a woman is the heaven
of humane perfections, and her soule the treasurie of celestiall and divine
vertues.
The goodly heavens might not compare with the ornament and graces of
a woman, if nature had not made them of longer continuance: but by her
death she doth so much the more enrich their beauty encreasing their
this heavenly labour: It is the modell, not onely of things that beautifie
the world, but the very especiall of all formes: It is the table of the
celestiall powers: the gadge of natures alliance with the world, and the
onelie mirrour of perfect Ideaes: . . . The man that will enter but into
blessing. . . . Hee will likewise confesse, that woman was given him for
his eternall good, and that the house is not blessed where she wanteth.'^
femme est beaucoup plus parfaite que I’homme en toute action de vertu (Paris 1594) 7, 139-40,
152-54, trans. Anthony Munday (?), ed. Antliony Gibson, as A womans woorth, defended
against all the men in the world, prooving them to be more perfect, excellent and absolute in all
vertuous actions, then any man of what qualitie soever (London 1599) P, 55*^, 60''-61''.
9
c'est nostre repos, & nous sommes son soucy. (She is our refuge. She
is the familiar deity of our household, she is our repose, and we are her
care.) (155)
By developing the final clause of the original, the translator shifts the attention
away from the total passivity of the male with which Pont-Aymeri closes.
Rather than speak of a man's being cared for by a loving wife or mistress acting
. . . she is our meanes of comfort to God the Father, the cause of his
blessings to us in this life, and by her we are made sure of all happinesse
grace.
Lichfield to demonstrate that women are soulless. He makes the point in the
gossip about bishops. The pamphleteer urges women to take an active part,
assert themselves with their husbands, and “leade them like good soules up and
downe the streetes by the homes.” Prompted by his own metaphorical use of
the word “soul,” he goes on to attribute women’s vigour to their full spiritual
equality:
10
which a balde eloquent brother of yours, denide not long since in his
Sermon at Lichfielde.'®
A little later— and perhaps almost simultaneously with the writing of the
"Problems," an attempt to answer the reverse question "Why hath the Common
Opinion afforded Women soules?" The tone of Donne's long catalogue of
proposed answers suggests that the common opinion was still unsure about the
matter:
It is agreed that wee have not so much from them as any part of either
our mortali soules of sense, or growth', and wee deny soules to others
equall to them in all but in speech for which they are beholding to their
Foxes, or a Serpents would speake just so, if it were in the breast, and
could move that tongue and Jawes. Have they so many advantages and
meanes to hurt us (for, ever their loving destroyed us) that we dare not
displease them, but give them what they will? And so when some call
them Angelis, some Goddesses, and the Palpulian Heretikes make them
Bishops, wee descend so much with the streame, to allow them Soules'}
that easinesse, and prodigality, wherein wee daily lose our owne soules
to wee care not whom, so labour to perswade our selves, that sith a
soules but for use, since they for our sakes, give their soules againe, and
their bodies to boote? Or perchance because the Divell (who is all soule)
doth most mischiefe, and for convenience and proportion, because they
would come neerer him, wee allow them some soules, and so as the
Romans naturalized some Provinces in revenge, and made them Romans,
il
onely for the burthen of the Commonwealth', so wee have given women
soules only to make them capable of Damnationi'^
Did the common opinion afford women souls? Probably so; but some men
may have chosen to make a show of doubting it, if only for hedonistic reasons.'*
If women are indeed no more than physical beings, men need never feel guilty
about leading them into sin, whatever they may make them do, nor will women
ever suffer damnation. At the end of his Problem Donne twists the argument,
wrily suggesting that men may rather prefer to think of women as endowed with
souls because the pleasure derived from the idea of their damnation may be still
Wee are sure Women have Soules as well as Men, but yet it is not so
expressed, that God breathed a Soule into Woman, as hee did into Man.'’
John Donne, problem 6 in Juvenilia: or certaine paradoxes, and problemes (London 1633)
G2' -(G3’^1. Palpulian is evidently an error or misprint for Pepuzian or Peputian (the form used
in Donne's sermon of 30 May 1621; see below). The Pepuzian heretics were closely allied to
the Montanists of the second and third centuries. According to Saint Epiphanius (fourth
cenmry) they ordained women and made them bishops, citing as their authority Gal. 3.28: "there
is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Jesus Christ." See D. Epiphanii episcopi
Constantinae Cypri [or. rather. Saint Epiphanius] , Contra octoaginta haereses 49 (Basileae
1542) 197-98. The notion that women are no more than bodily instruments is developed in the
Disputatio, theses 8-10, while a version of the argument concerning speech and animals appears
in thesis 49.
'*
Some references demonstrating the proverbial namre of this view are gathered in Maurice
Palmer Tilley, A dictionary of the proverbs in England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
(Ann Arbor 1950) W709.
” Doime, Fifty sermons (London 1649) 399. Delivered 5 November 1622. For a modem
edition, see The sermons of John Donne IV ed. George R. Potter and Evelyn M. Simpson (New
Haven and London 959) 24 1 1
^ LXXX sermons (London 1640) 242. Delivered Easter Day 1630. The sermons IX (1958) 190.
In Paradise lost Milton gives a sophisticated answer to the question of angelic sexuality.
Raphael assures Adam that he and Eve may become as angels and, when pressed about
12
Donne here takes issue with the views of "Ambrosiaster," the author of
commentaries formerly included with the works of Saint Ambrose and identified
as spurious by Erasmus (c. 1466-1536). Glossing 1 Cor. 11.7, "man ... is the
image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man," Ambrosiaster
writes:
There is a great difference between the glory of God and the glory of a
man. For man was made in the image of God but not so woman. She is
Peputian hereticks did, is a faire way for a moderate man to walk in. To
make them Gods is ungodly, and to make them Devils is devillish; To
make them Mistresses is unmanly, and to make them servants is unnoble;
To make them as God made them, wives, is godly and manly too.“
Although Donne allows that women have souls, he seems here to attribute their
One brief passage in his poetry may indicate that while Donne may have been
in no doubt that women had rational souls, he was aware that the silence of
scripture could be a trouble to others. His crabbed verses of flattery "To the
affectionate relations in heaven, blushingly states that the angels can adopt either sex at will
{Paradise lost VIII. 618-29). I owe the identification of tlie passages in Donne's sermons to
Helen Peters, ed., John Donne, Paradoxes and problems (Oxford 1980) 99-101.
Ambrosiaster in Saint Ambrose, Opera V ed. Johannes Costerius (Basileae 1555) 274. He
makes a similar comment on 1 Cor. 14.34. See p. 285.
Donne, Fifty sermons (London 1649). Delivered 30 May 1621. The sermons III (1957) 242.
13
with a virtuous soul. The impact of the poem depends on the reader's initial
Speeches taking both sides of the question are found in Elizabethan and
may be assuaged by the belief that women are merely physical beings. Young
Freevill in Marston's The Dutch courtesan (1605), V.iii, ends a scornful speech
The rhetoric is strengthened by the choice of "bloud" rather than flesh, or earth.
Here, as commonly in the period, blood is a synonym for active sexual desire.
The snarling tone grows stronger in a later play in which Marston had a hand.
The insatiate countess (1613). Women's soullessness is there explicitly stated
on two occasions. Count Guido concludes Act III with a soliloquy reviling
•’
Donne, Poem (London 1633) 90. For a modem edition, see The complete poetry ed. John T.
Shawcross (Garden City, NY, 1967) 234. In thesis 49 the author of the Disputatio also makes
the point that women were debarred from ecclesiastical and civil office by botli canon and
secular law.
^ John Marston, The Dutch courtesan in Tragedies and comedies (London 1633) Dd3'' (
=
V.iii. 47-49).
14
Towards the end of the play, Signior Claridiana indulges himself by cursing
women at comparable length. He ends by saying "And lastly, may the opinion
of Philosophers/ Prove true, that women have no soules" (12'' = V.ii. 39-40).
While he appears, along with Gratien Dupont, to enjoy the prospect of women's
annihilation after physical death, freeing him from their presence in the next
life, he also seems to miss Donne's awareness that eternal damnation may be a
Shakespeare's characters are more inclined to assume that women are endowed
with immortal souls and that they are the spiritual equals of men. When Hamlet
enquires whose grave he is standing by, the first gravedigger answers "One that
was a woman sir; but, rest her soul, she’s dead" (V.i. 131-32). More pointedly,
Othello assures Desdemona that although he intends to kill her body he does not
wish to deprive her of eternal life: "I would not kill thy soul" (V.ii. 34). At the
end of Macbeth, V.i, the doctor grows aware that Lady Macbeth is more in
need of spiritual than of physical help. Cleopatra predicts that when her body
After the early seventeenth century the topos of women's soullessness survived
more readily in jests and squibs than in serious creative literature. In his The
scourge of folly (1611) Sir John Davies included a section entitled "Upon
English proverbes." Of proverb 25 he writes
John Marston and others. The insatiate countesse (London 1613) F3' (= 111. iv. 219-33). For
a modem edition, see that by Giorgio Melchiori (Manchester 1984) 111. iv. 176-90.
“ “
15
The couplet is teasingly ambiguous. A man who quotes the proverb may prove
a fool if spirited women attack him, as indeed they sometimes did— even
balance:
At the end of the seventeenth century the belief that women might be no more
Sir John Davies of Hereford. The scourge of folly in The complete works II ed. Alexander B.
Grosart (Edinburgh 1878) "Upon English proverbes" 42.
See chapter 2.
^ Samuel Butler, The genuine remairis in verse and prose 1 ed. R. Thyer (London 1759) 246-47.
16
than mechanical automata, useful and attractive to men, appears still to have
been widespread in the populace at large. It is mentioned in passing, as if it was
a commonplace, in John Dunton's popular weekly The Athenian gazette.
Published between 1691 and 1697 and known in its later issues as The Athenian
mercury, the Gazette devoted most of its space to readers’ queries. As in a
modern newspaper, it is never clear how genuine the queries are nor how much
they have been modified and refined by the editor. Among the many dealing
with the differences between men and women and their personal relationships is
a suggestion that women are concerned only with earthly existence; ”Why
Women, if meer Machines, might not answer all other ends, except that
assumption, they wonder what might be said if men, rather than women, were
treated as machines:
should we cross the Cudgels, and a Woman ask the same Question
concerning Men, how would the Querist answer it? To come still closer,
its plain that God made nothing in vain, much less so Noble a Being as a
Soul; now there being the self-same Arguments that Women have a
without it, because they are made with it; and what those Ends are 'twill
good for Man that he should be alone: Now if even as things are, even
while Women are indu'd with rational Souls as well as we, the great
Sense have against them, is— that their Conversation is generally mean
and trivial, that they are not worthy a Thought, and that they can't
entertain their Reason-, how much more might this Argument be used,
had they only been created meer Machines, as the Querist would fain
Generation— for the Birth takes after the Mother at least as much as the
Among other tracts in similar vein was one by an English "Gentleman" written
in response to Woman not inferior to man,^ a short treatise by "Sophia, a Person
of Quality," which caused a minor stir for a few years following its publication
in 1739.’’ The attention given to Sophia’s book was attributable at least in part
to the vigour and freshness of her style, which evidently piqued the Gentleman.
Amusing himself by speaking of women as subhuman dross, and perhaps
alluding to the different verbs used in Genesis to account for the origins of men
and women, the Gentleman warns against
the vulgar Error of imagining that Woman was created at all; Whereas,
any Understanding, even inferior to that of Woman, if such a Being
weak Sex was no distinct Creation from that of Man; but only a mere
Refinement of his noble Composition, by purifying and separating it
from its Dross. So that tho' Woman be, with Regard to Man, a Sort of
Man over the rest of Creatures may be deduced from the Circumstance
the Women, who can be at best but mere half-Creatures. ... we can
” Quoted from tlie compendium which Dunton edited some years later; The Athenian oracle
11. 551-52 (1708). Other relevant comments from among the answers to readers' questions are
included below, chapter 4, commentary on the Disputatio.
^ Sophia, a Person of Quality, Woman not inferior to man: or, a short and modest vindication
of the natural right of the fair-sex to a perfect equality of power, dignity, and esteem, with men
(London 1739).
” She returned to the attack with Woman’s superior excellence over man (London 1743) in
which she treats the Gentleman with scorn.
18
look upon the most perfect of their Sex in no better a Light, than as a
Kind of amphibious Thing, between a Creature and no Creature at all.“
employments, customs and importance of the fair sex in all parts of the world,
an anonymous book of 1790, nominally in praise of women but ambiguous in
tone, quotes a more unusual argument to show that, lacking souls, they have no
part in the resurrection. A chapter "On the Idea of Female Inferiority" begins
mind, as well as of body, men are generally superior to women." The writer
gives evidence:
The idea of the inferiority of female nature, has drawn after it several
others the most absurd, unreasonable, and humiliating to the sex. Such
is the pride of man, that in some countries he has considered immortality
as a distinction too glorious for women. Thus degrading the fair partners
of his nature, he places them on a level with the beasts that perish. (141-
42)
There follows an account of the beliefs and attitudes of the Asians and
Mahommedans, after which the author quotes a passage from another unnamed
writer, described as "one whose wife was a descendant of the famous
Xantippe."^’ In this he finds support for the idea that women do not enter
Paradise (142-43). The disgruntled husband had cited Revelation 8.1 where it is
said that after the opening of the seventh seal "there was silence in heaven about
Now I appeal to any one whether that could possibly have happened, had
there been any women there? And, since there are none there, charity
“ A Gentleman, Man superior to woman: or, the natural right of the men to sovereign authority
over the women, asserted and defended. Being an answer to that celebrated treatise intitled.
Woman not inferior to man, &c. (1739) (London 1744) 9.
” (London 1790) 140-41. I have been able to identify neither die audior of this book nor the
name of the quoted husband.
19
follows that they have no immortal part: and happy is it for them, as
they are thereby exempted from being accountable for all the noise and
Although by the nineteenth century the idea had been largely forgotten, it
writer of Woman: sketches, Louis Aime Martin adopted a tone of cloying, pious
solemnity in his undeservedly popular book De I' education des meres defamille,
des temps qui ne sont pas encore tres-eloignes, de graves docteurs leur
refusaient une ame (In times not far distant grave doctors denied that they had
souls).
All of these differing opinions are either addressed or implied in the Disputatio
think that while men were created by God, women were not truly created at all
embodiment of divine beauty, they are not made in the image of God and are
little better than the other living creatures over whom Adam has dominion; the
author even calls them dogs (thesis 22). If, not being human, women are little
better than higher animals, social and sexual equality are out of the question and
men will find it psychologically easier to treat them as sources of temporary,
earthly pleasure having relevance neither to their serious concerns on earth nor
to their expectations of future life in heaven. Although writers frequently
debated these propositions in the spirit of a social or scholarly game, the
Disputatio nova contra mulieres was perceived by most of its early readers as
The Disputatio nova contra mulieres was at first attributed to the philologist,
studying medicine in Bologna but otherwise lived and worked in east Germany,
not far from the Polish border. His only connexion with the book seems to have
been that, having acquired one of the several manuscript copies that had
occasionally found in catalogues even today.' In the last months of his life, ill
past, Acidalius appealed for help. The several repetitions and pitiful notes of
'
An account of its early history is given by J. Christian Bay in "Women not considered human
beings," The library quarterly 4 (1934) 156-64. See also Johann Christian Leuschner, De
Valentis Acidalii vita, moribus et scriptis (Leipzig und Liegnitz 1757).
'
"Epistola apologetica ad cl. uirum lacobum Monauium," Christianus Acidalius, ed., Valentis
Acidali epistolarum centuria I (Hanoviae 1606) 339-44.
22
In these times almost no one approves of jocular writing but finds in the
most lighthearted matter a cause and occasion for unjust accusation. For
I, indeed, thought these theses to be in the highest degree ludicrous and
blasphemy, for truly if I had in the least suspected as much I would have
abhorred them when I saw them and have burned them after I had read
them. I would certainly never have been so insane as to have
beg you to believe in me, Monau! This shamefulness falls upon me,
whose modesty in all things you have observed and of whom you often
predicted great things. But the publisher in question has named me and
consistently declares that he had the book from me. This, indeed, he
cannot in truth speak of otherwise, and I myself do not in the least deny
it. But does he not also add that I urged him and begged him to print it?
And if he says that also, he does injury both to me and to truth itself. I
nevertheless think one may easily say this, that if the odium is
responsible for publishing the work of that author (whoever he may be)
he who would think me to be that man. I sent him the book that I
received from another— and for what reason, upon what advice? Listen
to the truth from my innermost conscience and you will understand the
and, since men of that kind are greedy for money, when the returns from
complained about his financial loss, which I soon promised to make good
to him by another kind of book from the readier sales of which he might
make money more plentifully. Now, what I was doing just then was
23
intervened— that I would send him the last part. Since, however, I was
then keen to find other means of making my peace it proved convenient
(or perhaps 1 should rather say inconvenient) that these Theses, which
because of their theatrical nonsense had fallen over a long period into
many hands, had by ill luck reached mine. And in truth they had for
long fallen into the hands of a great number: nor can I name all the
select, good, great, and prominent men from many places, but most of
them seeming to come from Poland to begin with, who years ago saw
the Theses after they had appeared, read them, thought of them as an
amusement, passed them around among themselves, copied them, caused
them to be copied. Nor, as far as I know, was any one of them shocked
by the wantonness of the text, nor again did any attempt to show that it
was itself a doctrine of impiety. And now, after all this time, these men
are doing so, perhaps because of too fragile a sense of piety, too subtle a
and prudent. Nor did I ever approve of that excessive licence in the
closely; nor, in truth, have I ever reread it since. And, indeed, I wanted
a copy of it not for my own amusement but, since it had attracted so
much attention and had been damaged by being copied by so many, it
and in my inner judgement, but without reference to you (to whom, for a
reason that I cannot explain, I did not communicate the affair), I silently
24
and immediately decided that this could be put to his use. With the
immediately send the manuscript; but I also warned him that the book
might perhaps be troublesome because of its excess of libertine
facetiousness, which I also fear will now provoke evil rumours, even
though then I did not at all fear such a tempest of disgrace. I therefore
also added this, that I had no part in the matter, nor wished to have any.
At the same time I begged that he should not speak of me publicly, that I
did not wish my name to be associated with trifling fables and wished to
him at that time that I would send the book for no cause of my own but
for his own convenience, and that I left to his judgement entirely the
decision as to how it might be used for his own good. He replied and
asked for the manuscript, which 1 sent to him shortly afterwards. That
letters to him— to which I appeal; let him bring them forward, and if he
can show from them that I urged him or sought the publication, then let
him pass the guilt on to me. For what reason would I press that such
things should be printed? And how would I have benefited? Why would
I urge as much, unless because of my advice he might receive some part
of his money? I strongly reiterate that I handed the whole matter over to
his Judgement and capacity. For I openly wrote "if he wishes and is able
to do so." In this it was for him to consider his affairs in his own way
and to decide from the opinion of others what was needed for the matter,
also believe this, that in that place there is the same custom as is found
’ Acidalius was writing from Neifie, Silesia, having recently moved there from Breslau
(Wroclaw).
25
for him, what difficulty in law has resulted from it, what danger has
been created? If he acted secretly and furtively with the printer, why am
1 drawn into the matter? Let them defend their own cause; if they can,
let them leave me out of it; they force me to be involved with them in
vain. Nothing of mine was sown in that ground with them, nor do I seek
If Acidalius is not exaggerating to assist his case, the wide circulation of the
the change of attitude after the tract appeared in print is naive, confused, or
and its subsequent dissemination in printed form, which puts the potential
readership beyond the control of the judges and makes the arguments seem more
dangerous. At least one strong objection was in any case recorded before
Osthaus's edition appeared. As noted below in the introduction to chapter 6, the
fiery theologian Aegidius Hunnius is said to have taken pains to refute the
claims of the Disputatio in or before 1594. In May 1595 Acidalius died.
A cursory reading of Acidalius's acknowledged works reveals the
young man proud of his scholarship, he shows himself, when writing free of
variety of rhetorical graces. He quotes poetry in both Greek and Latin, includes
Greek words and phrases, and makes many allusions to classical myth. A
collection of his letters, published in 1606 by his brother Christian, reveals
simple, brisk statement with a long breathed, well cadenced sentence which he
*
In the last sentence of the passage quoted here, Acidalius uses a familiar Latin idiom.
26
takes evident delight in spinning out.^ Nothing of the kind is found in the
Disputatio which, although in no sense a letter, has more in common with the
of Acidalius's letters leaves little doubt that if he had composed those passages
of direct address he would have done so with his customary panache. The
writer of the Disputatio was an unremarkable man of modest talent, never
outrageous, inviting the reader to laugh with him, he is more often covertly
dishonest, as Acidalius appears never to have been. The tract seems destined to
remain anonymous.
Evidently written in Acidalius's native east Germany, the Disputatio opens
decades of his life, the Italian theologian Fausto Paolo Sozzini (1539-1604)
lived in Poland, where his heretical views became highly influential. Among
the most important of his radical beliefs was the notion that, although acting by
grace of the Father as a God on earth, Christ was merely God's vicar, purely
human rather than essentially divine. Sozzini supported this and other opinions
Disputatio was written with tongue in cheek, making sophistic use of a literal
reading of scripture to prove that women are not human beings in implicit
. . . Optatius quidem nihil obtingere mihi posse scio. Quid enim uel ad animi mei
uoluptatem iucundius, uel ad fructum studiorum utilius, quam humanitatem primum
illam beneuolentiamque tuam, cuius dulcedine coram saepe intimos mihi sensus
perfundi, animumque penitus liquescere memini, denuo in literis regustare &
persentiscere, deinde a quo in sermonibus olim bona plurima didici, eiusdem epistolis &
scripturis uicissim erudiri?
Tlie parallelism in the two sentences of quidem and quid enim is a further example of Acidalius's
stylistic bravura.
‘ Acidalius edited and wrote about many Latin authors, including Ausonius, Quintus Cunius,
Plaums, Pliny the younger, and Tacims. Much of his work was published postliumously.
27
Christ to have been divine.’ That this view of the tract was adopted early is
qua anonymus probare nititur mulieres homines non esse (A most amusing
argument in which an anonymous author attempts to demonstrate that women
are not human beings). In the commentary and notes I have called the author of
the Disputatio the Disputant.
on a single quotation from scripture nor do they always offer separate and
identifiable arguments. The rhetorical sequence is carefully worked out, with a
neat return at the end to some of the terms with which the Disputatio begins.
The last paragraph is a conclusion. The tone varies: orotund solemnity is
their forgiveness for his having written a vigorous but far from serious
rhetorical exercise. In the second part he turns to snarl viciously at them once
again. Despite his protestations, he may harbour a real animus against women:
I . . .
plead with the unwise little women that with the benevolence and
love which they possessed in former times they may embrace me; which
if they do not so wish, may the beasts perish for all eternity.
The most notable characteristic of the tract is its intentional and skilful misuse
of sources, sometimes quoting accurately but, by omission of the context or by
Cicero, Luther, Castalio, Cornelius Valerius. Among the sources from which
he silently quotes and paraphrases is one that might be thought least likely to aid
’ Sozzini wrote copiously on this theme. See, for example, De Jesu Christo servatore ([Basel]
1578), De Jesu Christi filii Dei natura sive essentia (Racoviae 1588) and, more generally. Opera
omnia 2 vols (Irenopoli 1656).
28
extravagant in his praise of women, the Disputant is able to use his celebration
Disputant's early critics appears to have noticed his extensive borrowings and
the most significant of those passages are noted in the commentary. The
Disputant did not use either of the early editions of Agrippa (1529, 1532) but an
edition, without note of place or date, published late in the sixteenth century.’
Lot, and Tamar— are quoted almost verbatim from a passage in that edition
which does not appear in the earlier texts and is probably spurious.
argument, recently published anonymously and without the name of the printer,
February 1595/96, with the author's and printer's names boldly indicated. In
Magdeburg, Gedik mentions that the Disputatio, "a notorious and blasphemous
pamphlet," was published "at the start of this year" (1595 o.s.), indicating a
publication. The editors of the critical edition describe it as sans doute de la fin du sidcle (41).
29
maximum of about ten months between its publication and the response. The
absence of the author's name and silence as to the place of publication reveal,
says Gedik, how wicked and miserable are the offspring of Satan. During the
next hundred years, both tracts were frequently reprinted."
Gedik's reply shows signs of having been written both in haste and in anger.
Vulnerable points are overlooked, and the refutations are not always well
argued. In many cases his quotations from the Bible are so loose as to be little
more than paraphrases, indicating, perhaps, that he was quoting from memory
or translating, currente calamo, from Luther. The rhetoric is nevertheless of
most cases seriatim from beginning to end, answering each in turn. While he
usually makes the obvious points, he is sometimes idiosyncratic or rhetorically
colourful. Most of Gedik's replies rely on the familiar tactic of citing other
passages from scripture which appear to demonstrate the contrary of what the
and in his scholarship. His replies include Greek and Hebrew words and
phrases, always relevant to the argument, whereas the Disputant uses only a
single conventional Greek phrase in his second thesis. Gedik's Latin also
displays a wider range of grammatical and syntactical devices and his vigorous
style conveys the impression of a selfassured man used to showing off his
learning. His mixture of registers ranges from the most scholarly to an almost
distasteful invective. While he is aware that the Disputant might have been
writing for amusement, he defends himself against a possible charge of
censure. The emotional energy with which Gedik wrote generates a strong plea
in favour of women and in support of their right to be thought the equal of men.
The violence of his language has sometimes been adversely criticized. Christian
Bay calls it "far more reprehensible than the book against which it was
directed."'^ It is nevertheless wise to react with caution. Such invective.
In commenting on the speed with which Gedik's reply was published. Bay (158) evidently
failed to take note of old style dating, still current in the late sixteenth century in protestant
regions of Germany.
" See chapter 6.
'*
Bay 163.
30
scholarly flyting, was more common and more readily accepted at that time than
it is in our tamer days when to write offensively is often to break the law. A
celebrated example of the style had appeared a few decades before Gedik's tract
Soon after its publication, the Disputatio enjoyed wide circulation. In a note
to his Masque of beautie, performed in January 1608, Ben Jonson makes what
appears to be a direct and dismissive allusion to it. In a song towards the end of
In a dry marginal note to "hold" Jonson comments: "There hath beene such a
Weiber Menschen seyn, oder nicht?'^ In a short address to the reader, the
printer mentions the several tracts on the subject that had recently been
published, evidently referring mainly if not entirely to the Disputatio and to
Gedik's reply. The titlepage says that the book was written in 1617 by a "Lover
verfasset und publiciert (n. p., 1618). It was reprinted in Frankfun in 1721.
31
of love and modesty." Based on the Disputatio and Gedik, Ob die Weiber
Menschen seyn, oder nicht? introduces two clerics. Brother Endres of the
he will have to ponder the questions raised and weigh up the points for and
against. The propositions and responses are set out in a format reminiscent both
of Gedik's tract and of the many pedagogical master/pupil dialogue books of the
middle ages and renaissance. While with few exceptions Gedik consistently
follows the order of the Disputatio' s theses, the dialogue quotes theses and parts
commentary. The frame situation of the dialogue shifts the emphasis to some
degree away from theological debate and towards human emotion: Endres
comments on Eugenius 's evident wish that, were it not for his ordination, he
might marry in the last years of his life. The defence of women's full humanity
is thus closely linked to their personal and sexual attractiveness— an idea far
character of the tract, Plata distances himself from it both in his brief
Disputant's general thesis: "That women are of the human species is a truth so
infallible that its denial is both ignorance and impiety." The Disputant has
written the tract, he believes, merely to win applause for his great powers of
oratory as he upholds a proposition as far from the truth as the idea, still
(Lione [=Venezia?l 1647). Plata entirely omits theses 17 and 31. This was perhaps an
oversight, although the layout of the early editions does not suggest that eyesldps could have
occurred at these points more readily than elsewhere. There is nothing in the content of the
theses to indicate that they might have been especially unwelcome. In addition, there are a few
simplifications and abridgements, especially from the later parts of the theses. Details of his
translation show that he evidently used a reprint of 1638 or 1641 rather than the first edition of
1595.
32
supported by some moderns, that the heavens revolve around the earth ([iii]).
was both recent and hardwon. In the postscript Plata reassures the lady that his
purpose in publishing the translation was not to disparage women's merits but to
use the text as a foil which might enhance "the glory of the female sex." If he
had had any other intention he would have been subject to "the thunderbolts of
your disdain, more terrible to me than death" (cxv). He nevertheless finds that
even goes so far as to call it a panegyric of women rather than a satire (cxix)."
The Disputatio was again noticed in Germany in 1650, when Johann Beilin
He says that this view has often been expressed both inside the church and out.
that women are not human beings, whereupon the old women of the flea market
fell upon him and beat him to death with chairs (f. **iiii'^).
” By contrast, Agrippa’s tract, nominally in praise of women, has sometimes been thought a
disguised attack.
'*
Johann Beilin, Abigail, das ist des lob-wurdigen Fraun-Zimmers Adel und Fortrdfligkeit
(Lubeck 1650).
33
Doubtless because of the Disputatio's plainly heretical nature, and despite the
denials that surround Plata's translation, the Vatican seems to have taken it
seriously: in 1651 it was placed on the Index. In the same year an excited
refutation of the translation appeared under the pseudonym Galerana Barcitotti,
urgent desire to promote the freedom and happiness of women. In 1660 one of
these, her posthumous La semplicitd ingannata (1654), was itself placed on the
Index. Her highly polemical and acerbic disposition colours her refutation of
the Disputatio, written shortly before her comparatively early death in 1652.
Tarabotti's replies follow the same format as Gedik's. Each thesis,” headed
Inganno (Illusion), is quoted in its entirety while her replies are headed
particular and to men in general, her opening pages are little more than a series
of general invectives, while in the main body of her commentary she repeatedly
paints scornful little vignettes of the Disputant and his procedures. Her tone
suggests that she mistakenly takes the book to be a recent production whose
author is still living. Although the Disputant appears to think of himself, she
You, to make yourself known as a true devil, act like an ape, imitating
speaking well or ill. And you follow the example of goats who, when
” Sometimes the theses are subdivided into sections, each answered separately.
“ As she is responding to Plata's translation, she too omits theses 17 and 31.
34
She is also aware that she speaks from the centre of another and finer culture.
To speak ill of women you try to sow dissension in the most fertile field
insinuate this false dogma into the heart of the faith, (v-vi)
Like her older contemporary, the poet Lucrezia Marinella (1571-1653), who in
1600 had written a warm defence of women,^ she is unmistakably serious in her
praise of women's worth while also angry that their relative lack of education
her introductory pages she complains that he sullies the reputation of a sex
"who, through lack of training cannot reply to your invented wickedness"; she
adds that with the venom of his character he tries to "assassinate the spirits of
the artless" (iii). A literate nun with tolerable latinity, she evidently thinks of
a reprint of the Disputatio which had been given a new title; Mulier non homoF'
Even if the Disputatio is meant as a bad joke, the author finds it, as Gedik had
done, potentially dangerous. He warns against the "loose talking" and "jesting"
She uses the ordinary Italian word for goat, capra, wlrich, being grammatically feminine,
causes her to use the feminine la for the individual goat that leads the herd. She might perhaps
have done better to use the masculine capro (buck goat).
^ Le nobilta, et eccellenze delle donne, et i dijfetti, e mancamenti de gli huomini (Venetia
1600).
“ A full (though umeliable) account of Sister Arcangela and the response of the Venetian
authorities to the question of women’s worth is found in Emilio Zanette, Suor Arcangela:
monaca del seicento veneziano (Venezia 1960).
^ Anon., Muller homo! (n. p. [Germany?] 1690). Tlie tract is not by Gedik, as is falsely stated
in the British Library Catalogue.
35
opportunities to pester the female sex as if women did not belong to the order of
human beings, attitudes and activities that he associates with Satan. The
Disputant’s arguments are thus again linked to the possibility of sexual licence
and to the breakdown of good social order. The author accordingly believes it
necessary to warn young men that they should neither buy the book, nor read it,
nor communicate it to others to read, but should suppress and destroy any copies
they possess. The Disputatio is so filled with impiety that hardly any refutation
will prove sufficient. The author uses much of what he found in Gedik,
translations were prepared in less than a century. The first, by Paul Lorrain,
was never published but in 1678 was offered in manuscript form as a New
Year’s gift to Samuel Pepys, for whom Lorrain worked as clerk. Complete
with titlepage, dedication, and epilogue, and written in an elegant copperplate, it
seems to have been prepared in the hope of eventual appearance in print. A few
blunders reveal that Lorrain occasionally had difficulty following the
original. “ Lorrain’s dedication and epilogue are of greater interest than the
Disputatio about the Canaanite woman and the crumbs (theses 21-24), both
gracefully indicating his subservience to his patron and suggesting his own
sympathy with women. He continues with an account of the origin of his
“ Of Huguenot extraction, Lorrain later went on to take holy orders. He became well known
for compiling a series t)f confessions made by condemned prisoners. The broadsheets were
issued on die inorning of the execution.
Lorrain omits entirely theses 18 and 19, whose etymological discussion might have proved
difficult to capture in French. An eyeskip may account for the almost total omission of thesis
45. Perhaps wishing to create a snappier ending, he omits the concluding summary in the first
half of diesis 51. As often in manuscripts, die copying grows less tidy in the later pages. There
is no clear evidence as to which text of die Disputatio Lorrain used. A few details of the
translation indicate that it was not diat of 1595. Some idiosyncrasies, unattested in the printed
texts, may perhaps derive from manuscript copies still circulating in the seventeenth century.
36
Monsieur,
Vous ne vous etonneres pas, si celuy, pour la Bouche duquel les Restes
des Dames, dont les sages s'en pouront bien servir contre les efroyables
Monsieur,
Votre tres-humble et tres-
soumis Serviteur.
P. Lorrain.
Sir: You will not be astonished if he for whose mouth the scraps from your table are a
veritable feast appears ambitious to make use even of your pastimes for the most serious
instruction of his mind. It is that. Sir, which has caused me to take the liberty of reflecting on
the discourses which I have sometimes had the honour to hear you address to the fair sex to the
effect that they are not of the human species nor susceptible of eternal salvation, a paradox
which at first I But, coming later to consider its basis, I
thought to be the product of your wit.
found was an opinion neither extravagant nor new, having been upheld more than eighty
that it
years ago by a quite celebrated writer whose arguments as to this truth seem so very convincing
that they thoroughly merit being translated from their Latin original into the softer French
language for the benefit of women, among whom die wise will be able to use it against the
37
might have been. His announced reason for preparing the translation is that he
wishes to be of service to women. The soft French language will appeal equally
to women of sense who will be freed from fear of damnation, while beautiful
women, also released from that fear, will be able to indulge themselves— and,
by implication, their male lovers.
No record of Pepys’ discussions with women about their humanity appears to
the strain these caused his marriage, by his wife’s return to the Catholicism in
which she had been brought up, and by her death a decade before Lorrain
presented the translation, Pepys' drawing room comments on the matter might
who might feel offended by being classified as higher animals. He says again,
more explicitly, that as compensation for their loss of status they will be free to
enjoy all the pleasures of life with no fear of judgement or punishment. The
rhetorical insistence both here and in the dedication on the beauty and delightful
nature of women shows that once again they are being urged to feel free to
please men:
Epilogue
du Traducteur,
Aux Dames.
fearful apprehensions of another world, and the beautiful against the troublesome constraints of
this. Placing it, Sir, under the protection of your generosity (which, I believe, will not disdain
to take, on all occasions, the part of this adorable sex) I offer ityou as a new year's gift. And
to
in wishing you many happy years, I remain, with infinite respect. Your very humble and very
submissive servant, P. Lorrain. At London, this first of January 1677/78.
38
revet ailleurs rHomme du Noble Titre de Lion, dit aussi, que ce Chien
Vivant (et meme Exemt de la mort, comme la Femme) vaut mieux que
ce Lion perissable.
(comme elle le doit etre) a Votre Avantage, puis qu'elle Vous met dans
plaisirs de ce Monde, aux depens des Ennuis, des soupirs, des Helas! des
desespoirs, et meme de la mort, et perdition Eter[66nnelle du Genre
with an eloquent assertion that they are indeed creatures designed for the
pleasure of men:
There are few subjects that have exercised the human spirit as much as
women. This sex, which constitutes the delight of ours, which spreads
so much sweetness in life and which nature seems to have formed with
special kindness solely to make us happy— woman, in a word, the
masterpiece of her hands— has at all times been the object of our satires
Epilogue of the translator to the ladies. I should not dare to let pass this discourse without
dissociating myself from the unduly severe conclusion of my author, who seems so delighted at
having, with such success, established his doctrine that he forgot to remain within the bounds of
the respect due to the adorable sex of whom he has just spoken, not considering that the same
scripture which calls woman a dog and elsewhere accords to man the noble title of lion, also says
that this living dog (even freed from death, as is woman) is worth more than this mortal lion. |
Live, then, blessed creamres, believing yourselves neither traduced nor debased by this amusing
argument. Rather use it (as it should be) to your advantage since it affords you the privilege of
enjoying all the sweetness and pleasure of this world without keeping account or concerning
yourselves with all the tediousness, the sighs, the cries of alas, the despairs, or even the death
and eternal damnation of the human race, of which you are now so happily discharged.
Details of the text of Querlon's translation show Uiat it was prepared from a copy of one of the
reprints, probably that of 1638 or 1641.
39
through our pride and degraded from her rightful rank. It is true that the
charms richly granted to women and refused to our sex are in some way
compensated for by faults which give us a hold on them, but for this
very reason one should at least in their regard keep a middle course
without falling into excess or idolatry or outrage. ([3]-4)
of Noel d'Argonne):
Some were angry at not having a soul and at finding themselves placed
so far below men who would thenceforth treat them as monkeys; others,
scathing about Gedik's attack, saying that its author tells us nothing we could
not find for ourselves and. that he seems to have dipped his pen in "the infected
In 1766, the French doctor Charles Clapies, who was born and died in Ales
the book was mildly sensational, translator and printer protected themselves by
issuing it anonymously and using a false imprint: Cracovie. In the introductory
asking them to take in good part this "worn-out" paradox, in which he revives
"old rubbish":
fearlessly. Predict the wonderful year when men shall become women to
these wicked men who would deny that you were of their species, prove
to them that, if there are examples of women metamorphosed into men,
it is not impossible that one of these days men will turn into women. As
for you, faint-hearted women, who will be alarmed by the doubts cast
upon your salvation, be reassured, you will be saved.
We trust our fair readers will show no severity against this theological
jesting. If the theory seem rather cruel to them they are not less the
the real advantages which they have over men, for we cannot deny that
besides beauty and the graces of the body, they possess a certain delicacy
of wit which men cannot attain by themselves. The man even who has
the most wit is but an uncut diamond if he has not been polished by the
fair sex.^'
In his final paragraph Clapies departs entirely from the original text,
substituting for the Disputant's comments on his own future reputation as a great
Clapies' female readers might well have wished to object, as Gedik had done,
that some jokes go too far, disguising culpable aggression.
The Sarmatian origins of the Disputatio may account in part for Dostoyevsky's
was much debated in Russia at the time. The length of the tract is given, in
terms more familiar to Russians than to anglophone readers, as “two sheets and
a bit.” Clearly, the book Dostoyevsky had in mind— if it was not entirely
imaginary— was not the Disputatio. If it was one of the derivative works that I
” No specific work is identified in die notes to die Russian edition of the Collected works, VII
(Leningrad 1973) 371. For a translation of the passage and a brief commentary, see Crime and
punishment trans. David McDuff (London 1991) 154, 638.
4
'i
h\.5i
'M
::|
r.fJ.
\
CHAPTER THREE
The Disputatio nova: translation
Introduction
Although the Disputatio was often reprinted, was translated into French and
Italian, and for centuries caught the attention of outraged commentators, no
complete English translation has ever been published. Before its appearance in
print, at least two variant versions circulated in manuscript. Some of the
introduction to chapter 6 I have listed the early printed editions that I have used
in preparing a text as the basis of this translation. The textual notes to chapter 6
include samples of one set of substantive variants found in a manuscript copy.
problem, arising from the two Latin words for man, homo and vir. While vir
means a man, as opposed to a woman, homo can be used to indicate the whole
human species, both men and women. In the appropriate context, however, it
can also, and very frequently, mean "man" only. The primary intention of the
foolish statement that "a woman is not a man." The ambiguity, already
familiar, had been used by the French jurist Jacques Cujas in a jocular passage
of his Observationes et emendationes in which he says, almost as an aside.
1
44
Femina item proprie non est homo.' Later it amused Pierre Bayle, who, under
the heading "Gediccus (Simon)," wrote in his Dictionnaire about
un petit livre dans lequel on avoit voulu prouver que les femmes
n'appartiennent point a I'espece humaine, mulieres non esse homines.
autant qu'il est ridicule de soutenir en Latin mulieres non esse homines,
autant est-il ridicule en notre langue de soutenir que les femmes sont des
hommes.^
(A little book in which there was an attempt to show that women do not
at all belong to the human species: mulieres non esse homines. That is
ridiculous to maintain in our language that les femmes sont des hommes.)
No one word or phrase in English will cover all the possibilities. I have
chosen in most cases to use the word "man," without article, to indicate the
the verb "to be" to equate a plural with a singular— "women are not man"—
believe that it conveys a better sense of the original than do the alternative
possibilities.’ The grammatical oddity is, I believe, in keeping with the playful
linguistic spirit of the Disputatio and of other publications from the same
period, such as the familiar tracts Hie mulier and Haec vir.* Even so, as there
are passages where "man" also will not work, I have had to be flexible.
'
(Paris 1577) 137.The passage concerns suicide. A century later Cujas' comment was taken
seriously by Franciscus Henricus Hoeltich and Johannes Casparus Waltz as the basis of a
dissertation on legal questions: Foermna non est homo (Wittebergae 1672). The typography of
the dissertation imitates that of the first edition of the Disputatio.
’ Dictionnaire historique et critique 2nd edition, revised by the author, 3 vols (Rotterdam 1702)
II. See also Maclean, The renaissance notion of woman 70-71.
1318-19.
’ lost if "human being" or "mankind" were used
For a passage in which subtle echoes would be
throughout, see the commentary on thesis 9. Cf. also the play with antithesis in thesis 39: "If it
is only by grace that the son is God, why is it not only by grace that the mother is man?"
" See commentary on thesis 18.
45
retaining the Disputant's repetitions of word and phrase and trying as far as
have not tried to disguise. It is not clear which versions of the Bible he used.
Quotations or near quotations from the Vulgate have usually been rendered by
their equivalents in the Authorized Version (1611), but variations in the readings
text.
A new disputation against women, in which it is demonstrated
that they are not man.
allowed to believe and teach that, together with the Holy Ghost, Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, saviour and redeemer of our souls, is not God, I believe I may
also freely believe and teach something much less serious— to wit, that women
are not man and what follows as a consequence: that Christ did not suffer for
them and that they will not be saved. If indeed in that realm those who
blaspheme the Creator are not only tolerated but are even granted rewards by
the great, why should I fear exile or punishment who am simply disparaging a
created being, especially since from scripture, using the same methods as those
by which they prove that Christ is not God, 1 can prove that woman is not man?
2. Doubtless all readers will be appalled at this point and will deem me fit,
before the evil spreads further, to be burned without delay together with these
my theses. But if these readers will choose both to consider and to weigh up the
but, as do philosophers, in the light of truth— they will find no reason at all why
they should rage at me.
3. If it happens that they are catholics, they will pardon my simplicity rather
than grow angry that I should be a heretic on the basis of the following
can I believe that woman is man since that statement also is nowhere to be found
therein. If they are protestants, they are most impudent wretches to execrate me
whom they begat and from whom I learned that principle. This much 1 shall
certainly achieve; that they will have either to renounce their own doctrine or
agree with me. In this my heresy I shall in fact follow the same method of
4. But by what means will you demonstrate this? they will ask. Attend.
Scripture pronounces him accursed who adds anything to God's word; accursed
therefore will be all who add and believe that woman is man. For neither in the
New nor in the Old Testament is it found that woman is said to be man or is so
named. Certainly, if woman were man the Holy Spirit would have called her so
at some point, but it never did so call her. Therefore she is not man, and
anyone who asserts that she is man knows more than God himself knows.
5. Although in scripture Christ is quite often called God, and indeed the true
God, the Anabaptists pertinaciously deny that he is that one true God. They
nevertheless hold and believe that woman, who is not once said to be man—
indeed, is never so called— is man. O deceit, O insanity, O wickedness! Even
if it is the case, they say, that woman is nowhere expressly said to be man, there
are nevertheless many places from which it can be shown that woman is man.
What fanatical men these are: in a number of published books they earlier
in scripture. And yet now they prate that we should embrace not what is
expressly stated but what can be elicited from express statements. What
tergiversation!
6. But if it can be so elicited from express statements, what then follows? Will
it for this reason be permitted to them to call woman man? By no means! For
the prophets, Christ, and the apostles knew that this could be elicited from
express statements and yet they did not wish openly to call her so. And thus we
too ought to refrain from doing that unless we in our stupidity believe that it is
and to the apostles. In order, however, that all may understand that it is not
49
possible to elicit from the literal sense that woman is man, let us, I entreat you,
consider and examine those places which women's advocates commonly proffer
7. 1 begin with those who, using this passage from the words of God, "let us
make a help meet for him," argue thus: Eve was made similar to Adam, the
man; she is therefore a man as Adam is. A plausible argument indeed, but
obviously false. God did not in fact say, "let us make him a man like himself,"
from which they might conclude that Eve was made man as Adam was, but he
said "a help"; nor did he say "similar to him," as those jejune scholars
understand "to him," but he said "for him," in a reciprocal sense.
8. So that this point may be better understood, let us consider the words of God
more accurately. "It is not good," he said, "that the man should be alone; let us
make a help meet for him." Here nothing else is said than that it is not good
that there should be only one man in the world; let us make for him a help by
means of which he may be able to procreate other men. Thus if by this help
other men were to be created so that he might not be alone. Eve was not man
since she was not made in order that Adam might not be alone, but so that, by
means of her, Adam might procreate men who would deliver him from solitude.
Eve herself said as much. As soon as she bore Cain, she exclaimed: "I have
gotten a man from the Lord" [Gen. 4.1]. What, I beseech you, was the will of
God in this? Nothing other, for sure, than that she should generate a man so
that Adam should not be alone. Therefore, and in common agreement, it is the
opinion of the doctors that for that reason Eve bore the twins Cain and Abel.
And notice how thoroughly consistent scripture is, and how Eve, that mother of
all living things, most fitly bears witness that this will of the Lord was first
fulfilled, not when she was as one flesh with Adam, that is, as one man— for a
9. Perhaps these things are obscure; let us bring clearer matters to bear.
Common experience shows us, and it is the agreed opinion of all people of
philosophical mind, that in all natural matters nothing can be done where these
50
two causes, efficient and instrumental, are not found together. A smith cannot
forge a sword without the help of a hammer; in the same way a scribe cannot
write without the help of a pen; a tailor cannot sew without the help of a needle;
a man cannot beget offspring without the help of a woman. Now, just as the
hammer is not the smith, the needle is not the tailor, the pen is not the scribe, so
the woman is not the man. If anyone denies that the woman is the instrumental
cause, let him suggest to us another; if he points to the privy members, saying
that it is they, he will be laughed at by all. For an instrument is never a natural
born part of the efficient agent, but is separate from it, just as, in the case of the
smith, the instrument is not his hand, but something separate, the hammer. So
also in this case, it is not the male members, but the woman.
him," but the solution is easy. And so, as an elucidation of the matter, let me
make use of the previous example: for the forging of a sword the smith does not
pick up a straw, but a help suitable to him, that instrument suitable for the
and that which is suitable is that which is convenient. For the mending of a
garment the tailor does not take an axe, but a needle: the appropriate help. And
thus for the procreation of man God did not wish to make for Adam a
quadruped, or anything else unsuitable from which man could not conveniently
be born, but a help "meet for him," that is, fitting: to wit, woman. Hence the
apostle said "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the
man" [1 Cor. 11.9]. And the most sagacious Jewish rabbis testify that this is
the genuine sense of that passage: the words sibi simile are interpreted to refer
not to equality with the person of Adam, but to suitability for the future work.
Let any whom I do not satisfy in this read the most learned theologians of our
age and he will see them all teach unanimously that the words simile sibi have
been quite badly rendered from the Hebrew since nothing less is meant there
than that it was intended that a help should be placed there beside him as the
Blessed Doctor Martin Luther expounded this passage; or, "Let us make for him
a suitable yoke animal," as Sebastian Castalio put it in his version. What
objections could they utter against him?
51
1 1 . But if woman is indeed suitable for him or made in the image of man, what
follows? If for the Anabaptists Christ, who is both the substantial and the
incorporeal image of God the Father, is not God, we shall not grant them that
woman is man, even if she is said to have been created in the image of man.
12. Anyone who is not convinced by those points will certainly be convinced
by these that are to follow. God knew that he was to create Adam and make
woman. For he is omniscient. Now if he had wished that she should be man,
like Adam, he would not have said "Let us make man" [Gen. 1.26] in the
singular, but "Let us make men." Since, however, it is stated as it is, one can
draw from the word of God a quite clear statement that God did not wish that
woman should be man, but that he made only one man, not two.
13. What? Is it not only that which is created in the image of God that is man?
Yes, indeed! What impropriety it is then to teach that woman is man, since she
was not created in the image of God! Let anyone run through the whole Bible:
will he find anywhere written "Let us make her in our image," or find that she
was in any way made in the image of God? The divine Paul says expressly "he
is the image and glory of God: but the woman the glory of the man" [1 Cor.
11.7]. You see the apostle refusing to accord to woman the image of God,
denying that she is so endowed. Let us therefore take care not to blaspheme
against God and state that he who did not himself wish to dignify her with his
own image made her man, especially since even the Papists confess in their
14. If it had been the case that the woman was similar to Adam, that is, to the
man, it would follow that two men had sinned in Paradise. For Eve sinned
equally with Adam. The apostle, however, said that through one man sin had
entered [Rom. 5.12], not through two. It is therefore evident that only one of
these two was a man, that is to say, Adam and not Eve. Besides, if two men
had sinned, two Christs would have been needed, of whom a man would have
suffered for men, a womanly Christ for women. For when two people perform
the same act that does not in fact amount to one and the same act. There came,
however, only one Christ, and that one indeed a man, and he was abundantly
52
sufficient for us. And therefore no one can deny that only the male, not the
woman, is man.
15. Some answer that by one man the apostle meant Eve, since it was she who
sinned first. But truly, if sin entered by Eve, it therefore did not do so by
Adam, or, if through both, the apostle Paul is a liar when he says "by one
man. " Others say that the apostle ascribed the sin to Adam because he was the
superior. But if Adam was superior to Eve, she was therefore not similar to
Adam nor is she more man than a beast by comparison with which Adam is the
superior. Thou shalt "have dominion," said God to Adam, "over every living
thing" [Gen. 1.28]; and hence perhaps that superiority. But since the man also
has dominion over the woman, who but a madman can believe that she is man
rather than beast?
16. At this point there are two matters that need to be resolved. One is the
place where it is said that God made man: "male and female created he them"
[Gen. 1.27]; the other the passage "they shall be one flesh" [Gen. 2.24]. Those
who depart from the express word of God need to argue by means of such
conjectures. As to the first, I concede that God made them, that is a male and
female man, but not that he made them men such that either of them is man.
second passage, "they shall be one flesh," that is, male and female will be one
man. And the Anabaptists themselves give no other interpretation of this
people are one man while they deny it to be possible that in the Trinity three
17. These same people write: "If it were anywhere clearly stated that Christ
was the eternal God, we should readily agree that the plural: ‘Elohim,' ‘let us
make,' ‘let us descend' [Gen. 1.26, 11.7], and similar phrases of scripture,
whence the trinitarians attempt to prove the divinity of the son of God, is to be
applied to the divine persons. But since this principle is nowhere to be found
expressly stated, nothing certain is to be deduced from these ambiguities." But
why do these sententious doctors not themselves observe this precept, wanting to
53
elicit from the plural number those two or more men when it is never expressly
18. So that we may counter all types of arguments from our adversaries, we
may prove what we are seeking to show even by appeal to grammeu*. Man: of
what gender is the word? For sure, only masculine. And therefore it will be
only males who are man and not females. I know, of course, that ignorant
grammarians have taught that homo is of common gender; but they were
seriously in error, since they can cite the authority of no writer of worth who
ever wrote haec homo. They adduce this passage from Cicero; "Tullia was born
"Tullia." If I were to say "Tullia was born an animal," would "animal" for this
reason be of the feminine gender? Certainly not. Those learned men who
expanded Calepinus's dictionary noted this and therefore rejected that authority
19. All dialecticians teach that sound argument is derived from etymology.
Since therefore homo is derived from humo because man was made from earth,
how could woman be man, since she was not created from earth? But lest
anyone should complain that I am mixing sacred things with profane, or should
say that I have gone beyond the mark in writing what I have set down above, let
me revert to the scriptures so that I may make use only of the testimony of
sacred words.
20. In 1 Timothy 2 Christ says that many false prophets are to arise who, if it
were possible, shall deceive the very elect. Since the passage says "if it were
possible," it can clearly be seen that it is not possible to deceive the elect. Now
no one can doubt that he whom God had created man was the elected vessel for
eternal life, nor that Eve on the contrary was not such a vessel and hence in
consequence, since she was deceived, is not man made in the image of God.
This argument is powerful and cannot be overturned. Nor can anyone, using
these principles, carpingly assert that Adam also was no man because he also
54
sinned. Let the apostle be heard saying that not Adam but Eve was deceived [1
Tim. 2.14].
21. Those points were fetched from afar; let me speak of things nearer at hand.
The woman of Canaan approaching Christ begged him to free her daughter from
a devil [Matt. 15.22], Christ answered her not a word. What, I ask, does that
signify? Was Christ too proud? Was he not merciful and mild, bidding all the
afflicted come to him and promising them refreshment? [Rom. 15.32, etc.]
had nothing to do with women, nor women with him. I shall demonstrate it
more clearly: the disciples interceded on her behalf, but what did they receive in
answer? "I am not sent" for her "but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel"
[Matt. 15.24]. Women, do you not hear that Christ was not sent for your
sake? Do you men not understand that your wives have nothing to do with the
kingdom of heaven? Some answer that Christ attacked the woman of Canaan
with harsh words because she was a gentile— a ludicrous answer indeed. For
did not God delight in the whole world and send his only begotten son as much
for the gentiles as for the Israelites? Let them be ashamed of such crass
absurdity. Let them then explain why Christ never spoke to a gentile man as he
did to this silly little woman, given that innumerable gentile men came to him,
asked for help, and received what they sought, not being severely chided but
22. We have not yet finished with this passage. Listen further and be amazed.
When the disciples first said "Send her away" [Matt. 15.23], Christ answered:
"It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." O Jesus
Christ, son of God, how great is your care in explaining things! Miserable
women, do you not hear how our saviour addresses you: not as man, but as
dogs, not as children, but as whelps? Do you not hear that it is not meet for us
to take from children the bread— that is to say, Christ, that bread of life who
descends from heaven— and to give it to you, who are nothing more than those
same filthy beasts? Why then do you work so hard for your salvation? Why do
you put yourselves above the will of almighty God? Stay, I beseech you, in the
55
Station in which nature placed you, if in this world you desire to experience both
happiness and the merciful God.
23. If woman were man, Christ would have spoken very ill indeed when he
said that it was not proper to help her; worse when he spoke of taking the
children's bread, seeing that what is owned in common may not be taken; worst
of all when he spoke of giving it to dogs. But all that the Lord said was good.
O ye women, be humble, therefore, along with the woman of Canaan and cry
out with her: "Truth, Lord: we are dogs: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which
fall from their masters' table" [Matt. 15.27]. Seek the crumb that sometimes
falls beneath the table, but not the bread that, as ordained by God, is placed on
the table for us males, the lords. As, however, a crumb of bread does not
satisfy the flesh, so it will not save you. Imitate the example of Mary
Magdalene, who, possessed by demons and plainly understanding herself to be a
dog, crept like a dog to the feet of the Lord and begged for help and received it,
which Martha with her sister Mary also did, humbly falling down at the feet of
Christ.
24. My adversaries rage and gnash their teeth saying that at all events in this
never said to the woman of Canaan "Thy faith hath saved thee," but "Be it unto
thee even as thou wilt" [Matt. 15.28], or, as the other evangelist says, "For this
saying go thy way" [Mark 7.29]. But what, I entreat, was this saying? Nothing
other, indeed, than this confession: "It may be that I am a Canaanite dog, O
Lord, but dogs eat of the crumbs." If, therefore, our women also wish to be
freed from devils, that is, from the miseries and calamities of these times, let
them be not proud, as they commonly are today; let them confess themselves to
be dogs and they will again hear: "Be it unto thee even as thou wilt." For we
indeed desire to hear "Not as thou, O God, wilt." Even Christ himself prayed
thus as he was about to die: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me:
nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" [Matt. 26.39].
56
25. But these arguments are perhaps of no weight. Let it be that it was said to
the woman of Canaan as to the woman who was diseased with an issue of blood
[Matt. 9.20], "thy faith hath made thee whole" [Matt. 9.22]. What then?
Would it follow that women are man? Would the salvation of their souls also
follow? Not at all. For to be saved signifies here nothing other than to be
healed in body, which is seen from the fact that all of the women to whom
Christ said these words sought not the salvation of their souls but only that of
their bodies: Mary Magdalene that she might be freed from the demons, the
other that she might be freed from the issue of blood. Nor was Christ so
undiscriminating as to give them what they did not seek, especially since these
little women would never have come to Christ about the salvation of the soul
unless they had been forced to do so by the overwhelming need of their bodily
ills. And Luke did not write "has spiritually saved," but "thy faith hath saved
thee" [Luke 7.50]. Indeed, Matthew adds: "And the woman was made whole
from that hour" [Matt. 9.22]. Certainly from that hour she did not have the
salvation of her soul, since God has predestined that for us from all eternity,
though he will not accord it to us until the next life; but she was saved
26. But these opponents object that faith is a matter for man alone. And thus
accede to the truth. The devils also believe, and tremble [James 2.19]. Is then
faith for man alone? These asses do not know how to distinguish between that
true faith which vindicates the soul, of which the apostle says faith is one
[Ephesians 4.5], and the other, historical faith which is not for man alone but
also for women and devils. What sane man has ever taught that living faith is to
be found in woman? Indeed, the apostle maintained the contrary, removing all
question of faith from them, saying: Woman is to be saved not by faith but by
childbearing [1 Tim. 2.15]. Indeed, many evil men have faith, but a dead faith:
they are rather corpses than men. Think about this for a moment, you
Anabaptists: if faith belongs to man alone, infants, since they have not faith, are
therefore not man; or, if they have it, your doctrine has disappeared in smoke.
57
27. Women knew and believed that Christ was that true and promised Messiah
who could easily cure all ills. But they also knew this, that he was not sent on
their account. For this reason when Christ sometimes spoke with a woman the
evangelist states that the apostles were astonished since this is certainly not
without mystery. Sometimes the greatest necessity, which even brought about a
change in the law [Hebrews 7.12], led him to do this, as when there was iio
human remedy or, if I may put it in the words of the evangelist, when they had
spent all their living upon physicians [Luke 8.43] so that they sometimes met
him by chance, weeping and trembling, and, compelled by their need, implored
his mercy and begged not bread, as did the men, but a crumb, begged that they
might touch not his body but only the hem of his garment [Matt. 9.20]. And
thus although Christ received these women discourteously, as he did the
Canaanite woman and the woman diseased with an issue of blood, when, even
though he was angry merely that she had touched him, he nevertheless, seeing
that their faith was great— that is, that they believed him to be that son of God
promised to Adam and his posterity more firmly than did many men for whose
sake alone he had nevertheless come— occasionally and unusually brought them
succour, merely to shame faithless men. Thus those words: "I have not found
so great faith, no, not in Israel" [Matt. 8.10], that is, "among the men I have
not found such great faith as the faith that I have found in thewoman who in no
way concerns me." Nor will anyone who knows of how Christ similcU'ly
transferred his reign, because of their ingratitude, from the Jews to the gentiles
be surprised by this. Among the physicians we read that the sick person's hope
and faith in the physician and in the medicine can effect more than can the
medicine itself and the physician. I may therefore appropriately say at least that
these women had such faith that neither Christ (that is to say, the physician) nor
the medicine brought them succour since it is written "thy faith hath saved
thee." And thus I may also say that faith saved them, not Christ.
28. Now we have caught you, my adversaries may say: you have said two
things against yourself. First, that Christ was promised to Adam's posterity: if
to his posterity, therefore to women who are also his posterity; second, that
Adam's posterity is expressly enumerated in the Holy Bible, both in the Old and
in the New Testament. For is noted whom Adam begat, whom his children,
it
and then whom his grandsons, and after that whom Abraham, that is, Isaac;
Isaac Jacob; Jacob Juda; Juda Pharez; Pharez Esrom, and in like fashion others
begat others until these our own times. But who begat women is never stated;
whence they draw their origin is uncertain; whence they came is doubtful. Thus
the posterity of Adam is restricted to males alone whose origin is not unclear,
since no daughter is said to have been the first born, although she may have
been born before the sons, while in fact there are found many sons who are said
to have been the first born even when some sisters preceded their birth.
29. The second argument that they think supports them works entirely in their
disfavour and supports me. I confess that I have said, along with the apostle,
that the woman is saved by childbearing. But that they can educe from this that
she is man and that the salvation of her soul follows is quite false. Indeed, all
sectarians, as many as have existed since the time of the Blessed Luther, teach
that man is to be redeemed only through faith. Now if that is true, how can
woman be man, if she is saved not by faith but by childbearing? For my part 1
interpret this word "saved," as I said before, to have force in this world, and I
do that not by means of dubious conjectures, but by the use of the most solid
childbearing, that is, found despicable and, as it were, sordid— as we find from
the old law where a barren woman is thought to be detested of God and where it
so written: Accursed is the barren woman who has no seed in Israel— so, by
contrast, the pregnant and fecund is saved. For there it is also added soon
afterwards; Blessed, however, is she whose seed is Zion, for she completes the
task of the helper. This is not so in the case of the former woman. And David
explains this salvation very clearly when he describes the sons sitting round
30. It is altogether stupid to assert that in this passage the word "to be saved" is
to be understood to mean the salvation of the soul. If indeed women are saved
by childbearing, Christ died in vain for them and it is in vain that they believe.
All virgins and widows and spinsters, who have never given birth, will be
damned, and whores who have given birth will be saved. Christ himself speaks
59
to these last: "Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in
those days!" [Matt. 24.19]. If, dierefore, woe is to be unto them, how is it that
31. Thus it might be, they say, had the apostle not added: if the woman
continue in faith [1 Tim. 2.15]. In truth, since in all manuscripts of scripture,
in the margin, "If their sons continue in the faith," to which reading may we the
more justifiably give credit? They will have to admit this, that the meaning of
only one of these two can be true and genuine, the other false and
supposititious. If therefore the matter stands thus, why do they not prefer to
embrace that meaning which agrees with the whole of scripture, rather than that
which is opposed to it? It is an axiom of all the gospels that he will be saved
who continues in the faith without regard to works. If this is true either we
must read "If the sons remain in the faith," or we must say that all women and
virgins may seek salvation by remaining in the faith though they may never have
borne children and that Paul was thus in error in both saying that childbearing
sin to make the apostle say something like that, those miserable disputants might
understand in what scripture twisted against itself they are entangled. Just as
sons not continuing in the faith do not damn their mother, so they do not ensure
the kingdom of heaven for her by continuing in it. In this world, however,
good comes to the mother through that activity of generation, of which we have
the example of Mary who, full of grace and blessed among women, was saved
by bearing Christ.
irrefutable: that women's sins are forgiven them and that they are therefore
man. That sins are forgiven them, they prove by the example of Mary
Magdalene, the sinner obsessed by seven devils [Luke 8.2] to whom Christ said
"Thy sins are forgiven" [Luke 7.48]. I could, however, easily reject this
60
perhaps say that not only were the sins of men forgiven but also those of women
who are not man. And in saying so I should readily have extricated myself.
But I shall apply myself to the matter in a more profound way. I think I may
say that it is well known that this precept of God— "of the tree . . . thou shalt
not eat" [Gen. 2. 17]— was given not to the woman but only to the man. For the
woman had not yet been created when God voiced the prohibition, nor was that
precept repeated after her creation; nor again, after the sin, did God therefore
call her, but called to Adam only, saying "Adam, where art thou?" [Gen. 3.9].
And to him alone he said "Why didst thou eat of the tree, whereof commanded I
thee that thou shouldst not eat?" [Gen. 3.11]. He did not instruct the woman in
the same way. We have all indeed sinned in Adam, and not in Eve, and we
contract that original sin not from the mother but from the father. For which
reason also the old law commanded that all males be circumcised, but that the
females remain uncircumcised, prescribing, that is to say, that only in that sex
which sinned should original sin be punished [Gen. 17.10]. If, therefore, she
did not sin in the beginning, woman does not sin today, since we too would not
33. From these premises anyone may understand that women's sins, if there are
any such, differ in nothing from the sinning of beasts when they are said to have
was obsessed by devils since devils obsessed swine [Matt. 8.32] that were free
of all vice. The apostle drew attention to this matter, saying "By one man sin
entered into the world" [Rom. 5.12], meaning Adam. Eve was not said to have
sinned, and thus she needed no mediator but rather there was to be born from a
descendant of hers, uninfected by any sin, a man who would be a mediator and
who thus would be without sin as she was; nor do we read anywhere in scripture
that any woman was damned, which is a manifest sign that there is in them no
cause of damnation, that is to say, sin.
34. Eve said, indeed: "God hath said. Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye
touch it" [Gen. 3.3], but in this she spoke falsely. For God did not prohibit the
61
woman, but the man; nor did he prohibit touching, but eating, and hence she
ignorantly added "lest [perhaps] we die" [Gen. 3.3]. What need was there of
the word of doubt "perhaps" if Eve knew for certain that her eating of the fruit
was forbidden by God? And hence the serpent answered "Ye shall not surely
die" [Gen. 3.4], as if he should say "How is it that thou shouldst die, to whom
this instruction was in no way given?" And the event itself shows that Eve did
not die after she had eaten, since her eyes were not opened until Adam had
eaten. Why did God nevertheless punish her, ask the adversaries? Be not
astonished: for he punished the serpent also, who nevertheless neither was
subject to the law nor was man. And in any case I deny that he did punish her.
For how could "in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children" [Gen. 3.16] have
been a punishment since God had ordered Eve to bring forth children before she
had seen the tree of Paradise? Nor is to bring forth in sorrow a punishment,
since all irrational creatures which have never sinned at all bring forth in
sorrow.
35. Because if indeed we scrutinize the scriptures we find that women have
almost always been blessed for evildoing, and that they have been praised that
they did evil. Rachel was praised who deceived her father with a pretty device
when he was looking for the images [Gen. 31.19]. Rebekah was praised
because she fraudulently obtained for Jacob his father's blessing [Gen. 27.1-33].
The harlot Rahab deceived those who were looking for Joshua's spies and it was
counted to her for righteousness [Joshua 2.1-24, 6.17-23]. Jael "went out to
meet Sisera and said unto him. Turn in, my lord, turn in to me" and when he
asked her for water "she opened a bottle of milk, and gave him to drink" as he
lay. As Sisera slept, she smote a nail into his head and killed him, who had
trusted in her good faith, thinking to save himself [Judges 4.18-22]. And for
Holofernes in the neck "and severed his head from his body" [Judges 13.8]?
And the scriptures nevertheless bless, praise, and extol this woman [Judges
13.18]. And the iniquity of a woman is said to be far better than the worthy
deeds of a man.
62
36. The daughters of Lot are forgiven for their incest with their father [Gen.
19.30-38] and the drunken father is not forgiven and his succession is ejected
from the church of God. The incestuous Tamar is forgiven and said to be more
just than the patriarch Judah and for her fraudulent incest she was rewarded by
continuing the line of the Saviour [Gen. 38.13-30]. And similarly Christ
forgave the woman taken in adultery and did not permit her to be punished
[John 8.3-11]. And in the laws of the emperors we are warned that a woman
taken in adultery should not suffer capital punishment, nor furthermore should
she be imprisoned for her sins, unless the judge himself wished to be punished
by death. What, I ask, does all this amount to but clear evidence that the sins of
women are not in truth sins? Which is why, as Luke says, even the guests
sitting beside Christ when he forgave the woman’s sins began to be astonished,
since she had none [Luke 7.36-50]. For Mary Magdalene did not strive for the
forgiveness of her sins but for the expulsion of devils. And thus, since her sins
were not forgiven for the reason that she might find eternal life but in order that
the devils might be expelled, who does not understand that the purpose of the
forgiveness of women's sins differs from that of the forgiveness of men's sins?
Add to this that Christ taught only male apostles to pray with the Our Father and
that therefore they only, and not women, are charged to say "forgive us our
debts" [Matt. 6.12].
feminine and it would seem likely that not only boys but also girls were brought
there. Christ, however, did not say "Suffer little children [infantes, of both
sexes] to come unto me," as if he meant girls as well as boys, but he said
the kingdom of God" [Luke 18. 16]; that is to say, it consists of boys and not of
girls. And for this reason also the apostles forbade mothers to bring children to
Christ [Luke 18.15] because among them were girls who had nothing to do with
Christ.
63
38. Matthew 22. The Sadducees asked Christ whose wife she should be in the
resurrection who had married seven men [Matt. 22.23-28]. In response Christ
said "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures ..." [Matt. 22.29]. Why, I ask,
did they err? Doubtless because they stupidly believed that women were to be
neither marry ..." [Matt. 22.30]. Why not, I beseech you? For there will be
not a single woman in heaven, but they will be as the angels of God [Matt.
22.30]. And now what are the angels like? Assuredly all masculine, not
feminine. Men are thus the only ones who have to do with heaven; women not
in the least.
39. Christ said to his own mother: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"
[John 2.4]. And if he therefore has nothing to do with his mother, who bore
him, much less has he in common with other women. But I see what they will
object to this: that Christ is called the son of man and is nevertheless the son of
Mary, and that Mary was therefore man. Let us, however, concede this
argument to them and let us say that Mary was man— and yet not by nature but
by grace. Just as by the Anabaptists Christ is said to be God not by nature but by
grace. Thus, too, the angel said "Hail to thee Mary, full of grace . . . blessed
among women" [Luke 1.28]. Why blessed? Because this woman was man, and
the others not. Thence Mary can truthfully be called man, since she bore a
child without a male and she herself carried out, as it were, the work of the
male. Let the women of today bear children without males and we shall gladly
call them man. But this is no sounder a reason than the previous one. If it is
only by grace that the son is God, why is it not also only by grace that the
mother is man? Especially since it is nowhere said that Mary is called man
other than in relation to her bearing of Christ, when he is called the son of man.
The Anabaptists themselves also say that by this expression, "the son of man,"
nothing else is meant than "man," and assert that it is a hebraism. What
therefore will these men prove if the expression has no bearing on the idea of
"son"? Nor do I see how it could have anything to do with "mother" since
Christ said that his mother was not this woman who bore him but rather all
40. When the woman exclaimed about Christ; "Blessed is the womb that bare
thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked," Christ reproved her, saying: "Yea
rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it" [Luke 11.27,
28]. Thus you see that Christ did not wish to ascribe beatitude to women. And
if his mother who bore him was not blessed, how are other women to be saved?
That which is foul is covered. As women are required by divine precept always
to cover their heads, it must be the case that in God's eyes they are foul and not
to be saved, for nothing soiled and foul will enter into the kingdom of heaven,
especially since women who have indulged in voluptuousness in the slightest
41. And now they fall back on these words written to the Galatians: "There is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor
female: for ye are all one in Jesus Christ" [Gal. 3.28]. And from this they want
to demonstrate that woman is man— but all too foolishly. For if by this it is
demonstrated that woman is man, it is also demonstrated that Jews and Greeks
are man, for the statement was made about them all. What more foolish or
ridiculous thing could the apostle have done than aspire to teach in this passage
that Jews and Greeks are man, since that is in itself quite plain and needs no
demonstration? And thus if that is not taught, neither is it shown that woman,
listed here, is man. They say: But these are one and the same in Christ and
therefore there is no distinction. That is clearly so: Christ said "I and my Father
are one" [John 10.30]. And yet the Anabaptists deny that Christ was God as the
Father is. I therefore for my part shall also deny that woman is man as males
are, even though they are said to be one. Children along with their elders are
said to be one and the same in Christ. Now with God there is no respect of
persons [1 Peter 1.17] and yet the Anabaptists do not wish to admit children to
baptism nor permit that women should teach in church, although in this respect
they think them to be one in Christ. Thence it seems that the pronoun "the
same" or "one" is not always taken in the same sense. The Jew, like the Greek,
is the same in Christ, but only when he has cast off the Jew and has become one
of the faithful. And thus women wishing to be one in Christ must first have cast
off their womanhood so as to become man, whence, since they cannot do so, it
manifestly appears how little they have to do with Christ. We, however, can
65
cast off the old man, which is Adam, while it has never been heard— and is
indeed ridiculous— that women should cast off Eve. Moreover, notice that the
apostle did not say: In Christ there is neither male nor female, as if saying
neither Jew nor Greek, neither free, nor bond, but said "neither male and
female," designating by the expression ac that the man and this woman would
not be one in Christ in the same way as are those of whom he employs the word
"nor."
42. And, to be sure, I do not see how women can be one in Christ, since Christ
himself together with the apostles taught that he who wants to be perfect and to
enter into eternal life should leave his wife [e. g., Luke 18.29-30]. And for that
reason they praise eunuchs who castrated themselves for the kingdom of heaven,
having nothing to do with women [Matt. 19.12, Acts 9.27-39]. Nor did Christ
marry, and the apostles rejected their spouses and advised others that they
should remain as they themselves, adding that only he who did not bind himself
that they might set aside all matters of the kind, they bore witness that it is good
not to touch a woman [1 Cor. 7.1].
43. Others insist on this point also: When a woman brings forth she does so in
sorrow, and when she has given birth she rejoices that a man has been born into
the world, and since in truth daughters are also born they attempt to convince us
by this argument that women are man. But what woman has ever rejoiced when
a daughter was born? None, for sure; and the great Ochino, the coryphaeus of
the Anabaptists, has set down in his dialogues: Women do not take delight when
daughters are born. Mothers themselves affirm that this is true, and no wonder.
Since, as Aristotle says, a woman is a defect of nature, or, as Plato says, more
an irrational than a rational animal, what mother can rejoice in that birth,
females. And indeed look at all passages in the whole of the sacred scriptures
where the word homo is to be found— they are almost innumerable— and you
66
will find that males are always exclusively meant. And the same is true of this
passage. If there is found a single example stating the contrary, let women be
44. Nor at this point should I pass over the following argument which they
commonly put forward. They say that in Luke, chapter 8, Christ called a girl
back from the dead and that therefore women will be resurrected [Luke 8.49-
56]. But these subtle ones have not taken note of what Christ said in that
passage, which is: "she is not dead, but sleepeth." What else do these words
suggest but that if she had been dead, she was not going to be resurrected?
According to Christ's words the girl therefore was only sleeping, nor had she
yet died, as the common people supposed; and hence it is not surprising that she
arose. And that is why Christ then charged them all that they should tell no
man what was done, in case women, hearing of this example, should gather
a young man he voiced no prohibition, but as the evangelist writes "And this
rumour of him went forth throughout all Judaea, and throughout all the region
round about" [Luke 7.17]. And when a servant came to Jairus indicating that
his daughter was dead, he added "trouble not the Master" [Luke 8.49], which he
said for this reason that he knew that once girls or women were dead it was vain
to call upon Christ for help since they were not to be resurrected even at the
remarkable miracle he called an ass forth from the dead, and yet no one can
reason from this that it is possible that asses are to be resurrected— unless he
45. And now let us continue. The scriptures clearly state that the head of
Christ is God just as the head of the woman is the man [1 Cor. 1 1.3]. Now the
Anabaptists do not wish to grant that Christ is God because God is his head and
by this reasoning woman will therefore not be man because man is her head, or,
if she is man, let them grant also that Christ is God and we shall be in
agreement.
67
46. Those same Anabaptists do not wish to baptize infants because they have
neither precept nor example to show that Christ or the apostles baptized them.
Why therefore do they offer the sacrament of the eucharist to women since here
also they have neither example nor precept that Christ or the apostles offered it
sincerity in them. And there is surely no other reason why the lifegiving body
of the Lord was never given to women other than that that body neither suffered
for them nor concerns them. But baptism concerns them, they say; why not
therefore the other sacrament also? Now we have examples of baptized women,
such as Lydia [Acts 16.14-15]. 1 hear them. But I shall grant them this
argument when they in their turn will have granted me the right to argue from
one sacrament to the other, thus: baptism concerns infants since circumcision
concerned them. But if the latter is granted, so also will be the former.
47. I indeed know that in the scriptures examples of baptized women are to be
found, but since the Papists baptize bells and temples, are those also therefore to
Christ that women should be baptized. For Christ says "He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved" [Mark 16.16]; he did not say "She that believeth . .
."
Nor is the pronoun "he" of common gender, so that it could encompass the
circumcision. How then can they be baptized since women were not
carried out "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
[Matt. 28.19], by which formula no woman is reported to have been baptized;
her baptism will therefore be illegitimate. For which reason I add this also: just
did not teach, so also in the earliest days baptism was granted to women, but
mistakenly. Therefore the apostle gave thanks to God that he had not baptized
many people, and added that he had not come to baptize, but to preach the
48. What do others say? When Christ first arose from the dead, he first
revealed himself to women. How then can he not be concerned with them? But
I answer: When Christ was first born, he revealed himself in the manger to an
ox and an ass, and thus cattle have to do with Christ. O stupidity! These
miserable men do not understand that Christ first appeared to women for no
other reason than that his resurrection would thus be published to the world
immediately and as rapidly as possible. Since women are garrulous, the whole
city straightaway learns what they know. It is the case that a woman may testify
according neither to divine nor to human law. And therefore Christ could not
Thus the apostle Thomas also did not wish to believe the other disciples when
they said that Christ had risen from the dead, since none but women had told
them so, and indeed the other apostles thought the women deluded. And,
finally, when he rose Christ showed himself to the women as if he did not wish
them to recognize him although they were standing close to him. And his own
mother did not recognize her son, but believed that he was the gardener, and
when she later came to recognize him, Christ refused to let her touch him. And
thus one can see how Christ honoured women with his resurrection.
49. The women exclaim: We speak, we have reason and a rational soul:
therefore we are man. But I deny them all of this. For there are many birds
that speak, such as the parrot and the pie, and Balaam's ass spoke [Numbers
22.28] and yet was not man. And to speak without reason is nothing other than
not to speak at all. And that these women speak without reason is shown by the
they were able to speak rationally, why should they keep silence? By law all
public offices are denied them. Even to sue in court is, most prudently, not
permitted them. They are barred from jurisdiction, from Judgement, from
adoption, from intercession, from procuration, from guardianship, from
reason than that they have no reason. Their sex itself would not be an
impediment, if reason were to be found in them. Nor do we ever once read of
God's breathing a soul into a woman, and the Anabaptists themselves grant and
69
demonstrate in their writings that women have no soul. And even if women had
reason, this would still not make them man, since both the angels and the devil
have a rational soul and can speak and yet are not man. In Christ there
"dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" [Col. 2.9], says the apostle,
and yet the Ebionites deny that this suffices to make Christ God; nor, therefore
would a rational soul suffice to make woman man— however much of a one she
had. This is discussed by the most learned doctor Hosius, who denied that a
rational soul constitutes a man. For even beasts have such a soul since God
mrns our attention to them so that we may learn reason from them, saying: "Be
ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves" [Matt. 10.16]. Also: "Go
to the ant thou sluggard" [Ps. 6.6]. But all that makes man is the knowledge of
God, in which other living creatures are lacking. And if anyone should wish to
contend that women know God, it must be confessed that they have this
woman wishes to learn anything, she should learn from her husband [1 Cor.
14.35]. Just as the divinity of Christ communicated to him by the Father does
not make him God, so the communicated knowledge does not make the woman
man.
50. Nor do I credit this last evasion of all women: the argument that since all
things give birth to beings like themselves it is necessary that woman be man
because she gives birth to man. Now if this is true, the Anabaptists are lying
when they say that Christ is not the true God. If the Father begets a son, he
begets a God like himself. In procreation, when a son is born, the father begets
a being like himself, nor in this case is it appropriate to invoke the mother, who
is not the efficient cause of the offspring who are to be born, but only the
instrument. As the natural philosophers say, she adds no form of life to the
children that are to be born. Indeed, if a daughter is born, that is not "like,"
since she is a defect, while nature always tends towards the best things and
prefers to procreate a male rather than a female, as the philosophers attest. This
is not surprising, since an ass may also be born from a horse and a mule [5ic],
beetles from horse dung, lice from fat; the generation of like from like often
fails.
70
times, especially the Anabaptists and the Papists, usually explain sacred
scripture and what method they use for the establishment of their execrable
dogmas. Enough to the wise. I nevertheless plead with the unwise little women
that with the benevolence and love which they possessed in former times they
may embrace me; which if they do not so wish, may the beasts perish for all
eternity. I have sufficient glory from this tract to ensure that in the thought of
of great.
FINIS
CHAPTER FOUR
The Disputatio nova: commentary
The numbers at the heads of paragraphs refer to the theses. Notes on each
book of 1618 are attributed to "Eugenius" when, as is usually the case, they are
are readily available, I have only occasionally included page and folio numbers
when citing their arguments. Where there are significant differences, quotations
from the Vulgate are followed by the equivalent passages in the Old Latin
versions, taken from the edition by Fischer and others. As the Disputant does
not seem to have used a Greek New Testament, I have rarely referred to the
it is likely that the reported doctrines derive as much from preaching and other
as was Michael Servetus (1511-53), whose views are a source for thesis 17 in
distaste for the theological propositions of the more extreme reformers, to whom
he gives the collective label Anabaptist.
Where, as is most often the case, the textual and typographical blemishes of
the first edition do not obscure the sense, I have passed them over in silence.
Although the variants among the printings and editions rarely have significant
by Herodotus (IV. 21, 57, 102, 110, 116-22, 122, 136), whose comments,
closing the gap between men and women, are unhelpful to the case the
Disputant wishes to make. Herodotus says that the Sarmatian women, allowed
much freedom, rode and hunted alone, dressed as men, and fought in war: "it is
the custom that no virgin weds till she has slain a man of the enemy" (117).
The name Sarmatia was later used to refer to all of what was then known of
Russia, together with Poland. Poland was the centre of the Socinian heresy.
See chapter 2.
Tarabotti inverts the common Aristotelian opinion that man is to be equated with
form, woman with matter. "Women are made by the hand of God, drawn from
the rib of a man, and generated as they are, whence they come to be as it were
the form, and the man the matter. Just as form is more noble than matter, so is
woman more noble than man." She repeats here standard sentiments to be
found in dozens of sixteenth and seventeenth century tracts about the excellence
of women. After quoting the last sentence of the thesis, she taunts the Disputant
with a couplet from Ovid: Quaerit aquas in aquis, et poma fugacia captat. /
Tantalus hoc illi garrula lingua dedit (Tantalus seeks for water in the midst of
waters and catches at everescaping fruits— that was the fate he got for his
garrulous tongue). The lines {Amores 2.2.43-44) are from a passage warning
73
against empty talk. There is a hint of panache in a nun's choosing to quote the
Amores.
defend women must spring from his erotic overfondness for them. Eugenius
denies this both at the start and in the paragraph with which he brings the book
to a close. The repetition gives additional emphasis to the idea that men would
not find women of value if it were not for the sexual gratification they provide.
they prove that Christ is not God\ In his translation of 1678 Lxirrain adds an
ironic flavour: Us pretendent seulement fair voir.
immediately tries to cut through the sophistry: that women belong to the human
4. accursed who adds anything to God's word] Ezra 6.11: "I have made a
decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let timber be pulled down from his
house, and being set up, let him be hanged thereon; and let his house be made a
dunghill for this"; Galatians 1.8: "But though we, or an angel from heaven,
preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you,
neither in the New nor in the Old Testament is it found that woman is said to be
man] Gedik suggests a disguised jeer by using the word similes in his answer:
"The simple and clear account of the truth found in the Old and New
Testaments dispels these and all your similar foolish ideas."
knows more than God himself knows] Lorrain renders more circumspectly: veut
etre plus sage que Dieu mime.
in a number of published books] From the early years of the movement the
7. Eve was made man as Adam was] The Disputant preserves the difference
between the words used in Genesis to account for the origins of Adam and Eve.
While Adam is "created," Eve is "made." See Hertz, Pentateuch and Haftorahs
sense] No translation into English adequately conveys the sense. The Latin
terms are simile illi and simile sibi. The V phrase is faciamus ei adjutorium
simile sibi, rendered in the AV as "I will make an help meet for him" [Gen.
2.18]. Some of the OL versions have faciamus illi adiutorium simile(m) sibi.
The Disputant may not have realized that others have simile(m) illi, nor that his
argument is unfounded since the Latin of the Vulgate commonly uses sibi/illi,
etc., quite indiscriminately. (See Plater and White, A grammar of the Vulgate
In classical Latin the expression similis sibi, literally "like itself, like oneself,"
to anything or anyone else. If the phrase were grouped adiutorium (simile sibi)
those jejune scholars] The Disputant chooses the postclassical word beani,
which originally meant uninstructed university freshmen and was later used
8. let us make for him a help by means of which he may be able to procreate
other men] Any overt attempt by the Disputant to support his proposition by
reference to Islam would inevitably have been damaging to his ostensible case.
Although the assertion that women are designed primarily for procreation finds
the period. See, for example, Lodovico Domenichi, La nobilta delle donne
(1549) f.
56V.
for that reason Eve bore the twins Cain and Abel] Clapies rather mysteriously
renders as "Cain and Abel were twins, and for this same reason" (6).
Making a general answer about swelling the world with offspring, Tarabotti
mentions the tradition that Cain killed Abel because he was jealous of their
9. Now, just as the hammer is not the smith, the needle is not the tailor, the pen
is not the scribe, so the woman is not the man] The clause "the woman is not
the man" is a sophistry playing on the other way in which the words "not man"
may be read: neither is Eve a human being. If Eve is not a human being, there
is no question of loving mutuality when she and Adam embrace; she is reduced
man’s soul and his body. Since Eve rather than the penis is the tool, the penis
is not a physical object, such as a hammer, distant from the centre of self and
pressed into service for the purpose of generation; it is an inherent part of a
man’s being. All of him, body and soul together, acts as the efficient cause.
consequence of which the genitals were at a distance from the centre of being
and no longer under full control.
76
understood to mean that Adam was created principally so that he might provide
the raw material from which Eve could be formed: Postea propter creandam
mulierem traductus in paradisum (Afterwards he was transferred to Paradise in
change of sense: "if he points to the privy members, saying that it is they, he
will be seen by all." Commenting on the corrected text of the passage, Clapies
shifts the attention from the penis to the female genitals: "When we glance at
the parts of women which distinguish them from men, can we admit any other
cause instrumental for the propagation of the human race?" (6). In a footnote
he continues the stress on sexual enjoyment: "I consider women, said a modern
philosopher, are created solely to satisfy a disgraceful want, I think I ought to
fly from them directly after the physical moment" (6n). I have not identified
the philosopher. Clapies uses the word philosophe, which could apply to almost
Gedik: "Most filthy latrine, do you dare to spatter the female sex with such
dunglike words? Woman is the man’s assistant in the sense that she is a second
self, a help suitable to himself who always keeps company with him, who, when
she has conceived, does not leave her husband, which many beasts do, but who,
together with him, rules over the household and the whole family."
Tarabotti: Woman is "more beautiful, more delicate, more loving than man.
The naturalists believe that man is formed in forty hours and woman in eighty,
and there is no doubt that work to which we give the more care and the greater
gestation, woman in eighty. She could have found this in, for example,
Domenichi's La nobilta delle donne f. 14*". Tarabotti also states that women's
77
soul: as men and women have identical souls, differences in their activities on
earth must depend on the instruments that are their bodies. A contributor to
Domenichi's dialogues suggests that women are therefore superior because they
have finer instruments (ff. 56^-57'^). The Disputant is not alone in speaking of
eloquent defence of women, Les tres merveilleuses victoires des femmes (1553),
Guillaume Postel wrote I'homme sans la Femme n'est qu'd demi faict,
parcequ'il n'est pas possible que I'homme pour sainct ou parfaict qu'il soil,
sgeust havoir engendre posterite, ce qui est le souverain Men de ceste vie, sans
I'ayde de la Femme (12) (Man without woman is only half made, because it is
not possible that man, however holy or perfect he may be, could have
engendered posterity, which is the supreme good of this life, without the help of
woman).
the most sagacious Jewish rabbis . . . Luther] As the Disputant says, the text
glossing coram and referring to the Vs phrase Luther writes of "a female man,"
using homo in the feminine: Quod Latinus habet. Simile sibi, in Hebraeo est.
Quod sit coram eo. Distinguit autem hac quoque voce foeminam hominem, a
foemillis omnium reliquorum animantium, quae non sunt coram suis maritis
semper, distinguishing the feminine human being from all other animals which
do not always stay by the side of their mates. The words in the V, simile sibi,
are, in Hebrew, k'negdo: "at his side," or "as over against him," glossed in
renders the clause as ich wil im ein Gehiilffen machen, die umb in sey. He
asserts that in her prelapsarian state woman was equal to Adam in both body and
soul, though in saying so he casts a slur on the women of his own day, reduced
and subjected to men because of sin: Non . . . ut hodie est mulier, ita tum fuit
Heva: longe melior et praestantior fuit conditio, & in nulla re inferior Adamo,
sive corporis, seu animi dotes numeres (Eve was not like a woman of today: her
state was much better and finer, and inferior to that of Adam in nothing; you
may reckon up her gifts both of body and of mind). Luther goes on to say that
before Eve's creation Adam already had a sufficient number of fine creatures
around him; what he lacked was a companion with whom he could carry out the
blessed business of procreation (f. 98''). Dotes corporis et animi was a familiar
phrase. See, for example, Suetonius Tit. 3. Making an argument in the same
In this context the Disputant might have found it useful to appeal to Thomas
Aquinas, who had expressed other views. Woman was created, he said, to be a
meet help only in respect of the generation of children. In all other respects a
man would be better helped by another man. He asserts that even before the fall
woman was, in both her nature and her rational soul, inferior to man {Summa
theologica 1.92.1.)
The first edition has acutissimi quinque Hcebreorum Rabini: the five most
sagacious Jewish rabbis. For quinque the MS and the later editions read quique,
a vague reinforcing word usually found in the phrase tanto quique magis (so
much the more). The reading is uncertain, but as there seems to be no tradition
Latin translation of the Bible (1551) the passage from Genesis reads faciam ei
adjumentum accommodatum (Let me make [or: I shall make] for him a suitable
help). In his reading of this passage the Disputant is either mistaken in his
Disputant had used the earlier translation of the Pentateuch which Castalio had
phrase. In his French translation of the Bible (1555), the sentence reads: je lui
11. If for the Anabaptists Christ ... is not God] As the Disputant says at the
start of his tract, this idea was developed by the Socinians. It was not held by
Anabaptists generally, but formed a part of the doctrine of the so-called
12. create Adam and make woman] The Disputant stresses the distinction of
status by again using the two verbs: creo and facio. He may be implicitly
alluding to the different verbs used in Hebrew for the creation of Adam (Gen.
1.27) and for the making of Eve (Gen. 2.22), where the first verb implies
creation ex nihilo, while the second means built from physical materials. If so,
he conveniently forgets both that the second verb is used for the creation of
Adam also in the alternative version (Gen. 2.7, where he is made from the
preexistent earth) and that, as he has himself quoted earlier, in Gen. 1.26 the V
has God using faciamus rather than creemus. Elsewhere the V maintains the
distinction between the two verbs: creavit (1.27), formavit (2.7), aedificavit
Smith had found a warm, positive way of using the idea that the woman was
"built":
of the ribbe which was taken out of man God built the woman:
signifying, that as one parte of the building dooth meete and fit with
another; so the wife should meete and fit with the husband, that as they
are called couples, so they may be called paires, that is, like as a paire of
gloves, or a paire of hose are like; so man and wife should be like,
one can draw from the word of God a quite clear statement] The Disputant is in
stated.
Tarabotti demonstrates the equality of Adam and Eve by citing Gen. 3.21:
"Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins," which
she calls an evident sign that all privileges were granted equally to them both.
13. only that which is created in the image of God ... is man] Gedik: "Peter
says that women also are coinheritors of heaven's grace [1 Peter 3.7]."
she was not created in the image of God] This commonplace is found even in
passage assert that the reason for its abandonment was that since man was made
in the image of God that image should not be sullied. As women were not so
made they might more readily be branded. See Julius Clarus of Alessandria,
Opera omnia, ed. Barretius Barretius (1614) (Venetiis 1637) part II, question
70, (p. 579). Defenders of women frequently refute the idea that they are not
made in the image of God. See, for example, Marie de Jars de Gournay,
Egalite des hommes et des femmes (Paris 1622). For further discussion of this
A marginal note in the MS reads sed imaginis imaginatae imago (but an image
on the inside front cover of a copy of the edition published in Paris in 1693 (BL
1080. a. 12) reads: "A woman should cover her head because she is not the
image of God, but so that she may show herself subservient and since
"
81
prevarication began through her she must show by this sign that in church,
because of episcopal reverence, she may not have her head free but covered
with a veil, nor have the right to speak since the bishop contains within him the
person of Christ. Thus because of original sin she should appear to be subjected
before the bishop as if she were before a judge, since he is the vicar of the
Lord." The note appears to have been written in the seventeenth or early
he is the image and glory of God: but the woman the glory of the man] Gedik:
"Paul takes the statement that woman is the glory of the man from the words of
Moses in which it is said that the formation of woman was instituted for the sake
of the man and that it was therefore not fitting that she should pray bareheaded
in church. The woman, he said, should ‘be covered. For a man indeed ought
not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God . . . but
the woman of the man' [1 Cor. 11.6-8]. The statement about subjection and
humility was prescribed to women in this matter to show how obedient they
should be not only by keeping their heads veiled in company but also in their
behaviour towards their husbands at home. It is also for men to consider what
they owe in their turn to their wives. There is a mutual obligation on each of
the sexes." In Paradise lost Milton is concerned to explore both the mutual
obligation and the hierarchy of images: "He for God only, she for God in him"
(IV.299).
"blesses the world just as the vision of God glorifies the blessed spirits in
heaven.
Eugenius affirms woman's humanity while also stressing her inferiority: "Do
you believe that, in respect of status, the comparison of the immortal, almighty,
eternal God and miserable man is the same as that of man and woman?"
Suppose we grant that woman has been created similar to man, and that
she has been made in his image, can we therefore conclude from that
that she is of the human race? Although man has been created in the
image of God, can we infer that she is of the same race as God? Man
only resembles God by his rational mind which is in the image of God,
because he has a soul like His, gifted like Him with knowledge and
the Papists confess in their canons that woman was not made in the image of
God] The point is unambiguously stated in Gratian, Decretum causa 33,
14. Eve sinned equally with Adam] A marginal note in the MS reads Insuper
doctores dicunt, si Eva sola comedisset de fructu et Adam non, tunc non ejecti
fuissent e paradiso (The doctors say, in addition, that if Eve alone had eaten of
the fruit, and not Adam, they would not have been ejected from Paradise). In
theses 32-36 the Disputant denies that Eve was capable of sin.
a womanly Christ] For the long tradition of the womanly Christ, see Bynum,
Jesus as Mother (1982).
15. Thou shalt "have dominion"] Tarabotti corrects the Disputant. God
addressed them in the plural; "God said unto them ..." (Gen. 1.28). She
"over every living thing" . . . and hence perhaps that superiority] This may be
an allusion to the association of the name Eve with the idea of life: "And Adam
called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living" (Gen.
3.20). Luther: . . . darumb das sie eine Mutter ist aller Lebendigen; V: . . .
quod mater esset cunctorum viventium. Hertz (12) remarks that "living" is a
mistranslation and that the word should be something like "humankind." Had
he been aware of it, the point would have served the Disputant well.
"
83
The MS replaces hinc forte ilia dignitas (hence perhaps that superiority) with hie
forte ilia dubitas (here perhaps [we have] that [element of] doubt). If this is
who but a madman can believe that she is man rather than beast Although
Eugenius demurs, he is content to allow the word beast to be used for "evil,
coarse women.
16. in marriage two people are one man] The Disputant's endorsement of this
17. These same people write . . . scripture] These arguments are more
characteristic of Sozzini and Michael Servetus than of Anabaptists in general.
See, for example, Sozzini, Opera omnia 1.789 (fragments), and Servetus, De
trinitatis erroribus (1531) book 5. See also commentary on thesis 11.
18. no writer of worth who ever wrote haec homo] The Disputant is once again
being disingenuous. Luther had already used the phrase foeminam hominem
(see commentary on thesis 10), and in thesis 16 the Disputant himself had
happened again not long after the Disputatio was written. In 1637 William
Austin's executors published his celebrated Haec homo, a book in which he
upholds women's claim to be considered homines on an equal footing with men.
In about 1620 there had already appeared the anonymous tracts on gender roles
Tullia was bom man] Cicero's dearly beloved daughter Tullia died in childbirth
in 45 B. C., aged about 33 or 34. Cicero's friend, the orator and statesman
Epistulae ad familiares ,
in which he attempted to comfort Cicero for his loss by
saying that since Tullia was human she would have died eventually quoniam
homo nata fuerat (since she had been born a human being; Adfam. 4.5.4). The
grammatical point here is precisely the contrary of that which the Disputant is
84
trying to show. Sulpicius assumes that the word homo applies equally to men
and to women. Gedik bluntly corrects the Disputant. In 1672 Franciscus
Hoeltich and Johannes Waltz pointed out that in modern romance languages, by
altogether: "If we said that Tullia was born an animal would it follow that the
Valerius (1512-78) was a polymath best known for his treatise on grammar and
for contributions to polyglot dictionaries. The Disputant is mistaken. In his
Grammaticarum institutionum libri iiii, 108, Valerius plainly states the contrary:
Homo . . . & nemo . . . sunt communia {homo and nemo are of common
gender). According to Saint Gregory of Tours the matters raised in this thesis
had been touched on at the second Council of Macon, in 585. A bishop was
said to have questioned whether woman could properly be called man: Extetit
etiam in hoc sinodo quidam ex episcopis, qui dicebat mulierem hominem non
posse vocitari. In answer he was referred to some of the arguments later used
by Gedik and others, after which he expressed himself content. See Saint
Gregory of Tours, Historiarum libri decem VIII. 20, 386-87. Although it has
often been interpreted otherwise, the discussion seems to have been focused
femmes."
Tarabotti heretically suggests that God began his creation of humanity without
being in full command of the necessary skills and that he needed to learn by
85
progressive mastery of his craft: the portrait of Eve was an improvement over
the portrait of Adam. She uses arguments common among defenders of women;
they are better than men because Eve was created later then Adam, from finer
materials (flesh rather than dust), and in a superior environment (Eden). The
argument that God progressively improved his creative skills is repeated by
"Sophia" in her Woman's superior excellence over man (1743), in which she
goes so far as to suggest that some elements of the creative work arose by
chance: "Man being form'd a mere rough draught of that finish'd creature
Woman, God snatch'd from the lumpish thing the few graces and perfections he
found in it, to add them to the many he design'd to enrich her with" (15). A
few lines later she partly retracts this comment, treating it as a rhetorical jest in
which she nevertheless manages once again to sneer at men: "I am not so weak
to think the Creator, in order to make Woman the compleat being she is, had
any need to produce that rude sketch of her, Man” (15-16).
glosses on the creation of man in Gen. 2.7. Humus = earth. The derivation
make man" (Gen. 1.26), is used in the sense of "human being." Gedik stresses
parallelism, saying that although women were made from flesh and blood, those
constituents, in women as in men, eventually return to earth. Eugenius cites an
alternative but equally false derivation of homo found in Julius Caesar Scaliger's
De causis linguae latinae (1540) 54: Greek homos (the same). Scaliger says est
enim animal sociale, non ab humo, ut somniarunt (he is in fact a social animal;
not from humus, as people have foolishly supposed). Eugenius comments more
explicitly: "doubtless showing that humans were created man and woman, as a
In a note on the last page of the MS the scribe takes issue with the Disputant's
logic and with the idea that sound argument is based on etymology. Citing Gen.
2, he points out— with equally false logic— that trees are made from earth but
are not therefore man. He also makes the obvious point that although Eve was
"
86
not made from earth directly, she was made from Adam's rib and is thus
indirectly of the earth. While not earthy in form (formaliter) she is earthy in a
the thesis, the first reference is to Matt. 24.24: "there shall arise false Christs,
and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it
were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." V puts the conditional clause
The printer dropped the "r" from firmum, making the Disputant say that the
argument fimum, a comment with which Gedik would have warmly agreed
and which foreshadows the celebrated misprint about Queen Victoria's passing
over the bridge. Fimum, ox fimus, means excrement: "This argument is crap."
not Adam but Eve was deceived] Gedik: "Adam was deceived, but it was the
woman who did the deed; thus it is right that for this reason also she should be
21. '7 am not sent" for her] Tarabotti once more verges on heresy in her
eagerness to praise women. She asserts that the true reason for Christ's words
is to be found in his statement that he had "not come to call the righteous, but
sinners to repentance" (Matt. 9.13), "as if he meant to let you understand that
since woman is just and holy he had not come to suffer for her.
animals.
received what they sought] Gedik says that there are many counterexamples.
22. not as rruin, but as dogs] Gedik points out that in the Bible men are several
times called dogs (e. g., Phil. 3.2), adding sarcastically "therefore men [viri]
Tarabotti answers the Disputant in part with a virulent attack on the basic nature
of men, and, by implication, on the worth of sexual desire: "Man is made from
mud, from dust, and from ashes. Whatever is conceived from the vilest and
filthiest seed in the fury of desire is of the worst, stained with sin, born for toil,
fear, and suffering, and miserable until death." Men speak of women as living
in the bed of sin only to give themselves a convenient excuse for satisfying their
lust. Women are the prisoners of men's tyranny and wait for the day of
23. we are dogs] This clause is silently added to the original. V: Etiam,
Domine: nam et catelli edunt de micis quae cadunt de mensa dominorum
suorum. Luther: Ja, Herr; aber dock essen die Hiindlin von den brossamlen,
die von irer Herm tisch fallen. The Disputant could perhaps offer a strained
24. Thy faith hath saved thee] As the Disputant later indicates, this is not right.
The text reads: "O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt"
(Matt. 15.28). He will have been ironically aware that he himself distorted
scripture in the previous thesis and that he proceeds in this thesis to develop the
distortion.
1 am a Canaanite dog] canis sum Cananaea. The edition of 1638 prints canis
later editions. The submissive subjunctive of the MS reading, canis sim (it may
be that I am a dog), does not survive into print. See chapter 6, textual notes.
Agrippa (68) takes Christ's response— "Thy faith hath saved thee"— to be an
indication that he could not himself have improved upon the woman’s argument.
For we indeed desire to hear "Not as thou, O God, wilt"] Unwilling to believe
that the Disputant could mean this, Larsen emends non sicut tu (not as thou) to
read non sic, sed sicut tu (not thus, but as thou). His more orthodox reading
removes the Disputant's appeal to the confrontation with divine will and to its
relative lack of importance for women. Lorrain makes a similar change: Mais
nous desirons d'ouir. Non comme nous voulons, O Dieu, mais comme tu veux.
25. "has spiritually saved, "... "thy faith hath saved thee" . . .] ... saluauit
. . . seruauit ....
Matthew adds] V: Et salva est mulier ex illa hora. The argument in this thesis
is partly dependent on the Latin use of salvus/-a to mean both saved in spirit and
cured in body. Luther uses a primarily bodily term here: Und das Weib ward
gesund zu der selbigen stunde. For spiritual salvation Luther often uses selig
26. thus these obtuse people] There is a minor textual uncertainty. The first
edition has ista stolidi, which is impossible. Later editions correct to ita stolidi
(thus the obtuse people). The MS has ita stolide: thus [they] obtusely. The
correct reading is possibly isti stolidi (adopted in the edition of the text given in
chapter 6) or ita isti stolidi: "these obtuse people" or "thus these obtuse people."
As both "thus" and "these" are at least implied, I have included both in the
translation.
historical faith which is not for man alone but also for women and devils]
Gedik: "You should be refuted not with the pen but with a thunderbolt. . . .
89
Whatever is not done in faith, is sin. It is impossible that anyone without faith
says that although infants are incapable of belief and cannot answer for
themselves, it is good to baptize them. God's grace completes for them the act
of faith.
27. when Christ sometimes spoke with a woman the evangelist states that the
apostles were astonished since this is certainly not without mystery] Gedik cites
the explanation given in John 3.9: "the Jews have no dealings with the
Samaritans."
7 have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel] The Disputant smuggles the
sentence in from a quite different context: the conversation with the centurion of
Matt. 8.5-13.
who begat women is never stated; whence they draw their origin is uncertain]
This is not strictly true. Along with Sarai and Milcah, unnamed daughters are
mentioned several times in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11. Gedik:
"Listen, you fanatical spirit, whom I do not dare to call a man, not having
emerged into the light from a human mother [homine matre, using homo as of
common gender] but probably from some breeding-sow ... All that is born
from man alone is man. The female sex is born from man alont; it is therefore
man alone. You have not, you devil, the power and the right to choose to give
human nature to whom you will or to deny it to whom you will."
the posterity of Adam is restricted to males alone] Tarabotti says that, if so, that
results from the malignity of the men who wrote the genealogies.
Tarabotti: "The first thing that God made in the creation was light, the symbol
of woman, who was ordained from ail eternity before Adam."
90
29. Accursed is the barren woman who has no seed in Israel—so, by contrast,
the pregnant and fecund is saved. For there it is also added soon afterwards:
Blessed, however, is she whose seed is Zion, for she completes the task of the
helper] These clauses are neither quotations from scripture nor close
change of sense. The original reads Maledicta sterilis quae non habet semen in
Israel, & beatus cuius enim semen in Syon (. . . and blessed is he whose . . .),
to women alone. Agrippa supplies a marginal note citing "Matthew in the story
(mid second century) relating the blessing conferred on Anna and Joachim when
Anna conceived Mary. From among the many variant versions I have not been
able to identify Agrippa's source. In the edition published by Johann Karl Thilo
in 1832, a relevant passage reads:
Factum est autem, ut in diebus festis inter eos qui offerebant incensum
accedens ad eum scriba templi nomine Ruben ait ad eum: "Non licet tibi
inter sacrificia dei consistere, quia non benedixit tibi deus ut daret tibi
(It happened that among those who offered incense to the Lord in the
time of festival Joachim stood bearing his offering in the sight of the
Lord. Approaching him, a scribe of the temple said "You are not
permitted to be among the sacrifices to God since he has not blessed you
15, 18, which might well be interpreted in the same spirit. In the V Gen. 13.16
91
begins Faciamque semen tuum sicut pulverem terrae (And I will make thy seed
30. widows] The inclusion of widows, who may well have borne children, is
not entirely satisfactory. The MS has steriles mulieres, which is more to the
point.
If, therefore, woe is to be unto them, how is it that by this childbearing, which
is accomplished with pain, they should be saved?] Gedik refers his readers to
the many places where Christ says "Woe to men" (e. g.. Matt. 23.14, etc.).
The author of Mulier homo! understands the apostle to mean no more than that
how and when they should best undertake the business of copulation, he
cautions "That it be so ordered as not to be too expensive of time, and that
By omitting the words quoted from Matthew, the MS appears to make Christ say
bathetically that woe is to be unto the virgins, widows, spinsters, and whores,
thus destroying the point of the passage.
31. if the woman continue in faith . . . If their sons continue in the faith]
Luther translates so sie bleiben im Glauben (so long as they remain in the faith),
putting the statement into the plural. He adds a marginal note saying that it
applies to women in general but should not, “as some torment the passage
editions, the first has multo operum respectu (with great regard to works) a
possibly subversive misprint which undermines the argument.
the example of Mary] Perhaps with a view to reducing catholic colouring, later
editions omit the name Mariae. Cf. commentary on thesis 51. Reinforcing
rather than reducing the emphasis on catholic faith, Clapies radically alters the
92
sense: "We have but the example of the Virgin Mary, who on account of her
Son, has been blessed above all other women and has received in consequence
an eternal reward" (22).
32. The argument of the thesis is another substantial borrowing from Agrippa
(65-66). As usual, the Disputant inverts the values.
created\ Although earlier the Disputant had been careful to distinguish Adam's
creation from Eve's having been "made" (facta, thesis 8), he here inadvertently
Why didst thou eat of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not
eat?] In the AV, "Hast thou eaten of the tree ..." In the V, however, the
whole verse is one question, connecting the two ideas more closely: Quis enim
indicavit tibi quod nudus esses, nisi quod . . . comedisti? (Who told thee that
thou wast naked, unless thou hast eaten . . .). The OL versions also connect the
clauses with nisi. Luther separates the ideas as in the AV: Wer hat dirs gesagt,
das du nacket bist? Hastu nicht gessen von dem Bawm, da von ich dir gebot,
Du soltest nicht da von essen?
we contract that original sin not from the mother but from the father] Gedik
refers to Ps. 51.5: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother
conceive me" and to the still more pointed interpretation of the Targum: Ecce in
Salmos 236.) Gedik adds "Even if marriage is in itself a holy kind of life,
ordained by God himself, nevertheless, because since the fall of our first parents
married partners are sinners, sin is involved in the coupling of husband and wife
and the seed of both partners is infected with sin. Thus we are all born
sinners." Theologians had for centuries tried to resolve the question whether or
not marital sexuality was inevitably sinful. Many held the opinion explored by
than by lust, sexual intercourse is no more than a venial sin. See Elliott,
Spiritual marriage.
93
For which reason also the old law commanded that all males be circumcised,
but that the females remain uncircumcised, prescribing, that is to say, that only
in that sex which sinned should original sin be punished] Gedik is unaware of
female circumcision: "Males alone were to be circumcised, because women
were not capable of bearing this mark ... but because this part of the body was
grave was the sin of Adam and Eve." A similar denial that female circumcision
mulieres non fuerunt circumcisae, imo non potuerunt (in the Old Testament
women were not circumcised: in any case they could not be). See chapter 6,
textual notes. Tarabotti does not deny the possibility of female circumcision but
says that the the limitation to males "was with regard to the delicacy of the
not visible to any but the most intimate obserxers, the circumcision of men was
ordained as a more public sign and symbol relevant to women as well as to men,
although visible only on the men.
If therefore, she did not sin in the beginning, woman does not sin today]
Eugenius also cites Ps. 51.5: "Behold, 1 was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did
that if he had followed his argument through he would have been led to state
that women needed no Messiah since there was nothing from which they could
be redeemed. (See From virile woman 235.) The Disputant does just that, but
33. women's sins, if there are any such, differ in nothing from the sinning of
beasts] Eugenius sourly comments that one might better say that men, not
knowing God, sin as do beasts.
to have done an injury] The Disputant uses a technical phrase commonly found
in legal documents in reference to damage caused by an animal: pauperiem
facere.
94
Gedik answers the thesis with nothing but a long passage comparing the
lascivious as a bull, you neigh after women like a stallion, indulge your belly
like a bear and fatten your flesh like a mule, bear thoughts of evil like a camel.
If
nor do we read anywhere in scripture that any woman was damned] The
statement is tak^n from Agrippa (71), who uses it as a term of praise.
The scribe of the MS adds a marginal note: into, ubi seditiosi Israelitae in
defecto contra Moysen conspirasse leguntur; ibi ipsorum totas domus fuisse
(cum liberis & mulieribus) dicuntur (On the other hand, where we read that the
is said that their whole families, including children and women, were involved).
34. Eve said, indeed: "God hath said. Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye
touch it" . . . but in this she spoke falsely] The V, quoted by the Disputant,
uses first person plural, treating God's words as reported speech. In the AV,
Eve quotes God directly, in the second person. The Disputant might have added
that Eve also speaks falsely in saying "neither shall ye touch it." The Midrash
accuses Eve of exaggerating: there is no word concerning "touching" in the
original prohibition and her fall is the consequence (Hertz 26). Missing the
Disputant's point entirely, Gedik begs the question. Eve's words, he says,
make it clear that the prohibition was voiced to the woman also.
lest [perhaps] we die] As the Disputatio cites, the V has ne forte moriamur.
element of doubt not contained in the Latin. The AV puts the clause into the
second person: "lest ye die." OL versions have both first and second persons:
ne moriamur / ne forte moriamur and ne morte [sic] moriamini. Luther has
What need was there of the word of doubt "perhaps" if Eve knew for certain that
her eating of the fruit was forbidden by God?] Gedik: "Because here the woman
95
began to yield. She substituted for the expression of certainty a word of doubt;
for God's quite simple warning she introduced the word of doubt (lest perhaps
which have never sinned at all bring forth in sorrow} Gedik: "... because of
man, or man's guilt, the whole earth is thus accursed and all creatures groan and
give birth with the utmost suffering ..." Tarabotti's enthusiasm leads her
again to the verge of heresy: "If God did not award childbirth to woman as a
punishment, that is a sign that because of her beauty and other great qualities he
knew her to be worthy of sceptres and crowns, not of punishment and pain."
Eugenius comments that it is inappropriate to compare the isuffering of an
irrational animal with that of a woman, "a much nobler and sweeter creature."
arises from the irritability of the fibres and is common to all female animals,
who certainly have not eaten forbidden fruit" (26). The Disputant's untestable
35. we find that women have almost always been blessed for evildoing, and that
they have been praised that they did evil] Gedik: "Alas, the profundities of
Satan! So that you may open the window to sin, you attempt to remove from
the weaker sex all fear of justice and punishment. " He continues by citing the
Rachel was praised . . . Rebekah was praised] Neither Rachel nor Rebekah
The harlot Rahab deceived those who were looking for Joshua's spies and it was
counted to her for righteousness] The last clause here is quoted from the V,
where it is said of Abraham (Gen. 15.6; 1 Macc. 2.52): et reputatum est illi ad
justitiam. By changing illi to ei, Agrippa, from whom the passage is quoted
96
(69), disguises the gender, allowing it to be said both of a woman and of a man.
Gedik: "God approved of and blessed her zeal and charity, not, however, the lie
itself."
Jael] Gedik says that she was acting under spiritual guidance and is thus not to
be rashly imitated. Her actions lie outside the usual laws. He cites comparable
examples.
And what of Judith?] Gedik says that without doubt she was divinely inspired.
"It is for us, however, to live not by example but by the law."
Arui the iniquity of a woman is said to be far better than the worthy deeds of a
man] An inversion— quoted from Agrippa (who makes the point twice: 69,
courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach." The
verse was much discussed in renaissance tracts.
70) whose ostensible purpose is quite contrary to that of the Disputant and who
takes the praise of the women to be well deserved. In an uneasy and ambiguous
passage he also praises women for being stronger than men even when it was
their strength that led some, such as Samson, into misery (68). In defence of
the women's treacherous acts, Agrippa offers a tortuous argument based on the
Some lines after Agrippa's inversions of the verse from Ecclesiasticus, its
36. the first two examples in this thesis are quoted almost verbatim from
pseudo-Agrippa (70).
97
The daughters of Lot are forgiven for their incest with their father] Gedik cites
that apart from their father, there were no other men on earth. Thus their action
same point.
the drunken father is not forgiven and his succession is ejected from the church
of God] Gedik: "The lapses of the saints warn us against the enormous
infirmity of our nature." As Lot was a patriarch, Tarabotti puts aside her usual
"The daughters of Lot were not blamed for their incest with their father, though
Christ" (27).
The incestuous Tamar is forgiven and said to be more just than the patriarch
Judah and for her fraudulent incest she was rewarded by continuing the line of
the Saviour] Gedik: "Many impious persons are to be found in the genealogy of
Christ."
to be punished, you are no less mistaken than if you were to say that
inheritances are not to be divided since Christ did not wish to divide them [Luke
12.13-14]. Because the adultery of men and women is equally detestable to
God, he decreed the punishment of the flesh, expressed in the divine law: death.
in the laws of the emperors we are warned that a woman taken in adultery
should not suffer capital punishment, nor furthermore should she be imprisoned
for her sins, unless the judge himself wished to be punished by death] Modified
in vjirious places in the corpus of the law we are warned that a woman of
honest life and good reputation should not be imprisoned for civil debt;
also because in respect of the same crime a man sins more than a
woman J (85-86)
Augustus' law against adultery, the Lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis, allowed a
wronged husband to kill the man but not his wife, the woman's father had the
right to kill both his adulterous daughter and the adulterer if he caught them at it
in his own house. A convenient summary of the law may be found in Rotondi,
Leges 445-47. See also Baviera, Fontes 553 and, for a fuller discusssion,
Treggiari, Roman marriage 262-319. As Gedik crisply points out, in the later
days of the empire both parties to adultery were punished by death. The
Disputant implicitly sets his statement in contrast with the situation in Germany,
where the right of the husband to kill his adulterous wife was still recognized in
offers a characteristic explanation of the imperial law: since men did not value
equality in marriage there was "no need for women to die for those same errors
trophies of your shame." Although women may not have been executed in
public, they were, she says, secretly slain on suspicion and many virgins,
forgave the woman 's sins] Sc. those of Mary Magdalene, whose identification
with the prostitute in Luke 7.36-39 had become conventional. Although the text
does not say so, Gedik argues that the astonishment of the Pharisees arose from
Christ taught only male apostles to pray] Gedik stresses that Christ intended the
prayer to be said by men and women alike. "Nor did he institute one supper for
men, another for women, although among the fu'st apostles there were only
men." The Disputant's statement is supported by Luke 11.1-4. In Matt. 6.9-
13, however, Christ teaches the prayer to all during the Sermon on the Mount.
forgive us our debts] "Forgive us our sins" {peccata nostra) is found at Luke
11.4. In both places the V has dimitte rather than remitte, as in the Disputatio.
37. Suffer little children] The argument is possible because whereas in the V
Luke 18.15 refers to infantes, Christ's words in 18.16 read Sinite pueros.
While pueri often means children of either sex, a sophistic argument can make it
appear to mean only boys. In thesis 41 the Disputant himself uses pueri to
mean children generally. Going back to the original New Testament text, Gedik
rightly points out that the Greek word for child (pats) is of common gender. He
also cites some of the many Biblical references to daughters, including Joel
2.28-29: "1 will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your
daughters shall prophesy . . . And also upon the servants and upon the
handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit." Tarabotti dismisses the
Disputant's argument, saying that he uses his tongue worse than did Aretino.
38. The Sadducees] As Gedik points out, the Sadducees believed neither in the
resurrection of the body nor in punishment after death. Gedik goes on to lament
that in his day also one found many who dismissed all hope of future life and
believed that after the burial of the body human beings of either sex differed in
no way from brutes. "It is on this basis, you epicure, thal| you labour to
salvation] Among other passages, Gedik cites 1 Peter 3.7: "ye husbands, dwell
with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the
weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers
be not hindered." He concludes with an allusion to Matt. 21.31, asking "Will
100
not harlots, having come to their senses, precede the Pharisees— and thus also
you— into the kingdom of heaven?"
there will be not a single woman in heaven] Speaking of the blessed in heaven,
Gedik says that both sexes will be found there. Although, in common with the
angels, they will not marry, they will not be incorporeal. In saying so, he
where happiness is eternal and where transitory, fleeting things cause no deceit,
you would not be able to refrain from sexual sin." With somewhat strange logic
she says that the Disputant's opinions have much in common with those of
banish them entirely from heaven." While agreeing that there will be no women
in heaven, Eugenius goes further, asserting that neither will there be men. He
believes that in heaven the angels are not formed like human beings, either male
Answ. We believe not— Our Saviour says, that there they neither Marry
nor are given in Marriage', and if so, what Need of Sexes? and why that
in Heaven which there's no Need of? All that's of the Essence of a Man
will undoubtedly be there, and that's a rational Soul united to an
organiz'd Body, but what Organs will be necessary then we can't tell,
accordingly one wou'd think Sexes shou'd. We won't add for another
Reason what, as we remember, one of the Fathers has said— That were
there any Women in Heaven, the Angels cou'd not stand long, but wou'd
certainly be seduced from their Innocency, and Fall as Adam did. (3.13,
8.ix.l691, [1])
101
In his Religio bibliopolae (1691), Dunton repeats his view that in heaven we
shall not know each other by sex (70). The question would perhaps have been
more fully explored in one of the many works which Dunton planned but did
not bring to fruition. In his Life and errors (1705) he describes a project for a
Copulation, and which were privately sent to the Anthenian [sic] Society,
Third Volume may appear, we shall take such a modest Care of it, that
not the least Blemish of Obscenity and Smut shall pass us. (263-64)
In her La vita di Maria Virgine, Lucrezia Marinella gave the idea of heavenly
sexuality a further twist when she used baroque imagery ,to describe the
annunciation, suggesting an erotic bond between God and Mary. The virtue and
beauty of the queen of heaven "inflamed the breast" of God with "sweet ardour"
(Part I,
25V; Part II,
4r-v).
39. Christ said to his own mother: "Woman, what have I to do with thee?"]
Gedik denies that this has anything to do with the rejection of womankind in
was also raised in the discussion at the second Council of Macon, mentioned in
Christ is called the son of man and is nevertheless the son of Mary] The
equivalence of "son of man" and "son of Mary" is explicitly stated by some of
the Fathers. Saint Gregory of Tours says that Jesus was called the son of man
"because he was the son of the Virgin, that is, of a woman" {Historiarum libri
called the son of man because of the w'oman, not because of the man. It is a
remarkable miracle, which greatly astonished the prophet, that a woman should
have surrounded a man when the male sex was swallowed up by a virgin and
102
she carried Christ in her body" (67). Cf. Jeremiah 31.22: Femina circumdabit
virum (A woman shall compass a man).
man— and yet not by nature but by grace] Gedik argues that if Mary had not
been a normal human being, Christ would not be consubstantial with us and thus
not the promised saviour. The dialogue book raises another point against
Mary's being a woman like others: Endres quotes Christ's statement, "Among
them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the
Baptist" (Matt. 11.11), asking why he did not name himself, a man much
greater than John, unless John had been born of a woman while Christ differed
in having been born of man. Eugenius can reply only that Christ referred to
John as the greatest because he prepared the way for the Messiah.
Why blessed? Because this woman was man, and the others not] Gedik: "Not
Let the women of today bear children without males and we shall gladly call
making instead the orthodox statement that Mary was the only woman who so
conceived (62-64).
Gedik: "To bear children with or without a male does not constitute being
human any more than does being fertile or sterile; that is solely an accidental
quality of the matter ..." Clapies mentions a passage in Pomponius Mela (1st
wherin are reported to bee none but women, heary over all theyr bodies,
which of their owne nature beare children without the company of men
fierce and boystous kinde, that some of them can scarce be restrayned
from strugling, no not even with chaines.
"
103
This report was made by Hanno, and because he brought home the
skinnes of some that hee had killed: hee was the better beleeved.
90.
After commenting that the island "was apparently one of those floating islands
that have been submerged," Clapies adds: "What a pity such a race of women
should have been lost" (30n). Although the matter remains contentious, some
biologists credit human parthenogenesis. For a summary of the history of the
arguments, see Francoeur, Utopian motherhood 125-62.
The Anabaptists themselves also say that by this expression, "the son of man ,
nothing else is meant than "man, " and assert that it is a hebraism] The term
"Son of Man" in the gospels is, in Greek, dnthropos, here interpreted as
equivalent to Hebrew ben adam (a human being).
40. And if his mother who bore him was not blessed, how are other women to
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is
nothing soiled and foul will enter into the kingdom of heaven] Gedik: "Nor
therefore will we men enter into heaven." Refraining from any attempt to assert
the purity of women, he is content with Old Testament statements that men are
41. There is neither Jew nor Greek] The V has Non est Judaeus, neque
Graecus: non est servus, neque liber: non est masculus, neque femina. Omnes
enim vos unum estis in Christo Jesu. The Disputant's statement that the apostle
where ouk . . . oude . . ., (neither . . . nor . . .) relates the first two two pairs.
104
while the last pair are related by ouk . . . kai . . . (neither . . . and . . .)• Here
Greek kai and Latin ac both contain some implication of "and [not] even," a
sense not readily conveyed in English. Although the Disputant attributes undue
significance to this distinction, Agrippa, too, had attempted to explain it. Using
"neither male nor female" he follows the phrase with a helpful, conventional
explanatory gloss which would not have served the Disputant's purposes: "for in
Christ there is neither male nor female, but a new creature" (88).
even though they are said to be one. Children along with their elders are said
to be one and the same in Christ. Now with God there is no respect of persons]
In the first edition the punctuation and the relationships among the ideas in this
passage are unclear. Later editions attempt to clarify, though without complete
success. The translation given here is tentative. Larsen reads the passage
differently, accepting the punctuation of the first edition but adding a negative:
"even though here children are not said to be one along with their elders, they
are nevertheless one in Christ, for with God there is no respect of persons."
And thus women wishing to be one in Christ must first have cast off their
appears how little they have to do with Christ] Gedik: "That hits the nail on the
head. What Christians must cast off is not the female sex but the old Adam."
He comments that this, meaning the casting off of corrupt humanity, applies to
it has never been heard— and is indeed ridiculous— that women should cast off
V!L12 Augustine had agreed that women who have become Christian will not
made in the image of God in that part of them where there is no sexual
distinction, that is to say in their spiritual beings: ubi nullus sexus est, hoc est in
spiritu mentis suae. This view, echoed later by Thomas Aquinas, became
standard. Other views had nevertheless been expressed in noncanonical books.
105
Jesus, indicates that women will indeed have to cast off Eve in order to enter
Peter's urging him to let "Mary go out from among us, for women are not
worthy of the Life." To this Jesus answers "Note that I shall lead her so that
she may become male, so that she also may become a living spirit as you males
are. For any woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of
heaven" (saying 114; see also saying 22). Although this apocryphal gospel was
known to some early Fathers, it had little influence until modern times. See the
edition by Jacques-E. Menard.
42. he who wants to be perfect and to enter into eternal life should leave his
wife] Despite his earlier remarks about the sinfulness of copulation (see
commentary on thesis 32), Gedik rages against this attack on honest marriage:
"Christian perfection consists neither in celibacy nor in matrimpny, but in faith
for that reason they praise eunuchs] Gedik continues his comments on the
thought virtuous merely for his selfcastration "in a fit of madness" and goes on
Nor did Christ marry] The Disputant again denies his announced principles:
the apostles rejected their spouses] Gedik offers a flat denial, citing Jerome's
statement that it cannot be proved that any of the apostles besides Peter was ever
married: excepto Apostolo Petro, non sit manifeste relatum de aliis Apostolis,
quod uxores habuerint {Adversus Jovinianum 1.26). In doing so, Gedik imitates
was a virgin, but was a virgin because he was so beloved by him who
distributed his gifts to all."
106
advised others that they should remain as they themselves . . . they bore witness
that it is good not to touch a woman] Gedik points out that Paul's words
expressed a wish rather than a command, adding that if everyone remained
virginal the human race would die out. He points out the error of logic in
concluding that its being good not to touch a woman entails its being wrong to
touch one.
Tarabotti writes of God’s praise of chastity and is confident that the angels live
in heaven as virgins.
43. When a woman brings forth she does so in sorrow, and when she has given
birth she rejoices that a man has been bom into the world] This is a distorted
paraphrase of John 16.21. Gedik objects that the original Greek calls the child
are intended. He also sneers again at the "New Disputant," repeating, perhaps
dare not give the name man to one who was not brought into the light from any
human mother {homine matre).
males are always exclusively meant] Querlon says that there are contrary
examples "too well known to need quotation." There are indeed scores of
passages in which "human being" appears to be meant.
44. Christ then charged them all that they should tell no man what was done]
Gedik explains that the true reason lay in the danger of speaking openly of
miracles among the Pharisees.
107
he knew that once girls or women were dead it was vain to call upon Christ for
help since they were not to be resurrected even at the latter day] Gedik rather
mysteriously complains that the Disputant is here begging the question.
Vll, 299. The Disputant's words give Gedik the opportunity of several times
there is no validity in the argument based on this girl's arising from the ashes]
The reading here is uncertain. In 1595 ex hoc puella de reliquis reads ex hac
puella & reliquis. The sense would then be "based on this girl and other
stories."
45. the head of the woman is the man] Gedik counters with 1 Cor. 11.7: "the
46. Gedik denies the whole thesis, adding the orthodox comment that although
women are unequal in their domestic relationships, they are equal in respect of
eternal grace and therefore not to be spurned. Women's equality with men in
respect of their souls and of life in the next world was emphatically asserted by
Agrippa:
Male and Female, created he them; the true distinction of which Sexes,
consists meerly in the different site of those parts of the body, wherein
Sex. For though at the last Trumpets universal Alarm, when our
108
proper Sexes, yet shall we not then either need or make use of Sex, but
The commonplalce that on earth women are physically and rationally weaker and
more prone to sin was sometimes reinforced by the heterodox suggestion that
assumption is found in the great soliloquy spoken by Launce with his dog at the
start of Tm/o gentlemen of Verona Il.iii. Using his shoes to represent his mother
and father, he chooses his left shoe as his mother, both because left is
conventionally, and etymologically, the inferior side, and also because his left
Shortly after having discussed the question of sexual distinction in heaven (see
above, thesis 38), The Athenian gazette also addressed the matter of the relative
Quest. 2. Is the Soul of Woman inferiour to the Soul of Man? and if so,
Answ. We think the difference much the same here, that 'tis between
one Mans Soul and another, only accidental, from the different
disposition of the Organs and Tone of the Body; or else from those
opportunities of Improvement which some persons have more than
others, or a more industrious inclination. ... in the Souls of Women,
we see not but that there are many of 'em as truly great, as brave, as
any more than in the Angels, in those who neither marry nor are given in
109
eternal, but shall cease as soon as this Life is ended. (5.3, 8.xii.l691,
[ 2 ])
47. I indeed know that in the scriptures examples of baptized women are to be
found] Gedik cites Acts 8.12: ". . . they were baptized, both the men and the
women.
Nor is the pronoun "he" of common gender] The Disputant argues like a
modern feminist, but with opposite intent. In fact— as the Disputant will have
been well aware— qui is used in Latin, as "he" has long been used in English, to
since women were not circumcised?] Gedik again shows that he knows nothing
of female circumcision: "The circumcision of the heart is fitting for both sexes .
. . the circumcision of the flesh was commanded for only one sex, since the
other was not capable of it. But baptism is possible for both." Tarabotti repeats
her assertion that women were spared circumcision because of their delicacy,
adding "and of their merit." She also glosses circumcision with the words "this
48. When Christ first arose from the dead, he first revealed himself to women]
Agrippa takes this to be an indication of women's worth (67). Gedik: "...
because through them death first entered into the human spet^ies. And thus
Christ wished to show them first the restitution of eternal life, and the loving
God brings assistance first to the weaker sex, for, as we know, he delights in
When Christ was first bom, he revealed himself in the manger to an ox and an
osj] Gedik says that this is false: the first to see him born in the flesh were
Mary and Joseph. The point seems moot.
"
110
Since women are garrulous, the whole city straightaway learns what they know]
Gedik rails against this commonplace slur and complains that men are no better.
"Oh, if someone would only place a constraint on the mouth of the male sex and
on the lips a cunning seal that would not suddenly fall away nor the tongue
destroy.
therefore Christ could not have them as witnesses to his resurrection, since their
testimony is invalid] Gedik: "After his resurrection Christ himself used the
findeth a wife findeth a good thing," and goes on to quote verses from
Ecclesiasticus, including 26.3, "A good wife is a good portion, which shall be
given in the portion of them that fear the Lord" and 26.16(13) "The grace of a
wife delighteth her husband, and her discretion will fatten his bones." As
Gedik's versions of these verses are neither those of the V, nor translations from
the Septuagint, nor retranslations from Luther, they were probably quoted from
memory and give further evidence of his having written in haste.
for non ergo potuit (therefore could not) later editions read non ergo uoluit
(therefore did not wish). If that had been the intended sense one might perhaps
have expected ei-go noluit.
since none but women had told them 5o] Gedik: "Peter and John were also
among the first witnesses of the resurrection of the Lord." Eugenius corrects
the Disputant by invoking John 20.25: "The other disciples therefore said unto
And, finally, when he rose Christ showed himself to the women as if he did not
wish them to recognize him although they were standing close to him] The
reading is uncertain. The sentence is dropped from the MS.
And his own mother did not recognize her son, but believed that he was the
gardener, and when she later came to recognize him, Christ reused to let her
touch him] Gedik: "What were you thinking of when you wrote that this Mary
was the mother of God? ... in the gospel ... it is plainly said that this was
"
Ill
Mary Magdalene [John 20.1, 20. 18J." Agrippa had cited the passage, correctly
identifying Mary Magdalene (76).
49. Balaam's ass spoke] That Balaam's was a she ass, rendered asina in the V,
strengthens the Disputant's sneer. The MS and the editions of 1638 and 1641
spoil the sour joke by reading asinus for asina. The divinely inspired female
ass forms an antithesis to the demonically inspired male serpent. Gedik: "The
Lord governed its tongue and palate. Whatever and however the ass may have
spoken, it understood nothing, since men also, who speak without being filled
with the spirit (as you act, filled with the spirit of Satan) for so long as they
speak neither understand anything of what they say nor remember it when they
sex, the apostle wished to relieve men of the danger of falling into sin when
hearing the sweetness of feminine speech, by which they glory in being
Tarabotti is indebted. She explains Saint Paul's injunction that women should
remain silent in church by saying that it was not prompted by scorn but "for fear
divine ministry, their provocation of sexual desire would lead men astray.
Eugenius: "1 believe that one should not be ashamed to learn something good
and healthy from women. It is nevertheless well known that women — and
especially bad women— often fail, regrettably, to speak correctly: that is, they
"
112
Eugenius: "I believe that one should not be ashamed to learn something good
and healthy from women. It is nevertheless well known that women— and
especially bad women— often fail, regrettably, to speak correctly: that is, they
speak neither as they should nor of what is fitting. And yet men lie with them
By law all public offices are denied them] The passage is modified from
sixteenth century Germany women were accorded severely limited formal and
legal rights and were in most respects placed under the domination of their
husbands, the Disputant omits to mention that they initiated legal proceedings
over marital matters more readily than did their husbands, and often with
successful outcome. See Wiltenburg 15-17, 22; Safley 167-80. Gedik: "The
modesty of the female sex causes women to avoid the public offices of which
you speak. " Eugenius agrees that in general women lack the necessary qualities
Even to sue in court is, most prudently, not permitted them] For prudentissime,
in 1595, later editions have prudentissimce, a perhaps preferable alternative: To
sue in court is not permitted even to the most prudent of them. As the first
edition nowhere else reduces -ce to -e, its prudentissime does not seem to be
ipsis (most prudently to them), removes all doubt as to its sense of the passage.
Nor do we ever once read of God's breathing a soul into a woman] Without
saying so directly, Gedik implies that women have souls because they were
created from Adam's preinspired flesh. The point had earlier been made by
Agrippa (55). See chapter 1.
both the angels and the devil have a rational soul] Gedik reinforces his belief in
the sexlessness of angels, who differ from us: "The companies of angels were
all made at the one time. Propagation is a part of human nature." Perhaps
" "
113
Ebionites] An early Christian sect which held that Jesus was wholly human and
that the Jewish law was binding on Christians.
This is discussed by the most learned doctor Hosius] Stanislaus Hosius (1504-
79), Polish cardinal. The Disputant here paraphrases and simplifies ideas
even beasts have such a sou[\ Gedik: "God spread simulacra of virtues and
vices among the animals to draw us towards virtue and deter us from vice."
Tarabotti laments the fact that men have commanded women to learn from
them; what women are taught by men is not how to know God but how to
offend him: "You are an ant always carrying in its mouth the grain of
perdition.
all that makes man is the knowledge of God, in which other living creatures are
lacking] Revealing again his commitment to the word, Gedik says that "faith
comes from hearing, but hearing from the word of God." He expresses his
approval of Paul's requirement that women who wish to learn anything should
50. like themselves] sibi simile. The Disputant alludes to the proverbial
114
the father begets a being like himself, nor in this case is it appropriate to invoke
the mother, who is not the ^cient cause of the offspring who are to be bom,
but only the instrument] Cf. thesis 9. Gedik: God "wants the human species to
institution, of defence, and of innumerable others. Thus male and female were
immediately created in Paradise.
Aristotle had developed at length these ideas about embryology. They were
frequently repeated during the middle ages and the renaissance. Clapies adds a
sensual clause: "the woman only gives in generation the pleasure of physical
nature always tends towards the best things and prefers to procreate a male
rather than a female] Gedik: "Before the fall the woman was as much the
image of God as was Adam. The fact that woman is now feebler is not to be
In 1672 Hoeltich commented: "We sometimes read that women have been
transformed into males but the change of males into women happens more
rarely, as far as I know and can recall, as if nature is trying to make better
an ass may also be bom from a horse and a mule] Gedik says that the
Disputant is himself a third entity, between man and spirit, similar [similis] to a
eternity.
Lorrain corrects the Disputant's oversight: d'un Cheval et d'une Anesse il y nait
une Mule.
Speaking of women and of the idea that they are monsters, she says "you men
115
are born from them, you follow them, you adore them as if they were angels,
you serve them, and you make slaves of such admirable monsters."
51. especially the Anabaptists and the Papists] The words & Papistce (and the
a heretic] Cardinal Hosius (see commentary on thesis 49) upheld the use of
Gedik chooses to say nothing about the Disputant's conclusion. He ends his
book by giving the date: in the year 1595 of "the son of God, a true man, born
of the Virgin Mary, true human being." His last two wprds include an
etymological repudiation of the Disputant's arguments. In calling Mary a true
Introduction
anonymous tract, Essai sur I'ame des femmes, which develops some of the
mixing solemn argument with transparent sophistry and emotional prejudice, the
essay never asks to be taken seriously. Early in his exposition the writer shows
that he treats the whole matter lightly, wondering why Gedik should have
responded with such bitter invective. As with the Disputatio, the framework of
the alleged intention nevertheless enables the writer to give voice to some highly
charged antifeminine ideas in a tone by no means wholly jocular. The tract
irrational, changeable, and, despite her beauty and charm, subservient to men in
all things.
The Essay is also of its time in other ways, reflecting both the scientific
attitudes of its day and the physical theology of the Enlightenment. Memory is
118
described as the product only of traces in the brain. God is said to act always in
strict accord with the laws of nature. The preservation of both soul and body is
Thoroughly dualist in its view of mankind and the world, the tract displays a
notable concern not only with the nature of the soul but also with the function of
spiritual states. i In the first of the rhetorical objections, raised in the middle of
the essay, the soul is described in wholly human, rational terms: rather than an
continuous act of creation which sustains the apparently causal chain of events
on earth. He again speaks for the eighteenth century when he explains sexual
desire as a mechanism for perpetuating the species: a man who marries "does
not regret the loss of his liberty, he voluntarily bears chains that he will wear
throughout his life. Moved by an imaginary good, in reality he acts for the
good of the society for which he provides citizens: First reason for which
woman was created." In the answer to the fourth objection, he alludes to a
paragraph, the author again declares the whole thing to be a rhetorical exercise,
representative selection of thinkers from the recent past, whose ideas he is aware
of having pushed beyond rational limits.
The essayist argues that after death women's souls are not wasted but are
recycled. Although he admits that souls are simple substances and consequently
both genderless and all of equal value, he finds it convenient to entertain the
possibility that the souls of men and women differ in value (answer to objection
‘
The idea is a commonplace in the eighteenth century. See, for example, Sophia, Woman not
inferior to man (1739): "The soul, while confined to the body, is dependent on it's organs in all
it's operations; and therefore the more free or clogged those organs are, the more or less must
the soul be at liberty to exert itself." She goes on to praise the female body, perhaps implicitly
including a reference to women's genitalia, extolled in some renaissance tracts on women's
excellence: "Now it is too well known to need any support, that the organs in our sex are of a
much finer, and more delicate temperature than in theirs" (24).
119
1) and that the souls of some women deseo'e more punishment on earth than do
others (answer to objection 2; see also commentary on Disputatio thesis 46).
Although they are more in keeping with the physical format of a small
eighteenth century tract than with modern printing conventions, I have preserved
the sentence structure and short paragraphs of the original. Nor have I tried to
I
i
Essay on the soul of women
It was asserted long ago that women were not a part of the human race.
Aristotle believed that nature made women only because of the imperfection of
the raw materials and that they could not attain the condition of the perfect sex.
We know that an opinion maintained by Aristotle was long considered to be a
Many of his disciples defended the same thesis. They even surpassed their
master at the expense of the beautiful sex, for philosophers do not pride
themselves on being gallant.
I shall not go back to the origin of this system and I shall not explain the
Everyone knows the little treatise which appeared in 1595 and which deals
with this proposition, that women are not creatures of the same order as men.
It is known that it was written to bring the Socianians into ridicule. The author
shows that by abusing scripture and twisting its sense one can prove that women
are not human creatures. For I am following the method used by the
1 therefore do not at all understand why Gedik, in the refutation of this treatise
that he wrote, is so bitter and gets so carried away. And might one not have
^ In this sentence Querlon— or whoever wrote the essay— paraphrases the Disputant. In his
introduction Querlon acknowledges the debt; On voit que le premier Ouvrage a fait naitre I’idee
de celui-ci, & I 'on trouvera ces deux pieces assez naturellement assorties ensemble (The reader
can see that the first work gave rise to the idea of this one, and the two pieces will be found to
My aim today is not to argue with the Socinians but to show that metaphysics
is a theatre in which the spirit of man plays with truth, that the principles of that
science are uncertain, and that the care with which one treats these large
questions which do not offer a point at which one can take hold of them, if one
dares to speak thus, can be viewed only as a dangerous game and a fruitless
amusement.
To carry out this design, I am taking a thesis less general than that which has
been maintained until now. I do not exclude women from human nature, and I
even grant them a soul. But I undertake to demonstrate with good metaphysical
The story of the creation of men and women proves incontestably that only the
Man was first created alone; everything around him was under his domination.
He soon grew tired of reigning over the world; he lost this empire by sharing it;
he asked for a companion and for help.'* God then created woman to perpetuate
Adam's race and to help him, in adjutorium. And as God had created man for
himself, he created woman for man. Thus, for so long as there is a God, there
will be men who will eternally praise him. But when man will no longer need
woman, she will enter into the oblivion from which she was drawn. Now, at
the end of the world the two reasons for which she had been created will cease:
man will no longer need his helper, the race will no longer be perpetuated, there
will no longer be marriage, as Jesus Christ said in answer to the Sadducees
[Matt. 22.30].
The story of the creation of men and women thus establishes my proposition;
but the manner in which woman was created will demonstrate it. Consider
woman’s body and soul: everything gives equal proof that she was made solely
for man.
Bodily graces are her portion; through them she draws a man's vows, he
’ The suggestion was not new. One of the speakers in Lodovico Domenichi's La nobilta delle
dome (1549) attributes Mahonunet: "Mahommet did allow tliat women have souls, but that
it to
when they died exactly the same thing would happen to them as happens to irrational animals;
that is, that their souls would die along with their bodies" (f. 56'').
“ In Genesis Adam makes no such request. It may be that the author is here echoing Milton. In
Paradise lost Vlll Adam, unaware of God's plan to create Eve, asks for a companion (VIII. 379-
97).
123
does not regret the loss of his liberty, he voluntarily bears chains that he will
wear throughout his life. Moved by an imaginary good, in reality he acts for
the good of the society for which he provides citizens: First reason for which
woman was created. As far as the woman's spirit is concerned, it must be
agreed that it is sometimes delicate, often amusing, never sound; in a word, it is
This taste for choosing and arranging colours, this finesse with flattering ideas,
this gallant, light badinerie— all of this was necessary for characters born to
amuse men. Without that women would not have been superior to the other
animals that were created before them. But that spirit was not granted reflective
consequences. We have seen women write good verses, but I have seen no
good theological treatises composed by women.
Their very devotion is rather a weakness than a virtue; it is the product of their
imagination, never of their reflexion. God has given them an extremely tender
the expense of their judgement because, since they were created only to divert,
there was no point in their having a deep understanding; men find that in their
fellows. But it was necessary that they have an unbridled spirit which might
often present amusing and changing images. And what is needed for that?
Nothing but imagination. But these very charms are faults in women; from
these it comes that extraordinary things strike them, the truths to which our flesh
responds surprise them and leave them with impressions that are extremely deep
but in which reason plays no part. Thence arises that inequality and monstrous
inconstancy in their conduct: every day one sees them couple the most shameful
It is not that one does not sometimes find women more sensible than the
others, but their reflexions will never attain to the great truths which touch men.
And although there are among them some whose spirit seems to rise above
earthly things, nothing prevents our concluding that they are made solely for
man, just as one does not conclude from the fact that there are among them
some so hideous that they inspire disgust rather than love, that God has not
given them a body shaped as it is in order to bring children into the world.
124
It is thus clear that Gcxi gave them very restricted powers of judgement
because they are not made in order to raise themselves as high as to him. Just
as he gave to those birds whose eggs are useful as food for man wings that serve
not to fly high but to protect themselves from the animals which would threaten
their lives, so he gave woman a feeble light for her guidance and not for
I therefore conclude that at the end of the world woman, created exclusively
for men, will cease to be because she will cease to be useful for the purpose for
which she was created, from which it necessarily follows that her soul is not
immortal.
It is not that I think God ceases to preserve the female soul and lets it fall into
annihilation at the moment of its separation from the body. That would be to
understand very ill the ways of God who in nature never makes anything useless
and always follows the simplest paths. The fate of women's souls after their
death is the same as that of their bodies: that is to say that just as women's
physical substance is not annihilated but merely changes form, just as God does
make new creations for the men who are to come in the future— in the same
way, always following the same unchanging paths in nature, God preserves the
souls of the women of this age for the men of the next. They will not cease to
be until the end of the world; until then, they will pass successively from body
to body by a kind of metempsychosis without, however, this succession's being
able to produce any reminiscence, for our memory comes only from impressions
traced in the brain. But since the soul of a woman will again enter a new body
it will there form fresh traces for itself, and for it to recall its former condition
it would be necessary for it to enter the same body.
After having explained this system I shall try to answer objections. It must be
agreed that they are in themselves strong and that they are made a great deal
more so by the old prejudices that doubtless fight against my opinion. It would
be more easily maintained if it were older and more generally held. When
Descartes suggested that animals have no souls, he was regarded as out of his
wits. People found it difficult to get used to believing it because they had never
believed it. In the end they listened to it, by reasoning about it they so to speak
125
grew accustomed to it, and ever since it has ceased to be new everyone has
First objection
From the moment that you agree, they say, that women have a soul, you must
concede that this soul is immortal, for it is simple as is that of men: no
dissolution of parts. Why, as it is the principle of thought in women as in men,
should the one perish while the fate of the other will be immortality?
Answer
It is true that the soul of women is simple and cannot perish by the dissolution
of its parts, but no one is unaware that not all good metaphysics, is based on this
creation. If God did not create us at every moment, we should fall into
soul of woman to be annihilated and one does not need to conclude from the fact
that the soul of woman is simple and is the principle of thought that it is
immortal.
But the same arguments that prove that the soul of woman will cease to be
prove at the same time the immortality of the soul of man. For if God has good
reasons for annihilating the one in order to preserve the other, it is certain that
one can establish no parity between them. Now, God created man for himself
ceased preserving the soul of men. But he created woman to help man in his
needs on earth and to perpetuate the race. When these two reasons cease there
will no longer be any which could bring about the conservation of the soul of
woman. Thus Gratien Dupont in his Controversies of the male and female
sexes^ remarks that on the day of the resurrection each man will have a complete
body with no deformity, that all the bodily parts separated one from another will
reassemble themselves to form a complete whole, that since Adam will thus take
’ Les controversses des sexes masculin et femenin (Tholose 1534) f. 40^"''. See chapter 1.
126
back the rib from which Eve was made. Eve will have to become a rib once
again and cease to be a woman, that the same thing will happen to all the others,
each woman representing Eve, and each man representing Adam, from which he
Second objection
But, they will say, how may one preserve the justice of God? Do you make no
distinction between a female poisoner and a woman who had spent her whole
life in the cloisters? If women have no part in the next world, the crime of the
one will not be punished, the virtue of the other will never be rewarded.
Answer
I am indeed persuaded that women can expect no future in the next world since
it was not made for them, as I have demonstrated. Jesus Christ did not die for
women and since his merits cannot be applied to them the stain of original sin of
which they are the cause will never be effaced in them and they will always feel
its sad effects in this life which cannot be separated from its miseries. This total
exclusion from true felicity is the punishment of their actions which are all evil
because they all begin in concupiscence. It is only in this sense that one can
explain this idea in scripture: Melior est iniquitas viri quam mulier beneftciens
As there are nevertheless different degrees in their crimes divine justice will
treat them differently. Those who have committed murders, poisonings, etc.,
will return to this world in a sad and miserable state; the others will return to
this world in a happier condition. For in this world the happiness and
unhappiness of souls does not depend on them: one feels only too well how
much the body has dominion over the soul. Many philosophers believe, and I
should be inclined to agree, that all souls are equal and that the differences
which we feel among them come only from the configuration of the bodies. If
that is the case, it is easy to understand that in putting a given soul in a given
body God can make it happy or unhappy. But let us go further: let us suppose
‘
"Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman," Ecclesiasticus 42.14. See
commentary on the Disputatio, thesis 35.
127
that souls are unequal. Let us imagine one created with the most favourable
disposition for enjoying felicity. If God unites it with a badly made body it
healthy body and it will enjoy the advantages of fortune and all the most lovable
and seductive experience that this world can offer. That is all that divine justice
requires, for since woman was made only for this earthly world, her rewards
Third objection
One may object in the third place that at all times people have thought that
women had an immortal soul; that if their soul had to have an end, it would be
impossible to understand why God would not have revealed a truth so
important, and, finally why he would have given them a soul capable of
knowing him and loving him if that soul were not capable of possessing him.
Answer
I shall not quote all the passages in holy scripture that appear to support my
opinion; they are all reported in the dissertation in which the humanity of
women is disputed. And one can see that if women have some passages
apparently in their favour, there is a much greater number that decide positively
against them. But supposing that things were equal, it is not difficult for me to
state the reason why God left us in a condition of uncertainty concerning this
It was essential for the good of society that God should not reveal this truth. If
women had known that their souls were not subject to the punishments of hell,
there would have been no crimes to which they would not have given
themselves. On the other hand it was necessary that they should have a
sufficient idea of divine justice to fear its chastisement, that they should know
the superior being as much as is necessar>' that he be known in order to maintain
this earthly society. Thus a woman who is ready to commit a crime is stopped
by those frightful images of devils, hell, flames— and it is precisely this religion
128
of the imagination of which we have spoken which, while it cannot bring them
Fourth objection
A proof, they will say, that woman is not made for man is that the apostle
Answer
It is true that the virgin saints who keep the vow they have made do not appear
to be made directly for man, at least as regards the body. It is, however, no
less true that in general all women were made for man and for reproduction.
But this reproduction, if at first necessary for society, later became a burden for
it. It is then, and in the new law, that girls were advised not to marry, in
opposition to the general vocation that nature indicates to them by giving them
all that is necessary to bear children. The happiness of society for which they
were born requires that not all of them marry, because a too great increase in
the number of men causes famine, plague, and war, and this very good of
society, which i'n the old law caused it to be permitted that a man marry several
Fifth objection
Finally they may object that the church recognizes the female saints and that
Answer
1: In declaring that it respects women as saints, the church states a fact. Is Saint
Genevieve holy? Does Saint Teresa indeed enjoy eternal happiness? These are
129
matters of fact, and the best theologians are not persuaded of the infallibity of
2: I cannot find that a single general council has decided the question; I do not
know exactly where it has been discussed, except perhaps in the council of
Macon, where a bishop suggested that one could not count women among the
human creatures. They argued for a long time and opinions differed widely.'' I
agree that they finally decided in favour of women, but this council was not
ecumenical and in any case this decision was far from being the product of
unanimity.
It is true that I find the cult of the Virgin unanimously established in the whole
church, but God could well have preserved the soul of the holy Virgin without
preserving those of the other women. She who merited ,so many other
exceptions may well have merited this one, and one cannot conclude that the
soul of women is immortal because that of the Virgin has this privilege. One
way.*
could not conclude that their conception was immaculate
was
that
so, that their bodies will
actions of the
best
It
of the Virgin ascended there, and finally that they conceive through the
is
Holy Ghost because
certain that the principles
books of metaphysics. I
etc.’ I
if
dare
say that the application of what I have done with them is plausible. The
’ The author gives the impression of a more protracted discussion than is indicated in the source.
See chapter 4, commentary on thesis 18.
* Not all theologians believed that the Virgin died. It was commonly held that before her
Assumption she was in a trance-like state called her "dormition. ” See Schaffer, Koimesis.
’ Ren6 Descartes (1596-1650); Nicolas MalebraiKhe (1638-1715), scientifically minded
theologian, author of De la oii ion traite de la nature, de i esprit de
recherche de la veriti
ihomme et de image qu'il
pour eviter ierreur dans la science (1674, 1675); John
doit fair
Locke (1632-1704). It is not clear which of the many tracts on premotion the author has in
mind. The question at their hean is the relationship between God's will and physical activities
on earth: do all movements, even those that appear to be the result of conscious choice, depend
on God's wish that they occur? As the nature of free will is therefore of central importance in
these discussions, the author obliquely refers once more to the primarily physical reasons for the
existence of women who, although they may have souls, are not far from being puppets created
for man's use.
130
established them as I did.'® All that one can conclude from this dissertation is
soul except when we have followed those that faith has given us. That is our
true guide, warning us that in these matters the language of human reason is not
that of truth. And yet let us not for that reason entirely proscribe metaphysics,
but let us value it at its true rate. Let us look on these arguments as agreeable
peripatetic exercises, but let us not think that here we find the road that we seek
Introduction
The printing history of the Disputatio suggests that Acidalius and his publisher
of the first edition exists in two states, which may indicate a tolerably large print
run. In the earlier state it bears the date "M. C. XCV." (1195). Commenting
on a copy with such a title page. Bay showed that he was unaware of a second
state in which the date is correctly printed "M. D. XCV."‘ Following its reissue
edition, prepared from a copy with the title page in the unrevised early state and
perhaps designed to deceive potential clients into thinking that they were buying
the original text. A small number of new errors were introduced. For the
‘
Bay 156-57. I at the Harvard University Library (GC6.G2682.595db) and
have used copies
the University of California, Los Angeles (PT1701.A1D6. 1595), both with the title page in the
first state, and a copy in the Universitatsbibliothek. Erlangen-Niimberg (H61/4 TREW.S 549),
with the revised title page. Collation: 4^°, A-C'^. A1 t; Al'' blk; 18 cm x 13 cm. I have seen
no copies with corrections on later sheets.
’ Angenot’s note of an edition published in 'La Haye, 1635," Les champions des
femmes 182,
appears to be a ghost, 1635 being presumably a misprint for 1638.
’ Gedik’s reply was also reissued several times as an independent tract, one reprint appearing as
late as 1707.
132
inadvertently to have used a copy of this reprint. His textual apparatus corrects
Congress, Washington, DC, the date of which is uncertain although the title
page may indicate that it was copied in 1594, a year before the first printed
edition.’ A note below the title, in the hand of the scribe, reads Haec scommata
& frivolae ingenii otiosi & levissimi lasciviae a multis doctissimis Theologis
praesertim etiJm ab Aegidio Hunnio, S. Theol. Doctore praestantiss. in
Academia Witeb. primario etc. sunt refutata. Anno 1594 &. (These jests and
lewd frivolities of an idle and most trifling mind have been refuted by many of
the most learned theologians, and especially by Aegidius Hunnius, a most
distinguished doctor of sacred theology, a senior scholar at the University of
Wittenberg. Anno 1594 &.) The tantalizing ampersand may indicate that
public refutations by Aegidius Hunnius the Elder and others were delivered both
before and after 1594.’ Although the date at which the manuscript was copied
remains unclear, it seems likely that this was one of several that circulated at the
time of the Disputatio’s initial period of popularity. Its many textual variants
reveal, however, that it is the immediate source of none of the early printed
editions.
The nature of the copy text used by Osthaus for the first edition is a little
puzzling. That was evidently the manuscript which Acidalius says he prepared
from the rather worn copy that had fallen into his hands. Since he seems to
have believed the tract of little importance— "I . . . took care to copy it out, not
giving great thought to it nor having examined it closely"’— Acidalius may have
“ Sofiis Larsen, trans., Bevisfor at kvindeme ikke ere mennesker (Kj 0benhavn 1920). I have not
been able to consult the copy Larsen used.
’ Bay, who once owned the manuscript, donated to the Library of Congress in 1950.
if. It
consists of seven sheets folded and stitched as a single gathering of fourteen leaves, 19 cm x 14
cm, written on both sides. It appears to have been copied in Germany. The scribe has included
marginalia which are probably his own. Three leaves of a different paper have been added at the
end. On these, in another much smaller and later hand, is a brief refutation, in Latin and
German, of some of the theses. The same hand
has also contributed marginalia and there are a
few notes in other hands. Unlike the manuscript which Acidalius copied, this one, although a
little stained, is in good physical condition. Library of Congress, PA8485.D683G4. 1595.
’ Hunnius, a noted Lutheran theologian, 1550-1603, evidently did not think the matter of
sufficient importance to add the refutation to his theological disputations, which eventually
numbered 67 in all: Volumen theologicum disputationum (Witeberga 1598).
’ See chapter 3, introduction to the translation.
133
many departures from the text of the first edition. There are nevertheless
indications that they derive from a common ancestor subsequent to the
archetype. Both use Luther's preferred form Bileami for the Vulgate's Balaami
(thesis 49), which is found in no printed text subsequent to 1595. A further hint
is found in the manuscript's form of the word nolunt in thesis 45. It appears
that the scribe first wrote the incorrect volunt, found in 1595, only to perceive
the inappropriateness of the word and overwrite the first letter with a heavily
inked n. The incorrect volunt may also reveal something of Acidalius's haste in
with Rachel. Despite his shortcomings, he is much more reliable than the
Among the many marginalia are three in the scribe's own hand, written in the
same ink. One of these draws attention to counter evidence* while another,
written on the verso of the title page, suggests a comparison: Simile scriptum, in
sind von Natur bose, und aller sunde ein ursach, derhalben zu meiden lassen,
hassen undfliehen (Women are naturally evil and are a cause of all sin; they are
At the end of his book Freder himself devotes several pages to a rather more
restrained refutation." Their comments suggest that Franck's book, which I
have not been able to consult, is a general diatribe against women couched in a
familiar vein, and that it is not therefore a truly "similar work." The third note,
on the last page of the manuscript, attempts to show that women, like men, are
made of earth.
In preparing the text given below, I have reported the readings of the
manuscript when the early printed editions show divergences among themselves
and have noted a number of other readings of special interest including some
that seem superior to those in print. As the date and status of the manuscript are
caution. The manuscript reads as if the copyist has sometimes chosen his own
preferred synonyms and in places, as for example in the linguistically awkward
thesis 10 and again in thesis 14, he or his source explicitly includes in the
from the printed versions are especially evident in the last few theses, with a
that the compositor was not only a wretched workman but also a poor latinist:
and uninflected Hebrew names, and frequent signs that the sense has been
misunderstood. The tract is not sufficiently important to warrant full collation
of the manuscript and extant printed copies with lists of variants and a detailed
’ Johann Freder, Apologia pro sexufoemineo ad Dei gloriam et sacri conjugii honorem scripta
(Francofurti 1544) trans., with modifications, as Bin Dialogus dem Ehestand zu ehren
geschrieben . . . mit einer Vorrede D. Mart. Luth. (Wittemberg 1545).
‘®
See introduction to the translation of the Disputatio, above.
" IP3''|-[R3''].
See chapter 2.
135
The editio secunda of 1638 was followed in 1641 by a further reprint, also
called editio secunda. These editions correct many of the errors in the first but
also introduce errors of their own, together with minor changes to the sense.
Their texts are similar, 1641 having been set by the same printer (Burchornius),
probably working from a copy of 1638.'^ As with the first edition, it is clear
that the printers had a limited understanding of Latin. Some of the variants
seem to indicate that the copy text used for 1638 was not— or was not only— the
first edition. A number of readings may derive from manuscript copies parallel
to that used for the first edition. In cases where the readings are indifferent I
have adopted those of the first edition. While in all important respects the
printed text remains stable, in minor details the second editions occasionally
clarify the sense of the first. As the first edition is so unreliable, it seems likely
that in many cases the later substantive variants more closely represent the
readings from 1638 and 1641. Apart from occasional spot checks against the
editions of 1690 and 1693, I have not used the later reprints. Although the
textual notes report all substantial variants, I have ignored most of the simple
printing errors and changes of accidentals in the later editions and have silently
copy text. The texts vary in the frequency with which they use optional
subjunctives. 1 have reported these variants only when they affect the flavour of
the translation. In conformity with the normal practice of renaissance printers
of Latin, I have capitalized the first words of sentences. I have used i for J and
u for V throughout; 1 have expanded ligatured letters, and, except for &, have
expanded all manuscript and printed contractions; except for "Israel" and
"Israelitas," I have omitted the erratically used diacritics on vowels.
The edition of 1638 is in small 8®. That of 1641 is in 12™® but is otherwise similar in
format. Despite the change of date on the title page, mindless copying may account for the
repetition of editio secunda in 1641. It was again reprinted, in similar format, in 1644 and
1693. All of these editions append Gedik's refutation.
5
136
Cambridge Ven.8.64.1
De
NON SINT.
I.
Cum in Sarmatia, ut in campo omnis licentiae, liberum sit credere & docere,
possim, mulierem non esse hominem, quo illi probant Christum non esse
Deum? ,
II.
Exhorrescent hic sine dubio omnes lectores, & sine mora, antequam malum
longius serpat, me dignum iudicabunt, qui ipse cum thesibus his meis ardeam,
philosophi, & existimare & dneu pathon ponderare uoluerint, nullam profecto
inuenient causam, cur mihi debeant iure succensere. [A?*"]
138
III.
Si enim sunt catholici, sinceritati meae ignoscent potius quam irascentur, quod
ego haereticus, posito hoc principio: nihil esse credendum, nisi quod in sacris
literis expressum sit. Nec mulierem hominem esse credam, cum & hoc
IV.
At quo pacto hoc facies inquient? Animaduertite: Scriptura pronunciat eum esse
maledictum, qui uerbo Dei aliquid addit; maledicti ergo erunt omnes, qui
mulierem esse hominem addunt & credunt. Nam neque in nouo neque in ueteri
homo esset, appellasset eam alicubi ita Spiritus Sanctus: nunquam autem
appellauit. Ergo homo non est, & qui eam hominem esse asserit, plus iam sapit
V.
Christus licet saepius in scripturis expresse Deus appelletur, & quidem uerus:
tamen pertinaciter negant Anabaptistae, eum unum esse illum uerum Deum.
Mulier, quae ne semel quidem, sed omnino nunquam homo dicitur, hanc tamen
esse hominem uolunt & credunt. O dolus, o insania, o scelus! Licet, aiunt,
expresse mulier homo non appelletur, tamen multa sunt loca, ex quibus
mulierem esse hominem euincitur. Ecce homines fanaticos: Antea uariis libris
iam uero blaterant etiam amplectendum, quod non expressum, sed quod ex
expresso elicitur. En uersutiam!
139
VI.
Sed sit ita, posse ex expresso elici: quid tum postea? An licebit illis propterea
nobis hodie licere, quod prophetis, Christo [A2'^] & apostolis non licuit. Ut
autem omnes intelligant, nec ex expresso elici posse mulierem esse hominem,
inspiciamus, quaeso, & examinemus illa loca, quae pro homatione, ut ita
VII.
argumentantur: Heuah facta est similis Adamo homini. Ergo est ut Adam.
Speciosum quidem argumentum, sed aperte falsum. Non enim Deus dixit
VIII.
bonum, inquit, hominem esse solum: Faciamus ei adiutorium simile sibi. Hic
nihil aliud dicitur, quam non est bonum, ut unus homo sit in mundo; faciamus ei
adiutorium quo possit procreare alios homines. Si ergo hoc adiutorio procreandi
erant alii homines, ne esset solus, Eua homo non fuit, quia non facta erat ne
Adamus esset solus, sed ut per illam Adamus procrearet homines, qui illum a
solus, qui est unus, sed quando mundum aspexisset proles in posterum genus
humanum amplificitura.
IX.
Obscura forte sunt haec; afferamus clariora. Experientia testatur communis, &
est concors omnium philosophantium opinio, nihil posse fieri in tota rerum
natura, ubi non concurrant hae duae causae, efficiens & instrumental is. Faber
non potest cudere gladium, nisi ha-[A3'']beat adiutorium malleum; scriba non
potest scribere, nisi itidem habeat adiutorium pennam; sartor non potest nere,
nisi habeat adiutorium acum; homo non potest generare, nisi habeat adiutorium
mulierem. Ut autem malleus non faber, acus non est sartor, penna non est
scriptor; sic nec mulier homo. Quod si quis negat, mulierem causam esse
instrumentalem, proferat nobis aliam; si membra ostendit pudenda, ridebitur ab
disiunctum aliquod, malleus; sic nec hoc loco uirilia, sed mulier.
X.
Praeuideo quod aduersarios uexet particula nempe illa similem sibi; sed facilis
cudendum gladium non accipit in manus stramen, sed adiutorium simile sibi,
simile, hoc est idoneum, nempe mulierem. Hinc ait Apostolus, non uirum
propter mulierem, sed mulierem propter uirum factam. Et hunc esse genuinum
huius loci sensum, testantur acutissimi quique Hebraeorum rabini, haecque sibi
141
interpretantur. Cui non satisfacio, legat doctissimos nostrae aetatis theologos, &
uidebit omnes unanimiter docere omnino male ex Hebraeo uersum esse simile
sibi, cum nihil minus ibi dicatur, sed ponendum fuisse adiutorium, quod sit
XI.
Sed si ita est mulierem esse similem sibi, uel factam ad imaginem hominis, quid
inde? Si Christus Anabaptistis non est Deus, qui est [AS'^J substantialis &
inconspicua imago Dei Patris, nec dabimus nos illis, mulierem esse hominem,
licet ad imaginem hominis dicatur creata.
XII.
Quem haec non mouent, eum certe mouebunt sequentia. Sciuit Deus creaturus
Adamum, se & feminam facturum. Est enim omniscius. Si iam illam hominem
esse uoluisset, ut Adamum, non dixisset faciamus hominem in singulari, sed
faciamus homines. Quia autem ita locutus est firmissimum a uerbo Dei ducitur
argumentum Deum noluisse ut mulier sit homo, eumque unum tantum fecisse
XIII.
Quid? An non ille tantum est homo, qui ad imaginem Dei est conditus?
Maxime. Quae ergo est impudentia, docere mulierem esse hominem, cum ad
imaginem Dei creata non sit? Percurrat quispiam tota Biblia & an faciamus eam
ad imaginem nostram, uel an modo quod ad imaginem Dei sit facta, alicubi
scribatur? D. Paulus expresse ait: Uir est imago & gloria Dei, mulier gloria
uiri. Uides Apostolum mulieri detrahere imaginem Dei eamque hac esse
praeditam negare. Caueamus ergo contumelia afficere Deum & eam hominem
142
Statuere, quam ipse imagine sua dignari noluit, praesertim cum & ipsi Papistae
XIV.
duos homines, nam Eua aeque peccauit ut Adamus. Apostolus autem aicii, per
unum hominem^ intrasse peccatum, non per duos: euincitur ergo, tantum unum
ex his duobus fuisse hominem, nempe Adamum & non Euam. Praeterea si duo
homines peccassem, duo etiam Christi fuissent necessarii, quorum uir pro uiris,
mulier uero Christus pro mulieribus passus fuisset. Nam duo cum faciunt idem
non est idem. Uenit autem tantum unus Christus & quidem uir & satisfecit
abunde pro nobis. Uirum ergo tantum esse hominem & non mulierem, inficias
ire nemo potest.
XV.
quae prior peccauerat. Uerum si per Euam peccatum, ergo non per Adamum;
aut si per utrumque mentitur Apostolus Paulus, dicens per unum hominem. Alii
dicunt Apostolum ideo Adamo asscribere peccatum, quod ille sit dignior, sed si
Adamus dignior Eua, ergo iam illa similis Adamo non est, nec magis homo
quam bestia, qua Adam etiam dignior. Tu dominaberis, dixit Deus Adamo,
omnibus bestiis; hinc forte illa dignitas. Sed cum uir & mulieri dominetur, quis
nisi insanus eam hominem, & non potius eam bestiam credere potest?
XVI.
Duo hic nobis diluenda ueniunt. Unum ubi dicitur, fecit Deus hominem,
masculum & feminam fecit eos. Alterum, duo erunt in carne una. Talibus
coniecturis eos niti oportet, qui ab expresso Dei uerbo deficiunt. Quoad
primum, concedo Deum fecisse eos, id est, masculum & feminam hominem,
non autem eos fecisse homines, ut uterque sit homo. Diligenter ergo singularis
numerus est obseruandus. Confirmatur hoc per alterum, duo erunt in carne una,
id est, masculus & femina erit unus homo. Nec dant aliam huius loci
143
XVII.
personas trahi diuinas, sed cum nullibi principium illud expresse notatum
reperiatur, nihil certi ex ambiguis deduci. Sed quare isti sententiosi doctores
hoc praeceptum ipsi non obseruant, & ex plurali numero eos uel duos uel plures
XVIII.
masculini tantum. Masculi ergo tantum erunt homines & non feminae. Scio
possunt recensere, qui haec homo unquam dixerit. Adferunt illud Ciceronis,
Tullia nata erat homo: quasi nata ad homo & non potius ad Tullia spectet. Si
dicerem: Tullia nata erat animal, an animal propterea esset generis feminini?
auxerunt, ideo & hanc autoritatem Ciceronis reiecerunt, & eruditissimus ille
suo compendio hominem esse generis communis negauit. Sicut & alii multi.
XIX.
homo deriuetur ab humo, quod ex ea sit conditus, quomodo mulier posset esse
144
homo, quae ex humo creata non est? Sed ne quis nos sacra immiscere profanis
clamitet, meque extra chorum saltare dicat, qui superius scripsi, me solummodo
sacrarum literarum testimoniis usurum, ad scripturas iterum reuertar.
XX.
1. Timoth. 2. dicit Christus exstituros multos falsos prophetas, qui & electos, si
fieri possit, in errorem inducerent. Cum ergo dicat, si fieri possit, manifeste
apparet electos seduci non posse. lam eum, quem Deus creauerat hominem,
fuisse uas electum ad uitam aeternam, nemo dubitare potest, Euam autem tale
uas electum non fuisse &, per consequens, nec hominem ad imaginem Dei hinc
constat, quia seducta est. Argumentum hoc est firmum, nec euerti potest. Ne
autem quis possit oblatrare, hac ratione Adamum nec esse hominem, quod &
idem peccauerit, audiat Apostolum dicentem non Adam sed Eua seducta est.
XXI.
Longe petita sunt ista; feram propriora. Mulier Cananaea ueniens ad Christum
Quid hoc quaeso significat? An Christus superbus? Nonne clemens & mitis
illa discipuli, sed quid acceperunt responsi? Non sum missus propter illam, sed
propter perditas oues domus Israel. Auditisne mulieres Christum propter uos
non esse missum? Intelligitisne iam uiri, uxores uestras ad regnum coelorum
Nam nonne Deus totum mundum dilexit, & tam propter gentiles, quam Israelitas
filium suum unigenitum misit? Pudeat eos tam turpis ineptiae. Dicant denique,
XXII.
Nondum finis est huius loci. Audite ulterius & obstupescite. Quam primum
dixissent discipuli, dimitte eam Domine, respondit Christus: Non est honestum
sumere panem filiis & dare canibus. O magnam, lesu Christe Fili Dei, tuam in
Auditisne non esse honestum nobis filiis sumere panem, hoc est, Christum
panem illum uitae, qui de coelo descendit, & uobis dare, quae nihil aliud estis,
quam ipsissimae bestiae foedae? Quid ergo tantopere de uestra salute laboratis?
quo uos natura posuit statu, si & fortunam & Deum clementiorem in hoc mundo
experiri concupiscitis.
XXIII.
Si mulier esset homo, omnino male dixisset Christus, non esse honestum eam
iuuare, peius panem filiis sumere, quandoquidem non sumatur, quod in
commune pertinet, pessime dare canibus. At bene locutus est omnia Dominus.
Humiliamini ergo cum Cananaea o mulieres, cumque ea exclamate: Uerum est.
Domine, canes sumus, sed tamen catelli comedunt de micis cadentibus e mensis
dominorum; micam petite, quae casu interdum sub mensam cadit, non panem,
qui or-fEl'^ldinario Dei modo in mensam nobis viris dominis est positus. Ut
autem mica panis carnem non saturat, sic nec illa uos saluabit. Imitamini
intelligens repsit ad pedes Domini more canis & auxilium petiit, & consecuta
est, sicut & fecit Martha cum sorore Maria ad pedes Christi sese humiliter
demittens.
XXIV.
habere argumentum, lactitant quod Christus addiderit. Fides tua te saluam fecit.
146
saluam fecit, sed Fiat tibi sicut uis, uel ut alter euangelista ait: Propter istum
sermonem uade. Quis, obsecro, erat ille sermo? Nullus profecto alius, quam
confessio ista, canis sim Cananaea, Domine, sed catelli comedunt de micis. Si
ergo & nostrae mulieres a daemoniis uolunt liberari, hoc est, a miseriis &
calamitatibus huius seculi, ne sint superbae, ut hodie communiter sunt, uerum
confiteantur selcanes, & etiam audient, fiat tibi sicut uis. Nos uero cupimus
audire, non sicut tu o Deus uis. Ita enim & Christus moriturus orauit: Pater
transeat a me iste calix, non tamen sicut ego uolo, sed sicut tu uis.
XXV.
Sed leuia forte sunt haec. Sit ergo dictum Cananaeae ut mulieri sanguinis
sequeretur mulieres homines esse & animae salutem consequi? Absit. Nam
saluari hic nihil aliud significat, quam sanari in corpore, quod inde perspicitur,
quia omnes mulieres, quibuscunque hoc Christus dixit, non animae sed corporis
a sanguinis profluuio. Nec fuit Christus adeo indiscretus, qui daret quod non
Lucas non scribit saluauit, sed fides tua te seruauit. Matthaeus uero addit, &
salua facta fuit a tempore illo; certe a tempore illo non habebat animae salutem,
cum Deus hanc nobis praedestinauerit ab aeterno, daturus demum in altera uita,
XXVI.
Fides autem, obstrepunt isti, est hominum tantum. Isti stolidi insaniunt, ut
credunt & contremiscunt: estne iam fides hominum tantum? Nesciunt isti asini
distinguere inter ueram illam fidem animam iustificantem, de qua Apostolus ait,
una est fides, & aliam historicam, quae non est hominum tantum, sed &
147
mulierum & diabolorum? Quis sanus unquam docuit in muliere reperiri uiuam
fidem? Imo contrarium clamat Apostolus, & omnem ei adimit fidem scribens,
mulierem saluari non per fidem, sed per generationem. Fidem etiam habent
multi homines mali, sed mortuam; cadauera tamen sunt potius, quam homines.
Uerum consistite hic paulisper Anabaptistae: si fides est hominum tantum, ergo
infantes non sunt homines, quia non habent fidem, aut si habent, in fumum abiit
uestra doctrina.
XXVII.
Sciebant mulieres & credebant Christum esse uerum ilium promissum Messiam,
qui posset facile sanare omnes morbos sed sciebant etiam hoc, eum propter se
non esse missum. Ideo cum Christus aliquando cum muliere loqueretur,
mysterio. Fecit tamen interdum summa necessitas, quae & legem frangit, ubi
iam non erat humanum remedium, uel ut euangelistae uerbis utar: ubi iam
peterent non panem ut homines, sed micam, non corpus tangendum, sed
fimbriam saltim uestis. Christus ergo licet has inhumaniter susciperet, ut fecit
in Cananaea, & in femina sanguinis profluuio laborante, ubi quod eum tantum
tetigisset indignabatur, tamen cum uideret magnam earum esse fidem, hoc est,
longe firmius credere eum esse illum filium Dei Adamo & eius posteritatis
promissum quam multos uiros, quorum gratia tamen solummodo uenerat, tulit
enim ille sermo: Non inueni tantam fidem in Israel, hoc est, inter uiros,
quantam in muliere nihil ad me pertinente. Nec poterit hoc quispiam mirari, qui
medicum & medicinam [B2''] plus efficere, quam ipsam cum medico
medicinam. Possem ergo &. apposite dicere, talem modo fidem in mulieribus
148
fuisse, nec Christum, hex: est medicum, nec medicinam iis opem tulisse,
siquidem scriptum sit. Fides tua te saluauit, & sic fidem eas saluasse, non
Christum.
XXVIIl.
Adami posteros esse. Hoc tamen in aeternum demonstrare non poteritis. Nam
quae sit Adae posteritas, expresse enumeratur in Sacris Bibliis tam in ueteri
quam nouo testamento. Notum enim est, quem Adam genuerit, quem filii eius,
quem dein nepotes, quem postea Abraham, nempe Isaac, Isaac lacob, lacob
ludam, ludas Phares, Phares Esron & sic alii alios, usque ad haec nostra
tempora. Mulieres autem, quis genuerit, nusquam extat, unde originem
traxerint, est incertum, unde uenerint, dubitatur. Posteritas ergo Adami tantum
restringitur ad uiros, quod inde non est obscurum, quia nulla filia dicta est
I
primogenita, licet ante filios nasceretur, sicut filii multi primogeniti dicti
praecessissent.
XXIX.
Alterum argumentum quod pro se esse putant, omnino est contra illos, & facit
pro me. Fateor me cum Apostolo dixisse, mulierem per generationem saluari,
sed quod inde elicere possint, eam esse hominem & animae salutem consequi,
plane inualidum est. Omnes enim sectarii, quotquot a temporibus B. Lutheri
exstiterunt, hominem sola fide iustificari docent. Si iam hoc uerum, quomodo
mulier homo esse potest, siquidem non fide, sed generatione saluatur?
Interpretor ego hoc uerbum saluatur, ut ante, bene ualere in hoc mundo, idque
non facio dubiis coniecturis, sed firmissimis argumentis. Ut enim mulier
infaecunda & sterilis per non generationem damnatur, hoc est, despecta & quasi
149
odio Dei putabatur, ita enim scriptum est, maledicta sterilis quae non habet
semen in Israel, sic e contra praegnans & faecunda (B3^] saluatur. Nam ibidem
mox additum est, benedicta autem, cuius semen est Syon, quia haec explet
officium adiutorii; secus illa prior. Et hanc saluationem Dauid clarius explicat,
XXX.
Omnino stultum est asserere per saluari, hoc loco animae salutem intelligi. Si
enim per generationem mulieres saluantur, frustra tamen pro iis mortuus est
Christus & frustra credunt. Uirgines denique omnes & uiduae & coelibes, quae
Si ergo illis debet esse uae, quomodo per generationem hanc, quae cum dolore
XXXI.
res habet, cur non malunt eum amplecti sensum, qui cum totius sacrae scripturae
harmonia concordat, quam eum, qui repugnat? Illud est omnium euangelicorum
axioma, eum saluaturum qui permanserit in fide nullo operum respectu. Quod
si uerum aut legendem est, si filii permanserint in fide, aut dicendum & omnes
mulieres & uirgines salutem consecuturas in fide permanentes, licet nunquam
genuissent, & sic Paulum errare, qui & generationem ait necessariam, & sibi
hic, quae est opus. Tale autem quidpiam de Apostolo affirmare cum sit
Sicut itaque filii non permanentes in fide matrem non damnant, sic nec ei
generationem Christi plena gratia & benedicta inter mulieres fuit saluata. [B3'']
XXXII.
homines non sunt, & hoc si dicerem abunde me extricassem, sed repetam rem
hac, mulieri non dedisse, uiro saltem. Nam mulier necdum creata erat cum
Deus prohiberet, nec fuit hoc praeceptum post eius creationem repetitum.
Ideoque post peccatum nec uocauit eam Deus sed Adamo saltem dicens: Adame
ubi es? Eique soli dixit: Cur comedisti de ligno, de quo, ne comederes, tibi
XXXIII.
His praemissis intelligit quilibet peccata mulierum, si quae sunt, nihil differre a
mediator nasci debuit uir, qui sic esset aeque sine peccato quemadmodum illa:
XXXIV.
Dixit quidem Eua, Deus prohibuit ne tangeremus, sed falso [B4>'] ad id dicebat.
Non enim Deus mulieri prohibuerat, sed uiro, nec prohibuerat tangere, sed
comedere, quare & imperite addidit ne forte moriamur. Quid enim opus fuisset
dubitationis particula forte, si Eua certo sciuisset sibi esum pomi a Deo
prohibitum fuisse? Quocirca etiam respondet serpens, nequaquam moriemini,
quasi diceret, quomodo tu debes mori, cui nequaquam hoc praeceptum datum
est. Et res ipsa ostendit Euam post esum mortuam non esse, quia oculi eius non
aperiebantur, donec Adamus comedisset. Cur autem puniuit eam Deus?
inquiunt. Noli mirari. Nam & serpentem puniuit, qui tamen legem non habuit,
nec homo fuit. Imo & puniuisse nego. Quomodo enim in dolore paries filios,
poena esse potuit, cum ut pareret Deus Euae iniunxerit antequam illa adhuc
arborem Paradisi uidisset? Nec in dolore parere est poena, siquidem omnia
XXXV.
Laudatur Rebecca quod per fraudem obtinuit lacob benedictionem patris. Raab
meretrix decepit eos, qui quaerebant exploratores losuae & reputatum ei ad
iustitiam. Egressa est lahel in occursum Sisarae, dixitque ad eum: Intra ad me,
domine mi, ac petenti aquam, dedit illi bibere de utre lactis, & operuit illum
iacentem. Dormiente autem Sisara percussit clauum in caput eius & interfecit
illum qui se fidei illius crediderat seruandum: atque pro hac insigni proditione,
XXXVI.
Excusantur ab jncestu patris filiae Loth, & non excusatur temulentus pater &
successio eius eiicitur ab ecclesia Dei; excusatur incestuosa Thamar, & dicitur
deprehensa capite plectatur, imo ne ob debita incarceretur, nisi ipse iudex capite
puniri uelit. Quid, quaeso, sunt haec omnia quam aperta indicia, mulierum
peccata reuera non esse peccata. Quare & conuiuae assidentes, ut Lucas ait,
pellendos diabolos. Ideo cum non hoc fine peccata ei remissa, ut uitam
aeternam consequatur, sed ut diaboli depellantur, quis non uidet alio tendere
uiros docuerit Christus orare Pater noster, iis ergo solis incumbit dicere remitte
XXXVIL
Sed & aliis argumentis hoc, quod uolumus, confirmemus. Legimus apud
Lucam, ad Christum allatos fuisse infantes. lam cum infans sit generis
communis, tam masculum quam feminam complectitur, & credibile est non
tantum pueros ibi allatos fuisse, sed & puellas. Christus autem non dixit Sinite
pueros ad me uenire, talium est regnum coelorum, puerorum scilicet & non
puellarum. Ideoque & apostoli prohibuerunt matribus ad Christum portare
XXXVIll.
Matthaei 22. Saducaei quaerebant a Christo, cuius ista uxor futura esset in
angeli Dei. Quales nunc sunt angeli? Certe masculi omnes, non feminae. Uiri
XXXIX.
Christus ad propriam matrem dixit: Mulier quid mihi tecum? Si ergo cum
matre, quae illum genuit, illi nihil est, multo minus cum aliis imulieribus quid
commune habet. Sed uideo quid hic obiicient: Chri-[Cl'‘]stum appellari filium
hominis, esse autem Mariae filium: Mariam ergo fuisse hominem. Concedamus
autem illis hoc argumentum, & dicamus Mariam fuisse hominem, uerum non
natura, sed gratia, sicut Christus Anabaptistis Deus esse dicitur non natura, sed
gratia. Ideo & Angelus dixit: Aue Maria gratia plena, benedicta inter mulieres.
Cur benedicta? Quia illa fuit homo, & aliae non. Deinde Maria iure potest dici
homo, quia peperit absque uiro & ipsa quasi uiri opus compleuit. Pariant
hodiernae mulieres etiam absque uiris, & libenter eas homines nominabimus.
Sed nulla firmior ratio est quam prior. Si enim filius gratia tantum est Deus,
cur non etiam mater homo gratia tantum, praesertim cum & Maria nunquam
homo dicta inueniatur, nisi propter genitum Christum in genitura, cum dicitur
filius hominis. Ipsi quoque Anabaptistae fatentur hac phrasi filius hominis nihil
aliud dici quam homo & hebraismum esse asseuerant. Quid ergo euincent, si
hic nullus filii respectus habetur? Nec uideo quomodo hic matris respectus
possit haberi, cum Christus dicat non hanc esse eius matrem, quae illum genuit,
XL.
Cum mulier de Christo exclamaret: Beatus uenter, qui te portauit, & ubera quae
suxisti, reprehendit eam Christus, inquiens: Quin imo beati, qui audiunt
154
sermonem Dei & custodiunt illum. Uides ergo Christum nolle asscribere
mulieribus beatitudinem. Et si mater ipsius non beata est, quae illum portauit,
quomodo aliae mulieres debent saluari? Tegitur illud, quod est sordidum. Cum
autem mulieres capita perpetuo tegere ex praecepto diuino cogantur, necesse est
eas coram Deo esse sordidas, & non saluandas, quia nihil conquinatum &
sordidum intrabit in regnum coelorum, praesertim cum adhuc uiuentes mortuae
dicantur feminae, si paululum uoluptatibus indulserint.
XLI.
lam dilabuntur ad illud ad Galatas: Non est ludaeus, neque Graecus, non est
seruus, neque liber, non est masculus ac femina: nam uos idem estis in Christo.
Et inde uolunt probare mulierem esse hominem: sed stulte nimis. Si enim hoc
dicto probatur [Cl^'] mulierem esse hominem, probatur etiam ludaeum &
Graecum esse hominem, nam de omnibus fit sermo. Quid autem Apostolus
faceret stultius uel magis ridiculum, quam si hoc loco uellet docere ludaeum &
Graecum esse hominem, cum id sit manifestum per se, ut probatione non sit
opus. Si ergo hoc non docetur, nec mulier esse homo probatur, quae hic
continetur. Inquiunt, sed hi sunt unum uel idem in Christo, ergo nulla est
differentia. Praeclare sane. Christus ait: Ego & Pater unum sumus, tamen
negant Anabaptistae, Christum esse aeque Deum ut Patrem. Negabimus ergo
nos etiam feminam aeque esse hominem ut uirum, licet unum dicantur. Pueri
cum senibus etiam idem sunt in Christo. Nam apud Deum non est respectus
esse opinentur. Unde apparet pronomen idem uel unum non semper aequabiliter
accipi. ludaeus & Graecus idem est in Christo, sed tum scilicet cum ludaeum
exuit & fidelis fit. Feminae ergo in Christo unum esse uolentes femineum
sexum exuisse debebant, ut fiant homines, quod cum facere non possint,
particula ac, illum & hanc non ita unum esse in Christo, quemadmodum illi, de
quibus usurpat uocem neque.
XLll.
Et profecto non uideo quomodo mulieres possint esse unum in Christo, cum ille
ipse Christus & apostoli praeceperint, ut hic, qui uult esse perfectus & uitam
aeternam ingredi, uxorem relinquat; & laudant propterea eunuchos, qui se
uxorem non duxit; apostoli ductas reiecerunt, & aliis suaserunt, ut manerent
sicut illi, addentes, eum demum uere Christo placiturum, qui se matrimo-
[C2'’]nio non copulauerit. Insuper ut omne idem remouerent attestati sunt,
XLlIl.
Obtrudunt alii & hunc locum: Mulier cum parit, dolorem habet; cum uero
peperit, gaudet quod homo natus est in mundum. Quia uero & puellae
nascuntur, euincere hinc student & mulieres esse homines. Sed quae mater
unquam gauisa est nata filia? Nulla certe; & magnus ille Ochinus
Anabaptistarum Corypheus in dialogis suis scriptum reliquit: Mulieres natis
filiabus non laetari; & matres hoc ipsae affirmant, nec mirum. Cum enim, ut
Aristoteles ait, mulier sit monstrum in natura, uel, ut Plato ait, magis animal
irrationale quam rationale, quae mater ex hoc partu gaudere potest, praesertim
cum scriptura tradat mulierem per generationem filiorum saluari, non filiarum?
Intelligendus ergo hic locus: Mulier, cum peperit filium, gaudet quod homo
natus est, qui natus est generis masculini, nec ad feminas torqueri potest.
Circumspice denique omnia totius sacrae scripturae loca, ubi uocabulum homo
extat, cum fere sint innumerabilia, & inuenies semper tantum masculos intelligi.
Quare & hoc loco. Si secus erit unum exemplum, perdant me mulieres.
XLIV.
Nec hic praetereundum est illud argumentum quod proferre solent, Christum
Lucae 8. excitasse a mortuis puellam, mulieres ergo resurrecturas. Non
animaduerterunt acutuli isti, quid ibi a Christo dicatur, nempe: Non mortua est
puella, sed dormit. Quid haec uerba aliud innuunt, quam si mortua fuisset, iam
156
eam non resurrecturam. Dormiebat ergo tantum Christi testimonio puella, nec
adhuc mortua erat, ut uulgus opinabatur, quare non mirum eam surrexisse. Ideo
& Christus ibidem praecepit omnibus ne dicerent quod factum erat, ne forte
euangelista scribit: & exiit hic rumor in uniuersam ludaeam & in omnem
finitimam regionem. Seruus quoque ad lairum ueniens & significans filiam
ipsius mortuam^ esse, addidit: Ne uexes magistrum, quod hanc ob causam dixit,
quia sciebat puellis uel feminis semel mortuis frustra Christi auxilium implorari,
[C2''] cum nec in nonissimo die sint resurrecturae. Legimus de Beato Germano
Britonano, Episcopo, eum insigni miraculo asinum e mortuis excitasse, ut autem
nemo inde ratiocinari potest asinos resurrecturos, nisi & ipse sit asinus; sic nec
XLV.
lam pergamus. Scriptura manifeste inquit, caput Christi esse Deum, sicut uirum
caput mulieris. lam Anabaptistae nolunt concedere, Christum esse Deum
propterea quod eius caput sit Deus; mulier ergo hac ratione non erit homo, quod
caput eius sit homo, aut si homo est, concedant quoque Christum Deum esse &
erit inter nos concordia.
XLVI.
praeceptum habeant, quod iis uel Christus uel apostoli porrexirint aut porrigere
iusserint? Nulla profecto in eis est ingenuitas aut sinceritas. Et nulla alia causa
est quod corpus Domini salutare mulieribus nunquam datum fuerit quam quod
hoc corpus pro iis non est passum, nec ad eas pertinet. Sed baptismus pertinet
ad illas, inquiunt, cur non ergo & aliud sacramentum? Nam mulierum
baptizatarum habemus exempla, ut Lydiae. Audio. Sed concedam hoc illis
XLVII.
baptizentur. Nam Christus dicit: Qui crediderit & baptizatus fuerit saluus erit,
non quae crediderit; nec articulus qui est generis communis, ut & femininum
genus complectatur. Ad haec manifestum est baptismum successisse
Filii, & Spiritus Sancti, qua forma nulla mulier baptizata legitur; illegitimus
ergo erit baptismus. Quare addo & istud, sicut per indulgentiam
Apostolus Deo, quod non multos baptizauerit, & addit, se non esse missum, ut
XLVIll.
Quid aiunt alii? Christus quam primum a mortuis resurrexit, ostendit se primo
mulieribus. Quomodo ergo Christus ad eas spectare non potest? Sed replico,
Christus quam primum nasceretur, ostendit se in stabulo bouj et asino, ergo
resurrectio quam primum & quam citissime ubique diuulgaretur. Cum enim
mulieres sint garrulae, quae illae sciunt statim nouit omnis ciuitas. Accedit
quod mulier neque iure diuino neque humano possit testari. Non ergo potuit
Christus eas resurrectionis suae habere testes, cum testimonium earum sit
Christum a mortuis resurrexisse, quod mulieres saltim illis hoc dixerant, imo &
158
alii apostoli mulieres delirare putabant. Ita denique Christus resurgens sese
mulieribus ostendit, ut noluerit, quae eum noscerent, licet prope ei astarent.
Nam & propria mater filium noscere non potuit, sed putauit eum esse
XLIX.
sumus homines. Sed ego nego haec omnia. Nam & multae sunt aues, quae
loquuntur, ut psittacus, pica, & asina Bileami locuta est, homo tamen non fuit.
Et sine ratione loqui, [CS'^] nihil aliud est, quam non loqui. Eas autem loqui
sine ratione inde apparet, quia iubet eas Apostolus tacere in ecclesia. Si enim
rationaliter loqui possent, cur deberent tacere? Publica officia omnia illis
ob rationem, quam quod rationem non habeant. Non enim sexus impedire
posset, si ratio adesset, nec legimus uspiam Deum mulieri inspirasse animam, &
ipsi Anabaptistie editis scriptis fatentur & probant, mulieres animam non
habere. Et etiamsi mulieres rationem haberent, tamen haec eas homines non
efficeret, cum & angeli & Diabolus animam rationalem habeant & loquantur,
corporaliter ait Apostolus, tamen Ebionitae negant hanc efficere ut Christus sit
Deus; nec ergo & anima rationalis mulierem efficeret hominem, quamuis eam
haberet. Animaduertit hoc doctissimus Cardinalis Hosius, qui negauit animam
rationalem hominem constituere. Nam & bestiae habent talem animam, cum
Deus nos ad eas remittat, ut rationem ab ipsis discamus, dicens: Estote
formicam. Sed sola cognitio Dei facit hominem, qua reliqua animantia carent.
Quod si quis contendere uelit mulieres Deum cognoscere, fateri cogetur eas
quid uult scire, a uiro discat. Ut autem diu' initas Christi, a Patre communicata,
Christum non facit Deum, sic nec cognitio communicata mulierem hominem.
159
L.
Nec curo illud ultimum omnium mulierum effugium: omne simile gignere sibi
simile, necesse ergo esse, ut mulier sit homo, quandoquidem hominem procreet.
Nam si hoc uerum, mentiuntur Anabaptistae, Christum non esse uerum Deum.
Pater enim si filium genuit, Deum genuit sibi similem. In procreatione cum
filius nascitur, pater gignit sibi simile, nec est hic mater respicienda, quae causa
efficiens non est, sed tantum instrumentum, nasciturae proli. Nullam uitae
formam addit, ut physici dicunt. Si uero filia nascitur, iam non simile, quia
haec est [€4^] monstrum, cum natura semper tendat ad optima & malit
LI.
mulierem non esse hominem, nec eam saluari. Quod si non effeci, ostendi
FINIS
Textual notes
majority of cases, only substantive variants are in question, all readings reported
here from the printed texts have been edited as described above.
162
1 .
mihi credere & docere] 1638, 1641; credere & docere MS; mihi credere 1595.
2 .
dneu pathon] ed.; (in Greek characters, inaccurate, with breathing) MS, 1595,
1641; Aneu pathon (in roman) 1638. In Greek characters, inaccurate, in the
3.
4.
maledicti ergo erunt omnes, qui mulierem esse hominem addunt & credunt]
lam qui dicunt (mulierem esse hominem) scripturis id addunt. Maledicti ergo.
MS.
163
5.
6.
7.
8.
procreandi erant] procreandi demum erant MS; primum procreandi erant 1638,
1641.
esset solus, sed ut per illam] solus esset, Eua sane homo non fuit, alias enim
iam a solitudine exemtus fuisset, nec opus habuisset aliis sociis. Sed illud
164
9.
non faber] non est ipse faber MS\ non est faber 1638, 1641
membra ostendit pudenda] MS, 1638, 1641; membra ostendit esse pudenda
1595.
10 .
priori exemplo utar; faber ad cudendum gladium] omitted 1641. Not a line
11 .
12 .
13.
Papistae) Before writing Papistae the scribe of the manuscript began writing
14.
necessarii,] necessarii, (ut enim per unum hominem malum, ita per unum
quoque hominem, nempe Christum, salus) MS.
15.
16.
17.
166
18.
Tullia spectet] ed.; Tullia spectat A/5; Tulliam spectet all eds. The reference is
illud doctissimi uiri] A/5; doctissimi illi uiri 1638, 1641; doctissimi uiri 1595.
19.
20 .
possit, manifeste apparet] 1638, 1641; posset, manifestum est, MS; possint,
firmum] MS, 1595, 1638; fimum 1641 See commentary on thesis 20.
167
21 .
22 .
si & fortunam] 1638, 1641; quod & fortunam MS; si fortunam 1595. For si the
copyist of the manuscript first wrote qui, which he then changed to quod.
Neither word makes altogether satisfactory sense.
23.
24.
canis sim Cananaea] canis sim MS; canis sum Cananaea 1595; canis sumit
25.
morbis] 1638, 1641; nobis MS; moribus 1595. At about this point in the
26.
Isti stolidi] ed.; ita stolide MS; ista stolidi 1595; ita stolidi 1638, 1641.
estne iam fides hominum tantum] 1638, 1641; estne iam fides tantum hominum
MS; est iam fides hominum tanta 1595.
mulierem saluari non per fidem, sed per generationem] omitted MS.
27.
word.
28.
sit Adae posteritas] 1641; Adae sit posteritas MS; sit Adae posteritatis 1595; sit
29.
30.
mortuus est Christus] mortuus est (si est pro iis mortuus) Christus MS.
frustra credunt] frustranea est (si quae est) ipsarum fides MS.
Ad haec . .
.
peccassent] At ipse Christus ad haec dicit, quod illis debet esse
uae. Si ergo hoc, quomodo per generationem, quae cum maximo dolore
31.
eum saluaturum] eum saluum fore MS; eum saluatum iri 1638, 1641.
nullo operum respectu] MS, 1638, 1641; multo operum respectu /595.
171
Tale autem quidpiam de Apostolo affirmare cum sit peccatum, uiderint miseri
istij 1638, 164l\ Sed cum hoc de Apostolo asserere sit peccatum, ipsi uiderint
MS', Tale autem quippiam de Apostolo affirmare sit peccatum, uiderent miseri
isti 1595.
32.
sed Adamo saltem) ed.-, sed Adamum saltem MS, sed Adamo 7595; sed
Adamum 1638, 1641.
33.
34.
quasi diceret, quomodo tu debes mori, cui nequaquam hoc praeceptum datum
172
35.
36.
uiros] uiuos MS (or uiros?). Tbe third letter bas been overwritten, but in which
order is unclear.
37.
Sed & aliis ] Sed iam & aliis MS, 1638, 1641.
fuisse infantes] So also MS, but the scribe first wrote fuisse infantulos.
173
39.
40.
41.
ad illud ad Galatas] 1641; ad illud, Galat. cap. MS; ad illud ad Galatheos 1595;
ad illud ad Galatheas 1638. The scribe of the manuscript evide;ntly intended to
add the chapter number but failed to do so despite having left enough space on
the line.
non est masculus ac femina] non est masculus neque faemina MS.
licet unum dicantur. Pueri] MS; licet unum dicantur pueri 1595; licet unum
non dicantur pueri Larsen.
Pueri cum senibus etiam] MS, 1638, 1641; pueri etiam cum senibus, etiam
1595.
dicat] ed. ;
dicit MS, all eds.
illum & hanc] MS; illam hanc 1595; illam 1638, 1641.
42.
43.
44.
sic nec ex hac puella de reliquis] 1638, 1641-, sic nec huic puellae nec reliquis
45.
quod caput eius sit homo,] omitted 1638, 1641. Presumably an eyeskip.
46.
47.
Nam Christus dicit] Nam non Christus dicit MS. The word non is
superscripted. Evidently after having noticed that what he had copied made
little sense (as a result of his omission of the passage noted next) the scribe of
ostensum MS. Perhaps also added for the reason given above.
fuerunt circumcisae, imo non potuerunt. Quomodo ergo ipsis nunc baptismus
conueniet MS. ^See chapter 4, commentary on thesis 47.
Apostolus Deo, quod non multos baptizauerit, & addit, se non esse missum, ut
1641.
48.
Non ergo potuit Christus eas resurrectionis suae habere testes] non ergo posuit
eas Christus suae resurrectiones testes MS; Non ergo uoluit Christus eas
177
sit inualidum] sit futile; sed uoluit, ut apostolis annunciarent, quo aduentantes
de eo perhiberent MS.
49.
tamen non sunt] MS, 1595; tamen non sint 1638, 1641.
50.
51.
ero, sed pro culices & pulices ipsas mihi uolo exoratas MS.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Manuscripts
nec salvari.
Printed tnatter
1801; German 1540?, 1566, 1650 (see Beilin), 1736, 1852 (from the French);
Italian (from the French) 1549, 1776; Polish 1575. Modern edition, with
French translation, by R. Antonioli, Charles Bene, Mme O. Sauvage, and M.
Reulos (Geneve 1990). Modern English translation with commentary by
Albert Rabil, Jr, Declamation on the nobility and preeminence of the female
sex (Chicago 1996).
Ambrose, Saint, Bishop of Milan. Opera ed. Johannes Costerius (Basileae
1555).
Angenot, Marc. Les champions des femmes: examen du discours sur la
Anon. Mulier homo! (n. p. [Germany?] 1690). A reply to Mulier non homo!
(that is, an edition of the Disputatio) also published in 1690 and in the same
The Athenian gazette: or casuistical mercury resolving all the most nice and
curious questions proposed by the ingenious of either sex [ed. John Dunton]
3.13 (8.ix.l691) III; 5.3 (8.xii.l691) [2].
The Athenian oracle: being an entire collection of all the valuable questions and
answers in the old Athenian mercuries. By a member of the Athenian Society
(S. W.) fed. John Dunton] 3rd edition 3 vols and supplement (London 1706-
10 ).
Augustine, Saint, Bishop of Hippo. De baptismo libri vii. Text with French
trans, by G. Finaert, introduction and notes by G. Bavaud (Paris 1964). In
Oeuvres de Saint Augustin 29. Bibliotheque Augustinienne 4th series; Traites
anti-Donatistes 2.
. De genesi ad litteram 2 vols. Text with French trans, by P. Agaesse and
A. Solignac (Paris 1972). In Oeuvres de Saint Augustin 48-49. Bibliotheque
Augustinienne 7th series.
. De trinitate 2 vols. Text with French trans, by M. Mellet and Th.
Camelot, intro, by H. Hendrikx (Paris 1955). In Oeuvres de Saint Augustin
15-16. Bibliotheque Augustinienne 2nd series.
Austin, William. Haec homo, wherein the excellency of the creation of woman
is described (London 1637).
Barcitotti. See Tarabotti, Arcangela.
Baviera, Johannes, ed. Fontes juris romani antejustiniani II (Florentiae 1940).
Bay, J. Christian. "Women not considered human beings: a bibliological
curiosity." The library quarterly 4 (1934) 156-64.
Beilin, Johann. Abigail, das ist des lob-wurdigen Fraun-Zimmers Adel und
Fortrafligkeit (Liibeck 1650). Translation of Agrippa's De nobilitate et
praecellentia foeminei sexus, with commentary.
Beverwyck, Johan van. De excellentia foeminei sexus (Dordrecht 1636).
Trans, as Van de wtnementheyt des vrouwelicken geslachts (Dordrecht 1639).
Bible. Vetus latina: die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel nach Petrus Sabatier neu
gesammelt und herausgegeben von der Erzabtei Beuron [= Bonatius Fischer
and others) (Freiburg 1949—). See also Chateillon, Luther.
Billon, Frangois de. Le fort inexpugnable de I'honneur du sexe femenin (Paris
1555). I
182
Capella, Galeazzo Flavio. Della eccellenza e dignita delle dome (1525) ed.
Maria Luisa Doglio (Rome 1988).
Carrington, Charles.See Clapies, Charles.
Chateillon, Sebasiien (Sebastian Castellio/Castello). Moses latinus ex Hebraeo
factus: et .. . annotationes . . . & loci difficiliores explicantur (Basileae
1546).
. Biblia, . . . una cum . . . annotationibus (Basileae 1551).
. La Bible nouvellement trans latee . . . avec des annotacions sur les
The sermons of John Donne 10 vols ed. George R. Potter and Evelyn M.
.
184
Jacobus de Voragine. Legenda aurea ed. Th. Graesse, 2nd edition (Lipsiae
1850).
Jerome, Saint. Adversus Jovinianuni. PL 23.21 1-338.
Jonson, Ben. The masque of beautie The workes (London 1616) 901-10.
in
Krusch, Bruno. "Kulturbilder aus dem Frankenreiche zur Zeit Gregors von
Tours (d. 594). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Aberglaubens.
Sitzungsberichte der PreuJSischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil. -Hist.
Wiltenburg, Joy. Disorderly women and female power in the street literature of
early modern England and Germany (Charlottesville 1992).
Zanette, Emilio. Suor Arcangela: monaca del seicento veneziano (Venezia
1960).
V.
1 ,
Index
190
191
Scaliger, Julius Caesar, Exercitationes, 30; 9, 19; as machines, 16-17; praised for
De causis linguae latinae. 85 acting badly, 61-62, 95-98, 126
OCT 5