“Social and Sexual Domination: AnalyzingCuckoldry in Medieval French Fabliaux”

Per Nykrog’s seminal study, Les Fabliaux, collected about

one hundred and sixty fabliaux from manuscripts penned

between 1200 and 1340.1 The size of Nykrog’s collection,

coupled with his belief that many more fabliaux were either

destroyed or never written down, attests to the popularity

of the genre2 during the later part of the thirteenth

century.3 These bawdy tales, which almost invariably feature

sexual or eschatological jokes at their core, were meant to

be performed for an audience rather than read alone,4 and

were typically composed by professional jongleurs.5 As Charles

Muscatine writes, “Perhaps just because of their

unpretentiousness and candor, the fabliaux can be trusted to

reveal genuine features of medieval sensibility that other

genres tend to conceal.”6 If Muscatine is right, the fabliaux

1 Nykrog, Per, Les Fabliaux (Genève, 1973).2 Cooke, Thomas D. The Old French and Chaucerian Fabliaux: A Study in Their Comic Climax. (London, 1978). p. 11.3 Muscatine, Charles. The Old French Fabliaux (London, 1986). p. 4.4 Cooke, p. 13.5 Muscatine, p. 5.6 Muscatine, p. 2.

1

are an excellent body of literature through which to

investigate medieval notions of gender and sexuality. In

fabliaux, one gender and sexuality theme stands out due to its

frequent occurrence, centrality to the narrative, and

comedic appeal: cuckolding. The prevalence of the cuckold

trope in fabliaux lends an interesting importance to the fear

of marital infidelity, which in turn suggests an interesting

link between cuckolding and hegemonic masculinity.

To understand the implications of cuckoldry in the

fabliaux, one must first understand medieval hegemonic

masculinity and how the cuckold runs counter to the ideal

medieval masculine identity. Medieval scholars believed that

men were superior to women in both intellect and morality.7

Not only were men superior, but they were also supposed to

be the opposite of all things ‘female’ or ‘feminine.’ Even

the Latin language reflected this belief: ‘man’ was vir

because men possessed vis (power), whereas ‘woman’ was mulier,

a term related to softness and gentleness.8 Because of the 7 Bullough, Vern. “On Being Male in the Middle Ages,” Medieval Masculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages. ed. Clare A. Lees (London, 1994). p. 31.8 Bullough, p. 32-33.

2

binary opposition of men to women and the supposed

superiority of men, it was seen as a man’s right, and even

duty, to dominate and control women, if only to help guide

and better them.9 This duty to dominate formed the backbone

of the ‘masculine triad,’ or the three defining

characteristics of the perfect medieval man: the ability to

impregnate women, to protect those dependent on him, and to

provide for a family.10

The reproductive expectations placed on a fertile man

were two-fold: in order to impregnate a woman, he must not

only have exclusive reproductive rights to said woman, but

also demonstrate a certain degree of sexual prowess. The

question of paternity so occupied by medieval mind because

female adultery “threatened [the] legitimate production of

9 Murray, Jacqueline, “Hiding Behind the Universal Man: MaleSexuality in the Middle Ages,” Handbook of Medieval Sexuality. ed. Vern L. Bullough & James A. Brundage (London, 1996). pp. 123-152. p. 126-127. It is worth noting, however, that this domination and control had a class dimension; that is to say that a peasantman would never presume to dominate a noblewoman. 10 Bullough, p. 34. For a broader discussion on this masculine triad, see Gilmore, David D., Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity (London, 1990).

3

progeny and proper descent of property.”11 An illegitimate

child may mistakenly inherit a man’s property, or, lacking a

legitimate heir, a man may not be able to pass his property

down through his own bloodline. This was no trifling

anxiety; even the Masters of Theology at the University of

Paris faced questions about paternity, female adultery, and

how illegitimate children should be dealt with.12 In

addition, medieval thinkers believed that a man must perform

well sexually in order to impregnate his female partner.

Medical treatises of the Middle Ages, believing that men and

women’s sexual processes were the same but inverted, claimed

that it was not enough for a man to ejaculate during

intercourse; in order to release her own seed, the woman

needed to have an orgasm too. Without the female orgasm,

there could be no conception.13 If sexual exclusivity and

prowess are required to impregnate a woman, and in turn to 11 Dunn, Caroline. Stolen Women in Medieval England: Rape, Abduction, and Adultery, 1100-1500. (Cambridge, 2013). p. 120.12 For details on paternity questions in these quodlibets, see Wei, Ian P., Intellectual Culture in Medieval Paris: Theologians and theUniversity, c. 1100-1330 (Cambridge, 2012). Cambridge Books Online, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511842108. accessed 26 March, 2013.13 Bullough, p. 39-40.

4

fulfill one of the three ‘masculine requirements,’ what does

it say about a man’s masculinity when he does not have

sexual exclusivity to a woman (particularly his wife),

cannot perform well sexually, or both?

Medieval masculinity was far more complicated that

simply meeting the three ‘masculine requirements’ and

receiving one’s proverbial ‘man card.’ Masculine gender

identity, then as now, was multifaceted. Not all men could

reproduce, use physical violence to protect their

dependents, or be the head of a household. Accordingly, each

of the traditional Three Orders had different ways of

defining masculinity, particularly masculine sexuality.

It seems most fitting to open with the sexuality of the

clergy because they were supposed to be celibate. Although

clergy were meant to be celibate, the class fulfilled the

sexual aspect of the masculine triad through metaphorical

husbandry. A clergyman could consider himself married to the

Church,14 or devote himself to a female saint in a way that 14 Raverty, Aaron, “Are We Monks or Are We Men?: The Monastic Masculine Gender Model According to Saint Benedict,” Journal of Men’s Studies, 14:3 (Fall, 2006). pp. 269-291. p. 279.

5

reflected the female ‘bride of Christ’ concept. Despite

their vows and metaphorical husbandry, the clergy’s

suppressed sexuality was still a source of concern. If the

clergy could not obey their vows of chastity, it was feared

that they might take liberties with religious and secular

women alike. Although any man, religious or secular, might

take such liberties, the intimate access to women granted to

the clergy through their positions as confessors, preachers,

pastors, and advisors made them especially suspect.15 This

fear of priestly indiscretion appears to be quite common, as

it features prominently in two fabliaux examined below and

many others besides them. P.H. Cullum theorizes that, in

breaking their vows of celibacy, clerics sought to don the

mantle of secular masculinity in order to defend their own

manliness to secular society.16 Thus members of the clergy,

depending on their adherence to their vows and their

intentions in breaking them, may fall either into clerical

or secular sexual categories.15 Cullum, P.H., “Clergy, Masculinity and Transgression in Late Medieval England,” Masculinity in Medieval Europe, ed. Dawn M.Hadley (Harlow, 1999). pp. 178-196. pp. 190-196.16 Cullum, pp. 186.

6

Peasants were able to have sex freely within marriage,

but it was believed that their sexuality was base, and

perhaps without pleasure. Intercourse amongst peasants was

not expected to be enjoyable, but rather animalistic—when it

happened at all. Paul Freeman, in Images of the Medieval Peasant,

pieces together a distasteful view of male peasant sexuality

from fabliaux, treatises, and other contemporary documents.

If these works are any indication of medieval popular

opinion, peasants were seen as “unfit for the service of

love.”17 Andreas Capellanus, a twelfth century writer, says

that peasants, rather than ‘making love’ in a romantic or

spiritual sense, “are impelled to acts of love in the

natural way like a horse or a mule, just as nature’s

pressure directs them.”18 Capellanus adds that male peasants

very rarely have sexual urges, and are more content to work

their fields than to lay with their wives.19 This debasing

of peasant love and sexuality poses the question: was sex

17 Freedman, Paul. Images of the Medieval Peasant. (Stanford, 1999).p. 157.18 Capellanus, Andreas, Andreas Capellanus on Love. ed. and trans.P.G. Walsh (London, 1982). p. 223, 1:11.19 ibid

7

enough to make a man, or must there be something more to his

sexuality?

Sexually, knights had more expectations than other men

owing in part to the importance of lineage and the class-

based idea of courtly romance. From the eleventh century

onward, there was an increasing preoccupation with noble

lineage in an attempt to make knighthood, and the titles and

arms that came with it, more exclusive.20 When the concern

with lineage combined with the fear of dying heirless (more

specifically, dying without legitimate heirs), the sexual

demands on noblemen expanded and contracted: a nobleman

wanted to have many children to ensure that his line

continued and possessions stayed within the family, but

found himself restricted to intercourse with a noble wife if

he wanted his bloodline to retain its nobility and to have a

legitimate heir. In addition, noblemen and women were

expected to participate in the practice of courtly love,21 20 Keen, Maurice, Chivalry (London, 1984). pp. 143-144.21 Karras, Ruth Mazo. “Knighthood, Compulsory Heterosexuality, and Sodomy,” The Boswell Thesis: Essays on Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. ed. Mathew Kuefler. (London: University of Chicago Press, 2006).pp. 273-286.

8

both because it was seen as enjoyable and because it was a

sign of their class superiority. Peasants, after all, could

not love but in the manner of animals,22 while the ranks of

the nobility populated the great chivalric romances of the

twelfth century. Lovesickness, which was recognized as a

disease by medieval doctors, became exclusively linked with

the nobility,23 indirectly implying that peasants could not

love so deeply or profoundly as members of the nobility.

Once regarded as a serious disease caused by an

inappropriate excess of love,24 lovesickness became

glorified. Take, for example, Chrétien de Troyes’ Yvain,

wherein Yvain’s bout of madness at the loss of his wife’s

affections may be interpreted as a romantic, touching

gesture and proof of Yvain’s nobility.25

It is clear that not all medieval men were sexually 22 See n. 18.23 Wack, Mary Frances, “The Liber de heros morbo of Johannes Afflacius and Its Implications for Medieval Love Conventions,” Speculum, 62:2 (April, 1987). pp. 324-344.24 Afflacius, Johannes, Liber de heros morbo, trans. Mary Frances Wack, “The Liber de heros morbo of Johannes Afflacius and Its Implications for Medieval Love Conventions,” Speculum, 62:2 (April, 1987). pp. 326-329.25 de Troyes, Chrétien. “Yvain,” Arthurian Romances. trans. W.W. Comfort (London: Dent, 1975). pp. 180-269. pp. 216-217.

9

equal. The classed sexual characteristics above described

suggest a medieval sexual hierarchy, wherein knights possess

sexual hegemony because of their ability to make love rather

than rut like animals. Peasants, because their sexuality is

base and infrequent, occupy the lowest rung of the sexual

hierarchy. The clergy are effectively in limbo, both absent

from the sexual hierarchy because of their vows, and then

somewhere in the hierarchy when they transgress said vows.

These theoretical views of sexuality can only be refined

when seen in practice. One cannot peer back in time into

medieval bedrooms, and so sexual fabliaux are the next best

option.

In the anonymously written “The Tresses,”26 a knight is

cuckolded because his wife prefers another knight to him.

One night, he catches his wife’s lover sneaking into their

bed and chases him off. His wife, to spare herself from

punishment and allow the affair to continue, comes up with a

plan. She sends her friend to receive punishment in her

26 “The Tresses,” Cuckolds, Clerics, & Countrymen: Medieval French Fabliaux. trans. John DuVal. ed. Raymond Eichmann (Fayetteville, 1982). pp. 63-76.

10

stead; the friend is mistaken for the wife in the dark,

beaten severely, and has her hair lopped off. The wife

replaces the shorn locks with the tail of the knight’s most

prized horse as he sleeps. In the morning, the knight finds

that his wife is lying by his side, unmarked by the beating,

and in possession of all her hair. Through her trickery, the

wife is able to convince her husband that the whole incident

was a drunken nightmare. This cuckolded knight is left

lamenting the loss of his horse’s tail, feeling guilty for

having accused his wife, and ignorant to his wife’s

infidelity.

The knight’s masculinity is called into question not

because he cannot live up to class standards, but because

he cannot control his wife. In fact, the author is careful

to stress that this knight is noble, chivalric, and

dedicated to his own martial duties.27 (We do not know what

his rival is like, and thus cannot adequately compare them.)

Additionally, because control of his wife has slipped from

his grasp, he makes it possible for his wife to carry on an

27 “The Tresses,” p. 66-67, vrs. 1-14.

11

affair, fails to recognize her unfaithfulness, and,

ultimately, proves ignorant to the goings-on in his own

household. He does not bring his wife to rein, and therefore

fails to meet two ‘masculine requirements.’ When a wife

isn’t controlled, a husband may come to shame. There is no

mention, however, of the knight’s sexual capabilities, but

there is the subtle hint that, if he was sleeping with his

wife regularly, she would have no time for an affair: “This

story shows it isn’t right/To put a wife outside at night/If

she does folly with her flesh./It only gives her means

afresh/To load on shame and more distresses.”28 Since the

knight is bested by another knight, a social and sexual

equal, there is nothing to suggest that his wife’s

infidelity threatens his class status.

In Eustanche d’Amiens’ “The Butcher of Abbeville,”29 a

priest is made a cuckold, perhaps as punishment for breaking

his vow of celibacy. However, there must be more to the

28 “The Tresses,” p.. 76, vrs. 427-431.29 d’Amiens, Eustache. “The Butcher of Abbeville,” Cuckolds, Clerics, & Countrymen: Medieval French Fabliaux. trans. John DuVal. ed. Raymond Eichmann(Fayetteville, 1982). pp. 13-28.

12

fabliaux than simply punishing moral indiscretions. (After

all, if fabliaux punished every immoral character, few would

escape unscathed!) In this tale, David, a butcher, seeks

lodging with the priest, but is rejected because he is

neither an important nor rich man. In revenge, David steals

the priest’s fattest sheep and offers it to the priest in

exchange for lodging. The priest, not recognizing his own

sheep, greedily accepts. But David does not stop there. He

offers the sheep’s fleece to both the priest’s maid and

mistress in exchange for sex. After taking pleasure in the

two women of the house, David sells the fleece to the priest

and takes his leave. In the end, the whole household fights

over the fleece, and the priest sees how he has been

deceived and shamed.

While it is true that the priest is being punished for

breaking his vows of celibacy and rejecting his obligation

to be hospitable, the priest’s masculinity has also been

damaged by David’s trickery. After all, as Cullum suggests,

if the priest has broken his vows by taking a mistress (and

13

even having children by her30), he has crossed into the

realm of secular masculinity, and can thereby be judged by

his adherence to literal (secular) rather than metaphorical

(clerical) masculine tropes. As a result, the priest loses

face since he is unable to control the women he is supposed

to oversee. The priest’s sexual masculine honor is not

totally lost, however. Unlike the lover in “The Tresses,”

David the butcher does not seem to enchant either of his

partners. Neither the maid nor the mistress seem to be

impressed with his performance, and are ultimately more

concerned with the fleece than with sexual pleasure. The

failure of the butcher to impress his sexual partners, and

perhaps even to pleasure them, is characteristic of his

class stereotype, and suggests that he is still at a sexual

disadvantage when compared with a sexually active priest.

Social and sexual interactions become much more

complicated when it is a peasant that is cuckolded. There

are no better tales to demonstrate these complications than 30 d’Amiens hints that the priest and his mistress have children together, but it seems likely that these bastard children are not kept in the priest’s home (p. 24, vrs. 375-377).

14

Guerin’s “Bérangier of the Long Ass”31 and “The Priest Who

Peeked.”32 The peasant in “Bérangier” occupies an

interesting social position: his father is wealthy, and

arranges to have him married to the daughter of an earl who

has fallen upon hard times. As part of his wedding present

from his new father-in-law, the peasant is knighted.33 This

peasant-knight must now fulfill the knightly obligations to

chivalry and reputation, but keeps the qualities ascribed to

the peasant class: laziness, gluttony, cowardice, and a

disregard for noble virtues.34 When he makes the mistake of

mocking his wife’s noble ancestors, she points out that he

has no valiant deeds to his name. To prove his worth, the

peasant-knight rides out into the forest in full regalia,

beats his weaponry against the trees, and claims to have

been in a fight. His wife sees through his rouse and, to

31 Guerin, “Bérangier of the Long Ass,” Cuckolds, Clerics, & Countrymen: Medieval French Fabliaux. trans. John DuVal. ed. Raymond Eichmann (Fayetteville, 1982). pp. 47-58.32 Guerin, “The Priest Who Peeked,” Cuckolds, Clerics, & Countrymen: Medieval French Fabliaux. trans. John DuVal. ed. Raymond Eichmann (Fayetteville, 1982). pp. 43-46.33 “Bérangier,” p. 52, vrs. 37-40.34 “Bérangier,” p. 52, vrs. 43-53.

15

teach him a lesson, rides out after him in full armor one

day. The peasant-knight is terrified to see a ‘real knight’

and throws himself at her mercy. In return for sparing her

husband’s life, the lady has him kiss her backside. The lady

returns home triumphantly, brings her knightly lover to her

bed so that her husband will see them together, and, when

her husband returns home, reveals to him her trick. In that

instant, the peasant-knight is doubly shamed. He is revealed

to be a blemish on chivalry, a coward, and a man incapable

of controlling or, it seems, pleasing his wife.

Here we have an obvious comparison of the peasant-

knight to his wife’s lover. The peasant-knight is lazy and

cowardly, and there is no mention of him either coming to

his wife’s bed or pleasing her sexually. That he did not

realize that the ‘long ass’ presented to him by the fake

knight was both a rump and labia suggests that he may never

have seen a naked women, or at least paid very little

attention to his own wife’s body.35 Despite being made a

knight, he still retains all the literary class

35 “Bérangier,” p. 57, vrs. 245-248.

16

characteristics of a peasant, and those characteristics led

to his cuckolding. The wife’s knightly lover, whom she

“[holds] above/All others in esteem and love,”36 although he

is barely described, has several advantages over the

peasant-knight. First, he is a real knight, and not just one

who married into the class. Second, he seems to be capable

of pleasing the lady in a way the peasant-knight will never

be. The peasant-knight’s sexuality is defeated by that of

his social superior. There is also the none-too-subtle

suggested that cuckolding the peasant-knight is beneficial

to the class; with a lover occupying his wife’s bed, he is

prevented from ‘polluting’ his wife’s bloodline with his low

blood.

“The Priest Who Peeked” is a simple story about a

priest who, lusting for a peasant’s wife, interrupts the

couple at dinner claiming that they appear to be having

ruckus carnal relations when they are viewed through a

keyhole. When the peasant does not believe him, the priest

insists that the peasant look through the keyhole. The

36 “Bérangier,” p. 57, vrs. 265-266.

17

peasant goes outside to look in through the keyhole, and the

priest gleefully takes the peasant’s place at the dinner

table. The priest uses this chance to partake of the wife

and the gullible peasant, believing the priest when he says

he is simply sitting at the table, decides the keyhole must

be bewitched.

The poor peasant in this tale has a few strikes against

his sexual masculinity. First, he does not fulfill his

sexual obligations to his wife: “The priest indignantly

observed/The way the peasant led his life,/Taking no

pleasure of his wife.”37 This is not meant to be surprising,

since it is part of the peasant’s literary class identity.

The peasant’s sexual failings are only exacerbated, however,

by the fact that the priest, a man who is supposed to be

celibate, could please his wife more than him. The priest is

passionate in his assault on the wife, and is described as

“[doing] of all good deeds the one/That women everywhere

want done.”38 Second, Guerin’s peasant also does not have

control of his household. Unlike the other cuckolds featured37 “The Priest Who Peeked,” p. 45, vrs. 26-28.38 “The Priest Who Peeked,” p. 46, vrs. 56-58.

18

in this study, it is not because the peasant’s wife is out

of control but because the peasant does not properly guard

what is his. He is so careless with those things in his

charge that another man walks into his home, quite

literally, and has his way with his wife.

While all the cuckolds above described are used to

comedic effect, they are also objects of scorn. No man would

want to find himself in their positions, and the subtle

moral is that men should take great pains to make sure they

do not end up cuckolds. Not all cuckolds are equal in the

shame and the scorn allotted to them, however. Without

question, the two peasant cuckolds here described are met

with the brunt of sexual masculine criticism, but this

criticism is part of a medieval Catch-22. Medieval peasants

are criticized for not meeting sexual expectations, but at

the same time they will always be sexually inferior because

nature has given them characteristics—laziness, stupidity,

lack of virtue, and sexual mediocrity—which play a part in

their cuckolding. Even David the butcher cannot disentangle

himself from his peasant ‘nature’; although he is the hero

19

and victor of “The Butcher of Abbeville,” he still is not a

sexually impressive man. The natural qualities ascribed to

peasants that make them unsuited for love and even sexual

activity in general mean that the peasant, even if he was to

sleep with a noblewoman, could never come out on top of the

sexual hierarchy. He cannot sexually dominate because he is

a peasant.

Knights, on the other hand, even when they are

cuckolded, still occupy a position of sexual dominance over

the other classes. The knight in “The Tresses,” although

perhaps away from his bed too frequently, is not explicitly

called a bad lover nor a bad knight. Rather, he is

celebrated for his chivalry.39 Although he may have been

sexually bested, the knightly lover in “Bérangier” suggests

that “The Tresses” knight will always be sexually superior

to someone. After all, no noblewoman would prefer the

peasant-knight of “Bérangier” because he lacks all of the

noble characteristics the even cuckolded knight possesses,

and he has no sexual prowess of which to speak.

39 “The Tresses,” p. 66, vrs. 1-3.

20

Fabliaux, in effect, reinforce the sexual hierarchy that

has been suggested by general class sexual theory. The

peasant will always be at the bottom of the proverbial

sexual pyramid, because he cannot escape his nature. The

knight, also because of his nature, will always possess

sexual hegemony. The clergy still pose certain complications

for the sexual hierarchy. If they abstain from sex,

clergymen have effectively removed themselves from a sexual

hierarchy, but not a masculine one. If they break their

vows, however, they earn a place in the sexual hierarchy.

That place, “The Butcher of Abbeville” suggests, is between

peasants and knights, because, despite his trickery, David

the butcher is still less of a lover than the priest.

What, then, does this sexual hierarchy say about

medieval masculinity? In truth, it is hard to say. Medieval

masculinity is a far more complicated topic than can be

tackled in one study alone. However, if art does indeed

imitate life, the sexual domination of priests and knights

over peasants in fabliaux seems to suggest that sexuality is

part of the hegemonic masculinity wielded by the upper

21

classes, and that that sexual prowess in some way

contributes to, in the very least, keeping the lower class

in its place.

Bibliography

Afflacius, Johannes, Liber de heros morbo, trans. Mary Frances Wack, “The Liber de

heros morbo of Johannes Afflacius and Its Implications for Medieval Love Conventions,” Speculum, 62:2 (April, 1987). pp. 326-329.

Bullough, Vern. “On Being Male in the Middle Ages,” Medieval Masculinities:

Regarding Men in the Middle Ages. ed. Clare A. Lees (London, 1994).

Capellanus, Andreas, Andreas Capellanus on Love. ed. and trans. P.G. Walsh (London,

1982).

Cooke, Thomas D. The Old French and Chaucerian Fabliaux: A Study in Their Comic

Climax. (London, 1978).

Cullum, P.H., “Clergy, Masculinity and Transgression in LateMedieval England,”

22

Masculinity in Medieval Europe, ed. Dawn M. Hadley (Harlow, 1999). pp. 178-196.

d’Amiens, Eustache. “The Butcher of Abbeville,” Cuckolds, Clerics, & Countrymen:

Medieval French Fabliaux. trans. John DuVal. ed. Raymond Eichmann (Fayetteville, 1982). pp. 13-28.

de Troyes, Chrétien. “Yvain,” Arthurian Romances. trans. W.W. Comfort (London: Dent,

1975). pp. 180-269.

Dunn, Caroline. Stolen Women in Medieval England: Rape, Abduction, and Adultery,

1100-1500. (Cambridge, 2013).

Freedman, Paul. Images of the Medieval Peasant. (Stanford, 1999).

Gilmore, David D., Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity (London,

1990).

Guerin. “Bérangier of the Long Ass,” Cuckolds, Clerics, & Countrymen: Medieval

French Fabliaux. trans. John DuVal. ed. Raymond Eichmann (Fayetteville, 1982). pp. 47-58.

----. “The Priest Who Peeked,” Cuckolds, Clerics, & Countrymen: Medieval French

Fabliaux. trans. John DuVal. ed. Raymond Eichmann (Fayetteville, 1982). pp. 43-46.

Karras, Ruth Mazo. “Knighthood, Compulsory Heterosexuality, and Sodomy,” The

Boswell Thesis: Essays on Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. ed. Mathew Kuefler. (London: University of Chicago Press, 2006). pp. 273-286.

Keen, Maurice, Chivalry (London, 1984).

23

Murray, Jacqueline, “Hiding Behind the Universal Man: Male Sexuality in the Middle

Ages,” Handbook of Medieval Sexuality. ed. Vern L. Bullough &James A. Brundage (London, 1996). pp. 123-152.

Muscatine, Charles. The Old French Fabliaux (London, 1986).

Nykrog, Per, Les Fabliaux (Genève, 1973).

Raverty, Aaron, “Are We Monks or Are We Men?: The Monastic Masculine Gender

Model According to Saint Benedict,” Journal of Men’s Studies,14:3 (Fall, 2006). pp. 269-291.

“The Tresses,” Cuckolds, Clerics, & Countrymen: Medieval French Fabliaux.trans. John

DuVal. ed. Raymond Eichmann (Fayetteville, 1982). pp. 63-76.

Wack, Mary Frances, “The Liber de heros morbo of Johannes Afflacius and Its

Implications for Medieval Love Conventions,” Speculum, 62:2 (April, 1987). pp. 324-344.

Wei, Ian P., Intellectual Culture in Medieval Paris: Theologians and the University, c.

1100-1330 (Cambridge, 2012). Cambridge Books Online, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511842108.

24