about jerks: women’s regrets for men who truly loved them

Both men and women commonly feel regret about past love mistakes. Love regrets commonly concern jerks. Those who don’t study the past are doomed to repeat it. Medieval poetry can help women and men learn from the past and love more learnedly.

In northern France in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, women poets known as trouvères mourned their love mistakes. One woman poet sang:

Never did I love while I was loved.
Now I regret it, if only that mattered,
for love had dealt me the finest
and the most handsome man in all the land
to have all honor and joy.
But now he has given his love to another,
who has gladly kept him for herself.
Alas! Why was I ever born?
By my pride I have lost my beloved.

Now Love has dealt me a cruel blow
when it grants to another the one I love,
but does not let me stop thinking of him
so that I can have neither comfort nor joy.
Alas! The love I ardently refused to share with him
will henceforth be conferred and bestowed on her.
But I’ve spoken too late, for I’ve already lost him;
Now I must love without being loved,
for I’ve vanquished my treacherous heart too late.

{ Onqes n’amai tant que jou fui amee;
Or m’en repent, se ce peüst valoir,
Q’amours m’avoit au meillour assenee,
Pour toute hounour et toute joie avoir,
Et au plus bel de toute la contree;
Mais ore a il autrui s’amour dounee,
Qi volentiers a soi l’a retenu.
Lasse, pour koi fui je de mere nee!
Par mon orguel ai mon ami perdu.

Or m’a amours malement assenee
Qant çou que j’aim fait a une autre avoir,
Ne ne m’an laist retraire ma pensee,
Ne si n’en puis soulas ne joie avoir.
Lasse, l’amour que tant li ai veee
Li seroit ja otroiie et dounee;
Mais tart l’ai dit, car je l’ai ja perdu;
Or me convient amer sans estre amee,
Car trop ai tart mon felon cuer vaincu. } [1]

Another trouvère similarly lamented:

Alas, why did I refuse
the one who loved me so?
So long he dreamed of me
and found no mercy there.
Alas, what a hard heart I have!
What can I say?
Insane
I was, more than mad,
when I rebuffed him.
I will do
justice to his wishes
if he should deign to hear me.

Truly, I should proclaim myself
both wretched and unlucky
when he who has not a bit of bitterness,
only great sweetness and modesty,
courted me so gently,
yet in me
found
no mercy. Insane
I was not to love him.
I will do
justice to his wishes
if he should deign to hear me.

He should have found
mercy when he asked for it.
Truly, I acted wrongly
when I refused it to him.
This has put me into such great dismay
that I will die of it
if I will not be reconciled
to him
without delay.
I will do
justice to his wishes
if he should deign to hear me.

{ Lasse, por quoi refusai
Celui qui tant m’a amee?
Lonc tens a a muoi musé
Et n’i a merci trouvee.
Lasse, si tres dur cuer ai!
Qu’en dirai?
Forssenee
Fui, plus que desvee,
Quant le refusai.
G’en ferai
Droit a son plesir,
S’il m’en daigne oïr.

Certes, bien me doi clamer
Et lasse et maleree
Quant cil ou n’a point d’amer,
Fors grant douçor et rosee,
Tant doucement me pria
Et n’i a
Recouvree
Merci; forssenee
Fui quant ne l’amai.
G’en ferai
Droit a son plesir,
S’il m’en daigne oïr.

Bien deüst avoir trouvé
Merci quant l’a demandée;
Certes, mal en ai ouvré
Quant je la li ai vëee;
Mult m’a mis en grand esmai.
G’en morrai,
S’acordee
Sanz grant demoree
A lui ne serai.
G’en ferai
Droit a son plesir,
S’il m’en daigne oïr. } [2]

Women who lack compassion for men will suffer for their own wickedness. As is most right and just for the particular circumstances, women should show mercy or lovingkindness or both to men.

Men deserve some blame for failures in love between women and men. Men have been taught nonsense — false knowledge about women and men. Yet men haven’t been shrewd enough to perceive the lies coming from authorities. A man trobairitz in southern France about the year 1200 lamented:

Already I have seen many things
that I would never have thought I saw,
and have played and laughed with such
as have barely given any pleasure.
I have served many men of merit
while never receiving a reward,
and have seen many know-nothings, with stupid words,
have very good results in their affairs.

And I have seen because of a wicked lover
a lady stop loving her husband,
and many a know-nothing obtain
more than a noble, learned man.
I have seen on behalf of ladies
many men in folly spend all their goods
and be badly received despite their giving,
and others get love without gifts.

I have seen ladies courted
with kindness and with honor;
then came an eager, ignorant man,
going quickly with know-nothing words
that for him obtain the better part.
Judge if they are a bad sort of work!
Many of those ladies in all their knowing
welcome better to their pleasure the most horrible.

{ Ieu ai ja vista manhta rei
Dont anc non fis semblant que vis,
Ez ai ab tal jogat e ris
Dont anc gaire no’m n’azautèi,
Ez ai servit a manht òm pro
Ont anc non cobrèi gazardó;
Ez a manh nèsci ab fòl parlar.
Ai vist tròp ben far son afar.

Et ai ja vist per àvol drut
A dòmna marit desamar
Ez a manht nèsci acabar
Pus qu’az un franc aperceubut;
E per dòmnas ai ja vist ieu
A manht òm metr’ en folh lo sieu,
Ez ai ne vist amat ses dar
E mal volgut ab molt donar.

Ieu ai vist dòmnas demandar
Ab plazers ez ab onramens,
Pueis veni’ us desconoissens
Abrivatz de nèsci parlar
Que n’avia la miélher part.
Esgardatz si son de mal art!
Manhtas n’i a que’ls plus savais
Acuelhon mielhs en totz lurs plais. } [3]

Women spend many billions of dollars on clothes, jewelry, and cosmetics. Yet many men are stupid enough to believe that the most effective way to appeal to women is to just “be themselves.” Even worse, many men are stupid enough to believe that playing the role of the chivalric knight to some lady-idol will excite her passion. Men should push aside the teachings of “refinement” and “good learning” and embrace the medieval spirit of empiricism and doing what works:

I have seen suffer for ladies
men of refinement and good learning,
and the know-nothing gets far more from the ladies
than the more knowing with his noble petitions,
and I have seen one of extreme discretion
lose status from being subject to treachery.
So there’s more value, in my understanding,
at times to be crazy than to have too much studied sense.

{ Ieu ai vist en dòmnas ponhar
D’ensenhatz e de ben aprés
E’l nèsci avenir nemés
Que’l plus savi ab gen prejar;
Ez ai vist nozer chausimen
A tròp-valer ab trichamen;
Per que val mais, a mos entens,
En luec foudatz que sobriers sens. } [4]

When refinement and good learning are a quilt of absurdities, men are better off acting as crazy know-nothings who behave according to the results they see. Or at least they should study Ovid and other, well-experienced jerk lovers.

Men should not take literally women’s advice on how men can be more attractive to women. Delusions are pervasive in politics and love. In northern France late in the thirteenth century, a woman trouvère sang to a man who loved her:

Love, what generates
in your heart such a conviction
as to think you have been rejected:
because I have shown you
a demeanor other than you desire?
But if only you knew
how a woman should retain
a lover she dreads to lose,
you would understand
that I did it in the hope
that by being harsh with you,
I might make you love me.
True heart, do not cease to love me,
for other than to cherish you
I can have no thought.

{ Amis, dont est engenree
en vo cuer tel volentés,
qu’estre cuidiés refusés:
pour ce que vous ai monstree
chiere autre que ne volés?
Mais se bien saviés
comment on doit retenir
amant c’on crient departir,
entendre porriés
que le fis par tel desir
qu’en aigrir
vous feïsse en moi amer.
Fins cuers, ne veulliés cesser,
car aillours que vous chierir
ne puis penser. } [5]

In short, this woman acted like a jerk to her boyfriend in the hope that he would then love her more. That doesn’t work with men. This woman was projecting her own feminine psychology onto her boyfriend. Women love jerks. Like Digenis Akritis, most men aren’t jerks and don’t enjoy acting like jerks. But men will do anything for women. Acting occasionally like a jerk to stir a woman’s passion is just another burden that men must bear.

In our benighted age of ignorance and bigotry, intelligent persons today should turn to medieval literature for true learning. Medieval literature can teach women about men’s vibrant imaginations and the importance of charity and mercy toward men. Men can learn from medieval literature expressive bravery, courageous resistance, and a sense that what they feel, other men too have felt. Medieval literature can help to cure the epidemic of love failure and regret.

*  *  *  *  *

Read more:

Notes:

[1] Anonymous chanson d’amour, “Never did I love while I was loved {Onqes n’amai tant que jou fui amee},” st. 1 & 3 (of 3), Picard dialect of Langue d’oïl, text and translation (with some insubstantial changes) from Doss-Quinby et al. (2001) p. 120, with medieval musical score, id. p. 119. Here are the manuscripts for this song. Some attribute this song to Richard de Fournival, who lived from about 1200 to 1260 in Amiens in northern France. Lepage (1981) p. 34.

Langue d’oïl, a medieval language spoken in northern France, is the main predecessor to modern French. Langue d’oïl was the language of the trouvères. Langue d’oc (Old Occitan), a medieval language spoken in southern France, was the language of the trobairitz.

In their introduction, Doss-Quinby et al. (2001) argues “The Case for the Women Trouvères.” I assume above that women trouvères wrote the songs cited. Excellent men poets are capable of faithfully representing women’s voices. So the long and bitter scholarly debates about whether the authors of these songs were actually women doesn’t concern me. These songs should be interpreted as representing authentic women’s voices, irrespective of who wrote them.

[2] Anonymous chanson d’ami, “Alas, why did I refuse {Lasse, por quoi refusai},”st. 1-3 (of 5), text and translation (with my minor modifications to track the original more closely) from Doss-Quinby et al. (2001) p. 131, with medieval musical score, id. p. 132. Here are manuscripts for this song, and a recording by Perceval (1994).

Another woman trouvère lamented:

Oh, my love! Why did I not to your wishes
bed down while I could still see you?
Vile persons whom I greatly feared,
have so tormented and restrained me
that I could never reward your service.
If were possible, I would repent more
than Adam did for taking the apple.

{ Ahi, amins! tout a vostre devise
Que ne fis jeu tant con je vos veoie?
Jant vilainne cui je tant redotoie
M’ont si greveit et si areire mise
C’ains ne vos pou merir vostre servise.
S’estre poioit, plus m’an repantiroie
C’Adans ne fist de la pome c’ot prise. }

Duchesse de Lorraine, plainte, “Many a time I have been asked {Par maintes fois avrai esteit requise}” st. 2 (of 4), text (Lorraine dialect) and translation (with my minor modifications) from Doss-Quinby et al. (2001) p. 124. After taking the apple in acordance with his wife’s advice, Adam had much less joy in his relation with Eve.

[3] Guilhem Ademar, “Already I have seen many things {Ieu ai ja vista manhta rei}” st. 1-3, Old Occitan text from Bec (1984) p. 58-9, my English translation, benefiting from the French translation of id. The subsequent quote is similarly sourced. Here are this song’s manuscripts and printings. For Guilhem Ademar’s corpus of songs, Almqvist (1951) and Andolfato (2014).

A women trouvère who chose as her lover the worse of two men realized after the fact the perversity of her desire:

Who of two leaves the better one,
against her judgment,
and takes for herself the worse —
I do believe that she demonstrates
the very highest folly.

{ Qui de .ii. biens le millour
Laist, encontre sa pensee,
Et prent pour li le piour,
Bien croi que c’est esprovee
Tres haute folour. }

Chanson d’ami, “I have cause to judge {Cause ai d’avoir mon penser},” refrain (of three stanzas), text (Picard dialect, from the Montpellier manuscript) and translation (with my modifications) from Doss-Quinby et al. (2001) p. 138.

[4] Guilhem Ademar, “Ieu ai ja vista manhta rei” st. 4. Guilhem observed that even a man with non-normative formal learning is no match for women’s guile:

I have seen a man who knew well
and who studied necromancy and divination,
yet he was betrayed unjustly and wrongly by a woman.

{ Eu ai ia vist home qi conois fort
et a legit nigromansi’e sort
trazit per femn’a pechat et a tort }

Guilhem Ademar, “In summer when the flowers appear in the woods {El temps d’estui, qan par la flors el bruoill},”5.1-3, Old Occitan text from Andolfato (2014) p. 121, my English translation, benefiting from the Italian translation of id. Bec (1984) p. 58 also provides these lines.

[5] Anonymous motet, “Lady whom I dare not name {Dame que je n’os noumer},” Motetus, Picard dialect of Langue d’oïl, text and translation (with some insubstantial changes) from Doss-Quinby et al. (2001) p. 237, with medieval musical score, id. p. 238-9. This motet survives only in the Monpellier Codex and was probably composed between 1270 and 1300. Méegens (2011), which accepts uncritically gynocentric ideology, discusses the women’s voice in thirteenth-century motets.

[videos] (1) Azam Ali singing “Lasse, pour quoi refusai,” from her album Portals of Grace (2002). (2) Anonymous 4 performing “Lonc tans a / Dame que je n’os noumer / Amis, donc est engenree,” from their album Love’s Illusion (1994).

References:

Almqvist, Kurt, ed. and trans. 1951. Poésies du Troubadour Guilhem Adémar. Uppsala: Almqvist et Wiksells.

Andolfato, Francesca. 2014. Le canzoni di Guilhem Ademar. Edizione critica, commento e traduzione. Ph.D. Thesis. Università Ca’Forscari Venezia.

Bec, Pierre. 1984. Burlesque et Obscénité chez les Troubadours: pour une approche du contre-texte médiéval. Paris: Stock.

Doss-Quinby, Eglal, Joan Tasker Grimbert, Wendy Pfeffer, and Elizabeth Aubery. 2001. Songs of the Women Trouvères. New Haven: Yale University Press. (review by Carol Symes)

Lepage, Yvan G. 1981. Richard de Fournival, Œuvre lyrique. Publié en ligne par l’ENS de Lyon dans la Base de français médiéval, dernière révision le 12-10-2012.

Méegens, Rachel . 2011. “La Voix Féminine dans les Motets Français à Deux et Trois Voix du XIIIe Siècle.” Transposition. (1): online.

did Lot support daughters who raped him? Cena Cypriani rewritten

Lot's daughter prepare to rape him

A certain church leader named Hilary conducted a hearing in the city Golgotha of Numskulls. The matter was legion. Lot came to family court to contest an order of child support requiring him to pay 60% of his income to his two daughters who had raped him. Interested parties entered the courtroom.

Solomon’s seven hundred wives and concubines sat together. Royally dressed, Solomon’s mother Bathsheba came in and then left to take a bath outside. The pregnant virgin Mary brought her husband Joseph from the house of David. Lot’s wife sat in the front row and worried that Judge Hilary would deprive Lot of almost all his salt. Elizabeth wanted to know if the payments she would receive would be less because her husband Zachariah had become disabled. The Samaritan woman was there, wondering how many different men could be required to pay her at the same time. Rebecca wanted to know how one man’s income would be divided among multiple mothers. Sarah entered, seeking to learn if angels are under the court’s jurisdiction. Hearing that Lot’s daughter would be getting hefty monthly payments for having Moab, Ruth came to see if she could have a child support order imposed on Naomi. Salome, daughter of Herodias, sought to have a child support order imposed on John the Baptist’s head. Hannah, lacking income, prayed in the court for children. Rachel entered, weeping for her sons being destroyed in the family court system.

Judge Hilary called the court to order. Jezebel was counsel for Lot’s daughters. Jezebel moved that the court recognize, as a preliminary matter, that Lot had always desired to have sex with his daughters, and that Lot should be regarded as their common-law husband. Jesus of Nazareth, counsel for Lot, objected that Lot’s adherence to the commandment “love one another” doesn’t imply incest. Judge Hilary sustained Jesus’s objection: “We note that marital status is irrelevant to the imposition of child support obligations.”

Jesus called Noah to testify on Lot’s behalf. Jesus asked Noah’s questions to qualify him as an expert:

What is the difference between an angry circus owner and a Roman hairdresser?

One is a raving showman and the other is a shaving Roman.

Why didn’t the Israelites starve in the desert?

Because of the sand which is there.

And where did the sandwiches come from?

Ham and his descendants bred and mustered there.

Satisfied with Noah’s answer, Jesus entered scripture into the court record that showed that Noah was the inventor of wine and had experience passing out naked and drunk. The court accepted Noah as a qualified witness. The crowd that now filled the courtroom began talking aloud.

Cain said Noah isn’t able. Isaac laughed. Eve felt tempted to get to know Noah. The Witch of Endor saw Noah under the waters. Gomer, wife of Hosiah, said Noah had gotten her drunk and raped her. Potiphar’s wife said, “Me too!” Tamar claimed that Noah neglected to pay prostitutes their full fees. A dove cooed that Noah had harassed her and made her feel unwelcomed. Shepherds blamed Noah for allying with Cain and fencing off part of their grazing land. The woman at the well said Noah never offered her a drink. Ham said Noah cursed his son Canaan for no good reason. A flood of others in the courtroom and on social media joined in denouncing Noah. A chant began: “Say no to Noah, say no to Noah, say no to Noah….”

Judge Hilary angrily arose and screamed, “You shitty deplorables! Where do you think you are? This is no Neanderthal football stadium. This is my court. Shut the fuck up!” The courtroom settled into abashed silence.

Jezebel began questioning Noah. How often do you drink wine? Do you prefer to drink by yourself? Were you grateful that your sons Shem and Japheth came to you when you were drunk and naked? Do you recognize that those who refuse to exalt the best interests of the child should die by the sword? She then turned to Judge Hilary and said that there was no need for further questions.

Jesus arose and said to the court, “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be when justice flows down like flood waters and righteousness like a mighty torrent.” Jesus then turned to question Lot.

Jesus asked Lot a lot of questions. When you lived in Sodom, did the licentiousness of the lawless distress you? Have you forgiven your daughters for raping you? Do you forgive them for acting according to the men-oppressing ideology of gynocentric society? Do you forgive your daughters for not showing lovingkindness toward you their father? Do you love your daughters with self-giving love, wishing only their good? Is freely giving of yourself in love consistent with being compelled to pay child support to your daughters? Was your parenthood of Moab and Ammon planned parenthood? Would fathering children through your daughters raping you be your reproductive choice?

Judge Hilary interrupted Jesus, “Enough. What is truth? And what’s best for women and girls? Isn’t it in the best interests of Lot’s daughters to get monthly payments from him?” Jesus stood before her and remained silent for a long time. Then he said, “Remember Lot’s wife.”

Adam leaned away from Eve. Job cried out to the Lord. Paul declared God’s grace to be sufficient. Abraham promised to rescue Lot even while not knowing how. Jacob sought a ladder to escape from family court. John the Baptist lost his head from such tyranny. David wept for his son Absalom. Rahab left to hang a red cord outside her window. Moses could only stutter. Peter fumed and looked ready to assault the judge. The Ethiopian eunuch praised God. Isaac went to gather wood to build a fire for himself. Isaiah foresaw fatherless children. Jeremiah denounced the judge as foolish and senseless, and predicted calamity upon the nation. Joseph of Arimathea promised to do all he could for Lot.

Mary was stunned, Sarah laughed at what was done.
When all had been settled, they returned to their homes.

{ stupebat Maria, ridebat de facto Sara.
Tunc explicitis omnibus domos suas repetierunt. }

*  *  *  *  *

Read more:

Notes:

The above work is a reworking of a Latin work called Cena Cypriani {Cyprian’s Banquet}, also spelled Coena Cypriani. In medieval Europe, Cena Cypriani was attributed to Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage. He lived from about 200 to 258 GC.  Most scholars now think that Cena Cypriani was written between the middle of the fourth century and the middle of the fifth century. Some scholars speculate that Zeno of Verona (died 371 GC) wrote it.

The source account of Lot’s daughters raping him is Genesis 19:30-38. Scholars have tended to obscure that Lot’s daughter’s raped him. Consider:

the disappearance of Lot’s wife and sons-in-law triggers an act — incest — that, while it might be justified by the strict logic of patriarchy, is certainly open to misinterpretation and may be better not left to the imaginary construction of readers.

Malamud (2011) p. 154 (emphasis on “not” from the original). Cena Cypriani attests that many medieval readers imaginatively engaged with the Bible. The logic of gynocentrism unjustly suppresses recognition that women rape men. The above imaginary construction of Lot’s daughters seeking child support payments after raping Lot should not be interpreted to trivialize women raping men or pervasive anti-men sex discrimination in family courts. For a thorough, factual analysis of alimony, child custody, and child support laws, see Real World Divorce.

Myrrha / Smyrna raping her father Cinyras in ancient Greek myth has parallels with Lot’s daughters raping him. For that myth, see, e.g. Ovid, Metamorphoses 10.243-739. In both cases, drunkenness rendered the father unable to consent to sex. Just as for Lot’s daughters, literary scholars have been reluctant to recognize that women rape men. Meninist literary criticism must erect hard reality to penetrate this gender gap of ignorance and bigotry.

Cena Cypriani is a short Latin prose work that in the modern period has been regarded as bizarre. It consists of about 1500 words. Bayless (1996) p. 19. Doležalová summarized:

It describes a wedding feast organized by king Joel in Cana, Galilee. The king invites many guests – characters from different parts of the Bible and also from the apocryphal Acta Pauli et Theclae (APT). They sit down, accept special dress, cook for themselves, eat, drink, some of them fall asleep, others are entertained, and then they all go home in a festive procession. The next day they return with presents for the king, but as it is discovered that something has been stolen the day before, they are investigated and tortured, until the king decides that only one of them, Achan, should be punished, and so they (including Jesus) kill him and bury him before they return home. After each of the activities is shortly introduced, an enumeration of what the guests did, ate or wore — a list of the Biblical characters and their attributions — follows

Doležalová (2002) p. 187. Bayless observed:

the focus of the story is the inventories of characters and their actions … The text is, in effect, an animated catalog of symbols and correspondences

Bayless (1996) pp. 19-20. The beginning of Cena Cyrpriani provides a good sense of it:

A certain king, Joel by name, organized a wedding in the eastern region, in Cana of Galilee. To this wedding, many were invited. Thus those, who had earlier bathed in the Jordan, came to the feast. At that time Naaman cleansed, Amos sprinkled water, James and Andrew brought hay. Matthew and Peter lay down, Solomon prepared the table, and the whole crowd reclined at various places. But when the place was already full of the reclining ones, those who arrived later, all, as they could, looked for a place for themselves. So Adam, the first of all, sat in the middle, Eve on leaves, Cain on top of a plough, Abel on a milk churn, Noah on an ark, Japheth on bricks, Abraham under a tree, Isaac on an altar, Jacob on a rock …

{ Quidam rex nomine Iohel nuptias faciebat in regione orientis, in Chana Galileae. His nuptiis invitati sunt plures. Igitur qui temperius loti in Iordane adfuerunt in convivio. Tunc commundavit Naaman, aquam sparsit Amos, Iacobus et Andreas attulerunt faenum, Matheus et Petrus straverunt, mensam posuit Salomon. Atque omnes discubuerunt turbae. Sed cum iam locus discumbentium plenus esset, qui superveniebant, quisque ut poterat, locum sibi inveniebat. Primus atque omnium sedit Adam in medio, Eva super folia, Cain super aratrum, Abel super mulgarium, Noe super archam, Iaphet super lateres, Abraham sub arbore, Isaac super aram, Iacob super petram … }

Latin text of Modesto and English translation from Doležalová (2017) p. 46.

During the Middle Ages, Cena Cypriani was rewritten at least four times and prompted at least one extensive written commentary. Hrabanus Mauris, abbot of Fulda and then Archbishop of Mainz, rewrote the Cena Cyrpriani about 855 to create a work known as the Cena nuptialis {Marriage banquet}. Cena nuptialis, which survives in 18 manuscripts, “made the allegory clearer and the narrative more rapid and coherent.” Bayless (1996) p. 39. In Rome in 876 or 877, Johannes Hymmonides (also known as John the Deacon) recast Cena Cypriani into verse. Johannes followed the original closely. Probably about 1050, the monk Azelinus of Reims wrote another version in verse for the Emperor Henry III of Germany. That version is known as Cena Azelini. Another rewriting of the Cena Cypriani occurred perhaps at Arras about 1200. The French Benedictine monk Herveus Dolensis (also called Herveus of Bourg-Dieu or Hervaeus Burgidolensis) wrote a lengthy commentary on Cena Cypriani about 1150. That commentary survives in four manuscripts.

Cena Cypriani was regarded in medieval Europe as both amusing and useful. Well-known throughout the Middle Ages, Cena Cypriani survives in whole or in part in at least 104 manuscripts. These manuscripts apparently was read or copied mainly in monasteries. Cena Cypriani seems to have functioned as a tool, or perhaps a game, for improving biblical knowledge. Not confined to monasteries, Cena Cypriani was known as the highest levels of learning and political power. Peter Abelard and Hugh of St. Victor both refer to it. Hrabanus Maurus, who rewrote it, was an eminent poet and theologian. Copies of Cena Cypriani were dedicated to kings, emperors, and popes.

As the Waltharius indicates, medieval authors didn’t regard Christian humor to be inconsistent with deep Christian faith. Johannes Hymmonides referred to his rewriting of Cena Cypriani as a “royal jest {imperialis iocus}.” In his poem dedicating his version to Pope John VIII, Johannes wrote:

Whoever desires to discern me, John, dancing,
now listen to my song, attend to the merrymaking:
I will play in running through a medley, formed under God,
that would make Codrus’s belly burst. You, friends, applaud.

{ Quique cupitis saltantem me lohannem cernere,
Nunc cantantem auditote, iocantem attendite:
Satiram ludam percurrens: divino sub plasmate,
Quo Codri findatur venter. Vos, amici, plaudite. }

Latin text from Bayless (1996) p. 41, my English translation, benefiting from that of id. In his letter dedicating Cena nuptialis to Pope John, Johannes Hymmonides wrote: “take this amusement, Pope John; may you be laughing, if it itself is able to please {ludentem papa Iohannes accipe; ridere, si placet, ipse potes}.” Similarly from id. p. 42. With the starkness that characterizes Proverbs and other biblical wisdom, Burchardus, Abbot of Believaux, in the twelfth century wrote:

some laugh with delight at the excellence and honor and glory of wisdom; others laugh with silliness at the growth and hawking of foolishness. The wise are made merry by laughter and do not jeer; the foolish are made silly by laughter and indulge in ridicule.

{ alii rident cum iocunditate ad laudem et honorem et gloriam sapientiae, alii rident cum iocositate ad incrementum et propalationem stulticiae: iocundantur sapientes in risu et non irrident, stulti iocantur in risu et derident. }

“In defense of beards {Apologia de barbis}” 3.179-81, Latin text and English translation from Bayless (1996) pp. 204-5.

Recent studies suggest that Cena Cypriani was within the mainstream of literature from about 1500 to 2000 years ago. Cena Cypriani has parallels with Petronius’s Satyricon 35. Manca (2008) pp. 89-90. Similarities also exist with respect to Apuleis’s Metamorphoses 6.24-5. Casaretto (2006) pp. 239-46. Testamentum Porcelli {The Testament of a Piglet}, written perhaps in the fourth century, provides another parallel. Livini (2011) p. 287.

For texts and studies of Cena Cypriani, Modesto (1992), Bayless (1996), and Doležalová (2007) are the most important works. Modesto (1992) includes German translations of the various versions of Cena Cypriani. Doležalová (2007) includes an English translation of the original version based on Modesto’s critical Latin text. Bayless (1996) includes an English translation of the Arras Cena Cypriani. Doležalová (2007), which is freely accessible online, includes a Latin text close to the base Cena Cypriani, with notes indicating the textual variants. Radej (1989), also freely accessible online, includes a Latin text and a Bosnian translation. Here are additional instances: an online, machine-readable Latin text and an online Latin manuscript. Conybeare (2013) uses the laughter of Sarah in Cena Cypriani as a starting point toward exploring cultish academic writings. Cena Cypriani, recreated in the context of Lot’s daughters raping him, seems to me to be capable of promoting both delightful laughter and social justice.

The reference above to the church leader Hilary is open to several interpretations. Hilary of Poitiers served as as Bishop of Poitiers from 351 to 356 GC. Hilary of Arles served as Bishop of Arles in southern France from 429 to 444 GC. Whether either Hilary adjudicated any child support cases isn’t known.

The questions above concerning the angry circus owner and the Roman hairdresser are from Susan Stewart via Parker (1985) p. 84, n. 5. The questions concerning the Israelites’ food in the desert are from Robert Graves via id. p. 79. I was alerted to the relevance of Five Constipated Men in the Bible via Manca (2008) pp. 94-5. The final quote is the last two lines of Cena Cypriani, in Latin and in my English translation. Some versions read “Mary is stunned {stupet Maria},” but “Mary was stunned {stupebat Maria}” is Modesto’s superior reading.

[image] Lot and his daughters. Seventeenth-century painting by Marcantonio Franceschini. Preserved in the Museo di Stato di San Marino. Via Wikimedia Commons.

References:

Bayless, Martha. 1996. Parody in the Middle Ages: the Latin tradition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Casaretto, Francesco Mosetti. 2006. “Modelli e antimodelli per la «Cena Cypriani»: il «teatro interiore», Zenone e… Apuleio!Wiener Studien. 119: 215-246.

Conybeare, Catherine. 2013. The Laughter of Sarah: Biblical Exegesis, Feminist Theory, and the Laughter of Delight. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Doležalová, Lucie. 2002. “Receptions of Obscurity and Obscurities of Reception: The Case of the Cena Cypriani.” Listy Filologické / Folia Philologica. 125 (3-4): 187-197.

Doležalová, Lucie. 2004. “Quoddam notabile vel ridiculum: an unnoticed version of Cena Cypriani (Ms. Uppsala, UL C 178).” Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi (Bulletin Du Cange). 62: 137-160.

Doležalová, Lucie. 2007. Reception and its Varieties: reading, re-writing, and understanding Cena Cypriani in the Middle Ages. Trier: Wiss. Verl. Trier.

Doležalová, Lucie. 2017. “Measuring the Measuring Rod: The Bible and Parabiblical Texts within the History of Medieval Literature.” Interfaces 4: 39-58.

Livini, Andrea. 2011. “Il caso della Cena Cypriani: riflessioni sulla circolazione alto-medievale di un libellus tardo-antico.” Wiener Studien. 124: 279-295.

Malamud, Martha A. 2011. Prudentius. The Origin of Sin: An English Translation of the Hamartigenia. Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, 61. Cornell University Press. (review by Dennis E. Trout)

Manca, Massimo. 2008. “La Coena Cypriani fra pantagruelismi letterari e oralità popolare.” Incontri Triestini di Filologia Classica. 8: 85-97 (Edizioni Università Trieste).

Modesto, Christine. 1992. Studien zur Cena Cypriani und zu deren Rezeption. Classica Monacensia, 3. Tubingen: G. Narr.

Parker, Douglass. 1985. “The Curious Case of Pharaoh’s Polyp, and Related Matters.” SubStance. 14 (2): 74-86.

Radej, Irena. 1989. “Parodijske osobine teksta ‘Cena Cypriani.’Latina et Graeca. 1 (34): 19-41.

Cicero & Ecclesiastes against concubines dominating men

medieval man praying

Concubines rank lower than wives in most societies’ social structure. But what about men’s status?[1] The learned and eloquent ancient Roman orator Cicero described the desperation of husbands suffering from their wives’ abuse. In early-eleventh-century Baghdad, the rich merchant ibn Jumhūr had to endure torrents of abuse from his concubine Zād Mihr. In actuality, husbands are not only subordinate to their wives, but also subordinate to their concubines.

A coherent medieval collection of prayers spanning all stations of society documents the struggle against men’s subordination to their concubines. The collection begins by acknowledging the failures of all:

Let us pray for every status in the Church!
All have gone astray. Together they are made hurtful. There is none who would do good, no, not one.

{ Oremus pro omni statu ecclesie!
Omnes declinaverunt, simul inutiles facti sunt. Non est qui faciat bonum, non est usque ad unum. } [2]

The next three prayers harshly denounce the behavior of the nominally leading men of medieval society:

For the pope and the cardinals.
From elders is coming forth the wickedness of my people, who the bad example they see, they follow.

For our king.
Destruction and misery are in his way, and the way of peace he has not yet discovered.

For the leaders of the land.
O Israel, your princes are rebellious, companions of thieves, and act very similar to tyrants.

{ Pro papa et cardinalibus.
A senioribus egressa est iniquitas populi mei, qui malum quod videt in exemplum trahit.

Pro rege nostro.
Contricio et infelicitas et inquietudo in viis eius, ut viam pacis nondum invenit.

Pro principibus terre.
O Israhel, infideles principes tui socii furum sunt et tyrannis similimi. } [3]

About thirty prayers later, the collection reaches the nominally lowliest ranks of medieval society:

For our household servants.
The elderly servants are always slow. While they eat, they get warm; when working, they get cold.

Let us pray also for our concubines.
They themselves will truly be our judges and rule us with an iron rod, by which for our faithlessness our property is squandered.

For our extra-marital children.
They themselves are witnesses of their parents’ wickedness, which will itself walk by its own paths.

{ Pro familia nostra.
Prespiterum servi sunt omni tempore tardi. Dum comedunt sudant, frigescunt quando laborant.

Oremus etiam pro concubinis nostris.
Ipse enim erunt judices nostri et regent nos in virga ferrea, quarum perfidia nostra consumitur substantia.

Pro spuriis nostris.
Ipsi enim testes sunt iniquitatis parentum suorum, in quorum semitis et ipsi ambulabunt. } [4]

The prayer for concubines, placed between prayers for servants and extra-marital children, implicitly recognizes concubines’ low social status. That prayer also implicitly acknowledges men’s weakness in relation to beautiful women. Men’s weakness in relation to beautiful women is both economically disastrous for men and leads to women ruling over them.

In the difficult circumstances of their lives, men often accept passively injustices done to them. The biblical story of the massacre of the men of Shechem tells of treacherous, vicious violence against men because of Shechem’s illicit love for Dinah. Violence against men still remains the undistinguished, untroubling understanding of violence. When the Hebrews wandering in the desert lacked water, Moses and Aaron had to do something. Men are valued as men in their doings, not merely in their being. Whatever the man Jonah did was wrong. A whale ate him at sea and on land the sun beat down on his head. Who has compassion for Jonah’s suffering and for the suffering of men generally? About 855, a highly learned German theologian poignantly portrayed men’s despair:

But already Shechem was asking for the dishonored Dinah,
Aaron was spilling water, competing then with Dinah,
bald Jonah was destitute, shipwrecked in the sea;
together they mourned, stroking their trimmed foreskins.

{ Sed quia iam prostitutam quaerebat Sichem Dinam,
Aquas Aaron effundebat, contendebat tunc Dina,
Ionas calvus nudus erat naufragus in maria;
Plangebant cuncti recisa palpantes preputia. } [5]

Mutilation of baby boys’ genitals continues today across atheists, Christians, and Jews without any truly believed religious justification. Circumcision of baby boys’ genitals attracts less social concern than restrictions on women’s fancy clothes. Men’s subordination to their concubines reflects the impotence of men resigned merely to stroking their trimmed foreskins.

Learned and wise authorities have long sought to dissuade men from gyno-idolatrous subservience to their concubines and to women in general. At some time between the middle of the ninth century and early in the sixteenth century, a scribe copying the prayer for concubines added wisdom from Cicero:

And can I regard as being free a man over whom a woman rules? On whom she imposes laws, and to whom she orders, commands, and prohibits? Moreover, is not he himself a miserable little man who none of her rulings is able to negate, who dares to refuse her nothing? If she calls him, he is coming. If she asks, he is giving. If she throws him out, he is leaving. If she threatens, he is trembling.

{ An ille michi liber videtur, cui mulier imperat? Cui leges imponit, prescribit iubet, vetat? Ipse autem miser homuntio nichil imperanti negare potest, nichil recusare audet? Si vocat eum, veniendum est. Si poscit, dandum est. Si eicit, abeundum est. Si minatur, extimescendum est. } [6]

These are the men that men-abasing courtly love ideology celebrates. These little men are prevalent in gynocentric society. They are not free men. Teach your sons not to be those men!

Women who love men must do more to help men. Not satisfied with merely the authority of Cicero, perhaps another scribe added wisdom from the biblical book of Ecclesiastes:

I find, says the prophet, more bitter than death the woman whose heart is a hunter’s snares and nets, whose hands are fetters. One who pleases God will flee from her. The other, a sinner, is taken by her, more bitter than death.

{ Inveni, inquit propheta, amariorem morte mulierem, que laqueus est venatorum, sagena cor eius, vincula sunt manus eius. Qui placet Deo fugiet illam; qui autem peccator est capietur ab ea, amarior est morte. } [7]

Today such wisdom tends to be trivialized through name-calling. Medieval authorities were more enlightened. Matheolus warned men against oppressive practices of women and the church. The satirical medieval Fifteen Joys of Marriage described men becoming prisoners in their marriages. Some medieval women viciously cuckolded their husbands. Teach your daughters not to be those women!

The combined authority of Cicero and Ecclesiastes sadly has been insufficient to save men from subservience to women. As the medieval manuscript indicates, inadequate philological education in schools hinders vigorous social criticism. Thus to the quotes from Cicero and Ecclesiastes under the prayer for concubines, a medieval reader added explanatory glosses: “she imposes laws {leges imponit}” glossed as “command {mandatum}”; “she orders {prescribit}” glossed as “what must be made to be {quid faciendum sit}”; and “she vetoes {vetat}” glossed as “she prohibits {prohibet}.” One must first understand in order to resist.

Most men today lack the opportunity to study medieval Latin language and literature. Yet even deprived of that important opportunity, men can understand gynocentric oppression simply by asking questions. Why does the gender composition of highly privileged persons such as corporate executives, political leaders, and math professors generate more public concern than the massively disproportionate incarceration of men? Why are men deprived of any reproductive rights whatsoever and have only the choice to engage in abortion coercion? Why does grotesque anti-men gender discrimination continue to pervade family courts while governments move to enact paid parental leave? The fundamental answer to those questions is simple: the actual status of ordinary men is lower than that of their concubines.

*  *  *  *  *

Read more:

Notes:

[1] On the formal and actual status of medieval concubines, see Brundage (1993) and Karras (2014). Medieval historians typically share common delusions about men’s status in the present. Their historical work on gender is thus scarcely credible.

[2] Prayers for every status in the church {Orationes pro omni statu ecclesiae} 1, Latin text from Bayless (2018) p. 53 (text 7), my English translation. For ease of reading, I’ve made some insubstantial changes to Bayless’s Latin text, e.g. differentiated v from u, and j from i. Subsquent quotes from this text are sourced similarly.

Bayless has edited this text from MS. Rome, Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Pal. lat. 1050, fols 293r-294. This manuscript was written in parts in 1475 and 1530. Id. The line of commentary following the call for prayer adapts Psalm 14:3 (in modern numbering).

Two other manuscripts of similar collections of prayers have survived in manuscripts written in the fifteenth century. Those texts are printed in Walther (1931). For discussion of these similar collections, called Prayers of the priest’s housekeeper {Preces famulae sacerdotis}, Bayless (1996) pp. 172-5. These or similar collections might well have been composed in the twelfth century or earlier.

[3] Orationes pro omni statu ecclesia 2-4. As Bayless notes, the lines of commentary for these three prayers adapt Daniel 13:5, Romans 3:16-7, and Isaiah 1:23, respectively.

[4] Orationes pro omni statu ecclesia 27-29 (out of 33 prayers in total). Prespiterum apparently is a medieval Latin spelling of presbyterum. Bayless notes the commentary to the prayer for household servants is “common in medieval satire.” Prayers 28 and 29 adapt Matthew 12:27 and Psalm 2:9; and Wisdom 4:6, respectively. Bayless (2018) p. 59, notes.

[5] Hrabanus Maurus, The Wedding Banquet {Cena nuptialis} ll. 233-8, Latin text from Modesto (1992) p. 192, my English translation. Hrabanus’s Cena nuptialis adapted into verse Cyprian’s Banquet {Cena Cypriani}. The relevant text from Cena Cypriani:

But since someone was contending with Dinah, Aaron was spilling water, and Jonas was destitute.

{ Sed quoniam contendebat Dina, aquam effundebat Aaron,
et nudus erat Ionas. }

Latin text from Modesto (1992) p. 30, my English translation. Dinah seems to be related to Aaron spilling water through the implicit sense that she was crying over her brothers killing her beloved Shechem. Hrabanus Maurus wrote his Cena nuptialis about 855 and dedicated it to Lothar II, King of Lotharingia. On Cena nuptialis, Bayless (1996) pp. 38-40.

[6] Orationes pro omni statu ecclesia 28.4-8 (additional commentary). The text notes: “These are Cicero in Paradoxes {Hec Cicero in Paradoxa}.” The reference is to Cicero, Stoic Paradoxes {Paradoxa stoicorum} 5.36, which is quoted closely, but not exactly. For Paradoxa stoicorum in Latin and English translation, Rackham (1942). The glosses to this text, discussed subsequently above, are given in Bayless (2018) p. 59, notes.

Cicero in Paradoxa stoicorum presented women’s dominance as a problem in men’s intimate relations with women. In fifteenth-century Europe, women’s dominance was regarded as a matter of high politics:

Let us inquire, and we find that nearly all the world’s kingdom have been overthrown because of women. The first of them, the happy kingdom Troy, was destroyed because of the abduction of a single woman, Helen. Many thousands of Greeks were slain. The kingdom of the Jews had many evils and deaths because of the very bad queen Jezebel and her daughter Athaliah, queen in the kingdom of Judah. Athaliah had the sons of her son slain so that with his death she herself could reign, but both Jezebel and Athaliah were slain. The kingdom of the Romans endured many evils because of Cleopatra, the Queen of Egypt, a very bad woman. And so on for others. Hence no wonder if the world now suffers from women’s evil.

{ Invenimus fere omnia mundi regna propter mulieres fuisse versa. Primum enim quod fuit regnum felix, scilicet Troye, proper raptum unius femine, scilicet Helene, destructum est, multi milibus Graecorum occisis. Regnum Judeorum multa mala et exterminia habuit propter pessimam reginam Jezebel et filiam eius Athaliam reginam in regno Jude, que occidi fecerat filios filij ut eo mortuo ipsa regnaret, sed utraque occisa. Regnum Romanorum multa mala sostinuit propter Cleopatram reginam Egipti, pessimam mulierem. Et sic de alijs. Unde non mirum si mundus iam patitur ob malitiam mulierum. }

The Hammer of Witches {Malleus maleficarum} Part 1, Question 6, part 2, Latin text from MacKay (2006) v. 1, pp. 289-90, my English translation, benefiting from that of id. On the relative propensity of queens and kings to engage in war from the fifteenth century to the twentieth century, Dube & Harish (2019). Modern readings of the Malleus maleficarum have obscured that men vastly predominated among witches who were killed, just as today men vastly  predominate among victims of lethal violence.

[7] Orationes pro omni statu ecclesia 28.10-13 (additional commentary). The text begins “Ecclesiastes 7 {Eccl 7}.” It quotes closely but not exactly the Vulgate text of Ecclesiastes 7:26 (in modern numbering). In medieval versions of the Vulgate, this verse ended with “more bitter than death, that is, than the devil {amarior est morte, id est, diablo}.” Bayless (2018) p. 59, notes.

[image] Young Man at Prayer (excerpt). Painting by Hans Memling, made about 1475. Preserved as accession number NG2594 in the National Gallery (London, UK). Via Wikimedia Commons.

References:

Bayless, Martha. 1996. Parody in the Middle Ages: the Latin tradition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Bayless, Martha, ed. 2018. Fifteen Medieval Latin Parodies. Toronto Medieval Latin Texts, 35. Toronto, Canada: Published for the Centre for Medieval Studies by the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies.

Brundage, James A. 1993. Sex, Law and Marriage in the Middle Ages. Aldershot: Variorum.

Dube, Oeindrila and S.P. Harish. 2019. “Queens.” University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics Working Paper No. 2019-120. Available at SSRN.

Karras, Ruth Mazo. 2014. Unmarriages: women, men, and sexual unions in the Middle Ages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. (review by Walter Prevenier)

Mackay, Christopher S., ed. and trans. 2006. Malleus maleficarum: the hammer of witches. 2 vols. Cambridge University Press.

Modesto, Christine. 1992. Studien zur Cena Cypriani und zu deren Rezeption. Classica Monacensia, 3. Tubingen: G. Narr.

Rackham, Harris, ed and trans. 1942. Cicero. On the Orator {De oratore}, Book III; On Fate {De fato}; Stoic Paradoxes {Paradoxa stoicorum}; Divisions of Oratory {De partitione oratoria}. Loeb Classical Library 349. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walther, Hans. 1931. “Parodistische Gebete der Pfarrköchin in einer Züricher Handschrift.” Studi Medievali. n.s. 4: 344-57.